SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Recommendations

Info

212 Chapter 5: Writing Practices 4QJer a : The base text of this scroll is very close to MT. A striking example of their affinity is the unusual spelling hnyht common to MT and 4QJer a XII 8 (Jer 18:21), elsewhere always spelled hnyyht in MT (30 times, including three times in Jeremiah, together with fourteen instances of ˆyyhtw). Only in the MT of Jer 18:21 and 48:6 is the defective spelling hnyht found. Beyond this closeness to MT, the scroll contains twenty-eight corrections, mainly towards a text identical to that now named MT. Thus col. XI 7–9 contains as many as eight corrections, erasures, and supralinear additions, or combinations thereof. Consequently, it appears that this scribe was more prone to errors than other scribes. Some of the mistakes are influenced by words in the context, such as the duplication of the previous word and its subsequent correction; others reflect haplography or other types of oversight (E. <strong>Tov</strong>, DJD XV, 153). 1QIsa b : This carefully copied text contains eight interlinear corrections, mainly towards a text identical to that now named MT. Otherwise, this text, which presents a relatively large text for comparison with MT (from ch. 38 to the end of the book, with some gaps), is very close to the medieval codex L. MasEzek: This scroll, which is very close to MT, contains four corrections towards the text which is now named MT (Talmon, Masada VI, 68). It appears that these corrections were based on the scribe’s Vorlage, and not on an external source as suggested by Talmon, ibid. In all these texts, correction towards an external source is not impossible, in which case one would have to assume that these texts which are already close to what became the medieval MT were corrected towards a central (standard) text, such as the ‘corrected copy’ (hgwm rps) mentioned in b. Pes. 112a (ch. 2j). However, most corrections agreeing with MT seem to be corrections of simple mistakes; therefore it is likely that either the first or a later scribe or reader corrected the manuscript towards its base text in the case of an error by the original scribe, and that this base text agreed with the medieval MT. • Corrections in texts written in the Qumran scribal practice. In the biblical and nonbiblical texts which were written in the Qumran scribal practice and which therefore are quite different from MT, several corrections remove that text even further away from MT. Presumably these corrections were not based on an external source, but rather followed an orthographic framework which the scribe had in mind and from which he sometimes deviated. For example 1QH a IV (Suk. = Puech XIII) 5 a yk = ayk 11QT a (11Q19) LX 15 ta w zh = tawzh 11QPs a : This manuscript contains twenty-six supralinear corrections (see DJD IV, 13 for a list, to which III 8, 15 should be added) and four instances of cancellation dots (see ibid.). That 11QPs a was probably not corrected according to an external manuscript is supported by the fact that the same types of corrections are found in both the canonical and non-canonical sections of that scroll. 1QIsa a : The 110 orthographic corrections in this manuscript (Kutscher, Language, 423) pertain mainly to matres lectionis added to the base text, sometimes in agreement with MT, but more often in accordance with the scribe’s conventions elsewhere in the scroll; more appear in section written by scribe A (cols. I–XXVII) than in the second part, especially with regard to gutturals (Giese, “Further Evidence”). That these corrections reflect the scribe’s personal insights rather than an external source 281 is evident from several faulty corrections. For example 1QIsa a I 9 (Isa 1:7) tkp a mk = tkpamk (MT: tkphmk and thus also 1QIsa a in Isa 13:19) 1QIsa a XVI 32 (Isa 21:15) twbr h = twbrh (MT: twbrj) 4QTest (4Q175): The Deuteronomy section (Deut 33:8-11) in this scroll was clearly based on a text such as 4QDeut h and the LXX, and not MT. This text was corrected three times towards a text now named MT, although in six other details in the same pericope 4QTest was not corrected. For the data, see J. A. Duncan, DJD XIV, 69. Since these other details are more significant than the three possible corrections towards MT, the assumption of correction towards MT is less likely. d. Correction procedures Most scribes were not consistent in the use of any of the mentioned correction systems. Single letters were usually deleted by means of dots being placed above and below them, long stretches were deleted with parenthesis signs, and words written in the wrong place were crossed out with a line. At the same time, some complete words were dotted, crossed out, or erased. Much depended on the personal preference of the scribe, and apparent inconsistency may have been created by the involvement of different scribes and readers in the same manuscript. 281 Thus S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem/Leiden 1989) 78 with examples.
Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 213 For example, in 1QS, cancellation dots were used often, either by the original scribe or someone else, to delete letters or words that were subsequently erased with a sharp instrument. Therefore, it is unclear why in 1QS VII 8 two words relating to the change of the punishment were deleted from the context by parenthesis (p. 202). It is not impossible that in this document a meaning other than erasure was attached to parenthesis, but it is more likely that the parenthesis signs were inserted by a hand other than that of the main scribe. By the same token, it is unclear why in the same text some words were canceled by cancellation dots while other elements were crossed out with a line. For example, in the same context a word was crossed out in 4QShirShabb f (4Q405) 3 i 12 (p. 200), while cancellation dots were used in the following line. Most elements to be deleted in 4QD a (4Q266) were crossed out with a line (p. 200), but there are also a few cases of dotted letters and erasures in that manuscript. Some personal preferences are recognizable in the manuscripts. Thus, 4QD a crossed out more words proportionally than other scribes (p. 200), and the scribe of 1QIsa a added more supralinear additions and used more cancellation dots than other scribes (pp. 189 ff.). In 1QS, most elements to be deleted were physically erased, while in 1QH a most elements were dotted and afterwards erased (p. 193). The same inconsistency is visible in the analysis of a single phenomenon like the correction of dittography. Some instances of dittography were left uncorrected: 4QTob a ar (4Q196) 2 4 ˚l]mw ˚lmw; 4QJub a (4Q216) VI 4 hç[ hç[; VI 12 l]k‚ taw lk‚[ taw. Other instances were treated in different ways: • Cancellation dots: 4QD f (4Q271) 4 ii 4 yk yúkó; 4QpIsa b (4Q162) I 4 ró≥çó≥a≥ó w≥ú rçaw; 4QCatena A (4Q177) 1–4 15 tó≥twt[wa; 4QEnastr a ar (4Q208) 18 2 n_d‚; 17 4 hb‚ or strokes: 1QpHab VII 2 l–[– l[. • Crossing out with a line: 4QDan a 14 11 (Dan 8:1) harn ˆwzj hlgn rb[d; 4QD a (4Q266) 5 ii 13 bjw wúbjw. • Erasures: The erasure of ta in 11QpaleoLev a E 3 and IV 6. 4QInstr c (4Q417) 2 i 5 {hawh ayk} hawh ayk. 4QInstr d (4Q418) 9 10 is completely erased (dittography of preceding line). 4QTQahat ar (4Q542) 1 i 2 {hnw[dntw}hnw[dntw. The second occurrence of µ[h in 11QT a (11Q19) LVIII 5: taxl {µ[h} µ[h rç[m. • Parenthesis signs: 4QJer a XII 11 (Jer 18:23) ({µónúw[ l[ó}) µ‚?nw[ l ¿ [ . • Instances of vertical dittography were sometimes dotted, and at other times crossed out with a line, or encircled with a box: 4QTob e (4Q200) 6 2 µyhmwtw (cf. following line). 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a) 1 ii 9 bwfh qódúxhó lçmm ab (qdxh occurs also in the previous line). 4QJub f (4Q221) 1 6 rwm]çw µtb[wt lwkmw (box-like shape around these words, cf. line 5 and the beginning of line 6). 4QD a (4Q266) 1a 22 rpa (box-like shape, cf. line 23). 4QD a (4Q266) 11 15 jltçmhw (box-like shape, cf. line 14). 4QOrd b (4Q513) 1–2 3 hamfh hmhm‚ (box-like shape). A similar inconsistency characterizes Greek manuscripts. For example, in Turner, Greek Manuscripts, document 50 some elements are crossed out, while others are washed off with a sponge. P.Bodmer XXIV of Psalms 17–53, 55–118, hands A and B (3 CE) evidences all the possible correction systems: crossing out with a line, cancellation dots above and below letters, box-like shapes, and remodeling of letters; see Kasser–Testuz, Bodmer, 27–29, 39–40. For a comprehensive analysis of correction procedures in texts from the ancient Near East, see Ashton, Scribal Habits, ch. 9. For the systems used in the manuscripts of SP, see Crown, Samaritan Scribes, 69– 73. When analyzing the correction procedures, we note that several corrections utilize scribal markings of some sort. These were discussed in § c2 under the following headings: i. A marking of the elements to be canceled with cancellation dots or strokes ii. Crossing out letters and words with a line iii. Parenthesis signs (antisigma and sigma) or a box-like shape around the element(s) to be canceled iv. Addition/omission signs v. Re-division sign In addition to these five groups, the following systems are presented here (for a good analysis and many examples, see Martin, Scribal Character, II.421–695): vi. Supralinear/infralinear/marginal correcting additions of letter(s) or word(s)
Page 1:
SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S R
Page 5 and 6:
DEDICATED TO THE SCRIBES WHO WROTE
Page 7 and 8:
Contents vii CONTENTS Text Editions
Page 9:
Contents ix Chapter 8: Scribal Trad
Page 12 and 13:
xii Text Editions Sam. Pent (SP) A.
Page 14 and 15:
xiv Periodicals, Reference Works, a
Page 16 and 17:
REFERENCES AND SUNDRY ABBREVIATIONS
Page 18 and 19:
xviii List of Tables 21. Scrolls wi
Page 20 and 21:
xx Preface This book contains thous
Page 23 and 24:
1 INTRODUCTION a. Purpose and natur
Page 25 and 26:
Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Copyists, scribes, and soferim 2 SC
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
3 WRITING AND WRITING MATERIALS The
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
4 TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SCROLL WRITI
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
(4) No indication Scribal Practices
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
5 WRITING PRACTICES The writing pra
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 233: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 245 and 246: 6 SCRIPTS 293 a. Square (Jewish) sc
Page 257 and 258: 7 SPECIAL SCRIBAL CHARACTERISTICS O
Page 267: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 270 and 271: 248 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions s
Page 272 and 273: 250 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions s
Page 274 and 275: 252 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions L
Page 276 and 277: 254 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions T
Page 278 and 279: 256 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions T
Page 280 and 281: 258 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions h
Page 282 and 283: 260 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions r
Page 284 and 285:
262 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions
Page 286 and 287:
264 Appendix 1 3. Scribal markings
Page 288 and 289:
266 Appendix 1 4QJer d gd — n b 1
Page 290 and 291:
268 Appendix 1 4Q256 4QSb y y 3 20
Page 292 and 293:
270 Appendix 1 4Q496 4QpapMf y y y
Page 294 and 295:
272 Appendix 1 Doc/Mish B 4Q322 4QM
Page 297 and 298:
APPENDIX 2 PAPYRUS TEXTS FROM THE J
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
APPENDIX 3 OPISTHOGRAPHS FROM THE J
Page 305 and 306:
APPENDIX 4 THE GREEK TEXTS FROM THE
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
APPENDIX 5 SCRIBAL FEATURES OF EARL
Page 311 and 312:
CE) P.Oxy. 65.4443 of Esther E and
Page 313 and 314:
P.Antinoopolis 8 of Proverbs 5-20 (
Page 315 and 316:
P.Rylands 1 of Deut 23 (4 CE) P.Oxy
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
APPENDIX 6 THE HEBREW TEXTS FROM MA
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325:
show all

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?