SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

2 Chapter 1: Introduction
survey can only begin to describe the issues at stake. Each of the scribal features to be mentioned
below deserves a monographic analysis, and since such coverage is not possible in the present
context, treatment of several features is not exhaustive, while that of others is as complete as
possible. At the same time, use is made of several helpful partial analyses and descriptions by
others, although they are often based on a limited number of texts, namely those known at the
time of publication. 1
The description pertains to several technical aspects of the copying of the texts that are
important in their own right, but also have implications for wider areas, such as the provenance
and background of the Qumran scrolls, the relation between individual manuscripts of the same
composition, the composition and content of the individual texts, and their textual transmission. In
due course, when all the relevant data on the scribal practices has been recorded, it may be
possible to draw conclusions on such general issues as scribal practices and schools (ch. 8a) and
the background of many of the scrolls found in the Judean Desert. In the meantime, we have to
content ourselves with partial conclusions.
For example, the large size of the writing block may be a criterion for the authoritative status
of a scroll, possibly in a certain center or period, and not for all scrolls, since small scrolls were
equally authoritative (ch. 4e). Further, on the basis of a study of the intercolumnar margins (ch.
4g) and the lack of stitching preceding the first column of 4QSd (4Q258), it appears that the
margin before the first column of that scroll is large enough to support the view that this
composition (starting with the text which runs parallel to 1QS V 1–21) constituted the beginning of
that manuscript, as several scholars believe. According to some scholars, the understanding of the
nature of 4QDeutn (see illustr. 15) 15 depends to a great extent on the explanation of the following
features: the spacing in the middle of the lines in col. IV, on the empty line I 5, on the ruled,
uninscribed lines at the bottom of that column, and on the unusual sequence of the text contained
in its two surviving sheets (sheet 1 contains Deut 8:5-10, while sheet 2 contains the earlier Deut
5:1–6:1). All these features can be compared with similar phenomena in other texts.
Likewise, the only segment in the texts from the Judean Desert which was subdivided into
small sections is Isa 61:10–62:9 in 1QIsaa . In that pericope, small spaces are indicated after each
1 Especially helpful are the following monographs listed in chronological order: C. Kuhl, “Schreibereigentümlich-keiten:
Bemerkungen zur Jesaja-rolle (DSIa),” VT 2 (1952) 307–33 [henceforth: Kuhl, “Schreibereigentümlich-keiten”]; M.
Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls I–II (Bibliothèque du Muséon 44, 45; Louvain 1958
[henceforth: Martin, Scribal Character])—this extremely detailed study is based only on the major texts from cave 1; H.
Stegemann, KURIOS O QEOS und KURIOS IHSOUS: Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des religiösen Gebrauchs von KURIOS und
seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament (Habilitationsschrift, Bonn 1969 [henceforth: Stegemann, KURIOS]); J. P. Siegel,
“Final Mem in Medial Position and Medial Mem in Final Position in 11QPs a : Some Observations,” RevQ 7 (1969)
125–30; idem, “The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic
Sources,” HUCA 42 (1971) 159–72; idem, The Scribes of Qumran. Studies in the Early History of Jewish Scribal
Customs, with Special Reference to the Qumran Biblical Scrolls and to the Tannaitic Traditions of Massekheth
Soferim, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University 1971 (University Microfilms, 1972 [henceforth: Siegel, Scribes of
Qumran]); J. M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text
des Alten Testament (OBO 27; Freiburg/Göttingen 1979 [henceforth: Oesch, Petucha und Setuma]); idem,
“Textgliederung im Alten Testament und in den Qumranhandschriften,” Henoch 5 (1983) 289–321 [henceforth: Oesch,
“Textgliederung”]; various contributions in Mikra, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section
Two, I (ed. M. J. Mulder; Assen–Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988) [henceforth: Mulder, Mikra]; A. Steudel, “Assembling
and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” in Flint–VanderKam, Fifty Years, 516–34 [henceforth: Steudel, “Assembling”]; A. D.
Crown, “Studies in Samaritan Scribal Practices and Manuscript History, I–V” (1983–87; see bibliography); A. Lemaire,
“Writing and Writing Materials,” ABD 6 (New York 1992) 999–1008; J. Ashton, The Persistence, Diffusion and
Interchangeability of Scribal Habits in the Ancient Near East before the Codex, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of
Sydney, 1999 [henceforth: Ashton, Scribal Habits]; M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch, Delimitation Criticism: A New
Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope I; Assen 2000) [henceforth: Korpel–Oesch, Delimitation Criticism];
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/jewishpap.html = Kraft, Jewishpap (an analysis and images of early Jewish papyri); E. J.
C. Tigchelaar, “In Search of the Scribe of 1QS,” in Paul, Emanuel, 439–52 [henceforth: Tigchelaar, “The Scribe of 1QS”];
P. Alexander, “Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the Evidence from Qumran,” Hamlet on
a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed.
M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen; Leuven 2003) 3–24 [henceforth: Alexander, “Literacy”].