SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 231
1QIsa a , the cancellation dots are used rather infrequently, appearing three times for the Tetragrammaton (III 24, 25 [Isa
3:17, 18]; XLVI 21 [Isa 56:8]) among other occurrences.
In spite of these caveats, it stands to reason that the Qumran scribes who employed paleo-Hebrew characters
closely reflected the spirit of the mentioned halakha, while finding a practical solution to the same problem.
Apparently, some scribes resorted to the use of paleo-Hebrew characters, which were considered so sacred that under
no circumstance were they to be erased. When erring, the scribes would never erase a divine name presumably
adhering to a traditional norm. This description of the sanctity of the letters is hypothetical, but it is supported by
the tradition that the Stone Tablets and the Torah (see b. Sanh. 21b to be quoted below) were written in paleo-
Hebrew characters. Furthermore, manuscripts written completely in paleo-Hebrew characters reflect a different and far
stricter approach to scribal precision than texts written in square characters (§ d below), and it stands to reason that
this approach would be reflected in the writing of single words in paleo-Hebrew.
The analysis thus far has been based on three observations to which we now add a fourth:
• The use of the paleo-Hebrew characters for divine names is almost exclusively linked to texts written according
to the Qumran scribal practice.
• The use of paleo-Hebrew characters implies the view that these characters require special treatment, and
possibly reflect a higher degree of sanctity.
• The use of the paleo-Hebrew characters for the divine names reflects the spirit of the later halakha, although
this particular practice is not mentioned in rabbinic sources, and actually contradicts the prohibition of the use of the
paleo-Hebrew script in m. Yad. 4.5 and b. Sanh. 21b to be quoted below.
• The combination of these observations leads to an additional supposition, namely that (the) scribes belonging
to the Qumran community ascribed a higher degree of sanctity to the use of paleo-Hebrew characters in general (that
is, not only with regard to the writing of the divine names) than to the square script. It is not impossible, as
surmised by Wolters, “The Tetragrammaton,” 98, that the person who filled in the Tetragrammata ‘belonged to a
higher echelon within the Qumran hierarchy than the original scribe.’ This presumed practice is probably reflected
by the scribe of 4QpIsa e (4Q165) who left a space for a Tetragrammaton to be inserted later. Likewise, the
Tetragrammaton in 11QpaleoUnidentified Text (11Q22) was written in a different ink color implying either the use
of a different pen or the involvement of a different scribe. For similar practices in Greek sources, see ch. 5d and
APPENDIX 5C.
In principle, the writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew script could somehow be connected to the
writing of entire Bible texts in that script, but there is no indication for linking the two types of texts. In fact, from
the outset there has been no indication that Scripture texts written in paleo-Hebrew characters were written at
Qumran or by Qumran scribes. Thus, while it does not necessarily follow that the scribes who wrote the divine
names in paleo-Hebrew characters were those who wrote manuscripts which had been written completely in paleo-
Hebrew characters (thus Siegel, “The Employment,” 170), the former could still have been influenced by the latter.
What the writing of complete texts and of single words in paleo-Hebrew have in common is that both were rejected
by the Rabbis (see below). No explicit remarks against the writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters
are found in rabbinic literature, but since the use of paleo-Hebrew script was forbidden for entire biblical texts,
individual words written in that script presumably would also have been prohibited.
(3) Texts written completely in paleo-Hebrew characters (illustrations 14, 14 14a) 14
At Qumran, fragments of twelve biblical texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script were found as
well as three nonbiblical paleo-Hebrew texts. One such nonbiblical text was found at Masada: 301
1QpaleoLev
1QpaleoNum; same scroll as 1QpaleoLev?; frgs. 16–24 possibly derived from yet (a) different scroll(s)
2QpaleoLev
4QpaleoGen-Exod l
4QpaleoGen m
301 Beyond the publications of these texts in DJD I, III, IX, XXIII, see: M. D. McLean, The Use and Development of Palaeo-
Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1982, 41–7
(University Microfilms); Freedman–Mathews, Leviticus. According to R. L. Edge, The Use of Palaeo-Hebrew in the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Paleography and Historiography, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1995, p.
357 (University Microfilms), fifty years separated the writing of entire scrolls in the paleo-Hebrew script in the archaic
and Hasmonean periods and the writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters in the Herodian period.