SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Recommendations

Info

238 Chapter 7: Special Scribal Characteristics However, this assumption cannot be proven since we only rarely see a scribal hand appearing in more than one Qumran document—an exception is the scribe who wrote 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb, as well as the biblical 4QSam c and some supralinear corrections in 1QIsa a (ch. 2, TABLE 2). Therefore, although the specific scribes who wrote both types of scrolls cannot be identified, the minimal conclusion should be that all scribes followed similar traditions. Only a few distinctions between biblical and nonbiblical literary manuscripts are visible: • A special stichographic layout for the writing of several poetical sections was devised for many biblical scrolls, but only for one nonbiblical scroll. For details, see ch. 5b and TABLE 8. • Biblical texts from the Judean Desert were written almost exclusively on leather (thus also the rabbinic prescriptions for the writing of biblical texts in m. Meg. 2.2; y. Meg. 1.71d). The relatively small number of papyrus fragments of biblical texts (4–6 copies out of a total of 200 biblical manuscripts; see TABLE 9 in ch. 3) possibly served as personal copies. On the other hand, papyrus was used for almost all documentary texts from the Judean Desert and several literary works from Qumran (APPENDIX 2). • A single waw in the paleo-Hebrew or square script serving as a paragraphing device is found only in three biblical scrolls in the middle of closed or open sections: 4QpaleoExod m (passim), 11QpaleoLev a (passim), 4QNum b XXI 28 (ch. 5c1). • Biblical texts were inscribed on only one side of the leather unlike several nonbiblical opisthographs from the Judean Desert; see ch. 4b and APPENDIX 3. • A de luxe scroll format was used especially for biblical scrolls, and also for a few nonbiblical texts. See ch. 4j and TABLE 27 there Scribal approaches. If scribes barely distinguished between the writing of biblical and nonbiblical literary works, and if in at least one instance the same scribe copied both, we should probably not expect a different approach toward the content of manuscripts of both types. The careful copying of sacred texts such as instructed by rabbinic literature should not be invoked as evidence for such a distinction, since this approach pertains to a later period and to specific circles only. However, relevant evidence may be found in other quarters. The Qumran evidence alone shows that, contrary to expectation, the textual development of the Torah was not different from that of the other books of Scripture. Since the Torah contains the most sacred part of Hebrew Scripture, it could have been expected that scribes would have approached that book with special care and with less scribal intervention than the other books of Hebrew Scripture, as instructed by later Jewish tradition. However, this is not the case for the Qumran evidence. There is no indication that the textual transmission of the Torah differed from that of the other Scripture books. Several Torah scrolls are written carelessly and inconsistently in the Qumran scribal practice (e.g. 1QDeut a , 4Q[Gen-]Exod b , 4QDeut j [mainly: second part], 4QDeut k1 , 4QDeut k2 , 4QDeut m ), in which several additional biblical scrolls such as 1QIsa a and 2QJer were written. Furthermore, the great majority of these texts reflect a free approach to the biblical text which manifests itself in adaptations of unusual forms to the context, in frequent errors, in numerous corrections, and sometimes, also, in careless handwriting. The various witnesses of the Torah (MT, SP, Qumran scrolls, and the Vorlage of the LXX) reflect the same degree of editorial intervention as the other books of Hebrew Scripture. Since the scribal approach to the Torah was not different from the approach to the other books of Hebrew Scripture, it should not be expected that scribes copying any book of Scripture had a different approach to these books than to nonbiblical literary compositions. Such an approach would be visible in careful copying, fewer corrections (linear or supralinear), and lack of scribal intervention in general. If the frequency of scribal intervention in general correctly represents the scribal attitude, the approach towards biblical texts is not more careful than that towards nonbiblical texts. Such scribal intervention, pertaining to supralinear corrections,
Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 239 deletions, erasures, reshaping of letters, as well as linear and supralinear scribal signs, can be measured by dividing the number of lines preserved (in full or in part) by the number of instances of scribal intervention. The result of such a calculation yields the average number of lines between each instance of scribal intervention. The lower the number, the higher the rate of scribal intervention (ch. 4, TABLE 27). It is evident that the majority of the biblical scrolls were not singled out for special care in copying as is shown by the high degree of scribal intervention (an average of one correction in less than 10 lines) especially in 1QIsa a , and also in other biblical scrolls (4QDeut m , 5QDeut, 4QJosh b , 4QJudg b , 4QIsa a , 4QJer a , 4QXII c , 4QXII e , 11QPs a , 4QCant b , 4QQoh a ), as tabulated in cols. 12 and 13 of APPENDIX 8. In the nonbiblical texts an equally high degree of scribal intervention is usually an indication that the texts were written according to the Qumran scribal practice (e.g. 1QS, 4QRP a [4Q158], 4QTest [4Q175], 4QJub g [4Q222], 4QpsJub a [4Q225], 4QRP c [4Q365], 4QShirShabb d [4Q403], 4QBarkhi Nafshi c [4Q436], 4QM a [4Q491], 4QapocrLam B [4Q501], 4QDibHam a [4Q504], 4QOrd c [4Q514]). At the same time, other texts written in that scribal practice have a somewhat smaller rate of scribal intervention (APPENDIX 1), while in this group there are no texts with a low degree of scribal intervention. 2. PALEO-HEBREW BIBLICAL SCROLLS. Texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script were copied more carefully than most texts written in the square script, if the criterion of scribal intervention is accepted as a valid criterion. These manuscripts were copied with equal care as the proto- Masoretic scrolls (§ 3). The data presented below (§ b) and in APPENDIX 8 for five manuscripts show that texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script show very little sign of scribal intervention (the other paleo-Hebrew manuscripts are insufficiently preserved for examination). This issue can be examined satisfactorily since several paleo-Hebrew texts have been preserved relatively well. Most of these texts reflect the proto-Masoretic text, but since 4QpaleoExod m (close to SP) reflects a different tradition, the lack of scribal intervention should not be connected to the proto- Masoretic character of these scrolls, but rather to the special script which may point to a specific milieu, possibly that of the Sadducees (see the analysis in ch. 6b). 3. PROTO-MASORETIC TEXTS. The biblical texts found at Qumran were treated in the discussion in § 1 as a uniform corpus. However, these biblical texts are of a differing textual character (proto- Masoretic, pre-Samaritan, and independent texts, as well as texts written according to the Qumran scribal practice [APPENDIX 8]). As scribes developed different approaches to the text, it should be noted that some scribes singled out sacred texts for special care. To some extent this is true of the proto-Masoretic texts from Qumran, and definitely of the biblical texts found at all sites in the Judean Desert except for Qumran. Almost all biblical scrolls (all: proto-Masoretic) from sites in the Judean Desert other than Qumran were copied carefully, if the criterion of scribal intervention is accepted as being valid. This pertains to the following scrolls: SdeirGen (an average of one correction in every 38 lines), MurXII (75), 5/6H≥evPs (142), MasLev b (30), MasPs a (74+). This group overlaps with the de luxe editions listed in TABLE 27 in ch. 4, but not completely, since the relevant data about format are not known for all scrolls. Proto-Masoretic manuscripts from Qumran reflecting a low degree of scribal intervention are: 4QGen e (an average of one correction in every 49+ lines), 4QLev b (136), 4QLev-Num a (36), 4QLev e (41+), 1QDeut b (82+), 4QDeut g (43), 4QDeut o (46+), 4QSam b (50), 4QIsa e (58+), 4QIsa f (92), 4QPs c (52). The full evidence for these and all other scrolls is recorded in APPENDIX 8. However, not all proto-Masoretic scrolls display an equally low level of scribal intervention; note, for example, the well-preserved proto-Masoretic 4QJer a reflecting much scribal intervention with an average of one correction per 4 lines (see further 4QExod c , 4QDeut f , 4QDeut h , 4QIsa d [all: one correction in every 16–17 lines], 4QIsa a [7], 4QIsa b [13], MasEzek [18]).
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:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210: 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 259: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
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 303 and 304: APPENDIX 3 OPISTHOGRAPHS FROM THE J
Page 305 and 306: APPENDIX 4 THE GREEK TEXTS FROM THE
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?