SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov
SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov
SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 249<br />
It cannot be coincidental that the great majority of the sectarian texts were copied, admittedly<br />
somewhat inconsistently, in a common orthographic and morphological style and with common<br />
scribal features; rather, the only plausible explanation seems to be that the sectarian scribes<br />
followed special scribal conventions. This group may represent one third or half of the Qumran<br />
corpus if some of the 85 fragmentary sectarian texts included in APPENDIX 1c are also taken into<br />
consideration.<br />
Before the full data is presented in favor of our view, the following should be emphasized:<br />
• The content of idiosyncratic Qumran tefillin written in the orthography and morphology of<br />
the Qumran scribal practice (ch. 7c and APPENDIX 9) is distinct from the content of the Rabbinictype<br />
tefillin written in the MT system. This fact provides an external control supporting our<br />
hypothesis.<br />
• Within the Qumran corpus, the writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters or<br />
with four/five dots (Tetrapuncta) is documented mainly in texts written in the Qumran<br />
orthography and morphology (ch. 6b). Since this practice is based on a certain conception of the<br />
sanctity of the divine names, and since the approach of the Qumran community to this issue is<br />
known also from other indicators (ch. 6b2), this practice provides an independent control<br />
supporting our hypothesis.<br />
• The majority (84) of the 131 Hebrew Qumran texts containing scribal markings of some kind<br />
as listed in APPENDIX 1 (e.g. the paragraphos sign), also reflect the orthographic and<br />
morphological features of the Qumran scribal practice. In some groups this percentage is very<br />
high, e.g. for cancellation dots (ch. 5c1).<br />
In the following analysis, the various features of the Qumran scribal practice are reviewed<br />
through constant reference to the full discussion in the earlier chapters in this monograph. The<br />
logic followed in this description is:<br />
1. A certain group of texts which are characterized with a specific type of orthography and<br />
morphology is set apart (§§ o, p below as well as APPENDIX 9 and 1).<br />
2. Independently of the determination of this group, certain scribal phenomena are recognized<br />
which occur especially frequently in this group (all other paragraphs below as well as<br />
APPENDIX 1).<br />
3. Through a combination of these criteria—some more convincing than others—the texts which<br />
were presumably copied in the Qumran scribal practice are determined (APPENDIX 1 and 9).<br />
4. The dates assigned to the texts presumably written in the Qumran scribal practice are listed in<br />
the last column in APPENDIX 1, culled from the summary list by Webster, “Chronological<br />
Index.” These dates are analyzed in § u (‘concluding remarks’).<br />
a. Paragraphos signs<br />
b. Cancellation dots<br />
g. Crossing out of letters and words with a line<br />
d. Parenthesis signs<br />
e. Writing of the divine names with paleo-Hebrew characters<br />
h. Single letters in the Cryptic A script written mainly in the margin<br />
z. Single paleo-Hebrew letters<br />
q. Tetrapuncta designating the Tetragrammaton<br />
i. The X-sign<br />
k. Separation dots between words<br />
l. Nonfinal letters used in final position and final letters used in nonfinal position<br />
m. Guide dots/strokes<br />
n. Scribal cooperation?<br />
o. Orthographic features<br />
p. Morphological features<br />
r. Tefillin