03.04.2013 Views

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!