SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 11
It stands to reason that literary texts were copied from written Vorlagen. There is no reason to
assume that scribes who knew their biblical texts well wrote them from memory. Indeed, according
to the prescriptions in rabbinic literature, scribes were forbidden to copy Scripture without a text
in front of them, even if they knew the whole Bible by heart, in order to secure precision in
copying (b. Meg. 18b and parallels).
The prescriptions of the rabbis regarding the copying of sacred texts were not followed by all
scribes in Israel. In light of this situation, it is not impossible that some scribes wrote from
dictation 19 or that mass production (dictating to several scribes at the same time) took place, but
there is no evidence supporting this view. Phonetic interchange of letters as evidenced in many
Qumran texts does not necessarily prove that they were written by dictation, since any scribe
copying from a document could make such mistakes or change the orthography, consciously or
not. 20
The writing of Scripture and tefillin was considered so important by the rabbis that scribes of
such texts were not supposed to interrupt their work, even for the duty of prayer (y. Shabb. 1.3b;
y. Ber. 1.3b; y. Bikk. 3.65c), let alone for less significant occasions or tasks.
In rabbinic literature, there are some references to scribes who produced multiple copies. Thus,
according to b. B. Bat. 14a, R. Huna wrote seventy Torah scrolls and R. Ami 400 scrolls.
Soferim
The term soferim is used in rabbinic literature with two different meanings, the equivalent being
the use of either a lower or an upper case letter. The soferim were individual copyists, as
portrayed in the post-Talmudic tractate bearing that name, but they were also known as a moreor-less
organized group of scribes, Soferim (henceforth referred to with a lower case letter as
soferim) with authoritative legal capacities. Scholars are not in agreement on the nature of these
soferim who carried out legal functions, but only some aspects of this discussion pertain to the
present analysis. According to some scholars, these soferim functioned as pivotal personages in a
certain era and at a later stage also constituted a political power. 21
In rabbinic writings, from the Mishna onwards, these soferim are mentioned as authoritative
scribes and teachers to whom a number of teachings and halakhot are ascribed. As a result, the
soferim are considered to have been influential figures in Israel from the time of Ezra to the second
century CE, both in rabbinic tradition and in modern scholarship. Among other things, they are
mentioned in the New Testament as grammatei`" and as iJerogrammatei`" (Josephus, Bell. Jud. VI
5 3 § 292). The latter term shows that these persons dealt mainly with religious writings, and were
possibly of priestly descent (indeed, most of the soferim whose genealogy is known were priests).
19 Thus with regard to 1QIsa a : M. Burrows, “Orthography, Morphology, and Syntax of the St. Mark’s Manuscript,” JBL 68
(1949) 195–211, especially 196; H. M. Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Manuscript,” JBL 69 (1950) 149–66,
especially 165.
20 Thus already E. Hammershaimb, reacting to the theories regarding 1QIsa a : “On the Method Applied in the Copying of
Manuscripts in Qumran,” VT 9 (1959) 415–18.
21 Note the remarks of Ginsburg in his description of the development of the Masorah: “The labors of the Massorites may
be regarded as a later development and continuation of the earlier work which was carried on by the Sopherim (µyrpws,
grammatei`") = the doctors and authorized interpreters of the Law soon after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish
captivity (comp. Ezra VII 6; Neh. VIII 1 &c.).” See Ginsburg, Introduction, ch. XI; the quote is from p. 287. At a different
level, E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Second Division (New York 1891) I.306–
79 devoted 75 pages to what he called “Scribism.” The view that there was a “period of the soferim” was suggested for
the first time in scholarship by R. Nachman Krochmal in his book Moreh Nevukhe Ha-zeman (edited posthumously by
L. Zunz and published in 1851; quoted by Urbach, below). Along with others, E. E. Urbach wrote against this view in
“The Derasha as a Basis of the Halakha and the Problem of the Soferim,” Tarbiz 27 (1958) 166–82. For a summary on the
views expressed on the soferim and for much bibliography, see H. Mantel, “The Soferim,” in Society and Religion in the
Second Temple Period (ed. M. Aviyona; Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 1983) 35–8 (Heb.). Among these studies, see especially M.
H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 72 (1953) 35–48; M. Greenberg, “The
Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert,”
JAOS 76 (1956) 157–67.