SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

14 Chapter 2: Scribes
compositions, but from ten different series, all of them identifiable as standard books in the neo-
Assyrian stream of tradition.’ 30 Since the compositions are excerpted in exactly the same order on
both clay tablets, Hallo considered them exercise tablets. A large group of such exercises was
collected by Harrauer–Sijpesteijn (see previous paragraph).
Other aspects of the training process of members of the Qumran community, especially the
study of the Law and of the community rites were described by Lemaire based on descriptions by
Josephus and those in the Qumran Rules. 31
c. Production of scrolls in the Judean Desert?
It is difficult to ascertain how many of the texts found in the Judean Desert were actually
produced locally, that is, both their physical preparation and the copying of the manuscripts.
Undoubtedly, at least some leather scrolls were produced locally (as will be provable in the future
by way of DNA analysis of scrolls in comparison with that of local animals, both contemporary
and present), but at present this assumption cannot be ascertained. Also unascertainable is
whether papyrus was produced locally (at Ein Feshkha or elsewhere in Israel) or imported from
Egypt (ch. 3a).
Qumran. If it could be proven that locus 30 at Qumran served as a room in which documents
were written (a scriptorium in medieval terminology), 32 the assumption of a Qumran scribal
practice would receive welcome support. However, the reliability of the evidence pointing to the
existence of such a scriptorium is questionable. 33 Beyond the archeological relevance of locus 30,
most scholars now believe, on the basis of the content of the scrolls, that some, many, or all of the
documents found at Qumran were copied locally (ch. 8a2).
30 W. Hallo, “New Viewpoints,” (see n. 23) 13–26; the quote is from pp. 22–3.
31 Lemaire, “L’enseignement.” For parallels in rabbinic literature, see S. Safrai, “Education and the Study of the Torah,” in
Safrai, Jewish People, 945–70; P. Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” in Horbury, Hebrew Study, 71–89,
especially 78–82.
32 Thus the majority of scholars ever since the description by R. de Vaux, L’archéologie et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte
(London 1961) 23–6; idem, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy;
London 1973) 29–33; see also R. Reich, “A Note on the Function of Room 30 (the ‘Scriptorium’) at Khirbet Qumran,”
JJS 46 (1995) 157–60.
33 In this room, archeologists found a 5-meter-long table, two small ‘tables,’ a few small benches fixed to the wall, and
several inkwells (cf. photograph PAM 42.865), which were situated either in this room or on a second floor which
according to some scholars was situated above this room. See Humbert–Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân, pls.
114–20; M. Broshi, “Scriptorium,” Encyclopedia DSS, 2.831. However, doubts were raised with regard to this
identification. Several scholars have claimed that the ‘table’ was too low (70 cm) for writing, or that in that period
scribes did not use tables for writing, see B. M. Metzger, “The Furniture of the Scriptorium at Qumran,” RevQ 1 (1958)
509–15; K. G. Pedley, “The Library at Qumran,” RevQ 2 (1959) 21–41, especially 35; K. W. Clark, “The Posture of the
Ancient Scribe,” BA 26 (1963) 63–72; Ashton, Scribal Habits, 57. This claim was also made by A. Lemaire,
“L ’enseignement,” especially 199, who suggested that this room was the center of the intellectual life of the community
members. The most detailed arguments against the assumption of a scriptorium were provided by N. Golb. According to
Golb, the fact that no remnants of scrolls were found in the room also proves that it was not used for the purpose of
writing: “The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 124 (1980) 1–24;
“Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?” BA 48 (1985) 68–82; “Khirbet Qumran and the Manuscripts of the Judaean
Wilderness: Observations on the Logic of Their Investigation,” JNES 49 (1990) 103–14; idem, The DSS. Before Golb,
similar doubts, though in less detail, had been voiced by H. E. del Medico, L’énigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte
(Paris 1957); K. H. Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumrân und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer (Studia Delitzschiana 5; Stuttgart
1960). Golb’s theory was refuted in detail by F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis
of Qumran Origins and Early History,” RevQ 14 (1990) 521–41, but the doubts regarding the relevance of the artifacts
found at locus 30 remain. For more recent analyses, see Wise, Thunder in Gemini, especially 120; F. Rohrhirsch,
Wissenschaftstheorie und Qumran: die Geltungsbegrundungen von Ausssagen in der Biblischen Archäologie am
Beispiel von Chirbet Qumran und En Feschcha (NTOA 32; Freiburg/Göttingen 1996). The view of P. H. E. Donceel-
Voûte, according to whom this room contained couches for reclining, has not been accepted by other scholars:
“ ‘Coenaculum’: La salle à l’étage du locus 30 à Khirbet Qumrân sur la Mer Morte,” in Banquets d’Orient (ed. R.
Gyselen; Res Orientales 4; Bures-sur-Yvette 1992) 61–84. As a result, it is still unknown in which position the
writing was executed; most probably scribes were seated either on a bench or on the ground, while holding the sheet on
a board on their knees, similar to the writing position of Egyptian scribes.