SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

26 Chapter 2: Scribes
• J. Duhaime pointed out that 4QM a (4Q491) and 1QM do not relate to one another as a source and its revision,
but that both reworked an earlier source, now lost. 47 Thus, 1QM insisted more on purity than 4QM a (4Q491), and
the former often has a longer text than the latter. At the same time, several scholars suggested that 1QM is a later
revision of the cave 4 copies of the War Scroll. 48
• 4QS b (4Q256) and 4QS d (4Q258) present shorter versions of the Community Rule than 1QS. Abbreviating
took place in individual words, short phrases, and sentences, as indicated in the notes in the edition of Charlesworth,
Rule of the Community. Thus also P. S. Alexander, “The Redaction History of Serekh-Ha-Yah≥ad: A Proposal,”
RevQ 17 (1996) 437–56. The exact relation between the various manuscripts of the Serekh ha-Yah≥ad was outlined
by Alexander–Vermes, DJD XXVI, 9–12. These scholars distinguish between ‘at least four recensions of S’: 1QS,
4QS b (4Q256) and 4QS d (4Q258), 4QS e (4Q259), 4QS g (4Q261). One also notices that in contradistinction to all
other texts of the Community Rule, which reflect the so-called Qumran orthography and morphology (ch. 8a), 4QS d
(4Q258) and 4QS j (4Q264) reflect a system of orthography and morphology which resembles that of MT. While the
shorter texts of S from cave 4, 4QS b (4Q256) and 4QS d (4Q258), probably abbreviated a text such as 1QS, it is very
difficult to decide in which details these texts represent shorter formulations or, alternatively, textual mishaps. The
fact that the phrase ‘sons of Zadok the priests who keep the covenant’ is found in 1QS V 2, 9, but is lacking in both
4QS b and 4QS d , seems to indicate that the omission or addition is intentional. The same problems obtain with
regard to 1QS V 9 µtyrb yçna bwrlw which lacks djy when compared with djyh yçna tx[ of 4QS b (4Q256) IX 8 and
4QS d (4Q258) I 7. On the other hand, in the same col. V of 1QS there are seven occurrences of djy, the community’s
self-appellation, which are lacking in the parallel sections in 4QS b (4Q256) and 4QS d (4Q258). In the case of 4QS e
(4Q259), Metso, Community Rule, 69–74 believes that the shorter text of that manuscript is more original than the
longer text of 1QS. On the other hand, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 707–10 believes that the differences between the
various copies of S reflect ‘free variants—expansions, paraphrases, glosses added for clarity’ (p. 707).
• The following corrections in 1QH a may have been based on 4QH c (4Q429) and 4QpapH f (4Q432):
4QH c (4Q429) 1 ii 1 yb [hkrygbh] 1QH a XIII (Suk. = Puech V) 17 yb supralinear
4QH c (4Q429) 1 ii 5 hr[s bç[t] 1QH a XIII 20 hr[s yúçópónú byçt
4QH c (4Q429) 1 iv 2 ybyr rwnkb wmhyw 1QH a XIII 32 original text (?) corrected to rwnkb
4QH c (4Q429) 1 iv 5 ydwhw 1QH a XIII 34 original text (?) corrected to ydwhw
4QpapH f (4Q432) 3 2 qdx yjykwmw 1QH a II 4 qdx in original text qdx yjykw[mw was marked with
cancellation dots, and tma was added interlinearly
h. Autographs?
Many of the documents from the Judean Desert were original compositions rather than copies of
earlier sources. This pertains mainly to letters and documentary texts such as the archives of
Babatha and Salome Komaïse daughter of Levi from Nah≥al H≥ever, 49 in which the names of four
scribes are mentioned (see n. 13). However, it is possible that some literary texts, especially
sectarian compositions, also represented autographs, even though solid criteria are lacking for
distinguishing between autographs and copies. One could argue that if a composition is preserved
in a single copy it could represent an autograph, but there is no reason to believe this is the case,
for example, for the pesharim, 50 even though they are attested only in single copies. Furthermore,
the following arguments suggest that specific Qumran texts reflect copies rather than autographs:
47 J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56; idem, “Étude comparative de
4QM a Fgg. 1–3 et 1QM,” RevQ 14 (1990) 459–72. For the sources, see the editions of 1QM (Y. Yadin; Oxford 1962)
and 4QM (M. Baillet, DJD VII); The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations,
2, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen/Louisville 1995). For a
more elaborate reconstruction, see P. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the
Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Paul, Emanuel, 17–31, especially 22.
48 F. García Martínez, “Estudios Qumranicos 1975–1985: Panorama crítico,” EstBib 46 (1988) 351–4; B. Nitzan,
“ Processes of Growth of Sectarian Texts in Qumran,” Beth Miqra 40 (1995) 232–48 (Heb.); E. and H. Eshel,
“Recensions of the War Scroll,” in Schiffman, Jerusalem Congress, 351–63.
49 For the Babatha archive, see Beyer, Ergänzungsband, 166–84; B. Isaac, “The Babatha Archive: A Review Article,” IEJ
42 (1992) 62–75; Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenfield, and A. Yardeni, “Babatha’s Ketubba,” IEJ 44 (1994) 75–101; Schams,
Jewish Scribes, 209–13. On the archive of Salome Komaïse daughter of Levi, see H. M. Cotton, DJD XXVII, 158 ff.
50 This line of argument is followed by E. Hammershaimb, “On the Method,” and Wise, Thunder in Gemini, 103–57
(“Accidents and accidence: A scribal view of linguistic dating of the Aramaic scrolls from Qumran”), especially 121.