SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 77
The idea of arranging the inscribed text in columns of more or less uniform dimension was
reflected already in cuneiform clay tablets, where the text was subdivided by horizontal and
vertical lines, and in ancient Egyptian papyrus scrolls. The great majority of Judean Desert texts
were likewise arranged in writing blocks that cover the greater part of the surface, leaving margins
on all sides of the inscribed surface. The rationale of these margins was to enable the orderly
arrangement of the writing blocks in geometric shapes, even when the edges of the leather were
not straight. The margins also enabled the handling of the scroll without touching the inscribed
area. For this purpose the margins at the bottom were usually larger than those at the top.
Columns
The inscribed surface was usually, and always in the case of literary compositions, organized in
the form of a column (tld in Lachish ostracon 4 3–4 and Jer 36:23 [seliv" in the LXX] 130 or πd in
rabbinic literature, e.g. y. Meg. 1.71c), and in texts consisting of more than one, these columns
always follow one another horizontally. In one document, 4QIncantation (4Q444; illustr. 10), 10
three tiny fragments of leather (each with four lines of inscription) followed each other vertically,
one atop the other. Each group of four lines constituted a single column, stitched to the next
column under the writing block. In the case of 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer (4Q448; illustr.
11), 11 the different column arrangement probably derived from the adhesion of a reinforcement tab
which necessitated a large margin at the beginning of the scroll (col. I). See ch. 5b.
There is a positive correlation between the height and width of columns: the higher the
column, the wider the lines, and the longer the scroll.
While it is in order to measure the width of columns according to the number of letters or
letter-spaces (that is, a space occupied by either a letter or a blank space between words) for
purposes of reconstruction, for an overall understanding of the scroll it is more useful to calculate
according to the column width. Since individual sheets contained columns of varying width, one
should always be careful when attempting to link a certain column-width with a specific scroll.
The column sizes differ in accordance with the number of columns per sheet, the
measurements of the sheets (§ d), and the conventions developed by the scroll manufacturers.
The different parameters of the columns pertain to their width and height as well as to the size of
the top, bottom, and intercolumnar margins.
In some Qumran scrolls, the height and width of columns are fairly consistent, while in most
scrolls these parameters vary from sheet to sheet as well as within each sheet, in accordance with
the size of sheets. Thus, the width of some columns in 1QM and 4QLam differs by as much as
fifty percent from other columns in the same scrolls. Considerable differences among the widths
of columns are visible in 11QTa (11Q19) and 8H≥evXIIgr, while even larger differences are
evident in 1QIsaa (cf. col. XLIX [16.3 cm] with LII [8.8 cm]) in the same section written by
scribe B, 1QS (cf. I [9.7 cm] and II [11.5 cm] with other columns measuring 16, 18 and 19 cm)
and 4QLam (col. III is almost twice as wide as cols. I and II). The width of the columns of
4QSama differs noticeably from one column to the next, ranging from 8.5 cm in col. III to 13.5 cm
(reconstructed for frgs. 164–165). At the same time, a certain regularity in column size is
noticeable. In many cases, the available space in a sheet was evenly divided between the columns,
but the differing sizes of sheets often did not always permit such uniformity. Columns that are
unusually wide or narrow are generally found at the beginning or end of sheets.
The average column-width in 1QM is 15.0 cm, 13.0 cm in 1QHa , and 9.5–15.5 cm in 1QS.
130 According to J. P. Hyatt, “The Writing of an Old Testament Book,” BA 6 (1943) 71–80 (74); repr. with additions in G.
E. Wright and D. N. Freedman, The Biblical Archaeologist Reader (Garden City, N.Y. 1961) 22–31, this term is based
on the wooden tablets used for writing in an earlier period (26). Many parallels for this terminology from the ancient
Near East were listed by R. Lansing Hicks (see p. 31). According to H. Eshel, “Two Epigraphic Notes,” Zeitschrift für
Althebraistik 13 (2000) 181–7 (especially 185–7), the term occurs also in Prov 8:34.