JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
with the received text. Further evidence for a still fluid state
of the text is provided by the citations of Scripture found in
the books of the *Apocrypha and by rabbinic traditions about
the activities of the *soferim. These latter are credited with responsibility
for textual emendations (tikkunei soferim, Mekh.,
Shira, 6; Sif. Num. 84), for marking dislocated verses (ibid.;
Shab. 115b–116a) and suspect readings (ARN1 34, 100–1; ARN2
37, 97; Sif. Num. 69), as well as for deletions (itturei soferim,
Ned. 37b). Other rabbinic traditions tell of the need for “book
correctors” (maggihei sefarim) in Jerusalem attached to the
Temple (Ket. 106a; TJ, Shek. 4:3, 48a) and even of divergent
readings in pentateuchal scrolls kept in the Temple archives
(TJ, Ta’an 4:2, 68a; Sif. Deut. 356; ARN2 46, 65; Sof. 6:4).
This fluidity of text is precisely the situation that was
revealed at Qumran, particularly Cave IV which has yielded
about 100 manuscripts, complete or fragmentary. The outstanding
phenomenon is the ability of the sect to tolerate, with
no apparent disquiet, the simultaneous existence of divergent
texts of the same book, as well as verbal and orthographic variety
within the scope of a single recension. Clearly, an inviolable,
sacrosanct, authoritative text did not exist at Qumran.
Whether the identical conclusion is also valid for the normative
Jewish community of Palestine in this period is less certain.
It is true that there is nothing specifically sectarian about
the Qumran Bible scrolls, either in the scribal techniques and
conventions employed or in the nature of the divergent readings,
which are decidedly neither tendentious nor ideological.
Nevertheless, caution must be exercised in the use of the
Qumran evidence for reconstruction of a generalized history
of textual development in this period. The lack of more examples
of the masoretic text-type may be solely accidental. It
is also possible that this is less a library than a genizah which
would tend to preserve discarded texts and so present a distorted
picture. In many instances, the fragments are very small
and are only disjecta membra, making the derivation of overall
characteristics very hazardous. Finally, the isolated, cloistered,
and segregated existence led by the sect of “covenanters,” with
its implacable hostility to the Jerusalem religious establishment,
could well have insulated Qumran from normative developments
elsewhere in Judea, where a less tolerant approach
to textual diversity may have prevailed.
In fact, the rabbinic testimony cited above demonstrates
the existence of a movement away from a plurality of recensions
and toward textual stabilization. The textual-critical
activities of the soferim are all directed to this end and they
are expressly reported to have worked on a text fixed even in
respect of the number of its letters (Kid. 30a). Whatever its
intrinsic worth this talmudic tradition could not have arisen
among the rabbis had the fixing of the text been recent. The
presence of Temple-sponsored “book correctors” implies the
acceptance at some point in the Second Temple period of an
authoritative text by which the accuracy of other scrolls was
measured (Ket. 106a; TJ, Shek. 4:3, 48a; Sanh. 2:6, 20c). The
record of the variant Temple scrolls is a tradition concerned
with an attempt to ensure just such a standardized recension.
Indeed, that there existed an official Temple Scroll (Sefer ha-
Azarah) which enjoyed high prestige is amply attested in rabbinic
sources (TJ, Sanh. 2:6, 20c; Shek 4:3, 48a; MK 3:4; Kelim
15:6; cf. Jos., Wars, 7:150, 162), though it is not possible to tell
exactly to what period they refer. Certainly, the seven rules of
biblical hermeneutics, compiled but not invented by Hillel the
Elder (Tosef., Sanh. 7:11; ARN1 37, 110; cf. Pes. 66a; TJ, Pes. 6:1,
33a), take the history of the attempt at textual stabilization at
least back to the time of Herod.
Soon after the destruction of the Temple, Josephus (Apion,
1:8) wrote about the inviolate nature of the text of the Jewish
Scriptures and it is clear that he regarded this as a virtue
of long standing. Further proof for the existence of the notion
of an authoritative text is provided by the Letter of Aristeas
which is well aware of the circulation of carelessly written
books of the Law (Arist. 30) and has Ptolemy send to the high
priest in Jerusalem for a Hebrew text from which to make the
Greek translation (ibid., 33–40, 46; cf. 176). Once produced,
this translation itself came to be regarded as sacrosanct by the
Jews of Alexandria (ibid., 311). Nevertheless, there is evidence
from Qumran that the Greek translation was the object of
much recensional activity, the purpose of which was to bring
it into line with developments in the Hebrew texts current in
Palestine. This phenomenon reveals, once again, both that the
Hebrew text was still fluid and that there was a movement toward
textual stabilization.
Within this period the notion of an authoritative text was
well rooted outside the Qumran community. A very limited
number of textual families is discernible, probably each having
achieved local authority. Each family, however, exhibits
internal textual variety. The religious leadership in Jerusalem
appears to have recognized a fixed text and to have been engaged
in textual-critical activity aligning divergent exemplars
with it. The beginnings of this movement may possibly
be traced to the Maccabean victories. At any rate, the recensional
family that ultimately crystallized into what came to be
known as “masoretic” is well represented among the Qumran
collection, the most outstanding example being the Isaiah
scroll (1QIsb sb).
The Third Period (First Century C.E.–Ninth Century C.E.)
The existence of an official text with binding authority from
the generation of the destruction of the Temple is clearly reflected
in halakhic discussions. Zechariah b. ha-Kaẓẓav, who
was apparently a priest in the Temple (cf. Ket. 2:9), based legal
decisions on the presence of a conjunctive vav (Sot. 5:1). *Nahum
of Gimzo, of the first generation of tannaim, employed
the principle of “extension and limitation” in the interpretation
of certain Hebrew particles (Ḥag. 12a; Pes. 22b), a hermeneutical
system later developed to the full by R. *Akiva to
whom not a word of the Torah, nor even a syllable or letter,
was superfluous. Hence, he could derive a multiplicity of rules
from each tittle on the letters of the Torah (Men. 29b). He,
584 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3