The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

120 EXCERPTED MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN
copied from memory.” 71 Indeed, b. Meg. 18b permits the writing of
phylacteries and mezuzot from memory. 72 This is further reason to connect
these texts with the excerpted texts as closely related documents.
Moreover, the popularity of the passages that are typically excerpted is
further underscored.
Lastly, Duncan has discerned textual similarities between 4QDeut j
and 4QDeut k1 (possibly also 4QDeut n ). She states:
The data are too sparse to lead to any conclusions, but introduce the idea
that some of the texts belonging to this genre shared not only components,
but textual characteristics. This remains, however, in the realm of speculation,
as there is not enough common text between the three manuscripts
we have to say anything of substance. 73
Shared textual characteristics, at least for the Deuteronomy manuscripts,
is an intriguing topic and would be an additional criterion or subcriterion
for identifying and categorizing excerpted material. But, as Duncan
states, such a possibility must remain hypothetical at present. Indeed, as
Tov notes, “[s]everal of the [excerpted] texts reflect a free approach to
Scripture,” which may obviate the quest for textual affinities—whether
with the large families (see §3 below) or even among the excerpted manuscripts
themselves. This latter consideration may be yet further indication
“that these texts have been prepared for personal use” (see §4). 74
e. Composition in the “Qumran Scribal Practice”
Several of the excerpted manuscripts were written according to what Tov
has called the “Qumran scribal practice,” 75 namely, with full orthography
71. Duncan, “Excerpted Texts,” 60; see further 61, where she says the same possibility
holds for some of the phylacteries and mezuzot from Qumran. Note also Sidnie
White Crawford, “A Response to Elizabeth Owen’s ‘4QDeut n : A Pre-Samaritan
Text?’” DSD 5 (1998): 94.
72. See Duncan, “Excerpted Texts,” 61n68; Tov, Textual Criticism, 119. So also Milik,
“II. Phylactères A–U,” 38. See further Edward L. Greenstein, “Misquotation of
Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed. B.
Walfish; Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993), 71–83.
73. Duncan, “Considerations of 4QDt j ,” 206.
74. Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated,” 600. Additionally, Tov notes that 4QCant b
(4Q107) has a large number of scribal errors and “significant Aramaic influence.”
75. See Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated,” 587, and, more fully, idem, “The
Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin
of These Scrolls,” Text 13 (1986): 31–57; idem, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from
the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism,” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37;