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

324 SOCIOLOGICAL AND LITURGICAL DIMENSIONS
Frank M. Cross’s report on the early consensus that “all of the pesharim
appear to be autographs.” 24 A scribal emendation appears in col. 3,
between lines 4 and 5: w]r#p Myrwk rqyk hwhy ybhw)w 25 (“And those
who love Yahweh are like the splendor of pastures. [Its] interpretation […]”).
The supralinear insertion suggests that a later scribe corrected an
error made in the copying of the original text. What is added above line
five are the words from Ps 37:20b–c and the beginning of the pesher formula.
Three observations indicate that these words are a correction: (1)
The insertion is between the lines. (2) The hand is appreciably different
and probably later. (3) The Tetragrammaton is written in the square
script and not in Paleo-Hebrew as elsewhere in this manuscript. The
error is most likely caused by parablepsis (looking back and forth from
text being copied to text being inscribed) aided perhaps by homoeoteleuton
(similar or identical ending of lines) 26 or even more likely homoeotelearchon
(similar or identical beginning of lines), if the lost portion of the supralinear
line contained the same word as the beginning of line 5. 27
Third, the scribe(s) varies the exegetical technique used in the pesher.
For example, in some lines words from the lemma are explicitly incorporated
into the commentary (frags. 1–10, 3.4–5). In other lines the
scribe(s) draws upon images present in the biblical text (frags. 1–10, 2.7,
2.16–20). In still other places entire lines of Scripture are repeated in the
commentary (frags. 1–10, 3.11–12). Such diversity reflects the skill and
creativity of a capable scribe, or school of scribes, who received specialized
training in the community. 28
Finally, the pesher is continuous. 29 In the 13 fragments of Psalm Pesher
1, we can clearly discern a commentary upon Ps 37:7–40 and can
24. See the quotation from a letter received from Cross on 17 June 2001, which is
cited in Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 77.
25. For the diacritics, see PTSDSSP 6B, 14. The MT has “the enemies of” for the
text’s “those who love.” Also, the MT has Myrk for the text’s Myrwk.
26. Note also, that in John 12:15 in Codex Vaticanus the copying scribe’s eye went
from one autous ek tou to the next, inadvertently omitting the words in between, perhaps
by poor eyesight or fatigue.
27. John Strugnell suggested the error was caused by homoeoteleuton; see PTSDSSP
6B, 14. We are persuaded that the error is caused by homoeotelearchon, since a scribe
copying Hebrew begins at the right and at the beginning of a line and the word that
would be repeated appears as the first word in line five (see frags. 1–10, col. 3.5).
28. See, Emanuel Tov, “Copying of a Biblical Scroll,” JRH 26 (2002): 189–210.
29. There are two types of pesharim, continuous (4QpIsa a–e ; 4QpHos a,b ; 1QpZeph
[= 1Q15]; 4QpZeph [= 4Q170]; 1QpMic [= 1Q14]; 4QpHab; 1QpPs [= 1Q16];
4QpPs a,b [= 4Q171, 4Q173]) and thematic (4QFlor [= 4Q174]; 11QMelch [=
11Q13]), in addition to the numerous pesher elements found outside the formal
pesharim (cf. esp. 1QS; CD; 4Q394–399). For further discussion, see Devorah
Dimant, “Pesharim, Qumran,” ABD 5: 244–50.