Table Of ContentSCRIBALPRACTICESINTHEARAMAIC
LITERARYTEXTSFROMQUMRAN
FlorentinoGarcíaMartínez
When Maxine Grossman invited me to take part in the meeting of the
Society of Biblical Literature held in Boston in 1 she specified that
shewasinterestedin
howunderstandingoftheDeadSeaScrollsasmaterialobjectsfitsintoa
largerunderstandingofthehistoryandsocialrealitiesassociatedwiththe
communitiesthatcomposed,copied,andtransmittedthem.
IpromisedherthatIwouldlookatthescribalpracticesandapproachesas
reflectedinQumran’sliteraryAramaictextstotrytofindthebeginning
ofananswertoherquestions.Sincethefirstdraftofthispaperwasread
anddiscussedatthemeeting,ithasbeenarealpleasuretoreworkitinto
this small contribution dedicated to my friend and colleague of many
years, Jan Bremmer, from whom I have learned so much about Greek
mythology and early Christian texts. In particular, he taught me much
aboutcriticallyextractingnuggetsofknowledgeonthehistoricalrealities
behind the texts themselves and behind their transmission in different
culturalmilieus.Inthisarticlemuchofthestyleoftheoralpresentation
isretained.
While preparing my talk, I was rather confident that I could fulfil
my task without much effort. In the standard treatment of the scribal
practicesandapproachestotheDeadSeaScrolls,wheregreatattention
isgiventothetwobasiccategoriesofliteraryanddocumentarytexts,the
differences(ifany)betweenthescribalpracticesreflectedinliterarytexts
writteninHebrewandthosewritteninAramaicarenotspecificallydealt
with, butI assumed I could discover some peculiarities in the Aramaic
texts.2IexpectedthatacarefullookatthematerialaspectsoftheAramaic
1 This was a joint meeting of the Qumran Section and the Social History of For-
mativeChristianity andJudaismSection oftheSBL.Apartfromitsconvenor Maxine
GrossmannIthankthetwootherparticipants,EmanuelTovandRobertA.Kraft,and
therespondentRogerBagnall,fortheirobservations.
2 Iamreferring,ofcourse,tothemagisterialtreatmentbyE.Tov,ScribalPractices
andApproachesReflectedintheTextsfromtheJudeanDesert(Leiden:Brill,);this
florentinogarcíamartínez
scrollswouldhelpustodefinetheircharacteristics,incontrasttothose
inHebrew,andinthiswayhelpustounderstandbetterhowtheyrelate
tothegroup(orgroups)thatbroughttogetherthecollectionasawhole.
TheAramaicliterarytextsformaminority,butasizeableone,within
the whole Qumran collection: about manuscripts, of which some
eighty (belonging to different compositions) have enough text pre-
servedtoallowthemtobetreatedinameaningfulway.3Thesegroupsof
Aramaicliterarytextshaverecentlyandincreasinglybeenconsideredas
formingacoherentwholeandbeingworthy,assuch,ofadetailedstudy.4
Butthebasicquestionsabout)thespecificityofthesetextswithinthe
collection, ) their possible origin at Qumran, and ) their function
within the collection as a whole, are still unresolved. Perhaps a look at
thescribalpracticesreflectedinthemanuscriptsoftheAramaiccompo-
sitionscouldhelpussomehowtoanswerthesequestions.
But,aftercarryingouttherequiredresearch,lookingformanyhours
at the photographs of the Aramaic texts and comparing them with the
Hebrewones,IunderstoodclearlywhyEmanuelTovhasnotdealtspecif-
icallywiththetextswritteninAramaic,butputtheminthesamecate-
gory as the Hebrew texts. The reason is very simple: there are no dif-
ferencesinthescribalpracticesamongthetwosortsoftexts.Concern-
ingthe‘WritingandWritingMaterials’,5the‘TechnicalAspectsofScroll
Writing’,6 and the ‘Writing Practices’,7 the texts written in Hebrew and
thosewritteninAramaicofferidenticalprofiles.Itisthustotallycompre-
hensiblethatTovdealswithbothsortsoftextstogether,sincetheycannot
be differentiated by scribal practices. Nevertheless, could we still learn
somethingfromthescribalpracticessosimilarinthetwosortsoftexts?
Ithinkwecan,andthisidentitymayhelpustounderstandthespecificity
isasummaofobservationsandtables,whereeverypossibleaspectofscribalpracticesis
noted,analyzed,andcommentedupon.
3 For a complete listing, see the “List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert”, in
E. Tov et al., The Texts from the Judaean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon, ), –.
ThelatestvolumewithAramaictextshasbeenrecentlypublishedbyE.Puech,Qumran
Grotte.XXVII:(Q–Q).TextesAraméens,deuxièmepartie(Oxford:Clarendon,
).
4 Thisgroupoftexts,assuch,hasbeeneditedindependently,forexample,byK.Bayer,
DiearamäischenTextevomTotenMeer,vols.(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,
–)andbyU.Schatter-Rieser,TextesaraméensdelamerMorte(Brussels:Safran,
).
5 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
6 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
7 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts
oftheAramaictextswithinthecollection,theirpossibleQumranorigins,
andtheirfunctionwithinthecollection,andthereforetoincreaseour
understandingofthehistoryandsocialrealitiesassociatedwiththecom-
munitiesthatcomposed,copied,andtransmittedthem.
SpecificityoftheTextswithintheCollection
InTov’sbook,theAramaictextsarenotconsideredasaspecificgroup.
Inthechapteron‘SpecialScribalCharacteristicofSomeGroupofTexts’,8
the Aramaic texts are not specifically dealt with. In this chapter Tov
analyzes asdifferentgroups:the‘biblicaltexts’, the tefillin andMezuzot,
thepesharim(whichcanbeconsideredasagrouponlyonthebasisofthe
contents),togetherwiththetextswritteninPaleo-Hebrewandthetexts
writteninCrypticScripts(whichcanbeconsideredasagrouponlyon
the basis of their script), the texts written on papyrus (grouped on the
basis of the materials used for writing), and the texts written in Greek
(considered as a group on the basis of the language). If not for other
reasons,theAramaictextsshouldbeconsideredasagrouponthesame
basisastheGreektexts:theirlanguagediffersfromthelanguageinwhich
the majority of the manuscripts are written, Hebrew. But I think there
aremorereasonstoconsiderthemasacoherentwholewithaparticular
language, style, and content, as was done in the meeting dedicated to
theminJulyinAix-en-Provence.
Infact,atleasttwoscholars(DevorahDimantandEibertTigchelaar)
haverecentlyfocusedonthespecificityoftheAramaictextsasagroup
within the collection, and have tried to discover different clusters of
compositionsamongthem.9InhercontributiontomyFestschriftFlores
Florentino,DevorahDimantpublishedagroundbreakingarticlewiththe
title “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community”.10 In
8 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
9 TheonlyolderessayofwhichIamawareisB.Z.Wacholder,“TheAncientJudaeo-
AramaicLiterature(–bce):AClassificationofPre-QumranicTexts”,inArchaeol-
ogyandHistoryintheDeadSeaScrolls:TheNewYorkUniversityConferenceinMemory
ofYigaelYadin(ed.L.H.Schiffman;Sheffield:JSOTPress,),–,whichhas
remainedlargelyignored.
10 D.Dimant,“TheQumranAramaicTextsandtheQumranCommunity”,inFlores
Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino
GarcíaMartínez(eds.A.Hilhorst,E.Puech,andE.Tigchelaar;Leiden:Brill,),–
.
florentinogarcíamartínez
thesamevolumeEibertTigchelaarpublishedanotherpioneeringarticle
titled “The Imaginal Context and the Visionary of the Aramaic New
Jerusalem”.11
Dimant’sarticlethematicallyclassifiesthecorpusofAramaicwritings
found at Qumran into six categories: ) Works about the Period of the
Flood,)WorksdealingwiththeHistoryofthePatriarchs,)Visionary
Compositions,)LegendaryNarrativesandCourt-Tales,)Astronomy
andMagic,and)theinevitableVaria.
Dimant’s classification is evidently a ‘thematic’ classification, and, as
such,isnotwithoutproblems.Forexample,sheisforcedtosplitacompo-
sitionintwo(theGenesisApocryphon[QapGen,Q,Q]),because
it deals both with the Period of the Flood and with the History of the
Patriarchs;12 although she recognizes that some compositions (Pseudo
Daniel [Q–], Four Kingdoms [Q–], and Apocryphon of
Daniel[Q])are‘Court-Tales’likethebookofDanielonwhichthey
are dependent, she places them in the category of ‘Visionary Compo-
sitions’; however, clearly ‘visionary’ compositions like Enoch(Q–
),AramaicLevi(Q–),orVisionsofAmram(Q–)are
notincludedinthiscategory;andIthinkthatEmilePuech(theDiscov-
eriesintheJudaeanDesert-editorofboththeBirthofNoah[Q–]
andtheApocryphonofLevi(?)[Q–])wouldplacethesecompo-
sitionsinthecategoryofthe‘PeriodoftheFlood’andthe‘Historyofthe
Patriarchs’, respectively, because of the protagonists’ identification with
NoahandLevi,whichDimantrejectsasunproved.
These problems are less accentuated in the thematic classification
proposedinthearticlebyEibertTigchelaar.Hiscontributionrepresents
aninitialendeavourtospecifythe‘imaginalworld’(afterHenryCorbin)
ofoneofDevorahDimant’s‘VisionaryCompositions’:theNewJerusalem
(Q, Q, Q–, Q, Q). Tigchelaar does not pretend
to give us a taxonomy of the Aramaic texts, like Dimant does, buttries
to
assess all the textual and contextual clues that might shed light on the
identityoftheseer
11 E.Tigchelaar,“TheImaginalContextandtheVisionaryoftheAramaicNewJeru-
salem”,inFloresFlorentino,–.
12 TherecentlypublishedFrenchbilingualeditionoftheworkhasdecidedtousepre-
ciselythistitle,‘HistoiredesPatriarches’,todesignatethecomposition,seeK.Berthelot,
T.Legrand,A.Paul(eds.),LaBibliothèquedeQumrân.:Torah,Genèse:Editionbilingue
desmanuscrits(Paris:Cerf,),–.
scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts
ofNewJerusalem(whomaybeJacob),and—whatismoreimportant—
todetermine
whethertheidentityoftheseerinavisionaryorapocalyptictextistan-
gentialoressentialtotheimaginalworldoftheauthor(s)ofthetext.
Inanaside,Tigchelaarnotesthat
theAramaictextsfromQumranonlycomprisespecialcategories
andthat
[t]hevastmajorityoftheAramaicnarrativetextsfoundamongtheDead
SeaScrollsbelongtotwomaincategories,13
namely ) texts related or ascribed to pre-Mosaic figures, and ) texts
thathaveanEasternDiasporasetting,since,withtheexceptionofDaniel,
whobelongstoaDiasporasetting,
it is remarkable that none of the biblical figures from Moses onwards,
throughDavid,anduptotheprophets,isconnectedwithAramaiclitera-
ture.14
TigchelaarrecognizesthatafewAramaicnarrativetextsdonotfitneatly
in either of those two categories, but he thinks that this ‘dual’ division
maybeusefulfordealingwiththeAramaiccorpusandusesittoidentify
with slightly more confidence (‘as probable’) the seer of New Jerusalem
not with Ezekiel, as proposed by some scholars, but with Jacob, a pre-
Mosaicpatriarch.15
What is important here, beyond the differences, is that both authors
agree fundamentally in their basic approach, since Dimant also recog-
nizes the ‘pre-Mosaic’ character of the Aramaic literature as well as the
Diasporacontext:
[N]o Aramaic work deals systematically and in detail with Moses and
Joshua, the period of the Judges, or the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
For that matter, nothing in Aramaic is related to the biblical Prophets.
Obviously, in the understanding of the authors of these texts, Hebrew
belonged to the sphere of Israelite history proper, whereas Aramaic is
relegatedtoearliergenerations.16
AndalsoforDimant
13 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,.
14 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,.
15 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,.
16 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,.
florentinogarcíamartínez
some of the works are set in a Diaspora context, (...). Aramaic was
apparently selected as the language of composition precisely because of
suchasetting,asitwasforDan[iel].17
This agreement allows us to answer, albeit tentatively, the question of
the Aramaic texts’ specificity compared both with other Aramaic com-
positions and with the Hebrew literature found at Qumran. Although
we do have at Qumran some Hebrew compositions which deal with
‘pre-Mosaic’protagonists(QCommentaryonGenesis[Q–],for
example),andoutsideQumranwealsohavesomeAramaicworkswith
aDiasporasetting(Ahiqar,forexample),wecanassertthattheAramaic
literaturefoundatQumranischaracterizedbyapredominantinterestin
‘pre-Mosaic’protagonistsorbyasettingintheDiaspora.Dimant’scon-
clusion:
[b]utthedataalreadyathanddemonstratestheneedtoconsiderthesetexts
as a specific group, which requires further detailed investigation along
theselines18
canthereforebesubscribedtowithoutreservations.
A careful look at the compositions classified by Dimant allows, in
my opinion, the discovery of another element of the Aramaic texts’
specificity,namelytheapocalypticcharacterofadisproportionatelylarge
number of these compositions when compared both with the rest of
theknowncompositionsinAramaicandwiththeHebrewcompositions
foundatQumran(sectarianornot).
Dimantdescribesher‘VisionaryCompositions’as‘acomplexofAra-
maicvisionaryapocalyptictales’(myemphasis)andnotesthat
[t]hese texts describe visionary scenes, often dealing with figures and
eventsoftheeschaton.19
If we take seriously the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ that Dimant uses in her
description and draw up a list of the Aramaic compositions based on
apocalypticism, we can sensibly increase the number of compositions
which could be ranked in this category of ‘Visionary Compositions’ in
additiontothoseDimantplacedinthethirdcategory(theNewJerusalem,
the Four Kingdoms [Q–], the so-called Apocryphon of Daniel
[Q], the Words of Michael [Q], the so-called Birth of Noah
[Q–], the so-called Apocryphon of Levi (?) [Q–,
17 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,.
18 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,.
19 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,.
scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts
Q(?)],andPseudoDaniel[Q–]).Enoch[Q–],and
the Book of Giants [Q–, Q, Q–, Q], of course, will
have a place of pride, but also the Visions of Amram (Q–) and
other testamentary compositions, like Testament of Jacob (?) (Q),
andmanyotherfragmentarilypreservedcompositionscanbeincluded.
IamnotclaimingthattheseAramaiccompositionsallformQumran
apocalypsesaccordingtothedefinitionlaiddowninthejournalSemeia
()—althoughseveralofthemdefinitelydo—buttheapocalyptic
outlook of all these compositions seems clear to me.20 Also, I am not
pretendingthatapocalypticismisabsentfromtheHebrewcompositions
(sectarian or not) found at Qumran (it is enough to think of the War
Scroll [QM; Q–] and related texts for the first category or of
the Pseudo Ezekiel [Q–] for the second). I claim only that a
disproportionatelylargeamountoftheseAramaiccompositionsshowan
apocalypticoutlook,andthatthis(ifwearenotafraidofapocalypticism)
allowsustoconcludethatapredominantinterestinapocalypticismalso
characterizes the Aramaic texts found at Qumran (although we cannot
find it, of course, in all Aramaic compositions). In my opinion, this
characteristicmayhelpustoanswerthethirdquestion,concerningtheir
function within the collection.21 But before we move to this point, we
need to deal with the second one: the possible Qumran origins of the
Aramaiccompositions.
20 J.J. Collins, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in The
DeadSeaScrollsafterFiftyYears:AComprehensiveAssessment,vol.(eds.P.W.Flintand
J.C.VanderKam;Leiden:Brill,),–.
21 In his contribution to the Groningen meeting of April , Eibert Tigchelaar
insistedthattheAramaictextsfromQumranwerenotonlyapocalypticinoutlook,but
thattheycouldalsobecharacterizedasdifferentfromtheHebrewtextsbecausetheAra-
maiccompositionsweremainlynarrativeincharacter,andbecausetheyexplicitlystate
thewayinwhichrevelationisimparted(beitbydreams,visions,otherworldlytraveling
orangelicintermediaries).Thisclearlyopensawholeseriesofquestionsontheliterary
conventionsusedbythetextsinquestionandtheirconcreteorigins.SeeE.Tigchelaar,
“Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scripture”, inThe
AuthoritativenessofScriptureinAncientJudaism(ed.M.Popovic´;Leiden:Brill,forthcom-
ing).Thesequestionsshouldalsobedealtwithinacomprehensivestudyofthecharac-
teristicsoftheAramaictextsfromQumran.Butformypurposehere,theapocalypticism
ofmostofthesecompositionsisthekeycharacteristicwhichwillallowustoanswerthe
questionoftheirfunctionwithinthewholecollectionofmanuscripts.
florentinogarcíamartínez
PossibleQumranOrigins
Dimant(likemanyotherillustriousdefendersofthesameposition,such
asStanislavSeger22andBenZionWacholder)23assumesthat
theAramaictextscontainnothingofthespecificallysectarianterminology
orideology,andthereforedonotbelongwiththesectarianliterature.24
But I refuse to accept this a priori. The simple fact that a composition
is written in Aramaic does not exclude the possibility of its having
been written by the people who collected the works that now form
the collection of Qumran. There are too many indications or linguistic
pluralitiesinthecollectionthatneedtobedisregardedinordertosustain
thisposition.Amongthem,thepresenceofAramaicinthedocumentary
texts and the influence of Aramaic in the Hebrew of the documentary
texts, which points to the bilingualism of the writers;25 the influenceof
Aramaic in the original literary compositions written in Hebrew26 and
theinfluenceofHebrewinmanyoftheAramaiccompositions;27thefact
thatfromanAramaiccompositionlikeTobitwehavefoundtogetherwith
theAramaicmanuscripts(Q–)aHebrewcopy(Q),andthat
frombooks likeJob or LeviticusAramaic translations have been found
inthecollection(Q–,Q);andeventhereferenceofMilikto
QasanassumedHebrewcopyoftheNewJerusalem(althoughIwas
notabletoidentifytheremainsofQinthefragmentsreproducedon
PAM.,28Icannotexcludethatthistinyfragmentwillshowup,as
22 S.Segert,“BedeutungderHandschriftenfundeamTotenMeerfürdieAramäistik”,
inBibelundQumran(ed.S.Wagner;Berlin:EvangelischeHaupt-Bibelgesellschaft,),
– (): ‘Ebenso wie diese Texte, die sprachlich zu den biblisch-aramäischen
gehören, entstammen die anderen in den Qumranhöhlen gefundenen aramäischen
HandschriftenanscheinendnichtderschriftstellerischenTätigkeitderEssänergemeinde,
dieeinstihrZentrumindemjetztChirbetQumrangenanntenGebäudehatte’.
23 B.Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature”, : ‘In other words,
theseAramaictextswereconsideredtobetheancestralpatrimonyofthesectitselfand
receivedtheirshareofcarefulstudyandexegesis’.
24 Dimant,“TheQumranAramaicTexts”,–.
25 SeeG.WilhelmNebe,“DiehebräischeSprachederNah.alH.everDokumente/
H.ev–”,inTheHebrewoftheDeadSeaScrollsandBenSira(eds.T.Muraokaand
J.F.Elwolde;Leiden:Brill,),–.
26 AfactrecognizedfromthebeginninganddefinitivelyprovedbyE.Y.Kutscherin
TheLanguageandLinguisticBackgroundoftheIsaiahScroll(Jerusalem:Magnes,),
–(Hebrew).
27 See,mostrecently,C.Stadel,HebraismenindenaramäischenTextenvomTotenMeer
(Heidelberg:Winter,).
28 F.GarcíaMartínez,“TheTempleScrollandtheNewJerusalem”,inTheDeadSea
scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts
has happened with the Catalogue of Spirits discovered by Tigchelaar),29
shouldbecarefullyconsidered.Forallthesereasons,andsimultaneously
recognizing that the most characteristic ‘sectarian’ compositions have
beenwritteninHebrew(implyingthatHebrewwasthegroup’spreferred
languageforpenningtheirowncompositions),30Ithinkthattheanswer
to the question of a sectarian or non-sectarian origin of the Aramaic
compositionsshouldbeputwiththesamerigorasitisforeachHebrew
compositionfoundatQumran,andnotdecidedapriori.
The identity of the scribal practices and approaches reflected in the
texts written in Aramaic and the texts written in Hebrew strongly sug-
gestthatthewholecollectionhasthesameorigin,andthesame‘default
position’shouldbeheldforbothsortsoftexts:notext(writteninHebrew
orinAramaic)shouldbeconsidered‘qumranic’or‘sectarian’untilposi-
tivelyproved.
Again, I am not claiming for any concrete text written in Aramaic
that it has a Qumranic origin. I am only denying the idea that this
Qumranic origin is impossible a priori because the text happened to
have been written in Aramaic. This is the position apparently assumed
by Tov,31 since, when recording the data on the presumed Qumran
community authorship of the different compositions, he considers the
matter‘irrelevant’inthecasesofbiblicalandAramaictexts:
ScrollsafterFiftyYears(seeabove,n.),vol.,–(–,n.).Thefragments
foundfromtheQumrancaveswerecollected,joined,numberedandphotographedatthe
PalestineArchaeologicalMuseum(PAM),nowtheRockefellerMuseum,Jerusalem.
29 E.J.C.Tigchelaar,“‘ThesearetheNamesoftheSpiritsof...’:APreliminaryEdition
of QCatalogue of Spirits (Q) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits
Treatise(QandQa)”,RevuedeQumran/():–.
30 Ithinkthiscanbeacceptedwithoutdifficulty,andwithoutenteringintotheprob-
lemsposedbythehypothesisofSchniedewindwhoarguesthatQumranHebrewisan
‘antilanguage’,seeW.M.Schniedewind,“QumranHebrewasanAntilanguage”,Journalof
BiblicalLiterature():–,and“LinguisticIdeologyinQumranHebrew”,
in Diggers at the Well (eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, ), –
.
31 Tov, Scribal Practices, (n. ), following D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manu-
scripts:ContentsandSignificance”,inTimetoPreparetheWayintheWilderness(eds.
D.DimantandL.H.Schiffman;Leiden:Brill,),–;C.A.Newsom,“‘Sectually
Explicit’LiteraturefromQumran”,inTheHebrewBibleandItsInterpreters(eds.W.H.
Propp, B. Halpern and D.N. Freedman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, ), –;
A.Lange,“KriterienessenischerTexte”,inQumrankontrovers:BeiträgezudenTextfunden
vomTotenMeer(eds.J.FreyandH.Stegemann;Paderborn:Bonifacius,),–;
C.Hempel,“KriterienzurBestimmung‘essenischerVerfasserschaft’vonQumrantexten”,
inQumrankontrovers,–.
florentinogarcíamartínez
Sectariannature:dataonthepresumedauthorshipbytheQumrancom-
munity,recordedas‘y[es]’,‘n[o]’,or‘—’(irrelevantinthecaseofbiblical
andAramaictexts).32
Toviswell-knownforhavingcarefullydescribedwhathecallsthe‘Qum-
ranscribalpractice’accordingtowhichherecognizesagroupofnon-
biblicalandbiblicalmanuscriptsthatdisplaydistinctivefeaturesandhave
been‘probablywrittenmainlyatQumran’.InTov’swords:
ThemainargumentforourviewpertainstothefactthatwithintheQum-
rancorpusagroupofbiblicalandnonbiblicaltextsdisplaydistinctive
features,andthatmostofthemaresectarian.Conversely,virtuallyallthe
sectariantextswerewritteninthisspecialpractice.33
Butagain,inthetablesofAppendix,34Tovputsthesignof‘irrelevant’
infrontoftheAramaictextsinthecolumnof‘Qumranscribalpractice’.
TovhassingledouteighteenelementsascharacteristicoftheQumran
scribal practice.35 A look at the photographs shows that many—in fact
most—of these elements are also attested (more or less intensively) in
someAramaicmanuscripts:
– Paragraphossigns:QLevib(Qa);QQahatar(Q);QEn-
Giantsd(Q)
– Cancelation dots: QapGen; QEnastra (Q); QEnGiantsd
(Q)
– Crossingoutofletterswithaline:QLevib(Qa);QEnGiantsb
(Q);QEnGiantse(Q)
– Parenthesissigns:QpapToba(Q);QEna(Q)
– Writing of Divine Name in Paleo-Hebrew characters: QpsDana
(Q)
– SinglelettersinCrypticAscript:QpapToba(Q)
– TetrapunctadesignatingtheTetragrammaton:QpapToba(Q)
– Guide dots: QNJ (Q); QEnastrc (Q); QLevia (Q);
QLevib (Qa); QVisions of Amramd (Q); QVisions of
Amrame(Q)
Ihave omitted fromthis listthe two mostcharacteristicandimportant
elements Tov seesas indicatorsoftheQumran scribalpractice,namely
orthographic and morphological features. I have left these features out
32 Tov,ScribalPractices,.
33 Tov,ScribalPractices,.
34 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
35 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.
Description:differences (if any) between the scribal practices reflected in literary texts 2 I am referring, of course, to the magisterial treatment by E. Tov, Scribal
