Textual Scholarship and the Physicality of the Pesharim
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER 4 Textual Scholarship and the Physicality of the Pesharim The physical features of Pesher manuscripts, like those of hypomnema papyri, reflect the scholarly use and background of these commentaries.1 Some physi- cal features of the hypomnemata (especially the use of signs) are paralleled in the Pesharim and seem to point to exchanges of knowledge between the scholarly communities that produced these two types of ancient commentary. Having acquainted themselves with Greek scholarly practices through the in- tellectual networks to which they belonged, the Pesher exegetes adopted some of these practices and adapted them to their own ends. 1 Dimensions As we have seen in the previous chapter, Greek manuscripts exhibit two aes- thetic models: one for prose and one for poetry. In each model, the dimen- sions of a manuscript depend on certain scribal principles which focus on the dimensions of individual columns. As a result, each column in a Greek manu- script will typically have about the same width: either that of a given scribal standard (prose) or that of the length of a line (poetry). The dimensions of Hebrew manuscripts are governed by different prin- ciples. One of the main reasons for this is the difference in writing material. Their general preference for parchment restricts the aesthetic options for Hebrew manuscripts: whilst writing on papyrus rolls could continue almost 1 Cf. George Brooke’s recent work on the physicality and socio-historical background of exeget- ical Qumran manuscripts. See “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features of some Cave 4 ‘Continuous’ Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 133–50; idem, “Some Scribal Features of the Thematic Commentaries from Qumran,” in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script, ed. Philip R. Davies and Thomas Römer (Durham: Acumen, 2013), 124–43; idem, “Physicality, Paratextuality, and Pesher Habakkuk,” in On the Fringe of Commentary: Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures, ed. Sidney H. Aufrère, Philip S. Alexander, and Zlatko Pleše, OLA 232 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 175–93. © pieter b. hartog, ���7 | doi:��.��63/9789004354�03_005 Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-NDDownloaded 4.0 from license. Brill.com09/25/2021 04:09:37AM via free access Physicality of the Pesharim 83 indefinitely,2 the stitching that joins parchment sheets together prevents such an uninterrupted flow of writing. Rather than the individual column of writ- ing, the focal point in the aesthetics of Hebrew manuscripts is the single parch- ment sheet.3 In Hebrew manuscripts, therefore, we often encounter divergent column widths within the same parchment sheet. This divergence serves the equal distribution of columns over the sheet.4 The use of vertical and horizon- tal ruling, guide dots, and other scribal aids serves the same purpose.5 For this reason, column widths of Hebrew manuscripts are often given as ranges rather than single numbers.6 Unlike their Greek counterparts, Hebrew commentary manuscripts exhibit no distinct aesthetics. Instead, the dimensions of Pesher manuscripts are usu- ally merely average in comparison with those of other Dead Sea Scrolls. If we assume an average column width for the Dead Sea Scrolls of 11–13 cm,7 most columns in Pesher manuscripts fall within this range.8 Exceptions are 4Q163, whose columns measure 8.5–9.0 cm and are relatively narrow, and 4Q169 3–4 i and ii, which measure c. 16.0 cm and are wide. The narrow columns 4 and 11 in 1QpHab (8.9 cm and 8.8 cm, respectively) are the middle columns in a parch- ment sheet; their dimensions echo this position.9 Column height in Pesher 2 On the manufacturing process and features of papyrus rolls see Naphtali Lewis, Papyrus in Classical Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974). 3 The size of a parchment sheet in its turn depends on the size of the animal from which it is taken. Even if sheets of certain dimensions may have been preferred and consciously manu- factured, this observation adds an element of randomness to the dimensions of parchment scrolls. Cf. Brooke, “Some Scribal Features,” 125. 4 On the division of columns over parchment sheets see Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSPSup 8 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 189–220 (198). 5 See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004; repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 57–68. 6 The exceptions usually concern manuscripts of which only a few columns have been preserved. 7 This assumption is based on Tov, Scribal Practices, 82–99 (who does not give an average him- self). Cf. Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 198, who writes that the widths of columns “range from about 6 cm to about 20 cm.” 8 Average column widths are attested in 1QpHab (8.8–11.65 cm, with two narrow columns [on which see below]), 4Q162 (11.6–12.6 cm), and 4Q171 (10–11.8 cm). The columns in 4Q166 (10.2 cm) tend towards the narrow side of the scale, but not conspicuously so. 9 The situation in 1QpHab is the same as that in 1QM: “The person who scored the sheets of 1QMilḥama, for example, drew the column dividers by starting from the edges of a sheet and marking off two or three columns, respectively, from each edge. In the middle, then, there Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:09:37AM via free access 84 CHAPTER 4 manuscripts tends to fall within the range of 10–12.5 cm that Emanuel Tov im- plies as an average.10 4Q169 is an exception again, as its columns (9.0–9.1 cm) are short.11 Columns in 4Q166 (14.0 cm) tend towards the tall side of the scale, whereas those of 4Q161 (at least 17.5 cm) and 4Q171 (15.2 cm) are clearly tall. Upper and bottom margins are usually average (between 1.0–2.0 cm for upper margins, between 1.5–2.0 cm for bottom margins),12 except in 1QpHab, which often has broad upper margins; and 4Q165 (2.5 cm), 4Q169 (at least 2.8 cm), and 4Q171 (at least 2.5 cm), which have broad bottom margins. Intercolumnar spaces are average (1.0–1.5 cm),13 with the exceptions of 4Q162 (1.6–2.2 cm) and 4Q169 (1.5–2.4 cm), which have broader intercolumns. An intercolumnar space of exceptional width (3.5–3.6 cm) occurs between 4Q169 3–4 iii and iv; presumably this intercolumn occurs at a sheet joint, even though no traces of stitching are visible.14 Observing the everyday physicality of Pesher manuscripts, George Brooke suggested that their material features reflect the status of these commentaries: remained room for one final column, narrower than the others” (Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 198). 10 Tov writes that an average of twenty lines per column comes with “a height of approxi- mately 14–15 cm (including the top and bottom margins)” (Scribal Practices, 84). If we combine this average with Tov’s observation that “in the Qumran scrolls, the top margins are usually 1.0–2.0 cm, and the bottom margins are 1.5–2.0 cm” (Scribal Practices, 99), the result is an average height for the writing block of 10–12.5 cm. Average column heights are attested in 1QpHab (at least 11.5 cm) and possibly 4Q163 (at least 10.3 cm). 11 Jozef T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321–99 (364) suggests that 4Q162 exhibits short columns too. Tov ac- cepts his calculation (Scribal Practices, 85). However, the column of writing of this manu- script has not been preserved entirely; there is a small trace of a lamed beneath the taw Hence, there is no way of knowing the original height of the column. So correctly .עדת of Brooke, “Aspects,” 137 (n. 15). 12 See n. 10 above. Average upper margins are attested in 4Q162 (1.9–2.0 cm), 4Q164 (1.8 cm); probably also in 4Q163 (at least 1.4 cm), 4Q165 (at least 0.9 cm), 4Q166 (at least 1.9 cm), 4Q169 (at least 1.5 cm), 4Q170 (at least 1.1 cm), and 4Q171 (at least 1.9 cm). Average bottom margins are found in 4Q163 (at least 1.35 cm); possibly also in 4Q161 (at least 2.0 cm), 4Q166 (at least 2.0 cm), and 4Q167 (at least 2.1 cm), though these last three manuscript may have had broad bottom margins. 13 Tov, Scribal Practices, 103. Average intercolumns are found in 1QpHab (1.2–1.8 cm), 4Q163 (1.1–1.5 cm), 4Q166 (0.8–1.4 cm), and 4Q171 (1.3 cm). 14 Cf. Brooke, “Aspects,” 134–35 (n. 9), who does seem to recognise signs of stitching at this spot. Shani Berrin (Tzoref), The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169, STDJ 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 8 (n. 23) suggests that the leather was brittle at this spot when the scroll was ruled and was thus skipped over by the person who prepared the scroll for writing, but this explanation is ad hoc. Pieter B.