Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls* Emanuel Tov This Paper Is

Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls*

Emanuel Tov

This paper is concerned with the statistical background of and scribal corrections found within the Qumran scribal practice, and not with its linguistic background, which has been illustrated well by Kutscher, Qim- ron, and Fassberg among others.1 The composite scrolls 1QIsaa and 1QHa were copied by more than one scribe, each one writing a part of the scroll within the Qumran scribal practice. The differences between these scribes show that diversity is possible within the same scribal practice, and fur- thermore that all scribes were inconsistent within their own units. If the figures are taken at face value, apparent scribal inconsistency within these scrolls may sometimes be attributed to the presence of different spelling blocks and in one case from the use of a different source. These possi- bilities need to be taken into consideration when analyzing the statistical evidence, which as a whole is rather convincing. In the second part of the paper I turn to corrective additions after final letters, such as the he I hope to have collected all the relevant evidence with the aid .עליהםה of of electronic databases. I analyze the questions of how, when, and where

* Thanks are due to E. Schuller for offering helpful remarks on this paper. 1 See the bibliography provided by S. Fassberg, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Contri- bution to the Study of Hebrew and Aramaic,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, Vienna, February 11–14 (ed. A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:127–39. See further idem, “The Preference for Lengthened Forms in Qumran Hebrew,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant; Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2003), 227–40 (in Hebrew). E. Qimron describes the language of the scrolls as a “spoken dialect of late Second Temple period Jerusalem and its environs”; see “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 232–44 (234). The seminal monograph of E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), was the basis for all subsequent work. See further S. Morag, “The Independent Pronouns of the Third Person Masculine and Feminine in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” ErIsr 3 (1954): 166–69; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1958), 1–37; W.M. Schniedewind, “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 235–52. 242 emanuel tov these added letters were inserted. I believe that they provide further sup- port for establishing the assumption of a Qumran scribal practice. That assumption, in short, runs as follows. Within the Qumran corpus, a group of some 160 nonbiblical and biblical texts has been isolated as reflecting an idiosyncratic practice, the characteristics of which are vis- ible in peculiarities in orthography, morphology, and scribal features. This group of texts is closely connected with the Qumran community, since it includes virtually all writings commonly agreed upon as sectarian (with the exception of seven or eight sectarian texts that do not display these characteristics). The texts found at Qumran can thus be subdivided into texts presumably copied by a sectarian group of scribes, and other texts which were presumably brought there from elsewhere. The combined evidence shows that the great majority of the distinctive scribal features is more or less limited to texts that also display the Qumran orthography and morphology. The texts written according to the Qumran scribal practice could have been penned anywhere in ancient Israel, but they were probably written mainly at Qumran.

I. Problematic Aspects of Statistics

1. The Two Scribes of 1QIsaa Scribe A of 1QIsaa left three lines empty on the last sheet written by him, at the end of col. 27. Scribe B started at the beginning of the next sheet with col. 28 (Isa 34:1).2 It is unlikely that the two scribes worked concurrently, since the number of sheets needed for the first scribe’s assignment could not be easily calculated; and thus scribe B, who started at a new sheet,

2 For an analysis of the features of the two scribal hands of Isaiah, see M. Noth, “Eine Bemerkung zur Jesajarolle vom Toten Meer,” VT 1 (1951): 224–26; C. Kuhl, “Schreiber- eigentümlichkeiten: Bemerkungen zur Jesajarolle (DSIa),” VT 2 (1952): 307–33, especially 332–33; W.H. Brownlee, “The Literary Significance of the Bisection of Isaiah in the Ancient Scroll of Isaiah from Qumran,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Orien- talists (2 vols.; Moscow: Periodicals Service Company, 1962–1963), 1:431–37; K.H. Richards, “A Note on the Bisection of Isaiah,” RevQ 5 (1965): 257–58; R.L. Giese, “Further Evidence for the Bisection of 1QIsa,” Textus 14 (1988): 61–70; J. Cook, “The Dichotomy of 1QIsaa,” in Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik (ed. Z.J. Kapera; 2 vols.; Qumranica Mogilanensia 6; Cracow: Enigma, 1992), 1:7–24; M. Abegg, “1QIsaa and 1QIsab: A Rematch,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E.D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: Oak Knoll, 2002), 221–28 (giving statistics of different orthographic systems); P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa ( JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 18–20.