4QPsx is one manuscript, among many, that was copied poorly. Interestingly, some scholars date this manuscript, which preserves portions of Psalm 89, to 175-125 BC. If this is right, this manuscript is our earliest manuscript available that preserves a psalm; yet, it is an unreliable guide to the Psalter's state, and Psalm 89 in particular, during the second century BC. Several details about this manuscript suggest that this scribe was either an unskilled or a beginner scribe. Varying letter size, inconsistent space between lines, curved lines, cancelation dots to erase a mistake, inconsistent use of final letters, and the inability to space words properly are just a few of these details. (See Skehan’s article “Gleanings” for these and other points).
 |
| 4QPsx: https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-473784 |
Besides these scribal features, we should consider several other material features of this manuscript that call into question its dependability. This manuscript is unruled, and this reality contributes to some of the mistakes listed above. Indeed, the absence of a writing block made it challenging to space the words, and the lack of horizontal lines caused the scribe to write upwards and downwards at times. The fact that this manuscript is unruled is puzzling since most manuscripts at Qumran were (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 57, 104). More puzzling is that this manuscript was stitched before inscribing these words, which, again, is unusual (Scribal Practices, 34-37). This fact is evident since the scribe wrote around the stitching (“Gleanings,” 441). Thus, these two details suggest that this sheet of leather was previously a handle sheet (a protective piece of leather stitched unto inscribed sheets at a manuscript's beginning and/or end).
The scribal habits and the material features of this manuscript cast serious doubt on the text's reliability. Although some might understand this text as an alternative form of Psalm 89, I suggest that it is a recycled handle sheet (like Skehan): perhaps a scribe's school exercise. Overall, this text contributes to the textual plurality preserved at Qumran but provides no evidence to suggest that the OT existed in a state of fluidity during this time (fluidity meaning that the text had not yet reached its final form). Instead, this manuscript suggests that some manuscripts were copied poorly and, perhaps, some manuscripts are mere school exercises. As already noted, this manuscript may be our earliest manuscript preserving a psalm. This reality reminds us of a vital point of textual criticism: the earlier manuscript is not always better.
Dr. F.,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article which was quite informative, I found it astounding that you would use this manuscript that you just indicated was probably a student’s writing exercise to make an argument against the earliest manuscripts being better! I would guess that regardless of one’s view on the ‘age of manuscripts’ value that writing exercises would be excluded. It certainly was not necessary as part of your conclusion to an otherwise well written article.
Tim
Tim,
DeleteThank you for your interaction. You bring up a good point. However, there are many scholars who argue that this manuscript preserves an alternative form of Psalm 89. Others disagree, but I am not aware of anyone who labels this a "writing exercise." You'll notice that I do not say "probably" in the article; I say "perhaps." I need to do some more research before I would say "probably." Nonetheless, point well taken, Tim.
Anthony
Hello Anthony,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Skehan say it's a "practice page written from memory" ('Gleanings', 441)? That's pretty close to "writing exercise", if not exactly so.
I would also wonder why a writing exercise/practise page would be kept and preserved by the Qumran Community, especially to be found among the massive horde in cave 4; unless, of course, they still viewed the text as a canonical piece of writing.
I also fail to see why even if a writing exercise, it still isn't evidence of a different form of Psalm 89. Clearly it's being copied from something, or else the copyist wouldn't've bothered making any corrections to it (IMHO). Just because it may look like sloppy work, doesn't mean the text it was being copied from was.
Lastly about the final-forms of the Hebrew letters: the Great Isaiah Scroll has it's fair share of non-used final forms when it should do, and I don't think anyone describes the copyist as "poor" because of this. We need to remember that Paleo-Hebrew didn't have "final forms" of letters, so I wonder whether the fact we see non-final forms in the DSS where we would usually expect them isn't evidence the final-forms had yet to be fully adopted. One also wonders whether it could be manuscripts such as this are Paleo-Hebrew to Phonecian-Hebrew conversions, hence why a copyist would not be consistent in their usage. The final and non-final forms of letters are also found in the non-Scriptural scrolls among the DSS as well (see Tov, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (3rd ed.), p. 197.), so the non-final forms in this manuscript are likely not evidence towards it being a writing exercise, the work of an unskilled or beginner copyist, or a non-alternative form of Psalm 89.
With the recent conclusion that some of the new fragments were fakes, how certain can we be of this one being authentic and not a fake in light of what you said here: "This manuscript is unruled, and this reality contributes to some of the mistakes listed above. Indeed, the absence of a writing block made it challenging to space the words, and the lack of horizontal lines caused the scribe to write upwards and downwards at times. The fact that this manuscript is unruled is puzzling since most manuscripts at Qumran were (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 57, 104). More puzzling is that this manuscript was stitched before inscribing these words, which, again, is unusual (Scribal Practices, 34-37)."
ReplyDelete