Appreciating 11Q5: A Comparative Look at the Great Psalms Scroll

11Q5 (11QPsa), known as the Great Psalms Scroll, is on display at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA. This exhibition has been made available by the Israelite Antiquities Authority and the sponsorship of The Lowell Milken Family Foundation. You can learn more about the exhibition here. I had the opportunity to visit the exhibit on Friday with my family and found it to be an enriching experience.

In this post, I’d like to discuss three (among many!) important features of this manuscript by way of comparing it to the more popular 1QIsaa. For a discussion on the textual nature of the manuscript, see my prior post here.

1) Writing Precision and Formatting
One of the most noticeable differences between 1QIsaa and 11QPsa is the approach to the writing block. A writing block is the rectangular shape created by the top and bottom horizontal lines and the right and left vertical lines (See Tov’s Scribal Practices pp. 82-108). The scribe of 11QPsa writes within the writing block while the scribe of 1QIsaa often transgresses it. Notice that the scribe of 11QPsa only goes beyond the left vertical line twice in col 7.

Compare this column to column 2 of 1QIsaa. Here the scribe transgresses the left vertical line in almost every line.

The lack of concern for the writing block is perhaps most pronounced where the scribe begins a word to the left of the vertical line. Although only one letter of the word remains (due to deterioration of the manuscript), the letter is clearly to the left of the writing block and the beginning of a new word. See an example of that here.

Similarly, sometimes the scribe of 1QIsaa begins a word and realizes he cannot complete it in the remaining space. In these instances, the scribe has recourse to some “less than ideal” procedures. For example, here he begins a word, realizes he cannot finish it, stops, and transcribes the word in its entirety at the start of the next line.



In another situation, the scribe crams the final portion of the word (a pronominal suffix) above the line.



This feature of writing in the writing block reflects to some degree the skill of the scribe. The scribe of 11QPsa was more skilled than the scribe of 1QIsaa, at least regarding the spacing of words.

2) Degree of Scribal Intervention
Both manuscripts display a different level of scribal intervention. 1QIsaa has an instance of scribal intervention every 4 lines while 11QPsa has an intervention every 9 lines. (See again Tov's Scribal Practices, pp. 332-335). Neither statical is very impressive to be sure. 

A brief survey of the columns indicates that the scribe(s) of 1QIsaa intervened in the text much more frequently than the scribe of 11QPsa. Here is a column from each respective manuscript for review.

 

3) The Paleography
The paleography is also different. Although not uncommon among biblical manuscripts, it is exciting to see the divine name written in paleo-Hebrew in 11QPsa rather than the Jewish-Aramaic Square Script.

Next, the script is clearly from different eras. Some features of 1QIsaa include inconsistent use of final letter forms in final position (and even final letter forms in non-final position). The letter forms of 1QIsaa are not consistent in size. The script of 11QPsa, however, uses final/non-final letters and represents the letter size consistency. Here are some specific letters for comparison.

See the different form of the samek. In 1QIsaa, the form is open at the bottom.



See the different size of the ayin. In 1QIsaa, the form is more truncated.

Notice the backyard tick at the top of the zayin in 11Q5. It is more pronounced than in 1QIsaa (usually).

Notice the length of the downward stroke of the yod and the nature of the letter's head. The letter form is longer and more angular in 11QPsa.

There are several fascinating features of 11QPsa. These are just three. I hope this post stimulates more work on this important manuscript and readies visitors for their visit to the Reagan Library Your visit will not disappoint.

4QPsx: A Poorly Copied Manuscript

Several details about the Dead Sea Scrolls are common knowledge. One of these details is that these manuscripts preserve a certain level of textual plurality previously unknown among Hebrew OT manuscripts. Although this detail is a fact, the nature of this textual plurality is mostly unknown by laypeople and scholars alike. We should be aware that common explanations explain most of this textual plurality. One of these explanations is poor copying. (In a previous blog, I discussed that some of this diversity results from scribes normalizing their biblical texts [such as 4QGenk]).

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.

*For more information about this manuscript, see my dissertation, A Comparison of the Non-Aligned Texts of Qumran to the Masoretic Text. It can be accessed on ProQuest. You may also view the presentation that I gave at the Sacred Words Conference, where I discuss this manuscript in more detail. 

Anthony Ferguson on Texts Preserving Psalms from Qumran

Last week, guest blogger, Anthony Ferguson, described his recently defended and completed dissertation on the ‘Non-Aligned’ Texts of Qumran and reported on its major conclusions. I asked Anthony to write another post on the texts preserving Psalms at Qumran, and he kindly obliged. Thank you, Anthony, for your labors, and we look forward to reading more of your work in these areas in the future.

---

11QPs-a (XX-XXIV; Image from Leon Levy Library)

The texts preserving Psalms from Qumran classified by scholars as biblical texts are significant for the fluid/standard text debate because they preserve large-scale differences that designate them in the mind of many scholars as an alternative tradition or edition of the Psalter (e.g., Sanders, Ulrich, and Flint). Contrary to these scholars, many others understand these texts to be secondary to the MT, and not strictly biblical texts at all but liturgical texts (e.g., Talmon, Gottstein, Skehan, and Tov). Despite Tov viewing many of these texts as non-biblical, he still labels them non-aligned. I understand these texts to be based on a Masoretic like text and secondary to the Masoretic Psalter. Thus, I label many of these texts as texts belonging to the Masoretic tradition that contain liturgical alterations.

Types of Differences found among the Texts Preserving Psalms

11Q5 (11QPs-a) generally represents the types of differences preserved in the texts preserving Psalms from Qumran. The major differences preserved in 11Q5 include a different sequence of Psalms, the inclusion of Psalms not found in the Masoretic Psalter, and large-scale additions.

Sanders, the editor of 11Q5 in DJD, argued that 11Q5 represented a genuine Psalter. Sanders’ reasons included the following: his belief that David was the author of the Psalter, the nature of the non-Masoretic Psalms, the presence of large-scale additions such as superscriptions and interjections, and the fact that 11Q6 (11QPs-b) appears to be another copy of the text preserved in 11Q5 (whether 4Q87 represents this same text is debated).

11Q5 as secondary and dependent on the Masoretic Psalter

Contrary to Sanders, I argued that 11Q5 is secondary to and dependent on the Masoretic Psalter. First, I believe that the major differences that distinguish 11Q5 from the MT can reasonably be explained as liturgical adjustments. For example, the different sequence of Psalms can be attributed to liturgical traditions that recognize a stable Masoretic Psalter (see m. Tamid 7:4). Moreover, the inclusion of non-canonical psalms is a phenomenon found in texts that preserve the Masoretic Psalter. The LXX superscription to Psalm 151 demarcates this text as non-canonical, and thus, shows that ancient Jews did not have a fundamental problem with combining canonical and non-canonical psalms together in the same scroll. Last, one should note that there are analogies in later Jewish liturgical texts to many of the large-scale additions preserved in 11Q5. Space permits only a few examples. The liturgical function of the Hallel Psalms (Pss 113-118) during the feast of Booths led to additions in the liturgy. For example, if a slave, woman, or minor answers the reader of the Psalms, they were to repeat what was said. If an adult male answered the reader, he was only obligated to respond halleluyah (m. Sukk. 3:10). Local customs then permit further types of repetition. Moreover, as the Levites walked around the altar, it was known that they would repeat portions of Psalm 118:25: אָנָא ייי הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא אָנָּא והוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא, “Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord! We beseech thee, O Lord” (m. Sukk. 4:5). Thus, there appears some precedent for dissecting and reworking Masoretic Psalms for liturgical purposes in liturgical traditions that clearly recognized a stable Masoretic Psalter. Overall, it seems that the major differences that distinguish 11Q5 from the MT are liturgically motivated.