Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2016 / The material variance of the Dead Sea Scrolls: On texts and artefacts

The material variance of the Dead Sea Scrolls: On texts and artefacts

Summary

Tigchelaar asks whether the physical form of ancient Jewish religious books matters, and what their material differences can tell us about how texts were used. He works from the Dead Sea Scrolls: about 15 000 fragments that scholars have grouped into roughly 900 manuscripts, most of which date to the period between the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century CE. He reads this physical evidence against rabbinic rules (Mishnah tractates Yadaim and Megillah) that require sacred scrolls to be in square script, on parchment, with ink.

The article has three case studies. The first is script, ancient Hebrew versus Aramaic. The second is writing material, parchment versus papyrus. The third is short scrolls that hold only part of a book. The author argues three things:

  • Using everyday Aramaic script for the Torah was a deliberate choice that let scripture spread more widely.
  • The preference for parchment may have signalled identity.
  • Small partial copies may have worked as religious objects as much as reading texts.

The study matters because it moves attention from canon and authority toward how physical scrolls functioned in wider Jewish society, not just in a sectarian community.

Key points

  • About 15 000 fragments have been sorted into roughly 900 manuscripts (Tov 2010). They are mostly in Hebrew and Aramaic, a few are in Greek, and over half preserve works that were previously lost.
  • Only sixteen Qumran manuscripts and one from Masada use the ancient Hebrew script, against more than a thousand in Aramaic (square) script.
  • 4Q22 and 11Q1 share an unusual layout: a waw written in the gap that marks a closed section. This points to a scribal tradition rather than one scribe's habit. The author tentatively links this tradition to the Sadducees, and the layout differs from Samaritan practice.
  • 4Q4 and 4Q7 apparently held only the opening chapters of Genesis. 4Q216 at first held only Jubilees 2 (creation), and Jubilees 1 was added later in another hand.
  • Systematic material analysis has barely begun. Editions often describe papyrus or leather preparation only vaguely, using terms like coarse, average or fine.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. The text written on an artefact is kept separate from the full work, and the paper asks whether an excerpt relies on surrounding text the reader never sees or carries meaning of its own. — For Mova (world): When building the world of a text from an excerpt, flag entities and events that seem to assume unseen prior context, instead of treating the passage as self-contained.
  • I2. A shared, idiosyncratic layout feature across several manuscripts is read as evidence of a tradition, not of individual variation. — For Mova (learn): When witness parsers disagree, separate consistent, convention-like differences (to be handled by conversion rules) from scattered noise (to be outvoted).
  • I3. The author warns against using later rabbinic rules to explain earlier material, because norms codified afterwards may not fit older practice. — For Mova (tree): During UD dialect conversion, do not judge older treebanks by current guideline versions; record which convention each source actually follows.
  • I4. Of many works, more copies preserve the beginning than the end, which suggests that often only the first part was copied. — For Mova (answer): Fable and tale QA test sets should deliberately sample questions from later parts of stories, so scores are not inflated by text-initial material.
  • I5. Surface-visible features such as material, size, script and layout are proposed as cautious clues to a text's function and provenance. — For Mova (frames): Formatting and genre cues could act as weak priors for speech-act or register decisions, kept explainable and always overridable by the content itself.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Hebrew & Aramaic

Institutions

🎓KU LeuvenLeuven · Belgium20 works · 5 325 citations🎓University of PretoriaPretoria · South Africa5 works · 489 citations

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.4102/hts.v72i4.3281

@article{tigchelaar2016material,
  title = {{The material variance of the Dead Sea Scrolls: On texts and artefacts}},
  author = {Tigchelaar, Eibert},
  journal = {HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.4102/hts.v72i4.3281},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3281}
}

References

18 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Barthélemy, D. & Milik, J.T. (eds.), 1955, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Qumran Cave I, vol. 1, with contributions by R. de Vaux, G.M. Crowfoot, H.J. Plenderleith & G.L. Harding, Clarendon, Oxford. find
  2. Brooke, G.J., 2012, ‘Genesis 1–11 in the light of some aspects of the transmission of genesis in late second temple times’, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1, 465–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/219222712805363962 ↗
  3. Brooke, G.J., 2013, ‘Choosing between papyrus and skin: Cultural complexity and multiple identities in the Qumran library’, paper red at the Third Qumran Institute Symposium: Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World, Groningen, 8–11 December. find
  4. Delamarter, S., 2010, ‘Sociological models for understanding the scribal practices in the biblical dead sea scrolls’, in M.L. Grossman (ed.), Rediscovering the dead sea scrolls, an assessment of old and new approaches and methods, pp. 182–197, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. find
  5. Dušek, J., 2012, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes’, in Culture and history of the ancient near east, pp. 54–56, Brill, Leiden. find
  6. Falk, D.K., 2014, ‘Material aspects of prayer manuscripts’, in C. Leonhard & H. Lohr (eds.), Literature or liturgy? Early Christian hymns and prayers in their literary and liturgical context in antiquity, WUNT 2.363, pp. 37–87, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. find
  7. Perrot, A., Stoekl Ben Ezra, D. & Tigchelaar, E., 2015, ‘More red ink on the Qumran manuscript 11Q22’, Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Bulletin 1(1), 29–33. find
  8. Talmon, S., 1999, Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin excavations 1963–1965 final reports, Israel Exploration Society & The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. find
  9. Tigchelaar, E., 2010a, ‘Dead sea scrolls’, in J.J. Collins & D.C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans dictionary of early Judaism, pp. 163–180, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, reprinted in J.J. find
  10. Collins & D.C. Harlow (eds.), 2012, Early Judaism: A comprehensive overview, pp. 204–227, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. find
  11. Tigchelaar, E., 2010b, ‘Constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing fragmentary manuscripts: Illustrated by a study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the wicked woman)’, in M.L. Grossman (ed.), Rediscovering the dead sea scrolls: An assessment of old and new approaches and methods, pp. 26–47, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. find
  12. Tigchelaar, E., 2014, ‘The Qumran Jubilees manuscripts as evidence for the literary growth of the book’, Revue de Qumran 26(104), 579–594. find
  13. Tov, E., 1995, ‘Excerpted and abbreviated biblical texts from Qumran’, Revue de Qumran 16(64), 581–600. find
  14. Tov, E., 2004, Scribal practices and approaches reflected in the texts found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54, pp. 10–12, Brill, Leiden. find
  15. Tov, E., 2010, Revised lists of the texts from the Judaean Desert, Brill, Leiden. find
  16. Ulrich, E., 2006, ‘A revised edition of the 1QpaleoLev-Num a and 1QpaleoLev b ? Fragments’, RevQ 22(87), 341–47. find
  17. Xeravits, G.G. & Porzig, P. (eds.), 2015, Einführung in die Qumranliteratur: Die Handschriften vom Toten Meer, De Gruyter, Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110351262 ↗
  18. Yardeni, A., 2002, The book of Hebrew script: History, palaeography, script styles, calligraphy and design, The British Library, London. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/tigchelaar-2016-material-variance-dead-sea-scrolls/