SCRIBALPRACTICESINTHEARAMAIC LITERARYTEXTSFROMQUMRAN FlorentinoGarcíaMartínez When Maxine Grossman invited me to take part in the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Boston in 1 she specified that shewasinterestedin howunderstandingoftheDeadSeaScrollsasmaterialobjectsfitsintoa largerunderstandingofthehistoryandsocialrealitiesassociatedwiththe communitiesthatcomposed,copied,andtransmittedthem. IpromisedherthatIwouldlookatthescribalpracticesandapproachesas reflectedinQumran’sliteraryAramaictextstotrytofindthebeginning ofananswertoherquestions.Sincethefirstdraftofthispaperwasread anddiscussedatthemeeting,ithasbeenarealpleasuretoreworkitinto this small contribution dedicated to my friend and colleague of many years, Jan Bremmer, from whom I have learned so much about Greek mythology and early Christian texts. In particular, he taught me much aboutcriticallyextractingnuggetsofknowledgeonthehistoricalrealities behind the texts themselves and behind their transmission in different culturalmilieus.Inthisarticlemuchofthestyleoftheoralpresentation isretained. While preparing my talk, I was rather confident that I could fulfil my task without much effort. In the standard treatment of the scribal practicesandapproachestotheDeadSeaScrolls,wheregreatattention isgiventothetwobasiccategoriesofliteraryanddocumentarytexts,the differences(ifany)betweenthescribalpracticesreflectedinliterarytexts writteninHebrewandthosewritteninAramaicarenotspecificallydealt with, butI assumed I could discover some peculiarities in the Aramaic texts.2IexpectedthatacarefullookatthematerialaspectsoftheAramaic 1 This was a joint meeting of the Qumran Section and the Social History of For- mativeChristianity andJudaismSection oftheSBL.Apartfromitsconvenor Maxine GrossmannIthankthetwootherparticipants,EmanuelTovandRobertA.Kraft,and therespondentRogerBagnall,fortheirobservations. 2 Iamreferring,ofcourse,tothemagisterialtreatmentbyE.Tov,ScribalPractices andApproachesReflectedintheTextsfromtheJudeanDesert(Leiden:Brill,);this  florentinogarcíamartínez scrollswouldhelpustodefinetheircharacteristics,incontrasttothose inHebrew,andinthiswayhelpustounderstandbetterhowtheyrelate tothegroup(orgroups)thatbroughttogetherthecollectionasawhole. TheAramaicliterarytextsformaminority,butasizeableone,within the whole Qumran collection: about  manuscripts, of which some eighty (belonging to  different compositions) have enough text pre- servedtoallowthemtobetreatedinameaningfulway.3Thesegroupsof Aramaicliterarytextshaverecentlyandincreasinglybeenconsideredas formingacoherentwholeandbeingworthy,assuch,ofadetailedstudy.4 Butthebasicquestionsabout)thespecificityofthesetextswithinthe collection, ) their possible origin at Qumran, and ) their function within the collection as a whole, are still unresolved. Perhaps a look at thescribalpracticesreflectedinthemanuscriptsoftheAramaiccompo- sitionscouldhelpussomehowtoanswerthesequestions. But,aftercarryingouttherequiredresearch,lookingformanyhours at the photographs of the Aramaic texts and comparing them with the Hebrewones,IunderstoodclearlywhyEmanuelTovhasnotdealtspecif- icallywiththetextswritteninAramaic,butputtheminthesamecate- gory as the Hebrew texts. The reason is very simple: there are no dif- ferencesinthescribalpracticesamongthetwosortsoftexts.Concern- ingthe‘WritingandWritingMaterials’,5the‘TechnicalAspectsofScroll Writing’,6 and the ‘Writing Practices’,7 the texts written in Hebrew and thosewritteninAramaicofferidenticalprofiles.Itisthustotallycompre- hensiblethatTovdealswithbothsortsoftextstogether,sincetheycannot be differentiated by scribal practices. Nevertheless, could we still learn somethingfromthescribalpracticessosimilarinthetwosortsoftexts? Ithinkwecan,andthisidentitymayhelpustounderstandthespecificity isasummaofobservationsandtables,whereeverypossibleaspectofscribalpracticesis noted,analyzed,andcommentedupon. 3 For a complete listing, see the “List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert”, in E. Tov et al., The Texts from the Judaean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon, ), –. ThelatestvolumewithAramaictextshasbeenrecentlypublishedbyE.Puech,Qumran Grotte.XXVII:(Q–Q).TextesAraméens,deuxièmepartie(Oxford:Clarendon, ). 4 Thisgroupoftexts,assuch,hasbeeneditedindependently,forexample,byK.Bayer, DiearamäischenTextevomTotenMeer,vols.(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, –)andbyU.Schatter-Rieser,TextesaraméensdelamerMorte(Brussels:Safran, ). 5 Tov,ScribalPractices,–. 6 Tov,ScribalPractices,–. 7 Tov,ScribalPractices,–. scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts  oftheAramaictextswithinthecollection,theirpossibleQumranorigins, andtheirfunctionwithinthecollection,andthereforetoincreaseour understandingofthehistoryandsocialrealitiesassociatedwiththecom- munitiesthatcomposed,copied,andtransmittedthem. SpecificityoftheTextswithintheCollection InTov’sbook,theAramaictextsarenotconsideredasaspecificgroup. Inthechapteron‘SpecialScribalCharacteristicofSomeGroupofTexts’,8 the Aramaic texts are not specifically dealt with. In this chapter Tov analyzes asdifferentgroups:the‘biblicaltexts’, the tefillin andMezuzot, thepesharim(whichcanbeconsideredasagrouponlyonthebasisofthe contents),togetherwiththetextswritteninPaleo-Hebrewandthetexts writteninCrypticScripts(whichcanbeconsideredasagrouponlyon the basis of their script), the texts written on papyrus (grouped on the basis of the materials used for writing), and the texts written in Greek (considered as a group on the basis of the language). If not for other reasons,theAramaictextsshouldbeconsideredasagrouponthesame basisastheGreektexts:theirlanguagediffersfromthelanguageinwhich the majority of the manuscripts are written, Hebrew. But I think there aremorereasonstoconsiderthemasacoherentwholewithaparticular language, style, and content, as was done in the meeting dedicated to theminJulyinAix-en-Provence. Infact,atleasttwoscholars(DevorahDimantandEibertTigchelaar) haverecentlyfocusedonthespecificityoftheAramaictextsasagroup within the collection, and have tried to discover different clusters of compositionsamongthem.9InhercontributiontomyFestschriftFlores Florentino,DevorahDimantpublishedagroundbreakingarticlewiththe title “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community”.10 In 8 Tov,ScribalPractices,–. 9 TheonlyolderessayofwhichIamawareisB.Z.Wacholder,“TheAncientJudaeo- AramaicLiterature(–bce):AClassificationofPre-QumranicTexts”,inArchaeol- ogyandHistoryintheDeadSeaScrolls:TheNewYorkUniversityConferenceinMemory ofYigaelYadin(ed.L.H.Schiffman;Sheffield:JSOTPress,),–,whichhas remainedlargelyignored. 10 D.Dimant,“TheQumranAramaicTextsandtheQumranCommunity”,inFlores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino GarcíaMartínez(eds.A.Hilhorst,E.Puech,andE.Tigchelaar;Leiden:Brill,),– .  florentinogarcíamartínez thesamevolumeEibertTigchelaarpublishedanotherpioneeringarticle titled “The Imaginal Context and the Visionary of the Aramaic New Jerusalem”.11 Dimant’sarticlethematicallyclassifiesthecorpusofAramaicwritings found at Qumran into six categories: ) Works about the Period of the Flood,)WorksdealingwiththeHistoryofthePatriarchs,)Visionary Compositions,)LegendaryNarrativesandCourt-Tales,)Astronomy andMagic,and)theinevitableVaria. Dimant’s classification is evidently a ‘thematic’ classification, and, as such,isnotwithoutproblems.Forexample,sheisforcedtosplitacompo- sitionintwo(theGenesisApocryphon[QapGen,Q,Q]),because it deals both with the Period of the Flood and with the History of the Patriarchs;12 although she recognizes that some compositions (Pseudo Daniel [Q–], Four Kingdoms [Q–], and Apocryphon of Daniel[Q])are‘Court-Tales’likethebookofDanielonwhichthey are dependent, she places them in the category of ‘Visionary Compo- sitions’; however, clearly ‘visionary’ compositions like Enoch(Q– ),AramaicLevi(Q–),orVisionsofAmram(Q–)are notincludedinthiscategory;andIthinkthatEmilePuech(theDiscov- eriesintheJudaeanDesert-editorofboththeBirthofNoah[Q–] andtheApocryphonofLevi(?)[Q–])wouldplacethesecompo- sitionsinthecategoryofthe‘PeriodoftheFlood’andthe‘Historyofthe Patriarchs’, respectively, because of the protagonists’ identification with NoahandLevi,whichDimantrejectsasunproved. These problems are less accentuated in the thematic classification proposedinthearticlebyEibertTigchelaar.Hiscontributionrepresents aninitialendeavourtospecifythe‘imaginalworld’(afterHenryCorbin) ofoneofDevorahDimant’s‘VisionaryCompositions’:theNewJerusalem (Q, Q, Q–, Q, Q). Tigchelaar does not pretend to give us a taxonomy of the Aramaic texts, like Dimant does, buttries to assess all the textual and contextual clues that might shed light on the identityoftheseer 11 E.Tigchelaar,“TheImaginalContextandtheVisionaryoftheAramaicNewJeru- salem”,inFloresFlorentino,–. 12 TherecentlypublishedFrenchbilingualeditionoftheworkhasdecidedtousepre- ciselythistitle,‘HistoiredesPatriarches’,todesignatethecomposition,seeK.Berthelot, T.Legrand,A.Paul(eds.),LaBibliothèquedeQumrân.:Torah,Genèse:Editionbilingue desmanuscrits(Paris:Cerf,),–. scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts  ofNewJerusalem(whomaybeJacob),and—whatismoreimportant— todetermine whethertheidentityoftheseerinavisionaryorapocalyptictextistan- gentialoressentialtotheimaginalworldoftheauthor(s)ofthetext. Inanaside,Tigchelaarnotesthat theAramaictextsfromQumranonlycomprisespecialcategories andthat [t]hevastmajorityoftheAramaicnarrativetextsfoundamongtheDead SeaScrollsbelongtotwomaincategories,13 namely ) texts related or ascribed to pre-Mosaic figures, and ) texts thathaveanEasternDiasporasetting,since,withtheexceptionofDaniel, whobelongstoaDiasporasetting, it is remarkable that none of the biblical figures from Moses onwards, throughDavid,anduptotheprophets,isconnectedwithAramaiclitera- ture.14 TigchelaarrecognizesthatafewAramaicnarrativetextsdonotfitneatly in either of those two categories, but he thinks that this ‘dual’ division maybeusefulfordealingwiththeAramaiccorpusandusesittoidentify with slightly more confidence (‘as probable’) the seer of New Jerusalem not with Ezekiel, as proposed by some scholars, but with Jacob, a pre- Mosaicpatriarch.15 What is important here, beyond the differences, is that both authors agree fundamentally in their basic approach, since Dimant also recog- nizes the ‘pre-Mosaic’ character of the Aramaic literature as well as the Diasporacontext: [N]o Aramaic work deals systematically and in detail with Moses and Joshua, the period of the Judges, or the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. For that matter, nothing in Aramaic is related to the biblical Prophets. Obviously, in the understanding of the authors of these texts, Hebrew belonged to the sphere of Israelite history proper, whereas Aramaic is relegatedtoearliergenerations.16 AndalsoforDimant 13 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,. 14 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,. 15 Tigchelaar,“ImaginalContext”,. 16 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,.  florentinogarcíamartínez some of the works are set in a Diaspora context, (...). Aramaic was apparently selected as the language of composition precisely because of suchasetting,asitwasforDan[iel].17 This agreement allows us to answer, albeit tentatively, the question of the Aramaic texts’ specificity compared both with other Aramaic com- positions and with the Hebrew literature found at Qumran. Although we do have at Qumran some Hebrew compositions which deal with ‘pre-Mosaic’protagonists(QCommentaryonGenesis[Q–],for example),andoutsideQumranwealsohavesomeAramaicworkswith aDiasporasetting(Ahiqar,forexample),wecanassertthattheAramaic literaturefoundatQumranischaracterizedbyapredominantinterestin ‘pre-Mosaic’protagonistsorbyasettingintheDiaspora.Dimant’scon- clusion: [b]utthedataalreadyathanddemonstratestheneedtoconsiderthesetexts as a specific group, which requires further detailed investigation along theselines18 canthereforebesubscribedtowithoutreservations. A careful look at the compositions classified by Dimant allows, in my opinion, the discovery of another element of the Aramaic texts’ specificity,namelytheapocalypticcharacterofadisproportionatelylarge number of these compositions when compared both with the rest of theknowncompositionsinAramaicandwiththeHebrewcompositions foundatQumran(sectarianornot). Dimantdescribesher‘VisionaryCompositions’as‘acomplexofAra- maicvisionaryapocalyptictales’(myemphasis)andnotesthat [t]hese texts describe visionary scenes, often dealing with figures and eventsoftheeschaton.19 If we take seriously the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ that Dimant uses in her description and draw up a list of the Aramaic compositions based on apocalypticism, we can sensibly increase the number of compositions which could be ranked in this category of ‘Visionary Compositions’ in additiontothoseDimantplacedinthethirdcategory(theNewJerusalem, the Four Kingdoms [Q–], the so-called Apocryphon of Daniel [Q], the Words of Michael [Q], the so-called Birth of Noah [Q–], the so-called Apocryphon of Levi (?) [Q–, 17 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,. 18 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,. 19 Dimant,“QumranAramaicTexts”,. scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts  Q(?)],andPseudoDaniel[Q–]).Enoch[Q–],and the Book of Giants [Q–, Q, Q–, Q], of course, will have a place of pride, but also the Visions of Amram (Q–) and other testamentary compositions, like Testament of Jacob (?) (Q), andmanyotherfragmentarilypreservedcompositionscanbeincluded. IamnotclaimingthattheseAramaiccompositionsallformQumran apocalypsesaccordingtothedefinitionlaiddowninthejournalSemeia ()—althoughseveralofthemdefinitelydo—buttheapocalyptic outlook of all these compositions seems clear to me.20 Also, I am not pretendingthatapocalypticismisabsentfromtheHebrewcompositions (sectarian or not) found at Qumran (it is enough to think of the War Scroll [QM; Q–] and related texts for the first category or of the Pseudo Ezekiel [Q–] for the second). I claim only that a disproportionatelylargeamountoftheseAramaiccompositionsshowan apocalypticoutlook,andthatthis(ifwearenotafraidofapocalypticism) allowsustoconcludethatapredominantinterestinapocalypticismalso characterizes the Aramaic texts found at Qumran (although we cannot find it, of course, in all Aramaic compositions). In my opinion, this characteristicmayhelpustoanswerthethirdquestion,concerningtheir function within the collection.21 But before we move to this point, we need to deal with the second one: the possible Qumran origins of the Aramaiccompositions. 20 J.J. Collins, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in The DeadSeaScrollsafterFiftyYears:AComprehensiveAssessment,vol.(eds.P.W.Flintand J.C.VanderKam;Leiden:Brill,),–. 21 In his contribution to the Groningen meeting of April , Eibert Tigchelaar insistedthattheAramaictextsfromQumranwerenotonlyapocalypticinoutlook,but thattheycouldalsobecharacterizedasdifferentfromtheHebrewtextsbecausetheAra- maiccompositionsweremainlynarrativeincharacter,andbecausetheyexplicitlystate thewayinwhichrevelationisimparted(beitbydreams,visions,otherworldlytraveling orangelicintermediaries).Thisclearlyopensawholeseriesofquestionsontheliterary conventionsusedbythetextsinquestionandtheirconcreteorigins.SeeE.Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scripture”, inThe AuthoritativenessofScriptureinAncientJudaism(ed.M.Popovic´;Leiden:Brill,forthcom- ing).Thesequestionsshouldalsobedealtwithinacomprehensivestudyofthecharac- teristicsoftheAramaictextsfromQumran.Butformypurposehere,theapocalypticism ofmostofthesecompositionsisthekeycharacteristicwhichwillallowustoanswerthe questionoftheirfunctionwithinthewholecollectionofmanuscripts.  florentinogarcíamartínez PossibleQumranOrigins Dimant(likemanyotherillustriousdefendersofthesameposition,such asStanislavSeger22andBenZionWacholder)23assumesthat theAramaictextscontainnothingofthespecificallysectarianterminology orideology,andthereforedonotbelongwiththesectarianliterature.24 But I refuse to accept this a priori. The simple fact that a composition is written in Aramaic does not exclude the possibility of its having been written by the people who collected the works that now form the collection of Qumran. There are too many indications or linguistic pluralitiesinthecollectionthatneedtobedisregardedinordertosustain thisposition.Amongthem,thepresenceofAramaicinthedocumentary texts and the influence of Aramaic in the Hebrew of the documentary texts, which points to the bilingualism of the writers;25 the influenceof Aramaic in the original literary compositions written in Hebrew26 and theinfluenceofHebrewinmanyoftheAramaiccompositions;27thefact thatfromanAramaiccompositionlikeTobitwehavefoundtogetherwith theAramaicmanuscripts(Q–)aHebrewcopy(Q),andthat frombooks likeJob or LeviticusAramaic translations have been found inthecollection(Q–,Q);andeventhereferenceofMilikto QasanassumedHebrewcopyoftheNewJerusalem(althoughIwas notabletoidentifytheremainsofQinthefragmentsreproducedon PAM.,28Icannotexcludethatthistinyfragmentwillshowup,as 22 S.Segert,“BedeutungderHandschriftenfundeamTotenMeerfürdieAramäistik”, inBibelundQumran(ed.S.Wagner;Berlin:EvangelischeHaupt-Bibelgesellschaft,), – (): ‘Ebenso wie diese Texte, die sprachlich zu den biblisch-aramäischen gehören, entstammen die anderen in den Qumranhöhlen gefundenen aramäischen HandschriftenanscheinendnichtderschriftstellerischenTätigkeitderEssänergemeinde, dieeinstihrZentrumindemjetztChirbetQumrangenanntenGebäudehatte’. 23 B.Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature”, : ‘In other words, theseAramaictextswereconsideredtobetheancestralpatrimonyofthesectitselfand receivedtheirshareofcarefulstudyandexegesis’. 24 Dimant,“TheQumranAramaicTexts”,–. 25 SeeG.WilhelmNebe,“DiehebräischeSprachederNah.alH.everDokumente/ H.ev–”,inTheHebrewoftheDeadSeaScrollsandBenSira(eds.T.Muraokaand J.F.Elwolde;Leiden:Brill,),–. 26 AfactrecognizedfromthebeginninganddefinitivelyprovedbyE.Y.Kutscherin TheLanguageandLinguisticBackgroundoftheIsaiahScroll(Jerusalem:Magnes,), –(Hebrew). 27 See,mostrecently,C.Stadel,HebraismenindenaramäischenTextenvomTotenMeer (Heidelberg:Winter,). 28 F.GarcíaMartínez,“TheTempleScrollandtheNewJerusalem”,inTheDeadSea scribalpracticesinthearamaicliterarytexts  has happened with the Catalogue of Spirits discovered by Tigchelaar),29 shouldbecarefullyconsidered.Forallthesereasons,andsimultaneously recognizing that the most characteristic ‘sectarian’ compositions have beenwritteninHebrew(implyingthatHebrewwasthegroup’spreferred languageforpenningtheirowncompositions),30Ithinkthattheanswer to the question of a sectarian or non-sectarian origin of the Aramaic compositionsshouldbeputwiththesamerigorasitisforeachHebrew compositionfoundatQumran,andnotdecidedapriori. The identity of the scribal practices and approaches reflected in the texts written in Aramaic and the texts written in Hebrew strongly sug- gestthatthewholecollectionhasthesameorigin,andthesame‘default position’shouldbeheldforbothsortsoftexts:notext(writteninHebrew orinAramaic)shouldbeconsidered‘qumranic’or‘sectarian’untilposi- tivelyproved. Again, I am not claiming for any concrete text written in Aramaic that it has a Qumranic origin. I am only denying the idea that this Qumranic origin is impossible a priori because the text happened to have been written in Aramaic. This is the position apparently assumed by Tov,31 since, when recording the data on the presumed Qumran community authorship of the different compositions, he considers the matter‘irrelevant’inthecasesofbiblicalandAramaictexts: ScrollsafterFiftyYears(seeabove,n.),vol.,–(–,n.).Thefragments foundfromtheQumrancaveswerecollected,joined,numberedandphotographedatthe PalestineArchaeologicalMuseum(PAM),nowtheRockefellerMuseum,Jerusalem. 29 E.J.C.Tigchelaar,“‘ThesearetheNamesoftheSpiritsof...’:APreliminaryEdition of QCatalogue of Spirits (Q) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise(QandQa)”,RevuedeQumran/():–. 30 Ithinkthiscanbeacceptedwithoutdifficulty,andwithoutenteringintotheprob- lemsposedbythehypothesisofSchniedewindwhoarguesthatQumranHebrewisan ‘antilanguage’,seeW.M.Schniedewind,“QumranHebrewasanAntilanguage”,Journalof BiblicalLiterature():–,and“LinguisticIdeologyinQumranHebrew”, in Diggers at the Well (eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, ), – . 31 Tov, Scribal Practices,  (n. ), following D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manu- scripts:ContentsandSignificance”,inTimetoPreparetheWayintheWilderness(eds. D.DimantandL.H.Schiffman;Leiden:Brill,),–;C.A.Newsom,“‘Sectually Explicit’LiteraturefromQumran”,inTheHebrewBibleandItsInterpreters(eds.W.H. Propp, B. Halpern and D.N. Freedman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, ), –; A.Lange,“KriterienessenischerTexte”,inQumrankontrovers:BeiträgezudenTextfunden vomTotenMeer(eds.J.FreyandH.Stegemann;Paderborn:Bonifacius,),–; C.Hempel,“KriterienzurBestimmung‘essenischerVerfasserschaft’vonQumrantexten”, inQumrankontrovers,–.  florentinogarcíamartínez Sectariannature:dataonthepresumedauthorshipbytheQumrancom- munity,recordedas‘y[es]’,‘n[o]’,or‘—’(irrelevantinthecaseofbiblical andAramaictexts).32 Toviswell-knownforhavingcarefullydescribedwhathecallsthe‘Qum- ranscribalpractice’accordingtowhichherecognizesagroupofnon- biblicalandbiblicalmanuscriptsthatdisplaydistinctivefeaturesandhave been‘probablywrittenmainlyatQumran’.InTov’swords: ThemainargumentforourviewpertainstothefactthatwithintheQum- rancorpusagroupofbiblicalandnonbiblicaltextsdisplaydistinctive features,andthatmostofthemaresectarian.Conversely,virtuallyallthe sectariantextswerewritteninthisspecialpractice.33 Butagain,inthetablesofAppendix,34Tovputsthesignof‘irrelevant’ infrontoftheAramaictextsinthecolumnof‘Qumranscribalpractice’. TovhassingledouteighteenelementsascharacteristicoftheQumran scribal practice.35 A look at the photographs shows that many—in fact most—of these elements are also attested (more or less intensively) in someAramaicmanuscripts: – Paragraphossigns:QLevib(Qa);QQahatar(Q);QEn- Giantsd(Q) – Cancelation dots: QapGen; QEnastra (Q); QEnGiantsd (Q) – Crossingoutofletterswithaline:QLevib(Qa);QEnGiantsb (Q);QEnGiantse(Q) – Parenthesissigns:QpapToba(Q);QEna(Q) – Writing of Divine Name in Paleo-Hebrew characters: QpsDana (Q) – SinglelettersinCrypticAscript:QpapToba(Q) – TetrapunctadesignatingtheTetragrammaton:QpapToba(Q) – Guide dots: QNJ (Q); QEnastrc (Q); QLevia (Q); QLevib (Qa); QVisions of Amramd (Q); QVisions of Amrame(Q) Ihave omitted fromthis listthe two mostcharacteristicandimportant elements Tov seesas indicatorsoftheQumran scribalpractice,namely orthographic and morphological features. I have left these features out 32 Tov,ScribalPractices,. 33 Tov,ScribalPractices,. 34 Tov,ScribalPractices,–. 35 Tov,ScribalPractices,–.