Paleographic Style and the Forms and Functions of the Dead Sea Psalm Scrolls: A Hand Fitting for the Occasion?

In this article I apply stylistic paleographic analysis to the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls, proposing conventional usage registers for different types and levels of scripts. I argue that more formal scripts were normally used for large presentation copies of known versions of the Davidic psalter, while less formal scripts were frequently used for smaller, textually distinctive manuscripts. This observation aids in the interpretation of the forms and functions of the majority of Dead Sea Psalm scrolls that follow this pattern and highlights exceptional cases worthy of further investigation


Introduction
The Dead Sea Psalm scrolls have been frequently studied with regard to their text forms, and recent years have seen increasing calls for considering the form and function of each manuscript on its own terms.2Yet the relevance of script for evaluating the forms and functions of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls has largely been overlooked in previous studies, despite the fact that the handwriting is some of the most direct and important material evidence available for the production of each particular manuscript.
In the analysis below I systematically classify the 35 Dead Sea Psalm scrolls sufficiently well preserved for stylistic paleographic analysis based on: 1) script, 2) manuscript format, and 3) textual contents.3I situate these hands within what I propose to be the conventional usage registers for the early Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic scripts.I then demonstrate a correlation between script and manuscript format in the corpus of Dead Sea Psalm scrolls, as well as between script and textual contents.From this I argue that the formal hands normally indicate large, professionally-produced copies of the Davidic psalter suitable for presentation and communal reading.On the other hand, the relatively informal hands should normally be considered small personal productions, which might in some cases help explain their distinctive contents.
Because of the minimal evidence, I have excluded 4Q98d (4QPsu), 4Q98e (4QPsv), 6Q5 (6QPs), and 11Q9 (11QPse).So also 4Q98h (4QPsy), published by Tigchelaar, "A Qumran Cave 4 Fragment."Scrolls containing only one psalm from the Davidic psalter in demonstrably different literary contexts-like 11Q11 (11QapocrPs) and 4Q522 (4QProphecy of Joshua)-require further separate research.4 See Cross,"Development, Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningen its usefulness for synchronic stylistic analysis.5I have proposed an alternative system of script classification (see illustrations in Figure 1 below) and suggested that analyzing the respective usage registers of different script types and levels of formality might yield important new insights into the purposes for which manuscripts were created.6 In this article, I will explore the implications of the handwriting for evaluating the forms and functions of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls, using the definitions of formality, script types, and levels of execution worked out in my 2019 COMSt Bulletin article.I have classified each of the 35 Dead Sea Psalm scrolls sufficiently well preserved for stylistic analysis (see Table 1 below, as well as Appendix A for more quantitative substantiation and visualization).

Usage Registers
The significance of these classifications is only evident against the backdrop of conventional usage.The choice of script type and the care with which scripts are written reflect the pragmatic priorities of writers.These decisions often conform to conventional usage registers, where different types and levels of scripts are considered appropriate for different contexts and functions.For instance, in Greek handwriting from the period, the clear distinction between formal literary hands and cursive documentary hands is generally considered fundamental to script classification.7 Scholars of the Dead Sea scrolls have long observed that formal scripts were generally preferred for nice literary manuscripts, hence the label "book hand."8Pragmatically, the clarity of their scripts would have made them easily readable to any sufficiently educated readers.9Furthermore, formal book hands would have been especially appropriate for aesthetic and prestigious presentation copies suitable for display and reading in wealthy homes and communal gatherings for study, liturgical performance, or perhaps even entertainment.10The most formal examples are predominantly rectilinear, which identifies the Ornate and (in earlier periods) formal Simple Rectilinear script types as the highest level of calligraphic book script.
e The scribe of 4Q90 clearly attempted to write neatly and legibly, but lacked the regularity and calligraphic quality characteristic of more formal hands.f 4Q94 is a fairly neat but somewhat irregular hand.g 4Q98g is a very carelessly written early informal hand with cursive influences, but it lacks the particular cursive forms typical of the developed Semicursives.First, the writing of literary texts in the elegant and stylish (but usually semiformal, and in later periods ornate) curvilinear scripts with wavy, undulating strokes could be explained in one of three ways: aesthetic preference, scribal background, or functional register.Some of them have a regularity and elegance that could occasionally have aesthetically rivalled formal rectilinear scripts.12The selection of wavy, curvilinear forms may then have been a subjective artistic choice, made according to the preferences and tastes of scribes or patrons.The difficulty with this is that most examples of these scripts do not achieve the highest levels of formality, and they are not normally used for copies of the Hebrew scriptures (Psalms or otherwise).
Alternatively, these hands may reflect a preferred scribal practice in certain circles or schools.Since the vast majority of Ornate Curvilinear hands from the Judean Desert come from manuscripts from Qumran, one could reasonably argue for a connection with the Qumran community.But some Ornate Curvilinear hands have been found outside of Qumran,13 and only roughly 15-20% of the manuscripts from the Qumran finds are written in Ornate Curvilinear hands.Furthermore, the use of similar wavy strokes is attested in very early scrolls found at Qumran (e.g., 4Q83 and 4Q504 [4QWords of the Luminariesa]), as well as in later semiformal hands of the 2nd-5th centuries CE (e.g., P. Cologne Inv.5853),14 which might suggest that this type of writing was more widespread in the Second Temple period than is currently attested.Perhaps the best explanation is simply that these elegant curvilinear hands functioned as a lower literary register.15They are infrequently used for quality copies of the scriptures that were later included in the Hebrew Bible, but they are very common in other literary manuscripts.16According to Tigchelaar, these scripts are used almost exclusively for non-biblical Hebrew manuscripts with full orthography and long morphological forms,17 which suggests to me a non-classical literary register.18While not generally attaining to the highest standards of professional literary production expected for presentation copies of classical literature, these hands were nevertheless clearly and elegantly written by skilled (in most cases probably professional) writers in order to be legible and useful for others.19 Second, further distinguishing a class of non-calligraphic, non-Cursive common hands also helps clarify the possible usage registers for these scripts.In contrast to the predominantly formal or semiformal literary scrolls from the Judean Desert, informal (Quasi-)Square hands are best known from inscriptions, ostraca, abecedaries, name lists, and personal signatures.20In other words, non-Cursive informal writing was simply the normal type of everyday writing used by the majority of writers of various skill levels for most practical purposes without aesthetic pretense.
Thus, I suggest that the contemporary classes of handwriting in the Hellenistic and early Roman Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish scripts entailed three basic conventional functional registers (see Table 2): 1) formal, professional, calligraphic, and (in late stages) ornate literary book scripts in two levels (1a-the highest level-is strictly rectilinear; 1b is elegant but curvilinear with wavy strokes); 2) simple, common, everyday personal hands of various skill 15 For an example of an explicit three-tiered division along a spectrum of handwriting quality, see the famous Diocletian price edict cited in levels; and 3) professional legal or administrative documentary scripts.In most cases, these categorical divisions were more likely to be conventional and preferential than formalized and regulated.Furthermore, well-educated and practiced writers may have been skilled in multiple styles of handwriting.21Thus, blurred boundaries and exceptional crossovers between these categories are not entirely unexpected or particularly problematic for the overall picture.22 The existence of these different registers in large part explains the coexistence of multiple, discrete writing styles in the same region over such an extended period of time, thereby elucidating the most important synchronic style differences evident in the early Jewish scripts.
The corpus of Psalm scrolls from the Judean Desert illustrates well the distinction between literary and documentary hands, since not one of them is written in a truly Cursive script.In contrast, of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls written in formal scripts, 90% (= 19/21) are rectilinear, and 90% (= 19/21) are ornate scripts.Thus, the majority of the Psalm scroll scripts seem to fall into this highest literary register (1Q11 3Q2 4Q85 4Q87 4Q89 4Q91 4Q98b 4Q98c 5Q5 8Q2 11Q5 11Q6 11Q7 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b Mas1e Mas1f; possibly also the unornamented 4Q92 and 4Q98a, the inferior quality 4Q84, and the relatively curvilinear 2Q14 and 4Q97).A relatively small number of Dead Sea Psalm scrolls seem to have been written in the second-tier literary register (1Q10 2Q14 4Q83 4Q96 4Q97 4Q98; possibly also the relatively rectilinear 4Q84).
I classify nine of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls within the broad register of common, everyday writing (1Q12 4Q86 4Q88 4Q90 4Q93 4Q94 4Q95 4Q98f 4Q98g).This does not mean that the writers of the Psalm scrolls in relatively 21 See Sirat,Writing as Handwork,314. 22 Cf. the similar picture with regard to Greek hands in Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 1-4; Cavallo and Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands, 6-7.informal, personal hands were necessarily lay or unskilled.Rather, the contents of the manuscripts and the skillful fluency with which most of them were written suggest intimate familiarity with the texts and substantial training and experience in writing.Even the most careless examples like 4Q98g were evidently written by practiced writers, perhaps as memory exercises or notes.As I will demonstrate below, many of the less formal hands are found on relatively small manuscripts with distinctive textual contents, which is suggestive of intellectual engagement and creative contribution.The combination of highly skilled but non-calligraphic handwriting with frequent indications of high-level intellectual interaction with the textual contents suggests that these manuscripts were personal or working copies written by and/or for interested scholars that were probably never intended for public dissemination.23Similar usage of inelegant but fluent handwriting for scholarly manuscripts has been well-documented in both contemporary Greco-Roman and later Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic writing practices.24In the case of the parallels, scholarly texts are often more creative, interventionist, and idiosyncratic than professional scribal productions of more elegant presentation copies, which also seems to be the case among the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls.Thus, the handwriting of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls simultaneously reflects pragmatic and conventional concerns and, at the same time, signals to potential readers appropriate usage contexts.As will become evident in sections 4 and 5, the choice of script register in this corpus depends in large part upon the nature of the manuscript each writer intended to create, which is reflected both in manuscript format and textual contents.

Manuscript Format
One important factor in evaluating the forms and functions of the Dead Sea scrolls is their format, which is comprised of their physical size and layout.25 Particularly large dimensions and margins have frequently been associated with fine calligraphic handwriting and luxury manuscripts.26On the other hand, small manuscripts have frequently been associated with personal, liturgical, educational, or ritual contexts.27Given the fragmentary nature of the remains of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls, it is usually impossible to reconstruct the scrolls completely and reliably,28 but often there remain enough features to make warranted suggestions about their original size and layout.Building on the measurements and reconstructions suggested in the respective principal editions and by Eva Jain,29 I have produced my own preferred reconstruction of each of the scrolls (see Appendix B).I have then classified the 27 sufficiently well-preserved Dead Sea Psalm scrolls into three different typical formats, which I define as follows (see Appendix C for the justifying evidence used in these classifications).30Large-format scrolls are characterized by: scroll height of > 20 cm; top and bottom margins measuring > 1.5 cm each; wide columns (in the majority of cases > 10 cm, not infrequently 6-10 cm); and they are frequently well-enough preserved to suggest reconstructions of lengths ≥ 3 m.Thirteen manuscripts can be classified as large-format (4Q83 4Q85 4Q87 4Q92?4Q98 4Q98b 8Q2 11Q5 11Q6 11Q7 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b Mas1e).
Medium-format scrolls are characterized by: scroll height of 12-20 cm; columns almost always < 10 cm in width; top and bottom margins usually Small-format scrolls are more difficult to classify, since they are few in number in this corpus and do not share a clear and consistent profile.Nevertheless, they can be roughly stated to be smaller than the typical medium-format scrolls in terms of height (usually < 12 cm) and/or length and have column widths of < 10 cm.Four manuscripts can be designated as small-format (4Q89 4Q94?4Q98g 5Q5).
Comparison between manuscript format and script formality (see Table 3) shows that the corpus of Dead Sea Psalm scrolls conforms well to the hypothesis of a relationship between script and format.Of the manuscripts confidently classified as large, 83% (= 10/12) are written at the highest level of formality, and the only two exceptions (4Q83 4Q98) are among the most elegant of curvilinear semiformals.On the other hand, all five of the confidently classified medium-format manuscripts are written in simple semiformal or informal handwriting.The few small-format manuscripts are divided between simple, relatively informal hands (4Q94?4Q98g) and calligraphic copies of Ps 119 (4Q89 5Q5), the latter of which seem to represent a special case in this corpus.31 Jain, Psalmen oder Psalter, 119-121, plausibly reconstructs columns of 14 lines for 4Q91 based on similarities in the shapes of frgs.3-5 and 8, but the columns are somewhat wider than usual for medium-format scrolls.32 4Q98a can alternatively be reconstructed with taller columns, but it is here classed as medium-format because of the small margins and narrow columns.In other words, the finest calligraphy was generally reserved for large and exquisite scrolls, while smaller manuscripts with shorter texts were more often written in relatively informal handwriting.Nevertheless, the skilled fluency of personal hands written by scholars facilitated frequent and extensive writing, so sometimes somewhat longer texts were also written in a fast and simple manner.

Textual Contents
The question naturally arises whether the observed correlation between script formality and manuscript format can aid in the interpretation of the textual contents of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls.33The diverse contents and arrangements of these scrolls have been frequently discussed in the literature and need not be rehearsed in detail here.34I argue that the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls can be profitably categorized in terms of their specific relations to known versions of the written Davidic psalter tradition, as exemplified by the (proto-)MT and 11Q5 psalters.35I classify the manuscripts based on general contents and arrangement, rather than small textual details.Thus, I consider collections to differ from each other whenever there is at least one demonstrable incompatibility in which psalms were included and in which order.All of the manuscripts that apparently had only one psalm were necessarily very different in contents from the full psalters from this perspective, and so they are classified as a separate category of divergent manuscripts.evidence for only a single psalm-but for which there is no positive evidence that these manuscripts originally contained only that psalm-are labelled as indeterminate, since they do not preserve evidence that is useful for macrostructural comparison.In this way, the Psalm scrolls can be classified as on Table 4.In 4Q84, Ps 93 is preserved in the same position as in MT.In 11Q5 it is found between the Apostrophe to Zion and Ps 141, but it is not clear whether or not Ps 93 also occurred in its MT position in the lacunose portions of the 11Q5 psalter.Thus, I consider 4Q84 to be clearly in disagreement with MT, and possibly inconsistent with the 11Q5 psalter, though the latter cannot be demonstrated conclusively.The join Pss 103→112 may also contradict 4Q88, which preserves psalms within this span.i 4Q86 evidences the joins Pss 106?→147→104 against both the MT and 11Q5 (Pss 104→147) psalters.j 4Q83 preserves the joins Pss 31→33 (in agreement with 4Q98) and Pss 38→71 contra MT, but it does not overlap with preserved parts of the 11Q5 psalter.k 4Q98 preserves the join Pss 31→33 (in agreement with 4Q83) against the MT psalter, but it does not overlap with preserved parts of the 11Q5 psalter.l 4Q94 appears to have had Ps 93 in the same position as MT and 4Q84.Ps 93 occurs in a different position in the 11Q5 psalter, but it is not entirely clear whether Ps 93 was lacking in the 11Q5 psalter at its position in MT, 4Q84, and 4Q94.m 4Q93 may have only contained Ps 104.n 4Q98g probably only contained a version of Ps 89.o 4Q88 contains at least two psalms not included in the MT or 11Q5 psalters (Eschatological Hymn and Apostrophe to Judah) and may have differed in other ways, both in terms of contents and arrangement.The preservation of Pss 107 and 109 may also contradict the join Pss 103→112 of 4Q84.p Parts of Pss 135 and 136 are preserved on different fragments in 4Q95.The DJD editors introduce unfortunate confusion by suggesting that fragments 2-3 preserve the direct transition 135:11-12→136:23-24, which has given rise to much unnecessary speculation about the redaction of these psalms.What the editors label as 135:11-12 is more plausibly identified as the closely parallel text of 136:20-22 with minor harmonizations to Ps 135.
When comparing script formality with textual contents, an interesting correlation appears.Formal hands are typically used for collections consistent with known versions of the written Davidic psalter, whereas scrolls differing in contents from both the MT and 11Q5 psalters are often written in less formal hands.71% (= 15/21) of collections consistent with known versions of the Davidic psalter are written in formal hands.Five out of twenty-one are written in semiformal hands, four of which (1Q10 4Q83 4Q96 4Q98) I classified as calligraphic in section 2. Furthermore, three of the semiformal examples (1Q10 4Q94 4Q96) are poorly preserved and may have been medium or small manuscripts.The lone informal hand (4Q95) is similarly poorly preserved, and its contents cannot be confidently reconstructed.Thus, on material grounds, many of the less formal examples listed as consistent with known versions of the psalter are in fact unlikely to have actually been copies of a version of the psalter, which reinforces the observed correlation between script formality and textual contents.
It is also noteworthy that there is no apparent difference in the treatment of copies of the proto-MT and 11Q5 psalters, which supports my contention that the 11Q5 psalter was recognized as another version of the Davidic psalter.
On the other hand, three out of four of divergent collections are written in semiformal (4Q84 4Q86) or informal hands (4Q88).If we include manuscripts that apparently contained only a single psalm-and thus diverged from versions of the psalter in their selectivity-then 67% (= 6/9) of divergent manuscripts are written in semiformal (4Q84 4Q86 4Q90) or informal (4Q88 4Q93 4Q98g) hands.Of the three semiformal hands, I classified only 4Q84 as calligraphic (though notably not ornate), but 4Q86 and 4Q90 as common.All are medium-format manuscripts that are unlikely to have contained the entire psalter.Conversely, three out of eight semiformal hands and three out of four informal hands preserve contents differing from known versions of the Davidic psalter.It is noteworthy that almost half of the poorly preserved indeterminate scrolls-not included in these previous statistics-are also written in informal handwriting.
In sum, the majority of collections consistent with known versions of the psalter are written in formal hands (71% = 15/21), while the majority of divergent manuscripts are in informal or semiformal hands (67% = 6/9).Based on this observed correlation between script formality and textual contents, I propose that writers generally preferred to use more formal handwriting for straightforward copies of the Davidic psalter (or at least substantial portions thereof), but were more flexible in their use of scripts for manuscripts with distinctive contents.The only clear exceptions to this overall pattern are copies of Ps 119 (4Q89 5Q5) and the uniquely arranged 4Q92 in relatively formal hands,36 as well as the poorly preserved 4Q95-compatible with both MT and 11Q5 psalters-in an informal hand.

36
If Mas1f was indeed a small scroll, it too would be exceptional.

Discussion
In the preceding analysis, I proposed associating various types and levels of script with different usage registers.Observed correlations between script, manuscript format, and textual contents suggest the functional differentiation of these scripts within the corpus of Dead Sea Psalm scrolls.Thus, the contentindependent stylistic classification of scripts has important implications for ongoing discussions about the respective forms and functions of each of these scrolls.
The correlation between more formal hands and large literary scrolls of conventional or traditional contents and between relatively informal hands and small manuscripts with textually distinctive contents provides a useful paradigm for interpreting these documents.In most cases, formal (and, to a lesser extent, elegant semiformal) hands generally indicate large, prestigious, high-register literary copies of the Davidic psalter suitable for presentation and communal reading (e.g., 4Q83 4Q85 4Q87 4Q98 4Q98b 8Q2 11Q5 11Q6 11Q7 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b Mas1e; possibly also 1Q11 2Q14 3Q2 4Q91 4Q97 4Q98a 4Q98c Mas1f).These manuscripts reproduce well-known contents and were professionally produced by scribes for patrons or customers, so they cannot be easily dismissed as careless or idiosyncratic.Manuscripts in lower-register semiformal and especially informal hands-usually smaller manuscripts-should normally be considered personal and/or scholarly in nature, which might allow for (but not require) greater creativity, intervention, and idiosyncrasy (e.g., 1Q10 1Q12 4Q84 4Q86 4Q88 4Q90 4Q93 4Q94 4Q95 4Q96 4Q98f 4Q98g).
Two exceptions to this overall pattern demand further explanation and provide potential avenues for further research.First, both examples of formal or semiformal hands in manuscripts containing only a single psalm (4Q89 5Q5) appear to be copies of only Ps 119, which suggests a special treatment of this monumental psalm (see also 4Q90).Second, 4Q92 is written in a relatively formal hand, but appears to have contained a collection (of unknown size) at odds with both the MT and 11Q5 psalters.While neat, regular, and bilinear, 4Q92 also betrays some substandard features that are less than strictly formal, including unadorned letters, nearly upright stance, and the inconsistent use of final and non-final forms.Thus, the nature of 4Q92 remains unclear.
Finally, I will highlight three medium-format manuscripts written in simple informal (4Q88) or semiformal (4Q84 4Q86) hands, which preserve collections different from both the MT and 11Q5 psalters.These are probably best understood as relatively informal personal or scholarly productions, as opposed to exquisite presentation copies.For instance, they could have been working (in contrast to both the MT and 11Q5 psalters) and numerous unique readings, which led its editors likewise to describe it as "a distinctive manuscript."38Even the hand of 4Q84-the best of the three-is substandard with respect to the high-register presentation copies, as evident in the lack of ornamentation and frequent irregularities and curved strokes.Furthermore, 4Q84 is a relatively small manuscript laid out in a distinctive format (narrow columns consisting of one hemistich per line, with the awkward exception of only part of Ps 118 with two hemistichs to a line) with a direct transition from Pss 103→112, in conflict with the MT and (possibly) 11Q5 psalters.39One should not automatically assume that all the idiosyncrasies in these manuscripts should be attributed to those who produced them.Nevertheless, the apparent nature of these manuscripts with texts for informal use makes it considerably more plausible that the writers themselves introduced innovations into the contents than would be the case with most of the professionally produced presentation copies.

Conclusion
The results of this study of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls suggest differences in functional register for various script types and levels of formality and demonstrate the importance of understanding the material features of manuscripts for interpreting their texts.Recognition of this reality has opened significant new avenues for further research on the forms and functions of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls and may serve as a corrective to elements of previous studies.
In particular, I suggest that these functional differences-evident in the correlations between script and manuscript format identified here-better 37 See Skehan,Ulrich,and Flint,"88. 4QPsf,[86][87][88].Note also the awkward inconsistencies in column height (e.g., Cols.III and IV), the narrow columns, and the small top and bottom margins, which further suggest an informal production.38 Skehan,Ulrich,and Flint,"86. 4QPsd," 65.Note also the distinctively narrow columns, small top margin, and awkward transition from prose to stichographic layout within Ps 104, which could further argue for a relatively informal manuscript.39 Cf. also the unusual Paleo-Hebrew waw inserted after Ps 93.This research confirms the suspicions expressed in numerous recent studies that the evaluation of the form and function of each manuscript is the most promising approach to treating the textual diversity evident in the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls,42 providing specific suggestions for each manuscript on the basis of its material features.Based on the observed patterns, I conclude that ancient readers and scribes did indeed generally recognize and formally distinguish a traditional "Book" of Psalms (in multiple versions) from the many diverse forms of reuse of its contents.43 The minimal remains of 8Q2 make it difficult to gain an overall appreciation of the quality of the hand, but it is clearly angular, ornamented, and somewhat regular.b The poor preservation of the fragments of 4Q97 makes analysis difficult, but the visible traces suggest regularity and the preponderance of rounded strokes.c The scribe of 4Q84 seems to have been trying to produce a formal script, but frequent irregularities and curved strokes indicate a somewhat inferior hand.d 4Q86 is fairly neat and legible, but lacks the regularity and calligraphic quality characteristic of more formal hands.
a Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningen Vetus Testamentum 72 (2022) 67-92 Scribes and Scrolls,[260][261]On the many parallels between Greco-Roman and early Jewish scholarship, see Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema.Of informal writing, Sirat, Writing as Handwork, 315, asserts, "This was the standard tool of intellectual activity until the spread of typewriters and especially personal computers … The informal family is the common one, used to draw up a draft, write a list, or copy a text rapidly … [M]any books copied for readers were written in fluent personal scripts that we would consider as fit only for personal notes."Turner, "Scribes and Scholars," associates practiced informal handwriting with other features as indicative of scholars' texts.These other features include careful correction and collation of texts, good Greek language, marginal notes, the occasional use of the verso of papyri, and sometimes the use punctuation or critical signs.In her survey of annotated Greek and 23See, similarly, Norton, "Question"; Popović, "Qumran as Scroll Storehouse," 576-578;Wise,  Language and Literacy,[329][330] Popović, "Reading"; Hempel, "Reflections"; Crawford,  Latin manuscripts, McNamee, Annotations, 16, 21, 24, 30, 37,[45][46][47], concludes similarly that scholars' personal manuscripts are usually written in relatively skilled but informal handwriting.See McDonnell, "Writing"; Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 13-14, 26-28, on scholars' writing their own works or making copies of others' in their own hands.Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningen Longacre Vetus Testamentum 72 (2022) 67-92 Psalmen oder Psalter,[216][217][218][219][220] 299.29TheDead Sea Psalm scrolls are published in DJD volumes 1, 3, 4, 16, 23, and 38, with the exception of the Masada fragments, which are published in Talmon, "Hebrew Fragments."See also Jain, Psalmen oder Psalter, for attempted reconstructions of all of the scrolls.30 I usually treat scroll height as the most indicative factor.Cf. the similar size classifications of Tov, Scribal Practices, 74-104.Eight manuscripts for which insufficient evidence has been preserved are simply labelled as indeterminate (1Q11 1Q12 4Q95 4Q96 4Q97 4Q98c 4Q98f Mas1f).The heights of these scrolls cannot be confidently reconstructed, and the column width alone is insufficiently indicative to distinguish the different formats identified here.Question marks indicate ambiguities in the evidence that lead to uncertainty in the classification.
transition Pss 135[→]99.Either way, 4Q92 must be reconstructed contra both the MT and 11Q5 psalters.Since Ps 136 could reasonably be reconstructed between Pss 135 and 99, 4Q92 could have agreed with 4Q95.e 2Q14 preserves fragments only of Pss 103 and 104, suggesting that they may have been juxtaposed as in the MT psalter, rather than far removed as in the 11Q5 psalter.This arrangement would also contradict 4Q84.f Only parts of Ps 2 have been preserved, but the single fragment of 3Q2 must have been preceded by another column (and thus probably Ps 1 as well).g 4Q90 may have only contained Ps 119.h 4Q84 evidences the join Pss 103→112 contra MT (and probably 2Q14).Ps 109 (lacking or moved in 4Q84) is preserved in a separate fragment in 11Q5, and it is usually placed between Pss 103 and 112 in reconstructions.This reconstruction is uncertain, however, and it is also possible that 11Q5 originally had the join Pss 103→112 like 4Q84, while Ps 109 was located elsewhere.
struct one or more psalms between Pss 135 and 99 on the supposition that the wide columns require a large column height.But it is also possible to reconstruct a short scroll with the Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningen Longacre Vetus Testamentum 72 (2022) 67-92 direct Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningendrafts, sources for personal study, or perhaps even reference texts for occasional or informal liturgical settings.4Q88 is a highly distinctive manuscript, with a Semicursive hand, frequent orthographic confusion and Aramaisms, a large number of unique variant readings, and a unique collection of psalms including at least Pss 22, 107, 109, Apostrophe to Zion, Eschatological Hymn, and Apostrophe to Judah.37 4Q86 has the unique sequence Pss 106(?)→147→104 the diverse contents of most of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls than does any supposed diachronic trajectory of increasing conformity to a proto-MT psalter.40The superior explanatory power of a synchronic functional analysis is especially understandable in this case, since almost all of the Dead Sea Psalm scrolls appear to have been written within about one or two centuries of each other.I see no clear correlation between manuscript date and text form in this corpus, and I consider the supposed division between the stable Pss 1-89 and unstable Pss 90-150 unsubstantiated.41 Downloaded from Brill.com08/03/2022 08:33:13AM via Universiteit of Groningen Longacre Vetus Testamentum 72 (2022) 67-92 explain