Tov, and those ήκριβωμένα type scrolls as described by Lieberman. However, it remains
that most of the large format ‘de luxe’ scrolls fit into the ήκριβωμένα category.
There is some support for this view in the Talmudic story of the three scrolls found in the
Azarah, or Temple Court.^728 In the context of the story, the differences between the
scrolls indicate that there was some level of variation to be expected in the most authori-
tative texts that circulated during the Second Temple period. In particular, the fact that
these scrolls were purported to have come from the Azarah itself suggests that the texts
are of the ήκριβωμένα type. If this is accepted, it seems reasonable to assume that the tex-
tual variants alluded to in the story appeal to three stereotypical categories of variation
that may have occurred in ήκριβωμένα texts.^729 These are: orthographic confusion due to
the graphical similarity of some letters ()wh versus )yh); the intrusion of foreign words
(Hebrew yr(n versus Aramaic y+w+(z – perhaps a common vocable among the general
public); and the updating of unusual grammatical forms (hnw(m versus Nw(m).^730
728
729 See note above for the Talmudic references.
The didactic nature of this story is emphasised by the fact that “in the Palestinian Talmud, and especially
in Aboth d’R. Nathan, the account of ‘The Three Books’ is adjacent to discussions of other subjects also
arrayed in groups of three or four” (S. Talmon, "Three Scrolls of the Law," 19). It therefore seems pertinent
to treat this story as representative of categories of variation that might have occured in authoritative texts.
The story thus serves as a warning of what types of error or variation should be guarded against in the
copying of authoritative scrolls. However, it remains a possibility that the story could stem from a historical
incident in which variant texts co-existed in the Temple archives, and therefore should be treated as evi-
dence that 730 ήκριβωμένα type texts were not necessarily entirely uniform.
I owe these observations to M. Cogan, who has suggested in a private conversation that the variant types
outlined in the Tannaitic sources possibly echo an awareness at an earlier period of the kinds of variation
that could infiltrate the authoritative Temple texts, especially confusion of graphically similar letters, the
substitution of vernacular terminology in place of high register language, and the erosion of unusual gram-
matical forms. The confusion between graphemes such as yod and waw, kaph and beth, dalet and resh, etc.,
is well known in scrolls from the period under concern. Concerning the second feature, the reader is di-
rected to the more general discussion on the friction between vernacular and high register language in tex-