A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament

Citation preview

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITED BY

J. VAN DER PLOEG O.P.

VOLUME IV

LEIDEN

E.

J.

BRILL 1965

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT BY

J.

DE WAARD

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1965

This book was printed with financial support of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.)

Copyright 1965 by E.

J.

Brill, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Old Testament Text in Qumran and in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . A. 1QIsa and 1QIsb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Remaining Biblical Texts from 1Q . . . . . . . C. Biblical Texts from the "Small Caves" of Qumran D. Biblical Texts from 4Q E. Remaining Literature. a) 1QpHab . . . b) 4QTestimonia. c) 4QFlorilegium. Additional Note. . .

6 6 13 13 13 17 17 21 24 27

II. The Old Testament Quotations in the Non-Biblical Qumran Texts and in the New Testament A. The Damascus (or Zadokite) Document(s) . B. 1QS C. 1QH . . . . D. 1QM . . . . Additional Note.

29 29 47 62 71 76

I

Conclusions .

78

Bibliography.

85

Index of Authors.

95

Index of Passages

98

INTRODUCTION "An open-minded review of all the evidence shows, I am convinced, that the similarities between the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls have been considerably exaggerated". With this remark Millar Burrows, in his learned treatise which threw so much additional light on the DSS 1), expresses his critical attitude towards what was written on the relation between the DSS and the New Testament during the first ten years 2). Indeed, some publications have not been free from a certain amount of exaggeration, so that one might be inclined to suppose that a period of "Panqumranism" is superseding an earlier one of "Panbabylonism". However this may be recent investigations, which are possibly a direct result of Burrows' criticism, have shown a more sedate character. Whoever still wants to agree with Burrows must conclude that the importance of the similarities between the DSS and the New Testament is inversely proportional to the quantity of literature which has been published on this subject 3). The majority of these publications dealt with (religious) history and theology, and zealously attempted to demonstrate that the DSS and the New Testament have background and ideas in common 4). Some details attracted special attention, e.g., those dealing with John the Baptist 5), those about the calendar of the sect in 1) M. Burrows: "More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls", New York, 1958, p. 13 2 . 2) An excellent, critical resume and review of this literature can be found in H. Braun: "Qumran und das Neue Testament", Ein Bericht tiber 10 Jahre Forschung (1950-1959), ThR 28 (1962), pp. 97-234. 3) For the literature before 1957 see Chr. Burchard: "Bibliographie zu den Handschriften Yom Toten Meer", Beihefte zur ZAW 76, Berlin, 1957. For the more recent literature see the bibliography in the fasc. of the "Revue de Qumran" published since 1958. 4) See e.g. the articles by J. v. d. Ploeg in: "La secte de Qumran et les origines du christianisme", Recherches BibJiques IV, Leuven, 1959 and by K. Stendahl in: "The Scrolls and the New Testament", London, 1958. See also J. Coppens: "Les Documents du Desert de J uda et les origines du Christianisme", Louvain, 1953; J. Allegro: "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity", New York, 1957; M. Black: "The Scrolls and Christian Origins", Oxford, 1961. "L'arriere-fond judaique du quatrieme evangile et la Communaute de I'Alliance", RB 62 (1955) pp. 5-44, by F. M. Braun deserves special attention. 5) See the literature mentioned sub Is 40, 3, p. 51. Studies Desert of Judah, III

2

Introduction

connection with the dating of Easter in the New Testament 1), and those about the messianic ideas of the sect 2). In a few publications only scholars have proceeded to analyse the text and have tried to elucidate either the New Testament text itself or its "Sitz im Leben" on the basis of the Qumran texts 3). Murphy, O. Carm., published a "working-list" which gives the Qumran source of certain New Testament expressions 4). However, this list is far from complete and the result is more a recapitulation of earlier publications than an independent study. Nevertheless, this publication is unique. Least attention has been paid to the comparative investigation of the Old Testament text in Qumran and in the New Testament. In fact, only a few articles and major works can be mentioned which deal, for the greater part, with the best known Old Testament quotations 5). There is no study whatsoever which inquires into all the Qumran texts published up till now. This fact is also the raison d' etre of this contribution. To add still another pUblication to the flow of literature might indicate a lack of spiritual hygiene if something essential were not at issue here. 1) See especially three articles by A. Jaubert: "Le calendrier des Jubih§s et de la secte de Qumran. Ses origines bibliques", VT 1953, pp. 250-264; "La date de la derniere Cene", RHR 146 (1954), pp. 140-173; "Le calendrier des Jubiles et les jours liturgiques de la semaine", VT 1957, pp. 35-61. These three articles are summarized in "La date de la Cene" , Paris, 1957. See finally the amplifying article "Jesus et Ie calendrier de Qumran", NTS 1960, pp. 1-30. The latest publication on this subject is by J. Carmignac: "Comment Jesus et ses contemporains pouvaient-ils celebrer la Paque a une date non officielle?" RQ 5, fasc. 1, (1964), pp. 59-81. See also the elaborate bibliography at the end of his article. 2) A. S. van der Woude: "Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran", Assen, 1957. See also the literature mentioned in this study. 3) Valuable textual criticism is also be found in the excellent study by H. Braun: "Spatjiidisch-haretischer und friihchristlicher Radikalismus" I and II, Tiibingen, 1957. See also A. Guillaume: "Mt. XXVII in the light of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah", PEQ 83, (1951), pp. 78-80; P. WernbergMoller: "A Semitic Idiom in Matt. V, 22", NTS 3 (1956/57), pp. 71-73; B. Gartner: "The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew", Stud. Theol., Lund, 1955, pp. 1-24; C. H. Hunzinger: "Neues Licht auf Lc 2, 14 Q(v6pw1tot EuaOXtQ(~", ZNW XLIV (1952/53), pp. 85-90; C. Spicq: "Une Allusion au Docteur de Justice dans Matthieu, XXIII, 1O?", RB 66 (1959), pp. 387-397; O. Betz: "The dichotomized Servant and the end of Judas Iscariot", RQ 5, I (1964), pp. 43-59. 4) R. E. Murphy, O.Carm.: "The Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament Comparisons", CBQ 18 (1956). 6) See the literature mentioned in the examination of the texts.

Introduction

3

For the relation between the DSS and the New Testament can only be judged if the Old Testament text, which they really, and not only hypothetically have in common, has been examined in detail. The results of this investigation will also ascertain to what extent Burrows is right in his criticism. In this study all the Qumran texts which have been published up till now will be considered. Unfortunately this investigation must remain incomplete, since we are still waiting for the final publication of the extremely rich textual material from 4Q. It may be possible to publish a supplementary study later, completing the investigation and drawing final conclusions. Only the Murabba'at texts have been ignored because there is no connection between these texts and the DSS 1). The problem of dating the separate documents does not arise in this study. On the ground of palaeographical diagrams, supported by historical and archaeological evidence, we assume that the majority of the DSS date from the last part of the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.) and the last part of the Herodian period (c. 30 B.C.-70 A.D.). Only a few fragmentary manuscripts could possibly belong to an archaic period (c. ZOO-ISO B.C.) 2). A more 1) Concerning the caves of Wady Muraba'at G. L. Harding concluded already in 1952: "There is no connection of any kind between this series of caves and that in which the Dead Sea Scrolls were found". (" Khirbet Qumran and Wady Muraba'at, Fresh Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Manuscript Discoveries in Jordan", PEQ 1952, pp. I04-IIO). The following can also apply to the texts of Murabba'at: "Ici, l'ecriture est plus evoluee, Ie texte biblique est decidement celui de la Massore, et l'on doit en conclure que les documents de Qumran sont plus anciens, qu'ils sont anterieurs au ii e siecle. C'est l'apPort indirect mais important que les decouvertes de Murabba'at font au probleme si discute des manuscrits de Qumran" (R. de Vaux: "Les grottes de Murabba'at et leurs Documents", RB 60 (1953) pp. 245-268). See also: F. M. Cross: "The Ancient Library of Qumran (and Modern Biblical Studies)", London, 1958, p. 125, note 13. The Murabba'at texts have been published in "Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II": "Les Grottes de Murabba'at", by P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Oxford, 1961. 2) The above-mentioned period diagram was developped by F. M. Cross in his contribution: "The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran", JBL 74 (1955), pp. 164/65. For the palaeographical argumentation see especially the contributions by S. A. Birnbaum e.g. "The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography", BASOR, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 13-14 (1952); "The dates of the Cave Scrolls", BASOR II5 (1949), pp. 20-23; "How Old are the Cave Manuscripts? A Palaeographical Discussion", VT 1951, pp. 91-109; see also W. F. Albright: "On the date of the scrolls from 'Ain Feshka and the Nash Papyrus", RASOR II5 (1949), pp. 10-20; S. Yeivin:

4

In trod uction

detailed dating, although in itself essential, is not directly relevant to this investigation. This treatise will begin with a comparative study of those Old Testament texts which are used both in Qumran and in the New Testament. Then those Old Testament quotations which the non-biblical Qumran texts and the New Testament have in common, will be analysed. Finally, some provisional conclusions will be given. There will be occasional attempts to give an overall picture to show which Old Testament texts function in both circles of literature and which not. The quantitative factor should not be stressed too much. Undoubtedly the difference in literary genre has strongly contributed to the function, or lack of function, of certain Old Testament texts in diverse documents. It is therefore preferable to inquire into the key position and the qualitative influence of these texts in the different types of literature, especially in cases of Old Testament quotations, which occur both in the DSS and in the New Testament. Finally, this study is of a purely analytical nature, attempting only to interpret certain New Testament forms of certain Old Testament texts in the light of Qumran literature, or to demonstrate that certain quotations, in spite of differences in textual form, actually function in the same way in the DSS and in the New Testament. Theological questions are only discussed insofar as they help to explain the origin of certain textual forms. For the Greek Pentateuch texts the edition and the critical apparatus of Brooke and McLean have been used 1). For the Greek texts of Isaiah and the Dodekapropheton we used the editions and the critical apparatus of Ziegler 2), and for the Greek text of Psalms the edition and apparatus of Rahlfs 3). The New Testament text is "The date and attribution ot the Leviticus Fragments from the cache in the Judaean Desert", BASOR lIS (1950), pp. 2S-31. See especially: F. M. Cross Jr.: "The Development of the Jewish Scripts" in: The Bible and the Ancient Near East, essays in honour of William Foxwell Albright, London, 1961, pp. 133-202. Palaeographical evidence can only be considered conclusive when it is supported by historical and archaeological data. I) "The Old Testament in Greek", A. E. Brooke and N. McLean (Ed.); Vol. I: The Octateuch, Cambridge, 1917. 2) Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum: vol. XIII: Duodecim prophetae, edidit J. Ziegler, Gottingen, 1943 and vol. XIV: Isaias, edidit J. Ziegler, Gottingen 1939. 3) idem, Vol. X: Psalmi cum Odis, edidit A. Rahlfs, Gottingen, 1931.

Introduction

5

from the editions, and according to the critical apparatus of Tischendorf 1) and Nestle 2). For the LXX as well as for the New Testament texts recently published papyri were consulted. 1) "Novum Testamentum Graece " , Vol. I and II, Lipsiae, 1869-1872 (editio octava critica maior). 2) E. Nestle: "Novum Testamentum Graece", Stuttgart, 196325.

CHAPTER ONE

THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT IN QUMRAN AND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT A.

IQIsa

AND

IQIsb

In all cases where the MT and the text of IQIsa and IQIsb are identical, and where only variants of an orthografic and secondary nature occur, the analysis of the relevant texts has been omitted 1). In these instances it is clearly impossible to draw any conclusion from the Bible text of Qumran in relation to the textual form of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. The examination of the remaining texts follows. Is 6, 9-IO: Mt I3, I4-I5 = Acts 28, 26-27 i=

In

I2, 40

When compared the texts show the following similarities and differences: the LXX changes the imperativi of the MT into 1) For rQIsa see: "The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery", Vol. I: "The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary", M. Burrows (Ed.), New Haven, 1950; for IQIsb see: "The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University", E. L. Sukenik (Ed.), Jerusalem, 1955. In a number of cases MT = IQIsa = IQIsb: Is 53, I On 12,38; Rom 10, 16); Is 53, 4 (Mt 8, 17); Is 53, 12 (Lk 22, 37); Is 55, 3 (Acts 13, 34); Is 56, 7 (Mt 21, 13, Mk II, 17, Lk 19, 46); Is 61, 1.2 (Lk 4, 18.19); Is 62, II (Mt 21, 5); Is 66, 1.2 (Acts 7,49.50). In some other cases MT = IQIsa and IQIsb has a lacuna here: Is I, 9 (Rom 9,29); Is 8,17.18 (Heb 2,13); Is la, 22.23 (Rom 9,27.28); Is II, 10 (Rom 15,12); Is 22, 13 (I Cor 15,32); Is 25,8 (I Cor 15,55); Is 27,9 (Rom II, 27); Is 29, 10 (Rom II, 8); Is 52,5 (Rom 2, 24). Finally the MT often differs from IQIsa and/or IQIsb, but completely secondary variants are concerned in both Isaiah scrolls: Is 8,23 and 9, I (Mt 4, 15.16); Is 28,11.12 (I Cor 14, 21); Is 29, 13 (Mt 15, 8.9, Mk 7,6.7); Is 29, 14 (I Cor I, 19); Is 40,13 (Rom II, 34); Is 42,1-4 (Mt 12,18-21); Is 49,8 (2 Cor 6, 2); Is 52, 7 (Rom 10, 15); Is 52, II (2 Cor 6, 17); Is 52, IS (Rom 15, 21); Is 54, I (Gal 4, 27); Is 59, 7.8. (Rom 3, 14-16); Is 64, 3 (I Cor 2, 9); Is 65, 1.2 (Rom 10, 20.21). The transcription, which does not seem to be correct in all places, has everywhere been carefully corrected on the basis of the photocopy. According to B. J. Roberts ("The Second Isaiah Scroll from Qumran", BJRL 42 (1959-60), pp. 132-144) "the IQIsb deviations are not in any way greater or more significant than those in the Massoretic tradition itself" (p. 143).

A. IQIsa and IQIsb

7

forms of the indicativus aoristi. This, no doubt, indicates a theological reflection, for instead of a command to harden, the hardness of the people is established. It is rather unlikely that this would be a question of translation, rather than of theology, as Schmidt suggests 1). The mitigating LXX translation is taken over by Mt and Acts. The complete similarity between LXXB and Mt 13, 14-15 and Acts 28, 26-27, except for a small difference in detail 2), is especially remarkable. The lack of variants in a quotation of such length, as well as the fact that the introductory formula is unusual in Mt 3), definitely point to an interpolation into the Matthaean text 4). The Isaiah quotation in In 12, 40 is of more importance for this analysis. In part it shows a freer treatment and an insertion into the context. The imperativi of the MT have been changed into indicativi perfecti, and consequently God appears as the author of the hardening, a tendency opposed to that of the LXX. There is some uncertainty as to the textual tradition of In 12, 405). Nevertheless, one can ascertain the fact, as Stendahl suggests, that in some respects the Johannine form shows a stronger affinity to the MT 6). Now 1QIsa must also be examined, which has never been done before 7). Most of the variants are insignificant and need not be 1) K. L. Schmidt thinks (TZBas i (1945), 12, note 18), that the LXX read indicativus hophal instead of imperativus hiphil which results in the translation hcotxuv6't). But there are no examples of an indicativus hophal in Hebrew. 2) ot;YrWV after &crlv, present in the LXX, does not occur in Mt and Acts. 3) Both K. Stendahl ("The School of St. Matthew, Uppsala, 1954, p. 131 and note 5) and J. Gnilka ("Die Verstockung Israels", Isaias 6, 9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker, Mtinchen, 1961, pp. 104, 105) point to the hapax legomena eXVot1t'A't)pOUV and 1t'poql't)'t'dot of the introductory formula. 4) Gnilka (op. cit., p. 105) only repeats the opinions of L. Cerfaux (viz. that Mt "das Zitat aus seiner QueUe sch6pft") and of Stendahl. However, he incorrectly renders Stendahl's opinion by stating: "K. Stendahl halt es fUr eine Interpolation aus Apg 28, 26f". Stendahl regards the quotation as "an interpolation at a later stage than the properly Matthaean", rather than as an interpolation from Acts 28, 26 f. 5) R. Bultmann: "Das Evangelium des Johannes", G6ttingen, 195313 , p. 347, note 2: "Ob der Evangelist seinen Text aus einer ihm vorliegenden 'Obersetzung genommen oder selbst gebildet hat, wird sich kaum sagen lassen" . 6) Stendahl (op. cit., p. 131, note 2) rightly points to tvlX fL~ t3wcrLv as a rendering of MT :'IN." 1~ and to XlXl cr't'potqlWcrLV as a rendering of MT ::111.''' 7) The fact, that Gnilka does not discuss Jn 12,40 can be justified by his theme, which only considers the synoptic relation of Is 6,9.10. It is,

8

The Old Testament Text

discussed. However, the variant clzm in Is 6, IO for MT l~Wil is important. The reading CIVil is not an error by a copyist 1). CIVil can be read as hiphil imperativus of C~IV, a verb meaning in the hiphil 2): "in Staunen versetzen", "to stiffen", "to destroy". In ] n 12, 40 P66 N W pc 3) read €7t1Jpwcr€V and 63. 122. 259 7tE7t1JPWXEV, forms of 7t1Jp6w, a verb meaning "to maim", "to mutilate" 4) instead of E7tWPWcrEv cum AB*KLX 13 33 346 or 7tE7tWPWXEV cum B3rL1A fl, forms of 7twp6w = "to harden" 5). In view of the familiarity of ]n 12, 40 with Hebrew text traditions, it is quite possible that the reading €7t1Jpwcr€V goes back to the reading CWil in 1QIsa 6). however, incomprehensible that he neglects to note the reading of IQIsa, in spite of his l"arge and striking excursus about the DSS. Stendahl too, though often rendering the readings of IQIsa, omits this ad loco 1) There are no traces of a final nun on the photocopy. Although CWil is the last word in line 3 of column VI, there is enough space for one or two letters. Compare E. Y. Kutscher ('il'~W' n"l~ 'W 'l'IV'il ~p.,m l'W'il n'~ilC' m"l~~ il~'IVil, Jerusalem, 1959, p. 219, no. 2II): "IVp::l 'l~IV' '~'El nl::lil::l ::In,:m ilIVpnil ilN.,l:l 1N ;il~~Wll"'lilW l:ln'l::l'~:l .,m' " ;";' ::l,.,P C'~~El ;'N~~ .,m' ,,:!t~;, ,'C~W' "'N' -'::l" , 2) See: W. Gesenius: "Hebraisches und Aramaisches Handw6rterbuch iiber das Alte Testament", (ed. F. Buhl), I949, S.V. The form CW;' with '::l::l' as object can be found H 7, 3 and 18,20. See: K. G. Kuhn: "Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten", G6ttingen, I960, S.V. C~W. 3) A very old text tradition. In regard to P66 Kenyon notes: "The text is divided into sections which are similar to those found in the Freer Codex (W), but at an earlier stage of development. Apart from more than seventy differences of word-order the text is remarkably close to that of the great uncials, particularly of N, and shows none of the peculiarities of D". (F. Kenyon: "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", London, 1958, p. 190). For the new dating of the papyri see: K. Aland: "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II", NTS 9 (1962-1963), pp. 303-316. The dating of P66 remains unchanged: "urn 200" (p. 308). 4) Liddell and Scott: "A Greek -English Lexicon", Oxford, 195 I, II, s. V. 5) In the LXX the verb 7t'l)poi)v is only used twice, in Job 17,7 and iv Macc 18, 21. In Job I7, 7 AS2 read 7te:7t~pwv't'oc~, whereas B has 7te:T;WPWV't'OC~, the same striking change in verb. But in both cases 7t'l)poi)v is a translation of ilil:l. See: E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath: "A Concordance to the Septuagint", Oxford, I897, II, s.v. 6) Whether the same can be said of E7tWPWcre:v is a moot point. This verb occurs in the passive in the sense of "to become blind" (of the heart) (see Liddell and Scott s.v.), e.g. in Mk 6, 52; 8,17; Rom It, 7. The active form "to blind" cannot be indicated in Greek. It is noteworthy that C~IV (or C~O with the interchange of IV and 0) occurs in the idiom of Talmud, Midrash and Targum, meaning "to blind". See M. Jastrow: "A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature", New York, I950, II, S.V. Compare the reading of the Vulgata: Is 6,10: ex cae c a cor populi hujus instead of incrassatum (b d g' 7t: ingrassatum) est enim cor populi huius in the Itala.

A. IQlsa and IQlsb

9

Is 7, I4: Mt I, 23 The quotation in Mt r, 23 belongs to the group of so called "formula quotations" 1). The question arises, whether Mt . 8eou I 0 J eius (mg) zVLcrXUcrIXTc.JcrIXV IXUTc.J J 7tpocrXUV'I)crIXTc.JcrIXV IXUTc.J Eus t Chr: honorifieent eum Hil t IXUTc.J 3° IXUTOV M (txt) s v (txt) x z a 2 1) (uid) Chr: IXUTOU~ A * Fe a * e gil n v (mg) ~