Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea ... (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) 9004147039, 9789004147034

Citation preview

Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by

Florentino García Martínez Associate Editors Peter W. Flint Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar

VOLUME LVIII

Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 Edited by

Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant & Ruth A. Clements

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reworking the Bible : apocryphal and related texts at Qumran : proceedings of a joint symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 / edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, & Ruth A. Clements. p. cm. — (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; v. 58) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-14703-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Apocryphal books (Old Testament)—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Congresses. 2. Dead Sea scrolls—History and criticism—Congresses. 3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Jewish—Congresses. I. Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. II. Universitah ha-'Ivrit bi-Yerushalayim. Makhon le-limudim mitkadmim. Research Group on Qumran. III. Chazon, Esther G. IV. Dimant, Devorah. V. Clements, Ruth. VI. Series. BS1700.R49 2005 229'.91—dc22 2005052634

ISSN 0169–9962 ISBN 90 04 14703 9 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................ Abbreviations ..............................................................................

vii ix

From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt: Towards a Theology of Sin in Biblical and Early Second Temple Sources ........ Gary A. Anderson

1

The Avoidance of the Death Penalty in Qumran Law ........ Joseph Baumgarten From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon .............................. Moshe J. Bernstein Pesher Nahum, Psalms of Solomon and Pompey ............................ Shani Berrin Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process .................................................................................... George J. Brooke

31

39

65

85

Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua ................................................................ 105 Devorah Dimant Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46 ........................................................ 135 Betsy Halpern-Amaru Physical and Metaphysical Measurements Ordained by God in the Literature of the Second Temple Period ................ 153 Menahem Kister

vi

contents

Sacrificial Halakhah in the Fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran, the Cairo Genizah, and Mt. Athos Monastery .................................................................... 177 Lawrence H. Schiffman The Relationship Between the Legal and Narrative Passages in Jubilees ................................................................................ 203 Michael Segal Index of Modern Authors ........................................................ 229 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................... 232

PREFACE

We are pleased to offer in this volume a selection of papers presented at the seventh Orion symposium held on 15–17 January 2002, under the joint auspices of the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies and the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. The occasion that prompted this cooperation was the presence of a group of Qumran scholars and specialists in related fields serving as Fellows at the Institute during the winter of 2001–2002. The topic around which the work of the Institute Fellows centered—the apocryphal texts from Qumran— also served as the central theme of the joint symposium and of the selected proceedings published in this volume. The common thread that links the individual papers is their examination of the use and interpretation of the Bible in the non-canonical works found at Qumran, with particular attention to interpretive motifs, techniques, and genres. Approximately half of the papers presented here deal with legal interpretation (Gary Anderson, Joseph Baumgarten, Menahem Kister, and Lawrence Schiffman) and nearly half with narrative exegesis (Moshe Bernstein, Devorah Dimant, and Betsy Halpern-Amaru); one deals with the relationship between legal and narrative passages in the Book of Jubilees (Michael Segal); and one with a pesher-type commentary in its historical context (Shani Berrin). Rounding out the volume is an essay on the crucial question of the authority of the texts that rework biblical material and their significance for understanding the canonical process (George Brooke). We would like to thank Ruth Clements for copyediting the volume, Shelly Zilberfarb-Eshkoli and Nadav Sharon for preparing the Hebrew text, and Betsy Halpern-Amaru for assistance in the later stages of production. We are grateful to the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Orion Foundation, the Sir Zelman Cowan Universities Fund, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for their support of the symposium and the preparation of this volume. As always, our deep appreciation goes to Hans van de Meij, Mattie Kuiper, and the rest of the staff at Brill Academic Press for their editorial assistance.

viii

preface

Esther Chazon The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Director, The Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature

Devorah Dimant The University of Haifa Director, Research Group on Qumran, The Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD ANRW

ASOR BDAG

BDB BEATAJ BibOr CBQ CBQMS CRINT CSCO DJD DSD HALOT

HAT HSS HTR HUCA ICC IEJ IOS JAOS JBL JJS

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– American Schools of Oriental Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 1999 Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum Biblica et orientalia Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, 1994–1999 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Israel Oriental Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies

x JQR JSJ

abbreviations

Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KBL Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill, 1958 LCL Loeb Classical Library LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumrân SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study SIJD Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzianum SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StPB Studia post-biblica SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Tr. J. T. Willis, D. E. Green, and D. W. Stott. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974– TS Theological Studies TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements

FROM ISRAEL’S BURDEN TO ISRAEL’S DEBT: TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF SIN IN BIBLICAL AND EARLY SECOND TEMPLE SOURCES Gary A. Anderson University of Notre Dame

As philosophers of language have come to remind us, metaphors are not merely poetic embellishments. They are part and parcel of everyday speech and as such they structure the way we think, perceive, and act in the world. In their important and oft-cited study of metaphor, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson begin with a consideration of how speakers of English describe the terms of an argument.1 Consider these sentences, Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target I demolished his argument. I’ve never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot! If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.

Lakoff and Johnson argue that these colorful phrases are not mere verbal filigree. It is not the case that we could somehow strip away from ordinary speech metaphors such as these and thereby reveal what Plato would have called the “ideal form” of what an argument really is. In fact, we would do better to proceed from the exact opposite direction. For the fact of the matter is that constructs such as “argument” do not exist in abstract isolation. They are deeply and inextricably embedded within the fabric of a specific language and culture. 1 G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). Also worth consulting are the classic articles of D. Davidson, “What Metaphors Mean,” Critical Inquiry 5 (1978): 31–47; and G. Frege, “On Sense and Meaning,” in Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (ed. P. Geach and M. Black; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 56–78. Two recent theological treatments should be noted: J. M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); and C. Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality and the Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988).

gary a. anderson

2

In short, the way in which we conduct arguments is influenced by the way we conceive and talk about them. “Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance,” Lakoff and Johnson ask, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all; they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing “arguing.” Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance.2

Paul Ricoeur, in his seminal work, The Symbolism of Evil, takes this point one step further.3 In his view, philosophers have no direct and unmediated access to the semantic content of such ideas as fault, sin, error, and their consequent rectification. All that stands at our disposal are highly charged words or metaphors that serve as building blocks for larger narrative complexes. As a result, one must begin with an attempt to grasp the concrete nature of these words and metaphors before proceeding to how they are deployed in narratives. It is from this very process that Ricoeur coined his oft-cited aphorism, “the symbol gives rise to the thought.” By this he meant that through the (irreducible) metaphoric content of human language, the philosopher is given the building blocks through which a deeper understanding of the human condition can be ascertained. Ricoeur’s argument consists of two successive parts. In the first, he considers the numerous lexemes and metaphors that structure the imagery of fault and sin in Western thought. Here his intention is to categorize the diverse symbolic universes these terms variously inscribe. But however disclosive these metaphors may be—primary symbols in Ricoeur’s terms—they hardly provide us a complete picture. One cannot learn about the theology of sin in the Bible by consulting the lexical entries of a reference dictionary. Rather, it is within the foundation myths of a given culture that these primary symbols are deployed in a more robust and profound manner. In such narra-

2

Metaphors We Live By, 4–5. P. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (tr. E. Buchanan; Religious Perspectives 17; New York: Harper & Row, 1967). 3

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

3

tives a culture takes up the larger issue of the fundamental grammar of these symbolic lexemes and articulates in story form how one can understand one’s place in the world because of them. Metaphors inform myths but they in no way foreordain them. In other words, we can see after the fact how a culture’s metaphoric palette has given shape and form to a certain mythic trope, but we could never predict in advance what such a trope would look like on the basis of the bare metaphor itself. This recent work on metaphor has rather profound implications for how we read and interpret the Bible. Let me begin with the primary thesis of this essay: we should not begin our research on the concept of sin and forgiveness with the notion that some pure and ideal notion of that concept hovers over the surface of the different genres and historical periods that we choose to examine. Instead, what we shall find is a variety of metaphorical pictures—some coexisting at the same time and others evolving under very specific cultural and linguistic circumstances—that require careful classification. These metaphors, in turn, will give shape to various narratives about how sin is either punished or forgiven. The narratives, per se, are not predetermined by their underlying metaphors, but neither are they unrelated.

A. Bearing the Weight of One’s Sin In the Bible itself, there are numerous metaphors that describe the nature of human sin. Among the most common are those of sin as a stain from which one must be purified—“wash me thoroughly of my iniquity and purify me from my sin” (Ps 51:4)—and sin as a weight that must be borne—“the goat shall bear away all the iniquities to an inaccessible region” (Lev 16:22). The concept of sin as a burden that must be borne is by far and away the most productive metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and it is to this notion that we now turn. In a recent article, Baruch Schwartz took up the vexed problem of how to understand the Hebrew idiom ˆw[ açn.4 This idiom, as is 4 B. Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor: Biblical afj/[çp/ˆw[ açn,” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 149–71 (Hebrew). Also see his, “The Bearing of Sin in Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurwitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 3–21.

4

gary a. anderson

well known, conveys the ideas of both forgiveness and punishment at one and the same time. Schwartz argued that only careful attention to the concrete nature of the underlying metaphor will allow us to understand the peculiar and quite idiosyncratic usage of the phrase. In order to get a proper purchase on the matter, let us look at some texts that illustrate the problem. The first four concern the use of the idiom to mark culpability, the last four, forgiveness:5 1. If a person incurs guilt when he has heard a public imprecation and—although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter—he does not give information, he shall bear the weight of his sin [wnw[ açn] (Lev 5:1). 2. Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear the weight of his sin [açnw wafj] (Lev 24:15). 3. But your carcasses shall drop in the wilderness while your children roam the wilderness for forty years, loaded down with the weight of your faithlessness [μkytwnzAta waçnw],6 until the last of your carcasses is down in the wilderness. You shall bear the weight of your sin [waçt μkytnw[-ta] for forty years, corresponding to the number of days— forty days—that you scouted the land; a year for each day (Num 14:32–34). 4. Henceforth, Israelites shall not trespass on the Tent of Meeting, and thus bear the weight of sin [afj taçl] and die (Num 18:22).

For the meaning, ‘to remove a burden,’ in the sense of ‘to forgive a sin,’ compare the following: 1. So you shall say to Joseph, “Remove, I urge you, the burden of the sin [[çpl an aç] of your brothers who treated you so harshly” (Gen 50:17). 2. Remove the burden of my offense [ytafj an aç] just this once, and plead with the Lord your God that He but remove this death from me (Exod 10:17). 3. The Lord! Slow to anger and abounding in kindness; who removes the burden of iniquity and transgression [[çpw ˆw[ açn], yet not remitting all punishment, but visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and fourth generation. (Num 14:18) 4. Please, remove the burden of my offense [ytafjAta an aç] and come back with me, and I will bow low to the Lord (1 Sam 15:25). 5 I have relied on the New Jewish Publication Society version for a good portion of the translation of these verses and others in this article, but have modified it slightly to bring to the foreground the metaphoric imagery. The translations of all other postbiblical Hebrew texts are my own. 6 M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1989), 87 (Hebrew), has suggested that instead of the bizarre form μkytwnz we should read μkytnw[.

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

5

And so our problem: how should we understand the exactly opposite meanings that are expressed by the single Hebrew expression ˆw[ açn? One answer has been an appeal to the peculiar mentalité of Israelite culture, a culture that could not always distinguish between an action and its consequential result.7 In this case, the activity of “sin” leads to one of two consequences: punishment or forgiveness. Hence, following the logic of this sort of holistic thinking (Ganzheitsdenkung), the phrase “bear a sin” could be rendered in light of the context of either consequence: to suffer a punishment or to be forgiven. As Schwartz observes, there are numerous problems with such a perspective.8 First of all, even though the development of secondary meanings is well documented with respect to dozens of cultic terms, the production of two idioms that stand as complete and polar opposites is peculiar in the extreme and not easily paralleled. Secondly, the manner in which the two extended meanings develop is equally odd. Schwartz explains,9 Both in regard to the verb ‘to bear’ and the noun ‘sin’ one must presume the existence of two meanings, one literal (açn meaning ‘to bear or carry,’ and ˆw[ connoting ‘an evil deed or transgression’) and one metaphoric, and extended in meaning (açn meaning ‘to forgive or forego,’ and ˆw[ meaning ‘punishment’). Thus one who claims that in a context of mercy açn takes on the extended meaning of ‘forgive’ must presume that ˆw[ retains its primary meaning of ‘sin.’ But just the reverse in the context of punishment! Here one must maintain that the verb retains much of its original meaning ‘to bear up under a heavy weight,’ namely of suffering, whereas the noun ˆw[ does not function literally but rather assumes its metaphoric and secondary meaning, that of ‘punishment.’

This sort of rearrangement of primary and secondary meanings appears quite artificial. It is as though the reader must manipulate the levels of meaning to fit the context rather than allow the meaning to emerge more naturally from internal semantic development. A third problem with the traditional explanation is that if ˆw[ has the consequential meaning of ‘punishment,’ it is odd that the type of punishment is not always specified. Even more problematic is the 7

On this see Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor,” 157 n. 33. See Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor,” 157–62 for a full catalogue of difficulties. I will highlight, in this essay, just a few of them. 9 Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor,” 158. 8

6

gary a. anderson

fact that some texts list a specific penalty above and beyond ˆw[ açn, as though ˆw[ açn marked nothing of the kind. In this regard consider Num 18:22 (text #4 above). Here one bears the weight of one’s sin and then one dies. The specific punishment of death comes afterwards and should not be confused with the act of bearing the sin itself. In this case, it is preferable to understand the idiom “to bear a sin” as expressing a state of ongoing culpability that, left uncorrected, will result in the penalty of death. Schwartz’s solution to these inconsistencies is as brilliant as it is ordinary. The expression “to bear a sin” is simply a metaphor in which sins are compared to a heavy load or burden. Indeed the expression necessitates the translation “to bear [the weight of ] sin,” wherein the generic term for sin takes its specific color from its governing verb. The resulting picture is, in fact, even more graphic than this: once the sinner has completed his interdicted act, it is as though a heavy weight is manufactured and placed on his shoulders. This metaphor allows for the idea that sin has ongoing and persistent consequences if one does not take specific measures to rectify it. As long as the sin goes uncorrected, the load will bear heavier and heavier upon the sinner until he or she is crushed by its weight. If we take this symbolic picture seriously and bear in mind two well-attested and quite ordinary meanings for the verb açn (‘to carry’ and ‘to carry away or remove’), everything will fall into place. First, let us consider the mundane sense of açn meaning ‘to carry a burden.’ In Num 11:10–17, the Israelites begin to moan bitterly about their status as travelers in the desert. The Lord grows angry, and this prompts Moses to plead: Why have you dealt ill with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor, that You have laid the burden (açm) of all this people upon me? Did I conceive all this people, did I give birth to them, that You should say to me, “Carry them [whaç] in your bosom as a nurse carries an infant to the land that You have promised on oath to their fathers?” [. . .] I cannot carry [taçl] all this people by myself, for they are too heavy for me [ynmm dbk].

Here, the burden of Israel is not a particular sin but the heavy responsibilities under which Moses must labor. Not inappropriately, he compares this burden to that of a parent who must carry a child wherever he or she goes. In addition to meaning ‘to carry [a weight],’ açn can also mean ‘to remove [a weight or burden].’ The reasons for this are not difficult

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

7

to discern. In taking on a weight or burden one must stoop down to pick it up. It is simply a matter of where the emphasis is placed: is the primary point that the subject has picked up the weight to carry it himself or that he has picked up the weight so as to remove it from another? If the latter is the case, the phrase takes on a very different meaning. Consider the following texts: “Moses was very aggrieved and he said to the Lord, ‘Pay no regard to their [Dathan’s and Aviram’s] oblation. I have not taken away (ytaçn) from them a single ass’ ” (Num 16:15);10 “and if a lion or bear came and carried off (açn) an animal from the flock . . .” (1 Sam 17:34). Biblical writers had a conscious awareness of the rich resonances of this metaphor and employed them frequently in characterizing Israel’s sin. Consider Isaiah: “Hear, O heavens and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken: I reared children and brought them up—and they have rebelled against Me! An ox knows its owner, an ass its master’s crib: Israel does not know, My people takes no thought. Ah sinful nation! People heavy laden with iniquity” (ˆw[ dbk; 1:2–4). The prophet goes even further. Israel is so wicked that the sinful burden she has manufactured must be loaded onto a cart and hauled with oxen: “[They] bear sin as though by roped [oxen],11 and iniquity as with ropes of a cart” (Isa 5:18). One of the wellknown symbolic acts of the prophet Ezekiel reflects quite graphically the underlying image of this metaphor: “Lie on your left side and let it bear [the weight of ] the sin of the House of Israel; for as many days as you lie on it you shall bear [the weight of ] their sin” (4:4). Last, but certainly not least, we should mention the scapegoat. According to Leviticus 16, the sins of Israel are transferred from Aaron to the goat and then the goat bears them off into the wilderness, never to return: Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall

10 Note that in a closely-worded parallel, the biblical writer replaces açn ‘to bear [away]’ with jql ‘to take [away]’: “Whose ass have I taken (1 Sam 12:3)?” It is also worth noting that the modern Hebrew verb lfn (‘to bear’; the nominal form meaning a ‘heavy burden’) is used in the construction netul-caffeine, meaning ‘without caffeine.’ 11 Reading rwçh in place of awçh, a commonly suggested emendation of the Hebrew original.

8

gary a. anderson be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus the goat shall carry on it all the iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness (Lev 16:21–22).

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the ritual of the scapegoat is dependent on the imagery of sin as a heavy burden that requires a beast of burden to bear it away from the realm of human habitation. The weight of iniquity cannot be annihilated after it has been created, but it can be banished. Following the logic of Ricoeur’s approach to metaphor, we would not claim that the story about the scapegoat is determined in advance by the presence of the metaphor of sin as a heavy burden. Other narrative realizations of the process of forgiveness are imaginable. At the same time, it would be hard to imagine such a ritual coming into existence if the underlying language of the culture in question did not conceive of sin as a heavy burden that had to be carried away in order to be forgiven. It may be worth recalling that Lakoff and Johnson suggested that a culture that structures its discourse about the term “argument” in an idiom other than that of war may not be intelligible to us. Similarly, one could say that biblical interpreters who fail to appreciate the metaphoric character of “bearing the weight of one’s sin” as a marker of culpability will also fail to delineate precisely when the idiom ˆw[ açn means the act of bearing up under a particular burden (i.e., to put up with someone; recall Num 11:10–17 above) and when it conveys forgiveness (to remove the source of offense). Consider, for example, Num 14:11–19, a text that describes the return of the spies after reconnoitering the Promised Land. The people rise up in rebellion after hearing about the inhabitants of Canaan. God tells Moses that he is about to strike the people down right on the spot. Moses quickly reminds God of his merciful attributes that include the phrase, “he who bears [away] sin (ˆw[ açn).” As if to remind God of his strong shoulders that are more than up to this task, Moses concludes his prayer with the words: “Pardon (jls), I pray, the iniquity of this people according to Your great loving kindness, as You have borne this people (hzh μ[l htaçn) from Egypt to this spot.” It has been the tendency of many commentators to translate the last phrase “as you have forgiven this people from Egypt to this spot,” on the presumption that the verb açn can be freely rendered this way if context demands (and so it would seem here with the use of the verb jls earlier in the verse). Yet, it seems better to say that in this context the more pedestrian act of carrying—as seen

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

9

above in our discussion of Numbers 11—is neatly conjoined to its metaphoric extension, forgiveness. Moses reminds God of his capacity to bear away sin (14:18a: ˆw[ açn), then urges God to forgive his people (14:19a: jls), just as he has borne the burden of their upkeep since leading them out of Egypt (hnhAd[w μyrxmm hzh μ[l htaçn rçakw). This juxtaposition should not be confused with equivalence. The differences are very clear. “The request is indeed for forgiveness (‘forgive [jls] the sin of this people’ 14:19a),” Schwartz writes, “but the phrase ‘just as you have borne this people from Egypt to this spot’ (14:19a) does not refer to the sin of the people but the people themselves. This matter is clear: ‘from Egypt to this spot’ God has indeed borne his people, but not as a figure who has forgiven them every step of the way;”12 rather it is precisely here that His forgiveness is called upon.

B. Canceling Israel’s Debt In the Second Temple period—or better, perhaps already at the close of the First—the metaphor of sin as burden is replaced by another idiom altogether, that of sin as debt.13 And it should occasion no surprise that this idiom of sin as debt and forgiveness as debt release has left its footprint in the Targum. In this literature, everywhere we have the Hebrew phrase ˆw[ açn in a context of forgiveness, we find the Aramaic idiom, abwj qbç, ‘to absolve a debt.’ Conversely, everywhere that ˆw[ açn conveys the onset of sin we find abwj albq, ‘to assume a debt.’ In fact, the free usage of the idiom ˆw[ açn comes practically to an end in the rabbinic period. So complete 12

Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor,” 159. The TDOT (5:561–62), though marred by overt anti-Jewish sensibilities, captures the shift well: “Later Judaism, which views the relation to God as a legal and business relation, often applies the metaphor of indebtedness to the ethical and religious relation between man and God. [. . .] Each transgression means indebtedness to the God who has given the Law. In heaven men’s acts are entered into an account book (bwj rfç), and the final reckoning decides whether the fulfillments of the Law or the transgressions are in the ascendancy. ‘Because the individual is judged by the majority (i.e. of his works) . . . man always appears to be in part righteous (ykz) and in part guilty (byj). If he keeps a commandment, well with him, for he has . . . inclined the scale on the side of merit . . . (t. Qid 1.14)’.” It should be noted that what is said here is true not only for rabbinic Judaism but also for Syriac-speaking Christianity. The crucial variable in this new understanding of sin is not “Judaism” but rather Aramaic idiom. 13

10

gary a. anderson

has been the replacement of one metaphor for the other that rabbinic midrashim frequently paraphrase the image of bearing up under weight as that of assuming the terms of a debt.14 This linguistic move is not simply that of the Aramaic Targum; it is equally well grounded in rabbinic Hebrew. In the Mishnah one who is at fault is said to be byyj, that is, in possession of a particular bwj, or debt, that must be repaid.15 Schwartz writes, “The sinner is said to be in a state of byyj—indebtedness in rabbinic Hebrew—because he must repay. The one who owes a sin-offering or a reparation offering must pay with that form of sacrifice; the one who owes a beating must pay with a lashing of his body; the one who owes death must pay with his life; and the one who owes karet must pay after his death.”16 A brief survey of the vocabulary for sin and its removal or punishment in rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic will make this point very clear. In Aramaic, the verb qbç—which means ‘leave, forsake’ but can be extended to mean ‘to forsake, remit a debt’ or ‘forgo an obligation’— becomes the standard term for forgiveness. Strikingly, the cognate verb in rabbinic Hebrew, ljm and its related noun hlyjm, follows a somewhat similar semantic path. H. L. Fleischer suggested on semantic grounds that this word should be derived from a root llj meaning ‘to free or loose someone [from a debt or other obligation].’17 Kutscher later substantiated this hypothesis on more solid philological grounds.18 14 This topic would merit a study all its own. For but one example consult Pesikta de Rav Kahana 25:2 (B. Mandelbaum ed., [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962], 381) on Num 14:18, where Moses cites ˆw[ açn as one of God’s merciful attributes. The phrase is concretized in the midrash through God’s removal of a bill of indebtedness from the scale, such that the credit of the person will then outweigh his debt. The “burden” imagery of the Bible is replaced by the “commercial” imagery of the Mishnah. 15 This verbal root, along with its nominal derivatives, probably derives originally from Aramaic. Indeed, the whole move toward such a commercial idiom is probably, at origin, the result of a borrowing from Assyrian-Aramean usage. On the influence of these words on Mishnaic Hebrew, see E. Kutscher, Words and their History ( Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1961 [Hebrew]). On the importance of Aramaic as a conduit of legal metaphors and their influence on rabbinic religion, see Y. Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), 121–93. 16 Schwartz, “ ‘Term’ or Metaphor,” 153. 17 Fleischer’s suggestion can be found in his additions to the dictionary of J. Levy, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols.; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1876–1889), 3:308. 18 'Erkhe ha-Milon he-Hadash le-Sifrut Hazal (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1972), 1:5 (Hebrew).

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

11

This process of semantic development so basic to rabbinic idiom is closely paralleled in the root qrp as it is used in Dan 4:24. The precise manner in which this verb expresses the concept of forgiveness in Daniel has long bedeviled scholars. A good clue as to what is going on is provided by the recent study of A. Hurwitz. He has shown that Dan 4:24 is the first Jewish text that describes almsgiving as having the function of effecting atonement.19 King Nebuchadnezzar is exhorted “to redeem (qwrp) his sins through almsgiving and his offenses through acts of kindness toward the poor.” It is no accident that the root qrp is used regularly in the Targumim to translate the Hebrew terms lag and hdp, ‘to redeem’ someone by paying off their debt.20 Here, on analogy to the development of ljm and qbç, I would suggest that King Nebuchadnezzar is asked to redeem his sins in the sense of “to pay them off by his acts of charity.” This would put the verse in close symmetry with an idea dear to the hearts of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Christians, that is, that the accrued merits (twkz) of good deeds can be used to pay off the indebtedness that results from sin.21 To round off this matter, consider the verb hbg, ‘to collect fees due on a bill’ and secondarily, ‘to punish’ in the sense that one “collects” what another “owes” as a result of some misdeed. Similarly [rp means ‘to pay a debt’ in the G stem, but ‘to collect payment from (ˆm)’ in the N stem and secondarily, ‘to collect payment, that is punish, for a crime.’ The New Testament also provides good evidence for this phenomenon. For Jesus consistently is drawn to stories about debtors and creditors as a way of making a point about sin and forgiveness. Given that he was a speaker of a Hebrew very close to that of the Mishnaic

19 “Reshitam Ha-Miqra"it shel Munahim Talmudiyyim—Le-Toledot Tsemihato shel Musag Ha-‘Sedaqah’,” in Mehqarim be-Lashon 2–3 ( Jerusalem: Center for Jewish Studies, 1987), 155–60 (Hebrew). Compare also the study of F. Rosenthal, “Sedeqah, Charity,” HUCA 23 (1950/1951): 411–30. 20 A perusal of the commentaries will show that this point of philology has caused numerous problems for interpreters. In his commentary on this verse, J. A. Montgomery notes (Daniel [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1927], 239) that this has been a locus classicus for the dispute over the value of “good works” among Catholic and Protestant interpreters. Similarly, of course, the notion of merits and demerits in rabbinic religion has been systematically misunderstood by New Testament scholars. On this, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 183–205. 21 The presence of this supposed “Jewish” idea in Syriac Christianity has never, to my knowledge, been systematically explored.

12

gary a. anderson

dialect, this can hardly be surprising. As Lakoff and Johnson documented, metaphors are not mere filigree; they determine how we think, act, and tell stories in the everyday world. That story lines like these are so frequent in the Gospels but almost nonexistent in the Hebrew Bible should not surprise. The emphasis on sin as a burden that must be either carried or removed has been replaced by stories about debt assumption and the demand for its repayment or gracious remission. Consider for example the famous line from the Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our debts as we forgive those who hold debts against us” (Matt 6:12). Nearly all scholars would concede that this line makes best sense when we assume a Semitic background. Raymond Brown puts the matter thus: The Matthean use of “debts” has a Semitic flavor; for, while in secular Greek “debt” has no religious coloring, in Aramaic hoba is a financial and commercial term that has been caught up into the religious vocabulary. [. . .] The idea of remitting (aphienai ) debts which appears in our petition is also more Semitic than Greek, for “remission” has a religious sense only in the Greek of the LXX, which is under Hebrew influence.22

Linguists would designate this phenomenon a calque. This happens when a speaker of a second, non-native tongue (in this instance, Greek) translates (“incorrectly”) into its diction, idioms that more naturally belong to their native tongue (Hebrew or Aramaic). The significance of “debt” language is not limited to the Lord’s Prayer. We find our best illustration of this sort of symbolism in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23–35). In the parable, a king wished to settle his accounts with various servants. One, who owed him ten thousand talents, was brought before him and ordered to pay. When he could not, the king threatened to sell him and his entire family into slavery. The servant fell on his knees and implored the king, “Have patience with me, I will pay you everything.” Out of mercy, the king forgave the debts. Yet the servant remained unmoved by this act of mercy. When he left the king’s presence he met a fellow servant who was indebted to him. Though his friend pleaded for mercy, the first servant would show 22 “The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer,” TS 22 (1961): 175–208; reprinted in New Testament Essays (Milwaukee, WI: Bruce, 1965), 217–53. The citation is taken from the reprint, p. 244.

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

13

none. He had the second servant thrown into prison until he could repay his debt. The parable ends with king summoning the first servant and reprimanding him for not showing the requisite kindness: “You wicked slave!” the king shouted, “I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow-slave, as I had mercy on you?” As Raymond Brown observes, “The king who wishes to settle debts with his servants is obviously God, and the atmosphere is that of judgment. The parable points out that God’s forgiveness of the servant has a connection to that servant’s forgiveness of his fellow servant. When this brotherly forgiveness fails, he is given to the torturers until he pays his debt.”23 And precisely in this fashion the parable shows a remarkably tight parallelism to the Lord’s Prayer. For in this parable we see not only a petition from a servant to his master for debt remission (“forgive us our debts”) but the remission itself is made contingent on how the servant acts towards those peers he holds debts against (“as we forgive those debts we hold against others”).

C. Debt at Qumran When we turn to the literature of Qumran and other Second Temple materials the picture becomes a bit fuzzier. This is not because the linguistic situation has changed. I do not think it is overly daring to claim that the Hebrew speakers of Qumran would have spoken a language very close to that of Jesus and his disciples and the early Tannaim. What is different is that the texts from Qumran have been written in a style that has closer affinities to that of the Hebrew Bible. As James Kugel has so aptly put the matter, the writers of early postbiblical works sought very earnestly to bring their own life and times “under the coverage” of the biblical era.24 At Qumran, this motivation led to the very noticeable desire to imitate biblical idiom and conventions of writing. As a result, the pronounced and near ubiquitous usage of debt language like that found in rabbinic literature or the New Testament is not as striking to the eye. Indeed,

23

“Pater Noster,” 245. J. A. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Library of Early Christianity 3; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 46. 24

14

gary a. anderson

whereas rabbinic literature makes regular use of the root bwj to describe human culpability for sin, at Qumran this root is rather rare, a fact that might indicate closer affinities to the world of the Bible. This is, however, not the case, but only a close and very attentive reading of these texts will put the matter in proper perspective. In the third column of the Damascus Covenant there is a rather long summary of the sins of Israel. This list of wayward actions begins already before the call of Abraham, continues through the generation of the wilderness, builds up considerable steam during the reigns of the various kings, and ends with the obliteration of the kingdom of Judea and the resultant exile of the Israelites. At the conclusion of this litany of Israel’s perfidy, our writer observes: And God grew angry with their congregation. And their sons perished because of it, and their kings were cut off because of it, their mighty men perished because of it, and their land was laid waste because of it. Because [all] the first members of the covenant fell into debt [wbj],25 they were given over to the sword. They had forsaken the covenant of God and chosen their own will. [CD 3:10–12].

One of the striking features of Qumran Hebrew is its attempt to biblicize; the idiom of contemporary Hebrew is consciously avoided within its writings. But here, as not too infrequently, our writer slips and reveals terminology for “sin” that is part and parcel of Second Temple idiom. Rather than introducing what would be regular biblical idiom, “because the first members of the covenant had sinned (wafj),” or perhaps “rebelled” (wdrm ;w[çp) our writer introduces a completely nonbiblical expression, “they fell into debt,” in order to describe their state of culpability before God. The next text I would like to consider is 11Q13 or as it is better known, 11QMelchizedek.26 This unusual text is about the end of days, when the eschatological figure Melchizedek appears in order to rouse the armies of light to victory over his demonic adversary, Belial, and the forces of darkness. 25

The text actually reads, nonsensically, wbh; but it is regularly emended to wbj. The major treatments of this text include: J. T. Milik, “Milkî-ßedeq et Milkîre“a' dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 95–144; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchire“a' (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981); É. Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelkîsédeq,” RevQ 12 (1987): 483–514; and F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, “13. 11QMelchizedeq,” in Qumran Cave 11:II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 222–41. The reading adapted here follows from the DJD edition. 26

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

15

Strikingly, the entire figure of contestation is rooted in the language of debt and debt release. Let us consider the opening lines of the second column of this document: /2/ And as for what he said: “in [this] year of the jubilee [each of you will return to his property,” (Lev 25:13) concerning it, he (also) said, “Now this is /3/ the ma]nner [of the release:] Let every creditor remit what he has lent [to his neighbor. He shall not press his neighbor or his brother for repayment, for] God’s release [has been proclaimed (Deut 15:2–3).”] /4/ The interpretation of it concerns the end of days when the captives (Isa 61:1) who [. . .] /5/ and they are the inheritance of Melchizedek, (qdxyklm tljn) who /6/ will make them return. And liberty (Lev 25:10) will be proclaimed for them, to free them from [the debt] of all their iniquities. And this [wi]ll [happen] /7/ in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the d[ay] of aton]ement is the e[nd of ] the tenth [ju]bilee /8/ in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of ] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek . . . /9/ for it is the era of the “year of favor” (Isa 61:2) for Melchizedek and his armies, the nation of God’s holy ones and the era of the rule of judgment as it is written in the songs of David . . .

The picture is striking. Israel has been suffering under the unjust rule of Belial for some nine jubilees, or 441 years (9 × 49). During this time she has been deprived of her just inheritance in the holy land. But her period of penitential waiting, though lorded over by an unjust despot, is not without its own rationale. Israel’s sins have put her in the position of a slave sold into slavery because of expenses that could no longer be covered. At the dawn of the tenth jubilee, the messianic figure of Melchizedek appears, announcing the year of God’s favor (ˆwxr tnç), a year in which all of Israel’s former debts are rescinded and the captive nation is restored to her rightful place in the land. Like the tribes under the leadership of Joshua, Israel will march back and assume dominion over her God-given inheritance, the land of Israel.27 But most striking for our purposes is the textual correlation of Lev 25:1–17 and Deut 15:1–11. Both of these biblical passages deal solely with the matter of land return and monetary debt. In Deuteronomy, 27

Not surprisingly, another text at Qumran, the Apocryphon of Joshua, dates the initial entry of Israel into the Promised Land in a jubilee year. The text reads (ll. 5–6): “The sons of Israel crossed over onto dry land in the first month of the fortyfirst year since the exodus from Egypt. It was in the jubilee year that their entry into the land of Canaan had its beginning.” In a symmetry that would not have surprised Hermann Gunkel, Israel’s Endzeit will recapitulate her Urzeit.

16

gary a. anderson

the concern is for individuals who fall into temporary poverty and seek to ameliorate their situation through a loan. As all borrowers know, loans taken with interest carry with them a hidden, but potent danger—without timely repayments, the debt quickly grows to a point where it can no longer be repaid. For this reason Israel was exhorted not to borrow money from non-Israelites. “For the Lord your God will bless you as He has promised you: You will extend loans to many nations, but require none yourself; you will dominate many nations but they will not dominate you” (Deut 15:6). According to Leviticus, should an Israelite experience financial distress and be forced to indenture himself to a non-Israelite, he can win his freedom in one of three ways: he can purchase it through the efforts of his labor; a near relative can intervene and provide the currency required for redemption; or he can wait until the jubilee year when all indentured servants must be set free. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, demands that every seventh year all debts must be remitted. The author of 11QMelchizedek has taken ample liberties with this material and has combined parts of both texts so as to draw a picture of what the moment of eschatological redemption would look like. The logic behind this exegetical innovation can be reconstructed without much difficulty. The eschatological moment of deliverance is not completely a novum; it is patterned on Israel’s primal category of salvation—the Exodus from Egypt.28 Indeed, Second Isaiah had already prepared the way for this typological move by depicting Israel’s release from exile as a second Exodus. This second Exodus looks quite similar to the first, with the exception of one substantial difference. Because Pharaoh had reduced Israel to abject slavery by his own pernicious will (“A new king arose over Egypt who knew not Joseph,” Exod 1:8), her redemption was to be achieved solely through the victory of a powerful redeemer over an unjust tyrant. Israel’s suffering was altogether innocent. Such was not the case during the exile. Now, Israel’s servitude had its origins in rebellion and sin. No longer could Israel’s redemption be secured solely by the defeat of an external foe; Israel’s own sins had to be reckoned with.

28 The idea is expressed classically in Lev 25:54–55, “If he has not been redeemed in any of those (aforementioned) ways [see vv. 47–53], he and his children with him shall go free in the jubilee year. For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants; they are My servants, whom I freed (literally, ‘brought forth’) from the land of Egypt, I the Lord your God.”

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

17

Redemption cannot be solely martial in nature as in the first Exodus but must also be forensic. As a result, the debt slavery described in Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 now assumes a level of meaning not intended by our biblical writers. Israel’s current plight of servitude is the result of the debt of her own sins that have sold her into slavery. One problem created by this metaphor, however, is the question of who holds the bond of debt under which the Israelites are bound? Clearly no terrestrial adversary could wield such spiritual authority. The dualism of Qumranic theology provided a ready answer: Belial is declared to be in possession of this bond, and as such, his power over Israel is not without some claim to legitimacy.29 Like our text from the Damascus Covenant, 11QMelchizedek is steeped in the idiom of the Bible. Indeed, a good proportion of the text itself is a pastiche of biblical quotations. But when our writer comes to make one of his central points, that at the close of the ninth jubilee liberty (rwrd) will be proclaimed and sins will be forgiven, in rushes the colloquial Hebrew from the Second Temple period. Let us consider ll. 6–7, “He shall proclaim liberty to them so as to forsake (bwz[l) the [indebtedness (açm)] of all their sins (hmhytwnww[).”30 Set against the background of norms of biblical grammar, this sentence is bizarre. Biblical idiom does not know an expression ‘to forsake sins’ (ˆw[ bwz[l) in the sense of ‘to forgive.’ We can only make sense of bz[ if we understand it as a calque of an underlying Aramaic qbç. Both of these verbs share a similar semantic field—‘to leave, abandon, forsake.’ But the Aramaic verb has evolved one step beyond this. It now conveys the additional sense of ‘forsaking a claim on a bond of indebtedness.’ And it is for this reason that the term comes to convey ‘forgiveness’ in Aramaic. If sin is a debt, then forgiveness

29 This is a remarkable point that has not been noticed by those who have commented upon this text. It shows a striking correlation to a theme that would emerge in early Christianity, that is, that Satan justly holds a bond of indebtedness against humankind. On this, see briefly G. A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 158–61 and, in far greater detail, M. E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002). 30 Milik, “Milki-sedeq,” 103, has restored the term açm (= ‘debt’) as the object of the verb bz[, ‘to release or forsake.’ His suggestion is well-grounded in the clause found in Neh 5:10: “I, my brothers, and my servants also have claims of money and grain against them; let us now abandon (anAbz[n) those claims (hzh açmh).” What appears to have happened in 11QMelchizedek is that the financial image of Neh 5:10 has become theological: “to abandon the (claims) that result from the debt of their sins.”

18

gary a. anderson

occurs when a bondholder renounces his claims to further payments (cf. the earlier discussion of Matt 18:23–35). Our Hebrew scribe at Qumran is aware of this metaphoric usage but lacks an immediate Hebrew cognate, and so he reaches for the nearest equivalent at hand—bz[. Like the Lord’s Prayer in the New Testament, the linguistic result is jarring: we are faced with a sentence that does not sound right in biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew but only becomes intelligible in light of the interference provided by an underlying Aramaic expression.31 The conclusion is patent: a notion of forgiveness built on the idiom of debt underlies the conception of our author. And just as the metaphor of sin as a burden led to the construction of a ritual for the riddance of sin through a scapegoat which could carry it away, so the metaphor of sin as a debt permits early biblical interpreters to see a level of meaning in the biblical laws about debt release that would have been lost on the original biblical authors. It was the claim of Paul Ricoeur that the symbol gives rise to the thought. Idioms for sin, he argued, provide the semantic building blocks upon which narratives about the punishment for or forgiveness of sin are built. With just the slightest point of adjustment, we can apply this principle to the exegetical efforts of our scribe from Qumran. This writer, formed as he was by the spoken Hebrew of his own day to think of sin as a form of debt that must be repaid, was drawn almost inexorably to biblical texts about debt release. If the jubilee year is that point in time when all debt related to the land will be released, then no enormous hermeneutical leap is required to deduce that on this day God will also announce the forgiveness of sin. For these sins, like other monetary debts, have been slowly but inexorably accumulating over time.32 31

This sort of calque on the root bz[ occurs a second time in the Qumran writings in the Damascus Covenant (5:5–6), regarding the forgiveness shown toward David when he slept with Bathsheba. On this text, see G. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees” DSD 1 (1994): 1–29, esp. n. 35. T. Penar, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), was the first to make this suggestion. 32 There are other instances of bj and bz[ in the Qumran materials and it is not my intention to run down the entire list (for bj see 4Q542 Testament of Qahat 1 ii 6; 4Q179 apocrLam A 1 i 14; for bz[ see 4Q271 [4QCDf ] 3 3). More important to emphasize is that the idiom of sin as some sort of failed financial venture can be found in other sorts of speech as well. For example in 4Q504 Words of the Luminaries we find: “through our sins we were sold [into exile] (4Q504 1–2 ii 15).” This text is clearly built on the model of Isa 50:1. In 11Q5 19:10 we read: “I was near to death because of my sins, and my iniquities have sold me to Sheol.”

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

19

D. The Root hxr in Late Biblical Hebrew Heretofore, I have focused my attention on the differences between biblical and postbiblical Hebrew. But actually, the changes we have been tracing began to take root in late biblical Hebrew. In order to appreciate this level of internal change, we must take a short detour and pursue for a moment the meaning of the root hxr, ‘to accept, be satisfied,’ in several biblical texts. Let us begin with one of the better known examples, the words of Second Isaiah to those Israelites residing in Babylon. After the fall of the first Temple, the Babylonian armies exiled numerous persons of means from Jerusalem and the surrounding Judean countryside back to Babylon. There, as Isaiah describes the matter, the people sat in mourning over their culpability for the devastation of their homeland and eagerly awaited word that they might be able to return. With the rise of the Lord’s anointed, Cyrus, Isaiah announced that a new day had dawned. God was about to lead the people forth from Babylon as a redeemer, that is, freeing them from enslavement: Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and announce to her that her period of servitude is ended, that her iniquity has been paid off (hnw[ hxrn), that she has received from the LORD’s hand double for all her sins. (Isa 40:2)

That Israel’s penal service has come to closure is in keeping with her status as a disobedient servant who had to serve an allotted period of punishment. What is surprising is the way in which this penal servitude provides the background for a new metaphoric conception of human sin and its rectification.33 Israel’s accumulated sin had resulted in a margin of debt she could not handle, and so she was sold into bondage in Babylon in 586. Now, some decades latter, Isaiah makes the bold prophetic claim that her forgiveness is at hand, for during this period of servitude she has “accumulated” double the price of what her former sins required. Israel is not unlike the debt slave of Lev 25:47–52, who is allowed to buy himself out of his state of slavery should he prosper in his indentured state. What is new is that this Levitical law for monetary

33 On this meaning compare the commentary of the Radaq on this verse: “For her sin is repaid: her period of punishment has come to closure; so Lev 26:34, ‘Then the land will repay its Sabbaths.’ So for ‘her sin,’ the term refers to her punishment as in: ‘For the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete’; and Targum Jonathan translates, ‘her state of indebtedness will be cancelled.’ ”

20

gary a. anderson

debt has become a metaphor for Israel’s state as a culpable nation. Not surprisingly, Isaiah becomes the first biblical writer to link the concept of “redemption” with the act of forgiving sin.34 Isaiah’s deployment of this metaphor implies that Israel’s suffering during the exile had conferred upon her a form of currency that could be used to settle the debts she had incurred. Though such an equation of suffering and the “cash equivalent” it generates is not explicitly made here, we will see that it does not take much effort on the part of early interpreters to tease it out. Before turning directly to that matter, I would like to pause for a moment on the linguistic expression Isaiah uses to convey this concept of debt release, hnw[ hxrn. Based on standard Hebrew usage we should translate the phrase, “her sin was accepted.” But certainly such a translation would make no sense, for the notion of acceptance is normally used of something positive, such as an unblemished offering. Joseph Blenkinsopp certainly catches the basic contextual sense of the metaphor: “Jerusalem, representing the people, has served its time of indentured service (abx understood in this sense rather than that of the military draft, or of doing time in prison for nonpayment of debts). She has satisfied her obligations and paid off her debts.”35 In so reading the passage, Blenkinsopp inadvertently follows a path already charted by the Targum: “Her debt was remitted [by him who held it].” This curious usage of the root hxr to convey full acceptance of the payment of a debt is rather peculiar in the Bible and has frequently caused many a lexicographer to run for shelter. It is not easy to trace the semantic development that underlies this novel meaning.36 34 Elsewhere in Isaiah the linkage of redemption to sin can be found. In 44:21–22 we have a very rare parallelism between forgiveness of sin and being redeemed (“I will wipe away your sins like a cloud; Your transgression like mist; Come back to Me, for I redeem you”), a parallelism that evokes what we have seen in Dan 4:24 and 11QMelchizedek. And in Isa 50:1–2 we find Israel’s status in Babylon compared to that of a person sold into slavery because of his sins: “Thus said the Lord: [. . .] Which of My creditors (yçwnm ym) was it to whom I sold you off ? You were only sold off for your sins.” Most explicit, and quite singular in the Bible, is what appears to be the late (exilic?) addition of two final verses to Psalm 130: “O Israel, wait for the Lord; for with the Lord is steadfast love and great power to redeem (twdp wm[ hbrh). It is He who will redeem (hdpy) Israel from all their iniquities.” 35 J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 180. 36 BDB, for example, lists one of the standard meanings of the G stem as ‘to accept’ (so God “accepting” a sacrifice). This, in turn, leads to the sense ‘to make acceptable’ in the sense of ‘to pay off a debt’ (so Lev 26:34 and 43). As will be

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

21

But this problem is not limited to a single text. A close sibling can be found in Leviticus 26. This chapter, which is organically linked to chapter 25 about debt release on the jubilee, presents what the cost to Israel will be should she violate the commandments that God has given to her. A set of five increasingly severe punishments is outlined that will overtake Israel should she persist in wayward activity (Lev 26:14–17; 18–20; 21–22; 23–26; and 27–33). The fifth and final set of punishments (vv. 27–33) is the most extreme. Israel will be condemned to consume the flesh of her own children; God will defile her sanctuaries and turn her cities to rubble. So devastating will be the destruction that even the enemies who attempt to settle the land will be appalled at the state of the land: “I myself shall make the land a desolation and your enemies who dwell on it shall be appalled” (26:32) Why are they appalled? Perhaps it is because the land that Israel was supposed to let go fallow every seventh year is carrying out this responsibility on its own. The land somewhat miraculously refuses to return to its fertile state in order to repay the debt that it owes. For as the biblical writer makes clear, only when Israel is absent can “the land repay (hxrt), over the course of the time of its desolation, the debt of the sabbatical years it owes. While you are in the land of your enemies, then the land shall rest and repay (txrh) the sabbatical years it owes” (26:34).37 seen below this line of development is nearly correct, but it does not provide us with a means of understanding Isaiah 40:2. How is the “acceptance of a sin” relatable to “forgiveness”? KBL, on the other hand, goes in a completely different direction and posits a second root meaning ‘to pay off (a debt).’ 37 J. Milgrom (see n. 38 below) renders the first usage of hxr/hxrt in the passive “for the land shall be paid,” and the second usage in the active/transitive, ‘to repay.’ He does this on the grounds that the distinction between the Grund- and the Causitive-stem in the passage marks a difference between active and passive usage of the root. This yields the unhappy picture of construing the land as both the agent that must repay debt and the agent to whom debt is repaid. Although rabbinic Hebrew would seem to provide some support for this—for in this dialect of Hebrew the transitive usage is always marked by the C inflection—the meaning that results is not logical. One way around this problem is to repoint the G forms in Leviticus 26 as causatives. Since they all occur in the imperfect, this involves no change in the consonantal text whatsoever. One problem, however, is the fact that 2 Chr 36:21, clearly building on Leviticus 26, deploys a very similar usage in the G perfect. Evidently the Chronicler, our earliest “interpreter” of Leviticus 26, understood the G form of hxr as possessing an active meaning: ‘to pay off a debt.’ The recent work of Steven Fassberg, building on an important article of Z. Ben-Hayyim (“The Samaritan Tradition and its Relationship to the Tradition of the Dead Sea Scrolls and to Mishnaic Hebrew,” Leshonenu 22 [1958]: 236–37 [Hebrew]), offers a way around this problem. As Fassberg shows (“The Movement from Qal to Pi 'el in

22

gary a. anderson

But it is not just the land that has accumulated a debt that it must now bring to closure; exactly the same situation describes the nation Israel. For just as the land must repay the debt of her neglected fallow years, so Israel owes a price for her sins: For the land shall be deserted by them that it may pay (≈rt) its sabbath debts during the period it is in desolation and bereft of them. But they, on their part, shall pay (wxry) [the price of ] their sin in full for the very reason that it is my rules that they have spurned and my laws they have loathed. (26:43)

The question returns: how do we understand this usage of the root hxr, ‘to pay off [a debt].’ Modern commentators such as Driver, Elliger, and Milgrom have followed a trend already marked out in the Sifra and seconded by the medieval commentators Ibn Ezra, Hizquni, and a bit later, Seforno and Luzzato.38 All these pre-modern figures gloss the usage of hxr in Leviticus 26 with the Mishnaic verb [rp, ‘to pay off a debt.’ On the basis of the rabbinic usage of hxr in the causative stem to mean ‘to count coins, to pay,’ it has been suggested that at origin we have two roots, one which originally meant ‘to accept, be satisfied with’ and another which meant ‘to count [money], to pay.’39 I think, however, that there is a simpler explanation of this conundrum, an explanation that will go a long way toward explaining what we find at Qumran. First of all, let us consider the technical usage of hxr in the priestly code. It is limited to sacrifices of the hlw[ (Lev 1:3, 4) and the μymlç (Lev 7:18, 22; 19:7; and 22:18–25). As Milgrom notes, it never occurs with sacrifices of atonement (the tafj and the μça). Why is this Hebrew and the Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive,” Hebrew Studies 42 [2001]: 243–55), rabbinic Hebrew regularly takes verbs that are ambiguous in the G (transitive or intransitive) and shifts them either to the D or C conjugation (to mark transitive usage) or to the N conjugation (to mark intransitive usage). On these grounds, it seems reasonable to conjecture that the G form in biblical Hebrew was frequently more flexible and could be rendered both transitively and intransitively. 38 The premodern commentators can be found in any Miqra"ot Gedolot. For the others see: S. R. Driver, The Book of Leviticus in Hebrew (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894), 102; K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966), 378; S. Luzzato, Commentary to the Pentateuch (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965), ad loc.; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 2323–24. 39 Here we can include the KBL, along with the corrections of Tur-Sinai that have been incorporated into modern reprints of E. Ben-Yehuda’s monumental dictionary, Millon Ha-Lashon Ha-Ivrit (15 vols.; Jerusalem, 1945; reprint: New York: Yoseloff, 1960), 6702–3.

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

23

significant? Let us consider the Sitz im Leben of an individual who offers an hlw[ or μymlç. These sacrifices were most at home in the ritual context of making a gift or fulfilling a vow. As we know from the Psalms, the process of fulfilling a vow frequently concludes with a public sacrifice at the Temple. During this ceremony, the person whose prayer has been answered testifies to those standing around the altar concerning the specific benefaction that the Lord has bestowed upon him. The idiom used to signify this momentous occasion is derived from the world of commerce (e.g., “my vows I will pay [μlça] in the presence of those who fear him” (Ps 22:26).40 It is useful to pause and consider the formal similarity that exists between the completion of a sale and the completion of a vow. In both cases there are goods that someone desires (the buyer/the one who prays), a provider of those goods (the seller/God) and terms that must be met in order to bring the contract to a close (provision of a fitting price/delivery of the item vowed). Because both a deed of sale and a vow involved contractual obligations, there must have been some means of marking the acceptance by the seller/God of the payment/vow in question. Muffs referred to such a phrase in Akkadian and Aramaic legal materials as a “quittance clause.”41 It is worth considering Muffs’ discussion of this idea in full, because it provides us with the key to understanding the technical sense of hxr in Leviticus: Sales are only considered final and incontestable by the courts if the consideration is paid in full or the necessary performance is completed. If they are not, the right-holder can always raise a claim. However, the mere objective notation that the full price was paid may still not insure the transaction against future claims by the seller or the litigant: he may claim that he was not actually “satisfied” with the amount received, and still demand more payment. In order to prevent that eventuality, the scribes also recorded the personal acknowledgement by the former right-holder that he had received the payment in full

40

This sort of usage is very common in the Psalms. See 50:14; 56:13; 61:9; 65:2; 66:13; 76:12; and 116:14, 18. 41 See Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East 66; Leiden: Brill, 1969). The term in question is an Aramaic phrase, “my heart is satisfied” († yb lbby) and its Akkadian cognate (libbasu †ab). Recently R. Westbrook has taken issue with some of the argumentation of Muffs (“The Phrase ‘His Heart is Satisfied’ in Ancient Near Eastern Legal Sources,” JAOS 111 (1991): 219–24), but it does not alter materially what we wish to do here.

gary a. anderson

24

and that he is satisfied therewith. “Satisfaction” indicates the cessation of desire: nothing more is wanted and nothing more can be demanded in the future. In this context, therefore, “my heart is satisfied with money you have given me,” means: “I am quitted after the receipt of full payment or performance.” The personal acknowledgement of the former right-holder that he had received the compensation and was quitted therewith heightens the obligatory power of the following oath of no-contest.42

All we need to do in this text is replace the words “sales” for “vow,” and “right-holder” for “God,” and everything will fall into place. In order to assure the person who has just paid his vow that God is satisfied and will not require anything additional in the future, the priestly writer takes special pains to declare solemnly and in a legally binding fashion that God has “accepted” the sacrifice in question. Consider for example the usage of the verb in Leviticus 7:18: If any of the flesh of this sacrifice of wellbeing is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable (hxry al), it shall not be accredited to him who offered it. It is desecrated meat, and the person who eats of it shall bear his punishment.

In this instance, improper consumption of the sacrifice will spoil the ability of the Israelite to complete—or “pay off ”—his vow. The parallelism between “acceptance” (hxrn) and having one’s account duly accredited (bçjn) seems to settle the matter. Should the payment of a vow be subject to any impropriety, the Deity who provided the “goods” of an answered prayer will not be satisfied with the payment in kind. If this holds, then the meaning of hxr in Leviticus 26 and Isa 40:2 falls into place. Once the metaphor for sin as a type of debt filters into Israelite thought and speech, it takes only the slightest semantic shift to move all this language concerning the obligation to pay in satisfactory terms from the realm of vow into the realm of atonement itself. A verb (hxrn) that once described an individual as quit of his obligation to pay a vow that was owed quite naturally comes to mean someone who is quit of his obligation to repay the debt that has accrued through his sins. So hnw[ hxrn in Isaiah 40, “her sin [conceived of as debt] has been repaid”; and μkytwnw[ wxry in Lev 26:41–42, “if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they pay the price of their sin in full, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob [. . .].” 42

Muffs, Studies, 44.

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

25

E. The Root hxr in Mishnaic and Qumran Hebrew The significance of this commercial metaphor for sin was not lost on rabbinic readers. Consider the Tannaitic commentary to Lev 26:43, the Sifra: “For the land shall be deserted by them”: I told them that they could sow seed for six years and then leave the ground fallow for one. This was so that they would know that the land belongs to me. They, however, did not do this, but rather persisted in sin. So they shall be exiled from the land and it then will go fallow on its own for all years of fallowness that the land owes (hbyj) me. For it is written: “For the land shall be deserted by them that it may be paid its sabbath years by being desolate without them.” “And they shall pay the debt of their sin in full.” [This means,] Did I collect from them full amount for full amount (çarb çar translating ˆ[yb ˆ[y)? Rather I collected only one hundredth of their sins before me! If so, why does scripture [repeat the word ˆ[y meaning “because” in the phrase:] ˆ[yb ˆ[y? The [first] ˆ[y because they despised my laws, these are the μynyd; and the [second] ˆ[y because they loathed my statutes, these are twçrdm.

This text leaves no doubt about how rabbinic readers understood the idiom ˆw[ hxr. Israel shall remain in exile until she has paid off the debt she has accrued in the form of sins. Just as the land owes God for the debt it has assumed by not keeping the fallow years, so Israel is in a similar state of indebtedness for not having obeyed the commandments. It may be worth pointing out here—since this commercial imagery has often been denigrated by Christian scholars as not befitting a gracious God—that God does not demand of Israel a strict and full accounting for all her sins.43 Being a benevolent loan officer, God declares in this midrash that he will collect but one hundredth of what is legitimately due him. One question that remains is just how did the author of the Sifra understand the mechanism by which Israel could remunerate her Maker for the indebtedness she still possessed? Unfortunately, the Sifra does not consider the matter, but if we cast our eye on another 43 Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40–55, 181) is typical here in expressing the reservation of many commentators on the depiction of sin as a debt that must be repaid: “If these metaphors [used by Second Isaiah] sound too legalistic for our taste, we can balance them with the emotional weight attaching to the repetition right at the beginning of this ‘book of consolation’ (wmjn wmjn).”

26

gary a. anderson

Tannaitic composition, the Sifre, we will see at least one option explored by rabbinic circles:44 R. Nehemiah says: “Beloved are bodily sufferings (μyrwsy), for just as sacrifices repay (μyxrm), so sufferings repay (μyxrm). In respect to sacrifices, scripture says, ‘it has been accepted (hxrn) to his account so as to atone on his behalf ’ (Lev 1:4). In respect to suffering it says: ‘They shall pay off (wxry) the debt of their sins’ (Lev 26:43). Moreover suffering brings even more favor than sacrifices for animal sacrifices are acquired with money whereas sufferings come at a price to the body. So it is said: ‘skin for skin, all that a man possesses he will give on account of his life’ ( Job 2:4).”

This quite specific redeployment of the vocabulary of Lev 26:43 to describe atoning for one’s sin through the process of bodily suffering is found in numerous texts from Qumran. Perhaps the most striking of these comes from the set of daily prayers known as Dibre Hame"orot, “Words of the Luminaries.”45 The text in question is pulled together virtually word for word from the vocabulary of Lev 26:40–44: wnytwba ˆww[ taw wnnww[ ta wnyxr wnbl [nkn rça hzh μwyk ht[w hkyywsnb wnsam awlw yrqb wnklh rçaw wnl[mb wnçpn trx lwkb hktyrb ta rphl wnçpn hl[g awl hky[wgnbw And now, at this day, when our hearts have been humbled (Lev 26:41) we have paid off our sins and those of our fathers (26:40, 41) that accrued when we erred and walked in rebellion. We have not rejected your trials (26:43), nor did we loath your affliction of our bodies (26:43) such that we broke your covenant during our time of trial (26:44). (4Q504 vi 5)

As Esther Chazon has documented so well, the vocabulary of this section of the prayer shows a remarkably close adherence to that of its biblical Vorlage.46 But precisely because of this imitative style, the one exception stands out very prominently. Whereas the biblical text ascribed the punishment of Israel to the fact that she rejected God’s laws (wsam yfpçmb) and loathed his statutes (μçpn hl[g ytqjAtaw), this prayer prescribes as a means of rectification for Israel in the present that she not reject God’s trials (hkyywsnb wnsam awlw) nor loathe the bod44 Sifre 32 Siphre ad Deuteronomium (ed. L. Finkelstein, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), 57. 45 E. Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QdibHam)’,” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991 [Hebrew]). 46 “Liturgical Document,” 288–89.

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

27

ily afflictions he sends her way (wnçpn hl[g awl hky[wgnbw). Moreover, just as the Sifra glosses the peculiar phrase ˆ[yb ˆ[y—literally, “because, because”—as a twofold act of rebellion (1. because they despised my statues; 2. because they loathed my laws), this prayer puts in its place a twofold prescription for Israel’s restoration (1. because we have not despised your trials; 2. because we have not loathed your afflictions). This line of development gives us some better purchase on several texts found in the Qumran corpus that presume a usage like that found in Leviticus. Consider 1QS 8:1–4: In the council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three priests who are up-to-date in all that has been [hitherto] revealed from all of the Torah so that they can: (1) Act truthfully, execute justice, pass judgment, show compassionate love and walk humbly with each other; and (2) Preserve faithfulness in the land with a firm constitution and contrite spirit; and (3) Repay the debt of sin (ˆww[ twxrl) by carrying out justice and undergoing travails that purge (πrxm trx) . . .

In this text, the means of carrying out the repayment of one’s indebtedness is accomplished by meting out justice and undergoing trials. But the Qumran corpus can also use the text of Lev 26:43 in its simple sense, that is, as a description of the punishment of exile that was meted out to Israel in 587 and whose consequences persisted down to the time of the founding of the Qumran sect. Consider, for example, 4Q389 1 ii 3–6: The Israelites will be crying out because of the heavy yoke in the lands of their captors. They will have no savior solely because (ˆ[yb ˆ[y) they have rejected my statutes and loathed my Torah (hl[g ytrtw wsam ytqj μçpn). Therefore, I have hid my face from them until they have brought to completion their sin (μnw[ wmylçy). This is the sign that they have brought their sin to completion (μnw[ μlçb)—I have forsaken the land . . .

This text creatively weaves Lev 26:43 together with Gen 15:16— “and the fourth generation [after Abraham] shall return here [to Canaan], for the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete (μlç al yrwmah ˆw[).” This cannot be accidental; Gen 15:16 is as close as one gets in a relatively early biblical text to the comparison of sin to an obligation that accrues over time—not unlike a debt. The resulting theology is that Israel’s sins have been gathering over the course of

28

gary a. anderson

the First Temple period (like those of the Amorites beforehand), and this will lead to the departure of God and Israel’s exile. This has been brought about because of Israel’s rejection and loathing of God’s Torah, terminology derived from Leviticus 26:43. Strikingly, in a closely related text, 4Q387a, the matter is put in terms that are even closer to the commercial idiom of Leviticus 26 and 11QMelchizedek. According to this writer, the period of Israel’s disobedience—and correlatively, the time in which God’s face will be hidden—is to last ten jubilees. If it is fair to introduce the theology of Dibre Hame’orot here, we could say that in the interim, the faithful Israelite is called to advance the work of paying down this debt by cheerfully assuming the afflictions and trials that come his way in order to repay the wages of sin.47 In fact, the Community Rule paraphrases Lev 26:43 in a manner that recalls the usage found in Dibre Hame’orot. In 1QS 2:26–3:1, Lev 26:43 is used to document, not the results of a former generation’s sin (i.e., the exile of the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem), but rather the consequences of rejecting the opportunity for repentance that the contemporary sect affords. After detailing in the first two columns how one would go about entering the sect and how such an entrance will help restore Israel to her glory, our writer stops to raise the thorny problem of what will become of those who spurn the sect’s offer: All who reject (sawmh lwk) entering the covenant of God, by walking with a stubborn heart, shall not be considered part of the community of truth. For such a person has loathed the disciplines of knowledge (t[d yrwsyb wçpn hl[g); the just judgments (qdx yfpçm) that lead to restoration of life, he has not held fast to.

As Licht observes, this text is clearly derivative of Lev 26:43.48 What he could not have noted, apart from the recent work of Chazon, is the way in which this text reads Lev 26:43 through the lens of the exegetical legacy of Dibre Hame’orot. Our despiser and loather in 1QS 3:1 is not the denizen of biblical times that we witnessed in 4Q389,

47 See the excellent study of J. Baumgarten, “Yom Kippur in the Qumran Scrolls and Second Temple Sources,” DSD 6 (1999): 184–91, which documents in considerable detail the important role suffering and affliction played in the atonement process at Qumran. 48 J. Licht, Megillat Ha-Serakim ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 77 (Hebrew).

from israel’s burden to israel’s debt

29

who rejected the Torah of Moses. Rather, this is a person who has refused to accept the restorative disciplines (μyrwsy) of the sect. Finally, to substantiate this idea further, let us consider 4Q266 11 4–8, a portion of the Damascus Covenant. This text opens with a consideration of the prophet Joel’s injunction that Israel should repent: In another place it is written, “to return to God with weeping and fasting (2:12).” In yet another place, “rend your hearts and not your garments (2:13).”

Then our writer turns immediately to what he believes to be the vehicle of penitential disciplines intended by Joel—the practices of the sect. Again, the language of Lev 26:43 is unmistakable, as is the influence of the exegesis found in Dibre Hame"orot: Anyone who rejects these stipulations (μyfpçmb sawmh lwk) according to all the laws found in the Torah of Moses shall not be reckoned among the sons of his truth. For he has loathed the righteous discipline (qdxh yrwsyb wçpn hl[g yk). Because of his rebellion, he shall be expelled from the Many.

The conclusion would seem to be quite secure. The notion of paying back through bodily suffering the debts that have accumulated to one’s account is rooted in an exegesis of Lev 26:43. This exegesis, in turn, is not limited solely to the writings from Qumran but is also in evidence in rabbinic sources. The metaphor of sin as debt clearly called to the fore its mirror opposite. Either the toil of patient suffering could be used as a form of currency to bring one’s sinful plight into balance, or, as we saw in Dan 4:24, the works of meritorious action such as generous charity toward the poor could be so employed. Neither the conception of bodily suffering nor that of meritorious action as atonement for sin were solely the legacy of Judaism. They owe as much to Aramaic philology as they do to biblical theology. They would both have a long and highly developed life in the development of monastic disciplines within early Syriac Christianity. But there is not room to tell that story here.

F. Conclusion Let me summarize. As Lakoff and Johnson as well as Ricoeur have argued, there can be no discourse about sin and forgiveness apart from the deployment of specific metaphors. The beliefs we hold

30

gary a. anderson

about the atonement process are shaped by the stories we tell which, in turn, are molded by the language we use. As Ricoeur put the matter in his famous mot: “The symbol gives rise to the thought.” What we have witnessed in this essay is how biblical language about sin underwent a significant shift during the close of the First Temple period and the opening of the Second. And this is not without impact on the stories that writers of the Second Temple period tell about what sin is and how its baneful effects might be ameliorated. For the biblical writer of Deuteronomy, the law about shemitah in Deuteronomy 15 was a statute about the remission of monetary debts every seven years. Nothing more. But for the author of 11QMelchizedek it illustrated a moment of far greater magnitude. Since Israel had gone into exile due to her own spiritual indebtedness, the more profane level of this earlier law must have hinted at some larger theological truth. Lakoff and Johnson asked whether a culture that knew of arguments only in the form of war could make sense of a culture that thought of arguments in terms of dance. Perhaps we could rephrase that question. Could the Deuteronomist have seen the rite of shemittah as an analogue to Israel’s past sin and her hope for future redemption? I think that the answer can only be negative. His was a culture for which a different metaphorical picture obtained.

THE AVOIDANCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN QUMRAN LAW Joseph Baumgarten Baltimore Hebrew University

The general tendency of Qumran law towards greater rigor might lead one to suppose that this approach would also apply in the area of punishment, particularly the application of the biblical death penalties. A number of capital offenses according to biblical law are indeed mentioned in Qumran legal texts. Among these are necromancy (CD 12:3), the deliberate violation of the Sabbath (CD 12:3–4), and premarital promiscuity by a betrothed maiden (4Q159 2–4 8–9 ). Nonbiblical offenses also considered punishable through death by Qumran legists include seditious talk against the community (CD 12:3), entry into the Temple by a parturient in a state of uncleanness (4Q266 6 ii 9–10), delivering a man to his death by gentile law (CD 9:1), and treasonably revealing national secrets to the gentiles (4Q270 2 ii 13). I assume that this enumeration is not exhaustive, but that other capital crimes may in principle have been subsumed under the Qumran category of twm rbd. The critical questions that I wish to explore are how the guilt of capital offenders was established and whether the death penalty was actually carried out within the community. 4Q159 is an anthological text that refers, among a variety of biblical laws, to the case of a bride accused by her husband of not being a virgin at the time of the consummation of the marriage:1 hwrqbw rmawy htwa wtjq [t[]b μa larçy tlwtb l[ [r μç çya yxwy yk htmwhw hyl[ çjk awl μaw twnman If a man brings out an evil name against a maiden of Israel, if he does so when he takes her, she shall be examined by reliable (women) and if he did not lie about her she shall be put to death. (Frg. 2–4 8–9)

1 See J. M. Allegro, “159. Ordinances,” in Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 6–9, p. 8; and for the corrected text, F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998), 1:310–11.

32

joseph baumgarten

As is known, the rabbinic elaboration of Deut 22:13–21, the biblical source for this law, limits the death penalty to the case where witnesses establish that the promiscuity of the woman occurred after her betrothal (b. Ket. 46a, Sipre Deut. 235). The law in 4Q159 resorts to the expertise of female examiners to verify the husband’s charge that the bride was not a virgin; this was apparently viewed as sufficient for a capital indictment. Yet, in practice, the harshness of the biblical law was considerably mitigated by another formulation found in Cave 4 manuscripts. Here the husband is instructed not to betroth (çdwqh tyrbb . . . aby la) a woman reputed to have had sexual experience. If her reputation is questionable, she is first to be examined by expert women authorized by the rqbm. Only afterwards may the husband take her in wedlock: [μyçn twarb] μa yk çya hjqy la hyba tybb hylwtbb [r μ[ç hyl[ rça] lwk hnjqy r[jaw μybrh] l[ rça rqbmh rmamm twrwrb tw[dyw twnman And any woman who has a bad name in her maidenhood in her father’s home, let no man take her, except upon examination by trustworthy expert women chosen by command of the supervisor over the Many; afterward he may take her.2 (4Q271 3 12–15)

Thus, the examination, emphatically said to be prenuptial, prevents any possible defamation of the woman, and eliminates the basis for a capital indictment. I now turn to a passage in CD 12:3–4 that limits the death penalty in the case of violations of the Sabbath: wrmçm μdah ynb l[ yk tmwy al twd[wmh taw tbçh ta lljl h[ty rça lk lhqh la awby rjaw μynç [bç d[ whwrmçw hnmm apry μaw And anyone who errs and profanes the Sabbath or the holidays shall not be put to death, but he is to be watched by men, and if he refrains from it, they shall watch him for seven more years; then he may come into the community.

The nature of the “error” designated here by the verb h[t is clearly not that of a totally accidental act, for if it were, the suspension and the supervised parole for seven years would hardly be appropriate. A Cave 4 fragment (4Q513 2 ii 4) employs the term ˆwrw[ tw[t “error of blindness” for the Pharisaic practice of allowing the rmw[

2 See J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 175–77.

the avoidance of the death penalty in qumran law

33

to be harvested on the Sabbath. Thus our passage, which describes the error of desecrating tbç and the festivals, may perhaps be alluding to some error involving the calendar or a violation committed by a person insufficiently scrupulous about the communal Sabbath rules. Such a conscious violation was theoretically punishable by death. Jubilees has an across-the-board death penalty for all Sabbath violations. However, Qumran law treats the sinner with leniency and limits the human (μdah ynb l[) intervention to an extended period of supervised parole, after which the offender may return to the community. Presumably, if he fails to reform his behavior during this period, he is to be expelled from the congregation. This brings us to that much-discussed passage in Damascus Document 9:16–21 concerning the combination of discrete witnesses in capital cases: wh[ydyw awh twm rbd μa dja awhw why[r harw hrwtb çya l[my rça rbd lk bçw dja ynpl dw[ wtwç[ d[ wdyb whbtky rqbmhw rqbml jykwhb wyny[l wfpçm μlç dja ynpl çptynw bwçy μa rqbml [ydwhw Any trespass committed by a man against the Torah, which is witnessed by his neighbor—he being but one—if it is a capital matter, he shall report it before his eyes with reproof to the Examiner. And the Examiner shall write it down with his hand until he does it again before one who again reports it to the Examiner. If he is again caught in the presence of one, his judgment is complete.

Most of the scholarly discussion of this pericope has concerned the problem of how to reconcile it with the biblical rule, confirmed in the Temple Scroll, that two witnesses to a single crime suffice to establish a capital indictment. I am inclined to believe that the Qumran legists would have concurred that two simultaneous witnesses were sufficient with regard to capital crimes, such as murder,3 adultery, and treason, involving other persons. Our passage, however, deals with religious sins,4 hrwtb çya l[my rça, “that a man desecrates the 3 From 4Q251 18, it appears that Qumran exegesis viewed the sacrificial heifer, brought by the community near which a slain person had been found (Deut 21:1–9), as a substitute (hpylj) for the life of the unknown murderer. This interpretation, which posits a surrogate offering of “life for life,” seems more persuasive than the premise that the sacrifice was understood as a substitute for the life of the victim. See E. Larson, M. R. Lehmann, and L. H. Schiffman, “251. 4QHalakha A,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts (ed. J. M. Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 25–52, p. 47. 4 In Lev 5:20 l[m is used for wronging another person, but in Qumran usage it regularly denotes violations of the divine covenant, cf. CD 1:3, 15:12–13, 20:23

34

joseph baumgarten

Torah.” In such instances, three repeated violations were required by Qumran exegetes for a capital indictment. The nominal basis for this leniency was Deut 19:15: μwqy μyd[ hçlç yp l[ wa μyd[ ynç yp l[ rbd, where ‘two’ and ‘three’ were taken to refer, not to the number of witnesses seeing a particular offense, but to the number of times the offense was repeated. This tendentious interpretation hardly fits the literal sense of the passage, but, in my view, reflects a desire to minimize the scope of capital punishment. We may next inquire what would have been the consequences of three violations. Would the offender indeed have been executed by the authority of the community? Such finality, one might suppose, is implied by the phrase, wfpçm μlç, “his judgment is complete.” We must caution, however, that the same phrase is used in the expulsion ritual at the end of the Damascus Document. There it pertains to anyone who maintains contacts with a sinner who had previously been expelled from the community: l[ wrbd btknw wm[ tway rçaw wmwlç çwrdy rçaw μnwhm lkwy rça çyahw wfpçm μylçw trjk rqbmh ynp Anyone who eats from that which belongs to him,5 or who inquires about his welfare, or who derives benefit from him, shall have his action inscribed permanently by the overseer, and his judgment will be complete. (4Q266 11 14–16)

It is clear that the expression wfpçm μylçw in this context cannot signify a death sentence, which would be inordinately more severe than the expulsion meted out to the sinner with whom he associated. Most probably it means that he, too, would suffer expulsion. If this is the case, it is possible that expulsion may likewise have been the maximum penalty for the threefold violator of a capital prohibition.6 The fact that the latter is designated as twm rbd does not necessarily mean that the offender was to be executed by the and 1QH 12:34. The fact that twm rbd in this context does not refer to a social crime is further evident from the requirement that the witness who observes it must not report it to the authorities without first chastising the perpetrator in the presence of the supervisor (CD 9:2–6). Such a concern for proper procedure would hardly be appropriate where the safety of the community is threatened. 5 Baumgarten, DJD 18.76–77. The plural suffix in μnwhm is likely to derive from 1QS 5:16, from which the phraseology of the rule was borrowed. 6 For similar doubts about the literal nature of the death penalty in this context see C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 56.

the avoidance of the death penalty in qumran law

35

community. I note in this connection that the improper entrance of a parturient still in a state of impurity into the Temple precinct is termed twm fpçm (4Q266 6 ii 10), but biblical law limits the penalty for defiling the sanctuary to trk, being “cut off ” from the congregation (Num 19:20), not execution by its authority. Moreover, for scrupulous exiles from the congregation there may have been a more literal link between expulsion and death. As Josephus observes with regard to expelled Essenes, “they often come to a most miserable end. For, they are still bound by their oaths not to partake of the food of outsiders and face death through starvation” ( J.W. 2.143–144). The ban on eating outside food is, as we have seen, likewise documented at Qumran. However, Josephus adds that there was an Essene tendency toward leniency which “has led them in compassion to receive many back in the last stage of exhaustion, deeming that torments which have brought them to the verge of death are a sufficient penalty for their misdoings” (2.144). This particular leniency is so far not documented in Qumran writings. A theological consideration would likewise favor expulsion as the ultimate human penalty. To be expelled from the community, in Qumran terminology, “to be cut off from the midst of all the children of light” rwa ynb lk ˚wtm trknw (1QS 2:16), was conceptually tantamount to death.7 In this respect the perspective of Qumran may not have been far from that of the rabbis, who viewed trk as akin to μymç ydyb htym.8 In support of the foregoing approach we note that the avoidance of the death penalty also harmonizes with the quietist fatalism of Qumran theology: yj lwk fpçm la ta yk rbg πdra bwfb [r lwmg çyal byça awl I will not requite a person with evil, but pursue man with goodness, for with God is the judgment of all life. (1QS 10:17–18)

The firm belief in ultimate divine judgment could well have led the Qumranites, as it did the rabbis, to avoid as much as possible the taking of human life. This is a natural inference from the biblical injunction, “The innocent and the righteous thou shalt not kill, for 7 See also CD 20:1–3 where those who transgress the bounds of the law “will be cut off (wtrkyw) from the midst of the camp” when the divine glory becomes manifest. 8 See C. Albeck, Shisha Sidrei Mishnah: Seder Qodashim ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959), 243.

joseph baumgarten

36

I will not justify a wicked man” (Exod 23:7); that is, where there is any doubt about the culpability of the accused, the ethical option is to refrain from killing him, and rather to leave his fate in the hands of heaven. Another illustration of such ultimate reliance on divine justice may be found in the Qumran catalogue of transgressors (4Q270 2 i–ii).9 This catalogue includes a number of capital crimes, such as necromancy, blasphemy, sodomy, and treason, along with lesser violations of sectarian law. It concludes with the summation, ryb[hl la qqj μb [wpa ˆwr]jb, “These (sinners) has God ordained to remove in his fie[rce wrath].” The implication is that transgressors, whatever their disposition, were destined ultimately to receive their punishment by divine decree. In support of the foregoing thesis, I would like to cite a fragmentary but very interesting text, which explicates the avoidance of the death penalty as a principle of Qumran jurisprudence. 4Q275 consists of three fragments of seven to eight lines recognized as pertaining to a communal ceremony.10 The first fragment dates the ceremony with the phrase, yçylçh çdwjb, which has led the editor to posit correctly that it describes the order of service for the annual renewal of the covenant. Moreover, I believe we can identify the phrases rmaw hn[w and [≈]rab μywgw μym[ with the phraseology of the expulsion ritual at the end of the Damascus Document. In that ritual the priest appointed over the μybr similarly describes Providence as establishing μhytwjpçml μym[. The second fragment requires the participants in the ceremony, i.e. the μybr, to be admonished before the fpçmh μwy, in the [seventh] week [y[ybçh] [wbçh d[ wrsythw.11 On this, fpçmh μwy, after the counting of seven weeks, the fate of transgressors within the community was to be decided at a general assembly of the μybr. The latter were warned to be mindful of the qualities of truthfulness and objectivity required of those who sit in judgment. They must aspire

9

Baumgarten, DJD 18.142–46. “275. 4QCommunal Ceremony,” ed. P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yahad (DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 209–16. 11 The admonishment of the μybr here before a capital trial may be compared with the admonition (μya) given the witnesses about the unique value of human life in m. Sanh. 4:5. 10

the avoidance of the death penalty in qumran law

37

to be [xb yanwçw tma y[çna]. Moreover, they must be conscious of the value of human life.12 Lest they incline toward excessive harshness in punishment, they were made to “solemnly promise not to put any man to death,” çya tymhl al wrd[nw]. This is a remarkable promise. As it stands, it appears to be an unqualified rejection of any death penalty, regardless of the guilt of the accused. True, the extant text breaks off after çya and it may conceivably have been followed by some modifier, such as yqn or qydx, which are found in the Exodus passage referred to above. Yet, even if such were its original text, we have in 4Q275 a noteworthy affirmation of the judicial principle of presumed innocence and an emphatic limitation of capital punishment. Finally, the hypothesis that the death penalty was not imposed for violations of capital religious laws in the Qumran community may be compared with what Josephus reports of the Essenes. That capital punishment for biblical offenses was in principle accepted by the Essenes may be inferred from the example of blasphemy, which according to Josephus was punishable by death. The same penalty was indeed extended by the Essenes from blasphemy of the divine name to that of Moses ( J.W. 2.145). Yet, Josephus also reports, “those who are convicted of serious crimes they expel from the order” (2.143). Would not blasphemy be included in the category of “serious crimes,” or is one to assume that this was the only offense for which the death sentence was actually carried out? According to the Qumran penal code blasphemy was punishable by expulsion, just like other serious sins of apostasy (1QS 7:1–2). Josephus states further “they (the Essenes) are just and scrupulously careful in their trial of cases, never passing sentence in a court of less than a hundred members” (2.145). This unusually large quorum for a judicial body is most probably to be identified with the Qumran μybrh bçwm, which gathered once a year to renew the communal covenant. The ceremonies included a ritual for the expulsion of sinners, which appears to have been the most severe penalty imposed by the community. According to Josephus the sentences of the Essene court were irrevocable (2.145), which need hardly be said 12 The fact that the Qumranites did not fully accept the principle of çpn jwqp, as evidenced by CD 11:16–17, does not reflect a lack of concern for human life, but rather their stringent regard for the sacredness of the Sabbath.

38

joseph baumgarten

in the case of an actual execution. However, as noted above, when the one who was expelled was to close to starvation, his being “on the verge of death” was deemed to be a sufficient fulfillment of the sentence (2.144). Thus, the comparison of Qumran criminal law with that of the Essenes yields three common elements: a. Both groups accepted the biblical death penalties in principle, as illustrated by desecration of the Sabbath and blasphemy. Yet, they had moral scruples about taking a human life, çya tymhl. b. In practice the most severe penalty imposed by both groups for serious infractions appears to have been expulsion. c. The sentence of expulsion required the approval of a large gathering of the members of the community, and was described as irrevocable, in Qumran phraseology, dw[ bwçy awlw. Yet, the Essenes often relented and allowed those facing death through starvation to come back. Here, again, the concern for the preservation of human life appears to have played an important role.

FROM THE WATCHERS TO THE FLOOD: STORY AND EXEGESIS IN THE EARLY COLUMNS OF THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON 1 Moshe J. Bernstein Yeshiva University Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Genesis Apocryphon, or tyçarbl tynwxyj hlygm, or, more formally, 1QapGen ar, was for many years one of the most frustrating texts from Qumran. The last of the original seven scrolls to be unrolled, and the only one of them not to have been composed in the Hebrew language, it was published incompletely by Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin in 1956.2 They presented the Aramaic text of only five 1 The initial research on which this paper is based was carried out during my tenure as a Fellow of the group studying “Qumran and Related Second Temple Literature,” at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University during the Fall 2001 semester. I take this opportunity to thank the Institute for affording me the hospitality and collegiality that enabled me to advance my research in several areas of Qumran studies at that time. The final writing took place while I was Lady Davis Visiting Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the Spring 2004 semester. A significant portion of my research on the Apocryphon at the Institute and at the University was carried out in weekly study sessions with Dr. Esther Eshel, now of Bar-Ilan University, with whom I continue to collaborate toward the writing of a full commentary on this work, and many of the observations in this paper are based on ideas developed during our joint efforts. I should also like to express our joint appreciation here to two other scholars who have made working on this document much easier for Dr. Eshel and myself. Professor Elisha Qimron has earned the thanks of all of us in the field of Qumran studies for his work on the language of Qumran and his uncovering of improved and corrected readings in so many Qumran texts. As an editor of the “new” material from the Apocryphon (see n. 8 below), he encouraged our work on the Apocryphon, allowed us to use the photographs which were the basis of the editions of the “new” columns, and was always more than ready to answer queries regarding other possible readings in the manuscript, as well as about the Aramaic language in which it is written. Dr. Matthew Morgenstern also co-edited some of the “new” Apocryphon material (n. 8 below), and produced a master’s thesis on the language of this text (“twdwm[h tyçarbl tynwxyjh hlygmh ˆm wmsrptn μrfç,” [M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997], hereafter Morgenstern, “MA”). He, too, was most helpful to us in our early work on the Apocryphon, sharing his thoughts in discussions of both language and content. 2 A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press and The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1956).

40

moshe j. bernstein

columns (2 and 19–22) with translations into Hebrew and English, while the other columns were summarized minimally.3 Joseph A. Fitzmyer produced two successive editions of the scroll, in 1967 and 1971, with an important and valuable, primarily philological, commentary, which has become the standard reference text for the scroll.4 Virtually from its initial date of publication the genre of the Apocryphon was the subject of discussion, framed by the almost universal agreement that the Apocryphon belongs to, and is indeed one of the paradigmatic examples of, what has become in recent decades the ever-expanding genre, which is termed “rewritten Bible.”5 The initially published material, column 2 covering the actions of Lamech, father of Noah, after the birth of an apparently wondrous child, and columns 19–22 encompassing the story of Abram’s adventures, which run parallel to the narratives from Genesis 12 through the beginning of Genesis 15, differ in their relationship to the Bible. The Lamech material is virtually freestanding and unconnected to the biblical text, while the Abram story adheres to the biblical story line, and, at times, even to the language of the text itself. Because of these varying ways in which the Apocryphon retold the portions of the biblical narrative covered in the published columns, a debate ensued as to whether to refer to it as midrash, targum, or something else completely.6

3 The “minimal summary” to which I refer includes some brief verbal citations from the texts of the other columns, as well as some pertinent observations on the nature of the story line. 4 The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967; 2d ed.: BibOr 18.a; 1971). During the final revisions of this article Fitzmyer’s third edition (BibOr 18.b; 2004) appeared, unfortunately too late to be taken into consideration systematically in my discussion. Note that a definite article was added to the title of the work between Avigad/Yadin and Fitzmyer. 5 The term was introduced by G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 95. See further, P. S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 99–121; and C. A. Evans, “1QapGen and the Rewritten Bible,” RevQ 13 ([Memorial Jean Carmignac] 1988): 153–65. Regarding the problems involved in employing “rewritten Bible” too loosely, see my article, “ ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96, based on remarks delivered at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 2001. 6 Evans, “1QapGen and the Rewritten Bible,” 153, collects a range of scholarly opinions on the genre of the Apocryphon: “apocryphal version of stories from Genesis,” “targum,” “a kind of midrash on Genesis,” “un midrash haggadique d’un genre special,” “précieux spécimen de midrash essénien,” and “the most ancient midrash of all.” Others have referred to it as “haggada,” “parabiblical” and “paraphrase of

from the watchers to the flood

41

It was also clear almost immediately upon its publication that the Apocryphon was related to traditions reflected in other Second Temple texts that were just beginning to be restudied carefully, as interest in the so-called pseudepigrapha was revived in the aftermath of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Works such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch were clearly part of the background against which the Apocryphon had to be discussed, although the precise relationship among these works was not, and indeed still is not, obvious to all.7 As the corpus of published literature related to the stories of the Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls grew, the Apocryphon should have attracted further attention, but a survey of the available bibliographies indicates that, on the whole, it did not. In fact, discussions of specific points in the text, usually with a view to comparing it with other ancient exegetical literature, still focused primarily on the rabbinic material rather than on the earlier Second Temple works to which the Apocryphon is more closely related. The 1992 publication of column 12 of the Apocryphon by Jonas Greenfield l”z and j”lby Elisha Qimron, followed in 1995 by that of the rest of the readable material from the other hitherto unpublished columns by Matthew Morgenstern, Elisha Qimron and Daniel Sivan, should have produced an additional impetus to work on the Genesis Apocryphon.8 Despite the additional textual material now available, there has not been a flurry of scholarly activity in this area, a fact that I have found rather surprising. This paper is the first of a series devoted to the Apocryphon as a whole, beginning with the “new” columns. It is my hope that these papers will eventually culminate in the production of a commentary in collaboration with Dr. Eshel that will differ from Fitzmyer’s work both in focus and in scope.9

biblical text.” Cf. also the remarks of A. Lange, “1QGenAp XIX10–XX32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactic Narrative,” in Qumranstudien: Vorträge und Beiträge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.–26. Juli 1993 (ed. H. J. Fabry, et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 191–204 (p. 197, n. 44). 7 To take but one significant question, did the author of the Apocryphon use Jubilees, did the author of Jubilees use the Apocryphon, or did both of them draw from common (written or oral) sources? 8 J. C. Greenfield and E. Qimron, “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII,” Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3 (1992): 70–77; M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron, and D. Sivan, “The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995): 30–54 (hereafter, MQS). 9 Subsequent to this, I have delivered the following papers on the Apocryphon: “The Structure of the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, November, 2002; “The Genre(s) of the Genesis

42

moshe j. bernstein

On the basis of the more recently published material we are discussing, it appears that the dichotomy which has been perceived in the relationship of the Apocryphon to the biblical text based on the first published material, can be maintained to a limited degree. One of the issues to which we must be sensitive is that as the story of the Apocryphon moves further and further away from the biblical version, it becomes less and less “rewritten Bible” (according to my preferred employment of the term), and more and more something else, or, to put it in less formal, but more recognizable terms, it begins to resemble the Book of Enoch more than the Book of Jubilees. Thus the whole story of Noah, as related by this author on the basis of whatever sources he includes,10 and not just the initially published “Lamech material,” is not as tightly bound to the Hebrew text as the Abram columns are. In this instance, we may certainly be justified in hypothesizing that this unevenness, or lack of consistency, in the way that the biblical text is treated, is predicated on the differing approaches to the biblical story taken by the sources of the Apocryphon, rather than by any divergences in method on the part of the author of the Apocryphon himself. This does not mean that a single author could not have treated different portions of the pentateuchal narrative differently, but that since a variety of sources appear to underlie the work as a whole, some of the divergences in these treatments should Apocryphon,” Association for Jewish Studies Annual Conference, Los Angeles, CA, December, 2002; “The Genesis Apocryphon: Some ‘New’ Questions About an ‘Old’ Text,” Columbia University Seminar on the Study of the Hebrew Bible, New York, NY, February 2003, and New York University Conference; “New Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls,” New York NY, March 2003; and “√fçq in the Genesis Apocryphon and the Remainder of the Qumran Aramaic Corpus,” Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, December 2003. 10 I shall not rehash in this essay the meaning of jwn ylm btk (5:29), discussed several years ago by my colleague at Yeshiva University, Richard Steiner, in “The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon,” DSD 2 (1995): 69, which may indicate a shift in sources, or the purported existence in antiquity of a “Book of Noah.” Devorah Dimant, Cana Werman and I, among the participants in this Orion Symposium, have all written on this topic. Cf. D. Dimant, “Noah in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 123–50; M. J. Bernstein, “Noah and the Flood at Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations (ed. E. Ulrich and D. Parry; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 199–231; and C. Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 171–81.

from the watchers to the flood

43

probably be attributed to those sources rather than to the “author” or “compiler” of the Apocryphon. Neither of the terms in the title of this paper should be taken at face value; in the early columns of the Apocryphon, even the fragments that do tell a story are usually too unconnected to tell much of one, and the relationship of this portion of the scroll to the biblical text, what we might describe as its exegesis, is, as we shall see, somewhat loose. But I believe that the theory behind the title is sound, as it sketches two significant trajectories for the study of the Apocryphon as a whole: the way it deals with the underlying biblical text and the way it presents the more complex story that it comprises. This paper thus examines two related issues in the first part of the Apocryphon, the columns from 0 through 11: the narrative elements of the preserved columns, the “story,” and the way in which it is related to the biblical text, the “exegesis.” I do not give equal time to both aspects, simply because the Apocryphon does not either; as we shall see, “story” is far more prominent in this section than is “exegesis.” Furthermore, from a methodological perspective, my reconstruction of the “story” section will be more aggressive than my comments in the exegesis portion. I shall attempt, relying even on very faint inferences, to elicit from the surviving text as much as is possible of the outline of the story it contained. My remarks on the exegesis of the text will be more conservative. By column 0 of the Apocryphon I refer to the textual material that appears to have preceded column 1. Michael O. Wise and Bruce Zuckerman presented their reconstruction of the 1Q20 fragments of the Genesis Apocryphon, which had been published in DJD 1, at the 1991 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Aligning the fragments in such a way that it was clear that “column 1” was not the first column of the work, they clearly demonstrated that there was at least one column, designated “column 0,” to the right of column 1. The existence of this column should actually have been clear even before their research, since the second of the two columns that are preserved in 1Q20 fragment 1 cannot be the right edge of column 2, and therefore must be the right edge of column 1. Hence the right-hand column preserved on that fragment must precede column 1 and be what we have called “column 0.”11 11 The column 0–1 material has just been published by Fitzmyer in his third edition; on pp. 64–67 he presents the text and translation of columns 0 and 1, and

44

moshe j. bernstein

What we cannot tell is how close to the beginning of the Apocryphon our material stood originally. Despite Morgenstern’s claims based on the letter-numbers on the surviving sheets, it is hard to imagine a document of the length he presupposes.12 But, on the other hand, it is also unwise to presume that the Apocryphon began with column 1 or even column 0. This uncertainty, although ultimately insoluble based on the available evidence, is quite significant, because it goes to the heart of the elusive question of the total scope of the Apocryphon. This question must be resolved in order for us to have a complete picture of the work. How far back in the narratives of Genesis did it begin? And, concomitantly (although not relevant to our early columns), how far forward did it extend? The early columns of the Apocryphon appear, as I noted earlier, to contain much more “story” than exegesis. The narrative, as far as we can follow it, seems to involve (aside from the related story of Noah’s birth) the story of the angels who behaved badly and incurred divine displeasure. This story, as everyone who works in the area of Qumran and related literature knows, was very prominent in the pseudepigraphic literature of the Second Temple era. It finds its most significant expression in works such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch, although we should also note its appearance in a variety of other texts preserved at Qumran.13 What can we discern about the telling of this story in the Genesis Apocryphon? In column 0, references to “your anger” and “your fierce anger” are most likely addressed to God by a group, probably the fallen angels who have been imprisoned, who say ˆyrysa anjna ah ˆ[kw, on p. 115 offers a copy of Zuckerman-Wise’s 1991 drawing. It was that drawing on which I based my original presentation of this paper. In Spring 2002, however, Dr. Eshel and Professor Zuckerman modified some of the arrangements of those fragments, and the published version of this paper thus differs somewhat in that regard from the oral presentation. 12 M. Morgenstern, “A New Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon,” JJS 47 (1996): 345–47. Noting that the sheets on which columns 5, 10, and 17 began are marked with the Hebrew characters p, x, and q, respectively, Morgenstern suggests that if column 5 began on the sheet marked with the 17th letter of the alphabet, as many as 70–105 columns may have preceded it, depending on the number of columns per sheet. This would posit an exceptional original length to the Apocryphon. But is there any guarantee that all of the sheets numbered [–a were employed for this work? 13 Most notably in the texts which have been given the name “Book of Giants” and which may have been a part of the Book of Enoch at Qumran. Cf. L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

from the watchers to the flood

45

“and now we are bound.”14 Unfortunately, although several more words can be read, they do not really help us reconstruct the narrative. The hypothetical focus on these angels continues into column 1, where the words “and with women” very likely refer to the behavior of the Watchers with the “daughters of men,” known from Genesis 6 and, in greater detail, from the Book of Enoch. Also prominent here are two references to zr, “secret” or “mystery,” a term well known from the Hebrew writings of Qumran, and one which also appears to play a significant role in the early (antediluvian) portion of the Apocryphon, where it occurs about half a dozen times. The combination a[çr zr, “secret (mystery) of wickedness,” is a bit surprising, however, since zr is generally a “positive” term, not associated with characters like the Watchers.15 The fragmentary expression πyqt rwsa probably belongs to the story of the Watchers as well, regardless of how it is read (i.e., whether the first word is noun or verb), and most likely refers to the binding of the fallen Watchers.16 One of the fragments of the Apocryphon which was recently published has been referred to as the “Trever fragment,” because it had remained unstudied in the possession of John Trever until about 1990. According to the reconstruction by Zuckerman, which is apparently accepted by MQS, it belongs toward the end of column 1 and contains vocabulary which reminds us of the language of Genesis used to describe the antediluvian period: arçb lwk, “all flesh,” appears twice as does a[ra; the equivalent Hebrew terms appear (the latter frequently) in Genesis 6 in the context of the depravity of man.17 On the other hand, the idiom arçb lwkl llql, “cursing all flesh,”

14 There are also references to ˚zgr, “your anger,” (presumably God’s) in these fragments. Because of the absence of a standard edition of columns 0 and 1, I cannot employ line numbers in references. The binding of the “fallen angels” is a theme found also in Jub. 5:6 and 10:1–9, and in 1 Enoch 10. 15 Cf., however, [çp yzr in 1QHa 13 [Sukenik 5]:36 and 1Q27 1 2. It is possible that in the case of the Watchers it refers to prohibited forms of esoteric knowledge which they shared with humankind. Philip Alexander directed my attention to the mystèrion tès anomias in 2 Thess 2:7, which bears a resemblance to these Hebrew and Aramaic idioms at Qumran, a passage noted also by Fitzmyer (2004), 120. 16 The phrase π]yqt rwsa also occurs in 4Q532 2 14. That text, edited under the name 4QLivre des Géantsd ar, perhaps unsurprisingly bears other similarities in vocabulary to this column of the Apocryphon: 4Q532 1 i 9 (11): ˆbqn; 1 i 10 (12): rçb l[k; see also 2 9 a[rab wlbnj br lbj. 17 For rçb lk, cf. Gen 6:13–14; for ≈ra, cf. Gen 6:5 and 11–12 where the term appears five times, all of them accompanied by [d, smj, or tjç.

46

moshe j. bernstein

is not found explicitly in Genesis although we can easily understand the context to which it belongs.18 Since column 2 is probably familiar to most readers of this essay, I shall discuss it only as necessary background to the following columns. We must assume for the purpose of a coherent story that the birth of Noah was reported between the end of column 1 (the Trever fragment is situated at approximately lines 25–29 of a column which probably was about 34 lines) and the discussion between Lamech and his wife Bitenosh in column 2.19 The opening of column 2 takes us directly into the dialogue between Lamech and his wife regarding the parentage of the child she has borne. From the standpoint of the narrative, it is significant that there is not a great deal of space within which Lamech could be introduced (unless he was mentioned in the fragmentary portions of column 0, 1, or earlier, lost material), and for the birth and marvelous nature of the child to be described. That is the minimum material necessary to justify Lamech’s reaction to the birth of the child and his accusation against his wife of going astray (apparently) with one of the sinful Watchers. This plausible disposition of the material may actually allow us to safely make two inferences regarding the issue of the length of the Apocryphon, to which I alluded above. The presence of Lamech as well as Enoch and Methuselah in column 2 indicates that at least the latter two, and probably all three, must have been introduced at some earlier point in the narrative. This implies that there was some amount of genealogical material prior to the section of the Apocryphon that presents its elaboration of the story of the Watchers. This is perhaps unsurprising, but it also indicates a slight deviation in order 18 It is possible that llql is a Hebraism in the Aramaic of the Apocryphon both in root and in form. On the issue of Hebraisms, see further, Morgenstern, “MA,” 42–45 and S. Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3 (1992): 48–69. In this case, however, Morgenstern, “MA,” 41–42 (followed by Fitzmyer [2004], 121), justifies rendering llq as a noun, “as a shame for all flesh,” based on its appearance in Syriac and because the form cannot be an infinitive in Aramaic. 19 The reference in 2:2 to and amylw[, “this child,” implies that the child has already been born, although the conversation between Lamech and Bitenosh deals with the source of her pregnancy. There is nothing in the surviving material of the whole column which describes the unusual appearance of the child which disturbs Lamech, although such descriptions are to be found in 1 Enoch 106 and 1Q19, for example. The only reasonable location for the depiction in the Apocryphon is at the bottom of column 1. We can infer the presence of such a description from the fragments of the exchanges between Enoch and Methuselah later on.

from the watchers to the flood

47

from the narrative of Genesis. In Genesis, the birth of Noah is described at the end of chapter 5, just before the verses that give rise to the stories of the “fallen angels.” The Apocryphon locates the story of the Watchers before the birth of Noah, an arrangement which is found elsewhere in the works from the Second Temple period that expand the story of the Watchers.20 The narrative logic of the presentation in the Apocryphon does not introduce Noah, who will be the savior of mankind, until after the Watchers, who are the threat to man, have appeared on the scene. The effect of this is to highlight Noah even more strongly than is done in the biblical story. In response to the protestations of Bitenosh as to her innocence, Lamech goes to his father Methuselah and asks him to ask his father Enoch to clarify the situation. I should note that the vivid dialogue we see in the relatively well-preserved portion of column 2 is a characteristic that seems to have been pervasive in the Apocryphon, regardless of the various sources which may underlie the rewritten story. We can observe this in many passages where we clearly have at least two interlocutors in a dialogue, and we find either first or second person forms in other passages which imply a dialogue, even though we do not hear both sides in the surviving text. Methuselah departs and greets Enoch, and with that we revert from the poorly preserved text at the end of column 2 to the even more poorly preserved fragments in the next columns. In column 3, after Methuselah has gone to ask his father about the nature of the unusual birth to Lamech and his wife, we find Enoch as the speaker, since 3:3 reads “in the days of my father Jared.” He apparently continues to speak for the next two and a half columns, and some of his remarks appear to be repetitive, even granted the scanty remains of the manuscript. The reply Methuselah gets is prophetic, and it is linked to the corruption of the Watchers and the impending destruction of the earth (as is also, perhaps, the reference to Jared, playing on the meaning “descent”).21 The surviving

20 Jub. 4:15 has the Watchers descending in the days of Jared (albeit for positive reasons); so do 1 Enoch 6:6 (= 4QEna ar 1 iii 4) and 106:13 (= 4QEnc 5 ii 17–18). Is it possible that, in addition to the pun on the name Jared (see below, n. 21), this reordering could be “supported” by the reading of the verb of Gen 6:2, μhh μymyb ≈rab wyh μylypnh, as a pluperfect? 21 Cf. previous note. We might be able to restore in 3:3–4 aymç] ynb ˆy[lypn or ahla] ynb. A rather late rabbinic source (Midrash Aggadah [ed. S. Buber; Vienna: Panto, 1894], 14) has, “why was his name Jared? Because in his days the angels

48

moshe j. bernstein

language of 3:9–13 also contains a dense concentration of the word a[ra (four times in thirteen words or partial words); we may very easily reconstruct a scene wherein Enoch tells Methuselah that there will be water or rain on the whole earth and perhaps the earth will become sea. Immediately upon the birth of Noah, then, we know that a flood is coming upon the earth. At first glance, it appears that the vision of Enoch here is similar to those in 1 Enoch 83–88, where Enoch also addresses Methuselah. But there is a significant difference, I believe, between the visions in 1 Enoch (and this is especially true regarding the visions in 85–88), which are not an element in a narrative account, and the visions in the Apocryphon, which are an integral part of the narrative. That integration seems to characterize not only the visions in the portion of the Apocryphon where Enoch appears, but later sections as well, where there are several visions involving Noah. Like the rearrangement I noted just above, the sequence of events in the Apocryphon creates a very different feel to the narrative from that which is found in the Pentateuch, where the sins of the “fallen angels” (Gen 6:1–4) are not described until after the birth of Noah (5:29), God’s decision to destroy mankind is first alluded to in Gen 6:7, and the flood itself is not mentioned there until 6:17. In the Apocryphon, the flood is likely to have been predicted while Noah was still an infant. It is left to Methuselah to communicate this message, presumably to Lamech, and the language used (presumably by Enoch) echoes the language used by Bitenosh to Lamech earlier, “in truth, not in lies” (3:15).22 The reference to splitting the earth (3:17) may refer either to Noah’s distribution of the earth among his sons or to the division of the nations in the time of Peleg. The former is more likely, since in the Apocryphon these actions by Noah actually occupy a prominent place and a substantial amount of text (columns 16–17). Note how Methuselah is commanded to repeat the prophecy of Enoch to Lamech, and how this technique of repeating the language of prophecies and commands is also characteristic of the Apocryphon and as a result can help us to reconstruct missing portions of the text.23 descended from heaven and were teaching humans how to worship the Holy One Blessed be He.” As noted by M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 2.355, this formulation resembles that of Jubilees. 22 Cf. 2:7 ˆybdkb alw ˆyllmt ym[ fçwqb. I have discussed the significance of the root fçq in the Aramaic corpus at Qumran in a paper which I hope to publish in the near future (above note 9). 23 It is tempting to see the very repetitious language, which is clear even in the

from the watchers to the flood

49

Far less remains of column 4 than of 2, 3 or 5, but the one cluster of the surviving phrases is of interest for the hypothetical story line we are reconstructing. 4:11 reads (and whenever we say “reads” regarding this manuscript, that may be an adventure in itself ), tyzj ˆyd db[ml, “I/you have seen fit to exercise judgment;”24 and 4:12 has a[ra ypna l[[] . . . ≈qw, “an end . . . [o]n the face of the earth.”25 The key issue is who is speaking: if it is God (or Enoch quoting God), then the verb is first person; if it is Enoch addressing God, then it is second person. Was there a passage in the Apocryphon wherein God “visited” the earth to see the wickedness of its inhabitants before executing judgment? Such a situation occurs twice in Genesis: in the narrative of the Tower of Babel, Gen 11:5, ùh dryw μdah ynb wnb rça ldgmh taw ry[h ta twarl, “The Lord descended to see the tower and city which the humans had built;” and in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen 18:21, haraw an hdra, “Let me now descend and see” whether the inhabitants of the city are worthy of punishment. It is tempting to see a possible narrative parallel in the tyzj of the Apocryphon, if, indeed, its meaning is not merely “to see fit,”26 and the purpose of such a passage would be to provide divine witness in order to justify God’s harsh verdict on mankind. There are other instances where phrases and sentences from later portions of Genesis are employed in these early sections of the Apocryphon, sometimes merely for stylistic reasons, but occasionally to draw connections and create similarities among diverse portions of the pentateuchal narrative.27 Column 5 finds Enoch (5:3 ˚wnj hna ydk ah) speaking to his son Methuselah explicitly (5:2 [yr]b jlçwtm ˚lw) and telling him (5:3–4) that the child about whom he came to inquire ynb ˆm [alw ˆyry[ ˆm al]

fragmentary remains of the Apocryphon that we have, and which is reminiscent of Homeric style, as pointing to an oral level in the composition of the text. But there are insufficient data to make any serious claims along these lines. 24 I take the Aramaic ˆyd db[ml as the equivalent of Hebrew fpçm twç[l, rather than understanding ˆyd as the demonstrative pronoun “this.” The same idiom, db[ hnm ˆyd yl, occurs in the Apocryphon at 20:14 in Abram’s prayer to God that He should act on his behalf against Pharaoh. 25 ≈qw, of course, recalls Gen 6:13 ynpl ab rçb lk ≈q. 26 Of course, the phrase could simply reflect, or be exegesis of, Gen 6:5 aryw ≈rab μdah t[r hbr yk ùh. 27 This feature may be a result of the author(s) of the Apocryphon employing the pentateuchal text as a model even unconsciously. Cf. my “Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon,” DSD 3 (1996): 37–57 (pp. 48–50).

50

moshe j. bernstein

˚rb ˚ml ˆm ˆhl ˆymç, “is not from the Watchers, nor from the sons of Heaven, but rather from your son Lamech.”28 It is somewhat difficult to understand what has been happening in the narrative during the last two columns. Can this be the first place where Enoch mentions the legitimate parentage of Noah to Methuselah? Even granting what we believe to be the repetitious style of the text, this seems rather strange. Nonetheless, Enoch continues (5:5–7) with an indication of what Lamech’s fear was. This does not survive in the earlier portion of the text, but can perhaps be restored from the fragmentary context here, ˚rb ˚ml ljd hwzj [ˆm] . . . awwh al amdmw, “he did not appear like [a human being but rather like a celestial one, and from] his appearance Lamech your son feared.”29 This assertion is made emphatically ˆmyhm fçwqb (5:8). After a vacat, which was likely employed within the long speech of a single speaker to indicate a slight change of subject,30 Enoch continues “And now I tell you and relate to you my son” (5:9),31 with another reference to truth (fçwq) later in the line, and then lza ˚rb ˚mll rma, “go tell Lamech your son.” Either the idiom of the narrative is exceptionally repetitious or each piece of the story needed to be introduced in this fashion. Then, after an apparently parenthetical comment about the “action [of the sons of heaven]” (cf. 6:11), Enoch proceeds once again to speak of the child whose “eyes shone like the su[n],” and who is “fire” (or “something of whom is fire;” 5:12–13). This matches descriptions of Noah’s birth which we know from other sources (1 Enoch 106 and 1Q19). The focus of Enoch’s ensuing remarks, however, is not Noah, but the depravity of humankind (or of the Watchers; it is not clear). It is clear that Enoch continues to speak in lines 16ff. of the column, where we read: “. . . they are doing; they will do much violence until . . .” There

28 The restoration takes advantage of the repetitious idiom of the Apocryphon; cf. the words of Bitenosh (2:15–16) ˆymç ynb lwk ˆm alw ˆyry[ lwk ˆm alw . . . ˆd a[rz ˚nm yd. 29 Cf. 1Q19 and later this column. 30 The functions of the vacats in the Apocryphon is another subject which needs to be analyzed as fully as possible. It appears that, despite the fragmentary nature of the MS, we shall be able to draw some limited conclusions regarding the relationship between the story and the way it is laid out in the text. 31 Another feature of the Apocryphon is the employment of pairs of words where one alone would suffice. Cf. Morgenstern’s remarks, “MA,” 45–47 on μylm ydmx (word-pairs).

from the watchers to the flood

51

unfortunately does not even appear to be enough evidence to tell whether his indictment involves human or celestial beings. Enoch, furthermore, proceeds to describe what he has just told Methuselah as a zr (5:20), which he, in turn, is to convey to Lamech, his son, in whose days (or perhaps in the days of whose son) the events of this secret will take place (5:22). The section seems to conclude with a statement that Enoch praised (˚rbm; 5:23) the Lord. This statement and the next two lines (5:24–25) indicate that the framework of the narrative at this point is clearly third person, and this phenomenon focuses our attention on the way in which different sorts of narrative are juxtaposed in the telling of the Apocryphon. Much of the story is told in vivid dialogue or monologue, and the conversation between Lamech and Bitenosh in column 2 is perhaps the lengthiest example, but there are also traces of more conventional third person story telling. The lines begin “And when Methuselah heard . . . and he spoke secretly with Lamech his son . . .,” but the following line continues “And when I Lamech. . . .” The movement from Enoch’s final words to Methuselah’s telling Lamech to Lamech’s speech appears to be accomplished in under three lines. And those lines are followed by Lamech speaking fewer than two lines, of which the only clearly meaningful words are “that he has brought forth from me,” which might be an expression of thanks to God for the son of whose significant and wondrous future he has just heard. There is manifest disproportion in the allocation of space to different parts of the story, and these few lines stand in sharp contrast to the very lengthy prophetic monologue of Enoch that preceded them. Following a full-line vacat, we read the by-now-famous words btk jwn ylm, “the book of the words of Noah,” which may or may not have been preceded by the word ˆgçrp, “copy.” There is actually even more text, not yet deciphered, in the last four or five lines of column 5, which must have furnished both some sort of introduction of Noah as a character in the story, and a transition to the opening words of his speech, which we pick up mid-sentence in column 6. Even though Noah’s first speech is lacking its opening, we can see in it another stylistic characteristic of the Apocryphon, the use of balanced clauses that makes the prose almost into poetry. This goes beyond the tendency of the Apocryphon which we observed earlier to

52

moshe j. bernstein

employ pairs of synonyms like ywjaw rma, “he said and told,” even in passages which lack a balanced clause structure. This allows us to interpret the first words of the column lw[ ˆm, if the reading is correct, as “from childhood,” with the clauses aligning as follows: . . . from childhood. And in the furnace of my gestation I flourished toward truth (fçwql); And when I left my mother’s womb, I was rooted in truth (fçwql). And I acted truthfully (afçwq) all my days And would walk in paths of eternal truth (tma).32 And with me (were) the holy ones on the paths33 of the way of truth . . . And to warn me from the path(s) of falsehood which lead to eternal darkness34 . . . And I girded my loins with a vision of truth and wisdom35 . . . all the paths of violence. (vi 1–5)

The constant emphasis on fçwq in these lines is clearly “exegetical,” and presumably indicates an expansion and highlighting of the word qydx used to characterize Noah in Gen 6:9. If jn tdlwt of that sentence is interpreted to mean “life story,” the poetic lines express the view that throughout his life Noah maintained the ideal of fçwq=qdx. In addition to the repetitions of “truth,” the image of the path, by[tn], lybç, lsm, and ajrwa, dominates the language of this brief passage, and, although it is brief and fragmentary, there can be no doubt that its structure is fundamentally poetic. It should be noted further that within this brief piece there is an implicit introduction of the theme of dualism, which is so well known from the so-called sectarian documents found in the Qumran caves.36 The appearance of 32

With these two lines compare Tobit 1:3. The question of the relationship of these two texts or their respective sources is a very interesting one. (George Nickelsburg was, I believe, the first to point out this parallel in language between the Apocryphon and Tobit in an oral comment on Matthew Morgenstern’s presentation of this text at the first Orion Symposium in 1996.) 33 MQS read tjwa, which would normally mean “I hurried,” but they translate “on my way truth sped,” which indeed avoids the apparent separation of the construct ylsmb from its nomen rectum fçwq, but there is no reason for fçwq to govern a feminine verb. With a little reluctance, I therefore prefer the emended reading tjwa which produces a far more coherent reading. 34 The reading ˆlza published by MQS should be corrected to ylza (there is a crack in the MS which appears to be a final nun). An awkwardness nevertheless remains in this sentence since by[tn] is singular, while ylza is plural. 35 The imagery is presumably borrowed from Isa 11:5: hnwmahw wyntm rwza qdx hyhw wyxlj rwza, with the introduction of atmkj in place of hnwma, a point noted already by Morgenstern in his discussion of this passage at the 1996 Orion conference. 36 For the parallelism which appears here, cf. the doctrine of the “Two Ways” in 1QS 3:13–4:26, and see further J. Duhaime, “Dualism,” EDSS 1. 215–220.

from the watchers to the flood

53

this theme does not imply that the Apocryphon is necessarily a “sectarian” document, but it indicates that such dualistic ideas could be found widely in Second Temple literature, and that the narrator of the Noah story, or at least the composer of this piece, felt that they could and should be introduced here. These poetic words, however, despite first impressions, do not represent what I should call the Apocryphon’s primary exegesis of the biblical verse Gen 6:9, wytrdb hyh μymt qydx çya jn; that interpretation occurs in Noah’s continuing autobiography in 6:6–9 tywh ˆydab . . . b tpqtaw afçwqb tdjaw rbg jwn hna, “Then I, Noah, became a man and held on to truth and held strongly. . . .” Whether we judge that tdlwt means “biography” or “family story” for the author of the Apocryphon, 6:6–9 continues to describe the growth of Noah’s family, interpreting and expanding the words of Gen 6:9. In order to gain further insight into the discrete elements that comprise the Apocryphon, it is certainly worth asking the following question: to what do the words jwn ylm btk toward the end of column 5 refer? Are the “words of Noah” his poetic soliloquy or his prose autobiography, both of which appear to go over the same ground and might very well belong to different sources of the Apocryphon? Or does it actually refer to both, i.e., from this perspective no distinction should be drawn between the prose and the poetry? The latter, I believe, is the more likely possibility, with the ˆydab that opens 6:6 plausibly serving as proof of the connection. What is striking, then, is the fact that we find “ordinary” narrative and near poetry side-by-side in our passage. The Apocryphon expands the undetailed biblical reference to the birth of Noah’s sons (Gen 6:10) to include the name of his wife Amzara (and the now missing name of her father, who undoubtedly was a relative of Noah) and the fact that she bore three sons and an undisclosed number of daughters. Noah arranges endogamous marriages for them with the sons and daughters of his brother (or perhaps brothers; yja can be either), “according to the law of the eternal statute which [the Lord] Most High [ordained] for man” (6:8–9).37 37 I believe that the term aml[ qwj td, with the hebraism qwj (only here in the Aramaic of Qumran, and according to Morgenstern, “MA,” 43, virtually nowhere else in Aramaic) is an allusion to this regulation being inscribed (qqj) on the heavenly tablets. For the significance of this and related idioms as applied to marriage in a range of texts from antiquity see M. Kister, lç hytwdlwt :‘yadwhyw hçm tdk’ ” rwspwrp dwbkl tynbrhw tydwmlth twrpsb μyrqjm :μyyjl hrf[ “,tytd tyfpçm hjswn yqsbwrfymyd ˆmlz μyyj eds. D. Boyarin et al. ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 202–8, especially 206 and nn. 33–35.

54

moshe j. bernstein

Here we have one of the examples of the Apocryphon narrative being affected by halakhic positions held by its author or his sources, since endogamous marriage is stressed in a number of Second Temple literary works, notably Tobit and Jubilees.38 Once again, this allusion should not be taken to imply that the Apocryphon is “sectarian,” in the sense of deriving from the circles that produced texts such as CD, 1QS and the pesharim. It is more accurate to describe it as belonging to the likely wider circle of literary works in the Second Temple period that share a halakhah different from that which we know from rabbinic literature. For a short while, then, column 6 of the Apocryphon has brought its story line more into proximity with the narrative of Genesis 6 than the earlier columns had done, but only for a moment. After a brief vacat, the story of the Apocryphon turns away again from this brief coincidence with the biblical narrative, and on the surface appears to contradict it. There are actually two independently generated difficulties involved, one of which may be more easily soluble than the other. If we follow the reconstruction of the editors, the reference to ten jubilees in 6:9 of the Apocryphon refers to Noah being 500 years old, and is coupled with the words, “then my sons finished taking wives for themselves.”39 First of all, the birth of Noah’s children, according to Gen 5:32 (as well as Jub. 4:33), takes place when he is 500 years old; second, leaving the chronological quandary aside, did the Apocryphon not just finish telling us that Noah had already taken wives and husbands for his sons and daughters? The answer to the former question, I suspect, is that the ten jubilees have nothing to do with Noah’s lifetime, but are a part of Noah’s (apparent) chronological calculation of significant dates. The answer to the latter question may lie in the narrative style of the Apocryphon, which allows for repetitions of information within close proximity that our own narrative sensibilities would not allow.

38 As Elisha Qimron has already noted, “Toward a New Edition of 1QGenesis Apocryphon,” in Ulrich and Parry, The Provo International Conference, 108 n. 7, Tobit 4:12–13 also refers to Noah as having made an endogamous marriage. On Noah’s marriage, cf. further Jub. 4:33, and on endogamy in Qumran see 4QMMT B75–82 and the discussion in E. Qimron and J. Strugnell eds., Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqßat Ma'ase Ha-Torah (DJD 10: Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 171–75. 39 They translate “when ten jubilees—according to the calculation that I calculated—had been completed for me (i.e. I was 500 years old)” (MQS, 41).

from the watchers to the flood

55

As we indicated earlier, one of the characteristic features of the Apocryphon is the presence and employment of visions, usually extrabiblical, within the story. In 6:11 and 14 there are allusions to visions that Noah saw at this time, and it is not completely clear whether we are dealing with two different visions, or whether the “first” is a general statement which is then expanded and explained in the “second.” In the first case, we are told that Noah saw something “of the heavens,” and “was told and informed about the action of the ‘sons of heaven’,” something which he describes as ˆd azr, “this secret” or “mystery.” He asserts that he hid the secret within him and informed no one of it. (This might imply that the following vision differs from the “concealed” one, but that argument is tenuous.) This reappearance of zr, earlier found both in the “Lamech” section as well as in that which began jwn ylm btk, may indicate the importance of the term to the author of the Apocryphon and his sources. These appear not to be the only references in Second Temple, and particularly in Qumran, literature to Noah as the recipient of “esoteric” knowledge.40 The brief comment about a vision ends with a vacat in 6:12, and in the next line, albeit fragmentary, someone seems to appear to Noah, and then Noah says “the great Watcher upon me in the embassy and mission of the Holy One . . . and spoke to me in a vision and stood before me” (6:13–14). Noah is directly addressed by the heavenly speaker,41 and it appears that he is told about the conduct of mortals (a[ra ynb, as opposed, perhaps, to ˆymç ynb). There are allusions to “the blood which the Nephilim spilled” (6:19) and “the holy ones with the daughters of ma[n]” (6:20). The sins of the fallen angels thus involve both murder and immorality. All this seems to be within the telling of a single vision, although, if it is, there are

40 Thus, for example, 4Q534 Naissance de Noéa ar 1 7–8 [h]mwmr[w hklm ˆ[ww]hl hm[ ayyj lwk yzr [dyw ˚ht aymm[ lwkl atmkwjw açna yzr [dy[w] and 4Q536 Naissance de Noéc 2 i 8–9 yzr μ[fbw . . . ˆynwyl[k ˆyzr algy (with a further occurrence in line 12).

Granted that the subject of these passages is debated, if they indeed refer to Noah, then their characterization of him as one who knows ˆyzr dovetails with that of the Apocryphon. The density of the occurrence of zr in Enoch-Lamech-Noah contexts— 15 out of a total of 17 in the Aramaic of Qumran according to The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (eds. M. Abegg et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:923b—is not fortuitous. 41 I should reconstruct in 6:15 “[and the messenger at the se]nding of the great holy one made me hear a voice ‘O Noah’.”

56

moshe j. bernstein

a couple of first person verbs which must have the celestial messenger as their speaker and not Noah. The thrust of the vision beyond this is not clear. We next find Noah speaking of himself as “finding favor, greatness, and truth/righteousness” (6:23; fwçqw wbr ˆj), which may be an exegetical expansion of Gen 6:8 ùh yny[b ˆj axm jnw, “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” We have observed that one of the Apocryphon’s stylistic tendencies is to multiply synonymous terms, and this may be another example of that phenomenon, where the biblical ˆj is supplemented by fwçqw wbr. The few surviving lines of the end of the column (which preserves only 26 out of a likely 34 lines) refer to “the gates of Heaven” and to “men and animals, wild beasts and birds.” The opening lines of column 7 speak of “the earth and all that is upon it in the seas and the mountains . . . all the constellations of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars and the Watchers” (or “angels”; ˚alm, which occurs nineteen times in other Aramaic texts from Qumran, appears in the Apocryphon only at 15:14). The line before a vacat (7:5) ends with “glory and reward (?) I shall pay to you.” Noah then reacts to his being addressed from the heavens (7:7) by saying, “I rejoiced at the words of the Lord of Heaven.” In the second half of column 6 and the opening of column 7, Noah may have had three separate divine communications. Unfortunately, at this critical point in the narrative, shortly before the preparations for the flood and the flood itself, the manuscript becomes particularly fragmentary and the remains are not terribly enlightening. We do find Noah speaking again in 7:19, hnbmlw yntyd[hl, “to remove me and to build,” which might refer to the divine plan to save Noah via the building of the ark, and the two words “his wife after him” in the first line of column 8, but the rest of the introduction to the flood story and the actual narrative of the flood have not survived.42 We next meet Noah in column 10 after the flood is apparently over. The first “meaningful” words are 10:8, wjbçw wllhw, which can be read either as 3d masculine plural perfects, “they praised and sang,”

42 It is possible that further technical manipulation with the photographs of the Apocryphon will yield more readable material in both columns 8 and 9 as well as elsewhere.

from the watchers to the flood

57

or 2d masculine plural imperatives, “praise and sing.”43 In either case, it is likely that the subjects of the verb are Noah’s sons, who are probably also the ˆwklwk, “all of you” who are addressed two lines later, apparently with an exhortation to praise or sing or pray (no verb survives) “to your Lord, the king of all the worlds (or “eternal king”) forever and ever until the end of time” (10:9–10). The section is concluded by a vacat. This little vignette, however we are to understand it, is, of course extrabiblical; before the ark has come to rest, Noah and his family sing praises to God. In the lines immediately following the vacat, we can be sure that the flood has ended, as we read frrwh yrwf ˆm dj tjn atwbt (10:12), “The ark rested [on] one of the mountains of Horarat,” a virtual targum of Gen 8:4 frra yrh l[ . . . hbth jntw, omitting only the date formula which is found in the biblical text. This is rather significant because we have had very few opportunities up to this point to refer to passages in the Apocryphon that have strong parallels in the Bible. If the reading aml[ rwn is correct, a tantalizing allusion to “the eternal fire” follows, but its meaning remains completely mysterious. The narrator is now clearly Noah once again, as he describes, in one of the few passages in this portion of the Apocryphon to have been discussed in recent scholarship, how he “atoned (trpk) for the whole earth,” with a series of sacrifices.44 This, too, is one of the few passages in this section that has, at least at first glance, a biblical foundation. The parallel biblical text to this portion of the Apocryphon is Gen 8:20 lkmw hrwhfh hmhbh lkm jqyw ùhl jbzm jn ˆbyw jbzmb tl[ l[yw rwhfh πw[h, “Noah then built an altar to the Lord and, taking from all the clean animals and all the clean birds, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.” The list of offerings by Noah in the Apocryphon, on the other hand, appears to consist of a sequence

43 The latter suggestion appears more likely because of the reference to ˆwklwk in the next line. 44 See J. C. Reeves, “What Does Noah Offer in I QApGen X, 15,” RevQ 12 (1986): 415–19; C. Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” 175–76; and J. C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Stone and Chazon, Pseudepigraphic Perspectives, 163–67. Reeves’ insight, 417–18, made without the benefit of the “new” textual material, that the verb trfqa in 10:15 refers to the offering of fat and not incense, was confirmed by the reading trfqa arwn l[ hbrtw, “I burned the fat on the fire.”

58

moshe j. bernstein

of three (cf. 10:14 anayntw . . . ˆymdql and 10:15 ytyltw), and, although the specific references to the animals in the list are almost all unfortunately missing, it would appear to be an expansion, i.e., an interpretation, of the biblical “clean animals and clean birds.” Further details in the description also are directly linked to the Pentateuch. The placing of salt ˆwhlwkb, “on all of them [the offerings],” coincides with the commandment in Lev 2:13 tyrb jlm tybçt alw jlm byrqt ˚nbrq lk l[ ˚tjnm l[m ˚yhla (“You shall not omit from your grain-offerings the salt of your God’s covenant; on all your sacrifices shall you offer salt”). qls aymçl ytrwfqm jrw, “the scent of my offering rose to the heavens,” is the equivalent of Gen 8:21 jyr ta ùh jryw jwjynh, “the Lord smelled the sweet scent.” This “rendering” might be described as a proto-targumic kind of avoidance of the overt anthropomorphism found in the biblical text. The description of the details of the offerings themselves, however, presents a problem. While Noah’s sacrifices in the Bible are only burnt offerings, those he brings in the Apocryphon are not. The burning of the fat of the first sacrifice on the altar (10:14) is not the custom for a burnt offering, all of which is immolated, and, although the second offering has all of its flesh burnt (10:15), Noah spills its blood on the base of the altar (10:15) (as prescribed by Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, and 34, all passages dealing with tafj, sin-offering), whereas the blood of burnt offerings is only sprinkled and not subsequently spilled out, according to Lev 1:5 and 11.45 Jubilees, like the Apocryphon, does not restrict Noah’s offerings after the flood to burnt offerings. In Jub. 6:2 Noah “made atonement for the earth, and took a kid and made atonement by its blood for all the guilt of the earth,”46 offering its fat on the altar as in the Apocryphon, and then a series of other animals and birds as burnt offerings, followed by a grain offering, wine and frankincense. Like the Apocryphon, Jubilees also 45 It is very possible that the assimilation of the handling of the blood of the burnt offering to that of the sin offering is due to an inclination to include the burnt offering in the atonement process, or, as Werman suggests (“Qumran and the Book of Noah,” 175 n. 8), merely to the proximity of the two offerings in this passage. 46 I accept VanderKam’s judgment, “Angel Story,” 164, that the original reading of 6:2 is “he atoned for the earth,” against Werman (“Qumran and the Book of Noah,” 176–77), who accepts the reading of the better MSS of Jubilees, “he appeared on the earth.” According to VanderKam, this reading is based on an inner-Ethiopic corruption. Werman’s subsequent claim, based on her reading, of a different motivation in Jubilees than that in the Apocryphon for the sacrifices of Noah thus loses some substantial support.

from the watchers to the flood

59

appears to see the need for a sacrifice “to atone for the earth.” Despite these connections to the biblical story and to the Pentateuch more generally, if my reading of the narrative is correct, there appear to be two very significant deviations from the pentateuchal story in the Apocryphon’s record of these events. In the biblical narrative, Gen 8:15–19, which describes God’s command to Noah and his exit from the ark with the rest of the survivors of the flood, precedes the description of the offering in 8:20–21. This does not seem to have been the case in the Apocryphon where it appears that the resting of the ark (= Gen 8:4) is narrated in 10:12, and Noah’s sacrifice follows immediately in 10:13. The very likely inference is that Noah makes these offerings while he is still on the ark! The alternative, that he has already gone out of the ark somewhere in column 9 or in the earlier portion of column 10, is made very unlikely by the opening surviving words of 11:1, atwbyt [rtb tywh jwn hna, “I, Noah, was at the entrance of the ark,” which would seem to imply that he has not yet left the ark. I suggest that perhaps, from the perspective of the Apocryphon’s author, the purification of the earth accomplished by Noah’s sin-offerings had to be completed before Noah and the others descended from the ark. It would do no good for the survivors of the flood to be rendered impure immediately by their descent onto an impure earth. This rearrangement would constitute a major displacement in the Apocryphon’s version of the biblical narrative.47 If my reading is correct, and the resting of the ark on the mountains occurs for the first time in 10:12, then the Apocryphon has also omitted, or has displaced to someplace later in column 10, the contents of Gen 8:5–14, including the sending out of the birds to discover whether the earth had dried up.48 Despite these two apparent deviations from the story as it appears in Genesis, it is very likely that the offerings described in this column are indeed the equivalent of those in Gen 8:20–21. The only alternative is to assume that in addition to these, extrabiblical, sacrifices, the author of the Apocryphon included the sacrifices of Genesis 8 at a later point in his narrative. 47 Once again, I accept VanderKam’s argument, “Angel Story,” 165–67, especially 167, rather than Werman’s, in order to understand how murder can be atoned for by sacrifice. 48 In light of the fact that Jubilees omits the incidents with the birds, it is possible that the Apocryphon did as well. Note that 4Q252 Genesis Commentary A includes the dove, but omits the raven.

60

moshe j. bernstein

This, however, is unlikely, since when Noah leaves the ark in column 11, which clearly relates to the beginning of Genesis 9, there is no room for the introduction of the Genesis 8 sacrifices. Regarding the sending out of the birds, there remains the possibility of its having been recorded in the latter portion of column 10 or, less likely, in the first one of column 11. Whether we choose the view that the Apocryphon needs to include all the details of the biblical story, while allowing nonbiblical details to be inserted into the narrative, or that which says that the recounting in the Apocryphon need not contain all the details of the Bible, depends perhaps on our preconceptions of the freedom of the reteller of the biblical narrative. Is his tale the whole biblical story with supplementation, or a story that happens to follow the line of the biblical story but need not include every detail found in the Bible? At what point in the Apocryphon Noah is given the command by God to leave the ark is unclear, although it probably occurs in the second, illegible, portion of column 10, perhaps even beginning with the words ayl[ ˆydab, “then the Most High,” in 10:18. But there is a great deal of space between the last readable material in column 10 and the text in column 11:11 where Noah says that he left the ark. What is also not clear is the nature of that divine command, which in Gen 8:16 consists merely of a straightforward instruction for Noah to leave the ark with his family: ˚tçaw hta hbth ˆm ax ˚ta ˚ynb yçnw ˚ynbw, but is unattested in the surviving text of the Apocryphon. In the Apocryphon 11:11–14 we find Noah doing several things which have no scriptural antecedent whatsoever, or almost no antecedent, as we shall see. There we read “Then I, Noah, went out and walked through the earth by its length and by its breadth.” These words, of course, with the change making Noah the speaker, are a virtual citation of God’s words to Abram in Gen 13:17: hnnta ˚l yk hbjrlw hkral ≈rab ˚lhth μwq, “Arise and walk through the land by its length and by its breadth, for I shall give it to you.”49 In the Genesis Apocryphon, no explicit divine command to Noah to do this survives, but it is quite reasonable to assume that Noah is here carrying out divine bidding. If so, we have here an explicit link between the Abram narrative and the Noah material, with an attempt

49 Context demands that a[ra in the Noah passage mean “earth,” while ≈ra in the Abram passage means “land.”

from the watchers to the flood

61

being made to cast Noah in the model of the later patriarch. As we shall see, this is not the only such occurrence in the Apocryphon, and indeed it has other parallels in Qumran literature, in which Noah, as well as Adam and Enoch, are viewed by the writers of these texts as belonging to same chain of tradition, as it were, as the direct ancestors of the Jewish people, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.50 Noah presents an idyllic description of the earth after the flood, and if ˆd[ in 11:12 is to be understood with MQS as “luxuriance,” it is perhaps meant to recall the antediluvian period in the Garden of Eden; “there was luxuriance in their leaves and fruit, and the whole earth was filled with grass and herbage and grain.”51 He realizes that the flood has not destroyed the earth’s capability to be fruitful, and thanks God for that. He then, a little surprisingly, further thanks (tkrbw tbtw) God for having “destroyed doers of violence, wickedness and falsehood, while saving the righteous man,” a reference, of course, to himself as qydx. The last readable material in column 11 begins with a heavenly proclamation to Noah: “Do not fear, Noah; I am with you and with your children who will be like you forever”; this seems (the reading is not fully clear) to give him dominion over the earth and what is in it (11:15–16). The opening words are parallel to those in the Abram narrative (Gen 15:1), “Do not fear Abram; I am your shield,” another application to Noah of pentateuchal terminology borrowed from one of the patriarchs.52 This line also contains a subtle limitation of God’s promise to be on the side of Noah’s descendants, wherein only those like Noah will deserve such assistance.

50 See my remarks in “Noah and the Flood at Qumran,” 220–221; my tentative remarks there on the role of Noah as part of “Jewish” history in 5Q13 must be supplemented by M. Kister, “5Q13 and the 'Avodah: A Historical Survey and Its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001): 136–48 (137–39 and 144). 51 MQS, 47. Cf. J. C. Greenfield, “A Touch of Eden,” Orientalia J. DuchesneGuillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica 23; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 219–24 = 'Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 750–55. It appears that this description contradicts 12:9 where Noah describes the earth after the flood, “for there was great desolation in the land.” Perhaps the passages are describing two different geographical areas, but there is nothing to imply that in the surviving material. 52 At the end of the final surviving column of the Apocryphon we read in God’s speech to Abram (22:30): ˚m[ hna ljdt la, virtually the same words as are spoken to Noah, hna ˚m[ jwn ay ljdt la.

62

moshe j. bernstein

In the line following that exhortation, however, the issue of how the Apocryphon handles the biblical text, its “exegesis,” comes to the fore once again. The description of Noah’s walk through the earth and his accompanying praise of God has no pentateuchal link. Neither do the opening lines following the vacat of line 14 which we have cited, although if the sense of 11:15 is to grant Noah and his descendants dominion over the earth, they echo God’s words to Adam in Gen 1:28 wdrw “and rule.”53 Is the author of the Apocryphon merely employing imitative language, or does he mean consciously to link the passages? The nonscriptural divine address to Noah is followed by a series of statements which appear to be based on biblical texts. First, 11:16–17, a[ra yd abç[w aqryk lkaml alwk ˚ynblw ˚l bhy hna ahw, “I give you and your children everything to eat like the greenery and herbage of the earth,” is a virtual targum of the underlined words in Gen 9:3 yttn bç[ qryk hlkal hyhy μkl yj awh rça çmr lk lk ta μkl. This is followed by a prohibition against consuming blood, ˆwlkat al μd lwk μrb, which at first glance appears to derive from Gen 9:4 wlkat al wmd wçpnb rçb ˚a, but, beyond μrb which represents ˚a, actually uses the language of Lev 3:17 lkw blj lk wlkat al μd, or 17:14 wlkat al rçb lk μd (more likely the former). Did the author of the Apocryphon consciously introduce the language of Leviticus into Genesis, or was he perhaps composing from memory without a biblical text before him, and unconsciously harmonized the verses? Finally, 11:17 concludes with ˆwktljdw ˆwktmya which can only represent Gen 9:2, (hyhy) μktjw μkarwmw. Note how the author of this section of the Apocryphon has handled three consecutive verses, Gen 9:2–4. He starts with 9:3, and virtually translates it; proceeds to 9:4, begins with its first word and then substitutes another verse for it; and only then does he begin with the subject of 9:2. The text unfortunately breaks off at this point before we hear more about God’s covenant with Noah, of which only a reference to the rainbow survives in 12:1 (parallel to Gen 9:13).

53 It is interesting that BHS suggests the reading hb wdrw ≈rab wxrç in place of MT hb wbrw at Gen 9:7. It should, however, be noted that in Gen 1:28 çbk is used of the earth, and hdr of its animal kingdoms.

from the watchers to the flood

63

In this survey of Genesis Apocryphon 1–11, I have attempted to draw attention to a variety of the prominent features of this very fragmentary document, while presenting as much of the outline of the narrative as the fragments currently allow us. I have described a variety of compositional features such as vivid dialogue, repetitive language, shifts in narrator and frequent occurrence of visions. A limited number of tentative inferences regarding the broader storytelling technique of the composer have also been discussed. I have also noted certain aspects of the kinship of the Apocryphon to other Second Temple works such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch and the Book of the Giants, although we cannot yet determine any genetic relationship among them. It should be clear that this entire section (as well as the remainder of the Noah section, columns 12–17) is heavily “nonbiblical,” as the composer of the Apocryphon tells a story related to the Bible, but draws on narrative material not found in the Bible. In this manner, the Lamech-Noah material (and not just the originally published Lamech material) differs considerably in its handling from the Abram portion of the document in columns 19–22. Despite the fact that the Lamech and Noah materials may themselves very well derive from two different sources, these two narratives are similar in their highly expanded and non-exegetical approach to the biblical text (although there appears to be more biblical interpretation in the fragmentary remains of the Noah portion than in the Lamech material, but that may be proportional to the presence of each in the biblical text itself ). Is the difference between the early portions of the Apocryphon and the Abram material due merely to the fact that they drew on sources of different sorts? Was there simply more “midrashic” material available to the composer about Noah and his forbears than there was about Genesis 12–14, which tells the story of Abram covered in columns 19–22? Or, was the antediluvian section of the Pentateuch particularly significant to the Weltanschauung of the author? This issue, like others, which are not bounded by the limits of columns 1–11 and were not touched upon in this paper, will be addressed in my subsequent work on the Genesis Apocryphon.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON AND POMPEY* Shani Berrin University of Sydney

Psalm 2 of the pseudepigraphic Psalms of Solomon and columns ii–iv of the Qumran pesher 4QpNah 3–4 have each been associated with Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. Further examination of these works indicates that their similarities extend beyond subject matter to linguistic expressions that are suggestive of a shared interpretive tradition. It is likely that the two compositions reflect different adaptations of this shared tradition, which was molded by each of the ancient authors to suit the polemic needs of his own community.

I. Pompey’s Conquest as the Subject of 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv Whereas there is general agreement that Psalms 2 and 8 of Psalms of Solomon are concerned with Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, the setting of 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv is less firmly established and requires some attention.1 It is widely assumed that there is a scholarly consensus concerning the historical context of Pesher Nahum. Although this is basically true for 4QpNah 3–4 col. i, there is less agreement about the

* I would like to thank the Orion Center for the Study of Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, and particularly Dr. Esther Chazon, for inviting me to participate in this symposium. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Esther and Prof. Hanan Eshel for hosting me during my stay in Jerusalem and for their helpful reactions to the version of this paper that was presented at the conference, as well as to Prof. Moshe Bernstein for his useful comments. Remaining errors, of course, are my own responsibility. 1 On the historical context of Psalm 2, see the works cited in D. Dimant, “A Cultic Term in the Psalms of Solomon in the Light of the Septuagint,” Textus 9 (1981): 27–28 (Hebrew); especially, G. B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon” in APOT 2:625–52 and S. Holm-Nielsen, “Die Psalmen Salomos” JSHRZ 4.2 (1977), 51–112. See also, R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:658–70; J. L. Trafton: “Solomon, Psalms of,” in ABD 6:115–17; and K. Atkinson, I Cried To The Lord: a Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004.)

66

shani berrin

setting of the subsequent columns of the work. References to Demetrius and Antiochus, as well as to executions by hanging, in col. i serve as the basis for contextualizing col. i in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.2 The phrase “rising of the Kittim” in line 1 of col. i is generally understood as a reference to the Roman conquest of Judea, and it is thus accepted that the composition of the work as a whole postdates the “rise” of the Romans. Cols. ii–iv have been addressed in light of these identifications and have been taken as referring to some time period between Jannaeus and the Roman conquest. Specific proposals include (1) the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (c. 88 bce),3 (2) the reign of queen Salome Alexandra, Jannaeus’ queen and successor (76–67 bce),4 (3) the period of conflict between Salome’s sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, and of Pompey’s conquest (67–63 bce).5 2 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.372–416; BJ 1.92, and the secondary literature cited in the next three notes. However, for an alternative understanding of col. i, as pertaining to the time of Pompey, see G. Doudna, 4QPesher Nahum (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 639–74. 3 Thus, L. H. Schiffman, “Pharisees and Sadducees in Pesher Nahum,” in Minhah Le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honor of His 70th Birthday (ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSup 154; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 272–90, esp. 281; as well as I. R. Tantlejvsky, “The Reflection of the Political Situation in Judea in 88 B.C.E. in the Qumran Commentary of Nahum (4QpNah, Columns 1–4),” St. Petersburg Journal of Oriental Studies 6 (1994): 221–31. J. Maier had raised this possibility, alongside the hypothesis of D. Flusser (i.e., the period of Salome), in “Weitere Stücke zum Nahumkommentar aus der Höhle 4 Von Qumran,” Judaica 18 (1962): 245. 4 Thus, D. Flusser, “μwjn rçpb μyysaw ,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp,” in Essays in Jewish History and Philology, in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970), 133–68 (Hebrew); = “Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener im Pescher Nahum” in Qumran (ed. K. E. Grözinger et al. [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981]); “μyçwrphw hdwhy rbdm tk,” in Molad 19 (1961): 456–58 (Hebrew). Likewise J. D. Amusin, “Éphraim et Manassé dans le Péshèr de Nahum (4 Q p Nahum),” RevQ 4 (1963–64): 389–96; “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B. C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q 161; 4Q 169; 4Q 166),” HUCA 48 (1977): 123–52, esp. 143–45. So, too, M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979), 161; I. Fröhlich, “Le Genre Littéraire des Pesharim du Qumran,” RevQ 12 (1986): 391. 5 Thus, A. Dupont-Sommer, “Observations sur le Commentaire de Nahum Découvert près de la Mer Morte,” Journal des Savants (October-December 1963): 201–26; “Le Commentaire de Nahum Découvert près de la Mer Morte (4QpNah): Traduction et Notes,” Semitica 13 (1963): 55–88. He views the pesher as concerned with three Hasmonean monarchs: Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus II, and Aristobulus II (“Le Commentaire,” 87). He identifies the same figures in 4QTestimonia; but see the rebuttal of H. Eshel, “The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Rebuilder of Jericho,” RevQ 15 (1991–92): 409–20. Another possibility proposed earlier by Gaster associates this pesher with the Samaritans (The Dead Sea Scriptures [New York: Anchor/Doubleday 1976], 341).

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

67

There are a number of ways in which to evaluate proposed historical referents for pesher.6 The approach employed in this paper is to examine how a proposed historical context accounts for the pesher’s relationship to material from different corpora. A common pedagogical tool in Qumran studies is the division of the Dead Sea scrolls into three basic categories: biblical texts, Qumran sectarian texts, and “other.” Borrowing these categories for the evaluation of pesher interpretations, I note that a proposed historical context must suitably account for the pesher in terms of (1) its relationship to other Qumran writings, (2) its use of biblical sources, and (3) its relationship to other relevant textual material. These categories can be further subdivided. Qumran texts include the pesher composition itself, other pesharim, and additional sectarian texts. Biblical sources include the cited base-text as well as secondary sources. The category of “other” is, of course, rather open-ended and will include nonsectarian material from Qumran, rabbinic texts, and pseudepigrapha. Let us now examine how the context suggested by Dupont-Sommer, that of Pompey’s conquest of Judea, can account for the relationship of 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv to sources in each of our categories. In Antiquities (14.1–80) and, in a shorter version in War (1.117–159), Josephus describes the events that occurred subsequent to the reign of Salome Alexandra. Alexandra’s reign itself was characterized by Pharisaic dominance and control. She was queen; Hyrcanus II, the elder of her two sons, was High Priest; but, according to Josephus, the Pharisees held the real power. When Salome was afflicted by a

6 The evaluation of proposed historical referents is often a subjective enterprise in the study of pesher. Some degree of flexibility and subjectivity is necessary in this enterprise, given the allusive and literary nature of pesher, but there is a need for the articulation, if not the standardization, of criteria for evaluation. For some initial steps toward imposing such order, see S. Berrin, “Lemma/Pesher Correspondence in Pesher Nahum,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery (eds. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 341–50; and The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (STDJ 53, Leiden: Brill, 2004), 28. In testing a proposed contextualization, we can examine how the proposal accommodates lemma/pesher correspondence at the levels of syntax, sense, and semantics; or on the basis of the related categories of form, content, and exegetical technique. Investigation can also proceed on the basis of the size of interpretive units: we can ask how the historical setting matches the individual words of the pesher interpretation, the distinct lemma/pesher units, the larger pericope, and the composition as a whole.

shani berrin

68

mortal illness, Aristobulus, her younger son, proclaimed himself king. Upon Salome’s death, civil war ensued between Aristobulus, a “man of action” (drastÆriow), and the older Hyrcanus II, an ineffectual leader (êpragmou) (Ant. 14:13). Attempts at effecting a compromise between the brothers were unsuccessful. After each of the brothers appealed to Rome for assistance against the other, Pompey ultimately resolved the issue by deciding to take Jerusalem under direct Roman rule, effectively ending the Hasmonean dynasty. Pompey besieged Jerusalem, taking the city in a fierce and bloody battle. Aristobulus was brought captive to Rome with his wife and children, Judea was placed under heavy tribute to Rome, and Hyrcanus was re-instated as High Priest. Does Pesher Nahum reflect these events? The first criterion I will apply is the internal one, the accommodation of the words of the pesher interpretation to this context. The immediate basis for the proposed identification is the pesher’s description of the defeat, exile, and plunder of Judea, especially in col. ii. These elements are sufficiently prominent in Pompey’s conquest to warrant further examination of the scenario as the context alluded to in the pesher. This can best be demonstrated by reviewing the pesher interpretations sequentially. The text of cols. ii–iv is reproduced here, with the biblical lemmas underlined. 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv7 Col. ii:

ha[ l]m q[rp çjk] hlwk μymdh ry[ ywh vac. . . . .1 rqçw çjkb rça μymyh tyrjal twqljh yçrwd μyrpa ry[ ayh wrçp .2 wklht[y. . .] çrp hdqrm hbkrmw rhd swsw ˆpwa ç[r lwqw fwç lwqw πrf çwmy al .3 bwhl hl[m l[ wrçp vac μtywgw wlçkw hywgl ≈q ˆyaw rgp dwbkw llj bwrw tynj qrbw .4 twqljh yçrwd tlçmm

7 The full critical edition of the pesher was published by J. M. Allegro, “169. Commentary on Nahum,” in Qumran Cave 4.I: 4Q158–4Q186 (ed. J. M. Allegro; DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 37–42. J. Strugnell published extensive corrections to Allegro’s edition in “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’,” RevQ 7 (1969–71): 163–276, pp. 204–10. See also the edition of Horgan, Pesharim, 158–91, with bibliography on 158–59 and transcription of the entire pesher in her supplement, “The Texts,” 46–50; as well as DupontSommer, “Le Commentaire.” The reconstruction and English translation appearing here are my own.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

69

djpm twlgw μtwnyb rwjrjw zbw ybç μywg brj μtd[ brqm çwmy al rça .5 bwrw bywa wlwçky μrçb tywgb πaw μhyllj llkl ≈q ˆyaw μhymyb wlwpy hmça yrgp .6 μtmça tx[b twjpçmw htwnzb μywg trkmmh μypçk tl[bw ˆj tbwf hnwz ynwnz bwrm .7 hypç[k]b tpçw μhybzk ˆwçlw μrqç dwmltb rça vac μyrpa y[tm l[[ w]rçp .8 μybr w[ty hmrm μydb[k]n μtx[b wdbwy twjpçmw μyr[ hwln rg μ[ μ[w μynhwk μyrç μyklm .9 μyl]çwmw ]tylgw t[wab]x hwhy μan ˚yla ynnh vac μnwçl μ[[zm] wlwpy .10 wrçp ˚nwlq///twklmmw [˚]r[m μyw[g ]t[y]arhw ˚ynp l[ [˚]ylwç .11 °°° [. . . . . .]° . . . . . .] μ[y]lwçh yk jrzmh yr[[ . . . .12 1. Woe city of blood! She is all [deception, with pilla]ge she is filled 2. Its pesher: “she” is the city of Ephraim, the Seekers-after-SmoothThings at the end of days, that the[y will] conduct themselves in deception and falsehoo[ds]. 3. There will not cease predation, nor the sound of the whip and the sound of the rumbling of the wheel, and the galloping horse, and the charging chariot. Lunging horseman! Flame 4. and flash of spear! And a multitude of slain and a mass of corpses! And there is no end of (dead) bodi(es) and they will stumble over their bodies. vac Its pesher: concerning the domain of the Seekers-after-SmoothThings 5. that there shall not cease from the midst of their congretation the sword of Gentiles, captivity, and plunder, and fever among them, and exile from fear of the enemy; and a multitude of 6. guilty corpses will fall in their days, and there will be no end to the sum of their slain, and even over their fleshly bodies they shall stumble, by their guilty counsel. 7. Because of the many harlotries of the harlot, charmingly pleasing, and mistress of sorceries, who betrays nations through her harlotries and families through her sor[cer]ries. 8. [Its] pesher: concer[ning] the misleaders of Ephraim, vac who mislead many by their false teaching, and their lying tongue and their wily lip; 9. kings, princes, priests, and populace together with the resident alien. Cities and clans will perish through their counsel, n[ob]les and rul[ers] 10. will fall [by the fur]y of their tongue. vac “Behold I am against you,” it is the declaration of the Lord of h[os]ts, “and you will uncover 11. [your] skirts up over your face; you will sh[ow nat]ions [your] nakedness and kingdoms your shame Its pesher: [ 12. . . .] cities of the east, for the skir[t]s [ . . .

shani berrin

70 Col. iii

˚ytmçw ˚ytlb[nw] μyxwqç ˚yl[ ytklçhw μhytwb[wt yxwq[çbw] μt[d]nb μywgh .1 vac ˚mm wdwdy ˚yawr lwk hyhw hrwak .2 larçy lwkl μy[rh μhyç[m wlgy ≈qh tyrjab rça twqljh yçrwd l[ wrçp .3 hdwhy dwbk twl[g]hbw μtmça ˆwdz l[ μwrakw μwançw μnww[b wnyby μybrw .4 larç[y . . .]° l[ wwlnw μhy[tm ta wbz[w μlhq ˚wtm μyrpa yatp wdwdy .5 wrmaw yçrwd [. . .] wrçp vac ˚l μymjnm hçqba ˆyam hl dwny ym hwnyn hddwç .6 lhq[.] tw[tl dw[ wpyswy alw μtsnk hdrpnw μtx[ dbwt rça twqljh .7 μya]tpw μyray[b hbçwyh ˆw]ma ynm ybyf° th vac μtx[ ta dw[ wqzjy al .8 ]μ ta μy[. . .]h ydbkn hçnm yl[w]dg μh μyrayhw hçnm μh ˆwma wrçp .9 vac hytwmwj μymw μy hlyj rça hl bybs μym .10 μyrxmw ]hmxw[ çwk //[//htmjl[m y]rwbg hly[j] yçna μh wrç[p .11 . . . hxq ˆyaw ˚trz[b wyh μybwl]hw fw[p. . . . . .[m[. . . . . .]°° mh°[. . . . . .]°° [. . .]°°°[. . .12 1. and the nations in their de[filem]ent and in their [det]estable abominations. And I will cast upon you detested things, and I will [de]grade you, and I will make you 2. detestable. And it will be that all who see you will flee from you vac 3. Its pesher: concerning the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things that at the end of time their evil deeds will be revealed to all Israel, 4. and many will understand their iniquity and hate them and despise them because of their insolent guilt. And upon the revelation of the glory of Judah, 5. the simple ones of Ephraim will flee from the midst of their congregation and will leave those who mislead them and will join themselves to Israel. And they will say, 6. ‘Nineveh is despoiled; who will mourn for her?’ Where shall I seek comforters for you?” Its pesher: [concerning] the Seekers7. after-Smooth-Things that their council will perish and their assembly will be broken up and they will not continue to lead [the] congregation astray and the simp[le 8. will not support their counsel any more. vac Are you better than Am[on situated among] the rivers? 9. Its pesher: “Amon”: they are Manasseh and “the rivers”: they are the nobles of Manasseh, the honored ones of the [. . . 10. which was surrounded by waters, whose rampart was the sea and whose walls were waters vac 11. Its [pe]sher: they are her [w]arriors, her mighty men o[f w]ar. Ethiopia was her might [and Egypt, and it was without limit. 12. [. . . Put and the Libyans were in your aid.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

71

Col. iv

hkl]h hlwgb ayh μg hçnm l[ μywlnh glp tyb h[. . . y][çr μh wrçp μg ybçb wqtwr hy]l[wd]g lwkw lrwg wrwy hydbkn l[w twxwj lk çarb wçfwry hylwly[ . . .]° yb wtwklm lpçt rça ˆwrjah ≈ql hçnm l[ wrçp μyqzb yrkçt ta μg . . . . . .] brjb wydbknw wyrwbg ybçb wkly wpfw wylwly[ wyçn μyrpa y[çr l[ wrçp vac hml[n yhtw yçqbt ta μg. . .] l [. . .] hçnm rja μswk awbt rça . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l[[ wr]çp bywam ry[b zw[m ˚yrxbm lwk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ry[b μhybywa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .μyrwkb ]μ[ μynat

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

1. Its pesher: they are the wicked ones of its [. . .], the House of Peleg who have joined themselves to Manasseh. Yet even she w[ent] into exile [in captivity. Also 2. her young children were dashed to pieces at the top of every street. And they cast lots for her honored men and all [her g]reat men [were bound 3. in fetters. Its pesher: concerning Manasseh at the final age when his kingdom will be brought low in y[. . . 4. his women, his infants, and his children will go into captivity, his warriors and his nobles by the sword [. . . . You too will be drunken 5. you will be obscured. Its pesher: concerning the evil ones of E[phraim 6. that their cup will come after Manasseh [. . . you too will seek 7. refuge in the city from the enemy. Its pesh[er: upo]n [ 8. their enemies in the city [. . . . All your fortresses 9. will be fig-trees with [their first-ripe fruits;

Line 2 of col. ii provides the temporal and geographical setting for this section of the pesher, placing the event in the End of Days (tyrja μymyh), and establishing the guilt of the twqljh yçrwd (the SeekersAfter-Smooth-Things), the city of Ephraim, which is to be identified as Jerusalem.8 Lines 4–7 outline the disastrous calamities to befall the twqljh yçrwd, and lines 8–10 identify the victims of that group. The subsequent pesher interpretation is poorly preserved, but its extant portions refer to disgrace before the Gentiles. Col. iii shifts to ≈qh tyrja, with lines 3–8 anticipating the mass rejection of twqljh yçrwd, to the point of the party’s dissolution. The extant remaining portion of the pesher compares the predicted doom of twqljh yçrwd to the downfall of Manasseh, which is apparently already complete.

8

Dupont-Sommer, “Le Commentaire,” 71; “Observations,” 208.

72

shani berrin

If the term twqljh yçrwd is understood to represent the Pharisees, and probably to some extent the supporters of Hyrcanus II, and “Manasseh” is taken to indicate the Sadducees and supporters of Aristobulus, the details of the pesher fall into place. The arguments for these sectarian identifications have been put forth at great length and with much clarity by a number of scholars.9 The identification is consistent with that employed in col. i of Pesher Nahum and is supported by other Qumran texts. It has further been noted that col. ii does not simply refer to twqljh yçrwd but specifically to tlçmm twqljh yçrwd (line 4). This phrase has been the prime impetus for those who set the pesher within the reign of Salome Alexandra, since the words seems to fit Josephus’ description of Salome as having been “queen only in name, while the Pharisees had the real power” (dÊnamin).10 A case can be made, however, for describing the period after Salome’s reign as twqljh yçrwd tlçmm as well. The term tlçmm, particularly at Qumran, need not refer to political rule, but rather may denote some other form of authority, in which case Pharisaic “dominance” need not be limited to the time of Salome. The characterization twqljh yçrwd tlçmm might also be appropriate in the specifically political sense, if the “third delegation” of Ant. 14.40 is identified as a Pharisaic deputation. When Aristobulus and Hyrcanus sent their supporters before Pompey to defend their respective claims to the throne, a third party was represented as well, as described by Josephus and by Diodorus Siculus.11 They relate that a party of Jews, 9 The three-fold identification of the terms “Ephraim,” “Manasseh,” and “Judah” in the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes respectively, was arrived at independently by Amusin (“Éphraim et Manassé”); Dupont-Sommer (“Observations,” 213, and “Le Commentaire,” 82–83); and Yigael Yadin (in private correspondence to Flusser; cf. “μwjn rçpb μyysaw ,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp,” 139 and n. 24). See Maier, “Weitere Stücke,” 234–49, for a comprehensive discussion of the term twqljh yçrwd at Qumran, and a systematic argument in favor of Pharisaic identification. The main obstacle to consensus on these identifications is the larger question of the identity of the Pharisees. See esp. J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: the Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), particularly pp. 1–11, 152–54; and A. Saldarini’s discussion and bibliography in ABD, s.v. Pharisees. 10 Ant. 13.408–410. He states that the Pharisees were nothing other than despots (despot«n). Again, in BJ 1.110–112, “while Alexandra reigned over the nation, the Pharisees ruled her.” Cf. Amusin, “Éphraim et Manassé,” 389–96; “Historical Events,” 143–45; Flusser, “μwjn rçpb μyysaw ,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp,” 136. Amusin also discusses the background of Salome’s submission to the Pharisees, as influenced by Jannaeus’s deathbed advice to reconcile with his long-time opponents (“Éphraim et Manassé,” 392). 11 Bibliotheca XL.2, as cited in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1975–1984), 1:185–86.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

73

(“the most prominent men,” §pifan°statoi, in Diodorus; “the nation” in Josephus),12 appealed to Pompey to reject the pleas for royal recognition put forth by each of the Hasmonean brothers. This third party petitioned Pompey to restore the nation instead to its customary configuration as a hierocracy. Josephus does not explicitly record Pompey’s response to this group. However, when all was said and done, the system in place most closely resembled the initial demand of this group: the monarchy was defunct and Hyrcanus was installed as High Priest. In support of the Pharisaic identity of these petitioners, I would note that Diodorus (line 9) records their claim that the Hasmonean monarchy violates “ancestral law” (toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw); Josephus similarly employs the word pãtrion. Moreover, it was during Hyrcanus’ prior tenure as High Priest, during his mother’s reign, that the Pharisees are said to have enjoyed the height of their political power. It is thus plausible that twqljh yçrwd tlçmm designates a period of Pharisaic political power, continuing even in the aftermath of the Pharisaic “Golden Age” under Salome. I suggest that the Pharisees were divided among themselves in the years 67–63 bce, but sought nonetheless to retain the mantle of national authority. They are thus culpable, in the eyes of the author of Pesher Nahum, for the calamities associated with Pompey’s conquest. This proposal accommodates a number of details in the pesher. The reference to the “city of Ephraim” in line 2 suits the centrality of Jerusalem in the conflict between Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and the Roman general. Lines 4–6 refer to the Gentile sword, captivity, plunder, civil strife (rjrj), migration of refugees, and large-scale death. These phenomena are all documented as elements of Pompey’s takeover of Jerusalem. Josephus describes protracted hand-to-hand combat (μywg brj),13 the taking of captives (ybç),14 civil strife (μtwnyb rwjrjw),15 and tremendous slaughter. Regarding internal fighting, even 12 Ant. 14.41 reads, “He [Pompey] heard the case of the Jews and their leaders, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were quarreling with one another, while the nation (Gr. tÚ ¶ynow) was against them both, saying that it was the custom of their country to obey the priests of the God who was venerated by them, but that these two, who were descended from the priests, were seeking to change their form of government in order that they might become a nation of slaves.” 13 “the enemy poured in . . . and there was slaughter everywhere” (Ant. 14.69). 14 “one of those taken captive was Absalom, the uncle and at the same time father-in-law of Aristobulus” (Ant. 14.71). 15 “But among the men within the city there was dissension, for they were not of one mind concerning their situation” (Ant. 14.58). rjrj is a hapax in the Bible

74

shani berrin

during the final battle in Jerusalem, Josephus notes “most of the slain [among the Jews] perished by the hands of their countrymen of the opposite faction.”16 As for the death toll, Josephus reports that 12,000 Jews were killed.17 There has been some discussion in secondary literature about the extent and nature of Pompey’s plundering of Jerusalem’s treasures (corresponding to the pesher’s zbw).18 There should be no doubt, however, that Pompey did in fact help himself to a large quantity of victor’s spoils.19 As for the pesher’s reference to “fear” and self-imposed exile, Josephus’ account does not provide direct evidence, but indirect attestation can be found.20 In recounting the story of “Onias the Circledrawer” Josephus mentions in passing that the besieging party had to seek out Onias, since “this man hid himself when he saw that the civil war continued to rage” (Ant. 14:22). Just prior to that, Josephus states that when Hyrcanus’ siege occurred at the time of Passover, “the Jews of best repute left the country and fled to Egypt” (Ant. 14:21).21 at Deut 28:22, “. . . brjbw rjrjbw tqldbw tjdqbw tpjçb” The phrase could perhaps also be taken to denote actual fire. In describing the desperate state of the population of Jerusalem at the time of Pompey’s conquest, Josephus records that people “set fire to their houses, and burned themselves within them” (Ant. 14.70; cf. BJ 1.150). 16 BJ 1.150. 17 BJ 1.150; Ant 14.69–70. 18 See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:349–53. 19 Cf. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica XL.4; Pompey’s dedicatory inscription names Aristobulus king of the Jews and Aretas king of the Nabatean Arabs, among a series of nine kings, the conquest of whom allowed Pompey to “extend the frontiers of the Empire to the limits of the earth,” increase revenues to Rome, and dedicate a large amount of gold and silver from the statues and images and “other valuables taken from the enemy.” Dupont-Sommer identifies the pesher’s reference to “plunder” as reflecting the carrying off of Temple treasures by Pompey (“Observations,” 209). Dio Cassius includes an explicit statement to that effect (Historia Romana, xxxvii.16.4), but it has been noted that this statement contradicts Ant. 14.72, BJ 1.152, and Cicero, Pro Flacco, 28.67. Stern explains that although Pompey may have respected the sacred vessels of the Temple, he still would have carried away other treasures. Also, the large tribute that was levied upon Judea after its defeat may have been accounted as plunder (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:349–53). 20 Dupont-Sommer simply asserts that the civil war and the war against Pompey would have caused many to flee Jerusalem (“Observations,” 209). In the earlier stages of conflict between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Josephus twice describes Hyrcanus himself as fleeing and seeking refuge (Ant. 14.5, 16; BJ 1.121, 125). Also, in explaining Aemilius Scaurus’ decision to support Aristobulus, Josephus contrasts Aristobulus’ position within a “city which was among the most fortified and powerful,” to that of Hyrcanus’ supporters, described disparagingly as “some fugitives together with the host of Nabateans.” (Ant. 14.32. BJ 1.129 states that after Aristobulus bribed Scaurus, Aretas retreated from Judea, “terror-struck” by Scaurus’ threats.) 21 Onias (“lg[mh ynwj” in the Talmud) was stoned to death for refusing to curse Aristobulus’ supporters at the demand of “the people” who were enforcing the siege

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

75

The author of 4QpNah apparently saw the decline of Pharisaic power at the beginning of the period in question and the larger issue of the deterioration of Judean sovereignty as related manifestations of the eradication of the existing order. The beginning of col. ii describes the horrors suffered by the Pharisees, and the suffering imposed upon the nation because of their guilt. In my view, lines 8–10 serve as a summary or outline of the negative effects of Pharisaic power. The author of the pesher believes that the leaders of Ephraim have brought ruin upon Judea. He asserts that their distorted policies devastated both their proponents and their antagonists. In the foregoing, I have demonstrated that the details of the pesher interpretations in 4QpNah 3–4 ii coincide with data related to Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. This contextualization allows for smooth chronological and theological continuity in the pesher. Column i referred to the Pharisees’ unsuccessful bid against Jannaeus, which culminated in his suppression of the Pharisees through execution, exile, and terror. Cols. ii and iii describe the suffering and weakening of the Pharisees during the time of the pesher’s composition, and anticipate the imminent dissolution of the Pharisaic party amid humiliation and disgrace.22 The scenario accommodates the primary message of Pesher Nahum, and of the continuous pesharim in general—the divine meting out of reward and punishment culminating in the ultimate salvation of the elect, righteous Qumran community, of which the author is a member. (Ant. 14.22–24; m. Ta'an. 3:8, b. Ta'an. 23a, y. Ta'an. 66d–67a). The Talmud assumes Onias’s rabbinic, though idiosyncratic, affiliation, which would support placing him in the Pharisaic camp. The flight of the “most esteemed Jews” (ofl dokim≈tatoi t«n ÉIouda¤vn) may be associated with the Talmudic account of Pharisaic refugees to Egypt during Jannaeus’ reign (b. Qidd. 66a). 22 The exposure/revelation and spectacle in ii 10–iii 3 (wlgyw . . . tylgw) are to be associated with Pompey’s entry into the Temple sanctuary and his triumph following his conquest of Judea. Tacitus and Livy describe Pompey’s entry into the Holy of Holies, and Josephus writes of this invasion, that, “of all the calamities of that time, none so deeply affected the nation as the exposure to alien eyes of the holy place, hitherto screened from view” (BJ 1.152). Livy records that Pompey conquered the Jews and captured their Temple, and that Jerusalem had never been invaded before (Periochae CII, translated by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1:329). According to Tacitus (Historiae V 9:1 translated by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:28), the “first Roman to subdue the Jews and set foot in their temple by right of their conquest was Gnaeus Pompey.” Plutarch comments upon the great magnitude of Pompey’s triumph in Vita Pompei, 45.1–2, 5. Cf. the fourth century Eutropius’ remark that “there had never been a like triumphal procession” (Brevarium 6:16, translated by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1:576). Cf. also, Diodorus’ record of Pompey’s lavish dedication in honor of his military conquests, including that over Aristobulus, cited above, n. 19.

76

shani berrin II. Biblical Interpretation in 4QpNah 3–4, ii–iv

Thus far, I have demonstrated that the events surrounding Pompey’s conquest can account for the terminology and content of Pesher Nahum 3–4 ii–iv, in consonance with general “Qumranic” perspectives on theology and history. The next criterion for evaluation relates to the pesher’s use of the biblical text. How does ascribing col. ii to the time of Pompey accommodate “lemma/pesher correspondence” and the pesher’s allusions to other biblical sources? The base-text of this section of Pesher Nahum is Nah 3:1–7, which describes Nineveh’s culpability and punishment. A catalog of Nineveh’s offenses precedes a vivid picture of the attack upon Nineveh and the city’s devastation. A metaphorical description of Nineveh’s corrupt nature is then followed by a corresponding image of its fall. The pesher applies these biblical verses to the twqljh yçrwd, demonstrating the guilt and decline of the Pharisees, and predicting their eradication. A significant advantage of contextualizing the pesher during the time of Pompey’s conquest is that it allows for consistency between text (the description of the imminent punishment of Nineveh in Nah 3:2–3)23 and interpretation in lines 4–6 of col. ii. In contrast, the association of this unit with Salome Alexandra, as in the readings of Flusser and Amusin, would require the pesher to depart from the apparent biblical perspective of these verses, namely the downfall of the powerful subject. When placed in the historical context of Salome’s reign, the pesher has been viewed as reflecting violence perpetrated by the Seekers-afterSmooth-Things.24 However, correspondence with the biblical basetext of Nahum would support an explanation of these lines as describing calamities that befall the Pharisees and their followers, as is more appropriate in the time of Salome’s sons. This understanding is not only suitable to the general context of the lemma, but is also in consonance with specific exegeses in the

23 Cf. K. Spronk, Nahum (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 119. 24 Cf. Flusser, “μwjn rçpb μyysaw ,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp,” 456–58; “hdwhy rbdm tk μyçwrphw,” 136; Amusin, “Éphraim et Manassé,” 389–96; “Historical Events,” 123–52. Locating the pesher within the period of Alexander Jannaeus could also allow the Pharisees to function as victims, consistent with the biblical context (thus Schiffman, “Pharisees and Sadducees,” 28–85. Although it places the pesher within the same time period, the interpretation of Tantlevskij poses more difficulty in terms of contextual correspondence, cf. “Historical Background,” 333).

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

77

pesher. In the biblical text of Nahum, the phrase πrf çwmy al concludes verse 3:1, and is part of the prophet’s description of the evil of Nineveh, with πrf indicating the offense, either plunder or bloodshed. The pesher, however, attaches these words to the following verse, so that they introduce and become part of a string of phrases indicating terror in Nineveh.25 Placing the pesher in the time of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem allows the pesher to be understood as faithfully reflecting the retributive context in the Bible. Only the first phrase is recontextualized, and this is achieved via a deliberate exegetical act of “cutting and pasting,” i.e. the dissociation of “predation will not cease” from the previous lemma. Another exegetical technique that is compatible with our proposed contextualization is the pesher’s implicit citation of Dan 11:32–35: wnyby μ[ ylykçmw wç[w wqzjy wyhla y[dwy μ[w twqljb πynjy tyrb y[yçrmw brjb wlçknw μybrl twqlqljb μybr μhyl[ wwlnw f[m rz[ wrz[y μlçkhbw μymy hzbbw ybçb hbhlbw d[wml dw[ yk . . . He will flatter with smooth words (twqljb) those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people devoted to their God will stand firm. The knowledgeable among the people will make the many understand; and for a while they shall fall (wlçknw) by sword and flame (hbhlbw brjb), suffer captivity and spoliation (hzbbw ybçb). In defeat they will receive a little help, and many will join them insincerely . . . for an interval still remains until the appointed time” [NJPS transl.]

Note that the underlined words can all be found in lines 4–6 of Pesher Nahum, col. ii. In Pesher Nahum, these words do not directly correspond to terms in the lemma. Following the approach introduced by Bilhah Nitzan, I have described such “unpegged pluses” in the pesher as cross-references to a secondary biblical source, here Dan 11:32–35.26 The context in Daniel is a time period during which the violators of the Covenant, those who “flatter with smooth words,” suffer along 25 I follow Dupont-Sommer in perceiving a deliberate exegetical realignment on the part of the pesher in detaching the phrase “there shall not cease” from the previous verse and prefixing it to the initial phrases in v. 2 (“Le Commentaire,” 72). Contrast the views of Allegro (Qumran Cave, 40) and Gaster (The Dead Sea Scriptures, 315). Carmignac states that “predation will not cease” stands alone, with the rest of the lemma as one long “sentence” in which the elements are separated by commas (Les Textes de Qumrân Traduits et Annotés [ed. J. Carmignac, É. Cothonet and H. Lignée; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1963], 2:88). I end the string with “flash of spear.” 26 B. Nitzan, hdwhy rbdm twlygmm qwqbj rçp tlygm (1 QpHab) ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1986), 58–61. I have discussed the phenomenon at greater length in “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources in Pesher Nahum,” DSD 11,1 (2004): 1-11.

shani berrin

78

with their followers, after having been swayed in some measure to support a powerful foreign king who proceeded to desecrate their Temple. The pesher’s use of Daniel indicates that the pesher describes a similar situation, with twqljh yçrwd as the victims as well as the transgressors. This again would support the view that the subject of the pesher is Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem.

III. Pesher Nahum and Psalms of Solomon Contextualizing the pesher during the time of Pompey’s conquest is thus compatible with the internal data of the pesher. It also allows for a coherent understanding of lemma/pesher correspondence and other uses of the Bible in the pesher. The final sphere of investigation is the use of nonbiblical, non-Qumranic material, specifically Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon. The relevance of Pslams of Solomon to Pesher Nahum was already maintained, but in a cursory fashion, by Dupont-Sommer. His observations must nevertheless be recognized as a starting point for further investigation, both in terms of scope as well as of methodology. Dupont-Sommer used Psalms of Solomon in order to corroborate details in Pesher Nahum. Since Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon is generally recognized as referring to Pompey’s conquest of Judea, DupontSommer consulted the pseudepigraphic work to gather supporting data for his attribution of Pesher Nahum to the same context. Thus, in attempting to associate “captivity” in the pesher with Pompey, Dupont-Sommer pointed to the Psalms of Solomon 2:6–8, “the sons and daughters in harsh captivity,” and 8:21, “he led away their sons and daughters, those born in defilement.”27 However, the points of overlap between Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon and cols. ii–iv of Pesher Nahum extend well beyond similar references to components of the same event. A closer look will reveal shared theological concerns, shared terminology, and perhaps, other common elements, particularly regarding the resonance of biblical sources. Using Pesher Nahum as a frame of reference, I point to numerous similarities between the pesher and the psalm. As noted above, lines 1–6 of col. ii in the pesher refer to “captivity” and “plunder” at the hand of “Gentiles,” and they assert the “guilt” of the pesher’s oppo-

27

“Le Commentaire,” 74.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

79

nents, who are located in “the city of Ephraim,” that is, Jerusalem. These are all elements that appear in Psalms of Solomon: v. 3 refers to the defilement of the sanctuary by the sons of “Jerusalem,” through lawless acts; “captivity” is found in v. 6 and “plunder” in v. 24; “Gentiles” appear in vv. 2, 6, 19 and 22. So far, these similarities are to be expected in texts that refer to the same event, and do not necessarily indicate literary dependence. 4QpNah 3–4 ii 7–10 describe the deceit and corruption of the Pharisees. There is no direct reflection of this characterization in Psalm 2. However, there is a striking commonality. The lemma for these lines is Nah 3:4, which employs the metaphor of the harlot to describe Assyrian transgressions. Psalm 2 seems to reflect the lemma itself, in vv. 11–13, “because of her prostitutes . . .”28 4QpNah 3–4 ii 11–12 address Nah 3:5, ˚ynp l[ [˚]ylwç[ ]tylgw ˚nwlq///twklmmw [˚]r[m μywg t[y]arhw. Both the lemma and pesher describe the retribution of the transgressors by means of humiliation, offering graphic images including the “exposure of their nakedness,” and being heaped with “disgusting abominations” before other nations. Similar images of degradation are found in vv. 11–13 of the Psalm, and probably also in vv. 19–21 as well as, most interestingly, in v. 5, “The beauty of his glory was despised before God; it was completely disgraced.” R. B. Wright points out that the word dÒjhw in this verse is used in LXX Isa 6:1, for MT wylwç. In the throne vision of Isaiah 6 lkyhh ta μyalm wylwçw is rendered as plÆrhw ı o‰kow t∞w dÒjhw aÈtoË. Psalms of Solomon seems to attest to an exegetical link between the word ˚ylwç in Nah 3:5, and a contemporizing application of the verse to the humiliating “exposure” of the sanctuary, i.e., Pompey’s entry into the Holy of Holies, which, as noted above, Josephus described as having been so traumatic for contemporary Jewry. 4QpNah iii 1–5 comments upon Nah 3:6–7.29 The biblical text continues to depict the humiliating image of Assyria’s public experience of defeat, stating that Assyria will become repulsive and degraded.

28 The full verses read, “They set up the sons of Jerusalem for derision because of her prostitutes. Everyone passing by entered in broad daylight. They derided their lawless actions even in comparison to what they themselves were doing; before the sun they held up their unrighteousness to contempt. And the daughters of Jerusalem were available to all, according to your judgments, because they defiled themselves with improper intercourse” (Ps 2:11–13). (translated by R. B. Wright in OTP: 2:659–70, P.652) Cf. Nah 3:4, . . . hnwz ynwnz bwrm. 29 ˚mm wdwdy ˚yawr lwk hyhw hrwak ˚ytmçw.

80

shani berrin

In the pesher, the image is applied specifically to the Pharisees’ loss of their former adherents. The people will not only witness the devastating consequences of Pharisaic power, but they will come to realize the wickedness of the Pharisees. This time, Psalm 2 seems to reflect the ideas found in both the lemma and the pesher. In verse 17, the psalmist writes, “You have exposed their sins, that your judgment might be evident; you have obliterated their memory from the earth.” Exposure of the sins of the guilty party, the sons of Jerusalem, is related to their punishment. A few elements of this section of the pesher merit particular attention, notably hrwak and hdwhy dwbk twl[g]hbw. The word hrwak in the lemma in line 2 is a variant from MT yark in Nah 3:6. MT yark is a hapax and difficult to interpret. LXX parãdeigma, usually translated into English as “spectacle,” has been viewed as an attempt to render MT yark as related to the root har.30 G. Brooke has described the pesher’s hrwak as a deliberate metathesis of yark, aimed at emphasizing the “overtones of indecency” in the context of Nah 3:5–6.31 Regardless of intent, the pesher’s variant means “repulsive,” as is demonstrated by its corresponding term in the interpretation, μwrakw, in line 4. I would suggest that the word hrwak in the lemma of 4Q169 is also reflected in the pesher interpretation as a play on the word hrwa, “like a light,” in that the wickedness of twqljh yçrwd will become clearly visible, hence understood, by many.32 yark/hrwak may thus be associated with (1) spectacle (parãdeigma), (2) degradation (μwrakw), and possibly (3) being made visible like light (hrwak). Verses 11–12 of Psalms of Solomon 2 refer to “derision”; to display as an example or “spectacle” (Gr. paradeigmãtisan) and also to the phrase “before the sun.” These difficult verses in the Psalm become clearer when understood in light of the words hrwak/yark found in Nahum and Pesher Nahum. 30 R. Weiss sees the influence of the surrounding verses of Nahum at work in this attempt: ytyarhw (v. 5) and ˚yawr lwk (v. 7) He suggests that Nahum deliberately chose the rare word yar as a play on these words; see his “μypdl twr[h μwjn rçpb μypswn,” Beit Mikra 7 (1962): 61 (Hebrew). 31 “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 93. Cf. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 341; R. Weiss, “( ùw ,ùb μwjn rçp) hrwak,” Beit Mikra 8 (1963): 156 (Hebrew). 32 Cf., for example, Ps 37:6, “He will bring forth your vindication like light,” cited in 4QpPsa 1:20.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

81

Just as Pesher Nahum can enhance our understanding of Psalm 2, the Psalm can help clarify the words hdwhy dwbk twl[g]hbw in 4QpNah 3–4 iii 4. The pesher connects this phrase with the nation’s abandonment of the Pharisees and adds the phrase larçy l[ wwlnw as a positive consequence of the rejection of twqljh yçrwd. The latter phrase does not correspond to any of the words of the lemma. It is a statement of theological significance that arises from contextual considerations. The biblical exegesis evident in this phrase is not dependent directly upon Nahum, but on related contexts of the rejection of evil.33 Psalm 2:17 reads, “You have exposed their sins, that your judgment might be evident; you have obliterated their memory from the earth.” Verse 17 seems to reflect a pun upon the root hlg, using the root in the negative sense of exposure as well as in the positive sense of revelation.34 This paranomasia has been detected in the text of Pesher Nahum as well, possibly with the other meaning of the root, “exile.” 4QpNah ii 10 contains the citation of Nah 3:5, which includes the words ˚[ylwç tylgw in the negative sense of exposure; 3–4 iii 3 predicts μhyç[m wlgy. The hdwhy dwbk twl[g]hbw phrase is best understood with Judah representing the Qumran Community, thus indicating that the glory of the Community, and thereby the glory of God, will be revealed.35 The beginning of col. iii of the pesher can thus illuminate and be illuminated by Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon. Both reflect word plays on hrwak/yark and on the root hlg in relating humiliating exposure and disgrace to the revelation of God’s will through divine judgment that is association with Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. The remaining portion of the pesher addresses the downfall of “Manasseh,” identified as Aristobulus and his Sadduceean supporters. This group is not singled out in Psalm 2, but is probably included in vv. 4–5 of the psalm, in the ascription of guilt to the “sons of Jerusalem.”

33 For discussion of the relationship between 4QpNah hdwhy dwbk twl[g]hbw and Isa 40:5, hwhy dwbk hlgnw wdjy rçb lk warw, see Berrin, Pesher Nahum, 207–08; Doudna, 4QPesher Nahum, and W. H. Brownlee, “The Wicked Priest, the Man of Lies, and the Teacher of Righteousness—The Problem of Identity,” JQR 73 (1982): 28. 34 Cf. Carmignac, Les Textes, 91. Cp. the double usage of hlg in 4Q300 Mysta 3 5–6 and its parallel 1Q27, where the root first denotes expulsion or removal, and then revelation, in line 6, “righteousness shall be reveale[d] as the s[un . . .]. ” 35 Cf. Dupont-Sommer, “Le Commentaire,” 60, 78; Flusser, “,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp μwjn rçpb μyysaw,” 142-43; Amusin, “Éphraim et Manassé,” 394; “Historical Events,” 138, 145; Carmignac, Les Textes, 91 n. 6; Horgan, Pesharim, 161, 210.

82

shani berrin

This epithet seems to refer to the sons of Salome and their respective supporters, and may perhaps reflect a play on ˆwyxmwlç. The reference to captivity in these verses, particularly to the removal of sons and daughters, is similar to wpfw wylwly[ wyçn in line 4, col. iv of the pesher. Also identifiable in Psalm 2 are a number of terminological overlaps with col. i of fragments 3–4 of Pesher Nahum. Some of the words in verse 2 of Psalm 2 are reminiscent of col. i, line 4 in which the invasions of the Seleucid kings, Demetrius and Antiochus, are compared to a later event, the “rising of the rulers of the Kittim” and “the trampling” of Jerusalem (smrt rjaw μyytk ylçwm dwm[ d[ swkytnam).36 Verse 1, “you did not interfere” may reflect “dyrjm ˆyaw” in Nahum, and verse 7, “in the hand” may reflect the idiom ˆwy yklm dyb[ in 4QpNah 3–4 i 3.37 One final observation about Psalm 2 is to note that H. Eshel has related verses 26–29 to a text from Qumran.38 The verses in Psalms of Solomon describe Pompey’s death, which occurred in 48 bce, as retribution for his persecution of Judea as described in the earlier sections of the Psalm. Eshel has shown that 4Q386 employs Ezek 30:13 to describe this same event and to convey a similar message of divine justice. According to Eshel, “the author of 4Q386 and the author of the Psalms of Salomon shared the same historical perspective.”39

36 Verse 2 reads, “Gentile foreigners went up to your place of sacrifice; they arrogantly trampled (it) with their sandals.” “Trampling” appears in Pss. Sol. 8:11–12, but also, as noted by Dimant (“A Cultic Term,” 49) in earlier descriptions of foreign desecration of Jerusalem (Isa 63:18, Dan 8:13, 1 Macc 3:51–52; 58, and 3 Macc 2:17–18). 37 My analysis has focused upon Psalm 2, but one striking verse in Psalm 17 bears notice. Psalm 17 is known for its anti-Hasmonean polemic, and is generally associated with Psalm 2. Employing the phrase μtsnk hdrpnw, line 7 of col. iii in Pesher Nahum repeats the description of the abandonment and breakup of twqljh yçrwd. The term tsnk has drawn some attention, both because it is a nonbiblical term and also because of its later rabbinic use to denote the “synagogue.” (Cf. DupontSommer, “Le Commentaire,” 80; Horgan, Pesharim, 187; Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 316, 341; S. Hoenig, “Dorshé Halakot in the Pesher Nahum Scrolls,” JBL 83 [1964]: 123). It is thus interesting that Psalm 17:16, reads: “those who love the assemblies (sunagvgåw) fled from them as sparrows flee from their nest. They became refugees in the wilderness to save their lives from evil. ” 38 4Q386 includes a prophecy that is based on Ezek 30:13. Cf. Dimant, “4Q386 ii–iii: A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?” RevQ 18 (1998): 511–29; Qumran Cave 4.XXI Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (ed. D. Dimant; DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001): 52–75. Eshel demonstrates that 4Q386 applies Ezek 30:13 and Jer 46:14, “Why are your stalwarts swept away?” to the events of 48 BCE (“4Q386: An Allusion to the Death of Pompey?,” Shnaton 14 [2003]: 195–203 [Hebrew]). 39 Eshel, “4Q386,” 203.

PESHER NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON

and pompey

83

This remark can be also applied to Pesher Nahum and Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon, and can be broadened as well. Both the pesher and the psalm focus upon similar features of a foreign invasion. The physical components of plunder, captivity, and death as well as humiliation dovetail with what is known of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. Neither text names Pompey, however. Both texts employ allusive language in their presentation of this historical event, since they both “theologize” or, more specifically (if less grammatically) “theodicize” the text. That is to say, both Psalms of Solomon and Pesher Nahum are interested in the violence and disgrace of Jerusalem insofar as these historical events reflect divine reward and punishment. Pesher Nahum focuses upon the punishment of the Pharisees, and, more briefly, the punishment of the Sadducees. Psalm 2 in its current form focuses upon the punishment of Pompey, but the guilt of the “sons of Jerusalem” is stressed as well, and global statements about reward and punishment pervade the psalm. Some dualistic elements may be also be detected in both works. The shared theological focus of the psalm and the pesher is also discernible in their similar structure. The consecutive pesher interpretations of cols. ii and iii may be outlined as follows: (1) the “conquest of Jerusalem,” (2) the “guilt of the Pharisees” (using terminology deriving from Nahum’s reference to harlots), and (3) “exposure and degradation,” leading to the punishment of the Pharisees and the triumph of the Community. Psalm 2 has a similar structure: it describes (1) the violent conquest of Jerusalem, (2) the guilt of the “sons of Jerusalem” (using terms of prostitution), and (3) exposure and degradation, framed as an indication of God’s perfect and enduring justice. The pesher and psalm thus exhibit shared theological/historical perspectives, shared terminology, and, I have argued, shared dependence upon chapter 3 of Nahum, explicitly in 4QpNah and implicitly in Psalm 2.40 I have also noted that the disparagement of the Pharisees

40 Another indication of the theodical significance of Nahum is found in CD 9:5. In setting out the legal application of Lev 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge” (rft alw μqt al), CD cites Nah 1:2, contrasting the mandate that restricts human behavior with the divine attribute, “The Lord takes vengeance (μqn) on His enemies, and rages against His foes (rft).” Dimant (“A Cultic Term,” 50) has commented upon a more explicit commonality between CD and Psalms of Solomon—that Pss. Sol. 8:11–12 and CD 4:17–18 both exhibit concern over rampant disregard for purity laws relating to the Temple and to sexual relations. She

84

shani berrin

and Sadducees that is essential in Pesher Nahum is only partially paralleled in the psalm where the two groups having been collapsed into the phrase “sons of Jerusalem.” In fact, I observed that Psalm 2:11–13 reflects the lemma of 4QpNah 3–4 ii 7–10 as cited in the pesher, but not the pesher interpretation itself. This pesher interpretation is a caricature of Pharisaic stereotypes, featuring accusations of hypocrisy, deception, disproportionate political influence, and the term “Talmud.” Whereas the pesher views Pompey’s conquest as a vehicle for maligning the Pharisees, Pss. Sol. uses the fall of Jerusalem as a basis for condemning the “sons of Jerusalem;” that is, the Hasmonean contenders for the throne. Such an anti-Hasmonean stance would be consonant with Psalm 17, and with the conventional understanding of the Psalms of Solomon as a Pharisaic work, as well as with my earlier suggestion that the third party petitioning Pompey was Pharisaic.41 The pesher and the psalm reflect distinct adaptations of a common tradition in keeping with their respective polemic needs. The above analysis leads to a positive assessment of the proposal that Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem is an appropriate contextualization of Pesher Nahum, 3–4 ii–iv. First, historical knowledge about Pompey’s conquest accommodates details in the text of the pesher in a manner consistent with the composition as a whole and with other literature from Qumran. Second, the contextualization provides a framework in which 4QpNah can be seen to employ biblical texts in a manner expected of Qumran pesher. Third, in light of their similarities in content, terminology, historical/theological perspective, and polemical stance, it is likely that 4QpNah and Psalm 2 of Psalms of Solomon share a common historical setting.

notes that some scholars viewed this similarity as evidence that the two works emerged from similar circles. (Cf. C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents [Oxford: Clarendon, 1954]; and L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976]). However, she cautions that this claim ignores the fact, pointed out in this context by A. Jaubert, that similar accusations can be brought by different opposing groups (La Notion d’Alliance dans le Judaisme aux abords de l’Ère Chrétienne [Paris: Seuil, 1963], 255). 41 On the claim for Pharisaic authorship of Psalms of Solomon., see M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989); E. J. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Macabees (NY: Schocken, 1962), 176; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon, the Pharisees, and the Essenes,” in 1972 Proceedings of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. R. A. Kraft; SCS 2; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 136–47; Dimant, “A Cultic Term,” 29–30. Dimant herself maintains that the sectarian affiliation of the author(s) of the work remains open to question.

BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND CANON: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF REWORKING THE BIBLE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CANONICAL PROCESS George J. Brooke University of Manchester

I. Introduction The significance of much of the contents of the Qumran library, which has been fully available since 1991 or shortly thereafter, is only now beginning to be appreciated. Although there are some more and some less obvious exceptions,1 the overarching characteristic of much of the collection from the Qumran caves is the fact that it can be described as related in some way to authoritative textual antecedents,2 nearly all of which eventually end up being included in the definitive collections of scriptures, Jewish and Christian, which are now labelled as canonical. The overall purpose of this paper is to suggest that the various factors involved in an adequate description of the relationships, say, between the Temple Scroll and the Torah or between the pesharim and the Prophets, are foundation stones which should be used for building an understanding of how any composition in the Second Temple period moved from authority to canon. Although there is still plenty of room for debate, to my mind to speak of the “reworking of the

1 The more obvious exceptions include the few documentary texts that survive and some miscellaneous compositions such as the Copper Scroll and other lists, amongst which some of the calendrical texts could be included. Amongst the less obvious exceptions might be large parts of 1 Enoch which could reflect traditions that predate Genesis, as J. T. Milik argued in The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 31, rather than being dependent on Genesis as is widely assumed or argued, as by J. C. VanderKam, “The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch,” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. P. W. Flint, with the assistance of Tae Hun Kim; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 131–40. 2 I have attempted to describe the Qumran library in this way in my essay “The Dead Sea Scrolls” in The Biblical World (ed. J. Barton; London: Routledge, 2002), 250–69.

86

george j. brooke

Bible at Qumran” puts too much emphasis on the closed demarcation of one set of writings and the entirely secondary or derivative nature of the other. Thus it will come as no surprise to learn that, for the late Second Temple period, I side with those who would rather speak of authoritative scriptures than books of the Bible.3 This distinction to some may sound like splitting hairs, but it goes some way towards taking into account the diversity of Second Temple textual and artefactual evidence for each scriptural book.4 Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that even this distinction does not go far enough for the obvious reason that it still gives an authoritative primacy to what later became canonical. The thrust of my presentation is that some, if not all, texts moved from authority to canon in the second half of the Second Temple period, not least because such texts attracted and provoked the very reworkings with which the papers in this volume are concerned. A wealth of insightful material has been written on exegetical traditions of all kinds, and increasingly such work has involved detailed consideration of the so-called reworked or rewritten Bible compositions.5 However, with some noteworthy exceptions, little of this scholarly description of exegetical works gives much attention to the status or authority that works containing exegetical traditions may have had.6 My argument here from the reworked scriptural materials found in the Qumran library is that they show in a significant way various features of how the transformation of authoritative scriptures into canonical biblical books took place. From the post-canonical perspective these reworked compositions seem to fall into two groups: revisions of biblical books, and more thoroughgoing rewritings of 3 See especially the collected essays by E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999). 4 This kind of diversity is succinctly described by E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001), 196: “Each of the biblical books had a separate history—each one developed in a different way and received canonical status at a different time. The number of variant readings that one might expect to find in a particular book is a direct result of the complexity of its literary development and textual transmission.” 5 See, recently, B. N. Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo ( JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 6 Some of the issues posed by the “Reworked Scriptures,” including the so-called Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158; 4Q364–367), the Temple Scroll (4Q365a?; 4Q524; 11Q19–20; 11Q21?), and the Book of Jubilees are addressed by J. C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109, especially 96–107.

between authority and canon

87

such books. In this essay both groups of materials will be taken together for the sake of the discussion; 4QpaleoExodm, the Books of Chronicles, the varieties of collections of Psalms, the Book of Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll all share various features. Considering all these compositions together shows that the transformation from authority to canon took four hundred years and had certain very intriguing characteristics. In the rest of this paper I wish to draw out in a preliminary way some of the implications of the Qumran evidence for the wider issue of the making and handling of sacred texts.

II. Reworking the Bible and the Canonical Process 1. Implicit and Explicit Politics All declarations of authority concerning texts have a political dimension, and it seems that any acceptance of such declarations are political affirmations as well. It is widely thought that every book of the Bible has been found at Qumran except Esther.7 The absence of Esther has been accounted for in various ways, not least being the way in which the many and various calendrical compositions from Qumran fail to make any mention of Purim, just as they fail to mention Hanukkah. In fact, there are good reasons to suppose that Esther in some form was known at Qumran, since some of its distinctive phraseology may be discernible even in some of the more narrowly sectarian compositions;8 the copies of so-called proto-Esther indicate that the stable from which Esther may also have derived was leaving an ongoing imprint in the Qumran library.9 It is worth noting on the way that the Book

7 As is exemplified in the list of so-called biblical writings preserved in the caves given by G. Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (London: SCM Press, 1999), 172–73: according to Vermes’s list there is at least one copy of every single book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther. 8 See, e.g., S. Talmon, “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?” DSD 2 (1995): 249–67. Talmon answers his own question positively. K. De Troyer is inclined to agree with him: “Once more, the so-called Esther fragments of Cave 4,” RevQ 19 (2000): 401–22. 9 For the preliminary edition see J. T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” RevQ 15 (1992): 321–406. For a balanced introductory discussion of the issues see S. White Crawford, “Has Esther Been Found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther Corpus,” Bible Review 12 (1996): 307–25.

88

george j. brooke

of Esther has been reworked more than once, and almost certainly not solely in the Greek tradition;10 by itself it could form a study in how reworkings belong to the transformation of texts as they move from positions of authority to canonical status.11 But let us also consider the case of the Books of Chronicles. The claim is that Chronicles is represented in a manuscript from cave 4 (4Q118). However, it is clear from what survives of the manuscript that although part of 2 Chr 28:27–29:3 survives in the extant part of column 2, the remains in column 1 cannot be identified suitably. J. Trebolle Barrera has commented that the one clear “reading is found neither in Chronicles nor in the Vorlage of Paralipomena, nor does it correspond to any parallel passage that precedes this material in Kings. The small size of the fragment prevents estimating the verse or verses of text to which this reading could correspond.”12 There seems very little explicit evidence for the use and copying of the Books of Chronicles at Qumran. This evidence, or lack of it, can be made sense of by contrasting the use made of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles in the Qumran community. As has sometimes been pointed out, Samuel-Kings functions ideologically as a religio-political statement that puts David firmly in his place; the chosen one slips up and the royal territory disintegrates after Solomon. As G. H. Jones has put it for 1 Samuel 8–11: “the placing of an antimonarchical section at the beginning of the complex (8:1–22) and another at its end (12:1–25) is a clear indication of the sentiment of the final editor.”13 In Samuel-Kings pride of place is generally given to those with prophetic insight. By comparison, the more overtly Davidic ideology of Chronicles expresses postexilic aspirations from a priestly point of view; several scholars would date the work to the early Ptolemaic period. What is the politics of this preference for Samuel-Kings at Qumran? There seem to be two 10 An intriguing and plausible conception of the redactional development of Hebrew Esther is offered by D. J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story ( JSOTSup 30; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984). 11 On some of the various developments in the Greek text of Esther see, e.g., K. De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (Text-Critical Studies 4; Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), especially chapters 1 and 3. 12 J. Trebolle Barrera, “118. 4QChr,” Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (ed. E. Ulrich, et al.; DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 296. 13 G. H. Jones, “1 and 2 Samuel,” The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 197–98.

between authority and canon

89

sides to a possible answer to this question. On the one hand, from within the community the answer may well concern its antipathy to the monarchy and to the Hasmonean claims to be heirs to the Davidic tradition.14 On the other hand, if the politics of canonisation were promoted by the Hasmoneans in the late second and early first centuries bce as part of a wider political project of control through uniformity,15 then Chronicles could have supported their Davidic aspirations. Such explicit Davidic aspirations are notably absent from explicit Qumran messianism until the Herodian period or later. There seems to be a fit between the Qumran evidence and the politics of the canonical process in the Hasmonean period. But the story is no doubt far more complicated. In large part Chronicles is the reworking of earlier traditions to meet a particular set of needs. H. P. Mathys, for one, has recently endorsed the view that the Books of Chronicles are a counter to Manetho, Hekataios and Berossos,16 an authoritative presentation of a conviction that Israel has belonged in the land since the beginning of time, and a description of the Temple as the means to salvation. Mathys, somewhat clumsily, describes the Chronicler’s reworking of sources as “a midrash, Targum, or ‘the rewritten Bible’.”17 If promoted or adopted in particular by the Hasmoneans as reflecting their Davidic self-understanding and their role as cultic reformers, then the Books of Chronicles demonstrate that authority in a text is in part the result of it being a satisfactory reworking of the tradition. In other words, the reworking of earlier tradition may have been viewed by some Jews in the latter half of the Second Temple period as a standard way through which

14 Cf. 1 Macc 2:57. In commenting on this verse J. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 240, notes the way the writer seems to move Davidic inheritance to the Hasmoneans: “Our author, who writes to prove the legitimacy of the Hasmonaean dynasty, would not wish to assert the eternal right of the dynasty of David to rule over the Chosen people. He appears to have selected his words carefully.” 15 As strongly suggested by P. R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (London: SPCK, 1998), 174–82, and argued, for example, by several contributors in the “Politics of Canon” section at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, November 2001. 16 H. P. Mathys, “1 and 2 Chronicles,” in Barton and Muddiman The Oxford Bible Commentary, 267–68. Mathys endorses the view of S. Japhet regarding the lack of mention of the Exodus in Chronicles and the place of the land: S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (2d ed.; BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1997). 17 H. P. Mathys, “1 and 2 Chronicles,” 268.

90

george j. brooke

any composition might lay some claim to authority. In the case of the Books of Chronicles this eventually led to them acquiring canonical status; and the same happened to the Book of Jubilees in some religious communities. Over against modern views of rewritings as self-evidently secondary and plagiaristic, in early Judaism such imitation with its own form of exegetical innovation was entirely justifiable as a claim to the authoritative voice of the tradition. Although evidently not a major player in the life of the Qumran community as far as the clearly sectarian compositions in the library are concerned, the place of Chronicles should not be entirely dismissed. D. D. Swanson has shown that in several places in the Temple Scroll, or at least in the sources on which the scroll depended, Chronicles seems to play a major role.18 Although such evidence could be read, probably correctly, as an indicator of the presectarian and even preHasmonean character of the Temple Scroll or some of its sources, it should also be remembered that the composition was certainly copied during the lifetime of the occupancy of Qumran, probably at Qumran itself (11QTa is in an Herodian script with plene spelling, as is characteristic of the so-called Qumran scribal school). The point to be noted here is that attention to the politics of the canonising process has seldom taken adequate account of the ways in which what may be labelled as ideological pluralism or multiple narration actually works. It is thus seldom a matter of one group claiming a composition as authoritative, which then inhibits another group from so doing. If the Hasmoneans laid claim to the Books of Chronicles, such a claim would not prevent other groups from using or appealing to the same text for their own reasons. In fact, the logic of the processes of canonisation is that one group’s assertions about the authoritative status of a composition require other groups to acknowledge that authoritative status as well. Although the process of canonisation may lead to political assertions marked by the exclusion of various literary compositions, it also leads to the inclusion of an ever-widening readership or audience. However, it also needs to be stated that some compositions, which share many of the characteristics of the implicit exegesis of the scrip18 D. D. Swanson, “The Use of the Chronicles in 11QT: Aspects of a Relationship,” The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press and Yad Izhak BenZvi, 1992), 292–93, 295–97.

between authority and canon

91

tural rewritings found in the Books of Chronicles and the Book of Jubilees, may have become authoritative within the communities that composed and preserved them, but were never part of the process which might take an authoritative text towards becoming part of a wider canon. So, for example, in several sections the Rule of the Congregation is heavily dependent on prior scriptural sources, rewriting them to argue for the structure of the ideal community and its purity, but its authors seem to have intended it from the outset for sectarian use alone.19 If S. Pfann’s interpretation of many of the 4Q Cryptic fragments establishes itself,20 then it is clear that the Rule of the Congregation’s reworking of scripture was presented as authoritative, and the sources of the authoritative reading made explicit in terms of the Sons of Zadok. However, the restriction, even encoded restriction of the composition in cryptic script in the second century BCE, prevented the composition from belonging to the same process of the transmission of authoritative texts by which such reworkings of tradition as Chronicles or the Book of Jubilees eventually attained canonical status for more than one narrowly self-defined group. 2. Language and Script Mention of the Rule of the Congregation in its cryptic forms introduces two matters which probably need to be considered together as part of how texts, especially reworked texts, might move from authority to canon. It is clear that the great majority of reworked “Bible” compositions are composed and transmitted in Hebrew, the language of the models that are the subject of the reworking. Language is part of the political dimension of the process of moving from authority to canon, though it is also more than that, since the language, that is the vocabulary and phraseology of authoritative texts, provides the vocabulary in which it is possible to say anything at all that resonates with others.

19 On the wider issues behind this point see J. Blenkinsopp, “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History,” Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM Press, 1981), 1–26. 20 See S. Pfann, “Cryptic Texts,” Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. S. J. Pfann, P. S. Alexander et al.; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 515–74.

92

george j. brooke

Many of the reworkings of scripture for which the scrolls from Qumran now give us examples were composed in pre-Hasmonean times, but the Hasmoneans, in giving a boost to the process of canonisation, seem also to have adopted and expressed what may have been latent in the scriptural reworkings. Hebrew was evidently a symbol of national independence. For the Hasmoneans it was Hebrew in which their court propaganda, now known as 1 Maccabees, was composed, and John Hyrcanus I set a trend by having Hebrew used on his coins. The Hasmonean use of Hebrew capitalised on the very process that can be observed in the reworked and rewritten scriptural texts, that authoritative status had a language preference, and that said preference was for Hebrew, even though Aramaic was “the most commonly used language in Judea in the last three centuries bce and the first two centuries ce.”21 The use of paleo-Hebrew script on coins and in fifteen or sixteen manuscripts found at Qumran,22 notably in copies of the books of the Torah and Job, is probably also to be taken as an indication of authoritative status, as the Samaritan Jewish community has long perceived. Are there any reworked scriptural compositions preserved in manuscripts written in paleo-Hebrew? Some might think the question easy to answer in the negative, but in fact 4Q123 has been labelled 4Qpaleo paraJosh and is a rewritten form of Joshua. Moreover, three further very fragmentary paleo-Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran (4Q124, 4Q125, 11Q22) are as yet unidentified.23 In light of the use of paleo-Hebrew in such instances, I would suggest that the character of each paleo-Hebrew manuscript should be considered on its own so that some suitable understanding of its textual character can be reached. The likes of 4QpaleoExodm with its harmon21 J. A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:48. 22 A complete list is given by E. Tov, “Lists of Specific Groups of Texts from the Judaean Desert,” The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov et al.; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 214; see also his pertinent study “The Socio-religious Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Vol. 1: Judentum (ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 353–74. 23 On 11Q22 the editors comment: “Most of the Qumran scrolls written in palaeo-Hebrew are biblical, and the few nonbiblical ones (4Q123–125) are probably parabiblical (4QParaphrase of Joshua, and two unidentified manuscripts)” (F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 [DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 415).

between authority and canon

93

isations24 and supplementary scriptural material and 11QpaleoLev with its independent textual character, in evidence not least, for example, in its combination of the sexual prescriptions of Leviticus 18 and 20, might both be suitably categorised as reworked scripture, and their presentation in paleo-Hebrew might be conceived primarily as an additional device to assert the authority of the reworkings which they contain. But overall, it is not easy to be definitively assertive about the contribution of language (and to a lesser extent script) to how texts move from some kind of claim to authoritative status through the process of canonisation. Nevertheless, it is widely agreed that Aramaic was the lingua franca in Judaea from the Maccabees to Bar Kokhba, so the predominant use of Hebrew in the Qumran library needs some explanation. Often this is expressed either in terms of the nationalistic significance of the language or in terms of the dominant place of the Torah and the Temple in early Jewish cultural and religious life. The reference to Hebrew as “the holy tongue” in 4QExposition of the Patriarchs (4Q464 3 i 8) seems to reflect the ancient view that Hebrew was once the universal language ( Jub. 3:28) and will one day be so again (T. Jud. 25:3).25 This suggests that the use of Hebrew went beyond a narrow nationalism and reflected for some universal eschatological aspirations. Whatever the case, it seems at the least that the use of Hebrew for reworked scriptural compositions indicates in a very significant way how the teaching of the Torah and the language of the cult was updated and presented to each generation anew. To some extent, perhaps to a great extent, the reworked scriptural compositions carry the authority of the tradition forward in ways in which the primary texts on which they depend could not. Subsequently, at the time of 24 The tendency towards harmonisation, particularly in relation to legal matters, is also an indication of the way in which certain compositions move from authoritative status towards becoming part of an authoritative collection within which there is an expectation of consistency. In general on this point see the judicious remarks of J. Barton, “Unity and Diversity in the Biblical Canon,” Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ed. J. Barton and M. Wolter; BZNW 118; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 11–26. 25 See the detailed comments by E. Eshel and M. E. Stone, “464. 4QExposition on the Patriarchs,” Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 219–21. They note that the phrases “holy tongue” and “language of the Temple” (lit. “language of the holy building”) occur in the Targumim, and that this has caused some to suggest that Hebrew was particularly associated with the Temple or synagogue.

94

george j. brooke

the listing of authoritative and canonical works, such reworked scriptural compositions generally found themselves excluded because it was sufficient to retain those books to which the reworked compositions pointed; but until that time the reworked scriptural compositions can be understood as the principal vehicle through which interest was maintained in the texts which later became canonical. But, what of a work like the Genesis Apocryphon? Beyond most others, this composition has been assigned in many discussions of reworked scripture to the category of rewritten Bible.26 And yet it is in Aramaic. The matter should not be pressed overmuch, though it is worth noticing that most of the other compositions in the Qumran collection which are both close to reworkings of scripture and also in Aramaic tend to be associated more or less easily with the great figures of old, such as Enoch or one of the twelve patriarchs (especially in the testamentary genre). Aramaic reworkings tend to be pseudepigraphs and the same may also be the case for the Genesis Apocryphon. The whole topic of pseudonymity and canon needs to be revisited in light of all the evidence that now exists in the Qumran library. The Qumran community’s own rule books are exclusively in Hebrew. This is often characterised as an indication of how the community understood itself to be in continuity with ancient Israel. It was not a postbiblical community but part of a movement which could claim to be the true ongoing heirs of Israel of preexilic times, heirs with a renewed covenant.27 The presence of so many compositions of reworked scripture within the library of a community with such a self-understanding should also be taken into account. In some way the community sees itself as belonging with Moses and the prophets to the period of the production of authoritative texts in Hebrew. But this attitude is not just reflected as an issue of language; it is a matter that also has to do with the nature of how communities claim religious continuity and this requires us to turn to the topic of institutionalisation. 26 The Genesis Apocryphon has been described in a classic fashion as “one of the jewels of midrashic exegesis, and the best illustration yet available of the primitive haggadah and of the rewriting of the Bible”: G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1983), 126. 27 As S. Talmon has often asserted, as in e.g., “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity,” The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 3–24.

between authority and canon

95

3. The Adequacy and Inadequacy of Institutions Institutional instability appears to function as a catalyst in promoting the processes that move a text from authoritative status towards canonical stability. We cannot be certain that the process of the move from authority to canon for the Hebrew scriptures was a Hasmonean project, but the need of the Hasmoneans to reinforce and promulgate their legitimacy can be seen as part and parcel of their overall institutional frailty. For the Qumran community and its library of scrolls, the withdrawal from the Temple may have resulted in the search for alternative institutional supports and the promotion of authoritative texts correctly interpreted within the community. In fact it may be that it is not solely a matter of withdrawal from the Temple. If the occupation of the land is also considered to be one of the factors of institutional stability in Second Temple times, then the Qumran community’s (and the broader movement’s) identification with the Israels of the Exodus and the Exile may indicate that they rejected the status of the rightful occupation of the land as well as the suitability of contemporary priestly practices in the Temple. How the contents of the Qumran library are adequately described is immensely important for the better understanding of what takes place within Judaism more broadly in subsequent generations when the Temple is destroyed and the occupation of the land curtailed. In several ways that are akin to some aspects of the literary activity of Second Temple Jews in the Dispersion, the contents of the Qumran library indicate in an anticipatory way the processes, which the wider Jewish community was subsequently to undertake. It is noticeable that in the Qumran literary collection there is a mixture of explicit and implicit commentary on authoritative scriptures. I am inclined to think that the explicit commentary such as is found in the pesharim is generally to be considered later than those compositions which contain implicit exegesis in their reworkings of authoritative texts. This means that one of the initial methods used by the covenanters to assert the authority of certain texts and to enhance that authority in various ways in the movement was through the promulgation of reworkings of the text. It could be argued that even the multiple copying of scriptural texts themselves with minor stylistic and other improvements belongs to the spectrum of activity which is exemplified by the reworkings of scripture to be found in such texts as the Genesis Apocryphon, the opening columns of the

96

george j. brooke

Commentary on Genesis A, the Temple Scroll, the Apocryphon of Joshua, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah or Pseudo-Ezekiel, and various collections of Psalms. As mentioned already, these reworkings have authority both in themselves as the effective means of maintaining and enhancing the ongoing significance of primary sources, and also because they are derived from texts that are known to have or to have had authority in themselves. The scribal activity evident in all the reworkings of scripture, some of which is evident in what are now classified by Qumranologists as “biblical” manuscripts and some of which are in the category of “reworked” or “rewritten” scripture, indicates one of the means through which the covenanters compensated for the lack of institutional support from the Temple and for their sense of exile. 4. Closure and Creativity As exercises in delimitation and exclusion, formations of canons are commonly supposed to be straightjackets of doctrinal conformity. But, as has been argued widely, canons are as much a starting point as an end point.28 In other words, rather than being the final word on what may be taken as authoritative in any religious tradition, canons of scripture tend to provoke extensive, elaborate, and creative exegesis. This applies even in those religious traditions that claim a doctrine of sola scriptura.29 This model of canons as provoking creative exegesis might usefully be applied to the precanonical period in early Judaism in which the process of canonisation or the establishment of scriptural norms is under way. The exegetical creativity to be found in the reworked scriptures amongst the Qumran library thus not only speaks of the authority of the base texts which are so richly reworked, but also strongly suggests that the processes of establishing canonical norms are already under way. This is clear in what can be seen from the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira, the so-called “canon”

28 As argued by J. A. Sanders, “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process,” in McDonald and Sanders, The Canon Debate, 252–63. 29 It is somewhat paradoxical but often the case, at least amongst some Christian groups, that those religious groups with the most rigid attitude to the preeminent authority of scripture as a closed canon, nevertheless also often have elaborate charismatic practices.

between authority and canon

97

note in 4QMMT,30 and in the designations in some Qumran texts that reference should be made to the law (or Moses) and the prophets, however prophets might be construed. The very creativity in the exegesis of the community and the parent movement from which it sprang or the other parts of early Judaism whose literary works the covenanters chose to preserve is thus an indicator that closure has begun. The discovery of explicit commentary in the Qumran library, such as is represented in the sectarian pesharim, shows that the process with regard to a certain selection of literary traditions is nearly complete.31 It should be noted, moreover, that creativity is inhibited through its insistence on the relationship to what it interprets. Most obviously, it is possible to recognise that in the reworked scriptural compositions found in the Qumran collection, there is little if any generic novelty. Although the absence of beginnings and ends forces scholars to label various compositions very vaguely, often as Apocrypha, most scriptural reworkings seem to be consciously modelled on scriptural antecedents and for the most part generic categories already in use suffice for describing the genres of what survives. 5. The Presence or Absence of the Divine Voice This sense of closure in process causes a tension which is reflected in interpretative activity. The status and authority of scriptural texts rests in no small measure in how such texts are viewed in relation to the sense of the divine voice in the community. Closed canons can readily be associated with claims about the cessation of prophecy in the community, the absence of the divine voice. There may be occasional exceptions when a bath qol is recognised or asserted, or when religious subgroups attempt to construct their own direct routes to the divine, but most commonly, closed canons have their counterpart in divine silence, at least until some future ideal time when God’s presence will be restored. 30 The reference in MMT has been thoroughly reconsidered by E. C. Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003): 202–14. He argues too that the supposed tripartite reference in the Prologue to Ben Sira is also better understood as referring to two sets of literature: the authoritative Law and prophets, and the nonauthoritative “others.” 31 As I tried to argue in “4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary,” Revue de Qumrân (Hommages à Józef T. Milik, ed. F. García Martínez and É. Puech) 17 (1996): 385–401.

98

george j. brooke

However, as an indication that the process has begun but that there is no formal closure to the canon, it is worth noting how closely both implicit and explicit exegesis in the Qumran materials are to be associated with the ongoing activity of God or his agents. In the Book of Jubilees, the angel of the presence delivers the content of at least some of the heavenly tablets; the Temple Scroll is constructed as a divine speech; the Damascus Document mentions the nistarot, “the hidden things,” which must be understood alongside what has already been revealed; and the pesharim make the explicit claim that it is the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God has revealed all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets. H. Najman has aptly termed this activity in relation to the Book of Jubilees “interpretation as primordial writing.”32 In one sense the reworking of scripture is presented as prior to scripture itself and, therefore, as of great or even greater authority. In addition, however, it is clear that the reworked composition never attempts to replace or displace the scripture it reworks. Thus the reworkings are presented as a complementary aspect of the divine voice: perhaps where scripture is indirect and available to all, the reworked composition is direct and available to a select few. This may be likened, then, to the relationship between the oral and written Torah, except that in this case both forms are written. Whatever the case, the reworked scriptural composition is presented as the continuation of the divine voice in the community. This observation leads naturally to the question: are all reworked scriptural compositions to be understood as presenting authentic divine speech in ways in which their scriptural counterparts might never claim? What works for the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll might also work for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah or Pseudo-Ezekiel. It might not be necessary to insist that all reworked scripture that is worth the name carries this quality of interpretation as primordial writing, but the tendency for almost all extant scriptural traditions to be matched by interpretative reworkings in the precanonical period may indicate that rewriting and reworking were normally or usually carried out on compositions that carried some authority. Any text worth its salt would naturally be accompanied by a tradition of reworkings that presented its ongoing authority through a more explicit use of the divine voice. 32 H. Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies,” JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410.

between authority and canon

99

6. The Role of the Community It has long been noted that scriptural canons reflect, generally or specifically, the ideologies and religious practices of the communities that promote them. The scribal practices of the latter half of the Second Temple period indicate that scribes were often more than straightforward copyists. As they copied, they worked to improve the text in minor ways, through harmonisations, small exegetical additions, stylistic improvements, and so on. As stated at the outset of this paper, even the more elaborate reworked scriptural compositions belong together with this scribal activity. The variety of textual forms for the various scriptural books, together with the number of the reworked compositions, shows how seriously the Qumran community and its forebears took their inherited authoritative traditions. These works were not to be left untouched on the shelf, but to be used and studied. The place of scripture in the community’s own sectarian compositions may be read in one way as an insistence on looking at themselves as continuous with Israel’s earlier experiences, but from another angle it is closer to an appropriation of language from another time so that the community’s contemporary experiences are biblicised.33 If reworking authoritative traditions appears to the modern eye as innovative, it is in fact a process that establishes identity through connection with and appropriation of earlier traditions, and so is essentially a conservative activity. The reworkings of scripture in the Qumran library reflect both the character of the identity of the community, as conservative, and the process through which it wished to project itself as conserving the traditions of the true Israel of old. 7. Cultural Coherence The association, to some degree, of the Qumran community with the reworked scriptural compositions is a reflection of another aspect of the process of the shift from authority to canon. Inasmuch as canons suggest the ideologies of particular communities, they also imply a

33 R. Alter, Canon and Creativity: Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 11, describes how Faulkner’s use of biblical language in Absalom, Absalom! permits him to biblicise historical reality in the American South.

100

george j. brooke

measure of cultural coherence by which such communities can express their self-identity and regulate their day-to-day practices. The emerging canon of the law and the prophets in the Second Temple period, together with the writings, eventually comes to be not just a reflection of a cultural coherence, but also the principal source of its creation. This has been put forcefully: “What scripture did for the Jews was more than what the Jews did for scripture. If Jews have survived to this very day as Jews, it is precisely because scripture provided a framework for Jewish survival. Throughout Jewish history, normative self-definition was very much bound up with scripture and how it was perceived.”34 Within the reworked scriptural materials in the Qumran library, it is clear that there is a move towards just such a coherent outlook.35 This is not just a matter of scribal harmonising interventions, but of underlying issues that are more all-encompassing. Most obviously for the Qumran community and the wider movement of which it was a part, this concerns the calendar. This issue affected the rewriting of Genesis in the narrative of the flood in Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) and of Genesis-Exodus in the Book of Jubilees; it lies behind the presentation of adapted festival legislation in the Temple Scroll; and it may have influenced the collection of Psalms in the 11QPsa manuscript.36 Another motif of cultural coherence may be discernible in a particular eschatological perspective. The presence of this perspective may suggest that Isaiah and the Twelve Minor Prophets, where eschatological endings are a feature, were further advanced in their authoritative acceptance than Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It may be no accident that Isaiah and the Twelve are cited far more frequently in the sectarian compositions than Jeremiah and Ezekiel and that it is Isaiah and the Twelve (along with the Psalms) which feature in the explicit running commentaries of the pesharim; by contrast, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are reworked in various ways with implicit exegesis as in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and Pseudo-Ezekiel.

34 S. Z. Leiman, “Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation of the Biblical Canon,” in Sanders et al., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, 63. 35 It is important here to distinguish between arguments about the coherence of all the compositions found in the Qumran library and the coherence to be found in the rewritings of scripture which form the backdrop of this paper. It is the latter which are the concern here. 36 For 11QPsa as at least in part determined by the calendar see P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 172–201.

between authority and canon

101

The similar preeminence given to Isaiah and the Twelve by the New Testament authors demonstrates that this is not a narrowly sectarian preference. Alongside such cultural markers as the calendar and eschatology, the desire for authoritative texts to reflect the ideological coherence of their tradents can lead to the possible inclusion in the canonical process of such rewritten compositions as permit the addition of certain key cultural components. Rewritten texts can feature what are perceived to be gaps in the earlier authoritative materials. The absence of explicit legislation in the Torah for the construction of the present or future Temple, for all that such legislation may be transferred from the description of the wilderness tabernacle, permits and even encourages the composition of works such as the Temple Scroll, in which the language and phraseology of scripture is reused to fill the gap. The same can be said for the institution of kingship. The relative paucity of legislation concerning kings in the Torah is compensated by the expansions to Deut 17:14–20 in 11QTa 56–58, the so-called “Law of the King.” 8. “Literary Power and Sheer Popularity” 37 Although the place of the community in determining authority of texts and in encouraging a particular kind of cultural coherence should not be underestimated, there are other factors involved in the way in which certain compositions achieve authoritative status. Two of these may well lie beyond the control of small religious communities such as the Essene movement or the Qumran community. To begin with, the literary power of particular texts may encourage further literary activity. Such power may rest upon a variety of factors in addition to literary artistry. The appeal of the Eden narrative in Genesis 2–3 rests in the dynamics of human psychology and the interaction of the sexes as much as it depends upon a particular view about the origins of evil. An alternative view of evil’s origins, such as is present in the Enoch cycle, cannot displace Genesis 2–3 from the late Second Temple library. The literary achievements of the Noah story or the Abram/Abraham cycle of narrative incidents

37 Terms invoked by R. Alter, Canon and Creativity, 27, to explain the inclusion of Esther and Song of Songs in the Hebrew Bible.

102

george j. brooke

seem to have been sufficient in themselves to provoke ongoing interest and reworking. Where little is said, supplementary material asks to be supplied, as for the testaments of the patriarchs;38 just so, an unfinished symphony or incomplete requiem calls for adequate completion for the satisfaction of the hearer. If many of the ingredients of literary power are not clearly evident, then a composition may nevertheless attain and retain authority through the popular appeal and inherent vision of its narrative. The authoritative place of the Book of Tobit in much Christian tradition no doubt depends to a major extent on the popularity of the storyline rather than on any particular doctrine such as might concern the reward of the righteous or the theology of healing practices. The presence of Tobit in the Qumran collection in both Hebrew and Aramaic attests to the popularity of the work. The multifarious Daniel traditions may have exercised similar popular appeal; in light of the finds from Qumran it is now easy to see that the Book of Daniel belongs to a tradition of popular rewriting.39 9. Pluralism and Subversion The authoritative scriptures contain two other features which, taken together, may also seem to improve our understanding of the status and function of the reworked scriptural compositions we are considering: intertextuality and “transhistoricality.” It is evident from the Torah, but also from the prophets, that the compositions emerging as authoritative from the beginning of the Second Temple period onwards contain many internal cross-references, an internal intertextuality. This is most overtly evident in the several repetitions to

38 On the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see especially H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), especially 1–85; on the testamentary material found in the caves at and near Qumran see L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 192–95; G. Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: SCM Press, 1999), 73–76. 39 The way in which the Book of Daniel belongs within a stream of rewriting has become all the more clear in light of the finds in the Qumran caves. The ongoing life of the book in the Greek-speaking Jewish world is attested in the well-known expansions of both a liturgical and a narrative kind, but the compositions such as the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), the Pseudo-Daniel text (4Q243–245), and the Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q246) show that there were many precursors to the Book of Daniel itself upon which it drew as it came into its own.

between authority and canon

103

be found in these compositions, some of which are almost certainly recognisable as reworkings. The authoritative texts represent at least some of the tradition in a plural form, and much of the endeavour of reworkings in the late Second Temple period is the attempt to contain or even reduce this pluralism. Such reduction is done on the one hand to create a single schema through which the authoritative text can be represented with a significance that can be readily grasped by the reader or hearer. But this reduction is not done at the expense of intertextuality. More often intertextuality is made to serve such a project. So in the painstaking task of modern commentary on these reworkings of scripture, the commentator is challenged to rediscover the intertexts and propose a suitable hierarchy of organisation in reading so that some sources can be seen as controlling the use and re-presentation of others. The juxtaposition of material from Exodus and Ezekiel, from Kings and Chronicles in sections of the Temple Scroll, or the interweaving of Ezekiel 1, 10 and Isaiah 6 in Pseudo-Ezekiel’s description of the divine throne, carries forward the intertextual adventure of the authoritative texts themselves. The literary critic R. Alter has recently written some challenging reflections on the nature of the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Provoked in part by those parts of the present canon, particularly in the Writings, which defy neat classification within what may be perceived as a doctrinal strategy in the process of canonisation (which Alter labels the “first canonicity”), Alter has argued that “a canon is above all a transhistorical textual community.”40 Alter’s description is motivated by his observations concerning how several modern authors have appropriated biblical material and used it for their own ends. This leads him to the conclusion that the canonical texts (or indeed any texts) “do not have a single, authoritative meaning, however much the established spokesmen for the canon at any given moment may claim that is the case.” If one acknowledges this as basically correct, then the reworkings of scriptural texts preserved in the Qumran library may well be seen as the means through which communities attempt to provide authoritative and possibly singular meaning to texts whose authoritative status means that they cannot be pinned down to a particular time and place. Thus pluralism and the

40

R. Alter, Canon and Creativity, 5.

104

george j. brooke

character of transhistoricality produce similar results in provoking reworkings of scripture in which localised products are created with singular schemes, products which are themselves unlikely to obtain or retain authority outside the spheres of those who produce them.

III. Conclusion It can suitably be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have come to light and been published in a half-century which has seen many kinds of claims about the nature of the Bible. The scrolls provide a means through which many such claims can be appropriately assessed and given a fresh historical point of view. This paper has tried to argue that from many perspectives the reworked scriptural compositions, some of which themselves end up as canonical, are a fundamental part of the transition from authority to canon; within early Judaism scriptural rewriting is an integral part of the processes by which a composition moves from being authoritative in a limited way to belonging firmly to a canonical list. Without these reworked and rewritten scriptural compositions our understanding of the workings of the canonical process would be severely restricted.

BETWEEN SECTARIAN AND NON-SECTARIAN: THE CASE OF THE APOCRYPHON OF JOSHUA Devorah Dimant University of Haifa

With the completion of publication of all the Qumran manuscripts it is time for a reexamination of central issues in the field. One that has recently attracted attention is how to understand the complex nature of the manuscript collection. For more than thirty years the collection was regarded as a product of the ascetic community referred to in some of the scrolls. This view emerged around 1960, at the end of the first decade of research, when the study of the scrolls was at its initial stage. But once the full inventory of the Qumran library was published some fifteen years ago, the presence in it of a sizable group of Hebrew and Aramaic texts lacking the particular imprint of that community came as a surprise.1 Most of the works belonging to this category are written in Hebrew and rework the Hebrew Bible. Many of them are not known from any other source but contain numerous links to Jewish literature of the Second Temple era. The existence at Qumran of a large body of works not explicitly associated with the ascetic community creates major problems of interpretation and methodology. It brings into focus the heterogeneous character of the collection and suggests that not all the compositions found in the Qumran caves were authored by members of the community. Such a varied content also raises questions about the nature and provenance of this library. The fact that copies of the same works were discovered in the various caves proves beyond doubt that all housed parts of one and the same collection. The interconnections between the caves, and especially their links with the largest cave 4, lying as it does on the outskirts of the Qumran settlement, also tie the

1 Cf. S. A. Reed, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue. Documents, Photographs and Museum’s Inventory Numbers (rev. and ed. M. J. Lundberg with M. B. Phelps; SBLRBS 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). The catalogue was available a few years earlier in typed fascicules.

106

devorah dimant

entire manuscript trove to this site.2 But these facts do not account for the peculiar configuration of the library, nor do they tell us anything about its origin. When the full list of the contents of the caves became known it was evident that a systematic classification was needed. To meet this need, I published at the time a systematic classification of all the Qumran scrolls according to their sectarian or nonsectarian character, as well as their content.3 This was done with the still incomplete data available at the time, but in my judgment the principles of categorization proposed then are valid still today: only works which display the terminology, style and ideas explicitly connected with the Qumran community can be assigned with confidence to its literature. The best representatives of such works are the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, the War Rule, the Hodayot and the pesharim. These compositions provide the criteria for establishing whether a text does or does not belong to the sectarian literature proper.4 The presence at Qumran of a given work is in itself insufficient to establish a sectarian provenance. Obviously the sectarians kept in their library writings other than those of their own making. However, subsequent study has shown the need for further refinement of the classification. This is true especially with regard to some compositions that rework the Bible. Until now the sectarian character of a given text was recognized by the presence of typical sectarian terminology and ideas. Yet these criteria have proved inapt for accommodating certain works, which lack sectarian characteristic nomenclature and style but embrace notions shared with the sectarian ideology. Since compositions of this type may not be simply defined as either sectarian or nonsectarian, I propose to assign them to a third, intermediate category, between the sectarian literature proper and writings devoid of any connection to the community. Candidates for such a category are, for instance, the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees. Both share various elements with the sectarian literature. Indeed, some scholars include both works in the sectarian literature. However,

2 Cf. D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 30–32. 3 Cf. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts,” 23–58. 4 See now a more developed treatment with a list of typical sectarian terms as criteria for defining sectarian works D. Dimant, “Between Sectarian and NonSectarian in the Qumran Scrolls,” [Hebrew] (in press).

between sectarian and non-sectarian

107

neither Jubilees nor the Temple Scroll contains any of the features distinctive of the output of the Qumran community; consequently, they cannot be considered equivalent to explicitly sectarian products. Both writings rework the Bible, a fact that may have to do with their special position between sectarian and nonsectarian texts. The Qumran library seems to contain other specimens of this type. This class of writings involves special problems of categorization and therefore merits a separate study. As a contribution to this line of investigation I offer the present analysis of one such writing, the so-called Apocryphon of Joshua. The Qumran writing that goes now by the name of the Apocryphon of Joshua is known in at least four copies. Two fragmentary exemplars were published several years ago, 4Q378 and 4Q379.5 4Q522 was later identified as a third copy of the same work.6 Another fragment from cave 5 with a list of toponyms, 5Q9, may have been torn out of the fourth copy of the Apocryphon, since it is very similar to a list of toponyms preserved in 4Q522 9 i.7 Lastly, a small fragment found at Masada may be from a fifth copy of the Apocryphon.8 The extant copies were penned during the first century bce,9 the terminus 5 For final edition see C. Newsom, “4Q379. 4QApocryphon of Joshuab,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 243–88. 6 Cf. E. Qimron, “Concerning ‘Joshua Cycles’ from Qumran (4Q522),” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 503–8 (Hebrew). The final edition is published by É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521– 4Q528, 4Q576– 4Q579), (DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 39. For a fresh edition and discussion see D. Dimant, “The Apocryphon of Joshua—4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–204. 7 5Q9 is published by J. T. Milik in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran (ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux; DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 179–80. 8 Ms. Mas 11, as suggested by S. Talmon, Masada VI—The Yigael Yadin Excavation 1963–1965 ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999), 105–16. For a survey of all the materials related to the Apocryphon of Joshua cf. E. Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in, Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996 (ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56. One may also add to the list of the manuscripts the small fragments of another scroll, 4Q123, copied in paleo-Hebrew characters. It contains some sort of rewriting of Joshua. It is published by E. Ulrich in Qumran Cave 4.IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (ed. P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich and J. E. Sanderson; DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 201–3. 9 The earliest is 4Q379, dated by Newsom to the first half of the first century BCE. Cf. DJD 22.262. 4Q522 is slightly later, dated by Puech to the second third

108

devorah dimant

ante quem for the composition of this writing. However, the presence of several copies, which span a century, suggests that the work was authored earlier, during the second century bce at the latest. Such an early date is also corroborated by the fact that 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) 21–30, copied between 100 and 75 bce,10 quotes a passage from the Apocryphon (4Q378 22 ii 7–15).11 Despite the fragmentary condition of the copies, the literary character of the work comes out quite clearly. The basic framework provides a narrative reworking of the Book of Joshua, interspersed with prayers and discourses, most of them pronounced by Joshua.12 But because of the fragmentary state of the text, the precise outline of the composition and its essential import elude us. It is nonetheless evident that none of the extant fragments contains any term characteristic of the literature authored by the Qumran community. This fact has led students of this work to conclude that it did not belong to the literature of the community proper.13 Still, several passages of the Apocryphon adopt ideas known only from the sectarian literature or works closely related to it. Below I discuss three such passages and in their light suggest a fresh definition of the Apocryphon’s character.

A. The Crossing of the Jordan—4Q379 12 The first passage to be considered is 4Q379 12, concerned with the crossing of the Jordan. It follows the biblical narrative outline with occasional additions, omissions and alterations. of the same century. Cf. DJD 25.41. 4Q378 is assigned by Newsom to the turn of the Era. See her note in DJD 22.241. 10 For this date see F. M. Cross, “Testimonia,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck and Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 308–9. 11 I thus agree with the similar date suggested by Newsom (DJD 22.238), rather than with the later one favored by Hanan Eshel. His arguments are unconvincing, for he views the section about Joshua’s curse in 4Q175 as the source of, rather than as a citation from, the Apocryphon of Joshua. Cf. H. Eshel, “The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Builders of Jericho,” RevQ 15 (1991/92): 409–20; idem, “A Note on a Recently Published Text: the ‘Joshua Apocryphon’,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Porthuis and C. Safrai; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 89–93. See Discussion of this passage below. 12 Cf. Newsom, DJD 22.237–38; Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua.” 13 Cf. Newsom in DJD 22.238. But Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua,” 254–75 suggests a possible sectarian provenance.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

109

4Q379 12 [ ]°°°ç)b)yO μydrwyh) [μymh ] d)y(n( wdm[ μydrwyh[ μymh ] çdjb hçbyb wrb)[[ ] [≈]rOaOm μtaxl hnç μy[br)a[O w t]j)ah tnçb ˆOwOç[) arh]

1 2 3 4 ≈ral μtayb tljtl μylbwyl hnçh aOyh μyr)x)m) 5 πfwçw wytwdg lk l[O [μ]y(m al)μ ˆdrwyhw ˆ[)nk) 6 μyfj ryxq çOd)j) d[ yç)[yl]ç)h çdjh d)[) wymym)[b] 7 [ ]la)rçy °°°[ ]l[ ] hol°° [ ]°°°l[ ] 8

Notes on Readings14 L. 1 ]°°°ç)b)yO The surviving traces of the second letter fit best a beth or a kaf. L. 4. t]j)ah A tiny tip of the third letter has survived (seen on PAM 41.778). The reading is suggested to fit with the other letters and the context. L. 5. μtayb Given the graphic resemblance of y/w in this manuscript, it is perfectly possible to read the regular form μtayb (thus correctly Abegg and Wacholder)15 rather than μtawb (thus Newsom), an unattested strange form. Cf. Comment. L. 7 d([.) The space remaining for this word accommodates two letters, but only two faint tips survived of them, and any reading is a guess. Newsom offers ˆ‚m‚, but once the reading yç)[yl]ç)h çdjh is established (not read by Newsom), this word makes no sense in the phrase. The reading d)[) is proposed to fit the general meaning of the passage. See Comment. yç)[yl]ç)h. The reading of a second shin before the yod at the end of the word is confirmed by the remaining curving left stroke, which fits a shin (touching it is the protruding vertical stroke of a lamed from the line below) rather than an 'ayin (read by Wacholder and Abegg).16 Were it an 'ayin, the lower diagonal stroke of the letter should have survived (compare the 'ayin of the following word d[). Of the second letter a small dot remained (cf. PAM 41.778), but given the reading of shin and yod at the end, this should be read as shin, to form the word yç[yl]ç. Graphically the reading yç)[ym]j)h is also possible, but this would not agree with the context. Cf. Comment. 14 See the edition of Newsom in DJD 22.270. For the purpose of this article the text has been freshly collated against photos PAM 40.618 and 41.778 (Courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority). I have improved some readings and suggested different supplements at a few places. 15 Cf. B. Z. Wacholder and M. G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four (4 vols.; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995), 3:181. 16 Ibid.

devorah dimant

110 Translation17

[ the waters] flowing downstream and . . . [ ] [ the waters] flowing downstream stood in a heap [ ]they [cr]ossed over on dry ground in the [fir]st month of the forty-fir[st] year of their exodus from the lan[d] of Egypt. This is the year for jubilees, at the beginning of their entrance into the land of 6 Canaan. And the Jordan was full of wat[er] over all its banks and flowing 7 [with] its waters until the th[ir]d month, until the month of wheat harvest. 8 [ ]. . . . [ ]. . . . [ ].[ ]. . . . Israel[ ]

1 2 3 4 5

Comments Ll. 1–2 μydrwyh . . . μydrwyh)[. The term is taken from Josh 3:13, 16. The words do not match precisely the sequence and length of the parallel text of Joshua 3:13–14. The text here is shorter than the biblical account, probably because it is abbreviated and compressed. The description of the waters of the Jordan running down (μydrwy) from north to south is reflected in the name of the river Jordan ˆdrwy (l. 6). In the narrative of Josh 3:13, 16 the strong downstream flow of the Jordan is emphasized to highlight the miraculous character of the crossing. L. 2 d)y‚n ‚ wdm[. Cf. Josh 3:13, 16. L. 3 hçbyb wrb)[[. The description of the crossing of the Jordan. Employing the word hçby, the phrase takes up the confessional recapitulation of the event ( Josh 4:22). Already this biblical passage evokes the crossing of the Red Sea by referring to it explicitly ( Josh 4:23) and by using the vocabulary of that episode (Exod 14:29; 15:19; compare Neh 9:11). But the biblical narrative of the actual crossing of the Jordan is depicted by the word hbrj ( Josh 3:17; 4:18), taking up another element from the story of the Red Sea (Exod 14:21).18

17 The translation, with some alterations, follows that of Newsom, “4QApocryphon of Joshuab,” DJD 22.270. 18 The crossing of the Red Sea is echoed by the same word in the story of the miraculous crossing of the Jordan by Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:8).

between sectarian and non-sectarian

111

Ll. 3–4 ˆOw ç O ( [arh] çdjb. The restoration fits the surviving letters and is in line with Josh 4:19; 5:10. It sets the date of the Jordan crossing. One is tempted to understand the term çdj here as the first day of the month, a well known meaning in biblical parlance. (cf. e.g. Deut 16:1; 1 Sam 20:5).19 However, such an understanding is excluded by the fact that the biblical datum in Josh 4:19, repeated literally here, states the precise date of the crossing, namely the tenth (rwç[b) of the first month. It is unlikely that the Apocryphon overtly contradicts the biblical statement. Rather, it adopts the common meaning of çdj—“month”—and deliberately omits the precise date of the event probably because of the divergent calendar computation it advances (cf. Discussion). The importance to the author of the calendrical and chronological issues is betrayed by the juxtaposition of the crossing of the Jordan with the report on these matters. Both data are mentioned in the biblical narrative, but they are recorded there separately in different contexts ( Josh 3:17; 4:19). Ll. 4–6 μylbwyl hnçh aOyh μyr)xm) ) [≈]rOamO μtaxl hnç μy[br)a[O w t]j)ah tnçbO ˆ[n(k) ≈ral μtayb tljtl. A nonbiblical insertion, which defines the year of the crossing of the Jordan as the first year of the computation of the jubilees.

Ll. 4–5 μyr)x)m) [≈]ram μtaxl hnç μy[br)a[O w t]j)ah tnçbO. This part of the nonbiblical insertion is based on biblical data. Cf. Discussion.

μy[br)a[O w t]j)ah tnçb. For the formulation cf. 2 Chr 16:13. L. 5–6 ˆ[n(k) ≈ral μtayb tljtl μylbwyl hnçh aOyh. Introduced by the pronoun ayh, the phrase identifies the forty-first year as the beginning of the computation of the jubilees in the land of Canaan. This is another nonbiblical addition, but the absence of a biblical basis indicates its ideological and polemical character. The rabbis began the computation of the jubilees fourteen years later (cf. b Arakhin 12b; Seder Olam Rabba 11). Cf. Discussion. L. 6 μylbwyl hnçh aOyh. The literal translation is “this is the year for the jubilees,” but it certainly means that this year counts as the first 19

Cf. BDB, 294; HALOT, 1:294.

112

devorah dimant

year for the jubilees, as correctly translated by Newsom and taken up here. The use of the plural μylbwy and the affinity of the phrase to other formulations in Qumran texts show that the computation of jubilees in general is meant here. The wording is to be compared with a similar notice in the calendrical text 4Q320 4 ii 10–13, twlbwylw μyfmçlw μynç[lw] μyçdjl ttbçlw (“and for the Sabbaths for the months [and for the ] years and for the seven-year periods and for the jubilees”). Note also 1QS 10:7–8. These affinities suggest that the formula used by the Apocryphon is taken from the established terminology related to the chronology of sabbatical years and jubilees. That such a formulation is drawn from a common and widely used nomenclature is also indicated by the similar terms employed in the Mishnah for the same subject: ˆyfymçlw μynçl hnçh çar yrçtb djab twlbwylw (“the first of Tishre is the beginning of the year for the years, for the seven-year periods and for the jubilees”; m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1).20

≈ral μtayb tljtl. The juxtaposition of the jubilees’ chronology with the crossing of Jordan suggests that the calculation started from that point.

μtayb. The word is the feminine noun hayb with the suffixed possessive 3d plural. pronoun (= their entrance). The word is current in the Qumran calendrical texts (e.g. 4Q322 3; 4Q323 5; 4Q324 1 4; 4Q324a ii 2; cf. also 3Q15 ii 10; xii 1) and is well known from Tannaitic literature. L. 6 wytwdg lk l[O [μ]y(m al)μ ˆdrwyhw. The phrase takes up Josh 3:15 (MT), only adding the word μym. The addition is apparently influenced by the biblical locution μym alm (“full of water”) to describe overflowing streams (cf. 2 Kgs 3:17; Ps 65:10). The author may also have taken into consideration 1 Chr 12:16, which describes the strong flow of Jordan by the same words (wytw/ydg lk l[ almm). He was certainly aware that the Chronicler gives a depiction of the Jordan’s flow during the first month. Cf. Comment to l. 7.

20 The similarity of this passage to 4Q320 4 ii was noted by the editors S. Talmon and J. Ben-Dov, Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Calendrical Texts (DJD 21; ed. S. Talmon, J. BenDov, and U. Glessmer; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 54.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

113

ˆdrwyhw. The name of the river Jordan is written with waw after the yod to indicate an o vowel, instead of the patah in the MT.21 This vocalization is also reflected by the Septuagint Iordãnhw, the Vulgate Iordanis, and the Peshitta . Ll. 6–7 wymym)[b] πfwçw. This nonbiblical addition is inserted to stress the powerful flow of waters in the river Jordan at the time of the crossing, already suggested by the biblical formulation ( Josh 3:13–16). A similar emphasis is placed on descriptions of the crossing by Josephus, Ant. 5:16–19 and a rabbinic midrash (b. Sota 34a; y. Sota 7:5; t. Sota 4:5). L. 7 yç)[yl]ç)h çdjh d)[.) The reading yç)[yl]ç)h is established on the basis of the surviving physical evidence (cf. Note, above). Once the correct reading is recognized there is no syntactical or contextual reason for reading ˆ(m) (“from”) as suggested by Newsom. That goes against the general sense of the phrase and obscures the whole point of the story, namely, that the Israelites crossed the Jordan in the first month when the stream was most powerful. The reading d)[) (= until) is therefore suggested to produce the correct span of time and to accord with the following characterization of the month. The author may have viewed the entire period, from the first to the third month, as the time when the Jordan reached its overflowing point. This interpretation fits both the context here as well as the geographical and agricultural reality of the Land of Israel. It also brings forth the explicative character of this report.

μyfj ryxq çOdj) ) d[. The phrase is in apposition to the previous locution yçylçh çdjh d[. (“until the third month”). But while the locution μyfj ryxq çdj (“the month of wheat harvest”) is clearly based on the biblical datum in Josh 3:15, the expression yçylçh çdjh d[ (“until the third month”) is an insertion by the author of the Apocryphon. It makes explicit both the agricultural fact that the period of the wheat harvest falls in the third month (Sivan) as well as the association this harvest has with the feast of Shavuot, when the first wheat crop is brought into the Temple (cf. Exod 34:22; compare 11QTa 18:10–19:9;

21 For the grammatical phenomenon cf. E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), § 200.26.

114

devorah dimant

40:6). According to the 364-day calendar this feast always falls on the fifteenth of the third month.

μyfj ryxq. One Qumran copy of the Book of Joshua, 4Q48 ( Joshb) 2 2, gives the reading μyfj ryxq ymyb (μyfj is added above the line by a second hand).22 A very similar reading underlies the Septuagint.23 Both differ from the MT ryxqh ymy lk.24 The existence of two Hebrew witnesses for the variant μyfj ryxq, in conjunction with the reading of the Apocryphon of Joshua, may attest to a textual variant of Josh 3:15. Alternatively, these readings may have originated in an explicative addition of μyfj (“wheat”) to explain that the term ryxqh (“harvest”) of the MT here means a specific harvest, that of wheat.25 In fact the general term ryxq applying specifically to wheat harvest occurs already in the Gezer calendar and is later attested by the Mishnah.26 Discussion This fragment preserves the description of Israel’s crossing the Jordan, based on Josh 3:13–16. The narrative framework and its main ingredients are taken from the biblical story. The nonbiblical elements inserted in ll. 4–6 and 6–7 are chiefly of a chronological character, specifying the date of the entry into Canaan and the significance of the crossing for the computation of jubilees in the new land. The affirmation that the crossing took place in the first month of the forty-first year of the exodus from Egypt is based on chronological data supplied by the biblical narrative. According to Deut 1:3 Moses pronounced his final discourse at the beginning of the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the exodus. Deut 34:8 further reports that the 22 Cf. E. Tov, “48. 4QJoshb,” in Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 155. 23 The Septuagint’s …se‹ ≤m°rai yerisoË pur«n (“as in the days of wheat harvest”) may reflect a Hebrew variant μyfj ryxq ymyk. Note the graphic similarity ymyb/ymyk, implying an interchange of beth and kaf. 24 This MT reading is reflected by Sir 24:26. 25 Similarly Emanuel Tov has suggested that the Septuagint is either a midrashic translation or reflects a Hebrew variant. Cf. idem, “Midrash-type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua,” RB 85 (1978): 55–56 (= E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint [VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 158). 26 In the Gezer calendar rxq (“harvest”) follows μr[ç rxq (“barley harvest”) (lines 4–5) making it clear that the single term rxq means the wheat harvest. The Mishnah attests to the same meaning: ˆyfj ryxq rwxql μ[h lyjtyç d[ :ryxqh d[ μyrw[ç ryxq al lba (m. Nedarim 8:4).

between sectarian and non-sectarian

115

mourning for Moses lasted thirty days, which brings the reckoning close to the end of the twelfth month of the fortieth year. Josh 4:19 states that the crossing of the Jordan took place during the first month, which must therefore start the forty-first year from the exodus. The biblical account also notes that the Jordan crossing was on the tenth of the first month ( Josh 4:19) and that three days later, on the night of the fourteenth of the first month, the Israelites celebrated the Passover ( Josh 5:10). In the description of the circumcision of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan the biblical narrator refers to the forty years of wandering in the desert as a fact of the past ( Josh 5:6).27 That the Jordan crossing took place in the forty-first year after the exodus is therefore implied by the biblical chronological data, with no explicit statement to this effect being found in the Bible itself.28 Nor does the biblical story relate these chronological data to the computation of the jubilees. For the Qumran author the connection of the two matters is evidently a detail of great importance: the crossing took place in “the (first) year of the jubilees, at the beginning of their entry into the land of Canaan” (ll. 5–6). This link suggests that the computation of the sabbatical years and jubilees in the land of Canaan starts with the crossing of the Jordan. In affirming that the forty-first year after the exodus was the first year of the first jubilee in Canaan, the Apocryphon implies that once the Israelites were in the Land of Canaan the Torah stipulations concerning the sabbatical years were enacted. According to Lev 25:2–3, the cycle of sabbatical years and jubilees was to be instituted when Israel was settled in the Promised Land. The fragment expresses this notion through the non-biblical statement ˆ[nk ≈ral μtayb tljtl (“at the beginning of their entry into the Land of Canaan”). The phrase echoes the formulation of the Torah commandment in Lev 25:2 ≈rah la wabt yk (“when you will enter the land”), which introduces the laws of the sabbatical and jubilee years. Yet a detail crucial for the calculation of the sabbatical years and jubilees remains obscure: when precisely did this first year begin? If it began with the crossing of the Jordan in the first month, the sequence of sabbatical years must have started in that month. The 27 The LXX has forty-two instead of the forty of the MT, adding two years of wandering before arriving in Paran (Num 10:11). The Apocryphon is clearly based on the MT reading. 28 Cf. the rabbis’ similar computation in connection with the cessation of the manna ( Josh 5:12), t. Sota 11:2–3.

116

devorah dimant

formulation of our fragment makes clear that this was indeed the author’s understanding. Here however, he must have encountered a serious exegetical problem. In keeping with the sequence of the first year of the first jubilee the computation must have begun in the first day of the first month. But the biblical account places the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan ten days later. Moreover, only five or six days later still, on the fifteenth or the sixteenth of the first month, did the Israelites eat from the produce of the land ( Josh 5:11–12), which might be subjected to the laws of the sabbatical years. So the biblical description might be understood to indicate that Passover, namely the fifteenth of the first month, marked the beginning of the jubilees’ calculation in the Land of Canaan. This date leaves out the first fifteen days of the first month from the computation of the first year of the jubilee. Perhaps for this reason the author of the Apocryphon omitted any mention of the exact date of the entry into Canaan. The same link between the entry into Canaan and the reckoning of the sabbatical years is made by the Book of Jubilees (cf. Jub. 50:2), one of the writings most cherished by the Qumran sectaries. According to Jub. 50:4 the Jordan crossing was to take place in the fiftieth year of the forty-ninth jubilee, namely the year 2410 of the creation of the world. It was, therefore, also to inaugurate the first jubilee of jubilees of the world. In the understanding of the Book of Jubilees, the entry into the land obviously marked the completion of one cycle and the beginning of another, falling at the end of one jubilee and the beginning of another. This calculation forms part of the book’s overall chronological framework. The fact that the Apocryphon likewise links the entry into Canaan with the beginning of the calculations of the jubilees suggests that it too was based on a chronology similar or identical to the one adopted by the Book of Jubilees.29

29

Newsom noticed the connection between the Apocryphon fragments and the calculations of Jub. 50:4. However, she related this connection to the expression “the year for jubilees” in l. 5, which she takes to mean that the crossing took place in the first jubilee year. Cf. the notes in her preliminary publications: “The Psalms of Joshua from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 39 (1988): 66–67; idem, “4Q378 and 4Q379: An Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Qumranstudien: Vorträge und Beiträge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.–26. Juli 1993 (ed. H.-J. Fabry, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger; SIJD 4; Gröningen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 65; and in her final edition, “4QApocryphon of Joshuab,” DJD 22.271. But the understanding that a single jubilee is intended does not agree with the plural form “jubilees,” which Newsom indeed had difficulty explaining. Precisely this plural shows that the overall system of jubilees is meant here.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

117

The connection made by the Apocryphon between the date of the entry into Canaan and the jubilee chronology has important calendrical implications. The Apocryphon took the first month, Nisan, as the starting point for this chronology. As noted above, the Qumran passage may have omitted the precise date for the beginning of such a reckoning because the biblical text indicates that the Israelites had not entered Canaan at the beginning of the first month, when the computation should have begun. Nevertheless, the wording of the Qumran passage leaves no doubt that the first of the first month was the beginning of the computation. Introducing the statement with a personal pronoun (μylbwyl hnçh ayh—“this is the year for jubilees”), the phrasing puts a special emphasis on the jubilees computation. The phrase displays a striking similarity to the Mishnaic rule about the reckoning of sabbatical years and jubilees (cf. Comment above). But the comparison between the Apocryphon and the Mishnah reveals an important difference too. The Apocryphon determines the start of the computation of sabbatical years as of the first month, Nisan, whereas the rabbinic rule mandates that the computation must begin with the seventh month, Tishre. The special emphasis observed in the formulation of the Qumran fragment may therefore betray a polemical edge. Another interesting question arising from the calendrical data of our fragment is whether or not it applies the solar calendar of 364 days to the chronology of the entry into Canaan. If this were the case, the beginning of the computation of jubilees would occur on a Wednesday, the day on which the first of the first month always falls in this calendar. The Jordan crossing would then occur on the Friday of the following week, and the evening of Passover would be celebrated on the Tuesday night of the third week. Such an arrangement sheds an interesting light on the gap between the beginning of the jubilees computation and the eating of the first local produce in Canaan on the fifteenth of the first month ( Josh 5:12). Perhaps the Apocryphon sought to separate the issue of the computation from the enactment of the shemita laws. The computation indeed started with the first day of the first month, while the shemita legislation came into force only from the fifteenth of the first month, when the Israelites celebrated the festival of unleavened bread by eating from the local produce. The ceasing of the manna, which occurred on that day, marked the actual beginning of Israelite life in their new land and therefore could be viewed as the real beginning of the calculation of the jubilees for the cultivation of the land.

devorah dimant

118

Be that as it may, the chronological data in the passage, the jubilees computation, and the affinity with the Book of Jubilees all show the proximity of the Apocryphon of Joshua to the circles of the Qumran community and its particular ideology.

B. The Tent of Meeting in Canaan Our next passage comes from another section of the Apocryphon, preserved in 4Q522 9 ii. It concerns the activities of Joshua with regard to the Tent of Meeting.30 Unlike the first fragment, this one consists entirely of a nonbiblical expansion, albeit based on biblical data. 4Q522 9 ii [larçy ynbw ]t)t)n[( ] 1 [wrb[y rça d[ d[]wm lOha ta μç ˆykçhl ˆOw([yxl] w([awb]y( awOl) 2 [dwkly rça awhw hdw]hy ˆb ≈rp ˆb yçyl dlwn ˆb hnh yk μyt[h 3 [wbbl μ[ hyhyw μylçw]r)ym yrwmahlk ta μçm çrwyw ˆwyx [ls ta 4 [ˆyky lzrbw tçwjn] πskw bhz larçy yhwla hwhyl tybhja twnbl 5 [qwdxw wnnby awh] ˆfq)h wnbw wtwnbl ˆwnbl[m] ayby μyçwrbw μyzra 6 [hwhy whkrby]w( hx)[ry] wtwaw [hkrwkb] sjO[nyp ynb]m ˆ(w(çOyar μç ˆhky 7 [lwk wnygm hwhy]w jfbl ˆwkçy [h]why dydy [yk μ]ymçh ˆm ˆw[)[mm] l)[[m] 8 [awh wnbrqb y]n[nkhw μç yrwmah ht[w d[lO ˆwkçy wm[ μymy([h] 9 [μymwthw μyrwa]h) f)pç[m t]a) ytçrd awl rça yOnOwyfjh rça bçwy 10 [hwhy jbzmlw l]ar)[çyl μydb][ db[ wyttn h)[n]hw ynwlçhw hktam 11 [waçyw yn[nkhw yrwma]h) ˆm qwjr d[[wm lh]a ta hnyk[ç]n ht[w 12 [ hlyçl la] tybm d[[wm lh]a) ta [[wçyw] rOz[la 13 [ larçy twkr][)m abx r)[ç ][)wçy 14 [ ]l)[ ]l)[ ]ç° 15

Translation 1 [ ]...[ the Children of Israel] 2 w[ill] not [come t]o[ Zi]on to install there the Tent of Mee[ting until] 3 the times [will pass], for behold, a son will be born to Jesse son of Perez son of Ju[dah and it will be he who will seize] 4 the rock of Zion and will dispossess from there the Amorites from Jer[usalem and it will be his intention] 5 to build house to the Lord, God of Israel. Gold and silver, [brass and iron he will prepare]

30 I have reedited and discussed this passage in detail. See D. Dimant, “The Apocryphon of Joshua.” The edition published there is reproduced here.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

119

6 cedar-trees and junipers he will bring [from] Lebanon to build it, and his youngest son [he will build it, and Zadok] 7 will minister there, first of [the sons of Phin]eas [your first-born] and him He [will fav]or [and the Lord will bless him] 8 [from ab]ove[, from the he]aven[ly ab]ode[, for] “the friend of the Lo[rd] will dwell in safety and[ the Lord will be his protector all] 9 [the] days. With him He will dwell forever.” But now the Amorites are there and the Canaanit[es amidst us are] 10 dwelling, for they led me to sin because I did not seek th[e dec]ision of the [Urim and Thummim] 11 from you and they deceived me, and beh[o]ld I made them slaves of s[laves to Is]rae[l and to the altar of the Lord] 12 and now let us in[st]all the T[ent of Mee]ting far from the [Amorites and the Canaanites. And] 13 Eleazar [and Joshu]a [carried] the T[ent of Mee]ting from Beth[el to Shiloh ] 14 Joshua[ the comman]der of the army of the batt[le arrays of Israel] 15 [ ] .[ ] .[ ] .[ ]

The main part of this passage, ll. 2–12, gives the final section of a discourse pronounced by Joshua. It is addressed to the priest Eleazar, his partner in leading Israel during the entry into Canaan and the ensuing conquests. In his speech, Joshua explains that they will not be able to install the Tent of Meeting in its proper abode on Mount Zion (lines 2, 9), because the Amorites, namely the Jebusites, dwell in Jerusalem. Joshua proceeds to reveal that only in a distant future will David complete the conquest of Jerusalem and his son build the Temple. This future Temple will be permanently blessed by God and the offspring of Eleazar will officiate there. As for the circumstances prevailing at the time of the speech, Joshua further states that the Canaanites, namely the Gibeonites, were able to trick him because he had not consulted the Urim and Thummim in advance. As a result the Gibeonites were already settled within Israel because of the oath sworn by the Israelites not to harm them (cf. Joshua 9). Joshua concludes with the suggestion that Eleazar and he install the Tent of Meeting far away, apparently to distance it from both the Jebusites and the Gibeonites (l. 12).31 Finally Joshua and Eleazar transport the Tent of Meeting, probably to Shiloh (following Josh 18:1). Relevant to the discussion here are the offenses laid at Joshua’s door. Not only did he leave untouched some of the local Canaanite

31

See my analysis in “The Apocryphon of Joshua.”

120

devorah dimant

peoples, thereby infringing a major Torah injunction (Exod 23:32; 34:12; Deut 7:1–6; 20:16–18), but in concluding an agreement with the Gibeonites, he also violated the Torah interdiction against making a pact with the indigenous population (Exod 23:32; 34:12; Deut 7:2) or a neighboring Canaanite city (Deut 20:15–17). But these offenses are only implied by the story. Explicitly admitted by Joshua is another offense, probably considered by the Qumran author the most serious. In ll. 10–11 Joshua acknowledges that he was led to sin by the Gibeonites’ ruse because he did not consult the Urim and Thummim beforehand, a detail not found in the biblical account. The Book of Joshua just notes that the Israelites (or their chieftains) concluded the agreement with the Gibeonites without consulting God ( Josh 9:14: “and they did not consult God” al ùh yp taw wlaç). In elaborating this point the author of the Apocryphon formulates Joshua’s admission in the words of Num 27:21. This verse specifies a divine directive to Joshua, given to him during Moses’ lifetime. The commandment enjoins Joshua to consult the Urim and Thummim through Eleazar in every matter. In this way our fragment implies that by not consulting the Urim and Thummim in advance Joshua infringed on this commandment. The other offenses and the consequent inability to establish the Tent of Meeting in Zion, hinged upon this initial one. The pivotal issue for the Qumran author is Joshua’s failure to seek divine guidance by means of the Urim and Thummim, through Eleazar, their priestly guardian. The nature of Joshua’s particular offense is further illuminated by a comparison with a passage from the Temple Scroll (11QTa). This passage incorporates the same Torah directive of Num 27:21 (11QTa 58:18–21). But whereas the biblical passage involves Joshua’s obligation to consult the Urim and Thummim via the priest Eleazar, the Temple Scroll applies this rule to the king, who is to enquire of the Urim and Thummim through the high priest before undertaking an optional war.32 In fact, the passage forms part of the regulations concerning kingship prescribed by the Temple Scroll (11QTa 56:13–59:21). This suggests that the Temple Scroll viewed the directive to Joshua as a

32 Apparently an optional war is in question, as distinct from an obligatory war (such as the conquest of Canaan, since the obligatory war is from the outset commanded by God). According to the rabbis also, an optional war required consultation with the Urim and Thummim beforehand (cf. b Sanhedrin 16b). Josephus (Ant. 3.217) implies a similar practice.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

121

paradigm for political rule in Israel; it specifically dictates the obligation of the king to act according to divine guidance so that “he will not go out by his own council” (wbl tx[m axy awl—11QTa 58:20). The scroll stresses that only when divine guidance has been sought in this manner will the planned enterprise succeed (11QTa 58:21). In introducing the formulation of Num 27:21 the Temple Scroll does not mention Joshua; he is not the subject of this work and a direct reference to him would not be in line with the Mosaic pseudepigraphic framework of the work. But its use of this verse to define the rule of the king implies the analogy to Joshua. It seems, therefore, that the Temple Scroll also viewed Joshua’s role in terms of kingship. The same understanding of the directive in Num 27:21 is assumed by the rabbis. They too applied it to Israelite kings in general.33 In rabbinic thinking the link between Joshua and the regulation of kings is explicitly established. Since Joshua acted as king and prophet, the directive governing his leadership serves as a model for all subsequent Israelite kings.34 A similar view seems to underlie the Apocryphon of Joshua. Although Joshua is not described in royal terms, the depiction of his leadership during the entry into and conquest of Canaan in 4Q522 9 ii suggests such a status. In fact, this status is already implied by the biblical account itself and the Apocryphon of Joshua follows this lead. It follows, then, that 4Q522 takes the directive addressed to Joshua in Num 27:21 to be applicable to political rulers in general. The Apocryphon apparently reworked the biblical story of Joshua from the perspective of the supremacy of the priesthood, a notion cherished by the Qumran sectaries and related circles.35

C. The Curse of Joshua A third passage relevant to our discussion is 4Q379 22 ii. It differs from both 4Q379 12 and 4Q522 9 ii, in that it introduces a pesherlike interpretation of a biblical text. 33

Cf. b. Yoma 73b; b. Sanhedrin 49b. Cf. b. Yoma 73b; b. Sanhedrin 49a. Similarly Philo, De Virt. 70. Compare Josephus, Ant. 4:165. 35 See the survey of this notion in the sectarian and related literature by C. A. Evans, “Messiahs,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:539–40. 34

devorah dimant

122

4Q379 22 ii

r]ça μdah ]° ° [ ]°l ]hrO°° yO wb hl]sOmw lybç larç]y( yhla hwhy ˚wrb ]°°°[ ]°[ ]laO [rmayw wy]t)wl)htb t[w]d)w([hlw ll]hO[l ][)[w]ç)y( h)[l]k) rça t[b [hndsyy w]r)kbb t)azh rO[y[h] ta h)[n]by rça ç)y[( ah rwr]a) [l[ylb rwra çya ]h)n(h)w vac h)y(tldbyxy[ wr]y([[) x]b)w( [d]m[w w[y]nkç) lkl htjmw wm[l çwqy jp t)[wyhl dmw[] [t]aO wnbw wbçw smj ylk μhynç twyhl ˆ([ ] [zw[l ]twç[l μyldgmw hmwj hl wbyxyw taz[h ry[h]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[hdwhybw]μyrpab hyrwr[çw larçyb

[μd wk]p)çw bq[y ynbb hldg h[r)wçO[[w [çr] 13 [ˆwyx tb lj l[ μ]y(mk( hldg hxanw xrab( [hpwnj wç[w] 14 [ ]°°°°°[ μlçwry qwjbw] 15

Notes on Reading36 The column is a join of two fragments. Lines 1–7 are inscribed on a fragment that has also preserved part of column i, and is seen separately on photo PAM 41.784. Lines 8–11 were preserved in another fragment, seen separately on photo PAM 41.778. The joint was effected at an early stage of the research, as evinced on photo PAM 42.818. Lines 7–15 overlap 4Q175 21–30 with several variant readings. Col i L. 4 hl]sOmw lybç. The reading is clear on photo PAM 41.784. For the samech before the lacuna compare the same letter in the word smj in col. ii line 11. L. 8 ç)y[( ah. Very tiny traces of the two letters are seen on photo PAM 41.778. The reading is proposed following the overlap in 4Q175. L. 9 h)y(tldbyxy[. The two words are written as one. A tiny tip of the first letter can still be seen on the photos. [l[ylb rwra çya ]h)n(h)w. Supplemented from the overlapping in 4Q175. Neither on photo PAM 42.818 nor PAM 43.367 is there any evidence for Newsom’s reading [l[ylb çy]a) r)w[( ra]h)n(h)w. L. 10 t)[wyhl dmw[]. The reading is supplemented from the overlap in 4Q175. There is no manuscript evidence for Newsom’s reading [dmw[ t[wy]h)l].

36 The edition is based on that of Newsom, “4QApocryphon of Joshuab,” DJD 22.278–9. It was freshly rechecked against photos PAM 41.778, 42.818, 43.217, 43.367, with a few improvements. Newsom’s edition is reproduced in conjunction with the reedition of 4Q175 by F. M. Cross, “Testimonia,” in Charlesworth, Pesharim, Other Commentaries and Related Documents, 326.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

123

L. 13 hldg h[r)wçO[[w. The shin is still recognizable on photo PAM 42.818 and the following waw is quite visible. Of the following resh only a trace of the lower part of the vertical stroke has survived (see photos PAM 42.818 and 43.217). The scribe had written the two words as one (compare a similar phenomenon in l. 9). The parallel words in 4Q175 27 are missing, but the first editor John Allegro supplied there larçyb[ hldg h[rw.37

Translation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13 14 15

the man wh[o ...[ in it and . . . . . . [ a path and a ro[ad blessed be the Lord God of I[srael God . . . [ ] . . . [ When Josh[u]a fin[is]hed [pr]ai[sing and giving] than[ks] with [his] songs of praise [he said:] C[ursed be the m]an who rebu[il]ds this [ci]ty. With [his] firstborn [shall he lay its foundations] And with [his yo]ung[est] shall he set up its doors. vacat And behold, [an accursed, wicked man] [is about]to b[e] a fowler’s snare to his people and a terror to all hi[s] neighbors. He will be abo[ut] [to ], the two of them being vessels of violence. They will again build [t]his [city], and they will establish for it a wall and towers in order to make [a stronghold] in Israel and a horrible thing in Ephraim [and in Judah ] [of wickedness, and they will m]ake a great evil among the sons of Jacob. And [they] will po[ur out blood] [ and they will make ungodliness] in the land and a great disgrace like wa[ter upon the rampart of the Daughter of Zion] [and on the wall of Jerusalem] . . . [ ]

The surviving lines of the column fall into two distinct parts. Lines 1–6 produce the final section of a non-biblical discourse pronounced by Joshua, as stated by the following narrative conclusion. Judging from the remaining lines of 4Q379 22 i, this discourse must have begun in a section of the previous column. The style, the concluding benediction formula (l. 4), and the explicit reference to praises (twlht— l. 7) in the narrative indicate that the surviving discourse is a prayer. 37 Cf. “175. Testimonia,” in Qumran Cave 4.I (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 57–60, p. 58.

124

devorah dimant

The fragmentary state of this section does not allow a more precise idea of its content and orientation. The surviving words hl]sOmw lybç may allude to the miraculous Jordan crossing, thus indicating that the passage consisted of a thanksgiving prayer following this event.38 Its presence is important for the reconstruction of the general character and sequence of the Apocryphon. It clearly shows that the following citation and interpretation of Joshua’s curse were in line with the general character of this work.39 The narrative in line 7 introduces another discourse of Joshua, of which only the first part has survived. This time it concerns the curse that will fall upon the person who will build “this city”: Jericho, according to the MT of Josh 6:26. The curse is quoted verbatim, followed by an interpretation. This subject occupies the remaining lines of the column (8–15). This biblical quotation with its exposition is cited by another Qumran text, 4QTestimonia (4Q175), first published nearly fifty years ago.40 Since the quotation in 4Q175 is clearly engaged in an interpretation that actualizes Joshua’s curse, scholarly discussion in the past centered on identifying the historical circumstances alluded to in the interpretation.41 This issue lies beyond the scope of the present study.42 However, for our purpose it is important to elucidate the nature of the biblical exegesis involved in the passage. It has long been recognized that the interpretation of Joshua’s malediction is effected by exegetical methods known from the Qumran pesharim. These features emerge more clearly from the citation in the 4Q175 version, which preserves the correct sequence, whereas the text of 4Q379 is muddled through parablepsis. The scribe later inserted the omitted words above l. 13. For a clear view of the interpretative technique used by the passage

38 Note the use of hlsm in Isa 11:16 in an allusion to Exodus, an event analogical to the Jordan crossing. Cf. the discussion of 4Q379 12 above. 39 This fact invalidates Hanan Eshel’s claim that the Apocryphon cites 4Q175 rather than the reverse. See n. 11 above and Discussion below. 40 Cf. J. M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 182–87. Final edition: DJD 5.57–60. For review and corrections see J. Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’,” RevQ 7 (1970): 175–229. 41 For a survey and bibliography on the subject see A. Steudel, “Testimonia,” in Schiffman and VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:936–38. 42 The historical setting alluded to by the author of the Apocryphon is not necessarily the one intended by 4QTestimonia when it copied the passage as remarked by Newsom.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

125

the combined text is reproduced below.43 The MT text of Josh 6:26 is copied above the Qumran text to show the textual variants. 4Q379 22 ii

8–15

+ 4Q175 21–3044

(wjyry ta tazh ry[h ta hnbw μwqy rça ùh ynpl çyah rwra

Josh 6:26MT)

tazh ry[h ta hnby rça çyah rwra 4Q175 4Q379 (hytld byxy wry[xbw hndsyy wrkbb MT) vac hytld byxy wry[xbw hndsyy wrkbb 4Q175/4Q379 dmw[ l[ylb{rja}rwraçya hnhw 4Q175/4Q379 lkl htjmw wm[l çwqy jp twyhl wynkç ylk μhynç twyhl ˆ[ ] dm[w taz[h ry[h] ta wnbw wbçw smj [çr zw[l twç[l μyldgmw hmwj hl wbyxyw hdwhybw μyrpab hyrwr[çw larçyb hldg h[r w[ç[w] bq[y ynbb hldg hxanw ≈rab hpwnj wç[[w] . . . μlçwry qwjbw ˆwyx tb lj l[ μymk μ[d wk]pçw Translation of the combined text “Cursed be the man who will rebuild this city. With his firstborn he shall lay its foundations, and with his younger son he shall set up its gates.” vacat And behold an accursed man, wicked man is about to become a fowler’s snare to his people, and a terror to all his neighbors. He will be about [to ] . . ., the two of them being vessels of violence. They will again build [t]his[ city], and they will establish for it a wall and towers in order to make wickedness a stronghold [and] they [will] make a great evil in Israel and a horrible thing in Ephraim and in Judah [and] they [will ma]ke ungodliness in the land and a great disgrace in the sons of Jacob. And [they] will po[ur out bl]ood like water on the rampart of the Daughter of Zion and on the wall of Jerusalem . . .

43 The text is cited in the order of 4Q175. In square brackets are marked letters not found in either 4Q379 or 4Q175. 44 4Q175 is introduced only where the text of 4Q379 22 is fragmentary or missing. The orthographic peculiarities of 4Q175 are not reproduced.

126

devorah dimant

Comments on the combined text

hnhw. Here the adverb hnh introduces the future, as it often does in biblical prophecies (e.g. 1 Sam 20:17; Isa 39:6; Jer 7:32). The same construction appears in 4Q522 9 ii 3 (cf. above).45 tazh ry[h. As was recognized in the past, the quotation of Joshua’s curse ( Josh 6:26) is introduced here in a version similar to that of the LXX.46 It diverges from the Massoretic Text in several details, but the most significant ones are two omissions: The Apocryphon’s citation does not include the words ùh ynpl (“before the Lord”), and it does not have the specification wjyry ta (“Jericho”). The omission of Jericho also occurs in the LXX version of the same verse. The Apocryphon and the LXX may thus attest to a different textual tradition for Josh 6:26. The choice by the Apocryphon of this particular version was seemingly not accidental. It facilitated the application of the curse to Jerusalem. This interpretation was also supported by the expression tazh ry[h (“this city”), which in biblical parlance usually refers to Jerusalem.47 That this was the understanding of the Apocryphon’s author is confirmed by the explicit mention of Jerusalem at the end of the exposition. The space left after the citation indicates that the phrases that follow move to the exposition of the curse. In a manner typical of other pesharim known from Qumran the exposition begins with the identification of some of the terms in the citation with the historical figures of interest to the author (l. 9). {rja} rwra hnhw. This is the reading of 4Q175 23, with the word rja erased and the word çya inserted above the line between hnhw and rwra. 4Q379 22 ii 9 has not preserved the corresponding text.48 The interpretation begins by identifying the biblical collocation with a nonbiblical figure. It turns the biblical general curse formula çyah rwra into a statement about a specific person rwra çya. 45

See my comment in Dimant, “The Apocryphon of Joshua,” 187. Cf. the detailed analysis by L. Mazor, “The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of Jericho,” Textus 14 (1988): 2–7. 47 Mazor, ibid., 7, notes that more than fifty occurrences of this locution in the Bible refer to Jerusalem. 48 Cf. the note on the reading of this line, p. 122 above. Lim reads rw[ra] hnhw. l[ylb çya]. Cf. T. H. Lim, “The ‘Psalms of Joshua’ (4Q379 fr. 22 col. 2): A Reconsideration of its Text,” JJS 44 (1993): 310. 46

between sectarian and non-sectarian

127

This is done by converting the biblical predicate rwra into an adjective, a kind of sobriquet for someone referred to as çya.

l[ylb {dja} rwra . The interpretation further qualifies the person in question by the adjective l[ylb. There is no textual or contextual basis for understanding the word as the name of the archdemon Belial of the sectarian literature (e.g. 1QS 1:18; 1QM 4:1–2; CD 4:15).49 It is preferable to connect the term with the biblical collocation l[ylb çya “a wicked man” (cf. e.g. 1 Sam 25:25; Prov 16:27).

wynkç lkl htjmw wm[l çwqy jp twyhl dmw[. Having identified the main

figure the exposition goes on to describe the character and doings of the person invoked. It does so by combining two locutions from different biblical prophecies Hos 9:8 and Jer 42:29.

twyhl dmw[. This is a late collocation, using the periphrastic future with the auxiliary verb dm[, well known in Mishnaic Hebrew. It echoes the future verbs of the biblical phrase (byxy ,hnby). The linguistic difference between the quotation and its interpretation emphasizes the late character of the exposition.

wynkç lkl htjmw. Newsom understood the noun htjm in the sense of “ruin” (cf. Ps 89:41; see HALOT 572). However, better suited to the context is the sense of “terror,” also attested in biblical parlance (cf. Isa 54:14; Jer 17:17).

wm[l çwqy jp. The phrase describes the figure presented previously as “cursed, evil man.” He was to be “a fowler’s snare” (çwqy jp), namely an obstacle to his people. The collocation çwqy jp appears twice in the Bible (Hos 9:8; Ps 91:3); the negative context of the allusion here points to Hos 9:8 as the source. The allusion certainly plays a part in the depiction of the wicked man. It explains why the person in question is in fact cursed (rwra) and wicked (l[ylb). For a similar expression çqwmw jp see Josh 23:13 and Isa 8:14.

49 Therefore the translation “a wicked man” rather than the one offered by Newsom (“the m[an of Belial]”—DJD 22.280). Allegro translates the 4Q175 overlap in a similar way: “the one of Belial” (DJD 5.60).

128

devorah dimant

w[y]nkç lkl htjmw. The wording draws on Jer 48:29. The biblical prophecy speaks of Moab but the Qumran author relates the words to the person he is describing. The locutions from Hosea and Jeremiah expand and emphasize the evil character of the figure mentioned in the initial statement. Since he is identified as the person in whom the curse is fulfilled, he must have two sons. The following lacuna at the beginning of l. 9 probably contained a statement to this effect and connected this person’s activities with his sons. smj ylk μhynç twyhl. The mention of two figures (μhynç) goes back

to the two sons in Joshua’s curse, the first-born and the younger. “Vessels of violence” is a unique collocation, taken from the blessing of Jacob to Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:5). The biblical blessing uses the figure of vessels in an instrumental sense to describe the nature of their doings. The choice of this unique expression suggested itself to the Qumran author precisely because it applies to two brothers. But in the Qumran passage the sons themselves become “vessels of violence” (smj ylk). The expression is thus turned into a description of both character and actions.50 Additionally, the choice of the construct pair smj ylk may have been influenced by the meaning attributed to the term smj in the writings of the Qumran community. Well known is the accusation leveled in the Pesher on Habakkuk against the Wicked Priest: he “hoarded wealth from violent men” (ˆwh ≈wbqyw—1QpHab 8:11). A similar accusation against the priests is made in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390 2 i 10). The author of the concluding hymn in the Rule of the Community asserts that he does not covet wealth of violence (yçpn hwat al smj ˆwhlw—1QS 10:19), while the apocryphal, nonsectarian Apostrophe to Zion envisions the eschatological future when Jerusalem will be purged of violence (rhf ˚wgm smj—11QPsa 22:6).

wnbw wbçw. The expression takes up the words of the biblical curse hnby rça and applies it to the two sons. Note that the Qumran interpretation converts the biblical simple imperfect into a periphrastic verb with the auxiliary bwç, a distinctly late construction. 50 Eshel, “Historical Background,” 415–16, thinks that the Genesis verse about Simon and Levi was selected because in the biblical story the two destroyed Shechem; therefore, it could be applied to the two sons of John Hyrcanus I, Aristobulus I and Antigonus, who conquered Samaria in 108 BCE.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

129

taz[h ry[h] ta. This is an actual quotation of the biblical formulation. Since it stands without explicit mention of Jericho, the formula seems to refer to Jerusalem.

hl wbyxyw. This takes up another element of the biblical citation (byxy). However, in Joshua’s curse this verb is applied only to the younger son whereas here it refers to both sons and therefore it is in the plural. μyldgmw hmwj hl. The corresponding word in the biblical text is hytld (“her doors”). The 3d pers. fem. pronominal suffix indicates that the doors of the city are meant. The Qumran interpretation substitutes for the “doors,” “a wall and towers” (μyldgmw hmwj—a locution taken from 2 Chr 14:6), and the suffixed pronoun by the word hl (“for it”). Note that the Chronicler adds there μyjyrbw μytld, perhaps a peg on which the Qumran pesher hung the connection of Joshua’s curse with this verse.

[çr zw[l twç[l. This statement interprets the building of a wall and towers as “making of wickedness a stronghold.” If a real historical event is alluded to here, it is interesting to see how it is reflected in the pesher technique. The locution, “a wall and towers,” represents the actual fact, while the explanatory gloss “to make wickedness a stronghold” interprets the meaning of the deed.

hdwhybw μyrpab hyrwr[çw larçyb hldg h[r wç[w. Thus reads the combined text of 4Q175 and 4Q379. Initially the scribe of 4Q379 omitted part of the text through parablepsis by skipping the phrase from the word hldg in this line to the same word in the next line. He inserted it by a supralinear addition.

hldg h[r) wçO[[w]. This is the reading of 4Q379 22 ii

13.

The parallel text of 4Q175 has a lacuna here, filled by John Allegro [h[rw hlwdg]. There is no manuscript evidence for Newsom’s reading of 4Q379 22 ii 13 hldg h[ç[r.51 For the formulation see Jer 26:19; 44:7; Neh 13:27. 51 Lim, “The ‘Psalms of Joshua’,” 311, noted the difficulty involved in Newsom’s reading. His own reading is more in line with visible traces in the photographs: hldg h[rw[.

130

devorah dimant

hdwhybw μyrpab hyrwr[çw. Cf. Hos 6:10. Note Jer 5:30: 18:13. ≈rab hpwnj wç[[w]. This has survived in 4Q175

28, but only partly in 4Q379 22 ii 14. However, together with the corrected reading in 4Q379 22 ii 13, it appears that in the original text the verb wç[w seems to have occurred twice, as reconstructed above. For the expression see Jer 23:15.

hldg hxanw. Cf. Neh 9:18, 26. μymk μ[d wk]pçw. Cf. Ps 79:3. Compare 1 Macc 1:37. ˆwyx tb lj l[. Cf. Lam 2:8: hmwjw lje lbayw . . . ˆwyx tb tmwj tyjçhl. μlçwry qwjbw. The context and the parallelism with lje (“rampart”) indicates that qwj is to be understood a “wall, fence,” as in Mic 7:11 and CD 4:12. Although the last words are not preserved by 4Q379 22 ii, the reference to walls of Jerusalem confirms the understanding that the entire exposition applies the biblical curse to Jerusalem rather than to Jericho. Discussion Although lacking the formal terminology and structure known from the Qumran pesharim, the exposition of the biblical curse makes use of pesher exegetical techniques. The part of the interpretation that in running pesharim is introduced by the term wrçp (“its interpretation”) is here presented by the word hnhw (“behold”). The selection of this word, taken from biblical prophecies, emphasizes that what follows concerns the future. That a prophecy is put in the mouth of Joshua is not surprising. It reflects a well known tradition that attributes prophetic gifts to the faithful servant of Moses and leader who conducted the conquest of Canaan.52 This tradition is undoubtedly assumed here, as it is in 4Q522 9 ii, both of which attest to the tradition’s antiquity. According to the Apocryphon, Joshua pronounced both the malediction and its realization in a subsequent period. From 52 Cf. Sir 46:1; L.A.B. 21:6; 24:3; Josephus, Ant. 4.165; 5.20; LXX variants, Tg. Onkelos, and Tg. Ps.Jonathan to Num 27:18; Mek. Beshalla˙ to Exod 14:13; Num. Rabb. 12:9.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

131

the narrative perspective the fulfillment of the curse lies in the distant future. Apparently this configuration prevented the author from attributing to Joshua a formal pesher of his own curse, since by definition a pesher is created by a commentator posterior to the prophetic utterance. The fulfillment of the malediction had therefore to be formulated as a “prophecy.” Yet this “prophecy” is clearly molded in pesher forms. Like the pesharim, Joshua’s prophecy identifies the “man” of the biblical curse with a “cursed man, a wicked one” (l[ylb rwra çya). The detailed nonbiblical description of this personage indicates that a specific historical figure is involved. He is about to be a snare to his people and ruinous to his neighbors. The two sons of the curse are equated with the two sons of this cursed man, who will be engaged in building of “this city” (tazh ry[h), undoubtedly Jerusalem. Even if the terminology and stylistic conventions of the pesher are not employed here, the exegetical procedures are known chiefly from the pesharim of the Qumran community. As a literary genre and a technique of biblical interpretation the pesher has been identified most often in overtly sectarian works. Therefore its presence in the Apocryphon of Joshua, considered to be nonsectarian, has puzzled students of this writing. In her DJD edition Carol Newsom left the puzzle unsolved. In a subsequent article Hanan Eshel has suggested that it is the Apocryphon of Joshua that cites the pesher from 4QTestimonia (4Q175), a sectarian text, rather than the reverse.53 In support of his contention, Eshel argues that the passage under consideration is the only pesher found in the extant fragments of the Apocryphon of Joshua and that it therefore seems out of place. While this pesher is indeed the only one to have survived in the extant fragments, it is not clear how its supposed uniqness supports the claim that 4Q379 copied the pesher from 4Q175. Moreover, as noted above, this pesher is presented as prophecy, and another prophecy is attributed to Joshua in 4Q522 9 ii. Eshel further remarks on the fact that the omission by parablepsis and the correction added above the lines by the scribe of 4Q379 prove that he copied his text from another exemplar. In Eshel’s opinion, the fact that such corrections are absent from 4Q175 supports his argument that 4Q175 produces the original version of the pesher of the curse of Joshua. 53 Cf. H. Eshel, “The Historical Background”; idem, “A Note.” See n. 38 above. For similar criticism of Eshel’s arguments see also Lim, “The ‘Psalms of Joshua’,” 309 n. 8.

132

devorah dimant

However, 4Q175 contains six supralinear insertions in the citations of biblical passages. It is unlikely that in writing the fourth quotation the scribe suddenly switched to his own composition. Eshel also asserts that the absence of the tetragrammaton from the pesher section is a mark of its lateness. Given the brevity of the section, such a conclusion is unwarranted. In fact, the MT version of the quotation of the curse ( Josh 6:34) does include the locution ùh ynpl (“before the Lord”) and its absence from the Apocryphon may reflect a variant biblical text rather than a late origin.54 Eshel’s arguments are therefore tenuous and do not support his claim. His suggestion should be discarded also on literary grounds, for it goes against the character of both 4Q175 and the Apocryphon of Joshua. 4Q175 is a collection of quotations and there is no reason to suppose that the last section is any different. A fourth section not of quotations, but composed by the collector himself, would be out of character.55 In addition, the section assigned to Joshua is introduced in 4Q175 as a quotation. There is no need to assume that this introduction was invented only to harmonize with the introductions of other citations.56 Lastly, the quotation of Joshua’s discourse stands unconnected in 4Q175, whereas it is perfectly integrated into the structure and context of the Apocryphon of Joshua as a reworking of episodes related to this leader.57 No reason exists, therefore, to reject the prevailing scholarly view that 4QTestimonia quotes the Apocryphon of Joshua rather than the reverse. Furthermore, the pesher on Joshua’s curse is not the only

54

In the opinion of Eugene Ulrich the version of MT to Josh 6:26 is secondary, whereas the one quoted by the Apocryphon is older. Cf. idem, “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls found at Qumran,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library, 2002), 189. 55 On basis of material data of 4Q175 Annette Steudel suggests that it may be an autograph. Cf. idem, “Testimonia,” 936. However, this observation does not affect the literary arguments one way or another. Several features of 4Q175, pointed out by John Lübbe, suggest a single literary framework. Cf. idem, “A Reinterpretation of 4QTestimonia,” RevQ 12 (1985): 186–97. Less convincing is his attempt to see in all the biblical quotations therein allusions to the Qumran community and its leaders. 56 As argued by Eshel, “The Historical Background.” 57 Eshel wrote his essay following Newsom’s first publication, where the Apocryphon was still labeled the Psalms of Joshua (cf. above n. 11). The fact that there are no psalms in these texts was taken by Eshel as support for his contention that the author of the pesher did not compose the Psalms of Joshua. In itself this fact does not provide any support for Eshel’s claim. Moreover, from the data available today it is clear that the work under consideration was not confined to psalms alone but included various types of discourses. Indeed, psalms of praise would have been perfectly in place within it even if none have survived.

between sectarian and non-sectarian

133

case of affinity with sectarian thinking in the Apocryphon, and therefore need not to be expunged from it. In fact, it may be argued that pesher methods were also practiced outside the strict circle of the Ya˙ad community. Actually Qumran offers an interesting parallel to the Apocryphon of Joshua, namely the text known as Commentary on Genesis (4Q252). This text parallels the Apocryphon in two ways. First, it reworks biblical narrative, but in describing the Flood it notes the various phases of this cataclysm according to the solar calendar (4Q252 1 and 2). Second, it introduces a pesher-like interpretation of the blessing to Judah from Gen 49:10 (4Q252 6 5). Nevertheless, there is an important difference between the Apocryphon of Joshua and 4Q252. The pesher on the blessing of Judah in 4Q252 contains a distinctive sectarian term yçna djyh, a clear sign of its sectarian provenance. In the surviving fragments of the Apocryphon, no such explicit sectarian term is to be found. Interestingly, the same 4Q252 also introduces a non-pesher literal interpretation of Gen 49:4 under the title rçp (4Q252 5 5). Two other instances show that the term pesher was used in more than one way. The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) announces its theme by the introduction of the term pesher, but does not produce pesher-type comments on biblical prophecies. Instead it treats a general theme through various biblical quotations. The term μhyrçp also occurs in a text which is not a pesher (1Q30 1 6). These references should deter us from defining the pesher as a strictly sectarian genre and as one confined to the actualization of specific biblical prophecies. Both the term pesher and pesher-type exegesis may have had wider circulation, as is suggested by pesher-like interpretations in the biblical Daniel (Dan 9:2; 24–27 interpreting Jer 25:11, 29:10 and Dan 11:30 alluding to Num 24:24), and in the New Testament (e.g. Matt 3:2, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4–6, and John 1:23, referring to Isa 40:3). Nevertheless, pesher appears as an exegetical technique only in the literature of the community and works related to it and therefore it seems to be associated with these particular circles.

Conclusion Let me conclude with a recapitulation of our initial problem of classification. The Apocryphon of Joshua presents us with a text that is not easily definable according the usual dichotomy between sectarian and nonsectarian. It uses none of the specific and distinctive sectarian

134

devorah dimant

terminology and does not elaborate ideas that became the hallmark of the sectarian literature. Yet it maintains ideas shared by the sectarian literature and a wider group of texts affiliated with the Ya˙ad. Significantly, these elements of affinity are of general and generic character: the jubilees’ chronology in 4Q379 12, the precedence of the priestly leadership over the political in 4Q522 9 ii, and the pesher technique in 4Q379 22 ii. Moreover, these notions are precisely those shared by works affiliated with the community, but not identical with it, such as the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. This fact favors the view that the Apocryphon belongs to a group of works that share a number of notions with the community, but which also evidence perhaps an even wider frame of thought. The Apocryphon should therefore be assigned to a different category. As I suggested at the beginning, an intermediate category may accommodate such writings, which stand between sectarian and nonsectarian texts. Once this category is defined, other Qumran candidates for it duly appear: the Temple Scroll, the Book of Jubilees, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, the Words of the Luminaries, and the like. Thus, introducing a third category of texts may open new perspectives on fundamental questions of Qumran research, such as nature of the Qumran library, its milieu, and its provenance.

BURYING THE FATHERS: EXEGETICAL STRATEGIES AND SOURCE TRADITIONS IN JUBILEES 46 Betsy Halpern-Amaru Vassar College

In the biblical text a compact synopsis at the beginning of the Book of Exodus develops a narrative flow between the close of the patriarchal era and the beginning of Israelite history. These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each coming with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan, and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. The total number of persons that were of Jacob’s issue came to seventy, Joseph being already in Egypt. Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them. A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph (Exod 1:1–8).1

The notably concise transition narrative immediately focuses the reader toward the enslavement of the Israelites, which it associates with the growth of Jacob’s small, extended family of seventy souls into an enormous Israelite population and with the loss of protection afforded by Joseph’s reputation and/or influence within the royal circle when a new monarch ascends the throne of Egypt. The centrifugal point in the shift from the patriarchal period to the Israelite era is Joseph’s death, and the details of the transition are submerged in its light. Events hitherto unreported in the biblical narrative, i.e., the deaths of Joseph’s brothers and of the entire emigrant generation, the multiplication in Israelite numbers, and the relationship between the Israelites and the Egyptian power structure, are no more detailed than are the brief references to episodes fully elaborated upon in Genesis. In his interpretive reworking of the closing chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of Exodus the author of the Book of Jubilees takes 1 All biblical quotations are from the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999).

136

betsy halpern-amaru

advantage of the underdevelopment of the transition in the biblical text to create a different narrative bridge. Rearranging key elements from Exod 1:1–8 into new contexts, he develops a transition in which the death of Joseph is neither a turning point in the narrative nor of major significance in Israelite history. Other historical circumstances precede and precipitate the enslavement of Jacob’s descendants in Egypt. The foil for their presentation is the addition of two burial narratives, both of which suggest the influence of a tradition that also appears in the Qumran fragments 4Q543–4Q547 (4QVisions of Amram ar).2 Focusing on three pericopes, Jub. 46:1–3, 4–7, 8–11, this paper examines those burial narratives within the context of an exploration of the exegetical strategies that Jubilees employs in the development of its own transition narrative. The starting point for the Jubilees reconstruction is the establishment of a periodization that closes the patriarchal era, not with the death of Joseph, but rather with the death of Jacob. The author of Jubilees retains the biblical notice of the growth of the Israelite population as the primary marker for the shift to a new epoch, but detaches that notice from its association with the deaths of Joseph, his brothers, and the emigrant generation in Exodus 1 and moves it to immediately after the death of Jacob: After the death of Jacob, the children of Israel became numerous in the land of Egypt. They became a populous nation, and all of them were of the same mind so that each one loved the other and each one helped the other. They became numerous and increased very much— even for ten weeks of years—for all of Joseph’s lifetime. There was no satan or any evil one throughout all of Joseph’s lifetime that he lived after his father Jacob because all of the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel for all of Joseph’s lifetime. Joseph died when he was 110 years of age. He had lived for 17 years in the land of Canaan; for 10 years he remained enslaved; he was in prison for 3 years; and for 80 years he was ruling the entire land of Egypt ( Jub. 46:1–3).3

Taking exegetical advantage of a reference to the attendance of “the sons of Israel/Israelites” at Joseph’s deathbed in Gen 50:25,4 the

2

Reconstructed by Émile Puech, the fragments were published in Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes Araméens (DJD 31; ed. É. Puech; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 283–405. 3 All citations of Jubilees are from the translation of J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; Louvain: Peeters, 1989). A fragment of Jub. 46:1–3 is preserved in 2Q20 1. See Texts des Grottes 2Q , 3Q ,6Q , 7Q A 10Q (DJD 3; ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, R. de Vaux; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 79. 4 In Gen 50:24–25 Joseph instructs “his brothers” to bring his bones along when

burying the fathers

137

author of Jubilees uses the rearrangement to develop a chronology that, like Gen 47:27 but in contrast to Exod 1:6–7, places the great growth of population well within Joseph’s lifetime.5 He sets the notice into an earlier context and replaces a family story—the encounter between Joseph and his brothers after their return from the burial of Jacob (Gen 50:15–21)—with a national one that begins the account of Israelite history immediately after the death of Jacob, and most significantly, within the lifetime of Joseph. Repetition of the notice, an echo of the dual announcements of Exod 1:7 and Exod 1:20,6 creates a frame for a broad description of the community of Israelites living in Egypt over a seventy-year period that, like the transition narrative of Exod 1:1–7, extends from Jacob’s descent to Egypt to the death of Joseph.7 The precise wording of the depiction of intra-Israelite relations during that period in Egypt has no biblical parallel. That they were “of the same mind” may be responding to the grammatical construction of MT Exod 1:20 where the singular subject (μ[) is preceded by a verb in the singular (bryw) and followed by a verb in the plural (wmx[yw).8 On the other hand, the description of the love each they leave Egypt. Immediately thereafter he elicits an oath for the same from ynb larçy, which could be understood either as a reference to “the sons of Israel/Jacob” or to the “children of Israel”/“Israelites.” In the Genesis deathbed testament scenes the names ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ are alternately used for the third patriarch (Gen 47:28–29; 48:3, 8; 49:1–2, 29). 5 Although the description in Gen 47:27 specifically relates to the years of famine in Egypt, it provides an exegetical invitation for the Jubilees chronology which, in contrast to Exod 1:6–7, has the population growth occurring even before Jacob’s death. On the significance of the sequence in Exodus, where the growth of the Israelite population follows the deaths of Joseph, his brothers, and all that generation, see U. Cassuto on Exod 1:6–7 (Commentary on the Book of Exodus [4th ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965] [Hebrew]). 6 In Exodus the second reference to the growth of the Israelite population (1:20) appears in the context of the narrative of the midwives (Exod 1:15–21). That pericope is omitted in Jubilees. 7 The wording of Jub. 46:1 seems to suggest that the 70-year period begins “after the death of Jacob” and extends “for all of Joseph’s lifetime” ( Jub. 46:1). However, since there is a span of only 53 years between the deaths of Jacob and Joseph, the chronology works only if the 70-year era in which “they became numerous and increased very much” begins with Jacob’s arrival in Egypt in 2172 ( Jub. 45:1). 8 dwam wmx[yw μ[h bryw twdlyml μyhla bfyyw (Exod 1:20). The Samaritan Pentateuch, Tg. Ps-J, and some Syriac manuscripts consistently use the plural. (See the textual note in W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 [New York: Doubleday, 1998], 137). Unfortunately, the original Hebrew of Jub. 46:1 is not preserved in the 2Q20 1 fragment. The Ge'ez translation employs a plural form of the verb baz˙a (baz˙u) where the subject is “the children of Israel” and a single form of the participle with the noun “nation” (bezu˙).

138

betsy halpern-amaru

felt for the other may have an earlier narrative in Jubilees as its point of reference. In the final testament that the author of Jubilees has Isaac deliver to Esau and Jacob, the dying patriarch instructs his two sons to “practice brotherly love among yourselves . . . like a man who loves himself, with each aiming at doing what is good for his brother and at doing things together on the earth” ( Jub. 36:3–4). The two brothers vow to live accordingly. Initially the vow is kept; but subsequently, Esau and his sons violate it; and a war ensues between the sons of Jacob and sons of Esau ( Jub. 36:7–11; 37–38:14). Insofar as the language of the current passage recalls that earlier scenario, it sets the era after Jacob’s death in sharp relief over against the period after the death of Isaac. The phrase used to describe the overall Israelite experience in Egypt—“there was no satan and no evil one”—would support such a reading. Drawn from Solomon’s explanation to Hiram about why the building of the Temple was forbidden during the reign of David, but then permitted in Solomon’s own reign (1 Kgs 5:18), it makes a comparable, but more explicit, contrast between generations. In its description of relationship between the Israelites and the Egyptians, Jubilees in no way belittles the extent of Joseph’s influence— “all of the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel for all of Joseph’s lifetime.” Attribution of that kind of significance to Joseph is not troublesome to the author. The problem for him is significance in the realm of spiritual authority; specifically, any suggestion that, of all Jacob’s sons, a spiritually privileged Joseph stands in closest proximity to the legacy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Every inference of such a quality adhering to Joseph is deleted in the Jubilees reworking of the closing chapters of Genesis. The elaborate deathbed testaments in the narrative of Jacob’s death (Genesis 48–50) are reduced to a simple testament scene involving all of Jacob’s sons (45:14).9 There is no privileging of Joseph; to the contrary, of the 9 In Genesis, Jacob has three testament scenes—one involving Joseph alone (Gen 47:28–31), a second with Joseph and his two sons (Genesis 48), and a third with all of the sons together (Genesis 49). The author of Jubilees keeps only the scene with all of the sons, where he reduces the individual blessings of Genesis 49 to a single generalized statement. He deletes the Joseph-focused material and transfers its central motifs and even some of its language to his expanded accounts of the deaths of Abraham and Isaac. Thus, it is Abraham, not Jacob, who presents three deathbed testaments—one addressed to a gathering of all his progeny ( Jub. 20:1–11); another to the son who is immediate heir ( Jub. 21:1–25); and, a third to the spiritual heir, his grandson, Jacob ( Jub. 22:10–24). Similarly, it is Isaac, not Joseph, who “fell on

burying the fathers

139

sons, it is Levi who stands out, for Jacob “gave all his books and the books of his father to his son Levi so that he could preserve them and renew them for his sons until today” ( Jub. 45:16). In Jubilees the elevation of Joseph is in the public forum, not within the context of the family. There is no encounter between Joseph and the brothers after Jacob’s burial; no narrative of the anxious brothers ascribing words to their father on his deathbed (Gen 50:16–17) that he does not say in the earlier passage (Gen 49:28–32); and no depiction of a Joseph, knowledgeable in the ways of God, reassuring insecure brothers who, in fulfillment of Joseph’s visions as a lad (Gen 37:6–9; also omitted in Jubilees), extend obeisance to him (Gen 50:18–21). Instead, the author of Jubilees offers a description of the untroubled relations among the Israelites, as well as between them and the Egyptians, during the years that Joseph “lived after his father Jacob” ( Jub. 46:2). The substitution not only avoids a problematic scene, but also provides a chronology that permits all of Jacob’s sons, not just Joseph, whom the biblical narrative privileges in a pointed note (Gen 50:23),10 to see generations of their progeny. Similar strategies—alteration of chronology, substitution of national for family context, and deconstruction of the biblical characterization of Joseph—are evident in the Jubilees treatment of Joseph’s death. The biblical deathbed scene, so rich with innuendo in Gen 50:24–25, is replaced by a paraphrase that makes no mention of the brothers and substantially alters the instructions Joseph gives regarding his burial—“Before he died he ordered the Israelites to take his bones along at the time they would leave the land of Egypt” ( Jub. 46:5). Exegetically, the absenting of the brothers from the visible cast of characters is suggested by the complexity in the biblical scenario that has Joseph addressing both “his brothers” and “the children/sons of Israel ( Jacob)” (Gen 50:24–25). That passage, which had offered his father’s face, cried, and kissed him” ( Jub. 23:5 citing Gen 50:1); and it is Judah and Levi, the preeminent sons of Jacob, not the two sons of Joseph, who accompany their father to the sickbed of the senior patriarch where, kissed and embraced, they receive special blessings at the right and left hands of their grandfather ( Jub. 31:8–23, adopting the context and some of the language of Gen 48:1–20). 10 The biblical narrative describes Joseph as living to see “children of the third generation of Ephraim; the children of Machir son of Manasseh were likewise born upon Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23). Since the description immediately precedes the covenant-referenced instructions he gives regarding transport of his bones to Canaan, it suggests that Joseph’s longevity permitted him in particular to see partial fulfillment of the promise of great nationhood within his own family.

140

betsy halpern-amaru

textual support for making the growth of the patriarchal progeny into the Israelite nation predate the death of Joseph, now permits the assimilation of Joseph’s brothers into the broad category of “the Israelites.” As a result, the rewriting avoids the overt presence of the brothers together with Joseph in a setting that too closely resembles the deathbed scene of a patriarch addressing his sons. Further diminishing the significance of the biblical Joseph, Jubilees opens the narrative of his death with a life-span notice that includes a citation of Exod 1:6—“He [ Joseph] died and all his brothers and all of that generation” ( Jub. 46:4). Clearly the rearranged statement has no chronological significance in its new context, for a dated obituary that closes the Joseph story and introduces the subsequent narrative of the burial of the brothers states, “all his brothers died after him” ( Jub. 46:8). Taken out of its Exodus context,11 the citation simply places the deaths of Joseph, his brothers, and all of that generation on an equal footing. As for the Jubilees paraphrase of Joseph’s instructions regarding his burial, again anything that suggests elevated status within the family is omitted. The intertextual allusions that contextualize the addresses to the brothers and to the sons/children of Israel in Gen 50:24–25 are gone. The Joseph of Jubilees neither refers to God’s past promises “to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” nor alludes to God’s future assurances to the Israelites “to take notice of you” (Exod 3:16). The words attributed to him in Jubilees imply nothing that would suggest a mediating role between the patriarchal past and the Israelite future; all that would imply a transmission of covenant has been deleted. Only a certain prescience remains in Joseph’s prediction of future political events in Egypt ( Jub. 46:6). The most striking feature of the paraphrased account is the addition of an explanation for the delayed burial. To a certain extent, that issue is obscured in the biblical narrative by its presentation of Joseph as a quasi-patriarchal figure. Having omitted the literary components that fuel such a characterization, Jubilees offers in its place a detailed, inventive description of the conditions preventing movement in and out of Egypt. 11 Placed immediately before the notice of the growth of the Israelite population (Exod 1:7), the statement in Exodus follows the brief overview of the descent of Jacob and his extended family to Egypt, and hence functions as the closing point for the patriarchal era.

burying the fathers

141

He died and all his brothers and all of that generation. Before he died he ordered the Israelites to take his bones along at the time when they would leave the land of Egypt. He made them swear about his bones because he knew that the Egyptians would not again bring him out and bury him on the day in the land of Canaan, since Makamaron, the king of Canaan,—while he was living in the land of Asur—fought in the valley with the king of Egypt and killed him there. He pursued the Egyptians as far as the gates of Ermon. He was unable to enter because another new king ruled Egypt. He was stronger than he, so he returned to the land of Canaan and the gates of Egypt were closed with no one leaving or entering Egypt ( Jub. 46:4–7).

In contrast to rabbinic literature, which also addresses the matter of the delayed burial, the grounds Jubilees presents for deferral, specifically that a war has resulted in total closure of the borders of Egypt, involve no elevation of Joseph.12 Quite to the contrary, except for his awareness of the political situation of Egypt, a perfectly reasonable attribution given his influential position at the court, and his consequent service as the instrument for conveying the information, Joseph as a character has no role in the scenario of events that accounts for the delay. That he possesses knowledge of those events, however, is of major significance, for the political conditions that postpone Joseph’s burial are in fact part of a sequence of changes in historical circumstances that will eventually lead to Israelite enslavement. By interweaving the two motifs, i.e., the circumstances that would delay the burial and Joseph’s awareness of them, the author of Jubilees insures that the starting point of the transition lies within the lifetime of Joseph. Substantively, the addition presents a description of a war between Canaan and Egypt that occurs at some point during the period in which Jubilees’ chronology would have the Israelites thriving in Egypt. No precise date is given for the conflict; but the context would suggest a time immediately preceding Joseph’s death. The narrative is notably detailed; but efforts to historically contextualize its particulars have not proven particularly fruitful. “Ermon,” the area where the Canaanite siege of Egypt was stopped ( Jub. 46:5), has been identified as Heroopolis, which lies within the territory of Goshen, thus bringing

12 In rabbinic midrash the delay reflects the high stature of Joseph. Mekilta, Beshallah (24b) stresses that no less a person than Moses busies himself with the transport of Joseph’s bones. In another midrash, the brothers deliberately delay the burial so that Joseph will have the greater honor of being buried “by many rather than by few” (b. Sotah 13b; t. Sotah 4:7).

142

betsy halpern-amaru

the conflict close to the area of the Israelite settlement.13 However, Makamaron, the Canaanite king who kills the king of Egypt, remains a mysterious figure,14 and the reference to his living “in the land of Asur” may be more anachronistic than historical in character.15 From the perspective of exegetical strategy, the significance of the war account lies not in its historical or quasi-historical details, but rather in the construction of a particular sequence of events. Executing another shift in chronology, the author of Jubilees once again moves a component of the biblical transition narrative—the ascension of a new monarch to the throne of Egypt—to an earlier period in time. In a paraphrase of Exod 1:8 that omits the key words, “who did not know Joseph,” he sets the succession notice into a narrative framework that totally deconstructs the functional significance of the notice in the context of the Exodus transition narrative. In Jubilees the new monarch comes to power in the course of a war that occurs during the lifetime of Joseph whom he, therefore, presumably “knows.” Moreover, the only detrimental impact that the succession has on the Israelites is that the new monarch adopts a defense strategy that impinges on any plan to transport Joseph’s body to Canaan for immediate burial after his death. In other words, neither the death of Joseph nor the ascension of a new ruler, who, for at least a period of time, is his contemporary, is of immediate consequence to Israelite history. Having thus deconstructed the background scenario to the enslavement of the Israelites as presented in Exod 1:1–8, the author of Jubilees begins to develop an alternative explanation for the dramatic changes in the life conditions of the Israelites: Joseph died in the forty-sixth jubilee, in the sixth week, during its second year [2242]. He was buried in the land of Egypt, and all his

13 R. H. Charles, ed., The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 246; A. Dillman, ed., “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft 3 (1851): 72, n. 78. The identification of Heroopolis with Goshen appears in the LXX reading of Gen 46:28 as well as in Josephus (Ant. 2.184). An addition found in the Coptic text of LXX, as well as inscriptions found at Pithom, identify Heroopolis with that specific city (S. Ahituv, “Pithom,” Encyclopedia Mikrait 6:640 [Hebrew]). Jubilees identifies the city neither with Goshen nor with Pithom. 14 A later version of the legend, found in Sefer Hayashar, has the Egyptian king named “Magron” (K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit [Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1981], 2:330). 15 On anachronistic references to enmity between Egypt and Assyria, see Aryeh Kasher’s comments on Manetho’s reference to the Assyrians in Contra Apionem ( Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1966), 2:102, notes to 1:77 (Hebrew).

burying the fathers

143

brothers died after him. Then the king of Egypt went out to fight with the king of Canaan in the forty-seventh jubilee, in the second week, during its second year [2263]. The Israelites brought out all the bones of Jacob’s sons except Joseph’s bones. They buried them in the field, in Machpelah16 in the mountain. Many returned to Egypt but a few of them remained on the mountain of Hebron. Your father Amram remained with them. The king of Canaan conquered the king of Egypt and closed the gates of Egypt ( Jub. 46:8–11).

Except for its deletion of the embalming of Joseph’s body in the formal notice of his death (Gen 50:26),17 the addition involves little manipulation of biblical material. On the surface it appears to round out the closure to the generation of Jacob’s children with an account of the burial of the brothers. But, as in the case of its addition to the Joseph death narrative, Jubilees uses the burial as an opportunity to reorient perspective. To develop his own account of the transformation of a nation flourishing in its Egyptian environment to one oppressed and enslaved by its Egyptian masters, the author again interweaves a description of political changes in Egypt with a burial narrative. The earlier addition left off with the siege by Canaan being stopped by the ascension of a new king, who, in the period before Joseph’s death, has the gates of Egypt closed. Approximately twenty-one years later ( Jub. 46:9),18 the Egyptian king reopens the conflict and, as a consequence, also the gates, thereby providing the Israelites with an opportunity, thwarted in the case of Joseph, to take temporary leave of Egypt and transport the bones of the tribal fathers to Canaan for burial at Machpelah. What creates opportunity for the Israelites, however, becomes the misfortune of the Egyptians. In the ensuing war, the king of Canaan conquers Egypt and closes its gates. It is within this war context that the author of Jubilees places the Egyptian king’s change of heart toward the Israelites, “many” of whom had “returned to Egypt” before its defeat ( Jub. 46:10). The description of how that change of heart came to be translated into 16 For the sake of clarity, I have substituted the proper name for VanderKam’s translation, “the double cave.” 17 The Jubilees rewriting also deletes the embalming of Jacob in Gen 50:2–3 ( Jub. 45:13–16). 18 The time frame is established in relationship to Joseph’s death “in the fortysixth jubilee, in the sixth week, during its second year [2242]” ( Jub. 46:8), and to the date given for the renewal of the war by Egypt, “in the forty-seventh jubilee, in the second week, during its second year [2263]” ( Jub. 46:9).

144

betsy halpern-amaru

a national policy of repression and enslavement ( Jub. 46:12–13) is developed through an exegetical treatment that contextualizes Exod 1:10. The concern that the Israelites might one day join “our enemies in fighting against us” is particularized by the narrative of the Egyptian defeat at the hands of the king of Canaan and “ˆm hl[w ≈rah” is clarified as a longing for Canaan—“They will unite with the enemy and leave our land because their mind(s) and face(s look) toward the land of Canaan” ( Jub. 46:13). Thus, Jubilees employs the interface of the Israelite burial of the fathers in Canaan with the Egyptian defeat by the king of Canaan to provide a reasonable basis for suspicion of Israelite loyalties. The account of the circumstances that justified those suspicions—not only had the Israelites undertaken a burial expedition to Canaan in a time of war, but some of their party had remained behind there—completes the Jubilees reconstruction of the biblical transition narrative. The reconstruction bridges the eras of the Israelite prosperity and subsequent enslavement in Egypt. On top of that bridge, Jubilees places Amram, the grandson of Levi and the father of Moses, who does not return to Egypt, but together with some other Israelites, remains in Canaan. There, for forty-one years ( Jub. 46:9, 47:1), he resides, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Jubilees, “on the mountain of Hebron.”19 Coming almost as an aside, the reference to “your father Amram” ( Jub. 46:10) adds a personal note to the historical account that the angel narrator is conveying to Moses. But the sudden insertion of the name of a specific Israelite into a discourse that otherwise has been a national chronicle is striking. Since the author immediately thereafter turns back to the Egyptian political situation and the Egyptian monarch’s suspicions of Israelite loyalty, the significance of the aside is not immediately evident. In fact, by placing Amram at the patriarchal homestead, i.e., “on the mountain of Hebron,” Jubilees assigns to him the precise role that its exegesis had so deliberately taken

19

Emphasis mine. Although it is clear in Genesis that each of the three patriarchs resides, at one time or another, in Hebron (Gen 35:27; 37:14), in Jubilees the capital patriarchal residence is not simply “Hebron,” but more specifically, in Jub. 29:19 and 36:20 “on the mountain of Hebron.” Both passages in Jubilees involve additions to the Genesis narrative. The first has Isaac, deserted by Esau who has married the daughter of Ishmael and moved to Mt. Seir, moving from Beer-sheba and settling “at the tower of his father Abraham in the mountain of Hebron.” The second describes Jacob living, after the death of Isaac, “on the mountain of Hebron, in the tower (which was located in) the land where his father Abraham had resided as a sojourner.”

burying the fathers

145

away from the biblical Joseph. Jubilees, however, is consistent in its deconstruction of the biblical characterization. At the intersection of patriarchal and Israelite history in Jubilees, Jacob’s designation of Levi as heir to the patriarchal books ( Jub. 45:16) replaces his final testament to Joseph (Gen 47:29–31). So, at the next historical juncture, the shift from freedom to enslavement in Egypt, Amram’s residence on the mountain of Hebron provides a Levite, rather than Josephinformed, connection between eras. Much as the inserted war story exhibits the masterful exegetical strategies of Jubilees, it also functions as an integral part of its reconstruction of the biblical narrative. Several scholars have claimed that the war between Canaan and Egypt has a basis in historical reality and that the author of Jubilees creatively incorporated bits of that history into his work. Some have argued that the war account reflects the more contemporary conflict between the Ptolemies and Seleucids;20 others that it suggests a fragmented historical memory either of the era after Rameses III, “when Egypt lost her Syrian dependencies”21 or of the Hyksos period in 17th–16th century Egypt.22 Alternatively, it is also possible that the war story is essentially legendary and that the legend itself acquired the status of a tradition with its own literary history. A number of texts that postdate the Book of Jubilees, and in some instances possibly reflect its influence,23 20 Berger identifies the slain Egyptian king in Jub. 46:6 as Ptolemy VI and the monarch who succeeds him as Ptolemy VIII. (Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 537). 21 Charles, Book of Jubilees, 246. 22 R. Kitron, “A War Between Canaan and Egypt: Fiction or Fact?” (Unpublished). Cana Werman, who supports the position that the description reflects historical events, has argued that the author of Jubilees was aware of the writings of Hellenized Jews in Egypt (“The Book of Jubilees in a Hellenistic Context,” Zion 3 [2001]: 275–96 [Hebrew]). The author’s awareness of and exegetical use of Egyptian historical traditions would come from the same source. More difficult to entertain is the view of Doron Mendels who, reading Jubilees 46 almost exclusively as a political writing, views the war account as evidence that “the relationship between Egypt and Asshur determined to a large extent the position of the Jews in Eretz Israel” (The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987], 88. 23 The references to the war in the burial accounts of Simeon and Benjamin in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (i.e., bringing out the bones “during the war of the Egyptians” in T. Sim. 8:2 and “during the war of Canaan” in T. Benj. 12:4) possibly reflect the influence of The Book of Jubilees. However, in contrast to Jubilees, both testaments describe the departure as taking place “secretly.” The need for secrecy is attributed in the Testament of Simeon to a belief that a great plague of darkness would come upon Egypt with the departure of Joseph’s bones (T. Sim 8:3–4). On other parallels with Jubilees, see the notes in H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 127–28, 445.

146

betsy halpern-amaru

preserve that tradition in various forms.24 More contemporary with The Book of Jubilees is a formulation of the war legend that is found in 4QVisions of Amram ar. The work has not survived in the original, but the five fragmentary copies found at Qumran (4Q543–4Q547) offer a presentation of the legend that possibly informed the tradition as we find it in Jubilees.25 Voiced by Amram in a deathbed testament to his sons, the account comes as a preface to a recollection of his visions. The following selection is a composite of the legible text in the five copies that employs as its base 4Q544 1, one of the fuller copies of the introduction to Amram’s visions.26 . . . q anbmlw arm[mlw μqml ˆmt thq . . . djk ydd ynb ˆm ˆyaygç . . . wçrb yçyr tnç vacat ˆytm ˆwr . . . y d[ adjl ygç antdb[ ˆmw rbg . . . bqml tqlsw ˆ . . . m [ral antr . . . bat hlhbm brq t[wmç bsmlw hnbmlw . . . q yba ynwqbçw ˆwhthba yd ayrbq wnb hlw [bw[l . . . ˆ[nk [ra ˆm ˆwhykrx lwk ˆwhl . . . jxnw ˆyrxml tçlp ˆyb awh abrqw vacat ˆynb anjna d[ . . . htat . . . rçpa ytya alw ˆyrxm . . . g wdyjaw

1 2 3 4 5

24 With the combatants and historical context changed, the tradition may also be reflected in Josephus’s account of a war between Cush and Egypt in which Moses leads the Egyptian army (Ant. 2:10); in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel where Syria and the people of East, led by Moses, confront Cush (xlv); and in an elaborate narrative of a conflict involving Zepho, Esau’s grandson, the Kittim, and Ishmaelites against the Egyptians assisted by the Israelites found in Sefer Hayashar where, as in Jubilees, the conflict provides a backdrop for narration of the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites ( Josef ben Shmuel Hakatan, ed. [Berlin: Benjamin Herz, 1923], Parshat Shmot, 219–233 [Hebrew]). 25 Although the dates of the copies are later than that usually assigned to Jubilees (160–155 BCE), Puech believes that the work was known to the author of Jubilees (Puech, DJD 31.285–87). On paleographic grounds he dates 4Q543, 4Q544, and 4Q547 to the second half of the second century BCE; 4Q545 and 4Q546 to the first or second half of the first century BCE. Puech considers 4Q548 a possible sixth copy and treats 4Q549 as also belonging to the 4QVisions of Amram. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, however, treat 4Q549 as a separate work which they identify as “Work Mentioning Hur and Miriam” (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 2:1096). 26 All five copies are fragmentary and none is complete. Puech has done a significant amount of reconstruction in his presentation of the fragments of 4QVisions of Amram in DJD 31. The composite presented here is restricted to text legible in one or more of the copies and does not include those reconstructions. A single underline marks text from 4Q544 1; a double underline indicates that the text is also found in one or more of the other copies; and a broken underline indicates text that is found in one of the copies, but not in 4Q544. Illegible text within the composite is indicated by ellipses without the number of letter spaces being counted. On the reconstruction, consult the published fragments in DJD 31.

burying the fathers

147

ˆyrxml btml ˆylky hnywh alw adjw ˆy[bra ˆynç 6 . . . l ˆk l[ . . . na dbkwy ˆd lwkbw tçlplw ˆ[nkl ˆyrxm ˆyb 7 . . . ytrfm . . . çnw vacat tbsn . . . yrja htna hna . . . vacat hwh al 8 yttna ypna hzjaw μlçb ˆyrxml bwta yd alwk 9 tyzj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The legible text27 in the fragments describes how Amram, together with Qahat and his cousins, went up from Egypt to Canaan “to stay and to dwell and to build” tombs for the burial (of their fathers).28 An extensive amount of work was required in order to complete those tombs for burying the dead; and that work was interrupted by a frightening rumor of war that caused the group to return to Egypt without having completing the tombs (4Q544 1 1–3; 4Q545 1 12–17).29 The narrative sequence suggests that Amram went back to Egypt together with the initial burying party (4Q545 1 16–17).30 But with the permission of his father, Qahat, (4Q546 2 3),31 he returned to Canaan to complete the building of the tombs. While he was there, war broke out between Philistia, Canaan, and Egypt (4Q545 1 19).32 Because of the war, they closed the borders33 of Egypt (4Q544 1 5); and for forty-one years neither Amram nor those who were with him was able to return to Egypt (4Q544 1 6).34 Moreover, if Puech is correct in reading a reference to Jochebed in the feminine verbs of 4Q544 1 8 (“she was not”) and 4Q547 1–2 4 (“she would come”),35 the war also prevented movement out of Egypt, for Amram’s wife was not able to join him in Canaan. During all this time Amram did not see his wife, nor did he take another wife (4Q544 1 8–9).36 27 Except where indicated to the contrary, my comments refer only to text that is legible in one or more of the five copies. Where a text appears in more than one copy, the multiple sources are identified either within the body of the paper or in an accompanying note. 28 “Of their fathers” is reconstructed here on the basis of ˆwhthba in 4Q544 1 3. Letters of the word are also partially legible in 4Q545 1 17 and 4Q546 2 3. 29 The text is partially legible in 4Q546 2 1 and 4Q547 1–2 1. 30 The text of these lines is partially visible also 4Q546 2 2. 31 On the basis of the plural verb (ynwqbç) in 4Q545 1 17 and 4Q546 2 3, Puech reconstructs the line such that the permission comes from Qahat and Jochebed. However, neither “my wife” nor her name is legible is this line. 32 Partially legible also in 4Q543 3 3 and 4Q544 1 4. 33 Puech has reconstructed ylwbg; but only the first letter (g) is legible. 34 The presence of the others is indicated by the plural verbs, ˆylky hnywh. 35 The reading is supported by the continuation of the narrative. 36 Partially legible in 4Q543 4 4 and 4Q547 1–2 7.

148

betsy halpern-amaru

A number of parallels can be seen between this story in 4QVisions of Amram and the two burial/war accounts, one associated with Joseph and the other with his brothers, in Jubilees 46. In terms of narrative context, 4QVisions is most similar to the account of the burial of the tribal fathers in Jub. 46:8–11. Both involve their burial;37 in both the burial is associated, albeit quite differently, with a war between Canaan and Egypt; and each takes particular note of Amram’s participation in the burials. More specific points of contact between the two narratives can also be suggested. The motif of the group returning to Egypt (4Q545 1 16) is echoed in “many returned to Egypt” in Jub. 46:10. Similarly, the plural form of the verb in line 6 of 4Q544 (ˆylky hnywh al) reflects the presence of others, either returning or remaining with Amram, as is explicitly stated in Jub. 46:10 (“a few of them remained”). In both texts we hear that Egypt is closed to entry and exit. In Jubilees, the king of Canaan closed the “gates of Egypt” after he defeated the king of Egypt ( Jub. 46:11); in 4QVisions of Amram an unspecified “they” closed the “borders”38 of Egypt, presumably after Philistia and Canaan defeated Egypt (4Q544 1 5; 4Q545 19). Moreover, the time frames each gives for the duration of Amram’s stay in Canaan are quite similar. Jubilees does not state a specific duration; but the dates it assigns to his departure and return—“the forty-seventh jubilee, in the second week, during its second year [2263]” ( Jub. 46:9) and “the seventh week, in the seventh year, in the forty-seventh jubilee [2303]” ( Jub. 47:1)— constitute a stay of forty years, markedly close to the forty-one year stay in 4Q544 1 6. At the same time, in significant ways the Jubilees narrative of the burial of the tribal chiefs departs from the tradition presented in 4Q543–4Q547. Most striking is the absence from Jubilees of the personal family details that are so vivid in the Visions of Amram—Amram’s cousins go up with him to build the tombs for their fathers (4Q545 1 14); his father, Qahat, is mentioned twice by name (4Q544 1 1; 4Q546 2 3); and although Jochebed’s name is legible only once (4Q547 1–2 6), her presence is clearly felt in the reference Amram

37 In 4Q544 1 3 and 4Q545 1 12, Amram speaks of building tombs for burial of “their/our fathers.” 38 In commenting on this paper, Moshe Bernstein noted that gates, not borders, were closed in antiquity. Given that the reconstruction of “borders” (ylwbg), is based only on the letter g in 4Q544 1 5, the reading is tenuous.

burying the fathers

149

makes to “my wife” not being able to come to Canaan (4Q544 1 7–8), in his attestation to not having taken another wife during the forty-one years he was in Canaan (4Q544 1 8; 4Q547 1–2 7), and in his expression of longing to look upon “the face of my wife” (hzjaw yttna ypna) when he would return in peace to Egypt (4Q544 1 9). In contrast, Jubilees simply has the Israelites bringing the bones of the fathers out of Egypt for burial at Machpelah ( Jub. 46:9). Amram is mentioned by name, but solely in terms of his staying on in Canaan and residing “on the mountain of Hebron” ( Jub. 46:10)—a detail that is not legible in any of the copies of 4QVisions of Amram.39 Nothing is said of cousins, of Qahat, of Jochebed unable to join Amram in Canaan, or of his longing for her. Most, if not all, of these differences are consistent with the exegetical strategies we have seen operating in the Jubilees reworking of the transition between the patriarchal narrative of Genesis and the national narrative of Exodus. One of the most significant of those strategies involved a rearrangement that, responding to the double meaning of “sons/children of Israel” in Gen 50:25, placed the birth of the nation within the lifetime of Joseph and replaced the family story that immediately follows the death of Jacob in Genesis with a national narrative. That national perspective is sustained in the Jubilees rendering of the war/burial story. Until the reference to Amram residing on the mountain of Hebron ( Jub. 46:10), all the protagonists are nations or the heads of nations—the Israelites, not specific individuals and their family members, comprise the party that goes to Canaan; the Israelites do the burying, and thereafter, with the exception of “a few of them,” return to Egypt. The mention of Amram on Mt. Hebron interrupts this national perspective only momentarily. There is no development of Amram as a character and no integration of the Amram motif into the national story. After the brief reference, the narrative simply continues with its account of why the king of Egypt came to see the Israelites as a threat. The unfinished treatment is strikingly similar to that in the earlier insertion in which Jacob gives “all his books and the books of his fathers” to his son Levi ( Jub. 45:16).40 Coming between the description

39 Although Puech inserts “Hebron” into his reconstruction of 4Q545 1 18, the place name is not legible there or in any of the other copies. 40 That Levi was the recipient of knowledge revealed to Noah and preserved in a book handed down to the fathers also appears in Aramaic Levi Document 53. There,

150

betsy halpern-amaru

of the burial of Jacob ( Jub. 45:15) and the displaced announcement of the growth of the Israelite population ( Jub. 46:1), the Levi material also disrupts the narrative flow and also remains undeveloped. Moreover, no exegetical issue in the biblical text invites either intrusion into the respective narratives. There is no textual basis in Genesis for the gift of books to Levi. The author of Jubilees creates a similar exegetical vacuum with the Amram material by omitting any reference to Jochebed41 that would, if only by implication, connect the Amramin-Canaan motif to the biblical passage that may have served as the exegetical basis for the story as we find it in 4QVisions of Amram— ywl tb ta jqyw ywl tybm çya ˚lyw (Exod 2:1).42 Without that exegetical point of departure, Amram’s residence in Canaan, like Levi’s books, serves only to place a Levite at an historical juncture where Joseph stands in the biblical narrative. Considered together with the similarities in content noted above, such parallel exegetical strategies strongly suggest that the author of Jubilees was aware of a tradition similar to that found in 4QVisions of Amram, that he selectively chose aspects of that tradition, and incor-

however, it is Abraham, not Jacob, who conveys the knowledge to Levi. The motif of writings passed down from Noah to Shem and through the patriarchal line to Levi appears in Jub. 10:14; 12:27; 45:16. On the transmission of teachings from Noah to Levi, see M. Stone, “The Axis of History at Qumran,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, (ed. E. Chazon and M. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 133–49. 41 The author of Jubilees refers to Jochebed by name only in the context of her serving as a nurse for the infant Moses ( Jub. 47:8). He omits the description of the union of the unnamed Amram and Jochebed in Exod 2:1 as well as the detailed description of their union in Exod 6:20. In the latter passage Jochebed, daughter of Levi, is explicitly described as “his father’s sister,” i.e., Amram’s aunt, a degree of consanguinity between husband and wife that is proscribed in Jubilees. On the treatment of Jochebed as a character and specifically, on the difficulty the marriage between her and Amram presents to the author of Jubilees, see B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999), ch. 6. 42 The unusual phrasing of Exod 2:1—that he (Amram) “went and took a wife”— is problematic. Although no explicit connection is made to the passage in 4QVisions of Amram, the references to Jochebed suggest that the story of Amram in Canaan might be an exegetical response to Ex 2:1. If so, “he went” would refer to his going to Canaan and “he took” to his returning and again taking Jochebed as his wife. In rabbinic midrash, “he went” is understood to mean that Amram followed (went in accord with) the advice of his daughter Miriam and remarried Jochebed, whom he had divorced in order to avoid the conception of a male child who, in accord with the Pharaoh’s decree, would be drowned (b. Sotah 12a; b. B. Bat. 120a; Exod. Rab. 1:19; Num. Rab. 13:20). For another version of the midrash, see LAB 9:2–5.

burying the fathers

151

porated them into his own narrative of the burial of the tribal fathers. Indeed, I would go even further and propose that the explanation Jubilees offers for the delayed burial of Joseph also reflects use of such a tradition. In this instance the war account in Jubilees shares two motifs with the 4QVision fragments—the war rumor and the closure of Egypt. The “rumor of war” that causes the initial burial party to return to Egypt in 4Q545 1 16 might well have become the “report of a war” that the narrator presents through Joseph in Jubilees ( Jub. 46:6). The matter of the closure is more complex. In 4QVisions of Amram, the borders or gates of Egypt are closed once, either in the course of the war or after Egypt had been defeated. Still, the comings and goings from and to Egypt become a rather convoluted affair. If our reading of the fragments is correct, it would appear that Amram and the initial burial party leave Egypt and, after hearing a rumor of war, return to Egypt. Thereafter, Amram again goes out to Canaan. While he is there, war breaks out and Egypt is closed—Jochebed cannot get out and Amram cannot get back in. In Jubilees, however, the gates are closed twice, once, apparently as a defensive measure, after the Egyptian king had thwarted the attack of the king of Canaan ( Jub. 46:7), and a second time, more than twenty-one years later, by the king of Canaan who had defeated Egypt ( Jub. 46:11). In the first instance, the closure prevents exit—hence the delayed burial of Joseph; in the second, the closure prohibits entrance—hence, the unstated, but presumed, inability of Amram and the others in Canaan to return to Egypt. But the narrative in Jubilees is not as finely finished as it might seem. In describing the closure of the gates at the time of Joseph’s imminent death, Jubilees employs a paraphrase of Josh 6:1—“were closed with no one leaving or entering” ( Jub. 46:7)—that relates more to the situation described in 4QVisions, i.e., Jochebed’s inability to join Amram and his inability to return to Egypt, than to the context in which it appears. The second burial/war narrative is comparably flawed. The statement that Amram was among the “few” who “remained on the mountain of Hebron” comes before the statement that the king of Canaan had closed the gates of Egypt ( Jub. 46:10–11). Not only is the sojourn at Hebron never explicitly connected to the closure, but also in the announcement that Amram returned to Egypt, which appears immediately before Moses’s birth ( Jub. 47:1), no explanation is given for why he would willingly enter into a situation where he would find himself, like the other Israelites, enslaved.

152

betsy halpern-amaru

Such loose threads would be inexplicable if the tradition originated with the Book of Jubilees. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to find narrative flaws of this kind, if the author of Jubilees were aware of a war/burial tradition such as we find in 4QVisions of Amram, spliced it into two accounts, and used both pieces in support of his own exegesis. One he adopted and adapted to explain the postponement of Joseph’s burial; the other he utilized, albeit with imperfect seams, to develop a transition narrative freed of Joseph’s influence. Diminution of Joseph’s significance and elevation of Levi and his line are the chief interests that drive the exegesis in Jubilees 46. To promote those interests the author takes advantage of every opportunity offered by those aspects of the biblical text that invite exegesis. Of the various techniques he employs in his creative manipulation of that text, rearrangement and omission appear to be the most fruitful. However, when no invitation sufficient for his purposes is forthcoming, he creates his own opportunity and inserts extra-biblical material. In some instances the inserted narrative may be created; but in the case of the war/burial account in Jubilees 46, the author makes creative use of a tradition that we find in the introductory section of 4QVisions of Amram ar. Adapting the new material for service in his rewritten narrative, he employs strategies that are notably similar to those he utilizes in his exegesis of the biblical text.

PHYSICAL AND METAPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS ORDAINED BY GOD IN THE LITERATURE OF THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD* Menahem Kister The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

My purpose in this article is to demonstrate the profound importance of the notion, known from various Jewish circles toward the end of the Second Temple period, that God has established physical and metaphysical entities in accordance with specific divine measurements. The most impressive evidence for this notion comes from the Qumran scrolls, but the use at Qumran of terms connected with God’s measuring should be considered in a wider context, namely that of Second Temple literature in general, as well as of early Christian and rabbinic texts. We shall begin by observing the affinity of the Qumran terminology with other postbiblical works in which this notion occurs, continue by noting the inner relationship of several passages, and then turn to a careful scrutiny of passages from Qumran, especially from 4QInstruction and other sapiential works, and establish their relationship to other writings and to biblical passages.

I The noun ˆwkt (‘measurement’)1 and the verb ˆkt (‘to measure’) are theological terms current in works from Qumran, especially in the Rule of the Community, 4QInstruction, and other sapiential texts. As we shall see below (pp. 167–169), this root is used prominently in the context of the divine ordering of periods of time, and probably in the context of creation in general. It is also used in connection with the different spiritual “measures” with which people are endowed, and

* I thank Prof. J. L. Kugel for reading this article and commenting on it. 1 Probably to be pronounced tikkun (see E. Qimron, “A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls” [Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976], 277 n. 1 [in Hebrew]).

154

menahem kister

in this sense tikkun has evident ethical overtones. It also refers to the precepts of the sect, and to the behavior and functions of the Maskil. These usages of the verb tikken and the noun tikkun are, as we shall see, a part of a wider notion, namely that God metes out to every human being a measured predestined portion, sometimes also called a person’s “lot” (lrwg),2 “inheritance” (hljn),3 “place of standing” (wdm[m tyb).4 “Measurement” is essential for appropriate human activity in both the mundane and spiritual realms. The divine measurements apply to God’s action in nature and in history, to His laws and to His relation to humanity (especially to His elected group). The conception that the wisdom of God manifests itself in measurements ordained by Him is widespread (although briefly expressed) in different contexts in works that were composed in various circles during the Second Temple period. An analysis of Qumran terminology and a survey of cognate literature illuminate each other in this regard. By and large, the variety of contexts in which “divine measurement” is mentioned in non-Qumranic and non-sectarian literature of the Second Temple period fits the variety of meanings of the word tikkun in Qumran, as will be demonstrated below. The following passages reveal different aspects of one idea, which is also reflected in the Qumranic usage of the word tikkun. (a) In the Wisdom of Solomon it is stated that God’s punishment is never disproportionate, because He “ordered all things by measure and number and weight” (11:20).5 This verse continues a preceding verse: “by those things that a man sins, through them he is punished” (11:16). As has been noted, this concept is formulated in rabbinic Judaism by the saying,6 known also from the Gospels,7 “with the measure that one measures out, it is measured out to him.”8 2

E.g., CD 13:12; 1QS 1:10; 1QS 2:23; 1QS 4:24; 1QM 13:9. E.g., CD 13:12; 1QS 4:16, 24; 1QHa 10:28; 1QHa 14:19. 4 1QS 2:22–23. 5 See the thorough commentary of D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 234. 6 It seems a reasonable surmise that this is a secular saying adopted to religious use. 7 Matt 7:2, Luke 6:37, Mark 4:24. 8 E.g., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishma"el, Shirta 4 (ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin; Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 1931), 131–32. The antiquity of this passage is proved by comparison to Jub. 48:14 (in which the “measure” formula is not explicitly used); see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1998), 507–8, 553. 3

physical and metaphysical measurements

155

(b) According to the Testament of Naphtali, “the whole creation of the Most High (is made) by weight and measure and rule” (2:3).9 Below (section II) we shall discuss this passage and its background. We shall also see at length that in 2 Enoch 43–44 this notion is combined with the preceding one, that of the ethical measure. (c) In the “Book of Parables” section of 1 Enoch, ethical and spiritual measurements are mentioned alongside cosmic measurements. In some passages we are told that Enoch saw in heaven “how the actions of men are weighed in the balance” (1 Enoch 60:12, 23; 41:1). In another passage, Enoch reports: “I saw how they [= the stars] are weighed in a righteous balance according to their proportion of light,” and the angel accompanying Enoch explains: “These are the names of the holy ones who dwell on the earth and believe in the name of the Lord of Spirits” (43:2–4). The righteous are “weighed” by God as are the stars.10 (d) In the Psalms of Solomon, in a psalm that deals with God as supplying one’s needs, we read: “man and his portion (mer¤w) (are) before you in the balance; he cannot increase [it], so as to enlarge [it], beyond your judgment, O God” (5:4). In several passages in the Dead Sea scrolls and elsewhere the word fpçm seems to have the meaning of ‘proper, fitting measure.’11 It is rather plausible, then, that the last words of the verse cited above from the Psalms of Solomon should be rendered: “beyond the proper measure assigned to him by You, O God.”12 (e) According to 4 Ezra, God “has weighed the age in balance, and measured the times in measure, and numbered the times by number, and he will not move or arouse until that measure is completed” (4:36–37).13

9 Greek: kãnoni, apparently reflecting Hebrew qj in the sense of measure, as in Job 28:26 (see below). 10 See also 1 En. 61:1–5. 11 Cf. 1QS 10:9: wfpçm wq//wçdwq ˆwkt; the phrase t[w t[ fpçml (CD 12:21) is parallel to t[w t[ ˆwktl (1QS 9:12); 4Q418 77 3: [μda ynb] lqçmw çwna fpçmb; see also Lev 19:35: hrwçmbw lqçmb hdmb fpçmb lw[ wç[t al (and see below, n. 20). 12 Gray translated the last clause “what has been prescribed by Thee” (instead of “beyond Your judgment”), suggesting that the word “judgment” (kr›ma) is a rendering of the Hebrew word qj (G. B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913], 2:637). While such a rendering is rare in the Septuagint, a similar semantic shift of the word fpçm is quite likely, as demonstrated above. 13 M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 90, 97–98.

156

menahem kister

In the texts cited above, the measurements ordained by God are applied to His creation, to His actions in history, and to the portions of righteousness of human beings. These texts not only share a common measure metaphor, but also the basic idea that God’s dispensation is executed by fixed “measurements.” These “measurements” are, to some extent, equivalent to the notion of divine law,14 consisting of the laws of nature, the laws of history and the laws of the Torah,15 all ordained by God; but the quantitative aspect of God’s activity is more emphasized in the term “measurement” and its synonyms.16 God’s measurements are basically known only to Him, but He can reveal them, as a part of His wisdom, to His elect; hence the frequent mention of “measurements” in apocalyptic literature.17

II Two passages in particular, found in the Testament of Naphtali and in 2 Enoch, will merit special attention. Before trying to elucidate the significance of “measurement theology” in these passages, however, let us examine a passage in the Book of Ben Sira, which, although it does not contain measurement terminology, nevertheless will be seen to exhibit striking affinities with these passages. The passage in Ben Sira reads:18 (7) As one day is differentiated from the other, although all daylight in the year is from the sun,19

14

See 1QpHab 7:13. See also M. Kister, “Commentary to 4Q298,” JQR 85 (1995): 241–42. 16 It should be noted that one of the synonyms is the Hebrew word qwj. Interestingly, this word is not used much in this sense in the writings from Qumran (but see below, n. 86). 17 M. E. Stone, “List of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 414–52, passim. 18 The translation is based on that of G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterly in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 1:429–30, with numerous major alterations. 19 MSS E and F of the Cairo Genizah read: hnç rwa wlk yk [μwy μwy l[ hm] çmç l[m ( J. Marcus, “A Fifth MS. Of Ben Sira,” JQR 21 [1931]: 231–33; A. Scheiber, “A New Leaf of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira,” Jubilee Volume in Honor of J. B. Soloveichik [ed. S. Israeli, N. Lamm and Y. Raphael; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984], 1185 [in Hebrew]). The Greek version reads: 15

physical and metaphysical measurements

157

(8) but by God’s wisdom they were distinguished,20 and some He made21 feasts:22 (9) some He blessed and sanctified,23 and others he made ordinary days24— (10) Likewise also all humans are made from clay, and Adam was created of earth, (11) (but) God’s wisdom distinguished them, and differentiated their ways:25 (12) some He blessed and exalted, and others He sanctified and brought close to Himself.

diå t‹ ≤m°ra ≤m°raw Íper°xei, ka‹ pçn ´ f«w ≤m°raw §niautoË éfÉ ≤l¤ou; the Syriac ver-

sion reads: ˆyçmçm atnçd atmwOyO aryhn ˆwhlkd lfm çyrp amwy ˆmd atnçb amwy tya anml. The Greek verb Íper°xv renders ˆm anç in the Theodotion Version of Dan 7:23. It is therefore probable that the text in the Vorlage of the Greek and Syriac versions of Ben Sira is: çmçm hnç rwa (lk yk) lkw ,μwym hnç μwy hml. We may assume a deliberate word-play between hnç in the sense of “differs, is distinguished” in the first stich, and hnç “a year” in the second stich. In the Syriac version the word hnç (“differs, is distinguished”) in the first stich was mistranslated as “a year,” and the last word in this verse was misunderstood as a verb in pi'el (meshammesh) rather than the preposition min plus the noun shemesh (sun) (i.e., mi-shemesh). These two mistranslations allow us to reconstruct a Hebrew Vorlage, rather different from the one of the Hebrew MSS from the Genizah. The first stich according to the MSS, hm μwy μwy l[, is a possible alternative (compare μymy lkm tbç hnç hm ,μymym μwy hm below n. 34; l[ would mean “better than, distinguished over”); but the reading l[m (or l[, according MS F, published by Scheiber) in the second stich seems rather awkward, as is also the reading hnwç in the second stich (MS F and the correction of MS E). The reading wlk yk (MSS E and F) can be supported by the Syriac (rendering Hebrew lk yk), but seems inferior to lkw reflected in the Greek. 20 The Hebrew Genizah MS E: wfpçn yy tmkjb; the Greek version reads diexvr¤syhsan, the Syriac version wçrpta. Several scholars emended the text, reading wçrpn instead of wfpçn. Such an emendation is hardly plausible on graphical grounds. As we have seen (n. 19), the Hebrew Vorlage of the versions may differ considerably from the text according to the Genizah MSS; in this case, however, a better solution may be offered, namely: the word wfpçn in this verse may mean “given their proper measure,” being derived of fpçm in the sense “proper, fitting measure” (BDB, 1049 6a). 21 The text is uncertain. The Greek word élloiÒv renders elsewhere in the Septuagint the Hebrew and Aramaic root y”nç). The Syriac version ˆwhnm db[w “He made out of them” probably renders Hebrew μhm ç[yw. MS E reads μhm çyw, which may be emended to μhm μçyw on the basis of the words μç μhm in Sir 33:9. 22 Thus the ´ Greek ´ version (kairoÁw ka‹ •ortãw); the Syriac version: “periods and seasons (anbzw and[).” The Genizah Hebrew text, μyd[wm, can be rendered either “seasons” or “feasts.” The Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek and the Syriac could well be μyd[wmw μynmz (compare the liturgical formula ˆwççl μynmzw μygj hjmçl μyd[wm). 23 The Sabbath is referred to here; cf. Gen 2:3. 24 Literally: “numbered days,” or “numbering days.” 25 Thus the Greek version diex≈risen aÈtouw. The Hebrew text of MS E, ta hnçyw μhykrd is probably the text rendered by the Greek version. The additional phrase in MS E, ]ah yrd μtwa μçyw, is an erroneous doublet (yrd instead of ykrd), already reflected in the Syriac version.

menahem kister

158

Some He dishonored 26 and abased, and rejected them from their positions.27 (13) As the clay is in the power of the potter, to fashion it as he pleases, so is man in the power of his creator. . . .28 (14) He (God) created29 over against evil good, and against death life, over against the godly the sinner, and against light darkness.30 (15) Look upon all the works of God: they come in pairs, one the opposite of the other.31 (Ben Sira 33:7–15)

In verses 7–12, Ben Sira compares holy and ordinary days with the difference between elected and non-elected human beings. Both the days and the human beings are created by God in essentially the same fashion; but although seemingly equal among themselves, some of them are distinguished from the rest by God’s wisdom. It should be noted that v. 12c–d describes the non-sanctified human beings in more pejorative terms than the analogous “ordinary days”: the human beings who were not chosen are “dishonored” (if not “cursed”)32 and “rejected from their positions.” The sanctification of certain people depends solely on God’s will (v. 13), and no further reasons are given.33 26 The Hebrew is not preserved. Both versions, the Greek and the Syriac, have here “cursed.” However, the Hebrew word rendered by both versions is probably llq, and this word can mean either “curse” or “dishonor.” The latter seems to fit better the context of this passage, but note the use of “blessed” in verse 12. 27 The original reading is probably μhydm[m. 28 The second stich of this verse is awkward. 29 Hebrew qlj; Syriac yrbta; the Greek version lacks any verb at this point. For the usage of qlj here and elsewhere see M. Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 334 n. 116 (Hebrew). 30 Translated according to the MS E. The textual witnesses vary in the following manner:

Greek

Syriac

MS E

bad—good death—life pious—sinner

bad—good death—life

bad—good death—life pious—sinner light—darkness

light—darkness 31

Compare Sir. 42:24. The Masada MS reads there: tm[l [hz μynç μynç] μlk [awç] μhm hç[ alw hz. This reading is very similar to the Greek and Syriac versions. The reading in the Genizah MS B hzm hz μynwç μlk is probably secondary. (Contrast: P. Winter, “Ben Sira and the Teaching of ‘Two Ways’,” VT 5 [1955]: 315–18). 32 See above, n. 26. 33 The similarity of Ben Sira’s wording to Jer 18:4–10 has been noted. It should be observed, however, that the passage in Ben Sira lacks the ethical dimension of the Jeremiah passage. (Prof. Kugel notes that a similar notion may be found in Qoh 2:24–26, if one reads in verse 25 wnmm ≈wj [instead of ynmm ≈wj], and interprets the word afwjlw in verse 26 as meaning “to the loser” rather than to the sinner).

physical and metaphysical measurements

159

The dual opposition is even more explicit in the closing verses of this unit, where pairs of opposites are mentioned, and it is stated that this duality is the main principle of God’s Creation. Israel’s sanctification is related to that of the Sabbath in a similar manner34 in the Book of Jubilees. God says: I will now separate a people for myself from among the nations . . . I will sanctify the people for myself and will bless them as I sanctified the Sabbath day . . . It was granted to these that for all times they will be the blessed and the holy ones of the testimony and of the first law, as it was sanctified and blessed on the seventh day. ( Jub. 2:19–24)35

A similar formula underlies the habdalah blessing: Blessed are You . . . who separates the sacred and the profane, the light and the darkness, Israel and the nations, the seventh day and the six days of work . . .36

All the elements of this text of blessing, documented no later than the Amora Rava (b. Pesahim 103b) occur in the passage of Ben Sira.37 It is the passage in Ben Sira that enables us to understand the full sense of the “separations” mentioned in the habdalah list.38 The similarity

34 The two sanctified entities, namely Israel and the Sabbath, are connected in a similar manner, but in a remarkably different context, in the midrash: swpwrswnf hyl rma ?ˆyrbwgb rbg hm :hyl rma ?μymym μwy hm :hyl rma .hbyq[ ’r ta laç [çrh swpwr hm ˚l ytrma μymyh lkm tbç hnç hm yl trma :hyl rma ?yl trma hmw ˚l tyrma hm: wdbkl h”bqh hxr hz πa .wdbkl ˚lmh hxrç :wl rma .ayrbg lkm (Gen. Rab. 11:5). The similarity of this midrash to the passage of Ben Sira has been noted (Marcus, “A Fifth MS.,” 231). Ben Sira, writing in a Jewish context, presupposes the special status of the Sabbath, and infers by analogy the difference between human beings ( Jews and Gentiles), whereas in the anti-pagan polemical midrash included in Genesis Rabbah the special status of the Sabbath is questioned, and this is deduced from differences in ranks between human beings. 35 Doering writes concerning Jub. 2:25: “Here, a tension between cosmological and particularistic understanding of the Sabbath becomes sensible: the Sabbath is an order of the divine work, but aims among the creatures only at the higher angels and at Israel” (L. Doering, “The Concept of Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” in: Studies in the Book of Jubilees [ed. M. Albani et al.; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], 193). However, for the author of the Book of Jubilees, there is no tension at all: the cosmological status of the Sabbath corresponds to the unique cosmological status of Israel. The ostensibly particularistic features of Sabbath observance reflect the divine universal plan, of which particularism is an essential component. 36 The term hç[mh ymy, current in Mishnaic Hebrew, first occurs in Jub. 2:29 (the words are not preserved in the Hebrew fragments of Jubilees from Qumran). 37 A more elaborate list of “separations” or “divisions,” recorded in a baraitha, concludes with the words “blessed are You, the creator of the universe” (b. Pesah. 104a); cf. Ben Sira’s emphasis on God as a creator (verses 14–15). 38 The separation between “light and darkness” applies in Ben Sira (in the textual

menahem kister

160

between Ben Sira’s theology of duality and the dualism of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been noticed.39 In this case as in other cases, the theology of duality, current in wider circles, was easily adopted by circles with more rigidly dualistic worldviews. As has been observed, the ideas found in the passage of Ben Sira were elaborated, gaining a new twist, in 2 Enoch. Here we read (in the two versions of this work):40 J [40] I know everything and everything I have written down in books . . . their movement I have measured . . . The solar circle I have measured . . . the lunar circle I have measured. (a) I appointed 4 seasons . . . 4 cycles . . . year . . . months . . . days . . . and from the days I measured off the hours and counted them and

A [40] I know everything and I have written down in books . . . I, I have measured their movements . . . I have measured the solar circle . . . I have measured the lunar circle . . .

witnesses in which it occurs, cf. above, n. 30) first of all to the concrete physical phenomena, although it has ethical overtones (as proved by the context). It should be remembered that Ben Sira explicitly states that everything in the cosmos was created in duality (Sir 42:24; see above, n. 31). There is no clear distinction, therefore, between the usage in Ben Sira and in the habdala prayer. Apparently, the metaphorical use of “light” and “darkness” in the so-called dualistic worldview of Qumran was also related to the concrete physical phenomena. See D. Dimant, “Dualism at Qumran,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; N. Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press), 55–73; idem, “Egypt and Jerusalem in Light of the Dualistic Doctrine at Qumran (4Q462),” Meghillot 1 (2003): 46–54; M. Kister, “Wisdom Literature and its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (ed. J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling and R. A. Clements; STDJ 51; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 43–45; M. Kister, “4Q392 1 and the Conception of Light in the Qumran ‘Dualism’,” Meghillot 3 (forthcoming). 39 Cf. Winter, “Ben Sira and the Teaching of ‘Two Ways’,” 317. Winter thought that “the Hebrew passage is not extant,” and that Segal had restored the Hebrew chiefly according to the Syriac version (316, n. 1). Both assumptions are wrong. The Hebrew text of MS E, on which Segal’s edition is based at this point, should be taken into account. For a comparison between the passage in Ben Sira and the Qumran ideology, see also J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 297. 40 The translations of the versions of 2 Enoch, version J and version A, are given according to F. I. Andersen’s translation of 2 Enoch in OTP 1:93–213, pp. 164–67.

physical and metaphysical measurements wrote them down. And everything that is nourished on the earth . . . and every seed . . . I wrote down the sleeping chambers of the wind and I observed and saw how their custodians have scales and measures. And first they place them in scales, and secondly in the measure . . . And I recorded all those who have been condemned by the judge, and all their sentences . . .

[43] . . . just as the Lord commanded me. (b) And in all these things I discovered differences. For, just as one year is more honorable than another year

(c) some because of much property; some again because of wisdom of heart; some again because of singular intelligence; [etc.] there is no one better than he who fears the Lord . . . [44] (d) The Lord with his own two hands created mankind; in a facsimile of his own face; both small and great the Lord created them . . . (e) Happy is the person who does not direct his heart with malice . . . because on the day of the great judgment, every weight and every

161

I, I wrote down the chambers of the wind, and I, I observed and saw how their custodians carry scales and measures , and secondly in the measure . . . And I descended and I wrote down all the judgments of the judged, and I knew all their accusations. [43] (a) I, I have arranged the whole year . . . months . . . days . . . hours. I have measured and noted the hours. And I have distinguished every seed on the earth, and every measure and every righteous scale. I, I have measured and recorded them One year is better than another year and one day is better than another day . . . Similarly one person is better than another person (c) one because of much property; another because of wisdom of heart; another because of intelligence;

[etc.] (But there is) no one better than he who fears the Lord. [44] (d) The Lord with his own two hands created mankind; and in a facsimile of his own face. Small and great the Lord created . . . (e) Happy is the one who directs because on the great judgment every deed of mankind will

162

menahem kister

measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market;

That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market and each will find out his own measure and each shall receive his own reward.

be restored by means of written records. Happy is he whose measure will prove to be just and whose weight just and scales just! Because on the day of the great judgment every measure and every weight and every scale will be exposed as in the market; and each one will recognize his measure, and, according to measure, each shall receive his reward.

Section (b) is similar to Ben Sira 33:7–15, and is an interpretation of the latter41 as saying that, just as there are differences among the days, so there are also differences among human beings. That is to say, the plurality and the differences are emphasized as governing principles, rather than as the duality presented in the passage of Ben Sira. Differences between human beings are then listed at length in section (c) and mentioned in section (d), where it is asserted that God created in His image all the different human beings (cf. Sir 33:10). In section (a) according to version A, and in section (e), two images of Enoch are combined.42 Enoch is described in the Enochic literature as having complete knowledge of astronomy and as recording human deeds. According to sections (a) and (e), these two aspects of Enoch’s knowledge are in fact one: the knowledge of the divine measurements is applicable to both cosmic order and human affairs. In section (e) we encounter the ethical “measure for measure” concept,43 known to us also from other passages of 2 Enoch (52:15; 49:2).44 “Measurements” apply also to the cosmic order (section a). Apparently,

41 For a similar elaboration of a passage from Ben Sira in 2 Enoch compare 2 Enoch ch. 65 with Ben Sira 16:24–17:23 (the detailed comparison between the two texts must be made elsewhere). It is evident, however, that the whole chapter is an interpretation and an elaboration of Ben Sira. Version J in Andersen’s edition (OTP 1:190, 192), is closer to Ben Sira. This implies that J is, in this case, more original than the short version, A. 42 This is demonstrated by 2 Enoch 40. Evidently, 2 Enoch 43 is a continuation of chapter 40. 43 While both versions seem to be reworked at this point, version J seems in this case to be closer to the original sense of the passage. 44 Cf. Wis 11:16, 20 (above, p. 154).

physical and metaphysical measurements

163

the concept also applies to the differences among human beings, which are taken as a part of the cosmic order (sections b, c). Many of the main elements of this passage are found as well in the Testament of Naphtali:45 (2) For as the potter knows the vessel, how much it is to contain, and applies clay to that purpose, so also does the Lord make the body after the likeness of the spirit, and after the capacity of the body does He implant the spirit. (3) And the one does not fall short of the other by a third part of a hair;46 for by weight and measure and rule every

45 Translation according to H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 300 (with slight changes). 46 Alon compares the Hebrew expression hr[çh fwjk (G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History [Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967], 1:191 [in Hebrew]). Cf. also rwjk hr[çh; S. Lieberman, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature ( Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1991), 149 (in Hebrew). It should be noted that this expression is employed in connection with God’s ability to divide time in the most exact manner. Thus, according to Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana: “the Holy One knows the exact duration of the time units of the night. Therefore with hairbreadth precision [he could smite the Egyptians] at the middle of the night. How did the division of that night come about? . . . The Rabbis said: its Creator divided it” (Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 7:5, [ed. B. Mandelbaum; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962], 125; translation according to W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975], 143–44 [with minor alterations]). Note also the parallel in the Mekhilta: “ ‘And it came to pass at midnight’ (Exod 12:29) the creator of the night divided it (exactly) . . . For, is it possible for a human being to fix the (exact) time of midnight? None but the Creator could have divided the night (exactly). R. Judah b. Bathyra says: He who knows its hours and its fractions divided it” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma"el, Pisha 13, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, 42; translation according to J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933], 1:96). A very similar discussion occurs concerning the phrase “half of the blood” in Exod 24:6; see Mekhilta on Deuteronomy according to a Genizah fragment (D. Z. Hoffmann, Midrasch Tannaim zur Deuteronomium [Berlin: T. H. Ittskovski, 1909], 57 = J. N. Epstein, Studies in Talmudic Literature and Semitic Languages [ Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1988], 2.1:130 [in Hebrew]; Lev. Rab. 6:5 [ed. M. Margulies; New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993], 137–38). We have a striking parallel to this midrash in Philo’s work, where we read: “No man can divide anything into equal sections with exactitude . . . It seems, then, that God alone is exact in judgment (ékribod¤kaiow) and alone is able to ‘divide in the middle’ things material and immaterial in such a way that no section is greater or less than another by even by infinitesimal difference (ékare› ka‹ émere›; the first word means literally ‘too short to be cut [of hair],’ the second one means literally ‘indivisible’), and each can partake of the equality which is absolute and plenary” (Philo, Who is the Heir, §143 [tr. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann, 1929–1962], 4:353–55). Philo and the rabbis refer to divine distribution into two equal parts both of time and of other things, material and immaterial. Philo discusses this subject in relation to the “dividing in the middle” mentioned in Gen 15:10. He comments on the words, “He divided them

164

menahem kister creation of the Most High is made. (4) And as the potter knows the use of each (vessel), what it is suitable for, so also does the Lord know the body, how far it will persist in goodness and when it begins in evil. (5) For there is nothing that is molded and no thought which the Lord does not know; for He created every man after His own image. (6) As his [i.e., man’s] strength, so also is his work . . . as his soul, so also his word, either in the law of the Lord or in the law of Beliar. (7) And as there is a division between light and darkness, seeing and hearing, so there is a division between man and man, and between woman and woman; and it is not to be said that the one is like the other in appearance or in mind. (8) For God made all things good, in order . . . the hair for glory, the heart for understanding, the belly for the secretion of the stomach . . . (9) So then, my children, be in order unto good, in the fear of God, and do nothing disorderly in scorn or out of its season. (10) For if you tell the eye to hear, it cannot; so neither will you be able to do works of light while in darkness. (T. Naph. 2:2–10)

We have here a cluster of ideas very similar to those of the two passages already surveyed. Let us outline the main ideas and mark the similarities to Ben Sira and 2 Enoch: (i) God created everything “by weight, measure and rule” (v. 3; cf. 2 Enoch). (ii) Although man was created in God’s image (v. 5; cf. 2 Enoch), there are substantial differences between individuals (v. 8; cf. 2 Enoch). God knows all human beings as a potter knows the vessels he moulds (vv. 2, 4; cf. Ben Sira). (iii) The differences between human beings are compared to light and darkness (cf. Ben Sira) and to the various senses of the human body (vv. 7, 10). The tension between the plurality of the human experience and “dualistic” theology has parallels in the Qumran scrolls.47 (iv) The difference between human creatures is emphasized (vv. 7–8; cf. 2 Enoch, sections b–c), for which the different functions of the members of the human body are given as an illustration. in the middle,” that “it is necessary to make a few remarks on the subject of equal sections” (per‹ t«n ‡svn tmhmãtvn), and he thoroughly discusses “equality.” One should note the striking parallel in Targum Onqelos, rendering the words in Gen 15:10: “he [i.e. Abraham] divided them equally (ywçb).” In the course of his lengthy discussion, Philo mentions (among many other verses) Exodus 24:6 (§182), discussed also by the rabbis, but he interprets it rather differently. 47 Thus, for instance, according to 4Q186, the exact spiritual position of every individual between light and darkness (i.e., the proportion of light and darkness in one’s soul) can be determined with the help of astronomy and physiognomy. The physiognomic teaching in 4Q186, according to which one’s spiritual status can be determined by observing his body, may be a good illustration of the statement in the Testament of Naphtali concerning the relationship between the spirit and the fashioning of the body.

physical and metaphysical measurements

165

(v) Another inference drawn from God’s order in Creation, a harmony of differences, is that one should not do anything out of its due season (v. 9). The author did not draw a line between God’s physical and metaphysical rules; he did not distinguish between the order of nature and of the human body and the metaphysical “order” of the observance of God’s commandments (vv. 8–9). The request not to do anything out of its due time is clearly related in this passage to the conception of divine order (v. 9). This may be taken as implying that the divine order (referred to in v. 8) applies also to periods of time, and that time is based on differences (probably measurable differences) exactly as is the order of nature. Although measure terminology is used explicitly only once (v. 3), it may be said that this is the general tenor of the passage as a whole. The different functions assigned by God to the limbs of the human body exemplify in this passage the different kinds of competence bestowed by God upon individual human beings. The divine order is based on differences. The analogy between the harmony of the members of the human body and the harmony of different individuals is a well-known topos in the ancient world; it is particularly interesting, however, to compare the theology of the passage in the Testament of Naphtali with some passages in the Pauline epistles.48 Paul writes: If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each of them, as He chose . . . The eye cannot say to the hand “I have no need of you” . . . Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Cor 12:17–27) . . . I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has apportioned him. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ . . . having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . (Romans 12:3–10)49

48 For parallels in the classical literature, see the passages noted by Lietzmann (H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I–II 4 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949], 62 [commentary to 1 Cor 12:12]). 49 Cf. also: “Grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift . . . And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets [etc.] . . . for building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:7–13).

166

menahem kister

The similarity to the Testament of Naphtali is clear. The Pauline idea that all the members are part of Christ’s body adds, of course, a new dimension to the differentiation between the members. According to Paul’s epistle to the Romans, the differentiation between the members is ordained by God “according to [God’s] grace.” One’s position in the community is “according to the measure of faith,” but this measure is allotted by God. We are reminded of passages in the scrolls: Every Israelite may know his standing place in the Community of God for an eternal council. And no one shall either fall from his standing place, or rise from the place of his lot . . . For they shall all be in the Community . . . of righteous intention towards one another. (1QS 2:22–25) And they shall examine their spirits . . . and register them in order, each before his companion, according to his understanding and his deeds (of the Torah). (1QS 5:20–23) They will examine him according to his deeds and his understanding . . . and they shall write him down in his place according to the portion that he is allotted50 in the lot of light. (CD 13:11–12) [For as] God [favored] a person, He increased the portion that he is allotted in the knowledge of his truth (4Q413 2)

One’s “measure” (tikkun; i.e., standing in the hierarchy) in Qumran is determined according to the measure of one’s understanding and deeds of Torah, to which the Pauline “measure of faith” is an equivalent. Qumran and Paul share the premise that the theological truth concerning one’s “portion” as given to him by God can be attained by observing one’s personality and religious behavior.

III We return to a more thorough examination of the usage of the word tikkun, the outlines of which have been noted above, at the beginning of section I. At first glance, the word tikkun seems to be used in the texts from Qumran in a variety of theological meanings.51 In the Serekh, Hodayot and some sectarian poetical works the word is employed in the following senses:

50 According to the reading of E. Qimron in: M. Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1992), 35, n. 6. 51 For secular use of ˆwkt see 1QM 6:11–13 (μhymy ˆwkt).

physical and metaphysical measurements

167

(1) The word ˆwkt means measurement of both astronomical and historical periods. (a) Astronomical periods: wnwktl μwy twpwqtb μnwktb μyd[wm tpwqtw . . . (1QHa 12:5);52 . . . μnwktb çdwq ymy . . . tyçrb hzl hz wfpçm μwy μnwkt qwj μlçhb μhyd[wm tpwqtbw μynç yçarb (1QS 10:7; cf. also 10:9). (b) Historical periods: larçyb hla twyhb t[h ˆwktbw (1QS 8:4) μnwktl wawby la yxq lk (1QpHab 7:13); t[w t[ ˆwktl çyaw çya lqçmlw (1QS 9:12).53 (2) The sentence çyaw çya lqçmlw t[w t[ ˆwktl (1QS 9:12) demonstrates the relation between the “measure” of the periods and the spiritual measures (or weights) of human beings. Indeed, this very word ˆwkt denotes also the portion of righteousness and spiritual capability allotted to the members of the sect: wnwktb ,wnwktk çya (1QS 6:4, 8; cf. 6:10). As noted above, this idea is connected with other terms, such as “lot” (lrwg), “portion, inheritance” (hljn).54 (3) The election of the chosen ones is described in the following way in a poem entitled Barkhi Nafshi: [?ˆkyw] tmaw μwlç twrwt μhl lgyw ˆkt lqçmb μhylm μjwr hdmb, “and He revealed to them teachings of peace and truth [and He created] their spirits in (their proper) measure, their words He measured out in (their proper) weight” (4Q434 1 i 10).55 Similarly we read in the Hodayot: . . . ˆwçlb jwr htarb hta

hdmb μytpç jwr [bmw wq l[ μyrbd μçtw μtwyh μrfb μytpç yrp ˆktw “You created spirit in speech . . . and You measured out what their lips bring forth before they were created, and you established words with a measuring line and expressions of speech in (proper) measure” (1QHa 1:28–29); ] wq l[ htqqj wnwçlbw hkdb[ ypb htjtp rw[qm], “You have opened a wellspring in the mouth of your servant, and you set a measuring line on his speech” (1QHa 18:10). Both the doctrines and precepts of the sect as well as God’s proper praise are subject to divine measurement, and are given only to the righteous ones, who hold the true doctrines, i.e., the members of the sect. (4) Similarly, the term tikkun is employed for the precepts consisting the “way” of the maskil or the yahad, and the expression used is ˚rdh ynwkt (1QS 5:7, 9:21; see also 1QS 1:12). 52 References to the Hodayot follow the numbering of E. L. Sukenik, using the edition of J. Licht, Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll From the Wilderness of Judaea ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957). 53 Cf. CD 12:20, in which the same sentence occurs, but the word used is fpçm rather than ˆwkt. 54 See above, p. 154. 55 M. Weinfeld and D. Seely, “Barkhi Nafshi,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 270.

168

menahem kister

(5) In Serekh Shirat 'Olat ha-Shabbat we read that the angels are sent by God wt)[m]a ˆwktb wtwjlçm lwkl “to all His missions, in the measure of His truth” (4Q405 23 i 13).56 The expression wtma ˆwkt seems to refer here to God’s dispensation.57 The phrase μnkt wtmab occurs in a very fragmentary context (4Q181 2 8),58 perhaps referring there to Creation.59 Conceptions of measurement, including the root ˆkt, are most significant in Qumran sapiential literature. Several tiny fragments of 4QMysteries use the words ˆwkt ,qwj ,lqçm and hdm. Although the fragments are so small as to be virtually unintelligible, all of them seem to reflect a theological notion of divine measurement.60 A fragment of 4QMysteries (4Q299 6 i 5), probably describing God’s wonders in creation, mentions “rains” and, in the next line, wqçy hrwçmbw “and in measurement they water the earth,” referring probably to the clouds.61 In another fragment assigned to the same work, the words dja ˆwkt, probably an allusion to Ezek 45:10–11, have survived: (ˆwkt) ˆkt tbhw hpyah .μkl yhy qdx tbw qdx tpyaw qdx ynzam hyhy dja (“You shall have just balances, a just ephah and a just bath, and the ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure”).62 56 I differ with C. Newsom’s translation of wtma ˆwkt as “according to his certain order” (“C. Shirot 'Olat Hashabbat,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 [ed. E. Eshel et al.; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997], 357). 57 It may be mentioned that the members of the sect are expected to “walk with everyone according to the “measure of truth” (tmah tdmb lwk μ[ ˚lhthl; 1QS 8:4). The use of the phrase “the measure (hdm/ˆwkt) of truth” might be interpreted as an implicit indication that the members of the sect are expected to act in a way analogous to the way God acts. 58 The reading of these words by J. M. Allegro (Qumran Cave 4.I [DJDJ 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], 80) was contested by J. Strugnell (“Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,” RevQ 7 (1970): 255. However, the reading μnkt seems to be the right reading. See D. Dimant “The ‘Pesher of Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” IOS 9 (1979): 86. I thank Prof. E. Qimron, with whom I have consulted, for confirming the reading μnkt. 59 The lines preceding and following this one probably deal with Creation. It seems rather plausible, then, that the phrase cited above refers to God’s creation. 60 ]çy awlw dja ˆwkt—4Q299 6 ii 16; ]tdwb[ lwk ˆktl—4Q299 10 7–8; qwj[ ˆwktl lqçm/]μa ayk μnwkt—4Q299 20 1–2; ]hdmbw y(j) l)k— ) 4Q299 29 3; ]lqçm[— 4Q299 32 3; ] μnwktl[/lar]çy ynb[—4Q299 2 1–2. dja ˆwkt (4Q299 6 ii 16) may be an allusion to Ezek 45:11 (cf. below, n. 62). For 4Q299 see L. H. Schiffman, “B. Mysteries [299],” in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (ed. T. Elgin et al.; DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 33–98. 61 Schiffman’s translation, “and according to measure they shall drink,” (DJD 20.46) is awkward. 62 4Q159 1 14 = 4Q513 1–2 i 3 (Allegro, DJDJ 5.7; M. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) [DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982], 287): dja ˆwkt tbhw hpyah.

physical and metaphysical measurements

169

Of special importance are some passages of 4QInstruction. God measured out and weighed in a just balance all of Creation (hç[ la yk w]tmabw μnwkt lwk lqç qdx ynzwmb y[k]/[. . .] tmab μnktyw fwa yxpj lwk, 4Q418 127 5–6 “For God made all matters of fwa, and he measured them in truth . . . for with just scales He weighed all their measurements, and in [His?] truth”; ]m lwk la ˆkt qdx lqçmw tma t[p]yab “With a true measure and a just weight God measured all [. . .,” 4Q418 126 ii 3). The terminology in these passages is very close to the expressions wtma ˆwkt and wtmab μnkt (above, § III.5). The wording echoes Ezek 45:10–11. The idea that the Creation is measured by God is expressed in 4QInstruction by the words hrwçmb rwçml, “to measure” (4Q418 1 1 + 4Q416 1 4).63 The passage reads:

[hklmml

] yxpj ˆktlw (2) ]w d[wmb d[wm (3) ]lw hrwçmb rwçml μabx ypl (4) çyaw çyal hnydmw [hny]dml hklmmw (5) wl μlwk fpçmw μabx rwsjm ypl (6)

(2) to measure out the matters of [ (3) season by season (4) according to their service to measure out in measure and to . . . . . . [to every] (5) kingdom, to every province, to every man (6) according to the need of their service, and the fit portion(s) (granted) to any of them (are) His.

Although the text is very fragmentary, it seems fairly clear that God’s measurements are related to His providence, concerning every kingdom, province and human being.64 According to 4QInstruction, God can grant to human beings knowledge of His own divine measure of the physical and metaphysical realms. The most explicit statement is: wrxwabw hkl jt[p] lkç htaw hkl h]dqp tma tpyaw hklyçmh (4Q418 81+81a 9). The editors

63 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsàr le˘ Mèvîn): 4Q415 ff. (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 81, 224. Their translation (“To rule by dominion,” 82) is erroneous. rwçml is a denominative verb, derived from the noun hrwçm “measure” (Lev 19:35). 64 Similarly M. Weinfeld, “μymwsrp ˆmwy,” Shnaton 11 (1997): 358–59 (Hebrew). It is unlikely that the passage dealt exclusively with rains. The word hrwçm explicitly occurs in a passage of 4QMysteries cited above (4Q299 6 i 5; above, n. 61). The text of 4QMysteries is extremely fragmentary, but an interpretation that it deals with measures of rain is quite possible there.

170

menahem kister

of this text, Strugnell and Harrington, translate it: “But as for thee, He has [op]ened up for thee insight, And he has placed thee in authority over His treasure, And a true measure has been la[id as a charge upon thee]”).65 However, their translation of the last clause is highly unlikely. dqp has here the sense ‘to give charge over, to order that something be given [into one’s charge],’66 and is a perfect synonym of the word lyçmh. The last clause should therefore be rendered: “And the true ephah67 was given into your charge.” God’s own divine measure (4Q418 126 ii 3)68 is granted to the sage. Another passage in 4QInstruction (4Q418 77 + 4Q416 7) is revealing: ] 69 lwkb harw μd[a] twdlwt jqw hyhn zr[b fbh] (2) [yk . . . ?çya lwk] lqçmw çwna fpçmb ˆybt zaw whç[m tdwqpw[ ] (3) ] tdmw μyxq lqç[m] l)[) hyhn zrb jqw wjwr ypl wytpç lzm (4)

The passage is translated by the editors: “. . . mystery that is to come, and grasp the nature of [M]an, and gaze on the prosperi[ty / (3) and the punishment of his activity; and then thou shalt discern the judgement of mankind, and the weighing [ / (4) to the outpouring of his lips and according to his spirit, and grasp the mystery that is to come, According to the [w]eight of the times and the proportion of [. . . .”70 I believe that this translation is wrong, and a better translation would be: (3) [consider] the mystery to come and grasp the (spiritual) filiation of a [pe]rson,71 and consider all [ 65 Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.301, and see their commentary, 307. At the end of this sentence they reconstruct [hkyl[] rather than my [hkl]. 66 See 4Q416 2 ii 9; 4Q418 123 ii 7; cf. also Num 27:17 and the usage in Syriac. 67 The words tma and qdx (Ezek 45:10–11) are easily interchangeable, cf. Aramaic afçwq. The expression tma tpya, like many construct forms in Hebrew, is grammatically ambiguous: it may denote “a true ephah” (as it does in Ezekiel) but also “the ephah of truth” (i.e., of God’s truth), cf. wtma ˆwkt (above, § III.5). The writer may well have used this ambiguity. 68 But note that the reading in 4Q418 126 ii 3 is uncertain (Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.351). 69 Strugnell and Harrington prefer the reading r]çwkb, but say that reading lwkb “is not impossible” (DJD 34.297). 70 Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.297. 71 See 1QS 3:19: lw[h twdlwt ˚çwj rwqmmw tmah twdlwt rwa ˆy[mb, “the offspring of truth (emerge) from the Spring of Light, and the offspring of wickedness from the Well of Darkness”; 1QS 3:13–14: (ynb lwk twdlwtb rwa ynb lwk ta dmllw ˆybhl μtwjwr ynym lwkl çya, “to teach all the Sons of Light the (spiritual) filiation of all the human beings (i.e., whether they are descendants of Good or Evil), according to the different classes of their spirits.” The word μda in our sentence can mean either ‘a person’ or ‘human beings’ in general. (Prof. James Kugel draws my attention to striking parallels in 1 John 2:29–3:2, 3:8–15, 4:2–8, 5:1, and elsewhere in this epistle).

physical and metaphysical measurements

171

(4) [. . .] and the examination of his deed(s), and then you will understand the (proper) measure of humans and the weight of [every man?72 . . . for] (5) the utterance of his lips is according to his spirit.73 And grasp in the mystery to come according to the [we]ight of periods and the measurements of [ . . .

It seems that this passage refers to the doctrine of the two spirits and to the possibility of “examining” human beings, and “weighing” times. The examination of human beings, whç[m tdwqp, a term known from passages in the Serekh and in the Damascus Covenant,74 is essentially related to “measuring the spirits” (ˆwkt and also lqçm). This passage, then, is a parallel to passages in the Serekh, especially to the passage in which it is stated that the role of the maskil is “to measure every time and to weigh every man according to their spirits” (1QS 9:12–14).75 We may note in passing that such impressive parallels to the Serekh indicate that 4QInstruction is a sectarian work. A fragmentary passage seems to refer to the “weighing of spirits” of a couple to be married. The passage (4Q415 11 + 4Q418 167) reads: [ q]dx ynzwmk yk μb h)[ ]lwk)b htnwktm[ ] [ ] awl rça [drt] taz hl[t taz ayk hm[b) wyhy a[l] ]y(m) [ ] [ ] rmw[w rmw[l hpya[w hpyal] [wfyby la] hyarm ypyl hmj)[wr ˆkt ] djyb awl rça l[ ] [ h]mjwr djyb htnkt [?wnk]ty twjwr ayp)l yk μynyb)m) [lwk] πgn [ w]h)n(ybh htywgbw wl rps hyOmOwm lw[k] rw[] y(npl lwçkmk wl hyh[w h]lpOa)b) ]sb wpa hrjw wpgOn[( w] j)lç[y]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

The word twdlwt in the Serekh has often been translated “nature.” This translation has been suggested by G. Scholem (ˆyfwfrç yrdsw μynp trkh, Sefer Asaf [ Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1953], 477–79 [Hebrew]: “as the Latin word ‘natura’ is derived from the verb nasci, and the Greek word fÊsiw is derived from the verb fÊv, so also is hdlwt derived from the verb yalad . . . It cannot be certainly known whether the usage is a calque of the Greek word fÊsiw, or is it rather a semantic parallel; the latter seems to me more plausible”). Scholem is perhaps right concerning the usage of the word twdlwt in mediaeval literature, but the translation suggested above seems to me preferable. 72 The only reason for this reconstruction is that we must have an antecedent to “his lips” in the next line. 73 Compare: “as his soul, so also his word, either in the law of the Lord or in the law of Beliar” (T. Naphtali 2:6). 74 Cf. 1QS 5:24 μhyç[mw μjwr ta μdqwp twyhlw; wyç[ml whdqpy (CD 13:11). 75 . . . çyaw çya lqçmlw t[w t[ ˆwktl yj lwk μ[ μb ˚lhthl lykçml μyqwjh hla μwjwr ypl qdxh ynb lwqçlw lydbhl t[h qwj taw μyt[h ypl axmnh lkçh lwk ta dwmlw.

172

menahem kister ]çb μjwr hnwkt lqçm μ[ (9) ]b πgny μaw hb lwçkO yO a)[w]l (10) (1) ] her measuring in all [ ] in them, for like just balance [ (2) ] will not be in them. . . . For this (pan) will rise up, and that one [will sink down] which are not [measured out properly] (3) by ephah and ephah, by omer and omer (4) ] that are not [fitting?] together. Measure out their spirit, to the beauty of her (or: their) appearance [let not?] (5) people of understanding [pay heed?]. For according to their spirits will they be me[asured out?] . . . you have measured out their spirit together . . . (6) [A]ll her blemishes recount to him, and illuminate him concerning her body (i.e., bodily defects) [ ] stumbling block (7) in the darkness, and it will be to him (as) an obstacle in front of [a blind man,76 and when he] (8) stretches [his leg?] it (i.e., the stumbling block) makes him stumble. And His (or: his) anger will burn against . . . (9) with weight. Measure out their spirit [ (10) [let him] not stumble against her, and if he stumbles against h[er] (or: i[t]) . . .

As has been noted by Qimron,77 the whole fragment should be interpreted in the light of a passage in the Damascus Document: fpçm ta wyl[ ayby hml wl rpsy hymwm lwk ta çyal çya ˆty wtb ta μaw awh yk hl ˆkwh awl rçal hhnty la μgw ˚rdb rw[ hgçm rma rça rwrah . . . μyalk And if a man gives his daughter to a man, let him disclose all her blemishes to him, lest he bring upon himself the punishment of the curse, as it is said “(cursed is he who) makes the blind wander out of the way.” Moreover, he should not give her to one who is not destined for her, for that is (a violation of the prohibition of ) kil’ayim. (4Q271 3 7–10)78

Line 6 of the passage of 4QInstruction cited above is almost literally identical to the halakhic instruction in the Damascus Document. Whereas the instruction in the latter is based on Deut 27:18, the former (lines 7–10) is based on another, similar verse, namely Lev 19:14, rw[ ynpl lwçkm ˆtt al.79 The halakhic instruction in the latter, “he [= her 76

I thank Prof. Elisha Qimron for providing me with a new reading at this point. Cited in Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.59. 78 J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 175. 79 The editors of 4QInstruction did not recognize the allusion to Lev 19:14, which is the key to the translation and to the interpretation of this passage; hence the many essential differences between my translation and theirs. 77

physical and metaphysical measurements

173

father] should not give her to one not destined (literally: prepared) for her” (4Q271 3 9) has its counterpart in the “weighing of spirits” in the former. Joseph Baumgarten, the editor of the passage in the Damascus Document, has noted: “It is possible that this expression reflects the belief that one’s spouse is prepared by destiny; cf. Tob 6:18 . . . Here, however, ˆkwh awl more likely refers to overt incompatibility, such as a great disparity in age.”80 Ostensibly, this interpretation seems unavoidable: how can a human being know who one’s destined spouse is? However, from 4QInstruction it can be inferred that, within the terms of Qumranic concepts, this knowledge could be acquired by “measuring out” the spirits of the couple. Indeed, it is said in the Bible that only God measures out spirits (ùh twjwr ˆkwt, Prov 16:2), but we have already seen that the knowledge of divine measurement was conceived of as granted to the sage. The “weighing of spirits” was most plausibly an accurate process: according to the Serekh, a similar process of “weighing the spirits” resulted in fixing one’s precise place in the sect’s hierarchy. It could perhaps be achieved (inter alia) by mantic techniques; thus there is a mention of astrology in the next line (4Q415 11 11),81 and similarly elsewhere in this work, in reference to marriage.82 In this connection it is worth noting a rabbinic midrash attributed to an Amora: lbhm hmh twl[l μynzamb” :hyyrm rb ayyj ùr rma djy lbhm hmh ˆhytwmya y[mm lbh ˆyywç[ ˆhç d[ ”djy; “R. Hiyya bar Marya said: ‘In (God’s) balances they (men and women) are (properly) weighed (literally: go up)’ (Ps 62:10); that is, they are matched when they are no more than mere breath in their mothers’ wombs. (Thus) ‘they (men and women) are brought together whilst they are mere breath’ (Ps 62:10).”83 It may be observed that the metaphor, the theological context, and even the wording,84 are similar to the passage cited above from 4QInstruction, concerning the matching of 80

J. M. Baumgarten, DJD 18.175, 177. The expression hydl[wm jq] was erroneously translated by Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34.58); it probably refers to the preparation of a horoscope, see M. Morgenstern, “The Meaning of μydlwm tyb in the Qumran Wisdom Texts”, JJS 51 (2000): 141–44. 82 [h]ydlwm jq hkçyrb htjql hça, “if you take a woman in your poverty, study her horoscope [i.e., before marrying her],” 4Q416 2 iii 20. 83 Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 23:8 (ed. Mandelbaum, 340–41) = Lev. Rab. 29:8 (ed. Margulies, 679). Translation according to Braude and Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, 357 (with slight changes). For the metaphor (or the conception) see also M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Poetry from Late Antiquity ( Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999), 258 (no. 44*), 268 (no. 45*). 84 djy ,twl[l ,μynzam. 81

174

menahem kister

the future husband and wife by weighing and measurement (4Q415 11 + 4Q418 167). It is possible to hypothesize that a metaphor that has been in use in wide circles was given a more precise significance in Qumran. The knowledge of the portion allotted to every individual is most significant for the “wisdom” concepts of 4QInstruction. One should not aspire to the portion or “inheritance” granted by God to another: hklwbg gyst ˆp hb [lbtt law hktljn tlwz watt la hta ˆwyba “(If ) you are poor, do not yearn for that which is beyond your portion, and do not be afflicted by it, lest you withdraw your own boundary” (4Q416 2 iii 8–9).85 One of the means to discern one’s “portion” is astrology: wtljn [dt zaw wydlwm çwrd hyhn zrbw, “and by the mystery of what is to come study his horoscope, and then you will know his portion” (4Q416 2 iii 9–10). One is not allowed to increase the portion allotted to him, and if he does so, he is shortening his life (4Q417 2 i 17–20), perhaps because the total sum of one’s portion is measured out by God.86 The idea of divine spiritual portions granted to human beings is well-known from many sectarian works from Qumran. It is easy to see that the notion of portions ordained by God admirably fits the idea that God’s doings in the cosmos take place according to divine measurements. This theory is closely related in sectarian writings to the theory of divine predestination, which is at the heart of the theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls community. Let us recapitulate our findings thus far. We have discussed occurrences of the idea of divine measurements in works of the Second Temple period, and especially in Qumran. We have seen that this theological conception applies to almost any aspect of God’s deeds. It is quite clear that none of the sources distinguish among different kinds of “measurements.” On the contrary, measurements are explicitly and implicitly conceived of as analogous in different realms. The idea of God’s measurements relates to the physical and to the metaphysical, to space and to time, to history and to law, to order and to ordinances,

85 See M. Kister, “Lexical and Linguistic Gleanings to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Leshonenu 67 (2005: forthcoming). Strugnell and Harrington’s translation (DJD 34.112) is erroneous. 86 M. Kister, “A Qumranic Parallel to 1 Thess 4:4? Reading and Interpretation of 4Q416 2 ii 21,” DSD 10 (2003): 365–70.

physical and metaphysical measurements

175

to property and to wisdom, to God’s actions and to the proper behavior of the pious. It is thus the main principle of God’s activity in the world.87 These broad theological concepts illuminate the wideranging nuances of one Hebrew word current in Qumran literature, the word ˆwkt. How are these conceptions related to biblical ones? Several passages of the Hebrew Bible refer to God’s measures. God is described as measuring out the water and the wind, and perhaps also His wisdom ( Job 28:25–26).88 He is described as weighing the righteousness of human beings in His “just balance” ( Job 31:6), and as measuring the spirits of human beings (Prov. 16:2; 21:2). From a prophetic passage (Ezek 18:25) it could be inferred that God’s “way” (i.e., dispensation) is “measurable.”89 A prophetic passage (Isa 40:13) was interpreted as saying that God measured out (ˆkt) His (Holy) Spirit, i.e., His wisdom. Gen 15:16 may be considered as a biblical precedent to the conceptions of measurement in history, such as those expressed in 4 Ezra 4:36–37 (above, section I, [e]). Some of these passages are alluded to in writings of the Second Temple period90 that express views concerning the divinely ordained measurements. Job 28:25–26 serves similarly in rabbinic Judaism as a prooftext for other divine measurements. The clause lqçm jwrl twç[l ( Job 28:25) is taken in some rabbinic writings, inter alia, as referring to God’s

87 Cf. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (SNT 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 141–45. 88 Cf. M. Kister, “Wisdom Attainable and Unattainable: Biblical and Postbiblical Attitudes” (forthcoming). 89 wnkty al μkykrd alh ˆkty al ykrdh ’h ˚rd ˆkty al μtrmaw, literally translated: “You say: ‘God’s way is not measurable.’ Hear, O the House of Israel: is My way not measurable? It is your ways that are immeasurable.” The rhetorical question, “is my way not measurable?” could imply that God’s way is indeed measurable. Compare also 1 Sam. 2:3; the use of the root ˆkt in this verse did not influence the sect’s theology much because the sect had a different reading, closer to that of the Septuagint, as demonstrated by Segal (M. Segal, “1 Samuel 2:3: Text, Exegesis and Theology,” Shnaton 13 [2000]: 83–95, especially 92–94 [Hebrew]). 90 1 Enoch 60 was apparently influenced by Job 28:25–26 (60:13 interprets the words twlq zyzjl ˚rdw; 60:22 is based on qj rfml wtwç[b hdmb ˆkt μymw). The Barkhi Nafshi poem (4Q434 1 i 10), dealing with the Divine measurement of the souls and the words of the elect, seems to allude to these verses. The “just balance” mentioned in 1 Enoch 43:2, as well as in 4QInstruction (4Q418 127 5–6), may be derived from Job 31:6, but seems also to be influenced by Ezek 45:10–11. The expression twjwr ˆkt (4Q415 11 5) is probably based on Prov 16:2. The expression ˚rdh ˆwkt (1QS 5:7, 9:21, and cf. 1QS 1:12 wykrd μtk ˆktl μjwkw) probably alludes to Ezek 18:25.

176

menahem kister

measuring out of the spirits of the prophets (rather than “wind” in the plain sense of the biblical verse). According to one interpretation, the verse refers to the prophets receiving the Holy Spirit in different weights; according to another, people have either “great souls (or: minds)” or “petty souls (or: minds),”91 according to the spiritual measure ordained for them by God (Lev. Rab. 15:2; cf. 4Q434 1 i 10: ˆkt lqçmb μhylm μjwr hdmb).92 The “measurement of water” mentioned in the same verse ( Job 28:25) was interpreted in the midrash as referring to the change in the proportion of water in the human body, of which leprosy is the result, a change caused by sin (Lev. Rab. 15:2); the direct correlation between the physical and the metaphysical is thus clearly indicated.93 Notwithstanding these biblical precedents, the specific theological sense and the significance attached to the notion of divine measurement seem to be peculiar to the literature of the Second Temple period, and the human techniques for discovering it, found in some Qumranic texts, are certainly so. In this case, as in others, biblical wording may paradoxically conceal the novelty of a concept. It can be doubted whether theological concepts concerning divine measurement in this literature emerged directly and solely from biblical passages; but even if they did, they acquired new significance in the literature of the Second Temple period. Methodologically, we have here a striking example of the study of a culture through vocabulary and formulae. The analysis of one word (tikkun) and a synthesis of passages in the literature of the Second Temple are complementary and verify each other. We realize that the ocean is contained in each drop of its waters.

91 The current usage indicated in the midrash is, literally, “wide soul (or: mind)” (hbjr jwr) versus “thin soul (or: mind)” (hrxq jwr). 92 This view is further elaborated in later midrashim, where it is stated that God weighed every spirit differently, hence the differences of mind among individuals (Tan˙uma (ed. S. Buber, Vilna, 1885), Pin˙as 1), and that the Messiah will be able to weigh all the human spirits, i.e., to understand every human mind (Yalqut Shim'oni, Pentateuch, 771, probably derived from the lost midrash Deuteronomy Zuta). These statements are reminiscent of statements in Second Temple literature surveyed above, but a genetic link between late rabbinic conceptions and earlier material is rather doubtful. 93 Baumgarten has compared this text to a Qumranic text of the Damascus Document ( J. Baumgarten, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Disease,” JJS 41 [1990]: 153–65, especially 164). However, even if there is some similarity between the physiological theories reflected in both texts, there is no trace of the “measurement theology” of the midrashic text in the extant fragments of the Damascus Document.

SACRIFICIAL HALAKHAH IN THE FRAGMENTS OF THE ARAMAIC LEVI DOCUMENT FROM QUMRAN, THE CAIRO GENIZAH, AND MT. ATHOS MONASTERY Lawrence H. Schiffman New York University

One of the central passages of the Aramaic Levi Document as it is presently preserved is that which deals with sacrificial law. This passage, sections 16 to 46, 52, and 56–57, reconstructed from a number of sources, the Cairo genizah fragments, the Mount Athos Greek fragments,1 and the Qumran Aramaic fragments,2 presents a sustained exhortation in which Isaac, the patriarch, provides his grandson Levi with specific instructions regarding his obligations as a priest.3 This exhortation includes various halakhic elements that appear at first glance to be at variance with those of the Pentateuch.4 Further, some of the same 1 R. H. Charles, “Appendix 1” in The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), 245–56. Cf. also K. Beyer, Die arämaischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 188–208; and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 46–48. After the completion of this paper, two excellent studies of our text appeared. Unfortunately, they arrived too late to be included in this discussion. See J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004); H. Drawnell, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document ( JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 2 M. E. Stone and J. C. Greenfield in G. J. Brooke et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1–72. 3 See the survey in M. E. Stone, “Levi, Aramaic,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:486–88. On the Testament of Levi, cf. R. A. Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 47–56. 4 R. A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 109–10. Contrast the view of M. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and Jubilees,” in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions (ed. R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 103–122, who argues that these prescriptions do not violate pentateuchal law. Her article had been written before mine, but I learned of it from her only after mine was completed. She was kind enough to make it available to me before publication. There is some overlap, and the articles should be read together.

178

lawrence h. schiffman

prescriptions are directed in Jubilees 21 to Isaac himself who is portrayed as occupying a place in the historical line of the priesthood in pre-Aaronic times.5 The paper that follows will investigate each of these prescriptions, in the order of their appearance in the text, comparing them with relevant biblical prescriptions, those in other Second Temple period texts, and those of rabbinic halakhah. In this way, we will elucidate the specifics of each regulation and come to an understanding of the overall halakhic character of the Aramaic Levi Document.

16. Purity from Sexual Immorality and Impurity After an introductory exhortation (13–15), Levi is exhorted to avoid three things, zjp (‘fornication’), hamwf (‘ritual impurity’), and twnz (‘harlotry’).6 Ritual impurity clearly refers to defiling the sanctuary.7 Comparison with the parallel Greek text8 helps to define these terms further. Fornication (zjp) would refer to the equivalent of the Greek sunousiasmos,9 which apparently includes certain sexual offenses as are described in the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document), such as having relations with a menstruating woman or marrying one’s niece (CD 5:6–11). Harlotry or unchastity (twnz) is the equivalent of the Greek porneia,10 and seems to refer in the Zadokite Fragments to polygamy (CD 4:9–5:6). In any case, assuming an emendation, J. C. Greenfield has argued that this line from the Aramaic Levi Document is actually quoted in CD 4:15–19.11 This fundamental command in the Aramaic Levi Document is based on the instructions regarding priestly holiness found in Leviticus 21.

5 Cf. J. L. Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR 86 (1993): 1–64. 6 Translated by Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 96. Cf. Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” in H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 15. 7 J. C. Greenfield, “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15–19,” RevQ 13 (1988): 319–22, p. 321. 8 Three editions were used: Charles, Testaments, 245–56; de Jonge, Testaments, 46–48; Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 94–96 (only for the sections not preserved in Aramaic). 9 Defined in LSJ, 1723b as ‘sexual intercourse’ but translated in Ben Sira 23:6 as “lust” (RSV). 10 ‘Prostitution, fornication, unchastity,’ LSJ, 1450b. Cf. BDAG, 693. 11 On this passage see Greenfield, “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob,” 319–22.

sacrificial halakhah

179

Verse 6 commands in general that the priests be holy and not defile God’s name and, accordingly, verse 7 instructs them to abstain from marriage with a variety of classes of women. While it may be difficult to be specific, since below we find only the requirement that priests marry wives from the Jewish people, it seems that the other classes of forbidden women in Lev 21:7 are generally considered under the rubric of harlotry (twnz). Under fornication (zjp) may be grouped various violations of sexual laws, but it is difficult to specify to which prohibitions the text is referring. Certainly, the mention of the harlot among the forbidden women in 21:7 makes clear that this verse is the basis of our text. It is not clear whether this and similar laws in Aramaic Levi refer to all priests or only to the High Priest. After all, Levi functions both as the ancestor of all priests and at the same time as the ancestor of Aaron, the High Priest. Further, it is even possible that the author of this text shared with the book of Ezekiel (44:15–31) the notion that all priests had to be Zadokite priests, and that they all would have to live up to what in Leviticus are requirements for the High Priest only.12

17. Priests must Marry Native Jews This text requires that the priest must marry a native Jewish woman, that is, that he is forbidden to marry a convert to Judaism. This law is clearly in accord with the restrictions on the High Priest found in Lev 21:14, which specifically states that the High Priest is to marry a virgin from his nation. So it is possible to argue that the author of the Aramaic Levi Document understood this prescription to apply to Levi as High Priest. Alternatively, as mentioned above, is possible that the author of the Aramaic Levi Document followed Ezekiel in raising the sanctity of all priests to that of the High Priest, in which case our text would have expected that all priests would marry only Jewish-born virgins. The same prescription appears in T. Levi 9:10 where it is explicitly stated that Levi must take a wife “who is not from the race of

12 On the Zadokite High Priests, cf. L. H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 72–75.

180

lawrence h. schiffman

alien nations.”13 It is worth noting that according to Gen 28:1–2, Isaac instructed Jacob not to take a wife from among the Canaanites, but rather to marry within his own family.14 Yet this instruction is not in the context of priestly purity, and seems to be of little relevance to our passage. These parallels between Aramaic Levi and T. Levi, however, which unlike Ezekiel mention nothing about the requirement of virginity for the future wife of the priest, seem to indicate that the correct explanation for the generalization of the “no converts” rule lies elsewhere. Rabbinic halakhah, as is well known, holds that priests may not marry converts under any circumstances.15 This ruling is based on the definition of the term hnwz in Lev 21:6, which appears among classes of women that any priest (not just the High Priest) is forbidden to marry. It was the opinion of some Tannaim that this term included female converts who converted to Judaism over the age of three.16 This opinion was accepted as halakhah. We cannot be certain that those Tannaim who disagreed with this interpretation would actually have permitted priests to marry converts. It is even possible, although not likely, that they concurred with the prohibition while disagreeing with the derivation from Scripture. In any case, regarding this prescription the Aramaic Levi Document is totally in agreement with one Tannaitic opinion, indeed the opinion that was later accepted as the authoritative ruling of talmudic law.

18. Avoidance of Impurity of the Dead Levi is exhorted to be pure of rbg tamwf, “impurity of a person,” in his entire body (rçb). This apparently refers here both to impurity of the dead, contracted by either touching or being under a roof with a dead body, and to the various impurities brought about through bodily fluxes. There can be little doubt that this is what is referred to here because of the conflation of two biblical terms lying behind

13

Trans. H. C. Kee in OTP 1:792. Cf. Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Commentary, 156 n. 32 and 158. 14 Cited by Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 103. 15 Maimonides, H. ‘Issure Bi’ah 18:3 and Rabad, ad loc. 16 Sifra, ‘Emor 1:7 (ed. I. H. Weiss; New York: Om, 1946), 93b; b. Yebam. 60b and 61a.

sacrificial halakhah

181

the Aramaic, “impurity of his body” (wrçb tamwf) and “impurity of a person” (μdah tamwf). The expression “impurity of a person” is found in Lev 5:3 and 7:21 where it refers not only to impurity of the dead but also to other impurities which a person can contract. This usage is found numerous times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Rule of the Congregation (1QSa 2:3–4) prohibits anyone stricken with such impurities from entering the council of the community in the end of days. The plural use indicates that the prohibition encompasses not only impurity of the dead but also the impurities of bodily fluxes. The phrase “impurity of his body” appears in the War Scroll (1QM 7:4–5), where those afflicted with these impurities are prohibited from participating in the battle at the end of days.17 It any case, the combination of both these phrases in our Aramaic text makes clear that the Aramaic Levi Document is here calling upon the priest to remain totally uncontaminated by all impurities, so as to be able to properly minister and perform the sacrifices. While avoiding impurity in order to be permitted to perform the sacrifices can be seen as a pragmatic need for a High Priest or any priest, the situation is somewhat different in regard to impurity of the dead, for which the Torah prescribes a special commandment. Lev 21:1–4 forbids priests to become impure with the impurity of the dead, except for the case of certain close relatives, and Lev 1:11 prohibits the High Priest from becoming impure under any circumstances. It would be extremely tempting to say that our text here follows the commandment for the High Priest, and for this reason does not explain that there are exceptions for certain close relatives. However, our text is too terse for us to read so much into it. So once again, we cannot entirely be certain if our author intended to attribute those prescriptions to Levi, to all priests, or only to the High Priest.

19. Washing before Entering the Temple and Putting on Priestly Vestments Levi is commanded to wash in water before entering the Temple and only then to put on the priestly vestments. T. Levi 9:11 requires bathing before entering the sanctuary, no doubt a reflection of our 17 L. H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls (SBLMS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 38–40.

182

lawrence h. schiffman

text.18 It is possible that this passage refers to washing only the hands and feet, and that this is the meaning of the root yjs.19 This view may be supported by the biblical parallel in Exod 30:17–2120 where, in connection with the building of the Tabernacle, there is reference to the laver to be built to serve the needs of the priests.21 There we are told that all the priests (“Aaron and his sons”) should wash their hands and feet when they enter the Tent of Meeting and, further, that they should wash in the same way when approaching the altar to sacrifice. Only the washing of the hands and feet are mentioned, and there is no implication of ablutions for the entire body. But our text may also refer here to full immersion. Like the rabbis later on, our author was influenced in regard to these laws by the procedures for the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement. Thus, we should first look at the rabbinic requirement of immersion before entering the Temple. The same requirement is found for all sacrificial rites in Tannaitic halakhah. M. Yoma 3:3 requires ritual immersion of the entire body (lbf) of anyone who enters the Temple courtyard, that is, the court of Israel.22 According to Tannaitic tradition this requirement is based on the practice of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (t. Kippurim 1:16).23 In fact, Lev 16:4 does require that the High Priest wash himself (≈jr) before putting on the priestly vestments on the Day of Atonement, but the rabbis understood this verse to be connected with putting on the vestments rather than

18 We cannot be certain of the meaning of the term used in Aramaic Levi for the Temple, la tyb, “House of God.” The Greek has en tois hagiois. Does this term refer to the entire Temple precincts or only to the Temple building itself ? 19 J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza,” RB 85 (1979): 221. Cf. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1990), 372 s.v. yjs, where this meaning is only attested for the af 'el. Greek louò carries the same ambiguity. Cf. BDAG, 480–82. 20 Targums Onkelos (ed. A. Berliner; Berlin: Gorzelanczyk, 1884; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1974), and Pseudo-Jonathan (ed. M. Ginsburger; Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903) use the root çdq. Cf. the baraita in b. Zeba˙. 19b for details of the washing procedure. 21 Cf. L. H. Schiffman, “The House of the Laver in the Temple Scroll,” Eretz Israel 26 (Frank M. Cross Volume; 1999): 169*–175*. 22 The relationship of this mishnah to T. Levi 9:11 is noted by C. Albeck, “Hashlamot ve-Tosafot,” in Shishah Sidre Mishnah, Mo'ed (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1954), 2:467. 23 S. Lieberman, Tosefta (5 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955–88), Mo'ed, 226–27 and the note to line 82; idem, Tosefta Ki-Fshu†ah (10 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955), 4:744–45; cf. y. Yoma 3:3 (40b) and b. Yoma 30a.

sacrificial halakhah

183

with entering the sanctuary.24 Accordingly, they derived the requirement for immersion upon entering the Temple courtyard by logic, and not from any biblical verse. Aramaic Levi specifies that washing must also precede the donning of the priestly garments. This requirement, particular to a priest, has been derived from the requirement placed upon the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16:4. That verse specifically states that the washing (≈jr) is to precede the putting on of the vestments. It does appear from that text that what is referred to is immersion of the entire body.25 If so, then our text took the Day of Atonement ritual as typical (i.e., as a general rule for all rituals) and required that its prescriptions be observed on a regular basis in the Temple. The requirement of washing before putting on the priestly vestments on Yom Kippur is detailed in m. Yoma 3:3. There the text states that complete immersion is required each time the High Priest changes his garments on the Day of Atonement—five times.26 The requirement of immersion before putting on priestly garments was derived by the rabbis from Lev 16:4.27 It appears from the foregoing, in regard to these matters, that the Aramaic Levi Document is totally in agreement with the rulings of the Tannaitic tradition.

20–21. Washing of Hands and Feet Before Approaching the Altar and when Offering a Sacrifice The root ≈jr that appears here indicates the washing of only part of the body.28 This text mandates ablutions in the middle of the priestly service, requiring washing before approaching the altar or taking an offering, presumably to place it upon the altar.29 This same requirement is repeated below in 53a. T. Levi 9:11 mandates washing both before and after a sacrifice. The very same law appears in Jub. 21:16 in reference to washing before approaching the altar. M.

24

B. Yoma 32a (baraita). So Tg. Ps.-J. which adds here the requirement of 40 se"ah of water, the minimum contents of a miqveh. 26 Cf. Rashi to Lev 16:4. 27 Cf. Lev 8:6–9 where Moses washes Aaron and his sons in water before placing the priestly garments upon them (Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 104). 28 Greenfield and Stone, “Remarks,” 221. 29 See Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 99. 25

184

lawrence h. schiffman

Yoma 4:3 and m. Tamid 2:1 require a kind of intermediary ablution, namely, washing both the hands and feet prior to the offering of a sacrifice.30 In rabbinic technical terminology this process is termed “sanctification” (çwdyq). It is performed by washing, in turn, the right hand and foot at one time; and then the left hand and foot afterwards, simultaneously from the laver. It seems, then, that our text and rabbinic law are again in basic agreement on a procedural point.

22. Use only Split Wood Checked for Worms The text mandates that wood used on the altar for burning sacrifices must be split and checked for worms. Lev 1:7, which refers to the placing of the wood on the altar, makes no mention of the need to make sure that there are no worms, or of the need to use split wood. However, a similar practice is described in m. Mid. 2:5, which tells us that there was a chamber in the northeast corner of the women’s courtyard known as the Chamber of the Wood. There, priests who were disqualified from offering sacrifices because of blemishes checked for worms in the wood to be used on the altar. Wood in which worms were found was considered unfit for sacrifice.31 The root [lt is used there in the causative to mean “check for worms,” and a word derived from the same root is used for worms in our passage (a[lwt). At the same time, our passage uses the verb rqb meaning “investigate,” and this term was used in rabbinic literature regularly to denote checking sacrificial animals for blemishes that would disqualify them.32 Commentators on the Mishnah suggest that it would be regarded as unseemly to allow forbidden insects to be put on the altar as part of the sacrificial service.33 In order to avoid such insects, the Aramaic Levi Document requires that the wood actually be split in advance.34 Although as we will see, Tannaitic law was not as particular regarding the types of wood which could be used as were the Aramaic Levi Document and the Book of Jubilees, rabbinic texts regularly designate 30

Cf. b. Yoma 32b (baraita). Cf. the Amoraic discussion in b. Mena˙. 85b. 32 Greenfield and Stone, “Remarks,” 221 n. 3; and Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 104–5 n. 153, whose statement that rqb occurs in m. Mid. 2:5 must be corrected. 33 P. Kehati, Mishnayot Mevo"arot, Qodashim ( Jerusalem: Hekhal Shelomo, 1977), 5:307. 34 Jub. 21:13 seems to contradict this. 31

sacrificial halakhah

185

the wood as ˆyrzg, which specifically refers to wood that has been split.35 Apparently, the Tannaitic descriptions of the Temple ritual expected that all wood used on the altar would in fact be split, thus in this matter agreeing totally with our text.

23–25a. Twelve Kinds of Wood Allowed for Sacrifices Our text specifies that only twelve kinds of wood may be used for sacrifice upon the altar: cedar, juniper, almond, fir, pine, ash, cypress, fig, oleaster, laurel, myrtle, and asphaltos.36 The text specifically indicates the reason for the limitation to these kinds of wood, namely, that their smoke rises up with a pleasant odor (cf. Jub. 21:14). It is apparent that lists of trees like this circulated in Second Temple times. Jub. 21:12 lists thirteen types of trees to be used for sacrificial offerings.37 Apparently, our list is referred to directly in T. Levi 9:12. An allusion to such a list (not a complete list) is found in 1 En. 3:1 (fourteen types of evergreens).38 M. Tamid 2:339 specifically rules that all kinds of wood are fit for the fire on the altar except for those of the olive and the grapevine.40 The Babylonian Amoraim debated why these trees were forbidden. One view asserts that the sages wanted to avoid the destruction of fruit trees in the land of Israel (cf. Deut 20:19), and a second explanation is that these kinds of trees do not burn well and cause excessive smoke.41 The second of these views is in accord with Aramaic 35

M. Yoma 2:5; m. Tamid 2:3. See Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 104 n. 151, on the several preserved versions of the list of twelve kinds of wood in various textual witnesses to the Aramaic Levi Document. Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 184–85. 37 Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1917; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1971–72), 134–35 and J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 123–25. Cf. C. Albeck, Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha (Berlin: Siegfried Scholem, 1930), 23. 38 On these lists and their relationship to one another, see the sources cited in Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 104 n. 152. 39 Cf. Albeck, “Hashlamot ve-Tosafot,” Qodashim, 425. See also m. Tamid 2:5 regarding the wood for the incense altar. There the text refers only to the wood of the fig tree, but the commentators introduce also the nut and oil trees. 40 The olive as well as the palm, which is disqualified in the Tosefta (see below), are said to have been used with the fig tree for the sacrifice of Isaac in Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 22:3. 41 B. Tamid 29b. 36

186

lawrence h. schiffman

Levi Document and Jubilees, as noted above. The Mishnah then goes on to tell us that the trees usually used on the altar were the fig tree, nut tree, and oil tree (which has been identified as pine).42 T. Mena˙. 9:14 discusses the same issue. The passage essentially follows the mishnaic ruling that we quoted above, except that Rabbi Eliezer lists five additional unfit woods: sycamore, carob, palm, mayish (celtis), and oak. The Tosefta also notes that used wood, from dismantled construction, is considered forbidden in any case.43 The Aramaic Levi Document takes a much more restrictive view than that of the Tannaim, while sharing the overriding purpose of avoiding excessive smoke.

25b. Sprinkling of Blood After Fire Begins to Burn The text next indicates that the sprinkling of the blood on the side of the altar should begin only after the fire is burning on the altar.44 The order of performance of the various rituals in the Temple was determined by complicated exegesis of the relevant passages in the Torah. According to Leviticus 1, it would appear that only after the animal was slaughtered and after the offering of the blood would the priests set fire to the wood of the altar and then burn the relevant parts of the offering. However, our author was of the opinion that the order followed in the Temple was to accord with that described in Leviticus 6. Lev 6:1–6, which sets out the rules for a burnt offering, begins by stating that the fire was burning on the altar all night. Presumably, this refers to the altar of the burnt offering that was located, according to all views, in front of the Temple building, in the courtyard of the priests. In the morning, the priests would dress in

42 L. Finkelstein, Sifra on Leviticus (5 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983–91), 2:46. Y. Feliks, Ha-Íomea˙ veha-˙ai ba-Mishnah ( Jerusalem: Institute for Mishnah Research, 1983), 113 identified this tree as the Aleppo pine. 43 Cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1938), 2:258 and D. Pardo, Óasde David (10 vols.; Jerusalem: Wagshal, 1993–94), Mena˙ot, 6:329–30 for interpretation of the passage. The version in Sifra Va-Yiqra’ (Nedavah) Pereq 6:4 (ed. Weiss, p. 7b; ed. Finkelstein, p. 46) is a conflation of the Mishnah and Tosefta versions and is, therefore, secondary. On this passage see the notes of Finkelstein, Sifra 2:46 and 4:45–46. 44 On the textual problems connected with this passage, see Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 100, and Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22.68–69. On the biblical basis, see also Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 105. Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 185.

sacrificial halakhah

187

vestments and then clean the altar of the ashes that remained from the offerings of the previous day. Then, after changing clothes again and removing the ashes from the Temple precincts, the priests would put on the altar the wood upon which the offering would be placed and burnt. The text continues by emphasizing that a fire was always burning on the altar. Our text understood this passage to mean that the wood for the offering had to be placed on the altar and set on fire before the sprinkling of the blood of any offering. On some level, our text understood the sacrifices to be valid only if performed in a Temple with a fire already burning, in accord with Leviticus 6. The rabbis interpreted the same passage in Leviticus 6 to indicate that there were three separate fires lit upon the altar. These included the main fire, a small subsidiary fire from which coals would be taken to the incense altar inside the Temple itself, and a small fire of two special logs meant to fulfill specifically the command of Lev 6:5, “then the priest shall burn wood upon it each and every morning.”45 According to rabbinic halakhah all three fires had to be ignited before the animal for the morning daily sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on the altar.46 In this prescription, then, the Aramaic Levi Document is in full agreement with the rabbinic tradition.

26a. Washing of Hands and Feet to Remove the Blood After the Sacrifice Our text requires that the priest wash his hands and feet before placing the parts of the animal on the altar.47 This practice is said to be for the purpose of eliminating any sacrificial blood that might be on the priest’s hands or feet. The same notion is behind a requirement stated below (53b–55) that the priest should be careful that no blood remain on his robe when he leaves the sanctuary. The practice of repeatedly washing hands and feet, as has been noted above, has clearly been taken by our text from the Day of Atonement ritual. Its function there, at least in the Tannaitic view, was to prepare the priest for the removal or donning of different garments at various times during the ceremonies. There is no indication in that context of a concern to make sure that the blood of the sacrifice was removed. 45 46 47

M. Yoma 4:6, following the view of Rabbi Yosi; m. Tamid 2:3–5; b. Yoma 33a. Cf. m. Tamid 3:1–2; b. Yoma 33a. Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 183–84.

188

lawrence h. schiffman

M. Tamid 1:4 does mention a requirement to wash the hands and feet before taking up the shovel to clean the ashes off the altar in the morning. This may be connected with the notion that it was forbidden to touch the holy vessels before these ablutions.48 But still, such a procedure is far from that described in our text. The text says to “once again” wash (≈jr) hands and feet to remove the sacrificial blood, showing that this root, as used above (section 20), also refers to this type of ablution rather than to ritual immersion of the entire body. Despite the similarities to the Day of Atonement ritual, as outlined in the Torah and as understood by the Tannaim, it does seem that the requirement of washing the blood off the hands and feet of the priest before offering the parts of the animal is unique to this text. One final point must be noted. In this prescription, the term μyrba, “limbs,” is used for the parts of the animal to be offered on the altar. This term does not appear in the Bible but is commonly used in mishnaic Hebrew. While it is not unusual to find such usages in postbiblical literature, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, this seems to be a rare occurrence. It is similarly used in 11QTa 24:8 where hyrbaw must be read for the error, hybraw.49

27–28. Sequence for Offering the Limbs of the Animal Lev 1:8–9 and 12–13 both indicate the order in which the parts of a sacrificed animal are to be offered.50 First the head and then the fats are placed on the wood, and then the innards and the legs are put on the altar. This passage leaves vague the disposal of many parts of the animal, and so it was only natural that later exegesis attempted to fill in the gaps. Aramaic Levi specifies the order in which the various parts of the animal, all salted (see below), are to be offered. The head,51 covered with fat but with no blood upon it, is to be offered first, followed 48

Albeck, “Hashlamot ve-Tosafot,” Qodashim, 424. Cf. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1983), 2:109 who cites this as the suggestion of J. Milgrom. 50 Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 186–87. 51 Emending the Genizah fragment with the Qumran and Greek texts (Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 100). 49

sacrificial halakhah

189

by the neck, the forequarters, the breast with the base of the rib, the haunches with the spine of the loins, then the hindquarters and the inner parts.52 According to m. Tamid 3:1 and m. Yoma 2:3 the order of offering the limbs is as follows: head and right rear leg, the two front legs, the tail and left rear leg, the breast, neck and ribs, the two sides of the chest (with the spine, spleen and liver), and the inner parts. This view is explained by the commentators on the Mishnah as follows: the head is to be offered first, as it is specified in the Torah, and the remaining parts are offered in order of size, from the largest to the smallest.53 This order is clearly at variance with that of the Aramaic Levi Document. However, an alternative view in m. Yoma 2:3, ascribed to Rabbi Joshua, states as follows, “in accordance with the way it walked was it offered.” According to this view the parts of the animal were to be put on the altar in the same order in which they would have been encountered looking at the animal from head to tail.54 This second opinion reflects the same view as the Aramaic Levi Document. The rabbinic tradition also helps us understand additional details of the law as set forth in the Aramaic Levi Document. According to b. Yoma 26a (baraita), because of respect for the divine service, the fat was arranged so as to cover the part of the neck which had been cut by the slaughterer. In this way, the blood of the wound would not have been visible. This very same procedure was expected by our text. It therefore appears that the Aramaic Levi Document was totally in accord with the second mishnaic view regarding the order in which the parts of the animal were to be offered, and agreed also with rabbinic tradition regarding the manner in which the fat was to be put on the head. We should also note that Lev 1:8 and 12, in describing the offering of the parts of the animal, closely related the fat to the head. This association generated the interpretation that required that the fat be used to cover the slaughtered neck of the animal.

52 The textual problems in this passage are discussed in Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” 463–64; Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 100–101. 53 Yom Tov Lippmann Heller, Tosefot Yom ˇov to m. Yoma 2:3. Cf. b. Yoma 25b. 54 On this order, see the baraita in b. Yoma 25b. The baraita explains the second opinion somewhat differently; however, the view of Rabbi Akiva, which says that the animal is offered in the same order in which it is butchered, is in complete agreement with the order set out in our text.

lawrence h. schiffman

190

26b, 29. Salting of All Parts of the Animal Aramaic Levi mandates that all animal parts be salted with as much salt as they require.55 Below, we will examine the specific amounts of salt needed for the various animals. Lev 2:13 directs that all offerings be salted, even meal offerings. M. Tamid 4:3 (end) also requires the salting of all the limbs of the animal to be offered, as well as the meal offerings that accompany them. This law seems to be uncontroversial. It is also mentioned in 11QTa 34:10–11.

30–31. Meal Offering with Oil, Wine Libation and Incense to be Offered, All in Correct Order; All Prescribed Amounts Must be Used for These as well as for Wood, No More or Less The general requirement to fulfill all the prescriptions for the correct amounts of flour, oil, wine, and wood is essentially a restatement of Num 5:11–12, which emphasizes that the quantities of flour, oil, and wine discussed in vv. 1–10 of that chapter apply for each animal sacrificed. The next sections discuss the various amounts of wood, salt, flour, oil and wine for the different sacrifices. In order to understand these sections and to compare them with the relevant biblical material, it is necessary first to clarify which animals are designated by which terms. Accordingly, I here set forth a table listing the animals with their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek names to the extent that these can be known from our text and its biblical parallels: Table 1: Large bull Bullock (young bull) calf 56 ram he-goat lamb kid

55

tauros teleios tauros megalos tauros deuteros mosxos krios tragos arna=arne eriphos

rwç

abr arw

(rqb ˆb) rp (rqb ˆb) lg[

ˆyrwt rp

lya z[ çbk μyz[ ry[ç

Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 186. Correcting Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, who translates, “heifer,” (97) but this must be a male animal. 56

sacrificial halakhah

191

32–36. Required Amounts of Wood for Various Animals Our text now specifies the required amount of wood to be provided along with the various animals, despite the fact that no specification of such amounts is given in the Torah.57 The amounts specified are as follows: Table 2: large bull fat alone bullock (second, i.e. young bull) fat alone calf ram or he-goat fat alone lamb or kid fat alone unblemished one year old lamb or kid fat alone

1 talent (rkk) 6 minas 50 minas 5 minas 40 minas 30 minas 3 minas 20 minas 2 minas 15 minas 1.5 minas

First, we must clarify the meaning of offering the fat alone. The offerings listed here constitute sacrifices of the type known as burnt offerings (hlw[),58 in which the animal, after being butchered, is offered upon the altar in its entirety. Such offerings are the subject of Leviticus 1. An offering of the “fat alone” refers to a shelamim sacrifice, which, according to Leviticus 3, involves sacrificing only the fats and internal organs of the animal (vv. 3–4). In such a sacrifice, the meat is eaten by the one who brings the sacrifice, his or her family, and invited guests.59 Regarding the system of measurement, the talent (rkk) mentioned here is a measure that is somewhat ambiguous. There are two types

57 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 106. The same is the case with the offering of salt that will be discussed below. Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 189. 58 L. H. Schiffman, “'ôla and hat††à'† in the Temple Scroll,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 39–48. 59 Cf. L. H. Schiffman, “Shelamim Sacrifices in the Temple Scroll,” in Eretz Israel 20 (Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume; 1989): 176*–83*.

192

lawrence h. schiffman

of talents, termed in rabbinic literature the holy and the non-sacral. The holy talent is equal to 120 minas and the non-sacral to 60 minas.60 From the context in Aramaic Levi, since the listed values seem to decrease from one talent (= 60 minas) to 50 minas and less, it is apparent that we are dealing with the non-sacral talent of rabbinic parlance. A mina is approximately 350 grams, so our talent would then be 21 kg. (350 × 60 = 21,000 grams = 21 kg., a little more than 46 lb.). These numbers are reasonable for the amounts of wood needed to burn a large animal, and the descending figures take into consideration the size of the various animals, or of their fats when burned alone as in the case of shelamim offerings. As mentioned above, the rabbinic view was that three fires were set each day on the altar of burnt offerings. The first was the main fire upon which the sacrifices were burned. The second was a smaller fire for the purpose of producing coals to bring to the incense altar within the Temple building. These two were lit before sunrise. The third was a small fire set later on in the day in order to make sure that there was always a fire on the altar. Further, basing themselves on Lev 1:7 and 6:5, the Tannaim prescribed that with the morning and evening daily sacrifices, two additional pieces of firewood should be placed on the altar (m. Yoma 2:5). Apart from reference to these additional pieces of firewood, which are said to be a cubit square and of minimal thickness, we have little information about the quantity of the wood used. Later rabbinic commentators assume that the wood used on the large fire was of similar size and shape.61 The Mishnah does give one indication of the amount of wood used. M. Tamid 2:2 indicates the amount of coals necessary for the second fire. We are told that sufficient wood must be put on the altar to produce five se"ah of ashes, but that on the Sabbath eight se"ah are needed, because on the Sabbath the two flasks of frankincense that accompanied the showbread are offered in addition. The Mishnah gives no further specific information about how much wood must be placed on the fire. Further, from reading the mishnaic descriptions of the ritual, one major question remains: How could they possibly have offered voluntary sacrifices, expiation offerings, and various other offerings on the altar all day without putting addi-

60 61

S. Z. Reich, Masoret ha-Sheqel (Toronto: Kolel Publications, 1989), 1, 119. Y. Y. Carmel, Mas"at Yisra"el 'al Óumash va-Yiqra" ( Jerusalem: n.p., 1987), 143.

sacrificial halakhah

193

tional wood on the fire? Aramaic Levi appears to respond to this very question. It prescribes that specific quantities of wood must be put on the altar for each type of animal or fats to be burned. This system would guarantee that the Temple fire would keep burning all day. It is possible that our author did not envisage the special fire required for this purpose according to rabbinic exegesis of Leviticus. Our text places the obligation to provide the required wood for a sacrifice on each person who brings one, in this way guaranteeing that the fire would burn all day.62

37–40a. Required Amounts of Salt for Various Animals The text now indicates the required amounts of salt for the various animals to be offered on the altar. Previously (26) the Aramaic Levi Document indicated that all of the parts of the animal to be offered must be salted, and here the text indicates how much salt must be used for each animal. The measurements are expressed with the Greek term saton, which is simply a Greek equivalent for the Hebrew measure se"ah.63 This measure is equal, in one view, to ca. 12 liters,64 or in another, to between 8.3 and 14.3 liters.65 Table 3: bull skin with the leftover salt bullock (second bull) calf ram he-goat lamb and kid

1 saton 5/6 2/3 1/2 1/2 1/3

saton saton saton saton66 saton

Our text assumes that the required amount will be enough to salt not only the various parts of the animal but also its skin; though this is 62 Below we take up the question of who provided the wood for the Temple services. 63 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 101; BDAG, 745. 64 M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD 6.905. 65 M. Roza and S. Bodenheimer, Shi 'urim u-Middot Óazal [table] ( Jerusalem: Kiryah Ne"emanah, 1965–66). 66 The text (39b) specifies “an equal amount” to that of the ram.

194

lawrence h. schiffman

explicitly stated only for the bull, it clearly applies to all the animals. The requirement that sacrifices be salted is found in the Bible.67 Lev 2:13, coming at the conclusion of the command of the meal offering, first requires that every meal sacrifice (hjnm ˆbrq) be salted, a command that the verse effectively repeats twice. At the end of the verse it is commanded, “On all your sacrifices you shall offer salt.” While it is possible to maintain that this verse only pertains to the meal offering, both our text and Tannaitic tradition understood the words “all your sacrifices” to refer to all offerings, and thus to include offerings of meat as well. Indeed, the very same interpretation stands behind T. Levi 9:1468 and Jub. 21:11. In the Jubilees passage, the order of the clauses in Lev 2:13 has been changed to make this point. Extremely similar to Jubilees is the command of the Temple Scroll (11QTa 20:13–14) regarding meal offerings; 11QTa 34:10–11 has also adapted the biblical text to emphasize that both meal and animal offerings are to be salted.69 In full agreement with these Second Temple sources, speaking of the daily offering that has already been butchered, m. Tamid 4:3 (end) requires the salting of all the limbs as well as of the meal offering that accompanies them. In this respect, the Aramaic Levi Document is in full accord with the rabbinic view. The same view was held by the author of Ezek 43:24, as he directly refers to the salting of burnt offerings. The Torah did not give any indication of the amount of salt required for the various offerings. The scheme presented in the Aramaic Levi Document has been arranged in descending order from the amount for larger offerings to that for smaller offerings, similar to the Torah’s rules for the meal offerings and their accompanying oil and wine. Clearly, the determining factor was the practical question of how much salt would be needed for the various offerings.

67

Cf. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 106. Cf. Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Commentary, 158 who refer to the biblical and Second Temple period sources, as well as the Te"ezaza Sanbat, in W. Leslau, The Falasha Anthology: The Black Jews of Ethiopia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), 31, which requires the same in its discussion of the Sabbath offering. Leslau, 152 n. 230, also refers to Mark 9:49–50 (in some readings); on which see B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (3d ed.; London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 102–3. 69 Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2:90, 146. 68

sacrificial halakhah

195

Some introduction is needed to understand the next three prescriptions regarding flour, oil and wine.70 The flour and oil were used to prepare the meal offerings that accompanied the sacrifices, and the wine was offered as a libation. Exod 29:38–42 discusses the daily tamid offering, a lamb offered every morning and late afternoon. Verse 40 specifies that the tamid is to be accompanied by a tenth of an ephah of flour mixed with a quarter measure of oil. The same amount of wine is to serve as the libation offering. The mixture of flour and oil is referred to as hjnm and the wine is called ˚sn.71 Num 28:3–8 also deals with the tamid offering and prescribes the exact same quantities. Num 15:1–9 further amplifies this notion of meal offerings and libations to accompany animal sacrifices. There the law covers all burnt offerings and shelamim, either voluntary or festival offerings.72 Numbers specifies the following scheme of amounts for meal offerings and libations: Table 4: lamb ram cattle

1/10 ephah flour 2/10 ephah flour 3/10 ephah flour

1/4 hin oil 1/3 hin oil 1/2 hin oil

1/4 hin wine 1/3 hin wine 1/2 hin wine

These same measurement systems are followed in the Temple Scroll (11QTa 13–14) and in the Mishnah (m. Mena˙. 9:1–3).

40b–42. Required Amounts of Fine Flour for Various Animals The required amounts of flour for the meal offerings to accompany the various animals are now stated by our text:

70 Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 189–90. See especially her n. 22 regarding variant measures given in the book of Ezekiel. 71 The Rabbis termed the meal offering accompanying an animal sacrifice tjnm μyksn, “the meal offering of [i.e., accompanying] libation.” 72 The text uses the term ˆbrq there (v. 4), which we also encountered in the Leviticus command to offer sacrifices with salt.

lawrence h. schiffman

196 Table 5: large bull bullock (second bull) calf

1 saton 1 saton 1 saton

ram and he-goat lamb or kid

2/3 saton73 1/3 saton

These allotments are essentially in accord with the Torah’s legislation. We notice here that the different cattle offerings are grouped together with a requirement of one saton, whereas the ram and he-goat require two-thirds of a saton and a lamb or kid one-third. Aramaic Levi assumes that 1 se"ah/saton = 3/10 ephah.74 Thus, its requirements match those of the Torah, noted above, for both cattle and the smaller animals.75 One further note: In section 46, our document states that 1/3 saton = 1/3 ephah. The preceding discussion shows that this reading is incorrect or textually corrupt, and should be emended to 1 saton = 1/3 ephah.76

43–44b. Required Amounts of Oil and Wine for Various Animals The text then sets out the amounts of oil to be mixed with the flour for the meal offerings and wine to be poured out as a libation offering for the various animals: Table 6: bull ram lamb

1/4 saton 1/6 saton 1/8 saton77

73 Following Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” 464. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 191, suggests a half saton. But cf. m. Mena˙. 7:2, where shete yadot refers to two parts out of three (2/3). 74 Also indicated in Roza and Bodenheimer, Shi'urim u-Middot Óazal [table]. 75 In actual fact, 3/10 ephah and one saton represent slightly different quantities; a saton is 1/3 of an ephah (33.3%), not 3/10 (30%). See the calculations of Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 192. 76 Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” 465 n. d. So also Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 191. 77 Deleting the extra “and of the lamb” with P. Grelot, “Le coutumier sacerdotal

sacrificial halakhah

197

Again, the list of animals is classified as in the Torah: cattle, rams and lambs (including kids, as in section 44b). Our author assumed that 2 biblical hin = 1 se"ah, hence 1/4 saton = 1/2 hin; 1/6 se"ah = 1/3 hin; and 1/8 se"ah = 1/4 hin. Since this calculation of the measures is correct,78 our author has fulfilled precisely the Torah’s requirements for the amount of oil to be mixed with the flour and the amount of wine to be used for the libation. These biblical amounts are therefore reflected in all Second Temple and rabbinic sources.

45a–46a. Required Amounts of Frankincense for Various Animals and Method of Offering Section 30, preserved in the Aramaic, mentions frankincense (hnwbl) explicitly.79 The Greek designation is the cognate libanòtos,80 which is found in the LXX (e.g. Lev 2:1). Besides its use in the incense burned daily on the incense altar (Exod 30:34–37), and in the frankincense offering brought with the showbread (Lev 24:7), it is to be used in meal offerings along with the oil, according to Lev 2:1 and 6:8.81 Our text has understood this biblical requirement to mandate frankincense in all meal offerings, even those that are offered along with animal sacrifices. This may be the result of the constant mention of “pleasing odor” in regard to such sacrifices in Num 15:7, 10, 14. This view is followed in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenApoc 10:15–16)82 and seems to be expected by Jubilees as well in numerous passages.83

ancien dans le Testament araméen de Lévi,” RevQ 15 (1991): 257 n. 15; seen as the most likely explanation by Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 101. Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” 465 n. c noted that this word “cannot be construed in context.” 78 Roza and Bodenheimer, Shi'urim u-Middot Óazal Table: hin = tirqav = 1/2 se"ah. 79 Cf. Y. Feliks, “Levonah,” Leqsiqon Miqra "i 2.433–34; Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 187–89. 80 The word appears in Akkadian as lubanu, so it is clearly of Semitic derivation. It appears in Greek literature (LSJ, 1047a), so it is not “translationese” invented by the LXX. 81 Num 5:15 provides that the usual oil and frankincense not be used in the meal offering of barley made by the suspected adulteress (hfws). Barley is used there to make this an offering of lower quality than a normal meal offering. 82 F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1.32–33; cited by Himmelfarb from M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron and D. Sivan, “The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995): 44. 83 Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 195–98.

lawrence h. schiffman

198

This approach is in contrast to rabbinic exegesis and halakhah. M. Mena˙. 5:3 indicates without any question that the meal offerings which accompany animal sacrifices do not require frankincense. This ruling is based on a reading of Num 15:1–16 that, as we have seen, sets forth the meal and libation offerings for the sacrifices and does not mention frankincense. The author of the Aramaic Levi Document, however, has followed the process of homogenization of biblical rulings;84 he has applied the law of Leviticus 2 regarding independent meal offerings to that of Numbers 15 regarding those that accompany animal sacrifices, reaching the conclusion that meal offerings that accompany animal sacrifices require the offering of frankincense. It is in accord with this interpretation that our text sets forth the amounts of frankincense required for the various types of animals: Table 7: bull ram kid meal offering

6 3 2 2

shekels shekels shekels85 shekels

The measure used here to express the amount of frankincense is the term shekel (Greek siklos, also written as siglos).86 Despite the difficulty of the corrupt section 47, there can be no question that it intends to state that 1 shekel = 50 mina.87 These proportions do not match those that the Torah sets out for flour, oil, or wine, although this list mirrors the three-fold division of the animals, as we saw above in the cases of the flour and oil-wine measures. Although rabbinic tradition limited the offering of frankincense to independent meal offerings (those that do not accompany animal sacrifices), we may still profit from examining the question of whether the rabbis specified a particular amount of frankincense to be given

84 On this exegetical method, see J. Milgrom, “The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSOTSup 8 and JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 83–99. 85 Assuming “a third of that” (45) to apply to the original figure of six shekels. 86 LSJ, 1596b. 87 Roza and Bodenheimer, Shi'urim u-Middot Óazal, Table.

sacrificial halakhah

199

with such offerings. Rabbinic tradition required that the frankincense only be sprinkled in a small amount on the top of the meal offering, as opposed to our text, which required that the frankincense be mixed with the flour. Accordingly, the rabbis required only a minimal amount, a handful, and they prescribed that a “handful” must contain at least the volume of two olives.88 Further, the rabbis did not require that the entire offering be covered by the frankincense, only that a small part be sprinkled with the spice. It was even considered valid if the spice remained on the side and was not actually put on top of the meal offering.89 Clearly, our text took a different view. Because the meal offerings to accompany the various animals differed in size in proportion to the size of the animal, and since our text requires that the frankincense be mixed into the flour, it was necessary to provide graduated amounts of frankincense for the offerings, in accord with the size of the animal. For this reason we find the various measures listed above, in some way similar to the biblical scheme for flour, oil, and wine.90

52. Acceptance of the Wood, Salt, Flour, Wine and Frankincense for Various Animals According to Amounts Above91 Our text next approaches a central issue regarding the wood, meal offerings and libations, and in the view of the Aramaic Levi Document, also the frankincense offerings: the manner in which they were to be provided for each animal sacrificed. The text makes very clear that when the priest accepts the offering from the person who brings it, he is at the same time to receive the wood, salt, flour, wine, and frankincense from that same person. These accoutrements of the

88

Carmel, Mas"at Yisra"el, 50. Carmel, Mas"at Yisra"el, 56. 90 46b–47 is a table of weights and measures that is somewhat corrupt. Assuming, as is actually the case for modern readers, that the weights and measures being used in the sacrificial rituals are unclear, the Aramaic Levi Document laid out a table of weights and measures. This table has become corrupt, and I present here the table as I have corrected it: 1 saton (se"ah) = 1/3 ephah (see above for correction) = 2/3 bath mina by weight = 50 shekels ¼ shekel = 4 thermoi shekel = 16 thermoi and one weight (?) 91 Lines 48–51 constitute an exhortation. 89

200

lawrence h. schiffman

sacrifices are not, in the opinion of this document, to be provided by the Temple officials. This law probably refers only to privately offered sacrifices; for those of the community, it must have been required that all the supplies be donated from communal funds,92 or according to a view attributed in later sources to Sadducees or Boethusians, by the priests or other individuals. Various sources discuss the procurement of wood for the Temple rituals. Large amounts of wood had to be used to prepare all the offerings and to keep the Temple fire burning all the time. According to Neh 10:35–36, lots were drawn and a system was set up so that at specific times during the year wood was to be brought by various families to provide for the altar. The text specifically alludes to the fulfillment of the biblical command of Lev 6:5. M. Ta'an. 4:5 provides a list of those families who brought wood on various prearranged dates each year. These wood offerings (μyx[h ˆbrq) were brought amidst great pomp and ceremony.93 The author of the Festival Calendar of the Temple Scroll (11QTa 23:9–24:16), however, apparently sought to democratize this commandment, and so, in his ideal plan for the Temple and its sacrificial rites, he proposed that these offerings be divided equally among the twelve tribes.94 He was of the opinion that the wood that burned the offerings of the Jewish people had to be provided collectively by them. Clearly, the amounts of wood set forth in our text would have applied to both public and private sacrifices. It seems that what is being discussed in our text at this point, however, is that, according to our author, one who brings a private sacrifice is obligated to provide the wood as well as the salt, flour, oil and wine. These accoutrements of the sacrifice were not to be paid for by the central Temple authorities at collective Jewish expense. In this respect, our author appears to be in consonance with Tannaitic reports about the procedure followed in the Second Temple.

92 Cf. L. Finkelstein, Sifra, 1:282–86; 2:710–16 and notes; V. Noam, Megillat Ta'anit: ha-Nusa˙im, Pishram, Toledotehem, be-Óeruf Mahadurah Biqqortit ( Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2003), 165–73. 93 S. Safrai, “The Temple,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 882–83. Cf. also Noam, Megillat Ta'anit, 217–19. 94 Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:122–31; 2:101–14; E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beersheva and Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Israel Exploration Society, 1996), 36–38.

sacrificial halakhah

201

According to these traditions, Temple authorities made available the necessary flour, oil and wine both for reasons of convenience and in order to ensure ritual purity.95 A person offering a sacrifice would purchase these items and receive a token that would then be used to redeem them when they were necessary for the rituals. On the other hand, rabbinic texts do not mention the obligation for each worshipper to provide the salt or the wood for the altar.96

56–57. Covering the Blood of Non-Sacral Animals 97 Despite the corruption in the Greek text,98 it is apparent that the text is talking about non-sacral slaughter (what the rabbis called tfyjç ˆylwj). According to Lev 17:13–14, the slaughter of wild beasts and fowl requires that the blood be covered with earth after ritual slaughter.99 This law clearly expected that domesticated animals would only be slaughtered in sacrificial context as shelamim sacrifices.100 Rabbinic tradition understood the commandment to cover the blood to be limited to the slaughter of wild animals and fowl (m. Óul. 6:1), and therefore did not require the covering of the blood when slaughtering domesticated animals for non-sacral use.101 Our text, like the Temple Scroll (11QTa 53:4–8), requires that the blood also be covered in the slaughter of domesticated animals.102 In giving the reason for this commandment as the avoidance of eating blood, both the Aramaic Levi Document and the Temple Scroll are following Lev 17:14.103 This is clearly an example of the harmonizing method of biblical interpretation that typifies the Temple Scroll and the Zadokite/Sadducean 95 96 97 98

Safrai, “The Temple,” 881. 53c is untranslatable (Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 102). On 53b–55 see above to 26a. Greenfield and Stone, “Appendix III,” 465 n. 1; Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest,

102. 99

Cf. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 107. Cf. L. H. Schiffman, “Sacral and Non-Sacral Slaughter according to the Temple Scroll,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 75. 101 Sefer ha-Óinukh #187 ( Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1987–88), 2:178. 102 Schiffman, “Sacral and Non-Sacral Slaughter,” 81. 103 Cf. E. Eshel, “4QLevd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and Miqßat Ma'a≤e ha-Torah,” DSD 2 (1995): 1–13; C. Werman, “The Rules of Consuming and Covering the Blood in Priestly and Rabbinic Law,” RevQ 16 (1995): 621–36. 100

202

lawrence h. schiffman

type of exegesis that underlies it. These interpreters extended the requirement of covering the blood from wild animals to domesticated animals, thus creating a uniform prescription. In this example, then, the Aramaic Levi Document is in agreement with the Temple Scroll and the sectarian form of halakhah adhered to by the Qumran sect.104

Conclusion From the point of view of its sacrificial halakhah the Aramaic Levi Document does not seem to fit into the usual mold of the legal material known from Qumran, namely 4QMMT, the Temple Scroll, the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document) or the minor legal texts, notwithstanding the various points of agreement that we have cited with this literature.105 The issues presented in those texts, usually in polemical contexts, are not the themes taken up here. Rather, as in rabbinic literature, the issues here are more oriented toward sacrificial procedure, toward filling the gaps in the biblical text and describing the manner in which rites are to be performed. Further, the details of the laws discussed here are as close to rabbinic laws as they are to sectarian ones, and this is true even despite the various parallels to the Book of Jubilees that have been cited. In some cases, laws at variance with Tannaitic halakhah are in fact built upon the same assumptions, as in the case of the hand- and foot-washing that our text requires for all sacrifices. Texts in Aramaic found among the Qumran scrolls are now generally considered to be part of a pre-Qumranic corpus of literature from the third century bce or so. If this is indeed the case, then the Aramaic Levi Document helps situate the debates over issues of sacrificial halakhah much earlier in Second Temple times than previously realized. Whoever composed this text was aware of a variety of views on sacrificial law, among which are some known to us from both Pharisaic/rabbinic and Sadducean/Zadokite circles from the Hasmonean period. What we see through Aramaic Levi, then, is the richness of the debate over sacrificial law even before the sectarian schism, and even before the Maccabean revolt.

104

Lines 58–61 are a concluding exhortation. Cf. Himmelfarb, “Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense,” 193 who reaches a similar conclusion. 105

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEGAL AND NARRATIVE PASSAGES IN JUBILEES Michael Segal The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Book of Jubilees can be found on every scholarly list of “rewritten Bible” compositions from the Second Temple period, and justifiably so. Throughout this work, one finds the stories of Genesis and Exodus reworked to reflect the worldview of the anonymous author and his exegesis of the biblical passages. A close comparison of this composition with the biblical text allows one to identify those elements shared by Jubilees and the Pentateuch, and more significantly, to highlight where the later work differs from the earlier. One can then attempt to identify the biblical interpretation underlying the rewriting, as has been done in numerous studies of Jubilees. Almost all scholars have viewed Jubilees as the work of a single author.1 Two notable exceptions are: (1) Davenport’s work on the eschatology of Jubilees, in which he distinguished different sources in the book based upon their eschatological outlooks;2 and (2) Wiesenberg’s study of the chronological framework of Jubilees, in which he highlighted internal discrepancies.3 While these studies contain many important insights, neither of them succeeded in convincingly proving the existence of sources or editorial layers. More recently, a number of Israeli scholars have suggested that individual verses or passages in Jubilees originate in other sources or traditions. Devora Dimant noted a chronological inconsistency in the length of the yobel period, between 4:21 where it denotes 50 years, 1 See most recently VanderKam’s introduction to Jubilees, where he presents the scholarly consensus regarding the unity of the book: J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–18. The text and translation of Jubilees used throughout this study is J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989; henceforth Vanderkam, Jubilees), unless stated otherwise. The Ge’ez text is presented in vol. 1, and the translation is found in vol. 2. 2 G. L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (StPB 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971). 3 E. Wiesenberg, “The Jubilee of Jubilees,” RevQ 3 (1961): 3–40.

204

michael segal

and the rest of the book where it refers to a period of 49 years. She concluded, “This shows that Jub. borrows from various sources, often without reconciling the contradictions.”4 Menahem Kister suggested that in two cases, the rewritten narratives and juxtaposed laws originate in different traditions, which cannot be reconciled.5 Leora Ravid proposed that the final section in Jubilees, 50:6–13, detailing the Sabbath laws, had been added to the book at a later date.6 Further developing the insights of these scholars, I would like to suggest a new approach to the study of Jubilees, in light of numerous contradictions that I have identified between the rewritten stories and the juxtaposed legal passages.7 One of the most distinctive features of Jubilees is the juxtaposition of laws generally known from the legal corpora of the Pentateuch, with stories of the patriarchal period. These laws are sometimes presented as deriving from the actions of the biblical characters, and in other cases as laws that already existed, preserved on the Tablets of Heaven, which were either observed or violated by the ancestor in question.8 The pentateuchal legends are thus transformed into etiological narratives, designed to impart legal lessons to the reader of the work. The patriarchs lend their authority to the antiquity of the laws, and the observance of the laws testifies to the religiosity of the patriarchs. The collocation of specific laws with the patriarchal narratives reflects halakhic interpretation of the biblical stories. Although the laws are often presented as the result of the actions of the forefathers, and thus theoretically apply only following the story in question, Jubilees’ 4 D. Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” VT 33 (1983): 14–29, p. 21, esp. n. 17. 5 M. Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:571–88. 6 L. Ravid, “The Relationship of the Sabbath Laws in Jubilees 50:6–13 to the Rest of the Book,” Tarbiz 69 (2000): 161–66 (Hebrew). 7 I have now developed this theory more extensively in “The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology” (Ph.D. diss, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004) (Hebrew). In addition to the legal aspects of this redaction, discussed in this article, I also address the “chronological redaction” of Jubilees, whereby the chronological framework was superimposed upon rewritten narratives; see Segal, “Jubilees,” ch. 4. 8 For an analysis of the function of the Tablets of Heaven in Jubilees, cf. F. García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 243–60.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

205

presentation of the legislation is always the consequence of its interpretation of the story. First, the choice of which specific law to append to the narrative points to a particular understanding of the story and its details. Second, especially in cases in which the patriarchal narratives do not accord with any known biblical directives, the legal passages resort to exegesis that can be described by the later term, midrash halakha, in order to adapt the narrative to pentateuchal regulations. Finally, the laws in Jubilees make certain assumptions concerning the circumstances of each story; for example, that the focal character sinned or that impurity was created by his or her actions. Similarly, the derivation of a great number of rules concerning festivals and the calendar, based upon biblical events, assumes that those events took place on specific dates. In light of the above, an examination of the legal exegesis both explicit and implicit in the legislation appended to the stories is an essential component of the study of Jubilees. The narrative portions of Jubilees also reveal halakhic interpretation, already embedded in the stories. Here too one can discern the specific circumstances surrounding a given story that are the result of exegesis of biblical laws applied to the narratives. These include the dating of events, questions of purity and impurity, and whether the sin was the result of choice or compulsion. In those instances in which the law underlying the biblical story does not reflect any of the laws found in the biblical corpora, the rewritten narrative itself sometimes attempts to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two with its own midrash halakha. In this paper I will present two examples in which I hope to show that the exegesis embedded in the rewritten narrative sections of Jubilees either contradicts or is at cross-purposes with the interpretation implicit or explicit in its legal passages. As noted, Menahem Kister has already presented two similar cases. The additional examples that I have amassed can be added to those that he identified;9 the weight of the cumulative evidence suggests some interesting possibilities regarding the relationship between the legal and narrative passages in Jubilees, and the literary development of the book as a whole.

9 See M. Segal, “Law and Narrative in Jubilees: The Story of the Entrance to the Garden of Eden Revisited,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (2003): 111–25 (Hebrew); idem, “Jubilees.”

206

michael segal I. Reuben and Bilhah ( Jubilees 33)

The story of Reuben and Bilhah, which appears in an abbreviated fashion in Gen 35:22, was expanded to an entire chapter in Jubilees. While Jacob is away, Reuben, his first-born son, sleeps with Jacob’s concubine Bilhah. The Bible records no consequences of this act, but simply notes, larçy [mçyw, “and Jacob heard.” However, one finds negative evaluations of Reuben’s action elsewhere, particularly at Gen 49:4, in Jacob’s blessings for his sons: yk rtwt la μymk zjp hl[ y[wxy tllj za ˚yba ybkçm tyl[: “Unstable as water, you shall excel no longer; For when you mounted your father’s bed, you brought disgrace—my couch he mounted” (NJPS). According to 1 Chr 5:1, Reuben’s act resulted in the revocation of his birthright and its transfer to Joseph. Despite the negative assessment found in these two passages, neither of them prescribes a punishment against Reuben himself; rather, they describe the penalty incurred by the tribe of Reuben as a whole for the actions of their forefather. This punishment differs from that generally meted out in the Pentateuch for this type of behavior, and from that prescribed by the specific law prohibiting intercourse with a father’s wife.10 According to Lev 20:11, in the case where a man sleeps with his father’s wife, both of the participants, the son and the wife, are to be put to death. One finds a similar prohibition, but without stipulation of the punishment, at Lev 18:8; Deut 23:1; 27:20. The Rewritten Narrative (33:1–9a) The short description in Genesis does not express any appraisal of Bilhah’s role in this story. She is not a developed character there, and possibly plays the part of a prop in Reuben’s premature attempt to inherit Jacob’s position.11 Sleeping with one’s father’s wife is proposed as a similar sort of political tactic in 2 Sam 16:21–22 and 2 Sam 3:7, as well as in Ancient Near Eastern sources. In the nar10 In the immediate story of Reuben and Bilhah, Gen 35:22 describes Bilhah as the çglyp, ‘concubine’, of Jacob. However, in Gen 30:4, Rachel gives Bilhah to Jacob “as a wife,” and Gen 37:2 describes Bilhah and Zilpah as wyba yçn, “the wives of his father.” 11 See for example N. Sarna, Genesis (Bereshit): The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation ( JPS Torah Commentary Series; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 244–45.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

207

rative section of its retelling (vv. 1–9a), Jubilees attempts to defend Bilhah by presenting her as the victim of rape, adding or changing the following details:12 (1) Reuben saw Bilhah bathing, and thus desired her. This theme appears to be taken from the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.13 But, in contrast to the biblical story, in which Bathsheba washed herself on the roof, a semi-public area, Jub. 33:2 emphasizes that Bilhah bathed in “a private place” (ba-¢6bu’). Bilhah cannot be accused of attempting to seduce Reuben.14 (2) Bilhah was asleep during the act of intercourse. Jub. 33:4 says she only awoke after Reuben had lain with her, a sure sign of her lack of participation.15 (3) As soon as she realized that she had been raped, Bilhah grabbed Reuben and shouted out. In the laws concerning the rape of the betrothed virgin in Deut 22:23–27, the shouts of the woman are 12 B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees ( JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 110–11. 13 I. Heinemann, Darkhei HaAgaddah (3d ed.; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1970), 24 (Hebrew); G. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 1 (1994): 1–29, p. 21. J. L. Kugel (“Reuben’s Sin with Bilhah in the Testament of Reuben” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [ed. D. P. Wright et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995], 525–54, pp. 528–31; idem, The Bible as it Was [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997], 272–73), has suggested that the motif of seeing Bilhah bathing derived from exegesis of Jacob’s blessing to Reuben in Gen 49:4, ‘μymk zjp’. It seems more economical to assume a direct borrowing from a detailed story about sexual impropriety (David and Bathsheba) in the expansion of the briefer story about Reuben and Bilhah, a common midrashic technique, than to assume that it is the result of creative exegesis of the enigmatic phrase in Jacob’s blessing. 14 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 110 n. 20. Kugel, The Bible As It Was, 272, suggests that the element of privacy was added to mitigate Reuben’s guilt—the circumstances caused him to sin. However, in light of the tendency found elsewhere in this rewritten narrative, it is preferable to view this detail as an attempt to portray Bilhah more favorably, and exonerate her from any guilt. 15 Kugel, “Reuben’s Sin,” 533–35; idem, The Bible as It Was, 273–74, suggests that the motif of Bilhah sleeping is also the result of the interpretation of Gen 49:4: “hl[ y[wxy . . . ˚yba ybkçm tyl[ yk”—“you (sing.) went up to your father’s bed . . . my couch he mounted.” If Reuben alone went up to Jacob’s bed, then Bilhah must have been there already, and was thus presumably asleep when Reuben entered the bed. This motif, however, should be viewed in light of the general tendency of the rewritten narrative, present in almost all of its new elements, to absolve Bilhah of any guilt in the story. As a general methodological principle, Kugel has suggested that, “Ancient biblical interpretation is an interpretation of verses, not stories” (The Bible As It Was, 28), a statement which he has amply demonstrated in his many studies. At the same time, his focus on individual exegetical motifs can obscure the general interpretive tendencies present in complete narratives.

208

michael segal

evidence of the fact that she protests the actions of the man, and thus she is not culpable.16 After she released him, Reuben immediately ran away (33:4–5). These three elements, grabbing, shouting, and escape, appear together in the biblical account of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39), but with the opposite intent. Jubilees recasts Bilhah, who grabs Reuben and shouts her objection,17 as a mirror image of Potiphar’s wife, whose intentions are diametrically opposed to hers. Both Reuben and Joseph run away—the latter from sin and the former as the consequence of it.18 (4) The words of Bilhah herself, in Jub. 33:7, emphasize the fact that that she had been sleeping while Reuben lay with her, and was unaware until after the fact. Bilhah is not punished in Jubilees’ retelling. She is described as both defiled and impure as a consequence of the intercourse, an outlook whose origin can be traced to Lev 18:24–30, and this prevents Jacob from approaching her again. This is not a penalty aimed at her, but rather, impurity that is automatically created by the act itself. The existence of impurity prohibits any further sexual contact between Jacob and Bilhah.19 Why does the author of this version of the story emphasize that Bilhah was an unwilling victim? It is useful to compare the exegetical motif of Bilhah’s unwillingness in Jubilees to two other compositions in which it appears:20 (1) In T. Reu. 3:9–15, Reuben warns his offspring against the dangers inherent in involvement with women. As an example, the Testament refers to the story of Reuben and Bilhah, and describes it in a similar fashion to the portrayal in Jubilees.21 Reuben says that he observed Bilhah bathing in a private place, and desperately desired to sleep 16

Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 111. Thus, Kugel’s suggested correction (The Bible as It Was, 273 n. 5), that in the original version of the story Reuben grabbed Bilhah and not the reverse, is less convincing than the text preserved. 18 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 110–11. 19 Cf. J. Milgrom, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16 (1993): 277–84, p. 281. 20 Interestingly, throughout the rewritten narrative section, there is nothing characteristically unique to Jubilees, except for the addition of a date, the first of the tenth month (33:1), one of the hpwqth ymy in the Jubilees calendar; cf. 5:17, 6:27–28. 21 The similarity between Jubilees and the Testament of Reuben applies only to the rewritten narrative section of the former, and not to the legal passage appended to the chapter. 17

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

209

with her. One night, she became drunk, and fell asleep naked in her bed. Seizing the opportunity, Reuben raped her while she was asleep, and she was therefore unaware of his deed. Among the differences between Jubilees and the Testament: (a) Jubilees does not record that Bilhah was exposed, a point emphasized in T. Reu. 3:13–14. This detail perhaps provides an immediate catalyst that caused Reuben to sin, although it does not excuse his behavior; (b) Bilhah’s drunkenness in the Testament transfers some of the blame from Reuben to herself;22 (c) According to Jub. 33:4, Bilhah awoke while Reuben was in her bed, while in T. Reu. 3:14, Bilhah slept through the entire incident; (d) Gen 35:22 does not name the source who disclosed to Jacob that Reuben slept with Bilhah. In Jub. 33:7, Bilhah herself reported this to him, while in T. Reu. 3:15, an angel informed him.23 Some of these differences may originate in the Testament’s concern to impart to readers a more pronounced moral message; other differences may derive from the use of different traditions; while still others may result from different interpretations of the biblical text. According to this composition, Reuben was punished: “he struck me with a severe wound in my loins for seven months” (1:7), a measure for measure penalty. The Testament does not record any punishment for Bilhah, and notes, as in Jubilees, that Jacob never touched her again. Her passivity, or nonparticipation, appears to have absolved her of any culpability, while Reuben himself is responsible for his own actions. (2) A similar suggestion is found explicitly in Ephrem’s Commentary on Gen 49:4: “ ‘You went up to your father’s bed’ also indicates that he went into Bilhah when she was sleeping, and therefore, she was not cursed with him [Reuben].”24 Ephrem states explicitly what was implied in Jubilees and the Testament of Reuben: emphasis on Bilhah’s nonparticipation, and specifically the motif that she was sleeping, are significant because they exonerate her from punishment, placing the onus on Reuben alone.25

22 For the strongly negative view of drunkenness in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see, e.g., T. Jud. 14. 23 For a fuller discussion of the story in the Testament of Reuben, see Kugel, “The Sin of Reuben.” 24 Translation according to E. G. Matthews and J. P. Amar, “Commentary on Genesis,” in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (The Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 201; emphasis mine. 25 According to Ephrem, Reuben’s punishment was not personal, but rather

210

michael segal

The Legal Passage (33:9b–20) A different picture emerges in the legal passage appended to this story (vv. 9b–20). The laws quoted here refer to the prohibition of intercourse with one’s father’s wife, found in four places in the Pentateuch (Lev 18:8; 20:11; Deut 23:1; 27:20). Each of these prohibitions is formulated from the perspective of the man: “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife . . .” (Lev 18:8); “And a man who lies with his father’s wife . . .” (Lev 20:11); “A man shall not take his father’s wife . . .” (Deut 23:1); “Cursed is one who lies with his father’s wife . . .” (Deut 27:20). Only one of these four laws, Lev 20:11, records a punishment, and it applies to both the man and the woman involved in the case: “they shall both surely die, their blood is upon them.” Jubilees relies primarily upon this verse, with a significant addition, when it quotes the prohibition against intercourse with one’s father’s spouse inscribed on the Tablets of Heaven (33:10): For this reason it is written and ordained on the heavenly tablets that a man is not to lie with his father’s wife and that he is not to uncover the covering of his father because it is impure. They are certainly to die together—the man who lies with his father’s wife and the woman, too—because they have done something impure on the earth.

The biblical prohibitions against intercourse with one’s mother-inlaw do not distinguish between cases of rape and consent,26 and the same is true of the legal passage in Jubilees. The phrase “because they have done something impure on the earth” in Jub. 33:10, added to the biblical law, provides the reason that they are both punishable by death. The idea that their action led the creation of impurity amongst humanity and on earth presumably originates in the conclusion of the list of 'arayot prohibitions in Lev 18:24–30, which also includes the prohibition of intercourse with a mother-in-law (v. 18). Verses 15–16 address the lack of punishment for those involved in this incident:

affected his future offspring: “ ‘You wander about like water, you shall not remain’ (Gen 49:4), that is, in the reckoning of the tribes. This is the reason why when Moses blessed him he said, ‘Let Reuben live and not die and let him be in the reckoning of his brothers’ ” (Deut 33:6) (tr. Matthews and Amar, “Commentary on Genesis,” 201). 26 Contra J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1749, who states, “Her culpability presumes her consent,” without providing any proof for this assertion.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

211

15

They are not to say: ‘Reuben was allowed to live and (have) forgiveness after he had lain with the concubine-wife of his father, and she also,27 while she had a husband, and while her husband—his father Jacob—was alive.28 16For the statute, the punishment, and the law had not been completely revealed to all but (only) in your time as a law of its particular time and as an eternal law for the history of eternity.

This passage also requires the death penalty as the general rule for both the man and the woman. This rule is stressed for a third time at the end of v. 17, “On the day on which they have done this they 27 For reasons of Ethiopic syntax, I follow a translation of v. 15 similar to those proposed by Charles and Rabin, as opposed to that of VanderKam and others. The Ge"ez version at this point reads: wa-y6"6ti-ni "6nza bàti m6ta. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 199, translated “and to her also though she had a husband.” In the body of his revision of the Charles translation, Rabin offers a similar, yet slightly freer translation: “and so also was Bilhah, although she had a husband” (C. Rabin, “Jubilees” in The Apocryphal Old Testament [ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984], 103). Most other translators connect the Ethiopic wa-y6"6ti-ni (‘and/now she [also]’) to the beginning of the next clause: VanderKam, Jubilees, 222: “while she had a husband”; K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen ( JSHRZ 2.3; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1981), 489: “derweil sie ihren Mann hatte”; M. Goldmann, “The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocryphal Books (ed. A. Kahana; 2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Mekorot, 1936–37; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 1:287 (Heb.): “l[b Hl ayhw.” VanderKam rejects Charles’ translation because wa-y6"6ti-ni is not ‘to her’ but ‘and/now she.’ The disagreement between the two suggested translations revolves around the Ethiopic construction wa- -ni. Goldmann, Berger, and VanderKam understand it in accordance with A. Dillman, Ethiopic Grammar (2d ed.; enlarged by C. Bezold; trans. J. A. Crichton; London: Williams & Norgate, 1907), §168, par. 4, which compares the Ethiopic suffix -ni to the Greek construction (m°n . . .) d° . . ., in which the particle d° indicates a new syntactical subject. Against this interpretation of the -ni in Jub. 33:15 is the fact that it is followed only by subordinate clauses (governed by "6nza, ‘while’). This leaves the second half of the verse without a main verb, making it difficult to assume the existence of a new subject. It is thus preferable to understand -ni here as ‘even, also,’ and translate “and she also” as did Charles and Rabin. Support for this interpretation can be found in the Ge"ez translation of v. 10: . . . mota y6mut ¢6bura b6"6si za-y6sakk6b m6sla b6"6sita "abuhu wa-b6"6sit-ni, "6sma . . ., “They are certainly to die together (¢6bura)—the man who lies with his father’s wife and the woman too because . . .” This verse paraphrases the law in Lev 20:11, according to which both the man and woman are to be put to death as the result of their sexual impropriety. The verse is translated using the same syntactical structure, wa-ni, as Jub. 33:15. The syntactical construction indicates a compound subject, and not at the beginning of a new sentence. (I would like to thank M. Mulgatta for her verification of the details of this argument.) 28 The formulation of this law suggests that the prohibition of intercourse with a father’s wife applies only to one whose father is still alive; after his death, the woman is no longer legally his wife. As C. Albeck noted, (Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha [Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 27; Berlin: Scholem, 1930], 29 and n. 197), this view stands in opposition to the rabbinic position expressed explicitly in m. Sanh. 4:7 and further discussed in b. Sanh. 54a.

212

michael segal

are to kill them.” The reason for the non-punishment of Reuben and Bilhah according to v. 16 is that “the law had not been completely revealed to all.” According to this legal passage, their ignorance of the law exempted them from punishment. Had they been aware of the law, they both would have been liable for their actions and deserving of death. Rabin added a number of words in his translation of v. 16: “and the law in its completeness, to cover every case, had not been revealed.”29 This translation was adopted and interpreted by Anderson,30 who explained that the justification for the pardon was that only certain laws regarding fornication were known during Reuben’s lifetime; only those already known were punishable. The penalty against a woman who committed a sexual offense had already been commanded by Abraham ( Jub. 20:4),31 and thus was known in Reuben’s time. Therefore, according to Anderson, Jubilees could not absolve Bilhah for the same reason as it did Reuben. That is why the author stressed Bilhah’s non-participation; without this mitigating factor, there was no justification for her to go unpunished. But it is difficult to accept Rabin’s translation and Anderson’s explanation that Jub. 33:16 refers to the revelation of only a partial list of sexual prohibitions, for the simple reason that, as these scholars themselves admit, the translation that they suggest is not a literal translation of the Ge"ez. In addition, Anderson assumed that if Judah knew Tamar’s punishment in the story of Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41 (to be discussed below), then Bilhah’s punishment also had to be known at the time of Bilhah’s rape. Therefore, Anderson suggested a significant innovation: the case of a woman guilty of fornication is different from that of a man guilty of the same crime, and they are governed by different laws. Even if one were to assume this distinction, it would still be difficult to accept the claim that no such law existed for men, in light of Jubilees’ retelling of the story

29

Rabin, “Jubilees,” 103. The body of his translation reads, “and the law in its completeness, to cover every case.” In his notes, however, he remarked that the literal sense is “for all.” VanderKam, Jubilees, 222, translated “to all.” 30 Anderson, “The Status,” 21. 31 Anderson, “The Status,” 23–24 suggested that there were two considerations for ascribing this prohibition to Abraham: (1) The fact that according to Jub. 41:28, Judah knew what Tamar’s punishment ought to be, (see below); (2) Reuben’s own awareness of a punishment for women who are guilty of fornication.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

213

of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. In that narrative, at the moment when Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph:32 He remembered the Lord and what his father Jacob would read to him from the words of Abraham—that no one is to commit adultery with a woman who has a husband; that there is a death penalty which has been ordained for him before the most high Lord. The sin will be entered regarding him in the eternal books forever before the Lord. (39:6)

Just as Abraham had commanded a law to apply to women guilty of fornication, he also had legislated, and apparently written, a law applicable to men. Although the words of Abraham that Jacob read to Joseph applied specifically to adultery with a married woman, it is certain that this more general case included the more specific case of intercourse with one’s father’s wife, including the demand for the death penalty.33 If so, it is difficult to accept the explanation that v. 16 applies only to legislation concerning men. It is preferable, I think, to understand the lack of punishment for both Reuben and Bilhah as the result of the publication of the laws to only select individuals: “For the statute, the punishment, and the law had not been completely revealed to all.” Joseph and Judah knew the law, while Reuben and Bilhah did not.34 Thus, Reuben and Bilhah were exempt 32

The text is partially preserved in 4Q221 7 4–9; see “221. 4QJubileesf,” ed. J. C. VanderKam and J. Milik, in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. W. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 79–80. Cf. also T. Jos. 3:3, in which Joseph refers to the words of Jacob (without explicit mention of Abraham) in the same context. 33 Anderson, “The Status,” 21–22 n. 38, notes the incongruity between the story of Reuben and Bilhah and that of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, in that the law was known by Joseph, but seemingly not by Reuben. Following Rabin’s suggested reading, Anderson posits that the difference in knowledge resulted from the difference between the cases. He proposes that Reuben was aware that his behavior was inappropriate, but since it was not the exact same case as that referred to in his father’s teaching, he chose to be lenient with himself. 34 Anderson, “The Status,” rightly emphasizes the relationship between the perspective suggested in the Reuben and Bilhah story in Jubilees (the laws were revealed gradually) and the position found in certain sectarian compositions, such as the Damascus Document. In light of the understanding of Jub. 33:16 suggested here, one can further the comparison, by noting that according to both Jubilees and the sectarian corpus, knowledge of the laws was limited to specific people or groups at different stages of history. In Jubilees, Judah and Joseph know the law, while Reuben does not. According to the Qumran writings, only the sect is aware of the mysteries of God and of the correct interpretation of the law (1QS 5:10–11, 8:13–15, 9:17–18; 1QH 5:9, 11:9, 17:9; 1QpHab 2:8–9; 7:4–5; CD 2:14ff. and elsewhere); see J. Licht, The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 48–49 (Hebrew).

214

michael segal

from punishment, even though at the same time Judah knew Tamar’s penalty, and Joseph prevented himself from sinning with Potiphar’s wife under threat of a known penalty. Only in the time of Moses, at the Sinaitic revelation, were all the laws revealed to all of Israel; thus, from then on, all Israel was liable for punishment. In sum, the narrative rewriting of the story pardons Bilhah for her lack of participation, and is silent regarding Reuben’s fate. She is rendered impure by this action, however, and thus prohibited to Jacob. The legal categories implicit in the narrative passage are those of snwa and ˆwxr, compulsion and free will. According to the legal passage, both people in a case of intercourse with a father’s wife are to be put to death because of the impurity created by their actions. Both Bilhah and Reuben should have been punished, but were instead pardoned because the law had not yet been revealed to them. The narrative emphasis on Bilhah’s non-participation is meaningless for the legal passage, which applies different legal categories, i.e., knowledge or lack of knowledge of the law. These different perspectives on the biblical story of Reuben and Bilhah are separated clearly by their location in Jubilees 33; one is found exclusively in the narrative passage and the other only in the legal material. This literary division between the two perspectives suggests that the joining of these two passages is not merely a case of “overkill,” to use the phrase coined by Kugel,35 in which one author quotes multiple traditions in order to solve one interpretive question, but results from the exegetical activity of two different interpreters. This argument is strengthened by the observation made above, that a version of events parallel to that described in the narrative passage of Jubilees 33 can be found in the Testament of Reuben 3, without the additional material presented in the legal section.

II. Judah and Tamar ( Jubilees 41) Another example of the tension between a rewritten narrative section and an appended legal passage is found in Jubilees’ story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38).

35 J. L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), 256–57; idem, The Bible As It Was, 28–34.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

215

A comparison of the biblical story and its retelling in Jubilees reveals the exegetical motives behind the reworking. Jub. 41:1–22 parallels Genesis 38, with changes by the reviser,36 whereas Jub. 41:23–28 has no parallel in Genesis 38, and the material contained therein adds both legal and moral considerations to the story. The relationship between the end of Jubilees 41 and 41:1–22 deserves attention. Are the exegetical tendencies and aims present in the re-written section identical to those found at the end of the chapter? If so, one can safely assume that the same individual composed both the earlier section and the concluding passage. Alternatively, if one can identify differences, and perhaps even contradictions, between the rewritten passage and the legal-moral exhortation in terms of their exegesis of the biblical story, then it is likely that the rewriting of the biblical story and the addition of legal material were performed by different individuals. Moreover, the unity of the legal passage itself may be called into question. The Judah and Tamar story presented the ancient reader with many difficult legal questions, such as the possibility of intercourse between a man and his daughter-in-law, explicitly prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20; or Judah’s decision to punish Tamar for harlotry with death by fire, a punishment not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch.37 Interpreters throughout the ages have offered various 36 Verse 22 offers a chronological note intended to locate the Judah and Tamar story at the appropriate time, a common feature of Jubilees. Genesis 38 is sandwiched between the sale of Joseph (Genesis 37) and the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39). It is unclear from the biblical narrative when Genesis 38 occurred, because the chapter details the birth of Judah’s sons, their marriages to Tamar, their deaths, Tamar’s pregnancy, and the birth of Perez and Zerach. All these events certainly took place over many years. The only chronological reference in Genesis 38 is found in v. 1: “And about that time. . . .” The interruption in the narrative between Genesis 37 and 39, and the use of resumptive repetition in Gen 39:1 indicate the simultaneity of the stories of Joseph and Judah; cf. S. Talmon, “The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narratives,” in Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art Throughout the Ages (ed. J. Heinemann and S. Werses; ScrHier 27; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1978), 18–19. In contrast, Jubilees employs a chronological principle, by which the narratives are arranged sequentially according to the order in which they occurred. The Judah and Tamar story is located in Jubilees 41, after Joseph had already risen to power in Egypt; Jubilees 41:1 dates Er’s marriage to Tamar in the year 2165. The story continues until 2170 ( Jub. 41:21), the year in which Perez and Zerach were born. These five years occurred during the years of plenty in Egypt, which according to Jub. 41:21 lasted from 2164 to 2170. Jubilees 42 then begins the narrative of the years of famine. By moving the Judah and Tamar story to a different location, Jubilees removes any doubt concerning its chronological details. 37 For a discussion of the many exegetical problems raised by the Judah and

216

michael segal

solutions to these and other problems raised by the story. The presence of legal or moral additions at the end of the chapter does not therefore indicate the internal unity of this section. Different approaches, from different hands, could have stood side by side, both attempting to explain the same difficulties in the text. Each addition must therefore be investigated independently, and only then be evaluated to determine whether or not they present corresponding solutions to the issues found in the biblical narrative. While keeping in mind the distinction between the rewritten narrative and the additional material, it is important to note the possibility that some of the material in the passage appended to the chapter may agree with the exegetical positions presented in the rewritten narrative, while other material may not. In such a case, I will suggest that the supplementary material that agrees with the rewritten narrative is indeed the work of the reviser of the story, while any data which do not match the rewritten narrative are the product of another hand. The Rewritten Narrative (41:1–22; 27–28) A careful comparison of Jub. 41:1–22 with Genesis 38 reveals the larger exegetical goals of the reworking. Most of the differences, including alterations, additions, and omissions, are intended specifically to mitigate Judah’s guilt throughout the narrative: (1) The cause of the unfavorable outcome of the story is Bat-Shua, Judah’s Canaanite wife: (A) Judah erred by marrying a Canaanite woman,38 but from that point on, she became the prime cause behind the death of their sons. Judah, attempting to rectify his mistake in the selection of a wife, chose an Aramean woman for his son.39 Thus, in the latter Tamar story in its canonical context, see E. M. Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics ( JSJSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 48–73. 38 This aspect is emphasized in T. Jud. 11, 13–14. Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite woman is noted explicitly in Gen 38:2. Jub. 34:20 had already mentioned her in a list of Jacob’s sons’ wives, and presumably avoids repeating this information here (cf. Anderson, “The Status,” 25). Alternatively, in light of the other details in the story that attempt to mitigate Judah’s actions, it is possible that this detail was omitted to moderate his condemnation. 39 Tamar’s origins are left unstated in the biblical story, thus allowing for her description as an Aramean in Jubilees 41; cf. T. Jud. 10:1.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

217

respect, he followed in the footsteps of his ancestors (Abraham: Gen 24:10; 25:20; Isaac: Gen 28:2, 5, 6). (B) The reason for Er’s death is not mentioned in Genesis 38. According to Jub. 41:2, Er refused to sleep with Tamar because she was not of Canaanite origin, as was his mother. Immediately after this, in v. 3, Jubilees cites the biblical description of Er’s wickedness and death at the hands of God. Although it is not explicitly stated that the sin for which Er died was his refusal to sleep with Tamar,40 the juxtaposition of the two statements strongly suggests this.41 A similar position is found later in rabbinic literature, without the nationalistic component. In b. Yeb. 34b, Er’s refusal to sleep with Tamar is derived from the use of the adverb μg in Gen 38:10, to stress that both Er and Onan were killed as a result of their actions. If their punishments are identical, then presumably their crimes were too. The provision of missing details based upon the immediate context is a known midrashic technique; thus, perhaps the tradition of Er’s refusal to sleep with Tamar was not the creation of Jubilees. Rather, the author adopted an earlier tradition, and adapted it for his own purposes. (C) According to Gen 38:11, Judah sent Tamar to her parents’ house with the promise that she would marry Shelah when he matured. In fact, Judah apparently never intended to fulfill this promise, for he feared that Shelah might die as the result of this union, just as his older brothers had before him. According to Jub. 41:6–7, Judah sent Tamar to her parents’ house with the full intention of marrying her off to Shelah. Once again, Bat-Shua the Canaanite is at fault, because she prevented Shelah from marrying Tamar when he was old enough. This change improves Judah’s image in two respects: First, Judah is not responsible for preventing the marriage of Shelah and Tamar. Second, Judah did not lie to or mislead Tamar when he sent her to her parents’ home. He intended to fulfill his promise. If so, Judah’s only mistake was marrying a Canaanite woman. From that point on, he acted fairly and righteously. (2) According to Jubilees, neither of Judah’s sons slept with Tamar. In the biblical story, there is no reason to assume that Er, the elder 40 As noted by Y. Zakovitch and A. Shinan, The Story of Judah and Tamar: Genesis 38 in the Bible, the Old Versions and the Ancient Jewish Literature (Research Projects of the Institute of Jewish Studies Monograph Series 15; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1992), 49 (Hebrew). 41 Zakovitch and Shinan, Judah and Tamar, 49; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 114.

218

michael segal

son, did not sleep with her. The story is less clear regarding Onan: “But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste whenever he came in to his brother’s wife . . .” (Gen 38:9). This verse is ambiguous about the nature of Onan’s intercourse with Tamar. Jubilees appears to reinterpret Onan’s actions: In place of “came in to his brother’s wife,” wyja tça la ab, Jubilees provides “entered the house of his brother’s wife” (v. 5). The verbal stem a”wb is thus interpreted not in a sexual sense,42 but as a description of the marriage.43 Jubilees reiterates and emphasizes at the end of the chapter that Er and Onan never had intercourse with Tamar: “We told Judah that his two sons had not lain with her” (v. 27a), a fact of which he was unaware at the time of the event. If neither son had slept with Tamar, then she was still a virgin when Judah encountered her in Timna. V. 27b continues, “For this reason his descendants were established for another family,44 and would not be uprooted.” Why is this the result of Tamar’s virginity? The first statement, “his descendants were established for another family,” is constructed from the subject zar'u ‘his descendants/offspring,’ the verb qoma, and an object introduced by the preposition la-. The same construction is found in v. 4 (as well as Gen 38:8), Judah’s request to Onan that he marry Tamar following Er’s death: “and establish descendants for your brother.” Through its parallel construction, v. 27 informs the reader that Judah has performed the duties of levirate marriage instead of his sons, and that this offspring is thus for a different family, that of Er.45 The same use of the verbal stem μ”wq is found in the law of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–6, where it is specified that the broth42 Found with this meaning in Gen 6:4, 16:2, 19:31, 30:3; Deut 22:13, 25:5; 2 Sam 16:21, 20:3; Ezek 23:44; Prov 6:29; cf. BDB, awb 1(e). 43 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 114. 44 The meaning of nagad in Ethiopic is ‘tribe, clan, kin, stock, kindred, progeny, lineage, family’; see W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge"ez (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 391. Goldmann, “Jubilees,” 300, and Rabin, “Jubilees,” 121, both translate “family,” while Charles, Jubilees, 231 and VanderKam, Jubilees, 276 offer “generation.” However, in three places within the Hebrew fragments of Jubilees preserved at Qumran, one finds the word rwd in Hebrew translated by a different Ge"ez word, t6wl6dd (1:5 [4Q216 i 13]; 21:24 [4Q219 ii 30]; 21:25 [4Q219 ii 33]). It is likely that t6wl6dd was used with the meaning “generation,” and nagad with the meaning “family.” 45 Contra Menn, Judah and Tamar, 60 n. 84: “I have not come across an explicit interpretation of Tamar and Judah’s union as levirate marriage in Second Temple or rabbinic literature.” Menn does not address Jubilees’ reading of the Judah and Tamar story, even though it is chronologically earlier than those she chose to discuss.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

219

ers of the deceased must fulfill the obligation. Apparently according to Jubilees the father of the deceased may also perform this duty, an idea already implicit in Genesis 38.46 However, this assumption contradicts laws from other biblical corpora, specifically the prohibition of sleeping with one’s daughter-in-law (Lev 18:15; 20:12), which is punishable according to Lev 18:29 by being cut off (karet) from one’s people. If so, Jubilees must address the tension between the story in Genesis 38 and the explicit prohibitions in Leviticus—how can the father perform the levirate duties without being punished by karet?47 Jubilees suggests that the laws of Leviticus do not apply in a case where the marriage of the son and daughter-in-law has not been consummated. The daughter-in-law is still considered the son’s widow however, i.e. subject to the requirement of levirate marriage; thence Judah first tried to give Tamar to Onan to “establish descendants for his brother.” When Onan failed to do this, Judah was able to fill this role, without being subject to karet. (3) Judah’s verdict and its nullification point away from any guilt or negligence: (A) In Gen 38:24, Judah decreed that Tamar be put to death by burning. Jub. 41:28 explains that the source for Judah’s ruling was the law which Abraham commanded his sons. This presumably refers 46 The law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25 differs from the Judah and Tamar story in Genesis 38, from a number of perspectives: (1) Deuteronomy 25 limits the marriage to brothers alone, while in the narrative, Judah performs this duty. However, even in Genesis 38, Judah first turned to his other sons to perform this obligation, thus indicating that it is preferable for brothers to do so (cf. Nahmanides to Gen 38:10); (2) according to Deut 25:5, the brother actually marries the widow, while Gen 38:26 relates that Judah did not approach her again; (3) Deut 25:7–10 allows the brother to refuse to fulfill his obligation. Although the Bible views this decision negatively (vv. 9–10), an escape mechanism does exist. In Genesis 38, this option seems to have been unavailable to Judah’s sons; the somewhat unpleasant ceremony described in Deut 25:7–10 would certainly have been a preferable option for Shelah, instead of Judah misleadingly sending Tamar to her father’s home. 47 In reality, the contradiction between the laws of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25) and forbidden sexual practices (Leviticus 18, 20) is found in the Bible itself: the former prescribes marriage to one’s brother’s wife, a relationship expressly forbidden in the latter (Lev 18:16, 20:21), and punishable by karet (Lev 18:29); cf. y. Ned. 3:2 (37d): “ ‘Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife’ (Lev 18:16), ‘her husband’s brother shall unite with her’ (Deut 25:5)—both of them were stated in a single act of speech,” as part of a list of biblical laws which contradict one another. Rabbinic law viewed the specific case described in the law of Deuteronomy 25, a levirate marriage where there is no offspring from the original relationship, as an exception built into the original law of prohibited relationships.

220

michael segal

to Abraham’s statement in Jub. 20:4 that any Israelite woman or girl who commits a sexual offence must be burned with fire. As has been noted by many scholars, this law is a general expansion of Lev 21:9, which applies only to the daughter of priests.48 Judah’s verdict against Tamar was thus based upon sound legal principles. (B) As Tamar was being taken out for burning, she sent Judah his pledge to show him that he was the father. In the biblical story, when he sees these signs, Judah states: “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch (ˆk l[ yk) as I did not give her to my son Shelah” (38:26). This statement presents a certain criticism of Judah, since his refusal to give Shelah to Tamar in marriage had led to her masquerading as a harlot. As mentioned previously, according to Jubilees, Judah intended to allow Tamar to marry Shelah, but his wife Bat-Shua had prevented this from happening. For this reason, the nullification of the verdict can not include Judah’s words of self-condemnation. Instead, Jub. 41:19–20 reads: “ ‘Tamar has been more just than I; therefore, do not burn her.’ For this reason she was not given to Shelah, and he did not approach her again.” By this interpretation, the failure to give her to Shelah was not the reason for her superior righteousness, indicated by ˆkAl[Ayk, but rather the result of the circumstances of the story, reading ˆkAl[. Once Judah had impregnated her, the levirate requirement had been accomplished;49 therefore, Shelah was prohibited from sleeping with his brother Er’s wife as in Lev 18:16; 20:21, and with his father’s wife according to Lev 18:8; 20:11. Since the purpose of the union of Judah and Tamar was to produce descendants for Er, once this had been accomplished, there was no justification for the two of them to be intimate again 48 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 150–151 correctly connects this extension to the general tendency in Jubilees to view all of Israel as priests. Jubilees thus continues the process of democratization typical of the Holiness Code in the Pentateuch; cf. I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Some rabbinic sources describe Tamar as the daughter of a priest, in this fashion justifying the method of punishment; see Gen. Rab. 85:10; Tg. Ps-Jon. to Gen 38:24: dqwtytw ahwqpnh ayh ˆyhk tb alh. 49 Zakovitch and Shinan, Judah and Tamar, 172. Anderson, “The Status,” 27–28, suggests that the narrator’s statement, “for this reason she was not given to Shelah,” refers to the period before Tamar’s pregnancy—Tamar was not given to Shelah so that her offspring would be free of any Canaanite blood. However, that interpretation places the statement about Shelah at a different stage of the story than the phrase which immediately follows, “and he [ Judah] did not approach her again,” which clearly describes a consequence of the pregnancy.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

221

either, and this is in fact prohibited by the law against sleeping with one’s daughter-in-law found in Lev 18:15; 20:12. (C) The biblical expression ynmm hqdx was expanded in Jub. 41:19 by the addition of the clause “therefore, do not burn her.” In v. 28, the narrative relates that Judah intended to apply Abraham’s prohibition in Jub. 20:4 to Tamar. He originally thought that she was guilty of fornication, and was thus deserving of death by fire. However, when Tamar sent him his pledge, he understood that she had not acted as a harlot, and should therefore not be put to death. The interpretation of v. 19 is illuminated by v. 28: ynmm hqdx, “she is more just/correct than me” with reference to the legal question, and “therefore do not burn her,” which annuls his verdict. In sum, Jub. 41:1–22, 27–28, presents a narrative in which Judah erred once, in his choice of a Canaanite wife; from that point on, however, he neither made any mistakes nor did he sin. Judah himself fulfilled the familial obligation to “establish descendants” for his son Er, an act justified by the fact that none of his sons ever had intercourse with Tamar. The Legal Passage (41:23–26) In Jub. 41:23–26, one finds a completely different evaluation of Judah’s actions: 23

Judah knew that what he had done was evil because he had lain with his daughter-in-law. In his own view he considered it evil, and he knew that he had done wrong and erred, for he had uncovered his son’s covering. He began to lament and plead before the Lord because of his sin. 24We told him in a dream that it would be forgiven for him because he had pleaded very much and because he had lamented and did not do (it) again. 25He had forgiveness because he turned away from his sin and from his ignorance, for the sin was a great one before our God. Anyone who acts this way—anyone who lies with his mother-in-law50—is to be burned in fire so that he burns in it because impurity and contamination have come on them. They

50 All Ge"ez manuscripts read here “mother-in-law.” Goldmann, “Jubilees,” 300; A. S. Hartom, “The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocryphal Literature (2 vols.; 3d ed.; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1969), 2:121; and E. Littman, “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Freiburg i. B.; Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), 2:108 both suggest correcting the text to “daughter-in-law.” As will be shown below, the reading as preserved in the Ethiopic texts is both correct and crucial to the understanding of this passage.

222

michael segal are to be burned. 26Now you order the Israelites that there is to be no impurity among them, for anyone who lies with his daughter-inlaw or mother-in-law has done something that is impure. They are to burn the man who lay with her and the woman. Then he will make anger and punishment desist from Israel.

This passage can be shown to differ from the narrative discussed above in three essential points: (1) Instead of attempting to mitigate Judah’s guilt, this passage relates Judah’s recognition that he is guilty of “revealing his son’s covering” (wnb twsk hlg). This formulation, based upon the prohibition of sleeping with one’s father’s wife in Deut 23:1; 27:20, implies that Judah has violated the prohibition of sleeping with his daughter-inlaw. In this passage, levirate marriage does not function as a mitigating factor, and therefore does not help to justify Judah’s actions. After he pleads with God, the angels inform Judah that he has been forgiven. This forgiveness proves that the intercourse with Tamar was in fact a sin. According to the narrative passage, on the other hand, karet was not to be enforced because Tamar had not previously had intercourse with Judah’s sons. This logic implies that Judah was not in violation of the prohibitions of Lev 18:16; 20:12, against intercourse with a daughter-in-law. These two perspectives on the union of Judah and Tamar are diametrically opposed: was there a sin or not?51 (2) According to 41:28, Judah’s ruling that Tamar be burned was based upon the law commanded by Abraham, presumably in Jub. 20:4. As noted earlier, according to that verse, any Israelite woman who is guilty of fornication should be burned; this is an expansion of the law in Lev 21:9, which mandates this punishment for the daughter of a priest. It is possible that this law has been expanded specifically to justify the verdict of burning in the story of Judah and Tamar.52 Placed in the mouth of Abraham, the law has achieved authoritative status, and can thus be applied by Judah in this specific case. 51 Attempts have been made to harmonize the rewritten narrative (vv. 1–22, 27–28) and the legal passage (vv. 23–26), by suggesting that Judah only thought that he had sinned until the angels revealed to him in v. 27 that in fact he had not. The forgiveness in v. 25 renders this possibility untenable. Zakovitch and Shinan, Judah and Tamar, 120–21 suggest a harmonizing approach, but also posit the possibility of two distinct authors as the cause of this tension. 52 L. Finkelstein, “The Book of Jubilees and the Rabbinic Halakha,” HTR 16 (1923): 39–61, pp. 56–57.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

223

In the Torah itself, burning is meted out as a punishment in only three cases of prohibited sexual activity: the story in Genesis 38, the law of the daughter of the priest in Lev 21:9, and the prohibition of intercourse with a woman and her mother in Lev 20:14. This was recognized in m. Sanh. 9:1—“These are the ones to be burned: he that lies with a woman and her daughter, and the daughter of a priest that has committed fornication.” Jubilees addresses the death penalty by burning in vv. 25–26. Verse 25 first deals with the case of one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law: “Anyone who acts this way—anyone who lies with his mother-in-law—is to be burned in fire.” Both Goldmann and Hartom emend this text to read “daughter-in-law” instead of “mother-in-law,” as the context of this passage is intercourse between a man and his daughter-in-law. However, this correction, unattested in any textual witness, corrupts the midrash halakha employed by these verses. The prohibition against intercourse with a daughter-in-law in Lev 20:12 mandates the death penalty for both the man and his son’s wife. However, the method of capital punishment is left unspecified. In contrast, Lev 20:14, the prohibition of intercourse with a woman and her mother (i.e., one’s mother-in-law), does include a punishment, death by fire. Jub. 41:26 draws an analogy between the cases of intercourse with a daughterin-law and with a mother-in-law, applying the method of punishment explicitly described in the latter case to the former.53 Jub. 41:25–26 thus presents an alternative halakhic explanation for Tamar’s punishment than that offered in the rewritten narrative. Although Judah was unaware that Tamar was guilty of intercourse with her father-in-law when he sentenced her to death by fire, the legal passage justifies the appropriateness of the punishment to the offense.54

53 In contrast to this approach, rabbinic law determined the method of punishment for intercourse with a daughter-in-law to be stoning; see m. Sanh. 7:4. 54 According to Lev 20:14, intercourse with one’s mother-in-law results in the death by fire of all those involved: the man, the woman, and her mother. By analogy, in the case of intercourse with a daughter-in-law, all parties involved should be sentenced to death by fire as well. This is in fact stated explicitly in Jub. 41:25b–26: “because impurity and contamination have come on them. They are to be burned. 26 . . . for anyone who lies with his daughter-in-law or mother-in-law has done something that is impure. They are to burn the man who lay with her and the woman.” Vv. 24b–25a describe Judah’s atonement through repentance, but do not mention a similar process for Tamar. Presumably, the author of the legal passage derived her innocence a fortiori from Judah’s.

224

michael segal

What is the internal logic of this comparison?55 Lev 20:14 describes the case in which a man has intercourse with both a woman and her mother, for which they are all punished by fire. The law of sleeping with one’s daughter-in-law, which appears in its immediate context (Lev 20:12), describes a symmetrical situation: a woman (the daughter-in-law) has intercourse with both a man (her husband) and his father (her father-in-law). These two prohibitions, intercourse with one’s mother-in-law and intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law, are thus mirror images of each other, in which the men and women have switched roles. The claim that the 'arayot prohibitions apply equally, or symmetrically, to both men and women, is found in the often quoted ruling of CD 5:7–11:56 μyjqwlw 7 la rma hçmw wtwja tb taw μ w hyja tb ta çya 8 μyrkzl twyr[h fpçmw ayh ˚ma raç brqt al ˚ma twja 9 yja twr[ ta jah tb hlgt μaw μyçnh μhkw bwtk awh 10 raç ayhw hyba 11 7) . . . and they marry 8) each one his brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter. But Moses said, “To 9) your mother’s sister you may not draw near, for she is your mother’s near relation.” Now the precept of incest is written 10) from the point of view of males, but the same (law) applies to women, so if a brother’s daughter uncovers the nakedness of a brother of 11) her father, she is a (forbidden) close relationship.

Lev 18:13 prohibits intercourse between a man and his aunt. The biblical law leaves the symmetric case, a woman and her uncle, unstated. The author of CD here polemicizes against those who marry their nieces, a position not explicitly prohibited in the Bible. While according to CD, the laws of incest are formulated from the perspective of men, but apply equally to men and women, the author’s

55 A. Shemesh (“How Many Forms of Capital Punishment and Why the Rabbis Created the Penalty of Death by Strangulation,” Bar Ilan Law Studies 17 [2002]: 514 [Heb.]) has independently suggested the same argument. 56 Text and translation from J. M. Baumgarten and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] and Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 20–21.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

225

opponents appear to have read the incest prohibitions from a strict, literal approach, holding that only those cases expressly prohibited by the Torah are in fact forbidden.57 The internal logic of Jub. 41:25–26, which draws an analogy between intercourse with a mother-in-law and that with a daughterin-law is formulated succinctly in CD: bwtk awh μyrkzl twyr[h fpçmw μyçnh μhkw, “the precept of incest is written from the point of view of males, but the same (law) applies to women.” As in the case of intercourse with one’s niece, one finds a similar opposing view in rabbinic literature that interprets the laws of incest in a strict, literal fashion, limiting their jurisdiction to cases mentioned explicitly in the Torah. M. Sanh. 7:4 includes intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law among a list of incestuous relationships for which one is put to death by stoning, while, m. Sanh. 9:1 limits the punishment of fire to intercourse with a mother-in-law. (3) According to vv. 23–24, Judah sinned, and therefore needed atonement to be free of punishment. He received this kappara for two reasons: (1) “because he turned away from his sin” and (2) “from his ignorance.” Judah’s ignorance differs from that in the case of Reuben and Bilhah, for in the latter, according to Jubilees, they were ignorant of the existence of the prohibition itself. In Jubilees 41, immediately upon realizing the nature of his sin, Judah regrets his actions and begs for forgiveness. He was aware when he committed his act that intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law was prohibited. His lack of knowledge resided in the fact that he was unaware that the woman whom he had slept with was Tamar. The notion of the coexistence of two types of ignorance, of the law and of the circumstances, is found explicitly only later in rabbinic literature.58 Ignorance of the law was enough for the author of the legal material in the story of

57 This opposing position is adopted in a later period by the rabbis; note the positive appraisal of marriage between an uncle and niece expressed in b. Yeb. 62b–63a. Cf. D. R. Schwartz, “Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of the Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1992), who identified two different legal conceptions, nominalism and realism, to explain the many differences between Qumran and rabbinic law; and see J. Rubenstein’s response (“Nominalism and Realism in Qumranic and Rabbinic Law: A Reassessment,” DSD 6 [1999]: 157–183), which attempts to show that in most of Schwartz’s examples, the disagreements can be shown to result from different methods of biblical interpretation. 58 See for example t. ”abb. 8:5.

226

michael segal

Reuben and Bilhah to absolve them of any punishment, while ignorance of the circumstances was not sufficient to absolve Judah—he was also required to “turn away from his sin.” The process of Judah’s “turning away from his sin” takes place in three stages: (1) he “knew that what he had done was evil”; (2) “he began to lament and plead before the Lord because of his sin”; (3) he “did not do (it) again.” These three elements reflect an understanding of Gen 38:26 that differs from the way in which it was understood in the narrative section: Gen 38:26

Jub. 41:23–24

(1) Judah recognized [them] (hdwhy rkyw)

(1) Judah knew that what he had done was evil because he had lain with his daughter-in-law. In his own view he considered it evil, and he knew that he had done wrong and erred, for he had uncovered his son’s covering. (2) He began to lament and plead before the Lord because of his sin . . . because he had pleaded very much and because he had lamented (3) and did not do (it) again.

(2) and said, “She is more right than I inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” (3) And he did not know her again.

Genesis 38:26 leaves the object of Judah’s recognition unstated. From the similar language in v. 25, it is clear that on the peshat level, this recognition refers to the signs he left with Tamar. Jub. 41:23 reinterprets this verb to indicate Judah’s self-recognition of his sins: “Judah knew (or recognized)59 that what he had done was evil.” The second statement in Gen 38:26, in which Judah declares that Tamar was more right than he, has been interpreted by early exegetes as a public act of confession and repentance, which assisted in his attain-

59 The Ge"ez verb "a"mara can be translated as either ‘know’ or ‘recognize’, and thus translates the Hebrew [”dy or r”kn (hiphil ). Both Hebrew verbs are translated in many instances (including Gen 38:26) by the LXX using the same verb, •pigign≈skv. It is therefore likely that the Hebrew text of Jubilees was hdwhy rkyw, identical to that of Genesis 38.

legal and narrative passages in

JUBILEES

227

ment of atonement.60 This passage in Jubilees also appears to understand Judah’s words as a confession, but a private, rather than public one. In the narrative portion of Jubilees, v. 19, these words were understood as the annulment of Judah’s earlier verdict: “Tamar has been more just than I; therefore do not burn her.” The use and interpretation of Gen 38:26 is clear in the third element found in Jubilees: “and ( Judah) did not do (it) again.” In Jub. 41:24, Judah is not again intimate with Tamar because this would be considered the repetition of a sin, intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law. Thus the interpretation of Gen 38:26 in the legal passage differs considerably from the exegesis of this verse in the narrative section. The cumulative weight of the discrepancies between the rewritten narrative and the legal passage, regarding (1) the nature of Judah’s actions; (2) the source for the penalty of death by burning; and (3) the interpretation of Gen 38:26, suggests that the narrative and legal passages of Jubilees 41 originate from two different hands. As in the case of the Reuben and Bilhah story, the division between the exegetical approaches follows along the lines of the narrative and legal passages.

Conclusions In both examples presented in this paper, it has been suggested that the rewritten narratives and the legal sections in Jubilees are the products of different writers. If this hypothesis can be demonstrated in other cases as well,61 the evidence of these examples has important implications for the study of the literary development of Jubilees. Two primary possibilities can be offered to explain the relationship between these legal and narrative materials: (1) The combination occurred on the compositional level: the author of Jubilees, who was also the author of the legal material, incorporated already existing, possibly independent, rewritten narratives into his legal framework.

60 Cf. Tg. Neof. to Gen 38:26; Mek. R. Ishmael BeShalla˙ 5; Sifre Deut. 348; y. So†ah 1:4 (5b); Gen. Rab. 97; b. So†ah 10b, and elsewhere. 61 Cf. Kister, “Some Aspects”; Ravid, “Sabbath Laws”; Segal, “Garden of Eden”; idem, “Jubilees.”

228

michael segal

(2) The combination occurred after the composition of the book, which was at base a rewriting of the Genesis narrative: a later writer inserted the legal material into an existing composition. This hypothetical, “pre-nomistic” version of Jubilees can theoretically be reconstructed by removing the appended legal passages from the book. These two alternatives are not intended to exclude other possible explanations. A conclusion as to which of these (or other) proposed literary models best explains how the book achieved its current form can only be reached after a careful examination of all of the instances throughout Jubilees in which legal passages and rewritten narratives have been combined.62

62 See Segal, “Jubilees,” in which I argue for the first model of literary development based upon the analysis of numerous similar constructions.

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Abegg, M. G. 109 Ahituv, S. 142 Albeck, C. 35, 182, 185, 188, 211 Alexander, P. S. 36, 40, 45 Allegro, J. M. 31, 68, 77, 123, 124, 127, 129, 168 Alon, G. 163 Alter, R. 99, 101, 103 Amar, J. P. 209 Amusin, J. D. 66, 72, 76, 81 Andersen, F. I. 160, 162 Anderson, G. A. 17, 18, 207, 212–13, 216, 220 Atkinson, K. 65 Avigad, N. 39, 40

Cross, F. M.

Baillet, M. 168 Barton, J. 93 Baumgarten, J. M. 28, 32, 34, 36, 172–73, 176, 224 Ben-Dov, J. 112 Ben-Hayyim, Z. 21 Ben-Yehuda, E. 22 Berger, K. 142, 145, 211 Bernstein, M. J. 40, 41–42, 48, 49, 61, 148 Berrin, S. 67, 77, 81 Beyer, K. 177 Bickerman, E. J. 84 Blenkinsopp, J. 20, 25, 91 Bodenheimer, S. 193, 196, 197, 198 Borgen, P. 175 Box, G. H. 156 Braude, W. G. 163, 173 Brooke, G. J. 80, 85, 97 Brown, R. 12–13 Brownlee, W. H. 81

Elliger, K. 22 Epstein, J. N. 163 Eshel, E. 39, 93, 177, 201 Eshel, H. 66, 82, 108, 124, 128, 131–32 Evans, C. A. 40, 121

Carmel, Y. Y. 192, 199 Carmignac, J. 77, 81 Cassuto, U. 137 Charles, R. H. 142, 145, 177, 178, 185, 211, 218 Chazon, E. 26, 28 Clines, D. J. A. 88 Colson, F. H. 163

108, 122

Davenport, G. L. 203 Davidson, D. 1 Davies, P. R. 89 Dillman, A. 142, 211 Dimant, D. 42, 65, 82, 83, 84, 106, 107, 118–119, 126, 160, 168, 203–4 Doering, L. 159 Doudna, G. 66, 81 Drawnell, H. 177 Driver, S. R. 22 Duhaime, J. 52 Dupont-Sommer, A. 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82

Fassberg, S. 21–22, 46 Feliks, Y. 186, 197 Finkelstein, L. 186, 200, 222 Fisk, B. N. 86 Fitzmyer, J. A. 40, 43, 45, 46, 92 Fleischer, H. L. 10 Flint, P. W. 100 Flusser, D. 66, 72, 76, 81 Frege, G. 1 Frey, J. 160 Frölich, I. 66 García Martínez, F. 14, 31, 92, 146, 197, 204 Gaster, T. 66, 77, 80, 82 Ginzberg, L. 84 Goldmann, M. 211, 218, 221, 223 Goldstein, J. 89 Gray, G. B. 65, 155 Greenfield, J. C. 41, 61, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 196, 197, 201 Greer, R. 13 Grelot, P. 196 Gunton, C. 1

230

index of modern authors

Halpern-Amaru, B. 150, 207, 208, 217, 218, 220 Harrington, D. J. 169–70, 172, 174 Hartom, A. S. 221, 223 Heinemann, I. 207 Hengel, M. 84 Himmelfarb, M. 177, 185, 186–87, 188, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 202 Hoenig, S. 82 Hoffmann, D. Z. 163 Hollander, H. W. 102, 145, 163, 178, 180, 194 Holm-Nielsen, S. 65 Horgan, M. P. 66, 68, 81, 82 Hurwitz, A. 11 Japhet, S. 89 Jaubert, A. 84 Johnson, M. 1–2, 8, 12, 29–30 Jones, G. H. 88 Jonge, M. de 102, 145, 163, 177, 178, 180, 194 Kapstein, I. J. 163, 173 Kasher, A. 142 Kasher, M. M. 48 Kee, H. C. 180 Kehati, P. 184 Kister, M. 156, 158, 160, 174, 175 Kister, M. 53, 204, 205, 227 Kitron, R. 145 Knohl, I. 220 Kobelski, P. J. 14 Kugel, J. L. 13, 153, 154, 158, 170, 178, 207, 208, 209, 214 Kugel, J. L. 13, 207, 208, 209, 214 Kugler, R. A. 177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 197, 201 Kutscher, E. 10 Lakoff, G. 1–2, 8, 12, 29–30 Lange, A. 41 Larson, E. 33 Lauterbach, J. Z. 163 Lehmann, M. R. 33 Leiman, S. Z. 100 Leslau, W. 194, 218 Levy, J. 10 Licht, J. 28, 167, 213 Lieberman, S. 163, 182, 186 Lietzmann, H. 165 Lim, T. H. 126, 129, 131 Littman, E. 221

Lübbe, J. 132 Luzzato, S. 22 Maier, J. 66, 72 Marcus, J. 156, 159 Mathews, E. G. 209 Mathys, H. P. 89 Mazor, L. 126 Mendels, D. 145 Menn, E. M. 216, 218 Metzger, B. M. 194 Milgrom, J. 21, 22, 188, 198, 208, 210 Milik, J. T. 14, 17, 85, 87, 107, 213 Montgomery, J. A. 11 Morgenstern, M. 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 61, 173, 197 Muffs, Y. 10, 23–24 Murphy, C. M. 34 Najman, H. 98 Neusner, J. 72 Newsom, C. 107–110, 112, 113, 116, 122, 127, 129, 131, 132, 168 Nickelsburg, G. 52 Nitzan, B. 77 Noam, V. 200 Oesterly, W. O. E.

156

Paran, M. 4 Pardo, D. 186 Penar, T. 18 Pfann, S. 91 Powell, M. A. 193 Propp, W. H. C. 137 Puech, É. 14, 107, 136, 146–147, 149 Qimron, E. 39, 41, 45, 52, 54, 61, 107, 113, 153, 166, 168, 172, 197, 200 Rabin, C. 84, 211, 212, 213, 218 Ravid, L. 204, 227 Reed, S. A. 105 Reeves, J. C. 57 Reich, S. Z. 192 Ricoeur, P. 2–3, 8, 18, 29–30 Rosenthal, F. 11 Roza, M. 193, 196, 197, 198 Rubenstein, J. 225 Safrai, S. 200, 201 Saldarini, A. 72 Sanders, E. P. 11 Sanders, J. A. 96

index of modern authors Sarna, N. 206 Scheiber, A. 156–57 Schiffman, L. H. 33, 66, 102, 168, 179, 181, 182, 191, 201 Scholem, G. 171 Schwartz, B. 3–6, 9–10 Schwartz, D. R. 224, 225 Seely, D. 167 Segal, M. H. 160 Segal, M. 175, 204, 205, 224, 228 Shemesh, A. 224 Shinan, A. 217, 220, 222 Shmuel Hakatan, J. ben 146 Sivan, D. 41, 45, 52, 54, 61, 197 Sokoloff, M. 173, 182 Soskice, J. M. 1 Spronk, K. 76 Steiner, R. 42 Stern, M. 72, 74, 75 Steudel, A. 124, 132 Stone, M. E. 17, 93, 150, 155, 156, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 196, 197, 201 Strugnell, J. 54, 68, 124, 168, 169–70, 172, 174 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 44 Sukenik, E. L. 167 Swanson, D. D. 90 Talmon, S. 87, 94, 107, 112, 215 Tantlejvsky, I. R. 66, 76 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 14, 31, 92, 146, 197

231

Tov, E. 86, 92, 107, 114 Trafton, J. L. 65 Trebolle Barrera, J. 88 Trever, J. 45, 46 Troyer, K. de 87, 88 Tur-Sinai, N. H. 22 Ulrich, E. C.

86, 97, 107, 132

VanderKam, J. C. 57–59, 85, 136, 143, 185, 203, 211, 212, 213, 218 Vermes, G. 36, 40, 87, 94, 102 Wacholder, B. Z. 109 Weinfeld, M. 167, 169 Weiss, R. 80 Werman, C. 42, 57–59, 145, 201 Westbrook, R. 23 Whitaker, G. H. 163 White Crawford, S. 87 Wiesenberg, E. 203 Winston, D. 154 Winter, P. 158, 160 Wise, M. O. 43, 44 Woude, A. S. van der 14, 92 Wright, R. B. 65, 79, 84 Yadin, Y. 39, 40, 72, 188, 194, 200 Yahalom, J. 173 Zakovitch, Y. 217, 220, 222 Zuckerman, B. 43, 44, 45

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

1. Bible Genesis 1:28 2–3 2:3 5 5:29 5:32 6 6:1–4 6:2 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:11–12 6:13 6:13–14 6:17 8:4 8:5–14 8:15–19 8:16 8:20 8:20–21 8:21 9 9:2–4 9:7 9:13 11:5 12–14 12–15 13:17 15:1 15:10 15:16 16:2 18:21 19:31 22:3 24:10 25:20 28:1–2

100, 150 62 101 157 47 48 54 45, 54 48 47 218 45, 49 48 56 52–53 53–54 45 49 45 48 57, 59 59 59 60 57 59 58 60 62 62 62 49 63 40 60 61 163–64 27, 175 218 49 218 185 217 217 180

28:2 28:5–6 30:3 30:4 35:22 35:27 37 37:2 37:6–9 37:14 38 38:2 38:8–9 38:10 38:10–11 38:24 38:26 38:26 (LXX) 39 39:1 46:28 (LXX) 47:27 47:28–31 47:28–29 47:29–31 48–50 48:1–20 48:3 48:8 49:1–2 49:4 49:5 49:10 49:28–32 49:29 50:1 50:2–3 50:15–21 50:16–17 50:17 50:18–21 50:23 50:24–25

217 217 218 206 206, 209 144 215 206 139 144 214–221 216 218 219 217 219, 220 219, 220, 226–27 226 208, 215 215 142 137 138 137 145 138 139 137 137 137 133, 206, 207, 210 128 133 139 137 139 143 137 139 4 139 139 136, 139–140

index of ancient sources 50:25 50:26

149 143

Exodus 1:1–8 1:6–7 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:15–21 1:20 1:20 (Sam.; Syr.) 2:1 3:16 6:20 10:17 12:29 14:21 14:29 15:19 23:7 23:32 24:6 29:38–42 30:17–21 30:34–37 34:12 34:22

100, 103 135–37, 142 137 140 16, 142 144 137 137 137 150 140 150 4 163 110 110 110 36 120 163–64 195 182 197 120 113

Leviticus 1 1:3–4 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:8–9 1:11 1:12–13 2:1 2:1 (LXX) 2:13 3:3–4 3:17 4:7 4:18 4:25 4:30 4:34 5:1 5:3 5:20 6 6:1–6 6:5

186 22 26 58 184, 192 188–89 58, 181 188–89 197, 198 197 58, 190, 194 191 62 58 58 58 58 58 4 181 33 186–87 186 187, 192, 200

6:8 7:18 7:21 7:22 8:6–9 16:4 16:21–22 16:22 17:13–14 17:14 18 18:8 18:13 18:15 18:16 18:24–30 18:29 19:7 19:14 19:18 19:35 20 20:11 20:12 20:14 20:21 21 21:1–4 21:6 21:7 21:9 21:14 22:18–25 24:7 24:15 25 25:1–17 25:2–3 25:10 25:13 25:47–52 25:47–53 25:54–55 26 26:14–17 26:18–20 26:21–22 26:23–26 26:27–33 26:34 26:40–44 26:41–42 26:43

233 197 22, 24 181 22 183 182–83 7–8 3 201 62 93, 219 206, 210, 220 224 219, 221 219, 220, 222 208, 210, 215 219 22 172 83 155, 169 93, 215, 219 206, 210, 211, 220 219, 221, 222, 223–24 223–24 219, 220 178–181 181 179, 180 179 220, 222–223 179 22 197 4 21 15–17 115 15 15 19–20 16 16 21–24 21 21 21 21 21 19, 20, 21 26 24 20, 22, 25–29

234

index of ancient sources

Numbers 5:1–10 5:11–12 5:15 10:11 11:10–17 14:11–19 14:18 14:32–34 15:1–9 15:1–16 15:7 15:10 15:14 16:15 18:22 19:20 24:24 27:17 27:18 (LXX) 27:21 28:3–8

190 190 197 115 6, 8 8–9 4, 10 4 195 198 197 197 197 7 4, 6 35 133 170 130 120–21 195

Deuteronomy 1:3 7:1–6 15 15:1–11 15:2–3 15:6 16:1 17:14–20 19:15 20:15–18 20:19 21:1–9 22:13 22:13–21 22:23–27 23:1 25 25:5 25:5–6 25:7–10 27:18 27:18 (LXX) 27:20 28:22 33:6 34:8

114 120 30 15–17 15 16 111 101 34 120 185 33 218 32 207 206, 210, 222 219 218 218 219 172 130 206, 210, 222 74 210 114

Joshua 3:13–14 3:13–16

92, 108, 114 110 113, 114

3:15 3:15 (LXX; Syr.; Lat.) 3:16 3:17 4:18 4:19 4:22–23 5:6 5:6 (LXX) 5:10 5:11–12 6:1 6:26 6:26 (LXX) 6:34 9 9:14 18:1 23:13

112, 113, 114 113, 114 110 110, 111 110 111, 115 110 115 115 111, 115 115–117 151 124–26, 132 126 132 119 120 119 127

1–2 Samuel

88, 102

1 Samuel 2:3 8:1–22 8–11 12:1–25 12:3 15:25 17:34 20:5 20:17 25:25

175 88 88 88 7 4 7 111 126 127

2 Samuel 3:7 11 16:21 16:21–22 20:3

206 207 218 206 218

1–2 Kings

88, 103

1 Kings 5:18

138

2 Kings 2:8 3:17

110 112

Isaiah 1:2–4 5:18

100–101 7 7

index of ancient sources 6 6:1 6:1 (LXX) 8:14 11:5 11:16 39:6 40:2 40:3 40:5 40:13 44:21–22 50:1 50:1–2 54:14 61:1–2 63:18

103 79 79 127 52 124 126 19–20, 21, 24 133 81 175 20 18 20 127 15 82

Jeremiah 5:30 7:32 17:17 18:4–10 18:13 23:15 25:11 26:19 29:10 42:29 44:7 46:14 48:29

100 130 126 127 158 130 130 133 129 133 127 129 82 128

Ezekiel 1 4:4 10 18:25 23:44 30:13 43:24 44:15–31 45:10–11

100, 103, 195 103 7 103 175 218 82 194 179 168–169, 170, 175

Hosea 6:10 9:8

130 127

Joel 2:12–13

29

Micah 7:11

130

235

Nahum 1:2 3 3:1–2 3:1–7 3:4–5 3:5–6 3:5 3:6–7

83 83 77 76–77 79 80 81 79–80

Psalms 22:26 37:6 50:14 51:4 56:13 61:9 62:10 65:2 65:10 66:13 79:3 76:12 89:41 91:3 116:14 116:18 130:7–8

87, 96, 100 23 80 23 3 23 23 173 23 112 23 130 23 127 127 23 23 20

Proverbs 6:29 16:2 16:27 21:2

218 173, 175 127 175

Job 2:4 28:25–26 28:26 (LXX) 31:6

26 175 155 175

Lamentations 2:8

130

Qohelet 2:24–26

158

Esther

87–88

Daniel 4:24 7:23 (Theodotion) 8:13 9:2

102 11, 20, 29 157 82 133

236 9:24–27 11:30 11:32–35 Nehemiah 5:10 9:11 9:18 9:26 10:35–36 13:27

index of ancient sources 133 133 77 17 110 130 130 200 129

1–2 Chronicles

87–91, 103

1 Chronicles 5:1 12:16

206 112

2 Chronicles 14:6 16:13 28:27–29:3 36:21

129 111 88 21

2. Apocrypha Sirach 13:13 16:24–17:23 23:6 24:26 33:10 33:11 (LXX) 33:12 33:7 (LXX, Syr.) 33:7–12 33:7–15 33:9 42:24 46:1

96–97 158 162 178 114 162 157 158 156–57 158 156–60, 156–159, 162, 164 157 157, 158, 160 130

Tobit 1:3 4:12–13 6:18

102 52 54 173

Wisdom of Solomon 11:16 11:20

154, 162 154, 162

1 Maccabees 1:37 2:57 3:51–52 3:58

92 130 89 82 82

3 Maccabees 2:17–18

82

3. New Testament Matthew 3:2 6:12 7:2 18:23–25

133 12, 18 154 12–13, 18

Mark 1:3 4:24 9:49–50

133 154 194

Luke 3:4–6 6:37 John 1:23

133 154 133

Romans 12:3–10

165

1 Corinthians 12:12 12:17–27

165 165

2 Thessalonians 2:7

45

Ephesians 4:7–13

165

1 John 2:29–3:2 3:8–15 4:2–8 5:1

170 170 170 170

index of ancient sources

237

4. Pseudepigrapha Chronicles of Jerahmeel 45 1 Enoch 3:1 6:6 10 41:1 43:2 43:2–4 60:12 60:13 60:22 60:23 61:1–5 83–88 106 106:13

146 41–42, 44–45, 85 185 47 45 155 175 155 155 175 175 155 155 48 46, 50 47

2 Enoch 40–44 43–44 49:2 52:15 65

156 160–63, 164 155 162 162 162

4 Ezra 4:36–37

155, 175

Jubilees

1:5 2:19–24 2:25 2:29 3:28 4:15 4:21 4:33 5:6 5:17 6:2 6:27–28 10:1–9 10:14 12:27

41–42, 44, 87, 90–91, 98, 100, 106–7, 134, 184, 186, 197, 202, 203–28 218 159 159 159 93 47 203 54 45 208 58–59 208 45 150 150

20:1–11 20:4 21 21:1–25 21:11 21:12 21:13 21:14 21:16 21:24–25 22:10–24 23:5 29:19 31:8–23 33 33:1–9a 33:9b–20 33:10 33:15–16 34:20 36:3–4 36:7–11 36:20 37:1–38:14 39:6 41 41:1–22 41:19 41:23–24 41:23–26 41:23–28 41:27–28 41:28 42 45:1 45:13–16 45:14 45:15–16 45:16 46 46:1 46:1–3 46:4–7 46:6 46:7 46:8 46:8–11 46:9–10 46:10–11

138 212, 220–21, 222 178 138 194 185 184 185 183 218 138 139 144 139 206–14 206–9 210–14 210 210–11 216 138 138 144 138 213–14 214–27 215, 216–221, 222 227 226–27 221–27 215 218–21, 222 212 215 137 143 138 149–50 139, 145 135–52 150 136–39 136, 139–42 145, 151 151 140 136, 142–45, 148 149 151

238 46:12–13 47:1 47:8 48:14 50:2–4 50:6–13

index of ancient sources 144 144, 148, 151 150 154 116–18 204

Liber Antiquitatem Biblicarum 9:2–5 150 21:6 130 24:3 130 Psalms of Solomon 2 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4–5 2:5 2:6 2:6–8 2:7 2:11–12 2:11–13 2:17 2:19 2:19–21 2:22 2:24 2:26–29 5:4 8 8:11–12

65, 78–84 82 79 79 81–82 79 79 78 82 80 79, 84 80, 81 79 79 79 79 82 155 65 82–83

8:21 17 17:16

78 84 82

Testament of Benjamin 12:4

145

Testament of Joseph 3:3

213

Testament of Judah 10:1 11 13–14 14 25:3

216 216 216 209 93

Testament of Levi 9:10 9:11 9:12 9:14

177 179 181–183 185 194

Testament of Naphtali 2:2–10 2:3 2:6

156 163–166 155 171

Testament of Reuben 1:7 3:9–15

209 208–9, 214

Testament of Simeon 8:2–4

145

5. Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q19 1Q20 1Q27 1 2 1 i 6 1Q30 1 6 1QapGen ar (Genesis Apocryphon) 0 0–11 1–2 1–11 2 2:2

46, 50 43–44 45 81 133 39–63, 94, 95 44–46 43 46–47 63 40, 49 46

2:7 2:9 2:15–16 3 3:3 3:3–4 3:9–13 3:15–17 5 5:2–4 5:5–8 5–6 5:9 5:12–13 5:16 5:16–19

48 45 50 47–48, 50 47 47 48 48 44, 49 49–50 50 51 50 50 42 50–51

index of ancient sources 5:20–25 5:29 6:1–? 6:6–9 6–7 6:11 6:11–12 6:13–20 6:23 7:5 7:7 7:19 8–10 9–10 10 10:8–10 10:12 10:12–13 10:14–15 10:15–16 10:18 11 11:1 11:11–14 11–12 11:12 11:14–15 11:15–16 11:16–17 12 12:1 12:9 12–17 15:14 17 19–22 20:14 22:30 1QHa (Hodayot) 1:28–29 5:9 10:28 11:9 12:5 12:34 13:36 14:19 17:9 18:10 1QM (War Scroll) 4:1–2 6:11–13 7:4–5 13:9

51 53 52–53 53–54 56 50 55 55–56 56 56 55 56 56 59 44, 60 56–57 57 59 57–59 197 60 60–61 59 60 49 61 62 61 62 41 62 61 63 56 44 40, 63 49 61 106 167 213 154 213 167 34 45 154 213 167 106 127 166 181 154

1QpHab 2:8–9 7:4–5 7:13 8:11 1QS (Community Rule) 1:10 1:12 1:18 10:17–18 10:19 10:7 10:7–8 10:9 2:16 2:22–23 2:22–25 2:26–3:1 3:13–14 3:13–4:26 3:19 4:16 4:24 5:10–11 5:16 5:20–23 5:24 5:7 6:10 6:4 6:8 7:1–2 8:1–4 8:13–15 8:4 9:12 9:12–14 9:17–18 9:21 1QSa (Community Rule) 2:3–4 2Q20 1 3Q15 12:1 2:10 4Q48 2 2 4Q118 4Q123 4Q124 4Q125

239 213 213 156, 167 128 54, 91, 106, 153 154 167, 175 127 35 128 167 112 155, 167 35 154 166 28–29 170 52 170 154 154 213 34 166 171 167, 175 167 167 167 37 27 213 167, 168 155, 167 171 213 167, 175 181 137 112 112 114 88 92, 107 92 92

240 4Q159 2–4 8–9 4Q169 3–4 i 3–4 i 3–4 3–4 ii 3–4 ii 1–6 3–4 ii 2 3–4 ii 4 3–4 ii 4–6 3–4 ii 4–7 3–4 ii 7–10 3–4 ii 8–10 3–4 ii 10 3–4 ii 11–12 3–4 iii 3–4 iii 1–5 3–4 iii 2 3–4 iii 3 3–4 iii 3–8 3–4 iii 4 3–4 iii 7 3–4 ii–iv 4Q171 1:20 4Q175 21–30 23 27 28 4Q179 1 i 14 4Q180 4Q242 4Q243–245 4Q246 4Q251 18 4Q252 5 5 6 5 4Q266 6 ii 9–10 6 ii 10 11 4–8 11 14–16 4Q270 2 ii 13 2 i–ii 4Q271 3 3 3 12–15

index of ancient sources 31–32 65–66, 72 82 68–69 78 71, 73 72 72, 76–77 71 79, 84 7 81 79 70–71 79 80 81 71 80–81 82 65–84 80 108, 129, 131–132 108, 122, 124–125 126 123 130 18 133 102 102 102 33 59, 96, 97, 100, 133 133 133 31 35 29 34–35, 36 31 36 18 32

4Q275 4Q300 3 5–6 4Q320 4 ii 10–13 4Q322 3 4Q323 5 4Q324 1 4 4Q324a 2:2 4Q378 22 ii 7–15 4Q378–379 4Q379 12 12 4–7 12 5–6 22 i 22 ii 22 ii 1–7 22 ii 7–15 22 ii 8–11 22 ii 8–15 22 ii 9 22 ii 13 22 ii 13–14 4Q386 4Q387a 4Q389 1 ii 3–6 4Q390 2 i 10 4Q395–399 (4QMMT) B75–82 4Q464 3 i 8 4Q504 4Q513 2 ii 4 4Q522 9 i 9 ii 9 ii 2–12 9 ii 3 4Q532 1 i 9 (11) 1 i 10 (12) 2 14

36–37 81 112 112 112 112 112 108 108 96, 107–34 108–18, 121, 124, 134 114–15 15 123 121–134 122, 123–24 122 122 124 126–128 129 130 82 28 27, 28–29 128 97, 202 54 93 18, 26, 28–29, 134 32–33 107 107 118–121, 130–131, 134 119–120 126 45 45 45

index of ancient sources 4Q534 1 7–8 4Q536 2 i 8–9 2 i 12 4Q542 1 ii 6 4QEna ar 1 iii 4 4QEnc ar 5 ii 17–18 4QpaleoExodm 4Q159 1 14 4Q181 2 8 4Q186 4Q213–214 (Aramaic Levi Document) 13–15 16 16–46 17 18 19 20–21 22 23–25a 25b 26a 26b 27–28 29 30–31 32–36 37–40a 40b–42 43–44b 45a–46a 46 52 53 53b–55 56–57 4Q216 i 13 4Q219 ii 30 ii 33 4Q221 7 4–9 4Q271 3 7–10 3 9

55 55 55 18 47 47 87, 92–93 168 168 164 177–202 178 178–79 177 179–80 180–81 181–83 183–84 184–85 185–86 186–87 187–88, 193 190 188–89 190 190 191–93 193–95 195–96 196–97 197–99 196 177, 199–201 149 187 177, 201–2 218 218 218 213 172 173

4Q299 2 1–2 6 i 5 6 ii 16 10 7–8 20 1–2 29 3 32 3 4Q405 23 i 13 4Q413 2 4Q415 11 11 5 11 11 4Q415–418, 423 (4QInstruction) 4Q416 1 4 2 ii 9 2 iii 8–10 2 iii 20 7 4Q417 2 i 17–20 4Q418 1 1 77 77 3 81+81a 9 123 ii 7 126 ii 3 127 5–6 167 4Q434 1 i 10 4Q504 4Q513 1–2 i 3 4Q543 3 3 4 4 4Q543–547 (4QVisions of Amram ar) 4Q544 1 1 1 1–9 1 3 1 5–6 1 7–9

241 168 168, 169 168 168 168 168 168 168 166 171, 174 175 173 153, 173 169 170 174 173 170 174 169 170 155 169 170 169, 170 169, 175 171, 174 167, 176 26–27, 29 168 147 147 136, 146–152 148 146–47 148 148 149

242 4Q545 1 12–17 1 16 1 18 1 19 4Q546 2 1–3 2 3 4Q547 1–2 1 1–2 4 1–2 6 1–2 7 4Q548 4Q549 5Q9 5Q13 11Q5 19:10 22:6 11Q13 2:2–9 11Q19 (Ta; Temple Scroll )

18:10–19:9 20:13–14 23:9–24:16 24:8 34:10–11 40:6 53:4–8 56:13–59:21 56–58

index of ancient sources 147–148 151 149 147, 148 147 148 147 147 148 147, 149 146 146 107 61 100 18 128 14–18, 20, 28, 30 85, 87, 90, 96, 98, 100–101, 103, 106–7, 134, 202 113 194, 195 200 188 190, 194 114 201 120 101

58:18–21 11Q22 11QpaleoLev CD (Damascus Document, Zadokite Fragments) 1:3 2:14–15 3:10–12 4:9–5:6 4:12 4:15 4:15–19 4:17–18 5:5–6 5:6–11 5:7–11 9:1 9:2–6 9:5 9:16–21 11:16 12:3–4 12:20 12:21 13:11 13:12 15:12–13 20:1–3 20:23 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Copper Scroll Mas 11 Pseudo-Ezekiel

120–21 92 93 54, 98, 106, 176, 202 33 213 14, 17 178 130 127 178 83 18 178 224–25 31 34 83 33 37 31, 32–33 167 155 171 154 33 35 33 96, 98, 100, 134 85 107 96, 98, 100, 103

6. Philo and Josephus Philo De virtutibus 70

121

Who is the Heir 143

163–64

Josephus Antiquities 2.10 2.184 3.217 4.165

146 142 120 121, 130

5.16–19 5.20 13.372–416 13.408–410 14.1–80 14.5 14.16 14.21–22 14.22–24 14.32 14.40 14.41 14.58

113 130 66 72 67–68 74 74 74 75 74 72 73 73

index of ancient sources 14.69 14.69–70 14.71 14.72

73 74 73 74

Jewish War 1.92 1.110–112

66 72

1.117–159 1.121 1.125 1.129 1.150 1.152 2.143–44 2.143–45

243 67–68 74 74 74 74 74, 75 35 37–38

7. Classical and Early Christian Writings Cicero Pro Flacco 28.67 Dio Cassius Historia Romana 37.16.4 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 40.2 40.4 40.9 Ephrem Commentary on Genesis Gen 49:4

74

Eutropius Brevarium 6.16

75

74

Livy Periochae 102

75

Plutarch Vita Pompei 45.1–2 45.5

75 75

Tacitus Historiae 5.9.1

75

72 74, 75 73

209 8. Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud

Mishnah Óullin 6:1 Mena˙ot 5:3 7:2 9:1–3 Middot 2:5 Nedarim 8:4 Rosh Hashanah 1:1 Sanhedrin 4:5 4:7 7:4 9:1 Ta"anit 3:8 4:5

201 198 196 195 184 114 112 36 211 223, 225 223, 225 75 200

Tamid 1:4 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:3–5 2:5 3:1 3:1–2 4:3 Yoma 2:3 2:5 3:3 4:3 5:6 Tosefta Kippurim 1:16

188 184 192 185 187 185 189 187 194 189 185, 192 182–83 184 187

182

244 Mena˙ot 9:14 Qiddushin 1:14 ”abbath 8:5 So†ah 4:5 4:7 11:2–3

index of ancient sources 186 b. 9 b. 225 b. 113 141 115 b.

Talmud b. Arakhin 12b b. Baba Batra 120a b. Ketubim 46a b. Mena˙ot 85b b. Pesa˙im 103b–104a b. Qiddushin 66a b. Sanhedrin 16b 49a–b 54a b. So†ah 10b 12a

111 50 32 b. 184 159 75 120 121 211 227 150

13b 34a Ta"anit 23a Tamid 29b Yebamot 34b 60b–61a 62b–63a Yoma 25b 26a 30a 32a 32b 33a 73b Zeba˙im 19b

y. Nedarim 3:2 (37d) y. So†ah 1:4 (5b) 7:5 y. Ta"anit 66d–67a y. Yoma 3:3 (40b)

141 113 75 185 217 180 223 189 189 182 183 184 187 121 182 219 227 113 75 182

9. Targum and Midrash Targum Neofiti Gen 38:26

227

Exodus Rabbah 1:19

150

Targum Onkelos Gen 15:10 Exod 30:17–21 Num 27:18

164 182 130

Leviticus Rabbah 6:5 15:2 29:8

163 176 173

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 22:3 Gen 38:24 Exod 1:20 Exod 3:17–21 Lev 16:4 Num 27:18

185 220 137 182 183 130

Numbers Rabbah 12:9 13:20

130 150

Genesis Rabbah 11:5 85:10 97

159 220 227

Deuteronomy Zuta Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshalla˙ Exod 14:13 Beshalla˙ 5 Beshalla˙ 24b Pis˙a 13 Shirta 4

176 130 227 141 163 154

index of ancient sources Mekhilta on Deuteronomy Exod 24:6

163

Midrash Aggada 14

47

Midrash Tan˙uma Pin˙as 1

176

Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 7:5 23:8 25:2

163 173 10

Sifra 'Emor 1:2 Lev 6:5

180 200

Lev 26:43 Nedavah 6:4

245 25, 27 186

Sifre Deuteronomy 32 235 348

26 32 227

Seder Olam Rabba 11

111

Sefer Hayashar Parshat Shemot 219–233

146

Yalqut Shim"oni Pentateuch 771

176

10. Later Rabbinic and Other Jewish Texts Gezer Calendar 4–5

114

Rashi Lev 16:4

183

Sefer Ha-Óinukh 187

201

219

Te"ezaza Sanbat

194

Rabad Hilkhot Issure Bi "ah 18:3 180

Tosefot Yom Tov m. Yoma 2:3

189

Maimonides Hilkhot Issure Bi"ah 18:3 180 Nachmanides Gen 38:10