The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH) (English and French Edition) 9004096795, 9789004096790

Citation preview

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS FORTY YEARS OF RESEARCH

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS FORTY YEARS OF RESEARCH EDITED BY

DEVORAH DIMANT

AND

URIEL RAPPAPORT

E.J. BRILL-LEIDEN·NEW YORK·KOLN THE MAGNES PRESS, THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY -JERUSALEM YAD IZHAK BEN-ZVI-JERUSALEM 1992

Papers read at a Symposium sponsored by Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi at The University of Haifa and at Tel Aviv University March 20-24, 1988

Distributed in Israel by The Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem Distributed in other territories of the world by E.J. Brill, Leiden The Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem 1992 All rights reserved Printed in Israel

®

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Dead Sea scrolls: forty years of research / edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport p. cm. - (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962; v. 10) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004096795 (cloth) 1. Dead Sea scrolls-Criticism, interpretation, etc.-Congresses. 2. Qumran community-Congresses. I. Dimant, Devorah, 1939II. Rappaport, Uriel, 1935III. Yad Yits~~ Ben-Tsevi. IV. Series. BM487.D44 1992 296.1 '55--dc20 92-18573 CIP ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 09679 5

CONTENTS Preface

VII

I. Texts and Text Studies

1

ESTHER G. CHAZON, Is Divrei ha-me'orot a Sectarian Prayer?

3

FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ, Texts from Qumran Cave 11

18

MENAHEM KISTER, Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretations and Pesharim

27

CAROL A. NEWSOM, 4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition

40

BILHA NITZAN, Hymns from Qumran - 4Q510-4Q511

53

EMILE PUECH, Les deux derniers Psaumes davidiques du rituel d'exorcisme, 11QPsApa IV 4-V 14

64

EILEEN M. SCHULLER, 4Q380 and 4Q381: Non·Canonical Psalms from Qumran

90

II. The History of the Qumran Community

101

MAGEN BRosm, The Archeology of Qumran - A Reconsideration

103

PHILIP R. DAVIES, The Prehistory of the Qumran Community

116

ANDRE PAUL, Flavius Josephe et les Esseniens

126

MADELEINE PETIT, Les Esseens de Philon d'Alexandrie et les Esseniens

139

HARTMUT STEGEMANN, The Institutions of Israel in the Temple Scroll

156

BEN ZION WACHOLDER, Ezekiel and Ezekielianism as Progenitors of Essenianism 186

III. Halakha at Qumran

197

JOSEPH M. BAUMGARTEN, The Purification Rituals in DJD 7

199

LAWRENCE H. SCHIFFMAN, Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple Scroll

210

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ, Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law

229

MOSHE WEINFELD, Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect

241

IV. Qumran and the Hebrew Bible

259

GEORGE]. BROOKE, The Textual Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Recently Published Manuscripts of the Pentateuch

261

YESHAYAHU MAORI, The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Light of the Qumran Evidence

283

DWIGHT SWANSON, The Use of the Chronicles in 11 QT: Aspects of a Relationship 290 EMANUEL Tov, The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran

299

JULIO TREBOLLE, Light from 4Q1udga and 4QKgs on the Text ofJudges and Kings 315

v.

Qumran and the New Testament

325

HEINZ·WOLFGANG KUHN, The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul

327

HERMANN LICHTENBERGER, The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist: Reflections on Josephus' Account of John the Baptist

340

VI. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

347

ELISHA QIMRON, Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents

349

Abbreviations

363

Selected Index of Sources

365

Index of Names and Subjects

367

PREFACE A fortieth anniversary is an occasion to be marked under any circumstances, especially when it concerns a discovery as significant as that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is an occasion to pause, to take stock of achievements, and to reflect on the future. This moment is doubly significant in the light of the new impetus given to the field by recent publications of new texts from Cave 4. It seemed to us that the proper way to mark the occasion was to organize a symposium that would be as comprehensive as possible, both in content and in variety of approaches, and which would be held in the land of the Scrolls. We were encouraged by the enthusiastic response of colleagues from all over the world, who together created an atmosphere of cooperation and true intellectual curiosity and exchange. The papers published here reflect not only the variety and richness of subjects treated by contemporary research on Qumran, but also its international character. And, as befits the occasion, these papers open perspectives not only on the past and present, but also towards the future. The study of texts remains the first task of the Qumran scholar, and many of the collection's papers belong to its first section, devoted to that study. Carol Newsom publishes and examines 4Q374, a fragmentary scroll containing a work written in biblical style concerning the Exodus. Three papers deal with psalmodic compositions. Emile Puech offers a fresh, annotated reconstruction, with commentary, of the exorcist Davidic psalms contained in llQPsa IV-V, while Bilha Nitzan studies other psalms for exorcist purposes contained in 4Q51o-511. Another type of psalms, found in the non·canonical collection of psalms 4Q38o-381, is analysed by Eileen Schuller. Esther Chazon offers a fresh evaluation of the liturgical text divrei ha-me'orot. Florentino Garcia Martinez provides an exhaustive list of the llQ texts assigned for publication to Dutch scholars. Menachem Kister sheds new light on various forms of pesharim. In the section on the history of the Qumran community, Magen Broshi reviews the archeological evidence and Philip R. Davies pursues his examination of the prehistory of the community. Hartmut Stegemann explores the implications of his thesis that the Temple Scroll originated in priestly circles active during the Persian period. Two papers, by Andre Paul and Madeleine Petit, deal with accounts of the Essenes in classical sources. Ben Zion Wacholder seeks to locate the roots of sectarianism in the teaching of the prophet Ezekiel. In the next section, three papers deal with various aspects of the halakha at Qumran. Joseph Baumgarten examines the purification rituals in texts from the DJD 7 volume, while Lawrence Schiffman analyses the laws concerning women

vm

PREFACE

in the Temple Scroll. Daniel Schwartz discerns different philosophical and legal views underlying the differences of opinion between the halakhic scrolls of the Essenes-Sadducees and the Pharisees. Moshe Weinfeld's paper is concerned with liturgical practices as reflected by various Qumran texts, especially those published in DJD 7. Five papers concerti the textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible at Qumran. George Brooke and Dwight Swanson discuss two aspects of the Hebrew Bible as used by the Temple ·Scroll. Julio Trebolle examines the textual basis of 4QJudga , while Emanuel Tov gives a comprehensive review of the scribal corrections in Qumranic manuscripts. Yeshayahu Maori reviews the relationship between the textual evidence of the Qumran scrolls'and the Rabbinic writings. A paper by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn re-evaluates the impact of the Scrolls on Paul, another, by Hermann Lichtenberger deals with the relationshjp between John the Baptist and the scrolls. The volume clol'es with Elisha Qimron's paper, reviewing the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and its place in the history of the Hebrew language. We hope that these papers will convey something of the atmosphere of excitement, interest and cordial cooperation which prevailed during the symposium. Finally, we wish to express our thanks to the members of the Academic Committee of the Symposium, who contributed to its organization: Magen Broshi (the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem), Aryeh Kasher (Tel-Aviv University), Emile Puech (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Shemaryahu Talmon (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Our thanks are also due to the Center for the Research of Eretz Israel, Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, and the Universities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, within whose framework the symposium was held.

Devorah Dimant, Uriel Rappaport

Texts and Text Studies

IS DIVREI HA-ME'OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?*

Esther G. Chazon INTRODUCTION The wealth of the literature uncovered at Qumran-its vast quantity, its far-reaching scope and its rich variety-is eminently apparent to scholars and students' alike. From the outset, it was evident that at least some of the documents found at Qumran were not authored there but rather were copies of non-Qumranic compositions_ The most obvious examples-although by no means the only ones-are, of course, the biblical Scrolls. Over the course of 40 years of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, a consensus has emerged among scholars that some of the Scrolls were actually authored by members of the community at Qumran.· Thus, there are Scrolls which are sectarian in origin and which constitute a body of sectarian literature. 2 A clear distinction is made in this paper between documents composed by members of the Qumran community and those merely deposited or copied there. It has been well-established that the literary finds discovered at Qumran consist of both sectarian and nonsectarian works. One of the many tasks facing Scrolls' scholars is to determine whether a particular document is of sectarian authorship or not.

* I would like to thank my dissertation advisor, MichaelE. Stone, for his helpful comments in the preparation of this paper.

2

For a recent presentation of this widely-held view see Devorah Dimant, "Qumran Sectarian Literature," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, edited by M.E. Stone (Assen, 1984), pp. 484, 487-489. For a succinct summary of the dissenting view and a refinement of the issue see E. Tov, "The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of These Scrolls," (hereafter "Orthography and Language"), Textus 13 (1986): 31-57. In this paper, unless stipulated otherwise, "Qumranic" and "sectarian" are used interchangeably as are "non-Qumranic" and "nonsectarian." The phenomenon of nonQumranic sectarianism is dealt with in the course of the discussion where relevant.

4

ESTHER G. CHAZON

While regarding certain documents this determination is straightforward (as in the case of the biblical Scrolls and the sectarian Rule of the Community3), regarding many others the issue is complex and difficult to determine. Indeed, the contents and literary form of a particular document may not readily reveal its origins and, in such a case, will not dictate an obvious conclusion in either direction. Certain types of works-such as pseudepigraphical writings, rewritten biblical traditions, and prayers-tend to conceal their origins to a greater extent than others. The problem of determining sectarian authorship can be highlighted by comparison with a similar problem in a related field of study - namely, the question of the Jewish or Christian origins of many works generally dated to the early Christian centuries. The lengthy debate among scholars on the origins of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is sufficient to indicate the nature and complexity of the problem as well as the difficulty in resolving it.4 An examination of the problem in one field would, in all likelihood, shed light on the same problem in a related field, both in terms of methodological considerations and substantive details.' The present paper addresses the issue of determining the sectarian (or nonsectarian) authorship of Scrolls found at Qumran. Specifically, a methodological study of criteria for determining a Scroll's character will be conducted, using Divrei Ha·me'orot as a case in point. Four major criteria are considered in this study: 1. features of a distinct scribal school; 2. paleographical dating; 3. identity with a nonsectarian text; 4. terminology and ideas. 3

4

5

The basic bibliography on this Scroll (lQS) is found conveniently in J.A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools lor Study (Missoula, 1977), pp. 14,88-89 and in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London, 1977), p.47. For a fuller discussion of recognizably sectarian writings see the section below on "Terminology and Ideas." For a recent statement of the problem see M.E. Stone, "Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," (hereafter "Categorization") Abr·Nahrain 24 (1986): 167-177. The scholarly debate concerning the origins of the Testaments 0/ the Twelve Patriarchs is well-documented in M. de Jonge, Studies on the Testaments 0/ the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden, 1975) and H.D. Slingerland, The Testaments 0/ the Twelve Patriarchs: A History 0/ Research with Attendant Conclusions (Missoula, 1977). A brief, up-dated treatment is found in H.W. Hollander and M. deJonge, The Testaments 0/ the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden, 1985), pp. 1-8, 82-85. For a good bibliography of the Testaments and other pseudepigrapha see J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research With a Supplement (Ann Arbor, 1981). One example of a similar consideration in the related fields is sufficient to illustrate the potential which lies in such an interdisciplinary approach. There is a growing awareness that the absence of Christological motifs does not necessarily prove Jewish origin and conversely, that the presence of certain motifs typically associated with Christianity does not necessarily prove Christian origin. See, for example, Stone, "Categorization": 171-172 and the sources cited there. Similar observations are made in this paper with regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls. See the section on "Terminology and Ideas" below.

IS DIVREI HA·ME·OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

5

Each criterion will be evaluated and then applied to the document chosen for the case study.

CRITERION 1: FEATURES OF A DISTINCT SCRIBAL SCHOOL A set of characteristics bearing the mark of a distinct scribal school has recently been isolated by E. Tov as.a criterion for determining the "Qumranic" provenance of a Scroll.' This criterion applies to the manuscript produced by the scribe, but not to the author's original composition. Since the provenance of the manuscript has implications for the question of authorship, this criterion is considered first in the present study. The features isolated by Tov are: L a special "system" of orthography and language;' 2. the presence of scribal marks; 3. "the use of initial-medial letters in final position"; 4. the types of materials used; 5. "the writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters.'" Tov has demonstrated that this set of characteristics distinguished one group of Qumran Scrolls from a second group which lacks them, and that the community's writings consistently fall into the first groUp.9 In light of the foregoing, this set of characteristics can be taken as a criterion for determining whether or not a Scroll was copied in the same scribal tradition as the sectarian writings and indeed by the same scribal schooL The absence of all of these features in a Scroll can be taken as evidence for the nonsectarian character of the manuscript copy. Moreover, this negative evidence would also be a good indication of nonsectarian authorship, since all the data available indicate that the sect's scribes always followed the system and conventions outlined above}O For this very reason-that the sect's scribes consistently wrote 6

7 8 9

10

See Tov, "The Biblical Scrolls Found in the ludaean Desert and Their Contribution to Textual Criticism," (hereafter "The Biblical Scrolls") J]S 39 (1988): 5-37. A draft of this article was generously provided by the author prior to its most recent publication. See also Tov, "Orthography and Language." Tov emphasized the point that this is a "system" and that as a system it is distinctive. See Tov, "Orthography and Language": 34. Features 2-5 are added criteria developed in Tov, "The Biblical Scrolls": 11-14. It is clear from the statistical data presented by Tov that the presumably "Qumranic" Scrolls exhibit these features in different combinations and to varying degrees. Their distinctiveness is brought out by comparison with the other Scrolls which lack these features altogether. See Tov, "Orthography and Language": 34-37, 50-57. Although it is theoretically possible that in this early period non·Qumranic copies of sectarian compositions were made, this possibility is not supported by the data available to date and in fact runs contrary to it. On the practice of the Qumran scribes see Tov, "Orthography and Language": 33-34, 38-41 and "The Biblical Scrolls": 14-15. In an earlier

6

ESTHER G. CHAZON

in this fashion-a positive result would seem to be a precondition for arguing sectarian authorship,1I although under no circumstances could it serve as proof. Neither does the fulfillment of this criterion necessarily prove that such a Scroll was actually copied by a member of the Qumran sect, but only that it reflects the same scribal tradition. It is at least conceivable that this scribal school did not originate in or function exclusively at Qumran. An interesting historical question arises when Tov's criterion is taken as proof that a Scroll was produced at Qumran. The date assigned on paleographical grounds to several Scrolls which meet this criterion (4QPsa, 4QQohm, and 4Q504) is the middle of the second century B.C.E.ll - a date earlier than that ascribed to the oldest surviving manuscripts of the undisputedly sectarian writings,13 and earlier than the dates generally suggested by the archeological evidence for the settlement at Qumran. 14 It is not so clear then that all the texts written according to the special system of orthography and language and the scribal conventions labelled "Qumranic" come from the period of the settlement at Qumran. 15 Given the lack of archeological finds and of undisputedly sectarian Scrolls from this early period, it seems prudent to entertain the possibility that some of the Scrolls meeting this criterion-and 4Q504, the oldest exemplar of Divrei Ha·me'orot, 16 among them-may not have been copied at Qumran at all, but may be pre·Qumranic and reflect an older scribal school in the tradition of which the Qumran scribes were study, L. Schiffman considered how the linguistic as well as literary characteristics of texts reflect their authors. His analysis of the language and literary style of the Temple Scroll led him to conclude the work was not composed by a member of the Dead Sea sect. See L.H. Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll in Literary and Philosophical Perspective," in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, II, edited by W.E. Green (Ann Arbor, 1980), pp. 143-155. 11 A similar observation was made by Schiffman (above, n.10), p. 147. 12 See Tov, "The Biblical Scrolls": 16 and the sources cited there. See also F.M. Cross, "The Development of the Jewish Scripts," The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, edited by G.E. Wright (New York, 1961), pp. 158-160, 166. For the date of 4Q504 see the section on "Paleographical Dating" below. 13 A convenient and recent listing of the manuscripts with their putative dates may be found in Dimant (above, n. 1). Dimant notes that "no sectarian writing survived in a copy earlier than the last quarter of the second century B.C.E." (Ibid., p. 489). 14 The archeological evidence is discussed in greater detail in the section on "Paleographical Dating." 15 Tov states that he terms this system "Qumranic" "for convenience." He admits the possibility that "in the future, however, new documents may be discovered which would undermine the uniqueness of the Qumran Scrolls." See Tov, "Orthography and Language": 38-39. In all fairness it should be noted that the historical question raised here could find its resolution if the lower limit of the paleographical dating and the upper limit of the archeological evidence proved to be correct. However, such a resolution is hypothetical and does not rule out the possibility admitted by the evidence that these manuscripts were in fact pre·Qumranic. For this issue see the section on "Paleographical Dating" below. 16 The three manuscripts of Divrei Ha·me'orot (4Q504, .4Q505, 4Q506) were fully published in M. Baillet, Qumrdn Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD 7 (1982).

IS DIVREI HA·ME'OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

7

trained. It is, of course, possible to think of such documents as coming from the early, pre-Qumranic stages of the group which eventually settled there. On the other hand, it is also conceivable that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent the only surviving evidence of a substantially broader scribal phenomenon. The application of criterion no. 1 to Divrei Ba-me'orot yields the following results: L All three copies-4Q504, 4Q505, 4Q506-are written in the special system of orthography and language employed at Qumran. 17 2. The oldest and best-preserved copy, 4Q504, also displays three of the four scribal features which typify documents written in the special system of orthography and language. The three features found in 4Q504 are: feature no.2, the presence of scribal marks, feature no.3, "the use of initial-medial letters in final position," and feature no. 4, the use of more durable materials.18 The application of criterion no. 1 demonstrated that all three surviving manuscripts of Divrei Ba-me'orot were written in the same scribal tradition employed at Qumran. As the analysis has shown, fulfillment of this criterion does not mean ipso facto that all the copies were produced locally by the sect's scribes. Nevertheless, this positive finding for all three surviving manuscripts opens up the possibility of sectarian origin. Finally, no conclusions for or against sectarian composition can be drawn from the fact that Divrei Ba-me"orot fulfills this criterion.

CRITERION 2: PALEOGRAPllCAL DATING The rapid development of Hebrew script beginning in the Hellenistic period and the great number of Hebrew documents available, primarily from Qumran, have made possible the relative dating of manuscripts in typological sequence. At certain points the relative chronology can be "pegged" to absolute dates thereby facilitating the dating of manuscripts in the relative chronology.J9

17

18

19

The data from 4Q504 and 4Q505 were tabulated by Tov, "Orthography and Language": 35-36. 50. The data from 4Q506 are presented here for the first time. 4Q504. the bestpreserved copy. has positive evidence in 10 of the 15 categories of grammatical forms and spellings listed by Tov. 4Q505 has positive evidence in 4 categories. 4Q506 also has positive evidence in 4 categories (;-m"tlp .K'::1 ,1m and the possessive second singular suffix :'1:)-). One additional category is represented in 4Q506 (i.e. the lengthened pronominal suffix) but there the evidence is negative (2x). On the scribal marks in 4Q504 see M. Baillet. "Un Recueilliturgique de QumrAn, grotte 4: "Les paroles des luminaires ..... RB 68 (1961): 244-245; idem (above. n.16), p. 339; and Tov. "The Biblical Scrolls": 12. Regarding materials. Tov, "The Biblical Scrolls": 13 observed that the Scrolls which are better preserved and in which the strings used to stitch the sheets together are thicker and whiter also follow the special system of orthography and language outlined by him. See. for example, the classic study by Cross "The Development of Jewish Scripts." and the sources cited there.

8

ESTHER G. CHAZON

Paleographical dating can become a criterion for determining the non-Qumranic origin of a Scroll when it yields a date before the settlement at Qumran. Thus Baillet took the date of the oldest manuscripts of Divrei Ha-me'orot, 4Q504-assigned by him on paleographical grounds to c. 15OB.C.E.-as evidence of pre-Qumranic origin. 20 It should be noted that paleographical dating may be used to rule out Qumranic origin only under a very specific set of circumstances. In order to define these circumstances, certain observations must be made. The date assigned an individual manuscript on paleographical grounds is approximate. This is necessarily so because the development of Hebrew scripts is evolutionary and because allowances must be made for differences between individual scribes in age and approach (such as conventional versus innovative). Paleographers themselves speak in terms of a span of years-generally 50 years-when assigning dates. Paleographical dating can be used as a criterion for determining the nonsectarian origin of a Scroll only when the lower limit possible on paleographical grounds sufficiently precedes the date of the settlement at Qumran (indicated by the archeological evidence), so as to preclude the writing of that Scroll during the period of the sect's activity there. The case of Divrei Ha-me'orot does not seem to fully meet this stringent requirement. The script of the oldest copy (4Q504) has been dated on paleographical grounds to the middle of the second century B.C.E.21 The archeological evidence witnesses the settlement at Qumran in phase Ib during the time of Alexander Yannai (103-76 B.C.E.) and in phase Ia sometime shortly before that22 - in all likelihood by the end of the second century. The lower limit for the date of 4Q504 thus falls just within range of the earliest date supported by the archeological evidence for the settlement at Qumran. 20 Baillet, DJD 7, p. 137. 21 See Baillet, "Un Recueilliturgique": 235-238 and idem, DJD 7, p. 137. Note also Cross "The Development of the Jewish Scripts," pp. 137, 158-160. Cross' drawing and description of the hand of 4QPra matches that of 4Q504. He dates this hand to 175-125 B.C.E. My thanks to Prof. Joseph Naveh for confirming this identification. 22 For the archeological evidence see R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford, 1973), pp. 4-19 and E.M. Laperousaz, Qoumrlln: L 'Etablissement essenien des bords de Ia Mer Morte, Histoire et archeologie du site (paris, 1976), pp. 28-38; 150-151. The great number of coins minted by Alexander Yannai found at the site (143) is a clear indication that it was occupied at that time. The six Seleucid bronzes, the single coin of John Hyrcanus I, and the single coin of Judah Aristobulus I are not sufficient proof that the site was occupied during their rule. Note the comment by Uriel Rappaport in "The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage," AJS, I (1976): 185 regarding an analogous situation at Kirbet Shema and Meiron, "the few YehoJ:ianan coins may be considered as part of the currency in Janneus' time (naturally they did not disappear with John Hyrcanus I's death)." See also his comments there and in "Numismatics," The Cambridge History of Judaism, I, ed. W.O. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 32-37 supporting the position that John Hyrcanus I minted coins and refuting Y. Meshorer's theory that no Hasmonean coins were struck before Alexander Yannai. For this theory see Y. Meshorer, "The Beginning of the Hasmonean Coinage," IEJ24 (1974): 59-61 and the sources cited there.

IS DIVREI HA-ME'OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

9

The import of this observation is that paleographical dating has not eliminated the possibility that the document was copied at Qumran and consequently, has not totally ruled out the possibility of sectarian authorship at Qumran. Despite the fact that the application of this criterion has failed to provide absolute proof that the document was copied and hence also composed before the settlement at Qumran, it has brought a certain weight to this argument. As seen above, the paleographical and archeological data must be pushed to their limits in order to place the document at Qumran. The latest date for the manuscript borders on the earliest date evidenced for the settlement at Qumran. Now, if this manuscript is a copy-and there is no reason to assume otherwise23-then it is even more likely that the autograph was non-Qumranic. The character of the original composition-whether, for example, it is proto-Qumranic and sectarian or whether it is altogether nonsectarian-would have to be established on the basis of other criteria.

CRITERION 3: IDENTITY WITH A NONSECTARIAN (LITURGICAL) TEXT If a particular prayer Scroll were to be positively identified as a piece of nonsectarian liturgy, then such an identity would constitute a criterion for determining nonsectarian authorship. This criterion is particularly relevant for independent liturgical compositions such as Divrei Ha-me'orot, the daily prayers (4Q503), and the festive prayers (4Q507-9; IQ34 and IQ34 bis). The specific case of the correspondence between Divrei Ha-me'orot and the supplicatory prayer known as the TaQanun will be used to evaluate this criterion. Hypothetically speaking, if we could identify Divrei Ha-me'orot as the TaJ:tanun prayer in general usage at the time of the Scroll's composition, then we could claim nonsectarian origin on this basis. To argue this, we would have to produce evidence for the existence of the TaQanun liturgy in this early period with a fairly stable text corresponding to Divrei Ha-me'orot. Lehmann actually put forward an argument along these lines. 24 In fact, we have no conclusive evidence for the existence of the TaQanun liturgy in this early period, not to speak of its texts - the earliest of which are from the geonic period. 2s Thus, even if there were substantial parallels between Divrei Ha23

See BaiIlet's comments on the revision (above, n.18), pp. 242-244 and notes on the readings, DJD7.

See M.R. Lehmann, "A re-interpretation of 4Q Dibr~ Ham-Me'broth," RQ 5 (1964): 106-110. Note the critique of Lehmann's article in L.H. Schiffman, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy," The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine (hereafter "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History") (philadelphia, 1987), pp. 40-41. 25 Our earliest texts of the TaJ:tanun liturgy are in Geniza fragments and geonic prayer books. See S. Schechter, "Geniza Specimens," JQR 10 (1898): 654-£59; ]. Mann, "Geniza Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service," HUCA 2 (1925): 269-338; D. Goldschmidt, Seder Rav Amram Goon (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 37-39, 55-58; I. Davidson, S. Assaf, B.I. Joel, Siddur Rav Sa"adyah Goon (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 24-25. 24

10

ESTHER G. CHAZON

me'orot and the Tal.tanun texts, as scholars such as Schiffman and Weinfeld have argued,26 these could have resulted from anyone of a number of different factors and thus do not prove that the Scroll was the nonsectarian Tal.tanun liturgy. Substantial parallels in phraseology between a Scroll and a nonsectarian text only indicate that there are common elements which did not originate at Qumran.27 They do not prove nonsectarian origin. The preservation at Qumran of a nonsectarian prayer is only one of several possibilities. Alternatively, for example, the Scroll could be a sectarian revision, recension or adaptation of a nonsectarian text. In fact, the nature of the parallels between Divrei Ha-me'orot and the Tal.tanun texts does not demonstrate a direct link between them. The linguistic parallels in the extensive lists produced by Lehmann and Weinfeld can be explained by other factors, such as heavy literary dependence on biblical prayers as well as the use of stock liturgical formulae in both. 28

See also the early manuscript from Maimonides' time published in D. Goldschmidt, "Maimonides' Rite of Prayer according to an Oxford Manuscript," (in Hebrew), Studieso/the Research /7IStitute/or Hebrew Poetry 7 (1958): 183-213. On the liturgy of Pirquoi Ben Baboi see]. Mann, "Les 'Chapitres' de Ben Baboi et les relations de R. Yehoudai Gaon," REf 70 (1920): 113-148 and S.B. Freehof, "The Origin of the TaJ:ianun," HUCA 2 (1925): 339-350. Scholars have tended to link the TaJ:ianun liturgy as it surfaces in the geonic period with the Sages' petitions after the Amidah prayer which are recorded in the Talmud (cf. Ber. 16a-17b; Tf Ber. 4:2, 7d). For this position see Freehof, ibid.; Lehmann, "A re·interpretation"; I. Elbogen, Der jUdische Gottesdie71St in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1972), pp. ~; J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patter71S (Berlin, 1977), pp. 25, 190. Some connection is suggested by the fact that both are personal supplications after the Amidah and by the very incorporation of some of the Sages' petitions into the geonic TaJ:ianunim. However, since the latter strike a different mood and central theme and are so much richer in content, it is questionable if the Sages' petitions can be spoken of as the TaJ:ianun liturgy. Indeed, the bulk of the TaJ:ianun rubric is not sufficiently represented by the Sages' petitions to prove its existence in that early period. Some scholars such as Elbogen (ibid.) and Lehmann (ibid.) have suggested that the TaJ:ianun goes back even further to the people's supplication at the conclusion of the priestly service in the Temple. However, there are no surviving texts of such prayers and hence no verification for such a conjecture. The foregoing observations lead to the inevitable conclusion that there is no hard evidence for the existence of the TaJ:ianun liturgy-even in an early but still distinctive form-during the Second Temple Period. Note the remarks on the TaJ:ianun in L.H. Schiffman, "Liturgical Texts from Qumran Cave IV," WCfS 9 (1985), Division A: The Period of the Bible, pp. 187-188 and idem, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History," pp. 40-41. 26 See Schiffman, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History," and M. Weinfeld, "Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect," in this volume, pp. 241-258. 27 Note Schiffman's circumspect formulation of this issue, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History," pp. 41, 44-45. 28 An examination of a few of the better parallels proposed will suffice to illustrate the point: 1. The petition, "Act according to your great kindness" is commonplace (see Num. 14:17-19, Ps. 119:124, LXX Dan. 3.42, Tob. 3.6, llQPsaPlea XIX 4-5; note also Ps. 79:11). In Divrei Ha·me'orot it has been influenced directly by Moses' prayer in Num. 14:13-19. This biblical

IS DIVREI HA·ME"OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

11

Significantly, the place of the common elements in each differs. For example, the proclamation of divine justice and remembrance of the covenant are in the historical prologues in Divrei Ba·me"orot and not in the motivating statement of the petitions as in the Tal.tanun. 29 In addition, the common motifs prominent in both liturgies (i.e. the petitions for mercy, action and forgiveness; the confession of sin and proclamation of divine justice) function together in the Tal.tanun while in Divrei Ba·me'orot they occur separately and in different weekday prayers in the collection (Le. petitions for mercy and forgiveness in the first prayer, a petition for action and an appeal to past forgiveness in the fifth, admission of guilt and proclamation of divine justice in the historical section of the sixth).30 Finally, against a handful of real similarities, there are significant stylistic, structural and thematic differences such as: 1. the distinction between private petition often voiced in the first person singular in the Tal.tanun and between communal prayer voiced consistently in the first person plural in Divrei Ba-me'orot,31

29

30

31

prayer is also quoted in some of the early Tai:Janun texts. See Amram (above, n.25) p. 56 and Maimonides (above, n.25) p. 201. 2. Several versions of the liturgical formula for the proclamation of divine justice (pm! r';,) already occur in a variety of prayers both earlier than and contemporary with Divrei Ha-me"orot. See Ezra 9:15; Neh.9:33; Dan. 9:4, 14; LXXDan. 3.27-28; Bar. 1.15, 2.6, 9; Tob. 3.25. Note also Pss.SoL 8.23-32; lQH 1.27,17.20 and especially 16.9. This formula first surfaces in the Tahanun in geonic prayer books where it consists of a direct quote from Neh.9:33. See Sa'adyah (above, n.25) p. 24 and Amram (above, n.25) p.56. The formula in Dan. 9:7 is used by Maimonides (above, n. 25) p. 200 and in MalJzor Vitri, edited by Abraham Berliner (NUrnberg, 1923), pp. 69--70. It is significant that the proclamation of divine justice is neither an indispensable nor a unique feature of the Tai:Janun liturgy. In this connection note, on the one hand, its absence from the Geniza fragments (above, n.25) and, on the other hand, its central position in the penitential liturgy. On the latter see, for example, Sa'adyah (above, n.25) p. 307 and Amram (above, n.25) pp. 160--171. 3. The petition for deliverance from the diaspora (4Q5041-2 VI 12-13) is already documented in late biblical prayers (see Ps. 106:47,1 Chron. 16:35). It is part and parcel of the liturgy of the Second Temple Period (see, for example, 4Q5093 4-5; Sir. 36.36, 51.26; Pss. SoL 8.28). The petition first appears in Tai:Janun texts in MalJzor Vitri (ibid.) and its inclusion there seems to have resulted from the direct influence of the Amidah liturgy on the geonic Tai:Janun. On the latter see Freehof, "The Origin of the Tai:Janun" (above, n.25). See 4Q5041-2 09, V9--10, VI4-5. For covenant remembrance in the Tai:Janun see Mann, "Geniza Fragments," p. 324, Amram (above, n.25) p. 56 and MalJzor Vitri (above, n.28) p. 69. On the proclamation of divine justice see the preceding note. The division into seven prayers, one for each day of the week, was originally based on H. Stegemann's reconstruction of 4Q504 which he was kind enough to share with me. See now E. Puech, "Qumran Grotte 4, III (4Q482-520j, RB 95 (1988): 404-411. Schiffman has similarly assessed Divrei Ha-me"orot as "a series of daily supplications for liturgical use for each day of the week." See Schiffman, "Liturgical Texts from Qumran Cave IV," p. 188 and idem, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History," p. 41. Regarding the status of the Tai:Janun as private and non-statutory prayer see Elbogen (above, n.25) and Heinemann (above, n.25). Note also in this connection the consistent use of concluding benedictions followed by Amen in Divrei Ha-me"orot (4Q5041-2 VII 2-3; 3 02; 4 14-15) and the absence of benedictions in the early Tahanun texts which is

12

ESTHER G. CHAZON

2. the lengthy historical introductions to the communal petitions in Divrei Bame'orot which have no counterpart in the early Tal.tanun texts and conversely, the personal petitions integral to the Tal.tanun liturgy which have no counterpart in

Divrei Ba-me'orot, 3. the distinction between the daily rubric of the Tal.tanun in which the same prayer is recited each day (either in a long or short version) and the week-long rubric of Divrei Ba-rne'orot in which the liturgy varies with each day of the week and functions in a weekly scheme_ The significant differences observed here argue against a direct relationship between Divrei Ba-me'orot and the Tal.tanun liturgy. Thus the sectarian or nonsectarian character of Divrei Ba-rne'orol cannot be proven by using the criterion of identity with a nonsectarian liturgical text. However, various similarities with nonsectarian, Jewish liturgy-such as in the use of concluding benedictions, the proclamation of divine justice and tile petition for knowledge 31-do reveal some connection. What is the nature of this relationship? Is this document a nonsectarian collection of prayers, a sectarian version or revision of nonsectarian prayers, or a sectarian collection which has drawn upon nonsectarian liturgical motifs and formulae? To what extent does this unified work of seven prayers, arranged in tight parallel structure and according to historical progression, reflect liturgical practice and to what extent some type of literary activity?33 In which aspects does the Scroll also indicative of their status. Heinemann (above, n.25) demonstrated that the normative benediction formulae were restricted to statutory, public prayer. Although the Geniza fragments and early prayer books record no benediction at all in their TaJ.!anun texts, Heinemann brought evidence of a custom (roundly denounced by many codifiers) to conclude the TaJ.!anun with the eulogy. "Blessed are You, 0 Lord, who hears prayers." See Heinemann, "Prayer in the Talmud," p. 176 and note the liturgy of Pirquoi Ben Baboi in Mann "Les Chapitres de Ben BAboi," pp. 146-147. This particular eulogy, which is neither original nor integral to the TaJ.!anun, differs both in its formulaic element and in its content from the benedictions in Divrei Ha-meMot. 32 The linguistic parallel between the petition for knowledge in Divrei Ha-me"orot (4Q5041-2 II 16) and that in the abbreviated form of the Amidah prayer was noted by Lehmann, "A re-interpretation," p. 109. A similar formulation occurs in 11QPs' XXIV8 (=PsSyr III 11). These linguistic parallels raise the possibility of the Scroll's re-use here of a nonsectarian prayer for knowledge. For comparable prayers for knowledge and release from sin see D. Flusser, "QumrAn and Jewish 'Apotropaic' Prayers," lEI 16 (1966): 194-205 and M. Weinfeld, "The Prayers for Knowledge, Repentance and Forgiveness in the 'Eighteen Benedictions' - Qumran Parallels, Biblical Antecedents and Basic Characteristics," (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 48 (1979): 186-200. The proclamation for divine justice was discussed fully in note 28 above. The point to be made here is that Divrei Ha-meMot (4Q5041-2 VI4-5) employs technical liturgical terminology and reflects a standard liturgical practice. On the concluding benedictions in Divrei Ha-me"orot see note 31 above. 33 On the division of the Scroll into seven prayers see note 30 above. Even taking the fragments at face value (i.e. without reconstructing the whole Scroll), the arrangement of the prayers in parallel structure and according to historical progression becomes apparent. A title is followed immediately by the introductory formula, "Remember, 0 Lord," which

IS DIVREI HA-ME'OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

13

reflect common liturgical practice and in which aspects uncommon or particularistic ones?34 These questions were suggested by the parallels with nonsectarian Jewish liturgy and were entertained here because of their far·reaching significance. However, further discussion of them lies beyond the scope of the present methodological study of the criteria for determining a Scroll's sectarian (or nonsectarian) character.

CRITERION 4: TERMINOLOGY AND IDEAS Certain Scrolls are clearly recognizable as Qumranic by virtue of their content - that is, they deal with aspects of the sect's history or of its communal life. These undisputedly sectarian writings such as Serekh Ha· Ya~ad and the Pesharim exhibit a distinctive complex of ideas and terms.35 The occurrence of a number of these features in a document can be used as a criterion for determining sectarian authorship.36 While some of the terms (such as Teacher of Righteousness, Spouter of Lies, lot of God and lot of Belial) are distinctively sectarian, many others (such as "eternal plant" and "the two spirits") have parallels in non·Qumranic literature. 37 The opens a long historical prologue (see 4Q504 f. 3, f. 8 and 1·2 VII 4). At (or near) the end of the historical section comes a petition expressed in imperatives (see 4Q504 1-2 II and VI). Each prayer concludes with a benediction employing the standard formula and the word Amen. A blank space further marks off the end of the unit. (See 4Q5041-2 VII 2, 3 II2-3, 4 14-15.) The historical progression can be detected by looking at the first prayer which opens with the creation of man (4Q5048), the last weekday prayer which closes with sin after the exile (4Q5041-2 V-VII2), and the intermediate prayer for Wednesday which opens with the revelation at Horeb (4Q5043). These features of the document may be seen as reflecting some type of literary activity. See now E. Chazon, "Divrei Ha·mebrot: Liturgy or Literature," WCfS 10 (1989), Division A: The Bible and Its World, pp. 229-236. 34 Note the issues raised by Schiffman, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History," pp. 33-34, 44-45. 35 For a recent classification of sectarian literature based on a recognition of its distinctive style, ideology and contents see Dimant, "Qumran Sectarian Literature," pp. 487-542. The Qumranic origin of a few of the works listed by Dimant is debatable. On this point see Dimant, ibid., p. 488, n.33 and below, note 38. 36 The point should be made that this methodology involves a degree of circular reasoning since the ideas and terms were defined as sectarian by virtue of their appearance in sectarian Scrolls while these Scrolls were defined as sectarian, in part, because they contain these distinctive ideas and terms. However, the circularity is mitigated against by the complementary evidence of sectarian origin for some of the Scrolls and by comparison with contemporary works known to be non·Qumranic which lack these features. 37 For "eternal plant" compare 1 En. 10.3, 15; 84.6; 93.5-10 andJub. 21.24 with such Qumranic texts as 1QS 8.5, 11.8 and 1QH 6.15, 8.6. For "the two spirits" compare T.Jud.20.1 and also T.Dan. 4.7, T.Naph. 3.2, T.Ash. 1.3-9 with 1QS 3.18-26 and 1QH 14.10-12. For the lots of God and Belial see 1QS 2.2, 5 and 1QM 13.1-12. The epithets Teacher of Righteousness and Spouter (Man) of Lies are found repeatedly in Pesher Habbakuk and

14

ESTHER G. CHAZON

sectarian writings are clearly distinguished by the constellation of a number of such terms, employed in a sense consistent with sectarian usage and in a particular ideational framework such as the sectarian presentation of history and eschatology or the twin beliefs in double predestination and cosmic dualism. Thus it is the occurrence of a complex of sectarian ideas and terms in a particular document which can be taken as evidence of sectarian authorship. At this point it should be noted that a distinction can be made between Qumranic sectarianism and that of a parent or sister group directly related to Qumran. The writings of such a closely related group could also exhibit a complex of sectarian ideas and terms.38 If a particular Scroll meets this criterion, we may then ask if it is specifically Qumranic or not. Initially though, we must first examine whether it meets the criterion. Failure to fulfill this criterion-that is, the absence of sectarian terminology and ideas in a document-indicates nonsectarian origin only when the terminology and ideas actually found in the document are at variance with sectarian usage. The absence of such data does not necessarily prove a Scroll was written outside Qumran, if the ideology is compatible with that of the sect. It is conceivable that a member of the YaI.md could author a Scroll without recourse to specifically sectarian terminology when the contents do not require it. Divrei Ha-me'orot presents us with just such a case in which there is no positively sectarian terminology, yet there is nothing incompatible with sectarian belief and practice. In fact, there are a few ideas and expressions within the Scroll which fit in nicely with the sectarian view of history_ One example is the description of the present distress by the trilogy, "troubles, strokes and trials" (4Q504 1-2 V17-18, VI 6-8). These three words describe the situation of the "sons of light" during the present epoch of Belial's rule in Serekh Ha-YalJad (3.23, 1.17-18; ct. 1QH 9.25).39 Another example is the description of the enemies of the men at prayer as "those causing the Pesher on Psalms. They also occur in the Damascus Document, which was written in Qumran·related circles. On this last point see the next note. 38 A good illustration of this point is the case of the Damascus Document. It is clear from the similarities in content, ideology, terminology and style that CD is directly related to the Qumranic writings. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of the copies of CD found at Qumran which are written in the same scribal tradition as the sect's works. On this last point see Tov, "Orthography and Language," p. 37. Generally, CD has been considered a product of Qumran. See, for example, Dimant, ibid., pp. 400-497. However, recently some scholars have highlighted the differences between CD and the undisputedly Qumranic works and have tended to view CD as reflecting a separate, pre·Qumranic community out of which the Qumran community arose. For this position and a critical survey of past research see P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document" (Sheffield, 1983), pp. 14-47,202-204 and Davies' article on "The Prehistory of the Qumran Community," in this volume, pp. 116-125. 39 All three of the words occur separately in biblical and apocryphal literature (see Pss. 26:2, 39:11, 71:20; ]th. 8.25-27 and Sir. 33.1). The combination of terms and the same grammatical forms occur in 4Q504 and 1QS. On the special forms see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Sect (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 65, 111.

IS DIVREI HA·ME"OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

15

to stumble" (4Q5041-2 VI17).40 The same term describes the opponents of the "sons of light" in 4QFlorilegium (1-2,7) and 4QCatenaa (10-11,7). The declaration of the men at prayer that they have humbled their hearts, expiated their iniquity, and been purified from sin (4Q504 1-2 VI2-8) may be compared with similar statements in the sectarian writings 41 and reflects a similar self-understanding. The prayer format and style of Divrei Ha-me"orot, with its affinity for nonsectarian liturgical formulae, facilitate the suggestion that a member of the Ya~ad could have authored this Scroll without recourse to specific sectarian terminology. On the other hand, it could be argued that given the content of the document, it is rather surprising not to find in it distinctively sectarian terms and ideas. Specifically, in the lengthy historical sections of each of the weekday prayers, culminating with the post-exilic period in the prayer for the sixth day, we would expect to find reflection of the sect's unique conceptualization of history, as well as the specific terminology conveying it,42 if the prayer were indeed authored by a member of 40

C''''1II:lr.l~. This reading with yod in 4QS041-2 VI 16 complements the description of the enemies in the previous line and fits nicely in the context of the petition for deliverance from the lands. It is also possible to read waw which produces the substantive, C''''1II:lr.l~. On the reading see Baillet, DJD 7, p. ISO. The substantive would refer to and further describe the troubles of the persons praying from which they request deliverance. This noun is used in synonymous parallelism in lQH (9.21, 10.18; note also 16.1S) with "distress" and "blows" - two of the three terms used to describe the difficult situation of the persons praying in the introduction to the petition for deliverance in Divrei Ha· me"orot (4QS041-2 V 17-18, VI 6--8). Thus, this alternative reading would also display similarities with sectarian terminology and usage. 41 One of the epithets for members of the YaJ.!ad is "the humble" (IQS 10.26). One of the functions of the YaJ.!ad is "to expiate iniquity" (lQS 8.4, d. also 3.6--12, 9.3--4). These two phrases in Divrei Ha·me"orot (and perhaps also in 1QS) have been directly influenced by Lev. 26:4(}-4S. The experience of purification from sin as already accomplished-both on the individual and communal level-is given expression in the Hodayot (lQH 3.21, 11.1(}-1l; d. also 7.30). The same self· image of a community which has attained atonement for sin is projected in the Damascus Document (e.g. CD 3.18--19). On the latter see note 38 above. The parallels brought here would not seem to be sufficient proof of a direct relationship between Divrei Ha·me"orot and the sectarian writings. 42 The sect's view of history and of its own special place in history is expressed throughout the Pesharim; in eschatological works like the War Scroll (IQM, 4QM) and the Rule of the Congregation (lQS'); in such passages as 1QH 6.3-36 and 1QS 8.1-16; and in a host of terms common to various sectarian writings. Some examples of such terms (other than the specific epithets for the leaders of the sect and their opponents) are: "dominion of Belial" (lQS passim, 1QM passim) "the last time" (IQS 4.16; lQpHab 7.7, 12; d. 4QpNah 3--4, 3.3) "the last generation" (lQpHab 2.7,7.2; lQpMic 17-18,S; CD 1.12) "epoch of wrath" (IQH 3.28, f.l,S; 4QpHos' 1.12; CD 1.S) "eternal plant" (IQS 8.S, 11.8; lQH 6.1S, 8.6; d. CD 1.7) "lot of God"l"lot of Belial" (IQS 2.2S; lQM 13.S; d. CD 13.12). It should be reiterated that some of the terms are distinctively sectarian while others are attested outside of Qumran although even the latter do have a particular connotation and application when used in a Qumranic context. On this issue, see the analysis of this criterion above and notes 37 and 38.

16

ESTHER G. CHAZON

the Yal:tad. Such an omission would, according to this line of reasoning, indicate nonsectarian origin. The results of the application of this last major criterion for determining sectarian origin to Divrei Ha-me'orot are somewhat equivocal. The terminology and ideas do not demonstrate conclusively the character of this prayer but perhaps add some weight to the argument for non-Qumranic authorship_

CONCLUSION Four major criteria for determining the Qumranic origin of documents have been considered in this paper. (Other supplementary criteria-such as the type of biblical texts used by a document-must await a future study_) The four major criteria and the results of their evaluation can be summed up as follows:

Features of a distinct scribal school This criterion was assessed as valid for determining whether or not a Scroll was copied in the same scribal tradition as the sectarian works. Fulfillment of this criterion is a precondition for arguing sectarian authorship. Absence of these features can be taken as evidence of nonsectarian origin, not only of the manuscript but probably of the composition as well. The results for Divrei Ha-me'orot are that all three copies reflect the same scribal tradition employed by the sect's scribes. No conclusion for or against sectarian authorship can be made on these grounds.

Paleographical dating This criterion can indicate nonsectarian origin only when the lower limit for the script predated the settlement at Qumran. This criterion failed to prove definitively that Divrei Ha-me'orot is nonsectarian but raised some suspicions that it was written prior to the installment at Qumran.

Identity with a nonsectarian (liturgical) text This criterion could potentially validate nonsectarian origin if it were to be shown that the Scroll under examination represented the version of a prayer in general usage at the time. It was not possible to prove nonsectarian origin for Divrei Ha-me'orot on this basis.

Terminology and Ideas The occurrence of a complex of sectarian ideas and terms was evaluated positively as a criterion for determining sectarian origin. Failure to meet this criterion proves nonsectarian origin only when the document's ideology and terminology

IS DIVREI HA-ME'OROT A SECTARIAN PRAYER?

17

are incompatible with sectarian usage. The findings for Divrei Ra-mebrot were inconclusive and to a certain extent contradictory. The ideas and terminology of this document are compatible with sectarian usage yet no clear marks of sectarian authorship are present. The results show that all of the above criteria failed to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Divrei Ra-mebrot is nonsectarian. On the other hand, the last criterion failed to demonstrate Qumranic origin and indeed raised some suspicions that the work was not Qumranic. Similarly, the paleographical dating suggested the document might be pre-Qumranic. As stated at the outset, the case under consideration-namely that of Divrei Ra-mebrot-is the difficult one in which neither the content nor the form betray sectarian or nonsectarian authorship. In such a case, we cannot force a conclusion regarding the origin of the Scroll although we can safely conclude that Divrei Ramebrot was copied and used by the sect over a period of nearly two centuries.·3 The results of our investigation suggest that Divrei Ra-me'orot might best be understood in the context of a pre-Qumranic phenomenon - whether of the immediate precursors of the sect which eventually settled at Qumran or of a different group or religious movement which assessed its spiritual and physical situation similarly. The advancements presently being made in our knowledge of pre-Qumranic Judaism and specifically pre-Qumranic sectarianism·· will hopefully provide a broader matrix in which to reevaluate this and other Dead Sea Scrolls.

The three copies of Divrei Ha·me'orot come from three different periods. According to Baillet, 4Q504 is early Hasmonean, 4Q505 is late Hasmonean, and 4Q506 may be dated to the middle of the first century C.E.. See Baillet, DID 7, pp. 137, 168, 170. All three manuscripts reflect the system of orthography and language current at Qumran. On the latter, see the discussion of criterion 1 at the beginning of this paper. 44 A glance at the other conference papers in this volume will provide a good inkling of such recent advancements. Particularly noteworthy is the ongoing publication of hitherto unpublished Scrolls or fragments such as a pseudepigraphic collection of non-canonical Psalms, the Psalms of Joshua, and Pseudo-Ezekhiel, all three of which have been assessed as non-Qumranic and early (i.e. before 100 B.C.E. at the latest). On these texts see the papers of Carol Newsom and Eileen M. Schuller in this volume as well as the recent publications, Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A hudepigraphic Collection (Atlanta, 1986) and C. Newsom, "The 'Psalms of Joshua' from Qumran Cave 4," lIS 39 (1988): 56-73. See also J. Strugnell and D. Dimant, "4Q Second Ezekiel," RQ 13 (1988): 45-57. 43

TEXTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 11

Floren tino Garcia Martinez

Although a relatively full description of the material found in Cave 11 has been published by van der Ploeg, I this paper presents a complete list with some observations on the material so far identified as having been found in Cave 11,2 Profs. van den Woude and van der Ploeg, who invited me to join them in the preparation of the definitive edition of the Dutch share of the texts from Cave 11, have put at my disposal photographic copies of the mss already published and the yet unedited fragments. This has enabled me to compile a list of mss which may serve as a basis for the publication of the definitive edition as well as the corresponding volume in the series: Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Following the method of the series and its editor Prof. John Strugnell, the texts have been grouped according to the following categories: biblical texts, apocryphal texts, sectarian texts and unidentified texts. Since the majority of the texts in the Dutch share have been published in one form or another, our main concern has been the plates showing unidentified fragments, with the purpose of grouping them and adding them to the mss whenever possible, establishing the total number of mss preserved and preparing them for the final edition. The observations in this paper are the result of the first reading of these unidentified fragments with the aim of serving as a commentary on the following list:

1 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI de QumrAn." RQ 12 (1985): 3-15. 2 Such a list is offered here following the suggestion of S. Segert.

TEXTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 11

19

LIST OF llQ MSS

No.

Siglum

BIBLICAL TEXTS 11 Q1 11 QpaleoLev 11Q2 11QLev 11Q3 11QDeut 11Q4 11QEz 11Q5 11QPsa 11Q6 11QPsb 11Q7 11QPsc 11Q8 11QPsd 11Q9 llQPse llQlO 11QtgJob

PAM NO.

44.011/007 44.003 44.003/005/117 44.980 44.115 44.117 43.8()()-'824

APOCRYPHAL TEXTS 11Q11 11QAppsa 43.982-988 llQ12 llQJub 44.004 SECTARIAN TEXTS 11Q13 11QMelch 43.979 11Q14 llQBerakha 43.997

llQ15 11Q16 11Q17 llQ18 11Q19 11Q20

11QHymnsa 11QHymnsb 11QShirShab llQJN 11QTemple 11QTempleb

44.003 44.006 43.989--992 43.993-44.002 43.975-978

UNIDENTIFIED TEXTS 11Q21 paleohebrew llQ22 11Q23 11Q24 11Q25

Earlier Publication Freedman & Mathews 1985 vdPloeg, Bibel und Qumran, 1968 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 Brownlee, RQ 1963 Sanders, DJD 4, 1965 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 vdPloeg, Festschr. Bohl, 1973 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 vdPloeg!vdWoude, Leiden 1971

vdPloeg, Trad. und Glaub. 1971 vdWoude, Trad. und Glaub. 1971

vdWoude, OS 1965 vdWoude, Bibel und Qumran, 1965 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 vdPloeg, RQ 1985 vdWoude, Festschr. vdP, 1982 Y. Yadin, 1977 Y. Yadin, 1977

20

FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTiNEZ

BIBLICAL TEXTS

llQl (llQpaleoLev) Photograph PAM 44.114 contains eight small fragments ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.5cm in paleohebrew script apparently from the ms published by Freedman & Mathews. 3 Four of these fragments contain remnants of two or three lines with no complete words. Bearing in mind the average length of the column in 11QpaleoLev, one of these fragments could be from Leviticus 4:35 and another from Leviticus 14:41, which seems to indicate that all are from the outer part of th~ scroll. Another six tiny fragments in PAM 44.006 seem to be from the same ms, although the script is more irregular; however, if we remember that 11QpaleoLev "is written in a hand so inconsistent and even careless that this author was at first tempted to ascribe the manuscript to two or more scribes,"4 this need not come as a surprise.

llQ2 (llQLev) Van der Pl0eg5has published a fragment of Leviticus 9:23-10:2 and has identified a further fragment containing Leviticus 13:58-59 as another example from the same book of the Bible. 6 In fact both are from the same ms. Although the most outstanding characteristic of the first fragment-the transcription of the tetragrammaton in paleohebrew characters-is not paralleled in the second since it does not contain the divine name, the script of the letters, their size, the space between the lines, the spelling and even the variations from the MT, suggest a source in the same ms. This limits the copies of Leviticus from Cave 11 to two: 11QpaleoLev and 11QLev. A small fragment with the ends of two lines seen in the same photograph could belong to the same ms, but the elements preserved are insufficient to enable definite identification.

llQ3 (llQDeut) Van der Ploeg' mentions two fragments containing passages from Deuteronomy13:7-11 and remnants of 1:4-5. The first of these texts is not a copy of Deuteronomy, but simply another fragment of the Dutch copy of the Temple Scroll, corresponding to columns XLV-XLVI, as van der Woude has demonstrated in the edition of the

D.N. Freedman & K.A. Mathews, The Paleo·Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (llQpaIeoLev) (Winona Lake, 1985). These fragments have now been published by E. Puech, "Notes en marge de 11QPalrolkvitique. Le Fragment L, des fragments inedits et une jarre de la Grotte 11," RB 96 (1989): 161-183. 4 D.N. Freedman & K.A. Mathews, The Paleo·Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, p. 15. 5 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Lev. IX:23-X:2 dans un texte de Qumran," S. Wagner (ed.). 3

Bibel und Qumran. Beitriige zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel· und Qumranwissenschaft (Leipzig, 1968), pp. 153-155. 6 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 10. 7 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 10.

TEXTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 11

21

text. 8 The second text is a small fragment, the only one with the type of script described by vander Ploeg as "ecriture splendide et presque lapidaire," which appears in photograph PAM 44.003 [the numbE:r 44.033 in the article must be a printing error]. The dry lines of the text and of the left margin of the column are clearly visible, and to judge by the size of the letters and the number of letters per line, the length of the columns must have been 12cm. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only fragment preserved in Cave 11 from Deuteronomy, a text so abundantly represented in other caves. 9 llQ6 (llQPsb)

This is a second copy of llQ5 (l1QPsa).lo It seems possible that a series of small fragments seen in PAM 44.117 can be added to the six fragments of this ms published by van der Ploeg. I I But so far it has not been possible to place these remnants within the work which contains compositions deriving from the canonical Psalter together with other apocryphal compositions. llQ7 (llQPsc)

In 1973 vander Ploeg published the largest fragment from this ms,u and in a later description presented details of other fragments preservedY Among these he indicated one of uncertain identification which he thought contained remnants of Ps. 18:15-16. This is a small fragment seen in PAM 44.006, but in my opinion this fragment is from another ms and its identification with Ps. 18 is debatable. Equally debatable is the attribution to this ms of the fragment containing remnants of Ps. 43:1-3. Van der Ploeg mentions two fragments with the same content, one part of llQPsc and the other part of llQPsd. In fact, this is one single fragment appearing in different photographs and forming part of llQPsd. llQ8 (llQPsd)

PAM 44.005 contains several fragments not included in PAM 44.115, the photograph van der Ploeg used to identify this ms. Psalm 105:34-35 can be added to the list of

8 9

10 11 12 13

A.S. van der Woude, "Ein bisher unveroffentlichtes Fragment der TempelrolIe," F. Garcia Martinez & E. Puech (eds.), Mmwrial Jean Carmignac (paris, 1988), pp. 89-92. A total of about 25 copies. Among the photographs of unidentified fragments it seems impossible to find any fragment belonging to 11Q4, the ms of Ezekiel published by W.H. Brownlee, "The Scroll of Ezekiel from the Eleventh Qumran Cave," RQ 4 (1963): 11-28. Published by J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll 0/ Qumran Cave 11 (11 Q[Js.), DJD 4 (1965). J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Fragments d'un manuscrit de Psaumes de Qumran (l1QPsb)," RB 74 (1967): 408-413. J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Fragments d'un Psautier de QumrAn," Symbolae biblicae et mesopotamicae F.M. T de Liagra Biihl dedicatae (Leiden, 1973), pp. 308-309. J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 13.

22

FLORENTINO GARCiA MARTINEZ

Psalms indicated by van der Ploeg.14 The other five fragments in this photograph do not provide sufficient evidence for identification. The same applies to the other five fragments from the same ms seen in PAM 44.008. Their sizes range from 0.5 to l.5cm and they do not contain a single complete word.

llQ9 (llQPse) At least one otherfragment in PAM 44.117 belongs to the same book of the Bible. This fragment, which has preserved the right margin of the column, contains remnants of the beginnings of four lines corresponding to Psalm 86:11-14 and reveals no deviations from the MT. The fragment containing the beginning of Psalm 37:1-4 has also preserved the end of Psalm 36. A rudimentary study of the photographs does not make it possible to claim that 11QPsd and 11QPse are in fact two distinct mss. Van der Ploeg does describe them as two distinct mss,15 but it is my impression that they come from a single copy of .the Psalms. It will only be possible to resolve this matter and to establish whether Cave 11 contained four or five copies of the Psalms by an examination of the originals in the Rockefeller Museum. Of course the fact that all the copies of the Dutch share are mere fragments reduces it significance for deliberations on the sequence and function of the Psalter.

llQ10 (llQtgJob) One of the fragments in PAM 44.114 seems to be from the Targum of Job}6 The form of the letters, their size and the space between the columns are the same, but the photograph does not reveal the dry lines of the text nor those of the column divisions. The size of the fragment is 4.5X2.0cm and has the ends of two lines with traces of a third and the beginning of one line of the next column.

APOCRYPHAL TEXTS llQll (llQAppsa) Two vertical strips 5.0XO.5 to l.Ocm containing letters of six or seven lines [PAM 44.004] have been identified among the photographs by E. Puech as belonging to this ms, the last section of which containing Psalm 91 was published by van der

14

Psalms 39:13-40:1; 43:1-3; 59:5-8; 68:1-5.16-18; 78:5-12 and 81:3-9. SeeJP.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 13. 15 JP.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 13. 16 JP.M. van der Ploeg et A.S. van der Woude, Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrd1l, KNA W (Leiden, 1971).

TEXTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 11

23

Ploeg in 1965,17 and the remainder of the ms containing the Apocryphal Psalms was published by him in 1971.\8 llQ12 (llQJub)

Several of the fragments of this ms published by vander Woude 19 are still unedited. One small fragment, 2.0X 1.0cm preserves several letters from the beginning of three lines. It has proved impossible to place these lines. Another two more important fragments appear more promising, but all attempts to place their content within the Ethiopic, Latin or Syriac versions of Jubilees have so far proved futile. The first fragment 2.5X3.0cm [PAM 44.114] has the beginnings of four lines and a tiny remnant of the fifth; to this has been added, incorrectly, another small fragment with remnants of two lines. The reading of the three middle lines offers no major problems, but its relation to the known text of Jubilees is not evident. It is possible to consider a distinct version of Jubilees 13:21-23 which in Ethiopic renders the name of Tidal as Tergal [as in the LXX] were it not for the fact that 1QapGen. XXI:23 preserves the TD'L of MT. Or we can take the clearly legible TRNGL "tarnegol" in the sense of the word in mishnaic Hebrew and examine texts such as 3Baruch 6:15-:1, the only pseudepigraphical text in which the "cock" appears with some prominence. Nor can the other fairly important fragment [PAM 44.004] confidently be placed within the known text of Jubilees. This is a fragment 3.5X2.5cm with remnants of five written and one blank lines. The content of the first section seems to be a paraphrase of Exodus 30:18, and vander Ploeg identified it as another possible copy of the Temple Scroll [reference to PAM 44.044 is a printing error].20 But all other evidence favors considering the fragment as part of the Jubilees ms published by vander Woude. SECTARIAN TEXTS llQ13 (llQMelch)

I have not detected among the unidentified fragments any which could have belonged to this ms published by vander Woude,21 but E. Puech has informed J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Le Psaume XCI dans une recension de QumrAn," RB 72 (1965): 210-217. 18 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Un petit rouleau de Psaumes Apocryphes (llQPsApa)," Tradition und Claube, Festgabe far K.C. Kahn (Gottingen, 1971), pp. 128-139. See now E. Puech, "llQPsApa: un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction," F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Ccmmunity, Vol. II (paris, 1990), pp. 377-408. 19 A.S. vander Woude, "Fragmente des Buches JubiUien aus Qumran Hohie XI (llQJub)," Tradition und Claube, pp. 140-146. 20 J.P.M. van der Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 9. 21 A.S. vander Woude, "Melchisedech als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen Midraschim aus Hohie XI," Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965): 354-373. 17

24

FLORENTINO GARCiA MARTINEZ

me that he has found a small fragment of this ms that does not appear in the photographs.

llQ14 (llQBerakha) The script of this ms published by vander Woude22 is practically identical with that of llQ20 (l1QTemple b) which makes it impossible in many cases to ascribe a particular fragment to one or other ms. The only appreciable difference is the space between the lines which in llQ14 varies from 0.8 to 0.9cm and in the fragments of llQ20 (which appear in the same photograph PAM 43.977 and are undoubtedly on the same scale) from 1.1 to 1.2 cm. But this factor applies only to those fragments which contain remnants of at least two lines. On the basis of this criterion the fragment 3.0X3.0cm found in PAM 44.006 can be attributed to this ms. This fragment has remnants of three lines and part of the upper margin of the column or of a fourth blank line. The words of the first line ("foreign people") may seem alien to the context of the published Berakha, but it must be remembered that the text contains various blessings, as indicated by the blank separation lines.

llQ15 (llQHymns a ) Van der Ploeg23 has published two fragments with hymnic content which recall the phraseology of lQH. The fragments are clearly from two distinct mss; from the first all that seems to have been preserved is the fragment published by van der Ploeg.

llQ16 (llQHymns b ) Several fragments of the second ms have been preserved, copied in a most distinctive hand (regular letters 0.2cm high, interlinear spaces of 0.6cm) all very small and (in the case of the fragments in PAM 44.116) in a very bad state. I would assign to this ms four fragments from PAM 44.114, fragment 5 from PAM 44.006 and all the tiny remnants in PAM 44.116. But in spite of the many fragments extant, information about these hymns is negligible.

llQ17 (llQShirShab) Two unedited fragments from PAM 44.114 and 44.117 should be added to the fragments published by vander Woude,24 contained in the series PAM 43.989-992 as well as the five fragments published by Newsom, found in PAM 43.488. The first

A.S. van der Woude, "Ein neuer Segensspruch aus Qumran (l1QBer)," Bibel und Qumran, pp. 253-258. 23 J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 11-12. 24 A.S. van der Woude, "Fragmente einer Rolle der Lieder fUr das Sabbatopfer aus Hohie XI von Qumran (11QShirShab)," Von Kanaan his Kerala. Festschrift fur Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. ].P.M. vander Ploeg (AOAT 211) (Kevealer-NeukirchenlVluyn, 1982), pp. 311-337.

22

TEXTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 11

25

fragment 2.0X2.0cm has remnants of three lines and the second, a strip 4.5cm long and from 0.5 to 1.2cm wide, has remnants of six lines. The two fragments may be positively identified, but more problematic is the identification of a small fragment from PAM 44.006 with the remnant of two lines and an interlineal insertion, which rests solely on the size of the letters.

llQ18 (llQJerNouv) This is the only important ms in the Dutch share which still remains unedited with the exception of a fragment published by Jongeling.25 Vander Ploeg has given a general description of the fragments preserved, their measurements and their content26 and has recently entrusted the text to me for publication in DID. As my study of the ms is still in its initial stages, it is impossible to propose new details of the work or of the extent to which it corresponds with the other copies from Caves 2, 4 and 5.9.

llQ20 (llQTemple b) The circumstances relating to the identification and publication of the fragments of the second copy of the Temple Scroll are well known,27 and thus only a few small fragments will be presented here from the second copy not found in the Supplementary Plates to Yadin's edition, either because they escaped his attention or because he did not consider them sufficiently significant to be included. The largest of the unedited fragments has now been published by van der Woude,28 from PAM 43.976 and should be inserted between columns XLV and XLVI of llQTemple. Yadin 29 published a series of fragments from PAM 42.178 in Plates 38*, 39* and 40*. This photograph is not in Groningen, but the same fragments appear in PAM 43.977 which vander Woude used in editing llQBerakha. Fragment 3 was reedited by Yadin as a fragment of llQTempleb (!), although a simple measurement of the distance between the clearly visible dry lines proves that it is a fragment from llQBerakha and not llQTempleb • In the same photograph another small fragment can be seen which does belong to llQTemple b , which Yadin did not publish. The fragment 3.5X 1.8cm corresponds to the right margin of a column and preserves part of the intercolumnar space.

25 26 27

28 29

B. Jongeling, "Publication provisoire d'un fragment provenant de la grotte 11 de Qumran (llQIerNouv)," fSf 1 (1970): 58-54; 185-186. J.P.M. vander Ploeg, "Les manuscrits de la Grotte XI": 14. See vander Ploeg's P.S. (pp. 112-113) to his communication at the Louvain Congress, "Une halakha inedite de Qumran," M. Delcor (ed.), Qumran. Sa Piete, sa thlowgie et son milieu (BETL XLVI), (paris-Leuven, 1978), pp. 107-113, and Y. Yadin's explanations in the Introduction to Megillat ha·Miqdash, 1 Oerusalem, 1977): 8·-9·. A.S. vander Woude, "Ein bisher unveroffentlichtes Fragment der Tempelrolle": 90 Y. Yadin, Megillat ha·Miqtlash, 3, Supplementary Plates.

26

FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ

Unfortunately, only the beginning of the lines are visible and neither of the two words is complete. The fragment could be placed in 11QTemple XXIII (like another of the fragments in the same photograph) if we read KM[SPT and Lwy[, or in 11QTemple XL:8-9 if we read KM[DH and LY[WM. In PAM 43.978 three unedited fragments of llQ20 remain: fragment 5 -3.0X3.0cm triangular in shape, contains the end of two lines and the beginning of another in the next column; fragment 7a -2.5X2.5cm contains the end of two lines and part of the intercolumnar space; and fragment 16 -4.0X2,[.Ocm, also the end of two lines and a broad intercolumnar margin. Four fragments in PAM 44.006 also seem to be from 11Q20: fragment 1 -5.0X3.0cm, can clearly be fitted to fragment 4, published by Yadin in 40*, making possible the reconstruction of the beginning of nine lines of one column; fragment 9 - 3.5 X 2.5 cm preserves the end of three lines and the corresponding intercolumnar margin: fragment 14 -1.5X 1.5cm has preserved only one incomplete word; fragment 7 - 0.5 X 2.5 cm has preserved only remnants of letters from two separate lines. Yadin published a single fragment from PAM 44.008, the largest, which corresponds to column XIX of 11QTemple, but the photograph shows another eight fragments belonging to the same ms. The largest of these, fragment 2 - 3.0 X 2.0 cm contains remnants of three lines; fragment 7 -2.5X2.5cm has remnants of two, and the remainder have no more than remnants of isolated words.

UNIDENTIFIED TEXTS There are still 50 unidentified fragments from an undetermined number of mss. Worthy of note is a group of four fragments in a single hand, but containing a few letters only [PAM 44.005]. Another characteristic text consists of two fragments in regular paleohebrew script, clearly distinct from 11QpaleoLev; the larger one - 2.0X l.5cm - preserves remnants of two lines and does not seem to be a biblical text [PAM 44.006]. Yet another distinct text consists of a single tiny fragment [PAM 44.112]; the shape of the object suggests that it is an ostracon rather than a ms. The scripts of the vast majority of the remaining fragments is similar, thus grouping them further is difficult. Furthermore, there is so little content that the task is practically impossible. In the definitive edition that will appear in DID, the total number of mss from Cave 11 may differ from that suggested in this presentation, but certainly not to a great extent, totalling at the utmost between 25 to 30 mss.

BIBLICAL PHRASES AND HIDDEN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS AND PESHARIM

Menahem Kister The Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls bear a close connection to the Bible and are written in biblical language and style. Certain passages in the Pseudepigrapha and the Scrolls seem to be an imitation of the Bible, I .or a mosaic of biblical phrases and expressions. 2• Nevertheless, it appears that sometimes through the use of a biblical expression, the manner in which a given verse or group of verses was interpreted can be determined.

* Except for a few notes added and minor alterations, the original text of my lecture is reproduced here without change. I see no need to formally define here the term pesher. For purposes of this paper, however, a pesher is an eschatological sectarian interpretation of biblical passage as referring to current events. Biblical citations follow the standard English versions (primarily the old JPS translation), altered wherever necessary to understand the Qumranic exegesis of these verses (even if such exegesis deviates from the literal meaning or "standard" interpretation of the biblical text). Hence, no conclusions about my own views regarding the rendition of these verses should be drawn from the translations appearing here. Certain passages in apocryphal and sectarian literature echo and imitate biblical verses. In such cases, it is important to note which verses the sectarian passages are attempting to imitate, and to what extent they differ from their biblical model. For example, Jubilees 1:14-15 is based on Deut. 4:27-30, but the biblical verses stress the sin of idolatry, while the author of Jubilees disregards this point. This, in my judgment, is significant evidence that Jubilees was not written in a period of conflict with the Hellenists, but rather in the course of struggle with Jewish sects, whose halachic views were considered by the writer of the Book of Jubilees as heresy. See: M. Kister, "Concerning the History of the Essenes - A study in the Animal Apocalypse, the Book of Jubilees and the Damascus Covenant" Tarbiz 56 (1987): 1-15 (in Hebrew). 2 See, e.g., the remarks of S. Holm-Nielsen, "Hodayot - Psalms from Qumran," Acta Theologica Danica 2 (Aarhus, 1960): 44: "The passage can serve as a clarification of the use of Scripture in the Hodayot and in the DSS generally. Little or no weight is given to the context of the words in those OT passages used." To be sure, the situation in the Thanksgiving Scroll is particulary problematic, as noted below. Regarding the specific passage discussed by Holm-Nielsen (Hodayot 2, lines 27-28), it should be noted that the expression 1I'1In OIYDII 'YP:l' n",TD? is especially problematic, as is the biblical verse upon

28

MENAHEM KISTER

In the Book ofJubilees 24:30, after Isaac was forced to make a covenant with the Philistines in Beersheba, he cursed them, saying: 3 And no remnant will be left to them, nor one who escapes the day of the wrath and the judgment, because all the Philistine seed is (destined) for destruction and uprooting and removal from the earth. And therefore there will not be any name or seed which remains upon the earth for any of the Caphtorim. Because if they go up to heaven, from there they will fall; and if they set firm in the earth, from there they will be torn out; and if they are hidden among the nations, from there they will be uprooted; and if they go down to Sheol, even there their judgment will multiply, and also there will be no peace for them there. And if they go into captivity by the hand of those who seek their life, they will kill them along the way. And neither name nor seed will be left for them in the earth, because they walk in an eternal curse. The editors of the Book of Jubilees noted that these verses are similar to Amos 9:2-4 (they further noted the similarity between these verses and Ps. 139:8ff.), and it was generally assumed~ ~that this similarity was limited to imitation of biblical phraseology. However, this assumption is questionable. The passage from Amos reads:

which it is based (Isa. 59:5). Therefore, it is questionable whether the conclusion reached by this scholar on the basis of this particular passage is justified. In my opinion, we may content ourselves with Licht's cautious suggestion that the sectarian text can not be explained in accordance with the literal meaning of the verse in Isaiah (J. Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 71. It should be noted however that in this very passage of the Thanksgiving Scroll the expressions C·U n,:mc 1I1KJ n'ln :1:'1' and C'I T!)l are obviously derived from Isaiah 30:30. These words describe in the Thanksgiving Scroll the "war weapons" (:'Illn;1l ',J) of the mighty enemies. This usage is apparently based on a pesher in this verse, interpreting C'IO) T!)l in Isaiah as referring to the "war weapons" of the enemies, since in a very fragmentary pesher to Isaiah we read: :'IIl:'l :'Illn'll ',J C'I[1 T!)l (DJD 5, p. 25). Contrary to the plain sense of the biblical version, the words :1:'1" 'lK ClI! ,,:1 !:IK' c,n T!)l :'I'J'K 1I1K in Isaiah apply according to this interpretation, to the enemies of Israel (and not to God). 3 The rendition here is based principally on that of O.S. Wintermute, in: The O. T. Pseudepigrapha, 2, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, New York, 1985 (with minor variations). 4 See H. Ronsch, Dos Buch der Jubilaen (Leipzig, 1874), p. 133: "Wir haben hier ...die Nachahmung einer alttestamentlichen Stelle vor uns ...Ps. 138 (139), 8-12; wahrscheinlich aber ist Amos 9,1-4 das Vorbild gewesen"; this view is followed by all the editors of Jubilees. Only Wintermute (above, n. 3), p. 104 attempted to interpret this passage on the basis of the verses in Amos: "The writer may have been attracted to this passage because of the somewhat confusing reference to 'the way of Beer-sheba' in (Amos) 8:14. In the present text, Jacob is portrayed as cursing the Philistines in Beer-sheba after having made his way there ... " While I find this suggestion inadequate as a full explanation of the passage (Wintermute's remarks can, but need not necessarily, concur with the approach suggested below), I obviously agree with the general approach suggested by his comment.

BffiLICAL PHRASES AND HIDDEN BffiLICAL INTERPRETATIONS

29

I saw the Lord standing beside the altar, and He said: Smite the capitals, that the posts may shake, and break them in pieces on the head of all of them. And I shall slay the residue of them with the sword; not one of them shall flee away, and not one of them shall escape. If they dig into Sheol, from there shall My hand take them; if they climb up to heaven, from there shall I bring them down. If they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I shall search and take them out from there; if they be hidden from My sight on the bottom of the sea, from there shall I command the serpent, and he will bite them. And if they go into captivity before their enemies, from there will I command the sword, and it shall slay them; I shall set My eyes upon them for evil, and not for good. The expression "smite the capitals" translates the Hebrew "nl);)il 1il - literally, "smite Caphtor." According to biblical tradition, the Philistines came from the island of Caphtor (see Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:40), and the expression "Caphtor" is used for the Philistines later in this passage of the Book of Jubilees (v. 31, according to some of the text witnesses). Therefore, it would seem that the author of Jubilees did not interpret the expression "nl);)il 1il as did the ancient and modern translators, but rather as "smite the Philistines." Accordingly, this chapter of Amos was understood as referring to the downfall of the Philistines, rather than to a defeat of Israel. Here, then, we find evidence not of mechanical use of biblical phraseology, but rather of the interpretation of biblical verses by a later writer. This exegesis can be reconstructed, even where the verses are not cited explicitly (as in the case of Amos 9:1), through analysis of the biblical context. Such eschatological interpretation of the Bible is not all that distant from what is found in the Dead Sea pesharim. The next example, while not that similar to the pesharim, is worthy of note for a number of reasons. The Testament of Levi (14:4) states regarding the wicked priests: "You want to destroy the light of the Law which was given to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God's just ordinances."! I would suggest that this verse alludes to Deuteronomy 33:8-10 (cited here according to the text known as 4Q Testimonia):6 1'/)n "" ':lil ~'i'l7" 1'UD1I17.) < "'1(" > 1,'on 111'1(' 1"1(' ("And to Levi he said, Give Levi Your Tummim, and Your Light [! - 1"1(' a defective spelling of the word 1"'1(' = "your Urim"]8 for a man who is your righteous one [1,'on 111'1(' ], whom You tried in Massah, and with whom You strived at the waters of Meribah ... Y N'Pl '1I1"P 0111' O;)n1Y:J O[':J~'n1:) '1I1"P]

14

11:) :-In:J1II :-IY' :-I'm...

Ces !ignes evitent ('usage du nomyhwh, en etait-il ainsi dans tout Ie rouleau? Probablement car elles emploient '1 "Iywn comme en 1QApGn, malgre CD 15.1.

llQPsAp' IV 4-V 14

89

de sa priere par Ie Dieu tout-Puissant et par son ange. Mais i1 n'est pas certain que la distinction ait He toujours claire et maintenue dans la conscience religieuse et la pratique populaire62 car Ie passage d'un type a l'autre est souvent insensible. La suscription "a David" et la mention de Salomon" dans Ie 2e psaume du rouleau veulent donner une certaine autorite et legitimite aces prieres et aces pratiques, car, a l'un et a l'autre de ces grands sages, est egalement rattachee par la tradition la composition de recueils de prieres et d'exorcisme~ En definitive, quoi qu'il en soit du caractere du rouleau, pre-essenien par son attribution "davidique" et l'emploi du tetragramme pour les uns, essenisant par sa theologie pour d'autres, il reste que Ie psaume davidique apparemment comprehensible malgre son Hat de conservation est a present Ie plus ancien texte magique hebreu connu de l'epoque du second temple, anterieur a 4Q510-511 (voir Iub. X). De contenu proche des Visions de 'Amram, il ne depareillerait pas dans les compositions sectaires de Qumran au sujet du dualisme tenebres-Iumiere, chef des demons et des anges, l'ange accompagnateur au jugement, victoire de Dieu et de la lumiere, illumination des justes, emprisonnement de Belial et des mechants dans Ie Sheol infernal, lieu de perdition Hernelle, et possible resurrection des justes delivres des tenebres. Meme si on lui refuse une origine essenienne, ce psaume a trouve un bon accueil dans la communaute essenienne qui nous l'a transmis.

62

Voir A.I- Festugiere, L'idlol reli~wc des Grecs et de I'Evangile (Paris 1932), pp. 281-328, oil I'auteur montre bien la difference entre l'homme religieux et Ie mage, celui qui supplie humblement dans l'attente d'une reponse-et celui qui somme et contraint la divinite "par l'usage du nom". 63 Sur Salomon et la magie, voir E. Schlirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Agr of Jesus Christ, mil, revised by G. Vermes et alii (Edinburgh 1986), pp. 375-379; H. Leclercq, Dictionnaire d'Arcltlologie Chrltienne et de Liturgie, XV, col. 589-602.

4Q380 AND 4Q381: NON-CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

Eileen M. Schuller

4Q380 and 4Q381 are two manuscripts from the lot of cave 4 materials assigned to John Strugnell. Recently I have worked on these and published a first edition (text and commentary) under the title Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Psetldepigraphic Collection l (abbreviated throughout as Non-Canonical Psalms). The psalms contained therein are found only in these two manuscripts at Qumran and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they are not known from elsewhere. In the surviving fragments of 4Q380 and 4Q381 , there is no evidence of any of the 150 canonical psalms;l this does not preclude the fact that such psalms may have been part of another section of the Scroll (especially in 4Q381 where it seems as if we have only the final sheet). There is some ambiguity in this nomenclature "non-canonical"; these psalms are non-canonical from our perspective, but such a designation is not meant to imply a judgment about their status in the first century. There is no overlap of material between 4Q380 and 4Q381. Although I have entitled my book "A Pseudepigraphic Collection," it is impossible to determine with surety whether we have different parts of a single collection, or parts of two distinct collections of psalms (see further discussion, pp. 92-94). The manuscripts are obviously written by different hands, though both can be dated on paleographic grounds to the Middle to Late Hasmonean period (roughly 100-75 B.C.E.). Unfortunately, both manuscripts are in a very fragmentary condition. One hundred and two fragments remain from 4Q381. Nine or ten of these are significant and workable pieces of six to sixteen lines with one-half to three-quarters of each

2

Eileen M. Schuller, Non·Ca7lQnical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection, Harvard Semitic Studies 28 (Atlanta, 1986). By "canonical psalms" is meant specifically the 150 psalms in the &fer Tehillim of the Hebrew Bible; at times I will also call this collection "the biblical psalter." Although this terminology is somewhat awkward, it is intended both to recognize that there were other psalters (e.g. that of the Septuagint with 151 psalms), and to exclude such collections as llQPs' and 4QPSf.

NON·CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

91

line complete; no line in the manuscript is preserved in its entirety. 4Q380 is made up of seven fragments. The largest piece has eleven lines, almost complete, in two very narrow columns; the six other fragments have only a half dozen words each. The restricted amount of material and its fragmented condition are severe limitations in understanding the origin, nature and purpose of the psalms individually and the collection(s} as a whole. In the summer of 1983, D. Hartmut Stegemann of the University of Gottingen, Germany, applied his expertise in the reconstruction of fragmentary Scrolls3 to 4Q381 and a proposed reconstruction is published as an Appendix in Non·Canonical Psalms. In contrast to attempts which have been made to reconstruct the Hodayot and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, there are particular problems with 4Q381: the scarcity of the material (only nine or ten major fragments), the lack of multiple copies which would allow some check on the results, and the absence of any recurring or formulaic phraseology which would permit content to be used as a partial guide in reconstruction. The scribal practice in this manuscript is a further complication since the scribe often left a vacat line between psalms with the result that a portion of uninscribed leather can signify either an upper or lower margin or simply a division between psalms.4 Certain features, however, provide the basic framework for a plausible reconstruction. There is one fragment (# 24) with clear evidence of stitching on the right hand side (even a small piece of thread remains), and also a rather large piece of lined but uninscribed leather such as is found in the last column of llQPs', lQpHab, 4Q511 and a few other published Scrolls. The larger preserved pieces exhibit some similarity in their shapes, indicating that all the major fragments and at least the majority of the small pieces came from the last sheet of the Scroll. This sheet can be reconstructed as five columns of text plus a sixth, lined but at least partially uninscribed. Each column would be approximately 15 centimeters in width (14.0 cm. to 15.4 cm.), with twenty·five vertical lines of text. According to this reconstruction, parts of some ten to twelve psalms have been preserved in 4Q381 (the exact figure is impossible to determine with certainty since it is unclear if certain fragments originally belonged to a single psalm). 4Q380 is so fragmented that no such reconstruction is possible, but segments of at least five psalms are recognizable. Five psalms are introduced with a title, and on at 3

4

For a description of the methodology, see H. Stegemann, "Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments," Archali()logy and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls - the New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, edited by L.H. Schiffman (jSOTIASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield, 1990), pp. 189-220; and on a more popular level, "How to Connect Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments," Bible Review 4 (1988): 24-43. The scribe left a line uninscribed between psalms when the last line ended passed the midpoint; when the concluding words came in the right half of the line, only the rest of the line was left blank to mark the division. For the most part, there is no indentation in beginning a new psalm (the one possible exception might be 4Q380 4 1, see the discussion in Non·Canonical Psalms, p. 261). Such scribal practice is within the perimeters of what is standard for biblical psalm manuscripts according to the evidence collected by G. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Atlanta, 1985), pp. 24-43.

92

EILEEN M. SCHULLER

least two occasions the psalm ends with selah; these features reinforce the apparent similarity of this collection and the biblical psalter. Although no psalm has been preserved in anywhere near its entirety, in a number of cases we can get some sense of the content and genre. The various psalms are diverse rather than homogenous in style, genre and content; such diversity is not surprising since the gathering of different types of material into a single collection is well attested in both the biblical psalter and the Psalms of Solomon. At least five "types" of psalms deserve mention: (1) There is one "Zion psalm" 4Q380 Ii 1-11. What is preserved about Jerusalem is very short (some eleven complete words before the psalm moves into a reworking of Ps. 106:2-5). The language is stereotypical and can be reconstructed (with varying degrees of certainty) from biblical texts, for example, line 5 iI'''Y IC'i'l mil' C[1l1 ':l] Ger. 25:29 and Dan. 9:18, 19) and line 6 C"1l1", "Y illC'l [,,::I:l,] (Isa. 60:2). This brief text is another illustration of the popularity of psalmody in praise of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.' (2) There is one "creation psalm" 4Q38111-12. About half of each line has been preserved and the opening lines are missing (perhaps only one line6). The psalm seems to begin with some general hymnic affirmation (line 1: iln'll11C ,nIC"!)l' 'm1il, line 2 "]::11 ilrJ:l mil') and wisdom reflections (line 2: T'Y" ::I" 1'IC'" 'l'::I" c'ICn!)",). Then comes a general programmatic creation statement (line 3: CIC::Ii ":l] ,'!) ,::1,::1, f"lIC' C'rJ1l1 illl1Y '~'::1 IC'iI). Although there are many unresolved questions about particular phrases, the rest of the psalm clearly is a listing of the various elements of creation: the waters, heavenly bodies, vegetation, birds, etc. A few other short fragments (4Q381 141-4, 4Q381 76-771-6) might also be from creation texts, whether this psalm or others. 7 4Q380 7 ii 2-3 preserves two interesting phrases: l't]13!ln n":21:2 p,:mr and ],,,n ;''?~NC ,;,'?,:l',. Both the topic of creation and certain specific features of form and content (e.g., the combination of wisdom and creation motifs, the opening hymnic language, the movement from general to specific description of the acts of creation) find parallels with other Second Temple psalmody (e.g., Sir. 42:15-43:33, Hymn to the Creator llQPsa XXVI 9-15, lQM X 8b-16, lQH I 1-20, lQH XIII 7-16). (3) Another group of psalms are distinctive in that they contain lengthy segments of five to ten consecutive cola quoting biblical psalms (4Q381 152-3 quotes Ps. 86:16c [86:16a and 16b can be restored in the preceding lacuna], 17a [17b in the lacuna], and 17c; 4Q381 154-7 quotes Ps. 89:10a,10b, [lla,llb, possibly 12a can be restored], 12b, 14a, [14b restored], 7a, 7b, [8a restored]; 4Q381 24 7-11 quotes eight cola

5 Other Second Temple period examples of "Zion psalms" include the Apostrophe to Zion (l1QPs' XXII 1-15, 4QPsi VII 14-17, VIII2-15), Pss. Sol 11, Bar 4:30-5:9, Tob 13:9-18. 6 See the proposed reconstruction of column i lines 24-25 which would contain the beginning of this psalm, NOll·CatuJlIical Psalms, p. 269. 7 For the inclusion of 4Q38114 and 76-77 as part of the same psalm as 4Q3811, see the proposed reconstruction of Stegemann, NOll·CatuJlIical Psalms, p. 270.

NON·CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

93

from Ps. 18/2 Sam. 22:3-98 ; and 4Q380 1 i 7 10 - quotes six cola from Ps. 106:2, 4, S). Although I have called this phenomenon "quotation of biblical psalms" in order to distinguish it from a much freer use of scripture which is found in other psalms (type 4 below), these psalms rarely follow the massoretic text verbatim: there are variations of word order within a colon, variation and omission in the order of cola, changes in syntax and person, omission and substitution of words and phrases. Only very occasionally do our texts match an established version like the Septuagint, and then the material is so slight that it is hard to determine whether this is more than coincidence. 9 The extensive reuse of earlier material is clearly one of the most distinctive characteristics of all Second Temple psalmody. The phenoinenon is both more complex and more creative than has often been assumed and much more study remains to be done. 1o However, the lengthy quotation of an extended series of cola from earlier psalms within a "new psalm" which we see in 4Q380 and 4Q381 is unparalleled elsewhere. The last lines of the Hymn to the Creator (llQPsa XXVI 13-1S) might be the closest parallel and even then it is drawing from at least three biblical texts Oer. 10:12-13, S1:15-16, Ps. 13S:7); otherwise, one complete colon at mOit of a biblical psalm is quoted (for example, 4QPsf XIH3 using Ps. 92:10 or lQH II 30 using Ps. 26:12). The intent of this distinctive style of composition remains one of the puzzling aspects of these psalms. (4) There is another group of psalms composed in such a way that there is a convergence of language between a "new psalm" and a specific biblical psalm, which is surely more than mere coincidence. That is, there is a cluster of shared features, verbal links of short phrases and specific vocabulary which come in the same order, or the same word appears but in a different context. Yet the linkage is not close enough to be called "quotation" in the sense discussed above. In four lines of 4Q381 31 (a notoriously difficult fragment to read and decipher because of its poor state of preservation), there are seven words or phrases from Ps. 69 in consecutive order: for example, Ps. 69:S Oln 'lUlU 'lUK' r",l'lU/) ,:::1, and 4Q381 31S 'lU!ll 'KllU;' onl'" l'1nN 1'll "'l ,:::1, ':l; Ps. 69:21 l'1lU1lN' ':J; l'1':JlU l'1!l'" and 4Q381 31 6 'llil lUUK illUl" il/)'; Ps. 69:31 il,m:::l U;'lK' "lU:::I O'il;K OlU il;lmK and 4Q381 31 9 ill"m "lU. Similarly, the first lines of 4Q381 31 1-2 have at least three distinctive verbal links with Ps. 9; 4Q381 48 and 50 when taken consecutively (an 8

There is some slight evidence that the author of this psalm was drawing upon Ps. 18 rather than the massoretic text of 2 Sam. 22; see the discussion in N01I·Ca1Wnical Psalms, p. 120. 9 One example of agreement with the Septuagint is the use of the second person in Ps. 21:10 in 4Q38117 3. 10 Important studies include the article by A. Robert, "Litteraires (Genres)," Dictionnaire de la Bible, Sup. V (1947): 411-12; S. Holm-Nielsen, "The Importance of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Understanding of Old Testament Psalmodic Tradition," ST 14 (1960): 1-53; S. Holm-Nielsen, "The Uses of the Old Testament in the Hodayot," Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Denmark, 1960), pp. 301-15; B. Kittel, "Excursus: The Problem of Biblical Language," The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary (Chico, 1981), pp. 48-55; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985).

94

EILEEN M. SCHULLER

observation which can be made quite apart from Stegemann's reconstruction) draw on Ps. 76:1-11. This style of composition is not unknown in other Second Temple psalmody (for example, the relationship of Ps. 155 [llQPsa XXN3-17] and Ps. 143 11 ) but the precise dynamics are still little understoodP (5) Two fragments 4Q38169 and 4Q381 76-77 illustrate a fifth distinctive psalm category. 4Q380 69 follows 4Q381 77 to give some twenty-one partial lines for one of the longest psalms in this collection. 13 Form-critically, this work is distinctive; there is a direct address to an audience (you-plural) by a speaker (1st person singular, "my words" "my mouth") and God is spoken of in the third person. The style is more that of elevated prose than poetry with longer cola than in other psalms, extended lists (for example, 4Q381 69 5 mll~' n",n C'j'[M), and the frequent use of the infinitive. The language is strongly Deuteronomistic, for example, in its description of God (4Q381 77 14 'il~::l l'N' N;~l' "::J1 c'mNil 'l'N[) and traditional covenant terminology (77 14 C]::l::J 'M::J N'il, 77 15 Cl/; N'; m'il;). In both language and thought, this psalm finds it closest affinities in the prayer in Neh. 9 and, to a lesser extent, the prayer in Ezra 9. 14 The distinctive form and movement of this text (summons to listen in 77 7-8, questions and accusations in lines 9-13, historical section summarizing God's past action in 77 14 to 69 5) suggest that this may be another example of the modified covenant-lawsuit form (rib) which we find in other Second Temple texts, most notably Enoch 2-5.1' If, as Otto Steck has argued!6 a tradition of Deuteronomistic preaching continued throughout the post-exilic period, this psalm may best be understood as part of that trajectory. Before moving to more general questions about the collection as a whole, I would like to note one more individual psalm, the only one in this collection where the complete title is preserved, 4Q381 33 "Prayer of Manasseh when the king of Assyria took him prisoner." The psalm expresses rather conventional sentiments of trust (1'l'l/ 'll; 'l/1V' ::J"p[) and confession (il~1VN 'n'::J'il 'IN' •'1V~l ::J,,,::J ilN,n N;')}? This is obviously not a translation of 11

P. Auffret, "Structure Iitteraire et l'interpretation du Psaume 155 de la grotte XI de Qumran," RQ 9 (1978): 323-56, especially pp. 327 and 346. 12 It can be noted that in both categories three and four, the material reused is from a biblical psalm; the one exception is 4Q381 467-8 with its extensive reuse of an obscure verse from Mic. 4:13. 13 In Stegemann's proposed reconstruction, the psalm in column IV line 17 to column V line 10 or 19 would be much longer, but its reconstruction is more tentative, and so little material is left that we can say little about its form or content (see Non·Canonical Psalms, p. 273-74). 14 For a detailed comparison, see Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 208-210 and 224-226. 15 As described by L. Hartman, Asking for Meaning: A Study of Enoch 1-5, CBNTS 12 (1979): 51-64. 16 O. Steck, Israel und das gewiiltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Ober· lieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spiitjudentum und Urchristentum, WMANT 23 (1967). 17 According to Stegemann's reconstruction (see Non·Canonical Psalms, p. 271-72), this psalm is quite long, some 12 or 13 lines, and includes 4Q381 45 and 4Q381 79. Certainly some

NON·CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

95

the well·known Greek Prayer of Manasses, but is yet another attestation to the tradition that Manasseh repented after his sin. The psalm in this collection can be added to that trajectory which is represented by 2 Chronicles 33, perhaps also by Dtr 1,18 Josephus (Ant x 40-46) and many rabbinic texts. We can now turn to explore some questions about the nature of this collection and the pseudepigraphic attribution of these psalms to specific figures. In addition to the tefillah, attributed to Manasseh (4Q381 33 8), there is also a tehillah (psalm) of an unnamed "man of God" (4Q381 244); another text breaks off just where the name would come but we do know that it was" ... king of Judah" (4Q381 314); in 4Q380 1 ii 8 there is a tehillah of Obadiah, and in 4Q380 4 I, we can read tehi/lah lo[ and then the fragment breaks off. The question can be put in this way: were the works in 380 and 381 composed specifically as the utterances of certain figures (Manasseh, Obadiah, a king of Judah), or do we have here a collection of psalms in which the titles linking them to biblical characters were added secondarily?19 I suggest that the latter seems to be the case. These are not "autobiographical psalms," even though such a distinctive genre did develop in the Second Temple period;20 they are very different from Ps. 151A and PS, 151B (llQPsa XXVIII 3-14) where, even if there were no title, it would be clear at once that these psalms could only be talking of David. In our text, we often have six or seven almost complete lines of a psalm (for example, 4Q38124 and 31) and we are sti11left guessing as to who the speaker might be! Even with the psalm of Manasseh, the sentiments expressed are very general and would fit any lament or confession; there is no detail so specific that it could be talking only of events in the life of Manasseh. The specific links which we find to relate this psalm to Manasseh (certain vocabulary shared by 2 Chron. 33 or 2 Kings 21 or a possible pun on the popular etymology of his name21 ) are also the very types of verbal links which would have been recognized just as readily in days past, and may have led the editor of this collection to ascribe to Manasseh a psalm which, in its origin, was simply a general psalm of a repentant sinner. aspects of 4Q381 45 fit well with a Manasseh psalm (the general sentiments of trust and confession of sin, the use of the verb YlJ which appears in 2 Chron. 33), but other phrases in 4Q381 45 and 4Q381 79 are much more problematic; see the discussion in Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 175-76. 18 For this interpretation of the Dtr l version, see the discussion by S. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta, 1984), pp. 191-93. 19 This is the case with the biblical psalms, as evidenced by the midrashic nature of the attributions and the additional titles in the Septuagint and Talmud; see also B. Childs, "Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis," jjS 16 (1971): 137-50; E. Siomovic, "Towards an Understanding of the Formation of Historical Titles in the Book of Psalms," ZAW91 (1979): 350-80. 20 The term "autobiographical psalm" seems to have been coined by Sh. Talmon in his discussion "Non·Canonical Psalms in Hebrew from Qumran" (Hebrew), Tarbiz 35 (1965-66): 224-26. Recently, D. Flusser has also called attention to "a special autobiographical poetical genre," "Psalms, Hymns and Prayers," in jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, edited by M. Stone (philadelphia, 1984), p. 562. 21 For a full discussion of possible links to Manasseh, see Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 31-32.

96

EILEEN M. SCHULLER

What kind of pseudepigraphic collection, then, do we have in 4Q380 and 381? Clearly, in 4Q381, there are at least two royal psalms, one attributed to Ma,nasseh and one to an unnamed king of Judah;22 there may be reference to a king in 4Q381 15 7 (1"~1V~) but that it unlikely in the context. 23 It would be very helpful if we were more certain of the provenance of the expression "man of God" in 4Q381 244. If C~il?Nil 1V~N here is a title for David 24 (as attested in Neh. 12:24,36 and 2 Chron. 8:14), we could describe 4Q381 as a collection of psalms of various kings - David, Manasseh, and at least one other king of Judah (Hezekiah?). If 4Q381 was a royal collection, 4Q380 could have been a parallel but separate collection of psalms from various prophets; admittedly this interpretation of 4Q380 as a prophetic collection is based on the single ascription to Obadiah in 4 1. We do know that by the time of Josephus (Ant ix4 2), certain midrashic-type traditions were developing around the figure of Obadiah, the steward of the house of Ahab who had saved one hundred prophets in the days of Jezebel; perhaps he was popular enough to merit his own psalm. However, there is an alternative to the proposal that 4Q380 and 4Q381 are two separate psalmic collections, one royal and one prophetic. In the Hebrew Bible, C~il?Nil 1V~N more commonly refers to Moses 25 or to a prophetic figure (Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, or one of the unnamed heroes of the prophetic stories of the book of Kings). If that were the usage here, 4Q380 and 381 could be multiple (and nonoverlapping) copies of a single collection of psalms attributed to both kings and prophets. In what is preserved at least, it is an entirely non-Davidic collection, perhaps intended as a supplement to the biblical psalter which by this time was more and more considered as totally the work of David. 26 The time of composition of the psalms in 4Q380 and 381 can only be situated in a general way in the Persian/early Hellenistic period. This dating is established by the general similarity of these psalms to other post-exilic psalmody, most notably in

22

23 24 25 26

Professor Ben Zion Wacholder suggested orally to me in Haifa that the king of Judah in 14Q381 31 4-10 is surely Hezekiah. Such phrases as 'll~ IUllN and ',nDIJ( lC['I'n~ 'DOIJ llJn' are certainly suggestive of this identification. It can be noted that Ps. 154 in the Syriac is attributed to Hezekiah (the title is missing in l1QPsa). Oddly enough, the previous psalm in 4Q381 311-3 also could be read in light of Hezekiah's recovery; one can wonder if the unusual phrase mlJ "mNIJ 'l?lIm might be a reworking of Isa. 38: 12. See discussion of various alternatives in Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 101-102. Perhaps David's name is not specified, since he is the only king to be designated by the title "man of God." Deut. 33:1, Josh. 14:6, Ps. 90:1, Ezra 3:2; 1 Chron. 23:14, 2Chron. 30:16, 1 Esd. 5:49. The assumption that David was the author of the psalms of the canonical Psalter is reflected in a number of New Testament passages (e.g. Mark 12:35, Acts 2:25,34; 4:25). This same view of David as the author of the whole Psalter is probably behind a division such as "the book of Moses and the words of the prophets and David" (from an unpublished section of 4QMMT) and the introduction of Ps. 82, which in the MT is attributed to Asaph, with the phrase "'IU:J (llQMel. 1 10). The actual statement that David is the sole author of the Psalter is found frequently in the Talmud, see H.P. Preuss, "Die Psalmeniiberschriften in Targum und Midrasch," ZA W 71 (1959): 49-50.

"1'

NON·CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

97

terms of three factors: (1) specific linguistic features of vocabulary and syntax which can be shown to belong to Late Biblical Hebrew, and occasionally Qumran Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew;27 (2) the extensive use of biblical· type language and dependence upon earlier Scripture texts; (3) the frequent occurrence of the Tetragrammaton. There is nothing in these psalms (for example, no specific sectarian vocabulary or theology) which necessarily or convincingly points to the Qumran community as their place of composition. Emanuel Tov has recently noted that 4Q380 and 4Q381 lack what he calls the distinctive "Qumran" orthography and language. 28 In contrast to the avoidance of the divine name in sectarian compositions, the Tetragrammaton appears some six times in 4Q381 (in five psalms) and five times in 4Q380 (two psalms), in passages where a specific biblical text is quoted and in passages which are original composition. (The scribes of these manuscripts wrote the Tetragrammaton in ordinary script.) This free usage of the divine name is not atypical of PersianlHellenistic non·Essene psalmody. Use of the Tetragrammaton was much more common in post-exilic texts than is sometimes assumed; there are some 20 occurrences in the non-biblical psalms of llQPs', four uses in 4QPSf, seven in llQPsAp', and some 50 examples in unpublished biblical paraphrases, hymns, and sapiential materials from cave 4. How the readiness to use the divine name freely in this corpus of material relates to the avoidance of the Tetragrammaton by the Essenes, and to the complex question of exactly when and under what conditions the divine name passed from general usage is a much broader question than can be treated here. 29 In addition to the Tetragrammaton, C'iI?z.til appears in traditional phrases and quotations from the biblical text. But, in these psalms, clearly the most frequent address to God is 'iI?z.t.30 The psalm in 4Q381 15 is distinctive in its consistent use of 'iI?N even when the biblical text quoted has the Tetragrammaton in the massoretic text and standard versions. This might suggest that the psalm in 4Q381 15 (and possibly 4Q381 17) had a different origin or author from the other psalms which are now part of this collection; whether this had any relationship to the Elohistic Psalter of the biblical book of Psalms is very uncertain. While the biblical psalter uses a wide variety of often-incomprehensible terms in the psalm titles to describe the type of psalm, only two designations appear in this text, tefillah (4Q381 33 8) and tehillah (4Q381 244, 4Q380 1 ii 8, 4 1). The designation of the words of Manasseh as tefillah is not surprising, given its nature 27 28

For a list of such features, see Non-Canonical Psalms, pp. 46-52. E. Tov, "The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls found at Qumran and the Origin of These Scrolls," Tutus 13 (1986): 31-57, specifically page 56. 29 The most complete study of the use of the divine name, although not taking into account the unpublished Qumran material, is the unpublished Habilitationschrift of H. Stegemann; see his article, "Religiongeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten," in M. Delcor (ed.), Qumran: sa pie/e, sa theologie et son milieu (Leuven, 1978), pp. 195-217. 30 For a complete list of occurrences, see Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 41-43. In a number of cases, the reading is uncertain.

98

EILEEN M. SCHULLER

as a confession; there may also be an influence from 2 ehron. 33 where Manasseh's supplication is always referred to in terms of this root (m'nm, ''!In',). The triple occurrence of tehillah is more surprising. Tehillah appears only once in the MT in the heading of a biblical psalm (ps. 145:1 "" il'iln) but in the sole copy of this psalm at Qumran (llQPs~ XVI 7), we find "", il'!ln. In the two tehillah psalms in 4Q380, only a few words of the psalm remain so it is impossible to get a sense of what type of composition is so designated; in the third instance, 4Q381 24, most of the psalm is a quotation of Ps. 18/2 Sam. 22. There is some evidence that tehillah was becoming a more common designation for psalmody in the post-exilic period: the attribution of 3600 tehillim to David in the prose section of llQPs' XXVIII 4-5; the N'!l "iln of the angels in 4QSirSab (4Q400 2 4, 4Q403 1 ii 1, 3 2, 4Q405 18 5); the :mUCil n'iln in 1 QM XIV 2; and the earliest reference to the biblical Psalter as c"ilnil '!l0 in 4Q491 17 4. Given that the description C"iln '!l0 was felt to include all the diverse types of material in the psalter, and that telilwt served the same function in the summary statement at the end of the second book of the Psalter (ps. 72:20 'It" p ", m'!ln ,,:l), perhaps the use of one or another term in the title of a psalm in 4Q380 and 381 is not meant to tell us much at this stage about the specific genre or nature of the psalm. The term selah occurs twice in 4Q381 (4Q381 24 3, 336), always as the last word of a psalm, and can be reconstructed with a high degree of probability at the end of five others. 31 There are, however, at least two clear instances where a psalm does not end in this way (4Q381 766, 4Q380 1 ii 6). In other psalmic-type compositions of the Second Temple period selah is virtually unknown: it is not found in the Hodayot, nor in the non-canonical psalms of llQPs' and 4QPSf, but does appear once at the end of a non-canonical psalm in llQPsAp· V3;32 in the Psalms of Solomon 17:31 and 18:10 it is usually considered secondary. Whatever its meaning or intent, the term probably belonged to pre-exilic psalmody; it is found only five times in books IV and V of the biblical psalter. Given the virtual disappearance of this term in post-exilic psalmody, the frequency of selah in 4Q381 is worthy of note, as is its invariable position at the end of a psalm.33 Although the text of 4Q380 and 381 is frustratingly brief and fragmentary, these dozen new psalms are a welcome addition to our corpus of post-exilic psalmody. Their pseudepigraphic character, the question of what type of collection this might be, the psalm titles and the significance of the selah terminology, the various ways 31 32

33

Selah is probably the correct reading in the small isolated fragment 4Q381 21 2; it is reconstructed in 4Q381 31 3 and 381 31 9, and restored by Stegemann on the basis of a lamed at the end of a psalm in 4Q38115 11 and 4Q381 69 10. Although in most Qumran psalm manuscripts, selah occurs as in the MT, 11QPsAp· has an addition selah in Ps. 9:4; the selah in line 14 could have a number of different origins (d. Non-Canonical Psalms, p. 58, note 46). In the Septuagint, selah never comes as the final word, in distinct contrast to the massoretic usage at the end of Pss. 3, 9, 24 and 46. As to which position is original, see the discussion in Non·Canonical Psalms, pp. 45-46.

NON-CANONICAL PSALMS FROM QUMRAN

99

in which earlier biblical materials are used, and the frequent occurrence of the Tetragrammaton are an features worthy of note and further study_

The History of the Qumran Community

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN A RECONSIDERATION

Magen Broshi PUBLICATIONS OF THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN Over thirty years have passed since the excavations of Qumran ended. Unfortunately, the director of the expedition, R. de Vaux, died in 1973 before he was able to write his final report for the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. However, in addition to the preliminary reports published in Revue Biblique, he wrote an excellent book summarizing his work. Two versions of this have appeared: in French (1961), and an updated and expanded (by about one third) English edition, published two years after the author's death.l E.M. Laperrousaz has also devoted a work to the excavations of Qumran, a work which has no parallel in Palestinian archeologicalliterature. 2 This is a very detailed, often too detailed account of de Vaux' reports as well as those of others. Shorter accounts by de Vaux and Laperrousaz have also been published. 3 This paper is concerned with the principal aspects of the archeology of Qumran: the caves; the "Community Center"; the stratigraphy and chronology; the cemeteries; the number of inhabitants; "Ein Ghuweir - a site with features similar to Qumran. 1

R. de Vaux, L'archeoicgie et les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte (London, 1961); idem, Archaeoicgy and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1973). (Henceforth: de Vaux, Archaeoicgy.) The preliminary reports published in RB are: Vol. 56 (1949): 234-237, 586-609; 60 (1953): 540-561; 61 (1954): 206-236; 63 (1956): 533-577; 66 (1959): 225-255 E .M. Laperrousaz, Qoumran, l'etablissement essenien des bords de la Mer Morte, hisicire et archeoicgie du site (Paris, 1976). (Henceforth: Laperrousaz, Qoumran); idem, "Problemes d'histoire et d'archeoiogie Qoumniniennes: a propos d'un souhait de precisions," RQ 10 (1980): 269-291; idem, "Breves remarques archeologiques concernant la chronologie des occupations esseniennes de Qoumran," RQ 12 (1966): 199-212. Review of Laperrousaz' book: J. Carmignac, RQ 9 (1986): 603-605; J.E. Sanders, "History and Archaeology of the Qumran Community," BASOR 231 (1978): 79-80. R .de Vaux, in M. Avi·Yonah -E. Stern (eds.), Encycicpedia of Archaeoicgical Excavations in the Holy Land IV Gerusalem, 1978), 4, pp. 978-986; E.M. Laperrousaz, Supplement au Dictionnair, de la Bibk, 9 (1979), col. 737-789. (Henceforth: Supplement.) A useful introduction is: P.R. Davies, Qumran (Guilford, 1982). 83~106,

2

3

104

MAGEN BROSH!

THE CAVES The Bedouin of the Taamirah tribe who discovered the first Scrolls refused, for obvious reasons, to disclose the location of the cave. However, about a year after the Scrolls came to the notice of scholars, this cave (designated Cave lQ) was discovered by an officer of the Arab Legion. In winter 1949 the cave was excavated by an expedition sponsored by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, the Palestine Archeological Museum (Rockefeller) and the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise de Jerusalem. 4 During the next three years the archeologists worked under the erroneous belief that this was the only cave containing scrolls. The discovery of another cave in February 1952 alerted them to the possibility of the existence of further caves housing scrolls. A systematic survey of the cliffs to the north and south of Qumran was carried out. In an 8 kilometer·long section, 230 sites (caves, cavities, crevices, etc.) were explored, but only 40 showed signs of habitation and 26 contained pottery similar to that found in Cave lQ and in the Community Center.' De Vaux admits that the archeologists erred in presuming that caves would be found only in the rocky cliffs. The Bedouin, however, searched everywhere and stumbled across Cave 4 in the marl terrace. This cave gave the richest yield of fragments, some 15,000 which constituted over 500 scrolls. 6 Of the eleven Qumran caves, five were discovered by Bedouin and six by archeologists (Cave 3 in the cliffs-where the Copper Scroll was found-and five artificial caves in the marl terrace - Caves 5, 7-10). All the caves found by the Bedouin were thoroughly excavated by the archeologists, who unearthed many very important finds. 7 In spite of intense searches carried out by archeologists (especially the late P. Bar·Adon) as well as by Bedouin, from Wadi Daliyeh in the north to Nal).all:lever in the south, no new caves containing scrolls have been found since 1955.

THE "COMMUNITY CENTER" A complex covering an area approximately 100 X 80m. served the residents of Qumran for their communal activities. Like so many other ancient ruins in Israel's arid areas, this complex was well preserved, rising to a height of several meters at some points. It was also possible to identify the function of many of the facilities, such as the assembly room (the dining hall), the adjacent pantry, the scriptorium, kitchen, potter's workshop, the kilns, and others. The most salient features were the cisterns - some designed for water storage and others, those with stairs, were De Vaux, Archaeology, p. 49. 5 Ibid., pp. 50-52. 6 Ibid., pp. 52-53; see also R. de Vaux etalii, DID 6 (1977): 9-22. 7 Ibid., p. 81. On the archeology of the caves see also G.L. Harding, in D. BarthelemyJ.T. Milik, DID, 1 (1955): 3-7; R. de Vaux, ibid., pp. 8-17; idem, in M. Baillet etalii, DID, 3 (1962): 3-36; idem, in R. de Vaux et alii, DID, 6 (1977): 9-22. 4

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

105

used as ritual baths. These cisterns were filled by the waters of the winter flash floods brought in through an aqueduct. It is estimated that their capacity was 1127 cu. m., and there is no doubt that this supply of water was ample for the subsistence and ritual needs of the residents. 8 The "Community Center" provided all the needs of the inhabitants of Qumran, except housing. They lived in caves, which afforded an excellent solution for the harsh climate conditions of the desert. The caves maintain a constant temperature, making them warm in winter and cool in summer. Although evidence of habitations was found in about 40 caves it is quite possible that some of the members of the community lived in temporary structures such as tents and huts, traces of which are rarely found. De Vaux' description of the complex and his identification of its various components have been accepted by most scholars.

STRATIGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY Dates have been ascribed to each of the various strata - the beginning and end of strata la and Ib, the gap between stratum Ib and II, the beginning and end of stratum II (three of these eight dates coincide and thus there are in reality only five). However, only one date can be established with certainty - that assigned to the end of stratum II, viz. summer 68 C.E., the date the Qumran community ceased to exist. Even this date is based mainly on historical-literary sources. On June 21, 68 C.E. Vespasian's legionaries entered Jericho and it is highly probable that Qumran was conquered soon after. All other dates can be validated only approximately. Naturally, one must first examine the date the community was founded at Qumran. De Vaux was of the opinion that this was no later than during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.E.), but thought it could possibly have been earlier - during the reign of his father Simeon (143-134 B.C.E.), or even of his uncle Jonathan (160-143 B.C.E.).9 In actual fact, this contention is not confirmed by the archeological findings. The numismatic evidence on which de Vaux relied is not valid. At first he believed that he had found 14-15 coins from the John Hyrcanus' period, but it was later established that in fact only one coin dated to this period. lo Even if the numismatic discoveries had been greater their use would have been of limited value. II B.G. Wood, "To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective," BASOR 256 (1984): 45-00. 9 DeVaux, Archaeology, pp. 5, 115-117. 10 Ibid., p. 19. 11 Coins, both bronze and silver, remain in circulation for a long time. For example, the coins of Alexander Jannaeus which were still used on Masada 150 years after their minting. In the Migdal Hoard, coins were found which had been issued between 74 and 222 C.E., i.e. over a period of 148 years. See Y. Meshorer, "A Hoard of Coins from Migdal," "Atiqot 11 (1976): 54-71. Coins can be used only as a terminus aqUQ and not as terminus ad quem. I am grateful to Prof. Meshorer for discussing this problem with me. 8

106

MAGENBROSm

In short, the archeological findings do not provide evidence as to whether the site was settled in the middle or at the end of the second century B.C.E. The same applies to the end of stratum la. It is obvious that this stratum extended over a short period only, but evidence to the exact date it ended is lacking. There is no intermission period between strata la and Ib, and thus we are unable to date the beginning of the second phase. Its end is also a matter of controversy. Most scholars believe that the complex was damaged considerably by an earthquake, most probably that described in detail by Josephus as having occurred in 31 B.C.E. The eastern section of the complex sank about 0.5 m.; one of the cisterns (loc. 48,49) was split in half. Yet there are scholars who believe that the date of the end of stratum Ib and the time of the earthquake did not coincide, and that there is no causal relationship between the two. Laperrousaz is of the opinion that the earthquake struck a deserted settlement which had been destroyed by fire earlier. He considers that the site had been laid waste by one of' the Hasmonean sons of Jannaeus-Aristobulus II or HyrcanusII-during the years 67-63 B.C.E.1l This is a significant point in Laperrousaz' historical reconstruction which follows Dupont-Sommer's hypothesis that the "Wicked Priest" who persecuted the "Teacher of Righteousness" was Hyrcanus nY It seems that Laperrousaz' contention is incorrect. His reconstruction can be refuted by the archeological evidence - four coins dating to the period of Mattathias Antigonus (40-37 B.C.E.) found at Qumran cast grave doubts upon it. 14 Historical considerations also make it highly improbable. Josephus mentions Judah, an Essene sage, who prophesied in the year 103 B.C.E. (War 1, 78; Antiquities 13,311-313). It is difficult to imagine that Judah, already an old man at the end of the second century B.C.E., lived some two generations before the Teacher of Righteousness. Even if he was not the founder of the sect (as many scholars believe), Judah must have been one of the main organizers and a pioneering ideologist. Laperrousaz ignores the entire issue of Judah in his work.15 Milik, too, is of the opinion that the destruction by fire and the devastation by earthquake were not simultaneous, and he dates the end of stratum Ib to the years 40-37 B.C.E. These were years in which Mattathias Antigonus reigned, a period marked by widespread destruction following the invasion by Antigonus' allies, the Parthians. 16 During this invasion the city of Maresha (Marissa) was razed to the

12 13

14 15 16

Laperrousaz, Supplement, pp. 38-45 et passim. See also his paper in RQ 10, quoted above in note 2. A. Dupont-Sommer, "Lumieres nouvelles sur l'arriere-plan historique des ecrits de Qoumran," El8 (1967): 25*-36*; idem, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland & New York, 1961), pp. 351-357. For references. see Laperrousaz. Supplement, p. 151 and n.5. See also Carmignac's comment (end of note 2, above)_ J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness ofJudaea (London, 1959), p. 94 (French edition p. 109, n. 1).

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

107

ground. Milik is followed by Mazar l7 and Davies}8 De Vaux' hypothesis (and it is the most parsimonious), considers that the conflagration and earthquake took place simultaneously in 31 B.C.E. This would seem to be the most plausible postulation of the three: 9 A certain "gap"-i.e. a period of abandonment-must have occurred between stratum Ib and II. This can be inferred by the fact that certain sections of the complex were deserted, and that the decantation basin had been filled and sediment deposits reached a depth of 0.75m., probably a result of the ruination of the water system. 20 De Vaux was of the opinion that the "gap" lasted 25-30 years after the earthquake, up to about 4-1 B.C.E., i.e. after the death of Herod the Great and the accession of his son Archelaus. This hypothesis is based on numismatic evidence, especially on the scarcity of the Herod period coins. In our opinion there is no need to presume such a long gap, nor is this borne out by the numismatic evidence. It must be remembered that ten coins of the time of Herod the Great were found here, and they certainly do not indicate a gap.21 In this regard we wish to posit two premises - one methodological and the other specific. The methodological premise: the small number of coins found at this site cannot be expected to provide a fair statistical representation of the period. Coins found in excavations are those which have been lost by their owners, and this does not occur in precise proportions. The specific premise: Herod minted relatively few coins, a fact that can be deduced from a study carried out by Donald Ariel on numismatic finds in Jerusalem. This study examines 13,629 coins, an impressive figure that gives his conclusions a high statistical credence. From the coins found in Jerusalem, it can be learned that in comparison with the intensive Hasmonean minting (an average of 49 coins for every regnal year) Herod's production was quite poor (13.5 coins per year). In Jerusalem 462 coins were found dating to Herod's reign, while 463 were from the time of Agrippal. However, it must be remembered that Herod reigned for 34 years and Agrippa for less than 7p2 Furthermore, the accumulation of eroded materials does not necessarily indicate a long gap. It is a well·known fact that desert floods are capable of moving colossal amounts of soil and rocks in only a few hours. For example, in winter 1987 the 17 18 19 20

21 22

B. Mazar et alii, ""En Gedi," 'Atiqot 5 (1966): 5, n. 14. Davies, Qumran, pp. 54-56. De Vaux, Archarology, pp. 20-24. On the earthquake, see de Vaux, Archarology, pp. 20-21. On this problem Steckol quotes the opinion of the British architect T . Zavislock who was in charge of the reconstruction of Khirbet Qumran. Zavislock, who had firsthand experience of buildings stricken by earthquakes, was of the opinion that Khirbet Qumran was not devastated by an earthquake. Unfortunately, he himself never published his observations and conclusions. See S. Steckol, "Marginal Notes on the Qumran Excavations," RQ 7 (1969-1971): 33-34. Laperrousaz, Supplement, p. 151 and n. 7. D.T . Ariel, "A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem," LA 32 (1982): 273-326, and especially 287,322.

~

~

~

~ ......

" r

y

,r

of - Cave 4, the richest of all.

;:/;

. ~~- :~

1. The marl terrace. The men are standing - one above, the other in front

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

2. Plan of the settlement in phase 1b. 1. Entrance of the aqueduct. 2-3. Reservoires. 4. Tower. 5. Room with benches along the walls. 6. Scriptorium. 7. Kitchen. 8 Assembly hall and refectory. 9. Pantry. 10. Potter's workshop. 11. Kilns. 12. Cattle pen.

109

110

MAGENBROSm

3. Kh. Qumran from the air.

4. View of the excavation. Note the steps of cistern, probably cracked by earthquake of 31 B.C.E.

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

111

road running along the western shore of the Dead Sea was blocked up completely with mounds of eroded materials brought down the hiIIs by flash floods. On this basis such an accumulation of erosion as ascribed to the Qumran period could have accrued during the course of one or two winters, and therefore one does not have to assume on this evidence that the gap lasted for three decades. The historical data at our disposal also makes the abandonment of Qumran during most of Herod's reign very unlikely - Josephus states that Herod was excessively favorable towards the Essenes (Ant. 15, 372-379). Several scholars have suggested that the Herodians in Mark 8:15 refers to the Essenes, and Yadin has added further arguments in support. 23 Flusser has recently published a paper in which he suggests that four fragments in the Pesharim (three of the Psalms Commentary and one of the Hosea Commentary) relate to the great famine that occurred during Herod's reign in the year 25-24 B.C.E.24 Josephus has given a detailed account of this famine (Ant. 15, 300-301). The authors of the Commentaries claim that while the entire country suffered terribly from the drought, the members of the Dead Sea Sect did not undergo deprivation. According to Flusser-and it would appear that his premise is correct-there is no point to identifying this famine as that which occurred during Herod's reign, unless the community was actually living at Qumran at the time. If this community has dispersed throughout the country (and all the more so if its members had emigrated to Damascus, as has been assumed by some scholars), there would have been no point in comparing them to the rest of the inhabitants of the country who were dying from hunger and plagues. 2s In short, even if there had been a gap between strata Ib and II, it would seem that it could not have lasted for more than a few years, and by 26 B.C.E. the site was most probably settled and the land cultivated. Thus, stratum II lasted for a period longer than assumed by de Vaux, and at least 94 years (26 B.C.E.-68 C.E.) should be ascribed to it.

THE CEMETERIES Close to the Community Center are the cemeteries - one large one with about 1100 graves and two smaller ones, consisting of about 100 graves together. One of Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1 Gerusalem, 1983), pp. 138-139 and notes 67-70, for literature on the subject. See also C.T. Fritsch, "Herod the Great and the Qumran Community," JBL 74 (1955): 173-181. Fritsch attempts to explain the source of Herod's hostility towards the Essenes. Needless to say, Fritsch's arguments are contrary to the evidence of Josephus. 24 D. Flusser, "Qumran and the Famine during the Reign of Herod," 1M] 6 (1987): 7-16. 25 Flusser quotes Yadin (oral communication) and Vermes (see below). Both of them did not believe that there was any significant gap between strata Ib and II. Unfortunately, neither of them have specified their arguments. See also E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2 (Edinburgh, 1979), p. 587. Revised and edited by G. Vermes & F. Millar. 23

112

MAGEN BROSHI

the smaller ones lies north of the main cemetery and the other to the south. Thus the total number of graves at Qumran is approximately 1200.16 These cemeteries were investigated already in 1873 by Ch. Clermont-Ganneau who correctly observed that the graves were not Moslem. De Vaux excavated 43 graves and ten years later S. Steckol examined a further nine.17 The regular posture of the skeletons was lying supine with the head to the south. Of all the skeletons found, only one was studied in detaip8 and reports of all the others have been published only in cursory form. De Vaux excavated 26 graves in the large cemetery, all of which were of adult males. Graves of women and children were found in the small cemeteries. The existence of these latter graves in a site presumed to be occupied by a monastic community has naturally raised queries. In our opinion, the presence of women and children can be explained by the supposition that these were people close to the residents of Qumran, closeness of kinship or ideological beliefs. Remnants of wooden coffins were found in three of the graves excavated in 1953 (two males and an unidentified skeleton, nos. 17-19), and in two graves excavated in 1956 (women, nos. 32-33). These coffins most probably attest to the fact that the bodies were brought from afar. In three graves the skeletons were found disjointed, with some parts missing. This might indicate that these were secondary burials of persons who had died elsewhere and were first buried in a different place before being moved to Qumran. This might also be used as an argument in favor of the theory that the cemeteries included non·members.19 As we shall posit later (the following section), some of the computations of the number of members of the community are deficient because of the fact that they have not taken into consideration that some of the burials (and what part we do not know) are of people brought from outside. Bar·Adon was of the opinion that these cemeteries served as the central burial ground for the personnel occupying the two Hasmonean citadels-Khirbet el·Yahud (Qa~r el·Yahud, Khirbet Mazin) and Rujm el·Bal)r-the former, south of Qumran and the latter to the north. Bar·Adon found several features in common with the con· struction details of these citadels and in those at Qumran and Feshkha. 30 He was of the opinion that all these structures were built by John Hyrcanus who settled the members of the community there, some of whom served as soldiers guarding 26

27

De Vaux, Archaeology, pp. 45-48, 57-58; Laperrousaz, Suppliment, pp. 19-25. It is customary to refer to two secondary cemeteries, but the eastern extension of the main cemetery might be regarded as a third secondary cemetery. As in the other two cemeteries, the alignment of the graves is less orderly and the orientation of the burials is less consistent. S.H. Steckol, "Preliminary Excavation Report in the Qumran Cemetery," RQ 6

(1968): 323-336. N. Haas and H. Nathan, "Anthropological Survey on the Human Skeletal Remains from Qumran," RQ 6 (1968): 345-351; R. de Vaux, RB 63 (1956): 569-570. 29 R. de Vaux, Supplement, p. 572. 30 P. Bar-Adon, "The Hasmonean Fortresses and the Status of Khirbet Qumran," EI15 (1981): 349-352 (Hebrew). 28

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

113

the citadels. This suggestion seems untenable for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it is inconceivable that the Qumranites-and we concur with the consensus that identifies the Dead Sea Sect with the Essenes-would cooperate with the Hasmonean Kings. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain expressions of unequivocal animosity to the Hasmonean Kings. There is no doubt that the feeling was mutual. The "Wicked Priest" was undoubtedly a Hasmonean king "who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile in order to destroy him in his venomous fury" (Commentary on Habakkuk XI 4-5). Moreover, it is quite probable that serving as mercenaries was contrary to the beliefs of the sectarians. It may well be that this prohibition is referred to in the DC (X116-7): "No one is to put forth his hand to shed the blood of a heathen for the sake of wealth and gain" (T.H. Gaster's translation)Y Thus, it would seem hardly feasible that residents of Qumran would have served as military forces guarding the two fortresses.

THE NUMBER OF INHABITANTS AT QUMRAN De Vaux estimated that the number of residents at Qumran amounted to a few hundred; this is also the opinion held by Farmer.31 Milik considered the size of the community to be 150-200 members. 33 His appraisal is based on the following calculation: the 1200 graves of men aged 30-50 and a settlement span of 190 years (150 B.C.E. to 68 C.E., with a gap of 30 years) constitutes six to eight generations. Milik arrived at the above-mentioned figure by dividing the number of graves by the number of generations. Laperrousaz also endeavored to compute the number of inhabitants at Qumran through the use of the same figures: the number of graves (1200) and the duration of settlement (in his opinion 121 to 125 years).34 He believes that there was an average of 10 burials each year and if the proportion of deaths was similar to that in Israel in 1970 (7%0, for males), the community must have numbered 1428 members. Laperrousaz was aware of the complications arising from such a reckoning and tried to reduce the figure to a certain extent. 35 In our opinion, Laperrousaz' method of calculation is baseless. There are so many variables about which we have no information, such as, for example, the ratio of outsiders to members of the local community buried in the cemetery (section 5 above), or the death rate (the 31

32 33 34 35

This is my interpretation. On other views see also L.H. Schiffman, "Legislation Concerning Relations with Non·Jews in the Zadokite Fragments and the Tanaitic Literature," RQ 11 (1983): 379-385. See also references quoted in Laperrousaz, Supplement, p. 99. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, p. 97. Laperrousaz, Supplement, pp. 99-107. Ibid., p. 106. The absurdity is evident when the number of graves (1200)-accumulated over several generations-is compared with the number of members of the community as suggested by Laperrousaz (1428).

114

MAGEN BROSH!

analogy to 1970 Israel is absurd for several reasons: the different life expectancy, the abnormal population pyramid of the Qumran community which was divergent from ancient societies as well as from modern ones). According to Wood, the number of residents of Qumran Ib was 228 and of stratum II 312.36 Wood arrived at these amazingly precise figures by calculating the capacity of the cisterns divided by what he considered to be an average per capita annual water consumption. The truth is that the average per capita consumption of water is unknown, nor the capacity of the cisterns (the rate of evaporation is not known). It should be remembered that the Qumran community could have augmented its water supply from the nearby springs of 'Ein Feshkha. In our opinion, an approximate number of the inhabitants of Qumran can be reached by establishing the seating capacity of the assembly hall (locus 77).37 The dimensions of this hall were 22X4.5m., viz covering an area of 99 sq.m. The members of the community dined here while sitting on the ground (most probably in rows parallel to the longitudinal walls). It can be estimated that four to five rows (each 0.7m. deep) could be placed in such a hall and each row could seat 30 men (each place 0.7m. wide). Thus the hall could accomodate 120 to 150 men. 38 We believe this to have been the maximum number of members of this community. To this number should be added a further three age groups constituting about 10% to 15% of the community, i.e. 12 to 20 men. 39 In all, the community could not have been bigger than 150 to 200 members.

"EIN EL-GHUWEIR - A QUMRANITE SETTLEMENT? 'Ein el-Ghuweir ('Enot Qaneh), some 15 km. south of Qumran, is an oasis stretching some 2km. along the western shore of the Dead Sea. It was at this site that P. BarAdon excavated a building that resembles the one at Khirbet Qumran. 40 The size of the structure was 43 X 19.5m. It also contained a kitchen next to a hall (a refectory?) and the pottery at both sites is similar. North of this structure is a cemetery and the alignment of the graves and the burial style resemble those of Qumran. 36 37 38

Wood, (above, note 8). DeVaux, Archaeology, p. II. On the common meals of the Essenes and similar sects, see also M. De\cor, "Repas cultuels esseniens et therapeutes, Thiases et Haburoth," RQ 6 (1968): 401-425. I wish to thank the architects I. Levitt and M. Amisar with whom I consulted about the capacity of the assembly hall (refectory). 39 Josephus states that the probationary period for new members lasted three years (War 2, 137-139), but according to the Scrolls it would seem that the probation took only two years (Manual of Discipline VI 16-23). This inconsistency can be explained by assuming that the probationary period was preceded by a year's study. On this matter see]. Licht, Megillat Ha·Serakhim (in Hebrew), Oerusalem, 1965), pp. 145-148. On the probationary period, see SchUrer (above, note 25), pp. 564-565, n.ll. 40 P. Bar·Adon, "Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at 'En el·Ghuweir on the Shores of the Dead Sea," BASOR 227 (1977): 1-25.

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF QUMRAN

115

The question has arisen as to whether there was any relationship between these two settlements. Bar-Adon was convinced beyond doubt of their kinship. De Vaux expressed his reservations about the similarity,41 and Davies claims that no "Qumranic" settlement was found outside of Qumran, even though he was familiar with the site at 'Ein el-Ghuweir"2 Prof. J. Yellin and the author of this paper tested pottery samples from both sites by neutron activation in an effort to discover whether they were produced at the same location. The preliminary results are negative, i.e. it seems that there is no common source of the pottery found on these sites. This does not preclude the possibility that there was a religious or organizational affinity between the two communities, but if this were so it will have to be proved by other methods.

41 42

DeVaux, Archaeology. Pp. 88-89. See also Laperrousaz, Supplement, pp. 111-114. Davies, Qumran, p. 58. The fact that he is acquainted with the site is apparent from pp. 39, 69.

THE PREHISTORY OF THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY

Philip R. Davies REVIEW Research into the prehistory of the Qumran community is a drama which has, so far, three scenes. The first scene which lasted for 20 years sawall manner of speculations about the scrolls. There was little scientific about most of this speculation. There emerged, however, a consensus which quite rapidly established itself, sufficiently enough for non-specialists (including most biblical scholars) to take it as if proven. This consensus, as it seems to me on reflection, was based on two principles. First, the texts were all to be tak!!n quite literally, at face value. Second, their historical origin was to be decided by the external data of archeology and other literary sources. (This awful mixture can be conveniently labelled "Albrightianism.") These principles meant that all the documents, such as the Damascus Document (CD), the Community Rule (lQS), the Hodayoth (lQH), the Melchizedek Fragments and the War Scroll (lQM) could be harmonized to render the sectarian doctrine-or perhaps trace an evolution of sectarian doctrine. The midrashim, especially on Habakkuk, the Psalms and Nahum were taken to be wonderfully accurate accounts of history in which all the protagonists had their own invariable sobriquet, while every allusion described a real historical event. As far as archeology went, the results of the excavations at Qumran were held to provide quite accurate dates and stages of occupation of the site by the Qumran sect. I shall not refer to the excesses of palaeography, its overconfidence in typology and its confusion of typology with chronology . The product of these principles and practices was a neat theory which-if I may simplify its variations into a single version-saw the origins of the Qumran sect in the assumption of the high priesthood by a Hasmonean, provoking the opposition of pro-Zadokites, and in particular a group called 1:Iasidim who had opposed the measures of Antiochus IV. A leader of these 1:Iasidim, called the "Teacher of Righteousness," quarrelled with this "wicked" Hasmonean high priest, fled to Qumran and formed his sect. These events happened in the middle of the second century B.C.E., and the sect was called the Essenes. Those 1:Iasidim who did not become Essenes

THE PREillSTORY OF QUMRAN

117

became Pharisees. The Essenes spread over the country, and Qumran was their headquarters.' The Habakkuk commentary was the literary linchpin of this theory, in the conviction that a midrashic manuscript dated by the proponents to the Herodian period preserved faithful accounts of events, again on their hypothesis, at least a century earlier. Where the theory used other sources, the hermeneutics were hardly better: the figure of 390 years after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar given in Damascus Document 1,5-1> was quite obviously useless, since everyone knew that there was no way the period could have been accurately computed. But since 390 years almost fitted the chronology of the theory exactly, it was used as evidence, and the fact that the Damascus Document made no mention anywhere of any Wicked Priest was not remarked upon. The results of the Qumran excavations were interpreted so that occupation could be allowed to begin earlier. Period lA, representing the earliest stage of the community's settlement, is somewhat hypothetical. A date of initial occupation (leaving aside the earlier Israelite settlement) around 100 B.C.E. actually fits best, but it became necessary to stretch this backwards. The Wicked Priest had to have been to Qumran for the theory, and archeology had to be made to fit. I do not say this was deliberate, only that it happened. 2 This first scene is now over. Hindsight confers a privilege which can too easily be abused, and too vigorous criticism is uncalled for. We need, however, to be frank about earlier mistakes and to learn not to repeat them. The arguments and conclusions of the late 1980s may likewise expect to be criticised in the future. Rebuke need be reserved only for those who still cling to these earlier arguments and conclusions. In this connection, we must especially beware of designating any document as a "letter from the Teacher of Righteousness to the Wicked Priest," insofar as that implies elements of an earlier historical hypothesis to which the document itself does not actually point.3 In the first scene of research into Qumran prehistory, then, prehistory figured little if at all. Only the shadowy l:Iasidim were needed to provide whatever antecedents were required. The second scene is marked by a greater attention to prehistory, but also by a change of method: literary-criticism, long familiar to biblical scholars-source-criticism, form-criticism, redaction-criticism. I refer to the 1

2

3

See, for example, F.M. Cross, jr, The Ancient Library 0/ Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, New York, 1959); J.T. Milik, Ten Years 0/ Discovery in the ]udaean Wilderness (London, 1959). The view is perpetuated in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3 (Harmondsworth, 1987). For a fuller critique of this theory, see P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes (Atlanta, 1987), pp. 15-31. " ... the buildings of Period Ib were certainly occupied under Alexander Jannaeus, 103-76 B.C., and ... they may have been constructed under John Hyrcanus, 135-104 B.C." (R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls [Oxford, 1972, p.5]). The proposed period IA "was of short duration" (ibid.). For details of the text in question, see E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, "An unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran," 1M] 4 (1985): 9-12.

118

PIDLIP R. DAVIES

work of Jeremias, Stegemann and Murphy-Q'Connor in the area of history} All of these adhere to the same identification of the Wicked Priest, and exhibit the same touching faith in the historical precision of the Qumran midrash; for them all, the Wicked Priest remains at the center of the stage. But they effected a gradual shift from dependence on the pesharim (still evident in Jeremias) towards greater interest in the Damascus Document (Murphy-Q'Connor)-a movement which I myself took to its methodological C9nclusion by deciding to treat the pesharim as midrash rath~r than historiography. The greater attention given to the Damascus Document gave rise to important and very problematic issues: the Damascus Document mentioned no Wicked Priest, described a non-Qumranic form of organization with different laws and ideology from the Community Rule, spoke of an exile in Damascus, and gave an account of the formation of a community which was different from that reconstructed from the pesharim. Some, not all, of these differences had previously been acknowledged, though always harmonized without any further investigation: thus Damascus was Qumran, the camps were for those who followed a married lifestyle, the "Interpreter of the Law" (who founded the "Damascus" community) was the same as the "Teacher of Righteousness" (who was then obliged to return in the future) and so on. But Stegemann and Murphy-Q'Connor attempted to explain, rather than explain away, these difficulties, and some real progress was made which began to tear holes in the prevailing theory, though the holes were not immediately apparent. Stegemann offered the brilliant suggestion that since everyone agreed there had ~n a community before the "Teacher of Righteousness" arrived, the Damascus Document might contain descriptions of that community. With this Murphy-Q'Connor agreed, but the two scholars differed in identifying that community. For Stegemann they were l;Iasidim, as maintained by the earlier consensus, for Murphy-Q'Connor they were Essenes. The l;Iasidim theory is, in fact, yet another product of non-critical reading of texts, since the data we have about them are either uninformative or contradictory.' Their existence as an organized group must in fact be deemed improbable. Murphy-Q'Connor's designation "Essenes" at least corresponds to a real movement attested and described in several ancient sources. The methods and conclusions of this second scene can also be criticized, as indeed they have been. The usual charge is of excessive dependence upon literary criticism, producing hypothetical conclusions. The weaknesses must be acknowledged. In particular, the Damascus Document is a mediaeval text, represented in two manuscripts from Cairo. Others are awaited from somewhere in Paris, some day. Reliance on literary criticism is hazardous, and the conclusions are indeed provisional. But in full recognition of these shortcomings, one has to assert that a

4

G. Jeremias, [Jer Lehrerder Gerechtigkeit, (GOttingen,1963); H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemnnde (Bonn: privately published, 1971); J. Murphy-O'Connor, in a series of, articles in RB 77-79 (1970-1972).

5

See P.R. Davies, "Hasidim in the Maccabean Period,"]]S 28 (1977): 127-140.

THE PREffiSTORY OF QUMRAN

119

critical method is better than an uncritical one, or none at all. It is not true that all texts are entirely consistent, written by a single author and without a word of fiction or contradiction. The choice has to be between, on the one hand, a critical reading of a text to deduce its integrity, argument, sources, and so on, and on the other, a face-value reading of each and every text with the aim of harmonizing everything in line with received opinion. What are the remedies, then, for the shortcomings of literary-critical analysis of the documents? There are three, and thus three alternatives for the third scene of research into Qumran prehistory. First, complete scepticism: we can't know anything, so let us confine Qumran studies to the history of the biblical text or Hebrew grammar where some progress can perhaps be made. Second, we can wait for Milik to produce, or reconstruct, or compose, the texts which will give us the truth of the matter. This is of course unrealistic, but waiting for new texts will not help, since these texts themselves will need analysis and interpretation. Few texts of historiographical interest are likely to -emerge. The famous, or infamous "Letter," the Miq~at Ma'asey Torah, to which I alluded earlier, can be fitted into any number of reconstructions: it has some legal interest of itself, but gives no data about persons or events at all. The third alternative, which of course is the only alternative, is to take the conclusions generated by such literary-critical studies as we have (of the Community Rule, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll in particular)6 which raise important questions about the ideology and history of Qumran literature-and try to verify or falsify them by looking at other texts from Qumran, looking again at the other ancient sources, and at the archeological data from Qumran-and, most of all, testing the implication. I suggest that few scholars-even including Qumran specialists-realize the extent to which the whole question of origins is now without consensus.

PROSPECTS The scene in which the third act is to be played is as follows. The Qumran community has emerged from recent analyses of the sources as a splinter group from some already existing body, and the question of its origin is now twofold: on the one hand, where did the parent body come from, and on the other hand, why did this splinter group form? The idea that Qumran resulted from some rift involving the Jerusalem high-priesthood is a hangover from the first phase of research. Splinters occur usually for internal reasons, and external factors, where they exist, are incidental. The origin of the Qumran community is more probably the 6

For lQS, J. Murphy-o'Connor, "La genese litteraire de la 'Regie de la Communaute'," RB 76 (1969): 528-549 and]. Pouilly, La Regie de la wmmunauti de Qumran: son evolution litteraire (paris, 1976). For lQM, P.R. Davies, IQM, the War Scroll from Qumran (Rome, 1976). For CD, Stegemann, Die Enstehung and'Murphy-{)'Connor, articles in RB, together with P.R. Davies, The Damascus wvenant (Sheffield, 1983).

120

PHILIP R. DAVIES

result of an internal rift, and if so, then the prehistory of the Qumran community is the only place where the origin and purpose of the Qumran community can be sought. But the present scene involves rearranging a lot of other furniture too, although we do not know where to put all of it. Since the first two scenes, some more documents have occupied the stage, especially the Temple Scroll. In the light of the appearance of Jubilees and parts of 1 Enoch at Qumran also, the question is beginning to be put: how do we tell whether the contents of a manuscript from the caves really originated at Qumran, or were only brought there, or copied, or copied and altered? Cave 11, for example, may contain none which originated with the yatuJd. However undisciplined Golb's recent and well-publicized comments may be/. they cannot be so confidently refuted now as twenty years ago, and we certainly need to ask ourselves how many communities the scrolls describe. We know of at least two-the yatwd of 1QS and the similar but not identical "Damascus" community (which in strictly social terms were, of course, a number of communities). Assuming for the moment that these are the only two, which texts from the caves represent the yatuJd and which the community of the Damascus Document? Biblical manuscripts apart, do some manuscripts belong to neither? One can begin to answer, perhaps, that lQM goes with 1QS and 11QT and Jubilees with the Damascus Document. But we need to work on this. We then have to ask if both the Damascus Document community and the yatuJd communities might have occupied Qumran at different times. If so, the date of settlement at Qumran will not date the "Teacher of Righteousness" or his yatuJd. If Qumran housed a splinter group, did this group take over an existing settlement? Such an event might have happened at any time. There are two different cemeteries, after all. No "pre-Herodian" manuscript (I refer to type, not date) mentions the "teacher"; if IQpHab does refer to a real Wicked Priest as a contemporary of the teacher, those who put these figures into the early 1st century C.E., unfounded as has been seen, have as good a case as anyone else. I am not advocating that date, or any date; I am not proposing a new theory. I am simply pointing out how far the conclusions first reached in the 1950s now need to be rethought and retested. I am interested, however, in Qumran prehistory rather than the origins of the yatuJd itself. This is because there is one very simple answer to the question "why did the ya~ad form, and for what purpose?," an answer which relies only on the texts and not on a reconstructed background which the texts never refer to. CD 6,1 looks forward to "one who will teach righteousness at the end of days." This "teacher" will mark the end of the "period of wrath" in which the community will follow the laws set down for it by the "interpreter." It seems to follow that the Qumran group accepted some figure as this eschatological teacher and thus anticipated the end of days, accepted his rulings and isolated themselves from those others of their group who rejected the person's claims. Perhaps that explanation is too easy. But provisionally, I regard the yatuJd as a messianic sect, 7

N .Golb, "Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?," BA 48 (1966): 68-82.

THE PREHISTORY OF QUMRAN

121

rather like the Nazarenes. More difficult to discover are the origins of the movement which expected the "teacher" in the future. What name can we provisionally assign to this movement? Since the I.iasidim are disqualified, the only name we have is "Essenes." That the yalJad was Essene is probable, though it can hardly have been the start of the Essene movement. It follows, in that case, that the Essenes are the parent movement. The "Damascus" community or communities appear(s) to me to be quite like Josephus' Essene settlements. But what's in a name? If it turns out to be wrong, it can easily be changed. In the meantime, I am happy to retain it. The way forward from here is to describe the ideology of the Essene documents from Qumran. How will we identify them? They will share certain features with the texts of the yal;ad, of course, like the solar calendar, insistence on holiness, on adherence to the law of Moses; they may enjoy phrases like "Israel and Aaron," "plant," "righteousness," "Interpreter of the Law." One text describing the organization of such a movement is the Damascus Document, which gives its laws, its own account of its history, and even its raison d'etre. What more could one want to start with? I have described elsewhere some features of the ideology of the community reflected in the Damascus Document-it believed it possessed the covenant, made in "Damascus" following Nebuchadnezzar's destruction; it believed it followed the true law, derived from inspired exegesis, that it was living through the age of wrath, awaiting its end, to be heralded by one who would teach righteousness; it believed all of Israel outside was in error regarding the law and all who did not join the community were doomed to divine judgment. It adhered to the Temple cult in some measure, but not fully; it avoided as much contact with non·members as possible, and so on. The statements about the history of the movement in the Damascus Document, which are all consistent and coherent, are likely to remain the only descriptions we have. From them we are given a point of origin anywhere from the Babylonian deportation onwards. Obviously, drawing such a picture from a single source, preserved in mediaeval manuscripts is rather bold-it is rather like reading ancient Judaism from Targums. But the picture can be tested to some extent at least. Are any other texts from Qumran consistent with such an ideological profile? We should not be surprised to find such texts in the Qumran caves, for even if the yal;ad rejected the parent community, it would have believed that it was the legitimate fulfilment of that community and preserved its writings, as the Christians preserved the OT; without the Damascus Document, the yal;ad had no legitimation. An obvious candidate for comparison with the Damascus Document is the Temple Scroll (or better: Torah Scroll, Wacholder8). The assumption that all non·biblical texts from the caves are products of the ideology of the yal;ad has produced a rather sterile debate about whether llQT is Qumranic or not. But once these similarities and differences with 1QS are collated with CD, llQT can be understood, like CD, as a non·Qumranic, or pre-Qumranic, Essene text. The parallels with CD have

8

B.Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran (Cincinnati, 1983).

122

PHILIP R. DAVIES

been quite exhaustively listed by Yadin and by Levine9 and the very few legal differences between.the texts which have been discerned are less impressive than the similarities. In particular, the phrase 'ir hammiqda! in CD suggests that it accepts the Temple and the city as described in llQT. Another candidate for an Essene text-and this identification goes back to Jellinek1o-is Jubilees. This is generally thought to be cited in the Damascus Document itself, while George Brooke ll has made a very persuasive case for linking Jubilees very closely with llQT. One might wish to add parts of 1 Enoch to the list, and not only because of the calendar. The Epistle of Enoch, for instance, has been suggested as pre-Essene by Nicke1sburg,11 though he was puzzled by the absence of certain notions peculiar to the yal,lad. That is no longer a problem, but in fact precisely what one expects. All that is necessary is to adjust our definition of "Essene," recognizing that the Essenes did not begin life at Qumran. The working hypothesis I recommend, then, is that these texts at least are all pre-Qumran Essene. I now want to sketch out some areas for research into the ideology of this literature and its possible provenance from a coherent group. To begin with, how much or how little is entailed by the extent and nature of the agreement between the texts? Can they be derived from a broad stream of opinion within Second Temple Judaism, furnishing only a background from which the Essenes and then the ya1}ad emerged? Or do they represent an ideology clear enough and closely enough defined to suggest a distinct movement or group which could identify itself over against other groups or parties? Another way of looking at the question might be: given that the Damascus Document describes a community, even technically a sect, do the related ideas and expressions in Jubilees, llQT and parts of Enoch imply a similarly defined coinmunity? If we were very fortunate, might the texts even show us a community in the process of being formed from a broader ideological matrix? Although these questions as I have formulated them are not always explicitly addressed, some progress has been made in recent years towards resolving them. But first , there is the question of the calendar and its origin, which has been debated for some time. There is a respectable body of opinion, led by Talmon, U which believes that the adoption of a separate calendar within Judaism entails sectarian separation. Did what I am calling the "Essene" texts share the same calendar, and imply its use? If so, then are they by that criterion alone far more than just representative of a broad stream within Judaism? Does the advocacy of a schismatic calendar define 9

Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Hebrew) Gerusalem, 1978), (English 1984); B.A. Levine, "The 'Temple Scroll' - Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,"

BASOR 232 (1979): 5-23. 10 A. Jellinek, Bet ha·Midrasch: Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlunge1l aus der iilterm jfldischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1855). 11 G. Brooke, "The Temple Scroll: A Law Unto Itself," Religion and Law: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. B. Lindars (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 34-43. 12 G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Epistle of Enoch and Qumran," J]S 33 (1982): 333-348. 13 S. Talmon, "The Calendrical Reckoning of the Dead Sea Sect from the Judaean Desert," in Scripta Hierosolymitana 4: Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls Gerusalem, 1958).

THE PREmSTO~Y OF QUMRAN

123

these texts as sectarian? H so, was this calendar adopted by more than one sectarian group? Another area of investigation being pursued is in the area of law. How coherent a body of law is implied by the agreements between CD, llQT and Jubilees? Granted that there may be differences in individual rulings (as also in the Mishnah), do we have evidence of a system which is already well-developed according to its own principles? Are those principles sectarian? Those deriving from the 364-day calendar may be; those on priestly ritual, divorce and purity perhaps not. The crucial criterion is, of course: do these writings acknowledge the laws they advocate as a matter of different interpretation, or do they condemn other laws as entirely in error, as disobedience, as not fulfilling the divine will? (Incidentally, is the Miq¥Jt Ma'osey Torah text from the yalJad or does it represent pre·Qumran Essenes? I am inclined to think it may be the latter.) A third line of investigation looks at statements in these texts about the history and identity of Israel and the formation of a community within the nation representing the truly chosen covenant people - namely, those represented by the literature. I have investigated l4 four passages, Damascus Document 1 and 5-6, the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, and Jubilees I, which I think do represent a common tradition, one which identifies only a particular group as the true Israel, in possession of divinely· revealed knowledge and law. This tradition, briefly, dismisses the pre·exilic period as wicked, concentrates on the Exile and desolation of the land as an act of divine abandonment still in effect, ignores the building or existence of the Second Temple, mentions a remnant (the favoured term is "righteous plant") to whom is revealed the true law of which the rest of Israel is ignorant, and assumes the destruction of all the nation of Israel outside this group, and the rebuilding of a Temple by God. Now, not all the four passages have all these elements, and there are other passages in CD and Jubilees which will both confirm and qualify the account given above. But there is scope for futher clarification and correction in comparing the texts. One qualification in particular needs to be made. Jubilees, though recognizing Israel's present error and obviously implying, by its very authorship, a group distinguished by possession of the true law, does not refer to a remnant group but looks forward to a national repentance towards obedience to the Torah. This admits of several possible explanations. We might date the origins ofjubilees to a time before the community became sectarian. Or we might conclude that Jubilees represents an attempt to convert all of the nation, in which the notion of a sectarian remnant is suppressed and a prediction of the return of Israel to the true ways put into the mouth of God. Or we might imagine that within the Essenes there existed a tension between exclusivity and mission. This tension is not necessarily destructive, for a group can see itself both as the only members of the true Israel but also the kernel of a restored Israel embracing the rest of the nation. The same tension exists between IQS and IQSa and thus may have persisted into the yatuId. 14

Davies, Behind the Essenes, pp. 107-134.

124

PHILIP R. DAVIES

From the comparison of these texts, what models become available for describing the origin of the Essenes? We have to bear a number of models in mind rather than opting for anyone in particular. One is of a gradually developing sectarian consciousness. In this analysis of the Epistle of Enoch, Nickelsburg defined the consciousness of the author's group, which he assigns to the pre-Maccabean period, as "emerging schismatic definition," yet one still "open to outsiders." On this model, the Essenes (Nickelsburg calls them "pre-Essenes") crystallize in the late 3rd-early 2nd century B.C.E. out of disaffection with the Temple, growing eschatological expectation and social-economic division. A second model is that which has been developed in the greatest detail and with the widest appropriation of evidence, by Murphy-o'ConnorY He sees the Essenes arriving in Judah from Babylon with a different legal and calendrical system already developed; trying to convert Judean Jews to their views and becoming sectarian as their efforts fail. Although he has dated the arrival of the Essenes to the Maccabean period, his theory will support any date from the 5th century onwards. Unlike Nickelsburg, he does not see Essene ideology as forming gradually, but as introd~ced already formed into Judea. Like Nickelsburg, he recognizes a period in which the group is open to outsiders and attempting to convince them of the error of their present allegiance. A third model reverses the other two and has the traditions of the Essenes as having been at some point normative, or at least accepted equally with other views. Thus the existence of the 364-day calendar within Genesis 6-9 16 may imply that it was recognized by priestly circles among the Babylonian deportees and may even be pre-exilic. VanderKam and others have proposed that a change of calendar to the lunisolar system came only in the time of Antiochus IV, supporting the long-held view that the Qumranya~d represented a Zadokite reaction against innovation}' In the specific cases of the dating of calendrical change and of the Zadokite affiliation of the Essenes, I remain unconvinced. The suggestion of Stegemann 18 that llQT represents traditional priestly Torah supplanted by Ezra's lawbook represents another version of this model, though he does not involve the Essenes in this reconstruction. I do not find this particular model plausible, but neither can it be ruled out.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS The possibilities sketched out above are many, and the possible dates cover a wide timespan. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give evidence that in the 5th century 15 16

"The Essenes and their History:' RB 81 (1974): 214-244. Established by A. Jaubert, "Le calendrier des Jubiles et la secte de Qumran: Ses origines bibliques," VT 3 (1953): 250-264. 17 J. VanderKam, "The Origin, Character and Early History of the 364-day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert's Hypotheses," CBQ 41 (1979): 390-411. 18 See the paper in this volume, pp. 156-185.

THE PREHISTORY OF QUMRAN

125

already priestly groups from the Diaspora were returning with stringent ideas of holiness and with their own lawbooks which were read publicly. There are the b'ney haggolah and ha~abim min h~'bi, offering a striking similarity to the "Damascus" community.19 This, of course, gives no date, only a model for the ideological conflict. It must also be the terminus a quo. The terminus ad quem is of course the formation of the Qumran yal,wd, whenever that occurred. However, as stated earlier, we cannot allow the question of dating to dominate the debate. We ought to turn our attention away from what we know of the history of Second Temple Judea because what we know is a fraction of what we do not know, and because deciding on a period first inevitably determines how we choose to understand the text or the processes it describes. It is, I think, a mistake to be led by a search for dates before we understand the processes which the texts attest. We also need to be aware of the fallibility of dating texts, with which there has been an uncritical obsession in some quarters. Documents usually exist through time, changing their form as they go. Who will date Genesis? Or the numerous Jewish pseudepigrapha revised by Christians? Or the Targums? What if the Temple Scroll began its history in the time of Ezra and reached its present form under Herod? Who would date the composition of the biblical books on the basis of their manuscripts found at Qumran? What does dating mean when these considerations apply? Very little. The history we are looking for, the history of the emergence and development of a movement which led to, among other things, the Qumran yal,wd, can only be retrieved-if at all-through critical analysis of the texts, a task which 40 years of Qumran research has hardly begun to recognize, let alone accomplish. Indeed, it is still being brushed aside in some quarters because, one supposes, of an inarticulate fundamentalism or an intellectual sclerosis. On this celebration of 40 years of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls I have described why I think the yal,wd was formed. I cannot suggest why the Essenes came into existence, though I frankly still find Murphy-Q'Connor's hypothesis to be the best presented and argued, subject to some modifications. 20 But it is only a hypothesis. There is a great deal of work waiting to be done on this topic, which does not have to wait for the remaining Qumran texts to be published. We can try to understand better those we have; I do not think that we shall until we pay much more attention to the topics discussed above-and, even more importantly, the methods by which we proceed. We need exegesis which is more critical and conjecture which is better controlled if we are to make in the next 40 years better progress than we have so far.

19

The parallels have been noted by M. Smith, "The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Ancient Judaism ," NTS 7 (1961): 247-360. 20 See the discussion in Davies, Behind the Essenes, pp. 33-41.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHE ET LES ESSENIENS

Andre Paul eet expose est intitule: "Flavius Josephe et les Esseniens". e'est la voix de Josephe que nous chercherons donc a saisir et a relayer. Autrement dit, nous voulons lire Josephe et rien que Josephe, mais avec Josephe. Mais nous n'oublierons pas un seul instant que Josephe est une personnalite juive vivant a Rome durant Ie dernier tiers du Ier siecle de notre ere. Nous avons consacre l'une des quatre parties de notre ouvrage Ie judaisme ancien et la Bible, paru a la fin de 1987, au "juif Flavius Josephe temoin vrai de sa nation". Et nous situerons naturellement les divers developpements de la presente etude, consacree aux Esseniens tels queJose~he les voit, dans Ie sillage de cette proposition, dont nous rappelons ici l'enonce introductif: '.'Josephe, avons·nous ecrit, c'est son ceuvre. eette ceuvre, c'est celle d'un juif authentique d'obedience pharisienne et, comme bien d'autres qui reprendront les renes du judaisme et de la judeite apres 70, profondement hostile a la guerre contre Rome et donc a ceux qui la provoquerent, la menerent et la perdirent. Josephe est contre la guerre car dans la guerre sa nation entiere a bien failli se perdre en y laissant de toutes faeons son Temple et sa terre. La redaction de la Guerre des juifs permit a Josephe d'exposer sa politique non pas pro-romaine mais, dans son pacifisme circonstanciel, fondamentalement pro· juive. Ainsi se trouvait·il en harmonie avec les maitres palestiniens, soit en quelque sorte avec Ie magistere des juifs retranches a Yamnia en vue de redefinir et de relancer Ie judaisme. De la sorte etait·il pret, du point de vue de l'ethique nationale surtout, pour entreprendre la redaction de ce midrash immense et exhaustif que sont les Antiquite juives. II s'agit la de la Bible de Josephe, redigee dans Ie but de manifester l'immortelle identite de la nation juive" (P. 151).

Flavius Josephe, juif de Rome

a la fin du Ier siec1e chretien

Avant d'analyser la faeon dont Josephe traite Ie fait essenien, il importe de savoir

qui est Josephe, en tant qu'auteur ou historien mais d'abord et surtout en tant que juif. Or, pour repondre a la question "qui?", il faut repondre en premier lieu a la question "oil?"; et des deux reponses sortira cette autre, a la question "pour quoi?"

FLAvms JOSEPHE ET LES ESSENIENS

127

josephe ecrivain vecut a Rome, durant les trente dernieres annees du Ier siecle. A Rome, il y avait des juifs mais aussi des chretiens, et tout n'etait pas pour Ie moins accorde entre eux. Les jliifs de Rome l ne constituaient pas une communaute unique et organique, a l'instar d'un politeuma comme par exemple a Alexandrie. Ils etaient, a cette epoque du moins, disperses en synagogai ou "paroisses", unites de populations dotees d'une administration et direction laiques. Autant qu'on Ie sache, par les sources non litteraires, epigraphiques surtout, a part quelques exceptions1connues leur niveau social n'etait pas tres eleve: les sepultures retrouvees attestent la pratique d'humbles metiers et d'une culture plutot modeste. Quant aux croyances exprimees,3 elles manquaient passablement de relief: ainsi, sur les memes epitaphes, l'esperance dans l'au-dela n'etait que faiblement affirmee, plus faiblement encore l'attente de la resurrection. Notons que l'observatio legis y caracterise surtout et volontiers l'appartenance religieuse du defunt. A la difference encore de ceux des grandes metropoles, Alexandrie principalemel).t, les juifs de Rome ne comptaient pas de personnalites marquantes ni de production litteraire propre. Nous Ie dirons, Flavius josephe sera l'exception unique et volontaire. Cette periode fut aussi pour les juifs un dur moment d'antijudaisme: il s'est manifeste de plusieurs faeons. On connait l'existence de la fameuse taxe decidee par Vespasien, Ie fiscus judaicus,4 imp6t personnel que chaque juif 011 qu'il ffit devait payer a l'empereur comme chatiment fiscal pour la sedition judeenne. En fait, la nation juive au complet supportait-elle la depense entrainee par la reconstruction du Temple romain de jupiter Capitolinus, detruit par Ie feu en 69. II y avait aussi les attaques vehementes des ecrivains. Vers Ie milieu du siecle, Seneque, selon saint Augustin, avait "condamne les ceremonies des juifs et surtout Ie sabbat, qui est, a ses yeux, une pratique nuisible, parce que demeurer chaque septieme jour sans rien faire, c'est perdre la septieme partie de la vie et que bien des interets pressants souffrent par cette oisivete.'" Vers la meme epoque, Ie poete satyrique Perse ironise durement sur Ie repos sabbatiQue.6 Nous retiendrons Quintilien comme

2

3 4 5 6

La meilleure etude recente sur les juifs de Rome au ler siecle est: R Penna, "Les juifs a Rome au temps de l'apOtre Paul", NTS 28 (1982), pp. 321-347_ Pour une periode plus large, en amont et en aval, ct: J.B. Frey, "Les communautes juives a Rome aux premiers temps de I'Eglise", RSR 20 (1930), pp. 269-297 et 21 (1931), pp. 129-168; W. Wiefel, "Die jiidische Gemeinschaft im antiken Rom und die Anflinge des romischen Christentums", judaica 26 (1970), pp. 65-88; E.M. Smallwood, The jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian, Leyde, 1976; Ch. Saulnier, art. "Rome et la Bible", Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplement, Xl57 (1983), col 863-1008. Voir A.T . Krilabel, "The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions".JjS 33 (1982), pp. 445-464 (" ...other inscriptions and the Jewish gold glasses showed Roman Jews who were literate and even cultured", p. 453). R. Penna, art. cit. Cf. A. Paul, Le monde des juifs al'heure de jesus. Histoire politique, Paris, 1981, pp. 229-231. Cite d'apres Th. Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au judaisme, Paris, 1895 (reprint Hildersheim, 1963), p. 262 (De Civitate Dei VI, 10). Th. Reinach, cit., p. 265.

128

ANDRE PAUL

exactement contemporain, avec cette phrase dirigee contre les juifs: "Et c'est une fletrissure pour les fondateurs d'Etats d'avoir organise une nation pernicieuse aux autres nations; c'est Ie cas du premier inventeur de la superstition.'" On pourrait citer nombre d'autres textes, mais ceux·ci suffisent a suggerer Ie climat d'hostilite dont les juifs etaient victimes dans la Rome de la seconde moitie du Ier siecle. II y avait egalement les chretiens A l 'N:::l' Cil"ilN' "Y' Cil'li'~' ]Cil ':> '['~]m ilW il'n~ ]N:::l 'N:::l[" '!)O~ 1']N Cil'" (1. 4). The average number of letters per line in

11. 1-2.4-8 is of 50 letters. There is, therefore, enough place in 1. 3 for the word Cil"~l1. We may also presume that the primitive text was the following: ••• f1N:::l (hiPhil) 'N:::l' (Oil"lJl') Oil"ilN' "Y' Oil'li'IJ' Oil ':>. The second variant under discussion is found in line 2. 4Q1udga omits the words ",Y "Y' in v. 3: ",Y "Y' o'i' '1:::l' i"~Y' T"IJ il'Y' 'N'IU' Y'l ON il'i11. Some critics have suggested omitting these words as a case of dittography in the MP or as "an alternate lection," an example of "how the proto-Masoretes placed variants at the end of the verse."1 On the contrary, according to Boling, the omission in 4Q1udga "may be explained as due to hapiography, where six out of twelve words in sequence begin with the letter waw."B In our opinion, the longer reading 6

7 8

W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bonn, 1963), p. 466. F. Zimmermann, "The Perpetuation of Variants in the Masoretic Text," JQR 34 (1943-44): 459-474, esp. 465-6. R.G. Boling, Judges. Introduction, Translation, and Ccmmentary, AncB 6A, (New York, 1975), p. 125

319

LIGHT ON THE TEXT OF JUDGES AND KINGS

of the MT and the LXX has the advantage of preserving the text of a resumptive repetition, that incorporates the text of a gloss, c'i' 'l:n i"DY'. The reference to Amalek and the Kedemites is out of context here and anticipates vv. 6:33; 7:12 and

8:12-13. 9 We will now present further examples in which a longer and often later text allows an approach to the oldest form of the text. However we are unable to elaborate each of the examples to be treated. 1) The first example is taken from I Sam. 6:4:

LXXBIL )(o(T' 1XPL6floV TWV O"o(TPO(7tWV TWV 1XAAOCPUAWV + 7tOL~o"o(Te: (L OL Arm) m:vTe: l~pO(c; XpuO"ic; + OflO£wflO( TWV ~~pwv uflwV (L OL) 5TL )(O(t )(O(t )(O(t

7tTO(tO"flO( ~V ufltv TO tc; OCPX OUO"LV uflwv TcJl Ao(cJl m;vTe: (> B) fluO(C; XpUO"OUC;10 + 7tOL~O"o(Te: (L OL) OflO£wflO( TWV fluWV uflwV TWV ~LO(cp6e:LpOVTWV T~V yijv

MT

(> 4QSam a)::Jm ',::J::lY :'1Ilmm C,::l, nnN il!)lD '::l C::l'l'O"

(v. 5 C::l',!)Y 'D'X cn'lZIY' C::l',::J::lY 'D'X' f1Nil nN cn'nlZlDil

4QSam a omits the words of MT ::Jm ',::J::lY illZlDm. According to Ulrich, "Whether 4Q is haplographic or M is glossed, 4Q and OG agree in their shorter text."11 But in fact the OG has these words in v. 5. Therefore, the MT and the OG (and 4QSam a ?) differ more in the order of the text than in the text itself.12 In the MT the order of phrases is: C::l',::J::lY 'D'X' C::l',!)Y 'D'X_ .::JilT ',::J::lY illZlDm ::JilT ',!)Y illZlDn

while in the Greek the order is: C::1',:::I::1Y '~?ll :::lilT ',:::I::1Y illZl~m_ .C::l'?!lY '~?ll :::1m '?!)Y illZlDn

Whatever the original form of the text, the point to emphazise here is that the different order of phrases in each form of the text is to be related with the introduction of a gloss, formed by v. 4b: C::l'l'O" C,::l, nnN il!)lD '::l.

9 K. Budde, Das Buch der Richter, KHK.AT VII (Freiburg in B., 1897), p. 52. 10 Flavii Iosephi Opera, Vol 2: Antiquitatum Iudaicarum Libn VI-X, ed. B. Niesse, (Berlin, 11 12

1888), pp. 5-£ (VI,1O). E. Ulrich, p. 64; P.K. McCarter, ISamuel, AncB 8 (New York, 1980), p. 129. HJ. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT VIlV1 (Giitersloh, 1973), p. 147; S. Pisano,

Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (Fribourg & Gottingen, 1984), pp. 249-257.

320

JUUO TREBOLLE

2) The second example is in IT Sam. 6:3-4: LXXBIL

xed

~PEV IXU-r~V

oIxov (E~ o(xou LXXL) 'A!LEtVIX8cX~ -rou EV -rlji ~ouvlji XlXt 'O~CX XlXt ol ci8EA!pOt IXU-rOU ulot 'A!LEtVIX8cX~ d~

IT Sam. 6:3b

MT

~YlXv -r~v C£!LIX~IXV

IT Sam. 6:4

'ilNW" ::I'3'::IN n'::I7.) ilY::Il:I 'WN ,'nN' NTY'I ::I'3'::IN '3::1 il;lYil nN C'lil3 ilW,n

ilY::Il::I 'WN ::I'3'::IN n'::I7.) 'ilNW"

aUv -rjj Xt~w-rlji l"N CY + -rou 6EOU (1) C'il;Nil + XlXt 'O~cX (L) XlXt ol ci8EA!pOt IXU-rOU E1tOPEUOV-rO e!L7tpoa6Ev '3D; ,;il ,'mn + XlXt EX 7tAlXylwv (L) -rij