Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 130) 9004410724, 9789004410725

Citation preview

Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke Associate Editors Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

volume 130

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj

Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls Essays in Memory of Peter W. Flint Edited by

John J. Collins Ananda Geyser-Fouché

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Flint, Peter W., honoree. | Collins, John J. (John James), 1938 editor. | Geyser-Fouché, Ananda, editor. Title: Scribal practice, text and canon in the Dead Sea scrolls : essays in  memory of Peter W. Flint / edited by John J. Collins, Ananda  Geyser-Fouché. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2019] | Series: Studies on the texts of the desert of  Judah, 0169-9962 ; volume 130 | Includes index. | Summary: “This volume contains 17 essays  on the subjects of text, canon, and scribal practice. The volume is introduced by an overview  of the Qumran evidence for text and canon of the Bible. Most of the text critical studies deal  with texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, including sectarian as well as canonical texts. Two essays  shed light on the formation of authoritative literature. Scribal practice is illustrated in various  ways, again mostly from the Dead Sea Scrolls. One essay deals with diachronic change in Qumran  Hebrew. Rounding out the volume are two thematic studies, a wide-ranging study of the  “ambiguous oracle” of Josephus, which he identifies as Balaam’s oracle, and a review of the  use of female metaphors for Wisdom”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019026929 (print) | LCCN 2019026930 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004410725 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004410732 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Dead Sea scrolls—Criticism, Textual. | Dead Sea  scrolls—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BM487 .S355 2019 (print) | LCC BM487 (ebook) |  DDC 296.1/55—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026929 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026930 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 978-90-04-41072-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-41073-2 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Peter W. Flint 1951–2016

⸪

Contents Preface xi Figures and Tables xv Notes on Contributors xvi

Introduction: Peter Flint in Memoriam 1 Ananda Geyser-Fouché and John J. Collins

PART 1 Text and Canon 1

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible 7 Eugene Ulrich

Part 2 Text-Critical Studies 2

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls: What Not to Expect of the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 25 Gert T. M. Prinsloo

3

4QLXXNum and a Text-Critical Examination of a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4 56 Gideon R. Kotzé

4

The Ezekiel Manuscripts from the Dead Sea, the Ancient Versions, and the Textual History of Ezekiel 75 Herrie van Rooy

5

On “True” Editions: Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh 90 James Nati

6

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 and 4Q386): Rewritten or Merely Copies of Each Other 108 Jana Coetzee

viii 7

Contents

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Forgotten: a New Fragment of 4Q385a (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca) 18 i 126 Eibert Tigchelaar

Part 3 Canon and Authority 8

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts 135 James C. VanderKam

9

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in 11QPsa 153 Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford

Part 4 Scribal Practice 10 11

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme 175 Martin Abegg The Grain of the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher: a New Reading of

‫( ומאכלו ברו‬1QpHab 6:5) 205

Timothy H. Lim

12

The Vistas of Variant Readings: Towards an Understanding of Scribal Transmission as Reception in the Qumran Fragments of Aramaic Daniel 210 Andrew B. Perrin

13

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 225 Emanuel Tov

14

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran, with Special Attention to 4QReworked Pentateuch D and 4QReworked Pentateuch E 247 Sidnie White Crawford

Contents

Part 5 Language 15

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew: Evidence from the Negative Existential in Post-Predicate Position 271 Jacobus A. Naudé, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson

Part 6 Thematic Studies 16

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus concerning Vespasian 297 Craig A. Evans

17

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature 334 Ananda Geyser-Fouché Index of Modern Authors 359 Index of Ancient Sources 366

ix

Preface Amanda Flint For two decades Peter Flint’s passion and exuberance for people and for the Dead Sea Scrolls filled the air as he walked about the grounds of Trinity Western University. With his uplifting Dead Sea Scrolls presentations, he established a larger than life persona on campus. He was eminently gifted for speaking in an engaging way to the wider public about biblical and scrolls scholarship in churches and synagogues. Listening to one of his talks on the scrolls was a treat. He spoke all over the world, in the great museums of the world, at conferences, at estate homes and even on cruises at sea. Students, staff and faculty alike cherished spending time with him discussing the Bible and the Scrolls. One of his most admirable qualities and enduring legacies was that he was devoted to nurturing and promoting the next generation, especially with his resources and possibilities through his position as Canada Research Chair. He took them to conferences, introduced them to the big names in the field, wrote wonderful reference letters, held mock panels to prepare for their presentations and thesis defenses and included them in his research projects. Peter faced many challenges in his childhood and teenage years and suffered quietly with chronic illnesses throughout his life beginning with polio at age 6 and scoliosis at age 12. Being unable to partake in physical activities and unable to defend himself, he was subjected to bullying. Further to this, Peter felt he was a disappointment to his father who competed in triathlons and loved soccer and other sports. Lacking the physical attributes Peter instead focused on academics. He attended St Stithians private boys’ high school where his favorite teacher, D. J. Brindley, an English teacher, helped Peter develop a talent for poetry. Two of Peter’s poems “Eternity” and “My Master”, written at just 17 years of age, were published in the year’s anthology of the best South African high school poetry—English Alive (1968) and My Poetry is Life (1975) respectively. Peter was influenced by his paternal great grandfather who was a minister of the Methodist Church and a Christian scholar. Also, at St Stithians, Peter met a group of Christian friends who were involved in Rosebank Union Church, a local evangelical inter-denominational church. He attended their youth group, the Navigators, and soon became a leader. At the age of 18, Peter became aware of and was fascinated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Peter was married to Erica Smuts from 1974. They had four wonderful and accomplished children, Claire (Johannesburg, 1977), Amy (Johannesburg, 1980),

xii

Preface

Abi (Umtata, 1983) and Jason (Umtata, 1985) who all adored him and miss him. They now reside in Vancouver and Langley, BC. His mother, Edelweiss, still resides in Hermanus, South Africa. In 1972 Peter completed his first Bachelor of Arts at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, studying Biblical studies and Ancient Greek. In 1973 he obtained his Teacher’s Higher Diploma, from the Johannesburg College of Education in South Africa and taught high school in Johannesburg. He taught religious studies, a subject that was compulsory. He found teenagers difficult and longed for serious students. Peter decided to further his studies by correspondence through the University of South Africa in Pretoria where he earned a B.A. (Honors) Cum Laude in Classical Hebrew in 1979 and a M.A. in 1983. The title of his master’s dissertation was: “Terminology for sin in the Hebrew and Greek scripture, with special emphasis on late Old Testament usage of ‫חטא‬.” During this time he changed schools and went to Soweto to teach Religious studies to black students. With this experience he then applied for a teaching position in a teachers training college for black students in Transkei called Cicira Teachers College. He taught there for a few years and then, in the same town of Umtata, taught Biblical studies at the University of the Transkei, but he needed to get his PhD in order to continue there. Peter applied to several universities in South Africa and overseas. Dr. Johann Cook, an Associate Professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, met Peter at South African religious studies conferences and they became colleagues. Peter worked with Johann at the University of Stellenbosch on textual issues, including the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, on his way to Notre Dame. Johann along with others such as Albert Geyser, great uncle of the co-editor of this book, Ananda Geyser-Fouché, motivated him to study oversees and encouraged Peter to accept a scholarship at the University of Notre Dame in 1987 to study under Dr. Gene Ulrich, a renowned Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and editor of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was a brave decision for Peter and Erica, who were in their mid-forties, to venture to America with their four children and leaving behind their beloved family. In 1990, Peter completed his second M.A. at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, followed by a Ph.D. in Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism in 1993, with a dissertation on “The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the Book of Psalms.” Dr. Ulrich’s relationship with Peter grew over the years from a studentprofessor relationship to a friendship and when Peter passed on November 3, 2016, Dr. Ulrich said at Peter’s memorial that he felt like he had lost a son. Peter would often tell the story of how he arrived at Notre Dame and promptly

Preface

xiii

declared to Dr. Ulrich that he would one day edit his Festschrift and 20 years later the promise was kept. After completing his PhD, Peter was reluctant to return to South Africa and so accepted a position as Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Southwestern College, Phoenix, AZ, USA (1993–1995) and then he and Erica moved to Canada in 1995 when Peter was offered a position at Trinity Western University to teach old Testament and co-direct the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute with Dr. Marty Abegg. In 2000, Dr. Flint married Amanda Dossett, an accounting professor at Trinity Western University. They lived in Abbotsford with Amanda’s two children, Taryn (1991) and Ethan (1994). They attended and were very active in Saint Matthews’ Anglican Church in Abbotsford, BC. In 2004, Dr. Flint was awarded the prestigious Tier I Canada Research Chair from the Canadian government for his research in Dead Sea Scrolls studies. This enabled him to hire research assistants and complete large scholarly projects. His work includes authored and co-authored works such as The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (1995); the first translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical texts into any language), the Psalms Scrolls (1997); the second largest portion of the biblical), The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000), The Official Edition of the Isaiah Scrolls from Cave 1 at Qumran (2010); the first critical edition of one of the most important of the documents found at Qumran). Peter was also an editor of the largest intact scroll: The Great Isaiah Scroll. As the Canada Research Chair in Dead Sea Scrolls Studies, Peter was undertaking a variety of projects, including the completion of a monograph entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible and the publication of the first complete Dead Sea Scrolls apparatus for a Hebrew Bible. He was also carrying on his work as the chief editor of a 17-volume series called The Text and Interpretation of Scripture at Qumran. Peter was always taking on more research projects than a sane person could handle. Deadlines loomed and he asked me, his wife, to answer the phone at all times. While I was on the phone with his research associates, who were always calling to ask why Peter’s piece of the project was late, Peter would be standing right in front of me waving and mouthing the words to tell them that he was not at home, but his work was forthcoming. Peter loved his family to be with him. He often took us on his speaking engagements. He was the keynote speaker each day on three separate week long cruises to vacation destinations and insisted on bringing our whole family along. Each morning we listened to his Dead Sea Scrolls presentation and then we headed out to the ship or shore destination. We enjoyed our dinners

xiv

Preface

together as a family. Peter’s 80 year old mother from South Africa joined us on the Alaska cruise. The seas became so violent that five of our adult children and Peter’s mother were in the cabin for twenty-four hours recovering from sea sickness while Peter and I held up the fort. All six children really loved their father and miss him. He leaves behind four grandchildren, Jakob, Olivia, Andrew and Ben. Peter had a large office overlooking the pond that was always in a state of disarray with boxes on top of boxes, pitched on top of a shelf and looking like they were about to tip over. His desk was covered with book upon book, papers, pens, a big magnifying glass and a box of microfiche. One day, Carmen, a famous local photographer, came to take pictures for a TWU coffee table book, and remarked how magical his office was and that it was the perfect environment for a Dead Sea Scrolls professor. Being an organized person myself, I had for years been prodding him to organize his office, but when I heard this, I stopped urging him. His office remained in chaos until the month before he passed away. He told me that he had pitched out his old lecture notes and superfluous materials and had reorganized his office. I shook my head in disbelief and went on about my business. The week after he passed away, the TWU religious studies department held a tea reception in Peter’s honor and some of the professors and I entered his office and were shocked to find his office perfectly organized; not a box to be found and not a thing on his desk. Peter had thoroughly organized his office. We all looked at each other in amazement. I finally had what I thought I wanted—an organized office, but Peter was gone and so was the magic.

Figures and Tables Figures 10.1 Variability in the 50 largest biblical manuscripts 176 10.2 Comparison of biblical and non-biblical manuscripts 199

Tables 10.1 10.2 12.1 13.1 17.1

QSP and non-QSP frequencies 180 QSP biblical manuscripts 182 Titles and lists of diviners in the book of Daniel 220 Isa 1:1–8 Linguistic differences between MT and 1QIsaa 229 Prov 8:32–36 in LXX 344

Notes on Contributors Martin Abegg Trinity Western University, emeritus. Jana Coetzee Research Fellow, Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. John J. Collins Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism & Interpretation at Yale Divinity School, Yale University. Honorary Professor at the Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University. Research Associate of the Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Craig A. Evans Houston Baptist University. Ananda Geyser-Fouché Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Gideon R. Kotzé Research Focus Area Ancient Texts: Text, Context and Reception, North-West University, South Africa. Timothy H. Lim University of Edinburgh. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé University of the Free State, South Africa. James Nati Jesuit School of Theology, University of Santa Clara. Jacobus A. Naudé University of the Free State, South Africa.

Notes on Contributors

xvii

Andrew B. Perrin Trinity Western University. Gert T. M. Prinsloo Department of Ancient and Modern Languages and Cultures, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Eibert Tigchelaar KU Leuven—University of Leuven (Belgium), Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, BOF-ZAP Professor. Research Associate in Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Emanuel Tov Hebrew University, emeritus. Eugene Ulrich University of Notre Dame, emeritus. Herrie van Rooy Faculty of Theology, North-West-University, emeritus, Potchefstroom, South-Africa. James C. VanderKam University of Notre Dame, emeritus. Sidnie White Crawford University of Nebraska, emerita. Daniel J. Wilson Research Fellow, University of the Free State, South Africa.

Introduction

Peter Flint in Memoriam Ananda Geyser-Fouché and John J. Collins Peter William Flint passed away prematurely on November 3, 2016, at the age of 65 years. At the time, a Festschrift in his honor was in preparation. It appeared as a memorial volume in 2017.1 Twenty-eight friends and colleagues contributed to that Festschrift, but his native South Africa was not represented in the volume. The initiative for a second memorial volume to which his South African colleagues could contribute came from Ananda Geyser-Fouché of the University of Pretoria, but it was felt that this too should be an international venture. John J. Collins of Yale, who, as Director of Graduate Studies in Theology had welcomed Peter to Notre Dame when he first arrived in the US agreed to help organize and edit the volume. Without Collins’ expertise and extensive experience as well as his liaising with prospective contributors, the project might never have become a reality. It is a measure of the affection and esteem in which Peter was held that several scholars who had written for the first memorial volume gladly agreed to write again in his honor. In a relatively short career, Peter made several important contributions to the field, many of them in collaboration with other scholars.2 His dissertation on the Psalms Scroll stands as the most authoritative treatment of that scroll to date.3 Among his collaborative ventures, three especially stand out: the translation of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, with Martin Abegg and Eugene Ulrich,4 an introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls with James VanderKam,5 and his edition of the Isaiah Scrolls with Eugene Ulrich.6 On a more modest level, 1  Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions. Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Early Judaism and its Literature 47 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017). 2  A fuller account of his career can be found in the first memorial volume. 3  The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 4  The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The Oldest Known Bible, translated for the first time into English, by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). 5  James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002). Flint also published his own book on the Scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls (Nashville: Abingdon, 2013). 6  Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, with a contribution by Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Qumran Cave 1. II. The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD XXXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2010).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_002

2

Introduction

he collaborated with John J. Collins to edit the “Pseudo-Daniel” Aramaic manuscripts (4Q243–5).7 It was as an editor, however, that Peter was most prolific. He was co-editor of no fewer than three series on the Dead Sea Scrolls for Eerdmans and Brill, and of a series on “The Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature” (a sub-series of Vetus Testamentum Supplements) for Brill. Perhaps his major editorial accomplishment was the two-volume collection The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, with James VanderKam.8 Peter’s contribution to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls was not limited to his publications. Together with Craig Evans and Martin Abegg, he built up the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University, where many young scholars took their first steps in the field. He was a universally popular lecturer and propagandist for the Scrolls. Peter’s contributions were recognized by his appointment to the prestigious Canada Research Chair in 2004, scarcely more than a decade after he had received his Ph.D. Peter’s passion and enthusiasm for the Scrolls were well known. He was always keen to encourage the next generation to study the Scrolls. When he learnt South African scholars were taking an interest in the Scrolls and that Qumran conferences were being held in South Africa, he was overjoyed and willing to assist wherever he could. Peter never forgot his roots; he treasured South Africa and regularly invited South African scholars to lecture at Trinity Western. There he received them with his characteristic warmth and hospitality. Peter will be remembered by everyone for his congeniality and his enthusiasm for life in general, but especially for the Scrolls. This volume contains 17 essays, most of which deal with the interrelated subjects of text, canon, and scribal practice. In Part 1, the volume is introduced by Peter’s Doktorvater and frequent collaborator, Eugene Ulrich, with an overview of the Qumran evidence for the text and canon of the Bible. The essays grouped together as text-critical studies (Part 2) are of different kinds. Gert Prinsloo focuses on what we can and cannot learn from Pesher Habakkuk about the history of the biblical text. Gideon Kotzé offers a detailed text-critical examination of a Hebrew term in Numbers 4. Herrie van Rooy reviews the Ezekiel manuscripts from Qumran. James Nati goes beyond the 7  “Pseudo-Daniel,” in Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 95–164. 8  Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1998–99).

Peter Flint in Memoriam

3

biblical corpus to compare the phenomenon of textual pluriformity in the Psalms Scroll and the Serekh texts. Jana Coetzee applies her textual analysis to the non-biblical pseudo-Ezekiel texts from Qumran. Eibert Tigchelaar reconstructs a fragment of 4Q385a (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca). In Part 3, two essays shed light on the formation of authoritative literature. James VanderKam discusses the uses of earlier literature in some Second Temple texts. Nancy deClaissé-Walford discusses the placement of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in the Psalms Scroll. Scribal practice (Part 4) is illustrated in various ways. Martin Abegg revisits and defends Emanuel Tov’s theory of a distinctive scribal practice at Qumran. Timothy Lim offers a new reading from Pesher Habakkuk. Andrew Perrin discusses scribal transmission in the fragments of Aramaic Daniel. Emanuel Tov examines the integration exegesis in scribal transmission, and Sidnie White Crawford discusses the phenomenon of excerpted manuscripts. In Part 5, an essay by Jacobus Naudé, Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Daniel Wilson discusses diachronic change in Qumran Hebrew. Rounding out the volume are two thematic studies (Part 6). Craig Evans, who recruited Peter to Trinity Western, offers a wide-ranging study of the “ambiguous oracle” of Josephus, which he identifies as Balaam’s oracle. Ananda Geyser-Fouché, initiator and co-editor of this volume, reviews the use of female metaphors for Wisdom, in the concluding essay. Peter Flint made a long and arduous journey from South Africa to Western Canada. When he landed in Chicago with his young family in August 1987, en route to the University of Notre Dame, he arrived in the middle of a downpour so severe that O’Hare airport was closed for a time. It was just one of many obstacles, personal and professional, that he would overcome. He had an indomitable spirit. He is sorely missed and fondly remembered.

PART 1 Text and Canon

∵

Chapter 1

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible Eugene Ulrich The Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized scholarly understanding of the text of the Hebrew Bible (HB). That claim has become commonplace and almost unnecessary to make; but it should be repeated and not taken for granted, since the mindset of many has not yet appropriated its full implication. This study will look briefly at scholarly views of the biblical text and canon prior to the discovery of the scrolls, and in more detail at advances and views since their discovery. 1

The Text of the Hebrew Bible

1.1 The View of the Text Prior to 1947 Prior to 1947 the Masoretic Text (MT) was the only Hebrew text of the HB that was known. There were numerous medieval manuscripts, but, observing the variants collected by Kennicott and de Rossi, Moshe Goshen-Gottstein confirmed that they were all close copies of a single medieval manuscript tradition.1 The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) was correctly seen as a much-expanded form of the MT, and thus disregarded. The Septuagint (LXX) was not widely appreciated but was often dismissed as a loose translation or paraphrase of the Hebrew. Thus, with the paucity of manuscript witnesses, the task of textual criticism of the MT was mainly seen as locating and correcting the occasional small errors that had crept into the text. To a certain degree the entire MT was treated, though not explicitly so described, as a flat, unified text.2 But the HB is an anthology of ancient Israel’s 1  Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 42–89, esp. 52–54; repr. Biblica 48 (1967): 243–90. 2  For example, most Bibles are translated from the MT, and most studies treat the MT simply as “the biblical text,” whether the textual form of a book be the early form (such as the Pentateuch and Daniel) or the secondary form (such as Joshua and Jeremiah).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_003

8

Ulrich

faith literature. It is a collection of many genres, and each book has its own particular history of composition. Consequently, the early study of the HB focused on literary criticism, which eventually led to source criticism. That is, literary study of Gen 1–2, 6–9, and 15 + 17, for example, led to the hypothesis of the Yahwist narrative vs. the Priestly narrative and eventually the Documentary Hypothesis. Study of the theological system enunciated in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings in light of the Deuteronomic code led to the Deuteronomistic History. As scholars continued branching out, enlightened by the increasing diachronic understanding and source criticism of the text, they posited development from foreign literature and myths; oral performance; small collections of sayings, narratives, laws, and songs combined into early forms of the national literature; and eventually the early recognizable forms of the biblical books as they began to be handed down.3 That scholarly criticism of the Bible, however, was mostly hypothetical, based on intelligent perception of literary and historical clues embedded in the MT, but not on manuscript evidence. A great gift of the scrolls is that they demonstrated with manuscript evidence the same general types of development in the late Second Temple period that the literary and source critics’ hypotheses had posited for the earlier period. 1.2 The Text after the Discovery of the Scrolls In the early years of scroll scholarship only gradually did scholars’ perception focus clearly. Discovered in 1946–47 in Cave 1, the very first scriptural scroll, 1QIsaa, was identified by Rev. J. P. van der Ploeg of the University of Nijmegen, as indeed a scroll of Isaiah, but he thought it was mediaeval. It was only a few months later that John Trever, influenced by William F. Albright’s publication of the Nash Papyrus, correctly dated the scroll to the late second or early first century BCE.4 Even after the correct identification and dating, however, some scholars then dismissed it as a “vulgar” and even “worthless” text .5 Shortly after the discovery of Cave 4 in 1952 greater clarity was provided by the two Americans on the publication team. Frank Moore Cross quickly identified and published Hebrew fragments of 4QSama and 4QSamb, correctly 3  For a comprehensive overview see Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: Harper & Row, 1965). 4  Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. 5  See, e.g., Harry M. Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV,” JQR 43 (1952–53): 329– 40, esp. 340.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

9

noting their divergence from the MT and agreement with LXX, and thus establishing the soundness and reliability of the LXX.6 Patrick W. Skehan also published fragments and an exposition of 4QpaleoExodm, showing its ­repeated agreements with the SP and thus the importance of the SP.7 In con­trast, ­several manuscripts were published as nonbiblical “4QReworked Pen­tateuch,”8 because they exhibited many additions, omissions, and different arrangement. But as additions, omissions, and different arrangements were observed occurring repeatedly in clearly scriptural scrolls vis-à-vis the MT, LXX, and SP, those texts are now generally acknowledged as genuine ­scriptural texts (4QPentateuch), simply more expanded, like 4QpaleoExodm and the SP.9 Now, after seventy years, it seems good to describe briefly some of the main learnings we have gained from many decades of analysis of the scriptur­al  scrolls. 1.3 Four Levels of Variation in Manuscripts One clarification that analysis of the many scriptural manuscripts has provided is the distinction between four categories of textual variation. Each of the types had been known, of course, but the clarifying contrast and

6  Frank Moore Cross, “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (1953): 15–26; “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 147–72. 7  Patrick W. Skehan, “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 435–40; revised in “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text,” JBL 78 (1959): 21–25, esp. 22. 8  Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e,” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351. 9  Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam, Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–93 esp. 92 n. 51; repr. in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 32 n. 51; Michael Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 391–99, esp. 396; Emanuel Tov, “Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday, ed. Armin Lange et al., FRLANT 230 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 11–28, esp. 27–28; Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

10

Ulrich

interrelationship between them when studied and described together helps shed light on many issues. Orthography. The MT already contains orthographic variants, that is, alternate and legitimate spellings of words and grammatical forms, for example ‫ דוד‬in Samuel but ‫ דויד‬in Chronicles. But the scrolls show manuscripts which display orthographic forms often shorter than those in MT (such as 4QSamb), as well as manuscripts with forms regularly longer than those in the MT (such as 1QIsaa). These demonstrate the developing language aspects of Hebrew in the Second Temple period, and usually it does not matter whether the forms are shorter or longer. But occasionally fuller orthography does help avoid ambiguity. One example is Isa 19:3, where the original spelling of a word in 1QIsaa, like that in the MT, was ‫האבות‬. Whereas that word would normally mean “fathers/ ancestors,” the original scribe of 1QIsaa inserted a superlinear vav, ‫האובות‬, to indicate that the word meant “spirits of the dead,” not “fathers.” Centuries later, the Masoretes vocalized the word with a ḥolem (long o) to accomplish the same clarification. A second example is Isa 40:6. The MT interpreted the ambiguous ‫ ואמר‬as third-person “he said”; but 1QIsaa, together with the LXX, correctly considered it first-person and clarified it with ‫ואומרה‬. Individual textual variants. Ancient scribes both made errors in copying and intentionally added clarifications and further insights. The study of these textual variants is the familiar, routine subject of most books on textual criticism and thus need not be described at length here. Two brief examples, however, can illustrate how the scrolls have given us clearer focus. At 2 Sam 13:39 the witnesses appear thus:10 MT LXXB LXXLΜΝ 4QSama

‫ותכל דוד המלך‬

και εκοπασεν ο βασιλευς Δαυειδ και εκοπασεν το πνευμα του βασιλεως

‫[רו]ח המלך‬

The MT signals a problem: a masculine subject with a feminine verb. LXXB translates MT but the grammatical problem in MT does not pose a problem in Greek. Wellhausen in 1875 noticed πνευμα in the Lucianic text and proposed that the original Hebrew was ‫רוח‬, a feminine subject. Almost a century later, the discovery of a 4QSama Hebrew fragment vindicated Wellhausen’s conjecture. 10  For the following two examples see the texts and notes in BHS and NRSV.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

11

Second, since the Hebrew scrolls have confirmed Greek variants against the MT, the LXX in turn can, with or without Hebrew witness, help restore corrupt readings in the MT. A clear example is 1 Sam 14:41, where the MT has skipped extensively from the first occurrence of “Israel” to the third occurrence, omitting text necessary for the context, and the LXX supplies the missing text. Isolated insertions. Learned and creative scribes occasionally inserted into the scriptural text extra material—one or several verses—that they considered appropriate for a variety of purposes: informational, clarifying, theological, eschatological, pious, and so forth. One example is Judg 6:7–10. A single fragment 7.6 × 4.8 cm is all that remains of this manuscript dated ca. 50–25 BCE.11 It contains text from Judg 6:2–6 followed immediately by vv. 11–13. The missing verses 7–10 scholars have long claimed to be a Deuteronomistic theological insertion: the Israelites cry out to God because of the Midianite raids and a nameless prophet comes to Gideon and reproaches Israel, saying that God had led Israel up from Egypt but the Israelites have not obeyed God’s commands. Thus, 4QJudga preserves an early form of the narrative, and MT attests a fourverse intentional secondary addition for theological purposes. Similarly, 1QIsaa and the LXX document at least eight large insertions in the MT of Isaiah. Three of these were not present in the LXX,12 and six were not yet present in the original 1QIsaa,13 though five of them were added by later scribes (one MT insertion, 40:7–8, was not present in either 1QIsaa or the LXX). For most of these verses there is no indication of loss by homoioteleuton, whereas they all seem to be secondary insertions, most not integral to the narrative. For an example, consider Isa 40:7–8. 1QIsaa and the LXX have the words in regular print below, and a later scribe has inserted interlinearly the words in italics, which interrupt the positive salvation oracle Second Isaiah is proclaiming: 6 A voice says, “Cry out!” And I said, “What shall I cry?” All flesh is grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field. 7 The grass withers, the flower fades,

when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people is “the grass.” 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God

but the word of our God will stand forever.

11  For the edition see Julio Trebolle Barrera, “49. 4QJudga,” in Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 161–64; see also his “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges,” RevQ 14 (1989): 229–45. 12  Isa 2:22; 36:7; 40:7–8. 13  Isa 2:9b–10; 34:17–35:2; 37:4–7; 38:20b–22; 40:7–8 (OG also lacks this); 40:14b–16 (see also 51:6 and 63:3).

12

Ulrich

The insertions above could be additions similar to those described in the next section; the difference, however, is that these insertions, though intentional, are isolated, that is, not part of a consistent pattern of themes or scribal viewpoint. In contrast, the insertions below display an editorial coherence, forming a pattern of creative, intentional, and consistent editorial work. Variant literary editions. The most dramatic category of textual variation illuminated by the scriptural scrolls is that of variant literary editions. This type of variation exhibits one textual form of a book or large passage against another form in which a number of variants, usually large additions, exhibit the same intentional pattern or theme.14 For example, 4QpaleoExodm, when compared to the MT, contains thirteen large additions, all of which can be described as biblical text added to biblical text. Six instances (one reconstructed) supply an explicit report that Moses actually carried out the command of the Lord, where the MT implicitly presumes, but does not explicitly report the execution. Three more instances (two reconstructed) supply the wording of the Lord’s command, where the MT reports that Moses relates the Lord’s message to Pharaoh though the wording of the command is implied but not supplied. Four others are insertions of material from Deuteronomy—one as long as ten verses—supplementing the earlier, shorter Exodus narrative with material that is in Deuteronomy but not in Exodus.15 Noting that all thirteen additions are supplementing the Exodus textual traditions with biblical wording from Exodus and Deuteronomy, it is difficult not to conclude that these additions are intentional and elements consistently designed to provide a richer form of the book of Exodus. Upon checking the SP, it was also noted that all of these additions are in agreement with the SP edition of Exodus.16 In addition, 4QNumb shows the same intentional supplementation of biblical text with biblical text. It preserves five instances, with three more confidently reconstructed, of mater­ ial from the fuller Deuteronomy narrative inserted into the shorter, early Num­ bers text as in MT. Similarly, all eight additions agree with the SP of Numbers. 14  For a more extensive discussion of variant literary editions see Eugene Ulrich, “Variant Editions of Biblical Books Revealed by the Qumran Scrolls,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. Andrew B. Perrin et al., EJL 47 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 13–33. 15   Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD 9 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 66–70; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 30–34. 16  See Skehan, “Exodus”; see also DJD 9:66–70. Reconstruction, however, indicates that 4QpaleoExodm did not contain the so-called Samaritan tenth commandment.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

13

These two categories of textual variation, isolated insertions and variant editions, illuminate a major new learning from the scrolls: that there were two distinct periods in the history of the biblical text. Since the scrolls date from the late Second Temple period, while previously our earliest preserved manuscripts were copied in the early Middle Ages, “we are then carried back to a stage in the growth of the canon that we would have never dreamt of reaching.”17 That new stage in the growth of the biblical text came to light due to the scrolls in the late Second Temple period vs. our previously known texts from the medieval texts. In the early period the intentional, creative development of the various books was the norm. It was only sometime after the first Jewish war (67–73 CE) and the destruction of the Temple (70) that the rabbinic text was no longer open to change. Moreover, the developmental growth seen in the scriptural scrolls adds confirmation to the earlier literary- and redactioncritical hypotheses of pre-scrolls scholars. Those scholars traced the early stages of growth of the biblical text and the scrolls document the final stages of that growth.18 1.4 Learnings Regarding the Text of the Hebrew Bible The wealth of manuscript evidence offered by the more than 200 scriptural scrolls thus provides a much clearer understanding of the HB text and how it developed. The pluriformity of the text is a major factor in contrast to the uniformity that had pervaded earlier scholars’ presuppositions. It opens a valuable window onto a period characterized by scribal creativity the scope of which we had not dreamed. Prior to the period of a uniform text of the Tanak, we now know of the preceding period of important editorial creativity which moved the books from Israel’s traditional national literature to the various forms of the books as we see them today. We can almost watch the scribes as they reformulate older traditional forms of the books to “new and improved” editions, for example, expanding the LXX Jeremiah to the MT Jeremiah. The focus also gets clearer for textual criticism, as we can differentiate the four categories of variation described above. This removes the obstacles to help us see, as above, that 1QIsaa in comparison with MT Isaiah can preserve

17  Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33, esp. 23–24. 18  See Eugene Ulrich, “‘Pre-Scripture,’ Scripture (Rewritten), and ‘Rewritten Scripture’” in The Developmental Composition, 201–13.

14

Ulrich

an earlier, shorter textual tradition while nonetheless exhibiting a later, expansive orthographic and morphological profile. Moreover, the superior textual variants provided by the scrolls, showing Hebrew originals for readings in the SP and LXX at variance from the MT, confirmed the SP and the LXX as valuable witnesses to variant Hebrew scriptural texts now lost to history. They also raise those witnesses to such a level of trustworthiness that scholars must now take them seriously and must weigh the scrolls, the SP, and the LXX on an egalitarian level with the MT. On the practical level, the plethora of witnesses and the egalitarian quality of the readings in the various manuscripts from each tradition make possible for the first time a critically established text of the HB, in contrast to the simple diplomatic printing of the MT with its inevitable errors, losses, and additions. Many ancient works—including the Greek and Latin classics, the Greek Old Testament (LXX), and the New Testament (NT)—have long enjoyed a critical edition produced to offer the best possible text, since no individual manuscript is perfect. Now for the HB, utilizing the scrolls and our enriched understanding of the LXX and SP, Ronald Hendel has proposed to provide the same possibility with The Hebrew Bible: Critical Edition.19 This edition will provide a corrected archetype of each book, that is, “the latest common ancestor of the extant manuscripts.”20 Thus, the critical text will present the earliest documentable form of each book, and the apparatus will present all relevant variants, explaining each and thus teaching the history of how and why the text developed through time. 2

The Process Toward the Canon

Thus far, the discussion has centered on individual scrolls. The focus now shifts to the clarity that the scrolls have provided for the collection of scrolls, or what eventually became the canon. Prior to 1947, the “critical consensus in canon study,” as Jack P. Lewis sums up, “postulated a collection of Law closed by 400 BCE, of Prophets closed by 200 BCE, and of Writings closed at the Council of Jamnia about 90 CE.”21 But Lewis concludes: “Lee McDonald summarizes the case, ‘There is evidence that a discussion was held at Jamnia on the [scriptural] 19  See Ronald Hendel, Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible, TCS (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). 20  Hendel, Steps, 21–23. 21  Jack P. Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 147–62, esp. 148–49.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

15

status of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, but this is not enough to suggest that any binding or official decisions were made regarding the scope of the biblical canon at Jamnia.’”22 Thus, there is no persuasive evidence of a canon prior to the birth of rabbinic Judaism and of Christianity, and we can focus on the late Second Temple period. The first move when discussing the canon of Scripture is to define terms clearly. The canon of scripture is “the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred Scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after serious deliberation.23 Thus, talk of an “open canon” is confusing and to be avoided. A more accurate term might well be an “open collection of authoritative books.” As the points discussed below will establish, there was no canon or even “Bible” as such in the late Second Temple period.24 There was a wide selection of books accepted as authoritative in varying degrees; but there were no clear groups of texts beyond the Pentateuch and a non-specified group of “the Prophets” (including the Psalms)25 that all would agree were those books which merited the highest rank of “scriptural,” as opposed to those which may have been important but were not “Scripture.” The canon of the Tanak for Judaism as well as that of the OT for Christians were both established at unclear dates after the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. The points which produce that statement entail an awareness of the historical growth in the attribution of authoritativeness to Israel’s religious literature and a search for clues of scriptural status in the scrolls. Such clues would be: mention of a list of books as sacred, formulaic designations of a book as God’s word, quotations from a book, a large number of manuscript copies, and commentaries on a book. Prior to examining these clues it will be informative to consider Israel’s religious authoritative literature against its unfolding historical background. Historical Shifts. There were at least five identifiable historical shifts which contributed to the road toward canon. First, there was a development from texts understood as national literature to books regarded as scripture. For 22  Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” 162, quoting Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. and enl. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 49. 23  Ulrich, Developmental Composition, 273. For extensive discussion see McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate. 24  James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109, esp. 109. 25  2 Sam 23:2; 11QPsa XXVII 11; Acts 2:29–31.

16

Ulrich

example, the pre-Priestly narrative from Creation to Moses was probably regarded as Israel’s equivalent of a national epic; the Psalms were probably widely regarded as humanly composed songs of praise or lament; the early sayings in what became the book of Proverbs (prior to the inclusion of chapters 1–9) were surely human, “armchair” wisdom. Second, after 70 CE there was a shift from a Temple-based religion to a text-based religion, important for the diaspora. Third, as noted above, there was a shift from viewing the scriptural texts as pluriform and admitting creative development to viewing them as the single, immutable textual form which perdured to become the eventual MT. Fourth, there was a shift in considering revelation as dynamic, and still possible, to viewing it as verbal and recorded in former times but no longer occurring. The pesharim show this: Scripture is quoted as God’s word given in the distant past, then interpreted in relation to issues of current times. Fifth, there was a shift from a collection of individual books on separate manuscripts to the codex which could hold many books. The codex contributed to the notion of a definitive collection of chosen books which belonged inside the two covers of the codex. Finally, it is also helpful to point out that it is books, not the specific textual form of the books which make up the canon. This can be illustrated by the HB canon, which contains the long form of Jeremiah and the short form of Daniel, in contrast to the LXX canon, which contains the short form of Jeremiah and the long form of Daniel. Lists of Biblical Books or Canon. Understanding those historical shifts behind the developing authoritativeness of the books that will eventually be seen as Scripture allows us to assess the clues more judiciously. Unfortunately, just as there are no lists of the books considered as Scripture in the NT, there are no lists of the scriptural books found among the scrolls. One passage has been cited as mentioning a possible tripartite canon: [And] we have [written] to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and (the writings of) David [and the] [events of] ages past.26 This is claimed to be “a significant piece of evidence for the history of the tripartite division of the Canon.”27 There are serious problems, however, with this passage and its claim, a few of which can be mentioned here:28 26  Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Maʿase ha-Torah, DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 58–59, “Composite Text,” C 10–11. 27  Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V, 59 n. 10. 28  For fuller treatment see Eugene Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2002): 202–13.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

17

– This passage combines fragmentary texts from two separate manuscripts, which do not fit altogether well. – The tiny, separate fragment with “book[s]” (of the prophets) may or may not belong here. – “Dav[id]” may or may not be the correct reading here; only “‫ ”דו‬is certain, and “‫ ”דור‬occurs twice in the next line. – Even if “David” were mentioned, we do not know whether this is the person or the book; note that, unlike “the book of Moses,” no book of David is mentioned. – Nonetheless, the DJD translation presents the text in a way that leads the non-specialist reader to think that “the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and (the writings of) David” is a fully preserved and clear continuous text, except for “the writings of”—and that phrase in parentheses might be interpreted as implying that the phrase is a frequent expres­sion readily supplied, whereas in contrast it is a problematic interpretation. – The commentary then stretches further with the improbable claim that “Dav[id]” probably refers, not only to the book of Psalms, “but rather to the Hagiographa.”29 – Note, finally, that this is not a tripartite entity described; rather, a fourth element is listed: “[and the events of] ages past.” Thus, there do not emerge any lists of the scriptural books or clear mentions of a collection of more than “the Torah and the Prophets.” Formulaic designations. Formulae introducing scriptural quotations, however, do occur, for example: – CD 8:9 says “As for what God said” (quoting Deut 32:33); – 1QM 10:6 says “As you said through Moses” (quoting Num 10:9); – 1QS 5:15 records “For thus it is written” (quoting Exod 23:7); – CD 4:13 affirms “As God said through Isaiah the prophet” (quoting Isa 24:17) – CD 3:20–21 has “as God promised them by the prophet Ezekiel” (quoting Ezek 44:15). Thus, the books of Moses and the main Prophets are regarded as purveying the word of God, as can be seen, for example, in 1QS 1:1–3: “to seek God with all their heart …, just as he commanded though Moses and all his servants the prophets.” To my knowledge, there are no formulaic introductions to any books other than the Torah and the Prophets. Quotations. Quotation of books is another probable indicator of scriptural status. An early calculation tallies them.30 The books most quoted in the scrolls 29  Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V, 59 n. 10. 30  The quotation statistics are dependent upon the list by James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402, esp. 394–95. The exact

18

Ulrich

are Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets, each with nine quotes. Though Genesis is not quoted in extant fragments, Exodus is quoted once, Leviticus four times, Numbers three, and Deuteronomy five times. Ezekiel is quoted four times, and Psalms (viewed as prophecy)31 and Daniel twice each. The only other books quoted are Samuel (Nathan’s prophecy to David), Jeremiah, and Proverbs. Thus, the Torah and the Latter Prophets appear to have been regarded as Scripture, whereas the Former Prophets and the Writings are virtually not represented. Number of copies. The only books that are preserved in more than ten copies at Qumran are the five books of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets, Psalms, and possibly Daniel.32 Deuteronomy is the most represented with ca. forty-three manuscripts, and Psalms with thirty-nine. Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus each have twenty-five or more, while Isaiah has twenty-three. The Twelve Prophets are represented by eleven manuscripts, Daniel has eight or eleven, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel have seven manuscripts each. No other book has more than four copies, except Job, with four Hebrew plus two targumic manuscripts. In contrast, the important Community Rule is preserved in ten copies. Thus, the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah appear to have been regarded strongly as Scripture, and the other Latter Prophets, including Daniel, were clearly important. Again, the Former Prophets and the Writings are scarcely represented. Pesharim.33 Qumran provided a number of compositions, entitled pesharim, that offer a type of interpretation known also from the NT. For example, the infancy narrative in Matt 1–2 contains events “foretold” by prophetic quotations: “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet …” (Matt 1:22–23; see also 2:5–6, 15, 18, 23). That is, ancient prophstatistics may vary a bit in light of further research, but the patterns are secure. See also the large lists which also include many allusions as well as quotations in Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). The proportions in Lange and Weigold’s statistics generally confirm the proportions listed here. 31  11QPsa explicitly claims to be an inspired, prophetic work: “All these [Psalms] he spoke through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High” (11QPsa, XXVII 11, DJD 4:48). That the psalms were authoritative at Qumran is confirmed by the pesharim on the Psalms (see below). 32  There are eight manuscripts of Daniel from Caves 1, 4, and 6; three others have recently come to light, though their authenticity is not established. Even if those three are not counted, the eight certain manuscripts, compared to the small size of Daniel, indicate the scriptural authority of the book. 33  For discussion see Shani L. Berrin and Moshe J. Bernstein, “Pesharim,” in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 644–56.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

19

ecies were interpreted as being fulfilled in contemporary events. Similarly, a Qumran pesher on the prophet Habakkuk quotes Hab 2:2 and interprets thus: “And God told Habakkuk to write that which was going to happen to the last generation, but he did not let him know the final age…. Its pesher is upon the Teacher of Righteousness, that God revealed to him all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets.”34 With regard to which books were viewed as open to scriptural interpretation by continuous pesharim, they are preserved only for Isaiah (five pesharim), the Twelve Prophets (on five of the prophets), and Psalms (again viewed as prophecy; three pesharim).35 Thematic pesharim cite the same books but also the Pentateuch, plus Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7.36 Thus, the pesharim also point to the recurring conclusion that the Torah and the Latter Prophets were considered authoritative Scripture, but that status does not seem to include the Former Prophets and the Writings. 3

Final Thoughts

Nothing in this review of the scriptural and related manuscripts found at Qumran has discovered awareness of a canon or clear list of books that were considered Sacred Scripture in the late Second Temple period. There were, of course, books that were widely regarded as authoritative Scripture, indicated by a number of factors: introductory formulae such as “As God said through Isaiah the prophet,” quotations from specific books used in other Qumran compositions, a large number of copies preserved among the more than 200 manuscripts of books later considered “biblical,” and sectarian commentaries using scriptural books as a source to be mined for revelation concerning contemporary events. The quest, however, does enjoy a certain clarity. The indicators explored above uniformly demonstrate that “The Torah and the Prophets” or “Moses and the Prophets” were widely used in Jewish sources, including the NT (e.g., Luke 16:19). There may have been a few questionable books around the edges of those two groups. For example, though the five books of Moses were definitely the Torah, 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and possibly the Temple Scroll, may also have been regarded by some as part of the Torah (see the quotation of Enoch 1:9 in Jude 1:14–15, plus the more than ten copies each of Enoch and Jubilees found at Qumran). The boundaries of the prophetic corpus were less clear. Clearly 34  Berrin and Bernstein, 644. 35  Berrin and Bernstein, 644–56. 36  Berrin and Bernstein, 646.

20

Ulrich

included were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve; Psalms were widely seen as prophetic,37 as was Daniel,38 and Job and Proverbs may have been so regarded by some. In contrast, the Former Prophets and the Writings appear quite differently. All those books, except Esther, were known and preserved at Qumran in one to at most four copies. But they are perhaps best described as national literature, displaying no clear indications of authoritativeness. Thus, there was no canon or even “Bible” as such in the late Second Temple period,39 but strong indication that the Torah and the Prophets were considered and used as of the highest authority. The canons of the Jewish Tanak and the Christian Old Testament were both established at unclear dates sometime after the Jewish War (67–73 CE) and the destruction of the Temple (70 CE). Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to honor the memory of accomplished scholar and dear friend, Professor Peter Flint, for his life-long labor and contributions to the text and canon of the Dead Sea Scrolls and his gift for communicating his contributions to both the scholarly world and the general public. Bibliography Berrin, Shani L. and Moshe J. Bernstein. “Pesharim.” Pages 644–56 in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Cross, Frank Moore. “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint.” BASOR 132 (1953): 15–26. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” JBL 74 (1955): 147–72. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition.” Pages 42–89 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical

37  11QPsa XXVII 11, in DJD 4:48; Hebrews 3:7–11. 38  4QFlor (4Q174) 1–3 II, 3–4a. 39  VanderKam, “Questions of Canon,” 109.

Qumran Evidence for the Text and Canon of the Bible

21

Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Repr. Biblica 48 (1967): 243–90. Hendel, Ronald. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. TCS 10. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Lange, Armin and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lewis, Jack P. “Jamnia Revisited.” Pages 147–62 in McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate. McDonald, Lee M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. and enl. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. McDonald, Lee M., and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV.” JQR 43 (1952–53): 329–40. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Maʿase ha-Torah. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–99 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. Skehan, Patrick W. “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran.” JBL 74 (1955): 435–40. Skehan, Patrick W. “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text.” JBL 78 (1959): 21–25. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Tov, Emanuel. “Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch.” Pages 11–28 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Armin Lange et al. FRLANT 230. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie White. “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e.” Pages 187–351 in Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Vol. 8 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges.” RevQ 14 (1989): 229–45. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “49. 4QJudga.” Pages 161–64 in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Vol. 9 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.

22

Ulrich

Ulrich, Eugene. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT.” CBQ 65 (2002): 202–13. Ulrich, Eugene. “‘Pre-Scripture,’ Scripture (Rewritten), and ‘Rewritten Scripture.’” Pages 201–13 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. “Variant Editions of Biblical Books Revealed by the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 13–33 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin et al. EJL 47. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402. VanderKam, James C. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 91–109 in McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate. Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Part 2 Text-Critical Studies

∵

Chapter 2

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls: What Not to Expect of the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) Gert T. M. Prinsloo 1 Introduction Peter Flint—the esteemed Dead Sea Scrolls scholar to whom this volume is dedicated—and James VanderKam published an extensive volume on the meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their significance for understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity.1 They indicated that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls just more than seventy years ago made an immense contribution towards our understanding of the Second Temple period in several fields of study.2 The scrolls illuminated the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible and of developing textual traditions in the Second Temple period. Especially the biblical scrolls and the so-called continuous pesharim became important sources for Hebrew Bible textual criticism.3 The scrolls illustrated processes involved in the formation of individual books and collections of books in the Hebrew Bible and the eventual emergence of a biblical canon.4 They illuminated the methods of and processes involved in Jewish biblical interpretation and application during the period,5 and provided new 1  James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2002). 2  Matthias Henze, “Introduction,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1–9. 3  VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 103–53; Arie van der Kooij, “The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After the Qumran Discoveries,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: British Library, 2002), 167–77. 4  VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 154–81. Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 5–20. 5  VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 293–308; Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran Volume 2: Law, Pesher and the History of Interpretation, STDJ 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 363–86.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_004

26

Prinsloo

insights in the history and development of emerging and often conflicting and contradicting Judaism(s) during the Second Temple period.6 The present study focuses on the first of these fields of study—a field where Peter Flint made a considerable contribution—namely the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on our understanding of emerging, and sometimes diverging, Hebrew Bible textual traditions circulating in various centres of Jewish scholarship during the Second Temple period.7 Approximately 222 biblical scrolls were discovered in eleven caves on the western shore of the Dead Sea between 1947 and 1956.8 These finds have “altered the ‘face’ of Old Testament textual criticism in a fundamental way.”9 The discovery shattered the myth of a single textual tradition underlying all the versions of the Hebrew Bible. It exposed the express aim of Hebrew Bible textual criticism at the time to reconstruct the original, single Hebrew Vorlage of all the ancient textual witnesses as a futile exercise.10 It is now common to classify the text type of these scrolls “according to their textual character, i.e., based on the degree of proximity to the versions, the Proto-Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular,”11 and even that classification is recognised as an over-simplification of the variety of text types co-existing during the late Second Temple period.12 The study re-evaluates the significance of the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) for Hebrew Bible textual criticism in general and for the text of the book of 6  Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2010). 7  Cf. Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997) to name an example. Chapter 3 (“Psalms Variants Listed by Manuscript,” pp. 50–85) and Chapter 4 (“Variants Listed by Psalm and Verse,” pp. 86–116) illustrate Flint’s painstaking work in the field of Hebrew Bible textual criticism. Johann Cook, “The Text-critical and Exegetical Value of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(4) (2016): a3280, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3280 argues that comparative studies of the text of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls with other Second Temple period textual traditions illustrate their text-critical and exegetical value. 8  VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 103. For an overview of the texts from the Judean desert and their textual character, cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert— An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts,” in Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 139–66. 9  Ferdinand Deist, Witnesses to the Old Testament: Introducing Old Testament Textual Criticism, Literature of the Old Testament 5 (Pretoria: Boekhandel, 1988), 88. 10  Van der Kooij, “Textual Criticism,” 169. 11  Henze, “Introduction,” 3. 12   Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions,” in Hāʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, ed. Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke, STDJ 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 280–302.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

27

Habakkuk in particular. The Pesher Habakkuk is an important dialogue partner in an evaluation of the contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the field of Hebrew Bible textual criticism. It was one of the first scrolls discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran in 1947. It contains a fairly well preserved version of the text of the first two chapters of the biblical book of Habakkuk. Quotations of the prophetic text in 1QpHab differ in significant ways from the Masoretic Text (MT). In light of the textual plurality prevalent in the Second Temple period, I will argue that the contribution of 1QpHab to the textual criticism of the MT Hab needs careful consideration. The formulation of the subtheme, namely “what not to expect of the Pesher Habakkuk,” deliberately deconstructs expectations that the Pesher’s quotations of the biblical text of Hab 1–2, which predates MT by a millennium, will aid modern interpreters in reconstructing “better” readings for the many textual and interpretational difficulties encountered in the biblical book. The aim of the study can be stated in negative and positive terms, which are in fact two sides of the same coin. Stated negatively, I argue against an essentialist and eclectic approach in evaluating 1QpHab’s contribution to the textual criticism of MT Habakkuk. Stated positively, I argue for an intertextual approach allowing 1QpHab and MT Habakkuk equal status as dialogue partners in our endeavours to interpret the intellectual and cultural heritage of the emerging Judaism(s) of the late Second Temple period in context.13 Naturally, a contribution in a Festschrift is subject to spatial constraints that do not allow me to engage in a detailed textual comparison of 1QpHab and MT. Consequently, I will critically engage the eclectic use of 1QpHab to “reconstruct” so-called “better” readings of MT Habakkuk, a tendency apparent in translations of the Hebrew Bible and commentaries on the book of Habakkuk. I follow a three-pronged approach by (1) briefly contextualizing the Pesher Habakkuk against the background of emerging Judaism(s) during the second and first centuries BCE, the origin and growth of the so-called Qumran community, and the genre and nature of the continuous pesharim; (2) providing 13  Four terms are crucial for my argument, namely eclecticism, essentialism, intertextuality and contextuality. For the argument against eclecticism, see Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The Argument against Eclecticism,” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211. For the argument against essentialism and for an intertextual approach towards Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and MT textual variants, see James A. Loader, “Qumran, Text and Intertext: On the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Theologians Reading the Old Testament,” OTE 19 (2006): 892–911. For the argument that the DSS create new contexts for reading the texts of the Hebrew Bible, see James A. Loader, “Creating New Contexts: On the Possibilities of Biblical Studies in Contexts Generated by the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JSem 18 (2009): 82–104.

28

Prinsloo

a brief overview of 1QpHab’s scribal and textual characteristics; (3) critically discussing examples of the eclectic use of textual variants between 1QpHab and MT Habakkuk. It will illuminate the fundamental weakness of the eclectic approach. I will conclude the study by proposing an alternative approach allowing both ancient textual sources equal status in an intertextual dialogue. Even a cursory perusal of scholarly commentaries and modern Hebrew Bible translations reveals the eclectic use of the Dead Sea Scrolls to “reconstruct” perceived “corrupt” readings in the Masoretic text of Habakkuk. In a recent study, I criticised the “consummate ease” with which MT’s ‫“ היין‬the wine” (Hab 2:5) is replaced by ‫“ הון‬wealth” (1QpHab 8.3).14 I argued that the reading in the Pesher most likely represents an intentional, valid, and contextually significant reading in the light of the Qumran community’s unique circumstances and needs.15 The present study is a continuation of my previous work. I will review the textual variants between 1QpHab and MT Hab, re-evaluate a number of so-called “significant” textual variants, and argue that these variants merit contextual readings in both textual traditions before the one is utilised to “correct” the other. Proper attention to the close relationship between the biblical lemma and its ‫ פשר‬in 1QpHab will compel Hebrew Bible scholars and translators to treat variant readings with respect and caution before they resort to the eclectic use of the textual evidence at hand. 2

Pesher Habakkuk: Historical, Social and Literary Context

In order to appreciate the significance of textual variants in the Pesher Habakkuk and their implications for evaluating the text of the book of Habakkuk in the Second Temple period, it is necessary to situate the scroll in the historical, social and literary context of the group responsible for the so-called “sectarian” literature amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. The cumulative evidence of data gained from archaeology, palaeography, linguistics and Carbon-14 analysis indicates that the scroll dates from the latter half of the first

14  Gert T. M. Prinsloo, “Habakkuk 2:5a: Denouncing ‘wine’ or ‘wealth’? Contextual readings of the Masoretic text and 1QpHab,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(4) (2016): a3576, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3576. 15   Jong-Hoon Kim, “Intentionale Varianten der Habakukzitate im Pesher Habakuk Rezeptionsästhetisch untersucht,” Biblica 88 (2007): 23–37.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

29

century BCE.16 The scroll is certainly not an autograph.17 To determine the time of the scroll’s original composition is no easy task. On the one hand, the scroll refers to characters associated with the early history of the Qumran community at the end of the second century or early in the first century BCE.18 On the other hand, the scroll identifies the Chaldeans of Habakkuk (‫הכשדים‬, Hab 1:6; ‫הכשדאים‬, 1QpHab 2.11) with the Kittim (‫הכתיאים‬, 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 6.1, 10; 9.7), generally acknowledged to be a reference to the Romans.19 It places the composition of the scroll in the time when adverse Roman influence in Palestine was imminently expected (the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, 16  VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 20–33 briefly summarize the results of archaeological, palaeographical and Carbon-14 analysis for the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk,” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke, STDJ 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 132–59 concludes from a meticulous analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the scroll that it is representative of so-called Late Biblical Hebrew and was written towards the end of “the time of the main floruit of the Qumran community, ca. 150 BCE to ca. 50 BCE” (p. 157). Maurya P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. James H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 157–85 indicates that the script “is Herodean, and the time of the copying of the scroll can probably be placed in the second half of the first century BCE” (p. 157). Using comparative palaeographic evidence, John C. Trever, “A Paleographic Study of the Jerusalem Scrolls,” BASOR 113 (1949): 6–23 dated the Pesher between 25 BCE and 25 CE (p. 23). In a recent study, Annette Steudel, “Dating Exegetical Texts from Qumran,” in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran, ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz, FAT 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 39–53 dates the document slightly later, between 1 and 50 CE (p. 47). 17  Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 28 argues that the change of scribal hand in 1QpHab 12.13 and the erroneous copying of the scribal X sign as an isolated ‫ א‬at the end of the line in 1QpHab 2.5 mitigate against the Pesher being an autograph, even though it is the only extant copy of the document. 18  Cf. Maurya P. Horgan, “Pesharim: Introduction,” in Charlesworth, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–5. 1QpHab refers inter alia to the Righteous Teacher (1.13; 2.2; 5.10; 7.4; 8.3; 9.9–10; 11.5), the traitors (2.1, 3, 5) to the New Covenant (2.3), the Man of the Lie (2.1–2; 5.11), the Wicked Priest (8.8, 16; 9.9, 16; 11.4), and the House of Absalom (5.9). Michael O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement,” JBL 122 (2003), 53–87 deduces from historical references and allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls that “the Teacher of Righteousness was a figure primarily of the early first century BCE, and that his movement flourished in the fifty years from about 80 BCE to 30 BCE” (p. 84). 19  James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 109–12.

30

Prinsloo

103–76 BCE),20 or already experienced (the reigns of Hyrcanus II, 76–67 and 63–40 BCE or Aristobulus II, 67–63 BCE).21 The extant copy was most likely made late in the first century BCE.22 The Pesher Habakkuk should be read against the background of the conflicts between successive imperial powers during the Second Temple period and their influence upon the Jewish minority in and around Jerusalem.23 The scroll specifically highlights the conflict between the Greek and Roman superpowers and their Jewish subjects, as well as the internal conflicts between emerging and often conflicting Judaism(s) during the second and first centuries BCE.24 20  Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community, Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 221–46. 21  Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 112. 22   There is no consensus regarding the nature of the composition. Knibb, Qumran Community, 221–46 and Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 112 see the composition as a synchronic process. Others regard it as a diachronic process. Hanan Eshel, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk,” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006, ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al., STDJ 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 107–17 proposes that 1QpHab was originally composed in the second century BCE in the light of events that took place during the life of the Teacher of Righteousness. During the 60s BCE the Roman threat and demise of the Hasmonean dynasty caused the existing document to be updated and new pesharim on Hab 1:6–11 (2.10–4.13) and 1:14–17 (5.12–6.12) to be added. The updated pesharim specifically refer to the Kittim. Stephen Llewelyn et al., “A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab),” in Keter Shem Tov: Collected Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown, ed. Shani Tzoref and Ian Young, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 20 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013), 123–50 regard the X-shaped signs at the end of lines (1QpHab 3.12, 14; 4.11, 14; 6.4, 12; 8.1; 9.1, 13; 10.3; 12.2) as scribal markings of the beginnings and ends of columns. They hypothesize that the 1QpHab scribe combined two different pesharim into a single document, but do not propose dates for the Vorlagen. Pieter B. Hartog, “‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ and ‘The Mouth of the Priest’: Eschatology and Literary History in Pesher Habakkuk,” DSD 24 (2017): 59–80 regards 1QpHab 2.5–10 and 9.3–7 as additions adding an explicitly eschatological layer to an existing Pesher. The additions reflect the demise of the Hasmonean dynasty and date from the latter half of the first century BCE. The extant scroll was written during the first half of the first century CE. Wise, “Dating the Teacher,” 84 regards such a late dating as unlikely because analysis of historical allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that the “writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, whether sectarian or non-sectarian, seem to have nothing to say about the years 30 BCE–70 CE” 23  For the history of the period, see H. Jagersma, A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1985); Walter C. Kaiser, A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 447– 86; Grabbe, Second Temple Judaism, 1–39; James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 240–393. 24  Grabbe, Second Temple Judaism, indicates that various and often conflicting groups with specific interests and constituencies existed during the Second Temple period.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

31

A core belief “of Second Temple Judaism was to view the totality of the Jewish people as an organic whole, almost like a single body that was chosen by God.” At the same time, “individual religious communities … proliferated during this period,” all adhering to “this overarching view of Israel’s sanctity,” but “each group established its own ways to live a life of sanctity and saw itself as verus Israel.”25 Some groups “placed their hopes in the institutions and leaders of their day, whether the High Priests, the Ptolemies, or the Maccabees” and “had little interest in messianism,” while “apocalyptic groups developed the idea of a transcendent savior figure, either as an alternative or as a complement to earthly messianism.”26 At Qumran, “we find a group with a strong and developed interest in messianism.”27 As a “sectarian” manuscript, the scroll reflects the nature of the Qumran community. Sometime “before 150 bce. centuries of tension within the many priestly groups in the Jerusalem Temple came to a climax” and “the Righteous Teacher led a group out of the Temple and Jerusalem and southeastward into the wilderness” where he established the so-called Qumran community.28 The “Qumran phenomenon derives from larger and earlier sectarian apocalyptic movements. It is likely that the origins of the Qumran Community are to be found ‘within the Essene movement’ which antedates Qumran, but that the settlement at Qumran dates towards the latter half of the 2nd century bce.”29 He identifies at least four “currents” in emerging Judaism: a priestly and scribal current or “textual Judaism” (pp. 40–65); political and “messianic” currents or “revolutionary Judaism” (pp. 66–86); an apocalyptic current or “eschatological Judaism” (pp. 87–108); and a gnostic current or “inverted Judaism” (pp. 109–127). See also E. P. Sanders, “The Dead Sea Sect and Other Jews: Commonalities, Overlaps and Differences,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (London: T&T Clark, 2000), 1–43. Sanders remarks: “The Qumran community had much in common with other Jews of the same place and time. It was, however, a very radical group, and in numerous ways it was distinctive, so distinctive that it separated itself from other Palestinian Jews” (p. 32). 25  David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 2: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, trans. A. Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 8. 26   On apocalypticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Florentino García Martínez, “Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism, ed. E. Tigchelaar, STDJ 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 195–226. 27  John J. Collins, “Messianism in the Maccabean Period,” in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 97–109 (106). 28  Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 37. 29  Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 55–56. Cf. Florentino García Martínez, “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis,” in Tigchelaar, Qumranica Minora I, 3–29; Florentino García Martínez, “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History,” in Tigchelaar, Qumranica Minora I, 31–52 for a discussion on the origins and nature of the Qumran community. I accept the basic tenets of the “Groningen

32

Prinsloo

Much has been written about the community’s mode(s) of self-identification and their “sectarian” identity.30 They “called themselves ‘the Poor Ones,’ ‘the Good Ones,’ ‘the Sons of Aaron,’ ‘the Sons of Light,’ ‘the Sons of Truth,’ ‘the Sons of Dawn,’ ‘the Sons of Zadok,’ ‘the Sons of Righteousness,’ ‘the Righteous Ones,’ ‘the Perfect Ones,’ ‘the Perfect in the Way,’ ‘the Holy Ones,’ and ‘the Most Holy Ones’.”31 The community “can best be described as a group of Jews possessed by an ardent messianic vision … By extrapolating biblical texts, they had worked out the exact date of the onset of the ideal ‘Age to Come,’ and held themselves in readiness to welcome its harbingers, the ‘Anointed,’ who would usher it in.”32 As its name implies, the Pesher Habakkuk belongs to a specific genre, namely that of the pesharim.33 The pesharim “are scriptural commentaries named after the technical Hebrew term pesher (pl. pesharim) which characteristically appears in formulae that introduce an exposition of a biblical verse.”34 Pesher is “a form of biblical interpretation peculiar to Qumran, in which biblical poetic/prophetic texts are applied to the postbiblical historical/ eschatological settings through various literary techniques in order to substantiate a theological conviction pertaining to divine reward and punishment.”35 It is customary to distinguish between “continuous” and “thematic” pesharim.36 In a continuous pesher, a particular prophetic/poetic biblical text is systematiHypothesis.” It places “the origins of the Essene movement in the Palestinian apocalyptic tradition of the late 3rd and early 2nd century BCE, helps us to understand how and why within this Essene movement the influence of the Teacher of Righteousness gave rise to a fringe group and makes it clear how after opposing the High Priests Jonathan and Simon, this group eventually broke with the original Essene Community and retired to the desert” (García Martinéz, “Qumran Origins,” 28). 30  Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, STDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Shane Berg, “Religious Epistemology and the History of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 333–49; Jutta Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement, STDJ 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2013). For the history of the community, cf. Florentino García Martínez, “The History of the Qumran Community in the Light of Recently Available Texts,” in Tigchelaar, Qumranica Minora I, 67–89. 31  Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 73. 32  Shemaryahu Talmon, “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters,” in Neusner, Green and Frerichs, Judaisms and their Messiahs, 111–37 (115). 33  For introductions of the genre, see Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); Shani Berrin, “Qumran Pesharim,” in Henze, Biblical Interpretation, 110–33. 34  Lim, Pesharim, 13. 35  Berrin, “Qumran Pesharim,” 110. 36  Jean Carmignac, “Le Document de Qumran sur Melqisédeq,” RevQ 7 (1970): 343–78 is credited with coining the terminology.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

33

cally and sequentially applied to a new context by following a fixed scheme. A portion of the biblical text is quoted (the lemma), followed by an introductory formula containing a form of the Hebrew root ‫ פשר‬and an interpretation of the biblical text (the pesher).37 In a thematic pesher, different scriptural passages sharing some principle or another are linked and receive commentary.38 Pesher (‫“ )פשר‬is a term … largely distinctive of the Qumran sectarian literature.”39 It introduces “a revealed interpretation … of an earlier revelation,”40 indicates “the meaning of a biblical word, phrase or verse,”41 and “introduces the specific point of reference from which the entire verse is to be understood.”42 The pesharim “are hermeneutically focused. They are biblical commentaries in the sense of fulfilment hermeneutics.”43 Pesher interpretation “is pneumatic, eschatological, and ‘fulfilment interpretation’; it is also self-serving and idiosyncratic.”44 The pesherist read the biblical text in the light of his community’s interests, as if “the ancient men of wisdom, especially the prophets, focused their thoughts on the latter days” and as if the “Qumranites … were living in the latter days of time and history.”45 37  For a detailed analysis and interpretation of the continuous pesharim, see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, CBQMS 8 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). Horgan identifies fifteen DSS manuscripts with certainty as continuous pesharim (1QpHab; 1QpMic = 1Q14; 1QpZeph = 1Q15; 1QpPs = 1Q16; 4QpIsaa–e = 4Q161–165; 4QHosa,b = 4Q166–167; 4QpNah = 4Q169; 4QpZeph = 4Q170; 4QpPsa,b = 4Q171, 173;). Three fragmentary texts are presumably of pesharim (3QpIsa = 3Q4; 4QpMic = 4Q168; 4QpUnid = 4Q172), the last being unidentified fragments. 38  For an overview and brief interpretation of the thematic pesharim, see George J. Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scripture,” in Henze, Biblical Interpretation, 134–57. Brooke argues that no fixed boundaries exist between continuous and thematic pesharim and regards commentaries “on what may have been considered unfulfilled prophetic texts” (p. 135) as belonging to the second category. Brooke discusses nine documents in this genre (4QTest = 4Q175; 4QpPsa = 4Q171; 4QpIsab = 4Q162; 4QpIsac = 4Q163; 4QFlor = 4Q174; 4QCatenaa = 4Q177; 11QMelchizedeq = 11Q13; 4QAgesCreata–b = 4Q180–181; 4QCommentary on Genesis = 4Q252) and argues that the Damascus Document also displays features of the thematic commentaries. 39  George J. Brooke, Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essays in Method, SBLEJL 39 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 101. 40  Lou H. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1 Q p Hab),” RevQ 3 (1961): 323–64 (326). 41  Timothy H. Lim, “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism and Biblical Interpretation,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 57–73 (59). 42  Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle,” 328. 43  Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 5–6. 44  Charlesworth, 68. 45  Charlesworth, 70.

34

Prinsloo

The remarks above illustrate that the pesher genre exhibits “an explicitly bifold macrostructure. This bifold structure generates a dialogue between the voice of the base text and that of its interpretation. This structure imbues commentaries with a special kind of rhetoric.”46 The bifold structure suggests an intimate, dialogic, and intertextual relationship between lemma and pesher,47 which can be classified as a metatextual relationship.48 The relationship between lemma and pesher is “by nature one of reciprocity. The comments totally depend on the pre-text, since they are only made for the sake of understanding the pre-text. But the pre-text is also influenced by its metatextual post-text, since the way it is read and understood is affected—and may even be decisively determined—by the post-text.”49 This process of intertextual reinterpretation and reapplication, well-documented in the Hebrew Bible, inter alia expressly in dream interpretations,50 finds nuanced and focused expression in the Qumran pesharim,51 and comes to fruition in midrashic exegesis.52 Spatial constraints prohibit me from tracing the development of this exegetical trend and its parallels in Jewish, ancient Near Eastern and Greek sources.53 The nature of the pesher genre implies that biblical texts encountered in these documents should be treated with caution when they are compared with MT. The point of departure should a priori be that pesharim are not biblical texts, but literary creations in their own right. Coupled with the brief outline of the pesharim’s historical and social context, the word of caution becomes a warning bell when we compare 1QpHab’s quotations of Habakkuk with MT Habakkuk. We should not expect 1QpHab to be a biblical text. We should expect the document to be tendentious and to reflect its own historical, social, and literary milieu. It is through that lens that we should evaluate the textcritical contribution of 1QpHab to the text of MT Habakkuk. 46  Pieter B. Hartog. Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic Roman Period, STDJ 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 101. 47  Loader, “Qumran, Text and Intertext,” 898–99. 48  Loader, “Creating New Contexts,” 95. 49  Loader, 95. 50  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). Cf. Joseph’s dream interpretations in Gen 40:1–23; 41:1–57 and Daniel’s in Dan 2:1–49; 4:1–37. Of special importance is Daniel’s interpretation of a previously written message in Dan 5:1–30. In Genesis, the root ‫ פתר‬denotes dream interpretation (Gen 40:8, 16, 22; 41:8, 12, 13, 15), while ‫ פשר‬occurs in Daniel (Dan 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 30, 36, 45; 4:3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 21; 5:7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 26; 7:16). 51  Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle,” 323–64. 52  George J. Brooke, “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre,” RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503. 53  For an overview, see Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema, 6–16.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

3

35

Pesher Habakkuk: Scribal Techniques and Textual Characteristics

The Pesher Habakkuk was one of the first three scrolls discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran in 1947.54 It was written on two separate leather sheets, stitched together between columns 7 and 8 with linen cord. The second sheet was evidently an originally larger sheet cut to size. Above the first inscribed line of columns 8–13, three uninscribed but ruled lines are clearly visible.55 The scroll is about 1.48 m long and 14 cm high. The first two columns and the bottom of the scroll are damaged. Columns originally probably contained seventeen lines of text.56 The scroll is written in a clear Herodean script by two different scribes. The first wrote columns 1.1–12.13 (the first two words), the second 12.13 (from ‫אשר‬, the third word of the line) to 13.4 (the end of the inscribed text). The remainder of column 13 and a fourteenth ruled column were left uninscribed. The manuscript contains running commentary on only the first two chapters of the book of Habakkuk.57 The fact that column 13 contains only four lines of 54  The larger Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa), the Community Rule (1QS) and the Pesher Habakkuk (VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 3–15). 1QIsaa and 1QpHab were published in 1950; cf. Millar Burrows, John C. Trever, and William H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery V1: The Isaiah Manuscript and Habakkuk Commentary (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950). A new edition of the manuscript appeared in 2011 (Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing). A facsimile edition of the original colour photographs taken by John Trever was published in 1974; see Frank Moore Cross, David Noel Freedman, and James A. Sanders (eds.), Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk (Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1974). For a description of the scroll’s physical properties, see Millar Burrows, “I: General Introduction,” in Burrows, Trever, and Brownlee, Dead Sea Scrolls, ix–xxiii. 55  Tov, Scribal Practices, 35. 56  Traces of writing are discernible for line 16 (columns 2 and 6–11) and line 17 (column 8). 57  The fact that 1QpHab contains a virtually complete text of Hab 1–2 predating MT by a millennium, naturally caused great excitement in text-critical circles. Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica, 4. Aufl. (Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973), 102 described the purpose of Hebrew Bible textual criticism in the language of biblical scholarship in the early 1950s (his book was first published in 1952): “In der Arbeit der Textkritik such sie alle Änderungen aufzuspüren und den ältesten erreichbaren Text wiederherzustellen.” 1QpHab seemed to place this lofty ideal within the grasp of textual critics. The 1950s saw the publication of a number of definitive studies on textual variants between 1QpHab and MT Hab. Three detailed analyses deserve to be mentioned: Karl Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer, BHT 15 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953), 48–58; Stanislav Segert, “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer I,” ArOr 21 (1953): 218–39; Stanislav Segert, “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer II,” ArOr 22 (1954): 99–113; Stanislav Segert, “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer III,” ArOr 22 (1954): 444–59; Stanislav Segert, “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer IV,” ArOr 23 (1955):

36

Prinsloo

text, thus leaving almost two columns uninscribed, suggests that the absence of Habakkuk 3 was no accident. The scribes at Qumran apparently knew a version of Habakkuk without the third chapter.58 1QpHab is the most complete example of the continuous pesher genre. Typical of the genre, a section of the text of the biblical book is quoted (the lemma), followed by an application of the text to the historical and social context of the pesherist (the pesher). In 1QpHab the lemmata vary in length from a single colon to two verses.59 There is a noticeable increase in the length of lemmata in columns 8–13. Individual pesharim are introduced by introductory formulae containing the root ‫פשר‬.60 The pattern of lemma followed by pesher finds expression in scribal practice. Where the scroll is sufficiently preserved, it is clear that most pesharim are demarcated from their preceding lemmas by a petuchah or setumah.61 Other characteristics can also be ascribed to scribal practice. In 1QpHab, the divine name is written in paleo-Hebrew characters 178–83; William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran, SBLMS 11 (Philadelphia: SBL Press, 1959). 58  Timothy H. Lim, “Biblical Quotations in the Pesharim and the Text of the Bible— Methodological Considerations,” in Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 71–79 (77). 59  Lemmata are quoted in the following fashion: Single colon: 1:3a (1.5); 1:3b (1.7); 1:3c (1.8–9); 1:4a (1.10); 1:4d (1.14–15); 1:6d (3.2); 1:11b (4.13); 1:13a (5.6–7); 2:2c (7.3); 2:4a (7.14–15); 2:4b (7.17); 2:10b (10.2); 2:17c (12.6–7). Two cola: 1:4bc (1.12); 1:6ab (2.10–11); 1:6cd (2.16–17); 1:9bc (3.14); 1:10ab (3.17–4.1); 1:10cd (4.3–4); 1:13cd (5.8–9); 1:16ab (6.2–3); 1:16cd (6.5); 2:3ab (7.5– 6); 2:3cd (7.9–10); 2:8ab (9.3–4); 2:8cd (9.8). One verse: 1:5 (1.16–2.1); 1:7 (3.2–3); 1:11 (4.9–10); 1:17ab (6.8–9); 2:14 (10.14–15); 2:15 (11.2–3); 2:16 (11.8–11); 2:17 (11.17–12.1); 2:18 (12.10–12). Two verses: 1:1–2 (1.1–2); 1:8–9b (3.6–9); 1:12–13 (4.16–5.2); 1:14–16 (5.12–16); 2:1–2 (6.12–16); 2:5–7 (8.3–8); 2:7–8 (8.13–15); 2:9–11 (9.12–15); 2:12–13 (10.5–8); 2:19–20 (12.15–13.1). 60  Cf. the following formulae (references in italics indicate reconstructed text; those in bold italics indicate second applications after the repetition of an already quoted lemma): ‫פשרו‬: 1.8; 1.9; 1.13; 1.15; 10.3; 12.7. ‫פשרו על‬: 1.2; 1.6; 2.12; 2.17; 3.4; 3.9; 3.15; 4.5; 4.10; 5.9; 5.16; 6.10; 7.4; 7.10; 8.1; 8.8; 9.4; 9.9; 11.4; 11.12; 13.1. ‫פשרו אשר‬: 1.4; 1.11; 4.1; 4.14; 5.7; 6.3; 6.6; 7.7; 7.15. ‫פשרו הדבר על‬: 2.1; 8.16; 9.16; 10.9; 12.2; 12.12. ‫פשרו הדבר אשר‬: 5.3; 6.16; 10.15. Once a lemma applied for a second time is introduced by ‫( וכן פשר הדבר על‬2.5). Eight times a lemma is quoted for a second time, introduced by ‫( כיא הוא אשר אמר‬3.2; 3.13–14; 5.6) or ‫ואשר אמר‬ (6.1; 7.3; 9.3; 10.1–2; 12.6). These formulae demarcate thirty-eight pesharim, eight of them with a second quotation and application. For a discussion of the use of these formulae in 1QpHab, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique,” in Bernstein, Re-Reading Scripture, 635–73 (640–1). 61  For the scribal practice of leaving a space open at the end of a line (petuchah) or between words in a line (setumah), I prefer to use the technical terms known from Masoretic scribal practice instead of vacat (e.g. Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema, 97–99). For a detailed discussion of the scribal practice, see Josef M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments, OBO 27 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); Tov, Scribal Practices, 143–64. In 1QpHab,

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

37

(6.14; 10.7; 10.14; 11.10).62 In 1QpHab 2.5 a single, isolated ‫א‬, and an X sign occurring twelve times at the end of a line not completely filled with written text (3.12, 14; 4.11, 14; 6.4, 12; 8.1; 9.1, 13, 16; 10.3; 12.2) should probably be interpreted as line-fillers preventing readers from regarding the open spaces as petuchot.63 Turning to the scroll’s text, it is apparent that the manuscript does not testify to meticulous copying of its source document(s). It is attested by several corrections to the text, whether by the hand of the copyist himself or another hand.64 In the biblical lemmata, scribal corrections can be seen in several supralinear insertions of letters or words, cancellation dots above and below letters, and in the secondary reshaping of letters.65 In the pesharim, a similar pattern emerges. Several supralinear insertions and cancellation dots and/or strokes above and/or below letters/words confirm that 1QpHab does not attest to careful scribal precision.66 Apart from this visible evidence of scribal corrections, in the biblical lemmata at least five variant readings can possibly be ascribed to scribal errors.67 These observations indicate that the scribe(s) of 1QpHab took no special care when he/they copied from his/their source

Petuchot occur in 3.3; 5.2; 6.5, 9; 7.6, 15; 9.8; 10.2, 8; 11.11; 12.5; 13.4 and Setumot in 2.1, 5; 3.7, 9; 4.1, 10; 5.7, 9, 11; 6.3; 7.3, 10; 8.8, 16; 9.4, 7; 10.15; 11.4 (cf. Tov, Scribal Practices, 326). 62  Tov, Scribal Practices, 242. All instances occur in quotations of the biblical text. The phenomenon suggests reverence for the divine name (Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema, 87). 63  Cf. the discussion in Tov, Scribal Practices, 209–10. 64  Tov, Scribal Practices, 222. 65  Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher,” 160–85 notes and discusses the scribal corrections in a set of footnotes; see also Tov, Scribal Practices, 187–98. In lemmata, the following corrections are apparent. (1) Supralinear insertions: ‫ ז‬to read ‫( מזאבי‬3.7 = MT 1:8); ‫ י‬to read ‫( ויצבור‬4.4 = MT 1:10); ‫ י‬to read ‫( עינים‬5.1 = MT 1:13); ‫ ירוץ‬to correct an accidental word omission (7.3 = MT 2:2); ‫ יושבי‬to correct an accidental word omission (9.8 = MT 2:8). (2) Cancellation dots: above and below ‫ ו‬in ‫( ו[נשכי]ך‬8.14 = MT 2:7) to cancel dittography of waw at the end of 8.13. (3) Reshaping of letters: in 3.7 (MT 1:8), ‫ פשר‬is corrected to ‫פשו‬ by superimposing a wide waw on the resh. 66  In pesharim, the following corrections are apparent. (1) Supralinear insertions: ‫ ה‬to read ‫( הצדקה‬2.2); ‫ ם‬to read ‫( ואמתם‬3.4); ‫( הגואים‬3.5); ‫ י‬to read ‫( רעיהו‬4.12); ‫ ו‬to read ‫( עמו‬5.3); ‫( לא‬7.1), either a gloss for clarification of the subject of the verb ‫ וידבר‬or a correction of haplography of the preposition ‫ ו ;אל‬to read ‫( לענותו‬9.10); ‫ י‬to read ‫( עיצה‬10.1); ‫הרשע‬ (12.8). (2) Cancellation dots/strokes: Above and below the ‫ א‬of ‫( כ]יא‬2.10); above and below the first ‫ ו‬of ‫( ישחוקו‬4.6); above ‫( על‬7.2) to cancel dittography of the same word at the end of 7.1; before and after ‫ לוא‬in 7.2 (but the meaning of the dots is uncertain; see Tov, Scribal Practices, 194). 67  Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 68–72. The following variants belong to this category: ‫וקול‬ in 3.6 (MT 1:8 ‫ פני הם ;)וקלו‬in 3.9 (MT 1:9 ‫ משל עליו ;)פניהם‬in 8.6 (MT 2:6 ‫;)עליו משל‬ ‫ מבוד‬in 11.9 (MT 2:16 ‫ הרץ ;)מכבוד‬in 13.1 (MT 2:20 ‫ ;)הארץ‬cf. the discussion of these variants ad loci in Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk.

38

Prinsloo

document.68 There is also no discernible difference in scribal practice between “biblical” and “sectarian” material.69 When 1QpHab was written, “the concept of an exact transmission had yet to be created.”70 Modern exponents of the science (or maybe rather the art) of textual criticism should take it for granted that the persons involved in the transmission of the Qumran manuscripts were “scribe-editors, who were not only active in the transmission of texts, but also in the final stage of their creative edition.”71 When 1QpHab was first published, Millar Burrows sounded the following warning: The quotations of Habakkuk afford an early witness to the text of the prophet. Sometimes the interpretative material apparently presupposes another reading than that directly cited … Where a passage is directly quoted more than once, verbal differences may be due to errors of memory (e.g. the order of a phrase in Hab. 1:15f. as cited in col. v.14–15 and in col. vi.2–3), or merely to a free manner of quoting … Such instances of free treatment show that the textual value of any variant in this document must be considered with caution.72 Subsequent generations of scholars did not always heed this warning. All too often, “scholars have been hunting for variants, that is, deviations from MT in the various sources, as if the default position is that Second Temple compositions are based on MT.”73 As far as the pesharim are concerned, the silent assumption in most text-critical studies is “that the biblical text as reconstituted from the quotations can be textually characterized as an early example of the Masoretic Text (MT), the so-called proto-Masoretic Text.”74 Departing from this presumption, two approaches to textual-comparative studies are unproductive in creating an intertextual dialogue between two different versions of Habakkuk. On the one hand, a maximalist approach assumes that deviations from MT in 1QpHab reflect variants in actual proto-Masoretic scrolls that can be utilized to reconstruct “better” readings of MT Habakkuk.75 On the other 68  Tov, Scribal Practices, 25. 69  Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 60–61. 70  Tov, Scribal Practices, 25. 71  Tov, 25. 72  Burrows, “General Introduction,” xx. 73  Tov, “Biblical Quotations,” 289. 74  Lim, Pesharim, 18. 75  This is the approach followed by Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 58 when he suggests that seven variant readings in 1QpHab (1:8, 11, 17; 2:5, 10, 15, 16) can be utilised as “corrections” for MT.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

39

hand, a minimalist approach assumes that variants that cannot be ascribed to scribal practices or errors, are exegetical variants inspired by the sectarian concerns of the Qumran community and thus of minimal text-critical value.76 If the evaluation of text-critical variants between 1QpHab and MT can be conceptualized as a scale, approaches representing the extreme ends of the continuum of necessity implies eclecticism.77 In the evaluation of variants, cognisance should be taken of the fact that during the late Second Temple period, “Jewish authoritative writings remained canonically open and more importantly textually fluid,” thus it is “difficult to know whether the pesherist altered his biblical text by adapting original readings identical with the MT or by simply using a version of the biblical book that already contained these variants.”78 It is certainly to be expected that “some exegesis is contained in the biblical text quoted in the pesharim, including a few cases of sectarian exegesis.” However, “most deviations from MT in the lemmas probably reflect variants found in the biblical manuscripts used by the commentator.”79 Viewed from a purely statistical perspective, Hab 1–2 contains 446 words. For 136 of the words 1QpHab displays a variant/variants compared to MT (30.5%). To these word variants can be added five instances where 1QpHab suggests a different syntactical relationship between words compared to MT.80 In MT Hab, the divine name occurs seven times. In 1QpHab, it is consistently written in paleo-Hebrew characters in four instances where the prophetic text is preserved, and can presumably be reconstructed in the other three cases.81 If this scribal convention is not regarded as a textual variant, and the seven instances subtracted from the MT word count, there is a variation between 1QpHab and MT for 31% of the words. It is a significant number. How these variants are to be weighed, is controversial.82 William H. Brownlee counted 76  George J. Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 85–100 argues that some variants display “the desire of the Qumran commentator to make his text conform to his exegetical understanding” (p. 87). The approach of Kim, “Intentionale Varianten,” 23–37 is illustrative of the approach to ascribe textual variants between 1QpHab and MT Hab to intentional, sectarian considerations. 77  Tov, “Biblical Quotations,” 299–300. 78  Lim, Pesharim, 18. 79  Tov, “Biblical Quotations,” 300–301. 80  1QpHab 3.7–8 = MT 1:8; 5.14–15 = MT 1:15–16; 6.8–9 = MT 1:17; 3.3–4 = MT 2:5; 12.6–7 = MT 2:17. 81  The divine name is preserved in 6.14 = MT 2:2; 10.7 = MT 2:13; 10.14 = MT 2:14; 11.10 = MT 2:16. It can presumably be restored in 1.1 = MT 1:1; 4.17 = MT 1:12; 12.17 = MT 2:20. 82  Lim, “Biblical Quotations,” 71–79.

40

Prinsloo

135 variants and ascribed 65 to scribal practices, five to scribal errors, and reckoned 65 to be “significant” variants.83 Karl Elliger regarded only twenty variants between 1QpHab and MT Hab as “significant,” and only seven can serve as possible “corrections” for MT.84 Stanislav Segert regarded 35 variants as significant for the textual criticism of MT Hab.85 More recently, Lidija Novakovic listed 66 variants between 1QpHab and MT Hab.86 Of these, nine belongs to Brownlee’s category of scribal practices, three to scribal errors, and 54 to the category of “significant” variants. In the Biblia Qumranica,87 forty-eight variants between MT and 1QpHab are marked as significant. Emanuel Tov observed a set of similar scribal conventions in 167 biblical and nonbiblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus, which he defined as “Qumran scribal practice.”88 The practice include scribal markings and the writing of the divine name in paleo-Hebrew already referred to above, but also a number of orthographical conventions. A cursory perusal of 1QpHab and MT Hab variants indicates that 1QpHab stands squarely in this tradition. It should play an important role in weighing 1QpHab and MT Hab textual variants. In the biblical lemmata quoted in 1QpHab, the conventions include inter alia: plene writing with ‫ ו‬or ‫ י‬where MT has defective writing;89 plene writing with ‫ ה‬for verbal suffixes/pronominal suffixes with vocalic endings;90 defective spelling where MT has plene, especially with three masculine singular suffixes added to plural noun;91 the presence of “metathetic” ‫;א‬92 deletion of a quiet ‫;א‬93 and deletion of the prefix ‫ ה‬after the preposition ‫ ל‬with infinitive construct forms.94 It is interesting to compare the approaches of the text editors in the textcritical apparatus of MT Hab in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) respectively. In BHS, Karl Elliger mentions 56 variants

83  Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 5–95. 84  Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 48–58. The seven variants occur in 1:8, 11, 17; 2:5, 10, 15, 16. 85  Segert, “Funde vom Toten Meer II,” 99–113; idem, “Funde vom Toten Meer III,” 444–59. 86  Lidija Novakovic, “Text-critical Variants in the Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents,” in Charlesworth, Pesharim and Qumran History, 129–58. 87  Beate Ego et al., Biblia Qumranica Volume 3B: Minor Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 127–35. 88  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 107–11; Tov, Scribal Practices, 261–73. 89  44 times; e.g., ‫( לוא‬1.1; 3.2; 5.2; 6.9; 7.6, 9, 14; 8.3, 4, 7). 90  11 times; e.g., ‫( והיתה‬8.14); ‫( כבודכה‬11.11). 91  10 times; e.g., ‫( סוסו‬3.6); ‫( עלו‬8.7). 92  9 times; e.g., ‫( כיא‬2.10; 6.5; 7.5, 9; 8.3; 9.14; 10.14; 12.11). 93  2 times; e.g., ‫( יספהו‬5.14); ‫( ורמויו‬8.7). 94  Once: ‫( לנצל‬9.13).

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

41

between 1QpHab and MT.95 In seventeen cases he suggests that the reading of 1QpHab should be accepted or considered. Presumably, these seventeen instances represent for him “significant” variants, a substantial deviation from the opinion he expressed in his commentary on the textual variants of 1QpHab referred to above. In his commentary, Karl Elliger emends MT fifteen times with specific reference to 1QpHab textual variants.96 In BHQ, Anthony Gelston refers to 45 variants in Hab 1 and 72 in Hab 2 when he compares MT and 1QpHab, i.e. 117 variants.97 He expresses an opinion regarding the nature of the variant readings in 25 cases in Habakkuk 1 and 34 in Habakkuk 2. Presumably, he thus regards 59 variants as significant enough to merit consideration. In his textual commentary, he discusses 46 of these variants in more detail. However, Gelston does not lead readers (like Elliger) to regard some of the 1QpHab variants as “corrections” for MT. The overview of 1QpHab’s scribal techniques and textual characteristics again indicates what not to expect of the scroll as a text-critical witness. 1QpHab is not a biblical scroll, but a pesher reflecting Qumran scribal practice, written for late first century BCE and/or early first century CE users in Palestine in their specific historical, social, and religious contexts. Moreover, 1QpHab does not contain a proto-Masoretic version of the text of Habakkuk, but its own version, which both agree with and differ from other textual witnesses known from the late Second Temple period. Finally, 1QpHab should not be measured against the stringent requirements for textual transmission that developed in rabbinic circles from the middle of the first millennium CE.98 The scribe of 1QpHab transmitted a text for the private use of his local community. Therefore, we cannot use the scroll to reconstruct the “original” text of MT Hab. What we can do, is to allow both versions to become equal partners in an intertextual dialogue. In the final section, I will briefly illustrate what it implies in practical terms.

95  Karl Elliger, “Librum XII Prophetarum,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77), 1049–52. 96  Karl Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, 6th ed., ATD 25/II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). 97  Anthony Gelston, ‫ תרי עשר‬The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 92–98 and 114*–21*. 98  Tov, Scribal Practices, 26.

42 4

Prinsloo

Pesher Habakkuk: Eclectic Reconstruction or Constructive Dialogue?

Emanuel Tov argued that modern commentaries on and translations of the Hebrew Bible in essence provide eclectic reconstructions of the Hebrew Bible based upon their subjective opinion regarding the value of ancient text-critical witnesses for establishing a “better” text than MT.99 These reconstructions purportedly then contain the Urtext of biblical books. In my brief discussion of textual variants between MT and 1QpHab below, my narrow aim is to illuminate the eclectic and subjective use of variants in 1QpHab to “correct” MT Hab in modern translations and commentaries.100 I commence with two variants that Tov regards as clear instances of sectarian exegesis.101 In MT, Hab 2:5ab reads as follows:102 MT 2:5ab



‫ּבֹוגד‬ ֵ ֔ ‫י־ה ַּי�֣יִ ן‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַא ֙ף ִ ּֽכ‬Yes, indeed—this wine is treacherous: ‫ ֶּג ֶ֥בר יָ ִ ֖היר וְ ֣ל ֹא יִ נְ ֶו֑ה‬an arrogant man—he does not come to rest

When 1QpHab quotes the prophetic text, it reads: 1QpHab 8.3–4 ‫ ואף כיא הון יבגוד גבר יהיר‬ Yes, indeed—wealth betrays an arrogant man, ‫ ולוא ינוה‬and he does not come to rest. 1QpHab reads ‫“ הון‬wealth” for MT’s ‫“ היין‬the wine,” and an imperfect (‫)יבגוד‬ where MT has a participle (‫)בוגד‬. MT’s syntax is awkward, with ‫ גבר יהיר‬standing asyndetically in apposition to ‫בוגד‬. In a number of translations, 1QpHab’s ‫“ הון‬wealth” and smoother syntax are the preferred reading. The Good News Bible (GNB),103 for instance, translates: “Wealth is deceitful. Greedy people are proud and restless.”104 The same tendency is apparent in commentaries. According to Lothar Perlitt, a reference to wine “gibt hier keinen Sinn,” 99  Tov, “Modern Translations,” 193–211. 100  For a discussion of the influence of the Qumran Scrolls on modern English translations of the Bible, see Stephen C. Daley, “Textual Influence of the Qumran Scrolls in English Bible Versions,” in Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 253–87. 101  Tov, “Biblical Quotations,” 300 n. 88. 102  I discussed the variants between MT and 1QpHab extensively in a previous publication; see Prinsloo, “Habakkuk 2:5a.”. 103  The Good News Bible (1976). 104  For similar translations, see Holy Bible: The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989); The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (MSG, 2002); Holy Bible: New Living Translation (NLT, 2004).

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

43

therefore 1QpHab’s ‫ הון‬is an “empfehlenswerte Alternative.”105 Adam S. van der Woude states: “Het in de context nauwelijks aanvaardbare hayyayin, ‘de wijn’, moet ongetwijfeld met steun van 1QpHab (hwn) in hōn, ‘bezit, vermogen’, gewijzigd worden.”106 Such translations undervalue the close relationship between lemma (8.3–8) and pesher (3.8–13) in 1QpHab. The pesher reads: 8Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who 9was called by the name of truth at the beginning of his standing, but when he ruled 10in Israel his heart became haughty. He abandoned God, and he betrayed the statutes for the sake of 11wealth (‫)הון‬. He stole, and he amassed the wealth (‫ )הון‬of the men of violence, who rebelled against God. 12He took the wealth (‫ )הון‬of the peoples, to add against himself guilty iniquity. And the ways 13of abomination he pursued with every sort of unclean impurity.107 ‫‘ הון‬wealth’ is clearly a key term in 8.3–13. It occurs another five times in 1QpHab (1.8; 6.1; 9.5, 6; 12.10). In fact, the Pesher “mentions wealth more extensively than any of the other exegetical works.”108 The Qumran Community “displayed a distinct antipathy towards wealth and they regarded it as the result of violence, pillage and oppression.”109 ‫ הון‬occurs about 140 times in the Dead Sea “sectarian” texts,110 and can be regarded as a key concept for the Qumran community.111 The accumulated evidence indicate that ‫ואף כיא הון יבגוד גבר יהיר‬ in 1QpHab 8.3 is an acceptable and explainable reading in the context of the Qumran community and its literature. The opposite must also be conceded. In the context of MT 2:5ab, ‫ היין‬makes perfect sense. An intertextual reading of Hab 2:5 and the series of woe-oracles (2:6–20; cf. especially 2:15–16) and texts in the Psalter and the Prophets where ‫ יין‬metaphorically signifies wrath (Ps 75:9; Jer 25:15–16; 51:7–8; Isa 51:17–23), indicates that the reference to wine is not as 105  Lothar Perlitt, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, ATD 25/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 67 n. 47. 106  Adam S. van der Woude, Habakuk Zephanja, POT (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978), 39. 107  For a detailed exegesis of this lemma and pesher, see William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, SBLMS 24 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 131–44. 108  Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community, STDJ 40 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 235. 109  Joan Potgieter-Annadale, Qumran in and around the Bible: A New Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls (Pretoria: Van Schaik, 1999), 81. 110  An exact count depends upon textual reconstructions. I did not take parallel texts (e.g., 1QS V.1–4 // 4Q258 I.2–3) into consideration but did a simple count of all occurrences ‫הון‬. The statistics simply illustrate that it is a key word in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 111  William H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 14 (1951): 54–76 (67 n. 39).

44

Prinsloo

unexpected as implied in the commentaries referred to above. On the contrary, the general intent of the text is clear: “Like delusory wine, the arrogant man will not reach his destination. These Chaldean kings will no longer continue with their pillage and their voracious gathering of nations into their realm … At a certain moment in time the nations they have plundered will get the opportunity to scoff at the Chaldeans.”112 A different approach to MT and 1QpHab variants is apparent in MT 2:15c. In this case, MT reads: ‫יהם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫עֹור‬ ֵ ‫ל־מ‬ ְ ‫“ ְל ַ ֥מ ַען ַה ִ ּ֖ביט ַע‬in order to gaze at their nudity.” The prophetic text is represented in 1QpHab 11.3 as: ‫“ למען הבט אל מועדיהם‬in order to gaze at their feasts.” As was the case with ‫ הון‬in Hab 2:5, it is clear from the pesher on this verse (1QpHab 11.4–8) that the word ‫ מועד‬was a central theme in the mind of the pesherist: 4Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who 5pursued the Teacher of Righteousness in order to swallow him up with the anger of 6his wrath in the house of his exile. At the end of the feast (‫ )בקץ מועד‬of the repose of 7the day of atonement, he appeared to them, to swallow them, 8and to make them stumble on the day of fasting, their restful Sabbath.113 Translations and commentaries are either silent about the textual variant,114 or explicitly state that it is a clear example of sectarian exegesis in 1QpHab.115 The question arises why in this case a contextual interpretation of 1QpHab is acceptable (and necessary),116 but not in the case of the ‫הון‬/‫ היין‬variant in Hab 2:5. It illustrates the eclectic use of textual variants to suit the subjective interpretation of variant readings by the translator/commentator. The same trend is apparent in the very next verse. In MT, Hab 2:16ab reads: MT 2:16ab

‫לֹון ִמ ָּכ ֔בֹוד‬ ֙ ‫ ָׂש ַ ֤ב ְע ָּת ָק‬ You are satisfied with shame rather ‫ם־א ָּתה וְ ֵ ֽה ָע ֵ ֑רל‬ ֖ ַ ַ‫ ְׁש ֵ ֥תה ג‬

than glory, drink, you too, and be stripped bare!

112   Potgieter-Annandale, Qumran, 79. 113  Cf. Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 179–89. 114  In this case, Perlitt, Habakuk, makes no reference to the variant reading at all. 115  Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha—Nahum—Habakuk—Zephanja, KAT 13/3 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 221. 116  Kim, “Intentionale Varianten,” 35–36.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

45

The prophetic text is quoted in 1QpHab 11.8–9 as follows: 1QpHab 11.8–9

‫ שבעתה קלון מבוד‬ You are satisfied with shame rather

than glory,

‫ שתה גם אתה והרעל‬drink, you too, and stagger!

The significant variant in this case is MT ‫ וְ ֵ ֽה ָע ֵ ֑רל‬and 1QpHab ‫והרעל‬.117 The root ‫ ערל‬occurs as a verb only twice in the Hebrew Bible, here in the Niphʿal, and in Lev 19:23 in the Qal. As noun, it occurs often as ‫“ ָע ֵרל‬uncircumcised” (Judg 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6; 31:4; 2 Sam 1:20; 1 Chr 10:4) or ‫“ ָע ְר ָלה‬foreskin” (Gen 34:14

Ex 4:25 Jer 9:24). In Lev 19:23 the verb is translated literally as “to regard as uncircumcised” and in Hab 2:16 as “to reveal oneself as being uncircumcised.”118 1QpHab’s ‫ והרעל‬is derived from the root ‫“ רעל‬to shake, ripple.” In the present context, with several references to drinking, it is translated by “stagger.” This is the preferred reading in many translations (cf. GNB “You in turn will be covered with shame instead of honor. You yourself will drink and stagger”).119 A number of commentators argue that metathesis occurred in MT and that 1QpHab’s ‫ והרעל‬is the preferred reading.120 If the biblical lemma is read in close conjunction with its pesher in 1QpHab 11.12–15, this conclusion seems rash: 12Its interpretation concerns the priest, whose shame prevailed over his glory, 13because he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart (‫כיא לוא מל‬ ‫)את עורלת לבו‬, but walked in the ways of 14intoxication, in order to sweep away thirst. But the cup of the wrath of God will swallow him up, adding to all his shame and pain.121 The pesher illustrates that the pesherist was “aware” of the reading ‫ הערל‬and applied it metaphorically to the wicked priest’s unlawful behaviour as “the foreskin of his heart” being uncircumcised. However, he is also condemning the wicked priest’s “intoxication” (‫)רויה‬, an allusion to the references to excessive drinking in the biblical lemmata quoted in 11.2–3 (‫שקה‬, ‫ )שכר‬and 11.8–11 (‫ )שתה‬and the reference to the “cup of the right hand of Yhwh” in 11.10. 117  I regard ‫ מבוד‬in 1QpHab 8.8 for MT 2:16a ‫ מכבוד‬as a scribal error and not a textual variant; cf. Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 204. 118  Walter Dietrich, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, IECOT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 143. 119  So also NRSV, 1989; Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’Rit Hadashah (New Testament) (CJB, 1998); Common English Bible (CEB, 2011); 120  Elliger, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 60; Klaus Seybold, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, ZBK 24/2 (Zürich: TVZ, 1991), 69; Perlitt, Habakuk, 76. 121  Cf. Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 190–95.

46

Prinsloo

In the 1QpHab context, ‫“ והרעל‬and totter!” makes sense. On the other hand, MT’s ‫“ והערל‬and be stripped bare!” alludes to ‫“ מעוריהם‬their nudity” in 2:15 and makes sense in the context of MT.122 Taken on face value, it is not possible to declare the textual variant in 1QpHab as a “better” reading. It is conceivable that metathesis of the MT reading ‫ והערל‬took place in 1QpHab. The treatment of the variant in translations and commentaries again illustrates the eclectic and subjective use of 1QpHab to reconstruct a theoretical Urtext. I finally briefly discuss a textual variant in Hab 1. In Hab 1:8–9 we are confronted with a number of word variants as well as the different demarcation of cola. In MT, Hab 1:8 reads: MT 1:8abc

‫סּוסיו‬ ָ֗ ‫ וְ ַקּל֙ ּו ִמּנְ ֵמ ִ ֜רים‬And swifter than cheetahs are his horses, ‫ּדּו ִמּזְ ֵ ֣א ֵבי ֔ ֶע ֶרב‬ ֙ ‫  וְ ַח‬and keener than wolves of the evening, ‫  ּופׁשּו ָ ּֽפ ָר ָ ׁ֑שיו‬ ָ֖   and his horsemen gallop! MT 1:8de ‫ּופ ָר ָׁש ֙יו ֵמ ָר ֣חֹוק יָ ֔בֹאּו‬ ֽ ָ Yes, his horsemen come from far away, ‫ יָ ֕ ֻעפּו ְּכ ֶנ ֶׁ֖שר ָ ֥חׁש ֶל ֱא ֽכֹול׃‬  they fly as a vulture rushing to devour.

The prophetic text is quoted in 1QpHab 3.6–8 as follows: 1QpHab 3.6–8 ‫וקול מנמרים סוסו‬6 And swifter than cheetahs are his horses,123 ‫מזאבי ערב‬7 ‫ וחדו‬and keener than 7wolves of the evening. ‫ פשו ופרשו פרשו‬his horsemen gallop and they storm, ‫יעופו כנשר חש לאכול‬8 )‫ מרחוק (־־‬ from afar 8they fly like a vulture rushing to devour.

The significant variants occur when 1QpHab quotes the biblical lemma (= MT 1:8c and 8de) in 3.7–8. MT 1:8c and 8d is characterized by the anadiplosis of ‫פרשיו‬, the second occurrence preceded by a waw copulative. 1QpHab conflates MT 1:8c and 8d by representing MT’s first ‫ פרשיו‬as a perfect three masculine plural verb preceded by a waw copulative (‫“ פרשו‬and they storm”), and the second as a plural noun with a three masculine singular pronominal suffix, without the copula (‫“ פרשו‬his horsemen”). MT’s 1:8c ‫ )יבאו‬does not appear in 1QpHab, which implies that ‫ מרחוק‬is syntactically linked to ‫יעופו‬. A number of translations follow 1QpHab’s version of MT 1:8. The New Living Translation (NLT),124 for instance, translates as follows: “Their horses are swifter than 122  Rudolph, Habakuk, 221. 123  1QpHab 3.6 ‫ קולו‬is a scribal error (metathesis) for ‫( וקלו‬Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 48) and is not considered as a textual variant. 124  New Living Translation (NLT, 1996).

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

47

cheetahs and fiercer than wolves at dusk. Their charioteers charge from far away. Like eagles, they swoop down to devour their prey.”125 Some commentaries also suggest that it is a “better” reading because it is the shorter reading.126 Again, it is imperative to consider the relationship between this lemma and its pesher in 1QpHab 3.9–12: 9Its interpretation concerns the Kittim who 10trample the land with [their] horses and with their beasts. From far away 11they come (‫)יבואו‬, from the sea-coasts, to devour all the peoples like a vulture, 12without being satisfied. And with rage they grow hot, and with burning anger and fury they speak with all the peoples.127 The pesherist exchanges ‫ יעופו‬from the lemma with ‫ יבאו‬in the interpretation, both used to describe the coming of a foreign army ‫“ כנשר‬like a vulture.” Care should be taken not to simply assume that the shorter reading is in this case the better reading. The anadiplosis in MT suggests a build up towards a climax, namely the devouring of peoples by the swift army of the Chaldeans. In 1QpHab the lemma emphasizes the Kittim’s swooping down like a vulture upon carrion, the pesher their coming from afar. A non-eclectic approach would allow for the MT version of Hab 1:8 to be evaluated and appreciated in the context of MT, and to do the same for the 1QpHab version in the context of 1QpHab.128 5 Conclusion When I reviewed the science and art of Hebrew Bible textual criticism after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the light of the Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran, I constantly kept my deliberately formulated subtheme in mind: “What not to expect of the Pesher Habakkuk.” The subtheme deconstructed expectations that the Pesher’s quotations of the biblical text of Hab 1–2, even though it predates MT by a millennium, will aid modern interpreters in reconstructing “better” readings for the many textual and interpretational difficulties encountered in the biblical book. I indicated that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shattered the myth of a single textual tradition underlying all the versions of the Hebrew Bible and exposed the ideal to reconstruct the 125  Similarly The Bible in Basic English (BBE, 1965); CJB. 126  Van der Woude, Habakuk, 23. See also Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 49. 127  Cf. Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 69–71. 128  Kim, “Intentionale Varianten,” 30–31.

48

Prinsloo

original, single Hebrew Vorlage of all the ancient textual witnesses as a futile exercise. I argued that textual variants in the Pesher call for a contextual interpretation. They should be evaluated in light of the Pesher’s historical, social and literary context and in the context of the scroll’s scribal techniques and textual characteristics. Such an approach should warn modern interpreters of the Hebrew Bible against the eclectic and subjective use of the Pesher’s textual variants to reconstruct, even implicitly, the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible. I indicated that textual variants should rather be seen as an invitation to engage in a constructive intertextual dialogue, using textual data within the Pesher itself and between the Pesher and the MT version of Habakkuk. If we contemplate the contribution of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls more than seventy years ago to Hebrew Bible textual criticism, we should in our final analysis ask the question: What is different after the discovery? To my mind, my review of the Pesher Habakkuk to the textual criticism of the book of Habakkuk reveals a quite disconcerting fact: Everything changed, and nothing changed! Let me substantiate the claim with a concrete example. Long before the discovery of the scrolls, in 1906, Bernard Duhm published a critical commentary on Habakkuk.129 He reconstructed the Hebrew text of the book for twenty-five of the thirty-seven verses in Hab 1–2. He thus produced, granted (sometimes) with reference to ancient textual witnesses, his own eclectic version of the book. Long after the discovery of the scrolls, in 2016, Walter Dietrich published a critical commentary on the book.130 He suggests reconstructions for fourteen of the thirty-seven verses. It suggests a more nuanced evaluation of text-critical variants, but still implies a selective, subjective and eclectic approach to the text of Habakkuk. The same trend is present in modern translations of the Hebrew Bible. In my humble opinion, the time has come for Hebrew Bible scholars to acknowledge that “the scholarly principle of eclecticism” is problematic.131 The time is ripe for textual critics to realise that the eclectic use of textual variants in the apparatus of critical editions of the Hebrew Bible is helpful only for experts in the field of study. Its use by translators, and frankly, by scholarly commentators, without paying any attention to the context of the ancient textual witnesses, still misleads both trained and lay Bible readers to expect that the commentary they consult or the translation they read is somehow a reconstruction of the biblical Urtext. Emanuel Tov suggests that we should 129  Bernard Duhm, Das Buch Habakuk (Tübingen: Mohr, 1906). 130  Dietrich, Habakuk. 131  Tov, “Modern Translations,” 208.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

49

“return to the period before eclecticism was practiced in the creation of Bible translations. If MT is chosen as the basis for translation, it should be followed consistently.”132 To this, I would add: As biblical scholars, we should create space for Bible translators and Bible commentators that would facilitate contextual and intertextual analyses of ancient textual witnesses. In our digital world, it should not only be possible, but imperative, to revive the ideal of a Polyglot Bible where variants in a variety of ancient textual witnesses can be compared horizontally, but evaluated in their literary context vertically.133 Seventy years after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we should no longer perpetuate the notion— tacitly or explicitly—that any Hebrew Bible scholar is able to reconstruct an “original” and “error free” version of any book of the Hebrew Bible. We owe that to the legacy of scholars like Peter Flint who made it their life’s work to sensitise the scholarly world and the interested public of the existence of multiple text traditions in the late Second Temple period. Bibliography Berg, Shane. “Religious epistemology and the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 333–49 in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique.” Pages 653– 73 in Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran Volume 2: Law, Pesher and the History of Interpretation. STDJ 107. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Bernstein, Moshe J. “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 363–86 in Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran Volume 2: Law, Pesher and the History of Interpretation. STDJ 107. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Bernstein, Moshe J. Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran Volume 2: Law, Pesher and the History of Interpretation. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Berrin, Shani. “Qumran Pesharim” Pages 110–33 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

132  Tov, “Modern Translations,” 209. 133  The Biblia Qumranica Project (Ego et al., Minor Prophets) is a timeous illustration that such a project is not only attainable, but, in fact desirable.

50

Prinsloo

Brooke, George J. “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre.” RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503. Brooke, George J. “The Biblical Texts in Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Brooke, George J. “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scripture.” Pages 134–57 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Brooke, George J. Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essays in Method. SBLEJL 39. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Brownlee, William H. “Biblical interpretation among the sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BA 14 (1951): 54–76. Brownlee, William H. The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran. SBLMS 11. Philadelphia: SBL Press, 1959. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. SBLMS 24. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Burrows, Millar, John C. Trever, and William H. Brownlee. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery V1: The Isaiah Manuscript and Habakkuk Commentary. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Carmignac, Jean. “Le Document de Qumran sur Melqisédeq.” RevQ 7 (1970): 343–78. Charlesworth, James H. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations PTSDSSP. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Collins, John J. “Messianism in the Maccabean Period.” Pages 97–109 in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Cook, Johann. “The Text-critical and Exegetical Value of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(4) (2016), a3280, http://dx.doi .org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3280. Cross, Frank Moore, David Noel Freedman, and James A. Sanders, eds. Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk. Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1974. Daley, Stephen C. “Textual Influence of the Qumran Scrolls in English Bible Versions.” Pages 253–87 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Deist, Ferdinand. Witnesses to the Old Testament: Introducing Old Testament Textual Criticism. Literature of the Old Testament 5. Pretoria: Boekhandel, 1988.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

51

Dietrich, Walter. Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Duhm, Bernard. Das Buch Habakuk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906. Ego, Beate, Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Kristin De Troyer. Minor Prophets. Vol. 3B of Biblia Qumranica, Leiden: Brill, 2005. Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. BHT 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953. Elliger, Karl. Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, 6th ed. ATD 25/II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Elliger, Karl. “Librum XII Prophetarum.” Pages 1049–52 in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77. Eshel, Hanan. “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 107–17 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flusser, David. The Jewish Sages and Their Literature. Vol. 2 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Translated by Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. García Martínez, Florentino. “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” Pages 31–52 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino. “Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 195–226 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino. “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis.” Pages 3–29 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino. “The History of the Qumran Community in the Light of Recently Available Texts.” Pages 67–89 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Gelston, Anthony. ‫ תרי עשר‬The Twelve Minor Prophets. BHQ 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Goldstein, Binyamin Y., Michael Segal and George Brooke, eds. Hāʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein. STDJ 122. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Grabbe, Lester L. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

52

Prinsloo

Hartog, Pieter B. Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic Roman Period. STDJ 121. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hartog, Pieter B. “‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ and ‘The Mouth of the Priest’: Eschatology and Literary History in Pesher Habakkuk.” DSD 24 (2017): 59–80. Henze, Matthias. “Introduction.” Pages 1–9 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Henze, Matthias, ed. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Herbert, Edward D., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horgan, Maurya P. “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab).” Pages 157–85 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. PTSDSSP. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Horgan, Maurya P. “Pesharim: Introduction.” Pages 1–5 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. PTSDSSP. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Jagersma, H. A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1985. Jokiranta, Jutta. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. STDJ 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kaiser, Walter C. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Kim, Jong-Hoon. “Intentionale Varianten der Habakukzitate im Pesher Habakuk Rezeptionsästhetisch untersucht.” Biblica 88 (2007): 23–37. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After the Qumran Discoveries.” Pages 167–77 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Lim, Timothy H. “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism and Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 57–73 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Lim, Timothy H. “Biblical Quotations in the Pesharim and the Text of the Bible— Methodological Considerations.” Pages 71–79 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

53

Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Llewelyn, Stephen, Stephany Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall. “A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab).” Pages 123–50 in Keter Shem Tov: Collected Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown. Edited by Shani Tzoref and Ian Young. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 20. Piscataway NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Loader, James A. “Qumran, Text and Intertext: On the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Theologians Reading the Old Testament.” OTE 19 (2006): 892–911. Loader, James A. “Creating New Contexts: On the Possibilities of Biblical Studies in Contexts Generated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.” JSem 18 (2009): 82–104. Murphy, Catherine M. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community. STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Novakovic, Lidija. “Text-critical Variants in the Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents.” Pages 159–85 in The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Oesch, Josef M. Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments. OBO 27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Perlitt, Lothar. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ATD 25/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge, and Martin Ehrensvärd, eds. Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Potgieter-Annadale, Joan. Qumran in and around the Bible: A New Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 1999. Prinsloo, Gert T. M. “Habakkuk 2:5a: Denouncing ‘wine’ or ‘wealth’? Contextual Readings of the Masoretic Text and 1QpHab.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(4) (2016), a3576. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3576. Rendsburg, Gary A. “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 132–59 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

54

Prinsloo

Rudolph, Wilhelm. Micha—Nahum—Habakuk—Zephanja. KAT 13/3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975. Sanders, E. P. “The Dead Sea Sect and Other Jews: Commonalities, Overlaps and Differences.” Pages 1–43 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim. London: T&T Clark, 2000. Segert, Stanislav. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer I.” ArOr 21 (1953): 218–39. Segert, Stanislav. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer II.” ArOr 22 (1954): 99–113. Segert, Stanislav. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer III.” ArOr 22 (1954): 444–59. Segert, Stanislav. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer IV.” ArOr 23 (1955): 178–83. Seybold, Klaus. Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ZBK 24/2. Zürich: TVZ, 1991. Silberman, Lou H. “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1 Q p Hab).” RevQ 3 (1961): 323–64. Steudel, Annette. “Dating Exegetical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 39–53 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz. FAT 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 5–20 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters.” Pages 111–37 in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Tigchelaar, Eibert, ed. Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The Argument against Eclecticism.” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211. Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert—An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts.” Pages 139–66 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions.” Pages 280–302 in Hāʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein. STDJ 122. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

55

Trever, John C. “A Paleographic Study of the Jerusalem Scrolls.” BASOR 113 (1949): 6–23. Van der Woude, Adam S. Habakuk Zephanja. POT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978. VanderKam, James C. and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2002. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Wise, Michael O. “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement,” JBL 122 (2003): 53–87. Würthwein, Ernst. Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica. 4. Auflage. Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973.

Chapter 3

4QLXXNum and a Text-Critical Examination of a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4 Gideon R. Kotzé 1 Introduction The manuscript finds from Qumran and other sites in the Judean Desert have opened up new horizons in research on early Judaism and the text-critical study of the compositions included in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint corpora.1 The textual criticism of these early Jewish writings is primarily occupied with collecting and collating their various textual representatives, explaining variants and debated readings in them, gaining insight into the craft of the scribes who copied and translated the texts in antiquity, and tracing the writings’ textual history, that is, how the wordings and subject matter of the compositions were shaped and developed by the ancient scribes during the processes of transmission. The Dead Sea scrolls provide invaluable data relevant to these interrelated analytical endeavours of text-critics. The thousands of fragments that preserve, in teasingly incomplete forms, manuscripts of early Jewish writings in their languages of composition and in translations, provide text-critics and other scholars with much older copies of these compositions than the majority of textual representatives that were available before the Dead Sea discoveries. These copies, especially those from Qumran, which were made over the span of time from approximately the middle of the third century BCE to the first century CE,2 witness to a plethora of textual variation when compared to one another and to other textual

1  Cf., e.g., Russell Fuller, “Some Thoughts on How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Changed Our Understanding of the Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its History and the Practice of Textual Criticism,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin de Troyer and Shani Tzoref, FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 23–28; James A. Sanders, “The Impact of the Judean Desert Scrolls on Issues of Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 25–36. 2  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 98–99.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_005

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

57

representatives.3 In view of their dating, the Qumran manuscripts imply that the marked textual diversity that can be observed in them was not created by scribes of one locality in a short stretch of time. Rather the kaleidoscope of wordings in these manuscripts reflect the work of many scribal hands over a long time period. The diversity of textual traditions preserved in the Covenanters’ library may in part have resulted from the variegated sources of provenance of at least some of the manuscripts. These probably were brought to Qumran by members of the Community who hailed from diverse localities in Palestine, and from various social strata. From the very outset, one therefore should expect to find in that library, as indeed one does, a conflux of text-traditions which had developed over a considerable span of time in different areas of Palestine, and also outside Palestine, as in Babylonia, and in different social circles.4 The textual diversity at Qumran therefore gives a fair indication of the state of texts, as well as prevalent scribal conventions and practices, in the period

3  Armin Lange, “Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts,” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1A, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 132–48; Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Nashville: Abington, 2013), 52–72, 86, 88–90; James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002), 103–40, 184–87. In a number of publications, Flint discusses the textual data in the Qumran manuscripts of Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms, Song of Songs, and Daniel in greater detail: Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, SDSSRL 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41–60; Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vol. 2, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 329–67; Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll, 2002), 229–51; Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Leviticus in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, VTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 323–41; Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Canticles (Song of Songs) in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung, ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn, BZAW 346 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 96–104; Peter W. Flint, “Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scroll, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 233–72. 4  Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 325–26.

58

Kotzé

of early Judaism.5 With regard to the scribal conventions and practices, the evidence suggests that an “exact,” “careful” or “conservative” approach to transmitting texts that attempted to avoid changes to wordings and subject matter coexisted alongside a “creative” or “free” approach that altered the wordings of transmitted texts in myriads of details, some of which affect the subject matter of passages.6 The evidence for different scribal approaches and the wealth of new material that the Qumran manuscripts make available allow text-critics to better explain readings in the textual representatives. Not all the variants can be attributed to scribal errors, carelessness, incompetence, or misunderstandings; some changes were probably made unconsciously, while others were introduced for a variety of conceivable reasons. These changes pertain, for example, to the formal features of words, parts of speech, the arrangement of sentence constituents and passages, and reformulations of phrases and sentences, as well as to pluses and minuses of text of varying sizes. The major and minor variations in wordings and subject matter, exhibited by the Qumran manuscripts, indicate that the texts of these compositions were continually developed by some scribes and that different versions circulated for many years in their languages of composition and in translations. The material from Qumran has prompted scholars to put forward different text-historical models to describe the development of the texts of the early Jewish writings7 and the relationships of the texts to each other.8 The material also raises the question 5  Tov, Textual Criticism, 110, 186–87; Eugene Ulrich, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 98–99; and Shemaryahu Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 227. 6  Sidnie White Crawford, “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer, and Shani Tzoref, FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 60–69; Tov, Textual Criticism, 184–85. 7  Eugene Ulrich, “Post-Qumran Theories,” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1A, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 10–15; Lange, “Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts,” 105–11; Flint, Dead Sea Scrolls, 77–81; and Ronald S. Hendel, “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 281–302; VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 140–47. 8  The textual history of early Jewish writings deals with the development of the texts of these compositions as reflected by the differences in wordings, which were created by scribes at various stages in the compositions’ existence in writing. The development is often conceptualized as the texts’ movement away from assumed common ancestors. These common ancestors are written versions of the writings (in the shapes of recognizable compositions that are distinguishable from others) to which all the wordings in the textual representatives are

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

59

whether text-critics, when they explain readings and determine the probable genealogical relationship between them, should also use this information to construct an idealised wording of a composition. In other words, is the creation of an eclectic wording (or eclectic wordings, in cases where the compositions existed in more than one “edition”), whether it is called Urtext, original text, or autograph, a necessary aim of the textual criticism of early Jewish writings? Some scholars maintain that it is,9 but, given the creative ways some scribes in the period of early Judaism transmitted the wordings and subject matter of compositions for audiences, others have called for the abandonment of this pursuit, together with a sharp distinction between textual criticism and historical criticism.10 Making sense of debated readings in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of early Jewish writings is another area of text-critical practice where the Qumran manuscripts can play a role, even when they do not preserve variants. Debated readings are instances where modern readers are puzzled by particulars in a passage, and scholars usually differ in opinion on how best to solve the difficulty. The problem is often that the meaning of a word or phrase is uncertain or unknown, the grammar appears to be ambiguous, or the sense of a sentence, or its constituents, seems to be out of place in the literary context. In cases of such difficulties, where there are no variant readings in the available manuscripts, text-critics must decide whether the wording is corrupt, or not. If they conclude that the wording is indeed corrupt, they may suggest a conjectural reading, related to the one in the extant manuscripts, to emend the text and to explain how the error entered the wording when it was transmitted. Although many manuscripts of early Jewish writings in Hebrew and Aramaic have been found in the Qumran caves and other sites in the Judean Desert, these scrolls are mostly very fragmentary. The large lacunae in the manuscripts leave great gaps in our knowledge of the writings’ text-histories. This means   related. Accordingly, some variant readings and versions are regarded as “earlier” or “more original” than others, because they are judged to be closer to the wording of an ancestor, while the “later” readings and versions refer to subsequent developments. The study of textual history therefore attempts to establish two types of relationship for a composition’s textual representatives, the closeness of their wordings to those of other textual representatives, and their proximity in matters of detail to the common ancestor. 9  Cf., e.g., Ronald S. Hendel, “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 149–65. 10  Cf., e.g., George J. Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies, ed. William John Lyons, Jonathan G. Campbell, and Lloyd Keith Pietersen, LSTS 52 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 26–42.

60

Kotzé

that conjectural emendation will continue to be a viable and valuable option for text-critics when they have to explain textual difficulties. Nevertheless, the Qumran scrolls may give text-critics pause for thought before they resort to conjectures in order to correct wordings. If a debated reading happens to be preserved in a fragment of a Qumran scroll, one possible reason why ancient scribes left the apparent textual difficulty unchanged, especially when the manuscript shows signs that they copied the wording “freely” or “creatively,” is that the text was intelligible to them. The implication of the manuscript evidence might be that the problem for interpretation lies not with the passage as such, but with modern readers’ limited understanding of the ancient languages, the ideas, or imagery of the text. This possibility invites text-critics to explore the communicative potential of debated readings in early Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic writings within an ancient cultural frame of reference. In this regard, text-critics have recourse to reservoirs of resources in the renderings of the ancient translations and the languages, ideas, and images embodied in the written and visual products of other ancient Near Eastern cultures. This chapter aims to show how text-critics may make sense of a difficult Hebrew term with the help of evidence from the ancient translations and information from ancient Near Eastern cultures. The word in question is ‫תחש‬, which occurs in Exod 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Num 4:6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 25; and Ezek 16:10. The chapter will focus on Num 4 and the translation of ‫ תחש‬in the Septuagint version of the passage in order to pay homage to Peter W. Flint, who was responsible for the English translation of LXX Numbers in NETS, and, at the same time, to illustrate how a particular Qumran scroll, 4QLXXNum, can contribute to the endeavour of text-critics to create intelligible interpretations of debated readings. 2

4QLXXNum and the Greek Translation of ‫ תחש‬in Numbers 4

Num 4 documents the duties of Levite clans regarding the tent sanctuary when the people set out from their encampment at Sinai. The Kohathites are tasked with the duty of carrying the sanctuary’s furnishings and utensils, but in order for them to do so without touching these sacred objects, and dying as a result, the accoutrements must first be covered by Aaron and his sons. They are to cover all the furnishings and utensils of the sanctuary, including the ark (vv. 5–6), the table of the Presence (vv. 7–8), the lamp-stand (vv. 9–10), the golden incense altar (v. 11), the vessels for cultic service (v. 12), the altar of burnt offerings (vv. 13–14), and the washbasin with its stand (v. 14 in the SP [this part of

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

61

the verse is not in the MT]),11 with multiple layers of materials, one of which is a covering of ‫עור תחש‬. (With the exception of the ark, the covering of ‫עור‬ ‫ תחש‬is the final layer. For the ark, it is the second of three covers.) The tent of meeting also has a ‫ תחש‬covering, which the Gershonites must transport, together with the tent itself, and other curtains, screens, and hangings, cords, and equipment (vv. 25–26). The etymology of the term ‫ תחש‬is not certain and there is no agreement on what it means.12 In Num 4:6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14, where it is used together with ‫עור‬, it describes a feature of the leather from which the covers are made, while in v. 25, it is a property of the tent of meeting’s covering. The terms that characterize the other coverings of the sanctuary’s furnishings and utensils, ‫תכלת‬, “violet” (vv. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12), ‫תולעת שני‬, “crimson” (v. 8), and ‫ארגמן‬, “red-purple” (v. 13),13 all refer to the color of their material. The ancient translations interpret ‫ תחש‬as a color term as well. In the Greek translation, as represented by the text in Wevers’s Göttingen edition, ὑακίνθινος, “blue,” serves as equivalent for both ‫ תחש‬and ‫תכלת‬.14 The Vulgate has ianthinus, “violet,” for the former, and hyacinthinus, “blue,” for the latter, but many manuscripts also have hyacinthinus, instead of ianthinus, as rendering of ‫תחש‬.15 The Peshitta and Targums Onqelos, Neofiti, and Pseudo-Jonathan use ‫ܣܣܓܘܢܐ‬, “purple,16 vermillion, sky-blue, blue-black,”17 and ‫ססגון‬, “scarlet,”18 to translate the Hebrew term.19 11  The part of the verse that refers to the washbasin and its stand was omitted, probably by error, from the wording represented by the MT. It is preserved by the SP and the Greek translation. Cf. Martin Rösel and Christine Schlund, “Arithmoi / Numeri / Das Vierte Buch Mose,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis bis Makkabäer, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 447; John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, SBLSCS 46 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 63. 12  Cf. Ges18, 1434; and HALOT, 1720–21; Claudia Bender, Die Sprache des Textilen: Untersuchungen zu Kleidung und Textilien im Alten Testament, BWANT 177 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 242. 13  Cf. Bender, Sprache des Textilen, 59–61. 14  John W. Wevers, Numeri, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum III, 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 88–91, 94. 15  Robert Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem: Editionem quintam emendatam retractatam praeparavit Roger Gryson (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 182–83. 16  Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009), 1025. 17  Jessie Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 383. 18  Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 1009. 19  A. Peter Hayman, Numbers, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version I, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 12–14. The texts of the targums can be compared on the website of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (cal.huc.edu).

62

Kotzé

The equivalent for ‫ תחש‬in the main manuscripts of LXX Numbers is also found in the Qumran manuscript, 4QLXXNum (4Q121; Rahlfs 803).20 This fragmentary scroll is one of the very few Greek manuscripts from Qumran and contains parts of Num 3:40–43, 50–51(?); 4:1(?), 5–9, 11–16. It is dated, on palaeographical grounds, between the first century BCE and the first century CE,21 and is much older than the earliest textual representatives of LXX Numbers that were available before the Qumran discoveries. Given the agreements in wording between 4QLXXNum and the major manuscripts of LXX Numbers, especially in unusual renderings, they can be treated as representatives of the same translation and not as witnesses to independent translations.22 The Qumran manuscript also contains a number of variant readings when compared to the text of the Göttingen edition. Some of these are unique, but a few appear in other textual representatives as well. The evaluation of these differences in wording is of great significance for the early textual history of LXX Numbers, because certain variants may be judged to better reflect the Old Greek text than the readings that were selected for the Göttingen edition, while others show different types of changes that scribes made to the Greek text when they copied manuscripts of the translation during the period of early Judaism. A number of scholars regard variant readings in 4QLXXNum as revisional in nature.23 According to Skehan, the wording of 4QLXXNum exhibits a revision of the original Greek translation to make its wording conform in details to that of a Hebrew text that was almost identical to the MT. He sees the manner of this reworking as similar to that of the kaige revision.24 Fabry also concludes that the wording of the Qumran manuscript is closer to the MT than the Old Greek

20  Patrick Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, vol. 4 of Qumran Cave 4, DJD 9 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 181–94; Alfred Rahlfs and Detlef Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Bd I, 1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 152–53. 21  Peter J. Parsons, “The Palaeography and Date of the Greek Manuscripts,” in Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, vol. 4 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Patrick Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, DJD 9 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 11. 22  Emanuel Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 358. 23  Cf., e.g., Martin Rösel, “Numbers (Primary Translations, Septuagint),” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1B, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 146; Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi,” 433; Gilles Dorival, Les Nombres, BdA 4 (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 37–39; Udo Quast, “Der rezensionelle Charakter einiger Wortvarianten im Buche Numeri,” in Studien zur Septuaginta, Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John W. Wevers, MSU 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 249. 24  Patrick W. Skehan, “4QLXXNum: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint,” HTR 70 (1977): 39–40. Cf. also Lange, “Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts,” 150.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

63

is, even if the difference between them is not great.25 Although he agrees that some readings in 4QLXXNum were influenced by knowledge of the Hebrew text, Wevers argues that the modifications to the translation’s wording in the Qumran scroll are not of the Hebraizing kind that is characteristic of the revisions in the kaige group. In his opinion, 4QLXXNum tends toward “a clearer and more exact Greek” than the text he prepared for the Göttingen edition.26 Petersen describes the Qumran manuscript as a revisionary text as well.27 Some of its readings show a concern to make the wording more intelligible in Greek, whereas others are more literalistic renderings that adhere closely to a Vorlage which was almost indistinguishable from the MT. The revision exemplified by 4QLXXNum therefore attempted to clarify both the Hebrew text and the Old Greek translation.28 Ulrich, however, maintains that the Qumran scroll preserves, at least in some instances, readings that are earlier and closer to the Old Greek translation than their counterparts presented in the Göttingen edition.29 Tov accepts this view, even though the evidence is not clear-cut.30 The differences in scholarly opinion over the evaluation of variant readings in 4QLXXNum can be illustrated with an example from Num 4:7. LXX Gö31 καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν τὴν προκειμένην ἐπιβαλοῦσιν ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἱμάτιον ὁλοπόρφυρον καὶ τὰ τρύβλια καὶ τὰς θυίσκας καὶ τοὺς κυάθους καὶ τὰ σπονδεῖα, ἐν οἷς σπένδει· καὶ οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ διὰ παντὸς ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἔσονται And over the presentation table they shall throw over it a wholly purple cloth, and the bowls and the censers and the ladles and the libation cups, with which he libates, and the perpetual loaves shall be on it. (NETS)32 25   Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Die griechischen Handschriften vom Toten Meer,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Offerhaus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 142. 26  John W. Wevers, “An Early Revision of the Septuagint of Numbers,” Eretz-Israel 16 (1982): 238*. 27  Nicholas Petersen, “An Analysis of Two Early LXX Manuscripts from Qumran: 4QLXXNum and 4QLXXLeva in the Light of Previous Studies,” BBR 19 (2009): 495. 28  Petersen, “An Analysis,” 494–95, 509. 29  Eugene Ulrich, “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, ed. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars, SBLSCS 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 76; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 155. 30  Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 360. 31  Wevers, Numeri, 88–89. 32  Peter W. Flint, “Numbers,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 113.

64

Kotzé

4QLXXNum33 κ̥ [αι επι την τραπεζαν την προ]κειμενην ε[πιβαλουσιν επ αυτην ιμ]α̣τιον υ[α] κ̣ ινθι[νον και δωσουσιν επ α]υ̥την̥ τα τ[ρ]υ̥βλι[α και τας θυισκας και τ]ους κυαθους και [τα σπονδεια εν οις σπε]ν̥δει εν αυτοις [και οι αρτοι οι δια παντ]ο̣ς επ αυτηι εσο[νται A[nd over the pres]entation [table] [they shall throw over it] a b[l]u[e cl]oth, [and they shall put on i]t the b[o]wl[s and the censers and t]he ladles and [the libation cups with which he lib]ates with them, [and the perpetual loaves] sha[ll] be on it. MT and SP34 ‫ועל שלחן הפנים יפרשו בגד תכלת ונתנו עליו את הקערת ואת הכפ(ו)ת ואת‬ ‫המנקי(ו)ת ואת קשות הנסך ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה‬ Over the table of the bread of the Presence they shall spread a blue cloth, and put on it the plates, the dishes for incense, the bowls, and the flagons for the drink offering; the regular bread also shall be on it. (NRSV) The wording of 4QLXXNum contains four variants in comparison with the text of the Göttingen edition. According to the Qumran scroll, Aaron and his sons should throw a blue cloth (ιμ]α̣τιον υ[α]κ̣ ινθι[νον) over the presentation table, rather than a wholly purple one (ἱμάτιον ὁλοπόρφυρον), as LXX Gö has it. The reconstructed verbal phrase δωσουσιν επ α]υ̥την̥ and the second prepositional phrase in εν οις σπε]ν̥δει εν αυτοις are pluses, and the case of επ αυτηι at the end of the verse is different from its counterpart in LXX Gö, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. In two instances, ιμ]α̣τιον υ[α]κ̣ ινθι[νον and δωσουσιν επ α]υ̥την̥, the wording of the Qumran scroll is closer to the Hebrew version represented by both the MT and SP than the text of LXX Gö is. With regard to ιμ]α̣τιον υ[α]κ̣ ινθι[νον, Ulrich identifies it as one of the readings where 4QLXXNum may present the Old Greek text,35 but Petersen regards it as a revision towards the Hebrew as represented by the MT.36 Skehan notes that ὑακίνθινον agrees with the MT and SP, while ὁλοπόρφυρον in the Greek translation presupposes a Hebrew reading 33  Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, Palaeo-Hebrew, 191. 34  The verse is also partially preserved in 4QLev–Numa: ‫יפר[שו בגד תכלת‬ ̊ ‫ועל שלחן [הפנ]י̊ ̇ם‬ ‫ולח[ם התמיד עליו יהיה‬ ̊ ‫ונתנו עליו]את ̊ה[קערת הכפת] ואת המנ◦[ואת ק]שות הנסך‬. Eugene Ulrich, “4QLev–Numa,” in Genesis to Numbers, vol. 7 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 165. 35  Ulrich, “Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran,” 73–74, 76. 36  Petersen, “Analysis,” 492.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

65

‫ארגמן‬. This equivalence is found in LXX Num 4:13.37 Rösel and Dorival men-

tion the possibility that ὁλοπόρφυρον in LXX Num 4:7 was indeed based on a Hebrew Vorlage that contained ‫ארגמן‬, or ‫כליל ארגמן‬, instead of ‫תכלת‬, as in the MT and SP.38 Wevers does not completely dismiss the possibility of a different reading in the source text, but he also suggests that ὁλοπόρφυρον is a unique rendering of ‫ תכלת‬and that a bilingual scribe may have been unconsciously influenced by the Hebrew text to correct it into ὑακίνθινον, the usual equivalent for ‫תכלת‬.39 Seeing as ‫ ארגמן‬in v. 13 is translated with ὁλοπόρφυρος and ὑακίνθινος is the standard equivalent for ‫ תכלת‬in the main manuscripts of LXX Numbers throughout Chapter 4, it stands to reason that the readings in LXX Gö and 4QLXXNum at v. 7 are based on different Hebrew readings. Although it is quite conceivable that the colors of the covers’ cloth could have been switched during the copying of Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, it is difficult to see why the very rare form ὁλοπόρφυρος from v. 13 would replace ὑακίνθινος only at v. 7 and not in any of the other verses where ‫ בגד תכלת‬is mentioned. An innerGreek change can probably be ruled out. It seems more likely that the Vorlage of LXX Numbers contained ‫ ארגמן‬at vv. 7 and 13 and that the same rare word, ὁλοπόρφυρος, was used during the translation process to render both instances. Like the plus of δώσουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, the change of ὁλοπόρφυρον into ὑακίνθινον in the text of v. 7 exemplified by 4QLXXNum can be interpreted as a revision of the Old Greek translation to make it correspond more closely with a Hebrew wording such as the one represented by the MT and SP. On this interpretation, the wording of the Qumran manuscript implies that scribes early in the transmission history of LXX Numbers regarded ὑακίνθινος as a more appropriate equivalent for ‫ תכלת‬than ὁλοπόρφυρος. Moreover, the scribes evidently did not see a need to change the renderings of ‫ תחש‬with the same Greek word when they revised the wording of the translation. This is evidenced by the unaltered readings in vv. 8 (κα[λυμματι δερματινωι υακινθι]ν̥ω̣ι ̥), 11 (καλυμμα]τ̥ι ̣ δ̥ερ̣ ματινωι ̣ υ̣[α]κινθιν̣[ωι]), and 12 (καλυμματι δερμ]α̣τιν̣ω̣ι ̣ υακιν[θινωι) that have been preserved in 4QLXXNum. One may deduce from this that the scribes who copied the Greek translation and revised its wording either to make it correspond more with the Hebrew text they were familiar with, or to make the Greek text clearer, saw ὑακίνθινος as the most acceptable translation for both ‫ תחש‬and ‫תכלת‬. The contribution of 4QLXXNum to the text-critical endeavour to make sense of ‫ תחש‬is to reduce the likelihood that the translator and revisers of

37  Skehan, “4QLXXNum,” 46. 38  Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi,” 447; Dorival, Nombres, 220. 39  Wevers, Notes, 59.

66

Kotzé

LXX Numbers were perplexed by the Hebrew word.40 Given that they did not copy their manuscripts mechanically or unthinkingly, it is reasonable to assume that the scribes who were responsible for a revisionary wording of Num 4, such as the one reflected in 4QLXXNum, would probably have improved the Greek translation of ‫תחש‬, if they did not find this rendering on the mark. This means that the scribes involved in the processes of translating and copying LXX Numbers during the period of early Judaism understood ‫ תחש‬and ‫תכלת‬ as terms for shades of blue.41 According to this understanding of ‫ תחש‬in the Greek texts of Num 4, the covers of blue dyed leather, like the other coverings of blue, red, and purple, are luxury goods that are used to wrap the tent sanctuary’s accoutrements so that the Kohathites can carry them, while the cover of the tent of meeting is also blue, which signifies its precious nature.42 3

Connections between ‫ תחש‬and Other Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures

In spite of the renderings in the ancient translations, many modern interpreters do not understand ‫ תחש‬as a color, but as a type of leather, or the animal from whose skin the leather is made. On the basis of a perceived connection between ‫ תחש‬and the Arabic word duḫas, “dolphin,”43 some scholars see ‫עור‬

40  Cf. Philip J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco: Word, 1984), 48. 41  It is assumed that the Vorlage of the Greek translation contained ‫ תחש‬in the same places as the wordings of the chapter in the MT and SP. (The long plus in v. 14, which the LXX shares with the SP, mentions ‫ מכסה עור תחש‬as the second covering of the washbasin and its stand.) The use of the same translation equivalent as ‫ תכלת‬is not sufficient reason to suggest that the source text had this Hebrew word instead of ‫ תחש‬in these verses. Cf. the critical apparatus of BHS. There are examples of different Hebrew words with semantic overlaps that are represented by the same Greek word in LXX Numbers. Cf., e.g., Rösel, “Numbers,” 147; Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi,” 434. 42  In Ant. 3, 102–103, Josephus mentions that the people showed their zeal by supplying various valuable materials for the construction of the tabernacle, including textiles that were dyed blue and other colors: “They brought their silver and gold and bronze, timber of the finest quality liable to no injury from rot, goats’ hair and sheepskins, some dyed blue (τὰς μὲν ὑακίνθῳ βεβαμμένας), others crimson, some displaying the sheen of purple, others of a pure white hue. They brought moreover wool dyed with the selfsame colors and fine linen cloth, with precious stones worked into the fabrics, such as men set in gold and use as ornaments of costly price, along with a mass of spices.” Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus IV: Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 364, 365. 43  Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed., ed. J. Milton Cowan (Urbana: Spoken Language Services, 1994), 315.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

67

‫ תחש‬as the skin of a dolphin, dugong, or porpoise.44 Other scholars do not accept this interpretation for lack of evidence and suggest that ‫ תחש‬derives from

the Egyptian word ṯḥs. Bondi, for example, maintains that the Hebrew term is an Egyptian loanword and that it describes an Egyptian type of leather.45 Görg likewise relates ‫ תחש‬to Egyptian ṯḥs, and argues that the former, in all probability, was used to refer to a technique of treating leather: “Es kommt also nach unserem Vorschlag nur die Bedeutung ‘gereckte Tierhaut,’ d.h. geschmeidig gemachtes Leder in Frage.”46 Noonan also points out that the verb ṯḥs, “to stretch,”47 is used with reference to leather, ‫ תחש‬matches ṯḥs well phonologically, and the Hebrew term appears in a literary context, the wilderness wandering narratives, where other Egyptian elements can also be detected:48 “It is significant that ‫ ַת ַחׁש‬occurs in close conjunction with several Egyptian loans, including ‫שטה‬, ‘acacia wood’ (Exod 25:5; 35:7) and ‫שש‬, ‘linen’ (Exod 35:23; Ezek 16:10). The Egyptian origin of many of the tabernacle realia as well as this term’s association with several specific Egyptian products strongly implies that ‫ַת ַחׁש‬ is also an Egyptian product.”49

44  Cf., e.g., DCH 8, 621; BDB, 1065; Frank Moore Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 88–89; Baruch Levine, Numbers 1–20, AB 94 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 166; Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 96. Israel Aharoni, “On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible,” Osiris 5 (1938): 462–63 refers to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Šabb. 28b) where the rabbis conclude that the ‫ תחש‬was a unique, one-horned animal that vanished after its skin was used for the tabernacle. He then mentions the Arabic cognate and suggests that ‫ תחש‬is a narwhal. 45  J. H. Bondi, “Gegenseitige Kultureinflüsse der Ägypter und Semiten,” in Aegyptiaca: Festschrift für Georg Ebers, ed. J. H. Bondi et al. (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1897), 1–7. 46  Manfred Görg, “Das Lexem taḥaš: Herkunft und Bedeutung,” BN 109 (2001): 8–9. Regarding the Greek rendering of ‫ תחש‬with ὑακίνθινος, Görg suggests that the translation might have been influenced by the word ṯḥst, “bronze,” which appears in the inscriptions of the Ptolemaic temple at Edfu: “Die mit dem Verbum ṯḥś graphisch vergleichbare, aber davon nicht ableitbare Mineralbezeichnung ist nach den Texten des Tempels von Edfu näherhin für den Bronze-Import aus Asien reserviert. Das tertium comparationis zwischen dem Aussehen des Hyazinths (als Pflanze und als Edelstein) und dem Bronze-Mineral aus Asien, das seinerseits mit rotem Kupfer angereichert werden kann, mag in diesem Fall das dunkelglänzende Aussehen sein, die am ehesten dem gegerbten Leder nach der Feinbearbeitung zukommt” (Das Lexem taḥaš, 9). 47  Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache, vol. 5 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 396. 48  Benjamin J. Noonan, “Hide or Hue? Defining Hebrew ‫ ַת ַחׁש‬,” Biblica 93 (2012): 586–88. 49  Noonan, 588.

68

Kotzé

Noonan’s study attempts to counter the argument of Dalley that ‫ תחש‬is a loanword from Akkadian.50 She maintains that the Hebrew term resembles the Old Babylonian spelling, duḫšu, attested at Mari, more closely than the corresponding Sumerian word, duḫšia (du8-ši-a), or its later Akkadian form, dušû.51 With regard to the meaning, Dalley states that duḫšu “is a general word which refers to colored beads and inlays made of glass and faience in imitation of certain kinds of stone, perhaps in the first instance blue, and then perhaps more generally to multi-colored beadwork.”52 She concludes that Hebrew ‫תחש‬ also denotes decorative beadwork on leather and other materials.53 Steinkeller, however, notes that there is no evidence to support Dalley’s view.54 He cogently argues that duḫšia (and its Akkadian counterpart) designates the greenish-blue color of a type of stone, as well as of leather that has been dyed using copper.55 “It is certain that the purpose of copper in the manufacture of duhšia leather was to produce verdigris, the basic acetate of copper (German Grünspan), a green or greenish-blue pigment prepared by treating copper with acetic acid. Verdigris was used extensively in ancient and modern times, primarily to color leather, but also in medieval illuminations.”56 Steinkeller mentions that duḫšia leather was an expensive material reserved for the king and his entourage. It was used to make footwear, such as sandals and boots, but also to decorate furniture, chariots, and harnesses.57 Mastnjak also argues that ‫ תחש‬is connected to duḫšu.58 He draws attention to a functional parallel between the use of the Hebrew term and that of the Old Babylonian one. Both words describe the material from which the covering of large tents are made (leather, in the case of ‫תחש‬, and woven fabric, in the case of 50  Stephanie Dalley, “Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork,” JSS 45 (2000): 1–19. 51  Dalley, 8–9. Dalley explains the different forms of the word in cuneiform by suggesting two separate borrowings from Hurrian. 52  Dalley, 14. 53  Dalley, 16. This interpretation of ‫ תחש‬is also relevant to the understanding of its Greek translation equivalent. In this connection, Dalley mentions the hyacinth flower, which is most commonly blue and has a beaded surface (Dalley, 12). “Both the color and the surface effect of beading are taken up in the Greek translation of the Hebrew as huakinthinos” (Dalley, 17). 54  Piotr Steinkeller, “New Light on Marhaši and Its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia,” JMS 1 (2006): 5. 55  Cf. also Marten Stol, “Leder(industrie),” RLA 6 (1980): 534. 56  Steinkeller, “New Light,” 4. 57  Steinkeller, “New Light,” 4. 58  Nathan Mastnjak, “Hebrew taḥaš and the West Semitic Tent Tradition,” VT 67 (2017): 204–12.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

69

duḫšu).59 In view of more terminological parallels between Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic in descriptions of tents, Mastnjak suggests that there was a shared West Semitic tradition surrounding royal and divine tents,60 which provides a better explanation for the connection between ‫ תחש‬and duḫšu than Dalley’s view that the Hebrew word is a loan from Akkadian: The shared West Semitic tent tradition attested at Mari, Ugarit, and Judah suggests that the term [duḫšu] may not have been borrowed directly into Mari Akkadian and then later from Akkadian into Hebrew. Instead, the shared tradition suggests that this term, along with several others, existed in West Semitic prior to its adoption in Mari Akkadian and was independently preserved in both Mari Akkadian and Hebrew.61 Given that ‫ תחש‬and duḫšu are associated with more than one type of textile, they most probably denote the color that the materials could be dyed.62 As Steinkeller has convincingly shown, this color is greenish-blue.63 This interpretation of ‫ תחש‬and its cuneiform counterparts as color terms complements the evidence from the ancient translations of Numbers. 4

Final Remarks

The reading ‫ תחש‬in the Hebrew texts of Num 4 is not corrupt, but its origin and meaning are debated by scholars. Seeing as there is no cause to emend it, text-critics must explore alternative avenues to deal with the textual difficulty. The preceding discussion of the rendering of the term in the Septuagint and the information regarding its counterparts in languages of other ancient Near Eastern cultures show how these two avenues converge to present text-critics with a way to make sense of ‫ תחש‬in Num 4. When it is understood as a term for a shade of blue, all the coverings of the tent sanctuary’s accoutrements, as well as the cover of the tent of meeting itself, have one feature in common: the costly nature of their dyed materials. Wrapping the sacred objects in multiple layers of course safeguards the Kohathites, who must carry them without 59  Mastnjak, “Hebrew taḥaš,”208–9. 60  Mastnjak, “Hebrew taḥaš,” 209–11. Cf. also Daniel E. Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” VT 50 (2000): 488. 61  Mastnjak, “Hebrew taḥaš,” 212. 62  Mastnjak, “Hebrew taḥaš,” 212. 63  Steinkeller, “New Light,” 4.

70

Kotzé

direct contact, but the command to use very costly materials for the covers seems to fulfil a different function. The prohibitively expensiveness and high value of the coverings signify the exclusivity of the sacred objects they cover, as well as their great importance. Although modern scholars have been loath to accept the interpretation of ‫ תחש‬represented by, for example, the Greek translation of Numbers, the wording of the Qumran scroll, 4QLXXNum, indicates that the understanding of the Hebrew word as a term for the color blue was accepted by learned Jewish scribes in antiquity. This manuscript presents evidence not only of Old Greek readings, but revisions as well. It shows that scribes adapted the wording of the translation to make the Greek clearer, in some places, and to conform the wording to the Hebrew text they knew, in other instances. These scribes, however, did not change the rendering of ‫ תחש‬with ὑακίνθινος. Presumably, they were satisfied that the Greek translation accurately reflected the Hebrew word’s meaning. 4QLXXNum therefore indicates that, if text-critics endeavour to make sense of ‫ תחש‬in Num 4 within an ancient cultural frame of reference, the interpretation of this Hebrew term in the Greek translation deserves careful consideration. Bibliography Aharoni, Israel. “On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible.” Osiris 5 (1938): 461–78. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Bender, Claudia. Die Sprache des Textilen: Untersuchungen zu Kleidung und Textilien im Alten Testament. BWANT 177. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Bondi, J. H. “Gegenseitige Kultureinflüsse der Ägypter und Semiten.” Pages 1–7 in Aegyptiaca: Festschrift für Georg Ebers. Edited by J. H. Bondi et al. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1897. Brooke, George J. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism.” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Edited by William John Lyons, Jonathan G. Campbell, and Lloyd Keith Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco: Word, 1984. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon.” Pages 84–95 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Dalley, Stephanie. “Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork.” JSS 45 (2000): 1–19. Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. 7 Vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

71

Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Die griechischen Handschriften vom Toten Meer.” Pages 131–53 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Offerhaus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Fleming, Daniel E. “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary.” VT 50 (2000): 484–98. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41–60 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. SDSSRL 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 329–67 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vol. 2. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83, 2. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 229–51 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll, 2002. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Leviticus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 323–41 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Canticles (Song of Songs) in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 96–104 in Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn. BZAW 346. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005. Flint, Peter W. “Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 233–72 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Flint, Peter W. “Numbers.” Pages 107–40 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013. Fuller, Russell. “Some Thoughts on How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Changed Our Understanding of the Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its History and the Practice of Textual Criticism.” Pages 23–28 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin de Troyer, and Shani Tzoref. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Görg, Manfred. “Das Lexem taḥaš: Herkunft und Bedeutung.” BN 109 (2001): 5–9. Hayman, A. Peter. Numbers. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version I, 2. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Hendel, Ronald S. “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 149–65 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006.

72

Kotzé

Hendel, Ronald S. “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran.” Pages 281–302 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. London: Luzac, 1903. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. Lange, Armin. “Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts.” Pages 82–166 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1A. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Levine, Baruch. Numbers 1–20. AB 94. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Mastnjak, Nathan. “Hebrew taḥaš and the West Semitic Tent Tradition.” VT 67 (2017): 204–12. Noonan, Benjamin J. “Hide or Hue? Defining Hebrew ‫ ַת ַחׁש‬.” Biblica 93 (2012): 580–89. Parsons, Peter J. “The Palaeography and Date of the Greek Manuscripts.” Pages 7–13 in Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Vol. 4 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich and Judith E. Sanderson. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Petersen, Nicholas. “An Analysis of Two Early LXX Manuscripts from Qumran: 4QLXXNum and 4QLXXLeva in the Light of Previous Studies.” BBR 19 (2009): 481–510. Quast, Udo. “Der rezensionelle Charakter einiger Wortvarianten im Buche Numeri.” Pages 230–52 in Studien zur Septuaginta, Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Edited by Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John W. Wevers. MSU 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Detlef Fraenkel. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Band I, 1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Rösel, Martin. “Numbers (Primary Translations, Septuagint).” Pages 145–48 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1B. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Rösel, Martin, and Christine Schlund. “Arithmoi / Numeri / Das Vierte Buch Mose.” Pages 431–522 in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis bis Makkabäer. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Sanders, James A. “The Impact of the Judean Desert Scrolls on Issues of Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 25–36 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Skehan, Patrick W. “4QLXXNum: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint.” HTR 70 (1977): 39–50.

a Debated Hebrew Term in Numbers 4

73

Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Vol. 4 of Qumran Cave 4. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009. Steinkeller, Piotr. “New Light on Marhaši and Its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia.” JMS 1 (2006): 1–17. Stol, Marten. “Leder(industrie).” RLA 6 (1980): 527–43. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 226–63 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook.” Pages 321– 400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Thackeray, Henry St. J. Josephus IV: Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV (LCL). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. Tov, Emanuel. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 339–64 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value.” Pages 49–80 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. SBLSCS 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene. “4QLev–Numa.” Pages 153–76 in Genesis to Numbers. Vol. 7 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts.” Pages 77–99 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. “Post-Qumran Theories.” Pages 10–15 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1A. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter W. Flint. The Isaiah Scrolls, part 2. Vol. 2 of Qumran Cave 1. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. VanderKam, James C., and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002. Weber, Robert. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem: Editionem quintam emendatam retractatam praeparavit Roger Gryson. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Urbana: Spoken Language Services, 1994.

74

Kotzé

Wevers, John W. Numeri. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum III, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Wevers, John W. “An Early Revision of the Septuagint of Numbers.” Eretz-Israel 16 (1982): 235*–39*. Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. SBLSCS 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. White Crawford, Sidnie. “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal.” Pages 60–69 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin de Troyer, and Shani Tzoref. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.

Chapter 4

The Ezekiel Manuscripts from the Dead Sea, the Ancient Versions, and the Textual History of Ezekiel Herrie van Rooy 1 Introduction There are seven ancient manuscripts containing parts of Ezekiel. A survey of these manuscripts is presented by Lange.1 In the editions of the different manuscripts, the Qumran readings are usually compared to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. In some instances, reference is also made to the other ancient versions. This is, however, not done in all instances. In this contribution, the readings from Qumran will be discussed in relation to the other ancient versions to determine whether variants in these versions appear in the ancient manuscripts.2 In addition, as no complete list of the variants in MasadEzek exists,3 such a list will be presented in this contribution as well. Finally, the contribution will conclude with a brief discussion of the importance of these manuscripts for the textual history of the book of Ezekiel.

1  Armin Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” in Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emmanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 570–72. 2  The following texts were used in this discussion: Hebrew Bible: Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1987).  L XX: Joseph Ziegler, Ezechiel, Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI, 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Peshitta: Martin J. Mulder, Ezekiel, The Old Testament in Syriac III, 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). Targum: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Targum Jonathan (Logos edition, 2005). Vulgate: Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem5 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeschellschaft, 1969). 3  Cf. Lange, “Ancient manuscript evidence,” 572.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_006

76 2

van Rooy

The Manuscripts

2.1 1QEzek This text was published by Barthélemy in 1955.4 It contains a few words from Ezek 4:16–5:1. Barthélemy does not discuss the relationship of these few words to the versions. In his reconstruction, the preposition ‫ לך‬follows on the verb ‫ ולקחת‬in 5:1. The reconstruction is quite plausible, in agreement with the MT. The preposition is not rendered in the Septuagint, but it is rendered in the Vulgate, Peshitta and Targum. The preposition plus suffix following the same verb is rendered by the Septuagint in other instances, such as 4:1, 3, 9, but then following an imperative in the Hebrew and Greek. Because of the tiny amount of text, no final conclusions can be made about the exact relationship of this manuscript to the textual tradition(s) of Ezekiel.5 2.2 3QEzek The identification of this small fragment as a part of Ezek 16:31–33 rests on the word ‫( לקלס‬16:31), which occurs only in this form in this verse in the Old Testament.6 This verbs means ‘to spurn’. What Baillet did not mention is that the ancient versions did not translate this verb, but rather the verb ‫לקט‬, which means ‘to gather’ in the Qal and ‘to collect’ in the Piel. The Septuagint uses the verb συνάγω ‘to gather’, the Vulgate augeo ‘to increase’, the Targum the Ethpeel of ‫‘ הני‬to derive benefit’ and the Peshitta the Pael of the verb ‫‘ ܟܢܫ‬to gather’. Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon7 mentions only the LXX and Peshitta, but the other two versions probably translated the same verb. In this instance, the reading from Qumran agrees with the Masoretic Text, against all the ancient versions, making it probable that the versions used source texts that agreed in this instance. Because of the tiny amount of text, no final conclusions can be made about the exact relationship of this manuscript to the textual tradition(s) of Ezekiel.8

4  Dominique Barthélemy, “Ézéchiel,” in Qumran Cave 1, ed. D. Barthélemy, O.P. and J. T. Milik, DJD 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 68–69. 5  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 570. 6  Maurice Baillet, “Ézéchiel,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran, ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 94; George J. Brooke, “Ezekiel in some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress 1, ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 318. 7  Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and Shemaryahu Talmon, The Book of Ezekiel, The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), ‫נז‬. 8  Cf. Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 570.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

77

2.3 4QEzek Fragments of three Ezekiel manuscripts have been found in Cave 4. They were published by Sanderson.9 She has a very exhaustive discussion of the three manuscripts, including of the variants contained in the manuscript in relation to the Masoretic Text and the ancient versions. The first two fragments were provisionally edited and published by Lust.10 2.4 4QEzeka This manuscript contains parts of Ezek 10:6–22; 11:1–11; 23:14–15, 17, 18, 44–47 and 41:3–6. Sinclair dates it between 40 and 30 BCE,11 while Sanderson dates it to the middle of the first century BCE.12 Lange states that it disagrees with MT just three times, two unaligned and one agreeing with the LXX.13 In one other instance, it agrees with manuscripts of the MT and the LXX against the MT. Sanderson actually lists six variants, of which two may be purely orthographic (in 23:45) and can be ignored. Sinclair presents a reconstruction of the second fragment (Ezek 10:17–11).14 In 10:8, this manuscript reads ‫ ידי‬against ‫ יד‬in the MT. The plural occurs in the LXX,15 while the Peshitta, Vulgate and Targum agree with the MT. In 10:21, this manuscript reads ‫ וארבעה‬where the MT has ‫וארבע‬. The Old Greek reads ‘eight’, while the other ancient versions agree with the MT. In 23:44, it reads the plural ‫ ויבאו‬with the ancient versions and some Masoretic manuscripts against the MT. Patmore regards the variants in 10:8 and 23:44 as corrections by a scribe, or it could be that the MT is corrupt in these instances.16 Lust argues that the context of the MT also is in favour of the plural.17 Lange regards this manuscript as proto-Masoretic.18 One would then expect this manuscript to agree with the MT in the instances where the Old Greek disagrees with the 9  Judith E. Sanderson, “Ezekiel,” in The Prophets, vol. 10 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DJD 15 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 209–20. 10  Johan Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts in Qumran: Preliminary Edition of 4QEza and b’” in Ezekiel and His Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 90–100. 11  Lawrence A. Sinclair, “A Qumran Biblical Fragment ‘4QEzek.a (Ezek 10:17–11:11),’” RevQ 14 (1989): 100. 12  Sanderson, “Ezekiel,” 209; Hector M. Patmore, “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran,” JSOT 32 (2007): 233. 13  Cf. Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571. 14  Sinclair, “Qumran Biblical Fragment,” 101–3. 15  Cf. Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts,” 97. 16  Patmore, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” 234. 17  Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts,” 99. 18  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571.

78

van Rooy

MT. This is the case for example with the omission of ‫ הכרוב‬in 10:7 and the whole of 10:14 in the Old Greek. As stated by Sinclair19 and Sanderson,20 this manuscript is close to MT. Sinclair adds the Alexandrian tradition of the LXX to this. In 10:17, this manuscript reads ‫ אותם‬with the Masoretic Text, where one would rather expect a form of the preposition ‫את‬. This is the rendering of the Old Greek, the Peshitta and the Targum, while the Vulgate has not rendered the word. In this instance, this manuscript agrees with MT against the other witnesses, while they differ amongst themselves. The Peshitta has a plus in this verse.21 In 23:45, this manuscript has the vowel letter in one instance where the MT does not have it (‫ נאפות‬versus ‫)נאפת‬. 2.5 4QEzekb This manuscript contains part of Ezek 1. Sanderson dates it to the early first century CE.22 Lange says that of the three variants against MT, two are nonaligned and the other one can only be recognised within the Hebrew textual tradition.23 The three variants are related to the masculine or feminine form of the third person plural pronominal suffix in verse 10, the omission of the word ‫ איש‬in verse 11 (against MT and all the versions; already noted by Lust,24 while Patmore25 regards the word in MT as confusing) and the addition of a pronominal suffix to the first word in verse 22 (against MT and all the versions; Lust regards this as an error in this manuscript).26 At the end of verse 10, this manuscript reads ‫[לארבע]תם‬, agreeing with the Targum and Vulgate, against ‫ לארבעתן‬in MT. At the beginning of verse 13, this manuscript agrees with the MT, Vulgate, Targum and Peshitta with the reading ‫ ודמות‬against the reading of the LXX (καὶ ἐν μέσῳ). It also has the article with ‫ הלפידים‬against the LXX. This noun is also plural against the singular of the Peshitta. In verses 22–23, it agrees with the longer text of MT against the LXX. This is what Lange probably meant,

19  Sinclair, “Qumran Biblical Fragment,” 105. 20  Sanderson, “Ezekiel,” 210. 21  Sinclair, “Qumran Biblical Fragment,” 104. 22  Sanderson, “Ezekiel,” 216. 23  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571. 24  Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts,” 94. 25  Patmore, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” 234. 26  Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts,” 96.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

79

although he probably erroneously omitted the word ‘with’ before ‘the longer text of Ezek 1:22–23.’27 2.6 4QEzekc Of this manuscript only a few words can be read. As stated by Lange, the only important issue is that this manuscript contains the words ]‫ את עצם [היום‬in Ezek 24:2, which are lacking in the Peshitta and Vulgate.28 These words occur in the MT and LXX (and also in the Targum, not mentioned by Lange). 2.7 11QEzek This manuscript was originally published by Brownlee in 1963 and then edited by Herbert in the official edition of the scrolls from Qumran.29 Brownlee describes the original discovery of this manuscript and the original attempt to open it.30 The edition of Herbert contains a number of reconstructions based on his research. He is of the opinion that there is no evidence for the agreement of this manuscript with the LXX.31 As Lange indicated, the agreement of this manuscript with MT against the shorter text of the LXX in a number of instances, also argues for a semi-Masoretic text.32 In his discussion of the variants and reconstructed variants, Herbert shows that this manuscript mostly agree with MT and the other ancient versions, as in 4:4 (p. 23), 4:9 (p. 24), 5:12 (p. 26), 5:13 (p. 26), 5:14 (p. 26), 5:15 (three times; pp. 25–26), 5:16 (twice; p. 26) and 7:11 (p. 27). This is mainly in agreement with the conclusions of Brownlee in the original edition of this scroll. Brownlee dates the scroll between 55–25 BCE.33 This dating is regarded as too early by Herbert, who prefers a date between 10 BCE and 30 CE.34 The reading of ‫ והית‬in 5:15 could be read as a defective form of the third person feminine singular, as in MT, or as a defective second person masculine singular, as in the versions.35 This defective form could have been the origin of the different interpretations in MT and the versions. 27  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571. 28  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571. 29  Edward D Herbert, “11QEzek,” in Qumran Cave 11, Part 2, ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, DJD 23 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 15–28. 30  William H. Brownlee, “The Scroll of Ezekiel from the Eleventh Qumran Cave,” RevQ 4 (1963): 11–14. 31  Herbert, “11QEzek,” 22. 32  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 571. 33  Brownlee, “Ezekiel,” 28. 34  Herbert, “11QEzek,” 21. 35  Cf. Brownlee, “Ezekiel,” 11–14; Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, Ezekiel, ‫יח‬.

80

van Rooy

What is quite important is that 11QEzek agrees with the MT, Targum, Vulgate and Peshitta with regard to the placement of 7:3–5 between verses 9 and 10. This is one of the places where the original Greek differs most from the MT and the other versions. 2.8 MasadEzek This is a very important manuscript because it covers part of Ezek 35–38, where there are major differences between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek, especially as represented by papyrus 967. It was originally published by Talmon in 1996,36 with very important remarks published by Tigchelaar in 2005.37 Talmon dates this manuscript to the second half of the first century BCE.38 However, Tigchelaar dates this manuscript to the middle of the first century CE.39 As stated by Lange, a complete variant list of this manuscript has not been compiled and this contribution includes such a list.40 However, the list does not discuss examples of orthographic variants that have been treated in full by Talmon41 or corrections of obvious errors.42 The orthographic issues are mainly related to plene or defective spelling (Column I.3, II.2, 4, 8, 9, 19, 26; III.9, 18). In the list below, variants from the Old Greek, Peshitta, Vulgate and Targum will be taken into consideration. The references below are to the columns and lines as published by Talmon, with the reference to the MT in brackets. I.1 (35:11) ‫ משנאתיך‬MT] OG κατὰ τὴν ἔχθραν σου There is more to this example. The preposition following this word is also omitted by the OG. The other versions used a verb to express the idea contained in the Hebrew and in this way made the people referred to the object of the verb. According to BHS, many Masoretic manuscripts have the singular of the noun.

36  Shemaryahu Talmon, “Fragments of an Ezekiel Scroll Masada (Ezek 35:11–38:14) 1043– 2220, Mas1d,” OLP 27 (1996): 29–49. 37  Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masad (MasadEzek),” RevQ 22 (2005): 269–75. 38  Talmon, “Fragments,” 31. 39  Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 73–75. Cf. also Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 572. 40  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” 572. 41  Talmon, “Fragments,” 34–35. 42  Talmon, 33–34.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

81

Talmon has a second reference to this section of the verse,43 but the remark is confusing. He refers to the following reading in this manuscript: ‫משנאתיך בם‬ ‫ונודעתי בם‬. His reference to the Septuagint is as follows: καὶ γνωσθήσομαί σοι … σοι. The LXX has σοι twice, but the one is much earlier in the verse, and not later, as this quotation implies. The preposition ‫ בם‬occurs twice in the verse, as can be seen above. The first one is omitted in the LXX, while the second one is rendered by σοι. It is only the LXX that has the form, as the other versions agree with MT and this manuscript. I.2 (35:12) ] ‫ ]שמעתי א]ת כל [נאצו]תי[ך‬MT P T V ] OG ἤκουσα τῆς φωνῆς τῶν βλασφημιῶν σου The Vorlage of the OG probably had ‫קול‬, not ‫כל‬. I.3 (35:12) ‫ לנו נתנו לא]וכלה‬MT P V OG (P967 ἡμῖν δέδοται εἰς κατάβρωμα] LXXA and other ἡμῖν δέδοται εἰς κατάσχεσιν. This last word probably goes back to a Hebrew ‫נַ ֲח ָלה‬.44 I.3 (35:12) ‫ [על ה]רי ישראל לאמר‬MT T V P (‫ ܕ‬for ‫ ] )לאמר‬OG Τὰ ὄρη Ισραηλ I.3 (35:12) ‫ שממה‬MT (K) ] ‫ שממו‬MT (Q) OG P V In this instance, this manuscript supports the Ketibh of the MT, while the Qere is supported by three of the versions. The Targum circumvented the problem of a feminine verb for Israel by adding the land as object of the verb (‫ַצ ִד ַיאת‬ ‫) ֲא ַרעֹהון‬. I.4 (35:13) ‫ ותגדילו עלי בפיכם‬MT P V T (‫ במילי פומכון‬for ‫ ])בפיכם‬OG καὶ ἐμεγαλορημόνησας ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τῷ στόματί σου I.4 (35:13) ‫ והעת[רתם ע]לי דבריכם‬MT V T P ] OG omits I. 5 (35:14) ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫ )ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬T (‫יוי‬ ‫ ] )אלהים‬OG κύριος45

43  Talmon, 39. 44   Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, Ezekiel, ‫קנח‬. 45  Talmon, “Fragments of an Ezekiel scroll,” 38 n. 40, indicates that the double divine name must also be restored in I.20 (36:5), I.25 (36:6), I.37 (36:13), II.30 (36:32) and II.39 (46:37) on account of the space available.

82

van Rooy

I.5 (35:14) ‫ כשמח כל הארץ [ כשמחת כל הארץ‬MT T V ] OG Ἐν τῇ εὐφροσύνῃ πάσης τῆς γῆς ] P ‫( ܒܚܕܘܬܐ ܕܟܠܗ ܐܪܥܐ‬in the joy of the whole earth) Talmon says that there could have been a letter following ‫ כשמח‬in this manuscript and that it could have been a ‫ת‬, reading a noun like the OG.46 The Greek has a shorter version of verse 15 and if its Vorlage had a noun, the translator could have jumped to the same noun at the beginning of verse 15. The Peshitta has a version of this verse that also differs from the MT and OG in many respects, but it also has a noun, like the OG. This may be seen as support for Talmon’s view. I.6–7 (35:15) ‫ כשמחתך לנחלת בית ישראל על אשר שממה כן אעשה לך‬MT P (with minor variants) T (with minor variants) V (with minor variants)] OG omits. It could have been caused by homoioteleuton.47 In this instance, the noun at the beginning of the verse is rendered by a verb by the Peshitta, Targum and Vulgate. I.8 (35:15)  ‫ וכל אדום כלה‬MT T] omit ‫ כל‬V P] OG καὶ πᾶσα ἡ Ἰδουμαία ἐξαναλωθήσεται. The Vorlage of the Greek possibly reads ‫כלה‬.48 I.8 (35:15)  ‫ [וי]דעו‬MT P T V] OG γνώσῃ I.10–11 (36:1) ‫( הרי ישראל‬2) MT V T] OG τοῖς ὄρεσι τοῦ Ισραηλ P ‫ܠܛܘܪܐ‬

‫ܕܐܝܣܪܐܝܠ‬

I.11 (36:2)  ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος I.12 (36:2) ‫ ובמות‬MT P V T] OG ἔρημα I.16 (36:3)  ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος I.25 (36:6)  ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος I.27 (36:7)  ‫ כ][ה] א[מ]ר אדני יהוה‬MT V P T] OG omits I.29f (36:8) ‫  ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל‬MT V P T] OG τὴν σταφυλὴν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν καταφάγεται ὁ λαός μου

46  Talmon, “Fragments,” 34–35. 47   Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, Ezekiel, ‫קנט‬. 48   Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, ‫קנט‬.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

83

(omits ‫ תתנו‬and ‫)ישראל‬. BHS thinks that σταφυλὴν may reflect a reading ‫ענבכם‬.49 II.3f (36:18) ‫ על הדם אשר שפכו על [הארץ] ובגלוליהם טמאוה‬MT V P T] OG omits II.6 (36:20) ‫ ויבוא‬MT] OG T V P plural = ‫‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ויבואו‬ II.8 (36:21)  ‫ ואחמל [על] שם קדשי‬MT V P T] καὶ ἐφεισάμην αὐτῶν διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ ἅγιον OG II.10 (36:22) ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫ )ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος II.14 (36:23) ‫ נא]ם אדני יהוה‬MT V P (T)] OG omits II.18 (36:25) ‫טמאותיכם‬ This is the reading of Talmon, who says the scribe omitted the ‫ מ‬in the second position. Tigchelaar is, however, of the opinion that this is not correct, and that the word should be read as ‫חטאותיכם‬, with reference to Lev 16:30b.50 This would be a unique variant in this manuscript. If Tigchelaar is correct, the reference to this reading by Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon needs to be corrected.51 II.22 (36:27–28) ‫[ועשיתם וישבתם‬ Tigchelaar is of the opinion that ‫ אותם‬has to be read supralinearly between these two words.52 He says that this reading is found in some manuscripts of the LXX. What he does not mention is that the Peshitta has this reading as well (‫)ܘܬܥܒܕܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬. III.1 (37:1) ‫ היתה‬MT V T] OG Καὶ ἐγένετο P ‬‫‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ܘܗܘܬ ‮‬ III.1 (37:1)  ‫ עצמות‬MT V P] ὀστῶν ἀνθρωπίνων OG (excluding P967) ‫ גרמי אנשא‬T III.5 (37:3)  ]‫ אדנ [י יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος III.8 (37:5)  ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος III.9 (37:5)  ‫ רוח וח[יי]תם‬MT P T V] OG πνεῦμα ζωῆς III.10–11 (37:6) ‫ רוח‬MT T V P] OG πνεῦμά μου

49  Cf. also Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, ‫קסע‬. 50  Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 271. 51   Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, Ezekiel, ‫קסד‬. 52  Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 272–73.

84

van Rooy

III.11 (37:7) ‫  כאשר צויתי‬MT T] OG καθὼς ἐνετείλατό μοι V P (cf. 37:10) III.12 (37:7) ‫ קול‬MT P T V] OG omits III.12 (37:7) ‫ [תקרבו עצמות‬MT ‫ ותקרבו עצמות‬V P T] OG καὶ προσήγαγε τὰ ὀστᾶ Talmon thinks that there may have been a definite article between the verb and its subject in this manuscript.53 The article appears before the noun in 37:3, 4 and 11. This may then be an agreement between the Old Greek and this manuscript. However, Tigchelaar does not think that there is enough space available for the article.54 III.15 (37:9) ‫ ויאמר אלי הנבא אל הרוח הנבא בן אדם‬MT OG V P T] Some witnesses to the LXX (including codex alexandrinus) has a different word order: καὶ εἶπε πρός με Προφήτευσον υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου προφήτευσον ἐπὶ τὸ πνεῦμα III.16 (37:9) ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫ )ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος III.16 (37:9) ‫ באי הרוח ופחי‬MT V P T] OG omits ‫הרוח‬ III.20 (37:11) ‫ המה הנה אמרים‬MT ] OG καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι V ipsi dicunt P ‫‘( ܐܢܘܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ‬which were saying’) T ‫האנון‬ ‫אמרין‬

Talmon says that the OG omitted the particle ‫הנה‬. It is clear that all the versions had a problem to read the interjection ‘Look!’ here, and they rendered it in different ways, but more in agreement with the OG than with this manuscript and the MT. III.22 (37:12) ‫ אדני יהוה‬MT V (Dominus Deus) P (‫)ܡܪܐ ܡܪܘܬܐ‬ T (‫ ] )יוי אלהים‬OG κύριος III.24 (37:12) ‫ עמי‬MT T V] OG P omit III.26 (37:13) ‫ עמי‬MT T V] OG P omit III.29 (37:16) ‫ [ואתה ב]ן אדם‬MT P V T] OG Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου (omits ‫)ואתה‬

53  Talmon, “Fragments,” 36. 54  Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 273.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

85

In this instance, Talmon makes an error.55 He says that Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου was omitted, but that is wrong, as indicated above. IV.19 (38:2) ‫ אל גוג ארץ המגוג‬MT V T] OG ἐπὶ Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ P ‫ܥܠ ܓܘܓ ܘܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܡܓܘܓ‬ IV.26 (38:7) ‫ להם‬MT V T P] OG μοι 3

General Remarks about These Seven Manuscripts

As far as the dating of the manuscripts are concerned, different dates have been given by the different scholars. However, if you look at the dates proposed by scholars, the manuscripts all date between from about 50 BCE to 50 CE. Most scholars are also certain that these manuscripts, at least those that can be studied in some detail, such as 4QEzeka, 4QEzekb, 11QEzek and MasadEzek, stand close to the Masoretic tradition. Some are called ‘proto-Masoretic’ and others ‘semi-Masoretic’. There is some confusion with regard to the use of these terms, but the relationship to the later Masoretic Text is quite evident. This does not mean that they agree with the MT (and versions such as the Targum, Peshitta and Vulgate) in all respects, or that they are always in disagreement with the OG. There are instances that deviate from the general rule in this regard. There are not many examples where one of these manuscript has a reading different from MT but agrees with the Old Greek. 4QEzeka has an example in Ezek 10:8, where it reads ‫ ידי‬against ‫ יד‬in the MT. The plural occurs in the LXX,56 while the Peshitta, Vulgate and Targum agree with the MT. In 23:44, this manuscript has a plural of a verb, agreeing with the ancient versions and disagreeing with MT. 4QEzekb omits the word ‫ איש‬in verse 11. As a general rule, one would expect these manuscripts to agree with the MT, also in the instances where the MT disagrees with the OG but agrees with the Peshitta, Targum and Vulgate. An example occurs in Ezek 5:1 in 1QEzek. There are many examples of the general agreement in 11QEzek and MasadEzek, as indicated in the discussion of these manuscripts. In 10:17, 4QEzeka agrees with the MT against the Old Greek, Peshitta and Targum, and in Ezek 1:13, 4QEzekb agrees with the MT, Peshitta, Targum and Vulgate against the Old Greek.

55  Talmon, “Fragments,” 38. 56  Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts,” 97.

86

van Rooy

In some instances, these manuscripts agree with the MT where all the old versions disagree with MT, as in Ezek 16:31 in 3QEzek. In Ezek 24:2, 4QEzekc agrees with the MT, Old Greek and Targum against the Peshitta and Vulgate. In MasadEzek, the reading in 35:12 agrees with the Ketibh of the MT, while the Old Greek, Peshitta and Vulgate agree with the Qere. What is also striking in this manuscript is the many instances of agreement with the longer text of MT against the shorter reading of the OG, as for example in the double divine name. In conclusion it can be stated that these manuscripts reflect an earlier tradition close to the Masoretic Text, including the longer version of the Masoretic Text as in MasadEzek and the arrangement of the text in Ezek 7. 4

The Textual History of Ezekiel

It is impossible to give a detailed discussion of the history of research on the textual history of Ezekiel. In a volume published in 2017,57 four important contributions appear which give a detailed discussion of the scholarly views on this topic.58 With regard to the version of the Septuagint of Ezekiel, the revised doctoral thesis of Ingrid Lilly was published in 2012.59 In her conclusions, she accepts that Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text represent two different literary editions. Papyrus 967 reflects a shorter Hebrew text, which is quite close to its parent text, and the Masoretic Text represents a development beyond the parent text of the Old Greek.60 The views in this regard are summarised by Tooman.61 He also accepts the idea of two different literary editions of Ezekiel. He says that Papyrus 967, codex vaticanus of the Septuagint, and the Masoretic Text 57  Armin Lange and Emmanuel Tov, eds., Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2017). 58  Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence”; William A. Tooman, “Relevant Witnesses and Text Editions,” in Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emmanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 559–69; William A. Tooman “Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT,” in Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emmanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 572–75; and Johan Lust, “Septuagint,” in Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emmanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 581–85. 59  Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel. Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTS 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 60  Lilly, Two Books, 301–3. 61  Tooman, “Relevant Witnesses.”

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

87

descend from a common or almost common ancestor. The two Septuagint witnesses reflect different pre-hexaplaric recensions of a Hebrew text that was still developing at that stage.62 This is also the view expressed in detail by Lust.63 As regards the development of the Hebrew text of Ezekiel, Tooman says that the process of the growth of the book extended into the Common Era.64 Lust is of the opinion that the parent text of LXX Ezekiel probably antedated the Masoretic Text.65 Lilly’s remark in this regard is important, namely that this view is perhaps an overstatement of the issue at this stage of the research.66 The question that is relevant for this contribution is whether the Hebrew manuscripts discussed in this contribution can shed any light on this issue. As Patmore states,67 although we have only a small part of Ezekiel from the scrolls, it is quite evident that the texts do not reflect anything related to the Vorlage of the Greek recensions. He is of the opinion that the scrolls question the theory of the development of the text of Ezekiel as proposed by Lust and Tov.68 He gives much weight to the evidence from MasadEzek. Ezekiel 36:23b– 38 is not part of papyrus 967 and it is regarded by Lust as a later insertion into the in the Hebrew text. Patmore says that the omission of this section from papyrus 967 cannot be explained by some kind of error.69 Because the scrolls are much older that papyrus 967, he would rather accept the idea that the papyrus must be regarded as a different text, not an older text.70 Tigchelaar states that the idea that the transposition of Ezek 37 could be dated early in the Common Era, as Lust proposes, is “quite problematic.”71 Although Lilly is critical of some aspects of Patmore’s views, she agrees that one must, at this stage, be careful to ascribe priority to one of the different editions, as she calls them.72 Although Lilly gives some attention to these scrolls (especially pp. 22–25), she does not give much attention to the variants contained in these scrolls. Especially the fact that the order of the MT in Ezek 7 is in alignment with the scrolls and the presence of the part of Ezek 37 not in papyrus 967 in MasadEzek cautions one about pushing the editing of the Hebrew Text into the Common Era. The existence of different editions of the book at a much earlier stage than accepted 62  Tooman, 566. 63  Lust, “Septuagint.” 64  Tooman, “Masoretic Texts,” 578. 65  Lust, “Septuagint,” 580. 66  Lilly, Two Books, 302. 67  Patmore, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” 237. 68  Patmore, 240. 69  Patmore, 240–41. 70  Patmore, 241. 71  Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 275. 72  Lilly, Two Books, 22–25.

88

van Rooy

by Lust, amongst others, deserve serious consideration in the light of the evidence of the scrolls.73 Bibliography Baillet, Maurice. “1. Ézéchiel.” Page 94 in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran. Edited by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Ézéchiel.” Pages 68–69 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by D. Barthélemy, O.P. and J. T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Brooke, George J. “Ezekiel in some Qumran and New Testament Texts.” Pages 317–37 in The Madrid Qumran Congress 1. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Brownlee, William H. “The Scroll of Ezekiel from the Eleventh Qumran Cave.” RevQ 4 (1963): 11–28. Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Targum Jonathan (Logos edition, 2005). Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1987. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe, and Shemaryahu Talmon. The Book of Ezekiel. The Hebrew University Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004. Herbert, Edward D. “11QEzek.” Pages 15–28 in Qumran Cave 11, Part 2. Edited by F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Lange, Armin and Tov, Emmanuel, eds. Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Lange, Armin. “Ancient Manuscript Evidence.” Pages 570–72 in Lange and Tov, Pentateuch. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel. Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTS 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel Manuscripts in Qumran: Preliminary Edition of 4QEza and b.” Pages 90–100 in Ezekiel and His Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. BETL 74. Edited by Johan Lust. Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1986. Lust, Johan. “Septuagint.” Pages 581–85 in Lange and Tov, Pentateuch. Mulder, Martin J. Ezekiel. The Old Testament in Syriac 3. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Patmore, Hector M. “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran.” JSOT 32 (2007): 231–42. 73  This work is based on the research supported by the National Research Foundation. Any opinion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the author and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.

The Ezekiel Manuscripts

89

Sanderson, Judith E. “Ezekiel.” Pages 209–20 in The Prophets. Vol. 10 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Sinclair, Lawrence A. “A Qumran Biblical Fragment ‘4QEzek.a (Ezek 10:17–11:11),’” RevQ 14 (1989): 99–105. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Fragments of an Ezekiel Scroll Masada (Ezek 35:11–38:14) 1043– 2220, Mas1d.” OLP 27 (1996): 29–49. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada (MasadEzek).” RevQ 22 (2005): 269–75. Tooman, William A. “Relevant Witnesses and Text Editions.” Pages 559–69 Lange and Tov, Pentateuch. Tooman, William A. “Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT.” Pages 572–75 in Lange and Tov, Pentateuch. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeschellschaft, 1969. Ziegler, Joseph. Ezechiel. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Chapter 5

On “True” Editions: Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh James Nati A 2013 volume dedicated to the Psalms features an essay by Peter Flint titled “The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls: Psalms Manuscripts, Editions, and the Oxford Hebrew Bible.”1 Therein, Flint offers a summary of his views on the Psalms scrolls, views developed over the course of more than two decades of research. He devotes significant attention in this essay to the then new Oxford Hebrew Bible project (now the Hebrew Bible Critical Edition [HBCE]), thinking through some of the ways in which the Psalms may be approached in an eclectic edition, and in particular how the Qumran Psalms scrolls ought to be incorporated into such a project.2 He details a series of verses to which the Qumran scrolls offer valuable textual evidence, and ultimately concludes that “[t]he Psalms scrolls are a key resource for the Psalms volume in the [HBCE] series …”3 Immediately following Flint’s essay in the volume is a short response by Geza Vermes, one that offers an “outline” on the canon and text of scripture.4 Vermes’s response is for the most part limited to general remarks, but there are two sentences that stand out. Writing about “textual elasticity of the Qumran Bible,” Vermes remarks: “Put positively, the Qumran scribes arrogate to themselves the right to creative freedom. Such relative liberty could go hand in hand with the conviction that all they were doing was to transmit faithfully the true meaning of Scripture.”5 Vermes is here pointing out the ways in which the Qumran scrolls—biblical scrolls in particular—attest through their textual variants to the continuing development of these texts, and to the fact that the

1  Peter W. Flint, “The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls: Psalms Manuscripts, Editions, and the Oxford Hebrew Bible,” in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence, ed. S. Gillingham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 11–34. 2  For an overview of the project’s aims and methods, see Ronald Hendel, Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible, TCS 10 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). 3  Flint, “Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls,” 31. 4  Geza Vermes, “Reflections on the Canon and the Text of the Bible in Response to Peter Flint,” in Jewish and Christian Approaches, 35–37. 5  Vermes, 36–37. Italics original.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_007

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

91

scribes who wrote them likely considered these developing texts to reflect authoritative scripture.6 The purpose of the present essay is to continue the conversation taking place between two excellent scholars in that volume. In my own work, I have begun to reflect on the similarities between, on the one hand, ancient practices of developmental composition, and modern practices of textual editing on the other. Vermes’s use of the phrase “true meaning” strikes me as one that resonates in regard to both eras. The Qumran sectarians were engaged in scribal practices that resulted in the “facilitation” of biblical texts, while modern editors too attempt to formulate textual truths by employing the tools of criticism, especially in an eclectic edition.7 While Vermes may not have had this coincidence in mind, his words serve as a useful jumping-off point for considering how ancient scribes and modern editors think about the authority of developing texts. To be more specific, how might ancient scribes have conceptualized the relationship between textual pluriformity and authority, and how should modern editors represent those ideas? I hope to shed light on these issues by considering two texts that were important to Flint and Vermes, respectively: the book of Psalms and the Serekh ha-Yaḥad. 1 11QPsa and the Book of Psalms Of central importance to Prof. Flint’s work on the Qumran Psalms manuscripts was the question of whether 11QPsa ought to be understood as either a “true edition” or a “secondary compilation” of the book of Psalms.8 His 1997 monograph systematically measures the textual evidence against the proposals of other scholars, and he concludes in light of the totality of Qumran Psalms manuscripts that 11QPsa represents a different (yet “true”) edition of the book of Psalms, one that was considered authoritative scripture. Drawing on the work of Eugene Ulrich, Flint plots the development of the book of Psalms as variant literary editions: “Edition I (Psalms 1/2–89), Edition IIa or the

6  On the development of biblical books as reflected in the Scrolls, see Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 7  On facilitating texts, see D. Andrew Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period, FAT 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 266 et passim. 8  Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 217. See also the overview at Flint, “Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls,” 15–18.

92

Nati

11QPsa-Psalter (= Edition I plus the arrangement found in 11QPsa), and Edition IIb or the MT-150 Psalter (= Edition I plus Psalms 90–150).”9 At issue in the debate over the nature of 11QPsa are the large-scale differences between the book of Psalms as reflected in the MT (and to a lesser extent the LXX)10 and in 11QPsa. The most important of these are 1) the appearance of non-canonical psalms in 11QPsa and 2) the order of the psalms common to both. 11QPsa contains a number of psalms that do not appear in the MT, including Psalm 151A, 151B, 154, 155, Plea for Deliverance, Sir 51:13–30, Apostrophe to Zion, Hymn to the Creator, 2 Sam 23:1–7, and David’s Compositions. These are found in the final ten columns of 11QPsa, interspersed with a number of psalms that do appear in the MT. The MT psalms in 11QPsa are also in a different order from that of the MT. The beginning columns of the scroll, for example, record the following psalms in direct succession: 118, 104, 147, 105, 146, 148.11 These major differences from the MT led earlier scholars to reject the notion that 11QPsa could have been considered authoritative scripture by early Jewish readers. As Flint points out, however, these arguments “begin with one unsubstantiated premise: that the arrangement of the MT-150 Psalter, or even its textual form, had been finalized and was accepted by almost all Jews as the ‘Book of Psalms’ well before the second century BCE.”12 Flint’s assessment of Edition IIa as a “true edition” in spite of its many differences from MT is based primarily on three factors: attribution to David, structure, and the fact that it appears in three different manuscripts at Qumran.13 It is not my aim here to evaluate Flint’s characterization of 11QPsa as “Edition IIa,” but rather to think with him about what it might mean to produce an eclectic text of a biblical book that existed in more than one “true” edition.14 This is an issue that applies to a number of other biblical books, and there are different ways that one might represent textual pluriformity at the level of literary editions. In what follows, I suggest that the Serekh ha-Yaḥad offers an instructive analogy for thinking about variant “true” editions, and I ask how this text’s own claims to truth might be brought to bear on the discussion of pluriformity and authority.

9  Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 227. See further ibid., 169, 171. 10  See ibid., 228–36. 11  Flint, “Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls,” 15. 12  Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 227. 13  Ibid., 227. 14  For an illuminating assessment of Flint’s work on the Psalms, see Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 19–50.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

2

93

1QS, 4QSd, and the “True” Serekh ha-Yaḥad

The Serekh ha-Yaḥad is attested in thirteen manuscripts from Qumran, many of which are relatively well-preserved.15 These manuscripts differ from one another, sometimes considerably, and thus there has been a sustained discussion over the textual development of the Serekh since the full publication of the cave 4 material in the late 1990s.16 The totality of the textual evidence presented by these manuscripts is well beyond the scope of this essay, so I would like to focus here on the two manuscripts that have garnered the most attention in this discussion, and are also the two best-preserved: 1QS and 4QSd. These manuscripts differ in two significant ways. First, 4QSd lacks the material that is found in the first four columns of 1QS. This material has been divided into three different textual units: the Exhortation (1QS 1:1–15), the Covenant Renewal (1QS 1:16–3:12), and the well-known Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13–4:26).17 The right edge of the first sheet of this manuscript is preserved, and does not show any stitching holes, and thus the text of this manuscript begins at what corresponds to 1QS 5:1.18 4QSd, in other words, certainly did not contain the first three textual units—approximately one third of the entire work—of the Serekh. Second, the material that these manuscripts do share reflects a number of textual variants that may be productively described as redactional differences. These are especially prevalent in cols. 5–9 of 1QS and the corresponding columns in 4QSd, and they have figured prominently in the discussion of both the development of the text and of the Qumran sect more generally.19 15  These include 1QS, 4QSa–j, 5Q11, and 11Q29. 16  The most important contributions to the discussion include Geza Vermes, “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 42 (1991): 250–55; Geza Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok-Priests-Congregation,” in vol. 1 of Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 375–85; Philip S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 437–56; Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, eds., Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts, DJD 26 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998); Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule, STDJ 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Charlotte Hempel, The Qumran Rule Texts in Context, TSAJ 154 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 17  This division follows Metso, Serekh Texts, 7–14. 18   D JD 26: 85–88. 19  Most notable is Vermes’s suggestion that the appearance of the sons of Zadok in 1QS reflects a Zadokite “takeover” within the sect (Vermes, “Leadership of the Qumran Community,” 381).

94

Nati

I want to focus here on the relationship between the large-scale structural difference involving the opening columns of 1QS on the one hand, and the smaller, verse-level differences between 1QS and 4QSd on the other, limiting the examples to 1QS 5 and its parallels.20 To be specific, I suggest that both the Exhortation found in col. 1 of 1QS and the variants of col. 5 work together to emphasize the importance of divine truth, a claim that is absent from 4QSd. This difference is marked by the terminology that is shared between 1QS 1:1–15 and the variants that are unique to 1QS in col. 5, particularly in the distinctive use of the term “truth” (‫)אמת‬. Moreover, the use of deictic language in 1QS emphasizes the status of the Serekh itself as a textual embodiment of this divine truth. 3

Truth in the Exhortation

In the Exhortation in 1QS 1:1–15, which is absent from 4QSd, the word ‫ אמת‬figures prominently. The Exhortation as a whole offers a sort of mission statement for the reader with a string of infinitives, meant to convey the purpose of the Covenant Renewal that follows.21 Verse

1QS

Translationa

1

‫ל[ ]שים לחיו [ ]כ היחד‬ ‫לדרוש‬ ‫אל ב[  ]לעשות הטוב‬ ‫והישר לפניו כאשר‬

For [the Instructor …] … for his life, [book of the Ru]le of the Community: in order to seek God with [all (one’s) heart and] with a[ll (one’s) soul;] in order to do what is good and just in his presence, as he commanded by the hand of Moses and by the hand of all his servants the Prophets; in order to love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects; in order to keep oneself at a distance from all evil,

2

3

‫צוה ביד מושה וביד כול עבדיו‬ ‫הנביאים ולאהוב כול‬

4

‫אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר‬ ‫מאס לרחוק מכול רע‬

20  My Yale dissertation, Textual Criticism and the Rules from Qumran, deals more extensively with all of the differences found across the S manuscripts and their implications for textual criticism. 21  See Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, STDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 109–13; James H. Charlesworth, ed., Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 7 n. 3.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

95

(cont.)

Verse

1QS

Translationa

5

‫ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב ולעשות‬ ‫אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬ ‫בארצ ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות‬ ‫לב אשמה ועיני זנות‬ ‫לעשות כול רע ולהבי את כול‬ ‫הנדבים לעשות חוקי אל‬

and to become attached to all good works; in order to do truth and justice and uprightness on earth and not to walk anymore in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and of lecherous eyes performing every evil; in order to welcome all those who freely volunteer to carry out God’s decrees into the covenant of kindness; in order to be united in the counsel of God and walk in perfection in his sight, complying with all revealed things concerning the regulated times of their stipulations; in order to love all the sons of light, each one According to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt in God’s vindication. All those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge, their energies, and their riches to the Community of God in order to refine their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal their energies in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in accordance with his just counsel. They shall not stray from any one of all God’s orders concerning their appointed times; they shall not advance their appointed times nor shall they retard any one of their feasts. They shall not veer from his true precepts in order to go either to the right or to the left.

6 7

8

‫בברית חסד להיחד בעצת אל‬ ‫ולהתהלכ לפניו תמים כול‬

9

‫הנגלות למועדי תעודותם ולאהוב‬ ‫כול בני אור איש‬

10

‫כגורלו בעצת אל ולשנוא כול בני‬ ‫חושכ איש כאשמתו‬

11

‫בנקמת אל וכול הנדבים לאמתו‬

12

‫והונם ביחד אל לברר דעתם‬

13

‫כתם דרכיו וכול הונם כעצת‬ ‫צדקו ולוא לצעוד בכול אחד‬

14

‫מכול דברי אל בקציהם ולוא‬ ‫לקדם עתיהם ולוא להתאחר‬

15

‫מכול מועדיהם ולוא לסור מחוקי‬

‫יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם‬

‫באמת חוקי אל וכוחם לתכן‬

‫אמתו ללכת ימין ושמאול‬

a  Translation adapted from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

The addressee is exhorted “to seek God” (v. 1), “to do good” (v. 2), “to love all that he chooses and hate all that he rejects” (3–4), before being told in vv. 5–6 “to

96

Nati

enact truth, justice, and judgment in the land” (‫)לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט בארצ‬. Steven Fraade has highlighted the fact that this association of ‫ אמת‬with ‫משפט‬ and ‫ צדקה‬is much more common at Qumran than in the Bible or in Tannaitic literature.22 The Scrolls are unique in their association of legal terms like ‫משפט‬ and ‫ צדקה‬with the notion of truth, and the beginning of 1QS attests to this. The Exhortation continues in v. 11 by referring to those who are entering into the covenant of the community as “all those volunteering for his truth” (‫)וכול הנדבים לאמתו‬. Again in v. 12, the novices are commissioned to “purify their knowledge in the truth of God’s statutes” (‫)לברר דעתם באמת חוקי אל‬. Beyond possessing knowledge of the revealed Law alone (cf. vv. 8–9), the entrant is asked to be aware of the truth of God’s statutes, a qualification that may betray a distinction between revealed and hidden laws.23 The final verse of the Exhortation (v. 15), after touching on the importance of proper calendrical observance,24 drives home the concern with divine truth: “And not to turn aside from the statutes of his truth, to deviate to the right or the left” (‫ולוא לסור‬ ‫)מחוקי אמתו ללכת ימין ושמאול‬. The Serekh here is likely drawing upon the command in Deut 17:11. Here, however, it is not “the decision that they announce to you” (‫ )הדבר אשר יגידו לך‬that must not be transgressed, but the “statutes of his truth” (‫)חוקי אמתו‬. As the opening to a collection of rules, the Exhortation in 1QS stakes the claim that, in Fraade’s words, “[t]he laws by which the community lived, and thereby sought to differentiate itself from the rest of Israel, are undergirded by the claim that they are divinely true, and hence not to be spurned.”25 The presence of this “truth”-heavy section in 1QS, and its absence from 4QSd, finds a parallel in a set of textual variants in the Community Rules unit (1QS 5:1–6:23), which is at least partially preserved in both of these manuscripts. There are a number of short phrases in this section that are found only in 1QS, and many of these phrases contain the word ‫אמת‬.

22  Steven D. Fraade, “The Word ‫ אמת‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Related Fields: New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem, June 26– 29, 2016, ed. S. Fassberg, STDJ (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming), 6. 23  Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 73 refers to the “two axes” of sectarian revelation. 24  The correspondence of the calendar with natural phenomena is heavily associated with a realist view of divine law. For a discussion, see Christine Hayes, What’s Divine About Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 98–101. 25  Fraade, “‫ אמת‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 8.

97

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

4

Truth in the Community Rules

First, in vv. 2b–3a, 1QS elaborates that members are “answerable to the authority to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant, and to the multitude of the men of the Community …” all of which is lacking in 4QSd. 1QS

4QSb

‫אנשי העול להיות ליחד בתורה‬ ‫ובהון ומשובים על פי בני צדוק‬ ‫הכוהנים שומרי הברית ועל פי רוב‬ ‫אנשי‬

4QSd

‫̊א[נשי]על פי‬ ‫הרבים‬

IX 2b–3a

‫אנשי העול ולהיות‬ ‫יח ̇ד‬ ̊ ‫בתור[ה] ובהון‬ ̇ ‫ומשיבים על פי הרבים‬

‫לכול דבר‬ ‫לתורה[ולהון‬ ̊

‫לכל דבר לתורה ולהון‬ ‫ולעשות ענוה‬

I2

V2

‫היחד המחזקים בברית על פיהם‬ ‫יצא תכון הגורל לכול דבר לתורה‬ ‫ולהון ולמשפט לעשות אמת יחד‬ ‫וענוה‬

IX 3b

V3

I 2–3

At the end of v. 3, when 1QS resumes with the continuation of 4QSd, the cave 4 manuscript describes the multitude’s authority over “every matter concerning Torah and property, to enact humility …” 1QS, however, refers to “every matter concerning Torah, property, and judgment, to enact truth together, and humility …” (‫)לכול דבר לתורה ולהון ולמשפט לעשות אמת יחד וענוה‬. This reference to truth in 1QS alone finds a parallel in vv. 9–10, also in the context of the Zadokites. 1QS

4QSb

‫לב ובכול נפש לכול הנגלה ממנה‬ ‫לבני צדוק הכוהנים שומרי הברית‬ ‫ודורשי רצונו ולרוב אנשי בריתם‬

V9

‫המתנדבים יחד לאמתו ולהתלכ‬ ‫ברצונו ואשר יקים בברית על נפשו‬ ‫להבדל מכול אנשי העול ההולכים‬

V 10

4QSd

‫לב ו̊ [בכול]עצת‬ ̇‫̇אנשי‬ ‫היחד‬ ̊

IX 7b–8a

‫לב ובכל נפש כל‬ ̇ ] [‫הנגלה מן הת[ורה]ל‬ ‫יחד‬ ̊ ‫עצת אנש[י] ̇ה‬

‫[כו]ל‬ ̇ ‫ולהבדל ̇מ‬ ‫̇א[נ]שי העול‬

]‫להבדל מכל אנשי‬ ‫העול‬

IX 8b

I 6–7

I7

98

Nati

Where 4QSd refers only to the authority of the “council of the men of the community” (‫)עצת אנשי היחד‬,26 the cave 1 manuscript mentions the sons of Zadok along with, at the beginning of v. 10, the “multitude of the men of their covenant, those volunteering together for his truth” (‫ולרוב אנשי בריתם המתנדבים‬ ‫)יחד לאמתו‬. Again, in vv. 24–25, which address the procedures of reproof, the manuscripts differ in the language used to describe those procedures. 1QS

4QSb

4QSd

‫פוקדם את רוחם‬ ‫ומעשיהם שנה בשנה‬ ‫להעלות איש לפי שכלו‬ ‫ותום דרכו ולאחרו‬ ‫כנעויתו להוכיח‬

–

‫פוקדים את רוחם‬ ‫ומעשיהם בתורה שנה‬ ‫בשנה להעלות איש כפי‬ ‫שכ[לו] ולאחרו כנעותיו‬ ̊ ‫להוכיח‬

‫]ת‬ ̊ ‫איש את רעהו בא[מ‬ ‫וענוה ואהבת חסד‬ ‫לאיש אל ידבר אלוהיהו‬ ‫באפ או בתלונה‬

–

V 24

V 25

4QSg

II 3–4

‫איש את רעהו ואהבת‬ ‫חסד ואל ידבר איש אל‬ ‫רעהו באף או בתלונה‬

‫פוקדי]ם ̊א[ת רוחם‬ ‫ומעשי]הם ב[תורה‬ ‫כ]נעוי[תו‬

1a–b 4b–6

–

II 4–5

While 4QSd states that members are “to reprove one another with love of mercy,” the very beginning of 1QS 5:25 lists “truth, humility, and love of mercy.”27 It is clear from these examples that 1QS includes a heightened concern with truth, which is lacking in 4QSd. Both in its inclusion of the Exhortation in col. 1 and of ‫ אמת‬in the Community Rules unit in col. 5, 1QS places truth in high regard and deems it as a foundational concept for community members.28 More than this general correspondence, it is worth noting that the particular ways in which ‫ אמת‬is used in the Exhortation are nearly identical to the occurrences in 26  While the phrase lies just before a lacuna in 4QSd, this manuscript could not have contained the phrase found in 1QS. See the reconstruction at DJD 26, 93. 27  This is partially complicated by the awkward syntax of 4QSd: ‫להוכיח איש את רעהו ואהבת‬ ‫חסד‬. Given that the waw before ‫ אהבת‬makes much more sense as part of a list, it is possible that ‫ באמת וענוה‬fell out of 4QSd through error. For discussion of other possibilities, see DJD 26, 101. 28  See Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 174.

99

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

the Community Rules of 1QS. In 1QS 1:5, the novice is told “to enact truth, righteousness, and judgment” (‫)לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬, while 1QS 5:3–4 reads “to enact truth together, along with humility, righteousness, and judgment” (‫לעשות‬ ‫)אמת יחד וענוה צדקה ומשפט‬. Moreover, at 1QS 1:11, community members are referred to as “all those volunteering for his truth” (‫)כול הנדבים לאמתו‬, while 1QS 5:9 mentions “those volunteering together for his truth” (‫)המתנדבים יחד לאמתו‬. 5

Deixis and 1QS

Beyond a mere emphasis, however, there is evidence that 1QS works to frame itself as a textualized emanation of this divine truth. This is accomplished through the use of self-referential deictic language in a number of places in the text. While both 1QS and 4QSd attest to the use of deictic pronouns, there are a few instances in the Community Rules where this feature is found in 1QS alone. First, it is found in vv. 7 and 20 of the Community Rules in connection with certain “statutes” (‫)חוקים‬. Verse 7

20

1QS

4QSb

‫להרשיע כול עוברי חוק‬ ‫ואלה תכון דרכיהם על‬ ‫כול החוקים האלה‬ ‫בהאספם ליחד כול הבא‬ ‫לעצת היחד‬

V7

‫לפניו וטמא בכול הונ(ו)ם‬ ‫וכיא יבוא בברית לעשות‬ ‫ככול החוקים האלה‬ ‫להיחד לעדת קודש‬ ‫ודרשו‬

V 20

4QSd

‫וכול הבא [לעצת‬

IX 6b

‫לפ[נ]י̊ ו‬ ̇

IX 13b

‫לעצת‬ ̇ ‫וכל הבא‬ ‫[היח]ד‬

I 5–6

]‫ל[פניו וטמא בכ‬ ‫ל[הונם  ]ם ̊גוים‬ ‫ושבעות וחרמים‬ ] [ ‫ונדרים בפיהם‬ ‫דש ל[ ]ל‬

I 11–13

In v. 7, 1QS alone refers to the moment when “they are gathered together as a community according to all these statutes” (‫)על כול החוקים האלה בהאספם ליחד‬.29 29  Aryeh Amihay, Theory and Practice in Essene Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 120–21 argues that this difference reflects a change in the actual function of this section: what were previously rules for admission were changed to rules for association in 1QS.

100

Nati

The stipulations that both precede and follow the deixis here are the same in 1QS as they are in 4QSd, and thus the major difference is that they are referred to explicitly and deictically as ‫חוקים‬. Not only does 1QS show a heightened concern with these statutes, but it presents the Community Rules themselves as part of them. Again in v. 20, the same pattern holds. 4QSd here contains the beginning of the verse, but then continues with text unparalleled in 1QS. The cave 1 manuscript, however, states that a novice “shall enter into the covenant in order to act in accordance with all these statutes” (‫יבוא בברית לעשות ככול‬ ‫)החוקים האלה‬. 1QS also refers to its own “orders” (‫ )תכונים‬in v. 7 above, where it likely refers forward to the set of rules that follows in vv. 7b–25: “These are the order(s) of their ways according to all these statutes” (‫)אלה תכון דרכיהם‬. The language of the “ways” here is reminiscent of the frequent use of the term in the Treatise on the Two Spirits,30 and its combination with the deictic reference to ‫ תכון‬links those ways with the community rules themselves. Most importantly, 1QS and 4QSd differ in v. 1 of the Community Rules. Both manuscripts contain a heading that introduces the content that follows, but 1QS is alone in using deictic language to identify explicitly the rules that follow. Verse

1QS

4QSb

1

‫וזה הסרכ לאנשי‬ ‫היחד המתנדבים לשוב‬ ‫מכול רע ולהחזיק‬ ‫בכול אשר צוה לרצונו‬ ‫להבדל מעדת‬

V1

4QSd

‫מדרש למשכיל‬ ‫על[אנשי]אשר‬ ̇ ‫צוה ולהבדל‬ ‫מעדת‬

IX 1–2a

‫מדרש למשכיל‬ ‫על אנשי התורה‬ ‫המתנדים להשיב מכל‬ ‫רע ולהחזיק בכל אשר‬ ‫צוה ולבדל מעדת‬

I 1–2

While 4QSd begins with the heading “exposition for the maskil” (‫)מדרש למשכיל‬, the cave 1 manuscript uses a deictic pronoun in its introduction: “This is the rule for the people of the yaḥad” (‫)וזה הסרך לאנשי היחד‬. Keeping in mind that this is the first sentence of the manuscript 4QSd, this difference is noteworthy, This would apply equally to some of the differences noted above. Amihay makes a convincing case, and he may very well be correct, but I would emphasize that these differences should not be reduced to their “function.” The proposed shift to a context of association was nevertheless accompanied by a reorientation toward truth. 30  See, for instance, 1QS 4:2: “These are their ways in the world” (‫)ואלה דרכיהן בתבל‬. The term occurs nine times in col. 4 alone.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

101

as this verse serves an important function for the way in which 4QSd as a whole is framed. It can certainly be implied that what follows in 4QSd is the ‫מדרש‬ ‫למשכיל‬, but there is a sense in which the deictic language of 1QS makes the connection between the rules and the title more immediate. Molly Zahn has argued that the deictic language in 1QS serves a specific purpose that links its content to revealed knowledge. “[T]his connection is made,” she writes, “through the use of deixis that connects the precepts recorded in S with the divine laws referred to elsewhere.”31 On 1QS 5:1 in particular, she writes that “The sentence implies an equivalence: those who wish to hold fast to God’s commands will act according to this rule.”32 I would add to Zahn’s appraisal the heightened emphasis on truth that is found in 1QS over against 4QSd, which serves to authorize uniquely the cave 1 text. While 1QS stops short of saying explicitly that these rules are divine truth, the combination of ‫ אמת‬and deixis in 1QS alone serves to present the rules of the community in light of that heightened emphasis. It is in this sense that 1QS itself argues for its own status as a “true” edition of the Serekh ha-Yaḥad. 6

Authority and Editions

While the book of Psalms and the Serekh ha-Yaḥad differ in many significant ways, the respective evidence that they offer to an editor of an eclectic text is not entirely dissimilar. Both are collections of textual units that developed over time, both are attested in more than a dozen early manuscripts, and both circulated in at least two editions.33 The differences between 1QS and 4QSd are greater and of a slightly different type than those between MT Psalms and 11QPsa, but these two works share many of the same issues involved in creating an eclectic edition of each. One of the important questions that these two works present is: should preference be given to one edition over the other, and on what grounds can we justify prioritizing a certain edition? This is much too large a question to answer definitively in the space here (or perhaps anywhere!) but I would suggest that the Serekh offers some insight as we continue to ponder it.

31  Molly M. Zahn, “Torah for ‘The Age of Wickedness’: The Authority of the Damascus and Serekh Texts in Light of Biblical and Rewritten Traditions,” DSD 20 (2013): 410–32, here 424. 32  Zahn, 424. 33  For an influential model of the redaction-history of the Serekh ha-Yaḥad, see Metso, Textual Development, 147.

102

Nati

Flint’s model for the development of the book of Psalms posits an earlier Edition I, after which came two different, longer editions IIa and IIb, represented by 11QPsa and MT Psalms, respectively. Flint has demonstrated successfully the importance of certain readings in 11QPsa for an eclectic edition of the book of Psalms (e.g., Ps 145:13),34 but what of the large-scale differences in content and order? More specifically, ought the psalms that are found in Edition IIa but not in Edition IIb be included in an eclectic text? I suspect that most scholars would answer this question in the negative, but it is worth asking why exactly this is the case. Perhaps the most obvious reason is that critical editions set out to establish the text of biblical books, and thus these non-biblical psalms would sit awkwardly in a series on the Bible. This, though, runs into the problem already highlighted by Flint in his monograph: it works from the unsubstantiated premise that the MT form of the book was finalized and accepted before the common era.35 Some might counter by saying that the MT is the form of the book that has since been finalized and accepted, and thus we should establish the earliest form of this edition. This is a fair point to fall back on, but the earliest form of the MT is not a truly eclectic edition. The HBCE project itself is intended to shed the dominance of the MT in biblical textual criticism, and thus the reliance upon the legacy of MT for an approximation of the text as it existed in antiquity seems unwarranted.36 The HBCE has recognized this issue, and plans to represent multiple editions (or hyparchetypes) of biblical books in parallel columns.37 This, however, still runs into the problem of the order of the psalms in our case, and whether (and where) the non-canonical psalms of Edition IIa should be included. It is here that I believe the Serekh ha-Yaḥad may be instructive. Like the book of Psalms, there were clearly different editions of the Serekh that circulated in antiquity. And, importantly, a number of the variants between these different editions work to link the text with a specific claim to authority. It was shown above that in the minds of its authors, 1QS represents an instantiation of divine truth, a claim that is absent from 4QSd. In my view, an analogous authority claim in the book of Psalms lies in “David’s Compositions” in 11QPsa. Immediately following “David’s Last Words” (2 Sam 23:1–7), 11QPsa 27:2–11 contains a short hymn that discusses David in the third person:

34  Flint, “Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls,” 25–26. 35  See n. 12 above. 36  See, e.g., Hendel, Steps to a New Edition, 1–13. 37  Hendel, 21–22.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

103

‫ויהי דויד בן ישי חכם ואור כאור השמש וסופר‬ ‫ונבון ותמים בכול דרכיו לפני אל ואנשים ויתן‬ ‫… לו יהוה רוח נבונה ואורה ויכתוב תהלים‬ ‫כול אלה דבר בנבואה אשר נתן לו מלפני העליון‬

2 And David, son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, and a scribe, 3 discerning and perfect in all his paths before God and people. And 4 YHWH gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit, and he wrote psalms … 11 All these he spoke through prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High. Most noteworthy here are the claims in this hymn that David speaks “through prophecy” and that he acts as a scribe. These features serve to emphasize two aspects of this psalm collection that are absent from the MT’s Edition IIb: 11QPsa is instead linked explicitly with David’s writing, not just composing of psalms, and this writing is prophetically inspired. Eva Mroczek rightly takes issue with the tendency among scholars to read this hymn as a paratextual framing device for the whole collection that seeks legitimacy through Davidic authorship. She writes that “What happens when we understand ‘David’s Compositions’ as a functional paratext, a sort of ‘byline’ attributing the whole scroll, is that we force this psalm collection into a rigid model of a book unified by ascription to an authorial figure.”38 She suggests instead that this hymn works in the broader context of ideas about David as exemplary figure toward filling out his biography and personality. I find Mroczek’s reading of the psalm and her attention to a wider context compelling, and I do not wish to suggest that we return to approaching 11QPsa through the “model of a Miltonian vial.”39 I do, however, think that the emphasis on written prophecy in the description of David in this psalm casts the collection in a light that differs from that of the MT, one that is important especially for thinking about literary editions. This claim, even if we rightly abandon attempts to read it through the lens of modern authorship, argues that this manuscript be afforded authority by virtue of its status as one part of David’s prophetic writing. I would suggest that it is these differences—variant authority-claims across manuscripts of what we consider to be single compositions—that ought to 38  Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 75. 39  Mroczek, 75.

104

Nati

inform our editorial decisions more than should models of transmission history or degrees of textual overlap. 1QS and 11QPsa are variant “true” editions of the Serekh and the book of Psalms, respectively, not because they adhere to a text-form to a certain degree, but rather because the scribes who penned them grounded the claims put forward in each by specific appeals to authority. 1QS presents itself as divine truth while 11QPsa emphasizes David’s prophetic writing, with the implication that this manuscript represents part of that writing.40 These authority claims, moreover, differ from those found in 4QSd and MT Psalms. Even though 1QS overlaps with 4QSd to such an extent that they must of course be related to one another in text-critical terms, it bears asking the question whether these texts ought to be represented eclectically at all in light of their variant self-presentations. One of them—4QSd—is a collection of rules that describes itself at the outset as an “exposition for the Maskil” (‫מדרש‬ ‫ )למשכיל‬while the other—1QS—contains what might be called a redactional Tendenz meant to base it in an appeal to divine truth. If the task of an eclectic edition is to represent a text as it existed in the minds of its authors, then we might ask whether the ways in which those authors conceptualized the authority of that text ought to be taken into consideration. 7

Concluding Remarks

Michael Fox, the editor of the book of Proverbs in the HBCE series, has reflected on the task of eclectic editing and the many complicated issues involved in it. Writing about the blurry line between textual and literary criticism in particular, he notes the following: “Different eclectic texts can be created, depending on stated goals, for no text is definitive and final. Each is produced in tandem with interpretation. That is not to say that the text produced is ‘just an interpretation.’ It is, rather, a truth claim based on interpretation.”41 What I want to suggest here is that the truth claims made by ancient texts may play 40  Mroczek importantly notes that David’s Compositions lacks the deictic language that I’ve highlighted in 1QS: “… nowhere is there a demonstrative locution that would invite the reader to take the text as a reflexive, paratextual statement …” (Mroczek, 74). This point is well-taken, and thus the effect of David’s Compositions on the entire collection should not be pushed too far. I do think, though, that the unique reference to David’s status as a scribe asks the reader to think in this direction. 41  Michael V. Fox, “Text Criticism and Literary Criticism,” in Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin, ed. M. L. Grossman, Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 23 (Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2013), 341–56, here 355–56. Italics original.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

105

a productive role in our editorial interpretations of them. This suggestion in some ways flies in the face of conventional text-critical thinking in that it urges the critic to think with, instead of solely about, ancient authors. This is not to say that we must accept the claim that 11QPsa has a real connection with the prophetic activity of an historical king David, but rather that this claim is important for the role that the text played in its ancient literary context. Neither do I think that a punishment for gesturing with one’s left hand (1QS 7:15) is a universal truth divinely ordained, but I do think that the author of 1QS did believe that, and that this fact should not be lost if this verse turns out to have been a secondary addition. This does not necessarily mean, however, that eclectic texts should not be produced. Fox’s masterful volume on Proverbs demonstrates the utility of such an approach in its in-depth investigation of textual history as well as interpretation. Yet, there are certainly instances in which something is lost in the move away from diplomatic texts, even in the printing of parallel columns. In staking the claim that either 1QS and 4QSd or MT Psalms and 11QPsa are in essence the same work, we miss out on the variant claims to authority among these manuscripts that were crucial to ancient Jewish scribes. At the very least, it may be worthwhile to incorporate discussions of these ancient views into text-critical commentaries. Acknowledgements Many of the ideas in the section Deixis and 1QS were developed in conversation with Mark Lester, whose Yale dissertation on pragmatics in Deuteronomy deals extensively with deictic language. I thank Mark for teaching me much about this topic. Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal.” RevQ 17 (1996): 437–56. Alexander, Philip S., and Geza Vermes, eds. Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts. DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Amihay, Aryeh. Theory and Practice in Essene Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

106

Nati

Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls: Psalms Manuscripts, Editions, and the Oxford Hebrew Bible.” Pages 11–34 in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence. Edited by S. Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Fox, Michael V. “Text Criticism and Literary Criticism.” Pages 341–56 in Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 23. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2013. Fraade, Steven D. “The Word ‫ אמת‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Related Fields: New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem, June 26–29, 2016. Edited by S. Fassberg. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Hayes, Christine. What’s Divine About Divine Law?: Early Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. Hempel, Charlotte. The Qumran Rule Texts in Context. TSAJ 154. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Hendel, Ronald. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. TCS 10. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Nati, James. “Textual Criticism and the Rules from Qumran.” PhD diss., Yale University, 2019. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Teeter, D. Andrew. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. FAT 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Pluriformity and Authority between Psalms and Serekh

107

Vermes, Geza. “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 42 (1991): 250–55. Vermes, Geza. “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of ZadokPriests-Congregation.” Pages 375–85 in vol. 1 of Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Vermes, Geza. “Reflections on the Canon and the Text of the Bible in Response to Peter Flint.” Pages 35–37 in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence. Edited by S. Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Zahn, Molly M. “Torah for ‘The Age of Wickedness’: The Authority of the Damascus and Serekh Texts in Light of Biblical and Rewritten Traditions.” DSD 20 (2013): 410–32.

Chapter 6

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 and 4Q386): Rewritten or Merely Copies of Each Other Jana Coetzee 1 Introduction Before the discovery of the Scrolls, our understanding of the history and development of the Hebrew Bible (HB) was based upon comparisons made between three ancient textual traditions: the Masoretic or rabbinic tradition, which later emerged as the authoritative text in Judaism, the Samaritan tradition, being a version of the Torah that was later adopted by the Samaritan community as their canonical Scriptures, and the Septuagintal tradition, which is a version of the Hebrew scriptures that served as the basis for the Septuagint— the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.1 Unfortunately, the only surviving copies of these traditions were from late antiquity and the middle ages.2 The discovery of the manuscripts in the caves at Qumran filled a void in our knowledge of the development of textual traditions.3 Although the discovery of the Scrolls provided the scholarly community with much more data on the development and history of the HB, it seems that the most significant aspect of the discovery could well be the dating of the scrolls. It would, however, be erroneous to assume that the manuscripts found at Qumran all date from the same time period. Matthias Henze, for example, states that the Scrolls predate the Leningrad Codex by a full millennium, with a scroll of Daniel (4QDanc) dating from about 125 BCE.4 1  Casey D. Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005), 89: Emanuel Tov suggested that the manuscripts discovered at Qumran cannot always be identified with any of these three traditions. 2  Elledge, Bible, 88. 3  Elledge, 88. According to Tov and Cross most of the manuscripts from Qumran resemble the later Masoretic or rabbinic tradition. These are therefore often described as “proto-Masoretic” or “proto-Rabbinic”; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 115: Tov suggests that thirty-five percent of all Qumran biblical manuscripts represent a proto-Masoretic form of the Hebrew Bible. 4  Matthias Henze, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 2. Henze cites Professor Frank Moore Cross on the relevance of the date of the Daniel scroll: “It is no

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_008

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

109

According to Casey Elledge, Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385–388, 391) “portrays a creative retelling of Ezekiel’s chariot visions and the valley of dry bones that reflects the influence of apocalyptic motifs, including resurrection.”5 Pseudo-Ezekiel also forms part of what we may refer to as a collection of rewritten texts,6 with some of the writings portraying minimal alterations and differences when compared with the Hebrew Bible; however, in other instances this is not always the case. The textual authority these rewritten texts held for the Qumran community and later Judaism is unclear, although according to Elledge it may be safe to assume that the Qumran community regarded them as authoritative.7 According to Brooke, “in 1988, D. Dimant and J. Strugnell considered that there were at least five and possibly six copies of this work (4Q385–90).” Brooke himself suggests that there may possibly be only three or four copies of this work.8 The best-preserved manuscript evidence for Pseudo-Ezekiel is that of 4Q385 and consists of eight fragments.9 more than about a half century younger that the autograph of Daniel. It is thus closer to the original edition of a biblical work than any other biblical manuscript in existence.” 5  Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 93. 6  Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10. These texts contain additions, deletions, changes and reordering of material that differs from the later Masoretic or proto-rabbinic traditions; Geza Vermes dubbed this phenomenon “rewritten Bible”: Geza Vermes, “Biblical Midrash,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, by Emil Schürer, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), vol. 3, 326. 7  Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 93. Anders K. Petersen, “Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques?: A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. J. Zsengeller (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 14. According to Petersen these manuscripts were not meant to replace their antecedents, but to reflect their meaning in a new context in a form of applied hermeneutics. But there are also scholars such as Ben Zion Wachholder who argue that these rewritten manuscripts were meant to replace the original text. 8  George J. Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 321–22. 9  Brooke, “Ezekiel,” 322. It is difficult to determine the order of these fragments, and the numbering of fragments 2–4 may be misleading. As an example, Brooke refers to H. Stegemann’s calculation that 4Q385 fragment 2 represents the last preserved column of 4Q385, while fragment 3 may be placed 4 columns before that. Brooke states that if this allocation is correct, then the placing of the climactic vision of the dry bones at the end of the text may be highly significant. On the other hand, Devorah Dimant states that fragments 2 and 3 both belong to a column that deals with the biblical vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14; Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, vol. 21 of Qumran Cave 4, DJD 30 [Oxford: Clarendon, 2001], 7–8). 4Q386 fragment 1i partly overlaps that of 4Q385 fragment 2, and Dimant suggests that

110

Coetzee

Pseudo-Ezekiel is based on the prophecies of canonical Ezekiel and presents a dialogue between YHWH and the prophet. The narrative seems to be pseudepigraphically situated in the time of Ezekiel, while referring to past and future events of the time. One may also find that, while Ezekiel 37 may be interpreted as a prophetic eschatological text, the authors of Pseudo-Ezekiel follow an apocalyptic eschatological view of the same vision.10 The focus of this article will be on two fragments from Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 and 4Q386) describing Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones. Although these two texts are largely equivalent to the vision in the biblical text of Ezek 37:1–14 in terms of content, they differ from each other. At first glance they appear to be different rewritings of a proto-Masoretic or proto-Rabbinic source. Certain elements within the text may also suggest that these are some of the manuscripts that did not originate within the Qumran scribal tradition, but were merely preserved at Qumran. Our aim is therefore to investigate the textual differences between Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 fragments 2 and 3 and 4Q386 fragment 1i in order to formulate an idea of the authorship and date of each manuscript. 2

Physical Analysis of the Text

The physical condition of the Pseudo-Ezekiel fragments is described by Dimant as leather of medium thickness and often of poor quality.11 The color of the leather is not constant, varying from light, dark, grey, staining to dark brown and in some places almost black. The surface is mostly matte and pitted, although there are places where it appears almost glossy, often brittle, with a tendency to peel. The back of the fragments appears to be smoothly prepared in some cases, while in other cases it is coarse. All published fragments can be viewed in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls digital library,12 while transcriptions and reconstructions can be found in Dimant13 and García Martínez and Tigchelaar.14   this overlapping is of “special importance since it permits establishing the sequence of the columns following the vision of the dry bones” (Parabiblical Texts, 8). 10  Brooke, “Ezekiel,” 322. 11  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 17. 12  The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls digital library provides digital photos of all documented Dead Sea Scroll fragments and can be enlarged. All images of both 4Q385 fragments 2 and 3 and 4Q386 fragment 1i used in this study were obtained through The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls digital library http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/?locale=en_US. 13  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 23, 60–61. 14  Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 768, 774.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

111

Part of the vision of the dry bones and Ezekiel’s query, which precedes it, were recorded in three different copies (referred to as 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3, 4Q386 frag. 1i and 4Q388 frag. 7) of the Pseudo-Ezekiel fragments discovered at Qumran. A combination of 4Q385 2 and 4Q386 1i produces approximately ten lines of a column. Qumran texts often consisted of 18–25 lines, and if this applies here the passage constitutes nearly half a column.15 Both manuscripts reveal more or less the same text of this vision. The upper half and the top margin of both 4Q385 frag. 2 and 4Q386 frag. 1i have been preserved. 4Q385 frag. 3, which refers to resurrection, fits into the lower half of column 4Q385 frag. 2 if it is assumed that 4Q385 frag. 2 represents Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones as found in the MT of Ezek 37:1–14. 4Q386 frag. 1ii contains the conclusion to a divine discourse. The vacat at the end marks the end of a section, which may indicate the end of the vision of the dry bones.16 The close correspondence between the layout of 4Q385 frag. 2 and 4Q386 frag. 1i leads to the assumption that 4Q385 was arranged similarly to 4Q386 frag. 1ii–iii on the parchment. The columns of 4Q385 are somewhat wider than those of 4Q386, which leads to the text of 4Q385 being a few lines longer than 4Q386, but this does not affect the conclusion significantly.17 The overlapping of these texts proved helpful in the textual reconstruction of the compositions. The starting point of the reconstruction process was 4Q385, which is the best preserved. It contains six columns and can be reconstructed to what roughly corresponds to the outline of the MT of Ezek 37:1–14.18 Empty spaces (vacat) separate the visionary account into three units that have been used by different scribes for demarcation purposes.19 Klein explains that 4Q385 provides the most substantial material both in content and extent,20 and therefore it is used as basis for the outline of the reconstruction. When comparing the vision of the dry bones found in 4Q385 and 4Q386 with that of the Masoretic Ezekiel vision, one may observe various differences between the texts. There appears to be no introduction to the setting in the valley and the bones within the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts, although Schöpflin

15  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 17. 16  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 19. 17  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 19. 18  Anja Klein, “Resurrection as Reward for the Righteous: The Vision of the Dry Bones in Pseudo-Ezekiel as External Continuation of the Biblical Vision in Ezekiel 37:1–14,” in “I lifted my eyes and saw”: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible, ed. E. R. Hayes and L.-S. Tiemeyer (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 203. 19  Klein, “Resurrection,” 206. 20  Klein, “Resurrection,” 206.

112

Coetzee

maintains that this is only an assumption based on the fragmentary state of the passages.21 3

Reconstruction and Restoration of the Manuscripts

As the manuscripts found at Qumran are mostly fragmented rather than complete scrolls, they involve a reconstruction process.22 Tigchelaar states that “the finds of Qumran Cave 4 consist of a hodgepodge of at least fifteen thousand (but possibly as many as forty thousand) fragments. These have largely been sorted and assembled into slightly fewer than seven hundred manuscripts, which provide the basic categorization used in editions, research tools, and scroll studies.”23 Tigchelaar describes the “construction” of a manuscript as the process of sorting out, assembling and arranging fragments into groups that may form part of the same manuscript, while the term “reconstruction” refers to the application of the ensemble of methods one will use to determine which fragment must be placed where in a manuscript. This process leads to the assembly of the original physical manuscript.24 3.1 Pseudo-Ezekiel 4Q385 Fragment 2 The restoration at the beginning of lines 1–2 fits the number of missing letters from the right margin that has been calculated from the complete lines 3–4.25 ‫ כי אני יהוה‬at the beginning of line 1 represents a formula which is now lost;26 it is seen as characteristic of the style of the biblical Ezekiel. The same restoration is suggested by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.27 Using this formula at the beginning of the line, raises the question whether line 1 is truly the begin21  Karin Schöpflin, “The Revivification of the Dry Bones: Ezekiel 37:1–14” in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature—Yearbook: The human body in death and resurrection: 2009, ed. T. Nicklas et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 81. 22  Tov uses the example of 4QJer ͣ to explain this by stating that it consists of fifty fragments covering parts of sixteen chapters, while 4Q509 consists of 313 fragments and 4QSam ͣ has 346 fragments covering parts of fifty chapters (Textual Criticism, 3). Pseudo-Ezekiel also consists of various fragments. 23   Eibert Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman),” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. M. L. Grossman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 26. 24  Tigchelaar, “Fragmentary Manuscripts,” 27. 25  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 23. 26  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 24. 27  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

113

ning of the text. When one considers ‫ וא]לה מתי יהיו‬in line 3, it may indicate the probability that the first part of the text is either lost or has not yet been found among all the fragments thus far associated with Pseudo-Ezekiel. The restoration of ‫ ואמרה יהוה‬in line 2 follows that of 4Q386 1ii 2 (‫)ואמר ראיתי יהוה והנה‬, but line 2 does not have room for ‫והנה‬, since the lacuna is shorter.28 The same restoration is suggested by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.29 It appears that the shorter lacuna does fit in with the rest of the line, which further supports the view that 4Q385 and 4Q386 are not copies of the same text. The restoration of ]‫ [צדק וא‬in line 3 is proposed by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.30 This matches the length of the lost words. Dimant states that ‫לבך‬ is also possible.31 ‫ בדרכי[ לבך‬follows Qoh 11:9 (‫)דרכי לבך‬. The singular ‫ דרך לבך‬is applied to YHWH.32 The suggested restoration as ‫ בדרכי [צדק‬is not biblical and forms part of a distinctive sectarian vocabulary of the Qumran community; Dimant states that it may be prejudicial to restore it in this manner due to the lack of proof that the text is of Qumranic origin.33 ‫ ויאמר‬in line 5 is inserted at the beginning of the line,34 which may be seen as being characteristic of the style of the biblical Ezekiel, although another possibility may be ‫ואתה‬, which in combination with ‫ בן אדם‬is a formula that occurs twenty-four times in the MT of Ezekiel.35 ‫( ויקרבו‬line 5) is restored by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.36 The restoration of ‫ אל פרקו ויה]י‬in line 6 follows 4Q386 1i 5, where the entire phrase has been preserved.37 García Martínez and Tigchelaar follow the same restoration.38 The ‫ י‬is still visible on the fragment, and combining this with ‫כן‬ makes the reconstruction probable. ‫ ויהי כן‬suggests a fulfilment formula as is found in Gen 1:7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30.39 García Martínez and Tigchelaar show that the ]‫ כ[ן‬is also restored.40

28  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 24. 29  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 30  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 31  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 23. 32  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 25. 33  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 25. 34  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 35  Timothy P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 133. 36  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 37  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 27. 38  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 39  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 33. 40  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768.

114

Coetzee

The restoration of ‫ עליהם ויהי כן‬in line 7 is suggested by García Martínez and Tigchelaar,41 although Dimant suggests ‫ מלמעלה‬should be restored and states that “the words are restored according to the context of Ezek 37:8 and are added to fit the gap of 13–14 letter-spaces.”42 The formula ‫ ויהי כן‬is used in the same manner as in line 6 and summarizes the actualization of the prophecy. ‫ הׁשמים בהם ויחיו ו]יע[מ]ד‬in line 8 is the restoration proposed by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.43 Dimant states that ‫ בהרוגים ויהי כן‬would be better for the restoration within this lacuna, although it does not fit the fourteenletter space that is available; it occupies fifteen letter spaces, which she suggests may have been the case.44 The wording of this line does not correspond to the parallel lines of 4Q386 1i 8–9 if one considers Dimant’s restoration,45 although the restoration does correspond to the restoration by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.46 The lacuna in ‫ וי[ח]יו‬measures 1 letter space, and the restoration fits the context if restored as ‫ויהיו‬. Dimant suggests that both words may be used as possible restoration.47 Ezek 37:10 uses ‫ויחיו‬. ‫( אשׁר חים‬lines 8–9) is restored by both García Martínez and Tigchelaar and Dimant.48 The restoration of the vacat (line 9) fits with the corresponding line in 4Q386 1i 10, which marks the end of the paragraph.49 ‫ ואמרה‬in line 9 is an example of a long imperfect.50 ]…[. ‫( […] רים [ו]יכף עץ ויזקף‬line 10): García Martínez and Tigchelaar propose this as a possible restoration of the line,51 while Dimant suggests restoring line 10 as ‫ מים [ומקץ י‬from Jer 13:6 and states that this line may also be restored as ‫( ולקץ הי]מים‬Dan 12:13).52 3.2

Pseudo-Ezekiel 4Q385 Fragment 3

‫( ולהל[ל‬line 3): Dimant states that if the restoration is indeed correct, the term

is perhaps used in a technical sense,53 as it is commonly used in the Bible to 41  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, 768. 42  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 27. 43  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 44  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 24. 45  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 24. 46  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 47  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 28. 48  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768; Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 28. 49  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 28. 50  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 28. 51  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 768. 52  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 28. 53  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 30.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

115

recite liturgical praise of YHWH (cf. Isaiah 38:18 or Psalm 150:6). The reconstruction follows a biblical expression for praising YHWH which is also used in Qumran documents (1QHª III 23; 4Q414 2ii 3, 4, 10; 4Q502 9 3). In 4Q385 2 8 a parallel expression may be noted.54 ‫מ[לל]תי‬: This verb has been restored to fit a 1st singular speaker (Ezekiel) and the form should be vocalised in the Piʿel perfect ‫‘( מלל‬to speak/to utter’). It fits into the lacuna and in the context.55 The restoration of the vacat (line 4) marks the end of a section and concludes the vision. ‫ אדם אמ]ור‬completes a typical biblical Ezekiel expression ‫ ויאמר יהוה אלי בן [אדם‬and is similar to 4Q385 2 9 and 4Q386 1ii 1–2.56 ‫( קבו]רתם‬line 5): Dimant states that “if the restoration is correct, then this is the single attestation among the Qumran documents of the noun ‫( קבורה‬burial tomb).”57 The term is used in biblical as well as Mishnaic Hebrew. The restoration of ‫ מקב]ריכם‬in line 6 fits with the surviving letters and context. Note that ‫‘( קבר‬tomb’) has two forms for the plural construct in biblical Hebrew (‫ קברי‬and ‫)קברות‬.58 Here the masc. form is used (c. 2nd masc. pl. suffix), while Ezek 37:12–13 uses the feminine form.59 Nonetheless, the grammatical gender of the noun remains masculine. [‫ אשר‬has been inserted on the manuscript just above line 7, which corrects the text to read ‫[ ]ל אׁשר [ע]ול מצר[ים‬.60 3.3 Pseudo-Ezekiel 4Q386 Fragment 1i Dimant restores lines 1–2 to follow the overlapping lines in 4Q385 frag. 2,61 while García Martínez and Tigchelaar do not restore ‫ ואמרה‬at the beginning of the line.62 Lines 3, 4 and 5 are mostly restored to follow 4Q385 fragment 2. The reconstruction of lines 7–9 differs from that of the parallel lines in 4Q385 2 5–8 in order to accommodate the remaining letters and size of the lacunae. The restoration of line 10 follows that of 4Q385 2 8–9.63 The same restoration is used by García Martínez and Tigchelaar.64 54  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 31. 55  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 31. 56  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 31. 57  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 31. 58  H ALOT ad. loc. 59  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 31. 60  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 30. 61  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 61. 62  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 774. 63  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 62. 64  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 774.

116 4

Coetzee

Comparing the Restorations

The most notable difference between the restoration by García Martínez and Tigchelaar,65 and Dimant66 is in lines 6, 7 and 8. The text as restored by García Martínez and Tigchelaar seems to indicate scribal error (copying the same line twice). Dimant’s restoration may be translated as “[6] … and He said a second time, “Prophesy!” and over them came arteries and skin covered them [7] over from above and arteries come up and covered them [8] and there was no breath in them and He said again …” whereas the restoration of García Martínez and Tigchelaar translates as “[6] … And he said a second time: Prophesy, and sinew]s [will grow on them] and they will be covered with skin [7] [all over. And so it happened. And he said a second time: Prophesy,] and sinews [will grow] on them [8] [and they will be covered with skin all over. And so it happened …” Dimant’s restoration does not show any scribal errors and contains more detail of the events, while the restoration of García Martínez and Tigchelaar seems to hold true to the fulfilment formula used throughout the text. A scribal error in the text does seem possible. The differences between these manuscripts clearly suggest that one was not a copy of the other. A comparison of the restorations and reconstructions of the texts side by side reveals that the texts are indeed not verbatim copies, although they do overlap through most of the text that is concerned with the vision of the dry bones. If one considers the physical state of each fragment, one must also ask whether the overlapping that appears in 4Q386 frag. 1i is indeed just that, or if the overlaps merely result from the restorers’ interpretations of the text. It also seems as if the biggest difference between 4Q385 frag. 2 and 4Q386 frag. 1i is that 4Q385 frag. 2 consists of an extra line at the beginning of the fragment. It is plausible that 4Q385 frag. 3 does belong to 4Q385 frag. 2, as frag. 3 appears to be an extension of the text that provides more information that fits with the text of frag. 2. However, it does not seem that the text of 4Q385 frag. 3 would form part of the text of 4Q386 frag. 1i, as 4Q386 frag. 1ii seems to portray a vision that does not follow the text of 4Q385 frag. 3. The use of a fulfilment formula ‫ ויהי כן‬in lines 6, 7 and 8 suggests that the author of Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 may have been familiar with some form of priestly tradition. When one considers ‫( וא]לה מתי יהיו‬line 3), it seems that the text does not start with line 1 as we have it and that the first part is lost to us. It is therefore possible that there was an introduction to the text, although the lost introduction (if any) did not necessarily follow the MT. 65  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, 774. 66  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 62.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

117

In the text that is available to us, four vacats are visible. There are three lines between the first and the second vacat, four lines between the second and third and five lines between the third and fourth, so we cannot be sure how much of the text is lost to us—although if this indicates a pattern, one could assume that there should be one extra line that is missing at the beginning of the text while there might be two lines lost at the end. The vision of the dry bones appears in the text between the second and third vacat. The author of the text seems to be familiar enough with this vision and rewrites it in shorthand by using the fulfilment formula as mentioned above. The author of Ps.-Ezek. 4Q386 frag. 1i uses the same fulfilment formula ‫ויהי‬ ‫ כן‬as seen in 4Q385 frag. 2. At first glance, it appears as if this might be due to the manner in which the text was restored, although on closer examination one will notice that part of this formula did survive at the end of line 5; and therefore it made more sense to restore 4Q386 frag. 1i using the same fulfilment formula. The same question arises in line 2 of 4Q386 frag. 1i as in 4Q385 frag. 2. Therefore the same applies here with regard to an introduction to the text. 4Q386 frag. 1i does not begin with the same line as 4Q385 frag. 2, although this might be because of the state of the fragment and not because the author chose to write it in this way. In 4Q386 frag. 1i we observe two vacats, although each was part of the text that was restored and follows 4Q385 frag. 2. For this reason one may not be able to assume the same structure as with 4Q385, although one does notice that 3 lines precede the first vacat in 4Q386 frag. 1i. The vision of the dry bones appears between the two vacats that appear in the text. The author of this text also seems to be familiar with the vision and rewrites it in shorthand by using the fulfilment formula as mentioned above. 5

Textual Criticism

When contemplating the textual criticism of Pseudo-Ezekiel,67 one should not only compare relevant texts with Pseudo-Ezekiel, but also other related textual variants. Lilly notes a Greek manuscript of Ezekiel known as p967 that dates to the late second or early third century CE,68 which makes this the earliest copy 67  Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 113: “Since Ezekiel’s text became an active site of scribal expansion, interpretation, and/or composition, a manuscript like Ps.-Ezek. holds important information for text-critical analysis of variant literary editions.” 68  Lilly, Two Books, 1.

118

Coetzee

of any Septuagintal codex known and therefore a good text to refer to when dealing with textual criticism of Ezekiel. Lilly also states that p967 “is the earliest substantial witness to Ezekiel in any language, including Hebrew.”69 p967’s transposition of the MT chapter 37 after the Gog—Magog battle is a notable feature.70 Lilly raises two questions about the various differences between the MT and the p967 Ezekiel text. “1) Are the meaningful variants that distinguish p967 and MT as variant literary editions intentional? and 2) assuming editorial activity, which edition of Ezekiel, p967 or MT, represents the earlier edition?”71 These same questions may also be asked when dealing with textual criticism of the broader Ezekiel text where it applies to the valley of the dry bones by including Pseudo-Ezekiel and the LXX in the scope of the analysis. The first notable difference between the MT Ezek 37:1–14 text and that of Pseudo-Ezekiel is the omission of an introduction to the text found at Qumran. One will notice that the MT begins with an explanation of how the prophet ended up among the bones in verse 1: ‫היתה עלי יד־הוה ויוצאני ברוח יהוה ויניחני בתך הבקעה והיא מלאה עצמות‬

The hand of YHWH came over me and brought me out in the spirit of YHWH and set me down in the midst of the valley and it was full of bones. This same introduction is also found in the text portraying the vision of the dry bones at the beginning of the LXX text, while the vision in Pseudo-Ezekiel does not contain this type of introduction to the prophet’s vision. Lust proposes that the MT text of the vision of the dry bones is a later edition of the text that represents a later scribal intention to historicize and to record the military events described therein.72 To illustrate this, we shall compare the MT with Pseudo-Ezekiel. MT Ezek 37:10

‫והבאתי כאשר צוני ותבוא בהם הרוח ויחיו ויעמדו על־רגליהם חיל גדול מאד־מאד‬

So I prophesy as He commanded me and into them came the breath and they lived and they stood upon their feet an exceedingly great army. 69  Lilly, Two Books, 1. 70  Lilly, Two Books, 1. 71  Lilly, Two Books, 18. 72  Johan Lust, “Major Divergences Between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Schenker (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 83–92.

119

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 2 8

‫[בהרוגים ויהי כן] וי[ח]יו עם רב אנׁשים ויברכו את יהוה צבאות אׁש[ר‬

[into (the) slain, and it was so.] And (the) people came to life, many people blessed YHWH, Sebaoth, who Ps.-Ezek. 4Q386 1i 9

]‫[הׁשמים ויפחו בם ויעמדו על רגליהם ע]ם רב אנׁש[ים‬

[of the heavens and blow in them and] they stood up on their feet, many people, men The same version of the text found in the LXX and p967 reads “a very large/ numerous congregation”.73 The MT is the only one of these five versions of the vision of the dry bones that indicates that a great military force was revived and stood up; therefore the LXX, p967 and Pseudo-Ezekiel versions bear a closer relation to each other than to the MT as regards this particular line/ verse of the vision. MT Ezek 37:4

‫ויאמר אלי הנבא על־העצמות‬

and He said to me, You must prophesy over the bones … Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 2 5

‫ויאמר] בן אדם הנבה על העצמות‬

and He said, Son of man prophesy over the bones … Ps.-Ezek. 4Q386 1i 4

‫ויאמר בן אדם הנ]בא על העצמות‬

… and He said, Son of man prophesy over the bones Although the expression “son of man” does appear in the MT text of Ezekiel, it is not used in Ezek 37:4, while it does appear in the corresponding lines of Pseudo-Ezekiel. “Son of man” is a poetic Hebrew expression and is used in the 73  Lilly, Two Books, 13.

120

Coetzee

same way throughout the Old Testament texts with reference to the humanity of the addressee.74 It does, however, appear in verse 9 of the MT Ezekiel text. MT Ezek 37:7

‫והנה־רעש ותקרבו עצמות עצם אל־עצמו‬

there was a noise and suddenly a rattling and the bones came together bone to bone Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 2 5b–6a

‫ויקרבו עצם אל עצמו ופרק‬ ‫[אל פרקו ויה]י כן‬

so that they join; bone to their bone and joint 6 [to (their) joint, and it wa]s so … Ps.-Ezek. 4Q386 1i 5–6a

[‫הקרבו עצם אל עצמו ו]פרק אל פרקו ויהי‬ [‫כן‬

and they will come near bone to bone and] joint to joint, and it was 6 [so … One will notice a lack of explanation as to how the bones come together in the Pseudo-Ezekiel text. The fuller introduction in the MT text also provides more information about the resurrection/reconstruction of the bones. MT Ezek 37:9

‫מארבע רוחות באי הרוח ופחי בהרוגים האלה ויחיו‬

come from the four winds and breathe breath in the slain so that they may live Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 2 7b

‫על ארבע רוחות השמים ויפחו רוח‬

over (the) four winds of the heavens so that they blow breath 74  Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

Ps.-Ezek. 4Q386 1i 8b–9

121

‫על ארבע רחות‬ ]‫[הׁשמים ויפחו בם ויעמדו על רגליהם ע]ם רב אנׁש[ים‬

over (the) four winds 9 [of the heavens and blow in them and they stood up on their feet; a nati]on, many me[n] While the MT text generally provides more detail about the vision of the dry bones, one will notice that here it seems not to be the case. Pseudo-Ezekiel refers to the four winds of heaven while the MT only states the four winds. With regard to Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 3, Dimant states that this fragment fits into the lower part of the column also preserved in frag. 2.75 Both of these fragments appear to deal with resurrection, with a reference to this in frag. 3 lines 5–6, which deals with burial and graves. Dimant also states that this subject fits with Ezek 37:12–14, the biblical sequel to the vision of the dry bones.76 It is noticeable that the authors of Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i have achieved a style that may indicate a biblical flavor, although later style formulations have crept into the text which betray that Pseudo-Ezekiel does have a post-biblical background.77 Differences also exist between the text of Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and that of 4Q386 frag. 1i. In both texts one finds a fulfilment formula ‫ויהי כן‬, used only once in 4Q386 frag. 1i 6–7 but three times in the 4Q385 frag. 2 text (lines 6, 7 and 8). Some noteworthy modifications may be listed as follows: 1) “the unspecific future in the biblical scene is replaced with an event belonging to the eschatological era.”78 This is indicated by ‫“ ואלה מתי יהיו‬and these things, when will they come to be?” (4Q385 2 3 and 4Q386 1i 2). 2) While the MT text presents the fate of the whole of Israel, Pseudo-Ezekiel applies the revelation only to the righteous of Israel. “The Qumran work presents the scene of the resurrection as a visual depiction of the reward awaiting the pious, ‫ישתלמו חסדם‬, a notion absent from the biblical vision.”79

75  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 30. 76  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 30. 77  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 11. 78  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 33. 79  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 34.

122

Coetzee

3) The insertion of the blessing after the revival agrees with the widespread practice that emerged during the Second Temple period of reciting benedictions on various occasions.80 Textual criticism reveals various similarities and differences between Pseudo-Ezekiel, the MT, the LXX, and p967 pertaining to the vision of the dry bones. The inclusion of an introduction in the MT may indicate that it was necessary for the author of this text to give his readers more information about the vision. The Pseudo-Ezekiel texts reveal a post-biblical dating due to later forms that crept into the texts and appear more structured with regard to the vision itself. Another distinctive difference is that the MT refers to a great army that rises, while both Pseudo-Ezekiel texts refer to a great many men. Although one may argue that these phrases refer to the same thing, it could also be argued that the MT may have implied a political influence, as suggested by Lust.81 There are also similarities and differences in orthography between the two Pseudo-Ezekiel texts. Dimant suggests that the authors of Pseudo-Ezekiel replaced the unspecific future that the MT suggests with a more specific eschatological future (4Q385 2 3 and 4Q386 1i 2).82 The orthographical differences between the two Pseudo-Ezekiel texts may imply that these texts were written in different periods by different scribal schools, thus highlighting different historical events. The difference in orthography between Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q3856 frag. 1i may suggest that each fragment was written at a different time and was adapted to function within each author’s specific context. Although Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Masoretic tradition seem to share the same orthographic tradition, one cannot overlook the orthographic fluctuations between 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i. The most notable difference between 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i is the fuller orthography that appears in 4Q385, which is also observed in 4Q223–224. The differences in orthography between 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q223–224 may indicate that 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i originated at different times and were written by different authors from different scribal schools. One also finds that the authors of Pseudo-Ezekiel “employ four techniques, well known from other contemporary Jewish writings: omission, abbreviation, alteration, and addition,”83 which groups it with the so-called ‘re-written’ texts. This may imply that redaction of the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts happened between 80  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 34. 81  Lust, “Major Divergences,” 83–92. 82  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 33. 83  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, 32–33.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

123

this time and that of the biblical text, whereas the differences between the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts pertaining to the valley of the dry bones may indicate different dates for these texts. Therefore, the orthographical differences between the texts should be considered important with regard to both scribal tradition and dating. 6 Conclusion Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i show some overlapping, although these two texts are not verbatim copies. This implies that different source texts may have been used when each of these texts was rewritten. Similarities and differences between the various texts with regard to the vision of the dry bones (MT, LXX, Pseudo-Ezekiel and p967) are noticeable. The difference in orthography leads this author to believe that Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i were not written by scribes from the same scribal school. Tov argued that the manuscripts found in and around Qumran could not all have been the product of the Qumran scribal school.84 It was found that several scribal practices are reflected in the manuscripts, therefore it is now believed that some of the manuscripts did not originate at Qumran itself but were imported to the site. Due to the lack of external data available on the scribes who wrote and copied manuscripts, the sole source of information regarding scribal activity is reflected in the scrolls themselves.85 It is this lack of external data that makes it difficult to determine exactly which manuscripts belonged to which scribal tradition, although one may form some idea as to where certain scrolls originated from.86 The authors of Pseudo-Ezekiel succeeded in modelling their work on the biblical vision of Ezekiel. Although the text appears to be part of the Second Temple period, the length of Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i suggests that these texts may have been written earlier; the lack of information in the text could be explained by the assumption that less information would have been needed if the first readers of the texts were familiar with the vision. This, however, does not seem to be the case, as the Second Temple period blessing is included at the end of each text. Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 84  Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3. 85  Tov, Scribal Practices, 15. 86  Tov, Scribal Practices, 16–19.

124

Coetzee

also show a fuller orthography, which may lead to the assumption that this manuscript originated within the Qumran scribal school, although the lack of consistency of this fuller orthography indicates that the author merely tried to mimic others or was working from a copy of the manuscript that followed this orthography. This is yet another indication that one might be dealing with different authors and that Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i may not have originated from the same scribal tradition. There are various aspects that Tov highlights when considering scribal practices.87 While both Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1 are written on leather, there seems to be a difference in spacing and letter size. It seems that the reason for rewriting texts may have been to incorporate them into the author’s own ideology and context, thereby breathing new life into an old text. Although one does see various similarities between Ps.-Ezek. 4Q385 frag. 2 and 3 and 4Q386 frag. 1i, the differences indicate that these texts were not written in the same period and by the same hand. The differences found between these Pseudo-Ezekiel texts and that of the MT do, however, indicate that despite similarities in the description of the vision, the proto-MT may not have been the source text used by the authors of Pseudo-Ezekiel. I do not suggest that p967 is the source text for Pseudo-Ezekiel, although further study of the manuscript may give better insight concerning a possible source text. Bibliography Brooke, George J. “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament texts.” Pages 317–27 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the international congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by J. T. C. Barrera and L. V. Montaner. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Dimant, Devorah. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Vol. 21 of Qumran Cave 4. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Elledge, Casey Deryl. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Henze, Matthias. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

87  Tov, Scribal Practices, 16–19.

A Textual Analysis of Pseudo-Ezekiel

125

Klein, Anja. “Resurrection as Reward for the Righteous: The Vision of the Dry Bones in Pseudo-Ezekiel as External Continuation of the Biblical Vision in Ezekiel 37:1–14.” Pages 196–220 in “I lifted my eyes and saw”: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew bible. Edited by E. R. Hayes and L.-S. Tiemeyer. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Wilhelm. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johan. “Major Divergences Between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” Pages 83–92 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by A. Schenker. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mackie, Timothy P. Expanding Ezekiel The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Petersen, Anders K. “Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 13–48 in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes. Edited by J. Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Schöpflin, Karin. “The Revivification of the Dry Bones: Ezekiel 37:1–14.” Pages 67–86 in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature—Yearbook: The Human Body in Death and Resurrection: 2009. Edited by T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer, J. Verheyden, and H. Braun. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman).” Pages 26–47 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Vermes, Geza. “Biblical Midrash.” Pages 308–41 in vol. 3 of The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, by Emil Schürer, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986.

Chapter 7

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Forgotten: a New Fragment of 4Q385a (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca) 18 i Eibert Tigchelaar In 1994 Devorah Dimant first published the large fragment of 4Q385a (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca) which describes in its first column that Jeremiah accompanied the Israelite exiles that were brought to Babylon up to the river where he instructed them, while the next column locates Jeremiah in Egypt lamenting and admonishing the Israelites, Judahites and Benjaminites.1 Neither of those columns is complete: the right beginning of frag. 18 i is missing, as is the left end of frag. 18 ii. The editions reconstruct these missing parts to various degrees. While Dimant initially only sparsely reconstructed a few words in frag. 18 i, her DJD edition reconstructs most of the missing words at the right of col. i, while Elisha Qimron provides the fullest reconstruction. 1

Reading and Reconstructing 4Q385a 18 i 2–5

4Q385a is a composite, consisting of eight different fragments which have been joined together. Seven of them had already been pieced together on the 1  Devorah Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385b = 4Q385 16),” in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by G. J. Brooke. STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11–30; subsequently published, with revisions, in Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 159–66; for slightly other readings or reconstructions, cf. Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Volume Two (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 95 and Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Tradition: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity. STDJ 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 132–40. The transcription in Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle Three, based on a reconstruction of the original transcriptions of Jozef T. Milik and John Strugnell (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1995), 236–37, gives insight into Strugnell’s readings in the late 1950s. For the ample scholarship on the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, cf. the surveys in Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” DSD 20 (2013): 452–71 and Davis, Cave 4 Apocryphon, 46–70.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_009

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Forgotten

127

last PAM photograph (PAM 43.496), and are called frag. 18a in the DJD edition, while John Strugnell had added a small fragment from PAM 43.509, in DJD referred to as frag. 18b, to the top right frag. 18a, in col. i lines 3–5.2 The join of these fragments including frag. 18b results in the following transcription and translation of 4Q385a 18 i 2–5 in the DJD edition: ‫ויצא ]י̊ רמיה הנביא מלפני יהוה‬ [ ‫[וילך עם ה]שבאים אשר נשבו מארץ ירושלים ויבאו‬ ‫[לרבלה אל ]מלך[ ]בבל ̇בהכות נבוזרדן רב הטבחים‬ ‫]עים ויקח ̇את כלי בית אלהים את הכהנים‬ ̊ [

2 3 4 5

2. [ and] Jeremiah the prophet [went out] from before the Lord 3. [and he went with] the captives who were led captive from the land of Jerusalem and they came 4. [to Riblah to] the king of Babylon, when Nebuzaradan, the commander of the bodyguard, smote 5. [ ] and he took the vessels of the House of God, the priests3 Other transcriptions have minor differences.4 Initially, Dimant had constructed ‫ ללכת‬rather than ‫ וילך‬in line 3.5 For reasons of space, Kipp Davis reconstructs in line 3 ‫ ויעלו‬rather than ‫וילך עם‬. Qimron prefers ‫ רבלתה‬above ‫ לרבלה‬in line 4, and follows the suggestion of Hanan Ariel and Alexey Yuditsky to read at the beginning of line 5 ‫אל]הים‬ ̊ ‫[בעם‬,6 so that one should translate “when Nebuzaradan … smote (or: had smitten) [the people of G]od.” Such reconstructions are ideally based on material, literary, and textual grounds. Throughout col. 1 the reconstructions should materially result in a flush right margin, while the wording of the reconstructions should be based on an informed understanding of the literary nature of the text and of its grammar.7 The reconstruction ‫אל]הים‬ ̊ ‫[בעם‬, introduces the term “people of God” which is not attested elsewhere, except for 2 Sam 14:13. However, given that ‫ עם יהוה‬is somewhat more common in the 2  See Plate VI in Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4. 3  Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4, 159–60. 4  It is not clear to me whether the reconstructions reported in Wacholder and Abegg, Fascicle Three, 236 derive from the Preliminary Concordance, or have been supplied by Wacholder and Abegg. That edition supplies at the beginning of line 4 ‫( בבלה‬they came to Babel) and at the beginning of line 5 ‫ירוש]לים‬ ̊ ‫( את‬hence, Nebuzaradan smote Jerusalem). 5  Dimant, “(4Q385b = 4Q385 16),” 14. 6  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, Volume Two, 95. This suggestion is adopted by Davis, Cave 4 Apocryphon, 132–34. 7  See the explanation of the reconstruction of “to Riblah” in Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4, 161.

128

Tigchelaar

Hebrew Bible, and the Apocryphon generally prefers ‫ אלהים‬above ‫( יהוה‬one of the few exceptions is in this column, line 2, ‫ )מלפני יהוה‬this phrase is not impossible. 2

A New Fragment of 4Q385a 18 i

Hitherto no scholar of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C seems to have observed that frag. 18b was first photographed on PAM 40.975,8 and is there still attached, though slightly misaligned, to another fragment, which itself was already partly broken into two pieces. These two pieces, which we may call 4Q385a frag. 18c read:9 [◦] 1 [‫הש‬ ̊ ‫]◦ם‬ ̇ 2 [‫]◦ נבכדנצ‬ 3 [‫]ל‬ 4

On that photograph, frag. 18b seems at the right slightly larger than in its present state, and the two fragments together can be read as follows: [◦] 1 [‫אשר‬ ̊ ‫]◦ם השבאים‬ ̇ 2 [ ‫נבכדנצר מלך בבל‬ ̊ ◦] 3 [ ‫]קח‬ ̊ [‫]ל‬ 4

The trace in line 1 is the horizontal base stroke of a letter. In line 2 the break between the two pieces of frag. 18c somewhat distorts the remaining remnants (top left and bottom right) of what plausibly is final mem. Ink at the right edge could be the bottom left tip of the right stroke of ʿayin, or of any horizontal baseline. The first letter of line 3 can be interpreted in different ways. Perhaps we have here the head stroke with left tick of a narrow dalet and the faint remains of the right tick. Or, these traces may be interpreted as the left end of the head stroke of final mem with tick, while the right edge of the fragment still shows the top of the left downstroke of the final mem. The photo seems to show the left end of reš, at the edge of the original frag. 18b. The lamed of line 4 is faint but certain. 8  See image on https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-279122. 9  My reading is exclusively based on the image mentioned in the previous note.

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Forgotten

129

Taken together with the remains of frag. 18a, we can now transcribe these lines as follows (the line numbers are now according to the DJD edition of frag. 18 i):

‫ויצא ]י̊ רמיה הנביא מלפני יהוה‬ 2 ‫]ע ̇ם השבאים אשר נשבו מארץ ירושלים ויבאו‬ ̊ ‫[וילך‬ 3 ‫נבכדנצר מלך בבל בהכות נבוזרדן רב הטבחים‬ ̊ ‫[ע]ד‬ ̊ 4 ‫א]להים ויקח ̇את כלי בית אלהים את הכהנים‬ ̊ ‫[בעם‬ 5

2. [ and] Jeremiah the prophet [went out] from before the Lord 3. [and he went] with the captives who were led captive from the land of Jerusalem and they came 4. [t]o (the location of) Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, when Nebuzaradan, the commander of the bodyguard, smote 5. [the people of G]od, and he took the vessels of the House of God, the priests In 4Q385a 18 i 3, the reading of frag. 18c confirms the proposed reconstruction ‫ עם השבאים‬of Dimant, and refutes the alternative reconstruction of Davis, ‫ויעלו השבאים‬. However, in 18 i 4 the attestation of the name of Nebuchadnezzar was not anticipated by any of the editors of this fragment. The collocation “Nebuchadnezzar (or: Nebuchadrezzar), king of Babylon,” is quite common in the Hebrew Bible,10 but possibly Dimant and subsequent scholars did not consider this for reasons of space, or because the narrative is more concerned with the different stages in the trajectory than with the person of the king. The defective orthography ‫ נבכדנצר‬is uncommon in the Hebrew Bible and only attested a few times in Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is the spelling in 4Q115 (4QDand), while Nebuchadnezzar’s name had not yet been encountered in full in the nonbiblical scrolls.11 Though unsurprising with regard to content, this new textual evidence raises two new questions. What could one reconstruct in between ‫ ויבאו‬and ‫ ?נבכדנצר‬And does this affect the reconstruction of the entire column? In view of the trace before “Nebuchadnezzar,” a possible reading ‫[ע]ד‬ ̊ should be considered. The use of ‫עד‬, rather than ‫אל‬, conveys that Jeremiah and the exiles did not actually go to meet Nebuchadnezzar, but rather to the place where he was 10  Fifty occurrences in forty-eight verses in eight different books, but most often in Jeremiah. 11  Remarkably, in the so-called nonbiblical scrolls, his name was hitherto only found in 4Q266 (4QDa) 2 i 11, where only the first and last letter are certain, and 4Q243 13 3, again barely preserved.

130

Tigchelaar

staying (i.e., Riblah).12 With regard to spacing, such a short ‫ עד‬might just allow for the already proposed reconstructions at the beginning of lines 3 and 5. Any longer reconstruction than ‫[ע]ד‬ ̊ would necessitate new reconstructions in the other lines. Ariel and Yuditsky’s proposed reading for the beginning of line 5, ‫אל]הים‬ ̊ ‫[בעם‬, seems now to be supported by the position of the lamed at the bottom of frag. 18c. 3

Reconstructing 4Q385a

Frags. 18b and 18c are found partially joined on PAM 40.975, one of the photographs of the E series, i.e., of the Cave 4 fragments not acquired by the Museum, but coming from the archaeological excavation,13 which were cleaned and sorted by Frank Moore Cross during the summer of 1953 and photographed in February 1954. Amidst the photographs in the E series, there are several 4Q385a fragments: on PAM 40.963 frags. 16a, 17c, and the frag. 18 piece that has the left part of col. 1 lines 2–3 and the left part of col. ii lines 3–4; on PAM 40.975 the top parts of frags. 15 and 17a (top right), frags. 18b + 18c (right), and the bottom parts of frags. 15a and 17a (middle). The latter are still in a pile, with the bottom part of frag. 17 above the bottom part of frag. 15. The evidence of PAM 40.963 (together with PAM 42.505) was for Strugnell the basis for his solution relating to the sequence of frags. 14–18.14 Unfortunately when Strugnell made these notes, he was not aware of the complementary evidence of PAM 40.975, which still shows the relative sequence of frags. 15 and 17, and which confirms Strugnell’s solution A and rebuts his solution B.15 Dimant followed in her edition the sequence of the fragments of Strugnell’s solution A, but without understanding all implications, for example that frag. 15 ii, 16, and 12  See, e.g., 1 Chron 21:21, ‫ויבא דויד עד ארנן‬, where the point is that David first came to the place where Ornan was, and only then, when Ornan came out, met him. 13  John Strugnell, “On the History of the Photographing,” in Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition. Edited by E. Tov, with the collaboration of S. J. Pfann (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 123–34 and 131–32. 14  Cf. Strugnell’s notes quoted in Monica Brady, “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame 2000), 234–39. Note that Strugnell and Brady use different fragment numbers than the DJD edition. 15  Also Brady and Strugnell, both of whom used the notes of Strugnell, were not aware of these 4Q385a fragments on PAM 40.975. Strugnell complained that the photo PAM 40.963 did not specify which of the fragments was the topmost level. Indeed, in the E-series Cross did not yet record these data, which became common in the later photographs.

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Forgotten

131

17 i belong to the same column.16 Materially, it can be assumed that the frags. 18b + 18c were originally the top level of a pile further consisting of the top right part of frags. 15 and 17a, more specifically of the right part of those fragments (i.e., these fragments which are placed above frag. 18c on PAM 40.675 (with 4Q103 frag. 8 placed in between). It is plausible that at the excavation these three were found in a pile, and that Cross separated the three layers. Because of the brittle material, the three parts of 4Q385a 18b + 18c broke apart, and were put together, but not completely aligned. 4

Nebuchadnezzar Found and Lost

What happened with 4Q385 frag. 18c after it had been excavated and photographed together with frag. 18b? The latter fragment is subsequently found on PAM 42.029, 42.505, and 43.509. On PAM 42.029 we only find frag. 18b (top right) and no remnant of frag. 18c. In that photograph, the right and left edges of the fragment, still present on PAM 40.975, have already broken off. A tag is attached next to the fragment with the text “4QSl 22”—the same tag used up to the final 4Q385–4Q385a photographs in the PAM 43 series for the texts we now know as 4Q385 and 4Q385a. It is possible that the two pieces of the Nebuchadnezzar fragment have since disintegrated. Accordance searches in the different Dead Sea Scrolls modules show that this fragment has not been assigned to any other manuscript. Nor has it been placed on any of the plates of unidentified fragments which have been edited in DJD 33. Here, the post-discovery fate of this fragment providentially underscores a tendency already attested in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls, that of an abolitio nominis of Nebuchadnezzar.17

16  But see Davis, Cave 4 Apocryphon, 124–25. 17  I met Peter for the first time in August 1989 in Groningen at the occasion of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and for the last time at the IOSOT meeting in September 2016 in Stellenbosch. We worked on different texts and scrolls, but talked at conferences about the field, about editing scrolls and work of colleagues, about our African backgrounds, and about apartheid then and now. This paper contributes to a text towards which Peter directed me. He proposed for the STDJ series the dissertation of a student, friend, and later colleague, on the Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah; Peter and Florentino entrusted the handling of this project to me, and since then the Apocryphon has become one of the texts of my scholarly life.

132

Tigchelaar

Bibliography Brady, Monica. “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame 2000. Davis, Kipp. The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Tradition: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity. STDJ 111. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Dimant, Devorah. “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385b = 4Q385 16).” Pages 11–30 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by G. J. Brooke. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Dimant, Devorah. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Dimant, Devorah. “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” DSD 20 (2013): 452–71. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Volume Two. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013. Strugnell, John. “On the History of the Photographing.” Pages 123–34 in Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition. Edited by E. Tov, with the collaboration of S. J. Pfann. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Wacholder, Ben Zion and Martin G. Abegg. A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle Three, based on a reconstruction of the original transcriptions of Jozef T. Milik and John Strugnell. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1995).

Part 3 Canon and Authority

∵

Chapter 8

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts James C. VanderKam It is widely agreed today that, however contested various aspects of the topic canon are, it is inappropriate to use the term for the circumstances prevailing during the early and middle centuries of second temple Judaism. The noun only later came into use to designate the exclusive list of books that for the church bore the authority of divine revelation and were normative for thought and practice. Scholars, with some exceptions, hold that there was no such list until very late in the period in question or at least that we lack sufficient information to infer there was one at an earlier time.1 Still, even if we agree that there was no scriptural canon in the sense in which that word came to be understood in Christianity, it would be difficult to deny that second temple writers, early and late, treated some older texts in special ways and at times made statements about them indicating they possessed a certain, even a divine authority. Exactly how many books were so regarded we do not know, although some are obvious. That is, it is easy to identify prime examples, but we are not in a position to feel very confident beyond the clear cases. Another variable is that we do not always know whether a writer who treated an older composition as authoritative was expressing a private view or speaking for a larger group. There is evidence already in later books in the Hebrew Bible that certain categories of what appear to have been written works exercised authority or held a special place in the minds of the writers. So, for instance, we find references such as Ezra 3:2 where Joshua, Zerubbabel, and the people associated with them “set out to build the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as prescribed in the law of Moses ]‫[ככתוב בתורת משה‬, the man of God.”2 And King Artaxerxes sent Ezra “to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem 1  See Lee Martin MacDonald and James A. Sanders, “Introduction,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin MacDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 3–17; Timothy Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 2  Translations of scriptural texts are from the NRSV.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_010

136

VanderKam

according to the law of your God, which is in your hand” (7:14 [with vv. 6, 10, 25–26; 10:3; Neh 1:7]). Later, the people “told the scribe Ezra to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel” (Neh 8:1). The contents of the book included instructions for celebrating the Festival of Booths that are related to Lev 23:33–43 (Neh 8:13–18; cf. 9:14–15; 10:28–29).3 Alongside of the law, there is also evidence regarding prophecy. One finds rather general references to disobeying the prophets sent by the Lord (e.g., Neh 9:30: “Many years you were patient with them, and warned them by your spirit through your prophets; yet they would not listen”). An intriguing passage that suggests a privileged status for certain prophecies occurs in Zech 1:3–6. In the second year of Darius the prophet Zechariah was told to command the people to return to the Lord so that he would return to them. Do not be like your ancestors, to whom the former prophets ]‫הנביאים‬ ‫ [הראשנים‬proclaimed, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your

evil ways and from your evil deeds.” But they did not hear or heed me, says the Lord. Your ancestors, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your ancestors? So they repented and said, “The Lord of hosts has dealt with us according to our ways and deeds, just as he planned to do” (also 7:7, 12 for other references to the former prophets). The divine words and statutes—the latter, too, were spoken by prophets4— outlived the ones who expressed them and remained in effect. Zechariah does not name who these “first prophets” were or say their words were written down (though he could still quote them or summarize the heart of their message),

3  Regarding Ezra 3:2, Joseph Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988], 97) says that “Allusions to this law in C’s [the Chronicler’s] work can generally, but by no means invariably, be traced to Deuteronomy” and points to Deut 27:6–7 for the altar and 33:1 for Moses as “the man of God.” See his “Additional Note on Ezra’s Law” (152–57) for the references in chapter 7 and in Nehemiah. He concludes that the law generally refers to parts of Deuteronomy with material from H and P, along with some stipulations found in none of these sources. For citations that cannot be located in the Pentateuch, though their themes can, see Ezra 9:11–12; Neh 1:8–9. 4  Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], 93; cf. also 101–2), referring to chapters 1 and 7, write: “Both these passages deal with the failure of the community to obey God’s word, presumably in the form of the covenant, a collection of protocanonical pentateuchal law, as well as the prophetic oracles already in fixed form.”

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

137

but the language and themes in the context have similarities with the rhetoric of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deuteronomy.5 Beyond more general appeals to ancient, authoritative writings like those just noted, the evidence reveals that some texts, like, say, Deuteronomy or Isaiah, enjoyed a special status in second temple times. But questions remain about the precise nature of their status. Also, one would like to know whether different ancient texts possessed varied levels or kinds of authority. If a text were behaving authoritatively, what did that mean? What uses could be made of it, and in what ways could one treat and apply it? In the absence of statements in the texts regarding such matters, the best one can do is examine cases in which a writer makes explicit appeal to an older text as being somehow pertinent, even forceful, powerful, or normative in a particular instance.6 What happens in such instances? Below are brief studies of four passages that, apart from the first, do not so often figure in discussions of canon-related issues. All of them have to do with Jerusalem and/or its sanctuary in one way or another, and in each of them earlier texts, whose special status is not in doubt, function significantly. What, if anything, do the later writers say or imply about the older texts to which they appeal? What sorts of uses or interpretations do they document and even commend? The cases selected are ones in which second temple writers apply older texts to particular historical situations for which they believed they were pertinent. We are familiar with a form of such exegesis from the pesharim and from the fulfillment passages in the Gospel of Matthew, but the general practice is attested at earlier times. In the cases in question, the writers indicate that the older texts somehow fit, clarify, bring out the deeper meaning of, and/or enrich their new contexts—they find a historical situation to which the cited text applies— though they do so in more ways than one.

5  Albert Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zecharie: un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil, EBib (Paris: LeCoffre; Louvain: Éditions imprimerie orientaliste, 1969), 39–52; David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 129–33; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 94–96. Petersen says about the “quotation” from the former prophets: “Zechariah 1:4b comprises not so much a single quotation but the sort of thing people in 520 would have expected such prophets to say” (133). 6  Gerald Bruns distinguishes canonical and non-canonical thus: “it is a distinction between texts that are forceful in a given situation and those which are not. From a hermeneutical standpoint, in which the relation of a text to a situation is always of primary interest, the theme of canonization is power” (“Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in Canons, ed. Robert von Hallberg [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984], 67).

138 1

VanderKam

Use of Prophecy and Law: Daniel 9

A familiar example, one yielding much pertinent information, is Dan 9. There Daniel is puzzling over a contemporary problem for which he thinks an older text is not only relevant but in force or normative. If viewed with our sorts of questions in mind, it has some instructive implications. The first two verses set the scene. “In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” The example is attractive because the writer, after dating and situating the episode, names the source being consulted, makes a statement that entails the source has a powerful relevance, and offers an authoritative interpretation of it. The interpretation of the passage is clearly being commended as correct because it comes eventually from God who conveyed it to Daniel through the angel Gabriel (vv. 21–23). Dating and situating: In the chronology of the book of Daniel, the timing is significant. The first year of Darius the Mede’s reign over the Chaldean kingdom directly followed the defeat of Babylon, as indicated in 5:30–31: “That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” This circumstance would naturally have made a wise, literate person, as Daniel is characterized in the book, recall prophecies predicting the event, its timing, and its consequences for Jerusalem.7 Source consulted: Daniel was making an attempt to understand/was studying “in the books.” From this wonderfully vague phrase commentators have at times drawn far-reaching conclusions for our subject,8 but the writer of 7  As the commentators regularly explain. See, for example, James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1927), 359. 8  Montgomery (Daniel, 360) refers to some commentators who thought the writer meant the books of the Torah, an inference that relates to the passages underlying the interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy in 9:24–27 (see below). Montgomery himself believed “the books” were “the Canon of the Prophets, which had already obtained authoritative value. The term is the one Biblical ref. to the Canon of the Prophets” (Daniel, 360). John J. Collins, who thinks they are “the books of the Prophets,” writes that it would be anachronistic to draw canonical conclusions from the phrase and “unsafe to conclude that the collection of the Prophets was closed at this time, because the Book of Daniel was later included in the Prophets in some circles” (Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 348).

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

139

Daniel 9 makes explicit only that “the books” included “the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah,” whatever else the plural may encompass. Nature of the source consulted: In “the books” Daniel read the word of the Lord to Jeremiah regarding the seventy years for the devastation of Jerusalem. In Daniel 9 this word is cast as a special kind of prediction. The term used with respect to it is ‫ למלאות‬which the NRSV renders as “must be fulfilled.” The words “must be” of the translation are perhaps a bit too strong, but the verb indicates that the divine word to the prophet would achieve its full meaning,9 would come true; it was hardly an idle or uncertain forecast. Such language implies a considerable level of authority for the statement about the years of Jerusalem’s devastation, a conclusion already assured by referring to it as the word of the Lord. Meaning: It does not seem as if this should have been a problem for Daniel, since the divine prophecy, rather than speaking of an indefinite time in the future (e.g., the days are coming, says the Lord), named an exact number of years. Perhaps seventy is merely a way of designating a lifetime (or something of the sort),10 perhaps it is not, but it is a specific figure, a number that Daniel thinks is relevant to his situation. The prophecy in Jer 25,11 dated to the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, speaks of destroying Judah and the surrounding nations: “This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed ]‫[כמלאות שבעים שנה‬, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste” (25:11–12; see v. 18 for making Jerusalem and the towns of Judah “a desolation and a waste”). The other seventy-year prophecy occurs in the letter Jeremiah sent to the people exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon. It too identifies itself as a message from the Lord (29:4: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon”). A similar formula occurs in v. 10 where seventy years reappear: “For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed ]‫מלאת‬ ‫ [לבבל שבעים שנה‬will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.” Here the conclusion of the seventy years is associated

9  It is used more often in time expressions (e.g., Isa 40:2, where a qal form appears) and in other references to Jeremiah’s seventy years (see below). BDB 570 lists “fulfil, accomplish, complete” as meanings for the piel conjugation, as here in Dan 9:2. 10  Collins, Daniel, 349; cf. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 117. 11  Note the references to “the word of the Lord to Jeremiah” in 25:1, 3, with v. 8 using the formula “thus says the Lord of hosts.”

140

VanderKam

not only with the end of Babylon but also with the exiles’ return to Jerusalem (see too a pericope such as 30:18–22).12 It thus appears that the writer of Dan 9 utilized the passages that mention Babylon’s seventy years but also drew inferences from elsewhere in the book about a restoration to Zion. By combining them, he concluded that the seventy years, associated with Babylon’s demise in Jeremiah, also concerned Jerusalem’s fate which was to be the reverse of Babylon’s. Interpretation: Unlike some other post-exilic writers, the author of Dan 9, despite the narrative situation of his protagonist Daniel, was not satisfied with understanding Jeremiah’s seventy years in a literal, chronological sense. In 2 Chr 36:22 and Ezra 1:1 it is taken as seventy actual years (approximately, at least), perhaps also in Zech 1:12; 7:5 (Jeremiah’s prophecy is mentioned in neither of the verses in Zechariah).13 The writer, who was not living at the time of Babylon’s defeat but centuries later, knew, of course, that many more than seventy years had elapsed but the difficult times for Jerusalem still had not ended. Hence, he had to find a non-literal reading of Jeremiah’s seventy years (compare Ep Jer 3). An important point is that he had to explain the prophecy; ignoring or rejecting it was not an option. The interpretation, as is widely recognized, makes use of a broader swath of earlier literature than the prophecies of Jeremiah. One very likely source for the answer to Daniel’s question regarding the meaning of Jeremiah’s seventy years is Lev 26.14 The chapter begins with commands to make no idols, keep the sabbath, and “reverence my sanctuary” (vv. 1–2), followed by a depiction of the ideal conditions that will prevail if Israel keeps the commandments (vv. 3–13). Leviticus 26:14–39 then pictures the opposite—what will happen if Israel disobeys the laws and breaks the covenant. Included in the section are references to punishing Israel sevenfold for her sins (vv. 18, 21, 24, 28). The devastation and exile that result will allow the land to “enjoy its sabbath years” (34; cf. v. 43).15 If, however, they confess their wrongdoing for which the Lord “brought them into the land of their enemies” (41), he will remember his covenant and the 12  Possibly other passages in Jeremiah were in the mind of the person responsible for Dan 9. An example is the extended oracle against Babylon in Jer 50–51: it refers twice to the kings of the Medes as taking part in the destruction of Babylon (51:11, 28), and also contains a promise of return to Zion (50:4–5). 13  Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 117) suggest, however, that reference to seventy years here makes it likely that Jeremiah was thought to be among Zechariah’s former prophets. 14  See, for example, Collins, Daniel, 352. 15  2 Chronicles 36:21, perhaps relying on these passages in Lev 26, also relates the seventy years to the sabbaths of the land.

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

141

land (42). The angel Gabriel seems to have applied the “sevenfold” principle of Lev 26 to the seventy years of Jeremiah. Since, as Daniel showed in his prayer, Israel’s iniquity had outlasted the seventy years, he was now making confession of it and thus paving the way for God to end the desolation of Jerusalem. A passage in the Torah is employed to clarify one in the Prophets. There is no way to prove it, but use of Lev 26 to interpret the number seventy in Daniel 9 could indicate that among the books Daniel was pondering was Leviticus (and perhaps other works).16 However that may be, a combination of passages thought to be related to one another led to the truth, to an authoritative clarification of Daniel’s historical puzzle. 2

Uses of Psalms

There are several references in the literature to “the law and the prophets” as categories of texts that enjoyed a special status. Evidence is sparse for the third category in the later Jewish canon, the Writings, or for individual books within the section, other than the Psalter. It seems significant in this regard that, as some texts indicate, psalms could fall into the category of prophecy. The 11QPsa scroll provides unmistakable evidence regarding the inspired status of Davidic writings, though the 150 or 151 psalms of the standard collections are far more limited in number than the 4050 about which the scroll speaks (col. XXVII, 2–11, where all of David’s poetic works are said to have been spoken through prophecy given him before the Most High). We know from the pesharim on the Psalms that the interpreter believed statements in the older poems not only could be applied to people and events of his time but even predicted them. Something of the same belief, though usually without the predictive aspect, comes to expression in other interpretations and applications of psalms. These examples differ from Dan 9 in that the psalms in question are not said to be the word of the Lord, perhaps due to the nature of the poems. As praise to the Lord, they are spoken to him, not by him. In the three examples examined below, the first may imply that the psalm predicted events, while the other two do not. 16  So, for instance, R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel with Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 225: “The books here are the sacred books, i.e. the Scriptures. The phrase implies the formation of a definite collection of O.T. books, but how extensive this collection was cannot be determined from the present statement. The immediate books referred to are no doubt Leviticus, i.e. 2618sqq. and Jeremiah, i.e. 2910, 2511.”

142 3

VanderKam

1 Maccabees 7

We begin with a passage that more nearly parallels the procedure in the pesharim than the ones that will follow. 1 Maccabees 7 supplies a case possibly entailing that lines from a psalm inserted into a historical narrative predicted a certain event.17 The context is the time when Demetrius I took the Seleucid throne in 161 BCE. “Then there came to him all the renegade and godless men of Israel; they were led by Alcimus, who wanted to be high priest” (1 Macc 7:5). They asked the monarch to send a trustworthy man to punish Judas and his cohorts for all the harm they had done in Israel. The king selected Bacchides to lead an army on the punitive mission. “He sent him, and with him he sent the ungodly Alcimus, whom he made high priest; and he commanded him to take vengeance on the Israelites” (v. 9). Judas and his men distrusted the words of peace they conveyed to them, “but a group of scribes appeared in a body before Alcimus and Bacchides to ask for just terms. The Hasideans18 were the first among the Israelites to seek peace from them” (vv. 12–13). The grounds for their decision was that, Alcimus, an Aaronide priest, would not harm them. They badly miscalculated because, despite the oath of safety sworn by the Bacchides-Alcimus faction, “he seized sixty of them and killed them in one day” (v. 16). The writer claims that the executions occurred (v. 16) “in accord with the word that was written [κατα τον λογον ον εγραψεν αυτον], ‘The flesh of your faithful ones and their blood/ they poured out all around Jerusalem,/ and there was no one to bury them.’” The quoted words are a reformulation of Ps 79:2–3: “They have given the bodies of your servants/ to the birds of the air for food,/ the flesh of your faithful to the wild animals of the earth./ They have poured out their blood like water/ all around Jerusalem,/ and there was no one to bury them.” The context for Ps 79, one of the Asaph psalms, is set by the first verse in which the poet complains: “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your

17   Devorah Dimant (“Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder, CRINT 2/1 [Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988], 390–91) refers to this as an instance of “actualization” and comments: “In both purpose and method this quotation is strikingly reminiscent of the Qumranic pesharim” (391). Jean Starcky made a similar observation in his note to the passage in F.-M. Abel and Jean Starcky, Les livres des Maccabées, 3rd ed., La Sainte Bible (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1961), 141 n. a: “Les Esséniens continueront cette méthode exégétique.” 18  For the present concerns, there is no need to determine whether “scribes” and “Hasideans/ Hasidim” are identified with each other or are distinct groups that happened to share interests at this historical juncture.

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

143

holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.”19 The words of the psalm most naturally apply to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary,20 but the poetic description is sufficiently lacking in details that it could be read differently or perhaps could be taken as applying to more than one situation. In one way or another, the writer of 1 Maccabees believed it spoke to the circumstances in chapter 7. For him the lines of Ps 79:2–3 could be accommodated to what the city and sanctuary had endured during the Seleucid takeover in the early 160s, and other features of the verses matched precisely with the current situation. One is that 1 Macc 7:19, the immediate sequel of the murderous scene, implies that the event took place in Jerusalem (“Then Bacchides withdrew from Jerusalem …”). Another is that the word ‫ חסידיך‬in Ps 79:2 (“your faithful”) provides a verbal hook relating the psalm to the Hasmonean context in which sixty Hasidim were slaughtered. The formula that introduces the psalm citation makes it clear that it was written down but is ambiguous about who the writer was believed to be. Naturally this has led to disagreements among scholars. The issue needs to be addressed here because the answer chosen could eliminate 1 Macc 7:17 as a case of a later text citing an earlier one. Translated literally (which the NRSV does not do), the Greek text reads: according to the word which he wrote it. Its formulation appears modeled on the Hebrew practice of resuming a relative pronoun with a pronominal suffix (GKC 155c). But who, according to 1 Macc 7:17, is the “he” who wrote the words of the psalm? The textual tradition attests a number of attempts to name the subject: Sca L-19–93 311 SyI 542: ο προφητης 55: ασαφ ο προφητης (LaG: asaph profetae); also Eusebius Dem. Ev. X 1 1221 56: δāδ (= David).22 19  In 79:12 the poet appeals to the sevenfold principle of repayment for sins, but this time applying it to the nations, not Israel as in Lev 26. Also somewhat reminiscent of Dan 9 is the concern about the duration of the Lord’s wrath against his people (v. 5) and a confession of national iniquities (vv. 8–9). 20  See, e.g., Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 304–5 (note the comment about its use in 1 Macc 7:17: “where it is explicitly cited as canonical Scripture” [305]); and John Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, vol. 2 of Psalms, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 519–20 (he recognizes that it could be and in fact was later applied to different situations). 21  In this passage from his Demonstration of the Gospel, Eusebius said that Asaph’s prophecies in the psalm were fulfilled in Antiochus’s desecration of the temple and the actions of his successors, as demonstrated by 1 Macc 7:12, 15–17 which he quotes. 22  The readings are cited from the apparatus to v. 16 in Werner Kappler, ed., Maccabaeorum liber I, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936), 92.

144

VanderKam

These are attempts to resolve the ambiguity of the text and are unlikely to be what the author wrote. Another hypothesis, defended by Jonathan Goldstein, holds that the writer of 1 Maccabees considered Alcimus the author of Ps 79. In support of his position, he argues that the Greek text of the translator read, not αυτον but αυτος so that it would have meant “which he himself wrote.”23 The reading is not attested among the witnesses, but Goldstein is emphatic that, according to 1 Maccabees, Alcimus was the author of Ps 79. Actually, he could have made a stronger case by arguing from the context. In the verses that precede the citation from Ps 79, Alcimus does appear to be the principal subject. In v. 14 the Hasideans express their trust in a priest from Aaron’s line (i.e., Alcimus), and in v. 15 “he”24 spoke words of peace to them and swore an oath, promising: “We will not seek to injure you or your friends.” Verse 16 then says that “he seized sixty of them and killed them in one day, in accordance with the word” that he had written (the psalm quotation follows). So, it would not be unreasonable to say that the implied subject of the verb is Alcimus. In the context—in the sequel in chap. 7 and in chap. 9—Bacchides, as the commander of the army, is the one credited with forcefully settling matters in the country. Note for example the executions he carries out in 7:19 and the military actions described in chapter 9. Also, only after the execution of the Hasidim did Bacchides give Alcimus some troops to help him (7:20). It seems more likely, then, that Bacchides, not Alcimus, would have executed the sixty Hasidim, that is, he would have ordered his troops to do so. The author of 1 Maccabees did what he could to tarnish Alcimus’ reputation,25 so he emerges from chapter 7 as sharing heavily in the responsibility for the sixty deaths. In the final analysis, the sense of the context makes it is most unlikely that, for the writer of 1 Maccabees, this man, whom he depicts so negatively, was the author of Ps 79.26 There is every reason to believe the psalm existed in writing 23  I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 332–33. 24   N RSV inserts Alcimus as the subject in the translation and indicates in a note that only “he” stands in the Greek text. 25  In 7:5 all the “renegades” come to Alcimus, in v. 9 he is “the ungodly Alcimus,” and in vv. 21–23 he and those with him commit more wrongs in Judah than the gentiles. 26  Uriel Rappaport (The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Between Bible and Mishnah [Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2004], 211–12) provides a thorough discussion of the issue and shows that Goldstein’s position, while verbally possible, makes no sense in the context. A survey of commentaries also indicates that the practice of assigning psalms to the Hellenistic or Maccabean period has not carried the day. At a time when the later dating was more common, Charles A. Briggs (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 2 vols., ICC [Edinburgh: Clark, 1907], 2.197–99) regarded the first two verses of Ps 79 as coming from the sixth century, while v. 3

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

145

well before this time and, according to the author of 1 Maccabees, addressed the present circumstances.27 The term λογος for the citation from Ps 79 seems vague but is reminiscent of ‫ דבר‬in some citation formulas in the scrolls;28 as a written word it seems to be something that the writer of 1 Macc 7 took to be predictive of the present event.29 Perhaps some parts of the psalm citation were more appropriate for other historical circumstances (Jerusalem was not left in ruins by the Seleucids as it was by the Babylonians in the sixth century), but there was enough in it that matched the situation when the sixty Hasidim were slaughtered to see it as coming true, as being fulfilled in that time and place. 4

1–2 Chronicles

The Chronicler provides instructive examples of the ways in which one might employ existing poems.30 In the instances studied below, there is no claim that the psalms predicted events. They simply fit certain circumstances and clarified the deeper meaning of them.

was added in Maccabean times. Hans-Joachim Kraus (Psalms 60–150, CC [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 133–34) connects the psalm with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 and comments: “It is likely that the prayer songs of the community of the time after 587 BCE even later (e.g., in the time of the Maccabees: 1 Macc. 7:17) played a leading role. The contemporizing of the laments then surely brought it about that the sharp historic profiles of the prescribed texts were ground down to make the psalm available for use also in the new situation” (134). 27  Starcky, echoing a textual witness, thought the text implied that David was the one who wrote Ps 79 (Les livres des Maccabées, 141 n. a). For the implication that the text already existed and was being adduced as authoritative, see Abel, Les livres des Maccabées, EBib (Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1949), 134. 28  E. g., CD VII, 10: ‫בבוא הדבר אשר כתוב בדברי ישעיה‬. For ‫ פשר הדבר‬and similar formulas in the pesharim, see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, CBQMS 8 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 239–40. 29  John Kampen (The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees, SBLSCS 24 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988], 132–33) maintains that “this emphasis on the written word means that the Psalm was considered to be Holy Scripture.” On pp. 130–35 he offers a survey of other reflections of Ps 79 in 1 Maccabees. 30  The passages from 1–2 Chronicles do not use the language of prophecy for psalms as “David’s Compositions” in 11QPsa XXVII does, although they certainly do not deny a special character to the poems. Note too that the Chronicler assigns the musical component of worship mostly to the Levites and claims that the Levites Asaph and Jeduthun prophesied through their music (1 Chr 25:1–3).

146 5

VanderKam

1 Chronicles 16

The chapter is a prime instance of appealing to psalms in connection with a particular historical situation, as if they addressed precisely that set of circumstances. Here the story about bringing the ark to Jerusalem reaches its climax, and King David appoints “certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the Lord, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the Lord, the God of Israel” (v. 4). After naming the clergy and their functions, the writer adds: “on that day David first appointed the singing of praises to the Lord by Asaph and his kindred” (v. 7). Verses 8–36 then consist of a unified poem drawn from Psalms 105 (vv. 1–15), 96 (vv. 1–13 [almost the entire psalm]), and 106 (vv. 1, 47–48).31 Psalms 105 and 106 are overviews of major events in Israel’s past, while Psalm 96 is a poem about the Lord as king. These sections of psalms the compiler of Chronicles thought were in some sense(s) appropriate to the occasion early in David’s reign, although he omitted large parts of Ps 105 and almost all of Ps 106, and the lines he did retain seem at first glance to have very little to do with the circumstances depicted in the narrative. For example, the term “ark” never occurs in them.32 Closer inspection, however, discloses a different picture. Use of religious poetry on the occasion of placing the ark in the tent David had erected for it is not surprising, but the ways in which the writer handled the verses he selected are worth noting. If they pre-existed the books of Chronicles in the form in which they appear in the Psalter (a supposition widely accepted),33 then the Chronicler reproduced only segments of them. 31  It is reasonable to say that these three verses come from the beginning and end of Ps 106, in spite of the fact that all of the elements are found in other places in the Psalter as well (Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 316). At least they all appear together in Ps 106. Japhet (312) points out that in the Psalter and in 11QPsa there are instances of combining units from different psalms into a new poem. 32  Moreover, the Chronicler chose psalms that, whether in MT or LXX, did not attract an ascription to Asaph, despite their use in connection with him in 1 Chr 16. In MT, Pss 96, 105–106 lack a heading; in LXX, Ps 95 has the title “When the house was being rebuilt after the captivity. An Ode. Pertaining to David” (NETS; 104 and 105 have Hallelujah over them, as in MT 106). 33  The position is defended by commentators on Chronicles and Psalms. See, for example, Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1910), 221 (they also note that it is universally adopted). They go so far as to assert that, as 1 Chr 16:36 corresponds to Ps 106:48, the doxology at the end of book four of the Psalter. “… it is a fair and usual inference that the Psalter had already been arranged in five books at the time of the Chronicler.” See also Gary N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 12 (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 66–71, esp. 68. For Ps 105 as earlier than Chronicles, see Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 309.

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

147

If they were arranged in the sequence in which they figure in the standard Psalters, then he placed them in a different order by inserting Ps 96 between portions of 105 and 106.34 Yet the material selected comports with his thematic interests and fits well into the context he fashioned for it. Take, for instance, those segments of the historical psalms that he bypassed. The unit Ps 105:16–45 deals with Joseph and Israel in Egypt, the exodus and the wilderness period, and acquisition of the land; and Ps 106:2–46 furnishes a negative retrospective on the ancestors, the people of the exodus/wilderness stories, and Israel in the land. Those chunks of Israel’s past were, as is well known, not part of the Chronicler’s agenda.35 He did, nevertheless, cite the places where Ps 105:5 and 96:2, 3 speak more generally of the Lord’s mighty deeds on Israel’s behalf in vv. 12, 23, and 24. 1 Chronicles 16 does not claim that the poems were composed for the occasion in David’s reign but may imply they were. The Chronicler likely selected them because they seemed appropriate to the circumstances, that is, he may have been trying to find a historical situation in which the psalms fit, one about which they spoke. At any rate, he tried hard to make them correspond to the setting. Almost all of the lines that the Chronicler cites from the three psalms are consistent with such a hypothesis. The ark: Though the word does not figure in the psalms cited, it is likely that allusion is made to it in two ways. First, in 16:11, 27 (= Ps 105:4; Ps 96:6) the term “strength” probably refers to the ark.36 Second, in the preceding and the immediate context, the ark is regularly termed “the ark of the covenant” (15:25, 26, 28, 29, 37; 16:6, 37 [these last two passages bracket the psalms material]), whereas at an earlier point in chap. 15 it is called the ark of the Lord/God (15:1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15, 24). The covenant theme comes to expression in 16:15–18 (= Ps 105:8–11), where the ancestral covenant with its promise of the land is the theme. David’s commands to the Levites: The Levites were the ones authorized to carry the ark with poles on their shoulders “as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord” (1 Chr 15:15), so they were necessary for installing

34  The Qumran copies of Psalms provide no assistance with the sequence of Pss 96, 105, and 106. Psalms 96 and 106 are poorly attested. In 1QPsa, 96 is present in part but not the psalm that followed it; the same is true in 4QPsb. In 4QPsd the last couple of letters of Ps 106 may survive, followed directly by Ps 147. See the helpful charts in Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 254–71. 35  Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 313, 317; Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 12A (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 645–46, 650. 36  So Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 318; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 646.

148

VanderKam

the ark37 in David’s tent. In addition, they played an indispensable part in the liturgy of the Jerusalem sanctuary that traced its origin to this event (see 16:37). They bore heavy responsibilities in the area of sacred music (15:16–23; 16:4–7), and for the celebration in chap. 16 David ordered them “to invoke ]‫[להזכיר‬, to thank [‫]להודות‬, and to praise [‫ ]להלל‬the Lord, the God of Israel” (16:4) before the ark. Each of the verbs or a synonym occurs in the psalm:38 invoke (see ‫זכרו‬ in vv. 12, 15,39 and ‫ קראו‬in v. 8); thank (vv. 8, 34, 35); and praise (vv. 10, 25, 35, 36). In each case the verb in question or a synonym occurs at or near the beginning of the cited text. There is one apparent exception to the appropriateness of the psalms to the historical context pictured, and it occurs near the end of the quoted material. 1 Chronicles 16:35, a slightly modified version of Ps 106:47, reads: “Save us, O Lord our God,/ and gather us from among the nations,/ that we may give thanks to your holy name/ and glory in your praise.” The wording most likely reflects an exilic or post-exilic setting, although it could be read in connection with a time early in David’s reign.40 The end of the quotation from Ps 106:48 is also interesting. Ps 106:48 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,/ from everlasting to everlasting./ And let all the people say “Amen.”/ Praise the Lord! 1 Chr 16:36 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,/ from everlasting to everlasting. Then all the people said “Amen!” and praised the Lord. The Chronicler has transformed a psalmic exhortation into a historical report and thus accommodated it to the new setting. The writer, then, felt free to pick and choose among the psalms, perhaps to reorder them, and to apply them to a particular historical situation of grave moment—the beginning of worship in a Jerusalem sanctuary. He made no explicit statements about any authority these texts may have held, but they were 37  It was thus appropriate to cite a psalm of the Lord as king upon installation of his throne in the tent sanctuary (see Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 647). 38  Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 646. 39  No hiphil form of ‫ זכר‬occurs in vv. 8–36. As Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 315) points out, “invoking” is actually a priestly function (referring also to Num 10:10). Perhaps this is why it is less prominent in a psalm sung by Levites. 40  See Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 650–51; he speaks of two levels for reading the verse. Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 319) prefers an LXX reading of Ps 105:47 which here talks of delivering the people from the nations, not gathering them from the peoples (apparently referring to εξελου which, besides “take away,” can mean “deliver” (LSJ 581).

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

149

significant enough to lend their weight to a very important occasion, to underscore its significance, and enrich its beauty. “Moreover, since these Psalms were doubtless used regularly by his contemporaries in their worship, it is probable that he would be inviting them to renew their faith in the God who, having answered the prayers and aspirations expressed in these verses so abundantly in the days of David and Solomon, could be relied upon to do so again despite all appearances in a later day.”41 6

2 Chronicles 6

The reader encounters another but more limited instance of employing a psalm in 2 Chr 6:41–42; it too is part of a sanctuary dedication, the occasion when the ark found a permanent home. This time Solomon concluded his prayer consecrating the Jerusalem temple by using words from Ps 132:8–10 with some variations from its formulation in the Psalter: Now rise up, O Lord God, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. Let your priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let your faithful rejoice in your goodness. O Lord God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember your steadfast love for your servant David.42 In this case, there are clear references in the poetic lines to the sanctuary and the Lord’s entering it via his ark, so that the Chronicler did not have to expend as much effort to shape the context as he did in 1 Chr 16. Among the parts of the psalm not reproduced by the Chronicler there are also temple references: David’s determination to find a dwelling place for the Lord (vv. 1–5), the exhortation made by pilgrims to go to the divine residence to worship (vv. 6–7),43 and the Lord’s choice of Zion as his eternal dwelling, a place that he will bless and where he will make David prosper (vv. 17–18). In addition, the promise of a son to succeed David and an eternal dynasty (vv. 1–12) relate the psalm to Solomon. 41  H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), 128. 42  Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 602), who says that “this segment undoubtedly derives from Ps. 132.8–10,” points out that the Chronicler’s threefold use of “O Lord God” in the citation for “O Lord” in the psalm “impairs the rhythm and parallelism of the psalm’s strophes,” a sign that the Chronicler has revised an existing poem. 43  It is one of the songs of ascents.

150

VanderKam

It is easy to understand why the Chronicler inserted these poetic lines into Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the sanctuary and the visible entry of the Lord into it. He found the historical event to which the psalm referred and by it highlighted the significance of the event. Another benefit of employing it at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer is the change in tone relative to its source in 1 Kgs 8: “The recurring supplication, that God may hear the people’s prayer, almost necessarily made Solomon’s prayer centre on distress, sin, repentance and forgiveness, rather melancholy themes. The Chronistic conclusion is much more optimistic and elevated, represented by words like ‘might,’ ‘salvation,’ ‘rejoice,’ ‘goodness,’ never mentioned in the original prayer.”44 7 Summary 1.

As many have noted, treating older texts, ones now parts of the HB, as powerful or forceful is well attested in literature from the early centuries of the second temple period. 2. The older texts are treated in a variety of ways, at time related to their literary type (e.g., psalms, prophecies). In all cases they behave authoritatively or powerfully; they are in different senses “actualized.” a. The earlier text may be regarded as coming true, achieving its full meaning, in the situation into which a writer summons it (Dan 9, probably 1 Macc 7). b. The earlier text may find its actualization in a narrative context whose true meaning it expresses and to which it contributes poetic beauty and a message of hope. It thus significantly enhances the new context in which it plays a part (1 Chr 16, 2 Chr 6). In a broad sense, these four passages exemplify how an earlier text behaves powerfully, that is, canonically in a later composition, even if a list of such older works did not yet exist (that is, canon in a narrower sense). Bibliography

Abel, F.-M. Les livres des Maccabées. EBib. Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1949. Abel, F.-M. and Jean Starcky. Les livres des Maccabées. 3rd ed. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1961.

44  Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 602.

Uses of Earlier Literature in Some Second Temple Texts

151

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Briggs, Charles A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1907. Bruns, Gerald. “Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures.” Pages 65–83 in Canons. Edited by Robert von Hallberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel with Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonzo Madsen. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1910. Dimant, Devorah. “Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Goldingay, John. Psalms 42–89. Vol. 2 of Psalms. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Goldstein, Jonathan. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Kampen, John. The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees. SBLSCS 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Kappler, Werner, ed. Maccabaeorum liber I. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936. Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60–150. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Lim, Timothy. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. MacDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders. “Introduction.” Pages 3–17 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin MacDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

152

VanderKam

Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1927. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Petitjean, Albert. Les oracles du Proto-Zecharie: un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil. EBib. Paris: LeCoffre; Louvain: Éditions imprimerie orientaliste, 1969. Rappaport, Uriel. The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary. Between Bible and Mishnah. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2004. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.

Chapter 9

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in 11QPsa Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford 1 Introduction The Songs of Ascents (Pss 120–134) and Psalm 119 occur adjacent to one another in the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Dead Sea Scroll 11QPsa.1 But interestingly, while Psalm 119 precedes the Songs of Ascents in the MT and the LXX, it follows the Songs of Ascents in 11QPsa. This chapter will examine the proposed historical backgrounds of the Songs of Ascents, provide a brief description of 11QPsa, rehearse the various viewpoints regarding its status in/for the Dead Sea community, and propose a rationale for the placement of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in 11QPsa. The author is, of course, deeply indebted to Peter Flint for his excellent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls and for his ongoing dialogue with Gerald H. Wilson regarding the “shape” and “shaping” of 11QPsa. I begin with a disclaimer. I am not a scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls; I have spent my career studying the book of Psalms, particularly its “shape” and “shaping.” Peter Flint, though, was a good friend and colleague in the study of the book of Psalms, and I am honored to have the opportunity to contribute to this memorial volume. 2

The Songs of Ascents—Historical Backgrounds

Psalms 120–134 all have superscriptions that identify them as “A Song of Ascents.”2 The frequent references to Jerusalem and Zion in the psalms (see Pss 122:1, 6; 125:1, 2; 126:1; 128:5; 129:5; 132:13; 133:3; 134:3) may account for their collective identification. The verbal root of “ascents” is “go up (‫)עלה‬,” and since Jerusalem sits on a hill, no matter where one comes from, one always “goes up” 1  In 11QPsa, the final two psalms of the Songs of Ascents (Pss 133 and 134) are not placed sequentially in the collection, but occur later in the scroll. 2  Ps 121’s superscription is slightly different, reading “A Song for the Going Up (‫)שיר למעלות‬.” Pss 122, 124, 131, and 133 add “of David,” and Ps 127 adds “of Solomon.”

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_011

154

deClaissé-Walford

to Jerusalem. In 1 Kings 12:28, for instance, Jeroboam says to the Israelites, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough.” Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2 envision a time when “Many peoples shall come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord.’” Others suggest that the “ascents” referred to in Psalms 120–134 are the steps of the temple, which Ezekiel calls ‫מעלות‬.” In Ezekiel 40:6, the prophet sees a man going into the gateway of the temple, “going up its steps.”3 The Mishnah states, “fifteen steps led up within [the Court of the Women] to the Court of the Israelites, corresponding to the fifteen songs of the steps in the Psalms, and upon them the Levites used to sing.”4 And, “The Levites on harps, and on lyres, and with cymbals, and with trumpets and with other instruments of music without number upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Women’s Court, corresponding to ‘The Fifteen Songs of Ascents’ in the Psalms; upon them the Levites used to stand with musical instruments and sing hymns.”5 Still others maintain that the superscription “Songs of Ascents” is a reflection of the very structure of the collection’s psalms. Within each psalm, and often as an inclusio around the verses of each psalm, the Songs of Ascents contain verbal “step” connections that move the reciter through the cola and strophes of the psalm.6 The “step connections,” which were most likely fashioned as mnemonic devices, are as follows:

– Psalm 120 – Psalm 121

vv. 2 & 3 vv. 5 & 6 vv. 6 & 7 vv. 2 & 6 vv. 1 & 2 vv. 3 & 4 vv. 4 & 5 vv. 7 & 8 vv. 8 & Ps 122:1

deceitful (‫)רמיה‬ live, dwelling place (‫)ישב‬ peace (‫)שלום‬ soul (‫)נפש‬ my help (‫)עזרי‬ slumber (‫)נום‬ keep (‫)שמר‬ keep (‫)שמר‬ go (‫)בוא‬

3  All scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise indicated. 4  m. Mid. 2:5. Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 592. 5  m. Sukkah 5:4 .Danby, The Mishnah, 180. 6  This idea was first proposed in the early nineteenth century by Wilhelm Gesenius, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Lipsiae: Fr. Chr. Wil. Vogelius, 1839), 1031–32. See the brief discussions in Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion, SBL Dissertation Series 148, ed. Michael V. Fox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 15–18; Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 73–150 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 216–17; and Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 404–5.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 – Psalm 122 vv. 2 & 3 vv. 4 & 5 v. 5 vv. 6, 7, & 8 vv. 8 & 9 vv. 1 & 9 – Psalm 123 vv. 1 & 2 vv. 2 & 3 vv. 3 & 4 – Psalm 124 vv. 1 & 2 vv. 3, 4, & 5 vv. 4 & 5 vv. 4, 5, & 7 v. 7 – Psalm 125 vv. 1 & 2 v. 2 v. 3 – Psalm 126 vv. 1 & 4 vv. 2 & 3 vv. 2, 5, & 6 vv. 5 & 6 – Psalm 127 v. 1 vv. 1 & 2 vv. 3 & 4 vv. 4 & 5 – Psalm 128 vv. 1 & 2 vv. 1 & 4 vv. 2 & 5 vv. 3 & 6 vv. 5 & 6 – Psalm 129 vv. 1 & 2 v. 8 – Psalm 130 vv. 2 v. 5 vv. 5 & 6 v. 6

Jerusalem there (‫)שם‬ thrones (‫ × )כסאות‬2 peace (‫)שלום‬ for the sake of (‫)למען‬ house of the LORD (‫)בית יהוה‬ eyes (‫)עין‬ mercy (‫)חנן‬ greatly (‫ )רב‬and contempt (‫)בוז‬ if it had not been the LORD (‫)לולי יהוה‬ then (‫)אזי‬ flood and raging water (‫)מים‬ soul (‫)נפש‬ gone over (‫)עבר‬ soul (‫)נפש‬ escape (‫)מלט‬ the LORD (‫)יהוה‬ surround (‫)סביב‬ the righteous (‫)צדיק‬ restore (‫)שוב‬ the Lord has done great things (‫)הגדיל‬ shouts of joy (‫)רנה‬ sow (‫)זרע‬ if (‫ )אם‬in vain (‫)שוא‬ guard, watch (‫)שמר‬ in vain (‫)שוא‬ sons (‫)בנים‬ warrior, man (‫ גבור‬,‫)גבר‬ happy (‫)אשרי‬ fear (‫)ירא‬ go well, prosperity (‫)טוב‬ children (‫)בנים‬ Jerusalem often they have attacked me from my youth (‫)רבת צררוני מנעורי‬ bless (‫ × )ברך‬2 voice (‫ × )קול‬2 wait (‫ × )קוה‬2 my soul (‫)נפשי‬ those who watch for the morning (‫)שמרים לבקר‬

155

156 – Psalm 131 – Psalm 132 – Psalm 133 – Psalm 134

deClaissé-Walford vv. 2 & 6 vv. 5 & 7 vv. 3 & 8 vv. 7 & 8 v. 1 v. 2 v. 2 vv. 1, 10, 11 & 17 vv. 2 & 11 vv. 5 & 7 vv. 8 & 14 vv. 9 & 16 vv. 9, 16, & 18 vv. 10 & 11 vv. 10 & 17 vv. 11 & 12 vv. 11 & 12 vv. 12 & 14 vv. 16 & 18 vv. 1 & 2 v. 2 vv. 2 & 3 vv. 1, 2, & 3

the Lord (‫)אדוני‬ hope (‫)יחל‬ iniquity (‫)עון‬ redeem (‫)פדה‬ not (‫)לא‬ like a weaned child (‫ )כגמל‬with (‫ × )על‬2 soul (‫ × )נפשי‬2 David swore (‫)שבע‬ dwelling place (‫)משכנות‬ resting place (‫)מנוחה‬ priests (‫ ;)כהנים‬shout for joy (‫)רנן‬ clothe (‫)לבש‬ turn (‫)שוב‬ anointed one (‫)משיח‬ throne (‫)כסא‬ sons (‫ × )בנים‬3 sit … reside (‫)יבש‬ clothe (‫)לבש‬ good … precious (‫)טוב‬ beard (‫ × )זקן‬2 run down … fall (‫ × )ירד‬3 bless (‫ ;)ברך‬the LORD (‫)יהוה‬

In addition, all of the Songs of Ascents, except Psalm 132, are uniformly brief in comparison to the rest of the psalms in the Psalter, ranging from three to nine verses each in length. According to Erich Zenger, even including Psalm 132, the average length of the Songs of Ascents is 6.7 verses, indicating further that they were meant to be recited from memory, perhaps even “sung to catchy melodies.”7 An interesting aspect of the Songs of Ascents is the wide variety of psalm types included in this relatively small collection—individual and community laments (Pss 120, 123, 126, 130), individual and community hymns (Pss 121, 122, 124, 125, 129, 131, 134, 135, 136), wisdom psalms (Pss 127, 128, 133), and a royal psalm (Ps. 132). The variety of Gattungen represented in the Songs of Ascents troubles many scholars. They question whether such an eclectic mix could ever have been a collection actually used in the life of ancient Israel. Michael Goulder, in The Psalms of the Return, reminds us, however: 7  Frank Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3, Hermeneia, trans. Linda M. Maloney, ed. Klaus Baltzer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 295.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

157

Why should we think that a collection of psalms is not a unity because it contains pieces from different Gattungen? Have such critics never attended a church service that began with a confession, included lessons of instruction, hymns of praise and prayers, and ended perhaps with the General Thanksgiving?8 Whatever their origins, these “pilgrim” songs became part of a number of festal celebrations in Jerusalem. The Songs of Ascents are the psalms traditionally recited at the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths or Sukkoth) in the Autumn of the year. The Feast of Tabernacles commemorates God’s care for the Israelites during the time of the Wilderness Wanderings, reinforcing the “pilgrimage” theme of the Songs of Ascents. The seven psalms preceding the Songs of Ascents are also used at festal celebrations. Psalms 113–118, the Egyptian Hallel Psalms, are recited during the spring Passover celebration, while Psalm 119 is read at the Feast of Pentecost, which occurs on the fiftieth day after Passover. The concentration of festival psalms in the middle of Book Five suggests the intentional shaping of a collection of festal psalms in this portion of the Psalter.9 3

The “Shape” of 11QPsa

According to Peter Flint, forty-two psalm scrolls have been identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from the mid-second century BCE to 50–68 CE. By far the largest of the scrolls is 11QPsa, followed by 4QPsa, 5/6HevPs, 4QPsb, 4QPsc, and 4QPse.10 11QPsa was discovered in 1954 by Arab Bedouin of the same tribe that discovered the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Spring of 1947. In November of 1961, James A. Sanders unrolled the scroll at the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. It consists of five connected leather sheets, and together with five fragments (A, B, C, D, and E) contains the remnants of thirty-four columns. Its original width is estimated to have been nine to ten inches, but in its current condition of decay the width varies from six to seven inches, with the bottom portion of each column missing. It measures about thirteen and a half feet in length, but some scholars speculate that it originally might have been as long as the Isaiah scroll from Cave 1, which 8  Michael Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150). JSOT Supplement Series 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 24. 9  For a detailed discussion of the many proposed origins of the Songs of Ascents, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 287–95. 10  Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Core Biblical Studies, ed. Louis Stulman (Nashville: Abingdon, 2013), 61.

158

deClaissé-Walford

measures twenty-four feet. Patrick Skehan maintains, however, that 11QPsa originally began with Psalm 101.11 Based on paleographic evidence, the scroll dates to the mid-first century CE.12 4

The Content of the Scroll

The extant compositions on 11QPsa are as follows: 101; 102:1–2, 18–29; 103:1; 109:21–31; 118:25–29; 104:1–6, 21–35; 147:1–2, 18–20; 105:1–11, 25–35, 38–39, 41–42, 44–45; 146:9–10; 148:1–13; 121; 122; 123:1–2; 124:7– 8; 125; 126; 127:1; 128:3–6; 129; 130; 131:1; 132:8–18; 119:1–6, 15–28, 37–49, 59–72, 82–96, 105–120, 128–142, 150–164, 171–176; 135:1–9, 17–21; 136:1–26; 118:1, 15–16, 8–9, 29; 145:1–7, 12–21; Apocryphal Psalm 154:3–19; Non-canonical Psalm “Plea for Deliverance”; 139:8–24; 137:1, 9; 138; Ben Sirach 51:13–23, 30; Non-canonical Psalm “Apostrophe to Zion”; 93:1–3; 141:5–10; 133:1–3; 144:1– 7, 15; Apocryphal Psalm 155; 142:3–7; 143:1–8; 149:7–9; 150; Non-canonical Psalm “Hymn to the Creator”; 2 Samuel 23:7; Non-canonical prose section “David’s Compositions”; 140:1–4; 134:1–3; Apocryphal Psalm 151a; Apocryphal Psalm 151b:113 The scroll contains portions of thirty-nine Masoretic Text psalms and ten other compositions, six of which were previously known to scholars (Psalms 151A, 151B, 154, and 155; 2 Samuel 23; and Ben Sirach 51) and four previously unknown (Plea for Deliverance; Apostrophe to Zion; Hymn to the Creator; and David’s Compositions). 5

Notes Concerning the Content of the Scroll

A few notes regarding the content of the scroll that will be pertinent to the discussion later in the chapter are required. First, while Psalm 120, the first of 11  See Patrick Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” in Qumrân. Piété, sa théologie et son milieu, BETL 46, ed. M. Delcor (Paris: Duculot, 1978), 169–70; and Peter W. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XVII (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 40–41, 189. 12  James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), 6; and James A. Sanders, “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa),” Harvard Theological Review 59/1 (1966): 83. 13  http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll11Q5.htm. Accessed July 9, 2018.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

159

the MT Songs of Ascents is not extant in 11QPsa, its position between Psalms 148 and 121 is widely accepted. Second, Peter Flint, in his 1997 work, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the Book of Psalms, suggests that the missing columns between Psalm 109 and 118 in 11QPsa contained Psalms 110 and 113–117. Flint bases his supposition on the work of Patrick Skehan, who first argued for their inclusion based on liturgical considerations and on his own computerized assessment of the spacing and on the content of 4QPse, which is textually affiliated with 11QPsa and contains parts of Psalms 113–118.14 Third, as stated in the introductory words, while the last two psalms in the MT collection designated “Songs of Ascents,” Psalms 133 and 134, are included in 11QPsa, they are not attached to the collection but occur later in the scroll.15 And, fourth, and most pertinent to the subject of this chapter, Psalm 119 occurs after the Songs of Ascents collection in 11QPsa rather than before it as we find in the MT. 6

The Written Shape of the Scroll

The various Dead Sea psalm scrolls display an interesting mix of methods of rendering the poetic texts of the psalms. Ten of the scrolls present the psalms stichometrically,16 while twenty-one are written in prose format.17 11QPsa, uniquely, presents all of its compositions in prose format except one. Psalm 119 is the only psalm on the scroll written stichometrically. While its acrostic nature may be one avenue of explanation for its unique format, the acrostic Psalm 145 in 11QPsa is not written in stichometric format, in spite of or perhaps because of its liturgical refrain that is not included in the MT Psalm 145.18 Three other acrostic compositions in 11QPsa, Ben Sirach 51, the Apostrophe to Zion and Psalm 155, are also not presented in stichometric form. Additionally, of the five Dead Sea scrolls that include Psalm 119–1QPsa, 4QPsg, 4QPsh, 5QPs, 14  Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 41, 189–91; and Patrick Skehan, “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1973): 196, 201 n. 24. 15  See Ryan M. Armstrong, “Psalms Dwelling Together in Unity: The Placement of Psalms 133 and 134 in Two Different Psalms Collections,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 3 (2012): 487–506. 16  1QPsa, 3QPs, 4QPsb, 4QPsc, 4QPsg, 4QPsh, 4QPsl, 5QPs, 8QPs, and MasPsa. See Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Vetus Testamentum XLVIII, 4 (1998): 455. 17  1QPsb, 1QPsc, 2QPs, 6QpapPs, 4QPsa, 4QPse, 4QPsf, 4QPsj, 4QPsk, 4QPsm, 4QPsn, 4QPso, 4QPsp, 4QPsq, 4QPsr, 4QPss, 4QPsw, 4Q522, 11QPsb, 11QPsc, and 11QPsd. See Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 455. 18  Each verse of Ps 145 in 11QPsa includes the refrain, “Blessed be the LORD and blessed be his name forever and ever.”

160

deClaissé-Walford

11QPsa, and 11QPsb—all except 11QPsb present Psalm 119 in stichometric format. 11QPsb, though, only incorporates verses 163–165 of the psalm, which is not a full acrostic strophe. 7

The Emphasis on David

A number of scholars have cited a marked emphasis on David in 11QPsa by the arrangement of the psalms known from the MT in, according the Gerald Wilson, “a new and unexpected order,” and including a number of Non-MT Psalter compositions.19 Wilson further notes that the “masoretic psalms not included in the Psalms Scroll may assume as much significance as the list of apocryphal compositions not found in the Masoretic Psalter.”20 First, while all of the MT psalms found in 11QPsa are found in Books IV and V of the MT Psalter, many significant psalms from Books IV and V are not included. 11QPsa includes Psalm 93 (a YHWH malak Enthronement psalm), but it does not include the remaining Enthronement Psalms (94–99), which Wilson has argued form the “editorial heart” of the final form the MT Psalter.21 Further, 11QPsa does not include Psalms 90–92, with their focus on Moses and the sovereignty of Yahweh rather than a human king in the premonarchic period of ancient Israel, and it does not include Psalms 106–108, which, according to Gerald Wilson, address the failure of the Davidic monarchy.22 Finally, while Peter Flint and Patrick Skehan suggest Psalms 113–117 (the Egyptian Hallel) were originally included in 11QPsa,23 their findings are not widely accepted,24 and the exclusion of these psalms from the scroll further suggests the de-emphasis on premonarchic themes in 11QPsa. Second, the Non-MT Psalter compositions included in 11QPsa evince a marked emphasis on David and his wisdom, his prophetic character, and his role as sovereign ruler. 11QPsa ends with four Non-MT compositions: 2 Samuel 23, “David’s Compositions,” Psalm 151A, and Psalm 151B, all of which focus on 19  Gerald H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 449. 20  Wilson “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 451. 21  See Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBL Dissertation Series 76, ed. J. J. M. Roberts (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 214–19; and Wilson “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 453. 22  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 453. 23  See above, under “Notes Concerning the Content of 11QPsa”; Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 41, 189–91; and Skehan, “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa,” 196, 201 n. 24. 24  See Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 453.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

161

the person of David. Second Samuel 23 describes David as God’s anointed, who rules over the people in the fear (‫ )ירא‬of God, and with whom God made an everlasting covenant (2 Sam 23:1, 3, 5). Psalm 155A, superscripted as “A Hallelujah of David the Son of Jesse,” celebrates the anointing of David as leader of God’s people and “ruler over the sons of his covenant.”25 In lines 1–3 and 11 of “David’s Compositions,” we find the following words: 1 And David … was wise (‫)חכם‬, and a light like the light of the sun … 2 and discerning (‫ )בין‬and perfect (‫ )תמים‬in all his ways before God and men, and the Lord gave 3 him a discerning (‫ )בין‬and enlightened (‫ )אורה‬spirit … 11 All these he composed through prophecy (‫… )נביאה‬26 Psalm 154, Ben Sirach 51, and the Hymn to the Creator are classified broadly as wisdom compositions, while the Apostrophe to Zion is an acrostic in the wisdom tradition. Thus we find that in the closing portion of 11QPsa, David is the wise and prophetic ruler, chosen by God and promised an everlasting covenant. Third, the “new and unexpected order” of MT psalms in 11QPsa may be partially explained according to Peter Flint as follows: “by dispersing titled Davidic Psalms among untitled ones, the compiler of 11QPsa has succeeded in permeating the entire collection with a Davidic character and in giving ‘orphan’ Psalms a Davidic home.”27 Two examples that are especially pertinent to this study are the relocation of Psalms 133 and 134, the final two Songs of Ascents in the MT Psalter. Psalm 132, with its strong emphasis on David (vv. 1, 10, 11, and 17), seemed a fitting conclusion to the Songs of Ascents in 11QPsa, allowing for the redistribution of Psalms 133 and 134. Psalm 133 with it Davidic superscription, was placed second in a group of six psalms (141, 133, 144, 155, 142, 143) that Flint calls “Mostly Supplication,” thus framing the two psalms without superscriptions (144 and 155) with psalms attributed to David (141, 133, 142, and 143).

25  Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 97. 26  Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 136–37. D. Andrew Teeter, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 263–64, maintains that “David’s Compositions” is modeled on the praise of Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:9–14 and “profoundly” influenced by the Chronicler’s handling of David and Solomon. 27  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 194.

162

deClaissé-Walford

Psalm 134, a Song of Ascents not ascribed to David, was placed in the middle of a cluster of psalms of David (David’s Compositions, 140, 134, 151A, 151B).28 While the deterioration of the bottom portion of 11QPsa renders determining the superscriptions of many psalms on the scroll problematic, a considerable number are extant and according to Gerald Wilson, numerous others have been restored based on spatial considerations.29 In summary, 11QPsa opens with Psalm 101, ascribed to David, and ends with Psalms 151A and 151B, both ascribed to David, and 31.1% of the psalms in 11QPsa are attributed to David in comparison to 27.8% in Books IV and V of the MT Psalter.30 Andrew Teeter maintains, “It [11QPsa] appears to represent a discreet, purposeful compositional unity with a carefully planned literary structure and aim of its own.”31 Gerald Wilson offers these summary words: It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that the intent of the editors was to cast an aura of Davidic authority over the whole text by expanding Davidic superscriptions, by distributing Davidic psalms throughout the collection, and above all by including the prose composition praising David’s role as psalmist extraordinary.32 8

Wisdom, Torah, and David

Numerous MT biblical texts, along with the apocryphal work Ben Sira and 11QPsa, provide passages connecting wisdom and Torah. In Deut 4:5–6, Moses says to the people, “See, just as the LORD my God has charged me, I now teach you statutes (‫ )חק‬and ordinances (‫)משפט‬33 for you to observe in the land you

28  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 193–94. See also the extensive treatment of Psalms 133 and 134 in 11QPsa by Armstrong, “Psalms Dwelling Together in Unity,” 487–506, who states on p. 494, “Given that the scroll retains the Ascents collection in order, as well as the position of Psalms 135–136, it is surprising that Psalm 134 is broken off from an otherwise intact unit and replaced by Psalm 119. It would seem that the compiler of the scroll had a different purpose for Psalm 134.” In addition, the redistribution of Pss 133 and 134 renders Ps 132, with its strong emphasis on David, the direct lead-in to Ps 119. See the section “A Rationale for the Placement of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119” below. 29  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 456. 30  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 454. 31  Teeter, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture,” 260. 32  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 456. 33  Statutes (‫ )חק‬and ordinances (‫ )משפט‬are two of the seven words used interchangeably in Ps 119 to refer to Torah (‫)תורה‬.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

163

are about to occupy. You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom (‫)חכמה‬and discernment (‫)בין‬.” Jeremiah asks in 8:8, “How can you say, ‘We are wise (‫)חכם‬, and the law (‫ )תורה‬of the LORD is with us,’ when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it a lie?” Psalms 1 and 119 both begin with the wisdom word “happy” (‫)אשרי‬. Psalm 1 expounds the delights of “meditating” (‫ )הגה‬on the Torah, while Psalm 119 is a massive wisdom acrostic ode to the virtues of Torah. In Ben Sira, chapter 24, wisdom tells of her journey to find a dwelling place and that she was commanded by God to make her tent in Israel (vv. 3–8); the narrator then declares, “All this is the book of covenant of the Most High God, the law (νομος) that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob (v. 23). And Psalm 154 in 11QPsa depicts wisdom, personified as a woman, celebrating those who meditate on the “law of the Most High.” 11QPsa connects David with wisdom, as we see in “David’s Compositions,” while the other Non-MT Psalter compositions in the scroll—Psalm 154, Ben Sirach 51, the Hymn to the Creator, and the Apostrophe to Zion—give the scroll a marked wisdom emphasis. Teeter contends that the singer of Psalm 155, who asks in line 8, “Grant me understanding, O Lord, in your law, and teach me your ordinances,” is David; and further, that David is the one seeking wisdom, the embodiment of Torah, in Ben Sira 51, thereby connecting David not only with Wisdom, but with Torah.34 We will return to these observations about the “shape” of 11QPsa in the final section of the chapter. 9

The Status of 11QPsa

A question pertinent to this study of the placement of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in 11QPsa is that of the status of the scroll for the Dead Sea community. William Yarkin, in a 2015 article in The Journal of Biblical Literature, articulates well the major issue surrounding the question of the status of 11QPsa. He writes: Scholarly debate over the question has proceeded on the assumption that there exists a standard 150—psalm seper tehillim of the configuration found in the Second Rabbinic Bible and reproduced in all subsequent printings of the Hebrew Bible to the present day. The question

34  Teeter, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture,” 262, 265.

164

deClaissé-Walford

about scrolls from Qumran containing psalms, then, has been framed with reference to this presumed standard Hebrew Psalter.35 Evidence exists from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the community considered the psalms a key component of their authoritative texts. 4QMMT (4Q397) states, “… to you we have wr[itten] that you must understand the book of Moses [and the words of the] prophets and of David [and the annals] [of eac]h generation.”36 In addition, Peter Flint points out that the War Scroll (4Q491) refers to the Psalter as a book (‫)ספר התהלים‬.37 While the above references indicate the idea of a three-fold (or perhaps four-fold) collection of authoritative texts at the Dead Sea and a recognition of a ‫ספר התהלים‬, they do not directly answer the question concerning the authoritative status of 11QPsa for the Dead Sea Community. Writing in the 1960s, Shemaryahu Talmon and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein maintained that 11QPsa, with its “unorthodox arrangement of the canonical psalms” and “numerous noncanonical interpolations,” resembles not so much a canonical book of Psalms as “a synagogue Psalter, [or] an incipient prayer book.”38 In a 1978 article, Patrick Skehan described 11QPsa as a “library edition” of psalms arranged after the fixing of the MT Psalter sometime in the fourth century BCE.39 Skehan’s date for the fixing of the MT Psalter was significantly challenged by the seminal work of Gerald Wilson. In The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, Wilson convincingly argues that Books I–III of the MT-Psalter were stabilized earlier than Books IV and V.40 The findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly 4QPsa and 11QPsa, were a significant part of the formulation of his argument. 4QPsa, which dates to the second century BCE, contains portions of Psalms 35  William Yarkin, “Were the Psalm Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” Journal of Biblical Literature 134/4 (2015): 775. 36  Flint, “The Book of Psalms in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 467. Translation from Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 84, Frags 7 + 8: lines 10 and 11. 37  Flint, “The Book of Psalms in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 468. Frag. 17, line 4. 38  Shemaryahu Talmon, “Pisqah Be’emsa‘ Pasuq and 11QPsa,” Textus 5 (1966): 12–13; and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Cited in Yarkin, “Were the Psalm Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” 777. 39  Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” 172. Cited in Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 69–70. 40  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. See also Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997); and Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2004).

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

165

5–69 in the following order, suggesting a measure of stabilization for at least Books I and II by this time: 5:9–13; 6:2, 4, 6; 25:8, 10, 12, 15; 31:23–24; 33:2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 21; 34:1, 21– 22; 35:2, 13–18, 20; 26–27; 36:1, 3, 5–7, 9; 38:2, 4, 6, 8–10, 12, 14, 16–23; 71:1–14; 47:2; 53: 2, 4–5, 7; 54:2–3, 5–6; 56:4; 62:13; 63:2, 4; 66:16, 18–20; 67:1–2, 4–8; 69:1–1941 On the other hand, while 11QPsa contains a significant number of psalms from the MT Psalter Books IV and V (33 of the 60), except for the Songs of Ascents (Pss 120–132) they appear in a significantly different order. The overwhelming preponderance of MT psalms found among the Dead Sea psalm scrolls—123 of the 150 MT psalms—indicates a strong tradition of psalms circulating in the second and first centuries, BCE, and, interestingly, only five of the sixty psalms in Books IV and V of the MT Psalter do not occur in the Dead Sea scrolls.42 In a 1966 article, James Sanders states that all of the MT “Psalter material” in 11QPsa comes from Books IV and V of the MT Psalter and “while it is certainly not in traditional order, its fluidity is amenable to more than one explanation … either as unique and at some limited variance with a generally accepted order; or as a ‘local text,’ representing a limited but valid Psalter tradition.”43 Further, he maintained that the order of psalmic texts on another scroll discovered in Cave 11, a fragment of three columns designated 11QPsb, was evidence of an established Qumran Psalter tradition.44 The order of texts on the scroll is: 77:18–21; 78:1; 119:163–165; 118:1, 15–16 (with no verses between 118:1 and 118:15); unknown psalm with plea for deliverance; Apostrophe to Zion; 141:10; 133:1–3; 144:1–2, 4; 109:2–4.45

41  http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q83.htm. Accessed July 9, 2018. 42  The missing psalms are 1, 3, 4, 20, 21, 32, 41, 46, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 90, 108, 110, 111, and 117. See James Vanderkam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (New York: Harper Collins, 2004), 419–22. Sanders, in “Variorum,” 87, states, “The order in 4QPsa, of Ps. 71 immediately after Ps. 38, is probably explained by the great similarity that exists between Pss. 38 and 70, so that the scribe had in mind the sequence Pss 70–71.” He further cites P. W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4 (1957): 154. 43  Sanders, “Variorum,” 88–89. 44  James Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” McCormick Quarterly Review 21 (1968): 287. 45  http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll11Q6.htm. Accessed July 9, 2018.

166

deClaissé-Walford

11QPsb corresponds to 11QPsa in its presentation of Psalm 118 and the ordering of Psalms 141, 133, and 144 after Apostrophe to Zion (though Ps 93 is missing in 11QPsb). Sanders writes, “the sum of it is that our surprising Cave 11 contained two copies of the one really imposing witness to the Hebrew Psalter in pre-Masoretic times.”46 In addition, 4QPse provides further evidence of the accepted order of psalms in 11QPsa. The order of psalms on the scroll is: 76:10–12; 77:1; 78:6–7, 31–33; 81:2–3; 86:10–11; 88:1–5; 89:44–48, 50–53; 103:22; 109:1, 8, 13–14; 114:5; 115:15–18; 116:1–4; 118:29; 104:1–3, 20–22; 105:1–3, 23–25, 36–45; 106:1; 120:5–7; 125:1–5; 126:1–6; 129:8; 130:1–7.47 4QPse corresponds to 11QPsa in its ordering of Pss 103, 109, 118, 104, 105, 120, 125, 126, 129, and 130.48 Sanders concludes, “All in all, it seems best … to think of the Psalms Scroll [11QPsa] not as a deviation from a rigidly fixed canon of the latter third of the Psalter, but rather as a sign-post in the multi-faceted history of the canonization of the Psalter.”49 In his 1997 work, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Peter Flint postulated “The Qumran Psalms Hypothesis,” which may be summarized as follows: – 4QMMT (4Q397) and the War Scroll (4Q491) indicate that the Dead Sea community considered the psalms to be a key component of their authoritative texts. – The order and arrangement of psalms in 11QPsa is represented by at least three manuscripts: 11QPsa, 11QPsb, and 4QPse, suggesting that it was an “edition” used frequently by the Dead Sea community and was authoritative for them. – The strong Davidic emphasis in the final two inscribed columns of 11QPsa, as well as the distribution of Davidic psalms throughout the scroll strongly supports the idea that the community considered it a true “Davidic Psalter.” – Gerald Wilson, in The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, has shown that the organizing principles behind some groupings of psalms in 11QPsa are similar to those of Books IV and V of the MT Psalter.

46  James A. Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” 288. 47  http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q87.htm. Accessed July 15, 2018. 48  See Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 155, where he maintains that Ps 146 follows Ps 105. 49  Sanders, “Variorum,” 89. See a similar discussion in Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 13. In “Cave 11 Surprises,” 287, Sanders states that because of the similarities in order and content between 11QPsa and 11QPsb (4QPse had not been fully studied at the time) “it proves at the very least that the recension of psalms to which they witness was not a private or maverick collection.”

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

167

– Finally, attempts by scholars to demonstrate that 11QPsa is not a true scriptural Psalter, but is rather a secondary composition, are untenable because they begin with an unsubstantiated premise that the MT Psalter was finalized well before the second century BCE.50 Emanuel Tov maintains that multiple text forms existed alongside the protoMT Psalter prior to the time it was fixed in form, and states that the eventual priority of the MT Psalter was “merely the result of historical events.”51 William Yarkin states, “Tov’s … argument suggests that the eventual dominance of the MT does not preclude scriptural writings having circulated among ancient Jewish communities in multiple contemporary editions.”52 A Rationale for the Placement of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119 in 11QPsa We come now to the crux, the focus of this chapter—the rationale for the placement in 11QPsa of Psalm 119 after the Song of Ascents Psalm 132. We have observed the following about 11QPsa thus far in the chapter: – 11QPsa contains portions of thirty-nine MT Psalter psalms presented in, according to Gerald Wilson, a “new and unexpected order,”53 along with ten other compositions. – The collection called “The Songs of Ascents” occurs in 11QPsa in its MT Psalter order, except for Psalms 133 and 134, which occur later in 11QPsa. – Whereas Psalm 119 occurs before the Songs of Ascents in the MT and LXX Psalters, it occurs after Psalm 132 in 11QPsa. – Psalm 119 is the only acrostic composition presented stichometrically in 11QPsa, while the other four acrostics in the scroll are presented in prose format. – 11QPsa evinces a marked emphasis on David, including his wisdom, his prophetic character, and his role as sovereign ruler: – It does not include Psalm 94–99, called the YHWH malak psalms. – It does not include Psalms 106–108, which, according to Gerald Wilson, address the failure of the Davidic monarchy.54 9.1

50  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 218–27. 51  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd and exp. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 179. 52  Yarkin, “Were the Psalm Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” 778. Yarkin reminds us, however, that Tov, despite his assessment of multiple text forms, regarded 11QPsa as a liturgical collection rather than scriptural, “Were the Psalm Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” 778, fn. 13. 53  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 449. 54  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 453.

168

deClaissé-Walford

– It includes 2 Samuel 23, which describes David as God’s anointed; “­Da­vid’s Compositions,” which characterizes David as wise, ­discerning, and perfect, and who composed the psalms through prophecy; and Psalms 151A and 151B, which celebrate David as “ruler over the sons of his covenant.” – 11QPsa has “rearranged” psalms from Books IV and V of the MT Psalter so that psalms attributed to David permeate the scroll, giving it a Davidic character.55 – The omission of the “Yahweh malak” Psalms 94–99 (God is king) in 11QPsa and the enhanced role of a Messiah of the Davidic line (a Davidic king) produces a different theological reading of the 11QPsa Psalter than the MT Psalter. – While the connection between wisdom and Torah is firmly established in the MT biblical texts and the apocryphal work of Ben Sira, 11QPsa links wisdom with David and then David to Torah. – The status of 11QPsa in the Dead Sea community is widely agreed upon, and in the words of James Sanders, “All in all, it seems best … to think of the Psalms Scroll [11QPsa] not as a deviation from a rigidly fixed canon of the latter third of the Psalter, but rather as a sign-post in the multi-faceted history of the canonization of the Psalter.”56 In 11QPsa, the grouping of the Songs of Ascents follows directly after Psalm 148, which states in vv. 9–13: Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars! Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds! Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth! Young men and women alike, old and young together! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven. It seems logical to assume that the final verse of Psalm 148 was included at the end of column II (recall the notice in section 3 The “Shape” of 11QPsa, above, regarding the deteriorated lower half of the scroll). It reads: He has raised up a horn for his people, praise for all his faithful, for the people of Israel who are close to him. Praise the LORD!

55  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 193–94. 56  Sanders, “Variorum,” 89.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

169

Thus, in the psalm preceding the Songs of Ascents, all creation and all peoples are called together to praise God, with a promise that God has raised up a “horn” for his people. Psalms 120–132 follow, pilgrimage songs most likely used in the life of ancient Israel during certain festival times. Their frequent references to Jerusalem and Zion (Pss 122:1, 6; 125:1, 2; 126:1; 128:5; 129:5; 132:13) seem to indicate that the goal of the pilgrimages was a gathering in Jerusalem at the Temple. Interestingly, Psalms 133 and 134, the final Songs of Ascents in the MT Psalter are not included at the end of the collection in 11QPsa, but occur elsewhere on the scroll, rendering Psalm 132, with its emphasis on David, Zion as the “resting place” of Yahweh, and the promised “horn” for David who is God’s anointed one. The wisdom acrostic Psalm 119 follows Psalm 132. It is the only psalm on the 11QPsa scroll that is written stichometrically, although it is not the only acrostic composition on the scroll, suggesting that it is the centerpiece, the focus, of 11QPsa.57 Thus the figure of David, the focus of Psalm 132 and the promised Messiah of Israel, leads the people in a wisdom-shaped celebration of Torah. The biblical text connects wisdom with Torah (Deut 4:5–6; Jer 8:8; Pss 1 and 119; and Ben Sira 24:3–8, 23). Psalm 154 in 11QPsa depicts wisdom celebrating those who meditate on the Torah, while “David’s Compositions,” lines 1–3 and 11, connects David with wisdom. Further, Andrew Teeter suggests that the speaker of Psalm 155, who is seeking wisdom, be understood as David as well as the young man seeking wisdom in Ben Sira 51. Immediately following Psalm 119 in 11QPsa is Psalm 135, which continues the theme of praising Yahweh in “the house of the LORD, in the courts of the house of our God” (v. 2), and concludes with the words, “Blessed be the LORD from Zion, he who resides in Jerusalem” (v. 21). Thus, we may conclude the following about the “shaping” of 11QPsa and its placement of Psalm 119. 11QPsa is crafted as a celebration of the role of the horn of David, God’s anointed Messiah, in a return to Jerusalem, the chosen dwelling place of Yahweh. In Jerusalem, diligent observance of the Torah could be pursued and proper Temple worship restored. Gerald Wilson maintains that in 11QPsa, Psalm 119 is the culmination of fervent pilgrimage and states, “Rather than Torah precipitating pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the temple, pilgrimage, in effect, leads to the Torah.”58 And Andrew Teeter contends: … the Davidic collection of ascent psalms concludes with Ps 119—they arrive, so to speak, at the destination of Torah. Thus, rather than ascent to 57  See Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 225; and Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 464. 58  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll,” 460.

170

deClaissé-Walford

the temple, in this composition the ascent psalms can be seen as culminating in torah study.59 Psalm 148 calls on all creation—mountains and fruit trees, cattle and flying birds, kings and princes, women and men, young and old—to join in praise to Yahweh who has raised up a horn, an anointed one, a Messiah, from the line of David. The Songs of Ascents (Pss 120–132) lead the people to Jerusalem, described in Psalm 132 as the chosen resting place of Yahweh and the place from which the horn for David will sprout up. There the anointed one will lead all peoples in a celebration of the Torah, diligent observance of which will restore proper temple worship and result in the culmination of the divine, deterministic plan of Yahweh for the world. Bibliography Armstrong, Ryan. “Psalms Dwelling Together in Unity: The Placement of Psalms 133 and 134 in Two Different Psalms Collections.” JBL 131 (2013): 487–506. Clifford, Richard J. Psalms 73–150. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Crow, Loren D. The Psalms of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. SBLDS 148. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Davidson, Robert. The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel. St. Louis: Chalice, 2004. Elledge, C.D. Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Understanding Qumran and Its Literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” VT XLVIII, 4 (1998): 453–72. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Core Biblical Studies. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Vogelius, 1839.

59  Teeter, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture,” 265.

An Examination of the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 119

171

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Goulder, Michael. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150). JSOTSup 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Hossfeld, Frank Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 3. Hermeneia. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Millard, Matthias. De Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz. FAT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Sanders, James A. “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).” Harvard Theological Review 59/1 (1966): 83–94. Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Sanders, James A. “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon.” McCormick Quarterly Review 21 (1968): 284–98. Skehan, Patrick. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism.” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4 (1957): 148–60. Skehan, Patrick. “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1973): 195–205. Skehan, Patrick. “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism.” In Qumrân. Piété, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Edited by M. Delcor. Paris: Duculot, 1978. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Pisqah Beʾemsaʿ Pasuq and 11QPsa.” Textus 5 (1966): 12–13. Teeter, D. Andrew. “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective.” Pages 233–72 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd and exp. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. VanderKam, James, and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–64. Yarkin, William. “Were the Psalm Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” JBL 13 (2015): 775–89.

Part 4 Scribal Practice

∵

Chapter 10

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme Martin Abegg During the preparation of the Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance III: The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert,1 Peter Flint, my long time next-door-officeneighbor and friend, was working with Eugene Ulrich on the final volume of DJD, the Cave 1 scrolls of Isaiah. Peter and Gene graciously invited me to contribute a study to their volume on the language of the Isaiah scrolls.2 As a result, as I worked on the concordance, I began to document systematically the repeated variables in the corpus of the DSS Biblical manuscripts in order to gain a fuller perspective on the nature of the language of the Isaiah scrolls. In an article which preceded this current study I once again took advantage of this documentation to examine the scribal profile of the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical corpus.3 This article ended with a discussion of several matters for future investigation, the last of these being “a study of the non-biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert with a similar approach.”4 The invitation to contribute to this memorial volume to honor my long-time friend and colleague Peter Flint (‫ )ז״ל‬has provided an appropriate opportunity to pursue such a study. In the article describing the scribal profile of the biblical scrolls I recounted how a conversation with one of Peter’s students had prompted the production of a graph documenting the scribal character of the fifty largest biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert discoveries. This graph (see Figure 10.1) was based on a group of thirty tables that I had created as I prepared the concordance of the biblical corpus from the Judean Desert.5 The components documented in these tables ranged from repeated variants in the DSS manuscripts as compared with MT (e.g. the presence or absence of the direct object marker) 1  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert, vol. 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 2  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” in The Isaiah Scrolls Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants, vol. 2 of Qumran Cave 1, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, DJD 32 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2010), 25–42. 3  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Scribal Practice and the Pony in the Manure Pile,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. Andrew B. Perrin et al., EJL 36 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 65–88. 4  Abegg, “Scribal Practice,” 87. 5  Abegg et al., The Biblical Texts.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_012

176

Abegg

1.2 11QPsa

Variances/total words

1 0.8

0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Manuscripts

Figure 10.1

Variability in the 50 largest biblical manuscripts

to the orthographic and morphological characteristics common among many of the Qumran manuscripts with a focus on variables found in 11QPsa. The rather primitive graph of the profile of the 50 largest manuscripts clearly evidences a sharp upturn in variability among a select group of manuscripts at the right hand side of the graph, with the manuscript that had originally piqued the student’s interest—11QPsa—at the peak of the curve.6 Intrigued by the results of this initial investigation I expanded the basis of the study to the entire biblical corpus and expanded on the original thirty components found in 11QPsa to include variables found elsewhere, for a total of forty-two components.7 I then set out to determine whether these forty-two components increased proportionately from left to right across the rising curve of the graph. I was rather surprised to discover that instead of a proportionate rise the study revealed a set of nineteen components that occurred almost entirely at the far right side of the graph.8 These components were solely responsible for the sharp upturn in the graph. They were, with minor variation,9 6  Variability on the vertical axis is based on the frequency of the variables in each manuscript. The resultant figures have been normalized to a unit scale with 11QPsa as 1.0. 7  It is impossible to include all the data that informs this study in the space available. Nor would this be practical given the nearly 14,000 cells in the Excel spreadsheet for the nonbiblical data alone, and the 12,000 manuscript references reflected there. I would be pleased to make my data available to any researcher that might want probe this data further. 8  For the details and graph illustrating this see Abegg, Scribal Practice, 73–74. 9  I added spelling of the names ‫ירושלים‬, ‫דויד‬, and the “pausal” qal imperative and removed the third masculine plural pronoun, ‫המה‬.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

177

identical to the features of Emanuel Tov’s Qumran Scribal Practice (QSP).10 In essence I had rediscovered QSP by an independent means. Full orthography: ‫כול‬ Full orthography: ‫לוא‬ Full orthography: ‫ירושלים‬ Full orthography: ‫דויד‬ Full orthography: ‫מושה‬ Full orthography: ‫זאות‬ Full orthography: ‫כיא‬ Full orthography: ‫כוה‬ Long 2ms perfect: ‫קטלתה‬ Long 2mp perfect: ‫קטלתמה‬ Long 3fs pronoun: ‫היאה‬ Long 3ms pronoun: ‫הואה‬ Long 2mp pronoun: ‫אתמה‬ Long 2ms suffix: ‫כה‬Long 2mp suffix: ‫כמה‬Long 3mp suffix: ‫מה‬/-‫המה‬“Adverbial” he: ‫מאודה‬ “Pausal” qal imperfect: ‫יקטולו‬ “Pausal” qal imperative: ‫קטולו‬ The article based on this initial study went on to review Tov’s list of biblical manuscripts which evidence QSP, adding an additional seventeen documents.11 I also proposed a QSP ranking system for the biblical manuscripts that was based on the frequency of occurrence of the nineteen components I had isolated. Following in the wake of my initial biblical study, I yielded to my own challenge and began documenting the data related to the nineteen components among the non-biblical corpus from the Dead Sea Scrolls. While doing so I became aware of two necessary course corrections to the methodology of my biblical study. The first correction is related to the method I used to compute the QSP ranking. In the initial study the ranking was based on the frequency 10  Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 337–43. For a detailed discussion of these components see Abegg, Scribal Practice, 71–73, and E. Tov, “Scribal Practices and Approaches Revisited,” HeBAI 3 (2014): 372–73. 11  Abegg, Scribal Practice, 79–81.

178

Abegg

of the QSP components in each manuscript and normalized to ten based on the number of occurrences in 4Q128 (4QPhyl A), the manuscript that had the greatest frequency of QSP among the 50 largest biblical manuscripts (i.e. the rank 4Q128 was 10). This method proved problematic for two reasons. The first is glaringly evident in my initial study as there were smaller manuscripts, which were introduced as the study moved beyond the fifty largest biblical manuscripts, that had a greater frequency of the nineteen QSP components than 4Q128 and thus received a ranking greater than 10 (e.g. 4Q139 at 12.6!). More significant is the fact that a manuscript by the very nature of its textual remains and/or subject matter might be ranked higher—though relatively inconsistent—because of the greater frequency of potential variables,12 or lower—despite a relative consistency—because of the lower frequency of potential variables.13 Although the analysis of the data in the first study produced useful results, this problem begged for a solution. So for this study I have added an additional element to the data set, “Potential Variables,” and calculated the rank by dividing the number of actual variable words by the number of potential variable words, with a ranking of 10 (100%) being totally consistent, that is, every word that could display a QSP form actually does. This new method of computing the QSP rank solved both the “greater than 10” issue14 and accounted for the variable presence of QSP opportunities.15 Another necessary corrective that became evident while documenting the occurrences of the 19 QSP components among the non-biblical texts concerns the fitness of the two orthographic components that I had added to Tov’s list in the previous article, namely the plene spellings of the proper names ‫ דויד‬and 12  As an example, 4Q143, with seven instances of QSP (of eleven possibilities) among only forty-five words, was ranked 9.2 in the previous article and 6.4 when the ranking is instead determined by consistency. 13  As an example, 4Q113, with only eight instances of QSP (of 12 possibilities) among 375 words, was ranked 1.4 in the previous article and 6.7 when the ranking is instead determined by consistency. 14  Although sadly this means that I no longer have the opportunity to explain the problem by a reference to This is Spinal Tap: “these go to 11.” See This is Spinal Tap: A Rockumentary DVD (Embassy Pictures, 1984). 15  It may be possible to further improve on the method of determining the rank, for as we shall see, not all the components of QSP demonstrate the same level of consistency. A manuscript with a large number of inconsistent elements (e.g. the frequent occurrence of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- in 4Q394) might have a lower ranking than is warranted while a manuscript with a large number of consistent elements might have a higher ranking (e.g. the frequent occurrence of ‫ כול‬in 4Q404). A survey of the data looking for good examples to use in this note suggests, however, that this is a much smaller issue than those that I have already solved for this study.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

179

‫ירושלים‬.16 Although these two words showed a low frequency of occurrence

among the non-QSP biblical manuscripts—27.2%17 and 9.1% respectively— they are quite well represented among non-QSP, non-biblical manuscripts: 75% and 86.7% respectively. For example, the plene spelling ‫ ירושלים‬occurs in 4Q372 although none of the other ninety-eight potential candidates of QSP are affected. CD has two (of three) plene spellings of ‫ דויד‬although there are only five QSP forms in the remaining 524 possibilities. It is thus clear that the spellings of these names are to be understood as more broadly accepted Late Biblical Hebrew orthographic features rather than specifically QSP spellings.18 I have therefore removed them and reduced the number of components from nineteen in the previous article to seventeen in this current study. Finally, before revising the QSP chart for the biblical manuscripts and then pushing forward into new territory, we must discuss the issue of the “benchmark.” That is, at what rank can we say that QSP begins? There are three possible ways to answer this question that are suggested by this present study. As a starting point we can reference Tov’s list of biblical QSP manuscripts, updated below (Table 10.2) with a revised ranking based on the more precise methodology. According to this suggested ranking we can now see that Tov’s intuitive19 approach accepts manuscripts with a QSP rank as low as 2.4 out of 10, or, in other words, 24% of the opportunities for QSP were actually capitalized on by the scribe. A second approach is to extract a ranking from among the seventeen components that comprise QSP. In my initial study of the DSS biblical manuscripts I identified seven “consistent indicators” that were more nearly constant across the whole spectrum of Tov’s QSP documents. These were the 16  Abegg, Scribal Practices, 75. 17  This figure does not include the forty-four (of forty-four occurrences) plene spellings of ‫ דויד‬in 4Q51. This manuscript was examined in the previous article (Abegg, Scribal Practices, 79) and was narrowly rejected as QSP. Tov does not accept it either. The revised ranking of 2.3—without ‫—דויד‬is the highest of all the non-QSP biblical manuscripts. If this non-QSP assessment is correct and the 4Q51 data is included among the non-QSP manuscripts, ‫ דויד‬should clearly be rejected as an element of QSP with a 83.9% frequency among non-QSP manuscripts. 18  The plene spellings of the names ‫( דויד‬1 Chr 2:15; 3:1, 9 et al.) and ‫( ירושלים‬e.g. 1 Chr 3:5; 2 Chr 25:1; 32:9) are prominent in LBH literature. See A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 88–91, 127–29. 19  I would agree with Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow, [New York: Ferrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011], 5) that even experienced researchers have an overblown sense of their intuitive grasp on statistical results. But we are all by nature better intuitive linguists. I only need encounter the word “tuque” and the spelling “colour” and I know intuitively that I am reading a Canadian writer. I need no statistical analysis. Nonetheless, perhaps a statistical analysis—similar to that which I am attempting here with the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls—would help to judge just how Canadian.

180

Abegg

“long 2mp pronoun (26 long, 0 short: 100%), plene spelling of ‫( דויד‬28 plene, 0 defective: 100%), ‫( כול‬405 plene, 23 defective: 94.6%), ‫זאות‬/‫( זואת‬53 plene, 3 defective: 94.6%), ‫( לוא‬592 plene, 12 defective: 98.0%), ‫( מושה‬37 plene, 0 defective: 100%), and the long 2ms perfect (127 long, 13 short: 90.7%).”20 The discussion above in respect to the LBH nature of ‫ דויד‬effectively reduces this list to six. It is also impractical to include the long 2mp pronoun as it accounts for only thirteen occurrences among the non-biblical manuscripts. So, replacing the frequencies with non-biblical statistics for the five remaining indicators and using a 2.4 ranking as a benchmark reveals: ‫( כול‬2010 plene, 102 defective: 95.3%), ‫( לוא‬861 plene, 160 defective: 84.4%), ‫זאות‬/‫( זואת‬56 plene, 7 defective: 88.9%), ‫( מושה‬68 plene, 11 defective: 86.1%), and the long 2ms perfect (467 long, 17 short: 96.5%). The frequency of these “indicators” in those manuscripts with a ranking lower than 2.4 is also telling: ‫( כול‬9.5%), ‫( לוא‬14.1%), ‫זאות‬/‫זואת‬ (0%), ‫( מושה‬5.3%), and the long 2ms perfect (29.2%). As third and independent approach to establish a benchmark, we shall see in the final section of this paper that a ranking of about 2.4 is also supported by a histogram (see Figure 10.2) of the corpus that displays the frequency of the ranking of both the biblical and non-biblical corpora. Thus accepting—as a heuristic approach at this point—a ranking of 2.4 as the benchmark for QSP, a list (Table 10.1) for the seventeen components recording both their presence in QSP and non-QSP among biblical and non-biblical documents looks like this: Table 10.1 QSP and non-QSP frequencies

Indicator

Full orthography: ‫כול‬ Full orthography: ‫לוא‬ Full orthography: ‫מושה‬ Full orthography: ‫זאות‬ Full orthography: ‫כיא‬ Full orthography: ‫כוה‬ Long 2ms perfect: ‫קטלתה‬ Long 2mp perfect: ‫קטלתמה‬ 20  Abegg, Scribal Practice, 77.

Non biblical

Biblical

QSP

non-QSP

QSP

non-QSP

95.3% 84.4% 86.1% 88.9% 48.2% 100% 96.5% 59.2%

9.5% 14.1% 5.3% 0.0% 1.8% NA 29.2% 0.0%

94.7% 96.5% 97.4% 90.3% 44.1% 73.0% 86.0% 55.2%

7.7% 7.2% 1.4% 1.4% 0.8% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0%

181

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme Table 10.1 QSP and non-QSP frequencies (cont.)

Indicator

Long 3fs pronoun: ‫היאה‬ Long 3ms pronoun: ‫הואה‬ Long 2mp pronoun: ‫אתמה‬ Long 2ms suffix: ‫כה‬Long 2mp suffix: ‫כמה‬Long 3mp suffix: ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬“Adverbial” he: ‫מאודה‬ “Pausal” qal imperfect: ‫יקטולו‬ “Pausal” qal imperative: ‫קטולו‬

Non biblical

Biblical

QSP

non-QSP

QSP

non-QSP

48.8% 45.1% 53.8% 84.4% 50.0% 29.5% 90.3% 63.4% 65.0%

3.1% 2.2% 16.7% 4.0% 2.5% 1.4% NA 17.9% 0.0%

42.9% 37.8% 93.1% 77.3% 60.5% 31.6% 89.3% 60.9% 70.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.1% 7.4% 2.8% 10.0%

This table reveals that in addition to the consistent indicators mentioned in the discussion above it is possible to reference a second group of components that, although they lack consistency of display in QSP documents, are extremely rare in those documents below a rank of 2.4 (i.e. non-QSP documents): digraph ‫( כיא‬1.8% in non-QSP documents), long 2mp perfect (0.0%), long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬3.1%), long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬2.2%), long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (2.5%), long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (1.4%), and the “pausal” qal imperative (0.0%). 1

Qumran Scribal Practice—Biblical

The following Table 10.2 updates the ranking of the manuscripts presented in my previous article using the calculation method detailed above that is based on a frequency of QSP readings among potential QSP opportunities, rather than a frequency of QSP readings in the overall manuscript. This chart contains each of the manuscripts represented in Tov’s original chart and adds seventeen additional manuscripts.21 Although the ranking is now more accurately determined, it is important to note that there are no additional manuscripts to recommend to the list from the previous article. 21  Abegg, Scribal Practice, 79–81.

182

Abegg

Table 10.2 QSP biblical manuscripts1

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

1Q1* 1Q4 1QIsaa 1–27 1QIsaa 28–54 2Q2 2Q3* 2Q7* 2Q12* 2Q13 4Q13 4Q20* 4Q26 4Q27 4Q37 4Q38 4Q38a 4Q40 4Q41 4Q53 4Q57 4Q78 4Q80 4Q82 4Q83 4Q87 4Q96* 4Q98 4Q109 4Q111 4Q113 4Q128 4Q129 4Q134 4Q135 4Q137 4Q138

1QGen 1QDeuta 1QIsaa 1–27 1QIsaa 28–54 2QExoda 2QExodb 2QNumb 2QDeutc 2QJer 4QExodb 4QExodj 4QLevd 4QNumb 4QDeutj 4QDeutk1 4QDeutk2 4QDeutm 4QDeutn 4QSamc 4QIsac 4QXIIc 4QXIIe 4QXIIg 4QPsa 4QPse 4QPso 4QPsq 4QQoha 4QLam 4QDanb 4QPhyl A 4QPhyl B 4QPhyl G 4QPhyl H 4QPhyl J 4QPhyl K

5.0 10.0 4.6 8.7 2.4 8.0 10.0 10.0 9.1 2.4 5.0 4.5 7.5 4.8 6.4 10.0 10.0 2.6 9.6 7.9 6.0 7.3 2.6 7.4 4.0 10.0 5.5 7.5 8.4 6.7 9.1 8.8 3.1 3.3 9.2 9.2

? yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes ? ? yes yes yes yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ? yes yes ? ? yes yes

183

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme Table 10.2 QSP biblical manuscripts (cont.)

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

4Q139 4Q140 4Q141 4Q142 4Q143 4Q144* 11Q2* 11Q5 11Q6* 11Q7 11Q8*

4QPhyl L 4QPhyl M 4QPhyl N 4QPhyl O 4QPhyl P 4QPhyl Q 11QLevb 11QPsa 11QPsb 11QPsc 11QPsd

8.8 9.1 5.0 10.0 6.4 10.0 5.0 7.2 10.0 6.1 4.4

yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

1 Here and throughout this study, those manuscripts that are marked with an asterisk have less than ten words where QSP might potentially occur.

2

Qumran Scribal Practice—Non-Biblical

We are now equipped to push on into new territory. On pages 340–43 of Scribal Practices and Approaches, Emanuel Tov lists the non-biblical manuscripts that he has determined display evidence of QSP. In this section I will assess nineteen additional manuscripts that Tov does not include on his list. These manuscripts should, according to their QSP rank, be considered for inclusion. I also examine each of the manuscripts that Tov marks as doubtful on his own chart.22 The evidence adduced for the inclusion of these documents is of three types. The first element is the ranking according to the consistency of the 17 components judged to be determining factors for QSP in the previous section of this study. This ranking is provided in parentheses following the manuscript reference. The manuscripts are then assessed with reference to the consistent indicators ‫כול‬, ‫לוא‬, ‫זאות‬, ‫מושה‬, and the long 2ms perfect. Finally, as noted, there is also a group of indicators that, although not nearly as consistent as the five components in QSP documents, are extremely rare in non-QSP documents: digraph ‫( כיא‬1.8% in non-QSP documents), long 2mp perfect (0.0%), long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬3.1%), long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬2.2%), long 2mp suffix 22  Tov, Scribal Practices, 340–43.

184

Abegg

‫כמה‬- (2.5%), long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (1.4%), and the “pausal” qal imperative

(0.0%). The fuller database—not published here due space considerations— also demonstrates that ‫היאה‬, ‫כמה‬-, and ‫ כיא‬are indicators of a ranking of 5.0 and above; whereas ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- does not become common until a ranking of 7.5. 1Q29 (7.5) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬5 of 5), the long suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 2), and in addition the “pausal” qal imperative (1 of 1) and the long suffix ‫כמה‬- (1 of 1). It only lacks the long suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3). 4Q88 (2.4) This manuscript is a doubtful addition and is recommended on the basis of its ranking. Although it consistently displays the plene spelling of ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), it lacks a uniform plene spelling of ‫( כול‬3 of 6) and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 16). It is lacking the “pausal” qal imperfect (of 3), the “pausal” Qal imperative (of 1), the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 1), the 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 4), and the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). 4Q164 (6.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬5 of 5) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1), and in addition the digraph form of ‫( כיא‬1 of 1) and 1 case (of 2) of the 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬-. It is only lacking the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (0 of 4). 4Q167 (5.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3), ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), and the long 2ms suffix: ‫כה‬- (1 of 1). In addition it exhibits the “pausal” qal imperfect (1 of 1). It lacks the digraph ‫כיא‬ (of 2), the long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (of 1), and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2). 4Q179 (3.3) This manuscript is a somewhat doubtful addition and is recommended on the basis of its ranking. Although it consistently displays the plene spelling of ‫( לוא‬3 of 3) and the long 2ms perfect (1 of 1) it lacks uniform plene spelling of ‫( כול‬2 of 10) for which we have come to expect a greater than 90% consistency in QSP documents.23 It 23  4Q179 is one of small group of “outliers,” which Tov has included in his chart and I have determined are QSP on the basis of their ranking, that displaying an unusual inconsistency regarding plene ‫כול‬: 4Q398 (7.4 ranking, but ‫ כול‬is 0 of 2), 4Q416 (6.6 ranking, but ‫ כול‬is 2 of 24) and 4Q423 (5.4 ranking, but ‫ כול‬is 5 of 23).

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

185

also lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 2) and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2). 4Q252 (3.8) This manuscript is relatively certain as QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 1) and ‫( מושה‬1 of 1), the long 2ms perfect (3 of 3), and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 3). Only the lack of greater consistency of the plene spelling of ‫( לוא‬4 of 7) disrupts this pattern. The lack of the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 5), long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 6), long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 2), and 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3) justify a ranking of less than 5.0.24 4Q284 (8.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬4 of 4) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), as well as the long 2ms perfect (1 of 1) and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (4 of 4). The lack of long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (0 of 1) and inconsistency in the long 3mp suffix (1 of 3) suggest that the 8.0 ranking might be a bit high. 4Q284a (2.7) The relative certainty of this manuscript is based on the consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬2 of 2) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1). In addition there is 1 case (of 2) of the “pausal” qal imperfect. The lack of digraph ‫( כיא‬of 2) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 8) are characteristic of a ranking below 5.0. 4Q371 (9.1) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3) and ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), as well as the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 2). The presence of 2 cases (of 3) of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3) justifies the high ranking. 4Q378 (4.4) The relative certainty of this manuscript is based on a consistent presence of the long 2ms perfect (3 of 3), less than consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 2), ‫( לוא‬6 of 8), ‫( זאות‬2 of 5), and ‫( מושה‬2 of 5), and the less than consistent use of the 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (12 of 20). The long 2mp suffix is consistent (2 of 2), while the lack of the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 11), the “pausal” qal imperfect (of 1),

24  George Brooke, “252: 4QCommentary on Genesis A,” in Sapiential Texts, Part 1, vol. 15 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Torleif Elgvin et al., DJD 22 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 201, reads a defective ‫ זאת‬at 4Q252 3 3 but the new IAA plate (B-499730) suggests that ‫ נדה‬should be read instead.

186

Abegg

long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 1), and long 3mp suffix ‫מה‬‫המה‬-/ (of 6) justify a ranking below 5.0. 4Q404 (10.0) The certainty of this manuscript is based solely on the consistent use of the plene ‫( כול‬13 of 13).25 The lack of other potential QSP readings makes the ranking of 10.0 less certain. 4Q475 (7.5) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬6 of 6) and ‫( לוא‬3 of 3). The high ranking is justified by the presence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬1 of 1), the “pausal” qal imperfect (1 of 2) and one case of the 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 4). 4Q492 (3.0) The relative certainty of this manuscript is only based on a consistent plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 1) and the presence of the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 6). It lacks the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2) and the “adverbial” he of ‫( מאודה‬of 1). 4Q493 (4.2) This manuscript is relatively certain as QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), and 1 occurrence of the “pausal” qal imperfect (of 2). Some uncertainty is caused by the inconsistency of ‫( כול‬2 of 5). It lacks the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 6) and is thus suitably ranked below 5.0. 4Q508 (8.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬6 of 6) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), nearly consistent long 2ms perfect (4 of 5) and long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (7 of 8). It also exhibits 1 “pausal” qal imperative (of 1) and 1 long 2mp suffix: ‫כמה‬- (of 1). It lacks on the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). 4Q510 (8.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬6 of 6) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1). In addition it adds the 3ms pronoun: ‫( הואה‬1 of 1) and 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (1 of 1). It only lacks the 3mp suffix ‫מה‬‫המה‬-/ (of 2). 11Q5 (6.0) The text of the non-canonical psalms of 11Q5 is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬23 of 23), ‫( לוא‬13 of 13), and the 2ms perfect (1 of 1). 25  4Q404 4 5 and 5 5 also display the plene spelling of ‫ אלוהים‬which is found in 94.8% of the occurrences in QSP manuscripts (289 of 305) but only 6.0% of occurrences in non-QSP documents (four of sixty-seven).

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

187

Less consistent but reflective of its 6.0 ranking are the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (34 of 67), “pausal” qal imperfect (3 of 6), “pausal” qal imperative (1 of 2), and long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬1 of 3). Assuring its ranking as greater than 5.0 are the long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (1 of 2) and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (5 of 11). It only lacks the digraph ‫כיא‬ (of 9). The canonical portion of this manuscript ranks 7.2 and shows a nearly identical profile with the exception of the near consistence of the very common 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (229 of 235). 11Q6 (7.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 1) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1). In addition, the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (5 of 5) is also consistent. The lack of the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1) and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2) suggests that the 7.0 ranking is perhaps a bit high. 11Q17 (6.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬20 of 20) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1). The lack of long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 10) suggests that the 6.8 ranking is perhaps a bit high. A review of the manuscripts that Tov lists in Appendix 9 of Scribal Practices and Approaches reveals forty-one doubtful inclusions that he indicates with a question mark (?).26 These are assessed next so as to take advantage of the new diagnostic tools. 1Q22 (4.3) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬11 of 11), ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), and ‫( מושה‬5 of 5), the long 2ms perfect (6 of 6), and the “adverbial” he of ‫( מאודה‬2 of 2), while the inconsistent long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 8), and lack of digraph ‫כיא‬ (of 6), “pausal” qal imperfect (of 1), long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 2), long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (of 8) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 17) confirms its 4.3 ranking. 1Q26 (9.5) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬5 of 5), long 2ms perfect (2 of 2), and long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (11 of 11). Only the lack of 26  Tov, Scribal Practices, 340–43.

188

Abegg

the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1) puts the level of its 9.5 ranking in some doubt. 1Q35* (8.3) Although this manuscript has only 6 potential QSP readings, what remains displays consistent plene spellings of ‫( לוא‬2 of 2) and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 3). The lack of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 1) suggest that the ranking could be a bit high. The presence of paleoHebrew ‫( אל‬El) in this manuscript is also indicative of QSP.27 4Q165* (5.0) Although this manuscript has only 4 potential QSP readings they include the significant presence of the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬1 of 1). The plene spelling of ‫לוא‬ (1 of 2) is not completely consistent and the digraph ‫כיא‬ is lacking (of 1). 4Q166 (3.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬2 of 2) and ‫( לוא‬3 of 3). The presence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬2 of 2), more than offset by the lack of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 15), suggests that the ranking of 3.2 may be a bit low. 4Q181* (5.0) Although having only 6 potential QSP readings, what remains of this manuscript can be judged as QSP on the significant presence of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(1 of 4) and the consistent display of the plene spelling ‫( כול‬2 of 2) 4Q184 (8.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬5 of 5) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1). Significant as well is the consistent long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬(4 of 4) and “pausal” qal imperfect (1 of 1). Indicative of its high ranking is the presence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬1 of 1), long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬1 of 2), and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (1 of 2). 4Q219 (8.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬11 of 11) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), long 2ms perfect (1 of 1), and long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (11 of 12). 27  With the exception of 4Q258 (4QSd), with a ranking of 0.3, the use of paleo-Hebrew to write divine names corresponds with QSP: 1QpHab (5.7), 1QHa A (5.7), 1Q14 (5.7), 1Q27 (7.6), 1Q35* (8.3), 4Q161 (8.0), 4Q171 (6.4), 4Q180 (2.7), 4Q267 (6.0), 4Q268 (6.3), 6Q18 (8.2), and 11Q5 (6.0). There are several manuscripts that exhibit paleo-Hebrew but are too small to rank accurately. These are likely QSP as well: 1Q15*, 3Q14*, 4Q173*, 4Q183*, 4Q406*, 4Q413*, and 6Q15*. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 238–46.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

189

The presence of the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬1 of 1) and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (2 of 4) ensures a high ranking. 4Q222* (5.0) This manuscript has only 4 potential QSP readings. Additionally, every reading that supports a ranking as QSP—‫( הואה‬1 of 1) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 2)—is doubtful. The only certain factor is the lack of digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). The manuscript does, however, exhibit the plene spelling of ‫אלוהים‬ which is a spelling that is also characteristic of QSP.28 4Q223–224 (6.1) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬9 of 9) and ‫( לוא‬9 of 9), and long 2ms perfect (2 of 2). Of additional significance is the near consistency of the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (9 of 10) and “pausal” qal imperfect (2 of 3). A ranking above 5.0 is ensured by the presence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬1 of 7), long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (1 of 2), and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(1 of 11). The only element completely lacking is the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 3). 4Q251 (2.5) This manuscript is a bit of an outlier and retains its doubtful classification. The lack of consistency in the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬2 of 7) and the lack altogether of ‫( לוא‬0 of 3) do not comport well with the presence of the 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (1 of 1) and long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬4 of 6) which together suggest a ranking of 2.5 or higher. The manuscript also lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 7), “pausal” qal imperfect (of 1), long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 2), and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 1). 4Q260 (8.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬5 of 5), ‫( לוא‬8 of 8), and the “adverbial” he of ‫( מאודה‬1 of 1). The lack of the long 3ms pronoun: ‫( הואה‬of 1) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(of 2) suggests that the 8.2 ranking is perhaps a bit high. 4Q265 (3.5) Another outlier similar to 4Q251 above, 4Q265 remains doubtful in regards to QSP. In this case the spelling of ‫ כול‬is consistent (6 of 6), but ‫ לא‬is written defectively throughout (of 9). The presence of the significant forms of the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬1 of 2) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (1 of 3) are, however, strongly suggestive of 28  See n. 25.

190

Abegg

QSP. Lacking are the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1) and the long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 2). 4Q269 (4.8) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3), ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 2). In addition, although diagraph ‫ כיא‬is consistent (2 of 2), the manuscript is lacking the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 2), the long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 1), and the long 3mp suffix: ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 8). 4Q273 (1.0) The manuscript was categorized as questionably QSP by Tov but included on the basis of the 1 occurrence of the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 2). It is however it is lacking the key indicator ‫( לוא‬of 3) as well as the digraph ‫כיא‬ (of 1), the long 3fs pronoun: ‫( היאה‬of 2), and the long 3mp suffix: ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2). It has been removed from the chart of QSP documents. 4Q274 (6.1) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬17 of 17), ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), and ‫( זאות‬1 of 1). It also includes 1 long 3mp suffix /‫מה‬‫המה‬- (of 5) but lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 5), “pausal” qal imperfect (of 2), long 3ms pronoun (of 2), and long 3fs pronoun (of 1). 4Q280 (10.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), and long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (5 of 5). In addition it has 1 long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 1). 4Q289* (10.0) Although this manuscript has only 7 potential QSP readings, it fairly certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬4 of 4) and long 2ms perfect (1 of 1). In addition it exhibits the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (2 of 2). 4Q303* (6.7) Although this manuscript exhibits only 6 potential QSP readings, it is fairly certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬2 of 2) and digraph ‫כיא‬ (2 of 2). It lacks only the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 2). 4Q384* (5.0) Although the remains of this manuscript display only 6 potential QSP readings, it is fairly certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬1 of 1) and consistent digraph ‫( כיא‬2 of 2). It lacks only the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3).

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

191

4Q394 (2.1) Although below the benchmark ranking of 2.5, this manuscript is still a likely example of QSP although given the slightly less than consistent plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 2) and ‫( לוא‬5 of 6). It has 1 occurrence each of the long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 5) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(of 18). It lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 6) and the long 3ms pronoun: ‫( הואה‬of 1). The frequency of these latter elements has certainly made the ranking lower than it might otherwise have merited. 4Q396 (2.3) Similar to 4Q394 above, this manuscript is still a likely example of QSP although exhibiting less than consistent plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 3) and ‫( לוא‬5 of 6). It does exhibit 1 occurrence each of the long 3ms pronoun: ‫הואה‬ (of 4) and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 13). It lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 6), the long 2mp pronoun ‫אתמה‬ (of 2), and the long 3fs pronoun ‫( היאה‬of 1). The frequency of these latter elements has certainly made the ranking lower than it might otherwise have merited. 4Q398 (7.3) Continuing with the problematic 4QMMT documents, this manuscript is a likely example of QSP although it lacks the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬of 2), elsewhere the most consistent indicator of QSP. However it is consistent with the plene spelling of ‫( לוא‬1 of 1) and long 2ms perfect: ‫( קטלתה‬2 of 2). In addition it shows consistency in the frequent long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (15 of 15) and adds 1 occurrence of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 4). It lacks the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1) and the long 3ms pronoun ‫הואה‬ (of 1).29 4Q400 (6.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬14 of 14) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1), as well as the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 3). It lacks the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 12). 4Q410 (10.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3) and ‫( לוא‬3 of 3), 29  To complete the picture presented by the 4QMMT manuscripts, 4Q397 was not questioned by Tov—it has consistent plene spellings of ‫( כול‬5 of 5) and ‫( לוא‬1 of 1)—and ranks 7.2. 4Q394* exhibits no potential QSP opportunities. 4Q399* ranks 10.0 but has only 4 possibilities: the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (4 of 4).

192

Abegg

as well as the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (4 of 4). The long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (2 of 2) is also consistent. 4Q419 (3.9) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬6 of 6) and presence of ‫( לוא‬2 of 3). However, it lacks the plene spelling of ‫מושה‬ (of 1). It exhibits 1 occurrence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). It is lacking the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 3), the long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (of 1), and the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(of 8). 4Q420* (6.7) This manuscript has only 9 potential QSP readings, but it is certainly QSP with a nearly consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬2 of 3),30 ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), and ‫זאות‬ (1 of 1). In addition there is 1 occurrence of the long 3mp suffix: ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3). 4Q426 (9.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬5 of 5) and ‫( לוא‬6 of 6). In addition there is 1 occurrence of the long 2mp suffix ‫כמה‬- (of 1). It is only lacking in the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). 4Q429 (6.2) This QSP manuscript oddly lacks the plene spelling of ‫כול‬ (of 2), but displays a consistent plene spelling ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), the long 2ms perfect (2 of 2), and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 2). In addition there 2 occurrences of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3). It is lacking in the digraph ‫כיא‬ (of 2). 4Q432 (7.6) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬5 of 5) and the long 2ms perfect (2 of 2). In addition there is a consistent exhibit of the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 3), 2 occurrences of the “pausal” qal imperfect (of 3), and 1 instance of the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 3). It is lacking only the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 1). 4Q433a* (8.0) Although this manuscript has only 5 potential QSP readings, it is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬2 of 2) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2). It lacks the “pausal” qal imperfect (of 1). 4Q435* (7.5) Although this manuscript has only 4 potential QSP readings, it is fairly certainly QSP with a display of the long 2ms perfect (2 of 3) and the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (1 of 1). 30  The defective reading at 4Q420 1a ii-b 7 is quite doubtful.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

193

4Q438 (4.3) This manuscript is fairly certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 1) and ‫( לוא‬2 of 2), although it shows an inconsistency regarding the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 9), and lacks the long 2ms perfect (of 1). It also lacks the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 1). 4Q464* (5.6) Although this manuscript displays only 9 potential QSP readings, it is fairly certainly QSP. It has an inconsistent spelling of ‫( לוא‬1 of 2), but a consistent long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (1 of 1). It also significantly exhibits the digraph ‫כיא‬ (2 of 3) and 1 instance of the long 3ms pronoun ‫הואה‬ (of 2). It is lacking the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 1). 4Q477* (8.0) Although smaller, this manuscript has only 5 potential QSP readings, it is certainly QSP as it significantly exhibits the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬3 of 3) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (1 of 2). 4Q505 (10.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 1), ‫( לוא‬1 of 1) and ‫( מושה‬1 of 1), and the long 2ms perfect (3 of 3). In addition is the consistent long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (6 of 6). 4Q522 (5.0) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a nearly consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬1 of 2)31 and ‫( לוא‬4 of 4), and long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (2 of 2). In addition it exhibits 1 case of the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬of 2). It lack the digraph ‫( כיא‬of 2) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬- (of 4). 5Q13 (9.6) This manuscript is certainly QSP with a consistent display of the plene spellings of ‫( כול‬3 of 3), ‫( לוא‬5 of 5), and the long 2ms perfect (6 of 6). In addition it exhibits the long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (3 of 3) and long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(5 of 6). 11Q27* (10.0) Although showing only 2 potential QSP readings, this manuscript can be judged as QSP with 1 case of long 2ms suffix ‫כה‬- (of 1). Also significant is the presence of the digraph ‫( כיא‬1 of 1). Mas1k (6.2) This manuscript is certainly QSP although it lacks the plene spelling ‫( לוא‬of 1). It consistently displays the plene spelling of ‫( כול‬7 of 7) and significantly exhibits the digraph ‫( כיא‬1 of 1). It lacks the long 3mp suffix ‫המה‬-/‫מה‬(of 4). 31  The reading ‫ כל‬at 4Q522 9 ii 4 is supralinear. It is not clear whether it is in the main hand.

194

Abegg

Mas1n* (10.0) This manuscript has only 1 potential QSP reading but it is the long 3ms pronoun ‫( הואה‬1 of 1), a significant indicator. Table 10.3 below comprises my conclusions regarding what non-biblical manuscripts should justifiably be considered QSP. Based on the discussions above I have added nineteen manuscripts to Tov’s table in Appendix 9 of Scribal Practices and Approaches.32 I have also assessed the inclusion of every nonbiblical manuscript that Tov judged as uncertain and only removed 4Q273. Table 10.3 QSP non-biblical manuscripts

Reference

Abbreviated title

1Q14* 1Q22 1Q26 1Q27 1QpHab 1Q28 1Q28a 1Q28b 1Q29 1Q33 1QHa Scribe A 1QHa Scribe C 1Q35* 1Q36 4Q88 4Q158 4Q159 4Q160 4Q161 4Q163 4Q164 4Q165* 4Q166 4Q167 4Q171

1QpMic 1QDM 1QInst 1QMyst 1QpHab 1QS 1QSa 1QSb 1QapocrMosesb 1QM 1QHa 1QHa 1QHb 1QHymns 4QPsf 4QRPa 4QOrda 4QVisSam 4QpIsaa 4Qpap pIsac 4QpIsad 4QpIsae 4QpHosa 4QpHosb 4QpPsa

32  Tov, Scribal Practices, 339–40.

Ranking 5.7 4.3 9.5 7.6 5.7 7.7 6.7 9.6 7.5 6.9 5.6 8.8 8.3 9.4 2.4 8.2 7.1 9.6 8.0 8.2 6.2 5.0 3.2 5.8 6.4

Certainty yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

195

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme Table 10.3 QSP non-biblical manuscripts (cont.)

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

4Q174 4Q175 4Q176 4Q177 4Q179 4Q180 4Q181* 4Q184 4Q186 4Q200 4Q215* 4Q215a 4Q219 4Q221 4Q222* 4Q223–224 4Q225 4Q227* 4Q251 4Q252 4Q254* 4Q256 4Q257 4Q259 4Q260 4Q265 4Q266 4Q267 4Q268 4Q269 4Q271 4Q274 4Q277 4Q280 4Q284 4Q284a

4QFlor 4QTest 4QTanh 4QCatena A 4QapocrLam A 4QAgesCreat A 4QAgesCreat B 4Q184Wiles 4QHoroscope 4QTobite 4QTNaph 4QTimes 4QJubd 4QJubf 4QJubg 4QpapJubh 4QpsJuba 4QpsJubb 4QHalakhah A 4QCommGen A 4QCommGen C 4QSb 4QpapSc 4QSe 4QSf 4QMiscellaneous Rules 4QDa 4QDb 4QDc 4QDd 4QDf 4QTohorot A 4ATohorot Bb 4QCurses 4QPurification Liturgy 4QHarvesting

9.6 6.3 6.9 6.8 3.3 2.7 5.0 8.8 9.3 6.6 5.0 5.0 8.8 5.5 5.0 6.1 5.3 7.5 2.5 3.8 8.9 7.1 10.0 5.8 8.2 3.5 5.2 6.1 6.3 4.8 4.6 6.1 4.0 10.0 8.0 2.7

yes yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ? yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

196

Abegg

Table 10.3 QSP non-biblical manuscripts (cont.)

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

4Q285 4Q286 4Q287 4Q289* 4Q292* 4Q299 4Q301 4Q303* 4Q364 4Q365 4Q365a 4Q369 4Q371 4Q375 4Q377 4Q378 4Q382 4Q384* 4Q393 4Q394 4Q396 4Q397 4Q398 4Q400 4Q401 4Q402 4Q403 4Q404 4Q405 4Q410 4Q414 4Q415 4Q416 4Q417 4Q418 4Q418a

4QSefer ha-Milḥamah 4QBera 4QBerb 4QBerd 4QWork Containing Prayers C 4QMysta 4QMystc 4QMeditation on Creation B 4QRPb 4QRPc 4QTemplea? 4QPrayer of Enosh 4QNarrative and Poetic Comp 4QapocrMosesa 4QapocrPent B 4QapocrJosha 4Qpap paraKings 4Qpap apocrJer B 4QCommunal Confession 4QMMTa 4QMMTc 4QMMTd 4QMMTe 4QShirShabba 4QShirShabbb 4QShirShabbc 4QShirShabbd 4QShirShabbe 4QShirShabbf 4Q Vision and Interpretation 4QRitPur A 4QInstructiona 4QInstructionb 4QInstructionc 4QInstructiond 4QInstructione

5.3 9.6 10.0 10.0 2.5 5.9 7.3 6.7 7.3 6.6 7.5 7.5 9.1 10.0 8.4 4.4 6.5 5.0 2.8 2.1 2.3 7.4 7.4 6.0 8.5 6.9 8.0 10.0 6.5 10.0 9.0 9.3 6.6 8.4 7.9 8.6

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

197

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme Table 10.3 QSP non-biblical manuscripts (cont.)

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

4Q419 4Q420* 4Q421 4Q422 4Q423 4Q426 4Q427 4Q428 4Q429 4Q432 4Q433a* 4Q435* 4Q436 4Q437 4Q438 4Q440 4Q443 4Q460 4Q462* 4Q464* 4Q471* 4Q473* 4Q474 4Q475 4Q477* 4Q4911 4Q492 4Q493 4Q496 4Q501 4Q502 4Q503 4Q504 4Q505 4Q506 4Q508

4QInstruction-like Comp A 4QWays of Righteousnessa 4QWays of Righteousnessb 4QParaGen-Exod 4QInstructiong 4QSapiential-Hymn Work A 4QHa 4QHb 4QHc 4QpapHf 4QHodayot-like Text B 4QBarki Napshib 4QBarki Napshic 4QBarki Napshid 4QBarki Napshie 4QHodayot-like Text C 4QPersonal Prayer 4QNarrative Work and Prayer 4QNarrative C 4QExposition Patriarchs 4QWar Text B 4QTwo Ways 4QRachel and Joseph 4QRenewed Earth 4QRebukes 4QMa 4QMb 4QMc 4QMf 4QapocrLam B 4QpapRitMar 4QpapPrQuot 4QDibHama 4QDibHamb 4QDibHamc 4QPrFêtesb

3.9 6.7 7.8 6.1 5.3 9.2 9.4 8.8 6.2 7.6 8.0 7.5 9.6 4.4 4.3 10.0 7.5 8.6 5.0 5.6 7.5 10.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.6 3.0 4.2 6.9 10.0 7.2 9.8 8.7 10.0 7.6 8.8

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

198

Abegg

Table 10.3 QSP non-biblical manuscripts (cont.)

Reference

Abbreviated title

Ranking

Certainty

4Q509 4Q510 4Q511 4Q512 4Q513 4Q522 4Q524 4Q525 5Q13 6Q18 11Q5 11Q6 11Q11 11Q12 11Q13 11Q14 11Q16* 11Q17 11Q19 Scribe A 11Q19 Scribe B 11Q20 11Q27* Mas1k Mas1n*

4QpapPrFêtesc 4QShira 4QShirb 4QpapRitPur B 4QOrdb 4QProphJosh 4QTb 4QBeatitudes 5QRule 6QpapHymn 11QPsa 11QPsb 11QapocrPs 11QJub 11QMelch 11QSefer ha-Milḥamah 11QHymnsb 11QShirShabb 11QTa 11QTa 11QTb 11QInid C MasShirShabb MasUnid Qumran Type Frg.

8.2 8.2 7.7 8.7 5.2 5.0 7.7 8.5 9.6 8.2 6.0 7.0 4.9 5.8 8.6 2.9 10.0 6.8 8.5 8.4 8.4 10.0 6.2 10.0

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

1 I have renewed my assessment of the integrity of this manuscript and at an early stage of my study divided 4Q491 into two groups on paleographic considerations. 4Q491 A (fragments 8–10 i, 10 ii, 11 ii, 13, 14–15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35) ranked 8.1, while 4Q491 B (fragments 1–3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 i, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23) ranked 9.0. This difference is certainly not a justification to bifurcate the manuscript without further study.

3

A Comparison of the Biblical and Non-Biblical Corpora

The establishment of a QSP ranking for the two corpora now allows us to produce a histogram (Figure 10.2) comparing the data for these two groups of

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

199

Comparison of biblical and non-biblical manuscripts

70

Percentage of manuscripts

60 50

40 30

20 10 0

0–1.25

Figure 10.2

1.26–2.5

2.51–3.75 3.76–5.00 5.01–6.25 6.26–7.50 7.51–8.75 8.76–10.00 Rank Biblical mss non-biblical mss

Comparison of biblical and non-biblical manuscripts

manuscripts. For this graph I have charted only the 115 biblical manuscripts and 172 non biblical manuscripts that have at least ten potential QSP forms.33 There are several important observations that can be made from this histogram.34 First, the shape of the curves described by the bins (bars) strongly

33  The 115 biblical manuscripts account for 92.5% of the corpus by word count. The 172 nonbiblical manuscripts account for 87.2% of the corpus by word count. I have calculated a ranking for each manuscript represented in volumes 1 and 3 of the DSS Concordances (Leiden: Brill, 2003, 2010) and have recorded them in the 2018 release (version 5.0) of the Accordance tool: The Dead Sea Scrolls Index (Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software, 2015, 2018). Included are all of the texts that are featured in the tables of this study, plus those not classified as QSP, as well as all texts with less than ten potential QSP forms. I used two calculations to determine the appropriate number of bins (bars). My first computation was according to Rice’s Rule which is defined as the cube root of the number of observations multiplied by 2. For 115 observations, the Rice rule equals 9.72 (the cubed root of 115 is about 4.86, multiplied by 2 = 9.72) and 11.12 for 172 observations (the cube root of 172 is about 5.56, multiplied by 2 = 11.12). The second—and more common method of computation—was according to Sturge’s Rule whose equation is 1 + 3.322(log10 n). For 115 biblical manuscripts this is 1 + 3.322 log(115) = 7.85 and for the 172 non-biblical manuscripts the equation becomes 1 + 3.322 log(172) = 8.43. See “Choose Bin Sizes for Histograms in Easy Steps + Sturge’s Rule,” http://www.statisticshowto.com/choose-bin-sizes-statistics/. 34  The discussion of the histogram reflects Nancy R. Tague, The Quality Toolbox, 2nd. ed. (Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press, 2004), 292–99.

200

Abegg

suggests that both sets of data—biblical and especially the non-biblical— evidence a bimodal curve. By this I mean that rather than one bell shaped curve (normal distribution) the data exhibits two humps. This is indicative of data with two different distributions combined in one set. This finding is exactly what we would expect from a collection of manuscripts that evidences two distinct scribal practices: QSP and classical Hebrew. The manuscripts produced by scribes trained in QSP are on the right side of the histogram and scribes trained in the conservative, classical model are on the left. Second, the biblical data is dramatically asymmetrical, or right skewed (i.e. the tail goes off to the right). This type of graph evidences limits that prevent or reduce outcomes on the right side of the graph.35 We might speculate that this character was produced by a number of factors, such as a generally preferred scribal culture (e.g. biblical manuscripts were conventionally copied in accordance with an established conservative tradition) or a selective method of collecting (e.g. more biblical manuscripts were imported from a conservative scribal culture than were produced locally by a QSP scribal culture). A close examination of the data reveals that the average ranking for the non-QSP biblical manuscripts, taken as a group, is 0.28. On the other hand, the non-QSP, non-biblical manuscripts have a combined ranking of 0.61.36 These rankings together with the histogram suggest that, although a selective method of collecting may have contributed to the skewed graph, a determined preference for a strict classical Hebrew was certainly the norm for most scribes who copied the biblical manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Third, the fact that biblical manuscripts generally (70%) evidence a classical Hebrew practice, whereas non-biblical manuscripts generally (75%) exhibit QSP serves to produce the dramatically different graph profiles of the two corpora. This divergence again underlines the preference among most scribes for a classical Hebrew model when copying biblical manuscripts. It also suggests that the collection was made by a group that preferred non-biblical texts— “including virtually all of the agreed upon sectarian writings”37—to be written by scribes who adhered to QSP.

35  See “Typical Histogram Shapes and What They Mean,” http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/ data-collection-analysis-tools/overview/histogram2.html. 36  These rankings were calculated by dividing the total number of QSP readings found in non-QSP manuscripts (i.e. those less than a rank of 2.4) by the total number of potential QSP readings and then multiplying by 10. So for biblical manuscripts the equation is (143/5143)x10 and for the non-biblical manuscripts: (113/1860)x10. 37  Tov, “Revisited,” 371.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

201

Fourth, we are now in a position to make an independent judgment concerning QSP ranking. On the one hand, although the paucity of biblical manuscripts ranked above 1.25 does not produce a graph that clearly evidences a benchmark for QSP, the roughly bimodal shape indicates that the two scribal schools represented in this group of manuscripts overlap between 2.50 and 6.25. On the other hand, the non-biblical curve more precisely displays two distributions which intersect at the 2.51–3.75 bin. The leftward “tail” of the righthand curve might have extended as far as the 1.26–2.50 bin. This is in basic agreement with both the benchmark that was proposed by Tov’s intuition, and that which is proposed by the present data set of 17 components: 2.4. One last matter that might help nuance some of the conclusions proposed in the discussion of the histogram. A question that arises from rankings presented in this article is what we might describe as “the elephant in the room”: what is the explanation for the fact that a sectarian document such as 1QS (with rank of 7.7) exists in a copy—4Q258 (4QSd)—with a pitiful QSP rank of 0.3?38 Eibert Tigchelaar, in a recent article reviewing the validity and significance of QSP,39 mentions five more such sectarian texts for which I can now provide a QSP ranking: 4Q162 (0.0), 4Q169 (2.0), 4Q264 (0.0), 4Q270 (0.3), and 4Q434 (0.8).40 He then posits, “On the basis of Tov’s hypothesis, these would presumably have been brought [to Qumran] from elsewhere.”41 It is possible that at some point in the future we might be able to verify or challenge this assumption.42 But such an assumption of an imported non-QSP sectarian text could be argued to cast doubt on Tov’s hypothesis that QSP scrolls are gener38  See n. 29. 39  Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice,’” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. Sariana Metso et al., STDJ 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 203. 40  On the other hand there several multiple-manuscript texts that are only found in QSP: The Temple Scroll: 4Q365a (7.5), 4Q524 (7.7), 11Q19 Hand A (8.5), 11Q19 Hand B (8.4), 11Q20 (8.4), 11Q21* (10); the War Scroll: 1QM (6.9), 4Q491 (8.6), 4Q492 (3.0), 4Q493 (4.2), 4Q494* (0), 4Q495* (10), 4Q496 (6.9); Hodayot: 1QHa Hand A (5.6), 1QHa Hand C (8.8), 1Q35* (8.3), 4Q427 (9.4), 4Q428 (8.8), 4Q429 (6.2), 4Q430* (0), 4Q431* (7.5), 4Q432 (7.6); Words of the Luminaries: 4Q504 (8.7), 4Q505 (10), 4Q506 (7.6); Instruction: 1Q26 (9.5), 4Q415 (9.3), 4Q416 (6.6), 4Q417 (8.4), 4Q418 (8.6), 4Q418a (8.6), 4Q418c* (0), 4Q423 (5.3); Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: 4Q400 (6.0), 4Q401 (8.5), 4Q402 (6.9), 4Q403 (8.0), 4Q404 (10), 4Q405 (6.5), 4Q406* (5.0), 4Q407* (0), 11Q17 (6.8), Mas1k (6.2); Blessings: 4Q286 (9.6), 4Q287 (10), 4Q288* (6.7), 4Q289* (10), 4Q290* (10); MMT: 4Q394 (2.1), 4Q395* (NA), 4Q396 (2.3), 4Q397 (7.4), 4Q398 (7.4), 4Q399* (10). 41  Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 204. 42  Ira Rabin and her Berlin colleagues demonstrated that at least one QSP scroll was penned in the Dead Sea Region by determining the origin of the ink. Ira Rabin, Oliver Hahn, Timo

202

Abegg

ally sectarian and that such scrolls are to be closely connected to the Qumran community.43 I would suggest that restraints to such an assumption are found in an observation that I made in my previous study: It is significant that although the group of “conflict”44 tefillin and mezuzot includes both QSP and non-QSP manuscripts,45 all of the QSP tefillin and mezuzot are in conflict with the rabbinical injunction. This of course also determines the converse: those tefillin and mezuzot that are in agreement with the rabbinical injunction are without exception non-QSP.46 Thus we might suggest that the most notable factor regarding scribal practice among the documents from Qumran is that a text exists in a manuscript that is ranked as QSP. We might then propose that these manuscripts would have been acceptable to the group that used the conflict tefillin and mezuzot. Likewise, just as conflict tefillin and mezuzot could appear in non-QSP form, we might also expect to find manuscripts of accepted sectarian nature copied in a more classical style. As a result, although a QSP document might be said to be “in conflict,” or at least acceptable to and valued by those “in conflict,” a nonQSP document cannot be presumed to have originated elsewhere in Judea, or to be classified “orthodox” or “non-sectarian” solely on the basis of its scribal character. A modern example from my own experience may help illustrate this state of affairs: whereas a document in Canadian English (CanE)—a collection of closely related varieties of English native to Canada—can be said with some certainty to have been written for a Canadian audience, it cannot be said on the basis of “scribal practice” alone that a non-CanE document originated outside of Canada or was written for a non-Canadian audience.

Wolff, Adimir Masic, and Gisela Weinberg, “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayota),” DSD 16 (2009): 97–106. 43  Tov, “Revisited,” 371. 44  This determination is founded on their agreement or conflict with the rabbinical injunction in b. Menaḥ. 34a–37b, 42b–43b that determines the content of tefillin and mezuzot. 45  The updated ranking of “conflict” tefillin and mezuzot: 1Q13 (0.0), 4Q128 (9.1), 4Q129 (8.8), 4Q134 (3.1), 4Q135 (3.3), 4Q136 (1.7), 4Q137 (9.2), 4Q138 (9.2), 4Q139 (8.8), 4Q140 (9.1), 4Q141 (5.0), 4Q142 (10), 4Q143 (6.4), 4Q144* (10), 4Q149* (8.8), 4Q150* (0.0), 4Q151* (0.0), 8Q3 (0.1), 8Q4 (0.2), XQ1 (0.1), XQ2 (0.2), XQ3 (0.2). 46  The updated ranking of “agreement” tefillin and mezuzot: 4Q130 (1.2), 4Q131* (0.0), 4Q132* (0.0), 4Q133 (0.8), 4Q145 (0.4), 4Q146* (0.0), 4Q152* (0.0), 4Q153* (0.0), 4Q154* (0.0), 4Q155 (0.0), 34Se1 (0.3), Mur4 (0.1), XḤev/Se5 (0.1). For further discussion, see E. Tov, Scribal Practices, 270–71.

Qumran Scribal Practice: Won Moor Thyme

203

4 Summary In a recent article by Emanuel Tov in which he responds to reviews of his QSP theory, he makes a summary statement regarding the Qumran manuscripts which serves as a useful way to highlight the advances made in this present study. Within the Qumran corpus, a group of 167 non-biblical and biblical texts has been isolated as reflecting an idiosyncratic practice, the characteristics of which are visible in peculiarities of their orthography, morphology, and scribal features. These texts do not share a common textual typology. But they are closely connected with the Qumran community, since it includes virtually all commonly agreed upon sectarian writings.47 We have made a handful of significant gains by means of this present study and its previous counterpart.48 First, I have by largely independent means rediscovered Tov’s Qumran Scribal Practice, thus underlining its validity. Then by means of a detailed analysis of the entire corpus I have proposed a ranking system which has served both to increase the number of recognized QSP documents from 167 to 200 and to verify all of Tov’s own inclusions aside from 4Q273. The rankings of both biblical and non-biblical manuscripts were then used to produce a histogram that illustrates the bi-modal character of the manuscripts (both QSP and classical Hebrew scribal practices), highlights the differing scribal profiles of biblical and non-biblical documents, and verifies a 2.4 rank (out of 10) as the point from which a manuscript should be classified as exhibiting Qumran Scribal Practice. Finally the presence of non-QSP sectarian manuscripts is explained by means of a parallel phenomenon among the tefillin and mezuzot. Acknowledgements I am indebted to my daughter, Stephanie Abegg, who again brought her mathematics expertise to bear on this study. I would also like to thank Enrique Torres Giese who gently encouraged me to adopt a more scientific method of graphing (see Figure 10.2) and then taught me how to interpret the results.

47  Tov, “Revisited,” 371. 48  Abegg, Scribal Practice.

204

Abegg

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “The Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Hebrew Syntax.” Pages 163–72 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. Early Judaism and Its Literature 30. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Scribal Practice and the Pony in the Manure Pile.” Pages 65–88 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel Falk. EJL 36. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 193–214 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Tague, Nancy R. The Quality Toolbox. 2nd ed. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press, 2004. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice.’” Pages 173–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sariana Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “Scribal Practices and Approaches Revisited.” HeBAI 3 (2014): 363–74.

Chapter 11

The Grain of the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher: a New Reading of ‫( ומאכלו ברו‬1QpHab 6:5) Timothy H. Lim In a section of 1QpHab that describes the “Practices of the Kittim Army” (col. 5:12–6:12), the pesherist re-cited Hab 1:16cd in column 6.1 He had previously quoted Hab 1:14–16 at the bottom of the partially mutilated column 5, lines 12–16, but in the following column, he reprised Hab 1:16ab in lines 2–3, and Hab 1:16cd in line 5. It is the latter citation of Hab 1:16cd that will be reconsidered in this note. What did it read and what are its implications for the understanding of the Kittim’s practices? 1

“Their Food Abundant”

William Brownlee transcribed the quotation of Hab 1:16cd as ‫כיא בהם שמן‬ ‫ חלקו ומאכלו ברי‬and translated it as “For thereby their ration will be liberal, and their food abundant”.2 This reading of ‫“( ברי‬abundant”) as a masculine adjective qualifying ‫“( מאכלו‬their food”) has been followed by many.3 It solves the grammatical problem raised by MT Hab 1:16d that modifies the masculine substantive ‫ מאכלו‬with a feminine adjective ‫בראה‬. Brownlee thought that the final he of ‫ בראה‬was a scribal error, anticipating the interrogative particle of the next verse (‫העל‬, Hab 1:17). Read in this way, Hab 1:16cd has two clauses that are structurally chiastic and thematically parallel: “by them [i.e. their net and 1  The sectioning and description of this passage are based on my forthcoming commentary on the Habakkuk Pesher in the series, The Oxford Commentary on the Dead Sea Scrolls (OUP). 2  William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979), 99; William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (Philadelphia: SBL Press, 1959), 34. 3  Eduard Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebräisch und Deutsch mit masoretischer Punktation: Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen. 2nd ed. (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1971), 234; Bilha Nitzan, ‫ ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬.‫( מגילת פשר חבקוק‬1QpHab) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1986), 168; Maurya P. Horgan, “Pesharim” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations, ed. James Charlesworth et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), 170; Anthony Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 170*.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_013

206

Lim

seine] fat is his portion (‫ )שמן חלקו‬and his food is rich” (‫)מאכלו ברי‬. The reading of ‫ברי‬, Brownlee asserts, is scriptio plene but “with the characteristic omission of the quiescent ‫”א‬.4 In this explanation, then, the adjective ‫ ברי‬is understood as an orthographic variant of ‫בריא‬, and this view is reflected in Elisha Qimron’s edition that transcribes ‫ ברי‬in 6:5, but reconstructs [‫ ]בריא‬in 5:16 (cf. Ps 73:4).5 There are good reasons to consider an alternative explanation. None of the manuscripts of the MT collated by Kennicott and Ginsburg attest to the masculine form.6 Frequently, when the pesherite lemma has an orthographical variant, it is also attested in one or more of the MT manuscripts.7 The quiescent aleph is sometimes, but not invariably, omitted by the two scribes copying 1QpHab (e.g., ‫ויומרו‬, 8:7; ‫ שוו‬or ‫שיו‬, 10:10; ‫הרץ‬, 13:1, but ‫הארץ‬, 13:4). Also, the aleph and he are interchangeable, but the scribal practice is not consistent. An interesting case is ‫( להפלה‬7:8) in which the original aleph was written by scribe A, before the same scribe reformed it to a he (cf. ‫ הפלה‬of MT Ps 17:7 and ‫להפליא‬ in MT Isa 29:14).8 The closest parallel to ‫ברי‬, however, is the morphology of ‫ מרי‬that forms part of the biblical quotation of Hab 2:18 (col. 12:10–12). The pesherite ‫ מרי‬is unlikely to be an orthographical variant of MT Hab 2:18 (‫מורה )שקר‬, “a teacher (of lie)”. Had it been so, then, one would surely have expected the pesherist to comment on the Teacher of Falsehood as the counterpart to the Teacher of Righteousness.9 The reading ‫ מרי‬is most likely an orthographical variant of ‫“( מריא‬a fatling”), written without the final aleph.10 2

“Their Food Is Their Grain”

The lemmata of the pesher often agree with the MT, but they do not always do so. The absence of the third radical aleph in ‫ ברי‬suggests that the pesherist may 4  Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 34. 5  Elisha Qimron, ‫( מגילות מדבר יהודה החיבורים העבריים כרך ראשון‬Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2010), 249–50. 6  Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 34. 7  E.g., the plene spelling of ‫ כולם‬of 8:6 (Kennicott 224); the scribal insertion of the plene ‫ יושבי‬of 9:8 (Kennicott 17, 96, 112, 139, 161, 178, 182, 2540). 8  So Malachi Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2 (Louvain: Université de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1958), 665–66. 9  As pointed out long ago by C. Rabin, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents,” VT 5 (1955): 153. 10  Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 85, thought that the pesherite reading was an error, but later changed his mind and followed Geza Vermes’ reading of it as a variant spelling of “fatling” (Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 210).

The Grain of the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher

207

have read the word differently. The LXX’s rendering implies that the translator read the masculine adjective ‫“( בר‬pure, clean”) from the root ‫ברר‬, with a third masculine, pronominal suffix (‫)ו‬, understanding the sense to be “his food choice” (NETS) or “his choice food” (τὰ βρώματα αὐτοῦ ἐκλεκτά). The pesherite comment, however, does not emphasize the quality of the food, but its forced payment. I suggest that in col. 6, line 5, the scribe wrote ‫ברו‬, a substantive ‫ בר‬with a third masculine suffix ‫ו‬, meaning “his grain or corn” (cf. Amos 5:11). Scribe A wrote yod and vav in an indistinguishable manner, so the final letter could be either.11 Support for reading “his grain” is found in the pesherist’s comment in lines 6–8 that explains the biblical text to mean the Kittim’s apportioning of burdens of tax, resources and manpower on all the people. In col. 5, lines 6–8, the pesherist interpreted Hab 1:16cd as the Kittim laying waste many lands. The comment is unusual, since it excerpts a lexeme from Hab 1:16c (‫)מאכלם‬, and integrates it into his own or the Teacher of Righteousness’ words: ‫המה מחלקים את עולם ואת מסם מאכלם על כול העמים‬. There is no introductory formula that calls attention to this insertion. Moreover, the pesherist’s addition of the plural suffix (‫ )מאכלם‬shows that he understood ‫ מאכלו‬of the biblical lemma as a collective singular.12 According to the pesherist, the Kittim apportioned ‫ עולם‬and ‫ מסם‬on all the peoples. The term ‫ עול‬concretely means the yoke that is used to harness cattle (e.g. 1 Sam 6:7), but it could figuratively mean “servitude” (e.g. 1 Kgs 12:4, 10, 11, 14) or more generally “hardship” (Lam 3:27). The LXX translates the Hebrew term by the synonyms κλοιός (“collar”; e.g., 1 Kgs 12:4) and ζυγός (“yoke”; Lam 3:27). Josephus uses the latter term to describe the “yoke” or “servitude” that the Romans imposed on those whom they had subjugated ( J.W. 5.365; 7.87). According to the pesherist, the Kittim also allocated ‫ מסם‬on the peoples. In the biblical texts, ‫ מס‬refers to the band of labourers who were forced to serve. To build the Temple of Jerusalem, for instance, Solomon established an agreement with King Hiram of Tyre and himself raised a group of labourers (‫ ;מס‬LXX φόρος) from Israel, thirty thousand in total, sending ten thousand in turn and by month to Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:27). The labour force can be drawn from one’s own people, as in the case of Solomon’s building project, or it can also be conscripted from another, defeated population (e.g. Deut 20:11; Judg 1:30, 33, 35; Isa 31:8). In Judg 1:28, it states 11  For example, compare the pronominal suffixes appended to ‫ מאכל‬and ‫( בר‬col. 6:5) on Digital Dead Sea Scrolls (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/habakkuk). 12  The pesherist is following the prophecy of Habakkuk that uses the singular as a collective to refer to the nation of the Chaldeans (Hab 1:6: ‫)הכשדים הגוי המר והנמהר‬.

208

Lim

that when Israel grew strong, he imposed forced labour (‫ ;מס‬φόρος) on the Canaanites. In later usage, the term takes on an abstract sense; it no longer refers to the bands of labourers, but the forced service that is required from such a group. King Ahaseurus placed ‫ מס‬upon the land and the coasts of the seas (Est 10:1; LXX τέλος), a “forced payment” or “tax”.13 The pesherist chose these specific terms to express his view that the Kittim imposed their political and military will on many peoples in the form of a yoke of oppression and a tribute to be paid to them. The pesherist’s comment in col. 6:5–8, then, is to translated as follows: “they [i.e. the Kittim] apportion their yoke and their tribute—their food—among all the people year in and year out to lay waste many lands.” The pesherist’s comment does not qualify “their food” of the biblical text with “abundance”, as the MT does. Rather, ‫ מאכלם‬stands in apposition to ‫מסם‬, defining the latter by “food”. Since ‫ מס‬can mean “forced labour,” “tax,” or “tribute,” the pesherist makes it clear that what he had in mind was “their food.” In this context, reading ‫ ברו‬in the biblical lemma of Hab 1:16cd is suitable, since the supply of grain or corn, along with money and manpower, was part of the tribute that was paid by the nations under Roman rule. By scholarly consensus, the Kittim are to be identified with the Romans in Pesher Habakkuk. Those who were under the control of the Romans had to pay a tribute in the form of a supply of men, money, and grain or corn. The LXX translates the Hebrew ‫ בר‬as σῖτος (cf. Gen 41:35, 49; 42:3, 25; 45:23; Ps 65:14; Prov 11:26; Jer 23:28; Joel 2:24), the very same term that Josephus used to describe the grain or corn that Antipater and Hyrcanus supplied Scaurus and Gabinius (Ant. 14.80; J.W. 1.175). Bibliography Brownlee, William H. The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran. Philadelphia: SBL Press, 1959. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979. Gelston, Anthony. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010.

13  How this tax fits the context of Esther has been debated. Carey A. Moore, Esther. Introduction, Translation and Notes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 99, suggests that the reference to ‫ מס‬is “an expression of Xerxes’ later power and success”.

The Grain of the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher

209

Horgan, Maurya P. “Pesharim.” In Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations. Edited by James Charlesworth et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Lim, Timothy H. The Earliest Commentary on the Prophecy of Habakkuk. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Lohse, Eduard. Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebräisch und Deutsch mit masoretischer Punktation: Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen. 2nd ed. Munich: KöselVerlag, 1971. Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. Louvain: Université de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1958. Moore, Carey A. Esther. Introduction, Translation and Notes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Nitzan, Bilha. ‫ ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬.‫( מגילת פשר חבקוק‬1QpHab). Jerusalem: Bialik, 1986. Qimron, Elisha. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה החיבורים העבריים כרך ראשון‬. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2010. Rabin, Chaim. “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents.” VT 5 (1955): 148–62.

Chapter 12

The Vistas of Variant Readings: Towards an Understanding of Scribal Transmission as Reception in the Qumran Fragments of Aramaic Daniel Andrew B. Perrin 1

New Intersections of Textual Criticism and Reception History

If there was one theme that ran through much of Professor Peter Flint’s research it was his captivation with the thousands of textual variants revealed by the Qumran biblical scrolls, Septuagint (LXX), Masoretic Text (MT), and Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). For Peter, these discoveries made through painstaking comparison held the promise of restoring lost elements in the Hebrew scriptures. He was certainly no stranger to the spectrum of variant writings among the Qumran scrolls—orthographic changes, a word added or omitted here or there, and even full-scale reworkings of entire books. Yet one of his preeminent pursuits was thoughtfully engaging this diversity, distilling it to uncover the earliest, best, or most groundbreaking textual variants forgotten in caves for two-millennia. The goal: to discover something new in something very old. Because of his skillful and practiced text-critical eye, Peter was a prolific editor of Qumran texts, published several complex data sets of variant readings for individual biblical books, and served as a regular consultant and contributor to both critical editions and bible translations. As his text-critical work demonstrated, the Dead Sea Scrolls remain a mine unlikely to be exhausted or emptied any time soon.1 Yet there is a flipside to the quest for those variants thought to inch closer to an original, however conceived in view of pluriform witnesses and evidence of the ongoing scribal contributions to scripture. In the philological mining for 1  For a complete bibliography of Peter’s career contributions, see now Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, “A Comprehensive and Chronological Bibliography of Peter W. Flint,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, EJL 47 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 679–90.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_014

The Vistas of Variant Readings

211

such readings, statistically there are bound to be more readings identified as “secondary” for traditional text criticism than there are earlier ones. These are those readings that break all the introductory rules. They are longer, so likely later. They are less difficult, so probably a later development. They are solitary and stand against a stack of geographically and chronologically diverse witnesses. Even the best of mines offer up far more rock and rubble than the precious commodity sought. If we turn our attention to this rubble, however, perhaps there is a different sort of treasure awaiting discovery: readings that tell the story of human responses, interactions, and adaptations of the text as scribes handled the tradition in antiquity. Of course, these scribes were copying, but also interpreting. Inheriting but reimagining. Brooke recently captured this prospect in a study on exegetical approaches in Qumran texts. “The assumption that interpretive variants belong exclusively to the process of interpretation and are secondarily introduced into what might otherwise be deemed to be a stable or fixed text now seems inadequate … The minor changes that they [scribes] introduce for clarificatory purposes or the major rewriting that some scribes engage in are all severely part of the transmission process of the scriptural text.”2 If this is universally so with our biblical scrolls at Qumran, how might this observation inform studies on the book of Daniel?3 The Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionized our understanding of many books inherited as Jewish and Christian scripture. Arguably, their impact on Daniel is unmatched for one reason: the proximity of the Qumran witnesses to the time of the book’s initial composition is closer than any other writing received in the biblical canons.4 The earliest of these manuscripts, 4QDanielc, is palaeographically dated to the late-second century BCE.5 Frank Moore Cross commented that this remarkable fragmentary manuscript is “closer to the original 2  George J. Brooke, “Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of The Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 564–91, here 569. 3  I am aware of the anachronism and inadequacy of the term “biblical” to describe the literature of this period. Yet, for convenience sake in the present discussion, I will retain it to signify those works eventually canonized in Jewish and Christian scriptures. 4  At this point in research on the formation of the biblical book of Daniel, a mid-second century BCE compositional date is a certainty, though there remain various perspectives on the traditional or textual formation of work in this era. For a discussion of critical issues in determining this date and current perspectives, see Carol A. Newsom, Daniel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 6–14. 5  Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume II, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, FIOTL (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 573–85.

212

Perrin

edition of a biblical work than any biblical manuscript in existence.”6 In this way, Daniel may have been received in Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, yet it is thoroughly a piece of Second Temple period literature and our earliest witnesses come from this same era. As Teeter underscored, studying the formation and interpretation of biblical writings must then account for how “[t]he thought forms, interests, concerns and orientation of the period have made themselves felt throughout its diverse compositions … The texts of the Hebrew Bible record the evolutionary development of a history of meaning.”7 For Daniel, the theorized collapsing of original authorship and transmission is suddenly practical in view of Qumran. Its history of meaning is almost immediate and concurrent with composition. In a seminal article on the Daniel tradition at Qumran, Peter Flint contextualized studies on the biblical book in light of the now larger representation of Aramaic texts associated with, or thematically related to, Daniel.8 He also remarked at the textual character and general contribution of the Qumran Hebrew/Aramaic materials. “Despite the fragmentary state of most of the Daniel scrolls, they reveal no major disagreements against the Masoretic Text, although individual readings differ on occasion.”9 In general, the Qumran Daniel fragments are in a form and structure analogous to what eventually surfaces in MT.10 Yet, as acknowledged by Flint, they also revealed numerous variant readings. In view of the current data, there are 132 variant readings that (dis)agree with various combinations of other witnesses.11 While it would be a 6  Frank Moore Cross Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City: Anchor, 1958), 43. 7  Andrew Teeter, “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological Reflections,” DSD 20 (2013): 349–77, here 351–52; italics original. 8  Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41–60. For an equally important synopsis of this tradition, see also Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Formation and Re-Formation of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 101–30. 9  Flint, “Daniel Tradition,” 43. Flint provided a brief snapshot of select variant readings at: Dan 2:34 (4QDana 3 ii:1), 2:40 (4QDana 5 ii:9), 3:2 (4QDana 7:9), and 10:19 (4QDana 15:18) (“Daniel Tradition,” 44–45). 10  The precise nature and degree of these correlations and the codicological profile of the Qumran fragments is an area in need of continued study. Aspects of this topic are currently under consideration by Amanda Davis Bledsoe in her doctoral dissertation at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 11  This figure is based on a tabulation of the data in Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 775–75. Puech recently identified a small fragment originally in Starky’s lot as belonging to a new Daniel scroll (É mile Puech, Un nouveau manuscrit de Daniel: 4QDanf = 4Q116a,” in Is There a

The Vistas of Variant Readings

213

tall order to document and describe all of these here, in the spirit of building upon the work of our honoree, I will add but a few more case studies to firm up a foundation for further study. My goal in this sample study, however, is not to uncover, reconstruct, or champion a better text. Neither is it to be comprehensive. Rather, it is to undertake some soundings in the depths of the Qumran Daniel fragments, to hear some lost and early scribal conversations with the text in the earliest discernable stage of the transmission process. My focus is less on textual antecedents than on what those variant readings likely deemed “secondary” in traditional text-critical pursuits reveal about the scribal process of inheriting, extending, and interpreting the tradition. This collapsing of composition and transmission, therefore, is concerned with scribal activity as reception and variants as hints of early engagement with the inherited tradition. 2

Scribal Harmonization in the Omen Interpretation at Daniel 5:12

The presentation of the Aramaic tale of Dan 5—the story of the writing on the wall—in the Qumran fragments includes both clear instances of scribal interpretation as well as likely earlier readings unknown from most later witnesses. I comment on the latter at the close of the paper. To illustrate the first type, I will discuss a new reading in Dan 5:12, which seems to evidence a harmonistic approach to the narrative. As the familiar story goes, after the Queen mother reminds Belshazzar of Daniel’s sagely prowess and revelatory proficiencies in the days of his father, Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke, ed. Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel, STDJ 119 [Leiden: Brill, 2017], 123–27). He proposes the Aramaic of four partial words span Dan 2:39–40, perhaps in a form reflecting a reconstructed Vorlage of the Old Greek (“Un nouveau manuscrit,” 125– 26). If this identification is accepted, the fragment provides yet another glimpse of Daniel’s representation at Qumran. With a fragment of this size and limited content, however, we cannot know for certain that the fragment attests to an entire scroll of Daniel. The possibility of quoted, excerpted, or recontextualized material from Daniel is entirely possible.    At present, I do not include texts or data related to the alleged Dead Sea Scrolls fragments in private collections since the provenance and authenticity is currently under scrutiny. For a preliminary reflection on MS 1926/4a (Daniel 2:4–5) MS 1926/4b (Daniel 3:26–27) among The Schøyen Collection, see Andrew B. Perrin “Were There Nine Scrolls Originally Found in Qumran Cave One? Ancient Artefacts, Modern Forgeries, and the Ongoing History of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR (forthcoming). For the edition of these fragments, see Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois, Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection, LSTS 71 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 247–70.

214

Perrin

Daniel is summoned to the site of the party. The task(s) that Belshazzar requires of Daniel, however, is (are) not uniform in our witnesses. The variant reading in question is in Dan 5:12, with translations and original language texts as follows:12 ‫וכת[בא יקרא‬ ̇ ‫ יתקר]א‬4QDanb ([‫ )]ו̊ ̇כתבא יקרא‬4QDana (cf. 5:7)] ‫ יתקרי‬MT

θʹ (κληθήτω) Pesh Vulg; LXX 967

NRSV: Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation (‫ופשׁרה‬

‫)יהחוה‬.

DSSB: So now let Daniel be call]ed, and he will read the writing [and will give the interpretation] (4QDana 10–11:3: ‫;יתקרי]ו̊ ̇כתבא יקרא[ופשרה יהחוה‬ 4QDanb 1–4:8: ‫וכת[בא יקרא‬ ̇ ‫)יתקר]א‬. The question is whether the king marshalled Daniel to the scene to simply interpret the writing (one action) or to read and interpret the inscribed omen (two related, but separate, acts). MT and the subsequent witnesses listed above tend toward the shorter reading. The king needed an interpretation, Daniel was the diviner to do it. While there is little in the way of surrounding context, the reading is clear in 4QDana. In 4QDanb, only the first verb is extant. However, as Ulrich noted, the longer final phrase of Dan 5:12 is highly likely here given the agreement of two scrolls against MT in the overlapping text elsewhere.13 In the scene set by the Qumran finds, the king calls Daniel to court for his assistance to both “read” (‫ )קרא‬and “interpret” (‫ )פׁשר‬the ominous wall writing. Textually, it cannot be ruled out that the Qumran materials attest to an earlier reading. As Collins noted, the multiple words ending in aleph in the 12  Daniel texts and variant readings in this study are from Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Note that I have updated his manuscript sigla to standard abbreviations for most manuscript witnesses. For the purposes of textual comparisons in this essay, MT is represented in translation by the NRSV (with slight modification when necessary). Corresponding original language texts of MT are from BHS. Translations of Qumran biblical texts are from Martin Abegg Jr., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). When pertinent, Septuagint texts are from the Göttingen edition (Joseph Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, Susanna Bel et Draco, vol. 16.2 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999]) with translations from NETS (R. Timothy McClay, “Daniel,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007]). 13  See, for example, the textual notes by Ulrich, DJD 16, 250, 258.

The Vistas of Variant Readings

215

reconstructed phrase ‫ יתקר]א וכת[בא יקרא‬in 4QDanb may present conditions for MT’s omission of ‫ וכתבא יקרא‬by homoioteleuton.14 Contextually, however, it seems more plausible that the Qumran fragments’ shared longer reading represents an expansion through scribal harmonization with parallel passages. Ulrich observed that the supplied phrasing in Dan 5:12 is analogous to Dan 5:7 and 5:17.15 Echoes may resound further still with similar phrasing of “reading” and “interpreting” also in Dan 5:8, 15, and 16. The likely original solo reference to “interpreting” in Dan 5:12 is seemingly out of step with the surrounding narrative. From this perspective, the longer phrasing in the Qumran fragments likely resulted from a scribal expansion to bring its content in line with formulaic phrasing in the immediate context. That this expansion persists in two separate Aramaic manuscripts suggests the scribal interpretation entered the Daniel tradition at a very early time, presumably in a shared text form behind both 4QDana and 4QDanb. Why might a scribe make this change? The added content is admittedly modest. This slight shift, however, may suggest a scribal interest in harmonization. Or, at the very least, an awareness of the context and contours of the episode in question. Tov highlighted that harmonistic changes were acceptable in the early transmission process: “Scribes adapted many elements in the text to other details in the same verse, in the immediate or a similar context, in the same book and in parallel sections elsewhere in scripture.”16 This type of interpretive activity could be either intentional or inadvertent. The scribe may have altered the text by adding a detail to establish harmony between parallel passages or inadvertently done so by unconscious influence of a parallel text. This phenomenon is well-documented in the transmission of select Qumran biblical texts, not least the so-called pre-SP fragments, as well as in the subsequent witnesses to SP, MT, and the presumed Vorlagen of the LXX Pentateuch.17 If my proposal of the motivation of the textual variant in Dan 5:12 is accepted, it may signal some interest in establishing internal coherency and narrative consistency in the early Daniel tradition.18 14  John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 238. See now also, Michael Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel, BZAW 455 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 65. 15   D JD 16, 251, 258. Collins (Daniel, 238) also notes this potential alternate explanation. 16  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 258. 17  Emanuel Tov, “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts,” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–19. 18  The OG text of Dan 4–6 differs appreciably from MT. Where Dan 5 references the divinatory tasks set for Daniel and the courtiers, the Greek text generally consolidates these into single interpretive acts, for example, as in the case in Dan 5:12: “to make known”

216

Perrin

This slight change may also reflect a perceived interpretive issue in the episode. Daniel’s persona and capabilities crescendo throughout the work. Daniel 5 sits as a critical chapter in the evolution of his character.19 The actions Daniel performs here matter and they must make sense in light of the challenges laid before him in the narrative. It is clear that the king and nobles are horrified. Yet it is not entirely clear why. Was it that they were able to see the inscription but not understand its ominous meaning or were they mortified at the presence of a floating hand but unaware of the words etched before them? Commentators take different stances on the impetus for their bafflement as well as how it relates to what the king demands of Daniel.20 Segal recently called attention to the possibility that it was only Daniel and the king who were able to see the writing on the wall, while the banquet goers remained oblivious to what terrified their royal host.21 On this reading, their confusion was at the king’s sudden change of mood and erratic behavior. In this sense, the task demanded of Daniel in chapter 5 is not unlike that of chapter 2. Daniel must first uncover the content of the revelation itself and then unlock its hidden meaning. While I disagree with Segal that the variant at Dan 5:12 in the Qumran fragments is original, his narrative interpretation may prove helpful to a different take on the altered text. The expansion of the text to include references to both “reading and interpreting” may suggest the scribe perceived that a shorter text requiring only “interpreting” would leave the existence and words of the inscription unknown to most characters on the scene. Harmonizing the account to include the first and foundational action of “reading,” therefore, not only established phraseological consistency but also narrative cogency. This mod(ὑποδείκνυμι) (cf. Dan 5:7, 8, 16, 17). While the Greek tradition is little help in ascertaining the shape and content of the Aramaic Vorlage in Dan 5:12, it attests to yet another early interpretation of this recurring phrasing, which may be understood as another type of harmonization by leveling the actions of reading and interpreting into a singular divinatory task. 19  See, for example, the study by Phoebe Makiello, “Daniel as Mediator of Divine Knowledge in the Book of Daniel,” JJS 60 (2009): 18–31. 20  Commentators provide varying explanations of the collective confusion at the inscription: the material was in an unknown or unfamiliar script (Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1978], 188), the information was presented in unfamiliar abbreviated cuneiform (John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 [Waco: Word Books, 1989], 109), the letters were understood but their mysterious meaning was imperceptible (Collins, Daniel, 248), the writing was clearly visible and the description of the scene invites the reader/hearer’s visualization of the drama (Newsom, Daniel, 168–69). 21  Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 59–65.

The Vistas of Variant Readings

217

est act of scribal intervention allowed for both perception and comprehension of the omen in the narrative. This potential early interpretation of the text, therefore, provides glimpses into both the scribal awareness of the context of the passage and evidences an exegetical contribution in the early tradition. 3

Subtle Improvements to Narrative Discourse in Daniel 3:25 and 6:21(22)

Small-scale scribal interventions often improved clarity or enhanced precision in scripture. As was the case with the preceding variant in Dan 5:12, at times this was achieved by the ripple effect of forms, phrases, and content elsewhere in the text. Other variants, however, do not seem to have entered the manuscript tradition because of the influence of an antecedent or nearby text. These incremental changes are not textual in origin but are the result of the human cognitive processes of scribal culture. The received tradition is heard or read, the human scribe interprets and adapts its content, and the resulting material is then textualized in a physical object. Not the same text but a similar, organic one results. This type of scribal activity is evident in both the Qumran Daniel fragments as well as in MT. The following set of examples illustrates this in both directions at varying stages of the tradition. Daniel 3:25 contains a pair of modifications relating to the dialogue with a flabbergasted Nebuchadnezzar at the silhouettes of four figures roaming about unsinged in the fiery furnace. The variant readings and relevant translations and transcriptions are as follows: ‫ ̇ענ̊ ̊ה נ̊ ̊ב ̊כ ̇דנ̊ ̊צ[ר ואמר‬4QDand] ‫ ענה ואמר‬MT Vulg; και (+ αποκριθεις θʹL’) ειπεν

ο βασιλευς θʹ; ‫ ܘܐܡܪ ܥܝܐ ܡܠܫܐ‬Pesh Vulg cf. οʹ ‫ ̇להדברוהי‬4QDand οʹ(vid)] > MT θʹPesh Vulg

NRSV: He replied and said (‫)ענה ואמר‬, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.” DSSB: Nebuchadnezz[ar] replied [and said] to his officials (‫̇ענ̊ ̊ה נ̊ ̊ב ̊כ ̇דנ̊ ̊צ[ר‬ ‫)ואמר[ ̇להדברוהי‬, “But I see four men loo[se, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are unharmed; and the appearance] of [the fo]urth is lik[e] a son of the god[s” (4QDand 2ii: 4–5).

218

Perrin

4QDand contains a series of textual variants that modify two different aspects of the discourse. The first specifies the implied subject of the verb, making it clear that the speaker is Nebuchadnezzar. The second specifies the addressees, indicating that Nebuchadnezzar’s words were spoken directly to the officials on the scene.22 Neither reading is essential for understanding the plain sense of the discourse. These slight textual evolutions evidence scribal intervention. They were engineered to explicate the narrative frame and are, therefore, secondary in nature. The scribe of 4QDand (or that of his Vorlage) is simultaneously transmitting and receiving the text. His conversation with the tradition invests in it by including minor interpretive elements. An example of the reverse situation, where the Qumran fragments shed light on shifts in discourse in MT, is found in Dan 6:21(22). The relevant data and texts are as follows: [‫ מ]לל‬4QDanb ‫ אדין דניאל עם מלכא מלל‬MT (+ ‫ )ܘܐܡܪ‬Pesh; τότε (τὸν 967) Δανιηλ ἐπήκουσε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπε LXX 967; καὶ εἶπε Δανιηλ τῷ βασιλεῖ θʹ; καὶ ἐλάλησε Δ. τῷ βας. καὶ εἶπεν θʹmss; et Danihel regi responderis ait Vulg

NRSV: Daniel then said to the king (‫)עם מלכא מלל‬, “O king, live forever!” DSSB: [Then Daniel s]aid[(4QDanb 7ii, 8:22: [‫)מ]לל‬, “O king, live forever!” The verb in question is evident by a pair of upward extending strokes of the lameds at the lower left reaches of fragment 4QDanb 7ii.23 In view of a reasonably reconstructed text, however, “[t]he size of the lacuna suggests that ‘to the king’ was lacking in 4QDanb.”24 The shorter Qumran text likely indicated Daniel as the subject but the addressee remained implied and unstated. Here again, that Daniel is speaking to the king is reasonably inferred by the vocative, “O king” in the dialogue proper. As indicated by the data in the variant reading statement above, longer augmented readings specifying both speaker and addressee are found in all other known traditions. These seem to originate with an interpretation, making the implicit explicit. While such a reading eventually surfaces in MT, its presence in other early and important witnesses, like the Greek MS 967, suggest 22  Cf. Dan 3:24, which contains similar phrasing. 23  See DJD 16, 261, pl. XXXII. 24  Collins, Daniel, 258. In the edition, Ulrich (DJD 16, 262) observed that “[t]he double lamed and consequent spacing suggest that only two words could have preceded [‫ מ]לל‬and that v 22 may have read … ‫( אדין דניאל מלל‬omitting or transposing ‫ עם מלכא‬of MT); note the many versional variants for this introductory formula.”

The Vistas of Variant Readings

219

a broader lineage of this reading. How deep that lineage extends, however, is difficult to discern. Regardless of the point of its inception, unlike the previous example in Dan 3:25 where the reception of the scribal interpretation was localized and limited apparently only in 4QDand, the longer interpretive readings of Dan 6:21(22) enjoyed a reception across both languages and versions of Daniel. In the case studies of variant readings in Dan 3:25 and 6:21(22), the resulting text is neither radically different nor provides anything that a reader or hearer could not naturally deduce. Yet these fine-tunings did not originate from within the text but were created in conversation with the text. Such dialogues could occur at various stages of the transmission process. These examples, then, serve as a reminder that early readings can appear in late witnesses and ancient witnesses can likewise retain early scribal interventions. 4

A Recovered Early Reading? The Longer List of Divinatory Practitioners in Daniel 5:7

No essay on the topic of variant readings in a memorial volume for Peter Flint would be quite complete without the presentation of a potential early reading discovered among the Qumran fragments. With this, I return to the episode of Dan 5. As Belshazzar stands mortified at the sight of the hand, he offers a promotion to the courtier who can disclose the meaning of the omen. But to whom did he extend this reward? The witnesses present slightly different lists of the practitioners in question. The material relevant to this discussion is as follows: ‫[כ]ש[דיא‬ ̊ ‫רטמיא‬ ̇ ‫ ̊ח‬4QDana LXX (φαρμάκους καὶ Χαλδαίους)[ ‫ כשדיא‬MT

θʹ Vulg; > 967; ‫ ܘܠܫܠܕܝܐ ܘܠܡܓܘܣܐ‬Pesh

NRSV: The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners (‫ ;)לאׁשפיא כשׂדיא וגזריא‬and the king said to the wise men of Babylon (‫)לחכימי בבל‬, “Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom.” DSSB: The [king cried] aloud for the enchanters, the magicians, the Chal[deans, and the diviners (‫כ]ש[דיא וגזריא‬ ̊ [‫רטמיא‬ ̇ ‫ )לאשפיא ̊ח‬to be brought in, and the king said to the wise men of Baby]lon (‫)לחכימי בב]ל‬, “[Who]ever reads this writing and te[lls me] its interpretation [shall be

220

Perrin

clothed in purple, wear a golden chain around his neck, and rule as third in the kingdom].” (4QDana 9:17–18) The witnesses generally map onto two options. MT, Theodotion, and the Vulgate read a threefold enumeration including: “enchanters,” Chaldeans,” and “diviners.”25 4QDana and LXX read a fourfold list. The fourth item included in the latter is “the magicians (‫רטמיא‬ ̇ ‫ ”) ̊ח‬in the Aramaic text, or the Greek φαρμάκους, rendered as “sorcerers” in NETS. Lists of courtier titles are widespread in Daniel. There is apparently no shortage of skilled labor in the Babylonian upper echelon! Table 12.1 below represents all of the titles, terms, and offices included in such lists across the book. I include all lexical forms attested for reference. Among the lists of practitioners included in the Aramaic court tales, Dan 5:7 is the only one making no mention of “magicians.” Furthermore, the reference to the “wise ones” in this verse is technically not within the list itself; rather, it is a collective reference encompassing all of the preceding titles of the list proper (hence the asterisk in the table). Admittedly, this case could cut in either direction. On the one hand, it is possible that the brevity of the threefold list suggests it is indeed earlier. In this light, the list of four titles could attest to yet another expansive interpretation Table 12.1 Titles and Lists of diviners in the book of Daniel

1:20 Magician(s) (‫) ַח ְרטֹּם; ַח ְר ֻט ִמּים; ַח ְר ֻט ִמּין‬ Enchanter(s) (‫אָשׁ ִפין‬ ְ ;‫אַשּׁ ִפים‬ ָ ;‫אָשׁף‬ ַ ) Sorcerers (‫) ְמ ַכ ְשּׁ ִפים‬ Chaldean(s) (‫) ַכ ְשׂ ָדּי; ַכ ְשׂ ִדים‬ Diviners (‫)גָּ זְ ִרין‬ Wise ones (‫) ַח ִכּ ִימין‬

2:2

2:10

2:27

• • • • • • • • • • • •

4:7[4]

5:7

5:11

5:15

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

25  Note the further limited variation in MS 967 and the Peshitta.

*

The Vistas of Variant Readings

221

of the text, perhaps due to an interest in harmony with other lists.26 On the other hand, there are at least two factors weighing in favour of the priority of the reading in 4QDana. First, while traditional text-critical guidelines prescribe that shorter readings tend to be earlier, it is equally important to weigh the combination of witnesses in question. In the present case, not only does a Qumran fragment of 4QDana represent our oldest original language witness, it benefits from parallel representation in the LXX. This suggests that the Greek translator’s Vorlage at this point retained a reading analogous to that of 4QDana. It is highly unlikely that the Greek translator would have omitted the reference to the “magician” at the level of the production of the text.27 Second, the list in question is in a context conducive to scribal error resulting in the omission of the mention of “magicians.” To illustrate the situation, imagine the form of the text reading: ‫לאשפיא חרטמיא כשדיא וגזריא‬. If this was the underlying phrasing, it is entirely possible that the omission of “magicians,” the second noun, was the result of parablepsis occasioned by homoioteleuton. Since all of the items in question in the list of practitioners are plural, definite nouns, they all terminate with a yod-aleph character cluster. The likelihood of this occurring for the second noun is heightened by the peh-yod-aleph ending of ‫( אשפיא‬the first noun in the list) and the mem-yod-aleph ending of ‫חרטמיא‬ (the second noun in the list). The medial mem and medial peh could be easily confused on the periphery of the form. If this is accepted, the Qumran text presents a lost reading and provides an important textual basis for the reading in the LXX. 5

Closing Remarks

The Qumran Daniel fragments provide the unique opportunity of observing scribes at work within a generation or so of the book’s composition. The few case studies above illustrate both the challenge and opportunity of navigating traditional text-critical interests while retracing the interpretive footsteps of scribes who were but a few steps removed from the inauguration of the textualized tradition. This type of participatory role is, at times, understood as 26  Collins (Daniel, 236), for instance, states that 4QDana adds “dream interpreters.” 27  While it would be risky to attempt to reconstruct the base text Josephus utilized in Dan 5, it is nonetheless intriguing that apart from one reference to the “Chaldeans” in the passage (Ant. 10.234), the practitioners singled out as actively on the scene are the “magicians” (Ant. 10.234–236).

222

Perrin

the activity of “author-scribes.” Due to the often interpretive nature of their contributions, these scribes should also be understood as our earliest participants in reception history. These understandings are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Scribes had a participatory role in the composition process. They inherited traditions and extended them. These acts were not, and should not be, differentiated. This type of activity is likely earlier than even the Qumran witnesses attest. It is possible, even likely, that the variations evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments did not originate with the immediate scribes in question but hailed from earlier and now lost Vorlage(n) or earlier non-textual forms of the tradition. This would push the scribal stages of composition, transmission, and reception closer still. While the Qumran biblical texts indicate the border between composition and transmission is foggy at best, in the case of Daniel it seems foggier still. The very act of putting pen to parchment, leather, or papyrus is reception: it involves a human being reading/hearing, transmitting, or in the cases described here, also adjusting their received text in even modest ways.28 Bibliography Abegg Jr., Martin, Peter W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Brooke, George J. “Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 564–591 in The Oxford Handbook of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Cross Jr., Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1958. Elgvin, Torleif, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois. Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. LSTS 71. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

28  It is an honour to remember Peter Flint here in an essay that bridges two of his interests: textual criticism in view of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scope of the Danielic traditions at Qumran. An earlier version of this study was presented in the Daniel session at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston. The research for this project was made possible through the support of a research grant on the Qumran Aramaic Texts from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

The Vistas of Variant Readings

223

Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41–60 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. WBC 30. Waco: Word, 1989. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden City: Doubleday, 1978. Makiello, Phoebe. “Daniel as Mediator of Divine Knowledge in the Book of Daniel.” JJS 60 (2009): 18–31. McClay, R. Timothy. “Daniel.” Pages 991–1022 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Newsom, Carol A. Daniel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Perrin, Andrew B. “Were There Nine Scrolls Originally Found in Qumran Cave One? Ancient Artefacts, Modern Forgeries, and the Ongoing History of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BAR (forthcoming). Perrin, Andrew B., Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk. “A Comprehensive and Chronological Bibliography of Peter W. Flint.” Pages 679–90 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk. EJL 47. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Puech, É mile. “Un nouveau manuscrit de Daniel: 4QDanf = 4Q116a.” Pages 123–27 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel. STDJ 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Segal, Michael. Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. BZAW 455. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Formation and Re-Formation of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 101–30 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Teeter, Andrew. “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological Reflections.” DSD 20 (2013): 349–77. Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–19. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 573–85 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume II. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. FIOTL. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

224

Perrin

Ulrich, Eugene, Frank Moore Cross Jr., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Peter W. Flint, Sarianna Metso, Catherine M. Murphy, Curt Niccum, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov, and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Psalms to Chronicles. Vol. 11 of Qumran Cave 4. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Ziegler, Joseph, and Olivier Munnich. Susanna Bel et Draco. Vol 17.2 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

Chapter 13

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls Emanuel Tov 1

Different Types of Exegesis in the Scrolls

The first Scripture scrolls were discovered in Cave 1 seventy years ago and since then they have not ceased to enrich Bible research. Merely some of the aspects of that research were affected by the discovery of the scrolls, viz., the study of the text and language, and its exegesis, while most literary-critical problems remain untouched by the Judean Desert scrolls. Thus, the scrolls have no bearing on the issue of the distinction between Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah, as they are simply too late to be relevant to the history of the books before the third or second century BCE. We do not have the answers to many of the questions regarding the identity and origin of the scrolls, but these questions are irrelevant for most issues relating to matters of text, language, and the exegesis of small details. In my estimation, some fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied at Qumran,1 while the remainder were taken there by the Qumran settlers. The complete corpus reflects a multitude of approaches to the text. In addition to the Scripture texts, the members of the community also imported a large group of Bible commentaries and rewritten Bible compositions; in addition, they penned several pesharim at Qumran. We are talking about a Qumran corpus that included 242 different Scripture texts according to the latest count. This calculation includes tefillin and mezuzot that previously had been excluded from the counting. However, these liturgical texts need to be included because they are as much biblical texts as the fragmentary biblical scrolls that are included. We count fragments of 210– 212 biblical scrolls from Qumran together with twenty-five tefillin and seven mezuzot.2 As far as we can tell, no attention was paid to the quality or character 1  This evaluation is based on my view that fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied in the style of the Qumran Scribal Practice; see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 100–105. 2  See Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_015

226

Tov

of the texts when the scrolls were taken to the desert. The textual variety of the Qumran corpus is thus a fact, and we have no choice but to assume that all the different Scripture scrolls, including those that were produced at Qumran, were recognized as authoritative. For the Qumran sectarians, authority applied to the content of the book, and differences in details were disregarded.3 Let us now try to view the scrolls as exponents of the interpretation process of Scripture and not as witnesses to different texts. Almost all the Qumran texts contain elements of exegesis that may be compared with the medieval Masoretic Text (MT), and are then described as “variants.” Variants are not inferior to MT; they reflect different readings, and since MT is taken as the yardstick to which all texts are compared, these different readings are named “variants.” The Qumran scrolls contain differing degrees of discrepancy from MT, reflecting various levels of exegesis. I devised a graphical system for indicating these variants using experimental color coding.4 When all the details in a scroll agree with the consonants of MT, the content of the scroll is represented in black, as in the rare case of 4QGenb. Incidentally, the name of this scroll, copy b of Genesis from Cave 4 at Q(umran), indicates that this scroll derives from Qumran, but all the signs point to the likelihood that it derived from one of the other Judean Desert sites.5 I distinguish between four areas or levels of exegesis, while some variants reflect two types of variation simultaneously. The lowest level of exegesis, in orthography (spelling), is indicated in green; a second level, pertaining to variants in language, is marked in blue; a third level, covering content differences, appears in red; and a fourth level, pertaining to possibly literary differences, 3  Thus also Eugene Ulrich, “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Later Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 57: “It is the literary opus, and not the particular wording of that opus, with which canon is concerned. Both in Judaism and in Christianity it is books, not the textual form of the books, that are canonical.” See also John J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, ed. Hanne von Weisenberg et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 23–45 (29). George Brooke, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 25 (2012): 507–23 (520): “There can be multiple authoritative forms of a composition, even a scriptural composition.” See further my own study “Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative?,” in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014, ed. Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner, STDJ 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 128–43. 4  See my study “A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. Peter W. Flint et al., EJL 30 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–98. Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 297–312 (“A Didactic and Gradual Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls”). 5  See James R. Davila, “2. 4QGenb,” in Genesis to Numbers, vol. 7 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, DJD 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 31.

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

227

is indicated with the color purple. All these colors are designated on the basis of my own subjective analysis. I treated some fifteen sample texts in this way, marking elements with different colors. The indication of the variant elements using colors serves a didactic purpose enabling us to obtain a good feeling of the nature of the scrolls. The use of colors provides a good impression of the different changes inserted by each scribe, although precision is impossible since it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between different options. The color coding does not take a position regarding the priority of these differences (orthographic, linguistic, content, and literary variants). The determining of such a priority is significant in content differences, and often the red elements point to secondary elements in a scroll as in 1QIsaa (Appendix 3), but often these elements are both primary and secondary, as in the case of 4QSama.6 Obviously, each case must be examined separately, and scholars express different views. The scrolls did not develop from a completely “black position,” indicating the absence of exegesis, to one color, and then to several colors; however, if one chooses to present them as having developed in this way, the different types of scrolls can be illustrated clearly. Very few fragments are completely black, as is 4QGenb. The lowest level of interpretation is the filling in of matres lectiones, creating green patches, as in the first preserved column of 4QpaleoExodm when compared with MT (Appendix 1). It has a similar number of spelling differences when compared with SP (Appendix 2) even though the scroll is close in character to that version. The main differences between this column and MT and SP are thus in spelling, while in other columns there are many differences in language and content. The amount of exegesis in orthography is minimal. In most cases, a scribe filled in the orthography from defective to plene or, as in the case of 1QIsaa, to super-plene (Appendix 3). However, there are more meaningful cases in the analysis of spelling, for example, Isa 62:4 (col. I, line 14): Isa 62:4aβ MT

‫אָמר עֹוד ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬ ֵ ֵ‫אַר ֵצְך לֹא־י‬ ְ ‫וּל‬ ְ



And your land shall no more be called “Desolation”

1QIsaa

‫ =( ולארצך לוא יאמר עוד שוממה‬αʹσʹθʹΤ V)



And your land shall no more be called “Desolate”

6  See the analysis in Jason K. Driesbach, 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel, VTSup 171 (Leiden: Brill, 2016).

228

Tov

The difference between the two texts is in spelling and form. Both words derived from an original form ‫שממה‬, which was interpreted in MT as the noun ‫ ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬and in the scroll as the participle ‫שוממה‬ ָ . The understanding of the scroll may be preferable, as it matches the participle in the parallel stich, ‫אָמר‬ ֵ ֵ‫לֹא־י‬ ‫זוּבה‬ ָ ‫ ָלְך עֹוד ֲע‬, “Nevermore shall you be called ‘Forsaken.’” This understanding is shared by many ancient witnesses: Aquila, Symmachus, kaige-Theodotion, Targum, Vulgate; two of the words used in this verse, ‫שֹׁומ ָמה‬ ֵ and ‫עוּלה‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬, occur also in 54:1 ‫עוּלה‬ ָ ‫י־שֹׁומ ָמה ִמ ְבּנֵ י ְב‬ ֵ ֵ‫י־ר ִבּים ְבּנ‬ ַ ‫ ִכּ‬. The blue color points to linguistic differences, as in 4QGeng (Appendix 4). In this scroll, we notice only a few differences from MT, but in other scrolls there are many of this kind. All these are cases of linguistic exegesis that are usually irrelevant to the content. Gen 1:5

MT ‫יֹום‬ 4QGeng ‫יומם‬

In this case, the noun ‫ יֹום‬has been replaced with ‫ יומם‬in the scroll. In classical Hebrew, ‫ יומם‬serves as an adverb (“by day”) except for in MT Jer 33:20 (a late passage, lacking in the LXX) and Neh 9:19.7 However, in Late Biblical Hebrew, ‫ יומם‬assumed the same meaning as ‫ יֹום‬as shown by this scroll, by SP in Gen 8:22, and by 4Q503 (4QpapPrQuot) where it occurs many times as ‫אור היומם‬ (e.g., frags. 1–6 iii 10). Gen 1:14 MT ‫)יהי( … וְ ָהיוּ‬ 4QGeng ‫)יהי( … ויהיו‬ MT starts v. 14 with a jussive form, ‫יהי‬, but continues with a we-qatal form; instead, the scroll harmonizes with two jussive forms. Elsewhere, the divine command likewise has a sequence of two jussive forms (1:6, 9, 26). The Isaiah scroll has many more instances of linguistic exegesis. Some examples in the first eight verses are listed in Table 13.1.8

7  Possibly also Jer 15:9. Other cases are textually problematic: Num 9:21; Ezek 30:16. 8  In the next verses, see different word patterns in 1:9 ‫( כסודם‬cf. LXX ὡς Σοδομα) for MT ‫ִכּ ְסד ֹם‬ and ‫( לעומרה‬cf. LXX ὡς Γομορρα) for MT ‫ ; ַל ֲעמ ָֹרה‬Aramaic forms as in 1:8 ‫ ונתרת‬for MT ‫נֹות ָרה‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ and 1:13 ‫ ועצרתה‬for MT ‫ ;וַ ֲע ָצ ָרה‬lengthened pronominal suffixes as in 1:15 ‫ ידיכמה‬for MT ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ ;יְ ֵד‬different verbal patterns as in 1:17 ‫ דרושו‬for MT ‫ ִדּ ְרשׁוּ‬.

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

229

Table 13.1 Isa 1:1–8 Linguistic Differences between MT and 1QIsaa

2

MT

1QIsaa

‫ישעיהו‬

‫ישעיהו‬

‫בימי‬ ‫עזיהו‬

‫ביומי‬ ‫עוזיה‬

7

‫יחזקיהו‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫והם‬ ‫כמהפכת‬

‫יחזקיה‬ ‫הארץ‬ ‫והמה‬ ‫כמאפכת‬

8

‫ונותרה‬

‫ֹונתרת‬

1

2

Remarks Omission of ʿayin indicates the weakening of laryngeals and pharyngeals. Supralinear letter added. Addition of waw is probably due to Aramaic influence. Short theophoric names are more frequent in the Second Temple period. See the previous item. Addition of the article.1 Lengthened pronouns typical of Late Biblical Hebrew. The addition of an aleph is probably influenced by the Aramaic root ‫ הפך =( אפך‬in Hebrew). The variant probably reflects an Aramaic verbal form for the 3rd per. fem. sing.

1 See Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa), STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 411–12.

Cases of content differences are colored in red. Usually such instances pertain to exegesis, recognizable in large and small details, although the boundary between content exegesis and linguistic change is often difficult to determine.9 From the large body of content changes, I have selected a few meaningful changes. 1 Sam 1:22 MT ‫ד־עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ =( וְ יָ ַשׁב ָשׁם ַע‬LXX) He ⟨Samuel⟩ must stay there forever 4QSama + ‫ונת]תיהו נזיר עד עולם כול ימי[ חייו‬+ + … and I shall de]dicate him as a nazir all the days [of his life 9  I regard the additions of the conjunctive waw as content differences since there is no clear linguistic trend of added syndesis in LBH, although in the Isaiah scroll such a pattern is recognizable; see Kutscher, Language, 414–29. For example:    Isa 1:3  M T ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לֹא יָ ַדע ַע ִמּי לֹא ִה ְתבֹּונָ ן‬    1QIsaa ‫ישראל לוא ידע ועמי לוא הת[ב]ונן‬

230

Tov

From v. 11, it is clear that Samuel was to be a nazir (thus also Sir 46:13 and m. Nazir 9.5),10 and even more so from a plus in LXX in that verse (“and wine and strong drink he shall not drink”), yet the actual term nazir is not used in the MT and LXX ad loc. In the textual tradition of Samuel, the term thus occurs only in 4QSama as part of a long plus.11 1 Sam 2:14 MT ‫ =( כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲע ֶלה ַה ַמּזְ ֵלג יִ ַקּח‬LXX) whatever the fork brought up he would take 4QSama ‫[כו]ל אשר יעלה המזלג יקח אם [רע הוא ואם] טוב לבד מח[זה‬ ‫התנופה ושו]ק הימין‬

[wha]tever the fork brought up, he would take, either [bad or] good, in addition to the [waved br]east and the right thi[gh] 4QSama expanded the description of the gifts to the priests based on the prescriptions of Lev 7:30–34, thus increasing the sins of Eli’s sons. Scholars often name this kind of change “nomistic,” based on the nomos, the law of the Torah, especially in the wake of studies by Alexander Rofé.12 1 Sam 2:16 MT ‫ =( ַק ֵטּר יַ ְק ִטירוּן ַכּיֹּום ַה ֵח ֶלב‬LXX S V) Let them ⟨the sons of Eli⟩ first burn the fat. 4QSama ]‫יקטר הכוהן כיום ̊ה[חלב‬ Let the priest first burn the [fat]. 10  For the biblical background of the nazir, see Num 6:1–21; Judg 13:5, 7. 11  See Matityahu Tsevat, “Was Samuel a Nazirite?” in ‘Shaʿarei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 199–204. 12   According to Alexander Rofé, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama),” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed. Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker, VTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–88, several added readings in this scroll are midrashic (such as 2 Sam 24:16–17; a large addition before 1 Sam 11:1) causing him to rename this scroll as 4QMidrash Samuel. Thus also Alexander Rofé, “4QMidrash Samuel?: Observations Concerning the Character of 4QSama,” Textus 19 (1998): 63–74; and Alexander Rofé, “A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The Transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem according to 4Q51,” Meghillot V–VI (2007): 237–43 [Hebrew]. In Rofé’s writing, nomistic changes are a subgroup of midrashic changes.

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

231

In MT, the owner of the sacrifice makes a general statement about the burning of the fat by the sons of Eli, while in 4QSama this action is ascribed to the priest. This change is probably made in accordance with Lev 7:31 (“The priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the altar, but the breast shall belong to Aaron and his sons.”). Isa 7:25 MT

‫ָשׁ ִמיר וָ ָשׁיִת‬



thornbush and thistle

1QIsaa

̇ ‫ברזל שמיר ו̇ שי̇ ת‬

iron  thornbush and thistle (the interlinear addition is written above ‫)שמיר‬ As far as I know, this is the only gloss in the true sense of the word in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, that is, a word explaining another word. In the spoken language of the Second Temple period, ‫ שמיר‬had a secondary meaning of “iron,” to which the glossator probably referred.13 Isa 1:15 MT ‫יְ ֵד ֶיכם ָדּ ִמים ָמ ֵלאוּ‬

1QIsaa ‫ידיכמה דמים מלאו אצבעותיכם בעאון‬

Cf. Isa 59:3 MT ‫ =( כי כפיכם נגאלו בדם אצבעותיכם בעון‬LXX) For your hands are defiled with crime, and your fingers with iniquity.

1QIsaa ‫כיא כפיכםה נגאלו בדם ואצבעותיכמה בעוון‬

The harmonizing addition in the scroll was influenced by Isa 59:3. See similar additions in 1QIsaa: 34:4 (cf. Mic 1:4); 51:3 (cf. 35:10, 51:11); 51:6 (cf. 40:26); 52:12 (cf. 54:5).

13  See Saul Lieberman, “Forgotten Meanings,” Leshonenu 32 (1967–1968): 99–102 [Hebrew]; E. Qimron, “Textual Remarks on 1QIsa,” Textus 12 (1985): ‫[ נט–ס‬Hebrew].

232

Tov

Isa 1:18 MT ‫ִאם־יִ ְהיוּ ֲח ָט ֵא ֶיכם ַכּ ָשּׁנִ ים ַכּ ֶשּׁ ֶלג יַ ְל ִבּינוּ‬ NJPS Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white 1QIsaa ‫ =( אם יהיו חטאיכם כשני כשלג ילבינו‬LXX V S) ‫ ָשׁנִ ים‬is probably a hapax plural form of ‫ ָשׁנִ י‬, short for “scarlet (robes).” The sin-

gular form in the scroll may reflect an adaptation of the unusual plural form to the more usual one in the singular. Similarly the LXX (ὡς φοινικοῦν), V, and S.14 Elements that differ from MT at the literary level are indicated with the color purple, for example, 4QJosha (Appendix 5). This scroll adds an unknown segment in lines 2–3, indicated as verse X of chapter 5 in the official edition (5:X),15 but it could also be claimed that the beginning passages are presented in a different sequence. Its various features, each of which is explained differently, may point to literary features of that scroll that differ from MT. But how should the data be presented? Seemingly the fragment presents us with a different sequence of elements from chapters 8 and 5 (thus Ulrich16); however, I suggested that a segment from chapter 8 was inserted in chapters 4–5. Perhaps I should color only the added element in purple; or perhaps I should color most of this column in purple (Appendix 6). It seems to me that the fragment presents the running text of chapters 4–5 into which the reading of the Torah in Josh 8:35 was interwoven by 4QJosha, while the pericope as a whole (­8:30–35) remained at its place elsewhere in the scroll (not preserved). The purpose of the change in the context of crossing the Jordan was to stress the similarity between Moses and Joshua.17 The importance of the color coding of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments is didactic. In this way, we can form a judgment on the nature of each and every scroll, and not on the presumed development of the scrolls. Obviously I often change my mind about the color coding, because such is the nature of the evaluation of ancient sources.

14  The singular form is also found in Sipre Deuteronomy §6 (15) MS ‫ ד‬and §28 (45) MS ‫ד‬ and additional sources mentioned in Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah, The Hebrew University Bible Project (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995), p. ‫ג‬. It is also possible that the scroll reflects the original reading (thus BHS). 15  Eugene Ulrich, “47. 4QJosha,” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, vol. 9 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 147. 16  Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 47–65. 17  See my study “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 65–85. Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism (2015), 132–53.

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

233

We now start at the other end of the analysis, beginning with some general thoughts about the exegetical procedure. 2

The Background of the Exegesis of the Scrolls

The processes of writing, interpretation, and rewriting have been an integral part of the development of the biblical literature since the days of its creation. These processes characterize all literatures that were created in antiquity. Since we picture the beginning of several genres of the biblical literature as oral compositions, the rewriting actually took place as rephrasing; creative minds constantly rephrased earlier formulations. The biblical psalms were created in such a process, and in rare cases we can reconstruct different oral stages after they were committed to writing in different environments. 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 reflect the same psalm that was committed to writing in two different environments. The many synonymous words or forms in these two psalms, more than in other parallel texts, are evidence of the process of oral composition: Psalm 18 18:1 18:3 18:5 18:7 18:8 18:16 18:21 18:24 18:25 18:28 18:32 18:32b 18:33 18:38 18:39 18:43 18:48 18:49

2 Samuel 22 ‫וּמיַּ ד‬ ִ ‫ֵא ִלי‬ ‫י־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ֶח ְב ֵל‬ ‫ֲא ַשׁוֵּ ַע‬ ‫ָה ִרים‬ ‫ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ִקי‬ ‫ִעמֹּו‬ ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ִקי‬ ‫ִכּי‬ ‫לֹוהּ‬ ַ ‫ֱא‬ ‫זוּל ִתי‬ ָ ‫ַה ְמאַזְּ ֵרנִ י‬ ‫אַשּׂיגֵ ם‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ ‫וְ לֹא־יֻ ְכלוּ קוּם‬ ‫י־רוּח‬ ַ ֵ‫ל־פּנ‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ ‫וַ יַּ ְד ֵבּר‬ ‫ְמ ַפ ְלּ ִטי‬

22:1 22:3 22:5 22:7 22:8 22:16 22:21 22:24 22:25 22:28 22:32 22:32 22:33 22:38 22:39 22:43 22:48 22:49

‫וּמ ַכּף‬ ִ ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ֱא‬ ‫י־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְשׁ ְבּ ֵר‬ ‫ֶא ְק ָרא‬ ‫ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫יָ ם‬ ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ָק ִתי‬ ‫לֹו‬ ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ָק ִתי‬ (‫(את‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ֵאל‬ ‫ִמ ַבּ ְל ֲע ֵדי‬ ‫ָמעוּזִּ י‬ ‫אַשׁ ִמ ֵידם‬ ְ ָ‫ו‬ ‫וְ לֹא יְ קוּמוּן‬ ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫וּמֹוריד‬ ִ ‫יאי‬ ִ ‫וּמֹוצ‬ ִ

234

Tov

Some of the differences between Psalms 14 and 53 should be regarded in the same way; these two psalms were included in two different literary complexes, the first and second books of Psalms, and subsequently were developed in different ways. Some of the differences between the parallel psalms reflect oral differences deriving from the compositional stage, while others reflect the vicissitudes of the subsequent scribal activity. In my view, some of the differences between the parallel psalms within MT illustrate the types of differences between early formulations of the same composition. This pertains to the interchange of synonymous words that represent early variations, such as shown above. The same types of variants are extant in the biblical scrolls found at Qumran, relating not only to the psalmodic literature, but also to other literary genres, narratives, law codes, prophetic experiences, etc. When the compositions were committed to writing, early scribes felt free to make the same changes that were made during the oral transmission stage. Learned scribes took the liberty to deviate from the earlier text when inserting large and small changes such as those mentioned above. The small changes involved merely one or a few words. The larger changes involved large-scale rewriting such as in the pre-Samaritan texts and the SP, the long version of the MT of Jeremiah (as opposed to the short version of 4QJerb,d and the LXX), and the midrashic rewriting reflected in the LXX of 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel (as opposed to the other textual witnesses). Rewriting as a form of developing Scripture is found in all textual branches of the Scripture text, including the proto-MT. In the case of the latter text, this took place when that text was still fluid, before it was frozen for the next generations as the proto-MT and later MT, probably in the third pre-Christian century. We now provide a few examples of large-scale exegesis in the Qumran scrolls. Scrolls that are very close to MT reflect only a small amount of such exegesis, while some scrolls that reflect a free approach towards the traditional text contain much exegesis of this type. The expanded Song of Miriam. The five scrolls that are named 4QReworked Pentateucha–e probably contain the largest amount of content exegesis among the Qumran biblical scrolls. They contain so much exegesis that it was even doubted that they were biblical scrolls and therefore they were published initially as so-called reworked Bible compositions.18 18  4QRP started its life in the scholarly literature as 4QBiblical Paraphrase (so named by John Strugnell); it was published as the nonbiblical 4QRewritten Pentateuch by Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White: “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and 4QTemple?” in Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, vol. 8 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Harold Attridge et al., DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351, 459–63. 4QRP is now probably considered by most scholars to be a deviating group of Scripture manuscripts. These texts, to be considered

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

235

Scripture devotes only two verses to the Song of Miriam, which appears immediately after the Song of Moses at the Sea: Exod 15:20–21 MT ָ ‫ת־התֹּף ְבּיָ ָדהּ וַ ֵתּ ֶצאן‬ ַ ‫אַהר ֹן ֶא‬ ֲ ‫וַ ִתּ ַקּח ִמ ְריָם ַהנְּ ִביאָה ֲאחֹות‬ ִ ‫אַח ֶריה ְבּ ֻת ִפּים‬ ֲ ‫ל־הנָּ ִשׁים‬ ַ ‫ָכ‬ ‫וַ ַתּ ַען ָל ֶהם ִמ ְריָם ִשׁירוּ ַליהוָ ה ִכּי־גָ אֹה גָּ אָה סוּס‬21 ‫וּב ְמחֹֹלת‬ ‫וְ ר ְֹכבֹו ָר ָמה ַביָּ ם‬ Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her in dance with timbrels. 21And Miriam chanted for them: Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously; Horse and driver He has hurled into the sea. The words of v. 21 merely repeat the opening of the Song at the Sea with a small change (Moses: “I will sing”; Miriam: “Sing!”), and it remains unclear what Miriam actually sang. In any event, someone in antiquity thought it unfitting that the Song of Miriam had no real content. The scribe of 4QRPc (4Q365) 6aii and c (75–50 BCE), or his source, provided the only known description of such a song. We do not know its full content, but there were at least seven lines of text: 4QRPc (4Q365) 6aii and c lines 1–719 1. you despised (or: you plundered) [ 2. for the triumph of [ ‫גאות‬ 3. You are great, a savior [ 4. the hope of the enemy perishes, and he is for[gotten] (or: has cea[sed]) [ 5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy [ ‫במים אדירים‬ 6. and he exalted her to their heights … you gave … ‫ורוממנה למרומם‬ 7. [wor]king a triumph va[cat ‫גאות‬ 7. [the one who do]es gloriously [ as five different Scripture texts, present running biblical texts, while rearranging some Torah pericopes (for example, the Sukkot laws of Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut 16:13–14 are combined in 4QRPb [4Q364] 23a–b i.), inserting many small changes, and adding several extensive exegetical additions. For the change of opinion on these texts, see my study “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?),” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. Mladen Popovic, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–91. Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism (2015), 45–59. 19  Translation (with a few adaptations) by George J. Brooke, “The Long-Lost Song of Miriam,” BAR 20 (1994): 62–65. See also Ariel Feldman, “The Song of Miriam (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1–7) Revisited,” JBL 132 (2013): 905–11.

236

Tov

Several of the phrases of Miriam’s Song repeat words of the Song of Moses: the root ‫ גאה‬in lines 2 and 7 is reminiscent of Exod 15:1, 7 and the phrase ‫במים‬ ‫ אדירים‬in line 5 is reminiscent of v. 15 (“in mighty waters”). The song also contains several elements of praise to God. It ends with these words “6and he exalted her to their heights … you gave, 7[wor]king a triumph.” Apparently the female person mentioned is Miriam, and God elevates her from a lowly status to one of triumph as in the reversal of the fate of the low, deprived, and poor in the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10). The interpretation of this detail is debated, but the very existence of a song of Miriam renders its author as one of the first feminists. Harmonization is a major force behind the changes made to texts based on the concept that God’s writings should be harmonious with one another. Therefore, the differences between the two formulations of the Decalogue, Exod 20 and Deut 5, are often removed by way of harmonization. The main difference between them pertains to the commandment of the Sabbath. In Exodus, the Sabbath is given a universal argument (20:11 “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth …”), while Deuteronomy provides a social justification (5:14 “… so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. 15Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt …”). Exod 20:11 MT  ‫ת־היָּ ם‬ ַ ‫אָרץ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִם וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־יָמים ָע ָשׂה יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ִכּי ֵשׁ ֶשׁ‬

ָ ‫ל־א ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ל־כּן ֵבּ ַרְך יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־יֹום‬ ֵ ‫יעי ַע‬ ִ ‫ר־בּם וַ יָּ נַ ח ַבּיֹּום ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬ ‫ַה ַשּׁ ָבּת וַ יְ ַק ְדּ ֵשׁהוּ‬

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Deut 5:14b–15 MT ‫י־ע ֶבד ָהיִ ָית ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫וְ זָ ַכ ְר ָתּ ִכּ‬15 ‫נוּח ַע ְב ְדָּך וַ ֲא ָמ ְתָך ָכּמֹוָך‬ ַ ָ‫ְל ַמ ַען י‬ ‫וּבזְ ר ַֹע נְ טוּיָ ה‬ ִ ‫ֹלהיָך ִמ ָשּׁם ְבּיָ ד ֲחזָ ָקה‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִם וַ יּ ִֹצ ֲאָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ַל ֲעשֹׂות ֶאת־יֹום ַה ַשׁ ָבּת‬ ֶ ‫ל־כּן ִצוְּ ָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬

… so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. 15Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. As a rule, the scribes of Exodus and Deuteronomy left these major differen­ ces between the two versions intact, but some did not, inserting harmonizing

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

237

changes. These changes usually involved the addition in Deuteronomy of the argument for the Sabbath appearing in Exodus. In this way, 4QDeutn and LXXB combined both reasons for the Sabbath observance, first that of Deuteronomy, and subsequently that of Exodus. This harmonizing addition is understandable, since it is not easy to accept that Scripture should include two different reasons for the Sabbath.20 A different harmonization is found in the Nash Papyrus, 4QPhyl G, and 8QPhyl III, all of which display the version of the argument in Exodus instead of that in Deuteronomy.21 4QDeutn 5:14–15, Exod 20:11, Deut 5:1622 ‫ בארץ מצרים‬/////// ‫) ‏וזכרתה כי עבד היית‬Deut 5:14( ‫‏כמוך‬2‫ ‏‬‎ ‫‏ ינוח עבדך ואמתך‬ ‫על כן צוך יהוה‬‎‫‏‬‎4 ‫ חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬/////////////// ‫‏יהוה אלוהיך משם ביד‬‎3 ‫ויציאך‬ ‫(‏כי ששת ימים עשה‬Deut 5:15) ‎‫‏לקדשו‬‎5 ‫ לשמור את יום השבת‬//////////// ‫אלוהיך‬ ‫‏את הים וכול אשר בם וינוח ביום השביעי על כן ברך‬‎6 ‫יהוה את השמים ואת הארץ‬ ‎… ‫כבד את אביך ואת אמך כאשר‬‎(Exod 20:11) ///// ‫‏את יום השבת לקדשו‬‎7 ‫יהוה‬

(Deut 5:16)

I now submit a different type of harmonizing change: Exod 32:10 MT > 4QpaleoExodm SP add: ]‫ו[י]תפלל משה בעד א[הרון‬ ̊ ‫להשמידֹו‬ ̇ ‫או̊ [תך] לגוי גדול [ובאהרון התאנף יה]וה מאד‬

… of [you] a great nation. [And the Lo]rd[was angry with Aaron,] so much (that He was ready) to destroy him; and Moses interce[de]d for A[aron] (thus also LXX MSS 58–767 318) In Exoda 32, after the Israelites commit the sin of the golden calf, God wishes to destroy them, while Moses intervenes on their behalf. In the middle of that argument, 4QpaleoExodm and SP add a verse that has no equal in the other texts. This additional verse was transferred in the Exodus scroll from the parallel text in Deut 9:20 by way of harmonization. After all, Deuteronomy, named ‫משנה תורה‬, “the repetition of the Law” in Jewish tradition, is supposed 20  See the analysis of Esther Eshel, “4QDeutn: A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” HUCA 62 (1991),” 117–54 (142–47). 21  See my study “The Palestinian Source of the Greek Translation of the Torah,” forthcoming. 22  /// indicates damage on the leather.

238

Tov

to repeat details mentioned in the earlier books, but since this detail was not mentioned in Exodus, it was added in Exod 32 by these scribes. When now reaching Deuteronomy, it cannot be claimed that Scripture introduces a new element, since it was already found in this Exodus scroll. On related matters, it must have been difficult for some readers that exactly the same topic was dealt with in different places in the pentateuchal law codes, sometimes in the same way and sometimes in a somewhat different fashion. In order to overcome this difficulty, the Mishnah codified the different laws in one coherent unit. On a much smaller scale, the scribes of some Qumran scrolls juxtaposed different laws. Thus the Sukkot laws, which appear separately in Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut 16:13–14, were combined exegetically by 4QRPd (4Q366) 4. In this case, one does not know whether this fragment was placed in Numbers or Deuteronomy in 4QRP, but that is not important as long as we realize that an attempt was made to combine different texts. 4QRPd (4Q366) 4 i (Num 29:[32]38–30:1 followed by Deut 16:13–14)

‫ויאמר משה]אל בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה יהוה‬30:1 vac ‫[ולנכסיהם ולשלמיהם‬ vac[at ‫[את משה‬ ‫ושמחת בחגך‬14 ‫[חג הסכות תעשה לך שבעת ימים באספך מגרנ]ך ומיקבך‬ ‫אתה ובנך‬

8 9 10

Num 29:38 [ … libations, or offerings of well-being. vacat Num 30:1So Moses spoke] to the Israelites just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Deut 16:13 [You shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days after the ingathering from your threshing flo]or and your vat. 14You shall rejoice in your festival, with your son The process that started as inner-biblical exegesis continued in the biblical scrolls such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Subsequently the postbiblical compositions that retell the content of the Bible constantly apply exegesis to the Scripture text. The stories of the Torah caught the imagination of the listeners and readers, and the legal material, which formed the basis of Jewish life, was constantly reinterpreted. When the Scripture collection was conceived of as a single unit, readers and scribes also paid attention to incongruities among the various books. Major clusters of exegesis are thus contained in such compositions as Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, the Temple Scroll, 4QCommentary on Genesis A

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

239

(4Q252), and many additional Qumran scrolls. Remarkably, this type of exegesis, inserted in the form of the rewriting of Scripture text, is applied only to texts that are based on what I name the popular Palestinian text of the Torah, namely the base of the LXX and the pre-Samaritan texts, the SP, and a host of Qumran texts, and not to the MT family.23 All types of exegetical traditions display the richness of the exegetical activity; they illustrate the liberty taken by scribes and authors to expand and change the biblical text. The biblical text was sacred, but this sacrosanctity did not prevent its continuous development; on the contrary, it was the impetus for its ongoing development as a very central and popular text. In conclusion, in this brief study, I described how the scrolls enrich our understanding of the transmission and exegesis of the Bible. I hope that the experimental color coding of the categories of differences between the scrolls and MT enhance an understanding of the individual scrolls, since defining an issue goes half way toward finding a solution. The study of language, text, and exegesis go hand in hand. Bibliography Brooke, George J. “The Long-Lost Song of Miriam.” BAR 20 (1994): 62–65. Brooke, George J. “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” RevQ 25 (2012): 507–23. Collins, John J. “Changing Scripture.” Pages 23–45 in Changes in Scripture. Edited by Hanne von Weisenberg et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Davila, James R. “2. 4QGenb.” Pages 31–38 in Genesis to Numbers, vol. 7 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Driesbach, Jason K. 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel. VTSup 171. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn: A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” HUCA 62 (1991): 117–54. Feldman, Ariel. “The Song of Miriam (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1–7) Revisited.” JBL 132 (2013): 905–11. 23  See Emanuel Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 57–70; Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions,” in Hā-’îsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, ed. Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke, STDJ 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 280–302.

240

Tov

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah. The Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. Kutscher, Eduard Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Lieberman, Saul. “Forgotten Meanings.” Leshonenu 32 (1967–1968): 99–102 [Hebrew]. Qimron, Elisha. “Textual Remarks on 1QIsa.” Text 12 (1985): ‫[ נט–ס‬Hebrew]. Rofé, Alexander. “4QMidrash Samuel?: Observations Concerning the Character of 4QSama.” Text 19 (1998): 63–74. Rofé, Alexander. “A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The Transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem according to 4Q51.” Meghillot V–VI (2007): 237–43 [Hebrew]. Rofé, Alexander. “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama).” Pages 75–88 in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History. Edited by Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker. VTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Pages 57–70 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. “A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173–98 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint et al. EJL 3. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011; Leiden: Brill, 2012. Revised version: “A Didactic and Gradual Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 297–312 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed., rev. and exp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha.” Pages 65–85 in The Book of Joshua. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Revised version: Pages 132–153 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?).” Pages 73–91 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovic. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Revised version: Pages 45–59 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions.” Pages 280–302 in Hā-’îsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein. Edited by Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke. STDJ 122. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls

241

Tov, Emanuel. “Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative?” Pages 128–43 in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. Edited by Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Tov, Emanuel. “The Palestinian Source of the Greek Translation of the Torah.” Forthcoming. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie A. White. “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and 4QTemple?” Pages 187–351, 459–63 in Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, vol. 8 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Tsevat, Matityahu. “Was Samuel a Nazirite?” Pages 199–204 in ‘Shaʿarei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene. “47. 4QJosha.” Pages 143–52 in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, vol. 9 of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Later Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” Pages 51–78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015.



Appendix 1

4QpaleoExodm (DJD 9) Col. 1 Exod 6:25–7:16 Compared with MT top margin ‫ל]א ̇ש ̊ה ו̊ ̊ת[לד לו את פ]י̊ נחס‬ ̊ [ ‫ומש ̊ה אשר‬ ̊ · ‫]הוא · אהרון‬26 [ ‫ישראל · מארץ · מצרים על‬ ̊ ]‫]להם · ̇הו̊ ̊צי̊ ̊או̇ · את בנ[י‬ ̊ ‫[אמר יהוה‬ ‫הם המדברים · אל · פרעה · מלך מצרים · להוציא את · בני‬27 · ‫[צבאו]תם‬ ̊ ‫ויהי · ביום דבר‬28 · ‫· הוא · משה · ואהרו ן‬ ‫[ישראל] · ממצרים‬ ‫ו‬29 ‫[יהוה ]אל · משה · בארץ מצרים‬ ‫[ידבר ]י̊ הוה · אל · משה · לאמור · אני יהוה · דבר · אל · פרעה · מלך · מצרים‬ ‫ויאמר · משה · לפני · יהוה‬30 ‫ ך‬ ‫[את כל א]שר · אני · דובר · אלי‬ ‫ויאומר‬7:1 ‫ה‬ ‫[הן אני] · ערל ̊שפתים · ואיך · ישמע · אלי · פרע‬ ‫[יהוה] אל · משה · ראה · נתתיך ·אלהי̊ ם · לפרעה · ואהרון אחיך · יהיה‬ ‫אחי̊ ך ידבר · אל‬ ̇ ‫את · כל · אשר· אצוך · ואהרון‬ ̇ · ‫ ̊א ̊תה · תדבר‬2 ]‫[נביאך‬ ‫[ו]אני · אקשה · את · לב · פרעה‬3 · ]‫ישר[אל‬ ̇ ̊‫]א ̊ת · בני‬ ̊ ‫[פרעה ושלח‬ ‫ולא · ישמע‬4 · ‫מצ ̊רי̊ ם‬ ̊ · ‫מופתי̇ בא[ר]ץ‬ ̊ ‫[וא]ת‬ ̇ ‫א]תתי‬ ̊ ‫[והרביתי את‬

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

‫‪242‬‬

‫‪Tov‬‬

‫ב[מ]צרים · ו[הוצ]אתי · את · צבאותי‬ ‫̊‬ ‫] ◦ ◦ [א]ת · ידי‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫]מ ̊א ̊ר ̇ץ · מצרים· בשפטי̊ [ם] גדולים · ‪5‬וידעו‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫מצ ̊ר[ים]  ו‬ ‫יה]ו̊ ̊ה בנטתי · את · ידי · על · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫כא]שר‬ ‫̊‬ ‫שה ו̊ ̊א[הר]ו̊ ן̊ [‬ ‫יש ̊ר ̊א ̊ל מתוכם · ‪6‬ויעש · ̇מ ̊‬ ‫]◦ ̊‬ ‫[הוצאתי ‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫· ‪7‬ומשה ̇בן̇ ̇שמונ̊ [ים שנה וא]הרון̊‬ ‫או]תם · כן · עשו ‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[צוה יהוה‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪8‬ו ‬ ‫ [‬ ‫ ‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ב]רם · אל ·‬ ‫̇‬ ‫בד‬ ‫] · שנה · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫]פרעה‬ ‫אליכ ̊ם[‪̊  ‬‬ ‫̊‬ ‫לא ̊מור · ‪̊ 9‬כ[י ידבר] ·‬ ‫א]הרון · ̊‬ ‫מש]ה[ ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫לפנ̇ י‬ ‫]מטך · ו̇ ̇השלך ̇‬ ‫̊‬ ‫] ◦ [ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪10‬ויבוא משה ואה]רון · לפני · פרעה‬ ‫]לתנין [‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫] · ̊א ̇ת מטהו · לפנ̊ [י]‬ ‫צוה[ ‬ ‫]כאשר · ̇‬ ‫[ויעשו כן ̇‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫ג]ם · [פרעה]‬ ‫ ‬ ‫בדי[ו‬ ‫)‪[ (11‬פרעה ולפ]נ̊ י · ̊ע ̊‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫בלהט]י̊ ̇הם‬ ‫] ◦ ◦ [וי]עשו · [ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫] מטה‬ ‫[כן ‪12‬וישל]יכו · איש · מטהו · ו[ ‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫כא]שר‬ ‫ויחזק[ ‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[אהרון את] · מטותם · ‪13‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪a c a t[ v‬‬ ‫ ו‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫[דבר ]יהוה [‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫הע]ם · ‪15‬לך · ̊אל‬ ‫אל[ מ]שה [ ‬ ‫ידבר · יהוה · ̇‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫] ◦ [ ‬ ‫הוא[ ‬ ‫פרעה בבוקר · והנה · ̊‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ ‬ ‫אשר[‬ ‫)‪ (16‬שפת · היאר · והמ[טה] · ̇‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫ ]‬ ‫יהוה [‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪Appendix 2‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪ 4QpaleoExodm (DJD 9) Col. 1 Exod 6:25–7:16 Compared with SP‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬ ‫ל]א ̇ש ̊ה ו̊ ̊ת[לד לו את פ]י̊ נחס‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫ומש ̊ה אשר‬ ‫‪]26‬הוא · אהרון · ̊‬ ‫ [‬ ‫ישראל · מארץ · מצרים על‬ ‫̊‬ ‫]להם · ̇הו̊ ̊צי̊ ̊או̇ · את בנ[י]‬ ‫[אמר יהוה ̊‬ ‫[צבאו]תם · ‪27‬הם המדברים · אל · פרעה · מלך מצרים · להוציא את · בני‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ישראל] · ממצרים · הוא · משה · ואהרון · ‪28‬ויהי · ביום דבר‬ ‫‪29‬ו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫[יהוה ]אל · משה · בארץ מצרים‬ ‫[ידבר ]י̊ הוה · אל · משה · לאמור · אני יהוה · דבר · אל · פרעה · מלך · מצרים‬ ‫‪30‬ויאמר · משה · לפני · יהוה‬ ‫ ך‬ ‫[את כל א]שר · אני · דובר · אלי‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪7 1‬ויאומר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫[הן אני] · ערל ̊שפתים · ואיך · ישמע · אלי · פרע‬ ‫[יהוה] אל · משה · ראה · נתתיך ·אלהי̊ ם · לפרעה · ואהרון אחיך · יהיה‬ ‫אחי̊ ך ידבר · אל‬ ‫את · כל · אשר· אצוך · ואהרון ̇‬ ‫[נביאך] ‪̊ 2‬א ̊תה · תדבר · ̇‬ ‫ישר[אל] · ‪[3‬ו]אני · אקשה · את · לב · פרעה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]א ̊ת · בני̊‬ ‫[פרעה ושלח ̊‬ ‫מצ ̊רי̊ ם · ‪4‬ולא · ישמע‬ ‫מופתי̇ בא[ר]ץ · ̊‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[וא]ת‬ ‫̇‬ ‫א]תתי‬ ‫[והרביתי את ̊‬

‫‪243‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬

‫‪Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls‬‬

‫ב[מ]צרים · ו[הוצ]אתי · את · צבאותי‬ ‫̊‬ ‫] ◦ ◦ [א]ת · ידי‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫]מ ̊א ̊ר ̇ץ · מצרים· בשפטי̊ [ם] גדולים · ‪5‬וידעו‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫ו‬ ‫מצ ̊ר[ים] ‬ ‫יה]ו̊ ̊ה בנטתי · את · ידי · על · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫כא]שר‬ ‫̊‬ ‫שה ו̊ ̊א[הר]ו̊ ן̊ [‬ ‫יש ̊ר ̊א ̊ל מתוכם · ‪6‬ויעש · ̇מ ̊‬ ‫]◦ ̊‬ ‫[הוצאתי ‬ ‫· ‪7‬ומשה ̇בן̇ ̇שמונ̊ [ים שנה וא]הרון̊‬ ‫או]תם · כן · עשו ‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[צוה יהוה‬ ‫]‬ ‫ [ ‪8‬ו ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ב]רם · אל ·‬ ‫̇‬ ‫בד‬ ‫] · שנה · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫]פרעה‬ ‫אליכ ̊ם[‪̊  ‬‬ ‫̊‬ ‫לא ̊מור · ‪̊ 9‬כ[י ידבר] ·‬ ‫א]הרון · ̊‬ ‫מש]ה[ ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫לפנ̇ י‬ ‫]מטך · ו̇ ̇השלך ̇‬ ‫̊‬ ‫] ◦ [ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪10‬ויבוא משה ואה]רון · לפני · פרעה‬ ‫]לתנין [‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫] · ̊א ̇ת מטהו · לפנ̊ [י]‬ ‫צוה[ ‬ ‫]כאשר · ̇‬ ‫[ויעשו כן ̇‬ ‫ג]ם · [פרעה]‬ ‫בדי[ו ‬ ‫)‪[ (11‬פרעה ולפ]נ̊ י · ̊ע ̊‬ ‫בלהט]י̊ ̇הם‬ ‫] ◦ ◦ [וי]עשו · [ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫] מטה‬ ‫[כן ‪12‬וישל]יכו · איש · מטהו · ו[ ‬ ‫כא]שר‬ ‫ויחזק[ ‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[אהרון את] · מטותם · ‪13‬‬ ‫‪v ]a c a t‬‬ ‫‪ 14‬ו‬ ‫[דבר ]יהוה [‬ ‫הע]ם · ‪15‬לך · ̊אל‬ ‫אל[ מ]שה [ ‬ ‫ידבר · יהוה · ̇‬ ‫]‬ ‫] ◦ [ ‬ ‫הוא[ ‬ ‫פרעה בבוקר · והנה · ̊‬ ‫]‬ ‫אשר[ ‬ ‫)‪ (16‬שפת · היאר · והמ[טה] · ̇‬ ‫]‬ ‫יהוה [ ‬ ‫‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪Appendix 3‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪ 1QIsaa (DJD 32) Col. 1 Isa 1:1–26 Compared with MT‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫‪1‬חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלם ביומי עוזיה‬ ‫יותם אחז יחזקיה מלכי יהודה ‪2 vac‬שמעו שמים והאזיני הארץ‬ ‫י‬ ‫כיא יהוה דבר בנים גדלתי ורוממת[י] והמה פשעו בי ‪3‬ידע שור קונ הו‬ ‫וחמור אבוס בעליו ישראל לוא ידע ועמי לוא ̊ה ̊ת[ב]ו̊ נן ‪4‬הוי גוי חוטה‬ ‫עם כבד עוון זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים עזבו את יהו̊ ̇ה נאצו את‬ ‫עוד תוסיפו סרה כול ראוש לחולי‬ ‫קדוש ישראל נזרו אחור ‪5‬על מה תכו ̊‬ ‫וחבורה ומכה טריה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ו̇ כול לבב דוה ‪6‬מכפ רגל ועד רואש אין בו מתם פצע‬ ‫לוא זרו ולוא חובשו ולוא רככה בשמן ‪7‬ארצכם שממה עריכם שרופות‬ ‫אש אדמתכם לנגדכם זרים אוכלים אותה ושממו עליה כמאפכת ז̇ ̊רים‬ ‫‪8‬ו̇ נתרת בת ציון כסוכה בכרם וכמלונה במקשה כעיר נצורה ‪9‬לולי יהוה‬ ‫צבאות הותיר לנו שריד כמעט כסודם היינו לעומרה דמינו ‪vacat‬‬ ‫עומרה ‪̊ 11‬ל ̇מה לי‬ ‫̇‬ ‫מעו̇ ̊ד ̊ב ̊ר יהוה קציני סודם ואזינו תו̇ ̊ר ̇ת אלוהינו עמ‬ ‫‪̇ 10‬ש ̇‬ ‫̇רוב זבחיכם יואמר יהוה שבעתי עולו̇ ת אילים וחלב מריאים ודמ‍‌‪‎‬‏‬ ‫פרים וכבשים ועתודים לוא חפצתי ‪12‬כיא תבאו לראות פני ̇מי בקש זואת‬

‫‪244‬‬

‫‪Tov‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬

‫קטרת תועבה היא‬ ‫̇‬ ‫חצרי ‪13‬לוא תוסיפו להביא ̇מנחת שוא‬ ‫̊מידכם לרמוס ̇‬ ‫לי חודש ושבת קרא מקרא לוא אוכל און ועצרתה ‪14‬חודשיכם ומועדיכם‬ ‫שנאה נפשי היו עלי לטרח נלאיתי נשוא ‪15‬ובפרשכם כפיכם אעלים עיני‬ ‫מכם גמ כי הרבו תפלה אינני שומע ידיכמה דמים מלאו אצבעותיכם‬ ‫מנגד עיני חדלו הרע ‪17‬למדו‬ ‫̇‬ ‫בעאון ‪16‬רחצו והזכו והסירו רוע מעלליכם‬ ‫היטיב דרושו משפט אשרו חמוץ שפטו יאתום ריבו אלמנה‬ ‫‪18‬לכו נ̇ [א] ונוכחה יואמר יהוה אמ יהיו חטאיכם כשני כשלג ילבינו‬ ‫תאכ]ל[ו]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ארץ[‬ ‫ידומו כתולע}ת{כצמר יהיו ‪19‬אמ תאבו ושמעתם טוב ̊ה ̊‬ ‫אמ ̇‬ ‫‪20‬ו̊ אמ תמאנו ומריתם בחרב תאכלו כיא פי יהוה דבר ‪vac‬‬ ‫צדק ילין̇ [ בה ועתה]‬ ‫קריה נאמנה מלאתי משפט ̇‬ ‫‪21‬היכה הייתי לזונה ̊‬ ‫שריכי ̇ס[וררים וחברי]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇מ ̇רצחים ‪22‬כספך היו לסו̇ גים סבאך מהול במים ‪23‬‬ ‫ישפ[טו וריב]‬ ‫גנבים כולם אוהבי שוחד רודפי שלמונים יאתום לוא ̇‬ ‫אלמנה לוא יבוא אליהם ‪24‬לכן נאום האדון יהוה צבאות [אביר ישראל]‬ ‫ואצ[רף כבר]‬ ‫הוה אנחם מצריו̇ ואנקם מהאיבו ‪25‬והשיב ידי עליך ̊‬ ‫ואסיר כול בדיליך ‪26‬ואשיבה שופטיך כבראישונ̇ ̇ה[ ויעציך]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫סו̇ גיך‬

‫‪Appendix 4‬‬

‫ ‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪4QGeng (DJD 14) Gen 1:1–22 Compared with MT‬‬ ‫‪Frg. 1 Gen 1:1–11‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬ ‫אש[ית ברא ]אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ [‬ ‫בר ̇‬ ‫‪̇ 1‬‬ ‫תהו]ם ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים[‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ע]ל[ פמי‬ ‫‪̇ 2–3‬‬ ‫וי]רא ̊א ̇להים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלה[ים‬ ‫‪̊ 4‬‬ ‫ [‬ ‫‪5‬ויקרא ‪ v a c a t‬אלהים לאור יומם ולחשך קר[א‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫יום אחד ‬ ‫ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מב[דיל‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬אלהים את הרקיע ויבדיל בין המים אשר מתח[ת‬ ‫מעל לרקיע ויהי כן ‪8‬ויקרא אלהים לרקיע ̊ש[מים‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫יום שני ‬ ‫‪9‬ויאמר אלהים יקאו המים מתחת לשמים [‬ ‫לי̇בשה ̊א[רץ‬ ‫] ו̇ י̇ ̊הי̊ ̊כן ‪10‬ויקרא ̊אלהים ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫ויאמ[ר‬ ‫] כי טוב ‪̊ 11 vacat‬‬ ‫ [‬ ‫?‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪245‬‬

‫‪Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls‬‬

‫‪Frg. 2 Gen 1:13–22‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫ויהי ̇ב ̇קר י̇ ום ̇ש ̇לשי‬ ‫‪14‬ויאמר אלהים יהי מארות ברקי̊ [ע‬ ‫תות ולמעדים ̊ל[ימים ושנים ‪15‬‬ ‫לא ̇‬ ‫ובין הלילה ויהיו ̇‬ ‫ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ ויהי ̊כ[ן ‪16‬‬ ‫[ד]לים את המאור ̊ה[גדול‬ ‫הג ̇‬ ‫את שנ̇ י המארות ̇‬ ‫הכוכב[ים ‪17‬‬ ‫̊‬ ‫לממשל[ת ]הלילה ואת‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[המ]אור הקטו̊ ן̊‬ ‫]השמים ̊ל[האיר] על הארץ ‪18‬ולמשול ̇ב[יום‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫האו]ר ובין [החש]ך וירא ̊אלהים כי טוב [‪19‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫רבי]עי ‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫וע[וף‬ ‫המים שרץ נפש היה ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫א]ל[הים ישרצו] ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[‪ 20‬‬ ‫] ‪21‬ויברא אלהים את התנינים[‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫משת אשר שרצו המים ל[מיניהם‬ ‫] ̇ה ̊ר ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫ויבר[ך‬ ‫] אלהים כי טוב ‪̇ 22‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫בימי]ם והעוף י̇ ̊רבה ̇ב[ארץ‬ ‫̊ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫?‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪Frg. 3 Gen 2:6–7 or 18–19‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪f.2‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫ויצר י[הוה‬

‫‪Appendix 5‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪4QJosha (DJD 14) Col. 1: Frgs. 1–2 Josh 8:34–35; 5:X, 2–7 Compared‬‬ ‫‪with MT‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪top margin‬‬ ‫שה[ את יה]ו̇ שוע אשר לא קרא יהשע נגד כל‬ ‫]ה ̊תורה ‪35‬לא היה דבר מכל ̇צוה ̇מ ̇‬ ‫[בספר ̇‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫והג[ר] ההולך בקרבם ‪5 X‬אחר אשר נתקו̇ [ ]‬ ‫הירד[ן ]ו̊ הנשים והטף ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ישראל בעברו ]את‬ ‫]‬ ‫הארון[ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]את ספר התורה אחר ̇כן [ ]ל‪ °‬נושאי‬ ‫̊‬ ‫]ל[ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ע]ש[ה לך חרבות צרים]‬ ‫]ההיא אמר יהוה אליהש[ע ̇‬ ‫‪5 2‬בעת ̊‬ ‫ [‬ ‫צ]ר[ים וימל את בני ישראל אל]‬ ‫י]השע ח[רבות ̊‬ ‫[ושוב מל את בני ישראל ‪5:3‬ויעש ]ל[ו ̇‬ ‫כ]ל[]ה ̊ע ̊ם ̊הי̊ ̊צ[א ממצרים הזכרים כל]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[גבעת הערלות ‪4‬וזה הדבר אשר מל יהושע‬ ‫מצ ̇רי̇ ם ‪̇ 5‬כי̊ [מלים היו כל העם היצאים]‬ ‫]מ ̊‬ ‫[אנשי המלחמה מתו במדבר בדרך בצאתם ̊‬ ‫ממצ[רים לא מלו ‪6‬כי ארבעים שנה הלכו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫בצ]אתם‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[וכל העם הילדים במדבר בדרך‬ ‫המלח[מה היצאים ממצרים אשר לא שמעו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫]אנ̇ ̇שי‬ ‫[בני ישראל במדבר עד תם כל הגוי ̊‬ ‫לב]ל ̇תי ראות את ̊ה[ארץ אשר נשבע יהוה לאבותם]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[בקול יהוה אשר נשבע יהוה להם‬ ‫]‬ ‫הק[ים ‬ ‫בני]הם ̊‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ‪7‬ואת‬

‫‪246‬‬

‫‪Tov‬‬

‫‪f.2‬‬

‫‪Appendix 6‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪4QJosha (DJD 14) Col. 1: Frgs. 1–2 Josh 8:34–35; 5:X, 2–7 Compared‬‬ ‫)‪with MT (with Indication of Sequence Differences‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬ ‫שה[ את יה]ו̇ שוע אשר לא קרא יהשע נגד כל‬ ‫]ה ̊תורה ‪35‬לא היה דבר מכל ̇צוה ̇מ ̇‬ ‫[בספר ̇‬ ‫והג[ר] ההולך בקרבם ‪5:X‬אחר אשר נתקו̇ [ ]‬ ‫הירד[ן ]ו̊ הנשים והטף ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ישראל בעברו ]את‬ ‫]‬ ‫הארון[ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]את ספר התורה אחר ̇כן [ ]ל◦ נושאי‬ ‫̊‬ ‫]ל[ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫ע]ש[ה לך חרבות צרים]‬ ‫]ההיא אמר יהוה אליהש[ע ̇‬ ‫‪5:2‬בעת ̊‬ ‫ [‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫צ]ר[ים וימל את בני ישראל אל]‬ ‫י]השע ח[רבות ̊‬ ‫[ושוב מל את בני ישראל ‪5 3‬ויעש ]ל[ו ̇‬ ‫כ]ל[]ה ̊ע ̊ם ̊הי̊ ̊צ[א ממצרים הזכרים כל]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[גבעת הערלות ‪4‬וזה הדבר אשר מל יהושע‬ ‫מצ ̇רי̇ ם ‪̇ 5‬כי̊ [מלים היו כל העם היצאים]‬ ‫]מ ̊‬ ‫[אנשי המלחמה מתו במדבר בדרך בצאתם ̊‬ ‫ממצ[רים לא מלו ‪6‬כי ארבעים שנה הלכו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫בצ]אתם‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[וכל העם הילדים במדבר בדרך‬ ‫המלח[מה היצאים ממצרים אשר לא שמעו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫]אנ̇ ̇שי‬ ‫[בני ישראל במדבר עד תם כל הגוי ̊‬ ‫לב]ל ̇תי ראות את ̊ה[ארץ אשר נשבע יהוה לאבותם]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[בקול יהוה אשר נשבע יהוה להם‬ ‫]‬ ‫הק[ים ‬ ‫בני]הם ̊‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ‪7‬ואת‬

Chapter 14

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran, with Special Attention to 4QReworked Pentateuch D and 4QReworked Pentateuch E Sidnie White Crawford Among the manuscripts of the classical literature of ancient Israel1 discovered in the Qumran caves is a subset of manuscripts that have been described as “excerpted texts.” An “excerpted” text, as its name suggests, contains one or more passages from the classical literature collected on a single manuscript, with no accompanying exegesis.2 These excerpted texts differ from other anthological

1  The classical literature of ancient Israel makes up approximately twenty-five percent of the Qumran library. The term “classical literature of ancient Israel” refers to material that was composed by the early Hellenistic period (late 4th–early 3rd centuries BCE). From the perspective of the time period of the Qumran settlement (ca. 100 BCE to 68 CE), this literature comprises the traditions handed down from the distant past, which carried a high status not only for the wing of Judaism represented in the scroll collection but for all Judaism. This category includes most of the later canon of Jewish scripture (i.e., Torah, Prophets, and most of the Writings), but not, based on their dates of composition, Daniel or some of the Psalms. Other terms that are frequently used to describe this literature are “biblical,” “scriptural,” or “authoritative literature.” The term “biblical,” referring to those books now in the Jewish canon of scripture, is anachronistic, since “the Bible” did not exist in the Second Temple period. I have used the word “scriptural” in the past (e.g., in Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]), but that term carries connotations of sacredness, which do not necessarily apply to all of the literature in this category. The same is true for the term “authoritative”; we do not know whether all of the literature in this category was considered authoritative either by all Jews or only the Essene movement that is represented in the Qumran library. For definitions of the terms “authoritative work” and “scripture,” see Eugene Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 29. I have chosen “classical” as a more neutral term, simply indicating the age of the literature and its status in the Second Temple period as the literary inheritance of ancient Israel. 2  See also Tov’s definition: “The common denominator of these excerpted texts is that they present large or small segments of the biblical text without accompanying commentaries or reflections on the texts” (Emanuel Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008]), 27–41 at 28. The underlying assumption of this definition is that there

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_016

248

White Crawford

manuscripts found in the Qumran caves by the lack of accompanying exegesis, such as is found in, for example, 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), 4QCatena A (4Q177), and 11QMelchizedek (11Q13).3 These excerpted texts demonstrate in a concrete way, by their material features and their content, the activity of the scribes who copied them. In fact, some of these excerpted texts may have been created at Qumran itself, which implies that the scribe who composed the manuscript resided there. They also offer some insight into the worship and study life of the Qumran community, since I will argue that these manuscripts were created as “hand copies” for use in everyday life. This article will explore all of those manuscripts which have been identified as excerpted, identifying commonalities in content and material features. It will then turn to the manuscripts 4QReworked Pentateuch D (4Q366) and 4QReworked Pentateuch E (4Q367) to explore whether these manuscripts are also excerpted texts.

existed an earlier “complete” text of the book in question, from which the scribe chose the passages to excerpt. The textual details of the earlier existing text were fluid in the period in which the Qumran manuscripts were copied, which is apparent in the passages selected for excerpting (see below). Nevertheless, a prior text from which passages could be excerpted did exist. The identification of these excerpted texts in the Qumran collection was first suggested by Hartmut Stegemann, who identified 2QExodb and 4QDeutn as excerpted manuscripts (“Weitere Stücke von 4QpPsalm 37, von 4Q Patriarchal Blessings und Hinweis auf eine unedierte Handschrift aus Höhle 4Q mit Exzerpten aus dem Deuteronomium,” RevQ 6 [1967]: 193–227). I followed up on Stegemann’s suggestions concerning 4QDeutn in Sidnie A. White (Crawford), “4QDtn: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, ed. Harold Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas Tobin, S.J. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 13–20. However, I disagree with Stegemann’s characterization of 2QExodb as an excerpted text; it appears to be simply an extremely fragmentary manuscript of Exodus, which may insert a verse from chapter 19 (19:9b) before 34:10. See Maurice Baillet, “Exode (deuxième exemplaire),” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran, ed. Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 52–55 at 55. See also Tov, “Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 29. 3  Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata, b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung, traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden, STDJ 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Other anthological texts with accompanying interpretation include 4QOrdinances and 4QTanhumim.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

1

249

Identification and Contents4

At least fifteen excerpted (or abbreviated) classical text manuscripts have been identified by the editors of the various manuscripts. Tov provides the following list:5 4QExodd (4Q15) 4QExode (4Q16) 4QDeutj (4Q37) 4QDeutk1 (4Q38) 4QDeutn (4Q41) 4QDeutq (4Q44) 4QPsb (4Q84) 4QPsg (4Q89) 4QPsh (4Q90) 4QIsad (4Q58) 4QEzeka (4Q73; Tov lists it as “possible”) 4QCanta (4Q106) 4QCantb (4Q107) 4QTestimonia (4Q175) 5QDeut (5Q1) 5QPs (5Q5) I would also classify as excerpted texts all of the manuscripts listed by Tov with the exception of 4QPsb and 4QIsad, and list 4QEzeka as uncertain.6 In addition, 4  I will not discuss in this article the tefillin and mezuzot slips found at Qumran, even though these are also excerpted texts. Their specialized use as prayer slips inserted into the phylactery capsules means that they were not meant to be read, only worn for prayer, and their tiny size and method of copying sets them apart from the excerpted texts. 5  Tov, “Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 29–38. Tov characterizes 4QCanta and 4QCantb as “abbreviated” rather than excerpted texts, since the choice of passages in the manuscripts are “of an undetermined nature, probably reflecting the excerptors’ literary taste” (34). In DJD 16, Tov states “The shorter text of the two scrolls was created consciously by the scribes or their predecessors, who shortened [SWC: rather than excerpted; emphasis mine] the content of the biblical book, and not by scribal negligence …” Emanuel Tov, “Introduction to 4QCanta–c,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 16 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 195–98 at 195. 6  4QPsb contains parts of fifteen psalms, from Pss 91–118. On the manuscript Ps 112 directly follows Ps 103; Pss 104–111 are absent. This absence leads Tov to classify the manuscript as excerpted (“Abbreviated Texts,” 36). However, we do not know if Pss 104–111 were completely absent from this manuscript or were situated elsewhere; what the manuscript most likely represents is a variant text of the Psalter rather than an excerpted text. See Peter Flint, The

250

White Crawford

I would include 4QReworked Pentateuch D (4Q366) and 4QReworked Pentateuch E (4Q367),7 for a total of sixteen or seventeen excerpted manuscripts from the Qumran caves. The preserved contents of the excerpted manuscripts are as follows: 4QExodd: Exod 13:15–16; 15:1 4QExode: Exod 13:3–5 4QDeutj: Deut 5:1–6:3; 8:5–10; 11:6–10, 12–13; 11:21? + Exod 12:43–44; Exod 12:46–51 + 13:1–15; Deut 32:7–8 4QDeutk1: Deut 5:28–32; 11:6–13; 32:17–18, 22–23, 25–27 4QDeutn: Deut 8:5–10; 5:1–6:1 4QDeutq: Deut 32:9–10, 37–43 4QPsg: Ps 119:37–46, 49–50, 73–74, 81–83, 89–92 4QPsh: Ps 119:10–21 4QCanta: Cant 3:4–5; 3:7–4:7; 6:11?–7:7 4QCantb: Cant 2:9–3:2; 3:5; 3:9–4:3; 4:8–11; 4:14–5:1 5QDeut: Deut 7:15–24; 8:5–9:2; 32:20–21; 33:1–2 5QPsalms: Ps 119:99–101, 104, 113–120, 138–142

Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141–46, who notes that from Ps 90 and beyond the Qumran Psalms scrolls present several different arrangements, indicating that the order of the psalms had not yet stabilized. 4QIsad contains portions of chapters 45–49, 52–54, and 58. It gives no particular indication of being an excerpted text, although Lange has argued that its columns were too short to contain all of Isaiah and that therefore it may have contained only chapter 40 to the end (Armin Lange, review of Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DSD 8 [2001]: 100–104 at 102). 4QEzeka contains 10:6–11:1; 23:14–15, 17–18; 23:44–47; and 41:3–6. George Brooke has suggested that the survival of these particular passages is not coincidental, but that the passages reflect a choice of topics of some special significance, since they occur in other Qumran texts (“Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11, 1 (Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992), 317–38 at 319. However, these particular passages do not seem to have been especially significant in the sectarian literature. See Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, JAJSup 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 147–52. 7  4QReworked Pentateuch A (4Q158) might also be classified as an excerpted text. See Molly Zahn, “Building Textual Bridges: Towards an Understanding of 4Q158 (4QReworked Pentateuch A),” in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave 4, ed. George J. Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven, STDJ 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 13–32. 4Q158, however, contains exegetical comments that have been added to its excerpts, and may better be classified as some other type of exegetical manuscript.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

251

4QTestimonia: Exod 20:21 (according to the pre-Samaritan version); Num 24:15–17; Deut 33:8–11; Apocryphon of Joshua excerpt8 4QRP D: Exod 21:35–22:5; Lev 24:20–22, 25:38–43; Num 29:14–[25], 29:32– 30:1; Deut 16:13–14, 14:[13]–17 4QRP E: Lev 11:47–13:1; 15:14–15; 19:1–4, 9–15; 29:13; 27:30–34 When examining the contents of these manuscripts, certain patterns begin to emerge. Setting aside until the end of this article the manuscripts 4QRP D and E, the other Pentateuch manuscripts include, over and over, verses from Exod 13, Deut 5–6, Deut 8:5–10, Deut 11, and Deut 32. These excerpted passages may all be characterized as liturgical or, to use a contemporary term, lectionary texts; all of them, with the exception of Deut 8:5–10, are also found in tefillin texts from Qumran,9 while Deut 8:5–10 is the passage used as the basis, in rabbinic tradition, for the practice of grace after meals in Jewish liturgy.10 The excerpted Psalm manuscripts all contain Ps 119, the long acrostic Wisdom psalm. The presence of these passages again and again may indicate that the excerpted texts containing these passages had some sort of liturgical function in the Qumran community; that is, they were used in their daily prayers or during the worship services of the community.11 However, all of the excerpted texts that do contain these passages differ from one another physically and in content, so that we cannot posit any uniform procedure for excerpting these passages and committing them to skin. For example, 4QDeutn contains excerpts from

8  This quotation is taken from the composition Apocryphon of Joshua, found in two fragmentary copies in Cave 4Q, 4Q378 and 4Q379. The quotation itself is found on 4Q379, frg. 22. The Apocryphon of Joshua is a text that I classify as “affiliated”; that is, while it does not contain the characteristic sectarian vocabulary found in texts belonging to the community of which Qumran is a part, it contains ideas shared by the sectarian literature. Therefore, it belongs to the category of texts with special affinity to the sectarian literature. See the detailed analysis of Devorah Dimant, “Between Sectarian and Nonsectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 113–33. 9  Tov, “Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 30–31. 10  Moshe Weinfeld, “Grace after Meals in Qumran,” JBL 111 (1992): 427–40; reprinted in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 112–21. 11  For a survey of prayer at Qumran, see Daniel Falk, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Jewish Liturgy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 617–51. Falk, however, does not consider the excerpted texts as part of the evidence for prayer texts from Qumran.

252

White Crawford

chapters 8 and 5–6,12 4QDeutk1 includes more extensive excerpts taken from chapters 5, 11, and 32; 5QDeut includes excerpts from chapters 7, 8–9, 32, and 33; and 4QDeutj contains the most extensive set of excerpts, including verses from chapters 5–6, 8, 11, and 32, as well as Exod 12–13. Not all of the excerpted texts, however, contained what may be classified as liturgical passages (e.g., 4QCanta, b, 4QTestimonia, 4QRP D and E, and perhaps 5QDeut), implying that not all excerpted texts were created solely for liturgical use. These “nonliturgical” excerpted texts were perhaps used for reference and study, which would mean that their function was similar to anthological texts such as 4QFlorilegium and 4QCatena A and B, which collect selected passages around a particular theme. Indeed, 4QTestimonia, whose excerpted passages revolve around the theme of messianic expectations, lies very close to the above texts, with which it is often grouped.13 2

Textual Character

The textual character of these manuscripts, where it can be ascertained,14 is significant for what it demonstrates concerning the textual fluidity of the classical literature of ancient Israel in the Second Temple period. The textual character of these manuscripts cannot be characterized as a group; each manuscript demonstrates its own unique set of traits. 4QDeutj and 4QDeutk1 do not lie close to any of the received versions (the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint, or the pre-Samaritan version). 4QDeutk1 in particular exhibits a “mixed” group of variants, agreeing almost the same number of times with each of the received versions.15 12  The end of 4QDeutn is not preserved; the manuscript breaks off at Deut 6:1. It is reasonable to suppose that the excerpt continued through 6:3, and may also have contained 6:4–9, the Sh’ma; whether it contained other excerpts is impossible to know. 13  For example, in the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (PTSDSSP) 4QTestimonia is published, along with 4QFlorilegium, 11QMelchizedek, and 4QCatena A and B, in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002). 14  4QExodd, 4QExode, 4QPsg, 4QPsh, and 5QPsalms do not preserve enough material to make any statement concerning their textual character. See Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 60–61, 385–86, 394–95. 15  Lange, Handbuch, 94, states that 4QDeutk1 is “ein gutes Beispiel für die Interferenz und Durchmischung der unterschiedlichen Texttraditionen in hellenistischer Zeit.”

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

253

4QDeutn contains one major expansion in its text of the Decalogue that is unique to the manuscript and most likely the work of its scribe. In col. 4, lines 5–7, at the end of 5:15, 4QDeutn inserts text from Exod 20:11: ‫כי ששת ימים עשה יהוה את השמים ואת הארץ את הים וכול אשר בם וינוח ביום‬ ‫השביעי על כן ברך יהוה את יום השבת לקדשו‬

The scribe of 4QDeutn has created a harmonization between the two versions of the Decalogue in the Pentateuch (Deut 5 and Exod 20) by inserting the Exodus justification for Sabbath observance at the end of the Deuteronomy version of the fourth commandment.16 There is no physical indication on the manuscript, such as a vacat, that the harmonization has occurred. This harmonization constitutes a good example of the freedom a scribe felt to intervene in a received text while copying it for an excerpted manuscript. 4QDeutq, which excerpts the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43), shares several readings with the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy and was excerpted from a Hebrew manuscript which must have been close to but not identical with the Hebrew Vorlage of G.17 These variants are found in 32:43. 5QDeut’s base text lies close to M.18 However, it is corrected supralinearly four times by a second hand, at 7:15, 8:2, 8:19, and 9:2. These supralinear corrections bring the manuscript into agreement with G.19 The second scribe must have been working with a Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy. 4QCanta has nine unique readings, thus indicating its independence from the received text. 4QCantb preserves an unusual text: it contains Aramaicisms, in particular the substitution of the separate word min for the apocopated mi(seven times). The manuscript also contains six scribal errors/corrections, an unusually high number for such a small manuscript.20 Finally, 4QTestimonia contains a textually interesting collection of excerpts. It begins with a quotation of Exod 20:21 according to the pre-Samaritan text 16  The scribe of the Nash Papyrus creates a similar harmonization but in a different way. See William Foxwell Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” JBL 56 (1937): 145–76. 17  Patrick W. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich, “4QDeutq,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 137–42 at 138. 18  Lange, Handbuch, 103. 19  Józef T. Milik, “Deutéronome,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran, ed. Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 169–70 at 170. 20  Emanuel Tov, “4QCantb,” in Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 16 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 205–18 at 208–9.

254

White Crawford

tradition, which inserts Deut 5:25b–26 and Deut 18:18–19 according to M at the end of verse 21. It is followed by Num 24:15–17 in a version which is close to M. The next quotation, Deut 33:8–11, shares two readings with G at 33:8 and 33:11. It also shares several readings with 4QDeuth, indicating that the two manuscripts may have had a common ancestor.21 4QTestimonia is often held up as an example of the fact that no particular version of the text of the Pentateuch was favored in the Second Temple period; different versions were all acceptable and could be used interchangeably. 3

Physical Characteristics

These manuscripts also have several physical characteristics in common. In manuscripts that contain more than one excerpt the passages are juxtaposed on the manuscript without overt explanation, but sometimes with paragraph markings or other scribal notations.22 Some manuscripts use blank lines or empty spaces (indicated by a vacat) to indicate the end of one excerpt and the beginning of the next, or, in the case of Ps 119, new stanzas. 4QExodd has a reconstructed vacat at the end of line 3, the end of Exod 13:16; 15:1 begins at the start of line 4. 4QExode, which preserves both its top and bottom margins on its only fragment, begins with the first word of 13:3 (reconstructed) and ends exactly at the last word of 13:5 (also reconstructed), suggesting a deliberate spacing on the part of the scribe. 4QDeutj’s bottom margins indicate that the scribe was separating the excerpted passages; col. IV, line 14 ends with 6:3, and the top of col. V begins with 8:5.23 There are three blank lines at the end of col. V. Col. IX, line 12 has a small vacat before the beginning of Exod 12:43; the line above contains the end of Deut 11:21. Column 1 of 4QDeutn contains Deut 8:5–10 on the first seven lines, followed by eight uninscribed lines. The next sheet begins with Deut 5:1, which continues through 6:1, where the manuscript breaks off. The two surviving sheets were sewn together in antiquity in that order. Sheet 1 also has remains 21  4QDeuth is paleographically later (50–1 BCE) than 4QTest; thus the Deuteronomy passage in Testimonia was not excerpted from the manuscript 4QDeuth. Julie Duncan, “4QDeuth,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 61–70 at 61. 22  Tov, “Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 4. 23  Duncan admits that the placement of 8:5–10, following the biblical order, is somewhat arbitrary, since in 4QDeutn 8:5–10 preceded 5:1. Duncan, “4QDeutj,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al, DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 75–92 at 76.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

255

of sewing on its right edge, indicating that it included at least one more sheet at the beginning of the manuscript, although its contents cannot be ascertained.24 4QDeutq, which preserves two columns, is arranged stichometrically and the text ends at the bottom of col. 2; the left margin of col. 2 is broad and is probably the end of the manuscript.25 4QPsg, which contains only the long acrostic Psalm 119, indicates the end of one stanza and the beginning of the next by a blank line; since the psalm is arranged stichometrically these blank lines occur on every ninth line. 5QPsalms has a similar arrangement. 4QTestimonia also uses the paragraph format for its excerpts: each excerpt is followed by an empty space, with the next excerpt beginning on the following line. On this manuscript the end of each excerpt is also indicating by a scribal marking in the margin, which resembles “an elongated, reversed ‘C,’” (Cross) or a “horizontal clothespin shape” (Tov).26 4QPsh also contains this scribal marking to indicate a stanza break after 119:16. 4QCantb also has scribal markings, but they do not seem to indicate excerpting or even sense-breaks. Frg. 1 contains five different scribal marks at the ends of lines 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13; frg. 2 i 4 has a possible scribal mark; and there is a scribal mark at the left edge of the last line of frg. 3. These marks resemble paleo-Hebrew or Cryptic A letters.27 Since the Cryptic A script appears in sectarian documents from Qumran Cave 4, their presence here on 4QCantb may point to a Qumran provenance. Many of these manuscripts are of small dimensions, such that it is evident that an entire book would not have fit on them. 4QExode, 4QDeutn, 4QDeutq, 4QPsg, 4QCanta, and 4QCantb are all of small dimensions, while 4QDeutj contained short columns. This phenomenon is most clearly seen on the exceptionally well-preserved 4QDeutn. The height of its sheets is 7.1 cm, while the inscribed column height of sheet 2 is 5.1 cm. In contrast, the height of the sheets of 1QIsaa (the Great Isaiah Scroll) ranges from 25.3 to 27 cm.28 24  Sidnie White Crawford, “4QDeutn,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 117–28. 25  Skehan and Ulrich, “4QDeutq,” DJD 14: 137. 26   Frank Moore Cross, “Testimonia,” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 308. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 182. 27  Tov, “4QCantb,” DJD 16:205. 28  Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2010), 59.

256

White Crawford

The small size of these manuscripts is explained by their probable functions. Since these excerpted manuscripts were created for particular uses, such as study or use in worship settings, their small size would have made them much easier to handle and manipulate than a large, bulky scroll that contained an entire book, such as 1QIsaa, which is 7.34 meters in length. Because scrolls at that time were not systematically divided by chapter and verse (although paragraph markings are present in many scrolls), individual passages would have been more difficult to find in a whole scroll. The creation of these excerpted texts would have facilitated the study or use of passages important to the Qumran community. Another important characteristic of these small excerpted texts is that they are all single copies; that is, in the Qumran collection as we have it these manuscripts were never recopied. This may indicate they were created at the request of or for the use of individuals who were members of the community that resided at Qumran. In addition, some of these manuscripts indicate that they were “quick” copies, hastily prepared and at times lacking a careful hand, in contrast to the carefully prepared, elegant manuscripts that we have in some of the larger texts in the Qumran library.29 For example, Cross characterizes the hand of 4QTestimonia as “sloppy,” with a high number of corrections for a single sheet.30 This same phenomenon can also be seen in 4QCantb. These observations, especially the fact that these manuscripts are single copies, lead to the suggestion that at least some of these manuscripts may have been copied locally in the Qumran settlement by the scribes who resided there, for their own use or for the use of their fellow inhabitants. For example, 4QDeutn, which dates paleographically to the late first century BCE—early first century CE, could easily have been copied at Qumran. Other manuscripts which fall into the second half of the first century BCE through the first century CE are 4QDeutj, 4QDeutk1, 4QDeutq, 4QPsg, 4QPsh, 5QPs, and 4QRP D and E.31 Two of them, in fact, are quite late, dating from 30–68 CE (4QDeutj and 4QPsg), suggesting that this excerpting activity was going on during the entire life of the settlement. In addition, 4QTestimonia was copied by the same scribe who copied the Cave 1Q copy of the Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS along with 1QSa and 1QSb), 4QSamc, and 4QNarrative G. This same scribe was the second hand in 1QpesherHabakkuk 29  Tov, Scribal Practices, 125–29, terms these carefully prepared manuscripts “deluxe editions.” He does classify 4QDeutk1 as a deluxe manuscript on the basis of its margin size, but this classification is uncertain. 30  Cross, “Testimonia,” 308. 31  Brian Webster, “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, ed. Emanuel Tov, DJD 39 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446 at 372–75.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

257

and corrected 1QIsaa.32 This hard-working scribe was active, according to his paleographical date, in the early first century BCE, c. 100–75 BCE, which was the same time that the settlement at Qumran was founded.33 Thus, it is possible that he was one of the original members of the settlement, bringing his work with him and continuing it there. What I suggest we have in these excerpted manuscripts is the visible work of scholar scribes, putting together (or “jotting down”) individual passages that illustrated a particular theme or were used for a particular purpose. These excerpts may have been made by the scribe at the request of someone else, or because of a scribe’s own particular interest. 4QDeutn, a carefully prepared manuscript with a collection of liturgical passages, may have been created for community use in worship. 4QDeutj and 4QDeutk1 gather together a more extensive collection of passages from Deuteronomy and Exodus into convenient collections, most likely also for worship use. 4QDeutq, 4QPsg, 4QPsh, and 5QPsalms, which all preserve single poetic texts, were likewise most likely used in a worship setting. 4QExodd, 4QExode, and 5QDeut may also have been used for worship, although their status as worship texts is less certain. On the other hand, 4QCanta, 4QCantb, and 4QTestimonia were more likely study or reference texts of some kind. 4QTestimonia is a good example of this, with its four passages, from four different books, illustrating the theme of messianic expectations.34 As we shall see below, 4QRP D and E were also most likely reference texts of some kind. Why would the Essene community that resided at Qumran have created and used these excerpted texts? A well-known passage in 1QS, copied by the same scribe as 4QTestimonia, reads: In any place where is gathered the ten-man quorum, someone must always be engaged in study of the Law, day and night, continually, each one taking his turn. The general membership will be diligent together for the first third of every night of the year, reading aloud from the Book, interpreting Scripture and praying together. 1QS 6:6–8

32  Tov, Scribal Practices, 23–24. 33  Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 68. 34  Steudel has suggested that 4Q175 is a “personal set of notes” (“einen privat … ‘Handzettel’”) to be used for discussion (Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, 180). Mladen Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections,” JSJ 43 (2012): 551–94 at 577, makes a similar suggestion for 4QTestimonia, 4QList of False Prophets ar, and 4QList of Netinim.

258

White Crawford

If the Essenes residing at Qumran were in fact following this dictum, these small scrolls with selected passages would have been ideal for study and prayer in small groups. I propose that this was their purpose; they were created for and used as study guides or prayer texts in the communities belonging to the Essene wing of Judaism. Since all of these excerpted texts were recovered from caves 4Q and 5Q (see below) these excerpted texts would have been used in the daily devotional life of the Essene community that resided there. 4

Physical Location

The fact that all of these excerpted texts are found in the two marl terrace caves across the ravine from the buildings of Qumran, caves 4Q and 5Q, is significant for determining their place in the Qumran collection. The caves of Qumran can be divided into two groups. The first group is the limestone cliff caves, which are found in the rocky cliffs to the west of the Dead Sea, above the marl plateau on which the settlement of Qumran sits. The caves in which fragmentary scrolls and other artefacts were found, 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 11Q, and Cave 53,35 are all located within a three kilometer radius of the settlement at Qumran. These caves are natural caves, difficult to access, with low ceilings and uneven, rocky floors. They were not used for habitation or other human activity; rather, they seem to have been long-term storage caves for the community at Qumran. The fact that none of the excerpted text manuscripts were found in the limestone cliff caves indicates that they were not being set aside by the community that resided at Qumran for long-term storage. The marl terrace caves, on the other hand, are located within the “built” environment of the Qumran settlement, located on the same plateau as the buildings and accessed by paths and stairwells from the buildings to the caves. Caves 4Q, 5Q, 7Q, 8Q, 9Q, and 10Q are man-made, having been hollowed out from the marl plateau. Some estimates indicate that there may have been as many as twenty to forty marl plateau caves in antiquity, although the majority of them have collapsed into the wadi.36 These purpose-built caves have 35  Cave 53 is presently being excavated by Oren Gutfeld of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Randall Price of Liberty University. Information concerning cave 53 is taken from Oren Gutfeld and Robert Price, “The Discovery of a New Dead Sea Scrolls Cave at Qumran” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, Boston, MA, 19 November 2017). I would like to thank Dr. Price for sharing this paper and other results of his research with me prior to publication. 36  Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, “Three Seasons of Excavations at Qumran,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 17 (2004): 321–32 at 325; Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, “Residential Caves at Qumran,” DSD 6 (1999): 328–35.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

259

smooth floors and walls, high ceilings, and would have received both light and air. During the Second Temple period settlement they seemed to have served a variety of functions; caves 7Q, 8Q, and 9Q were used as temporary sleeping spaces and workshops, while caves 4Q and 5Q (part of a larger cave complex that included cave 10Q) seem to have been used for the short-term storage of scrolls. I suggest that during the lifetime of the settlement caves 4Q and 5Q were used for the overflow of scrolls located in the library rooms in the main building of Qumran.37 Cave 4Q contained a large number of single-copy works besides the excerpted texts. Many of these single-copy works, again including the excerpted texts, have a “working” quality to them; that is, they are not polished literary works, but are more like notes or lists. Examples apart from the excerpted texts include the List of Netinim (4Q340), List of False Prophets ar (4Q339), and Rebukes Reported by the Overseer (4Q477). Three manuscripts identified as scribal exercises were also found in cave 4Q: 4Q234, 341 and 360.38 The presence of these scribbled exercises and notes in Cave 4Q indicates the local nature of that cave’s collection; that is, it is highly unlikely that such draft-like documents would have been transported to Qumran from Jerusalem or elsewhere. Their place of origin must have been Qumran. In fact, I would suggest that, while caves 4Q and 5Q were probably used for scroll storage throughout the life of the Second Temple period settlement, at the end of that period those caves (along with caves 7Q–10Q) became the “dump” for the manuscripts found in the buildings. In 68 CE, during the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome, the Roman legion X Fretensis was operating in the region of Jericho; the inhabitants of Qumran, wishing to preserve their precious manuscripts in the face of an impending Roman attack, used the nearby marl terrace caves as concealment for the scrolls that were in the settlement. This would explain why these small, single-copy, working manuscripts were preserved; they were gathered up from the settlement along with all other written material and deposited in the marl terrace caves. After the Roman attack destroyed the settlement, the former inhabitants were not able to retrieve their manuscripts, thus saving them for (re-)discovery in the twentieth century.39 The excerpted texts are 37  I have identified loci 1–2 and 4 in the main building as a library complex, and the adjacent locus 30 as a scroll workroom. See Sidnie White Crawford, Scribes and Scrolls at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019). 38  See Ada Yardeni, “4QExercitium Calami A,” in Qumran Cave 4, XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, part 1, ed. Stephen Pfann and Philip Alexander et al., DJD 36 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 185–86; Ada Yardeni, “4QExercitium Calami B,” DJD 36: 297; and Joseph Naveh, “4QExercitium Calami C,” DJD 36: 291–93. 39  See my monograph Scribes and Scrolls at Qumran for a detailed argument supporting this scenario.

260

White Crawford

part of this subgroup of working manuscripts; probably in regular use in the settlement for worship or study, many of them were probably indiscriminately swept up and deposited in caves 4Q and 5Q prior to the attack in 68. 5

4QReworked Pentateuch D and 4QReworked Pentateuch E as Excerpted Texts

Two other manuscripts that have not previously been identified as excerpted texts are 4QReworked Pentateuch D (4Q366) and 4QReworked Pentateuch E (4Q367). These manuscripts were originally classified by their editors, Emanuel Tov and myself, as part of the group of manuscripts labelled Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, and 4Q367).40 Since their publication it has been recognized that these manuscripts are all separate compositions, although they have certain textual and exegetical features in common. 4QReworked Pentateuch A is some sort of exegetical composition, reworking passages from Genesis and Exodus around the theme of covenant.41 4QReworked Pentateuch B and 4QReworked Pentateuch C are both Pentateuch manuscripts with expanded texts.42 4QRP D and 4QRP E differ, however, from the other three in extent and in content. Both manuscripts were most likely limited in scope when whole, although we cannot be entirely certain. 4QRP D has only five extant fragments, while 4QRP E has three. Each contains passages from the Pentateuch juxtaposed on the manuscript, without any notations, such as we have seen in the excerpted texts discussed above. In fact, earlier treatments of these manuscripts, including my own, have been 40  Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White (Crawford), “4QReworked Pentateuchd,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, part 1, ed. Harold Attridge et al., DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 335–44; and Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White (Crawford), “4QReworked Pentateuche,” DJD 13: 345–52. 41  Michael Segal, “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998): 45–62; Michael Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, ed. Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000), 391–99 at 397; and Molly Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts, STDJ 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 25–74. 42  As first suggested by Eugene Ulrich, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, ed. Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000), 51–59 at 57; and Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch” 395. This characterization was subsequently affirmed by the present author and by Emanuel Tov, “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch(?),” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. Mladen Popovic, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–92 at 81–82.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

261

hampered by the assumption that they originally contained full texts of the books from which their passages are excerpted.43 So, for example, in her discussion of 4QRP D, Zahn asks whether the “intervening material” between two passages was moved elsewhere or simply omitted?44 If, however, 4QRP D is an excerpted manuscript, as I will argue below, then her question becomes moot. 6

4QReworked Pentateuch D

4QRP D contains the following passages: Exod 21:35–22:5 (frg. 1); Lev 24:20–22, 25:38–43 (frg. 2); Num 29:14–[25] (frg. 3); Num 29:32–30:1, Deut 16:13–14 (frg. 4i); and Deut 14:[13]–17 (frg. 5). These passages are the only preserved text on the manuscript, making it unlikely that the manuscript ever contained any complete book of the Pentateuch. The arrangement of the fragments in DJD 13 is arbitrary; that is, Tov and I arranged them according to the biblical order, but there is no indication from the fragments themselves that that was their original order. It is very likely, however, that frg. 4 col. i did follow frg. 3, since frg. 4’s text is a continuation of frg. 3’s. Since no top or bottom margins are preserved on the fragments, we cannot determine the original extent of the passages in question. Frg. 2 contains a blank line (line 3) between the end of Lev 24:22 and the beginning of 25:38, while frg. 4 i has a blank line (line 9) between the end of Num 30:1 and the beginning of Deut 16:13. We have noted above that these blank lines are scribal indications of excerpting in the other manuscripts. Frg. 1 contains a running text of Exod 21:35–22:5, which concerns laws concerning restitution for problems with livestock (an ox that gores, stealing livestock, and allowing one’s livestock to graze in another’s field). The text reflects the expanded text also found in 4QRP A, 4QpaleoExodm, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint, rather than the shorter Masoretic text. Frg. 2 preserves Lev 24:20–22 and 25:39–43, with minor variants. Lev 24:20– 22 is the end of the lex talionis, while 25:39–43 has to do with the manumission of debt slaves. The reason for the juxtaposition of the two passages is not transparent. Tov and I made two tentative suggestions as to why the two passages 43  For example, Moshe Bernstein remarks, “If we must work from the assumption that 4QRP covered the entire Pentateuch …” (“What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 [2008]: 24–49 at 41). He goes on to say that the juxtapositions of 4Q366 undermine “the fundamental assumption that all 4QRP texts covered the entire Pentateuch with no omissions” (42). He thus opens the door to the possibility that 4Q366 is an excerpted manuscript. 44  Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 125.

262

White Crawford

would be juxtaposed. First, since both passages mention the foreigner or sojourner (24:22, 25:40), we proposed that the common subject triggered the association of the two passages. However, two different Hebrew words are used in the verses (‫ גר‬and ‫ תושב‬respectively), so a key word association is impossible.45 Second, we noted that the lex talionis in Exod 22:23–25 is followed immediately by rules for the treatment of slaves (although the topic in Exodus is different from the topic in Leviticus), which might have led a scribe to create the same juxtaposition in Leviticus.46 Neither of these explanations is very compelling, however, so the reason for the juxtaposition of the two passages on this fragment remains unclear. Frg. 3 contains a running text of Num 29:14–24, concerning the offerings for the Sukkot festival, and belongs with frg. 4, col. i. The fragment contains minor variants from the other witnesses. Frg. 4, col. i contains Num 29:32–30:1, followed, after a vacat, by Deut 16:13– 14. The Numbers passage is a continuation of the laws of Sukkot found on frg. 3, while Deut 16:13–14 concerns the laws of Sukkot found in that book. Here the reason for the juxtaposition of the passages on this fragment is quite clear: the scribe has gathered at least two of the three Pentateuch passages concerning Sukkot in one place (whether the third passage, Lev 23:33–36, was also present when the manuscript was whole is impossible to determine). 4QRP D does not contain either of the minor expansions found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. The sparse remains of frg. 4, col. ii have not been identified. Frg. 5 contains Deut 14:14–21, which contains lists of pure and impure animals. It contains minor variants with other versions. 4QRP D has two characteristics that agree with the other excerpted texts discussed above. First, the passages that were copied have something in common, in this case that they are legal in nature, although their topics vary. In the case of frg. 4, col. i, the reason for the juxtaposition of the passages from Numbers and Deuteronomy is obvious, although the same cannot be said for the juxtaposition on frg. 2. Second, the physical layout of the juxtaposed passages resembles the phenomenon seen above, where a vacat or space is inserted between the juxtaposed passages. I believe that what we have in this manuscript is a collection of legal texts perhaps to be used to settle certain questions that

45  Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 397. 46  Tov and White (Crawford), “4QReworked Pentateuchd,” DJD 13: 339. Zahn, building upon this proposal, tentatively suggests that the editor of the fragment may be attempting to rearrange the Holiness Code’s legislation so that its sequence resembles that of the Covenant Code (Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 125).

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

263

arose in the community. It may be that some scribe was instructed to collect these passages for reasons which are not immediately clear to us. 7

4QReworked Pentateuch E47

4QRP E collects a selection of passages from Leviticus: Lev 11:47–13:1 (frg. 1a–b); Lev 15:14–15, 19:1–4, and 19:9–15 (frg. 2a–b); and Lev 20:13 and 27:30–34 (frg. 3), with four lines of unknown text at the beginning of the fragment. A fourth unidentified fragment, Frg. A, has also been placed with this manuscript. On frg. 2a–b, Lev 15:15 ends on line 2, and 19:1 begins on line 3. There is a vacat on line 7 between the end of 19:4 and the beginning of 19:9. Frg. 3 contains a vacat at the end of line 5, before the beginning of 27:30 on line 6. As was the case for 4QRP D, the reason for the selection of the particular passages preserved in 4QRP E is difficult to understand, although again they are all legal in nature. The fragments were arranged by the editors in the biblical order, although there is no internal indication that that layout is correct. Since no top or bottom margins are preserved, we do not know the original extent of the text of the fragments. The last passage, 27:30–34, is also the end of Leviticus, followed by a vacat (line 14); for that reason Tov and I understood the manuscript as simply a copy of Leviticus, with a variant sequence of passages on frgs. 2 and 3. However, identifying the manuscript as an excerpted text may prove to be a better indication of its original use. Frg. 1a–b contains Lev 11:47–13:1. The actual remains of 11:47 (lines 1–2) and 13:1 (line 14) are extremely fragmentary and only tentatively identified; the text of the fragment that is certain is Lev 12, the procedures for a woman following childbirth. The text contains minor variants from the other versions. Frg. 2a–b contains Lev15:14–15;48 19:1–4, 9–15. Line 2 contains the end of 15:15, while line 3 begins with 19:1. Lev 15:14–15 deals with the purification of a man with a discharge; 19:1–4 contains an introductory formula concerning holiness, while 19:9–15 concern ethical commandments for the community. 47  Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 398, has already suggested that this is an excerpted or abbreviated text. 48  Tov and White (Crawford) note that the first two lines of the fragment could also be identified as 15:29–30. They chose 15:14–15 because v. 15 is followed by a setumah in m; Tov and White (Crawford), “4QReworked Pentateuche,” DJD 13: 349. Bernstein, however, prefers 15:29–30, since it marks the end of a section regarding genital discharges. This would negate the necessity of explaining the omission of the second half of chapter 15; Bernstein, “Laws,” 43. He does not think the text from Leviticus is excerpted, but rather that the scribe is undertaking a rearrangement of an entire manuscript of Leviticus.

264

White Crawford

19:5–8, concerning the sacrifice of well-being, may have been omitted as not relevant to the topic in verses 9–15, ethical behavior in the community.49 The text contains minor variants from the other versions. The reason for the juxtaposition of 15:14–15 (or 29–30) with 19:1–4 is not transparent. Zahn very tentatively suggests that the texts are juxtaposed to “implicitly create a connection or equivalence between ritual purity and moral/ethical holiness.”50 This explanation is possible, but one can think of many other choices of passages that would make the same equivalence, so why these in particular? The more banal explanation of a scribe simply collecting passages as instructed for future reference may be preferable here. Frg. 3 contains two lines of fragmentary, unidentified text, followed by Lev 20:13 (lines 3–5) followed by a vacat; lines 6–14 contain Lev 27:30–34, the end of the book of Leviticus, followed by a vacat. The text contains minor variants from the other versions. This fragment presents even more difficulties of interpretation. It is uncertain if the first two lines of the fragment contained additional material, or text from elsewhere in Leviticus.51 The reason that Lev 20:13 (although the text is fragmentary the identification of the verse is fairly secure) is juxtaposed with 27:30ff. is very unclear.52 Once again, do we have a situation in which essentially unrelated legal texts were gathered together on a single manuscript, creating an excerpted text, for future reference? 8 Conclusions Although given the fragmentary nature of 4QReworked Pentateuch D and E their exact parameters and function must remain uncertain, it is evident that they are neither complete manuscripts of the Pentateuch with an expanded text (4QRP B and C) nor an exegetical reworking of Pentateuch passages in which the exegesis is clearly discernible (4QRP A). Rather, they present a series of passages from the classical books gathered together in one manuscript. This resembles other excerpted texts identified from Qumran. However, unlike some of the other excerpted texts, the reasons that the particular passages found were chosen for inclusion in each manuscript is not immediately 49  As suggested by Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 127. 50  Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 127. 51  Tov and White (Crawford), “4QReworked Pentateuche,” DJD 13: 351. 52  Bernstein (“Laws,” 44) states that he can offer “no creative solution” to the problem. Zahn (Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 128) likewise has no suggestions.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

265

obvious. In one case, 4QRP D frg. 4, the reason the two passages are juxtaposed is quite clear; for the other passages the reasons why those particular passages have been collected together is not at all evident. This fact makes our identification of these two manuscripts as excerpted texts more tentative. However, in that identification’s favor is also the fact that the layout of 4QRP D and E, with vacats or empty lines between the selected passages, is similar to the layouts of other excerpted texts. Thus, the identification of these two manuscripts as excerpted texts, along with the others from Cave 4Q and 5Q, is plausible. Acknowledgements I am happy to dedicate this article to the memory of my friend and colleague Peter Flint. Peter dedicated his career to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls; we first met as young scholars in Jerusalem, where I was working on the critical editions of the Cave 4Q Deuteronomy fragments and 4QReworked Pentateuch and he was working on the Cave 4Q Psalms fragments. This article is thus particularly appropriate to his memory. Bibliography Albright, William Foxwell. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” JBL 56 (1937): 145–76. Baillet, Maurice. “Exode (deuxième exemplaire).” Pages 52–55 in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Bernstein, Moshe. “What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch.” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49. Brooke, George. “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts.” Pages 317–38 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11, 1. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Broshi, Magen, and Hanan Eshel. “Residential Caves at Qumran.” DSD 6 (1999): 328–35. Broshi, Magen, and Hanan Eshel. “Three Seasons of Excavations at Qumran.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 17 (2004): 321–32. Charlesworth, James H., et al., eds. Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

266

White Crawford

Crawford, Sidnie White. “4QDeutn.” Pages 117–28 in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Crawford, Sidnie White. Scribes and Scrolls at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. Cross, Frank Moore. “Testimonia.” Page 308 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Dimant, Devorah. “Between Sectarian and Nonsectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua.” Pages 113–33 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Duncan, Julie. “4QDeuth.” Pages 61–70 in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Duncan, Julie. “4QDeutj.” Pages 75–92 in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al, DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995). Falk, Daniel. “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Jewish Liturgy.” Pages 617–51 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Flint, Peter. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gutfeld, Oren, and Robert Price. “The Discovery of a New Dead Sea Scrolls Cave at Qumran.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. Boston, MA, 19 November 2017. Lange, Armin. Review of Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DSD 8 (2001): 100–104. Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Milik, Józef T. “Deutéronome.” Pages 169–70 in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Popović, Mladen. “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections.” JSJ 43 (2012): 551–94. Segal, Michael. “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre.” Textus 19 (1998): 45–62.

The Excerpted Manuscripts from Qumran

267

Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–99 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000. Skehan Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. “4QDeutq.” Pp. 137–42 in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Weitere Stücke von 4QpPsalm 37, von 4Q Patriarchal Blessings und Hinweis auf eine unedierte Handschrift aus Höhle 4Q mit Exzerpten aus dem Deuteronomium.” RevQ 6 (1967): 193–227. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata, b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung, traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. STDJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Tov, Emanuel. “Introduction to 4QCanta–c.” Pages 195–98 in Qumran Cave 4, IX: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Tov, Emanuel. “4QCantb.” Pages 205–18 in Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 27–41 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch(?).” Pages 73–92 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by M. Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie A. White (Crawford). “4QReworked Pentateuchd.” Pages 335– 44 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, part 1. Edited by H. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie A. White (Crawford). “4QReworked Pentateuche.” Pages 345– 52 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, part 1. Edited by H. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 51–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

268

White Crawford

Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter Flint. Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, part 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. Webster, Brian. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 351–446 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Grace after Meals in Qumran.” JBL 111 (1992): 427–40; reprinted in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 112–21. Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Zahn, Molly. “Building Textual Bridges: Towards an Understanding of 4Q158 (4QReworked Pentateuch A).” Pages 13–32 in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave 4. Edited by George Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Part 5 Language

∵

Chapter 15

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew: Evidence from the Negative Existential in Post-Predicate Position Jacobus A. Naudé, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson 1 Introduction The trajectory of diachronic change from Biblical Hebrew to Qumran Hebrew has been questioned in recent years, with arguments set forth that the differences between the Hebrew of the Bible and that found in the Qumran texts relate to synchronic rather than diachronic variation.1 In our view, however, synchronic and diachronic variation are both simultaneously present in language. An approach based upon complexity theory (as described in 2012 by Naudé) provides a more insightful way to analyze and understand the linguistic features found in Qumran Hebrew.2 Furthermore, syntactic features, as opposed to lexical choices, provide a more accurate means of determining language change and diffusion. Syntax is part of the deep structure of language; as a result, seemingly insignificant structural differences on the surface may be indicative of deep structural changes. In addition, a collection of seemingly unrelated surface syntactic differences may have their source in a single, deep structural difference. Microdiachronic change over a short temporal span may be part of macrodiachronic change over a long temporal span.3 In previous studies, we have demonstrated that a number of syntactic constructions in Qumran Hebrew attest to language change and diffusion. Among them are the following. First, the construction lōʾ + yiqtol is more frequently expressed as ʾên + pronominal suffix + participle. Both constructions are attested in Biblical Hebrew 1  See Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2 vols. (London: Equinox, 2008); Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Towards an Integrated Approach (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). 2  Jacobus A. Naudé, “Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 61–82. 3  Jared S. Klein, “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: An Indo-Europeanist’s View,” JSem 25 (2016): 865–80.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_017

272

Naudé et al.

and Qumran Hebrew, but the participial construction becomes more frequent in Qumran Hebrew. Qumran Hebrew is further differentiated from Biblical Hebrew in that the participial construction may occur with an independent subject pronoun rather than a pronominal suffix; contrast (1a) and (1b):4 (1a) Exod 5:10

‫אֵ ינֶ ִּ֛ני נ ֵ ֹ֥תן ָל ֶכ֖ם ֶ ּֽת ֶבן׃‬

I am not giving to you straw (1b) CD 5:6–7

‫‏אין הם מבדיל כתורה‬

… they do not separate according to the Law, This seemingly minor difference is important because it indicates a shift in Qumran Hebrew from synthetic to analytical construction, thus demonstrating a deep structural change.5 Second, ʾên followed by a participle without an explicit subject is used both in Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew. As previously demonstrated, the negative existential is in construct with a null subject and has the meaning of a negative indefinite pronoun “no one.”6 In Biblical Hebrew, the negative existential with this meaning is used only as the subject of a predication, but in Qumran Hebrew, the negative existential with a participle may also be used as the object:

4  See Jacobus A. Naudé and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, “The Contribution of Qumran to Historical Hebrew Linguistics: Evidence from the Syntax of Participial Negation,” HvTSt 74:4 (2016): a3150; Jacobus A. Naudé, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson, “The Negative Existential Cycle in Ancient Hebrew,” in The Negative Existential Cycle from a Historical-Comparative Perspective, ed. Ljuba Veselinova and Arja Hamari (Berlin: Language Science Press, forthcoming); and Jacobus A. Naudé, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson, “The Negative Existential in Non-initial Position in Pre-Modern Hebrew” (paper presented at the International Congress of Linguists, Cape Town, 2018). 5  Elly Van Gelderen, The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 41. 6  Naudé and Miller-Naudé, “Contribution of Qumran.” For a similar description describing the subject in this construction as a Nullwert, see Hans Rechenmacher, “‫ לא‬and ‫ אין‬in Nominal Clauses,” JNSL 29: 79–80.

273

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

(2) 4Q381 f45:1

‫אבינא ואין מבין אשׁכיל‬

And I understand and whoever does not understand I teach Third, pro-drop, the omission of the subject pronoun, is a regular feature of Hebrew syntax of all eras with finite verbs (which index the subject as part of the verbal form). In Qumran, pro-drop is also found with both the passive and the active participle.7 One of the most interesting cases involves the biblical text in which the MT has a perfect finite verb, but the Qumran text has the participle:8 (3a) Isa 44:12 (MT)

‫יעף‬ ָ ִ‫א־ׁש ָתה ַמיִם וַ ּי‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬

(If) he drinks no water, he would grow faint. (3b) Isa 44:12 (1QIsaa 37:18)

‫לוא שותה מים‬

(If) (he) does not drink water … In our current research, we are examining the evidence for synchronic variation and diachronic change involving negative existential sentences in pre-modern Hebrew.9 As part of this broader research project, we provide evidence for a trajectory of language change by examining the word order of the negative existential ʾên and specifically post-predicate ʾên. In this chapter, we 7  See, for example, 11Q14 f1ii:11–12, CD 9:10–12. See Naudé and Miller-Naudé, “Contribution of Qumran.” 8  Jacobus A. Naudé, Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax (D.Litt. thesis; Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 1996); Jacobus A. Naudé, “Diachronic Syntax and Language Change: The Case of Qumran Hebrew,” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18 (2000): 1–14; Jacobus A. Naudé, “Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” JNSL 26 (2000): 105–32; Jacobus A. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology, ed. Ian Young, JSOTSup 369 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 189–215; and Naudé and Miller-Naudé, “Contribution of Qumran.” 9  Jacobus A. Naudé and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, “Historical Linguistics, Editorial Theory and Biblical Hebrew: The Current State of the Debate,” JSem 25 (2016): 501–31.

274

Naudé et al.

focus in particular on the so-called “absolute” form of the negative existential and its reflexes in Qumran Hebrew. We situate our research within the broader context of a specific, cross-linguistically identified trajectory known as the Negative Existential Cycle (see below, section 3). The chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, we examine the syntactic features of the negative existential in post-predicate position in Biblical Hebrew and in Qumran Hebrew.10 In section 3, we situate the data concerning the post-predicate negative existential within the broader context of the Negative Existential Cycle in pre-modern Hebrew. In section 4, we provide our conclusions. 2

Negative Existential in Post-Predicate Position

2.1 Overview of the Data In this section we provide an overview of the relevant data concerning the word order of negative existential sentences and the shape of the negative existential as “construct” or “absolute.” In Biblical Hebrew, verbal negation regularly precedes the verb and usually immediately precedes the verb. The same is true of the negative existential, which regularly occurs before the predicate (usually in sentence-initial position)11 regardless of the kind of predicate: nominal, participial, prepositional, adverbial.12 10  In this chapter, we do not consider the negative existential construction which uses the negative lōʾ with an inflected form of the lexical verb hyh; see Daniel J. Wilson, Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew (PhD dissertation. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2017). We also do not consider the negation of participial predicates with lōʾ, see Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé, “Negation and the Participle in Biblical Hebrew,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015): 165–99. 11  By “sentence-initial position,” we indicate the head of the sentence after conjunctions and complementizers such as waw, kî, ʾim. 12  See the descriptions by the standard grammars: Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur Ernest Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), §152k; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §37.5, 39.3.3; Christo H. J. Van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2017) §41.2; Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed., revised and expanded by John C. Beekman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 146–48; Georg Heinrich Ewald, Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament, trans. James Kennedy (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), §321a; Ur Shlonsky, “Eyn-Negation and What It Teaches Us about Hebrew Clause Structure,” in Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar: Papers

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

275

In (4), the negative existential precedes the nominal predicate and is initial in the sentence. (4) 1 Kgs 8:46

‎ ‫ִ ּ֣כי ֵא֤ין ָא ָד ֙ם ֲא ֶ ׁ֣שר לֹא־יֶ ֱח ָ֔טא‬

… for there is no human who does not sin In (5), the negative existential precedes the participial predicate and is in initial position in the sentence. (5) Lev 26:36

‎ ‫וְ ֵא֥ין ר ֵ ֹֽדף‬

… and there is no one pursuing When the participial predicate has no overt subject (as in [5]), the negative existential has the meaning “no one.”13 In (6), the predicate is a prepositional phrase: (6) Exod 9:14

‎ ‎‫ל־ה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬ ָ ‫מנִ י ְּב ָכ‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ַּב ֲע ֣בּור ֵּת ַ ֔דע ִ ּ֛כי ֵא ֥ין ָּכ‬

… in order that you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. The negative existential occurs at the beginning of the complement sentence (after the complementizer kî) and precedes the prepositional predicate. In (7), the negative existential is in initial position and precedes an adverbial predicate:

from the Second Conference on Afroasiatic Languages Sophia Antipolis, 1994, ed. Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky (The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics, 1996), 392–409. Baasten examines all instances of ʾên in the non-biblical Qumran texts, but he does not distinguish the “absolute” and “construct” forms on the basis of syntax; see Martin F. J. Baasten, “Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–11. 13  For the linguistic arguments supporting this semantic interpretation, see Miller-Naudé and Naudé, “Negation.”

276

Naudé et al.

(7) Isa 45:6

‎ ‫וְ ֵא ֥ין ֽעֹוד׃‬

… and there is no other. Constructions involving the negative existential with prepositional predicates and adverbial predicates are much less frequent and will not be considered further in this chapter. In all of the examples thus far, the negative existential can be described as occurring in initial position in the sentence as well as in pre-predicate position and it takes the “construct” form ʾên. However, there are examples in which the negative existential is not in pre-predicate position. The constructions involved in these examples must be clearly identified. We will consider separately the negative existential with nominal predicates and the negative existential with participial predicates. With nominal predicates, any constituent (including the nominal predicate), may be topicalized, i.e. moved to initial position in the sentence.14 In (8), a prepositional phrase serving as a temporal adjunct is topicalized before the negative existential: (8) Judg 17:6

‎ ‫ַּבּיָ ִ ֣מים ָה ֵ֔הם ֵא ֥ין ֶ ֖מ ֶלְך ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל‬

In those days, there was no king in Israel. The topicalization of a non-predicate constituent is not relevant to the analysis and will not be further considered here. In (9), the nominal predicate is topicalized before the negative existential so that the negative existential is in post-predicate position: (9) Judg 19:1

‎ ‫ּומ ֶלְך ֵ ֣אין ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל‬ ֖ ֶ ‫הי ַּבּיָ ִ ֣מים ָה ֵ֔הם‬ ֙ ִ ְ‫וַ י‬

It happened in those days, as for a king there was none in Israel.

14  See Jacobus A. Naudé, “A Syntactic Analysis of Dislocations in Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 16 (1990): 115–30; and Robert D. Holmstedt, “Critical at the Margins: Edge Constituents in Biblical Hebrew,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17 (2014): 109–56.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

277

The negative existential is followed by a prepositional adjunct and is in the “construct” form. In (10), the negative existential occurs after the nominal predicate and a prepositional adjunct, but the negative existential in (11) has the “absolute” form ʾayin: (10) Mic 7:2

‎ ‫ן־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ וְ יָ ָ ׁ֥שר ָּב ָא ָ ֖דם אָ ֑יִ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַ ֤בד ָח ִס ֙יד ִמ‬

The pious person has perished from the earth and the upright person among mankind does not exist. (11) Num 20:5 ‎ ‫ּות ֵא ָנ֤ה וְ גֶ֙ ֶ ֙פן‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ָּמ ֥קֹום ָה ָ ֖רע ַה ֶּז֑ה ֣ל ֹא׀ ְמ ֣קֹום ֶ֗ז ַרע‬ ַ ‫ית ֙נּו ִמ ִּמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִם ְל ָה ִ ֣ביא א ָֹ֔תנּו ֶא‬ ֻ֙ ‫וְ ָל ָ ֤מה ֶ ֽה ֱע ִל‬

֥ ַ ‫וְ ִר ּ֔מֹון‬ ‫ּומיִם ַא֖יִ ן ִל ְׁש ּֽתֹות׃‬

And why did you bring us up from Egypt to bring us into this evil place? It is not a place of grain or figs or vines or pomegranates, and water there does not exist to drink. Compare the similar sentence in (12) with the “construct” form of the negative existential occurs when it precedes the nominal predicate: (12) Exod 17:1 ‎ ‫הו֑ה ַ �וּֽיַ ֲח ֙נּו ִּב ְר ִפ ִ ֔ידים וְ ֵא ֥ין‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ּפי י‬ ֣ ִ ‫יהם ַע‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ר־סין ְל ַמ ְס ֵע‬ ֛ ִ ‫ל־ע ַ ֙דת ְּב ֵנֽי־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֧אל ִמ ִּמ ְד ַּב‬ ֲ ‫ַוּ֠יִ ְסעּו ָּכ‬ ‫ּתת ָה ָ ֽעם׃‬ ֹ ֥ ‫ַ ֖מיִם ִל ְׁש‬

All the congregation of the sons of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages according to the commandment of the LORD. And they camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. The “construct” form also occurs when the negative existential is postpredicate, as illustrated in (9) above. We consider now negative existentials with participial predicates. There are three basic constructions in which participles may be negated with the negative existential based on the presence and shape of the subject: (a) without an overt subject; (b) with an overt noun (or noun phrase) as subject; and (c) with a pronominal suffix on the negative existential as subject.15 Only the first of 15  For a comprehensive description of the syntax of participial predicates with the negative existential, see Miller-Naudé and Naudé, “Negation.”

278

Naudé et al.

these constructions occurs with the negative existential in post-predicate position in the “absolute”; the other two constructions are not relevant for this discussion. In the same way that topicalization of a predicate constituent may occur in negative existential constructions with a nominal predicate, topicalization of a predicative participle may similarly occur, as illustrated in (13): (13) Lam 4:4

‎‎ ‫ֽע ָֹול ִל ֙ים ָ ׁ֣ש ֲאלּו ֔ ֶל ֶחם ּפ ֵ ֹ֖רׂש ֵא ֥ין ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬

… children beg for food; distributing (it) no one [is doing] for them. In the same way that the negative existential may occur in the “absolute” form at the end of the sentence with nominal predicates, the “absolute” negative existential may occur at the end of a sentence with a participial predicate. In (14), the negative existential is in the “absolute” form; contrast the example in (5) above for the “construct” form of the negative existential in pre-predicate position: (14) Lev 26:37

‎ ‫וְ ר ֵֹד֣ף אָ ֑יִ ן‬

and there is no one pursuing No previous study has adequately explained the “absolute” forms of the negative existential in terms of syntactic structure. Nor has a previous study considered the contribution that the constructions with “absolute” forms makes to a diachronic understanding of pre-modern Hebrew. 2.2 Syntax of the Absolute Negative Existential In determining the function of the “absolute” negative existential ʾayin, we first identify and describe the five constructions in which it is found. First, ʾayin occurs at the extreme end of a clause boundary. In (15), ʾayin occurs at the end of the clause boundary and is preceded by the nominal predicate and a prepositional phrase: (15) Qoh 3:19

‎ ‫ן־ה ְּב ֵה ָמ ֙ה ָ֔איִ ן‬ ַ ‫ּומֹותר ָה ָא ָ ֤דם ִמ‬ ַ֙

… and there is no advantage of humans over the animals (lit. and the advance of humankind over the animals is nothing)

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

279

Second, ʾayin occurs at the end of a matrix (main) clause before an embedded infinitival clause:16 (16) Gen 2:5

‫ת־ה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫וְ ָא ָ ֣דם ֔ ַאיִ ן ַ ֽל ֲע ֖בֹד ֶא‬

and there was no human to work the land (lit. and a human there did not exist to work the land) Compare example (17) in which the negative existential has the shape ʾên—the negative existential is not in clause-final position before the embedded infinitival clause: (17) Gen 19:31

‫ל־ה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬ ָ ‫וְ ִ֙איׁש ֵא֤ין ָּב ָ֙א ֶר ֙ץ ָל ֣בֹוא ָע ֔ ֵלינּו ְּכ ֶ ֖ד ֶרְך ָּכ‬

… and as for a man, there is none on earth to come in to us according to the manner of all the earth. Third, ʾayin occurs in clause-final position except for the negative polarity items biltî and zûlātî. (18) Hos 13:4

‫ּומֹוׁש ַיע ַא֖יִ ן ִּב ְל ִ ּֽתי׃‬ ִ֥

.. and there is no saviour besides me (19) Isa 45:21

‫זּול ִ ֽתי׃‬ ָ ‫ּומֹוׁש ַיע ַא֖יִ ן‬ ִ֔ ‫ל־צ ִ ּ֣דיק‬ ַ ‫ֵ ֽא‬

… there is no righteous God and Saviour besides me Negative polarity items occur in the context of negation but the scope of negation does not extend to them. This fact can be seen in (20), where the verbless clause after biltî is positive even though the preceding sentence is negative:

16  See also 2 Kgs 19:3; Dan 11:15.

280

Naudé et al.

(20) Gen 43:5

‫יכם ִא ְּת ֶכם׃‬ ֶ ‫א־ת ְראּו ָפנַ י ִּבלְ ִּתי ֲא ִח‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬

… You will not see my face unless your brother is with you. Fourth, ʾayin occurs after the conditional ʾim at the end of an elliptical clause.17 (21) Exod 17:7

‫הו֛ה ְּב ִק ְר ֵ ּ֖בנּו ִאם־ ָ ֽאיִ ן׃‬ ָ ְ‫ֲה ֵיׁ֧ש י‬

Is the LORD among us or not? In (21), there is a compound sentence with the interrogative sentence marker ha- introducing a sentence with the positive existential followed by an alternative sentence introduced with the conditional particle ʾim and the negative existential. The alternative sentence is elliptical.18 The phrase ʾim ʾayin is used in contexts where an elliptical sentence with a predicative NP can be understood contextually.19 In (22), the preceding sentence is verbal (“Give to me sons”), but the elliptical sentence can be understood as “and if there are no [sons]”: (22) Gen 30:1

‫ם־א֖יִ ן ֵמ ָ ֥תה ָא ֹֽנ ִכי׃‬ ַ ‫ה־ּלי ָב ֔ ִנים וְ ִא‬ ֣ ִ ‫אמר ֶ ֽאל־יַ ֲעק ֹ֙ב ָ ֽה ָב‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּ֤ת‬

… She said to Jacob: “Give to me sons! And if there are no [sons], I will die.” Fifth, ʾayin occurs at the end of the clause in other elliptical contexts. In (23), the nominal predicate must be restored in the elliptical negative sentence from the immediately preceding sentence:20 (23) Ps 69:21

‫וָ ֲא ַקֶּו֣ה ָלנ֣ ּוד וָ אַ ֑יִ ן‬

I looked for pity and there was none 17  See also Judg 9:15; 2 Sam 17:6; 2 Kgs 2:10. See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 147. 18  For an example of the full sentence without ellipsis, see Gen 43:4–5. 19  The phrase ʾim ʾayin is thus the counterpart to ʾim lōʾ, which is used when the elliptical sentence has a finite verb as the predicate; see, for example, 2 Sam 2:16. 20  See also 1 Sam 10:14.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

281

The elliptical nature of the absolute negative existential can further be seen in the response to a yes-no question with the positive existential: (24) Judg 4:20

‫הי ׁש־ ֥ ֹּפה ִ ֖איׁש וְ ָא ַ ֥מ ְר ְּת‬ ֽ ֵ ֲ ‫ּוׁש ֵא ֗ ֵלְך וְ ָא ַ ֛מר‬ ְ ‫ם־איׁש ֜יָבֹוא‬ ִ֙ ‫א ֶהל וְ ָהיָ ֩ה ִא‬ ֹ ֑ ‫מד ֶּפ ַ֣תח ָה‬ ֹ ֖ ‫יה ֲע‬ ָ ‫אמר ֵא ֔ ֶל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּ֣י‬ ‫ָ ֽאיִ ן׃‬

And he said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is a man here?’ then you will say, ‘There is no [man].’” We have seen that ʾayin occurs at the end of a clausal boundary rather than at the usual location in initial position. It may occur at the very end of a clausal boundary as the result of ellipsis. It may occur at the end of a matrix clause before an embedded infinitival clause. It may occur at the end of a clause before a negative polarity item. All of these distributional facts point to ʾayin as a “floated” negative existential whose scope of negation extends backwards (in linguistic terminology, “leftwards”) to the front of the clause.21 Although the other negative quantifiers (e.g. lōʾ, ʾal, pen, biltî) cannot float, regardless of whether they negate finite or infinitival sentences, the floating of the negative existential as a quantifier is plausible in light of the fact that the universal quantifier kol can float.22 The main distinction, however, is that kol as a floated quantifier always has a resumptive pronoun. An alternative analysis would view the absolute negative existential ʾayin in these contexts as grammaticalised to an indefinite negative, as illustrated for Tagalog in (25): (25) Wala-ngdumating kahapon (Tagalog)23 not.exist-LK come:AG yesterday No one came yesterday (lit. there does not exist [one] having come yesterday) 21  The linguistic term “floating” means that the item does not have a fixed position, but ­rather its position is variable. See Andrew Radford, Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 137–38, 453. For a clear discussion of floated quantifiers, see Johan Oosthuizen, An Interpretive Analysis of Quantifier Postposing Phenomena in Afrikaans, Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 19 (Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1989). 22  For the syntactic patterns of quantifier float with kol, see Jacobus A. Naudé, “Syntactic Patterns of Quantifier Float in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 52 (2011): 121–36. 23  The example is from Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 54–55.

282

Naudé et al.

This analysis is problematic for Biblical Hebrew because ʾayin is never used as a subject (or object) constituent in a verbal sentence; an elliptical sentence after ʾayin can usually be reconstructed. However, ʾayin does rarely seem to be used in a limited way for an indefinite negative after a preposition, especially the preposition kap. The only example in the Hebrew Bible after the preposition lamed is found in (27): (26) Isa 40:23

‎ ‫ּתהּו ָע ָ ֽׂשה׃‬ ֹ ֥ ‫ּנֹותן רֹוזְ ִנ֖ים לְ אָ ֑יִ ן ׁ֥ש ֹ ְפ ֵטי ֶ ֖א ֶרץ ַּכ‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ַה‬

the one who makes princes into nothing, the rulers of the earth he makes as emptiness The use of the negative existential and the positive existential are used in Modern Hebrew as grammaticalised indefinite pronouns: (27) ‫עשׂה ישׁ מאין‬ He made something out of nothing24 Biblical Hebrew shows the initial stage in the grammaticalization of the negative existential to an indefinite negative pronoun, but its use in Biblical Hebrew is both syntactically constrained and rare. 3

The Negative Existential Cycle and Qumran Hebrew

In this section we examine the syntactic constructions involving the negative existential in pre-modern Hebrew in light of the negative existential cycle.25 Croft demonstrated that negative existentials tend to go through cycles with overlapping stages. Croft’s insight is that synchronic variation feeds into a diachronic trajectory.

24  The example is from Reuben Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (Tel-Aviv: Massada, 1963–1965), 72. 25  William Croft, “The Evolution of Negation,” Journal of Linguistics 27 (1991): 1–27; see also Ljuba Veselinova, “The Negative Existential Cycle Viewed through the Lens of Comparative Data,” in Cyclical Change Continued, ed. Elly van Gelderen (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016), 138–87.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

283

Based upon our previous research,26 the following stages can be identified using data from Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, and the Mishnah.27 To further substantiate a diachronic trajectory from Biblical Hebrew to Qumran Hebrew we will also utilise the biblical scrolls and biblical citations which have been adapted slightly to reflect differences from Biblical Hebrew. Croft’s Stage A, in which the standard verbal negator (lōʾ) is used to negate existential sentences, is attested in Biblical Hebrew in a single example; it does not occur in Qumran Hebrew. (28) Job 9:33

‎ ‫מֹוכ ַיח‬ ֑ ִ ‫ׁש־ּב ֵינ֣ינּו‬ ֵ ֵ‫֣ל ֹא י‬

There does not exist between us an arbiter. In Stage A ~ B, there is a dedicated negative existential form with limited distribution. The origin of the negative existential form preceded this stage and should probably be seen in the noun/substantive ʾayin which is attested only in limited contexts in Biblical Hebrew, namely, as the object of a preposition, as illustrated in (26) above. Qumran Hebrew also uses this construction with ʾayin and the preposition k- only rarely; the examples occur in broken contexts.28 The form occurs only once after the preposition m- “from” in Ben Sira.29 In the Mishnah, ʾayin as a substantive meaning “nothing” does not occur. In Stage A ~ B, the negative existential is used in specific contexts in which past or future time do not need to be specified but can be inferred from the surrounding context. For those contexts which specify past or future time, the lōʾ + verbal copula (a finite form of hyh) construction is used. The same construction is attested in Biblical Hebrew and in Qumran Hebrew, although its frequency is decreasing at Qumran. 26  Naudé and Miller-Naudé, “Historical Linguistics”; Naudé and Miller-Naudé, “Contribution of Qumran”; and Naudé, Miller-Naudé, and Wilson, “Negative Existential Cycle.” 27  See also Jacobus A. Naudé and Gary A. Rendsburg, “Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2:801–11. 28  See 1QM 14:12, 1QHa16:40, 4Q433f1:2, 4Q504f1 2Riii:3, all in broken contexts. 29  Sir 13:18. On negation in Ben Sira, see Wido Van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” Sirach, Scrolls, & Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 223–43. Van Peursen does not consider the question of absolute versus construct forms of the negative existential.

284

Naudé et al.

(29) Gen 9:11

‎ ‫וְ ֽל ֹא־יִ ְהֶי֥ה ֛עֹוד ַמ ּ֖בּול ְל ַׁש ֵ ֥חת ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬

… and there will not again be a flood to destroy the land (30) 4Q386 f1 ii:4

‫ומשרו לא יהיה‬

… and his dominion shall not come to pass The usual shape of the negative existential is the construct form ʾên. This is the newer form which is the contracted (“construct”) form of the substantive ʾayin.30 As Croft notes, “If there are two competing cognate forms, the contracted or shorter form is the newer one; that is, phonological erosion is unidirectional.”31 As demonstrated above, the absolute form ʾayin is used in Biblical Hebrew as a negative existential with nominal predicates only when it is occurs at the end of the clause, as in examples (10), (11), (14), (15), (16); it may also be followed by a negative polarity item, as in examples (18) and (19). The absolute form ʾayin may also occur as a negative existential in elliptical contexts, as illustrated above in (21) and (23). In the non-biblical texts from Qumran, ʾayin occurs much less frequently and in fewer syntactic contexts. It is also difficult in some cases to determine whether the consonantal reading indicates ʾên or ʾayin. The phrase ʾm ʾyn occurs only four times in the non-biblical manuscripts and in each case the context indicates that ʾên is being read rather than ʾayin.32 This is especially clear from the citation of the biblical text in Num 13:20 in a modified form in the re-worked Pentateuch (4Q365 f32:8). The biblical verse in (31a) has the elliptical expression ʾim ʾayin. (31a) Num 13:20

‫ם־איִ ן‬ ַ ֔ ‫ֽׁש־ּבּה ֵע ֙ץ ִא‬ ֥ ָ ‫ֲה ֵי‬

… whether there are in it trees or not 30  For additional arguments that ʾên is a “fossilized” nominal element used as a negator, see P. Swiggers, “Nominal Sentence Negation in Biblical Hebrew: The Grammatical Status of ‫אין‬,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-Van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 173–79. 31  Croft, “Evolution of Negation,” 4. 32   C D 13:3; 4Q269 10 i 5; 4Q366 1.7.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

(31b) 4Q365 f32:8 [re-worked Pentateuch]

285

‫‏היש בה עץ אם אין בה‬

… where there are in it trees or there are not in it Because ʾayin can only occur at the end of the clause, the form in (31b) must be ʾên. We suggest that the writer/scribe of the Qumran text adapted the biblical text to use the construct form which he knew. However, since ʾên cannot occur at the end of the clause, he repeated the prepositional phrase from the preceding clause. All of the other instances of ʾm ʾyn in the non-biblical scrolls involve ʾên and not ʾayin because the sentence does not end with the negative existential.33 By contrast, in Ben Sira, the absolute ʾayin is attested in the elliptical expression ʾim ʾayin.34 In the biblical texts from Qumran, it is sometimes possible to detect a scribal effort to subtly adapt the biblical text so that the negative existential is read as ʾên rather than ʾayin. We will examine a few of these examples. In Exod 17:7, the MT has the negative existential ʾayin in the elliptical conditional expression. The Qumran manuscript has a waw before the conditional particle, implying that something should follow the negative existential, which would then be pronounced ʾên.35 However, the text is broken, so it is impossible to be sure that something followed: (32a) Exod 17:7 (MT)

‫הו֛ה ְּב ִק ְר ֵ ּ֖בנּו ִאם־ ָ ֽאיִ ן׃‬ ָ ְ‫ֲה ֵיׁ֧ש י‬

… Is the LORD among us or not? (32b) Exod 17:7 (4Q14 8:13–14)

[ ‫היש יהוה] בקרבנו̇ ואם אי̇ ן‬

… Is the LORD] among us and if not [ In Isa 45:21, repeated here from example (19) above, the MT reads ʾayin—the negative existential occurs at the end of a sentence before a negative polarity item. The scribe of 1QIsaa adds a waw before the negative existential to force the reading ʾên. This change also has the effect of re-segmenting the verbless 33  See CD 13:3, 4Q269 f10i:5, 4Q366f 1:7. 34  Sir 5:12. 35  The added conjunction is not reflected in the LXX or the Samaritan Pentateuch.

286

Naudé et al.

clauses that precedes—the noun mwšyʿ must be read as appositional to the preceding noun phrase: (33a) Isa 45:21 (MT)

‫זּול ִ ֽתי׃‬ ָ ‫ּומֹוׁש ַיע ַא֖יִ ן‬ ִ֔ ‫ל־צ ִ ּ֣דיק‬ ַ ‫ֹלה ֙ים ִמ ַּב ְל ָע ַ ֔די ֵ ֽא‬ ִ ‫ין־עֹוד ֱא‬ ֤ ‫וְ ֵ ֽא‬

… and there is no god besides me; a righteous God and Savior does not exist besides me. (33b) Isa 45:21 (1QIsaa 39:1–2)

‫‏אלוהים מבלעדי אל צדיק ומושיע ואין זולתי‬‎‫ואין עוד‬

… and there is no other god besides me, a righteous god and saviour; and there is no one else. In Biblical Hebrew, the negative existential ʾayin usually appears before zûlāt and only once with ʾên (Ruth 4:4). However, in the non-biblical scrolls from Qumran, the phrase wʾn zltk, which must be understood as ʾên, occurs four times.36 By adding the waw, the scribe of 1QIsaa was able to promote the reading ʾên in this phrase. The same strategy is used in Isa 45:5 to ensure the reading ʾên: (34a) Isa 45:5 (MT) ‎

‫ֹלהים‬ ֑ ִ ‫זּול ִ ֖תי ֵא֣ין ֱא‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִנ֤י יְ הוָ ֙ה וְ ֵ ֣אין ֔עֹוד‬

I am the LORD and there is no other. Besides me there is no God…. (34b) Isa 45:5 (1QIsaa 38:11)

‫אני יהוה ואין עוד זולתי ואין אלוהים‬

I am the LORD and there is no other besides me; and there is no God…. The addition of waw before consonantal ʾyn is well-attested in 1QIsaa and a few other biblical manuscripts, even in cases where it would be impossible on other grounds to read ʾayin.37

36  1QHa 15:34; 18:10; 4Q432 f 12:1; 4Q504 f1–2Rv:8. 37  See Isa 17:14 (1QIsaa 14:22), 19:7 (1QIsaa 15:11), 34:10 (1QIsaa 28:10–11), 40:28 (1QIsaa 34:1), 48:22 (1QIsaa 40:27), 57:21 (1QIsaa 47:20–21), and Lam 1:9 (4Q111 2:9).

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

287

In at least one instance the scribe of 1QIsaa added a waw which serves to reenforce a reading of the negative existential as ʾayin: (35a) Isa 59:11 (MT)

‫יׁשּועה ָר �ח ָ ֲ֥קה ִמ ֶ ּֽמּנּו׃‬ ֖ ָ ‫נְ ַקֶּו֤ה ַל ִּמ ְׁש ָּפ ֙ט וָ ֔ ַאיִ ן ִ ֽל‬

… we hope for justice, but there is none; for salvation, (but) it is far from us. (35b) Isa 59:11 (1QIsaa 48:23)

‫נקוה למשפט ואין ולישועה רחקה ממנו‬

… we hope for justice, but there is none; and for salvation, (but) it is far from us. What is very important for identifying language change and variation in Qumran Hebrew is the fact that there are very few cases of the negative existential in the so-called “absolute” form (i.e. with the shape ʾayin) as opposed to cases in the “construct” form (i.e. with the shape ʾên). In the discussion above, we identified ʾayin as a negative quantifier which “floated” to a position at the end of a clause. The universal quantifier, kol, also floats in Biblical Hebrew, but in Qumran Hebrew it occurs much less frequently and is restricted to definite nouns.38 The reduction in the “floating” quantifiers ʾayin and kol in Qumran Hebrew points to a deep structural change which has diffused with multiple effects. In the Mishnah, construct negative existential ʾên occurs, both in initial and in post-predicate position.39 However, the absolute negative existential ʾayin does not occur nor does the expression ʾim ʾayin form part of an elliptical expression. Instead, in halakhic discussions, the absolute negative existential has been replaced by the negative lāʾw, an Aramaic loanword:40

38  Jacobus A. Naudé and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, “Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew,” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre van Hecke, STDJ 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 107–11. 39  See, e.g., m. Peah 6:9. 40  Miguel Pérez-Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, trans. John Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 174, 216; Naudé and Rendsburg, “Negation,” 809–10.

288

Naudé et al.

(36) Šeb. 5:3

‫‏ ִאם ָל ְקטוּ ָה ֲענִ יִּ ים ֶאת ָע ָליו ָל ָקטוּ וְ ִאם לָ או ֵאין ָל ֲענִ יִּ ים ִעמֹו ֶח ְשׁבֹּון׃‬

If the poor gathered its leaves [which sprouted during the Sabbatical year], it is well (lit. they have gathered). But if [the poor did] not [gather its leaves during the Sabbatical year], the poor have no account with him [the owner of the arum owes them nothing after the Sabbatical year is over]. In other contexts, the conditional particle ʾim may be followed by the construct negative existential as in (37):41 (37) Ber. 5:4

‫‏וְ ִאם אֵ ין ָשׁם כּ ֵֹהן‬

and if there is no priest there … In Stage B ~ C, the use of the negative existential particle expands in use to negate verbal predicates. The construct negative existential is used to negate participial predicates and usually occurs in initial position, as illustrated for Biblical Hebrew in (5) above. In this example, the participle does not have a subject apart from the negative existential, which has the semantics of a negative indefinite “no one.” The participle may also have an overt subject in the form of a noun phrase or a suffixed pronoun. In post-predicate position, the construct negative existential may negate a participle in each of these three constructions. In this stage, the absolute negative existential may also be used to negate participial predicates when it is “floated” at the end of the clause, as illustrated in (14) above. The absolute negative existential may also be used in the expression ʾim ʾayin with an elided participial predicate (see Judg 9:15). In nonbiblical texts from Qumran, these uses of the negative existential ʾayin are not attested. In the non-biblical Qumran texts, the negative existential ʾên expands its use to negative infinitives, especially with a prohibitive sense.42 In addition, the preposition lamed with the negative existential ʾên is commonly used before 41  The standard negative marker lōʾ may also be used after the conditional. 42  See Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 71; and Avi Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, VTSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 36–39.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

289

nouns (with the meaning “without”), participles,43 and infinitives. This is a feature that is not found in Biblical Hebrew.44 (38) 1QS 2:7—before noun

‫‏ ארור אתה לאין רחמים‬

May you be cursed without mercy. (39) 1QM 11:1—before participle

‫‏ובכוח ידכה רוטשו פגריהם לאין קובר‬

… and by the strength of Your hand their corpses have been dashed to pieces without (anyone) burying (them) (40) 1QHa 11:28—before infinitive

‫‏בהתעופף כול חצי שחת לאין השב‬

... when all the arrows of the pit fly off without returning, then they shall burst forth without hope. In one biblical Qumran text, the scribe changes an ambiguous form to an infinitival form in accordance with Qumran Hebrew. The MT reads the negative existential ʾayin before a form that can be interpreted as the lamed preposition with a noun or an infinitive; the noun occurs only in this verse and the parallel verse in 1 Kings 19:3 (not attested at Qumran). However, the traditional vocalization of ʾayin points to interpreting the form as an infinitive; if it were a nominal form, then the negative existential would be ʾên. The Qumran scribe corrects the form to the unambiguous infinitival form, which occurs in the MT at Gen 4:2; 25:24; Isa 26:17; Qoh 3:2. (41a) Isa 37:3 (MT)

‫וְ ֥כֹ ַח ַ ֖איִ ן ְל ֵל ָ ֽדה׃‬

… and there is no strength to give birth/for childbirth.

43  This construction is also attested in Biblical Hebrew in Isa 40:29, Ezra 9:14, Neh 8:10, 1 Chron 22:4, 2 Chron 14:10. 44  Qimron, Hebrew, 77.

290

Naudé et al.

(41b) Isa 37:3 (1QIsaa 30:8)

}}‫וכוח אין ללדה {{ללדת‬

… and there is no strength to give birth. In the final stage, Stage C ~ A, the negative existential is used to negate the positive existential. Two examples are attested in Biblical Hebrew:45 (42) 1 Sam 21:9

‎ ‫אֹו־ח ֶרב‬ ָ֑ ‫ימ ֶלְך וְ ִ ֛אין י ֶׁש־ ֥ ֹּפה ַ ֽת ַחת־יָ ְדָך֖ ֲח ִנ֣ית‬ ֶ֔ ‫אמר ָּדוִ ֙ד ַל ֲא ִח‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּ֤י‬

David said to Ahimelech, “So does there not exist here at hand a spear or a sword?” Nothing comparable is attested in Qumran Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew. 4 Conclusions In this chapter, we have provided a syntactic analysis of the constructions in which the negative existential occurs in post-predicate position. We have demonstrated that the construct negative existential ʾên may occur in non-initial position as the result of topicalization, but it never occurs in final position in the clause. We have demonstrated that the absolute negative existential ʾayin derived from a substantive meaning “nothing”; this sense occurs only within prepositional phrases in Biblical Hebrew and Ben Sira. The absolute negative existential ʾayin occurs in negative existential sentences only when it occurs at the end of the clause, often as a result of ellipsis. Within the negative existential cycle of pre-modern Hebrew, the absolute existential occurs in Biblical Hebrew in Stages A ~ B and B ~ C. In Qumran Hebrew, the absolute existential is found in fewer constructions and with less frequency in the non-biblical texts. In biblical texts from Qumran and citations of biblical texts, the scribes sometimes adapted the biblical text to promote a reading of the negative existential as ʾên instead of ʾayin. In a few cases, a reading of ʾayin was unavoidable on the basis of the syntax; the scribes then adapted the biblical text to indicate clearly a reading ʾayin.46 The activities of 45  See also Ps 135:17. 46  See, for example, 1 Sam 10:14, which was adapted by the scribe of 4Q51 9e i:16 by the addition of waw before the negative existential to read unambiguously ʾayin.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

291

the scribes thus provide additional evidence that the use of ʾayin was declining in the post-biblical period.47 Bibliography Alcalay, Reuben. The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. Tel-Aviv: Massada, 1963–1965. Baasten, Martin F. J. “Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 1–11 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Carmignac, Jean. “L’emploi de la négation ʾyn dans la Bible et à Qumran.” RevQ 8 (1974): 407–13. Croft, William. “The Evolution of Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 27 (1991): 1–27. Ewald, Georg Heinrich. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Translated by James Kennedy. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Gesenius, Wilhelm, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur Ernest Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Holmstedt, Robert D. “Critical at the Margins: Edge Constituents in Biblical Hebrew.” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17 (2014): 109–56. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Klein, Jared S. “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: An Indo-Europeanist’s View.” JSem 25 (2016): 865–80. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé. “Negation and the Participle in Biblical Hebrew.” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015): 165–99. 47  It is an honor for us to dedicate this chapter to the memory of our friend and colleague, Peter Flint, in appreciation of his important research on the Dead Sea scrolls and his support of linguistic analyses of Qumran Hebrew. This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Jacobus A. Naudé UID 85902 and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé UID 95926). The grantholders acknowledge that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF supported research are those of the authors, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

292

Naudé et al.

Naudé, Jacobus A. “A Syntactic Analysis of Dislocations in Biblical Hebrew.” JNSL 16 (1990): 115–30. Naudé, Jacobus A. Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax. D.Litt. thesis. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 1996. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion.” JNSL 26 (2000): 105–32. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Diachronic Syntax and Language Change: The Case of Qumran Hebrew.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18 (2000): 1–14. Naudé, Jacobus A. “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion.” Pages 189–215 in Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. JSOTSup 369. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Syntactic Patterns of Quantifier Float in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 52 (2011): 121–36. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion.” Pages 61–82 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. “Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 88–111 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. “Historical Linguistics, Editorial Theory and Biblical Hebrew: The Current State of the Debate.” JSem 25 (2016): 501–31. Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. “The Contribution of Qumran to Historical Hebrew Linguistics: Evidence from the Syntax of Participial Negation.” HvTSt 74:4 (2016): a3150. Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. “At the Interface of Syntax and Prosody: Differentiating Left Dislocated and Tripartite Verbless Clauses in Biblical Hebrew.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 48 (2017): 223–38. Naudé, Jacobus A., and Gary A. Rendsburg. “Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew.” Pages 801–811 Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 2. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Naudé, Jacobus A., Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson. “The Negative Existential in Non-initial Position in Pre-Modern Hebrew.” Paper presented at the International Congress of Linguists, Cape Town, 2018. Naudé, Jacobus A, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Daniel J. Wilson. “The Negative Existential Cycle in Ancient Hebrew.” In The Negative Existential Cycle from a Historical-Comparative Perspective. Edited by Ljuba Veselinova and Arja Hamari. Berlin: Language Science Press, forthcoming.

Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew

293

Oosthuizen, Johan. An Interpretive Analysis of Quantifier Postposing Phenomena in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 19. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, 1989. Pérez-Fernández, Miguel. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Translated by John Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Radford, Andrew. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Rechenmacher, Hans. “‫ לא‬and ‫ אין‬in Nominal Clauses.” JNSL 29 (2003): 67–85. Rezetko, Robert and Ian Young. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Towards an Integrated Approach. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Shlonsky, Ur. “Eyn-Negation and What It Teaches Us about Hebrew Clause Structure.” Pages 392–409 in Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar: Papers from the Second Conference on Afroasiatic Languages Sophia Antipolis, 1994. Edited by Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics, 1996. Snyman, F. P. J. The Scope of Negative lōʾ in Biblical Hebrew. Acta Academica Supplementum 3. Bloemfontein: UFS-SASOL Library, 2004. Snyman, F. P. J., and Jacobus A. Naudé. “Sentence and Constituent Negation in Biblical Hebrew.” JSem 12 (2003): 237–67. Swiggers, P. “Nominal Sentence Negation in Biblical Hebrew: The Grammatical Status of ‫אין‬.” Pages 173–79 in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-Van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Van Gelderen, Elly. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Van Gelderen, Elly. “Cyclical Change Continued.” Pages 4–17 in Cyclical Change Continued. Edited by Elly van Gelderen. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016. Van Peursen, Wido. “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira.” Pages 223–43 in Sirach, Scrolls, & Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Veselinova, Ljuba. “The Negative Existential Cycle Viewed through the Lens of Comparative Data.” Pages 138–87 in Cyclical Change Continued. Edited by Elly van Gelderen. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

294

Naudé et al.

Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Revised and expanded by John C. Beekman. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Wilson, Daniel J. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD diss., Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2017. Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2008.

Part 6 Thematic Studies

∵

Chapter 16

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus concerning Vespasian Craig A. Evans Josephus is well known for prophesying Vespasian’s elevation to emperor of the Roman Empire and for speaking of an “ambiguous oracle” that Jewish interpreters—his countrymen—misunderstood. The relationship of the prophecy to the oracle is debated and the identification of the Old Testament text that underlay the oracle is also debated. In what follows I will consider (I) Josephus’s prophecy concerning Vespasian, as he gives it in book 6 of Judaean War; (II) Jewish and Christian understanding of Num 24:17, the prophetic text that I believe lies behind Josephus’s prophecy; and (III) the widespread oracle or rumor of an oracle relating to the rise of a ruler from the East. 1

Josephus’s Prophecy concerning Vespasian

At the outset of the Jewish rebellion against Roman authority (66–73 CE), which resulted in the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple, Josephus was placed in command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. The Roman legions under Vespasian and his son Titus quickly overpowered the resistance. Josephus himself was captured. Brought before Vespasian, Josephus uttered his well-known prophecy: You imagine, Vespasian, that in the person of Josephus you have taken a mere captive; but I come to you as a messenger of greater destinies [ἐγὼ δὲ ἄγγελος ἥκω σοι μειζόνων]…. You will be Caesar, Vespasian, you will be emperor, you and your son here. Bind me then yet more securely in chains and keep me for yourself; for you, Caesar, are master not of me only, but of land and sea and the whole human race. For myself, I ask to be punished by stricter custody, if I have dared to trifle with the words of God.1 J.W. 3.400–402

1  Translation adapted from Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus II: The Jewish War Books I–III, LCL 203 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 689. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_018

298

Evans

Josephus admits that at first Vespasian attached little credence to this prophecy, but gradually he began to believe it, for God was already rousing in him thoughts of empire and by other tokens [δι᾿ ἑτέρων σημείων] foreshadowing the throne. He found, moreover, that Josephus proved a veracious prophet in other matters … Vespasian, having privately questioned the prisoners on these statements and found them true, then began to credit those concerning himself.2 3.404–407

Vespasian was finally convinced that Josephus truly spoke as a prophet. His life spared, Josephus became acquainted with Titus and eventually became his advisor. Years later, Josephus wrote his account of the Jewish rebellion against Rome. In this account he describes a number of omens that preceded the war: So it was when a star, resembling a sword, stood over the city [ὑπὲρ τὴν πόλιν ἄστρον ἔστη ῥομφαίᾳ παραπλήσιον], and a comet [κομήτης] which continued for a year. So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war, at the time when the people were assembling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, at the ninth hour of the night, so brilliant a light shone round the altar and the sanctuary that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued for half an hour. By the inexperienced this was regarded as a good omen, but by the sacred scribes it was a once interpreted in accordance the events that followed.3 J.W. 6.289–291

Josephus then describes a series of strange events: a cow that gave birth to a lamb in the temple precincts; the massive eastern gate of the temple precincts that somehow opened itself; at sunset “in all parts of the country” chariots and troops seen in the air “hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities”; and a loud chorus shouting, “We are departing hence” (6.292–300). Shortly thereafter Josephus says: But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle [χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος], likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to 2  Thackeray, Josephus II, 689, 691. 3  Translation adapted from Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus III: The Jewish War Books IV– VII, LCL 210 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928), 461.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

299

the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. 313 This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle [τὸ λόγιον], however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor on Jewish soil. 314 For all that, it is impossible for men to escape their fate, even though they foresee it. 315 Some of these portents [τῶν σημείων], then, the Jews interpreted to please themselves, others they treated with contempt, until the ruin of their country and their own destruction convicted them of their folly.4 J.W. 6.312–315

In light of the context, in which Josephus a couple paragraphs earlier refers to a star (ἄστρον), it is likely that the “ambiguous oracle” referenced here is Num 24:17: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star [ἄστρον] shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel …”5 What is interesting is that Josephus says that “many of the wise men were thereby deceived” in their interpretation of this oracle. In her recent study Hanna Tervanotko discusses ancient oracles which were not always understood and which sometimes were very much open to opposing interpretations. This was the case in Greco-Roman settings, as well as in Jewish settings.6 But was this the case with respect to Num 24:17? We might ask too if Josephus’ earlier prophecy, when he was brought before Vespasian, was related to the “ambiguous oracle”? I suspect that it was. Let me explain. Josephus accepted command of the Galilean forces because he believed in the Jewish cause and believed that the rebellion against the Romans—as did the Hasmonean rebellion against the Greeks two centuries earlier—would 4  Thackeray, Josephus III, 467, 469. 5  So Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 239–40. In support of passages from Daniel, see Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 50: Josephus “was well aware of current Jewish interpretation of Daniel.” Some time ago Isa 10:33–34 was also suggested. See Azriel Shochat, “On the Ambiguous Oracle in the Words of Josephus,” in Sefer Yosef Shiloh, ed. Michael Händel (Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv Press, 1960), 163–65 [Hebrew]. To be sure, the prophecy was understood widely as messianic. See Richard Bauckham, “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist,” DSD 2 (1995): 202–16. But Isa 10:33–34, as well as Daniel, does not mention a star, which is the principal element in J.W. 6.289 and the distinctive feature in Num 24:17, another prophecy also widely understood as messianic. Other prophecies have been mentioned, including Gen 49:19, but again there is no star. 6  Hanna Tervanotko, “Reading God’s Will? Function and Status of Oracle Interpreters in Ancient Jewish and Greek Texts,” DSD 24 (2017): 424–46.

300

Evans

succeed. If Josephus had been mindful of Num 24:17, Gen 49:10, Dan 2:44, Dan 7:13–14, or any other messianic prophecy, he likely would have interpreted it the way his contemporaries did. But in the aftermath of his defeat and capture, Josephus reconsidered the meaning of Num 24:17 and, perhaps, other prophecies as well. He now applied it to Vespasian, still convinced that the prophecy would be fulfilled, but not the way he had originally thought. Hence the “ambiguity” of the oracle and the universal “misunderstanding” of it on the part of his Jewish countrymen. But Josephus’s application of the Numbers prophecy to Vespasian was unique to Josephus, at least initially. That is not how his contemporaries understood it. 2

Jewish and Christian Understanding of Num 24:17

Although there are several passages that in various Jewish and Christian settings were understood in an eschatological and messianic sense, the prophecy of the rising star of Num 24:17 was probably the best known and most often alluded to or cited.7 One of the reasons for this is because the oracle speaks of a star, which was a powerful and suggestive symbol in both the east and the west. I begin with the Hebrew version of the oracle (Balaam’s fourth). Although in the present paper I cannot go into all the details that relate to the origin and history of the fourth oracle and legends surrounding the Balaam figure, there are a few things touching these questions that could be relevant for the principal concern of this paper. The MT reads: ‫ ֶא ְר ֶ֙א ֙נּוּ וְ ֣ל ֹא ַע ָ֔תּה‬1 7 ‫שׁוּרנּוּ וְ ֣ל ֹא ָק ֑רֹוב‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬ ‫כֹּוכב ִ ֽמיַּ ֲע ֗קֹב‬ ָ֜ ‫ ָדּ ַ ֨רְך‬ 7  These diverse traditions are ably assessed in Jan Willem van Henten, “The World Leader from the Land of the Jews: Josephus, Jewish War 6.300–315; Tacitus, Histories 5.13; and Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5,” in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and George van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 361–86; Helen R. Jacobus, “Balaam’s ‘Star Oracle’ (Num 24:15–19),” in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and George van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 399–429; and Hillel I. Newman, “Stars of the Messiah,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Menahem Kister et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 272–303.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

301 ‫ ו� ָ ְ֥קם ֵ֙שׁ ֶב ֙ט ִמיִּ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל‬ ‫וּמ ַח ֙ץ ַפּ ֲא ֵ ֣תי מֹואָ֔ב‬ ָ ‫י־שׁת׃‬ ֽ ֵ ֵ‫ל־בּנ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַק �ר ַ ְ֖קר ָכּ‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָ֨יה ֱא ֜דֹום יְ ֵר ָ֗שׁה‬1 8 ‫ֹיְביו‬ ֑ ָ ‫ וְ ָה ָי֧ה יְ ֵר ָ ֛שׁה ֵשׂ ִ ֖עיר א‬ ‫ וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ֥עֹ ֶשׂה ָ ֽחיִ ל׃‬ ‫ וְ ֵי� ְ֖ר ְדּ ִ ֽמיַּ ֲע ֑קֹב‬19 ‫ וְ ֶ ֽה ֱא ִ ֥ביד ָשׂ ִ ֖ריד ֵמ ִ ֽעיר׃‬

The RSV translates: 17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth. 18 Edom shall be dispossessed, Seir also, his enemies, shall be dispossessed, while Israel does valiantly. 19 By Jacob shall dominion be exercised, and the survivors of cities be destroyed!” Balaam envisions a “star” (‫כֹּוכב‬ ָ ) that goes forth from Jacob, that is, from the people of Israel, as the next line makes explicit. This star is qualified by the “scepter” (‫ ) ֵשׁ ֶבט‬in the parallel that follows, which strongly implies that a royal figure is in view. This is probably correct. As many commentators point out, the scepter is one of the insignia of a king (Gen 49:10; Amos 1:5, 8; Pss 2:9; 45:7[E6]). The star too can denote royalty. For example, in Isa 14:12 the Babylonian (or Assyrian) king is a “day star,” or “morning star,”8 while in Ezek 32:7 Pharaoh is implicitly compared to a star or other celestial luminary, which God in judgment will darken. George Buchanan Gray believes if Num 24:18 is original (and not many today doubt its originality), then the reference is probably to David, who conquered both Edom and Moab.9 Martin Noth agrees, remarking that

8  Perhaps Sargon II (722–705 BCE); cf. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 127; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT 2 (London: SCM, 1967), 128–36. 9  George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 370.

302

Evans

“what is conceived of here is the future glory of King David and that it is the historical emergence of David that forms the background of this discourse.”10 The vision that Balaam has seen is “not now” (‫)לא עתה‬, and it is “not near” (‫)לא קרוב‬. Qualified this way, the oracle clearly envisions something in the distant future. First Temple readers and hearers of this oracle may well have thought Balaam foresaw the rise of David, which was fulfilled in David’s coming; but after the collapse of the Davidic dynasty interpreters may well have understood the oracle to refer to someone else yet to come, someone who would restore the Davidic dynasty (as in Isaiah 11). In the post-exilic period, interpretations began to be expressed that understood the envisioned figure as an eschatological redeemer, even the Messiah. The Balaam material found in Number 22–24 is composite. Some scholars regard Numbers 24, especially the third and fourth oracles, as the oldest part of the tradition.11 Sigmund Mowinckel dates these oracles to the tenth century BCE.12 The Balaam text from Tell Deir ʿAllā may lend support to this critical analysis. The text was recovered in 1967 during an archaeological excavation at Tell Deir ʿAllā, in the Jordan valley, just east of the Jordan River, near the head of the Jabbok River. The surviving text, written in either Canaanite or Aramaic (or even a form of Hebrew), is found on several pieces of plaster that fell from a wall when the building in which the plaster was located was destroyed by an earthquake, perhaps in the eighth century BCE.13 Linguistic considerations suggest a tenth-century date for the text itself. The biblical identity of Tell Deir ʿAllā is disputed. Many think it is Succoth (Gen 33:17; Judg 8:4–16); André Lemaire has argued for Penuel (Gen 32:31; Judg 8:8).14 Even the language in which it was originally written is uncertain, perhaps reaching back to a time when Hebrew and Canaanite/Aramaic were not clearly distinguished.15 10  Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 192. So also Philip Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Dallas: Word, 1984), 270. 11  Alexander Rofé, “The Book of Balaam” (Numbers 22:2–24:25). A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion (Jerusalem: Simor, 1979), 26–30 [Hebrew]. See the overview in Budd, Numbers, 256–65. 12  Sigmund Mowinckel, “Der Ursprung der Bileamsage,” ZAW 48 (1930): 233–71. 13  As may be attested by the prophet Amos (cf. Amos 1:1 “… in the days of Uzziah king of Judah [783–742] and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel [786–746], two years before the earthquake”). The earthquake is dated to c. 760 BCE. 14  André Lemaire, “Fragments from the Book of Balaam Found at Deir Allā,” BAR 11.5 (1985): 26–39. 15  For introductory details, I rely on Hendrikus Jacobus Franken and Jo Ann Hackett, “Deir ʿAlla, Tell,” ABD 2:126–30; Edward M. Cook, “The Balaam Text from Tell Deir ʿAllā,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1, ed. Richard J. Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 236–43. I have

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

303

Although the surviving text is fragmentary and much is lost, it is clear that the Balaam of the Tell Deir ʿAllā text and the Balaam of the Bible are the same figure. How exactly the two versions relate to one another is very much an open question. Below are a few fragmentary lines that I think have the most relevance for the present study.16 The first part comes from “Combination 1” of the plaster inscription: 1 The Book of [Bala]am [son of Be]or; he was a seer of the gods. And the gods came to him at night and he saw a vision 2 like an oracle of El. And they said to [Bala]am son of Beor … 3 So Balaam arose the next day […] and he could not [eat or drink anything] but 4 wept instead. Then his people came to him [and said to] him, “Balaam son of Beor, why are you fasting and weeping?” And he 5 said to them, “Sit, I shall tell you what the Shad[dayin have done;] and come, see the deeds of the gods …” That Balaam fasts and weeps indicates that his vision is troubling. He tells “his people” (cf. Num 24:14) what the Shaddayin, the gods, have done, evidently in anger against humans. The seer goes on to describe a negative scenario, in which there is darkness and several ominous portents. Some of the fragmentary lines suggest that the natural course of nature and human society has been reversed. The last fragmentary lines, from “Combination 2,” read: 15 … the request of the king is worms and the reque[st …] 16 […] vision far off […] your request for [… For those not able to] 17 understand writing, a word for his people was on (his) tongue: For you is the judgment and the punishment, he said […] It is the phrase “vision far off” (‫ )חזן רחק‬in line 16 that is the most intriguing, for it may correspond to the opening couplet in the Num 24:17 prophecy, “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh.” In other words, the fulfillment of Balaam’s vision in the Tell Deir ʿAllā text may be “far off,” that is, not near,

also consulted Rofé, Book of Balaam, 59–70; Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā, HSM 31 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984); and Edward Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 57 (Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1994), 103–70. Rofé (Book of Balaam, 69–70) suggests that the Tell Deir ʿAllā inscription is a form of Midianite. 16  I follow the translation offered in Cook, “Balaam Text,” 241–43.

304

Evans

as in Num 24:17, either in a spatial sense or a temporal sense.17 The other item of interest is seen in the opening words of line 1, which describes the text as “the book of Balaam [‫]ספר בלעם‬.”18 In later traditions there are references to a “book” or “books” of Balaam. Could these later traditions hark back to a tenthcentury BCE text? This question will be considered below. The more pressing question is how the Deir ʿAllā plaster inscription relates to the Balaam story and oracles in Numbers 22–24. Because much of the text is lost, including the conclusion, we do not know if the ending is a happy one, in which the danger is averted, or an unhappy one, in which the danger remains. More importantly, we do not know if Israel plays a role in the plaster inscription. The tenth-century date of the inscription suggests that the rise of the Davidic monarchy, which led to the conquest of Moab and Edom—the location of Deir ʿAllā—may be what is in view. The seer Balaam has seen a vision, in which Canaanite gods warn that Israel is a threat. Such a perspective coheres with the Balaam material in Numbers, if the fourth oracle does allude to David,19 as most commentators think. In any event, a Balaam tradition, perhaps known as the “book of Balaam,” seems to have been well known in part of the Middle East as early as the tenth century. It is possible that long before the tradition became part of the narrative of Numbers Balaam the soothsayer was a well-known figure (real or legendary). The opening lines of the third and fourth oracles, which are very positive, may well be traditional material. That is, Balaam was known as “the man whose eye is opened … who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty” (Num 24:3b–4a, 15b–16a). In view of language such as this, it is not surprising that an account of a vision that this man received from the gods adorns the wall of a religious building. In any event, the Balaam tradition has been edited and inserted into the Numbers narrative. In this new context Balaam becomes a magician and arch-villain who opposes Israel.20 But even cast as a venal sorcerer and mercenary, Balaam cannot help but prophesy good things about 17  We have to be cautious here, of course, because of the fragmentary nature of the text. After all, it is possible that the text originally stated that the vision was not far off. 18  Line 1 is reconstructed to read ‫“( יסר ספר בלעם‬warning of the book of Balaam”) in Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions, 115–17. 19  Balaam’s third oracle (Num 24:3–9) might refer to Saul, when in v. 7 we are told that Israel’s “king shall be higher than Agag.” Saul defeats King Agag and the Amalekites in 1 Sam 15:8. 20  Rofé, Book of Balaam, 45–49, 69–70. Besides the Balaam material, other material in Numbers shown to be quite ancient thanks to archaeological discoveries includes the Priestly Blessing (Num 6:24–26) found on two silver amulets at Ketef Hinnom and dating perhaps as early as the late seventh century BCE. The blessing may also be attested in the Sinai at Kuntillet ʿAjrud, dating to the eighth century BCE.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

305

Israel, including the going forth of “a star from Jacob.” His prophecy, then, is not the result of his knowledge of the gods or of his own skill, it is a direct result of the overriding power of the God of Israel. The star itself is of great importance. The idea that a star could represent a king or kingdom is an ancient one, as has already been noted. In later times the Romans spoke of stars, especially comets, in reference to their emperors. These astral phenomena were no mere symbols or metaphors; they were real expressions, sourced either in the gods or in Fate, that signified events unfolding or about to unfold on earth. Comets especially were linked to major events.21 After the death of Julius Caesar a comet (stella) was seen in the sky for seven days, widely believed to be the late dictator’s soul (Suetonius, Divus Julius 88.1; Pliny, Naturalis historia 2.23.94). The death of Claudius was preceded by various omens, including the “long-haired star [crinitae stellae], commonly called a comet [cometen]” (Suetonius, Divus Claudius 46). Near the end of Nero’s rule the long-haired star was again seen, “a thing which is commonly believed to portend the death of great rulers” (Suetonius, Nero 36.1; cf. Tacitus, Annales 14.22: “which portends change in regents”). The end of Vitellius’s short-lived rule was marked by a “comet star [κομήτης ἀστήρ]” and other odd astronomical phenomena (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 64.8.1). The “comet star [ἀστὴρ ὁ κομήτης] that was visible for a long time” warned of the approaching death of Vespasian (66.2). Near the end of the reign of Commodus (180–192 CE) omens were observed, including the appearance of a comet, or “long-haired star” (crinita stella), and fire in the heavens (Aelius Lampridius, Commodus Antoninus 16.1–2). It is to this tradition that the vague oracle applies in book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles: “In the west a star will shine, which they will call a comet [ἐν δὲ δύσει ἀστὴρ λάμψει, ὃν ἐροῦσι κομήτην], a sign to mortals of sword, famine, and death, destruction of leaders and of great illustrious men …” (Sib. Or. 3:334–336).22 It is possible that in this context κομήτης is a technical term or name and so should be translated “which they will call Komētēs.”23 To whom reference is 21  John T. Ramsey, A Descriptive Catalogue of Greco-Roman Comets from 500 BC to AD 400, Syllecta Classica 17 (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2006). 22   Translated by John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 369. Henry C. O. Lanchester wonders if Sib. Or. 3:334 refers to the comet mentioned by Seneca (Naturales quaestiones 7.15), said to have occurred at the death of Demetrius the Seleucid king. See Lanchester, “The Sibylline Books,” in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. Robert Henry Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 384. But Collins (“Sibylline Oracles,” 369 n. j2) rightly notes that comets and other astral phenomena are commonplace in oracles of this kind. 23  As rendered by Collins.

306

Evans

made here, if to any specific personage, is uncertain. War and destruction will accompany the comet mentioned in book 8: “All the stars will fall directly into the sea, all in turn, and men will call a shining comet [ἀκτινόεντα κομήτην] ‘the star’ [τὸν ἀστέρα], a sign [σῆμα] of much impending toil, war, and slaughter” (8:190–193).24 A great many astrologers and magi interpreted astral phenomena in late antiquity. Marcus Manilius (early 1st century CE), author of Astronomica, Serapio of Alexandria (1st century CE), who apparently composed a list of astrological definitions, Dorotheus of Sidon (late 1st century CE), author of a lost fivevolume poem on astrological traditions, Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE), author of Apotelesmatica (a.k.a. Tetrabiblos), and Vettius Valens (2nd century CE), author of the lengthy Anthologia, are among the better known early astrologers. Of special interest to these men, as one would expect, were stars and comets. The comet was seen as a foreboding omen, usually in reference to war or to a change in regency, as Tacitus remarked above (Annales 14.22). Tacitus, of course, was not an astrologist. What he passed on was common knowledge, which in turn was a reflection of what the astrologers themselves believed and taught. In a collection of 100 aphorisms attributed to Claudius Ptolemy, we are told: “If comets, whose distance is eleven signs behind the Sun, appear in angles, the king of some kingdom, or one of the princes or chief men of a kingdom, will die” (Centiloquy §100).25 That the appearance of a comet often signifies the death of a king seems widely known; here Ptolemy explains why it does. Pliny devotes several pages of discussion to the various types of comets, stars, and meteorites. He tells his readers that there are “stars [stellae] that suddenly come to birth in the heavens.” Pliny explains: “The Greeks call them ‘comets’ [cometas],26 in our language ‘long-haired (stars)’ [crinitas], because they have a blood-red shock of what looks like shaggy hair at their top” (Naturalis historia 2.22.89). Pliny goes on to describe comets and stars that look like “Javelins” (acontiae), “Swords” (xiphias), and “Torches” (lampadias). Still others are called “Ring” (disceus), “Horseman” (hippeus), and “Typhon” (Typhon),27 the last a 24  Translated by Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 422. 25  The Centiloquy may not represent wholly or at all the work of Claudius Ptolemy. It sums up Ptolemy’s analysis of astral phenomena, measurements, and the like. The translation is from J. M. Ashmand, Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, or Quadripartite: Being Four Books of the Influence of the Stars (London: Davis & Dickson, 1822), 235. 26  cometas = κομήτας. 27  Pliny says that Typhon, “the king of that period,” named the comet after himself. There was no King Typhon, however. The terrible comet, described as a “ball of fire,” is likely named for the mythological monster whom Zeus fought.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

307

“terrible comet” seen in Ethiopia and Egypt (2.22.89–90; 2.23.91). Pliny says there is “sometimes a comet in the western sky, usually a terrifying star and not easily expiated.” One such comet apparently was seen during the Roman civil war (c. 43 BCE); another when Emperor Claudius was poisoned (54 CE; 2.23.92). Meteorites too were sometimes associated with disaster (2.25.96). Legendary magician-astrologers Nechepso and Petosiris (2nd cent. BCE) tried to measure the moon and planets,28 interpret the meaning of celestial bodies, and catalogue and describe stars and comets, among other things. Fragment 9 of their anthology discusses comets.29 The first discussed is the “Horseman Comet” (Κομήτης Ιππεύς): “The one called ‘horseman’ is of Aphrodite; from its quickness it is so named” (lines 1–2). The second is the “Sword Comet” (Κομήτης Ξιφίας): “This star ascends to Hermes” (lines 73–74). More will be said about this comet later. The third is the “Torch Comet” (Κομήτης Λαμπαδίας): “It is called ‘Torch Comet’ by its form; it is itself from Hermes” (lines 90–92). The fourth is simply “Comet” (Κομήτης): “This is the star of Zeus [ὁ ἀστὴρ Διός]; it is so signified because it names all the other signifying comet stars” (lines 113–15). The fragment concludes with the “Ring Comet” (Κομήτης Δισκεύς), “so called from its form” (lines 140–41), and the “Typhon Comet” (Κομήτης Τυφών), which “comes from the repercussion of the air” (lines 150–51). All of these comets, which usually signify war and upheaval, have implications for Egyptians, Ethiopians, Persians, and Romans. The overlap with the comets described by Pliny above is apparent. These ideas about stars and comets should be borne in mind when considering the interpretation of the star and scepter of Num 24:17. Jewish interpreters no doubt entertained their own ideas and distinctive applications, but the range of meaning and various nuances in all probability intersected at points with the ideas entertained by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, and others. Reference to an “old oracle” that spoke of a coming “world ruler,” somehow signified by a star or comet, made sense in the Roman world of late antiquity. Such an oracle, it would have been assumed, would have been widely known, even if worded and interpreted with some variation. Its application, of course, would also be very much open to interpretation. I turn now to the versions and interpretive traditions of Num 24:17. The LXX reads ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ, καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ, “a star will arise from Jacob, and a man will rise up from Israel.” The Greek translator has not enhanced the eschatology, nor has he introduced a messianic element, at least one that is obvious. He has, however, made it clear that when 28  Quite unsuccessfully in the opinion of Pliny the Elder (cf. Naturalis historia 2.21.88). 29  The fragments have been assembled in Ernst Riess, “Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica,” Philologus sup. 6 (1891–93): 324–94. Fragment 9 will be found on 343–47.

308

Evans

speaking of a star or scepter Balaam’s oracle is talking about a specific man.30 The Peshitta does something similar, but in a more obvious royal direction: “There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a prince [ryšʾ] shall rise out of Israel” (emphasis added). In the Targum the oracle is overtly messianic. According to Onqelos: “The king [‫ ]מלכא‬will arise from Jacob, and the Messiah [‫ ]משׁיחא‬will be consecrated from Israel” (emphasis added).31 According to Neofiti: “A king [‫ ]מלך‬is to arise from those of the house of Jacob, and a redeemer and ruler [‫ ]פרוק ושׁליט‬from those of the house of Israel” (emphasis added). According to Pseudo-Jonathan: “When a strong king [‫ ]מליך תקיף‬from those of the house of Jacob shall rule [‫]ימלוך‬, and the Messiah [‫ ]משׁיחא‬and the strong rod from Israel shall be anointed” (emphasis added). According to the Fragment Targum (MSS P and V): “There shall arise a king [‫ ]מלך‬from the house of Jacob, and a redeemer and ruler [‫ ]פריק ושׁליט‬from the house of Israel” (emphasis added).32 I should note that the Vulgate translates the Hebrew very literally: orietur stella ex Iacob et consurget virga de Israhel. A number of other interpretive traditions understand Num 24:17 as a prophecy foretelling the coming of Israel’s eschatological king. The passage is quoted and interpreted in three texts at Qumran, two of which are foundational documents, the Damascus Covenant and the War of the Sons of Light. A fourth text alludes to the Numbers prophecy. The first passage, 4Q175, is made up of quotations of several passages: Exod 20:21/Deut 5:28b–29 (lines 1–4); Deut 18:18–19 (lines 5–8); Num 24:15–17 (lines 9–13); Deut 33:8–11 (lines 14–20); Josh 6:26 (lines 21–23a); Apocryphon of Joshua (lines 23b–30 = 4Q379 frag. 22, col. ii, lines 9–14). Most scholars agree that 4Q175 seems to provide the principal 30  See the comments in John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, SBLSCS 46 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 413, where he remarks that the reading in the LXX “makes certain that both ‫ כוכב‬and ‫ שׁבט‬refer to an individual (royal) figure.” 31  Israel Drazin doesn’t think Onqelos understands the oracle in a messianic sense. I disagree. Given the paraphrases of the other targumim, as well as other earlier and contemporaneous traditions, I think it is likely. See Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Numbers (Hoboken: Ktav, 1998), 252 n. 53; Israel Drazin, Targumic Studies (PhD diss., St Mary’s University, 1980), 112–25. Onqelos is understood as messianic in Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, MHUC 2 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974), 21–22. See also Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling, “Balaam’s Fourth Oracle (Num 24:15–19): According to the Aramaic Targums,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 189–212. 32  In some MSS of Targum Esther Sheni (at 8:15 and 10:3) Mordechai, wearing royal attire, is said to appear as a “shining star [‫]כוכב נוגהא‬.” In a limited, historical sense Mordechai is a savior figure. However he is to be understood, it is significant that we find star and royalty linked.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

309

prophecies related to the expected “prophet like Moses” (Deut 18:18–19), the expected king, the “star from Jacob” (Num 24:17), and the expected high priest (Deut 33:8–10). If so, this matches the three eschatological figures mentioned in 1QS 9:11 and probably reflects Qumran’s eschatology.33 I turn now to the Damascus Covenant and the War of the Sons of Light. In a complex exegesis involving a number of passages (including Isa 7:17; Amos 5:26–27; and Amos 9:11) Num 24:17 is quoted: The star [‫ ]הכוכב‬is the Interpreter of the Law 19 who comes to Damascus, as it is written, “A star has gone forth [‫ ]דרך כוכב‬from Jacob, and a scepter has risen [‫ ]וקם שבט‬20 from Israel” [Num 24:17cd]. The latter is the Prince [‫ ]נשיא‬of the whole nation; when he appears, “he will shatter 21 all the sons of Sheth” [Num 24:17f]. CD 7:18–21 = 4Q266 frag. 3 col. iii, lines 17–25 = 4Q269 frag. 5, lines 1–4

The two principal components, the “star” and the “scepter,” are treated as two personages, not as one, as the Hebrew parallelism would normally suggest. The star of Num 24:17 is identified as the “Interpreter of the Law,” a major figure in the establishment of the righteous community, awaiting Israel’s redemption. The scepter is identified as the “prince of the whole nation,” by which we should understand Israel’s awaited king. This interpretation is very much in step with Qumran’s diarchic expectations, in which an “anointed of Aaron” and an “anointed of Israel” are anticipated (cf. 1QS 9:11, ‫ומשיחי אהרון וישראל‬, “Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel”). Whether the Interpreter himself will be the anointed of Aaron, that is, the high priest, is unclear. In any case, it is important to recognize that Qumran anticipates an anointed king who will serve faithfully alongside a recognized, anointed Zadokite high priest.34 33  John Lübbe, “A Reinterpretation of 4QTestimonia,” RevQ 12 (1986): 187–97; Frank Moore Cross, “Testimonia,” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 308–27 (310). 34  For discussion of Qumran’s diarchism and the relationship of the anointed king to the anointed high priest, see Craig A. Evans, “Diarchic Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), 558–67; Craig A. Evans, “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important is He?” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 135–49.

310

Evans

According to the War of the Sons of Light: The battle is yours, the strength is from you, 5 it is not our own. Neither our power nor the strength of our hand has done valiantly, but by your power and the strength of your great valor. Just as you told 6 us in time past, saying: “There shall come forth a star from Jacob, a scepter shall rise out of Israel [‫]דרך כוכב מיעקוב קם שבט מישראל‬, and shall crush the forehead of Moab and tear down all sons of Sheth, 7 and he shall descend from Jacob and shall destroy the remnant from the city, and the enemy shall be a possession, and Israel shall do valiantly’ [Num 24:17, 19, 18a,c]. By the hand of your anointed ones, 8 seers of things appointed, you have told us about the times of the wars of your hands in order that you may glorify yourself among our enemies, to bring down the hordes of Belial….35 1QM 11:4b–8

Although no king or messiah is mentioned in 1QM, at least in the extant materials, it is probable that such a figure is envisioned here in column 11. It is probable for several reasons. First, in the immediate context we have a parallel with the exploits of David, which serve as a template. “Truly the battle is yours” (line 1), the author says, and then recounts David’s victory over Goliath (1 Sam 17:48–51). The refrain is repeated, “the battle is yours” (line 2), and then David’s victory over the Philistines is recalled (1 Sam 18:27, 30; 19:8). The refrain occurs again in line 5 and shortly after parts of Num 24:17–19 are quoted. Recalling the exploits of David in the past anticipates the future exploits of his messianic descendant. Second, it is probable that the Messiah is referenced implicitly in col. 3, where the instruction is given that “on the grand banner” that goes before the army into battle shall be written “People of God,” the names “Israel and Aaron,” and the names of the twelve tribes (3:13–14). The names “Israel and Aaron” may correspond to the “anointed ones of Aaron and Israel” in 1QS 9:11. This interpretation is probably correct, for at the parallel in 4QM frag. 10, lines 3 and 4 read: “the great standard for the Prince who is heading … ‘People of God’ and the name of Israel and Aaron and the name of the Prince …” (with restorations).36 35  Translation based on Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 160. The “anointed ones” (‫ )משיחיכה‬at the end of line 7 refer to the prophets, not to the anointed priest or the anointed king (cf. Ps 105:15; 1 Chr 16:22, “Touch not my anointed ones [‫יחי‬ ָ֔ ‫] ִבּ ְמ ִשׁ‬, do my prophets [‫ ]נְ ִביאַ֖י‬no harm!”). 36  Jean Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations,

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

311

Both times “Prince” (‫ )נשי‬is written above the line. These superlinear glosses surely reflect an attempt on the part of a Qumran scribe to clarify the text. Thus “Israel and Aaron” in 1QM 3:13–14 may be shorthand for “Anointed of Israel” and “Anointed of Aaron,” that is, the eschatological king and high priest. Third, in the passage from the Damascus Covenant cited above, the “scepter” of Num 24:17 is identified as the “Prince of the whole nation” (or “congregation”). Fourth, in the blessing for the “Prince of the nation” (or “congregation”) in 1QSb 5:20–29, Num 24:17 is alluded to when the Prince is told, “God has established you as ‘the scepter [‫( ”’]שבט‬line 27). Fifth, an eschatological king (“Branch of David”) is explicitly described in 4Q285 (frag. 7, lines 1–6), the Rule of War, which is very likely part of another version of the War of the Sons of Light or a closely related document. It should be mentioned too that both 1QSb 5 and 4Q285 frag. 7 appeal to parts of Isaiah 11, an oracle understood to refer to the future restoration of the Davidic dynasty.37 All four texts (i.e., CD, 1QSb, 1QM, and 4Q175), in which Num 24:17 is quoted, are sectarian texts. All four of the quotations understand Num 24:17 as a prophecy, or oracle, of the coming Messiah.38 Philo of Alexandria appeals to Num 24:17 twice in his extant writings. In his Life of Moses he interprets the story of Balak and Balaam’s attempt to curse the approaching tribes of Israel (Philo, De vita Mosis 1.263–304). Balaan’s fourth oracle is paraphrased, including Num 24:17, which reads: “A man shall then come forth from you who shall rule over many nations [ἐξελεύσεταί ποτε ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπικρατήσει πολλῶν ἐθνῶν], and his kingdom shall increase every day and be raised up to the heights” (Philo, De vita Mosis 1.290). Philo’s ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν (“a man shall come forth”) seems to be the equivalent of the LXX’s rendering of Num 24:17 ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ (“a man shall arise from Israel”), but his verb ἐξελεύσεται is closer to the Hebrew’s ‫“( ָדּ ַ ֨רְך‬he goes,” “he walks”). Philo’s paraphrase of Num 24:15–19 includes elements from ed. James H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 184, including notes 61 and 62. 37  In 4Q161 Isaiah 11 is interpreted as referring to the “Branch of David, who will appear in the last days” (frags. 8–10, line 17). In 4Q252 5:3 the Branch of David is identified as the “righteous Messiah.” 38  It is true that the divine role in defeating Israel’s enemies is greatly emphasized in 1QM 11, but that does not mean that no human prince is envisioned. God’s power was seen in David’s great victories (1 Sam 16:13; 18:12, 14; 19:5); so also God’s power will be seen in Israel’s eschatological victory under the leadership of the eschatological king. See Adam S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957), 123: “Der Fürst der Gemeinde scheint hier das Mittel des göttlichen Heilshandelns zu sein” (“The Prince of the community seems to be the mediator of the divine act of salvation”).

312

Evans

the third oracle in Num 24:3–9, esp. vv. 8–9. Philo’s purpose in the passage as a whole is neither messianic nor eschatological, but his paraphrase of Num 24:17 seems to reflect the messianic interpretation we see elsewhere in early Jewish and Christian texts. In his On Rewards and Punishments Philo says: “for ‘a man will come forth [ἐξελεύσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος],’ says the oracle [ὁ χρησμός], leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations” (Philo, De praemiis et poenis 95). Philo’s paraphrase is the same as in Life of Moses, but the description of this man who comes forth “leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations” seems to paraphrase Num 24:17b–19. Again, Philo’s purpose here is not eschatological but his allegory does seem to presuppose the eschatological, if not messianic understanding of Balaam’s fourth oracle. There are two passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in which Num 24:17 is either quoted or alluded to. The problem, of course, is that we are not sure if these passages are pre-Christian or Christian. In his English translation and notes Howard Clark Kee does not identify any specific Christian glosses in these passages.39 Others, like Marinus de Jonge, suspect that much of the Testaments of the Patriarchs derives from Christian hands, including the passages under review.40 This question will have to be left open, but it is still worth considering how Num 24:17 is understood. Balaam’s oracle of the star is alluded to in the Testament of Judah. The dying patriarch Judah tells his sons:

39  Howard Clark Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 794–95, 801. 40  The origin, history, and relationship to Christian writing and/or editing of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are complicated questions. At one time Marinus de Jonge contended that the Testaments were a Christian composition from the outset. After further consideration of the evidence of Qumran, where related Testaments have come to light, he now argues that Christians took over a smaller Jewish work and expanded it. How and to what extent remain disputed. I recommend one consult two chapters: Marinus de Jonge, “The Interpretation of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in Recent Years” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation, ed. Marinus de Jonge, SVTP 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 183–92; and Marinus de Jonge, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation, ed. Marinus de Jonge, SVTP 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193– 246 (see esp. 210–19 on Num 24:17 in T. Judah 24 and T. Levi 18). De Jonge concedes that although these chapters from the Testaments are probably Christian in their extant form, they may well contain pre-Christian elements, possibly from Qumran.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

313

1 And after these things a star will arise to you from Jacob in peace [ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακὼβ ἐν εἰρήνῃ], and a man will arise [ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος] from my seed, like the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and no sin will be found in him. 2 And the heavens will be open to him, to pour out the blessing of the spirit of the Holy Father. And he will pour out the spirit of grace upon you, 3 and you will be sons in truth to him, and you will walk in his commands from first and last. 4 This is the Branch of God Most High; and this fountain gives life to all flesh. 5 Then the scepter of my kingdom [σκῆπτρον βασιλείας μου] will shine brightly. And from your root a Shoot will be born. 6 And from it will grow a rod of righteousness to the nations, to judge and to save all who call on the Lord. T. Judah 24:1–6

There is an unmistakable allusion to Num 24:17 in v. 1 and perhaps also in v. 5 (though compare Gen 49:10). Several prophetic texts are alluded to (e.g., Mal 4:2 and Ps 45:4 in v. 1; Joel 2:28–29 in v. 2; 1 Kgs 6:12 in 3; Isa 11:1 in vv. 4 and 5; Isa 11:4– 5 in v. 6). There are elements in the passage that are probably Christian,41 but is the allusion to Num 24:17 one of them? Perhaps, but I have my doubts. I say this because Num 24:17 apparently did not play an important role in foundational Christian apologetic. In the Matthean infancy narrative the star observed by the Magi probably alludes to Num 24:17,42 but it is significant that the text is not quoted or formally introduced (as are the five prophecies quoted and said to be “fulfilled” elsewhere in the Matthean infancy narrative). The “star” mentioned in 2 Pet 1:19 and Rev 22:16 could be in reference to Num 24:17, but that is far from clear. In T. Judah 24:1 the star of Num 24:1 is the key element in the 41  The statement, “no sin will be found in him,” may be a Christian gloss (cf. John 8:46), while the predictions that “the heaven will be open to him” (v. 2) may allude to the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21; though see Ps 78:23) and “he will pour out the spirit of grace” may allude to giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:4; cf. John 20:22). Other Johannine echoes may be heard in “sons of truth” (v. 3; cf. John 16:13), “you will walk in his commands” (v. 3; cf. 2 John 4, 6), and “this fountain gives life to all flesh” (v. 4; cf. John 4:14). On Num 24:17 in T. Judah, see de Jonge, “Christian Influence,” 212–16. 42  With some hesitation the connection is accepted by Tobias Nicklas, “Balaam and the Star of the Magi,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam, ed. van Kooten and van Ruiten, 233–46; Darrell D. Hannah, “The Star of the Magi and the Prophecy of Balaam in Earliest Christianity, with Special Attention to the Lost Books of Balaam,” in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and Georges van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 433–62. Jacobus (“Balaam’s ‘Star Oracle’,” 425) concludes that the messianic interpretation of Num 24:17 was known to the Matthean evangelist.

314

Evans

prophecy of a coming redeemer. This is more reflective of Jewish eschatology, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, and Josephus, than of early Christian texts. We have another allusion to Num 24:17 in T. Levi 18:3: And after their punishment from the Lord, the priesthood will fail. 2 Then the Lord will raise up a new priest, to him all the words of the Lord will be revealed. And he will execute truthful judgment upon the earth for a multitude of days. 3 And his star will arise in heaven as a king [ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον αὐτοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς βασιλεύς], lighting up the light of knowledge as with the sun of day. And he will be magnified in the world [until his ascension]. 4 He will shine brightly as the sun to the earth, and will remove all darkness from under heaven, and there will be peace in all the earth. The words “until his ascension” at the end of v. 3, which appear in some MSS, is the only obvious Christian interpolation. I suspect, however, that most of the passage is Jewish and pre-Christian. This passage may well have been written in support of one of the Hasmonean high priests, such as Alexander Jannaeus (ruled 103–76 BCE), who gained recognition as kings. Hence, it is the patriarch Levi who prophesies the coming of a “new priest” (perhaps an allusion to Deut 18:15–18) who will “arise in heaven as king.”43 From a Christian perspective, such a passage would require little or no redaction. (One thinks of the Christology of Hebrews, where Jesus is both king and high priest.) Two other texts from the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha should be mentioned. In Abraham’s blessing for Jacob ( Jub. 22:10–23), one line of Num 24:17 is paraphrased in v. 12: “rule over all the seed of Seth.” However, there is no reference to the star that is to arise from Jacob. We hear an echo of Num 24:17 in Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, where we are told that a “holy spirit [spiritus sanctus] came upon Kenaz” prompting him to prophesy: “Behold, now I see what I had not hoped for, and I perceived what I did not understand …” (LAB 28:1). The structure seems to reflect Num 24:17, but the specific content does not.44 And in any case, there is no reference to the “star.” Early Christian literature shows surprisingly little interest Balaam’s star oracle. It is probably presupposed in Matthew’s story of the star and the Magi 43  On Num 24:17 in T. Levi 18, see de Jonge, “Christian Influence,” 216–19. I believe in this instance de Jonge over-estimates the degree of Christianization. 44  An allusion to Num 24:17 is seen in Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:341. But see Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation, AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2:811, who remarks that allusion to Num 24:17 “seems unlikely, though the structural patterns are similar.”

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

315

(Matt 2:1–12), but Num 24:17 is not quoted or referenced; Mic 5:2 is (cf. Matt 2:1–8). However, reference to the phrase “in the East” (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ) is suggestive and will be considered later. As already mentioned, it is not obvious that the “morning star that will arise in the hearts [φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις]” of Christian believers in 2 Pet 1:19, or the “shining morning star [ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός]” in Rev 22:16 alludes to Num 24:17. If the first passage does allude to Num 24:17 (in light of the verb ἀνατείλῃ), the meaning is nevertheless quite different. Church Fathers of the second century and later link the star of Num 24:17 with the star seen by the Magi in the Matthean infancy narrative. Justin Martyr understands Balaam’s star, along with Zechariah’s prophecy of the coming of one whose name is “East [Ἀνατολή]” (LXX Zech 6:12), fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, accompanied by the appearance of the star and the visit of the Magi (Dialogus cum Tryphone 106). Thirty years later Irenaeus also links Num 24:17 with Matt 2:2 (Adversus haereses 3.9.2: “… whose star also Balaam thus prophesied … Magi, coming from the East … star”). A generation later Origen reacts to the Stoic Chaeremon’s treatise on comets, a first-century work now lost. Origen claims that with respect to comets [τῶν κομητῶν], there is no prophecy [οὐδεμία προφητεία] in circulation to the effect that such-and-such a comet was to arise [ἀνατέλλει τοιόσδε κομήτης] in connection with a particular kingdom or particular time; but with respect to the appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus, Balaam prophesied, saying, as recorded by Moses: ‘A star shall go forth from Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel.’ And now, if it shall be deemed necessary to examine the narrative about the Magi [περὶ τῶν μάγων]…. Contra Celsum 1.59

Origen quotes the LXX version of Num 24:17 verbatim. He, like Justin and Irenaeus before him, links Balaam’s prophecy to the Matthean infancy account (and in Contra Celsum 1.60 Origen explains how the Magi interpreted the star and traveled to Judea; cf. Origen, Homiliae in Numeros 13.7; 18.4). What is of particular interest is Origen’s declaration that “there is no prophecy in circulation to the effect that such-and-such a comet was to arise in connection with a particular kingdom or particular time.” Origen acknowledges, of course, that Chaeremon’s treatise on comets provides a few examples of comets appearing (and one or two of them no doubt relate to those that will be reviewed below). But Origen denies the circulation of a specific prophecy of a comet related to a kingdom, apart from the prophecy of Balaam, which was fulfilled in the birth

316

Evans

of Jesus. Origen’s statement may be in response to the opinions expressed in connection to the prophecy and “ambiguous oracle” related by Josephus. Was there a prophecy or oracle in circulation, other than Balaam’s oracle, to the effect that a comet would appear signifying the advent of a royal personage or a new kingdom? In his late-fourth century commentary on Luke, Bishop Ambrose of Milan identifies the Magi of the Matthean narrative as the descendants of Balaam, who uttered the prophecy: “A star shall arise out of Jacob [orietur stella ex Iacob]” (following the Vulgate). Ambrose goes on to say that “Balaam saw the star in spirit; the Magi saw it with their own eyes and believed. They had seen a new star [novam stellam], a star that no one had seen since the creation of the world” (Expositio Evangelii Lucae 2.48). In his own way, Ambrose seems to be agreeing with Origen: the Balaam prophecy was unique. A fascinating exegesis appears in the fifth-century Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum. In Homily §2 the author praises the Magi for their faith and courage in coming to Judea to worship the newborn king, whose star they have seen. The exegete tells us: I have read in someone’s writings that those magi learned of this star that would appear from the books of Balaam the diviner [ex libris Balaam divinatoris], whose prophecy was placed in the Old Testament: ‘A star shall come forth out of Jacob,’ etc. I have heard some people referring to a certain writing … in the name of Seth [nomine Seth] concerning the appearance of this star and the gifts … that were offered to him … some of them chose twelve even more diligent scholars and lovers of heavenly mysteries [amatores mysteriorum caelestium], and they commissioned them to wait for that star … They were called Magi in their own tongue …45 Op. Imperf. Matth. §2 [on Matt 2:2]

This exegesis contains a number of surprising elements. The only thing that is conventional is the quotation of Num 24:17, which follows the Vulgate verbatim. The reference to the “books of Balaam” is very interesting. The unknown exegete is either referring to Balaam’s four oracles, imbedded in Numbers, or to a lost apocryphal book (or books). Perhaps we have a reference, however remote and indirect, to the “book of Balaam” reference in the old Deir ʿAllā plaster inscription. 45  Translation based on James A. Kellerman (trans.) and Thomas C. Oden (ed.), Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus imperfectum), vol. 1, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), 32.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

317

The exegete also refers to a writing that circulated “in the name of Seth concerning the appearance of this star and the gifts.” That is, this unknown writing not only predicts the appearance of a star, as did Balaam in Num 24:17, it predicts the gifts that the Magi will bring. There were books that circulated under the name of Seth (e.g., NHC VII, 2 and 5), but none survives that talks about a star and gifts. The exegete goes on to speak of twelve diligent scholars who are “lovers of heavenly mysteries” who have been commissioned to wait for the star. These are they who are called “Magi in their own tongue.” They wait many centuries, which necessitates replacing members who die off in the interval, in order to maintain their number at twelve. These intriguing traditions have been drawn from an apocryphal infancy work called the Revelation of the Magi, which was composed in Syriac in the third century, perhaps even as early as the late second century.46 It offers a complex story of how the Magi, twelve in number, await the sign of the star, which they will then follow to Bethlehem.47 The author of the Opus Imperfectum was familiar with this apocryphal text. This exegete knows of Balaam’s prophecy, but it is not clear that the author of the Revelation of the Magi knew of it; at least he does not mention Balaam by name or quote Num 24:17. His expansive and imaginative account of the Magi may have been principally dependent on the Matthean infancy narrative and, probably, popular beliefs about stars. The Revelation of the Magi also says that Seth composed a book (3:2–3), which he passed on to Noah (3:4), which he safeguarded during the flood and passed on to his descendants (3:5). At some point this singular book becomes plural books (“written in the books of Seth”). These books are hidden away in a cave on “the Mountain of Victories in the east of Shir” (4:1). These books, which eventually come into hands of the Magi, contain the mystery of the star, etc. This book (or books), written by Seth, is what is referred to in the Opus Imperfectum. The Arabic Infancy Gospel apparently is familiar with some of this tradition too, for it claims (in 7:1) that the Magi arrived in Jerusalem as had been predicted (in Seth’s book, presumably). I said above that the Revelation of the Magi does not specifically mention Balaam or his oracle in speaking of the star that the Magi followed to Bethlehem. But there is something else to consider. In Matthew the star is 46  For translation and critical introduction, see Brent Landau, Revelation of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem (New York: HarperCollins, 2010); Brent Landau, “The Revelation of the Magi,” in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1, ed. Tony Burke and Brent Landau (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 19–38. 47  The names of the original twelve are listed in Revelation of the Magi 2:3. In 2:1 we are told that they “were called Magi in the language of the land,” which is echoed in the Opus Imperfectum.

318

Evans

a sign of the birth of Jesus and a marker that points out his location. In the Revelation of the Magi Jesus is himself the star. Thus, he is, strangely, in two places at once. He is at the same time the star that guides the Magi and he is also, of course, the infant in the manger in Bethlehem.48 This observation may have relevance for the next tradition to be considered. Balaam’s oracle of the star is alluded to in the fifth/sixth century Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena.49 Following her conversion and baptism at the hands of the Apostle Paul, Xanthippe praises God. Among other things she says: “O you whose hands were fixed with nails and who was pierced in the side with a spear, you who are the star out of Jacob [ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Ιακωβ ἀστήρ], the lion from Judah, the rod from Jesse, man and God from Mary, the indivisible God in the bosom of the Father …” (Acts Xan. Polyx. 14:14).50 Besides the obvious allusion to Num 24:17, we have allusions to Rev 5:5; Isa 11:1; and John 1:18. What is interesting here is that Jesus is identified as the star: “You are the star.” In order words, the star is not a sign of Jesus’ birth and/or location; he is himself the star. This approximates the idea we see in the Revelation of the Magi. Finally, we might briefly look at the Palaea Historica, a ninth-century (or later) Christian version of Old Testament history.51 Balaam’s attempt to curse the tribes of Israel is recounted at length and his magic is emphasized. We are told that the “young child Balaam was raised in the house of Baal and trained in magic and divination [παιδευόμενος τά τε μαγικὰ καὶ μαντικά]” (Palaea Historica 110:5). His training, of course, includes astrology (110:7). Balak offers Balaam the diviner (μάντις) valuable gifts (112:1). Before accepting the king’s commission he “examined his oracular books [μαντικαῖς αὐτοῦ βίβλοις]” (112:2). He concludes that neither his horoscope (τὰ ὁροσκόπεια) nor his oracular books permit him to accept the commission (112:3). All of this elaborates on what is found in Num 22:1–20.

48  Discussed in Landau, Revelation of the Magi, 10–13; Landau, “Revelation of the Magi,” 25. 49  Montague Rhodes James, Apocrypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, Texts and Studies 2/3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 58– 85; David L. Eastman, “The Life and Conduct of the Holy Women Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca,” in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1, ed. Tony Burke and Brent Landau (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 416–52. 50  James, Apocrypha Anecdota, 68; Eastman, “Life and Conduct,” 437. 51  For Greek text, see Athanasius Vasiliev, Anecdota Graeca-Byzantina (Moscow: Imperial University Press, 1893), 188–292. For introduction and English translation, see William Adler, “Palaea Historica (‘The Old Testament History’),” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1, ed. Richard J. Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 585–672. Adler has inserted chapter and verse numbers, which I have adopted.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

319

Balak piles on more gifts and finally Balaam accepts the commission. Parts of the third and fourth Balaam oracles are quoted (Num 24:5–7, 17–18). The quotation of Num 24:17 follows the LXX verbatim: ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ, καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ, etc. (113:9),52 “A star shall rise from Jacob, and a man shall rise up from Israel,” etc. Frustrated, Balaam returns home to “consult his magic books [τὰς μαγικὰς αὐτοῦ βίβλους] so that he might perform other acts of magic [μαγίας ἑτέρας] against the Jews” (114:4). After he is rebuked by his donkey, Balaam repents of his sin. The passage from Numbers is cited again and then interpreted (115:1–3). The historian notes: “When Christ was born, Balaam proved truthful” (115:4). The Palaea Historica then quotes a saying from an unknown source: “The wise man alludes to this (i.e., to Balaam’s oracle of the star) in his hymns, when he states, ‘Filling with joy the wise astronomers, initiates into the secret teaching of Balaam the diviner of old [τοῦ μάντεως πάλαι], a star arose from Jacob [ἀστὴρ ἐκ τοῦ Ιακωβ ἀνατείλας], Lord’” (115:5).53 One may wonder if this saying is from either the lost “Book(s) of Balaam” or the lost “Book(s) of Seth.” The source is otherwise unknown. Balaam’s prophecy of the star is seen as fulfilled and is acted on in the political and military actions of Simon ben Kosiba, whose actual name is known to us thanks to the recovery of some of his correspondence from the Judean wilderness.54 His sobriquet, “Bar Kokhba,” mimics the sound of his name and, more importantly, alludes to the star (the kokhab) of Num 24:17. Simon is remembered for leading the third great Jewish rebellion against Roman authority from 132 to 135 CE. (The first was 66–73 CE and the second, primarily in North Africa, was 115–117 CE.) The oldest Bar Kokhba tradition in the rabbinic literature involves Rabbi Aqiba, who apparently recognized ben Kosiba as the fulfillment of the Num 24:17 prophecy. According to y. Taʿan. 4.5 (commenting on m. Taʿan. 4:6, “Beter was captured and the city [of Jerusalem] was plowed up”): Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: ‘Aqiba, my master, used to interpret “a star [‫ ]כוכב‬goes forth from Jacob” (Num 24:17)—Kozeba [‫ ]כוזבא‬goes forth from Jacob.”’ Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Bar Kozeba, said: ‘This is the King 52  Vasiliev, Anecdota, 253. 53  Translation from Adler, “Palaea Historica,” 645. 54  As in Mur 43, Mur 44, P.Yad 49 (= 5/6Ḥev 49), P.Yad 50 (= 5/6Ḥev 50), P.Yad 51 (= 5/6Ḥev 51), P.Yad 53 (= 5/6Ḥev 53), P.Yad 54 (= 5/6Ḥev 54), P.Yad 55 (= 5/6Ḥev 55), P.Yad 56 (= 5/6Ḥev 56), P.Yad 57 (= 5/6Ḥev 57), P.Yad 58 (= 5/6Ḥev 58), P.Yad 60 (= 5/6Ḥev 60), P.Yad 62 (= 5/6Ḥev 62), P.Yad 63 (= 5/6Ḥev 63). In Greek, Simon’s name is spelled σιμων χωσιβα (cf. P.Yad 59 = 5/6Ḥev 59).

320

Evans

Messiah.’ Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: ‘Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the son of David does not come!’55 The same tradition is credited to Rabbi Gershom “in the name of Rabbi Aha” (y. Ned. 3.8 [commenting on m. Ned. 3:10–11]). Elsewhere in rabbinic writings Simon’s name is understood as “disappointment” or “lie,” but I do not think that this was the original understanding of Aqiba’s utterance. The Palestinian Talmud has spelled Simon’s name with a ‫ז‬, as is the practice in rabbinic literature. Consequently, Aqiba’s original affirmation of Simon has been transformed: The “star” has not come forth from Jacob, a “lie” has. This is in fact the point of the further reinterpreting of the tradition that we find in Lam. Rab. 2:2 §4 (“Do not read ‫[ כוכב‬star] but ‫[ כוזב‬lie]”). I suspect that at its core the Talmudic tradition is historical, even if much of it is legendary and imaginative.56 I find it hard to believe that a thoroughlydiscredited interpretation of prophetic Scripture, which has been repudiated by major rabbinic authorities, would be attributed to such a well-known and respected rabbi as Aqiba unless it had in fact originated with him.57 It is attributed to Aqiba because all knew that he had proclaimed Simon ben Kosiba as “Bar Kokhba,” the fulfillment of the Num 24:17 prophecy. After Simon’s defeat (and Aqiba’s martyrdom?), rabbis refer to Simon as bar kozeba (“son of the lie” or “disappointment”), a new play on his name. The sobriquet “Bar Kokhba” is attested in Christian literature, some of which is much earlier than Talmud Yerushalmi, in which the Aqiba story is recalled. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE) refers to the recent war (cf. 108.1, 3). In his First Apology he makes explicit reference to Bar Kokhba: [The prophetic books] are also in the possession of all Jews throughout the world; but they, though they read, do not understand what is said, but count us foes and enemies; and, like yourselves, they kill and punish us whenever they have the power, as you can well believe. For in the Jewish

55  My translation. 56  I largely agree with the critical points made in Matthew V. Novenson, “Why Does R. Akiba Acclaim Bar Kokhba as Messiah?,” JSJ 40 (2009): 551–72. The rabbinic materials can hardly be taken at face value, but I do think it is probable that Aqiba was rightly remembered to have endorsed Simon ben Kosiba as “Bar Kokhba,” an endorsement that subsequently occasioned embarrassment. 57  See the discussion in Peter Schäfer, “Rabbi Aqiva and Bar Kokhba,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism Volume II, ed. William S. Green, BJS 9 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 113–30 (117–19).

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

321

war which lately raged, Barchochebas [Βαρχωχέβας],58 the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they should deny Jesus the Christ and blaspheme”. 1 Apol. 31.5–6

Justin’s testimony, written some fifteen years after the conclusion of the war, confirms that Simon ben Kosiba was indeed called Bar Kokhba. Reference to the “prophetic books” suggests that prophecies, like Num 24:17, are in view. Justin remarks that Christians “alone” were punished unless they denied Jesus (as) the Christ. This strongly implies that Simon viewed Jesus, who was confessed as the Messiah by Jewish Christians, as a rival. This further implies that in applying the star (kokhab / kokhba) of Num 24:17 to himself, Simon ben Kosiba did see himself as the prophesied Messiah. The probability that Simon saw himself as Israel’s Messiah is supported by what Eusebius says: “In the late Jewish war Βαρχωχεβᾶς, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that Christians alone should be visited with terrible punishments unless they deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ” (Hist. eccl. 4.8.4). In his Chronicle Eusebius also states that “Χωχέβας, prince of the Jewish sect, killed the Christians with all kinds of persecutions, (when) they refused to help him against the Roman troops” (Hadrian Year 17).59 Christians “alone” were punished because they alone regarded Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah, not Simon ben Kosiba, dubbed Bar Kokhba. Elsewhere in his History Eusebius states: The Jews were at that time led by a certain Bar Chochebas, which means “star,” [Βαρχωχεβᾶς ὄνομα, ὃ δὴ ἀστέρα δηλοῖ] a man who was murderous and a bandit, but relied on his name, as if dealing with slaves, and claimed to be a luminary who had come down to them from heaven [ἐξ οὐρανοῦ φωστὴρ αὐτοῖς κατεληλυθώς] and was performing wonders to enlighten [ἐπιλάμψαι τερατευόμενος] those who were in misery. The war reached its height in the eighteenth year of the reign of Hadrian … Hist. eccl. 4.6.2–3

58  In Justin and Eusebius Bar Kokhba’s name appears as Βὰρ Χωχέβας (with or without a space), Βαρχωχεβᾶς, or simply as Χωχέβας or Χοχεβᾶς. Jerome spells it Bar-hochebas and Bar-chochabas. 59   P G 19.558.

322

Evans

Eusebius’ statement that Bar Kokhba “claimed to be a luminary” (φωστήρ) confirms the link to the star of Num 24:17.60 Also, the remark that Simon “relied on his name” (ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ) probably alludes to the play on words that lies behind his sobriquet Bar Kokhba. We have here another important and independent point of corroboration of the rabbinic tradition. The value of these Christian traditions about Simon ben Kosiba is that they confirm the currency of the messianic interpretation of Num 24:17 and an openness to the possibility of actual fulfillment. Eusebius does not write until the early fourth century, but the antiquity of the tradition is attested by Justin Martyr who writes only a few years after Simon’s defeat. The other important point about Simon and his link with the prophecy of Num 24:17 is that it well illustrates the thinking of late antiquity, both in Jewish and in non-Jewish society. A comet in the sky, probably associated with the prophecy of Num 24:17, led many Jews in the 60s to believe that freedom from the Romans was at hand. Two generations later, the same prophecy was applied to a charismatic Jewish leader, whose name suggested fulfillment was at hand. The same thinking regarding prophecies and portents is well attested in late antique Greco-Roman history. 3

Prophecies about the East

Greco-Roman biographers and historians refer to a prophecy of a coming ruler that was fulfilled in Vespasian. In some cases the prophecy of Josephus is also referenced. According to Suetonius, “There had spread all over the Orient [Oriente toto] an old and established belief [vetus et constans opinio] that it was in the oracles [in fatis] at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome … the people of Judea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted …”61 (Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus 4.5). The prophecy of Josephus is later mentioned (5.6: “Josephus … declared most confidently”), but there is no indication whether it is related to the “old and established belief” hinted at in the oracles referenced by Suetonius. The eastern oracle seems to be alluded to in reference to the doomed Nero. Some of the astrologers (mathematici), Suetonius tells us, “had promised him 60  Newman (“Stars of the Messiah,” 285–94) thinks Eusebius has alluded to references to light in Isa 60:1–3, 19–20; 62:1, passages which appear in a midrash on the awaited Messiah (cf. Pesiq. R. 36.2). Perhaps, but it seems to me the star of Num 24:17 is sufficient to explain Eusebius. 61  Translation based on John C. Rolfe, Suetonius Volume II. Loeb Classical Library 38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1997), 273 (originally published 1914).

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

323

(Nero) the rule of the East [Orientis dominationem], when he was cast off, a few expressly naming the sovereignty [regnum] of Jerusalem” (Suetonius, Nero 40.2),62 with which Rome was at war (over which, so it was believed, Nero would rule once the victory was gained). Although Suetonius does not elaborate, it seems that Nero, or at least some of the astrologers willing to advise him, was aware of an oracle that spoke of a ruler that would arise in the East and perhaps suggested that Nero might be its fulfillment. Cassius Dio says Nero planned to flee to Alexandria (Historia Romana 63.27.2), perhaps in hopes of fulfilling this oracle (though Dio himself says nothing of this possibility). The belief that Nero might return seems also to be reflected in book 8 of the Sibylline Oracles.63 There we are told: “No longer will the plain of luxuriant Rome be victorious when he comes from Asia, conquering with Ares” (8:145–146).64 Coming “from Asia” might be inspired by the mysterious oracle of the eastern Ruler. One wonders too about Cassius Dio’s description of the omens that attended the demise of Vitellius. He speaks of a comet star (κομήτης ἀστήρ), a strange lunar eclipse, and the appearance of two suns in the sky, of which the one in the West is weak and the one in the East is “brilliant and powerful” (64.8.1). Could this be another reference to the oracle of the Ruler from the East? In the next paragraph Dio speaks of Vespasian and his war in Judea (64.8.3). Later, Dio mentions the prophecy of Josephus, which, unlike the various omens and dreams under consideration, which “needed interpretation,” the prophecy of Josephus required no interpretation: “He, having earlier been captured by Vespasian and imprisoned, laughed and said: ‘You may imprison me now, but a year from now, when you have become emperor, you will release me’” (65.1.4). Dio also states that some Roman soldiers, discouraged by the difficult siege of Jerusalem, deserted and joined the Jewish rebels, “suspecting, furthermore, that the city was really impregnable, as was commonly reported” (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 65.5.4). Menahem Stern wonders if the Jewish understanding of the oracle, in which Israel would triumph, influenced the besieging army and prompted some of these desertions.65 After describing a number of omens that preceded the revolt, which match those related in Josephus ( J.W. 6.288–299), Tacitus states:

62  Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), 118: “This promise should be connected with the prophecies at that time about the transfer of the rule of the ancient world to the East.” I agree with Stern. 63  I follow Collins in viewing Sib. Or. 8:1–216 as Jewish. See Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 415–16. 64  Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 421. 65  Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:61–62.

324

Evans

Few interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings [antiquis sacerdotum litteris] contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East [Oriens] should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world. This ambiguous prophecy [ambages] had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus …”66 Historiae 5.13.2

The language, “their ancient priestly writings” that “contained the prophecy,” is an unmistakable reference to an Old Testament prophecy. But which one? Clifford Moore suggests Dan 2:44.67 Perhaps, but I find it doubtful. Although Tacitus says nothing about a star or comet in this context, I think it is probable that his words “men starting from Judea” allude to Num 24:17 (of which Tacitus himself probably was unaware), not to Dan 2:44 or other prophecies that have been suggested. The language, “starting from Judea,” seems to echo the prophecy’s “goes forth from Jacob.” Also, the ambages, “ambiguous (prophecy),” of Tacitus is the equivalent of the χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος of Josephus ( J.W. 6.312);68 and the ambiguous oracle of Josephus, as has been argued above, is most likely Num 24:17 or an utterance that reflects it. Vespasian’s victory over the Jewish people confirmed both the prophecy of Josephus, as well as his interpretation of the “ambiguous oracle.” In this context I think it is appropriate to consider Lactantius (c. 240–c. 320), even though he is a Christian writer. He seems familiar with the oracle of the rise of the East, which he interprets through the lens of Old Testament and New Testament Scripture, but not in reference to Balaam’s star prophecy. In a series of chapters in book 7 of Divine Institutes Lactantius discusses what he thinks the future holds. In chap. 15 he foretells the demise of the Roman Empire: “… the Roman name, by which the world is now ruled, will be taken away from the earth, and the government return to Asia; and the East will again dominate [et imperium in Asiam revertetur, ac rursus Oriens dominabitur], and the West will be reduced to servitude” (Institutiones Divinae 7.15.11).69 Lactantius goes on to describe Rome’s rise, history, and recent signs of decay. He asserts that the “predictions of the prophets briefly announce under the obscurity [sub ambage] 66  Translation based on Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson, Tacitus III: Histories Books 4–5, Annals Books 1–3, LCL 249 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 199. 67  Moore and Jackson, Tacitus III, 198 n. 2. 68  So Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:61. 69  Even on the understanding that what is in view is the rise of the eastern half of the empire (thanks to Constantine), the negative forecast for Rome and the West is remarkably daring.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

325

of other names, so that no one can easily understand them. Nevertheless, the Sibyls openly say that Rome will be destroyed” (7.15.17–18).70 The “obscurity of other names” refers to the use of symbols and metaphors, probably not pseudonyms as such. The Sibyls, as Lactantius says, do indeed openly speak of Rome’s destruction. In Sib. Or. 3:52 we are told that “three will destroy Rome,” that is, the triumvirate of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian will forever alter the social and political character of Rome. In Sib. Or. 3:350–355 it is prophesied that Asia will repay Rome for its arrogance and theft. This sentiment is repeated in 4:145, where we are told that “Great wealth will come to Asia, which Rome itself once plundered and deposited in her house” (cf. 2:15–19). It is to these latter Sibylline prophecies that Lactantius alludes when he says “the government will return to Asia; and the East will again dominate.” In chap. 16 Lactantius describes in further detail the coming devastation and accompanying prophetic omens. An oppressive and intolerable ruler will arise who will corrupt laws and put to death the righteous. Cities will be overthrown, springs will run dry, animals and fish will die, and signs will be seen in the heavens, including “long-haired comets” (crines cometarum) and stars that suddenly appear (7.16.8–9).71 In chap. 17 a false prophet will arise and in chap. 18 the Son of God will at last make his appearance, even as the Sibyls foretold. Lactantius cites one Sibyl who speaks of the Son of God who will destroy tyrants: “… and a king sent against him from the gods [τις θεόθεν βασιλεὺς πεμφθεὶς] shall slay all the great kings and chief men …” (7.18.6; cf. Sib. Or. 5:107–110). He then cites another: “And then God shall send a king from the sun [καὶ τότ᾿ ἀπ᾿ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα] …” (7.18.7; cf. Sib. Or. 3:652). In chap. 19 Lactantius describes the coming of Christ and again appeals to the Sibyl: “When he shall come, there will be fire and darkness in the midst of the black night” (7.19.2; cf. Sib. Or. frag. 6). Lactantius has Christianized several Sibylline prophecies, apparently under the influence of the oracle of the ruler who will arise in the East. The Sibylline prophecies themselves, at least some of them, may well be reflections of this oracle of the ruler from the East. For all his love for the Sibyllines it is nevertheless remarkable that Lactantius applies 5:107–110 to the returning Christ. To say that Christ will be “sent from the gods” (θεόθεν) is hardly orthodox from a Christian point of view. Neither is the other oracle (3:652), in which Christ is understood to be the king sent “from the sun” (ἀπ᾿ ἠελίοιο). 70  Lactantius has high regard for the Sibylline Oracles, quoting and alluding to them frequently. 71  Stars that “suddenly appear” are comets and meteorites.

326

Evans

What is clear is that the Sibylline oracles and other prophecies and oracles, in contrast to the plain assertion of Josephus that Vespasian would become emperor, are very much open to interpretation. Almost all agree that either a ruler or a power will arise in the East and then dominate either the West or the world. Who this power or ruler will be was a matter of conjecture. 4 Conclusion Tessa Rajak has insisted that the prophecy uttered by Josephus and the ambiguous oracle found in Jewish Scripture should not be identified.72 She is of course correct to observe that the prophecy and the oracle are not linked by Josephus himself, but I suspect the latter gave rise to the former, after Josephus had been defeated and captured.73 It is hard to see on what other basis he would have made such a prophecy. After all, he acknowledges the relevance of the “ambiguous oracle,” that is, that it truly foretold the victory of Vespasian. The problem was that his countrymen failed to interpret it correctly. He, Josephus, did interpret it correctly by applying it to Vespasian. Notwithstanding Rajak’s dissent,74 I am inclined to agree with Joannes Zonaras (12th century), who in his Epitome Historiarum 11.16 explicitly links the prophecy of J.W. 3.400–402 given to Vespasian with the “ambiguous oracle” of 6.312. Zonaras repeats the story that Josephus foretold that Vespasian would order him released (λυθῆναι κελεύει). When Titus spoke in support of the prisoner and Vespasian concurred, the chain that bound Josephus was struck off (παρελθών τις πελέκει διέκοψε τὴν ἅλυσιν; cf. J.W. 4.629). Zonaras goes on to explain that “Josephus found a certain oracle in their sacred writings [χρησμόν τινα ἐν γράμμασιν ἱεροῖς εὑρηκώς]” (cf. J.W. 6:312: χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὑρημένος γράμμασιν). It is this oracle, with which other Roman historians are familiar,75 that lay behind his prophecy.76 72  Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 191: Josephus “seems to have invoked no Biblical or other Jewish tradition to support” his prophecy of Vespasian’s future rule. 73  Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 51. 74  Rajak, Josephus, 191 n. 13. 75  Zanoras refers to Appian, Historia Romana 22 (no longer extant). 76  Zonaras explains that the oracle was only partially fulfilled by Vespasian, because he “ruled over the Romans only.” In contrast, the Lord (Jesus) rules and will rule over the whole world. With respect to him, Zonaras explains, “it was said by (God) the Father: ‘Ask of me, and I will give you nations as your heritage, and as your possession the ends of the earth’” (LXX Ps 2:8). The Greek text will be found in Ludwig A. Dindorf (ed.), Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1870), 50.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

327

The ambiguous oracle and the prophecy of Josephus are sourced in an ancient oracle about the rise of a ruler (or rulers) from the East. The earliest evidence of this ancient oracle is found in Numbers 24 and in the Deir ʿAllā plaster inscription. The text of the latter probably dates to the eleventh or tenth centuries BCE, while the date of the former is later, at least in its form in the book of Numbers. The Balaam of history and legend must have loomed large in the Middle East of the second millennium BC. After all, the author of Numbers devotes no fewer than three lengthy chapters (chaps. 22–24), which include stories and four oracular utterances, to a man who is depicted as a false prophet and mercenary hired by a Pagan king to curse Israel. Why so much attention? Besides his celebrity status as prophet and magus, Balaam and his oracles may have held appeal to the final author/editor of Numbers because his oracles were understood to foretell the rule of Saul (oracle three) and the rule of David (oracle four) and with their respective reigns the defeats of various local kingdoms. At the time Numbers was written the Balaam oracles, thus interpreted, served Israel’s political propaganda well. In any event, Balaam’s oracle, usually in reference to a star or comet, became very well known in the Middle East and beyond and was referenced for centuries, well into the Roman and Byzantine eras. We should assume that at the outset of the Jewish rebellion, when Josephus was given command of Galilee, he interpreted the “ambiguous oracle” as did his countrymen. He assumed that the oracle foretold Jewish victory and the rise of a Jewish ruler, not only to rule over Israel but perhaps to rule over the whole world. He could hardly have thought otherwise. We should also assume that the various reported omens and portents, including the “a star, resembling a sword” and “comet” ( J.W. 6.289), were understood the same way. These omens, above all the sword-star and comet, portended fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and Jewish victory. The Jewish prophecy that best fits these details is the star prophecy of Num 24:17, widely understood in Jewish interpretation in reference to the rise of a Jewish ruler, even the Jewish Messiah. It was after his defeat and capture that Josephus reinterpreted the prophecy of Num 24:17, describing it now as an “ambiguous oracle,” as though its meaning is veiled and uncertain, and applying it to Vespasian (J.W. 3.400–402; 6.312–313), whom Josephus astutely surmised would eventually emerge as the emperor of Rome. He probably did make such a prediction, which saved his life. His subsequent account of the Jewish war, along with his revised interpretation of the Jewish oracle, contributed to the later Greco-Roman accounts. But some of these historians already had heard of an oracle, to the effect that a power would rise in the East (Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus 4.5: “There had spread all over the Orient an old and established belief …”; Nero 40.2; Tacitus,

328

Evans

Historiae 5.13.2; Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 64.8.1; cf. Lactantius, Institutiones Divinae 7.15.11). Balaam’s star oracle was not limited to Jewish Scripture and interpretation; it had a non-Jewish history of circulation and interpretation as well. Non-Jewish prophets, magi, and historians may well have known of a “Book of Balaam” that contained oracles and prophecies, including a prophecy of the rise of the East.77 The description of the star as “resembling a sword” was not a meaningless detail. The star resembling a sword was in fact a comet, a “long-haired star” (crinita stella), as the Romans called them (Pliny, Naturalis historia 2.22.89). These comets portended the death of rulers and change in kingship (Sib. Or. 3:334–336; Suetonius, Nero 36.1; Tacitus, Annales 14.22; Claudius Ptolemy, Centiloquy §100; Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 66.2). According to Nechepso and Petosiris, when the “Sword Comet” (Κομήτης Ξιφίας) is seen in the East (ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνατολὴν βλέπῃ) it means the death of kings by poison (frag. 9, lines 75–77; cf. Pliny, Naturalis historia 2.23.92). These astrological ideas were well known in the Middle East and throughout the Roman Empire. Those in the east, familiar with Hebrew parallelism, likely understood the clause, “a scepter shall rise out of Israel,” as a further description of the preceding clause, “a star shall come forth out of Jacob.” That is, the star expected to arise from Jacob would resemble a scepter, or sword. Josephus’ description of the celestial phenomenon as “a star, resembling a sword” (J.W. 6.289) seems to fit Num 24:17 understood this way, which would also cohere with astrologers’ speculations about the nature of the star or comet that resembled a sword. The earliest Christian writings knew of the star prophecy and sought to apply it to Jesus. Applied this way it comes as no surprise to find in one of the Gospels a story about magi who came to Israel seeking him born king of the Jews, for they “have seen his star in the east [ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ]” (Matt 2:2). The Matthean Jesus, speaking of the advent of the “Son of man,” may himself allude to the star oracle, when he says: “as the lightning comes from the east [ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν] and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son

77  Van Henten (“The World Leader from the Land of the Jews,” 380–81) concludes that the “ambiguous oracle” originated in Judea and that the diverse streams (he identifies three) related to this oracle probably derive from a common source. In large part, I agree with van Henten, but I think it would be more accurate to say that the oracle originated in the Near East, rather than in Judea, and that the Jewish form of it that we find in Num 24:17 is but one witness. The Balaam oracle, which has been reworked in Num 24, likely enjoyed a life of its own outside the Jewish sacred tradition.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

329

of man” (Matt 24:27). Coming “from the east” resonates with the oracle of the ruler expected to arise from the East.78 Later Christian writers, such as the Palestinian Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen explicitly link the Matthean infancy story to Balaam’s star prophecy. Justin Martyr also appeals to LXX Zech 6:12, whose prophecy of the coming of one called “East” linked the prophecy of Num 24:17 with the oracle of the rise of a ruler from the East. Of course, in my view the oracle of the rise of a ruler from the East and Balaam’s star prophecy of Num 24:17 ultimately are one and the same, even if in late antiquity they were viewed as separate prophecies that were given varying expressions in diverse settings. Bibliography Adler, William. “Palaea Historica (‘The Old Testament History’).” Pages 585–672 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Edited by Richard J. Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Ashmand, J. M. Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, or Quadripartite: Being Four Books of the Influence of the Stars. London: Davis & Dickson, 1822. Bauckham, Richard. “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist.” DSD 2 (1995): 202–16. Budd, Philip. Numbers. WBC 5. Dallas: Word, 1984. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. JSNTSup 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. SBT 2. London: SCM, 1967. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Collins, John J. “Sibylline Oracles.” Page 369 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepi­ grapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983.

78  Warren Carter reminds us that for Romans lightning symbolized the power of Jupiter, for which the saying of Jesus in Matt 24:27 may have implications. See Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading, JSNTSup 204 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 476: The “lightning” of the saying “is turned against Rome to signify the end of Rome’s … empire and the establishment of God’s empire.” For skepticism, see Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 918 n. 79.

330

Evans

Cook, Edward M. “The Balaam Text from Tell Deir ʿAllā.” Pages 236–43 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Edited by Richard J. Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Cross, Frank Moore. “Testimonia.” Pages 308–27 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Dindorf, Ludwig A., ed. Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum. Leipzig: Teubner, 1870. Drazin, Israel. Targumic Studies. PhD diss., St Mary’s University, 1980. Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Numbers. Hoboken: Ktav, 1998. Duhaime, Jean. “War Scroll.” Page 184 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Eastman, David L. “The Life and Conduct of the Holy Women Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca.” Pages 416–52 in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Edited by Tony Burke and Brent Landau. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Evans, Craig A. “Diarchic Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth.” Pages 558–67 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000. Evans, Craig A. “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important is He?” Pages 135–49 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. France, Richard T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Franken, Hendrikus J., and Jo Ann Hackett. “Deir ʿAlla, Tell.” ABD 2:126–30. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā. HSM 31. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Hannah, Darrell D. “The Star of the Magi and the Prophecy of Balaam in Earliest Christianity, with Special Attention to the Lost Books of Balaam.” Pages 433–62 in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy. Edited by Peter Barthel and George van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Harrington, Daniel J. “Pseudo-Philo,” in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2: 297–377. Hengel, Martin. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

331

Henten, Jan Willem van. “The World Leader from the Land of the Jews: Josephus, Jewish War 6.300–315; Tacitus, Histories 5.13; and Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5.” Pages 361–86 in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy. Edited by Peter Barthel and George van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Houtman, Alberdina, and Harry Sysling. “Balaam’s Fourth Oracle (Num 24:15–19): According to the Aramaic Targums.” In The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Edited by George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten. Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 11. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. Vol. 2. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jacobus, Helen R. “Balaam’s ‘Star Oracle’ (Num 24:15–19).” Pages 399–429 in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy. Edited by Peter Barthel and George van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2015. James, Montague Rhodes. Apocrypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, Texts and Studies 2/3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893. Jonge, Marinus de. “The Interpretation of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in Recent Years.” Pages 183–92 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Jonge, Marinus de. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193–246 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Kee, Howard Clark. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Kellerman, James A. (trans.), and Thomas C. Oden (ed.). Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus imperfectum). Vol. 1. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010. Lanchester, Henry C. O. “The Sibylline Books.” In vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by Robert Henry Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Landau, Brent. Revelation of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Landau, Brent. “The Revelation of the Magi.” Pages 19–38 in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Edited by Tony Burke and Brent Landau. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Lemaire, André. “Fragments from the Book of Balaam Found at Deir Allā.” BAR 11.5 (1985): 26–39.

332

Evans

Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. MHUC 2. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974. Lipiński, Édouard. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 57. Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1994. Lübbe, John. “A Reinterpretation of 4QTestimonia.” RevQ 12 (1986): 187–97. Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Moore, Clifford H., and John Jackson. Tacitus III: Histories Books 4–5, Annals Books 1–3. LCL 249. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Der Ursprung der Bileamsage.” ZAW 48 (1930): 233–71. Newman, Hillel I. “Stars of the Messiah.” Pages 272–303 in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by Menahem Kister et al. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Nicklas, Tobias. “Balaam and the Star of the Magi.” Pages 233–46 in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Edited by George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten. Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 11. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Noth, Martin. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Novenson, Matthew V. “Why Does R. Akiba Acclaim Bar Kokhba as Messiah?” JSJ 40 (2009): 551–72. Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 1983; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Ramsey, John T. A Descriptive Catalogue of Greco-Roman Comets from 500 BC to AD 400, Syllecta Classica 17. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2006. Riess, Ernst. “Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica,” Philologus sup. 6 (1891– 93): 324–94. Rofé, Alexander. “The Book of Balaam” (Numbers 22:2–24:25). A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion. Jerusalem: Simor, 1979 [Hebrew]. Rolfe, John C. Suetonius Volume II. Loeb Classical Library 38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1997 (originally published in 1914). Schäfer, Peter. “Rabbi Aqiva and Bar Kokhba.” Pages 113–30 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism Volume II. Edited by William Scott Green. BJS 9. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Shochat, Azriel. “On the Ambiguous Oracle in the Words of Josephus.” Pages 163–65 in Sefer Yosef Shiloh. Edited by Michael Händel. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv Press, 1960 [Hebrew].

The Star of Balaam and the Prophecy of Josephus

333

Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Tervanotko, Hanna. “Reading God’s Will? Function and Status of Oracle Interpreters in Ancient Jewish and Greek Texts.” DSD 24 (2017): 424–46. Thackeray, Henry St. John. Josephus II: The Jewish War Books I–III. LCL 203. London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Thackeray, Henry St. J. Josephus III: The Jewish War Books IV–VII. LCL 210. London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928. Vasiliev, Athanasius. Anecdota Graeca-Byzantina. Moscow: Imperial University Press, 1893. Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. SBLSCS 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996. Woude, Adam S. van der. Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957.

Chapter 17

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature Ananda Geyser-Fouché 1 Introduction The female figures of Wisdom and Wickedness (Lady Wisdom or Lady Folly) are found in different Judaic wisdom corpora in different forms and with different attributes. The “Lady” (whether she is Lady Folly or Lady Wisdom) as a metaphor developed in a process of cultural stereotyping and has become a standard image in Judaism, but what is interesting is the way in which each socio-historical context in Judaism has reinvented the metaphor.1 Although almost every wisdom corpus has applied the metaphor, almost everyone redefined it and filled the metaphor with its own concept of what it represented. This study examines the Lady metaphor in Judaic wisdom corpora with specific emphasis on texts where this metaphor has been utilised as personified wisdom. In the same breath it is necessary to mention that the nature of Judaic texts makes it very difficult to distinguish between wisdom and personified wisdom. There are several reasons for this. Firstly because “wisdom” is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek and secondly because Judaic texts, especially second temple literature, incorporated spontaneously existing traditions and texts (whether these were written or oral) into their writings; furthermore their intertextual memory linked metaphors and texts without explicit references. Therefore it will be necessary to first detect which texts are actually utilising this metaphor as personified wisdom. Then these specific texts will be scrutinised in order to discern their similarities and dissimilarities. This study examines the similarities as well as dissimilarities between the “Lady” found in the Qumran wisdom corpus and other wisdom corpora in Judaism in an attempt to explain the necessity to change and/or refill the identity in each socio-historical context. In a previous study the attributes of the Lady in 4Q184 and 4Q185 were discussed.2 This study will also examine some of the smaller Qumran fragments that might apply this metaphor and compare it 1  Ananda B. Geyser-Fouché, “Cultural Stereotyping of the Lady in 4Q184 and 4Q185,” HTS Theological Studies, 72 (2016). 2  Ananda B. Geyser-Fouché, “Another Look at the Identity of the ‘Wicked Woman’ in 4Q184,” HTS Theological Studies, 72 (2016).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_019

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

335

with other possible texts from Proverbs (MT and LXX), Ben Sira, a minor reference to 1 En. 42 as well as those in the Wisdom of Solomon. The attributes of the female figures will be compared and linked to actions related to her being portrayed as a woman; actions indicating what she did; in some cases what the intended reader (or hearer) could have “done” to/with her; as well as the value (or cost in case of folly) that she could have to a person’s life. This study will focus on the lady metaphor, portrayed in a negative (Dame Folly/ counterwisdom/ the Foreign Woman) as well as in a positive (Lady Wisdom/ wisdom/ the ideal woman) way. 2

The Lady Metaphor as Personified Wisdom and Relevant Texts

The concept of personified wisdom in Judaic wisdom literature has elicited abundant studies and discussions.3 In order to distinguish which of the Judaic wisdom texts made use of the trope of personification, it is necessary to give a 3  See, inter alia, Gerlinde Baumann, Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1–9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); Gerlinde Baumann, “Personified Wisdom: Contexts, Meanings, Theology,” in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books, ed. N. Calduch-Benages and C. M. Maier (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 57–75.; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184,” RevQ 15 (1991): 133–43; Carole R. Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical Wisdom, JSOTSup 356 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); Matthew Goff, “The Personification of Wisdom and Folly as Women in Ancient Judaism,” in Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments, ed. Géza G. Xeravits (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 129–54; Tal Ilan, “Canonization and Gender in Qumran: 4Q179, 4Q184, 2Q218 and 11QPSALMSA,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture, ed. A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 513–45; Michael J. Lesley, “Exegetical Wiles: 4Q184 as Scriptural Interpretation,” in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, ed. G. J. Brooke et al., STDJ 103 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 107–42; Christl M. Maier, Die « fremde Frau » in Proverbien 1–9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); Christl M. Maier, “Conflicting Attractions: Parental Wisdom and the ‘Strange Woman’ in Proverbs 1–9,” in Wisdom and Psalms. A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 2nd ed., ed. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 92–108; Christl M. Maier, “Proverbs: How Feminine Wisdom Comes into Being,” in A Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, ed. L. Schottroff and M. Wacker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 255–71; Christl M. Maier, “Good and Evil Woman in Proverbs and Job: The Emergence of Cultural Stereotypes,” in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books, ed. N. Calduch-Benages and C. M. Maier (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 76–92; Jacobus A. Naudé, “The Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184), the Netherworld and the Body,” JSem 15 (2006): 372–84; Carol A. Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” in Gender and Difference, ed. P. L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 142–60; Nancy N. H. Tan, The ‘Foreignness’ of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1–9: A study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif, BZAW 381 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008); Sidnie White Crawford, “Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly at Qumran,” DSD 5 (1998): 355–66.

336

Geyser-Fouché

brief explanation of what is considered to be personification. Personification has been defined and studied extensively in cultural and literary studies.4 In general personification is seen as “the rhetorical figure by which something not human is given a human identity or ‘face’”.5 In light of all the associated literary theories and terminology it is unfortunately not possible to settle for such a brief description of personification. Personification can only be defined accurately once terms, figures and/or tropes such as metaphor, allegory, anthropomorphism, prosopopoeia and hypostasis6 are clarified in comparison with personification. The discussion on what is considered to be a “figure”, and a “trope” as well as the qualifications thereof, will not be discussed in this study. Dodson7 refers to Quintilian’s distinction as follow: Quintilian makes a distinction between tropes and figures; he includes personification in the latter. He admits, however, that such a distinction is very hard to make in light of their resemblance in meaning and of their identical purpose—Inst. III.9.1–3. Cf. Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, trans. Robert Czerny (London: Routledge, 1997), 59–60. Dodson refers to the confusion pertaining to tropes like personification, metaphor, allegory, anthropomorphism and prosopopoiia; he proposes that the overlaps in these concepts are responsible for the confusion.8 Overlaps take place because in most cases at least two or more tropes are applicable. In some instances a metaphor can involve personification, but this is not always the case; in the same way can an allegory be a comprehensive metaphor. These 4  See, inter alia, Morton W. Bloomfield, “A Grammatical Approach to Personification Allegory,” Modern Philology 60 (1963): 161–71; Christell Baskins and Lisa Rosenthal, Early Modern Visual Allegory: Embodying Meaning (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 1; Walter S. Melion and Bart Ramakers, eds., Personification: Embodying Meaning and Emotion, Intersections 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2016); James J. Paxson, The Poetics of Personification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 5  Melion and Ramakers, Personification, 1. 6  According to OED, s.vv. “allegory,” “anthropomorphism,” “prosopopoeia,” “hypostasis,” these terms can be defined as follows: allegory is “ a story, poem or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning”; anthropomorphism is “the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object”; prosopopoeia is “a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified or an imagined or absent person is represented as speaking”; hypostasis is “an underlying reality or substance”. 7  Joseph R. Dodson, The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 29 n. 18. 8  Dodson, 33–39.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

337

concepts are interlinked but their relationship differs from one occurrence to another. According the Oxford Dictionary a “metaphor” is “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable … a thing regarded as symbolic of something else.”9 Dodson says that a “[m]etaphor is a trope, and personification is a metaphor.”10 It is clear that personification can consist of a metaphor, but all metaphors are not personification. Prosopopoeia stems from the Greek word prosopopoiia. This term is used by certain scholars as a synonym for “personification,”11 but others define it only as the trope of “giving voice to another … a fictive person” and say that “personification is derived from prosopopoeia.”12 Personification is also associated with allegory. Melion and Ramakers remark that one cannot talk about personification without talking about allegory because texts and images that are deemed to be allegories often encompass personification: “[w]here personification is used, allegories come into being.”13 The one is concomitant with the other one. The intertwined and interdependent attributes of these tropes are striking. Melion and Ramakers refer to Quintilian who defined allegory “as a series of metaphors” and say that “studies of allegory almost always deal with metaphor.”14 Dodson gives an efficient summary of all the relevant tropes: In sum, personification is the attribution of human traits to any inanimate object, abstract concept or impersonal being. Although it can speak of one thing in a way that is suggestive of another, it should be distinguished from metaphor, since it actually becomes the character used with action verbs most often associated with humans. Moreover, although personifications can occur within allegories, they do not have to. When they do, one should distinguish between the former which make up the latter. Furthermore, we suggest that anthropomorphism should be reserved only for the representation of God with human form and emotions. Prosopopoiia—the giving of voice to another person or god— should not be seen as personification since both persons or gods are considered to have the ability to speak. However, the giving of voice to an inanimate object, abstract concept or impersonal being should be seen 9  O ED, s.v. “metaphor.” 10  Dodson, Powers, 28. 11  See, inter alia, Melion and Ramakers, Personification, 2. 12  See, inter alia, Dodson, Powers, 36. 13  Melion and Ramakers, Personification, 2. 14  Melion and Ramakers, 6.

338

Geyser-Fouché

as personification since they are not considered to have the capacity to speak. Finally, a hypostasis is a figure which stands between a personification and an autonomous being—not altogether one or the other but able to be both for the sake of the argument.15 Many scholars agree that personification is seen as the rhetorical term for a trope or communicative device that attributes human features or identity to any lifeless entity, neutral being or abstract notion. The scope of this study does not include the discussion on the possibility of “Lady Wisdom” to be seen in terms of being a hypostasis or an anthropomorphism of God or the feminine deity.16 That as well as the fact that some scholars disagree on the concept of prosopopoeia, will narrow the terms utilised in this study down to: “personification;” “metaphor;” and “allegory.” For the concern of this study and with specific reference to wisdom being personified, personification will be seen as the trope where human traits are given to an abstract concept (wisdom), to such an extent that it becomes a character that uses action verbs that are normally associated with human beings, including having a voice, hands, feet or any other human body parts. The imagined person also creates imagined reactions, meaning that other persons’ reactions to her can also be an indication of personified wisdom (for example if someone will hold her, love her, marry her). There are quite a number of texts from the Judaic wisdom corpora that give feminine attributes to wisdom, but not every text applies the Lady metaphor or the trope of personification as it is defined above. In some texts wisdom is more of an object that can be searched for (like a treasure) or studied and meditated on (like the Torah). Prov 2:1–15, 20–22; 3 and 4 as well as 4Q185; 4Q525;17 Job 28 and Bar 3:9–4:4 can be seen as such texts. 4Q185 has so many metaphors that are associated with wisdom, but no clear action indicating that wisdom has human attributes in this text. To possess her, find her, hold her and inherit her (4Q185 Frag 1–2, II, line 11–12, 14–15), might be linked to having her as a wife; also a word like ‫( ובחלקות‬line 14) that is utilised in 4Q184 pertaining to Lady Folly’s smooth seduction and flattery might indicate that 4Q185 is describing the opposite of 4Q184, but there is no clear evidence of personification in this fragmentary text. In 4Q525 wisdom 15  Dodson, Powers, 39–40. 16  This does not mean that it is not a possibility in some of the texts that will be discussed. 17  Although fragment 24 might be seen as a possibility where Lady Wisdom is speaking and referring to her house (cf. Matthew J. Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiental literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls VTSup 116 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 217, who says that wisdom has been given a voice in 4Q525) the fragmentary nature of this text makes it difficult to discern for sure.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

339

is portrayed as something that can be learned, pondered or be meditated on and can be linked with the association of wisdom and torah in the late Second Temple period. In these texts wisdom is abstract and doesn’t have any human characteristics. The same applies to Job 28, where wisdom is contrasted with metals and minerals that can be found at a certain place and Bar 3:9–4:4 where wisdom is incomprehensible.18 In Prov 1:20–33; 2:16–22; 3:16; 4:6, 8; 5; 6:24–35; 7:10–27; 8; and 9 there are clearly indications of Wisdom/Folly (counter-wisdom) being personified. Although vv. 7–12 of Prov 9 address the difficulties of wisdom, these verses do not contain any personification.19 Apparently Baumann20 does not agree with Yoder,21 who also regards Prov 31:10–31 as personified wisdom, and, although the woman is named ‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֭ ַ ‫ֵ ֽא ֶׁש‬ and not ‫ ָ ֭ח ְכמֹות‬as in the other texts, it is clear that this poem refers to the metaphors normally associated with Lady Wisdom.22 Proverbs 31:10 talks about the value of an ‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֭ ַ ‫ ֵ ֽא ֶׁש‬and asks the question who will be able to find such a woman. In the intertextual memory it links spontaneously with other references to the value and unobtainability of wisdom (Prov 2:4–6; 3:13–15; 8:11; 16:16; 20:15; Job 28; Eccl 7:23–24; 8:17), and through this connotation it is intertextually associated to the metaphor of a woman and/or wisdom personified as a woman. Proverbs 31:30 is the culminating point of this passage wherein the key virtue of this woman is mentioned—“fear of the Lord”—as it is earlier the beginning point of wisdom (1:7, 9:10) as well as the pinnacle (2:5; 3:7). In the other texts where the positive feminine metaphor is utilised, the abstract concept of wisdom is given human characteristics. In this text the woman is only mentioned as being a wife, in the same way as Madam Folly is mentioned as being the other or strange woman (Prov 2:16; 7:5; 5:3, 20; 6:24; 9:13), albeit with enough metaphors, to make the connection.

18  Cf. Baumann, “Personified,” 58, who confirms that in both Job 28 and Bar 3:9–4:4, wisdom is not portrayed as an entity with personal characteristics. 19  See James A. Loader, Proverbs 1–9, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 391–97. He refers to these verses as “An interlude on the Predicament of Education.” 20  Cf. Baumann, Personified, 63. 21  Christine R. Yoder, Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31, BZAW 304 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001). 22  Verse 10: ‫ ; ִמ ְּפנִ ִינ֣ים‬v. 26: ‫ׁשֹונּֽה‬ ָ ‫ל־ל‬ ְ ‫ת־ח ֶסד ַע‬ ֜ ֶ֗ ‫יה ָּפ ְת ָ ֣חה ְב ָח ְכ ָ ֑מה וְ ֽת ַֹור‬ ָ ‫ ; ִ ּ֭פ‬v. 30: ‫הוה‬ ֗ ָ ‫ת־י‬ ְ֜ ‫ יִ ְר ַא‬as well as the reference to ‫ שער‬in vv. 23 and 31. Although Eccl 7:25–28 can also be seen as a text where Folly (counter-wisdom) is personified, this study will only focus on the references in Proverbs.

340 3

Geyser-Fouché

Actions and/or Reactions Associated with Wisdom

3.1 MT Proverbs Proverbs 1:20–33; 2:16–22; 4:6, 8; 5; 6:24–35, 7:10–27; 8; 9 and 31:10–31 (although the last one differs in many ways from Prov 1–9)23 are the texts in which wisdom is personified in the sense that wisdom is portrayed as a woman that can speak and act.24 This personification has a positive as well as a negative side. The positive personification refers to Woman Wisdom while the negative one refers to folly and is portrayed as a wicked woman or an adulteress. In Prov 1:20, Woman Wisdom starts calling people to choose the “fear of the Lord” as is mentioned in Prov 1:29 and 2:5. Lady Wisdom has a voice, she calls out (1:20–21, 24; 8:1–4)25 and can answer (1:28); she gives a speech (1:20–33); she can laugh and mock (1:26); she has a body that can stand in public places (1:20–21; 8:2–3; 9:3); a hand that can stretch out (1:24; 3:16 she has a left and right hand); she is a wise teacher and instructor (1:22–23; 8:5–21, 32–36). She was the first thing to be created (8:22) (brought forward),26 before the world and it’s orders existed (8:23), older than the primordial waters and the created world (8:24–26), and present with the rest of the creation (8:27–29), playing around as God’s nurseling while He created,27 providing both God and human beings with joy (30–31). She can be sought and found (1:28; 8:35),28 loved and hated (1:29; 8:36). She evokes a loving reaction from her husband: she is to be loved (4:6), embraced (4:8), protected (4:13); she also has all the attributes that are associated with a woman/wife: she prepares her home (9:1), she offers food and drinks (9:2, 5). Wisdom has built a house with seven pillars (9:1), she prepared a feast and invites everyone who wants insight (9:2–6). She is not only personified as a wife, but also as a sister and family member (7:4) who can protect one from the adulteress (7:5). Proverbs 1 and 8 have many corresponding metaphors and both use the positive metaphor to personify wisdom. On the other hand we find Woman Wickedness. Proverbs 2:16–19; 5:1–17; 6:25–33; 7:5–27; and 9:13–18 reflect the negative feminine metaphor. She is portrayed as an adulteress (2:16; 5:3) who seduces with her words (2:16); she is bitter and dangerous (5:4); she leads to death and Sheol (2:18; 5:5); her ways are not the way of life and causes instability (5:6); she causes one to lose one’s 23  In this study the Masoretic Text will be referred to as “Proverbs” while the Septuagint text will be referred to as “LXX Proverbs.” 24  Cf. Baumann, Personified, 57. 25  Verbs used are inter alia: ‫( אמר‬say); ‫( קרא‬call); ‫( רנן‬cry out); ‫( קול נתן‬lift the voice). 26  Cf. Loader, Proverbs, 345–48. 27  See Loader, 356–360 for a discussion on the possible translations for ‫אמון‬. 28  Loader, 339 states that the motif of “seek and find” is a recognised erotic motif.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

341

life (5:9–10). She flirts and invites with her tongue and eyelids (6:24–25). The feminine character of Prov 7 is extremely sexualised and erotically portrayed. She is a prostitute (7:10); she lurks on the corners (7:11); she kisses him (7:12); she describes how she sought him (7:15) and how she prepared her bed for him (7:16–17); and she invites him to share and enjoy it with her (7:18). In Prov 9, the positive feminine metaphor is utilised to describe wisdom while the negative one is portraying foolishness. In 9:13, Lady Folly is described as someone that is bold, loud and without insight. She is inviting the foolish in the same way as Lady Wisdom is doing it (cf. 9:4 and 9:16). It is clear that the battle between Woman Wisdom and Woman Wickedness is depicted in this chapter. Proverbs 31:10–24 describes with practical examples the positive contribution that this woman makes in her husband’s life. This metaphor is utilised as a summarising closure for the book and emphasises the value that wisdom can have in a person’s life. The last verses (25–31) also describe her value, but add some characteristics that form part of her identity: she dresses herself with strength and dignity and does not need to be concerned about the future (31:25); she teaches wisdom with a kind tongue (31:26); she is not lazy (31:27); her sons and husband rise to honour her (31:28); she distinguishes herself from the other (31:29); she needs to be praised because she fears the Lord (31:30); she must receive the fruits of her work, which will give her recognition in the public meeting area (gates) (31:31). 3.2 LXX Proverbs Pertaining to LXX Proverbs it is necessary to keep in mind Fox’s statement that it is “primarily a translation, one aiming at a faithful representation of the Hebrew, and it is best understood in terms of that goal.”29 Wisdom is also personified in LXX Proverbs, but the translation is a free translation and slight differences in the texts create unique emphases.30 Cook refers to the occurrence of certain lexemes in LXX Proverbs;31 he states that Παρεδρεύω only features in Prov 1:21 and 8:3 and that it can be linked to the activity of Lady Wisdom. He also refers to the term for “free speech”—Παρρησία—occurring only in 29  Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A (New York: Yale University Press, 2000), 361. 30  Cf. Johann Cook, “Ideology and Translation Technique—Two Sides of the Same Coin?” in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, ed. R. Sollamo and S. Sipilä (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 195–210. 31  Johann Cook, “The Septuagint of Proverbs,” in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, ed. J. Cook and A. Van der Kooij, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 113.

342

Geyser-Fouché

Prov 1:20, 10:10 and 13:5 and confirms that in Prov 1:20 it is Lady Wisdom who exerted free speech. LXX Proverbs 1:22 elaborates and adds interpretation to the MT text. In the MT texts this verse is a rhetorical question asking: “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will the scoffers desire to scoff and fools hate knowledge.” In the Septuagint it is not a question, but a statement: “So long as the simple cleave to justice, they shall not be ashamed: but the foolish being lovers of haughtiness, having become ungodly have hated knowledge, and are become subject to reproofs.” In LXX Prov 1:28 the translator also adds a description (κακοὶ) of the ones that will seek her without finding her. The “own plans/devices” (‫יהם‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ )ּוֽ ִמּמ ֲֹע ֖צֹ ֵת‬in Prov 1:31 is also altered in the Septuagint and described as “own ungodliness” (τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀσεβείας). The personification of the strange woman in Prov 2:16 is already linked to and interpreted as bad or foreign counsel in LXX Proverbs. LXX Prov 2:19 adds to the idea of “paths of life” by stating: οὐδὲ μὴ καταλάβωσιν τρίβους εὐθείας οὐ γὰρ καταλαμβάνονται ὑπὸ ἐνιαυτῶν ζωῆς. Both Hengel32 and Cook33 did extensive studies on LXX Proverbs, especially pertaining to the metaphor of the “strange woman.”34 Hengel proposes that: [T]he foreign woman who appears frequently in Prov 1–9 (2.16ff.; ch. 5; 6.24ff.; ch. 7), and probably also the foolish woman, were already interpreted metaphorically in the Septuagint of Prov 2:16–18 (διδασκαλίαν νεότητος, v. 17) as referring to ‘foreign wisdom’, whereas Clement of Alexandria later interpreted Prov 5:3 as ‘Ελληνικὴ παιδεία and probably took over this conception from Alexandrian Jewish exegesis.35 Cook elaborates on Hengel’s idea of the “strange woman” being a symbol for foreign wisdom and proposes that this “foreign wisdom” might be the Hellenism of the day.36 Cook37 bases his argument on the fact that the woman in LXX seduces through her speech and not on a physical level.38 According to Cook

32  Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973). 33  Johann Cook, “‫( אׁשה זרה‬Prov 1–9 in the Septuagint) a metaphor for foreign wisdom?,” ZAW 106 (1994): 458–76. 34  References to the additions and interpretations will therefore not be repeated in this study. 35  Hengel, Judaism, 1:155–56. 36  Cook, “‫אׁשה זרה‬,” 462–76. 37  Cook, 464. 38  Cook, 464.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

343

this is an indication that the Lady metaphor in LXX Prov 2, 5, 6:20–35, 7 and 9 refers to the temptation of bad counsel and has no sexual intent.39 Only v. 16 of Prov 3 can be recognised as personification, because Wisdom has hands. LXX Proverbs has also this personification, but adds to this verse ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτῆς ἐκπορεύεται δικαιοσύνη νόμον δὲ καὶ ἔλεον ἐπὶ γλώσσης φορεῖ, giving her also a mouth and a tongue. The two verses in Prov 4 (6 and 8) that contain personified wisdom are semantically the same in LXX Proverbs. In LXX Prov 6:25, the flirting with eyes is emphasised by referring both to ὀφθαλμοῖς and βλεφάρων. In 6:29, MT Proverbs has it as the wife of one’s neighbour (‫ל־א ֶׁשת ֵר ֵ ֑עהּו‬ ֣ ֵ ‫) ֶא‬, while LXX expands it to a married woman/woman belonging to a man (πρὸς γυναῖκα ὕπανδρον). In Prov 8:1 of MT, Wisdom has a voice and calls out, and in LXX the subject is in the second person, addressing Wisdom directly as a person. In MT Prov 8:3, she sits at the city’s gates, while LXX Proverbs describes the gates as the gates of princes/rulers (δυναστῶν). LXX Prov 8:21 has an addition to the MT text (ἐὰν ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν γινόμενα μνημονεύσω τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀριθμῆσαι), which could be for the sake of creating a transition between the verses. The translator of LXX Proverbs also understood ‫ קנה‬as to “create” and uses the verb κτίζω to translate Prov 8:22. LXX Proverbs 8:26 altered the whole motif of the MT text by not translating ‫ עד־לא‬and changed the content of the verse that links to v. 25, which states the existence of Lady Wisdom before creation, by only saying what God created and not that she was there before He created it. Where Prov 8:27 says that she was present when He engraved a circle on the surface of the abyss/deep (‫ל־ּפ ֵנ֥י ְת ֽהֹום‬ ְ ‫ ) ְּב ֥חּוקֹו ֜ ֗חּוג ַע‬LXX Prov 8:27 uses another metaphor, namely she was there when He set his throne upon the winds (καὶ ὅτε ἀφώριζεν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θρόνον ἐπ᾽ ἀνέμων). LXX Proverbs does not have verse 29ab from the MT text according to which God has set limits to the sea and the waters, and in 29c, ‫חּוקֹו‬ ֗ ‫ ְּ֜ב‬is translated as καὶ ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει.40 Where Prov 8:30 refers to her being a child (nursling) playing and rejoicing next to God, she may be God’s spouse in the translation of LXX Proverbs. LXX Proverbs realised that the MT text needs a subject in 30b and translated it with ἐγὼ ἤμην ᾗ προσέχαιρεν. In LXX Prov 8:31 there is a slight change in the emphases. God rejoiced after the completion of the world; He is also the subject who rejoices in the human beings and not wisdom as in the MT text. The MT text is written from the first person perspective, while the LXX text is from the third person.

39  Cf. Cook, “Septuagint,” 118–34. 40  Loader, Proverbs, 356 states that it is a mistranslation where the middle “waw” was confused with the “zayin”.

344

Geyser-Fouché

Pertaining to the last verses (32–36) in Prov 8, LXX Proverbs has a completely different order (see Table 17.1). Verse 32b in MT becomes 34b in LXX and v. 33 does not exist in the LXX text. The Septuagint has different readings. Interesting is v. 35: where the MT text has “find” which can be linked to the personification of wisdom because of the erotic motif, LXX replaces the word with “exits/outgoings” which is less personified, but might relate to the metaphor of “gates”. Table 17.1 Prov 8:32–36 in LXX

MT

ESV

Brenton translation

LXX

Prov 8:32

Prov 8:32 “And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Prov 8:33 Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Prov 8:34: Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors.

Prov 8:32 Now then, my son, hear me;

Prov 8:32 νῦν οὖν υἱέ ἄκουέ μου.

Prov 8:33

Prov 8:33

‫וְ ַע ָ ּ֣תה ָ ֭בנִ ים ִׁש ְמעּו־‬ ‫ִ ֑לי ְ ֜ו ַא ְׁש ֵ ֗רי ְּד ָר ַ ֥כי‬ ‫מרּו׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫יִ ְׁש‬

Prov 8:33

‫מּוסר וַ ֲח ָ֗כמּו‬ ֥ ָ ‫ִׁש ְמ ֖עּו‬ ‫ל־ּת ְפ ָ ֽרעּו׃‬ ִ ‫וְ ַא‬

Prov 8:34

‫ַ ֥א ְ ֽׁש ֵרי ָא ָד ֮ם ׁש ֵ ֹ֪מ ַ ֫ ֽע ִ ֥לי‬ ‫ל־ּד ְלת ַֹתי‬ ֭ ַ ‫ִל ְׁש ֣קֹד ַע‬ ‫מר‬ ֹ ֗ ‫י֤ ֹום׀ י֑ ֹום ֜ ִל ְׁש‬ ‫ְמזּו ֹ֥זת ְּפ ָת ָ ֽחי׃‬

Prov 8:35

)‫מ ְצ ִאי (מ ְֹצ ֵאי‬ ֹ ֭ ‫ִ ּ֣כי‬ ‫[מ ָצ֣א] ַח ִּי֑ים וַ ָּי ֶ֥פק‬ ָ ‫הוה׃‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫ָ ֜ר ֗צֹון ֵמי‬

Prov 8:36

‫ְֽ ֭וח ְֹט ִאי ח ֵ ֹ֣מס נַ ְפ ׁ֑שֹו‬ ‫ל־מ ַׂשנְ ַ֗אי ָ ֣א ֲהבּו‬ ְ֜ ‫ָּכ‬ ‫ָ ֽמוֶ ת׃ פ‬

Prov 8:34 blessed is the man who shall hearken to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways; watching daily at my doors, waiting at the posts of my entrances. Prov 8:35 For who- Prov 8:35 For my ever finds me finds outgoings are the life and obtains favor outgoings of life, and in them is prepared from the LORD, favour from the Lord. Prov 8:36 But they Prov 8:36 but he who fails to find me that sin against me act wickedly against injures himself; all their own souls: and who hate me love they that hate me death.” love death.

Prov 8:34 μακάριος ἀνήρ ὃς εἰσακούσεταί μου καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὃς τὰς ἐμὰς ὁδοὺς φυλάξει ἀγρυπνῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐμαῖς θύραις καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τηρῶν σταθμοὺς ἐμῶν εἰσόδων. Prov 8:35 αἱ γὰρ ἔξοδοί μου ἔξοδοι ζωῆς καὶ ἑτοιμάζεται θέλησις παρὰ κυρίου. Prov 8:36 οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐμὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες ἀσεβοῦσιν τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς καὶ οἱ μισοῦντές με ἀγαπῶσιν θάνατον.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

345

The positive personification in LXX Prov 9:1–6 is in general semantically almost equal to the MT text. Although vv. 7–12 do not contain any personification, their placement as interlude between the contrasting personifications, might be important in the understanding of these two surrounding pericopes. One significant difference is in v. 9: where the MT text has no direct object, the LXX text has ἀφορμή (opportunity). The double appearance of ‫ חכם‬in the MT text makes it clear that whatever should be given, it must be given to one who is already wise, because it will increase his wisdom.41 The LXX added to the recurring theme of the “fear of the Lord” in v. 10 by bringing in the “law”: τὸ γὰρ γνῶναι νόμον διανοίας ἐστὶν ἀγαθῆς.42 This does not necessarily mean that the LXX associates wisdom with the Torah, as we find in later wisdom traditions like Sirach, but might be the translator’s way of highlighting the relevance of the Torah and emphasizing the fact that wisdom and Torah are not opposing each other.43 In Prov 9:11, the MT text is using the first person again, which can indicate that the text returns to the woman and that verses 6–10 might be her speech. LXX has it in the dative single masculine, which prevents it from being personified. LXX Prov 9:12 has extensive additions. These additions refer to the foolish man and the consequences of not being wise. The negative feminine metaphor in Prov 9 is portrayed the same in both MT and LXX texts, the only obvious difference is the large addition in v. 18 that describes the dangers associated with Dame Folly. Cook is of the opinion that Dame Folly in LXX Prov 9 is (similar to LXX Prov 2, 5, 6, 7) only a metaphor for foreign wisdom, which in this context is Hellenism.44 There is little deviation in LXX Prov 31:10–31 from the MT text. In v. 12 the LXX text is only referring to the “good” that she does to her husband, and ‫וְ לֹא־‬ ‫ ָ ֑רע‬is not translated. According to Prov 31:15, she gives the prescribed portion to her maidens, but in the LXX she gives “tasks” (ἔργα), also in v. 17 the LXX adds (εἰς ἔργον) that she strengthens her arms “for work.” LXX Prov 31:21 has changed the subject from “her” not being afraid, to “her husband” not being afraid and adds that it comes about when he is away from home. According to LXX Prov 31:22 she makes clothes not only for herself, but also for her husband; in v. 24 it is added that she sells to the Χαναναῖος. LXX Prov 31:26 adds the aspect of law (legitimately)45 to the way she has spoken (cf. LXX Prov 9:10).46 Verse 28 41  Cf. Loader, Proverbs, 394. 42  Cf. LXX Prov 31:26 43  Cf. Cook, “‫אׁשה זרה‬,” 473. 44  Cook, “‫אׁשה זרה‬,” 469–75. 45  στόμα αὐτῆς διήνοιξεν προσεχόντως καὶ ἐννόμως καὶ τάξιν ἐστείλατο τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐτῆς 46   L XX Proverbs has a different order with regards to vv. 24–27, but it is not relevant for this discussion.

346

Geyser-Fouché

has freely interpreted the text47 and also adds that her children grow rich (καὶ ἐπλούτησαν). In v. 30, there is also a slight difference in nuancing. The MT texts say that a woman who fears YHWH will be praised, while the LXX texts say that a wise woman is blessed and she must praise the fear of the Lord. LXX Prov 31:31 differs from the MT text; here her husband (ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς) is praised in the gates and not the woman herself. 3.3 4Q184 In 4Q184 the negative feminine metaphor is utilised. The woman in this text is described in terminology that expresses loathing and disgust.48 The text describes her as one who diligently and continuously seeks to teach (convert) people the words of her mouth.49 Actions mentioned with regard to this woman are: she produces futility; she desires to teach her perversions; she derides the community; she prepares traps (1–2); she is the beginning of injustice; she ruins everyone who inherits and embraces her (8–9); she lies awaiting in secret places (11); she veils and stations herself in the public places (12); her eyes flirt and invite (13); in wantonness she looks to find a just man that she can overtake, to let him stumble and turn from the path (14); she diverts everyone to turn from God and the path of justice (15–16); she deceives with smoothness (16). Almost every part of her body is involved in her onslaught: her heart prepares traps; her kidneys nets; her eyes are defiled with iniquity; her hands take hold of the pit; her feet go down to act wickedly and to walk in crimes (2–3); and she has wings of transgression. She employs her decorations and living space in this mission: her wings, cloths, veils, adornments, beds, lodging places, paths, gates. These places are all described as belonging to darkness, transgression and Sheol (5–11). The major contrast with the wicked lady in Proverbs, lies in the warning to those who may fall in her trap. The audience that she addresses in Proverbs (1:22; 8:4–5 and 9:4), consists of those who are foolish and naïve, while in 4Q184 it seems to be the membership of the Yaḥad (the righteous) that is warned against this woman. Various terms are used for emphasis: “a just man”; “a mighty man”; “the straight”; “the young righteous man” (14); “the ones that are

47  τὸ στόμα δὲ ἀνοίγει σοφῶς καὶ νομοθέσμως ἡ δὲ ἐλεημοσύνη αὐτῆς ἀνέστησεν τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς καὶ ἐπλούτησαν καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς ᾔνεσεν αὐτήν instead of ‫ּוה ַּ֜ב ְע ֗ ָלּה ַ �וֽיְ ַ ֽה ְל ָ ֽלּה׃‬ ָ ‫יה ַ �וֽיְ ַא ְּׁש ֑ר‬ ָ ֶ‫ָ ֣קמּו ָ ֭בנ‬ 48  See Geyser-Fouché, “Cultural Stereotyping,” 3–4, for a discernment of the text and a translation; and Geyser-Fouché, “Another Look” for a discussion on the content of this text. 49  Cf. Geyser-Fouché, “Another Look,” 6.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

347

steady of mind”; “those that walk straight” (15); “the humble/poor” (16);50 “humanity”; “sons of man” (17). In v. 17 the emphasis moves from the elected ones to humanity in general, indicating that she is not only a threat to the Yaḥad, but also to humanity at large. In a previous study it became clear that: … [T]he image of the woman in 4Q184 is in general more abstract and less physical than in Proverbs. She is not so lascivious and erotically pictured as in Proverbs; her “victims” are not young and foolish men, but straight and steady minded (community member) men. The text begins and ends with reference to “words” and “teachings”, which can be interpreted as something that must be taught and it can be a certain form of wisdom. The way that this “woman” is depicted, indicates that she can very easily be the personification of foreign wisdom or counter-wisdom. She is not depicted in the same erotic terms as the woman in Proverbs 7.51 In 4Q184 Woman Wickedness is depicted as very dangerous, erotic but less human, the reference to “wings” in line 4 can even link her to the celestial world. This metaphor could refer to a teaching and probably the “wrong” kind of wisdom, which could be Greek wisdom/philosophy but is more likely to be the halachic issues and calendar disputes that are addressed in 4QMMT, the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll.52 If this “wrong wisdom” can be linked to these disputes, it might be referring to a wrong interpretation of the cultic calendar and of the Jewish law. This can also be connected to the emphasis in this text on who is warned against her. 3.4 11QPs–11Q5/11QPsa col xviii and xxi In 11QPsa col xviii there are a few metaphors that may relate to personified wisdom. The unrighteous ones are said to be far from her gates and withdrawn from her entrances (lines 5–6). She has a voice that can be heard from the gates (line 12) and with which she can sing (line 13).

50  It is well-known that the members of Yaḥad were referred to as the “poor”; Cf. Benjamin G. Wright, “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiental Literature,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May 2001, ed. J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling and R. A. Clements, STDJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 101–23. 51   Geyser-Fouché, “Another Look,” 7. 52  Cf. John J. Collins, “Introduction,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 4.

348

Geyser-Fouché

In 11QPsa col xxi (lines 11–17) (cf. Sir 51:13ff) wisdom is not only personified, but also portrayed in erotic terms. She was sought (12); found (11); and desired (16); her nakedness was touched (17). She is also described as a nurse and a teacher (14). 3.5 Ben Sira53 Baumann mentions that: “Personified Wisdom appears in all parts of Sirach and therefore plays an important role for the entire writing.”54 According to Baumann large sections are allocated to Woman Wisdom in the beginning (Sir 1:1–27), but nowhere in this chapter is there any action or attribute where wisdom can be seen as a person. In chapter 4 (11–19) (in both the Hebrew and the Greek version)55 wisdom appears as personified: She can exalt her voice and teach; she has children (11); she can be sought (11, 12) and loved (12); she can walk with one (17); she can torment, discipline and bring fear to one (LXX Sir 1:17); she can return to someone and leads him (MS A 1v 6/Sir 4:17); and she has a secret (LXX Sir 1:17 and MS A 1 v 7). According to the Hebrew text of Sir 4:15 (MS A 1 v 4) Lady Wisdom herself speaks, saying: “The one who listens to me, will judge nations and the one who gives ear to me, will reside in the chambers of the temple.”56 2Q18 corresponds with Sir 6:14–15 and 20–31. Unfortunately, 2Q18 is very fragmentary and mostly reconstructed by relying on other Sirach texts. In Sir 6:14–31, wisdom is not personified, she is described in objective terms as something that can be obtained like a jewel, as well as a form of instruction associated with the Torah. In the last verses (25–31) there are references to “her counsel,” “hold unto her” as well as to the fact that she has “bonds”, “a prison,” “chains.” These terminology could refer to a person, but can also be a applicable to the Torah. In Sir 14:20–15:10, wisdom is described as a woman. She has ways and secrets (14:21–22); she also has a house with windows and doors (14:22–24); one finds comfort, shelter and warmth with her (14:26–27). The one that fears the Lord and knows the laws, will have access to her (15:1). She is depicted as a mother and a wife (15:2); she can offer food and water (15:3) and causes happiness (15:5–6). 53  Greek texts obtained from Bible Works 9 for LXX, Rahlfs’ version; Hebrew texts from Bible Works 9, Abegg’s version; as well as from Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup LXVIII (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 54  Baumann, “Personified,” 64. 55   L XX Sir 4:11–19; Manuscript A I verso (MS A 1 v 1–8). 56  Cf. Abegg; Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira, 25.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

349

In the middle of the book (Sir 24:3–22) Woman Wisdom gives an extended speech, praising herself in the midst of the people (1) and she opens her mouth and triumphs over the most High’s power in his congregation (2); she has a throne (4); she has walked in the bottom of the deep (5; cf. Job 38:16); her dwelling is in Jerusalem, in the temple (8–11); she is a mother (18); she can be obeyed (22); she can be known and found by men (28);57 she has thoughts and counsels (29). According to Baumann wisdom is also personified at the end of the book (Sir 51:13–26), but nowhere in the Greek text is there any indication of personification.58 Wisdom is described as something that can be desired and prayed for (13); be sought (15); be taught (16); be a gift (17); be found (20), be bought (25); she is an instruction and yoke (26). In these texts wisdom is described as a kind of object, which can be something like a jewel, but most probably she is associated with the Torah. References to instruction and something that one can learn from, confirm this. Wright refers to the fact that Ben Sira relates Torah and Wisdom with each other, but he (Ben Sira) also connects it with another key theme, and that is “fear of the Lord.”59 Sirach’s descriptions of wisdom borrow strongly from Proverbs:60 corresponding with Prov 8:22–31, she was created before everything else; and as in Job 28, she can be witnessed in the order of creation; she has gone where no other human being was before (Job 38). Still, God is prior and more than wisdom and only God is truly wise. Wisdom is his creation and He confers her on God-fearing persons. Ben Sira 1:10–20 connects her closely with “fear of God” and further on in v. 26 wisdom is connected with divine instruction (Heb., ‫ תורה‬Gk., νόμος), which is emphasised in Sir 24:23 where wisdom and Torah are linked.61 In Ben Sira, Woman Wisdom is an ambiguous figure. She is depicted as one with independence and authority, but partly subordinated to God because she is created by God, not equal to Him, but his representative on earth, like a priestly mediator. Her love lies in obeying the instructions and she acts only in Israel in the Jerusalem temple, which is, in Ben Sira’s view, not a limitation 57  Verses 23–26 are not personification and gives attributes normally associated with Lady Wisdom to God—he will confirm you, you will cleave unto him and he will give understanding. 58  Baumann, “Personified,” 64. 59  Benjamin G. Wright, “Torah and Sapiental Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira,” in The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 157. 60  In Sir 7:19 there is also an intertextual link to Prov 31:10. 61  Cf. Baumann, “Personified,” 64.

350

Geyser-Fouché

as for him Jerusalem is the centre of the world. Ben Sira attempts to draw on Hellenistic ideas, but is against a universalistic perspective; in his view the Lady is indisputably Israelite.62 3.6 Enoch 42 In 1 Enoch 42, there occurs a very brief reference to Wisdom personified. Wisdom couldn’t find any place to dwell and ended up taking her place among the angels (lines 1–2). The feminine figure in this text is almost a celestial creature. In line 3 “unrighteousness” went out and found those that she didn’t seek and dwelled with them. 3.7 Wisdom of Solomon In the Wisdom of Solomon (chs. 6 to 10), Wisdom is personified as a woman who can speak, act and feel, but most of all someone who can be loved and desired. She is portrayed as someone that is alternately loved by God and by the righteous. She is portrayed as one that can be seen by them that love and seek her (6:12); she makes herself known (6:13); she is sitting at the doors of the one who seek her (6:14); she seeks and meets (6:16); she can be honored (6:21); her beginning/nativity can be narrated (6:22). The first verses in chapter 7 (1–21) do not contain definite personification and might link better with descriptions of treasures, albeit if chapter 6–10 is read as a possible unit, with references like “love” (10) and “mother” (12) then the option of personification is not totally impossible in verses 7–14. In the last verses (7:22–30) there are certain elements that might link to personification, but the real woman of Proverbs and Ben Sira that could invite, call out, and prepare her house and food is not presented in the Wisdom of Solomon. The touchable woman that could be held, embraced and smelled is absent. She has certain characteristics: she is the worker of all things and teacher, with a holy, subtle, lively and understanding spirit (22). She is kind, steadfast, sure, powerful and pure (23–24); the breath of God’s power (25), strongly linked to light (26), more beautiful than the sun and stars, even night cannot prevail against her (29–30). Lady Wisdom is certainly present in chapter 8 in a love triangle between Sophia, God and the righteous. She orders everything (1); the righteous person loves her, seeks her and desires to make her his spouse; he was a lover of her beauty (2). She lives with God and He loves her (3). She is engaged in the mysteries of God’s knowledge and a lover of his works (4); she is the worker of everything and a cunning workman (5–6); her labors are virtues; she teaches 62  Cf. Baumann, “Personified,” 67–69.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

351

temperance, prudence, justice and fortitude (7); she knows things of old and can estimate what is to come; she foresees signs, events and seasons (8). The righteous wants to live with her because she is a counsellor of good things and a comfort in troubles and grief (9); she gives immortality (17) she can be a friend; the work of her hands is unfailing wealth, in the experience of her company there is understanding; one can talk to her; the righteous look for a way to take her for himself (18); she is unobtainable—a gift from God (21) which one can pray for from Him (8:21–9:4). Chapter 9 is a prayer to God, asking him to give the righteous wisdom, but it also elaborates on some features of wisdom. Men are ordained through wisdom (2); she is sitting by God’s throne (4, 10); she was present when the world was made; she knows what is acceptable for God (9); she knows and understands everything (11); she teaches what is pleasing unto God (18); she saves the righteous. Chapter 10 explains how wisdom has saved the forefathers. It is clear that Lady Wisdom mutated from being a real woman into being some kind of divine creature. Hayman says that the Wisdom of Solomon is regarded by most scholars to be “at the end of wisdom tradition at the point at which, under Greek influence, it begins to mutate into philosophy.”63 Hayman admits that it looks quite different from a book like Proverbs because of the choice of literary genres and the philosophical Greek vocabulary,64 but it also functions very strongly on the mythological level.65 Baumann mentions that the Wisdom of Solomon also strives, like Ben Sira, to synthesise Hellenistic and Israelite sentiments.66 4

Value of Wisdom or Price of Folly

All the actions described in Proverbs will have certain consequences. She will make one happy (3:18); she will guard one (4:6); she will bring honour to one (4:8); she will make one’s head attractive (4:9); she is one’s life (4:13). She gives insight and power (8:14–17); riches and honor, enduring wealth and righteousness (8:18); her produces are better than gold and silver (8:19); whoever finds her finds life and gains goodwill from the Lord (8:35); but the ones that do not find her and hate her will harm themselves and love death (8:36); accepting 63  A.P. Hayman, “The Survival of Mythology in the Wisdom of Solomon,” JSJ 30 (1999): 125. 64  Hayman, “The Survival of Mythology,” 126. 65  Hayman, 138. 66  Baumann, “Personified,” 70.

352

Geyser-Fouché

her generosity leads to life and insight (9:6; cf. 3:18). She is (like) a ‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֭ ַ ‫ ֵ ֽא ֶׁש‬for the wise man (Prov 31:10–31). Her husband will gain because she is trustworthy and guarantees profit and wealth with a good sense for business (31:11, 14, 16, 18, 24);67 she is always good to him (31:12); she sees that everything pertaining to being clothed is done (31:13, 19, 21–22); she provides food and provisions (31:14– 15); she is hard working and thrives (31:15, 17–18, 27, 31); she is fair and generous (31:15, 20); her caring nature causes her not to fear anything (31:21, 25, 27); her husband is a distinguished person (31:23) (maybe because of her). The LXX Proverbs has a few additions which also involve the value and consequences of wisdom personified. The expansion in LXX Prov 1:22 adds to the consequences to say that as long as one cleaves to justice, he will not be ashamed, but the foolish one who loves haughtiness, is ungodly and subject to being reprimanded. Some other additions (for example 1:28, 31; and 2:19) were used to add judgement and to distinguish the wise from the foolish. LXX Prov 3:16 adds that righteousness, mercy and law comes from her mouth. The tendency of LXX Proverbs to interpret the “strange woman” (Lady Folly) as a metaphor, has an effect on the emphasis. Although the LXX and MT texts are both clear that such a woman must be avoided, in the case of the LXX text the possibility of physical danger is not present. The additions in 9:12 and 9:18 directly relate the consequences. In 9:12, it says that the one who relies on falsehood, attempts to rule the wind and birds; he has forsaken his own things. This will lead to dryness and barrenness. In 9:18, the person is encouraged to hasten away from bad counsel, in order to prevent himself from going through strange waters and fountains. This will guarantee a longer life. In 11QPs the value of wisdom is not really described in connection with wisdom personified (Lady Wisdom). It is clear that she is seen as the instructor who is necessary to enhance knowledge and that the author’s major desire is to reach understanding and to know her completely. According to 4Q184 the price for falling for the seduction of this woman is very high. Those who go to her, will not return, but will go down to the pit and Sheol (10–11). She causes a just man to stumble, to turn from the righteous path and the commandments (14–16). She makes him ridiculous with wantonness and lets him change the ordinance (15); she lets him turn against God and makes him turn from the just (16); she brings presumptuousness in the hearts 67  See Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 341, where he explains that there is no opposition between moral and material aspects in traditional wisdom; and that wisdom’s reward is twofold, namely wealth and righteousness: “… once wisdom is attained, both wealth and honour will follow as automatic results.”

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

353

of the just, leading them away from the paths of straightness (16–17); she leads humanity in general astray with her smoothness, leading to the pit/Sheol (17). According to Sir 4:15, listening to Wisdom will put someone in a position to judge nations and such a person will also be welcome in the temple (4:15; MS A 1v:4). In Sir 14:20–15:10, her value is clearly described. The one who listens to her, is blessed and will have insight in secrets (14:20–21); she will feed him with understanding and wisdom (15:3); he will be exalted above his neighbours and be able to speak in the congregation, because of her (15:5). He will find joy and a crown of gladness and will inherit an everlasting name (15:6). The foolish on the other hand will not attain her and sinners will not see her (15:7); those who are full of pride and those who lie will not give praise, for in wisdom must praise be uttered (15:8–10). In the Wisdom of Solomon the value of Wisdom is strongly linked to love. In ch. 6 (17–19), the whole process is described: the beginning of Wisdom is a desire for discipline, the care for discipline is love, love is keeping the laws, keeping the laws leads to incorruption (linked to immortality), and that brings one near to God. God will love those that dwell with Wisdom (7:28). The man who pays heed to Wisdom will have respect among the multitude and honor with the elders regardless of his youth (8:11); she will bring him quick discernment in judgement and admiration in the sight of men; people will eagerly listen to him (8:12); she provides him with immortality and an everlasting memorial (8:13). Because of her he will be able to rule nations and tyrants will fear him (8:14–15). To live with her brings mirth and joy, no bitterness (8:16). Wisdom makes it possible for him to have dominion over the creation (9:2) and gives him the ability to ordain (9:3). A man is only regarded as something because of Wisdom (9:6); he knows what pleases God, because of her (9:10, 13, 17, 18); she preserves him (9:11); and assists in making his works acceptable in order to judge righteously. In Wisdom 10, Sophia is interwoven in the retelling of the Pentateuchal stories. She is the reason why the righteous forefathers had made the correct decisions. She preserved the righteous and gave them power, while the unrighteous are portrayed as forsaking her, which led to bad decisions. 5

Concluding Remarks

It is clear that wisdom texts all made use of the Lady metaphor, but all with different emphases. Certain texts applied this metaphor through the trope of personification. The actions that appear in these personifications differ, which make it quite clear that each author utilised this trope differently.

354

Geyser-Fouché

Although almost every wisdom corpus in Judaic literature applied the Lady metaphor, whether through personifications or not, it became clear that this metaphor went through processes of metamorphoses. These changes were endeavors of the sages to transform the conventional interpretation. Baskins and Rosenthal refer also to this tendency of authors to re-interpret traditions for their context: “the[re is an] inherent tension between fixed, conventionalized readings and the ever-present potential to shape meaning according to contingent, localized practices or events.”68 These re-interpretations and changes can be linked directly to a certain community’s context, which includes time, and the philosophy of that particular time and ideology. It is interesting how the image and its contents changed due to ideology, but also because of changed thinking. The development in philosophies of the time, and influences from the context defined what this metaphor represented. The first scene where Lady Wisdom appears (Prov 1:20–33) developed out of the prophetic literature, and has very real images of a woman.69 Influenced by Torah piety after the exile, the LXX, Ben Sira, as well as the Wisdom of Solomon added references to the law to their wisdom perspectives. Contributions from the Greek philosophy added to these perspectives in such a sense that in the Septuagint wisdom became linked to philosophy. In the Wisdom of Solomon she became even more philosophical, with almost nothing left of the images of a woman. Texts from apocalyptic backgrounds, like Qumran and Enoch, added to this metaphor with symbolic language that is representative of these texts—she became more esoteric with wings or was portrayed as one of the celestial beings. It is clear that each text utilised this metaphor to address its own context. Whenever the community faced a crises (whether it was halachic issues, Hellenism or opposing doctrines), Madame Folly was utilised to personify that crises; while the community’s own ideology/ wisdom/ halachic interpretation was linked to Wisdom personified as a good woman. In most of these texts the woman is not only personified Wisdom, but also wisdom and/or folly with unique content. Every context redefined its own perception of what the community considered to be wisdom and what they regarded as foolishness. The woman represented a certain contextual viewpoint, filled with contextual values and beliefs. 68  Baskins and Rosenthal, Visual Allegory, 6. 69  See Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 90 where he describes how Prov 1:20–33 contains motifs and expressions from prophetic literature, supporting the idea that she acts as a prophetess in this chapter.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

355

Bibliography Baskins, Christell and Lisa Rosenthal, eds. Early Modern Visual Allegory: Embodying Meaning. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Baumann, Gerlinde. Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1–9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Baumann, Gerlinde. “Personified Wisdom: Contexts, Meanings, Theology.” Pages 57–75 in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and C. M. Maier. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184.” RevQ 15 (1991): 133–43. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXVIII. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bloomfield, Morton W. “A Grammatical Approach to Personification Allegory.” Modern Philology 60 (1963): 161–71. Collins, John J. “Introduction.” Pages 1–8 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Cook, Johann. “‫( אׁשה זרה‬Proverbs 1–9 in the Septuagint): A Metaphor for Foreign Wisdom?” ZAW 106 (1994): 458–76. Cook, Johann. “Ideology and Translation Technique—Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Pages 195–210 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Edited by R. Sollamo and S. Sipilä. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Cook, Johann. “Chapter 4: The Septuagint of Proverbs.” Pages 95–147 in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 68. Edited by J. Cook and A. Van der Kooij. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Dijk, Teun A. van. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. United Kingdom: Sage, 1998. Fontaine, Carole R. Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical Wisdom. JSOTSup 356. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New York: Yale University Press, 2000. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18B. New York: Yale University Press, 2009. Geyser-Fouché, Ananda B. “Cultural Stereotyping of the Lady in 4Q184 and 4Q185.” HTS Theological Studies 72 (2016). Geyser-Fouché, Ananda B. “Another Look at the Identity of the ‘Wicked Woman’ in 4Q184.” HTS Theological Studies 72 (2016).

356

Geyser-Fouché

Goff, Matthew J. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goff, Matthew J. “The Personification of Wisdom and Folly as Women in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 129–54 in Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Hayman, A. P. “The Survival of Mythology in the Wisdom of Solomon.” JSJ 30 (1999): 125–39. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1973. Ilan, Tal. “Canonization and Gender in Qumran: 4Q179, 4Q184, 2Q218 and 11QPSALMSA.” Pages 513–45 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Edited by A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Kugler, Robert A. “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 90– 112 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Lesley, Michael J. “Exegetical Wiles: 4Q184 as Scriptural Interpretation.” Pages 107–42 in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki. STDJ 103. Edited by G. J. Brooke, D. K. Falk, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and M. M. Zahn. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lim, Timothy H. “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 57–73 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by J. J. Collins & R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Loader, James A. Proverbs 1–9. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Maier, Christl M. Die « fremde Frau » in Proverbien 1–9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Maier, Christl M. “Conflicting Attractions: Parental Wisdom and the ‘Strange Woman’ in Proverbs 1–9.” Pages 92–108 in Wisdom and Psalms. A Feminist Companion to the Bible. Second Series. Edited by A. Brenner and C. Fontaine. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Maier, Christl M. “Proverbs: How Feminine Wisdom Comes into Being.” Pages 255–71 in A Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by L. Schottroff and M. Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Maier, Christl M. “Good and Evil Woman in Proverbs and Job: The Emergence of Cultural Stereotypes.” Pages 76–92 in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and C. M. Maier. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Melion, Walter S., and Bart Ramakers, eds. Personification: Embodying Meaning and Emotion. Intersections, Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture 41. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Lady Metaphors in Judaic Wisdom Literature

357

Naudé, Jacobus A. “The Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184), the Netherworld and the Body.” JSem 15 (2006): 372–84. Newsom, Carol A. “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom.” Pages 142–60 in Gender and Difference. Edited by P. L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Paxson, James J. The Poetics of Personification. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Perdue, Leo G. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Schaper, Joachim. “ΝΟΜΟΣ and ΝΟΜΟI in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 293–306 in The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 163. Edited by B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Schuller, Eileen. “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 29–45 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson, eds. Oxford English Dictionary. 11th ed. New York: Oxford, 2004. Tan, Nancy N. H. The ‘Foreignness’ of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1–9: A Study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif. BZAW 381. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Teeter, D. Andrew. “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective.” Pages 233–72 in The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 163. Edited by B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text. 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Lady Folly and her House in Three Qumran Manuscripts: On the Relation between 4Q525 15, 5Q16, and 4Q184 1.” RevQ 23 (2008): 271–81. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman).” Pages 26–47 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by M. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “The Poetry of ‘The Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184).’” RevQ 100 (2012): 621–33. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “4QBeatitudes (with 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman).” Pages 57–69 in Early Jewish Literature: An Introduction and Reader. Edited by A. Wright, R. Herms and B. Embry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

358

Geyser-Fouché

Tooman, William A. “Wisdom and the Torah at Qumran: Evidence from the Sapiental Texts.” Pages 207–32 in The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 163. Edited by B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Vanderkam, James C. “Apocalyptic Tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 113–34 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Webster, Jane S. “Sophia: Engendering Wisdom in Proverbs, Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon.” JSOT 78 (1998): 63–79. White Crawford, Sidnie. “Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly at Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 355–66. Wright, Benjamin G. “Wisdom and Women at Qumran.” DSD 11 (2004): 240–61. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature.” Pages 101–23 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May 2001. STDJ 51. Edited by J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling, and R. A. Clements. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wright, Benjamin G. “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 157–86 in The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 163. Edited by B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Wright, Benjamin G. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 89–112 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by B. G. Wright and L. M. Wills. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Yoder, Christine R. Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31. BZAW 304. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001.

Index of Modern Authors Abegg Jr., Martin G. XIII, 1, 2, 3, 126n1, 127n4, 132, 175, 176n8, 177 nn. 10–11, 178 nn. 16–17, 180n20, 181n21, 202, 204, 214n12, 222, 310n35, 333, 348 nn. 53 and 56 Abel, F.-M. 145n27, 150 Ackroyd, Peter R. 8n3, 20 Adler, William 318n51, 329 Aharoni, Israel 67n44, 70 Albright, William F. 8, 253n16, 265 Alcalay, Reuben 284n24, 293 Alexander, Philip S. 93n16, 105, 259n38 Amihay, Aryeh 99–100n29, 105 Ariel, Hanan 127, 130 Armstrong, Ryan M. 159n15, 162n28, 170 Ashley, Timothy R. 67n44, 70 Ashmand, J. M. 306n25, 329 Attridge, Harold 234n18, 247–248n2, 260n40, 267 Baasten, Martin F. J. 276n12, 293 Baek, Kyung S. 1n1, 204, 210n1, 223 Baillet, Maurice 76, 88, 247–248n2, 253n19, 265, 266 Baltzer, Klaus 156n7, 171 Barrera, Julio T. 76n6, 88, 124 Barthel, Peter 300n7, 313n42, 330 Barthélemy, Dominique 76, 88 Baskins, Christell 336n4, 354, 355 Bauckham, Richard J. 299n5, 302n15, 318n51, 329, 330 Baumann, Gerlinde 335n3, 339, 340n24, 348, 349, 351, 355 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 335n3, 355 Baumgartner, Wilhelm 125 Beekman, John C. 276n12, 296 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 348 nn. 53 and 56 Bender, Claudia 61 nn. 12–13, 70 Berg, Shane 32n30, 49 Bernstein, Moshe J. 18n33, 19 nn. 34–36, 20, 25n5, 36n60, 49, 261n43, 263n48, 264n52, 265 Berrin, Shani L. 18n33, 19 nn. 34–36, 20, 32 nn. 33 and 35, 49

Bledsoe, Amanda Davis 212n10, 222 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 136n3, 151 Bloomfield, Morton W. 336n4, 355 Bondi, J. H. 67n45, 70 Bowden, John 30n23 Bowley, James E. 175n1 Brady, Monica 130 nn. 14–15, 132 Brenner, A. 335n3, 356 Briggs, Charles A. 144n26, 151 Brooke, George J. 26n12, 33 nn. 38–39, 34n52, 39n76, 50, 51, 59n10, 63n29, 70, 73, 76n6, 88, 109, 110n10, 124, 126n1, 132, 185n24, 211, 222, 226n3, 235n19, 238, 239, 240, 249–250n6, 265, 268, 335n3, 356 Broshi, Magen 258n36, 265 Brownlee, William H. 35 nn. 54 and 57, 37n67, 39–40, 43 nn. 107 and 111, 44n113, 45n121, 47n127, 50, 79, 88, 205, 206 nn. 4, 6, and 10, 208 Bruns, Gerald 137n6, 151 Budd, Philip J. 66n40, 70, 302 nn. 10–11, 329 Burke, Tony 318n49, 330, 331 Burkett, Delbert 120n74, 124 Burrows, Millar 35n54, 38, 50, 125 Calduch-Benages, N. 335n3, 355, 356 Campbell, Jonathan G. 59n10, 70 Cancik, Hubert 93n16, 107 Carter, Warren 329 Carmignac, Jean 32n36, 50 Charles, R. H. 141n16, 151, 305n22, 331 Charlesworth James H. 29 nn. 16 and 18–19, 30 nn. 20–1, 31 nn. 28–29, 32n31, 33 nn. 43–45, 50, 56n1, 57n3, 58n5, 59n9, 71, 72, 73, 94n21, 105, 205n3, 209, 252n13, 265, 266, 305n22, 309n33, 310–311n36, 312n39, 314n44, 329, 330, 331 Childs, Brevard S. 301 nn. 8–9, 329 Cioată, Maria 213n11, 223 Clements, R. A. 347n50 Clifford, Richard J. 154n6, 170 Coetzee, Jana 3, 108

360 Collins, John J. 1, 2, 31n27, 33n41, 50, 52, 57n3, 58n7, 71, 72, 138n8, 139n10, 140n14, 151, 211n2, 214–215, 216n20, 218n24, 221n26, 222, 223, 226n3, 239, 247–248n2, 251n11, 266, 305 nn. 22–23, 306n25, 309n34, 323 nn. 63–64, 329, 330, 347 nn. 50 and 52, 355, 356 Cook, Edward M. 175n1, 302n15, 303n16, 310n35, 330, 333 Cook, Johann XII, 26n7, 50, 341, 343n39, 345 nn. 43–44, 355 Cowan, J. Milton 66n43, 73 Cowley, Arthur Ernest 276n12, 293 Croft, William 284n25, 286n31, 293 Cross, Frank Moore 7n1, 8–9, 20, 21, 35n54, 57n4, 58n5, 67n44, 70, 73, 108–109n3, 130, 211, 222, 224, 226n5, 239, 255, 256n30, 259 nn. 37 and 39, 266, 309n33, 330 Crow, Loren D. 154n6, 170 Curtis, Edward Lewis 146n33, 151 Davidson, Robert 154n6, 170 Dalley, Stephen C. 42n100, 50, 70 deClaissé-Walford, Nancy 3, 153, 164n40, 170 Dalley, Stephanie 68–69 Danby, Herbert 154 nn. 4–5, 170 Dávid, Nóra 56n1, 58n6, 71, 74 Davila, James R. 226n5, 239, 302n15, 318n51, 329, 330 Davis, Kipp 126n1, 127n6, 131n16, 132, 213n11 Day, P. L. 335n3, 357 Deist, Ferdinand 26n9, 50 De Troyer, Kristin 56n1, 58n6, 71, 74 Di Lella, Alexander A. 216n20, 223 Dimant, Devorah 29n16, 54, 109, 110, 111 nn. 15–17, 112 nn. 25–26, 113–116, 121–122, 124, 126, 127, 130–131, 132, 142n17, 151, 251n8, 266 Dindorf, Ludwig A. 326n76, 330 Dietrich, Walter 45n118, 48, 51 Dijk, Teun A. van 355 Dodson, Joseph R. 336–338 Drazin, Israel 308n31, 330 Driesbach, Jason K. 227n6, 239 Dorival, Gilles 62n23, 65 Duhaime, Jean 204, 310n36, 330 Duhm, Bernard 48, 51 Duncan, Julie 254 nn. 21 and 23, 266

Index of Modern Authors Eastman, David L. 318 nn. 49–50, 330 Ego, Beate 40n87, 49 Ehrensvärd, Martin 53, 273n1 Eissfeldt, Otto 8n3, 20 Elgvin, Torleif 53, 185n24, 213n11, 222 Elledge, Casey D. 108 nn. 1–3, 109, 124, 170 Elliger, Karl 35n57, 38 nn. 69 and 75, 40–41, 45 nn. 117 and 120, 46n123, 47n126, 51, 75n2, 88 Elwolde, J. F. 204, 276n12, 285n29, 289n40, 293, 295 Erman, Adolf 67n47, 70 Eshel, Esther 237, 239 Eshel, Hanan 30n22, 51, 258n36, 265 Evans, Craig A. 2, 3, 39n76, 50, 57n3, 71, 212n8, 223, 309n34, 330 Ewald, Georg Heinrich 276n12, 293 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 62–63, 71 Falk, Daniel K. 1n1, 204, 210n1, 223, 251n11, 266, 356 Fassberg, S. 96n22, 106 Feldman, Ariel 212n11, 223, 235n19, 239 Fishbane, Michael 34n50, 51, 230n11, 241 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 224 Fleming, Daniel E. 69n60, 71 Flint, Peter W. XI–XIV, 1–3, 8n4, 20, 25, 26, 29n16, 49, 51, 55, 57n3, 58n7, 60, 63n32, 71, 73, 90, 91, 92, 102, 106, 131n17, 147n34, 151, 153, 157, 158n11, 159, 160, 161n27, 162n28, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 175, 204, 210, 211n5, 212, 214n12, 219, 222, 223, 224, 240, 249–250n6, 255n28, 265, 266, 268 Flusser, David 31n25, 51 Fontaine, Carole R. 335n3, 355, 356 Fox, Michael V. 104–105, 106, 154n6, 341, 355 Fraade, Steven D. 96, 106 Fraenkel, Detlef 62 nn. 20 and 23, 72 France, Richard T. 329n78, 330 Franken, Hendrikus J. 302n15, 313n42, 330 Freedman, David Noel 35n54 Frerichs, Ernest S. 31n27, 32n32, 53 Fuller, Russell 56n1, 71 García Martínez, Florentino 31 nn. 26 and 29, 32n30, 51, 79n29, 88, 95, 106, 110, 112–116, 124, 131n17, 164n36, 171 Gelderen, Elly van 274n4, 284n25, 295 Gelston, Anthony 41, 51, 205n3, 208

361

Index of Modern Authors Gesenius, Wilhelm 154n6, 170, 276n12, 293 Geyser, Albert XII Geyser-Fouché, Ananda XII, 3, 334, 346 nn. 48–49, 347n51, 355 Gillingham, Susan 90n1, 106, 107 Goff, Matthew 49, 335n3, 338n17, 356 Goldingay, John 143n20, 151, 216n20, 223 Goldstein, Binyamin Y. 26n12, 51, 238, 240 Goldstein, Jonathan 144, 151 Goodman, Martin 109n6, 125 Görg, Manfred 67, 71 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe 7, 13n17, 20, 76n7, 79n35, 81n44, 82 nn. 47–48, 83, 88, 164, 171, 232, 240 Goulder, Michael 156–157, 170 Grabbe, Lester L. 26n6, 30 nn. 23–24, 51 Grapow, Hermann 67n47, 70 Gray, George Buchanan 301, 330 Green, William S. 31n27, 32n32, 53, 320n57 Grossman, Maxine L. 104n41, 106, 112n23, 125, 357 Gryson, Roger 75n2, 89 Gutfeld, Oren 258n35, 266 Hackett, Jo Ann 302n15, 330 Hagedorn, Anselm C. 57n3, 71 Hahn, Oliver 201–202n42 Hallberg, Robert von 137n6, 151 Hamari, Arja 274n4, 294 Händel, Michael 299n5, 332 Hannah, Darrell D. 313n42, 330 Harlow, Daniel C. 32n30, 49 Harrington, Daniel J. 314n44, 330 Hartman, Louis F. 216n20, 223 Hartog, Pieter B. 30n22, 34 nn. 46 and 53, 36n61, 37n62, 52 Haspelmath, Martin 283n23, 293 Hayes, Christine 96n24, 106 Hayes, E.R. 111n18, 125 Hayman, A. Peter 61n19, 71, 351, 356 Hecke, Pierre van 29n16, 53, 289n38, 294 Hempel, Charlotte 93n16, 106, 213n11, 223 Hendel, Ronald 14, 21, 58n7, 59n9, 71, 72, 90n2, 106 Hengel, Martin 299n5, 330, 342, 356 Henten, Jan Willem van 300n7, 328n77, 330 Henze, Matthias 25n2, 26n11, 33n38, 52, 108, 109n6, 124, 125

Herbert, Edward D. 25n4, 36n58, 52, 57n3, 71, 79, 88 Hogan, Karina Martin 49 Høgenhaven, Jesper 268 Holmstedt, Robert D. 278n14, 293 Horgan, Maurya P. 29 nn. 16 and 18, 33n37, 37n65, 52, 145n28, 151, 205n3, 209 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 143n20, 151, 156n7, 157n9, 171 Houtman, Alberdine 308n31, 331 Hugo, Philippe 230n12, 240 Hurvitz, Avi 178n18, 290n42, 293 Ilan, Tal 335n3, 356 Jackson, John 324 nn. 66–67, 332 Jacobson, Howard 314n44, 331 Jacobus, Helen R. 300n7, 331 Jagersma, Henk 30n23, 52 James, Montague Rhodes 318 nn. 49–50, 331 Japhet, Sara 146n31, 147 nn. 35–36, 148 nn. 39–40, 149n42, 150n44, 151 Jastrow, Marcus 61n18, 72 Jokiranta, Jutta 32n30, 52 Jonge, Marinus de 312, 313n41, 331 Jongeling, K. 286n30, 295 Joüon, P. 293 Kahneman, Daniel 178n19 Kaiser, Walter C. 30n23, 52 Kaminsky, Joel S. 49 Kampen, John 145n29, 151 Kappler, Werner 143n33, 151 Karrer, Martin 61n11, 72 Kautzsch, Emil 276n12, 293 Kee, Howard Clark 312, 331 Kellerman, James A. 316n45, 331 Kennedy, James 276n12, 293 Khan, Geoffrey 285n27 Kim, Joong-Hoon 28n15, 39n76, 44n116, 47n128, 52 Kister, Menahem 300n7, 332 Klein, Anja 111, 125 Klein, Jared S. 273n3, 293 Knibb, Michael A. 30 nn. 20 and 22, 52 Knoppers, Gary N. 146n33, 147 nn. 35–36, 148 nn. 37, 38, and 40, 151 Koehler, Ludwig 125

362 Kooij, Arie van der 25n3, 26n10, 52, 341n31, 355 Kooten, George H. van 300n7, 308n31, 313n42, 330, 331 Kotzé, Gideon 2 Kratz, Reinhard G. 29n16, 54 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 144–145n26, 146n33, 151 Kraus, Wolfgang 61n11, 72 Kroeze, Jan H. 276n12, 295 Kugler, Robert A. 33n41, 52, 57n3, 71, 309n34, 330, 355, 356 Kutscher, Eduard Y. 204, 229, 240 Lanchester, Henry C. O. 305n22, 331 Landau, Brent 317n46, 318 nn. 48–49, 330, 331 Lange, Armin 9n9, 18n30, 21, 56n1, 57n3, 58 nn. 6–7, 62 nn. 23–24, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 nn. 5 and 8, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86 nn. 57–58, 88, 89, 249–250n6, 252 nn. 14–15, 253n18, 266 Langlois, Michael 213n11, 222 Lecarme, Jacqueline 276n12, 295 Lemaire, André 302, 331 Lesley, Michael J. 335n3, 356 Lester, Mark 105 Levey, Samson H. 308n31, 331 Levine, Baruch 67n44, 72 Lewis, Jack P. 14–15, 21 Lichtenberger, H. 93n16, 107 Lieberman, Saul 231n13, 240 Lilly, Ingrid E. 86–87, 88, 117–118, 125 Lim, Timothy 3, 32n nn. 33–34, 33n41, 36n58, 38n72, 39 nn. 78 and 82, 52, 53, 54, 58n7, 72, 135n1, 151, 205, 209, 211n2, 222, 223, 251n11, 266, 356 Lindars, Barnabas 63n29, 73 Lipiński, Edward 302–303n15, 304n18, 332 Llewelyn, Stephen 30n22, 53 Loader, James A. 27n13, 34 nn. 47–49, 53, 339n19, 340 nn. 26–28, 343n40, 345n41, 352n67, 354n69, 356 Lowenstamm, Jean 276n12, 295 Lohse, Eduard 205n3, 209 Lübbe, John 309n33, 332 Lust, Johan 77, 78, 85n56, 86n58, 87, 88, 118, 122, 125 Lyons, William John 59n10, 70

Index of Modern Authors Mackie, Timothy P. 113, 125 Madsen, Albert Alonzo 146n33, 151 Magness, Jodi 257n33, 266 Maier, Christl M. 335n3, 355, 356 Makiello, Phoebe 216n19, 223 Maloney, Linda M. 156n7, 171 Martin, Malachi 206n8, 209 Masic, Adimir 201–202n42 Mason, Steve 299n5, 326n73, 332 Mastnjak, Nathan 68–69, 72 McClay, R. Timothy 214n12, 223 McDonald, Lee M. 14–15, 21, 22, 135n1, 151, 247n1, 267 Melion, Walter S. 336 nn. 4–5, 337, 356 Merwe, Christo H. J. van der 276n12, 295 Metso, Sarianna 93 nn. 16–17, 101n33, 106, 201n39, 204, 224 Meyers, Carol L. 136n4, 137n5, 139n10, 140n13, 151 Meyers, Eric M. 136n4, 137n5, 139n10, 140n13, 151 Milik, Józef T. 76 nn. 4 and 6, 88, 126n1, 247–248n2, 253n19, 265, 266 Millar, Fergus 109n6 Millard, Matthias 169n57, 171 Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. 3, 273, 274 nn. 4 and 6, 275 nn. 7–9, 276n10, 277n13, 279n15, 285n26, 289n38, 293–294, 295 Moore, Carey A. 208n13, 209 Moore, Clifford H. 324, 332 Montaner, Luis V. 76n6, 88, 109n8, 124, 249–250n6, 265 Montgomery, James A. 138 nn. 7–8, 151 Mowinckel, Sigmund 302, 332 Mroczek, Eva 92n14, 103, 104n40, 106 Mulder, Martin J. 75n2, 88, 142, 151 Munnich, Olivier 214n12, 224 Muraoka, Takamitsu 204, 276n12, 285n29, 293, 295 Murphy, Catherine M. 43n108, 53, 224 Murre-Van den Berg, H. L. 286n30, 295 Najman, Hindy 204 Nati, James 2–3, 90, 94n20 Naudé, Jacobus A. 3, 273, 274 nn. 4 and 6, 275 nn. 7–9, 276 nn. 10 and 12, 277n13, 278n14, 279n15, 283n22, 285 nn. 26–27, 289 nn. 38 and 40, 293–294, 335n3, 357 Naveh, Joseph 259n38

363

Index of Modern Authors Neusner, Jacob 31n27, 32n32, 53 Newman, Hillel I. 300n7, 322n60, 332 Newsom, Carol A. 32n30, 53, 94n21, 96n23, 106, 211n4, 216n20, 223, 335n3, 357 Ng, Stephany 53 Niccum, Curt 224 Nicklas, Tobias 112n21, 125, 313n42, 332 Nitzan, Bilha 205n3, 209 Noonan, Benjamin J. 67, 68, 72 Noort, Ed 232n17 Noth, Martin 301–302 Novakovic, Lidija 40, 53 Novenson, Matthew V. 320n56, 332 O’Connor, Michael 276n12, 295 Oden, Thomas C. 316n45, 331 Oesch, Josef M. 36n61, 53 Offerhaus, Ulrich 63n25, 71 Oosthuizen, Johan 283n21, 295 Orlinsky, Harry M. 8n5, 21 Panayotov, Alexander 302n15, 318n51, 329, 330 Parry, Donald W. 226n3, 241 Parsons, Peter J. 62n21, 72 Patmore, Hector M. 77 nn. 12 and 16, 78, 87, 88 Paxson, James J. 336n4, 357 Payne Smith, Jessie 61n17, 72 Pérez-Ferdnández, Miguel 289n40, 295 Perlitt, Lothar 42–43, 44n114, 45n120, 53 Perrin, Andrew B. 1n1, 3, 12n14, 22, 175n3, 204, 210, 213n11, 223 Petersen, Anders Klostergaard 30n22, 53, 109n7, 125 Petersen, David L. 137n5, 151 Petersen, Nicholas 63, 64, 72 Petitjean, Albert 137n5, 151 van Peursen, Wido 285n29, 295 Pfann, Stephen J. 130n13, 132, 259n38 Pietersen, Lloyd Ketih 59n10, 63n32, 70 Pietersma, Albert 63n32, 71, 214n12, 223 Ploeg, J.P. van der 8 Popovic, Mladen 234–235n18, 240, 257n34, 260n42, 266, 267 Potgieter-Annandale, Joan 43n109, 44n112, 53 Price, Randall 258n35, 266

Prinsloo, Gert T. M. 2, 28n14, 42n102, 53 Puech, Émile 212–213n11, 223 Qimron, Elisha 16n26, 17n29, 21, 126, 127, 132, 204, 206, 231n13, 240, 290n42, 291n44, 295 Quast, Udo 62n23, 72 Rabin, Chaim 206n9, 209 Rabin, Ira 201n42 Radford, Andrew 283n21, 295 Rahlfs, Alfred 62n20, 72, 348n53 Rajak, Tessa 326, 332 Ramakers, Bart 336 nn. 4–5, 337, 356 Ramsey, John T. 305n21, 332 Rappaport, Uriel 144n26, 151 Rechenmacher, Hans 274n6, 295 Rendsburg, Gary A. 29n16, 53, 285n27, 289n40, 294 Rendtorff, Rolf 57n3, 71 Rezetko, Robert 273n1, 295 Ricks, Stephen D. 226n3, 241 Ricoeur, Paul 336 Riess, Ernst 307n29, 332 Roberts, J. J. M. 160 Rofé, Alexander 230, 240, 302 nn. 11 and 15, 304n20, 332 Roitman, A. D. 335n3, 356 Rolfe, John C. 322n61, 332 Rompay, L. van 286n30, 295 Rooy, Herrie van 2, 75 Rösel, Martin 61n11, 62n23, 65, 66n41, 72 Rosenthal, Lisa 336n4, 354 Rudolph, Wilhelm 41n95, 44n115, 46n122, 51, 54, 75n2, 88 Ruiten, Jacques van 308n31, 313n42, 331 Sanders, E. P. 31n24, 54 Sanders, James A. 14n21, 15n24, 21, 22, 35n54, 56n1, 72, 135n1, 151, 157, 158 nn. 11–12, 161 nn. 25–26, 165, 166, 171, 247n1, 267 Sanderson, Judith E. 12n15, 21, 62 nn. 20–21, 64n33, 72, 73, 77, 78, 88 Schäfer, Peter 93n16, 107, 320n57, 332 Schenker, Adrian 118n72, 125, 230n12, 240 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 9n9, 18n33, 20, 21, 260n41, 267, 309n34, 330, 335n3, 356

364

Index of Modern Authors

Schipper, Bernd U. 161n26, 171, 349n59 Schlund, Christine 61n11, 62n23, 66n41 Schnabel, Eckhard J. 98n28, 106 Schocat, Azriel 299n5, 332 Schofield, Alison 93n16, 106 Schöpflin, Karin 111–112, 125 Schottroff, L. 335n3, 356 Schuller, Eileen 204, 357 Schürer, Emil 109n6 Segal, Michael 9n9, 21, 26n12, 51, 109n6, 125, 215n14, 216, 223, 238, 240, 260 nn. 41–42, 262n45, 263n47, 266, 267 Segert, Stanislav 35n57, 40, 54 Seybold, Klaus 45n120, 54 Shlonsky, Ur 276n12, 295 Silberman, Lou H. 33 nn. 40 and 42, 34n51, 54 Sinclair, Lawrence A. 77, 78, 88 Sipilä, S. 341n30, 355 Skehan, Patrick W. 9, 12 nn. 15–16, 21, 62, 64–65, 72, 73, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165n42, 171, 224, 253n17, 255n25, 257 Skinner, Andrew C. 226n3, 241 Soanes, Catherine 357 Sokoloff, Michael 61n16, 73 Sollamo, Raja 341n30, 355 Starcky, Jean 142n17, 145n27, 150 Stegemann, Hartmut 109n9, 247–248n2, 267 Steinkeller, Piotr 68–69, 73 Sterling, G.E. 347n50 Stern, Menahem 323, 324n69, 333 Steudel, Annette 29n16, 54, 248n3, 257n34, 267 Stevenson, Angus 357 Stinespring, William F. 39n76, 50 Stol, Marten 68n55, 73 Strugnell, John 16n26, 17n29, 21, 109, 126n1, 130–131, 132, 234n18 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 212n8, 223 Swiggers, P. 286n30, 295 Sysling, Harry 308n31, 331

Teeter, D. Andrew 91n7, 106, 161n26, 162, 163n34, 169–170, 171, 212, 223, 349n59 Tervanotko, Hanna 299, 333 Thackeray, Henry St. J. 66n42, 73, 297n1, 298 nn. 2–3, 299n4, 333 Tiemeyer, L.-S. 111n18, 125 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 29n16, 31 nn. 26 and 29, 32n30, 53, 54, 79n29, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 95, 106, 110, 112–116, 124, 126, 164n36, 201, 204, 289n38, 294, 356, 357 Tobin, Thomas 247–248n2 Tooman, William A. 86, 87, 89, 358 Tov, Emanuel 3, 9 nn. 8–9, 21, 25n3, 26 nn. 8 and 12, 27n13, 29n17, 35n55, 36 nn. 58 and 61, 37 nn. 62–64 and 66, 38 nn. 68, 70–1, 73, 39 nn. 77 and 79, 40, 41n98, 42, 48–49, 52, 54, 56n1, 57n3, 58 nn. 5 and 7, 62 nn. 22–23, 63, 71, 72, 73, 86 nn. 57–58, 88, 89, 112n22, 123–124, 125, 167, 171, 177–181, 183, 184n23, 187, 188n27, 194, 200n37, 201, 202n46, 203, 204, 215, 223, 224, 225, 232n17, 234n18, 238, 240, 247–248n2, 249, 251n9, 253 nn. 19–20, 254n22, 255, 256 nn. 29 and 31, 260, 262n46, 263n48, 264n51, 267, 268, 309n34, 330, 332 Trebolle Barrera, Julio 10n11, 21, 109n8, 224, 249–250n6, 265 Trever, John C. 8, 29n16, 35n54, 50, 55 Tsevat, Matityahu 230n11, 241 Tzoref, Shani 30n22, 53, 56n1, 58n6, 71, 74, 335n3, 356

Tague, Nancy R. 199n34, 204 Talmon, Shemaryahu 7n1, 21, 25n4, 32n32, 54, 57n4, 58n5, 73, 76n7, 79n35, 80–81, 82 nn. 46–48, 83, 84–85, 88, 89, 164, 171 Tan, Nancy N. H. 335n3, 357

VanderKam, James 1n5, 2, 3, 9n9 15n24, 17n30, 18n33, 20, 22, 25, 26n8, 29n16, 30n23, 55, 57n3, 58n7, 73, 135, 165n42, 171, 260n41, 267, 309n34, 330, 358 Vasiliev, Athanasius 318n51, 333

Ulrich, Eugene C. XII–XIII, 1, 2, 8n4, 9n9, 11n11, 12 nn. 14–15, 13n18, 15n23, 16n28, 21, 22, 58 nn. 5 and 7, 62 nn. 20–21, 63, 64, 72, 73, 77n9, 88, 91, 106, 175, 211n5, 212n11, 214, 215, 218n24, 222, 223, 226, 232, 239, 241, 247n1, 249n5, 253 nn. 17 and 20, 254 nn. 21 and 23, 255 nn. 24, 25, and 28, 260n42, 267, 268

365

Index of Modern Authors Vaux, Roland de 76n6, 88, 247–248n2, 265, 266 Vermes, Geza 90–91, 93 nn. 16 and 19, 106–107, 109n6, 125, 206n10 Veselinova, Ljuba 274n4, 284n25, 294, 295  Wacker, M. 335n3, 356 Wacholder, Ben Zion 109n7, 126n1, 127n4, 132 Waltke, Bruce K. 276n12, 295 Wassen, Cecilia 53 Wearne, Gareth 53 Weber, Robert 61n15, 73, 75n2, 89 Webster, Brian 256n31, 268, 358 Wehr, Hans 66n43, 73 Weigold, Matthias 18n30, 21, 249–250n6, 266 Weinberg, Gisela 201–202n42 Weinfeld, Moshe 251n10, 268 Weissenberg, Hanne von 53, 226n3, 239 Wellhausen, Julius 10 Wevers, John W. 61, 62n23, 63, 65, 72, 74, 308n30, 333  White Crawford, Sidnie 3, 9n8, 21, 58n6, 74, 234n18, 241, 247, 247–248n2, 255n24, 259n37, 260, 262n46, 263n48, 264n51, 266, 335n3, 358 Williams, Ronald J. 276n12, 282n17, 296 Williamson, H. G. M. 149n41, 151

Wilson, Daniel J. 3, 273, 274n4, 276n10, 294, 296 Wilson, Gerald 160, 162, 164, 166, 167, 171 Winninge, Mikael 53 Wise, Michael O. 29n18, 55, 310n35, 333 Wolff, Timo 201–202n42 Woude, Adam S van der 43, 47n126, 55, 79n29, 88, 311n38, 333 Wrathal, Alexandra 53 Wright, Benjamin G. 63n32, 71, 214n12, 223, 347n50, 349n59, 358 Würthwein, Ernst 35n57, 55 Xeravits, Géza G. 335n3, 356 Yadin, Azzan 30n25 Yardeni, Ada 259n38 Yarkin, William 163, 164n38, 167, 171 Yoder, Christine R. 339, 358 Young, Ian 30n22, 53, 273n1, 275n7, 295, 296 Yuditzky, Alexey 127, 130 Zahn, Molly M. 9n9, 22, 101, 107, 260n41, 261, 262n46, 264, 268, 356 Zenger, Erich 143n20, 151, 156, 157n9, 170 Zevit, Ziony 273n2, 294 Ziegler, Joseph 75n2, 89, 214n12, 224 Zsengellér, J. 109n7, 125

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 18 1–2 8 1:1–22 244–245 1:5 228 1:6 228 1:7 113 1:9 113, 228 1:11 113 1:14 228 1:15 113 1:24 113 1:26 228 1:30 113 2:5 281 4:2 291 6–9 8 8:22 228 9:11 286 15 8 17 8 19:31 281 25:24 291 30:1 282 32:31 302 33:17 302 34:14 45 40:1–23 34n50 40:8 34n50 40:16 34n50 40:22 34n50 41:1–57 34n50 41:8 34n50 41:12 34n50 41:13 34n50 41:15 34n50 41:35 208 41:49 208 42:3 208 42:25 208 43:4–5 282n18 43:5 282 45:23 208 49:10 301, 303 49:19 299n5

Exodus 12, 18 4:25 45 5:16 274 6:25–7:16 241–243 9:14 277 12–13 252 12:43 254 12:43–44 250 12:46–51 250 13:1–15 250 13:5 254 13:15–16 250 13:16 254 15:1 236, 250, 254 15:7 236 17:1 279 17:7 282, 287 20 236–237 20:11 236–237, 253 20:21 251, 253, 308 21:35–22:5 251, 261 22:23–25 261–262 23:7 17 25:5 60, 67 26:14 60 32 238 32:10 237 35:7 60, 67 35:23 60, 67 36:19 60 39:23 60 Leviticus 18 7:30–34 230 7:31 231 11:47–13:1 251, 263 15:14­–15 251, 263, 264 19:1–4 251, 263, 264 19:5–8 264 19:9–15 251, 263 19:23 45 20:13 263, 264 23:33–43 136 24:20–22 251, 261 24:22 262 25:28–43 251

367

Index of Ancient Sources 25:38–43 261 25:40 262 26 140–141, 143n19 26:1–2 140 26:3–13 140 26:18 140, 141n16 26:21 140 26:24 140 26:28 140 26:34 140 26:36 277 26:37 280 26:41 140 26:42 141 26:43 140 27:30–34 251, 263, 264 29:13 251 Numbers 18 3:40–43 62 3:50–51 62 4 60­–66, 69–70 4:1 62 4:5–6 60 4:5–9 62 4:6 60, 61 4:7 65 4:7–8 60, 63–64 4:8 60, 61, 65 4:9–10 60 4:10 60 4:11 60, 61 4:11–16 62 4:12 60, 61 4:13 65 4:13–14 60 4:14 60, 61, 66n41 4:25 60 4:25–26 61 6:1–21 230 6:24–26 204n20 9:21 228n7 10:9 17 10:10 148n39 13:20 286 22–24 302, 304, 327 24 327 24:3–4 304

24:3–9 304n19, 312 24:5–7 319 24:14 303 24:15–16 304 24:15–17 251, 254, 308 24:15–19 311–312 24:17 297, 299, 300–322, 324, 328, 329 24:17–18 319 24:18 301, 310 24:19 310 29:14–24 262 29:14–25 251, 261 29:32–30:1 234–235n18, 238, 251, 261 Deuteronomy 12, 18, 136n3, 137 4:5–6 162–163, 168 5 236, 252 5–6 252 5:1–6:1 250 5:1–6:3 250 5:14 236–237 5:15 253 5:16 237 5:25–26 254 5:28–29 308 5:28–32 250 6:1 252n12, 254 6:3 254 6:4–9 252n12 7 252 7:15 253 7:15–24 250 8 252 8:2 253 8:5 254 8:5–10 250, 154 8:5–9:2 250 8:19 253 9:2 253 9:20 237 11 252 11:6–10 250 11:6–13 250 11:12–13 250 11:21 250 14:13–17 251, 261

368 Deuteronomy (cont.) 14:14–21 262 16:13–14 234–235n18, 238, 251, 261 17:11 96 18:15–18 314 18:18–19 254, 308, 309 20:5 279 20:11 207 27:6–7 136n3 32 252 32:1–43 253 32:7–8 250 32:9–10 250 32:17–18 250 32:20–21 250 32:22–23 250 32:25–27 250 32:33 17 32:27–43 250 32:43 253 33:1 136n3 33:1–2 250 33:8–10 309 33:8–11 251, 254, 308 Joshua 7n2, 8 6:26 308 8:30–35 232 8:34–35 245–246 Judges 8 1:28 207–208 1:30 207 1:33 207 1:35 207 4:20 283 6:2–6 11 6:7–10 11 6:11–13 11 8:4–16 302 8:8 302 9:15 282n17 13:5 230 13:7 230 14:3 45 15:18 45 17:6 278 19:1 278

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Samuel 8, 18 1:11 230 1:22 229 2:1–10 236 2:14 230 2:16 230 6:7 207 10:14 282n20, 292n46 14:6 45 14:41 11 16:13 311n38 17:48–51 310 18:12 311n38 18:14 311n38 18:27 310 18:30 310 19:5 311n38 19:8 310 21:9 292 31:4 45 2 Samuel 8, 18 1:20 45 2:16 282n19 7 19 13:39 10 14:13 127 17:6 282n17 22 233 22:1 233 22:3 233 22:5 233 22:7 233 22:8 233 22:16 233 22:21 233 22:24 233 22:25 233 22:28 233 22:32 233 22:33 233 22:38 233 22:39 233 22:43 233 22:48 233 22:49 233 23 160, 168 23:1–7 92, 102 23:2 15n25

369

Index of Ancient Sources 23:7 158 24:16–17 230n12 1 Kings 8, 234 5:27 207 6:12 313 8 150 8:46 277 12:4 207 12:10 207 12:11 207 12:14 207 12:28 154 15:8 204n19 2 Kings 8 2:10 282n17 19:3 281n16 Isaiah 18, 19, 20, 137 1:1–8 229 1:1–26 243–244 1:3 229n9 1:15 231 1:18 232 2:3 154 2:9b–10 11n13 2:22 11n12 7:17 309 7:25 231 10:33–34 299n5 11 302, 311 11:1 313, 318 11:4–5 313 14:12 301 17:14 288n37 19:3 10 19:7 288n37 24:17 17 26:17 291 29:14 206 31:8 207 34:10 288n37 34:17–35:2 11n13 36:7 11n12 37:3 291, 292 37:4–7 11n13 38:18 115 38:20b–22 11n13

40:2 139n9 40:6 10 40:7–8 11 40:14b–16 11n13 40:23 284 40:28 288n37 40:29 291n43 44:12 275 45–49 249–250n6 45:5 288 45:6 278 45:21 281, 287, 288 48:22 288n37 51:3 231 51:6 11n13, 231 51:11 231 51:17–23 43 52–54 249–250n6 52:12 231 54:1 228 54:5 231 57:21 288n37 58 249–250n6 59:3 231 59:11 289 60:1–3 322n60 62:1 322n60 62:4 227 63:3 11n13 Jeremiah 7n2, 13, 16, 18, 20, 137, 139, 234 8:8 163, 168 9:24 45 13:6 114 15:9 228n7 23:28 208 25 139 25:1 139n11 25:3 139n11 25:8 139n11 25:10 139 25:11 141n16 25:11–12 139 25:15–16 43 25:18 139 29:4 139 29:10 141n16 30:18–22 140

370 Jeremiah (cont.) 33:20 228 50–51 140n12 51:7–8 43 51:11 140n12 51:28 140n12 Ezekiel 18, 20, 75–87, 137 1 78 1:10 78 1:11 78 1:13 78, 85 1:22 78 1:22–23 78–79 4:1 76 4:3 76 4:4 79 4:9 76, 79 4:16–5:1 76 5:1 85 5:12 79 5:13 79 5:14 79 5:15 79 5:16 79 7 86 7:3–5 80 7:9 80 7:10 80 7:11 79 10:6–22 77 10:6–11:1 249–250n6 10:7 78 10:7–11 77 10:8 77, 85 10:14 78 10:17 78, 85 10:21 77 11:1–11 77 16:10 60, 67 16:31–33 76 23:14–15 77, 249–250n6 23:17 77 23:17–18 249–250n6 23:18 77 23:44 77, 85 23:44­–47 77, 249–250n6 23:45 77, 78 24:2 79, 86

Index of Ancient Sources 30:16 228n7 32:7 301 35–38 80 35:11 80 35:12 81, 86 35:13 81 35:14 81–82 35:15 82 36:1 82 36:2 82 36:3 82 36:6 82 36:7 82 36:8 82 36:18 83 36:20 83 36:21 83 36:22 83 36:23 83 36:23b–28 87 36:25 83 36:27–28 83 37 87, 110 37:1 83 37:1–14 109n9, 110, 111, 118 37:3 83, 84 37:4 84, 119 37:5 83 37:6 83 37:7 84, 120 37:8 114 37:9 84, 120 37:10 114, 118 37:11 84 37:12 84 37:12–13 115 37:12–14 121 37:13 84 37:16 84 38:2 85 38:7 85 40:6 154 41:3–6 77, 249–250n6 44:15 17 The Twelve Prophets

17, 18, 19, 20

Hosea 13:4 281

371

Index of Ancient Sources Amos 1:1 302n13 1:5 301 5:11 207 5:26–27 309 9:11 309 Micah 1:4 231 4:2 154 5:2 315 7:2 279 Joel 2:24 208 2:28–29 313 Habakkuk 19, 26–28, 35–49 1 41 1–2 27, 35, 39, 47, 48 1:1 39n80 1:1–2 36n59 1:3 36n59 1:4 36n59 1:5 36n59 1:6 29, 36n59, 207n12 1:6–11 30n22 1:7 36n59 1:8 37 nn. 65 and 67, 39n80, 46, 47 1:8­–9 36n59, 46 1:9 37n67, 46 1:10 37n65 1:11 36n59 1:12 39n80 1:12–13 36n59 1:13 36n59, 37n65 1:14–16 36n59 1:14–17 30n22 1:15 38 1:15–16 39n80 1:16 205 1:17 36n59, 39n80, 205 2 41 2:1–2 36n59 2:2 19, 36n59, 37n65, 39n80 2:3 36n59 2:4a 36n59

2:4b 36n59 2:5 28, 39n80, 42, 43 2:5–7 36n59 2:6 37n67 2:7 37n65 2:7–8 36n59 2:8 36n59, 37n65 2:9–11 36n59 2:10b 36n59 2:12–13 36n59 2:13 39n80 2:14 39n80 2:15 36n59, 44, 46 2:16 36n59, 37n67, 39n80, 44, 45 2:17 36n59, 39n80 2:18 36n59, 206 2:19–20 36n59 2:20 37n67 3 36 Zechariah 1 136n4 1:3–6 136 1:4 137n5 1:12 140 6:12 315, 329 7 136n4 7:5 140 7:7 136 7:12 136 Malachi 4:2 313 Psalms 16, 18, 19, 20, 90–105, 141, 247n1 1 163, 168 1–89 91 2:8 326n76 2:9 301 5–69 165 5:9–13 165 6:2 165 6:4 165 6:6 165 14 234 17:7 206 18 233

372 Psalms (cont.) 18:1 233 18:3 233 18:5 233 18:7 233 18:8 233 18:16 233 18:21 233 18:24 233 18:25 233 18:28 233 18:32 233 18:33 233 18:38 233 18:39 233 18:43 233 18:48 233 18:49 233 25:8 165 25:10 165 25:12 165 25:15 165 31:23–24 165 33:2 165 33:4 165 33:5 165 33:6 165 33:8 165 33:10 165 33:12 165 33:20 165 33:21 165 34:1 165 34:21–22 165 35:2 165 35:13–18 165 35:20 165 35:26–27 165 36:1 165 36:3 165 36:5–7 165 36:9 165 38:2 165 38:4 165 38:6 165 38:8–10 165 38:12 165 38:14 165

Index of Ancient Sources 38:16–23 165 45:4 313 45:7 301 47:2 165 53 233 53:2 165 53:4–5 165 53:7 165 54:2–3 165 54:5–6 165 56:4 165 62:13 165 63:2 165 63:4 165 65:14 208 66:16 165 66:18–20 165 67:1–2 165 67:4–8 165 69:1–29 165 69:21 282 71:1–14 165 73:4 206 76:10–12 166 77:1 166 77:18–21 165 78:1 165 78:6­–7 166 78:23 313n41 78:31–33 166 79 142–145 79:1–2 144n26 79:2–3 142–142 79:3 144–145n26 79:5 143n19 79:8–9 143n19 79:12 143n19 81:2–3 166 86:10–11 166 88:1–5 166 89:44–48 166 89:50–53 166 90 249–250n6 90–92 160 90–150 92 93 160, 166 94–99 160, 167, 168 95 146

Index of Ancient Sources

373

96 146 96:2–3 147 96:6 147 96:12 147 96:23 147 96:24 147 101 158 102:1–2 158 102:18–29 158 103 166, 249n6 103:1 158 103:22 166 104 92, 166 104–111 249n6 104:1–3 166 104:1–6 158 104:20–22 166 104:21–35 158 105 92, 146, 166 105:1–3 166 105:1–11 158 105:4 147 105:5 147 105:15 310n35 105:16–45 147 105:23–25 166 105:25–35 158 105:36–45 166 105:38–39 158 105:41–42 158 105:44–45 158 105:47 148 106 146 106–108 167 106:1 166 106–108 160 106:2–46 147 106:8 148 106:8–36 148 106:10 148 106:12 148 106:15 148 106:25 148 106:35 148 106:36 148 106:47 148 106:48 146n33, 148 109 159, 166

109:1 166 109:2–4 165 109:8 166 109:13–14 166 109:21–31 159 110 159 113–117 159 113–118 157 114:5 166 115:15–18 166 116:1–4 166 118 92, 166 118:1 158, 165 118:8–9 158 118:15–16 158, 165 118:25–29 158 118:29 158, 166 119 3, 153, 157, 158, 162n33, 163, 167–170 119:1–6 158 119:10–21 250 119:15–28 158 119:37–46 250 119:37–49 158 119:49–50 250 119:59–72 158 119:73–74 250 119:81–83 250 119:82–96 158 119:89–92 250 119:99–101 250 119:104 250 119:105–120 158 119:113–120 250 119:128–142 158 119:138–142 250 119:150–164 158 119:163–165 165 119:171–176 158 120 156, 158–159, 166 120–132 165, 168, 170 120–134 153 120:2 154 120:3 154 120:5 154 120:5–7 166 120:6 154 120:7 154

374 Psalms (cont.) 121 158, 159 121:1 154 121:2 154 121:3 154 121:4 154 121:5 154 121:7 154 121:8 154 122 153n2, 158 122:1 153, 154, 168 122:2 155 122:3 155 122:4 155 122:5 155 122:6 155, 168 122:7 155 122:8 155 122:9 155 123 156 123:1 155 123:1–2 158 123:2 155 123:3 155 123:4 155 124 153n2 124:1 155 124:2 155 124:3 155 124:4 155 124:5 155 124:7 155 124:7–8 158 125 158, 166 125:1 153, 155, 168 125:1–5 166 125:2 153, 155, 168 125:3 155 126 156, 158, 166 126:1 153, 155 126:1–6 166 126:2 155 126:3 155 126:4 155 126:5 155 126:6 155 127 153n2, 156 127:1 155, 158 127:2 155

Index of Ancient Sources 127:3 155 127:4 155 127:5 155 128 156 128:1 155 128:2 155 128:3 155 128:3–6 158 128:4 155 128:5 153, 155, 168 129 158, 166 129:1 155 129:2 155 129:5 168 129:8 155, 166 130 156, 158, 166 130:1–7 166 130:2 155–156 130:3 155 130:5 155–156 130:6 155–156 130:7 156 130:8 156 131 153n2 131:1 156, 158 131:2 156 132 156, 160, 167, 168, 170 132:1 156, 160 132:1–5 149 132:1–12 149 132:2 156 132:6–7 149 132:7 156 132:8 156 132:8–10 149 132:8–18 158 132:9 156 132:10 156, 160 132:11 156, 160 132:12 156 132:13 153, 168 132:14 156 132:16 156 132:17 156, 160 132:17–18 149 132:18 156 133 153 nn. 1–2, 156, 159, 160, 166, 167, 168 133:1 156

375

Index of Ancient Sources 133:1–3 165 133:2 156 133:3 153, 156 134 153n1, 159, 160, 162, 167, 168 134:1 156 134:1–3 158 134:2 156 134:3 156 135 162, 168 135:1–9 158 135:2 168 135:17 292n45 135:17–21 158 135:21 168 136 162 136:1–26 158 137:1 158 137:9 158 138 158 139:8–24 158 140 162 140:1–4 158 141 160, 166 141:10 165 142 160 143 160 144 160, 166 144:1–2 165 144:4 165 145 159, 160 145:1–7 158 145:12–21 158 145:13 102 146 92, 166 146:9–10 158 147 92, 147n34 147:1–2 158 147:18–20 158 148 92, 159, 168, 170 148:1–13 158 148:9–13 168 150 158 150:6 115 Job 18, 20 9:33 285 28 338, 339

38 349 38:16 349 Proverbs 16, 18, 20, 104, 335 1 340 1:7 339 1:20 342 1:20–21 340 1:20–33 339, 340, 354 1:21 341 1:22 346, 352 1:24 340 1:26 340 1:28 340, 342 1:29 340 1:31 342 2 343, 345 2:1–5 338 2:4–6 339 2:5 339, 340 2:16 339, 340, 342 2:16–18 342 2:16–19 340 2:16–22 339, 340 2:19 342 2:20–22 338 3 338 3:7 339 3:13–15 339 3:16 339, 340, 343 3:18 351, 352 4 338 4:6 339, 340, 343, 351 4:8 339, 340, 343, 351 4:9 351 4:13 340, 351 5 339, 340, 343, 345 5:1–17 340 5:3 339, 340 5:4 340 5:6 340 5:9–10 341 5:20 339 6 345 6:20–35 343 6:24 339 6:24–35 339, 340 6:25–33 340

376 Proverbs (cont.) 6:29 343 7 341, 343, 345 7:5 339, 340 7:5–27 340 7:10 341 7:10–27 339, 340 7:11 341 7:15 341 7:16–17 341 7:18 341 8 339, 340 8:1 343 8:1–4 340 8:2–3 340 8:3 341 8:4–5 346 8:5–21 340 8:11 339 8:14–17 351 8:18 351 8:19 351 8:21 343 8:22 343 8:22–31 349 8:25 343 8:26 343 8:27 343 8:27–29 340 8:29 343 8:30 343 8:31 343 8:32–36 340, 344 8:32 344 8:33 344 8:34 344 8:35 344, 351 8:36 344, 351 9 339, 340, 341, 343 9:1–6 345 9:2 340 9:2–6 340 9:3 340 9:4 341, 346 9:5 340 9:6 352 9:7–12 339, 345 9:9 345

Index of Ancient Sources 9:10 339, 345 9:11 345 9:12 345, 352 9:13–18 340 9:16 341 9:18 352 10:10 342 11:26 208 13:5 342 16:16 339 20:15 339 31:10 339 31:10–24 341 31:10–31 339, 340, 345, 352 31:11 352 31:12 345, 352 31:14 352 31:15 352 31:16 352 31:17 345 31:17–18 352 31:18 352 31:23 352 31:24 352 31:25–31 341 31:26 341, 345 31:27 341, 352 31:28 341, 345–346 31:29 341 31:30 339, 341, 346 31:31 341, 346, 352 Canticles/Song of Songs 15 2:9–3:2 250 3:4–5 250 3:5 250 3:7–4:7 250 3:9–4:3 250 4:8–11 250 4:14–5:1 250 6:11–7:7 250 Qohelet/Ecclesiastes 15, 339 3:2 291 3:19 280 7:23–24 339 8:17 339 11:9 113

377

Index of Ancient Sources Lamentations 1:9 288n37 3:27 207 4:4 280 Esther 20, 234 10:1 208 Daniel 7n2, 16, 18, 20, 108, 129, 234, 247n1, 299n5 1:20 220 2 216 2:2 220 2:4 34n50 2:4–5 213n11 2:5 34n50 2:6 34n50 2:7 34n50 2:9 34n50 2:10 220 2:16 34n50 2:24 34n50 2:25 34n50 2:26 34n50 2:27 220 2:30 34n50 2:34 212n9 2:36 34n50 2:39–40 213n11 2:40 212n9 2:44 300, 324 2:45 34n50 2:1–49 34n50 3:2 212n9 3:24 218n22 3:25 217–219 3:26–27 213n11 4–6 215n18 4:1–37 34n50 4:3 34n50 4:4 34n50, 220 4:6 34n50 4:7 220 4:15 34n50 4:16 34n50 4:21 34n50 5 213, 216, 219 5:7 34n50, 215, 219–221 5:8 34n50, 215

5:11 220 5:12 34n50, 213–217 5:15 34n50, 215, 220 5:16 34n50, 215 5:17 34n50, 215 5:26 34n50 5:30–31 138 6:21 217–219 6:22 217–219 7:13–14 300 7:16 34n50 9 138–141, 143n19, 150 9:21–23 138 10:19 212n9 11:15 281n16 12:13 114 Ezra 1:1 140 3:2 135, 136n3 7:6 136 7:10 136 7:14 136 7:25–26 136 9:14 291n43 10:3 136 Nehemiah 1:7 136 7 136n3 8:1 136 8:10 291n43 8:13–18 136 9:14–15 136 9:19 228 9:30 136 10:28–29 136 1 Chronicles 145 2:15 178n18 3:1 178n18 3:5 178n18 3:9 178n18 10:4 45 15:1 147 15:2 147 15:3 147 15:12 147 15:14 147

378 1 Chronicles (cont.) 15:15 147–148 15:16–23 148 15:24 147 15:25 147 15:26 147 15:28 147 15:29 147 15:37 147 16 146–149, 150 16:4 146, 148 16:4–7 148 16:6 147 16:7 146 16:8 148 16:8–36 146 16:11 147 16:15–18 147 16:22 310n35 16:27 147 16:36 146n33 16:37 147, 148 21:21 130n12 22:4 291n43 25:1–3 145n30 2 Chronicles 145 6 149–150 6:41–42 149 14:10 291n43 25:1 178n18 32:9 178n18 36:21 140n15 36:22 140 New Testament Matthew 18, 137 1:22–23 18 2:1–12 315 2:2 328 2:5–6 18 2:15 18 2:18 18 2:23 18 3:16 313n41 24:27 328–329

Index of Ancient Sources Mark 1:10 313n41 Luke 3:21 313n41 16:19 19 John 1:18 318 4 313n41 4:14 313n41 6 313n41 8:46 313n41 16:13 313n41 20:22 313n41 Acts 2:4 313n41 2:29–31 15n25 Hebrews 314 2 Peter 1:19

313, 315

Jude 1:14–15 19 Revelation 5:5 318 22:16 313, 315 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 19, 354 1:9 19 42 335, 350 42:1–2 350 42:3 350 1 Maccabees 7 142–145, 150 7:5 142, 144n25 7:9 142, 144n25 7:12 143n21 7:14 144 7:15 144 7:15–17 143n21

379

Index of Ancient Sources 7:12–13 142 7:16 142 7:17 143, 144–145n26 7:19 143, 144 7:20 144 7:21–23 144n25 9 144 Baruch 3:9–4:4

338, 339n18

Epistle of Jeremiah 3 140 Jubilees 19, 238 22:10–23 314 Pseudo-Philo 238 Biblical Antiquities LAB 28:1 314 Sibylline Oracles 2:15–19 325 3:52 325 3:334–336 305, 328 3:350–355 325 3:652 325 4:145 325 5:107–110 325 8:1–216 323n63 8:145–146 323 8:190–193 306 SirachBen Sira 168, 335, 348–350, 354 1:1–27 348 1:10–20 349 1:26 349 4:11–19 348 4:11 348 4:12 348 4:15 348, 353 4:17 348 5:12 287n34 6:14–15 348 6:20–31 348 6:25–31 348 13:18 285n29

14:20–21 353 14:20–15:10 348, 353 14:21–22 348 14:22–24 348 15:1 348 15:2 348 15:3 348, 353 15:5 353 15:5–6 348 15:6 353 15:7 353 15:8–10 353 24 163 24:1 349 24:2 349 24:3–8 163, 168 24:3–22 349 24:4 349 24:5 349 24:8–11 349 24:18 349 24:22 349 24:23 163, 168, 349 24:28 349 24:29 349 46:13 230 51 159, 160, 168 51:13 349 51:13ff 348 51:13–23 158 51:13–26 349 51:13–30 92 51:15 349 51:16 349 51:17 349 51:20 349 51:25 349 51:26 349 51:30 158 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 312 T. Judah 24 312n40 24:1 313–314 24:1–6 313 T. Levi 18 312n40 18:3 314

380 Wisdom of Solomon 354 6–10 350 6:12 350 6:13 350 6:14 350 6:16 350 6:17–19 353 6:21 350 6:22 350 7:1–21 350 7:10 350 7:12 350 7:22 350 7:22–30 350 7:23–24 350 7:25 350 7:26 350 7:28 353 7:29–30 350 8 350 8:1 350 8:2 350 8:3 350 8:4 350 8:5–6 350 8:7 351 8:8 351 8:9 351 8:11 353 8:12 353 8:13 353 8:14–15 353 8:16 353 8:17 351 8:18 351 8:21 351 8:21–9:4 351 9 351 9:2 351, 353 9:3 353 9:4 351 9:6 353 9:9 351 9:10 351, 353 9:11 351 9:13 353 9:17 353 9:18 351, 353 10 351

Index of Ancient Sources Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document/ Damascus Covenant/CD 33n38, 308 CD

3:20–21 17 4:13 17 5:6–7 274 7:10 145n28 7:18–21 8:9 17 9:10–12 275n7 13:3 286n32, 287n33

Community Rule/Serekh 18, 35n54, 90, 92, ha-Yaḥad/1QS (1Q28) 93–101, 104–105, 194, 201, 256 1:1 95 1:1–15 93, 94–95 1:2 95 1:1–3 17 1:3–4 95 1:5 99 1:5–6 95 1:8–9 96 1:11 96 1:12 96 1:15 96 1:16–3:12 93 2:7 291 3:13–4:26 93 4:2 100 5 94 5–9 93 5:1 93, 100 5:1–4 43n110 5:1–6:23 96 5:2–3 97 5:3–4 99 5:7 99, 100 5:7b–25 100 5:9 99 5:9–10 97 5:15 17 5:20 99 5:24 98 5:25 98 6:6­–8 257

381

Index of Ancient Sources 7:15 105 9:11 309, 310 1QSa (1Q28a) 184, 194, 256 1QSb (1Q28b) 194, 256 5:20–29 311 War Scroll/1QM 164, 194, 201n40, 308, 310, 311 3:13–14 310–311 10:6 17 11 311 11:1 291 11:4–8 310 14:12 285n28 1QHa Scribe A 188n27, 194, 201n40 Scribe C 194, 201n40 3:23 115 11:28 291 15:34 288n36 16:40 285n28 18:10 288n36 1QIsaa 8, 10, 11, 13–14, 35n54, 227, 231, 232, 255, 256, 257, 287 1–27 182 1:1–26 243–244 1:1–8 229 1:8 228n8 1:9 228n8 1:13 228n8 1:15 228n8 1:17 228n8 14:22 288n37 15:11 288n37 28:10–11 288n37 28:54 182 30:8 292 34:1 288n37 37:18 275 38:1 288 39:1–2 288 40:27 288n37

47:20–21 288n37 48:23 289 1QpHab 25–49, 188n27, 194, 256–257 1:1 39n80, 40n89 1:1–2 36n59 1:1–12:13 35 1:2 36n60 1:4 36n60 1:5 36n59 1:6 36n60 1:7 36n59 1:8 36n60, 43 1:8–9 36n59 1:9 36n60 1:10 36n59 1:11 36n60 1:12 36n59 1:13 29n18, 36n60 1:14–15 36n59 1:15 36n60 1:16–21 36n59 2:1 29n18, 36n60, 37n61 2:2 29n18, 37n66 2:3 29n18 2:5 29 nn. 17–18, 36n60, 37 2:5–10 30n22 2:10 37n66, 40n92 2:10–11 36n59 2:10–14 30n22 2:12 29, 36n60 2:14 29 2:16–17 36n59 2:17 36n60 3:2 36n59, 36n60, 40n89 3:2–3 36n59, 37n61 3:3–4 39n80 3:4 29, 36n60, 37n66 3:5 37n66 3:6 37n67, 40n91, 46n123 3:6–9 36n59

382 1QpHab (cont.) 3:7 37n61, 37n65 3:7–8 39n80 3:9 29, 36n60, 37 nn. 61 and 67 3:9–13 47 3:12 30n22, 37 3:13–14 36n60 3:14 30n22, 36n59, 37 3:15 36n60 3:17–4:1 36n59 4:1 36n60, 37n61 4:3–4 36n59 4:4 37n65 4:5 29, 36n60 4:6 37n66 4:9–10 36n59 4:10 29, 36n60, 37n61 4:11 30n22, 37 4:12 37n66 4:13 36n59 4:14 30n22, 36n60, 37 4:14–15 38 4:16–5:2 36n59 4:17 39n80 5:1 37n65 5:2 37n61, 40n89 5:3 36n60, 37n66 5:6 36n60 5:6–7 36n59 5:6–8 207 5:7 36n60, 37n61 5:8–9 36n59 5:9 29n18, 36n60, 37n61 5:10 29n18 5:11 37n61 5:12–16 36n59, 205 5:12–6:12 30n22, 205 5:14 40n93 5:14–15 39n80 5:16 36n60 6:1 29, 36n60, 43 6:2–3 36n59, 38 6:3 36n60, 37n61 6:4 30n22, 37 6:5 36n59, 37n61, 40n92, 205–208 6:6 36n60

Index of Ancient Sources 6:8–9 36n59, 39n80 6:9 37n61, 40n89 6:10 29, 36n60 6:12 30n22, 37 6:12–16 36n59 6:14 37 6:16 36n60 7:1 37n66 7:2 37n66 7:3 36n59, 36n60, 37 nn. 61 and 65 7:4 29n18, 36n60 7:5 40n92 7:5–6 36n59 7:6 37n61, 40n89 7:7 36n60 7:8 206 7:9 40 nn. 89 and 92 7:9–10 36n59 7:10 36n60, 37n61 7:14 40n89 7:14–15 36n59 7:15 36n60, 37n61 7:17 36n59 8–13 36 8:1 30n22, 36n60, 37 8:3 28, 29n18, 40 nn. 89 and 92 8:3–4 42 8:3–8 36n59 8:3–13 43 8:4 40n89 8:6 37n67 8:7 40 nn. 89, 91, and 93, 206 8:8 29n18, 36n60, 37n61, 45n117 8:13 37n65 8:13–15 36n59 8:14 37n65, 40n90 8:16 29n18, 36n60, 37n61 9:1 30n22, 37 9:3 36n60 9:3–4 36n59 9:3–7 30n22 9:4 36n60, 37n61 9:5 43 9:6 43

Index of Ancient Sources 9:7 29, 37n61 9:8 36n59, 37 nn. 61 and 65 9:9 36n60 9:9–10 29n18 9:10 37n66 9:12–15 36n59, 37 9:13 30n22, 40n94 9:14 40n92 9:16 29n18, 36n60, 37 10:1 37n66 10:1–2 36n60 10:2 36n59, 37n61 10:3 30n22, 36n60, 37 10:5–8 36n59 10:7 37 10:8 37n61 10:9 36n60 10:10 206 10:14 37, 40n92 10:14–15 36n59 10:15 36n60, 37n61 11:2–3 36n59, 45 11:4 29n18, 36n60, 37n61 11:4–8 44 11:5 29n18 11:8–11 36n59, 45 11:12–15 45 11:9 37n67 11:10 37 11:11 37n61, 40n90 11:12 36n60 11:17–12:1 36n59 12:2 30n22, 36n60, 37 12:5 37n61 12:6 36n60 12:6–7 36n59, 39n80 12:7 36n60 12:8 37n66 12:10 43 12:10–12 36n59, 206 12:11 40n92 12:12 36n60 12:13 35 12:15–13:1 36n59 12:17 39n80 13:1 36n60, 37n67, 206 13:4 35, 37n61, 206

383 1QGen (1Q1) 182 1QDeuta (1Q4) 182 1QEzek (1Q9) 76, 85 1QPsa (1Q10) 147n34, 159n16 1QPsb (1Q11) 159n17 1QPsc (1Q12) 159n17 1Q13 202n45 1QpMic (1Q14) 33n37, 188n27, 194 1QpZeph (1Q15) 33n37, 188n27 1QpPs (1Q16) 33n37 1QDM (1Q22) 187, 194 1QInst (1Q26) 187, 194, 201n40 1QMyst (1Q27) 188n27, 194 1QHb (1Q35) 187, 188n27, 194, 201n40 1QHymns (1Q36) 194 2QExoda (2Q2) 182 2QExodb (2Q3) 182, 247–248n2 2QNumb (2Q7) 182 2QDeutc (2Q12) 182 2QJer (2Q13) 182 2QPs (2Q14) 159n17 2Q18 348 3QPs (3Q2) 159n16 3QEzek (3Q1) 76, 86 3QpIsa (3Q4) 33n37 3Q14 188n27 4QGenb (4Q2) 226, 227 4QGeng (4Q7) 244–245 4QExodb (4Q13) 82 4Q14 8:13–14 287 4QExodd (4Q15) 249–250, 254, 257 4QExode (4Q16) 249–250, 252n14, 254, 257 4QExodj (4Q20) 82 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) 9, 12, 227, 237, 261 1:1–32 241–243 4QLev–Numa (4Q23) 64 4QNumb (4Q27) 12 4QDeuta (4Q28) 252n12 4QDeutd (4Q31) 252n14 4QDeuth (4Q35) 254 4QDeutj (4Q37) 249, 252, 254, 256, 257 4:16 254 5 254 9:12 254

384 4QDeutk1 (4Q38) 182, 249–250, 252, 256, 257 4QDeutk2 (4Q38a) 182 4QDeutm (4Q40) 182 4QDeutn (4Q41) 182, 237, 247–248n2, 249–250, 251–252, 253, 254, 257 1 254 4:5–7 253 4QDeutq (4Q44) 249–250, 253, 255, 256 2 255 4QJosha (4Q47) 232 1 i–ii 245–246 5:X 232, 245–246 4QJudga (4Q49) 11 4QSama (4Q51) 8–9, 10, 112n22, 178n17, 227, 229 9e i:16 292n46 4QSamb (4Q52) 8–9, 10 4QSamc (4Q53) 182, 256 4QIsac (4Q57) 182 4QIsad (4Q58) 249 4QJera (4Q70) 112n22 4QJerb (4Q71) 234 4QJerd (4Q72a) 234 4QEzek 77 4QEzeka (4Q73) 77, 85, 249 4QEzekb (4Q74) 78, 85 4QEzekc (4Q75) 78, 86 4QXIIc (4Q78) 182 4QXIIe (4Q80) 182 4QXIIg (4Q82) 182 4QPsa (4Q83) 157, 159n17, 164, 182 4QPsb (4Q84) 147n34, 157, 159n16, 249 4QPsc (4Q85) 157, 159n16 4QPsd (4Q86) 147n34 4QPse (4Q87) 157, 159, 166, 182 4qPsf (4Q88) 159n17, 184, 194 4QPsg (4Q89) 159, 249–250, 252n14, 255, 256, 257 4QPsh (4Q90) 159, 249–250, 252n14, 256, 257 4QPsj (4Q91) 159n17 4QPsk (4Q92) 159n17

Index of Ancient Sources 4QPsl (4Q93) 159n16 4QPsm (4Q94) 159n17 4QPsn (4Q95) 159n17 4QPso (4Q96) 159n17, 182 4QPsp (4Q97) 159n17 4QPsq (4Q98) 159n17, 182 4QPsr (4Q98a) 159n17 4QPss (4Q98b) 159n17 4QPsw (4Q98f) 159n17 4QCanta (4Q106) 249–250, 252, 253, 257 4QCantb (4Q107) 249–250, 252, 255, 257 1 255 2 i 4 255 3 255 4QQoha (4Q109) 182 4QLam (4Q111) 182 2:9 288n37 4QDana (4Q112) 213–215, 221 3 ii 1 212n9 5 ii 9 212n9 7:9 212n9 9:17–18 219–220 10–11:3 214 15:18 212n9 4QDanb (4Q113) 178n13, 182, 213–215 1–4:8 214 7ii 8:22 218 4QDanc (4Q114) 108, 211 4QDand (4Q115) 129, 217 2 ii 4–5 217 4QLXXNum (4Q121) 60–66, 69–70 See also Rahlfs 803 62 4QPhyl A (4Q128) 178, 182, 202n45 4QPhyl B (4Q129) 182, 202n45 4Q130 202n46 4Q131 202n46 4Q132 202n46 4Q133 202n46 4QPhyl G (4Q134) 182, 202n45, 237 4QPhyl H (4Q135) 182, 202n45 4Q136 202n45 4QPhyl J (4Q137) 182, 202n45 4QPhyl K (4Q138) 182, 202n45 4QPhyl L (4Q139) 183, 202n45 4QPhyl M (4Q140) 183, 202n45 4QPhyl N (4Q141) 183, 202n45

Index of Ancient Sources 4QPhyl O (4Q142) 183, 202n45 4QPhyl P (4Q143) 178n12, 183, 202n45 4QPhyl Q (4Q144) 183, 202n45 4Q145 202n46 4Q146 202n46 4Q149 202n45 4Q150 202n45 4Q151 202n45 4Q152 202n46 4Q153 202n46 4Q154 202n46 4Q155 202n46 4QRPa (4Q158) 194, 260, 264 4QOrda (4Q159) 194 4QVisSam (4Q160) 194 4QpIsaa (4Q161) 33n37, 188n27 8–10 17 311n37 4QpIsab (4Q162) 33 nn. 37­–38, 201 4Qpap pIsac (4Q163) 33 nn. 37–38, 194 4QpIsad (4Q164) 33n37, 184, 194 4QpIsae (4Q165) 33n37, 188, 194 4QHosa (4Q166) 33n37, 188, 194 4QHosb (4Q167) 33n37, 184, 194 4QpMic (168) 33n37 4QNah (4Q169) 33n37, 201 4QpZeph (4Q170) 33n37 4QpPsa (4Q171) 33 nn. 37–38, 188n27, 194 4QpUnid (4Q172) 33n37 4QpPsb (4Q173) 33n37, 188n27 4QFlor (4Q174) 33n38, 195, 248, 252 4QTest (4Q175) 33n38, 195, 249, 251, 252, 253–254, 255, 256, 257, 308–309 1–4 308 9–13 308 14–20 308 21–23 308 32–30 308 4QTanh (4Q176) 195, 248n3, 252 4QCatenaa (4Q177) 33n38, 195, 248, 252 4QapocrLam A (4Q179) 184, 195 4QAgesCreata (4Q180) 33n38, 188n27, 195 4QAgesCreatb (4Q181) 33n38, 188, 195

385 4QCatenab (4Q182) 252 4Q183 188n27 4QWiles (4Q184) 188, 195, 334, 338, 346–347, 352–353 1–2 346 2–3 346 5–11 346 8–9 346 10–11 352 11 346 12 346 13 346 14 346 14–16 352 15 347, 352 15–16 346 16 346, 347, 352 16–17 353 17 347, 353 4Q185 334, 338 1–2 ii 11–12 338 1–2 ii 14–15 338 4QHoroscope (4Q186) 195 4QTobite (4Q200) 195 4QTNaph (4Q215) 195 4QTimes (4Q215a) 195 4QJubd (4Q219) 188, 195 4QJubf (4Q221) 195 4QJubg (4Q222) 189, 195 4QpapJubh (4Q223–224) 122, 189 4QpsJuba (4Q225) 195 4QpsJubb (4Q227) 195 4Q234 259 4Q243–5 2 4QHalakhah A (4Q251) 189, 195 4QComm Gen A (4Q252) 33n38, 185, 195, 238 3:3 185n24 5:3 311n37 4QComm Gen C (4Q254) 195 4QSa–j 93 4QSb (4Q256) 97–101, 195 IX 1–2a 100 IX 2b–3a 97 IX 3b 97 IX 6b 99 IX 7b–8a 97

386 4QSb (4Q256) (cont.) IX 8b IX 13b

Index of Ancient Sources 97 99

4QpapSc (4Q257) 195 4QSd (4Q258) 93–94, 96–101, 104, 188, 201 1:1–2 100 1:2 97 1:2–3 43n110, 97 1:5–6 99 1:6–7 97 1:7 97 1:11–13 99 2:3–4 98 2:4–5 98 4QSe (4Q259) 195 4QSf (4Q260) 189, 195 4QSg (4Q261) 97–101 1a–b 4b–6 98 4QSi (4Q263) 97–101 4Q264 201 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) 189 4QDa (4Q266) 195 3 iii 17–25 309 4QDb (4Q267) 188n27, 195 4QDc (4Q268) 188n27, 195 4QDd (4Q269) 190, 195 5 1–4 309 f 10i:5 286n32, 287n33 4Q270 201 4QDf (4Q271) 195 4Q273 190, 194, 202n46 4QTohorot A (4Q274) 190, 195 4QATohorotBb (4Q277) 195 4QCurses (4Q280) 190, 195 4QPurification Liturgy (4Q284) 185, 195 4QHarvesting (4Q284a) 185, 195 4QSefer ha-Milhamah (4Q285) 196 7 1–6 311 4QBera (4Q286) 196, 201n40 4QBerb (4Q287) 196, 201n40 4Q288 201n40 4QBerd (4Q289) 190, 196, 201n40 4Q290 201n40 4QWork Containing Prayers C (4Q292) 196

4QMysta (4Q299) 196 4QMystc (4Q301) 196 4QMeditation on Creation B (4Q303) 190, 196 4QList of False Prophets (4Q339) 257n34, 259 4QList of Netinim (4Q340) 257n34, 259 4Q341 259 4Q360 259 4QRP 234n18 See also 4QPentateuch 9 See also 4QReworked Pentateuch 9 See also 4QBiblical Paraphrase 9 4QRPb (4Q364) 196, 260, 264 23a–b i 234–235n18 4QRPc (4Q365) 196, 260, 264 6aii and c 1–7 235 f32:8 286, 287 4QTemplea? (4Q365a) 196, 201n40 4QRPd (4Q366) 248, 250–251, 252, 256, 257, 260–263, 264, 265 1 7 286n32, 287n33 2 261 3 261 4 i 238 4QRPe (4Q367) 248, 250–251, 252, 256, 257, 260–261, 263–264 1a–b 263 2a–b 263 3 264 4QPrayer of Enoch (4Q369) 196 4QNarrative and Poetic Comp (4Q371) 185 4Q372 179 4QapocrMosesa (4Q375) 196 4QapocrPent B (4Q377) 196 4QapocrJosha (4Q378) 185, 196, 251 4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) 251 22 251n8 22 ii 9–14 308 4Q381 f45:1 275

Index of Ancient Sources 4Qpap paraKings (4Q382) 196 4QpapapocrJer B (4Q384) 190, 196 4Q385 108–117, 126, 131 1 109n9, 111, 112–114, 116–117, 121–124 2 1 112–113 2 1–2 112 2 2 113 2 3 113, 121, 122 2 3–4 112 2 5 113, 119 2 5–8 115 2 5–6 120, 121 2 6 114, 121 2 7 114, 120, 121 2 8 114, 115, 119, 121 2 8–9 114, 115 2 9 114, 115 2 10 114 2 109n9, 111, 114–115, 116–117, 121–124 3 3 114–115 3 5 115 3 6 115 3 7 115 4Q385a/4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca 3, 126–131 14–18 130 15 130, 131 15 ii 130–131 16 130–131 16a 130 17a 130, 131 17c 130 17 i 131 18 130 18 i 126–130 18 i 2 128, 129 18 i 2–5 126–130 18 i 3 127–129, 130 18 i 4 127–129 18 i 5 127–129, 130 18 ii 126 18a 128 18b 128, 130, 131 18c 128–130, 131

387 4Q385–388, 391 109 See also Pseudo-Ezekiel 109–124 4Q386 108–117 1i 109n9, 111, 115–117, 121–124 1i 1–2 115 1i 2 121, 122 1i 3 115 1i 4 115, 119 1i 5 113, 115 1i 5–6 120 1i 6–7 121 1i 7–9 115 1i 8–9 114, 121 1i 9 119 1i 10 114 1ii 111, 116 1ii 1–2 115 1ii 2 113 1ii 4 286 1iii 111 4Q388 7 111 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393) 196 4QMMT 16, 164, 166, 191n29 4QMMTa (4Q394) 178n15, 191, 196, 201n40 4QMMTc (4Q396) 191, 196, 201n40 4QMMTd (4Q397) 164, 166, 191n29, 196, 201n40 4QMMTe (4Q398) 191, 196, 201n40 4Q399 190n29, 201n40 4QShirShaba (4Q400) 191, 196, 201n40 4QShirShabb (4Q401) 196, 201n40 4QShirShabc (4Q402) 196, 201n40 4QShirShabd (4Q403) 196, 201n40 4QShir Shabe (4Q404) 178n15, 186, 196, 201n40 4 5 186n25 5 5 186n25 4QShir Shabf (4Q405) 196, 201n40 4Q406 188n27, 201n40 4Q407 201n40 4QVision and Interpretation (4Q410) 191, 196 4Q413 188n27

388 4QRitPur A (4Q414) 196 2ii 3 115 2ii 4 115 2ii 10 115 4QInstructiona (4Q415) 196, 201n40 4QInstructionb (4Q416) 196, 201n40 4QInstructionc (4Q417) 196, 201n40 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 196, 201n40 4QInstructione (4Q418a) 196, 201n40 4QInstruction-like Comp A (4Q419) 192, 197 4QWays of Righteousnessa (4Q420) 192, 197 1a ii-b 7 192n30 4QWays of Righteousnessb (4Q421) 192, 197 4QParaGen-Exod (4Q422) 197 4QInstructiong (4Q423) 197 4QSapiential-Hymn Work A (4Q426) 192, 197 4QHa (4Q427) 197, 201n40 4QHb (4Q428) 197, 201n40 4QHc (4Q429) 192, 197, 201n40 4Q430 201n40 4Q431 201n40 4QpapHf (4Q432) 192, 197, 201n40 f 12:1 288n36 4Q433 f1:2 285n28 4QHodayot-like Text B (4Q433a) 192, 197 4Q434 201 4QBarki Napshib (4Q435) 192, 197 4QBarki Napshic (4Q436) 197 4QBarki Napshid (4Q437) 197 4QBarki Napshie (4Q438) 193, 197 4QHodayot-like Text C (4Q440) 197 4QPersonal Prayer (4Q443) 197 4QNarrative Work and Prayer (4Q460) 197 4QNarrative C (4Q462) 197 4QExposition Patriarchs (4Q464) 193, 197 4QWar Text B (4Q471) 197 4QTwo Ways (4Q473) 197 4QRachel and Joseph (4Q474) 197

Index of Ancient Sources 4QRenewed Earth (4Q475) 186, 197 4QRebukes (4Q477) 193, 197, 259 4QNarrative G (4Q481b) 256 4QMa (4Q491) 164, 166, 197, 201n40 A 198n1 B 198n1 10 3–4 310 4QMb (4Q492) 186, 197, 201n40 4QMc (4Q493) 186, 197, 201n40 4Q494 201n40 4Q495 201n40 4QMf (4Q496) 186, 197, 201n40 4QapocrLam B (4Q501) 197 4QpapRitMar (4Q502) 197 9 3 115 4QpapPrQuot (4Q503) 197 1–6 iii 10 228 4QDibHama (4Q504) 197, 201n40 f1 2Riii:3 285n28 f1–2Rv:8 288n36 4QDibHamb (4Q505) 193, 197, 201n40 4QDibHamc (4Q506) 197, 201n40 4QPrFêtesb (4Q508) 186, 197 4QpapPrFêtesc (4Q509) 112n22, 198 4QShira (4Q510) 186, 198 4QShirb (4Q511) 198 4QpapRitPur B (4Q512) 198 4QOrdb (4Q513) 198, 248n3 4QProphJosh (4Q522) 159n17, 193, 198 4QTb (4Q524) 198, 201n40 4QBeatitudes (4Q525) 198, 338 5QDeut (5Q1) 249–250, 252, 253, 257 5QPs (5Q5) 159, 249–250, 252, 255, 256, 257 5Q11 93 5QRule (5Q13) 193, 198 6QpapPs (6Q5) 159n17 6Q15 188n27 6QpapHymn (6Q18) 188n27, 198 8QPs (8Q2) 159n16 8Q3 202n45 8Q4 202n45 8QPhyl III 237 11QLevb (11Q2) 183 11QEzek (11Q4) 79, 85

Index of Ancient Sources 11QPsa (11Q5) 18n31, 91, 101, 102–104, 141, 146n31, 153, 157–170, 175–176, 183, 186, 198, 352 18 347–348 18:5–6 347 18:12 347 18:13 347 21 347–348 21:11–17 348 21:11 348 21:12 348 21:14 348 21:16 348 21:17 348 27 145n30 27:2–11 102–103, 141 27:11 15n25, 18n31 Psalm 151a 92, 158, 160, 162, 168 Psalm 151b 92, 158, 160, 162, 168 Psalm 154 92, 158, 163, 168 Psalm 155 92, 158, 159, 160, 163, 168 Apostrophe to Zion 92, 158, 159, 160, 163, 165, 166 David’s Compositions 92, 145n30, 158, 160, 162, 163 Hymn to the Creator 92, 158, 160, 163 Plea for Deliverance 92, 158, 165 11QPsb (11Q6) 159n17, 166, 183, 187, 198 11QPsc (11Q7) 159n17, 183 11QPsd (11Q8) 159n17, 183 11QapocrPs (11Q11) 198 11QJub (11Q12) 198 11QMelch (11Q13) 33n38, 198, 248, 252n13 11QSefer ha-Milhamah (11Q14) 198 F1ii:11–12 275n7 11QHymnsb (11Q16) 198 11QShirShabb (11Q17) 187, 198, 201n40 11QTa (11Q19) 198

389 See also Temple Scroll 238 Scribe A 198, 201n40 Scribe B 198, 201n40 11QTb (11Q20) 198, 201n40 11Q21 201n40 11QInid C (11Q27) 193, 198 11Q29 93 XQ1 202n45 XQ2 202n45 XQ3 202n45 XHev/Se5 202n46 5/6ḤevPs 157 5/6Ḥev 49 (P.Yad 49) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 50 (P.Yad 50) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 51 (P.Yad 51) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 53 (P.Yad 53) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 54 (P.Yad 54) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 55 (P.Yad 55) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 56 (P.Yad 56) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 57 (P.Yad 57) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 58 (P.Yad 58) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 60 (P.Yad 60) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 62 (P.Yad 62) 319n54 5/6Ḥev 63 (P.Yad 63) 319n54 34Se1 202n46 Mur4 202n46 Mur 43 319n54 Mur 44 319n54 MasShirShabb (Mas1k) 193, 198, 201n40 MasUnid Qumran Type Frg. (Mas1n) 193, 198 MasPsa 159n16 MasEzek 75, 80–85, 87 I.1 80, 81 I.2 81 1:3 80, 81 1:4 81 1:5 81, 82 1:6–7 82 1:8 82 1:10 82 1:11 82 1:16 82 1:25 82 1:27 82 1:29 82 2:2 80 2:3 83

390 MasEzek (cont.) 2:4 80 2:6 83 2:8 80, 83 2:9 80 2:10 83 2:14 83 2:18 83 2:19 80 2:22 83 2:26 80 3:1 83 3:5 83 3:8 83 3:9 80 3:10–11 83 3:11 84 3:12 84 3:15 84 3:16 84 3:18 80 3:20 84 3:22 84 3:24 84 3:26 84 3:29 84 4:19 85 4:26 85 Ancient Jewish Writers and Sources Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3.102–103 66n42 10.234 221n27 10.234–236 221n27 14.80 208 Jewish War See also Judean War 297 1.175 208 3.400–402 297, 326, 327 3.404–407 298 4.629 326 5.365 207 6 297 6.288–299 323 6.289 299n5, 327, 328

Index of Ancient Sources 6.289–291 298 6.292–300 298 6.312 324, 326 6.312–313 327 6.312–315 298–299 7.87 207 Nash Papyrus 8, 237, 253n16 Papyrus 967 86–87, 117–119, 122, 123, 124, 218, 219, 220n25 Philo of Alexandria Life of Moses See also De vita Mosis 1.263–304 311 1.290 311 On Rewards and Punishments See also De praemiis et poenis 95 312 Rabbinic Literature Babylonian Talmud b. Šabb. 28b b. Menah. 34a–37b b. Menah. 42b–43b

67n44 202n44 202n44

Jerusalem Talmud y. Ned. 3.8 y. Taʿan 4.5

320 319

Mishnah m. Ber. 5:4 m. Mid. 2:5 m. Nazir 9:5 m. Ned. 3:10–11 m. Peah 6:9 m. Šeb. 5:3 m. Sukkah 5:4 m. Taʿan 4:6

290 154n4 230 320 289n39 290 154n4 319

Targumim Targum Esther Sheni 8:15 308n31 10:3 308n31

391

Index of Ancient Sources Midrash Lam. Rab. 2:2 §4

320

Early Christian Writers and Sources Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena 318 14:14 318 Ambrose of Milan Expositio Evangelii Lucae 2.48 316 Arabic Infancy Gospel 317 7:1 317 Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel X 1 12 143 Chronicle 321 Hadrian Year 17 321 History 321 Hist. eccl. 4.6.2–3 321–322 4.8.4 321 Irenaeus 315 Adversus haereses 315 2.9.2 315 Justin Martyr 315 Dialogus cum Tryphone 315 See also Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 320–321 106 315 108.1 320 108.3 320 First Apology 31.5–6 321 Lactantius 324 Divine Institutes 324 See also Institutiones Divinae 324 7 324 7.15.11 324, 327 7.15.17–18 324–325 7.16.8–9 325 7.17 325 7.18.6 325 7.19.2 325

Origen 315 Contra Celsum 315 1.59 315 1.60 315 Homiliae in Numeros 13.7 315 18.4 315 Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum §2 316 Palaea Historica 318 110:5 318 110:7 318 112:1 318 112:2 318 112:3 319 113:9 319 114:4 319 115:1–3 319 115:4 319 115:5 319 Revelation of the Magi 317–318 2:1 317n46 2:3 317n46 3:2–3 317 3:4 317 3:5 317 4:1 317 Other Ancient Writers and Sources Aelius Lampridius Commodus Antoninus 16.1–2

305

Appian Historia Romana 22 326n75 Balaam Text from Tell Deir ʿAllā

302–304

Cassius Dio Historia Romana 63.27.2 323 64.8.1 305, 323, 327 64.8.3 323

392

Index of Ancient Sources

65.1.4 323 65.5.4 323 66.2 305, 328 Claudius Ptolemy Centiloquy §100

306, 328

Dorotheus of Sidon

306

Joannes Zonaras 326 Epitome Historiarum 326 11.6 326 Marcus Manilius

306

Nechepso and Petosiris Frg. 9 Frg. 9 1–2 Frg. 9 73–74 Frg. 9 75–77 Frg. 9 90–92 Frg. 9 113–115 Frg. 9 140–141 Frg. 9 150–151

307, 328 307 307 307 328 307 307 307 307

Pliny Naturalis historia 2.21.88 307n28 2.22.89 306, 328 2.22.89–90 307 2.23.91 307

2.23.92 307, 328 2.23.94 305 2.25.96 307 Quintilian 336–337 Institutes 336 III.9.1–3 336 Seneca Naturales quaestiones 7.15 305n22 Serapio 306 Suetonius Divus Claudius 46 305 Divus Julius 88.1 305 Divus Vespasianus 4.5 322 Nero 36.1 305, 328 40.2 323, 327 Tacitus Annales 14.22 Historiae 5.13.2

305, 306, 328

Vettius Valens

306

324, 328