The Community Rule 1QS, 1QSa and 1QSb: A Philological Commentary (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 308) 9042945281, 9789042945289

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA The Community Rule 1QS, 1QSa and 1QSb A Philological Commentary

by TAKAMITSU MURAOKA

P E E T ERS

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSa AND 1QSb

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 308 —————

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSa AND 1QSb A Philological Commentary

by

TAKAMITSU MURAOKA

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-4528-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4529-6 D/2022/0602/43

To Max Indebted for ever for your careful reading of my manuscripts written in my second language

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IX

ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XIII

LITERATURE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XV

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 13 37 60 100 126 143 156 170 185 209

.

SECTION A — The community rule = 1QS Column 1 . . . . . . . . . Column 2 . . . . . . . . . Column 3 . . . . . . . . . Column 4 . . . . . . . . . Column 5 . . . . . . . . . Column 6 . . . . . . . . . Column 7 . . . . . . . . . Column 8 . . . . . . . . . Column 9 . . . . . . . . . Column 10 . . . . . . . . . Column 11 . . . . . . . . .

SECTION B — 1QRule of the congregation = 1QSa, also labelled 1Q28a 225 Column 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Column 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 SECTION C — 1QRule of Benedictions = 1QSb, also labelled 1Q28b. . 241 Column 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Column 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Column 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Column 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Column 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 INDICES . . . . Qumran texts . Biblical texts . Modern authors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

FOREWORD

Beside the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) and the Targum Job (11QtgJob), both written in Aramaic, the Community Rule (1QS) has been at the centre of my interest in the languages of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts discovered in the areas near the Qumran caves. As far as 1QS is concerned, I have published a series of seven articles on it, focusing on linguistic matters arising from it: “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (1),” Revue de Qumran 17 (1996) 573-83 “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (2),” Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995) 55-73 “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (3). The Community Rule (1QS): Column 3,” Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998) 47-64 “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4a). The Community Rule (1QS): Column 4,” pp. 335-346 in S.M. Paul et al. (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden, 2003) “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4b) on the Community Rule,” pp. 115-25 in D. Sivan, D. Talshir and C. Cohen (eds), Zaphenath-paneah, Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Beer Sheva, 2009) “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4c) on the Community Rule (1QS),” pp. 291309 in L.K. Lo, N. Tan, and Y. Zhang (eds), Crossing Textual Boundaries [Fschr. A.C.C. Lee] (Hong Kong, 2010)1 “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (5a) on the Community Rule,” Semitica et Classica 11 (2018) 289-97. Instead of writing further short articles on the remaining parts of 1QS it has appeared to me more sensible to publish a single monograph on the whole of the text, incorporating the above-listed studies. This has provided me with an opportunity to reconsider and revise these seven articles, especially taking into account results published in my A Syntax of Qumran Hebrew (2020) [mentioned as SQH] and E. Qimron’s A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2018).2 The cardinal importance of 1QS for our understanding of the community life at Qumran is universally agreed upon. It is sometimes thought to represent the charter or constitution of the Qumran community. To arrive at an accurate 1 The concluding several lines (after 21b starting with ‫ )זיו‬are not covered, due to the limit on the length for a Fschr. article. 2 The author has very kindly made a pre-publication, digitalised version accessible to me. In fact, it is available only online under https://zenodo.org/record/3737950#.XoXRs6gzaiM.

X

FOREWORD

interpretation of the text is therefore absolutely necessary. Such an endeavour is to be undertaken by studying its language in comparison with Biblical Hebrew, other Hebrew texts originating in the eleven Qumran caves and from sites nearby in the Judaean Desert, and the emerging Mishnaic Hebrew. Needless to say, a philological study of any ancient text need be based on its best possible edition. Here we are in a most fortunate situation in that Elisha Qimron, a leading authority on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has published a three-volume edition of Qumran Hebrew texts (Jerusalem, 22020). This study of ours is solidly based on this edition of Qimron. Whilst my epigraphical competence is minimal, I have ventured in a very few cases to take an exception to his reading and restoration. Our linguistic views do not always agree with each other. We are convinced that textual criticism and linguistics can and should inform each other. Furthermore, we have decided to study also 1QSa (= 1Q28a), the Rule of the Congregation, and 1QSb (= 1Q28b), the Rule of the Benedictions. Though they are known to be documents distinct from 1QS,3 the affinity between the three is in no doubt in terms of the thoughts expressed and the phraseologies employed in them.4 IQSa followed 1QS on the same scroll and was followed by 1QSb, thus in the sequence of .5 A total of ten 4Q fragments need be consulted: 4Q255 = 4QSa; 4Q256 = 4QSb; 4Q257 = 4QSc; 4Q258 = 4QSd; 4Q259 = 4QSe; 4Q260 = 4QSf; 4Q261 = 4QSg; 4Q262 = 4QSh; 4Q263 = 4QSi; 4Q264 = 4QSj.6 It is our sincere hope that this monograph of ours can somewhat further our understanding of Qumran Hebrew and these three select texts.

3 So “clearly three separate works,” Knibb (2000.793a) speaking on 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb, and “clearly two separate documents,” Schiffman (2000.797b) speaking on 1QS and 1QSa. See also what Milik had said already in 1955: DJD 1.107f. 4 Cf. “1QSa and 1QSb should be treated as an integral part of the cave 1 recension of the Rule,” Alexander and Vermes in DJD 26.10. 5 The text of 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb placed at the start of a new paragraph, unless otherwise indicated, mostly follows Qimron I (2020). The line number of a quoted lemma is that of the first word quoted, even when the quoted text runs into the immediately following line or lines. Thus a reference marking such as “1QS 1.20f.” or “1QS 1.20-22” will not be found here. When reference is made to commentaries and translations of the three documents treated here, the mode of referencing is simplified. E.g. “Licht (40)” or “Licht 40” instead of “Licht (1965.40)” or “Licht 1965.40.” 6 Their official edition can be consulted in DJD 26.

XI

FOREWORD

Once again I am deeply grateful to Peeters Publishers agreeing to publish this monograph and to Mr. B. Verrept and his staff for their friendly assistance and technical expertise. On 22 March 2021 Mr. Paul Peeters died an untimely death. It was an inestimable loss to his family and his staff members, and a grave loss to disciplines which owe to him tremendously. It was very generous of the editors of Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta to agree to publish this monograph in their famed series. I am yet again grateful to Mr. Bert Verrept and his staff of the publisher. Readers would agree with me for thanking them for immensely assisting me with the production of the indices. I dedicate this book to Rev. Dr. Max Rogland, for carefully casting an eye on the manuscript, noting infelicities in my English and making not a few comments touching on the substance of this book. In 2001 he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation written at Leiden University under my supervision. Since then he has rendered me this service quite a few times. T. MURAOKA Oegstgeest, The Netherlands 1 December, 2020.

ABBREVIATIONS

JOURNALS, SERIES, AB AJBI AJSL ANES BASOR Bibl. BO DJD DSD Fschr. GLECS

AND

COLLECTIONS

= Anchor Bible = Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute = The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures = Ancient Near Eastern Studies = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research = Biblica = Bibliotheca orientalis = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert = Dead Sea Discoveries = Festschrift = Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Études ChamitoSémitiques Hamlet = M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leuven • Paris • Dudley, MA. HS = Hebrew Studies ICC = International Critical Commentary IEJ = Israel Exploration Journal IOS = Israel Oriental Studies JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JJS = Journal of Jewish Studies JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNWSL = Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies Lesh = Leshonenu, ‫לשׁוננו‬ Megh = Meghillot, ‫מגילות‬ Or = Orientalia OTL = Old Testament Library QH, Ben Sira + 1997 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995. Leiden • New York • Köln. QH, Ben Sira + 1999 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and 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. Leiden • Boston • Köln. QH, Ben Sira + 2000 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston • Köln.

XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

QH, Ben Sira + 2008

= J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2013 = S.E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher and R.A. Clements (eds), Hebrew in the Second Temple Period — The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Contemporary Sources: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2015 = E. Tigchelaar and P. Van Hecke (eds) with the assistance of S. Bledsoe and P.B. Hartog, Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2018 = J. Joosten, D. Machiela and J.-S. Rey (eds), The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2020(?) = Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Related Fields. Leiden • Boston. RB = Revue Biblique RdQ = Revue de Qumran RÉJ = Revue d’Études Juives Tar = Tarbiz, ‫תרביץ‬ VT = Vetus Testamentum ZAH = Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW = Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft TECHNICAL TERMS BH CBH LBH MH NP QH RH SBH

= Biblical Hebrew = Classical Biblical Hebrew = Late Biblical Hebrew = Mishnaic Hebrew = noun phrase = Qumran Hebrew = Rabbinic Hebrew = Standard Biblical Hebrew

LITERATURE1

ABEGG, M.G., BOWLEY, J.E., and COOK, E.M in consultation with TOV, E. 2003. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, 2 vols. Leiden. ANDERSEN, F.I. 1970. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. [JBL Monograph Series 12]. Nashville • New York. — + DEAN FORBES, A. 1986. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Roma. AVINERI, I. 21964. ‫יד הלשון‬. Tel Aviv. BAR-ASHER, M. 1981. “Misunderstood spellings” (Heb.), Lesh 45.85-92. BARR, J. 1989. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford. BARTH, J. 21894. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig. BAUMGARTEN, J.M. 1953. “Sacrifice and worship among the Jewish sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” HTR 46.141-59. —. 1957. “On the testimony of women in 1QSA,” JBL 76.266-69. BDB = BROWN, F., DRIVER, S.R., and BRIGGS, Ch.A. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament etc. Oxford. BENDAVID, A. 1969-71. ‫[ לשון מקרא ולשון חכמים‬Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew], 2 vols. Tel Aviv. BEN-ḤAYYIM, Z. 1954. Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language. Madrid • Barcelona. —. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Traditions. Jerusalem • Winona Lake, IN. BEN YEHUDA, E. 1959. ‫מלון הלשון העברית הישנה והחדשה‬. New York. BERGSTRÄSSER, G. 1918-29. Hebräische Grammatik. 2 Teile. Leipzig. BEYER, K. 1984, 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer etc. Ergänzungsband. Göttingen. BL = BAUER, H. and LEADNER, P. 1922. Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes. Halle. BLAU, J. 2010. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN. BROCKELMANN, C. 1908-13. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols. Berlin. —. 1956. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen. — + SOKOLOFF, M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake, IN • Piscataway, NJ. BROOKE, G.J. 1998. An edition of part of 1QSb in DJD 26.227-33. — + ROBINSON, J.A. 1995. “A further fragment of 1QSb: The Schoyen collection MS 1909,” JJS 46.120-34. 1 The following bibliographical conventions are to be noted. 1) The referencing system applied to texts follows the current convention, e.g. 1QHa 25.2. 2) The above-mentioned Qimron’s edition of the text is referred to as, e.g., Qimron (I 30). 3) The leading editions and translations are referenced by the editor / translator’s name followed by a relevant page number without the year of publication. E.g. Charlesworth (94) = Charlesworth 1994.94. This applies to Brownlee 1951, Dupont-Sommer 1987, García Martínez - Tigchelaar 1997, Guilbert 1961, Habermann 1959, Knibb 1987, Lambert 1951, Leaney 1966, Licht 1965, Lohse 1986, Martone 1995, Pouilly 1976, Van der Ploeg 1951, Vermes 1995, Wernberg-Møller 1953, and Wise - Abegg - Cook 1996.

XVI

LITERATURE

BROWNLEE, W.H. 1951. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline. Translation and Notes. [BASOR Supplementary Studies Nos. 11-12]. New Haven. CARMIGNAC, J. 1963. “La règle de la congrégation,” pp. 9-27 in J. CARMIGNAC, É. COTHENET, and H. LIGNÉE (eds), Les textes de Qumran. Paris. CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.). 1994. With F.M. CROSS et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Tübingen • Louisville. COHEN, D. 1970-. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestés dans les langues sémitiques. Paris • Leuven. COOK, E.M. 2015. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, IN. DALMAN, G.H. 21905. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. Leipzig. —. 21930. Die Worte Jesu. Leipzig. —. 1938. Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch. Göttingen. DCH = CLINES, D. (ed.). 1993-2018. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 9 vols. Sheffield. DELITZSCH, C.F., tr. J. MARTIN. 1975. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 6 including a commentary on Proverbs. Grand Rapids. DRIVER, G.R. 1954. “Problems and solutions,” VT 4.225-45. DRIVER, S.R. 31892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. Oxford. —. 31902. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [ICC]. Edinburgh. —. 21913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel etc. Oxford. DUPONT-SOMMER, A. 1950. “La «Règle» de la communauté de la nouvelle alliance,” RHR 138.5-21. —. 1951. Observations sur le Manuel de Discipline découvert près de la mer morte. Paris. —. 1952. “Contribution à l’exégèse du Manuel de Discipline X 1-8,” VT 2.229-43. —. 1987 in A. DUPONT-SOMMER and M. PHILONENKO (eds), La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires. Paris. EHRLICH, A.B. 1908-14. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. 7 vols. Leipzig. EPSTEIN, J.N. 21964. ‫[ מבוא לנוסח המשנה‬An introduction to the Mishnah text]. Jerusalem. EVANS, C.A. 2000. Entry “Prince of the congregation,” pp. 693f. in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. FABRY, H.-J. and DAHMEN, U. (eds). 2011-16. Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. 3 vols. Stuttgart. FASSBERG, S.E. 1990. A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. [HSS 38]. Atlanta, GA. FITZMYER, J.A. 32004. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20), A Commentary. Rome. FREEDMAN, H. 1949. Jeremiah. Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary [Soncino Books of the Bible]. London. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ - TIGCHELAAR = GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. and TIGCHELAAR, E.J.C. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden. GESENIUS, W. 171915. Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Berlin +. —. 181987-2012. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament begonnen von R. Meyer und bearbeitet von H. Donner unter Mitarbeit von U. Rüterswörden und J. Renz. Berlin +. GESENIUS - KAUTZSCH. 21910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch. Second English edition revised by A.E. Cowley. Oxford.

LITERATURE

XVII

GIBSON, J.C.L. 1994. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax. Edinburgh. GINSBERG, H.L. 1961. ‫ק ֶֹה ֶלת‬. Tel Aviv • Jerusalem. GKC = Gesenius - Kautzsch, see above. GREENFIELD, J.C. 1977. “The prepositions ʻAd / ʻAl in Aramaic and Hebrew,” BSOAS 40.371f. GUILBERT, P. in J. CARMIGNAC and P. GUILBERT. 1961. Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotés: La règle de la communauté, La règle de la guerre, Les hymnes. Paris. HABERMANN, A.M. 1952. ‫[ עדה ועדות‬Three Scrolls from the Judaean Desert, the Legacy of a Community]. Jerusalem. —. 1959. ‫[ מגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Scrolls from the Judean Desert]. Jerusalem. HALOT = KOEHLER, L. and BAUMGARTNER, W. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols., translated from the German ed. (1967-76) and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. RICHARDSON. Leiden +, 1994-2000. HOLM-NIELSEN, S. 1960. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. Aarhus. HOLST, S. 2008. Verbs and War Scroll: Study in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scrolls. Copenhagen. HURVITZ, A. 1972. ‫[ בין לשון ללשון׃ לתולדות לשון המקרא בימי בית שני‬The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew]. Jerusalem. —. 1991. ‫[ שקיעי חכמה בספר תהלים׃ עייוני לשון וסגנון‬Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody]. Jerusalem. JAPHET, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles [OTL]. Louisville, KY. JASTROW, M. 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York. JENNI, E. 1992. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 1: Die Präposition Beth. Stuttgart • Berlin • Köln. JOÜON, P. 1923. Le grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Rome. JM = JOÜON, P. and MURAOKA, T. 22009 (second reprint of the second ed. with corrections). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome. KADDARI, M.Z. 1991. ‫[ תחביר וסמאנטיקה בעברית שלאחר המקרא‬Post-biblical Hebrew Syntax and Semantics. Studies in Diachronic Hebrew], Vol. 1. Ramat-Gan. —. 2006. ‫[ מילון העברית המקראית‬A Dict ionary of Bibl ical Hebrew]. Ramat-Gan. KESTERSON, J.C. 1987. “A grammatical analysis of 1QS V, 8-17,” RdQ 12.571-73. KISTER, M. 1988. “‫[ עוללות מספרות קומראן‬Marginalia qumranica],” Tarbiz 57.31525. —. 2009. “Divorce, reproof, and other sayings in the synoptic Gospels: Jesus traditions in the context of ‘Qumranic’ and other texts,” pp. 195-229 in R.A. CLEMENTS and D.R. SCHWARTZ (eds), Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity. [STDJ 84]. Leiden • Boston. KLEIN, E.D. 1987. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Languages for Readers of English. Jerusalem. KNIBB, M.A. 1987. The Qumran Community. Cambridge. —. 2000. “Rule of the Community,” pp. 793a-797a in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. KOEHLER, L. - BAUMGARTNER, W., tr. and ed. RICHARDSON, M.E.J. 1994-2000. Leiden+. → HALOT KÖNIG, E. 1881-97. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, 3 vols. Leipzig. KUGLER, R.A. 2000. “Priests,” pp. 688a-693a in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. KUTSCHER, E.Y. 1961. “.‫לשונן של האיגרות העבריות והאראמיות של בר כוסבה ובני דורו‬ ‫ האיגרות הארמיות‬:‫מאמר ראשון‬,” Lesh 25.117-33.

XVIII

LITERATURE

—. 1961a “:‫ מאמר ראשון‬.‫לשונן של האיגרות העבריות והאראמיות של בר כוסבה ובני דורו‬ ‫האיגרות העבריות‬,” Lesh 26.7-23. —. 1964. ‫( לש תירבעב תימראה‬calque) ‫בבואה‬, Tar 33.118-30. —. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Tr. from the Heb. ed. (Jerusalem, 1959). Leiden. LAMBERT, G. 1951. “Le Manuel de Discipline de la grotte de Qumran,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 73.938-75. LANE, E.W. 1867. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London • Edinburgh. LEAHY, T. 1960. “Studies in the syntax of 1QS,” Bibl. 41.135-57. LEANEY, A.R.C. 1966. The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. London. LICHT, J. 1957. ‫[ מגילות ההודיות ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Thanksgiving Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Text, Introduction and Commentary]. Jerusalem. —. 1965. ‫[ מגילת הסרכים ממגילות מדבר יהודה – סרך היהד • סרך העדה • סרך הברכות‬The Rule Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. 1QS • 1QSa • 1QSb. Text, Introduction, and Commentary]. Jerusalem LOHSE, E. 41986. Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch etc. Darmstadt. LUZZATTO, S.D. 1855, quoted from a 1970 reprint: ‫פירוש שד״ל ר׳ שמואל דוד לוצאטו על‬ ‫ספר ישעיה‬. Tel Aviv. MAIER, J. 1960. Die Qumran Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, 3 vols. München • Basel. MALESSA, M. 2006. Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im biblischen Hebräisch. Assen. MCKANE, W. 1970. Proverbs [OTL]. London. —. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [ICC]. Edinburgh. MANSOOR, M. 1961. The Thanksgiving Hymns. [STDJ III]. Leiden. MARTONE, C. 1995. La “regola della comunità.” Edizione critica. Torino. METSO, S. 1997. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. Leiden. MICHEL, D. 1977. Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax, I. Neukirchen. MILGROM, J. 1991. Leviticus 1-16. [AB 3]. New York. —. 2000. “Sacrifice,” pp. 807b-812a in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. MILIK, J.T. 1951. “«Manuale disciplinae»,” Verbum domini 29.129-58. MISHOR, M. 1983. ‫[ מערכת הזמנים בלשון התנאים‬The tense system in Tannaitic Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss. Jerusalem. MOR U. 2015. ‫עברית יהודאית׃ לשון התעודות העבריות ממדבר יהודה בין המרד הגדול למרד‬ ‫[ בר כוכבא‬Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea between the First and Second Revolts]. Jerusalem. MORAG, S. 1972. “Ἐφφαθά (Mark VII. 34): Certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic?,” JSS 17.42731. —. 2000. “On some concepts in the world of Qumran: Polysemy and semantic development,” pp. 178-92 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. MURAOKA, T. 1977. “The status constructus of adjectives in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 27.37580. —. 1983. “Hosea IV in the Septuagint version,” AJBI 9.24-64. —. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem • Leiden. —. 1996. “Notae qumranicae philologicae (1).” RdQ 17.573-83. —. 1996a “Notae qumranicae philologicae (2),” Abr-Nahrain 33.55-73. —. 1997. “Verb complementation in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 92-149 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997.

LITERATURE

XIX

—. 1999. “Notae qumranicae philologicae (3): The Community Rule (1QS): Column 3,” Abr-Nahrain 35.47-64. —. 1999a. “The participle in Qumran Hebrew with special reference to its periphrastic use,” pp. 188-204 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 1999b. “The tripartite nominal clause revisited,” pp. 187-213 in C.L. MILLER (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake, IN. —. 2000. “An approach to the morphosyntax and syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 193214 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2000a. “Hebrew,” pp. 340a-345b in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. —. 2003. “The Community Rule (1QS): Column 4,” pp. 335-46 in S.M. PAUL, R.A. KRAFT, L.H. SCHIFFMAN, and W.W. FIELDS (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. [VTS 94]. Leiden —. 2005. “Apports de la LXX dans notre compréhension de l’hébreu et du grec et de leur vocabulaire,” pp. 57-68 in J. JOOSTEN and Ph. LE MOIGNE (eds), L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité. Paris. —. 2007. “Some remarks on the syntax of doubly transitive verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 250-57 in J. LUCHSINGER et al. (eds), «… der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!» [Fschr. Ernst Jenni]. Münster. —. 2008. “The morphosyntax of the construct phrase in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 125-32 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2009. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4b) on the Community Rule,” pp. *115-25 in D. SIVAN, D. TALSHIR, and C. COHEN (eds), Zaphenath-paneah, Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Beer Sheva. —. 2009a. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2010. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4c) on the Community Rule (1QS),” pp. 291309 in L.K. LO, N. TAN, and Y. ZHANG (eds), Crossing Textual Boundaries [Fschr. A.C.C. Lee]. Hong Kong. —. 2010a. A Greek ≈ Hebrew / Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2011. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2015. A Biblical Aramaic Reader with an Outline Grammar. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2015a. “Aspects of the (morpho)syntax of the infinitive in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 8087 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. —. 2016. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2017. “Dan 7:2 ‫יליָ א‬ ְ ‫‘ ִעם ֵל‬by night’?,” VT 67.667-70. —. 2018. “Linguistically significant variants in Qumran fragments of Psalms,” pp. 15872 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. —. 2018a. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (5a) on the Community Rule,” Semitica et Classica 11.289-97. —. 2019. “The Promised Land in Hebrew,” ANES 56.311-13. —. 2020. A Syntax of Qumran Hebrew. Leuven • Paris • Bristol, CT. —. 2020a. Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages? Leuven • Paris • Bristol, CT. —. 2021. “What is ‫ פשׁר‬of ‫ פשׁר‬in Qumran Hebrew?,” ANES 58.111-15. —. 2021a. “Verbal rection in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 191-203 in S.E. FASSBERG (ed.), Hebrew Texts and Language of the Second Temple Period. [Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 134]. Leiden • Boston. — and MALESSA, M. 2002. “A Deuteronomistic formula < ‫ עשׂה‬+ ‫>שׁמר‬,” VT 52.548-51.

XX

LITERATURE

— and PORTEN, B. 22003. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic [HdO 32]. Leiden • Boston. NESTLE, E. and ALAND, B. 281994. Novum testamentum graece et latine. Stuttgart. NITZAN, B. 1986. ‫[ מגילת פשר חבקוק׃ ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬Pesher Habakkuk. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab)]. Jerusalem. —. 1993. “Benedictions and instructions for the eschatological community.” RdQ 61.7790. NÖLDEKE, Th. 1897. Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Wien. DEL OLMO LETE, G. and SANMARTIN, J. 1996-2000. Diccionario de la lengua Ugarítica. Sabadell (Barcelona). PARDEE, D. 1982. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Chico, CA. PARRY, D.W. and QIMRON, E. (eds). 1999. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), A New Edition. Leiden +. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, M. 1997. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Tr. J.F. ELWOLDE. Leiden. VAN PEURSEN, W.Th. 1997. “Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira,” pp. 158-73 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. VAN DER PLOEG, J. 1951. “Le ‘Manuel de Discipline’ des rouleaux de la Mer Morte,” BO 8.115-26. —. 1959. Le rouleau de la guerre [STDJ 2]. Leiden. POUILLY, J. 1976. La Règle de la communauté de Qumrân. Paris. PUECH, É. 1995. “Note de lexicographie hébraïque qumrânienne (m-ṣw/yrwq, mḥšbym, śwṭ), pp. 181-84 in Z. ZEVIT et al. (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies [Fschr. J.C. Greenfield]. Winona Lake, IN. QIMRON I, II, III. QIMROn, E. 22020. ‫[ מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings]. See above p. XV f.n. 1, (2). QIMRON, E. 1972. “‫[ ”ההבחנה בין וי״ו ליו״ד בתעודות מדבר יהודה‬The distinction between Waw and Yod in the Qumran scrolls], Beth Miqra 52.102-12. —. 1976. “A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Ph.D. thesis. Jerusalem. —. 1978. “The language of the Temple Scroll,” Lesh 42.83-98. —. 1979. In SEKINE, M. et al.. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Reproduction Made from the Original Scrolls Kept in the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem. Tokyo. —. 1981. “‫ די בראש משפּט עיקרי בּעברית וּבארמית‬,-‫ ש‬,‫המלות אשר‬,” Lesh 46.27-38. —. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. [HSS 29]. Atlanta, GA. —. 1995. “The Biblical lexicon in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2.295-329. —. 2004. “‫ענּוֹת וחברותיה‬,” ֻ Lesh 67.21-26. —. 2006. “Dualism in the Essene communities,” pp. 195-202 in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Waco, TX. —. 2018. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem. RABIN, Ch. 1957. Qumran Studies. Oxford. —. 21958. The Zadokite Documents: I The Admonition, II The Laws. Oxford. REVELL, E. 1962. “The order of the elements in the verbal statement clause in I Q Sereq,” RdQ 3.559-69. REY, J.-S. 2013. “On the prepositional object with bet in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 189213 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. ROFÉ, A. 1992. “A neglected meaning of the verb ‫ כול‬and the text of 1QS vi: 11-13,” pp. 315-21 in M. FISHBANE and E. TOV (eds), Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Winona Lake, IN. SCHIFFMAN, L.H. 1989. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation. [SBLMS 38]. Atlanta, GA.

LITERATURE

XXI

—. 2000. “Rule of the Congregation,” pp. 796a-799a in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. SCHULTHESS, F. 1903. Lexicon syropalaestinum. Berlin. SCRENOK, J. 2011. “Word order in the War Scroll (1QM) and its implications for interpretation,” DSD 18.29-44. SEGAL, M.H. 1958. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford. —. 21958a. ‫[ ספר בן־סירא השלם‬The Complete Book of Ben Sira]. Jerusalem. SIEGISMUND, K. 2018. “Once again on word order in the War Scroll (1QM),” DSD 25.83106. SIVAN, D. 1997. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language [HdO 28]. Leiden. SMITH, M.S. 1991. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive. Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran [HSS 39]. Atlanta, GA. VON SODEN, W. 1965-81. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden. SOKOLOFF, M. 1974. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan. —. 2014. A Dictionary of Palestinian Christian Aramaic [OLA 234]. Leuven. SONNE, I. 1957. “Remarks on ‘Manual of Discipline,’ Col. vi, 6-7,” VT 7.405-08. STEGEMANN, H., KRÜGER, J.-U. and VOIGT, J. 1988. “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von ‘1QS’ III, 13-IV, 26,” RdQ 13.95-131. STENNING, J.F. 1949. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford. STEUDEL, A. 2001. Die Texte aus Qumran II: Hebräisch/Aramäisch und Deutsch. Darmstadt. SUKENIK, ELIEZER L. (ed.). 1950. ‫מגילות גנוזות * מתוך גניזה קדומה שנמצאה במדבר יהודה׃‬ ‫סקירה שניייה‬. Jerusalem. —. 1955. ‫אוצר המגילות הגנוזות שבידי האוניברסיטה העברית‬. Jerusalem. TROPPER, J. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster. VERMES, G. 1997. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London. Wise - Abegg - Cook = WISE, M. ABEGG, M., and COOK, E. 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, Translated and with Commentary. San Francisco. WALTKE, B.K. and O’CONNOR, M. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN. WERNBERG-MØLLER, P. 1953. “Notes on the Manual of Discipline (DSD) I 18, II 9, III 14, 9, VII 10-12, and XI 21-22.” VT 3.195-202. —. 1957. The Manual of Discipline Translated and Annotated with an Introduction [STDJ I]. Leiden. VAN DER WOUDE, A.S. 1994. In F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ and A.S. VAN DER WOUDE, De Rollen van de Dode Zee. Ingeleid en in het Nederlands vertaald. Deel 1. Kampen. YADIN, Y. 1955. “A note on DSD IV 20,” JBL 74.40-3. —. 1957. ‫[ מגילת מלחמת בני אור בבני חושך ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness]. Jerusalem. —. GREENFIELD, J.C., YARDENI, A., and LEVINE, B.A. (eds). 2002. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and NabateanAramaic Papyri. Jerusalem. YALON, H. 1964. ‫מבוא לניקוד המשנה‬. Jerusalem. —. 1967. ‫ דברי לשון‬:‫מגילות מדבר יהודה‬. Jerusalem. ZIEGLER, J. (ed.). 21967. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis. Isaias. Göttingen.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

1QS COLUMN 1 Col. 1.1 - 11a 1.1) For [the Master ]? for his life, the book of the rule of the community. One is to seek 1.2) God with one’s [whole hear]t and with one’s whole soul by doing what is good and what is right before Him as 1.3) He commanded through Moses and through all His servants the prophets, and by loving everything 1.4) that He chose and by hating everything that He rejected, distancing oneself from every wicked (thing) 1.5) and adhering to every good deed and practising truth, righteousness, and justice 1.6) in the land and by not walking any more with a stubborn, sinful mind and whoring eyes, 1.7) doing every kind of wicked thing, and by bringing all those who become willing to practise God’s rules 1.8) into the covenant of mercy, thereby enabling them to become joined to the counsel of God, and to walk before Him impeccably in accordance with all that 1.9) becomes revealed at the times appointed for them, and to love all the sons of light 1.10) each in accordance with his lot in God’s counsel and to hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt 1.11) at God’s retribution. 1QS 1.1) ‫ס[רכ היחד‬ ֗ ‫]ספר‬: thanks to the discovery of 4QSa, a Cave IV fragment, we now have the official title of the document, which has replaced ‘the manual of discipline,’ a title introduced shortly after the discovery of 1QS. Though the phrase ‫ סרך היחד‬is used at line 16 below, it lacks ‫ספר‬. ‫‘ לדרוש אל‬one is to seek God’: here begins a very long series of infinitives, fifteen of them, all with deontic or injunctive value, worded either positively or negatively.1 The series ends in mid line 11, marked off by Qimron with a comma.2 One could say that we have here a manifesto of the Qumran community, a declaration of what the community and its members are aiming at and heading for. Nine infinitives following this initial ‫ לדרוש‬are prefixed with ‫ו־‬, five without it.3 There are pairs of antonymic parallelism joined with this conjunction. Thus 1 Cf. SQH § 18 c. Charlesworth (7) makes a new sentence start here: “In order to seek God,” but no main clause follows. This results in a single sentence of multiple infinitives supposedly indicating a purpose and lasting till line 18, which hardly does credit to our author! 2 Qimron (I 213 n. ad line 1) says: “the title looks like continuing up to line 11.” That is presumably why he has inserted a comma after ‫בנקמת אל‬ ֿ at the start of the line. There follows, it is true, an ordinary verbal clause as a parenthetical statement with an Impf., ‫יביאו‬, but it has injunctive value, and it is again followed by a series of infinitives, ‫ לברר‬and so on. 3 On the question of coordination, see SQH § 38 a and c.

2

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ולשנוא‬.. ‫( לאהוב‬3, 4, and 9, 10); ‫ ולדבוק‬.. ‫( לרחוק‬4, 5). On the presence or absence of the conjunction when three or more terms are concatenated, see SQH § 38 c. In some cases of the second category we see an infinitive being subordinate to the preceding one, e.g. ‫‘ ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס לרחוק מכול רע‬and to hate all that He disapproves of by keeping away from every wicked (thing)’ (line 4), where the second infinitive clause is explanatory or epexegetic, similarly ‫ולוא‬ ‫‘ ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות לעשות כול רע‬and not to walk any more with a stubborn, sinful mind and the whoring eyes, doing every kind of wicked thing’ (line 6), and see also ‫( ללכת‬line 15). In one case our analysis depends on the meaning to be assigned to the first infinitive: “one shall seek (‫ )לדרוש‬God with one’s whole heart and soul by doing (‫)ל ֗עשות‬ ֗ that which is good and right before Him” (line 2), where we could understand ‫ דרש‬as indicating a general stance of adoration, association, and eventual submission. In another case we have an infinitive complementing the preceding one: “one shall bring all those who become willing to practise God’s rules in the covenant of the community” (line 7).4 An inf. indicating a result of the first action may be identified in “all those who become willing to practise (‫ )הנדבים לעשות‬God’s rules in the covenant of the community, thereby becoming joined to the counsel of God” (line 7). In “They should clarify (‫ )לברר‬their thought through the truth of God’s laws and set their strength ready (‫( ”)וכוחם לתכן‬line 12) the bare inf., just as ‫לדרוש‬, the first infinitive of the series, opens a new subparagraph, and the second inf., ‫תכן‬, is parallel with it. What follows, “And they shall not transgress (‫)ולוא לצעוד‬ any single one of all the words of God” (line 13), presents a new injunction introduced with the conjunction -‫ו‬, a purely coordinating particle, which is also the case with the infinitives coming thereafter — “nor shall they be too quick .. nor too late nor digress by going right or left.” Under the first category we see cases of notional parallelism, e.g. “and by loving (‫ )ולאהוב‬everything that He has chosen and hating (‫ )ולשנוא‬everything that He has rejected” (line 3), which in turn is parallel to what precedes — “by doing (‫)ל ֗עשות‬ ֗ that which is good and right before Him” (line 2), “to keep away (‫)לרחוק‬ from every wicked thing and to adhere (‫ )ולדבוק‬to every good deed” (line 4), “to love (‫ )לאהוב‬all the sons of light .. and to hate (‫ )ולשנוא‬all the sons of darkness” (line 9), “one is not to be too early (‫ )לקדם‬.. or too late (‫( ”)ולהתאחר‬line 14). ‫אל‬, when applied to the God of Israel, occurs literally hundreds of times in DSS and tens of times in 1QS alone and never takes the definite article. This is common when a unique entity is being referred to. The same applies to ‫אלהים‬ in QH, in which ‫ האלהים‬occurs a mere four times: 4Q220 7ii2, 4Q220 1.5, 4Q378 21.2, 26.2. Cf. SQH § 7 f. 4 An example of an infinitive with similar value, also of √‫ נדב‬and from 1QS, is ‫המתנדבים ביחד‬ ‫‘ להקים את בריתו‬.. to consolidate His covenant’ 1QS 5.21. In our passage the N binyan is functioning as equivalent to tD with ingressive value, on which see SQH § 12 e 7.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

3

1QS 1.2) ‫]ל ֗עשות הטוב והישר לפניו‬ ֗ ‘by doing what is good and what is right before Him.’ As in BH, the category of neuter gender as a reference to a genderless, inanimate referent can be expressed with a feminine as well as masculine form. This applies to substantivised adjectives and demonstrative pronouns.5 Is ‫ לפניו‬an adjectival modifier or an adverbial one modifying ‫ ?לעשות‬If the latter, it could be positioned immediately after the infinitive.6 ‫‘ ]כאשר צוה ביד מושה וביד כול עבדיו הנביאים‬as He commanded through Moses and through all His servants the prophets.’ Wernberg-Møller (45) notes that in the OT Moses and the prophets are never mentioned together.7 It is therefore interesting to note the same combination in the NT: Lk 16.29 Μωυσέα καὶ τοὺσ προφήτας. Also Lk 16.31, 24.27, Jn 1.46, Ac 28.23. 1QS 1.3-4) In connection with the Biblical and Qumran parallels usually cited to illustrate the parallelism in phraseology and thought, let us note that we have here to do with two related but distinct sets of parallelism: (a) ‫ מאס‬// ‫בחר‬ and (b) ‫ שנא‬// ‫אהב‬. The set (a) is illustrated by Is 7.15, 16 ‫וּבחוֹר ַבּטּוֹב‬ ָ ‫;מאוֹס ָבּ ָרע‬ ָ see also ib. 41.9 and Je 33.24, where, however, no moral choice is involved. The set (b) is illustrated at 1QS 1.10f. “to love (‫ )לאהוב‬all the sons of light .. and to hate (‫ )לשנוא‬all the sons of darkness” and Am 5.15 ‫שׂנְ אוּ ָר ע וְ ֶא ֱהבוּ טו ֺב‬. ִ Our passage combines both sets. Slight variations are found in 1QHa 4.36 ‫שנאתה‬ ֗ ‫להתהלך בכול אשר אהבתה ולמאוס בכול אשר‬ ֗ and CD 2.15 ‫לבחור את‬ ‫אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא‬. The semantic affinity between ‫ מאס‬and ‫ שנא‬is reinforced at Am 5.21 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫אתי ָמ ַא ְס ִתּי ַחגּ‬ ִ ֵ‫שׂנ‬. ָ Cf. also 1QHa 7.32 ‫ויבחרו באשר‬ ‫שנאתה‬. ‫‘ ]לאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס‬to love everything He chose and to hate everything He rejected,’ one of several examples in QH where we cannot account for the vacillation between the presence and the absence of ‫את‬ in two parallel clauses.8 Although ‫ ָמ ַאס‬is synonymous with ‫שׂנֵ א‬, ָ which latter is often used as a stative verb, we hesitate in regarding ‫ ָבּ ַחר‬as such. The selection of the preterite qatal might be a reference to the divine revelation already made to Moses and prophets. 1QS 1.4) ‫‘ ]לרחוק מכול רע ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב‬to distance oneself from all that is evil and to attach oneself to every good deed.’ Wernberg-Møller (45) was 5

On the situation in QH in this respect, see SQH § 3 e, 6 c, where some examples will be noticed as showing that the issue is irrelevant here, as in our 1QS example either analysis apparently makes not much difference. 6 The syntactic ambiguity of a prepositional phrase following a substantive or its equivalent is mentioned in SQH § 21 fb. 7 Wernberg-Møller mentions CD 5.21f., where such a combination is also to be found, but we do not find such: what we do find there is Moses and ‫משיחי הקודש‬. 8 For more examples, see SQH § 31 d.

4

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

not able to point to any exact parallel in the OT. To the pseudo-epigraphical passages he quotes, Licht (59) adds Test. Gad 5.2. Licht (ib.) also refers to a prayer attributed to Rabbi Hiya: “that Thou keepest us away (‫ )תרחקנו‬from all that Thou hatest and that Thou bringest us near (‫ )תקרבנו‬to all that Thou lovest.” Let us mention the Targum Jonathan at one of the above-quoted Isaiah passages: Is 7.15, 16 ‫וּל ָק ָר ָבא ָט ָבא‬ ְ ‫ישׁא‬ ָ ‫ל ַר ָח ָקא ִבּ‬.ְ 9 Some translations seem to take ‫ מעשי‬as a genuine plural, thus pl. cst.: Charlesworth (7), García Martínez - Tigchelaar (3) and Knibb (78) “all good works,” “toutes les bonnes œuvres” (van der Ploeg 115b; Guilbert 21), DupontSommer (10) “toutes les œuvres bonnes,” Lohse (5) “allen guten Werken,” Maier (1960.21) “allen Werken des Guten,” Leaney (117) “all good deeds.” That this is a case of an indiscriminate use of yod for indicating an e vowel typical of Qumran Hebrew is clear from 1QHa 15.20 ‫‘ מחסי בשר‬fleshly refuge,’ an example mentioned by Licht (59f.).10 We are inclined to see here a singular noun in the abs. st. modified by a genuine, not substantivised, adjective. Among quite a number of examples in QH of the second term of a construct phrase indicating a quality of the first, there is none in which we can be certain that the second term is an adjective. Thus ‫‘ גויי רשעה‬wicked peoples’ 1QM 14.7, but not ‫גויי‬ ‫ר ָשׁע =[ רשע‬,ָ and not = ‫]ר ַשׁע‬. ֶ 11 1QS 1.5) ‫‘ ]לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬to practise truth, righteousness, and justice.’ Licht (293) presents a table conveniently setting out passages which express a similar thought. He is right in taking Mi 6.8 ‫ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֱ ‫ וְ ַה ְצנֵ ַע ֶל ֶכת ִעם ֱא‬as the source. The passages quoted by Licht are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1QS 5.3f. ‫לעשות אמת יחד וענוה צדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהם‬ ib. 8.2 ‫לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת איש עם רעהו‬ ib. 2.24 ‫הכול יהיו ביחד אמת וענות טוב ו֯ אהבת חסד ומחשבת צדק ֯אי֯ ש לרעהו‬ ib. 5.24 ‫להוכיח איש את רעהו באמ ֗֯ת וענוה ואהבת חסד לאיש‬ 1QpHab 7.10-12 ‫אנשי האמת עושי התורה אשר לוא ירפו ידיהם מעבודת האמת‬.

All the passages, including ours at 1QS 1.5, are concerned with the ethical practice of God’s people12: the verb ‫ עשה‬is featured in most of the passages. One notices, however, a subtle, but significant difference between the base text, Mi 6.8, and the rest (with the exception of [5]) in that, in the former, one’s ethical conduct is contemplated directly in relation to God, whereas in the Qumran passages this divine perspective is rather in the background and the mutual 9 The translation by Stenning (1949.24) is that of the Hebrew text: “to reject the evil and choose the good.” 10 As had already been pointed out by Sukenik (1950 ‫)כח‬. On this question, see further Qimron (2018.74-77 § A 3.5), who is firmly of the view that ‫ מעשי‬here is singular. 11 On the so-called genitivus qualitatis in QH, see our SQH § 21 b xviii. 12 Based on a divine model: ‫ אני יהוה עשה חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ‬Je 9.23. Note the addition of ‫ בארץ‬as in our passage.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

5

relationship between the members of the community comes to the foreground, esp. (2) and (3).13 We also note that the sequence of the three virtues mentioned in our passage is identical with that in (1) and (2). However, Je 4.2 presents a variation: ‫נשבעת‬ ‫חי יהוה באמת במשפט ובצדקה‬.14 1QS 1.6) ‫‘ ]ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות לעשות כול רע‬and not to walk any more with a sinful, stubborn mind and whoring eyes, doing every kind of evil thing.’ The phrase ‫ שרירות לב אשמה‬illustrates an ambiguity in syntactic hierarchy of a st. cst. phrase consisting of three or more terms: is the relationship or ? Supposing ‫ אשמה‬is not an adjective, ‫א ֵשׁ ָמה‬, ֲ modifying ‫שרירות‬, but a substantive, ‫א ְשׁ ָמה‬, ַ is it a nomen rectum to be construed with ‫ לב‬or with ‫שרירות לב‬, which latter by itself is a construct phrase? The context indicates .15 CD 2.15 ‫להתהלך תמים בכל דרכיו ולא לתור‬ ‫ במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות‬is contextually close and points to the same direction. The logico-semantic relationship indicated by the cst. phrase here is that of quality16, ‘a sinful, stubborn mind.’ This is manifest when the nomen rectum belongs to a lexical field of sin as in ‫ פשעי אשמתם וחטאתם‬1QS 1.23, ‫מעשי רשע‬ ‫ אשמתכה‬ib. 2.5, and ‫ עוון אשמה‬ib. 5.15, 1QpHab 8.12. When ‫ אשׁמה‬means ‘sinful, indictable deed,’ it often appears in the plural, e.g. ‫לחטאות העם ולאשמותמה‬ 11Q19 35.12. As for Charlesworth’s (7) “lustful eyes”17 and van der Ploeg’s (115b) “yeux impudiques”18, the phrase is not literally meant, as is clear from the immediately following ‫לעשות כול רע‬. Cf. Ez 6.9 “how I was crushed by their wanton heart (‫)ל ָבּם ַהזֹּנֶ ה‬ ִ that turned away from me, and their wanton eyes (‫)עיניהם הזונות‬ that turned after their idols” and Nu 15.39 “.. and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly” (‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ֵעינ‬ ‫)א ֶשׂר ַא ֶתּם זֹנִ ים‬. ֲ It reflects the relationship between God and Israel sometimes compared to marriage relationship. Our author is not therefore speaking in the sense of “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5.28). 13 So in Testament of Benjamin 10.3: “Do ye, therefore, truth and righteousness each one to his neighbour, and judgment unto confirmation.” 14 This saying may also have to do with ethical conduct. Though Rashi and others refer to Je 5.2 “to swear falsely,” which is reasonable with regard to “in truth,” but ‫ נשׁבע בצדקה‬is an uncommon collocation. Cf. Freedman (1949.26): “The Rabbis interpret: Only when a man has truth, justice, and righteousness is he worthy of swearing by the name of God.” See also Radaq ad Je 4.2. 15 See Wernberg-Møller 45. 16 See SQH § 21 b xviii. 17 Charlesworth (7, n. 6) also mentions Qimron’s oral suggestion: “passion of whoredom.” 18 Cp. Guilbert’s (22) “yeux débauchés,” who justly notes “«Le cœur .. les yeux», présentés comme occasion de péché,” and refers to Nu 15.39.

6

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS 1.7) ‫‘ ]ולהבי את כול הנדבים לעשות חוקי אל בברית חסד‬and to bring all who become willing to practise God’s statutes into the covenant of mercy.’ With reference to the question of coordination and subordination of concatenated infinitives we analysed ‫ לעשות‬as subordinate and complementing ‫( נדבים‬p. 2 above ad line 1). There follow four more infinitives: ‫ ולאהוב‬.. ‫ ולהתהלכ‬.. ‫להיחד‬ ‫ ולשנוא‬... We can analyse ‫ להיחד‬as subordinate, but not to ‫נדבים‬, but to ‫ לעשות‬as an infinitive indicating a result. With this last qualification we could then analyse all the five infinitives as subordinate to ‫נדבים‬. In terms of the message carried by them they can be divided into two groups: the first three are concerned with man’s relationship with God, as explicitly indicated by ‫( אל‬twice) and ‫ לפניו‬in “to walk before Him,” whereas the last two are concerned with inter-human relationships. The latter are ultimately included in the former as shown by ‫אל‬ repeated twice in the latter (‫ נקמת אל‬.. ‫)עצת אל‬, a reflection of the biblical theology and anthropology. The conjunction -‫ ו‬of ‫ ולהתהלך‬is coordinate with ‫לעשות‬, but not with ‫להיחד‬, and that of ‫ לאהוב‬is coordinate with the preceding whole set, but not with ‫ להתהלך‬alone, and that of ‫ לשנוא‬is coordinate with ‫לאהוב‬, forming a parallelistic pair with it. This complex hierarchy may be symbolised as: ‫ ]לעשות < להיחד[ ||( < נדבים‬+ ‫ להתהלך‬+ || [‫ לאהוב‬+ ‫)]לשנוא‬.

1QS 1.8) ‫‘ ]להתהלך לפניו תמים‬to walk before Him with integrity.’ On our analysis of ‫ תמים‬not as adj. mpl. ‫תּ ִמּים‬, ַ but as an adverbially used ‫תּ ִמים‬, ָ see SQH § 31 c, with n. 1 there, and a more detailed analysis at 2.2 below. ‫]כול הנגלות ֗למועדי תעודותם‬. Most authorities take the Nifal participle here in the sense of divine revelation in the past: Charlesworth (7) “all revealed (laws),” García Martínez - Tigchelaar (71) “all revealed things,” Vermes (70) “all that has been revealed,” Lohse (5) “allem, was offenbart wurde,” WernbergMøller (22) “all the things which have been revealed.” Licht (57), however, paraphrases it as ‫‘ הולכות ומתגלות‬keep being revealed.’19 In contrast to ‫גלוי‬, a Qal passive participle, the Nif. ptc. probably indicates a process rather than a result arising therefrom; ingressive, i.e. ‘to become ‫גָּ לוּי‬,’ cf. SQH § 12 e (7). Note 1QS 8.14f. ‫שר צוה ביד מושה לעשות ככול הנגלה עת בעת‬ ֯ ‫היֿ אה מדרש התורה ֗א‬ ‫וכאשר גלו הנביאים‬. The fem. gender of ‫ נגלות‬is equivalent to the neuter in Greek, referring to abstract notions; cf. SQH § 6 c. Wernberg-Møller (40) rightly emends ‫ כול‬to ‫ככול‬.20 The preposition lamed must mean “at” (of time) as in ‫ ְל ֵעת ֶע ֶרב‬Gn 8.11, ‫ ַלמּו ֵֺעד ַהזֶּ ה‬ib. 17.21.21 19

See also Licht 61 (‫)יתגלו‬. Licht (60) also sees here a case of inadvertent haplography, though suggesting an alternative analysis, namely ‫ ְתּ ִמים‬st. cst., which is difficult; one would rather anticipate ‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫תּ ִמ‬. ְ 21 So Yalon (1967.86, n. 95). Cf. Charlesworth (7) “at their appointed times,” van der Woude (1994.188) “gedurende de tijden van hun getuigenissen,” but García Martínez - Tigchelaar (71) “concerning the regulated times,” Dupont-Sommer (10) “concernant leurs fêtes.” 20

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

7

1QS 1.9) ‫]למועדי תעודותם‬ ֗ Repeated below at 3.10. Finally, the pronominal suffix ‫ם‬- can also refer to a feminine noun.22 1QS 1.11b - 20 1.11b) All those who become willing (to dedicate themselves) to His truth shall bring all their knowledge and strength 1.12) and possessions to God’s community. They should clarify their thought through the truth of God’s laws and allocate their physical resources 1.13) as best as He would demand, and they shall not transgress any single one of 1.14) all the words of God in their seasons nor shall they bring their times forward nor be late 1.15) for any of their appointed times nor digress from His reliable precepts by going to the right or left, 1.16) and all who embrace the rule of the community shall join the covenant in the presence of God to do 1.17) wholly as He commanded and not to stray away from Him out of any fear or terror or any trying discipline 1.18) under the rule of Belial, and when they join the covenant, the priests 1.19) and Levites shall be (there), blessing the God of victories and all His deeds of truth, and all 1.20) who join the covenant shall be saying after them “Amen, Amen.” 1QS 1.11) ‫]וכול הנדבים לאמתו יביאו‬ The long series of infinitives analysed above is suddenly broken at (11), replaced by a finite verb: ‫ יביאו‬.. ‫וכול הנדבים‬. So far the infinitives were concerned with the general moral codes to be observed by the sectarians. The interest now shifts to rules of conduct more specifically applicable to life within their community. We find more ordinances formulated by means of finite verbs: ‫( יעבורו‬16), ‫ מברכים‬.. ‫( יהיו‬18).23 This is rounded off by a short series of negative infinitives parenthetically tacked on: ‫( ולוא לצעוד‬13); ‫ ולוא‬.. ‫ולוא לקדם‬ ‫( להתאחר‬14); ‫( ולוא לסור‬15); ‫( ולוא לשוב‬17). 1QS 1.12) ‫‘ ]לברר דעתם‬to elucidate [or: examine, test] their knowledge.’ Pace Charlesworth’s (7) “to strengthen” the verb has nothing to do with strength. ‫וכוחם לתכן כתם דרכיו‬. “their energies” of García Martínez - Tigchelaar (71) is definitely preferable to Charlesworth’s (7) neutral “strength,”24 in highlighting the sectarians’ threefold resources: intellectual (‫)דעת‬, physical, bodily (‫)כח‬, and financial, material (‫)הון‬.25 22

See Qimron 2018.284, § D 2.6.3. More participles are dependent on ‫( יהיו‬18): ‫( אומרים‬20), ‫( מספרים‬21), ‫( משמיעים‬22), ‫( מספרים‬22), ‫( מודים‬24). 24 So also many others. For the maintenance of the community facilities members must have engaged themselves in physical labour from time to time. 25 See Leaney 122. Sharing of possessions and assets with fellow members reminds us of what happened for a while in the Jerusalem Church as described in Acts 4.32-37. 23

8

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ תם‬is most likely a rare defectiva spelling: the combination ‫ תום דרך‬is common in QH: e.g. 1QS 5.24 ‫ ;תום דרכו‬ib. 10.21 ‫עד תום דרכם‬. Also ib. 11.11; 1QHa 12.31. The meaning of the entire phrase remains obscure. The verb and its verbal noun, ‫תכון‬, seem to have something to do with measuring as is evident from a parallelism with ‫ משקל‬at 1QS 9.12 ‫לתכון עת ועת ולמשקל איש ואיש‬.26 See also ib. 8.4 ‫ב)ע(מדת האמת ובתכון העת‬ ֗ ‫עם כול‬ ֿ ‫להתהלכ‬. “To allocate their physical resources as best as He would demand” or some such notion? 1QS 1.13) ‫‘ ]לוא לצעוד בכול אחד מכול דברי אל בקציהם‬not to transgress any one of all the words of God in their seasons.’ Wernberg-Møller (48) rejects Yalon’s (1967.77) suggestion that the verb ‫ צעד‬here must mean “to transgress.” Wernberg-Møller has ignored 1QS 3.11, which Yalon had adduced: ‫לוא‬ ‫‘ לסור ימין ושמאול ואין לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו‬and not to stray right nor left and one is not to tread upon even one out of all His words,’ where the verb cannot mean anything other than “to transgress.”27 The preposition ‫ ב‬following the verb is, however, slightly problematic.28 The Ugaritic b meaning “from” can hardly be invoked. -‫ ב‬is often used to indicate hostility or enmity with verbs such as ‫מרה‬, ‫מעל‬, ‫פשע‬, which fits our context well.29 1QS 1.15) ‫‘ ]חוקי אמתו‬His true, i.e. reliable, not fake ordinances.’ On the logico-semantic relationship of this construct phrase, cf. SQH § 21 b xviii. ‫‘ ]ללכת ימין ושמאול‬to go right or left,’ the two substantives adverbialised, as in BH, ‫וּשׂמֹאול‬ ְ ‫ ל ֹא ָאסוּר יָ ִמין‬Dt 2.27, see SQH §10 c. 1QS 1.16) ‫]יעבורו בברית‬. In 1QS this collocation is used interchangeably with ‫בא בברית‬, which alone is used in CD. E.g. 1QS 2.12 ‫ ;הבא בברית‬5.8, 20 ‫ ;יבוא בברית‬10.10 ‫אבואה בברית אל‬. Cf. ib. 1.7 ‫ בברית חסד‬.. ‫להבי‬. In our present passage it would have been awkward to use ‫ בא בברית‬because of the preceding ‫הבאים בסרך היחד‬. 1QS 1.18) ‫‘ ]בעוברם בברית יהיו הכוהנים והלויים מברכים‬when they join the covenant, the priests and Levites shall be (there), blessing.’ According to WernbergMøller (50, n. 45), our passage is dependent on Dt 29.11 ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ְל ָע ְב ְרָך ִבּ ְב ִרית יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ‫וּב ָא ָלתוֹ‬, ְ and ‫ יהיו‬is a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of the Tetragrammaton 26 Cf. Is 40.12 “Who has measured (‫)מ ַד ד‬ ָ the waters in the hollow of his hand, and marked off (‫)תּ ֵכּ ן‬ ִ the heavens with a span, meted (‫)כּ ל‬ ָ the dust of the earth with a measure, and weighed (‫)שׁ ַקל‬ ָ the mountains with scales ..?” 27 On the government of the verb by means of ‫על‬, see mHor 1.1 ‫לעבור על אחת מכול מצוות‬ ‫‘ האמורות בתורה‬to transgress one of all the commandments mentioned in the Torah.’ WernbergMøller’s (22) rendering “to walk away from a single one of ..” is indefensible, whilst he renders, at 3.11, “walking contrary to a single ..” 28 Qimron (1979) added a footnote: “The ‫ ב‬was perhaps corrected to ‫מ‬.” So in Qimron 2020 ad loc. 29 For details, see BDB s.v. II, 4. See also Jenni 1992.257-63.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

9

in the Dt passage. Therefore, he goes on to say, it should be ignored in translation, and the passage is a description of the ritual, not a prescription of it. The insertion of such a theologically motivated code is rather unlikely. The periphrastic syntagm, , can be viewed as a graphic description of the ceremony, see SQH § 17 fb. The habitual or iterative force of the periphrastic construction, , is carried forward to the participles in the following lines: ‫( אומרים‬20), ‫( מספרים‬21), ‫( משמיעים‬22), ‫( מודים‬24), ‫( מברכים‬2.1), ‫( אומרים‬2), ‫( מקללים‬4), ‫( אומרים‬10).30 On the other hand, our text’s grouping God’s people into two, those worthy of priestly blessing and those deserving Levitical cursing, appears to be due to our author’s understanding of ‫ ָא ָלה‬in the Dt passage as meaning “curse,” a meaning attested in QH, especially in the expression ‫אלות הברית‬, “the curses stipulated in the covenant,” e.g. 1QS 2.16, 5.12; CD 1.17, 15.2, 3. 1QS 1.19) ‫‘ ]אל ישועות‬the God of victories.’ The idiom is biblical: Is 12.2; Ps 88.2. Especially the former is striking, ‫שׁוּע ִתי ֶא ְב ַטח וְ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ָחד‬ ָ ְ‫הנֵּ ה ֵאל י‬, ִ where the concluding ‫ לא אפחד‬is echoed in 1QS 1.17 ‫לוא לשוב מאחרו מכול‬ ‫פחד‬. 1QS 1.21 - 2.4a 1.21) And the priests shall be recounting the righteous deeds of God, works of His power 1.22) and referring to all deeds of steadfast mercy for Israel, and the Levites recounting 1.23) the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their guilty offences and their sin(s) under the rule of 1.24-25) Belial, and [all] who join the covenant confess after them, saying “We and our forefathers committed iniquities, offences, sins, we acted wickedly as we walked 1.26 [contrary to the precepts of] truth, and righteous is the God [of Israel in] His judgement over us and our forefathers, 2.1) and He conferred upon us mercies of His steadfast love from eternity to eternity, and the priests shall be blessing all 2.2) the people of the lot of God who walk with integrity in all His ways, and saying “May He bless you with every 2.3) goodness and protect you from every evil and enlighten your mind with understanding (conducive to) life and graciously confer on you eternal knowledge 2.4) and lift for you His merciful face for eternal peace!,” 1QS 1.21) ‫]והכוהנים ֗מספרים את צדקות אל במעשי גבורתום‬. The preposition bet is slightly ambiguous. Most authorities translate it with “in,” as paraphrased by Vermes (71) with “manifested in.” It is, however, to be doubted that it can bear such a nuance. We would rather refer to 1QHa 19.31 ‫לספר ברוב חסדיכה‬ 30 So recognised already by Brownlee (9). On the periphrastic structure in Rabbinic Hebrew, see Mishor (1983.375-78).

10

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‘to recount the multitude of your kindnesses.’31 This preposition can introduce the topic of oral communication, cf. SQH § 31 eb (p. 190) and BDB s.v. ‫ְבּ‬ IV e. The suffix mem of ‫ גבורתום‬has given rise to an extended footnote by Charlesworth (9, n. 21).32 This ‫ום‬-, apparently a suffix pronoun, appears also in our document in ib. 5.21, 9.14 ‫ ;רוחום‬possibly 1QSa 1.4 ‫בבואוֿ ם‬.33 Charlesworth holds that in every case the suffix is that of 3m.pl. attached to a (morphologically) plural noun. But in ‫ רוחום‬the element -‫ רוח‬cannot be plural and incapable of being translated “their spirits,” and in the case of ‫ בבואום‬no infinitive has a plural form. Some opted for a palaeographical solution, emending ‫ום‬- to ‫ם‬-.34 Qimron (2018.114, § B 5.2.1) comes with a phonological description, namely, a tendency to add or delete a nasal after a word-final vowel. He mentions several other cases, but mostly qualified with “unless ...”35 We would point out that in ‫ רוחום‬at 5.21 “and when someone enters (‫וכיא‬ ‫)יבוא‬36 .. then they shall examine his spirit in a general meeting among themselves (consulting) one another in respect of his understanding and practices ..” the suffix is best understood as that for “his.” It does not seem to us that, presented with a candidate, the sectarians are urged to institute self-introspection.37 But see below ad loc., p. 124. 31 What Jenni (1992.160-65) calls Beth communicationis. “together with” (Wernberg-Møller 23) is unfounded. So is Charlesworth (9) “along with.” 32 There is yet another, not much less extended footnote on the same issue at Charlesworth (25, n. 116) ad 1QS 5.21 ‫רוחום‬. 33 Milik (DJD 1.109-12) read ‫בבואים‬, emending it to ‫בבואם‬, which he translated “Lorsqu’il en arrivera,” without saying, however, about the resultant ‫בבואם‬, whether it is equivalent to ‫בבואו‬ or not. 1QS 5.20 ‫‘ ם)ו(הונ‬their property’ does not belong here, for the second waw has been erased. 34 So systematically Lohse 4, 18, 46. Incidentally, Lohse’s “ihren Geist” at 1QS 5.21 does not, therefore, support Charlesworth (25), as he seems to think. 35 Qimron (1986.40) considers less plausible the suggestion that the waw corresponding to the Tiberian qamats, which would be the case in all the cases mentioned above, evidences the early signs of the subsequent o-like pronunciation of the Tiberian qamats. We fail to see Qimron’s (2018.114) alternative analysis of ‫ מעשי גבורתום‬as “their ..,” but whose? Are the priests bragging about their wondrous act? Charlesworth (9) translates “its wondrous acts”; for his “its” in lieu of “His” he seems to be carried away by his creative, imaginative theology. He is following in the footsteps of Brownlee (1951.9, n. 36), whose analysis is linguistically impossible. 36 Charlesworth’s (25) “And therefore he shall enter” is indefensible. The sg. “he” immediately after “their property” is highly unlikely. No more defensible is his “And they shall examine ..,” for we have here an indisputable case of the waw consecutive with a perfect, which by definition follows a preceding non-preterite tense form, ‫ יבוא‬in this case. Note a similar case introduced by a synonymous conditional ‫אם‬: ‫ ודרשו המשפט‬.. ‫‘ ואם בשגגה יעשה והובדל‬if he acted inadvertently, then he ought to be excluded .. and one should examine the regulation ..’ 1QS 8.24. Cf. Smith 1991. 35-63, esp. 42-44. 37 For some reason unknown to us Qimron (2018) does not mention this instance of ‫רוחום‬, whereas in Qimron 1986.27, § 200.143, it is adduced and translated “his spiritual quality.” On the other hand he (2018.285) adduces ‫ רוחום‬1QS 9.14, for which 4QSe reads ‫ר]ו[חמה‬, a variant reading which is said to prove us wrong with our analysis of ‫ רוחום‬1QS 5.21 as meaning ‘his

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

11

Furthermore, at 9.14 ‫ ולשקול בני הצדוֿ ק לפי רוחום‬it is not impossible that there originally stood ‫ שיא‬before ‫לפי‬,38 which would bring this clause in line with the following three infinitival clauses, all of which contain a distributive expression: ‫( ואיש כרוחו כן לעשות משפטו ואיש כבור כפיו לקרבו ולפי שכלו להגישו‬line 15). If such be the case, we would have another case of “his” spelled ‫ום‬-. That leaves only one certain case of the ending meaning “their,” but not attached to a plural, but to what virtually amounts to a singular masculine noun, namely ‫בבואום‬, i.e. in lieu of ‫בוֹאם = בבואם‬ ָ ‫בּ‬. ְ One could perhaps live with one scribal error in the entire Qumran documents, even if one does not accept Qimron’s phonological explanation. ‫ ו֗ משמיעים כול חסדי֗ רחמים על ישראל‬.. ‫‘ ]הכוהנים ֗מספרים את צדקות אל‬the priests shall be narrating the righteous deeds of God .. and telling about acts of loving-kindnesses towards Israel.’ The pair ‫ צדקות‬/ ‫ חסדים‬as characteristic divine acts displayed towards His people is attested in OT passages such as Ps 36.11 “Continue Your steadfast love (‫ )דסח‬to those who know You and Your righteousness (‫ )צדקתך‬to the upright of heart”; ib. 103.17f. “But the steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on (‫ )על‬those who fear Him, and His righteousness (‫ )צדקתו‬to children’s children, to those who keep His covenant and remember to do His commandments.” 1QS 1.24) ‫חטאנו חרשענו אנו‬ ֗ ֯‫]נעוינו ֯פ ֗ש ֗ענ֗ ו‬.39 The biblical model of this confession formula has been sought in the following texts:40 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Lv 16.21 ‫אתם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫יהם ְל ָכ‬ ֶ ‫ל־פּ ְשׁ ֵע‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ל־עוֹנֹת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ֶא‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ְתוַ ָדּה ָע ָליו ֶא‬ 2Sm 24.17 ‫יתי‬ ִ ֵ‫אתי וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ֶה ֱעו‬ ִ ‫ָאנ ִֹכי ָח ָט‬ 1Kg 8.47 ‫ָח ָטאנוּ וְ ֶה ֱעוִ ינוּ ָר ָשׁ ְענוּ‬ Ps 106.6 ‫בוֹתינוּ ֶה ֱעוִ ינוּ ִה ְר ָשׁ ְענוּ‬ ֵ ‫ם־א‬ ֲ ‫ָח ָטאנוּ ִע‬ Dn 9.5 ‫וּמ ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטיָך‬ ִ ‫וֹתָך‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ָר ְדנוּ וְ סוֹר ִמ ִמּ ְצ‬ ָ ‫ ָח ָטאנוּ וְ ָעוִ ינוּ ִה ְר ַשׁ ְענוּ‬41 mYoma 3.8 ‫עויתי פשעתי חטאתי אני ובני ביתי‬

A comparison between these varying formulae can be made from various points of view. Firstly, in terms of the number of elements, three seems to be the basic pattern: (2),42 (4), (5), (7). Secondly, ‫ חטא‬and ‫ עוה‬are shared by all. Thirdly, (6) seems to be an expansion based on (4) and (5) characterised by the spirit.’ We fail to follow his argument, for at 1QS 9.14 the form can only mean ‘their spirit’ in the context. 38 We see that in the manuscript there is room enough for a word before ‫ לפי‬due to a defect in the leather at this point. On the other hand, Qimron (2018.285, n. 84) justly refers to the 4QSd variant, ‫‘ ֗ר]ו[חמה‬their spirit,’ their referring back to ‫בני הצדוֿ ק‬, and yet our reading also makes sense. We might be having to do with two recensions. 39 Though both Qimron (1979) and Charlesworth (25) mark the reading of ֯‫ ֯פשענו‬as uncertain by means of a series of circles over the letters, there is virtually no doubt about the sequence ‫שענ‬. 40 See Baumgarten 1953.158f., Wernberg-Møller 50f., and Licht 67f. 41 Ktiv has ‫והרשענו‬. 42 Our text at 1QS 1.24 is numbered (1).

12

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

replacement of ‫ פשע‬by ‫רשע‬. Fourthly, our base text, (1), is aligned with these two late texts on account of the presence of ‫רשע‬. (7) is a prayer to be said by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. It is no wonder that it agrees, in terms of the elements contained and their sequence, with the elements enumerated as to be mentioned by the Levites: 1QS 1.22f. ‫והלויים מספרים את עוונות בני ישראל‬ ‫וכול פשעי אשמתם וחטאתם‬. One may conclude that our formula (1), while basically adhering to the underlying pattern (2), also incorporates a contemporary feature of expansion by adding ‫ רשע‬at the very end. As regards the binyan of the verb ‫עוה‬, Hifil is attested in older sources (2Sm 7.14, 19.20, 24.17, 1Kg 8.47 // 2Ch 6.37, Ps 106.6, Je 9.4), Qal being confined to Late Biblical Hebrew (Dn 9.5, Est 1.16), a distribution pattern that agrees with (6) and (7). Therefore, the Nifal in (1) is most striking. But one could identify ten cases of the Nifal of the root. In most cases the logical subject is either ‫ רוח‬or ‫לב‬: e.g., 1QHa 11.22 ‫ ;רוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב‬1QS 11.9 ‫עם נעוות‬ ‫ ;לבבי‬1QHa 15.30 ‫ברוב רחמיכה לנעוי לב‬. As in the first citation and elsewhere a -‫ נעו‬form is collocated with a form of √‫ פשע‬or suchlike. In this context one is reminded of biblical passages such as Pr 12.8 ‫ נַ ֲעוֵ ה ֵלב‬and Jb 33.27 ‫אתי וְ יָ ָשׁר‬ ִ ‫ָח ָט‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ֵ‫ה ֱעו‬. ֶ Here one must be dealing with a convergence of two distinct homonyms etymologically related to two Arabic verb roots, √ʻ-w-y ‘to bend, twist’ and √ġ-w-y ‘to deviate, err.’43 On the other hand, ‫ הרשיע‬in its intransitive sense of “to act wickedly” appears to be later than its Qal equivalent, which, though still retained as late as (6) Dn 9.15, is attested already in (4) 1Kg 8.47. The personal pronoun ‫ אנו‬and ‫ אני‬tacked after the last verb can be said to be a grammatical necessity: when a subject or subjects coordinate with the one built into a finite verb is or are to be added as in ‫ומלכיה ֗ם כהניהם‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯כאשר עשו הם‬as they, along with their kings (and) priests, had done’ 4Q385a 18i10. Here ‫אבו֗ תינו‬ ֯ ֯‫ ו‬and ‫ ובני ביתי‬follow immediately after. At the same time, it is perfectly in place in a confession made by someone deeply conscious of his or her sinfulness. Cf. SQH § 1 c (iii) and (iv). 1QS 1.25) ‫]ב)ה(לכתנו‬. ֯ It is usually assumed that a heh has been erased, but the photo does not allow us to determine with certainty what the missing letter is.44 If it were heh, the word would be a verbal noun ‫הלכה‬,45 which occurs in a similar context: 1QS 3.9 ‫ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים בכול דרכי אל‬. Another possibility is that the author meant a Piel infinitive, but before he finished writing the complete word, he decided to opt for a Qal infinitive and erased the heh, ultimately writing what has come down to us. If the usual restoration46 involving 43 44 45 46

See a succinct note in Gesenius IV 932. Licht (68) suggests a lamed as a second possibility. So Wernberg-Møller (40), and Habermann (61): ‫)ה( ְׇל ֵכתנוּ‬ ִ ‫בּ‬. ְ First proposed by Dupont-Sommer 1950.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

13

the word ‫ קרי‬and based on ‫הברי֯ ת‬ ֗ ‫‘ בלכתנו קרי בחקי‬with us walking contrariwise against the ordinances of the covenant’ CD 20.29 is to be followed, the assumption of an erased heh becomes less attractive. 1QS 1.26) ‫במשפטו בנו ובאבותי֯ נ֯ ו‬ ֗ ‫אל ישראל‬ ֯ ‫וצדיק‬ ֯ ‫]קרי בחוקי [אמת‬. A comparison with the immediately preceding three lines in the photo suggests room for eight or nine letters in the right-hand lacuna of the column. Two restorations have been proposed: ‫קרי בברית‬47 and ‫קרי בחוקי‬.48 That the construct combination ‫ ברית אמת‬does not occur in QH,49 whereas ‫ חוקי אמת‬does, e.g. 1QS 1.15 ‫ולוא‬ ‫לסור מחוקי אמתו‬, favours the latter restoration.50 However, there is no absolute reason to think that the ‫ אמת‬is part of a construct phrase. In that case the first alternative is not to be rejected out of hand. The word ‫אמת‬, then, would be coordinate with the following ‫צדיק‬.51 This question is tied up with another, namely how to fill out the second lacuna. In the photo of the column we fail to see any trace whatsoever of a lamed as restored by Charlesworth (8) and Qimron (I 213) as given above. Habermann’s restoration is: .. ‫ ;]ואל ישועות עשה[ משפטו‬Licht’s is ‫וצדי]ק אל ישראל ב[משפטו‬. Apart from the palaeographical difficulty of restoring ‫אל‬, all the proposals are syntactically viable. The noun ‫ אמת‬can be used predicatively to indicate a divine attribute, as in 1QHa 12.41 ‫כי אמת אתה‬, and ‫צדיק‬ can be used as predicate of ‫משׁפט‬, not only of a person or a divinity as in Dt 4.8 ‫יקם‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים ַצ ִדּ‬ ִ ‫ח ִקּים‬. ֻ Measured against the two lines immediately above, 24 and 25, the lacuna could have contained 15 or 16 letters. Habermann’s restoration contains 14 letters as against Charlesworth’s and Licht’s restorations with only 12. Alternatively one could suggest [‫( צדי]ק אל ישראל יעשה‬15), ‫( צדי]ק הואה אל יעשה‬14) or [‫( צדי]ק אל הואה יעשה‬14). ‫ ָע ָשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ְבּ־‬is a wellestablished collocation: e.g. Ps 119.84 ‫מתֳי ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה ְבר ְֹדפֳי ִמ ְשׁ ׇפּט‬. ‫ׇ‬

1QS COLUMN 2 1QS 2.1) ‫‘ ]רחמי חסדו ֗גמל עלינו‬He conferred upon us mercies of His steadfast love.’ The construct combination of ‫ רחם‬and ‫ חסד‬is an innovation. The two nouns, however, do appear in parallelism at Is 63.7 ‫‘ גְּ ָמ ָלם כרחמיו וכרב חסדיו‬He has shown them according to His mercy and according to the abundance of His steadfast love,’ which, as Licht (68) points out, is the source of our author’s 47 E.g. Dupont-Sommer (1950.12), Wernberg-Møller (40), Habermann (61). Dupont-Sommer (1987.11) has apparently changed his view since: “[à l’encontre des préceptes] de vérité.” 48 E.g. Licht (68), Lohse (6). 49 According to DCH I 329-32, II 265f. 50 Another example of the latter combination is mentioned in DCH (I 329): 4QTNaph 4.5, which is apparently a wrong reference for 4Q256 2.1 = 4QSb 2.1. 51 The reading ‫ צדק‬of Habermann (61) and Lohse (6) is highly questionable: what remains of the third letter can hardly be that of qof, but very likely that of yod.

14

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

thought.52 A construct phrase of the same two nouns occurs at 1QS 1.22 in the reverse order: ‫‘ משמיעים כול חסדי רחמים על ישראל‬proclaiming all the steadfast love of mercies (conferred) upon Israel.’ The grammatical number of ‫ חסדו‬is not immediately apparent. In QH the possessive suffix waw for the third person masculine singular can be found attached to either a singular or a plural noun.53 The source text, Is 63.7, uses both nouns in the plural. The double plural in a construct phrase is fairly common already in BH, not confined to LBH.54 The collocation in which ‫ רחמים‬forms the grammatical object of the verb ‫גמל‬ is also innovative. It can be understood as an extension of a collocation such as in Pr 31.12 ‫גְּ ָמ ַל ְתהוּ טוֹב ולא רע‬. On the rection of the verb ‫ גמל‬by means of ‫על‬, see Muraoka 1997.113. ‫]הכוהנים מברכים את כול אנשי גורל אל‬. It is most likely that the participle here is part of the periphrastic construction55 at 1QS 1.18 ‫ יהיו הכוהנים והלויים מברכים‬.., though this makes for a rather heavy-footed style. The order of the yearly ceremony with its personae dramatis can be schematised as follows: (1.18) (1.19) (1.21) (1.22) (1.24) (2.1) (4) (10) (11) (18)

‫ ובעוברם בברית יהיו הכוהנים והלויים מברכים‬.. ‫ וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחריהם‬.. ‫ ומשמיעים‬.. ‫ והכוהנים מספרים‬.. ‫ והלויים מספרים‬.. ‫וכול העוברים בברית מודים אחריהם‬ ֯ .. ‫ ואומרים‬.. ‫ והכוהנים מברכים‬.. ‫ וענו ואמרו‬.. ‫ והלויים מקללים‬.. ‫ וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחר המברכים והמקללים‬.. ‫ והוסיפו הכוהנים והלויים ואמרו‬.. ‫ וכול באי הברית יענו ואמרו אחריהם‬..

We suggest that all the underlined participles are to be considered as governed by ‫ יהיו‬at the start of this discourse (1.18). Provided ‫וכול‬ ֯ (1.24) is correctly restored, each new clause introducing a group of new interlocutors is introduced by the conjunction waw. At 2.11 the priests and Levites are introduced as making a supplementary pronouncement, and this supplementary nature is emphasised by placing the very verb (‫ )הוסיפו‬at the head of the clause, which further See also 1QHa 12.36 ‫רחמיכה‬ ֗ ‫נשענתי֯ בחסדי֗ כה ו֯ המון‬. ֗ See Qimron 2018.269, § D 2.3.2.1. 54 See JM § 136 o. 55 On the periphrastic compound tense, see SQH § 17 f, Muraoka 1999a.194-201, and JM § 121 g. Cf. also Qimron 1978.96; Mishor 1983.358-391; Kaddari 1991.310-18. JM § 121 f-g is sometimes quoted to say that the syntagm is confined to LBH. As a matter of fact, that is not what Joüon actually says: in § f he cites examples from the entire Old Testament, whilst in § g he expresses the view that LBH, under the Aramaic influence, displays signs of deterioration of the classical use of this syntagm, a view which has now significantly been modified in JM § 121 g. Cf. also Van Peursen 1997. 52 53

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

15

necessitates the use of the waw inversive with the suffix conjugation, which is at 2.18 duly followed by the prefix conjugation and then the waw inversive with the suffix conjugation. 1QS 2.2) ‫‘ ]אנשי גורל אל ההולכים תמים בכול דרכיו‬the men of the lot of God who walk with integrity in all His ways.’ Is ‫ תמים‬to be vocalised ‫תּ ִמים‬, ָ sg., or ‫תּ ִמּים‬, ַ pl. of ‫?תּם‬ ַ The collocation of derivatives of √‫ תמם‬with ‫ הלך‬or ‫דרך‬ belongs to the common goods of BH. It so happens that the collocation closest to what we find in our passage, namely, ‫ תמים‬as a kind of modifier of the verb ‫הלך‬, is not capable of resolving our problem, for the verb happens to be singular masculine followed by ‫תּ ִמים‬, ָ so vocalised: Ps 15.2, Pr 28.18 ‫הוֹלְך ָתּ ִמים‬. ֵ It appears to us that the ‫ תמים‬in our passage is not a subject complement, which of course ought to be m.pl. in agreement with its pl. subject, but rather an indeclinable adverbial modifier. We seem to have a synonymous expression formally marked as adverbial in 1QS 9.6 ‫ לישראל ההולכים בתמים‬and ib. 8 ‫הון אנשי‬ ‫הקודש ההולכים בתמים‬56 as in Ps 84.12 ‫לא ימנע טוב ַלהֹלכים ְבּ ָת ִמים‬.57 In QH itself we find CD 1.20 ‫‘ ובכול הולכי תמים תעבה נפשמה‬their soul loathed all those who walk in integrity.’ All this appears to be part of the innovative process whereby the originally adjectival ‫ תמים‬acquires the status of an abstract noun, thus synonymous with ‫תֹּם‬. This process is attested to in the collocation 1QS 8.9 ‫בית‬ ‫ תמים ואמת‬where, on account of ‫ואמת‬, the only possible rendering is ‘a house of perfection and truth’ or such like, definitely not ‘a house of a perfect man and truth.’ This innovative development appears to be connected with another such, namely ‫תמים דרך‬, a collocation fairly frequent in QH, meaning “perfectness (or: integrity) of conduct,” e.g. 1QS 8.21 ‫ההולכים בתמים דרכ‬.58 In BH this pseudo-construct phrase is always applied to a human as its grammatical subject, though its real subject is ‫דרך‬59: e.g. Ps 119.1 ‫אשרי תמימי דרך‬. The innovation in QH60 is then an application of the underlying structure of this BH phrase. That ‫ תמים‬is an abstract noun is manifest in passages such as 1QS 9.2 .. ‫יבחן‬ ‫‘ לתמים דרכו ועצתו‬he shall be on probation .. as regards the integrity of his conduct and his manner of judgement’ — note the parallelism with ‫ — עצתו‬and ib. 9.5 ‫‘ תמים דרכ כנדבת מנחת רצון‬the integrity of conduct is like an acceptable, willing offering’ — note that the phrase is parallel with ‫תרומת שפתים למשפט‬ ‘a proper offering of lips.’ The suffix of ‫ דרכיו‬most likely refers to God rather than to ‫אנשי גורל‬, though in the following pronouncement the priests address the lay members individually: 56 Note also CD 7.4 ‫ בתמים קדש‬.. ‫ המתהלכים‬and 1QS 8.20 ‫ילכו בם אנשי התמים קודש‬. On the textual difficulty of the latter, cf. Licht 185. 57 Cp. Pr 2.7 ‫ ָמגֵ ן להלכי תֹם‬with ib. 10.9 ‫הוֹלְך ַבּתֹּם‬. ֵ 58 See also 1QS 8.10, 18, 9.9. 59 On this question, see Muraoka 1977. 60 The familiar BH usage is also found in, e.g. 1QS 4.22 ‫‘ להשכיל תמימי דרכ‬to educate the perfect of conduct.’

16

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫יברככה בכול טוב‬. See esp. 1QS 1.12 ‫לברר דעתם באמת חוקי אל וכוחם לתכן כתם‬ ‫‘ דרכיו‬to purify (or: enlighten) their knowledge with the truth of God’s laws and to order their strength according to the perfectness of His ways.’ Also in Dt 27.12ff., which, by universal agreement, forms the background of our passage, one notices the task of cursing assigned to Levites (verse 14). Here in 1QS, by contrast, we see a division of labour: blessing priests as against cursing Levites. The biblical tradition itself, in fact, leaves some room for uncertainty, for at Dt 21.5 and Nu 6.23 blessing is clearly a prerogative of priests. The latter passage, Nu 6.23, is of particular significance in this regard, for the priestly blessing in our own text, which immediately follows (1QS 2.2-4), is a slightly reworked version of the blessing formula preserved in Nu 6.24-26: see below. It is not impossible that, as against the rabbinic tradition as formulated in the Mishnah (Sota 7.5) and approvingly cited by Rashi (ad Dt 27.12), which states apropos of Dt 27.12 (‫ )אלה יעמדו לברך את העם‬that both priests and Levites were to pronounce blessings,61 our Qumran document seems to take the line that one group are blessers ‫( ֵא ֶלּה יַ ֲע ְמדוּ ְל ָב ֵרְך‬Dt 27.12) and the other group are cursers (‫ אלה יעמדו על הקללה‬vs. 13), who, identified as Levites (vs. 14), proceed to pronounce a long series of twelve curses. Apart from Dt 21.5 and Nu 6.23 mentioned above, the traditional Rabbinic position is not entirely free from difficulty because the long series of curses (Dt 27.15-26) is followed by a series of five blessings (ib. 28.3-6). Furthermore, the rabbis were apparently aware that the two series are significantly different in nature from each other in that each curse is provided with a ground for it, whereas the blessing series is introduced by a general statement that the diligent observance of the divine law will result in five kinds of blessing. That is why the rabbis say that blessing is the opposite of curse: on Mount Gerizim the priests and Levites shall say by way of blessing — “Blessed be anyone who does not make an idol or cast an image, etc.,” which represents a biblical curse reworded as a blessing. The twofold division of Israelites in 1QS into ‫ אנשי גורל אל‬to be blessed (2.1) and ‫אנשי גורל בליעל‬ to be cursed (2.4) reflects a similar division of the ancient Israelites as given in Dt 27, and these pronouncements of two different kinds were to be made on crossing the River Jordan, a background which the author and people reading the text near the river and on the same side of it as Mount Gerizim and Ebal may have been conscious of.62 It is also noteworthy that the benedictions to be pronounced by priests (lines 1-4a) are largely modelled on the high-priestly benediction (Nu 6.24-26), whereas the maledictions to be pronounced by Levites represent a rewording of Nu 6.24-26. Thus — 61 The “blessing” to be pronounced by both priests and Levites at 1QS 1.18 is a different kind of blessing, actually praising: ‫מברכים את אל ישועות ואת כול מעשי אמתו‬. This restriction applies to the other remaining QH passages with the Levites as blessers: 1QM 13.1, 18.6, the passages mentioned in DCH II 269a. 62 Cf. Licht 54f. 64f. New Testament scholars might find it noteworthy that the Sermon on the Mount, also pronounced on a mountain, is a series of blessings.

17

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

Nu 6

1QS II blessings

1QS II curses

(24) ‫יְ ָב ֶר ְכָך‬

(2) ‫יברככה בכול טוב‬

(5) ‫יתנכה אל לזועה‬

(25) ָ‫וִ ֻחנֶּ ךּ‬

(3) ‫ויחונכה‬

(8) ‫לוא יחונכה אל‬

(26) ‫יִ ָשּׂא יהוה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך‬

(4) ‫ישא פני חסדיו לכה‬

(9) ‫ישא פני אפו לנקמתכה‬

(26) ‫יָ ֵשׂם ְלָך ָשׁלוֹם‬

(4) ‫לשלום עולמים‬

(9) ‫לוא יהיה לכה שלום‬

1QS 2.2) ‫‘ ]יברככה בכול טוב‬May He bless you with every kind of blessing!’ In the preceding line the priests are described as addressing and blessing ‫‘ מברכים את כול אנשי גורל אל‬all the men of God’s lot,’ but when the actual blessing begins, the 2msg pronoun is used consistently, starting with ‫ יברככה‬and continuing with ‫ לכה‬.. ‫ יחונכה‬.. ‫ לבכה‬.. ‫ישמורכה‬. One can envisage a group of new members coming forward one after another to receive a blessing. The same individualistic procedure can be observed in a description of the Levites pronouncing curses: .. ‫הלויים מקללים את כול אנשי גורל בליעל‬ ‫ וגו׳‬.. ‫ אחריכה‬.. ‫ יתנכה‬.. ‫ אשמתכה‬.. ‫( ארור אתה‬lines 4ff.). Cf. Nu 6.23f. ‫כֹּה‬ ‫ יְ ָב ֶר ְכָך יְ הוָ ה וְ יִ ְשׁ ְמ ֶרָך‬:‫ת־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ָאמוֹר ָל ֶהם‬ ְ ‫ת ָב ֲרכוּ ֶא‬. ְ Of course, in the case of this latter group, the Levites would not be able to point their fingers at individuals, for such would not be inducted as new members in the first place. All new entrants are being warned. Surprisingly we can find only one biblical example of this seemingly innocuous use of the preposition bet with the verb ‫ברך‬.63 One could of course put it down to instrumental bet, but we cannot find a single instance of such in the Bible complementing this verb, though it is not strictly instrumental, either, as one can see by comparing our example with 1QS 9.26 ‫תרומת שפתים יברכנו‬, where the sense of the verb is slightly different. All the same, the rection we find in our 1QS passage must have been possible, and its non-attestation elsewhere is most likely accidental. Cf. Eph 1.3 .. ὁ εὐλογήσασ ἡμᾶσ ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικ, which is rendered in the Peshitta as /haw d-varrkan b-kul burkān d-ruḥ/. Our inference receives a measure of confirmation from a similar use of the preposition bet with an antonym of ‫ברך‬: 1QS 2.5 ‫ארור אתה בכול מעשי רשע‬ ‫אשמתכה‬. See also 1QM 13.4 ‫ארו֗ ֗ר בליעל במחשבת משטמה וזעום הואה במשרת‬ ֗ ‫אשמתו‬. 63 Our attention was drawn to this sole instance by Dr Michael Malessa: ‫ת־עמּוֹ ַב ָשּׁלוֹם‬ ַ ‫יְ הוָ ה יְ ָב ֵרְך ֶא‬ Ps 29.11. I have searched in Clines’ DCH s.v. ‫ברך‬, where (II 270b - 271a) collocations with the preposition bet are listed. The data, however, are a mixed bag. Apart from locative and temporal phrases, ‫ בתבואה‬mentioned there (p. 270b, bottom) at Dt 16.15 (wrongly given as 16.5) is not quite the same: ‫יברכך יהוה אלהיך בכל תבואתך ובכל מעשה ידיך‬, for the harvest and the handiworks (or actual work itself, rather than products of such an activity) may not turn out very pleasing or satisfactory. In that sense Jenni (1992.345) is right in regarding these nouns as action nouns, rather than nouns denoting concrete entities. In other words, the phrase means “in the area of your harvesting and your manual work,” which of course cannot be said of ‫בכול טוב‬. In ‫ְל ָב ֵר ְך ְבּ ֵשׁם יהוה‬ Dt 21.5 we have an instrumental preposition. Ps 29.11 is also mentioned along with ‫לברך בזרעו‬ ‫‘ גוים‬to bless nations through his posterity’ Si 44.21.

18

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

This verb as well as all the following four prefix conjugation forms are most likely volitive or jussive in force.64 But how about the following curses (lines 5 and 7: ‫ ארור אתה‬..)? According to Andersen (1970.49), where a participle is the predicate and precedes the subject, the nominal clause in question in the Pentateuch has a good chance of being a precative clause (40 out of 48)65, and all those forty cases happen to be passive participles, like ours, and they include those in Dt 27 and 28, there being actually 24 of them in these two chapters alone in three series of curses and benedictions. What we find significant for our evaluation of the evidence is that the first series of curses in Dt 27.15-26 (all beginning with ‫ )ארור‬is distinct from the two series in Dt 28, the first in vs. 3-7 (all beginning with ‫ )ברוך‬and the second in vs. 16-19 (all beginning with ‫)ארור‬. The difference is that each of the two series in Dt 28 is preceded by a general statement to the effect that, if the Israelites were faithful, the following favourable condition would ensue (‫ ובאו עליך‬.. ‫והיה אם שמוע תשמע בקול יהוה‬ ‫ )כל הברכות האלה‬or vice versa (‫ ובאו עליך כל‬.. ‫והיה אם לא תשמע בקול יהוה‬ ‫)הקללות האלה‬. We have here merely a statement of what is bound to happen, should a certain condition be met or not met. There is nothing to suggest that these series of favourable and unfavourable pronouncements are to be interpreted as wishes. As a matter of fact, there is no compelling reason to take the ‫ארור‬ pronouncements in Dt 27 as precative, either. Neither the Septuagint nor Vulgate has taken these as precative: 27.15 Ἐπικατάρατοσ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, maledictus homo; 28.3 εὐλογημένοσ σὺ .., benedictus tu; 28.16 ἐπικατάρατοσ σὺ .., maledictus eris. Finally, coming to our 1QS text, although benediction and malediction belong to the same semantic field, there is no compelling reason to suggest that, if the first is couched as precative, the second in the same context must also be so couched. Another indication that at least the ‫ ארור‬pronouncements in our text are not precative is the negative ‫לוא‬, and not ‫אל‬66, in the following sentences: 2.8 ‫ ולוא יהיה לכה שלום‬.. ‫ ולוא יסלח‬.. ‫לוא יחונכה ֵאל‬. The last example is particularly significant, since it is clearly playing on Nu 6.26 ‫ יָ ֵשׂם לך שלום‬with the verb clearly marked as jussive.67 Here the two ancient versions quoted above, unlike 64 So already Wernberg-Møller 52. In the priestly benediction in Nu 6.23-27, on which our passage is clearly based, one finds at least two forms which the Tiberian scholars unambiguously marked as jussive: ‫ יָ ֵאר‬and ‫יָ ֵשׂם‬. 65 Cf. Lohse (7) ad 1QS 2.11: “Verflucht sei ..” 66 Though the line between the two negatives can be fluid: see Driver 1892.54; JM § 160 f. Wernberg-Møller’s (53) remark on this score is slightly misleading: “Of lʼ with the jussive there are a few examples in the Old Testament.” The authorities he cites do not quite support his contention: Driver (1892.54) speaks of the interchange of ‫ אל‬and ‫לא‬, whereas GKC (§ 109 d) speak of the genuine jussive forms used with ‫לא‬. The situation in our passage is all the more striking, given the general preference in QH of ‫ אל‬to ‫לא‬. 67 The fact that sandwiched between these negative statements there appears ‫ישא פני אפו‬, which is also derived from the same priestly benediction in Nu 6 (vs. 26 ‫ )ישא יהוה פניו אליך‬does not have to undermine our position earlier that our author intended ‫( ישא פני חסדיו‬line 4) to be jussive along

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

19

in Dt 27 and 28, understood the verbs as jussive, not indicative: e.g. Nu 6.24 Εὐλογήσαι .. φυλάξαι benedicat .. custodiat; 6.25 ἐπιφάναι .. ἐλεήσαι ostendat .. misereatur; 6.26 ἐπάραι .. δώῃ σοι εἰρήνην convertat .. det tibi pacem, the LXX using the optative, and the Vulgate the subjunctive, consistently. In this connection we would mention another linguistic difference between our Qumran text and its biblical source text. In the latter both blessings and curses formulated as nominal clauses use the key words as the passive participle: ‫ָבּרוְּך‬ and ‫ארוּר‬. ָ By contrast, 1QS uses a series of ‫ ָארוּר‬curses, but blessings are all, five of them, are pronounced with yaqtul forms: ‫( יברככה‬2), ‫( ישמורכה‬3), ‫( יאר‬3), ‫( יחונכה‬3), ‫( ישא‬4). The second is indisputably marked as volitive, and most likely the third as well; see below ad loc. 1QS 2.3) ‫ ]ישמורכה‬which can be only jussive; if spelled in the standard Tiberian fashion, we would expect ‫ יִ ְשׁ ָמ ְר ָכה = ישמרכה‬in contrast to the indicative ‫יִ ְשׁ ְמ ֶר ָכּה‬. ‫‘ ]ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונכה בדעת עולמים‬and may He enlighten your mind with the intellect conducive to life and grace you with eternal knowledge.’ In comparison with the source text, Nu 6.25 ָ‫יחנֶּ ךּ‬ ֻ ִ‫יָ ֵאר יהוה פניו אליך ו‬, there is quite a remarkable difference, namely a clear emphasis in our text on intellectualism. However one might understand and translate ‫שכל‬, it is parallel to ‫דעת‬, both of which have to do with mind and intellect, rather than emotions, feelings, the seat of which latter is the heart.68 For this reason we would rather reject the rendering of ‫ לב‬here with “heart” or its equivalents in other European languages. “To enlighten, illumine heart” is an odd collocation.69 The collocation ‫האיר פניו‬ in the original biblical text indicates the subject’s favourable attitude to someone else, as is evident from Ps 31.17 ‫האירה פניך על עבדך‬, ָ which is followed by ‫הושיעני בחסדך‬. See also Ps 67.2 ‫יאר פניו ִא ָתּנוּ‬ ֵ ‫יחננו ויברכנו‬ ָ ‫ ;אלהים‬ib. 80.4, 8, 20, 119.135, Dn 9.17, Si 7.24, 32.11, 4Q374 2.2.8. In all these passages the object of the verb is identical with the referent of the suffix attached to the noun ‫פנים‬. The subtle change is foreshadowed, however, already at Ps 119.135 ‫ול ְמדני את ֻחקיך‬ ַ ‫פניך ָה ֵאר בעבדך‬, where the second half of the verse clearly points to the semantic shift in question. The same collocation also occurs in the following Qumran texts: 1QHa 12.6 ‫ ;האירותה פני לבריתכה‬ib. 12.28 ‫בי האירותה‬ ‫ ;פני רבים‬1QSb 4.27 ‫;ל ֗מאור] כשמש ע[ל תבל בדעת ולהאיר פני רבים‬ ֗ 4Q511 18.2.8 ‫ ;האיר אלוהים דעת בינה בלבבי‬11Q14 1.2.7 ‫[ יאר פניו אליכם‬see Nitzan 1993.80]. One wonders what triggered this remarkable semantic change, which is a reflection with the other three prefix conjugation forms all based on the same priestly benediction. It is another question whether we should vocalise ‫( יחונכה‬line 3: jussive) differently from the same form in line 8 (presumably indicative), possibly with a Nun energicum. Lohse does not differentiate: ‫ וִ יחוּנְּ ָכה‬and ‫לוֹא יְ חוּנְּ ָכה‬, both (!) translated “sei dir gnädig,” whilst Habermann differentiates the vocalisation: ‫ יָ חוֹנְ ָכה‬and ‫לוֹא יְ חוֹנְ ָכה‬. We should note that neither uses an energic form. 68 Cf. also Licht 68. 69 Cf. our observations below at 1QS 11.15.

20

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

of a major change in the direction of the post-exilic Israelite religion, from a cultcentred to a study-centred religion.70 One of the biblical texts quoted above, Ps 119, which testifies to this change, is generally considered late.71 As a likely catalyst for this semantic and theological development we suggest the notion of the joy and pleasure one derives from the study of the law and its precepts, an idea so prominent in Ps 119, for example: 119.14 “I delight in the way of your decrees,” ib. 16 “I will delight in your statutes,” ib. 47 “I find my delight in your commandments,” ib. 77f. “your law is my delight .. I will meditate on your precepts.” In LBH or Late Classical Hebrew one’s facial expression had become an indicator of mood, the brightness (‫ )אור‬being associated with cheerfulness, happiness, and the darkness with sadness and gloom. Thus Ben Sira says: 13.25f. ‫‘ לב אנוש ישנה פניו אם לטוב אם לרע עקבת לב טוב פנים אורים‬a person’s mood changes his countenance, either for good or for evil. The sign of a happy heart is a bright face’ ; 32.11 ‫ה]א[ר פֿנֿ יֿ ם ובששון הקדש מעשר‬ ֿ ‫בכל מ]ע[שיך‬ ‘with every gift (LXX: ἐν πάσῃ δόσει) show a cheerful face, and dedicate your tithe with gladness.’ Note also Ps 89.16f. ‫ בשמך יגילון כל היום‬:‫באור פניך יהלכון‬ ‘they will walk in the brightness of Your face and they will rejoice in Your name all day.’ A similar perspective is evident in Ec 8.1 ‫ח ְכ ַמת אדם תאיר פניו‬. ָ As regards sadness, ‫ הקדיר‬is used in BH in the literal sense of “to darken” as at Ezk 32.7 ‫‘ והקדרתי את כוכביהם‬and I shall darken their stars,’ whereas in RH we find instances such as yShab 12c ‫‘ היו פניו של ר׳ מקדירות‬the face of R. began to grow dark (from sadness).’ Cf. also Lam 4.8 ‫‘ חשׁך משחור תארם‬their visage became darker than black.’ ‫‘ ]שכל חיים‬understanding conducive to wellbeing,’ a cst. chain indicating a purpose or benefit, SQH § 21 b xvi). 1QS 2.4) ‫]ישא פני חסדיו לכה לשלום עולמים‬, which is a slight modification of the biblical Vorlage, ‫ישא יהוה פניו אליך‬. The change of ‫ פניו < פני חסדיו‬is most likely a reflection of an anti-anthropomorphic tendency, which resulted in a rather innovative and bold collocation. The change of the preposition from ‫ אל‬to ‫ ל‬is not insignificant, either. In the other two biblical occurrences of this standing phrase, 2Sm 2.22 (sign of good conscience) and 2Kg 9.32, the preposition is ‫אל‬. In both, especially in the latter (‫‘ וישא פניו אל החלון‬and he raised his face towards the window’), the primary, locative, directional signification of the preposition is apparent. The change in our text, then, probably indicates 70

For a similar development in the New Testament, see esp. 2Cor 4.6 and Eph 1.18, and a discussion in Leaney 130. 71 On a late dating of Ps 119 on linguistic grounds, see Hurvitz 1972.130-52. In a more recent study Hurvitz (1991.110-13) seeks to establish a thematic connection focused on wisdom literature between Ps 119 and Proverbs, Ps 119.105 and Pr 6.23, where the light and lamp are perceived as symbols of Israelite wisdom. In our 1QS passage the notion of wisdom is hardly prominent. What we find remarkable is that the exegetical twist given to the established biblical collocation ‫האיר‬ ‫ פנים‬of Nu 6.25 is a linguistic expression of the intellectualism as a significant component of the Qumran religiosity. Incidentally, Hurvitz does not mention Ps 119.135.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

21

that the phrase had come to be seen as a mere idiomatic expression, the lamed being an equivalent of dativus commodi. The near total substitution in MH of ‫ אל‬with -‫ ל‬may have played a role here.72 The only biblical passage we can think of where the notion of face and steadfast love or favour are juxtaposed is Ma 1.9: ‫‘ ַחלּוּ נא פני אל ויחננוּ‬Implore the favour of God, so that He may be gracious to us.’ A related, antonymic, but equally innovative combination occurs later in the column: 2.9 ‫ישא פני אפו‬. The combination ‫ שלום עולמים‬is also unknown to BH. Cf. 2Th 3.16 αὐτὸσ δὲ ὁ θεὸσ τῆσ εἰρήνησ δώῃ ὑμῖν τὴν εἰρήνην διὰ παντός, where διὰ παντός can be construed with δώῃ, but ‫ עולמים‬in our text can also be construed with ‫ ישא‬in the sense of ‘for ever, always’ and not a nomen rectum in relation to ‫שלום‬. 1QS 2.4b - 10 2.4b) and the Levites shall be cursing all the people 2.5) of Belial’s lot, and they shall respond and say “Cursed you are for all your deeds of guilty wickedness. May God turn you 2.6) into an object of horror at the hands of all who exact vengeance and may He appoint annihilation to pursue you at the hands of all those who execute 2.7) retributions. Cursed you are beyond mercies, which suits the darkness of your deeds. Damned you are 2.8) with the gloomy prospect of never-ending fire. God will not be gracious to you when you call nor will he forgive you, atoning your iniquities. 2.9) He will lift His countenance of anger to avenge you nor will you have peace (even) pleaded by all intercessors 2.10) and all those who join the covenant shall be saying after the blessers and the cursers, “Amen, Amen.” 1QS 2.5) ‫ ]וענו ואמרו‬The selection of the verb ‫ ענה‬might strike us as odd. Licht (69) mentions Dt 27.14 ‫ל־אישׁ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל קוֹל ָרם‬ ִ ‫ל־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ָענוּ ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם וְ ָא ְמרוּ ֶא‬, where also Levites are beginning to pronounce a series of curses. This Heb. verb is sometimes used in the sense of “to respond orally to a situation” even when no question has been asked.73 ‫]ארור אתה בכול מעשי֗ רשע אשמתכה‬. Here is yet another innovative collocation: ֗ ‫רשע אשמה‬. Cf. 1QS 1.23 ‫פשעי אשמתם‬, 1QHa 22.9 ‫אשמת רשעה‬. ‫]יתנכה אל >ל pl. ‫פּ ִס ִלים‬. ְ 260 If ‫נגועים‬, one would read ‫גּוּעים‬ ִ ִ‫נ‬, a lexeme unattested in the classical Hebrew literature, or ‫גוּעים‬ ִ ְ‫‘ נ‬stricken (victims).’ Cf. 1QS 3.14 ‫לפקודת‬ ‫נגועיהם‬. ‫‘ ]נגועים ביד כול מלאכי חבל‬blows at the hands of all the angels of destruction.’ ‫ ביד‬has become a fossilised prepositional phrase marking an instrument of action. Hence the singular in spite of the plural ‘angels.’ The fossilised nature of the phrase is apparent in cases like 1QS 1.3 ‫צוה ביד מושה וביד כול עבדיו הנביאים‬ ‘He commanded through Moses and through all His servants the prophets,’ where no physical action with the use of hands is meant. ‫(‘ ]לשחת עולמים באפ עברת אל נקמה לזעות נצח וחרפת עד‬leading to) a perpetual ruin with the revengeful God’s furious anger, to an everlasting horror and eternal disgrace.’ The collocation ‫ אף עברה‬illustrates a well-established rhetorical device typical of our author, who loves to pile up synonymous words and expressions. This also occurs at a syntactically higher level here: three synonymous construct phrases occurring one after another. The same technique is also evident in this sentence in the sequence ‫ עולמים‬- ‫ נצח‬- ‫עד‬, each of which is a nomen rectum of the three construct phrases. We noted the same three nouns above (line 7), though in a different sequence.261 ‫ אל‬can be construed either with the immediately preceding ‫ עברת‬or with ‫אף‬ in ‫אף עברת‬. 4Q418 147.3 ‫ אף עברה‬with the second noun in the abs. st. indicates the second analysis as more plausible, see SQH § 21 c.262 ‫ נקמה‬is better analysed as ‫נְ ָק ָמה‬, a nomen rectum, rather than as ‫נ ְֹק ָמה‬, a fem. ptc., cf. ‫ ֵאל נְ ָקמו ֺת‬Ps 94.1.263 ‫ זעוה‬is often rendered with ‘terror.’264 The parallelism with ‫ שחת‬and ‫ חרפה‬might indicate a condition terrifying to those to be punished rather than to on-lookers, 260

Cf. JM § 96 A b (p. 271, n. 3). See our discussion in Muraoka 2009.*115-7. 262 Cf. “the avenging wrath of the fury of God” (Vermes 102). García Martínez - Tigchelaar (77) follow the assumed original reading of the text, ‫‘ אל נקמות‬the God of revenges’: see a note ad loc. by Qimron in Sekine et al. 1979. See also “la furieuse colère du Dieu des vengeances” (Dupont-Sommer 19). Though such a collocation does occur in the Bible (Ps 94.1 bis), there is no absolute necessity for the correction. 263 Originally the manuscript read ‫ נקמות‬according to Qimron (I 216). 264 So Wernberg-Møller 26 and García Martínez - Tigchelaar 77 for instance. Lohse’s “Zittern” (15) is more ‘etymological.’ 261

80

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

a shocking, abominable plight. However, ‫ זעוה‬is juxtaposed with ‫חרפה‬, which denotes a condition perceived by the punished in their relation to the audience, a condition which they would find horrifying and shocking. Biblical, particularly prophetic, passages such as Je 29.18 ‫]לזַ ֲעוָ ה[ ְלכֹל ׀ ַמ ְמ ְלכוֹת ָה ָא ֶר ץ‬ ְ ‫וּנְ ַת ִתּים ִלזְ וָ ָעה‬ ‫ר־ה ַדּ ְח ִתּים ָשׁם‬ ִ ‫ל־הגּוֹיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫וּל ֶח ְר ָפּה ְבּ ָכ‬ ְ ‫וּל ַשׁ ָמּה וְ ִל ְשׁ ֵר ָקה‬ ְ ‫ל ָא ָלה‬,ְ which was probably on the mind of the author of 1QS as he penned 2.6 ‫יתנך אל זעוה ביד כול נוקמי נקם‬265, also point in the same direction. One should also note the absence of the preposition lamed 266 before the second construct phrase, so that ‫ זעות נצח וחרפת עד‬is conceived as a single, closely knit notion. The nominal clause introduced by ‫ פקודת‬is followed by two prepositional phrases, each prefixed with lamed: ‫ לשחת עולמים‬and ‫לזעות נצח וחרפת עד‬. The two are asyndetically juxtaposed with no conjunction waw prefixed with the second. These two prepositional adjuncts are to be analysed as dependent on the preceding ‫ נגועים‬and as marking the end result of such blows. 1QS 4.13) ‫ ]עמ כלמת כלה‬The initial preposition is universally translated as ‘with’ or ‘together with.’ The assumption is that it marks applicability of a certain statement or state of affairs equally to multiple entities or situations.267 This is evident in a translation such as “quant à la Visite .. elle consiste en l’abondance des coups .. en l’effroi perpétuel .., ainsi qu’en l’opprobre de l’extermination” (Dupont-Sommer 19; emphasis TM). An analogous usage may be found in our document at 9.16 ‫ וכן אהבתו עם שנאתו‬and 9.21 ‫אלה תכוני הדרכ למשכיל בעתים‬ ‫האלה לאהבתו עם שנאתו‬.268 However, an alternative analysis may be proposed, namely to see here a preposition marking a point in time as in Ezr 1.11 ‫ִעם ֵה ָעלוֹת‬ ‫גּוֹלה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַה‬when the exiles were brought up.’ Likewise 2Ch 21.19 ‫יָ ְצאוּ ֵמ ָעיו ִעם ָח ְליוֹ‬ ‘his bowels came out when he fell ill’; Si 40.14 ‫ עם שאתו כפים יגילו‬269 ‘when he raises his hands, they will rejoice,’ cf. LXX ἐν τῷ ἀνοῖξαι χεῖρασ εὐφρανθήσεται. Then we may translate: ‘when they are exterminated in derision.’ ‫‘ ]באש מחשכים‬with fire in vast dark regions.’ The pl. of ‫ מחשכים‬is a plural of extension, so also ‫ ְתּהו ֺמו ֺת ָה ָא ֶר ץ‬Ps 71.20, cf. SQH § 8 d. The cst. chain is locative in value as in ‫‘ שורש מטעת‬a root in a plantation’ CD 1.7, cf. SQH § 21 b vα. ‫ מחשך‬belongs to a group of nouns with a preformative mem denoting a place where something happens or some condition prevails, cf. JM § 88 L e. ‫]וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון‬. In QH, as in BH, we have two variant plural forms of ‫דור‬: ‫ דורים‬and ‫דורות‬. The former is far less common: only thrice270 in To be corrected to .. ‫ אל לזעוה‬.. A more striking example of this syntactic phenomenon is ‫ וזקים‬for ‫‘ ובזקים‬and with chains’ at 1QHa 13.38 ‫נאסר]תי[ בעבותים לאין נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬. 267 For our reservations on the interpretation of the preposition ‫ ִעם‬in the sense of ‘as well, also,’ see below ad 11.2. 268 See our discussion in Muraoka 1999.60. 269 MS B wrongly repeats the preposition, whilst MS M has preserved the correct text. 270 Is 51.8; Ps 72.5, 102.25. 265 266

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

81

BH, always in the absolute state and without a pronominal suffix. The picture in QH is a little varied. ‫ דורים‬is just as uncommon, attested only twice, but once in the st. cst., 1QHa 25.9 ‫ לדורי נצח‬and once with a suffix, in the same document at 9.18 ‫ בכול דוריהם‬following ‫ דורות נצח‬earlier in the line. Obviously no semantic opposition is intended. In QH, as in BH, the 3mp possessive suffix is added to the shorter base as here, ‫דורותם‬, and not ‫ דורותיהם‬with four exceptions, all in the Temple Scroll: ‫ דור)ו(תיהמה‬at 11Q19 21.9, 22.14, 27.5, 11Q20 6.7.271 ‫ ]באבל יגון ורעת מרורים בהויות חושכ‬The conditions in which the rebellious are doomed to languish are described through three synonymous construct phrases. The first, ‫‘ אבל יגון‬sorrowful mourning,’ both constituents of which are wellestablished BH substantives, is an innovative collocation. It is also found in a passage in Hodayot, which expresses a generally similar sentiment: 11QHa 19.24 ‫ולהגות הגי יגון ואנחה בכנור קינה לכול אבל יגון֯ ומספד מרורים עד כלות עולה‬.272 In one case the two substantives are juxtaposed in parallelism: 4Q427 7ii4 ‫כלה אבל‬ ‫‘ ונס יגון‬mourning vanished and sorrow fled.’ Even this parallelistic juxtaposition is unknown to the Hebrew Bible. Wernberg-Møller273 translates the phrase with “woebegone suffering,” because he sees a semantic parallelism between the phrase and the immediately following ‫רעת מרורים‬. This latter, however, he renders “bitter misery.” Misery is certainly associated with suffering, but not synonymous with it. He also invokes the Septuagint, which, according to him, understood ‫ ֵא ֶבל‬in the sense of ‘suffering’ as well as ‘sorrow.’ We are not convinced.274 The second construct phrase, ‫רעת מרורים‬, is as innovative as the first. The nomen rectum, occurring a mere three times in the Bible, denotes bitter herbs at Ex 12.8 and Nu 9.11. In Lam 3.15 it means ‘bitter experiences.’ In all its three attestations it is used in the masculine plural. This last example is close to ours: ‘calamitous situation full of bitter experiences.’ Cf. a semantically affiliated collocation in ‫ אבל מרורים‬at 11QHa 19.22, and also the above quoted 11QHa 19.25 ‫‘ מספד מרורים‬mourning mingled with bitter emotions.’ The third phrase, ‫הויות חושך‬, is something of a problem. Barring a scribal error, the absence of the conjunction waw is striking. This suggests that we are not having here to do with three construct phrases in parallelism, but two with a second, extended one, or ‫ בהויות חושך‬may be construed with both of the two preceding construct phrases. The semantic analysis of the respective components of the three construct phrases seems to point to the same direction. Both 271 ‫ דורות[מה‬is restored at 11Q19 9.14. On this morphological question in BH, see JM § 94 g, 95 b. With special reference to QH, see also Qimron 2018.286-90. 272 It is also partly restored at 11QHa 10.7. The reading of a 4Q fragment is most likely identical: 4Q257 5.12. 273 See Wernberg-Møller 26 and 82, n. 51. 274 See Muraoka 2009a.436, though we do admit the sense ‘suffering, pain’ when the noun is used in the plural.

82

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ יגון‬and ‫ מרורים‬are clearly distinct from ‫חושך‬: the first two denote a mental condition or effect, whereas the latter refers to a physical condition. The absence of the preposition bet from the second construct phrase indicates a close, semantic linkage between the first two phrases. If ‫ הויות‬is meant to be a plural form of BH ‫הוָּ ה‬, ַ its spelling is striking with a yod. Qimron reads ‫הויות‬.275 The lexeme at Is 47.11 mentioned in the footnote is parallel to ‫ ָר ָעה‬and ‫שׁוֹאה‬ ָ , and most likely means ‘ruin, destruction.’ Besides, all the three substantives are in the singular. If ‫ הויה‬at Is 47.11 be a genuine reading, it would be a new BH word.276 As regards the meaning of this lexeme, there are two possibilities: a) destruction, ruin, calamity277 and b) place of destruction, ruin, i.e. abyss, hell.278 This second interpretation was first argued for in extenso by Wernberg-Møller,279 and gives good sense. The plural form is no real hindrance, as proven by ‫ ְמצוּלוֹת‬or ‫‘ ְמצֹלוֹת‬abyss,’ which is just as common as its singular counterpart (6 times) in the Hebrew Bible. See especially Ps 88.7 ‫ַשׁ ַתּנִ י‬ ‫בּבוֹר ַתּ ְח ִתּיּוֹת ְבּ ַמ ְח ַשׁ ִכּים ִבּ ְמצֹלוֹת‬. ְ Note ‫ באשׁ מחשׁכים‬earlier in the line. With his “in un’esistenza tenebrosa’ Martone280 represents a third possible interpretation, though this ”existential” exegesis sounds to us a shade too metaphysical and philosophical for the author of 1QS. To support the second analysis (‘hell; pit’) Arabic hāwiya ‘deep pit; hell’ and Syriac hāwtā ‘chasm; depths’281 are adduced. Should we accept this comparative analysis, ‫הווה‬, a word meaning ‘disaster; ruin’ and frequent in 1QHa would have to be regarded as a separate substantive. Qimron (2018.219, § C 3.2.6.5) parses ‫ הויות‬as a fem. pl. participle of ‫היה‬, without telling us what it means in this context: ‘dark happenings’? ‫הוות חושכ‬ ‘dark abysses’ would be synonymous with the preceding ‫מחשכים‬. 1QS 4.14) ‫כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬14 ‫ כלותם ]עד‬is vocalised as Piel, ‫לּוֹתם‬ ָ ‫כּ‬, ַ by both Lohse (14) and Habermann (63). Then the pronominal suffix would indicate a direct object with the subject God to be supplied from the 275 In Qimron I 216, in a fn. ad loc. he writes “‫ביו״ד מובהקת‬,” i.e. “with a crystal-clear yod.” However, in Qimron 2018.219 top we see that he is having second thoughts as shown by a supralinear horizontal stroke, ‫בהויֿ ות‬, so in Qimron 1979 ad loc. As noted by Licht (98), Is 47.11 ‫ הֹוָ ה‬is spelled in 1QIsaa as ‫הויה‬, so Qimron 1979 ad loc. and Parry - Qimron 1999.79, a variant not noted in DJD 32 Pt 2. Note Job 6:2Q ‫הוָּ ִתי‬, ַ whereas K has ‫היתי‬, which could be vocalised as ‫ הֹיָ ִתי‬or something like that. Leaney’s (145, 154) “while it is dark” is out of the question, since the reading ‫ להיות‬lihyōt is precluded. 276 Not registered in Clines DCH. 277 E.g. “in finsterem Verderben” (Lohse 15), “dans les calamités des ténèbres” (DupontSommer 19), and “calamities of darkness” (Vermes 102). 278 E.g., “in the abysses of darkness” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 77); “in dark abysses” (Wernberg-Møller 26, Charlesworth 17). 279 Wernberg-Møller 26 and 82, n. 52. See now also DJD 26.80 ad loc. 280 Martone 122. Cf. “dans les demeures des ténèbres”: van der Ploeg 118a, where the author reads the plural of “hawājāh = état, existence, condition.” 281 This feminine noun appears to have geminated the /w/, as can be seen from its plural forms /hawwē/ and /hawwātā/.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

83

context. However, to read it as Qal, ‫לוֹתם‬ ָ ‫כּ‬, ְ is perfectly possible with the suffix as the subject of the infinitive used intransitively: ‘until they perish.’ Seeing this heavy-footed, long nominal clause does not make God as the actor stand out, the latter alternative appears to us more plausible. Cf. the same idiom occurring in Je 44.27 ‫לוֹתם‬ ָ ‫וּב ָר ָעב ַעד ְכּ‬ ְ ‫ ַבּ ֶח ֶרב‬.. ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ל־אישׁ י‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַתמּוּ ָכּ‬where the lead verb is intransitive. In his earlier study (Qimron 1986 § 400.09-10) the negator ‫ לאין‬was said to constitute part of the neat, tripartite complementary distribution: ‫ לאין‬+ infinitive (or abstract noun) ‫ ללא‬+ imperfect ‫ בלא‬+ perfect He himself was aware of the incomplete nature of his investigation on the matter, as we can see from a caveat he added: “Further study is needed.” The years since 1986 have witnessed publication of an enormous amount of new QH texts. In Qimron’s latest grammar (2018) there is no talk of complementary distribution, and our negator is treated in a section (pp. 417f., H 4.3.1) entitled “‫ לאין‬+ Verbal Noun Describing Capability.” We find this description of the value and function of the syntagm somewhat debatable. Among the very small selection of examples cited by him we find that the syntax has little to do with incapability, e.g. ‫‘ ארור אתה לאין רחמים‬you are cursed beyond mercies’ 1QS 2.7. In the case under discussion here, ‫ לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬the word ‫ פליטה‬is a verbal noun282 and ‫ לאין פליטה למו‬can be translated ‘they can not escape,’ but can ‫ לאין שרית‬be translated ‘they can not remain, survive’? Is ‫ שרית‬a verbal noun? Though not cited by Qimron, we do not think that ‫֯בהתהלך בדרך לבכה לאין עול‬ 1QHa 24.9 has anything to do with capability when it means ‘to walk in the way of your heart without iniquity’ or suchlike. Moreover, in the label cited above “infinitive” is absent, whilst many of the examples cited by him have ‫ לאין‬negat֗ ‫‘ נפלו בני‬the children of Japhet fell, incapable ing an inf. cst., e.g. ‫יפת לאין קום‬ of getting up’ 1QM 18.2. Qimron (2018.419, § H 4.3.2) now admits that the syntagm is not confined to the Hodayot283: e.g. 4Q417 2i2 ‫‘ בלוא הוכח‬without being chastised’284; ib. 1ii14 ‫‘ בלוא צוה‬without Him commanding’; 4Q299 8.5 ‫ומה יתבונן‬ ‫‘ גבר בלוא ידע ולוא שמע‬how could one comprehend without having become acquainted with it and having heard about it?’ Incidentally, this last example with the second negator not repeating the preposition shows that ‫ בלוא‬had not However, it can also mean ‘fugitive’ as in ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫וּפ ֵל‬ ְ ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ֵתּ ֵצא ְשׁ ֵא ִר ית‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬Is 37.12, cf. LXX ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ ἐξελεύσονται οἱ καταλελειμμένοι καὶ οἱ σῳζόμενοι. Note the juxtaposition of ‫וּפ ליֵ ָטה‬ ְ ‫ ְשׁ ֵא ִר ית‬just as in our 1QS passage. 283 Cf. SQH § 40 k. 284 Pace DJD 34.178 the verb can be analysed as a Hofal qatal rather than a Hifil or Nifal infinitive. 282

84

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

yet become a fossilised, unified negator,285 but the preposition bet still retains its own value. Whether attached to and followed by a qatal or a substantive, the underlying value of the preposition bet in ‫ בלוא‬in this syntagm appears to be that of marking an instrument or equipment. From this perspective, the same preposition probably has a different value and accordingly ‫ בלוא‬there lends itself to a different syntactic analysis: 1QHa 9.25 ‫‘ מה אדבר בלא נודע ואשמיעה בלא סופר‬how could I speak about what has not (yet) been recognised and expound what has not (yet) been told?,’ a translation which presupposes that the preposition marks, as it sometimes does in BH,286 the topic of a discourse and what follows the bet is an asyndetic or unmarked relative clause.287 See also above ad ‫לאין סליחה‬ 2.14. The syntactic analysis just presented above can equally be applied to cases of ‫ללוא‬, when it looks like negating a qatal form against the second syntagm isolated by Qimron. Thus 4Q418 69ii5288 ‫ומה השקט ללוא היה ומה משפט ללוא נוסד‬ ‘what is tranquility for him who has not come into being? And what is judgement for him who has not been established?’289 Qimron’s second syntagm, , appears to be confined to the four instances in 1QHa . A close study of these examples shows what the syntagm means: ֗ ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ a) 1QHa 13.38 ‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬ ֗ ‫נטות אבני בחן‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ b) ib. 14.29 ‫ בריחי עוז ללוא ישוברו‬.. ‫לפנ֗ יֿ ֯ת עוז ללוא תתזעזע‬ c) ib. 15.12 ‫֗חומת בחן ללוא תזדעזע‬ Many translators of these passages have treated them as if they were relative clauses modifying the immediately preceding noun phrases: e.g., a) “I am bound with untearable ropes and with unbreakable chains”; b) “the tried stones [Thou wilt lay] .. to [build] a mighty [wall] which shall not sway .. its bars shall be firm and no man shall break them”; c) “a tried wall which shall not sway.”290 This syntactical analysis, however, cannot account for the feminine form of b) ‫ תתזעזע‬following a masculine noun ‫עוז‬. The bracketed “[wall]” hints at an emendation, ‫חומת עוז‬, a reasonable emendation which could also account for 285

Pace DJD 34.172: “‫ בלוא‬has become virtually a conjunction, with the relative understood.” See BDB s.v. IV e. 287 See JM § 158 d, where a good number of BH examples are mentioned. 288 So also Qimron as reported in DJD 34.285. This use of a self-contained clause with he who or that which understood is not, however, confined to a negated clause or a clause headed by a preposition, as shown by some examples mentioned in JM § 158 d. 289 This agrees with a translation suggested by Kister 2009.198. 290 Vermes 270, 273, 275. Even translations accompanied by philological notes do not go into the syntactical question here under discussion. We are not told why Mansoor (1961.149) translates “And my walls shall be made a testing wall so that it shall not be shaken,” and not “.. which shall not be shaken.” See also Holm-Nielsen 1960.100, 102, 129. In the case of Vermes at least, the translation offered may be aiming at a natural, concise style. 286

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

85

the feminine possessive suffix in the following two nouns, ‫ באיה‬and ‫]שע[ריה‬.291 However that may be, the use of ‫ ללוא‬as a substitute of the relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬+ the negator, and that only when followed by a yiqtol, would constitute a remarkable innovation on the part of the author of the Hymn Scroll, and one is hard put to explain what possibly brought about such a development. We submit that this syntagm is a development and extension originating in the preposition lamed combined with an infinitive construct marking a purpose or end result. All the examples listed above are amenable to such an analysis and interpretation: a) “I was tied up with ropes so that I wouldn’t be able to break loose and with chains so that they wouldn’t be broken in the end”; b) “to build a mighty [wall] so that it wouldn’t sway .. the strong bars so that they wouldn’t break up in the end”; c) “.. a tried wall so that it wouldn’t sway in the end.” In other words, we are suggesting that the syntagm in question is not an attributive modifier of a noun, but an adverbial adjunct. In c) the adverbial is to be construed with ‫תכן‬. From a diachronic point of view this syntagm is related to the syntagm known from Mishnaic Hebrew forms such as ‫ = ֵל ֵשׁב‬BH ‫ל ֶשׁ ֶבת‬,ָ since ‫ל ֵשׁב > ְליֵ ֵשׁב‬.ֵ The reason why all our four examples occur in negated clauses may simply be accidental. Another significant aspect to be noted here is that this final, terminative function of the syntagm identified by Qimron can be equally applied to the first, namely . So 1QS 2.7 ‫‘ ארור אתה לאין רחמים‬you are accursed so you can expect no mercy in the end’; ib. 4.13 ‫עד כלותם לאין שרית‬ ‫‘ ופליטה‬until they perish with the result of there being no remnant or survivor’; 1QM 18.2 ‫‘ ונפלו בני יפת לאין קום‬and the sons of Japhet will fall not to rise again’; 1QHa 14.30 ‫‘ דלתי מגן לאין מבוא‬security doors (built) so that nobody would go in,’ where the clause is ultimately to be construed with the preceding ‫( לבנות‬line 26). The terminative nuance is reinforced by the addition of ‫ עד‬at 1QHa 12.28 ‫‘ ותגבר עד לאין מספר‬and you reinforced (them) so that in the end there was no counting possible any more,’292 and note ib. 13.38 ‫נאסרתי בעבותים לאין נתק‬ 291 Licht (1957.117) reconstructs ‫ לבנו]ת חומת[ עוז‬and similarly Lohse (136) ‫חוֹמת[ עוֹז‬ ַ ‫ל ְב]נ[וֹ]ת‬.ִ However, a glance at the end of line 29 in the plate concerned (XII) shows that there is no space for so many letters to be restored. No less difficult is Mansoor’s (1961.146) “of my he[a]rt, [a tower of] strength,” i.e. ‫לבי מגדל עוז‬. ‫ לפנית‬as given above is Qimron’s (I 78) reading. What it is supposed to mean is not clear. DJD 40.193 insists on reading ‫לבנית‬, which is said to be found in a 4Q fragment (4Q429 4ii9). The reading proposed as a whole is ‫נית עוז‬ ֯ ‫]ע[שות אבני בחן ֯ל ֯ב‬ ֯ ‫ל‬,֯ translated “in order [to ma]ke the tested stones into a strong building” (p. 197). Reading a form of ‫‘ ְבּנִ יָּ ה‬a building’ removes the difficulty of the above-mentioned gender discord, but the verb ‫ ָע ָשׂה‬is not used in the sense of ‘to turn A into B, to make B of A’; ‫יתי ְל ִמ ְק ָדּשׁ‬ ִ ‫יתי ֵאת ֵבּ‬ ִ ‫ ָע ִשׂ‬is no Hebrew. 292 Another variant is 1QHa 17.38 ‫מספ ֗ר‬ ֗ ‫הגברתה עד אין‬. This case, incidentally, shows that ib. 12.28 ‫ ותגבר‬mentioned above is more likely ‫ וַ ַתּגְ ֵבּר‬rather than ‫וַ ִתּגְ ַבּר‬. Cf. Holm-Nielsen 1960.85, n. 65.

86

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

parallel to ‫ וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬discussed above. In this latter case the parallelism and the cohesion of the two juxtaposed clauses is apparent in the absence of the preposition bet from ‫זקים‬, and this speaks for syntactic parallelism of the two different syntagms. This syntagm of final-terminative nuance always and understandably follows the lead verb or clause. Hence a fronted and waw-prefixed ‫ ולאין‬immediately signals that we have a distinct syntactic feature in 4Q381 1.2 ‫ולפתאים ויבינו ולאין‬ ‫‘ לב ידעון‬to the simple minded, and they will understand, and to those lacking intelligence, they will come to know,’ where we have again an ‫אשׁר‬-less relative clause, and the preposition has the same semantic and syntactic value as that in the preceding, parallel ‫לפתאים‬. Just as the prepositions bet and lamed in the first two syntagms discussed above retain their respective syntactic and lexical value of their own, so does the lamed of ‫לאין‬, as seems to be shown in 4Q392 1.7 ‫לדעת‬ ֗ ‫חקר ואין‬ ֗ ֗‫ו֯ עמו אור לאין‬. If ‫ לאין‬had become a unified, single entity, the author could have written ‫לאין‬ ‫חקר ודעת‬. The very 1QS clause, which has given rise to this detailed investigation, shows that what follows the preposition can stand on its own as a selfcontained clause: ‫‘ עד כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬until they perish so that they have no remnant or survivor.’293 The point we are trying to make here becomes all the more evident on account of ‫ למו‬in comparison with, e.g., 1QM 1.6 ‫להכניע‬ ‫‘ רשעה לאין שארית‬to defeat wickedness without any residue.’294 The BH substantive ‫ ְשׁ ֵא ִר ית‬appears in QH in a variety of spellings: in addition to ‫ שארית‬we find a) ‫שאירית‬, b) ‫שרית‬, and c) ‫שרת‬. a) is probably a plena spelling of the classical BH form, presenting no phonetic variation, whilst c) is a defectiva spelling of b). The latter two attest to a syncope of /’/ in a sequel . Other examples of this phonetic development include: 11Q20 12.25 ‫ בירות‬for the classical ‫‘ בארות‬wells’; 1QM 7.11 ‫ פרי‬for ‫‘ פארי‬my headdress’; 4Q477 2ii8 ‫ שיר‬for ‫‘ ְשׁ ֵאר‬kinsman.’295 1QS 4.15 - 23a 4.15) Under (the influence of) these (two) is the history of all the sons of man and in their divisions all their hosts are destined to receive a territory for all their generations and along their ways they are destined to walk. And all the reward for 4.16) their deeds in their divisions is in accordance with each one’s territory whether much or little for all eternal ages, for God placed them each separately till 4.17) the last age and He put eternal hostility between their 293

Almost the same sentence may be found in CD 2.6. Qimron (2018.418) writes as if I had asserted that ‫ לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬is diachronically anterior to ‫לאין שרית ופליטה‬. What I had said (1996a.70) was that the latter is a shortened version of the former; both can be used by one and the same author in one and the same document, or in contemporary documents as shown by this instance. For our analysis of this syntagm with ‫לאין‬, see SQH § 40 m. 295 See also Qimron 2018.82f., § A 4.5. 294

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

87

divisions. Practices of iniquity are what is detested by truth and all the ways of truth are what is detested by iniquity and (there is) fierce 4.18) contention over all their decisions, for together they would not walk. And God, with His intelligent mysteries and His glorious wisdom, set an end for iniquity to exist and at a time planned 4.19) for evaluation He will destroy it for ever. And then truth will go out into the world for ever, for it became defiled in ways of wickedness under the reign of iniquity until 4.20) the time when the court sits to take a decision. And then God will purify all the deeds of people with His truth, He will cleanse for Himself an edifice of man, eradicating every spirit of iniquity out of the inner organs of 4.21) his flesh and cleansing it with a spirit of holiness from all deeds of wickedness, and He will sprinkle on it a spirit of truth like water for removing impurity, all abominations of deceit and defilement 4.22) with a spirit of impurity in order to help the upright ones comprehend what knowledge of the Most High means and to help those walking straight grasp the wisdom of the sons of heaven, for it is they that He has chosen for the eternal covenant, 4.23) to them belonging all the glory due to human beings and there will be no iniquity and every act of deceit will become shame. 1QS 4.15) ‫ ]באלה תולדות כול בני איש‬On the meaning of the keyword, ‫תולדות‬, see our earlier discussion at 3.13. The gender-neutral pronoun, ‫אלה‬, at the start of a new paragraph is somewhat ambiguous as to its reference. However, the use of the feminine plural possessive suffix attached to some of the immediately following nouns removes the ambiguity: ‫מפלגיהן‬, ‫דרכיהן‬.296 In his translation Martone (122) is very explicit: “In questi due spiriti.” What does the preposition bet mean here? It is hardly locative.297 If ‫תולדות‬ signifies ‘things that come into existence, happen,’ the preposition can be understood as instrumental in value in a broad sense, something like ‘inspired by, guided by.’298 As our author begins to summarise his doctrine expounded so far, he assigns a prominent position to the two systems in the introductory nominal clause, underlining the focal position of his dualistic-deterministic Weltanschauung. This syntactical-rhetorical device is carried on in the two immediately following verbal clauses, in which the logically corresponding ‫ במפלגיהן‬and ‫בדרכיהן‬ again occupy the prominent, initial position. ‫]ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כול צבאותם לדורותם‬. The lexeme ‫‘ מפלג‬division’ here shows a masculine morphology on the surface. Two lines below we encounter ‫מפלגותם‬, so a hapax in BH, ‫ ִמ ְפ ַלגּוֹת‬2Ch 35.12.299 The lexeme occurs seven more times 296

Hence not “in the manners described above” (Licht 101). So e.g. “In these (two spirits are) the natures of ..” (Charlesworth 17). 298 Cf. “The nature of all the children of men is ruled by these (two spirits)” (Vermes 102). 299 Fathers of Modern Hebrew turned their back on this lexeme, creating instead ‫ ִמ ְפ ָלגָ ה‬with ‫ ִמ ְפ ֶלגֶ ת‬as its construct form. 297

88

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

in QH300, and its morphology is evidently masc. in ‫ מפלגיהן‬1QS 4.16, ‫מפלגיה‬ 1QM 10.12, ]‫ מפלגי‬1QHa 16.22, ‫ מפלגיו‬4Q405 23i7; sg. ‫ כול מפלג‬4Q503 1-6iii7, ‫ כול מפלגו לו‬ib. 15-16.11. We have left out of account ]‫ מפלג‬1QHa 20.26. In DJD 40.251 ‫ מפלג]יהם‬is restored, whereas Qimron (I 90) reads ‫מפלג]ותיהם‬. Given the mismatch between gender and form in Semitic languages, it is certainly possible that there existed in Hebrew *‫מ ְפ ַלגָּ ה‬, ִ 301 though such a sg. form is not attested, whereas we have adduced above two indisputable instances of ‫מפלג‬. Then ‫ מפלגותם‬1QS 4.17 could be derived from ‫מפלג‬, possibly also ‫ִמ ְפ ַלגּוֹת‬ 2Ch 35.12, for a secondary gemination is widespread, e.g. ‫גָּ ָמל < גְּ ַמ ִלּים‬. Though the picture is rather complicated, it is important to take note of ‫ מפלג‬as an innovation we owe to QH.302 Both ‫ ינחלו‬and ‫ יתהלכו‬are usually translated with the present tense their yiqtol tense could have some volitive value such as “they are destined to ..”303 In this single line we find a telling illustration of vacillation between -m and -n as final consonants of 3pl. conjunctive pronouns: ‫דורותם‬.. ‫ צבאותם‬.. ‫מפלגיהן‬ ‫ דרכיהן‬... Whilst ‫ ־)ה(מה‬and ‫ ־)ה(ם‬are known to be occasionally used for fem. referents, the reverse, namely ‫ ־)ה(ן‬for masc. referents is virtually unknown.304 Hence ‫ מפלגיהן‬and ‫ דרכיהן‬must be referring the two spirits (‫)רוחות‬, which makes good sense in the context. It would then make sense to make ‫ ־ם‬refer to ‫כול בני איש‬, who would then be the grammatical subject of ‫ ינחלו‬and ‫יתהלכו‬. Notionally, too, “the spirits walking about” is comical. 1QS 4.16) ‫מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי‬16 ‫וכול פעולת‬ ‫]עולמים‬. The collocation ‫ פעולת מעשיהם‬is dismissed by Wernberg-Møller (26) as “a stilted phrase” and translated “(the entire) work of their activity.” In BH, however, ‫ ְפּ ֻע ָלּה‬also means ‘reward, recompense (for a deed),’305 which suits our context and is adopted by Vermes and Dupont-Sommer.306 An example from the Hebrew Bible is Lv 19.13 ‫ֹא־ת ִלין ְפּ ֻע ַלּת ָשׂ ִכיר ַעד־בּ ֶֹקר‬ ָ ‫‘ ל‬the wages of a labourer shall not remain with you overnight.’ There is no reason why the same interpretation should not be applied to a similar collocation later in the column: 4.25 ‫הואה ידע פעולת מעשיהן‬. This accords better with the logical progression of thought in lines 15-16: 1) the whole of humanity is divided into two camps, 2) each camp is assigned a domain of activity of its own (‫)ינחלו‬, 3) members of each camp conduct their lives (‫ )יתהלכו‬in their respective domain, and 4) they are all recompensed in accordance with the measure applicable to their respective territory (‫)נחלה‬. 300

Neither MH nor Ben Sira attests to an affiliated lexeme. So in Hebrew lexicons and also in Qimron 1986.92. 302 So Qimron 1986.110, where he writes “S 4: 15 [= 1QS 4.15] et al.” 303 Cf. SQH § 15 c. 304 On the former, see Qimron 2018.284 and at p. 285 two possible cases of the latter are mentioned, but rather uncertain. 305 Just as ‫ ֵח ְטא‬and ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬mean also ‘punishment (for sin)’ and ‘sin-offering’ respectively. 306 “the whole reward for their deeds” 102; “toute la rétribution de leurs œuvres” 20. 301

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

89

That ‫ מועט‬is a genuine substantive, and not an adjective used substantivally, is shown by its contrast to ‫רוב‬, which is opposed to ‫רב‬, an adjective. ‫ מועט‬occurs three more times in QH: CD 13.1; 1QSa 1.18, apparently in the same collocation as in 1QS 4.15; 4Q163 4-7ii17. It is thus to be distinguished from ‫ מעט‬used as an adjective as in 4Q365 32.6 ‫‘ המעט הואה ואם רב‬are they few in number or many?,’ almost a verbatim reproduction of Nu 13.18. Qimron is inclined to view the spelling as representing an earlier, proto-BH shape of the noun with a full, i.e. not shva, vowel preserved here.307 Despite the consensus view that a word-initial consonantal cluster represents a secondary development,308 one has, at the moment, no data, whether within Hebrew itself or outside of it, which could help us determine the original initial vowel of the noun.309 ‫‘ ]בין רוב למועט‬whether much or little,’ an idiomatic phrase which recurs at 1QSa 1.18. 4Q417 1i20 ‫בין֗ רוב למעט‬, just as 4Q418 2+2a-c.7 ‫טוב‬ ֗ ‫להבֿיֿ ן צדק בין‬ ‫ל ֗ר ֗ע‬,֗ seems to be a case of the standard syntagm meaning ‘between X and Y.’ ‫‘ ]אל שמן בד בבד‬God set them apart.’ The phrase ‫ בד בבד‬is known from Ex 30.34, which appears to be quoted in 4Q158 13.3. There it is generally agreed to mean ‘in equal portions or amounts,’ which has been adopted by many translators of our 1QS passage. However, another nuance of it, ‘separately,’ was convincingly argued for by Wernberg-Møller (84) and followed by Charlesworth (19).310 This is the meaning as found in MH such as bBer 63b ‫(‘ יושבין בד בבד ועוסקין בתורה‬students) sitting each separately, on his own and studying the Scriptures.’ There is no hindrance for assuming that the gender opposition dealt with at the preceding line is also applicable here: masc. ‫ מעשיהם‬vs. fem. ‫ מפלגיהן‬and ‫שמן‬. 1QS 4.17) ‫ ]מפלגותם‬The gender distinction can be applied here, too. The human race is divided into two groups, each led by one of the two spirits. No real difference in meaning between ‫ מפלג‬and ‫מפלגה‬. ‫‘ ]עלילות עולה‬deeds of wickedness,’ parallel to ‫‘ דרכי אמת‬ways of truth’ as in 1QS 4.1. The parallelism of the two nouns, ‫ עלילה‬and ‫דרך‬, is frequent in the book of Ezekiel: e.g. 14.22, 23. This noun, along with its far less frequently used synonym, ‫( מעלל‬3×), is a legacy of the mainly poetic BH. Both would become virtually extinct in MH, probably because of their poetic flavour. ‫מעשה‬ is a standard, far more common synonym. While ‫ מעשה‬is neutral of nuance, both ‫ עלילה‬and ‫ מעלל‬are, as in BH and in our 1QS passage, more often negative in connotation than not.311 E.g., Ezk 20.43 307 308 309 310 311

Qimron 1986.36 (§ 200.22). An Aramaising tendency according to BL 1922.456. Qimron (2018.107, fn. 27) opines that the word is, phonetically, môṭ. See also Lohse 15: “Seite an Seite.” A rare example of neutral connotation is found in Pr 20.11 (|| ‫)פּ ַֹע ל‬.

90

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫אתם ָבּם‬ ֶ ‫את דרכיכם ואת עלילותיכם אשׁר נִ ְט ֵמ‬. This nuance is often reinforced syntagmatically: ib. 20.44 ‫ ;כדרכיהם ָה ָר ִעים וכעלילותיכם ַהנִּ ְשׁ ָחתוֹת‬Mi 3.4 ‫ֵה ֵר עוּ‬ ‫מעלליהם‬. Likewise in QH: 1QS 4.21 ‫ ;עלילות רשעה‬1QM 11.4 ‫;עלילות פשעינו‬ 11Q19 59.7 ‫רוע מעלליהמה‬. Yet, again as in BH, we find in QH some examples of these nouns referring to good, commendable deeds, notably God’s deeds: Ps 9.12 ‫הגִּ ידוּ בעמים עלילותיו‬, ַ similarly ib. 105.1, Is 12.4, 1Ch 16.8; Ps 77.12 ‫אזכור מעללי‬ ‫יה‬. As an example in QH we would mention 4Q437 2i16 ‫‘ בעלילותיך אשיח‬on Your deeds I shall ponder.’312 1QS 4.18) ‫ריב על כול משפטיהן‬18 ‫‘ ]קנאת‬there is a fierce contention over all their decisions.’ Licht (102) holds that the two nouns, ‫ קנאה‬and ‫ריב‬, are used here as two synonyms, both meaning ‘strife.’ However, such an assumption is not called for. He refers to 1QHa 10.17, 33 and ib. 13.25, where the first noun is assigned a sense of ‘strife,’ which is not convincing. Charlesworth (19) renders: “(There is) a fierce struggle between all their judgments.” ‫ קנאה‬signifies ‘high degree of interest and engagement.’ ‫ על‬does not mean ‘between,’ but ‘over.’ Each time some issue comes up for a decision, the two sides engage in a fierce contention, each advancing its own argument. So it is a battle between the two camps over various issues.313 On the preposition, cf. Gn 26.21 ‫ויחפרו באר אחרת ויריבו‬ ‫‘ גם עליה‬and they dug another well, and they [= the two parties] fought over it as well’ and 4Q176 1-2i2 ‫‘ וריבה עם ממלכות על דם‬and contend with kingdoms over blood.’ On the meaning of ‫ משׁפט‬here, see our remarks above ad 1QS 3.16. A literal translation of ‫ קנאת ריב‬is ‘fierceness of contention,’ a cst. chain indicating property, character, cf. SQH § 21 b xx). ‫‘ ]כיא לוא יחד יתהלכו‬together they would not walk.’ This simple Hebrew clause would not mean exactly the same thing as ‫כיא לוא יתהלכו יחד‬. To whichever of the two camps people might belong, they are destined and bound to walk, conduct their respective life (‫)יתהלכו‬. But the chosen word-order underlines, just as the preceding ‫( בדרכיהן יתהלכו‬15), the yawning gulf that cannot be bridged, mutual exclusivity and incompatibility. One wonders whether such a thought was at the back of the founders of the community when they began to use this well-established BH word, ‫יחד‬, in a unique314 fashion to designate themselves. ‫]ואל ברזי שכלו ובחכמת כבודו נתן קצ להיֿ וֿ ת עולה ובמועד פקודה ישמידנה לעד‬. As in line 16 ‫כיא אל שמן בד בבד‬, the fronted subject is meant to stress that it is a divine prerogative and decision to set the time for a final annihilation of the hostile camp, not an outcome of the struggle between the two camps. 312 There are two partly restored examples of a derivationally related ‫מעליל‬: 4Q370 1i2, 4Q381 46a+b,6. 313 Similarly Dupont-Sommer 20: “Et une ardeur combative (les oppose l’un à l’autre) au sujet de toutes leurs ordonnances.” 314 BH uses the word basically as an adverb, not as a substantive. See Morag 2000.179-82.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

91

‫ שכלו‬is somewhat striking. This substantive and a related verb of the same root, mostly in Hifil, indicate in BH a human quality when they are used in a lexical domain of intellect and prudence. In the biblical theology and anthropology it is ultimately endowed by God: so Ps 32.8 ‫ילָך‬ ְ ‫;א ְשׂ ִכּ‬ ַ cf. Dn 9.22 ‫יצאתי‬ ‫להשכילך בינה‬, where Gabriel is speaking as an agent of God. This lexical extension in QH is shared by the author of the Hymn Scroll: 1QHa 20.16 ‫פתחתה לתוכי‬ ‫דעת ברז שכלכה‬. By contrast, ‫ח ְכ ָמה‬, ָ a prominent synonym of ‫שׂ ֶכ ל‬, ֵ is an attribute of God in BH and QH alike: e.g., Je 10.12 ‫ ;מכין תבל בחכמתו‬the renowned personified divine wisdom in Pr 8; 1QHa 17.23 ‫ברז חכמתכה הוכחתה בי‬. Cf. also Si 15.18 ‫( ספקה חכמת ייי‬LXX: πολλὴ ἡ σοφία τοῦ κυρίου). However, wisdom is granted by God as a gift, hence the rich sapiential literature in the Hebrew Bible, also extending to deutero-canonical books such as Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon. ‫חכמת כבודו‬, a construct phrase of the so-called genetivus qualitatis, ‘wisdom typifying or worthy of His glory.’ Licht (102) mentions 1QS 3.16 ‫מחשבת כבודו‬ as an analogous collocation. 1QS 4.19) ‫ ]תצא לנצח אמת תבל‬With his “the truth of the world” WernbergMøller (27) sees here a cst. chain, so “die Wahrheit der Welt” (Lohse 15).315 We agree with others who view ‫ תבל‬as a locative, adverbial adjunct to be construed with ‫תצא‬. More precisely, “into the world,” not static as in “rise up .. (in) the world” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 79). Among a fair number of examples in QH of verbs of physical movement with a locative, adverbial adjunct we find none with static value.316 ‫]התגוללה בדרכי רשע‬. The verb is still translated with wallow by Vermes (103) and so glossed by Abegg et al.317 We are dealing here with two318 homonymous roots. The sense ‘to defile, sully’ is almost assured319 here and in quite a few cases in QH: 1QS 4.21 ‫ ;התגולל ברוח נדה‬1QHa 4.31 ‫ ;בנדה התגוללו‬ib. 14.25 ‫יתגוללו‬ ‫ ;באשמה‬ib. 22.4 ‫ ;אני איש פשע ומגולל‬4Q525 21,6 ‫ ;המתגוללים בסאון‬CD 3.17 ‫ ;התגוללו בפשע אנוש ובדרכי נדה‬ib. 8.5 ‫ ;יתגוללו בדרכי זונות‬ib. 19.17 ‫יתגללו‬ ‫בדרכי זנות ובהון הרשעה‬. See further Si 12.14 ‫( מתגלל בעונתיו‬LXX συμφυρόμενον ἐν ταῖσ ἁμαρτίαισ αὐτοῦ). This new sense is now admitted for two BH passages, 2Sm 20.12 and Is 9.4, where the sense wallow used to be applied.320 See also our remarks above ad 1QS 4.5 ‫גלולי נדה‬, p. 67. 315 At ‫ אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת תבל‬1QS 4.6 we have a nominal clause, and Lohse translates “Dies sind .. für die Söhne der Wahrheit (in) der Welt.” 316 See SQH § 31 i. 317 Concordance, 179b. 318 Cohen (1970-.125-9) seems to be able to identify far more homonyms of the root ‫ גלל‬in Semitic. 319 HALOT (194a, s.v. II ‫ )גלל‬thinks, probably rightly, that this is a denominative of ‫‘ גָּ ָל ל‬dung.’ 320 See HALOT 194a s.v.

92

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS 4.20) ‫מועד משפט נחרצה‬20 ‫]עד‬. As pointed out by Wernberg-Møller (85) and Licht (103), the expression here draws upon several biblical passages: Is 10.23, 28.22; Dn 9.27, 11.36. In all these places, ‫נֶ ֱח ָר ָצה‬, a Nifal feminine participle, is used substantivally, e.g. Dn 11.36 ‫נֶ ֱח ָר ָצה נֶ ֱע ָשׂ ָתה‬, and the context is eschatological. This equally applies to all the QH passages where the form occurs: 1QS 4.25 ‫ ;עד קצ נחרצה‬1QHa 11.37 ‫ ;עד כלה ונחרצה‬4Q369 1i6 ‫עד קץ‬ ‫משפט נחרצה‬.321 This last example is very close to our 1QS example. Another 1QS example, 8.10 ‫לחרוצ משפט רשעה‬, indicates that ‫ משפט‬can be a direct object of ‫ חרץ‬as in 1Kg 20.40 ‫מ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטָך ָח ָר ְצ ָתּ‬. ִ However, we cannot see a passive transform of this syntagm in the two 1QS IV examples nor in Dn 9.26 ‫עד קץ מלחמה‬ ‫שׁוֹממוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ נֶ ֱח ֶר ֶצת‬because of the masculine gender of ‫ משפט‬and ‫ קץ‬on the one hand322 and the plural number of ‫שׁוֹממוֹת‬ ֵ on the other.323 Thus ‫ משפט נחרצה‬cannot mean ‘decision pronounced, verdict reached.’324 Nor is ‫ נחרצה‬likely to be in apposition to ‫משפט‬, but must be rather a nomen rectum. Hence Habermann’s (63) ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט‬is to be preferred to Lohse’s (14) ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. On the basis of these considerations we suggest ‘until the time when the court sits to take a decision’ as a translation of ‫עד מועד משפט נחרצה‬.325 ‫]אז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי גבר יזקק לו מבני איש להתם כול רוח עולה מתכמי‬. Relying on Jastrow’s dictionary, Leaney (154, 156) takes ‫ ברר‬in the sense of ‘to make manifest.’ Jastrow’s glosses, to make clear, prove, ascertain, are listed, however, only for Qal, and the only reference mentioned, bKeth 46a, reads ‫ובוררין‬ ‫את הדבר כשמלה חדשה‬, which occurs in a Talmudic discussion on Dt 22.17 concerning a case of disputed virginity of a bride.326 Neither the verb stem (Qal, not Piel) nor the context supports Leaney’s interpretation. The parallelism with ‫זקק‬ and ‫ טהר‬rather speaks for the sense to purify. As hinted at by Brownlee (17, n. 39), this line unmistakably alludes to Ma 3.3, where also we have two synonyms juxtaposed, ‫ ְמ ַט ֵהר‬and ‫זִ ַקּק‬, and we also have the preposition lamed used as here as a sort of dativus commodi, ‫ישׁי‬ ֵ ִ‫וְ ָהיוּ ליהוה ַמגּ‬ ‫מנְ ָחה‬, ִ which is said about Levites who undergo a process of purification. Our 1QS passage does not specify what group of individuals are selected and go through a preparatory process of purification. In fact, only one individual may be in the mind of our author. ‫ מבני איש‬is ambiguous in this respect. In Ezr 2.68 321 Our author and that of 4Q369 may be thinking of an abbreviation of ‫‘ ָכּ ָלה נֶ ֱח ָר ָצה‬annihilation decided on,’ as suggested in SQH § 17 j, p. 104 with n. 5 there. 322 By the same token Maier’s (1960.I 176) translation “bis zum festgesetzten Gerichtstermin,” which construes ‫ נחרצה‬with ‫מועד‬, a masculine noun, is untenable. Likewise van der Ploeg’s (118b) “jusqu’à l’heure décrétée du jugement.” 323 Pace Clines DCH III 322a. 324 So van der Ploeg (118b) “l’heure décrétée” (‫ קצ נחרצה‬line 25). Neither ‫ מועד‬nor ‫ קץ‬is of fem. gender. 325 We are not convinced that ‫ משפט‬can denote actual execution of a decision. Hence a rendering such as ‘until the time when a decision is executed’ is unlikely. Cf. also SQH § 17 j, p. 104. 326 Jastrow 1903.197b.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

93

‫אשׁי ָה ָאבוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ֵמ ָר‬we must supply some: ‘some of the heads of families,’ for it is followed by a plural verb, ‫ה ְתנַ ְדּבוּ‬. ִ By contrast, in Gn 28.11 we read ‫ויקח ֵמ ַא ְבנֵ י‬ ‫המקום‬, to which a reference is made later at 28.18 with ‫ויקח את האבן‬. Jacob must have picked up one of the stones at the wayside for a pillow.327 If a single individual be meant, it could be Messiah, an interpretation vigorously contested by Wernberg-Møller (85f., n. 70). The collectivistic interpretation has to deal with a syntactic difficulty, namely the singular pronoun in ‫ בשרו‬and ‫טהרו‬. So Charlesworth (19), for instance, is inconsistent: “God will .. purge for himself the sons of man. He will utterly destroy .. from the veins of his328 flesh. He will purify him ..” A way out of this grammatical crux is to admit ‫ מבני‬as a non-standard, phonetic spelling329 of ‫‘ מבנה‬edifice’ with special reference to human body.330 ‫‘ ]כול מעשי גבר‬every deed of people.’ On ‫ מעשי‬as sg., see below at 4.23. The gender-neutral use of ‫ גבר‬in the sense of homo, and not vir, is typical of the male-dominated society. God would not be indifferent to the spiritual, moral integrity of womenfolk. Besides, ‫ גבר‬here is parallel to ‫איש‬. ‫ ]יזקק‬Qimron (I 217) indicates his uncertainty with ‫וֿ זקק‬, conceding, however, that the first letter looks like yod. Unless one postulates here a merely mechanical use of the inverted form, there is no occasion here for such. Hence we would prefer two asyndetically juxtaposed yiqtol’s. As regards ‫‘ להתם‬to make an end of,’ Licht (103) justly refers to Ezk 22.15 ‫מּוֹתי ֻט ְמ ָא ֵתְך ִמ ֵמְּך‬ ִ ‫‘ וַ ֲה ִת‬and I shall eradicate your impurity from you.’ Cf. also 1Q27 1i6 ‫‘ יתם הרשע לעד‬the wickedness will come to an end for ever’ (Qal); 4Q416 1.13 ‫‘ וכול עולה תתם עוד‬and all injustice will end again’; 4Q431 2.1 ‫ותמה‬ ‫‘ רשעה‬and wickedness comes to an end.’ ‫ כול ]כול רוח עולה‬combined with a sg. indet. noun means ‘every single,’ but how about the author’s doctrine of two spirits created by God?331 Occasionally, however, it can also mean ‘(the) whole,’ e.g. ‫לשוב אל תורת מושה ככול אשר צוה‬ ‫‘ בכול לב ובכול נפש‬to return to the law of Moses as he commanded with whole heart and with whole soul,’ sim. CD 15.9, 12, 1QHa 7.23, cf. ‫וּב ָכ ל־נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ ְ ‫ל־לב‬ ֵ ‫ְבּ ָכ‬ 2Kg 23.3.332 This contrasts with ‫וּב ָכ ל־נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ָב ְבָך‬ ְ ‫ ִכּי ִת ְד ְר ֶשׁנּוּ ְבּ ָכ‬Dt 4.29 +.333 327

For more examples of both categories, see BDB, s.v. 580b, 3 b. Wernberg-Møller’s (27) “His” (with an uppercase H) is, if not a misprint, extraordinary. 329 On this orthographic feature, see Qimron 2018.74f., § A 3.5.1. 330 So Yadin 1955.40-3, Licht 103, and Knibb 102. See also “la bâtisse (du corps)” (DupontSommer 21); “the human frame” (Vermes 103). 331 Wernberg-Møller’s “He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit” is a message we anticipate here, but “the spirit” cannot be reconciled with our text. 332 See SQH § 28 ca. 333 In mentioning these BH and QH parallels Licht (131) did not take into account the feature of determination. In addition to 2Kg 23.3 HALOT s.v. ‫ כֹּל‬4 mentions ‫ל־פּה‬ ֶ ‫ֹאכ לוּ ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְבּ ָכ‬ ְ ‫וַ יּ‬ Is 9.11 as exemplifying the value “whole.” This Heb. use appears to be alien to Classical Arabic, in which /kullu bayti/ would not mean ‘the entire house,’ for which /kullu l-bayti/ is the norm. We fail to follow Nöldeke (1897 § 27), who is inclined to view /šayʼi/ as “determiniert” in /huwa ḫāliqu kulli šayʼi/ “er (Gott) ist der Schöpfer jedes Dings.” 328

94

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Wernberg-Møller (27, 86, n. 71) reads ‫ מתכמו‬instead of ‫מתכמי‬, holding that the ending ‫ מו‬was comparable to the poetic BH ‫למוֹ‬,ָ an alternative for ‫ל ֶהם‬,ָ which accords with his analysis and translation of ‫ מבני איש‬earlier in the sentence: “a part of mankind.” Apart from the non-attestation of ‫‘ מתכמו‬from them, from within them’ anywhere in the classical Hebrew literature, his translation “He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from them and clean His flesh by a holy spirit ..” is untenable334: the insertion of the conjunction and is arbitrary. It is now more or less generally agreed that the form is a masculine construct of ‫תכם‬, a noun denoting part of a human body,335 though one is not able to be more precise as to which part of body is meant.336 This new addition to the Classical Hebrew lexicon occurs some eleven times in QH.337 In one case it is parallel to ‫‘ עצמי‬my bones’ (1QHa 15.7). In a few other places, just as in our 1QS passage, it is in the st. cst. with ‫ בשר‬as a nomen rectum: e.g., 4Q511 28-29.4 ‫בת ֗כמי‬ ֗ ‫֯עו֯ ֯לה‬ ֗‫‘ ֗ב ֗ש ֗ר י‬iniquity is in the innermost parts of my flesh.’ 1QS 4.21) ‫ ]לטהרו‬Is the object pronoun referring to ‫( גבר‬20) or ‫( בשרו‬21)? The same question arises with ‫ עליו‬later in the line. Either analysis makes sense. ‫ ]רוח קודש‬On this important concept ‫רוח קודש‬, see our discussion above ad 1QS 3.7, where a related phrase, ‫רוח קדושה‬, is used. ‫ ]ויז‬To our best knowledge this striking form, most likely a Hif. 3ms of √‫נזה‬ ‘to sprinkle,’ appears to have gone unnoticed by scholars. Qimron (2018.251) does not mention this next to ‫ אל יז‬4Q277 1ii7, a form one would anticipate. Or does this conform to his morphosyntactic, complementary rule, according to which apocopated forms occur as the first word in a verbal clause, whether prefixed with the conjunction waw or not?338 Unless a scribal error for ‫]וְ יַ זֶּ ה =[ ויזה‬, there is no occasion for selecting here a volitive or optative form. Should the preceding ‫ יברר‬and ‫יזקק‬, also with God as the subject, be assigned such a modal value? All translations, with one exception,339 render the verb with the plain future tense. Summing up, we prefer to see here an error for ‫ ויזה‬concluding the series ‫ ויזה‬.. ‫ יזקק‬.. ‫ יברר‬and an eschatological prediction, i.e. no volitive forms. ‫ ]מי נדה‬On this BH collocation as used in our text, see above at 3.4. However, unlike at 3.4 and 3.9 the phrase is further qualified with ‫מכול תועבות שקר‬ An analogous use of πᾶσ in LXX is to be noted, e.g. πᾶσα συναγωγὴ υἱῶν Ισραηλ Ex 16.2 (‫ל־ע ַדת ְבּנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֲ ‫)כּ‬. ָ See Muraoka 2016 § 3 b. 334 “His” must be a misprint for “his.” 335 See Licht (103) and also Qimron 1986.115. 336 “aus dem Innern” (Lohse 15), “from the innermost part” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 79), “from the inward parts” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 131), “from the veins” (Charlesworth 19), “de ses membres charnels” (Dupont-Sommer 21), and “dall’interno (della sua carne)” (Martone 122). But cf. “from the bounds (of his flesh)” (Vermes 103). 337 See DCH 8.633b s.v. ‫תּ ֶכם‬. ֶ 338 For our reservations on Qimron’s position, see SQH § 16 d, f (p. 89 fn. 5). 339 Namely Wise - Abegg = Cook (131). In the light of their “one will act wickedly” (line 24) (loc. cit.) they are not mixing up shall and will.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

95

‘from all abominations of deceit,’ which makes it clear that the water is as a means of purification from something objectionable. ‫‘ ]התגולל ברוח נדה‬to be polluted by a spirit of impurity.’340 This infinitive341 clause is to be construed with the preposition min in the preceding ‫מכול וגו׳‬. This is an instance of substantivised inf. cst. Here it is parallel to a pure substantive, ‫תועבה‬. All infinitives of that kind are not prefixed with the preposition ‫ל־‬.342 Another QH example is ‫‘ הודות אל‬praise for God’ 1QM 4.14 // ‫שמחת אל‬, ‫תהלת‬ ‫אל שלום אל‬, and a few other noun phrases. For more examples, see SQH § 18 a. Alternatively, ‫התגולל‬, along with ‫שׁ ֶקר‬, ֶ may be attributively complementing the preceding ‫תועבות‬. An instance of such a bare inf. without ‫ ל־‬is ‫‘ בית השתחוות‬a place for worshipping’ CD 11.22. On the inf. complementing a substantive, see SQH § 18 i. 1QS 4.22) ‫‘ ]להבין ישרים בדעת עליון‬to help the upright ones comprehend what knowledge of the Most High means.’ Verbs meaning ‘to comprehend, understand’ govern sometimes their direct object, that of subject matter, by means of the preposition -‫ ב‬as here. However, this is not obligatory as shown by what follows the above-cited text: ‫‘ חכמת בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרכ‬to help those walking straight grasp the wisdom of the sons of heaven.’343 In BH the government through -‫ ב‬is common in late books, e.g. ‫ ָה ֵבן ַבּ ַמּ ְר ֶאה‬Dn 9.23, likewise ib. 10.11, Neh 8.12. Other examples in 1QS are ‫‘ והבינהו בכול משפטי היחד‬then he shall help him understand all the laws of the community’ 6.15, ‫להשכילם בכול‬ ‫‘ הנמצא‬he shall instruct them all that becomes discovered’ 4QSb, 4QSd, and 4QSe for 9.20 with ‫כול‬, ‫‘ להשכיל רוכנים בלקח‬to teach errants a lesson’ 11.1, ‫‘ להשכיל בכול מחשבת קודשכה‬to teach all the thought on Your holiness’ 11.18, cf. also ‫משפ ֗טי֯ ֯ה ֗מה‬ ֗ ‫‘ להבינם בכול‬to help them understand all their regulations’ 1QSa 1.5, ‫‘ ישכיליהו בחוקי הברית‬they shall help him comprehend the rules of the covenant’ ib. 1.7.344 See SQH § 31 c and eb. Both ‫ ֵה ִבין‬and ‫ ִה ְשׂ ִכּ יל‬can be used monotransitively, in which case ‫ישרים‬ and ‫ תמימי דרך‬in our line would be their respective subject, so analysed by, 340 Van der Ploeg (118b) translates ‫ התגולל‬as “il sera agité,” saying that the verb primarily means ‘to attack,’ “un des deux sens de hitgôlel dans les lexiques.” We do not know which dictionaries he was consulting. 341 Pace Lambert (962) with his “Et il descendra,” there is no occasion here for the use of a w-qataltí form. Besides, the verb does not mean ‘to descend,’ a vertical movement, but horizontal. 342 Qimron (2018.180) writes: “Only occasionally and in special circumstances does the infinitive appear without prepositions.” We are not told what those special circumstances are. In SQH § 18 j we tackle that question. 343 Presumably this led van der Ploeg (118b) to view ‫ חכמת בני שמים‬as a direct object of ‫להבין‬ and coordinate with ‫דעת עליון‬, and consequently identify ‫ כיא‬not as a causal conjunction, but introducing a content clause. What one comprehends can be introduced with such a ‫ ִכּ י‬as in ‫יַ ְשׂ ִכּ ילוּ‬ ‫ יַ ְח ָדּו ִכּ י יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה ָע ְשׂ ָתה זּ ֹאת‬Is 41.20, so in DCH s.v. 2a (2), whilst BDB s.v. 2 “to give attention, consider, ponder.” 344 As noted by Qimron (I 235) ‫ ישכילוהו‬is to be read.

96

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

e.g. Wernberg-Møller (27): “so that upright ones may achieve insight .. and the perfect in ways become wise.” This applies to the above-cited ‫להבינם בכול‬ ‫משפ ֗טי֯ ֯ה ֗מה‬, ֗ but in ‫ישכיליהו בחוקי הברית‬, also cited above, ‫הו‬- can only be the object. ‫‘ ]וחכמת בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרכ‬and to help those walking straight grasp the wisdom of the sons of heaven.’ The fronting of the direct object is most likely a case of attraction to the immediately preceding ‫ ;דעת עליון‬no particular reason for highlighting this second object suggests itself.345 Qimron (I 217) has inserted a comma after ‫עליון‬. By contrast, Brownlee’s (16) “and into the wisdom of ..” shows that he has taken ‫ חכמת בני שמים‬as a second direct object of the preceding ‫ להבין‬and has added ‫ =( ב־‬his “into”) in front of it. However, are ‫ ישרים‬and ‫ תמימי דרכ‬two distinct groups in the community, the former serving as teachers of the latter? We would rather take the two appellations as synonymous applied to one and the same group. Then ‫חכמת בני שמים‬ is better taken as the direct object of ‫להשכיל‬. A rare example of this verb as doubly transitive is ‫‘ להשכילם כול הנמצא‬to instruct them over all that is discovered’ 1QS 9.20. A rare example of ‫ ִה ְשׂ ִכּיל‬used as doubly transitive is ‫ילָך‬ ְ ‫ְל ַה ְשׂ ִכּ‬ ‫ ִבינָ ה‬Dn 9.22, where ‫ ִבינָ ה‬is semantically close to ‫ חכמה‬in our 1QS example here. Both ‫ ִה ְשׂ ִכּיל‬and the preceding ‫ ֵה ִבין‬are correctly analysed as Hif. with causative value. The term “causative,” however, does not necessarily imply coercion just as ‫ ֶה ֱא ִכיל‬does not imply forced feeding. Syntactically the two infinitives had best be viewed as expressing a purpose.346 Their grammatical subject is either God or community leaders acting on His behalf. ‫ ]בני שמים‬most likely a reference to angels. So at 11.8. ‫‘ ]כיא בם בחר אל לברית עולמים ולהם כול כבוד אדם‬for it is them that He has chosen for the eternal covenant, to them belonging all the glory due to human beings.’ There is little doubt that ‫ בם‬and ‫ להם‬are fronted for emphasis’s sake; see SQH § 34 c. The prepositional phrase, ‫להם‬, as the predicate of the nominal clause could have been positioned at the end as in ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם ְבּתוְֹך ַה ַמּ ֲחנֹת‬ Nu 2.17 and ‫ מוּם בּוֹ‬Lv 21.21.347 1QS 4.23) ‫ ]אדם‬Wernberg-Møller (27) takes this as a reference to Adam, the first human being, and mentions Si 49.16 as supporting his interpretation. But Ben Sira says on Adam: ‫על כל חי תפארת אדם‬, namely, Adam’s glory excels that of all his posterity.348 Brownlee (18, n. 47) also prefers “Adam.” Are members of the community going to be freed from original sin and retrieve their original innocence? 345

On the fronted object of the infinitive, cf. SQH § 34 f. Qimron (2020 I 217) has removed a full stop from his earlier edition (2010). 347 Examples mentioned by Andersen 1970.56f. # 46 and # 57. 348 According to Segal (1958.340) it is because Adam was created by God Himself, unlike all his posterity. We would add that Adam was handmade, unlike everything else that had preceded him, created with God’s word. 346

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

97

‫ ולהם כול כבוד אדם‬is continued with ‫ואין עולה והיה לבושת כול מעשי רמיה‬, in other words, preceded by three verbal clauses, all yiqtol, and then continued with a w-qataltí form, ‫( והיה‬23).349 We submit that these two intervening nominal clauses are circumstantial clauses.350 An alternative, slightly different analysis351 would be to construe ‫ והיה‬with the preceding two nominal clauses, a rare instance of . For examples in BH, see JM § 119 n, and also SQH p. 223, n. 2. ‫‘ ]כול מעשי רמיה‬every fraudulent deed.’ Some take ‫ מעשי‬as pl., e.g. “alle Werke” (Lohse 17). Licht (104) was right in seeing here a case of phonetic spelling in lieu of ‫מעשה‬. See also Qimron 2018.74-77, § A 3.5.1. The sg. subject noun concords better with ‫היה‬. 1QS 4.23b - 26 4.23b) Until then spirits of truth and iniquity will be contesting, and (every) person with his mind 4.24) will walk with wisdom or folly. And in accordance with a portion of truth granted each one will be considered righteous and so he will hate iniquity, and in accordance with what has come his way in the lot of iniquity he will do evil things and so 4.25) he will loathe truth. For God set them apart until the time (of execution) of the pronounced verdict and of doing something new and He knew the reward for their works at all the times 4.26) appointed for them, and He granted them to human beings in order for them to know (what is) good and (what is) bad, for God cast lots for every living person according to his spirit in him till the appointed time of the final reckoning. ‫‘ ]עד הנה יריבו‬they are still contesting.’ Licht (104) justly stresses that ‫ הנה‬here is to be assigned temporal, not locative, value. However, a translation such as “Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended ..” (Wise - Abegg Cook 131) create the impression as if the text suggested that the contest is now over. Wernberg-Møller (27), who translates “Until now .. deceit struggle ..” sees here “an apocalyptic term marking the transition to the messianic era,” taking recourse to CD 2.17, where we read, however, ‫רבים תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם‬ ‫מלפנים ועד הנה‬. So the deplorable situation is still with us and the contest is still going on. The CD passage in question is not a description of the eschatological era. ‫ ]רוחי אמת ועול‬a shorthand for ‫רוח אמת ורוח עול‬, not ‫רוחי אמת ורוחי עול‬. God created only two guiding spirits. Likewise ‫ רוחות האמת והעול‬1QS 3.18. See SQH § 21 g. 349 This is an innovation of QH, cf. SQH § 16 bbc. By reading ‫ יהיה‬in lieu of ‫ והיה‬van der Ploeg (118b) found himself confronted with a few difficult syntactic puzzles. 350 On circumstantial clause in QH, see SQH § 34 c. 351 As presented in SQH § 16 bbc.

98

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

These two spirits are the same as those mentioned in the earlier passage, where the definite article is used. Here we have a contrast between the pre-Messianic epoch and the blessed, eschatological, Messianic age when ‫ רוח עולה‬will have been totally eradicated (line 20) and ‫ אין עולה‬earlier in our current line. Hence the indeterminate ‫רוחי אמת ועול‬. ‫(‘ ]בלבב גבר‬every) person with (his) mind.’ On the gender-neutral use of ‫גבר‬, see above at line 20. Qimron (I 217) inserts a comma before ‫בלבב‬, with which a new clause begins. Whether ‫ בלבב גבר‬is to be construed backwards or forwards has partly to do with what sense one assigns to ‫ לבב‬here. If it means ‘heart’ as commonly understood, it is better construed backwards, indicating everybody’s inner struggle. We should note, however, the antonymic juxtaposition in the next clause: ‫חכמה‬ ‫ואולת‬. Some translate ‫ אולת‬as “vileness,” but BH dictionaries and DCH are unanimous with ‘folly.’ True, ‘folly’ here is not about low IQ. Kaddari (2006.17b, s.v. ‫)אוִ יל‬ ֱ offers an excellent definition: ‫ חסר מוסר וידיעת אלהים‬,‫‘ חסר דעת‬lacking knowledge, lacking morality and knowledge of God,’ i.e. spiritual, religious ignorance. It is better then to take ‫ לבב‬here not as a sea of emotions and feelings, but as a faculty and ability needed to weigh and consider diverse matters and features and arrive at a decision on how to act, what to do or not to do. Hence ‘mind, intellect.’ Cf. a standing expression ‫ ֲח ַסר ֵלב‬frequent in the book of Proverbs, ≠ ‘heartless, i.e. ‘pitiless, cruel.’ See also above at line 2 (p. 61). Thus the juxtaposed words are not about morality in the first instance. 1QS 4.24) ‫‘ ]כפי נחלת איש באמת יצדק‬in proportion to one’s share in the truth he conducts himself in righteousness.’ We have here an antithetical parallelism describing two different ways in which people under the guidance of two different spirits conduct themselves:

‫רוח אמת‬ ‫כפי‬

‫רוח עול‬ ‫כ־‬

‫נחלת‬ ‫באמת‬ ‫יצדק‬

‫ירושתו‬ ‫בגורל עול‬ ‫ירשע‬

‫ישנא עולה‬

‫יתעב אמת‬

This structure suggests that ‫ באמת‬is to be construed with ‫נחלת‬, and not with ‫יצדק‬. Thus ‫ יצדק‬is to be preferred over ‫וצדק‬, thus pace ‫( וָ ֶצ ֶדק‬Habermann 64 and Lohse 14), van der Ploeg (119a) “et en justice,” and Lambert (962) “et la justice.” The use of the preposition ‫ ב־‬to indicate something to be inherited is not common. However, we have at least one illuminating instance in ‫כפי נ֗ ֗ח ֗לתו‬ ‫‘ בגורל האו֯ ֯ר‬in proportion to his share of the lot of light’ CD 13.12.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

99

1QS 4.25) ‫‘ ]עד קצ נחרצה ועשות חדשה‬until the time (of execution) of the pronounced verdict and of doing something new.’ The second half exemplifies an inf. clause added to expand a noun. See a discussion with examples in SQH § 18 i. An example in 1QS is ‫‘ יש אתי דבר לדבר‬I have something to raise (for discussion)’ 6.13. On ‫ נחרצה‬see above at line 20, p. 92. ‫ ]עשות חדשה‬Most likely a reference to Is 43.19 ‫הנְ נִ י ע ֶֹשׂה ֲח ָד ָשׁה‬. ִ The inf. is modifying ‫קצ‬, a use of the inf. very common with substantives expressing a point in time or a period of time, see SQH loc. cit. ‫ ]הואה ידע‬God is in focus. Men do not know what a fair and equitable reward is, but He does. On ‫ פעולה‬in the sense of ‘reward,’ see above at line 15. Brownlee’s (18) “the action of their deeds” is tautologous. 1QS 4.26) ‫ ]וינחילן‬To take the object pronoun as referring to ‫ בני איש‬in advance is not impossible. Then this would make one of very rare instances in QH of the proleptic pronoun, see SQH § 31 p. It appears to us, however, more reasonable to make the pronoun refer to the spirits, as the same pronoun does three times earlier in the sentence: ‫ מועדן‬.. ‫ מעשיהן‬.. ‫שמן‬. ̇ ‫‘ לדעת טוב ]ורע כיא‬in ‫א[ל הפיל גורלות לכול חי לפי רוחו בו֯ ] עד מועד[ ̇הפקודה‬ order (for them) to know good and evil, for God decided fates for each living being in accordance with his spirit in him until the time appointed for the final reckoning.’352 Brownlee (18, n. 53), Licht (105), Lohse (16), García Martínez - Tigchelaar (78), and Charlesworth (18) read ‫להפיל‬-, but after the first lamed there is ample, blank space for two letters. Such a restoration is syntactically problematic. The grammatical subject of the first inf., ‫לדעת‬, is most likely ‫בני איש‬, but that of the reconstructed ‫ להפיל‬would be God. One cannot juxtapose the two infinitives by means of the conjunction waw. Stegemann et al. (108) read ‫י֯ פיל‬. This two-line long sentence started with ‫כיא בד בבד שמן‬, thus with a qatal form (‫)שׂ ָמן‬. ָ There is no absolute need to parse the following verbum finitum, ‫ידע‬, as yiqtol (‫)יֵ ַד ע‬. The next verb, ‫וינחילן‬, can be analysed as inversive, ‫ילן‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ נְ ִח‬. Then ‫ ִה ִפּיל‬makes better sense than ‫יַ ִפּיל‬.353 ֯‫ ]בו‬Qimron (I 217) reads ‫בם‬, ֯ presenting it as a new reading. The suffix pronoun is said to refer to ‫ גורלות‬in the same line. This is the only case in 1QS of the pl. form of the substantive. It is part of a standing BH collocation ‫גּוֹר ל‬ ָ ‫‘ ִה ִפּיל‬to cast a lot.’ Elsewhere in 1QS the sg. ‫ גורל‬is used exactly as in ‫( גורל עול‬line 24). Though we may translate it as ‘lot of injustice,’ but the word obviously means two distinct things, which makes Qimron’s position untenable. The pronoun in ‫ בו‬of course refers to a person, ‫כול חי‬. 352

For the restoration, cf. Stegemann et al. 1988.107f., though we do not agree with him in every

detail. 353

Habermann basically agrees with this, though he failed to notice a lamed after the lacuna, restoring ‫[פּיל‬ ִ ‫הוּאה ִה‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬:‫]וָ ָר ע‬.

100

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ]עד מועד[ ̇הפקודה‬Qimron (I 217) fills the lacuna with ‫ מועד‬alone.354 We fail to see what syntactic role this mere construct chain has.355 1QS COLUMN 5 1QS 5.1 - 3a 5.1) and the following is the rule for the people of the community who willingly commit themselves to part with every evil and to hold fast, to His pleasure, to all that He commanded, to keep away from the company of 5.2) the people of iniquity, to join the community as far as the doctrine and property are concerned, and to be led to repentance in accordance with what is said by the sons of Zadok the priests, who uphold the covenant, and in accordance with the majority of 5.3) the community members who adhere to the covenant. It is according to their view that a decision is taken in regard to everything, whether doctrine, property or statute. 1QS 5.1) ‫‘ ]וזה הסרכ‬and the following is the rule.’ Leaney (161) opines that the conjunction waw attached to the demonstrative pronoun indicates that the following is a continuation of what precedes. However, we do not believe that, in contrast to ‫( ואלה המשפטים‬6.24 and 8.20), ‫( אלה החקים‬9.12) suggests a complete break with what precedes. One of the most recent studies on the evolution of the Community Rule suggests that its first four columns constituted an independent literary unit.356 If 4QSd originally lacked the first four columns,357 then whoever produced 1QS may have deliberately started Column 5 with the conjunction on the assumption that, in his view, they are to be integrated with the preceding four columns. ‫‘ ]המתנדבים‬those who willingly offer themselves.’ What their decision so to do entails is now detailed by means of a series of infinitives. This Hitpael verb can be complemented with an infinitive construct as shown in ‫בני אהרון המתנדבים‬ ‫‘ ביחד להקים את בריתו‬the sons of Aaron, who willingly offer themselves in the community to establish His covenant’ (21) and ‫כול המתנדב מישראל להוסיפ‬ ‘everybody that freely offers himself to join’ (1QS 6.13).358 ‫‘ ]לשוֿ ב מכול רע‬to turn back from every evil.’ Here begins a series of four infinitives: ‫לשוב מכול רע ולהחזיק בכול אשר צוה לרצונו להבדל מעדת אנשי העול‬ ‫להיות ליחד בתורה ובהון‬. We translate the first with ‘to turn back’; its primary By restoring ‫מוֹעד‬ ֵ ‫ ַעד‬we are following Brownlee (1951.18, n. 53). Lohse (16) reads ‫מּוֹעד‬ ֵ ‫בּ‬, ַ which is translated “[zur festgesetzten Zeit der] Heimsuchung.” If “in anticipation of” is meant, ‫מוֹעד‬ ֵ ‫ ְל‬would be better. 356 Alexander and Vermes 1998 in DJD 26.10. 357 So DJD 26.11. So also Vermes 97f. and Metso 1997.37. 358 See also Licht 123 ad loc.: ‫‘ מקבלים על עצמם לשוב וכו׳‬take it upon themselves, pledge to return etc.’ See also Wernberg-Møller 88f. 354 355

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

101

meaning ‘to return’ must imply ‘to leave immorality and return to the right path.’ Likewise later ‫( שבו מרעתם‬14). This piling up of lamed infinitives presenting a code of conduct expected of members of the community is typical of the style of discourse of our author, and we encountered it right at the beginning of the first column.359 One of the 4Q fragments, 4QSd, quoted below reads ‫להשיב‬, which is logical and consistent with the preceding title: ‫מדרש למשכיל על אנשי התורה המתנדבים‬ as against 1QS’s ‫וזה הסרכ לאנשי היחד המתנדבים‬. Qimron (I 218) adds a stroke over the letter waw, ‫לשוֿ ב‬, implying that we could read a Hifil infinitive with a weak guttural ‫ ה‬unpronounced, hence unwritten.360 However, ‫ להשיב‬is logical in having the instructor as its grammatical subject, but the following three infinitives obviously have his pupils, ‫אנשי התורה‬, as their subjects. Hence, in that respect, ‫ לשוב‬of 1QS is more consistent and logical. Qimron (I 218) adds a comma at the end of the second, third, and fourth infinitive clauses, but no punctuation mark at the end of the first. This is presumably because the conjunction waw is not prefixed to the third and fourth infinitives.361 Without mentioning the feature of asyndetic coordination, WernbergMøller (88) apparently recognised its exegetical implication when he looked at the translation of the text by van der Ploeg (119a): “.. qui sont engagés pour se détourner de tout mal et pour entretenir tout ce qu’Il a commandé selon sa volonté, pour qu’on se tienne à l’écart de l’assemblée des malfaiteurs afin d’appartenir à la communauté ..”. He took thus the third infinitival clause as final in value in relation to the first two, and the fourth in relation to the third.362 Guilbert (39), having become aware of the 4Q fragments of our text, follows the shorter version of our text: ‫ ולהיות‬.. ‫ ולבדל‬.. ‫ ולהחזיק‬.. ‫ להשיב‬.. 4QSd (= 4Q258) 1i1-2 “pour se détourner .. et pour tenir ferme ..; pour se séparer ..; pour être en Communauté ..”.363 Not only in Hebrew, but also in many languages, there are no 359

On this subject, see Licht 35f., § 30. Cf. Qimron 2018.102 (§ B 1.2.1.1). 361 Qimron (I 213), however, is not consistent in this respect, for in a very similar context, at the start of Column 1, we read in his edition of the text: .. ‫ לרחוק‬.. ‫ לשנוא‬.. ‫ ולאהוב‬.. ‫ לעשות‬.. ‫לדרוש‬ .. ‫ ולוא ללכת‬.. ‫ ולעשות‬.. ‫לדבוק‬, with no punctuation mark at all. 362 Wernberg-Møller (27), however, seems to have decided not fully to follow van der Ploeg, as shown by his translation: “.. to turn away .. and hold fast .. : they shall separate .. They shall be a community ..”. Other translators, whether or not aware of this syntactic question of asyndesis, basically agree: “.. pour de détourner .. et pour s’attacher ..: Qu’ils se séparent .., afin de devenir une Communauté ..” (Pouilly 120); “umzukehren .. und festzuhalten .. daß sie sich scheiden .., daß sie gehören ..” (Lohse 17); “to be converted .. and to cling .. They shall separate .. and shall unite ..” (Vermes 103), the italicising and the absence of the full stop before the start of the Roman text as in the original; “.. to turn away .. and hold fast ..: they shall separate .., in order to become ..” (Charlesworth 19) [= van der Ploeg]; “.. to convert .. and to keep .. They should keep apart .. in order to constitute ..” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 79); “.. per convertirsi .. e per mantenersi .. volontà. Essi devono separarsi .. per formare ..” (Martone 123). 363 Almost identical is Dupont-Sommer’s translation (Dupont-Sommer 22). With no footnote attached we can only guess what he means with the use of a comma, not a semi-colon, at the end of the third infinitival clause: “..; pour se séparer .., pour devenir une Communauté ..”. 360

102

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

absolutely firm and rigid rules whether to use a coordinating conjunction with the value of addition (and) or selection (or), and where to use it if there are three or more coordinate terms. For the contemporary Hebrew, one may note, among innumerable examples, e.g. ‫‘ שתשלח תבו֗ חמשת כו֗ רי֗ ן ֗חטין‬you are to send (someone to fetch) five kors of wheat (and) come (here with them)’ M44 2; ‫ מן רצונם‬.. ‫וחלקו‬ ֗ ‫רצו‬ ֗ ‘they agreed and divided .. of their own will’ 5/6Ḥev 44.2; ‫ התנערי מעפר וקומי ושבי‬Is 52.2 1QIsaª // MT ‫קוּמי ְשּׁ ִבי‬ ִ ‫ ִה ְתנַ ֲע ִר י ֵמ ָע ָפר‬. ‫‘ ]להחזיק בכול אשר צוה לרצונו‬to hold fast to all that He commanded ..’ The concluding ‫ לרצונו‬gives rise to a couple of grammatical and lexical questions. Grammatically speaking, is it to be construed with ‫להחזיק‬364 or ‫צוה‬365? Our own preference lies with the first alternative. Though the intervening relative clause could make for some ambiguity, the word order here, , is standard, and there occur similar cases in which even an object is delayed, e.g. ‫ית ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַר יִ ם גּוֹיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ר־פּ ִד‬ ָ ‫ ְלגָ ֵרשׁ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ַע ְמָּך ֲא ֶשׁ‬1Ch 17.21, and a case of a delayed object complement is ‫נּוֹלד־לוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר־יָ ְל ָדה־לּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ם־בּנוֹ ַה‬ ְ ‫ת־שׁ‬ ֶ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶא‬ ‫ ָשׂ ָרה יִ ְצ ָחק‬Gn 21.3, cf. JM § 158 u. Another grammatical question arising here is a case of interface with lexicography. Whether ‫ לרצונו‬is analysed as complementing ‫ להחזיק‬or ‫צוה‬, all the translations mentioned in the footnotes 364 and 365 analyse the suffix pronoun of ‫ רצונו‬as referring to God. Only Wernberg-Møller (89) addresses this issue, noting that the noun “is in 1QS used exclusively of God’s will or pleasure; in CD it is used of man’s will as well.” Among his list of references WernbergMøller does not mention ‫כמנחת רצון‬ ֯ ‫ותפלת צדקם‬ ׄ ‫‘ זבח רשעים תועבה‬a sacrifice offered by wicked people is an abomination, but a prayer offered by righteous people is as an agreeable offering’ CD 11.20, but agreeable to God or the person praying? In the religious or cultic register of Hebrew the combination can signify not only that the person or God, to or for whom something is done, is pleased, but also that the action works out in favour of the actor. The line between the two can be subtle: an action undertaken can be pleasing to someone else, the patiens, whilst the satisfaction and pleasure on the part of the patiens can be to 364 The addition of a comma implies this analysis in “.. il a prescrit, selon Son bon plaisir” (Pouilly 120). No use of comma notwithstanding, the same is presumably meant in “to cling .. commandments according to His will” (Vermes 103); “pour s’attacher .. a prescrit selon Sa volonté” (Dupont-Sommer 22); “.. commanded according to his will” (Leaney 161); “.. a prescrit pour Son bon plaisir” (Guilbert 39); “.. a commandé selon sa volonté” (van der Ploeg 119a); “.. ordina secondo la Sua volontà” (Martone 123); “to keep themselves steadfast in all he commanded in compliance with his will” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 79). The notion of God issuing a commandment in accordance with His will sounds unnatural; He would hardly command against His own will. 365 So “.. has commanded as His pleasure” Wernberg-Møller (27); “.. has commanded as his will” (Knibb 104); “.. he has commanded as his will” (Charlesworth 19). The punctuation makes for unambiguous analysis in “.. an allem, was er befohlen hat nach seinem Wohlgefallen” (Lohse 17).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

103

the advantage of the agens, hence agreeable and satisfactory to the latter. Despite this subtlety the two are distinct. A few examples from BH would illustrate the point: ‫מוֹעד יַ ְק ִר יב אֹתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ל־פּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬ ֶ ‫יבנּוּ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ן־ה ָבּ ָקר זָ ָכר ָתּ ִמים יַ ְק ִר‬ ַ ‫ִאם־ ע ָֹלה ָק ְר ָבּנוֹ ִמ‬ ‫ ִל ְר צֹנוֹ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬Lv 1.3; ‫ וְ ִכי ִתזְ ְבּחוּ זֶ ַבח ְשׁ ָל ִמים ַליהוָ ה ִל ְר צֹנְ ֶכם ִתּזְ ָבּ ֻחהוּ‬ib. 19.5; ‫כֹּל‬ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר־בּוֹ מוּם ל ֹא ַת ְק ִר יבוּ ִכּי־ל ֹא ְל ָר צוֹן יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬ib. 22.20, which we could reformulate in part as ‫לא ִל ְר צוֹנְ ֶכם יהיה‬. In all these cases an agens aimed at or is aiming at the result of being accepted by God. The CD example adduced above can be looked at out of this perspective.366 By contrast, there is not a shadow of doubt in cases such as ‫ֹלהי ָח ָפ ְצ ִתּי‬ ַ ‫שׂוֹת־ר צוֹנְ ָך ֱא‬ ְ ‫ ַל ֲע‬Ps 40.9; ‫ וְ ָע ָשׂה ִכ ְר צוֹנוֹ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬Dn 11.36; ‫ לעשות איש את רצונו‬CD 3.11; ‫ הזבחים לערוך מקטרת ניחוח לרצון אל‬1QM 2.5. In our case the sg. suffix of ‫ רצונו‬cannot of course refer to the pl. ‫אנשי היחד המתנדבים‬, unless we postulate that the suffix refers to ‫היחד‬. 1QS 5.2) ‫]להיות ליחד‬. The preposition lamed of ‫ ליחד‬is usually understood as denoting transformation as in ‫‘ ִל ְהיוֹת לוֹ ְל ִא ָשּׁה‬to become his wife’ Dt 24.4. E.g. “form a community” (Knibb 104), “be a community” (Wernberg-Møller 27).367 Though the difference is subtle, in view of a variant reading in 4QSd, ‫ולהיות יחד‬, the preposition could indicate belongingness or affiliation, ‘to join the community,’ i.e. ‫ליַּ ַחד‬.ַ Cf. ‫שּׁוֹשׁנִּ ים‬ ַ ‫דּוֹדי ִלי וַ ֲאנִ י לוֹ ָהר ֶֹעה ַבּ‬ ִ Ct 2.16. ‫]ומוֿ שבים על פי בני צדוק הכוהנים‬368 In spite of the stroke added by Qimron (I 218), he maintains that the second letter of the verb is unquestionably waw.369 Yalon (1967.107) analysed the form as Qal pass. ptc. with a prefix /m/ in the manner of /maqtūl/ in Classical Arabic, and translates it ‫ מתנהגים‬,‫‘ מתהלכים‬conducting themselves, behaving.’ Qimron’s (I 218) translation is ‫‘ מונהגים‬being led, guided, conducted.’ However, we are not aware of a single instance elsewhere of Qal pass. ptc. with a prefix mem as against an instance such as ‫‘ מוּל‬circumcised’ Jer 9.24.370 Nor are we aware of any instance anywhere in Hebrew of the verb 366 As suggested by Rabin (1958.58), our author might be thinking of ‫תּוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה‬ ֲ ‫זֶ ַבח ְר ָשׁ ִע ים‬ ‫וּת ִפ ַלּת יְ ָשׁ ִר ים ְר צוֹנוֹ‬ ְ Pr 15.8, where, however, the suffix pronoun of ‫ ְר צוֹנוֹ‬leaves no room for doubt. 367 The latter scholar (ib. 89) appropriately mentions a BH example: ‫יתם ַל ֲאנָ ִשׁים וְ נִ ְל ַח ְמ ֶתּם‬ ֶ ִ‫וִ ְהי‬ 1Sm 4.9. For a fuller analysis of this biblical usage, see BDB, p. 226a, s.v. ‫ ָהיָ ה‬Qal II 2 e. 368 Qimron (I 218) reads the first word as ‫משוֿ בים‬. 369 So had it been read already in 1959 by Habermann, who vocalised the form ‫מוּשׁ ִבים‬. ָ With no comment is ‫ משיבים‬read by Lohse (16), “verantwortlich sind,” a Germanising translation like an Anglicism in Charlesworth’s (19) “answerable,” though reading ‫משוֿ בים‬. Heb. ‫ ֵה ִשׁיב‬does not carry such a figurative sense, not ‘to answer,’ but ‘to answer for.’ We fail to see how Martone (98 and 123) could account for his ‫“ משובים‬sottomettendosi all’autorità.” The same palaeographical problem arises in a 4Q fragment: 4Q258 1.2, where DJD 26.93 reads ‫ משיבים‬with no palaeographical comment. Here, too, Qimron (I 219) reads ‫משוֿ בים‬. 370 Qimron (2018) does not touch on ‫ מושבים‬here. He does, however, in the course of his discussion of ‫‘ מצוֿ ל‬rescued’ in MMT C 24 (DDJ 10.77). Presumably approving of Yalon’s analysis he adduces four BH forms said to represent passive ptc. of maqtūl pattern: ‫‘ ַמ ְצפּוּנָ יו‬his (hidden) treasures’ Ob 6, ‫‘ ַמ ְסלוּל‬highway’ (Is 58.7+), ‫דוּשׁ ִתי‬ ָ ‫‘ ְמ‬that which is threshed by me’ (Is 21.10). The fourth is a plain Hofal ptc.: ‫מוּמ ִתים‬ ָ ‘the slain’ 2Ch 22.11. But ‫ ַמצּוּל‬from √ ‫ נצֹל‬cannot be a Qal passive ptc., for this verb is not used in Qal. Qimron translates our 1QS form as ‘those repenting,’ for which Hebrew would use the active ‫!שׁ ִבים‬ ָ Moreover, his selection of BH forms ignores maqtūl

104

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ שׂוּב‬used in the senses suggested by the two scholars. The verb in Qal is intransitive, so that it cannot have a genuinely passive form. We suggest a scribal error here for ‫מושבים‬, i.e. Hof. ‫מוּשׁ ִבים‬. ָ Just as ‫( לשוב‬line 1) we are having to do with repentance. Though we cannot find an instance of ‫הוּשׁב‬ ַ in the sense of ‘to be brought to repentance,’ BH uses its Hif. stem in such a figurative sense, e.g. Neh 9.29 ‫ל־תּוֹר ֶתָך‬ ָ ‫יבם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל ֲה ִשׁ‬,ַ Jer 31.18 ‫ֹלהי‬ ָ ‫שׁוּבה ִכּי ַא ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫יבנִ י וְ ָא‬ ֵ ‫ ֲה ִשׁ‬.371 Our translation would then be “and being led to repentance in accordance with what is said by the sons of Zadok.” The ptc., in conjunction with the preceding ‫להיות‬, constitutes a periphrastic construction.372 By implication, we are deleting the comma inserted by Qimron (I 218) before ‫ומשובים‬. 1QS 5.3) ‫]על פיהם יצא תכון הגורל לכול דבר לתורה ולהון ולמשפט‬. If we allow ourselves the prerogative of adding punctuation marks to the original text, we would add a comma after ‫דבר‬: ‘it is according to their view that a decision is taken in regard to everything, whether Torah, property or statute.’373 This accords well with the absence of the conjunction -‫ ו‬before ‫לתורה‬. The adverbial adjunct, ‫על פיהם‬, is fronted for the sake of emphasis. In the preceding sentence, two group of members whose view counts have been singled out and introduced with the same phrase, ‫על פי‬. Hence ‘it is according to their view.’ ‫‘ ]תכון הגורל‬decision by lot,’ the nomen rectum indicating a means or instrument, see SQH § 21 b xxi). 1QS 5.3b - 7a 5.3b) One is to practise truthfulness and humility towards one another, 5.4) righteousness and justice, and to value mercy, and to walk humbly in all their ways. Nobody shall walk with a stubborn mind, straying after his mind 5.5) and eyes and a design of his inborn nature but to have the foreskin of (his) inborn nature and stiff-necked disposition circumcised in the community, to found a truthful foundation for Israel as a community of 5.6) an eternal covenant, to atone for all those who are willing to come forward, seeking affiliation with the sanctuary among the Aaronic priests and the house of truth in Israel and for those who accompany them for community and for dispute and for judgement, 5.7) to indict all those who transgress a law. forms which are not passive. Barth (1894 §169 B c) mentions some alongside ‫מ ְסלוּל‬: ַ ‫ַמ ֲאבוּס‬ ‘granary,’ ‫בּוּע‬ ַ ‫‘ ַמ‬fountain,’ ‫‘ ַמנְ עוּל‬bolt,’ ‫צוּעה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַמ ְק‬scraping tool.’ We are then having to do with a nominal pattern and the presumed linkage with verb conjugation is accidental. 371 More examples are listed in BDB s.v. ‫ שׁוּב‬Hiph. 2a. 372 On the combination with an inf. of ‫היה‬, see SQH § 17 fd. See also SQH § 17 fba, where the periphrasis with ‫היה‬, irrespective of its inflectional category, is often found in statements of halachic nature, which suits our example here. 373 Cf. Pouilly (120): “pour toute affaire, en ce qui concerne la Loi, les biens et le droit.”

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

105

‫]לעשות אמת יחד וענוה צדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהם‬. It is universally agreed that this derives from ‫דּוֹרשׁ ִמ ְמָּך‬ ֵ ‫וּמה־יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ִהגִּ יד ְלָך ָא ָדם ַמה־טּוֹב‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ם־א‬ ֱ ‫ם־עשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד וְ ַה ְצנֵ ַע ֶל ֶכת ִע‬ ֲ ‫ ִכּי ִא‬Mi 6.8, which, however, is not cited verbatim, but reworded and expanded. Our code of ethics is summarised in terms of three actions, expressed with three infinitival clauses: ‫( ֲעשׂוֹת‬infinitive construct), ‫( ַא ֲה ַבת‬verbal noun), ‫( ַה ְצנֵ ַע‬infinitive absolute).374 Our reworded version has also three infinitival clauses, the first of which, however, is rather complex, seeing the infinitive governs at least four distinct substantives: .. ‫אמת‬ ‫ משפט‬.. ‫ צדקה‬.. ‫ענוה‬, and the second and fourth are prefixed with the conjunction -‫ו‬. With the exception of ‫ ענוה‬they all and not infrequently occur as direct object of the verb ‫עשׂה‬, in both BH and QH. Note especially ‫לעשות אמת וצדקה‬ ‫ ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת איש אמ רעהו‬1QS 8.2; here, too, the biblical model is expanded at the beginning. The expanded combination in 1QS, ‫עשׂה אמת וענוה‬ ‫צדקה ומשׁפט‬, reminds one of ἀληθεύοντεσ ἐν ἀγάπῃ Eph 4.15; in practising and pursuing truth, justice, and righteousness we need to beware of dogmatism and self-righteousness, and to be humbly conscious that we could be wrong and misguided. Also when we take ‫ צדקה‬in the sense of ‘almsgiving, charity,’ the arrogant posture of do-gooders would not go down well with beneficiaries.375 The expansion here with ‫ צדקה‬may have been motivated by ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּט נִ ְב ָחר‬ ִ ‫ֲעשׂ ֹה ְצ ָד ָקה‬ ‫ ַליהוָ ה ִמזָּ ַבח‬Pr 21.3. Another possible biblical source for the expansion is ‫וַ ֲה ָד ְרָך‬ ‫נוֹראוֹת יְ ִמינֶ ָך‬ ָ ‫תוֹרָך‬ ְ ְ‫ה־צ ֶדק ו‬ ֶ ָ‫ר־א ֶמת וְ ַענְ ו‬ ֱ ‫ל־דּ ַב‬ ְ ‫ ְצ ַלח ְר ַכב ַע‬Ps 45.5. Wernberg-Møller (93) mentions the just quoted Ps 45.5 in an attempt to account for the asyndetic juxtaposition in ‫ענוה צדק‬, though he says nothing about ‫אמת יחד‬, ‘truth, unity’ in his translation.376 When three or more coordinate terms are juxtaposed, one could observe diverse strategies with which and how often to prefix the conjunction waw or the particle ‫אוֹ‬, see also above at p. 73 and SQH § 38. One could repeat it with the second and every subsequent term, .377 Alternatively the multiple terms can be grouped into logically closely knit units, in which case it makes sense to leave out a connecting element between such units, thus .378 In our case ‫ צדקה‬and ‫ משפט‬form such a unit, hence ‫צדקה ומשפט‬. We believe 374 On the use of a verbal noun in lieu of an inf. cst. and the use of an inf. abs. with deontic value, see JM § 49 ca-e and § 123 v as well as SQH § 18 aa, oe respectively. Pace Guilbert (40, fn. 10) the -‫ ה‬of ‫ ַה ְצנֵ ַע‬is not the definite article. 375 Cf. Leaney (161): “practise truth in community with humility.” 376 We doubt that ‫ יחד‬can denote an ethical, moral code of unity as antithetical to seditiousness and divisiveness, let alone can function as a direct object of ‫ע ָשׂה‬. ָ Clines (DCH, s.v. ‫ יַ ַחד‬1) duly writes “‘unity’ (but distinction from §2 ‘community’ is often uncertain).” One of the few QH examples mentioned there is typical: ‫ הוגשתי ביחד כול אנשי סודי‬1QHa 6.29, “I was brought into association with all the men of my counsel,” so DJD 40.96, though one could translate it ‘I was introduced into the community of ..’. 377 Note a tripartite version elsewhere in our document of basically the same combination: ‫ לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬1QS 1.5. 378 Cf. JM § 177 o-p, SQH § 38 g, and Muraoka - Porten 2003 § 81.

106

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

that ‫ אמת‬and ‫ ענוה‬denote attitudes and dispositions, of course with moral, ethical implications: truthfulness, sincerity, honesty on one hand, and humility and modesty on the other. This might be a better explanation for the asyndetic structure here. We take ‫ יחד‬here as an adverb: ‘altogether, no member of the community excluded’ or ‘in mutual relationship.’379 We noted above en passant the use of an infinitive absolute here, ‫הצנע‬. The general decline of the inf. abs. in LBH and virtual extinction in Rabbinic Hebrew is well known. However, in QH, it is still alive and kicking, not as vigorously as in BH for sure.380 The following examples are probably symptomatic of this gradual decline: Ps 35.16 4QPsa Frg. 6 ‫( חרקו‬MT ‫)חר ֹק‬ ָ 381; Ps 132.16 11Q5 6.8 ‫( ירננו‬MT ‫)רנֵּ ן יְ ַרנֵּ נוּ‬. ַ Faced by a contrast such as ‫‘ לבלתי החזק מעמד‬so that he cannot hold his position’ 1QHa 13.31 // ‫ ֗ל ֗ב ֗לתי החזיק מעמד‬1QSa 2.4 one wonders whether this is an orthographic variation with no morphosyntactic significance.382 The admonition on humility in Mi 6.8 is quoted quite a number of times in our corpus: six times it is spelled ‫ הצנע לכת‬as in the MT — 1QS 4.5, 5.4, 8.2, 4Q256 9.4, 4Q258 1.3, 4Q408 15.1. These authors and scribes presumably knew this “memory verse” by heart, and if they had pronounced the form in question with an i vowel, they would most likely have spelled it as ‫הצניע‬. Thus instructive is ‫ הצניע לכת‬4Q298 3-4ii5,383 and in ‫להצניע ֗ל ֗ל ֗כ ֗ת‬ ֯ 4Q438 4ii4 the modernisation process,384 the proclitic ‫ ל־‬added, is complete.385 379 Guilbert (40, fn. 10) mentions an analogous use of the word at ‫‘ בישועתו ארננה יחד‬I would joyously sing of His salvation together (with other members)’ 1QS 10.17. 380 That it had not yet breathed its last is evident where a Qumran fragment uses an inf. abs. in lieu of a verbal noun in the MT — ‫ ואסף אסוף‬4Q57 13.9 for ‫ וְ ֻא ְסּפוּ ֲא ֵס ָפה‬Is 24.22. See further Muraoka 2000.195 and SQH § 18 o. 381 The scribe may be correcting what he thought to be an incongruent pf. 3ms. 382 Qimron (2018.177, § C 2.1.7.1) adduces the former instance to show that there is a complementary distribution, namely the standard inf. cst. with lamed and the pseudo inf. abs. elsewhere. This is not to speak of the question whether -‫ ל‬of ‫ לבלתי‬is distinct from its use without ‫בלתי‬. Put it differently, is to be analysed as an indivisible complex rather than as ? How should one analyse ‫ לבלתי לכת‬4Q525 2ii-3.7? Qimron also adduces ‫ למען הבט‬1QpHab 11.3, which, however, need be compared with ‫למען ספות הצמאה‬ ‘to quench [‫ספות‬, and not ‫ ]ספוה‬the thirst’ 1QpHab 11.14. He also mentions ‫עם הופע יצר הוותם‬ ‘when their destructive inclination appears’ 1QHa 15.6, but among the references listed in Clines DCH 6 s.v. ‫ע ם‬, ִ 20 one finds interesting cases such as ‫ עם צאת הקול‬1QM 16.8; ‫גּוֹלה‬ ָ ‫ִעם ֵה ָע לוֹת ַה‬ ‫ ִמ ָבּ ֶבל‬Ezr 1.11. 383 In this particular instance the phrase appears to have become a frozen form, for along with four verbs in parallelism (‫שמעו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ‫ אהבו‬and ‫ הוסיפו‬apart from four other partly reconstructed forms — ‫האזינו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ֗ ‫רד ֯פו‬, ֗ and ‫הו֯ דיעו‬, all m.pl. impv.) it should have been ‫ה ְצנִ יעוּ = הצניעו‬, ַ as also noted by Qimron II 108 fn. 384 Perhaps more than modernisation, for the inf. abs. coordinate with ‫ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד‬ is incongruous, where ‫ ַא ֲה ַבת‬can be analysed as an alternative inf. cst. 385 ‫‘ חבא לאמת‬to conceal truth’ 1QS 4.6 is plausibly an inf. abs. under the influence of the preceding ‫ ;הצנע לכת‬both could have been written as ‫ לחבא‬.. ‫ להצניע לכת‬continuing .. ‫להאיר‬ .. ‫ לפחד‬.. ‫‘ לישר‬to enlighten .. to straighten .. to infuse fear..,’ but in between a good number of virtues, all expressed as substantives, have been inserted, and the author has decided to add an inf. abs. taken straight from Mi 6.8. This syntactic flexibility displayed by the author is also evidenced

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

107

1QS 5.4) ‫]אשר לוא ילכ איש‬, which Wernberg-Møller (28) translates “No one shall walk.”386 Most translators and commentators we have consulted also accord a deontic modality to the Imperfect used here, though significantly taking no note of its combination with ‫אשר‬, with the sole exception of Wernberg-Møller. E.g. “Que personne n’aille” (Dupont-Sommer 22), “keiner .. wandle” (Lohse 17), “No man shall wander” (Charlesworth 21), and “Nessuno proceda” (Martone 133). Exceptions are “in which none shall walk” (Brownlee 18),387 “car personne ne devra se conduire” (van der Ploeg 119a),388 and “Accordingly, none will continue” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 132).389 What we have here appears to be a variant in the upper, literary register on used with a deontic value in contemporary documents from outside of Qumran proper. E.g. ‫‘ שלום שידע יהי לך‬Greetings! It should be known to you’ M42 2390; ‫הפרת שאצלכן שתז֗ הרו בהן ושתעמרו במהרא‬ ֗ ‫‘ על‬as regards the in ‫‘ מתעב‬to detest’ (line 5), most probably an Aramaic Peal inf.; he did not bother to match the binyan and use a Piel inf., since in Hebrew this verb is used in Piel, when active and transitive. ‫ הצנע לכת‬at 1QS 5.4, 8.2 is, pace Kesterson (1984.210), hardly a direct object of the preceding ‫‘ לעשות‬to practise’ ib. 5.3, 8.2; one doubts that the author of 1QS would have written something like ‫‘ חפצתי ָבנוֹה לי בית‬I desired to build a house for myself,’ i.e. on his own bat, independently of any biblical source text. 386 In order to justify his decision to leave ‫ אשׁר‬untranslated Wernberg-Møller (93) invokes Brockelmann (1913.614), who does speak of ‫ אשׁר‬substituting in Late Hebrew for ‫כי‬, but a broadening of its usage does not mean that it has lost all its value. 387 Rather odd, for the immediately preceding “in all their ways” cannot possibly be the antecedent of the relative pronoun. 388 BDB s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬8 c gives tens of references where it is assigned a causal force, whereas in only two of them (Je 16.13 and Ec 8.12) we find an Imperfect, and in neither of them it has a deontic value. 389 ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬is not known to have an inferential force. 390 Milik (1961.158) sees here -‫ שׁ‬introducing direct speech, referring to Segal (1958 § 424), where, however, all the examples follow a verb of saying with the exception of ‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬, ְ which, however, belongs to the same lexical field of verbal communication. Milik’s translation is interesting: “Qu’il soit connu de toi.” Fassberg of Jerusalem refers us to an article on “redundant Shin” in Avineri 1964.533a, where one is told that this optative -‫ שׁ‬is known in mediaeval Hebrew and he suspects some foreign influence. However, in Rabbinic Hebrew Qimron (1981.31) has identified several relevant examples, e.g. ‫ שלא יהא לשון סורסי קל בעיניך‬.‫ר׳ שמואל בר נחמן בשם ר׳ יוחנן‬ ‘R. Samuel, son of Nachman, in the name of R. Yochanan: (the use of) Aramaic shall not be a trivial matter to you’ jSota 7.2. These latter examples imply that Rashi was not necessarily under direct influence of contemporary French. Bendavid (1969.92) suggests an interference of Hellenistic Greek, on which see Muraoka 2009a, s.v. ἵνα 5 and ὅπως 3 b. One wonders whether the use originates in an ellipsis of -‫יְ ִהי ָר צוֹן ֶשׁ‬, an idiom well-established in MH, e.g. ‫יהי רצון ֶשׁ ֵתּ ֵלד‬ ‫‘ ִא ְשׁ ִתּי זָ ָכר‬I wish that my wife bore a male child’ mBer 9.3, see also Qimron (1981.38). Qimron (1981.29) restores -‫ש‬, rubbed out by the scribe of the manuscript concerned at ‫)ש(יהא רצון מלפניך‬ ‫ כן תעקור אותה‬.. ‫ כשם שעקרתה אותה‬.. ‫ ה׳ אלהינו‬jBer 9.1, but the conjunction should be found closer to the main verb, ‫תעקור‬. He (ib.) also notes that another Mishnaic example, ‫זֶ ה ִבּנְ יַ ן ֵבּית ַה ִמּ ְק ָדּשׁ‬, ‫יָמיינוּ׃׃ ָא ֵמן‬ ֵ ‫יִּבּנֶ ה ִבּ ְמ ֵה ָרה ְב‬ ָ ‫ ֶשׁ‬mTaan 4.8, on which some 9th cent. Italian inscriptions such as ‫שיבנה‬ ‫ בימינו אמן‬appear to be based, is read in the highly evaluated Mishnah manuscripts with ‫יהי רצון‬ added before ‫שיבנה‬. Kutscher (1961a.16) follows Milik, mentioning an Aramaic parallel in another contemporary document of the same provenance: ‫‘ ֗ד ֗כ ֗ל ֗ד אלישע אמר לך עבד לה‬whatever Elisha says to you, do (it) for him’ 5/6Ḥev 53.2, but here we have a distinct syntagm in that the principal verb is

108

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

fruits which are with you, you should handle them carefully and make bales (of them) fast’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6. All these documents emanate from Bar Kokhba and his circle, thus datable to the 130’s CE. Outside of this corpus the syntagm is confined to 1QS. Another example is ‫ואשר יקים בברית על נפשו להבדל מכול אנשי‬ ‫‘ העול‬and he shall swear by a covenant on his life to dissociate himself from all men of depravity’ 1QS 5.10, which follows ‫יבוא בברית אל לעיני כול המתנדבים‬ ‫‘ ויקם על נפשו בשבועת אסר לשוב אל תורת מושה‬he shall enter the covenant of God in the presence of all the volunteers and undertake on his life with a binding oath to revert to the law of Moses’ line 8.391 Further examples,392 all negated, may be noted: ‫ ואשר לוא יוכל‬.. ‫ ואשר לוא ישוב‬.. ‫‘ אשר לוא ייחד‬he shall not associate .. nor shall he go astray .. nor shall he eat’ 1QS 5.14 and ‫אשר לוא ישפוט‬ ‘he shall not take part in jurisprudence’ 1QS 8.25, just as in ‫אשר לוא ילך איש‬ ‫‘ בשרירות לבו‬nobody shall walk with a stubborn heart’ 1QS 5.4. Cf. SQH § 15 daf, § 31 v 4c). This syntagm, , with deontic or desiderative modality testifies to the affinity between MH and the vernacular Hebrew of the early 2nd century CE. On the other hand, the attestation of with the same modal value in 1QS suggests that, on a certain bright day, people capable of speaking Hebrew in Bar-Kokhba’s circle began to say all of a sudden ‫;שׁ ֵתּ ְדעוּ זֹאת‬ ֶ they were conscious of a literary predecessor of such a usage. Seeing that our current copy of 1QS is palaeographically dated to a period 100-50 BCE, its composition must be earlier. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬in BH, even in LBH, is not used in this particular manner, which implies that the usage must have become established by the end of the second century BCE, initially in the vernacular perhaps. ‫]אשר לוא ילכ איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר לבבו‬. The inf. cst. here is used with an epexegetical force: ‘nobody is to walk with a stubborn mind, going astray imperative. Examples adduced in his discussion of this Aramaic document (Kutscher 1961.122) are of little relevance, because there is a verbum dicendi before the conjunction. The editors of Naḥal Ḥever letters, Yadin et al. (2002.382), conclude that the presence of ‫‘ אגרתה‬letter’ proves that the Aramaic conjunction ‫ די‬in 5/6Ḥev 53 and 5/6Ḥev 55 introduces direct speech, but in 5/6Ḥev 63.5 ‫ שלחת לכון ית ֗א ֗גרתה‬is not followed by ‫די‬, the message beginning with ‫לא תעבדו‬. We agree with Pardee (1982.126f.), who holds that these particles mark the beginning of the main body of letters. Cf. also Mor (2015.343-49, § 5.43). For a description of this syntagm in Qumran Aramaic, see Muraoka 2011.263, C). 391 We are of the view that ‫ יקים‬and ‫ יקם‬are not mere orthographic variants, but phonetically distinct: ‫ יָ ִקים‬vs. ‫יָ ֵקם‬. Whilst obviously both carry a volitive value, the author probably felt uncomfortable with using in the ‫א ֶשׁר‬-clause ֲ a form explicitly marked as volitive. Kesterson (1987.573) blames the scribe for a lapsus calami, for otherwise Kesterson’s syntactic rule would fall apart, namely a negative injunction with but a positive one with an inf. cst. 392 Mentioned by Qimron (1981.30f.). Qimron (p. 31) includes here ‫וַ ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־נִ ֵתּן ְבּנ ֵֹתינוּ ְל ַע ֵמּי‬ ‫יהם ל ֹא נִ ַקּח ְל ָבנֵ ינוּ‬ ֶ ‫ת־בּנ ֵֹת‬ ְ ‫ ָה ָא ֶר ץ וְ ֶא‬Neh 10.31, though aware himself that the verbs are exceptionally in the first person, and he admits to being unable to assign any functional value to the ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬here. These two clauses follow a series of infinitives explaining what a curse (‫)א ָלה‬ ָ and an oath (‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫)שׁ‬ ְ the people are pronouncing (vs. 30) entail; the ‫א ֶשׁר‬-clause ֲ is syntactically identical in value with the epexegetic infinitive, cf. LXX καὶ τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι θυγατέρας ἡμῶν τοῖς λαοῖς τῆς γῆς.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

109

after his heart’. Thus not “in order to go astray” (Wernberg-Møller 28; García Martínez - Tigchelaar 81), “pour s’égarer ..” (Guilbert 40), “pour errer ..” (Dupont-Sommer 22), “per deviare ..” (Martone 123). Even obstinate, foolhardy members would not knowingly go against the philosophy of the community, just for the sake of fun. What is described by the infinitival clause here is a manifestation of their obstinacy, cf. “de telle sorte qu’il s’égare ..” (Pouilly 120), “en s’égarant ..” (van der Ploeg 119a), “de manière à s’égarer” (Lambert 963). A couple of other examples of this epexegetic use of the inf. cst. are ‫לוא יסלח‬ ‫‘ לכפר עווניך‬He will not forgive by covering your iniquities’ 1QS 2.8; ‫שבה רוחו‬ ‫‘ לבגוד ביחד‬his spirit backslides, betraying the community’ 1QS 7.23. See further SQH § 18 g. The collocation ‫ ָתּ ָעה ַא ַחר‬is a hapax in BH and QH alike. Its sense is comparable to ‫ה ַלְך ַא ַחר‬, ָ also with a verb of movement. The former, on account of the sense of ‫תעה‬, necessarily carries a negative connotation. The latter, however, can be neutral as in ‫יוֹסף ַא ַחר ֶא ָחיו וַ יִּ ְמ ָצ ֵאם ְבּד ָֹתן‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יֵּ ֶלְך‬Gn 37.17, ‫ת־ה ְבּ ִרית‬ ַ ‫וַ יִּ ְכר ֹת ֶא‬ ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ָל ֶל ֶכת ַא ַחר יְ הוָ ה‬2Kg 23.3, but often with a negative connotation, e.g. ‫ וַ יֵּ ֶלְך ַא ַחר ַחטֹּאת יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬2Kg 13.2, and close to our 1QS example in ‫ַא ַחר ֵעינַ י ָה ַלְך‬ ‫ ִל ִבּי‬Jb 31.7. Close is also ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ר־א ֶתּם זֹנִ ים ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ַ ‫יכם ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֶ ֵ‫א־ת ֻתרוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ְל ַב ְב ֶכם וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֵעינ‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ Nu 15.39 with a synonymous verb of movement.393 ‫]לתעות אחר לבבו ועינוהי ומחשבת יצרו‬. What we have said above (p. 105) about asyndetic juxtaposition of coordinate terms applies not only to -‫ ו‬or ‫או‬, but also to prepositions when multiple phrases are all subordinate to one preposition. Here ‫ ַא ַחר‬governs the three nominal phrases, but it is not repeated each time, which, in theory, could have happened as in ‫‘ להיות ליחד בתורה ובהון‬to join the community in the Torah and in the property’ (1QS 5.2), to quote just one out of very many analogous cases. The non-repetition of the preposition in the first case is probably because the three noun phrases refer to three different parts of the person that are all involved in inducing him or her to act in certain ways; the three form thus a single whole. By contrast, the Torah and the property, both of which surely relate to the person, were considered to represent two distinct compartments: religious, ethical as against material. 1QS 5.5) ‫‘ ]עינוהי‬his eyes.’ This mode of spelling for his or him attached to a plural or dual noun, certain prepositions such as ‫על‬, or a plural verb form suffixed with /-u:/ is quite extensively attested in QH; Qimron (2018.277 [§ D 2.3.6.1]) lists as many as 26 instances. His view is (ib., pp. 270 [§ D 2.3.2.2], 277f. [§ D 2.3.6.2]) that ‫והי‬- is a mere orthographic convention to indicate that the noun in question is plural or dual, or pseudo plural as in the case of ‫עלוהי‬ for the traditional ‫עליו‬, and thus the conventional morphophonemic opposition between ‫ ֵע ינוֹ‬and ‫ ֵע ינָ יו‬was neutralised in QH, both being now pronounced 393

Cited by Licht 124.

110

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

with /-ō/.394 Given, however, the considerable extent of mutual interaction between Hebrew and Aramaic in our corpus, it makes more sense to postulate here a genuine Aramaism. That the community behind QH could do without such a grammatical distinction with great communicative value and throw it away just like that sounds rather implausible to us. We are not talking about a pronominal morpheme for the second person feminine plural. In MH, the Hebrew of Ben Sira, or in subsequent Hebrew traditions there is absolutely no trace of such a radical departure from this time-honoured feature of Hebrew morphology. Even Samaritan Hebrew opposes yēdu ‘his hand’ to yēdo ‘his hands.’395 ‫ ]מחשבת יצרו‬rendered by Wernberg-Møller (28) as “the thought of his heart,” with a reference to ‫ מחשבות יצר אשמה‬CD 2.16. The selection of heart is understandable for ‫ יצר‬as a nomen rectum of ‫מחשבת‬. All the same, is it not a shade too narrowly focused? Other translations give it a broader sense with “l’instinct” (Guilbert 40), “istintivo” (Martone 123), “son penchant (mauvais)” (Dupont-Sommer 22), “seines Triebes” (Lohse 17), “his inclination” (Knibb 104), “desire” (Brownlee 18). Though slightly paraphrastic, “his lower nature” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 132) appears to us superior. The substantive, derived from ‫יָ ַצר‬, denotes that which is formed and made. As applied to human beings, it would mean what they are, the way they are, not only physically, but also mentally and emotionally, all that they are. ‫ הוּא יָ ַד ע יִ ְצ ֵרנוּ‬Ps 103.14 is parallel to396 ‫י־ע ָפר ֲאנָ ְחנוּ‬ ָ ‫זָ כוּר ִכּ‬, where there is no focus on non-physical aspects of human existence. Note a highly interesting text in ‫ל־היּוֹם‬ ַ ‫וְ ָכ ל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשׁבֹת ִלבּוֹ ַרק ַר ע ָכּ‬ Gn 6.5 where three of the key words in our 1QS text occur in a single sentence and ‫ יֵ ֶצר‬in the biblical text means ‘produce, outcome,’ but not ‘inclination, instinct, desire’ and suchlike. In spite of ‫ אשמה‬in the related CD passage cited above the addition of lower as in ‘lower nature’ is a questionable expression of value judgement, for in Rabbinic Judaism ‫ יצר‬by itself is neutral and capable of being further specified as ‫ יצר הטוב‬or ‫יצר הרע‬. It denotes human nature everyone of us is born with, our natural state. ‫ ]יאאם‬widely and long since recognised as a scribal error for ‫‘ כיא אם‬but,’ following a negation.397 A 4Q fragment, 4QSb, actually reads ‫כי אם‬. ‫]למול ביחד עורלת יצר ועורפ קשה‬. This is an infinitive construct absolutely used with an injunctive value, as equivalent to the imperative; see SQH § 18 c. 394 For this mode of pronunciation Qimron follows Ben-Ḥayyim (1954.90f.). Is this pronunciation, if true, indicative of a phonetic process that may have been going on, a shift of full qamats to an o-like sound? 395 Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, p. 229 [§ 3.2.3]). 396 As pointed out by Kaddari (2006, s.v. ‫ יֵ ֶצר‬I). 397 Brownlee (18, 49f.): “EAM, a surrogate of YAHWEH” is nothing but a theologising fantasy. Brownlee wants to have Yahweh as the subject of the infinitive, what would make for a most anomalous word order. Van der Ploeg (119a) offers “en craignant (de circoncire),” believing that ‫ יאאם‬is a form of √‫אים‬, but how on earth?

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

111

It is thus nicely parallel to the syntagm we discussed above, p. 108. The same analysis can be applied to the following infinitives: ‫‘ ליסד‬to found’ (line 5), ‫‘ לכפר‬to atone’ (line 6), and ‫‘ להרשיע‬to indict’ (line 7). ‫ למול‬can be either a Qal or Nifal infinitive: ‫ ָלמוּל‬or ‫ ִלמּוֹל‬for ‫ל ִהמּוֹל‬.ְ If the latter, the Nifal could be assigned a tolerative force398: ‘to allow oneself to be circumcised.’ An example of such a Nifal is ‫]י[ם לי‬ ֯ ‫הנדרש‬ ֯ ‫‘ כול‬all those who willingly come to me for examination’ 1QHa 12.25, cf. ‫ ַה ִא ָדּר ֹשׁ ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶהם‬Ezk 14.3 and ‫ ִהמֹּלוּ ַליהוָֹ ה וְ ָה ִסרוּ ָע ְר לוֹת ְל ַב ְב ֶכם‬Je 4.4. Wernberg-Møller (93) rightly points out our author’s dependence on ‫וּמ ְל ֶתּם ֵאת ָע ְר ַלת ְל ַב ְב ֶכם וְ ָע ְר ְפּ ֶכם לֹא ַת ְקשׁוּ עוֹד‬ ַ Dt 10.17, adding that this dependence “suggests that the members of the community are meant to be the agents of lmwl — and of the following infinitives.” This, however, does not have to contradict our alternative analysis of ‫ למול‬as Nifal. Note ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ת־ל ַבב זַ ְר ֶעָך ְל ַא ֲה ָבה ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ת־ל ָב ְבָך וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וּמל יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ Dt 30.6 with God as the agent. When we read ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַע ָכּ‬ ֻ ְ‫ר־מל י‬ ָ ‫ זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁ‬Josh 5.4, we could hardly visualise Joshua as a ‫ מ ֵֹהל‬with a knife in his hand. What is meant is that he oversaw the “operation.” Abram may have personally circumcised Ishmael and all male members of his household (‫ וַ יָּ ָמל‬Gn 17.23), but was he scared of doing it to himself (‫ן־תּ ְשׁ ִעים וָ ֵת ַשׁע ָשׁנָ ה ְבּ ִהמֹּלוֹ ְבּ ַשׂר ָע ְר ָלתוֹ‬ ִ ‫ )וְ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶבּ‬Gn 17.24 with a 399 Nifal inf.? The grammatical subject of a verb, whether Qal, Nifal or whatever, is not necessarily an actual performer of the action concerned. God knew what had happened to Uriah, but said ‫ית ַב ֶח ֶרב‬ ָ ‫אוּריָּ ה ַה ִח ִתּי ִה ִכּ‬ ִ ‫ ֵאת‬2Sm 12.9, for the ultimate responsibility for Uriah’s death lay at David’s door. ‫]מוסד אמת‬. Even if one is reasonably certain about the meaning of each of two constituents of a construct phrase, what logical relationship is expressed by the phrase as a syntactic unit can be vague.400 The abstract noun ‫ אמת‬here is multivalent: 1) ‘truth’ as opposed to ‘falsehood, lie,’ 2) ‘truthfulness,’ 3) ‘sincerity,’ 4) ‘honesty,’ 5) ‘trustworthiness,’ 6) ‘faithfulness’ etc. All the translations consulted by us are unanimous with “a foundation of truth,” “un fondement de vérité,” “ein Fundament der Wahrheit,” and “un fondamento di verità.” Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, that truth in the English translations is also used in sense 1). However, what does the phrase as a whole mean? An institution based on truth, an institution searching for truth, an authentic institution, no fake? As against this objectively accurate, correct belief or credo our document accords the word elsewhere an unmistakably ethical, moral dimension: the two guiding principles and world views of mankind are defined as ‫‘ רוחות האמת והעול‬the spirits of truth and wickedness’ 1QS 3.18. Likewise ‫‘ יריבו רוחי אמת ועול‬spirits of truth and wickedness will vie’ ib. 4.23.401 Opposed to ‫ עול‬here, ‫ אמת‬must 398

For Nifal tolerativum in BH, see JM § 51 c, and for QH, see SQH § 12 e 5. Note LXX: ἡνίκα περιέτεμεν τὴν σάρκα τῆσ ἀκροβυστίασ αὐτοῦ, and see Muraoka 2016.235f., § ba. 400 Cf. SQH § 21 b. 401 In John 3.20f. ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων and ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν stand at two opposite ends. 399

112

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

signify more than a set of correct moral, ethical codes, but a way of life, Lebensphilosophie itself that is acceptable to God. ‫ ]יחד ברית עולם‬a three-term cst. chain, and ‫ ברית עולם‬occurs here and also in 1QSb 1.2, 2.25 only, and once with a slight variation in ‫ ברית עולמים‬1QS 4.22. The expression is unique to this document, Community Rule. The three-term version occurs only here. In view of the two-term version the syntactic hierarchy is most likely , ‘a community of eternal covenant,’ i.e. a community based on or sharing an eternal covenant. Earlier we came across a cst. chain with the same three substantives, but in a different sequence: ‫ברית יחד עולמים‬ 3.11, which we understood as ‘a covenant in an eternal community,’ thus also . In our column the focus is on the community to be founded, whereas in Col. 3 it was on the covenant to be established and confirmed. 1QS 5.6) ‫]לכפר לכול המתנדבים‬. The frequent absence of the grammatical subject in an inf. cst. can result in exegetical ambiguity. Column 5 started off with a statement that the following is a set of instructions for ‫המתנדבים‬, but the preposition -‫ ל‬attached here to the same form obviously means that they cannot be the agentes of the action indicated by ‫ל ַכ ֵפּר‬.ְ Who are they then? Now that many experts believe that the Community Rule originally lacked the first four columns of 1QS and that 4QSd preserves an earlier form of the beginning of the document, we recognise the importance of how differently it starts off in comparison with 1QS. As against the latter’s ‫וזה הסרכ לאנשי היחד המתנדבים‬, the former reads ‫מדרש למשכיל על אנשי התורה המתנדבים‬. In other words, the document was originally meant for the instructor, the principal brain of the community. In the course of recension and revision of the document, the end result as we find it shows that the work undertaken by the person responsible for the final shape of 1QS left something to be desired. The agens of ‫ לכפר‬may have been meant to be the leadership of the community, whether an individual or a small, select group. It is of course agreed that expiation or atonement is ultimately in the domain of God Himself. However, in this column He is very much in the background. References are made to Him through conjunctive pronouns, e.g. ‫ לרצונו‬except in ‫( ברית אל‬line 8), but He does not appear as the agens in any sentence. So ‫ ִכּפּוּר‬here is perceived as being performed by His agents, ‫ל ָפנָ יו‬.ְ The collocation of the Piel verb ‫ ִכּ ֶפּר‬with -‫ ל‬+ person is firmly established in BH, e.g. ‫ ַכּ ֵפּר ְל ַע ְמָּך‬Dt 21.8, probably a dativus commodi; an Aramaism is unlikely in this early text, though that may be the case402 in ‫ל־א ֶשׁר‬ ֲ ‫י־לְך ְל ָכ‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ַכ ְפּ ִר‬ ‫ ָע ִשׂית‬Ez 16.63, where the verb may be doubly transitive. Note also ‫לכפר לנו‬ 4Q414 2i3. This verb displays considerable diversity of modes of rection; for details, see SQH § 31 a, p. 182. 402 The author of the Temple Scroll may, in his linguistic milieu, have been quite comfortable (11Q19 63.6), quoting Dt 21.8 as in his source.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

113

1QS 5.6b) ‫]לכול מתנדבים לקודש באהרון ולבית האמת בישראל‬. As justly pointed out by Wernberg-Møller (93f.), ‫ קודש‬is parallel to ‫בית‬, hence short for ‫בית‬ ‫‘ הקודשׁ‬the sanctuary.’403 However, we have here another parallelism: ‫ אהרון‬vs. ‫ישראל‬. Since the latter must refer to a community, the former can scarcely refer to an individual, but a priestly class, thus priests vs. laity.404 And yet, since no trace of an actual edifice comparable to the sanctuary in Jerusalem has been identified in the ruins of Qumran, “the sanctuary” must refer to the Weltanschauung und Lebensphilosophie represented and symbolised by the sanctuary, the existential principle of sanctity and dedication to it. Then it verges on the abstract notion of “sanctity.” Likewise ‫ בית האמת‬is hardly a reference to some building that stood at the Qumran site. The combination of 4QSb and 4QSd produces a v.l. ‫המ ֗תנ֗ ֗דב‬ ֗ ‫כל‬, where the plural is meant as is manifest in ‫עלי֗ ֯הם‬ ֗ referring back to the participle.405 The twice used preposition -‫ ב‬is local in the sense of ‘(practised and sought after) among.’ Hence: “those who are willing to come forward, seeking affiliation with the sanctuary among the Aaronic priests and the house of truth in Israel.” ‫ עליהם ]והנלוים עליהם ליחד ולריֿ ב ולמשפט‬must be = ‫על כול המנדבים‬. Hence ‫ הנלוים‬refers to a separate group of individuals and a second direct object of ‫לכפר‬. A preposition attached to coordinate terms is not always repeated.406 So two lines earlier: ‫‘ לתעות אחר לבבו ועינוהי ומחשבת יצרו‬to stray after his heart and his eyes and his instinctive thought’ 1QS 5.4. As in BH, the N verb ‫‘ נִ ְלוָ ה‬to join’ may have its object complement marked by diverse prepositions. Apart from ‫ על‬as here,407 we find ‫עם‬, e.g. ‫הנלוים עמהם‬ CD 4.3, -‫ ל‬at ‫ ונלויתי לו‬4Q106 7.2, and ‫ אל‬at ‫ ידידיך אליך נלוו‬11Q5 22.7. 1QS 5.7) ‫ ]להרשיע כול עוברי חוק‬The absence of the conjunction -‫ ו‬before ‫ להרשיע‬indicates that this form is not coordinate with the immediately preceding ‫למשפט‬,408 but coordinate with the three infinitives of injunctive value, all without the conjunction: ‫ לכפר‬.. ‫ ליסד‬.. ‫למול‬. The anarthrous form ‫חוק‬, not ‫החוק‬, is to be noted. So not “the decree” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 81), “the precepts” (Vermes 104), “das Gebot” (Lohse 17), “la Loi” (van der Ploeg 118). No particular decree or precept(s) is meant, but any decree whatsoever. Hence “of ordinances” (Brownlee 20) or 403 Pace Guilbert (40) and Dupont-Sommer (22) “la sainteté,” Brownlee (18) “holiness.” Brownlee (21), however, wavers between “holiness” and “sanctuary.” 404 Van der Ploeg (119a, n. 40): “les saints prêtres, descendants d’Aäron.” 405 On this striking syntagm in QH, i.e. כל ה־‬equivalent to ‫כל‬, see SQH § 28 c, where quite a few examples are cited, including ‫המתנדב‬ ֗ ‫ כול‬1QS 6.13. 406 See SQH § 38 e. Note a v.l. in our context: ‫ובית ֯אמת לישראל‬ ֗ ‫ לקדש באהרן‬Qimron I 219 for ‫ לקודש באהרון ולבית האמת בישראל‬line 6. 407 Guilbert’s (40) “s’unissent entre eux” is questionable. 408 Pace Vermes (104): “the trial and judgement and condemnation.”

114

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

“de prescription(s)” (Guilbert 40) is preferable. ‫ כול חוק‬would not do, for that would mean “those who transgress every single precept,” which is hardly meant here. 1QS 5.7b - 11a 5.7b) And the following is a guideline as to how they ought to conduct themselves in accordance with all these rules. When they are assembled for a general meeting, everyone who joins the council of the community 5.8) shall join the covenant of God in the sight of all those who commit themselves and shall take a vow upon his life with a binding oath to return to the law of Moses wholly, as he commanded, with a whole 5.9) heart and with a whole soul, to that which becomes revealed out of it to the sons of Zadok the priests, who uphold the covenant and search His will, and to the multitude of their colleagues in the covenant 5.10) who commit themselves together to His truth and to walk in accordance with His will, and he shall swear by a covenant on his life to dissociate himself from all men of iniquity who walk 5.11) in the wicked way, ‫‘ ]ואלה תכון דרכיהם על כול החוקים האלה‬and these are a direction as to how they ought to conduct themselves in accordance with all these rules.’ The demonstrative pronoun409 here appears to be anaphoric, i.e. referring back to a series of four rules expressed above by means of four infinitives of injunctive value. In the following lines we see two Imperfects, also of injunctive value, ‫ יבוא‬and ‫יקם‬,410 but they are about administrative rules to be observed with the admission of new members, and such are unlikely to be expressed with ‫דרך‬. ‫ ]בהאספם ליחד‬the absence of punctuation marks in ancient texts can cause ambiguity of interpretation, as illustrated by some translations, e.g. “.. the statute. These are .., when they are gathered to the Community:” (Charlesworth 21) vs. “lorsqu’ils sont reçus dans la communauté. Tout homme ..” (van der Ploeg 119b). Given our analysis above of ‫ אלה‬and ‫ דרך‬we are inclined to connect this infinitive clause forwards as in the rendition by Charlesworth. ‫‘ כול הבא‬everyone that joins’: on this striking syntactic feature, see above on ‫ כול המתנדב‬and a fn. there. 1QS 5.8) ‫‘ ]יקם על נפשו בשבועת אסר לשוב אל תורת מושה‬he shall swear on his life with a binding oath to return to the law of Moses,’ an instance of an epexegetic inf., SQH § 18 g. Though the difference is slight, we may analyse it as an inf. clause modifying the substantive, ‫שבועת אסר‬, ib. i. 409 Van der Ploeg (119b) identifies here a substantive: “le serment.” ‫ ָא ָלה‬does mean, in addition to ‘curse,’ also ‘oath.’ But then, as in BH, it is commonly in conjunction with ‫ברית‬, e.g. ‫אלות‬ ‫ בריתו‬CD 1.17, 15.2, 1QS 2.16. 410 Qimron (2018.250, § C 3.6.3.4) also identifies here a PCS.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

115

‫‘ ]תורת מושה‬the Mosaic law,’ a classic example of a nomen rectum indicating origin or authorship, SQH § 21 b iv). ‫ ]אל תורת מושה‬This is parallel to ‫‘ לכול הנגלה‬to everything that becomes revealed,’ exemplifying a vacillation between two synonymous prepositions introducing each an adverbial adjunct subordinate to the same verb, ‫לשוב‬. In this case no semantic difference is recognisable. See SQH § 31 ed. ‫‘ ]בכול לב‬with whole heart’; on the sense of ‘whole’ of ‫ כול‬preceding an indeterminate noun, see above at 4.20. Furthermore, this adverbial adjunct is not to be construed with ‫צוה‬, but with the preceding ‫לשוב וגו׳‬. On its position at the end of the relative clause, see above at 5.1 (p. 102). 1QS 5.9) ‫]לכל הנגלה ממנה‬. Most translators take the preposition -‫ ל‬in the sense of ‘in accordance with,’ which is, however, doubtful and for which one would rather expect -‫כ‬. Rare exceptions are “zu allem, was von ihm offenbart ist” (Lohse 19)411 and “to all that has been revealed” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 132); -‫ ל‬is viewed as a variant of ‫ אל‬in ‫( לשוב אל תורת מושה‬line 8). This analysis accords with a v.l. in 4QSd, where we read ‫התורה‬ ֗ ‫ בכול נפש כל הנגלה מן‬4Q258 1.6, i.e. ‫ הנגלה‬is coordinate with ‫תורת מושה‬. On the optional omission of a particle in apposition, see SQH § 38 i. Alternatively we could postulate a scribal error of ‫ לכל‬for ‫ ככל‬in 1QS and ‫ כל‬for ‫ ככל‬in 4QSd. The grammatical gender of ‫ נגלה‬is ambiguous. The notion of neuter can be indicated in either gender.412 Furthermore, the selection of the N form here does not necessarily imply God as the revealer in the background, but the binyan can be an equivalent of Hitpael of ingressive value, and one may see here an on-going revelation concerning the Mosaic law with the priests as eternal students never ceasing to discover fresh truths about the ancient law, thus ‫‘ = נגלה‬to become ‫ גָּ לוּי‬.413 ‫ ]לרוב אנשי בריתם‬The preposition ‫ ל־‬is parallel with that of ‫לבני צדוק‬, not, pace Wernberg-Møller (28), with that of ‫לכול הנגלה‬. The possessive pronoun ‫ם‬- is better construed with the cst. chain ‫אנשי‬ ‫)ה(ברית‬. 1QS 5.10) ‫‘ ]להתלכ ברצונו‬to walk in His will.’ The tD inf. cst. of this common verb shows a striking absence of the first root letter. There is no absolute need to postulate a scribal error. Qimron (2018.102 § B 1.2.1.1) presents a fairly long list of similar examples. This reminds us of a fairly extensive attestation in 411 Lohse, given his vocalisation (‫)הנִּ גְ ָלה‬, ַ has identified a form of the pf. here and taken the definite article as a substitute for ‫ ְא ֶשׁר‬or -‫שׁ‬, ֶ a feature fairly common in LBH, but attested with certainty in QH only once: ‫ממ ֯צו֗ ו֗ תיכה הנתתה להם‬ ֗ ‘from the commandments that You gave them’ 4Q382 104ii7, on which see SQH § 7 h. 412 See SQH § 6 c, pp. 15f. According to Qimron (2018.173, n. 53) the fem. sg. ptc. in the LamedYod, Ayin-Waw, and Ayin-Ayin verbs always terminates in ‫ה‬-, i.e. not ‫ת‬-. Cf. Habermann (64): ‫הנִּ גְ ֶלה‬. ַ 413 See SQH § 12 e 7, esp. p. 48.

116

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

contemporary documents outside of Qumran of -‫ = ת‬-‫את ה‬, e.g. ‫תעפר הלבן‬ ‫‘ ותדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב‬the cropland and the good-quality date palm(s)’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4.414 In these latter cases, not only the initial /h/, but also / ʼ/ have been deleted. This infinitive clause can be coordinate ‫( לשוב‬line 8), but too many intervening words render it more likely that it complements, along with ‫לאמתו‬, the preceding ‫המתנדבים‬. This latter verb can be complemented with an inf. cst. as in ‫( להקים‬line 21) and ‫( לשוב‬line 22). ‫‘ ואשר יקים‬and he shall vow.’ On this important syntagm, ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬followed by an Impf., see above on ‫( אשר לוא ילך‬line 4) and SQH § 15 daf. Let it be noted that a few lines later we meet a bare Impf. of injunctive value: ‫( אל יבוא‬line 13). ֗ ‫ ֯א ֗ש ֗ר לא יגעו לטהרת אנשי‬4Q258 1.7. By contrast, 4QSd introduces ‫אשר‬: ‫הקודש‬ 1QS 5.11) ‫]בדרכ הרשעה‬. Though it is common to identify here a construct phrase, ‘the way of wickedness (‫)ה ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬,’ ָ it is not impossible to parse the second ַ In QH we find no clear-cut instance of the word as an adjective: ‫בּ ֶדּ ֶרְך ָה ְר ָשׁ ָעה‬. latter syntagm, but in BH we do find ‫ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ְר ָשׁ ָעה‬Ezk 3.18, 19. 1QS 5.11b - 20a 5.11b) because they did not count themselves (as under) His covenant, seeing that they did not seek nor inquire after Him in His laws in order to know the concealed matters in which they went astray, 5.12) to condemn themselves, and what is revealed they treated high-handedly with the result that (God’s) anger will rise for judgement and He will effect revenge, inflicting enormous judgements at them 5.13) for eternal annihilation with no survivor. One shall not enter into the water in order to touch what is pure belonging to the men of holiness, for one will not become pure 5.14) unless one has parted with one’s wickedness, for there is impurity in all those who transgress His word, and one shall not become associated with him in his work nor in his property lest he might impose on him 5.15) a punishment for guilt, but one shall keep away from him in every matter, for thus it is written, ‘Thou shalt keep away from every false statement,’ and nobody among the men of the community shall answer, 5.16) accepting what they say over anything regarding the law and statute, and one shall not have a meal at all out of what they own, and one shall not accept from them anything whatsoever 5.17) without paying for it, as it is written ‘Do not rely on any human being, whose breath is in his nose, for in whose company is he?’ For 5.18) all those who were not included among (the company of) His covenant are to be segregated as well as anything that belongs to them. Nor should any of the saints rely on any work of 5.19) vanity, because vanity are all those who have not come know His covenant, and all those who make naught of His word He will annihilate from the earth and all their works 5.20) (will degenerate) into impurity in His sight, and there is impurity in all their property. 414

See SQH § 31 da.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

117

‫‘ ]לוא החשבו בבריתו‬they did not count themselves (as under) His covenant.’ The verb is most likely a Hitpael form with the /t/ of the prefix /hit-/ assimilated, as sometimes happens in Mishnaic Hebrew.415 ‫ ]בקשו‬Qimron (2018.103) maintains that this exemplifies a putative deletion of /h/ between two /ū/’s. However, the object may be latent, being easily recoverable from the context. This applies to all the remaining six instances mentioned there. ‫ ְדּ ָר ֻשׁהוּ = ]דרשהו‬or an error for ‫דּ ְרשׁוּ‬.ָ ‫‘ ]בחוקוהי‬in His statutes,’ an obvious, morphological Aramaism, ‫חוּקּוֹהי‬ ִ ‫בּ‬. ְ For more examples, see Qimron 2018.277. ‫ ]הנסתרות‬Unlike ‫( הנגלה‬line 9) this is one of a number of participles clearly marked as fem. pl. and used impersonally: ‘the concealed matters,’ see SQH § 6 c. Note ‫ הנגלות‬in the next line. 1QS 5.12) ‫‘ ]הנגלות עשו ביד רמה‬they treated high-handedly what is revealed.’ The G verb ‫ עשה‬can take a direct object and mean ‘to treat or handle (someone or something in a certain way),’ a usage well established in BH, e.g. ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫וְ ָע ִשׂ‬ ‫ת־הגּוֹיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא ָשׁ ֵמעוּ‬ ַ ‫וּב ֵח ָמה נָ ָקם ֶא‬ ְ ‫ ְבּ ַאף‬Mi 5.14, an example interesting on account of ‫וּב ֵח ָמה‬ ְ ‫בּ ַאף‬, ְ which is to be compared with ‫לעלות אף למשפט ולנקום‬ ‫ נקם‬in our text, an indication of a consequence that follows a given behaviour and attitude. The particle ‫ את‬at Mi 5.14 is, strictly speaking, ambiguous, for it can be a synonym of ‫ ִעם‬as in ‫שׂוֹתי ִא ְתּ ֶכם ְל ַמ ַען ְשׁ ִמי‬ ִ ‫ ַבּ ֲע‬Ezk 20.44, but ‫וְ ל ֹא ְב ַחיִ ל‬ ֶ ‫ִא‬ ‫וּב ָק ָהל ָרב יַ ֲע ֶשׂה אוֹתוֹ ַפ ְר עֹה ַבּ ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ְ ‫ גָּ דוֹל‬Ezk 17.17 and ‫ם־תּ ֱחזַ ְקנָ ה יָ ַדיִ ְך ַליָּ ִמים‬ ‫אוֹתְך‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה‬ib. 22.14 are unambiguous.416 ‫]לעלות אפ למשפט ולנקום נקם‬. In spite of a striking BH example in ‫ְל ַה ֲעלוֹת ֵח ָמה‬ ‫ ִלנְ קֹם נָ ָקם‬Ezk 24.8 there is no absolute need to postulate a deletion of a weak guttural in our text in lieu of ‫להעלות‬.417 Noteworthy in particular are Ps 78.31 ‫ֹלהים ָע ָלה ָב ֶהם‬ ִ ‫ ַאף ֱא‬and 4Q179 1ii1 ‫לה בנו‬ ̇ ‫אף אל ̇ע‬. The inf. clause is resultative. The anger is presumably that of God, which accounts for a somewhat loose syntactic linkage with the two following infinitive clauses (.. ‫ לעשות‬.. ‫)לנקום‬, the subject of which must be God. ‫ ]אלות ברית‬cf. Dt 29.20 ‫תּוֹרה ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ ‫תוּבה ְבּ ֵס ֶפר ַה‬ ָ ‫כּכֹל ָאלוֹת ַה ְבּ ִר ית ַה ְכּ‬. ְ ‫]לעשות בם שפטים גדולים‬418 Precisely what value shall we assign to the preposition -‫ ב‬in this idiomatic combination? In most of its attestations it is about judgement and penalty. However, the notion of enmity is not quite right in view of ‫וּב ִמ ְשׁ ָמ ָריו‬ ְ ‫ֹלהי‬ ַ ‫יתי ְבּ ֵבית ֱא‬ ִ ‫ל־תּ ַמח ֲח ָס ַדי ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬ ֶ ‫‘ ַא‬Do not blot out my good deeds for the benefit of my God’s temple and the works of its maintenance!’ 415 See Segal 1958 § 135. See also SQH § 12 f 1), p. 49, n. 1. Morag (1972) argues that ἐφφαθά Mk 7.34 can be either Hebrew or Aramaic with the assimilation of /t/ of /hit-/. Qimron (2018.239, n. 243) is reluctant to extend this assimilation to consonants other than dentals. 416 More BH examples may be found in BDB s.v. ‫ ָע ָשׂה‬Qal I 2. 417 Pace Brownlee (21, n. 34), Wernberg-Møller (96, n. 47), and Licht (132). 418 A mem has been erased by the scribe at the beginning of ‫ ;שפטים‬the alternative collocation would mean the same as exemplified in ‫ ָמ ַתי ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה ְבר ְֹד ַפי ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬Ps 119.84.

118

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Neh 13.14. The referents prefixed with the preposition are not personal. Nor is the preposition purely local, ‘among, in the midst of,’ an analysis that might be supported by the fact that the preposition is followed in the majority of instances with multiple individuals or a group of individuals, e.g. ‫שׂוֹתי ְשׁ ָפ ִטים ְבּכֹל‬ ִ ‫ַבּ ֲע‬ ‫אטים א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ ַה ָשּׁ‬Ezk 28.26 and ‫יהם ָע ָשׂה יְ הוָ ה ְשׁ ָפ ִטים‬ ֶ ‫אֹלה‬ ֵ ‫וּב‬ ֵ Nu 33.4. This analysis, however, is clearly contradicted by ‫ֹא־ע ְשׂ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ה־לּ ֲעשׂוֹת ַבּ ַמּ ְל ָכּה וַ ְשׁ ִתּי ַעל ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬ ַ ‫ְכּ ָדת ַמ‬ ‫ת־מ ֲא ַמר ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְשׁוֵ רוֹשׁ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Est 1.15 and ‫קהלו‬ ֗ ‫בעשותכה שפטים בגוג ובכול‬ ֗ 1QM 11.16. In view of these considerations we propose that we see in the preposition -‫ ב‬in this particular syntagm a referent who is affected by the action concerned either negatively in the way of punishment or positively as a reward or appreciative recognition.419 In origin this is probably instrumental. A referent so affected can be regarded as an instrument in a broad sense, an instrument with which the actor performs the deed. 1QS 5.13) ‫עולם לאין שרית‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]לכלת‬for eternal annihilation with no survivor.’ On the surface it looks as if the preposition -‫ ל‬in its second case is complemented by a full-fledged nominal clause, which is unusual to the utmost. We would analyse ‫ אין שרית‬as a noun phrase parallel to ‫כלת עולם‬. The phrase makes its first BH appearance rather late: ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫וּפ ֵל‬ ְ ‫ד־כּ ֵלּה ְל ֵאין ְשׁ ֵא ִרית‬ ַ ‫ף־בּנוּ ַע‬ ָ ַ‫ ֲהלוֹא ֶת ֱאנ‬Ezr 9.14, where we would note the parallelism with ‫כּ ֵלּה‬, ַ with which ‫ כלת‬in our text is to be compared, and there also the disaster is a divine punishment. The phrase is rather popular in QH, e.g. ‫ לאין שאירית ופליטה‬CD 2.6 and nine more instances. The preposition indicates a final outcome. We also find instances of ‫ אין שארית‬with no -‫ ל‬prefixed. Even then it is no standard nominal clause, but an adverbial complement. Thus ‫שרי֯ ֯ת‬ ֯ ‫לכלה ירמוסו ואין‬ ‘to annihilation they will trample (them) down, leaving no survivor’ 1QHa 14.35 and ‫‘ קהל גויים אסף לכלה אין שארית‬He brought a conglomerate of nations together for annihilation with no survivor’ 1QM 14.5, in which latter case there is no conjunction -‫ו‬, either. For an extended discussion of < ‫ לאין‬- indet. n.>, see above at 4.14. ‫ ]אל יבוא במים‬the generous blank space before this clause shows that here begins a new paragraph. Hence the verb is unlikely to have ‫( כול הבא‬line 7) as its grammatical subject. The immediately preceding inf. clause has them (‫)בם‬ as targets of a divine punishment, and only in the way “with no survivor” makes sense. The third person masc. sg. must be impersonal, though it is immediately followed by the more standard pl. ‫ שבו‬.. ‫יטהרו‬, and back again to the 3ms in ‫לוא‬ ‫( ייחד‬line 14) and ‫( ירחק‬line 15).420 All the same the sequel is confusing: e.g. ‫אשר‬ ‫‘ לוא ייחד עמו‬one shall not become associated with him’ (line 14), but with whom? 419 An error has crept in at SQH § 32 b, p. 234, third paragraph: the suffix pronoun of ‫ בם‬refers to ‫( אנשי העול‬line 10). 420 On this fluctuation, see SQH § 37 a. We see that the suffix pronouns fluctuate accordingly between sg. and pl.: ‫( רעתם‬line 14) vs. ‫ ממנו‬.. ‫ ישיאנו‬.. ‫ הונו‬.. ‫ עבודתו‬.. ‫( עמו‬lines 14f.).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

119

The standard rection with -‫ ב‬in ‫‘ לגעת בטהרת אנשי הקודש‬to touch pure things of the saints’ is replaced in 4QSd with -‫ל‬: ‫לטהרת‬.421 1QS 5.14) ‫‘ ]טמא בכול עוברי דברו‬there is impurity in all those who transgress His word.’ Whereas Qimron (2018.353f. § E 5) has collected a good number of examples which purport to show the presence in QH of the variant masculine forms for the feminine in BH, it is equally plausible to see here the masculine adjective used impersonally, a usage well established in QH, e.g. ‫לעשות הטוב‬ ‫‘ והישר לפניו‬to do what is good and upright in His presence’ 1QS 1.1.422 Feminine adjectives, as is well known, serve the same function. Similarly in ‫טמא בכול הונם‬ (line 20). ‫‘ ]אשר לוא ייחד‬one should not consort’: ad line 10 above we noted the injunctive value of the syntagm , and here again it follows a plain injunctive Impf., ‫אל יבוא‬. This is continued with ‫( אשר לוא ישוב‬line 15) and ‫אשר לוא‬ ‫( יוכל‬line 16). The morphological analysis of ‫ ייחד‬is controversial. Wernberg-Møller (97), citing ‫ ֵתּ ַחד‬Gn 49.6, parses it as G, spelled plena, and translates “be united.” Qimron (2018.239, n. 243) argues against Yalon, who had analysed it as tD with the /t/ assimilated, and opts for N, mentioning ‫ יִ יָּ ֶרה‬Ex 19.13 and ‫ וַ יִּ יָּ ֶחל‬Gn 8.12423. So far this verb is unattested elsewhere in Hebrew except in ‫ להיחד‬1QHa 19.14424 and possibly ‫ להחיד‬for ‫ להיחד‬ib. 23.30. Qimron does not say, however, what semantic value he assigns to this binyan of this particular verb. A similar problem arises over an inf. cst., ‫( להיחד‬line 20). Perhaps the value of ingressive might be assigned to this Nifal, SQH § 12 d 7). ‫‘ ]פן ישיאנו עוון אשמה‬lest he might impose on him a punishment for guilt.’ Partly due to the use of the imperfect construction in this passage the identity of he and him is ambiguous. The general tenet of the passage is “Beware them, distance yourselves from them,” not very friendly towards them. Hence the translation suggested here may be preferable to “in order not to encumber him with blameworthy iniquity” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 81). 421 In BH we have one instance with ‫ ֶאל‬as pointed out in DJD 26.97; ‫ל־ע ְצמוֹ‬ ַ ‫ְשׁ ַלח־נָ א יָ ְד ָך וְ גַ ע ֶא‬ ‫ל־בּ ָשׂרוֹ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬Jb 2.5. It is also said that, in MH, the interchange of the prepositions -‫ ב‬and -‫ ל‬is common; reference is made to Epstein 1964, who, however, cites only one example for the verb √‫נגע‬ (p. 1126): ‫יע ַל ְסּפו ג נָ גַ ע ַבּ ְסּפֺֹג‬ ַ ִ‫ ַעד ֶשׁהוּא ַמגּ‬mPa 6.3, where the Qal form governs -‫ב‬, whereas its Hifil form governs -‫ל‬. This is another example of vacillation between prepositions governed by verbs, see SQH § 31 e. 422 For more examples and a discussion, see SQH § 9 b. Following van der Ploeg (119b, n. 51), Wernberg-Møller argues for a variant spelling for ‫ט ְמ ָאה = טמאה‬, ֻ which sounds ad hoc. The use of masc. ‫ זֶ ה‬and masc. adjectives with neuter value is known to BH. With their “he is unclean” García Martínez - Tigchelaar (81) are parsing ‫ טמא‬here as a qatal form, which is not impossible (SQH § 14 c), but that would become incongruous with the immediately preceding ‫שבו מרעתם‬, which they render “one turns away from one’s wickedness.” 423 Correct the references given by Qimron: Exod 9:13 and Gen 8:10. 424 DJD 40.245 prefers ‫להוחד‬, explicitly rejected by Qimron (I 89).

120

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ישיאנו עוון‬can be rewritten as ‫ישיא אותו עוון‬, ‫ נָ ָשׂא‬used as a doubly transitive verb as in ‫‘ משיאי̇ ם את העם עוון‬cause the people to bear punishment’ MMT B 27. We have here a causative transform of a mono-transitive verb, cf. SQH § 31 ga, gba. ‫עוון‬, like ‫ח ָטּאת‬, ַ can denote a consequence for iniquity in the form of punishment, see BDB s.v. ‫ ָעוֹן‬3 and ‫ ַּח ָטּאת‬3. 1QS 5.15) ‫‘ ]כי ירחק ממנו בכול דבר‬but one shall keep away from him in every matter.’ The ‫ כי‬with adversative value following a negated utterance is known to BH, e.g. ‫י־מת‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאין נָ בוֹת ַחי ִכּ‬1Kg 21.15.425 The source text is Ex 23.7 ‫ר־שׁ ֶקר‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְדּ ַב‬ ‫תּ ְר ָחק‬, ִ where ‫ כל‬is missing, but found in LXX. Whereas the underlying source text is concerned about false claim or assertion, 1QS generalised the matter, dropping ‫שׁ ֶקר‬. ֶ ‫‘ ]אשר לוא ישיב איש מאנשי היחד על פיהם‬none of the community members shall answer according to their opinion’: we follow Licht (133) and Lohse (18) in reading H ‫ישיב‬. Q ‫ ישוב‬makes no sense here. Guilbert’s (42) “s’en remette” and García Martínez - Tigchelaar’s (81) ‘to acquiesce’ are imaginative, but I doubt that such a meaning of the verb is known elsewhere in Hebrew. ‫ על פיהם‬means ‘in accordance with what they say, their opinion.’ This is a well-known BH idiom, e.g. ‫‘ ַעל ִפּי ֵעד ֶא ָחד‬on the basis of what one witness states’ Dt 17.6. 1QS 5.16) ‫‘ ]ולוא ישתה‬and one should not drink.’ This is an abbreviated formulation for ‫ ואשר לוא ישתה‬on account of the parallelism with the immediately preceding ‫ואשר לוא יוכל מהונם כול‬, for we are not on absolute prohibition to drink anything; ‫ מהונם כול‬is understood as attached to ‫ ישתה‬as well. ‫אכל‬ ‫ ושׁתה‬means ‘to have a meal.’ ‫‘ לוא יקח מידם כול מאומה‬one shall not accept from them anything whatsoever’ 1QS 5.16. In QH ‫ מאומה‬is always used in a negated clause.426 In BH it occurs 32 times, and only in a few cases it is used in a positive sentence. Here ‫כול‬, which is often added to an indet. sg. noun to express absolute, categorical negation, is added. In BH we have ‫ כל‬added similarly, but without a negator in the sense of ‘anything at all’: 2Sm 3.35 ‫ם־ל ֶחם אוֹ‬ ֶ ‫בוֹא־ה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ ֶא ְט ַע‬ ַ ‫ם־ל ְפנֵ י‬ ִ ‫ִא‬ ‫אוּמה‬ ָ ‫ל־מ‬ ְ ‫כ‬. ָ In what immediately precedes we find ‫ כול‬used on its own as a direct object: literally translated, ‘one shall not eat nor drink anything.’ See SQH § 28 d. 1QS 5.17) ‫‘ ]אשר לוא במחיר‬without payment’: when a negated prepositional, adverbial phrase complements a verb, the former is optionally prefixed with ‫אשר‬ or -‫ש‬, e.g. ‫‘ אמ על רעהו ילון אשר לוא במשפט‬if he unfairly complains against his colleague’ 1QS 7.17, and ‫אשר יקום את רעהו שלו בעצה‬ ֯ ‘he who would avenge 425 426

More examples are mentioned in BDB s.v. ‫ ִכּ י‬3 e. See SQH § 5a c.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

121

his fellowman against advice’ 4Q266 10ii2.427 The syntagm with no ‫ אשר‬or -‫ש‬ prefixed occurs, e.g. in 1QS 7.4, on which see below ad loc. ִ The long quote that follows is almost verbatim from Is 2.22.428 On ‫ח ְד לוּ‬, Luzzatto (1970.39) takes it as meaning “‫‘ ”חדלו לבטוח באדם‬Stop relying on humans,’ mentioning Pr 23.4 ‫ ִמ ִבּינָ ְתָך ֲח ָד ל‬and ib. 3.5 ‫ל־ל ֶבָּך‬ ִ ‫ְבּ ַטח ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫ל־תּ ָשּׁ ֵען‬ ִ ‫ל־בּינָ ְתָך ַא‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬. In the next line later in our text we read ‫לוא ישען איש הקודש‬ : ‫על כול מעשה הבל‬. 1QS 5.18) ‫‘ ]להבדיל אותם‬one is to keep them away.’ The inf. cst. with obligative value is followed by an Impf. with the same value, ‫ולוא ישען איש הקודש‬ ‘no saint shall rely’ as in ‫‘ על אחד להבדיל הטהרה‬according to one (witness) the separation from the purity is to be established’ CD 9.23, followed by ‫אל יקובל‬ ‫‘ עוד‬no more (witness) is to be invited’.429 ‫ להבדיל אותם‬.. ‫‘ ]כול אשר‬all those who .. one is to segregate, them’: the extraposed constituent is often resumed by means of a conjunctive pronoun attached to one of the constituents of the following clause.430 The author could have written ‫להבדילם‬, i.e. ‫ילם‬ ֵ ‫ל ַה ְב ִדּ‬.ְ The selection of ‫ את‬is conditioned by the immediately following ‫ואת כול אשר להם‬, cf. SQH 31 fa 2). Similarly Ex 17.3 ‫ָל ָמּה זֶּ ה‬ ‫ת־מ ְקנַ י ַבּ ָצּ ָמא‬ ִ ‫ת־בּנַ י וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫יתנוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַריִ ם ְל ָה ִמית א ִֹתי וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ ֶה ֱע ִל‬in lieu of ‫יתנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ל ֲה ִמ‬,ַ though this 431 is not an obligatory rule. ‫‘ ]לוא ישען איש הקודש‬no saint shall rely’: we probably have here an abbreviated formulation for ‫ איש מאנשי הקודש‬with ‫ איש‬in categorical negation, for the statement is unlikely concerned with a specific saint, hence not “the man of holiness” (Wernberg-Møller 29).’432 Note ‫( אשר לוא ישוב איש מאנשי היחד‬line 15) and ‫ אל יואכל איש מאנשי הקדש‬4QSd+b for ‫( אשר לוא יוכל‬line 16). In the variant reading of 4QSd here, ‫ישענו על ֯כל מעשי ההבל‬ ֗ ‫ לא‬433, the standard impersonal construction with a 3mp verb is used. Here also applies what has 427 See SQH § 40 q. On a subtle difference between our phrase and ‫‘ ונמכר בלוא מחיר‬and it will be sold without payment’ 1Q27 lii7, see SQH § 40 ka, n. 8. 428 The only difference is the use of the long form ‫ הואה‬typical of QH. Habermann vocalises this pronoun consistently as ‫הוּאה‬ ַ as against Lohse’s ‫הוּאה‬. ָ If the form were stressed on the final syllable, it would be ‫הוּאה‬, ָ֫ because the final syllable is open unlike in ‫הוּקם‬. ַ If it were stressed on the first syllable, ‫וּאה‬ ַ ‫ ֫ה‬is unlikely. Habermann may have been thinking of the proto-Semitic archetype /húwa/, so also in Classical Arabic. However, it is problematic to impose the proto-Semitic and Arabic phonology on that of QH. Habermann vocalises ‫ היאה‬consistently as ‫יאה‬ ַ ‫ה‬. ִ In his six-page long discussion on these long pronouns in QH Kutscher (1974.434-40) does not touch on the nature of the final vowel; as a possible explanation of these forms he (p. 436) gives *hu:ʼa[:] and *hi:ʼa[:] as “the older forms,” hence in QH they did not necessarily pronounce the last vowel as long. In an e-mail correspondence (20.08.2020) Prof. Fassberg of Jerusalem shared my surprise. 429 For a discussion with further examples, see SQH § 18 c. 430 For more examples and a discussion, see SQH § 36 1. 431 In JM § 125 e ‫ת־ע ִמּי‬ ַ ‫יתנִ י וְ ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ ַל ֲה ִמ‬1Sm 5.10 is cited as one of a dozen exceptions. 432 For categorical negation with a singular noun, see SQH § 40 d, esp. with ‫ איש‬ib. § 5a a. Cf. Lohse (19) “kein Mann der Heiligkeit” and Vermes (104) “None of the men of holiness.” 433 We prefer the earlier restoration by Qimron in Charlesworth 1994.74 to his more recent one ‫( אנשי‬Qimron I 219).

122

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

just been said above on categorical negation. Though spelled with a final yod, ‫ מעשי‬is probably meant as singular, then the phrase is ellipsis for ‫כל מעשה‬ ‫ ממעשי ההבל‬with pl. cst. ‫מעשי‬. 1QS 5.19) ‫ ]כול אשר לוא ידעו את בריתו‬Because these people are condemned, this can hardly be about blissful ignorance, though ‫ ידעו‬is so translated here.434 Hence its tense might be retaining its preterite value: ‘they have not come to know,’ i.e. ‘they refused to study,’ ‘though they did try, their minds were distracted’ or for some other circumstance for which they themselves are to blame. ‫]כול מנאצי דברו ישמיד מתבל‬. If the verb is impersonally used, ‫ דברו‬scarcely means ‘his word,’ i.e. ‘one’s own word.’ Though God is not mentioned explicitly in the context, ‫ דברו‬mostly likely means ‘His word’; ‫ בריתו‬in the immediately preceding ‫ כול אשר לוא ידעו את בריתו‬can only be referring to God’s covenant. ‫ להשמיד‬in ‫מתבל‬ ֗ ‫ להשמיד‬4QSd must be injunctive just as ‫ישמיד‬. If the suffix pronoun of ‫דברו‬, however, refers to God, the subject of ‫ישמיד‬ could be God. Supposing the v.l. in 4QSd conveys the same message as a whole, the infinitive would then be left without its grammatical subject, which is not quite convincing.435 ‫‘ מתבל‬out of the world’: though a unique entity is designated with ‫תבל‬, this substantive, as in BH, is consistently anarthrous.436 The positioning of the object phrase ahead of the verb is probably due to its parallelism with the immediately preceding ‫כול אשר לוא ידעו את בריתו‬. ‫ כול מעשיהם לנדה‬is not a simple nominal clause and does not signify exactly the same as ‫כול מעשיהם נדה‬. Note the sensitivity to this subtlety in translations such as “deviennent une souillure” (Dupont-Sommer 24) and “sont considérés .. comme immondes” (van der Ploeg 120a). Cf. ‫יתם ִלי ְל ָעם וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬ ֶ ִ‫וִ ְהי‬ ‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֵל‬Ezk 36.28, where there is no question of similarity or likeness, thus pace “(sont) comme une souillure” (Guilbert 42). 1QS 5.20) ‫‘ ]טמא‬impurity.’ On this substantivised adjective, see above at 5.14 (p. 119). 1QS 5.20b - 6.1 5.20b) Now should someone wish to join the covenant to practise in accordance with all these rules to identify himself with the holy congregation, then one is to examine 5.21) his spiritual character in a general meeting, (consulting) each other in terms of his understanding and his practices in relation to the law 434 Except Wernberg-Møller “do not care for,” which, however, might be going a shade too far. Cf. SQH § 14 c. 435 DJD 26.95 supplies the subject with no comment: “He shall blot out.” 436 See SQH § 7 f (p. 22).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

123

with reference to the view of the sons of Aaron who commit themselves in the community to uphold 5.22) His covenant and pay attention to all His rules which He had commanded (us) to practise and according to the majority of Israel who commit themselves to return together to His covenant 5.23) and then one shall register them, one ahead of his colleague in accordance with his understanding and practices. Everyone is to adhere to the rule of seniority and one is to keep 5.24) paying attention to their spiritual character and practices year after year, promoting one in accordance with his understanding and his integrity of conduct or to demote him in accordance with his perversions. They are to remonstrate 5.25) one another with truth and humility and merciful love towards humans. They shall not speak with one another in anger or grudge 5.26) or with a [stiff] neck [or with an intensely] malicious attitude, nor should one hate him because the [foreskin] of his own mind but one should remonstrate him in [one’s own] lifetime and 6.1) he will not bear a punishment on his account. Nor shall anybody accuse a colleague in front of the Many without any proof in the presence of witnesses. In these ‫ ודרשו את רוחום‬.. ‫‘ ]כיא יבוא בברית‬should someone wish to join .., then one is to examine his spiritual character.’ Here we have a conditional statement with its protasis introduced with ‫ כיא‬437 and its apodosis with an apodotic waw introducing a w-qataltí form.438 Alternatively, ‫ כיא‬may be introducing a temporal clause followed by its main clause prefixed with an apodotic waw,439 though there is little difference between ‘when someone’ and ‘if someone.’ But “when he,” e.g. Wernberg-Møller (29),440 is a different story, for he would have to refer back to ‫ כול הבא‬in line 7, who is the only person explicit enough to be referred to with he,441 but in between there is so much, and the distance of nearly 15 lines renders such an analysis rather implausible. We would thus stick to the analysis of ‫יבוא‬ in our line as being impersonal. An indisputable example of ‫ום‬- for ‘his’ is ‫והכוהנים מספרים את צדקות אל‬ ‫‘ במעשי גבורתום‬and the priests shall be recounting deeds of justice in what God did with His mighty acts’ 1QS 1.21.442 And yet not a few scholars find ‘their’ 437 Charlesworth’s (25) “And therefore he shall ..” is implausible. Likewise Guilbert’s (42) “Au contraire (chacun) entrera.” 438 For more examples and a discussion, see SQH § 41 c. This syntactic detail was not noticed by Licht (134), who finds an apodosis missing. 439 On such a syntagm, see SQH § 45. 440 Likewise van der Ploeg (120a) “Et lorsqu’il.” 441 Brownlee (20) is very explicit on this: “Now, when he [i.e., the neophyte].” 442 Qimron (2018.114 § B 5.2.1) cites this as one of “a few words which ended with an open syllable, a nasal was affixed.” About the remaining (two) cases he wavers. Elsewhere (2018.285 § D 2.6.4) he discusses the word-final ‫ום‬- ‘their.’ The first example cited is ‫ רוחום‬1QS 9.14, where it can only mean ‘their spirit,’ because the conj. pron. refers to the immediately preceding ‫בני הצדוק‬ ‘the sons of Zadok.’ It is odd that Qimron, in either paragraph of his grammar, should not mention ‫ רוחום‬in our 1QS Column 5.

124

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

in ‫ום‬- of our ‫רוחום‬, though none of them tells us who they are.443 Cf. our discussion on ‫ גבורתום‬at 1.21 above (p. 10). 1QS 5.21) ‫ ]ביחד בין איש לרעהו‬what is meant is most likely that his candidature is examined in a general meeting, current members comparing notes. 1QS 5.22) ‫‘ ]את כול חוקיו אשר צוה לעשות‬all His rules which He commanded (for them, or for us) to implement.’ The subject of an infinitive may not be explicitly indicated, but can be easily inferred from the context. For a couple of BH examples, see ‫ר־צוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲעשׂ ֹת א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ֲא ֶשׁ‬Ex 35.1 and ‫ר־צוָּ ה‬ ִ ‫זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲעשׂוֹת‬Lv 8.5. The optional character of the feature is manifest in ‫ְל ַל ֵמּד‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים ַל ֲעשׂ ְֹת ֶכם א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם ֻח ִקּים‬Dt 4.14. In 1Sb 3.24 we read ‫פקדו כול חוקיו‬.֗ At the moment we are unable to account for the absence of the object marker, ‫את‬. See SQH § 31 d. Our text can be idiomatically translated ‘all His rules which He commanded to be implemented.’ However, it is unnecessary to postulate ‫ לעשות‬as an irregular spelling in lieu of ‫ =[ להעשות‬N ‫]ל ֵה ָעשׂו ֺת‬, ְ for the selection of the voice of an infinitive is more flexible in Hebrew than in English, cf. ‫‘ להמית הוא‬he shall be put to death’ CD 9.1 and ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַה ַשּׁ ַער ִל ְסגּוֹר‬Josh 2.5.444 1QS 5.23) ‫ ]וכתבם‬the context makes it plain that the verb is being impersonally used. We may be dealing here with a spelling irregularity, ‫וכתבום = וכתבם‬ [= ‫]וּכ ָתבוּם‬. ְ 445 Alternatively the verb may be singular, also impersonal, though a little awkward in view of ‫( ודרשו‬line 20), but note the two full-length intervening lines. An impersonal syntagm is also to be admitted in v.l. of 4QSd [= 4Q258 2.2], where we find an infinitive clause with injunctive value: ‫ולהכתב איש לפני רעה‬ ‘and they are to be registered, one ahead of his colleague.’446 Another impersonal form was suggested by Ginsberg,447 who would read ‫כ ְֹת ִבם‬, i.e. ptc. mpl. ‫ ]להשמע הכול איש לרעהו הקטן לגדול‬though the collocation ‫ רעהו‬.. ‫ איש‬or ‫ אחיו‬.. ‫ איש‬is often used for an indication of a reciprocal action as in ‫להוכיח איש‬ ‫‘ את רעהו‬they should remonstrate one another’ (line 24), this does not apply in this case: “to obey one another” (Wernberg-Møller 29)448 is a contradiction in 443 E.g. Lohse (21) “ihren Geist,” García Martínez - Tigchelaar (83) “their spirits,” van der Ploeg and Guilbert (42) (120a) “leur esprit,” and Wernberg-Møller (29) “their spiritual qualities.” The only exception is Martone (148), who, in spite of his translation “il suo spirito,” comments all the same: “il suffisso pl. è giustificato dal seguente byn ʼyš lrʻhw.” Jesus’ cry on the cross recorded by Mk (15.34), Ἐλωι ἐλωι is often said to be a Hebraised pronunciation of Aram. ‫א ָל ִהי‬, ֱ but the traditional qamats may have sounded close to /o/, “dunkele Aussprache” (Dalman 1930.43, n. 1). Then Jesus did not utter this cry in a Mischsprache. 444 For more examples, see JM § 124 t. 445 So Rabin 1958.67 ad CD 13.12. 446 On the non-standard spelling ‫ רעה‬for ‫]ר ֵעהוּ =[ רעהו‬, ֵ see a discussion in Qimron 2018.270f., § D 2.3.3.1. 447 According to Wernberg-Møller (99, n. 79), who does not say where. 448 Likewise García Martínez - Tigchelaar (83) “each one obeys another,” Lohse (21) “alle gehorsam sind, einer dem anderen,” Dupont-Sommer (24) “tous, ils obéissent l’un à l’autre” etc.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

125

terms, for obeying, by definition, presupposes hierarchy, as shown by the immediately following ‫הקטן לגדול‬, not ‫הקטן לגדול והגדול לקטן‬. This is not a question of reciprocity, but a universal code; in the community everyone is subordinate to someone else, but a father does not obey a son, whereas a son may remonstrate his father. ‫‘ ]להיות פוקדם את רוחם ומעשיהם שנה בשנה‬one shall be observing their spiritual character and deeds year after year’; it sounds like a frighteningly stringent probationary period. The continuous nature of the observation is underlined through the periphrastic structure. On the meaning of the verb G ‫‘ פקד‬to give thought to with interest,’ see ‫ לפקוד‬in the preceding line and ‫ר־ע ָשׂה ֲע ָמ ֵלק‬ ָ ‫ָפּ ַק ְד ִתּי ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬1Sm 15.2. 1QS 5.24) ‫‘ תום דרכו‬his integrity of conduct’] The parallelism with ‫ שׂכלו‬suggests that ‫ תום‬cannot be a verb as in ‫‘ עד תום דרכם‬until their conduct becomes faultless’ 10.21. ‫ ]נעוותו‬a new word, most likely derived from √‫עוי‬. The spelling of the v.l., ‫ נעותיו‬in 4QSd is more orthodox. The word occurs also a few more times in QH: ̇ ‫נעוות‬. 1QS 10.11 ‫נעוותי‬, 11.9 ‫נעוות לבבי‬, 1QHa 4.31 ̇‫לב ̇בי‬ ‫‘ ]להוכיח איש את רעהו‬they ought to remonstrate one another,’ another example of the infinitive of deontic value.449 1QS 5.25) ‫ ]אל ידבר אלוהיהי באפ‬Qimron’s (I 218) proposal to emend the nonsensical penultimate word to ‫ אל אחיהו‬is most sensible. One could go a step farther and insert ‫ איש‬before it. His brother, when one does not know whose brother is meant, does not sound right. Cf. the v.l. of 4QSd [= 4Q258 2.5] ‫אל‬ ‫ידבר איש אל רעהו באף‬. It is unlikely that ‫ איש‬in the preceding ‫להוכיח איש את‬ ‫ רעהו‬can continue to function as the grammatical subject of another clause.450 ‫ ָא ִחיו‬.. ‫ ִאישׁ‬or ‫ ָא ִחיהוּ‬.. ‫ ִאישׁ‬is a well-known combination expressing reciprocity along with its synonymous ‫ ֵר ֵעהוּ‬.. ‫אישׁ‬. ִ 451 It so happens that, in QH, the former is confined to CD, e.g. ‫ לדרוש איש את שלום אחיהו‬CD 6.21. This distribution pattern of the two formulas in QH suggests as possible an alternative emendation: ‫אל ידבר איש אל רעהו באפ‬. 1QS 5.26) ‫]בקנאת רוח רשע‬. ֯ This rare st. cst. phrase, ‫רוח רשע‬, occurs only once more: ‫יתהלכו בם‬ ֗ ‫רשע לו‬ ֗ ‫ ֗רוחי‬4Q511 1.6, where ‫ רוח‬most likely denotes some superhuman living being, so ‘wicked spirits do not walk about,’ which hardly applies to our text; the phrase is parallel to substantives, all denoting human attitudes: ‫ בעורפ קשה‬.. ‫ בתלונה‬.. ‫באפ‬. The v.l. of 4QSd [= 4Q258 2.5] 449

Licht (35, § 30) holds that the author of 1QS is fond of this syntagm “for the sake of brevity and sharpness of expression.” This syntagm, however, is quite extensively used in many other Qumran documents as well; see SQH § 18 c. 450 Thus pace Wise - Abegg - Cook (133): “He should not speak to him ..” We fail to see how Lohse (20f.) can translate his emended text as “Keiner soll zum anderen (‫)א ֵל יהוּ‬ ֵ sprechen ..” 451 Cf. SQH § 5 ab.

126

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

has a shorter version, but lacks ‫רוח‬: ‫בקנאת רשע‬. We might propose ‘with an intensely malicious attitude.’ In one case the two occur one next to the other: ‫ נקום ונטור איש לאחיהו ושנא איש את רעהו‬CD 19.18.452 ‫בעורלת לבבו‬ ̇ ‫ ]אל ישנאהו‬Assuming that the expression of reciprocity is still continuing we would suggest that the two suffix pronouns refer to two different persons, and we could mentally rewrite the clause as ‫אל ישנא איש את רעהו בעורלת‬ ‫לבבו‬. The restored ‫ בעורלת‬goes back to Brownlee (1951.23), though his “in the uncircumcision” is too literalistic. A causal force of the preposition is attested in BH, e.g. Gn 18.28 ‫ל־ה ִעיר‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫‘ ֲה ַת ְשׁ ִחית ַבּ ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ֶא‬Would you destroy the entire city because of five missing?’453 ‫ לבבו‬is equal to ‫ל ַבב ֵר ֵעהוּ‬.ְ When a 3ms verb is used impersonally, ‫ָבּא ְב ַל ְחמוֹ‬ could hardly mean ‘one came with his own food,’ for which ‫ בא ִאישׁ בלחמו‬is expected. ‫ בא בלחמו‬would normally mean ‘he came with bread for him [other than himself].’ ‫ ]כיא‬not causal “for,” but “but instead” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 83) and “sondern” (Lohse 21), what is idiomatic after a negative statement. ‫יחנּוּ = ]יוכיחנו‬ ֶ ‫יוֹכ‬. ִ The non-selection of ‫יחהוּ = יוכיחהו‬ ֵ ‫יוֹכ‬ ִ indicates that the 454 verb is not preceded by ‫אל‬, i.e. ‫אל‬. ַ ( )‫ ]ביומ‬In the plate we see two letters erased, for which Qimron (I 218) thinks ‫ יו‬are most likely.455 It would mean ‘in his days,’ i.e. ‘while he is still alive,’ and the immediately following clause, ‫ולוא ישא עליו עוון‬, could be an eschatological warning: ‘then he would not suffer a punishment on his [= his neighbour’s] account.’ For such a use of ‫ימי־‬ ֵ ‫בּ‬, ִ cf. ‫ ֶשׁ ִתּ ְבנֶ ה ִע ָירְך ִבּ ְמ ֵה ָרה ְביָ ֵמינוּ‬,‫ֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫‘ ה׳ ֱא‬o Lord our God, do please build Your city speedily whilst we are still alive’ mAb 5.20.

1QS COLUMN 6 1QS 6.1) ‫ ]עוון‬Like ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬the word also means a consequence of iniquity committed, a punishment. See BDB s.v. ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬3 and ‫ ָעוֹן‬3, similarly s.v. ‫ ֶפּ ַשׁע‬5. ‫‘ ]אל יביא איש‬nobody shall introduce.’ Though there is no absolute certainty, ‫ יביא‬can be parsed as H PS, an alternative spelling for ‫]יָ ֵבא =[ יבא‬, so a v.l. of 4QSi [= 4Q263 1]. ‫‘ ]אשר לוא בתוכחת‬without proof’: on the negation of a prepositional phrase modifying a verb, see above on 1QS 5.16. The text of 4QSd [= 4Q258 2.6], ֯ ‫אשר לא‬, ‫ אשר לא בהוכח‬also supported by CD 9.2 and 4QSi [= 4Q263 2] ‫בהוכ ֯ח‬ 452

For a fuller listing, see DCH s.v. I 178a. More BH examples are mentioned in BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬III 5. 454 On this significant differentiation, see SQH § 15 dae. 455 ‫ יומיו‬is certainly an anomalous spelling, which, however, does occur in 1QSa 1.7. See also above at 3.5. 453

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

127

appears to be amiss. ‫ בהוכח‬cannot be a defectiva spelling for H inf. ‫בהוכיח‬ [= ‫]בּהו ִֺכ ַיח‬ ְ 456, for none of the known values of the syntagm can apply here: temporal, causal, concessive.457 An emendation to ‫בּהו ָֺכ ָחה =[ בהוכחה‬, ְ H verbal noun] may be suggested; it can mean the same thing as ‫בתוכחת‬, ‘without (first) proving.’458 Qimron (2018.43) regards these as variant nominal patterns. 1QS 6.2 - 8a 6.2) they shall walk, wherever they happen to be dwelling, anybody that happens to be there with a fellowman, and they shall adhere to the code of seniority in respect of work and financial resources, and together they shall have a meal, 6.3) and say benedictions together, and consult together. And wherever there happen to be ten people out of the members of the community council there shall not be a priest absent in their number, 6.4) and they shall each sit according to his rank before him, and so shall they be asked for their opinion over any matter. And if they set the table to have a meal or to drink young wine 6.5) the priest shall be the first to put his hand out in order to bless the bread [or young wine to drink the priest shall be the first to put his hand out 6.6) to say a blessing over the bread] and the young wine and there shall not be absent in the place where there will be ten he who teaches the Torah day and night 6.7) constantly by turns among themselves and the Many shall, in the community, keep a vigil a third of every night throughout the year to read the Book and study statute(s) 6.8) and pronouncing benedictions together. 1QS 6.2) ‫‘ ]בכול מגוריהם‬wherever they dwell.’ “Dans toutes leurs réunions,” an interpretation proposed by van der Ploeg (120b) on the basis of Aquila’s συστροφαὶ αὐτῶν for ‫גוּרם‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬Ps 65.15, is attractive in view of the immediately preceding clause. However, there is no reason to confine all pieces of counsel offered here to the conduct of public meetings. Besides, ‫ ָמגו ֺר‬in the sense of ‘gathering’ does not sound plausible. ‫‘ ]כול הנמצא‬anybody that happens to be there.’459 The intended plurality is evident in its plural verb, ‫יתהלכו‬, construction ad sensum, and the following ‫‘ איש את רעהו‬mutually.’460 Note a rare BH instance of this spelling at ‫הֺֹכח‬ ַ ‫ ְל‬Jb 6.26. On the BH data, see BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬V, pp. 90b-91a. 458 On this sense of the verb here, not ‘to reproach, reprimand etc.’ cf. Ben Yehuda 1959 III s.v. 2033b-2034a and Kaddari 2007 s.v. 425a. So already Wernberg-Møller (29). Qimron (2018.43) regards these as alternative nominal patterns. The form ‫ הוכח‬in the same sense and in the same context appears in CD 9.3. 459 So Brownlee’s (22) “everyone who is present,” Guilbert’s (44) “tous ceux qui s(’y) trouvent,” and Lohse’s (21) “jeder, der sich dort mit einem anderen befindet.” Van der Ploeg’s (120b) “par rapport à tout ce qu’un homme est trouvé avoir avec (= contre) son prochain” is rather complicated. 460 On the syntagm כול ה‬, see SQH § 28 c. 456 457

128

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ]ישמעו הקטן לגדול‬There is no need to speak of number discord. We have an extension of the well-known formula for reciprocal expressions as in ‫לוקחים איש‬ ‫‘ את בת אחיהו‬they each marry his niece’ CD 5.7. Hence ‘they shall adhere to the code of seniority,’ cf. SQH 32 ef. ‫ הקטן‬is not the subject of the verb, hence no discord in number. ‫הקטן לגדול‬ is an adverbial adjunct, an extension of a very common structure in BH, e.g. ‫ שׁוּבוּ ִאישׁ ְל ֵביתוֹ‬1Kg 12.24, ‫ ל ֹא נֵ ֵלְך ִאישׁ ְל ָאהֳלוֹ וְ ל ֹא נָ סוּר ִאישׁ ְל ֵביתוֹ‬Jdg 20.8. Pace Wernberg-Møller (29) ‫ מלאכה‬does not mean ‘property’ in MH, for in any type of Hebrew for that matter.461 ‫‘ ]יחד יואכלו‬they shall have a meal together,’ where the adverb is fronted, so also in the following, parallel clauses, ‫‘ ויחד יברכו ויחד יועצו‬and they shall say blessings together and they shall discuss together,’ highlighting the unity and communal character of the life in the community.462 1QS 6.3) ‫‘ ]יהיה שם עשרה אנשים‬there happen to be there ten people’ is very anomalous with a glaring discord in number. We doubt that the fronting of the verb can account for the anomaly. Further on we are back to the normal syntax in ‫ יהיו שם העשרה‬ib. 6, clearly referring back to the earlier occurrence of the phrase.463 ‫ ]איש כוהן‬where no emphasis on the masculine gender of priests is intended. In this syntagm of apposition the first term is generic and the second specific, a feature well known in BH, e.g. ‫ ִאישׁ כּ ֵֹהן‬Lv 21.9 and ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ ִא ָשּׁה נְ ִב‬Jdg 4.4.464 The sentence beginning with ‫ ובכול מקום‬and ending with ‫ כוהן‬does not, pace Wernberg-Møller (102), form an anacolouthon. ‫ימש מאתם איש כוהן‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]אל‬there shall not be a priest absent.’ Likewise ‫אל ימש‬ (line 6) and ‫ אל ימש איש כהן‬CD 13.2. Unlike ‫וּמ ְשׁ ִתּי‬ ַ Zc 3.9 and ‫ ָמשׁוּ‬Nu 14.44, QH does not attest a form of this verb whose binyan can be morphologically indisputable as either G or H. Furthermore, in BH this verb can be intransitively used in H as well, e.g. ‫‘ לֹא יָ ִמישׁ ִמתּוְֹך ָהא ֶֹהל‬he would not leave the tent’ Ex 33.14. Among about some twenty attestations of this verb in QH we are at times faced with an epigraphical uncertainty as to whether one is to read a waw or yod in the middle and at other times we lack enough context to determine whether the verb is being used transitively or intransitively. Therefore, in our three QH examples, it is not certain whether ‫ ימש‬represents ‫ ָ֫י ָמשׁ‬or ‫י ֶמשׁ‬.ָ֫ 465 ‫ ]מאתם‬Like BH, QH knows a good number of compound prepositions whereby different perspectives expressed by multiple constituent prepositions are combined with one another. To illustrate our example, ‫מאתם‬, i.e. ‫ִמן ִא ָתּם < ֵמ ִא ָתּם‬ 461

He refers to Rabin (1958.38, n. ad CD 20.7), whom Wernberg-Møller misunderstood. On the syntactic significance of the fronting of adverbial forms, see SQH § 34 d. 463 See SQH § 32 c. On the otiose heh locale of 4QSg, ‫]ש[מה‬, see SQH § 10 a. 464 See SQH § 29 c, and for the BH usage, JM § 130 b. 465 For Qimron (2018.203 § C 3.2.3.8) the former is no option. Incidentally the references given there for ‫ אל ימש‬are faulty. 462

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

129

we could mention ‫ ֶעזְ ִר י ֵמ ִעם יְ הוָ ה‬:‫ל־ה ָה ִר ים ֵמ ַאיִ ן יָ בֹא ֶעזְ ִר י‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא ָשּׂא ֵעינַ י ֶא‬Ps 121.1f., where ‫ ֵמ ַאיִ ן‬is asking about a place where the poet’s help could come from, whereas ‫ ֵמ ִעם‬personalises the reply — God has a means of help ready at hand, it is with Him, thus different from ‫מיְ הוָ ה‬. ֵ Cf. SQH § 11 b. 1QS 6.4) ‫‘ ]איש כתכונו ישבו לפניו‬they shall each sit according to his rank before him.’ The selection of the plural form here accords with the BH model of distributive expression, e.g. ‫ת־ח ְרבּוֹ‬ ַ ‫‘ ִחגְ רוּ ִאישׁ ֶא‬Everybody, gird each his sword!’ 1Sm 25.13.466 In cases like these ‫ איש‬is not the grammatical subject. ‫‘ ]ישאלו לעצתם לכול דבר‬they will be asked for their opinion over any matter.’ The preposition -‫ ל‬of ‫ לעצתם‬is only seemingly analogous to what we find in BH clauses such as ‫ישׁ־ל ֵר ֵעהוּ ְל ָשׁלוֹם‬ ְ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ֲאלוּ ִא‬Ex 18.7. Our 1QS example cannot be transformed in the active voice as ‫להם לעצתם )יִ ְשׁ ַאל =( ישאל‬, for the BH example is about someone expressing his wish that someone else is well, which is evident in ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹאמר ֲה ָשׁלוֹם ֲא ִב‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָל ֶהם ְל ָשׁלוֹם וַ יּ‬Gn 43.27, where ‫ להם‬is equivalent to a dativus commodi, ‘and he said that he hoped everything was alright with them.’ By contrast, in ‫ ישאלו לעצתם‬it is about the priest trying to elicit information and inform himself of members’ view. Note the contrast between this determinate substantive and the indeterminate ‫שׁלו ֺם‬. ָ Illuminating is the determinate ‫ ָשׁלו ֺם‬in ‫יוֹאב וְ ִל ְשׁלוֹם ָה ָעם וְ ִל ְשׁלוֹם ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ִל ְשׁלוֹם‬2Sm 11.7. 1QS 6.5) ‫ ]הכוהן ישלח ידו לרשונה‬Brownlee’s (22) “the priest shall first stretch out his hand” is ambiguous; it can mean either that the priest shall be the first to do so or he shall do so as the first thing before doing anything else. The ambiguity is, however, absent in ‫הכהנים לראשונה והלוים שנים ובני ישראל שלושתם והגר‬ ‫ רביע‬CD 14.5, similarly ib. 3. Note also the opposition to ‫ אחרי‬as in ‫יעשה עולת‬ ‫ואחריה יעשה עולת בני יהוסף‬ ֗ ‫‘ בנימין לראישונה‬first .. thereafter ..’ 11Q19 24.12. Then “le prêtre sera le premier à étendre sa main” van der Ploeg (120b)467 must be what is meant here. However, in BH, the notion of ‘first .. thereafter’ ָ ‫יָ ְדָך ִתּ ְהיֶ ה־בּוֹ ָב ִראשׁוֹנָ ה ַל ֲה ִמיתוֹ וְ יַ ד ָכּ‬ is expressed with ‫בראשונה‬, e.g. ‫ל־ה ָעם ָבּ ַא ֲחר ֹנָ ה‬ Dt 13.10, see also ib. 17.7, 1Kg 17.13, Nu 10.13, 14. By contrast, ‫ ָל ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬means ‘formerly, previously,’ e.g. ‫ם־ה ִעיר‬ ָ ‫אוּלם לוּז ֵשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫ית־אל ו‬ ֵ ‫ם־ה ָמּקוֹם ַההוּא ֵבּ‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ‬ ֵ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ֶא‬ ‫ ָל ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬Gn 28.19, sometimes also with ‫ בראשׁונה‬as in ‫נִ גָּ ִפים ֵהם ְל ָפנֵ ינוּ ְכּ ָב ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ Jdg 20.32. Besides, the notion of ‘first, ahead of others’ is expressed with bare ‫ ראשונה‬as in ‫ זֶ ה יָ ָצא ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬Gn 38.28.468 The QH usage of ‫ לרשונה‬does not appear to be known elsewhere. ‫]להברך‬ ֿ which must mean ‘to bless,’ is extremely difficult. H ‫ ברך‬is unheard of. Neither N [= ‫]ל ִה ָבּ ֵרְך‬ ְ nor tD with ‫ ת‬assimilated gives good sense.469 An error 466

See SQH § 28 cf, and for the BH usage, JM § 147 d. Analogously García Martínez - Tigchelaar (83), Vermes (105), Charlesworth (27), Guilbert (44), Dupont-Sommer (26), and Martone (125). Lohse’s (21) “zuerst” is equivalent. 468 For BH data, see BDB s.v. ‫ ִראשֺֹׁן‬3. 469 The former is Qimron’s (2018.215, § C 3.3.5.1) analysis and the latter Kutscher’s (1974.346). 467

130

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

for ‫( לברך‬so three lines later) is not very convincing in view of ‫ להברכ‬in a long, redundant dittograph. A grace said prior to a meal, ‫בּ ְר ַכּת ָמזו ֺן‬, ִ must be meant. From ‫ או‬in the middle of the line up to ‫הלחם‬, the third word in line 6, is a long duplication, which probably came about when the scribe realised that he had inadvertently left out ‫ הלחם‬immediately after ‫לאכול‬, the third word from the end of line 4, and added it, but forgot to delete the duplication.470 1QS 6.6) ‫‘ ]במקום אשר יהיו שם העשרה‬in the place where the ten assemble,’ where both Habermann (65) and Lohse (22) vocalise ‫בּ ָמּקו ֺם‬, ַ but ‫ מקום‬can be in the st. cst., ‫ ְמקו ֺם‬as in ‫יוֹסף ָאסוּר ָשׁם‬ ֵ ‫ל־בּית ַהסּ ַֹהר ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא‬Gn 40.3, an analysis different from what we have presented in SSQ § 21 d, p. 146, n. 2.471 ‫‘ ]איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬a man who teaches the law day and night.’ The ‫ ב־‬rection may be selected to refer to an action undertaken with dedication, perseverance or attentiveness, and so also in the next line, ‫ישקודו ביחד את שלישית‬ ‫‘ כול לילות השנה לקרוא בספר ולדרוש משפט‬they shall keep vigil together a third of every night throughout the year to read the book and ..’472 We have here an interesting lexicographical matter round two contextually related verbs, namely ‫ דרשׁ‬and ‫קרא‬. The first instance of ‫ דרשׁ‬is mostly understood as meaning ‘to study,’ cf. ‫יטב ִדּ ְרשׁוּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ֵ ‫ ִל ְמדוּ ֵה‬Is 1.17, where ‫ דרשׁ‬is parallel to ‫למד‬, and takes ‫ משׁפט‬as its object as in the second instance of the verb in our text in the next line, ‫לקרוא בספר ולדרוש משפט‬. However, this leads to a difficult grammatical problem, namely that of the preposition -‫ ל‬in what follows: ‫תמיד }על יפות{ איש לרעהו‬. In this well-known expression for reciprocity, ‘each other, one another,’ a zero-object marker (‫ )את‬or a preposition is always found joining the two nouns, and its selection is conditioned by the lead verb, ‫ דרשׁ‬in this case; e.g. ‫ל־ר ֵעהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֹאמרוּ ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ְ ‫‘ וַ יּ‬they said to one another’ Gn 11.3. However, ‫ דרשׁ‬does not mark its indirect object by means of ‫ל־‬.473 As a matter of fact the common interpretation applied here makes ‫ בתורה‬the direct object of the verb. Our analysis is close to Brownlee’s (22) rendition: “a man who expounds the Torah .., [expounding orally each to his fellow.”474 In MH, though not in BH, our verb can mean ‘to teach, lecture (about),’ and interestingly enough in two examples mentioned by Jastrow (1903, s.v. Qal 3) the verb marks its direct object with -‫ב‬: ‫ֹלשׁה‬ ָ ‫‘ ֵאין דּו ְֺר ִשׁין ָבּ ֲע ָר יו ֺת ַבּ ְשּׁ‬one does not teach about incests in the presence of three people’ mHag 2.1 and ‫ָהיָ ה יו ֵֺשׁב וְ דו ֵֺרשׁ ְבּ ַהגָּ דו ֺת‬ 470 Qimron has enclosed the duplicated text with { }, which is his own addition not found in the manuscript. 471 For a discussion and relevant examples in BH and QH, see JM § 129 q b 2 and SQH § 44 e respectively. 472 Cf. Malessa 2006.80-83. 473 Wernberg-Møller’s (30) translation “(the members) relieving one another” need demonstrate that such a notion of mutual relief justifies the use of -‫ל‬. Likewise Guilbert’s (44) “en se relayant l’un l’autre.” Lohse’s (23) “.. im Gesetz forscht .. einer nach dem anderen” is as problematic. 474 His “orally” derives from his emendation of ‫ על יפות‬to ‫על פיות‬.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

131

‫‘ ֶשׁל דּו ִֺפי‬he would sit and lecture on objectionable interpretations of (biblical) narratives’ bSanh 99b. We are not aware of any instance of ‫ דרשׁ‬in the sense of ‘to teach’ marking its indirect object, namely a person to be taught, by means of -‫ל‬. However, there are a number of indisputable examples of an important and high frequency synonym D ‫ למד‬taking -‫ ל‬instead of a far more frequent zero-object, e.g. ‫ִל ַמּ ְד ִתּי‬ ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם ֻח ִקּים‬Dt 4.5 and ‫ ֲא ַל ְמּ ָדה פ ְֹשׁ ִעים ְדּ ָר ֶכיָך‬Ps 51.15. Examples with -‫ ל‬are ‫ַה ְל ֵאל‬ ‫ד־דּ ַעת‬ ָ ‫ יְ ַל ֶמּ‬Jb 21.22, ‫ ללמד ביעקב חקיו ועדותיו ומשפטיו לישראל‬Si 45.5, ‫וללמד‬ ‫ לפשעים חקיך ולכל עזביך תו֯ ֯רתך‬4Q372 1.27, in which last case the contrast with Ps 51.15 quoted here is noteworthy. Our 1QS example could then belong here. Taking our verb in the sense of ‘to study,’ Guilbert (45) and Wernberg-Møller (103) see here the piety codified in Ps 1.2 practised: ‫תוֹרתוֹ‬ ָ ‫וּב‬ ְ ‫תוֹרת יְ הוָ ה ֶח ְפצוֹ‬ ַ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫יוֹמם וָ ָליְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫יֶ ְהגֶּ ה‬. In the next line we find ‫דרשׁ‬, probably in the sense of ‘to study,’ in conjunction with ‫‘ קרא‬to read.’ To take ‫ הגה‬as meaning ‘to meditate’ has a time-honoured, respectable tradition going back to LXX μελετήσει,Vulg. meditabitur, Pesh. nethaggē, Trg mrannen, Rashi ‫כל לשׁון הגה בלב הוא‬, followed by Ibn Ezra and Qimhi.475 There is no doubt that the verb indicates a mental activity, e.g. ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ ִל ְבָּך יֶ ְהגֶּ ה ֵא‬Is 33.18 (with ‫ לב‬as the subject).476 On the other hand, the verb can indicate an act of uttering some audible sound as in ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יֶ ְהגֶּ ה ָה ַא ְריֵ ה וְ ַה ְכּ ִפיר‬ ‫ל־ט ְרפּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬Is 31.4, where a lion is scarcely depicted as pondering how best to attack its prey. Likewise ‫ ֶא ְהגֶּ ה ַכּיּוֹנָ ה‬Is 38.14. At Ps 1.2 Aquila has φθέγξεται and Syh. nmallel. In this context reference is often made to Josh 1.8 ‫יוֹמם וָ ַליְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫ית בּוֹ‬ ָ ִ‫וְ ָהג‬, where, however, it is preceded by ‫תּוֹרה ַהזֶּ ה ִמ ִפּיָך‬ ָ ‫לֹא־יָ מוּשׁ ֵס ֶפר ַה‬, so that reading the Torah aloud is probably meant. In the context of our 1QS passage we have ‫לקרוא בספר‬, which must mean reading the Scripture aloud, for the notion of silent reading was alien to ancient culture.477 1QS 6.7) ‫ ]על יפות‬to be emended to ‫‘ חליפות‬by turns,’ so Qimron I 220.478 ‫‘ ]ישקודו ביחד את שלישית כול לילות השנה‬they shall keep a vigil a third of every night of the year together.’ The use of ‫ את‬to mark a duration of a period of time is known to BH, though not very frequent, e.g. ‫ַמצּוֹת יֵ ָא ֵכ ל ֵאת ִשׁ ְב ַעת ַהיָּ ִמים‬ Ex 13.7.479 ‫ ָק ָרא ב־ ]לקרוא בספר‬as distinct from ‫ קרא את‬can be assigned a meaning of ‘to read intensively, attentively,’ see SQH § 31 eb, p. 191. 475

Cf. Saadia’s yadrusu ‘he studies.’ HALOT 1994.237 s.v. has totally opted for the aspect of vocal expression, thus here “to mutter while meditating,” but does a human heart mutter, in spite of cri de cœur imported from French into English? 477 Otherwise Philip the evangelist would not have been able to overhear an Ethiopian travelling in a carriage reading the book of Isaiah (Acts 8.28). 478 An emendation first proposed in 1952 by Yalon 1967.72, so Sonne 1957.406 and WernbergMøller (41). 479 For other BH references, see BDB s.v. ‫ ֵאת‬2 b and JM § 126 i. 476

132

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS 6.8b - 13a 6.8b) And this is the guideline for the seating at a general assembly, each person in accordance with his rank: the priests shall take a seat first, and the elders in the second (row), and the rest 6.9) of all the people shall seat themselves, each in accordance with his rank, and thus they shall be asked for an opinion and proposal or any issue over which the Many shall answer one another 6.10) to the community council. None shall speak in the middle of the speech of a fellow member of his before his brother has finished speaking nor shall one speak before (his colleague) whose written rank is 6.11) before him. The person who has been asked shall speak in his turn. And at an assembly of the Many none shall speak about anything whatsoever without the consent of the Many with the exception of the inspector 6.12) of the Many. And anybody who has a matter to raise with the Many, though not authorised to ask the council 6.13) of the community, he may get on his feet and say, ‘I have a matter to raise with the Many.’ If they tell him to, he may speak. 1QS 6.8) ‫‘ ]מושב הרבים‬the seating at a general assembly.’ ‫ מושב‬is translated as “session” by Wernberg-Møller (30), Brownlee (24), Guilbert (44), “séance” Dupont-Sommer (26). The average English speaker would not be aware of the etymology and the obsolete meaning of session. The Hebrew word may not mean here ‘assembly, meeting,’ but ‘seating’ as a verbal noun of ‫יָ ַשׁב‬, cf. van der Ploeg’s (120b) “s’asseoir.”480 But in ‫סרך מושב כל המחנות‬ ׄ CD 14.3 it is about the conduct of an assembly and the question of seating is marginal, mentioned only with ‫( וכן ישבו‬line 6). None the less, the word ‫ מושב‬in our 1QS passage is immediately followed by ‫‘ איש בתכונו‬everyone in accordance with his rank’ and is later reinforced with ‫שאר כול העם ישבו איש בתכונו‬, which suggests a focus on the question of seating. Then follow rules pertaining to other aspects of how to conduct a general assembly. ‫‘ ]והזקנים בשנית‬the elders in the second (row).’ Though the preposition -‫ ב‬differs from -‫ ל‬in the parallel ‫ הכוהנים ישבו לרשונה‬they probably mean two different things, i.e. temporal vs. locational. ‘The priests shall sit first (before anyone else does).’ It is probably taken for granted that they are going to sit up front, ָ with the elders behind them.481 For row we might supply ‫שׁוּרה‬. The fs form for ‘second’ is, as in BH, consistently ‫ שנית‬in QH.482 1QS 6.9) ‫‘ להשיב איש את מדעו‬to answer one another,’ ‫ מדעו‬perhaps = ֺ ‫מ ָֹד עו‬. On this rendition of ‫מדע‬, see Licht (93), who also refers to ‫‘ אשר יכחס במדעו‬he 480

Milik’s (145) “consessus” is equivocal. We would revise the translation offered in SQH § 6 d to read “the priests shall seat themselves first and the elders in the second (row).” 482 Qimron (2018.351, n. 332) rejects ‫ שנה שניה‬4Q 330 1ii3 in DJD 21.153; in the photo of the fragment, in agreement with Qimron, we clearly see ‫שנית‬. At 6Q9 57.3 Qimron, pace ‫נפש שניה‬ DJD 3.122, restores ‫נפש שניהם‬. ֗ ‫ ְשׁנִ יָּ ה‬is typical of MH. 481

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

133

who lies against his fellowman’ 1QS 7.3 and ‫‘ או יעשה רמיה במדעו‬or practises fraud ..’ ib. 5, which is parallel to the immediately preceding ‫אשר ידבר את רעהו‬ ‫‘ במרים‬he who speaks with .. with haughtiness’ with a more standard ‫רעהו‬, similarly ‫‘ כול רעי ומודעי נדחו ממני‬all my companions and acquaintances withdrew from me’ 1QHa 12.10.483 These parallel passages indicate that ‫ מדע‬here unlikely signifies ‘knowledge’ (= ‫)מ ָדּ ע‬. ַ 1QS 6.10) ‫]וגם אל ידבר לפני תכונו הכתוב לפניו‬. ֿ The clause structure is cumbersome. What is meant must be: ‘nor shall one speak before (his colleague) whose written rank is before him.’ 1QS 6.11) ‫‘ ידבר בתרו‬he shall speak in his turn.’ The spelling ‫ בתרו‬occurs also in CD 14.11.484 In its two BH examples we find ‫‘ תֹּר‬turn’ Est 2.12, 15, spelled defectiva in both cases.485 Qimron’s (2018.323, n. 218) remark that *‫ ֵתּר‬may be intended is uncalled for.486 ‫‘ ]אל ידבר איש כול דבר אשר לוא להפצ הרבים‬nobody shall speak of any matter without the consent of the Many.’ ‫ להפצ‬is generally recognised to be an error for ‫לחפץ‬. The prepositional phrase, however, can be also analysed as modifying ‫כול‬ ‫דבר‬, as done by Wernberg-Møller (30) with his “anything which is not according to the pleasure of the Many”; such can stand in a subject-less relative clause as in ‫‘ האות הגדולה אשר בראש כול העם‬the great standard which is at the head of the whole people’ 1QM 3.13, where, however, the antecedent is determinate. This is the case with the overwhelming majority of instances in BH and QH487; the only possible exception is ‫אשׁר עליהמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כסף וזהב‬silver and gold which is on them’ 11Q19 2.8488 < Dt 7.25. Thus our phrase is more likely to be an adverbal adjunct rather than adnominal. See also above at 5.17 and SQH § 40 q. ‫ ]וכיא האיש המבקר על הרבים‬syntactically amiss, as clearly seen by Licht (144). Pace Wernberg-Møller (30) “and, indeed, of the Inspector over the Many” it is unacceptable to construe this noun phrase as a nomen regens in relation to ‫חפצ‬ in the preceding ‫חפצ הרבים‬.489 Can such a ‫ כי‬intervene between the two nouns in Licht’s reference to ‫‘ והואה יודע‬and when he knew of it’ 1QS 6.25 is erroneous. Qimron (2018.323, n.218) mentions ‫ בתרה‬11Q5 21.11 [correct Qimron’s xxii to xxi]. But ‫‘ באה לי בתרה‬it [= ‫‘ ָח ְכ ָמה‬wisdom’] came to me in its turn’ makes no sense; ‫ בתרה‬must mean ‘in its beauty [= ‫]תּאֳ ָרהּ‬.’ ָ 485 Yalon (1967.81) sees emending to ‫ תור‬unwarranted. 486 The etymology of ‫ תֹּר‬is obscure, cf. Klein 1987 s.v. 695c. 487 Cf. JM § 130 f-fa and SQH § 27 b, 33 db ii. 488 Levinson (2016.14) follows Yadin, restoring ‫;אשר תוקש בו כי תועבה הוא לי‬ ֗ by so doing they are dislocating the clause beginning with ‫תוקש‬, which, in the MT, follows ‫וְ ָל ַק ְח ָתּ ָלְך‬, and with “lest” for ‫ אשׁר‬Levinson, probably unwittingly, is translating MT ‫ ֶפּן‬in ‫ ֶפּן ִתּוָּ ֵקשׁ‬Dt 7.25. One could, of course, translate ‘with which you could be ensnared’ (Impf. of theoretical possibility). 489 To introduce here an emphatic ‫ כי‬as done by Wernberg-Møller (105, n. 30) sounds ad hoc. Brownlee (24), with no comment on ‫כיא‬, translates: “the pleasure of the Many and the request of the man who is Supervisor.” Wernberg-Møller (loc. cit.) insists that his analysis is supported by three examples of ‫ ִכּ י‬in BH: 1Sm 24.20, Is 36.19, Jb 39.27. Though none of these 483 484

134

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

a cst. chain? No less difficult is Lohse’s (23) “und wenn er auch der Aufseher über die Vielen ist,” for we do not know of a concessive force of ‫כי‬.490 The most likely intention of our author is best expressed by García Martínez - Tigchelaar (85) with their “save the Inspector ..,” for which, however, one expects ‫ כי אם‬and without the conjunction waw, e.g. ‫ם־א ְר ַבּע ֵמאוֹת ִאישׁ־נַ ַער‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא־נִ ְמ ַלט ֵמ ֶהם ִאישׁ ִכּי ִא‬ ‫ל־הגְּ ַמ ִלּים וַ יָּ נֻ סוּ‬ ַ ‫ר־ר ְכבוּ ַע‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁ‬.491 Then we might have here a scribal error for ‫כי אם‬ for ‫?וכיא‬492 1QS 6.12) .. ‫‘ ]וֿ כול איש אשר יש אתו דבר‬and anybody who has a matter to raise ..,’ which introduces a long, virtual protasis, and followed by an apodosis introduced with the conjunction waw in ‫‘ ועמד האיש על רגליהו‬then the person shall stand up’ (line 13).493 ‫‘ ]אשר לוא במעמד האיש השואל‬when the person who poses questions is not standing,’ following Licht (144). ‫ מעמד‬can be seen as a verbal noun equivalent to an inf. cst., thus = ‫בּ ֲעמֹד‬. ַ Postulating an inadvertent confusion between ‫ ח‬and ‫ע‬, hence ‫ מחמד‬instead of ‫מעמד‬, Wernberg-Møller (30, 106) offers “without of the man ..,” for which our author could have said ‫אשר לוא לחפץ‬ ‫ האיש השואל‬as in the preceding line. The rendering “fonction” by Guilbert (46) in his “qui n’est pas, par fonction, l’homme (habilité à) demander ..” can be justified by the use of the noun as in ‫ ַמ ֲע ָמ ָדם‬1Ch 23.28, and similarly van der Ploeg’s (121a) “qui n’appartient pas à la section de l’homme ..,” for this way our author would be defending a member acting out of office. This last interpretation appears to us the most likely, albeit not perfect. ‫ האיש השואל וגו׳‬could be in apposition to the preceding ‫‘ כול איש אשר וגו׳‬whoever wishes to raise a matter ..’ 1QS 6.13) ‫‘ ]רגלוהי‬his feet,’ a blatant Aramaism. Qimron (2018.277) has noted more than ten similar examples, including three more in 1QS: ‫‘ עינוהי‬his eyes’ 5.5, ‫‘ חוקוהי‬his statutes’ 5.11, ‫‘ לפנוהי‬before him’ 6.26. In his analysis of this feature Qimron follows Ben-Ḥayyim (1954.90f.). According to them this is “merely an orthographic convention indicating the sound o, as in the Samaritan tradition.” However, it is rather inconceivable that Qumran scribes (and Hebrew speakers) should have uttered /raglo/ or /‘eno/ and have expected examples was discussed by us, our conclusion on the emphatic ‫ ִכּ י‬can be applied to them: Muraoka 1985.158-64, esp. 164. 490 Cf. also Dupont-Sommer’s (26) “ou à moins qu’il ne soit l’inspecteur des Nombreux” and Guilbert’s (46) “sauf le surveillant ..” 491 For more examples in BH, see BDB s.v. ‫ ִכּ י ִאם־‬2 a. 492 ‫ כי‬preceded by a negator as in ‫י־ה ֵשׁב ָתּ ִשׁיבוּ לוֹ ָא ָשׁם‬ ָ ‫יקם ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ל־תּ ַשׁ ְלּחוּ אֹתוֹ ֵר‬ ְ ‫ ַא‬1Sm 6.3 is distinct, for it is a disjunctive statement, . For more similar examples in BH, see BDB s.v. ‫ ִכּ י‬3 e. 493 On the so-called waw apodoseos, see SQH § 41 c, where examples of protases introduced with ‫ כול‬are mentioned. ‫ וכול איש‬here is virtually equivalent to ‫ואם איש‬. Charlesworth (29), having accepted the proposal by Rofé (1992.319-21), reads ‫יכיל‬, translated ‘restrain,’ which has been rejected by Qimron (I 22) on epigraphical grounds.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

135

the audience to think as if Hebrew made no phonetic distinction between ‘his leg’ and ‘his legs’ or ‘his eye’ and ‘his eyes.’ Qimron mentions four Qumran Aramaic examples as supporting his analysis of this QH ‫ והי‬suffix: ‫‘ נחירוה‬his nostrils’ 11Q10 36.5, ‫‘ אלו‬to him’ 1Q20 20.26, ‫‘ אנפיוה‬his face’ 4Q544 1.14, and ‫עלוי‬ ‘on it’ 11Q18 9.4494. ‫‘ ]יש אתי דבר לדבר לרבים‬I have a matter to raise with the Many,’ an example of an inf. cst. complementing a substantive; see SQH § 18 i. ‫ ]יומרו לו‬somewhat elliptic for (‫יומרו לו דבר )= ַדּ ֵבּר‬. 1QS 6.13b - 23 6.13b) And everyone out of Israel that commits himself 6.14) to be added to the council of the community, the person placed at the head of the Many shall investigate him in respect of his comprehension and practices, and if he is likely to attain to a disciplined life, one shall admit him 6.15) into the covenant for him to return to the truth and to move away from every iniquity and one shall help him to understand every one of the statutes of the community and thereafter, when he enters to stand before the Many, everybody will be asked 6.16) about matters relating to him, and depending on how the outcome on the view of the general assembly emerges he shall be either admitted or rejected, and should he be admitted to the council of the community, he shall not touch the pure things of 6.17) the Many until one investigates him in respect of his stance and his practices, until a full year has elapsed for him, nor may he get involved in the property of the Many, 6.18) and when a year has elapsed for him within the community the Many shall ask about matters relating to him in respect of his comprehension and his practices in the law, and if the decision falls for him 6.19) to be admitted to the assembly of the community in accordance with the view of the priests and the multitude of members of their covenant, they shall entrust his property and his possessions also with the man 6.20) who takes care of the possessions of the Many, and he shall record them in the log book with his own hand and he shall not expend it for the benefit of the Many. He shall not touch the drink of the Many until 6.21) a second year has expired for him within the people of the community, and on the expiration of the second year one shall examine him in the light of the view of the Many, and if the 494

To which 11Q18 8.3 should be added. Each of these QA instances is problematic in one way or other. Fitzmyer (2004.210) is doubtful that Aramaic of the period concerned used ‫ אל‬as a preposition; Cook (2015) does not register such. If the author of 1Q20, for whatever reason, decided to borrow this Hebrew preposition, he may have Hebraised its morphology as well. À la Qimron we would have expected to find ‫עלו‬ instead of ‫עלוי‬. Besides, the author of this document shows the standard spelling elsewhere, e.g. ‫עלוהי‬, ‫‘ רגלוהי וקרבוהי‬its feet and intestines’ and others; for details see Muraoka 2011.45 § 12 n. Thus the possibility of scribal error is to be taken into account, which applies also to ‫ נחירוה‬and ‫אנפיוה‬, for which latter we expect ‫ אנפוה‬anyway. On the former, cf. Sokoloff 1974.165.

136

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

decision 6.22) falls to admit him into the community, one shall enter him in his rank among his colleagues in respect of the law and the statutes and the purity and have his property pooled, and may his view belong 6.23) to the community, and so his determination! ‫המתנדב‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]כול‬everyone who expresses himself to be willing.’ We touched above on the syntagm, , with reference to ‫( כול הנמצא‬line 2). The binyan tD here has simulating value: ‘to act or declare oneself to be willing, inclined (‫)נָ ִדיב‬.’495 This long, extraposed constituent ending with ‫( היחד‬14) is resumed with an object pronoun in ‫ידורשהו‬, cf. SQS § 36 1). 1QS 6.14) ‫ל ִהוָּ ֵסיפ = ]להוסיפ‬,ְ a rare plena spelling, so Qimron (2018.68).496 ‫‘ ]ידורשהו‬he shall question him.’ The spelling is unorthodox in lieu of ‫= ידרשהו‬ ‫יִ ְד ְר ֵשׁהוּ‬.497 ‫‘ ]אם ישיג מוסר יביאהו בברית‬if he is likely to attain to a disciplined life, one shall admit him into the covenant.’ The Impf. ‫ ישיג‬has the value of theoretical possibility (SQH § 15 dae): we are here looking at the procedure of examination of candidates. If the examiner becomes satisfied with a candidate’s potential, he may be admitted then and there, not waiting to see how he is going to perform. 1QS 6.15) ‫]והבינהו‬, so read by Qimron (I 220).498 Different forms have been reconstructed as the original: ‫ ולבינהו‬Qimron and Charlesworth (28, fn. 181), and ‫ ויבינהו‬Licht (149). A modally coloured Impf., ‫( יביאהו‬line 14), can be followed by as in ‫רוּשׁ ָלםִ כֹּל יְ ֵמי ַחיֶּ יָך‬ ָ ְ‫יְ ָב ֶר ְכָך יְ הוָ ה ִמ ִצּיּוֹן ְוּר ֵאה ְבּטוּב י‬ Ps 128.5.499 To apply this model to our case here runs into one serious difficulty, namely throughout our document the community is not addressed in the second person, you, whether sg. or pl. Thus the 2sg Impv. ‫הבינהו‬, i.e. ‫וַ ֲה ִבינֵ הוּ‬ continuing an impersonal 3ms ‫ יביאהו‬is unlikely. Grammatically speaking, both Charlesworth’s (28) ‫( יהבינהו‬asyndetic) and Habermann’s ‫יה ִבינֵ הוּ‬ ָ ִ‫( ו‬syndetic) are acceptable. 495

Cf. SQH § 12 f. Qimron mentions an alternative, Hif. ‫הוֹסיפ‬, ִ so vocalised by Habermann (66), not very plausible in our view, for it is different from the vague Hif. inf. in ‫ ְשׁנַ יִ ם ִמכֹּל יָ בֹאוּ ֵא ֶליָך ְל ַה ֲחיוֹת‬Gn 6.20. God was not commanding the animals, but He told Noah to see to it that two animals from every species entered the ark, so that the intention is basically the same as ‫ל־בּ ָשׂר ְשׁנַ יִ ם ִמכֹּל ָתּ ִביא‬ ָ ‫ִמ ָכּ‬ ‫ל־ה ֵתּ ָבה ְל ַה ֲחי ֹת ִא ָתְּך‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬ib. 19. 497 More QH examples are listed in Qimron 2018.194. 498 In a footnote ad loc. Qimron writes that the obj. suffix is problematic. In BH ‫ ִשׂמֳּ ָחהוּ‬Je 20.15 in lieu of ‫ ִשׂ ְמּחוֹ‬is the only exceptional instance, JM § 62 c. Habermann’s (66) ‫יה ִבינֵ הוּ‬ ָ ִ‫ ו‬is unlikely; the second letter is no yod, but the bottom of a lamed corrected. 499 JM § 116 f 2 analyses the Impv. indirectly indicating a purpose. See our reservation on such an analysis at ib. § 116 b, fn. 2. Note the LXX here: εὐλογήσαι .. καὶ ἴδοις, both in the optative mood. 496

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

137

‫‘ ]ואחר בבואו לעמוד לפני הרבים ונשאלו הכול על דבריו‬and thereafter, when he enters to stand before the Many, everybody will be asked about matters relating to him.’ The conjunction waw of ‫ ונשאלו‬is apodotic500 as in ‫וּק ַב ְר ֶתּם א ִֹתי‬ ְ ‫מוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ְבּ‬ 501 1Kg 13.31 and ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ְבּיוֹם ֲא ָכ ְל ֶכם ִמ ֶמּנּוּ וְ נִ ְפ ְקחוּ ֵעינ‬Gn 3.5. 1QS 6.16) ‫כול ]הכול‬, as in BH, can be used as a self-standing substantive whether articular or not. Whether it means ‘everything’ or ‘everybody’ depends on the context.502 ‫‘ ]כאשר יצא הגורל על עצת הרבים‬depending on how the outcome on the view of the general assembly emerges.’ Since the suitability or otherwise of a candidate is subjected to an extensive enquiry, the noun ‫ גורל‬must be here used figuratively, unlike in ‫גּוֹר ל לוֹ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ ֶאל ֲא ֶשׁר־יֵ ֵצא לוֹ ָשׁ ָמּה ַה‬Nu 33.54, for instance.503 This old method of reaching a decision had not died out in the first century CE yet, as we learn from ‫יחים‬ ִ ‫ל־ע ְשׁ ֵתּי ָע ָשׂר ַה ְשּׁ ִל‬ ַ ‫ל־מ ִתּיָּ ה וַ יִּ ָסּ ַפח ֶא‬ ַ ‫ וַ יִּ פֹּל ַהגּו ָֺר ל ַע‬Acts 1.26 (Franz Delitzsch’s translation). 1QS 6.17) ‫‘ ]עד אשר ידרושהו‬until one investigates.’ The spelling of the verb is unorthodox for the expected ‫ידרשהו‬.504 One could have expected here ‫ידרושנו‬ as against ‫( ידורשהו‬line 14), where the volitive value can be admitted for the verb. Though QH is not completely consistent as regards this complementary distribution, it does generally adhere to it.505 ‫‘ ]עד מו לאת לו שנה תמימה‬until a full year has elapsed for him.’ Qimron’s (2018.83) phonological analysis of ‫ מולאת‬is not quite satisfactory, since he is dealing with a waw representing the vowel o by means of a digraph, either ‫ או‬or ‫וא‬. Then the position of the waw would be odd. The consonant probably represents a shva: cf. ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ד־מלֹאת לוֹ ָשׁנָ ה ְת ִמ‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬Lv 25.30. In the following line the same word is spelled with a waw on the line, not added above it. Noteworthy is the spelling ‫ מלאות‬in ‫עד מלאות‬ ֗ 4QSd 7.2 for ‫ עד מולאת‬1QS 8.26 and ‫עד מלאות‬ e 4QS 2.5 for ‫ על מלואת‬1QS 7.22.506 Besides, Licht (150) justly points out that our author and / or scribe(s) are themselves confused: other than ‫ מולאת‬we find ‫( מלואת‬1QS 7.20) and ‫( מולואת‬1QSa 1.10).507 The forms with a waw after a lamed seem to suggest that the verb ‫ מלא‬had effectively become ‫מלי‬, an alef still left 500

Cf. SQH § 41 c. On the usage in BH, see JM § 176. 502 For details, see SQH § 28 a. 503 Cf. Brownlee (19, fn. 10 on 1QS 5.3). 504 More examples are mentioned in Qimron 2018.194. 505 Cf. SQH § 15 dai for a few more examples which go against this complementary scheme. 506 The 4QSd reading is not mentioned by Qimron, op. cit., loc. cit. 507 The last form is said by Qimron (2018.95) to have sounded /mullôt/, though he does present ‫*מל ֹאת‬ ְ (p. 83). He apparently parses the form as a Pual infinitive, cf. also ib. 215 (§ C3.2.5.8, fn. 186). Though BH knows some examples of D ‫ ִמ ֵלּא‬with a period of time as its direct object, its subject is always personal, whereas here we have a period of time as the subject, which is not problematic, but the agens is indicated with ל‬. It looks to us then more reasonable to see a shva in -‫מו‬, and a standard G inf. vowel o in -‫לוא‬-. Would Qimron propose emending the MT at 501

138

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

as historical spelling. This process is known to have started already in BH, cf. JM § 78 e, g. Irrespective of spelling variants we have here a G inf. cst. of ‫ מלא‬used intransitively.508 The grammatical subject of the infinitive is ‫שנה‬. Hence translations such as “jusqu’à ce qu’il ait terminé une année entière” (van der Ploeg 121a) and “bis er ein ganzes Jahr vollendet hat” (Lohse 23) could be misleading. What is meant here in 1QS 6.17 becomes clear when we consult Ge 50.2f. “and Joseph commanded his servants, the physicians to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed Israel, and forty days elapsed for him, for the days of embalmment are to elapse in that way (‫)וַ יִּ ְמ ְלאוּ־לוֹ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים יוֹם ִכּי ֵכּ ן יִ ְמ ְלאוּ יְ ֵמי ַה ֲחנֻ ִטים‬.” Once dead, Israel had no control over how the process of embalmment was to be completed, so that ‫ לו‬can not refer to Joseph, but to his diseased father. It was up to Joseph and his senior servants to see to it that the established rules as to how many days and the surgical, details were adhered to. So in our 1QS text the leadership of the community was to ensure that a new entrant did not take part in certain activities of the community. ‫‘ ]וגם הואה‬nor shall he.’ The particle ‫ גם‬is to be construed not with the immediately following clause constituent, but the entire clause. Hence not ‘he shall not .., either.’ Likewise in ‫המקדש‬ ֯ ‫‘ רק לוא יבוא אל‬the (only caveat is that) he may not enter the sanctuary’ 11Q20 12.11. Cf. SQH 31 v 1). 1QS 6.18) ‫‘ ]לפי שכלו ומעשיו בתורה‬in respect of his comprehension and his practices in the law.’ The preposition ‫ לפי‬is not repeated as against ‫לשכלו‬ ‫( ולמעשיו‬line 14). Whether any difference in perception is intended is not clear.509 By contrast, the non-repetition of ‫ על פי‬in the following line may be deliberate: ‫‘ על פי הכוהנים ורוב אנשי בריתם‬according to the priests and the multitude of members of their covenant’ — the enquiry is to be coordinated and the decision unanimous. 1QS 6.19) ‫‘ ]יקר)יֿ(בו גמ את הונו ואת מלאכתו אל יד האיש‬they shall entrust his property and his possessions also to the man.’ The original Hifil form has been changed to a Piel form.510 1QS 6.20) ‫‘ ]וכתבו בחשבון בידו‬and he shall record them in the log book with his own hand.’ The verb must be parsed as sg., ֺ ‫וּכ ָתבו‬, ְ pace Lohse’s (24) ‫;וְ ָכ ְתבוּ‬ Ge 50.3 cited above and reading ‫ ?יְ ַמלאוּ‬Qimron (2018.95) also mentions ‫ מולאות‬as a variant of ‫מולואת‬, but we cannot locate such a form in QH. Qimron sees in these forms cases of digraphs, two vowel letters indicating one vowel. Among quite a number of examples cited by him we do not find a form such as ‫ דוארש‬or ‫ דאורש‬in lieu of ‫ דורש‬or ‫דרש‬, i.e. ‫דּ ֵֹרשׁ‬. We would rather speak of etymological orthography, and these cases should be kept apart from forms like ‫ ביא‬for ‫בי‬, ‫ כיא‬for ‫כי‬, ‫ ליא‬for ‫לי‬, ‫ מיא‬for ‫ מי‬etc. 508 Lohse’s (22) vocalisation, ‫יל ַאת‬ ֵ ‫מ‬, ְ is odd. Such cannot be a verbal form. 509 On the repetition or otherwise of prepositions with coordinate terms, see SQH § 38 f. 510 With the nota obiecti, ‫את‬, following, the form cannot be Qal pace Charlesworth (29, fn. 158, “Lit. ‘shall approach’”).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

139

the notion “und es durch ihn auf Rechnung anschreiben” sounds a little heavyfooted. We doubt that ‫ בידו‬can mean “à son crédit,” so Guilbert (46), van der Ploeg (120a), and Dupont-Sommer (27). Similarly García Martínez - Tigchelaar (85) “and they shall credit it to his account” and Vermes (106) “to his account.” The inspector did the book-keeping himself, without telling a subordinate member to do it. The object suffix of both ‫ כתבו‬and the co-ordinate ‫ יוציאנו‬is singular. It refers back to ‫( את הונו ואת מלאכתו‬line 19). The repetition of ‫ את‬seems to imply that they were perceived as two distinct entities and do not constitute a notional unit.511 ‫‘ ]על הרבים לוא יוציאנו‬he shall not expend it for the benefit of the Many.’ We agree here with Wernberg-Møller’s (31) rendition: “he must not spend it on the Many.” For this collocation he refers to ‫ת־ה ֶכּ ֶסף ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ‫ וַ יּ ֵֹצא ְמנַ ֵחם ֶא‬2Kg 15.20, where what Menachem did was exactly the opposite, for he taxed Israelites. A genuine parallel is found in MH, e.g. ‫‘ ַהמּו ִֺציא הו ָֺצאוֹת ַע ל נִ ְכ ֵסי ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬one who spent something on his wife’s property’ mKet 8.5. ‫‘ ]אל יגע במשקה הרבים‬he shall not touch the drink of the Many.’ Four lines earlier we read ‫‘ לוא יגע בטהרת הרבים‬he shall not touch the pure food of the Many.’ The general context is identical and the subject of the verb is the same. ‫ אל יגע‬is directly preceded by ‫לוא יוציאנו‬. It is difficult to point to any difference in meaning of the two negators in these particular instances.512 ‫‘ ]עד מולאת לו שנה שנית‬until a second year has elapsed for him.’ 1QS 6.21) ‫‘ ]יפקודהו‬one shall question him.’ Lohse (24) vocalises the form as ‫קוֹדהוּ‬ ֻ ‫יִ ְפ‬, but the 3msg as well as the 3mpl form can be impersonally used; see SQH § 37 a. Likewise ‫ יכתובהו‬in the next line. On the unorthodox spelling with a waw after the second radical of the verb, see more examples mentioned in Qimron 2018.193f., 4).513 1QS 6.22) ‫]לקרבו‬, an inf. cst., whose binyan can be G ‘for him to join’ or D ‘to let him join.’ ‫‘ ולערב את הונו‬and to have his property pooled,’ one of the four purposes for his enlistment as a member. The syntactic status of this inf. phrase is vague. What is meant is most likely that the inspector shall see to it that the new member’s property is pooled with that of the current members. So the clause with deontic value is hanging loosely. ‫‘ ויהי עצתו ליחד ומשפטו‬and may his view belong to the community, and so his determination!’ a case of glaring, two-fold discord in gender and number 511

On this aspect of coordination, see SQH § 38 g. Lohse (23, 25) differentiates: “soll er nicht .. berühren .. Er darf nicht .. berühren.” The negative commands in the Decalogue are all translated with “du sollst nicht ..” in all the versions of the German Bible we have consulted. 513 On a similar phenomenon in 1QIsaa, the great Isaiah scroll, see Kutscher 1974.332-40. 512

140

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

alike. Even conceding that ‫ ומשפטו‬is an afterthought, the gender discord is striking, with the subject and the verb next to each other.514 1QS 6.24 - 7.5a 6.24) And the following are the rules with which one should judge in communal examination depending on the case. If there is found among them someone who lies 6.25) over property knowingly, one shall exclude him from holy things of the Many for one year and he shall be fined (with the loss of) a quarter of his meal and he who replies to 6.26) his colleague with stubbornness, speaks with short temper, setting at naught his colleague’s instruction by going against the opinion of his colleague ranked ahead of him 6.27) for he had taken the law into his own hand, then he shall be fined for one year, [segregated], an[d he] who mentions something in the honoured name on anything writ[ten in the law], 7.1) and if he cursed either through being frightened by affliction or on account of any thing that he may have, ( ) he is reading the Book or saying a benediction, then one should excommunicate him 7.2) and he shall never again return to the council of the community but if he spoke angrily about one of the priests enlisted in the book, then he will be fined one year 7.3) and secluded (in the best interest of) his soul from the pure food of the Many, and if he spoke (improperly) unwittingly, then he shall be penalised six months, and one who lies to his colleague 7.4) shall be penalised six months, and a man who reviles his colleague in an unjustifiable manner knowingly shall be penalised one year 7.5) and in isolation. 1QS 6.24) ‫‘ ]ואלה המשפטים אשר ישפטו בם‬and the following are the rules with which one should judge.’515 ‫]אם ימצא בם איש‬ ֿ ‘should there be found a person among them.’ The plural suffix ‫ם‬- must refer ad sensum to the preceding ‫יחד‬, ‘a community consisting of multiple members.’516 Here begins a long passage specifying penalties or fines for a great variety of offences, worded in the form of conditional sentence. The diversity of the syntactic forms of protasis shown here is amazingly rich.517 The apodosis is introduced with an apodotic waw or without one. ‫‘ ]איש אשר ישקר בהון והואה יודע‬a person who lies, when he knows (what he is doing).’ The second clause is a typical circumstantial clause.518 See also 514

See SQH § 32 b. We fail to understand what Charlesworth (29, n. 163) means: “It is not easy to bring out the paronomasia: hmšpṭym … yšpṭw; but the double meaning was clearly brought out by the repetition of the emphatic Teth.” The phonetic nature of a particular consonant is irrelevant to the phenomenon of paronomasia. 516 See SQH § 32 cg. 517 For details, see SQH § 16 e. 518 For more examples, see SQH § 35 caa, p. 280. 515

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

141

CD 14.20.519 Brownlee’s (26) “and it become known” is based on his parsing of ‫ יודע‬as either N ‫ יִ וָּ ַד ע‬or passH ‫יוּד ע‬ ַ and making ‫ הואה‬refer to ‫שקר‬, but such a substantive, ‫שׁ ֶקר‬, ֶ is not found in the context, and an anaphoric pronoun referring to a general notion, it, would be ‫ זה‬or ‫זאת‬. The Imperfect in generic relative clauses indicates theoretical possibility. The antecedent may have the definite article attached, e.g. ‫‘ האיש אשר יצחה‬a person who scoffs’ 1QS 7.4 or no antecedent may be present, e.g. ‫אשר ישוֿ ב את רעהו‬ ‘he who responds’ 1QS 6.25.520 1QS 6.25) ‫‘ ]ויבדילהו‬then one should exclude him.’ At 1QS 5.20 we touched on a w-qataltí introducing an apodosis in a conditional clause. Here we have a rather rare structure in which an apodotic waw is attached to a PC form with an injunctive value. We would rather expect ‫וְ ִה ְב ִדּ ֻלהוּ = והבדילהו‬, which we seem to meet in ‫והבדילוהו‬, ֯ a variant reading in 4Q261 3.3.521 ‫]ונענשו את רביעית לחמו‬, where ‫ נענשו‬is most likely an error for sg. ‫נענש‬.522 The addition of the nota obiecti, ‫את‬, indicates the verb ‫‘ ענש‬to punish, fine’ as doubly transitive as in ‫‘ וענשו אותו מאה כסף‬they shall fine him 100 pieces of silver’ 11Q19 65.14 < Dt 22.19.523 But at ‫‘ ונענש שנה אחת‬and he will be punished for one year’ 1QS 7.2 there follows ‫ומובדל על נפשו מן טהרת רבים‬, indicating what the penalty in question is to entail. In Column 7 there are many cases where only a period of time is given, and there we can mentally fill in ‫ ומובדל‬or the like, e.g. ‫( ונענש ששה חודשים‬line 3). We would be then having to do with an adverbial accusative of time as in ‫ַמצּוֹת יֵ ָא ֵכ ל ֵאת ִשׁ ְב ַעת ַהיָּ ִמים‬ Ex 13.7.524 ‫‘ ]אשר ישוֿ ב את רעהו‬one who answers his colleague.’ In spite of the reading of ‫ ישוב‬as marked by Qimron with a horizontal stroke, the verb root ‫ שׁוב‬can mean ‘to answer, reply’ only in Hifil; see above at 5.15. Then it can govern a direct object of person as in ‫ת־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך ֵלאמֹר וגו׳‬ ַ ‫ וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ ָה ָעם ֶא‬2Ch 10.16 and ‫וָ ָא ִשׁיב‬ ‫אוֹתם ַכּ ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ Neh 6.4. 519 Cf. ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆσ τιμῆσ, συνειδυίησ καὶ τῆσ γυναικός ‘he kept back part of the proceeds (of the sale) with his wife’s knowledge’ Acts 5.2, where also the use of a circumstantial ptc. is to be noted, as rightly recognised by F. Delitzsch in his Hebrew rendition, ‫ם־היא‬ ִ ַ‫וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ י ַֹד ַעת גּ‬. Pace Wernberg-Møller (111, fn. 75) this New Testament case is certainly an interesting parallel to our 1QS case. 520 Cf. SQH § 15 dae. 521 See SQH § 41 c. 522 So also Qimron 2018.156 § C 2.1.1.3, but his alternative analysis, according to which “the impersonal nip‘al may have been confused with the active plural of the preceding verb ‫ויבדלהו‬,” is unlikely because the grammatical subject of the one is the punisher and that of the other the punished, and the latter is specified as ‫איש‬. Licht (159) refers to ‫ ונמצאו‬1QS 8.11, which Lohse (30) emends to ‫ונמצא‬, a form found as a 4QSd variant. There the subject is ‫כול דבר הנסתר מישראל‬, where ‫ כול‬may have induced the selection of the pl. verb form, on which see SQH § 32 ch. 523 Cf. SQH § 31 v 3. 524 Cf. JM § 126 i.

142

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS 6.26) ‫‘ ]בקשי עורפ‬with stiffness of neck.’ Charlesworth’s (31, n. 169) footnote “Lit. ‘with a stiff neck’” is misleading; we do not have here a syntagm of a noun with its attributive adjective, but a construct chain with ‫קשי‬, an abstract noun. In our 1977 study we demonstrated that an adjective in the st. cst. often accords with a preceding noun, the former is not an attributive modifier of the latter, but of the following noun, nomen rectum. This 1QS example justifies that analysis; in ‫‘ ַעם ְק ֵשׁה ע ֶֹר ף‬a stiff-necked people,’ what lies behind is not ‫ַעם‬ ‫ק ֶשׁה‬,ָ but ‫ע ֶֹר ף ָק ֶשׁה‬.525 ‫‘ ]ידבר בקוצר אפים‬speaking impatiently.’ Qimron (I 220) is not sure about the reading of the first letter, marking it as ֿ‫ו‬. Syntactically, however, the use of a w-qataltí form would be odd here, continuing ‫ בקשי עורפ‬.. ‫ישיב‬. It could be a loose, asyndetic coordination or an error for ‫וידבר‬. Syntactically and semantically the phrase ‫ קוצר אפים‬is affiliated with the preceding ‫קשי עורפ‬. Here again, what is short is not the speaker, but his ‫אפים‬. Note a variant spelling in ‫ קצור אפים‬at 1QS 4.10, on which see above ad loc. This particular cst. phrase is unknown to BH, but a synonymous ‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫ ק ֶֹצר‬does occur at Ex 6.9, and note the selection of the adjective in st. cst. in ‫ְק ַצר ַא ַפּיִ ם‬ Pr 14.17. ‫]לפ ̇רוע את יסור עמיתו‬ ̇ ‘to set at naught his colleague’s instruction.’ We would follow Brownlee (27), who emends ‫ יסוד‬to ‫ יסור‬on the basis of Pr 8.33, 13.18, 15.22. Though the combination is not with ‫יסור‬, we could also add ‫וַ ִתּ ְפ ְר עוּ‬ ‫ל־ע ָצ ִתי‬ ֲ ‫ ָכ‬Pr 1.25, where the verb in question is combined with a synonym, ‫ע ָצה‬. ֵ The inf. here is epexegetic, ‘setting at naught.’526 ‫]באמרות‬, a variant spelling for ‫‘ בהמרות‬by going against.’527 -‫ המרה ִפי‬is a well-known BH idiomatic phrase. ‫‘ ]לפנוהי‬ahead of him,’ a crude Aramaism for ‫ ;לפניו‬Aramaic does not have ‫ ָפּנִ ים‬in its lexicon. See above on ‫ רגלוהי‬6.13. 1QS 6.27) ‫ונ)א(נעש‬ ֯ ‫ ]והו֯ שיעה ידו לוא‬with two anomalous spellings in lieu of ‫ לו ונענש‬.. In ‫‘ הושיע ידו לו‬he took the law into his own hand’ CD 9.10, alluding to ‫הוֹשׁ ַע יָ ְדָך ָלְך‬ ֵ 1Sm 25.26 we have the same idea expressed. ‫והו֯ שׁיעה‬ as reconstructed by Qimron is as difficult as the preceding ‫ וֿ דבר‬in terms of the sequence of tenses as verbs continuing ‫ישיב‬. By contrast, the immediately following ‫ונ)א(נעש‬ ֯ is in order; it is a w-qataltí with an apodotic waw in a pseudo conditional sentence that goes back to ‫אשר ישיב‬. However, the immediately following ptc., ‫ומובדל‬, as reconstructed by Qimron and Lohse (24), is difficult. ‫ מובדל‬without the conjunction is acceptable as a subject complement.

‫ [ ֯קשי ערף‬4Q393 1ii-2.4 is difficult to analyse because of the broken text. Cf. SQH § 31 t iii. Cf. SQH § 18 g. 527 So already Brownlee (27, fn. 55). Qimron (2018.104 § B 1.2.2) mentions more examples of ‫ ה‬being replaced by another guttural consonant. 525

526

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

143

‫]ואשר יזכיר‬ ̇ Though on the surface, ‘and he who mentions,’ is an antecedent relative clause, this is virtually equivalent to a protasis of a conditional sentence, as is very often the case in this passage.528 However, an apodosis is missing. ‫‘ ]בשם הנכבד‬with the honourable name,’ a reference to the Tetragrammaton. 1QS COLUMN 7 1QS 7.1) ‫‘ ]קלל או להבעת מצרה או לכול דבר אשר לו‬he cursed either through being frightened by affliction or on account of any thing that he may have.’ This is a rare example of disjunctive expression with ‫ או‬repeated and preceding the first constituent as well.529 A BH example is ‫ל־דּ ָבר ָט ֵמא אוֹ ְבנִ ְב ַלת‬ ָ ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּגַּ ע ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫ ַחיָּ ה ְט ֵמ ָאה אוֹ ְבּנִ ְב ַלת ְבּ ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה אוֹ ְבּנִ ְב ַלת ֶשׁ ֶר ץ ָט ֵמא‬Lv 5.2, where the structure is not , but the initial ‫ ָדּ ָבר ָט ֵמא‬is a generic term as shown by the added ‫כ ל‬, ָ and it is further specified and exemplified with three concrete cases, each of which is introduced with ‫ נִ ְב ַלת‬and concluded with an appropriate form of the adjective, ‫ט ֵמא‬. ָ The first preposition ‫ ל־‬in ‫ לכול דבר אשר לו‬probably indicates an occasion for or a reason for the curse uttered, but the same analysis can scarcely apply to the preceding inf., ‫ל ִה ָבּ ֵעת‬,ְ though a translation such as “soit lors d’une attaque soudaine d’effroi, soit pour toute autre raison” (van der Ploeg 121b) does make sense.530 The text of this line may not have been correctly transmitted, which is also apparent in what follows ‫לו‬: there is a blank space with traces of erased letters, which could number ten, and the following participial clauses stand disconnected with what precedes — ‫‘ הואה קורא בספר או מברכ‬he is reading a book or pronouncing a benediction.’ On ‫ קורא בספר‬as distinct from ‫קורא ספר‬, see above at 6.7. ‫‘ ]וְ ִה ְב ִדּ ֻלהוּ = והבדילהו‬one should excommunicate him.’ Qimron (2018.61 § 2.1.3) mentions ten examples of this defectiva spelling ‫הו‬- for ‫והו‬- with a 3ms object suffix attached to a pl. verb form and all found in 1QS. Given this unique distribution and the considerable frequency, our case is unlikely to be an impersonally used 3ms, for which we would anticipate ‫ )וְ ִה ְב ִדּילו ֺ =( והבדילו‬anyway. 1QS 7.2) ‫‘ ]לוא ישוב עוד על עצת היחד‬he shall never again return to the council of the community.’ The selection of ‫ על‬instead of ‫ אל‬or -‫ ל‬is under the influence of Aramaic, which shows a complementary distribution of ‫ על‬with a person as destination of a physical movement but -‫ ל‬with a place as destination.531 528 For a full list of references, see SQH § 16 e, p. 84, 2nd paragraph. Note the immediately following, coordinate clause clearly marked as conditional: ‫ ואם קלל‬7.1. Cf. also SQH 41 c, p. 317, 2nd paragraph. 529 Cf. SQH § 38 ha. 530 Qimron (I 222) ascribes ‫ לכול דבר אשר לו‬to another scribe. Without this prepositional phrase, however, the sentence would remain incomplete. 531 Cf. SQH § 31 i.

144

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ]ואם באחד ֗מן הכוהנים הכתובים בספר דבר בחמה‬but if he spoke angrily about one of the priests enlisted in the book.’ The preposition -‫ ב‬of ‫ באחד‬is often translated with against, the so-called Beth of enmity.532 But it is different than in, e.g. ‫‘ חרה אף אל בכל עדתו‬God became angry at His entire congregation’ CD 8.13. It rather indicates a topic of oral communication as in ‫אל ידבר בדברי המלאכה‬ ‘Let him not speak about matters relating to the work’ CD 10.19 and ‫בגבורתו‬ ‫‘ אשוחח‬I will meditate on His might’ 1QS 10.16. The nuance of against is contextually determined, due to ‫בחמה‬. The presence of a participle in an apodosis, on the first sight, looks like a striking deviation from the BH norm in ‫ מן‬.. ‫ ונענש שנה אחת ומובדל‬.. ‫ דבר‬.. ‫אם‬ ‫‘ טהרת רבים‬if he spoke .. then he will be fined one year and secluded .. from the pure food of the Many.’ However, the last clause introduced with ‫ מובדל‬is syntactically subordinate to the immediately preceding one, specifying and elaborating the penalty, not to ‫]דּ ֶבּר =[ דבר‬. ִ Hence this is syntactically distinct from ‫‘ אם בשגגה יעשה והובדל מן הטהרה‬if he did it inadvertently, then he shall be excluded .. ’ 1QS 8.24 and ‫ והובדל האיש‬.. ‫‘ אם שנים הם‬if they are two .., let the man be set apart’ CD 9.20. See also ‫ ונענש שנה אחת ומובדל‬.. ‫האיש אשר יצחה‬ ‘the man who scoffs ..’ 1QS 7.4. In any event ‫ נענש‬here is unlikely to be ‫נֶ ֱענָ שׁ‬ (Ptc.), but ‫( נֶ ֱענַ שׁ‬Pf.).533 Besides, the ptc. here does not indicate an action, but a result. If an action were meant here, one would anticipate ‫והובדל‬. 1QS 7.3) ‫]מובדל על נפשו‬. Over the widely held view that the substantive ‫נפש‬ with a suffix pronoun attached substitutes for a reflexive pronoun, thus ‫= נפשי‬ ‘myself,’ we have reservations, as far as BH is concerned.534 Cf. Lohse (25) “für sich angeschlossen,” Wernberg-Møller (31) “for solitary confinement,” Charlesworth (31) “excluded alone,” and van der Ploeg (121b) “sera laissé à lui-même.” In QH we find, however, two certain cases where the reverse appears to be true: ‫המ ֗ה פירות‬ ֗ ‫‘ אכנוס לנפשי כל‬I shall gather for myself all those fruits’ 5/6Ḥev 46.6; ‫‘ תהיה זורע וכנס לנפשך כל‬you will be sowing and harvesting all for yourself’ 5/6Ḥev 45.16.535 Both texts, however, originate outside of the Qumran caves. Unless one admits a third QH example in our 1QS text, one would retain the normal sense of the substantive as in “pour (le bien de) son âme” (Guilbert 50536). ‫‘ ]אם בשגגה דבר ונענש ששה חודשים‬if he spoke (improperly) unwittingly, then he shall be penalised six months.’ Unlike in the immediately preceding regulation, 532

Cf. Brockelmann 1956 § 106 h and Jenni 1992.265 (§ 2638). Cf. SQH § 16 c. 534 See Muraoka 2005.60-65. Licht (163), who mentions ‫ ַע ְצמו‬as more common in MH, refers to 1QS 7.9 as an analogous example: ‫נוקם לנפשו כול דבר‬. In BH, however, ‫נוקם ְלָך‬, you are an adversary to be retaliated against, see, e.g. ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ יַ ַע ן ֲעשׂוֹת ֱאדוֹם ִבּנְ קֹם נָ ָקם ְל ֵבית י‬Ezk 25.12 and ‫נ ֵֹקם‬ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ְל ָצ ָר יו‬Na 1.2. 535 See SQH § 1 g. On the situation in Qumran Aramaic, see Muraoka 2011 § 39 j, 58 a. 536 Where reference is made to 1Kg 19.3, though the preposition differs — ‫ ;וַ יֵּ ֶלְך ֶאל־נַ ְפשׁו‬the scribe of 1QS had first written ‫אל‬. 533

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

145

we are not told what the punishment is to entail. Probably temporary segregation (‫ )מובדל‬is to be understood. This could apply to a few more cases below where only a length of time is mentioned: the immediately following regulation, so also lines 5, 6, 8 twice, 9 and so on. ‫‘ ]אשר יכחס‬one who lies.’ The next clause supplies a missing antecedent: ‫‘ האיש אשר יצחה‬a person who scoffs’ (line 4). An antecedentless relative clause, whether the referent is personal or impersonal, i.e. ‘one who ..’ or ‘that which ..,’ is quite common.537 An example of the latter is ‫‘ תן אשר לו‬Give him (back) what is due to him!’ 4Q416 2ii5. See also ‫ ואשר ידבר‬in line 5 below. If there were not in this long penalty passage a good number of instances of the protasis introduced with ‫איש אשר‬, ‫האיש אשר‬, and the definite article + ptc., we could analyse our ‫ אשר יכחס‬as a protasis of a conditional sentence, equivalent to ‫אם יכחס‬, a pattern which is as frequently used.538 These noun phrases of diverse syntactic structures can be regarded as standing up front in extraposition and joined to the lead verb by means of an asyndetic waw, though an extraposed constituent is normally resumed through a pronominal element.539 ‫ יכחס‬is one of two rare examples in QH of ‫ ס‬replacing ‫שׁ‬.540 On ‫‘ מדע‬acquaintance,’ see above at 6.9 above. 1QS 7.4) ‫‘ ]האיש אשר יצחה‬a person who reviles.’ The definite article is occasionally added to an antecedent of a relative clause.541 Its addition is optional, as shown in an example such as ‫‘ איש אשר ירוק‬a man who spits’ 1QS 7.13. ‫ יצחה‬must be an Impf. form of a Hebrew verb which was not known before or after QH. Milik (1951.133) related it to the root /ṣḥy/ in Syriac. The remaining three attestations in QH, two partly reconstructed, are all Impfs, so that its stem cannot be determined with certainty, though the Syriac verb is used in Pael, i.e. Piel in Hebrew, and not in Peal = Qal.542 ‫‘ ]בלוֿ משפט‬in an unjustifiable manner.’ Whether one reads the negator as ‫ בלי‬or ‫בלוא = בלו‬, both are well-established composite negators.543 On an alternative syntagm with ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬or -‫ ֶשׁ‬prefixed, see above at 1QS 5.17. ‫בדעה = ]בדעהא‬, i.e. ‫‘ ְבּ ֵד ָעה‬knowingly, intentionally.’ Qimron (2018.79) mentions this instance in a paragraph (A 4.2) dealing with “Alep as a vowel letter in final position,” but in this case the final letter is no mater lectionis, for you would not write two matres lectionis one after another. We would suggest that this is a case of rare extension of the final alef very often written in QH after 537 For examples in QH and a discussion, see SQH § 44 b. According to BDB s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬5 this is, in BH, a feature typical of poetry. 538 For a detailed listing of diverse constructions of the protasis, see SQH § 16 e. 539 See SQH § 36 end. 540 See Qimron 2018.119 § B 6.1. 541 For more examples, see SQH § 7 g. 542 Clines (DCH VII 111) parses the forms as Qal. 543 On the syntagm , see Muraoka 2010.297-99 and SQH § 40 ka.

146

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

a long vowel, e.g. ‫כיא‬, ‫בו = בוא‬, ‫יאמינו = יאמינוא‬.544 This addition of the wordfinal, silent alef was probably influenced and reinforced by the negator ‫ ל ֹא‬and ‫לוֹא‬, which occur in BH a total of 5184 times. The primitive guttural of this word had long since ceased to be pronounced: /la’/ > /lā/ > /lō/.545 The spellings ‫ ֲהֹלה‬Dt 3.11 and the occasional ‫ לו‬in QH is an accurate, purely phonetic spelling of the word.546 1QS 7.5b - 9a 7.5b) And one who speaks with his colleague deceitfully or do something fraudulent against his acquaintance shall be penalised six months and if 7.6) he acts as a deceiver against his colleague, he shall be penalised three months and if he acts as a deceiver over the assets of the community, causing loss of its value, then he shall repay it 7.7) in full. 7.8) But if he cannot afford to repay it, he shall be penalised sixty days, and he who bears a grudge against his colleague for no just cause shall be penalised (six months) one year, 7.9) and likewise one who revenges for himself over any matter, 1QS 7.5) ‫‘ ]אשר ידבר את רעהו במרום‬one who speaks with his colleague deceitfully.’ On its own, ‫ במרום‬could mean ‘with arrogance,’ cf. ‫ֹלח ִמים ִלי‬ ֲ ‫ַר ִבּים‬ ‫ ָמרוֹם‬Ps 56.3, though without -‫ב‬. But the context is about deception and fraudulence547, though our author would then sound a little repetitive; our text is immediately followed by ‫או יעשה רמיה במדעו‬. One could say in his defence that the first is about deceptive speech and the second about an act of deception.548 But the immediately following rule begins with ‫ואם ברעה יתרמה‬, which imposes a lighter penalty, three months instead of six. Then comes yet another rule relative to deception: ‫‘ ואם בהון היחד יתרמה‬and if he acts fraudulently in the matter of the property of the community.’ ‫‘ ]ואם ברעהו יתרמה‬and if he acts fraudulently to his colleague.’549 This is the first instance of tD ‫ התרמה‬in Hebrew. The value of the stem is simulating,550 i.e. ‘to act as ‫ר ַמּאי‬,’ ַ attested in MH, e.g. mDem 3.5. 544

Cf. Qimron 2018.84ff., § A 4.6.2, 4.6.4, 4.6.6. On this theoretical reconstruction, see Brockelmann 1908 § 253 A a and JM § 102 j with f.n. 7. On the question of the defectiva and plena spelling of the word, see Andersen - Forbes 1986.186-88 and Barr 1989.154-58. 546 On ‫ לו‬in QH, see Qimron 2018.86, A 4.6.7. 547 As noted by Brownlee 29, n. 12, followed by Wernberg-Møller 114, n. 14. Qimron (2018.358) speaks of an alternation between √‫ רום‬and √‫רמי‬, but the two roots mean two totally different things. 548 So Licht 161. 549 Licht (162), partly in order to overcome the above-mentioned repetitiveness, assigns the verb the meaning of ‘to go slack,’ referring to Pr 10.4, 12.24, and Je 48.10). Cf. Charlesworth’s (31) “neglectfully” and van der Ploeg’s (122a) “négligent.” So McKane (1970.225, 417). That would be innovative as well, since √‫ רמי‬in the sense of ‘lethargy’ is not used in Hebrew as a verb. Vermes’s (107) “fails to care” goes too far. 550 On this value of Hitpael, see SQH § 12 f 6. 545

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

147

1QS 7.6) ‫‘ ]לאבדו‬causing loss of its value.’ The D inf., ֺ ‫ל ַא ְבּדו‬,ְ has here a resultative meaning.551 For this meaning of the verb, note ‫‘ ִאיבּוּד ָממו ֺן‬pecuniary loss’ bBets 22a. ‫‘ ]ושלמו ברושו‬then he shall repay it in full.’552 1QS 7.8) ‫‘ ]אם לוא תשיג ידו לשלמו‬if he cannot afford to repay it.’ Here we have an inf. cst. complementing a lead verb just as in ‫‘ יוכל לספר‬he can narrate’ 1QHa 19.24; ‫ תשיג ידו‬is synonymous with ‫יוכל‬.553 ‫‘ ]אשר יטור לרעהו‬he who bears a grudge against his colleague.’ Analogously ‫ ונקום וניטור איש לאחיו‬CD 8.5, sim. ib. 19.18. See also ‫ אל יטור להם‬CD 13.18. In BH we find this verb governing ‫ את‬as well as -‫ל‬, though only once for each: ‫ת־בּנֵ י ַע ֶמָּך‬ ְ ‫ֹא־תטֹּר ֶא‬ ִ ‫ ל‬Lv 19.18 and ‫נוֹטר הוּא ְלאֹיְ ָביו‬ ֵ Na 1.2. Given the contextual affinity between Lv 19.18, our 1QS 7.8, and CD 8.5, 19.18, the chance of Aramaic influence554 is not to be precluded, though the book of Nahum is not exactly replete with Aramaisms.555 What immediately precedes this clause in Na 1.2, however, suggests a different perspective: ‫וּב ַע ל ֵח ָמה‬ ַ ‫ֵאל ַקנּוֹא וְ נ ֵֹקם יְ הוָ ה נ ֵֹקם יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫נ ֵֹקם יְ הוָ ה ְל ָצ ָר יו‬. The verse is not a description of God’s actions, but His traits and attributes, which is evident in ‫אל ַקנֺֹּא‬, ֵ ‫בּ ַעל ֵח ָמה‬. ַ Furthermore, it so happens that here we have the sole example in BH of ‫ נקם‬Qal, a verb semantically affiliated with ‫נטר‬, governing -‫ ל‬with a person to be avenged on; otherwise we find either ‫ מן‬as in ָ‫ וּנְ ָק ַמנִ י יְ הוָ ה ִמ ֶמּךּ‬1Sm 24.13 or ‫ מאת‬as in ‫נְ קֹם נִ ְק ַמת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ ֵמ ֵאת ַה ִמּ ְדיָ נִ ים‬Nu 31.2. Hence -‫ ל‬at Na 1.2 is more likely marking a relation, ‘A is B to C,’ as in ‫ית ִמ ְשׂגָּ ב ִלי‬ ָ ִ‫ ָהי‬Ps 59.17 and ‫ית ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ִ‫ ֵאל נ ֵֹשׂא ָהי‬ib. 99.8, cf. LXX ὁ θεός, σὺ εὐίλατος ἐγίνου αὐτοῖς and Vulg. propitius fuisti eis with an adjective, thus distinct from the same preposition as in ‫ֹא־ת ָשּׂא ַל ָמּקוֹם‬ ִ ‫ ל‬Gn 18.24. ‫]אשר לוא במשפט‬, which is a syntagm synonymous with ‫ בלוא משפט‬dealt with above ad line 4. See above ad 1QS 5.16. ‫ ]שנה אחת‬written above ‫ששה חודשים‬. 1QS 7.9) ‫‘ ]וכן לנוקם לנפשו כול דבר‬and so one who revenges for himself over any matter.’ In the light of our analysis above on the government of the verb ‫נקם‬ the preposition lamed of ‫ לנפשו‬had best be analysed as equivalent to a dativus commodi, with which one could compare ‫ ִהנָּ ֶקם ִלי ֵמר ְֹד ַפי‬Je 15.15. The suffix ‫נִ י‬- in ָ‫ וּנְ ָק ַמנִ י יְ הוָ ה ִמ ֶמּךּ‬1Sm 24.13 may then be rewritten as ‫ ִלי‬rather than as ‫א ִֹתי‬.556 Whether or not ‫ נפשו‬here is equivalent to a reflexive pronoun, hence ‫לו = לנפשו‬557, 551

For details, see SQH § 18 f. Cf. SQH § 18 c. On the meaning of the phrase, cf. Milgrom 1991.338 ad Lv 5.24. 553 On this syntagm, see SQH § 18 c. 554 Cf. SQH § 31 h. 555 Whether due to Aramaic influence or not, the selection of -‫ ל‬appears to have stabilised in post-biblical Hebrew as in ‫ נוקם ונוטר לאומות העולם‬rGen 55.3 as in a Vatican MS, registered in Maagarim s.v. ‫ נטר‬no. 43. 556 The Proto-Lucianic version has captured this with its ἐκδικήσαι μοι Κύριος ἐκ σοῦ than with με in the standard version. 557 Cf. Dupont-Sommer (29): “celui qui se vengera soi-même.” Basically the same is Milik (147): “suo marte ultus erit,” i.e. taking his own initiative when he could have left the matter to God. 552

148

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

is a separate issue, on which see above at pp. 45f., n. 154. A direct object, ‫כול‬ ‫דבר‬, referring to a wrong-doing, represents one of two syntagmatic forms attested in BH: ‫ם־ע ָב ָדיו יִ קּוֹם‬ ֲ ‫ ִכּי ַד‬Dt 32.43 as against ‫ילוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ל־ע ִל‬ ֲ ‫ נ ֵֹקם ַע‬Ps 99.8. Since in the clause above there is no verb used as its predicate, this must be a nominal clause. It has two main constituents, i.e. ‫ כן‬and ‫לנוקם‬. The former is customarily parsed as adverbial. ‫‘ איפה ביתך‬Where is your house?’ is unquestionably an acceptable nominal clause. The problem is that in our clause there would then be two adverbials, which would not constitute a nominal clause. It seems to us that ‫ כן‬here is nominal as in ‫‘ כן כתוב מלבד שבתותיכם‬the following is written: “Except your Sabbaths”’ CD 11.18. ‫כן‬, albeit translatable as thus, does not express a manner of writing, but what follows is a proof text (Lv 23.38). In our case the lexeme refers back to the preceding ‫ששה חודשים שנה אחת‬, a noun phrase. Basically, then, we have here an existential clause, i.e. ‫נוקם לנפשו כול‬ ‫ דבר‬is going to get, be given, a penalty of the length specified above. ‫ כן‬here, by itself, does not imply identity as suggested in, e.g. “pareillement” (DupontSommer 29), “ebenso” (Lohse 27), and “the same” (Charlesworth 31)558. 1QS 7.9b - 15a 7.9b) and he who utters with his mouth a senseless word, three months, and to one who interrupts his colleagues speech, 7.10) ten days, and he who lies down and falls asleep during a general assembly, thirty days, and likewise one who leaves the general assembly 7.11) with no consent granted, and one who slumbers up to three times in one assembly shall be penalised ten days, and if they stand up 7.12) and he leaves, he shall be penalised thirty days, and he who walks naked in front of his colleague when he has not been enforced to shall be penalised six months, 7.13) and a person who spits into a general assembly shall be penalised thirty days, and he who sticks his hand out from under his garment, and he is 7.14) clothed in rags, so that his privy parts become visible, and then he shall be penalised thirty days, and he who utters a rude, loud laughter shall be penalised thirty 7.15) days, and one who sticks his left hand out to recline on it shall be penalised ten days, ‫‘ ]דבר נבל‬a foolish thing,’ one of only two instances in BH and QH, where the adjective is applied to an inanimate referent; the other instance is ‫דבר נבל ורק‬ CD 10.17, where the coordinate ‫‘ רק‬empty’ is to be noted. ‫דבר י רעהו עשרת ימים‬ ֗ ‫]למדבר בתוכֿ‬ ֿ ‘he who interrupts his colleague’s speech gets (a penalty of) ten days.’ On the syntactic analysis of the structure of the 558 I doubt that Charlesworth is using here “the same” in accordance with its archaic sense as in “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram” (Gn 15.18 KJV) < ‫ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא ָכּ ַרת‬ ‫ת־א ְב ָרם ְבּ ִר ית‬ ַ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

149

clause here, see above on ‫וכן לנוקם וכו׳‬, though in place of the fronted, anaphoric ‫ כן‬we now have a new message following. The selection of the st. cst. form, ‫עשרת‬, with an indeterminate noun phrase is non-standard. Likewise in the next line. For some more examples in QH, see SQH § 26 fc. The extreme length of penalty clauses results occasionally in economical style. Thus ‫ שלושים חודשים‬could have been preceded by ‫ונענש‬. However, there is no chance of misunderstanding. Similarly in the immediately following three clauses. Our analysis of the first clause of line 10 is also as economical, although, as against our analysis of it as presented above, ‫ כן‬could be referring to the preceding verbal clause inclusive of ‫ונענש‬. 1QS 7.10) ‫ ישכוב‬for BH ‫]יִ ְשׁ ַכּב‬. The shift of Impf. Qal yiqtal to yiqtol, a statistically dominant form, is noticeable in post-BH. Thus ‫‘ וימתוקו‬and they became sweet’ 4Q365 6ii11, cf. BH ‫ יִ ְמ ָתּקוּ‬Pr 9.17.559 Another manuscript of our document, 4QSe, shows an orthodox form, ‫ ישכב‬4Q259 1.6, if not spelled defectiva. ‫‘ ]כן לאיש הנפטר במושב הרבים‬that is what he who departs during a meeting of the community going to get.’ On the analysis of the clause structure, see above on ‫( וכן לנוקם וכו׳‬line 9). The Nifal here probably is reflexive in value: ‘to make himself exempt (‫)פּטוּר‬ ָ from participating in the session.’560 1QS 7.11) ‫]הנם‬ ֗ ‘one who slumbers’; the first letter was initially spelled with ‫ע‬. If we are to adopt the syntactic analysis of ‫( כן‬line 10), ‫ והנם‬must begin a new clause; Qimron (I 222) adds a comma before it. Otherwise one and the same offence would be subject to two different penalties. This precludes reading here ‫חנָּ ם = חנם‬, ִ pace “and wantonly” (Wernberg-Møller 32) and “et sans motif” (Dupont-Sommer 29) and the like. The participle here of generic value, then, is introducing a protasis561 and concluding with an apodosis of the pattern , ‫וְ נֶ ֱענַ שׁ = ונענש‬, one of the amazing diversity of the syntagmas of protasis in this long series of penalty codes.562 ‫‘ ]ונענש עשרת ימים‬and he shall be fined with ten days,’ likewise in line 15. One fails, however, to see any difference in meaning from ‫ו֯ נענש עשרה ימים‬ 4Q266 10ii8, for further details see SQH § 26 d. ֗‫יזקפו‬ ֗ most probably means ‘they stand erect (from a sitting position),’ apparently to cast a vote.563 ‫ וז)(קפו‬in Qimron 2018.103 must be a typo, for the conjunction 559

For a discussion with more examples, see Qimron 2018.187f. (§ C 3.2.1). On this value of Nifal, see SQH § 12 e 7. 561 For some other QH examples, see SQH § 41 b, p. 315. 562 For details, see SQH § 16 e, p. 84. 563 So Rabin 1957.105f. Rabin is inclined to parse the verb here as N, though he is aware that Ben Yehudah (ii [not iii] 1387.b) mentions examples of G; e.g. ‫‘ כשהוא זוקף זוקף בשם‬when he stands upright, he stands upright (by mentioning God’s) name’ bBer 12a, a stance justified in the 560

150

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

waw cannot immediately follow the conditional ‫אם‬. On his analysis of ‫פוהו = פו‬, see our remark above at 5.11. 1QS 7.12) ‫‘ ]שלושים יום‬thirty days’ as against ‫( שלושים ימים‬line 10). Also ‫יום‬ in lines 12, 13, and 14. This number discord is frequent, though optional, for attributively used cardinal numerals for “ten” and above, as this pair of instances demonstrate. For more examples, see SQH § 32 cb. ‫‘ ]ולוא היה אנוש‬when he has not been enforced.’ The use of a Pf form in a circumstantial clause is highly irregular. Cf. SQH § 39, p. 301. ‫ָאנוּס = אנוס = אנוש‬ ‘compelled.’564 1QS 7.13) ‫‘ ]ירוק‬he spits,’ cf. ‫ יָ ר ֹק‬Lv 15.8. Hebrew has two variant roots: √‫ ירק‬and √‫רקק‬, which latter is what we find here. ‫‘ ]אשר יוציא ידו מתוחת בגדו‬he who sticks his hand out from under his garment.’ Some understand ‫ יד‬here in its literal sense, ‘hand,’ e.g. Vermes (108).565 Others, e.g. Charlesworth (33), see here an euphemism for ‘penis.’566 Whilst this euphemistic use is unknown to BH,567 such is indisputable at ‫‘ מקום יד‬latrine’ 11Q19 46.13 as stressed by Charlesworth (33, fn. 185). However, this latter analysis renders the following statement redundant: ‫‘ ונראתה ערותו‬and his privy parts become visible.’568 Hence the penalty is not for putting a hand out, but an infringement of the dress code; the guy should have come to a dinner, properly dressed, not wearing casually a holey garment — ‫והואה פוח‬. Licht (164) mentions MH ‫‘ פּו ֵֺח ַח‬wearing ragged clothes,’ e.g. mMeg 4.6.569 Then we may have light of ‫פוּפים‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ז ֵֹק ף ְכּ‬Ps 146.8 quoted by a rabbi, and we should note that the biblical lemma, as is customary in BH, is used as a transitive verb! Wernberg-Møller (117) parses the verb as 3ms with a reflexive pronoun, “he raises himself up,” a linguistically impossible analysis. One could not possibly say ‫ האכלתיני לחם‬for ‘I fed myself with bread.’ Wernberg-Møller refers to Segal 1958.206, § 428, where one finds ֹֺ‫גֺֹּל לֺֹ ֶא ְצ ל‬ ְ ‘he rolls it up to himself’ mEr 10.3, which, of course, does not support Wernberg-Møller. Besides, WernbergMøller’s analysis is morphologically implausible, for one would expect ‫ יזקפנו‬or ‫יזקפהו‬. 564 Wernberg-Møller (118f.) reads ‫אנוּשׁ‬, ָ which he holds means ‘poor,’ referring to Si 11.12, where, however, the reading is utterly uncertain, ‫ש‬..‫נ‬ ֗ ‫א‬. ֗ Though in Si 11.12 LXX does use πτωχεία, ‫ ָאנוּשׁ‬has nothing to do with financial poverty. 565 Wernberg-Møller (118) holds that it is about “reaching out for the food,” but were participants in a communal meal spoon-fed? The regulation in question has nothing to do with good table manners, and Wernberg-Møller’s reference to Si 31.14, 18 is irrelevant. 566 So also Guilbert (50): “«membre»,” making his intention typographically apparent, for he is using membre as an abbreviation for membre viril, i.e. penis. For a similar euphemistic typographical device see Milik’s (148) “«manum»,” Pouilly’s (125) “«sa main»,” and Martone’s (127) “la «mano».” 567 Clines (s.v. ‫יָ ד‬, 94a) has seen it right to admit a new homonym bearing this specific sense, though not everyone might assign it to the few BH passages mentioned there. This euphemistic use is also known to yd in Ugaritic: térkm yd él kym wyd él kmdb árk yd él kym ‘the “hand” of El is long like the sea, and the “hand” of El is long like the tide, the “hand” of El is like the sea’ 52.33f. Cf. del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996-2000, s.v. yd (I) 3) “pene.” 568 So also Alexander and Vermes in DJD 26.138 ad loc. 569 This is a rather rare word and its etymology is obscure. ‫ ְפּ ַחח‬is used in Is 20.2 and 3 Trg to render ‫‘ ָערוֹם‬naked,’ but not ‫‘ ַע ְר ִט ָל ִאי‬stark naked.’ Joseph Caspi, a Jewish scholar (13-14th cent.),

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

151

here a scribal error. Since the word is used of a human, the pronoun ‫ הואה‬cannot570 be referring to ‫בגדו‬. ‫‘ ]מתוחת‬from under.’ ‫ תוחת‬exemplifies a morphological fluctuation in QH of segholate nouns of the qutl pattern.571 The morphological shape of the stem is clearly under Aramaic influence. However, the influence may have stopped there. When the preposition, which occurs in QH tens of times, takes a pronominal suffix, no vowel letter is inserted between the first two consonants. Thus, e.g. ‫ תחתך‬1Q19bis 2.3, ‫ תחתו‬3Q15 6.5, ‫תחתיו‬ ֯ 4Q435 2.1, ‫ מתחתיו‬4Q378 15i3, ‫תחתיה‬ 3Q15 8.6. 1QS 7.15) ‫‘ ]יד שמאולו‬his left hand.’ The construct phrase has a locative value: N1 is located at N2.572 Note the variation in Ps 137.1 11Q5 20.17 ‫נהרות‬ ‫( בבבל‬MT ‫)נַ ֲהרו ֺת ָבּ ֶבל‬. ‫‘ ]לשוֿ ח בה‬to recline on it.’573 It is probably about resting one’s head on the left elbow, when one is supposed to be sitting up.574 1QS 7.15b - 23 and a person who goes round telling slanderous tales about a colleague of his 7.16) one shall segregate for one year from holy things of the Many and so shall he have been punished, and should someone go round as a slanderer about the Many, such shall be sent down away from them 7.17) and he shall not return again. And a person who grumbles over the fundamental spirit of the community, one shall send him down and he shall never return, and if someone grumbles over his colleague 7.18) for no just reason, he shall be penalised six months. And a man whose spirit moves away from the fundamental spirit of the community, acting treacherously with the truth 7.19) and walking with a stubborn mind, should he repent, he shall be penalised two years. In the first (year) he shall not touch holy things of the Many. 7.20) In the second (year) he shall not touch drinks of the Many and he shall sit behind all members of the community, and asks whether the prophet was being told to go around stark naked, and concludes in the negative, because Isaiah was told to take only his outer garment (‫)שׂק‬ ַ off the loins, see ‫ מקראות גדולות‬ad Is 20.2. 570 Pace Guilbert 51, n. 130 and Charlesworth 33, n. 186. 571 Cf. Qimron 2018.331-34 (§ E 2.5), though our instance is not mentioned there. At id. p. 41 it appears printed as ‫תּ ַֹחת‬, which is mentioned as one of very many lexical borrowings from Aramaic. We know of no Aramaic dialect which inserts a u or o after the initial ‫ת‬, and not after ‫ח‬. Parry and Qimron (1999.9) restore ‫( ֗תו֗ ֗ח ֗ת‬with the waw raised) at 1QIsaa 3.24 (MT ‫)תּ ַחת‬, ַ whilst Ulrich and Flint (DJD 32.8) restore ‫תח][ת‬, ֗ and justly point out (id. Part II p. 99) that, later in the same verse, the scribe has written ‫ תחות‬twice for MT ‫( ַתּ ַחת‬both times). 572 For more examples in QH, see SQH § 21 b v). 573 Qimron (2018.214, § C 3.2.5.7), under Qal inf. of geminate roots, strangely adds: “The etymology .. is not clear.” 574 Pace, e.g. van der Ploeg (122, n. 78): “pour parler (faire des signes avec sa main).” See also Guilbert 52 with n. 132.

152

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

with 7.21) two years having elapsed for him, the Many shall be asked about matters relating to him, and if he could be admitted, he shall be recorded in his rank, and thereafter he shall be questioned over the statute(s) 7.22) [ ] And every person who has been in the community council until ten years have expired 7.23) [ ] and his spirit backslides, acting treacherously with the community and says farewell to 7.24) the Many, walking with a stubborn mind, he shall not return again to the community council, and any of the community members who gets involved 7.25) with him in his pure things or assets against [the decision of] the Many, the decision concerning him shall be the same as for him, excom[munication from them]. ‫‘ ]האיש אשר ילכ רכיל ברעהו‬a person who goes round telling slanderous tales about a colleague of his.’ This is no proper protasis, as it is incomplete as a clause with no predicate, but an extraposed noun phrase, subsequently resumed by means of the suffix pronoun in ‫והבדילהו‬, which is prefixed with an apodotic waw.575 ‫ הלך ָר ִכיל‬is a common BH idiom. ‫ רכיל‬is probably an adjective of the pattern qatīl as in ‫צ ִעיר‬. ָ In this case it serves as a subject complement; a nominal clause ‫ האיש רכיל‬or ‫ רכיל האיש‬can be postulated as lying in the background.576 Hence a number concord in ‫‘ נקרעו חיים‬they were split alive’ CD 12.13. ‫ רכיל‬in our idiom, however, appears to have become a fossilised component of the idiom as a whole, hence unchangeable as in ‫‘ ילכו רכיל לבני הוות‬they go slandering to ְ ‫ֻכּ ָלּם ָס ֵר י‬ the children of destruction’ 1QHa 13.27, also in BH as in ‫סוֹר ִר ים ה ְֹל ֵכי‬ ‫ ָר ִכיל‬Je 6.28 and ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁי ָר ִכיל ָהיוּ ָבְך‬Ezk 22.9. In the two BH examples ‫ רכיל‬is a constituent of a construct chain. However, in view of the coordinate clause ‫רכיל‬ in ‫ יהיה איש רכיל בעמו ומשלים את עמו לגוי נכר‬11Q19 64.7 does not constitute a construct chain with the preceding ‫איש‬: ‘if a man becomes an informer against his people, delivering his people to an alien people,’ ‫ איש‬being, on its own, the subject of the clause. Hence a plural transform such as ‫ יהיו אנשי רכיל‬is unlikely. The preposition bet in ‫ ברעהו‬can be expression of hostility, but ‫ רכיל‬is not about innocuous, innocent gossiping. Hence it can be taken as indicating a topic of oral communication, as it often does, e.g. ‫‘ אל ידבר בדברי המלאכה‬he shall not speak about matters of labour’ CD 10.19.577 1QS 7.16) ‫‘ ]והבדילהו שנה אחת‬one shall segregate him for one year.’ On the analysis of ‫ הבדילהו‬see above ad line 1. ‫‘ ]ונענש‬so shall he have been punished,’ a rare instance among these penalty regulations where nothing follows; the period of punishment has already been specified in the immediately preceding clause as well as what the punishment shall consist in — ‫והבדילהו שנה אחת מטהרת הרבים‬. 575 576 577

For a syntactic analysis of this example, see SQH § 41 c, with fn. 1 on p. 317. On the subject complement, see SQH § 31 t. For more references, see Clines DCH II.392b.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

153

In ‫‘ ]איש ברבים ילך רכיל לשלח הואה מאתם‬should someone go round as a slanderer about the many, such shall be sent down away from them.’ Here we have a protasis in name only, but not so marked. This is one of diverse syntactic constructions of protasis displayed in this long passage of penalty regulations.578 ‫]לשלח הואה‬, an extraordinary construction. Whilst ‫ לשלח‬can be safely viewed as an inf. cst. of deontic value, one would anticipate ‫ לשלחו‬or ‫לשלח אותו‬.579 ֗ 4Q261 6a-e.3, which can be parsed as Pf. as A 4Q fragment reads ‫ושלחוהו‬ in ‫ והבדילהו‬.. ‫‘ אם קלל‬if he cursed .. then one shall seclude him’ 1QS 7.1 and .. ‫‘ אם לוא תשיג ידו לשלמו ונענש‬if he cannot afford to repay it, then he shall be punished ..’ 1QS 7.8. In BH a waw apodosis is not attached to an Imperative (JM § 176 k). Since our 1QS case suggests a modal, injunctive value, one could restore Impv. ‫ שלחוהו‬without a waw or ‫ישלחוהו‬. Note the next line in our document: ‫האיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד ישלחהו ולוא ישוב‬. As against ‫( האיש אשר ילך רכיל ברעהו‬line 15), ‫ ברבים‬here is fronted, probably on account of a measure of prominence to be accorded to it, hence the severity of punishment, expulsion for good (‫)לא ישוב עוד‬. 1QS 7.17) ‫‘ ]והאיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד‬a person who grumbles over the fundamental spirit of the community.’ In BH the verb ‫לון‬, which means ‘to orally express displeasure, discontent or grievance’ occurs a total of 14 times and always governs the preposition ‫ ַעל‬with a personal referent, including God, and never with an inanimate referent. E.g. ‫יתנוּ‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ָל ָמּה זֶּ ה ֶה ֱע ִל‬ ֶ ‫וַ יָּ ֶלן ָה ָעם ַע ל־מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יּ‬ ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַר יִ ם‬Ex 17.3, ‫ת־תּ ֻלנּוֹת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר ֵה ָמּה ַמ ִלּינִ ים ָע ַלי ָשׁ ָמ ְע ִתּי‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬Nu 14.27 (God speaking), ‫ל־ה ֵע ָדה‬ ָ ‫ֹאמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם ָכּ‬ ְ ‫ל־א ֲהר ֹן כֹּל ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫ וַ יִּ ֹּלנוּ ַע ל־מ ֶֹשׁה וְ ַע‬Nu 14.2. In QH, if we leave out of account examples restored, whether fully or in part, the verb occurs three times: the remaining two are ‫‘ ואמ על רעהו ילון‬if he grumbles against a colleague of his’ 1QS 7.17 and ‫עצתי סוררים ומלינים סביב‬ ֯ ‫‘ אנשי‬men of my council are rebelling and grumbling all round’ 1QHa 13.27. Does ‫ יסוד‬signify a human being? Guilbert’s (53) “un dignitaire” must be so meant, but is such a sense borne by the word anywhere else? We remain sceptical. Besides, a line later Guilbert (ib.) shifts to “les (principes) fondamentaux,” which is very close to our understanding of the same phrase in line 17, as indicated in our translation above. With their “authority” and “autorità” Vermes (108), Charlesworth (33), and Martone580 (128) respectively they must mean ‘official, human organisation or institution’ as in local authorities, but not ‘power or right to enforce obedience,’ a sense which the word can scarcely bear.581 Basically the same interpretation is 578

For a fuller description, see SQH § 16 e. There is no absolute need to emend, pace Wernberg-Møller (119), to ‫איש אשר ברבים וגו׳‬. 579 See SQH § 1 c (i), where the only other QH example is mentioned: ‫כל אדם אשר יחרים אדם‬ ‫(‘ מאדם בחוקי הגוים להמית הוא‬In) every case of devotion where a person pronounces devotion on a fellow person, he himself shall be put to death in accordance with the gentile regulations’ CD 9.1. 580 At line 18, however, he (ib.) shifts to “fondamento.” 581 Thus pace Clines DCH III.97b: “‫ יְ סוֹד‬foundation, i.e. authority 1QS 718.”

154

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

represented by Pouilly (125) and Dupont-Sommer (30) with their “l’institution.”582 Among the relatively infrequent attestations in CH of our verb the first instance in 1QS 7.17 with ‫ על יסוד היחד‬is the only likely instance with a non-animate referent. Later we come across a case such as ‫‘ על שני הדברים נתלוננו‬they complained over the two things [= manna and quail]’ in a commentary by Ramban ad Ex 17.8. In Modern Hebrew ‫‘ להתלונן על‬to complain over (something)’ is a commonplace. Nobody would dispute that ‫ על‬often carries a nuance of enmity.583 All the same we may interpret ‫ על‬in a neutral sense of ‘concerning, over,’ i.e. marking a topic, subject matter, whether it marks a personal or impersonal referent, when used with ‫לון‬, in whichever stem. Its frequent translation with against with a nuance of hostility may not be a semantic component of the preposition, but arises from its combination with ‫לון‬, whose meaning carries a component of hostility. 1QS 7.18) ‫‘ ]האיש אשר תזוע רוחו מיסוד היחד‬a man whose spirit moves away from the fundamental spirit of the community.’ In BH the Qal verb ‫ זוע‬is commonly understood to mean ‘to tremble (out of fear),’ which does not apply here. On the other hand, the verb also seems to mean ‘to move.’ Kaddari (2006.244b) ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬ lists the two senses under one verb.584 He refers to Jerome’s rendition of ‫א־קם‬ ‫ל־מ ְרדֳּ ַכי ֵח ָמה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ל ֹא־זָ ע ִמ ֶמּנּוּ וַ יִּ ָמּ ֵלא ָה ָמן ַע‬Est 5.9: “(Cumque vidisset Mardochaeum sedentem ante fores palatii, et) non solum non adsurrexisse sibi, sed nec motum quidem de loco sessionis suae, indignatus est valde.”585 Kaddari also mentions Driver’s (1954.236) analysis of this passage. Driver mentions Arb. /zāġa/ as etymologically relevant here, for it means ‘to deviate, turn away, swerve’ taking the preposition /min/ as in our 1QS example.586 ‫‘ ]לבגוד באמת וללכת בשרירות לבו‬acting treacherously with the truth and walking with a stubborn attitude,’ epexegetical infinitives587 showing how his movement away manifests itself. 582 “The congregation of the community” of Wernberg-Møller (32) is tautologous. For that matter, the above-cited “the authority of the community” is also slightly tautologous, which would be avoided if ‫ היחד‬were viewed as a proper name that can then best be transliterated, Yachad. But then the plural is more idiomatic: ‘the Yachad authorities.’ 583 On BH, cf. BDB s.v. 7d (p. 757b). It occurs with ‫דבר‬, as in ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ר־ס ָרה ַע ל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ִכּ י ִד ֶבּ‬ Dt 13.6, a verbum legendi just as our ‫לון‬. 584 So does Brockelmann - Sokoloff (2009.374a) for Syriac √zwʻ. 585 True, Jerome’s rendition is rather paraphrastic, but his addition of sessio is justifiable, for that is latent in ‫ ;ל ֹא ָקם‬Haman was not pleased with Mordechai not only for failing to stand up as a gesture of respect, but also for not making way in order for Haman to walk on straight. Cf. Ralbag, a mediaeval (13th c.) Jewish commentator: ‫‘ לא התנועע כלל‬he did not make any movement at all.’ 586 Both Driver and Cohen VIII 707a mention Arab. /zāʻa/ and /zāġa/. Gesenius 1995.298a s.v. mentions no etymologically related Arabic word, whereas Gesenius (1915.196a) mentions only √z-w-ʻ ‘antreiben.’ Klein’s (1987.196b) glosses are only ‘to tremble, shudder.’ Lane’s Lexicon registers only √z-y-ʻ, said to mean in the first declension ‘to become spread (e.g. of news),’ but not √z-w-ʻ nor √z-w-ġ nor √z-y-ġ. This is a rather confusing picture. Wehr has no ‫ זוע‬nor ‫זיע‬, only √z-w-ġ and √z-y-ġ, both ‘to turn aside, depart.’ 587 On this value of the inf. cst., see SQH § 18 g.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

155

The syntagm -‫ ָבּגַ ד ב‬is pretty frequent in BH, always with a personal referent as in ‫ ַבּיהוָ ה ָבּגָ דוּ‬Ho 5.7. Likewise in our document: ‫‘ ושבה רוחו לבגוד ביחד‬and his spirit acts treacherously again with the community’ (line 23). QH attests to a syntagmatic extension in, e.g. ‫‘ וי֗ בגוד בחוקים‬and he acted treacherously with rules’ 1QpHab 8.10. 1QS 7.19) ‫‘ ]אמ ישוב‬should he repent.’ Though not said in so many words, the person possibly left the community of his own will and acted in this treacherous fashion outside of it, see below line 23.588 ‫‘ ]שתי שנים‬two years’ in lieu of ‫ שנתים‬1QS 9.1, indicative of a gradual decline of the dual except with numerals such as ‫מאתים‬.589 ‫‘ ]ברשונה‬in the first (year).’ A noun phrase as the core may be left out when it is easily recoverable from the context, following ‫‘ שתי שנים‬two years,’ likewise ‫‘ בשנית‬in the second (year)’ line 20. 1QS 7.20) ‫‘ ]אחר כול אנשי היחד ישב‬behind all the men of the community he shall sit.’ The locational phrase is up front, highlighting the member’s degradation. 1QS 7.21) ‫‘ ]שנתים ימים‬two years,’ an expression well-known in BH: Gn 41.1, 2Sm 13.23, 14.28, Je 28.3, 11. The author of 1QS appears to be fond of it; it recurs at 1QS 8.10, 25, 26, 9.2, and 4Q258 [= 4QSd] 6.4. Cf. also ‫‘ ח ֶֹדשׁ יָ ִמים‬one month.’ This is a juxtaposition, no genuine apposition, since there is no relation of equation or identity, i.e. ‘A is B.’590 In 1QS the phrase is an optional variant on ‫ שתי שנים‬7.19 and ‫ שנתים‬9.1.591 ‫( וִ ָיק ְר ֻבהוּ = ]יקרבהו‬Lohse 28), a fairly frequent defectiva spelling of ‫הו‬- in lieu of ‫והו‬- as an object suffix and typical of 1QS.592 ‫‘ ]אחר ישאל אל המשפט‬thereafter he shall be questioned over judgement,’ ‫אל‬ in lieu of ‫ע ל‬, ַ as earlier in the line, ‫על דבריו‬ ֗ .. ‫ישאלו‬. 1QS 7.22) Quite a few letters have been erased to the right of the line. ‫‘ ]על מלואת עשר שנים‬till ten years have elapsed.’ On ‫ ַעל‬as a near-synonym of ‫עד‬, ַ see Wernberg-Møller 120, fn. 48; a 4Q fragment, 4QSe actually reads ‫עד‬.593 1QS 7.23) ‫‘ ]ושבה רוחו לבגוד ביחד ויצא ֿמלפני הרבים ללכת בשרירות לבו‬and his spirit backslides, acting treacherously with the community and farewells the Many, walking with an obstinate attitude.’ Supposing that the extensive erasures in lines 22 and 23 were correctly executed, to parse ‫ ושבה‬and ‫ ויצא‬as w-qataltí forms continuing ‫ יהיה‬would accord with the classical, orthodox Hebrew syntax,594 i.e. pace Habermann’s (67) ‫ וַ יֵּ ֵצא‬and Lohse’s (28) ‫וְ יֵ ֵצא‬. 588 589 590 591 592 593 594

Brownlee (30f.) combines both: “if he repents [and returns].” See SQH § 8 g. See SQH § 29 e, and cf. JM § 131 e. See SQH § 8 g. Qimron 2018.61, § A 2.1.3. Cf. Greenfield 1977. So also Smith 1991.43.

156

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS COLUMN 8 1QS 8.1 - 16a 8.1) In the council of the community (there shall be) twelve men including three priests impeccable in respect of all that becomes revealed from the entire 8.2) law in order (for members) to practise honesty, righteousness and justice and to value mercy, and to walk in humility with one another, 8.3) to preserve faithfulness in the land as a trustful creature and a broken spirit and to make amends for iniquity through those who practise righteousness 8.4) and a testing distress, and walk with every (member) in accordance with the measure of truth and the regulation of the time. When these become a reality in Israel, 8.5) the true community council to be an eternal plantation will have been founded, a sanctuary for Israel and a foundation of 8.6) supreme holiness for Aaron, witnesses of truth for justice and ones chosen by (God’s) pleasure to atone for the land and to repay 8.7) the wicked their deserts. This is the tested wall, a precious cornerstone. 8.8) They will not tremble nor will they be scared of their place, a habitation of supreme holiness 8.9) for Aaron with eternal (?) knowledge for the sake of a covenant of justice and designed for offering a pleasing aroma and a house of integrity and truth in Israel 8.10) to establish a covenant consisting of eternal rules, and they will, to His pleasure, atone on behalf of the land and hand down a verdict against wickedness. When these (leaders) have proven themselves in the congregation of the community over two years by the integrity of conduct and with no deed of iniquity, 8.11) they shall form a separate group of saints within the council of the community members, and every matter that is concealed from Israel and has been found out by 8.12) the learning person, he shall not hide it from these (people) with a frightened, withdrawn spirit, and when these become a community in Israel 8.13) under these rules, they shall dissociate themselves from among the community of iniquity in order to go to the wilderness to clear there the way of YHWH, 8.14) as is written: ‘In the wilderness clear the way of YHWH. Straighten in the desert a path for our God.’ 8.15) That is the study of the law which He commanded through Moses (for us) to practise in accordance with all that becomes revealed from time to time, 8.16) and also as the prophets revealed through His holy spirit, 1QS 8.1) ‫‘ ]בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש וכוהנים שלושה‬in the council of the community (there shall be) twelve men including three priests.’ In QH a counting numeral, in 87% of its cases, precedes a noun phrase, see SQH § 26 a. The two sequences appear to be freely variable. And yet, in this particular case, they are found one next to the other, which we would not think to be indicative of merely stylistic variation. Dupont-Sommer595 argues that if the priests were meant to 595

Wernberg-Møller (123, n. 1), presumably referring to Dupont-Sommer 1951.11.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

157

be distinct from the twelve, thus making the total membership of the council fifteen,596 one would expect the priests mentioned first. The number ‘twelve’ is most likely a reference to the twelve tribes, but the priests would be Levites anyway, so overrepresented on the council. But ten of the twelve tribes had long since disappeared. Hence the number ‘twelve’ must only be carrying here a symbolic meaning. 1QS 8.2) ‫‘ ]לעשות וגו׳‬to practise etc.’ The practices indicated by this and another three following infinitives are most likely incumbent not only on the twelve council members, but also on every member of the community. A comma inserted by Qimron (I 224) after ‫ מכול התורה‬may represent such an analysis. Or without the comma the infinitives can be viewed as epexegetically indicating the purpose of their appointment or the revelation from the law. ‫‘ ]לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת איש אמ רעהו‬to practise honesty, righteousness and justice and to value mercy, and to walk in humility with one another,’ an expansive quote from Mi 6.8, which reads ‫ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ם־א‬ ֱ ‫וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד וְ ַה ְצנֵ ַע ֶל ֶכת ִע‬. We have here a series of three coordinate infinitives.597 ‫א ֲה ָבה‬, ַ though a verbal noun morphologically, is functioning here as a substitute of ‫;ל ֱאהֹב‬ ֶ being a substantive, it cannot be prefixed with -‫ל‬.598 ‫הצנע‬, morphologically an inf. abs., is functioning as a verbal noun,599 and virtually an inf. cst. as the preceding ‫אהבה‬. All this means that ‫ הצנע וגו׳‬.. ‫ אהבת‬are not direct objects of ‫ לעשות‬as ‫ אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬is. Thus ‫ אהבת חסד‬is a case of the so-called objective genitive.600 Hence rather “l’amour de la charité” (van der Ploeg 122b) than “affectionate love” (Wernberg-Møller 33), “merciful love” (Charlesworth 35), and “barmherzige Liebe” (Lohse 29), for instance. The expansion of ‫ משפט‬with ‫ אמת וצדקה‬also occurs at 1QS 1.5 and 5.3, see our remarks above on these two instances. The reworded ‫הצנע לכת איש אמ רעהו‬ is probably meant to show one practical manner in which one could and should practise the biblical instruction; one cannot physically walk with God. ‫ אמ‬is of course = ‫עם‬, whether a plain error or an indication of the contemporary phonetic vacillation between various gutturals. 1QS 8.3) ‫]לשמור אמונה בארצ ביצר סמוכ ורוח נשברה‬. The parallelism of ‫ יצר‬with ‫ רוח‬may indicate a meaning of the former as different from that which we argued for above ad 1QS 4.5, namely ‘(a human being as God’s) creature’; in MH one of the senses of ‫ יצר‬is ‘disposition, inborn nature,’ as in ‫ יֵ ֶצר ַהטּוֹב‬and ‫יֵ ֶצר ָה ָרע‬. If the phrase ‫יצר סמוך‬, however, means “firm purpose” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 89) or suchlike, ‫ סמוך‬and ‫ נשברה‬would not form a synonymic parallelism, though one 596 597 598 599 600

So Licht (167ff.). Cf. SQH § 18 o, n. 5. On various types of verbal nouns substituting for the inf. cst., see JM § 49 ca - d. On the substantivisation of the inf. abs., see SQH § 18 oa. See SQH § 21 b xiv.

158

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

might object that humility and penitence on the one hand and firmness of disposition and attitude on the other do not necessarily contradict each other, and some people can be both. We would propose an alternative analysis by viewing ‫ביצר‬ ‫ סמוך‬as a subject complement prefixed with a so-called bet essentiae as in ‫ִהנֵּ ה‬ ‫‘ ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ְבּ ָחזָ ק יָ בוֹא‬behold, the Lord YHWH will come as a mighty one’ Is 40.10 and ‫י־שׁם ְלגוֹי גָּ דוֹל ָע צוּם וָ ָרב‬ ָ ‫ וַ יֵּ ֶר ד ִמ ְצ ַר יְ ָמה וַ יָּ גָ ר ָשׁם ִבּ ְמ ֵתי ְמ ָעט וַ יְ ִה‬Dt 26.5.601 Thus ‘to preserve faithfulness in the land as a trustful creature and a contrite spirit.’ In its three occurrences in 1QHa the phrase ‫ יצר סמוך‬can be assigned the same meaning as in the two cases in 1QS discussed above. (1) ‫‘ היו ליצר סמוך‬Become trustful creatures!’ 1QHa 9.37602; the singular ‫ יצר‬can be viewed as being used generically. The preposition lamed can be optionally prefixed to a predicate when the verb signifies ‘to become,’ e.g. ‫וַ יְ ִהי ָה ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ְלנֶ ֶפשׁ ַחיָּ ה‬Gn 2.7.603 (2) ‫ יצר סמוך לכול נמהרי לב‬.. ‫‘ ואהיה‬and I became .. a trustful creature for all those who were scared to death’ 1QHa 10.10.604 (3) ‫‘ להמיר בהולל יצר סמוך‬to swap a trustful creature for madness’ 1QHa 10.38. On the other hand, we do admit that ‫ סמוך‬is best parsed as a Qal passive in a few cases, in which its meaning, however, is slightly nuanced. Thus ‫אשוכ ֯ב ֯ע ׄדה‬ ‫‘ גבול סמוכ‬I shall put up a solid barrier around it’ 1QS 10.25; ‫‘ קול נוח וסמוך‬a low and unbroken sound’ 1QM 8.7, sim. ib. 14. ‫‘ ]לרצת עוון בעושי משפט‬to pay for (every) iniquity by practising justice.’ Our translation is not literal, but contextually adjusted. Thus the enclosed every. Further, ‫ עושי‬can only be a participle, whether sg. or pl., and probably in the st. cst. Similarly to ‫ ביצר סמוכ‬earlier in the line, we have here a subject complement prefixed with a bet essentiae. This analysis is admittedly a little awkward with the following, coordinate ‫‘ צרת מצרפ‬a trying distress,’ but we see no other possibility of accounting for the nomen agentis, ‫עושי משפט‬.605 The coordination is syntactically loose. 601 On the category of ‘subject complement,’ see SQH § 31 t, and on bet essentiae, BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬I 7 b, JM § 133 c, and Jenni 1992.79-89. 602 “Become firm in purpose” (DJD 40.131) sounds a shade too free. 603 For more BH examples, see BDB s.v. ‫ ָהיָ ה‬Qal II 2 e, cf. also Clines s.v. ‫ ָהיָ ה‬Qal, II 528.b530a. 604 “I became .. a resolute purpose” (DJD 40.142) makes little sense. 605 Brownlee (31, fn. 7) holds that the participle refers to “the special group of fifteen perfect men.” Likewise Milik (149): “per eros qui faciunt iudicium” and Guilbert (55, with fn. 9): “grâce à ceux qui pratiquent le droit,” cf. Dupont-Sommer (31): “parmi ceux qui pratiquent le droit.” Did the Qumran community advocate a doctrine of vicarious atonement? Habermann’s (67) ֹֺ‫ ְבּעֺֹשׂ‬is grammatically impossible. Wernberg-Møller’s (123, fn. 8) attempt to admit here an otherwise unattested nomen actionis is justly rejected in DJD 26.143. WernbergMøller takes recourse to ‫ חֹזֶ ה‬in Is 28.15, where, however, it is parallel to ‫ ְבּ ִר ית‬and is no verb. He further mentions ‫ ֲע ֵד י א ֵֹבד‬Nu 24.20, 24; it is more sensible to follow Ehrlich (1909.207) and emend the MT to ‫ֹאבד‬ ֵ ‫ל ַעד י‬.ָ

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

159

Van der Ploeg (122b) hesitatingly renders ‫ לרצת‬with “pour briser(?),” seeing in it an alternative root of √‫רצץ‬, a questionable view. Both Habermann (67) and Lohse (28) vocalise the form as ‫ל ַר צֹּת‬,ְ but in Piel the verb takes a person to be appeased as object, not a punishable deed. E.g. ‫ ָבּנָ יו יְ ַר צּוּ ַד ִלּים‬Jb 20.10 and ֺ ‫‘ ַאל ְתּ ַר ֶצּה ֲח ֵב ְרָך ִבּ ְשׁ ַעת ַכּ ְעסו‬Don’t try to appease your friend when he is angry’ mAb 4.18. The collocation is widely agreed to depend on ‫ת־עוֹנָ ם‬ ֲ ‫ֵהם יִ ְר צוּ ֶא‬ Lv 26.43. 1QS 8.4) ‫עם כול‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]להתהלכ‬to walk with everybody.’ ‫ כול‬here means ‘any member of the community,’ not ‘to walk all together.’ Where ‫ כול‬is used on its own without the definite article and with a personal referent, it agrees with a pl. verb when it means ‘all concerned’ as in ‫‘ כל אשר פרצו‬all those who have broken through’ CD 20.25, see SQH § 28 a. Hence the sg. ‫ יוכל‬is noteworthy in ‫איכה יוכל‬ ‫‘ כול להשנות את דבריכה‬how could anyone go against Your words?’ 1QHa 7.27, which is a rhetorical question and ‫‘ לא יוכל איש‬nobody could’ is implied. ‫‘ ]במדת‬in the measure of.’ Qimron (I 224) reads ‫ב)ע(מדת‬ ̇ by restoring an erased letter after the bet.606 ‫)ה(עצת היחד באמת‬ ֗ ‫ ]בהיות אלה בישראל נכונה‬A demonstrative pronoun can be used on its own, referring to either a person or thing. Thus personal — ‫אל‬ ‫‘ יבוא בקהל אלה‬he shall not join the assembly of these (people)’ 1QSa 2.4 and impersonal — ‫‘ עשיתה כול אלה‬You have made all these things’ 1QHa 18.14.607 Scholars are divided over the analysis of ‫ אלה‬at 1QS 8.4. For some, e.g. WernbergMøller (124), it refers to the fifteen council members, but for others, e.g. van der Ploeg (122b), it refers to the actions indicated by the series of the six preceding infinitives, ‘when these become a reality.’ What immediately follows, beginning with ‫נכונה‬, forms the most obvious apodosis: ‘the true community council to be an eternal plantation will have been founded.’608 As in BH, can bear a temporal value. The time indicated can be a moment or a period as shown in ‫‘ וילך לדרכו בברכו אותו שם‬and he [= Jacob] resumed his journey after he [= the angel] had blessed him there’ 4Q158 1+2.10; ‫‘ בעוברם‬as they pass’ 1QS 1.18, see SQH § 18 k. In the present case the value is probably punctiliar: ‘when these have emerged.’ ‫‘ ]קודש קודשים‬supreme holiness.’ A word may be repeated to indicate greater intensity. Here we have a particular model with a noun in the st. cst. sg. followed by the same noun in the plural, see SQH § 8 b. 1QS 8.6) ‫‘ ]ב)י֯(חירי רצון‬those (persons) chosen by divine pleasure.’ This is a relatively rare example of ‫ בחיר‬in the st. cst. Other examples of ‫ רצון‬are ‫ְבּ ֵעת ָר צוֹן‬ 606

Cf. DJD 26.141. See SQH § 3 e. 608 In Charlesworth’s (35) translation no apodosis is found. For Wernberg-Møller (33) the apodosis is ‫( היאה חומת הבחן‬line 7), which is too far removed, and ‫ באמת‬.. ‫ נכונה‬has been turned into an adverbial, circumstantial clause: “the council .. being established in truth.” 607

160

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‘at a time when I am pleased’ Is 49.8 and ‫‘ מנחת רצון‬an offering to His pleasure’ CD 11.21. The nomen regens in this syntagm is impersonal; the only other exception is ‫‘ אנשי רצון‬persons of His pleasure’ 4Q418 81-81a.10. Furthermore ‘pleasure’ is that of God. The only exception to this rule is noteworthy: ‫שנת הרצון‬ ‫צד ֗ק‬ ֯ ‫למ ֗לכי‬ ֗ ‘the year favoured by Melchizedek’ 11Q13 2.9. We have here a creative adaptation of the biblical source text, which is ‫ת־ר צוֹן ַליהוָ ה‬ ָ ַ‫ ִל ְקר ֹא ְשׁנ‬Is 61.3. ‫]לכפר בעד הארצ‬ ֗ ‘to atone for the land.’ The patterns of government of this theologically important and common verb do not differ between BH and QH. In BH the attested patterns are e.g. ‫ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַא ְד ָמתוֹ ַעמּוֹ‬Dt 32.43; e.g. ‫ יְ ַכ ֵפּר ָעוֹן‬Ps 78.38; e.g. ‫אתינוּ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַכ ֵפּר ַע‬Ps 79.9; , e.g. ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ַכ ֵפּר ֲע ֵל‬Lv 8.34; e.g. ‫וְ ִכ ֶפּר ָע ָליו ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ל־ח ָטּאתוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬Lv 4.35; e.g. ‫ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ָע ָליו ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֵמ ַח ָטּאתוֹ‬Lv 4.26; ‫וּב ַעד ָה ָעם‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַכ ֵפּר ַבּ ַע ְדָך‬Lv 9.7; ‫את ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ֲא ַכ ְפּ ָרה ְבּ ַעד ַח ַטּ‬ Ex 32.30; e.g. ‫ ַכּ ֵפּר ְל ַע ְמָּך‬Dt 21.8; e.g. ‫ל־א ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂית‬ ֲ ‫י־לְך ְל ָכ‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ ַכ ְפּ ִר‬Ez 16.63. In rare instances of passive transformation we note that a sin appears as the grammatical subject, e.g. ‫אתָך ְתּ ֻכ ָפּר‬ ְ ‫ ַח ָטּ‬Is 6.7; ‫יְ ֻכ ַפּר‬ ָ ‫ָל ָא ֶרץ לֹא־יְ ֻכ ַפּר ַל ָדּם ֲא ֶשׁר ֻשׁ ַפּ‬ ‫ ֶה ָעוֹן ַהזֶּ ה ָל ֶכם‬Is 22.14; ‫ וְ נִ ַכּ ֵפּר ָל ֶהם ַה ָדּם‬Dt 21.8, but ‫ְך־בּהּ‬ Nu 35.33 with an impersonally used passive. No instance, however, of a person as the subject occurs. The preposition lamed in ‫ ָל ָא ֶר ץ‬at the above-cited Nu 35.33 as well as in ‫ ָלְך‬Ez 16.33, ‫ ָל ֶכם‬Is 22.14 and ‫ ָל ֶהם‬Dt 21.8 is probably equivalent to dativus commodi. Likewise ‫‘ וכופר להמה הדם‬and the blood will be expiated for them’ 11Q19 63.7. ‫‘ כופר עליהמה‬atonement was achieved for them [= persons]’ 11Q19 17.2 is an illuminating instance of the pattern used with an impersonally used passive verb. As against the sole instance in BH of the syntagm , it is pretty common in QH: e.g. ‫‘ כפר בעד עונם‬He expiated their iniquity’ CD 3.18, ‫‘ ברוב טובו יכפר בעד כול עוונותי‬with the abundance of His goodness He will pardon all my iniquities’ 1QS 11.14, see also 1QHa 4.24 and 4Q504 1-2Rii9. ‫ יכפרו רצונו בעד שבי פשע‬4Q400 1i16 is rather odd; possibly an error for ‫כרצונו‬, cf. ‫ לכפר לנו כרצונכה‬4Q414 1ii-2i3. ‫‘ ]להשב לרשעים גמולם‬to render the wicked their deserts,’ cf. ‫מוּלם ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ְ‫ָה ֵשׁב גּ‬ Ps 28.4. 1QS 8.7) ‫‘ ]היאה חומת הבחן פנת יקר‬this is the tested wall ..’ The first half is an identificatory609 nominal clause: the community emerging as described above, our author is saying, is what was foreseen by Isaiah the prophet. Licht (175) justly identified our author’s biblical source in ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ִהנְ נִ י יִ ַסּד‬ ‫מוּסּד ַה ַמּ ֲא ִמין ל ֹא יָ ִחישׁ‬ ָ ‫מוּסד‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ ִציּוֹן ָא ֶבן ֶא ֶבן בּ ַֹחן ִפּנַּ ת יִ ְק ַרת‬Is 28.16. The prophet could only envision a tested wall, the Qumran community is that wall, ‫הבחן‬. 609 On the grouping of nominal clauses into two kinds, descriptive and identificatory, see JM § 154 ea. ‫ יהוה ר ִֹעי‬Ps 23.1 can be understood as a reply to an implied question ‫‘ ִמי ר ֲֹעָך‬Who is your shepherd?’. Then it is identificatory, and it can be also be expressed with ‫יהוה הוּא ר ִֹעי‬. However, if ‘the Lord is my shepherd’ is meant to be a reply to the question ‘What is the Lord to you?,’ the reverse sequence, ‫ר ִֹעי יהוה‬, would be more idiomatic.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

161

The selection of the fem. pronoun, ‫היאה‬, is due to the gender of ‫חומה‬. Similarly ‫‘ היאה עת פנות הדרך למדבר‬that is the time for preparing the way to the wilderness’ 1QS 9.19. Cf. SQH § 33 bg. ‫ פנת יקר‬is grammatically amiss: the st. cst. of ‫ פנת‬makes no sense with ‫יקר‬ as its nomen rectum, and, for that matter, the MT at Is 28.16 with two words in st. cst. one after another is no less difficult.610 The source text suggests something like ‫פנת מוסד יקר‬. ֿ‫‘ ]בל יזדעזעו יסודותיֿ הי‬its foundations will not shake.’ Qimron (I 224) indicates his uncertainty by means of a supra-linear stroke. The proper, Aramaising spelling should be ‫יסודותוהי‬, a form that reflects an ugly mixture of the morphology of Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic is logical with its ‫‘ ְבּנָ ֵתהּ‬his daughters,’ and not ‫*בּנָ תו ִֺהי‬ ְ as against ‫ ְבּנו ָֺתיו‬in Hebrew, and not ֺ ‫*בּנו ֺתו‬. ְ The addition of the m.sg. pronoun postulates a masculine noun as its referent, which ‫ מוסד‬suggested above can be. The blank space of the 4QSe fragment ad loc. (4Q259 2.16) cannot accommodate this long noun form.611 Then the plural form of the verb could be referring to the members of the community. This latter alternative would better account for the m.pl. pronoun in ‫ מקומם‬in the following clause, ‫ממקומם‬ ֿ ‫ובל יחיֿ שו‬.612 1QS 8.8) ‫ממקומם‬ ֿ ‫ ]בל יחיֿ שו‬has often been translated “they will not be dislodged from their place.” If the verb in question is to be derived from a wellestablished one in BH, √‫‘ חושׁ‬to hurry,’ such a translation is odd.613 The verb is assumed to have ‫ יסודותוהי‬as its subject. We would suggest deriving the form from √‫‘ חשׁשׁ‬to fear,’ hence ‫  יָ חו ֺשּׁוּ‬, i.e. they [= members of the community] will not be scared of their place, for the place where they stand is secure and solid. This verb root is well known to MH, e.g. ‫ ַאל ָתּחוּשׁוּ ְל ִמנְ יַ נְ ֶכם‬mYad 4.3, though so vocalised the verb is from √‫חושׁ‬.614 Let us note that at 4QSe 2.16 Qimron (I 225) prefers to read ‫יחוֿ שו‬. The two roots may be homonymous, both having to do with the notion of anxiety.615 610

Pace Ehrlich (IV 101) the combination can scarcely mean “einen kostbaren Eckstein.” For Wernberg-Møller’s (33) “the costly cornerstone” one would anticipate ‫אבן הפנה היקרה‬. Likewise Brownlee’s (32) “the costly corner bulwark” and Milik’s (149) “lapis angularis pretiosus.” Lohse (28) postulates an abstract noun: ‫“ ִפּנַּ ת יְ ָקר‬der köstliche Eckstein,” for which we anticipate ‫ !פנת ַהיְ ָקר‬Would BH tolerate ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת ָמ ַרת נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in lieu of ‫?א ָשּׁה ָמ ַרת נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ ִ In DJD 26.106 we are told that ‫ פנת יקר‬stands in apposition to ‫חומת הבחן‬, but the former, unlike the latter, does not constitute a noun phrase that is grammatically and semantically acceptable. 611 DJD 26.105 provides an extensive reconstruction for another 4Q fragment, 4QSd 6.2, including ‫יזדעזעו יסודותיהו‬, but the masc. suffix does not agree with ‫ הומה‬nor with ‫פנה‬, also reconstructed. 612 In DJD 26.106 we read that the two verbal clauses as “asyndetic relative clauses,” with which “antecedentless relative clauses” seems to be meant. 613 Van der Ploeg’s (122b) “ne seront pas vite déplacés” is a compromise. 614 For examples of the verb governing ‫מן‬, ִ see Ben Yehuda 1959, vol. 3, p. 1812a, s.v. ‫חשׁשׁ‬. It commonly introduces a source of fear with words such as ‫ יָ ֵר א‬and ‫פּ ַחד‬. ַָ 615 Cf. Dalman 1938: for both ‫ חוּשׁ‬and ‫ ָח ַשׁשׁ‬he admits as one of the senses “leiden, Schmerz empfinden,” and “ängstlich, bekümmert sein” for ‫ חוּשׁ‬and “besorgt sein” for ‫ח ַשׁשׁ‬. ָ The two

162

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ]מעון קודש קודשים‬a compartment for the holy of holies,’ cf. ‫קּ ָד ִשׁים‬ ֳ ‫ק ֶֹדשׁ ַה‬ Ex 26.33, 34. A construct phrase consisting of two identical nouns with the second in the plural is equivalent to the superlative degree as in ‫ארץ חמדות כל‬ ‫‘ הארצות‬the most desirable of lands’ 4Q374 2ii5; ‫מלך‬ ֗ ‫נחלת קדוש קדושים גורל‬ ‫‘ מלכים‬inheritance of the holiest one, lot of the supreme king’ 4Q381 76+77.7; ‫‘ אל אלים‬the supreme God’ 4Q403 1ii9, 4Q510 1.2, cf. ‫ ֶע ֶבד ֲע ָב ִדים‬Gn 9.25 and ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך ַמ ְל ַכיָּ א‬Dn 2.37, Ezr 7.12. Unlike our 1QS example, in which ‫ קודש‬is a substantive, = ‫ק ֶֹדשׁ‬, we have an adjective, ‫קדו ֺשׁ‬,ָ repeated in the above-cited ‫קדוש‬ ‫קדושים‬, i.e. ‫קד ֹשׁ ְקד ִֹשׁים‬, ְ though the adjective here is substantivised as shown by its parallel, ‫מלך‬. We doubt that in Hebrew you could say ‫ בית גְּ דו ֺל גְּ דו ִֺלים‬for ‘a gigantic house.’ Though ‫ קדוש קדושים‬in ‫גדול וקדוש יהוה קדוש קדושים לדור‬ ‫ ודור‬11Q5 26.9 is parallel to ‫גדול וקדוש‬, it can still be viewed as substantivised. 1QS 8.9) ‫]בדעת כולם‬, an incomprehensible phrase, which Brownlee (33), Wernberg-Møller (127), and Lohse (30) emend to ‫‘ דעת עולם‬eternal knowledge.’616 ‫‘ ]להקריב = לקריב‬to offer.’ This infinitive clause complements the preceding substantive, ‫מעון‬, for what activities the space is designed for, cf. SQH § 18 i. ‫‘ ]בית תמים ואמת‬a house of integrity and truth.’ The parallelism with ‫אמת‬ shows that ‫ תמים‬is used as equivalent to an abstract noun. Cf. the BH combination in ‫וּב ֱא ֶמת‬ ֶ ‫ יְ ראוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה וְ ִע ְבדוּ אֹתוֹ ְבּ ָת ִמים‬Josh 24.14. 1QS 8.10) ‫‘ ]להקם ברית לחוקות עולם‬to establish a covenant consisting of eternal rules.’ Just as the infinitive clause in the preceding line, ‫לקריב וגו׳‬, this infinitive clause indicates that ‫ בית‬mentioned in the preceding line is where this activity is to be executed. Wernberg-Møller (127, n. 32) maintains that ‫ חוקי ברית אל‬CD 5.12 and ‫חקי‬ ‫ הברית‬ib. 20.29 with ‫ ברית‬serving as a nomen rectum prove the intervening preposition -‫ ל‬as intended “to discontinue the sequence of construct states.” But his translation “the covenant of eternal ordinances” can represent ‫ברית חוקות‬ ‫ עולם‬with no problem at all. Our author is probably of the view that ‫חוקות עולם‬ needed to be formalised as ‫ ברית‬between God and the community. From the context it is clear that ‫ תמים‬is substantivised, meaning ‘integrity,’ hence ‘integrity of conduct,’ see SQH § 9 b, 21 e. The phrase is virtually synonymous with ‫ תום דרך‬1QS 11.11, in which ‫ תום‬is a straightforward substantive. ‫ ]אין עולה‬Parallel to the preceding prepositional phrase, both modifying ‫הכון‬ as adverbial phrases of manner,617 is syntactically unusual, for ‫אין עולה‬, being a self-standing nominal clause, cannot be in lieu of ‫באין עולה‬. notions of haste and anxiety are not mutually exclusive, cf. ‫ וַ יְ ָמ ֵהר‬Gn 43.30 with LXX καὶ ἐταράχθη and ‫ ִמ ְת ָבּ ַהל‬Dn 5.9 with TH ἐταράχθη. 616 Rejecting this, Charlesworth (35) proffers “all-encompassing knowledge.” But what would the suffix ‫ם‬- refer to? Possibly ‘with knowledge of everyone (of the community members)’ or ‘as (‫ )כדעת‬everyone knows’? 617 Pace Charlesworth (35): “among the perfect of the Way,” which would be ‫ בתמימי דרך‬or ‫תמי דרך‬, cf. 1QS 4.22.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

163

‫‘ ]והיו לרצון לכפר בעד הארצ‬and they will have met (God’s) pleasure, atoning on behalf of the land.’ The general meaning of the clause is in little doubt. In syntagmatic terms, however, we have here a unique example. Wernberg-Møller (128, n. 33) is right in identifying here the sacrificial, liturgical terminology as appears in Lv 1.3, for instance. Yet the linkage between our 1QS example and the passages in Lv is only apparent. ‫ היו‬here has people, religious leaders as its grammatical subjects. By contrast, at Lv 1.3 one who is offering a sacrifice is any Israelite, though a priest would of course be involved: ‫ יַ ְק ִר יב‬.. ‫ָא ָדם ִכּי יַ ְק ִר יב‬ ‫ אֹתוֹ ִל ְר צֹנוֹ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬Lv 1.2-3. In the following verse we note a combination of Pi. ‫ כפר‬and √‫רצה‬: ‫וְ ָס ַמְך יָ דוֹ ַע ל ר ֹאשׁ ָהע ָֹלה וְ נִ ְר ָצה לוֹ ְל ַכ ֵפּר ָע ָליו‬. The grammatical subject of ‫ נִ ְר ָצה‬is the sacrificial animal and the referent of ֺ ‫ לו‬is the person offering it. That ‫ ְל ַכ ֵפּר‬cannot be the subject of ‫ נִ ְר ָצה‬is proven by the plural form in ‫ מוּם ָבּם ל ֹא יֵ ָר צוּ ָל ֶכם‬Lv 22.25. The syntagm היָ ה ְל ָר צו ֺן‬ ָ is illuminating in ‫כֹּל‬ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר־בּוֹ מוּם ל ֹא ַת ְק ִר יבוּ ִכּי־ל ֹא ְל ָר צוֹן יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬Lv 22.20, where also the subject of ‫ יהיה‬is a sacrifice.618 ‫‘ ]לחרוצ משפט רשעה‬to hand down a verdict over wickedness’; for the collocation ‫חרץ משפט‬, see ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטָך ַא ָתּה ָח ָר ְצ ָתּ‬1Kg 20.40. 1QS 8.11) ‫‘ ]יבדלו קודש‬they shall form a separate group of saints,’ where ‫קודש‬ is a subject complement, on which see SQH § 31 t, whereas ‫ ֯לקדש‬4Q259 3.1 is easier to follow. The verb is Nifal with ingressive value, ‘to become separate,’ on which see SQH § 12 f 7. The reflexive value (ib. § 12 f 3) is not totally impossible, cf. ‫‘ להבדל מבני השחת ולהנזר מהון הרשעה‬to dissociate oneself from the children of the pit and abstain from the ill-gotten mammon’ CD 6.14. ‫‘ ]כול דבר הנסתר מישראל ונמצאו לאיש‬every matter that is concealed from Israel and has been found out by a person.’ Just as in ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬anybody that happens to be there’ 1QS 6.2, does not always signify ‘the whole of’ as in, e.g. ‫‘ כול התורה‬the entire law,’ but can mean the same as ; see further SQH § 28 c. ‫ כול דבר וגו׳‬is in extraposition and resumed with an object suffix in ‫( יסתרהו‬line 12). The binyan Nifal of ‫ נסתר‬is not passive, but ingressive in value; the genuine passive, ‘to be deliberately concealed,’ would be Hofal, ‫מוּס ָתּר‬. ְ The same holds for the following ‫נמצאו‬, which does not necessarily imply the extraordinary intelligence and acumen on the part of the student. Hence the preposition of ‫ לאיש‬does not mark the agens of a passive verb.619 The selection of ‫ ל־‬here is most likely due to the rection of the semantically close ‫ נגלה‬as in ‫כול הנגלה להם‬ ‘every matter that becomes revealed to them’ 1QS 9.19 // ‫ כול הנמצא‬ib. 20. A participle prefixed with the article can refer to a past event (SQH § 17 h). Then ‫ ַהנִּ ְס ָתּר‬would nicely concord with the following ‫ונמצאו‬. However, we do 618

Cf. a discussion by Milgrom 1991.153. On the ingressive Nifal, see SQH § 12 e 7, and on the presumed agens-marking -‫ל‬, see SQH § 46 b. 619

164

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

not have here a historical narrative and there is nothing in the context which might suggest that concealment took place in the past, whether recent or remote. The pl. ‫ נמצאו‬is an ad sensum construction, for ‫ כול דבר הנסתר‬is virtually synonymous with ‫כול דברים נסתרים‬. 4QSd reads ‫נמצא‬. This is a rather common phenomenon. To quote only one example, ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬everyone that does these things are an abomination to Me’ 11Q19 60.19, where the pl. ‫ המה‬is to be noted.620 However, ‫ כול דבר‬here is taken up later with the sg. pronoun in ‫‘ אל יסתרהו‬one ought not to conceal it.’ 1QS 8.12) ‫]מיראת רוח נסוגה‬. A translation such as “out of fear of a backsliding spirit” (Wernberg-Møller 33) is ambiguous; it is not about a fear felt towards, but generated and felt by a backsliding / hesitant spirit. In other words we have here a subjective, not objective genitive; SQH § 21 b xiii. 1QS 8.13) ‫]הנשי‬, which both 4QSd and 4QSe correctly spell ‫אנשי‬.621 ‫‘ ללכת למדבר‬to go to the desert,’ for which 4QSe reads ‫המ ֯ד ֗בר‬ ֗ ‫ל ֯ל ֗כת‬.֯ An adverbial expressing a space does not necessarily require a preposition or a he locale. This is true in BH: e.g. ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך נֵ ֵלְך‬Nu 20.17, even with a nota obiecti added — ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַהגָּ דוֹל‬ ַ ‫ וַ נֵּ ֶלְך ֵאת ָכּ‬Dt 1.19. Unlike in our ‫למדבר‬, these adverbials do not indicate a direction or destination, but in BH we do come across cases such as ‫‘ וַ יֵּ ֶלְך ָה ִאישׁ ֶא ֶר ץ ַה ִח ִתּים‬.. to the land of the Hittites’ Jdg 1.26 and ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ָל ֶל ֶכת ֶא ֶר ץ ִבּנְ יָ ִמן‬ ָ ‫ וַ יֵּ ֵצא יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ִמ‬Jr 37.12. In QH, however, we do not find any analogous instance.622 There is no absolute need to adjust, as DJD 26.144, 146 does, the text to be restored to the 1QS reading and read ‫דברה‬ ֯ ‫המ‬. ֗ Furthermore, the use of this directional / terminative morpheme is, in comparison with BH, rather modest in QH.623 ‫‘ ]לפנות שם את דרכ הואהא‬to clear there the way of YHWH.’ 4QSe appears ‫לפנות‬. The otiose use of this adverbial morpheme is known to be reading ‫שמה‬ ֗ to BH and QH alike, e.g. ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה ֻק ַבּר ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬Gn 25.10 and ‫גם שמה לוא ינוח לך‬ 4QIsac 9.17 = Is 23.12 with ‫ ָשׁם‬in MT. ‫]דרכ הואהא‬, which is part of a quote from Is 40.3 with ‫( ֶדּ ֶרְך יְ הוָ ה‬MT). We follow Brownlee (33, n. 29), who sees here a surrogate for the Tetragrammaton created as an abbreviation of ‫הוא האלהים‬. The form in 1QS here cannot possibly mean “His way”; the second constituent, an independent personal pronoun, cannot substitute for a suffix pronoun, ‫ו‬-.624 An example such as ‫עליך אתה אלעזר‬ 620

See further in SQH § 32 cg, ch. For a collection of more examples of this kind, see Qimron 2018.101f, B 1.1.2. In Modern Hebrew one might hear ‫‘ האנשׁים‬the people’ carelessly pronounced /hanašim/ = ‫‘ הנשׁים‬the women.’ 622 Clines (II 549a s.v. ‫)ה ַלְך‬ ָ mentions 4Q525 20.2, where we read ‫דרך‬ ֗ ‫להלכי‬,֗ but the context is fragmentary and a construct chain has its own problems. 623 For details on this matter, see SQH § 10 a. 624 Thus pace Wernberg-Møller 129, n. 44, Dupont-Sommer (32) “la voie de «Lui»,” and Qimron 2018.261, n. 13. Cf. also an extensive commentary on the issue by Charlesworth (37, n. 210). 621

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

165

‘it is incumbent on you, Elazar’ 5/6Ḥev 46.10 is irrelevant, for ‫ אתה‬is in apposition to the immediately preceding suffix pronoun625; one could not say ‫על‬ ‫אתה אלעזר‬. The scribe of 1QS appears to be rather meticulous when it comes to the tetragrammaton. In his quote from Is 40.3 he writes four dots for it, whereas 4QSe replaces the tetragrammaton with ‫‘ האמת‬the truth’ instead of his colleague’s ‫הואהא‬. The phrase concerned in the actual quote from Is 40.3 has not been preserved in this fragmentary text. 1QS 8.14) ‫]כאשר כתוב במדבר פנ֗ ו֗ דרך וגו׳‬. The mode of citation of Is 40.3 accords with the Tiberian cantillation: ‫הו֑ה‬ ָ ְ‫קוֹרא ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ֕בּר ַפּנּ֖ וּ ֶ ֣דּ ֶרְך י‬ ֔ ֵ ‫קוֹל‬,֣ according to which there is to be a break between ‫ קו ֵֺרא‬and ‫בּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬, ַ and the prophetic message begins with ‫בּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬, ַ which is not an adverbial complement of ‫קו ֵֺרא‬, with which cp. φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου.626 This cantillation makes for perfect parallelism between ‫ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬and ‫ ָבּ ֲע ָר ָבה‬in the following clause — ‫אֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫יַ ְשּׁרוּ ָבּ ֲע ָר ָבה ְמ ִס ָלּה ֵל‬. 1QS 8.15) ‫‘ ]היֿ אה מדרש התורה‬it refers to the study of the law.’ Though the reading of the pronoun is not entirely certain, the selection of the feminine form is striking. Its referent is the just cited text, Is 40.3. The demonstrative pronoun ‫ זֹאת‬can be used, referring back to a thought or situation just mentioned or about to be mentioned, but not to a fem. sg. noun, as in ‫‘ מידך היתה זאת‬this was from You’ 1QHa 6.38. So in BH, e.g. ‫ית זּ ֹאת‬ ָ ‫‘ ָע ִשׂ‬you have done this’ Gn 3.14, ‫ִשׁ ְמעוּ‬ ‫‘ זֹאת‬Hear this [= the following]’ Am 8.4.627 However, we do not know of ‫ִהיא‬ used in an analogous fashion. For ‫ הראשונה‬in ‫‘ הראשונה היא הזנות‬the first is whoredom’ CD 4.17, where ‘the first’ is that of ‫‘ שלושת מיני הצדק‬the three sorts of justice’ mentioned one line earlier; the fem. noun ‫ זנות‬may have influenced, an explanation which is not exactly applicable to our case,628 since it is not ‫תורה‬ that is being referred to by the pronoun. All in all, one might prefer reading it as ‫הואה‬. All the same our author might be saying that ‫ דרך‬or ‫מסלה‬, both fem. in gender, is a reference to the study of the Torah. In that case ‫ היאה‬would be 625

More examples of this construction are cited in SQH § 29 b. So the LXX text as edited by Ziegler (1967). The reply given by John the Baptist when asked “Who are you?” may better be punctuated as Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος. Ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου instead of Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου John 1.23 as in the latest, 28th edition of the New Testament by Nestle - Aland. The same problem arises in Mt 3.1, where, however, Ἐγώ is absent, since Is 40.3 is not presented as a reply by the Baptist. Wernberg-Møller (129, n. 45) writes that LXX, Trg, Vulg., and Pesh. all place a pause after ‫במדבר‬, but all depends on the punctuation added by modern editors of these versions. In the most important Peshitta manuscript, Codex Ambrosianus, its scribe has added a dot after /b-madbrā/; Prof. Van Peursen of Free University, Amsterdam, kindly e-mailed to me a photocopy of the page in question. In Sperber’s Trg edition there is no punctuation at all except at the end of every verse. 627 For a fuller list of references, see BDB s.v. ‫ זֶ ה‬1 a. 628 Cf. SQH § 32 b. 626

166

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

more suitable. As a ‫ ֶפּ ֶשׁר‬writer he could have said: ‫ פשר הדבר מדרש התורה‬or ‫ פשרו מדרש התורה‬or ‫פשרו דרך או מסלה היא מדרש התורה‬. The suffix pronoun ‫ ־ו‬is gender-neutral, irrespective of the gender of the lemma.629 The author and his readership may have been conscious that this was what they were actually doing in the Judaean desert. ‫שר צוה ביד מושה לעשות‬ ֯ ‫]א‬ ֗ the grammatical subject of ‫ צוה‬must be God, mentioned at the end of the immediately preceding quote, Is 40.3, i.e. ‫אלוהינו‬. The referent of the suffix pronoun in ‫ רוח קודשו‬in the next line must be the same. The subject of an infinitive may be missing, but can be easily recovered from the context. God wanted His people to do certain things, cf. “afin qu’on agisse selon ..” (Dupont-Sommer 33). The phenomenon is well known to BH, e.g. ‫זֶ ה‬ ‫ר־צוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲעשׂוֹת‬ ִ ‫ ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁ‬Lv 8.5, whereas the subject is explicitly mentioned in ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים ַל ֲעשׂ ְֹת ֶכם א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ א ִֹתי ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ָבּ ֵעת ַה ִהוא ְל ַל ֵמּד ֶא ְת ֶכם ֻח ִקּים‬Dt 4.14.630 ‫ ]ככול הנגלה עת בעת‬many translate ‫ נגלה‬in the past tense, e.g. “according to everything which has been revealed (from) time to time” (Charlesworth 37). An articular participle is known in BH to refer to a past event, e.g. ‫ֲאנִ י ָה ִא ָשּׁה ַהנִּ ֶצּ ֶבת‬ ‫ ִע ְמּ ָכה ָבּזֶ ה‬1Sm 1.26. However, our 1QS example is immediately followed by ‫וכאשר‬ ‫גלו הנביאים ברוח קודשו‬, where the same verb root appears in the Pf. Milik (150) appears to have captured this contrast with his “ea quae suo quodque tempore revelantur et ea quae revelaverunt prophetae in spiritu sancto Eius.” The addition of the definite article in BH is not obligatory, see JM § 121 i. In comparison with BH, this particular use of the participle is rather rare in QH, and appears to be on the way out, see SQH § 17 h. One may conclude then that our text here is about an on-going revelation of the Mosaic law with the priests as eternal students never ceasing to discover fresh truths about the ancient law and its new applications. They could be confronted with situations which have no biblical precedents, when they would need to discover God’s will as to how to handle such situations. With Lohse (30) we prefer vocalising ‫ הנגלה‬as ‫ ַהנִּ גְ ָלה‬as against Habermann’s ַ On the fem. with the value of neuter, see SQH § 6 c. (68) ‫הנִּ גְ ֶלה‬. 1QS 8.16) ‫ ]אנשי היחד ברית היחד‬two noun phrases rather loosely linked in syntactic terms; the general meaning must be something like ‘the community members bonded with a covenant of the community.’ 1QS 8.16b - 19 8.16b) and every person of the community members bonded with a covenant 8.17) of the community who high-handedly leaves anything from the entire 629 630

See Muraoka 2021. On this feature in QH, see SQH § 18 l.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

167

commandment undone shall not touch the pure things of the men of holiness 8.18) nor shall he gain any information over their decision until all his practices become clean from every iniquity to walk with the attitude of integrity. Then one should welcome him 8.19) into the council depending on the view of the Many, and thereafter he shall be registered in his rank, and this ruling applies to everyone added to the community. 1QS 8.17) ‫]אשר יסור מכול המצוה דבר ביד רמה‬. Every edition of the Hebrew text of 1QS reads the second word as given here. Most translations, however, treat the form as if it were spelled ‫יסיר‬, i.e. Hi. (‫)יָ ִסיר‬, not Qal (‫)יָ סוּר‬, e.g. Wernberg-Møller (34) “who abolishes one single word from the regulations,” García Martínez - Tigchelaar (91) “who .. shuns anything at all commanded,” cf. ‫ר־צוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ִ ‫ֹא־ה ִסיר ָדּ ָבר ִמכֹּל ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ ל‬Josh 11.15 mentioned by Guilbert (59, n. 43). By contrast, Lohse’s (31) “der .. in einem Wort vom ganzen Gebot abweicht” is not doing justice to the syntactic status of ‫דבר‬, similarly DupontSommer (33) “qui se sera écarté de tout ce qui est prescrit, en un point quelconque.” Guilbert’s (58) “qui s’écarte d’une prescription quelconque,” Milik’s (150) “quicumque .. recesserit a quoqumque praecepto,” Martone’s (129) “devii da una solo precetto,” and Charlesworth’s (37) “who strays from any one of the ordinances” are no less questionable. We submit that an epigraphical solution is to be looked for. In the photo, for sure, the first and third letter of the word concerned are distinct from each other. It is common knowledge, however, that in Qumran documents there often obtains a measure of uncertainty as to how to read the two letters of the alphabet concerned. At 1QS 11.22 everyone reads ‫‘ מה ישיב חמר‬what could clay reply?’ However, being an amateur epigraphist, I cannot read in the photo anything other than ‫ישוב‬, which of course makes no sense. When read ‫יסיר‬, it would govern ‫ דבר‬as a direct object. Licht (185) refers to ‫ עובר דבר מן המצוה ביד רמה‬CD 10.3, but the verb ‫ עבר‬in the sense of ‘to overstep, transgress’ is transitive and can govern a direct object, e.g. ‫ת־בּ ִרית‬ ְ ‫ָע ַבר ֶא‬ ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬Josh 7.15. Note also an example in our text, ‫יעבר דבר מתורת מושה ביד רמה‬ 1QS 8.22. ‫ ]ביד רמה‬the context indicates a negative nuance to be assigned to this phrase, ‘presumptuously, high-handedly,’ as in ‫ר־תּ ֲע ֶשׂה ְבּיָ ד ָר ָמה‬ ַ ‫ ַהנֶּ ֶפשׁ ֲא ֶשׁ‬Nu 15.30 in contrast to ‫וּבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל י ְֹצ ִאים ְבּיָ ד ָר ָמה‬ ְ ‘confident of their might’ Ex 14.8. Vermes’s (109) and Charlesworth’s (37) “deliberately” is a shade too free. 1QS 8.18) ‫‘ ]אל ידע בכול עצתם‬he shall not gain any acquaintance with their counsel’: verbs meaning ‘gain knowledge or understanding (of something)’ may govern a noun phrase prefixed with the preposition -‫ב‬. Another example is ‫‘ בהבינכם במעשי דור ודור‬as you comprehend (or: contemplate) the deeds of every generation’ 4Q270 2ii21, see SQH § 31 eb. ‫ ]יזכו‬on this Hitpael form, see above at 1QS 3.4.

168

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ]להלכ בתמים דרכ‬to walk with the attitude of integrity.’ The binyan Piel here underlines the habitual nature of the action, see SQH § 12 c 2. The inf. clause here is epexegetic,631 showing how the process of his purification is to manifest itself. On ‫תמים דרכ‬, see above at line 10. ‫‘ ]וקרבהו‬and then one should welcome him,’ an inversive Piel Pf., justly vocalised by Lohse (30) as ‫וְ ֵק ְר ֻבהוּ‬, pace Habermann (68) with ‫וְ ֵק ְר ָבהוּ‬.632 The syntactic sequence of this inversive form in relation to what precedes is slightly vague. It loosely follows ‫יזכו מעשיו‬, that is, once his deeds prove that he is back on the right track, he may be welcomed back. 1QS 8.19) ‫‘ ]כול הנוספ‬everyone who is added’ = ‫כול נוספ‬, on which see above at 1QS 5.6b, 6.2, and 8.11. 1QS 8.20 - 9.2 8.20) The following are rules according to which the men of holy perfection should walk together with one another, 8.21) all those who join the council of holiness, walking with integrity as He commanded. Any person out of them who 8.22) perverts anything out of the law of Moses high-handedly or through deception should be expelled from the council of the community 8.23) and shall not return again. Nor shall any person out of the men of holiness have anything to do with his assets and his view on any 8.24) matter. If he acted inadvertently, he shall be kept away from pure things and the council and those who study the statute; 8.25) he shall not judge any person nor shall he be asked for an opinion over anything for two years. If his way becomes faultless 8.26f.) within them (= the two years), then he may return to study and consultation in accordance with the view of the Many if he did not err again till two years have elapsed for him. 9.1) For one unwitting error he shall be penalised two years, but for one who acts high-handedly there is no option of returning. Only one who unwittingly errs 9.2) shall be tested for two years in respect of the integrity of his behaviour and his view in accordance with the view of the Many and thereafter one shall register in his rank for the community of holiness. 1QS 8.20) ‫ ]ואלה המשפטים‬a demonstrative pronoun can point backwards, ‘the above-mentioned,’ or forwards, ‘the following,’ see SQH § 3 b and c. However, the ample blank space at the beginning of the line favours the latter. ‫אלה המשפטים‬ ‫ אשר ישפטו בם‬1QS 6.24 is similarly worded and, opening the line after an ample blank space, can refer only to what follows. ‫]אנשי התמים קודש‬, appropriately emended by Wernberg-Møller (131) to ‫אנשי‬ ‫‘ תמים הקודש‬the men of holy perfection’; Wernberg-Møller refers to the same phrase in CD 20.2, 7, to which we could add ‫ אנשי תמים קודש‬CD 20.5. 631

See SQH § 18 g. In BA a 3ms Pf. verb is vocalised as ‫ק ָטלו‬, ְ only once ‫ ְק ָט ַלהוּ‬in ‫ ִשׂמֳּ ָ ֽחהוּ‬Jr 20.15 in pause, see JM § 62 c. 632

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

169

‫ ]איש את רעהו‬in the context the preposition can only mean ‘with, together with.’ 1QS 8.21) ‫‘ ]כול הבא‬everyone that joins’ = ‫כול בא‬, on which see above at line 11. That the phrase virtually means ‘all who join’ is manifest in the following ‫ההולכים‬, and not ‫ ;ההולך‬on the intended plurality, see above at 1QS 6.2. 1QS 8.22) ‫‘ ]אשר יעבר דבר מתורת מושה‬who perverts anything from the Mosaic law.’ The spelling ‫ יעבר‬for Qal ‫ יעבור‬is rather unusual in QH, see Qimron 2018.193.633 We follow Yalon (1967.82), who proposes to parse the form as Piel.634 ‫ ]ברמיה‬either “out of negligence” (e.g. Charlesworth 39) or ‘deceptively’ (e.g. “cum dolo” Milik 150) is equally acceptable. ‫ ]ישלחהו‬whether ‫( יְ ַשׁ ְלּ ֻחהוּ‬Lohse 30), defectiva spelled, or ‫( יְ ַשׁ ְלּ ֵחהוּ‬Habermann 68), impersonally used 3msg (SQH § 37 a), the verb used here in the sense of ‘to send away, expel’ is better parsed as Piel. 1QS 8.23) ‫‘ ]לוא יתערב איש מאנשי הקודש בהונו ועם עצתו לכול דבר‬none of the holy men shall have anything to do with his property nor with his view on any subject.’ The tD verb ‫ התערב‬mostly governs -‫ב‬, which is true of all QH documents other than 1QS. We have here a mixture. ‫ עם‬is also found with a personal referent, e.g. ‫‘ ֯א ֗ש ֗ר י֗ ֗תערב עמו בטהרתו או בהונו‬who shares with him his pure thing or his property’ 1QS 7.24. But cf. ‫ל־תּ ְת ָע ָרב‬ ִ ‫א־את־יְ הוָ ה ְבּנִ י וָ ֶמ ֶלְך ִעם־שׁוֹנִ ים ַא‬ ֶ ‫יְ ָר‬ Pr 24.21. 1QS 8.24) ‫ ]ודרשוֿ המשפט‬It is possible to read ‫דּ ְֹר ֵשׁי = דרשי‬, and mentally supply ‫ ִמן‬as coordinate with the preceding ‫מן העצה‬. This would fit Licht’s (186) somewhat radical emendation: ‫ומן המשפט‬. 1QS 8.25) ‫‘ ]אשר לוא ישפוט איש‬he shall not judge anyone’; on the injunctive value of the syntagm unique to 1QS, see above ad 1QS 5.4.635 ‫ ]תתם‬Qimron (2018 63, § A 2.1.4) is confident that the form is = ‫תּ ַתּם‬. ִ 1QS 8.26) ‫ ]במושב במדרש‬the syntactic difficulty presented by these words and what follows on to 9.2 has been resolved by a proposal made by Kister (1988.324f.), who would divide ‫ במושב‬into ‫‘ במ ושב‬in them [= in the two years], then he may return to the study room.’ This proposal, Kister thought, accords with one of the 4Q fragments of our text, i.e. 4QSd = 4Q258 7.1. ‫ בם‬in lieu of the classical ‫ בהן‬is a commonplace in QH, see Qimron 2018.285 (§ D 2.6.3). The waw of ‫ ושב‬is apodotic. 633 There is no absolute regularity here. Qimron (2018.203, n. 150) is aware of the fluctuation in BH between ‫יִ תֹּם‬, ‫ ִתּתֹּם‬and ‫יִ ַתּמּוּ‬. Would he regard ‫ יחן‬4Q386 3.1 as exceptional for ‫?יחון‬ 634 Yalon (1964.202-04) argues that the verb in Piel has to do with damaging, spoiling, perverting (‫)קלקול‬. 635 According to DJD 26.112 ‫ אשר‬is recitativum, introducing a direct quotation. There is, however, no verb of speaking preceding to introduce such a quotation.

170

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ]מולאת‬on our morphological analysis of the form of this inf. cst., see above at 1QS 6.17.

1QS COLUMN 9 1QS 9.1) ‫]ולעושה ביד ֗רמה לוא ישוב עוד‬. Along with the immediately preceding ‫ על ) ( שגגה אחת יענש שנתים‬it is part of a punitive, disciplinary regulation with the Impf. of injunctive force. The preposition ‫ על‬can be easily understood as indicating a ground for the penalty. However, such a use of -‫ ל‬is unknown. Besides, ‘he who acts highhandedly’ is not parallel to ‘negligence,’ either. In this latter respect ‫ ליד הרמה לא ישוב עוד‬4QSd 7.2 is better, though the selection of -‫ ל‬still remains problematic.636 The 1QS formulation might be a rare, analogical variant on the syntagm of injunctive force as in ‫פשר הדבר‬ ‫‘ על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את גמולו‬the scripture concerns the wicked priest: it is up to him to pay his recompense’ 1QpHab 12.2.637 On our critique of WernbergMøller’s (132, n. 1) attempt to see in ‫ עושה‬a synonym of ‫‘ מעשה‬deed,’ see above at 1QS 8.3. Is it possible to see here a loose rewording of ‫ולעושה ביד רמה אינ‬ ‫‘ לשוב עוד‬for one who acts high-handedly there is no option of returning’? For the modal value of , see SQH § 18 d, p. 110, n. 5 and p. 111, n. 2. 1QS 9.2) ‫‘ ]ואחר יכתוֿ ב‬and thereafter one is to register (him),’ a well-known, impersonal use of the 3ms, see SQH § 37 a. Cf. its 4Q parallel, ‫‘ ונכתב‬and then he shall be registered’ 4QSd 7.3. 1QS 9.3 - 11 9.3) When these have emerged in Israel in accordance with all these regulations as a foundation of a holy spirit and eternal truth, 9.4) they shall atone for iniquitous guilt and sinful unfaithfulness and to obtain (God’s) good will for the land with the meat for wholly burnt offerings and with the fats for sacrifice(s) and the offering made with 9.5) lips for justice as soothing odour of righteousness and integrity of behaviour as a freewill offering pleasing (to God). At that time the members of the community shall become separate 9.6) as an Aaronic sanctuary, becoming united as a most holy group and a united house of Israel, the ones who walk with integrity. 9.7) Only the sons of Aaron shall have a say in matters of statute and assets, and it is according to their view that a decision may be made in respect of any rule for people of the community. 9.8) And the property of the holy people who are walking impeccably, their property shall 636 637

Possibly a scribal error for ‫?על היד הרמה‬ Cf. SQH § 18 c with n. 2 on p. 108 and d.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

171

not be mixed with the property of the people of deception who 9.9) have not become pure (or: purified themselves) in respect of their way of life to part with iniquity and to walk with integrity of behaviour, and they shall not depart from any counsel of the law to walk 9.10) in with a completely stubborn mind, and they will be judged with the former statutes with which the people of the community began to submit themselves to discipline 9.11) until the arrival of a prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel. 1QS 9.3) ‫‘ ]בהיות אלה בישראל‬when these have emerged in Israel’; on the temporal value of the infinitival clause, see above at 1QS 8.4. ‫ליסוד‬: pace Wernberg-Møller (34) “.. became .. ”638 the preposition does not indicate transformation, but a purpose as expressed by van der Ploeg (123b) with his “pour poser un fondement.” ‫‘ ]יסוד רוח קודש‬a foundation (emanating from, or guided by) a holy spirit.’ ‫‘ ]לאמת עולם‬in order (to consolidate) eternal truth,’ hardly “(fondée) selon la Vérité éternelle” (Dupont-Sommer 34), thus not an attribute of ‫יסוד‬, but a modifier of the preceding ‫להיות‬. 1QS 9.4) ‫‘ ]לכפר‬one should atone,’ an injunctive infinitive, see SQH § 18 c. On the diverse types of government of this Piel verb, see above at 1QS 8.6. ‫]אשמת פשע ומעל חטאת‬, a striking piling up of four substantives all belonging to the same semantic field639 and built into two construct phrases. A survey of one of the four, ‫אשמה‬, shows that, as a component of a construct phrase, it appears mostly as a nomen regens with three substantives as a nomen rectum: ‫אשמת פשע‬ ‫שמת מעל‬ ‫אשמת רשעה‬

1QS 9.4, 4Q184 1.10 1QHa 12.31, 15.39, 19.14, 4Q428 10.3 1QHa 22.9

and twice as a nomen rectum: ‫חטא אשמה‬ ‫עוון אשמה‬

11Q19 35.15 1QS 5.15, 1QpHab 8.12

‫‘ ]לרצון לארצ‬in order to obtain (God’s) pleasure for the land.’ There is no absolute need to emend, as Wernberg-Møller (42) does, ‫ לרצון‬to ‫)ל ַר צּו ֺת =( לרצת‬, ְ though such would form a nice parallelism with the preceding ‫לכפר‬. ‫ ]מבשר עולות ומחלבי זבחוֿ תרומת שפתים‬Qimron (I 226) adds a word-divider after ֗ ‫ מבשר עלות‬4Q258 7.5. ‫זבח‬,640 cf. a 4QSd here: ‫וחלבי זבחים ותרומות ונדבת שפתים‬ ‫ יסוד‬emended to ‫סוד‬, Wernberg-Møller 42. On this rhetorical technique prominent in our document, see Licht 32, § 26. For a theologically orientated description of these lexemes and their etymological congeners, see entries on them in Fabry - Dahmen 2011-16: ‫ ַא ְשׁ ָמה‬by S. Paganini, I 319-25, ‫ ֵח ְטא‬B. Stillness, I 943-50, ‫ ַמ ַע ל‬Atkinson, II 735-39, ‫ ֶפּ ַשׁע‬S. Thomas, III 349-52, ‫ ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬K. Schäfers III 722-41. 640 So printed by Habermann 68, Licht 189, Lohse 32, and García Martínez - Tigchelaar 90, thus pace Wernberg-Møller (35) “the sacrifices of .. [= ‫]זבחי‬.” 638 639

172

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

The preposition ‫ מן‬is hardly indicative of the comparative degree, thus pace Brownlee (34) “more than,” van der Ploeg (123b) “plus que par ..,” Licht (189) “‫ =[ מועילה יותר‬more effective],” Lohse (33) “mehr als.” Even when there is no adjective, adjectival verb or adverb present, a lexeme in which a feature of degree is inherent need be there, e.g. ‫ת־ר ֵחל ִמ ֵלּ ָאה‬ ָ ‫ם־א‬ ֶ ַ‫ וַ יֶּ ֱא ַהב גּ‬Gn 29.30. No less questionable is Dupont-Sommer (34) “sans,” and Vermes (110, 121), García Martínez Tigchelaar (91), DJD 26 (111), and Charlesworth (39, 79) “without”; we doubt that the Qumran theology was so radical as to say farewell to the main ingredient of the traditional cult.641 Our 1QS example is not comparable with ‫יַ ַען ָמ ַא ְס ָתּ‬ ‫ת־דּ ַבר יְ הוָ ה וַ יִּ ְמ ָא ְסָך ִמ ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬1Sm 15.23, for instance. We prefer, then, Milik’s (151) “ex carne ..,” Guilbert’s (61) “grâce à,” and the like. Here we have three construct phrases, all indicating what is to be offered to God. In terms of the morphological shapes the 4QS version is more uniform: the nomina recta are either pl. or du. — ‫עלות‬, ‫זבחים‬, ‫שפתים‬, which perhaps makes better sense, highlighting generous offerings, though the use of the du. ‫ שפתים‬is idiomatic, for one makes use of both lips to praise and pray. In theory the preposition -‫ מ‬could have been repeated with each noun phrase.642 The 4QSd version probably used it with the initial item only, whereas the 1QS text does not repeat it after the third. This leads to a syntactic ambiguity of ‫ תרומות‬in 4QSd: is it a nomen rectum in relation to ‫ חלבי‬or a nomen regens in relation to ‫ ?שפתים‬Since, however, ‫ חלבי תרומה‬or ‫ חלב תרומה‬does not occur and is an unlikely combination, the latter analysis is to be preferred, especially in view of ‫ תרומת שפתים‬1QS 10.6, see also ‫‘ ואברכנו תרומת מוצא שפתי‬I shall bless him with an offering of what issues forth from my lips’ 1QS 10.14. Note also that ‫לשון‬, a synonym of ‫שׂפה‬, occurs as a nomen rectum: ‫תרומת לשון עפרנו‬ ‘an offering by our tongue of clay’ 4Q400 2.7; ‫‘ תרומת לשו֗ נ֗ י֗ ֗ה ֗ם‬an offering by their tongues’ 4Q403 1ii26. Since the sons and daughters of David cannot be mechanically rendered in Hebrew as *‫וּבנו ֺת ָדּוִ ד‬ ְ ‫בּנֵ י‬, ְ but as ‫וּבנו ָֺתיו‬ ְ ‫בּנֵ י דוד‬, ְ 643 ‫ תרומות‬in ‫תרומות ונדבת שפתים‬ d in the 4QS text cannot be in the st. cst., thus pace “the offerings and free-will gifts of the lips” (DJD 26.111).644 We have concluded above that ‫ תרומות‬here is better construed forwards rather than backwards. We would suggest that in the course of evolution and redaction of our text there emerged two versions, i.e. ‫ תרומ)ו(ת שפתים‬and ‫נדבת שפתים‬, and the form in 4QSd represents an inadvertent mixture of the two. Note that ‫ נִ ְדבוֹת ִפּי‬Ps 119.108 is close to our ‫נדבת שפתים‬. 641 For a balanced fresh assessment on the issue in the light of Qumran texts that have become available relatively recently such as the Temple Scroll (11Q19), see Milgrom 2000. 642 Cf. SQH § 38 e. 643 See JM § 129 a. Possibly aware of this rule, some translations make ‫ נדבת‬begin a new clause. E.g. Charlesworth (79) “.. sacrifices, (or) wave offerings. Lips freely offered ..,” but the questionable nature of such an analysis is manifest in the conjunction waw of ‫ ונדבת‬left untranslated and “(or),” cf. Lambert (970) “Et l’offrande ..”. 644 García Martínez - Tigchelaar’s (523) “the offerings and the free-will offerings of the lips” is ambiguous on account of the second definite article.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

173

1QS 9.5) ‫ ]למשפט‬which is analysed by some as attributively modifying the immediately preceding ‫תרומ)ו(ת שפתים‬, e.g. “right offerings of lips” (WernbergMøller 35), “prayer rightly offered” (Vermes 110), “in compliance with the decree” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 91), “nach der Vorschrift” (Lohse 33), and “secondo il precetto” (Martone 130).645 However, we are not aware of such a use of the preposition lamed in the sense intended here. A related matter here is semantic. These translations take the noun ‫ משפט‬in the sense of ‘prescription, ordinance.’ But the word also signifies an ethical, religious virtue to be pursued and aimed at, i.e. ‫ֹלהי ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬Is 30.18, ‫ל־עת‬ ֵ ‫ַא ְשׁ ֵר י שׁ ְֹמ ֵר י ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ע ֵֹשׂה ְצ ָד ָקה ְב ָכ‬ Ps 106.3 (note the parallel ‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ and many instances in BH (BDB s.v. 2), and for QH see, e.g. ‫‘ ממקור צדקתו משפטי‬from His fountain of righteousness is my justice’ 1QS 11.5 and ‫‘ לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט בארץ‬to practise truth and righteousness and justice’ ib. 1.5. Then ‫ למשפט‬here indicates an ultimate aim and motivation of the atonement, ‫( לכפר‬line 4), and is parallel to ‫ לרצון‬ib., and note the further qualifications of ‫ תרומ)ו(ת שפתים‬in what follows — ‫כניחוח צדק‬ ‫ותמים דרך כנדבת מנחת רצון‬. Licht (189) appears to show an eschatological perspective: “‫ תרומת שפתים‬may be counted as a credit in the judgement by God when man’s deeds are examined.”646 We cannot say whether such a perspective is also present in 1QS. Hence we prefer the analysis represented in “pour (que) le jugement (soit) comme ..” (Guilbert 62) and “for judgment” (Charlesworth 39). We would further say that the preposition lamed in our ‫ למשפט‬governs also the following ‫‘ תמים דרכ‬the impeccable conduct.’647 Then a rhetorically superb parallelism emerges: ‫משפט כניחוח צדק‬ ‫תמים דרכ כנדבת מנחת רצון‬ Each of the two ethical values is compared to an item of cultic offering, which by turn symbolises a religious, ethical property, each as a nomen rectum. ‫‘ ]ניחוח צדק‬soothing odour of righteousness,’ an innovative phrase. In BH the word ‫ נִ חו ַֺח‬appears 43 times, but always in a cst. chain ‫‘ ֵר ַיח נִ יחו ַֺח‬soothing odour’ as a nomen rectum, whereas in QH it occurs some 36 times, but not confined to this phrase. Apart from the current example, see ‫‘ כפורי ניחוח‬agreeable atonement’ 1QS 3.11, a rewritten form of the biblical source, ‫ ֵר ַיח נִ חו ַֺח‬Ezk 20.41; ‫‘ מקטרת ניחוח‬pleasant incense’ 1QM 2.5, and ‫רצונכה‬ ֗ ‫וח‬ ֗ ‫ניח‬ ֯ .. ‫ניחוח‬ ֗ ‫‘ זכרון‬pleasant memory .. soothing odour of Your pleasure’ 4Q512 29-32.11. 645

The last three translations are not meant to be construed as an adverbial modifier of the preceding ‫לכפר‬, which is too far removed. 646 A theology of one sort or another that is inscrutable to us appears to lie behind “They shall atone .., becoming an acceptable sacrifice .., and prayer, becoming — as it were — justice itself” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 139). 647 Thus pace Charlesworth (39): “.., and the perfect of the Way (are as) a pleasing freewill offering.”

174

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫]יִ ָבּ ְד לוּ = יבדילו‬, i.e. Nifal, ‘they shall become separate (from the surrounding society.’648 On the rare use of a yod to represent a shva, see Qimron 2018.70, § A 3.2.1 (3). In 4QSd and in a similar context we find the standard spelling: ‫ יבדל‬4Q258 7.6, ‫ יבדלו קודש‬1QS 8.11. 1QS 9.6) ‫ בית קודש‬in ‫ ]יבדילו אנשי היחד בית קודש‬is a subject complement (SQH § 31 t): ‘the members of the community shall become separate as a sanctuary.’ Likewise in 4QSd: ‫‘ יבדלו בית אהרון לקודש‬they shall become separate as a house of Aaron as a sanctuary.’ Since the notion of universal priesthood underlined by Martin Luther in his battle against the established Roman Catholicism and Papal regime is foreign to the Qumran community as we know from documents emanating from it, ‫ אנשי היחד‬here is unlikely to signify ‘all the members of the community, but the grammatical subject(s) of ‫ יבדילו‬must be the select few, 15 in number, mentioned earlier at 1QS 8.1. Here is involved a syntactic ambiguity inherent in the st. cst. Thus ‫ ְבּנֵ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬in a Hebrew story does not necessarily imply that the king did not have any other prince besides those being referred to in the context. Hence at ‫ וְ נָ ַת ִתּי נֶ גַ ע ָצ ַר ַעת ְבּ ֵבית ֶא ֶר ץ ֲא ֻחזַּ ְת ֶכם‬Lv 14.34 it is not being implied that the ordinance does not apply to those who can afford a second home. Reuel is known to have had seven daughters, one of whom, Zipporah, given to Moses for a wife, is described as ‫ ִבּתּוֹ‬Ex 2.21, where she is mentioned for the first time, and as an English rendition, ‘a daughter of his’ would be less ambiguous than ‘his daughter.’649 In this regard the wording in 4QSd is unambiguous: ‫‘ יבדלו בית אהרון לקודש‬they shall become separate as an Aaronic sanctuary’ 4Q258 7.6.650 The preposition lamed here is distinct from one that is called in to overcome this syntactic ambiguity as in ‫‘ ֵבּן ְליִ ַשׁי‬a son of Jesse’s’ 1Sm 16.18, for such a lamed is used when the first term is logically indeterminate and the second determinate.651 Hence ‫ לקודש‬signifies ‘in order to engage in sacred matters as sacerdotal.’ By contrast, the same preposition in ‫בית‬ ‫ קודש לאהרון‬in our 1QS passage can be analysed as substituting for the st. cst. syntagm, though this periphrastic structure stresses that it is about a sanctuary based on the Aaronite tradition and legacy. ‫]להיֿ חד קודש קודשים‬, an epexegetic infinitive (SQH § 18 g), ‘getting united as a most holy group’; ‫ קודש קודשים‬builds on, and elaborates, the preceding ‫בית קודש‬.652 Both ‫ קודש קודשים‬and ‫ בית יחד לישראל‬are a subject complement. 648 Charlesworth (79) apparently admits a defectiva spelled Hifil form in ‫“ יבדלו‬they will separate the House of Aaron,” which is rather unlikely. By contrast, in DJD 26.113 ‫ יבדילו‬in 1QS is parsed as Hifil. So does Licht (187), who holds that two houses (‫ )בתים‬are exclusively allocated, the one to Aaron and the other to Israel, an interpretation that leaves out ‫קודש קודשים‬. Is this last to be allocated to the community (‫?)להיחד‬ 649 On this ambiguity, see JM § 140 a. 650 ‫‘ בית אהרון‬Aharonides’ is one of the standing expressions in DSS for the Qumran priestly caste, cf. Kugler 2000.689a. 651 See JM § 130 b. 652 On the analysis of ‫ להיחד‬as a Hitpael inf., see above at 5.14.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

175

The repetition of a word in a construct chain is a familiar syntactic device for an expression of the highest degree, ‘superlative,’ as in ‫מלך מלכים‬ ֗ .. ‫קדוש קדושים‬ ‘the holiest one .. the supreme king’ 4Q381 76+77.7; ‫‘ אל אלים‬the supreme God’ 4Q403 1ii9, 4Q510 1.2. Biblical examples are ‫ ֶע ֶבד ֲע ָב ִדים‬Gn 9.25 and ‫ֶמ ֶלְך ַמ ְל ַכיָּ א‬ Dn 2.37, Ezr 7.12.653 ‫‘ ]בית יחד לישראל‬a united house of Israel,’ where our remark above on the preposition lamed in ‫ בית קודש לאהרון‬might apply; it underlines the unity of the community rather than its identity. We should note that here we have three st. cst. chains, in which a nomen rectum is always indeterminate. They describe the attitude and character of the community. Hence the logico-semantic relationship marked in these three st. cst. phrases is that of ‘qualitative’ (SQH § 21 b xviii). It is not for nothing that the combination ‫ בית יחד‬occurs nowhere else in DSS. ‫(“ ]ההולכים בתמים‬these are) the ones who walk perfectly” (Charlesworth 39), a rendition that is presumably based on an analysis that construes this participial phrase with ‫( אנשי היחד‬line 5). This analysis is rendered more plausible than to take this phrase as modifying the preceding ‫ישראל‬,654 because ‫ לאהרון‬earlier in the line, which is parallel to ‫ לישראל‬is bare, with no addition following. Then ‫ ההולכים‬here is a substantivised, not attributive participle, see SQH § 17 i-j. On ‫בתמים‬, see above at 2.2. 1QS 9.7) ‫‘ ]יצא והגורל‬the decision shall be made’; the strange waw is to be deleted, a scribal error. Licht (190), mentioning a few examples in BH and QH655 of the conjunction supposedly meaning ‘also,’ but ‘also’ makes little sense in our context. 1QS 9.8) ‫עם הון אנשי הרמיה‬ ֿ ‫]והון אנשי הקודש ההולכים בתמים אל יתערב ֗הונם‬ ‘and the property of the holy people who are walking impeccably, their property shall not be mixed with the property of the people of deception.’ In agreement with Qimron (I 226), who adds a comma after ‫( היחד‬line 7) we prefer to begin a new clause with ‫ והון‬rather than construing it with the preceding ‫יצא והגורל‬ ‫לכול תכון אנשי היחד‬, for otherwise one would anticipate ‫ולהון‬. ‫ הון‬is up front, extraposed. This is a rare instance of an extraposed constituent resumed as a full-fledged word in ‫ הונם‬rather than as a corresponding pronoun, which is the general rule; this is because it need be contrasted with the same word in what follows — ‫עם הון אנשי הרמיה‬.656 653

Cf. SQH § 9 c and 21 b viii. As is mostly done, e.g. “pro Israel ambulante” (Milik 151) and “per Israele, cioè per coloro che ..” (Martone 130). So SQH 32 cg. However, if ‫ הולכים בתמים‬could apply to the whole of Israel, there would be no raison d’être for the Qumran community. 655 E.g. ‫ ומשחת‬1QS 11.13, where the waw can be introducing an apodosis of a conditional clause (SQH § 41 c) and ‫וּבמו ָתם‬ ְ 2Sm 1.23. Additional BH examples are mentioned in BDB s.v. ְ‫ו‬ 1 c. 656 See SQH § 36 6. 654

176

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫הזכו דרכם‬ ֗ ‫ ]אשר לוא‬a translation such as “who have not purified their way” (Wernberg-Møller 35) suggests that the verb is Hifil. The verb, however, when transitively used, is not attested in Hifil, but only in Piel, e.g. ‫ַבּ ֶמּה יְ זַ ֶכּה־נַּ ַער‬ ‫ת־א ְרחוֹ‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬Ps 119.9.657 The same applies to its synonyms, ‫ טהר‬and ‫נקי‬.658 Then our ‫ הזכו‬can be only Hitpael; on this question see above on ‫ יזכה‬1QS 3.4, where, however, its grammatical subject was a person. What to do then with our ‫?דרכם‬ We might invoke the notion of the so-called accusative of respect or limitation659: ‘they have not become pure (or: purified themselves) in respect of their way of life.’ This analysis, however, cannot apply to another instance of Hitpael √‫זכי‬, i.e. ‫ יזכו מעשיו‬1QS 8.18, where ‫ מעשיו‬is the subject, ‘his deeds become pure.’ This is in spite of the fact that in both instances our verb is complemented by a similar adverbial phrase: ‫ מכול עול להלך בתמים דרך‬8.18 vs. ‫להבדל מעול וללכת‬ ‫ בתמים דרך‬9.9. 1QS 9.9) ‫]מכול עצת התורה לוא יצאו‬ ֗ ‘they shall not depart from any counsel of the law.’660 Here we have a case of categorical, absolute negation. Such is most commonly marked with an indeterminate sg. noun, whether or not further intensified with the addition of ‫כול‬, e.g. ‫‘ אל יודיעהו איש‬nobody shall let him know’ CD 15.10; ‫‘ לוא ישען איש הקודש על כול מעשי הבל‬a man of the holiness shall not rely on any vain work’ 1QS 5.18. In our 1QS example, however, one might object that ‫ עצת התורה‬is determinate. Here again we are having to do with the syntactic ambiguity of the st. cst. chain we touched on above under 9.6. One can think of many a piece of the Torah-based counsel. If we venture to coin an adjective derived from ‫תורה‬, one could rewrite the above phrase as ‫מכול עצה‬ ‫תּוֹר ִתית‬. ָ By contrast, partial negation requires that ‫ לא‬be positioned before ‫כול‬, e.g. ‫‘ לא הכל לכל טוב‬not everything is beneficial to everyone’ Si 37.28b and ‫לא‬ ‫‘ כל איש להביא אל בית‬one is not to bring everybody to one’s home’ Si 11.29a. See SQH § 40 d, g, and h. 1QS 9.10) ‫ להתיסר‬. . ‫‘ ]החלו‬they began to submit themselves to discipline;’ on the tolerative value of Hitpael, see SQH § 12 f 5. 1QS 9.12 - 26 9.12) These are the rules for the Master. He shall walk in accordance with them with every being in accordance with the norm for each occasion and in 657 A Syriac synonym of ‫ זכה‬is said to be attested once in Afel in the sense of “cleanse, ritually purify”: Brockelmann - Sokoloff 2009.301b, but the form in question, ndk,’ is unvocalised and can represent Pael ndakkē, not Afel nadkē. 658 Jastrow 1903, s.v. ‫נקי‬, registers an instance in bKidd 62a as Hifil, but rabbis are going on about ‫חנקי‬, a form of ‫‘ חנק‬to strangle’ as against ‫ ִהנָּ ִקי‬Nu 5.19. 659 A BH example is ָ‫ ַרק ַה ִכּ ֵסּא ֶאגְ ַדּ ל ִמ ֶמּךּ‬Gn 41.40. Cf. JM § 126 g. 660 Given his translation, “have not gone astray,” Qimron (2006.198) apparently parses ‫יצאו‬ here as Pf., ‫יָ ְצאוּ‬.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

177

accordance with the weight of each person. 9.13) He shall do the will of God that becomes revealed from time to time and learn all the information that is discovered according to the seasons and 9.14) the law for the season. He shall accord a separate status to the sons of righteousness and weigh (them) in line with their spiritual status, and keep the chosen of the time fast in accordance with 9.15) His will as He commanded, and form an opinion on each person according to his spiritual quality, and admit each person in accordance with the purity of his hands, and each in accordance with his understanding 9.16) he shall bring near and so treat him with love or enmity. And he should not argue and keep quarrelling with the people of perdition 9.17) and he shall conceal the counsel of the law in the presence of the men of iniquity, and argue a case for the knowledge of truth and the statute of righteousness to those who choose 9.18) the way, each person in accordance with his spiritual state, in accordance with the norm for the occasion (he shall) tutor them about knowledge and so help them understand marvellous and true mysteries in the midst of 9.19) the people of the community so that they will be in the habit of walking impeccably with one another in all that becomes revealed for them. That is the time for clearing the way 9.20) to the wilderness, and he shall help them comprehend all that becomes discovered as necessary to be done at this time and that they are to dissociate themselves from every person that has not removed his way 9.21) from every iniquity. And these are the guidelines for the Master in these periods, whether he loves or hates — perpetual enmity 9.22) against people of perdition in secretive spirit. He shall leave to them property and produce of manual labour, as a servant (does) to his master, and humility 9.23) in the presence of the one who lords it over him, and he shall be a person zealous for the ordinance and ready for a day of vengeance. He shall do (God’s) will in everything he undertakes 9.24) and in everything he controls, as He commanded, and all that is done (by God) he [= the Master] accepts freely, and apart from God’s will he shall not desire (anything), 9.25) and all the words coming out of His mouth he shall accept and he shall not be attracted to anything that He did not command. To God’s judgement he shall always look. 9.26) (Even) [in a disaster and di]stress he shall bless his Maker and in any situation whatsoever [His mercies he shall re]count and with an offering of lips he shall bless Him 1QS 9.12) ‫]אלה החוקים למשכיל להתהלכ בם‬. Many translate this infinitival clause as complementing the preceding ‫החוקים‬, e.g. “These are the statutes, by which the Master shall walk” (Charlesworth 41). Each of the subsequent infinitives till the second word of line 21 (!) is then translated as a self-standing clause: “He shall do God’s will ..’ (Charlesworth 41).661 Surveying this long 661 A rare exception is van der Ploeg (123b-124a), who translates each inf. with : “pour se conduire .. pour faire ..”.

178

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

passage, however, we do not see that the first quoted above represents a general principle with the subsequent ones indicating its manifestations in various life situations. We submit instead that the first three words constitute a complete, nominal clause, “These are the rules for the Master,” and what follows details the life-style and guidelines, which he is to adhere to.662 The use of the inf. cst. with a deontic or injunctive value is very often used in this document. Right at the start of 1QS we came across a series of as many as fifteen such infinitives, see pp. 1f. ad 1.1. By contrast, in an intriguingly similar context we see only one infinitive which is followed by an injunctive yiqtol in ‫ואלה החקים למשכיל‬ ‫ להתהלך בם עם כל חי למשפט ̇ע ̇ת ועת וכמשפט הז̇ ה יתהלכו זרע ישראל‬CD 12.21f. The variation in prepositions, ‫ כמשפט‬.. ‫למשפט‬, perhaps suggests that with ‫ וכמשפט‬a new clause begins. Then the inf. ‫ להתהלך‬may be analysed as complementing ‫החקים‬. ‫]עם כול חי לתכון עת ועת ולמשקל איש ואיש‬ ֿ ‘with every being in accordance with the norm for each occasion and in accordance with the weight of each person.’ The two substantives, ‫ עת‬and ‫איש‬, are each repeated in the sg. and with the conjunction waw joining them, cf. SQH § 8 b.663 ‫ כול איש‬.. ‫ כול עת‬in the manner of the preceding ‫ כול חי‬would have meant more or less the same thing. The formula chosen highlights the individuality of each referent. Different occasions and different persons could ask for different approaches. 1QS 9.13) ‫‘ ]לעשות את רצון אל ככול הנגלה לעת בעת‬he shall do the will of God that becomes revealed from time to time.’ On the addition of the definite article to the participle, see our remarks above ad 8.15. Analogously the following ‫‘ השכל הנמצא‬the information that becomes discovered.’ ‫ ]הנגלה לעת בעת‬is best regarded as synonymous with ‫ הנגלה עת בעת‬8.15 above.664 For BH note ‫ כֹּה ָעשׂוּ ְליוֹם ְבּיוֹם‬2Ch 24.11 vs. ‫ְמ ַה ְל ִלים ַליהוָ ה יוֹם ְבּיוֹם‬ ib. 30.21; see also Neh 8.18. Brownlee (36) inserts a colon before the second inf., “: to do God’s will ..”; this way the logical relation of the sequel with what precedes, “.. in which the wise man is to walk ..” and the function of the inf.(s) becomes ambiguous. Similarly Lohse (35): “.., damit er in ihnen wandle ..; den Willen Gottes zu tun ..”. Guilbert (64) begins the second and all the subsequent infinitives with “afin qu’ils ..”; it is not apparent to whom ils, not on, refers. Similarly Pouilly (129): “Qu’il accomplisse ..”. 662 In CD 12.21 we find a near replica of our text here: ‫אלה החקים למשכיל להתהלך בם עם כל חי‬ ‫למשפט ̇ע ̇ת ועת‬. However, structurally, the two texts are distinct from each other. The CD text is followed by one statement alone: ‫וכמשפט הז̇ ה יתהלכו זרע ישראל ולא יוארו‬, and it is significant that the principal verb in this sequel is identical with the infinitive in what precedes as if to say that the Master should set the model for the entire community. Some of the codes of conduct mentioned in the 1QS text should be adhered to by his students as well. Another important difference here is the function of the pronoun, ‫אלה‬. Since no regulation to be observed by the Master follows in the CD text, it must be pointing backwards, ‘what precedes,’ whereas in the 1QS text it is most probably pointing forwards, ‘the following.’ Given the said structural difference we hesitate to analyse one in the light of the other. After all, the inf. in the CD text can be analysed as we have done above in our analysis of the 1QS text. 663 In the above quoted CD 12.21 ‫ עת ועת‬is written as one word with no blank space in between. 664 Thus “from age to age” (Vermes 109, 111) and “temps par temps” (Dupont-Sommer 33, 36) pace, e.g. “von Zeit zu Zeit” (Lohse 31) vs. “für die jeweilige Zeit” (id. 35).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

179

‫]ולמוד‬, which is possibly an inadvertent haplography for ‫‘ וללמוד‬and he shall study,’ though Licht (195) notes that a few lines later (20) we find a similar instance: ‫ והבדל‬.. ‫( לעשות‬20, Nifal). ‫ למוד‬may not be an error after all. Cf. SQH § 18 j, p. 118, a n. there.665 ‫ ]ואת חוק העת להבדיל‬We would construe ‫ את הוק העת‬with the preceding ‫ ללמוד‬and ‫ להבדיל‬as coordinate with the following ‫לשקול‬. Charlesworth (41) proffers “the Endtime.” Can it be that specific? 1QS 9.14) ‫‘ ]בני הצדוֿ ק‬the Sons of Righteousness” (Charlesworth 41), apparently adopting a v.l. ‫ בני הצדק‬in 4QSe. Because ‫בני הצדוק‬, pace García Martínez Tigchelaar (93), cannot mean ‘the sons of Zadok, i.e. priests,’ we had better read as in 4QSe, cf. Licht 195 and SQH § 7 e. Earlier in our text (3.20, 22) we meet with ‫בני צדק‬, but without the definite article, and in opposition to ‫בני עול‬. ‫‘ ]לפי רוחום‬according to their spirit.’ On the suffix ‫ום‬- for ‘their,’ see Qimron 2018.285f., § D 2.6.4.666 See also our remarks above at 1.21 (p. 10). ‫‘ ]בבחירי העת להחזיק‬he shall keep the chosen of the time fast,’ which probably refers to select, outstanding members chosen for a given period of time and charged with a special mission. An alternative interpretation is suggested by Licht (195): “those chosen by God at a given time.” 1QS 9.15) ‫‘ ]איש כרוחו כן לעשות משפטו‬he shall form an opinion on each person according to his spiritual quality.’ The twice-used suffix pronoun, ‫ו‬-, does not refer to the Master, but a member under his guidance. Pace van der Ploeg (124a) the subject of the infinitive is still the Master: “pour que chacun observe sa Loi conformément à son esprit.” The fronted, well-known distributive expression could be confusing, cf. SQH § 32 cf. This same perspective equally applies to what immediately follows: ‫‘ ואיש כבור כפיו לקרבו‬and he shall admit each person in accordance with the purity of his hands.’ This idiomatic phrase, ‫בּו ֺר ַכּ ַפּיִ ם‬, occurs once more in QH, 4Q525 2ii+3.3, apart from in the 4QS fragments. In BH it is instanced once only in Job 22.30. Twice we find an alternative with ‫ יָ ַדיִ ם‬2Sm 22.21, Ps 18.25. Hands or palms as instruments of deed are envisaged. ‫‘ ]ולפי שכלו להגישו‬and he shall bring {each} near in accordance with his understanding.’ ‫ איש‬as an essential ingredient of this distributive formula (SQH § 5 aa) must be understood before ‫ לפי‬as in the immediately preceding clause. Otherwise there would be no referent for the suf. pronoun ‫ ־ו‬twice over. 1QS 9.16) ‫עם שנאתו‬ ֿ ‫ ]וכן אהבתו‬it is sensible to follow here Brownlee (36) and regard the personal suffix as objective, ‘and so to relate to him with love or enmity.’ 665 These two 1QS cases could be added to a few QH examples mentioned by Qimron 2018.180f. (§ C 2.1.7.3). 666 We would note that this unusual suffix stands for not only /-ām/ in the Tiberian tradition, but also /-em/ as in ‫‘ עליהום‬on them’ 4Q176 20.3 = ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ע ֵל‬. ֲ

180

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ואשר לוא להוכיח‬and he should not argue.’ In our discussion above on ‫אשר‬ ‫‘ לוא ילכ איש‬nobody should go’ 1QS 5.4 we identified the construction with injunctive or optative value as an innovative development confined to this document. What we see here is a creative, analogical application of this structure to the inf. cst., which can also be used with injunctive value, which is exactly the case with all the infinitives spread over the eight consecutive lines, 12-19.667 See further SQH § 15 daf. Some take ‫ הוכיח‬in a positive sense, e.g. “admonish” (Brownlee 36). However, one should not be discouraged to do so. Hence our rendering: “argue.”668 By contrast, in the following line the Master is told to do so, though with “those who have opted for the way of the community.”669 On the ground that the coordinate verb, ‫‘ להתרובב‬to quarrel,’ bears reciprocal value, Wernberg-Møller (137, n. 43) argues that the same value could be admitted by parsing ‫ להוכיח‬not as Hifil, as is mostly done, but as Nifal (‫)ל ִהוָּ ֵכ ַח‬, ְ which he translates ‘argue.’ However, Licht (196) points out that the notions of remonstration and quarrel are mutually affiliated, and occur at times next to each other, e.g. Ho 4.4 and Mi 6.2. Moreover, the two actions here need not be taken as two distinct actions. When you try to admonish or remonstrate someone, it could lead on to quarrelling. The Hitpolel of √‫ ריב‬here appears to be the sole instance of it for now in the whole history of Hebrew. In other Hitpolel verbs we do not admit reciprocal value, but rather iterative as in ‫‘ התגוללו בפשע אנוש‬they wallowed in impiety of man’ CD 3.17, see further in SQH § 12 g 4. Likewise under Hitpael, see SQH § 12 f. 1QS 9.17) ‫‘ ]ולסתר את עצת התורה בתוכ אנשי העול‬and he shall conceal the counsel of the law in the presence of the men of iniquity.’ Here we are back to a positively worded injunctive infinitive.670 4QSd 8.2 reads here ‫ולסתר עצתו‬. This is one of several cases in which we cannot account for the variation between a zero object and an ‫ את‬object, SQH § 31 d. As the source of the initial half of the above text Licht (196) mentions ‫הוֹי‬ ‫יקים ֵמיהוָ ה ַל ְס ִתּר ֵע ָצה‬ ִ ‫ ַה ַמּ ֲע ִמ‬Is 29.15, the dependence even to the extent of the anomalous spelling of the Hifil infinitive, but the dependence is only verbal, for the Is text is about people trying to hide their design from the Lord. In 4QSd the alternative syntagm is used: ‫ ואשר לא יוכיח איש ולא יתרובב וגו׳‬4Q258 8.1. Cf. Milik (152): “argumentari.” 669 DCH IV 209b assigns the meaning “to argue” to both of our 1QS cases, though arguing by itself does not necessarily carry negative connotation. 670 Charlesworth’s (41) “so that the counsel ..” takes no account of the initial conjunction waw. Brownlee’s (36) “not to admonish .., but to conceal” is possible only by leaving ‫ אשר‬out of account, and the adversative “but” in this context is unnatural as a rendition of the conjunction waw, likewise García Martínez - Tigchelaar (93). 667 668

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

181

Wernberg-Møller (137, n. 42) proposes emending ‫ בתוך‬to ‫מתוך‬, which is uncalled for; for one can conceal things from some people by avoiding their mention in their presence. ‫ לביֿ חרי דרך‬.. ‫ ]להוכיח דעת אמת‬Here ‫ הוכיח‬means ‘to argue a case for.’ In BH this Hif. verb mostly takes a person as its object. A rare instance of acc. rei is ‫אוֹכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ל־פּנָ יו‬ ָ ‫ ְדּ ָר ַכי ֶא‬Jb 13.15, cf. also ‫ל־אל ֶא ְח ָפּץ‬ ֵ ‫הוֹכ ַח ֶא‬ ֵ ib. 3, where the preposition ‫ ֶאל‬+ pers., synonymous with ‫ ְל־‬in our 1QS example, is to be noted. ‫ ]ביֿ חרי דרכ‬In spite of the epigraphic uncertainty of the second letter, ‫ביחרי‬ makes no sense, unless one postulates an inadvertent metathesis for ‫בחירי‬, which is actually found in 4QSd here. By contrast, ‫ בוחרי‬is of course acceptable. Whether the active or passive participle is to be selected, all translations671 we have consulted add the definite article to ‫דרכ‬, and, to cap it all, van der Ploeg (124a) and Lambert (971) add “bon,” and some highlight the specificity of the referent by capitalising the noun chosen, thus Pouilly (129), Guilbert (64), and DupontSommer (37) “la Voie,” and Charlesworth (41) “the Way.”672 We wonder if this is not going a shade too far. ‫ דרך‬happens to be one of those nouns which indicate key concepts in the theological outlook of the Qumran community but are sometimes used without the definite article attached even when their referents are unique entities as if they were names. This is particularly true in 1QS, cf. SQH § 7 f. The passive ‫ בחירי‬is literally translated by Charlesworth (41) with “the chosen of the Way.” But one wonders what on earth it means. The Engl. of here can scarcely signify origin as in born of Mary. A passive participle can bear an active meaning with emphasis on a state that has arisen out of an action taken and is still in force at the moment of speech. Thus ‫‘ יצר סמוך‬a trustful creature’ 1QS 4.5, and in BH ‫ידוּע ח ִֹלי‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬Is 53.3, cf. SQH § 17 g and JM § 120 o with fn. 5 (p. 387) and fn. 3 (p. 388). Then ‘those who have chosen a certain way (and are still committed to it).’ Yet another alternative analysis is to see here a st. cst. of purpose: ‘those chosen for a certain way,’ see SQH § 21 b xvi). ‫ ]כתכון העת‬Qimron (I 226) adds a comma before the phrase, but it could be positioned after it. 1QS 9.18) ‫‘ ]להשכילם ברזי פלא ואמת‬he shall help them understand marvellous and true mysteries’: on the introduction of a direct object by means of the preposition -‫ב‬, see above at 4.22. What precedes here is affiliated: ‫להנחותם‬ ‫‘ בדעה‬he shall tutor them about knowledge.’ 671

Of course not in Milik’s (152) Latin translation: “viae.” Brownlee (37) and Licht (196) mention ἡ ὁδός in Acts as announcing the new age. Knibb (1987.143) refers to ‫ סרי דרך‬CD 1.13, which he (ib. 23) translates “those who turn aside from the way,” though the phrase can mean vagabonds in general. 672

182

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

In ‫ ]רזי פלא ואמת‬the nomina regentia indicate the quality of ‫ ;רזים‬it is not about a specific marvel or truth. See SQH § 21 b xviii, where in the overwhelming majority of examples quoted the nomen regens is indeterminate, and if it is formally determinate, the definite article is to be construed with the entire cst. phrase as in ‫‘ כוהני השם‬the renowned priests’ 4Q161 7+10.29, and similarly when a suffix pronoun is attached as in ‫‘ ימין עוזכה‬Your mighty right hand’ 1QHa 23.8. 1QS 9.19) ‫‘ ]להל) (כ תמים איש את רעהו בכול הנגלה להם‬so that they will be in the habit of walking impeccably with one another in all that becomes revealed for them.’ In translating ‫ להם‬as ‘for them’ we follow Brownlee (36); for such a revelation is unlikely directly to be granted to every lay member of the community. The scribe of 1QS has erased a letter from the infinitive, and the form we see in its manuscript agrees with that in 4QSb and 4QSd. The scribe possibly began to write a Hitpael form as in line 12. The pluralising value of Piel and the iterative, habitual one of Hitpael are more or less synonymous, see SQH § 12 c 2 and f 4. This infinitive clause differs from all the preceding ones starting with ‫להתהלכ‬ (line 12), in which the implicit subject is the Master, which does not apply to this last one as shown by the distributive pattern, ‫ רעהו‬.. ‫איש‬, and also by ‫להם‬ at the end. Here we have an inf. clause indicating a purpose. ‫])ה(היאה עת פנות הדרכֿ למדבר‬ ֯ ‘it is the time for clearing the way to the wilderness.’ Licht (197) holds that the demonstrative pronoun is cataphoric, anticipating ‫ בעת הזואת‬in the next line, which sounds to us somewhat unnatural. It is preferable to construe it with ‫ העת‬in the preceding line. We are not aware of an instance of the demonstrative pronoun for far deixis cataphorically used, whether modifying a substantive or independently.673 For that purpose the use of the ‫ זֶ ה‬series is idiomatic. See SQH § 3 c. ‫ עת‬here is in the status constructus. The use of an infinitive cst. as equivalent to a nomen rectum is particularly frequent when the head noun expresses a point in time or a period of time, e.g. ‫‘ מיום האסף‬from the day when he was gathered in’ CD 19.35; see SQH § 18 i. Such an inf., as here, is mostly bare, with no ‫ ל־‬prefixed. This inf. clause appears to be a parenthetical addition occasioned by ‫ העת‬in the preceding line. Clearing the way to the wilderness is not incumbent on the Master alone, but on the whole leadership of the community. What is expected of the Master in particular is resumed with ‫ להשכילם‬in line 20. Since at 8.14 our author explicitly quotes Is 40.3, where we read ‫בּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬, ַ we can see in the wording chosen by him, ‫למדבר‬, his awareness that the community 673 Its use in a case such as ‫ ַצ ִדּ יק הוּא יְ הוָ ה‬Lam 1.18 or ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ַא ָתּה־הוּא ָה ֱא‬2Sm 7.28 is syntactically distinct; the pronoun occupies a second term in a tripartite nominal clause.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

183

leaders’ decision to leave Jerusalem and move out in the direction of the wilderness of Judaea was a response to the ancient prophet’s call. 1QS 9.20) ‫‘ ]ולהשכילם כול הנמצא לעשות בעת הזואת‬and he shall help them comprehend all that becomes discovered as necessary to be done at this time.’ This is the last of the guidelines for the Master, continuing the previous one stretched over one and a half lines. The grammatical subject of ‫ לעשות‬is not explicitly mentioned as sometimes happens (SQH § 18 l), but from the context it must be those being instructed by the Master, ‫( אנשי היחד‬line 19). ‫‘ ]והבדל מכול איש‬and to part with every person.’ We prefer to follow Licht (197), who sees this as part of what the Master is to teach, thus not as another guideline meant for himself. The syntactic linkage with ‫להשכילם‬, true, is somewhat loose, but not exactly the same construction earlier: ‫ להלך תמים‬.. ‫להשכילם‬ (line 18). An infinitive can serve as a direct object of another verb (SQH § 18 h). Though neither BH nor QH attests to such with ‫ ִה ְשׂ ִכּיל‬as the nucleus, we can note an example such as ‫ ַל ְמּ ֵדנִ י ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ְר צוֹנֶ ָך‬Ps 143.10. Even so, the absence of the preposition -‫ ל‬from the inf. ‫ הבדל‬is anomalous. That of the preceding ‫לעשות‬ can hardly double for it. ‫ ]ולוא הסר‬the text is obviously amiss. ‫‘ מכול איש אשר לא הסיר‬from every person that has not removed’ 4QSd [= 4Q257 8.5] has no doubt preserved the correct form. 1QS 9.21) ‫עמ אנשי שחת‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]שנאת עולם‬perpetual enmity against people of perdition.’ The selection of the preposition ‫ עם‬is striking. It is not a question of feeling and emotion, but manifestations of it in actions, i.e. war and fight. One of the common prepositions used with ‫ נִ ְל ַחם‬and ‫ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬is ‫ עם‬as in ‫ן־שׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ ְ ‫ָל ֵצאת ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ִע‬ ‫יס ָרא‬ ְ ‫ם־ס‬ ִ ‫לּוֹתם נִ ְל ֲחמוּ ִע‬ ָ ‫כּוֹכ ִבים ִמ ְמּ ִס‬ ָ ‫ נִ ְל ָחמוּ ַה‬Jdg 5.20, ‫ם־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ib. 20.14. In line 16 above we have ‫אנשי השחת‬. Is it a reference to specific individuals among the doomed group? Even if the definite article is generic, referring to a specific group distinct from other groups, this inconsistency is intriguing, cf. SQH § 7 c. 1QS 9.22) ‫‘ ]לעזוב למו הון ועמל כפים‬he shall leave to them property and produce of manual labour.’ Here begins a second set of guidelines for the Master. As in the case of the first set that starts in line 12 above, the first guideline begins with an infinitive not prefixed with the conjunction waw. Both sets are introduced with ‫אלה‬, a demonstrative pronoun of cataphoric force, whilst here we see the conjunction waw prefixed to ‫אלה‬, indicating that a second set is about to be presented. ‫ ]עמל כפים‬which, in conjunction with ‫‘ הון‬property,’ cannot mean ‘manual labour,’ but ‘produce of manual labour.’ Licht (198) justly mentions ‫ֲע ַמל ְל ֻא ִמּים‬ ‫ יִ ָירשׁוּ‬Ps 105.44, cf. Dupont-Sommer’s (37) “les revenus du travail de ses mains.”

184

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

The 4QSd text has ‫בצע‬ ֗ ‘gain,’ presumably followed by ‫ועמל כפים‬, a mixture of two text-forms.674 ‫‘ ]וענוה לפני הרודה בו‬and humility in the presence of the one who lords it over him,’ a syntactic link with what precedes is rather loose and presumably intended as an adverbial correlate of ‫כעבד למושל בו‬. ‫ ובענוה וגו׳‬would have been less obscure. DJD 26.117’s ‘a poor man’ represents ‫ ענו‬or ‫ נעוה‬as emended and is beyond us. 1QS 9.23) ‫‘ ]איש מקנא לחוק ועתי ליום נקם‬a person zealous for the ordinance and ready for a day of vengeance.’ Qimron (I 226) is confident of his reading of ‫עתי‬, and not ‫( עתו‬Habermann 69) and Lohse (34). This is apparently also read in 4QSd, 4Q258 8.7. The word occurs in BH as a hapax at ‫ ִאישׁ ִע ִתּי‬Lv 16.21, where, DJD 26.119 notes, Jewish scholars interpreted the word as meaning ‘ready, prepared,’675 which suggests a possible error for ‫ע ִתיד = עתיד‬. ָ ‫ ]לעשות רצון‬the word ‫ רצון‬is sometimes used on its own, ‫‘ אל‬God’ understood as its nomen rectum. So above at 8.6, 10, 9.4, but explicitly ‫ רצון אל‬9.13, so also in next line (24). ‫]משלח כפים‬, a rare combination for the standard BH ‫‘ ִמ ְשׁ ַלח יָ ד‬undertaking, occupation,’ e.g. ‫וּבכֹל ִמ ְשׁ ַלח יָ ֶדָך‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ֲע ֶשָׂך‬ ַ ‫ ְבּ ָכ‬Dt 15.10. Note, however, a variant wording in ‫ משלח ידי ורגלי‬below at 10.13. The cst. phrase basically represents an objective genitive: ‘that which one puts his hands on,’ SQH § 21 b xiv). 1QS 9.24) ‫]כול הנעשה בו ירצה בנדבה‬. The text is admittedly difficult, but Wernberg-Møller’s (36) “everything which is done, by that he will be accepted as a free-will offering” makes little sense. ‫ בנדבה‬can modify ‫נעשה‬, but not ‫ירצה‬ [= ‫]יֵ ָר ֶצה‬. Perhaps better is ‘all that is done (by God) he [= the Master] accepts freely,’ with ‫ כול הנעשה‬extraposed and resumed with ‫בו‬. Alternatively ‘all that is done (by God) with him he accepts freely.’ For such a use of the preposition -‫ב‬, cf. ‫וּב ִמ ְשׁ ָמ ָריו‬ ְ ‫ֹלהי‬ ַ ‫יתי ְבּ ֵבית ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ֲח ָס ַדי ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬Neh 13.14; ‫ָר ָעה גְ ד ָֹלה ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־נֶ ֶע ְשׂ ָתה‬ ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר נֶ ֶע ְשׂ ָתה ִבּ‬ ַ ‫ ַתּ ַחת ָכּ‬Dn 9.12. 1QS 9.25) ‫]וב ֯כו֯ ל אמרי פיהו ירצה‬ ֯ Here again the subject of ‫ ירצה‬can be either the Master or God. Since in this second series of guidelines the focus is on the Master, we would prefer him as the subject: ‘and in all the words of His mouth he shall be pleased.’ Since we have here a set of guidelines meant for the Master, it makes sense to assign the injunctive value not only to the infinitives used here, but also to the Imperfects, thus pace, e.g. Wernberg-Møller’s “he finds pleasure.”676 674 DJD 26.119 notes that in BH ‫ ֶבּ ַצ ע‬means ‘unjust gain, selfish profit’ so that this 4QS text represents a negative attitude towards material gains. 675 Milgrom (1991.1045), translating the phrase as “a man in waiting,” refers to LXX, which reads ἐν χειρὶ ἀνθρώπου ἑτοίμου, and Targums, e.g. Onk. ‫זְ ִמין‬. 676 Charlesworth (43) is inconsistent: “.. he shall delight [= ‫ ]ירצה‬.. he desires nothing [= ‫ ]יתאוה‬..”.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

185

‫צוה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ]לוא יתאוה בכול אשר לוא‬he shall not desire anything that He has not commanded.’ The government of the verb ‫ התאוה‬through -‫ ב‬occurs only here in QH and BH, though we should note the usage of Qal ‫הפץ‬, a synonym of it as in ‫‘ באשר לא ֗ח ֗פצתי בחרו‬they chose what I did not delight in’ 4Q390 2i8. ‫]ל ̇משפט אל יצפה תמיד‬ ֗ ‘he shall always look towards God’s judgment.’ Neither Brownlee’s (38) ‘give constant attention’ nor Wernberg-Møller’s (36) ‘investigate’ is known anywhere else in Hebrew. CD 1.18 ‫‘ ויצפו לפרצות‬and they looked for gaps’ quoted by them supports our analysis.677 What is meant is that the Master should always be able confidently to look forwards to God’s fair judgment. 1QS 9.26) ‫‘ עושהו = ]עושיו‬His maker.’ The selection of the pl. form is an analogical extension of the pl. of majesty, ‫אלהים‬. Cf. SQH § 8 e. ‫]יספר חסדיו ותרומת שפתים יברכנו‬ ֯ ‘His mercies he shall recount and with an offering of lips he shall bless Him.’ Following most translators we have added with, for which, however, we need not supply a Hebrew equivalent, say -‫;ב‬ ‫ תרומת שפתים‬can be analysed as an analogical extension of cognate accusative, i.e. ‫בּ ְר ַכּת ְשׂ ָפ ַתיִ ם‬. ִ 678 Similarly 1QS 10.6. Later in the next column we come across ‫תרומת מוצא שפתי‬ ֿ ‫( אברכנו‬line 14) with no ‫ב־‬.679 The conjunction waw is not absolutely necessary so that one could restore ‫תרומת‬.680 1QS COLUMN 10 1QS 10.1 - 5a 10.1) with the arrival of times which He decreed; at the beginning of the reign of light; at the end of its circuit and when it withdraws itself to the quarters allocated for it; at the beginning of 10.2) the watches of darkness when He opens its storeroom and sets it for the period, and at the end of its circuit and and when it withdraws itself, facing the light; when luminaries 10.3) appear out of a lofty abode of holiness; when they withdraw themselves to (their) glorious quarters; when times appointed for the days of new moon for the community arrive; (and with) the completion of their circuit, when 10.4) they take turns with one another; when they are renewed as one day for a most holy company, and a signal ( ) to open up (His) eternal mercies; at the beginning of 10.5) appointed times at every time to emerge. 677 Knibb (1987.144) appears to be inclined to such a view: “apparently an allusion to the seeking of God’s will through study of the law.” 678 An analysis inspired by DJD 26.123. 679 See also ‫( תרומת שפתים הברכנו‬line 6), where there is an erasure before ‫תרומת‬, though a blank space can easily accommodate two letters. 680 Though in 1QS there is a blank space before ‫תרומת‬, 4QSb has no letter between it and the preceding ‫במועדיהם‬.

186

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QS 10.1) ‫‘ ]עם קצים אשר חקקא‬with the arrival of times which He decreed.’ This phrase presumably modifies ‫‘ יברכנו‬he shall praise Him’ in the last line of the preceding column. After the last legible word of the line in question [= 4Q258 8.10] in 4QSd ‫ קצים‬is presumably to be restored. In BH the preposition ‫ ִעם‬appears to carry temporal value. With reference to its Aramaic counterpart at ‫יליָ א‬ ְ ‫ ִעם ֵל‬Dn 7.2 we have argued (Muraoka 2017) that the phrase does not mean ‘at night,’ but ‘when the night fell,’ i.e. ‫ ִעם‬indicates a point in time or the onset of a period of time, but not a duration of it, ‘during.’681 One of the BH examples we looked at was ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫גּוֹלה ִמ ָבּ ֶבל ִל‬ ָ ‫‘ ִעם ֵה ָע לוֹת ַה‬when exiles set out from Babylon to Jerusalem’ Ezr 1.11, where the preposition is prefixed to an infinitive exactly as in the two following lines of our column: ‫עם האספו מפני אור‬ ‘when it withdraws itself from light’ (line 2) and ‫‘ עם האספם למעון כבוד‬when they withdraw themselves to respectable quarters’ (line 3). The same analysis can be applied to a verbal noun in ‫עמ תקופתו‬ ֿ ‘at the start of its circuit’ (line 1), preceded by ‫‘ ברשית ממשלת אור‬at the start of the rule by light.’ In none of these cases is it about an ongoing process or activity.682 ‫ חקקא‬is rather difficult. Is the Aleph a mere slip? In 1QS, when the context is a sufficient guide, ‫ אל‬as the subject of a verbal clause is often left out and we are also left with a 3ms suffix attached to a noun, verb or preposition. It is hard to imagine that any respectable scribe should slip on ‫]אל =[ אל‬ ֵ and write ‫חקקא‬ instead of ‫חקק אל‬. The absence of modern punctuation marks here renders it difficult to determine the division and progress of thought expressed in the sequence beginning with ‫( ברשית‬line 1) and ending with ‫( כבוד‬line 3).683 Our author sees a twofold division of day, marking the start of each half with the introductory ‫ברשית‬, twice in line 1. The first half is characterised by ‫‘ אור‬light’ and the second by ‫חושך‬ (line 2) ‘darkness.’ The second half, however, is not pitch-dark, for in it shine ‫‘ מאורות‬luminaries’ (line 3). The end of each half is marked with a Nifal inf., ‫‘ האסף‬to retire, withdraw’ (lines 1, 2, and 3), each time with an indication of destination. According to this understanding, the description of the first half is brief in the extreme, composed of merely three words: ‫‘ ברשית ממשלת אור‬at the start of the dominion of light.’ One might also have dearly wished to see the conjunction waw added thereafter, ‫ועמ תקופתו‬, ֿ marking the beginning of the description of the second period. Otherwise, by construing this prepositional Thus pace Wernberg-Møller (140, n. 3): “as long as it is daylight” for ‫עם תקופתו‬. DS’s (38) “Avec les temps” and Charlesworth’s (43) “(in accord) with the times” are probably influenced by Guilbert’s (66) “(en accord) avec les temps” and Pouilly’s (130) “en accord avec les temps,” an attempt to retain the associative (‘together with’) value of the preposition, but we doubt that such a value can apply to a word or phrase denoting an action. Wernberg-Møller (140, n. 3) is contradicting himself by saying that throughout this hymn ‫תקופה‬ means ‘circuit, completion of course’ but translating the phrase as ‘as long as it is daylight’ and, in the whole translation of 1QS (36) “during its coming round.” More QH examples are mentioned in DCH s.v. ‫ ִעם‬14 b. 683 Qimron (I 228) has inserted a comma after ‫( מפני אור‬line 2) and ‫( כבוד‬line 3). 681 682

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

187

phrase with what precedes the reader could be left utterly confused, for in BH the substantive ‫ תקופה‬denotes an end of a period, e.g. ‫קוּפת ַה ָשּׁנָ ה‬ ַ ‫ַחג ָה ָא ִסיף ְתּ‬ Ex 34.22, the end of the agricultural calendar.684 ‫‘ ]ובהאספו על מעון חוקו‬and when it withdraws itself to the quarters assigned for it.’ The Nifal verb here is reflexive in value685 as in the two instances in lines 2 and 3. So also in ‫ לֹא־יָ בוֹא עוֹד ִשׁ ְמ ֵשְׁך וִ ֵיר ֵחְך לֹא יֵ ָא ֵסף‬Is 60.20, where it is also about the two principal luminaries (Gn 1.16) withdrawing themselves with the arrival of their respective time. Note also ‫‘ ובקצ ֗האספו אל מעונתו מפני אור‬and at the time of its withdrawing itself to its quarters away from light’ 1QHa 20.9.686 As a likely source of our text here Wernberg-Møller (140, n. 4) mentions ‫ִתּזְ ַרח‬ ‫ל־מעוֹנ ָֹתם יִ ְר ָבּצוּן‬ ְ ‫ ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ יֵ ָא ֵספוּן וְ ֶא‬Ps 104.22.687 It is sometimes said that the prepositions -‫ ב‬and -‫ כ‬prefixed to an inf. cst. in temporal determination are not synonymous. Thus ‫ֵא ֶלּה ָה ֵעד ֹת וְ ַה ֻח ִקּים וְ ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬ ‫אתם ִמ ִמּ ְצ ָר יִ ם‬ ָ ‫ל־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְבּ ֵצ‬ ְ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר מ ֶֹשׁה ֶא‬Dt 4.45 is mentioned688 as showing that it is not about the day of Israel’s departure, but about the subsequent, long journey. Another example is ‫“ ָבּ ְה ַשׁ ָמּה‬während es [sc. das Land] wüste liegt” ִ ‫ן־שׁ‬ ְ ‫ ֶבּ‬2Sm 5.4? Lv 26.43.689 But how about ‫ֹלשׁים ָשׁנָ ה ָדּוִ ד ְבּ ָמ ְלכוֹ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים ָשׁנָ ה ָמ ָלְך‬ An example in QH is noteworthy: ‫‘ וילך לדרכו בברכו אותו שם‬and he [= Jacob] resumed his journey after he [= the angel] had blessed him there’ 4Q158 1+2.10.690 We know of course that at times this syntagm signifies a durative action or a continuing condition as in ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִבּ ְהיו ָֺתם ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬Gn 4.8. At times we might be able to recognise some subtle difference in nuance between the two structures.691 However, we do not think it necessary to move away from the position stated in JM § 166 l: “the two prepositions are virtually synonymous.” It is important to note, then, that in both line 2 and 3 we find ‫עם‬: ‫( עם האספו‬2) and ‫( עם האספם‬3). And, of course, the juxtaposition of -‫ ב‬and ‫ עם‬in ‫עמ תקופתו ובהאספו‬. ֿ 684 Cf. φωστὴρ μειούμενος ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ (‫‘ )בתקופתו‬a luminary which diminishes with the completion (of its circuit)’ Si 43.7 in a description of the moon’s daily circuit. 685 See SQH § 12 e 3. 686 DJD 20.259 has “it is gathered in to its dwelling place.” Is there an agens that gathers darkness in? In 1QS anyway the luminaries, including darkness, the lack of light, move on their own to their respective abode allocated by their creator, ‫מעון חוקו‬, with the arrival of the time decreed (‫)חקק‬ by Him. 687 Wernberg-Møller himself is aware that in Ps 104 it is about young lions. If we believe that, round the turn of the era, Hebrew was still a living language, whether spoken or written, authors of DSS could be using the language creatively, not necessarily consciously dependent on the Hebrew Bible, unless a biblical source is explicitly cited with ‫]כּתוּב =[ כתוב‬ ָ or suchlike. 688 In BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬V 1. 689 An example mentioned in Gesenius (119 a), whereas the 1962 version of Gesenius mentioned ‫ל־בּית ַבּ ְע ָשׁא‬ ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ל־כּ ְסאוֹ ִה ָכּה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְב ָמ ְלכוֹ ְכּ ִשׁ ְבתּוֹ ַע‬1Kg 16.11, supposedly illustrating that ‫ ְבּ‬with an inf. “bezeichnet einen etwas weiteren Zeitbegriff als ‫ ְכּ‬c. inf.,” a text now said to mean “sobald er König geworden war [u.] auf dem Throne saß.” 690 Note a remark in HALOT s.v. I ‫ ְבּ‬21 (p. 105b): “often the temporal notion is less strong: “when” :: ‫“ ְכּ‬as soon as,” which latter nuance would fit the example cited above. For further examples in QH of this kind of infinitival construction, see SQH § 12 e (3). 691 Cf. also Waltke - O’Connor 1990 § 36.2.2 b.

188

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ]על מעון חוקו‬to the quarters assigned for it.’ In view of ‫האספם למעון כבוד‬ (line 3) the selection of ‫ על‬appears to be due to a phonetic / orthographical fluctuation common in QH between ‫ א‬and ‫על‬, thus ‫אל = על‬. The variation in BA between ‫ ל‬and ‫ על‬is semantically conditioned: ‫ ל‬with a place as destination and ‫ על‬with a person, which does not apply here.692 A syntactic ambiguity is latent in ‫מעון חוקו‬, an ambiguity characteristic of construct phrases.693 Does the suffix pronoun ‫ו‬- relate to ‫ חוק‬alone or to ‫מעון‬ ‫ חוק‬as a whole? If the former alternative applies, ‫ חוקו‬can mean ‘a determination made for him,’ cf. ‫‘ לאל משפטי‬a verdict to be handed down over me belongs to God’ 1QS 11.2.694 The second analysis accords with ‫ מעונתו‬in the above-quoted 1QHa 20.9. ‫‘ ]ברשית אשמורי חושכ‬at the start of the watches of darkness.’ The m.pl. form, ‫אשמורי‬, is unknown anywhere. Besides the sg. ‫מוּרה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְשׁ‬and ‫ ַא ְשׁמ ֶֹרת‬BH knows only ‫ ַא ְשׁ ֻמרו ֺת‬Ps 63.7, 119.148, and Lam 2.19. In all these three cases the form is in st. abs. Given the scarcity of evidence it is difficult to say whether we have here to do with a morphosyntactic complementary distribution as in abs. ‫יָ ִמים‬ vs. cst. ‫ יְ ֵמי‬and ‫יְ מו ֺת‬, abs. ‫ ָשׁנִ ים‬vs. cst. ‫ ְשׁנֵ י‬and ‫שׁנו ֺת‬. ְ This analysis is, however, contradicted by what we find in 4QSd: ‫אשמורות חושך‬ ֯ ‫ בראשית‬4Q260 2.1, st. cst., and the picture becomes a little more complicated in view of ‫אשמורות‬ 4Q437 2i16, pl. abs.695 The form is then a free variant just as in the case of two pl. cst. forms ‫ יְ מוֹת‬/ ‫ יְ ֵמי‬and ‫ ְשׁנוֹת‬/ ‫שׁנֵ י‬. ְ The combination of ‫ חושׁך‬as a nomen rectum with ‫ אשׁמורת‬is also new. In BH we find ‫מוּרה ַב ַלּיְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְשׁ‬Ps 90.4 and in an early mediaeval composition, ‫קרובות‬ ‫למשמרות‬, there occurs ‫באשמורות בלילה‬. The choice of ‫ חושך‬instead of ‫ לילה‬is most likely due to the antonymic parallelism in this paragraph between light and darkness. 1QS 10.2) ‫‘ ]כיא יפתח אוצרו‬when He opens its storeroom.’ The conjunction ‫ כי‬introducing a temporal clause, whether in the past or non-past domain, is well established in BH, see BDB s.v. 2 a. In view of the immediately following ‫ישתהו‬, the subject of ‫ יפתח‬cannot be darkness with the verb as Nifal, but God. We agree with Wernberg-Møller (141, n. 6), regarding darkness as referred to by the suffix of ‫אוצרו‬, although the ultimate manager of the storeroom is God, cf. ‫יִ ְפ ַתּח‬ ‫ר־א ְר ְצָך ְבּ ִעתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ָל ֵתת ְמ ַט‬ ַ ‫ת־אוֹצרוֹ ַהטּוֹב ֶא‬ ָ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ְלָך ֶא‬Dt 28.12. ‫ ]וישתהו עלת‬on the first word it is generally agreed that it represents ‫ישׁ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ִ‫ו‬, though one could anticipate ‫ וישיתנו‬according to SQH §15 dah. The verb is a form of a common hollow root, √‫‘ שׁית‬to put.’ The next word, however, has become a nightmare for many scholars. Licht (209) lists three solutions proposed: 692 693 694 695

See Muraoka 2015.43 ad Dn 2.24. Cf. SQH § 21 a. For further examples in QH of the second type of cst. phrase, see SQH § 21 b xii. Note also ‫ ארבע אשמורות ביום וארבע אשמורות בלילה‬yBer I 2,4.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

189

1) ‫‘ ֲע ָל ָטה = עלטה‬thick darkness,’ 2) ‫‘ ַע ל ֵתּ ֵבל = על תבל‬on the earth,’ and 3) ‫‘ ְל ֵעת = לעת‬for a period of time’ or = ‫‘ ָל ֵעת‬for the period.’ Wernberg-Møller (141, n. 7) mentions three more: 4) ‫( ָע ֹלה = עלה‬inf. abs.) ‘to rise,’696 5) = ‫ֲע ֹלת‬ ‘to arise’ Qal inf.697 and 6) ‫ ָע ָליו = עליו‬698. For 5) we would rather anticipate ‫ל ֲע ֹלת = לעלת‬.ַ We prefer 3). Licht (209), who writes ‫ למשך‬,‫כלומר לעת קצובה‬ ‫“ הלילה‬i.e. for a fixed period, for the duration of night,” regards the preposition as marking a period of time. Alternatively it could be indicating a function or assignment as in ‫ל־ה ָא ֶר ץ‬ ָ ‫יתמוֹ ְל ָשׂ ִר ים ְבּ ָכ‬ ֵ ‫ ַתּ ַחת ֲאב ֶֹתיָך יִ ְהיוּ ָבנֶ יָך ְתּ ִשׁ‬Ps 45.17; the entry of darkness is to mark the start of night. Once the universe was created and began to run its course, darkness followed light, not as during its creation, when the sequence was reverse: ‫וַ יְ ִהי ֶע ֶרב וַ יְ ִהי ב ֶֹקר‬. ‫ ]ובתקופתו עם האספו מפני אור‬the chiastic selection of the two prepositions compared with ‫ עם תקופתו ובהאספו על מעון חוקו‬indicates that in this case they are synonymous.699 The second of these two options is selected in what immediately follows. ‫ ]מפני אור‬some take the pseudo preposition in a causal sense, e.g. “by reason of” (Brownlee 38), “à cause de” (van der Ploeg 124b), and “um des Lichtes willen” (Lohse 37). True, the start of the period of light is an occasion for the withdrawal of darkness, but it is none the less different from ‫ מפני‬as in ‫ֵאין ְמ ַכ ֶבּה‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫‘ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ר ַֹע ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬there is none to quench it [= fire] because of the evilness of your deeds’ Jr 4.4. BH examples slightly closer in nuance are ‫וַ יִּ ְת ַח ֵבּא ָה ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ נָ ס‬ ‫ֹלהים ְבּתוְֹך ֵע ץ ַהגָּ ן‬ ִ ‫ וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ ִמ ְפּנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Gn 3.8, ‫יוֹתם וַ יִּ ְב ַרח וַ יֵּ ֶלְך ְבּ ֵא ָרה וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ָשׁם‬ ‫ימ ֶלְך ָא ִחיו‬ ֶ ‫ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֲא ִב‬Jdg 9.21. Darkness is diffidently transferring its current domain to light. ‫‘ ]באופיע מאורות מזבול קודש‬when luminaries shine out from lofty abode of holiness.’ ‫ באופיע‬is = ‫ בהופיע‬Hif. inf., evidencing a common fluctuation in QH between ‫ א‬and ‫ה‬.700 Our verb is used here in the sense of radiant appearance, whether God or luminary as the subject. But already in QH we can identify signs of neutralisation of its sense in the direction of ‘to appear, make appearance’ as in ‫בהופע מעשיו‬ ‘when his deeds emerge’ CD 20.3, 6 [the person in question is to be expelled] and ‫ממשלת חושך‬ ֯ ‫להופיע‬ ֗ ‘for the dominion of darkness to emerge’ 4Q408 3+3a10 as against ‫( ֗ל ֗הו֗ ֗פי֗ ע ממשלת אור‬line 8). Even earlier than QH in ‫‘ לא יופיע‬he will not turn up’ Si 12.15, where the subject is one who hates you. Note also ‫כול‬ ‫‘ אחד ואחד הופיע‬each one [of figs] made its appearance’ GenR 12.4. 696 Dupont-Sommer’s (1952.236) ‫ ָע לֺֹת‬is impossible for an inf. abs.; ‫ עלת‬is non-existent as a verb root. 697 What is presumably accepted by Brownlee (39, n. 8), who follows a certain scholar, but, pace Wernberg-Møller (141, n. 7), does not propose as Dupont-Sommer does. 698 Attributed by Wernberg-Møller to Habermann (1952.83), who, however, reads now (1959.69) ‫‘ ִע ִלּת‬high up(?)’ and interprets it as meaning ‫‘ מעולה‬exalted’ (p. 188). 699 In Wise - Abegg - Cook’s (140) “is regathered .. withdrawing” the parallelism is lost. 700 4QSd actually reads ‫ בהופע‬4Q258 8.12.

190

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Commentators refer to ‫ ַה ֵבּט ִמ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ְוּר ֵאה ִמזְּ ֻבל ָק ְד ְשָׁך‬Is 63.15, where ‫זבול קדש‬ is parallel to ‫שׁמים‬, and ‘lofty abode of holiness’ is qualified with ‘Your.’ Note 4QSb ‫ מזבול קודשו‬4Q256 19.1.701 Here again we are confronted with a syntactic ambiguity: is it ‘His lofty abode of holiness’ or ‘the lofty abode of His holiness’? See above at line 1, p. 188. Since at this juncture the dawn is about to break, ‫ מאורות‬must signify stars. From current dictionaries such as BDB, Gesenius - Buhl, and HALOT one gets the impression that, when ‫ ָמאו ֺר‬refers in BH to a celestial source of light, it refers ֵ ‫ל־מ‬ ְ ‫ָכּ‬ to the sun and / or the moon. This can scarcely hold for ‫אוֹרי אוֹר ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ ַא ְק ִדּ ֵירם ָע ֶליָך‬Ezk 32.8, for the addition of ‫ כל‬would be odd if the sun and the ַ ‫אר ֹת ַהגְּ ד ִֹלים ֶא‬ ֹ ‫ת־שׁנֵ י ַה ְמּ‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫וַ יַּ ַעשׂ ֱא‬ moon were meant.702 ‫ת־ה ָמּאוֹר ַהגָּ ד ֹל ְל ֶמ ְמ ֶשׁ ֶלת‬ ַ ‫ ַהיּוֹם וְ ֶא‬Gn 1.16 does not preclude stars ‫כּוֹכ ִבים‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָמּאוֹר ַה ָקּטֹן ְל ֶמ ְמ ֶשׁ ֶלת ַה ַלּיְ ָלה וְ ֵאת ַה‬ from the category of ‫מאו ֺר‬, ָ for they are not large, even smaller than the small of the two large luminaries. In QH as well, the substantive denotes a celestial luminary in general. Thus ‫‘ צבא מאורות‬a host of luminaries’ 1QM 10.11 would be an exaggeration if it referred to the sun and the moon alone. ‫ מאורות‬1QHa 9.13 appears to be in contrast with ‫כוכבים‬. 1QS 10.3) ‫‘ ]מעון כבוד‬a glorious residence.’ For examples of ‫ כבוד‬as a nomen rectum in a cst. chain expressing quality of a nomen regens,703 see ‫֗מושב יקרכה‬ ‫ומדו֗ ]ר [ קודשכה ומרכבות כבודכה‬ ֗ .. ‫רגלי | ֗כ ֗בו֗ דכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ והדומי‬Your honourable seat and Your glorious footstools .. and Your holy dwelling and Your glorious chariots’ 4Q286 1ii1. ‫ ]במבוא מועדים לימי חודש יחד‬The underlying verb of ‫מבוא‬, i.e. ‫בּא‬, ָ can mean not only ‘to enter,’ but also ‘to arrive, come’ as shown in ‫ֹאמר ָהגָ ר ִשׁ ְפ ַחת ָשׂ ַר י‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫י־מזֶּ ה ָבאת וְ ָאנָ ה ֵת ֵל ִכי‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬Gn 16.8, where ‘to come in’ is most unlikely and the verb in question is opposed to ‫ה ַלְך‬. ָ And yet our verb is at times contrasted with ‫יָ ָצא‬ ְ ‫ וִ ִיר יחוֹ סֹגֶ ֶרת‬Josh 6.1. This is true as in ‫יוֹצא וְ ֵאין ָבּא‬ ֵ ‫וּמ ֻסגֶּ ֶרת ִמ ְפּנֵ י ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵאין‬ also when the subject is not personal, but inanimate. E.g. ‫למבוא שנים ומוצא קצי֗ ֗ם‬ 4Q418 123ii2, an example which is relevant to our 1QS example because of the notional affinity of ‘years’ and ‘times’ with ‫‘ מועדים‬seasons.’ This semantic feature is reflected in the variation in translation as in “à l’entrée des saisons” (Dupont-Sommer 38) vs. “quant arrivent les fêtes” (Lambert 972). The 4QSf’s variant reading ‫וב ֗בו֯ ֯א‬ ֗ 4Q256 shows that the prefix mem of ‫מבוא‬ does not signify ‘a place (where one makes entry),’ but ‫ מבוא‬is a verbal noun, nomen actionis, a pseudo-inf. cst., on which see JM § 49 e. Charlesworth’s (43 and 67) “realm” is probably confusing ‫ זבול‬for ‫גְּ בוּל‬. Already Radaq notes that the reference is to all the stars. Kaddari (2007.573b) notes that the sun and the moon are already mentioned in the preceding verse. DCH I s.v. 1 indicates that in QH the noun can refer to stars as well to sun and moon, though in 1QS 10.3 and Ezk 32.8 it is said to refer to the two great luminaries. 703 Cf. SQH § 21 b xviii). 701 702

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

191

Dupont-Sommer (1952.236) is confident704 in his view that ‫ מועדים‬here means ‘seasons.’ The Hebrew word, however, does not specifically mean ‘(the four) seasons.’ No phrase such as ‫‘ מועד קיץ‬summer’ or ‫‘ מועד חרף‬winter’ is known. The noun basically means ‘appointed or agreed time, place or meeting.’ The syntactic status of ‫ יחד‬is somewhat obscure. Those who have taken it into account in their translation have analysed it as an adverb, e.g. “together” (Brownlee 38, Charlesworth 43, García Martínez - Tigchelaar 95) and “zusammen” (Lohse 37), though it is ungrammatical to construe it forwards as is done by Charlesworth “together with their turning-point” and García Martínez Tigchelaar “together with their rotations.”705 We wonder whether it is not impossible to identify in the word ‫ יחד‬as a substantive, ‘community,’ which occurs quite often in QH. Summing up, we propose the following translation: ‘when times appointed for the days of new moon for the community arrive.’ ‫ ]תקופתם‬in view of the two earlier occurrences of the noun, ‫עמ תקופתו‬ ֿ (line 1) and ‫( ובתקופתו‬line 2), either preposition and preferably also the conjunction waw, we suggest, have inadvertently dropped out. ‫‘ ]עם מסרותם זה לזה‬when they take turns with one another.’ ‫ ַמ ְסרוּת‬is a verbal noun706 derived from √‫‘ מסר‬to hand over, pass on.’707 As a verbal noun it accords with the pattern we have observed a number of times, i.e. -‫ ב‬or ‫עם‬ preceding an inf. or a verbal noun. They must be referring to the days of the new moon, for the light of the sun, the darkness, and the light of the moon and stars have been mentioned a little too far back. The repetition of a demonstrative pronoun indicating reciprocity, ‘each other’ or ‘one another,’ is rather common in QH, but unknown to BH.708 Another example is ‫‘ מובדלים זה מזה‬separated from one another’ 11Q19 35.11.709 This usage is also attested in MH, e.g. ‫‘ ִשׁ ְח ְררוּ זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬they liberated each other’ mYeb 11.5.710 1QS 10.4) ‫‘ ]בהתחדשם‬when they are renewed.’ One day of the new moon is followed by another, renewed eleven times every year. ‫ ]קודש קודשים‬is a translation such as “the Holiest of Holy” with capital H (Wernberg-Møller 36), sim. “le Saint des Saints” (Guilbert 66) meant to refer So are Licht (209: ‫ ;ארבע עונות השנה‬see also id. 205f. [§ 122]) and DJD 26.123 ad ‫( בהתחדשם‬line 1). 705 “both when they come round and during their bonds” (Wernberg-Møller 36) is impossible for ‫יחד‬. 706 So Qimron 2018.343 (§ E 2.10 [2]). 707 The only two occurrences in BH of this verb are both obscure, whereas in QH it occurs twice: ‫‘ וימסור לישחק‬and he handed (it) down to Isaac’ CD 3.3 and ‫‘ והנשארים ימסרו לחרב‬and those remaining shall be handed over to a sword’ ib. 19.10. 708 For constructions used in BH for this purpose, see JM § 147 b, c. 709 For more examples, see SQH § 3 d. 710 Cf. Segal 1958.208, § 433. 704

192

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

to God? For that, however, one would anticipate ‫ קדוש )ה(קדושים‬as in ‫קדוש‬ ‫מלך מלכים‬ ֗ . . ‫‘ קדושים‬the holiest one .. the supreme king’ 4Q381 76+77.7.711 Scholars are still struggling with ‫ְבּנֵ י ַע ְמ ָרם ַא ֲהר ֹן וּמ ֶֹשׁה וַ יִּ ָבּ ֵד ל ַא ֲהר ֹן ְל ַה ְק ִדּישׁוֹ ק ֶֹדשׁ‬ ‫ ָק ָד ִשׁים‬1Ch 23.13, e.g. HALOT 1078b 7 “something extremely holy .. meaning the temple” and Japhet 1993.415. Cf. our analysis of the same phrase, ‫קודש‬ ‫קודשים‬, above at 9.6. ‫ ]אות נ‬with Wernberg-Møller (143, n. 12) we assume that the letter nun was meant as the first letter of a word which the author or the scribe began to write, but for some reason did not complete.712 ‫ אות‬denotes ‘sign, signal’ that carries a message. Note a striking combination with ‫ קו ֺל‬in ‫ִאם־ל ֹא יַ ֲא ִמינוּ ָלְך וְ ל ֹא יִ ְשׁ ְמעוּ ְלקֹל ָהאֹת ָה ִראשׁוֹן וְ ֶה ֱא ִמינוּ ְלקֹל ָהאֹת ָה ַא ֲחרוֹן‬ Ex 4.8; the signs were miraculous things that happened to Moses. Analogously ‫ֹתוֹתיו וּמ ְֹפ ִתים ְבּ ֶא ֶר ץ ָחם‬ ָ ‫מוּ־בם ִדּ ְב ֵר י א‬ ָ ‫ ָשׂ‬Ps 105.27. The regular sequence of the days of the new moon served as a signal for an action. ‫ ]למפתח חסדיו עולם‬We agree with Qimron (2018.325f. [§ E 2.2.1)713 that ‫ מפתח‬is a verbal noun. However, its combination with ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬is syntagmatically striking, for one does not open mercies as suggested by Lambert (972) with his “l’ouverture,” sim. van der Ploeg (124b) “ouvrir” and Lohse (37) with his “Eröffnung.” Brownlee’s (38) “the unlocking [or, key]” and DS’s (39) “Clé” [= ‫]מ ְפ ֵתּ ַח‬ ַ are odd: are God’s mercies locked away? It is interesting that, in BH, this verb is used in Piel in the sense of ‘to release (from confinement, imprisonment),’ thus Ps 105.20 (with Joseph as the object) and Je 40.4 (Jeremiah), and note also ‫ ַפּ ֵתּ ַח‬// ‫ ַה ֵתּר‬Is 58.6. In that light we can perhaps understand the verb in the sense of ‘to remove a constraint on something and let it work in its full capacity.’ In QH we find one interesting instance of ‫רחמים‬, a synonym of ‫חסד‬, as an object of ‫פתח‬: ֗‫רחמיו‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֯הו̇ א פתח‬He has unloosed His mercies’ 4Q417 2ii+23.2. There is, however, one snag. Quite a number of verbal nouns listed by Qimron (2018 loc. cit.) are of verbs used in Qal, the sole exception being ‫‘ במולדיהם‬in delivering them’ 1QHa 11.12.714 One way of overcoming this difficulty is to postulate an inadvertent omission of a word, ‫אוצר‬. Then read ‫למפתח אוצר חסדיו‬ ‘to open the storeroom of His mercies,’ cf. ‫‘ יפתח אוצרו‬He opens its [= of darkness] 711 DCH 7.203b 18 c mentions as the sole attestation in BH and QH for this use 4Q405 20ii22.12, where we read ‫ ;והללו֗ קודש‬DJD 11.353 emends it, justly to our mind, to ‫‘ והלל קודש‬and a holy praise.’ There is also mentioned ‫ משרתי קדש משרתיה‬Si 4.14, on which Segal (1958a.25) cites ‫ כבוד לכם המכובדים משרתי קודש‬yBer 9.4 in support of his view that the noun means ‘angels.’ The second half of the Hebrew text of Si is hopelessly corrupt. If Ben Sira’s grandson had at his disposal a superior copy of the Hebrew text, he may have read here ‫קד ֹשׁ‬,ָ for his Greek rendition reads οἱ λατρεύοντες αὐτῇ λειτουργήσουσιν ἁγίῳ, καὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτὴν ἀγαπᾷ ὁ κύριος, thus ἁγίῳ parallel to ὁ κύριος. 712 Here Wernberg-Møller is following Zeitlin, though one can not make out in which of the latter’s works cited in the bibliography the view was expressed. See also DJD 26.123, where it is said that (‫ נאמנ)ה‬or (‫ נפלא)ה‬may have stood there. Neither 4QSb nor 4QSd has any letter there. 713 So also Licht 44 (§ 38), 210. 714 The standard pattern in BH of Piel verbal nouns is qittūl, e.g. ‫‘ ִשׁלּוּם‬retribution,’ cf. JM § 88I e.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

193

storeroom’ (line 2 above). For another instance of ‫ או ָֺצר‬as a nomen regens, see ‫‘ אוצר בינות‬a storehouse of understanding’ 4Q298 3-4i9 and ‫שכ ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫אוצר‬ ֯ ‘a storehouse of intelligence’ 4Q286 1ii7. Another emendation may be necessary: ‫ למפתח חסדיו עולם‬is better read as ‫ למפתח חסדי עולם‬as in 4QSd as noted by Licht (209), though everyone has accordingly translated without mentioning this v.l.715 ‫‘ ]לראשי מועדים‬at the beginning of festivals’; the prep. -‫ל‬, just as -‫ב‬, can mark a point in time, cf. ‫( במבוא מועדים‬line 3) and ‫שׁוֹפר ַבּ ֵכּ ֶסה ְליוֹם ַחגֵּ נוּ‬ ָ ‫ִתּ ְקעוּ ַבח ֶֹדשׁ‬ Ps 81.4. 1QS 10.5) ‫‘ ]בכול קצ נהיה‬at every time to emerge’; on the value of Nifal here, see QSH § 12 e 7. We fail to comprehend what is meant by Lohse (36) and Habermann (69) vocalising ‫ נהיה‬as ‫נִ ְהיָ ה‬, a fem. ptc. 1QS 10.5b - 17a 10.5b) at the beginning of months for the festivals (determined to take place) in them; and on holy days in their fixed sequence in order to commemorate at the appointed times. 10.6) ( ) As an offering of lips I shall bless Him in accordance with an ordinance engraved for ever. At the beginning of years and with the end of the circuit of their appointed times at the completion of the period 10.7) assigned to them, each day in accordance with its respective rule, the time appointed for harvesting to the summer and the time appointed for sowing to the season of fresh grass, the prescribed periods of years with seven-year cycles 10.8) at the beginning of the seven-year cycles till the time of liberation, and as long as I exist, a law is engraved on my tongue for a fruit of praise and a contribution by my lips. 10.9) I would like to sing about the knowledge and all my playing is for the sake of God’s glory and a lyre, my lute, to the fixed measure of His holiness, and the flute of my lips I shall take up (to sing over) the standard of His justice. 10.10) With the arrival of day and night I would like to enter God’s covenant, and with the departure of evening and morning I shall recite His statutes, and where they are I shall set 10.11) my boundaries in order not to turn back and I accept His judgement as right in view of my perverseness when my sins are in front of me as an engraved law, and to God I shall say, “My righteousness,” 10.12) and to the Most High “the place for my happiness,” a source of knowledge and a fountain of holiness, height of glory and omnipotence for eternal eminence. I would choose whatever 10.13) He might teach me and I would be pleased in whatever way He might assess me. At the start of my manual work and walking to work I shall bless His name. When I begin to walk out or come home, 10.14) to sit or stand up, and when I get into my bed 715 Even mentioning it: Guilbert (69, n. 45), who could have said that “Ses” in his “Ses faveurs éternelles” is a contextual addition of his.

194

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

I would shout to Him in joy and I shall bless Him through an offering by way of the utterance from my lips in an assembly of people 10.15) and before I lift my hand in order to become fat with dainties of the produce of the earth. At the start of fear and terror and in a distressful position accompanied by desolation 10.16) I shall bless Him, amazed greatly, and I shall ponder over His mighty work and I shall rely on His mercies every day, and I would know that in His hand lies the judgement of 10.17) every living being and all His actions are truth, and when distress is removed, I would like to praise Him, and over His salvation I would like to shout for joy together. ‫‘ ]ברשית ירחים‬at the beginning of months,’ thus ‫יֶ ַרח < יְ ָר ִחים‬, not “moons” (Wernberg-Møller 36), synonymous with ‫( במבוא מועדים לימי חודש‬line 3) and parallel to ‫( בראשי ) ( שנים‬line 6). ‫‘ בימי קודש = ימי קודש‬on holy days.’ ‫לזכרון‬: ‘in order to commemorate.’ 1QS 10.6) ‫‘ ]הברכנו כחוק חרות לעד‬I shall bless Him in keeping with a law engraved for ever.’ ‫אברכנו = הברכנו‬, another instance witnessing the frequent fluctuation of gutturals in QH; ‫ אברכנו‬is what we find in 4QSb and 4QSd. It is striking that the author started off with ‫( יברכנו‬9.26); he is to practise what he is preaching, and not as a spontaneous act of praise, but as an expression of his obedience to a divine ordinance. Van der Ploeg’s (124) “la loi de la liberté,” i.e. ‫ ֵחרוּת‬in lieu of ‫חרוּת‬, ָ makes little sense in this context. Cf. “they [= the first day of four months] are written (Eth /ṣeḥufa:t/) and ordained for an eternal witness .. thus it is engraved (Eth / taḥaraṣa/) and ordained on the heavenly tablets” (Jub 6.23, 31). ‫‘ ]בהשלם חוק תכונם‬at the completion of the period assigned to them.’ Wernberg-Møller (144, n. 21) mentions Rabin (1958.15), who had referred to our text, mentioning a use of N ‫ ִה ָשּׁ ֵלם‬in Tanchuma, where, however, the subject is a person just deceased. The database of the historical dictionary project of the Hebrew Academy in Jerusalem cites ‫ קץ קינאתי עד ישלם‬as a fourth attestation of this verb in Nifal, the text derived from an early mediaeval poet, Yannai (6th cent.). This is an example interesting for us because of ‫ קץ‬as the subject of the verb. 1QS 10.7) ‫‘ ]יום משפטו זה לזה‬each day in accordance with its respective rule’; on the reciprocal value of the repeated demonstrative pronoun, see above at line 4. ‫ ]מועד דשא‬the use of ‫ דשא‬in this context of division of an agricultural calendar is unusual. Is it a reference to full-grown shoots, but not yet ripe for harvesting? ‫‘ ]שבועיהם‬their heptads.’ ‫ שבועים‬as the pl. of ‫ שבוע‬occurs only in Dn 9.24 and five more times. Otherwise ‫ שבועות‬is used. Both Habermann (69) and Lohse (36) vocalise the word as ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫בוּע‬ ֵ ‫שׁ‬. ְ Is ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫בוּע‬ ֵ ‫ ָשׁ‬impossible in view of ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ָשׁבוּע ֵֹת‬ Nu 28.26?

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

195

On the expression ‫שנים לשבועיהם‬, cf. ‫ֶשׁ ַבע ַשׁ ְבּתֹת ָשׁנִ ים ֶשׁ ַבע ָשׁנִ ים ֶשׁ ַבע ְפּ ָע ִמים‬ ‘seven heptads of years, seven years seven times’ Lv 25.8. On ‫דּרוֹר‬,ְ also called ‫יוֹבל‬, ֵ see Lv 25.10. 1QS 10.8) ‫‘ ]בכול היותי‬as long as I exist.’ The addition of ‫ כול‬modifying a following inf. is unusual. This is distinct from examples such as ‫יוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ָכּ ל־יְ ֵמי ֱה‬ ‫‘ ַבּ ַכּ ְר ֶמל‬the whole time they were at Carmel’ 1Sm 25.7 and ‫יוֹתנוּ ִע ָמּם ר ִֹעים‬ ֵ ‫ל־יְמי ֱה‬ ֵ ‫ָכּ‬ ‫‘ ַהצֹּאן‬all the days when we were with them, tending the sheep’ ib. 25.16. In our 1QS case the nominal character of the infinitive is manifest. Likewise ‫אוחיל בכול‬ ‫‘ היותי‬I shall look towards (Your mercy) all my life’ 1QHa 22.36.716 ‫ ]חוק חרות בלשוני‬it is difficult to determine whether ‫ ָחרוּת‬is adjectival, i.e. ‘an engraved law,’ or predicative, i.e. ‘a law is engraved.’ Otherwise we have here a highly creative poetic diction. Licht (211) mentions ‫חקקתה על קו‬ ֗ ֿ‫בלשונו‬ ‫‘ ֯משפט‬in his tongue You neatly engraved judgement’ 1QHa 23.10. See also ‫‘ נהיות עולם חקותה בלב האבן‬You engraved eternal events in the stony heart’ 1QHa 21.13. ‫‘ ]פרי תהלה ומנת שפתי‬fruits of praise and a portion (of offering) with my lips,’ fruits of our poet’s innovative creativity. Both ‫ פרי‬and ‫ מנה‬are terms of cultic, ritual parlance; the poet offers a hymn of adoration on the altar. At the end of the line a word has been erased, plausibly read by Qimron as ‫אשא‬, which is absent in 4QSd. 1QS 10.9) ‫‘ ]אזמרה בדעת‬I would like to sing about the knowledge.’ With his “Avec science” van der Ploeg (124b) has assigned instrumental value to the preposition.717 It can, however, mark a topic of verbal communication, e.g. ‫ל־היּוֹם‬ ַ ‫אֹלהים ִה ַלּ ְלנוּ ָכ‬ ִ ‫ ֵבּ‬Ps 44.9, followed by ‫נוֹדה‬ ֶ ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫וְ ִשׁ ְמָך ְל‬. See also ‫ְבָּך ְת ִה ָלּ ִתי‬ Ps 71.6, ‫ ְבּ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂי יָ ֶדיָך ֲא ַרנֵּ ן‬Ps 92.5. What follows, i.e. ‫כבוד אל‬, ‫תכון קודשו‬, and ‫ קו משפטו‬can best be viewed as what is to move the poet / musician to varieties of musical performance, though the first two, prefixed with the preposition -‫ל‬, do not indicate a topic of musical expression. Cf. Licht 215: ‫בשבחה של הדעת‬ ‫‘ האלוהית‬in praise of the divine knowledge.’ ‫‘ ]וכול נגינתי לכבוד אל וכנור נבלי לתכון קודשו‬and all my playing is for the sake of God’s glory and ..’ The two clauses appear to display parallelism: . Hence ‫ כנור נבלי‬is most likely a cst. chain. In BH the two nouns denoting musical instruments often occur next to each other, but separated through the conjunction -‫ ו‬or the preposition -‫ ב‬or both: ‫וְ ִכנֹּרוֹת‬ ‫ וּנְ ָב ִלים‬1Kg 10.12, ‫וּב ְמ ִצ ְל ָתּיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ ִכנֹּרוֹת ִבּנְ ָב ִלים‬1Ch 25.1, ‫וּבנְ ָב ִלים‬ ִ ‫וּב ִכנֹּרוֹת‬ ְ 2Sm 6.5. 716

DJD (40.275): “with all my being,” which could not apply to the 1QS example nor concords well with ‫ תמיד‬in the parallel clause. Cf. SQH § 18 a. 717 Agreed to by Wernberg-Møller (144, n. 27), who, however, rightly disputes the relevance of St Paul’s position referred to by Brownlee (41): ψαλῶ τῷ πνεύματι, ψαλῶ δὲ καὶ τῷ νοΐ 1Cor 14.15. Both Wernberg-Møller (loc. cit.) and Charlesworth (45) translate the Heb. phrase “with skill.”

196

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Besides, a construct chain consisting of two substantives denoting two different musical instruments makes little sense. That the text is not in order is evident in view of 4QSd and 4QSf, which read ‫‘ אכה נבלי‬I shall strike up my lute,’ with no trace of ‫כנור‬. ‫‘ ]חליל שפתי אשא בקו משפטו‬I shall take up a flute of my lips (to sing over) the standard of His justice.’ We assign to the preposition -‫ ב‬the same value as in line 9 above. 1QS 10.10) ‫‘ ]עם מבוא יום ולילה‬with the arrival of day and night.’ As in ‫( במבוא מועדים‬line 3 above) ‫ מבוא‬here is derived from √‫‘ בוא‬to come, arrive,’ and not ‘to enter’ as in ‫בשערי֯ קודש‬ ֗ ‫ומבוא‬ ֗ ‫את‬ ֗ ‫בצ‬ ֗ ‘as they exit and enter the holy gates’ 4Q405 23i10, and of course ‫‘ ְמבו ֺא ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ‬the west’ in BH. On the temporal value of ‫ עם‬with a verbal noun, see above at 10.1, also similarly at 10.14. ‫ ]אבואה‬On the selection of a cohortative form here, see below on ‫ ואדעה‬at line 16. ‫‘ ]ובהיותם אשים גבולי לבלתי שוב‬and where they are I shall set my boundaries in order not to turn back.’718 The locative value assigned to the preposition bet prefixed to an inf. is admittedly anomalous, but that appears to fix the context best.719 This is affiliated to the half substantivised inf. cst. in ‫( ובכול היותי‬line 8) discussed above. The general sense is probably “where they are in force, they are to affect members’ ways of life.” The verb ‫ שׁוב‬is at times used to denote apostasy, i.e. to cease walking the right path and go back to one’s old path. More fully expressed, it is often qualified with ‫ ֵמ ַא ֲח ֵר י יהוה‬and the like, e.g. ‫ַשׁ ְב ֶתּם‬ ‫ ֵמ ַא ֲח ֵר י יְ הוָ ה‬Nu 14.43. Though not often, it can also be used absolutely, e.g. ‫וֹתי‬ ַ ‫וּמ ְצ‬ ִ ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ם־תּשׁוּבוּן ַא ֶתּם וַ ֲעזַ ְב ֶתּם ֻח‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִא‬2Ch 7.19.720 On ‫ לבלתי‬negating an infinitive, see SQH § 40 e, i 2). 1QS 10.11) ‫‘ ]משפטו אוכיח כנעוותי‬I accept His judgement as right in view of my perverseness.’721 We agree with García Martínez - Tigchelaar’s (95) “I acknowledge his judgment to be right” and Lohse’s (37) “sein Gericht will ich gerecht halten.” Note ‫תוֹכיחוּ ָע ַלי ֶח ְר ָפּ ִתּי‬ ִ ְ‫ם־א ְמנָ ם ָע ַלי ַתּגְ ִדּילוּ ו‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬Jb 19.5. For Charlesworth’s (45) and Wernberg-Møller’s (37) “I am chastened” we anticipate a Hofal form, which cannot be spelled with a yod.722 ‫‘ ]ופשעי לנגד עיני‬when my sins are before my eyes,’ a typical circumstantial clause, SQH § 39. ‫ אשיב‬of 4QSd is rightly rejected in DJD 26.124 as inferior. So van der Ploeg (124a): “et là où elles sont,” followed by Wernberg-Møller (145, n. 32) and Charlesworth (45) “where they are.” 720 This does not mean ‘if you abandon again,’ for which one would expect ‫תּשׁוּבוּן וְ ַת ַעזְ בוּן‬. ְ 721 Pace “His judgement concerning my transgression” DJD 26.122. A similar use of the preposition -‫ כ‬can be identified in cases such as ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּכ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְמ ִתּי ָל ֶהם ְכּ ָפעֳ ָלם‬Je 25.14 and ‫יהם ֵתּן ָל ֶהם‬ ֶ ‫יהם ְכּ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬ ֶ ‫וּכר ַֹע ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬ ְ ‫ן־ל ֶהם ְכּ ָפעֳ ָלם‬ ָ ‫ ֶתּ‬Ps 28.4. 722 Wernberg-Møller (145, n. 34) takes this as a Nifal, which, however, would mean ‘I shall reason, argue.’ 718 719

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

197

‫ ]כחוק חרות‬Brownlee (41, n. 35) mentions H.L. Ginsberg’s rendition — “as a fixed rule,” and Licht (216) renders it with ‫“ תמיד‬always.” The author, however, is likely to be using this phrase used above, line 8, in the same sense. Then the meaning would be: I am fully conscious of my iniquities just as I am of an engraved statute. ‫‘ ]לאל אומר צדקי ולעליון מכון טובי‬to God I shall say, “My righteousness,” and to the Most High “the place for my happiness”.’ Qimron (I 228) prints ‫מכיֿ ן‬, whilst he indicates no uncertainty in 4QSd reading as far as the penultimate letter is concerned, ֗‫מכון‬. ֯ Crucial here is the antonymic parallelism four lines later: ‫‘ פחד ואימה ובמכון צרה‬fear and terror and in a place of distress’ (line 15). The locative preposition -‫ ב‬added to ‫ מכון‬indicates that, in line 11, it is about a space, not about a person who prepares, provides (Hif. ptc., ‫)מ ִכין‬. ֵ Besides, ‫ טובי‬as a direct object of ‫ ֵה ִכין‬is unusual.723 A syntagmatically interesting case is to be noted at ‫‘ במכון רנה‬at a place of jubilation’ 1QHa 19.8. ‫‘ מכון‬place’ accords better with ‫‘ מקור‬fountain’ and ‫‘ מעון‬abode,’ which follow, all three as a nomen regens. 1QS 10.12) ‫‘ ]מעוֿ ן קודש‬an abode of holiness’ or ‘a holy abode.’ True, ‫מעין‬ would form better parallelism with ‫מקור‬. However, ‫ מעון קודש‬occurs four more times in QH, but never ‫מעין קודש‬. Thus ‫ מעון קודש קודשים‬1QS 8.8, on which see above ad loc., ‫קוד ֗ש‬ ֗ ‫ מעון‬1QSb 4.25, ‫ מעון קודשכה‬1QM 12.2, 11Q 5 24.4. The Most High carries five attributes, all st. cst. chains. That the author is dividing them into two groups is shown by the position of the conjunction -‫ו‬: [‫מכון טובי מקור דעת ומעון קודש[ ]רום כבוד וגבורת כול לתפארת עולם‬ = The respective nomen regens of D and E, i.e. ‫‘ רום‬height’ and ‫‘ גבורה‬might,’ has nothing to do with space. This logical hierarchy and structuring also speaks in support of our analysis of ‫ מכון‬and ‫ מעון‬presented above. On the use and non-use of the conjunction with multiple concatenated terms, cf. SQH § 38 g. ‫‘ ]רום כבוד‬height of glory.’ The vertical measurement of glory is highly innovative. Cf. ‫‘ ותרם מבשר כבודו‬and You have raised his honour higher than flesh’ 1QHa 7.29. ‫‘ ]גבורת כול‬omnipotence,’ a sort of objective genitive, cf. SQH § 21 b xiv). ‫‘ ]לתפארת עולם‬for eternal eminence’: it is difficult to say whether this phrase is to be construed with the immediately preceding ‫ גבורת כול‬only or with all the preceding five noun phrases. 723 DCH 4.375a does mention ‫ טוֹב‬as a direct object at 4QPsHodb 3.122 with a note saying “‫ בטובכה‬with prep. erased.” The reference need be corrected to read 4QPsHodc 3.122. Besides, DJD 29.254 is not absolutely certain whether the preposition is to be read or erased. The context seems to indicate its retention as preferable.

198

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ אבחרה = הבחרה‬I would choose,’ see ‫( הברכנו‬line 6). ‫‘ ]באשר יורני‬whatever He might teach me.’ The Hifil verb ‫ הו ָֺרה‬in the sense of ‘to teach’ may take double direct objects as in ‫ת־מי יָ ִבין‬ ִ ‫יוֹרה ֵד ָעה וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ת־מי‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫מוּעה‬ ָ ‫ ְשׁ‬Is 28.9. Hence ‫ יורני‬can be rewritten as ‫יורה א ִֹתי‬.724 1QS 10.13) ‫‘ ]וארצה כאשר ישופטני‬and I would be pleased in whatever way He might assess me.’ Wernberg-Møller (145, n. 38) sees a parallelism between ‫ יורני‬of the preceding clause and ‫ישופטני‬, which “contains no allusion to the Judgment,” and translates it with “He governs me” (op. cit., 37). Does the verb ‫ָשׁ ַפט‬ ever mean ‘to govern’? It does not have to mean ‘to requite, punish,’ but ‘to assess.’ The author would accept His assessment of his way of life; if it is negative, he would repent of it and strive to rectify it, but if it is positive, he would be happy and continue to live as he is living. Cf. Milik (154): “placet mihi quidquid decrevit de me.” ‫]בר)(שית משלח ידי ורגלי‬, which many understand literally, e.g. “When I stretch out hand and foot” (Charlesworth 45). We doubt, however, that it is about physical exercise. In BH, ‫“ ִמ ְשׁ ַלח יָ ד‬denotes an undertaking, enterprise, especially one connected with agriculture” (Driver 1902.143 ad Dt 12.7). ‫ורגלי‬ is a creative, analogical extension, for one sometimes need walk to and in fields or pastures. Cf. Dupont-Sommer (40): “au commencement de toute activité.” Hence ‘before I start working with my hands and feet.’ ‫ ]משלח‬is, morphologically speaking, a noun, an action noun, but is virtually equivalent to an infinitive, as is manifest in the following, analogous phrase — ‫‘ בראשית צאת ובוא‬before going out and coming in.’ Here we have an example of a well-established construction in which a substantive is complemented with an infinitival clause serving as a nomen rectum; for details, see SQH § 18 i, especially common when the substantive denotes a point in time or a period of time as here. Such an infinitive is often not prefixed with the preposition lamed, though there are exceptions as in the immediately following ‫לשבת וקום‬, cf. SQH § 38 e, p. 295 above. ‫אשית‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬of ‫ בראשית‬in these cases is a full-fledged substantive, not grammaticalised as ‫ ְפּנֵ י‬in ‫‘ לפני נפול חללי האויב‬before the casualties of the enemy fell’ 1QM 14.3. Hence translations such as “so soon as” (Wernberg-Møller 37) and “when I go out” (Charlesworth 45) are not quite satisfactory. ‫ ]צאת ובוא‬cf. ‫וּבוֹאָך‬ ֶ ‫אתָך‬ ְ ‫ר־צ‬ ֵ ‫ יְ הוָ ה יִ ְשׁ ָמ‬Ps 121.8. 1QS 10.14) ‫]ועם משכב יצועי‬ ֿ ‘and when I get into my bed.’ On the temporal value of ‫עם‬, ִ see at line 1 above, but a point in time, ‘at, with,’ not durative “while I lie down” (Wernberg-Møller 37); you are to pray and praise before you jump into bed. See above at ‫( עם קצים‬line 1, p. 186). 724

Cf. Muraoka 2007.254.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

199

‫ משכב‬is a pseudo-inf. cst. as ‫מבוא‬, on which see above at line 3. However, the Qal verb ‫ ָשׁ ַכב‬does not take a direct object, and the substantival character of ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָכּב‬can be identified in its prefix -‫ ִמ‬and a cst. chain indicating a place, on which see SQH § 21 b v). ‫יצוע‬, which occurs five times in BH, is confined to poetic texts with the exception of its use in 1Ch 5.1, which, however, is an allusion to its poetic source in Gn 49.4. In QH also, where it occurs a few more times, the context is poetic: 1QHa 17.4, 4Q160 7.4, 4Q184 1.5, 4Q437 2i16. At 4Q252 4.5, in a commentary on Genesis, it occurs in a quote from Gn 49.725 Its use in this poetic passage of 1QS is then most appropriate. ‫תרוםת מוצא שפתי‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]אברכנו‬I shall bless Him with an offering of what issues forth through my lips.’ The addition of ‫ מוצא‬to the formulation at 10.26 and line 6 above makes better sense, since your lips do not offer anything, but words uttered by them. For the analysis of this tripartite cst. chain, see SQH § 21 b xv): ‘an offering consisting of what ..’ (gen. of contents). See also at 9.26 above. ‫מוֹצא ְשׂ ָפ ַתיִ ם‬ ָ is a well-known BH phrase, e.g. Nu 30.13, though there it denotes just things uttered, not words of praise or prayer. ‫‘ ]במערכת אנשים‬in an assembly of people.’ Translations such as “the row of men” (Wernberg-Møller 37, Charlesworth 45, García Martínez - Tigchelaar 95) and “(aus) der Reihe der Männer” (Lohse 39)726 makes one envisage a queue of worshippers waiting to take part in the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, Lambert’s (973) “pour la table qu’il a préparée aux hommes” is a shade too free and expansive, though we are aware of the way ‫ ָע ַר ְך‬is used as in ‫ַתּ ֲער ְֹך ְל ָפנַ י‬ ‫ ֻשׁ ְל ָחן נֶ גֶ ד צ ְֹר ָר י‬Ps 23.5 and in our own text, ‫ יערוכו השולחן‬6.4, sim. Milik 155, Guilbert 72 and Dupont-Sommer 40. What immediately follows does not have to mean that ‫ מערכה‬in our text denotes a dinner table, a “high table” of the community: ‫‘ ובטרם ארים ידי להדשן בעדני תנובת תבל‬and before I raise my hand to enjoy the dainties of the produce of the earth’ line 15. Anyway, such a sense of ‫ מערכה‬is not known anywhere else. BDB 790a, s.v. ‫ ַמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬1, established two senses according to the number, a. battle-line and b. ranks = army, for which latter the phrases ‫מ׳ יִ ְשׂ׳‬, ַ ‫ֹלהים ַחיִּ ים‬ ִ ‫מ׳ ֱא‬, ַ ‫ ַמ׳ ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים‬are mentioned. However, in ‫ שבע המערכות‬1QM 5.16 it cannot be about seven armies. In military contexts it is better to understand ‫ מערכה‬as meaning an organised host or army assembled in an orderly fashion. DCH’s (V 413b) “array” appears to capture well the primary sense of the lexeme.727 The basic meaning of Qal ‫ ערך‬is ‘to arrange multiple constituents in a certain order.’ Thus the phrase in our 1QS text probably ‫ יצועי‬11Q30 11.1 is an instance in a text which is hopelessly fragmentary to say anything about its literary genre. 726 Does Lohse mean to say that women were not expected to be there? 727 Cf. also Kaddari 2006.646b: 3. ‫‘ כוח צבאי ערוך לקרב‬a military force arranged for battle,’ 4. ‫‘ שׂדה הקרב‬battlefield.’ 725

200

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

denotes people present at a gathering officially called and seated or standing each in his or her place, not a casual get-together. 1QS 10.15) ‫ ]להדשן‬lit. ‘to become fat,’ by having a rich meal (?). Both Habermann (69) and Lohse (36) vocalise it as Nifal. In BH no Nifal of the verb occurs, and in QH a form such as ours here is equivocal, since it can be Hitpael with the infix assimilated, thus ‫ל ִה ַדּ ֵשּׁן‬.ְ 728 Among the QH attestations there is none that can be confidently viewed as Nifal.729 On the contrary, ‫והדשנתם‬ 11Q14 1ii11 and ‫והתדשנו‬ ֗ 4Q171 1-2ii10 are manifestly Hitpael. ֗ whereas in BH the word is used also in the sg. as in 4QSb reads ‫תנ֗ ו֗ ֗בו֗ ֗ת‬, ‫טּוֹבה‬ ָ ‫נוּב ִתי ַה‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬Jdg 9.1. So in QH: 4Q425 1+3.3. ‫‘ ]ברשית פחד ואימה‬at the start of fear and terror.’ Unlike ‫רוחות האמת והעול‬ ‘the spirits of truth and iniquity’ 1QS 3.18, which is an ellipsis for ‫רוח האמת‬ ‫ורוח העול‬, we have here just as in ‫‘ מקוללי אלהים ואנשים‬cursed by God and people alike’ 11Q19 64.12. Cf. SQH § 21 g. ‫‘ ]במכון צרה עם בוקה‬in a distressful position accompanied by desolation’; on ‫מכון‬, see above at line 12. On the thought expressed here, one is reminded of the exhortation by St Paul: ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε· τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς ‘Be thankful in every circumstance, for that is God’s will in Christ Jesus for you’ 1Th 5.18. 1QS 10.16) ‫‘ ]בהפלא מודה‬amazed greatly.’ We suggest parsing ‫ הפלא‬as Hitpael inf. with the dental /t/ assimilated to the following /p/.730 ‫מאודה = מודה‬731, a well-known form unique to QH with the classical adverbial morpheme /-a:/ added, which indicates that, though this terminative morpheme was on decline in QH, it was not yet completely dead; see SQH § 10 a, pp. 35f. DJD 26.126 parses ‫ הפלא‬as Hifil inf. and emends ‫ מודה‬to ‫אודה‬, translating with “When (He) does marvels I will give thanks (?).” When the subject of the main verb and that of the adverbial infinitive differ, its absence from the infinitive sounds rather unnatural. Wernberg-Møller (37, 146, n. 49), “with the greatest of reservations,” offers “by giving thanks distinctly.” Analogously Brownlee (41) offers “expressing marvellous thanks,” mentioning H.L. Ginsberg, who is said to have referred to ‫ ְל ַפ ֵלּא נֶ ֶדר‬Lv 22.21 and ‫ יַ ְפ ִלא נֶ ֶדר‬ib. 27.2. So doing, he as well as Wernberg-Møller add to the QH lexicon a hapax, ‫‘ מודה‬thank,’ when in QH we find ‫ תודה‬used four times. ‫ מודה‬as a synonymous substantive of ‫ תּו ָֺדה‬is unknown in the whole history of Hebrew.732 728

So also Qimron 2018.238, C 3.5.2. In ‫ לדשן‬CD 1.8 we would also admit Hitpael with the prefix -‫ ה‬elided, thus pace Rabin 1958.3 and Lohse (66) ‫ל ָדּ ֵשׁן‬,ִ i.e. Nifal. Qimron (2018.178) is reticent. On ‫ הדשן‬Impv. in Si 14.11, cf. Segal 1958a.91. 730 Cf. a study by Morag 1972 on εφφαθα Mk 7.34 = ‫ה ְת ַפּ ַתּח < ִה ַפּ ַתּח‬, ִ if Hebrew. 731 4QSf reads ‫מאדה‬. 732 True, Brownlee does not explicitly state so. He may be parsing ‫ מודה‬as Ptc., i.e. ‫מו ֶדה‬, but then in the two BH instances ‫ פלא‬as a verb is taking ‫ נֶ ֶדר‬as a direct object. It is not being used 729

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

201

‫‘ ]בגבורתו אשוחח‬I shall ponder over His mighty work.’ ‫ אשוחח‬is a rare Polel form, a variant on Piel with iterative value as in ‫‘ תשוחח נפשי בנפלאותיכה‬my soul will ponder on Your marvels’ 1QHa 17.7; see further in SQH § 12 g 1). ֯ 4QSf reads the pl. ‫גבורותיו‬. ‫ ]כול היום‬most translations take the phrase as meaning ‘the whole day,’ excepting Dupont-Sommer (41) with “tous les jours,” an interpretation which we prefer. In BH this phrase occurs as synonymous with ‫כול הימים‬, especially “in prophetic writers and poetry” (BDB s.v. 7 f, p. 400b733). ‫‘ וְ ֵא ְד ָעה = ]ואדעה‬and I would like to realise,’ and ≠ ‫וָ ֵא ְד ָעה‬, thus pace Wernberg-Møller (146, n. 51); the author is hardly starting to recount his past experience. Qimron (2018.371f. [H 1.2]) maintains that the selection of the short and long Imperfect, i.e. Jussive and Cohortative, is controlled by morphosyntactic factors, namely these marked forms if clause-initial, whether preceded by a consecutive or conjunctive waw, otherwise the unmarked form. ‫ ואדעה‬here does conform to his rule. In SQH § 15 da, however, we have voiced a measure of scepticism, for there appear to be a non-negligible number of exceptions to his rule of complementary distribution. Precisely lines 10-24 of our column serve as the star example allegedly illustrating the validity of his position. ‫ ואדעה‬here certainly fits his scheme, Qimron 2018.373. In this single passage alone, however, we find three exceptions (underlined)734: ‫עם מבוא יום ולילה‬ ‫( אבואה בברית אל‬10), ‫( ועם משכב יצועי ארננה לו‬14), and ‫( ובישועתו ארננה יחד‬17). Though these exceptions are preceded and followed by forms which appear to fit Qimron’s rule, we do not see any firm argument against assigning them a measure of modal value rather than regarding them as mere free, stylistic variants. For that matter our ‫ אדעה‬here can be more than the plain “I know” (Brownlee 16, Wernberg-Møller 37, Charlesworth 45), “Scio” (Milik 155), “je sais” (van der Ploeg 125, Dupont-Sommer 41, Guilbert 72) or “ich weiß” (Lohse 39), but “I wish to” or suchlike. 1QS 10.17) ‫ ]ואמת כול מעשיו‬this is most likely a self-standing nominal clause, ‘all His actions are truth’ rather than the co-subject of the preceding locational clause, ‫‘ בידו משפט כול חי‬in His hand is the judgement concerning every living one.’ ‫‘ ]ובהפתח צרה אהללנו‬when distress is removed, I would like to praise Him.’ For the interpretation of this Nifal inf. all the current translations, e.g. “when affliction starts” (Charlesworth 45), appear to have consulted ‫ִמ ָצּפו ֺן ִתּ ָפּ ַתח ָה ָר ָעה‬ on its own adverbially. In defence of his rendition “distinctly” Wernberg-Møller (146, n. 49) seeks support in Jastrow 1903.1181, where, too, the instances mentioned have ‫ נֶ ֶדר‬as a direct object, e.g. ‫ יפליא נדר‬bNaz 62a, alluding to ‫ יַ ְפ ִלא ִלנְ דּ ֹר נֶ ֶדר‬Nu 6.2. 733 Gn 6.5 is also listed: there we should note LXX πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, Pesh. bklywm, and Vulg. omni tempore. 734 Qimron himself takes no note of them.

202

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Je 1.14. The author’s attitude would then be similar to that expressed in ‫במכון‬ ‫ צרה וג׳‬line 15. As an alternative analysis Licht (218) refers to ‫לפתוח כול צרת‬ ‫‘ נפשו לישועת עולם‬to relieve every affliction of his soul for eternal deliverance’ 1QHa 7.29. This appears to us preferable, resulting in good parallelism with what immediately follows: ‫‘ ובישועתו ארננה יחד‬and I would like to raise a cry of joy in unison over the salvation (granted by) Him.’ The image appears to be that of the person pressed into a tight corner having the lock of confinement shattered and being let out into the open. One would then not need resort to a somewhat questionable interpretation of ‫‘ יחד‬likewise’: “it matters not whether I am suffering or prospering, I will praise God.” (DJD 26.126)735. The author is inviting colleagues to join him in his joy. ‫ אהללנו‬can be rewritten as ‫אהללה אותו‬, whereby the cohortative would become parallel to ‫ ארננה‬in the following clause. Both cohortatives are not clause-initial, on which see on line 16 above. In BH, when a cohortative has an object pronoun directly attached, the underlying verb is the same as the regular Impf., thus ‫אהלל‬ ‫אהללנו > אותו‬, see JM § 61 f. 1QS 10.17b - 11.2a 10.17b) I shall not requite anyone for 10.18) his evil (deed). With goodwill I shall pursue people, for it is with God that the justice of every living being rests and it is He that shall requite every person. I shall not envy 10.19) ill-gotten profits nor shall my soul yearn after wrongly gotten possessions nor shall I take on an argument (started by) men of perdition until the day of vengeance nor my anger 10.20) shall I withdraw from people of iniquity nor shall I be satisfied until justice is established nor shall I remain angry against those who turn away from iniquity nor shall I shall take pity 10.21) on any of those who stray away from the way nor shall I do any comforting among those stricken until their conduct becomes faultless nor shall I keep Belial in my heart nor shall one hear in my mouth 10.22) foolishness nor shall one find iniquitous deception, deceits, and lies on my lips, while fruit(s) of holiness (are) on my tongue, nor detested things 10.23) would one find on it. It is when I praise that I open my mouth and it is God’s acts of justice that my tongue shall recount incessantly and treachery of people until the end of 10.24) their impiety (is reached). Vanities I shall remove from my lips, impure things and devious thoughts from my mind’s knowledge. With counsel of prudence I shall hide knowledge 10.25) and with discretion of knowledge I shall hedge it off with a fence directly behind it in order to maintain faithfulness and firm justice for God’s righteousness. I would like to pass on 10.26) a precept along the sequence of the times, and the w[ays 735 Likewise “as well” (Brownlee 41), “item” (Milik 155), “also” (Wernberg-Møller 37), “aussi” (van der Ploeg 125a), “gleichfalls” (Lohse 39).

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

203

of God I shall teach], righteousness, love of mercy for those who are downtrodden, and encouragement for those desper[ate, to instruct] 11.1) those of erring spirit about understanding and to help murmurers understand a lesson and to answer to arrogant-minded ones with humility and with a broken spirit to people 11.2) wielding a bar of yoke, pointing a finger, speaking wicked things, and amassing possessions, ‫‘ ]לוא אשיב לאיש גמול רע‬I shall pay back nobody for his evil.’ For the phrase ‫ה ִשׁיב ל־ גמול‬, ֵ cf. ‫מוּלם ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ְ‫ ָה ֵשׁב גּ‬Ps 28.4. ‫ רע‬in our text is a substantivised adjective, not attributive pace “rétribution mauvaise” (Guilbert 72), “una ricompensa cattiva” (Martone 158, n. 264),736 “evil recompense” (DJD 26.164), and “evil reward” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 95).737 Correct are e.g., Milik’s (155) “retributionem mali,” Lohse’s (39) “seine böse Tat,” and Vermes’s (113) “the reward of evil.” Cf. ‫‘ גמול רעתם‬recompense for their evilness’ 1QM 6.6. Starting with ‫ לוא אשיב‬here and ending with (‫( לוא ימצא בה )= בלשוני‬line 23) there follow a total of 13 (!) verbs stating what the poet is determined not to do. One is reminded that the overwhelming majority of commandments in the Decalogue are negatively formulated. 1QS 10.18) ‫‘ ]בטוב ארדפ גבר‬with goodwill I shall pursue people.’ ‫ טוב‬immediately following ‫ רע‬a contrast is intended, hence ‫ בטוב‬positioned up front. Martone’s (133) “col bene” suggests that the preposition -‫ ב‬was assigned an instrumental value, which, however, is slightly unnatural. ‫ רדף‬being a verb of physical movement, one is reminded of an idiomatic combination as in ‫יָ בֹא‬ ‫ן־בּ ָקר‬ ָ ‫ל־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ ְבּ ַפר ֶבּ‬ ַ ‫ ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶא‬Lv 16.3, i.e. carrying a young bull with him. Other semantically affiliated verbs enter the same construction, e.g. ‫ִכּי ְב ַמ ְק ִלי ָע ַב ְר ִתּי‬ ‫ת־היַּ ְר ֵדּן ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Gn 32.11.738 We might envision someone running after an offender, not with a sword in his hand, but with a freshly baked piece of cake to convince the bad guy that they could and should remain friends. 4QSf reads ‫לטוב‬, that is, not to harm the offender. Though ‫ ירדף‬could be a variant spelling for Qal ‫ירדוף‬, it can be Piel with pluralising value (SQH § 12 c 2]); the pursuer does not give up, chasing the offender all over the place. Cf. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ת־מ ַא ֲה ֶב‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִר ְדּ ָפה ֶא‬Ho 2.9 with LXX καταδιώξεται (in lieu of διώξεται) τοὺς ἐραστὰς αὐτῆς. Since there is no obvious reason for specifying the gender of the offender, the selection of ‫ גבר‬is a puzzler. This clause continues the immediately preceding one, but ‫ איש‬there is gender-free and idiomatic for generic, categorical negation (SQH § 5a a), whereas ‫ לגבר‬would mean ‘I shall pay back no male etc.’ “jeden” 736 This is said to be a literal rendition; in the text Martone offers “Non ricambierò il male subìto” (133). 737 So perhaps also Wernberg-Møller (37): “I will not return evil to anybody.” 738 More relevant data are presented in BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬III 1 b (p. 89b). We could add ‫ְבּצ ֹאנָ ם‬ ‫וּב ְב ָק ָרם יֵ ְלכוּ ְל ַב ֵקּשׁ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ Ho 5.6.

204

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

(Lohse 39) and “un chacun” (Lambert 973 and Dupont-Sommer 41), probably in view of the sg. ‫גבר‬, are misleading. “mankind” (Wernberg-Møller 37) and “humankind” (Charlesworth) are going a little too far. Our “people” is a compromise. ‫‘ ]כיא את אל משפט כול חי והואה ישלם לאיש גמולו‬for it is with God that the justice of every living being rests and it is He that shall requite every person.’ The fronting of the locative prepositional phrase is for the sake of emphasis, which is manifest in the addition of ‫ הואה‬in the following verbal clause; cf. SQH § 33 bd. ‫‘ ]לוא אקנא ברוח רשעה‬I shall not envy ill-gotten profits.’ It appears universally agreed that ‫רוּח = רוח‬ ַ whether ‫רוּח ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬ ַ ‘a spirit of wickedness’ or ‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫‘ ְר ָשׁ ָעה‬a wicked spirit.’ Then one would be missing a vital piece of information, i.e. “envy what?”. We suggest that the word is ‫‘ ֶרוַ ח‬profit, gain,’ which would nicely fit the syntagm קנֵּ א ְב‬ ִ and be parallel to ‫‘ הון‬possessions’ in the immediately following clause, further making ‫ ֶרוַ ח ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬beautifully parallel to ‫‘ הוֹן ָח ָמס‬possessions (gained by) violence.’ ‫רוַ ח‬,ֶ occurring only twice in BH, means ‘space, interval’ and ‘respite, relief.’ You invest a fair sum in a project, and on its successful completion you recover the capital plus extra. This semantic extension of the substantive is evidenced in the midrashic literature. Thus ‫‘ היו התלמידים רואין את הריוח שהרויח‬the students were seeing the profit he had made’ Midrash Ps 92.8, where the same root is used as a verb in the sense of ‘to make profit,’ so also in ‫‘ משא ומתן מתברך והפרגמטוטין מרויחים‬Trade is being blessed and the merchants are making a profit’ GenR 13.16. 1QS 10.19) ‫‘ ]ולהו֗ ן חמס לוא תאוה נפשי‬nor shall my soul yearn after wrongly gotten possessions.’ Needless to say, ‫ תאוה נפשי‬is parallel to ‫ אקנא‬of the preceding clause. These two parallelistic clauses show the variation in word order: vs. . We are, however, inclined to regard the fronting of the object as notionally attracted by the immediately preceding object of the first clause, and it is not that the author has deliberately selected a chiastic arrangement of the two adjacent clauses. See further in SQH § 33 ac. Nor is there any contrast or prominence intended with the fronting of the object in this case, cf. SQH § 34 c. The verb root ‫ אוי‬occurs in Piel and Hitpael, both in the sense of ‘to desire.’ There is, however, a syntagmatic opposition. With ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as the subject the former is selected as here, otherwise the latter. In BH Pi. 12× with the sole exceptions being ‫מוֹשׁב לוֹ‬ ָ ‫י־ב ַחר יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִציּוֹן ִאוָּ הּ ְל‬ ָ ‫ ִכּ‬Ps 132.13, ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ִאוִּ ִת‬ib. 14. The same pattern of distribution is observable in QH: Pi. with ‫ נפשׁ‬3× with the only exception in ‫‘ מה אותיכה‬why did I desire you?’ 1Q52 1.1 (a very fragmentary text) and Hitp. 4× with no example with ‫נפשׁ‬.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

205

‫‘ ]וריֿ ב אנש שחת לוא אתפוש‬nor shall I take on an argument (started by) men of perdition.’ ‫ אנש‬can be sg. ‫אנֹשׁ‬, ֱ but a wrongly spelled ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁ‬for ‫ אנשי‬sounds more likely. On ‫ ריב‬as a direct object of ‫ תפש‬that refers to an intangible object WernbergMøller (147, fn. 60) justly mentions ‫ תּ ְֹפ ֵשׂי ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬Nu 31.27. ‫‘ ]אפיא לוא אשיב‬I shall not withdraw my anger.’ For the combination ‫ֵה ִשׁיב‬ ‫ ַאף‬Licht (219) mentions two BH examples, Ps 78.38, Jb 9.13, noting that here it is about God’s anger. However, ‫ ֲח ָכ ִמים יָ ִשׁיבוּ ָאף‬Pr 29.8 apparently escaped his notice. 1QS 10.20) ‫‘ ]לוא ארצה עד הכון משפט‬I shall not be satisfied until justice is established.’ Lohse (38) vocalises the main verb as Qal, ‫א ְר ֶצה‬, ֶ but it could be Nifal, so Habermann (70) ‫א ָר ֶצה‬. ֵ Cf. ‫ל ֹא ְל ַר צּו ֺת וְ ל ֹא ֵל ָר צו ֺת = לא לרצות ולא לרצות‬ ‘not to appease nor to be appeased’ LamR 1.23. ‫‘ ]לוא אטור באפ לשבי פשע‬I shall not remain angry against those who turn (or: turned) away from iniquity.’ It is widely agreed that this statement is alluding to ‫ת־בּנֵ י ַע ֶמָּך‬ ְ ‫ֹא־תטֹּר ֶא‬ ִ ‫ֹא־תקֹּם וְ ל‬ ִ ‫ ל‬Lv 19.18. The author, however, has made a striking addition, namely ‫‘ באף‬with anger.’ In the OT there are another four cases of this Qal transitive verb, ‫נָ ַטר‬, used in the sense of ‘to remain angry,’ but is used with no direct object: e.g. ‫ ל ֹא ֶאטֹּר ְלעו ָֺלם‬Je 3.12,739 see also ib. 3.5, Na 1.2, and Ps 103.9. By adding ‫ באף‬our author made explicit the connotation inherent in our verb here.740 The rection of -‫ נטר ל‬is known to BH: ‫נוֹטר הוּא ְלאֹיְ ָביו‬ ֵ ְ‫ נ ֵֹקם יְ הוָ ה ְל ָצ ָריו ו‬Na 1.2. ‫ שבי פשע‬illustrates a construction in which a participle of a verb which is complemented by an adverbially used prepositional phrase can optionally lack the preposition; in the Pf. we would say ‫שׁבו מפשׁע‬, never ‫שׁבו פשׁע‬. Cp. ‫ָשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫ ֶפ ַשׁע‬Is 59.20 with ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ִבים ֵמ ַהגּו ָֺלה‬Ezr 6.21. See SQH § 31 r 6). As in BH the tense value of a participle can be preterite when the article is attached or otherwise determinate, e.g. the above-quoted Ezr 6.21. Hence ‫שבי‬ ‫ פשע‬is equivocal in this respect. See SQH § 17 h. ‫‘ ]לוא ארחם על כול סוררי דרכ‬I shall not take pity on any of those who stray away from the way.’ The Qal verb ‫ סרר‬in BH has traditionally been understood to mean ‘to be rebellious, stubborn.’ That understanding is applied to this combination in our text by some scholars: “rebellium viae” (Milik 155), “se montrent rebelles” (van der Ploeg 125a: ‫ דרך‬left untranslated), “rebellious ones of, i.e. against, the way” (Clines DCH VI 201b), “rebel against the Way” (Wise Abegg - Cook 141), and perhaps “‫( ”מתנגדי הכת‬Licht 220). Brownlee’s (42) 739 Note LXX οὐ μηνιῶ ὑμῖν. Similarly οὐκ εἰς τέλος ὀργισθήσομαι οὐδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηνιεῖ Ps 102 [MT 103].9. 740 Pace Wernberg-Møller (148, n. 62) -‫ ב‬of ‫ באף‬is not introducing a grammatical object, but retains its adverbial function, indicating an attitude or manner.

206

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

“turn aside from the way” represents an alternative analysis followed by other scholars. In support of his analysis Brownlee mentions Ex 32.8 and Dt 9.16, where, however, we have ‫ ָ֫סרוּ ַמ ֵהר ִמן ַה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬and ‫ ַס ְר ֶתּם ַמ ֵהר ִמן ַה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬respectively, and the verb has traditionally been parsed as a Qal form of √‫סור‬.741 In BH we find no case of √‫ סרר‬complemented with ‫דּ ֶרְך‬.ֶ One wonders whether our author parsed ‫ סרו‬as from √‫ ;סרר‬this particular form would have been pronounced in the same way, from whichever root is is derived. The negation here is total, categorical, and not partial, thus synonymous with ‫ כול סורר דרך‬.. ‫לוא‬, on which see SQH § 40 h. This is a rare instance of the use of a pl. noun phrase for categorical negation, SQH § 28 d. On ‫ דרך‬here with the value of ‫הדרך‬, see above at 9.17. 1QS 10.21) ‫‘ ]לוא אנחם בנכאים‬I shall not comfort those stricken.’ In ‫נכאים‬ we identify the pl. of a well-known BH word ‫ נָ ָכא‬or ‫נָ ֵכא‬, both meaning ‘stricken,’ probably implying some form of divine punishment.742 WernbergMøller’s (38, 148, n. 66) “obstinate,” now followed by Charlesworth (47), is ungrounded; Wernberg-Møller resorts to Syr. /nākē/, which is said to mean ‘to resist, oppose’ at Pesh. Gal 5.17, where, however, the usual sense, ‘to harm, injure,’ makes quite good sense. ‫ אנחם‬could equally be parsed as Nifal, ‘I shall feel sorry.’ The preposition -‫ ב‬in ‫ בנכאים‬can scarcely be a marker of direct object, but probably synonymous with ‫;בּ ֶק ֶרב‬ ְ the author would not enter a room where those justly stricken are gathered, comforting one another, and join them. Cf. SQH § 31 c, p. 184. ‫ ]עד תום דרכם‬We most likely have here a Qal inf., ‫תּוֹם‬, not an abstract noun as in ‫‘ תום דרכו‬the integrity of his conduct’ 5.24. √‫ תמם‬as a verb with ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬as its subject occurs in ‫‘ אמ תתם דרכו‬if his conduct becomes faultless’ 8.25 and ‫‘ מבלעדיכה לוא תתם דרך‬without You (supporting) nobody’s conduct can become faultless’ 11.17. ‫‘ ]בליעל לוא אשמור בלבבי‬I shall not keep Belial in my heart.’ Licht (220) stresses that ‫ בליעל‬here is not an evil, semi-divine being so called, but wicked word or thought. However, from ‫לבבם ויכינ֗ ו֗ מחשבת רשעה‬ ֗ ‫כמוא יועץ בליעל עם‬ ‫‘ יתגוללו באשמה‬Belial is like a counsellor in their heart so that they design a wicked thought and wallow in guilt’ 1QHa 14.24 we see that Belial can be more than an abstract thought, but an entity generating such in your heart, just as St Paul says that the body of a believer is a temple for the Holy Spirit to inhabit (1Cor 6.19). ‫לוא ישמע בפי נבלות וכחש עוון ומרמות וכזבים לוא ימצאו בשפתי ופרי קודש בלשוני‬ ‫ ]ושקוצים לוא ימצא בה‬We find here a catalogue of six vices of which the poet HALOT 770b s.v. ‫ סרר‬writes “in DSS also takes on the meaning from ‫סור‬: ‫סוררי דרך‬.” 4QSf’s ‫ בנכוחים‬is persuasively argued in DJD 26.167 to be probably corrupt, for such a word makes no sense in the context. 741 742

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

207

declares himself to be innocent, all that could be committed in speech with the possible exception of ‫עוון‬. Our text employs three substantives one after another: ‫כּ ַחשׁ‬, ַ ‫מ ְר ָמה‬, ִ ‫כּזָ ב‬. ָ Is our author thinking of different nuances? They all lie in the lexical field of utterance contrary to truth. The last two are in the plural, hence manifestations of false, untrue communication, though in BH the first also is once used in the plural — ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ַכּ ֲח ֵשׁ‬Ho 7.3. This lexical multiplicity may be intended to underscore absolute, complete honesty. This verbal honesty is raised to the status of holiness in the parenthetical nominal clause: ‫פרי קודש בלשוני‬. This analysis suggests that ‫ עוון‬may not be a vice alongside the other five, but a nomen rectum in relation to ‫כחש‬, and that it is not the first of the three vices. We would then have four noun phrases all neatly joined with ‫ ו־‬between the two negated verbs, ‫ לוא ישמע‬and ‫לוא ימצאו‬. The four, however, need be divided into two units between the two verbs. It is not easy to see where the line is to be drawn. In view of the close semantic affinity between the last three, we might assign ‫ נבלות‬alone to ‫לוא ישמע‬. Wernberg-Møller (38) as well as Charlesworth (47) render ‫ נבלות‬as ‘lewdness.’ In BH, words derived from √‫ נבל‬do at times focus on sexual overtones, e.g. Amnon called ‫ נָ ָבל‬by Tamar in 2Sm 13.13 and his deed defined by her as ‫ נְ ָב ָלה‬ib. vs. 12. This is, however, rather rare. There is therefore no strong argument for postulating here a reference to a Hebrew equivalent of the four-letter word or suggestive, pornographic chat. This can be brought under the basic meaning in BH of the root as denoting ‘foolish, senseless,’ making lewdness in speech a manifestation of foolishness. The three verbs could be parsed as Nifal, ‘to be heard’ and ‘to be found.’ The discord in gender (fem. ‫ )נבלות‬and number (pl. ‫)שקוצים‬, might be resolved by postulating the two verbs as imperfectly transformed passive, on which see SQH § 32 cd. ‫ ימצאו‬can be analysed as standard passive Nifal. Alternatively we could parse both verbs as Qal and admit them as impersonally used 3ms, on which see SQH § 37 a and the m.pl. ‫ ימצאו‬as a free syntactic variant. ‫ ופרי קודש בלשוני‬could be viewed as a circumstantial clause, cf. SQH § 39. 1QS 10.23) ‫]בהודות אפתח פי‬. It is impossible to determine whether ‫הודות‬ signifies thanksgiving or praises, though one is doubtful that the two can be combined into one as done in Brownlee’s (42) “thankful praises,” for the two notions are distinct from each other. With his “C’est pour les louanges que j’ouvre la bouche” Lambert (973) has nicely captured the significance of the fronting of ‫בהודות‬: ‘It is for the purpose of praises that I open my mouth,’ that is, not in order to utter senseless things and lies. The same syntactic perspective can equally apply to the immediately following clause: ‫“ וצדקות אל תספר לשוני תמיד‬et ce sont les justices de Dieu que ma langue raconte sans cesse,” i.e. ‘and it is God’s acts of justice that my tongue shall recount incessantly.’

208

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫‘ ]עד תום פשעם רקים אשבית משפתי‬until the end of their impiety (is reached). Vanities I shall remove from my lips.’ Qimron (I 228) justly inserts a comma after ‫פשעם‬, which is pace van der Ploeg’s (125b) “l’infidélité .. est vanité” and Lambert’s (974) “la perversité .. leurs péchés de vanité, je les bannis ..,” for “leurs péchés” must be ‫פשעיהם‬. 1QS 10.24) ‫ ]נדות ונפתלות‬A f.pl. ptc., ‫ נפתלות‬parallel to ‫נדות‬, expresses the notion of the neuter gender. For further details, see SQH § 6 c. There is no need to postulate an influence of ‫נדות‬. ‫‘ ]אסתר דעת‬I shall conceal knowledge.’ Above the letter taw of ‫ אסתר‬the letter peh has been written, but a copyist has attempted to erase it; it would mean ‘I shall recount.’ However ‘conceal’ accords better with the following clause, ‫‘ אשוך ֯ב ֯ע ֯דה גבול סמוך‬I shall hedge it off with a fence directly behind it.’ Maybe a scribe decided to change ‫ אסתר‬to ‫אספר‬, but had second thoughts, restoring the initial reading. 1QS 10.25) ‫ ]משפט עוז‬a rather unusual combination. ‘Enforceable judgement,’ ‘judgment that cannot be gainsaid’? ‫‘ ]לצדקת אל‬in the interest of God’s justice’ appears better to be construed with what precedes than with what follows. ‫‘ ֗א ֯ח ֗ל ֗קה חוק‬I would like to pass on a precept.’ The sense ‘to measure’ assigned to the verb here by Wernberg-Møller (38, 150 n. 77) and Charlesworth (47) is questionable. For ‫ חלק אל‬Si 31(H: 34).13 mentioned by Wernberg-Møller we note LXX ἔκτισται. Arb. /ḫalaqa/ ‘to create’ is well known. ֯ This is what we find in Qimron 1QS 10.26) ‫[בצדק אהבת חסד‬ ֯ ‫וד]רכי אל אורה‬ I 228. We do not know what syntactic status is to be assigned to ‫בצדק‬. Likewise we find it odd that the reconstructed verb, ‫‘ אורה‬I shall teach,’ has two distinct direct objects, i.e. ‫‘ דרכי אל‬God’s ways’ and ‫‘ אהבת חסד‬respecting of the virtue of mercy.’ Furthermore, in the manuscript we can see no trace whatsoever of the letter ‫ ב‬attached to ‫צדק‬. We would rather read without it and regard ‫צדק אהבת‬ ‫ חסד‬as in explanatory apposition to ‫דרכי אל‬. Here is most likely an allusion to Mi 6.8, which has been quoted in 1QS as often as six times and assigned a principle of fundamental importance determining the ethical codes of the Qumran community, see above at 5.3.743 If we see these virtues as supplemented by a third one, namely ‫‘ חזוק ידים‬encouragement,’ there would be no absolute need to join the first two by means of the conjunction waw.744 ‫‘ ]לניכנעים‬to those who are down-trodden.’745 In view of the immediately following, parallel ‫לנמהרם‬ ֯ ‫‘ חזוק ידים‬encouraging those who are worried’ we 743

See also Licht 73 and 222. On the repetition or non-repetition of the conjunction with concatenated coordinate terms, see SQH § 38 c. 745 Qimron (I 228) offers ‫ ;נוֿ כנעים‬he (1973.107) follows an argument advanced by Yalon (1967.83) that a yod is not used before a consonant with shva quiescens, but ‫ ניתפשים‬CD 4.20, 744

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

209

would take the word not in the sense of ‘those who humble themselves.’ Cp. ‫יהם וַ יִּ ָכּנְ עוּ ַתּ ַחת יָ ָדם‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יִּ ְל ָחצוּם אוֹיְ ֵב‬Ps 106.42 with ‫ְך־ל ָב ְבָך וַ ִתּ ָכּנַ ע ִמ ְפּנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫יַ ַע ן ַר‬ 2Kg 22.19.

1QS COLUMN 11 1QS 11.1) ‫‘ ]תועי רוח‬those of erring spirit’ rather than = ‫‘ תועים ברוח‬those who err in spirit.’ Cp. ‫ ַעם תּ ֵֹעי ֵל ָבב ֵהם‬Ps 95.10 with ‫ ָתּ ָעה ְל ָב ִבי‬Is 21.4. This is syntactically akin to a case such as ‫אישׁ ַמר נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, ִ which is not about a man bitter to taste, but = ֺ ‫‘ ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר ָמ ָרה נַ ְפשׁו‬a man of bitter soul.’ Cf. SQH § 21 e, (p. 148) and note what follows — ‫רמי רוח‬, which is not about tall people. If we are to follow Qimron (I 228), who adds ‫ להודיע‬at the end of the preceding column on the basis of ‫דוּ־ל ַקח‬ ֶ ‫י־רוּח ִבּינָ ה וְ רוֹגְ נִ ים יִ ְל ְמ‬ ַ ‫ וְ יָ ְד עוּ ת ֵֹע‬Is 29.24,746 ‫תועי‬ ‫ רוח‬would be an indirect object of ‫ להודיע‬with ‫ בינה‬as its direct object. ‫ רוכנים‬is generally thought to be a phonetic variant of ‫רוגנים‬, cf. Qimron 2018.112 [§ B 4 (1)]. ‫ ]בלקח‬The preposition could be instrumental, ‘through instruction.’ In the source text, however, ‫ ֶל ַקח‬is a zero-object. Then the preposition can be analysed as a syntactic variant of ‫את‬, which is common with verbs of instruction and comprehension, cf. SQH § 31 eb. Then ‫ לקח‬would mean something taught and learned, cf. Dupont-Sommer’s (43) “la doctrine.” ‫‘ ]להשיב ענוה‬to answer with humility’; pace Wernberg-Møller (150, n. 2) ‫ ענוה‬on its own can scarcely function as equivalent to ‫בענוה‬. It is an inadvertent haplography due to the immediately preceding ‫להשׁיב‬, so Qimron I 228. ‫]אנשי מטה‬, a phrase including what follows, by general consent, derived from ‫ר־אוֶ ן‬ ָ ‫מוֹטה ְשׁ ַלח ֶא ְצ ַבּע וְ ַד ֶבּ‬ ָ ‫תּוֹכָך‬ ְ ‫ם־תּ ִסיר ִמ‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬Is 58.9b, where ‫‘ מו ָֺטה‬a bar of yoke’ as an instrument of oppression as evident in its occurrence twice in vs. 6. Given this dependence on the Isaianic statement ‫ מטה‬is unlikely = ‫‘ ַמ ָטּה‬below, inferior,’ as Habermann (70, 188) wants to have it. The preposition ‫ ל־‬prefixed to ‫ אנשי מטה‬is to be construed with the three substantivised participles, though ‫ ל־‬is not prefixed to any of them, which is typical of LBH and QH; SQH § 38 e. In this sequence of four noun phrases the conjunction ‫ ו־‬is attached to the last two alone. In a simple concatenation of three or more constituents the conjunction is normally repeated with every constituent after the second or added only to the last unless the repetition or non-repetition of the conjunction is due to factors such as logical hierarchy between the constituents or parallelism; for mentioned in Wernberg-Møller (150, n. 78), appears to have escaped both Yalon and Qimron, the latter of whom (I 10) reads ‫ניתפשים‬. Both scholars parse ‫ נוכנעים‬as Nufal, see also Qimron 2018.184, § C 3.1.1. 746 This passage had been recognised by Brownlee (p. 43, n. 1) as the source text of our author.

210

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

details, see SQH § 38 c, g, and 29 d. We are thus inclined to see the noun phrases following ‫ אנשי מטה‬as being appositional to it, i.e. oppressors characterised by three actions mentioned. 1QS 11.2) ‫‘ ]מקני הון‬those who amass possessions.’ Since H ‫ ִה ְקנָ ה‬is unknown747 as synonymous with G ‫קנָ ה‬,ָ we suggest parsing the form here as D with pluralising value, though ‫ ִקנָּ ה‬is, at the moment, unknown elsewhere. There cannot be anything wrong with innocent acquisition of possessions, but avarice and greed is a different matter. Brownlee (42) sees here a graphic variant of ‫מקנא‬, translating it “envious of wealth,” not very convincing since the two preceding participles are both in the plural. This feature of amassing possessions is not mentioned in the source text. A blank space wide enough for about four letters in the manuscript before ‫מקני‬ might suggest that what follows is the author’s afterthought or creative supplementation. 1QS 11.2b - 15a 11.2b) for, as far as I am concerned, the judgment about me belongs to God, and in His hand rests the perfection of my way. With Him (rests) the integrity of my heart 11.3) and through His acts of justice may He blot out my iniquities, for out of His fountain of knowledge He enlightened my mind, and my eye gazed at His marvels and the light of my mind (gazed) at the emerging mystery, 11.4) and One who exists for eternity is the support of my right hand, on a mighty cliff is the path of my feet. It would not tremble, facing anything whatsoever, because the truth of God, that is 11.5) the rock of my feet, and His might is the stay of my right hand, and the judgment about me (derives) from His source of justice. My mind was enlightened with His marvellous mysteries. At the One who exists for eternity 11.6) my eye gazed. Prudence which was hidden from people, knowledge and prudent discretion (which were hidden) from human beings, a fountain of righteousness and a well of 11.7) strength, a glorious spring (which were hidden) from a human society: to those whom God chose He gave them as an eternal possession and allowed them to be inherited in the domain 11.8) marked for holy ones, and with the sons of heaven He has united their society as the council of the community and a society which is a sacred edifice as an eternal plantation at the emergence 11.9) of every period. And I am one of wicked humankind and of an iniquitous, human-centred society. My iniquities, my offences, my sins as well as perversities of my mind belong 11.10) to a society of worms and those who walk in darkness, for it is not to man that his path belongs nor is it a human being who shall set his step. For to God belongs the judgement and from His 747 So pace Lohse’s ‫( ַמ ְקנֵ ה‬41): “erwerben.” Likewise Habermann (70), who (188) glosses it as ‫‘ בעלי הון‬people rich in possessions.’

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

211

hand 11.11) is the integrity of conduct and with His knowledge everything emerges, and everything that exists becomes consolidated through His design, and without Him nothing can be done. And as for me, should I 11.12) totter, God’s mercies are my salvation for ever, and if I stumble in a human iniquity, the judgement about me rests with God’s righteousness, which will remain for ages, 11.13) and if my distress starts, then He will deliver my soul out of perdition and He will set my feet firmly for the journey. In His compassion He drew me near, and with His mercies He will conduct 11.14) the judgement about me. With His true righteousness He judged me and with His great kindness He will atone for all my iniquities and with His righteousness He will cleanse me from human 11.15) impurity and sin(s) of human beings so that I can acknowledge to God His righteousness and to the Most High His marvellous character. 1QS 11.2b) ‫‘ ]אני לאל משפטי‬as far as I am concerned, the judgment about me belongs to God.’ ‫ אני‬is extraposed or, to put it in traditional terminology, in a casus pendens, and, as usual, it is taken up by means of a conjunctive pronoun /-i/ ‘my’ in the following normal clause, see § SQH § 36 1). ‫תום דרכי‬ ֿ ‫‘ ]ובידו‬and in His hand rests the perfection of my way,’ an expression of the author’s trust and dependence on God’s guiding hand, which alone as his true παιδαγωγόσ can keep him on the right track. ‫‘ ]עמו ישור לבבי‬with Him (rests) the integrity of my heart.’ Qimron (I 230) reads ‫עמ ישור לבבי‬. ֿ In the facsimile of this column, we believe, the letter following ayin is non-final mem, and in the four consecutive clauses God is given prominence: ‫ ובצדקתו‬.. ‫ בידו‬.. ‫לאל‬. Hence ‫ עמו‬introducing a short nominal clause makes syntactic and rhetorical sense. Then we have here yet another case of inadvertent haplography. Furthermore the notion of mitsamt (Lohse 41)748 is foreign to this Hebrew preposition: one would not say ‫ אכלתי לחם עם דג‬in the sense of I ate bread as well as fish or .. together with fish, for which one would say ‫אכלתי גם‬ ‫ לחם וגם דג‬or ‫אכלתי לחם וגם דג‬. ‫ ישור‬is a typical QH form of a noun of qutl pattern, i.e. ‫י ֶֹשׁר‬.749 See Qimron 2018.331-33, § E 2.5.1-3. 1QS 11.3) ‫]ובצדקותו ימח פשעי‬. Whilst the general meaning of each of the three words is in no doubt, their grammatical analysis presents a measure of ambiguity. ‫צדקותו‬, as a plural form, does not denote the character, but its manifestations, as in ‫ ָשׁם יְ ַתנּוּ ִצ ְדקוֹת יְ הוָ ה‬Jdg 5.11, ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ת־א‬ ֲ ‫ר־ע ָשׂה ִא ְתּ ֶכם וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־צ ְדקוֹת יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ִ ‫ָכּ‬ 1Sm 12.7, and ‫ ע ֵֹשׂה ְצ ָדקוֹת יְ הוָ ה‬Ps 103.6, where, in each case, the focus is on 748 Likewise “de même que la droiture de mon cœur” (Dupont-Sommer 43) and “necnon” (Milik 156). 749 Habermann (70) reads ‫עמּו שׁוּר‬, ִ saying (188) that ‫ שׁוּר‬is synonymous with ‫ ;יושׁר‬the former is unknown to us in such a sense.

212

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

God as the subject and as performer of ‫צ ָדקו ֺת‬. ְ Then our form can be vocalised as ‫צ ְדקו ָֺתו‬. ִ ‫ימח‬, and not ‫ימחה‬, can be parsed as jussive, which fits the context well, cf. SQH § 15 daa.750 The form, however, can be either Qal (active), = ‫ יִ ַמח‬or Nifal (passive), = ‫יִ ַמּח‬.751 In the former the subject would be God, whilst in the latter it would be ‫פשעי‬, which can be either sg. ‫ ִפּ ְשׁ ִעי‬or pl. ‫פּ ָשׁ ַעי‬. ְ In BH the substantive occurs as many as 90 times, but remarkably never in the plural. By contrast, in non-biblical Qumran texts the substantive occurs over 80 times, of which as many as 23 are plural, not counting restored cases. E.g. ‫‘ פשעי מעשיהם‬iniquities in their deeds’ 1QS 3.22. By reading both substantives as pl. we find the notion attractive that each iniquity people might commit is adequately dealt with and forgiven by God of justice,752 a notion that is sustainable whether the verb be read as active or passive.753 In summing up, our rendition is: ‘Through His acts of justice may He blot out my iniquities.’ ‫‘ ]פתח אורי‬He opened my light.’ To understand our place in the world and society we need our intellectual light. Both Habermann (70) and Lohse (40) read ‫‘ אורו‬His light’ or ‘its light,’ i.e. the light emanating from ‫‘ מקור דעתו‬His fountain of knowledge.’ The last letter looks like yod rather than waw. Qimron (I 230) reads ‫ אורי‬with no comment. In physical or intellectual darkness our eyes need a light to see and observe things. Later in the line we read of ‫אורת לבבי‬, ‘my intellectual light.’ ‫ ]מקור דעתו‬Usually translated like “the fountain of his knowledge” (Charlesworth 47), though ‘his fountain of knowledge’ should be possible. A search in BH and QH for construct chains with ‫ ָמקוֹר‬as a nomen regens has not produced relevant, helpful data with one exception in ‫( מקור צדקתו‬line 5). Analogously, if we want to add ‫ ברוך‬as an attribute, we need to decide which is blessed, fountain or knowledge. This is a notorious syntactic ambiguity of Hebrew and cognate languages, cf. SQH § 21 a. ‫‘ ]ובנפלאותיו הביטה עיני‬and my eye gazed at His marvels.’ In some languages ‘my eyes’ could sound more natural.754 In line 6 we have ‫ הביטה עיני‬again. In 750 The position of a jussive yiqtol within a clause is not fixed, not necessarily clause-initial, cf. SQH § 15, p. 59. 751 Translators are divided. E.g. “he shall blot out” (Charlesworth 47) vs. “deletur crimen mum” (Milik 156). 752 On his translation (41) “durch seine Gerechtigkeit wird meine Sünde getilgt” Lohse writes (285, n. 83): “Der Beter bekennt sich also zur Rechtfertigung sola gratia. Diese befreit zu untadeligem Wandel, zu vollkommenem Gehorsam gegen das Gesetz. Dem sola gratia entspricht also nicht ein sola fide, die Rechtfertigung bleibt an das Gesetz gebunden.” As one reads this, one wonders aloud whether one is hearing a chaplain of a Lutheran church preaching. 753 An apparent number discord in the case of the latter analysis can be accounted for by postulating imperfectly transformed passive construction, on which see SQH § 37 b. 754 Thus “mes yeux contemplent” (Guilbert 76), “my eyes have observed” (García Martínez Tigchelaar 97), and “my eyes will never see happiness again” (NIV) for ‫ֹא־תשׁוּב ֵע ינִ י ִל ְראוֹת טוֹב‬ ָ ‫ל‬ Jb 7.7.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

213

BH we find ‫שׁוּר י ַבּ ָקּ ִמים ָע ַלי ְמ ֵר ִעים ִתּ ְשׁ ַמ ְענָ ה ָאזְ נָ י‬ ָ ‫ וַ ַתּ ֵבּט ֵעינִ י ְבּ‬Ps 92.12 (‫ ֵעינִ י‬// ‫)אזְ נָ י‬ ָ vs. ‫ ְל ֵמ ָרחוֹק ֵעינָ יו יַ ִבּיטוּ‬Jb 39.29, also Pr 4.25. In contrast to this evenly balanced distribution, though the frequency is not very high, ‫ ָר ָאה‬decidedly prefers the dual of ‫ ַעיִ ן‬as its subject: du. 21× vs. sg. 8×, three of which are in a negative clause, hence ‘not a single eye,’ e.g. ‫ֹא־ר ָא ָתה‬ ָ ‫ ַעיִ ן ל‬Is 64.3, see also Jb 10.18, Si 16.21.755 ‫‘ ]אורת לבבי ברז נהיה‬the light of my mind (gazed) at the emerging mystery.’ The verb ‫ הביט‬is shared with the preceding clause. ‫או ָֺרה‬, a rare synonym of ‫או ֺר‬, occurs only here in non-biblical DSS. For ‫‘ ֵל ָבב‬mind’ rather than ‘heart,’ an unusual constituent of the subject of ‫ה ִבּיט‬, ִ cf. ‫ִל ִבּי ָר ָאה ַה ְר ֵבּה ָח ְכ ָמה וָ ָד ַעת‬ Ec 1.16.756 We would assign ‫ נהיה‬ingressive value, i.e. entering a condition or state of affairs, on which see SQH § 12 e 7).757 ‫ רז נהיה‬could be a construct chain, probably so understood by Lohse (41) with his “das Geheim[nis] des Gewordenen” Lohse (40f.) and Habermann (188), who comments: “‫בסוד החיים המתהווים‬.” Both scholars, however, should have vocalised the noun as ‫רז‬,ַ not ‫רז‬.ָ Furthermore, Lohse758 appears to view the participle as preterite, for which we would anticipate the definite article, ‫הנהיה‬, on which see SQH § 17 h. 1QS 11.4) ‫‘ ]והויֿ א עולם משען ימיני‬and One who exists for eternity is the support of my right hand.’ Qimron (I 230) justly sees a break between ‫ נהיה‬and ‫והויֿ א‬, adding a comma between them. Wernberg-Møller (38) and Charlesworth (47) do not, as shown in their respective translation: “of what happens and is happening for ever” and “of what shall occur and is occurring for ever.” The two scholars are apparently joined by Habermann (70), who adds a colon after ‫עולם‬ instead, and his cst. chain, ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ַען יְ ִמינִ י‬followed by a comma, cannot be assigned a place in the following verbal clause, ‫בּ ֶס ַלע עו ֺז ָדּ ַרְך ְפּ ָע ַמי ִמ ְפּנֵ י כו ֺל‬. ְ Can what follows, ‫משען ימיני‬, mean ‘a support is at my right hand?” as Wernberg-Møller and Charlesworth translate it? Our reservation grows in view of what we read in the next line: ‫‘ וגבורתו משענת ימיני‬and His strength is the staff in my right hand,’ taking the last two words as a cst. chain. Charlesworth seems to begin to waver as can be judged from his use of the brackets: “and his strength is the staff (in) my right hand.” Both Habermann (70) and Lohse (40) vocalise ‫ הווא‬as in the st. cst., ‫הו ֺוֵ א‬, but ‫ עולם‬can be used adverbially, thus not a nomen rectum, e.g. ‫עוֹלם ִל ְפנֵ י‬ ָ ‫יֵ ֵשׁב‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬Ps 61.8 and ‫עוֹלם ָא ִשׁ ָירה‬ ָ ‫ ַח ְס ֵדי יְ הוָ ה‬ib. 89.2. See further SQH § 10 c. 755 This use of the sg. is to be distinguished from another kind of preferred sg. as in ‫יִ גְ ֶלה אֹזֶ ן‬ ‫ ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬Jb 33.16; cf. SQH § 8 aa. Our survey is based on the data provided in Clines’ DCH 7.344a. 756 The basis for van der Ploeg’s (125b) rendition “mon cœur a été éclairé” is obscure. It is likely a free rendition just as Brownlee’s (43) “my heart is illumined ..,” on which see his fn. 7. 757 Cf. Habermann’s paraphrase quoted above: ‫מתהווים‬. 758 Likewise van der Ploeg (125b): “le mystère accompli.”

214

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

Lohse’s (41) “Und ewiges Sein” sounds a little too philosophical for a Jewish writer around the turn of the era, who most likely did not read Plato or Aristotle or even Philo. Should we opt for ‫הווא‬, it would be an Aramaising form, possibly influenced by the Tetragrammaton. Three out of five rare instances in QH of the nominal clause pattern , both predicate and subject being a determined noun phrase and the predicate preceding, occur in this poem. A BH example is ‫‘ יהוה ר ִֹעי‬my shepherd can be only the Lord, nobody else.’ The remaining two instances are ‫גבורתו משענת‬ ‫( ימיני‬line 5) and ‫( חסדי אל ישועתי לעד‬line 12). This identificatory value of the pattern is highlighted by inserting a personal pronoun in ‫אמת אל היאה סלע פימי‬ (line 4). Cf. SQH § 33 bj, eb. ‫‘ ]סלע עוז‬mighty cliff,’ a rare combination, which reminds us of ‫‘ צוּר ֻעזִּ י‬my mighty rock’ Ps 62.8. ‫‘ ]דרכ פעמי‬the path of my feet.’ In BH, when ‫ ַפּ ַעם‬means ‘foot,’ it is consistently plural, e.g. ‫ ַמה־יָּ פוּ ְפ ָע ַמיִ ְך ַבּנְּ ָע ִלים‬Ct 7.2. For whatever reason, WernbergMøller (38) and Charlesworth (47) have selected the sg. “footstep.” For QH, cf. ‫‘ יהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים‬he shall prepare his feet to walk straight’ 1QS 3.9. ‫‘ ]מפני כול לוא יזד עזרע‬it will not tremble, facing anything,’ following the generally accepted restoration of ‫יזדעזע‬. ‫ דרך‬being of common gender, it can be the grammatical subject of the verb. Cp. ‫‘ בדרך לא טוב‬in the way that is not good’ 1QHa 7.31 with ‫‘ דרך אנוש לוא תכון‬the way of humankind cannot be established’ ib. 12.32, and for BH cp. ‫ ָלשׁוּב ַבּ ֶדּ ֶרְך ַהזֶּ ה‬Dt 17.16 with ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך יֵ ְלכוּ‬ ַ ‫הוֹד ְע ָתּ ָל ֶהם ֶא‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ָבהּ‬Ex 18.20. However, a shaking or trembling way is an odd notion; it is not about an earth tremor here. One could perhaps better read ‫‘ אזדעזע‬I shall not be shaken.’ In ‫‘ מימיו לא זע מכל‬in his lifetime he trembled away from nobody’ Si 48.12 we have a personal subject, cf. ‫‘ מזעזיעיכה‬those who cause you to tremble’ 1QpHab 8.14. An instance of an impersonal subject is ֿ‫‘ יזדעזעו יסודותיֿ הי‬its foundations will shake’ 1QS 8.8. The compound preposition ‫ מפני‬points to the lexical-semantic field of fear and terror, as it is often found with ‫יָ ֵרא‬, e.g. ‫אתם‬ ֶ ‫יְ ֵר‬ ‫ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ָה ֵאשׁ‬Dt 5.5, and ‫פּ ַחד‬, ָ e.g. ‫נוּפת יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫וּפ ַחד ִמ ְפּנֵ י ְתּ‬ ָ Is 19.16. On ‫ כול‬in an expression of categorical negation, see SQH § 40 g. ‫ כול‬on its own can denote a personal referent, ‘not .. anybody,’ but here the context favours impersonal reference. Since in the immediately following clause ‫ סלע פעמי‬is figuratively used, the subject of ‫ יזדעזע‬is more likely ‫ סלע‬in ‫סלע עוז‬, note also the just quoted 1QS 8.8 with the same verb and an impersonal subject semantically close ‫סלע‬. An anarthrous ‫ כול‬may be used as equivalent to ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬in categorical negation. So also in line 17. See SQH § 5 b, 40 g. ‫‘ ]אמת אל היאה סלע פעמי‬the truth of God, that is the rock of my feet.’ We have noted above (p. 211) that in many clauses here God is accorded special prominence through either ‫ אל‬or suffix pronouns ‘His’ being positioned up front. Here it is further underscored by inserting ‫ היאה‬in a nominal clause that is identificatory anyway.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

215

1QS 11.5) ‫ ]מקור צדקתו‬The same syntactic problem arises as in ‫מקור דעתו‬ (line 3). See our analysis below on ‫רזי פלאו‬. ‫]אור בלבבי מרזי פלאו‬, which is generally viewed as a nominal clause, typically “from the wonderful mystery is the light in my heart” (García Martínez Tigchelaar 97). ‫אור‬, however, can be parsed as a Qal verb: ‘it became light in my mind on account of His marvellous mysteries.’ ‫ רזי פלאו‬is a cst. phrase consisting of three terms, the suffix pronoun ‫ו‬included. In such a case the question of syntactic hierarchy arises: do we have or ?759 Both nouns are extremely frequent in QH, and ‫ ֶפּ ֶלא‬very often constitutes a nomen rectum. Moreover, it as often carries a suffix pronoun with a personal referent as a c term just as in our case here. To quote just a couple of additional examples, ‫ גבורות פלאו‬CD 13.8 and ‫מעשי פלאכה‬ 1QS 11.20, and more importantly there occurs only one case in which such a suffixed ‫ פלא‬is not preceded by another noun as a nomen regens: ‫עשה פלאכה‬ ‘Perform Your marvel!’ 4Q176 1-2i1. On the basis of these syntactic facts we are inclined to believe that the syntactic hierarchy in our case is , hence ‘His marvellous mysteries.’ ‫‘ ]בהויֿ א עולם הביטה עיני‬my eye gazed at One who exists for eternity.’ Our author may have counted himself among the privileged few such as Jacob (Gn 32.31) and Isaiah (Is 6.5). The majority of translators take ‫ הויא עולם‬as the object of contemplation. For Brownlee (44) a new clause begins with ‫הביטה‬, whereas Dupont-Sommer (43) ‫ בהויֿ א עולם‬begins a new clause: “c’est dans l’Être éternel que ..”. If the former analysis should be followed, ‫( תושיה‬line 6) and a series of substantives are unlikely to be objects of contemplation; though the mediation through the preposition -‫ ב‬is optional,760 its addition to the first term alone is unnatural, thus pace Wernberg-Møller (38), Lohse (41), Lambert (974), Martone (135), Milik (157), and many others. Affiliated with this matter is the suffix ‫ם‬- attached in ‫נתנם‬ (line 7), which is often ignored.761 Licht is enlightening by taking all the preceding substantives or noun phrases as the objects (‫ נושאים‬sic) of the verb ‫נתן‬, so that they were in casus pendens. They do not have to be objects of contemplation, for they are already in permanent possession of the community members. 1QS 11.6) ‫‘ ]תושיה‬prudence, sound wisdom’; one wonders how Charlesworth (49) has arrived at “salvation.” The one and half a line starting from ‫ תושיה‬and ending with ‫( בשר‬line 7) constitute basically one sentence having three clauses, each of which concludes with a prepositional phrase introduced with -‫ מ‬of privative value, and the finite verb in the first clause, ‫נסתרה‬, is implied in the last two: 759

For a general discussion with examples, see SQH § 21 c. See, for instance, ‫‘ חושכ יביט לדרכי אור‬he will look at darkness for ways of light’ 1QS 3.3, on which see above at p. 41. 761 Wernberg-Møller’s (152, n. 16) “l’shr bḥr is casus pendens, resumed by the suffix in ntnm” makes no sense in view of the preposition -‫ ל‬in ‫לאשר‬. 760

216

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫תושיה אשר נסתרה מאנוש‬ ‫דעה ומזמת ערמה )נסתרו( מבני אדם‬ ‫מקור צדקה ומקוה גבורה עממעין כבוד )נסתרו( מסוד בשר‬

The three clauses are not joined with one another with the conjunction waw, whereas the subject of each of the last two clauses consists of multiple noun phrases, which are so joined. This may throw light on the problematic ‫עממעין‬ ‫כבוד‬. We would suggest deleting the initial ‫ עמ‬and taking ‫ מעין כבוד‬as being in apposition to what precedes. The absence of a space between ‫ עמ‬and ‫ מעין‬as well as the use of the non-final form of mem in ‫ עמ‬also indicate that the text here is not quite in order. Furthermore, from a lexical-semantic perspective, the use of ‫עִם‬ here in the sense of ‘as well as’ (so Wernberg-Møller 38 and Charlesworth 49) and “ainsi que” (Guilbert 76 and Dupont-Sommer 44) is debatable, as we noted above ad line 2. We would also note that the three nomina recta of the subject of the last clause belong to distinct lexical-semantic fields: justice and strength on the one hand, and splendour on the other. ‫ ָכּבו ֺד‬has to do with an impressive, splendid, glorious look and appearance, and not that which is stored. As such it can qualify the first two construct chains, so that ‫ מקור צדקת כבוד‬or ‫ מקוה גבורת כבוד‬is perfectly acceptable, but neither ‫ צדקה‬nor ‫ גבורה‬can be comfortably tagged at the end of ‫מעין כבוד‬. Given the notional coherence of the three construct chains in the last clause we prefer to retain synonymic parallelism of the three nomina regentia: ‘fountain, well, spring,’ thus pace “Séjour” (Guilbert 76), “la demeure” (van der Ploeg 126a and Dupont-Sommer 44), “habitation” (Lambert 974), and “habitaculum” (Milik 157), presumably all reading ‫ ְמעו ֺן‬for ‫מ ְעיַ ן‬. ַ 1QS 11.7) ‫]סוד בשר‬. The substantive ‫ סוד‬in QH bears a broad range of meaning. In this case, ‘a human-centred society’ may be meant. ‫נתנם לאוחז֗ ת עולם‬ ֿ ‫‘ לאשר בחר אל‬to those whom God has chosen He gave them as an eternal possession.’ We have discussed above who or what are being referred to by the suffix ‫ם‬- of ‫נתנם‬. The failure correctly to identify them has led to a rendition such as “Those whom God has chosen He has established as an eternal possession” (Wernberg-Møller 38, almost the same in Charlesworth 49). Possessed by whom? The notion of a community of saints as God’s possesֲ is sion is alien to biblical theology. The familiar biblical phrase, ‫א ֻחזַּ ת עו ָֺלם‬, usually applied to landed property, the promised land, e.g. ‫וּלזַ ְר ֲעָך‬ ְ ‫וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ְלָך‬ ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ל־א ֶר ץ ְכּנַ ַע ן ַל ֲא ֻחזַּ ת‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ֲח ֶר יָך ֵאת ֶא ֶר ץ ְמגֻ ֶר יָך ֵאת ָכּ‬Gn 17.8. Its application here to intangible qualities and capabilities is innovative. ‫ אוחזת‬here is a plain error for ‫אחוזת‬.762 ‫ ]וינחילם‬This Hifil verb can take two objects. Hence what or whom the object suffix, ‘them,’ refers to is not immediately clear. In a case such as ‫ֶאת־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ילָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ ַא ְר ְצָך ֲא ֶשׁר יַ נְ ִח‬Dt 19.3 ‫ילָך‬ ְ ‫ יַ נְ ִח‬can be said to be equivalent to ‫יַ נְ ִחיל‬ 762

Licht (230) speaks of a possible phonetic variant as reflected in Ὀχοζατ Gn 26.26.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

217

‫ א ְֹתָך‬in view of ‫ת־ה ָא ֶר ץ‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ הוּא יַ נְ ִחיל‬ib. 3.28. Since in the preceding clauses abundant, precious gifts have been displayed, the suffix more likely refers to those gifts, an interpretation which fits better the immediately preceding clause and also God as the giver. ‫‘ ]בגורל קדושים‬in the domain marked for holy ones.’ Already in BH the substantive ‫‘ גּו ָֺר ל‬lot used for allocating a person or object to be given to someone else’ came to mean ‘that which has been so marked, allotment.’ 1QS 11.8) ‫‘ ]סוד מבנית קודש‬a society which is a sacred edifice.’ ‫ מבנית‬is unknown to BH, which uses ‫בּנְ יָ ן‬. ִ The word occurs also in 1QHa 15.7, 22, 22.28. On the formation of this noun, cf. Qimron 2018.344, § E 2.11. ‫‘ ]עם כול קצ נהיה‬at the emergence of every period.’ The preposition ‫עם‬, ִ pace Wernberg-Møller (39) and Charlesworth (49), cannot mean ‘during,’ likewise van der Ploeg (126) “tout le temps qui a passé” and Lohse (41) “für alle künftigen Zeiten.” Cf. our remarks above ad 10.1. On the N Ptc. ‫נהיה‬, see above on ‫( רז נהיה‬line 3). 1QS 11.9) ‫‘ ]ואני לאדם רשעה‬and I am one of wicked humankind.’ With a confusing or confused translation, “Certainly I belong to wicked mankind,” Wernberg-Møller (152, n. 20) approvingly mentions Yalon (1967.85), who takes the preposition lamed as emphatic, an analysis he applies also to the following ‫לסוד‬. As the star example of such a use of this preposition, he mentions ‫ן־ה ַא ְר יֵ ה ַה ֵמּת‬ ָ ‫י־ל ֶכ ֶלב ַחי הוּא טוֹב ִמ‬ ְ ‫ ִכּ‬Ec 9.4.763 ‫ אדם‬here is a rare instance of its cst. form as in ‫ ָא ָדם ְבּ ִליַּ ַע ל‬Pr 6.12.764 Given the first of the three following coordinate synonyms, ‫עוונותי‬, is clearly marked as pl., i.e. ‫עוו ֺנו ַֺתי‬, ֲ the other two are also likely to be pl., i.e. ‫אתי‬ ַ ֹ ‫פּ ָשׁ ַעי ַחטּ‬, ְ so that ‫ עול‬marked here as sg. is to be construed backwards, i.e. ‫סוֹד ְבּ ַשׂר ָעוֶ ל‬ ‘an iniquitous, human-centred society.’ ‫ ]) (עם נעוות לבבי‬the brackets in Qimron (I 230) indicate an erasure before ‫עם‬. On our reservation on the interpretation of the preposition here as represented by “ainsi que [les égarements de mon cœur” (Pouilly 133), for instance, see our remarks above on ‫ עם‬at lines 2 and 7. We would suggest that an intended correction has been, for some reason, left by the scribe incomplete and that ‫עם‬ is better deleted or replaced with ‫ גם‬or better ‫וגם‬. This would deal with another syntactic irregularity, namely a concatenation of four synonymous substantives with no conjunction waw added anywhere. As regards ‫ נעוות‬we note in our document ‫ נעוותו‬5.24 and ‫ נעוותי‬10.11.765 In all the three passages under discussion Qimron (1972.108) sees two waw’s, thus 763

Cf. Muraoka 1985.120 and Ginsberg 1961.114. The vocalisation ‫ ָל ָא ָדם‬by Habermann (70) and Lohse (40) is puzzling. As puzzling is Habermann’s ‫לסו ד ָבּ ָשׂר ָעוֶ ל‬.ְ 765 Habermann vocalises them ‫( נַ ְעוָ ותו‬65) and ‫ותי‬ ִ ָ‫( נַ ֲעו‬69), corrected from his earlier (1952.72, 83) ‫ נַ ֲעוו תו‬and ‫ נַ ֲעוו ִתי‬respectively, for ‫ נַ ֲעוֹת‬as sg. is unknown anywhere in Hebrew. 764

218

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

pace Lohse’s (40) ‫נַ ֲעוִ יַּ ת‬766, and since in QH two waw’s are not written with no vowel attached to the second, Qimron concludes that here we are having to do with a pl. form, hence ‘the perversities of my heart.’ The pl. accords well with the three preceding pl. substantives. On ‫ נעוה‬collocating with ‫ לב‬or ‫לבב‬, cf. ‫נַ ֲעוֵ ה‬ ‫ ֵלב‬Pr 12.8, ֗‫לב ֗בי‬ ֗ ‫ נעוות‬1QHa 4.19, ‫ נעוי לב‬ib. 15.30. 1QS 11.10) ‫ ]רמה‬Maggot as a figure of worthless being, see ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫וּב‬ ֶ ‫ֱאנוֹשׁ ִר ָמּה‬ ‫תּוֹל ָעה‬ ֵ Jb 25.6. ‫]הולךי חושך‬ ֿ ‘those who walk in darkness,’ where the underlying structure presupposes ‫בחושך‬. On the optional deletion of the preposition note ‫שבי פשע‬ ‫‘ ועוזבי חטאה‬those who part with iniquity and those who leave sins’ 1QHa 14.9 and cf. SQH § 31 r 6, pp. 220f. ‫ ]לאדם דרכו‬with most scholars we postulate an inadvertent omission of the negator ‫ לא‬due to haplography.767 ‫ ]לוא יכין‬the value of theoretical possibility of the Impf. here is well captured in Dupont-Sommer (44) with his “Non, les hommes ne peuvent affermir ..,” cf. SQH § 15 dae. 1QS 11.11) ‫]ובדעתו נהיה כול‬. A survey of translations available to us reveals an unusual diversity of interpretation of the tense value of ‫נהיה‬, vocalised as Pf., ‫נִ ְהיָ ה‬, by both Habermann (70) and Lohse (40): Preterite: “has been brought into being” (Brownlee 44), “ist entstanden” (Lohse 41), “s’est fait” (Lambert 975), “a existé” (Pouilly 133 and Guilbert 76768), “a été amené à l’être” (Dupont-Sommer 44), “est devenu” (van der Ploeg 126a), “facta sunt” (Milik 157) = ‫נִ ְהיָ ה‬ Present: “happens” (Wernberg-Møller 39), “come to pass” (Vermes 116), and Future: “shall come into being” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 99), “shall occur” (Charlesworth 49), “shall be” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 143), “esisterà” (Martone 136) = ‫נִ ְהיֶ ה‬. The clause quoted above is one of five theological utterances made on God. The first two are nominal clauses, thus atemporal or super-temporal, and the concluding two are verbal clauses with the Impf. forms, ‫ יכונו‬and ‫יעשה‬. Thus none of the remaining four statements is made with a preterite form. This makes ‫ נִ ְהיֶ ה‬a more likely analysis. 766 Lohse is consistent, thus also at 1QS 5.24 and 10.11, but a substantive in the form of ‫נַ ֲעוִ יָּ ה‬ is unknown to Hebrew. So reads DJD 40.63 at 1QHa 4.31. 767 Exceptionally Charlesworth (49) with “For my way (belongs) to Adam.” Pouilly (133) and Dupont-Sommer (44) see here a rhetorical question, which is in effect the same as inserting ‫לא‬. 768 His comment in fn. 147 reads: “Dieu connait tout, rien ne lui échappe, ni ne lui échappera,” so present and future!

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

219

‫]וךול הויֿ ה במחשבתו יכוֿ נו‬. ֿ Unless one postulates an Aramaism, ‫]הו ֺיֶ ה =[ הויה‬, would be a more natural reading. In the case of the second verb, Qimron might be indicating his preference of ‫ יכונו‬over ‫יכינו‬. Grammatically, however, both readings are not indisputable. ‫יכונו‬, i.e. ‫ יִ כּו ֺנוּ‬Nifal, would disagree in number with the sg. subject. Probably ‫ כול‬is an influencing factor as in ‫כול הויה ונהייה‬ ‫‘ ולפני היותם‬everything that exists and comes into existence and before they are there’ 1QS 3.15, cf. SQH § 32 ch. Then ‘everything that exists can be firmly established according to His design.’769 ‫‘ ]מבלעדיו לוא יעשה‬without Him nothing can be done [or: made].’ ‫ כול‬is generally supplied as the subject. ‫ כול הויה‬may have been at the back of the author’s mind. Cf. ‫( בלוֿ רצונכה לוא יעשה כול‬line 17). ‫‘ ]אני אם אמוט‬should I totter,’ where not only the disjunctive pronoun is added to the verb as an expression of the author’s self-consciousness, but it is also extraposed, even outside of the conditional clause; the poet’s awareness of his fallible nature, his closeness to his Creator, his humility and dependence on Him are manifest. See further SQH § 1 c (iii). 1QS 11.12) ‫ ]משפטי בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬pace van der Ploeg (126a) and Lohse (41) the subject of the fem. verb ‫ תעמוד‬cannot be ‫משפטי‬, but ‫צדקת אל‬. Many seem to see here an asyndetic relative clause, though ‫ תעמוד לנצחים‬can be a self-standing clause as reflected in Lambert’s (975) “: elle triomphera pour l’éternité.” In QH, however, asyndetic relative clauses are not as common as in BH, but are well attested, see SQH § 44 d. Our translation, “God’s righteousness, which will remain for ages” with a comma for a non-restrictive relative clause (SQH § 44 c), is a compromise between the two analyses. 1QS 11.13) ‫‘ ]אם יפתח צרתי‬if my distress starts.’ ‫ יפתח‬is most likely an error for ‫;תּ ָפּ ַתח = תפתח‬ ִ note the same collocation in ‫ בהפתח צרה‬1QS 10.17, but with quite a different meaning, see ad loc.770 The conditional clause cited above is followed by ‫‘ ומשחת יחלץ נפשי‬then He will deliver my soul out of perdition.’ The introductory waw is a so-called apodotic waw introducing an apodosis or result clause. See further SQH § 41 c. ‫‘ ]ויכן לדרכ פעמי‬and He will set my feet firmly for the journey.’ This time the waw is an ordinary conjunctive one, coordinate with the preceding ‫יחלץ‬. If it directly continued the conditional clause, we could expect an inversive waw, thus ‫וְ ֵה ִכין = והכין‬. Pace some translators, e.g. Brownlee’s (44) “in the way” and Wernberg-Møller’s (39) “on the way,” the preposition lamed here is scarcely locative, static. 769 Habermann’s (70) and Lohse’s (40) ‫ יְ ִכ ינוֹ‬is impossible in Hebrew; it must be either ‫יְ ִכ ינֶ נּוּ‬ or ‫יְ ִכ ינֵ הוּ‬. See also Qimron 2018.445, n. 232. 770 Brownlee’s (44) “and if He begin my affliction” and Lohse’s (41) “und wenn er meine Bedrängnis löst” scarcely make sense here, notwithstanding ‫‘ לפתוח כול צרת נפשו‬to relieve every distress of his soul’ 1QHa 7.29.

220

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

In the following two lines starting with ‫ ברחמיו‬and ending with ‫ תפארתו‬we find a total of five verbal clauses, and the tense of the five finite verbs shifts between qatal and yiqtol: ‫ יטהרני‬.. ‫ יכפר‬.. ‫ שפטני‬.. ‫ יביא‬.. ‫הגישני‬

All the clauses begin with an adverbial, prepositional phrase. WernbergMøller (39) and Charlesworth (49) translate all the verbs with the present tense without any comment, Guilbert (78), Pouilly (133), Martone (136), Vermes (116), and García Martínez - Tigchelaar (99) with the future. By contrast, van der Ploeg (126a), Lambert (975), Wise - Abegg - Cook (143), Dupont-Sommer (45), and Lohse (43) shift in keeping with the Hebrew text. The atemporal use of yiqtol is occasionally found in QH, but confined to subordinate clauses (SQH § 15 ca), but such an atemporal use is foreign to qatal. This remarkable shift between the two Hebrew tense forms can scarcely be for the sake of stylistic variation. Whilst the preterite, imperfective value of yiqtol remains in force in QH to a certain extent (SQH § 15 bb), its alternation with qatal is highly unlikely. We would then keep to the analysis represented in some translations mentioned above which shift between two tenses in their respective European language. The author is possibly shifting between memory of his past experiences and expression of convictions for the future. 1QS 11.15) ‫‘ ]להודות ֗לאל צדקו ולעליון תפארתו‬to acknowledge to God His righteousness and to the Most High His marvellous character.’ The translation of ‫ הודה‬varies between ‘thank,’ ‘praise,’ and ‘to confess.’ Syntactically, this is a rare instance of this verb taking two objects, indirect with -‫ ל‬+ pers. and direct with a zero object. In BH, too, this syntagm occurs only in ‫אוֹתיו ִל ְבנֵ י ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ יוֹדוּ ַליהוָ ה ַח ְסדּוֹ וְ נִ ְפ ְל‬Ps 107.8, repeated in vss. 15, 21, 31 as a refrain. On the interpretation of our verb in this biblical example there is no consensus, either. We doubt that an occasion for thanks can be marked as a zero object. In MH we find ‫ ונודה לך על נחלת אבות‬in Birkat ha-mazon, a grace said prior to a meal, and ‫ נודה לך על גאולתינו‬mPes 10.6 in a Budapest manuscript, cf. also ‫ וביציאתי אני נותן הודיה על חלקי‬mBer 4.2, thus all with ‫ע ל‬. ַ Lohse (40) vocalises ‫ ְל ֶע ְליו ֺן‬.. ‫ל ֵאל‬.ְ In QH some substantives denoting unique entities leave the definite article out.771 An exception is ‫ העליון‬11Q5 27.12, cf. SQH § 7 f. Brownlee (45) and Milik (57), apparently independently from each other, view our infinitival clause as the title for what follows: the former had it printed in capital letters, and the latter offers “Celebrandus est Deus .. maiestate Eius !”. Such an analysis is not impossible, though the infinitive can be assigned resultative value, SQH § 18 f. 771

Habermann (70) is inconsistent: ‫ ְל ֶע ְליֺֹן‬.. ‫ל ֵאל‬.ָ

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

221

1QS 11.15b - 22 11.15b) Blessed are You, o my God, who opened 11.16) the mind of Your servant to knowledge. Direct with righteousness all that he does, and execute for the son of Your handmaid as You will for humans chosen (by You) for them to stand 11.17) in Your presence all the time, because without You (his) conduct cannot become impeccable, and without Your will nothing can be achieved. It was You who taught 11.18) all knowledge, and everything that emerged was in your pleasure and there is none other than You to dispute Your decision and to help (us) understand 11.19) all Your holy design and to gaze into the depth of Your mysteries and to to gain an understanding of all Your marvellous works characterised by Your extraordinary 11.20) power, and who can stand Your glory? And what, indeed, is a human among your marvellous works? 11.21) And one born of a woman, how could he take a seat in front of You? He was kneaded from soil and (in) his abode he is a maggot’s food and he was from ?? of 11.22) clay was formed and it is to the soil that he yearns after. How could clay and something made by a hand answer? And could he understand any counsel? 1QS 11.15b) ‫ ]ברוכ אתה אלי‬This can be viewed as an expression of a wish, ‘May You, o God, be blessed!,’ but not necessarily. See SQH § 35 cba. ‫‘ ]אלי הפותח לדעה ֗לב עבדכה‬o my God, who opens the mind of Your servant to knowledge.’ The verb ‫ ָפּ ַתח‬takes various parts of human body as direct objects in BH and QH alike: ‫יָ ד‬, ‫פּה‬, ֶ ‫שׂ ָפה‬, ָ ‫עיִ ן‬, ַ ‫אֹזֶ ן‬, ‫ר ֶחם‬.ֶ The selection of ‫( ֵלב‬and ‫)ל ָבב‬ ֵ is unique to QH. In conjunction with ‫דעה‬, ‫ לב‬here denotes mind rather than heart as a seat of emotions and attitudes. This innovative, syntagmatic extension accords well with the intellectualism of the Qumran community. Cf. our observations above on ‫‘ ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונכה בדעת עולמים‬and may He enlighten your mind with the intellect of life and grace you with eternal knowledge’ 1QS 2.3. See further ‫‘ פתחתה לבבי לבינתכה‬You opened my mind to understand You’ 1QHa 22.31. The Qal verb ‫ גלה‬combines with ‫ אֹזֶ ן‬and ‫ ַעיִ ן‬as its direct object, but its combination with ‫ ֵלב‬is unique to QH: ‫‘ מה אדע בלוא גליתה לבי‬what could I know without You having opened my mind?’ 1QHa 20.36, ‫‘ ותגלה לב עפר‬and You have opened the mind of dust’ ib. 21.10. 1QS 11.16) ‫‘ ]הכן בצדק כול מעשיו‬Direct with righteousness all that he does.’ Up to the start of this eulogy the author was speaking in the first person. Instead of ‫ לבי‬he now says ‫לב עבדכה‬, and ‫מעשיו‬, not ‫‘ מעשי‬what I do.’ He is keeping a respectful distance from God.772 ‫‘ ]הקם לבן אמתכה כאשר רציתה‬Execute for the son of Your handmaid as You will.’ Pace Brownlee (45), Wernberg-Møller (39), Charlesworth (49), Lohse (43), 772

Cf. SQH § 1 h and Muraoka 2020a.63.

222

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

and Martone (136) the H verb ‫ ָה ֵקם‬here can hardly have to do with standing, whether literally or figuratively. Licht (235) rightly mentions ‫ָה ֵקם ְל ַע ְב ְדָּך ִא ְמ ָר ֶתָך‬ Ps 119.38. The word means ‘to put into practice, execute one’s thought, intention or pledge,’ which is reflected in “adimple” (Milik 158), “agis” (van der Ploeg 126b), and “accorde” (Lambert 975, Guilbert 78, Pouilly 133, and DupontSommer 45). In view of the parallelism to ‫ עבדכה‬earlier in the line, ‫ אמתכה‬is unlikely to be ‫‘ ֲא ִמ ְתּ ָכה‬Your truth,’ cf. Licht 235. ‫‘ ]להתיצב לפניכה‬to stand in Your presence,’ an epexegetic infinitive (SQH § 18 g) indicating where His wish and pleasure lie. 1QS 11.17) ‫‘ ]לוא יעשה כול‬nothing can be achieved.’ On the use of ‫ כול‬in categorical, absolute negation, see SQH § 28 d. 1QS 11.18) ‫הנהי֗ ה ברצונכה היה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]כול‬all that emerged was according to Your will.’ In view of ‫היה‬, which is unlikely to be ‫הֹיֶ ה‬, but ‫היָ ה‬, ָ ‫ נִ ְהיֶ ה = נהיה‬must be preterite, which accords with the definite article added to the participle (SQH § 17 h), cf. “quidquid factum est per voluntatem Tuam factum est” (Milik 158) and “everything that has come to pass [has been]773 by thy will” (Brownlee 46, sim. Lambert 975, Pouilly 133, Guilbert 78, Lohse 43 and DJD 26.204). For a translation such as “.. is by your will” (Charlesworth 49, sim. García Martínez - Tigchelaar 99) is unacceptable. Nor is ‫ היה‬translatable as “shall it come to pass” (WAE 143). ‫‘ ]אין אחר זולתכה להשיב על עצתכה‬there is none other than You to dispute Your decision.’ Yalon (1967.85) was apparently the first to point to the sense of the phrase ‫ ְל ָה ִשׁיב ַע ל‬as ‘to object.’774 The Bible records several instances when God changed His mind, e.g. ‫ל־ה ָר ָעה ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ְל ַעמּוֹ‬ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ נָּ ֶחם יְ הוָ ה ַע‬Ex 32.14. However, the subject of this and the following infinitives — .. ‫ להביט‬.. ‫להשכיל‬ ‫ — להתבונן‬is not God, but someone other than Him, ‫אחר‬. The inf. here is modifying a substantive, ‫אחר‬, or a substantivised adjective; cf. SQH § 18 i. 1QS 11.19) ‫]להתבונן בכול נפלאותיכה עם כוח גבורתכה‬. All translations consulted take the preposition ‫ עם‬here in the sense of ‘both .. and .., as well as.’ We have expressed our scepticism on this point a few times above: at lines 2, 7, and 9. BDB, s.v. ‫ ִעם‬1a gives a list of references for “coupling substantives, together with, chiefly in poetry.” One of the references is illuminating: ‫טוֹבה‬ ָ ‫ ָח ְכ ָמה ִעם־נַ ֲח ָלה‬Ec 7.11. We doubt that the author means to say that inherited wealth is valuable, even if your wisdom leaves much to be desired, but rather 773 We fail to see why the brackets have been added. See also “.. est devenu .. l’est par ta volonté” (van der Ploeg 126b) and “.. a été amené à l’être existe ..” (Dupont-Sommer 41). 774 His view was originally published in 1952. He said that that was so in RH without quoting any instance. In Jastrow 1950.1528a we find ‫ להשיב על דבריו‬.. ‫‘ נכנסו‬they came in .. to refute his words’ yGitt IX 50a.

1QS 1QRULE OF THE COMMUNITY

223

if you are wise, you could do with some material wealth. Hence “wisdom, when combined with material wealth, is good.” Then ‘to gain an understanding of all Your marvellous works characterised by Your extraordinary power.’ 1QS 11.20) ‫‘ ]מי יכול להכיל את כבודכה‬who can stand Your glory?’ On the sense of the H verb ‫ה ִכיל‬, ֵ cp. ‫ילנּוּ‬ ֶ ‫וּמי יְ ִכ‬ ִ ‫נוֹרא ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫ ִכּי־גָ דוֹל יוֹם־יְ הוָ ה ו‬Jl 2.11 and LXX .. τίσ ἔσται ἱκανὸσ αὐτῇ;, “sustinere” (Milik 158), “soutenir” (Lambert 975, Pouilly 133), “contenir” (Dupont-Sommer 41), “endure” (Vermes 117, García Martínez - Tigchelaar 99). Pace Wernberg-Møller (39), Licht (236), and Charlesworth (49) it cannot mean ‘to grasp (intellectually).’ Sim. “erfassen” (Lohse 43). We fail to see an argument for “measure” (Wise - Abegg - Cook 143) and “mesurer” (Guilbert 78, van der Ploeg 126b). ‫‘ ]מה אפ הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬what, indeed, is a human among your marvellous works?’ The emphatic, affirmatory force of ‫אף‬, ַ typical of BH poetry, has been well captured in, e.g. “indeed” (Brownlee 46), “wahrlich” (Lohse 43), “donc” (Lambert 975), “profecto” (Milik 158), and “realmente” (Martone 137). Cf. ‫‘ ומה אף הוא בשר כי ישכיל באלה‬what, indeed, is flesh to understand these matters?’ 1QHa 7.34. The definite article added to ‫ אדם‬is not particularising, referring to a particular person, but generic, SQH § 7 c. The pronoun, ‫הואה‬, is extraposed for emphasis’s sake, on which see SQH § 36 7). For the same effect, ‫ ילוד אשה‬and ‫ הואה‬in the following line are fronted. 1QS 11.21) ‫‘ ]ילוד אשה מה ישב לפניכה‬one born of a woman, how could he take a seat in front of You?,’ cf. “comment prendra-t-il place devant ta face” (van der Ploeg 126b+) and “comment se tiendra-t-il en ta présence?” (Lambert 975).775 By vocalising ‫ ישב‬as ‫ יָ ִשׁב‬and translating it with “erwidern” Lohse (42f.) assumes a defectiva spelling for ‫ישיב‬, which occurs in the following line. However, ‘to answer someone’ is ‫ ֵה ִשׁיב ֶאל‬as in, e.g. ‫ל־א ְס ֵתּר‬ ֶ ‫ֹאמר ָמ ְרדֳּ ַכי ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יּ‬Est 4.13. Many translations apparently see here a form of ‫חשׁב‬, thus “in thy estimation” (Brownlee 46), “be considered” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 99), “be reckoned” (Wernberg-Møller 39, Wise - Abegg - Cook 143), “be accounted” (Vermes 117), “sa valeur” (Dupont-Sommer 45), and “conterà” (Martone 137). Qimron (I 230) does not mention any trace of ‫ ח‬here. On the adverbial value, ‘How?,’ of ‫מה‬, ָ see BDB s.v. 2: “especially in expressing what is regarded as an impossibility,” e.g. ‫ וְ ָא ָדם ַמה־יָּ ִבין ַדּ ְרכּוֹ‬Pr 20.24. ‫‘ ]מדורו‬his abode.’ It escapes us how Charlesworth (51) has arrived at “whose corpse.” We propose a slight emendation by adding the preposition ‫ב־‬. ‫ ]הואה מציֿ רוק חמר קורצ‬the second word is extremely difficult. Qimron (I 91, 230) suggests ‘body’ as its meaning, though only out of contextual considerations. 775 Neither “comment demeure-t-il .. ?” (Guilbert 78) nor “comment peut-il-rester .. ?” (Pouilly 133) says very much. Likewise “dwell” (Charlesworth 51) and “manebit” (Milik 158).

224

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

The word occurs also at 1QHa 20.35 in similar context.776 The first mem of the mysterious word is probably the preposition indicating some material and the word is a nomen regens ‘? of clay,’ from which a human was formed. The pronoun, ‫הואה‬, just as in one of the preceding clauses, ‫הואה מעפר מגבלו‬, highlights the insignificance of the humankind. 1QS 11.22) ‫‘ ]לעפר תשוקתו‬his yearning is after dust.’ In spite of ‫לעפר תשובתו‬ ‘his return is to dust’ 1QHa 18.6 in a context highly reminiscent of this 1QS passage it is not right, pace Qimron (I 230), to say that ‫ תשוקה‬means the same as ‫תשובה‬.777 If you have had a hard life, you might, in your old age, wish to return to the dust, your original home. Nor does ‫ מדורו‬in the preceding line mean (‫‘ )משמעה‬grave,’ which is being referred to. ‫ יוצר יד‬is also difficult. The context suggests something like ‘a product of hand,’ but no substantive of this root with u or o as its initial vowel is known. 778 Is this a scribal error for ‫ יְ צוּר = יצור‬or ‫?מוּצר = מוצר‬ ַ ‫‘ ]לעצת מה יבין‬could he understand any counsel?’// 4QSj 10, where we would not interpret ‫ מה‬as the usual interrogative pronoun, as done by everyone, e.g. Brownlee (46): “what counsel does he understand?”. For this rare use of ‫מה‬ as a nomen rectum, see ‫ ָח ְכ ַמת ֶמה ָל ֶהם‬Je 8.9.779

776

Cf. DJD 40.258f. and Charlesworth 51, n. 305. Also Puech 1995. At πρὸσ τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου LXX Gn 3.16 for ‫שׁוּק ֵתְך‬ ָ ‫ישְׁך ְתּ‬ ֵ ‫ל־א‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬the Greek noun must mean something different from its usual meaning; we (Muraoka 2009a.85b) have defined it as “turning to sbd for companionship and intimacy,” for Eve going back to her husband makes no sense. 778 Qimron (2018.183) parses ‫ יוצר‬as G internal passive Pf., which is, however, syntactically impossible, unless one would postulate an error, ‫ביד < יד‬. 779 See SQH § 31 c, p. 183, n. 5. 777

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

1QSA COLUMN 1 1QSa 1.1 - 5 1.1) And the following is the rule for the congregation of Israel at the end of the days when they assemble becoming uni[ted in order to wa]lk 1.2) in accordance with the ruling of the sons of Zadok the priests and their fellow participants in the covenant, who stopped walking in the way of 1.3) the people. It is they who are people of His counsel and have adhered to His covenant in the midst of wickedness in order to aton[e for the lan]d. 1.4) On their arrival they shall assemble all who have arrived, from children up to women, and as they li[sten], they shall read out 1.5) all the ordinances of the covenant and help them understand all their regulations in case they err in their [?]. 1QSa 1.1) ‫‘ ]וזה הסרך‬and this is the rule.’ Knibb (146), Vermes (157), and Wise - Abegg - Cook (144) leave the introductory conjunction untranslated. 1QS 5 begins precisely in the same way. We argued there (p. 100) that the waw indicates continuity of the column with the preceding four. The conjunction here may be playing the same role, marking the continuity of this document with the last column, Col. 11, of 1QS. Note that ‫ וְ זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ַתּ ֲעשׂוּ‬Jdg 21.11 follows ‫י־ח ֶרב וְ ַהנָּ ִשׁים וְ ַה ָטּף‬ ֶ ‫ת־יוֹשׁ ֵבי יָ ֵבשׁ גִּ ְל ָעד ְל ִפ‬ ְ ‫יתם ֶא‬ ֶ ‫אוֹתם ֵלאמֹר ְלכוּ וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ וַ יְ ַצוּוּ‬of the preceding verse, and this contrasts with ‫ וְ ַע ָתּה זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר נַ ֲע ֶשׂה ַלגִּ ְב ָעה‬ib. 20.9; in both cases what actions are to be taken are elaborated in the sequel. ‫ זה‬in these cases is equivalent to the demonstrative pronouns of ὅδε, ἥδε, τόδε series with anticipating or cataphoric value, translatable as ‘the following’.1 What we have here is a nominal clause identificatory in function. The author is not saying “the following is a sample rule, which you may take it or leave it,” but “this is the rule and there is none other.” In ֺ‫ זֶ ה ִפּ ְתר ֹנו‬Gn 40.12, 18 one could hear Joseph’s confidence ringing, and this syntagm is distinct from ‫ ִא ְשׁתּוֺ זֹאת‬Gn 12.12, i.e. ‫ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬ ‫ וְ לֹא ֲאחֹתוֹ‬and ‫ ֲהק ְֹלָך זֶ ה‬1Sm 24.16, cf. Muraoka 1985.10f. ‫]בהספם‬ ֗ ‘when they gather,’ following Qimron (I 235), who assumes that the form is meant for ‫בהאספם‬, which has been partly preserved in [‫]בה[אספ]ם‬ 4Q249g 1-2.1. However, Qimron’s position that this is a case of the omission of /ʼ/ as a sound is difficult to follow, for the Nif. inf. of the verb would normally be ‫ה ָא ְס ָפם‬. ֵ Has the vowel of ‫ ֵה‬also been deleted?2 It might be simpler 1

Cf. Muraoka 2016 § 13 a. This 1QSa example is, in Qimron (2018.101), wrongly cited as an instance of the phonetic process /aʼa = â/. No less difficult is Schiffman’s (1989.11, n. 3) statement that the ‫ א‬has been assimilated. 2

226

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

to suggest an inadvertent omission of ‫א‬. Should one go for emendation by accepting the text following restored as ‫ליחד להתהלך‬, then one might postulate ‫בהוספם‬ ‘when they join,’ i.e. a Nifal inf. of √‫יסף‬, cf. Carmignac (17) “quand [ils] s’adjoind[ront ..”. The word reconstructed by Qimron (I 235) as ‫ ֯ליחד‬could be an inf. Nifal with ingressive value, ‘to become united.’ 1QSa 1.2) ‫‘ ]אנישי בריתם‬their fellow participants in the covenant.’ The suffix pronoun ‫ם‬- is to be construed with the cst. phrase as a whole, not with ‫ ברית‬alone pace Wise - Abegg - Cook 145 “the men of their Covenant,”3 cf. SQH § 21 c. ‫ אנישי‬is morphologically unusual, cf. Qimron 2018.354, § E 6. It occurs five more times in 1QSa: 1.3, 28, 2.2, 8, 13. Elsewhere only at 1QHa 22.274. The medial consonant /n/ occurs in the pl. of ‫אישׁ‬, ִ i.e. ‫אנָ ִשׁים‬, ֲ and BH also uses ‫ֱאנוֹשׁ‬ as synonymous with ‫ ִאישׁ‬or ‫אנָ ִשׁים‬, ֲ and BH ‫ ֱאנוֹשׁ‬is generally agreed to be cognate with Aramaic ‫אנָ שׁ‬. ֱ However, BH ‫ ֱאנוֹשׁ‬has no plural form. Let’s note that our author himself uses the standard pl. ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁי = אנשי‬synonymously: ‫אנישי‬ ‫‘ השם‬the renowned people’ 2.2, 13 // ‫ אנשי השם‬2.11. ‫בדרך העם‬ ֗ ‫סרו מלכת‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]אשר‬who stopped walking in the way of the people.’ The word ‫ עם‬is patently being used with a negative connotation, showing the members’ sense of superiority. Hence ‫( עדת ישראל‬line 1) is also exclusive, not including the majority of the descendants of Abraham. Licht (252) makes an important mention of a passage in 4Q174, where Is 8.11 is quoted: ‫מ‬ ֹ ‫ם־הזֶּ ה ֵלא‬ ַ ‫כּ י כֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ֵא ַל י ְכּ ֶחזְ ַקת ַהיָּ ד וְ יִ ְסּ ֵרנִ י ִמ ֶלּ ֶכת ְבּ ֶד ֶר ְך ָה ָע‬. ִ Steudel (196) vocalises the crucial verb in the restored biblical text as ‫וַ יְ ִס ֵירנִ י‬, which certainly agrees with ‫ ויסירני‬1QIsaa. If our author was also conscious of this Isaianic text, he must also have read ‫ יסרני‬as a form of √‫ סור‬against MT ‘and He advised me against ..’.5 Let’s note ‫ה ָעם ַהזֶּ ה‬, ָ not just ‫ה ָעם‬. ָ 1QSa 1.4) ‫ ]בבואוֿ ם‬see our remarks above on ‫ גבורתום‬1QS 1.21 and ‫רוחום‬ ib. 5.21. The suffix pronoun here most likely refers to ‫( העם‬line 3). ‫‘ ]מטפ עד נשים‬from children to women’; the collectively used sg. of ‫ טף‬is manifest through its juxtaposition with ‫נשים‬. See SQH § 8 a. 1QSa 1.5) ‫משפ ֗טי֯ ֯ה ֗מה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]להבינם בכול‬to help them understand all their regulations’; on the preposition bet indicating a topic of communication, see above at 1QS 3.13, 4.22, 8.18. 3 Despite his paraphrases in a fn. ad loc., “leurs alliés” and “leurs confrères,” Carmignac’s (17) translation reads: “les hommes de leur Alliance.” 4 In Qimron I 94 a measure of uncertainty is indicated with a horizontal stroke as ‫אניֿ שי‬. In all other places Qimron consistently reads ‫אנישי‬, cf. his critique of other editions at Qimron 1972.106, where it is noted that a form with yod is attested in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, on which see Schulthess 1903.14a and Sokoloff 2014.21a. 5 Cf. Pesh. /w-nasṭin(y)/.

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

227

“their regulations”: “regulations taught by teachers” (SQH § 21 b iv] - ‘origin, authorship’), “regulations meant for students” (loc. cit. xvi - ‘purpose, benefit’) or “regulations derivable from ‫( ”חוקי הברית‬loc. cit. xii ‘topical’)? Any of the three makes sense. The first two, however, are hardly plausible in ‫ייסרו במשפטיהמה‬ (line 8), where the verb is most likely impersonal and one student is in view: ‫ ישכילוהו‬. . ‫ילמדהו‬. At the end of the line Qimron (I 235) reconstructs ‫‘ במשגותיהמה‬in their errors,’ which is little more than an informed guess. 1QSa 1.6 - 8a 1.6) And the following is the rule for all the divisions of the congregation for every native-born Israelite, and from his you[th up 1.7) one shall t]each him the book of Hagi, and according to his age one shall instruct him in the ordinances of the covenant, and in accord[ance with his level of understanding] 1.8) one is to educate (him) about their regulations. For ten years he shall come as a child, 1QSa 1.6) ‫‘ ]כול צבאות העדה‬all the divisions of the congregation.’ In what follows there is little to suggest that we have to do here with duties of soldiers; only in line 21 ‫‘ להתיצב במלחמה להכניע גוים‬to take a position in a battle to subjugate foreign nations’ there is something to point in that direction. Licht (255), while mentioning line 21, also refers to ‫זֹאת ֲא ֶשׁר ַל ְלוִ יִּ ם ִמ ֶבּן ָח ֵמשׁ וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים ָשׁנָ ה וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫וּמ ֶבּן ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים ָשׁנָ ה יָ שׁוּב ִמ ְצּ ָבא ָה ֲעב ָֹדה וְ ל ֹא יַ ֲעבֹד עוֹד‬ ִ ‫מוֹעד׃‬ ֵ ‫יָ בוֹא ִל ְצבֹא ָצ ָבא ַבּ ֲעב ַֹדת א ֶֹהל‬ Nu 8.24f., where the text is about cultic services. Hence “the armies of the congregation” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 101) and “the troops ..” (Wise - Abegg Cook 145) are questionable, cf. “alle Abteilungen der Gemeinde” (Lohse 47). ‫ ]כול האזרח בישראל‬Possibly ‘all native-born Israelites’; as in BH the sg. ‫ ֶאזְ ָרח‬with the def. article is used collectively, e.g. ‫ל־ה ֶאזְ ָרח ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל יֵ ְשׁבוּ ַבּ ֻסּכֹּת‬ ָ ‫ָכּ‬ Lv 23.42. However, in the sequel we note the sg.: “one shall teach him .. according to his age .. one shall instruct him.” Hence we prefer analysing ‫ כול האזרח‬as equivalent to ‫‘ כול אזרח‬every native-born Israelite.’ Cf. SQH § 28 c. 1QSa 1.7) ‫ ]יומיו‬in lieu of ‫ ;ימיו‬see above at 1QS 5.26. ‫‘ ]ישכיליהו‬one is to instruct him,’ following a sensible proposal by Qimron (I 235) to read ‫ישכילוהו‬.6 Unless one postulates another orthographic irregularity in the preceding ‫ילמדהו‬ ֗ for ‫ילמדוהו‬7, we have two impersonal constructions next to each other: 3ms and 3mp, cf. SQH § 37 a. ‫]ולפי שכלו ייסרו‬ ֗ ‘and in accordance with his level of understanding one is to educate (him),’ following Licht’s (256) reconstruction with another 3mp Impf. 6 7

So already in DJD 1.109 and Schiffman (1989.14, n. 22). DJD 36.547 has reconstructed ]‫ ילמד[ו֗ ה‬4Q249a 1.5.

228

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

impersonally used. As against his earlier reconstruction (2010), ‫ליסרו‬, Qimron now silently accept’s Licht’s reconstruction.8 1QSa 1.8) ‫‘ ]עשר שנים יבוא בטפ‬for ten years he shall come as a child.’ What is meant is probably that for the first ten years after his birth he shall come as a child (‫ )טף‬accompanied by his parents and then as a teenager (‫נער‬, see ‫מן נעו֯ ריו‬, line 6) he shall start being educated. We thus view the preposition bet of ‫ בטפ‬as a case of bet essentiae, on which see SQH § 3e bd. Alternatively it can be taken as an ordinary, locative preposition: ‘among kids.’9 1QSa 1.8b - 11 1.8b) and at the age of twenty years [he shall transfer 1.9) to] those enrolled to join the lot as a member of his family in order to become united among the holy congregation, and he shall not approa[ch] 1.10) a woman for sexual intercourse to sleep (with her) as a male unless he is fully twenty years old and knows [good] 1.11) and evil. And in such a situation it shall be acceptable to refer to ordinances of the law by way of a testimony against him and for them to be present to hear verdicts 1QSa 1.10) ‫‘ ]למשכבי זכר‬to have sex as a male,’ cf. ‫ל־א ָשּׁה י ַֹד ַעת ִמ ְשׁ ַכּב־זָ ָכר‬ ִ ‫וְ ָכ‬ Jdg 21.11. The use of the pl. ‫ משכבי‬is strange.10 ‫עשרים שנה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ]לפי מולואת לו‬when he is fully twenty years old.’ On this temporal value of Licht (257) mentions ‫ְל ִפי ְמל ֹאת ְל ָב ֶבל ִשׁ ְב ִעים ָשׁנָ ה‬ Je 29.10; we could add ‫ ְל ִפי ֵה ָע ֹלת ֶה ָענָ ן ֵמ ַע ל ָהא ֶֹהל‬Nu 9.17. 1QSa 1.11) ‫‘ ]תקבל להעיד עליו‬she (?) should agree to testify against him.’11 Licht (257) proposes a minor emendation, ‫יתקבל > תקבל‬, without saying what the resultant clause as a whole is supposed to mean. Accepting this proposal, Charlesworth12 (113) translates: “he shall be received so as to witness ..,” which makes little sense, and what are we to make of ‫ ?עליו‬As unsatisfactory 8 What Qimron earlier found grammatically questionable with Licht’s reconstruction — the preceding two parallel verbs both have an object suffix — he resolves by analysing ‫ ייסרו‬as equivalent to ‫( ייסרוהו‬2018.103). On this last question, see our remark above at 5.11. 9 We agree with Charlesworth (111, fn. 16), who, pace Schiffman (1989.15), does not think ‫ בא ב־‬can mean ‘to be enumerated’ or ‘to come under the category of.’ Pace Licht 256 the collocation ‫ בא בגורל‬at lines 9 and 20 can mean simply ‘to join the lot.’ 10 ‫ ֶאת־זָ ָכר ל ֹא ִת ְשׁ ַכּב ִמ ְשׁ ְכּ ֵבי ִא ָשּׁה‬Lv 18.22 is irrelevant, since the text is concerned with sodomy. Cf. SQH § 8 g. 11 Apparently so Qimron (I 235), though he does not specify a woman or wife as the subject, as he did earlier (2010: ‫)תקבל אשתו‬. The introduction of a wife here is rather abrupt. For Lohse (286, n. 7) the subject is “die Gemeinde,” which is as abrupt, for in the preceding ten lines it does not serve in that function. 12 Baumgarten’s (1957.268) emendation to ‫יקבל‬, which is parsed as Pual and ‫אל יקובל עוד‬ ‫ לשופטים להמית‬CD 9.23 is adduced as parallel, but in this latter passage the subject of ‫ יקובל‬is the inf., whose subject is specified as ‫שופטים‬.

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

229

is Vermes (158): “he shall be accepted when he calls to witness ..,” for the infinitival clause on its own can hardly carry temporal value. Tentatively we suggest: ‘it ought to be acceptable for her to testify,’ making the inf. clause as the subject of ‫ יתקבל‬and assigning ingressive value to Hitpael,13 ‘to become ‫מקבל‬ (= ‫)מ ֻק ָבּל‬. ְ 14 ‫ ]להעיד עליו משעטות התורא‬If the verb is used in the sense of ‘to testify (in a court),’ the construction is not attested in BH. ‫]משפטות‬, a form unknown anywhere in the Hebrew literature, if the pl. of ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬is meant. Licht (257) mentions ‫ל־מי ֲא ַד ְבּ ָרה וְ ָא ִע ָידה‬ ִ ‫ ַע‬Je 6.10, where it is not certain that the preposition is governed by the second verb as well, though we could translate ‘About (or: against) whom shall I speak by way of a testimony?’. 1QSa 1.12 - 19a 1.12) and ??, and at the age of twenty-five he shall enter to take a position in the organisations of the holy 1.13) congregation to perform the service of the congregation, and at the age of thirty years he may approach to engage in a dispute 1.14) and in a lawsuit and to take up a position among the heads of thousands of Israel serving as captains of hundreds, captains of fifties 1.15) [and captains of] tens, judges and officers for their tribes among all their clans [in accordan]ce of the sons of 1.16) Aaron the priests and every chief of the fathers of the congregation who have been chosen to preside at services 1.17) [to go ou]t and come in before the congregation, and in accordance with his intellectual capacity accompanied by his moral integrity and physical strength (requisite) for the office of ministry to perform 1.18) works of His ministry amongst his brethren whether much or little, and in this manner among them one shall attain greater honour than other(s), 1.19) and when one’s age advances, one shall allocate to him, in proportion to his strength, his load in the work of the congregation, 1QSa 1.12) ‫ ]ובמלוא בו‬What or whom the suffix ‫ ־ו‬refers to escapes us. The blank space left after ‫ בו‬indicates that the text is amiss. ‫יצב‬ ֗ ‫להת‬ ֗ ‫ועשר י֗ ם שנה יבוא‬ ֯ ‫‘ ]בן חמש‬at the age of twenty-five he shall enter to take a position.’ ‫ בן חמש עשרים‬is not the subject of the clause, ‘someone aged twenty-five,’ but a subject complement, on which see SQH § 31 t. 13

See SQH § 12 f 3). With his translation “elle sera acceptée” is Carmignac (18) vocalising the verb as ‫?תּ ֻק ַבּל‬ ְ It might be better to postulate ‫תּ ַקּ ֵבּל‬, ִ i.e. the infix ‫ ת‬of ‫ תת‬assimilated to the following ‫ק‬. Cf. Morag 1972. Note ‫ ִמ ַקּ ְדּ ִשׁין‬mOr 3.3 mentioned in Segal 1958 § 135 is vocalised by Yalon (1958) as ‫מ ַק ְדּ ִשׁין‬. ְ Furthermore, Carmignac translates ‫ עליו‬as “en plus de lui,” which we doubt the Hebrew can ever signify, and if the woman is to testify, it must be against him over his attempted sexual harassment. 14

230

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

The composite numeral is in ascending order. It could have been written as ‫ עשרים וחמש‬with no difference in meaning, see SQH § 26 e. On the other hand, QH definitely prefers the sequence , see SQH § 26 a. 1QSa 1.13) ‫העדה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ]לעבוד את עבודת‬to perform the service of the congregation,’ an instance of a well-known syntagm in which a verb is complemented with a substantive of the same root, a cognate object. In most cases such an object itself is further qualified as here in the form of a cst. chain, likewise ‫שמחה‬ ̇ ‫‘ שמחתכה וגילה גילך חג חגיך‬Rejoice with your joy and be glad with your gladness, celebrate your feasts’ 4Q88 10.8. A case such as ‫‘ נוקמי נקם‬avengers’ 4Q280 2.3 is rare. ‫שפט‬ ֗ ‫ לריב ריב ו֯ ֯מ‬at the end of our line is not the same as just ‫לריב ריב‬. This addition, ‫ומשפט‬, renders the analysis by Licht (258) somewhat questionable; he understands ‫ ריב‬in the sense of military strife on behalf of the nation. For further details on cognate object, see SQH § 31 o. 1QSa 1.14) ‫‘ ]רואשי‬the chiefs of,’ an anomalous spelling for ‫אשׁי = ראשי‬ ֵ ‫ר‬.ָ Qimron (2018.295, fn. 26) also mentions ‫ רואשיהמה‬1QIsaa 51.11 (MT ‫ֹאשׁם‬ ָ ‫)ר‬ and holds that these can be traced back to the primitive /ra’š/, but the standard pl. form ‫אשׁים‬ ִ ‫ ָר‬for *‫ ְר ָא ִשׁים‬does go back to /ra’š/. It seems to us simpler to follow BL (620 t), who view ‫ֹאשׁיו‬ ָ ‫ ר‬Is 15.2 as an analogical formation based on the sg. ‫ר ֹאשׁ‬, and the same analysis can be applied to our ‫רואשי‬. ‫חמושים ושרי עשרות‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]לשרי מאות שרי‬for the rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.’15 The preposition -‫ ל‬is prefixed to the whole series of concatenated cst. phrases, and not repeated, likewise ‫לאלפים ומאות וחמשים ועשרות‬ ‘in their thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens’ 1QS 2.21, but see ‫֯ל ֗א ֗לפים ולמאיות‬ ‫ולעושרו֯ ת‬ ֗ ‫ ולחמשים‬4Q491 1-3.10. In BH the non-repetition of the nota obiecti and prepositions is conspicuously more frequent in LBH than in CBH. The picture in QH appears to accord with that in LBH. For further details, see SQH § 38 e. 1QSa 1.16) ‫ רשי ]כול רשי אבות העדה‬was originally written as ‫שרי‬, but the use of the pl. form here sounds odd. Licht (258) and DJD 36.53616 read ‫רוש‬, which looks to us sensible. Then the last word of the line can be read ‫בעבודתו‬ instead of ‫ בעבודות‬as done by Qimron (I 236).17 How to resolve the question of number discord, see SQH § 32 cf, p. 240. 1QSa 1.17) ‫‘ ]לפי שכלו עם תום דרכו וחזק מתנו‬in accordance with his intellectual capacity accompanied by his moral integrity and physical strength.’ On 15 As for Qimron’s reading ‫חמושים‬, in the facsimile we see a space for more than one letter between ‫ ח‬and ‫ש‬. He (2018.327f.) maintains that this represents a quttul pattern. Is anything wrong with a plena spelled ‫?חמישים‬ 16 But strangely translated (p. 537) “all the heads.” 17 In the manuscript the waw has been added above the line between the dalet and the taw, though where the right position of a supralinear letter or letters within the word concerned is notoriously difficult to be certain about.

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

231

the value of the preposition ‫עם‬, which does not imply the person’s three separate qualities are being in view,18 see above ad ‫ עמו‬1QS 11.2. We follow Carmignac (21) and Qimron (I 236), reading ‫וחזק‬, not ‫יחזק‬,19 for such a verb, whether Qal or Piel, does not contextually harmonise with what immediately precedes. So read, ‫ חזק‬is best read as a substantive, ‫חֹזֶ ק‬, rather than an inversive Pf., ‫ ָחזַ ק‬or ‫חזֵּ ק‬. ִ If one reads here a verb of qatal form, the prefixed waw would be apodotic preceded by a prepositional adjunct, which would be extremely rare if such occurs at all, cf. SQH § 45 and JM § 176. The collocation we find here, ‫חֹזֶ ק ָמ ְתנָ ו‬, is unknown to BH, but we find ‫ותסמוך‬ ‫‘ נפשי בחזוק מותנים ואמוץ כוח‬and You supported my soul with the strengthening of loins and the magnifying of strength’ 1QHa 10.9. Cf. ‫ַחזֵּ ק ָמ ְתנַ יִ ם ַא ֵמּץ כּ ַֹח ְמאֹד‬ Na 2.2. Charlesworth (113, fn. 35) understands ‫ מתנים‬metaphorically, rendering it with “back.” The traditional “loins” is perfectly in order. Only when one’s loins are strong, one can remain erect, cf. ‫למעמדו‬,, which immediately follows, and ‫יתהולל‬ ‫ברעדה‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבי בחלחלה ומו֗ ֗תני‬and my heart reels in anxiety and my loins with shaking’ 1QHa 18.35. ‫(‘ ]למעמד לצבואת עבודת מעשו‬requisite) for the office of ministry to perform works of His ministry.’ Our reading follows that of Barthélemy and Milik in DJD 1.110. Qimron (I 236) reads ‫ למעמד צבואת וכו׳‬on the ground that there is not enough space between the first two words, but a glance at the plate seems to indicate otherwise.20 DJD 1.114 submits that the form reconstructed there is the Qal inf. cst. of ‫‘ צבא‬to serve,’21 formed in the manner of a Lamed-Yod verb. However, this verb, when used in the sense of ‘to serve,’ takes only a cognate object (‫)צ ָבא‬, ָ so Nu 4.23 and 8.24. The syntactic hierarchy of the const. phrase ‫ עבודת מעשו‬is [a + (b + c)]. 1QSa 1.18) ‫‘ ]בין֯ ֗רוב למועט‬whether much or little,’ sim. Lohse (49): “Sei es viel, sei es wenig.” This well-known prepositional formula, ‫ ל־‬.. ‫בין‬, mostly means ‘between X and Y,’ i.e. some third entity is situated between X and Y or something is taking place between the two. Here, however, the formula means ‘irrespective of X or Y, the same applies to both.’22 Significantly this non-standard 18

Thus pace Carmignac’s (20) “ainsi que.” Qimron does not parse ‫וחזק‬. In his grammar (2018.331, § E 2.5.1) he writes that segholate nouns of the qutl pattern are spelled in three ways in QH: ‫קוטל‬, ‫קטול‬, ‫קוטול‬. We miss ‫קטל‬. Nor at 298f., § E 1.2.1.3 devoted to qutl, no such example is adduced. Take such a common noun as ‫ קדשׁ‬attested hundreds of times in QH, the overwhelming majority is indeed ‫קודש‬, but there is no dearth of ‫קדש‬. To mention just a few instances: ‫ תמים קדש‬CD 7.5, ‫ עי֗ ר הקדש‬ib. 20.22, ‫֗מלאכי‬ ‫הקדש‬ ֗ 4Q226 7.6. By adding a full stop before ‫ ולפי‬Qimron makes it start a new clause. 20 In his earlier edition of the text he raised the same objection, when his reconstruction read ‫למעמדו יביֿ את‬. 21 The translation offered is “s’acquitter.” Cf. Lohse (49): “um auszuüben den Dienst seines Tuns.” 22 Irrespective of whether it is here about the importance or not, Schiffman’s (1989.21) understanding is close to ours: “[Whether im]portant or unimportant,” pace Knibb (150) with his “[according to whether] he has much or little: i.e. in proportion to his ..”. 19

232

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

usage occurs in a late biblical book: ‫ין־ע ְמָּך ַל ְעזוֹר ֵבּין ַרב ְל ֵאין כּ ַֹח‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬2Ch 14.10, which reads in the Jewish Publication Society of America translation as “it is all the same to You to help the numerous and powerless.” This idiom occurs a few more times in QH, see above, p. 89 ad 1QS 4.16. ‫‘ ]יכבדו ֗אי֗ ש מרעהו‬among them one shall attain greater honour than other(s),’ reading the verb as Qal; it could be read as Piel,23 whilst the general sense of the clause would be the same. A similar statement is found in ‫יכבדו איש מרעהו‬ 1QHa 18.29 and ‫‘ לפי דעתם יכבדו איש מרעהו‬depending on their knowledge one will be conferred greater honour than others’ 4Q418 55.10.24 The reading of what is preceded by the verb is uncertain. DJD 1.110 reads ‫זה‬ ‫על זה‬, but the preposition chosen does not justify the translation: “reconnaîtrat-on aux uns une dignité plus élevée qu’aux autres,” for ‫ ִכּ ֶבּד ַעל‬is dubious. No less problematic is ‫( זה לזה‬Licht 259; Charlesworth 112). If we follow Qimron (I 236) and read ‫לפי זה‬ ֯ ֯‫ו‬, the preceding ‫ בין רוב למועט‬must be construed with what precedes the phrase. 1QSa 1.19) ‫‘ ]ברובות שני איש‬when one’s age advances.’ On the anomalous waw after the first radical, see Qimron 2018.215, § C 3.2.5.9. The pl. of a highly common noun, ‫שׁנָ ה‬, ָ comes in two forms, ending with ‫ים‬- or ‫וֹת‬-. According to BL (515 l) the former is the more primitive, the latter having arisen from a nomen unitatis with a fem. morpheme /-atu/ suffixed. In BDB s.v. (1040a) we read on the latter “poet. and late,” and HALOT s.v. 1600b, in addition to references to a couple of modern studies, concludes with “pl. ‫ָשׁנִ ים‬ 143 times; ‫ ָשׁנוֹת‬19 times, mostly in poetic texts.” In QH the statistical imbalance between the two is more drastic, the latter attested once only in ‫שנ֗ ו֗ תיהם‬ 4Q177 1-4.11. We should note then that the BH variant labelled late and poetic occurs only once, whereas ‫ ָשׁנִ ים‬is absolutely predominant, even in poetic texts, e.g. ‫ שני עולם‬1QHa 3.24, 9.26 and ‫ שני נצח‬ib. 9.21. There is another interesting and important feature of complementary distribution: the ‫וֹת‬- variant occurs exclusively in the cst. or with a suffix pronoun, and HALOT’s ‫ ָשׁנוֹת‬is a ghost form.25 An analogous phenomenon is observable also with ‫יוֹם‬, thus ‫ יָ ִמים‬vs. cst. ‫ יְ מוֹת‬alongside ‫יְ ֵמי‬, but never ‫יָ מוֹת‬. 23 So Charlesworth (113), whose translation, however, has not taken the preposition ‫ מ־‬into account: “(each) man shall honor his fellow.” 24 One misses the feature of comparison also in the translation in DJD 34.267: “According to each one’s understanding will his glory be increased.” 25 Ugaritic, an ancient Semitic language cognate to Hebrew, does use šnt in the non-cst. state as in šbʻ šnt ‘seven years’ as well as with a suf. pron., e.g. šntk ‘your years.’ Tropper (2000.300) doubts that ab šnm can really mean ‘father of years.’ Cognate languages can thus differ from one another in a morphological detail such as this, cf. Arb. sg. sanat, pl. sinūn, and Arm. sg. šattā < šantā, pl. šnayyā, not šnātā. HALOT s.v. ‫ ָשׁנָ ה‬loc. cit. mentions Michel 1977.39, 43ff., where the -ōt pl. is said to mark multiple individual entities (“Einzelplural”) and the -īm plural marks multiple entities as a group (“Gruppenplural”). Is such an opposition observable between ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ יְ מוֹת‬Dt 32.7 and ‫ימי עולם‬ 1QHa 9.17? In any case, Michel did not take into account the above-mentioned morphosyntactic complementary alternation nor the diachronic aspect.

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

233

1QSa 1.19b - 22a and no simpleton whosoever 1.20) shall join the selection to hold office in the congregation of Israel to contest a verdict and to bear any responsibility in the congregation 1.21) and to take up a position in a war to defeat the Gentiles. However, he shall enter his family in the army register 1.22) and he shall perform the onerous, hard labour in proportion to his ability, ‫‘ ]כול איש פותי אל יבוא‬no simpleton whosoever shall join.’ The absolute, categorical negation with a sg. noun is reinforced through ‫ כול‬added, see SQH § 40 g. 1QSa 1.20) ‫‘ ]לריב משפט‬to contest a verdict.’ In the earlier edition Qimron read ‫לריב ומשפט‬, where ‫ ריב‬is a verbal noun, but now it is either an infinitive with ‫ משפט‬as its object [= ‫]ל ִריב‬ ָ or still a verbal noun in the st. cst. with an objective genitive following (SQH § 21 b xiv) [= ‫]ל ִריב‬. ְ In ‫משפטכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗ב ֗ר י֗ ֗ב ֗ך‬when you contest a verdict pronounced on you’ 4Q417 2i14, to which Qimron refers, we have an infinitive. 1QSa 1.21) ‫]ר ֗ק בסרך ֗ה ֗צבא יכתוב משפחתו‬ ֗ ‘he shall mention his name in the army register,’ i.e. this is all that he is required or allowed to do as far as his involvement with the army is concerned. This high-frequency particle, ‫רק‬,ַ is mostly to be construed with a word or phrase which immediately follows it as in, e.g. ‫ וְ ָכ ל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשׁבֹת ִלבּוֹ ַרק ַר ע‬Gn 6.5, i.e. ‘nothing but wicked.’ The particle so used can occupy any position in a phrase or a clause. However, at times ‫ רק‬is to be construed with the whole clause that follows and by definition it is positioned up front, e.g. ‫ל־תּ ֲעשׂוּ ָד ָבר‬ ַ ‫יכם ַרק ָל ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָה ֵאל ַא‬ ֶ ֵ‫וַ ֲעשׂוּ ָל ֶהן ַכּטּוֹב ְבּ ֵעינ‬ Gn 19.8. From the context of our 1QSa example the particle here represents the second usage; an important qualification is added to the preceding statement.26 Unless we assume a scribal error, ‫ יכתוב‬for ‫תכתוב‬, ‫ משפחתו‬cannot be its subject,27 but object.28 1QSa 1.22) ‫‘ ]עבודת המס‬the onerous, manual labour’ that needed to be executed in the course of a military operation. ‫ ַמס‬were the chores imposed by a succession of Pharaohs on Israelites in Egypt, but here not by foreign overlords, cf. ‫ל־ה ָא ֶר ץ וְ ִאיֵּ י ַהיָּ ם‬ ָ ‫]א ַח ְשׁוֵ רוֹשׁ[ ַמס ַע‬ ֲ ‫ וַ יָּ ֶשׂם ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ֲא ָח ֵשׁר ֹשׁ‬Est 10.1. 1QSa 1.22b - 27a and the sons of Levi shall each take up his position 1.23) as instructed by the sons of Aaron the priests in leading in and leading out the entire congregation, each person in his rank, as directed by the patriarchal 1.24) heads of the congregation. (And they shall serve) as captains and as judges and as officers 26 27 28

For further BH examples illustrating the two kinds of ‫רק‬, see BDB s.v. 1 b - c. Pace Vermes (158), Knibb (148), and Dupont-Sommer (50). Alternatively the verb could be impersonal, as assumed by Licht 260.

234

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

in proportion to the number of all their hosts as instructed by the sons of Zadok the priests 1.25) [and all] the patriarchal heads of the congregation. And if there is to be a convocation of the entire assembly, whether for judgement or 1.26) for decision by the community or for a convocation of war, then they shall keep them clean for three days so that everyone who comes 1.27) may be well prepared for the council. 1QSa 1.23) ‫אבו֗ ֗ת העדה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]על יד ראשי‬as directed by the patriarchal heads of the congregation.’ ‫על יד‬, according to Licht (260), is synonymous with ‫על פי‬ ָ ַ‫‘ ְבּנֵ י ָא ָסף ַע ל י‬the sons of Asaph (were) under the (earlier in the line),29 cf. ‫ד־א ָסף‬ supervision of Asaph’ 1Ch 25.2; ‫‘ ַע ל־יָ ָדם ֵחיל ָצ ָבא‬under their command was an army of troops’ 2Ch 26.13. 1QSa 1.25) ‫תעודה תהיה לכול הקהל‬ ֗ ‫]אם‬ ֿ ‘if there is to be a convocation of the entire assembly.’ Qimron (1986.115)30 indicated a new meaning of ‫עוּדה‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬as evolved in QH: ‫התועדות‬, a suggestion accepted by Charlesworth (115, fn. 46) with his translation, “convocation.” 1QSa 1.26) ‫לעצת י֗ חד‬ ֗ appears to be one of three grounds for calling a general meeting of the community, the other two being ‫משפט‬, whereby a member is called as a witness and a verdict is going to fall, and ‫תעודת מלחמה‬. At this convocation issues other than juridical or military are going to be dealt with and they will endeavour to come to agree on a policy as the community. The last phrase, ‫תעודת מלחמה‬, is obscure. Lohse’s (49) “Aufgebot des Krieges,” ‘conscription, call-up for military service’31 is one possibility, but then one and the same word appearing in the three-term coordinate terms, ‘A or B or C,’ is now assigned a different meaning, no longer ‘convocation of a meeting,’ but a decision taken to declare a war and call up members to serve as militaries. Another alternative is to retain the same meaning as in the occurrence of the word one line above: ‘war convocation,’ i.e. a convocation called to deal with matters pertaining to war,32 cf. an English phrase such as war cabinet. Licht (263) remarks that the same phrase occurs also elsewhere: ‫ תעודות מלחמה‬1QM 2.8. We believe, however, that it means something different. The text actually reads: ‫להם אנשי חיל לצאת לצבא כפי תעודות המלחמה שנה בשנה‬8 ‫מכול שבטי ישראל יחלוצו‬ 1QM 2.7f. A number of alternative interpretations have been suggested: “the directives of war” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 115), “les proclamations de guerre” (van der Ploeg 36), “fixed times of war” (DCH 8.658b s.v. ‫עוּדה‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬3), “den Kriegsvorschriften” (Lohse 185), “aux prescriptions de la guerre” (DupontSommer 195) etc., but not “convocation, assembly.”33 29

Cf. Lohse (49): “nach dem Geheiß.” As a matter of fact, Licht (263) had already suggested such (‫ )אסיפה‬as one of a few possible senses of the lexeme at this place, and even earlier Carmignac (22) with his “convocation.” 31 So DJD 1.115: “une mobilisation militaire.” Cf. Carmignac (22) “une déclaration de guerre.” 32 Similarly Schiffman 1989.31. 33 Cf. Yadin 1957.78. 30

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

235

‫‘ ]וקדשום שלושת ימים‬then they shall keep them clean three days.’ ‘they’ are impersonally used, but most likely Levites in effect, and ‘them’ refers to those who come forward for a community convocation, specified later as ‫כול הבא‬34. Licht (263) mentions Ex 19.10f., 14f., a description of the epiphany on Mount Sinai; ‫ל־א ָשּׁה‬ ִ ‫ל־תּגְּ שׁוּ ֶא‬ ִ ‫ֹלשׁת יָ ִמים ַא‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה ָעם ֱהיוּ נְ כֹנִ ים ִל ְשׁ‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ֶא‬ ֶ ‫( וַ יּ‬vs. 15), preceded by ‫ֹלתם‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָעם וַ יְ ַכ ְבּסוּ ִשׂ ְמ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָעם וַ יְ ַק ֵדּשׁ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ָהר ֶא‬ ָ ‫( וַ יֵּ ֶרד מ ֶֹשׁה ִמ‬vs. 14). Did the sanctification at Qumran also consist in washing of members’ clothes and did it entail a three-day long sexual abstinence? The use of the cst. form for cardinal numerals with an indeterminate noun phrase here instead of ‫ שלושה ימים‬is an example of the minority usage in QH, but is solidly attested, see SQH § 26 fa - fc. ‫‘ ]כול הבא‬everyone who comes (to attend).’ The article notwithstanding, the sense is ‘every, each,’ not ‘the whole,’ a syntagm which often occurs with a ptc. sg., e.g. ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬whoever is found’ 1QS 6.2, see SQH § 28 c. 1QSa 1.27) ‫לעצה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]עתי‬well prepared for a discussion.’ The first word was restored as ‫ עתיד‬already in DJD 1.110. As for the second word, Licht (263) already so reads.35 ‫‘ ]האנשים = הנשים‬the people.’ Unlike in the case of ‫בהספם‬ ֗ 1.1 discussed above we have here little difficulty in postulating a phonetic simplification of /hā’ănāšim/ > /hānāšim/. 1QSa 1.27b - 2.3a These are the people who are summoned to the community council .. all 1.28) the w[ise men] of the congregation and the intelligent and the experts impeccable in conduct and the intrepid men with 1.29) [the heads of the tr]ibes and all their judges and their officers and the captains of thousands and the captains [of hundreds] 2.1) and of fifties and of tens and the Levites in the compartments for His service. These 2.2) are the renowned men invited for the occasion who gather for the council of the community in Israel 2.3) in front of the sons of Zadok the priests, 1QSa 1.28) ‫‘ ]הידעים‬the knowledgeable, experts.’ Licht (263) rightly mentions, as a source text for this list, ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ָהבוּ ָל ֶכם ֲאנָ ִשׁים ֲח ָכ ִמים וּנְ בֹנִ ים וִ ֻיד ִעים ְל ִשׁ ְב ֵט‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ימם ְבּ ָר‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ֲא ִשׂ‬Dt 1.13. He further notes that our author probably understood 34 Schiffman’s (1989.30) and Charlesworth’s (115) “they shall sanctify them(selves)” indicate their analysis of the suf. pron. ‫ם‬- as reflexive, which never occurs in BH, though such is attested in Ben Sira, e.g. ‫ אל תחשיבך‬Si 7.16 (LXX: μὴ προσλογίζου σεαυτόν). Cf. JM § 146 k. 35 DJD 1.110 reads ‫להנה‬ ֯ with a mysterious rendition of ‫ל ֵהנָּ ה‬,ָ “pour la date fixée.” Barthélemy notes that the sense known of ‫ ֵהנָּ ה‬is only locative. Moreover, in BH and QH alike the only preposition known to be prefixed is ‫עד‬. ַ When in the only remaining line of a fragment is restored as ]‫[שעו לו להנא‬ ֗ 4Q481a 1.1 one does not know what it could contribute to the issue under consideration.

236

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫ ידעים‬in his source text in the sense of ‘experts,’ an interpretation which Licht notes is represented in LXX (συνετούς) and Trg Jonathan (‫‘ מארי מנדעה‬knowledgeable’). Pace Qimron (1995.309f.)36 these ancient versions not necessarily read ‫יַ ָדּ ִעים‬37, for ‫יְ ֻד ִעים‬, a passive ptc., can indicate a result arising from a past action as in ‫ידוּע ח ִֹלי‬ ַ ִ‫‘ ו‬acquainted with illness out of past experience’ Is 53.3, cf. LXX εἰδὼσ φέρειν μαλακίαν, where the selection of the Pf. act. ptc. is to be noted.38 All the same, ‫ יְ ֻד ִעים‬alone with no direct object is unnatural. We should settle on ‫יַ ָדּ ִעים‬, a lexeme previously unknown. ‫‘ ]תמימי הדרך‬impeccable in conduct.’ Since there is no conjunction waw prefixed, whilst a few more groups of people expected to attend are all prefixed with it, the phrase does not represent a fourth group, but is meant to describe the immediately preceding group or all the first three groups qualified in terms of the knowledge.39 Knowledge alone, not matching and underpinned with your commendable morality and way of life, does not suffice.40 The addition of the definite article is due to the fact that the phrase qualifies three determinate noun phrases. If the phrase is simplified to a simple adjective, one would write ‫התמימים‬. This analysis is supported by the fact that the construct phrase ‫ תמים דרך‬or ‫תמימי‬ ‫ דרך‬is quite frequent in QH, but never determinate as here. E.g. ‫להשכיל תמימי‬ ‫ דרך‬1QS 4.22. ‫]ואנישי החיל‬. It is generally thought that the reference here is not to militaries, soldiers, though the same phrase is used in a military context in ‫אנשי חיל לצאת‬ ‫ לצבא‬1QM 2.8, though ‫ אנשי חיל‬need not be translated “warriors” as in Vermes (105), for instance, but “intrepid men” (García Martínez - Tigchelaar 115) would do, for the following ‫ לצאת לצבא‬makes it plain what their mission is going to be. If ‫ אנישי החיל‬is meant to be an added characterisation of the preceding three group(s) of people41 as expressed with “able-bodied men” (Knibb 151), for instance, the definite article is to be analysed in the same away as we have just done with ‫תמימי הדרך‬. The conjunction we prefixed to ‫ אנישי‬does not introduce a fourth group of participants at the convocation. The syntactic hierarchy of these noun phrases could be visualised as below: A (‫)כול חכמי העדה‬ B (‫)הנבונים‬ 36

In Qimron I 236 the page numbers are wrongly given as 303-04. Qimron (I 236) vocalises our 1QSa form as ‫היְּ ָד ִע ים‬, ַ whilst in a more recent publication of his (2018.61) he mentions both alternatives, though we do not know what the headword of ‫ יְ ָד ִע ים‬is. 38 Cf. JM § 121 o, p. 388 fn. 3. 39 As clearly brought out with the use of a relative clause in Lohse (49): “.. und die Kundigen, die vollkommenen Wandels sind, und die Männer ..”. Cf. also Wise - Abegg - Cook (146): “.. knowledgeable, who are blameless ..”. 40 A point that has become blurred in Knibb’s (151) translation with the deletion of and between the first two groups. 41 We agree here with Carmignac’s (23, n. 57) analysis. 37

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

237

C (‫)הידעים‬ Ca (‫)תמימי הדרך‬ Cb (‫)אנישי החיל‬ Alternatively: < A + B + C [Ca + Cb]>. ‫השבטים‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]עמ שרי‬together with the leaders of the tribes.’ Though Qimron (I 236) restores ‫‘ ראשי‬heads of’ instead of ‫שרי‬, DJD 1.116 justly refers to a number of BH sources, e.g. ‫ל־שׂ ֵרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ָשׂ ֵרי ַה ְשּׁ ָב ִטים וְ ָשׂ ֵרי ַה ַמּ ְח ְלקוֹת‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ְק ֵהל ָדּוִ יד ֶא‬ ‫וּל ָבנָ יו‬ ְ ‫כוּשׁ־וּמ ְקנֶ ה ַל ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ִ ‫ל־ר‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך וְ ָשׂ ֵר י ָה ֲא ָל ִפים וְ ָשׂ ֵר י ַה ֵמּאוֹת וְ ָשׂ ֵר י ָכ‬ ַ ‫ַה ְמ ָשׁ ְר ִתים ֶא‬ 1Ch 28.1. The initial preposition, ‫עם‬, ִ most likely governs not only ‫שרי השבטים‬, but also the immediately following four noun phrases: ‫וכול שופטיהם ושוטריהם‬ ‫ושרי האלפים ושרי המאות‬. At the end of line 29 Qimron (I 236) has restored ‫ושרי‬ ‫המאות‬. But this does not harmonise with what follows, the first line of Col. 2, which reads ‫ולחמשים ולעשרות‬.42 Better to read with Licht (263) and Schiffman (1989.32) ‫ושרי האלפים ושרים למאות‬.43 1QSA COLUMN 2 1QSa 2.1) ‫מחלקו֗ ֗ת ֯עבו֗ דתו‬ ֯ ‫‘ ]והלויים בתוך‬the Levites in the compartments for His service.’ Some translators seem mentally to have supplied a word such as ‫איש‬, e.g. “les lévites, (chacun) au milieu ..” (Carmignac 22), “Levites, each man in the [cla]ss of his duty” (Vermes 159) and “jeder .. seines Dienstes” (Lohse 49), something like ‫והלויים איש בתוך וגו׳‬. However, there are many cases where God is not explicitly mentioned nearby, but can be mentally supplied from the context as in ‫ המתנדבים ביחד להקים את בריתו ולפקוד את כול חוקיו אשר צוה לעשות‬1QS 5.22, ‫ כאשר צוה‬ib. 9.24, ‫ בראשית אשמורי חושך כיא יפתח אוצרו‬ib. 10.2. This applies to his and him as well or to a personal pronoun in any person and number for that matter. At the very start of 1QSa we read: ‫המה אנושי עצתו אשר שמרו בריתו בתוך‬ ‫‘ רשעה‬.. His council .. His covenant ..’. This could apply here. 1QSa 2.2) ‫‘ ]אנישי השם‬the renowned men,’ not “the men of the name” (Charlesworth 115); it is a standing expression in BH, e.g. Gn 6.4. ‫‘ קיראי מועד‬invited for the occasion.’ The idiomatic English calls for the use of the here. The absence of the definite article in the Hebrew phrase signifies that the groups of individuals and functionaries mentioned have an officially allocated seat on each such occasion. We may have here a parenthetical description of the people concerned: ‘invitees to an assembly,’ cf. SQH § 32 d. ‫ קיראי‬is a misspelling for ‫קריאי‬, an Aramaising passive ptc. for Heb. ‫רוּאי‬ ֵ ‫ק‬. ְ 44 42 From the photo of the text we see clearly that line 29 was meant to be the last of Col. 1 and was to be continued with the first of Col. 2. 43 Lohse’s (48) [‫]ל ֵמּאוֹת‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָשׂ ֵר‬is questionable, for it cannot be continued with the conjunction we: ‫ולחמשים ולעשרות‬. 44 Qimron (I 237) calls the form a phonetic variant of ‫קריאי‬, whilst in Qimron 2018.111, § B 3.2 it is cited as a case of yod miswritten.

238

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QSa 2.3b - 10 2.3b) and no person infected with any one of human 2.4) impurities shall enter the gathering of these (people). No person infected with these is 2.5) to hold office within the congregation, and no one infected in his body, crippled in legs or 2.6) in hands, lame or blind or deaf or dumb or infected with a defect in his body, as it appears 2.7) from the outside or a tottering old man incapable of standing (or: sitting) straight within the congregation, 2.8) these are not enter to take a seat in the congregation of the renowned men, because holy 2.9) angels are in their congregation. And if [one of] these has something to speak about to the holy congregation, 2.10) one shall investigate it (or: him) personally, but the person shall not enter [the congregation], because he is infected. 1QSa 2.3) ‫טומאות האדם‬ ֗ ‫באחת מכול‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]מנוגע‬infected with any one of human impurities.’ The Piel, both active and passive, is used in BH as a technical medical term for infection, esp. leprosy in ‫ נִ גְּ עוֹ יהוה‬2Ch 26.20, cf. ‫ִמי ֶשׁנִּ ְכנַ ס ְל ַביִת ַה ְמנֻ גָּ ע‬ ‘he who entered a house afflicted with leprosy’ mNeg 13.9. Licht (264) points out that in MH the term ‫ מנוגע‬is applied only to infected clothes and houses, but the two attestations may be only partial, for the related noun ‫ נֶ גַ ע‬is often used in MH with reference to human leprosy, e.g. mNeg 2.2. 1QSa 2.4) ‫ ]בקהל אלה‬DJD 1.117 emended ‫ אלה‬to ‫אל‬, on the ground that the text derives from Dt 23.1-3, where we have ‫ק ַהל יהוה‬, ְ an emendation followed by many, e.g. Carmignac (22): “l’assemblée de [Dieu].” But we have no problem with Habermann’s (60) ‫ק ַהל ֵא ֶלּה‬. ְ So also Licht 264. Could one imagine a Qumran scribe making such a grave error? ‫באלה ֗ל ֗ב ֗לתי החזיק מעמד בתוכ העדה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ]כול איש מנוגע‬anyone infected with these is not to hold office within the congregation.’ The negated inf. here is syntactically equivalent to an Impf., also with obligative or prohibitive value, thus pace Schiffman’s (1989.38) “so as not to.” This inf. syntagm is parallel to ‫ אל יבוא‬earlier in the line. The position of the subject before the inf. is also parallel to this fully fledged verbal clause. Another rare case is found in ‫‘ ביום נפול בי כתיים‬on the day when the Kittim are defeated’ 1QM 1.9. 1QSa 2.5) ‫]נכאה ֗ר ֯ג ֗לי֯ ֗ם‬ ֗ ‘crippled in the legs.’ Barring a spelling difference, the same idiom occurs in ‫ נְ ֵכה ַרגְ ַליִ ם‬2Sm 4.4, 9.3. We fail to see why Qimron (2018.230, § C 3.3.6.7) parses ‫ נכאה‬as Nif. ptc. 1QSa 2.6) ‫]מום מנוגע‬, a phrase difficult to analyse grammatically, for ‫‘ מום‬a bodily defect’ cannot be grammatical subject of the following passive participle. Should we perhaps restore ‫?במום‬ 1QSa 2.8) ‫‘ ]אל יבואו אלה‬these shall not come,’ as read in DJD 1.110. Qimron’s (I 237) ‫ ֯לאלה‬makes little sense.

1QSA = 1Q28A RULE OF THE CONGREGATION

239

1QSa 2.10) ‫]ידורשוהו‬ ֗ ‘one shall investigate it (or: him),’ a reading (Qimron I 237) definitely preferable to ‫ ודורשוהו‬DJD 1.110; the second waw can be explicable in QH οnly if the verb is Impf. Neither in BH (JM § 176) nor in QH (SQH § 41 c) is an Impv. prefixed with an apodotic waw. ‫ ]לוא יבוא‬It is difficult to identify any difference between ‫ לוא‬and ‫ אל‬in ‫אל‬ ‫( יבואו‬line 8), cf. SQH 40 a. 1QSa 2.11 - 22 2.11) This is the session of the renowned people [, invitees for] the occasion to the assembly of the community council. If the 2.12) priest-messiah summons them, he will come and sit at the head of the entire congregation of Israel and all 2.13) [his brethren out of the sons of] Aaron the priests, [invitees for the] occasions, the renowned men and they will seat themselves 2.14) be[fore him each] according to his honour, and thereafter [the messi]ah of Israel [will come] and the heads of [thousands of the congregation] will seat themselves 2.15) [each] according to his honour in proportion to [his standing] in their camps and during their marches. And all 2.16) the patriarchal h[eads of the con]gregation, together with their wise men [and their experts] will seat themselves before them, each in proportion to 2.17) his honour and [if] they gather for the common ta[ble and to drink the new] wine and the common table 2.18) is set [or the] new wine [is poured] to be drunk, no man shall extend his hand to the first portion 2.19) of the bread and [the new wine] ahead of the priest, because [it is he that] is going to bless the first portion of the bread 2.20) and the new wi[ne and he shall stretch out] his hand first and thereaf[ter] the messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 2.21) to the bread, and thereafter the entire congregation of the community shall say benedictions, e[ach as appropriate to] his honour, and according to this ruling they shall do 2.22) to every sta[tus if] up to ten people gather. 1QSa 2.11) ‫ ]מושב‬Qimron (I 237) reads ‫זה מושב‬. We doubt that the blank in the manuscript has as many as five letter spaces. 4Q249h reads ‫הנה מוֿ שב‬. 1QSa 2.14) ‫‘ ]ואחר‬and thereafter,’ pace “And after (them)” (Charlesworth 117). The adverbial use of ‫ ַא ַחר‬is solidly attested in BH, e.g. ‫ת־ל ֶחם וְ ַס ֲעדוּ ִל ְבּ ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶא ְק ָחה ַפ‬ ‫ ַא ַחר ַתּ ֲעבֹרוּ‬Gn 18.5, see BDB s.v. 1 b for more examples. 1QSa 2.15) ‫‘ ]במסעיהם‬during their journeys’; for the significance in this context of the reference to the forty-year long journey in the desert, see Schiffman 1989.54, n. 15. We would follow DJD 1.118 and emend the preposition ‫ כ־‬to ‫ב־‬. 1QSa 2.17) ‫‘ ]ערוך השולחן היחד‬the communal table is set.’ The substantival use of ‫ יחד‬in QH in the sense of ‘community’ is well known, but not adjectival. An error for ‫?שולחן היחד‬

240

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QSa 2.18) ‫‘ ]אל ישלח איש את ידו ברשת הלחם‬no man shall extend his hand to the first portion of the bread.’45 Pace Schiffman (1989.55, fn. 27) ‫ברשת‬ cannot be translated “first” as adverbial, for ‫ הלחם‬cannot stand without some preposition prefixed to it. This becomes clearer in the next line: ‫הואה יברך את‬ ‫‘ רשית הלחם‬it is he [= the priest] that is going to bless the first portion of the bread.’ On the addition of the preposition -‫ ב‬in this combination, ‫שׁ ַלח יָ ד‬, ָ see ‫אכת ֵר ֵעהוּ‬ ֶ ‫ ִאם־ל ֹא ָשׁ ַלח יָ דוֹ ִבּ ְמ ֶל‬Ex 22.7. This syntagm often carries a negative connotation, so also ‫ֹלח יָ ִדי ִבּ ְמ ִשׁ ַיח יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫יתי ִל ְשׁ‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא ָא ִב‬1Sm 26.23, but not always as we see in the following lines describing what the priest and the messiah do: ‫ישל ֗ח משיח ישראל ידיו בלחם‬ ֯ ‫ואחר‬ ֗ ‫( וישלח ידו בלחם לפנים‬line 20). 1QSa 2.20) ‫‘ ]לפנים‬first,’ i.e. ‘ahead of other participants.’ Licht (270) justly point outs that the phrase in BH carries a different meaning, ‘formerly,’ e.g. Ru 4.7, whereas the value similar to what we find here is attested three times in Si, e.g. ‫‘ ַבּ ֵקּר ְל ָפנִ ים ואחר ַתּזִ יף‬First investigate, then you may rebuke’ Si 11.7, where the combination ‫ לפנים ואחר‬is precisely what we find in our text. ‫ידיו‬, if not a scribal error, is equivalent to ‫‘ ידו‬his hand’ earlier in the line. Cf. our discussion above on ‫ עלוהי‬1QS 5.5. 1QSa 2.21) Is Qimron’s (I 237) ‫יסרכו‬ ̇ must be a typo for ‫יברכו‬. ̇ 1QSa 2.22) One does not know why Qimron (I 237) now restores ‫ מעמד‬to replace his earlier ‫מערכה‬. What sense does he assign to his new reading? Status borne by diverse groups of temple functionaries?

45

In his new edition (2020) Qimron has changed ‫ אל‬to ‫ לוא‬with no comment.

1QSB = 1QS 28B BENEDICTIONS

1QSb 1.1 - 2.21 1.1) Words of benediction. It is up to the instructor to bless those who fear [God, choose] His will, observe His commandments, 1.2) and adhere to His sacred covenant and walk with integrity [along the paths of His tru]th, and may He choose them for an eternal 1.3) covenant wh[ich sh]all endure for ever! May the Lo[rd, from His holy residence] bless you! And an eternal fountain 1.4) which will [never disappoint] may He open for you! From the sky [may He shower upon you to feed you and grasp] 1.5) your hand [always and may He gr]ant you all [eternal] blessin[gs and help you to lead] the congregation of holy peop[le 1.6) because you have become] an eternal foun[tain] and He will now withhold [its water from] the thirsty and you will [be 1.7) [ May He res]cue you from all [evil ones because you] dislike iniquity [ ] 1.8) [ May He keep away from you ev]ery adversary [ h]oliness and His sp[irit] 1.9) [ ] holiness 1.10) [ ] His holiness [ ] MISSING LINES 1.26) [ ] ever may He bring you 2.1) [ ]your forefathers 2.2) [ ]He will carry your [ 2.3) [ ]your [ 2.4) [ ] upon [ 2.6) [ ] (?) 1QSb 1.1) ‫ברכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ דברי‬words of benediction,’ the title of this document. ‫‘ למשכיל לברכ‬it is up to the instructor to bless,’ where the inf. clause constitutes the subject of a nominal clause. On this structure with , see SQH § 18 d. Likewise ‫‘ למשכיל לברך את נשיא העדה‬.. to bless the prince of the congregation’ 1QSb 5.20. ‫בר ֯ית קודשו והולכים תמים בדרכי‬ ֯ ‫ומחז֗ קי‬ ֗ ‫לברכ את יראיו בוחרי ֗ר ֗צו֗ נ֗ ו ֗שו֗ ֗מרי מצוותיו‬ ‫אמתו‬ ֗ ‘to bless those who fear Him, choose His will, observe His commandments and adhere to His sacred covenant and walk with integrity along the paths of His truth.’ Accepting a suggestion made by two of his colleagues, Ariel and Yuditsky, Qimron (I 238) offers ‫ בוחרי‬replacing his earlier restoration, ‫עושי‬. He has further replaced ‫ יראי אל‬with ‫יראיו‬, but in the first clause of a new document we would rather that God is explicitly mentioned. Although the priestly blessing begins with ‫יברככה בכול טוב‬, and not ‫ יברככה אל בכול טוב‬in 1QS 2.2, the preceding introduction does mention ‫אל‬:

242

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

‫( הכוהנים מברכים את כול אנשי גורל אל ההולכים תמים בכול דרכיו‬line 1).

The inconsistent coordination here with is to be noted. No logical argument suggests itself. Cf. SQH § 38 g. 1QSb 1.2) We would parse ‫ מחזקי‬as a defectiva spelled Hif. ptc. pl. cst., and ‫ מחזקי ברית קודשו‬as equivalent to ‫המחזיקים בברית קודשו‬.1 The preposition prefixed to an object of a cst. ptc. can be optionally left out as in ‫אשרי תומכי חוקיה‬ ‘those who support its laws’ 4Q425 2ii-3.1, followed immediately by ‫ולוא‬ ‫‘ יתמוכו בדרכי עולה‬and would not support perverse paths’; for further details, cf. SQH § 31 r 5. On ‫החזיק ב‬, see ‫ ותחזק נפשי בבריתך‬1QHa 10.30, ‫המחזקים בברית‬ ִ ‫יקים ִבּ ְב ִר‬ ִ ִ‫וּמ ֲחז‬ ַ ‫ ָכּל־שׁ ֵֹמר ַשׁ ָבּת ֵמ ַח ְלּלוֹ‬Is 56.6. 1QS 5.32, and ‫יתי‬ ‫‘ הולכים תמים‬walking with integrity’; on the fossilised, adverbial use of ‫תמים‬, see SQH § 32 c, p. 236, n. 1. See also below at 5.22. ‫ ]ויבחר בם‬Most probably we have here a conjunctive waw, ‘and may He choose them!’ The author is highly unlikely so radically to depart from BH syntax, using a way-yiqtol following a series of participles all expressing the present way of life of their subjects.3 ‫‘ ברית ֗עולם ֯אשר תעמוד לעד‬a covenant that will endure for ever.’ For the sense of ‘to remain in force, endure’ of ‫ עמד‬Qal, cf. ‫עוֹלם ַתּ ֲעמֹד ַמ ְח ְשׁבוֹת ִלבּוֹ‬ ָ ‫ֲע ַצת יְ הוָ ה ְל‬ ‫ ְלד ֹר וָ ד ֹר‬Ps 33.11. 1QSb 1.3) ‫‘ ֯מ ֗קו֗ ֗ר ֗ע ֗ול ֗ם … יפתח לכה‬an eternal fountain .. may He open for you!’ For the collocation ‫פתח מקור‬, cf. ‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא יִ ְהיֶ ה ָמקוֹר נִ ְפ ָתּח ְל ֵבית ָדּוִ יד‬Zc 13.1. 1QSb 1.5) ‫ ]ויחונ֯ נכה‬Supposing that the well-known high-priestly benediction is at the back of our author’s mind, we probably have here what is equivalent to ָ‫יחנֶּ ךּ‬ ֻ ִ‫ ו‬Nu 6.25. In this source text (Nu 6.24-26) there are used five more verbs, all with God as the subject, and two are explicitly vocalised as jussive יָ ֵשׂם‬, and another two have no trace of an energic nun יִ ְשׁ ְמ ֶרָך‬. Thus ָ‫ יְ ֻחנֶּ ךּ‬stands out, when it could have been ‫ ;יְ ָחנְּ ָך‬cp. ‫ יְ ָחנֵּ נוּ‬Ps 67.72 as against ‫ לֹא יְ ֻחנֶּ נּוּ‬Is 27.11.4 We suspect that the author of 1QSb had high regard for the model benediction in Nu 6 and copied this particular verb in the way its form would eventually come down in the Tiberian tradition, for the unvocalised ‫ יחנך‬could represent ‫יְ ָחנְּ ָך‬. By the same token, ‫( יברככה‬line 3) would represent ‫יְ ָב ֶר ְכ ָכה‬, not ‫ יְ ָב ְר ֶכ ָכּה‬with an energic nun assimilated. The same form is found Charlesworth (122f.) prefers to read ‫בר]וח[ קודשו‬ ֯ ֿ‫ומחז֯ קי‬ ֯ “are sustained by his Holy S[spirit].” DCH III 186a mentions this last example along with our 1QSb instance as ‫ חזק‬Pi. meaning “to hold, grasp.” We doubt, however, that ‫ ִחזֵּ ק‬means that. Another instance mentioned there, ‫לא‬ ‫ יחזקו עוד את עצתם‬4Q169 3-4iii8 is all the more unlikely in view of ‫את‬, and not -‫ ;ב‬we could translate it ‘they will no longer fortify their community.’ As doubtful is Lohse’s (54f.) ‫ְמ ַחזְּ ֵקי ִבּ ְב ִ]רי[ת‬ “die festhalten an seinem .. Bu[n]d.” 3 Thus pace Charlesworth (123): “and he chose.” 4 Cp. LXX οὐ μὴ ἐλεήσῃ as against οἰκτιρήσαι (optative). 1 2

1QSB = 1QS 28B BENEDICTIONS

243

twice more in our document (1QSb 2.26, 27), and the shorter spelling, ‫יחונכה‬ twice (ib. 22, 23). These additional instances occur in a rather fragmentary portion, which makes it difficult to determine their aspectual value with confidence.5 1QSb 2.22 - 3.21 MISSING LINES 2.22) [ ] May the Lord graciously confer on you [eternal know]ledge [ ] 2.23) [ ]? May He make you happy and be gracious to you 2.24) to be gracious to you with a holy spirit and merc[y ] 2.25) and an eternal covenant. May He be gracious to you and [ ] 2.26) and may He be gracious to you with righteous judgement [ ] you will not stumb[le] 2.27) and may He be gracious to you in all your deeds [ ]your and in all [ 2.28) in] eternal truth [ ] on all your descendan[ts ] 3.1) May the Lord lift up His countenance towards you and may your soothing ar[oma be to His pleasure ] 3.2) may He choose and concern Himself with all your holy people and [ May He li]ft up 3.3) His countenance towards all of your congregation. May He place on your head [ ] 3.4) with His honour [and may He] sanctify your posterity with eternal honour. May He [ ] 3.5) the sons of [] may He give you eternal peace and kingdom [ ] 3.6) [ ] from flesh and with ho[ly] angels [ ] 3.7) May He battle [in front of] your thousand and [from a foun]tain of eter[nity ] 3.8) [ ] from all of them [ 3.9) [ ]? [ ] MISSING LINES 3.17) [ ] the fulness [ ] 3.18) [ to] bring down for you many peo[ple]s and not 3.19) [ ] all the wealth of the earth to guide from a fountain 3.20) [ ] and [ you] shall enquire Him, for God laid down all the foundations of 3.21) [ ] He made your peace secure for all eternity 1QSb 2.23) ‫‘ ]ישעשענכה‬May He make you feel happy!,’ pace Charlesworth (125) ‘may he take delight in you,’ cf. ‫‘ ֯ב ֯רוח ֯קו֯ דשכה תשעשענ֯ י‬with Your holy spirit you will make me rejoice’ 1QHa 17.32. 1QSb 3.1) ‫‘ ]ישא אדוני פניו אליכה‬May the Lord lift up His countenance towards you.’ When the Master pronounced benedictions, did he make the suffix pronoun of ‫ אדוני‬to himself as suggested by Carmignac’s (36) “mon Seigneur”? Or did he use it as a divine title in lieu of the tetragrammaton? ‫ אדוני‬meets us another three times in this document: 2.22, 3.25, 5.23, unlike which our current 5 At line 5 Qimron (I 238) is not certain about its reading, suggesting ‫ ויחונ֯ כה‬as an alternative. However, the two additional attestations are epigraphically assured, which holds for the two shorter forms as well.

244

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

instance is all the more significant because the benediction is a verbatim copy of Nu 6.25, where, however, we find ‫ יהוה‬in the MT. Whilst his Hellenophone coreligionists had their God’s ineffable name into Greek as κύριος, here we have an early translation of it into Hebrew. Among DSS this use of ‫ אדוני‬is particularly prominent in Hodayoth, e.g. ‫ ברוך אתה אדוני אל הרחמי֯ ֯ם‬1QHa 18.16. 1QSb 3.2) ‫ ]כול קודשיכה‬This common substantive, ‫קודש‬, is at times used in the sense of “holy person.” So in ‫‘ יבדלו קודש‬they shall form a separate group of saints’ 1QS 8.11; ‫‘ שמכה לקדוש קודשים‬He appointed you as the holiest person’ 4Q418 81+81a4 with a v.l. ‫ לקדוש קודשים‬4Q423 8.3.6 1QSb 3.20) ֯‫‘ אל הכין כול אושי‬God laid all the foundations of ..’; ‫ אושׁ‬has first turned up in QH, whilst its Aramaic cognate, ‫אוּשׁיָּ א‬ ַ Ezr 4.12, 5.16, and TrgJ 1Kg 7.7, was long known.7 1QSb 3.22 - 5.19 3.22) Words of benediction. It is up to [the master to bless] all the sons of Zadok the priests whom 3.23) God chose to confirm His covenant for [ever and (for them) to examine all His statutes within His people and to teach them 3.24) as He commanded, and they truthfully consolidated [His covenant] and justly paid attention to His precepts and walked accordingly as 3.25) He chose (them). May the Lord bless you from His [holy residence] and make you a perfect ornament in the midst of [the congregation of] 3.26) saints, and may He renew [eternal] priesthood for you and make you a fountain of [blessing in] 3.27) the holy [congregation], and may with your deeds [all] nobles be pr[aised] and from the utterance of the lips of your mouth all the captains of 3.28) peoples. May He let you inherit the first fruits of [all deli]cacies and desire of every human, may He bless the stre[ngth] of your hand 4.1) He will be pleased with wor[ks of] your [hands] and [ ] 4.2) and your offer[ing] will please Him and your cro[wn ] 4.3) blessings [] a wreath for your head holi[nes ] 4.4) [ ] two [ ] 4.5) ? [ ] MISSING LINES 4.20) [ ] to investigate [ ] 4.21) [ ] to him on [ ] 4.22) [ ] you and He will declare you innocent from every spirit [ ] because He chose you [ ] 4.23) and to raise (your voice) at the head of holy ones and to bl[ess] your people [ ] the 6 For further data, see BDB s.v. ‫ ק ֶֹדשׁ‬4 a and DCH VII 203a 18a. Thus pace DJD 1.124 “toutes tes œuvres saintes,” Dupont-Sommer (54) “tes offrandes sacrées,” and Charlesworth (125) “ho[l]y (times).” 7 This is one of the lexemes appearing in Qimron’s (1986.105) list “Words not attested either in BH or in MH.”

1QSB = 1QS 28B BENEDICTIONS

245

entire congregation of your founda[tion] 4.24) the people of the council of God, and not through a captain [may God sp[eak to him, but face to face] like a person to his friend, and you 4.25) are like the angel of the presence in a holy residence for the honour of the God of hos(ts with all angels of Go]d around, ministering in the palace of 4.26) royalty, and casting a lot with the angels of the presence and the council of the community [with holy ones] for an eternal epoch and for all eternal ages, because 4.27) [you taught] His statutes, and may He place you as a holy man in His people and as a luminary [like the sun abo]ve the earth with knowledge and in order to brighten the face of many people 4.28) [with your teaching and may He put upon your head] a crown for the Holy of Holies, because [it is you that He con]secrated for Himself, and you shall glorify His name, and His saints 5.1) you have separated from [ ] 5.2) and without ] 5.3) those who see You [ [ and the covenant of Aaron] 5.4) May He renew for you and pour] 5.5) His spirt on you [ ] 5.6) [ ]?? [ ] 5.7) ( ) and a lord [ ] 5.8) [ ] MISSING LINES 5.17) [ ]? full [ ] 5.18) [ ] with the arrival of all the periods of eternity and He will not [give] your honour to someone else. God will give] 5.19) your beauty to all those who hear a report on you and your splendours [to all ] 1QSb 3.23) ‫]לבחון‬ ֗ ‘to examine, investigate.’ Though what is meant in the context is obscure, it cannot be translated “to distribute” (García Martínez Tigchelaar 107).8 1QSb 3.24) ‫אשר בחר‬ ֗ ‫באמת בריתו ובצדק ֗פקדו כול חוקיו ויתהלכו ֗כ‬ ֗ ‫ויקימו‬. Both Habermann (161) and Lohse (56) vocalise the verbs as ‫ וַ יִּ ְת ַה ְלּכוּ‬.. ‫וַ יָּ ִקימוּ‬, and most scholars so translate them except Milik (DJD I.124): “afin de les instruire selon ce qu’il a ordonné et pour qu’ils rétablissent avec fidélité [son alliance] et qu’avec justice ils veillent à l’observance de tous ses décrets et qu’ils se conduisent selon son bon plaisir.”9 ‫ יקימו‬may be parsed as Piel, cf. ‫ נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְע ִתּי וָ ֲא ַקיֵּ ָמה ִל ְשׁמֹר ִמ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵטי ִצ ְד ֶקָך‬Ps 119.106. 1QSb 3.25) ‫מכ לול הדר‬ ֗ ‘a perfect ornament.’ BH has three lexemes cognate in form and meaning alike and all of infrequent occurrence: ‫מ ְכ לוֹל‬, ִ ‫מ ְכ ָלל‬, ִ and ‫מ ְכ ֻלל‬. ַ The collocation here is apparently a variant on ‫ ִמ ְכ ַלל י ִֹפי‬Ps 50.2. 8 Possibly wrongly influenced by Carmignac (39, n. 39), who restores ‫לחון‬, translated “distribuer volontiers, largement.” 9 Milik is presumably and mentally emending ‫ פקדו‬to ‫יפקדו‬.

246

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QSb 3.27) ‫שפתי ֯פי֯ ֗כה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ממזל‬from the utterance of the lips of your mouth.’ The word ‫ מזל‬is yet another addition to CH, and the collocation ‫ מזל שפתים‬occurs several more times in QH.10 Qimron (2020) now reads the last two words as one: ‫ותיכה‬ ֯ ‫שפת‬ ֗ ‫ממזל‬. This non-standard pl. form of ‫ ָשׂ ָפה‬is characteristic of poetiֶ ‫ ִשׂ ְפ‬Ps 45.3. The only certain QH cal LBH, e.g. ‫ ִשׂ ְפתוֹת ְכּ ִסיל‬Ec 10.12 and ‫תוֹתיָך‬ instance is ‫שפתותיכ ֯ה‬ ֗ 4Q525 14ii27, but // ‫ שפתיכה‬ib. 26. 1QSb 3.28) ‫]עצת כול בשר‬ ֗ Qimron (I 240) holds that ‫ ֵע ָצה‬here means ‘desire, wish’ (‫)משׁאלה‬, referring to Ps 20.5f., where ‫ל־ע ָצ ְתָך יְ ַמ ֵלּא‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ָכ‬is indeed parallel to ‫לוֹתיָך‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ֲא‬ ִ ‫יְ ַמ ֵלּא יְ הוָ ה ָכּ‬.11 In his Arabic translation Saadia writes /jāmiʻa suʼlika/ ‘all of your desire,’ though none of the ancient versions went along that path. Thus e.g. LXX: πᾶσαν τὴν βουλήν σου πληρώσαι .. πληρώσαι κύριοσ πάντα τὰ αἰτήματά σου; βουλή never means ‘desire,’ but either ‘decision’ or ‘deliberation.’12 1QSb 4.1) ‫]ירצה‬ ֗ In strictly morphological terms the form is indicative. Up to this point in this document we have analysed every yiqtol not prefixed with ‫ ו־‬as indicative and accordingly translated. Given the fragmentary state of this part of the column we cannot be certain. 1QSb 4.22) ‫ ]ויצדיקכה‬The lack of context does not enable us to choose between ‫יק ָכה‬ ְ ‫וַ יַּ ְצ ִדּ‬, ‫יק ָכה‬ ְ ‫( וְ יַ ְצ ִדּ‬jussive), and ‫( וְ יַ ְצ ִדּ ֶיק ָכּה‬indicative). 1QSb 4.23) ‫ ]ו֗ ֗לשאת ברוש קדושים‬The meaning of each of the three lexemes causes no problem, but what is meant by the whole phrase is vague. Among the translations currently available only Dupont-Sommer’s (55) “et pour élever (la voix) à la tête des saints” appears to be satisfactory. In a frequently occurring idiomatic combination such as ‫נָ ָשׂא קוֹל‬, the object is sometimes left out, e.g. ‫ א יִ ְצ ַעק וְ ל ֹא יִ ָשּׂא וְ ל ֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ַבּחוּץ קוֹלוֹ‬Is 42.2.13 1QSb 4.24) Qimron (I 241) restores the middle of the line as ‫לרעהו‬ ֗ ‫וכאיש‬ ֗ ‫ידבר אדוני אליו כיא אם פה לפה‬ ֗ ‫שר‬ ֗ ‫ולוא ביד‬ and refers to Ex 33.11 and Nu 12.8. In both passages we have a description of direct, personal communication between God and Moses. In the former we have ‫ל־ר ֵעהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ל־פּנִ ים ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ ַד ֵבּר ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִד ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ָפּנִ ים ֶא‬, but in the latter we have ‫ל־פּה ֲא ַד ֶבּר־בּוֹ‬ ֶ ‫פּה ֶא‬, ֶ thus without ‫ל־ר ֵעהוּ‬ ֵ ‫אישׁ ֶא‬. ִ Seeing that we have here a record of very unique dialogues between God and a human, our author is more likely to be dependent on Ex 33.11. Besides, in Nu 12 oral, verbal communication is contrasted with that through dreams or visions, and in Ex 33 it is a direct oral communication with no human intermediary around. The manuscript can 10

For references, see DJD 40.223. Cf. Saadia’s translation at Ps 20.5 with /jamīʻa suʼālika/. 12 Jerome’s understanding, albeit slightly expansive, is close to that of Saadia: “voluntate labiorum eius non fraudasti eum.” 13 See also Is 3.7, 42.11. For a discussion with other idiomatic expressions, see JM § 125 be. 11

1QSB = 1QS 28B BENEDICTIONS

247

easily accommodate a few extra letters in the blank. We propose reconstructing ‫לרעהו‬ ֗ ‫ידבר אליו אל כיא אם פנים אל פנים ֗כאיש‬. ֗ 1QSb 4.25) ‫ ]משרת‬a predicate complement in this nominal clause, and coordinate with ‫ מפיל‬in the following line. The preceding ‫ סביב‬is to be construed with what precedes, “all the divine angels.” 1QSb 4.26) ‫עול ֯ם ולכול קצי נצח‬ ֗ ‫ ֯לעת‬.. ‫‘ ]מפיל גורל‬you cast lots .. (in preparation) for the eternal time and all the perpetual eras.’ Qimron (I 241), referring to Kutscher (1974.517), views ‫ עת עולם‬as synonymous with ‫‘ עד עולם‬for eternity, for ever,’ but that does not go well with the following, coordinate phrase. The priest is unlikely being instructed to keep casting lots for ever. Qimron has now dropped ‫ ֯ל‬from his earlier edition. In conjunction with the immediately following, coordinate ‫לכול קצי נצח‬, the text appears to be making an eschatological statement, for which the preposition lamed is in place. 1QSb 4.27) ‫ ]ישימכה קודש‬Here ‫ קודש‬is scarcely an abstract noun, ‘sanctity,’ but a substantivised adjective. On this question of ‫ ק ֶֹדשׁ‬being possibly equivalent to ‫קדוֹשׁ‬,ָ see our analysis above at 1QS 9.6, 10.4. ‫‘ ]להאיר פני רבים‬to brighten the face of many people.’ On a facial expression as indicative of one’s mood, see above p. 20 at 1QS 2.3. Charlesworth (129) offers “the face of the Many,” saying that ‫“ רבים‬is a technical term by which the sect identified itself.” This technical term occurs tens of times in 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb, but always as ‫ הרבים‬with merely two exceptions at 1QS 6.25, 7.3. We see no absolute need to admit a third exception here.14 1QSb 5.18) ‫ ]כבודכה‬Charlesworth (129) has wrongly inserted the preposition ‫כ־‬: “according to your glory.” 1QSb 5.19) ‫‘ אל כול שומעי שמעכה‬all those who hear a report on you’; on ‫שׁ ְמ ֲע ָכה‬, ִ in which a nomen rectum indicates a topic, see SQH § 21 (xii). Not “your obedience” (Charlesworth 129). The restoration of ‫ על‬first proposed in DJD 1 is still retained by Qimron (I 242). According to DCH s.v. ‫ נָ ַתן‬qal (V 799a) in the simple sense of ‘to give’ is far less frequent than . 1QSb 5.20 - 29 5.20) It is up to the Master to bless the prince of the congregation who [will arise at the end of the days to rule all the sons of 5.21) His cove]nant and He will renew for Himself the covenant of David to establish the kingdom of His people for eve[r and to judge with justice all needy people 5.22) and] to 14

Cf. “la face de beaucoup (de gens)” (Carmignac 40) and “das Angesicht vieler” (Lohse 59).

248

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

remonstrate with fairness for the poor of the land and to walk before Him impeccably in all his ways [just] as He commanded through [Moses] 5.23) and to hold [His] holy covenant firm when those who seek Him are in distress. May the Lord turn you into eternal height and something like a mighty tower on a safe, high wall 5.24) and then you will become a r[od of oath] with the might of your m[outh]. With your rod you will destroy the land and with the breath of your lips 5.25) you will kill wicked one(s). May He give [you a spirit of counsel] and eternal strength, a spirit of knowledge and the fear of God and then 5.26) righteousness will become the girdle of [your loins and faith] the girdle of your hips, and may He make your horns iron and your hooves bronze, 5.27) you will gore like [a bull all peoples and trample all nation]s like mud on streets, for God raised you as a sceptre 5.28) over rulers, [many peoples will kneel before you and all na]tions will serve you, and with His holy name may He make you strong 5.29) and then you will become like a li[on in the midst of animals of a forest and your sword will consume] the prey, nobody around to push it back and your flags will spread over 1QSb 5.20) ‫העדה‬ ֗ ‫ ]נשיא‬We follow van der Ploeg (1959.87) and Evans (2000) that this personage is a Messiah.15 1QSb 5.22) ‫‘ ֯]להוכיח במישור לענ֗ יֿ י ֯ארצ‬to remonstrate with fairness for the poor of the land.’ Assuming that ‫יחדש‬ ֗ (21) has God as its grammatical subject, it is followed by a series of infinitives which can all be analysed as final, i.e. expressing the purposes of the reestablishment of the Davidic covenant, so ‫להקים‬, the subject of which is God. Leaving the restored ‫( לשפוט‬21) aside for the moment, God cannot be the subject of ‫להתהלכ לפניו תמים‬, but the prince. This could also apply to ‫לשפוט‬, ‫להוכיח‬, and ‫( להקים‬23). In general, the subject of an infinitive may not be explicitly mentioned when the general context facilitates its identification, see SQH § 18 l. Whether one reads ‫ לעניי‬or ‫לענוי‬, “the poor” or “the humble,” one wonders why they should be picked out for reproach or remonstration, and not “the rich” or “the arrogant or high-ranking in social status.” Furthermore Milik (128) “régenter .. les humbles,” Carmignac (40) “arbitrer .. les humbles,” Lohse (59) “die Demütigen .. zurechtzuweisen,” García Martínez - Tigchelaar (109) “to reproach the humble,” and Charlesworth (129) “to reprove .. the humble” all seem to take the the preposition lamed as equivalent to ‫את‬. ֵ The only exceptions are Vermes (376) “dispense justice .. to the oppressed” and Wise - Abegg Cook (149) “decide .. for the meek.” QH does attest to occasional use of ‫ל־‬ marking a direct object probably under the Aramaic influence, e.g. ‫אתה ידעתה‬ ֗ ‫‘ למועדנו‬You knew our time’ 1QM 18.10.16 What is decisive here is what we see 15 Yadin (1957.285b) argues ad 1QM 5.1, where the title occurs, that the personage is a secular leader distinct from the high priest, nor identical with the Messiah. 16 For a discussion with more examples, see SQH § 31 h.

1QSB = 1QS 28B BENEDICTIONS

249

in Is 11.4, which is agreed to lie behind our text: ‫הוֹכ ַיח ְבּ ִמישׁוֹר‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ָשׁ ַפט ְבּ ֶצ ֶדק ַדּ ִלּים ו‬ ‫רוּח ְשׂ ָפ ָתיו יָ ִמית ָר ָשׁע‬ ַ ‫וּב‬ ְ ‫ה־א ֶר ץ ְבּ ֵשׁ ֶבט ִפּיו‬ ֶ ‫י־א ֶר ץ וְ ִה ָכּ‬ ָ ֵ‫ל ַענְ ו‬,ְ where the standard English translation of ‫ ְל ַענְ וֵ י‬is ‘for the meek of,’ i.e. a case of dativus commodi. Here we have an expression of concern for the socially disadvantaged, and note the parallel ‫דּ ִלּים‬.ַ 17 All this means that who is or are to be chided is not mentioned. ֯‫ ;להתהלכ לפניו תמים בכול דרכי֯ ו‬on ‫תמים‬, see above ‫אמתו‬ ֗ ‫הולכים תמים בדרכי‬ 1.2. The shift to the tD form probably underscores its iterative force, which is suggested by the addition of ‫כול‬. Note ‫ להתהלכ לפניו תמים כול הנגלות‬1QS 1.8, cf. SQH § 12 f (4). 1QSb 5.23) ‫ ;להקים ברית‬Qimron (I 242) reads ‫קודשו‬ ֯ ‫להקים ברית‬,֗ as Milik (DJD 1.127) had restored ‫“ להקים ברי]ת קודשו‬de restaurer son allian[ce sainte.” Brooke (DJD 26.231f.) prefers a reading found in a new fragment of 1QSb, where he reads ‫קודש‬ ֯ ‫ולהקים בריתו‬. He would leave ‫ קודש‬without a suf. pronoun, and analyses it as a case of “an adverb of manner.” He adduces ‫ת־בּיתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫יַ ְק ִדּשׁ ֶא‬ ‫ ק ֶֹדשׁ ַליהוָ ה‬Lv 27.14 as supporting his analysis. Our 1QSb example, however, does not show this paronomastic construction. ‫לדו֗ רשי֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫‘ בצר‬when those who seek Him are in distress,’ i.e. ‫( ַבּ ַצּר‬Habermann 163 and Lohse 58).18 Qimron (I 242) now proposes restoring ‫לדרשי֗ ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כנצר‬as a sprout for those who seek it [= the covenant],’ referring to ‫וְ יָ ָצא ח ֶֹטר ִמגֵּ זַ ע יִ ָשׁי‬ ‫ וְ נֵ ֶצר ִמ ָשּׁ ָר ָשׁיו יִ ְפ ֶרה‬Is 11.1. However, this Isaianic imagery sounds a bit incongruous when applied to the divine covenant.19 God’s covenant is to be maintained even by those who are having hard times when the prince could step in and give a hand. Here is another expression of the author’s concern about the lot of the hard-pressed and disadvantaged in society. On the combination , see ‫ית ָמעוֹז ַל ָדּ ל ָמעוֹז ָל ֶא ְביוֹן ַבּ ַצּר־לוֹ‬ ָ ִ‫ָהי‬ Is 25.4; for more examples in BH, see BDB s.v. II ‫צר‬. ַ ‫נשגבה‬ ֗ ‫וכמגדל ֗עז֯ ֗ב ֗חומה‬ ֗ ‫עולם‬ ֗ ‫ימכה אדוני לרום‬ ֯ ‫יש‬ ֯ ‘May the Lord turn you into eternal height and like a mighty tower on a safe, high wall.’ Qimron (I 242 n.) objects to ‫]אכ[ה‬ ֯ ‫י[ש‬ ֯ as restored in DJD 26.231 on the ground that the verb ‫נשׂא‬ does not syntagmatically fit ‫כמגדל וגו׳‬, an argument which we fail to follow. On ‫מגְ ַדּּ ל עֹז‬, ִ cf. Jdg 5.51, Ps 61.4, and Pr 18.10, the last two with reference to God, and on ‫חוֹמה נִ ְשׂגָּ ָבה‬, ָ see Is 30.13 and Pr 18.11. 1QSb 5.24) ‫ ]והייתה‬If we accept the immediately preceding verb restored as ‫ימכה‬ ֯ ‫יש‬, ֯ we have here an inversive qataltí form.20 17

Cf. Vulg. “et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae.” With his “a re]fuge” is Charlesworth thinking of a MH ‫?בּ ֶצר‬ ֶ We cannot think of any good reason for restoring a very anomalous form such as ‫דור ֯שי]הו‬ ֯ as Charlesworth does. 19 We fail to see any relevance of another text, 1QHa 13.11, to which Qimron refers. 20 Brooke, in DJD 26.231 restores the first verb as ‫אכה‬ ֯ ‫יש‬, ֯ which he translates as “May the Lord raise you,” but then his translation of ‫ והייתה‬as “And may you be” is impossible, for the Hebrew form cannot be volitive, for which we would expect ‫ ותהי‬with a conjunctive waw. 18

250

THE COMMUNITY RULE 1QS, 1QSA AND 1QSB

1QSb 5.26) ‫‘ ושם קרניכה ברזל‬and He is going to make your horns iron.’ Here we follow Licht (289),21 i.e. ‫וְ ָשׂם‬, which continues ‫( והיה‬25), which in turn continues ‫יתן‬. Qimron (I 242), who originally read ‫וישם‬, following Milik (DJD 1.127), now reads ‫ישם‬. He does not say whether it is = ‫ יָ ִשׂם‬or = ‫יָ ֵשׂם‬. Milik presumably postulated ‫וְ יָ ֵשׂם‬, i.e. jussive as shown by his translation, “[Et] qu’il te fasse des cornes de fer.” However, the verb continuing the inversive ‫ והיה‬in the preceding line, can hardly be coordinate with a jussive prefixed with a conjunctive waw. Besides, we would not need to analyse ‫( תחריב‬24) and ‫( תמית‬25) as plena spelled jussives, namely ‫ ַתּ ֲח ֵריב‬and ‫ ָתּ ֵמית‬respectively.22 The master, ‫משכיל‬, is not merely conveying his wishful thinking, but reassuring ‫נשׂיא העדה‬. 1QSb 5.27) ‫ ]שבט למושלים‬This does not appear to be an equivalent of ‫ֵשׁ ֶבט מ ְֹשׁ ִלים‬ Is 14.5, Ezk 19.11, where the cst. chain expresses ownership, “a sceptre owned and wielded by rulers,” whilst here the sceptre is a symbol of authority to be used over against rulers.23 Cf. ‫‘ שׁוֹט ַלסּוּס‬a whip for the horse’ Pr 26.3. And yet we need to bear in mind a pair such as ‫‘ מרעה לעדרים‬a pasture for herds’ Is 32.14 1QIsa for ‫ ִמ ְר ֵעה ֲע ָד ִר ים‬MT, and cp. ‫‘ הכבשי֯ ֯ם אשר לעולה‬the lambs for the holocaust’ 4Q365 1.6 is to be compared with ‫ ַה ֶשּׂה ְלע ָֹלה‬Gn 22.7.24 See SQH § 2 k xvi). 1QSb 5.29) ‫‘ ]ואין משי֗ ב‬and there is none around to push it [= your sword] back.’ Qimron (I 242) now prefers to read ‫משוב‬. Is there an assured instance elsewhere to support his syntactic analysis, = ‫ ?לאין שוב‬The two BH references adduced by him do not answer this question: ‫ ֶח ֶרב ָשׁאוּל לֹא ָתשׁוּב ֵר ָיקם‬2Sm 1.22 and ‫אתי ַח ְר ִבּי ִמ ַתּ ְע ָרהּ ל ֹא ָתשׁוּב עוֹד‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ Ezk 21.10. What value is the preposition ‫ מ־‬added to the infinitive supposed to carry? We have here a typical circumstantial clause preceded and followed by an inversive w-qataltí form. Cf. a BH example, also with a ptc., in ‫וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ָשׁלוֹם ָבּ ָא ֶר ץ‬ ‫ן־ה ָא ֶר ץ‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ַכ ְב ֶתּם וְ ֵאין ַמ ֲח ִריד וְ ִה ְשׁ ַבּ ִתּי ַחיָּ ה ָר ָעה ִמ‬ ְ Lv 26.6, also preceded and followed by an inversive w-qataltí form as part of an apodosis of a conditional clause that starts with ‫ם־בּ ֻחקּ ַֹתי ֵתּ ֵלכוּ‬ ְ ‫( ִא‬vs. 3). On the idiom ‫ה ִשׁיב ֶח ֶרב‬, ֵ cf. ‫ף־תּ ִשׁיב צוּר ַח ְרבּוֹ‬ ָ ‫ַא‬ ‫ וְ לֹא ֲה ֵקימֹתוֹ ַבּ ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬Ps 89.44.

21 22 23 24

In the footnote concerned we see ‫ישם‬, perhaps a typo. Thus pace DJD 26.231 “.. may you destroy .. may you kill.” Cf. Carmignac (41): “un sceptre pour (diriger) les dirigeants.” Note LXX: τὸ πρόβατον τὸ εἰσ ὁλοκάρπωσιν.

INDEX OF QUMRAN TEXTS

1Q27 1i6 1QHa 1QHa 3.24 1QHa 4.19 1QHa 4.24 1QHa 4.31 1QHa 4.36 1QHa 5.18 1QHa 5.23 1QHa 5.26 1QHa 5.27 1QHa 5.30 1QHa 6.13 1QHa 6.29 1QHa 6.38 1QHa 7.23 1QHa 7.27 1QHa 7.29 1QHa 7.31 1QHa 7.32 1QHa 7.34 1QHa 9.10 1QHa 9.13 1QHa 9.17 1QHa 9.18 1QHa 9.19 1QHa 9.21 1QHa 9.23 1QHa 9.25 1QHa 9.26 1QHa 9.37 1QHa 9.38 1QHa 10.9 1QHa 10.10 1QHa 10.11 1QHa 10.17 1QHa 10.30 1QHa 10.33 1QHa 10.38 1QHa 11.12 1QHa 11.21 1QHa 11.22 1QHa 11.36 1QHa 11.37

93 65, 82, 84, 158 232 218 160 91, 125, 218 3 71 71 70 71 71 69 105 165 93 54, 159 71, 197, 202, 219 214 3 223 71 190 72, 232 81 53 232 65 33, 84 232 65, 158 62 231 78, 158 65, 68 90 242 90 65, 158 192 33 12 69 92

1QHa 12.6 1QHa 12.8 1QHa 12.10 1QHa 12.16 1QHa 12.22 1QHa 12.25 1QHa 12.28 1QHa 12.31 1QHa 12.32 1QHa 12.36 1QHa 12.41 1QHa 13.9 1QHa 13.11 1QHa 13.13 1QHa 13.25 1QHa 13.27 1QHa 13.31 1QHa 13.38 1QHa 14.9 1QHa 14.20 1QHa 14.24 1QHa 14.25 1QHa 14.29 1QHa 14.30 1QHa 14.35 1QHa 15.6 1QHa 15.7 1QHa 15.10 1QHa 15.12 1QHa 15.13 1QHa 15.20 1QHa 15.22 1QHa 15.30 1QHa 15.34 1QHa 15.39 1QHa 16.22 1QHa 17.4 1QHa 17.7 1QHa 17.9 1QHa 17.23 1QHa 17.32 1QHa 17.34-36 1QHa 17.38 1QHa 18.4

19 33 133 30, 41 78 111 19, 33, 85 8, 171 214 14 13 24 249 69 90 152, 153 106 80, 84, 85 218 57 206 91 84 85 118 106 94, 217 44 84 22 4 217 12, 218 71 171 88 199 201 64 91 243 55 33, 85 33

252 1QHa 18.6 1QHa 18.8 1QHa 18.14 1QHa 18.16 1QHa 18.29 1QHa 18.35 1QHa 19.8 1QHa 19.12 1QHa 19.14 1QHa 19.16 1QHa 19.24 1QHa 19.28 1QHa 19.30 1QHa 19.31 1QHa 20.9 1QHa 20.16 1QHa 20.26 1QHa 20.35 1QHa 20.36 1QHa 21.10 1QHa 21.13 1QHa 21.17 1QHa 22.4 1QHa 22.9 1QHa 22.27 1QHa 22.28 1QHa 22.31 1QHa 22.36 1QHa 23.8 1QHa 23.10 1QHa 23.13 1QHa 23.14 1QHa 23.25 1QHa 23.30 1QHa 24.9 1QHa 25.9 1QIsaa 1QIsaa 3.24 1QIsaa 19.20 1QIsaa 47.11 1QIsaa 51.11 1QM 1.1 1QM 1.3 1QM 1.6 1QM 1.9 1QM 1.11 1QM 1.13 1QM 2.5 1QM 2.7f 1QM 2.8

INDICES

224 33 159 244 232 231 197 79 119, 171 71 147 71 71 9, 51, 63 187, 188 91 88 224 221 221 195 65 91 21, 171 226 217 221 195 182 195 64 64 63 119 83 81 43, 82, 139, 226 151 54 82 230 52 52 86 52, 238 52 38, 52 103, 173 234 234, 236

1QM 3.13 1QM 3.14 1QM 4.14 1QM 5.1 1QM 5.4 1QM 5.16 1QM 6.6 1QM 6.12 1QM 7.11 1QM 8.7 1QM 10.11 1QM 10.12 1QM 10.14 1QM 10.15 1QM 11.4 1QM 11.16 1QM 12.2 1QM 13.1 1QM 13.4 1QM 14.3 1QM 14.5 1QM 14.6 1QM 14.7 1QM 16.8 1QM 17.5 1QM 18.2 1QM 18.6 1QM 18.10 1QpHab 7.10 1QpHab 7.11 1QpHab 7.13 1QpHab 8.10 1QpHab 8.12 1QpHab 8.14 1QpHab 11.1 1QpHab 11.3 1QpHab 11.13 1QpHab 11.14 1QpHab 12.2 1QpHab 12.9 1QS

133 52 95 52, 248 35 199 203 62 86 158 190 88 52, 53 71 90 118 197 16 17 198 118 64 4 106 54 33, 83, 85 16 248 4, 69 74 78 155 5, 171 214 78 106 32 106 51, 170 56 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 60, 66, 67, 70, 71, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 120,

INDEX OF QUMRAN TEXTS

1QS 1.1 1QS 1.2 1QS 1.3 1QS 1.3-4 1QS 1.4 1QS 1.5 1QS 1.6 1QS 1.7 1QS 1.8 1QS 1.9 1QS 1.10 1QS 1.10f 1QS 1.11 1QS 1.11b 1QS 1.12 1QS 1.13 1QS 1.14 1QS 1.15 1QS 1.16 1QS 1.17 1QS 1.18 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.22f 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 2 2.1 2.2 2.2-4 2.3 2.4 2.4b

123, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 134, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 190, 195, 199, 208, 209, 224, 225, 247 1, 119 2, 3 2, 79 2, 3 2, 3 1, 2, 4, 105, 157, 173 2, 5 2, 8, 6, 58 6, 54, 249 2, 7, 52 2 3 7, 58 7 7, 16 7, 8, 49 2, 7, 13 2, 7, 8, 13 7, 8, 31 7, 9, 35 7, 8, 14, 16, 27, 28, 159 9, 14 7, 9 7, 9, 14, 123, 124, 226 7, 9, 14 12 5, 21 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 12, 13 13 30 9, 13, 14, 16 6, 9, 15, 17, 175, 241 16, 19 19, 61, 71, 221, 247 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 26 21

1QS 2.5 1QS 2.6 1QS 2.7 1QS 2.8 1QS 2.9 1QS 2.10 1QS 2.11 1QS 2.12 1QS 2.13 1QS 2.14 1QS 2.15 1QS 2.16 1QS 2.17 1QS 2.18 1QS 2.19 1QS 2.21 1QS 2.22 1QS 2.24 1QS 2.25 1QS 2.25b 1QS 3.1 1QS 3.2 1QS 3.3 1QS 3.4-5 1QS 3.4 1QS 3.5 1QS 3.6 1QS 3.6b 1QS 3.7 1QS 3.8 1QS 3.9 1QS 3.10 1QS 3.11 1QS 3.13 1QS 3.13-4.14 1QS 3.14 1QS 3.15 1QS 3.15b 1QS 3.16 1QS 3.17 1QS 3.17b 1QS 3.18 1QS 3.19 1QS 3.20 1QS 3.21 1QS 3.22 1QS 3.23 1QS 3.24 1QS 3.24b

253 5, 17, 18, 21, 41 24, 80 18, 25, 83, 85 25, 71, 109 21, 26 9, 14, 26, 28, 30 14, 18, 27, 28, 67 8, 26, 31 32 31, 32, 84 34, 71 9, 28, 31, 34, 41, 52, 114 35 14, 15, 30, 35 35 230 36 4, 36 36 37 37, 40 39, 40 40, 44, 215 40 41, 45, 94, 167, 176 42, 126 38, 43, 44, 45, 46 43 44, 46, 62, 94 44, 45, 46, 62 12, 24, 46, 47, 94, 214 7, 49 8, 49, 173 50, 52, 87, 226 53 53, 58, 70, 79 52, 54, 219 54 54, 90, 91 53, 55 55, 56 56, 70, 73, 97, 111, 200 41, 52, 57 56, 57, 179 56, 57 58, 179, 212 58 52, 58 58, 59

254

INDICES

1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

3.25 3.26 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

4.6 4.6b 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22

1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

4.23 4.23b 4.24 4.25 4.26 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

1QS 5.3b 1QS 5.3f 1QS 5.4 1QS 5.5 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

5.6 5.6b 5.7 5.7b 5.8 5.9 5.10

52, 59 59 59, 60, 89 61 62, 75 36, 63, 75 64, 78, 79, 91, 106, 107, 157, 181 68, 91, 106 69 70 72 72, 73 75, 142 23, 70, 76 71, 78 25, 33, 80, 85 82, 118 52, 86, 87, 88, 89 53, 88, 90, 232 56, 71, 88, 89 70, 90 69, 91 56, 92, 98 44, 47, 56, 90, 91, 94 15, 95, 112, 162, 181, 226, 236 56, 93, 96, 111 97 98 92, 99 99 225 100, 115 73, 103, 109 104, 107, 137, 157, 208, 242 104 4, 67 106, 107, 108, 113, 116, 169, 180 50, 65, 71, 77, 109, 134, 240 112 113, 168 39, 113, 118, 123 114 8, 112, 114, 116 115, 117 73, 108, 115, 119

1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

5.11 5.11b 5.12 5.13 5.14

1QS 5.15 1QS 5.16 1QS 5.17 1QS 5.18 1QS 5.19 1QS 5.20 1QS 5.20b 1QS 5.21 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 6.1 6.2

1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8b 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.13b 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27

116, 134, 150 116 9, 117 71, 118 101, 108, 116, 118, 119, 122, 174 5, 118, 119, 120, 121, 141, 171 119, 120, 121, 126, 147 120, 133, 145 121, 176 122 8, 10, 119, 122, 124, 141 122 2, 10, 100, 116, 122, 124, 226 116, 124, 237 124 4, 8, 125, 206, 217, 218 125 125, 227 126 127, 136, 163, 168, 169, 235 128 129, 199 129 128, 130 131, 143 132 132 132, 145 133 133 134 100, 113, 134, 142 135 136, 137, 138 136 137 137, 138, 170 138 138, 139 138 139 139 100, 140, 168 133, 141, 247 75, 77, 134, 142 142

INDEX OF QUMRAN TEXTS

1QS 7.1 1QS 7.2 1QS 7.3 1QS 7.4 1QS 7.5 1QS 7.5b 1QS 7.6 1QS 7.8 1QS 7.9 1QS 7.9b 1QS 7.10 1QS 7.11 1QS 7.12 1QS 7.13 1QS 7.14 1QS 7.15 1QS 7.15b 1QS 7.16 1QS 7.17 1QS 7.18 1QS 7.19 1QS 7.20 1QS 7.21 1QS 7.22 1QS 7.23 1QS 7.24 1QS 8.1 1QS 8.2 1QS 8.3 1QS 8.4 1QS 8.6 1QS 8.7 1QS 8.8 1QS 8.9 1QS 8.10 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.14f 8.15 8.16 8.16b 8.17 8.18

1QS 8.19 1QS 8.20 1QS 8.21

143, 153 141, 143 133, 144, 247 121, 141, 144, 145, 147 133, 145, 146 146 145, 147 145, 147, 153 144, 145, 147, 149 148 149, 150 149 150 145, 150 150 149, 151, 153 151 152 120, 153, 154 153, 154 155 137, 155 155 137, 155 109, 155 169 156, 174 4, 105, 106, 107, 157 65, 157, 170 159, 171 159, 171, 184 159, 160 161, 197, 214 15, 162 15, 74, 155, 162, 168, 184 141, 163, 168, 174, 244 163, 164 164 158, 165, 182 6 165, 178 166 166 167 15, 42, 64, 167, 176, 226 168 15, 100, 168 15, 169

1QS 8.22 1QS 8.23 1QS 8.24 1QS 8.25 1QS 8.26 1QS 9.1 1QS 9.2 1QS 9.3 1QS 9.4 1QS 9.5 1QS 9.6 1QS 9.7 1QS 9.8 1QS 9.9 1QS 9.10 1QS 9.12 1QS 9.13 1QS 9.14 1QS 9.15 1QS 9.16 1QS 9.17 1QS 9.18 1QS 9.19 1QS 9.20 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 10.1

1QS 10.2 1QS 10.3 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

10.4 10.5 10.5b 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14

255 167, 169 169 10, 144, 169 108, 155, 169, 206 137, 155, 169 155, 170 15, 155, 170 44, 170, 171 171, 173, 184 15, 173, 175 15, 174, 176, 192, 247 175 175 15, 176 38, 176 8, 51, 100, 176, 177, 182, 183 178, 184 10, 11, 123, 179 11, 179 80, 179 180, 206 181 49, 161, 163, 182, 183 80, 95, 96, 163, 179, 182, 183 177, 183 183 34, 184 184, 237 184 17, 185, 194, 199 185, 186, 191, 196, 198, 217 34, 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 237 186, 187, 190, 193, 194, 217 191, 247 193 193 172, 185, 194, 198, 199 194 195, 196, 197 195 8, 196, 201 125, 196, 197, 217, 218 57, 197, 200 184, 198 172, 185, 196, 198, 201

256 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS 1QS

INDICES

10.15 10.16 10.17 10.17b 10.18 10.19 10.20 10.21 10.23 10.24 10.25 10.26 11.1 11.2

1QS 11.2b 1QS 11.3 1QS 11.4 1QS 11.5 1QS 11.6 1QS 11.7 1QS 11.8 1QS 11.9 1QS 11.10 1QS 11.11 1QS 11.12 1QS 11.13 1QS 11.14 1QS 11.15 1QS 11.15b 1QS 11.16 1QS 11.17 1QS 11.18 1QS 11.19 1QS 11.20 1QS 11.21 1QS 11.22 1QS 28b 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa 1QSa

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8b 1.9

197, 199, 200, 202 63, 144, 196, 200 106, 201, 219 202 51, 55, 203 204 73, 205 8, 206 203, 207 208 68, 158, 208 199, 208 95, 209 53, 188, 210, 216, 217, 222, 231 210, 211 211, 215 213, 214 61, 173, 212, 214, 215 53, 212, 215 215, 216, 217, 222 39, 96, 217 12, 125, 217, 222 218 8, 74, 162, 218 214, 219 175, 219 160 19, 53, 220 221 221 206, 222 95, 222 53, 64, 222 215, 223 223 167, 224 241 225, 226, 233, 236, 237, 247 225 226 226 10, 226 95, 226 227, 228 43, 95, 126, 227 227, 228 228 228

1QSa 1.10 1QSa 1.11 1QSa 1.12 1QSa 1.13 1QSa 1.14 1QSa 1.16 1QSa 1.17 1QSa 1.18 1QSa 1.19 1QSa 1.19b 1QSa 1.20 1QSa 1.21 1QSa 1.22 1QSa 1.22b 1QSa 1.23 1QSa 1.25 1QSa 1.26 1QSa 1.27 1QSa 1.27b 1QSa 1.28 1QSa 1.29 1QSa 2.1 1QSa 2.2 1QSa 2.3 1QSa 2.3b 1QSa 2.4 1QSa 2.5 1QSa 2.6 1QSa 2.8 1QSa 2.10 1QSa 2.11 1QSa 2.13 1QSa 2.14 1QSa 2.15 1QSa 2.17 1QSa 2.18 1QSa 2.20 1QSa 2.21 1QSa 2.22 1QSb 1QSb 1.1 1QSb 1.2 1QSb 1.3 1QSb 1.5 1QSb 2.22 1QSb 2.23 1QSb 2.25 1QSb 2.26 1QSb 2.27 1QSb 3.1

137, 228 228 229 230 230 230 230 89, 231 232 233 228, 233 227, 233 233 233 234 234 234 235 235 226, 236 237 226, 237 226, 237 238 238 106, 159, 238 24, 238 239 226, 239 239 226, 239 226 239 240 240 240 240 240 240 241, 242, 247, 249 51, 241 112, 242 242 242 243 243 112 243 243 243

257

INDEX OF QUMRAN TEXTS

1QSb 3.2 1QSb 3.20 1QSb 3.21 1QSb 3.22 1QSb 3.23 1QSb 3.24 1QSb 3.25 1QSb 3.27 1QSb 3.28 1QSb 4.1 1QSb 4.22 1QSb 4.23 1QSb 4.24 1QSb 4.25 1QSb 4.26 1QSb 4.27 1QSb 5.18 1QSb 5.19 1QSb 5.20 1QSb 5.21 1QSb 5.22 1QSb 5.23 1QSb 5.24 1QSb 5.25 1QSb 5.26 1QSb 5.27 1QSb 5.29 2Q 3Q15 6.5 3Q15 8.6 4Q

4Q57 13.9 4Q88 10.8 4Q106 7.2 4Q158 1+2.10 4Q158 13.3 4Q160 7.4 4Q161 7+10.29 4Q163 4-7ii17 4Q169 3-4iii7 4Q169 3-4iii8 4Q171 1-2ii10 4Q174 4Q175 1.4 4Q176 1-2i1 4Q176 1-2i2 4Q176 20.3

244 244 71 244 245 245 243, 245 246 246 246 246 246 246 197, 247 72, 247 19, 247 71, 247 247 50, 241, 247, 248 248 242, 248 243, 248, 249 249, 250 250 250 250 250 82 151 151 13, 22, 25, 40, 66, 81, 85, 101, 103, 110, 132, 153, 155, 161, 169, 170, 172, 184, 197 106 230 113 159, 187 89 199 182 89 28 242 200 226 43 215 90 179

4Q177 1-4.11 4Q179 1ii1 4Q179 1ii4 4Q184 1.4 4Q184 1.5 4Q184 1.10 4Q220 1.5 4Q220 7ii2 4Q226 7.6 4Q246 4Q249 4Q249a 1.5 4Q249g 1-2.1 4Q252 1.8 4Q252 1.16 4Q252 4.5 4Q256 4Q256 2.1 4Q256 9.4 4Q256 19.1 4Q257 2.2 4Q257 5.12 4Q257 8.5 4Q258 4Q258 1.2 4Q258 1.3 4Q258 1.6 4Q258 1.7 4Q258 2.2 4Q258 2.5 4Q258 2.6 4Q258 7.1 4Q258 7.5 4Q258 7.6 4Q258 8.1 4Q258 8.7 4Q258 8.10 4Q258 8.12 4Q259 1.6 4Q259 2.16 4Q259 3.1 4Q260 2.1 4Q261 3.3 4Q261 6a-e.3 4Q263 4Q263 1 4Q266 10ii2 4Q266 10ii8 4Q269 4Q269 8ii4

232 117 74 79 199 171 2 2 231 24 239 227 225 58 28 199 190 13 106 190 23 81 183 101, 155 103 106 115 116 124 75, 125 126 169 171 174 180 184 186 189 149 161 163 188 141 153 126 126 121 149 76 47

258 4Q270 2ii21 4Q271 2.11 4Q274 2i1 4Q276 1.4 4Q277 1ii7 4Q280 4Q280 2.2 4Q280 2.3 4Q286 1ii1 4Q286 1ii7 4Q286 7i8 4Q298 3-4i9 4Q298 3-4ii5 4Q299 3aii-b5 4Q299 8.5 4Q300 2ii3 4Q365 1.6 4Q365 6ii11 4Q365 32.6 4Q369 4Q369 1i6 4Q370 1.3 4Q370 1i2 4Q372 1.27 4Q374 2.2.8 4Q374 2ii5 4Q378 15i3 4Q378 21.2 4Q378 26.2 4Q379 22ii11 4Q381 1.2 4Q381 31.6 4Q381 46a+b.2 4Q381 46a+b,6 4Q381 76+77.7 4Q382 104ii7 4Q385a 18i10 4Q386 3.1 4Q390 2.6 4Q390 2i8 4Q392 1.7 4Q393 4Q394 3-7i19 4Q398 4Q400 1i16 4Q400 2.7 4Q403 4Q403 1ii9 4Q403 1ii26 4Q405

INDICES

167 47 47 47 94 23 22 230 190 193 28 193 106 78 83 75 250 149 89 92 92 65 90 131 19 162 151 2 2 28 86 26 63 90 162, 175, 192 115 12 169 31 185 86 142 47 78 160 172 162 175 172 88, 192

4Q405 4Q408 4Q408 4Q414 4Q414 4Q416 4Q416 4Q417 4Q417 4Q417 4Q417 4Q417 4Q418 4Q418 4Q418 4Q418 4Q418 4Q418 4Q418 4Q421 4Q423 4Q424 4Q425 4Q425 4Q427 4Q428 4Q429 4Q431 4Q432 4Q434 4Q435 4Q435 4Q437 4Q438 4Q477 4Q477 4Q481 4Q491 4Q501 4Q503 4Q503 4Q504 4Q504 4Q510 4Q511 4Q511 4Q511 4Q511 4Q512 4Q512

23i10 3+3a10 15.1 1ii-2i3 2i3 1.13 2ii5 1i20 1ii14 2i2 2i14 2+2a-c.7 55.10 69ii5 81+81a4 81-81a.10 123ii2 147.3 8.3 3.4 1+3.3 2ii-3.1 10.3 4ii9 2.1 3.2 2.1 2i3 2i16 4ii4 2ii4 1-3.10 6 15-16.11 1-2Rii9 4.7 1.2 1.6 18.2.8 28-29.4 1-6.7 29-32.11

196 189 106 160 112 93 145 192 89 83 83 233 89 232 84 244 160 190 79 75 244 76 200 242 71, 81 171 85 93 26 26 151 77 90, 188, 199 106 86 75 235 230 76 88 88 160 26 54, 162, 175 71 125 19, 61 94 47 173

259

INDEX OF QUMRAN TEXTS

4Q512 xii 4 4Q525 4Q525 2ii+3.3 4Q525 2ii-3.7 4Q525 14ii26 4Q525 14ii27 4Q525 15.4 4Q525 20.2 4Q525 20-22.2 4Q525 21,6 4Q544 1.14 4QIsac 9.17 4QPsHodc 3.1.22 4QPsa 4QS 4QSa 4QSb 4QSc 4QSd

4QSd+b 4QSd 6.2 4QSd 7.2 4QSe 4QSe 2.5 4QSe 2.16 4QSf 4QSg 4QSi 4QSj 10 4QTNaph 4.5 5/6Ḥev 44.2 5/6Ḥev 45.16 5/6Ḥev 46.4 5/6Ḥev 46.6 5/6Ḥev 46.10 5/6Ḥev 49.6 5/6Ḥev 53

48 246 179 106 246 246 71 164 78 91 135 164 197 106 179 1, 44 13, 25, 26, 95, 110, 113, 182, 185, 190, 192, 194, 200 22, 23, 26, 38, 40, 66 11, 95, 100, 101, 103, 112, 113, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 137, 141, 155, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 121 161 137 10, 95, 149, 155, 161, 164, 165, 179 137 161 190, 196, 200, 201, 203, 206 128 126 224 13 102 144 116 144 165 108 108

5/6Ḥev 53.2 5/6Ḥev 55 5/6Ḥev 63.5 5Q13 4.2 6Q9 57.3 6Q18 2.2 11Q 11Q5 6.8 11Q5 19.14 11Q5 20.17 11Q5 21.11 11Q5 22.7 11Q5 24.12 11Q5 26.9 11Q5 27.12 11Q10 36.5 11Q10 xv 1 11Q13 2.9 11Q14 11Q14 1.2.7 11Q14 1ii11 11Q18 8.3 11Q18 9.4 11Q19 11Q19 2.8 11Q19 9.14 11Q19 17.2 11Q19 21.9 11Q19 22.14 11Q19 24.12 11Q19 27.5 11Q19 35.11 11Q19 35.12 11Q19 35.15 11Q19 46.13 11Q19 49.18 11Q19 50.3 11Q19 52.19 11Q19 54.2 11Q19 59.7 11Q19 60.19 11Q19 63.6 11Q19 63.7 11Q19 64.7 11Q19 64.12 11Q19 65.14 11Q19 66.4 11Q20 6.7 11Q20 12.11 11Q20 12.25

107 108 108 42 132 71 197 106 26 151 133 113 28 162 220 135 48 160 78 19 200 135 135 172 133 81 160 81 81 129 81 191 5 171 150 47 47 57 26 90 164 112 160 152 200 141 29 81 138 86

260

INDICES

11Q30 11.1 11QHa 10.7 11QHa 19.22 11QHa 19.24 11QHa 19.25 C CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD

1.7 1.8 1.13 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.23 2.4 2.6 2.10 2.15 2.16 2.17 3.3 3.11 3.17 3.18 3.20 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.17 4.20 5.7 5.12 5.21f 6.14 6.21 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.21 8.2 8.5 8.13 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.10 9.20 9.23

199 81 81 81 81 8, 24, 97, 102, 103, 110, 125, 178 80 200 181 9, 31, 114 185 15, 29 181 68, 79 33, 86, 118 54 3, 5 110 97 191 41, 103 91, 180 160 71 113 52 38 165 76, 208 128 162 3 163 125 15 38, 231 38 70 24 91, 147 144 124, 153 126 127 142 144 51, 121, 228

CD 10.3 CD 10.17 CD 10.19 CD 11.18 CD 11.20 CD 11.21 CD 11.22 CD 12.13 CD 12.21 CD 12.21f CD 13.1 CD 13.2 CD 13.8 CD 13.12 CD 13.18 CD 14.3 CD 14.5 CD 14.6 CD 14.11 CD 14.20 CD 15.2 CD 15.3 CD 15.9 CD 15.10 CD 15.12 CD 19.10 CD 19.13 CD 19.17 CD 19.18 CD 19.35 CD 20.2 CD 20.3 CD 20.5 CD 20.6 CD 20.7 CD 20.9 CD 20.17 CD 20.22 CD 20.25 CD 20.29 M M30 25 M42 2 M44 2 MMT B 27 MMT C 24 MMT C 29 Test. Benjamin 10.3 Test. Gad 5.2

167 148 29, 144, 152 148 102 160 95 152 178 178 89 128 63, 215 99, 124 147 132 129 132 133 141 9, 114 9, 29 93 176 93 191 24, 25 91 126, 147 39, 182 168 189 168 189 128, 168 30, 67 36 231 159 13 29 107 102 120 103 64 5 4

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Old Testament Gn 1.16 Gn 1.26 Gn 1.28 Gn 2.4 Gn 2.7 Gn 3.5 Gn 3.8 Gn 3.14 Gn 3.16 Gn 4.8 Gn 5.1 Gn 6.4 Gn 6.5 Gn 6.19 Gn 6.20 Gn 8.11 Gn 8.12 Gn 8.21 Gn 9.16 Gn 9.25 Gn 11.3 Gn 12.12 Gn 15.18 Gn 16.8 Gn 17.5 Gn 17.6 Gn 17.8 Gn 17.21 Gn 17.23 Gn 17.24 Gn 18.5 Gn 18.24 Gn 18.27 Gn 18.28 Gn 19.8 Gn 21.3 Gn 22.1 Gn 22.7 Gn 25.10 Gn 26.21 Gn 26.26 Gn 28.11 Gn 28.19 Gn 29.30

187, 190 56 70, 71 43 158 137 189 165 224 187 52, 53 237 110, 111, 201, 233 136 136, 138 6 119 49 50 162, 175 36, 130 225 148 190 23 23 216 6 111 111 239 147 28 126 233 102 59 250 164 90 216 93 129 172

Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn Gn

30.31 32.11 32.31 37.17 37.19 38.28 40.3 40.12 40.18 40.20 41.1 41.15 41.16 41.40 43.27 43.30 47.12 49 49.4 49.6 49.7

28 203, 207 215 109 36 129 130 225 225 47 155 47 28 176 129 162 55 199 199 119 30

Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex

2.21 4.8 6.9 7.14 8.11 8.28 9.7 9.35 10.1 12.8 13.7 14.8 14.20 16.2 17.3 17.8 17.12 18.7 18.20 19.10f 19.13 19.14f. 20.5

174 192 75, 142, 144 77, 78 77 77 77 77 77 81 131, 141 167 35 94 121, 153 154 59 129 214 235 119 235 24

262

INDICES

Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex

22.7 23.7 24.12 26.33 26.34 30.34 32.8 32.14 32.30 32.34 33 33.11 33.14 34.22 35.1

240 120 58 162 162 89 206 222 160 24 246 246 128 187 124

Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv

1.2-3 1.3 1.4 4.6 4.26 4.35 5.2 5.24 6.3 8.5 8.30 8.34 9.7 11.9 11.10 13.45-46 13.46 14.34 15.8 16.3 16.21 16.29 16.29-34 18.22 19.5 19.13 19.18 21.9 21.21 22.20 22.21 22.25 23.38 23.42

163 103, 163 49 47 160, 162 160 143 147 72 124, 166 47 160 160 42 42 42 43 174 150 203 184, 187 45, 46 46 228 103 88 147, 205 128 96 103, 163 200 163 148 227

Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv Lv

25.8 25.10 25.30 26 26.6 26.16 26.25 26.33 26.43 26.44 27.2 27.14

195 195 137 25 250 24, 25 23 25 37, 159, 187 37 200 249

Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu

2.17 4.23 5.19 5.22 6 6.2 6.23 6.23-27 6.23f 6.24 6.24-26 6.25 6.26 8.7 8.24 8.24f 9.11 9.17 9.18 10.13 10.14 11.4 12 12.8 12.9 13.18 14.2 14.27 14.43 14.44 15.30 15.39 16.29 19 19.21 20.17 23.7

96 231 176 27 17, 18, 242 201 16 18 17 19 16, 242 19, 20, 242, 244 18, 19, 26, 57 47 231 227 81 228 43 129 129 28 246 246 41 89 153 153 196, 199 128 167 5, 41, 109, 110 24 42 47, 48 164 25

263

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu

23.8 23.9 23.21 24.20 24.24 25.13 28.26 30.13 31.2 31.23 31.27 33.4 33.54 35.33

25 39 41 158 158 49 194 199 147 42 205 118 137 160

Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt

1.13 1.17 1.19 1.27 2.27 3.11 3.28 4.5 4.8 4.14 4.29 4.45 5.5 7.25 8 8.2 8.3 8.5 9.9 9.16 10.17 12.7 12.23 13.6 13.10 15.10 16.15 17.6 17.16 19.3 21.5 21.8 21.17 22.17 22.19

235 51 164 74 8 146 217 131 13 124, 166 93 187 214 133 46 45 45 45 58 206 111 198 38 154 129 184 17 120 214, 218 216 16, 17 112, 160 51 92 141

Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt Dt

22.25 23.1-3 24.4 26.5 27 27.12 27.12ff 27.14 27.15-26 27.19 28 28.3-6 28.12 28.25 29.9-18 29.11 29.16 29.16ff 29.18 29.19 29.20 30.6 30.19 31.27 32.7 32.43 33.7

Josh Josh Josh Josh Josh Josh Josh Josh Josh Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg Jdg

1.7 1.8 2.5 5.4 6.1 6.17 7.15 11.15 24.14

1.26 3.16 4.4 5.11 5.20 5.51 9.1 9.21 13.12 20.8 20.9 20.14

29 238 103 21, 158 16, 18, 19 16 16 21 16, 18 31 18 16 188 22, 23 30 8 30 29 31, 32 34 117 111 57 77 232 148, 160 59 38 131 124 111 190 69 167 167 162 164 72 128 211 183 249 200 189 55 128 225 183

264

INDICES

Jdg 20.32 Jdg 21.11

129 225, 228

1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm 1Sm

1.26 2.8 2.24 4.9 4.12 5.10 6.3 6.6 12.7 14.33 15.2 16.18 17.39 20.8 23.20 24.13 24.16 24.20 25.7 25.13 25.16 25.26 26.23

166 66 29 103 72 121 134 77 211 78 125 174 72 65 50, 51 147 225 133 195 129 195 142 240

2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm 2Sm

1.22 1.23 2.22 3.35 3.39 4.4 5.4 6.5 7.14 7.28 9.3 11.7 12.1 12.9 13.12 13.13 13.23 14.28 18.11 19.20 20.12 22.21 24.14

250 175 20 120 25 238 187 195 12 182 238 129 59 111 207 207 155 155 50 12 91 179 62

2Sm 24.17

11, 12

1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg 1Kg

8.47 10.12 10.13 12.24 13.31 16.11 17.13 18.4 18.13 19.3 20.40 21.15

11, 12 195 55 128 137 187 129 55, 69 55 144 92, 163 120

2Kg 2Kg 2Kg 2Kg 2Kg 2Kg 2Kg

9.32 13.2 15.20 17.14f 19.6 22.19 23.3

20 109 139 77 76 209 93, 109

Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is

1.1 1.16 1.17 1.23 2.22 3.4 3.7 5.14 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.10 7.15 7.16 8.11 9.4 9.5 9.11 10.23 11.1 11.4 12.2 12.4 13.9 13.11 14.5

15, 83, 84, 194 43 41 130 75 121 23 246 73 35, 36 215 160 76, 78 3, 4 3, 4 226 40, 91, 92 71 93 92 249 249 9 90 74 24 250

265

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is

15.2 19.5 19.16 20.2 20.3 21.4 21.10 22.14 22.18 23.12 24.22 25.4 26.3 26.4 27.11 28.9 28.15 28.16 28.19 28.22 29.15 29.24 30.13 30.15 30.18 31.4 32.6 32.14 33.18 36.19 37.12 37.27 38.11 38.14 38.20 40.3 40.10 40.12 40.14 40.23 40.29 41.9 41.20 42.2 42.3 43.19 45.17 47.11 49.8 51.8

230 42 214 150, 151 150 209 103 160 66 164 106 249 64 71 242 198 158 160, 161 21 92 180 209 249 40 78, 173 131 75 250 131 133 83 76 41 131 58 164, 165, 166, 182 158 8 51 33 33 3 95 246 68 99 60, 71 82 160 80

Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is

51.9 52.2 53.3 55.3 56.6 57.18 58.6 58.7 58.9b 59.1 59.3 59.13 59.18 59.20 60.5 60.20 61.3 63.7 63.15 64.3 64.5 66.6

71 102 181, 236 65 242 70 192, 209 103 209 76, 77 56 34 23 205 61 187 160 13, 14, 63, 64 190 213 26 23

Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je

1.14 2.32 3.2 3.5 3.12 4.2 4.4 4.18 5.2 6.10 6.28 7.5 7.26 8.9 9.4 9.11 9.23 10.12 10.23 14.7 14.19 15.4 15.15 16.13 17.10 17.23 18.11

202 33 76 205 205 5 111 60 5 229 152 60 77 1 12 24 4 91 50 26 37 21, 22, 23 147 107 60 77 60

266 Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je Je

INDICES

19.15 20.15 22.28 23.22 24.9 25.5 25.14 26.13 28.3 28.11 29.10 29.18 31.2 32.19 33.24 34.17 35.5 40.4 44.27 48.10 48.29 51.6 51.46

Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk

3.18 3.19 14 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.22 14.23 16.42 16.52 17.17 19.11 20.41 20.43 20.44 21.10 22.9 22.14 22.15 23.25 23.46 24.8 24.14 25.12 28.26

77 136 55 60 21 60 196 60 155 155 228 22, 25, 80 24 60 3 22 60 192 83 146 74 23 62

Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk Ezk

31.18 32.2 32.7 32.8 36.17 36.19 36.25 36.28 39.25 43.7

66 42 20 190 60 60 67 122 34, 75 76

Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho

2.9 3.5 4.4 4.9 5.6 5.7 6.10 7.3 9.7 9.7f 10.13 13.15

203 61 180 67 203 155 76 207 53, 58 58 39 57

116 116 31 30, 67, 111 30, 31 30 30 30 60, 89 60, 89 75 41 117 250 49, 173, 176 89, 90 60, 90, 117 250 152 117 93 75 21, 22 117 60 144 118

Am Am Am Am

3.14 5.15 5.21 8.4

24 3 3 165

Jl 2.11

223

Ob 6

103

Jn 1.46

3

Mi 3.1 Mi 3.4 Mi 5.14 Mi 6.2 Mi 6.8 Mi 7.15 Mi 7.17

50 90 117 180 4, 68, 105, 106, 157, 208 43 61

Na 1.2 Na 2.2

23, 144, 146, 147, 205 231

Zp 1.6

34

Zc 3.9 Zc 7.11 Zc 13.1

128 76, 77 242

267

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Ma Ma Ma Ma Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps

1.9 2.2 2.6 3.3

1.2 5.7 5.8 9.12 12(13).4 15.2 18.25 20.5 20.5f 21.11 22.25 23.1 23.5 28.4 29.11 31.17 32.8 33.11 35.13 35.16 36.11 40.9 41.14 44.9 45.3 45.5 45.17 49.3 50.2 51.3 51.15 56.3 59.17 61.4 61.5 61.8 62.8 62.10 63.6 63.7 65.15 67.2 67.72 68.6 69.10 69.14

21 30 56 92 131 60 63 90 38 15 179, 182 246 246 70 46 160 199 160, 196, 203 17 19 91 242 45 106 11 103 27 195 246 105 189 53 245 62 131 146 147 249 71 213 214 53 64 188 127 19 242 26 34, 75 63

Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps

70.6 71.6 71.20 72.5 72.19 74.3 77.6 77.12 77.13 78.31 78.38 79.9 80.4 80.8 80.20 81.4 84.12 88.2 88.5 88.7 89.2 89.16f 89.44 89.53 90.4 92.5 92.8 92.12 93 93.3 94.1 95.10 99.8 102 103.6 103.7 103.9 103.13 103.14 103.17f 104 104.22 105.1 105.20 105.27 105.44 106.3 106.6 106.7 106.39 106.40

59 195 80 80 27 71 71 90 60 117 160, 205 160 19 19 19 193 15 9 39 82 213 20 250 27 188 195 204 213 48 48 79 209 147, 148, 150 205 211 60 205 65 110 11 187 187 90 192 192 183 173 11, 12 63 60 66

268

INDICES

Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps

106.42 106.45 107.8 107.15 107.18 107.21 107.31 112.7 119 119.1 119.9 119.14 119.38 119.47 119.77f 119.84 119.105 119.106 119.108 119.135 119.148 119.163 121.1f 121.8 128.5 132.13 132.16 133.2 136.10 137.1 143.10 145.9 145.13 146.8

209 63 220 220 66 220 220 64 20 15 176 20 222 20 20 117, 119 20 245 172 19, 20 188 60 129 198 136 204 106 72 24 151 183 65 71 150

Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr

1.2 1.7 1.25 2.7 3.2 3.5 4.25 6.12 6.18 6.23 8 8.33 9.17 10.4 10.9 12.8

37 37 142 15 60 121 213 217 39 20 91 142 149 146 15 218, 221

Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr

12.10 12.19 12.24 13.18 14.17 14.29 15.8 15.18 15.22 16.32 18.10 18.11 19.23 19.25 20.11 20.24 21.3 23.4 24.21 24.24 25.15 26.3 27.4 28.18 28.25 29.8 31.12

74 56 146 142 142, 144 62, 75 103 62 142 62 249 249 24 68 89 223 105 121 169 25 62 250 74 15 73 205 14

Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb

2.5 4.8 6.2 6.23 6.26 6.31 7.7 9.13 10.12 10.18 13.3 13.15 14.5 19.5 19.19 20.10 21.22 25.6 31.7 31.14 33.16 33.27 39.27

119 40 82 194 127 194 212 205 69 213 181 181 30 196 60 159 131 218 109 70 213 12 133

269

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Jb 39.29

213

Ct 2.16 Ct 7.2

103 214

Ru 1.1 Ru 4.7

43 240

Lam Lam Lam Lam

1.18 2.19 3.15 4.8

182 188 81 20

Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec

1.16 7.11 8.1 8.12 9.4 9.6 9.16 10.6 10.12 10.18

213 222 20 107 217 75 63 74 246 74

Est Est Est Est Est Est Est

1.15 1.16 2.12 2.15 4.13 5.9 10.1

118 12 133 133 223 154 233

Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn

2.24 2.37 5.9 6.9 6.16 7.2 7.21 9.5 9.12 9.13 9.15 9.17 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.26 9.27 10.11 10.16

188 162, 175 162 54 54 186, 189 38 11, 12 184 26 12 19 96, 97 95 62, 194, 198 92 92 95 28

Dn 10.18 Dn 11.33 Dn 11.36

28 50 92, 103, 104

Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr Ezr

1.11 2.68 3.11 4.3 4.12 5.16 6.21 7.12 9.13 9.14

80, 106, 186 92 47 51 244 244 205 162, 175 26 118, 120

Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh Neh

4.11 6.4 8.6 8.12 8.18 9.16 9.17 9.25 9.29 9.35 10.31 11.17 13.14 13.29

59 141 27 95 178 77 77 62 77, 104 62 108 49 118, 119, 184 40

1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch 1Ch

5.1 15.22 16.8 16.36 17.21 21.6 22.3 22.4 22.8 22.16 23.13 23.28 25.1 25.2 28.1 28.7

199 38 90 27 102 66 33 33 78 33 192 134 195 234 237 38

2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch

6.37 6.42 7.19 10.16

12 65 196 141

270 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch 2Ch

INDICES

13.5 14.10 20.17 21.19 22.11 24.11 26.5 26.13 26.18 26.20 29.8 30.21 32.32 35.26 36.13

New Testament Mt 3.1 Mt 5.22 Mt 5.26 Mt 5.28 Mt 6.2 Mt 26.40 Mk 7.34 Mk 15.34 Lk 2.15 Lk 16.29 Lk 16.31 Lk 24.27 John 1.23 John 1.51 John 3.3 John 3.19 John 3.20f Acts 1.26 Acts 4.32-37 Acts 5.2 Acts 8.28 1Cor 6.19 1Cor 14.15 2Cor 4.6 Ro 1.25 Gal 5.22-23 Eph 1.3 Eph 1.18 Eph 4.2 Eph 4.15 2Th 3.16 1John 4.6 Rev 5.14

50 232 51 80 103 178 43 234 51 238 21, 22 178 65 65 77 165 25 27 5 27 38 117, 200 124 31 3 3 3 165 27 27 25 111 137 7 141 131 206 195 20 27 62 17 20 62 105 21 57 27

Deuterocanonical 4Ezra 7.81-82 Enoch 103.8 Jub 6.23 Ben Sira

books 38 25 194 20, 68, 88, 91, 96, 97, 110, 192, 235 Si 3.26f 77 Si 4.14 192 Si 5.4 62 Si 5.11 62 Si 6.32 68, 78 Si 7.16 235 Si 7.24 19 Si 11.7 240 Si 11.12 150 Si 11.29A 176 Si 12.14 91 Si 12.15 189 Si 13.25f 20 Si 14.11 200 Si 15.12 55 Si 15.18 91 Si 16.21 213 Si 30.18 67 Si 31[Heb. 34].13 208 Si 31.14 150 Si 31.18 150 Si 32.11 19, 20 Si 37.28B 176 Si 40.14 80 Si 42.21 63 Si 42.24 36 Si 43.7 187 Si 44.21 17 Si 45.5 131 Si 48.12 214 Si 48.25 54 Si 49.16 96 Wi 7.26 72 Test. Judah 20.1-2 56 Rabbinic literature bBer 9a 65 bBer 12a 149 bBer 63b 89 bBer 4.2 220 bBer 9.1 107 bBer 9.3 107 bBer 12a 149

271

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

bBer 28a bBets 22a bKeth 46a bKidd 62a bNaz 62a bSanh 99b

72 147 92 176 201 131

jBer 9.1 jBer 9.4 jGitt 9.50a jShab 12c jSota 7.2

107 192 222 20 107

mAbot 4.18 mAbot 5.19 mAbot 5.20 mBer 4.2 mBer 9.3 mDem 3.5 mHag 2.1 mHor 1.1 mKet 8.5 mMak 5.1 mMeg 4.6 mNeg 2.2 mNeg 13.9

159 74 126 220 107 146 130 8 139 42 150 238 238

mOr 3.3 mPa 6.3 mPes 10.6 mSota 7.5 mTaan 4.8 mYad 4.3 mYeb 6.6 mYeb 11.5 mYoma 3.8

229 119 220 16 107 161 70 36, 191 11

GenR 12.4 GenR 13.16 LvR 19.4 NuR 13.18 LamR 1.23

189 204 74 55 205

Tan. Maa 5

39

Targum Gn 8.21 O Dt 1.13 J 1Kg 7.7 Is 20.2, 3 Is 40.3 Ps 1.2 Ps 88.5

49 236 244 150 165 131 39

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Abegg, M.G. 26, 75, 78, 91, 94, 97, 205, 227 Andersen, F.I. 18, 96, 146 Ariel, Ch. 241 Atkinson, K. 171 Avineri, I. 107 Barr, J. 146 Barth, J. 65, 104 BDB 8, 10, 23, 35, 40, 57, 59, 64, 84, 93, 95, 103, 104, 107, 117, 120, 126, 127, 129, 131, 134, 145, 154, 158, 165, 173, 175, 187, 188, 190, 199, 201, 203, 222, 223, 232, 233, 239, 244, 249 Bendavid, A. 107 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. 110, 134 Ben Yehuda, Z. 127, 149, 161 Bergsträsser, G. 41 Beyer, K. 48 BL 37, 89, 230, 232 Blau, J. 47 Brockelmann, C. 107, 144, 146, 154, 176 Brooke, G.J. 249 Brownlee, W.H. 9, 10, 32, 42, 47, 92, 96, 99, 100, 107, 110, 113, 117, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137, 141, 142, 146, 155, 158, 161, 162, 164, 172, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 189, 191, 192, 195, 197, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 213, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 Carmignac, J. 36, 226, 229, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 243, 245, 247, 248, 250 Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 22, 26, 29, 31, 34, 38, 40, 41, 44, 50, 52, 54, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 75, 76, 82, 87, 89, 90, 93, 94, 99, 101, 102, 103, 107, 114, 121, 123, 129, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 153, 157, 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 184, 186, 190, 191,

195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 204, 206, 207, 208, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249 Clines, D. (ed.) 17, 31, 33, 82, 92, 105, 106, 145, 150, 152, 153, 158, 164, 205, 213 Cohen, D. 91, 154 Cook, E.M. 26, 75, 94, 97, 135, 205, 227 Dalman, G.H. 38, 124, 161 DCH 13, 16, 17, 45, 58, 82, 92, 94, 95, 98, 105, 106, 126, 145, 152, 153, 180, 186, 190, 192, 197, 199, 205, 213, 234, 242, 244, 247 Delitzsch, C.F. 137, 141 Dotan, A. 71 Driver, S.R. 18, 32, 50, 154, 198 Dupont-Sommer, A. 4, 6, 12, 13, 22, 26, 29, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 58, 64, 76, 79, 80, 82, 88, 90, 93, 94, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110, 113, 122, 124, 129, 132, 134, 139, 147, 148, 149, 154, 156, 158, 164, 166, 167, 171, 172, 178, 181, 183, 189, 190, 191, 198, 199, 201, 204, 209, 211, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223, 233, 234, 244, 246 Ehrlich, A.B. 158, 161 Epstein, J.N. 119 Evans, C.A. 248 Fabry, H.-J. 171 Fassberg, S.E. 38, 107, 121 Fitzmyer, J.A. 135 Freedman, H. 5 García Martínez, F. 4, 6, 7, 22, 24, 34, 40, 41, 43, 47, 51, 52, 57, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 76, 79, 82, 91, 94, 99, 101, 102, 109, 113, 119, 120, 124, 126, 129, 134, 139, 157, 167, 171, 172, 173,

274

INDICES

179, 180, 191, 196, 199, 203, 212, 215, 218, 220, 222, 223, 227, 234, 236, 245, 248 Gesenius, W. 12, 154, 187, 190 Gibson, J.C.L. 78 Ginsberg, H.L. 124, 197, 200, 217 GKC 18, 47 Greenfield, J.C. 155 Guilbert, P. 4, 5, 48, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 110, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 144, 150, 151, 153, 158, 167, 172, 173, 178, 181, 186, 191, 193, 199, 201, 203, 212, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223 Habermann, A.M. 12, 13, 19, 29, 40, 59, 63, 76, 78, 82, 92, 98, 99, 103, 115, 121, 130, 136, 155, 158, 159, 166, 168, 169, 171, 184, 189, 193, 194, 200, 205, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 238, 245, 249 HALOT 48, 91, 93, 131, 187, 190, 192, 206, 232 Holm-Nielsen, S. 84, 85 Hurvitz, A. 20, 33, 36, 53 Japhet, S. 33, 83, 85, 192 Jastrow, M. 92, 130, 176, 201, 222 Jenni, E. 8, 10, 17, 51, 144, 158 JM 14, 18, 22, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 47, 49, 52, 53, 57, 67, 68, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 97, 102, 105, 111, 121, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 146, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160, 166, 168, 172, 174, 176, 181, 187, 190, 191, 192, 202, 231, 235, 236, 239, 246 Joüon, P. 14 Kaddari, M.Z. 14, 98, 110, 127, 154, 190, 199 Kesterson, J.C. 107, 108 Kieviet, P.-J. 51 Kister, M. 84, 169 Klein, E.D. 133, 154 Knibb, M.A. 4, 22, 40, 93, 102, 103, 110, 181, 185, 225, 231, 233, 236 König, E. 74, 187 Kugler, R.A. 174 Kutscher, E.Y. 36, 43, 54, 107, 108, 121, 129, 139, 247

Lambert, G. 32, 48, 95, 98, 109, 172, 181, 190, 192, 199, 204, 207, 208, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223 Lane, E.W. 154 Leaney, A.R.C. 4, 7, 20, 22, 25, 26, 35, 40, 52, 62, 69, 74, 82, 92, 100, 102, 105 Licht, J. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 28, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 76, 77, 82, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 109, 117, 120, 123, 125, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 141, 144, 146, 150, 157, 160, 167, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 202, 205, 206, 208, 215, 216, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 250 Lohse, E. 4, 6, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 76, 77, 79, 82, 85, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107, 110, 113, 115, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 148, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 178, 184, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228, 231, 234, 236, 237, 242, 245, 247, 248, 249 Luzzatto, S.D. 121 Maier, J. 4, 92 Malessa, M. 17, 130 Mansoor, M. 84, 85 Martone, C. 22, 29, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 64, 76, 77, 82, 87, 94, 101, 102, 103, 107, 109, 110, 124, 129, 150, 153, 167, 173, 175, 203, 215, 218, 220, 222, 223 McKane, W. 22, 23, 146 Metso, S. 39, 53, 100 Michel, D. 232 Milgrom, J. 43, 45, 147, 163, 172, 184 Milik, J.T. 10, 48, 107, 132, 145, 147, 150, 158, 161, 166, 167, 169, 172, 175, 180, 181, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 205, 211, 212, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223, 231, 245, 248, 249, 250

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Mishor, M. 9, 14 Mor, U. 7, 22, 33, 35, 48, 51, 54, 64, 104, 108, 120, 137, 154, 180 Morag, S. 90, 117, 200, 229 Muraoka, T. 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 35, 38, 46, 48, 51, 55, 59, 61, 67, 77, 79, 80, 81, 94, 106, 107, 108, 111, 134, 135, 144, 145, 166, 186, 188, 198, 217, 221, 224, 225 Muraoka, T - Porten, B. 105 Nestle, E. 165 Nitzan, B. 19, 32 Nöldeke, Th. 93 O’Connor, M.

78, 187

Pardee, D. 108 Parry, D.W. 82, 151 Pérez Fernández, M. 50 Pouilly, J. 22, 32, 101, 102, 104, 109, 150, 154, 178, 181, 186, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223 Puech, É. 224 Qimron, E. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 151, 155, 157, 159, 161, 164, 169, 171, 174, 175, 176, 179, 181, 184, 186, 191, 192, 195, 197, 200, 201, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249, 250 Rabin, Ch. 103, 124, 128, 149, 194, 200 Rey, J.-S. 51 Rofé, A. 134 Schäfers, P. 171 Schiffman, L.H. 225, 227, 228, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240

275

Schulthess, F. 226 Segal, M.H. 36, 37, 42, 50, 58, 96, 107, 117, 150, 191, 192, 200, 229 Sivan, D. 57 Smith, M.S. 10, 155 Sokoloff, M. 135, 154, 176, 226 Sonne, I. 131 SQH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 242, 247, 248, 249, 250 Stegemann, H. 60, 99 Stenning, J.F. 4 Steudel, A. 226 Stillness, B. 171 Sukenik, E.L. (ed.) 4 Thomas, S. 171 Tropper, J. 232 van der Ploeg, J. 4, 5, 32, 64, 82, 92, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107, 109, 113, 114, 119, 122, 123, 124, 127, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 143, 144, 146, 151, 157, 159, 171, 172, 177, 179, 181, 189, 192, 195, 196, 201, 202, 205, 208, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 234, 248 van der Woude, A.S. 6 van Peursen, W.Th. 14, 165 Vermes, G. 6, 9, 22, 24, 26, 32, 35, 39, 40, 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 62, 66, 67, 76, 79, 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 113, 121, 129, 139, 146, 150, 153,

276

INDICES

167, 172, 173, 178, 203, 218, 220, 223, 225, 229, 233, 236, 237, 248 von Soden, W. 26 Waltke, B.K. 78, 187 Wernberg-Møller, P. 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 139, 141, 144, 146, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173,

176, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223 Wise, M. 94, 97, 205, 227 Wise, M. - Abegg, M. - Cook, E. 40, 41, 52, 55, 62, 63, 67, 70, 76, 94, 107, 110, 115, 125, 173, 189, 218, 220, 223, 225, 226, 236, 248 Yadin, Y. 93, 108, 133, 234, 248 Yalon, H. 6, 8, 41, 48, 63, 103, 119, 131, 133, 169, 208, 209, 217, 222, 229 Yuditsky, A. 241 Ziegler, J.

165

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA 1. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. 2. J. QUAEGEBEUR, Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. 3. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia. 4. W.M. CALLEWAERT, The Sarvangī of the Dadupanthī Rajab. 5. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I. 6. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. 7. M.-C. DE GRAEVE, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000-500 B.C.). 8. W.M. CALLEWAERT (ed.), Early Hindī Devotional Literature in Current Research. 9. F.L. DAMEN, Crisis and Religious Renewal in the Brahmo Samaj Movement (1860-1884). 10. R.Y. EBIED, A. VAN ROEY, L.R. WICKHAM, Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier. 11. A. RAMMANT-PEETERS, Les pyramidions égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. 12. S. SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua. 13. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua. 14. E. PLATTI, Yahya ibn ῾Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe. 15. E. GUBEL, E. LIPIŃSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Studia Phoenicia I-II. 16. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies. 17. M. VAN MOL, Handboek Modern Arabisch. 18. C. LAGA, J.A. MUNITIZ, L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. 19. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. 20. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. 21. K. VAN LERBERGHE, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. 22. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. 23. M. HELTZER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C.). 24. M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. 25. G. POLLET (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. 26. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Carthago. 27. E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. 28. R. ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. 29. W. CALLEWAERT, M. LATH, The Hindī Songs of Namdev. 30. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. 31. N. BAUM, Arbres et arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne. 32. J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIe-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes relatifs à l’initation des prêtres d’Amon. 33. H. DEVIJVER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Punic Wars. 34. E. VASSILIKA, Ptolemaic Philae. 35. A. GHAITH, La Pensée Religieuse chez Gubrân Halil Gubrân et Mihâ᾿îl Nu῾ayma. 36. N. BEAUX, Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. 37. G. POLLET, P. EGGERMONT, G. VAN DAMME, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae. Part II: Archaeological Sites. 38. S.-A. NAGUIB, Le Clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21e dynastie. 39. U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. 40. A.R. GEORGE, Babylonian Topographical Texts. 41. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qohelet. Part I: Grammatical Features.

42. G. REININK, H.E.J. VAN STIPHOUT (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 43. C. TRAUNECKER, Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. 44. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible. 45. L. ISEBAERT (ed.), Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens dicata. 46. F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. 47. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. 48. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Medioiranica. 49. L. LAUWERS, Igor’-Severjanin, His Life and Work — The Formal Aspects of His Poetry. 50. R.L. VOS, The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. 51. F. LABRIQUE, Stylistique et Théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition. 52. F. DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. 53. G. BREYER, Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluß des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. 54. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaign in Southern Punjab. 55. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. 56. A. VAN ROEY, P. ALLEN, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. 57. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. 58. F.R. HERBIN, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. 59. K. GEUS, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. 60. A. SCHOORS, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii. 61. M. KRAUSE, S. GIVERSEN, P. NAGEL (eds.), Coptology. Past, Present and Future. Studies in Honour of R. Kasser. 62. C. LEITZ, Altägyptische Sternuhren. 63. J.J. CLÈRE, Les Chauves d’Hathor. 64. E. LIPIŃSKI, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. 65. K. VAN LERBERGHE, A. SCHOORS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. 66. G. POLLET (ed.), Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its impact. 67. D. DE SMET, La quiétude de l’Intellect. Néoplatonisme et gnose ismaélienne dans l’œuvre de Hamîd ad-Dîn al-Kirmânî (Xe-XIe s.). 68. M.L. FOLMER, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation. 69. S. IKRAM, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. 70. H. WILLEMS, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. 71. C. EDER, Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. 72. J. THIRY, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du Nord médiévale. 73. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras I. 74. P. ARÈNES, La déesse sGrol-Ma (Tara). Recherches sur la nature et le statut d’une divinité du bouddhisme tibétain. 75. K. CIGGAAR, A. DAVIDS, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations I. 76. M. BROZE, Mythe et Roman en Égypte ancienne. Les Aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. 77. L. DEPUYDT, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. 78. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu.

79. A. HASNAWI, A. ELAMRANI, M. JAMAL, M. AOUAD (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. 80. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 81. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara I. Traduction. 82. C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. 83. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II. 84-85. W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. 86. U. VERMEULEN, J.M. VAN REETH (eds.), Law, Christianity and Modernism in Islamic Society. 87. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Philosophy and Arts in the Islamic World. 88. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara II. Traduction. 89. G.J. REININK, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers. 90. C.R. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. 91. M. TAHTAH, Entre pragmatisme, réformisme et modernisme. Le rôle politicoreligieux des Khattabi dans le Rif (Maroc) jusqu’à 1926. 92. K. CIGGAAR, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations II. 93. A.C.J. VERHEIJ, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim. A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. 94. W.M. CALLEWAERT, D. TAILLIEU, F. LALEMAN, A Descriptive Bibliography of Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). 95. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara III. Traduction. 96. K. VAN LERBERGHE, G. VOET (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. 97. A. CABROL, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. 98. J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Monastic Life, Liturgy, Theology, Literature, Art, Archaeology. 99. U.VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift. 100. E. LIPIŃSKI, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. 101. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara IV. Traduction. 102. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III. 103. H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. 104. K. GEUS, K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. 105. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les fêtes d’Hathor. 106. R. PREYS, Les complexes de la demeure du sistre et du trône de Rê. Théologie et décoration dans le temple d’Hathor à Dendera. 107. A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. 108. S. LEDER (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. 109. A. GODDEERIS, Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). 110. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band I. 111. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band II. 112. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band III. 113. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band IV. 114. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band V. 115. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VI. 116. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VII. 117. M. VAN MOL, Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts.

118. M.F.J. BAASTEN, W.T. VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 119. O.E. KAPER, The Egyptian God Tutu. A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. 120. E. WARDINI, Lebanese Place-Names (Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon). 121. J. VAN DER VLIET, Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.). 122. A. ŁAJTAR, Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek). 123. H. NIEHR, Ba῾alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. 124. H. WILLEMS, F. COPPENS, M. DE MEYER, P. DILS, The Temple of Shanhûr. Volume I: The Sanctuary, The Wabet, and the Gates of the Central Hall and the Great Vestibule (1-98). 125. K. CIGGAAR, H.G.B. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations III. 126. T. SOLDATJENKOVA, E. WAEGEMANS (eds.), For East is East. Liber Amicorum Wojciech Skalmowski. 127. E. LIPIŃSKI, Itineraria Phoenicia. 128. D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechischrömischen Zeit. Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des Interkulturellen Kontakts. 129. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VIII. 130. E.J. VAN DER STEEN, Tribes and Territories in Transition. 131. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Traduction. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 132. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Index phraséologique. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 133. M. IMMERZEEL, J. VAN DER VLIET, M. KERSTEN, C. VAN ZOEST (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. 134. J.J. VAN GINKEL, H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, T.M. VAN LINT (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. 135. J. MONTGOMERY (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6-10 July 2002. 136. T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. 137. B. JANSSENS, B. ROOSEN, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 138. S. HENDRICKX, R.F. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIAŁOWICZ, M. CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. 139. R. ARNZEN, J. THIELMANN (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science. 140. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IV. 141. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume I: Arabic text. 142. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène. 143. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II: Vocabulary. 144. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 1. 145. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 2.

146. M. CACOUROS, M.-H. CONGOURDEAU (eds.), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission. 147. K. CIGGAAR, M. METCALF (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean I. 148. B. MICHALAK-PIKULSKA, A. PIKULSKI (eds.), Authority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam. 149. E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. 150. J.-Cl. GOYON, C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues. Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004. 151. S. SANDRI, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. 152. J.E. MONTGOMERY (ed.), Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. 153. E. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches. 154. M. MINAS-NERPEL, Der Gott Chepri. Untersuchungen zu Schriftzeugnissen und ikonographischen Quellen vom Alten Reich bis in griechisch-römische Zeit. 155. H. WILLEMS, Dayr al-Barsha Volume I. The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3). With an Essay on the History and Nature of Nomarchal Rule in the Early Middle Kingdom. 156. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. 157. A. CAMPLANI, G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism. 158. J. TAVERNIER, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. 159. P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean. 160. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. 161. B. LURSON, Osiris, Ramsès, Thot et le Nil. Les chapelles secondaires des temples de Derr et Ouadi es-Seboua. 162. G. DEL OLMO LETE (ed.), Mythologie et Religion des Sémites occidentaux. 163. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS (eds.), Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin - 3 juillet 2004. 164. A. BERLEJUNG, P. VAN HECKE (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 165. A.G.C. SAVVIDES, Byzantino-Normannica. The Norman Capture of Italy and the First Two Invasions in Byzantium. 166. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded (Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf). Volume II: English translation, introduction and notes. 167. S. ARGUILLÈRE, Profusion de la vaste sphère. Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet, 1308-1364). Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine. 168. D. DE SMET, Les Épîtres sacrées des Druzes. Rasa᾿il al-Hikma. Volumes 1 et 2. 169. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V. 170. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, J.W. DRIJVERS, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. 171. K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam. Studies in Honour of Professor Urbain Vermeulen. 172. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2.

173. J.H.F. DIJKSTRA, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE). 174. I. UYTTERHOEVEN, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. 175. P. KOUSOULIS (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. 176. A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora Church. 177. J. NAWAS (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Leuven, 28 June - 1 July 2004. 178. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume I: Traduction. 179. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume II: Analyse à la lumière du temple d’Hathor. 180. M. ZITMAN, The Necropolis of Assiut. 181. E. LIPIŃSKI, Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. 182. C. KARLSHAUSEN, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. 183. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI. 184. M. IMMERZEEL, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. 185. D. MAGEE, J. BOURRIAU, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Sitting Beside Lepsius. Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. 186. A. STEVENSON, The Predynastic Egyptian Cemetery of el-Gerzeh. 187. D. BUMAZHNOV, E. GRYPEOU, T.B. SAILORS, A. TOEPEL (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag. 188. J. ELAYI, A.G. ELAYI, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Century BCE). 189. F. HAGEN, J. JOHNSTON, W. MONKHOUSE, K. PIQUETTE, J. TAIT, M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Literary and Linguistic Approaches. 190. V. VAN DER STEDE, Les pratiques de stockage au Proche-Orient ancien du Natoufien à la première moitié du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. 191. W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. 192. M. MARÉE (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects. 193. I. JACOBS, Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The ‘Classical’ City from the 4th to the 7th c. AD. 194. H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen. 195. I. REGULSKI, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. 196. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIII. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Façade et colonnes. 197. M. KUHN, Koptische liturgische Melodien. Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia. 198. B. SNELDERS, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. 199. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean II. 200. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics III. 201. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Parois intérieures. 202. K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. 203. F.S. JONES, Pseudoclementina Elchasaiticaque inter Judaeochristiana. Collected Studies.

204. D. ASTON, B. BADER, C. GALLORINI, P. NICHOLSON, S. BUCKINGHAM (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. 205. R.F. FRIEDMAN, P.N. FISKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. 206. S. DORPMUELLER (ed.), Fictionalizing the Past: Historical Characters in Arabic Popular Epic. 207. G. CONTU (ed.), Centre and Periphery within the Borders of Islam. 208. B. MAHIEU, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition. 209. M.M. BAR-ASHER, A. KOFSKY, Kitab al-Ma῾arif by Abu Sa῾īd Maymun b. Qasim al-Tabaranī. Critical Edition with an Introduction. 210. M. DE MEYER, Dayr al-Barsha Volume II. First Intermediate Period Restoration of Old Kingdom Tombs. 211. R. EL-SAYED, Afrikanischstämmiger Lehnwortschatz im älteren Ägyptisch. 212. P. VAN DEUN, C. MACÉ (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? 213. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Plafond et parois extérieures. 214. L. EVANS (ed.), Ancient Memphis, “Enduring is the Perfection”. 215. V. KLEMM, N. AL-SHA῾AR (eds.), Sources and Approaches across Disciplines in Near Eastern Studies. 216. A.M. BAGG, Die Assyrer und das Westland. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. 217. B. BADER, M.F. OWNBY (eds.), Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. 218. F. HAGEN, An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of Ptahhotep. 219. I. REGULSKI, K. DUISTERMAAT, P. VERKINDEREN (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. 220. T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe. 221. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor : Analyse de la décoration. 222. N. TACKE, Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. 223. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. 224. J. YOYOTTE, Histoire, géographie et religion de l’Égypte ancienne. Opera selecta. Textes édités et indexés par Ivan Guermeur. 225. H. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume III: A Lexicon of 17th-century Egyptian Arabic. 226. A. CILARDO (ed.), Islam and Globalisation. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 227. S. BROCK, L. VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). 228. G. POLLET, G. VAN DAMME, F. DEPUYDT, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae III: Indian Toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts. 229. M. DEPAUW, S. COUSSEMENT (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. 230. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. 231. M. DEPAUW, Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies. 232. S.H. AUFRÈRE, P.S. ALEXANDER, Z. PLEŠE (eds.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. 233. C. WAERZEGGERS, Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. 234. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 235. M. SOKOLOFF, Texts of Various Contents in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

236. R.A. FAZZINI, J. VAN DIJK (eds.), The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions. 237. E. LIPIŃSKI, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. 238. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Harsomtous. 239. A.S. LA LOGGIA, Engineering and Construction in Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period. 240. A.H. PRIES (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. 241. P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22-29 May 2008. 242. P. COLLOMBERT, D. LEFÈVRE, S. POLIS, J. WINAND (eds.), Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus. 243. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 244. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VIII. 245. B. BADER, C.M. KNOBLAUCH, E.C. KÖHLER (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. 246. J. VAN DIJK (ed.), Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin. 247. P. BUZI, A. CAMPLANI, F. CONTARDI (eds.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. 248. M. REINKOWSKI, M. WINET (eds.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Europe and Beyond. Études arabes et islamiques en Europe et au-delà. 249. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 250. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV. 251. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 252. M.D. ADAMS, B. MIDANT-REYNES, E.M. RYAN, Y. TRISTANT (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 4. 253. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 3. 254. J. HÄMEEN-ANTTILA, P. KOSKIKALLIO, I. LINDSTEDT (eds.), Contacts and Interaction. 255. J. STAUDER-PORCHET, Les autobiographies de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. 256. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS, S. AUFRÈRE (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy. 257. S. BICKEL, L. DÍAZ-IGLESIAS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Literature. 258. L. MUEHLETHALER, G. SCHWARB, S. SCHMIDTKE (eds.), Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam. 259. M. IMMERZEEL, The Narrow Way to Heaven. Identity and Identities in the Art of Middle Eastern Christianity. 260. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, E.M. RYAN (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 5. 261. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 262. G. MINIACI, M. BETRÒ, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). 263. D. BRAKKE, S.J. DAVIS, S. EMMEL (eds.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton. 264. R. DEKKER, Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt. Bishops of the Theban Region at Work. 265. C. JURMAN, B. BADER, D. ASTON (eds.), A True Scribe of Abydos. Essays on First Millennium Egypt in Honour of Anthony Leahy. 266. M. WISSA (ed.), Scribal Practices and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Medieval Islam. 267. E. LIPIŃSKI, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire.

268. A. BATMAZ, G. BEDIANASHVILI, A. MICHALEWICZ, A. ROBINSON (eds.), Context and Connection. Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. 269. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean III. 270. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 273. M. HONEGGER (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. 274. M. ABOU-ABDALLAH, L’histoire du royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080-333. 275. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Israel. 276. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. 277. C. WAERZEGGERS, M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. 278. K. D’HULSTER, G. SCHALLENBERGH, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IX. 279. M.-J. ROCHE, Inscriptions nabatéennes datées de la fin du IIe siècle avant notre ère au milieu du IVe siècle. 280. W. CLARYSSE, A.I. BLASCO TORRES (eds.), Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur. 281. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, G. JANS (eds.), About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape. 282. J. LEEMANS, G. ROSKAM, J. SEGERS (eds.), John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala: Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians. 283. A. PELLITTERI, M.G. SCIORTINO, D. SICARI, N. ELSAKAAN (eds.), Re-defining a Space of Encounter. Islam and Mediterranean: Identity, Alterity and Interactions. 284. E. DESPOTAKIS, John Plousiadenos (1423?-1500). A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career. 285. J.-M. DAHMS, Die Särge des Karenen. Untersuchungen zu Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten. 286. A. BUCOSSI, A. CALIA (eds.), Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos. The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. 287. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah. 288. M. CONTERNO, M. MAZZOLA (eds.), Intercultural Exchange in Late Antique Historiography. 289. A.R. WARFE, J.C.R. GILL, C.R. HAMILTON, A.J. PETTMAN, D.A. STEWART (eds.), Dust, Demons and Pots. Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope. 290. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Catalogue des dieux et des offrandes. 291. D. OLTEAN, Devenir moine à Byzance. Coutumes sociales, règles monastiques et rituels liturgiques. 292. M.M. GROß, At the Heart of an Empire: The Royal Household in the Neo-Assyrian Period. 293. Å. ENGSHEDEN, Ancient Place-Names in the Governorate of Kafr el-Sheikh. 294. M.L. AGATI, Il De tragoedia “barocciano”. Una rivisitazione cinquant’anni dopo. 295. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Hymnes à Hathor et à Isis. 296. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les structures décoratives du temple d’Hathor. 297. S.H. AUFRÈRE, C. SPIESER (eds.), Le microcosme animal en Égypte ancienne. De l’effroi à la vénération. 298. A. RIGO, Gregorio Palamas, Tomo aghioritico. La storia, il testo e la dottrina. 299. V.W.J. VAN GERVEN OEI, A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian. 300. A. MASSON-BERGHOFF, Le quartier des prêtres dans le temple d’Amon à Karnak. 301. R. AST, M. CHOAT, J. CROMWELL, J. LOUGOVAYA, R. YUEN-COLLINGRIDGE (eds.), Observing the Scribe at Work: Scribal Practice in the Ancient World. 302. V. BOSCHLOOS, B. OVERLAET, I.M. SWINNEN, V. VAN DER STEDE (eds.), Travels through the Orient and the Mediterranean World. Essays Presented to Eric Gubel.

303. E.C. KÖHLER, N. KUCH, F. JUNGE, A.-K. JESKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 6. 304. N. BUCHEZ, Y. TRISTANT, O. ROCHECOUSTE (eds.), Égypte antérieure. Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis. 305. W. CLAES, M. DE MEYER, M. EYCKERMAN, D. HUYGE (eds.), Remove that Pyramid! Studies on the Archaeology and History of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt in Honour of Stan Hendrickx. 306. M. CACOUROS, J.-H. SAUTEL (eds.), Des cahiers à l’histoire de la culture à Byzance. Hommages à Paul Canart, codicologue (1927-2017). 307. E. LIPIŃSKI, Études d’histoire biblique.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706