The Textual History of the Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Biblical Manuscripts of the Vienna Papyrus Collection: Proceedings of the Fifteenth ... on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 137) 9004504621, 9789004504622

Citation preview

The Textual History of the Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Biblical Manuscripts of the Vienna Papyrus Collection

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke Jutta Jokiranta Associate Editors Arjen Bakker Jonathan Ben-Dov Charlotte Hempel Judith Newman Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar

volume 137

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

The Textual History of the Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Biblical Manuscripts of the Vienna Papyrus Collection Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Cosponsored by the University of Vienna Institute for Jewish Studies and the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 10–13 April, 2016

Edited by

Ruth A. Clements Russell E. Fuller Armin Lange Paul D. Mandel

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. International Symposium (15th : 2016 : Hebrew University of Jerusalem), author. | Clements, Ruth, editor. | Fuller, Russell Earl, editor. | Lange, Armin, 1961– , editor. | Mandel, Paul D., 1953– , editor. Title: The textual history of the Bible from the Dead Sea scrolls to the biblical manuscripts of the Vienna Papyrus Collection : proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, cosponsored by the University of Vienna Institute for Jewish Studies and the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 10–13 April, 2016 / edited by Ruth A. Clements, Russell E. Fuller, Armin Lange, Paul D. Mandel. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2023] | Series: Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, 0169–9962 ; volume 137 | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: LCCN 2022018248 (print) | LCCN 2022018249 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004504622 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004511705 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Papyrussammlung— Congresses. | Dead Sea scrolls—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Congresses. | Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Congresses. Classification: LCC BM487 .O75 2016 (print) | LCC BM487 (ebook) | DDC 201/.50956—dc23/eng/20220705 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022018248 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022018249

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 978-90-04-50462-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-51170-5 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Ruth A. Clements, Russell E. Fuller, Armin Lange, and Paul D. Mandel. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface ix Esther G. Chazon Abbreviations xi List of Figures xvii Contributors and Abstracts xx 1

Introduction: A Survey of the Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures 1 Armin Lange

part 1 The Text of the Jewish Scriptures during the Second Temple Period 2

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions in Some Second Temple Period Writings: Textual History and Textual Reception 25 Russell E. Fuller

3

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Textual History of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library 43 Armin Lange

4

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text 155 Pablo A. Torijano Morales

5

The Contribution of Text Criticism to Literary Analysis, Redaction History, and the Study of Ancient Israelite Religion: The Case of Genesis 9:6 183 David Frankel

6

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8 in Light of “Rewritten Bible” Compositions from Qumran 219 Guy Darshan

7

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts 241 Alexander Rofé

vi

Contents

8

Demonic Deuteronomy? The Ending of Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate 253 Jonathan Ben-Dov

part 2 The Text of the Jewish Scriptures from the Jewish Wars to the Early Masoretic Codices 9

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration 287 Noah Hacham and Armin Lange

10

P.Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus) and the Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts 302 Emanuel Tov

11

A Byzantine Armband with Psalm 91(90):1 and the Rabbinic Shema in Greek: Text, Date, Provenance, and Function 316 Nancy Benovitz

12

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun from the Judean Desert to the Babylonian Talmud: ‫  דיכי‬344 Shamma Friedman

13

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible 363 Geoffrey Khan

Part 3 The Biblical Manuscripts in the Vienna Papyrus Collection

Hebrew Manuscripts from the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library Discussed in This Section 399

14

The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts 401 Bernhard Palme

Contents

vii

15

Masoretic Summaries of the Weekly Portions in P.Vindob. H 133 from the Rainer Collection in Vienna 411 Yosef Ofer

16

The Vienna Biblical Fragments (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) in Light of the Karaite Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish Halakhah, with a Detailed Study of the Unit Divisions by Josef Oesch 456 Ursula Schattner-Rieser

17

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book in the Vienna Papyrus Collection 512 Leeor Gottlieb

18

Manuscripts of the Former and the Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection 526 Viktor Golinets

19

Ketubim Fragments in the Austrian National Library: P.Vindob. H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, H 191 568 Josef M. Oesch

20 Masoretic Lists and Biblical Scribal Exercises in the Vienna Papyrus Collection: Evidence of Learning and Study of the Biblical Text in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries ce 594 Élodie Attia Index of Modern Authors 617 Index of Ancient Sources 626

Preface The papers delivered at the Fifteenth International Orion Symposium and published in this volume cover a millennium of the textual history of the Bible—from biblical, Second Temple, and rabbinic/early Christian times to the medieval manuscripts in the Vienna Papyrus Collection. This extraordinary endeavor represents the fruits of the special collaboration between the three academic cosponsors of the symposium—The Hebrew University’s Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, The University of Vienna’s Institute of Jewish Studies, and The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem. The editors of this volume, Dr. Ruth Clements, Orion Center; Prof. Russell Fuller, University of San Diego; Prof. Armin Lange, University of Vienna; Dr. Paul Mandel, Schechter Institute; and Orion copyeditor, Benjamin Frankel, have worked tirelessly as well as professionally to produce this impressive volume. Our thanks to Prof. Bernhard Palme, Director of the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for facilitating the publication of the photographs of the Vienna manuscripts included here. The academic leadership of Prof. George J. Brooke, the series editor of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, and the publishing expertise of Brill Academic Publishers, particularly Suzanne Mekking and Marjolein van Zuylen, along with production editor Gera van Bedaf, guided this volume to its successful completion. My sincere thanks, personally and on behalf of the Orion Center and our scholarly community, to each of them and to all of this volume’s authors. The four-day symposium on which this volume is based was made possible thanks to the generosity of all three academic cosponsoring institutions, as well as that of The Orion Foundation; The Sir Zelman Cowen Universities Fund; The Federal Ministry for Europe Integration and Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria; The Austrian Embassy, Tel Aviv; The Austrian Cultural Forum, Tel Aviv; Hebrew University’s Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies and Authority for Research & Development. Brill Academic Publishers generously sponsored the opening reception, at which Bas van der Mije, Brill; Prof. Armin Lange, University of Vienna; and Prof. Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University, launched the first volume of The Textual History of the Bible. The Hebrew University and the Schechter Institute graciously hosted the symposium on their respective Jerusalem campuses. Thanks are also due to Ariella Amir, who served as the Orion Center office administrator from 1997–2019, for her impeccable handling of the arrangements for the symposium participants

x

Preface

and lectures. Shiran Shevah, then Orion Bibliography Assistant, and the 2016 Orion student interns, Amanda Brown, Sharlin Decorato, and Un Sung Kwak, provided essential logistical support. I would like to take this opportunity to extend our deepest gratitude to Prof. Michael E. Stone for his vision in founding the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, and for his leadership as Orion’s Director during the Center’s formative first years. These proceedings of the Fifteenth International Orion Symposium are a worthy tribute to that vision of broad, integrative research and to the exceptional, collegial cooperation brought to fruition in this volume. Prof. Esther G. Chazon Director, Orion Center May 2021, Sivan 5781

Abbreviations AB ABD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 2008 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures AnBib Analecta Biblica ANTF Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament APF Archiv für Papyrusforschung APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913 ASAE Annales du service des antiquités de l’Egypte ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BA Biblical Archaeologist BDAG Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum BETL BHL BHQ BHS Bib BibOr BibSem BIOSCS

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia. Edited by A. Dotan. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001 Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Adrian Schenker et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004– Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblica et Orientalia The Biblical Seminar Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

xii

Abbreviations

BJS Brown Judaic Studies BRev Bible Review BThSt Biblisch-Theologische Studien BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BzA Beiträge zur Assyriologie BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Cultura Bíblica CB Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBET Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CEJL Culture and History of the Ancient Near East CHANE Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis CHJ Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–2006 Collectanea Biblica Latina cura et studio Monachorum S. Benedicti ColBL COMES Civitatum Orbis MEditerranei Studia CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas CSIC Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der DBAT Alten Kirche Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook DCLY Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by DDD Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DJD Dead Sea Discoveries DSD De Septuaginta Investigationes DSI Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman EDSS and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García DSSSE Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998 Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament EHAT EJL Early Judaism and Its Literature Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. EncJud 2nd ed. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007

Abbreviations ErIsr EstBib FAT FO FRLANT GBS HALOT

HCOT HdO HeBAI Hen HSM HThKAT HTR HTS HUBP HUCA ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ ISBL JAJ JAJSup JANER JBL JBS JETS JJS JNSL JSOT JSOTSup JQR JQS

xiii

Eretz Israel Estudios bíblicos Forschungen zum Alten Testament Folia Orientalia Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, 1994–2000. Electronic edition (CD-Rom), 2001 Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Henoch Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew University Bible Project Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick et al. New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976 Israel Exploration Journal Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Journal of Ancient Judaism Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of Biblical Literature Jerusalem Biblical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Qurʾanic Studies

xiv JSCS JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KUSATU LD Leš LHB/OTS LNTS LSTS MasS MGWJ MSU NCB NETS

NICOT NJPS OBO ORA OTE OTL PAAJR POuT PVTG QC QD RB RBén

Abbreviations Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–1969 Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Lectio Divina Lešonénu The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies The Library of New Testament Studies The Library of Second Temple Studies Masoretic Studies Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens New Century Bible New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007; 2nd printing with emendations and corrections, 2009 New International Commentary on the Old Testament Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalische Religionen in der Antique Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research De Prediking van het Oude Testament Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Qumran Chronicle Quaestiones Disputatae Revue biblique Revue bénédictine

Abbreviations REJ RevQ RGG

xv

Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998–2007 RTL Revue théologique de Louvain SA Studia Anselmiana SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology SBT SHCT Studies in the History of Christian Traditions ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies Shnaton Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies SIs Studia Islamica SJ Studia Judaica SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity SSEJC STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & SVTG Ruprecht, 1931– SVTGSup Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Supplement Series Symposium Series SymS TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism TC Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2018 Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritens TECC Texts and Editions for New Testament Study TENTS Textus Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project Textual History of the Bible THB Volume 1: The Hebrew Bible. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016–2017 Volume 2: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by Frank Feder, Matthias Henze, and Mika Pajunen. Leiden: Brill, 2019–2020 Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible THBSup Theologische Literaturzeitung TLZ Transeu Transeuphratène

xvi

Abbreviations

TranseuSup Suppléments à Transeuphratène TS Texts and Studies T-S Taylor–Schechter Genizah Collection, Cambridge University Library TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur TynBul Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift TZ UCOP University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel VL Vetus Testamentum VT Vetus Testamentum Supplements VTSup Word Biblical Commentary WBC Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WMANT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WUNT Yale Oriental Series, Researches YOSR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte ZABR Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZAW ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare

Figures 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14 15.15 15.16 15.17 15.18 15.19

Silver armband in the Israel Museum collection 317 Silver armband, panoramic view 318 Silver armband, view of the join between the partial final link and the remains of the first medallion 319 Silver armband, view of the mended break between Link VIII and Small Medallion IX 319 Deletion of vowel letters in P. Vindob. H 133, Fol. 3r (Gen 36:40) 412 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 16v, Gen 43:3–9, expanded writing 414 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 8v, Gen 38:18–24, condensed writing 415 Rafe signs in P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 1r 416 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 6v: A masoretic note out of place in the margin 418 Aleppo Codex (mtA), Fol. 2r: End of Ki Tavo and beginning of Niṣavim (Deut 29:8–10) 419 Leningrad Codex (mtL), Fol. 22v: End of Vayyishlaḥ and beginning of Vayyeshev (Gen 36:43–37:2) 420 London, British Library, Harley ms 5710, Fol. 30r: End of Miqqeṣ and beginning of Vayyigash (Gen 44:17–18) 420 London, British Library, Add ms 15451, Fol. 33r: End of Miqqeṣ and beginning of Vayyigash (Gen 44:17–18) 421 London, British Library, Add ms 15451, Fol. 1v: List of haftarot 422 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 4v, with masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ 424 Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. bh mss 1, Fol. 81r: Masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ 427 Masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ in Ginsburg, Tanakh 428 Mishael ben Uzziel’s note on Vayyeshev in Sefer ha-Ḥillufim, p. ‫( ח‬ed. L. Lipschütz) 431 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 9r: Disputes and agreements between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Vayyeshev 431 Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ; Sefer ha-Ḥillufim, pp. ‫( ט–ח‬ed. L. Lipschütz) 432 Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. bh mss 1, Fol. 81r: Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ 433 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 21r: Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ 433 Leningrad Codex (mtL), Fol. 464v: “The Number of Years in the Books” 440

xviii 15.20

Figures

P.Vindob. H 133, Fols. 11v–12r, Gen 41:30–45: Erasure of the name “Pharaoh” 442 15.21 P.Vindob. H 120, Fols. 1r (Gen 1:19–2:21a) / 2v (Gen 2:25b–3:3a) 444 15.22 P.Vindob. H 120, Fols. 1v (Gen 1:21b–24a) / 2r (Gen 2:22b–25a) 445 15.23 P.Vindob. H 170, recto and verso, Gen 48:3–7 446 15.24 P.Vindob. H 121, recto and verso, Gen 39:22–40:7 448 15.25 P.Vindob. H 15, recto, Gen 17:19–18:7 449 15.26 P.Vindob. H 15, verso, Gen 18:7–24 450 15.27 P.Vindob. H 32, unfinished left column 452–53 P.Vindob. H 6, recto, Exod 22:21–23:17a 458 16.1 P.Vindob. H 6, verso, Exod 23:17–24b 459 16.2 P.Vindob. H 109, Fols. 1r (Lev 7:3–12a) / 2v (Lev 7:29b–37) 462 16.3 P.Vindob. H 109, Fols. 2r (Lev 7:20b–29a) / 1v (Lev 7:12b–20a) 463 16.4 P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 1r, Lev 23:4b–17a 468 16.5 P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 1v, Lev 23:17b–28 469 16.6 P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 2r, Lev 25:15–29a 470 16.7 P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 2v, Lev 25:29b–42 471 16.8 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 1r, Num 21:24–22:5 475 16.9 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 1v, Num 22:5–22:21 476 16.10 16.11 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 2r, Num 22:21–22:35 477 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 2v, Num 22:35–23:10 478 16.12 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3r, Num 23:10–23:30 479 16.13 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3v, Num 23:30–24:18 480 16.14 16.15 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 4r, Num 24:18–25:14 481 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 4v, Num 25:14–26:15 482 16.16 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5r, Num 26:15–34 483 16.17 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5v, Num 26:34–52 484 16.18 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 6r, Num 26:52–27:2 485 16.19 16.20 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 6v, Num 27:2–18 486 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7r, Num 27:18–28:11 487 16.21 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7v, Num 28:11–28:26 488 16.22 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8r, Num 28:26–29:13 489 16.23 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8v, Num 29:13–29:30 490 16.24 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3r, col. 1, line 6: Num 23:12 492 16.25 16.26 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7v, col. 1, line 7: Num 28:12 492 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5v, col. 1, line 3: Num 26:35 492 16.27 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8r, col. 2, line 12: Num 29:5 493 16.28 16.29 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8v, col. 1, line 8: Num 29:14 493 16.30a–g P.Vindob. H 27, Liturgical division markers 497–499 P.Vindob. H 12, recto, Hos 6:1–11; 10:12; Ezek 16:9–12a 513 17.1

Figures 17.2 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.11 18.12 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 19.17 19.18 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7

xix P.Vindob. H 12, verso, Ezek 16:12b–19, Isa 66:3–7 514 P.Vindob. H 12, recto, Hos 6:1–11; 10:12; Ezek 16:9–12a 528 P.Vindob. H 12, verso, Ezek 16:12b–19, Isa 66:3–7 529 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 1r, Josh 1:11b; 6:27; 1 Kgs 18:46–19:2a 540 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 1v, 1 Kgs 19:2b–7a 541 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 2r, 1 Kgs 19:7b–11a 542 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 2v, 1 Kgs 19:11b–14a 543 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 3r, 1 Kgs 19:14b–18a 544 P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 3v, 1 Kgs 19:18b–21 545 P.Vindob. H 142, recto, 1 Sam 7:1–13 550 P.Vindob. H 142, verso, 1 Sam 7:15-8:13 551 P.Vindob. H 173, recto and verso, Zeph 2:5b–3:2a 556–557 P.Vindob. H 153, recto and verso, Zeph 3:4b–14a 558–559 P.Vindob. H 11, recto, Ps 9:8–10:10 570 P.Vindob. H 11, verso, Ps 10:11–12:8 571 P.Vindob. H 14, recto, Job 6:21–7:8 574 P.Vindob. H 14, verso, Job 7:9–8:5 575 P.Vindob. H 104, recto, Ps 18:4–11 578 P.Vindob. H 104, verso, Ps 18:12–19 579 P.Vindob. H 119, Fols. 1r (Dan 8:19–27) / 2v (Seder Rav Amram Ga‌ʾon Birkat ha-mazon) 580 P.Vindob. H 119: Fols. 2r (Seder Rav Amram Ga‌ʾon Birkat ha-mazon) / 1v (Dan 8:27–9:2) 581 P.Vindob. H 156, recto, Esth 9:13–26 584 P.Vindob. H 156, verso, Esth 9:26–10:3 585 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 1r, Esth 7:6–8 587 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 1v, Esth 7:8–9 588 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 2r, Esth 7:10–8:2 588 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 2v, Esth 8:2–5 589 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 3r, Esth 8:5–7 589 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 3v, Esth 8:7–9 590 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 4r, Esth 8:9–10 590 P.Vindob. H 191, Fol. 4v, Esth 8:10–12 591 P.Vindob. H 8, Fols. 1r/2v 596 P.Vindob. H 8, Fols. 1v/2r 597 P.Vindob. H 8, Graphic Sign 1 (Fol. 1r–v) 599 P.Vindob. H 8, Graphic Sign 2 (Fol. 2 r–v) 599 P.Vindob. H 8, Graphic Sign 3 (Fol. 2 r–v) 599 P.Vindob. H 168, recto 610 P.Vindob. H 168, verso 611

Contributors and Abstracts Élodie Attia Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, TDMAM, Aix-en-Provence, France Masoretic Lists and Biblical Scribal Exercises in the Vienna Papyrus Collection: Evidence of Learning and Study of the Biblical Text in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries CE The two fragments H 168 and H 8 do not directly copy the Hebrew biblical text, but they attest to practices for the study, learning, and copying of the Hebrew Bible in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the Jewish community of Egypt. Fragment H 168 reminds us that learning to write Hebrew was traditionally accomplished by copying biblical verses. Fragment H 8 shows that long after the integration of the masorah within the margins of the biblical codices, the ancient tradition of copying masoretic materials on separate booklets was still in use in Egypt. This reminds us that during the Middle Ages the biblical text and the masoretic tradition might be transmitted in a variety of forms, for different functions and uses; H 8 provides a window onto the continuing evolution of the masorah even after the promulgation of the Ben Asher codices. Jonathan Ben-Dov Department of Bible, Tel-Aviv University Demonic Deuteronomy? The Ending of Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate The article discusses the reception of Deuteronomy at the height of the Second Temple period, especially poetic sections in chapters 32 and 33 that depict YHWH and multiplicity in the divine realm. Some of these multiple minor divinities are considered as gods and others as demons. Apocalyptic circles like the Qumran yaḥad endorsed such multiplicity as part of their faith, and hence preferred the biblical variants that promote it. They conceived the end of Deuteronomy as an angelological proof text. In contrast, Sadducean objection to this worldview is expressed in a passage from the Book of Acts. The article thus contextualizes textual criticism in the social history of the Second Temple period. Nancy Benovitz The Israel Museum, Jerusalem A Byzantine Armband with Psalm 91(90):1 and the Rabbinic Shema in Greek: Text, Date, Provenance, and Function This paper presents a silver armband-amulet in the Israel Museum collection preserving a hitherto unknown Greek translation of the first two paragraphs of the Shema. The armband resembles a small group of apotropaic

Contributors and Abstracts

xxi

Christian armbands dating from the sixth–seventh century, which are decorated with Christian iconography, magical motifs, and Greek inscriptions. However, it is inscribed with Deuteronomy 6:4, Psalm 91:1, and a conflation of Deuteronomy 6:5–9 and Deuteronomy 11:13–21 in an early Byzantine Greek translation reflecting ties to the second-century Greek Bible translations, mainly that of Aquila. The armband appears to be a Jewish adaptation of the prestigious Christian model and, like it, may be from Egypt. Guy Darshan Department of Bible, Tel Aviv University The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1  Kings 6–8 in Light of “Rewritten Bible” Compositions from Qumran One of the main approaches to the textual history of MT 1 Kings / LXX 3 Kingdoms views the LXX (or its Hebrew Vorlage) as a late midrashic reworking of the MT version, or a rewritten text which can be compared to some of the “rewritten Bible” compositions from Qumran. In contrast to this view, by analyzing the prominent differences between the MT and LXX in 1 Kings 6–8, this paper aims to illustrate that the MT account of the building of Solomon’s Temple also appears to have been reworked in a fashion similar to that of some of the biblical scrolls from Qumran. In 1 Kings 8, brief expansions written in a Priestly style that correspond with sections in 4QSama were added; and in 1 Kings 6, a larger Priestly-like section, along the lines of the rewritten Joshua scrolls from Qumran (4Q379; 4Q522), was inserted. These quasi-Priestly revisions in 1 Kings 6–8 were intended to fuse the account of the building of the Temple with pentateuchal traditions, making the Solomonic Temple a direct continuation of the Priestly Tabernacle. David Frankel Department of Bible, The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem The Contribution of Text Criticism to Literary Analysis, Redaction History, and the Study of Ancient Israelite Religion: The Case of Genesis 9:6 This paper uses the text-critical analysis of Genesis 9:6, ‫שפך דם האדם באדם דמו‬ ‫ישפך‬, in demonstrating how text criticism can contribute to broader aspects of biblical study, including literary analysis, redaction criticism, and the study of ancient Israelite religion. The study begins by reviewing the standard interpretations of the verse and highlighting the significant difficulties that attend to them. A critical review of the textual evidence supplied by the versions and early interpreters suggests that the text should be emended to read ‫שפך דם‬ ‫ דמו ישפך‬,‫האדם בארץ‬. Various considerations include the texts of Numbers 35:33 and Jubilees 7:27b. I then demonstrate how this reading sheds new light on the broader aspects of biblical analysis identified above.

xxii

Contributors and Abstracts

Shamma Friedman Department of Talmud, The Jewish Theological Seminary and The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun from the Judean Desert to the Babylonian Talmud: ‫דיכי‬ The rare Aramaic demonstrative pronoun ‫ דיכי‬is found in the Babylonian Talmud in three types of contexts. Two of them involve the fixed phrase ‫מרי‬ ‫דיכי‬, “This Lord,” an epithet for God’s name. One of these is an exclamatory oath formula regularly used by Rav Ḥisda as a substitute for the divine name, possibly inspired by Targum Onkelos on Gen 37:19. The phrase was reused as a sobriquet for God’s name in an idyllic passage, in keeping with the tranquil style of that passage. The third use is a quote from a promissory note, the language of which is an exact equivalent of a standard clause common in documents from the Judean Desert. Russell Fuller Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Diego Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions in Some Second Temple Period Writings: Textual History and Textual Reception This paper examines issues that impact the use of quotations and allusions to biblical compositions in Greek and Hebrew compositions of the Second Temple period for the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. An analysis of the quotations of Amos 5:26–27 and Amos 9:11 in the Amos–Numbers midrash in the Damascus Document shows that, although the writer felt free to reorganize the text of the Amos quotations, the quoted text is otherwise altered in only limited ways. An examination of a blended quotation of Malachi 3:24 and Isaiah 49:6 in Ben Sira 48:10 also shows little alteration of the quoted text, but does show an ancient variant text. Through these examples of quotations of the Twelve Minor Prophets in the Damascus Document and of the book of Isaiah in the book of Ben Sira, the paper analyzes the implications for the state of the text of the developing Bible and its reception. Viktor Golinets Department of Hebrew Linguistics, Hochschule für Jüdische Studien, Heidelberg Manuscripts of the Former and Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection This paper studies the Hebrew biblical texts and vocalization of five Cairo Genizah manuscripts now in the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library, Vienna. While the texts and vocalization of these manuscripts are Standard Tiberian, the inventory of signs and their distribution exhibit slight deviations that are attested within this vocalization system in other biblical

Contributors and Abstracts

xxiii

manuscripts. Some of these deviations are scribal errors, while others are alternative markings either in the graphic or phonetic realm. Leeor Gottlieb Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book in the Vienna Papyrus Collection This article examines a manuscript from the Cairo Genizah, currently in the Austrian National Library. P.Vindob. H  12 is a two-sided page, once part of a larger codex of haftarah readings according to the triennial cycle of the Palestinian tradition. Each reading appears with a title, followed by the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Aramaic Targum Jonathan. The precise characteristics of this manuscript are described and its text is presented in full transcription, followed by a textual apparatus for both the Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The manuscript provides valuable insight into the Palestinian custom of the triennial weekly Torah reading (via its accompanying haftarah portion) and the translation of the haftarah into Aramaic during the public synagogue reading. Noah Hacham Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Judaism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Armin Lange Department of Jewish Studies, Director of the Institute for Jewish Studies, University of Vienna Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration As Greek manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures were used by both Jews and Christians in (late) antiquity, it is often difficult to identify Jewish biblical manuscripts written in Greek. Through analysis of the manuscripts, P.Vindob. G 29525 and P.Vindob. G 02322, this article argues that use of the scroll format and absence of Christian nomina sacra in a Greek biblical manuscript make a Jewish provenance more likely. Geoffrey Khan Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible This paper examines the association of the Karaites with the masoretic transmission of the Hebrew Bible. The Karaites played a central role in the consolidation and development of the Tiberian masoretic tradition. It is argued that the Masoretes themselves were not Karaites, but the Karaites ensured that the Tiberian masoretic tradition survived and maintained its prestige after the Tiberian Masoretes dispersed in the second half of the tenth century CE. The

xxiv

Contributors and Abstracts

Karaites preserved the model of the Tiberian Bible manuscripts and extended the work of the Masoretes into a more theoretical level of grammatical analysis of the Hebrew language. Armin Lange Department of Jewish Studies, Director of the Institute for Jewish Studies, University of Vienna Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Textual History of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library MT-Jeremiah and LXX-Jeremiah signal two editions of Jeremiah that go back to the third century BCE. At that time, in Egypt, a group of priests from the Jerusalem Temple created the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction by reworking a text close to the Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah. 4QJerd marks an intermediate reworking between these two. Although the use of Jeremiah 51(28):15–16 in the Hymn to the Creator indicates the existence of another, nonaligned Jeremiah text, in the third century BCE, proto-MT Jeremiah became the dominant Jeremiah text. It suffered from scribal corruption during its textual transmission and became the standard text of Jeremiah as part of the standardization and canonization of the Hebrew Bible in the first century BCE. Josef M. Oesch Department of Biblical Studies and Historical Theology, University of Innsbruck Ketubim Fragments in the Austrian National Library: P.Vindob. H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, H 191 The article analyses six fragments containing biblical texts of Ketubim (Writings) in the collection of the Austrian National Library—P.Vindob. H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, and H 191. Dating to between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, they consist of two folios of Psalms, one of Job, one of Daniel along with the beginning of Birkat ha-mazon, and two of Esther. Features of several folios, variously written on parchment and rag paper, suggest a diversity of usage, for public services, teaching, or private use. Yosef Ofer Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Masoretic Summaries of the Weekly Portions in P.Vindob. H 133 from the Rainer Collection in Vienna The article describes MS P.Vindob. H 133 of the Rainer Collection in the Austrian National Library in Vienna. The manuscript comprises twenty-seven leaves of the book of Genesis, with punctuation and accentuation signs.

Contributors and Abstracts

xxv

Special attention is given to the illuminated frames that follow each weekly portion and present a variety of masoretic details that summarize the immediately preceding portion. These masoretic passages are the independent work of an anonymous Spanish Masorete who relied upon several sources, among them the Book of Disputes of Mishael ben Uzziel. Similar masoretic material is also reflected in MS Madrid, Universidad Complutense 1 (M1). A brief description of the remains of five other manuscripts of the book of Genesis from the Vienna Rainer Collection is provided in an appendix. Bernhard Palme Department of Ancient History, Papyrology and Epigraphy, University of Vienna; Director, The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library, Vienna The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts This article presents a brief overview of the holdings of Jewish documents in the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library. It describes the history of the acquisitions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with special attention to the origin of the purchases, which is not always documented. As a general rule, the texts on papyrus come from the Fayum (Arsinoe and Heracleopolis) and el-Ashmuneyn (Hermopolis), those on paper from the Genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo. Alexander Rofé Department of Bible, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts Midrashic elements infiltrated biblical manuscripts, and they can be detected in all textual witnesses of the Hebrew Bible. Classes that can be identified within such passages include exegetical interpolations, literary elaborations, and theological interventions. The latter introduce late Jewish concepts, such as the belief in the murder of prophets, the enhancement of the Torah, and the adoption of halakhic terminology. Ursula Schattner-Rieser Department of Linguistics, Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck; MartinBuber-Institute for Jewish Studies, University of Cologne The Vienna Biblical Fragments (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) in Light of the Karaite Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish Halakhah A group of biblical fragments in the Papyrus Collection of the National Library of Austria present interesting variations and variants in text and form, such as

xxvi

Contributors and Abstracts

the double indication of the Palestinan and Babylonian reading cycles. This paper aims to locate the manuscripts within the masoretic traditions of the talmudic tractates Sefer Torah and Soferim and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, as well as the Karaite reading tradition (of parshiyyot/ sedarim and haftarot); they are also compared with the scriptural particularities of the Dead Sea Scrolls with respect to orthography and sectional divisions. The fragmentary parchment and paper leaves are similar to some tenth- to eleventh-century Bible codices such as the Aleppo Codex, the Leningrad Codex, and British Library Or 4445. Some also testify to the Palestinian triennial Torah reading cycle, with secondary added parashiyyot beside the sedarim marks, which indicate the shift from the Palestinian to the Babylonian cycle. Pablo A. Torijano Morales Department of Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, Universidad Complutense de Madrid The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text The Vetus Latina or Old Latin version is a fundamental witness to the Greek translation of the Bible. However, over the course of the twentieth century scholarly opinion on the value of the Old Latin has been mixed, oscillating between acknowledging the antiquity and quality of its readings and discarding it because of its uneven and apparently careless character. Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has demonstrated the critical worth of the Old Latin in particular. 4QSam was the touchstone that tipped the scales, since it witnesses a Hebrew text that agrees with the Lucianic Greek version and the Old Latin text, proving that both versions attested to a Hebrew Vorlage different from that of the Masoretic Text. Emanuel Tov Department of Bible, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem P.Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus) and the Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts The Greek Psalms fragments of Austrian National Library ms, P.Vindob. G 39777, probably from the Fayum in Egypt, were originally published as samples of Aquila’s translation. At a later stage Mercati suggested that the fragments may have been part of the translation by Symmachus. The study of the Vienna fragment of Symmachus led to a reinvestigation of the divine names in Greek Scripture manuscripts. This manuscript provides additional evidence of the generally late practice of presenting the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters to emphasize the sanctity of that word.

chapter 1

Introduction: A Survey of the Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures Armin Lange The present volume publishes the proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium of the Hebrew University’s Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, held in Jerusalem, April 10–13, 2016.1 This symposium was organized jointly with the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem) and the University of Vienna’s Institute for Jewish Studies. The cooperation of these three institutions emphasizes not only the international but also the interdisciplinary character of both the symposium and the present proceedings volume. The editors wish to extend our warmest appreciation to Prof. Esther G. Chazon, the Director of the Orion Center, for taking the lead in bringing our institutions together; for coordinating the day-to-day running of the symposium; and for providing the institutional context for the preparation of this volume. These proceedings trace the textual history of the Jewish Bible and its Greek translations from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages. For this purpose, it compares the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls with biblical manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection, which are part of the discoveries connected with the Cairo Genizah, and with late ancient evidence from various sources and contexts. The discovery and publication of over two hundred biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls have fundamentally changed our understanding of the biblical text and its history. These manuscripts reflect the earliest evidence currently available for the books of the Bible and, therefore, provide invaluable evidence for the state of the biblical text in the Second Temple period. The comparison of these manuscripts to one another and to later texts found in the Cairo Genizah and other repositories allows for a comprehensive assessment of the dynamic processes of transmission and textual development of the Bible in antiquity and in the early medieval period. 1 My work on this introduction was guided both in terms of content and language by my colleagues Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements, Russell E. Fuller, and Paul D. Mandel. I am indebted to them for their suggestions and input.

© Armin Lange, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_002

2

Lange

The present volume therefore bridges the time span between the end of the Second Jewish War in 135 CE and the earliest extant masoretic biblical manuscripts from the ninth and tenth centuries CE. We hope that the comparison of the various textual witnesses explored here will allow some general conclusions about the textual history of the Jewish Bible from the Second Temple period through the High Middle Ages. For this purpose, the contributions to this volume investigate manuscript evidence and other sources of information about textual versions of the Jewish Bible that have their origins in antiquity or late antiquity. In the first part, we survey, by way of various examples, the textual history of the Jewish Bible in the Second Temple period. The second part of the present volume discusses select sources from the rabbinic period.2 In the third part, the Hebrew biblical manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection serve to illustrate the textual history of the Jewish Bible during the High Middle Ages. 1

The Text of the Jewish Scriptures during the Second Temple Period

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, scholars reckoned with only three textual traditions of the Jewish Bible during the Second Temple period, i.e., the consonantal text of MT, the early versions of the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. For the latter, some scholars presupposed a distinctive Hebrew Vorlage while others understood the differences between MT and LXX as the result of a free and interpretative translation.3 Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, an unprecedented wealth of biblical manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic have shed new light on the precanonical and canonical textual histories of the Jewish Bible and its books. Commentaries and parascriptural compositions as well as quotations of and allusions to biblical books provide further evidence.4 Along with the Dead Sea 2 For the purpose of this introduction, the rabbinic period is understood as beginning with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the year 70 CE and ending roughly in the year 1000 CE; i.e., it comprises the time of the Mishnah and the Talmudim as well as post-talmudic rabbinic literature. 3 For further information on the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures and their textual witnesses during the Second Temple period, the reader is referred to the articles in Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds., THB 1: The Hebrew Bible (in 3 parts) (Leiden: Brill, 2016–2017) and the literature referenced there. 4 For helpful surveys of the evidence, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 74–111; idem, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 171–84; Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, vol. 1, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

3

Scrolls, manuscript finds from Egypt, such as papyri attesting to fragments of early Greek revisions of the Old Greek text, as well as the Nash Papyrus, which features a Hebrew text close to the Old Greek text of the Torah, add to the abundance of evidence. This profusion of sources leaves no doubt that the consonantal text of MT goes back to the Second Temple period; that at least a nonsectarian version of the Samaritan Pentateuch (i.e., without its groupspecific readings) existed at the latest by the second century bce; and that the Hebrew Vorlagen of the Greek biblical books that were collected in the Septuagint and that sometimes differ significantly from the consonantal text of MT go back to the Second Temple period as well. Furthermore, the Jewish Greek translations of the biblical books were themselves produced during the second part of the Second Temple period. In addition to these forerunners of the three principal medieval versions of the Jewish Bible, the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls attest to a whole range of other texts and text forms of the books of the Jewish Bible during the Second Temple period that are characterized by scholars today as nonaligned.5 While opinions might differ with regard to how many manuscripts from the Qumran library may be considered biblical, and to which text or textual type they attest, there is widespread consensus that the consonantal text of MT was one among many texts and textual versions until the late Second Temple period. Quotations of and allusions to the Jewish Scriptures in Second Temple Jewish literature confirm this textual plurality and demonstrate that the evidence from the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls is representative.6 anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); idem, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew–Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” THB 1A:112–66, doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001020200; and the individual articles on the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls in Lange and Tov, THB 1: The Hebrew Bible. 5 The term “nonaligned” was coined by Emanuel Tov, who first developed the concept in his article, “The Textual Character of the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11,” Shnaton 3 (1978– 1979): 238–44 (240, 244, xxiii) (in Hebrew). It became prominent due to a series of articles by Tov: “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls,” HUCA 53 (1982): 11–27; idem, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism,” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37; idem, “The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: A New Synthesis,” in Qumran between the Old and the New Testament, ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 277–309; idem, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (London: British Library, 2002), 139–66; and the various editions of his textbook, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992; 2nd rev. ed. 2001; 3rd rev. ed., 2012). 6 See Michael Segal et al., “21 The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature,” THB 1C: 719– 70, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0021000000.

4

Lange

The evidence of the Greek manuscripts from the various sites around the Dead Sea and Egypt points to a similar yet different picture. Although Second Temple-era Greek Jewish writers, such as Philo of Alexandria, testify to both the legend of seventy(-two) translators and the conception of the Five Books of Moses as authoritative Scriptures in Greek, the text we know today as the Septuagint is not a monolithic translation. Rather, it comprises individual Old Greek translations of various biblical books that were made by different interpreters at different times and locations. Sometime in the second century CE, Christian scholars began to merge these individual translations into a collection of Jewish Scriptures that is today called the Septuagint, as part of the formation of the Christian biblical canon.7 Manuscript finds from Egypt and the various sites around the Dead Sea show that the textual differences between the Old Greek translations and the MT inspired Jewish scholars to revise the Old Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures towards the proto-MT text well before Christianity existed. While the so-called kaige-recension group is the most prominent of these revisions, it was far from the only pre-Christian recension of the Old Greek text. The Greek manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures from the Second Temple period thus point to a reorientation from the textual plurality of the Second Temple period toward the dominance of one specific textual version in late Second Temple Judaism. This switch from textual plurality to a predominance of MT is also documented in the manuscript evidence from the sites around the Dead Sea that are connected with the First (66–70 ce) and Second (132–135 CE) Jewish Wars. All manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures found at these sites attest without exception to the consonantal text of MT. Scholars interpret the growing popularity 7 Milestone studies which have contributed to the understanding of the Septuagint as a Christian collection of Jewish Greek translations include Albert C. Sundberg, The Old Testa­ ment of the Early Church, HTS 20 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964); and Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon, trans. M. E. Biddle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002); English trans. of “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung’: Ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons,” in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, WUNT 72 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 182–284. For an overview on the development of the Septuagint canon, the relevant sources and the scholarly discussion, see Armin Lange, “1.1.2.1 Overview Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Jewish Canon,” THB 1A:36–48 (38–40), doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001010201; idem, “1.1.2.2 Over­ view Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Christian Old Testament Canon,” THB 1A:48–81 (52–78), doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001010202; idem, “1.1.1 Overview Articles: The Canonical Histories of the Deuterocanonical Texts: The Canonical Histories of the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament with Special Attention to the Deuterocanonical Books—A Synthesis,” THB 2A:5–112 (19–35), doi.org/10 .1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_000830.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

5

and even dominance of MT in different ways. Some regard it as a response to the catastrophic loss of the First Jewish War, while others think that this dominance is a result of a process of textual standardization that began long before the First Jewish War.8 The articles collected in the first part of the present volume portray important aspects of the overall picture outlined above. The articles of Russell E. Fuller, Armin Lange, and Pablo A. Torijano Morales highlight the textual plurality of the Jewish Scriptures and the existence of variant literary editions during the Second Temple period. Russell E. Fuller’s contribution (“Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions in Some Second Temple Period Writings: Textual History and Textual Reception”) analyzes quotations of Amos 5:26–27 and Amos 9:11 in the Damascus Document, and of Mal 3:24 and Isa 49:6 in the book of Ben Sira. His study of biblical quotations in nonbiblical literature corroborates that textual plurality was not restricted to the Qumran community but was characteristic of Second Temple Judaism in general. Armin Lange’s exhaustive study of the textual history of the book of Jeremiah in the Second Temple period (“Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Textual History of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library”) finds similar corroboration of textual plurality in both the biblical Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran—several of which predate the existence of the Qumran community—and parascriptural Jeremiah literature, as well as quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah in nonbiblical ancient Jewish literature. His survey leaves no doubt that this textual plurality was not restricted to disagreements between variant readings, but extended to the simultaneous existence of two or more variant literary editions of one biblical book. The contribution by Pablo A. Torijano Morales (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text”) calls the attention of textual critics to the Old Latin text as an often-disregarded witness of the Old Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. On the basis of agreements between the 4QSamuel manuscripts, the Lucianic Greek recension, and the Old Latin text, Torijano Morales demonstrates the importance of this group of ancient Christian Latin translations of the Jewish Scriptures for the reconstruction of the Old Greek text in particular and the textual plurality of the Jewish Scriptures in general. Torijano Morales 8 For a survey of the discussion, see Armin Lange, “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Taʿan. 4:68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday, ed. A. Lange et al., FRLANT 230 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29–80.

6

Lange

thus reminds the reader of the importance of even secondary Christian translations for the text-critical study of the Jewish Scriptures. The textual plurality of the various textual witnesses to the Jewish Scriptures from the Second Temple period is helpful for more than the reconstruction of the early textual histories of the biblical text. The contributions of David Frankel, Guy Darshan, Alexander Rofé, and Jonathan Ben-Dov show how these textual witnesses from the Qumran library are not only part of the reception history of the Jewish Scriptures (Darshan and Rofé) but also contextualize the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures within the social history of Second Temple Judaism (Ben-Dov) and help to reconstruct the earliest attainable text of a given biblical text (Frankel). David Frankel (“The Contribution of Text Criticism to Literary Analysis, Redaction History, and the Study of Ancient Israelite Religion: The Case of Genesis 9:6”) argues, by way of comparison with Num 35:33 and Jub. 7:27b, that the phrase ‫ שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך‬in Gen 9:6 should be emended to ‫ דמו ישפך‬,‫שפך דם האדם בארץ‬, thus providing an example of how both innerand extrabiblical uses of a biblical reference might guide the reconstruction of an earliest attainable reading. Beyond the reconstruction of an early textual form of a biblical book, textual witnesses from the Second Temple period are also part of the early reception history of the Jewish Scriptures, as their secondary variant readings preserve ancient Jewish interpretations of these books. Along these lines, Guy Darshan (“The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8 in Light of ‘Rewritten Bible’ Compositions from Qumran”) regards the Masoretic Text of 1 Kings 6–8 as a revision “intended to fuse the account of the building of the Temple with pentateuchal traditions, making the Solomonic Temple a direct continuation of the Priestly Tabernacle” (p. 235). Alexander Rofé (“Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts”) argues that variant readings in Second Temple witnesses to the biblical text go back to the infiltration of Jewish midrash into biblical manuscripts. He finds examples of Jewish midrash in the text of MT-1 Kgs 22:28; MT-Jer 2:30; Zech 1:1; LXX-Mal 1:1; and 1 Chronicles 21. Jonathan Ben-Dov (“Demonic Deuteronomy? The Ending of Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate”) shows, by way of the example of Deuteronomy 32–33, how the views of various Jewish groups led to the endorsement of one particular reading against others. This mechanism allows the contextualization of individual textual witnesses within the social history of Second Temple Judaism. For instance, apocalyptic circles like the Qumran yaḥad would have endorsed the multiplicity in the divine realm suggested by some textual witnesses of Deuteronomy 32–33, thus conceiving the end of Deuteronomy as an angelological proof text.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

2

7

The Text of the Jewish Scriptures from the Jewish Wars to the Early Masoretic Master Copies

It is particularly difficult to reconstruct the textual history of the Jewish Bible for the time between the Second Jewish War and the medieval masoretic codices, since most of the evidence is indirect.9 It consists of Christian primary translations such as Jerome’s Vulgate and the translations gathered in the Syriac Peshitta. The Vulgate renders the consonantal text of MT with minor differences. The earliest (Jewish) strata of the Peshitta are similarly based on the consonantal text of MT. When the Peshitta became the Bible of Syriac Christianity, it was revised towards the Septuagint. Further important sources for the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures include the various targumim compiled in this period, whose liberal and interpretative translations make them as much a part of the Hebrew Bible’s reception history as of its textual history. Beneath their interpretative expansions, the targumim also use the consonantal text of MT as their base text. Additional information about the textual history of the Hebrew Bible between the second and ninth centuries CE is provided by quotations of and allusions to biblical passages in both literary and epigraphic texts.10 Early research on quotations of the Hebrew Bible in rabbinic and postrabbinic literature emphasized the existence of non-MT readings, which could have pointed to a continuing textual plurality during this period. However, most if not all of these disagreements with MT in rabbinic quotations are now regarded as secondary, hermeneutical variants deriving from the rabbinic literary contexts. The biblical quotations in inscriptions and, in particular, magic artefacts such as magic bowls, remain significantly underresearched. They could point to the continued existence of some textual plurality in the rabbinic period, at least in nonscholarly contexts. In addition, the so-called Severus Scroll and at least two biblical scrolls that are claimed to have been in the possession of Rabbi Meir attest to textual

9

10

For further information on the textual history of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and their textual witnesses in rabbinic times, the reader is referred to the relevant articles in Lange and Tov, eds., THB 1: The Hebrew Bible; as well as those in Frank Feder, Matthias Henze, and Mika Pajunen, eds. THB 2: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures (Leiden: Brill, 2019–2020) and the literature referenced there. For surveys of the evidence and further discussion see Assaf Rosen-Zvi, “21.6 The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature: Rabbinic Literature,” THB 1C:751–54, doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0021060000; Armin Lange, “1.7.1 Overview Articles: The Biblical Text in Light of Its Quotations and Allusions: Jewish Quotations and Allusions,” THB 1A:440–44, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001070100.

8

Lange

variants from MT.11 However, given their rather limited digression from MT, neither the Severus Scroll nor the readings noted by Rabbi Meir in his putative master copies point to the existence of nonmasoretic biblical texts. Furthermore, masoretic annotations and the annotations in Carolingian Vulgate manuscripts might refer to the readings of lost, late ancient or early medieval manuscripts.12 Again, the textual digression attested in these annotations seems to compare well with the limited textual diversity of the consonantal text of medieval masoretic manuscripts. Next to such indirect witnesses, only seven Hebrew biblical manuscripts, which attest to various parts of the Pentateuch, 1–2 Kings, and Job, are known to date from the time between the second and ninth centuries CE.13

11

12

13

See Armin Lange, “The Severus Scroll Variant List in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011, ed. M. Kister et al., STDJ 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 179–207; Armin Lange, “Rabbi Meir and the Severus Scroll,” in “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, ed. C. Cordoni and G. Langer, SJ 90 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 53–76. See Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico–Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr., New York: Ktav, 1966), 429–41; Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. and ed. E. J. Revell, MasS 5 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980), 138–39; Maria T. Ortega Monasterio, “El texto de los Códices Modelo según el ʿOr Tôrah de Menahem de Lonzano,” in Simposio Biblico Español (Salamanca, 1982), ed. N. Fernández Marcos et al. (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984), 193–212; Nahum M. Sarna, “Introduction to the Hilleli Manuscript,” in idem, Studies in Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000), 239–51; Federico Pérez Castro, “Una copia del ‘Codex Hilleli’ colacionada con la primera mano del MS B19a de Leningrado,” Sefarad 38 (1978): 13–24; Gianfranco Miletto, “Un manoscritto ‘hillelita’ della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma,” Hen 11 (1989): 271–93; Adrien Candiard and Caroline Chevalier-Royet, “Critique textuelle et recours à l’hébreu à l’époque carolingienne: Le cas exceptionnel d’une Bible de Théodulf (Bible de Saint-Germain, ms. Paris, BnF lat. 11 937),” in Études d’exégèse médiévale offertes à Gilbert Dahan par ses élèves, ed. A. Noblesse-Rocher, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études, Sciences religieuses 159 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 13–34; Michael Graves, “Glimpses into the History of the Hebrew Bible through the Vulgate Tradition: With Special Reference to Vulgate ms θG,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales, THBSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 217–54 (226–51). For previous lists of these manuscripts, see Peter J. Gentry, “The Text of the Old Testament,” JETS 52 (2009): 19–45 (22); and Lange, “Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” 121–23.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

9

– T-S NS 4.3 and T-S NS 3.21 (Cambridge, Genizah Collection): One scroll with parts of Gen 4:14–17; 5:10–18; 5:32–6:7; 13:10; 14:9–22; 15:5–21; 16:5–17:2; 17:9– 20. Suggested paleographic dates range from the fifth through the ninth centuries. – ms Heb. d. 89 (p) i (Oxford, Bodleian Library): One fragment with parts of Exod 2:23–25. Second or third century CE. – P 10598 (Berlin Staatliche Museen): Scroll with parts of Exod 3:13–16, 18–22; 4:1–9. Eighth through ninth centuries. – ms London + ms Ashkar—Gilson Hebrew Manuscript # 2 (private collection of Stephan Loewentheil in New York; David M. Ruben Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Duke University): Fragments of a single scroll with the complete text of Exod 9:18–13:2 and parts of Exod 13:19–16:1. Seventh or eighth century CE. – The Leviticus scroll from the Ein Gedi synagogue (Israel Antiquities Authority): Scroll with parts of Leviticus. So far Lev 1:1–8 has been deciphered. Sixth century CE.14 – Pap. Antinoopolis 47–48 (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum): Fragments of a single scroll with parts of 1 Kgs 22:12–18, 28–33 and 2 Kgs 21:8–9. Suggested paleographic dates range from the third through the eighth centuries CE. – Pap. Antinoopolis 49–50 (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum): Fragments of a single scroll with parts of Job 1:19–2:4; Job 20:24–21:14. Suggested paleographic dates range from the third through the eighth centuries CE. As far as they can be classified, all of these manuscripts align with the consonantal text of MT. Statistically speaking, the number of biblical manuscripts is small, especially as these manuscripts date from second through the eighth or even ninth century CE. However, it is nevertheless remarkable that all biblical manuscripts from this period so far known attest only to the consonantal text of MT. Taken together with the evidence of rabbinic quotations and primary translations, a picture of the textual history of the Jewish Bible between the end of the Second Jewish War and first masoretic master codices of the tenth century takes shape that is distinctly different from the textual plurality of the Second Temple period. The consonantal text of MT seems to be the only accepted textual version in this period in ancient Judaism. The impression of the Hebrew evidence and late ancient Jewish and Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible is confirmed by the evidence of several Jewish recensions and new translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek 14

The scroll was presented at the Fifteenth Orion Symposium but published elsewhere. For a publication, see Michael Segal et al., “An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publication,” Textus 26 (2016): 29–58.

10

Lange

during the second century CE, which are attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. All of them either revised the Old Greek text towards the consonantal text of MT or translated it anew. On the one hand, the impression of an undisputed dominance of MT is clear. The stable transmission of the consonantal text of MT was the result of a conscious scholarly effort. Remnants of the research making it possible are preserved in the so-called Severus Scroll variant list mentioned above. Further­ more, rabbinic literature informs us about techniques for textual maintenance employed by late ancient and medieval Jewish scribes. An example of such a technique is the requirement to correct new biblical scrolls by comparing them with existing master copies (see m. Meg. 2:2; b. Ber. 13a; b. Pesaḥ. 112a; b. Ketub. 19b; y. Šabb. 16:1; y. Ketub. 2:3). On the other hand, biblical quotations in magic artefacts and texts could point to a textual plurality of the Jewish Scriptures outside of the tightly maintained transmission of the Masoretic Text. This plurality goes back to scribal corruption and license taken by the quoting magicians to alter their scriptural base texts. Further evidence of textual plurality is seen in the continued use of the Septuagint and other Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures among diaspora Jews. This continued use of Greek versions of the Jewish Scriptures is documented in a group of manuscripts that are part of the finds connected with the Cairo Genizah and are published particularly by Nicholas de Lange.15 These manuscripts are all medieval, according to their paleographic dates, and thus point to their textual transmission in Egypt after the time when Greek ceased to be a spoken language among Egyptian Jews. However, since Greek continued to be a spoken language among the Jews of the Byzantine Empire, it seems likely therefore that the Greek biblical manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah illustrate the continued use of Greek Jewish Bible translations by these communities. 15

Nicholas de Lange, ed., The Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism, https://gbbj.org; idem, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, TSAJ 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); idem,  Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); idem, “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue,” in Jews of Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil et al., Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 371–84; idem, “Jewish Greek Bible Versions,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, From 600 to 1450, ed. R. Marsden and E. A. Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 56–68; idem, “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 39–54.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

11

The articles in this second part of our proceedings volume throw spotlights on five different aspects of the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures during this period. The first three articles interact with various aspects of the continued use of the Greek versions in the Jewish Scriptures. Noah Hacham and Armin Lange (“Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration”) argue that Greek biblical manuscripts from (late) antiquity can be identified as Jewish based on the absence of Christian nomina sacra and the use of the scroll format. Emanuel Tov (“P.Vindob. G 39777 [Symmachus] and the Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts”) investigates a rare manuscript attesting to Symmachus’s Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The fragmentary Psalms manuscript P.Vindob. G 39777, originating in the Fayum in Egypt, provides additional evidence of the generally late practice of writing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters in order to emphasize its sanctity. The use of Hebrew letters, along with the paleographic dating of this manuscript to the third or fourth century CE, shows that the Jews of the Fayum actively preserved and employed Symmachus’s second-century Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. Thus, the manuscript indicates the acceptance of this Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures by Egyptian Jews in (late) antiquity. A continued productive use of Greek translations in late ancient diaspora Judaism is documented by an artefact published in the article of Nancy Benovitz (“A Byzantine Armband with Psalm 91[90]:1 and the Rabbinic Shema in Greek: Text, Date, Provenance, and Function”). Benovitz presents a silver armbandamulet from the sixth or seventh century CE. This Jewish armband is inscribed with an early Byzantine Greek translation of Deut 6:4, Ps 91:1, and a conflation of Deut 6:5–9 and Deut 11:13–21. The translation seems to be based mainly on Aquila’s translation of the Jewish Scriptures from the second century CE. The armband illuminates the textual plurality of Jewish Greek Bible translations in late antiquity and corroborates the widespread use of Greek Bible translations among Byzantine Jews that was suggested by the manuscript corpus published by Nicholas de Lange mentioned above (p. 10). Shamma Friedman’s article (“The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun from the Judean Desert to the Babylonian Talmud: ‫ )”דיכי‬illustrates the impact that a primary translation of the Jewish Scriptures could have, not only on their reception history but also on Jewish life. Friedman discusses the use of the rare Aramaic demonstrative pronoun ‫ דיכי‬in the Babylonian Talmud. It occurs in the fixed phrase ‫מרי דיכי‬, “this Lord,” as an epithet for God’s name. It is, however, also used by Rav Ḥisda as a substitute for the divine name in an exclamatory oath formula which was regularly employed. In this practice, Rav Ḥisda seems to have been inspired by Targum Onkelos on Gen 37:19. Friedman’s

12

Lange

comparative analysis shows, however, that the formula originates ultimately in legal rhetoric attested in the legal documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fifth spotlight in the second part of the present proceedings volume illuminates the social history of the textual transmission of the Jewish Scriptures during the Middle Ages. Geoffrey Khan (“The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible”) examines the association of the Karaites with the masoretic transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Khan argues that the Masoretes themselves were not Karaites, but that the Karaites ensured that the Tiberian masoretic tradition survived and maintained its prestige after the Tiberian Masoretes dispersed in the second half of the tenth century CE. The overall evidence from this second period in the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures points to an exceptional achievement of late ancient and early medieval Judaism; i.e., the stable transmission of the consonantal text of MT over a time period of almost one thousand years. This achievement is all the more remarkable given the evidence for a limited amount of continued and renewed textual plurality in nonrabbinic Judaism. The final part of the present proceedings volume elaborates more on this issue. 3

The Text of the Jewish Scriptures from the Beginning of the Ninth Century CE: The Biblical Manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection

In contrast to the situation in antiquity, late antiquity, and the early Middle Ages, from the tenth century CE there is evidence of a wealth of Jewish biblical manuscripts that, while disagreeing slightly with one another, still attest to the consonantal text of MT.16 Despite this general textual agreement, the age of the Masoretes was nevertheless characterized by a new form of textual plurality. While the consonantal texts of masoretic manuscripts document textual fixity, their other elements do not. Neither the vocalization and accentuation nor the masoretic annotations that accompany the consonantal text of MT display the same textual stability. Different systems of vocalization are known from this period: the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian systems. Of these three systems, the Tiberian system ultimately marginalized the other two. Even among manuscripts of a specific vocalization system, significant textual disagreements existed in the vocalizations of the biblical text. The Masoretes

16

For a survey of the medieval textual history of the Jewish Scriptures, see Judith OlszowySchlanger, “The Hebrew Bible,” in Marsden and Matter, New Cambridge History of the Bible, 2:18–40 and the literature quoted in n. 14.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

13

themselves compiled lists of such disagreements.17 When it came to the various forms of masoretic annotations, the textual disagreement between manuscripts was even more extensive, with almost all manuscripts disagreeing in the number of annotations and the content of these annotations. The most wellknown disagreements among Masoretes concern the disagreements between the Ben Asher and Ben Naftali families. These disagreements also became the subject of masoretic lists. As mentioned above (p. 10), even during the High Middle Ages, Egyptian and Byzantine Jews continued to copy Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures; this phenomenon witnesses to at least two versions of the Jewish Scriptures that coexisted in medieval Judaism. However, while the Masoretic Text is documented in countless manuscripts, Greek Jewish translations are mostly known from a small group of manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. This might be in part due to the demise of Byzantine Judaism in the late Middle Ages, but could also point to the marginal role played by these Greek versions among medieval Jews in general. Because Jewish translations of the Bible into Arabic only originated in the High Middle Ages and do not go back to antiquity, the present proceedings do not include an article on the biblical manuscripts in Judeo-Arabic that also form part of the Jewish legacy in the Vienna Papyrus Collection. While these manuscripts are well worth studying, they are beyond the scope of our investigation. Nevertheless, it should be briefly noted that the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library holds also several such manuscripts that still await research. Among them, manuscript P.Vindob. H 180 attests to parts of Saadia Ga‌‌‌ʾon’s Judeo-Arabic translation of and commentary on Isaiah 57–66. Additional Judeo-Arabic manuscripts related to the Jewish Scriptures include H 140 (Ps 60:3–13) and a fragmentary copy of Samuel Ben Ḥofni’s commentary on the Pentateuch (H 186). Furthermore, manuscript P.Vindob. H 141 includes a collection of biblical verses with Arabic headings which might have been used for magical purposes. The biblical manuscripts from the Vienna papyrus collection document only a small part of the textual transmission of the Jewish Bible in the Middle Ages. The article by Bernhard Palme (“The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts”) shows that these manuscripts were acquired in the late nineteenth century. As they are all medieval, it is 17

For the work of the Masoretes, see esp. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah; Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford, The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Geoffrey Khan, A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition, 2nd ed. (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2013); and Yosef Ofer, The Masora of Scripture and Its Methods, Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019).

14

Lange

most likely that they were bought in the antiquities market of that time as part of the “Genizah finds.” This does not mean that the Vienna manuscripts were originally part of the Genizah of Fustat’s Ben Ezra synagogue, but only that they were Jewish manuscripts attributed to this Genizah by their sellers. The contributions to the third part of the present volume edit or interact with various fragmentary manuscripts from the Vienna papyrus collection dating to the High Middle Ages that are connected with the textual history of the Hebrew text of the Jewish Scriptures: P.Vindob. H 6, H 8, H 11, H 12, H 14, H 15, H 27, H 32, H 104, H 109, H 119, H 120, H 121, H 122, H 133, H 142, H 143, H 173/H 153, H 156, H 168, H 170, H 191. Since the papers presented here constitute the editio princeps of most of these texts, a special feature of the volume is the inclusion of color plates of most of the documents described here in their entirety. The exception is the twenty-seven-page Genesis manuscript H 133, from which a few representative pages are included. We are grateful to the Austrian National Library for permission to publish the photographs. These manuscripts mostly represent copies of the Jewish Scriptures for liturgical purposes or private study. Only a few manuscripts are codices of higher quality. The following passages of the biblical text are extant (arranged by the order of the biblical books): – H 120: Gen 1:19–24; 2:22–3:3 – H 15: Gen 17:19–18:24 – H 133: Gen 36:3–43; Obad 1:1–21; Amos 3:7–8; Gen 41:1–44:17; 1 Kgs 3:15–4:1; Gen 44:18–47:17 (manuscript with weekly Torah portions according to the one-year cycle, accompanied by haftarot readings) – H 121: Gen 39:22–40:7 – H 170: Gen 48:3–7 – H 32: Gen 48:5–49:16 – H 168: Gen 49:5; Lev 1:1–3 (scribal exercise) – H 6: Exod 22:21–24:5 – H 109: Lev 7:3–37 – H 143: Lev 23:4–25; 25:36–42 – H 27: Num 21:24–29:30 – H 122: Josh 1:11b; 6:27; 1 Kgs 18:46–19:21 (haftarot) – H 142: 1 Sam 7:1b–8:13 – H 12: Isa 66:3–7; Ezek 16:9–19; Hos 6:1–11; 10:12 (haftarot; the Aramaic translation of Targum Jonathan is incorporated next to the Hebrew text)18

18

This manuscript is studied by both Viktor Golinets and Leeor Gottlieb. While they were originally intended to work separately on the Aramaic and Hebrew texts of manuscript P.Vindob. H 12, they each decided to focus on different aspects of the full document.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

– – – – – – –

15

H 173/153: Zeph 2:5b–9a; 2:12–3:2a; 3:4b–8a, 9b–14a (scribal exercise) H 11: Ps 9:8–12:8 H 104: Ps 18:12–19 H 14: Job 6:21–8:5 H 156: Esth 9:13–10:3 H 191: Esth 7:10–8:12 H 119: Dan 8:19–9:2 (+ the beginning of the Birkat ha-Mazon from Seder Rab Amram Ga‌‌‌ʾon) The manuscripts listed above are edited in the contributions of Yosef Ofer (“Masoretic Summaries of the Weekly Portions in P.Vindob. H 133 from the Rainer Collection in Vienna”); Ursula Schattner-Rieser (“The Vienna Biblical Fragments [Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers] in Light of the Karaite Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish Halakhah”); Leeor Gottlieb (“P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book in the Vienna Papyrus Collection”); Viktor Golinets (“Manuscripts of the Former and Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection”); Josef M. Oesch (“Ketubim Fragments in the Austrian National Library: P.Vindob. H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, H 191”); and Élodie Attia (“Masoretic Lists and Biblical Scribal Exercises in the Vienna Papyrus Collection: Evidence of Learning and Study of the Biblical Text in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries CE”). While these biblical and liturgical manuscripts are of varying types, and while the small format of most of them points to private rather than professional use, all manuscripts draw the same picture with regard to the biblical text. The consonantal text of the biblical manuscripts discussed in these papers include few variant readings from the consonantal Masoretic Text as documented in the Leningrad Codex, but there exists significant disagreement among them in vocalization, accentuation and masoretic annotations. The Hebrew biblical manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection are thus typical examples of the coexistence of textual uniformity of the consonantal text with a textual plurality of vocalization, accentuation, and masoretic annotations throughout the textual history of the Hebrew Bible in medieval Judaism. A special aspect of most of the biblical manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection is that they were not produced by trained scribes. Instead, they were copied for private use by individuals who in this way acquired copies of select passages from the Jewish Scriptures, often in a pocket-sized format. This special nature of the Vienna manuscripts explains the amount of textual variation as compared to the text of the Ben Asher master codices. Most of their variants are due to the inexperience of the untrained scribes and/or their negligence and lack of attention to details. The textual plurality of masoretic annotations in medieval Judaism is especially highlighted by the contributions of Ofer and Attia. Ofer demonstrates

16

Lange

that the masoretic data in manuscript P.Vindob. H 133 is not presented professionally: “[T]he flawed way in which he presented the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali demonstrates that this was not an expert Masorete familiar with every detail of pronunciation and text … but, rather, a collector who wanted to ornament the end of the weekly portion with rich and varied collection of related and interesting data” (p. 441). Attia’s edition of P.Vindob. H 8 illustrates a compilation of masoretic notes on Psalms, Daniel, and Proverbs for individual use in copying a biblical manuscript, or for exegetical purposes. The eclectic character of the masoretic notes collected in H 8 shows that masoretic lists were not standardized through the fourteenth century. Beyond their importance for the textual history of the Jewish Scriptures, the Hebrew biblical manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection illuminate the social contexts in which biblical texts were used. Taken together they repeatedly point to liturgical or private study contexts: the Vienna manuscripts are not “master copies” that are carefully prepared for posterity and used in more formal settings, but rather, copies prepared for and owned by Jews who, quite naturally, wished to read books of the Bible, especially popular books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Esther, Daniel, and the haftarot selections from the Prophets. Where Torah books are found, they include divisions into sedarim or parashiyyot, with the haftarot, or the beginnings of the haftarot, inscribed at the conclusion of each parasha or seder, or noted in the margins. This is additional evidence for the personal use of these manuscripts for home study and use in synagogue services. It is natural and most reasonable that the text of MT in these manuscripts follows the standard set by the Tiberian Masoretes, and by the paratalmudic treatises such as tractate Sefer Torah, which, it can be assumed, were accepted as the norm by this time (mutatis mutandis regarding Palestinian and Babylonian reading traditions). 4

Conclusions: The Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures through the High Middle Ages

The articles in this volume bring much evidence to bear on the three epochs in the textual history of the Jewish Bible outlined here. They illuminate not only the long path from the textual plurality of the Second Temple period to the dominance of the consonantal text of MT, but also illustrate how a secondary diversification of the Masoretic Text developed in its vocalization, accentuation, and masoretic annotation. The contributions to this volume underline the fact that textual standardization can and often does result in a secondary diversification of the standardized text. Such secondary diversification

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

17

can have multiple reasons, among them intentional and unintentional scribal corruption of an unmaintained textual transmission or the continued use of ancient translations in diaspora contexts. The use of biblical quotations in Jewish magic, or the existence of Greek biblical manuscripts among Egyptian and Byzantine Jews, points especially to such a secondary diversification in more popular contexts during rabbinic and postrabbinic times. Moreover, the contributions to the present volume highlight a different form of secondary diversification, namely, in the paratextual elements that were added to the consonantal text of MT. On the one hand, rabbinic and postrabbinic Judaism went to great lengths to assure the uncorrupted transmission of the consonantal text of MT as the standard text of the Hebrew Bible. Aids in reading (vocalization) or performing (accentuation) this standard text were clearly subject to the same control. They were added to the Jewish standard text at a later time and were not standardized to the same extent. While the Tiberian system of vocalization and accentuation eventually became the masoretic standard, a far greater number of variant readings in medieval masoretic manuscripts concern vocalization and accentuation than the consonantal text. Even greater is the textual diversity of masoretic annotations, which were added, to a greater or lesser extent, to the masoretic manuscripts. Only the development of printed editions of the Hebrew Bible succeeded in standardizing the vocalization and accentuation of MT, as well as beginning to standardize the masoretic annotations. The textual history of the Jewish Bible is thus governed by a dialectic mechanism of textual standardization and (secondary) textual diversification. The almost unchanged transmission of the consonantal text of MT from the late Second Temple period until the invention of the printing press is one of the great scholarly achievements of Judaism. The contributions to this volume highlight once again the longue durée of the text of the Hebrew Bible. Given the loss of country and home, Judaism had to rely, as a primary focus of its cultural identity, on the Bible as the key space of its cultural memory. This extraordinary importance of the Jewish Bible necessitated a different process of care and maintenance of its textual transmission than that accorded to the textual transmission of nonauthoritative texts. Bibliography Candiard, Adrien, and Caroline Chevalier-Royet. “Critique textuelle et recours à l’hébreu à l’époque carolingienne: Le cas exceptionnel d’une Bible de Théodulf (Bible de Saint-Germain, ms. Paris, BnF lat. 11937).” Pages 13–34 in Études d’exégèse

18

Lange

médiévale offertes à Gilbert Dahan par ses élèves. Edited by A. Noblesse-Rocher. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 159. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. De Lange, Nicholas, ed. The Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism. https://gbbj.org. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue.” Pages 371–84 in Jews of Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by R. Bonfil et al. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14. Leiden: Brill, 2012. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews.” Pages 39– 54 in The Old Testament in Byzantium. Edited by P. Magdalino and R. Nelson. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010. De Lange, Nicholas. Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah. tsaj 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. De Lange, Nicholas. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. De Lange, Nicholas. “Jewish Greek Bible Versions.” Pages 56–68 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 2, From 600 to 1450. Edited by R. Marsden and E. A. Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Feder, Frank, Matthias Henze, and Mika Pajunen, eds. Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 2: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Leiden: Brill, 2019–2020. Gentry, Peter J. “The Text of the Old Testament.” jets 52 (2009): 19–45. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1966. Graves, Michael. “Glimpses into the History of the Hebrew Bible through the Vulgate Tradition: With Special Reference to Vulgate ms θG.” Pages 217–54 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot. Edited by A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales. THBSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. English translation of “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung’: Ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons.” Pages 182–284 in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. wunt 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Khan, Geoffrey. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition. 2nd ed. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2013.

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

19

Lange, Armin. “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew–Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts.” thb 1A:112–66. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb _COM_0001020200. Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Vol. 1, Die Handschriften bib­ lischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lange, Armin. “1.7.1 Overview Articles: The Biblical Text in Light of Its Quotations and Allusions: Jewish Quotations and Allusions.” thb 1A:440–44. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107 _thb_COM_0001070100. Lange, Armin. “1.1.1 Overview Articles: The Canonical Histories of the Deuterocanonical Texts: The Canonical Histories of the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament with Special Attention to the Deuterocanonical Books—A Synthesis.” thb 2A:5–112. Volume 2A: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures: Overview Articles. Edited by F. Feder, M. Henze, and M. Pajunen. Leiden: Brill, 2020. doi .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_000830. Lange, Armin. “1.1.2.2 Overview Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Christian Old Testament Canon.” thb 1A:48–81. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/ 2452-4107_thb_COM_0001010202. Lange, Armin. “1.1.2.1 Overview Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Jewish Canon.” thb 1A:36–48. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM _0001010201. Lange, Armin. “Rabbi Meir and the Severus Scroll.” Pages 53–76 in “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday. Edited by C. Cordoni and G. Langer. sj 90. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Lange, Armin. “The Severus Scroll Variant List in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 179–207 in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011. Edited by M. Kister et al. stdj 113. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Lange, Armin. “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta‌ʾan. 4:68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 29–80 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jew­ ish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday. Edited by A. Lange et al. frlant 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

20

Lange

Lange, Armin, and Emanuel Tov, eds. Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 1, The Hebrew Bible (in 3 parts). Leiden: Brill, 2016–2017. Miletto, Gianfranco. “Un manoscritto ‘hillelita’ della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma.” Hen 11 (1989): 271–93. Ofer, Yosef. The Masora of Scripture and Its Methods. Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “The Hebrew Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 2, From 600 to 1450. Edited by R. Marsden and E. A. Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ortega Monasterio, Maria T. “El texto de los Códices Modelo según el ʿOr Tôrah de Menahem de Lonzano.” Pages 193–212 in Simposio Biblico Español (Salamanca, 1982). Edited by N. Fernández Marcos et al. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984. Pérez Castro, Federico. “Una copia del ‘Codex Hilleli’ colacionada con la primera mano del MS B19a de Leningrado.” Sefarad 38 (1978): 13–24. Rosen-Zvi, Assaf. “21.6 The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature: Rabbinic Literature.” thb 1C:751–54. Vol. 1C: Ketuvim (Writings). Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0021060000. Sarna, Nahum M. “Introduction to the Hilleli Manuscript.” Pages 239–51 in Studies in Biblical Interpretation. Edited by S. M. Sarna. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000. Segal, Michael, Emanuel Tov, William Brent Seales, Clifford Seth Parker, Pnina Shor, Yosef Porath, and Ada Yardeni, “An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publication.” Textus 26 (2016): 29–58. Segal, Michael, et al. “21. The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature.” thb 1C: 719–70. Vol. 1C: Ketuvim (Writings). Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0021000000. Sundberg, Albert C. The Old Testament of the Early Church. hts 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts.” Pages 139–66 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and E. Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. tsaj 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” jjs 39 (1988): 5–37. Tov, Emanuel. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” huca 53 (1982): 11–27. Tov, Emanuel. “The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: A New Synthesis.” Pages 277–309 in Qumran

Textual History of the Jewish Scriptures

21

between the Old and the New Testament. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Character of the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11.” Shnaton 3 (1978–1979): 238–44. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992; 2nd rev. ed. 2001; 3rd rev. ed., 2012. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E. J. Revell. MasS 5. Missoula, mt: Scholars Press, 1980.

part 1 The Text of the Jewish Scriptures during the Second Temple Period

∵

chapter 2

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions in Some Second Temple Period Writings: Textual History and Textual Reception Russell E. Fuller This paper might more accurately be titled: “Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Malachi in Quotations in the Damascus Document and the Book of Ben Sira.” The paper is based on research begun by Armin Lange and myself and presented at sessions at the SBL annual meeting beginning in 2014 and continuing  through 2020. 1

Quotations of Amos in the Damascus Document and 4Q174

My first example is drawn from CD: the first part of the well-known Amos– Numbers midrash in CD 7:14–20. Although there is some overlap with 4QDa (4Q266; ca. 100–50 BCE), that text is unfortunately very fragmentary and does not preserve sufficient material for a reliable reconstruction (see discussion below). Although, as is well known, this midrash uses quotations from both the book of Amos and the book of Numbers, I focus here only on the quotations from the book of Amos. CD 7:14–201 1.1 I begin with the texts of Amos 5:26–27 and 9:11, and their interpretation in CD 7:14–19:

1 For compositions from the Judean Desert, I follow the readings in the edition of Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2013–2014) (in Hebrew), as closely as possible, unless otherwise indicated. However, it has not been possible to reproduce the critical signs to indicate uncertain letters. The numbering of columns and lines in CD follows the older system. See, for example, Magen Broshi, ed., The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992).

© Russell E. Fuller, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_003

26

Fuller

Amos 5:26–27; 9:11 (NRSV)2 ‫ ונשאתם את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם כוכב אלהיכם אשר עשיתם לכם‬2‫ ‏‬6 ‫צבאות שמו‬-‫ והגליתי אתכם מהלאה לדמשק אמר יהוה אלהי‬‎27‫‏‬ ‫פרציהן והרסתיו אקים ובנ�י‬-‫סכת דויד הנפלת וגדרתי את‬-‫ ביום ההוא אקים את‬9‎ :11‫‏‬  ‫תיה כימי עולם‬

5:26 You shall take up Sakkuth [sic] your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves; 27 therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts. 9:11 On that day I will raise up the Sukkat of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old … CD 7:14–19 reads:

‫ ⟧ ⟦ כאשר אמר והגליתי את סכות מלככם‬14‫‏‬ ‫ ⟦ ⟧ ספרי התורה הם סוכת‬.‫ ואת כיון צלמיכם מאהלי דמשק‬‎15‫‏‬ ‫ ⟦ ⟧ המלך‬.‫ המלך כאשר אמר והקימותי את סוכת דוד הנפלת‬‎16‫‏‬ ]‫ [הוא הק]הל [וכיניי הצלמי]ם המה ספר[י]הנביא[ים‬17 ‫ [אשר בזה ישראל א]ת ד[בריהם והכוכב] הוא דור[ש ה]תורה‬18‎‫‏‬ ]‫ [הבא ארץ] דמשק כאשר[ הי]ה כתוב דרק[כוכב מיעקב‬‎19‫‏‬

14 As he said: “I will deport the Sikkut3 of your King 15 and the Kiyyun of your images away from my tent4 (to) Damascus.”  The books of the law are the Sukkat

2 English translations of passages from the Hebrew Bible follow the New Revised Standard Version with occasional alterations. 3 Wolff suggests that the Masoretes intentionally vocalized ‫ סכות‬on the pattern of shiqqutz or gillul, “detestable thing” and “idol” respectively. See Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, ed. S. D. McBride, Jr., trans. W. Janzen, S. D. McBride, Jr., and C. A. Muenchow, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 260. 4 The rendering here follows that of Chaim Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, 2nd rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 28, 29 n. 15.2. Note however, Solomon Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries Edited from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Now in the Possession of the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910; repr., New York: Ktav, 1970), xl, where he translates the phrase as a construct, “from the tents of Damascus.”

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

27

16 of the King, as he said, “I will lift up the fallen Sukkat of David.”  the King 17 is the assembly; and the Kiyyun of the images are the books of the prophets, 18 whose words Israel despised. And the star is the interpreter of the law, 19 who will come to Damascus, as it was written, a star moves out of Jacob.5 The CD passage begins with the quotation formula ‫כאשר אמר‬, which is used twice in this section, once to introduce the quotations from Amos 5:26–27 and once to introduce the quotation from Amos 9:11.6 As we will see, the writer’s use of the biblical material is interesting in that it is carefully broken up and reordered,7 at least in comparison to the biblical exemplars that have been preserved: Line 14: ‫ והגליתי‬is taken from beginning of 5:27; ‫ ִס ּ֣כּות מלככם את‬from 5:26. Note the recurrence of ‫ את‬at the beginning in both 5:26 and 5:27. This may have facilitated the conflation of these two verses for the writer.8 Line 15: We have the continuation of the section from 5:26 ‫ִּכּי֣ ּון צלמיכם‬ ‫ ;ואת‬followed by the phrase ‫דמשק מאהלי‬, based on 5:27. The writer then offers an interpretation of his revised quotation, altering the form ‫ ִס ּ֣כּות‬  to ‫סוכת‬. Line 16: This alteration serves as a link to the citation of Amos 9:11. 5 The English translation is that of Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., DSSSE 1:560–61. Compare the translation of Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 57: (14) … as it says, “I will exile the tents of your king (15) and the foundation of your images beyond the tents of Damascus.” The books of Law are the tents of (16) the king, as it says, “I will re-erect the fallen tent of David.” This passage does not overlap with CD 19. See Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20, BZAW 228 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 148–49; 153–54. 6 The quotation formula ‫ כאשר אמר‬is found a total of six times in CD; the similar formula ‫ אשר אמר‬is found once in CD. Both of these formulae are also found elsewhere in Qumran compositions. See Moshe J. Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-Citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique,” DSD 1 (1994): 30–70. 7 For a discussion of the possible techniques used by the writer of this passage to manipulate the biblical texts, see George J. Brooke, “The Amos–Numbers Midrash (CD 7 13b–8 1a) and Messianic Expectation,” ZAW 92 (1980): 397–404. 8 G reads “hut, tent, booth” (σκηνὴν), which would make sense if its Hebrew Vorlage was written defectively (‫)סכת‬. The Greek translators may have been thinking along the same lines as the writers of CD 7 in transforming ‫ ִס ֣כּוּת‬to ‫) ֻס ַ ֥כּת( סוכת‬. This may be evidence of a shared reading tradition from the second century BCE.

28

Fuller

Lines 17–20: These lines continue the interpretation of terms from Amos 5:26: ‫ המלך‬is interpreted as ‫ כיון הצלמים ;הקהל‬as ‫ ;ספרי הנביאים‬‎‫הכוכב‬ as the ‫דורש התורה‬. Finally, ‫ דמשק‬in line19 is picked up from Amos 5:27. Although lines 14–15 clearly represent an intentional reworking of Amos 5:26– 27, the quotation preserves only one place where the text reflects either a variant (so Rabin) or an intentional change. In other words, the text has been handled conservatively. There do not seem to be any other citations of Amos 5:26–27 elsewhere in Second Temple Jewish writings, including the Judean desert biblical manuscripts. The quotation in CD 7:14–15 is interesting in that it conflates Amos 5:26–27 by beginning with the first two words of v. 27, followed by most of v. 26, and then concluding with the final two words of v. 27. It seems unlikely that such a variant text of Amos could have existed, so it is most likely that the writer simply felt free to rearrange his received biblical text. 1.1.1 1.1.1.1

Textual Divergences CD 7:15 ‫ֵמ ָ ֣ה ְלאָה ] מאהלי‬ ‫( מאהלי‬me-ʾoholi/ʾoholey) might result from a sort of metathesis of ‫ֵמ ָ ֣ה ְל ָאה‬ (me-haleʾah). Rabin considered this reading a genuine variant, since he assumed that the scribe would not have omitted the preposition -‫ ל‬if the change was midrashic.9 It could also be that the difference represents a scribal correction of an unfamiliar word, ‫ ָ ֣ה ְל ָאה‬, which is rare in biblical Hebrew, but does occur in Aramaic and is attested in Aramaic compositions found at Qumran.10 But it is also possible that this was a deliberate interpretive change, made in order to link this citation with Amos 9:11 in line 16. The change to ‫( אהלי‬tents) facilitates the transition from ‫ סכות‬to ‫סוכת‬, understood as “tent.” This in turn provides the hook for the quotation of 9:11. 1.1.1.2 CD 7:16—Amos 9:11 The quotation of Amos 9:11 occurs toward the end of the first part of the Amos– Numbers midrash in CD 7 and consequently is not found in 4QDa,d. Line 16: ‫ והקימותי‬for MT ‫אָקים‬ ֛ ִ ; note also the plene spelling of ‫סוכת‬, in contrast to MT’s defective spelling; the transformation of sikkuth to sukkat in line 15 allows the linkage of the two passages. Apart from orthographic variations, the change from the first person singular imperfect form ‫אָקים‬ ִ to the converted perfect, ‫והקימותי‬, is the only difference 9 10

Zadokite Documents, 29 n. 15.2. See for example, 4Q204 12:23, 25, 27.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

29

from MT (as represented by MTL). There is no change in meaning. Rabin suggested a parallel with Acts 15:16, which also quotes Amos 9:11 (και ανοικοδομήσω “and I will re-erect”);11 but there is a closer parallel in another Hebrew composition of the Second Temple period.12 1.2 4Q174 1 12–13 Eschatological Midrash (= 4QMidrEschata)13 A nearly identical, explicit quotation of Amos 9:11 is found in 4QMidrEschata (4Q174) 1 12–13. ‫]בצי֯ [ון בא]חרית הימים כאשר כתוב והקימותי את סוכת דויד הנופלת היאה‬--[ 12 ‫סוכת‬ .‫הנופל[ת א]שר יעמוד להושיע את ישראל‬ ֯ ‫ דויד‬13

12 … [will rise up] in Zi[on in] the [l]ast days, as it is written: I will raise up the sukkat of David14 which has fallen. This (refers to) the sukkat of 13 David which has fall[en, w]hich he will raise up15 to save Israel.16 Note that in both 4Q174 and in CD the Amos citation is introduced with a quotation formula, and that the citations are identical, except for some orthographic differences. 4Q174 is dated in the last half of the first century BCE, approximately 40–1 BCE, so this form of the quote may be taken as evidence of an early variant reading for Amos 9:11. Although this may well be an early variant, the reading preserved in ML has much to commend it. 11 12

13

14 15 16

Rabin, Zadokite Documents, 29 n. 16.1 and 16.2. See also Anthony Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 89*. Note that Amos 9:11 is partially preserved in the Minor Prophets scroll discovered in Wadi Murabbaʿat (Mur88), which dates to the beginning of the second century CE. The reading of Amos 9:11 in Mur88 agrees with MT. See Józef T. Milik, “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes,” in P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât, DJD 2, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 1:181–205. On 4QMidrEschat see further, Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata,b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden, STDJ 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Hebrew text and English translation are taken from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE 1:352–53. The translation depends on whether one reads (1) ‫ יעמוד‬or (2) ‫יעמיד‬. See the image at: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-499656, pl. 286, frag. 1, B-499656, recto. The English translation is taken, unaltered, from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE 1:353.

30

Fuller

Amos 9:11 On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, (A) and repair its breaches; (B) its ruins (A) I will raise up, and rebuild it (B) as in the days of old (NRSV)

‫ביום ההוא‬ ‫אקים‬

‫את־סכת דויד הנפלת‬ ‫וגדרתי את־פרציהן‬ ‫והרסתיו‬ ‫אקים‬

‫ובניתיה‬ ‫כימי עולם‬

The text of MT Amos 9:11 is carefully constructed and literarily is quite symmetrical. The verse may be divided into two sections, both of which are centered on the first person form ‫אָקים‬ ִ “I will raise up.” In both sections the verb  ‫אָקים‬ ִ takes a direct object (A) and in both sections the first person verb is supplemented by a converted perfect verb form which also takes an object (B). The converted perfect, ‫והקימותי‬, such as we see in CD 7:16 and in 4Q174 1 12, would be out of place in Amos 9:11 where the symmetrical literary structure just described exists. On the other hand, in the context of CD and 4Q174, the converted perfect form works very well. 1.3 4QDa (4Q266) 3 iii 17–21 and 4QDd (4Q269) 5 1–4 4QDa (4Q266) is the oldest of the 4QD manuscripts, dating between 100 and 50 BCE.17 It was written in a semi-cursive hand and was probably a personal copy.18 4QDd (4Q269) is dated to the late first century BCE. 4QDd overlaps with 4QDa in this section of the composition and so they may be treated together.19 The first part of the Amos–Numbers midrash found in CD 7:14–20 is not preserved in 4QDa,d, although usually the 4QD manuscripts and CD are very close; the omission may simply be due to historical accident.20 Milik, followed by Baumgarten, reconstructed frag. 3 iii of 4QDa as follows:21 17 18 19 20

21

Joseph Baumgarten, “266. 4QDamascus Documenta,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), ed. J. Baumgarten, DJD 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 26, 30. Ibid., 18:2. Joseph Baumgarten, “269. 4QDamascus Documentd,” DJD 18:123–36 (128). On the possible redactional history of CD, see Menahem Kister, “The Development of the Early Recensions of the Damascus Document,” DSD 14 (2007): 61–76; and Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). The Hebrew text and English translation are taken from Baumgarten, “266. 4QDamascus Documenta,” DJD 18:44–45.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

31

.]--‫ ׄש[וכת דויד‬17 ]‫ הק] ֯ה ׄל [וכיניי הצלמי]ם המה ספר[י] הנביא[ים‬--[‫ ׄצ‬1‎ 8‫‏‏‬ ‫דור[ש ה] ֯תורה‬ ׄ ‫ והכוכב] הוא‬.‫ [אשר בזה ישראל א]ת ׄד[בריהם‬‎19‫‏‬ ]‫דרך [כוכב מיעקוב‬ ׄ ‫כאשר}} [כאש] ֯ר כתוב‬ ׄ {{ ‫ [הבא אל] ׄדמשק‬‎20‫‏‬ ]‫ השבט ה[וא נ]שי [כו]ל [העדה ובעומדו‬.‫ [וקם שב] ֯ט מישראל‬‎21‫‏‬ 17 the ta[bernacle of David …] 18 [… con]gregation [and the “foundation of your image]s” is the book[s of] the prophet[s] 19 [(CD 7:18) whose] w[ords Israel despised. The star] is the interpr[eter of the] Law 20 [(CD 7:19) who comes to] Damascus, as it is written, [A star] has left [Jacob,] 21 [and a staff arose] out of Israel; the staff is the Prince of all [the Congregation and when he arises] Line 17: Milik reconstructed ]-- ‫“ ׄש[וכת דויד‬the booth of David” on the basis of the preserved sin on the edge of the leather and the presumed parallel to CD.22 If this is correct, it would provide slim evidence that the Amos–Numbers midrash was a part of the oldest copies of the composition that have survived. Note, however, that ‫ ׄש[וכת‬is never found spelled with ‫ שׂ‬so this reconstruction seems unlikely. In addition, Qimron does not reconstruct Milik’s and Baumgarten’s line 17 at all, in 4QDa frg. 3 iii.23 This makes Milik’s reconstructed reading of line 17 even more unlikely. Qimron does agree, however, with most of the reconstruction of Milik/Baumgarten in lines 18–21, which means that he also apparently assumes that the Amos quotations were part of 4QDa.24 Even so, the extant text of 4QDa (3 iii 17–21) actually does overlap with CD 7:17–20, and both show the embedded language of Amos 5:26–27 (as well as that of Num 24:17), as is shown in the bolded text in the table below: 22

23 24

See the comment of Baumgarten in DJD 18 (see n. 21 above). Although it is possible that sin has replaced samekh here, according to Moses H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927; repr., 1983), 32, it is more likely for samekh to replace sin. This makes Milik’s reading less likely. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:16. And 4QDd, as well. Qimron’s reconstruction of this section of 4QDa,d is as follows (see n. 23); differences from Milik/Baumgarten are in bold font: ]‫ [הוא הק] ֯ה ׄל [וכיניי הצלמי]ם המה ספר[י] הנביא[ים‬‎18‫‏‬ ‫דור[ש ה] ֯תורה‬ ׄ ‫ והכוכב] הוא‬.‫ [אשר בזה ישראל א]ת ׄד[בריהם‬‎19‫‏‬ ]‫דרך [כוכב מיעקוב‬ ‫ [הבא ארץ] ׄדמשק כאש ֯ר[ הי]ה כתוב‬‎20‫‏‬ ׄ ]‫ השבט ה[וא] נשיא [כו]ל [העדה ובעומדו‬.‫ [וקם שב] ֯ט מישראל‬‎21‫‏‬

32 4QDa .] --‫ ׄש[וכת דויד‬17 ]‫הק] ֯ה ׄל [וכיניי הצלמי]ם המה ספר[י‬-- [‫ ׄצ‬‎18‫‏ ‏‬ ]‫הנביא[ים‬ ]‫ והכוכב‬.‫ [אשר בזה ישראל א]ת ׄד[בריהם‬‎19‫‏‬ ‫דור[ש ה] ֯תורה‬ ׄ ‫הוא‬ ׄ {{ ‫ [הבא אל] דׄ משק‬‎20‫‏‬ ‫כאשר}} [כאש] ֯ר כתוב‬ ]‫דרך [כוכב מיעקוב‬ ׄ .…‫ [וקם שב] ֯ט מישראל‬‎21‫‏‬

Fuller

CD 7

‫ {וכיניׄי הצלמים} וכיון‬.‫‏ הוא הקהל‬‎17‫‏‬

‫ ⟦ ⟧ והכוכב‬.‫ אשר בזה ישראל את דבריהם‬‎18‫‏‬

‫הצלמים הם ספרי הנביאים‬

‫הוא דורש התורה‬ ‫ הבא דמשק כאשר כתוב דרך כוכב מיעקב‬‎19‫‏‬ ‫וקם שבט‬ .…‫ מישראל‬‎20‫‏‬

If 4QDa,d represent an early form of the composition, then the crafting and insertion of the extensive quotation of Amos 5:26–27 in CD may have been driven by the more “scattered” allusions that we find in both 4QDa,d and in  CD 7:17–18. The “keywords” from Amos 5:26–27 in that section may have led to the insertion of the full citation, with its links to Amos 9:11, in CD 7:14–15. 1.4 Summary In CD 7:14–16 we have two quotations from Amos, introduced by identical formulae with carefully reworked texts. In using Amos 5:26–27, the writer carefully split up and reorganized the text so as to reinterpret the form ‫ סכות‬in 5:26 as the ‫ סוכת‬of the following quotation of Amos 9:11. This reinterpretation through wordplay may have been facilitated by what may have been the intentional change of MT Amos 5:27 ‫“ ֵמ ָ ֣ה ְלאָה‬beyond” to ‫“ מאהלי‬from the tents of,” which smoothed the transition from sikkut to sukkath. 4QDa,d do not contain the text represented by CD 7:14–16. However, if we assume that 4QDa,d preserve an early form of the composition, it seems possible that the text preserved in these manuscripts represents the starting point for the development of the more extensive Amos–Numbers midrash as it is found in CD 7:14–16. From the standpoint of textual questions, the text of CD 7:16 and 4Q174 1 12 preserve identical variants of Amos 9:11. Although Amos 9:11 is partially preserved in Mur88, which dates from the beginning of the second century CE and agrees with MT, the preservation of the same variant in two different contexts creates the strong possibility that the Qumran reading represents an actual textual variant of the late Second Temple period.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

2

33

A Quotation of Ezekiel in the Damascus Document

My second example involves an explicit quotation of Ezek 44:15, again in CD. Ezekiel 44:15 (NRSV) ‫ישראל מעלי‬-‫משמרת מקדשי בתעות בני‬-‫והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק אשר שמרו את‬ ‫המה יקרבו אלי לשרתני ועמדו לפני להקריב לי חלב ודם נאם אדני יהוה‬

But the levitical priests, the descendants of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me; and they shall attend me to offer me the fat and the blood, says the Lord God. CD A 3:21–4:2 [par. 4QDa (4Q266) 2 iii 19–20; very fragmentary]: ‫ הקים אל להם ביד יחזקאל הנביא לאמר הכהנים והלוים ובני‬3:21 ‫משמרת מקדשיׄ בתעוׄ ת בני ישראל‬ ׄ ‫ צדוק אשר שמרו את‬4:1 ‫הכ ׄהנים הם שבי ישראל‬ ׄ ⟧ ⟦ ‫ מעליהם [ ] יגישו לי חלב ודם‬4:2

3:21 God swore to them by means of Ezekiel the prophet, saying, “The priests and the Levites and the sons of 4:1 Zadok who maintained the service of My Temple when the children of Israel strayed 4:2 far away from Me; [ ] they offer Me the fat and the blood.” The priests are the converts of Israel … CD follows MT Ezekiel quite closely until the first occurrence of the root ‫קרב‬. The entire phrase between the two occurrences of this root, ‫יִ ְק ְר ֥בוּ … ְל ַה ְק ִ ֥ריב‬, has dropped out of the CD citation. CD also uses the synonym ‫ יגישׂו‬instead of ‫ל ַה ְק ִ ֥ריב‬‎ ְ , as well as ‫ הם‬in place of MT’s long form, ‫ ֵ ֛ה ָמּה‬. It is difficult to know if the loss of the phrase is due to scribal error, that is, haplography, or if the writer deliberately dropped the phrase out. Whatever the reason, there is no other evidence for such a reading in the versions or in the MSS. In my judgement, this non-Masoretic reading is thus most likely the result of adaptation to the interpretive context.

34 3

Fuller

Blended Quotations: Malachi 3:24 and Isaiah 49:6 in Ben Sira 48:10

Another methodological issue that arises when identifying quotations and allusions in Second Temple period writings is that of blended allusions or quotations, i.e., a combination of allusions/quotations from two or more biblical passages. An example of a blended quotation is found in the book of Ben Sira. We are fortunate in that this particular passage is preserved not only in the Greek version of the book, but also, in relatively complete form, in MS B of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira.25 The context of the passage in Ben Sira is the description of the prophet Elijah. This description is part of the larger section of Ben Sira known as the Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–49:16). 3.1

Ben Sira 48:10 in MS B26

]-- ‫‏הכתוב נכון לעת ⟦ ⟧ להשבית אף לפנ[י‬ ‫‏להשיב לב אבות על בנים ⟦ ⟧ ולהכין ש[בטי ישרא]ל‬

It is written, at the appointed time, [ ] to calm the wrath before [ ] to turn the hearts of fathers to their sons, and to restore the t[ribes of Israe]l.27 It has long been recognized by scholars of Ben Sira that 48:10 combines quotations of Mal 3:24a and Isa 49:6.28 This passage from Ben Sira is, therefore, a clear example of a “blended quotation.” The blended quotation is introduced 25

26 27 28

Ben Sira 48:10: Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, MS B = MS Heb. e. 62, f. 2b; = Adolf Neubauer and Arthur Ernest Cowley, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1886–1906), vol. 2, no. 2823, XVII verso; see also n. 32 below. Unfortunately, Ben Sira 48:10 is only preserved in MS B among the Hebrew witnesses of the book of Ben Sira. Benjamin G. Wright, “4.1 Textual History of Ben Sira,” THB 2B:187–98, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204010000. The English translation is the author’s. The Hebrew text is taken from “The Book of Ben Sira,” Gary A. Rendsburg, and Jacob Binstein; transcription of MS B by Martin Abegg: https://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=34. See Patrick W. Skehan, and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 534; but they do not comment on the nature of the quotation of Isa 49:6. They do note that both LXX and Syr read “tribes of Jacob” (531 note to 10d).

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

35

by a citation formula, ‫הכתוב‬, presenting it as explicit. This is the only occurrence of this particular quotation formula in the book of Ben Sira.29 3.1.1 Malachi 3:24a The allusion to Mal 3:24a is minimally adapted to the new context by the change of the initial verb form from the converted perfect to the infinitive. It then matches the other two infinitives in 48:10, all of which have prefixed lamed. Mal 3:24 mt: ‫הארץ חרם‬-‫אבוא והכיתי את‬-‫אבותם פן‬-‫בנים ולב בנים על‬-‫אבות על‬-‫והשיב לב‬

He will turn the hearts of fathers to their sons and the hearts of sons to their fathers, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse. NRSV modified

Mal 3:24 lxx: … ὃς ἀποκαταστήσει καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱὸν καὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἔλθω καὶ πατάξω τὴν γῆν ἄρδην.30 … who will restore the heart of the father to the son and the heart of a person to his neighbor so that I will not come and utterly strike the land.31 3.1.2 Isaiah 49: 6 The second part of the blended quotation in Ben Sira 48:10 is dependent on the reconstruction of text that is quite damaged in MS B. The lamed at the end of

29

30 31

On the quotation formulas in Ben Sira, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach / Ecclesiasticus),” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. M. Saebø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 1.2:591–605. Note, in contrast, that Benjamin Wright does not see ‫ כתוב‬as a quotation formula in 48:10. He does not think explicit quotations are found in Ben Sira; see Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text, SCS 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 210. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). NETS translation: George E. Howard, Malachias.

36

Fuller

the line is barely visible, but the reading is certain. It has been reconstructed by Puech in this way and is widely accepted.32 This second part of the blended quotation in Ben Sira 48:10 is drawn from Isa 49:6. The text has undergone greater adaptation to the context than that of Mal 3:24a. Isa 49:6 mt: ‫שבטי יעקב ונצירי ישראל להשיב ונתתיך‬-‫ויאמר נקל מהיותך לי עבד להקים את‬ ‫קצה הארץ‬-‫לאור גוים להיות ישועתי עד‬

It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Isa 49:6 lxx: καὶ εἶπέν μοι Μέγα σοί ἐστιν τοῦ κληθῆναί σε παῖδά μου τοῦ στῆσαι τὰς φυλὰς Ιακωβ καὶ τὴν διασπορὰν τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐπιστρέψαι· ἰδοὺ τέθεικά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. And he said to me, “It is a great thing for you to be called my servant so that you may set up the tribes of Iakob and turn back the dispersion of Israel. See, I have made you a light of nations, that you may be for salvation to the end of the earth.”33 First, the verb used in MS B is ‫ ולהכין‬instead of MT Isa ‫להקים‬. ‫ ולהכין‬in the hiphil is especially frequent in 1 and 2 Chronicles, which may indicate that this is an example of late classical Hebrew usage. If such is the case, then it seems likely that Ben Sira has replaced the older verb form with one more frequently used 32

33

MS B = MS. Heb. e. 62–2b (= verso = XVII) Bodleian Library, Oxford. 2b: Ben Sira 47:23– 48:12, accessed through the website: The Book of Ben Sira / ‫בן סירה ספר‬, http://www. bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=34. For higher resolution, go to the Oxford website: https://genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/fragments/full/MS_HEB_e_62_2b.jpg. On the reconstruction of Ben Sira 48:10 see Émile Puech, “Ben Sira et la Résurrection,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990) 81–90. See also the discussion in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 531. NETS translation: Moisés Silva, Esaias.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

37

in his time—an example of updating. This could be the work of the original scribe or a later one. Second, and more interestingly, the object of this verb in MT Isa 49:6 is “Jacob,” but the final word in the blended quotation in Hebrew Ben Sira is “Israel.” The reading in MS B, although damaged, is secure. 3.1.3 Isaiah 49:6 in 1QIsaa col. 41:3 What is even more interesting is that this reading for Isa 49:6, ‫שבטי ישראל‬, is also found at col. 41:3 in 1QIsaa (at Isa 49:6); the terms Jacob and Israel have been reversed, by comparison with MT, LXX, Tg. Jon., Vulg., Syr. ‫להקים את שבטי ישראל ונצירי יעקוב להשיב‬

The expression ‫“( שבטי יעקוב‬tribes of Jacob”) is rare and is found in the Hebrew Bible only here in Isa 49:6 and in 1 Kgs 18:31. The expression “tribes of Israel,” however, occurs far more frequently. It is possible, therefore, that the reading in 1QIsaa is a secondary reading that is harmonizing to conform to the more frequent expression, “the tribes of Israel.” Regardless of the originality of this reading in 1QIsaa and Ben Sira 48:10, it is possible either that Ben Sira knew a manuscript of Isaiah that shared this reading, or that he created the harmonizing reading himself. That the reading is also found in 1QIsaa is an indication of its antiquity. 3.2 LXX Ben Sira LXX Ben Sira, presumably dating to between 132 and 117 BCE, based on the dates mentioned in the Prologue, reads “Jacob,” in agreement with MT and LXX Isa 49:6. The translator, either the grandson or perhaps a later tradent, apparently corrected Ben Sira’s quotation of this phrase to agree with LXX Isaiah. In this case, the corrector evidently recognized the allusion in the text. It probably helped that the passage was introduced as a quotation.34 ὁ καταγραφεὶς ἐν ἐλεγμοῖς εἰς καιροὺς κοπάσαι ὀργὴν πρὸ θυμοῦ, ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱὸν καὶ καταστῆσαι φυλὰς Ιακωβ.35 34

35

For a discussion of the adaptation of biblical quotations see Armin Lange, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. I. Himbaza, OBO 273 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118–61. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Würtemberger Bibelanstalt, 1935).

38

Fuller

He who was recorded ready for the times, to calm anger before wrath, to turn the heart of a father to a son and to restore the tribes of Iakob.36 3.3 Ben Sira 48:10 and the Textual History of the Book It is interesting that although MS B has this reading of the quotation from Isa 49:6, none of the other textual witnesses to the text of Ben Sira in any of the other languages in which it is preserved share the reading. The textual history and textual transmission of Ben Sira is very complicated.37 The text of Ben Sira is attested not only in Hebrew,38 at least partially, but also in Greek,39 Syriac,40 Latin,41 Ethiopic,42 Coptic,43 Armenian,44 Georgian,45 Slavonic,46 Arabic,47 and Christian Palestinian Aramaic.48 It is very unlikely that any one scholar would be competent in all of these languages. In addition, many specialists hypothesize two Hebrew recensions, HI and HII, and two Greek recensions, GI and GII,49 of Ben Sira, making the textual situation exceedingly complicated for the textual critic. The textual criticism of Ben Sira has been described in the following way:

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

NETS translation: Benjamin G. Wright III, Wisdom of Iesous Son of Sirach. For a recent overview see, Wright, “4.1 Textual History of Ben Sira.” Eric D. Reymond, “4.2 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Hebrew,” THB 2B:199–213, doi.org/10.1163/  2452-4107_thb_COM_0204020000. Jeremy Corley, “4.3 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Greek,” THB 2B:214–31, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204030000. Wido van Peursen, “4.4 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Syriac,” THB 2B:232–42, doi.org/10.1163/  2452-4107_thb_COM_0204040000. Bradley Gregory, “4.5 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Latin,” THB 2B:243–55, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204050000. Daniel Assefa, “4.6 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Ethiopic,” THB 2B:256–61, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204060000. Dylan M. Burns, “4.7 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Coptic,” THB 2B:262–63, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204070000. Garegin Hambardzumyan, “4.8 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Armenian,” THB 2B:264–68, doi  .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204080000. Anna Kharanauli, “4.9 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Georgian,” THB 2B: 269–73, doi.org/10.1163/  2452-4107_thb_COM_0204090000. Anissava Miltenova, “4.10 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Slavonic,” THB 2B:274–76, doi.org/10  .1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204100000. Peter Tarras, “4.11 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Arabic,” THB 2B:277–81, doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0204110000. Laurent Capron, “4.12 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Christian Palestinian Aramaic,” THB 2B:282–83, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204120000. Wright, “Textual History,” 187–98.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

39

The textual criticism of the book is … enormously complicated, especially when the critic attempts to understand the relationships that exist between and among the various witnesses. No other book of the OT is as textually complex and difficult to work with…. Hence, there are no iron rules or golden rules for the textual criticism of the book. The careful critic must take into account all these bewildering features and then make a judgment that seems most reasonable for the passage under consideration.50 When we study the biblical quotations in the book of Ben Sira and factor in the various witnesses to the biblical text and their dates, the picture becomes even more complex. Consequently, when we study biblical quotations in Ben Sira in general and the example discussed above in particular, we can only hazard an educated guess as to the origin and development of the reading under discussion and whether or not later tradents/translators/editors might have altered the text under the influence of other textual traditions, especially textual traditions which were understood as authoritative. 4

Summary & Conclusions

I have discussed three diverse and interesting examples of quotations of biblical quotations in Hebrew compositions from the Second Temple period.  I chose these examples to discuss because (1) they are illustrative of some of the types of biblical quotations found in Hebrew compositions from the Second Temple period; (2) they may preserve ancient variants; (3) they illustrate the complexity of the transmission and reception of biblical compositions during this time period. The majority of such quotations and allusions are closely aligned with texts ancestral to the Masoretic manuscripts known from the medieval period. In the case of both the Damascus Document and Ben Sira, we have access to the Hebrew text of these compositions through both medieval copies and fragmentary ancient copies. Nevertheless, the medieval copies of Ben Sira (MS B) and the Damascus Document may, at least sometimes, preserve accurate copies versions of the original Hebrew compositions and so allow us access to examples of the use of the Hebrew text of the developing Bible and in some cases variant readings. It seems clear, especially on the basis of the quotations of Amos and Ezekiel in CD, discussed above, that the 50

Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira,” ABD 6:937–38.

40

Fuller

ancient writers and copyists, although they in general kept close to the biblical text as we know it in later medieval copies, also felt free to (1) adapt the text of the quotation to the new context in the quoting text, and (2) also felt free to use small “blocks” of text by reordering them again for the new context in the quoting text. I think in terms of the analogy of children’s building blocks in this regard. Consequently, if the interest is in discerning the possibility of textual variations, the context of the quoting text must be at the center of the investigation. Bibliography Assefa, Daniel. “4.6 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Ethiopic.” THB 2B:256–61. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/  10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204060000. Baumgarten, Joseph. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). Edited by J. Baumgarten. djd 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach/ Ecclesiasticus).” Pages 591–605 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300); Pt. 2, The Middle Ages. Edited by M. Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-Citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique.” dsd 1 (1994): 30–70. The Book of Ben Sira/‫בן סירה ספר‬. http://www.bensira.org. Brooke, George J. “The Amos–Numbers Midrash (CD 7 13b–8 1a) and Messianic Expectation.” zaw 92 (1980):397–404. Broshi, Magen, ed. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992. Burns, Dylan M. “4.7 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Coptic.” thb 2B:262–63. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/  10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204070000. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. bzaw 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Capron, Laurent. “4.12 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Christian Palestinian Aramaic.” thb 2B:282–83. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204120000. Corley, Jeremy. “4.3 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Greek.” thb 2B:214–31. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/  10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204030000.

Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions

41

Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 931–45 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1978. Gelston, Anthony. The Twelve Minor Prophets. bhq 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Gregory, Bradley. “4.5 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Latin.” thb 2B:243–55. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/  10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204050000. Hambardzumyan, Garegin. “4.8 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Armenian.” thb 2B:264–68. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204080000. Hempel, Charlotte. The Damascus Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Kharanauli, Anna. “4.9 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Georgian.” thb 2B: 269–73. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi  .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204090000. Kister, Menahem. “The Development of the Early Recensions of the Damascus Document.” dsd 14 (2007): 61–76. Lange, Armin. “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira.” Pages 118–61 in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible. Edited by I. Himbaza. obo 273. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Milik, Józef T. “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes.” Pages 181–205 in vol. 1 of P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât. djd 2. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Miltenova, Anissava. “4.10 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Slavonic.” thb 2B:274–76. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi  .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204100000. Neubauer, Adolf, and Arthur Ernest Cowley. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1886–1906. Puech, Émile. “Ben Sira et la Résurrection.” Pages 81–90 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Rabin, Chaim. The Zadokite Documents. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes.  2 vols. Stuttgart: Würtemberger Bibelanstalt, 1935.

42

Fuller

Reymond, Eric D. “4.2 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Hebrew.” thb 2B:199–213. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi  .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204020000. Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries Edited from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Now in the Possession of the University Library, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970. Segal, Moses H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927. Repr., 1983. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. ab 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidr­ Eschata,b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschicht­ liche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. stdj 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Tarras, Peter. “4.11 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Arabic.” thb 2B:277–81. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/  10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204110000. Van Peursen, Wido. “4.4 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Syriac.” thb 2B:232–42. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi  .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204040000. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Edited by S. D. McBride, Jr. Translated by W. Janzen, S. D. McBride, Jr., and C. A. Muenchow. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. scs 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Wright, Benjamin G. “4.1 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira: Textual History of Ben Sira.” thb 2B:187–98. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by F. Feder and M. Henze. Leiden: Brill, 2019. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0204010000. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim prophetae, 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.

chapter 3

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Textual History of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library Armin Lange The book of Jeremiah plays an unusual role in the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 In contrast to many other prophetic books, no pesher on the book of Jeremiah is preserved. Instead, several compositions evoking the book of Jeremiah, belonging to the metagenre of paratextual literature, have been identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls.2 In addition, quotations from the biblical book of Jeremiah are employed in halakhic, messianic, and other contexts in the Essene and non-Essene literature from Qumran.3 As illustrated by the Qumran library then, the reception history of Jeremiah is comparable to that of Ezekiel but is distinct from the reception histories of Isaiah and many minor prophets. The Qumran library is hugely important for the study of the Book of Jeremiah for another reason as well. In the various caves around Khirbet Qumran, up to six manuscripts of the book of Jeremiah were found. These manuscripts, along with the quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah noted above, provide a wealth of information about the textual development of the book of Jeremiah. 1 This article was finalized before the coronavirus pandemic broke out. Due to continued lockdowns in Austria my access to scholarly literature is limited and literature that appeared after I wrote this article could only be recognized to a limited extent. Among the publications I did not have access to is the article of Michael Langlois, “The Book of Jeremiah’s Redaction History in Light of it Oldest Manuscripts,” in Jeremiah in History and Tradition, ed. J. West and N. P. Lemche (London: Routledge, 2020), 9–31. 2 For the category of paratextual literature, see Armin Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, ed. P. S. Alexander et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–40. 3 For surveys of Jeremiah’s reception history in the Qumran library, see George J. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception / Le livre de Jérémie et sa reception, ed. A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer, betl 128 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 183–205, and Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity, stdj 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

© Armin Lange, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_004

44

Lange

I begin with a brief history of research and a description of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Jeremiah. I then discuss the Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran. Next, I provide a text-critical survey of the Jeremiah paratexts from Qumran; and finally, I analyze of the employments of Jeremiah in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls. Drawing on my earlier research,4 I bring together here, for the first time in scholarship, all the evidence for the textual criticism of Jeremiah in both the biblical and nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls. 1

The History of Research

The history of research on the text of Jeremiah is extensive and falls into two phases.5 The discussion in both has focused on the relation of mt-Jer to 4 Armin Lange, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten, vol. 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 297–324; idem, “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. N. Dávid et al., frlant 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 95–116; idem, “The Textual History of the Book Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, ed. J. Penner et al., stdj 98 (Leiden: Brill 2012), 251–84; idem, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. I. Himbaza, obo 275 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118– 61; idem, “7.2 Jeremiah: Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts,” thb 1B:514–42, doi.org/10.1163/2452 -4107_thb_COM_0007000000; idem, “The Text of the Book of Jeremiah according to Barkhi Nafshi and the Rule of Benedictions,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. A. B. Perrin et al., ejl 47 (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2017): 289–306; idem, “Texts within Texts: The Text of Jeremiah in the Exegetical Literature from Qumran,” in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke, ed. A. Feldman et al., stdj 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 187–208; idem, “The Text of Jeremiah in 1 Enoch,” in Wisdom Poured Out Like Water: Studies on Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini, ed. J. H. Ellens et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 121–41; Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange, “Zur Textgeschichte des Jeremiabuches in der Antike: Überblick und neue Einsichten,” tlz 142 (2017): 1137–52. 5 For more detailed surveys of the history of research, see Louis Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah with English Translation (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985); Franz D. Hubmann, “Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen MT und G im Jeremiabuch,” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung,” ed. W. Groß, bbb 98 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 263–70; Beat Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49, fat 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 48–64; Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Y. A. P. Goldman et al., VTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269–93 (270–75); Georg Fischer,  Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), 31–45; Lange, Handschriften, 304–14.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

45

lxx-Jer. Already in 1777, Eichhorn argued that the differences between lxx-Jer and mt-Jer resulted from a “double recension” of the book.6 In the nineteenth century, Movers (1837) and later Scholz (1875) discussed mt-Jer as a revision of the Hebrew parent text underlying lxx-Jer.7 Against this position, Spohn (1794) and Graf (1862) regarded mt-Jer as the earlier text, which the translator of lxx-Jer had shortened and restructured.8 Giesebrecht (1894) argued for a compromise position, regarding lxx-Jer as a free translation; he held that lxxJer preserved a more original version in its short texts and in cases of scribal corruption in mt-Jer.9 Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Giesebrecht’s hypothesis was shared by many interpreters of Jeremiah. Only Janzen’s 1973 publication of 4QJerb relaunched the discussion. Janzen pointed to the secondary character of mt-Jer readings in light of 4QJerb and regarded lxx-Jer as the better text.10 Tov and Bogaert further developed Janzen’s reassertion of the ideas of Movers and Scholz. Tov regarded mt-Jer as a reworking (edition 2) of the textual ancestor of lxx-Jer’s Hebrew parent text (edition 1),11 to which it added new details, brief explanations, and expansions of proper nouns as well as formulae. Other features corroborate this judgment; e.g., mt’s expansions on the basis of context, and the fact that the long texts employ rhetoric and passages from other parts of Jeremiah.12 The 6

7

8 9 10

11 12

Johann G. Eichhorn, “Bemerkungen über den Text des Propheten Jeremias,” Repertorium für Biblische und Morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777): 141–68 (168) (“Sollte nicht die Ursache hievon in einer doppelten Recension liegen?”). Cf. also the more extensive argument in idem, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Weidemann, 1780–1783), 3:157– 207. For Eichhorn’s description of mt-Jer as going back to a Babylonian text and lxx-Jer to an Egyptian one, see James Seth Adcock, “Did Eichhorn Originate the Theory of Local Texts?” zaw 125 (2013): 304–7. Franz Carl Movers, De utriusque recensionis Vaticiniorum Ieremiae, Graece Alexandrinae et Hebraicae Masorethicae, indole et origene commentatio critica (Hamburg: Perthes, 1837); Anton Scholz, Der Masorethische Text und die lxx—Uebersetzung des Buches Jeremias (Regensburg: Manz, 1875). Gottlieb Leberecht Spohn, Ieremias Vates e versione Iudaeorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum interpretum Graecorum emendatus notisque criticis illustrates (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1794); Karl Heinrich Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: Weigel, 1862), xl–lvii. Friedrich Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, HKAT 3.2.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894), xix–xxxiv (cf. 2nd rev. ed., 1907, xxv–xl). J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, hsm 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 28–47. Cf. idem, “Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah,” htr 60 (1967): 433–47; idem, “A Critique of Sven Soderlund’s The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis,” bioscs 22 (1989): 16–47. Reworked in turn by the parent text of lxx-Jer and/or the translator himself. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the lxx of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8, hsm 8 (Missoula, mt: Scholars Press, 1976); idem, “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx of Jeremiah 27 (34),” zaw 91 (1979): 73–93; idem, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire

46

Lange

Deuteronomistic vocabulary of mt-Jer identifies edition 2 of Jeremiah as probably the last representative of Deuteronomism. Bogaert13 argues along similar lines to Tov and has contributed especially to the dating of mt-Jer (see below pp. 128–31).14

13

14

dans le livre de Jérémie,” rb 79 (1972): 189–99; idem, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84; idem, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu les oracles et leur transmission, ed. P.-M. Bogaert, betl 54 (Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 145–67, 430; idem, “The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 55–63 (in Hebrew); idem, “The Book of Jeremiah: A Work in Progress,” BRev 16 (2000): 32–38, 45. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie,” in idem, Le livre de Jérémie, 168–73, 430–32; idem, “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1–16 (lxx et tm) et la signification des suppléments,” in Bogaert, Le livre de Jérémie, 222–38, 433–34; idem, “Relecture et déplacement de l’oracle contre les Philistins: Pour une datation de la rédaction longue (TM) du livre de Jérémie,” in La vie de la parole: De l’Ancien Testament au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à P. Grelot, ed. Henri Cazelles (Paris: Desclée, 1987), 139–50; idem, “L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques,” in The Book of Isaiah / Le livre d’Isaïe, ed. J. Vermeylen, betl 81 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 147–53; idem, “La libération de Jérémie et le meurtre de Godolias: Le texte court (lxx) et la rédaction longue (TM),” in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. D. Fraenkel et al., msu 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 312–22; idem, “Urtext, texte court et relecture,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 43 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 236–47; idem, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” rb 101 (1994): 363–406; idem, “Jérémie 17,1–4 TM, oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annoncé en 11,7–8.13 TM et en 15,12–14 TM,” in La double transmission du texte biblique: Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker, ed. Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger, obo 179 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 59–74; idem, “La liste des nations dans l’oracle de la coupe (Jr 25,16–26),” in L’ecrit et l’esprit: Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker, ed. D. Böhler et al., obo 214 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 1–14; idem, “La datation per souscription dans les rédactions courte (lxx) et longue du livre de Jérémie,” in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2002, ed. J. Joosten and P. Le Moigne, ld 203 (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 137–59; idem, “Heshbon entre Moab et Ammon: La finale ajoutée à l’oracle sur Moab en Jr 48,45–47 TM,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the lxx and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne, betl 192 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 45–54. Bogaert and Tov are supported in their understanding of mt-Jer by, among others, Johan Lust, “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case,” jnsl 20 (1994): 31–48; Adrian Schenker, “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose vom Unterjocher zum Gottesknecht: Das Bild Nebukadnezzars und einige mit ihm zusammenhängende Unterschiede in den beiden Jeremia-Rezensionen,” rb 89 (1982): 498–527; idem, “Was übersetzen wir? Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich aus der Textkritik ergeben,” in Text und

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

47

Stipp also understands mt-Jer to be a later text than lxx-Jer. In contrast to Tov, Bogaert, and their supporters, Stipp wants to detect two or three different redactional layers within mt-Jer.15 In his view, mt-Jer is characterized by

15

Sinn im Alten Testament: Textgeschichtliche und bibeltheologische Studien, ed. A. Schenker, obo 103 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 247–62; idem, “Der nie aufgehobene Bund: Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jer 31,31–34,” in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. E. Zenger and C. Dohmen, qd 146 (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 85–112; idem, “La rédaction longue du livre de Jérémie: Doit-elle être datée au temps des premiers Hasmonéens?” etl 70 (1994): 281–93; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah,” vt 52 (2002): 459–82; eadem, “‘Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant’: Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27,” in Martinez and Vervenne, Interpreting Translation, 1–18; Lénart J. de Regt, “The Prophet in the Old and the New Edition of Jeremiah,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, ed. F. Postma et al., Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn tradities, Supplement series 3 (Maastricht: Shaker, 2002), 167–74; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, sblms 51 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Shirley L. Wijesinghe, “Tracing the Shorter Version Behind the Short Text (lxx): A New Approach to the Redaction of Jeremiah 34,8–22,” Le Muséon 110 (1997): 293–328; eadem, Jeremiah 34,8–22: Structure and Redactional History of the Masoretic Text and of the Septuagint Hebrew Vorlage, Logos 37.1–2 (Colombo, Sri Lanka: Centre for Society and Religion, 1999); Eugene Ulrich, “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506; idem, “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, ed. K. D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy, Hebrew Bible Monographs 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 263–74; Christian-Bernhard Amphoux, “Les réécritures du livre de Jérémie (lxx),” in Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010, ed. C. Clivaz et al., betl 248 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 213–25; Christian-Bernhard Amphoux and Arnaud Sérandour, “La date de la forme courte de Jérémie,” in Eukarpa Εὔκαρπα: Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes en hommage à Gilles Dorival, ed. M. Loubet and D. Pralon (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 25–35; Moon Kwon Chae, “Redactional Intentions of mt Jeremiah concerning the Oracles against the Nations,” jbl 134 (2015): 577–93. Hermann-Josef Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, obo 136 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); cf. also idem, “Offene Fragen zur Übersetzungskritik des antiken griechischen Jeremiabuches,” jnsl 17 (1991): 143–59; idem, “Probleme des redaktions­ geschichtlichen Modells der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches,” in Groß, Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung,” 225–62; idem, “The Prophetic Messenger Formulas in Jeremiah according to the Masoretic and Alexandrian Texts,” Textus 18 (1995): 63–85; idem, “Eschatologisches Schema im alexandrinischen Jeremiabuch?” jnsl 23 (1997): 153–79; idem, “Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches,” in Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet

48

Lange

a pre-Masoretic idiolect.16 This pre-Masoretic idiolect consists of phrases and repetitive language that occur only the proto-Masoretic long texts of the book of Jeremiah (and for the most part nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible). Against Tov, Stipp thinks that Deuteronomistic rhetoric is used without specific Deuteronomistic meanings in mt-Jer; that is, mt-Jer cannot be characterized as Deuteronomistic on the basis of this rhetoric.17 Stipp therefore characterizes mt-Jer as a product of a scribal form of textual maintenance.18 Prior to Stipp, Min and Goldman had also detected more than one redactional layer in mt-Jer;19 and Gosse defended a similar position in a series of

16 17 18 19

von Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.D), Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus, wunt 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 630–53; idem, “Prophetentitel und Eigenname Jeremias im masoretischen Sondergut des Jeremiabuches,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie; Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. R. Achenbach and M. Arneth, bzabr 13 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009), 293–307; idem, “Der prämasoretische Idiolekt des Buches Ezechiel und seine Beziehungen zum Jeremiabuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday, ed. A. Lange et al., frlant 230 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 140–55; idem, “Gottesbildfragen in den Lesartendifferenzen zwischen dem masoretischen und dem alexandrinischen Text des Jeremiabuches,” in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, ed. J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp, VTSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 237–74; idem, “Die Jeremia-Septuaginta als theologische Programmschrift: Zur Kommentierung des griechischen Jeremiabuches in der ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’ (lxx.D),” bz 57 (2013): 27–45; idem, “Interpretierende Übersetzung in der Jeremia-Septuaginta,” jnsl 40 (2014): 27–52; idem, “Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese I–II,” vt 64 (2014): 484–501 and 654–63; idem, “Broadening the Criteria for Clarifying the Textual History of Jeremiah 10: The Pre-Masoretic Ideolect,” in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History, ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, cbet 82 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 107–16. For a brief description, see Stipp, “Zur aktuellen Diskussion,” 632–35. Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut, 138–39. Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut, 138: “Schriftgelehrte Form der Textpflege.” Young-Jin Min, “The Minuses and Pluses of the lxx Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977); idem, “The Case for Two Books of Jeremiah,” in Text, Theology and Translation: Essays in Honour of Jan de Waard, ed. S. Crisp and M. Jinbachian (London: United Bible Societies, 2004), 109–24; Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie, obo 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); cf. also Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah; idem, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research, sblds 83 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Konrad Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, wmant 72 (Neukirchen—Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 13–23;

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

49

publications.20 More recently, Weis proposed “to differentiate specific textual variations that are due to redactional intervention from those due to the vicissitudes of text transmission.” Thus, he distinguishes scribal alterations in mtJer from the original proto-Masoretic redaction.21 Sweeney and Finsterbusch recently added a new synchronic aspect to the discussion. Finsterbusch points to the rhetorical coherence of mt-Jer and argues that the redactor responsible for it applied a coherent rhetorical structure to the book.22 She attributes to this redactor an increased emphasis on the guilt and failure of Judah in mt-Jer, and a change in the narrative voice of the book, that makes Jeremiah the narrator of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction. Sweeney argues similarly.23 He sees lxx-Jer as focused on the destruction of Jerusalem and situates it during the exilic period. In reworking their shared textual ancestor, mt-Jer distinguishes between Israel and Judah on the one hand and Jerusalem and the Temple on the other. “mt Jeremiah presents a contrast between Jerusalem, the judged city that will be restored, and Babylon, the tool of YHWH’s judgment against Jerusalem that will ultimately be judged itself

20

21 22

23

Jacques Vermeylen, “L’alliance renouvelée (Jr 31,31–34): L’histoire littéraire d’un texte célèbre,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, ed. J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin, betl 144 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1999), 57–83. Bernard Gosse, Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse: De la redaction sacerdotale du livre d’ Isaïe à la contestation de la Sagesse, bzaw 246 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 47–66; idem, “The Masoretic Redaction of Jeremiah: An Explanation,” jsot 77 (1998): 75–80; idem, “Trois étapes de la rédaction du livre de Jérémie: La venue du malheur contre ce lieu (Jérusalem), puis contre toute chair (Juda et les nations), et enfin de nouveau contre ce lieu, mais identifié cette fois à Babylone,” zaw 111 (1999): 508–29; idem, “La rédaction massorétique du livre de Jérémie,” Transeu 42 (2012): 141–69. Weis, “Textual Situation,” 273; idem, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10 in lxx and mt: Results and Implications,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 117–36; idem, “7.1. Textual History of Jeremiah,” thb 1B:495–513, dx.doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0007010000. Karin Finsterbusch, “mt-Jer 1,1–3,5 und lxx-Jer 1,1–3,5: Kommunikationsebenen und rhetorische Strukturen,” bz 56 (2012): 247–63; eadem, “Different Beginnings, Different Book Profiles: Exegetical Perspectives on the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer 1 and mt-Jer 1,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 51–64; cf. Karin Finsterbusch and Norbert Jacoby, MT-Jeremia und lxx-Jeremia 1–24: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur, wmant 145 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, ed. M. A. Sweeney, fat 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 65–77; idem, “Differing Perspectives in the lxx and mt Versions of Jeremiah 1–10,” in Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertextuality, and Reception in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature, ed. Marvin A. Sweeney, fat 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 135–53.

50

Lange

as Jerusalem is restored.”24 Sweeney, therefore, situates mt-Jer at the beginning of the Persian period. Finsterbusch and Sweeney must be commended for their comprehensive approach to interpreting mt-Jer. The key to a proper understanding of mt-Jer is to base its interpretation not on individual variants but on observations concerning its overall rhetorical and structural coherence. Nevertheless, Sweeney’s conclusions about the date and setting of mt-Jer are based solely on his conclusions concerning the meaning of his structural observations. To date mt-Jer to the early Persian period overlooks the fact that the hope for restoration in the Second Temple period is not restricted to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple during the time of Haggai and Zechariah. The same methodological criticism applies to the ideas of Biddle.25 Biddle restricts his analysis to mt-Jeremiah 39–41. On the basis of the redactional linkage of the prophet with the neo-Babylonian governor Gedaliah, Biddle finds in the proto-Masoretic version of these chapters prophetic approval of the idea of a non-Davidic governor installed by an imperial power. Biddle therefore proposes that mt-Jer should be situated in the time of Nehemiah. Isolated arguments such as Biddle’s ignore, among other things, the promise of the restoration of a dynastic royal house of David in mt-Jer 33:14–26. Although most textual critics regard lxx-Jer as the more original text, some more recent Jeremiah commentators26 do not share this opinion. Among them, Fischer is the most vocal.27 Because of the bad state of preservation of 4QJerb, and because of several readings with mt-Jer, Fischer denies that 4QJerb 24 25 26

27

Sweeney, “Differing Perspectives,” 151. Mark E. Biddle, “The Redaction of Jeremiah 39–41 [46–48 lxx],” zaw 126 (2014): 228–42. See, e.g., Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr., Jeremiah 1–25, wbc 26 (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), xliv–xlv; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 57–62; Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25: Übersetzt und ausgelegt, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 39–46. Georg Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” Bib 78 (1997): 305–28; cf., e.g., idem, “Jeremiah 52: Test Case for Jer lxx,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998, ed. B. A. Taylor, scs 51 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 37–48; idem, “Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext,” in Karrer and Kraus, Septuaginta, 612–29; idem, Jeremia 1–25, 39–46; idem, “7.3 Jeremiah: Septuagint,” thb 1B:543–55, dx.doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0007030000. For a critical evaluation of Fischer’s arguments, see Helmut Engel, “Erfahrungen mit der Lxx-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’,” in Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel, ed. H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler, vol. 3 of Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, bwant 174 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007) 80–96; and Stipp, “Jeremia-Septuaginta als theologische Programmschrift”; idem, “Interpretierende Übersetzung”; idem, “Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese.”

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

51

proves the existence of a Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. He maintains that the translator of lxx-Jer reworked the text of mt-Jer when rendering it into Greek. Similarly, Renaud regards lxx-Jer in Jer 31[38]:31–34 as an interpretative translation of the original Jeremianic text preserved by mt-Jer.28 Gesundheit and Adcock are also proponents of the priority of mt-Jer. On the basis of Jer 1:24, Gesundheit recently argued that lxx-Jer preserves a more coherent text, compared to mt-Jer. In his view, lxx-Jer represents a formally harmonized and stylistically unified text, while mt-Jer shows rough transitions, seams, and substantive tensions between individual phrases and verses of the book—all features typical of a prophetical book that has developed as a result of a complicated redaction history. mt-Jer, therefore, represents an earlier text that was reworked by the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.29 In a study concerned only with Jer 10:1–18, Adcock claims that mt-Jer 10:1–18 preserves an ancient battle hymn that lxx-Jer transformed into an apotropaic incantation against evil spirits.30 Several textual critics have acknowledged the existence of a distinct Hebrew parent text for lxx-Jer (Soderlund,31 Rofé,32 van der Kooij,33 Shead34) but, in the case of several mt-Jer long texts, detect an abbreviating translator and regard the different structure of lxx-Jer as the work of the translator. In this view, differences between lxx-Jer and mt-Jer go back to reworkings by the translator as well as to two different Hebrew texts. Taking this line of thought, Freedman and Lundbom point to a total of forty-eight arguable examples of haplography.35 Haran argued that lxx-Jer renders a high-quality parent 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35

Bernard Renaud, “L’oracle de la nouvelle alliance: À propos des divergences entre le texte hébreu (Jr 31,31–34) et le texte grec (38,31–34),” in Auwers and Wénin, Lectures et relectures, 85–98. Shimon Gesundheit, “The Question of lxx Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis,” vt 62 (2012): 29–57. James Seth Adcock, “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!”: A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1–18, cbet 83 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017). Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis, JSOTSup 47 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1985). Alexander Rofé, “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah,” zaw 101 (1989): 390–98; idem, “The Name YHWH Seba‌ʾot and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), 307–15. Arie van der Kooij, “Jeremiah 27:5–15: How Do mt and lxx Relate to Each Other?” jnsl 20 (1994): 59–78. Andrew G. Shead, “Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions,” TynBul 50 (1999): 318–20; idem, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions, JSOTSup 347 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002). David Noel Freedman and Jack R. Lundbom, “Haplography in Jeremiah 1–20,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 28*–38* (in Hebrew).

52

Lange

text accurately but changed its structure (from that of mt-Jer into that of lxx-Jer).36 The ongoing debate concerning the relationship between mt-Jer and lxxJer points to a complex situation that goes beyond the simple question of priority. In my own view, mt-Jer attests to an extensive reworking of a Hebrew text that was close to the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah. A detailed examination of the Qumran evidence, beginning with but not limited to the biblical manuscripts, should help to fill in this more complex picture. 2

The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library37

2.1 Preliminaries: Variant Literary Editions and Manuscripts mt-Jer and lxx-Jer represent two different variant literary editions, which are preserved among the versions. The first variant literary edition is attested by the Masoretic text of Jeremiah and its translations: Peshitta (Pesh.-Jer), Targum Jonathan (Tg.-Jer), Vulgate (Vulg.-Jer), Theodotion (Th-Jer), Aquila (Aq-Jer), Symmachus (Sym-Jer), Hexapla (Hex.-Jer), and Karaite and Rabbanite Arabic translations (J-Arab-Jer). The second survives in the Old Greek text of Jeremiah and its translations: Old Latin (vl-Jer), Coptic (Cop-Jer), Ethiopic (Eth-Jer), SyroHexapla (SyH-Jer), Armenian (Arm-Jer), Georgian (Georg-Jer), Old Church Slavonic (ocs-Jer), and Christian Arabic translations (Chr-Arab-Jer). The variant literary edition that is preserved in mt-Jer is comparable to redactions of biblical books or Second Temple era compositions of “rewritten” Jewish Scriptures, such as the Temple Scroll and the book of Jubilees. The expansions of mt-Jer added another 3,097 words to Jeremiah, lengthening the book by one-seventh.38 These additions to mt-Jer display a set of textual characteristics that distinguish its long texts on stylistic, linguistic, and ideological levels from other textual strata of the book of Jeremiah.39 mt-Jer furthermore shows the repositioning of many chapters of Jeremiah, which led to a different structure for the book: 36 37

38 39

Menahem Haran, “The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul et al., VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 699–706. This section of the article was published, with some differences, as “Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library,” in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. J. R. Lundbom, C. A. Evans, and B. A. Anderson, VTSup 178 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 280–302. Cf. Min, “Minuses and Pluses,” 1, 159, 181, 312, 315, 317. A list of these characteristics can be found in Tov, “Some Aspects,” 150–67.

53

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.1

The structures of LXX-Jer and MT-Jer

LXX-Jer

MT-Jer

Jer 1:1–25:13 Sayings and speeches against Israel and Judah Jer 25:14–32:24 (= mt-Jer 49:34–39; 46; 50–51; 47:1–7; 49:7–22, 1–6, 28–33, 23–27; 48; 25:15–38) Pronouncements against the nations Jer 33–51 (= mt-Jer 26–43; 44:1–13; 45:1–5) Narratives about the demise of Judah and Jerusalem and about the fortunes of Jeremiah Jer 52 Report about the conquest of Jerusalem and the deportation to Babylon

Jer 1–25:14 Sayings and speeches against Israel and Judah Jer 25–45 Narratives about the demise of Judah and Jerusalem and about the fortunes of Jeremiah Jer 46–51 Pronouncements against the nations

Jer 52 Report about the conquest of Jerusalem and the deportation to Babylon

However, in some cases, the (parent) text of lxx-Jer reflects scribal errors, while the consonantal text of mt-Jer preserves a more original reading. Examples include two cases of parablepsis in Jer 11:22 (‫“ ָל ֵכן ּכֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבֹאות‬therefore thus says the Lord of Hosts”; cf. Jer 11:21) and Jer 36[43]:26 (‫ן־ע ְב ְּד ֵאל‬ ַ ‫ת־ׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּו ֶּב‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶא‬ “and Shelemiah, son of Abdʾel”). mt-Jer is the only surviving Hebrew witness of Jeremiah that is complete and goes back to antiquity in its consonantal text. The most important masoretic Hebrew manuscripts of Jeremiah are: – Codex Cairo of the Prophets, attributed to Moses ben Asher (mtC; 895 CE);40 – Codex Aleppo (mtA; Israel Museum; Jer 29:9–31:34 is not extant; ca. 930 CE);41

40

41

D. S. Loewinger, ed., Codex Cairo of the Bible from the Karaite Synagogue at Abbasiya (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971); Federico Pérez Castro, Jeremias, vol. 5 of El Codice de profetas de el Cairo, ed. F. Pérez Castro, Textos y estudios “Cadenal Cisneros” 37 (Madrid: Instituto de Filologia, 1987). Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Aleppo Codex: Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aaron ben Asher (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1976); Mordechai Breuer, ed., Torah Neviʾim Ketuvim Proofread according to Mesorah of Keter Aram Tzova and Like Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1989); Yosef Ofer, ed., Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Karger Family Fund, 2000). The Aleppo Codex is also available online: http://www.aleppocodex.org.

54

Lange

– Codex Leningradensis (mtL; Russian National Library in St. Petersburg ebr. I B 19a; 1009 CE);42 – Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (mtP; Russian National Library; 916 CE);43 – Codex New York (mtN; E.N. Adler 346 = jts 232; tenth century);44 – ms Sassoon 1053 (mtS1; National Library of Israel; tenth century);45 – Codex Reuchlinianus 3 (mtR; Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe; 1105 CE).46 In addition, we may include the Karasu Bazar codex (ninth century?).47 The hubp edition of Jeremiah48 also cites in its apparatus the codices Leningrad II Firkovitch 9, Leningrad II Firkovitch 51, Leningrad II Firkovitch 59, Leningrad II Firkovitch 116, Leningrad II Firkovitch 124, Leningrad II Firkovitch 225, Leningrad II Firkovitch 1283, and Gottheil 22.49 The Genizah fragments of Jeremiah are avail-

42

43

44

45 46

47 48 49

D. S. Loewinger, ed., Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa: Codex Leningrad B 19a; The Earliest Complete Bible Manuscript (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971); David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders eds., The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Aron Dotan, ed., Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001). Hermann L. Strack, The Hebrew Bible—Latter Prophets: The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd, Edited with Preface and Critical Annotations, Prolegomenon by P. Wernberg-Møller (New York: Ktav, 1971); repr. of Prophetam Posteriorum: Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (Petropoli: Bibliothecae Publicae Imperialis, 1876). Judy Weiss, “The Masorah of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America Library Manuscript 232 (E. N. Adler Ms. 346)” (PhD diss., The Graduate School of The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2009). A digitized version of the dissertation is available at https://search .proquest.com/openview/9c308786ab11974b6dcb0e36144075f2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar& cbl=18750&diss=y. A digitized version of the manuscript is available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Tanakh-Sassoon1053-11-Jeremiah.pdf. Alexander Sperber, ed., Codex Reuchlinianus: No. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe ( formerly Durlach no. 55), With a General Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, vol. 1 of The Pre-Masoretic Bible, Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii Aevi 2.1 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1956). Francis I. Andersen, “The Orthography of D62,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Ortho­ graphy, ed. D. N. Freedman et al., bjsucsd 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 253–93. Chaim Rabin, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Book of Jeremiah: The Hebrew University Bible, HUBP (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1997), xxxvi. Richard Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” jqr 17 (1905): 608–55 (631–34); Israel Yeivin, “A Biblical Manuscript Very Close to the Aleppo Codex from the Karaite Synagogue in Cairo (C1),” in Studies in Bible and Exegesis 3: In Memoriam Moshe GoshenGottstein, ed. M. Bar Asher et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 169–94 (in Hebrew).

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

55

able through the webpage of the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society;50 they remain largely unresearched. Both proto-Masoretic and non-Masoretic fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts survive among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were found in Qumran Cave 2 and Cave 4: 2QJer, 4QJera, 4QJerb, 4QJerc, 4QJerd, 4QJere.51 The classification of the Qumran manuscripts—as nonaligned, proto-, or semi-Masoretic, or as texts attesting to the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx52—is facilitated somewhat because of the distinctive long texts of mt-Jer. 4QJera can be classified as proto-Masoretic in its final form, while 2QJer and 4QJerc are semi-Masoretic in character. 4QJerb attests to the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer. 4QJerd was probably a nonaligned manuscript. 4QJere cannot be classified typologically, as only a small fragment has been preserved. MT-Jeremiah and the Jeremiah Manuscripts from the Qumran Library The proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah survives in the consonantal text of mtJer as well as in the final form of the Qumran manuscript 4QJera. Both the medieval masoretic manuscripts and 4QJera attest to slight textual variations within the (proto-)Masoretic textual tradition of the book. This tendency is corroborated by some variant readings contained in the two semi-Masoretic Qumran manuscripts, 2QJer and 4QJerc. 2.2

2.2.1 The Textual Character of the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah As noted above, proto-mt-Jer is characterized by a set of textual characteristics that distinguish its long texts on stylistic, linguistic, and ideological grounds from other textual strata of the book of Jeremiah. In the later sections of the book of Jeremiah, the number of smaller and larger additions in proto-mt-Jer increases; these can often, but not always, be found in introductory verses to prophetic oracles or prose passages (e.g., the addition of the messenger formula). This observation coheres with the fact that the restructuring of the parent text of proto-mt-Jer only begins at Jer 25:15 [32:1]. Is it possible that the first part of the book of Jeremiah had already reached a fixed, authoritative state 50 51

52

For the main website, see http://www.jewishmanuscripts.org. Edited by Maurice Baillet, “Grotte 2.13. Jérémie,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân, ed. M. Baillet et al., 2 vols., djd 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 1:62–69; and Emanuel Tov, “Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., djd 15 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997): 145–207. Lange, Handschriften, 1–32, and idem, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew–Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” thb 1A:112–66 (123–27), doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001020200.

56

Lange

textually and that the redactor(s) thus focused more on the second part of the book? Exceptions to such a rule would be the proto-Masoretic long texts of Jer 2:1–2; 7:1–2; 8:10–12; 10:6–10; 11:7–8; 17:1–4; 25:14. The smaller extensions of proto-mt-Jer are characterized by several repeated features: – The addition of divine names (examples include ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫“ ֱא‬God” in Jer 5:14; ‫“ ְצ ָבֹאות‬hosts” in Jer 6:6 and Jer 29[36]:4; ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫“ ְצ ָבֹאות ֱא‬of hosts, the God of Israel” in Jer 29[36]:21);53 – The addition of proper nouns (e.g., ‫אּצר ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל‬ ַ ֶ‫בּוכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫“ נ‬Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon” instead of ‫“ מלך בבל‬king of Babylon” in Jer 21:2 or ‫אּצר‬ ַ ֶ‫בּוכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫ֶאל־נ‬ ‫“ ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל ָּב ֶב ָלה‬to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Babylon” instead of ‫“ בבלה‬to Babylon” in Jer 29[36]:3; ‫“ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך יְ ֹהויָ ִקים‬the king Jehoiakim” instead of ‫“ המלך‬the king” in Jer 26[33]:22); – The addition of patronyms to proper nouns (e.g., ‫ל־צ ְד־‬ ִ ‫ן־ֹקוליָ ה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־א ְח ָאב ֶּב‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ן־מ ֲע ֵׂשיָ ה‬ ַ ‫“ ִקּיָ הּו ֶב‬to Ahab, son of Koliah, and to Zedekiah, son of Maaseiah” instead of ‫“ אל אחאב ואל צדקיהו‬to Ahab and to Zedekiah” in Jer 29[36]:21);54 – The addition of the title ‫“ ַהּנָ ִביא‬the prophet” for Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 28[35]:5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15; 29[36]:1, 29; 32[39]:2; 34[41]:6; 36[43]:8, 26; 37[44]:2, 3, 6, 13; 42[49]:2, 4; 46[26]:13; 49:34 [25:14])55 and other prophets (e.g., in Jer 29[36]:21);56 – The addition of formulaic introductions to prophetic pronouncements,57 such as ‫“ ּכֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה‬thus says the Lord” (e.g., Jer 11:22; 13:12; 17:5; 18:11; 19:1; 22:30; 29[36]:25; 31[38]:37; 35[42]:19); and ‫“ נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬utterance of the Lord” (e.g., 3:10; 5:11; 7:13; 8:3, 17; 9:2[3], 5[6], 21[22]; 12:17; 13:11, 14; 15:9, 20; 18:6; 21:10, 13, 14; 23:1, 11, 12, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 32; 25:7, 9, 12, 29 [32:15]; 27:11 [34:9]; 27:15 [34:12]; 28[35]:4; 29[36]:9, 11, 14, 14, 32; 31[38]:14, 16, 17, 34, 37; 32[39]:5, 30, 44; 34[41]:17; 35[42]:13; 39[46]:17; 44[51]:29; 48[31]:25, 30, 43, 44; 49:16 [29:15]; 49:30, 31 [30:8, 9]; 49:37, 38 [25:17, 18]; 50[27]:4, 10, 20, 35; 51[28]:25). In Jer 46[26]:1 such an added formula can even introduce a whole collection of Jeremianic oracles: ‫ל־הֹּגויִ ם‬ ַ ‫“ ֲא ֶׁשר ָהיָ ה ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַהּנָ ִביא ַע‬The word of the Lord that came to the prophet Jeremiah concerning the nations”; 53

54 55 56 57

For more examples, see Janzen, Studies, 69–86. Rofé, “The Name YHWH Seba‌ʾot,” 307–16, thinks that ‫“ צבאות‬hosts” was deleted by lxx-Jer for theological reasons (for a criticism of Rofé’s position, see Tov, “Characterization,” passim). For a systematic study of the depiction of God in the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction, see Stipp, “Gottesbildfragen.” For a list, see Janzen, Studies, 139–55. lxx-Jer calls Jeremiah ὁ προφήτης “the prophet” only in 28:59 (51:59); 49:2 (42:2); 50:5 (43:6); 51:31 (45:1). Cf. Stipp, “Prophetentitel”; and the lists in Janzen, Studies, 145–48. Cf. Stipp, “Prophetic Messenger Formulas.”

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

57

– The radical alteration of existing introductions to prophetic words or speeches (see, e.g., Jer 2:1–2; 7:1–2; 47[29]:1; 49:34 [25:14]; 50[27]:1); – Changes in the syntax of sentences (e.g., Jer 27:16 [34:13]); – Other changes. By these means, proto-mt-Jer’s smaller additions achieve textual harmonization within the book of Jeremiah, rhetorical precision, and historical exactness. Other smaller changes are theologically motivated. Often several motivations coincide: – Examples of harmonization include the use of the phrase ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ֲא ֵל ֶיהם‬ ‫ֹה־א ַמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ‫“ ּכ‬and say to them, thus says the Lord,” in mt-Jer 8:4; 11:3; 13:13; 15:2; 19:11; 25:28 [32:14]; 26[33]:4; and 43[50]:10. lxx-Jer has full equivalents for this idiom only in Jer 11:3; 13:13; 15:2.58 Proto-mt-Jer adjusts the text of Jer 8:4; 19:11; 25:28 [32:14]; 26[33]:4; and 43[50]:10 to these three references. Similarly, mt-Jer adds the messenger formula ‫“ ּכֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה‬thus says the Lord” in Jer 17:5 in harmonization with Jer 17:19 and 21; – mt-Jer’s concern for rhetorical specificity and historical accuracy expresses itself in many small additions and textual changes. When lxx-Jer reads, for instance, a personal pronoun (αὐτός “he,” etc.), mt-Jer often adds a personal name.59 Similarly, mt-Jer specifies the unnamed subject of a given sentence by adding a name;60 – Historical exactness is aimed for in cases where a title is specified.61 Out of the same concern, in several cases mt-Jer adds personal names and numbers of people to an otherwise unspecified group.62 mt-Jer’s interest in patronyms is similarly explained. Sometimes the need for historical exactness even leads to the more extensive addition of an otherwise unknown source, as in the list of three deportations in Jer 52:28–30, which gives the numbers 58 59 60 61 62

lxx-Jer 8:4 has only Ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος “for thus speaks the Lord” while lxx-Jer 19:11; 32:14; 33:4; and 50:10 read καὶ ἐρεῖς “and you shall say” instead of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫“ וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ֲא ֵל‬and you shall say to them” (mt-Jer 19:11; 25:28; 26:4; and 43:10). Examples include Jer 20:2; 38[45]:10 (‫“ ֶאת־יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַהּנָ ִביא‬Jeremiah, the prophet” instead of αὐτόν “him”) and Jer 38[45]:17 ‎(‫ל־צ ְד ִקּיָ הּו‬ ִ ‫“ ֶא‬to Zedekiah” instead of αὐτῷ “to him”). E.g., Jer 25:2 ‫“ ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַהּנָ ִביא‬which Jeremiah the prophet spoke” instead of ὃν ἐλάλησε “which he spoke.” Examples include Jer 21:2 (‫ְך־ּב ֶבל‬ ָ ‫אּצר ֶמ ֶל‬ ַ ‫בּוכ ְד ֶר‬ ַ ְ‫“ נ‬Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon” instead of βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος “King of Babylon”) and Jer 26[33]:22 (‫ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך יְ ֹהויָ ִקים‬ “Jehoiachim, the king” instead of ὁ βασιλεὺς “the king”). An example can be found in Jer 26[33]:22. mt-Jer reads ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך יְ ֹהויָ ִקים ֲאנָ ִׁשים ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫ל־מ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ִ ‫ן־ע ְכֹּבור וַ ֲאנָ ִׁשים ִאֹּתו ֶא‬ ַ ‫“ ֵאת ֶא ְלנָ ָתן ֶּב‬and Jehoiachim, the king, sent thirty men to Egypt, namely [he sent] Elnathan son of Achbor and the men with him to Egypt” but lxxJer has καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἄνδραςεἰς Αἴγυπτον “and the king sent men to Egypt.” For more examples, see Janzen, Studies, 69–86.

58

Lange

of Jews deported in each of them. That mt-Jer feels the need for such historical explanations points to a reworking that took place when its readers no longer had accurate knowledge about Jeremiah’s time. In the case of the addition in Jer 52:28–30, such a historical explanation can even extend to three verses of text; – In other cases, proto-mt-Jer’s smaller textual changes are theologically motivated. Two examples may illustrate this phenomenon. The addition of the title ‫“ ַהּנָ ִביא‬the prophet” to Jeremiah’s name occurs in contexts where the people refuse to listen to Jeremiah’s words, thus highlighting the people’s stubborn opposition to his prophetic message.63 For example, lxxJer 43:26 describes that Jeremiah and Baruch “were hidden” (κατεκρύβησαν). Although the aorist passive could imply a divine passive in the Greek, it renders a nifal form in the Hebrew, which does not express such a divine passive. To emphasize that both Jeremiah and Baruch owe their escape from Jehoiakim’s minions to God, proto-mt-Jer rephrases the ‫“ ויסתרו‬and they were hidden” of lxx-Jer’s parent text to ‫“ וַ ּיַ ְס ִּת ֵרם יְ הוָ ה‬and the Lord hid them” (mt-Jer 36:26); – Sometimes several motivations coincide. Proto-mt-Jer adds dates to events reported in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 27[34]:1) or rephrases them (e.g., Jer 28[35]:1) out of its concern for historical exactness, but an added date can also convey a theological reading of history. One such example is Jer 25:1: lxx-Jer states that Jeremiah’s prophecy about the enemy of the North and the ensuing seventy-year exile was given in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim, which was the year of the battle of Carchemish. mt-Jer explains in a textual addition that “it was the first year of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon” ‫אּצר ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל‬ ַ ‫בּוכ ְד ֶר‬ ַ ְ‫) ִהיא ַה ָּׁשנָ ה) ָה ִראׁש ֹנִ ית ִלנ‬. Nebuchadrezzar’s reign as a whole is thus identified as a time of punishment for the people of Israel.64 In contrast to the smaller textual changes in proto-mt-Jer, the larger text additions to proto-mt-Jer and the restructuring of its parent text were inspired mainly by theological interests. Several passages in the long texts in proto-mtJer are admonitory in character (Jer 11:7; 27:13–14, 17–18; 51:45–46) and in one case even hymnic (the additions to Jer 10:6–10).65 But, in addition to a special interest in the Temple and its cult, most texts added by proto-mt-Jer to the book of Jeremiah focus on the themes of judgment and salvation: 63 64 65

Cf. Elena Di Pede, “Jérémie ‘prophète’ dans le lxx et dans le TM,” EstBib 67 (2009): 101–10. Cf. Aejmelaeus, “Turning Point,” 463–64. Hymnic additions are not unusual in prophetic texts; mt-Jer thus follows a widespread practice with the additions of Jer 10:5–10. Cf. Jonathan Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem and its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1–6,” Textus 20 (2000): 97–128.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

59

– The main emphasis of proto-mt-Jer’s larger additions is judgment. Some of these additions concern the judgment of the nations in general (Jer 25:14), or Egypt (Jer 46:26), Moab (Jer 48:45–46), and Babylon (Jer 27:7; 51:47–48) in particular. Most passages engage with the judgment of Judah (Jer 17:1–4; 27:13–14) as well as Jerusalem (Jer 29:16–20; Jer 39:4–13), and with the deportation of the Temple vessels (Jer 27:21–22). Jer 8:10aβ–12 also addresses the reasons for that judgment, and Jer 11:7–8 refers to the punishment of the Exodus generation as an earlier parallel to Judah’s fate. Even the protoMasoretic additions to the conclusion of the book of Jeremiah are concerned with judgment. In alignment with 2 Kgs 24:18–25:26, proto-mt-Jer’s additions to Jeremiah 52 again address both the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem and the deportation of the Temple vessels; – As regards pronouncements of salvation, Moab and Ammon receive a promise of the restoration of their fortunes following their judgment (Jer 48:47 and 49:6). But, in proto-mt-Jer, salvation predominantly denotes the return of the exiles and/or their descendants (Jer 29:14; 30:10–11; Jer 31:17), as well as the return of the Temple vessels (Jer 27:22). Only after forecasting the return of the exiles does proto-mt-Jer concern itself with the reestablishment of Judah’s future Davidic kings, its future (Levitical) priests (Jer 33:14–26), and the salvation of God’s people as a whole (Jer 51:45–48); – Examples of the priestly interest in proto-mt-Jer include Jer 7:1–2; 27:18, 21–22; 33:18–22; and 52:18–22. Jeremiah 7:1–2 specifies the location where Jeremiah gave his Temple speech—namely, in the gates of the Temple— and limits his addressees to those who enter the Temple to worship, that is the Jerusalemite cultic community (mt-Jer); this contrasts with lxx-Jer, where all of Judah is targeted. Similarly, the addition of Jer 8:10aβ–12, which repeats Jer 6:13–15, emphasizes that priests and prophets66 are those responsible for the punishment prophesied for Judah in Jer 7:3–8:3. Jeremiah 27:18, 21–22 extends the prophecy regarding the exile of the Temple vessels to those that still remained in Jerusalem after the conquest of 587 BCE. Similarly, proto-mt-Jer extends and alters the list of Temple vessels taken by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. In Jer 33:18–22, proto-mt-Jer forecasts not only the reestablishment of a Davidic dynasty but also the reestablishment of the Temple cult according to Davidic and priestly covenants. The restriction of the responsibilities of (Levitical) priests to cultic matters in Jer 33:18–22 corresponds well to the generalization of other priestly duties, namely, the

66

“They have treated the wound of the daughter of my people carelessly, saying ‘Peace, Peace,’ but there is no peace” (Jer 8:11).

60

Lange

teaching of a general knowledge of the Torah that will be written onto the heart of every member of God’s new covenant with Israel.67 Regardless of their topic, many but not all text additions of proto-mt-Jer employ or repeat other parts of the book of Jeremiah.68 Min estimates that only eight percent of mt-Jer’s long texts are without parallel.69 That is, most of proto-mt-Jer’s text additions derived from its parent text; only a few did not.70 As some of proto-mt-Jer’s long texts employ other parts of the book of Jeremiah while others do not, it has been suggested that proto-mt-Jer itself consists of several redactional layers.71 Against such a proposal of multiple strata within the text of proto-mt-Jer, it needs to be emphasized that the text additions of proto-mt-Jer cross-reference one another by way of verbal parallels. Two examples are Jer 29:10 and 33:14, on the one hand, and Jer 29:14; 30:3; and 33:26 on the other. Hence, proto-mt-Jer should be understood as a single redactional stratum in the book of Jeremiah. While 4QJerd leaves little doubt that some of mt-Jer’s long texts were inserted before the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction, it is likely that the bulk of these long texts result from one extensive redaction. Jeremiah 29:1–23 provides a good example of how proto-mt-Jer created the extensions of its Vorlage.72 The smaller changes in Jer 29:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 23 are harmonizations and specifications that I have discussed elsewhere.73 In addition to these smaller changes, proto-mt-Jer drastically rewrote Jer 29:10–20. 67

68

69 70 71 72

73

Cf. Corinne Patton, “Layers of Meaning: Priesthood in Jeremiah mt,” in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets, ed. L. L. Grabbe and A. Ogden Bellis, JSOTSup 408 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 149–76 (165–66). Cf., e.g., Janzen, Studies, 35–63, who lists 197 cases. Examples of this procedure include Jer 8:10aβ–12: cf. Jer 6:13–15; Jer 29:14: cf. Jer 23:3; 30:3, 18; Jer 29:17–18: cf. Jer 24:1–10; 25:4[9:18]; 26:5; 35:15; 44:4; Jer 30:10–11: cf. Jer 46[26]:27–28; Jer 30:22: cf. Jer 11:4; 31:1; Jer 33:20–26: cf. Jer 31:35–37; Jer 39:4–13: cf. Jer 52:7–11, 13–16; Jer 48:7: cf. Jer 49:6. Min, “Minuses and Pluses,” 182. Examples include the alignment of mt-Jer 52 with the text of 2 Kgs 24:18–20; 25, and the list of deportees in Jer 52:28–30. Min, “Minuses and Pluses”; Goldman, Prophétie et royauté; Stipp, Sondergut des Jeremiabuches. For further literature, see nn. 15, 19, 20. For an extensive discussion of Jeremiah 29 in mt and lxx, see Raymond de Hoop, “Textual, Literary, and Delimitation Criticism: The Case of Jeremiah 29 in M and G,” in The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis, ed. M. C. A. Korpel et al., Pericope 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 29–62. Armin Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. N. David and A. Lange, cbet 57 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 43–96 (70–77).

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

61

It significantly extended verses 10–14 and added a long excursus to Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles in verses 16–20, concerning those who remained in Jerusalem. In proto-mt-Jer’s parent text, Jeremiah’s letter states that the exiles will return only after seventy years (Jer 29:10). They are to ensconce themselves in Mesopotamia and live their lives there. The example of Ahab and Zedekiah shows that the Mesopotamian diaspora is endangered by false prophets. Instead of their false prophecies, Jeremiah assures the exiles that God will be available to them not only in Jerusalem but also in Mesopotamia. With the addition in Jer 29:14 of the phrase ‫ר־הגְ ֵל ִיתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ ָּׁשם‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָּמֹקום ֲא ֶׁש‬ ַ ‫ֲה ִׁשב ִֹתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא‬ “and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile,” protomt-Jer creates an inclusion with verse 10. In this way, the promised return from exile becomes one of the main themes of Jeremiah’s letter. When in Jer 29:12 proto-mt-Jer prefaces the ‫“ וְ ִה ְת ַּפ ַּל ְל ֶּתם ֵא ָלי וְ ָׁש ַמ ְע ִּתי ֲא ֵל ֶיכם‬and pray to me, I will hear you” with ‫אתם א ִֹתי וַ ֲה ַל ְכ ֶּתם‬ ֶ ‫ּוק ָר‬ ְ “and when you call me and go,” it also introduces a cultic dimension into Jeremiah’s letter. Proto-mt-Jer’s parent text assured the exiles that they could pray to God even in Mesopotamia. But with the combination of the verbs ‫‏‬‎‎‫קרא‬‎“to call”74 and ‫“ הלך‬to go,” proto-mt-Jer clarifies that the place where the deportees will be heard by God is the Jerusalem Temple. When proto-mt-Jer thus promises the exiles not only their return to Jerusalem but also participation in the Jerusalem Temple cult (Jer 29[36]:10– 14)—a topic that proto-mt-Jer addresses in more detail in Jer 33:14–26—this also implies a rebuilding of the destroyed Temple by the returnees. Another important change can be found in Jer 29:14. Jeremiah’s letter of Jer 29:1–3* was addressed only to the Babylonian exiles. By emphasizing in mtJer 29:14 that God will bring the exiles back to Jerusalem “from all the nations and from all places” (‫ל־ה ְּמֹקוֹמות‬ ַ ‫ּומ ָּכ‬ ִ ‫ל־הֹּגויִ ם‬ ַ ‫) ִמ ָּכ‬, proto-mt-Jer incorporates the entire diaspora as the addressees of Jeremiah’s letter; that is, not only the Babylonian exiles but all exiled Jews will return to Jerusalem.75 Thus, the text of proto-mt-Jer turns Jeremiah’s letter into a general prophecy of salvation. The exiles throughout the world will return to Jerusalem, where they will rebuild the country and the Temple and begin the Temple cult anew. After this promise of salvation for the diaspora, the addition of mt-Jer 29:16– 20 addresses the fate of those who had remained in Jerusalem. Proto-mt-Jer 74 75

For the cultic and noncultic connotations of ‫קרא‬, see Gabriele Schauerte, “‫קרא‬,” ThWAT 7:117–47 (esp. 128–29). Cf. Gunther Wanke, Jeremia, 2 vols., zbk 20 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1995– 2003), 2:267–68. A similar universalization of Jeremiah’s original promises of return to the Babylonian exiles can be found in Jer 23:9 when proto-mt-Jer changes the singular “the land” (τῆς γῆς; Hebrew: ‫ )הארץ‬to the plural “the lands” (‫) ָה ֲא ָרֹצות‬.

62

Lange

employs the imagery of rotten figs from Jeremiah 24 to describe the fate of all those who had remained in Jerusalem and Judah. Those whom God does not kill he will exile among the nations, because they did not heed the warnings of the prophets. The structure that proto-mt-Jer gave to the book corresponds to the other features observed above: – Proto-mt-Jer’s special focus on the judgment of Judah and the nations is also reflected in its structure. The common textual ancestor of lxx-Jer and mt-Jer followed the classical tripartite structure of prophetic books: judgment on Israel (Jer 1:1–25:13); judgment on the nations (lxx-Jer 25:14–32:24 = mt-Jer 46:1–51:64; 25:15–38); and salvation for Israel (lxx-Jer 33–51 = mtJer 26–45). Proto-mt-Jer introduced a double inclusion into this straightforward structure.76 Jeremiah 1 describes the dual mission of the prophet. In Jer 1:4–10, Jeremiah is appointed prophet for the nations and the kingdoms. This part of his mission is reflected in the words against the nations in mt-Jer 46–51, which differ in their sequence from lxx-Jer.77 In Jer 1:11–19, Jeremiah is sent to prophesy judgment against Judah. This part of Jeremiah’s mission is reflected in Jeremiah 2–45. Therefore, for proto-mt-Jer, the book of Jeremiah represents a universal expression of God’s will dominated by the judgment of Judah and the nations. The circular structure of mt-Jer is further echoed by the correspondence of the oracles concerning the enemy from the north in Jeremiah 4–6 with the oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46–51(26–31) and the central position of Judah’s judgment in mtJer (Jeremiah 25).78 That both lxx-Jer and mt-Jer end in Jeremiah 52 with an appendix regarding the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem agrees well with proto-mt-Jer’s interest in judgment. mt-Jer is “a circular composition, beginning and ending with the deeds of the universal, sovereign God, and with its epicenter in the prophecy of his doom for Israel/Judah and for the foreign nations and Babylon in particular.”79 76 77

78 79

Cf. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 3. lxx-Jer preserves the original sequence of the prophecies against the nations: lxxJer 25:14–26:1 (Elam); 26:2–28 (Egypt); 27–28 (Babylon); 29:1–7 (Philistines); 29:8–23 (Edom); 30:1–5 (Ammonites); 30:6–11 (Kedar); 30:12–16 (Damascus); 31 (Moab). The structure of proto-mt-Jer harmonizes the sequence of the prophecies against the nations in Jeremiah 46–51 with the sequence in which the nations are listed in mt-Jer 25:19–26 (lxxJer 32:5–12): mt-Jer 46:2–28 (Egypt); 47 (Philistines); 48 (Moab); 49:1–7 (Ammonites); 49:8–22 (Edom); 49:23–27 (Damascus); 49:28–33 (Kedar, i.e., the kingdom of Hazor); 49:34–39 (Elam); 50–51 (Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans). Cf. Else K. Holt, “The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah mt,” sjot 17 (2003): 183–205. Holt, “Meaning,” 200.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

63

– Another issue that affected the structure of mt-Jer was introduced by protomt-Jer in Jer 1:4, which reads, “the word of God came to me (‫ ”) ֵא ַלי‬instead of the “to him” (πρὸς αὐτόν) of lxx-Jer. This small variation corresponds well to proto-mt-Jer’s addition in Jer 51:64 “until here reach the words of Jeremiah.” Proto-mt-Jer recast the book of Jeremiah not as the work of a third-person narrator, who is identified towards the end of lxx-Jer as Baruch (lxxJer 51:31–35 [mt-Jer 45:1–5]), but as that of the prophet Jeremiah himself.80 This recasting coheres with the repeated addition of ‫“ ַהּנָ ִביא‬the prophet” to Jeremiah’s name in proto-mt-Jer. This emphasis on Jeremiah’s prophetic authorship of his book might have been due to the development within ancient Judaism in the third or second century BCE of an extensive paratextual literature based on the figure of Baruch. In addition to such intentional changes, some variant readings of mt-Jer against lxx-Jer can also be explained as matters of scribal corruption. An example is the list of dalet-resh confusions that Riley81 has identified recently in mt-Jer 47:1–7; 49:7–22 (= lxx-Jer 29). At which stage such scribal corruptions occurred in the textual transmission of (proto-)mt-Jer cannot be determined anymore. A special characteristic of mt-Jer is the high number of baroque spellings that with no apparent logic are interspersed into the conservative orthographic approach of this text. mt-Jer is among the biblical books with the highest number of such baroque spellings.82 In addition to the spellings ‫“ ֹלוא‬not” (Jer 2:25, 31; 3:3, 12; 4:112×; 5:9, 10, 12; 6:8; 7:26, 28; 8:6, 20; 10:4; 15:7, 11; 29:23; 48:27), ‫ְבֹלוא‬ “in which no” (Jer 2:11), and ‫“ ֲהֹלוא‬not?” (Jer 2:17; 3:1, 4; 5:3; 7:19; 13:21; 22:15, 16; 23:24, 29; 33:24; 35:13; 38:15; 44:21), twenty-one baroque spellings can be found in the text of mtL-Jer. However, mt-Jer attests not only to baroque spellings but also to remnants of archaic orthographic systems.83 The third person singular masculine suffix is repeatedly expressed with a heh ‫ה‬- instead of a waw ‫ו‬- ‎(‫“ ֻּכֹּלה‬all of him” Jer 2:21; 8:6, 102×; 15:10; 20:7; 48:31, 38; ‫“ הֹד ֹה‬his majesty” Jer 22:18). In two cases, the suffix of the third-person nifal perfect plural is spelled not with ‫ו‬- but with ‫ה‬-: Jer 2:15 ‫“ נִ ְּצ ֻתה‬they have made desolate” and Jer 22:6 ‫ֹנוׁש ֻבה‬ ָ “they are inhabited.” A further orthographic peculiarity is ‫אתה‬ ָ ֹ ‫“ ַהּז‬this” in Jer 26:6. 80 81 82 83

Cf., e.g., Bogaert, “Baruch à Jérémie”; and Finsterbusch, “mt-Jer 1,1–3,5.” Jason Riley, “An Explanation for the Reading ἐν µέσῳ αὐτῆς in lxx-Jer 29:14 in Light of Dalet—Resh Interchange,” vt 63 (2013): 433–39. See Armin Lange, “The Question of the So-Called Qumran Orthography, the Severus Scroll, and the Masoretic Text,” HeBAI 3 (2014): 424–75, esp. 440–41, 457, 470–71, 474. Cf. Lange, “Qumran Orthography,” 448; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 44.

64

Lange

table 3.2 Baroque spellings in the text of MTL-Jer

Jer 3:7: ‫(‏ותראה‬ketiv)a “and she saw” Jer 5:3: ‫“ ִה ִּכ ָיתה‬and you struck” Jer 7:27: ‫נּוכה‬ ָ ‫“ יַ ֲע‬they will answer you” Jer 10:2: ‫“ ֵמ ֵה ָּמה‬because of them” Jer 10:5: ‫“ יִ ּנָ ׂשּוא‬they are carried” Jer 12:5: ‫“ ַר ְצ ָּתה‬you have run” Jer 14:16: ‫“ ָל ֵה ָּמה‬for them” Jer 17:4: ‫“ וְ ָׁש ַמ ְט ָּתה‬you shall lose” Jer 25:15: ‫“ וְ ִה ְׁש ִק ָיתה‬and make drink” Jer 27:20: d‫“ יְ ֹכונְ יָ ה‬Jeconiah” Jer 29:25: ‫“ ְּב ִׁש ְמ ָכה‬in your name”

Jer 29:26: ‫“ וְ נָ ַת ָּתה‬and you put” Jer 31:34:b ‫ּכּוּלם‬ ָ “all of them” Jer 32:2: ‫“ ָכלּוא‬confined” Jer 32:23: ‫“ ִצּוִ ָיתה‬you commanded them” Jer 33:8: ‫ֹוֹנות ֶיהם‬ ֵ ‫‏ע‬ ֲ ‫“ ְלֹכול־‬for all their iniquity” Jer 36:32: ‫“ ָּכ ֵה ָּמה‬like them” Jer 37:4: c‫“ ַה ְּכ ִליא‬the prison” Jer 38:17: ‫“ וְ ָחיִ ָתה‬then you will live” Jer 40:15: ‫“ יַ ֶּכ ָּכה‬he will smite you” Jer 52:31: e‫“ ַה ְּכ ִליא‬the prison”

a The qere reads ‫וַ ֵּת ֶראה‬. b Except for Jer 33:8, no other plene spelling of ‫ כֹל‬is preserved in any grammatical form in the consonantal text of mtL. c Above the ketiv is quoted. The qere would read ‫ ַה ְּכלּוא‬. d Elsewhere the name is spelled ‫( יְ ָכנְ יָ ה‬Jer 28:4; 29:2; Esth 2:6; 1 Chr 3:16, 17). e Above the ketiv is quoted. The qere would read ‫ ַה ְּכלּוא‬.

The best explanation for the occurrence of nonconservative orthographic features is that these spellings evaded the eyes of the scribes when they adjusted the orthography of various Jeremiah manuscripts to the conservative system of proto-mt-Jer. One of the Jeremiah manuscripts resulting from this process became the textual archetype chosen for the book of Jeremiah during the textual standardization of the Hebrew Bible in the late Second Temple period (see below, p. 133). 2.2.2 The Proto-MT Qumran Manuscript 4QJera (4Q70) 4QJera is the best-preserved and most ancient Jeremiah manuscript from the Qumran caves. Thirty-six of its fifty published fragments can still be identified as coming from the first half of the book of Jeremiah. They are allocated to fifteen columns of the original scroll. The thirty-six fragments attest to 728 (partial) words from Jer 7:1–2, 15–19, 28–34; 8:1–12, 18–19, 23; 9:1–2, 7–15; 10:9– 14, 23; 11:3–6, 19–20; 12:3–7, 13–17; 13:1–7, 22?, 27; 14:4–7; 15:1–2; 17:8–26; 18:15– 19:1; 20:14–18; 21:1?; 22:3–16; 26(33):10?. Paleographically, 4QJera is one of the earliest-known biblical manuscripts and among the earliest of all preserved Hebrew texts. The gradual publication and paleographic study of the Dead Sea Scrolls accounts for why, over time, scholars have assigned a number of differing paleographical dates to 4QJera. Cross originally compared the script of 4QJera to the Aramaic Persian chancellery script of the fourth century BCE

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

65

and dated the manuscript to the third century BCE.84 However, he eventually settled for a date between the years 225 and 175 BCE.85 This date is confirmed by Yardeni.86 Orthographically, 4QJera reflects the text of mt even in unusual cases. Tov notes in his edition only twenty orthographic deviations from mt-Jer among the 728 preserved words in the manuscript.87 This equals an orthographic deviation of only 2.75 percent. While the orthographic affiliation of 4QJera to the consonantal text of mtJer is undisputed, scholars debate its textual characterization. HaCohen considers the manuscript nonaligned because it lacks Jer 7:30–8:3.88 These verses were added by a second hand in col. 3 of the manuscript. However, the lack of Jer 7:30–8:3 in 4QJera is the result of a parablepsis.89 This example illustrates the main problem in the textual classification of 4QJera. In total, the manuscript includes eighteen nonorthographic corrections prima or secunda manu.90 Even the corrections secunda manu, such as the addition of Jer 7:30– 8:3 in col. 3, were written in an archaic script. The uncorrected text of 4QJera resembles a semi-Masoretic manuscript. In 673 (partially) preserved words, 4QJera reads fifty-two times with and twentyone times against mt; twice with and seventy-one times against lxx; and is on twenty-one occasions nonaligned. When it is recognized that seventeen 84 85

86 87

88 89

90

Frank Moore Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” jbl 74 (1955): 147–72 (152–59). According to a personal communication; see David Noel Freedman and Kenneth A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns [American Schools of Oriental Research], 1985), 55; cf. Esther Eshel, “Jeremiah, Book of,” edss 1:397–400 (398). In his article, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 133–202, Cross dated 4QJera to ca. 200 BCE (137, 140); while in “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–20, he opted for the years 200–175 BCE (308, 316 n. 8). Ada Yardeni, “The Palaeography of 4QJera: A Comparative Study,” Textus 15 (1990): 233–68 (267 and passim). See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 145–51; cf. idem, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14 (1989): 189–206 (199); David Noel Freedman, “The Masoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography,” Textus 2 (1962): 87–102 (100–102); and Freedman and Mathews, Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 58–59. Aviyah HaCohen, “4QJera: A Pre-Massoretic Text?” Textus 17 (1994): 138–45 (133, ‫( )א–ח‬in Hebrew). Thus already Janzen, Studies, 174; cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 206; Tov, “Jeremiah,” 152, 154; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398. Contrast Ulrich, “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions,” who regards the correction as a secondary insertion and holds that the parent text of 4QJera did not include these verses. Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 151–54; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 205–6. Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398–99, regards all corrections as secunda manu.

66

Lange

of these eighteen corrections in 4QJera amend scribal errors towards mt and that a significant number of the smaller corrections were in fact made by the original scribe of 4QJera, the initial textual impression of 4QJera needs to be revised. Taking the scribal corrections of 4QJera into consideration, the manuscript attests to a proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah. In 728 (partially) preserved words, the corrected manuscript of 4QJera reads fifty-two times with and only seven times against mt; twice with and fifty-seven times against lxx; and is nonaligned on only five occasions. The proto-Masoretic text type of 4QJera is corroborated by the fact that the manuscript reads coherently with the long Masoretic texts of the book of Jeremiah (Jer 8:3, 4, 10; 9:8, 9, 12, 14; 10:10, 13?; 12:3, 14, 17; 13:1, 3, 4; 14:4, 6; 15:1; 17:12, 18, 20, 22, 24; 18:17, 18, 21);91 and that in col. 5, 4QJera reads the text sequence, Jer 10:9, 10—with mt against 4QJerb and lxxJer, which have the sequence Jer 10:5a, 9, 5b, 11. The foregoing description of 4QJera makes obvious that the uncorrected text suffered from a significant degree of scribal corruption. On the other hand, the textual characterization of the corrected version of 4QJera as protoMasoretic text is possible only by taking into consideration the complete consonantal text of mtL. 2.2.3 Semi-Masoretic Jeremiah Manuscripts from Qumran Extensive textual damage precludes a comprehensive assessment of the semiMasoretic witnesses, 2QJer (2Q13) and 4QJerc (4Q72). Both manuscripts read repeatedly with lxx-Jer against mt-Jer and are thus able to illuminate the textual character of mt-Jer in distinction from the Old Greek text of Jeremiah. 2QJer reads with lxx against mt in Jer 43[50]:9; 47[29]:3, 4; 48[31]:29, 30, 37; while 4QJerc does so in Jer 19:9; 21:8; 22:14; 30[37]:20, 21; 31[38]:92×, 12. These readings are typically small textual differences such as the presence or absence of a waw (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 22:14); the reading of ‫“ ַעל‬above, against” instead of ‫“ ֶאל‬to” (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 31[38]:9, 12; and 2QJer in Jer 47[29]:3); or differences in grammatical forms (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 19:9 ‫“ [וי] ֯א ̇כל ‏ו‬and they will eat” [lxxJer καί ἔδονται] against ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתים‬of mt-Jer [“and I will make them eat”]). Only rarely does the textual difference between 2QJer, 4QJerc, and lxx-Jer on the one hand and mt-Jer on the other hand amount to a whole word (see, e.g., 2QJer and lxx-Jer at Jer 48[31]:29, where both lack the word ‫“ ּגָ ְבֹהו‬his loftiness” of mt-Jer). As 2QJer and 4QJerc do not overlap, it is not possible to ascertain whether the two manuscripts represent the same semi-Masoretic text of Jeremiah or 91

Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 151; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398–99; Lange, Handschriften, 299–300.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

67

two different semi-Masoretic texts of this book. Both manuscripts share a few orthographic idiosyncrasies.92 That both manuscripts attest to the same semiMasoretic text of Jeremiah could further be corroborated by the fact that 2QJer and 4QJerc read with lxx-Jer against mt-Jer seven and ten times, respectively. However, the fact that 4QJerc generally follows the orthographic system known from mt-Jer while 2QJer attests to baroque plene spellings and morphology might argue against the textual affiliation of the two manuscripts with one another. 2.2.3.1 2QJer (2Q13) Twenty-seven fragmemts of 2QJer are preserved, some of which suffered extensive damage. The text of seventeen fragments can still be identified and attests to 249 (partial) words from Jer 13:22; 32(39):24–25; 42(49):7–11, 14; 43(50):8–11; 44(51):1–3, 12–14; 46:27–47:7(26:27–28; 29:1–7); 48(31):2–4?, 7, 25–39, 41–42?, 43–45(43–44); 49:10(30:4). The manuscript was copied in a Herodian bookhand from the first half of the first century CE.93 The many plene spellings of 2QJer correspond to the baroque orthographic system.94 Among the 249 (partially) preserved words in 2QJer, Baillet noted twenty-seven cases of textual variation, seven of which agree with lxx-Jer and four with the other versions; in thirteen cases, 2QJer preserves nonaligned readings. In general, the text of 2QJer corresponds to mt-Jer95 and can thus be classified as semi-Masoretic.96 Apart from its orthography, the nonaligned readings of 2QJer include the usual range of small textual differences. In the preserved text of 2QJer, scribal errors are restricted to waw–yod97 and dalet–resh confusions.98 Differences in grammatical forms between 2QJer and mt-Jer concern singular and plural forms.99 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

E.g., 4QJerc reads in Jer 21:9 and 22:25 ‫הכשדיים‬ ̇ instead of mt’s ‫“ ַה ַּכ ְׂש ִּדים‬Chaldeans.” 2QJer attests to similar plural forms. In Jer 43(50):9, it has ‫ יהודיים‬instead of ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“ י‬Jews” (mt, 4QJerd) and ‫ פלשתיים‬in Jer 47[29]:4 instead of mt’s ‫“ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬Philistines.” Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 204. For the use of plene spellings in 2QJer, see Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; and cf. Baillet, “Jérémie,” 63. Baillet, “Jérémie,” 62–63; cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 397–98. Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 298. Jer 42[49]:9: ]‫“ אלוהימה‬their God” instead of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫“ ֲא ֵל‬to them” in mt-Jer and αὐτοῖς “to them” in lxx-Jer (the suffix ‫מה‬- is spelled according to the baroque system). Jer 47[29]:5: ‫“ תתגוררי‬will you scratch yourselves” instead of ‫ֹּגוד ִדי‬ ָ ‫“ ִּת ְת‬will you cut yourselves” in mt-Jer and κοψείς “will you cut [yourselves] down” in lxx-Jer. Jer 42[49]:9 ‫“ תחנו]תיכמה‬your petitions” instead of ‫“ ְּת ִחּנַ ְת ֶכם‬your petition” in mt-Jer (>lxx-Jer); 47[29]:4: ‫“ איי‬coastlands” instead of ‫“ ִאי‬coastland” in mt-Jer (cf. the plural form in lxx-Jer).

68

Lange

Most variant readings against mt-Jer can be found in 2QJer’s text of Jer 48[31]:25–39. These variants include morphological differences,100 presence or absence of suffixes,101 scribal corruption,102 and different wording.103 The most coherent features are interspersed feminine forms where mt-Jer reads masculine ones.104 The feminine forms seem to function as a mockery in the prophecy against Moab. Baillet regards them as more original readings compared to mt-Jer.105 That Bozak observed a similar phenomenon for Jeremiah 30–31 corroborates the findings of Baillet.106 Thus, it would seem that (proto)-mt-Jer harmonized the grammatically difficult forms later on with the dominant masculine forms in Jer 48[31]:26–31. A reading found in 2QJer sheds new light on the text towards which Theodotion revised the Old Greek text of Jeremiah. Probably in harmonization with Num 21:28, and as part of a proto-Masoretic long text,107 2QJer reads in Jer 48:45 ‫“ ֗מקרית‬from the town,” which corresponds to ἐκ πόλεως “from the town” in Theodotion,108 while the Masoretic textual tradition is divided (mtL and most other mt manuscripts have ‫“ ִמ ֵּבין‬from the midst,” mtKenn2 reads ‫ִמ ֵבית‬ “from the house”). The reading of 2QJer thus poses the question of whether the 100 E.g., Jer 48[31]:29: ֯‫“ לבבו‬his heart” instead of ‫“ ִלֹּבו‬his heart” in mt-Jer. 101 E.g., Jer 48[31]:28: ‫“ ער]יך‬your cities” instead of ‫“ ָע ִרים‬cities” in mt-Jer (cf. lxx-Jer). 102 E.g., Jer 48[31]:28: ‫“ שמעו נא‬Now, listen” instead of ‫“ ָׁש ַמ ְענּו‬we heard” in mt-Jer (cf. lxxJer: ἤκουσα “I heard”). 103 Examples include Jer 48[31]:29: ] ‫שמעו נא גאון מואב[ ג]אה מ[אוד] גאונו ואיננ̇ [ו‬ ֯‫“ ו֯ גאותו[ ורו]ם לבבו‬Now listen to the pride of Moab—he is very proud of his pride and his vanity and his arrogance and the haughtiness of his heart” instead of ‫ֹאון־ֹמואב‬ ָ ְ‫ָׁש ַמ ְענּו ג‬ ‫ ּגֵ ֶאה ְמאֹד ּגָ ְבֹהו ּוגְ ֹאוֹנו וְ גַ ֲאוָ ֹתו וְ ֻרם ִלֹּבו‬in mt-Jer (“we heard of the pride of Moab—he is very proud of his loftiness and his pride and his arrogance and the haughtiness of his heart”) and of ἤκουσα ὕβριν Μωαβ, ὕβρισε λίαν ὕβριν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑπερηφανίαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ in lxx-Jer (“I heard of the pride of Moab—he was very proud in his pride and in his arrogance and his heart was lifted up”). 104 Jer 48[31]:26 ‫“ הגדילה‬she magnified herself” instead of ‫“ ִהגְ ִּדיל‬he magnified himself” in mt-Jer; 48:27 ‫“ ה[יתה הי̇ אה‬she was” instead of ‫“ ָהיָ ה‬he was” in mt-Jer; 48[31]:27 ‫תתנודדי‬ “you shook your head” (fem.) instead of ‫ֹנודד‬ ָ ‫“ ִּת ְת‬you shook your head” (masc.) in mt-Jer; 48[31]:28 ‫“ ושכוני‬and live” (imp. sg. fem.) instead of ‫“ וְ ִׁש ְכנּו‬and live” (imp. pl. masc.) in mt-Jer; 48[31]:28 ‫“ יושבת‬inhabitant” (part. sg. fem.) instead of ‫“ י ְֹׁש ֵבי‬inhabitants” (part. pl. masc.) in mt-Jer; 48[31]:28 [‫“ ̇תקננ[י‬nest” (fem.) instead of ‫“ ְּת ַקּנֵ ן‬nest” (masc.) in mt-Jer. 105 Baillet, “Jérémie,” 67–68. 106 Barbara A. Bozak, Life ‘Anew’: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31, AnBib 122 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), 155–72. 107 Jer 48:45–47 is missing from lxx-Jer. 108 See M. Baillet, “Jérémie,” 69; Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 583. Further texts supporting the reading of 2QJer are “Hexaplaire part, Lucian, Théodoret de Cyr … Arménien, Syr, et Num 21:28” (Baillet, “Jérémie,” 69).

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

69

Theodotionic revision of lxx-Jer was based on a semi-Masoretic text similar to 2QJer. Regrettably, the poor state of preservation of 2QJer does not allow us to answer this question. 2.2.3.2 4QJerc (4Q72) 4QJerc is one of the best-preserved Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran. Seventy-two fragments contain 631 (partial) words that can still be identified as remnants of Jer 4:5, 13–16; 8:1–3, 21–23; 9:1–5; 10:12–13; 19:8–9; 20:2–5, 7–9, 13–15; 21:7–10; 22:4–6, 10–28, 28–33?; 24:6–7; 25:7–8, 15–17, 24–26; 26(33):10–13; 27:1–3, 13–15(34:2–3, 14–15); 30(37):6–9, 17–25; 31(38):1–9, 11–14, 19–23, 25–26; 33:16–20 (not in lxx-Jer). Fifty-five fragments of 4QJerc can still be reconstructed into twenty-five columns of text. Ancient repairs in cols. 4, 16, 21, and 23 illustrate the high regard in which 4QJerc was held. The manuscript was copied in an early Herodian semicursive hand from the end of the first century BCE.109 In both its orthography and its text, 4QJerc is close to mt-Jer.110 In its 631 preserved words, 4QJerc reads thirty-nine times with and twenty-five times against mt; ten times with and forty-seven times against lxx; and is nonaligned on fifteen occasions. Hence, 4QJerc can best be classified as semi-Masoretic.111 In rare cases, 4QJerc may preserve original readings. In Jer 20:3, 4QJerc attests to the shorter form of the name Jeremiah, ‫ירמיה‬, which is otherwise used only in Jeremiah 27–30[34–37]. As 4QJerc employs ‫ ירמיהו‬as the long form of the name Jeremiah in Jer 33:19 as well, it seems likely that the shorter form ‫ירמיה‬ was originally used in the Pashur episode; it was later harmonized in mt with the longer form ‫ירמיהו‬, which is dominant in the book of Jeremiah.112 This observation is potentially very important for the source criticism of the book of Jeremiah. Along with original readings, the text of 4QJerc attests to several scribal errors113 and other secondary readings. Examples include the addition of the preposition le in the phrase ‫“ הנשארים למן המשפחה‬that remains with regard from the family” (Jer 8:3) by which 4QJerc tries to “improve” mt’s grammatically more unusual construction ‫ן־ה ִּמ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה‬ ַ ‫“ ַהּנִ ְׁש ָא ִרים ִמ‬that remains from the family.” Similarly, the text of 4QJerc corrects mt-Jer’s difficult-to-understand 109 110 111 112

Thus Tov, “Jeremiah,” 182, and Cross, “Evolution,” 308. Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 183–84; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198–99; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399. Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 302. The short form of the name Josiah, ‫יאשיה‬, in Jer 22:11 results from scribal error because only five words later 4QJerc reads ‫יאשיהו‬. 113 In Jer 21:7, mt’s ‫ן־ה ָר ָעב‬ ָ ‫ּומ‬ ִ “and from famine” got lost in 4QJerc or its Vorlage by way of homoiarcton. In Jer 22:20, the characters bet and resh are confused with peh and kaf (‫“ נשפכו‬they have been poured” instead of mt’s ‫“ נִ ְׁש ְּברּו‬they have been crushed”). In Jer 27:2, 4QJerc suffers from a metathesis (‫ צו[ר]אך‬instead of mt-Jer’s ‫“ צוארך‬your neck”).

70

Lange

phrase ‫“ ַה ְּל ָבֹנון‬the Lebanon” to ֗‫בל ֯בנ֗ ון‬ ֗ “in the Lebanon” (Jer 22:20). In another case, in a supralinear addition, 4QJerc carries mt-Jer’s tendency to add divine names even further than mt itself: ]‫“ י] ֯הוה ֯צ ֯ב[אות‬L]ord of ho[sts]” (Jer 9:2). Other variant readings against mt-Jer are restricted to differences in grammatical form, often without any difference in meaning.114 LXX-Jeremiah and the Jeremiah Manuscripts from the Qumran Library 2.3.1 The Septuagint of Jeremiah Because no copy of the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah is preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this article is not the place for a detailed discussion of lxx-Jer. Therefore, I will provide here only a brief overview.115 The text of og-Jeremiah was reconstructed in the edition of Ziegler.116 His edition includes a comprehensive description of all manuscripts and textual witnesses to og-Jer.117 The most important manuscripts of lxx-Jer are in this sequence: lxxB, lxxS, and lxxA. However, none of them is without deviation from og-Jer. In some cases, some of the Old Latin translations of the Jeremiah Septuagint seem to preserve remnants of an earlier stage in the transmission of lxx-Jer that is less affected by scribal corruptions and/or revisions.118 In 2.3

114 Jer 8:3: ‫“ בכל המקמות הנשארו֗ ת‬in all the remaining places” instead of ‫ל־ה ְּמקֹֹמות‬ ַ ‫ְּב ָכ‬ ‫ ַהּנִ ְׁש ָא ִרים‬in mt-Jer (“that remains in all places”); Jer 30(37):17: ‫ נדחת‬instead of ‫“ נִ ָּד ָחה‬outcast” in mt-Jer; Jer 30(37):18: ‫“ ונבנה‬and will be rebuilt” (masc.) instead of ‫“ וְ נִ ְבנְ ָתה‬and will be rebuilt” (fem.) in mt-Jer; Jer 31(38):8: ‫“ ואקבצם‬and I have gathered them” instead of ‫“ וְ ִק ַּב ְצ ִּתים‬and I will gather them” in mt-Jer. 115 For more extensive descriptions of lxx-Jer and its recensions, see Andrew G. Shead, “Jeremiah,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. J. K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 469–86; Finsterbusch and Jacoby, Synoptische Übersetzung, 1–7; John D. Meade, “6–9.1.5 Latter Prophets: Primary Translations: Hexaplaric Greek Translations,” thb 1B:637– 43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609010500; Matthew M. Dickie, “6–9.1.6 Latter Prophets: Primary Translations: Post-Hexaplaric Greek Translations,” thb 1B:643–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609010600. 116 Joseph Ziegler, ed., Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae, vol. 15 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). 117 Ziegler, Jeremias, 7–108. 118 See esp. the work of Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, lxx et VL),” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélémy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday, ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano, obo 109 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 1–17; idem, “La vetus latina de Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’Hébreu (Jer 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker, sblscs 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 51–82; idem, “De la

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

71

relation to lxx-Jer 29–52, it remains debatable whether these chapters were produced by a second translator;119 are the product of a revision of og-Jer that also included Bar 1:1–3:8;120 or are better viewed as part of og-Jer.121 In their synoptic translation, Finsterbusch and Jacoby have shown that the Greek translator of lxx-Jer proceeded with great care and sensitivity and balanced his isomorphic approach to translation with more liberal translations if the accuracy of his translation and his target language demanded it. The translator’s command of both Greek and Hebrew was excellent.122 Given the translator’s constant efforts for accuracy, it is unlikely that he inserted any intentional changes into his translation. The date of the Old Greek translation can be determined by way of relative chronology, because Ben Sira’s grandson employed it repeatedly when he rendered his grandfather’s book into Greek.123 As the grandson’s translation dates

119 120 121

122

123

vetus latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: Le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié,” rtl 44 (2013): 216–43. Thus H. St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” jts 4 (1903): 245–66. Tov, Septuagint Translation. For critical voices regarding the work of Thackeray and Tov, see Stipp, Sondergut des Jeremiabuches, 18; idem, “Offene Fragen,” 153–54; Tony S. L. Michael, “Bisectioning of Greek Jeremiah: A Problem to be Revisited?” bioscs 39 (2006): 93–104; Albert Pietersma, “An Excursus on Bisectioning Ieremias,” nets, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ieremias-excursus.pdf; idem, “Divinity Denied: Nebuchadnezzar, Divine Appointee but No God; Greek Jeremiah Reconsidered,” in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. H. Ausloos et al., betl 224 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 351–71; idem, “Of Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah,” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. van der Meer et al., VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 359–87 (386–87). Finsterbusch and Jacoby, Synoptische Übersetzung, 3–5; cf. also Norbert Jacoby, “Isomorphism and Interpretation: Reflection on the Greek Translation of Jeremiah 1,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 37–50. The work of Finsterbusch and Jacoby makes earlier, less appreciative evaluations of the translational qualities of lxx-Jer obsolete. For the debate about the quality of lxx-Jer and its parent text, see the history of research given above (pp. 44–52). See Lange, “Book of Jeremiah,” 154–61; cf. also the earlier studies by George B. Caird, “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint,” in Studia Evangelica VII: Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973, ed. E. A. Livingstone, tugal 126 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 95–100 (99). In addition to the use of individual passages from lxx-Jer, Ziegler has shown that Ben-Sira’s grandson derived the vocabulary of his translation from various Old Greek translations of biblical books, among them Jeremiah (Joseph Ziegler, “Zum Wortschatz des griechischen Sirach,” in idem, Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta, msu 10 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 274–87.)

72

Lange

shortly after 116 BCE,124 Jeremiah must have been translated into Greek by the middle of the second century BCE at the latest. Given the internal chronology and dependencies of the Old Greek translations of Jewish Scriptures, a date in the third century BCE can be excluded for this translation with a high degree of certainty.125 2.3.2 4QJerb (4Q71) and the Hebrew Parent Text of LXX-Jer 2.3.2.1 4QJerb (4Q71): The Nature of the Manuscript 4QJerb is one of the most important Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran. Among the Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran, only 4QJerb can be classified beyond doubt as attesting to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. The first publications considered 4QJerd and 4QJere to be part of 4QJerb.126 However, differences in paleography, reconstructed column width, scribal habits, and textual character leave no doubt that 4QJerd and 4QJere attest to two additional, separate Jeremiah manuscripts.127 Therefore, only one fragment remains that can be attributed to the manuscript 4QJerb. It contains thirty-one (partial) words from Jer 9:22–25; 10:1–5, 9, 11–21. The manuscript can be dated paleographically to the first half of the second century BCE.128 In its orthography, 4QJerb follows the system known from the consonantal text of mt.129 That 4QJerb preserves parts of Jer 10:5–11 allows for its textual classification despite the fact that only thirty-one words are extant, and the variant statistics are somewhat inconclusive. 4QJerb reads five times with and six times against mt; four times with and seven times against lxx; and is nonaligned on two occasions. 124 A date for the grandson’s translation shortly after the year 117 or 116 BCE was first proposed by Ulrich Wilcken, review of vol. 1 of Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum, by Wilhelm Dittenberger, apf 3 (1906): 313–36 (321); cf. idem, “IV. Bibliographie,” apf 4 (1907): 198–268 (205); Norbert Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus, ehat 25 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1913), xxxii–xxxiii; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 3–4. This date is accepted by many commentators and Ben Sira exegetes, see e.g., Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, ab 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 8–9; Otto Kaiser, Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen: Eine Einleitung in Grundzügen (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2000), 83. 125 Tov, Septuagint Translation, 165; Gilles Dorival, “L’achèvement de la Septante dans le judaïsme: De la faveur au rejet,” in La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancient, ed. M. Harl et al. (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 83–125, esp. 90–91, 93, 97; Shead, “Jeremiah,” 472–73. 126 Thus Janzen, Studies, 181–84, and Cross, “Evolution,” 308–9. 127 See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 171–72; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 191–97. Cf. also the communications by Ada Yardeni and Émile Puech according to Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 191. 128 Thus Ada Yardeni, according to Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 197; and Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399. 129 Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

73

Notwithstanding these variant statistics, other features show 4QJerb’s affinity to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. Like lxx-Jer, it lacks Jer 10:6–8, 10 but reads the remaining verses in the sequence, vv. 5a, 9, 5b, 11.130 mt-Jer 10:6–8 is a praise of God that interrupts the polemic against idols in Jer 10:1–11. The text of mt-Jer in Jer 10:1–11 should therefore be understood as a secondary expansion of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.131 Furthermore, in Jer 10:4, 4QJerb has the word sequence ‫“ במקבות ובמסמרות‬with hammers and with nails,” which agrees with lxx-Jer (ἐν σφύραις καὶ ἥλοις “with hammers and nails”) against mt-Jer (‫“ ְּב ַמ ְס ְמֹרות ְּוב ַמ ָּקֹבות‬with nails and with hammers”). Thus, although very little text is preserved of 4QJerb, its textual sequence and repertoire identify the manuscript as a witness to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. That 4QJerb reads several times with mt against lxx and includes some nonaligned readings does not detract from this basic agreement with lxx-Jer. Several of the disagreements between 4QJerb and lxx-Jer result either from the fact that 4QJerb preserves primary readings, or from idiosyncrasies of the Greek translator.132 Disagreements with mt-Jer can be found in Jer 10:15 and 10:18. In Jer 10:15, 4QJerb reads ‫“ בעת פקדתים‬at the time when I will punish them” 130 For 4QJerb as attesting to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, see Janzen, Studies, 173, 181– 82; Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, gbs (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 20–21; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Tov, “Jeremiah,” 174– 75; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 173–75; Eugene Ulrich, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,” in Scripture and the Scrolls, vol. 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 77–99 (84–85); Lange, Handschriften, 300–301; Richard J. Saley, “Reconstructing 4QJerb According to the Text of the Old Greek,” dsd 17 (2010): 1–12. 131 Cf., e.g., Janzen, Studies, 182; Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd ed., jbs 8 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 191; idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. and exp. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 292–93; idem, “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, ed. C. A. Evans and E. Tov, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 31–56 (36–38); Ulrich, “Qumran Witness,” 269–71; Karin Finsterbusch, “Gegen die Furcht vor den Göttern der Welt: Eine Art ‘Psalm’ Jeremias für Israel in mtJer 10,1–16,” in Ich will dir danken unter den Völkern: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Gebetsliteratur; Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Grund et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013), 356–72; Stipp, “Broadening the Criteria”; Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10.” That 4QJerb is a representative of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer was recently proven by reconstruction of this manuscript based on the text of lxx-Jer (Saley, “Reconstructing”). 132 Against Georg Fischer who emphasized in various publications that these agreements are an indication of the priority of mt-Jer. See, e.g., Jeremia 1–25, 40–41; idem, “Die Diskussion,” 622–3.

74

Lange

against mt-Jer (‫“ ְּב ֵעת ְּפ ֻק ָּד ָתם‬at the time of their punishment”) and against lxxJer (ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν “at the time of their visitation”). The 4QJerb reading ‫“ בעת פקדתים‬at the time when I will punish them” is an asyndetic relative clause that can also be found in mt-Jer 6:15 (‫ת־ּפ ַק ְד ִּתים‬ ְ ‫“ ְּב ֵע‬at the time when I will punish them”); 49:8 (‫“ ֵעת ְּפ ַק ְד ִּתיו‬the time when I will punish him”); and 50:31 (‫“ ֵעת ְּפ ַק ְד ִּתיָך‬the time when I will punish you”). Because the asyndetic relative clause was difficult to understand, and because as a lectio difficilior,133 the first person voice does not agree with the rest of Jer 10:13, both lxx-Jer and mt-Jer reworked the verbal expression ‫“ פקדתים‬I will punish them” into the noun ‫“ ְּפ ֻק ָּד ָתם‬their punishment,” thus adjusting Jer 10:15 also to Jer 8:12; 50:27; 51:18. Therefore, 4QJerb preserves an original reading here, while both mt-Jer and lxx-Jer have secondary readings. In Jer 10:18, 4QJerb reads the singular form ‫“ ישב [הארץ‬inhabitant of the land” against the ‫ֹיוׁש ֵבי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ְ of mt and the κατοικοῦντας τὴν γῆν of lxx (both meaning “inhabitants of the land”); this represents another original reading of 4QJerb. The plural form ‫ֹיוׁש ֵבי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ְ occurs repeatedly in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 1:14; 6:12; 10:18; 13:13; 25:29, 30; 47:2), but the singular form ‫ ישב הארץ‬is only known from Jer 10:18 in 4QJerb. Both mt-Jer and lxx-Jer harmonized Jer 10:18 with Jer 1:14; 6:12; 13:13; 25:29, 30; 47:2 in reading the plural form. Two further disagreements of 4QJerb with lxx-Jer go back to the Greek translator. In Jer 9:25, the plural form ‫קצו֯ ֗צי֯ ֗פ ֯אה‬ ֗ ] ‫“ כל‬all those with shaven temples” of 4QJerb agrees with mt while lxx-Jer has a singular form: πάντα περικειρόμενον τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ “and on everyone who shaves what is on his face.” That the singular form and the additional αὐτοῦ “his” of lxx-Jer go back to a translation idiosyncrasy of lxx-Jer is evident in Jer 25:23 (32:9) where lxx-Jer renders ‫“ כל קצוצי פאה‬all those with shaven temples” in a similar way: πᾶν περικεκαρμένον κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ “and every one shaven on his face.” The lxx translator is also responsible for the apparent difference between lxx-Jer and 4QJerb/ mt-Jer in Jer 10:2. Here, lxx-Jer renders the ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫“ אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו‬thus says the Lord God: Do not learn the way of the nations” of 4QJerb as τάδε λέγει κύριος Κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν μὴ μανθάνετε “do not learn according to the ways of the nations.” As the word ‫“ אל‬God” is used only once more in the entire book of Jeremiah (Jer 51[28]:56), lxx-Jer and the punctuation of mt-Jer misinterpreted the word ‫ אל‬as the preposition ‫ֶאל‬ “to.”134 As this preposition makes no sense in Jer 10:2, lxx-Jer rendered it with 133 Cf. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, ed. P. Hanson, 2 vols., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1989), 1:211 and 324. 134 Cf., e.g., Mitchell Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV,” Bib 47 (1966): 403–19 (410); Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 582–3.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

75

Κατὰ “according.” That lxx-Jer 10:2 renders the singular form ‫“ דרך‬way” with the plural form ὁδοὺς “ways” is an interpretative translation. In the opinion of the translator, the plural form “nations” indicated several ways and not merely one way. To sum up: 4QJerb’s agreements with MT-Jer and its nonaligned readings are mostly if not exclusively primary readings. Thus, despite the claims of Fischer and others to the contrary, 4QJerb attests to the Hebrew parent text of LXX-Jer. 2.3.2.2

The Hebrew Parent Text of LXX-Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Evidence On the basis of the foregoing, we may draw a few general conclusions about the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. The foregoing analysis of mt-Jer has already shown that the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer was close to the source text of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction. lxx-Jer includes only few passages and words that cannot be found in mt-Jer. Janzen and Stipp collected the evidence of these long texts of lxxJer as well as all its other secondary readings.135 They describe the secondary readings of lxx-Jer as within the normal range of scribal changes that occurred during the transmission of literary works during the Second Temple period. Many lxx-Jer long texts would have sprung from their immediate contexts in the book of Jeremiah. All of them are quite small, the longest not exceeding four words. In addition to Janzen’s results, Stipp points also to a limited number of intentional changes that alter the meaning of Jeremiah. The most obvious example comprises the changes to lxx-Jer 41 (= mt-Jer 34), which intensify the polemic against Zedekiah and his contemporaries. From this evidence, Janzen concludes that, “the Hebrew text underlying G was very conservative, and probably had been transmitted through a very small number of manuscript generations before its translation into Greek.”136 Notwithstanding this narrow transmission, the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer suffered from haplographies during its transmission.137 It should also be noted that the single fragment of 4QJerb is too small to allow for any additional, far-reaching conclusions about the character of the secondary readings of lxx-Jer. The date of the Hebrew parent of lxx-Jer is more difficult to determine. The paleographic date of 4QJerb in the first half of the second century BCE makes it likely that this parent text existed by the third century BCE at the latest. 135 Janzen, Studies, passim, esp. 63–68; Stipp, Sondergut des Jeremiabuches, 145–65. 136 Janzen, Studies, 68 (in his typewritten dissertation, Janzen superimposed a slash on top of the G); cf. op. cit, 120. 137 Janzen, Studies, 117–20.

76

Lange

2.4 4QJerd (4Q72a) as a Nonaligned Jeremiah Manuscript from Qumran Only one fragment of 4QJerd, containing sixty-three (partial) words from Jer 43(50):2–10, has been preserved. The fragment was originally attributed to 4QJerb (see above, pp. 72–75). Paleographically, 4QJerd resembles both 4QJerb and 4QJere, and hence can be dated to the first half of the second century BCE.138 The orthography of 4QJerd is almost identical to that of mt-Jer.139 Due to the paucity of preserved text, a text-typological classification of 4QJerd is not possible. However, 4QJerd lacks the long mt texts in Jer 43(50):4–6. This lack argues for at least some resemblance to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.140 However, the variant statistics for 4QJerd caution against classifying this manuscript as being close to lxx-Jer. 4QJerd reads five times with and eight times against mt; four times with and nine times against lxx; and is nonaligned on four occasions. Given the small amount of preserved text, it can only be speculated whether 4QJerd was a nonaligned manuscript.141 Aside from the text-typological characterization by way of variant statistics, the preserved text of 4QJerd does allow for some observations regarding its textual character. In the preserved text (Jer 43[50]:2–10), 4QJerd is more expansive than lxx-Jer but does not share all long readings with mt-Jer. There is also one case of scribal corruption and one disagreement in textual sequence—both readings are nonaligned. Despite these indications, however, given the small size of the fragment, definitive textual characterizarion is still not possible. In six cases, 4QJerd preserves a more original text than mt. Four of these cases read with lxx-Jer and two are nonaligned. In the first category, 4QJerd in Jer 43(50):4–5 reads ‫“ יוחנן‬Johanan” without a patronym (twice), with lxx, against mt’s ‫ן־ק ֵר ַח‬ ָ ‫ֹיוחנָ ן ֶּב‬ ָ “Johanan, son of Kareah.” mt added this patronym also in Jer 40(47):15; 41(48):13, 14, 16; 42(49):1, 8.142 mt-Jer adjusts Jer 43(50):4–5 to Jer 40(47):8, 13; 41(48):11; 43(50):2. lxx-Jer has this patronym only in the lastmentioned verse (43[50]:2): Ιωαναν υἱὸς Καρηε “Joanan, son of Karee.”143 A similar case occurs in Jer 43(50):6, where 4QJerd reads with lxx-Jer ‫את‬ ָ ‫ן־א ִח ָיקם ֶּב‬ ֲ ‫ֶאת־ּגְ ַד ְליָ הּו ֶּב‬ ‫“ גדליהו בן אחיקם‬Gedaliah, son of Ahikam” against the ‫ן־ׁש ָפן‬

138 Thus Ada Yardeni according to Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 197. 139 See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 203. 140 See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; cf. Janzen, Studies, 173, 182–84; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 173–75. 141 Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 302. 142 For an overview, see Janzen, Studies, 139–54. 143 See Tov, Text-Critical Use, 191; idem, Textual Criticism, 293–94; idem, “Literary Analysis,” 38–39; cf. Janzen, Studies, 82–83.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

77

“Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan” of mt-Jer. mt-Jer added the second patronym in harmonization with Jer 39(46):14; 40:5, 9, 11; 41:2 (cf. 26[33]:24).144 The treatment of the name Nebuzaradan in Jer 43(50):6 is comparable. 4QJerd reads with lxx-Jer only ‫“ נבוזראדן‬Nebuzaradan” against mt’s ‫נְ בּוזַ ְר ֲא ָדן ַרב‬ ‫“ ַט ָּב ִחים‬Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard.” mt-Jer added the title ‫ַרב ַט ָּב ִחים‬ “the captain of the guard” in harmonization with Jer 39:9, 10, 11, 13; 40(47):1; 41(48)10; 52:12, 15, 16, 26, 30.145 In lxx-Jer, Nebuzaradan occurs only in Jer 43(50):6, without a mention of his title. In two cases, 4QJerd reads an even shorter text than both lxx and mt and thus preserves a (nonaligned) textual tradition that precedes both proto-mtJer and the Vorlage of lxx-Jer. The first instance is in Jer 43(50):7. Here, 4QJerd has only ‫“ ו]י֯ באו֗ תחפחס‬and they came to Taḥpaḥes” instead of the ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬ ‫ד־ּת ְח ַּפנְ ֵחס‬ ַ ‫“ ַע‬and they came to Taḥpanḥes” of mt-Jer and the καὶ εἰσῆλθον εἰς Ταφνας “and they entered into Taphnas” of lxx-Jer. In the second instance, in Jer 43(50):5, 4QJerd features a shorter text than both mt and lxx in one element, but also features a textual plus that occurs in mt-Jer: lxx-Jer: τοὺς ἀποστρέψαντας κατοικεῖν ἐν τῇ γῇ “those who returned to live in the land” 4QJerd: ‫“ אשר שבו מכל הגוים אש] ֯ר [נדחו ] ֯שם‬those who returned from all the nations to w]hich [they had been banished”

144 See Tov, Text-Critical Use, 191; idem, Textual Criticism, 293–94; idem, “Literary Analysis,” 38–39; cf. Janzen, Studies, 183. While mt-Jer always reads ‫ן־א ִח ָיקם ֶּבן־‬ ֲ ‫ֶאת־ּגְ ַד ְליָ הּו ֶּב‬ ‫“ ָׁש ָפן‬Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan,” lxx-Jer only has both patronyms in Jer 39(46):14 and 40(47):5 (“Γοδολιαν υἱὸν Αχικαμ υἱοῦ Σαφαν” “Godolia, son of Ahikam, son of Saphan”). Jer 40(47):11 only has one patronym (τὸν Γοδολιαν υἱὸν Αχικαμ “Godolia, son of Ahikam”) and Jer 40(47):9; 41(48):2 only the given name Godolia (Γοδολιας and τὸν Γοδολιαν “Godolia”). In Jer 26(33):24, mt-Jer has ‫ן־ׁש ָפן‬ ָ ‫ן־א ִח ָיקם ֶּב‬ ֲ ‫“ ֶּב‬son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan” and lxx-Jer reads Αχικαμ υἱοῦ Σαφαν “Ahikam, son of Shaphan.” For the use of the patronyms together with the name Gedaliah, see Janzen, Studies, 149–50. 145 Cf. Janzen, Studies, 150–51, 183; Johann Cook, “The Differences in the Order of the Books of the Hebrew and Greek Versions of Jeremiah—Jer 43 (50): A Case Study,” ote 7 (1994): 175–92 (187). mt-Jer changes various designations of Nebuzaradan in lxx-Jer and its parent text everywhere in Jeremiah to ‫“ נְ בּוזַ ְר ֲא ָדן ַרב ַט ָּב ִחים‬Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard.” In Jer 40(47):1; 52:12, 26 lxx-Jer reads Ναβουζαρδαν τὸν ἀρχιμάγειρον and Ναβουζαρδαν ὁ ἀρχιμάγειρος respectively (“Nabuzardan, the chief cook”), while Jer 41(48):10 and 52:16 has only ὁ ἀρχιμάγειρος “the chief cook” and in Jer 43(50):6 only Ναβουζαρδαν “Nabuzardan.” Jer 39:9, 10, 11, 13; 52:15, 30 are part of the mt long texts and are without equivalent in lxx-Jer.

78

Lange

mt: ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫חּו־ׁשם ָלגּור ְּב ֶא ֶרץ י‬ ָ ‫ל־הֹּגויִ ם ֲא ֶׁשר נִ ְּד‬ ַ ‫ר־ׁשבּו ִמ ָּכ‬ ָ ‫“ ֲא ֶׁש‬those who returned from all the nations to which they had been banished, to settle in the land of Judah” The original text probably stated that Johanan took “those who had returned there” (‫)אשר שבו שם‬‎.146 The phrase is difficult to understand, because it does not explain the place to which the returnees came, from where they came, or how they got to their place of exile. The Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer replaced the ambiguous ‫“ שם‬there” most likely with the words ‫לגור בארץ‬, thus reading ‫“ אשר שבו לגור בארץ‬those who returned to live in the land” to explain the destination of the returnees. The textual tradition represented by 4QJerd suggests that the long text of mt-Jer evolved differently, and in two stages. First, the words ‫ מכל הגוים אשר נדחו‬were added, to explain from where the returnees came, resulting in the text of 4QJerd: ‫“ אשר שבו מכל הגוים אש] ֯ר [נדחו ] ֯שם‬those who returned from all the nations to w]hich [they had been banished.” Thus, in this first transformation, seen in the text of 4QJerd, ‫ שם‬comes to designate the place from which the exiles returned. In a second stage, and probably influenced by the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, the words ‫ לגור בארץ יהודה‬were added, resulting in the text of mt-Jer: ‫חּו־ׁשם ָלגּור‬ ָ ‫ל־הֹּגויִ ם ֲא ֶׁשר נִ ְּד‬ ַ ‫ר־ׁשבּו ִמ ָּכ‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫“ ְּב ֶא ֶרץ י‬those who returned from all the nations to where they had been banished, to settle in the land of Judah.” The second addition explained the second unclear element of the original text of Jer 43(50):5, that is, the destination of the returnees. 4QJerd reads with mt-Jer against lxx-Jer in several other instances as well. In Jer 43(50):7, 4QJerd follows another long text of mt-Jer in reading ‫ארץ מצרים‬ “[into] the land of Egypt” against lxx-Jer’s εἰς Αἴγυπτον “into Egypt.” The word ‫“ ארץ‬land” was added in proto-mt-Jer in harmonization with Jer 43:11, 12, 13. At Jer 43(50):9, 4QJerd preserves two instances of agreement with mt-Jer. In the first, 4QJerd reflects a primary mt-Jer reading. lxx-Jer on this verse has, ἐν προθύροις τῆς οἰκίας Φαραω ἐν Ταφνας “in the entrance of the house of Pharaoh in Taphnas,” which probably renders the words ‫בפתח בית פרעה בתחפנחס‬. The mt has the longer ‫ית־ּפ ְרעֹה ְּב ַת ְח ַּפנְ ֵחס‬ ַ ‫“ ַּב ֶּמ ֶלט ַּב ַּמ ְל ֵּבן ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ֶפ ַתח ֵּב‬in the clay floor, in the pavement that is in the entrance of the palace of the Pharaoh in Taḥpanḥes.” The lxx reading here, however, is the result of a homoiarcton in its Hebrew parent text; the eye of the scribe moved erroneously from the bet of ‫“ במלט‬in the clay floor” to the bet of ‫“ בפתח‬in the entrance,” and deleted the intervening words.147 The mt here thus preserves the more original text. 4QJerd or its base 146 Similarly, Janzen, Studies, 54, and Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:276. 147 Cf. Janzen, Studies, 183; Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:276; contra, Cook, “Differences,” 187.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

79

text rearranged the syntax of this verse in an editorial move to clarify that the palace of the Pharaoh was at the entrance of Taḥpanḥes: ]‫במלט במלבן בית פרעה‬ ‫“ אשר בפתח בתחפנחס‬in the clay floor, in the pavement of the palace of the Pharaoh] which is at the entrance of Taḥpanḥes.” In the second instance, 4QJerd agrees with mt-Jer against lxx-Jer. lxx-Jer has κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνδρῶν Ιουδα “before the eyes of the men of Judah,” which most likely equals ‫לעיני אנשי יהודה‬. The textual tradition of 4QJerd / mt-Jer rephrased this text to clarify that Jeremiah did not perform his symbolic act in Egypt before men of Judah but “before the eyes of Jewish men” (‫לעיני אנ֯ שים‬ ‫)יהודים‬. In this way, the 4QJerd / mt-Jer text both harmonizes the reading ‫אנשי‬ ְ ‫הּודים ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ִמגְ ּד ֹל‬ ִ ְ‫ל־הּי‬ ַ ‫ָּכ‬ ‫ יהודה‬with the phrase ‫ּוב ַת ְח ַּפנְ ֵחס‬ “all Jews who live in the land of Egypt, who live in Migdal and in Taḥpanḥes” of Jer 44(51):1, and also makes a careful distinction between men who live in Judah and diaspora Jews who live in Egypt. In Jer 43(50):9, 4QJerd reads with mt ‫“ בידך‬in your hand,” against the σεαυτῷ “for yourself” of lxx-Jer; however, this seems to be a case of intentional scribal alteration in lxx-Jer. lxx-Jer always translates ‫“ לך‬for yourself” (Jer 2:28; 13:1; 32[39]:7, 20, 25; 36[43]:2; 45:5 [51:35]; cf. Jer 22:14) with σεαυτῷ, and routinely renders ‫“ ביד‬in the hand of” with ἐν χειρὶ or similar phrases (see, e.g., Jer 43[50]:3). Given this propensity, it seems likely that either the scribe of the parent text of lxx-Jer or its translator could not imagine that Jeremiah would need to take large stones into his hand (singular!) and thus corrected ‫“ בידך‬in your hand” to ‫לך‬, or σεαυτῷ (both meaning “for yourself”) respectively. At least one case of scribal corruption occurs in 4QJerd itself, in Jer 43(50):7. The manuscript reads ‫“ תחפחס‬Taḥpaḥes” instead of mt’s ‫“ ַת ְח ַּפנְ ֵחס‬Taḥpanḥes”; cf. lxx Ταφνας “Taphnas.” That the scribe of 4QJerd or its Vorlage deleted the missing nun erroneously is apparent because the manuscript reads ‫בתחפנחס‬ “in Taḥpanḥes” without scribal error in Jer 43(50):9. To summarize: The fact that 4QJerd includes some but not all long texts of mt-Jer 43(50):2–10 and reads several times but not always with mt-Jer makes it likely that the manuscript attests to a somewhat extended textual version of Jeremiah as compared to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, to which mtJer added even more text.148 But 4QJerd also cannot be understood as simply attesting to the parent text of mt-Jer, because it displays cases of scribal corruption and intentional alteration that do not occur in mt-Jer. Therefore, 4QJerd most likely attests to a somewhat developed version of a text situated between mt-Jer and the shared ancestor of lxx-Jer and mt-Jer. 148 Against Fischer who regards these agreements as an indication of the priority of mt-Jer (Fischer, “Diskussion,” 623) and against Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198.

80

Lange

4QJerd makes it thus likely that another expansive Jeremiah text needs to be supposed between mt-Jer and the shared lxx-/ mt-Jer archetype. This means that the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction reworked a Jeremiah text similar to that of 4QJerd, a text that already included some of the smaller characteristic long texts of mt-Jer, such as added patronyms. 4QJerd is not a direct textual witness to the base text of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction because it also includes secondary readings as compared to mt-Jer. Both 4QJerd and the quotation of Jer 10:12–13 in 11QPsa 26:12–15 (see below) point to the existence of nonaligned Jeremiah texts during the Second Temple period, which may (as might have been the case with 4QJerd) or may not have been related (as might have been the case with the anterior-text of 11QPsa 26:12–15) to the broader textual tradition of lxx/ mt-Jer. 2.5 4QJere (4Q72b) the Remaining Jeremiah Manuscript from Qumran Of 4QJere, only one small fragment with sixteen (partial) words from Jer 50(27):4–6 is preserved. The fragment was originally attributed to 4QJerb. The small amount of preserved text does not allow for either orthographic or textual classification, and the remains of 4QJere could even be part of a Jeremiah quotation in a nonbiblical manuscript.149 Paleographically, 4QJere resembles both 4QJerb and 4QJerd and should be dated to the first half of the second century BCE. 2.6 Forgeries and the Dead Sea Jeremiah Manuscripts Doubt about Dead Sea Scrolls fragments that were acquired in the antiquities markets since 2002 have been repeatedly voiced.150 Detailed paleographic and scientific studies have proven that most if not all of the fragments acquired since 2002 are forgeries.151 Among these forgeries are also two fragments which in previous publications I have discussed as authentic, given their publication 149 Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 303. 150 See Lange, Handschriften, 106; Lange, “Ancient Hebrew Texts,” 30; and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fishy Fragments—or Forgeries? On Provenance and Authenticity: Some Cases,” https://zenodo.org/record/1430161#.YMmZDS0Rpn4. 151 See Kipp Davis et al., “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century,” dsd 24 (2017): 189–228; Kipp Davis, “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments,” dsd 24 (2017): 229– 70; Torleif Elgvin and Michael Langlois, “Looking Back: (More) Dead Sea Scrolls Forgeries in the Schøyen Collection,” RevQ 31 (2019): 111–33; Colette Loll et al., Museum of the Bible Dead Seas Scroll Collection: Scientific Research and Analysis: Final Report November 2019 (Washington, DC: Art Fraud Insights, llc, 2019), https://museumofthebible.cdn.prismic .io/museumofthebible/8ee1c3b3-8398-481a-bc7a-4da593c38728_MOTB-DSS-Report -FINAL-web.pdf.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

81

by highly respected specialists;152 i.e., dss F.Jer 1 (ms Schøyen 4612/9);153 and Museum of the Bible dss F.Jer 2 (ms Museum of the Bible SCR.003172).154 In light of this evidence, the small fragment discussed by Charlesworth155 should also be regarded at least as a possible forgery. The Significance of the Qumran Biblical Manuscripts for the Textual History of Jeremiah The Jeremiah manuscripts from the Qumran library document the existence of Hebrew forerunners of both mt-Jer and lxx-Jer, and thus leave no doubt that these two editions of the book of Jeremiah existed already by the second century BCE. However, the uncorrected text of 4QJera as well as 2QJer demonstrate that the textual transmission of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction included more textual variation than anticipated before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, the nonaligned manuscript 4QJerd points to the possibility that the two variant literary editions attested by mt-Jer and lxx-Jer attest to only two out of many more Jeremiah texts existing during the Second Temple period.

2.7

3

The Text of Jeremiah in the Paratextual Literature of the Qumran Library

Two paratextual works relating to the book of Jeremiah were found in the Qumran library. The Epistle of Jeremiah (also known as Baruch 6) builds on Jeremiah 29 to create an extended polemic against the veneration of idols; a fragment of a manuscript of the Epistle is among the Greek manuscripts from Cave 7 (7QpapEpJer gr [7Q2]). A whole group of manuscripts, designated Apocryphon of Jeremiah by their editors—4QapocrJer A (4Q383), 4Qpap apocrJer B? (4Q384), 4QapocrJer Ca–f (4Q385a, 387, 388a, 389–390, 387a)— attests to one or several additional paratextual compositions based on the book 152 Torleif Elgvin and Kipp Davis, “ms 4612/19. 4Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19),” in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection, ed. T. Elgvin et al., lsts 71 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 215–22; and Karl Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003172),” in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection, ed. E. Tov et al., Publications of the Museum of the Bible 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 140–57. 153 See Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back,” 114, 117, 119, 126, 127, 131. 154 See Kupiec et al., Final Report, 61–65. 155 See James H. Charlesworth, “Announcing an Unknown Dead Sea Scroll: Jeremiah 48:29– 31a,” http://foundationjudaismchristianorigins.org/ftp/dead-sea-scrolls/unpub/DSS-jere miah.pdf.

82

Lange

of Jeremiah. The fragmentary Apocryphon of Jeremiah may best be understood as a nonsymbolic apocalypse disguised as another letter of Jeremiah to the exiles. 3.1 The Epistle of Jeremiah The Epistle of Jeremiah is a paratextual composition originally written in Hebrew.156 It is preserved in Greek translation in the Septuagint. Various daughter translations of the Septuagint include it as well;157 the Vulgate, along with some Greek and Syriac manuscripts, incorporate the Epistle of Jeremiah as chapter 6 of the book of Baruch. The only possible ancient manuscript of the Epistle of Jeremiah was found in the Qumran library (7QpapEpJer gr [7Q2; Rahlfs 804]). The editio princeps dates it paleographically to around 100 BCE.158 Tov, however, is more skeptical and writes: “too little has survived of this in order to pronounce a judgment on its nature or dating.”159 While the Qumran 156 Cf. Charles J. Ball, “The Epistle of Jeremy,” in apot 1:596–611 (597–98); Weigand Naumann, Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief, bzaw 25 (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1913), 51–54; Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 44 (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 326–27; Isabelle Assan-Dhôte and Jacqueline Moatti-Fine, Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, vol. 25.2 of La Bible d’Alexandrie (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 296–97; cf. Reinhard G. Kratz, “Die Rezeption von Jeremia 10 und 29 im pseudepi­ graphen Brief des Jeremia,” jsj 26 (1995): 2–31 (7–8; semitic original); idem, “Der Brief des Jeremia: Übersetzt und erklärt,” in Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel: Übersetzt und erklärt, ed. O. H. Steck et al., atd Apokryphen 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 69–108 (74; semitic original); against Benjamin G. Wright, “Letter of Ieremias,” in nets, 942–45 (942–43); idem, “The Epistle of Jeremiah: Translation or Composition?” in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies, ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, dcls 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 126–42 (see also for further literature). The fact that the Greek version of the Epistle independently translates the Jeremiah passages it employs points towards translation from a Hebrew original rather than a work composed originally in Greek. We would expect a much stronger influence of the Old Greek text of Jeremiah in a work composed in Greek. 157 For a survey of the textual witnesses of the Epistle to Jeremiah, see the articles on this text in Matthias Henze and Frank Feder, eds., The Deuterocanonical Scriptures, thb 2, doi .org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_256523. 158 For an edition of the manuscript and its paleographic date, see Maurice Baillet, “Grotte 7.2. Lettre de Jérémie,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise; Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q; Le Rouleau de cuivre, ed. M. Baillet et al., 2 vols., djd 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 3.1:143. 159 Emanuel Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, ed. S. McKendrick and O. A. O’Sullivan (London: British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press in association with the Scriptorium, Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003), 97–122 (103); cf. idem, “Die griechischen Bibelhandschriften der judäischen Wüste,” in Qumran aktuell: Texte und Themen der Schriften vom Toten

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

83

fragment itself might thus be of little help for the text-critical analysis of the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Epistle as preserved in lxx manuscripts can still shed light on the textual history of Jeremiah during the Second Temple period. Given that 7Q2 attests to the existence of a copy of the Epistle in the Qumran library, I will explore here the significance of the Epistle, as a paratext to the book of Jeremiah, for the textual history of Jeremiah during the Second Temple period. The Epistle of Jeremiah is a polemic against idols based on Jer 10:1–16 and 29:1–14, but it draws for its rhetoric on other parts of Jeremiah as well (e.g., Jer 14:22 in EpJer 52 and Jer 30[37]:9 in EpJer 33). Intertextual connections can also be observed between the Epistle of Jeremiah and Lev 12:4; Deut 4:27–28; 2 Kgs 19:18 par Isa 37:19; Isa 40:18–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–20; 45:20; 46:5–7; Ps 113:11– 16 (115:3–8); and 134(135):6–7, 15–17.160 In its heading, the Epistle purports to address those “who would be led as captives into Babylon,”161 implying that the Epistle was sent to the deportees before they reached Babylon.162 A later reflection of the Epistle in Jewish literature may be preserved in the reference to a letter of Jeremiah in mt-Jer 10:11. The Targum states that this letter was addressed to the Babylonian diaspora and concerned idololatry.163 For lack of data, the date and place of composition of the Epistle of Jeremiah are difficult to assess. That verse 2 extends the seventy years of exile alluded to in Jer 29:10 (cf. Jer 25:12) to seven generations, points to some time in the early Hellenistic period.164 Suggestions about more precise dates165 neglect to

160 161 162

163 164

165

Meer, ed. S. Beyerle and J. Frey, BThSt 120 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 27–66 (40). Cf. the lists in Moore, Additions, 319–22; Kratz, “Rezeption,” 2, 16–17; Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, JAJSup 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 230. Translations of nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls are my own if not otherwise indicated. Cf. e.g., Kratz, “Rezeption,” 20; idem, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” 88; Georg Gäbel and Wolfgang Kraus, “Epistole Jeremiu/Epistula Ieremiae/Der Brief des Jeremia,” in Psalmen bis Daniel, vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus (Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2842– 48 (2845–46). Thus, first, Eberhard Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1893), 42–43; H. St. John Thackeray, Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 56; Kratz, “Rezeption,” 8; cf. also Adcock, Gods of Battle, 220–22. Thus, e.g., Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief Jeremias, jshrz 3.2 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980), 186; Otto Kaiser, Die prophetischen Werke, vol. 2 of Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 183. Ball, “Epistle of Jeremy,” 596, and Moore, Additions, 297–98; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Lettre de Jérémie, 297–98, date the Epistle of Jeremiah, for example, before 317 BCE; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,

84

Lange

ask how well informed the author of the Epistle was about the chronology of Jewish history. Both Judea and Mesopotamia are feasible as the Epistle’s place of origin. Based on its linguistic character, the Greek translation of the Epistle may be dated to the second century BCE.166 The Greek translator of the Epistle did not employ the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah but made his own Greek renditions of the passages he quoted. Therefore, the quotations of and allusions to the book of Jeremiah in the Epistle are difficult to identify. Furthermore, the correspondences between the Epistle and the biblical Jeremiah text are sometimes so vague (see, e.g., Jer 29[36]:10–11 in EpJer 2 or Jer 14:22 in EpJer 52) that at least in some cases the author of the Epistle might have employed the text of the book of Jeremiah from memory.167 Given these problems, the textual affiliation of the Hebrew Jeremiah text referenced in the Epistle is difficult to determine. In the last decades, Moore,168 Kratz,169 Biddle,170 as well Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine,171 Brooke,172 and Adcock173 have argued that the Epistle of Jeremiah utilizes a proto-Masoretic Jeremiah text. Thomas174 sees the Epistle as employing a text close to the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek text of Jeremiah. He claims that

166

167 168 169 170 171 172

173 174

Josephus, ed. M. E. Stone, crint 2.2 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 89–156 (148) thinks of the years 317–307 BCE; Kratz, “Brief des Jeremia,” 82, suggest a date around 200 BCE; and Gäbel and Kraus, “Brief des Jeremia,” 2844, point to the time before the Maccabean wars. Cf. Naumann, Untersuchungen, 31–33; Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Other Septuagint: From the Letter of Aristeas to the Letter of Jeremiah,” jnsl 28 (2002): 27–41 (35–39), proposes the time of the Hellenistic religious reforms and the Maccabean wars; cf. also Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Lettre de Jérémie, 298. Benjamin D. Thomas, “Reevaluating the Influence of Jeremiah 10 upon the Apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah: A Case for the Short Edition,” zaw 120 (2008): 547–62 (549). E.g., Moore, Additions, 323. Kratz, “Rezeption,” 9–11. Mark E. Biddle, “The Letter of Jeremiah,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version, ed. M. D. Coogan, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 184–88 ap (187 ap). Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Lettre de Jérémie, 329. George J. Brooke, “The Structure of the Poem against Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (1 Baruch 6),” in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques: Études réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod, ed. A. Frey and R. Gounelle, Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques 5 (Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre, 2007), 107–28 (119–20). Adcock, God of Battles, 228. Thomas, “Reevaluating,” 547–62.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

85

The author of EpJer had only the short Hebrew edition of Jer 10 at his disposal (vv. 2–4.5a.9.5b.11–15). This edition was close to that on which the Septuagint (G) was based (i.e., VorG) and to the Hebrew text of 4QJerb.175 In support of his hypothesis, Thomas argues that the Epistle employs no language from Jer 10:6–8 and 10 but only from Jer 10:2–5a, 9, 5b, 11–15 and that it only uses rhetoric from the Hebrew parent text of the Old Greek text of Jeremiah 10 and not from its proto-Masoretic additions. Contrary to Thomas, I will show that in several instances the Epistle of Jeremiah attests to protoMasoretic additions to Jeremiah. Thomas’ observation that the Epistle shows no interest in Jer 10:6–8, 10 is not relevant to the question of its textual affiliation, because these verses are largely unrelated to the theme of idolatry that is the sole topic of the Epistle. Among those who argue for the proto-Masoretic textual affiliation of the Epistle’s Jeremiah base text, Kratz provides the most detailed study.176 He argues that not only is mt-Jer 10:5 employed in EpJer 69 but that this verse provided the structural pattern for the whole Epistle. Kratz holds that EpJer 7–14 and 23–28 elaborate on the phrases ‫“ וְ ֣ל ֹא יְ ַד ֵּברּו‬and they cannot speak,” and ‫נָ ֹׂשוא‬ ‫“ יִ ּנָ ׂשּוא‬they have to be carried,” respectively, from mt-Jer 10:5; while EpJer 29–64 and 65–68 engage with the statement ‫ֹאותם‬ ָ ‫יטיב ֵאין‬ ֵ ‫ם־ה‬ ֵ ַ‫“ ִּכי־לֹא יָ ֵרעּו וְ ג‬for they cannot do evil nor is anyone among them doing good,” from Jer 10:5. Parallels to the formula ‫ל־ּת ְיראּו ֵמ ֶהם‬ ִ ‫“ ַא‬do not be afraid of them” occur as structural markers throughout the Epistle. Kratz understands the use of ‫ ְּכת ֶֹמר ִמ ְק ָׁשה ֵה ָּמה‬from Jer 10:5 in EpJer 69 as a summary of the text preceding it in the Epistle. Given present space constraints, I will neither discuss Kratz’s arguments in detail, nor analyze all uses of the book of Jeremiah in the Epistle of Jeremiah, but will restrict my analysis to those cases that are important for determining the textual affiliation of the Epistle’s anterior Jeremiah text. 3.1.1 Jer 10:5 in EpJer 69 The translation of the phrase ‫ ְּכת ֶֹמר ִמ ְק ָׁשה ֵה ָּמה‬as Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν σικυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον “for they are like a scarecrow in a cucumber field” in EpJer 69 is often taken as proof of proto-Masoretic affiliation of the Epistle’s underlying Jeremiah text,177 since lxx-Jer 10:5 renders this phrase as ἀργύριον τορευτόν 175 Thomas, “Reevaluating,” 547. 176 Kratz, “Rezeption,” 9–11. 177 See, e.g., Naumann, Untersuchungen, 45; Moore, Additions, 323; Gunneweg, Brief Jeremias, 185, 191 note q; Kratz, “Rezeption,” 9–11; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Lettre de Jérémie, 329; Brooke, “Structure,” 119–20; Gäbel and Kraus, “Brief des Jeremia,” 2848.

86

Lange

ἐστιν “it is wrought silver.” The original meaning of the puzzling phrase ‫ְּכת ֶֹמר‬ ‫ ִמ ְק ָׁשה ֵה ָּמה‬seems to have been, “they are like a richly carved palm tree.”178 The parent text of lxx-Jer 10:5 suffered from a scribal error and read the word ‫ֶכּ ֶתם‬ “pure gold,” instead of ‫ ְּכת ֶֹמר‬. lxx-Jer misinterpreted the uncommon word ‫ֶכּ ֶתם‬ as ἀργύριον “silver”179 but otherwise adhered to the original meaning of Jer 10:5. Only EpJer 69 (Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν σικυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον “For like a scarecrow in a cucumber field”) interpreted the consonants ‫ כתמר‬as “like a scarecrow,” and accordingly, needed to relate the word ‫ מקשה‬not to an act of woodworking but to the Hebrew word for “cucumber,” ‫ ִקשׁוּת‬. Because the rendering of lxxJer 10:5 goes back to a scribal error in its Vorlage, the reading should nevertheless be regarded as an indication that EpJer 69 reads with mt and against lxx in Jer 10:5. Jer 10:5 in EpJer 7 3.1.2 As Kratz points out, EpJer 7–14 and 23–28 elaborate respectively on the phrases ‫“ וְ לֹא יְ ַד ֵּברּו‬and they cannot speak” and ‫“ נָ ֹׂשוא יִ ּנָ ׂשּוא‬they have to be carried” from Jer 10:5. Both phrases also influence the rhetoric of these two paragraphs of the Epistle. ‫ וְ לֹא יְ ַד ֵּברּו‬is repeated verbally in EpJer 7: καὶ οὐ δύνανται λαλεῖν “and they cannot speak.” ‫ נָ ֹׂשוא יִ ּנָ ׂשּוא‬is reflected in a merged implicit allusion to Jer 10:5 and Isa 46:7 (αἴρουσιν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων “they carry it on their shoulders”) in EpJer 3 (ἐπ᾿ ὤμοις αἰρομένους “being carried upon shoulders”) and has a reminiscence in EpJer 26 (ἐπ᾿ ὤμοις φέρονται “they are carried upon shoulders”). For my question, it is important to recognize that ‫ וְ לֹא יְ ַד ֵּברּו‬is missing from lxxJer 10:5. This means that the καὶ οὐ δύνανται λαλεῖν of EpJer 7 reads with mtJer against lxx-Jer, thus providing additional support for the argument that a proto-Masoretic Jeremiah text underlies the Epistle of Jeremiah.180

178 Cf. Ferdinand Deist, “Zu ‫ ְכת ֶֹמר ִמ ְק ָׁשה‬in Jer 10 5,” zaw 85 (1973): 225–26; cf. “‫ת ֶֹמר‬,” in halot 4:1757. Similar already Gustaf Dalman, Der Ackerbau, vol. 2 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Schriften des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts 5 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1987), 62–63, who mentions a “palmenartige ‘Säule von Drechslerwerk’ ” (citation refers to the 1987 reprinted edition). Silvia Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, obo 74 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 207, wants to see the phrase related to metalwork. 179 Cf. Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 207 with n. 202; Thomas, “Reevaluating,” 557–59; Finsterbusch and Jacoby, Synoptische Übersetzung, 132 n. 516. 180 Cf., e.g., Kratz, “Rezeption,” 10; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Lettre de Jérémie, 314; Brooke, “Structure,” 119–20.

87

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

3.1.3 Jer 10:9 in EpJer 45 The phrase Ὑπὸ τεκτόνων καὶ χρυσοχόων κατεσκευασμένα εἰσίν “they have been constructed by craftsmen and goldsmiths” in EpJer 45 draws on Jer 10:9 where craftsmen and goldsmiths are paired as well.181 What is interesting is that with EpJer 45 mt-Jer 10:9 mentions craftsmen first and goldsmiths second, thus reversing the sequence of lxx-Jer. table 3.3 Jer 10:9 according to EpJer, LXX, and MT

EpJer 45

LXX-Jer 10:9

Ὑπὸ τεκτόνων καὶ χρυσοχόων κατεσκευασμένα εἰσίν “they have been constructed by craftsmen and goldsmiths”

καὶ χεὶρ χρυσοχόων, ἔργα τεχνιτῶν πάντα “and a hand of goldsmiths—works of craftsmen all”

MT-Jer 10:9 ‫צֹורף‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה ָח ָרשׁ וִ ֵידי‬

“work of a craftsman and of the hands of a goldsmith”

In its sequence of craftsmen and goldsmiths, EpJer 45 thus reads with mtJer 10:9 against lxx-Jer 10:9. That EpJer 45 uses the word τεκτόνων instead of lxx-Jer’s τεχνιτῶν to render the Hebrew word ‫( ָח ָרשׁ‬all meaning “craftsmen”), shows that the Greek translator of the Epistle of Jeremiah did not refer to a copy of lxx-Jer when producing his translation. 3.1.4 Jer 29[36]:1–14 in the Heading of EpJer and EpJer 1–2 Both the heading and the first two verses of the Epistle of Jeremiah draw on Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jer 29:1–14).182 The intertextual relation between these two passages is complicated, and the Epistle freely paraphrases and rephrases its Jeremianic base text. Examples include the rephrasing of the “seventy years” ‫ ִשׁ ְב ִעים ָשׁנָ ה‬of exile from Jer 29:10 (cf. Jer 25:12) as “seven generations” γενεῶν ἑπτά in EpJer 2, and the reshaping of God’s plans of peace from Jer 29:11 (“I know my plans … plans of peace” … ‫ת־ה ַמּ ֲח ָשׁבֹת‬ ַ ‫אָנ ִֹכי יָ ַד ְע ִתּי ֶא‬ ‫ ) ַמ ְח ְשׁבֹות ָשׁלֹום‬to a promise in EpJer 2 that God will bring the exiles home with peace (“I will bring you from there with peace” ἐξάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖθεν μετ᾿ εἰρήνης). 181 Cf. e.g., Ball, “Epistle of Jeremy,” 606; Moore, Additions, 350; Gäbel and Kraus, “Brief des Jeremia,” 2848. Against Thomas, “Reevaluating,” 551 who refers to the use of ‫ ָח ָרשׁ‬/τέκτονος “of a craftsman” in Jer 10:3 although τέκτων is not paired with ‫צֹורף‬ ֵ /χρυσοχόος “goldsmith” in Jer 10:3. The words ‫ ָח ָרשׁ‬and ‫ צ ֵֹרף‬are also paired in Isa 40:19. Given the Epistle of Jeremiah’s clear dependence on Jeremiah 10, however, a dependence on Jer 10:9 here is beyond doubt. 182 See esp. Kratz, “Rezeption,” 18–26; idem, “Brief des Jeremia,” 88–89.

88

Lange

This free approach makes difficult the text-critical study of the Hebrew text of Jer 29:1–14 that underlies the Epistle’s heading and EpJer 1–2. Nevertheless, at least with regard to the name Nebuchadnezzar and the title, “King of Babylon,” some observations are possible. The heading of the Epistle of Jeremiah rephrases Jer 29:1. In doing so, it emphasizes that the king of the Babylonians led the Epistle’s addressees as captives into Babylon (τοὺς ἀχθησομένους αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων “those who would be led as captives into Babylon by the king of the Babylonians”). This formulation is based on a relative clause in mt-Jer 29:1 that is missing from lxx-Jer 36:1: ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ָבּ ֶב ָלה‬ ָ ‫אצּר ִמ‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֶהגְ ָלה נ‬ “whom Nebuchadnezzar exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon.”183 The phrase ‫“ אשר הגלה‬whom he exiled” has an equivalent in the phrasing of the heading, τοὺς ἀχθησομένους αἰχμαλώτους “those who were led as captives.” However, the heading of the Epistle also includes an interesting agreement with Pesh.Jer 29:1 against mt-Jer. While the mt-Jer mentions only Nebuchadnezzar, the Peshitta clearly speaks of “Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon” (‫ܢܒܘܟܕܢܨܪ‬ ‫) ܿܡܠܟܐ ܕܒܒܠ‬. That the Peshitta includes the phrase ‫ܢܒܘܟܕܢܨܪ ܿܡܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܒܠ‬, in agreement with the τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων “king of the Baby­ lonians” in the heading of the Epistle, could point to the existence of a protoMasoretic copy of Jeremiah during the Second Temple period which read “Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon” (‫ )נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל‬in Jer 29:1, possibly in harmonization with Jer 29:3. Even more interesting is the next use of Jer 29:1, in EpJer 1: ἀχθήσεσθε εἰς Βαβυλῶνα αἰχμάλωτοι ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων “you will be led as captives into Babylon by Nabouchodonosor, king of the Babylonians.” Kratz understands EpJer 1 as an employment of Jer 29:3:184 ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׁ ַלח ִצ ְד ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫אצּר ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל ָבּ ֶב ָלה‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫הוּדה ֶאל־נ‬ ָ ְ‫“ ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬which Zedekiah, king of Judah, sent to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Babylon.” But the phrase “being led as captives” (ἀχθήσεσθε … αἰχμάλωτοι) agrees better with the relative clause of Jer 29:1, as well as echoing the phrasing of the heading of the Epistle, which, as we have just seen, is clearly based on that verse. Furthermore, the exile of deportees mentioned in Jer 29:1 corresponds more closely to the content of EpJer 1 than does the mention of Zedekiah’s sending envoys to Nebuchadnezzar in Jer 29:3. It is therefore more likely that EpJer 1 depends on Jer 29:1 as well, especially since EpJer 1 echoes the same verbal correspondence ܿ to Pesh.-Jer 29:1, ‫ܢܒܘܟܕܢܨܪ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܒܒܠ‬, as does the heading of the Epistle. One might even speculate that the name Nebuchadnezzar/Nabouchodonosor 183 Cf. Kratz, “Rezeption,” 20–21 with n. 34. 184 Kratz, “Rezeption,” 21 n. 34.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

89

was lost from the heading of the Epistle due to scribal error during either its Hebrew or Greek textual transmission. But, even if EpJer 1 drew on Jer 29:3, it would still read with mt against lxx, because lxx-Jer 36:3 has no equivalent for the name ‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫ נ‬in Jer 29:3. 3.1.5

List of Variants of the Jeremianic Verses Cited in Epistle of Jeremiah185 Jer 10:5 EpJer 69 Ὥσπερ … προβασκάνιον cf. mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְּכת ֶֹמר‬, Vulg. in similitü ‫ܐܝܟ‬, cf. Tg. ‫עֹובד נְ גִ יד‬ dinem palmae, Pesh. ‫ܕܩܠܐ‬ ָ || lxx ἀργύριον Jer 10:5 EpJer 7 καὶ οὐ δύνανται λαλεῖν with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫וְ לֹא יְ ַד ֵּברּו‬, Vulg. et non ܿ loquentur, Tg. ‫וְ ָלא ְמ ַמ ְל ִלין‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܘܠܐ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ‬lxx Jer 10:9 EpJer 45 Ὑπὸ τεκτόνων καὶ χρυσοχόων κατεσκευασμένα εἰσίν with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫צֹורף‬ ֵ ‫( ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה ָח ָרשׁ וִ ֵידי‬mtN ‫)צ ֵֹרף‬, Vulg. opus artificis et manus ܿ ܿ ̈ aerarii, Tg. ‫עֹובד נַ גָ ר וִ ֵידי ֵקינָ י‬ ָ , Pesh. ‫ || ܥܒܕ ܢܓܪܐ ܘܐܝܕܝ ܩܝܢܝܐ‬lxx καὶ χεὶρ χρυσοχόων, ἔργα τεχνιτῶν πάντα Jer 29:1 EpJer heading τοὺς ἀχθησομένους αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων and EpJer 1 ἀχθήσεσθε εἰς Βαβυλῶνα αἰχμάλωτοι ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ָבּ ֶב ָלה‬ ָ ‫אצּר ִמ‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫ ֶהגְ ָלה נ‬, Vulg. quem transduxerat Nabuchodonosor de Hierusalem in Babylonem, Tg. ‫ירוּשׁלם ְל ָב ַבל‬ ַ ‫בוּכדנַ ַצר ִמ‬ ַ ְ‫אַגלי נ‬ ִ ‫ ְד‬, cf. Pesh. ‫ܕܫܒܐ ܢܒܘܟܕܢܨܪ ܿܡܠܟܐ ܕܒܒܠ ܡܢ ܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܠܒܒܠ‬ ܼ || > lxx

3.1.6 Conclusion On the whole, the textual affiliation of the Epistle’s Jeremiah base text is less clear than Kratz’s work suggests. In the present discussion, I have identified four variants in the Epistle that read with mt-Jer against lxx-Jer. This consistent agreement with mt-Jer argues for the proto-Masoretic character of the underlying Jeremiah text of the Epistle.

185 See 4.3 for an explanation of the methodology followed in assembling the variant lists for this article.

90

Lange

3.2 The Apocryphon of Jeremiah In contrast to many other texts found in one or more manuscripts in the Qumran library, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah is subject to debate among specialists on many accounts. Most important among the issues is the question of exactly how many Apocryphon manuscripts are preserved. Brady considers the entire manuscript group 4Q383–4Q391 as attesting to one paratextual work dedicated to the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.186 Lange and Mittmann-Richert as well as Reynolds regard 4QapocrJer A (4Q383), 4Qpap apocrJer B? (4Q384), 4QapocrJer Ca–f (4Q385a, 387, 388a, 389–390, 387a) as different witnesses to a single Apocryphon of Jeremiah composition.187 Dimant, editor of most of these manuscripts, regards them as attesting to three different Jeremianic compositions, the third of which is attested in multiple manuscripts.188 Davis excludes 4QapocrJer Cf (4Q387a) from the corpus of Jeremianic apocrypha.189 Especially debated is the manuscript 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390). Many scholars doubt that it belongs to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and regard it as a separate Jeremianic or non-Jeremianic work.190 Davis also argues for the independence 186 Monica L. Walsh Brady, “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2000). 187 Armin Lange and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and Genre,” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, ed. E. Tov, djd 39 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002): 115–64 (127 together with n. 12); Bennie H. Reynolds III, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 B.C.E., JAJSup 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 263–68. 188 Devorah Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, ed. Devorah Dimant, djd 30 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 89–260; cf. Mark Smith, “384: 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, ed. M. Broshi et al., djd 19 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 137–52. 189 Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 176–80. 190 Michael A. Knibb, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. F. García Martínez et al., VTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 164–77; Cana Werman, “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature,” dsd 13 (2006): 229–55; see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, cejl (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 55–56; Bartosz Adamczewski, “Chronological Calculations and Messianic Expectations in Apocryphon of Jeremiah D (4Q390),” qc 14 (2006): 127–42; Christoph Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum, bzaw 363 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 393–430, esp. 398–99; Hanan Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 102– 10; C. J. Patrick (Kipp) Davis, “Torah-Performance and History in the Golah: Rewritten Bible of ‘Re-presentational’ Authority in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. P. W. Flint et al., ejl 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 467–95; Todd R. Hanneken, “Status and Interpretation of Jubilees

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

91

of 4Q390 Thefrom the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and views the manuscript as “a historical and ideological pastiche” of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. He therefore posits at least two Jeremianic apocalypses in Qumran Cave 4.191 Two alternative, but equally convincing, solutions to the problem have been suggested by Tigchelaar and Reynolds. Tigchelaar argues that from the standpoint of material reconstruction, the text of the fragments of 4Q390 does not fit physically into the lacunae of 4Q385a and 4Q387. Accordingly, he regards 4Q390 as a secondary reworked Jeremianic apocalypse based on Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.192 Reynolds suggests that “4Q390 is part of the same text [scil. of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C], but reflects a section of the text whose narrative is unrelated to (i.e., not integrated with) the rest of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.”193 No certain conclusions are possible on the basis of the preserved manuscript evidence. Given, however, that all manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls described as an apocryphon of Jeremiah were found in one library, I still, along with Reynolds, regard it as more likely that 4QapocrJer A (4Q383), 4Qpap apocrJer B? (4Q384), and 4QapocrJer Ca–f (4Q385a, 387, 388a, 389–390, 387a) attest to a single paratextual composition about the prophet Jeremiah that may or may not be attested in two different versions in the Qumran library. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah purports to be a letter sent by the prophet Jeremiah from Taḥpanḥes in Egypt to the exiles in Mesopotamia, where it is read to them at the river Sur (4QapocrJer Cd [4Q389] 1 5). The content of the letter is a nonsymbolic apocalypse that recounts Jewish history up to the Hasmonean period.194 That this apocalypse culminates in the Hasmonean period suggests that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah should be dated in the later part of the second century BCE.195 Dimant describes the milieu out of which

191 192 193 194 195

in 4Q390,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. E. F. Mason et al., 2 vols., JSJSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1:407–28. Dimant responded to her critics in “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective,” RevQ 25 (2011): 17–39. Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 227–32, the quote is on p. 232. Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Classification of the Collection of Dead Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” jsj 43 (2012): 519–50 (537–40). Cf. also Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 268, regarding the material reconstruction. Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 263–68, the quote is on p. 266. Cf. Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 225–325. Thus Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 115–16. Cf. Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 163; idem, “Prophets of Exile: 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C, Apocryphal Baruch, and the Efficacy of the Second Temple,” jsj 44 (2013): 497–529 (499). A more precise date to the years 134–104 BCE was suggested by Bennie H. Reynolds III, on the basis of his interpretation of the phrase “three priests” in 4Q387 3 4; see his, “Adjusting the Apocalypse:

92

Lange

the Apocryphon developed as close to, yet separate from, the Essene movement, arguing that it “shows no trace of the specifically sectarian terminology, such as the radical dualism of 1QS III–IV or the sectarian organizational framework.”196 Both the editiones principes and later studies of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah identified intertextual building blocks from the book of Jeremiah and from other Jewish Scriptures that were employed in its composition.197 Scholars have used these intertextual building blocks primarily to reconstruct damaged passages in the Qumran manuscripts of the Apocryphon. It is often difficult to determine which Jeremiah passages the Apocryphon of Jeremiah rewrites and/or extends. The Apocryphon is not an example of rewritten scripture like the book of Jubilees. Rather than rephrasing whole chapters of a base text, the Apocryphon creates a new narrative out of the individual narrative elements taken from its Jeremiah base text. One example is that, according Jer 39:5, after the conquest of Jerusalem, Zedekiah was brought to Nebuchadnezzar in Rivla. According to 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i 4, Jeremiah comes to Rivla with a whole group of captives. In this way, the Apocryphon builds a new narrative based on some individual elements taken from various parts of the book of Jeremiah. The Apocryphon’s narrative frame appears to be based on traditions that also became part of the book of Baruch,198 as well as on Jeremiah 39–44 and 52. Jeremiah’s letter writing in the Apocryphon seems to have been inspired by Jer 29:1–14 or Jer 51:59–64. In addition to these principal narrative elements, the Jeremiah Apocryphon employs, in anthological style, individual textual building blocks from Jeremiah and other biblical books to create its Jeremianic apocalypse and its narrative frame. How the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C Updates the Book of Daniel,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. A. Lange et al., 2 vols., VTSup 140 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:279–94 (281–84); cf. idem, Between Symbolism and Realism, 299–300. 196 Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 115–16 (the quote is on p. 116). Cf. Balázs Tamási, “Prophesized History of the Postexilic Period and Polemics against Priests in 4Q390 from Qumran: Levite Authorship Behind the Fragments?” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, ed. K. D. Dobos and M. Kőszeghy, Hebrew Bible Monographs 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 310–28; he thinks that the authors of 4Q390 “may derive from a Levite priestly circle that shows possible connections with the Essenes” (328). 197 Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 100–102, 105–107; cf., e.g., Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 536–39; Reynolds, “Adjusting,” 284–94 (regarding Daniel); idem, Between Symbolism and Realism, 263–325; Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, passim; idem, “Prophets of Exile,” 506–7. 198 Cf. Davis, “Prophets of Exile”; against Devorah Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” dsd 20 (2013): 452–71, who thinks that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah depends on the book of Baruch (see below).

93

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

In their list of quotations and allusions, Lange and Weigold identify the following uses of non-Jeremianic texts in the Apocryphon.199 table 3.4 Non-Jeremianic Scriptures employed by the Apocryphon of Jeremiah

4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 3a–c 9–10 par. 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 1 5 par. 4QapocrJer Cc (4Q388a) 3 7 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 5 8–9 par. 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 36 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 17a–e ii 4–9 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 1 8 par. 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 6 2 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 2 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 3 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 iii 3 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 iii 3–4 par. 4QapocrJer Cc (4Q388a) 7 ii 6 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 3 8–9 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 4 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) A 2 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 2 i 8

Num 15:30–31 Dan 11:32 Nah 3:8–10 Lev 26:43 Hos 5:15 Lev 26:40 Lev 26:32 Isa 6:12 Amos 8:11 Ezek 38:22 Lev 18:6 Lev 26:43 Isa 66:4

No detailed study yet exists that seeks to identify the textform of Jeremiah with which the base text of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah aligns. However, Dimant speculated that it is the Hebrew Vorlage of the Jeremiah Septuagint.200 She comes to this conclusion because she thinks that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah employed the Hebrew original of the book of Baruch and because, on the basis of the work of Thackeray and Tov,201 she believes that Bar 1:1–3:8 was already an appendix to the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer. Dimant’s argument overlooks that according to Tov’s model lxx-Jer 29–52, as well as Bar 1:1–3:8, are the products of a revision. Whether in that revision Bar 1:1–3:8 and lxxJer 29–52 were part of the same manuscript, or whether they were revised as two distinct Jeremianic texts, can no longer be proven. Even if lxx-Jer 29–52 and Bar 1:1–3:8 belonged to one collective copy of Jeremianic texts when they were revised, this does not presuppose such a Jeremianic collection for either 199 Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 261. 200 Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” 201 Thackeray, “Greek Translators”; Tov, Septuagint Translation.

94

Lange

the revised Old Greek text of Jeremiah or the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. Furthermore, recensional groups are well know from Greek Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. The kaige-group combines both recensions of og translations of some biblical books, such as the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr), and Greek translations of other biblical books adhering to the kaige-style, such as Qohelet.202 This means that revisional agreements between lxx-Jer 29–52 and Bar 1:1–3:8 do not necessarily point to a Jeremianic corpus underlying a single revision. Thus, it remains uncertain that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah employed a copy of the book of Jeremiah that combined both books in one scroll. This uncertainty grows even greater since the hypotheses of Thackeray and Tov are not undisputed among scholars.203 In my opinion, it is much more likely that a work such as the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, written largely in anthological style, employed the book of Baruch along with Jeremiah and other Jewish Scriptures as an intertextual quarry for its intertextual building blocks. In the end, Dimant’s hypothesis that the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer was the Jeremiah base text of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah can only be verified or disproven by careful text-critical analysis of the uses of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon. To establish this textual affiliation, agreements in secondary variant readings are a key factor, as revisions are characterized by how they alter their base texts. To that end, in the present article I provide some preliminary deliberations that hopefully will develop into a more definitive answer to this question. The text-critical study of the Jeremiah base text employed in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah is difficult. Often the fragmentary state of preservation makes it 202 For the kaige group, see Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); Emanuel Tov, ed., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) (The Seiyâl Collection I), djd 8 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); cf. also George E. Howard, “The Quinta of the Minor Prophets: A First Century Septuagint Text?” Bib 55 (1974): 15–22; Arie van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments, obo 35 (Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 127–50; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 171–73, 284–87; Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 142–54; Peter J. Gentry, “The Greek Psalter and the καίγε Tradition: Methodological Questions,” in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. R. J. V. Hiebert et al., JSOTSup 332 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 74–97; idem, “1.3.1.2 Overview Articles: Primary Translations: Pre-Hexaplaric Trans­ lations, Hexapla, and post-Hexaplaric Translations,” thb 1A:211–35 (esp. 214–27), doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001030102. 203 For critical voices, see Pietersma, “Of Translation and Revision,” 386–87; Stipp, “Der prämasoretische Idiolekt,” 153–54.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

95

impossible to determine which part of the biblical book, if any, the Apocryphon employs. Furthermore, the Apocryphon uses idiomatic language derived from Jeremiah without apparent reference to a specific phrase from the book. The situation is yet more complicated because of the Apocryphon’s anthological narrative technique. For a comprehensive picture of which texts and text types the Apocryphon uses, all employments of Scripture in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah would need to be recognized. Owing to space constraints, I can only provide here the results of a preliminary survey restricted to possible employments of the book of Jeremiah. 3.2.1

Definite Employments of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah with Text-Critical Relevance 3.2.1.1 Jer 14:19; 33(40):5; 32(39):18; 44(51):29 and Lev 26:43 in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6 par 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 12 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6 offers a good example of the intertextual mosaics created by the Apocryphon of Jeremiah. The twenty words of text are composed of phrases taken from the books of Jeremiah and Leviticus.204 In the quotation given below, these parallels are indicated by varied forms of underlining and highlighting as follows: Jer 14:19; 32(39):18; 33(40):5; 44(51):29; and Lev 26:43. The overlap with the parallel manuscript 4QapocrJer Cb is marked by a single underline: ‫יען ביען חקתי מאסו ותרתי געלה נפשם על כן הסתרתי פני מ[הם עד] אשר ישלימו‬ ‫עונם וזה להם האות בשלם עונם‬

Because, because they reject my statutes and my Torah their soul loathes. Therefore I have hidden my face from[them until] they accomplish their iniquity. And this is the sign for them when they will have accomplished their iniquity 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6 par 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 12

As indicated here, in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6, the wording of Lev 26:43 has changed the text of Jer 14:9. In Jer 32(39):18 and 44(51):29 no textual differences between mt-Jer and lxx-Jer exist.205 Both parallels, therefore, are of no importance for the text-critical study of the Apocryphon’s Jeremiah base text. 204 For the dependence on Lev 26:43 see Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 230; Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 151, 256. 205 For ‫ וזה להם האות‬as depending on Jer 44(51):29, see Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 230.

96

Lange

That 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6 combines passages from so many different parts of Jeremiah leaves little doubt that it draws not only on Lev 26:43 in lines 4–5 but also on Jer 14:19. The same is true for the expressions … ‫“ סתר פנה מ‬to hide a face from” and ‫“ ישלימו עונם‬to accomplish their iniquity.” … ‫ סתר פנה מ‬occurs not only in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–5 but also elsewhere in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah: 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 9 par 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 4 7; 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 iii 4–5; 4QapocrJer Cc (4Q388a) 6 2; 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 9–10. Furthermore, it is often attested elsewhere in the Jewish Scriptures (Deut 31:17, 18; 32:20; Isa 8:17; 54:8; 59:2; 64:6; Ezek 39:23, 24; Mic 3:4; Ps 10:11; 22:25; 27:9; 30:8; 31:21; 51:11; 69:18; 88:15; 102:3; 104:29; 143:7; Job 13:10; 24:15; 34:29) and in Second Temple Jewish literature (CD 1:3; 2:8; 4Q167 2 6; 4Q177 10–11 8; 4Q200 2 6; 4Q216 2 14; 4Q266 2 i 8; 4Q268 1 11; 4Q437 2 i 7; 11Q19 59:7). But in the book of Jeremiah, this phrase occurs only in Jer 33(40):5. Without the other employments of Jeremiah in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6, we would have to regard ‫“( הסתרתי פני מ[הם‬I have hidden my face from[them”) as an idiomatic expression disconnected from the book of Jeremiah. Since 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–6 employs three more expressions from different parts of Jeremiah, however, there can be little doubt that this expression in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah is linked with Jer 33:5. The same rationale applies to the phrase ‫ישלימו עונם‬. Dimant wants to derive this phrase from Gen 15:16,206 but it also occurs in Jer 32(39):18, which in the context is the more likely referent. As detailed in Table 3.5, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah reads with mt against lxx in both Jer 14:19 and 33:5: table 3.5 Jer 14:19 and 33:5 in the the Apocryphon of Jeremiah

4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–5 Jer 14:19

Jer 33(40):5

‫געלה נפשם‬

“their soul loathes”

‫הסתרתי פני מ[הם‬ “I have hidden my face from them”

MT-Jer

LXX-Jer

‫ּגָ ֲע ָל֣ה נַ ְפ ֶׁשָך‬

“your soul loathes”

‫וַ ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ִה ְס ַ ֤תּ ְר ִתּי ָפנַ ֙י‬ ‫ֵמ ָה ִ ֣עיר ַה ֔זּ ֹאת‬

“because I have hidden my face from this city”

206 Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 230.

ἀπέστη ἡ ψυχή σου “has your soul departed” καὶ ἀπέστρεψα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν “and I turned away my face from”

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

97

3.2.1.2 Jer 25:26 (32:12) in 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 employs the phrase ‫“ ̊מלכי הצפון‬the kings of the north.” This phrase occurs only once in Jeremiah (Jer 25:26 [32:12]), although it occurs several times in the singular, ‫“ ֶמ ֶלְך ַה ָצּפֹון‬the king of the north,” in the book of Daniel (Dan 11:6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 40). As 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 also uses the plural form, and because the book of Jeremiah is its principal base text, the employment of Jer 25:26 (32:12) in 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 may be regarded as certain.207 That 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 uses the phrase ‫ ̊מלכי הצפון‬demonstrates that in this instance as well, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah reads with mt-Jer (‫ל־מ ְל ֵכ֣י ַה ָּצֹפון‬ ַ ‫“ ָּכ‬all the kings of the north”) against lxx-Jer which speaks instead of “all kings from the east” (πάντας βασιλεῖς ἀπὸ ἀπηλιώτου). 3.2.1.3 Jer 28(35):3 in 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 5–6 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 5–6 describes how Nebuchadnezzar brought the Temple vessels, the priests, the nobles, and the Israelites to Babylon. Dimant thinks that the phrase ‫“ ויקח ̇את כלי בית אלהים‬and he took the vessels of the house of God” comes from 2 Chr 36:18 and 1 Esd 1:54, while ‫ויביאם בבל‬ “and he brought them to Babel” would have been taken from Jer 24:1.208 It is much more likely, though, that the Apocryphon employed a single verse from the book of Jeremiah in this passage, rather than bringing together three disparate sources, two of them non-Jeremianic. In fact, 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 5–6 constructs its description of the exiling of the Temple vessels, the priests and the Israelites using Jer 28(35):3. It reads Jer 28(35):3 with mt against lxx, because both 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 5–6 and mt-Jer 28:3 have the phrase ‫יאם ָּב ֶבל‬ ֵ ‫“ וַ ִיְב‬and he brought them to Babel,” which is lacking in lxxJer 35:3. 3.2.1.4

Jer 30(37):10 par Jer 46(26):27 in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 3 par 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 4 9 and 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 11 The expression ‫ת שבים‬ ‫“ ארצו ‏‬lands of their captivity” is rare in prerabbinic Hebrew literature. The plural form is known only from 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 3 par 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 4 9 par 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 11 and 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 7. The singular ‫“ ארץ שבים‬land of their captivity” occurs also in 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 5 and in the biblical passages Jer 30(37):10 par Jer 46(26):27; 2 Chr 6:37, 38. However among the biblical parallels, Jer 30(37):10 and Jer 46(26):27 use this expression as the prepositional 207 Cf. Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 196; against Reynolds, “Adjusting,” 294, who thinks that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah borrowed the term from the book of Daniel. 208 Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 161; cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 165.

98

Lange

object of the phrase … ‫(“ מושׁיע מ‬I) will save [your seed] from …” This same construction, the combination of ‫ת שבים‬ ‫“ ארץ\ארצו ‏‬land/lands of their captivity” with a form of the root ‫“ ישע‬to deliver, save,” occurs in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 3 par 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 4 9 par 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 11 (‫משיע‬ “deliverer”). It therefore stands to reason that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah depends in its use of the phrase ‫ת שבים‬ ‫ ארץ\ארצו ‏‬on these two references in the book of Jeremiah. This observation is important because mt-Jer and lxx-Jer diverge from one another in different ways on the two parallel verses, Jer 30(37):10 and Jer 46(26):27, in terms of the phrase ‫“ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִׁש ְביָ ם‬from the land of their captivity.” This phrase is missing from lxx-Jer 37:10; lxx-Jer 26:27 reads ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας αὐτῶν “from their captivity,” lacking the word ‫“ ֶא ֶרץ‬land” found in mt-Jer. Thus, in all cases in which the Apocryphon of Jeremiah uses the phrase “from the land/lands of their captivity” it reads with mt-Jer against lxx-Jer. The text-critical situation is different for the word ‫“ משיע‬deliverer” in 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 3 par 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 4 9 par 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 2 ii 11. In Jer 30(37):10 it has no parallel in lxx either. But at Jer 46(26):27, mt’s ‫מֹושׁ ֲיעָך‬ ִ is rendered by σῴζων σε in lxx. Possible Employments of Jeremiah with Potential Text-Critical Relevance 3.2.2.1 Jer 13:10 and 23:17 (cf. Jer 7:24; 11:8) in 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 12 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 12 attests to the Jeremianic expression ‫ויתהלכו‬ ֯ “and they walked in the stub[borness of their hearts.” While the ‫בשר[ירות לבם‬ verb ‫ הלך‬is often paired with ‫ שררות לב‬in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 3:17; Jer 9:13; Jer 16:12; Jer 18:12), the preposition ‫ ב‬appears with this expression only in Jer 13:10 and 23:17. In Jer 7:24 and 11:8 the words ‫“ ְבּמ ֵֹעצֹות‬in counsels” and ‫ִאישׁ‬ “everyone” are added to this expression, respectively. Apart from Jeremiah, the expression occurs in the Jewish Scriptures only in Deut 29:18, but it is repeatedly found in various Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 2:17; 3:5; 20:9; 4QDe [4Q270] 7 i 8; 1QS 1:6; 2:14, 26; 5:4; 7:19, 24; 9:10; 4QSd 1:4; 4QCurses [4Q280] 2 7; 4QCommunal Confession [4Q393] 3 3, 5). These passages are influenced sometimes by Jeremiah and sometimes by Deuteronomy in their usage. Given that Jeremiah is the primary base text of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, it is likely209 but not certain that the rhetoric of 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 12 is influenced by the book of Jeremiah. In Jer 7:24 and 23:17, lxx-Jer reflects the the expression “to walk in the stubbornness of the heart,” while in Jer 11:8 and 13:10, it does not. 3.2.2

209 Thus Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 269.

99

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.6 Jer 7:24, 11:8, 13:10, and 23:17 in MT and LXX

MT-Jer Jer 7:24

Jer 11:8

Jer 13:10

Jer 23:17

LXX-Jer

‫וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ְבּמ ֵֹעצֹות ִבּ ְשׁ ִררוּת ִל ָבּם ָה ָרע‬

“and they walked in the counsels and stubbornness of their evil heart”

‫וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ִאישׁ ִבּ ְשׁ ִרירוּת ִל ָבּם ָה ָרע‬

“and everyone walked in the stubbornness of their evil heart”

ἀλλ᾿ ἐπορεύθησαν ἐν τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν τῆς κακῆς “but they walked in the reasoning of their evil heart” >

‫ַהה ְֹל ִכים ִּב ְׁש ִררּות ִל ָּבם‬

>

‫וְ כֹל ה ֵֹלְך ִבּ ְשׁ ִררוּת ִלבֹּו‬

καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς πορευομένοις τοῖς θελήμασιν αὐτῶν, παντὶ τῷ πορευομένῳ πλάνῃ καρδίας αὐτοῦ “and to all who walk in their wills and to everyone who walks in the error of his heart”

“those who walk in the stubbornness of their heart”

“and (to) everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his heart”

3.2.2.2 Jer 23:32 in 4QapocrJer A (4Q383) A 3 Forms of the root ‫ פחז‬are rare in the Jewish Scriptures (Gen 49:4; Judg 9:4; Jer 23:32; Zeph 3:4; cf. 1 Sam 20:34 according to 4QSamb, and 1 Sam 25:9 according to 4QSama) and other ancient Jewish literature (Sir 4:30; 8:2; 19:2; 41:17; 4QpUnid [4Q172] 4 3; 4QMidrEschatb [4Q177] 10:7 [1–4 7]; 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman [4Q184] 1 2, 13, 15; 3 5; 4QCommGen A [4Q252] 4:4; 4QShirb [4Q511] 24 5; 5QUnclassified frags. [5Q16] 4 3). It is therefore not unlikely that 4QapocrJer A (4Q383) A 3 is inspired by Jer 23:32 in its use of the word ‫“( הפוחזים‬the ones who are reckless”). However, Jer 23:32 itself uses the noun ‫“( ַפ ֲחזּות‬recklessness”), while the Qal active participle masculine plural found in 4QapocrJer A (4Q383) A 3 is actually used in Judg 9:4 and Zeph 3:4. Because the Apocryphon of Jeremiah derives its rhetoric not only from the book of Jeremiah but employs other material from ancient Jewish literature as well,210 it must remain unclear which text inspired use of the word ‫ הפוחזים‬in the Apocryphon. If in fact 4QapocrJer A (4Q383) A 3 is influenced by Jer 23:32, it is important to note that lxx-Jer does not reflect the ‫זּותם‬ ָ ‫ּוב ַפ ֲח‬ ְ (“and in their 210 See above p. 95 and below p. 101.

100

Lange

recklessnes”) of mt-Jer but has καὶ ἐν τοῖς πλάνοις αὐτῶν (“and by their errors”) instead; thus, the Apocryphon would read with mt-Jer rather than lxx-Jer. The next two sections present the comprehensive list of variants for the biblical verses discussed in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.211 3.2.3

List of Variants for Definite Jeremianic Citations in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah Jer 14:19 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4 ‫ געלה נפשם‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫גָּ ֲע ָלה נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך‬, ܿ Pesh. ‫ܓܥܨܬ ܢܦܫܟ‬ ܼ , Vulg. abominata est anima tua || lxx ἀπέστη ἡ ψυχή σου, vl177 recessit anima tua, cf. Tg. ‫ַר ֵחיק ֵמ ְימ ָרך‬ Jer 25:26 (32:12) 4QapocrJer Cb (4Q387) 4 i 2 ‫ הצפון‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ַה ָּצֹפון‬, mtKenn72,150 ‫צפון‬, Tg. ‫ ִצפוּנָ א‬, Vulg. aquilonis, Pesh. ‫ || ܕܓܪܒܝܐ‬lxx ἀπὸ ἀπηλιώτου, vlSabatier a subsolano Jer 28(35):3 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 18 i a–b 5–6 ‫ ויביאם בבל‬with mtA,C,L,N,R,S1 ‫וַ ִיְב ֵיאם‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬, Vulg. et transtulit ea in Babylonem, Tg. ‫אֹוב ִילנוּן ְל ָב ַבל‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬, ‫ ָּב ֶבל‬, mtP ‫יאם ָּב ֶב ָלה‬ Pesh. ‫ > || ܘܐܘܒܠ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܒܒܠ‬lxx, vlSabatier Jer 30(37):10 and 46(26):27 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 3 and parallels ‫ת שבים‬ ‫ בארצו ‏‬with mtAJer 46:27 and mtC,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer 30:10+46:27 ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִׁש ְביָם‬, mtKenn96-Jer 30:10 ‫מארץ שביים‬, mtKenn150-Jer 46:27 ‫מארץ משביים‬, Vulg.-Jer 30:10 de terra captivitatis eorum, Vulg.-Jer 46:27 de terra captivitatis suae, Tg.-Jer 37:10 + 46:27 ‫לוּתהֹון‬ ְ ָ‫ ֵמ ֲא ַרע ג‬, Pesh.-Jer 37:10+46:27 ‫> || ܡܢ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܫܒܝܬܗܘܢ‬ lxx-Jer 37:10; lxx-Jer 26:27 ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας αὐτῶν Jer 33(40):5 4QapocrJer Cd (4Q389) 8 ii 4–5 (cf. 4QapocrJer Cb [4Q387] 2 ii 9 par 4QapocrJer Ca [4Q385a] 4 7; 4QapocrJer Cb [4Q387] 2 iii 4–5; 4QapocrJer Cc [4Q388a] 6 2; 4QapocrJer Ce [4Q390] 1 9–10) ‫ הסתרתי פני‬with mtA,C,LN,P,R,S1 ‫ ִה ְס ַּת ְר ִּתי ָפנַ י‬, Vulg. abscondens faciem meam || lxx καὶ ἀπέ̈ ‫ܘܐܗܦܟܬ‬ ܿ , cf. Tg. ‫ְוּד ַס ֵל ִיקית ְשׁ ִכינְ ִתי‬ στρεψα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου, Pesh. ‫ܐܦܝ‬

211 See 4.3 for an explanation of the construction of the variant lists in this paper.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

3.2.4

101

List of Variants for Possible Jeremianic Citations in Apocryphon of Jeremiah Jer 11:8 and 13:10 4QapocrJer Ce (4Q390) 1 12 ‫בשר‬ ֯ ‫ ירות לבם[ויתהלכו‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1Jer 11:8 ‫( וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ִאישׁ ִבּ ְשׁ ִרירוּת ִל ָבּם ָה ָרע‬mtKenn82,94,180,254,290 ‫בשררות‬, mtKenn30 > ‫ ִלבם‬, mtKenn210 ‫ )לבו‬and mtA,C,LN,P,R,S1-Jer 13:10 ‫ַהה ְֹל ִכים ִּב ְׁש ִררּות ִל ָּבם‬ (mtKenn112 ‫ההולכים‬, mtKenn284 ‫החלכים‬, mtR,Kenn1,2,4,23,30,72,89,93,99,112,114,115, 126 ,141 ,149 ,150 ,154 ,155 ,158 ,172 ,178 ,187 ,224 ,227 ,246 ,252 ,253 ,258 ,260 ,264 ,270  ‫בשרירות‬, mtKenn116,168,198,201 ‫)בשרירת‬, Vulg.-Jer 11:8 sed abierunt unusquisque in pravitate cordis sui mali and Vulg.-Jer 13:10 et ambulant in pravitate cordis sui, Tg.-Jer 11:8 ‫ישׁא‬ ָ ‫ וַ ֲאזַ לוּ גְ ַבר ְב ַהרהוּר ִל ְבהֹון ִב‬and Tg.-Jer 13:10 ‫ְדאָזְ ִלין ְב ַהרהוּ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܨܒܝܢܝ ܠܒܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܗܠܟܘ ܓܒܪ‬and Pesh.‫ר ִלבהֹון‬, Pesh.-Jer 11:8 ‫ܒܝܫܐ‬ ܼ Jer 13:10 ‫ܕܡܗܠܟܝܢ ܒܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܠܒܗܘܢ‬, vlSabatier-Jer 11:8 sed abierunt in iis, que concupierunt corde suo malo || > lxx-Jer 11:8+13:10, vl177-Jer 13:10 Jer 23:32 4QapocrJer A (4Q383) A 3 ‫ הפוחזים‬cf. mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫זּותם‬ ָ ‫ּוב ַפ ֲח‬ ְ , mtKenn4 ‫ובפחזוותם‬, Pesh. ‫ܘܒܦܚܙܘܬܗܘܢ‬, cf. Tg. ‫קרוּתהֹון‬ ְ ‫וּבב‬ ַ || lxx καὶ ἐν τοῖς πλάνοις αὐτῶν, vlSabatier in erroribus suis (cf. vl177 in seductione sua); Vulg. in miraculis suis

3.2.5 Conclusions: The Text of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah As shown by the discussion in 3.2.1 above, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah features five certain readings with mt-Jer against lxx. Two of these cases concern expressions that occur more than once in the Apocryphon. All five cases are found in manuscripts of the group that Dimant collected under the label Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. We have also seen (section 3.2.2) that one uncertain citation of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C group and one uncertain citation in Apocryphon of Jeremiah A read with mt against lxx as well. Therefore, in all cases where there is a certain or potential citation of Jeremiah involving textual variation between mt-Jer and lxx-Jer, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah reads with mt-Jer against lxx-Jer. There is thus a high probability that the Jeremiah base text of the Apocryphon was close to the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah. This observation is all the more important because the Apocryphon quotes some other biblical books according to nonMasoretic versions. An example is the quotation of Nah 3:8–10 in 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 17 a–e ii 4–9.212 212 Cf. the comments of Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 157–58; and Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 168–69.

102 4

Lange

The Text of Jeremiah in Light of Quotations and Allusions in the Nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls

In addition to the Jeremiah manuscripts and paratextual compositions related to the book of Jeremiah, the third source of information about the text of Jeremiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls comprises the quotations of and allusions to the book of Jeremiah in the nonbiblical manuscripts of the Qumran library. As with my discussion of the paratextual compositions, I will consider here the quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah found in all those nonbiblical composition for which manuscript evidence was found in the caves around Qumran and the other sites at the Dead Sea. In contrast to the paratextual discussion, I will restrict my analysis to Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts only. Regardless of how much text of these compositions is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I will always include all their quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah. In the case of Ben Sira, this means that although only parts of Sir 6:14–15, 20–31; 39:27–44:17 are preserved in 2QSir and MasSir, I will not restrict my analysis to these chapters of Ben Sira but also incorporate the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah.213 List of Employments of Jeremiah in Nonbiblical Literature Attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls The list that follows is the result of several years of research and is a reworked version of the list of quotations and allusions published earlier by Matthias Weigold and myself.214 Nevertheless, the data presented is still somewhat preliminary, and I may yet have occasion to change my evaluation of specific quotations or allusions. For the time being, I count ninety certain and seven uncertain employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew nonbiblical literature attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Aramaic literature attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls, I count four certain employments and one uncertain instance. The ninety certain employments in the Hebrew literature preserve a total of 333 words of Jeremiah text, to which the seven uncertain employments in the Hebrew literature add sixteen words. The Aramaic texts among the Dead Sea 4.1

213 For a synoptic edition of Ben Sira including both the Judean Desert manuscripts and the Genizah texts, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 214 Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 141–47.

103

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Scrolls include twelve words of Jeremiah text in their certain and three words of Jeremiah text in their uncertain employments. In total, the uses of Jeremiah in the nonbiblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls yield between 345 and 364 words of Jeremiah text. table 3.7 Definite employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls

Base text

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

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Jer 1:5 Jer 1:5 Jer 1:5 Jer 1:5 Jer 1:10 Jer 1:18

Quoting or alluding text

1QHa 7:28 1QHa 7:30 1QHa 17:30 Sir 49:7 (H I ms B) Sir 49:7 (H I ms B) Sir 36:29(24) (H II mss D and Bm) Jer 2:3 MMT B 76 (4QMMTc [4Q396] 1–2 iv 5) Jer 2:8 Sir 15:1 (H I mss A and B) Jer 2:32 Sir 37:25 (H I mss D and Dm) Jer 2:32 Sir 41:13 (H I mss MasSir and B) Jer 3:10 Sir 48:15 (H I ms B) Jer 3:17 1QS 1:6 Jer 5:1 4QcryptA Words of the Maskil to All Sons of Dawn (4Q298) 1–2 i 2 Jer 5:7 4QMidrEschatc? (4Q182) 1 5 Jer 5:8 Sir 36(33):6 (H I mss E and F) Jer 5:19 4QDibHama (4Q504) 18(1–2 v):4 Jer 5:27 Sir 11:29 (H II ms A) Jer 9:22 4QNarrative Work and Prayer (4Q460) 8 2 Jer 10:12 or 51(28):15 1QHa 9:15–16 Jer 10:13 or 51(28):16 1QHa 10:18

Words

Text-critical relevance

1 2 2 2 6 3

no no no yes yes yes

2

no

2 3 3

no no no

4 5 2

no no no

3 3 4

no no yes

6 3

yes no

5 3

no no

104

Lange

table 3.7 Definite employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew literature (cont.)

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Text-critical relevance

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Jer 10:13 or 51(28):16 Jer 10:13 or 51(28):16 Jer 10:23 Jer 10:23 Jer 10:23 Jer 10:23 Jer 11:2, 3, 6, 8 Jer 12:3 Jer 12:14

3 2 5 2 5 6 5 3 3

no yes yes no yes no no yes no

30 31 32 33

Jer 13:21 Jer 14:7 Jer 14:22 Jer 14:22

5 5 6 6

no yes yes yes

34 35 36 37 38

Jer 16:16 Jer 17:6 Jer 17:8 Jer 17:8 Jer 17:9

3 4 3 3 3

yes no no no yes

39 40

Jer 17:13 Jer 17:13

3 3

yes yes

41

Jer 17:13

3

yes

42 43 44

Jer 18:6 Jer 18:7–9 Jer 18:18

4 6 3

yes no no

45 46

Jer 18:22 Jer 20:9

1QHa 10:29 4QWorks of God (4Q392) 1 9 1QHa 7:25–26 1QHa 7:34 1QHa 12:31–32 1QS 11:10 1QS 2:13 1QHa 7:30 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb (4Q372) 3 10 1QHa 11:8 1QM (1Q33) 18:8 1QHa 8:27 4QDibHama (4Q504) 9(1–2 vi):4–5 1QHa 13:10 par 4QHc 1 i 2 1QHa 16:25 1QHa 16:8 1QHa 16:11 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 8 12 par. 4QInstructionb (4Q416) 2 ii (11–)12 CD B 19:34 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 103 ii 6 4QDibHama (4Q504) 18(1–2 v):3 Sir 36(33):13 (H I ms E) Sir 49:7 (H I ms B) 4QMidrEschatb (4Q177) 11:6 1QHa 10:31 1QHa 16:31

4 4

yes yes

105

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.7 Definite employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew literature (cont.)

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Text-critical relevance

47 48 49 50

Jer 20:13 Jer 23:5 or 33:15 Jer 23:5 or 33:15 Jer 23:5 or 33:15

4 1 2 2

yes no no no

51

Jer 23:5 or 33:15

2

no

52 53 54 55

Jer 23:20 Jer 25:18 (32:4) Jer 25:29 (32:15) Jer 26 (33):18

4 5 4 7

yes yes yes yes

56 57 58

Jer 27:12 (34:10) Jer 27:12 (34:10) Jer 28(35)

3 3 3

yes no no

59

Jer 29(36):21–24

3

yes

60

Jer 29(36):21–24

3

yes

61

Jer 29(36):24–32

2

no

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Jer 30(37):7 Jer 30(37):7 Jer 31(38):11 Jer 31(38):28 Jer 31(38):31 Jer 31(38):31 Jer 31(38):31 Jer 31(38):31 Jer 31:35 (38:36)

4QBarkhi Nafshia (4Q434) 1 i 1 4QpIsaa 8–10 22 4QMidrEschata 3:11 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah (4Q285) 7 3–5 11QSefer ha-Milḥamah (11Q14) 1 i 7, 11 1QM (1Q33) 3:9 11QTa (11Q19) 49:4 1QM (1Q33) 16:1 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona (4Q371) 1a–b 5 par 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb (4Q372) 1 8 4QBarkhi Nafshie (4Q438) 3 3 Sir 51:26 (H I ms B) 4QList of False Prophets ar (4Q339) 8 4QList of False Prophets ar (4Q339) 5 4QList of False Prophets ar (4Q339) 6 4QList of False Prophets ar (4Q339) 7 1QM (1Q33) 1:11–12 1QM (1Q33) 15:1 1QHa 10:37 Sir 49:7 (H I ms B) CD A 6:19 CD A 8:21 (par CD B 19:33–34) CD B 20:12 4QDf (4Q271) 4 ii 2 4QWorks of God (4Q392) 1 6

3 3 3 7 2 2 2 2 6

no no no yes no no no no yes

106

Lange

table 3.7 Definite employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew literature (cont.)

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Text-critical relevance

71 72 73 74

Jer 31:36 (38:37) Jer 32(39):17 Jer 32(39):19 Jer 33(40):6

5 5 5 5

no no yes yes

75

Jer 33(40):8

3

yes

76

Jer 33:15

2

yes

77

Jer 33:16

3

yes

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Jer 33:17 Jer 38(45):22 Jer 44(51):29 Jer 45:1 (51:31) Jer 47(29):2 Jer 48(31):14 Jer 48(31):14 Jer 51(28):5

4 3 3 6 3 3 3 4

yes no no no no yes no no

86 87

Jer 51(28):7 Jer 51(28):15–16

4 19

yes yes

88

Jer 51(28):16

2

no

89

Jer 51(28):39

3

no

90

Jer 51(28):55

1QHa 4:26 Sir 48:13 (H I ms B) 1QHa 8:26 4QBarkhi Nafshia (4Q434) 1i9 11QPsa (11Q5) 19:13–14 (Plea for Deliverance) 4QCommGen A (4Q252) 5:3–4 4QProphecy of Joshua (4QapocrJoshc?) (4Q522) 9 ii 8 4QCommGen A (4Q252) 5:2 1QHa 15:5 1QMyst (1Q27) 1 i 5 CD A 8:20 1QHa 16:18 1QM (1Q33) 6:13 11QTa (11Q19) 57:9 4QNarrative Work and Prayer (4Q460) 9 i 4 4QpsEzekb (4Q386) 1 iii 1 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:13–15 (Hymn to the Creator) 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:10 (Hymn to the Creator) Jub. 36:18 (4QpapJubh [4Q223–224] 2 iii 10) 1QHa 10:29

4

yes

107

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.8 Possible employments of Jeremiah in the Hebrew literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Possible Text-critical relevance

1 2

Jer 6:19 Jer 13:7, 10

2 3

yes no

3 4 5

Jer 30(37):8 Jer 32(39):19 Jer 35(42):13

2 2 3

no no no

6

Jer 36(43):12

2

no

7

Jer 51(28):20

4QDibHama (4Q504) 3(6):2 1QMyst (1Q27) 1 ii 5 par 4QMysta (4Q299) 2 1 4QOrdinancesa (4Q159) 2–4+8 2 1QHa 9:7 4QNarrative I (4Q469) 2 2 par 4QLament by a Leader (4Q439) 1–2 i 4 4Qpap cryptA Midrash Sefer Moshe (4Q249) 1–4 9a, 9b i, 12 5 4Qpap pIsac (4Q163) 25 3

2

no

table 3.9 Definite employments of Jeremiah in the Aramaic literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls

1 2 3 4

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Text-critical relevance

Jer 1:14 Jer 2:7 Jer 17:6 Jer 20:5

4QProphecye ar (4Q583) 1 1 4QTJacob? ar (4Q537) 5 1 11QtgJob (11Q10) 32 5 (Job 39:6) Aramaic Levi Document 13:11 (95; ms Cam f 20–21)

3 4 2 3

yes yes yes yes

table 3.10 A possible employment of Jeremiah in the Aramaic literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls

1

Base text

Quoting or alluding text

Words

Text-critical relevance

Jer 25:31 (32:17)

1 En. 1:9 (4QEnc ar [4Q204] 1 i 16)

3

no

108

Lange

The Example of Jer 51(28):15–16 in the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa [11Q5] 26:13–15) The text-critical study of some 94 to 102 employments of Jeremiah in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls encounters many methodological difficulties. Not the least among them is the task of distinguishing between the Jeremiah base text and changes applied to that text by the text that employs it. The methodology of the text-critical study of quotations and allusions is the subject of a paper that I wrote together with Russell E. Fuller.215 Instead of a full-fledged methodological discussion here, I will give one example of how I reached my text-critical conclusions, that is, for the use of Jer 51(28):15–16 in Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa [11Q5] 26:13–15). Then I will summarize more broadly the results of my text-critical study of the uses of Jeremiah in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls by way of variant lists and conclusions. The Hymn to the Creator is a nonbiblical psalm preserved in 11QPsa 26:9–15. Material construction shows that the original song was not more than one or two lines longer than the preserved text.216 Like other biblical and nonbiblical psalms, the Hymn to the Creator is an earlier composition that was integrated into 11QPsa by its compilator.217 Various parts of the Hymn to the Creator are 4.2

215 Russell E. Fuller and Armin Lange, “Methodology in the Textual Criticism of Allusions and Quotations in the Qumran Scrolls,” (paper presented at the meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Munich, Germany, 4 August 2013); cf. Armin Lange and Russell E. Fuller, “Quotations of Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew Texts,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales, THBSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 483–511. 216 See Patrick W. Skehan, “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa,” cbq 35 (1973): 195–205 (202–3); Klaus Seybold, “Das Hymnusfragment 11QPsa XXVI 9–15: Auslegung und Einordnung,” in Studien zur Psalmenauslegung, ed. K. Seybold (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998), 199–207 (199); Esther G. Chazon, “The Use of the Bible as a Key to Meaning in Psalms from Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul et al., VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 85–96 (91 n. 15); Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran, stdj 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 249. 217 For 11QPsa (11Q5), see James A. Sanders, ed., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa), djd 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967); Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, stdj 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Armin Lange, “10.2.1 Psalms: Ancient Hebrew Texts: Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” thb 1C:24–42, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0010020100; and Brent A. Strawn, “10.2.3 Psalms: Ancient Hebrew Texts: Other Texts,” thb 1C:61–81, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0010020300.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

109

employed by the Hodayot,218 the Admonition of the Flood,219 the book of Jubilees,220 and probably Non-Canonical Psalms A.221 This broad reception of the Hymn to the Creator already in the middle of the second century BCE 218 For the parallel with 1QHa 5:28 see already Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 91, and Patrick W. Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter,” cbq 37 (1975): 343–47 (344). The first one to suggest a dependency of the Hodayot on the Hymn to the Creator was to my knowledge Seybold, “Hymnusfragment,” 206; cf. now also Eric D. Reymond, New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11QPsa), ejl 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 176; Lange, “Textual History of the Book Jeremiah,” 260 and 275, notes further allusions to the Hymn to the Creator in the Hodayot in 1QHa 10:18, 29 (11QPsa 26:10). 219 Carol A. Newsom, “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, M. Broshi et al., djd 19 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 85–97 (esp. 87, 91–92): “The text of 4Q370 i is strikingly similar to 11QPsa XXVI Hymn to the Creator (noted independently by Puech): ‫מעטר הרים תנובות אוכל טוב לכול חי‬. The similarities are not only numerous but systematic. Although the priority of 11QPsa cannot be independently demonstrated, it appears that the author of 4Q370 has cited the first colon of 11QPsa XXVI 13 in a slightly adapted form, and then paraphrased or expanded each of the following terms of the second colon in order to create his own text. Thus ‫ אוכל‬becomes ‫ טוב ;ו]נפש אכל על פניהם‬becomes ‫ ;ופרי טוב השביע‬and ‫ לכול חי‬becomes ‫ כל נפש‬or ‫( ”כל נפש כל אשר עשה רצוני‬pp. 91–92). Cf. Florentino García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, stdj 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 219–40 (238); Reymond, New Idioms, 176–77. 220 Early on, Patrick W. Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter,” 344–47, observed a parallel between Jub. 2:2–3 and 11QPsa 26:11–12; cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “Angelic Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990, ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman, stdj 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 131–57 (156–57). When the Jubilees manuscripts from Qumran became available, George J. Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies in Studies in Jubilees 1–2: New Light from 4QJubileesa,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. M. Albani et al., tsaj 65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 39–57 (54), argued that the Hebrew text of 4QJuba 5 9–10 proves Skehan to be correct in his hypothesis, that Jub. 2:2–3 depends on the text of 11QPsa 26:11– 12; cf. later also Chazon, “Use of the Bible,” 94; García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 238; Reymond, New Idioms, 176. James L. Kugel, “Some Instances of Biblical Interpretation in the Hymns and Wisdom Writings of Qumran,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. J. L. Kugel (Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2001), 155–69 (160), thinks that more likely the Hymn to the Creator quotes Jub. 2:2–3 or less likely that both Jubilees and the Hymn draw on a common source. 221 Samuel D. Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1.1–5, bznw 172 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 181–82, observes a parallel between 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:11 (‫“ מבדיל אור מאפלה‬separating light from deep darkness”) and 4QNonCanonical Psalms A (4Q380) 7 ii 3 (‫“[ ויבדלהו מאפלה ואו֯ ֯ר‬and he divided it from darkness and light”]). While 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A is too deteriorated to reach any certainty, it seems not unlikely that the psalms collection attested by this manuscript also alludes to the Hymn to the Creator.

110

Lange

together with its free use of the tetragrammaton argue for a date of this psalm in the first half of the second century BCE at the latest, if not earlier. In its preserved text, the Hymn to the Creator consists of three stanzas of three verses each222 (ll. 9–11 = vv. 1–3; ll. 11–13 = vv. 4–6; ll. 13–15 = vv. 7–9).223 How this structure continued in the lost two lines of the Hymn remains unclear. The Hymn is composed in an anthological style, drawing on various parts of the Jewish Scriptures. While the textual parallel between 11QPsa 26:13–15 (= vv. 7–9) and Jer 10:12–13 or 51:15–16 remains undisputed in scholarship, scholars debate which other texts the Hymn to the Creator employs. With Weinfeld,224 Chazon sees the Hymn to the Creator as an early form of the Qedusha liturgy, alluding in its beginning to Isa 6:3 and merging this verse with Jer 10:13 and Ezek 1:24.225 García Martínez disputes the identification of these texts and thinks instead that traditions like Ps 93:1–2 and Prov 8:22 are at work,226 while Griere points to Gen 1:1–5; Ps 96:6; and 148:3.227 Reymond argues “that Hymn 1 (scil. line 9) is similar to Isa 6:3” but, contra Chazon, doubts that “the repetition of ‘holy’ in two separate phrases and cola should be described as an ‘appropriation of … [the] trisagion.’” He describes instead a long list of other scriptural passages employed by the Hymn.228 Reymond, for example, regards the phrase ‫“( המון מים רבים‬the rush/roar of many waters”) in 11QPsa 26:10 as a blended employment of Ezek 1:24 and Jer 10:13.229 Based on at least three parallel words of text, Lange and Weigold identify several uses of Jewish Scriptures in the Hymn to the Creator (see Table 3.11).230 In addition to these passages, the Hymn to the Creator could very well employ additional texts whose identification remains uncertain.231 The discussion summarized above demonstrates that for most of the probable intertextual 222 For a different approach to structuring the Hymn to the Creator, see Reymond, New Idioms, 178–80. 223 Verse counts are according to the edition of Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 89–91; idem, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 129–31. 224 Weinfeld, “Angelic Song.” 225 Chazon, “The Use of the Bible,” 93–94. 226 García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 237–38. 227 Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One, 181–84. For the use of Genesis 1 in the Hymn to the Creator, see also Kugel, “Some Instances,” 156–62, esp. 157. Deena E. Grant, “Reinterpretation of Scripture in Hymn to the Creator,” tc 16 (2011), http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Grant2011 .pdf, argues that the Hymn to the Creator draws on language from various psalms, esp. Psalms 93–100. 228 Reymond, New Idioms, 171–78. The quotation is on p. 172. 229 Reymond, New Idioms, 174. 230 Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 304. 231 See, e.g., the long list of texts dicussed by Reymond, New Idioms, 171–78.

111

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.11 Employments of Jewish Scriptures in the Hymn to the Creator

11QPsa (11Q5) 26:10–11 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:11 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:11 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:13–15

Ps 89(88):15 Ps 97(96):2 Gen 1:4 Jer 10:12–13 par 51(28):15–16

relationships between the Hymn to the Creator and other texts, at best we may reach likely, but by no means certain, identifications. An intertextual relationship of Jer 10:12–13 par. 51(28):15–16 with the Hymn to the Creator is the only one on which scholars are unanimous. However, they do debate a) which is the quoting text and which is the quoted text in this relationship; and b) which parts of the Hymn employ the book of Jeremiah. Also debated is which parts of Jer 10:12–13 par 51(28):15–16 stand in what sort of intertextual relationship with the Hymn to the Creator. Sanders wanted to see the Hymn to the Creator as the source of Jer 10:12–13, arguing that the Hymn itself draws on Ps 135:7.232 Seybold views the Hymn to the Creator as a reworked version of the source of Jer 10:12–13; these reworked verses would have been the source of Jer 51(28):15–16.233 Most other scholars agree that the Hymn to the Creator employs either Jer 10:12–13 or 51(28):15–16, and by implication, seem to presuppose that the Hymn employed an mt-affiliated Jeremiah text.234 Some of these scholars further argue that Jer 10:12–13 and 51(28):15–16 were in turn influenced by Ps 135:7.235 Other scholars see the Hymn to the Creator employing specifically Jer 10:12–13 because the Hymn lacks the expression ‫ְלקֹול‬ ‫“ ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬when he utters his voice there is tumult of waters in the heavens” from Jer 10:13, thus corresponding in part to lxx-Jer 10:13, which does not have an equivalent to the words ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו‬. In this view, the phrase ‫המון מים‬ ‫“ רבים‬the rush of many waters” (11QPsa 26:10), at the beginning of the Hymn

232 Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 89; cf. idem, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 129. 233 Seybold, “Hymnusfragment,” 205. 234 See, e.g, Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204; Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies,” 54; Géza Xeravits, “Notes sur le 11QPsa Creat 7–9,” RevQ 18 (1997): 145–48; Chazon, “Use of the Bible,” 90, 92–93; Kugel, “Some Instances,” 157; Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One, 182–83; Grant, “Reinterpretation of Scripture,” 6–7; Reymond, New Idioms, 177–78. Recently, Adcock, God of Battles, 218, argued for a “closer affinity” to mt-Jer. 235 Xeravits, “Notes”; Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One, 183.

112

Lange

alludes to ‫ ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם‬from Jer 10:13. Thus, the Hymn begins and ends with an inclusion formed by Jer 10:12–13.236 For the purpose of this article, the complicated issue of which base texts are employed by the Hymn to the Creator can be restricted to the question of which parts of the book of Jeremiah the Hymn uses. It is important to emphasize that the Hymn often utilizes a rhetoric that derives from authoritative literature, but that in many cases is not based on one specific passage from an authoritative text. A case in point is the phrase ‫“( המון מים רבים‬the rush/roar of many waters”) in 11QPsa 26:10, already noted. I have argued elsewhere that the combination of the words ‫ קול‬and ‫המון מים‬ is unique to Jer 10:13 par 51(28):16 and 1QHa 10:18, 29.237 Given that 1QHa 10:29 also alludes to Jer 51(28):55, I regard it as likely that with the phrase ‫המון מים‬ ‫ רבים‬1QHa 10:18, 29 alludes to Jer 10:13 par 51(28):16 and to the Hymn to the Creator. The situation in the Hymn itself is different, though. Without a doubt, lines 13–15 of the Hymn stand in an intertextual relationship with either Jer 10:12–13 or 51:15–16. Since lines 9–11 of the Hymn describe what surrounds God in the heavens—for example, God’s throne—it needs to be asked why line 10 of the Hymn reads ‫“ המון מים רבים‬rush/roar of many waters,” rather than the seemingly more fitting ‫“ ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם בַּשּׁ ַָמיִ ם‬rush/roar of water in heaven,” with mt-Jer 10:13 par 51(28):16. This question becomes all the more pressing because the phrase ‫ המון מים רבים‬also occurs in 1QHa 11:15 par 4QpapHf (4Q432) 5 1 and 4QAdmonition of the Flood (4Q370) 1 i 8 to describe chaos. Furthermore, while ‫ המון מים‬is found in the Bible only in Jer 10:13 and 51(28):16,238 the phrase ‫ מים רבים‬is especially prominent in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 1:24; 17:5, 8; 19:10; 26:19; 27:26; 31:5, 7, 15; 32:13; 43:2), and also occurs in other biblical books (Num 20:11; 24:7; 2 Sam 22:17; Isa 17:13; 23:3; Jer 41:12; 51:13, 55; Hab 3:15; Ps 18:17; 29:3; 32:6; 77:20; 93:4; 107:23; 144:7; Cant 8:7; 2 Chr 32:4). The word ‫ המון‬is quite common in biblical texts and is particularly prominent in Ezekiel (Ezek 7:11–14; 23:42; 26:13; 30:4, 10, 15; 31:2, 18; 32:12, 16, 18, 20, 24–26, 31–32; 39:11). Since line 10 of the Hymn to Creator alludes to Ezek 1:24239 it is at least equally if not more likely that the Hymn developed the metaphoric comparison of the sound that follows God as “a roar of many waters” from Ezekiel rather than that the Hymn 236 Chazon, “Use of Bible,” 92–93; Kugel, “Some Instances,” 157; Grant, “Reinterpretation of Scripture,” 7–8; García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 237–39. Cf. Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies,” 54 and Lange, Handschriften, 316–17; idem, “7.2 Jeremiah,” 541–42. Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204, argues also for an inclusion but wants to see this as a use of Jer 51(28):15–16. 237 Lange, “Textual History of the Book Jeremiah,” 260 and 275. 238 See though the phrase ‫“ ֲהמֹון יָם‬abundance of the sea” in Isa 60:5. 239 Cf. Chazon, “Use of the Bible,” 93–94.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

113

merged rhetoric from Jeremiah and Ezekiel for this metaphor.240 Therefore, I disregard the phrase ‫ המון מים רבים‬in my text-critical study of the Jeremiah text in the Hymn of the Creator. The next question is which Jeremiah passage the Hymn to the Creator employs in lines 13–15, namely Jer 10:12–13 or 51(28):15–16. Because lxx-Jer 10:13 has no equivalent to the words ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו‬and because the Hymn to the Creator lacks the words ‫“ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬when he utters his voice there is tumult of waters in the heavens,” many scholars think that the Hymn employs Jer 10:12–13,241 while others refer to both Jeremiah passages.242 Only Skehan and Sen argue for a quotation of Jer 51(28):15–16.243 An orthographic peculiarity confirms the argument of Skehan and Sen. Jer 51(28):16 spells the third person waw-imperfect hiphil of the root ‫ עלה‬as ‫וַ יַּ ַעל‬ “and he makes rise” while Jer 10:13 has ‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֶלה‬. The antiquity of this difference in spelling is assured because mtA,C,L,N,P,S1,R and most codices of Kennicott’s edition244 agree in Jer 10:13 and 51(28):16 with these spellings.245 Because the Hymn to the Creator has ‫ ויעל‬in line 15, it seems more likely to me that in lines 13–15 the Hymn draws on Jer 51(28):15–16 rather than on Jer 10:12–13.246 A synoptic comparison between mt, lxx, and the Hymn to the Creator helps to point up the differences between these three witnesses to Jer 51(28):15–16. Textual differences are highlighted in gray.

240 Against Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 90; idem, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 131; Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204; Kugel, “Some Instances,” 157; Chazon, “Use of Bible,” 92–93; Grant, “Reinterpretation of Scripture,” 7–8; cf. Reymond, New Idioms, 174. 241 E.g., Felipe Sen, “Más textos que reciben luz de Qumrán: Jr 10:13 y 2 Sm 23:7,” cb 31 (1974): 100–101; Kugel, “Some Instances,” 6–7; Lange, Handschriften, 316–17; Grant, “Reinterpretation of Scripture,” 6–7; Adcock, God of Battles, 216–19. 242 See, e.g., Jean Carmignac, “Le texte de Jérémie 10,13 (ou 51,16) et celui de 2 Samuel 23,7 améliorés par Qumrân,” RevQ 7 (April 1970): 287–90 (287–88). 243 Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204. 244 Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1776–1780; repr. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2003), 2:105. 245 The only exceptions to this rule are in Jer 10:13 mtKenn96 (‫“ מעלה‬who makes rise”) and in Jer 51(28):16 mtKenn116,145,154,198,201,224 (‫)ויעלה‬. The hubp notes the reading ‫ ויעלה‬also for mtR while Sperber’s edition of this codex reads here ‫וַ יַּ ַעל‬. See Alexander Sperber, The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 254. Rabin, Talmon, and Tov, The Book of Jeremiah, ‫נח‬, note no other witness reading ‫ ויעלה‬in any of the apparatuses. Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, 5 vols. (Parma: Regio, 1784–1788; repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969), 3:123, does not give any variants for Jer 51(28):16. 246 Cf. Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204.

114

Lange

table 3.12 Jer 51(28):15–16 according to MT, LXX, and the Hymn to the Creator

MT-Jer 51:15–16 15a

‫ע ֵֹשׂה ֶא ֶרץ ְבּכֹחֹו‬

15b

‫ֵמ ִכין ֵתּ ֵבל ְבּ ָח ְכ ָמתֹו‬

15c

‫וּב ְתבוּנָ תֹו נָ ָטה ָשׁ ָמיִ ם‬ ִ

16a 16b

‫ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ה־אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫וַ יַּ ַעל נְ ִשׂ ִאים ִמ ְק ֵצ‬

16c

‫ְבּ ָר ִקים ַל ָמּ ָטר ָע ָשׂה‬

16d

‫רוּח ֵמא ְֹצר ָֹתיו‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ ֵֹצא‬

15a

(It is he) who made the earth by his power

15b

Who established the world by his wisdom

15c

And by his understanding stretched out the heavens When he utters his voice there is tumult of waters in the heavens, And he makes the clouds rise from the end of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, And he brings out the wind from his storehouses.

16a

16b

16c 16d

LXX-Jer 28:15–16 ποιῶν γῆν ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ ἑτοιμάζων οἰκουμένην ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ συνέσει αὐτοῦ ἐξέτεινε τὸν οὐρανόν εἰς φωνὴν ἔθετο ἦχος ὕδατος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἀνήγαγε νεφέλας ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς ἀστραπὰς εἰς ὑετὸν ἐποίησε καὶ ἐξήγαγε φῶς ἐκ θησαυρῶν αὐτοῦ When he was making the earth by his strength, When he was preparing the world by his wisdom, By his understanding he stretched out the sky; He made the sound of water a voice in the sky, And he brought up clouds from the end of the earth Lightnings he made into rain And brought out light from his store rooms.

11QPsa (11Q5) 26:13–15 ‫ ברוך עושה ארץ בכוחו‬15a ‫ מכין תבל בחוכמתו‬15b ‫ בתבונתו נטה שמים‬15c

‫ ויוצא [רוח] מאו[צרותיו‬16d ‫ ברקים למט] ׄר עשה‬16c

]‫שיא[ים מ] ׄק ׄצה [ארץ‬ ׄ ׄ‫ ויעל נ‬16b Blessed be, who made the 15a earth by his power Who established the world by his wisdom

15b

Who by his understanding stretched out the heavens

15c

And he brings out [the wind] from [his] sto[rehouses] He makes [lightnings for the rai]n And he makes the clou[ds] rise [from] the end [of the earth]

16d

16c 16b

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

115

Ignoring orthographic peculiarities, the above synopsis indicates five differences between mt, lxx, and the Hymn to the Creator in Jer 51(28):15–16, two of which concern macro-variants. 1. The Hymn to the Creator introduces its quotation of Jer 51(28):15–16 with the word ‫“( ברוך‬blessed be”), turning the quotation into a closing doxological blessing of the creator. Owing to this liturgical function, ‫ברוך‬ should be regarded as a liturgical addition by the Hymn’s composer and not as a part of its Jeremiah base text.247 2. With lxx-Jer 28:15, and against mt-Jer 51:15, the Hymn to the Creator lacks a waw-conjunction at the beginning of a colon, reading ‫בתבונתו‬ “by his understanding” against ‫“ ִוּב ְתבוּנָ תֹו‬and by his understanding.” The fact that the Hymn reads here with lxx-Jer, and that the asyndesis of the Hymn and lxx-Jer is more difficult to understand in the tripartite parallelism of Jer 51(28):15, identifies the reading of lxx-Jer and the Hymn as more original and the additional waw-conjunction of mt-Jer as a linguistic harmonization.248 3. lxx-Jer 28:16 has φῶς “light” for the ‫“ רוח‬wind” of mt-Jer 51:16. Adcock seems to argue that the Hymn reads ‫“ אור‬light” at the beginning of line 15 with the φῶς of lxx-Jer 28:16.249 In 11QPsa 26:15, the word in question is part of a lacuna that Sanders reconstructed with mt-Jer as ‫רוח‬ “wind.”250 Given that both ‫ רוח‬and ‫ אור‬require the same space, the recon­ struction of the lacuna in 11QPsa 26:15 remains inconclusive. Therefore, the Hymn is irrelevant to the discussion about lxx-Jer’s reading, φῶς. 4. That the Hymn lacks the colon ‫“ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬when he utters his voice there is tumult of waters in the heavens” is interpreted by most scholars as an abbreviation of its Jeremiah base text. As in lxx-Jer 10:13, the words ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו‬would have been absent in this text of Jeremiah. In addition, the Hymn would have transposed an altered version of the phrase ‫ ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬to its beginning.251 Because ‫“ המון מים רבים‬rush/ roar of many waters” more likely derives from Ezek 1:24 (see above, pp. 110, 112), this explanation for the lack of ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬in the Hymn to the Creator is unfounded. It is more likely that the phrase ‫ ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ְלקֹול‬was never a part of the Hymn’s Jeremiah base text and thus should be regarded as a later addition to Jer 51(28):16 in both mt- and lxx-Jer. This suspicion is confirmed by the fact that without ‫ְלקֹול‬ 247 Cf., e.g., Chazon, “Use of the Bible,” 91; García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 237; Reymond, New Idioms, 177. 248 Against Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum, 249 and Reymond, New Idioms, 177. 249 Adcock, God of Battles, 218. 250 Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 90. 251 See the literature quoted in n. 241; similar Seybold, “Hymnusfragment,” 203–4.

116

Lange

‫ ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬the hymn of Jer 51(28):15–16 forms two verses of three synonymous cola each. The addition of ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬destroys

this structure of two synonymous parallelisms with three cola. Most scholars regard the different text sequence of the Hymn to the Creator in Jer 51(28):16 (16d → 16c → 16b against 16b → 16c → 16d in lxxJer 28:16 and mt-Jer 51:16) as a secondary adjustment provoked by the supposed deletion of the phrase ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬.252 But if ‫ְלקֹול‬ ‫ ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬is a secondary insertion in Jer 51(28):16—as proposed above—another explanation is more likely: The redactor responsible for the insertion of ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬into Jer 51(28):16 rearranged the sequence of the three cola of verse 16 as well,253 because the raising of clouds in verse 16b corresponds better to noise of water in the sky in verse 16a than the blowing of wind in verse 16d. The Hymn to the Creator thus preserves a glimpse of a Jeremiah base text that in Jer 51(28):15–16 is more original than the text of both mt- and lxx-Jer. 5.

4.3 Variant Lists My first attempt at the text-critical study of biblical quotations and allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls formed part of the first volume of my Handbuch.254 For Jeremiah, I have followed this first, preliminary attempt with a series of articles and presentations dedicated to the text-critical study of Jeremiah quotations and allusions in various Dead Sea Scrolls.255 What I present in this article, therefore, is intended as a survey based on the results of research that is in various stages. In the case of some variant readings, I might change my appreciation of them while in others my research is more advanced. In the lists below, I compare the Jeremiah text quoted or alluded to in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls with the Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran and the most important medieval Jeremiah manuscripts as listed above on pp. 53–54. The medieval Masoretic manuscripts included in Kennicott’s edition and De Rossi’s variant list are cited only if relevant.256 In addition, I include 252 See, e.g., Skehan, “Liturgical Complex,” 204; Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One, 182–83; cf. Reymond, New Idioms, 177–78. 253 Both Carmignac, “Le texte de Jérémie,” 287–88, and Sen, “Mas textos,” argue also for the secondary character of the text sequence of mt-Jer but explain the changed sequence by way of scribal error. 254 Lange, Handschriften, passim. A first but incomplete survey of the Jeremiah quotations can be found on pp. 315–17. 255 Lange, “Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll”; idem, “Textual History of the Book Jeremiah”; idem, “Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira”; idem, “Text of the Book of Jeremiah according to Barkhi Nafshi”; idem, “Texts within Texts”; idem, “Text of Jeremiah in 1 Enoch.” 256 Cited according to Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, 2:89–172 and De Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, 3:64–125.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

117

the ancient and late ancient primary translations, namely the Old Greek text of the Jeremiah Septuagint (lxx),257 the Vulgate (Vulg.),258 the Targum (Tg.),259 and the Peshitta (Pesh.).260 Owing to its importance for the study of the Old Greek text of Jeremiah, I have also included the Old Latin translations (vl) of lxx-Jer. As no critical edition of vl-Jer exists yet, I cite this version according to the three manuscripts that preserve Jeremiah text of relevance for the present study, namely Codex Wirceburgensis (vl177), Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1670 (vl178), and Codex Sangallensis 912 (vl180).261 In addition, I give the readings of the vl edition by Sabatier (vlSabatier).262 Readings that agree with one another are separated by a comma. Readings that are similar are introduced by cf. Readings that differ are separated by a semi-colon. Text that is lacking is indicated by >. The || divides the reading of the quoted lemma and agreeing witnesses from the alternate reading(s).

257 Quoted according to Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. 258 Quoted according to Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). 259 Quoted according to Sperber, The Latter Prophets. 260 Quoted according to the edition of George A. Kiraz and Joseph Bali, eds., and Gillian Greenberg and Donald M. Walter, trans., The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Jeremiah (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013). I had no access to the most recent edition of the Peshitta of Ben Sira by Núria Calduch-Benages, Joan Ferrer Costa, and Jan Liesen, eds., La sabiduría del escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe: Edición diplomática de la version siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesia, Biblioteca midrásica de la Institución San Jerónimo 26 (Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2003). Therefore, the Peshitta of Ben Sira is quoted according to Francesco Vattioni, ed., Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e sirica, Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica 1 (Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968). 261 For vl177, see Ernst Ranke, ed., Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium: Antiquissimae veteris Testamenti versionis Latinae fragmenta (Vienna: Braumüller, 1871); for vl178, see Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi, ed., Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta graeca et latina e codicibus Cryptoferratensibus 3 (Rome: Spithoever, 1877), cxxxvii–cxl; for vl180, see Francis C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala: With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpest of Jeremiah, ts 4.3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), esp. 79–92; Alban Dold and Arthur Allgeier, Der Palimpsestpsalter im Codex Sangallensis 912: Eine altlateinische Übersetzung des frühen 6. Jahrh. aus der einstigen Kloster-Bibliothek von Bobbio; Anhang: Ein neues Bruchstück mit altlateinischem Jeremiastext im Cod. Sangall. 912, Texte und Arbeiten 1.21–24 (Beuron: Kunstschule der Erzabtei Beuron/Hohenzollern, 1933), with an appendix on a fragment of Jeremiah in Codex Sangall. 912, ibid., Dold and Allgeier, Palimpsestpsalter, *29–*37. For descriptions of these manuscripts, see esp. Roger Gryson, Mss 1–275, d’après un manuscrit inachevé de Hermann Josef Frede, part 1 of Altlateinische Handschriften: Manuscrits vieux latins; Répertoire descriptive, vl 1/2A (Freiburg: Herder, 1999). 262 Petrus Sabatier, ed., Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu vetus Italica, et caeterae quaecunque in codicibus Mss. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt; quae cum Vulgata Latina et cum Textu Graeco comparantur, 3 vols. (Reims: Florentain, 1743–1749).

118 4.4 4.4.1

Lange

The Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty-One Definite Variant Readings Jer 1:5 Sir 49:7 (H I Ms B) ‫ || נוצר‬mtA,L,C,N,P,S1,R-Jer ‫ ִה ְק ַדּ ְשׁ ִתּיָך‬, lxx-Jer ἡγίακά σε, vl-Jer178, Sabatier sanctificavi te, Vulg.-Jer sanctificavi te, Pesh.-Jer ‫ܩܕܫܬܟ‬, 1QHa 7:30 ‫הקדשתם‬, lxx-Sir ἡγιάσθη, Vulg.-Sir 49:9 consecratus; Tg.-Jer ‫ינתך‬ ָ ‫ > ;זָ ֵמ‬Pesh.-Sir Jer 1:10 or 31(38):28 Sir 49:7 (H I ms B) ‫ להרס‬with mtA,C,L,N,R,S1-Jer 1:10 ‫וְ ַל ֲהֹרוס‬, mtP-Jer 1:10 ‫וְ ַל ֲהר ֹס‬, vlSabatier-Jer 1:10 et exterminare, vl-Jer178 1:10 et dissipes, Vulg.-Jer 1:10 et ܿ dissipes, Tg.-Jer 1:10 ‫וּלפגָ ָרא‬ ַ , Pesh.-Jer 1:10 ‫ܘܠܡܘܒܕܘ‬, mtC,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer 31:28 ‫וְ ַל ֲהר ֹס‬, Vulg.-Jer 31:28 et dissiparem, Tg.-Jer 31:28 ‫וּלפגָ ָרא‬ ַ , Pesh.-Jer 31:28 ‫ > || ܘܠܡܘܒܕܘ‬lxx-Jer 1:10 + 38:28, vlSabatier-Jer (31[38]:28), mtKenn24, 168, 201-Jer 1:10 + 31:28, and lxx-Sir, Vulg.-Sir 49:9, Pesh.-Sir Sir 49:7 (H I ms B; cf. lxx-Sir and Vulg.-Sir 49:9) ‫ וכן לבנת‬with mtKenn1, 109, 191, 244-Jer 10:10 ‫ולבנות‬, mtKenn168-Jer 31:28 ‫ולבנות‬, lxx-Jer 10:10 καὶ ἀνοικοδομεῖν, vl178 et edific[…], vlSabatier-Jer 1:10 et aedificare, Vulg.-Jer 1:10 et aedifices, Pesh.-Jer 1:10 ‫ܘܠܡܒܢܐ‬ , Vulg.-Jer 31:28 ut aedificem || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer 1:10 ܼ ‫ ִל ְבֹנות‬, Tg.-Jer 1:10 ‫ ְל ִמבנֵ י‬, mtC,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer 31:28 ‫ ִל ְבֹנות‬, lxx-Jer 38:28 τοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν, vlSabatier-Jer 31:28 aedificare, Tg.-Jer 31:28 ‫ ְל ִמבנֵ י‬, Pesh.-Jer 31:28 ‫ܠܡܒܢܐ‬ ܼ ; > Pesh.-Sir Jer 1:18 Sir 36:29(24) (H II mss D, and Bm) ‫ועמו֯ ֯ד‬ ֯ with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ּול ַעּמּוד‬ ְ , vl178 et columpnam, Vulg. et in columnam, Tg. ‫וּכעמוּד‬ ַ , Pesh. ‫ܥܡܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ‬ || ܼ > lxx, vlSabatier Jer 5:19 4QDibHama (4Q504) 18(1–2 v):4 ‫ אל נכר‬with Vulg. deo alieno || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ֹלהי נֵ ָכר‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬, lxx θεοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις, vlSabatier diis alienis, Pesh. ̈ ‫ ;ܠܐܠܗܐ ܢܘܟ̈ܪܝܐ‬Tg. ‫ְל ָט ֲעוָ ת ַע ְמ ַמיָ א‬ Jer 5:27 Sir 11:29 (H II ms A) ‫ ֯כ ̇כ ̇לו֯ ̇ב‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer ‫ ִּכ ְכלּוב‬, Pesh. ‫ܘܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܐܩܠܘܒܝܐ‬, cf. Vulg. sicut decipula || lxx-Jer ὡς παγὶς ἐφεσταμένη, vlJerSabatier laqueus instans; Tg. ‫טמא‬ ָ ‫ > ; ְכ ֵבית ִפ‬lxx-Sir, Vulg.-Sir, Pesh.-Sir

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

119

Jer 10:13 or 51(28):16 4QWorks of God (4Q392) 1 9 ‫ ו֯ ̇חות]ר‬with 4QJera (4Q70) (Jer 10:13) ‫רוח‬ ֯ , mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1-Jer 10:13 + 51:16 ‫רוּח‬ ַ , Vulg.-Jer 10:13+51:16 ventum, Tg.-Jer 10:13 + 51:16 ‫רוּחין‬ ִ , Pesh.-Jer 10:13+51:16 ‫̈ܪܘܚܐ‬, vlSabatier-Jer 10:13 ventos || lxx-Jer 10:13 + 28:16 φῶς Jer 10:23 1QHa 7:26; 12:31 ‫ ולא‬and ‫( ולוא‬2nd occurrence) with mtR, Kenn2, 23, 30, 72, 112, 145, 150, 176, 178, 182, 187, 224, 246, 253, 258, 260, DeRossi20, 174, 440, 545, 548, 596, 597, 663 ‫וְ לֹא‬, lxx οὐδὲ, vlSabatier neque, Vulg. nec, Pesh. ‫ > ו || ܘܠܐ‬mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 (‫)לֹא‬, Tg. (‫) ָלא‬ Jer 12:3 1QHa 7:30 ‫ ו … הקדשתם‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 ‫וְ ַה ְק ִּד ֵׁשם‬, mtR ‫יׁשם‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַה ְק ִּד‬, Vulg. ܿ et sanctifica eos, cf. Tg. ‫וְ זָ ֵמינִ ינוּן‬, cf. Pesh. ‫ > ו|| ܘܙܡܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬lxx (ἅγνισον αὐτοὺς) Jer 14:7 > 1QM (1Q33) 18:8 with 4QJera (4Q70), mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1, Vulg., Tg., Pesh. || lxx ἡμῖν (2nd occurrence) 1QM (1Q33) 18:8 ‫ שמכה‬with 4QJera (4Q70) ‫שמך‬, mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְשׁ ֶמָך‬, Vulg. nomen tuum, Tg. ‫ ְשׁ ָמך‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܫܡܟ‬lxx σοῦ Jer 14:22 1QHa 8:27 ‫ כי‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִכּי‬, lxx ὅτι, vl177 quia, Vulg. enim, Tg. ‫ ֲא ֵרי‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܕ‬mtKenn96 4QDibHama (4Q504) 19(1–2 vi):4 ‫ כיא‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִכּי‬, lxx ὅτι, vl177 quia, Vulg. enim, Tg. ‫ ֲא ֵרי‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܕ‬mtKenn96 Jer 16:16 1QHa 13:10 ‫ דיגים‬with mtQere in A,C,L,N,P,R and mtKenn30, 72, 112, 150, 201, 253, 260, 264, 270, 271A, 691 ‫לדיגים‬, mtKenn93, 96 ‫ || לדייגים‬mtKetiv in A,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫לדוגים‬,263 mtKenn4 ‫לדווגים‬, mtKenn187 ‫לדוגום‬ Jer 17:9 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 8 12 par 4QInstructionb (4Q416) 2 ii (11–)12 ‫ועקוב‬ with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 ‫ ָעקֹב‬, mtR ‫ ָעקֹוב‬, Vulg. pravum, Tg. ‫ || נְ ִכיל‬lxx βαθεῖα; vl177, Sabatier grave; Pesh. ‫ܥܫܝܢ‬ 263 The qere is not readable in my copy of codex Sassoon 1053.

120

Lange

Jer 17:13 CD B 19:34 ‫ ויסורו‬cf. t (‫ || )שבקו‬4QJera, mtKetiv in A,L,C,N,P,R,S1 and mtKenn2, 3, 30, 80, 178, 201, 223, 244 ‫ ;יסורי‬mtQere in A,C,L,N,P,R,S1 and mtKenn1, 4, 18, 19, 50, 60,  72, 76, 89, 93, 95, 96, 106–110, 112, 115, 125, 150, 151, 153, 170, 172, 181, 226, 253, 270, 271A, 294, 394,  384, 659, 691 ‫ ;וסורי‬lxx ἀφεστηκότες (cf. vlSabatier qui recesserunt, vl180 discesserunt), Vulg. recedentes, Pesh. ‫ܘܡ̈ܪܘܕܐ‬ ܼ CD B 19:34 ‫ מים‬with mtA,L,C,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ַמיִ ם‬, Vulg. aquarum, Tg. ‫ ְד ַמיִ ין‬, Pesh. ̈ || > mtKenn145, lxx, vl180, Sabatier ‫ܕܡܝܐ‬ 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 103 ii 6 ‫ מים‬with mtA,L,C,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ַמיִ ם‬, Vulg. aquarum, ̈ || > mtKenn145, lxx, vl180,Sabatier Tg. ‫ ְד ַמיִ ין‬, Pesh. ‫ܕܡܝܐ‬ 4QDibHama (4Q504) 18(1–2 v):1–2 ‫ מים‬with mtA,L,C,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ַמיִ ם‬, Vulg. ̈ || > mtKenn145, lxx, vl180,Sabatier aquarum, Tg. ‫ ְד ַמיִ ין‬, Pesh. ‫ܕܡܝܐ‬ Jer 18:6 Sir 36(33):13 (H I ms E) ‫( [כחמר ביד ה]יוצר‬cf. lxx-Sir ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, Vulg.-Sir quasi lutum figuli in manus ipsius, Pesh.-Sir ‫ܐܝܟ‬ ֵ ‫ ַכח ֶֹמר ְּביַ ד ַה‬, ‫ܕܦܚܪܐ‬ ‫ )ܛܝܢܐ ܕܓܒܝܠ ܒܐܝܕܐ‬with Jer-mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 ‫ֹּיוצר‬ ݂ Jer-mtR ‫ֹּיוצר‬ ֵ ‫חֹומר ְּביַ ד ַה‬ ֶ ‫ ַכ‬, Vulg. sicut lutum in manu figuli, Tg. ‫ְכ ָמא ְד ִטינָ א ְביַ ד‬ ̈ ‫ || ܐܝܟ ܛܝܢܐ‬Jer-lxx 18:6 ὡς ὁ πηλὸς τοῦ ‫ ַפ ַח ָרא‬, cf. Pesh. ‫ܒܐܝܕܝ ܦܚܪܐ‬ κεραμέως, vl-JerSabatier 18:6 sicut lutum figuli; mtKenn99 ‫בחומר ביד היוצר‬ Jer 18:22 1QHa 10:31 ‫ רגלם‬with mtA,C,L,N(1st and 2nd hand),P,R,S1 ‫ ְל ַרגְ ָלי‬, Vulg. pedibus meis, Tg. ‫גלי‬ ָ ‫רסת ַר‬ ַ ‫ ְל ַפ‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܠ̈ܪܓܠܝ‬lxx ἐπ’ ἐμέ, vl177 in me, mtKenn225 ‫לנפשי‬ Jer 20:9 1QHa 16:31 ‫ עצור‬with mtA,C,L,P,S1 ‫ ָע ֻצר‬, mtN,R ‫ ָעצוּר‬, cf. Vulg. claususque || lxx φλέγον, vl177 flammigerans, vlSabatier flammans, Pesh. ‫ ;ܘܚܒܐ‬Tg. ‫ָשׁ ְט ִפין‬ Jer 20:13 4QBarkhi Nafshia (4Q434) 1 i 1 ‫ נפש‬with mtKenn30 || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ֶאת־נֶ ֶפׁש‬, Tg. ‫יָ ת נְ ַפשׁ‬ Jer 23:20 1QM (1Q33) 3:9 ‫ לוא‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫לֹא‬, vl177 non, Vulg. non, Tg. ‫ ָלא‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܠܐ‬lxx καὶ οὐκέτι; mtKenn150 ‫ולא‬ Jer 25:18 (32:4) (the first variant concerns word sequence) 11QTa (11Q19) 49:4 ‫ || לשומה ולשרקה ולחורבה‬mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ְל ָח ְר ָבּה ְל ַשׁ ָמּה‬ ‫ ִל ְשׁ ֵר ָקה‬, lxx εἰς ἐρήμωσιν καὶ εἰς ἄβατον καὶ εἰς συριγμὸν, vlSabatier in desolatione et in devastatione et in sibilatione, Vulg. in solitudinem et in

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

121

stuporem in sibilum, Tg. ‫שׁת ָממוּ‬ ְ ‫רבא ְל ָצדוּ ְל ִא‬ ָ ‫ ; ְל ָח‬Pesh. ‫ܠܚܘܪܒܐ ܘܠܬܡܗܐ‬

‫ܘܠܡܫܪܘܩܝܬܐ‬ ܼ

11QTa (11Q19) 49:4 ‫ ולשרקה‬with mtKenn89, 91, 154, 155, 227, 260, 264 ‫ולשרקה‬, mtKenn252 ‫ולשריקה‬, lxx καὶ εἰς συριγμὸν, vlSabatier et in sibilatione, Pesh. ‫ܘܠܡܫܪܘܩܝܬܐ‬ || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִל ְשׁ ֵר ָקה‬, Vulg. in sibilum, Tg. ‫שׁת ָממוּ‬ ְ ‫ְל ִא‬ ܼ , , , , , , > 11QTa (11Q19) 49:4 with lxx, vlSabatier || mtA C L N P R S1 ‫וְ ִל ְק ָל ָלה‬, Vulg. et in maledictionem, Tg. ‫ללֹוטא‬ ָ ֻ‫ו‬, Pesh. ‫ܥܕܡܐ‬ Jer 25:29 (32:15) 1QM (1Q33) 16:1 ‫ כול‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ָכּל‬, Vulg. omnes, Tg. ‫ ָכל‬, cf. Pesh. ‫ > || ܟܠܗܘܢ‬mtKenn150, lxx, vlSabatier

Jer 26(33):18 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb (4Q372) 1 8 ‫ לעיים‬with mtA,C,L, N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִעיִּ ים‬, Vulg. in acervum lapidum, Tg. ‫ || ְליַ ִגרין‬lxx εἰς ἄβατον, cf. Pesh.

‫ܚܪܒܬܐ‬

4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona (4Q371) 1a–b 5 par 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb (4Q372) 1 8 ‫ לבמות‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְל ָבמֹות‬, Vulg. in excelsa || lxx εἰς ἄλσος, Tg. ‫ישׁת‬ ַ ‫ ְל ֵח‬, Pesh. ‫ܠܒܝܬ‬ Jer 27:12 (34:10) 4QBarkhi Nafshie (4Q438) 3 3 ‫ וצוארי‬with mtKenn30 ‫ || צואריכם‬mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אר‬ ֵ ְ‫ת־צּו‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬, Tg. ‫יָת ַצ ֵוריכוּן‬ Sir 51:26 (H I ms B) ‫וצואריכם‬, Pesh.-Sir ‫ܘܨܘܪܟܘܢ‬ with mt-JerKenn30 ‫צואריכם‬ ݂ , , , , , , || mtA C L N P R S1-Jer ‫אר ֶיכם‬ ֵ ְ‫ת־צּו‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬, Tg.-Jer ‫יָת ַצ ֵוריכוּן‬ 4QBarkhi Nafshie (4Q438) 3 3 ‫ בעולך‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 ‫ ְּבעֹל‬, mtR ‫ ְּבעֹול‬, Vulg. sub iugo, Tg. ‫ ְבנִ יר‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܒܢܝܪܗ‬lxx Sir 51:26 (H I ms B) ‫( בעלה‬lxx-Sir ὑπὸ ζυγόν, Vulg.-Sir sub iugo, Pesh.-Sir ݁ ) with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1-Jer ‫ ְּבעֹל‬, mtR ‫ ְּבעֹול‬, Vulg. sub iugo, Tg.-Jer ‫ ְבנִ יר‬, ‫ܒܢܝܪܗ‬ Pesh.-Jer ‫ > || ܒܢܝܪܗ‬Jer-lxx Jer 29:21 4QList of False Prophets ar (4Q339) 5 ‫ בן ק[ול]י֯ ̇ה‬with mtC,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ן־ֹק ָוליָ ה‬ ֽ ‫ ֶּב‬, Vulg. filium Culia, Tg. ‫קֹוליָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ַבר‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܒܪ ܩܘܠܝܐ‬lxx 4QList of False Prophets ar 6 (4Q339) ‫שיה‬ ̇ ]‫ ‬בן ֯מ[ע‬with mtC,L,N,P,S1 ‫ן־מ ֲע ֵׂשיָ ה‬ ֽ ַ ‫ ֶב‬, mtR ‫ן־מ ֲע ֵׂשיָ הּו‬ ֽ ַ ‫ ֶב‬, Vulg. filium Maasiae, Tg. ‫ ַבר ַמ ֲע ֵשׂיָ ה‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܒܪ ܡܥܣܝܐ‬lxx Jer 31:35 (38:36) > 4QWorks of God (4Q392) 1 6 with mtKenn681, lxx || mtC,L,N,P,S1 ‫ ֻחקֹּת‬, mtR ‫חּוקֹּת‬, Vulg. ordinem, Tg. ‫גְ זֵ ַירת‬, Pesh. ‫ܘܕܘܒ̈ܪܐ‬

122

Lange

Jer 32(39):19 1QHa 8:26 ‫ העלילליה‬with mtA,C,L,N,R,S1 ‫ ָה ֲע ִל ִיליָּ ה‬, mtP ‫ || ָה ֲע ִל ִליָּ ה‬lxx τοῖς ̈ ܿ ἔργοις, cf. Tg. ‫דֹוהי‬ ִ ‫עֹוב‬ ָ , cf. Pesh. ‫ ;ܥܒܕܘܗܝ‬Vulg. cogitatu > 1QHa 8:26‫ ‏‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1, Vulg., Tg., Pesh. || lxx ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ μεγαλώνυμος κύριος 1QHa 8:26 ‫ אשר‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬, Vulg. cuius, Tg. ‫ > || ִד‬lxx; Pesh. ‫ܘ‬ Jer 33(40):6 (word sequence) 4QBarkhi Nafshib (4Q434) 1 i 9 ‫ ויגל ̇ל ̇ה ̇ם ֯תו֯ ֯רות שלום ואמת‬cf. mtA,C,L,N,P, 264R,S1 ‫אתים וְ גִ ֵּל ִיתי ָל ֶהם ֲע ֶת ֶרת ָׁשֹלום וֶ ֱא ֶמת‬ ִ ‫( ְּור ָפ‬mtR ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫)וְ גִ ֵיּל‬, Vulg. et curabo eos et revelabo illis deprecationem pacis et veritatis, Tg. ‫אַסינוּן וַ ֲאגַ ֵלי ְלהֹון ְת ַרע‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ܿ ‫אֹורח ְשׁ ָלם וּקשֹׁוט‬ ַ ‫יהכוּן ְב‬ ָ ‫יוּבתא וַ ֲא ַחוֵ ינוּן ִד‬ ָ ‫ ְת‬, Pesh. ‫ܘܐܣܐ ܐܢܘܢ܂ ܘܐܓ ܼܠܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܫܠܡܐ ܘܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܒܝܠܐ‬ ‫ || ܠܗܘܢ‬lxx καὶ φανερώσω αὐτοῖς καὶ ܼ ἰατρεύσω αὐτὴν καὶ ποιήσω αὐτοῖς εἰρήνην καὶ πίστιν Jer 33(40):8 11QPsa (11Q5) 19:13–14 (Plea for Deliverance) ‫ סלחה‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫וְ ָס ַל ְח ִתּי‬, Vulg. et propitius ero, Tg. ‫וְ ַאשבֹוק‬, Pesh. ‫ܘܐܫܒܘܩ‬ || lxx καὶ οὐ μὴ ܼ μνησθήσομαι; > mtKenn126, 180, 224, 226 Jer 33:15 4QCommGen A (4Q252) 5:3–4 ‫ צמח דויד‬cf. mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְל ָדוִ ד ֶצ ַמח‬, Vulg. David germen, Tg. ‫ ְל ָדוִ יד ְמ ִשׁיַ ח‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܠܕܘܝܕ ܨܡܚܐ‬lxx Jer 33:16 4QProphecy of Joshua (4QapocrJoshc?) (4Q522) 9 ii 8 ‫י̇ שכון לבטח י̇ [רושלם‬ with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ִתּ ְשׁכֹּון ָל ֶב ַטח‬ ָ ִ‫( ו‬mtR ‫ירוּשׁ ַלִים‬ ָ ִ‫)ו‬, Vulg. et Hierusalem habitabit confidenter, Tg. ‫רוּחצן‬ ָ ‫שרי ְל‬ ֵ ‫ירוּשלםִ ִת‬ ַ ִ‫ו‬, Pesh. ‫ܬܫܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܐܘܪܫܠܡ‬ ܼ ‫ > || ܒܫܠܝܐ‬lxx Jer 33:17 4QCommGen A (4Q252) 5:2 ‫כסא לדויד‬ ̇ ‫ [לוא י] ֯כ ֯רת יושב‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,RS1 ‫ל־ּכ ֵּסא‬ ִ ‫( לֹא־יִ ָּכ ֵרת ְל ָדוִ ד ִאיׁש י ֵֹׁשב ַע‬mtR ‫יֹוׁשב‬ ֵ ), Vulg. non interibit de David vir qui sedeat super thronum, Tg. ‫כוּרסי‬ ֵ ‫יָתיב ַעל‬ ֵ ‫ ָלא יִ פסוּק ְל ָדוִ יד גְ ַבר‬, Pesh. ܿ ‫ܕܝܬܒ ܥܠ ܟܘܪܣܝܐ‬ ‫ > || ܠܐ ܢܥ ܼܢܕ ܠܕܘܝܕ ܒܪܐ‬lxx

264 MTC,N read ‫אתם‬ ִ ‫ ְּור ָפ‬instead of ‫אתים‬ ִ ‫ ְּור ָפ‬.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

123

Jer 48(31):14 1QM (1Q33) 6:13 ‫ אנשי‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫וְ אַנְ ֵשׁי‬, mtKenn93, 96 ‫אנשי‬, Vulg. et viri, Tg. ‫ברין‬ ִ ֻ‫וְ ג‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܘܓܒ̈ܪܐ‬lxx ἄνθρωπος Jer 51(28):7 > 4QpsEzekb (4Q386) 1 iii 1 || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫זָ ָהב‬, lxx χρυσοῦν, vlSabatier aureus, Vulg. aureus, Tg. ‫הבא‬ ָ ‫ ְד ַד‬, Pesh. ‫ܕܕܗܒܐ‬ Jer 51(28):15 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:13 ‫ בתבונתו‬with lxx ἐν τῇ συνέσει αὐτοῦ || mtA,C,L,P,R,S1 ‫וּב ְתבוּנָ תֹו‬ ִ , mtN,Kenn1, 224, 242 ‫וּב ְת ֻבנָ תֹו‬ ִ , mtKenn198 ‫ובתבנותו‬, mtKenn187 ‫ותבונתו‬, Tg. ‫נוּתיה‬ ֵ ‫כל ָת‬ ְ ‫וּבס‬ ֻ , Vulg. et prudentia sua, Pesh. ‫ܘܒܣܘܟܠܗ‬ ܼ Jer 51(28):16 > 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:13 || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְלקֹול ִתּתֹּו ֲהמֹון ַמיִ ם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬, lxx εἰς φωνὴν ἔθετο ἦχος ὕδατος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Tg. ‫שׁמיָ א‬ ַ ‫כפת ְד ַמיִ ין ִב‬ ַ ‫יתנֵ יה ִר‬ ְ ‫ ְל ָקל ִמ‬, ܿ Vulg. dante eo vocem multiplicantur aquae in caelo, Pesh. ‫ܝܗܒ ܩܠܐ‬

̈ ‫ܕܪܓܘܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܝܐ ܒܫܡܝܐ‬

Jer 51(28):16 (textual sequence) 11QPsa (11Q5) 26:14–15 16d → 16c → 16b || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1, lxx, Tg., Pesh. 16b → 16c → 16d Jer 51(28):55 1QHa 10:29 ‫ קולם‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫קֹולם‬ ָ , Vulg. vox eorum, Tg. ‫ ָק ְלהֹון‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܩܠܗܘܢ‬lxx φωνὴν αὐτῆς 4.4.2

One Possible Variant Reading Jer 6:19 4QDibHama (4Q504) 3(6):2 ‫שבת‬ ֯ ‫מח‬ ֯ with mtA,C,L,N,P,S1 ‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ְח ְשׁ‬, mtR ̈ ‫ ַמ ְח ְשׁב ָֹתם‬, Vulg. cogitationum eius, Pesh. ‫ܡܚܫܒܬܗܘܢ‬ || lxx ἀποστροφῆς; Tg. ‫עֹוב ֵדיהֹון‬ ָ

4.5

Five Variant Readings in Aramaic Texts Jer 1:14 4QProphecye ar (4Q583) 1 1 ‫ מן צפונא‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִמ ָצּפֹון‬, vl178, Sabatier ab aquilone, Vulg. ab aquilone, Tg. ‫ ִמ ִצפוּנָ א‬, Pesh. ‫ || ܡܢ ܓܪܒܝܐ‬lxx Απὸ προσώπου βορρᾶ

124

Lange

4QProphecye ar (4Q583) 1 1 ‫ || אתיה‬mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ִתּ ָפּ ַתח‬, Tg. ‫שׁרי‬ ֵ ‫ ִת‬, Vulg. pandetur, Pesh. ‫ܬܬܦܬܚ‬ ; lxx ἐκκαυθήσεται, vlSabatier exardescent ܼ Jer 2:7 4QTJacob? ar (4Q537) 5 1 ‫ ב‏] ֯ארעא‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא‬, Vulg. in terram, Tg. ‫רעא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא‬, Pesh. ‫ > || ܠܐܪܥܐ‬lxx, vlSabatier Jer 17:6 11QtgJob (11Q10) 32:5 (= Job 39:6) ‫ בארע‬with mtKenn76, 93, 96, 150, DeRossi 16, 20, 443, 480, 486, 594 ‫בארץ‬, lxx ἐν γῇ, vlSabatier in terra, Vulg. in terra, Pesh. ܿ || mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ; ֶא ֶרץ‬mtKenn384 ‫ ;וארץ‬Tg. ‫ַכ ֲא ַרע‬ ‫ܒܐܪܥܐ‬ Jer 20:5 Aramaic Levi Document 13:11 (95; ms Cam f 20–21) ‫ ויבוזון … וינסבון‬with mtA,C,L,N,P,R,S1 ‫ ְוּל ָקחוּם ְוּבזָ זוּם‬, Vulg. et diripient eos et tollent, Tg. ‫וְ יִבזוּנוּנוּן וְ יִ שב‬ ‫ܘܢܫܒܘܢ‬ ‫ וּנוּן‬, Pesh. ‫ܐܢܘܢ ܘܢܒܙܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ܂‬ ܼ || > lxx ܼ The Text of Jeremiah in Light of Its Uses in the Nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls The foregoing variant lists include a total of fifty-one or—including one uncertain variant reading—fifty-two cases of textual variation in the Jeremiah quotations and allusions found in the nonbiblical Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. Two implicit quotations of Jer 14:22 (1QHa 8:27; 4QDibHama [4Q504] 19[1–2 vi]:4) read with all other textual witnesses against mtKenn96 and may thus be neglected in my statistics. This means that the Hebrew nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls attest to a total of forty-nine or fifty cases of textual variation of interest for this study. To these we may add five cases of textual variation in the Jeremiah quotations and allusions found in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, resulting in a total of fifty-four or fifty-five cases of textual variation. In the Jeremiah quotations and allusions of the nonbiblical Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, thirty-two certain readings and one uncertain reading with mt, two readings with lxx, and five nonaligned readings occur. In addition, these quotations and allusions attest to four readings with lxx that are supported by mt-related manuscripts and/or versions, as well as three nonaligned readings that are supported by mt-related manuscripts and/or versions. This group also includes three readings against mt that cannot be translated into a non-Semitic language. The five Jeremiah quotations and allusions of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls read three times with mt, once with lxx- and mt-related manuscripts and versions, and once nonaligned. 4.6

125

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls table 3.13 Number of readings with textual versions of Jeremiah

Hebrew certain

MT

LXX

LXX+

Nonaligned

Nonaligned+

32 = 69.57%

2 = 4.35%

4 = 8.70 %

5 = 10.87%

3 = 6.52%

Hebrew inner­ semitic

Innersemitic Total against mt 46 3

Hebrew 1 uncertain Aramaic

3 = 60%

total

36 = 63.16%

3

1

2 = 3.51%

1 = 20%

1 = 20%

5 = 8.77%

6 = 10.53%

5 3 = 5.26%

3 = 5.26%

Table 3.13 indicates that in approximately two-thirds of all cases of textual variation the Jeremiah quotations and allusions in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls read with the consonantal text of mt-Jer. This share rises even more if we add those cases in which the quotations and allusions read either nonaligned or with lxx, as well as with mt-related versions and manuscripts. The result is forty-four readings with mt and mt-related manuscripts or versions, equaling 77.19% of all cases of textual variation. Excluding the one uncertain variant reading, these numbers come to forty-three readings, or 75.44%. Because all nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls that quote or allude to the book of Jeremiah were composed in Hellenistic times, that is, between the conquests of Judea by Alexander the Great and Pompey, my statistical evidence demonstrates the dominance of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction in Judea in this period. This dominance of mt-Jer is confirmed by the two paratextual compositions to Jeremiah from the Qumran library. Both the Epistle of Jeremiah and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah are based on mt-affiliated Jeremiah texts. The dominance of mt-affiliated Jeremiah texts in Hellenistic times is in clear opposition to the evidence for other biblical books. For example, most paratextual compositions to the Torah employ a pre-Samaritan base text.265 A similar case in point—but from Roman times—is the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus Flavius. For the period covering the lives of Samuel, Saul and David, 265 Cf. Jonathan Ben-Dov, “Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context,” jaj 4:2 (2013): 210–34 (228); Emanuel Tov, “2.1 Pentateuch: Textual History of the Penta­ teuch,” thb 1B:3–22 (3–12, 12–13), doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0002010000.

55

126

Lange

Josephus relied on a non-Masoretic text that was close to 4QSama.266 In addition, literary compositions that employ a text of Jeremiah affiliated with mt may employ non-Masoretic texts in their quotations of other biblical books. An example is the nonaligned quotation of Nah 3:8–10 in 4QapocrJer Ca (4Q385a) 17a–e ii 4–9.267 The dominance of mt-Jer in Hellenistic times is thus atypical of the overall textual situation during this period. Accordingly, mt-Jer’s dominance demands explanation. In this context, it is important to note that many variant readings of the Jeremiah quotations and allusions concern microvariants, such as the absence or presence of a waw-conjunction. Other variants, like the use of passages from the proto-Masoretic text addition in Jer 33:14–26, are clearly related to macrovariants. All readings with lxx and the bulk of the nonaligned readings concern only microvariants with no more than one word of textual difference. My evidence implies that the choice of mt-Jer was a concious one and that most if not all authors of ancient Jewish compositions quoted Jeremiah or alluded to it based on written copies. This observation is supported by the fact that most quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah are taken from Jeremiah 1–33, while only 10 percent of all quotations of and allusions to Jeremiah concern the later parts of the book. The preference for the earlier parts of a very long book like Jeremiah might have to do with the practical consideration that it takes much longer to unroll a Jeremiah scroll to its end. Because of the massive textual differences between the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer and mt-Jer, the two versions were easy to recognize, and ancient Jewish scribes and readers clearly favored the longer version of Jeremiah over the shorter one. Thus, the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer became obsolete. Sporadic agreements with lxx-Jer and sporadic nonaligned readings should be understood as part of the textual plurality within the mt-affiliated textual tradition of Jeremiah. Like several Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran, the Jeremiah texts from which ancient Jewish authors quoted attest to the certain number of disagreements with mt-Jer despite agreement with mt in their macrovariants. Except for the Hymn to the Creator, the sporadic agreements with lxx and sporadic nonaligned readings in ancient Jewish Jeremiah quotations and allusions should be understood as part of the textual variety of the broader mt-Jer textual tradition in the Second Temple period. Of further importance is the fact that the Hymn to the Creator quotes a nonaligned version of Jer 51(28):15–16. Given the early dating of this hymn to 266 Cf. first Eugene Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, hsm 19 (Missoula, mt: Scholars Press, 1978). 267 Cf. Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 157–58.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

127

the third or very early second century bce, its nonaligned Jeremiah quotation should be taken as evidence that additional versions of the book of Jeremiah existed alongside mt-Jer and the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer in the (early) third century bce and before. With the dominance of mt-Jer, beginning in the third century bce, all other versions of Jeremiah fell out of use. That the only certain copy of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer from the Qumran library, 4QJerb, was copied during the years 200–150 BCE, and thus belongs among the earliest Qumran manuscripts, emphasizes my point. 5

The Date and Setting of the Proto-Masoretic Jeremiah Redaction in Light of the Qumran Evidence

In earlier publications, I have emphasized the importance of quotations and allusions as well as of the early Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran for establishing a terminus ante quem of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction in the (early) third century BCE.268 The paleographic dating of 4QJera to the years 225–175 BCE (see above, pp. 64–65) argues for such a terminus ante quem in the third century BCE. As scribal errors show that 4QJera is not an autograph, proto-mt-Jer must have been finalized in the third century BCE at the latest. Quotations from and allusions to proto-Masoretic variant readings, especially proto-Masoretic long texts, not only corroborate this terminus ante quem but move it to the early third century BCE. List of Employments of Jeremiah from the Third and Early Second Century BCE Jer 1:10 or 31(38):28 in Sir 49:7 Jer 2:7 in Neh 9:36 Jer 17:9 in 4QInstructiond 8 12 Jer 17:13 in 4QInstructiond 103 ii 6 Jer 18:6 in Sir 36(33):13 Jer 20:5 in Aramaic Levi Document 13:11 Jer 26(33):18 in 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb 1 8 Jer 27:12 (34:10) in Sir 51:26

5.1 – – – – – – – –

268 Lange, “Textual Plurality,” 77–80; Armin Lange, “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in “Go Out and Study the Land” ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. A. M. Maeir et al., JSJSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–116; Lange “7.2. Jeremiah,” 518–36; Finsterbusch and Lange, “Zur Textgeschichte des Jeremiabuches.”

128

Lange

– Jer 31(38):13 in Esth 9:22 – Jer 33(40):8 in 11QPsa 19:13 (= Plea for Deliverance) – Jer 33:16 in Zech 14:11 – Jer 33:16 in 4QProphecy of Joshua (= 4QapocrJoshc?) 9 ii 8 The evidence of these quotations is now corroborated by the recognition of proto-Masoretic Jeremiah text employed by the Epistle of Jeremiah in the third century BCE (see above p. 89). 5.2 Proto-Masoretic Readings in the Epistle of Jeremiah – Jer 10:5 in EpJer 69 – Jer 10:5 in EpJer 7 – Jer 10:9 in EpJer 45 – Jer 29:1 in heading of EpJer Later settings for the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah in Hasmonean times269 or the early second century BCE270 can therefore be excluded with a high degree of certainty. An early date of mt-Jer is also confirmed by the dominance of this text in the literature of Second Temple Judaism from the third century BCE onwards (see above, pp. 124–27). 5.3 Date and Setting: Further Considerations The terminus post quem for the date of proto-mt-Jer is set by historical allusions observed by Bogaert in his earlier publications.271 Bogaert argues that proto-Masoretic additions in Jeremiah’s word against the Philistines 269 Such dates were proposed either for some parts (esp. Jer 33:14–26) or all of mt-Jer by Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia erklärt, khc 11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901), xx, 274, 276; Christoph Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes: In ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, frlant 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 194–96; Schenker, “La rédaction longue du livre de Jérémie”; Pierluigi Piovanelli, “JrB 33,14–26, ou la continuité des institutions à l´époque maccabéenne,” in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception, ed. A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer, betl 128 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 255–76; Amphoux and Sérandour, “La date de la forme courte de Jérémie,” and Amphoux, “Les réécritures du livre de Jérémie (lxx).” At the beginning of this millennium Pierre-Maurice Bogaert rejected his earlier dating of mt-Jer and proposed a Hasmonean dating as well. See Bogaert, “Jérémie 17,1–4 TM,” 72–74. 270 Thus, e.g., Aejmelaeus, “Turning Point,” 460. 271 Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie,” 431–32; idem, “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1–16 (lxx et TM)”; idem, “Relecture et déplacement de l’oracle contre les Philistins,” 145–50; idem, “La libération de Jérémie et le meurtre de Godolias”; idem, “Urtext, texte court et relecture,” 237; idem, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, lxx et VL)”; idem, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective,” 393–401. In 2001 Bogaert revised his dating of the protoMasoretic Jeremiah redaction to around 150 BCE (“Jéremie 17,1–4 TM,” 72–74; idem, “Heshbon entre Moab et Ammon,” 53–54; idem, “La liste des nations,” 13–14).

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

129

(Jeremiah 47[29]) are related to conquests and campaigns of Ptolemy I Soter. The phrase “before Pharaoh attacked Gaza” (‫ת־עּזָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ְּב ֶט ֶרם יַ ֶּכה ַפ ְרעֹה ֶא‬Jer 47[29]:1) refers to the battle of Gaza between Ptolemaios I and Demetrios in 312 BCE and the subsequent sack of the city. The addition of the word ‫“ ַכ ְפֹּתור‬Cyprus” in Jer 47(29):4 assumes the conquest of the island by Ptolemy I in 294 BCE. Linguistic characteristics corroborate a dating of the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah in the early third century BCE. In this context Stipp,272 for example, points to the phrase ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫“ ח ֵֹרי י‬the nobles of Judah” (Jer 27:20; 39:6) and the term ‫“ ַמ ְלכּות‬kingdom” (Jer 10:7; 49:34). Further characteristics of this postclassical Hebrew were identified by Joosten.273 The combined evidence of linguistic characteristics and historical references precludes earlier dates of the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah in Persian times with a high degree of certainty.274 The milieu in which the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah was written can be deduced from various proto-Masoretic additions. The proto-Masoretic version turns Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles (Jer 29:1–23) into a forecast of the total annihilation of all the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem but predicts the salvation of the entire diaspora. This anti-Jerusalemite and antiJudean tendency in favor of the diaspora points to a diaspora setting. That proto-mt-Jer universalizes the salvation prophecy of Jer 29[36]:10–14 to pertain not only to the Babylonian exiles but to the entire diaspora argues against a Mesopotamian origin. In the early third century BCE, the only sizable Jewish diaspora outside of Mesopotamia can be found in Ptolemaic Egypt. Thus, the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah was written by Egyptian Jews.275 272 Hermann-Josef Stipp, Sondergut des Jeremiabuches, 80, 141–42; idem, “Zur aktuellen Diskussion,” 635. 273 Jan Joosten, “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” in 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, ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey, stdj 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108. 274 Contra Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 127–35 (middle of the fifth through early fourth century BCE); Goldman, Prophétie et royauté (three different redactional layers in the proto-Masoretic additions that would date to 515–445 BCE; esp. 225–35); Richard D. Weis, “A Conflicted Book for a Marginal People: Thematic Oppositions in mt Jeremiah,” in Exegetical and Theological Studies, vol. 2 of Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective, ed. W. Kim et al., sac (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 297–309 (304–7); idem, “Exegesis of Jeremiah”; Biddle, “Redaction of Jeremiah”; Sweeney, “Differing Perspectives,” 151. 275 That a significant number of Jews lived in Egypt in the early third century BCE is attested by the Letter of Aristeas and Hecateus. The Letter of Aristeas (12–27) reports the deportation of large numbers of Jews from Judah to Ptolemaic Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter. Hecateus (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.186–187) speaks of the voluntary Jewish migration of

130

Lange

4QJerd most likely preserves a forerunner of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction, because this manuscript shares some long texts with mt-Jer but in other cases reads the shorter text of lxx-Jer (see above pp. 76–80). Already this textual forerunner of mt-Jer attests to a diaspora consciousness. In Jer 43(50):9, 4QJerd reads with mt-Jer “before the eyes of Jewish men” (‫)לעיני אנ֯ שים יהודים‬ against lxx-Jer, which has κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνδρῶν Ιουδα “before the eyes of the men of Judah.” The text of 4QJerd changed ‫“ אנשי יהודה‬men of Judah” in the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer to ‫“ אנ֯ שים יהודים‬Jewish men,” making a careful distinction between men who live in Judah and diaspora Jews who live in Egypt. This distinction also argues for a setting of the 4QJerd text of Jeremiah in early Egyptian Judaism. Further individual changes were most likely inserted into the book of Jeremiah both before and after 4QJerd was produced; however, their dates and settings can no longer be traced. Several observations corroborate an Egyptian setting for the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah. Proto-mt-Jer’s subtle allusions to the military achievements of Ptolemy I Soter in Jer 47[29]:1, 4 would have been easily understood in Ptolemaic Egypt in the early third century BCE but not in Mesopotamia or Judah. Special knowledge about Egypt and its interactions with Judah is also documented in the addition of mt-Jer to Jer 26[33]:22, when it specifies that Jehoiachim sent “Elnathan, son of Achbor, and the men with him to Egypt” (‫ֵאת‬ ‫ל־מ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ִ ‫ן־ע ְכֹּבור וַ ֲאנָ ִׁשים ִאֹּתו ֶא‬ ַ ‫) ֶא ְלנָ ָתן ֶּב‬. The special interest displayed in protomt-Jer regarding the Temple cult and the vessels276 points to Levitical priests who migrated with the archpriest Hezekiah to Egypt (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.186– 187) as the milieu behind this latest redaction of Jeremiah.277 a priestly group to Ptolemaic Egypt led by an archpriest priest named Hezekiah at the same time. 276 In Jer 27:18–19, 21–22, proto-mt-Jer inserts the Temple vessels and their long stay in Babylon into the text of Jeremiah 27. And in Jer 52:18–23, proto-mt-Jer not only extends the list of Temple vessels that the Babylonians destroyed or carried off to Babylon but corrects it as well. The author of proto-mt-Jer not only had a special interest in priestly matters but also possessed special priestly knowledge. The same special interest in priestly matters is displayed in the most extensive addition of proto-mt-Jer, Jer 33:14–26. It promises not only that God will uphold his covenant with David and that the Davidic dynasty will return to political power but also that God will uphold his covenant with the Levitical priests who are privileged to carry out the sacrificial cult in the Jerusalem Temple. Jer 33:14–26 argues thus against the religious and political realities at the Jerusalem Temple in the third century BCE. The office of the Jerusalem high priest was more a political one than a ritual one, and his priestly duties were far from being restricted to the sacrificial cult. With its great interest in the sacrificial cult, proto-mt-Jer resembles most the Aramaic Levi Document, which also restricts the responsibilities of the (Levitical) priesthood to the sacrificial cult. See Lange, “Covenant,” 110–16 and passim. 277 See also n. 280.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

131

The polemics of these Levitical priests against the Jerusalem establishment are harsh. In Jer 10:6–10, proto-mt-Jer emphasizes how incomparable the God of Israel is to idols; the veneration of other deities would lead to the plunder of the people’s fortunes and treasures, and Judah would have to serve its enemies and forfeit its inheritance (Jer 17:1–4). Proto-mt-Jer hopes for the imminent destruction of Jerusalem in particular and Judah in general (Jer 29:16–20; 39:4–13). In a time of shalom for his scattered people, the Lord will judge the nations; the diaspora will return to Jerusalem and reinstall the proper priestly cult and royal government in Judah (Jer 29:10–14; 30:10–11, 22; 31:17; 33:14–26). Such hopes for the destruction of Judean Jews and the nations as well as the salvation of the diaspora might have been sparked by the violent wars in which the Diadochi fought over the succession of Alexander the Great and for possession of his empire. Given the narrow time window in which proto-mt-Jer must have reworked the book of Jeremiah, it seems quite likely that its anti-Judahite and antiJerusalemite polemics target the intensified Hellenization of Judean Jewry after Judah became part of the Ptolemaic realm, as illustrated by the book of Ecclesiastes and the Tobiad family. It is because of tendencies like these that proto-mt-Jer creates a typology comparing the future of the Ptolemaic province of Yehud with the fate of Jerusalem under the rule of Zedekiah. Because the Jews of Judah venerated other gods, the Babylonians destroyed Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple in 587 BCE. Following these events, Judaism was represented by the exiles who remained true to the covenant. They were to come back and rebuild Judah and the Temple cult. Proto-mt-Jer applies this earlier experience to the situation in the early third century BCE. As in the past, the Jews of Jerusalem and Judah of the early third century BCE venerate other gods and will be destroyed in the context of the wars of the Diadochi. True Judaism is represented only by the diaspora. As in the time of the return from the Babylonian exile, the (Egyptian) diaspora will rebuild Judah and Jerusalem, install a proper Davidic government and reinstitute a proper Jerusalemite cult. 6

The Textual History of Jeremiah in Antiquity in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The evidence provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls allows to draw a picture of the textual history of the book of Jeremiah in Hellenistic times—albeit a sketchy one that suffers from lacunae. The Masoretic text of Jeremiah and the Old Greek translation mark two different editions of the book. One could even speak of two different books of Jeremiah. The edition preserved in the Masoretic text of

132

Lange

Jeremiah is the result of a redaction whose Vorlage was close but not identical to the parent text of the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah. Differences among Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran and mt-Jer, especially 4QJerd, make it likely that between the common textual ancestor shared by mt-Jer and lxx-Jer some textual changes were already applied to the parent text of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction in an intermediate reworking. The extent of this pre-Masoretic intermediate reworking remains unclear. In a process of secondary textual diversification, the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction suffered from scribal corruption and limited reworking during its textual transmission as well, as illustrated for example by 4QJerc. This secondary textual diversification of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction can be compared to the textual diversity of books such as some of the Minor Prophets. Thus, the analysis of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction should focus on its long additions as well as on textual differences relating to other passages of the book of Jeremiah, thereby establishing rhetorical and structural patterns for the entire book of Jeremiah. In contrast to mt-Jer, the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer includes only a small number of text additions. The textual diversification of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer was thus limited, pointing to a narrow manuscript transmission of few copies. In addition to other evidence, the quotations of and allusions to the protoMasoretic Jeremiah redaction determine a date for this redaction in the early third century BCE. It was most likely produced in Egypt by a group of disenfranchised priests from the Jerusalem Temple. Furthermore, the quotations and allusions point to the dominance of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction already in the third century BCE. From the third century BCE, no unambigious evidence for quotations of and allusions to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer exists. With 4QJerb, the Qumran library includes only one very early manuscript attesting to the parent text of lxx-Jer. Nonaligned texts of Jeremiah are preserved only from early Hellenistic times—the quotations of Jer 51(28):15–16 in the Hymn to the Creator (third or early second century BCE) and 4QJerd (earlier part of the second century BCE). This means that Jeremiah texts that were not affiliated with the broader protoMasoretic textual tradition existed only early in the textual transmission of Jeremiah but were suppressed by the increasing dominance of mt-Jer from the third century BCE. Some time in the second century BCE, the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah was produced. Given the early dominance of mt-Jer in Judea as well as the marginalization and narrow manuscript transmission of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, the most likely place of origin for this translation is the Greek-speaking

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

133

diaspora. Somewhere in the Greek-speaking diaspora a Hebrew copy of the earlier Jeremiah edition easily could have survived in a synagogue and could have been the only manuscript of Jeremiah available. The Qumran library shows that in Judea a good library could have held both versions in storage, but that the frequenters of such a library nevertheless quoted only from mt-Jer; thus, it is less than likely that such a translation would have been made in Judea itself. Whether the Old Greek text of Jeremiah was produced in Alexandria, elsewhere in Egypt, or elsewhere in the Greek-speaking diaspora remains an open question that deserves further investigation. Some time in the late Second Temple period—most likely during the reign of Herod the Great—the proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah was standardized, as part of the overall process of standardization and canonization of the Hebrew Bible.278 Because the corrected version of 4QJera is very close to the consonantal text of mtL, it is likely that the scribes responsible for this textual standardization used a manuscript like 4QJera as the model for their standard text of Jeremiah. That Jeremiah is one of the books in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible with the highest number of baroque orthographic spellings could confirm this suspicion. This orthographic peculiarity of mt-Jer is best explained if mt-Jer is based on a single manuscript archetype rather than the result of an editorial standardization effort involving a number of different manuscripts, as in the case of other biblical books.279 This sketchy and incomplete picture of the textual history of Jeremiah as painted by the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls needs to be complemented by study of the usage of Jeremiah in other biblical books as well as in those parts of the Second Temple Jewish and early Christian literature that neither became a part of the Hebrew Bible nor are attested in the Qumran library, such as the book of Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees, the works of Philo of Alexandria, the works of 278 For my ideas regarding the textual standardization and canonization of the Hebrew Bible during the time of Herod the Great, see Lange, “‘They Confirmed the Reading’”; idem, “Canon/Canonization,” in Vocabulary for the Study of Religion, ed. R. A. Segal and K. von Stuckrad, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1:200–204; idem, “The Qumran Library in Context: The Canonical History and Textual Standardization of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Qumran Library,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library, ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen, stdj 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 261–79; idem, “1.1.2.1 Overview Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Jewish Canon,” thb 1A:36–48, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001010201; idem, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts.” 279 For the use of isolated baroque spellings in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and the uneven distribution of these baroque spellings among the biblical books, see Lange, “Question of the So-Called Qumran Orthography.” For the role of orthography in the textual standardization of the Hebrew Bible see idem, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts.”

134

Lange

Josephus Flavius, the New Testament, and so on. The text-critical analysis of the employments of Jeremiah in these texts is beyond the scope of the present article and needs to be postponed to future studies. Bibliography Adamczewski, Bartosz. “Chronological Calculations and Messianic Expectations in Apocryphon of Jeremiah D (4Q390).” qc 14 (2006): 127–42. Adcock, James Seth. “Did Eichhorn Originate the Theory of Local Texts?” zaw 125 (2013): 304–7. Adcock, James Seth. “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!”: A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1–18. cbet 83. Leuven: Peeters, 2017. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah.” vt 52 (2002): 459–82. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “‘Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant’: Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27.” Pages 1–18 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the lxx and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne. betl 192. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Amphoux, Christian-Bernhard. “Les réécritures du livre de Jérémie (lxx).” Pages 213– 25 in Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 Juin 2010. Edited by C. Clivaz et al. betl 248. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Amphoux, Christian-Bernhard, and Arnaud Sérandour. “La date de la forme courte de Jérémie,” Pages 25–35 in Eukarpa Εὔκαρπα: Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes en hommage à Gilles Dorival. Edited by M. Loubet and D. Pralon. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Andersen, Francis I. “The Orthography of D62.” Pages 253–93 in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. bjsucsd 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle, and Jacqueline Moatti-Fine. Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante. Vol 25.2 of La Bible d’Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 2005. Baillet, Maurice. “Grotte 2.13. Jérémie.” Pages 62–69 in vol. 1 of Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise; Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q; Le Rouleau de cuivre. Edited by M. Baillet et al. 2 vols. djd 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Grotte 7.2. Lettre de Jérémie.” Page 43 in vol. 1 of Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise; Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q; Le Rouleau de cuivre. Edited by M. Baillet et al. 2 vols. djd 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

135

Ball, Charles J. “The Epistle of Jeremy.” In apot 1:596–611. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context.” jaj 4:2 (2013): 210–34. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “A Textual Problem and its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1– 6.” Text 20 (2000): 97–128. Berner, Christoph. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum. bzaw 363. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Biddle, Mark E. “The Redaction of Jeremiah 39–41 [46–48 lxx].” zaw 126 (2014): 228–42. Biddle, Mark E. “The Letter of Jeremiah.” Pages 184–188ap in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version. Edited by M. D. Coogan. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie.” Pages 168–73, 430–32 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. betl 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La datation per souscription dans les rédactions courte (lxx) et longue du livre de Jérémie.” Pages 137–59 in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2002. Edited by J. Joosten and P. Le Moigne. ld 203. Paris: Cerf, 2005. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Heshbon entre Moab et Ammon: La finale ajoutée à l’oracle sur Moab en Jr 48,45–47 TM.” Pages 45–54 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the lxx and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne. betl 192. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Jérémie 17,1–4 TM, oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annoncé en 11,7–8.13 TM et en 15,12–14 TM.” Pages 59–74 in La double transmission du texte biblique: Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger. obo 179. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La libération de Jérémie et le meurtre de Godolias: Le texte court (lxx) et la rédaction longue (TM).” Pages 312–22 in Studien zur Septuaginta Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Edited by D. Fraenkel et al. msu 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La liste des nations dans l’oracle de la coupe (Jr 25,16–26).” Pages 1–14 in L’ecrit et l’esprit: Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique

136

Lange

en homage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by D. Böhler et al. obo 214. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours.” rb 101 (1994): 363–406. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1–16 (lxx et TM) et la signification des supplements.” Pages 222–38, 433–34 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. betl 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques.” Pages 147– 53 in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe. Edited by J. Vermeylen. betl 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Relecture et déplacement de l’oracle contre les Philistins: Pour une datation de la rédaction longue (TM) du livre de Jérémie.” Pages 139–50 in La vie de la parole: De l’Ancien Testament au Nouveau Testament; Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à P. Grelot. Edited by H. Cazelles. Paris: Desclée, 1987. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, lxx et VL).” Pages 1–17 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday. Edited by G. J. Norton and S. Pisano. obo 109. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Urtext, texte court et relecture.” Pages 236–47 in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “De la vetus latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: Le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié.” rtl 44 (2013): 216–43. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La vetus latina de Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’Hébreu (Jer 39 et 52).” Pages 51–82 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by A. Schenker. sblscs 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden, Brill, 2003. Bozak, Barbara A. Life ‘Anew’: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31. AnBib 122. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Brady, Monica L. Walsh. “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2000. Breuer, Mordechai, ed. Torah Nevi’im Ketuvim Proofread according to Mesorah of Keter Aram Tzova and Like Manuscripts. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1989. Brooke, George J. “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 183–205 in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. Le livre de Jérémie et sa reception. Edited by A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer. betl 128. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

137

Brooke, George J. “Exegetical Strategies in Studies in Jubilees 1–2: New Light from 4QJubileesa.” Pages 39–57 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by M. Albani et al. tsaj 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Brooke, George J. “The Structure of the Poem against Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (1 Baruch 6).” Pages 107–28 in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques: Études réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod. Edited by A. Frey and R. Gounelle. Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques 5. Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre, 2007. Burkitt, Francis C. The Old Latin and the Itala: With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpest of Jeremiah, ts 4.3 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Caird, George B. “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint.” Pages 95–100 in Studia Evangelica VII: Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. tugal 126. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1982. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer Costa, and Jan Liesen, eds. La sabiduría del escribe/ The Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca midrásica de la Institución San Jerónimo 26. Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2003. Carmignac, Jean. “Le texte de Jérémie 10,13 (ou 51,16) et celui de 2 Samuel 23,7 améliorés par Qumrân.” RevQ 7 (April 1970): 287–90. Charlesworth, James H. “Announcing an Unknown Dead Sea Scroll: Jeremiah 48:29– 31a.” http://foundationjudaismchristianorigins.org/ftp/dead-sea-scrolls/unpub/ DSS-jeremiah.pdf. Chazon, Esther G. “The Use of the Bible as a Key to Meaning in Psalms from Qumran.” Pages 85–96 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Cook, Johann. “The Differences in the Order of the Books of the Hebrew and Greek Versions of Jeremiah—Jer 43 (50): A Case Study.” ote 7 (1994): 175–92. Cozza-Luzi, Giuseppe, ed. Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta graeca et latina e codicibus Cryptoferratensibus 3. Rome: Spithoever, 1877. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr. Jeremiah 1–25. wbc 26. Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pages 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G. E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pages 306–20 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.

138

Lange

Cross, Frank Moore. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” jbl 74 (1955): 147–72. Dahmen, Ulrich. Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. stdj 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Dahood, Mitchell. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV.” Bib 47 (1966): 403–19. Dalman, Gustaf. Der Ackerbau. Vol. 2 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Schriften des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts 5. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1987. Davis, Kipp. The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity. stdj 111. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Davis, Kipp. “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments.” dsd 24 (2017): 229–70. Davis, Kipp. “Prophets of Exile: 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C, Apocryphal Baruch, and the Efficacy of the Second Temple.” jsj 44 (2013): 497–529. Davis, Kipp. “Torah-Performance and History in the Golah: Rewritten Bible of ‘Representational’ Authority in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.” Pages 467–95 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by P. W. Flint et al. ejl 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011. Davis, Kipp, Ira Rabin, Ines Feldman, Myriam Krutzsch, Hasia Rimon, Arstein Justnes, Torleif Elgvin, and Michael Langlois. “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century.” dsd 24 (2017): 189–228. Deist, Ferdinand. “Zu ‫ כתמר מקׁשה‬in Jer 10 5.” zaw 85 (1973): 225–26. De Hoop, Raymond. “Textual, Literary, and Delimitation Criticism: The Case of Jeremiah 29 in M and G.” Pages 29–62 in The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel et al. Pericope 7. Leiden: Brill, 2009. De Regt, Lénart J. “The Prophet in the Old and the New Edition of Jeremiah.” Pages 167– 74 in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene. Edited by F. Postma et al. Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn tradities, Supplement Series 3. Maastricht: Shaker, 2002. De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo. Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti. 5 vols. Parma: Regio, 1784–1788. Repr., Amsterdam: Philo, 1969. Dickie, Matthew M. “6–9.1.6 Latter Prophets: Primary Translations: Post-Hexaplaric Greek Translations.” thb 1B:643–45. The Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609010600. Dimant, Devorah. “Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” Pages 89–260 in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Edited by D. Dimant. djd 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

139

Dimant, Devorah. “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” dsd 20 (2013): 452–71. Dimant, Devorah. “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective.” RevQ 25 (2011): 17–39. Di Pede, Elena. “Jérémie ‘prophète’ dans le lxx et dans le TM.” EstBib 67 (2009): 101–10. Dold, Alban, and Arthur Allgeier. Der Palimpsestpsalter im Codex Sangallensis 912: Eine altlateinische Übersetzung des frühen 6. Jahrh. aus der einstigen Kloster-Bibliothek von Bobbio; Anhang: ein neues Bruchstück mit altlateinischem Jeremiastext im Cod. Sangall. 912. Texte und Arbeiten 1.21–24. Beuron: Kunstschule der Erzabtei Beuron/ Hohenzollern, 1933. Dorival, Gilles. “L’achèvement de la Septante dans le judaïsme: De la faveur au rejet.” Pages 83–125 in La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancient. Edited by M. Harl et al. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Dotan, Aron, ed. Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia erklärt. khc 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901. Eichhorn, Johann G. “Bemerkungen über den Text des Propheten Jeremias.” Repertorium für Biblische und Morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777): 141–68. Eichhorn, Johann G. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 5 vols. Leipzig: Weidemann, 1780–1783. Elgvin, Torleif, and Kipp Davis. “MS 4612/19. 4Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19).” Pages 215–22 in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. Edited by T. Elgvin et al. lsts 71. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Elgvin, Torleif, and Michael Langlois. “Looking Back: (More) Dead Sea Scrolls Forgeries in the Schøyen Collection.” RevQ 31 (2019): 111–33. Engel, Helmut. “Erfahrungen mit der lxx-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’.” Pages 80–96 in Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler. Vol. 3 of Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta; Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. bwant 174. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. Eshel, Esther. “Jeremiah, Book of,” edss 1:397–400. Eshel, Hanan. “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 102–10 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “The Other Septuagint: From the Letter of Aristeas to the Letter of Jeremiah.” jnsl 28 (2002): 27–41. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

140

Lange

Finsterbusch, Karin. “Different Beginnings, Different Book Profiles: Exegetical Perspectives on the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer 1 and mt-Jer 1.” Pages 51–64. Finsterbusch, Karin. “Gegen die Furcht vor den Göttern der Welt: Eine Art ‘Psalm’ Jeremias für Israel in MT-Jer 10,1–16.” Pages 356–72 in Ich will dir danken unter den Völkern: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Gebetsliteratur: Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by A. Grund et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Finsterbusch, Karin. “MT-Jer 1,1–3,5 und lxx-Jer 1,1–3,5: Kommunikationsebenen und rhetorische Strukturen.” bz 56 (2012): 247–63. Finsterbusch, Karin, and Norbert Jacoby. MT-Jeremia und lxx-Jeremia 1–24: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur. wmant 145. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2016. Finsterbusch, Karin, and Armin Lange. “Zur Textgeschichte des Jeremiabuches in der Antike: Überblick und neue Einsichten.” tlz 142 (2017): 1137–52. Fischer, Georg. “Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext.” Pages 612–29 in Septuaginta— Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.D), Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. wunt 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25: Übersetzt und ausgelegt. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007. Fischer, Georg. “7.3 Jeremiah: Septuagint.” thb 1B:543–55. Volume 1B: The Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. dx.doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0007030000. Fischer, Georg. “Jeremiah 52: Test Case for Jer lxx.” Pages 37–48 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998. Edited by B. A. Taylor. sblscs 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Fischer, Georg. “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches.” Bib 78 (1997): 305–28. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. stdj 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Freedman, David Noel. “The Masoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography.” Text 2 (1962): 87–102. Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Freedman, David Noel, and Jack R. Lundbom. “Haplography in Jeremiah 1–20.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 28*–38* (in Hebrew). Freedman, David Noel, and Kenneth A. Mathews. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns [American Schools of Oriental Research], 1985.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

141

Fuller, Russell E., and Armin Lange. “Methodology in the Textual Criticism of Allusions and Quotations in the Qumran Scrolls.” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Munich, Germany, 4 August 2013. Gäbel, Georg, and Wolfgang Kraus. “Epistole Jeremiu/Epistula Ieremiae/Der Brief des Jeremia.” Pages 2842–48 in Psalmen bis Daniel. Vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. García Martínez, Florentino. “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 219–40 in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. J. C. Tigchelaar. stdj 64. Leiden: Brill, 2007. First published in Geurt H. van Kooten, ed., The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis I in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics. tbn 8. Leiden: Brill, 2005, 49–70. Gentry, Peter J. “The Greek Psalter and the καίγε Tradition: Methodological Questions.” Pages 74–97 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R. J. V. Hiebert et al. JSOTSup 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Gentry, Peter J. “1.3.1.2 Overview Articles: Primary Translations: Pre-Hexaplaric Translations, Hexapla, and post-Hexaplaric Translations.” thb 1A:211–35. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452 -4107_thb_COM_0001030102. Gesundheit, Shimon. “The Question of lxx Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis.” vt 62 (2012): 29–57. Giere, Samuel D. A New Glimpse of Day One: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1.1–5. bznw 172. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Giesebrecht, Friedrich. Das Buch Jeremia. Göttingen Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3.2.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894. 2nd rev. ed., 1907. Goldman, Yohanan. Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie. obo 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. The Aleppo Codex: Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aaron ben Asher. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1976. Gosse, Bernard. “The Masoretic Redaction of Jeremiah: An Explanation,” jsot 77 (1998): 75–80. Gosse, Bernard. “La rédaction massorétique du livre de Jérémie.” Transeu 42 (2012): 141–69. Gosse, Bernard. Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse: De la redaction sacerdotale du livre d’ Isaïe à la contestation de la Sagesse. bzaw 246. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Gosse, Bernard. “Trois étapes de la rédaction du livre de Jérémie: La venue du malheur contre ce lieu (Jérusalem), puis contre toute chair (Juda et les nations), et enfin de nouveau contre ce lieu, mais identifié cette fois à Babylone.” zaw 111 (1999): 508–29.

142

Lange

Gottheil, Richard. “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo.” jqr 17 (1905): 608–55. Graf, Karl Heinrich. Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weigel, 1862. Grant, Deena E. “Reinterpretation of Scripture in Hymn to the Creator.” tc 16 (2011). http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Grant2011.pdf. Gryson, Roger. Mss 1–275, d’après un manuscrit inachevé de Hermann Josef Frede. Part 1 of Altlateinische Handschriften: Manuscrits vieux latins; Répertoire descriptive. vl 1/2A. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief Jeremias. jshrz 3.2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980. HaCohen, Aviyah. “4QJera: A Pre-Massoretic Text?” Text 17 (1994): 138–45 (in Hebrew). Hanneken, Todd R. “Status and Interpretation of Jubilees in 4Q390.” Pages 407–28 in vol. 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by E. F. Mason et al. 2 vols. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Haran, Menahem. “The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 699–706 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Henze, Matthias, and Frank Feder, eds. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. thb 2. Leiden: Brill, 2019–2020. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_256523. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Edited by P. Hanson. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1989. Holt, Else K. “The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah MT.” sjot 17 (2003): 183–205. Howard, George E. “The Quinta of the Minor Prophets: A First Century Septuagint Text?” Bib 55 (1974): 15–22. Hubmann, Franz D. “Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen MT und G im Jeremiabuch.” Pages 263–70 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Groß. bbb 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Huwyler, Beat. Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49. fat 20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Jacoby, Norbert. “Isomorphism and Interpretation: Reflection on the Greek Translation of Jeremiah 1.” Pages 37–50 in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History. Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. cbet 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Janzen, J. Gerald. “A Critique of Sven Soderlund’s The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis.” bioscs 22 (1989): 16–47. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah.” htr 60 (1967): 433–47. Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. hsm 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

143

Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Joosten, Jan. “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique.” Pages 93–108 in 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. Edited by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey. stdj 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kaiser, Otto. Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen: Eine Einleitung in Grundzügen. Gütersloh: Kaiser, 2000. Kaiser, Otto. Die prophetischen Werke. Vol. 2 of Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. Kennicott, Benjamin. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1776–1780. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2003. Kiraz, George A., and Joseph Bali, eds., and Gillian Greenberg and Donald M. Walter, trans., The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Jeremiah. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. gbs. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Knibb, Michael A. “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390.” Pages 164–77 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. VTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Der Brief des Jeremia: Übersetzt und erklärt.” Pages 69–108 in Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel: Übersetzt und erklärt. Edited by O. H. Steck et al. atd-Apokryphen 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Die Rezeption von Jeremia 10 und 29 im pseudepigraphen Brief des Jeremia.” jsj 26 (1995): 2–31. Kugel, James L. “Some Instances of Biblical Interpretation in the Hymns and Wisdom Writings of Qumran.” Pages 155–69 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by J. L. Kugel. Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2001. Kutz, Karl, et al. “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003172).” Pages 140–57 in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. Edited by E. Tov et al. Publications of the Museum of the Bible 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Lange, Armin. “1.1.2.1 Overview Articles: Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible: The History of the Jewish Canon.” thb 1A:36–48. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM _0001010201. Lange, Armin. “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew–Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts.” thb 1A:112–66. Volume 1A: Overview Articles.

144

Lange

Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb _COM_0001020200. Lange, Armin. “7.2 Jeremiah: Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts.” thb 1B:514–42. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0007000000. Lange, Armin. “10.2.1 Psalms: Ancient Hebrew Texts: Ancient Manuscript Evidence.” thb 1C:24–42. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0010020100. Lange, Armin. “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira.” Pages 118–61 in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible. Edited by I. Himbaza. obo 275. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Lange, Armin. “Canon/Canonization.” Pages 200–204 in vol. 1 of Vocabulary for the Study of Religion. Edited by R. A. Segal and K. von Stuckrad. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Lange, Armin. “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 95–116 in “Go Out and Study the Land” ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by A. M. Maeir et al. JSJSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lange, Armin. Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Vol. 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Lange, Armin. “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” Pages 3–40 in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature. Edited by P. S. Alexander et al. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Lange, Armin. “The Question of the So-Called Qumran Orthography, the Severus Scroll, and the Masoretic Text.” HeBAI 3 (2014): 424–75. Lange, Armin. “The Qumran Library in Context: The Canonical History and Textual Standardization of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Qumran Library.” Pages 261–79 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library. Edited by S. White Crawford and C. Wassen. stdj 116. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Lange, Armin. “The Text of the Book of Jeremiah according to Barkhi Nafshi and the Rule of Benedictions.” Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, Edited by A. B. Perrin et al. ejl 47. Atlanta: sbl Press, 2017. Lange, Armin. “The Text of Jeremiah in 1 Enoch.” Pages 121–41 in Wisdom Poured Out Like Water: Studies on Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini. Edited by J. H. Ellens et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Lange, Armin. “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran.” Pages 95–116 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by N. Dávid et al. frlant 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

145

Lange, Armin. “Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library.” Pages 280–302 in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, Edited by J. R. Lundbom, C. A. Evans, and B. A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Lange, Armin. “Texts within Texts: The Text of Jeremiah in the Exegetical Literature from Qumran.” Pages 187–208 in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by A. Feldman et al. stdj 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Lange, Armin. “The Textual History of the Book Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 251–84 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by J. Penner et al. stdj 98. Leiden: Brill 2012. Lange, Armin. “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 43–96 in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by N. David and A. Lange. cbet 57. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Lange, Armin. “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta‘an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 29–80 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday. Edited by A. Lange et al. frlant 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Lange, Armin, and Russell E. Fuller. “Quotations of Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew Texts.” Pages 483–511 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot. Edited by A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales. THBSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Lange, Armin, and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and Genre.” Pages 115–64 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by E. Tov. djd 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSupp 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Langlois, Michael. “The Book of Jeremiah’s Redaction History in Light of it Oldest Manuscripts.” Pages 9–31 in Jeremiah in History and Tradition. Edited by J. West and N. P. Lemche. London: Routledge, 2020. Langlois, Michael. “Paleographical Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Schøyen Collection.” Pages 79–128 in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. Edited by T. Elgvin et al. lsts 71. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes: In ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. frlant 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Loewinger, D. S., ed. Codex Cairo of the Bible from the Karaite Synagogue at Abbasiya. Jerusalem: Makor, 1971.

146

Lange

Loewinger, D. S., ed. Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa: Codex Leningrad B 19a; The Earliest Complete Bible Manuscript. Jerusalem: Makor, 1971. Loll, Colette et al. Museum of the Bible Dead Seas Scroll Collection: Scientific Research and Analysis: Final Report November 2019. Washington, DC: Art Fraud Insights, llc, 2019. https://museumofthebible.cdn.prismic.io/museumofthebible/8ee1c3b3 -8398-481a-bc7a-4da593c38728_MOTB-DSS-Report-FINAL-web.pdf. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lust, Johan. “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case.” jnsl 20 (1994): 31–48. Meade, John D. “6–9.1.5 Latter Prophets: Primary Translations: Hexaplaric Greek Translations.” thb 1B:637–43. Volume 1B: The Hebrew Bible, Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609010500. Michael, Tony S. L. “Bisectioning of Greek Jeremiah: A Problem to be Revisited?” bioscs 39 (2006): 93–104. Min, Young-Jin. “The Minuses and Pluses of the lxx Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977. Min, Young-Jin. “The Case for Two Books of Jeremiah.” Pages 109–24 in Text, Theology and Translation: Essays in Honour of Jan de Waard. Edited by S. Crisp and M. Jinbachian. London: United Bible Societies, 2004. Moon Kwon Chae. “Redactional Intentions of MT Jeremiah concerning the Oracles against the Nations.” jbl 134 (2015): 577–93. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 44. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Movers, Franz Carl. De utriusque recensionis Vaticiniorum Ieremiae, Graece Alexandrinae et Hebraicae Masorethicae, indole et origene commentatio critica. Hamburg: Perthes, 1837. Naumann, Weigand. Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief. bzaw 25. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1913. Nestle, Eberhard. Marginalien und Materialien. Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1893. Newsom, Carol A. “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood.” Pages 85–97 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al. djd 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. crint 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

147

Ofer, Yosef, ed. Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Karger Family Fund, 2000. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. sblms 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Patton, Corinne. “Layers of Meaning: Priesthood in Jeremiah MT.” Pages 149–76 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by L. L. Grabbe and A. Ogden Bellis. JSOTSup 408. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Pérez Castro, Federico. Jeremias. Vol. 5 of El Codice de profetas de el Cairo. Edited by F. Pérez Castro. Textos y estudios “Cadenal Cisneros” 37. Madrid: Instituto de Filologia, 1987. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. ehat 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Pietersma, Albert. “Divinity Denied: Nebuchadnezzar, Divine Appointee but No God: Greek Jeremiah Reconsidered.” Pages 351–71 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by H. Ausloos et al. betl 224. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Pietersma, Albert. “An Excursus on Bisectioning Ieremias.” nets. http://ccat.sas.upenn .edu/nets/edition/ieremias-excursus.pdf. Pietersma, Albert. “Of Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah.” Pages 359–87 in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by M. N. van der Meer et al. VTSup 138. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Piovanelli, Pierluigi. “JrB 33,14–26, ou la continuité des institutions à l´époque maccabéenne.” Pages 255–76 in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception. Edited by A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer. betl 128. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Rabin, Chaim, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Book of Jeremiah: The Hebrew University Bible. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1997. Ranke, Ernst, ed. Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium: Antiquissimae veteris Testamenti versionis Latinae fragmenta; E codd. Rescriptis eruit edidit explicuit. Vienna: Braumüller, 1871. Renaud, Bernard. “L’oracle de la nouvelle alliance: À propos des divergences entre le texte hébreu (Jr 31,31–34) et le texte grec (38,31–34).” Pages 85–98 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert. Edited by J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin. betl 144. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1999. Reymond, Eric D. New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11QPsa). ejl 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Reynolds, Bennie H., III. “Adjusting the Apocalypse: How the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C Updates the Book of Daniel.” Pages 279–94 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in

148

Lange

Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by A. Lange et al. 2 vols. VTSup 140. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Reynolds, Bennie H., III. Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and NonSymbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 B.C.E. JAJSup 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Riley, Jason. “An Explanation for the Reading ἐν µέσῳ αὐτῆς in lxx-Jer 29:14 in Light of Dalet-Resh Interchange.” vt 63 (2013): 433–39. Rofé, Alexander. “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” zaw 101 (1989): 390–98. Rofé, Alexander. “The Name Yhwh Seba’ot and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah.” Pages 307–15 in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. Liwak and S. Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991. Sabatier, Petrus, ed., Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu vetus Italica, et Caeterae quaecunque in Codicibus Mss. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt; Quae cum Vulgata Latina et cum Textu Graeco comparantu. 3 vols. Reims: Florentain, 1743–1749. Saley, Richard J. “Reconstructing 4QJerb According to the Text of the Old Greek.” dsd 17 (2010): 1–12. Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Sanders, James A., ed. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). djd 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Schauerte, Gabriele. “‫קרא‬.” ThWAT 7:117–47. Schenker, Adrian. “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose vom Unterjocher zum Gottes­ knecht: Das Bild Nebukadnezzars und einige mit ihm zusammenhängende Unterschiede in den beiden Jeremia-Rezensionen.” rb 89 (1982): 498–527. Schenker, Adrian. “Der nie aufgehobene Bund: Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jer 31,31– 34.” Pages 85–112 in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger and C. Dohmen. qd 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Schenker, Adrian. “La rédaction longue du livre de Jérémie: Doit-elle être datée au temps des premiers Hasmonéens?” etl 70, no. 4 (1994): 281–93. Schenker, Adrian. “Was übersetzen wir? Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich aus der Textkritik ergeben.” Pages 247–62 in Text und Sinn im Alten Testament: Textgeschichtliche und bibeltheologische Studien. Edited by A. Schenker. obo 103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Schmid, Konrad. Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches. wmant 72. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. Scholz, Anton. Der Masorethische Text und die lxx–Uebersetzung des Buches Jeremias. Regensburg: Manz, 1875.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

149

Schroer, Silvia. In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. obo 74. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Sen, Felipe. “Más textos que reciben luz de Qumraán: Jr 10:13 y 2 Sm 23:7.” cb 31 (1974): 100–101. Seybold, Klaus. “Das Hymnusfragment 11QPsa XXVI 9–15: Auslegung und Einordnung.” Pages 199–207 in Studien zur Psalmenauslegung. Edited by K. Seybold. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998. Shead, Andrew G. “Jeremiah.” Pages 469–86 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J. K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Shead, Andrew G. “Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions.” TynBul 50 (1999): 318–20. Shead, Andrew G. The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions. JSOTSup 347. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Skehan, Patrick W. “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter.” cbq 37 (1975): 343–47. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” cbq 35 (1973): 195–205. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. Wisdom of Ben Sira. ab 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smith, Mark. “384: 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” Pages 137–52 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al. djd 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Soderlund, Sven. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. JSOTSup 47. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1985. Sperber, Alexander, ed. Codex Reuchlinianus: No. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe ( formerly Durlach no. 55); With a General Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew. Vol. 1 of The Pre-Masoretic Bible: Discovered in Four Manuscripts, Representing a Unique Tradition and Published with a General Introduction, Detailed Description of the Mss. and Basic Conclusions. Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii Aevi 2.1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1956. Sperber, Alexander. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Spohn, Gottlieb Leberecht. Ieremias Vates e versione Iudaeorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum interpretum Graecorum emendatus notisque criticis illustrates. Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1794. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Broadening the Criteria for Clarifying the Textual History of Jeremiah 10: The Pre-Masoretic Ideolect.” Pages 107–16 in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History. Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. cbet 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Eschatologisches Schema im alexandrinischen Jeremiabuch?” jnsl 23 (1997): 153–79.

150

Lange

Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Gottesbildfragen in den Lesartendifferenzen zwischen dem masoretischen und dem alexandrinischen Text des Jeremiabuches.” Pages 237–74 in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Edited by J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp. VTSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Interpretierende Übersetzung in der Jeremia-Septuaginta.” jnsl 40 (2014): 27–52. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Die Jeremia-Septuaginta als theologische Programmschrift: Zur Kommentierung des griechischen Jeremiabuches in der ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’ (lxx.D).” bz 57 (2013): 27–45. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese I.” vt 64 (2014): 484–501. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese II.” vt 64 (2014): 654–63. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte. obo 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Offene Fragen zur Übersetzungskritik des antiken griechischen Jeremiabuches.” jnsl 17 (1991): 117–28. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Der prämasoretische Idiolekt des Buches Ezechiel und seine Beziehungen zum Jeremiabuch.” Pages 140–55 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday. Edited by A. Lange et al. frlant 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Probleme des redaktionsgeschichtlichen Modells der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches.” Pages 225–62 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Groß. bbb 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Prophetentitel und Eigenname Jeremias im masoretischen Sondergut des Jeremiabuches.” Pages 293–307 in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie: Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. Achenbach and M. Arneth. bzabr 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “The Prophetic Messenger Formulas in Jeremiah according to the Masoretic and Alexandrian Texts.” Text 18 (1995): 63–85. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches.” Pages 630–53 in Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.D), Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. wunt 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Strack, Hermann L. The Hebrew Bible—Latter Prophets: The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd; Edited with Preface and Critical Annotations. Prolegomenon by P. Wernberg-

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

151

Møller. New York: Ktav, 1971. Repr. of Prophetam Posteriorum: Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (Petropoli: Bibliothecae Publicae Imperialis, 1876). Strawn, Brent A. “10.2.3 Psalms: Ancient Hebrew Texts: Other Texts.” thb 1C:61–81. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10 .1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0010020300. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91–108. cejl. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Stulman, Louis. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah with English Translation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. Stulman, Louis. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research. sblds 83. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Differing Perspectives in the lxx and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10.” Pages 135–53 in Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertextuality, and Reception in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature. Edited by M. A. Sweeney. fat 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective.” Pages 65–77 in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by M. A. Sweeney. fat 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tamási, Balázs. “Prophesized History of the Postexilic Period and Polemics Against Priests in 4Q390 from Qumran: Levite Authorship Behind the Fragments?” Pages 310–28 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by K. D. Dobos and M. Kőszeghy. Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Thackeray, H. St. John. “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah.” jts 4, no. 2 (1903): 245–66. Thackeray, H. St. John. Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament. London: Allen & Unwin, 1927. Thomas, Benjamin D. “Reevaluating the Influence of Jeremiah 10 upon the Apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah: A Case for the Short Edition.” zaw 120 (2008): 547–62. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Classification of the Collection of Dead Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.” jsj 43 (2012): 519–50. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fishy Fragments—or Forgeries? On Provenance and Authenticity: Some Cases.” https://zenodo.org/record/1430161# .YMmZDS0Rpn4. Tov, Emanuel. “The Book of Jeremiah: A Work in Progress.” BRev 16 (2000): 32–38, 45. Tov, Emanuel. “The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 55–63 (in Hebrew). Tov, Emanuel. “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx of Jeremiah 27 (34).” zaw 91 (1979): 73–93.

152

Lange

Tov, Emanuel. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 97–122 in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick and O. A. O’Sullivan. London: British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press in association with the Scriptorium, Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003. Tov, Emanuel, ed., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) (The Seiyâl Collection I). djd 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, Emanuel. “Die griechischen Bibelhandschriften der judäischen Wüste.” Pages 27– 66 in Qumran aktuell: Texte und Themen der Schriften vom Toten Meer. Edited by S. Beyerle and J. Frey. BThSt 120. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2011. Tov, Emanuel. “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie.” rb 79 (1972): 189–99. Tov, Emanuel. “Jeremiah.” Pages 145–207 in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. djd 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14 (1989): 189–206. Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 63–84 in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. “2.1 Pentateuch: Textual History of the Pentateuch.” thb 1B:3–22. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0002010000. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” Pages 31–56 in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Edited by C. A. Evans and E. Tov. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the lxx of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. hsm 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Tov, Emanuel. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 145–67 in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. betl 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd. ed. jbs 8. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Ulrich, Eugene, ed. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts.” Pages 77–99 in Scripture and the Scrolls. Vol. 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006.

Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

153

Ulrich, Eugene. “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera.” Pages 489–506 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Ulrich, Eugene. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. hsm 19. Missoula, mt: Scholars Press, 1978. Ulrich, Eugene. “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books.” Pages 263–74 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by K. D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy. Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Van der Kooij, Arie. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. obo 35. Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Van der Kooij, Arie. “Jeremiah 27:5–15: How Do MT and lxx Relate to Each Other?” jnsl 20 (1994): 59–78. Vattioni, Francesco, ed. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e sirica. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica 1. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Vermeylen, Jacques. “L’alliance renouvelée (Jr 31,31–34): L’histoire littéraire d’un texte célèbre.” Pages 57–83 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert. Edited by J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin. betl 144. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1999. Wanke, Gunther. Jeremia. 2 vols. zbk 20. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1995–2003. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Angelic Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts.” Pages 131–57 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. stdj 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Weis, Richard D. “A Conflicted Book for a Marginal People: Thematic Oppositions in MT Jeremiah.” Pages 297–309 in Exegetical and Theological Studies. Vol. 2 of Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Edited by W. Kim et al. sac. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Weis, Richard D. “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10 in lxx and MT: Results and Implications.” Pages 117–36 in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History. Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. cbet 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

154

Lange

Weis, Richard D. “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 269–93 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Y. A. P. Goldman et al. VTSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Weiss, Judy. “The Masorah of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America Library Manuscript 232 (E. N. Adler Ms. 346).” PhD diss., The Graduate School of The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2009. Werman, Cana. “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature.” dsd 13 (2006): 229–55. Wijesinghe, Shirley L. Jeremiah 34,8–22: Structure and Redactional History of the Masoretic Text and of the Septuagint Hebrew Vorlage. Logos 37.1–2. Colombo: Centre for Society and Religion, 1999. Wijesinghe, Shirley L. “Tracing the Shorter Version Behind the Short Text (lxx): A New Approach to the Redaction of Jeremiah 34,8–22.” Le Muséon 110 (1997): 293–328. Wilcken, Ulrich. “IV. Bibliographie.” apf 4 (1907): 198–268. Wilcken, Ulrich. Review of vol. 1 of Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum, by Wilhelm Dittenberger. apf 3 (1906): 313–36. Wright, Benjamin G. “Letter of Ieremias.” Pages 942–45 in nets. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Epistle of Jeremiah: Translation or Composition?” Pages 126– 42 in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies. Edited by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér. dcls 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Xeravits, Géza. “Notes sur le 11QPsa Creat 7–9.” RevQ 18 (1997): 145–48. Yardeni, Ada. “The Palaeography of 4QJera: A Comparative Study.” Text 15 (1990): 233–68. Yeivin, Israel. “A Biblical Manuscript Very Close to the Aleppo Codex from the Karaite Synagogue in Cairo (C1).” Pages 169–94 in Studies in Bible and Exegesis 3: In Memoriam Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Edited by M. Bar Asher et al. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993 (in Hebrew). Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Vol. 15 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Ziegler, Joseph. “Zum Wortschatz des griechischen Sirach.” Pages 274–87 in idem, Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. msu 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.

chapter 4

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text Pablo A. Torijano Morales Among the older versions, “only … Vetus Latina has any bearing on the Hebrew text of the Bible through its Greek source which, however, is not extant.”1

∵ This affirmation by Emanuel Tov illustrates how scholarly opinion has changed, concerning the importance of the Old Latin (ol) version for the textual history of the Bible. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their impact on our knowledge of the biblical texts shows how the tide has begun to turn regarding the value of the secondary versions in general and the ol in particular. 1

Textual Filiation and the Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin Version

The critical use of ol depends on the value we accord to its text. Modern exegesis has frequently discarded the witness of the versions since these translations were considered late. However, readings attested by the scrolls agree with readings attested by the ol version. The most striking case, no doubt, is the agreement of the ol reading in Deut 27:4: “Gerizim” (Garzin, attested in Lugd vl 100)2 with the reading of a small scroll fragment of uncertain origin (presumably from Cave 4).3 This reading is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch 1 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 134. 2 John William Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, svtg 3/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 287. 3 See James H. Charlesworth, “What is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy,” Maarav 16 (2009): 201–12, Pls. IX–X. For a discussion of the fragment and an initial affirmative opinion of its authenticity, see Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 57–59. It should be

© Pablo A. Torijano Morales, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_005

156

Torijano Morales

(‫)בהרגריזים‬, in the Greek Papyrus Giessen from the fifth–sixth century CE  (αρ γαριζ[ιμ])4 and in the Samareitikon ἐν τῷ Γαριζει.5 Even though direct attestation comes from only a single Greek witness, it seems that the ol reading reflects an ancient Greek reading based on an old Hebrew text.6 The independent witnesses of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Samareitikon and the Greek Papyrus Giessen support the antiquity of the ol reading. The ol reading in Deut 27:4 provides additional support for the view that 4QJosha constitutes the earliest extant witness locating the first altar built in the newly entered land on Mount Gerizim, rather than the Masoretic location, Mount Ebal.7 In some other cases, ol and the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the rest of the main textual tradition. For example, in Judg 6:5, the Old Latin reading quorum non erat numerus (“of whom there was no number”)8 presents a short text, against mt and lxx καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ ταῖς καμήλοις αὐτῶν οὐκ ἦν ἀριθμός (“and they [the Midianites] and their camels were numberless”). Reconstruction of a lacuna in line 4 of 4QJudga indicates the presence of the shorter text, ‫ולהם‬

4 5

6

7

8

kept in mind that at present the authenticity of the fragment has been called into question. There are problems, acknowledged by Charlesworth himself, concerning the paleography of the fragment and oddities in its orthography, as well as questions about its provenance. Even if the Deuteronomy fragment turns out to be a forgery, however, the antiquity and authenticity of the ol reading as witness to an old Hebrew reading is upheld by the Greek and Samaritan witnesses. Emanuel Tov, “Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?” rb 78 (1971): 355–83. Wevers, Deuteronomium, 16; on the Samareitikon and its textual characteristics see Jan Joosten, “Septuagint and the Samareitikon,” in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. C. Werman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 1–15; cf. also Rudolph Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” rej 157 (1998): 269–358. Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, VTSup 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). According to Kartveit both ol and P.Giess. go back to a Jewish Hebrew text that has “Mount Gerizim”; see also Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher, obo 199 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 185–87. Eugene Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez, stdj 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 89–104; idem, “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales, JSJSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 361–75; see also Julio Trebolle Barrera, “A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis: Editorial Traces in Joshua and Kings,” in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 437–63 (453–55). Translations of biblical and nonbiblical texts are my own unless otherwise noted.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

157

‫“( אין םספר‬and they [the Midianites] were numberless”).9 In 2 Samuel 5, ol omits vv. 4–5, which introduce the year of David’s accession to the throne and the duration of his reign (“David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years”). The passage is also missing in 4QSama, Josephus, and 1 Chronicles 11, which implies that the shorter text represents a pre-Lucianic and probably  Old Greek (og) reading.10 At 2 Sam 14:7, the reading of 4QSamc ]‫[הגחלת אשר‬ ‫“( ה[ש]ארתי‬the coal that remains to me”) is attested by the early Lucianic text, the Old Latin and the Peshitta, against the Masoretic reading ‫גחלתי אשר נשארה‬ (“my coal which remains”).11 We also find a number of sporadic readings that exhibit the pattern: Qumran = lxx / ol ≠ mt: – Deut 33:8: 4QDeuth [‫ = הבו ללו ]י‬Δότε Λευι (lxx, also ol) (“Give to Levi”) ≠ mt > – 1 Sam 1:23: 4QSama lxx ol ‫“( [אך יקם יהו]ה היוצא מפיך‬only let the Lord confirm what has come from your mouth”) ≠ mt ‫“( אך יקם יהוה את דברו‬only let the Lord confirm his word”). – 1 Sam 10:27–11:1: 4QSama ‫ = מויד‬ὡς μετὰ μῆνα (lxx, also ol) (“In about/after about a month”) ≠ mt ‫…“( כמחריש‬ [he was] like one silent”). – 2 Sam 7:23: 4QSama ‫[גוים] ואהלים‬ = ἔθνη καὶ σκηνώματα (lxx, also ol) (“nations and tents”) ≠ mt ‫“( גוים ואלהיו‬nations and their gods”).12 For the book of Judges, two variants in 1Q6 match Old Latin readings.13 Thus, for Judg 9:29 the 1Q6 reading ‫ ויאמרו‬coincides with ol and Vulgate, against mt 9

10

11 12 13

See Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges (1),” in The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community: Proceedings of the Groningen Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989), ed. F. García Martínez = RevQ 14/54 (1989): 229–45. Frank Moore Cross et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel, djd 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 120. The Lucianic text denotes the revision of the Greek text that was done around the end of the third century CE by Lucian of Antioch. This recension was mostly stylistic, but it has at its basis an older text that went back to the Old Greek, thus predating the Kaige Greek text, which translated a Hebrew text very like the Masoretic. The readings that witness that older Greek text are labelled pre-Lucianic, meaning that they are early and are not the product of the Lucianic revision. These early reading are important because they translated an old Hebrew text that differed from the pre-Masoretic one. The Lucianic recension is based on a pre-Lucianic Antiochene text that circulated in Syria in the third and fourth centuries CE. Ulrich, Developmental Composition of the Bible, 79. Ulrich, Developmental Composition of the Bible, 161–62, 174. Émile Puech, “Les manuscrits 4QJugesc (= 4Q50a) et 1QJuges (= 1Q6),” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. P. W. Flint, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 184–202.

158

Torijano Morales

‫ויאמר‬. In Judg 9:44, against mt ‫ואבימלך‬, 1Q6 reads ‫ אבימ[לך‬without the copula, agreeing with ol as well as the Greek manuscript l (370), which features the Lucianic text of Judges, and the Sahidic Coptic text.14 Consequently, the Qumran biblical scrolls enhance the value of the ol as a textual witness. More specifically, the Qumran scrolls have reinforced the value of the Greek Vorlage of the ol, in particular for Judges and Samuel– Kings. The Greek of those biblical books is preserved by an Antiochene text that predates the Hexaplaric and Lucianic recensions. Qumran manuscripts such as 4QSama have given us better knowledge of the nature and characteristics of this Antiochene Greek text, also attested by ol. Moreover, the Twelve Prophets Scroll of Naḥal Ḥever has helped to identify characteristics of the kaige-Theodotionic recension, which also influenced the recension of ol for those very same books of Judges and Samuel–Kings.15 Thus, the critical value of ol lies in its contribution, first, to the reconstruction of the pre-Lucianic Antiochene text, which was equivalent to or very close to the og; and second, to the reconstruction of the Hebrew text underlying that Greek text—or, at the very least, of Hebrew readings that differ from those of the proto-Masoretic tradition.

1.1 What Do We Understand by OL? Before tackling the problems posed by such an affirmation, we first must ask several questions relating to the origin and character of the ol text, as well as to the process of its revision and transmission. The first question is basic but decisive: What do we understand by ol? When we speak of the lxx, it is understood that we are dealing with the original Greek text, or og. Occasionally, however, the term “Septuagint” is used in a 14

15

For the Greek ms l (= 370 in Rahlfs’s classification), see Alfred Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, msu 2 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914); the critical edition of the Sahidic Coptic text is currently being prepared by the Coptic Bible Project of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. The coincidence between the ol and Coptic texts is especially meaningful, as A. V. Billen acknowledged, cf. his, “The Old Latin Versions of Judges,” jts 43 (1942): 140–49 (146); cf. also Barnabas Lindars, “Some Septuagint Readings in Judges,” jts 22 (1971): 1–14. A remarkable example of agreement between ol and the Sahidic Coptic text is the reading “from Gilgal to Klauthmon and to Bethel” (Judg 2:1). See the pioneering but still fundamental work of Dominique Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Despite some later criticism, Barthélemy’s work is the point of departure for our understanding of the kaige recensional process. On the influence of his work, see Anneli Aejmelaeus and Tuukka Kauhanen, eds., The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila, dsi 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017).

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

159

broader sense to refer to the entirety of the manuscript tradition that encompasses the texts of the Greek recensions; that is, the textual types and groups of manuscripts through which the Septuagint has come down to us. The term ol is used frequently in that broad sense as well, so that ol (or Vetus Latina) may denote all Latin translations and recensions prior to Jerome’s Vulgate (end of the fourth century CE). In this sense, ol would designate a complete and systematic collection of any text that has been transmitted, directly or indirectly, of the oldest Latin Bible. But strictly speaking, Vetus Latina or ol denotes the first Latin translation (antiqua translatio), based on the Old Greek text of the Septuagint version. This distinction must be clear, since quite often the value of the ol text has been denied on the grounds that it contains late recensional readings, as if such readings would mitigate against recognition of the text of the original translation. 1.2 Single Translation or Cluster of Independent Translations? The second question has been widely debated: Are we dealing with a single translation or with a group of independent translations? Saint Augustine complained that in his own time, there was an “unlimited variety of Latin translators” (latinorum interpretum infinita varietas),16 and Jerome observed that there were almost “as many forms of text as manuscripts” (tot exemplaria quot codices).17 These affirmations seem to indicate the existence of numerous independent versions, although alternatively they may note a stage of textual variety, the old text being “corrupted by the error of the scribes” (scriptorum vitio depravata interpretatio antiqua).18 Until the mid-twentieth century, it was generally thought that the discrepancies between the preserved texts of the ol were due to the diversity of concurrent translations.19 However, studies by P. Capelle, D. De Bruyne and B. Sodar on Psalms, Maccabees and Wisdom, respectively,20 and by R. Hanhart 16 17 18 19

20

Saint Augustine, Doctr. chr. 2:11. Jerome, Praef. in libro Iosue, 11–12. Jerome, Prol. in Job, PL 28:1079–1084. This is similar to the situation that obtained for the lxx in Thackeray’s time, when the existence of several translators for books such as Samuel–Kings could be defended. See H. St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78. Paul Capelle, Le text du Psautier latin en Afrique, ColBL 4 (Rome: Pustet, 1913), 204; Donatien De Bruyne, “Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées,” rb 31 (1922): 31–54; Donatien De Bruyne and Bonaventure Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées, Analecta Maredsolana 4 (Denée, be: Maredsous Abbey, 1932); Donatien De Bruyne, “Étude sur le texte latin de l’Ecclésiastique,” RBén 40 (1928): 5–48; idem, “Étude sur le texte latin de la Sagesse,” RBén 41 (1929): 101–33.

160

Torijano Morales

on Esther, Judith and I Esdras,21 have suggested otherwise. The published Old Latin Beuron22 volumes—Genesis,23 Proverbs,24 and Isaiah25—confirm that each book originally came from a single translation, so that the differences are due to a process of recension of that original translation—a process very similar and parallel to that undergone by the Greek tradition.26 In addition, it is well known that the Latin books of the Pentateuch, together with Joshua and Judges, are the work of a single translator.27 1.3 Place and Time of the Original OL Translation The third question concerns the general time period of the first Latin translation. The Christian father Cyprian was using a Latin translation circulating in Carthage around 250 CE, the text of which agrees with later manuscripts. This early “African” version features certain linguistic idiosyncrasies that identify it.28 There is no known documentation attesting to the existence of other Latin 

21

22

23 24 25 26

27

28

Robert Hanhart, Esther, svtg 8.3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); idem, Text und Textgeschichte des I. Esrabuches, msu 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974); idem, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith, msu 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The Vetus Latina Institut is located in the Archabbey of Beuron. It was founded by Bonifatius Fisher in 1945. The Institut has been working for several decades on the edition of the Vetus Latina. The edition is published by Herder and will comprise, when finished, twenty-seven volumes. Bonifatius Fischer, Genesis, vl 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1951–1954). Johannes Schildenberger, Die altlateinischen Text des Proverbien-Buches, vol. 1, Die alte afrikanische Textgestalt, Texte und Arbeiten 1/32–33 (Beuron: Beuron Kunstverlag, 1941). Roger Gryson, Esaias, vl 12.1–2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1987–1997). Most of the secondary translations mirror the recensional process of the Greek text; see on this, Andres Piquer Otero, Pablo A. Torijano Morales, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions: Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum,” in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, ed. H. Ausloos et al., betl 213 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 251–81. From the middle of the twentieth century on, the idea of a single tradition for each book has prevailed; this view was first sustained by Capelle, Le text du psautier latin en Afrique, as well as De Bruyne and Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées. The Beuron editions of the different books prove that this hypothesis is sound. It must be taken into account that the “africanisms” of the African text do not refer to linguistic characteristics of an alleged African dialect of Latin; they are not exclusive therefore to that geographical zone. They simply comprise expressions that appear more frequently in the witnesses of the African text; they may also appear in other witnesses of the Latin text from other areas. Cf. Bonifatius Fischer, “Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache: Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte,” in Die alten Übersertzungen des Neuen Testaments, die

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

161

versions elsewhere in the Christian world at this time, so the oldest Latin translation must have originated in North Africa.29 The ol version is a Christian work from its inception. Although Blondheim and others assumed that the ultimate source of the ol was a Hebrew original,30 there are insufficient data to suppose that the biblical texts in Latin originated in Jewish communities of North Africa.31 Similarly, the points of contact detected between the text of the ol and those of the Targum and Peshitta can be explained through the parallel histories of their respective originals, the Greek and Hebrew texts. These points of contact are not due to either a direct or indirect influence of Targum upon the text of the ol or its Vorlage, the Antiochene Greek text. In fact, they stem from a shared Hebrew Vorlage representing a text-type different in origin and development from that of the proto-Masoretic tradition; this text-type underlies the Greek Vorlage of the ol, as well as the Targum itself.32 Therefore, the antiquity of the ol version, attested by Cyprian’s quotations and datable prior to the time of the Hexaplaric and Lucianic recensions of the

29

30

31 32

Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, ed. K. Aland and M. Black, antf 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 1–92. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge: Aperçu historique, état des questions,” rtl 19 (1988): 137–59; Eva Schulz-Flügel, “The Latin Old Testament Tradition,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. M. Saebø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 1.1:642–62; Jean Gribomont, “Les plus anciennes traductions latines,” in Le monde latin antique et la Bible, ed. J. Fontaine and C. Pietri, Bible de tous les temps 2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985), 43–65. David S. Blondheim tried to “établir les probabilités d’une influence linguistique de la synagogue sure l’Église latine naissante” in Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina: Étude sur les rapports entre les traductions bibliques en lange romane des Juifs au moyen age et les anciennes versions (Paris: Champion, 1925), x. See also Umberto Cassuto, “The Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin and Its Importance for the Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, tr. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1973), 1:274–319; Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Translations,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism, ed. H. Mulder and H. Sysling, crint 2.1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 299–338. Although they probably did speak Latin, as evidenced by their epigraphy. Concerning the Latin speaking Jews of late antique North Africa, see Jean Daniélou, Les origines du christianisme latin, Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1978), 21–22. See on this, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11 (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984), 30–35; Julio Trebolle Barrera and Pablo  A.Torijano, “The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1–2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version 1,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From Rabbis to Masoretes, ed. E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 101–33.

162

Torijano Morales

Greek text in the fourth century CE, constitutes the primary reason for the critical value of ol as witness to the Greek text that was its Vorlage. 1.4 The Greek Vorlage of the OL: A Pre-Lucianic Antiochene Text The fourth question relates to the Greek text (Vorlage) from which the first ol translation was made. The Qumran texts confirm the opinion that for Judges and Samuel–Kings the ol translates a Greek text that was very similar to the one upon which the Lucianic recension was based. Thus, the critical value of the ol text is linked with the problem of the pre-Lucianic and pre-Hexaplaric character of many of its readings. Vercellone already noted the Lucianic (that is, Antiochene) character of the ol fragments collected in the marginal notes of Vulgata codices from Leon.33 Wellhausen and Driver underlined the agreements between the ol and the Antiochene text.34 Burkitt was the first to observe that the ol reflected a text that was “Lucianic previous to Lucian.”35 However, A. Rahlfs and L. Dieu thought that the “Lucianisms” of the ol did not correspond to Old Greek readings but rather to readings of the later Lucianic Greek recension, which circulated quite widely in the West.36 However, according to Bonifatius Fischer, the premiere ol scholar, an ol text “is the more ancient, the greater number of Lucianic readings it contains.”37 Fischer supports this affirmation based on two considerations: the Latin text of Cyprian shows more agreements with the Antiochene Greek text (necessarily an earlier text than the Lucianic revision of the fourth century CE) than with the majority text of lxx. On the other hand, later Latin authors correct many Lucianisms towards lxx readings; although it is not possible to characterize with precision the type of work realized by Lucian, his recension and the 33 34

35 36 37

Carlo Vercellone, Complectens libros Iosue, Iudicum, Ruth et quatuor Regum, vol. 2 of Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum editionis (Rome: Spithöver, 1864). Julius Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (1871; repr., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 221–24; Samuel R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), lxxvi–lxxx. Regarding the book of Joshua, Margolis noted the affinity of the ol text with that of Greek mss 54, 75, and 118; mss 54 and 75 are considered to be Lucianic. See Max L. Margolis, “The K Text of Joshua,” ajsl 28 (1911): 1–55. See also Raymond Thornhill, “Six or Seven Nations: A Pointer to the Lucianic Text in the Heptateuch, with Special Reference to the Old Latin Versions,” jts 10 (1959): 233–46. Francis C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), cxvii. Alfred Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königbücher, Septuaginta Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 169; L. Dieu, “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille version latine (I et II Samuel),” rb 16 (1919): 372–403. Bonifatius Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” in Miscellanea biblica et orientalia Athanasio Miller completis LXX annis oblate, sa 27–28 (Rome: Herder, 1951), 169–77 (175).

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

163

ol text seem to go back to the same type of (now lost) Greek text. Therefore, the ol is an important aid to identifying proto-Lucianic readings preserved in the Antiochene text.38 Thus, the value of the ol is based in the second  instance on the critical value of the source text to which it witnesses: an Antiochene text that, according to Barthélemy, “c´est essentiellement la Septante ancienne, plus ou moins abâtardie et corrompue.”39 However, the ol textual tradition also incorporated readings from both the kaige-Th(eodotion) recension and the Hexaplaric recension.40 Thus, in the book of Ruth the Vorlage for the ol text is a Greek version close to the kaige-Th recension of the lxx, characterized by its frequent adjustments to the mt text.41 In Lamentations all the ol texts show a close relationship with the Lucianic recension (L) and, to a lesser extent, with the Hexaplaric text (O). A high degree of agreement is found with other ancient versions, such as Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic, and, to a lesser measure, with Coptic. Conversely, the ol text of Song of Songs is an important witness of Hexaplaric readings. For Ezra–Nehemiah the ol text of vl 12342 is based on a lost late Greek Vorlage with extensive assimilations to the mt.43 38

39

40 41

42 43

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Bulletin de la Bible latine 1955–1973, Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine, t. 5; supplement à RBén 95 1964–1974 (Denée, be: Maredsous Abbey, 1974), iv–326, esp. 166; see also Eugene Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 233–74; and finally, Julio Trebolle Barrera, “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:23–25),” Textus 11 (1984): 17–36; idem, “Old Latin, Old Greek, and Old Hebrew in the Books of Kings (1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20:11),” Textus 13 (1986): 85–94. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers, 127. Against this view, other authors insist on the recensional nature of the Lucianic text; see Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel, Quaderni di Henoch 9 (Torino: Zamorani, 1996); and more recently Tuukka Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel, dsi 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). It should be noted that both scholars worked on an og section of Samuel–Kings (1 Samuel = αα) and, therefore, did not take into account kaige-sections. If those sections are considered, it is possible to distinguish between pre-Lucianic (= og grosso modo) and Lucianic (= late recensional) readings. On the kaige readings see Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10, 25–28),” rb 89 (1982): 198–209. Udo Quast, Ruth. svtg 4.3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 86–100. See also Bonifatia Gesche, Ruth, vl 4.5 (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 9–28, and eadem, “13–17.2.1.1 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Ruth,” thb 1C:452–53, doi.org/10.1163/  2452-4107_thb_COM_0019040100. The list of ol manuscripts (designated by vl numbers) is formulated by the Beuron Institut and published in every Beuron text edition. Cf. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des I. Esrabuches, 284–86. See also Bonifatia Gesche, “19.4.1 Ezra–Nehemiah: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1C:638–39, doi.org/10  .1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_00000382; and eadem, Esra I, vl 6.2 (Freiburg: Herder, 2008– 2016), 9, 18–19.

164

Torijano Morales

1.5 Characteristics of the OL Version The fifth question involves defining the character of the ol translation.44 This translation is characterized across all biblical books by its extreme literalness. The original text follows the Greek word order as strictly as possible, and reflects modes, tenses, and even cases, with an exact correspondence between the cases of the Greek original and the Latin translation. Greek loan words are frequent (plasmare [“to form”], abysus [“abyss”], blasphemia [“blasphemy”], scandalum [“temptation”], brabium [“prize awarded in public games”], exstasis [“terror / amazement / ecstasy”], etc.). Some Hebraisms have entered into the ol text by way of the Greek, such as the use of the elative genitive (uanitas uanitatum [“vanity of vanities”], caeli caelorum [“heavens of heavens” = “the highest heavens”], saecula saeculorum [“ages of ages” = “forever”]). This translation “to the letter,” laden with Hellenisms and vulgarisms, provoked some rejection among the cultured classes; because of this, the ol was supplanted by the new version of Jerome that would later become the Vulgate.45 This literalism, which mirrors word by word the underlying Greek text, constitutes the third reason for the critical value of this version, together with those already mentioned. Readings of the Kaige-Th(edotion) and the Hexaplaric Recensions Added to the OL Textual Tradition The sixth and last question raised here—although several others could be added—concerns the process of textual revision and transmission of this version. The history of the ol is basically the history of a progressive “Europeanization” of the original African text; by this I mean improving the style and vocabulary and adapting the Latin translation to Greek texts different from those used by the first translator of each book.46 The ol version of each book 1.6

44

45

46

See Eugene Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint,” in La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed. N. Fernández Marcos, tecc 34 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985), 67–80. On the many differences between ol and Vulgate both on style and language, see André-Marie Dubarle, Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions, AnBib 24 (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966). See also Julio Trebolle Barrera, “1.4.1 Overview Articles: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1A:319–31, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb  _COM_0001040100. Fischer, Genesis, 15. See also Walter Thiele, “Lateinische altkirchliche Bibelübersetzungen,” rgg 1 (1957): 1196–97. Traces of the old African text can be found in the European texts of the ol version until the very end of its development; see Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), 140; Schildenberger, Die altlateinischen Text des Proverbien-Buches, 169; Arthur Vööbus, Early

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

165

evolved in parallel to the history of the Greek text. In due course, variants typical of the different Greek recensions entered the ol tradition, particularly from the kaige-Th and Hexaplaric recensions. In the Greek textual tradition, the successive recensions and stylistic revisions contributed to mixtures of older and more recent texts—texts arising from the old Greek version and others reflecting the (proto-)Masoretic Hebrew tradition. In a similar manner, the process of revision of the ol version according to the different Greek recensions led to contaminations of the ol text. This distinctive process of revision and transmission of the ol text determined the model of the critical edition designed by Fischer for the Beuron Institute. The Beuron editions of ol do not reconstruct an “original” or an archetype. They offer the Latin text according to the different text-types employed for each book. Thus, for Isaiah, the text as it appears in Tertullian’s citations (end of the second century or beginning of the third) is followed by the two African types (mid-third century and fourth–fifth centuries) and the two European types.47 ol manuscripts remained in circulation until the end of the eighth century, but most of them were damaged or lost and their text carelessly mixed with Vulgate readings. The purest ol text is preserved in those books not reworked by Jerome, precisely those that are not part of the Hebrew Bible: Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sira, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, and 1–2 Maccabees.48 Against these arguments for the value of the ol modern criticism adduces many features that supposedly mitigate against the critical value of this version, including: its careless language and style; its numerous text forms; the mixture of readings of earlier and later provenance; the fragmentary state of the manuscript tradition; its attestation in palimpsests,49 marginal readings50 or indirectly in writings of the Christian fathers;51 and, finally, the deficient transmission of its text and its frequent corrupted state.

47 48 49 50 51

Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6 (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954), 54. See Gryson, Esaias, 15–19. See Jean-Claude Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther,” jts 57 (2006): 439–73 (441–44). As is the case with Samuel–Kings; see Bonifatius Fischer, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E.  Sanderson, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of L 115 for Samuel–Kings,” bioscs 16 (1983): 13–87. As is the case with the Samuel–Kings ol glossae in Spanish Vulgatas; see Antonio Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias vulgatas españolas: 1–2 Reyes, tecc 49 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1992). Such as Cyprian, Lucifer of Cagliari, Tyconius, Jerome, Augustine and some florilegia such as the Liber de diuinis scripturis.

166

Torijano Morales

The attestation of the different books is quite uneven. Our evidence is especially scarce for Samuel–Kings,52 1 Chronicles,53 Job,54 Proverbs,55 and the Prophets.56 Isaiah has been preserved only in fragments of codices and a few liturgical manuscripts, but there are abundant patristic quotations of the book, ca. 17,000.57 The book of Job also shows the importance of patristic quotations for certain biblical books, since it is only attested in works of Cyprian, Lucifer of Cagliari, Priscillian, and other Christian authors. Ruth survives only in the ninth/tenth century Codex Complutensis 1 (Madrid, Bibl. Univ. Centr. 31);58 Ezra–Nehemiah and the apocryphal 3–4 Esdras have been preserved in their entirety,59 as well as 2 Chronicles and Song of Songs.60 Esther is also well represented in the manuscript tradition.61 Notwithstanding all the deficiencies of the ol and of the transmission of its text, it is well known that a good old text may provide valuable critical testimony. The transmission history merely makes more difficult the recovery of the old text. However, in many instances, and thanks to external and internal textual criticism, it is possible to identify valuable old readings. Thus, in the book of Esther, all ol witnesses contain, within the prayer of Esther (C:16), a long addition that is absent from the lxx but present in slightly modified form in the Armenian version.62 The Latin and Armenian translators drew this addition from the same Greek model, which was created prior to 100 CE, as attested by P.Oxy. 4443.63 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

See Pablo A. Torijano Morales, “3–5.2.1.2 Former Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Samuel–Kings,” thb 1B:400–403, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0305020102. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, “20.4.1 1–2 Chronicles: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1C:693–95, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0020040100. Jean-Claude Haelewyck, “11.4.1 Job: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1C:207–9, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0011040100. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, “12.4.1 Proverbs: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1C:280–83, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0012040100. Julio Trebolle Barrera, “6–9.2.1 Latter Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1B:660–65, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609020100. Trebolle Barrera, “Latter Prophets,” 660. Gesche, “Ruth,” 452. Gesche, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” 638. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, “13–17.2.1.2 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Canticles,” thb 1C:454–55, doi.org/10.1163/2452 4107_thb_COM_1317020102. Jean-Claude Haelewyck, “13–17.2.1.5 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Esther,” thb 1C:459–61, doi.org/10.1163/24524107_thb_COM_1317020105; idem, “Relevance of the OL Version,” 445–73; idem, Hester, vl 7.3 (Freiburg: Herder, 2004–2008). See Hanhart, Esther, 34; Haelewyck, Hester, 76. Jean-Claude Haelewyck, “Le Papyrus Oxyrhynque 4443 et la vetus latina du livre d’Esther,” RBén 109 (1999): 267–71.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

167

On other occasions, internal criticism allows us to establish the textual filiation of an ol reading and acknowledge its critical value. Such is the case in numerous instances of double readings or alternative variants present in the ol text. Thus, in Judges and Samuel–Kings the critical task lies in distinguishing ol readings that reflect a kaige Greek text (ol2) from ol readings that follow a pre-Lucianic / og original (ol1), and that occasionally reflect a Hebrew Vorlage different from the proto-Masoretic text.64 Such an instance is found in Judg 5:6.65 There we have alternative readings aligned with the og or with the kaige text respectively: – ol1: defecerunt reges = ἐξέλιπον βασιλεῖς (og) ≠ ol2: defecerunt uiae = B ἐξέλιπον ὁδούς (kaige) = mt ‫חדלו ארחות‬. 2

The Old Latin and Textual Plurality: The Contribution of the OL to Textual and Literary Criticism of the Biblical and Apocryphal Books

The textual tradition represented by the Old Latin version is much richer and more varied than the Greek textual tradition. It suffices here to offer a short summary of the ol contribution to the textual history and the textual and literary criticism of many canonical and apocryphal biblical compositions. In Exodus, ol as represented by Codex Monacensis corresponds to a different Greek version of chapters 36–40, a portion where lxx lacks some sections found in mt. Among other things, ol (and consequently, its Greek Vorlage) omits several notices about the golden altar and the incense, indicates that Eliab makes the priestly vestments, and mentions that the Levites wear different garments from the priests. The ol here attests to the earliest stage of the book of Exodus, witnessing to the oldest Greek text; the mt represents the latest text, with the extant lxx placed between the two, witnessing to an intermediate stage of the textual and literary development of the Hebrew text of these chapters.66 64 65 66

As has already been noted, this also happens in 1–2 Kings; see Trebolle Barrera, “Old Latin,” 89–95; Bogaert, “Bulletin,” 162. Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, ed. G. Braulik, W. Groß, and S. McEvenue (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 315–29 (326). See Julio Trebolle Barrera, “2.5.1. Pentateuch: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1B:207–11, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0002050100; see also Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “L’importance de la Septante et du ‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus Latina pour l’exégèse

168

Torijano Morales

In 1–2 Samuel, the ol represents a proto-Lucianic Greek text, very close to the original Greek version (= og). This Greek version was based on a Hebrew text different from that of the Masoretic tradition, which is itself attested in the Qumran scrolls from Cave 4.67 In 1–2 Kings, Vindobonensis (vl 115),68 which reads together with the Greek Lucianic manuscripts (19–82–93–108–127),69 is closer to the og in kaige sections than to the lxxB tradition.70 In Jeremiah, the ol Wirceburgensis palimpsest (= vl 177; sixth century) omits mt Jer 39:1–2, which is marked with an asterisk in Origen’s Greek text. This agreement shows that originally these verses did not appear in the lxx text. The palimpsest also omits vv. 4–13, which are also missing from the lxx. This is another example that shows the weight of the ol as witness to the oldest Greek text and, accordingly, to a very old form of the Hebrew.71 In Ezekiel, the very same ol manuscript (Wirceburgensis) and the Greek Papyrus 967 are the only witnesses that show that the order of chapters 37–39 according to the mt is not original. The oldest text followed the sequence 38–39–37 and omitted 36:23c–28.72

67 68 69 70

71

72

du livre de l’Éxode (chap. 35–40),” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne, betl 126 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 399–428. See Torijano Morales, “Samuel–Kings.” On the Samuel Scrolls and ol, see Ulrich, Developmental Composition of the Bible, 73–108. For the text, see Fischer, Ulrich, and Sanderson. “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis.” The numbers follow the list in Rahlfs, Verzeichnis. This group of manuscripts is designated by the siglum L in the critical apparatus of this paper. In 2 Kings, we may add to this list mss 460 and 700. B = Codex Vaticanus (fourth century); it comes from Alexandria. In the kaige sections (1 Kings 1–2:11, 1 Kings 22–2 Kings), lxxB attests to a recensional text akin to a form of the Masoretic text, whereas the Lucianic tradition and the ol translation preserve the og text. See Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten”; see also Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Dos textos para un relato de resurrección: 2 Re 13,20–21 TM LXXB / LXXL VL,” Sefarad 43 (1983): 3–16. For a more ambivalent opinion concerning ol in Kings see Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings, VTSup 54 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), passim. Julio Trebolle Barrera, “6–9.2.1.2 Latter Prophets: Vetus Latina Jeremiah,” thb 1B:661–62, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609020100. On this question, see also Pierre-  Maurice Bogaert, “La vetus latina de Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jr 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker, scs 52 (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2003), 51–82. Julio Trebolle Barrera, “6–9.2.1.3 Latter Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Ezekiel,” thb 1B:663–64, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609020100. See also Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

169

In Daniel, Papyrus 967 also represents the more original form of the Greek text; it follows the order, chapters 1–4, 7–8, 5–6, and 9–12, followed by the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susannah. This arrangement is likewise found in the Latin writer Quodvultdeus (fifth century CE).73 In Song of Songs, the ol follows the same verse order in chapter 5 as Greek Papyrus R 952 (5:12, 14b, 13, 14a, 15).74 For the book of Job, the ol quotations of the Latin Fathers attest a short text (compared with mt) very close to the Greek original.75 For the book of Esther, Haelewyck affirms that the Greek Vorlage of the Old Latin represents the first Greek translation of the book, and the other two forms, the Lucianic text and the lxx text, are later.76 From this brief account, it is clear that, despite its fragmentary state, the critical value of the ol for the canonical books is quite important. However, the value of its textual testimony is even greater for the apocryphal books, because the complete ol text has been preserved for many of these books. Thus, for Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira, the ol preserves the original order of the text against the whole Greek manuscript tradition, which places 33:13b–36:10 before 30:25–33:15a.77 In Baruch, the ol transmits four textual forms, two of them dependent upon the older Greek text (og).78 Judith has been transmitted in three forms in the Greek tradition: lxx, the “Lucianic” text, and ms 58, corresponding to the og, which is the form followed by ol.79 The closer the ol variants are to the text of ms 58, the greater the guarantee of originality and

73 74

75 76 77 78

79

Papyrus 967,” Bib 59.3 (1978): 384–95. Papyrus 967 is one of the main witnesses to the og text of Ezekiel; it is dated from the late second to early third century CE, and therefore predates the Hexaplaric recension; it is considered to be of Egyptian provenance. Besides portions of Ezekiel, it contains parts of Esther and Daniel. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, “18.4.1 Daniel: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina,” thb 1C:575–78, doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0018040100. See also Bogaert, “Le témoign­ age de la Vetus Latina,” 384–87. Eva Schulz-Flügel, Canticum Canticorum, vl 10.3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 70–76. Papyrus 952 is preserved in two portions in London and Montserrat respectively; it came from Egypt. It is dated to the end of the third century CE or beginning of the fourth. It contains Cant 5:12–6:11. Haelewyck, “11.4.1 Job: Vetus Latina”; Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Job latin chez les Pères et dans les Bibles: D’une version courte à des versions longues sur le grec et sur l’hébreu,” RBén 122 (2012): 48–99. Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the OL Version,” 444–73. In fact, the ol version was taken over by Jerome in the Vulgata. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, LXX et VL),” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy, ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano, obo 109 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 1–17. The Greek ms 58 is dated to the eleventh century. See Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 246. Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jehú y Joás, 24 n. 22.

170

Torijano Morales

antiquity. In Tobit, the ol, although not free of corruptions and contaminations, contributes to the reconstruction of the text of the Sinaitic recension, the oldest of the three types of Greek texts of this book.80 In 1 Maccabees, the ol text often departs from the book’s known Greek manuscript tradition. In many cases it attests to a lost Greek text,81 superior to the one we know. In  2 Maccabees, the ol and the Armenian version bear joint witness to a now-lost short form of the Greek text.82 Finally, many of the ol additions to the Wisdom of Solomon go back to the earliest Greek version.83 3

2 Kings 4 as Case Study for the Use of OL in Textual Criticism

As noted, the ol contributes greatly to the reconstruction of the pre-Lucianic Antiochene text of Kings and, therefore, to the reconstruction of the og translation of the book and its Hebrew Vorlage. As an example, I will present here a step-by-step procedure for employing the ol as a textual witness for Kings. To do so, I have chosen the text of 2 Kings 4, which is part of the kaige section γδ (= 1 Kings 22–2 Kings).84 In this chapter we do not have at our disposal a continuous text of ol, such as that witnessed by Lucifer of Cagliari or ms Vindobonensis for other parts of the books of Kings.85 The ol readings are limited here to those preserved in the margins of the Spanish manuscripts

80

81 82 83 84 85

Jean-Marie Auwers, “La tradition vielle latine du livre de Tobie: Un état de la question,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology; Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, JSJSup 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–21; José Ramón Busto Saiz, “Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edición crítica del libro de Tobit,” Sefarad 38 (1978): 53–69. Schulz-Flügel, Canticum, 70–76. De Bruyne affirms “les variantes lucianiques qui se trouvent dans l’ancienne version latine sont des prélucianismes,” in idem, “Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées,” 35. Walter Thiele, “Zur griechischen Vorlage der Vetus Latina in der Sapientia Salomonis,” in Lex tua veritas: Festschirft für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres, ed. H. Gross, and F. Mussner (Trier: Paulinus, 1961), 279–91. This sample is by no means complete. Only the most important cases will be considered. Lucifer of Cagliari was bishop of Sardinia from 352 to 370 CE. He wrote several works on theological matters. One of them, De regibus apostaticis is an important witness to the ol of Kings, since Lucifer quotes large sections of the ol text. On Lucifer of Cagliari and the ol text of Kings, see Tuukka Kauhanen, Lucifer of Cagliari and the Text of 1–2 Kings, SCS 68 (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2018).

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

171

from Leon, classified as Beuron 91–95, and to quotations in the Speculum of Ps.-Augustine.86 3.1 OL Internal Variants I begin by listing variants internal to the ol tradition; that is, variants that do not reflect a different Greek Vorlage but constitute alternative translations without critical weight. – Lexical variants: 2 Kgs 4:29 bacterium / baculum, βακτηρίον; v. 39 ab illa / de ea – Additions without critical value, against the whole lxx tradition: v. 19 pater; v. 28 et ecce ibi hic mortuus est (“behold, here this one is dead!”) (cf. v. 32 mt ‫ ;)והנה הנער מת‬v. 31 ei (twice); v. 42 et ex primo fructu (“and from the first fruit”). 3.2 Identifying OL Readings of Hexaplaric Filiation Next, I identify the ol readings that correspond to readings of the Hexaplaric Greek tradition. These comprise passages added by Origen to his critical lxx text, reflecting Hebrew text that was not present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx; these passages were marked by asterisks: – v. 15 et ille dixit voca illam (“and she said ‘call her’”) = καὶ εἶπεν (Ελισσαιε) καλέσον αὐτήν – v. 16 homo Dei = ἄνθρωπε τοῦ θεοῦ – v. 42 panes = ἄρτους Likewise, there are marginal ol readings in the group of manuscripts we are considering here that correspond to lxx readings marked by Origen with an obelus (that is, passages found in the lxx that were missing from the mt). They are similarly missing from the main ol tradition; this indicates that the marginal ol readings preserve some Hexaplaric variants. – v. 12 μοι] > ol Spec. – v. 33 Ελισαιε] > ol Spec. OL Readings That Attest a Proto-Lucianic Text 3.3 Next, I examine the ol readings whose Vorlage is an Antiochene pre-Lucianic text. These may include:

86

Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales; the readings of the Speculum have been consulted in the Beuron cards (they are designated Spec. in the lists that follow). Likewise, > denotes that the preceding reading is missing from the textual traditions that come after it.

172

Torijano Morales

3.3.1 Morphosyntactical Variants – v. 42 attulit homini = ἤνεγκε τῷ ἄνθρωπῳ L ≠ ἤνεγκεν πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον B. 3.3.2 Lexical Variants – v. 16 noli deridere = μὴ ἐκγελάση L ≠ μὴ διαψεύση B; – v. 19 caput doleo = τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀλγῶ L ≠ τὴν κεφαλήν μου B – v. 27 hominem Dei = τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ L ≠ Ελεισαιε B – v. 27 homo Dei = ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ L ≠ Ελεισαιε B – v. 29 vade = πορεύου L ≠ δεῦρο B – v. 29 quendam = τίνα L ≠ ἄνδρα B (mt ‫)איש‬ – v. 29 quidam = τίς L ≠ ἀνήρ B (mt ‫)איש‬. 3.3.3 Variations in Word Order That Differ from That of the B Text – v. 27 Exi ab illa quoniam anima eius in dolore est = ἄνες αὐτήν ὅτι κατώδυνος ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῆς L Aeth ≠ ἄφες αὐτήν ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῆς κατώδυνος B – v. 41 et non est factum verbum malum amplius in olla = καὶ οὐκ ἐγενετο ῥῆμα πονηρὸν ἔτι ἐν τῷ λέβητι L ≠ καὶ οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἔτι ἐκεῖ ῥῆμα πονηρὸν ἐν τῷ  λέβητι B 3.3.4 Additions in the Antiochene Text – v. 23 vir eius = ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς L, > B – v. 28 mulier = ἡ γυνή L, > B – v. 28 tu fecisti = πεποίηκας L; > B – v. 35 et inspiravit in eum = καὶ ἐνέπνευσεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν L, > B – v. 35 commotus est = διεκινήθη L, > B 3.3.5 Omissions from the Antiochene Text – v. 10 τόπον Β, > ol L – v. 41 ἐκεῖ Β, > ol L 3.3.6 Characteristic Readings of the OG / Pre-Lucianic Text against Kaige – v. 29 vade = πορεύου L (Arm Aeth ol Spec.) ≠ δεῦρο kaige. 3.3.7 Doubtful Cases – v. 43 quid dabo hoc ante centum homines? = τί δῶ ἐνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν τοῦτο; L ≠ τί δῶ τοῦτο ἐνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν; B. Both ol and L have a different text from B, but they also differ slightly from one another. From all these examples, it is clear that when ol and L agree against the B text in the kaige section, they both reflect the OG, and therefore a different Hebrew text than the proto-Masoretic text witnessed by B.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

173

3.4 Double Readings The most interesting and difficult cases are so-called doublets. These may be found either in the ol textual tradition or in its og Vorlage. The double readings usually originate from differences between alternative Hebrew texts: that is, the Vorlage of the og and the proto-Masoretic text. The Old Latin textual tradition of Kings presents many cases of double readings. Generally, readings marked as In gr. in mss vl 91–95 follow the pre-Lucianic Antiochene text (= ol1) while the readings marked with Al. correspond to the kaige/B text (= ol2).87 The double readings constitute the clue to assessing the Antiochene text and identifying the two Hebrew textual forms represented by the Vorlage of og and the proto-mt text respectively. Example 1: Verse 39: ol1 = L (og): et exiit Giezi colligere agrestia, et invenit vitem agrestem, et collegit ab illa lira agrestes grumos plenum vestimentum suum (In gr.) (“and Giezi went out to collect wild plants and found a wild vine and collected from that plant wild gourds, and filled his cloak with them”) = καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν συλλέξαι ἀγρικὰ (άριὼθ L-127mg) καὶ εὕρεν ἄμπελον ἀγρίαν καὶ συνέλεξεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς τολύπην ἀγρίαν, πλῆρες τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ol2 = B (kaige) et exiit Giezi in campum colligere arioth, et invenit vitem in campo, et collegit de ea colocinthidas (κολοκυνθιδα 243(mg)554a?: κολοκυνθιδας 121b ol2) sinum plenum (Al.) (“and Giezi went out to field to collect arioth and found a vine in the field and collected from it gourds”) = καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν συλλέξαι άριὼθ καὶ εὕρεν ἄμπελον ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ καῖ συνέλεξεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς τολύπην ἀγρίαν (> Arm ol2) πλῆρες τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ The reading agrestia (“wild plants”) represents the og, whereas the transcription arioth (“herbs”) comes from the kaige text. The use of transcription is a well-known kaige recensional characteristic: Example 2: v. 13 Ecce honorificasti nos omni honore et praeparasti nobis habitationem (‫)חדר‬ istam (“behold, you did honor us with every honor and did prepare for us 87

See Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms,” in The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila, ed. A. Aejmelaeus and T. Kauhanen, dsi 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 120–45.

174

Torijano Morales

a room”) = ἰδοὺ ἐξέταξας ἡμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν ἔκτασιν ταύτην L 1 ἰδοὺ ἐξέστησας88 ἡμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην B (mt ‫)הנה חרדת אלינו את כל החרדה הזאת‬ The ol tradition preserves both readings in a doublet (honorificasti nos omni honore ol2 / praeparasti nobis habitationenm istam ol1); the first part of the doublet reflects the kaige reading as is usual in the ol version when in gr. / Al. are not indicated as sources of the readings. The difficulties of the text were triggered by the metathesis ‫ חרד‬/ ‫ חדר‬at some point of the transmission of the Hebrew text.89 It is not clear, however, which Hebrew root is translated by ἐξέτηξας / praeparasti.90 Example 3: v. 16. This verse differs from the previous two examples in that it reflects a double reading that runs throughout the whole text tradition, including lxxB and mt. Montgomery defined this passage as a crux interpretum.91 The Antiochene text reads “as for this testimony, in accord with this moment when the hour comes, you will embrace a son.” The kaige text translates a proto-mt text: “at this season, as the time is ripe, you shall have embraced a son.”92 L features a doublet, εἰς τὸν μαρτύριον τοῦτον κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον (“by this testimony, according to this moment”), which is composed of the og reading, εἰς τὸν μαρτύριον τοῦτον, plus the kaige reading εὶς / κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον. The ol reading (Spec.) in testimonio erit sermo his quia secundum tempus hos vives et tu concipies filium (“by this testimony this word will be, because you live according to these times, and you will conceive a son”) reflects the double reading of L. The og / ol reading μαρτύριον / testimonium understands the Hebrew ‫ מועד‬as “testimony.” The translation of ‫ מועד‬as “testimony” is usual in the Pentateuch, where the Hebrew ‫“( אהל מועד‬tent of the meeting”) is translated

88 89 90

91 92

V. 13: ἐξίστημι “to tremble” = ‫ חרד‬1 Sam 13:7; 14:15; 16:4; 17:11; 21:2; 28:5; 2 Sam 17:2. In the same way ἔκστασιν = ‫ חרדה‬1 Sam 14:15; 2 Kgs 4:13. ‫ = חדר‬ταμιεῖον 2 Sam 12:10; 1 Kgs 1:15; 1 Kgs 21:30; 1 Kgs 22:25 (twice); 2 Kgs 6:12; 2 Kgs 9:2 (twice); 2 Kgs 11:2. ‫חדר‬ = κοιτών 2 Sam 13:10; 2 Sam 25:15; 1 Kgs 21:30; 2 Kgs 6:12. Fernández Marcos’ Índice notes the equivalence ἐκτάσσω = ‫ חרד‬only in this case; see Natalio Fernández Marcos, Maria Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, and José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Índice griego-hebreo del texto antioqueno en los libros históricos, tecc 75 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2005). James. A. Montgomery and Henry Snyder Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, icc (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 371–72. The translation is that of nets: Bernard A. Taylor, 2 Reigns.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

175

as ἡ σκηνὴ τῆς μαρτυρίου (“the tent of the testimony”) in most cases.93 In any case, the ol attests to the Lucianic doublet and points to its pre-Lucianic and og character. 4

Conclusion

The discovery and study of the Qumran biblical manuscripts has triggered a growing awareness of the plurality of texts or editions of the biblical books. The publication of 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb, which are close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; the edition of texts akin to the Hebrew original of the Septuagint such as 4QSama and 4QJerb,d; and of “unaligned” or independent texts as  4QJosha or 4QJudga; have caused us to reconsider our perceptions of the history of the biblical text around the turn of the era. The rich ol tradition fits perfectly into this new understanding of biblical textual history. The Qumran scrolls have forced us to discard our biases regarding the value of the secondary versions in general and the ol in particular. The versions constitute actual textual evidence of that plurality. As Burkitt stated perfectly more than a century ago: We ought not to regard them as merely secondary authorities to be used as supports to one side or another when the Greek mss are divided, but rather as primary authorities whose variants are worthy always of careful attention and sometimes of adoption, even when the Greek mss are unanimous on the other side.94 We may take the same approach when dealing with the Hebrew text and its secondary versions. ol is a sort of textual “fossil,” brought to life again by the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. Like any fossil, it is not easy to study or handle; it presents many problems, and on occasion the data it provides are difficult to assess. But it represents a glimpse of a textual past that otherwise would have disappeared. 93

94

Cf. Exod 27:21; 28:43; 29:4, 10, 30, 32, 42, 44; 30:16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 36; 31:7; 35:21; 37:5, 19; 38:26, 27; 39:7, 21; 40:2, 5, 22 (twice), 26, 34, 35; Lev 1:1, 3, 5; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 5, 7 (twice), 14, 16, 18; 6:9, 19, 23; 8:4, 31, 33, 35; 9:5, 23; 10:7, 9; 12:6; 14:11, 23; 15:14, 29; 16:7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 33; 17:4, 5, 6, 9, 21; 24:3; Num 1:1, 50, 53; 2:2, 17; 3:7, 8, 10, 25, 38; 4:3, 4, 5, 15, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 37, 39, 41, 43; 5:17; 6:10, 13, 18; 7:89; 8:9, 15, 19, 22, 24, 26; 10:3, 11, 16; 11:16; 12:4, 5; 14:10; 16:18, 19; 17:7, 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 25; 18:2, 4, 6, 21, 22, 23, 41; 19:4; 20:6; 25:6; 27:2; 31:54; Deut 31:14, 15; Josh 17:1; 18:51. Burkitt, Rules of Tyconius, cxviii.

176

Torijano Morales

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli, and Tuukka Kauhanen, eds. The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila. dsi 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Auwers, Jean-Marie. “La tradition vielle latine du livre de Tobie: Un état de la question.” Pages 1–21 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology; Papers of the First Inter­national Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Edited by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les Devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Billen, A. V. “The Old Latin Versions of Judges.” jts 43 (1942): 140–49. Blondheim, David S. Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina: Étude sur les rapports entre les traductions bibliques en lange romane des Juifs au moyen âge et les anciennes versions. Paris: Champion, 1925. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge: Aperçu historique, état des questions.” rtl 19 (1988): 137–59. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. Bulletin de la Bible latine 1955–1973, Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine, t. 5; supplement à RBén 95 1964–1974 (Denée, be: Maredsous Abbey, 1974). Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Bulletin de la Bible Latine. VII (4e série).” RBen 110 (2000): 135–55. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “L’importance de la Septante et du ‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus Latina pour l’exégèse du livre de l’Éxode (chap. 35–40).” Pages 399–428 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. betl 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Job latin chez les Pères et dans les Bibles: D’une version courte à des versions longues sur le grec et sur l’hébreu.” RBén 122 (2012): 48–99. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967.” Bib 59.3 (1978): 384–95. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, LXX et VL).” Pages 1–17 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by G. J. Norton and S. Pisano. obo 109. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La vetus latina de Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jr 39 et 52).” Pages 51–82 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by A. Schenker, scs 52. Atlanta: sbl Press, 2003. Brock, Sebastian P. The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel. Quaderni di Henoch 9. Torino: Zamorani, 1996.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

177

Burkitt, Francis C. The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894. Busto Saiz, José Ramón. “Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edición crítica del libro de Tobit.” Sefarad 38 (1978): 53–69. Cañas Reíllo, José Manuel. “20.4.1 1–2 Chronicles: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1C:693–95. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0020040100. Cañas Reíllo, José Manuel. “18.4.1 Daniel: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1C:575–78. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0018040100. Cañas Reíllo, José Manuel. “13–17.2.1.2 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Canticles.” thb 1C:454–55. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452 4107_thb_COM_1317020102. Cañas Reíllo, José Manuel. “12.4.1 Proverbs: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1C:280–83. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0012040100. Capelle, Paul. Le text du Psautier latin en Afrique. ColBL 4. Rome: Pustet, 1913. Cassuto, Umberto. “The Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin and Its Importance for the Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions.” Pages 285–98 in vol. 1 of idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1973. Charlesworth, James H. “What is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy.” Maarav 16 (2009): 201–12. Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. Qumran Cave 4.XI: 1–2 Samuel. djd 17. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Daniélou, Jean. Les origines du christianisme latin. Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée 3. Paris: Cerf, 1978. De Bruyne, Donatien. “Étude sur le texte latin de l’Ecclésiastique.” RBen 40 (1928): 5–48. De Bruyne, Donatien. “Étude sur le texte latin de la Sagesse.” RBen 140 (1929): 101–33. De Bruyne, Donatien. “Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées.” rb 31 (1922): 31–54. De Bruyne, Donatien, and Bonaventure Sodar. Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées. Analecta Maredsolana 4. Denée, be: Maredsous Abbey, 1932. Dieu, L. “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille version latine (I et II Samuel).” rb 16 (1919): 372–403. Driver, Samuel R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Dubarle, André-Marie. Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions. AnBib 24. Roma: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966.

178

Torijano Morales

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings. VTSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, and José Manuel Cañas Reíllo. Índice griego-hebreo del texto antioqueno en los libros históricos. tecc 75. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2005. Fischer, Bonifatius. Genesis. vl 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1951–1954. Fischer, Bonifatius. “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher.” Pages 169–77 in Miscellanea biblica et orientalia Athanasio Miller completis LXX annis oblata. sa 27–28. Rome: Herder, 1951. Fischer, Bonifatius. “Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache: Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte.” Pages 1–92 in Die alten Übersertzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Edited by K. Aland and M. Black. antf 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Fischer, Bonifatius, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of L 115 for Samuel–Kings.” bioscs 16 (1983): 13–87. Gesche, Bonifatia. Esra I. vl 6.2. Freiburg: Herder, 2008–2010. Gesche, Bonifatia. “19.4.1 Ezra–Nehemiah: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1C:638–39. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_00000382. Gesche, Bonifatia. “13–17.2.1.1 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Ruth.” thb 1C:452–53. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0019040100. Gesche, Bonifatia. Ruth. vl 4.5. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Gribomont, Jean. “Les plus anciennes traductions latines.” Pages 43–65 in Le monde latin antique et la Bible. Edited by J. Fontaine and C. Pietri. Bible de tous les temps 2. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985. Gryson, Roger. Esaias. vl 12.1–2. Freiburg: Herder, 1987–1997. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “13–17.2.1.5 Five Scrolls: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Esther.” thb 1C:459–61. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/24524107_thb_COM_1317020105. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. Hester. vl 7.3. Freiburg: Herder, 2004–2008. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “11.4.1 Job: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1C:207–9. Volume 1C: Writings. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi. org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0011040100. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “Le papyrus Oxyrhynque 4443 et la vetus latina du livre d’Esther.” RBén 109 (1999): 267–71. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther.” jts 57 (2006): 439–73. Hanhart, Robert. Esther. svtg 8.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

179

Hanhart, Robert. Text und Textgeschichte des I. Esrabuches. msu 12. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Hanhart, Robert. Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith. msu 14. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Joosten, Jan. “Septuagint and the Samareitikon.” Pages 1–15 in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by C. Werman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kauhanen, Tuukka. Lucifer of Cagliari and the Text of 1–2 Kings. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 68. Atlanta: sbl Press, 2018. Kauhanen, Tuukka. The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel. dsi 3. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “The Latin Translations.” Pages 299–338 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism. Edited by M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling. crint 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 5th ed. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lindars, Barnabas. “Some Septuagint Readings in Judges,” jts 22 (1971): 1–14. Margolis, Max L. “The K Text of Joshua.” ajsl 28 (1911): 1–55. Montgomery, James A., and Henry Snyder Gehman. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. icc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951. Moreno Hernández, Antonio. Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias vulgatas españolas: 1–2 Reyes. tecc 49. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1992. Piquer Otero, Andres, Pablo A. Torijano, and Julio Trebolle Barrera. “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions: Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latina, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum.” Pages 251–81 in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne. betl 213. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Puech, Émile. “Les manuscrits 4QJugesc (=4Q50a) et 1QJuges (=1Q6).” Pages 184–202 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by P. W. Flint, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. VTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pummer, Rudolph. “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans.” rej 157 (1998): 269–358. Quast, Udo. Ruth. svtg 4.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Rahlfs, Alfred. Lucians Rezension der Königbücher. Septuanginta Studien 3. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1911.

180

Torijano Morales

Rahlfs, Alfred. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, msu 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914. Schenker, Adrian. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. obo 199. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Schildenberger, Johannes. Die alte afrikanische Textgestalt. Vol. 1 of Die altlateinischen Texte des Proverbien-Buches. Texte und Arbeiten 1/32–33. Beuron, de: Beuron Kunstverlag, 1941. Schulz-Flügel, Eva. Canticum Canticorum. vl 10.3. Freiburg: Herder, 1991. Schulz-Flügel, Eva. “The Latin Old Testament Tradition.” Pages 642–62 in vol. 1, part 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Edited by M. Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Thackeray, H. St. John. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78. Thiele, Walter. “Zur griechischen Vorlage der Vetus Latina in der Sapientia Salomonis.” Pages 275–91 in Lex tua veritas: Festschirft für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres. Edited by H. Gross and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. Thiele, Walter. “Lateinische altkirchliche Bibelübersetzungen.” rgg 1 (1957): 1196–97. Thornhill, Raymond. “Six or Seven Nations: A Pointer to the Lucianic Text in the Heptateuch, with Special Reference to the Old Latin Versions.” jts 10 (1959): 233–46. Torijano Morales, Pablo A. “3–5.2.1.2 Former Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Samuel–Kings.” thb 1B:400–403. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452  -4107_thb_COM_0305020102. Tov, Emanuel. “Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?” rb 78 (1971): 355–83. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis: Editorial Traces in Joshua and Kings.” Pages 437–63 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Dos textos para un relato de resurrección: 2 Re 13,20–21 TM LXXB/LXXL VL.” Sefarad 43 (1983): 3–16. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:23–25).” Textus 11 (1984): 17–36. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11. Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “6–9.2.1 Latter Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1B:660–65. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0609020100.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Latin Text

181

Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “6–9.2.1.3 Latter Prophets: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina: Ezekiel.” thb 1B:663–64. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb  _COM_0609020100. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in the Books of Kings  (1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20:11).” Textus 13 (1986): 85–94. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “1.4.1 Overview Articles: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1A:319–31. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001040100. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “2.5.1 Pentateuch: Secondary Translations: Vetus Latina.” thb 1B:207–11. Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0002050100. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms.” Pages 120–45 in The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and T. Kauhanen. dsi 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10, 25–28).” rb 89 (1982): 198–209. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings.” Pages 315–29 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by G. Braulik, W. Groß, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges (1).” Pages 229–45 in Biblical Texts. Edited by F. García Martínez. Vol. 1 of The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community: Proceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989) = RevQ 14.54 (1989). Trebolle Barrera, Julio, and Pablo A. Torijano. “The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1–2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version 1.” Pages 101–33 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to Masoretes. Edited by E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Ulrich, Eugene. “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” Pages 89–104 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez. stdj 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene. “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint.” Pages 67–80 in La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Edited by N. Fernández Marcos. tecc 34. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.

182

Torijano Morales

Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha.” Pages 361–75 in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense. Edited by A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales. JSJSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 233–74 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Vercellone, Carlo. Complectens libros Iosue, Iudicum, Ruth et quatuor Regum. Vol. 2 of Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum editionis. Rome: Spithöver, 1864. Vööbus, Arthur. Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6. Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954. Wellhausen, Julius. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis. 1871. Repr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Wevers, John William, ed. Deuteronomium. svtg 3.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

chapter 5

The Contribution of Text Criticism to Literary Analysis, Redaction History, and the Study of Ancient Israelite Religion: The Case of Genesis 9:6 David Frankel 1

Introduction

This paper seeks to highlight the potential contribution of textual criticism to the larger domain of biblical studies, including literary analysis, redaction criticism and the study of ancient Israelite religion. Of course, few would deny the theoretical significance of text criticism for these disciplines. And yet, it is not infrequent to find literary critics that fail to attend to text-critical matters,1 or textual critics that fail to consider the implications of their analyses for anything broader than the specific reading under discussion.2 In the following study, I will focus on Gen 9:6, and attempt to show how text-critical analysis can make a significant contribution to these other fields of study.

1 Many scholars who apply literary approaches to the biblical text base their analyses on the mt without further ado. Thus, one finds no more than the most meager acknowledgement of textual variants and possible alternative readings in Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, isbl (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Meir Weiss, on the other hand, wrestles with textual difficulties and frequently cites the suggestions of the text critics, but he seems to believe that nearly all textual difficulties in mt can be adequately resolved through literary analysis. In dealing with a difficult expression in Ps 46:5, for example, he can suggest: “Impelled by his feelings and thought, the poet may have defied the rules of grammar.” See Meir Weiss, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation, trans. B. J. Schwartz and R. Levy (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1984), 333. Cf. also his forced treatment of Ps 46:3 and Ps 114:7 at 323–24 and 369–71, respectively. 2 See the important critique of the methods of textual criticism that disregard broader literary considerations in Moshe Greenberg, “The Use of Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezechiel ii 1–iii 11,” in Congress Volume: Gottingen 1977, ed. W. Zimmerli, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 131–48.

© David Frankel, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_006

184 2

Frankel

Genesis 9:6, The Traditional Interpretation

Following the flood, God turns to Noah and his sons in Gen 9:6 and declares: .‫ כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם‬,‫ באדם דמו ישפך‬,‫שופך דם האדם‬ The usual translation of the first half of the verse is something such as Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed.3 The verse is often said to provide a classic illustration of literary art in the Bible insofar as it is widely perceived as exhibiting a perfect chiastic structure: shed, blood, man; man, blood, shed.4 Many scholars find in this poetic-looking style, evidence that the prose narrator incorporated a very ancient law or proverb into his work.5 The standard translation follows the understanding that the ‫ ב‬of ‫ באדם‬is instrumental, or, more precisely, introduces an agent.6 Thus, the passage is seen as authorizing human courts to carry out the death penalty on behalf of God, following due process of the law.7 3 See, e.g., nrsv; nkjv; njps. 4 See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, trans. M. E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 149; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. J. H. Marks, rev. ed., otl (London: scm, 1972), 132; Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1983), 100 (in Hebrew). For a general discussion see John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Biblical Law: An Approach to the Structure of Legal Texts in the Bible,” Jewish Law Association Studies 4 (1990): 5–22. Loewenstamm begins his early study of chiasmus in the bible by citing Gen 9:6 as the parade example. See Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Chiastic Structure in the Bible,” in Sepher Auerbach, ed. A. Biram (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1955), 27–30. Bendavid categorizes our verse with instances of inverted parallelism in which a new and highlighted element is introduced in the second clause. See Abba Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 2 vols. (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1971), 2:864 (in Hebrew). 5 See, for example, John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., icc (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 171; von Rad, Genesis, 132. 6 For extended discussion see Johan Lust, “‘For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed’: Gen 9:6 in Hebrew and in Greek,” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday, ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano, obo 109 (Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1991), 91–102, esp. 92–93; Odil Hannes Steck, “Der Mensch und der Todesstraffe: Exegetisches zur Übersetzung der Präposition Beth in Gen 9, 6a,” tz 1–2/53 (1997): 118–30; Markus Zehnder, “Cause or Value? Problems in the Understanding of Gen 9, 6a,” zaw 122 (2010): 81–89. 7 Henry McKeating, “The Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel,” vt 25 (1975), 46–68 (65); von Rad, Genesis, 133; Peter J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6–9), VTSup 64 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 163. See also Moshe

The Contribution of Text Criticism

185

The verse has sometimes been seen as reflecting a progression from the previous one, which reads, ‫ואך את דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרש מיד כל חיה אדרשנו ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו‬ ‫אדרש את נפש האדם‬

But your own life-blood I will demand: I will demand it of every living beast; and of man, too, of every fellow man, I will demand the life of man.8 Since this preceding verse speaks of God himself demanding the lifeblood of the murder victim from his murderer, that verse, it is claimed, attends to instances wherein no witnesses can testify to the murder. Our verse, then, goes on to deal with cases where witnesses are available.9 In such cases, affirms the verse, one must not sit back and expect God to administer justice. The human court is both authorized and called upon to carry out the death penalty. 3

Problems with the Traditional Interpretation

In spite of the widespread acceptance of this traditional interpretation of our verse (in one configuration or another), it actually entails serious difficulties. First, there is no other biblical instance of the usage of the simple preposition ‫ ב‬with a personal agent, in conjunction with a passive verb in the imperfect, to

Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1960), 5–28 (15). Greenberg understands the verse as prescribing the death penalty for the taking of human life and sees the verse’s second clause as providing the “postulate” behind this biblical approach to murder. His position is challenged in Bernard S. Jackson, “Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law,” jjs 24 (1973): 8–38, esp. 24–25. 8 Translations of biblical texts are my own unless otherwise indicated. 9 Such is the understanding of the classic rabbinic commentators. See Solomon Buber, ed., Midrash Aggadah on the Pentateuch (Vilna: Panto, 1894; repr., Jerusalem, 1984), 22; Rashi; Radak; et al. For a modern commentator who follows this approach see Adrianus van Selms, Genesis 1–20, 2nd ed., POuT (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1976), 123. See also Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 315. Hamilton sees a progression from verse 5, where God is the agent, to verse 6, where man is, without however relating this to the question of whether or not there were witnesses.

186

Frankel

indicate a requisite action.10 If anything, the construction ‫ ביד אדם דמו ישפך‬or the like would have been more appropriate and unambiguous.11 Second, even if the use of the preposition were not problematic, the word ‫ אדם‬is too vague and general to convey the idea that murderers must be executed specifically by a court of law rather than, let us say, a next of kin, or any individual who claims to have witnessed the murder.12 In other words, it hardly seems likely that an edict purportedly concerned with ensuring due process of the law would be formulated so imprecisely as to be susceptible to readings that undermine that very process. The fact that ‫ באדם‬can and indeed has been taken as referring to the next of kin, the court, the eye witnesses, the murdered individual, the crowd watching the execution, the fetus, and more, indicates that the formulation of this text is overly ambiguous and, therefore, certainly for what is purported to be a legal prescription, highly problematic.13 Third, the explanation clause of verse 6b, “for ‫ האדם‬was made in the image of God,” relates most naturally to the simple point of verse 6a, that whoever spills the blood of ‫ האדם‬must pay for his crime with his life. The murderer must die since he spilt the blood of man, who was created in the image of God. This straightforward point is obscured and disrupted following the standard reading of verse 6a, which understands it as highlighting the fact that the execution of the murderer must be carried out specifically by ‫אדם‬. What does the fact 10

11 12

13

Zehnder, “Cause or Value,” cites several passages in defense of the suggested reading. Upon examination, their irrelevance becomes quite apparent. For example, he considers Eccl 10:9, ‫מסיע אבנים יעצב בהם‬, ‘He who quarries stones may be hurt by them,’ particularly close in structure to Gen 9:6a, since they both have the sequence: participle (‫מסיע‬ ‫)שופך דם האדם ;אבנים‬, beth causae (‫)באדם ;בהם‬, and niphʾal imperfect (‫)ישפך ;יעצב‬. However, the similarity is superficial. The stone that hurts the quarrier is his own unintended instrument and not an independent, personal agent, as in Gen 9:6. Further, the passive verb in the imperfect does not indicate a required action. The stone is not called upon to hurt the quarrier. Ostensibly more relevant are the examples he adduces that do evince use of the beth with a personal agent, such as Num 36:2; Deut 33:29; Isa 45:17; Hos 12:14; Ps 69:7; Ezek 22:16; and Eccl 7:26. In nearly all of these cases, however, the verb is not in the imperfect. The one exception is Eccl 7:26, ‫וחוטא ילכד בה‬. Even here, however, the verb does not indicate the required action of the agent. The passage is clearly not a call to the woman to ensnare the male sinner, but merely an affirmation that that sinner will surely be ensnared by her. So, correctly, Alexander Ernst, “‘Wer Menschenblut vergiesst …’: Zur Übersetzung von ‫ באדם‬in Gen 9,6,” zaw 102 (1990): 252–53. See von Rad, Genesis, 132 for the suggestion that the verse originally legislated blood vengeance. It may be noted in this connection that the formulation ‫ שופך דם האדם‬does not necessarily exclude inadvertent killing. The interpretation of ‫ באדם‬as referring to the witnesses who must perform the execution is offered as a possibility by Ibn Ezra. For a compendium of traditional Jewish interpretations on the passage see Shimon Kasher, Peshuto Shel Mikra, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Torah Shelema Institute, 1962–1967), 2:105–7.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

187

that the murder victim was made in the divine image have to do with the fact that his murderer must be executed by a human?14 Some have suggested that the ‫ האדם‬of verse 6b does not, in fact, refer to the victim-‫ אדם‬of the first clause of verse 6a, but rather to the executioner-‫ אדם‬of the second clause, whose mandate to take the life of the murderer is grounded in his divine image.15 This, however, hardly seems likely, as it leaves unexpressed the most basic and fundamental point, that murder is an affront to the divine image.16 Fourth, such a reading has to explain the discrepancy between verse 5, where God himself exacts the blood of the murdered human from the hands of his murderer, and verse 6, where the courts are supposedly required to do so.17 The usual explanation—that verse 5 refers to instances where there are no witnesses to the murder and verse 6 refers to instances where there are witnesses—has no foundation within the text.18 This fact places in doubt the entire assumption that verse 6 is discontinuous with verse 5 and mandates the establishment of courts, or emphasizes the role of human agency with regard to the death penalty.19 14 15 16

17

18

19

Ernst, “Menschenblut,” 252. Bernd Jørg Diebner and Hermann Schult, “Das Problem der Todesstrafe an Tier und Mensch in Gen 9:5–6,” dbat 6 (1974): 2–5. So, already, Ḥizkuni. Steck, “Der Mensch,” 128–30, suggests that the word ‫ האדם‬at the end of verse 6b alludes simultaneously to both the victim of verse 6aα (‫ )האדם‬and the executioner of verse 6aβ (‫)באדם‬. The murderer is executed because he took the life of a being created in the divine image and the executioner is authorized to execute him since he too was created in the divine image. I find this reading highly unlikely. Significantly, Josephus, who follows the understanding that verse 6 refers to humanly administered punishment, fails to reproduce verse 5. What is more, he mentions punishment of the murderer, but does not refer explicitly to execution: “However, I counsel you to refrain from slaughter of humans and to keep your selves pure from murder and to punish those who do some such thing.” See Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, ed. S. Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 37 (Ant. 1.102). Van Selms, Genesis, 123, takes the ‫ ב‬of ‫ באדם‬to mean “among” and understands this as indicating that the murder was carried out in the presence of witnesses. He is anticipated by Onkelos ad loc. However, ‫ שפך ב‬with the meaning of “spilling among” is never attested. ‫ לפני‬would surely have been much more appropriate for such a sense (cf. 1 Sam 1:15; 7:6; Ps 62:9). See Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 467–69. Westermann asserts that human agency is presupposed but not the issue. For opposition to this view see Harland, Human Life, 163. In contrast, Jackson, “Reflections,” 24–25, who takes the beth of ‫ באדם‬as beth-pretti (see below), denies that human agency is even presumed. See similarly, Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 705. Jackson’s stance is contested by Hamilton, Genesis, 315, and, more forcefully, by Moshe Greenberg, “More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law,” Studies in Bible, 1986, ed.

188

Frankel

Finally, and more broadly, the reading fits poorly within the narrative setting of the immediate aftermath of the flood. At a time when only eight people inhabit the world, the command to Noah and his sons to ensure that courts of law carry out the death penalty is strange and out of place. While such a presentation would be natural in later compositions such as the book of Jubilees, it is uncharacteristic for Genesis, which, as a whole, is more attentive to the demands of temporal context.20 In sum, the difficulties in maintaining the traditional understanding of the verse are legion. 4

Another Common Interpretation of ‫ באדם‬and Its Problems

Another line of interpretation of our verse, which circumvents some of the above noted difficulties, takes the ‫ ב‬of ‫ באדם‬to mean “because of,” or “in payment for,” as in the phrase ‫נפש בנפש‬, a life for a life (Deut 19:21; cf. also 2 Sam 3:27).21 The prefix is properly referred to as ‫ב‬-pretti. This interpretation

20

21

S. Japhet, ScrHier 31 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1986), 1–17 (15–16). Greenberg insists that even following the reading of ‫ באדם‬as “for that man,” the agency of the court is implied by the passive imperfect form of the verb, ‫ישפך‬. This, however, is not necessarily so. The divine assurance to Cain of Gen 4:15, ‫לכן כל הרג קין שבעתים יקם‬ has the verb in the passive imperfect form yet presents God alone as the agent responsible for punishment. The implication of ‫ יקם‬is clearly “vengeance will be taken” rather than “vengeance must be taken.” No attention is given to the question of the means by which God would carry out this caution. I would further compare our passage with Gen 26:11, where the King of Gerar proclaims with regard to Isaac and Rebecca, ‫הנגע באיש הזה‬ ‫ובאשתו מות יומת‬, “whoever harms this man or his wife will surely be killed.” This is an admonition that comes to protect Isaac and Rebecca. The king will personally ensure the punishment of the offenders through whatever means necessary. Thus, the phrase ‫ מות יומת‬clearly means “will surely be killed” rather than “must be killed.” Similarly, in Genesis 9 God seeks to protect mankind from harm and to prevent bloodshed both by placing the fear of humans in the hearts of the animals (verse 2) and by proclaiming that he will personally ensure the death of the offenders by whatever means he deems fit. Thus, here too, ‫ דמו ישפך‬probably means “his blood will surely be spilt” and not “his blood must be spilt.” See also n. 69 below. This is particularly true with regard to the Priestly stratum of Genesis, with which we are here concerned. For example, while Gen 2:1–3 presents God as sanctifying the Sabbath, God never communicates this sanctity to anyone until Exodus. Again, the Priestly flood story refrains from presenting Noah distinguishing between clean and unclean animals, as in the non-Priestly version of the story. Finally, P is careful to deny the characters of Genesis knowledge of the tetragrammaton. See Ibn Ezra on the verse. For a defense of this reading of our verse see Lust, “‘For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed,’” 91–102. Lust follows Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 vol. in 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1926–1940), 1:533–34 and Carl Brockelmann, Hebraische Syntax (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, Verlag der Buchhandlung

The Contribution of Text Criticism

189

is anticipated in the lxx (cf. below) and is reflected in the neb translation, “for that man, his blood shall be shed.” Following this reading, the verse does not speak specifically of humans as the authorized dispensers of the death penalty. It merely proclaims that murderers will, measure for measure, pay with their lives. This interpretation undoubtedly fits the narrative context better. Verse 6 no longer ordains that law courts exercise the death penalty in the immediate aftermath of the flood. It also no longer pursues a discourse that is discontinuous with verse 5. Nonetheless, the reading is difficult. It seems rather inapt to refer to a specific person, the murder victim, with the indefinite ‫באדם‬, a term which could theoretically apply to nearly anyone. Again, one would expect something more precise, such as ‫בנפש המת‬, ‫בנפשו‬, ‫ בדמו‬or simply ‫בו‬. Finally, the word ‫ אדם‬is never used in conjunction with this type of ‫ב‬. 5

The Text-Critical Evidence: The Versions and the Early Interpreters

Before proceeding with our analysis, it will be useful to review some of the ways in which our textual difficulty is reflected in earlier versions and interpretive readings. Our focus is limited to the phrase that is represented in mt as ‫באדם‬ ‫דמו ישפך‬. While sp goes with mt on this matter, the lxx provides a unique and unusual rendition: ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ ἐκχυθήσεται. The word ἀντὶ followed by the genitive serves as a preposition commonly indicating, “for,” or “in place of.” Retroversion into Hebrew yields ‫בדמו ישפך‬, “for his blood (it/he) shall be spilt.” This reflects an understanding of the ‫ ב‬as ‫ב‬-pretti, as referred to above. Strikingly, even though the ‫ ב‬is represented, the word ‫ אדם‬is not. At the same time, since no subject is provided for the verb ἐκχυθήσεται, the formulation remains unclear. Tellingly, Philo, who cites the lxx version, feels it necessary to insist that “[t]here is no error in this text.” He thinks that the subject of ἐκχυθήσεται is the murderer of verse 6a, who will himself “be spilt.” Philo goes on to interpret this as teaching that “the cruel and labouring soul is tossed about and overwhelmed by its intemperate way of life and by the evils with which it has grown up….”22 Obviously, this homiletical interpretation is not very helpful in clarifying the original meaning of the lxx reading. J. Lust understands the lxx

22

des Erziehungsvereins, 1956), §106. See also Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, BibSem 12 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991), 35; Ernst, “Menschenblut,” 252–53; Jackson, “Reflections,” 24–25; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 705. Philo, QG 2.61.

190

Frankel

as stating, “for the victim’s blood, it (that is, the blood of the murderer) shall be spilt.”23 He further suggests that this translation is an interpretive rendition of the Hebrew formulation represented in the mt. The translator understood the Hebrew as stating, “for that man, (that is, for) his blood, it (that is, the blood of the murderer) shall be spilt.” In order to render that understanding less repetitive, he replaced “for the man, his blood” with, “for his blood.” This position, however, is very strained. First, the suggestion that the translator understood the Hebrew in such an awkward and inelegant way is highly dubious. Second, if the translator indeed sought to convey the said interpretation of the Hebrew, and had no qualms about deleting the reference to ‫ אדם‬for purposes of clarity, it remains unclear why he did not add a clarifying reference to the new subject of ἐκχυθήσεται, the blood of the murderer? Hendel suggested a different explanation, which is also based on the assumption that the lxx translated the Hebrew text reflected in the mt: the translator failed to render ‫ אדם‬due to omission by homoioteleuton (‫באדם‬ ∩ ‫)האדם‬.24 If so, however, it remains unclear why he did not omit the prefix ‫ ב‬as well. Zippor, on the other hand, raised the possibility that the translator offered a literal rendition of an alternative Hebrew text, ‫בדמו ישפך‬.25 This Hebrew text was obviously faulty, and the obscurity of the lxx translation is simply a reflection of the obscurity of the variant Hebrew reading. The obscurity, it may be noted, continues in the Old Latin, which very closely follows the lxx: Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis, pro sanguine illius effundetur, Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, on behalf of his blood will be poured out.26 Notwithstanding Philo’s protestations, we must seriously consider the possibility that the text of the lxx is indeed in disarray. Perhaps the original translation read: ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ το αἵμα αὐτοῦ ἐκχυθήσεται. The phrase το αἵμα αὐτοῦ could easily have fallen out in textual transmission, as it is nearly identical to the preceding τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. Following this, the retroversion into Hebrew would yield, ‫ בדמו דמו ישפך‬,‫שופך דם האדם‬. The clear intention of this sentence is that the murderer’s blood would or should be spilt—‫בדמו‬, that is, 23 24 25 26

Lust, “‘For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed.’” See Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 140. Moshe A. Zipor, The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 154–57. Bonifatius Fischer, Genesis, vl 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1951–1954), 126–27.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

191

in lieu of the blood of the victim. While this may point to a variant Hebrew Vorlage, it is also possible, and perhaps more likely, that ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ reflects the translator’s interpretation of the problematic and ambiguous ‫באדם‬, taking it as a reference to the life-blood of the victim, which requires compensation. Possibly, this exegesis was influenced by the related passage of Num 35:33, which gives expression to a similar idea. In any event, regardless of how we account for and interpret the unusual translation of the lxx, at least one thing is clear: it does not reflect the traditional interpretation, according to which humans are explicitly called upon to carry out the death penalty (even if human agency may be assumed). Another noteworthy rendition is that of the Vulgate: Quicumque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed. This translation does not reflect the word ‫ באדם‬at all. This is surprising given Jerome’s reliance on Hebrew manuscripts. Might it reflect a variant Hebrew Vorlage? ‫ דמו ישפך‬indeed stands perfectly well on its own without the preceding ‫באדם‬. The same basic translation is reflected already in lab 3:11: “sanguis eius effundetur.”27 This may strengthen the assumption that the Vulgate preserves an earlier textual tradition. At the very least, these two renditions testify, once again, to the difficult and ambiguous position of ‫ באדם‬in the verse. Again, following this reading, the text does not specifically authorize humans to carry out the death penalty. The Peshitta closely follows the mt, rendering, ‫ באנשא‬,‫מן דנאשוד דמא דאנשא‬ ‫דמה נתאשד‬, and thus preserving the ambiguity of the Hebrew ‫באדם‬.28 Targum Neofiti is more exegetical, rendering ‫ באדם‬as “via the agency of man”: ‫מן דשפך‬ ‫ על ידי בר נש ישתפך אדמיה‬,‫אדמיה דבר נש‬. Onkelos coincides with the rabbinic reading, and provides a twofold interpretation of ‫ באדם‬as referring both to the agency of the court and the testimony of witnesses: ‫דיישוד דמא דאנאשא בס�ה‬ ‫דין מממר דינייא דמיהּ יתאשד‬, “He who spills the blood of man in front of witnesses, by the pronouncement of the judges shall his blood be spilt.” Finally, Pseudo-Jonathan provides a more expansive reading:

27 28

Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 vols., agju 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:329. See Chaim Heller, Genesis, part 1 of Peshitta: In Hebrew Characters with Elucidatory Notes (Berlin: Gutenberg, 1927).

192

Frankel ‫דייניא מחייבין ליה קטול ודיישוד בלא סהדין מרי‬, ‫דיישוד דמא דאינשא בסהדין‬ ‫עלמא עתיד לאתפרעא מניה ליום דינא רבא‬

Whoever spills the blood of a man in front of witnesses, the judges condemn him to death; and whoever spills without witnesses, the master of the world will exact payment from him on the great day of judgment. In this double reading, the words ‫ דמו ישפך‬signify not only the responsibility of the courts to carry out the death penalty but also the assurance of God that murderers who elude human courts will ultimately be punished (in the eschaton). In Jubilees, the text of Gen 9:6 appears in the expected context of God’s covenant with Noah after the flood. The original Hebrew version of Jub. 6:8 probably reproduced the Genesis passage as it appears in the mt and sp.29 Vanderkam assumes, without argumentation, that the text refers to the human execution of murderers.30 The matter, however, is not stated explicitly and is not self-evident. The meaning of Jub. 6:8 is largely dependent upon what is stated in the immediately preceding passage of Jub. 6:7. This passage warns against eating animal flesh with its blood and then states, following VanderKam, “so that your blood with your vital forces may not be required from the hand of any human being. From the hand of each one I will require the blood of a human being.”31 Werman’s Hebrew rendition of this is, ;‫פן ידרש דמכם בנפשותיכם מיד כול אדם‬ ‫מיד כול אדרוש את דם האדם‬.32 Werman understands the first clause as indicating that the person who consumes animal blood is to be executed.33 This would provide a basis for interpreting the following clause, Jub. 6:8, ‫שופך דם האדם‬ ‫באדם דמו ישפך‬, as also referring to legal execution. If execution is required for all those who eat animal blood, then it must surely be required for those who spill human blood. However, it seems highly unlikely that the “so that,” or ‫ פן‬clause refers to punishment via human agency. Jubilees 7:27–29 speaks of 29

30 31 32 33

See the Hebrew version of Cana Werman, The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation, Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2015). See also the Hebrew version of Moshe Goldman, “The Book of Jubilees,” in ‫ לתורה לנביאים לכתובים ושאר ספרים חיצונים‬:‫הספרים החיצונים‬, ed. A. Kahana, 2 vols. (Tel-Aviv: Masada, 1956), 1:216–313. See James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, ed. S. W. Crawford, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 1:298, 300. VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:298. Werman, Jubilees, 221. Werman, Jubilees, 224–25.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

193

punishment for those who consume animal blood, and this is clearly divine.34 Most important, our text does not state ‫ביד כל אדם‬, which would imply a human executioner, but ‫מיד כל אדם‬, which, in normal Hebrew usage, refers to the one who must pay for the crime committed. In any event, it makes little sense to refer to execution as something that is to be carried out by “any human being.” We should also remember that the final clause of verse 7, ‫מיד‬ ‫כול אדרוש את דם האדם‬, explicitly speaks of divine agency. It is thus preferable to understand the previous clause similarly. The clause would clarify that God would demand payment for the consumption of animal blood “from humans,” but not from animals. Human blood, the final clause then goes on to say, would elicit a divine collecting of bloodguilt “from all.” Finally, the parsing of the verse presented by VanderKam and Werman is at least questionable. A possible alternative is presented by Goodman and Wintermute, who consider the sentence of Jub. 6:7 concerning the consumption of animal blood as ending with ‫פן ידרש דמכם לנפשותיכם‬. The following clause of ‫ מיד כל אדם‬thus begins a new sentence and attends to the fresh issue of homicide.35 In sum, there are good reasons to doubt that a humanly administered death penalty for animal consumption is referred to at all. And since the final clause of Jub. 6:7 clearly refers to divine punishment of the murderer, it is hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the continuation in Jub. 6:8 was also presented with reference to divine punishment. Specifically, it may have been intended as a warning that divine providence would see to it that the one who takes human life would end up losing his life ‫באדם‬, at the hand of some other human being. This is a possibility, but hardly a certainty. In the end, it is difficult to determine how the author of Jub. 6:8 understood ‫באדם‬. 34

35

Another relevant passage is Jub. 7:32. VanderKam renders ( Jubilees, 1:331), “Do not eat the life with the meat so that your blood, your life, may not be required from everyone who sheds (blood) on the earth.” Werman ( Jubilees, 238) sees in this another directive to execute the person who eats blood. VanderKam ( Jubilees, 1:349) sees it as stating that any person who consumes animal blood “is liable to have his blood shed by any other person (or even any other being capable of doing this….).” Again, VanderKam, like Werman, takes the one from whom God “requires blood” as the instrument of his punishment, though for VanderKam it is not a court of law. It is better, however, to understand the final clause as referring to those who shed animal blood on the earth for the purposes of meat consumption. God will require the lives of such people if they do not refrain from consuming the blood. See Goldman, Jubilees, 234. Note, however, that Goldman renders the new sentence, which he presents as v. 8, ‫ מיד כל אדרש את דם האדם‬without the preceding ‫מיד כל‬ ‫אדם‬. Wintermute renders, “… lest your blood be sought for your lives. From the hand of every man, from the hand of every (creature), I will seek the blood of a man.” See O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” otp 2:66.

194

Frankel

Further clarification of this comes in Jubilees 21, which presents Abraham addressing Isaac and elaborating on the prohibition of murder. Verses 19–20 read:36 ‫ כי הדם הנשפך מחניף‬,‫ולא תקח שוחד על כול דם אדם אשר ישפך חנם בלי משפט‬ ‫ ולא תקח שוחד‬.‫את הארץ והארץ לא תוכל להטהר מדם האדם כי אם בדם שפכו‬ … ‫וכופר בדם האדם דם תחת דם וירצה לפני ה׳ אל עליון והיה משמרו היטב‬

And do not take a bribe regarding any human blood that was spilt for naught and without trial, for spilt blood contaminates the land, and the land will not be able to be purified of the blood of the human, except through the blood of the one who has spilt it. Do not take a bribe or ransom for the blood of a human. Blood for blood, and you will be accepted before the Lord God most high, and he will protect him well … In this text, the author of Jubilees interweaves the language of Gen 9:6 with that of Num 35:31–33. In so doing, he drops the theme of the creation of man in the divine image of Gen 9:6b and replaces it with the theme from Numbers 35 of blood as a contamination of the earth. (We will revisit this matter later in our discussion.) In any event, it seems clear that this Jubilees passage understands Gen 9:6 as addressing human courts, requiring that they execute murderers. The fact that the passage incorporates a call to refrain from taking bribes indicates that it is addressed to those who are typically subject to bribery—judges. The clarification that execution by a court of law does not contaminate the land the way murder does, and that it in fact brings about divine reconciliation, further underscores the vital role the court plays in penalizing murderers. It would thus seem that this paraphrase understands the word ‫ באדם‬as alluding to the courts. On the other hand, the citation of Num 35:33, ‫ולארץ לא‬ ‫יכפר לדם אשר שפך בה כי אם בדם שפכו‬, and the further addition of the formulation, ‫ דם תחת דם‬strongly indicate that the word ‫ באדם‬was in fact understood as expressing the idea that the court execution was to be carried out in lieu of the human blood that was spilt. If so, this Jubilees passage, more clearly than our reconstructed version of the lxx, combines the traditional assumption that the text speaks of the execution of murderers via the courts together with the understanding of the ‫ ב‬of ‫ באדם‬as ‫ב‬-pretti. Of course, here too, a measure of caution is necessary, since the word ‫ באדם‬never actually appears in this

36

This and subsequent Hebrew citations of Jubilees follow Werman, Jubilees. The English translations thereof are mine.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

195

paraphrase. It is possible that the “measure for measure” theme derives from the Numbers passage alone. Interestingly, a very different understanding of the verse is implied in Jubilees 7. Noah here tells his children that he knows what will come to pass in the future, after his death. Verses 27b–29 read: ‫ כי‬.‫ועתה ירא אני עליכם כי אחרי מותי תשפכו דם אדם בארץ ותכרתו מעל פני הארץ‬ ‫כול השופך דם אדם וכל האוכל דם כול בשר יכרתו כולם מן הארץ … ולא תשאר לו‬

‫פליטה ושארית מתחת השמים כי אל שאול ילכו ואל מקום המשפט ירדו אל מחשכי‬ .‫תהום ילקחו כולם בחבלי מות‬

And now, I see about you that after my death you will spill human blood on the earth, and you shall be cut off from the face of the earth. For anyone that spills human blood and anyone that consumes the blood of any flesh shall all be cut off from the earth … and no refuge or remnant will remain of him under the heavens, for they shall go to the netherworld, and they shall descend to the place of judgement, to the dark places of the abyss they shall all be taken by the cords of death. Most conspicuously, the author of Jubilees conflates here the distinct prohibitions of Gen 9:4–6 against the consumption of animal blood and the spilling of human blood, and presents both as essentially equivalent mortal sins. What is most significant for us, however, is the fact that future transgressors of both of these prohibitions are executed by God rather than man. This coincides well with the language of Gen 9:5, where God promises to personally exact penalty for the taking of human life. In this context, it seems that Jub. 7:27b–29 understands ‫ שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך‬as a continuation of the divine discourse of the previous verse, and as belonging to the inevitable future history of human sin: the bulk of humanity, who will spill human blood, will be cut off by God and delivered to Sheol. It remains unclear how this reading of Gen 9:6 construes the function of ‫ באדם‬in the sentence. Again, the word ‫ באדם‬is not actually represented here. It will be suggested presently that this passage in Jubilees may actually attest to an important variant reading of the biblical text, ‫שופך דם האדם בארץ‬. In any event, it seems rather clear that Jubilees as a whole evinces two very different readings of our verse. Whereas Jub. 21:19–20 reads it as a law directed at judges, Jub. 7:27–29 sees it as a kind of prophecy. This is similar to the twofold interpretation of the verse that appears in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan cited above. An interesting and perhaps analogous situation can also be seen in PseudoPhilo’s Antiquities. The printed edition, like the Vulgate, lacks ‫באדם‬, as already

196

Frankel

noted. In addition to this, the unprinted manuscripts add in manu Dei, “by the hand of God.” A Hebrew rendition of this yields, ‫שופך דם האדם באלהים דמו‬ ‫ !ישפך‬How are we to understand this unique development? Howard Jacobson suggested that the addition was born of the need to oppose those who would carry out revenge killing on the authority of the verse.37 The new reading insisted that vengeance was to be left to God rather than man. This surmise seems reasonable. At the same time, we should not exclude the possibility that the motivating factor behind the addition is similar to what we find in Jubilees and Pseudo-Jonathan: a theological concern to reinforce belief in the ultimate triumph of divine justice in spite of the proliferation of unpunished murderers. We conclude this survey with a quick look at a line from the Damascus Document, which, according to Lawrence Schiffman, is “without a doubt” based upon both Lev 27:28–29 and Gen 9:6.38 CD 9:1 reads: ‫[ואשר אמר] כל אדם‬ ‫אשר יחרם אדם מאדם בחוקי הגואים להמית הוא‬.39 Schwartz and Baumgarten render this as: “And concerning that which he said, any man who destroys a man among men by the statutes of the Gentiles is to be put to death.” The line obviously paraphrases Lev 27:28–29, ‫ מאדם‬,‫אך כל חרם אשר יחרם איש לה׳ מכל אשר לו‬ ‫ מות‬,‫ובהמה ומשדה אחזתו לא ימכר ולא יגאל … כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה‬ ‫“ ;יומת‬However, any dedication that a man might dedicate for destruction to the Lord of anything that is his, from a person or animal or field of inheritance, it shall not be sold or redeemed … Any dedication for destruction that is dedicated from humans shall not be redeemed, he shall surely be killed.” Schwartz and Baumgarten understand the sectarian paraphrase as reflecting an interpretation according to which the person who makes a ‫ חרם‬and receives the death penalty is the one who informs on his fellow to the Gentile authorities and delivers him up for execution.40 However, the fact that the text 37 38 39 40

Jacobson, Liber Antiquitum Biblicarum, 1:329. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Law, Custom and Messianism in the Dead Sea Sect (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for the History of Israel, 1993), 27 n. 52 (in Hebrew). Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), djd 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 65, lines 8–9. Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Louisville: Westminster John Knox; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 4–57 (43 n. 139). For an analysis that supports this interpretation see Aharon Shemesh, “Scriptural Interpretations in the Damascus Document and Their Parallels in Rabbinic Midrash,” in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998, ed. J. M. Baumgarten et al., stdj 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 161–75.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

197

cites Lev 27:28–29 makes it almost certain that we must accept the emendation of Qimron of ‫ כל אדם‬to ‫כל חרם‬.41 This allows us to replace the awkward rendition, “Any man who destroys a man among men” with the much more biblical, “any dedication that is of a human, that a person dedicates for destruction …” Following this reading, the interpretation of Schwartz and Baumgarten is impossible, for the passage clearly prescribes the execution of the person that is made ‫ חרם‬and not the person who dedicates him. It thus seems preferable to follow Benovitz, who renders, “Any herem that a man makes herem from among mankind shall be put to death by means of the laws of the Gentiles.” Benovitz suggests that the herem took on the meaning of a severe communal oath to abide by communal enactments. According to the passage, the community member who violates the herem is to be handed over to the authorities for execution on a trumped-up charge, since political conditions did not allow the sect itself to carry out the execution.42 Does the CD passage allude to Gen 9:6? If we follow the reading of Benovitz, there is really no place for this suggestion at all, since CD 9:1 speaks of the one who violates a communal oath while Gen 9:6 refers to a murderer. However, even following the first reading, the conjecture is superfluous. The CD passage cites Lev 27:28–29 with only slight textual divergence as authoritative law. There is no reason to suppose that it at the same time alludes to a different biblical text. Especially with the removal of one of the references to ‫אדם‬, the similarity to the Genesis passage is quite negligible and probably no more than coincidental. I thus consider the conjecture unfounded. 6

Genesis 6:9: A New Proposal

As is clear from the foregoing discussion, the formulation ‫ באדם דמו ישפך‬is a significant crux. One modern interpreter found it so difficult that that he removed ‫ באדם‬as a dittography.43 Such an extreme move is not, however, necessary. I suggest that the word ‫ באדם‬should be emended to ‫בארץ‬.44 As is well 41 42 43 44

Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols., Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010– 2014), 1:41 (in Hebrew). Moshe Benovitz, Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions, bjs 315 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 87–94; for earlier interpretations see 92 n. 93. See Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, 7 vols. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908–1914), 1:39–40. For another, less compelling, possibility see the appendix. It may be noted in passing that the word ‫ האדם‬appears to mistakenly appear in place of a different word, ‫היקום‬, at

198

Frankel

known, the interchange between ‫ ד‬and ‫ ר‬due to graphic similarity is ubiquitous. The passage should thus be rendered: “He who sheds the blood of a person on the earth, his blood shall be shed.” The main support for this reading comes from Num 35:33. This passage reads, ‫ ולארץ לא יכופר‬,‫ כי הדם הוא יחניף את הארץ‬,‫ולא תחניפו את הארץ אשר אתם בה‬ ‫ כי אם בדם שופכו‬,‫לדם אשר שופך בה‬

Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. The Numbers passage, like Gen 9:6, is Priestly, and it gives expression, in similar language, to the same idea that the one who sheds human blood forfeits his own blood/life. The words of Num 35:33, ‫לדם אשר שופך בה … בדם שופכו‬, plainly echo the formulation in Gen 9:6, ‫שופך דם … דמו ישפך‬. As already noted, the author of Jub. 21:19–20 similarly sensed the close connection between the two verses and therefore interwove them in his text. The similarity between the passages makes it likely that Num 35:33 alludes to or is influenced by the earlier and more general Genesis passage.45 Significantly, however, the Num 35:33 fails to use the word ‫באדם‬. Instead, it speaks of the shedding of blood on the earth, employing the word ‫ ארץ‬three times. Furthermore, with regard to ‫שפך‬, it does not use the particle that most often goes together with it, that is, ‫ אל‬or ‫על‬.46 Instead and irregularly, it employs the beth (‫)לדם אשר שופך בה‬, corresponding

45

46

Gen 6:7. Cf. Gen 7:4, 23. See Ehrlich, Randglossen, 1:31. In light of this, it is striking to note the parallel between Num 16:32 and Deut 11:6. Num 16:32 reads, ‫ותפתח הארץ את פיה‬ ‫ותבלע אתם ואת בתיהם ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח ואת כל הרכוש‬, “and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households and all the humans belonging to Korah and all the possessions,” whereas Deut 11:6 reads ‫… אשר פצתה הארץ את פיה ותבלעם ואת‬ ‫בתיהם ואת אהליהם ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם‬, “concerning whom the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households and their tents and all the substance at their feet.” It is clear from the sudden mention of Korah at the end of the Numbers passage concerning Dathan and Abiram that that part of the text does not derive from the original Dathan and Abiram story. It may, however, be the creative product of a late copyist working with an unclear copy of the Numbers passage. Perhaps it originally read ‫ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם ואת כל הרכוש‬, or the like. If so, the redactor of the chapter did not intend to include Korah’s “men” with the deaths of Dathan and Abiram. The alternative possibility, that Gen 9:6 alludes to Num 35:33, is most unlikely. The theme of spilling the blood of the one who spills another’s blood is firmly rooted in the Genesis passage and only loosely connected to the theme of the city of refuge. In fact, Num 35:33 is not at all essential to the flow of the text and may well be a later addition. See Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 35; Deut 12:16, 24; and more.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

199

to “‫בארץ‬.” It is thus most reasonable to suggest that the text of Num 35:33 actually attests to the suggested reading of Gen 9:6, ‫שופך דם האדם בארץ‬.47 Furthermore, in our review of the ancient readings of our verse, we cited the prophetic interpretation of Jub. 7:27b. This passage reads: ‫ועתה ירא אני עליכם כי‬ ‫אחרי מותי תשפכו דם אדם בארץ ותכרתו מעל פני הארץ‬, “And now, I see about you that after my death you will spill human blood on the earth, and you shall be cut off from the face of the earth.” The similarity of this passage (cf. also v. 25) to Gen 9:6 is striking. It may well constitute another reference to it in the textual form suggested here.48 There may also be other biblical passages in which an original ‫ ארץ‬stands behind ‫אדם‬.49 A wide range of biblical texts give expression to the relationship 47

48

49

If so, the Numbers passage reflects a kind of interpretation of the Genesis verse insofar as it claims that the blood of the murderer must be spilt on the earth because it alone can decontaminate the earth from the blood that he spilt. The Genesis passage, which deals with divine rather than human punishment, does not express this idea. Rather, it insists that the blood of the murderer shall or will be spilt because the murderer destroyed the divine image. As already noted, Jub. 6:8 reflects the standard reading of ‫באדם‬. Accordingly, Jub. 7:27 may point to another instance of the phenomenon in which two textual versions of a verse are preserved in a single work, one in the form of an overt biblical citation and the other in the form of the verse’s interpretation or application. For this phenomenon see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Qumran Manuscripts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 261–63. Two textual appearances of ‫ אדם‬are particularly worthy of consideration in this context. 1) The Hebrew text at Job 31:33 reads ‫אם כסיתי כאדם פשעי לטמון בחבי עוני‬. This is often translated, “If I concealed, like Adam, my transgression, hiding my iniquity in my bosom.” Accordingly, Job compares himself to Adam, who hid himself in Eden after having eaten from the forbidden fruit. So, e.g., Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, otl (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 426. However, the aptness of the allusion to Adam is questionable. As the following verse shows, Job affirms that he never hid sins from public view out of concern for his social standing. Obviously, this was not the situation with Adam. It is also far from clear, pace Habel, that the author of Job was aware of the Genesis version of the Adam story. The supposed allusions thereto in 5:6–7 and 31:38–40 are far from unequivocal. Even less clear is the assumption that the author of Job could rely on his readers’ familiarity with the Adam story. The other common understanding of ‫ כאדם‬as meaning “as men do” seems otiose. See on this point Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, icc (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 271–72. We thus should consider emending ‫ כאדם‬to ‫( בארץ‬or, ‫;באדמה‬ see appendix). In support of this it may be noted that the place where sin (‫עון‬/‫ )פשע‬or other things is often “covered over” (‫ )כסה‬is the earth. Cf. Gen 4:10–12; Isa 26:21; Ezek 24:7– 8; Job 16:18. Similarly, the parallel verb, ‫טמן‬, most often refers to the hiding of things in the ground (Exod 2:12; Josh 7:21; Isa 2:10; Job 18:10; 40:13). The suggested reading would add resonance to Job’s self-imprecation in verse 38, .…‫אם עלי אדמתי תזעק‬, “if my land cries out against me….” See also Anthony R. Ceresko, Job 29–31 in the Light of Northwest Semitic,

200

Frankel

between spilt blood and the earth. For example, Isa 26:21 states, ‫כי הנה ה׳ יצא‬ ‫ וגלתה הארץ את דמיה ולא תכסה עוד על הרוגיה‬,‫ממקומו לפקד עון ישב הארץ עליו‬, “For

behold, the Lord will come forth from His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their sin, and the earth will reveal its blood and shall no longer conceal its slain.” In a similar vein, Job cries out to the earth and says, ‫ארץ אל‬ ‫תכסי דמי ואל יהיה מקום לזעקתי‬, “Earth, do not cover my blood, and let there be no place for my outcry” (Job 16:18).50 Finally, the late Priestly stratum of the Pentateuch, to which Gen 9:6 apparently belongs,51 exhibits a heightened interest in “‫ ”הארץ‬as an independent and uniquely vital, spiritual entity.52 To cite just two of many examples, Lev 20:22 emphasizes the need for obedience to the commandments, and states, ‫ולא תקיא אתכם הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם‬ ‫שמה לשבת בה‬, “so that the land to which I bring you to settle in not spew you out,” indicating that sin contaminates the land and induces it to act against BibOr 36 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980), 172–76. Ceresko offers a similar interpretation of the clause, but follows Dahood’s questionable suggestion that the masculine noun ‫ אדם‬can mean “land.” See Mitchell Dahood, S. J., Psalms III: 101–150, ab 17A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 40. 2) Eccl 6:1, reads, ‫ ורבה היא על האדם‬,‫יש רעה אשר ראיתי תחת השמש‬. The nkjv renders the phrase ‫ רבה היא על האדם‬as “it is common among men.” The phrase, however, sounds strange. The phrase ‫על הארץ‬, in contrast, appears frequently in Ecclesiastes (5:1; 8:14, 16; 10:7; 11:2, 3; 12:7). What is more, Eccl 11:2 speaks specifically of “evil on the earth,” ‫כי‬ ‫לא תדע מה יהיה רעה על הארץ‬. Finally, in Ecclesiastes, things that are “done on the earth” (8:14, 16) are essentially equivalent to things that are “done under the sun” (1:14; 2:17; 4:1, 3; 8:9, 17; 9:3, 6). It is thus quite possible that we should read ‫ ורבה היא על הארץ‬in Eccl 6:1, and take the phrase as parallel to ‫יש רעה אשר ראיתי תחת השמש‬. Eccl 8:6, it is true, may lend support to the present form of the text, but its meaning is obscure. The text of Gen 36:6b, ‫וילך אל ארץ מפני יעקב אחיו‬, may be relevant to the present discussion. It is clear that a word has fallen out, and the Syriac reasonably supplies ‫שעיר‬. It remains unclear, however, how this word fell out. I therefore suggest that the text read ‫( ארץ אד ֹם‬cf. Gen 36:16, 17, 21, 31). The word ‫ אדם‬fell out both because of its similarity to ‫ ארץ‬and because of the repetition of the mem of ‫ אדם‬in the word ‫מפני‬. For a possible instance of the opposite phenomenon, that in which an original ‫ האדם‬stands behind ‫ הארץ‬see n. 63. 50 See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Israel and the Ancient Near East: New Perspectives on the Flood,” in eadem, Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), 37–50; Pamela Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 94–115. Other relevant texts include Gen 4:10–12; Deut 19:10; 2 Sam 21:1–6, 14; and Ezek 24:7–8. 51 See n. 62 below. 52 For a fine overview of the relevant texts see Esias E. Meyer, “People and Land in the Holiness Code: Who is Yhwh’s Favourite?” ote 28 (2015): 433–50, doi: http://dx.doi .org/10.17159/2312-3621/2015/v28n2a12. Meyer cites Lev 18:25, 27, 28; 19:29; 20:22; 25:2, 19; 26:4, 20, 34, 38, 43 to show that H presents ‫ הארץ‬as “becoming defiled,” “vomiting,” “acting like a prostitute,” “observing the Sabbath,” “giving,” and “enjoying.”

The Contribution of Text Criticism

201

the sinners. And Lev 26:34 states regarding the future exile from the land, ‫אז‬ ‫ אז תשבת הארץ והרצת‬,‫תרצה הארץ את שבתתיה כל ימי השמה ואתם בארץ איביכם‬ ‫את שבתתיה‬, “then will the land make up for its sabbaths throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies; then will the land rest and make up for its sabbaths,” indicating that the land has obligations of its own. The concern of Gen 9:6 with the negative effects of spilt blood on the earth fits well within this late Priestly milieu. Presumably, then, the original ‫ בארץ‬of Gen 9:6 was mistakenly read as ‫באדם‬ under the combined influence of ‫האדם‬, which appears both at the beginning and end of the verse, and ‫דם‬, which also appears twice in the text. The reading of ‫ בארץ‬at Gen 9:6 obviates the need to account for the obscure and problematic beth proposition of ‫באדם‬. It becomes apparent, in light of this reading, that the putative chiastic structure that has been discerned in this verse is strictly the construction of the exegetical eye.53 The closely related supposition that the narrator of the passage took up an ancient and independent proverbial formula similarly proves to be unfounded. 6.1 Exegetical Implications: The Priestly Flood Story The suggested reading of Gen 9:6 bears exegetical implications that are important to note and unpack. These implications throw light on the broader literary contexts within which Gen 9:6 appears, and bolster the reading’s force and cogency. We begin with the way in which the new reading of the Priestly passage enhances our understanding of the Priestly flood narrative, and the theological outlook reflected therein. The theme of Gen 9:6, the shedding of blood on the earth, links up with Gen 6:13, which opens the Priestly flood story. In that passage God states: ‫קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם והנני משחיתם את הארץ‬

The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. God decides to destroy all flesh because the earth is full of ‫“ חמס‬because of them,” that is, because of all flesh. God thus decides to destroy all flesh ‫את‬ ‫הארץ‬, together with the earth, which became full of ‫חמס‬. The word ‫ חמס‬is 53

On the significant problematics involved in determining chiastic structures and the widespread misuse of the category see David P. Wright, “The Fallacies of Chiasmus: A Critique of Structures Proposed for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19),” zabr 10 (2004): 143–68.

202

Frankel

most often translated “violence,”54 but in several passages it parallels ‫דמים‬/‫דם‬, “blood” or “bloodguilt.” The verse thus anticipates Gen 9:6. Since the flood was brought on because the earth was full of blood God addresses the issue of the shedding of blood on the earth when the flood is over.55 Also relevant here is the Priestly-affiliated passage of Ezek 7:23, which refers to the arrival of the ‫קץ‬, that is, the “end time,”56 for the land of Israel of the times of the prophet. The passage states, ‫כי הארץ מלאה [משפט] דמים והעיר מלאה חמס‬

For the earth is full of [crimes of] blood, the city full of violence.57 This formulation reinforces the conclusion that the ‫ חמס‬that filled the earth in the Priestly flood story was specifically bloodguilt. Beyond this, however, Ezek 7:23 (cf. also vv. 6–7) suggests that we should understand the statement of Gen 6:13 regarding the arrival of the ‫ קץ‬of all flesh in the temporal sense, as the arrival of the “end time” and not simply in the sense of the termination of life. After generations of buildup, the text asserts, the earth has arrived at its final saturation point of bloodguilt, requiring that the source of the bloodguilt finally be removed.58 54 55

56 57 58

See nrsv; nkjv; net; njps. For a succinct discussion of the biblical conception of bloodguilt see Moshe Greenberg, “Bloodguilt,” in idb 1:449–50. An extensive and sophisticated study of bloodshed and bloodguilt that overlaps significantly with the concerns of this paper is Yitzhaq Feder, “The Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian and Ancient Israelite Sources,” janer 10 (2010): 119–57. For the parallel between ‫ חמס‬and bloodshed or bloodguilt cf. Judg 9:24; Jer 51:35; Hab 2:8, 17; Jl 4:19. Compare also ‫ כי מלאו את הארץ חמס‬of Ezek 8:17 with ‫ ותמלא הארץ דמים‬of Ezek 9:9. For this meaning of ‫ קץ‬see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 22 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 147; Jacob Licht, “‫קץ‬,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, 9 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950–1988), 7:§§211–12. The word ‫ משפט‬is missing in lxx and is likely secondary. See Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, trans. R. E. Clements, ed. F. M. Cross and K. Baltzer, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 200. For the place of the earth and its contamination through sin and bloodshed in the theology of the flood story see Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9,” ba 40 (1977): 147–54; eadem, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, asor 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414. It is theoretically possible to understand that part of the antediluvian bloodguilt was caused by human and animal consumption of animal meat, as animals were not given as food for humans or animals in Gen 1:29–30 (P; cf. Gen 9:3–4). This would help account for the destruction

The Contribution of Text Criticism

203

The Priestly account of the aftermath of the flood (Gen 9:1–19) again gives prominent place to the theme of “the earth” (‫)הארץ‬. The first unit of this section, Gen 9:1–7, opens with God’s blessing of ‫( פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ‬v. 1) and closes with the similar statement of ‫( ואתם פרו ורבו שרצו בארץ ורבו בה‬v. 9). This, of course, resonates with the beginning of the flood story. Since the earth, which was “filled” with the blood spilt by its inhabitants, is now empty, it must now be refilled with new inhabitants. In the second part of this section, Gen 9:8–17, God establishes his covenant and places the rainbow as its sign. The purpose of the covenant is “so that there not be another flood to destroy the earth” (v. 11). According to v. 13, God’s covenant is actually made ‫ביני ובין הארץ‬, between God and the earth (v. 13), or ‫ביני ובין כל בשר אשר על הארץ‬, between God and all flesh on the earth (v. 17). In the last unit, Gen 9:18–19, we read that Noah’s three sons, in accordance with the new blessing, indeed spread out over ‫כל הארץ‬. The statement of Gen 9:6, ‫ דמו ישפך‬,‫שופך דם האדם בארץ‬, blends nicely with all this. The specter of more spilt blood on the earth threatens to undermine the divine plan to refill it. Even more, it threatens to provoke another deluge that would once again destroy the earth, as this is what elicited the flood in the first place. In this sense, the insistence of Gen 9:6 that the individual who sheds human blood on the earth shall be killed complements the concern of the covenant to avoid the possibility of another “destruction of the earth,” by preventing its renewed contamination.

of the animals in the flood—they ate (humans and) other animals (cf. Jub. 5:2). For this interpretation, see, Hermann-Joseph Stipp, “ ‘Alles Fleisch hatte seinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen 6,12): Die Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an der Sintflut nach der Priesterschrift,” zaw 111 (1999): 167–86; Samuel L. Boyd, “The Flood and the Problem of Being an Omnivore,” jsot 43 (2019): 163–78. Several considerations, however, render this thesis questionable. The consumption of animal meat is never expressly “prohibited” in Gen 1:29. Nor is it unambiguously “permitted” after the flood. It is merely not designated as food for humans until after the flood. Presumably, animals could not serve as sustenance until God determined that they could. Attempting to eat meat before such time would have been pointless rather than sinful. (One might compare this scenario to that of the Serpent eating earth before this was designated as his food.) Further, it is unlikely that the word ‫חמס‬, which refers to human bloodshed elsewhere, should uniquely refer to the shedding of animal blood in the flood story. Finally, though Gen 9:4 prohibits human consumption of animal blood, it seems to assume unproblematically that that blood would be drained on the ground (and left uncovered). Only human blood contaminates the earth (9:5–6). It is thus best to understand that it is the shedding of the blood of humans, not of animals, that contaminates the earth before the flood in P. Both humans and animals may have been thought of as guilty of this crime.

204

Frankel

Literary- and Redaction-Critical Implications: The Context of Genesis 1–9 The determination that Gen 9:6 most likely refers to the spilling of blood on the earth deepens our understanding not only of the Priestly flood story, but also of Genesis 1–9 as an integrated, literary whole. This, in turn, helps refine the meaning of Gen 9:6. The pronouncement of Gen 9:6 is preceded in verse 5 by a divine avowal that God will seek out the blood of a human from the hand of any beast, as well as ‫ מיד איש אחיו‬,‫מיד האדם‬, “from the hand of a human, from the hand of man, his brother.” The formulation ‫ מיד איש אחיו‬is striking and unusual.59 It is hard to escape the sense that it alludes to the first incident of shedding human blood by a “brother”—the non-Priestly story of Cain and Abel.60 This impression is bolstered by the fact that the phrase ‫ מיד איש אחיו‬at least partly echoes the divine curse of Cain “from the ground that opened its mouth to take the blood of your brother from your hand” (‫ ;דמי אחיך מידך‬Gen 4:11). Similarly, the next verse, Gen 9:6, which warns against the spilling of human blood on the earth, echoes the continuation of Cain’s curse, ‫כי תעבד את האדמה לא תסף תת‬ ‫ נע ונד תהיה בארץ‬,‫כחה לך‬, “when you work the land it shall not continue to give you its strength; a ceaseless wanderer on the earth shall you be” (Gen 4:12). Our Priestly author is apparently alluding to the non-Priestly strand of Genesis 1–9 and building upon it. This is further indicated by the word sequence ‫האדם‬ ‫בארץ‬, which appears twice at the beginning of the non-Priestly flood story (cf. ‫ וירא ה׳ כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ‬at Gen 6:5 and ‫וינחם ה׳ כי עשה את האדם בארץ‬ at Gen 6:6), and at Gen 9:6, in the statement, ‫שופך דם האדם בארץ דמו ישפך‬.61 This verbal link is meaningful. Since the flood was brought on because man committed evil on the earth, it is only fitting for God to speak, after the flood, about future instances of man spilling blood on the earth. All these literary allusions combine with other indicators to suggest that the section of Gen 9:5–6 does not belong to an independent Priestly source. It belongs, rather, to a late Priestly redactor who, with his writing, creates a web of intertextual links to the narrative of Genesis 1–9 as a whole, in its final, redacted form.62 6.2

59 60 61 62

For critical discussion of the lxx and other versions on this see Zipor, Septuagint Version, 155–56. The allusion was briefly noted by Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1961–1964), 2:127. Significantly, this word pair does not appear anywhere else in the Bible. I refer, minimally, to the section of Gen 9:4–6 as redactional. Note the use of the term ‫אך‬, which at times introduces secondary Priestly material. The classic example of this is Lev 23:39–44. It is also possible that these verses are part and parcel of a larger redactional

The Contribution of Text Criticism

205

Let us now examine this redactor’s literary work within the broader literary context. Genesis 9:5–6 appears just after the preceding non-Priestly passage of 8:21–22, wherein God decides, after smelling Noah’s sacrifice, never again to curse the ‫ אדמה‬because of ‫האדם‬, since the heart of man is evil from his youth. Accordingly, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease “‫עוד כל ימי הארץ‬,” “as long as the earth endures.”63 In its most immediate context, this affirmation articulates God’s resolve never again to destroy the earth with another flood. The divine declaration, however, raises a serious difficulty, particularly in light of the acknowledgement that the heart of man is evil from his youth. If this diagnosis of humanity is indeed correct, how can God avoid bringing a future flood? Will not the earth, with the passing of sinful generations, eventually become saturated with bloodguilt again? Will there not be an unavoidable need for another release of the earth from the source of its bloodguilt? This difficulty is compounded when we recall God’s treatment of Cain, who spilled the blood of his brother on the ground. In spite of the fact that Abel’s blood cried out to God for justice and revenge, God granted Cain clemency, and declared on behalf of the murderer, “If anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance will be taken upon him” (Gen 4:15). The murderous Lamech was similarly left unpunished (Gen 4:23). The following section of Gen 9:1–7 pointedly responds to this difficulty. God warns Noah and his sons in verses 5–6 that he will no longer treat murderers

63

block. Note that in contrast with Gen 9:1–16 as a whole, God never addresses Noah’s sons together with Noah in Genesis 6–8. This broadening of the audience of the divine communication fits well with late Priestly (= H) tendencies. See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans. J. Feldman and P. Rodman (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 64–66 and passim. The broad question of whether the Priestly material in the Pentateuch or Hexateuch is an independent source, a redactorial layer, both, or neither, is subject to vigorous debate. For a good review with bibliography, see David M. Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2015), 3.2:433–66 (454–66). It is worth considering the possibility that ‫ הארץ‬should be emended to ‫האדם‬. The verse continues the thought of the previous one, which presents the divine statement, ‫לא‬ ‫אוסיף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם‬. The idea is that no matter how badly mankind acts, it will no longer have an impact of the earth. The idea that “as long as mankind lives, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” fits well after this. Seedtime and harvesttime refer to the agricultural cycle of the earth and are directly related to the ongoing presence of humans, who do the planting and harvesting. The verse may thus be seen as a kind of corollary to that of Gen 2:5, “Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.”

206

Frankel

with the kind of leniency that characterized his treatment of them in the period before the flood. Henceforth, any person who sheds the blood of his “brother” will be required to pay with his own blood. In other words, God will immediately demand recompense for spilt blood “from the hand of” the murderer himself. This will prevent the gradual buildup of bloodguilt in the earth and thus preclude the need for another flood.64 Reading Gen 9:5–6 in the context of Genesis 1–9 as a whole, it becomes clear that verse 6 does not authorize courts to administer capital punishment. Rather, verses 5 and 6 constitute two parts of a unified divine pronouncement to Noah and his sons concerning God’s new mode of governance.65 God first declares in verse 5 that he will uncompromisingly demand payment for the murder of a human from the hands of his murderer, and he then clarifies in verse 6 what form that payment will take—the murderer will pay with his very life. God promises to play the role of the ‫דורש דמים‬, the blood avenger (see Ps 9:13). Humanity is thus being warned of the new, severe consequences of the crime of murder. This explicit warning to the progenitors of the new human race provides God with the legal and moral grounds for carrying out his threat on violators in the future.66 6.3 Legal and Theological Implications The scholarly discussion of Gen 9:6 generally appears within the context of the larger discussion about homicide and its punishment in biblical criminal law.67 64

65 66

67

Compare the concern of the deities, following the flood, to preclude the need to send another flood in Atrahasis. Since the reason for the flood in Atrahasis was overpopulation, following the flood the gods introduce new phenomena: barrenness, stillbirth, infant mortality (via the female demon, Lamastu), celibate priestesses and, apparently, human mortality in general. See Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading, JSJSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 29–39. The lxx version of the end of verse 6, which presents the statement concerning the creation of man in the divine image as a first-person divine speech, further highlights the nature of verses 5–6 as an integrated and continuous unit. The place of warning in the Bible, both as a deterrent against sin and as a prerequisite and justification for enacted punishment, is central, even though the conception is not articulated in abstract generalizations. The latter comes to the fore in rabbinic literature, in formulations such as ‫אין עונשין אלא אם כן מזהירין‬, “One cannot punish without offering a preceding warning” (b. Sanh. 56b). For discussion see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, trans. A. Barber, beataj 9 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989), 176–91. Note also the formulation of Exod 18:20, ‫והזהרת אתהם‬ ‫את החקים ואת התורת‬, “You shall warn them about the laws and teachings.” I take this formulation as indicating that the laws are often formulated as admonitions and that the teaching of the laws constitutes a legal warning. See, e.g., Albrecht Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in idem, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989), 110 n. 70; David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), 129–30, 149

The Contribution of Text Criticism

207

However, the recognition that the passage is not concerned with the human administration of the death penalty indicates that a reorientation of focus is in order. In the unpublished commentary of Immanuel ben Solomon of Rome, the medieval poet and scholar glosses our verse with the following comment: ‫ ואמר כי מי שישפך דם סוף שישפך‬,‫יש אומרים שהוא תוספת ביאור אל מה שזכר‬ … ‫ וזהו ממשפטי האל יתעלה‬,‫דמו‬

Some say it is a further explanation of that which was mentioned [in verse 5], saying that whoever spills blood is destined to have his blood spilt. This is one of the ways of God, may he be exalted….68 Since, in light of the analysis presented above, this interpretation is essentially correct,69 it would seem best to situate and evaluate Gen 9:6 within the broad context of divine retribution. As is well known, the precise workings of God’s retribution against the wicked were subject to sustained theological reflection in ancient Israel.70 This troubling issue came to a head around the time of the Judean exile and

68 69

70

n. 17; Anthony Phillips, Essays on Biblical Law, JSOTSup 334 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 69; Barmash, Homicide, 159; Christophe Nihan, “Murder, Blasphemy and Sacral Law: Another Look at Lev 24,10–23,” zabr 17 (2011): 211–40 (233). See the citation from the manuscript edition in Kasher, Peshuto Shel Mikra, 2:107. See n. 19 above as well as the text between notes 62 and 66. The interpretation of Immanuel ben Solomon is correct at least insofar as it understands Gen 9:5–6 to be focused on God’s manner of governance of the world. At the same time, it clearly reflects a unique interpretation, based upon the traditional parsing of the verse, according to which God sees to the death of the murderer by arranging for his death at the hand of another human (= ‫)באדם‬. So, apparently, Feder, “Retribution,” 148–49. I consider this understanding essentially correct following, however, the reading adopted here. We should recall that in Gen 9:2 God introduces a change in the cosmic order insofar as he imbues the animal world with a new terror of humanity. It is thus possible that in 9:6 God introduces another new “natural law” to the postdiluvian world—those who kill humans will eventually be killed. God will personally see to it that this will always take place. Note also the comparison with Atrahasis mentioned in n. 64 above. I would only insist that the murderers referred to here could include animals (v. 5) and that they both could be killed by God through the agency of wild animals, people (soldiers, hunters, criminals, blood avengers, etc.), “accidents,” or “natural” disasters. For the theme of divine retribution see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 335–50; Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995); Antii Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Dalit Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction and Exiles: Tanakh Theology (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2009), 268–319 (in Hebrew).

208

Frankel

thereafter,71 which is, broadly speaking, the likely historical context of the Priestly redactors of the flood narrative,72 particularly in light of the apparent correlation between the catastrophe of the flood and the catastrophe of the exile.73 Of course, in the present context, no more than a most cursory allusion to some components of the issue of divine retribution can be undertaken. Among the divergent biblical positions on the issue of divine retribution, a most central one is found in Exod 34:7. This text states that God “visits the guilt of the parents upon the children and the children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” The principle of cross-generational punishment expressed in this passage was often adopted to help account for the downfall of Jerusalem. Thus, 2 Kgs 23:26–27; 24:3 invokes the sins of Manasseh’s generation, particularly the spilling of innocent blood, to account for the exile. On the other hand, Deut 7:9–10 resolutely rejects this principle. It is only divine grace that is extended through the generations. As far as punishment is concerned, “He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.”74 Ezekiel 18 similarly presents a strong rejection of the principle expressed in the proverbial complaint, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are blunted,” boldly insisting, ‫( הנפש החטאת היא תמות‬verse 4), “the soul who sins, that one alone shall die.”75 Rather different is the position reflected in Jer 31:29–30. The prophet here states that at the time of the future restoration, the aforementioned proverb will fall into disuse. Instead, people will 71

72

73

74

75

See Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction; Baruch Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century bce: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel, ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson, JSOTSup 124 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991), 11–107. As is well known, the dating of P has been debated for some time. See Carr, “Changes,” 454–60. In my own view, many of the individual laws and narratives may derive from monarchic times, but the bulk of the redactoral work and the present editorial edifice of the Pentateuch is late. See David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, VTSup 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). See on this Frymer-Kensky, “Israel and the Ancient Near East,” 47–48. The flood narrative provides a particularly appropriate setting for the consideration of theodicy as a universal issue insofar as it is not directly anchored in Israel’s sacred territory or history. Compare, for example, the books of Job and Jonah, and Ezek 14:12–23 (which mentions Noah). See on this point Yehezkel Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1937–1956), 2:283, 440. For the polemical character of this passage see Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 318; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, jps Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 437. See the discussion in Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 155–78.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

209

state, “Each man dies for his sin.” Though the text is somewhat ambiguous, it apparently expresses the idea that God, in the eschatological future, will change his mode of punishment from cross-generational to immediate.76 In the meantime, however, the well-known proverb about the sour grapes remains painfully accurate. Mention must also be made of the position that mediates between cross-generational retribution and the opposing principle that people should not be punished for the sins of others. According to this position, God indeed punishes descendants for ancestral sins, but only when the descendants are also sinners themselves. This conception is adopted by the Deuteronomistic Historian and is also reflected in various other biblical passages, such as Jer 16:11–13 and Isa 65:7.77 How does Gen 9:5–6 fit in to this context? On the one hand it affirms, with Deut 7:9–10 and Ezekiel 18, that God does not visit the sins of ancestors on later generations, at least not when it comes to murder. Whoever sheds the blood of a person on the earth will have his own blood spilt, and not that of his children. On the other hand, in contrast to these texts, the Genesis passage acknowledges an early era when this was not yet God’s way. God indeed was indulgent with murderers and visited their sins on their descendants. This took place in the ancient era leading up to the flood. Yet the generation of the flood was guilty as well, and the righteous Noah was saved from the scourge. The Priestly redactor’s depiction of divine retribution in the era leading up to the flood is thus analogous to the mediating position according to which God punishes descendants for ancestral sins when the descendants continue in the ways of their ancestors. The distinctive element in the Priestly conception is the role of the earth in carrying the guilt forward through the generations. In any event, that mode of divine retribution belongs to the mythological era of the antediluvian past. It no longer holds true. After the flood, God came to realize that man’s heart is markedly evil. Delay of punishment to a future generation would serve only to encourage man’s evil nature, escalate wrongdoing, and create an ever-increasing accumulation of more and more guilt.78 Thus, after the flood, 76

77 78

See Herbert G. May, “Individual Responsibility and Retribution,” huca 32 (1961), 107–20 (114–15); Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages,” 13–14; Yair Hoffmann, Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary; Chapters 26–52 (Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 2:608–11 (in Hebrew). Contra Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 141–54. For the conception of retribution in the Deuteronomistic History see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 18–19, 317–19. For other passages that reflect a similar outlook see Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction, 290–300. See Isa 39:8, which indicates that postponement of punishment to future generations was experienced as an act of grace to the offenders.

210

Frankel

God announced to Noah and his sons his new policy of immediate punishment for the shedding of human blood. That new divine policy, we are surely meant to understand, remains in force to this very day.79 In contrast to Jer 31:29–30, which places the divine transition from crossgenerational punishment to immediate punishment in the eschatological future, the Priestly editor in Genesis 9 insists that that transition occurred long ago. Quite possibly, this insistence is indicative of a general Priestly attitude of reserve toward prophetic and popular expectations of significant future eschatological change.80 The Priestly redactor’s presentation of the flood may well exemplify this reserve. Whereas Ezekiel and Jeremiah looked forward to a day when God would radically transform the sinning heart (Ezek 11:19; 36:26; Jer 24:7; 31:33), the Priestly redactor adopted the nonprophetic contention that God had resigned himself to the fact that the heart of man is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21). 7

Concluding Remarks

I have argued that Gen 9:6 should be read as stating, ‫ דמו‬,‫שופך דם האדם בארץ‬ ‫ישפך‬. The passage does not constitute a call to courts to carry out the death penalty in cases of homicide. Rather, it expresses God’s postdiluvian change in policy towards murderers, and provides a warning to all would-be murderers that God will ensure that they die. This new reading and understanding has significant implications for issues of redaction criticism, for an appreciation of the theology of the Priestly editor, and for a literary appreciation of the flood 79

80

One may wonder how Gen 9:5–6, which implies a rejection of collective punishment of any kind, is meant to relate to other Priestly texts concerning the Israelites in their land. Passages such as Lev 18:27–28 and 26:34–35, 39–40, for example, seem to imply that God does employ cross-generational punishment. According to Jacob Milgrom, the divine penalty of karet, which appears most frequently in Priestly literature, likely refers to extirpation of the offender’s entire family line. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 457–60. It may also be noted that the instances of divine punishment for cultic offenses depicted in Numbers 16–17 have a clear element of collective retribution (cf., however, Num 16:20–22). A harmonistic approach might seek to distinguish between the land of Israel and other lands, and/or the penalty for murder and for other sins. I am more inclined to discern in our text in Genesis a late development within the Priestly writings that is akin to Deut 7:10 and Ezekiel 18 and possibly also directly influenced by them. See also n. 62 above. For the general noneschatological character of the Priestly writings see Otto Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 30–37; Norbert Lohfink, “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in idem, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy, trans. L. M. Maloney (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 136–72.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

211

story within the context of Genesis 1–9 as a whole. In truth, as we have seen, textual criticism not only contributes to these fields, but is itself informed and reinforced by them. Thus, the fact that the suggested reading of Gen 9:6 fits so well within the theological and literary contexts pointed to above significantly buttresses the reading. The implication of all this is that textual criticism should not carry out its work in isolation. It has much to contribute to literary analysis, redaction history, biblical theology and more, and much to learn from them.81 The more all of these fields of inquiry work hand in hand, drawing upon and feeding into one another, the more they all stand to gain.

Appendix

This essay has argued for the likelihood that ‫ באדם‬in Gen 9:6 originally read ‫בארץ‬. However, another, less compelling possibility, which would obviate the need to emend the text and which would essentially reflect the same idea, may also be considered. This would be to preserve the consonants of ‫ באדם‬and vocalize it as )‫באדם(ה‬. The ‫ׇ‬ meaning of the verse would remain the same, as the words ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ אדמה‬interchange often and are largely equivalent.82 As is well known, the matres lectionis were introduced into the consonantal framework of ancient Hebrew orthography gradually and inconsistently.83 The mt preserves a plethora of examples of variant and unusual spellings of words, including those in which the final heh, signifying the ā vowel, is not employed.84 Examples of this include the appearance of ‫ הנער‬instead of ‫הנערה‬,85 ‫ תלבשן‬instead of ‫תלבשנה‬,86 ‫ עת‬instead of ‫עתה‬,87 and ‫ את‬instead of ‫אתה‬.88 Examples 81 82

83 84 85 86 87 88

See also David Frankel, “The Final Form of the Story of the Rape of Dinah in Light of Textual and Redaction Criticism,” Shnaton 25 (2016): 13–57 (in Hebrew). See Shemaryahu Talmon, “Synonymous Readings in the Masoretic Text,” in idem, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 171–216 (185–86). Note also that where mt of Isa 24:1 reads ‫הנה ה׳ בוקק הארץ‬, 1QIsaa reads ‫הנה ה׳‬ ‫בוקק האדמה‬. For discussion and bibliography see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992), 220–30. See James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible, The Schweich Lectures 1986 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1989). Cf. Gen 24:14, 28, 55; 34:3, 12; Deut 22:15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29. 2 Sam 13:18. Ezek 23:43; Ps 74:6 following the ketiv. Num 11:15; Deut 5:27; and Ezek 28:14; and, following the ketiv, in 1 Sam 24:19; Ps 6:4; Job 1:10; Eccl 7:22; Neh 9:6. For a discussion of the first, third, and fourth examples as instances of early orthography see Maimon Cohen, The Kethib and Qeri System in the Biblical Text: A Linguistic Analysis of the Various Traditions (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007), 27–31 (in Hebrew). An alternative explanation for the noun ‫ נער‬and the

212

Frankel

of this phenomenon from the corpus of ancient Hebrew inscriptions include ‫ עת‬for ‫ עתה‬in the Lachish Ostraca;89 ‫ פשת‬for ‫ פשתה‬in the Gezer Calendar;90 ‫ כל‬for ‫ כלה‬in the letter from Mesad Hashavyahu,91 and ‫ עש‬for ‫ עשה‬on the incense altar from Khirbet el-Mudeiyeneh.92 It is also possible that the heh of ‫ באדמה‬of Gen 9:6 simply fell out. The fact that the mt of Gen 9:6 presents ‫ באדם‬with a closed mem does not present an obstacle. The consistent use of the closed mem for the final position, and the open mem for the opening or penultimate position is quite late.93 Various dss texts have nonfinal letters in the final position (4QHa [4Q427] 7 ii 10 ‫ ;ארצ‬7 ii 17 ‫ ;מליצ‬4QPsx 2 [Ps 89:20] ‫)עמ‬, or final letters in the nonfinal position (4QPso 2 3 [Ps 116:7] ‫ ;גםל‬1QIsaa 25:7 [Isa 30:24] ‫)האדםה‬.94 The rabbinic list of the variants of the Severus Scroll records several instances of medial mem in the final position (e.g., Gen 48:7—‫ ;שמ‬Deut 1:26— ‫)אביתמ‬.95 Even the mt preserves ‫ לםרבה המשרה‬in Isa 9:6, and ‫פרוצים‬/‫ המ‬in Neh 2:13. Another good candidate for reading ‫ אדמה‬instead of the present ‫ אדם‬is Prov 30:14b, ‫לאכל עניים מארץ ואביונים מאדם‬, “to devour the poor from the earth and the needy from humans.” Though the MT formulation is possible, the parallel structure of the verse suggests that the last word originally read ‫מאדמה‬. In sum, the suggested vocalization in Gen 9:6 of ‫ באדם‬as )‫ ָב ֲא ָד ָם(ה‬is thoroughly conceivable. The chief advantage of this reading would be literary, for it yields a uniquely sophisticated wordplay featuring the words ‫דם‬, ‫אדם‬, and ‫אדמה‬. This echoes word plays that appear predominantly in the preceding non-Priestly narratives. The connection between ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ אדם‬is highlighted in the non-Priestly stratum of the Garden of Eden story. We are told that ‫ האדם‬was created of ‫עפר מן האדמה‬, dust from the ground (Gen 2:7), and that in the beginning there was no rain since ‫ואדם אין לעבוד את האדמה‬, there was no ‫ אדם‬to work the ‫( אדמה‬2:6). In the non-Priestly story of the sons of gods and daughters of men we are told of the time that ‫ האדם‬began to multiply ‫על פני‬

89 90 91 92 93

94 95

pronoun ‫ את‬is that the distinction between the male and female forms is late. For both possibilities see Robert Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib—Qere (New York: ktav, 1971), 120–21. Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, trans. and ed. A. F. Rainey (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 60. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 255. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 161. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 424. See Jonathan P. Siegel, “Final Mem in Medial Position and Medial Mem in Final Position in 11 Q PSa: Some Observations,” RevQ 7 (1969): 125–30. For an extensive early study see Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai, ‫ כרך הלשון‬:‫הלשון והספר‬, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1954–1960), 1:3–34. See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 217–21. See Armin Lange, “The Severus Scroll Variant List in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Tradition, Transmission and Transformation from Second Temple Literature Through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity, ed. M. Kister et al., stdj 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 180–205.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

213

‫( האדמה‬6:1). And in the non-Priestly section immediately preceding our passage, we read that God decided, ‫לא אוסיף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם‬, “I will not continue to curse the land because of man” (Gen 8:21). The other wordplay highlighted in Gen 9:6, that of ‫ אדמה‬and ‫דם‬, is emphasized in the non-Priestly story of Cain and Abel. Here we read of the blood of Abel that cries out from the ground: ‫דמי אחיך צעקים אלי‬ ‫מן האדמה‬. Cain is then cursed ‫מן האדמה אשר פצתה את פיה לקחת את דמי אחיך מידך‬, from the ground that opened her mouth to take his brother’s blood (Gen 4:10–11). It is only in our Priestly passage, however, that we find, following this reading, both wordplays, that of ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ אדם‬and that of ‫ אדמה‬and ‫דם‬, combined in a unique, triple wordplay.

Bibliography Aḥituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Translated and edited by A. F. Rainey. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008. Alt, Albrecht. “The Origins of Israelite Law.” Pages 79–132 in idem, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989. Barmash, Pamela. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Barr, James. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. The Schweich Lectures 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1989. Baumgarten, Joseph M. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). djd 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Bendavid, Abba. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1971 (in Hebrew). Benovitz, Moshe. Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions. bjs 315. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Boyd, Samuel L. “The Flood and the Problem of Being an Omnivore.” jsot 43 (2019): 163–78. Brockelmann, Carl. Hebraische Syntax. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1956. Buber, Solomon, ed. Midrash Aggadah on the Pentateuch. Vilna: Panto, 1894. Repr., Jerusalem, 1984 (in Hebrew). Carr, David M. “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism.” Pages 433–66 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 3, From Modernism to Post-Modernism

214

Frankel

(The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries), Pt. 2: The Twentieth Century—From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Edited by M. Sæbø et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2015. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by I. Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1961–1964. Ceresko, Anthony R. Job 29–31 in the Light of Northwest Semitic. BibOr 36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980. Cohen, Maimon. The Kethib and Qeri System in the Biblical Text: A Linguistic Analysis of the Various Traditions. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007 (in Hebrew). Dahood, Mitchell, S. J. Psalms III: 101–150. ab 17A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970. Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Diebner, Bernd Jørg, and Hermann Schult. “Das Problem der Todesstrafe an Tier und Mensch in Gen 9:5–6.” dbat 6 (1974): 2–5. Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job. icc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. 7 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908–1914. Ernst, Alexander. “ ‘ Wer Menschenblut vergiesst …’: Zur Übersetzung von ‫ באדם‬in Gen 9,6,” zaw 102 (1990): 252–53. Feder, Yitzhaq. “The Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian and Ancient Israelite Sources.” janer 10 (2010): 119–57. Feldman, Louis H. Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by S. Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fischer, Bonifatius. Genesis. vl 2. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1951–1954. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, BibSem 12. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991. Frankel, David. “The Final Form of the Story of the Rape of Dinah in Light of Textual and Redaction Criticism.” Shnaton 25 (2016): 13–57 (in Hebrew). Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. VTSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9.” ba 40 (1977): 147–54. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Israel and the Ancient Near East: New Perspectives on the Flood,” Pages 37–50 in eadem, Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel

The Contribution of Text Criticism

215

Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. asor 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Goldman, Moshe. “The Book of Jubilees.” Pages 216–313 in vol. 1 of ‫הספרים החיצונים‬ ‫לתורה לנביאים לכתובים ושאר ספרים חיצונים‬. Edited by A. Kahana. 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: Masada, 1956 (in Hebrew). Gordis, Robert. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib–Qere. New York: ktav, 1971. Greenberg, Moshe. “Bloodguilt.” idb 1:449–50. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 22. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Greenberg, Moshe. “More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law.” Pages 1–17 in Studies in Bible, 1986. Edited by S. Japhet. ScrHier 31. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1986. Greenberg, Moshe. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” Pages 5–28 in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by M. Haran. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1960. Reprinted in idem, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought. Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1995, 25–41. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Use of Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezechiel ii 1–iii 11.” Pages 131–48 in Congress Volume: Gottingen 1977. Edited by W. Zimmerli. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job: A Commentary. otl. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Halpern, Baruch. “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century bce: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability.” Pages 11–107 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. Edited by B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson. JSOTSup 124. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. nicot 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Harland, Peter J. The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6–9). VTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Heller, Chaim. Genesis. Part 1 of Peshitta: In Hebrew Characters with Elucidatory Notes. Berlin: Gutenberg, 1927. Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

216

Frankel

Hoffmann, Yair. Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary: Chapters 26–52. Vol. 2 of Mikra LeYisrael: A Bible Commentary for Israel: Jeremiah. Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001 (in Hebrew). Jackson, Bernard S. “Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law.” jjs 24 (1973): 8–38. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. agju 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Translated by A. Barber. beataj 9. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989. Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 196. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Kasher, Shimon. Peshuto Shel Mikra. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Torah Shelema Institute, 1962–1967. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The History of Israelite Religion. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1937–1956 (in Hebrew). Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by J. Feldman and P. Rodman. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kvanvig, Helge S. Primeval History, Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading. JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Laato, Antii, and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Lange, Armin. “The Severus Scroll Variant List in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 180–205 in Tradition, Transmission and Transformation from Second Temple Literature Through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011. Edited by M. Kister et al. stdj 113. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Licht, Jacob. “‫קץ‬.” §§211–212 in Encyclopaedia Biblica. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950– 1988. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Chiastic Structure in the Bible.” Pages 27–30 in Sepher Auerbach. Edited by A. Biram. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1955 (in Hebrew). Lohfink, Norbert. “The Priestly Narrative and History.” Pages 136–72 in idem, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Lust, Johan. “‘For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed’: Gen 9:6 in Hebrew and in Greek.” Pages 91–102 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday. Edited by G. J. Norton and S. Pisano. obo 109. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1991. May, Herbert G. “Individual Responsibility and Retribution.” huca 32 (1961): 107–20.

The Contribution of Text Criticism

217

McKeating, Henry. “The Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel.” vt 25 (1975): 46–68. Meyer, Esias E. “People and Land in the Holiness Code: Who is Yhwh’s Favourite?” ote 28 (2015): 433–50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2015/v28n2a12. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Nihan, Christophe. “Murder, Blasphemy and Sacral Law: Another Look at Lev 24,10– 23.” zabr 17 (2011): 211–40. Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1983 (in Hebrew). Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 4 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1926–1940. Phillips, Anthony. Essays on Biblical Law. JSOTSup 334. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Plöger, Otto. Theocracy and Eschatology. Translated by S. Rudman. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. God in Times of Destruction and Exiles: Tanakh Theology. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2009 (in Hebrew). Schiffman, Lawrence H. Law, Custom and Messianism in the Dead Sea Sect. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for the History of Israel, 1993 (in Hebrew). Shemesh, Aharon. “Scriptural Interpretations in the Damascus Document and Their Parallels in Rabbinic Midrash.” Pages 161–75 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998. Edited by J. M. Baumgarten et al. stdj 34. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Siegel, Jonathan P. “Final Mem in Medial Position and Midial Mem in Final Position in 11 Q Psa: Some Observations.” RevQ 7 (1969): 125–30. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. icc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Steck, Odil Hannes. “Der Mensch und der Todesstraffe: Exegetisches zur Übersetzung der Präposition Beth in Gen 9, 6a.” tz 1–2/53 (1997): 118–30. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. isbl. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stipp, Hermann-Joseph. “‘Alles Fleisch hatte seinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen 6,12): Die Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an der Sintflut nach der Priesterschrift.” zaw 111 (1999): 167–86.

218

Frankel

Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 261–63 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Synonymous Readings in the Masoretic Text.” Pages 171–216 in idem, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. jps Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Tur-Sinai, Naftali Herz. ‫ כרך הלשון‬:‫הלשון והספר‬. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1954–1960. Van Selms, Adrianus. Genesis 1–20. 2nd ed. POuT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1973. Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by J. H. Marks. Rev. ed. otl. London: scm, 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Weiss, Meir. The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation. Translated by B. J. Schwartz and R. Levy. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1984. Welch, John W. “Chiasmus in Biblical Law: An Approach to the Structure of Legal Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” Jewish Law Association Studies 4 (1990): 5–22. Werman, Cana. The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation. Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2015 (in Hebrew). Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion S. J. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Wright, David P. “The Fallacies of Chiasmus: A Critique of Structures Proposed for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19).” zabr 10 (2004): 143–68. Zehnder, Markus. “Cause or Value? Problems in the Understanding of Gen 9, 6a.” zaw 122 (2010): 81–89. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by R. E. Clements. Edited by F. M. Cross and K. Baltzer. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Zipor, Moshe A. The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005 (in Hebrew).

chapter 6

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8 in Light of “Rewritten Bible” Compositions from Qumran Guy Darshan 1

Introduction

The trend of regarding lxx 3 Kingdoms as a late midrashic reworking of mt 1 Kings began with David Gooding, in a series of studies published in the 1960s and 1970s.1 Although, until the beginning of the twentieth century, lxx 3 Kingdoms had been viewed by several scholars as a witness to textual traditions earlier than mt, Gooding’s theory found numerous supporters.2 Many commentators and historians accepted it, finding it an easy way to avoid dealing with the textual difficulties attendant upon the various versions of Kings. Gooding’s view, with some modifications, also found proponents among many scholars of textual criticism, including Zipora Talshir, Emanuel Tov, and to some degree Percy van Keulen.3 In recent years, Tov has updated this 1 See David W. Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns,” vt 15 (1965): 153–66; idem, “The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct,” vt 15 (1965): 325–35; idem, “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the mt and the lxx,” vt 17 (1967): 143–72; idem, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” vt 17 (1967): 173–89; idem, “The Shimei Duplicate and Its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns II,” jss 13 (1968): 76–92; idem, “Text-Sequence and Translation-Revision in 3 Reigns IX 10–X 33,” vt 19 (1969): 448–63; idem, “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns,” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29; idem, Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2, sotsms 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). 2 Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Reimer,1899), 233–74; Charles F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), xix. 3 See, for example, Zipora Talshir, “The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings,” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 249–302 (in Hebrew); eadem, “The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles,” vt 50 (2000): 233–49; eadem, “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 K 11–14,” in La double transmission du texte biblique: Études d’histoire du texte offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker, ed. Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger, obo 179 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 41–57; Emanuel Tov, “The lxx Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2),” Textus 11 (1984): 89–118; and see n. 4 below. See also Percy S. F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiring into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and lxx 3 Reg. 2–11, VTSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005): © Guy Darshan, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_007

220

Darshan

theory, examining 3 Kingdoms in light of the “rewritten Bible” texts found at Qumran—in particular the pre-Samaritan scrolls of the Pentateuch.4 In my view, the analogy between 3 Kingdoms and the pre-Samaritan texts is not as close as Tov suggests, as the duplications in the Septuagint differ from the socalled “harmonizations” typical of the pre-Samaritan texts. Nonetheless, the introduction of the “rewritten Bible” compositions and Qumran texts into the discussion places Gooding’s argument in a more appropriate context in terms of period and type of the literary activity involved. Other scholars—primarily Europeans such as Julio Trebolle Barrera, Adrian Schenker, and Philippe Hugo—maintain the opposite view, regarding the Septuagint as an early version and the mt as the latest version.5 Each scholar takes a slightly different approach—Schenker, for example, argues for two separate editorial stages that can be traced in the Greek tradition and Vetus Latina, the mt representing the third and latest stage.6 “Therefore the results of our inquiry lead us to side with those who regard the lxx-version of the Solomon Narrative basically as the product of a Greek revision of the Hebrew text reflected by mt” (305; my italics). 4 Emanuel Tov, “3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst et al., JSJSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 345–66; idem, “Three Strange Books of the lxx: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus, wunt 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 369–93, esp. 369–79, 389. 5 See, for instance, Adrian Schenker, “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: lxx 1 R 12, 24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 et l’histoire deutéronomiste,” in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes, ed. A. de Pury et al., Le Monde de la Bible 34 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 193–236; idem, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, CahRB 48 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000); Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings,” bioscs 15 (1982): 12–35; idem, “The Ark as Sign of God’s Absent Presence in Solomon’s Temple: 1 Kings 8.6–8 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles,” in What Is It that the Scripture Says? Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation and Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough OSB, ed. P. McCosker, lnts 316 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 1–9; idem, “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings / 3–4 Reigns: The Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and lxx,” in Die Septuagint: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte, ed. S. Kreuzer et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 55–78; Philippe Hugo, Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18, obo 217 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2006). For additional extensive bibliography, see Timothy M. Law, “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings,” vt 61 (2011): 280–97, esp. 287–88 n. 18. 6 Adrian Schenker, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1–2 Kings,” in The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, ed. B. Halpern et al., VTSup 129 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1–18.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

221

However, neither of these two main views sufficiently explains the textual evolution of the book of Kings, as both require that one version necessarily predates the other. Contra Gooding’s approach, I believe that later developments and midrashic expansions can also be found in mt 1 Kings—precisely in those places where the Septuagint witnesses to the earlier text. In some cases, on the other hand, the Septuagint also appears to betray signs of later changes, some at the very latest stage of reworking.7 Today, more and more scholars acknowledge that the Former Prophets in general and Kings in particular underwent diverse textual and creative developments during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods.8 Substantial support for this view comes from the biblical scrolls of Samuel and Kings found at Qumran, especially 4QSama and the rewritten Joshua texts.9 These expansions and developments either assumed an independent form at a certain stage (as in the case of Chronicles) or were incorporated into or became part of the authoritative texts of the Former Prophets books. Philological, literary, historical, and linguistic considerations demonstrate that independent reworkings are present in both principal versions of the book of Kings. It is thus not always possible to attribute the initial stage of the textual growth in particular passages to one of the major versions of the text. As an example, I shall analyze here the prominent differences between the mt and lxx to 1 Kings 6–8 in order to illustrate that, as has already been discussed with regard to lxx 3 Kingdoms, mt 1 Kings was also creatively expanded and reworked at a late date. I shall first examine the unique style and language of the additional stratum in the mt and then briefly discuss its literary growth and meaning—a field only scarcely studied to date in relation to these texts.

7 Cf. Guy Darshan, “The Long Additions in lxx 1 Kings 2 (3 Kgdms 35a–k; 46a–l) and Their Importance for the Question of the Literary History of 1 Kings 1–11,” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 5–50 (in Hebrew). See also Jan Joosten, “Empirical Evidence and Its Limits: The Use of the Septuagint in Retracing the Redaction History of the Hebrew Bible,” in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts?, ed. R. Müller and J. Pakkala, cbet 84 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 247–65. 8 Cf., from a different perspective, Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique. 9 For the rewritten scrolls of Joshua, see Ariel Feldman, The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations and Commentary, bzaw 438 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings: Texts and Commentary, bzaw 469 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015) and the extensive bibliography cited therein. For a sober approach to 4QSama, see Alexander Rofé, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama),” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–88.

222 2

Darshan

1 Kings 6:11–14

mt 1 Kgs 6:11–14 interrupts the description of the building of the Temple with an account of God’s address to Solomon: 11 Now the word of YHWH came to Solomon, 12 “Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes (‫)אם תלך בחקתי‬, obey my ordinances (‫)ואת משפטי תעשה‬, and keep all my commandments (‫ )מצותי‬by walking in them (‫)ללכת בהם‬, then I will establish (‫)והקמתי‬ my promise with you, which I made to your father David. 13 I will dwell (‫ )ושכנתי‬among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.” 14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it (‫)ויכלהו‬.10 Verse 15, which depicts the various aspects of the construction of the Temple and the overlay of the structure with cypress and cedar planks, clearly follows most naturally after 6:1–10, which detail the construction of the chambers of the building. Moreover, vv. 11–14 are missing from the most important manuscript of the lxx, manuscript B, which yields a more logical sequence. Since no plausible reason exists for the deletion of the unit by the translator,11 nor can we reconstruct a “scribal accident” in its Hebrew Vorlage, it is much more reasonable to assume that 1 Kgs 6:11–14 was added to the Hebrew text at a later stage of literary development, and that this is why the verses are missing from the lxxB. This thesis is supported by a number of literary, contextual, and linguistic considerations: 1) In literary terms, the verses clearly do not constitute a whole, coherent narrative unit. In addition to their abrupt appearance within the sequence, the circumstances in which they were uttered are also obscure. No indication of Solomon’s response is given either. 2) The preceding and subsequent verses also appear to be completely unaware of the unit, as evinced by 1 Kgs 9:2: God “appeared to Solomon a second time as He had appeared to him at Gibeon”—a reference to the 10

11

See, for example, Burney, Kings, 68; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings, ed. H. S. Gehman, ICC 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951; repr. 1976), 147; Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, 2 vols., hsm 52–53 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1:96–97. Cf., for example, J. Rawson Lumby, The First Book of the Kings, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890), 58–59; Gooding, “Temple Specification,” 158–59. The only way to argue that the passage was present in the lxx Vorlage but omitted from the Greek translation is to presume that the translator acted like a biblical scholar, identifying a textual difficulty and seeking to resolve it. Cf. also Talshir’s approach in “The Image of the Septuagint Edition,” 249–302; eadem, “The Reign of Solomon in the Making,” 233–49.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

3)

12

13 14 15

16

223

revelation described in 1 Kings 3. This text is thus unfamiliar with any divine speech to Solomon in 1 Kings 6. Contra those scholars who view the unit as Deuteronomistic, the language is characteristic of neither Kings nor Deuteronomistic works.12 In fact, it recalls the priestly document in the Pentateuch—in particular the language of the H strata and Ezekiel.13 Both the idiom ‫ בחקתי‬+ ‫“( ללכת‬walk + in my statutes”) and the term ‫“( משפטי‬my ordinances”) in v. 12 are prominent H expressions.14 The concluding verse of the speech—“ I will dwell among the children of Israel” (‫ ;ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל‬v. 13)—reflects the key Priestly principle of God’s physical dwelling amongst the Israelites via His presence in the Temple (see especially ‫;ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם‬ Exod 25:8).15 As is well known, the Deuteronomistic stratum in Kings promotes precisely the opposite idea, that God’s “name” resides in the Temple rather than God Himself. According to the Deuteronomistic view, even ‫“( השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלוך‬Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you”; 1 Kgs 8:27).16 The passage in 1 Kings 6 thus appears to have been written by a scribe closely familiar with Priestly concepts and terminology. In addition, the first part of v. 11—“then I will establish my promise with you, which I made to your father David”—betrays the

See, for example, John Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, otl (London: scm, 1964), 157–58; Frank Moore Cross, “The Themes in the Books of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–89, esp. 287; Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., ncb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1:167; Simon J. DeVries, I Kings, wbc 12 (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 95. All these scholars regard this section as belonging to the Deuteronomistic stratum. Cf. also Martin J. Mulder, 1 Kings, 2 vols., hcot (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 1:251–53; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, otl (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 113—both of whom are ambivalent about the issue. Cf. already Burney, Kings, 68–69; Montgomery, Kings, 147; Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, VTSup 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 138. For ‫ בחקתי‬+ ‫“( ללכת‬walk + in my statutes”), see Lev 26:3; Ezek 5:6, 7; 11:20; 18:9, 17; 20:13, 16, 19, 21. Cf. Lev 18:4. For ‫משפטי‬ ַ , see Lev 18:4, 5, 26; 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:15, 43; Ezek 5:6, 7; 8:9; 11:20; 18:17; 20:11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24; 36:27; 37:3, 4; 44:24. See also Exod 29:45, 46; Lev 15:31; 16:16; 26:11; Num 5:3; 16:3; 35:34. Cf. Ezek 43:9. See Gerhard von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology,” in idem, Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. D. Stalker (London: scm, 1953), 37–49; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, ab 22 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986), 51. See, for example, Deut 12:5, 11, 21; 14:24; 1 Kgs 9:3; the full list is cited in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992, 2014), 191, 324; idem, “Presence, Divine,” EncJud 13 (1972): 1015–20. Cf. von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology,” 38–39.

224

Darshan

author’s knowledge of God’s words to David through Nathan (2 Samuel 7).17 This author appears to have been a later scribe aware of the stories of Samuel and Kings and also well-acquainted with the Priestly language and style, which forms a central part of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable to assume that the scribe added his text after the Torah had attained an authoritative status as an obligatory religious document during the second Temple period and subsequently had great influence on scribes and copyists. The verses he added relate above all to Lev 26:3–11: 1 Kgs 6:12–13 ‫ הבית הזה אשר אתה בנה‬12 ‫בחקתי ואת משפטי תעשה‬ ַ ‫אם תלך‬ ‫ושמרת את כל מצותי ללכת בהם‬ ‫והקמתי את דברי אתך‬ ‫אשר דברתי אל דוד אביך‬ ‫ ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל‬13 ‫ולא אעזב את עמי ישראל‬

12 “Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes, obey my ordinances, and keep all my commandments by walking in them, then I will establish my promise with you, which I made to your father David. 13 I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.”18

17

18

Lev 26:3–11 ‫ אם בחקתי תלכו‬3 ‫מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם‬ ַ ‫ואת‬ ‫ … והקימתי את בריתי אתכם‬9 … ‫ ונתתי משכני בתוככם‬11 ‫ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם‬

3 If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully, 9 … and I will maintain my covenant with you. … 11 I will place my dwelling in your midst, and I shall not abhor you.

Here, the expression is ‫ דבר‬+ ‫“( להקים‬establish + promise”). This is more common in the Deuteronomistic literature, signifying the fulfillment of a prophecy or God’s word. See, for example, Deut 9:5; 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:20; 12:15; cf. also Jer 29:10; 33:14; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 15, 129, 350. In Priestly texts, the idiom ‫ ברית‬+ ‫“( להקים‬establish + covenant”) is more prevalent: see Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21; Exod 6:4; Lev 26:9. Cf. Ezek 16:60, 62. For the meaning of this idiom, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, ab 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 343–46. See briefly Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 99 n. 136.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

225

The divine words added in 1 Kings 6 adduce a vital condition, in accord with Leviticus 26. Although this is formulated as a positive statement—“If you follow …”—as the medieval commentator R. Joseph Kara noted, “the negative may be inferred from the positive.”19 This passage thus makes the Temple’s permanency conditional even before its construction has begun, the author— writing during the post-Destruction period—seeking to justify the events by addressing a caution found in Scripture itself.20 He therefore inserted God’s words to Solomon in vv. 11–13—linking them to the context via v. 14, which serves as a Wiederaufnahme and rewrites the first part of v. 9: “When he finished building the House.” He may have inserted God’s words precisely here because of the following verses, which deal with the construction of the holy of holies “in the innermost part of the House …” (1 Kgs 6:19), where the ark of the covenant and cherubim would rest, symbolizing the divine presence.21 3

1 Kings 8:1–11

The continuation of this narrative in 1 Kings 8 betrays signs of similar language, which imitates or is influenced by P terminology. Here, too, striking divergences exist between mt and lxx. The beginning of the account of Solomon’s bringing of the ark into the Temple (1 Kgs 8:1–11) appears in a different—and relatively shorter—version in the Septuagint. The additional stratum in the mt, missing in the lxx, is indicated here in bold (italics in the English translation):

19 20

21

For the text, see Menachem Cohen, ed., Mikra‌ʾot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Kings I & II (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1995), 41 (in Hebrew): ‫ומכלל הין אתה שומע לאו‬. For a different explanation of this text, see Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz, “Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983), 150 (in Hebrew). Cf. idem, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1992), 128, 159–160, 236. Although Hurowitz suggests comparing this unit in 1 Kgs 6:11–14 with the divine blessings found in ancient Near Eastern descriptions of temple-building projects, these texts have very little in common with our passage. He also ignores the conditional sentences in 1 Kings, which do not appear in the ancient Near Eastern examples. Cf. Gooding, “Temple Specification,” 158–59.

226

Darshan

lxx

MT

1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ συντελέσαι Σαλωμων τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὸν οἶκον κυρίου καὶ τὸν οἶκον ἑαυτοῦ μετὰ εἴκοσι ἔτη22 τότε ἐξεκκλησίασεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων πάντας τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους Ισραηλ

‫ זקני ישראל‬23‫אז יקהל שלמה את‬1

‫את כל ראשי המטות נשיאי האבות לבני‬

ἐν Σιων τοῦ ἀνενεγκεῖν τὴν κιβωτὸν διαθήκης κυρίου ἐκ πόλεως Δαυιδ αὕτη ἐστὶν Σιων 2 ἐν μηνὶ Αθανιν.

‫ישראל אל המלך שלמה‬

‫ להעלות את ארון ברית ה׳ מעיר‬24‫ירושלם‬ ‫דוד היא ציון‬ ‫ ויקהלו אל המלך שלמה כל איש ישראל‬2

‫בירח האתנים‬

‫בחג הוא החדש השביעי‬

3 καὶ ἦραν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὴν κιβωτὸν 4 καὶ τὸ σκήνωμα τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἅγια τὰ ἐν τῷ σκηνώματι τοῦ μαρτυρίου, 5 καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ πᾶς Ισραηλ

‫ ויבאו כל זקני ישראל‬3 ‫וישאו הכהנים את הארון‬ ‫ ויעלו את ארון ה׳‬4 ‫ואת אהל מועד ואת כל כלי הקדש אשר‬ 25‫באֹהל‬ ‫ויעלו אֹתם הכהנים והלוים‬ ‫ והמלך שלמה וכל עדת ישראל הנועדים‬5 ‫עליו אתו‬

22

23 24 25

In the first part of the verse, the lxx contains a long plus. Burney (Kings, 104) explains this as an addition by the Greek translator. However, the obviously Hebraist character of some expressions in this half-verse (Καὶ ἐγένετο = ‫ויהי‬, ἐν τῷ συντελέσαι = ‫ככלות‬, etc.) points to a Hebrew Vorlage, such as: ‫ויהי ככלות שלמה לבנות את בית יהוה ואת ביתו מקץ‬ ‫( עשרים שנה‬cf. 2 Chr 8:1). This half-verse may not only be based on a Hebrew text but also reflect an older version omitted by a later scribe uncomfortable with the idea that Solomon only brought the ark into the Temple after he had finished building his house, thirteen years after he completed the Temple. The mt in chapter 8 gives the impression that the ark was brought into the Temple immediately after Solomon finished erecting the Temple (1 Kgs 7:51), although reading 1 Kgs 7:1–12 in its current position may support the lxx chronology. The lxx probably read here ‫( את כל‬πάντας). The lxx reading here—Σιων (‫—)ציון‬is probably incorrect, since this name is only introduced at the end of the verse. The lxx Vorlage probably read ‫“( אהל מועד‬tent of meeting”).

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

ἔμπροσθεν τῆς κιβωτοῦ θύοντες πρόβατα καὶ βόας ἀναρίθμητα.26 1 And it happened, when Salomon finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years then King Salomon assembled all the elders of Israel

in Zion to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, this is Zion. 2 in the month Athanin. 3 And the priests carried the ark 4 and the tent of witness and all the holy vessels that were in the tent of witness, 5 and the king and all Israel were before the ark sacrificing countless sheep and oxen.

227

‫לפני הארון מזבחים צאן ובקר אשר לא‬ ‫יספרו ולא ימנו מרב‬

1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of YHWH out of the city of David, which is Zion. 2 All the people of Israel assembled to King Solomon at the festival in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. 3 And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests carried the ark. 4 So they brought up the ark of Yhwh, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them up. 5 And King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, who had assembled before him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and oxen that they could not be counted or numbered.

If we remove the marked expansions from the mt, we are left with a logical and natural sequence that appears to preserve the relatively ancient story of the bringing of the ark from the City of David to Solomon’s Temple in the month 26

ἀναρίθμητα (“countless”) translates here the biblical idiom ‫אשר לא יספרו ולא ימנו מרב‬ (“so many […] that they could not be counted or numbered”). Cf. also 1 Kgs 3:8. There is no need to reconstruct a different text against the mt here. See also Burney, Kings, 107.

228

Darshan

of Ethanim. As in 1 Kings 6, the additional stratum in the mt contains linguistic elements characteristic of the Priestly strata of the Pentateuch. In v. 1, a detailed description of the attendees was added to the expression the “elders of Israel”: ‫“( את כל ראשי המטות נשיאי האבות‬and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites”).27 The terms ‫“( מטות‬tribes”), ‫“( ראשי מטות‬heads of the tribes”), ‫“( נשיא‬leader, prince”) are all typical of P but rare in other biblical texts. The second verse originally only included the time specification—the ancient local name of the month Ethanim.28 The additional stratum in the mt elucidates this for later readers: ‫“( הוא החֹדש השביעי‬which is the seventh month”). With this phrase, it not only updates the ancient date but also adds new content, identifying the bringing of the ark into the Temple and the festival celebrating this event (1 Kgs 8:65) with the Sukkot festival of the seventh month referred to in Priestly texts. Only P / H (Lev 23:33–44; Num 29:12–39) gives a fixed date for the festival of the seventh month; Deuteronomy and other non-P sources do not allude to it at all. Deuteronomy 16:13 provides a fluid date: “when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your wine press” (‫)באספך מגרנך ומיקבך‬, as do other sources (‫בצאת השנה באספך את‬ ‫“[ מעשיך מן השדה‬at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor”; Exod 23:16]; cf. the general notation ‫“[ תקופת השנה‬at the turn of the year”] in Exod 34:22).29 According to the earlier form of the text of v. 3 (now reflected in the lxx), “the priests carried the ark.” The author of the plus in the mt, who is familiar with the Priestly language and texts, repeats this information in v. 4, rewriting it and adding “and the Levites.” Hereby, he may have sought to emphasize that it was the Levites who carried the ark—in accordance with the Priestly

27

28

29

For the combination ‫“( ראשי מטות לבני ישראל‬the heads of the Israelite tribes”), see also Num 30:2. Cf. ‫המטות לבני ישראל‬/‫“( ראשי אבות ל‬the heads of the ancestral houses of the Israelite tribes”; Num 32:28; Josh 14:1; 19:51; 21:1), ‫( ראשי (ה)אבות‬e.g., Exod 6:25; Num 31:26; 36:1), ‫“( נשיאי מטות‬leaders of the tribes”; Num 1:16; 7:2), ‫“( נשיא בית אב‬head of the ancestral house”; Num 3:24, 30, 35; 25:14). For inscriptional occurrences, see kai 37:1, 2, 41:4. For the possibly Hurrian origin of the name Ethanim, see Robert R. Stieglitz, “The Phoenician-Punic Menology,” in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. M. Lubetski et al., JSOTSup 273 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998), 211–22, esp. 213; cf. y. Roš Haš. 6a. Cf. Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857), 70—although the change is not dependent upon Chronicles, as Geiger suggests. See also Gray, Kings, 192– 94; Steven L. McKenzie, “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study into the Texts of Kings Used by the Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek,” bioscs 19 (1986): 15–34 (27–28).

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

229

regulation and narrative (Numbers 3–4; 7:4–9; 18:1–7; for 1 Kgs 8:4, see further below).30 The lxx on v. 5 also comprises a more convenient and continuous text than the mt. The original passage described the king and all Israel sacrificing before the ark. The additional stratum in mt reads “King Solomon” instead of “the king.” Similar additions appear in mt Jeremiah vis-à-vis the lxx. Instead of the shorter version ‫“( וכל ישראל‬and all Israel,” reflected in lxx καὶ πᾶς Ισραηλ), mt uses the redundant ‫“( וכל עדת ישראל הנועדים עליו אתו‬the congregation of Israel who had assembled before him with him”). Here, too, ‫ עדה‬and ‫ הנועדים‬are characteristic of Priestly language: cf. ‫“( לכל העדה הרעה הזאת הנועדים עלי‬to all this wicked congregation gathered together against me”; Num 14:35) and ‫אתה‬ ‫“( וכל עדתך הנעדים על ה׳‬You and all your congregation have gathered together against YHWH”; Num 16:11).31 4

The P-Like Stratum in the MT in Light of the Biblical Scrolls from Qumran

As early as his 1903 commentary, Charles Burney recognized the correspondence between the material in mt 1 Kings 6 and 8 and P. He thus suggested that Kings was edited as a whole by a priestly post-Dtr and postexilic hand.32 However, since these additions only appear in the context of the Temple’s construction, this theory is difficult to accept. Our knowledge of the biblical and rewritten compositions from Qumran can now help us better explain what I call the “quasi-Priestly” additions in mt 1 Kings 6 and 8, which closely resemble the scribal activity attested in the Qumran scrolls. 30

31

32

According to Deuteronomy, which does not distinguish between Priests and Levites, the Levites perform all the duties of the clergy (Deuteronomy 18). A Deuteronomistic scribe would thus not have bothered to differentiate between separate categories of Levites and Priests. See, in general, Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, icc (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 219; Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 58–131. In the parallel text in Chronicles, the Levites are the ones holding the ark (2 Chr 5:4). For ‫עדה‬, see, e.g., Avi Hurvitz, “Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term ʿeda,” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 261–67 (in Hebrew). The expression ‫הנועדים עליו‬ ‫ אתו‬is probably a doublet. Although the compound ‫ על‬+ ‫ נועד‬is more common, it usually signifies “gather together against” with a negative connotation (Num 14:35; 16:1; 27:3; Josh 11:5). Since this meaning does not fit our text, ‫ אתו‬was added in order to modify the sense of the phrase. While 1 Kings preserves both readings, the parallel text in 2 Chr 5:6 only contains ‫“( הנועדים עליו‬who had assembled before him”). Burney, Kings, xix.

230

Darshan

Some biblical Qumran scrolls of the Former Prophets evince a clear scribal tendency towards expanding and reworking Scripture by imitating the style and terminology of the Pentateuch—of which the Priestly sections constitute the largest and most preeminent stratum. This phenomenon most likely commenced after the Torah became authoritative. On occasion, “nomistic corrections” are also evident—namely, a reworking of the old narratives in light of pentateuchal laws that had by now received obligatory status.33 Such corrections are associated with Priestly texts and employ quasi-Priestly terminology. Unlike the pentateuchal Priestly strata, however, this work did not constitute an independent composition, but rather small-scale expansions influenced by P. The 4QSama version of 1 Sam 1:24 constitutes a good example of such a Priestly-like text. While according to the mt, Hannah brought Samuel to Shiloh ‫“( בפרים שלשה‬with three bulls”), the lxx preserves the correct reading ‫“( בפר משלש‬with a three-year-old bull”). Although 4QSama remains faithful to the original text, it replaces the original formulation with the typically Priestly phrase ‫[בפר בן] בקר משולש‬.34 The expression ‫ פר בן בקר‬only appears in the Priestly source in the Pentateuch and in Ezekiel who, as is well known, was close to the priestly milieu (cf. Lev 4:3, 14; Num 8:8; 15:24; 29:2, 8; Ezek 43:19, 23; 45:18; 46:6).35 A less-known example occurs in 1 Sam 10:4. According to the mt, Samuel told Saul that he would meet three men who would “give you two (presents) of bread”—‫ונתנו לך שתי לחם ולקחת מידם‬. 4QSama reads ‫[ונתנו לך ת]נופות לחם‬ ]‫“( ולקחת [מידם‬and they will give you] loaves of bread [for an e]levation offering, which you should accept [from them]”).36 The term ‫ תנופה‬in the context of offerings only appears in P. 4QSama probably reflects the Priestly idiom ‫לחם‬ ‫“( תנופה‬loaves of bread as an elevation offering”; Lev 23:17, 20), though it inverts the order of the words: ‫תנופות לחם‬.37 As we have noted, these expansions not only rephrase the text in the Priestly style but also correct it in accordance with pentateuchal law (primarily from 33 34 35

36 37

See Alexander Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in 4QSama,” RevQ 14 (1989): 247–54; Lea Mazor, “A Nomistic Re-Working of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in lxx to Joshua 6:1–20,” Textus 18 (1995): 47–62. The reconstruction here is certain: see Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel, djd 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 33. lxx and 4QSama also add “and bread” (‫ ולחם‬/ καὶ ἄρτοις): see Moses H. Segal, The Books of Samuel (Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer, 1964), 13–14 (in Hebrew)—who asserts that the addition of the bread in this version follows Lev 7:13 (thus portraying Hanna’s sacrifice as a thanksgiving offering); Talshir “The Image,” 251. lxx reads δύο ἀπαρχὰς ἄρτων (“two first fruits of bread,” but cf. Exod 39:1). Cf. Andrea Ravasco, “Saul and the Feast of Weeks: 1 Sam 10:4 in 4QSamª and Later Tradition,” RevQ 25 (2012): 473–79.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

231

P). This is the case with the story of the sons of Eli in 1 Sam 2:12–17. In the beginning of the story, the narrator notes the normal custom related to the portion of the priests practiced at Shiloh in those days in a parenthetical clause: ‫ומשפט הכהנים את העם כל איש זבח זבח ובא נער הכהן כבשל הבשר והמזלג שלש‬ ‫“( השנים בידו … כל אשר יעלה המזלג יקח הכהן בו‬This is the priests’ due from the

people: when anyone offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come, while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand … all that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself”; 1 Sam 2:13–14, cf. Deut. 18:3). In contrast to the regular practice at Shiloh, Eli’s sons did not wait for the meat to be boiled, and took their share by force even before the fat was made to smoke: “Before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the one who was sacrificing, ‘Give meat for the priest to roast; for he will not accept boiled meat from you, but only raw’ ” (1 Sam 2:15). However, the scribe of 4QSama could not accept the possibility that the regular practice at Shiloh differed from the ordinance given to the priests in the Pentateuch, especially according to P, which relates that the priest’s share is “the breast of waving and the right thigh” (Lev 7:31–34; Num 18:18; note that according to Deut 18:3, the priests received a different share). He thus assumed that the parenthetical clause was a description of a sin by Eli’s sons and put it after v. 16 as an extension of the sin of Eli’s sons described in vv. 15–16. Moreover, he rewrote the parenthetical clause as a transgression of the Priestly text: ‫כ]ל אשר יעלה המזלג‬ ‫“( יקח אם [רע ואם] טוב ל[ב]ד מח[זה התנופה ושו]ק הימין‬Whatever the fork brought up, the priest would take, good or bad, in addition to the breast of waving and the right thigh”).38 In this way, 4QSama portrays the regular custom at Shiloh as another sin committed by Eli’s sons, who added an extra piece of meat to the share they were allotted by the Torah. While these examples from 4QSama attest to brief expansions similar to those of mt 1 Kings 8, the extensive mt expansion in 1 Kings 6 recalls the substantial reworking found in some of the “rewritten Bible” compositions from Qumran. Some of these also reveal an acquaintance with Priestly terminology and ideology. The rewritten Joshua compositions, for example, contain several lengthy sections that reflect priestly concerns.39 4Q522 frg. 9 ii, which comes 38 39

Segal, Samuel, 21–22; Talshir “The Image,” 251; Rofé, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51,” 83–85. Feldman, Rewritten Joshua Scrolls, 126–27, 175, 192–200; Emanuel Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996, ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon, stdj 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56, esp. 256. This quasi-Priestly stratum is not identical in language to the Priestly source of the Pentateuch, however, nor does it necessarily belong to a descendant

232

Darshan

after the list of Israelite conquests (frg. 9 i) similarly includes a long section describing the reasons for locating the tent of meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬in Shiloh rather than Jerusalem. 4Q379 frg. 1 places Levi at the head of the blessing of Jacob’s sons, referring to him as ]‫“( ידידכ[ה‬Your [God’s] beloved”). Frg. 17 of this text also contains an encomium to the ancestors that concludes with Aaron’s sons, Eleazar and Itamar. These lengthy sections, which embody priestly concerns and employ P-like terminology, all closely resemble the additional section in 1 Kings 6, inserted into the text at a late stage of the transmission. 5

A Quasi-Priestly Stratum Attested in Both LXX 3 Kingdoms and MT 1 Kings

In addition to the texts discussed above, another small stratum in the chapters concerning Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 6–8 is familiar with the Priestly source and seeks to bring the narrative of Solomon’s Temple closer to the story of the Tabernacle in the desert. In contrast to the previous cases, this layer is attested in both the mt and lxx 1 Kings / 3 Kingdoms and thus evidences a reworking at a stage earlier than the one just discussed. In some cases, short phrases taken from the Priestly terminology of the Tabernacle chapters occur—such as ‫“( קדש הקדשים‬the holy of holies”), which appears three times in 1 Kings (6:16; 7:50; 8:6). In the Pentateuch, this term frequently denotes the most sacred part of the Tabernacle, where the ark and the cherubim stand and Moses meets with God, “from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim” (Exod 25:22).40 In the chapters relating to Solomon’s Temple, in contrast, the inner sanctum is referred to as the ‫דביר‬ (“inner sanctuary”; 1 Kgs 6:5, 16, 19–20, 31; 7:49; 8:6, 8). According to the narrative, Solomon built this part of the Temple to house the ark (1 Kgs 6:19), placing two huge cherubim there (1 Kgs 6:23). The phrase ‫ קדש הקדשים‬is twice attached to the more common term ‫דביר‬: ‫“( ויבן לו מבית לדביר לקדש הקדשים‬and he built this within as an inner sanctuary, as the holy of holies”; 1 Kgs 6:16); ‫ויבאו הכהנים‬ ‫“( את ארון ברית יהוה אל מקומו אל דביר הבית אל קדש הקדשים‬The priests brought the ark of YHWH’s covenant to its place in the inner sanctuary of the house, to the holy of holies”; 1 Kgs 8:6). The sense of redundancy and the smooth sequence obtained without the phrase ‫ קדש הקדשים‬confirm that the latter was added at a secondary stage by a scribe who identified this part of Solomon’s Temple with the holy of holies of

40

of the pentateuchal Priestly circles. Cf. Noam Mizrahi, “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Biblical Priestly Literature: A Linguistic Reconsideration,” htr 104 (2010): 33–58. Cf. also, e.g., Exod 26:33, 34; Num 4:4, 19; 18:9, 10.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

233

the Tabernacle. The phrase ‫ קדש הקדשים‬appears one more time in the book of Kings, in 1 Kgs 7:50: ‫והפתות לדלתות הבית הפנימי לקדש הקדשים לדלתי הבית להיכל‬ ‫“( זהב‬the sockets for the doors of the innermost part of the house, the holy of holies, and for the doors of the nave of the Temple, of gold”). In this text, the phrase ‫ קדש הקדשים‬doubles the expression ‫ הבית הפנימי‬and violates the sequence of the description of the doors. As mentioned, in all three cases, the term ‫ קדש הקדשים‬is documented in all the major versions of Kings. A lengthier text written in the same Priestly style—which also appears in all the primary extant versions of Kings—recounts the events after the ark was brought into the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11). Most commentaries and studies on Kings only analyze this section cursorily, but a convincing explanation of the presence of such a P-like text in the book of Kings has not yet been suggested.41 A comparison of this text with the parallel depiction of the bringing of the ark into the Tabernacle at the end of Exodus (40:34–35) indicates the close affinities between these two texts: 1 Kgs 8:10–11 ‫ ויהי בצאת הכהנים מן הקדש‬10 ‫והענן מלא את בית יהוה‬ ‫ ולא יכלו הכהנים לעמד לשרת מפני‬11 ‫הענן כי מלא כבוד יהוה את בית יהוה‬

10 And when the priests came out of the holy place, the cloud filled the House of YHWH 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of YHWH filled the house of YHWH.

Exod 40:34–35 ‫ ויכס הענן את אהל מועד‬34 ‫וכבוד יהוה מלא את המשכן‬ ‫ ולא יכל משה לבוא אל אהל מועד כי‬35 ‫שכן עליו הענן וכבוד יהוה מלא את המשכן‬

34 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle. 35 Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle.

These texts evince a clear literary dependence of one on the other. While it may be suggested that the Priestly description in the Pentateuch (usually regarded as a late work) has been influenced by the description of Solomon’s Temple, 41

Most of the scholars who recognize the Priestly style at the beginning of chapter 8 ignore vv. 10–11: see especially Wellhausen, Composition, 268–69; Burney, Kings, 109; Montgomery, Kings, 189; McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. Cf., however, Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige 1: Könige 1–16, atd 11/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 88; Gray, Kings, 195; Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings, ab 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 280–81.

234

Darshan

the distinctive Priestly expressions in this unit, which are quite rare in Kings, indicate that it was influenced by the Priestly account, rather than vice versa. Thus, for example, ‫“( כבוד יהוה‬the Glory of YHWH”) is a distinctively Priestly expression that occurs frequently in P and in Ezekiel but only once in Kings— in our unit.42 In addition, this description of the entry of the divine presence (‫ )כבוד‬into the Temple has no continuation in Kings; in fact, Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:22–53) repeatedly refers to God’s “dwelling place in the heavens,” in seeming direct contradiction to the notion of God’s presence in the Temple. The parallel passage in Exodus, however, fits nicely in the P sequence. Leviticus 1:1 continues from Moses’s inability to enter the Tabernacle because of the Divine presence. YHWH calls him from within the Tabernacle (‫ויקרא אל‬ ‫“[ משה וידבר ה׳ אליו מאהל מועד לאמר‬and YHWH called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying”]) and gives him a series of priestly laws and regulations. Following the priests’ ordination, the divine presence (‫)כבוד‬ then appears to all the people (Lev 9:23); fire comes forth from before YHWH and consumes the burnt offering on the altar (Lev 9:24). A late scribe thus appears to have added 1 Kgs 8:10–11 in the spirit of the pentateuchal description in order to link the construction and dedication of the Tabernacle in the desert with the construction and dedication of Solomon’s Temple. This idea develops further in Chronicles, where a parallel unit to 1 Kgs 8:10–11 appears twice—first in the corresponding sequence (after the bringing of the ark into the Temple [2 Chr 5:11–14]) and then again following Solomon’s prayer, where it is also added that fire comes forth from heaven (2 Chr 7:1–3). This detail also constitutes a clear allusion to the Priestly narrative (cf. Lev 9:24). The fact that this unit in 1 Kgs 8:10–11 is also attested in lxx, in contrast to the mt pluses in the verses discussed above (1 Kgs 6:11–14; 8:1–5), may indicate that quasi-Priestly additions entered the text at several stages, at the hands of diverse scribes.43 Likewise, it appears also that 1 Kgs 8:4a, which is also attested in lxx, with its Priestly-sounding references to the “tent of meeting” (‫אהל‬ ‫ )מועד‬and “holy vessels” (‫)כלי הקדש‬, may have also been part of an early P-like revision and therefore was absent from the earlier version of the ark account in 1 Kings 8.44 As the allusion to the Tabernacle episode in Chronicles illustrates, the account of bringing the ark to the Temple could have been subject to several 42 43 44

See Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10, 21; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; Ezek 1:28; 3:12, 23; 10:4, 18; 11:23; 43:4, 5; 44:4; cf. von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology,” 37–49; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 51. Cf. Burney, Kings, 71. Outside the Hexateuch, the expression ‫ אהל מועד‬only occurs here (and in the parallel texts in Chronicles) and in 1 Sam 2:22 (where it is missing from the lxx and 4QSama and

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

235

P-like revisions in the different phases of the text’s developments.45 All these quasi-Priestly revisions in 1 Kings 6–8 were intended to fuse the account of the building of the Temple with pentateuchal traditions, making the Solomonic Temple a direct continuation of the Priestly Tabernacle. 6

Conclusion

The discovery of the Qumran scrolls has revealed both far freer scribal norms and copying practices than previously known, and the “rewritten Bible” genre. These texts witness to a much greater license in transmitting the biblical texts: changes of style, language, orthography, “harmonistic” additions, and expansions of various kinds. When we examine the known biblical versions in light of these sources, we may conclude that scrolls that were regarded authoritative during the Second Temple period underwent a similar process. This is true not only of lxx 3 Kingdoms but also of mt 1 Kings. The mt account of the building of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 6–8 thus appears to have been reworked in a fashion similar to that of some of the biblical scrolls from Qumran. In 1 Kings 8, the scribe added brief expansions in a Priestly style that correspond with some sections in 4QSama. In 1 Kings 6, a larger section along the lines of the rewritten Joshua scrolls from Qumran was inserted, possibly as a theodical forecast of the destruction of the Temple adduced on the very day it was built. Overall, the small, late, reworked quasiPriestly stratum in 1 Kings 6–8 was intended to create the impression of a single coherent sequence running from the dedication of the Tabernacle to the building of the Temple, and from the commandments of Exodus 25 and Leviticus 26 to God’s words during the days of the building of the Temple that hint towards its destruction, and the entry of the divine presence into the Temple. Reading the text with these quasi-Priestly additions gives a clear sense of a wide-ranging “Enneateuch.” These unique examples demonstrate that the book of Kings / Kingdoms continued to develop during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, undergoing several reworkings and creative expansions. Some of these changes are reflected in the differences between the lxx and mt—but not all. A full

45

appears to be part of a late addition). For ‫כלי הקדש‬, see Num 3:31; 4:15; 18:3; 31:6. For a different approach, cf. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 141–42 n. 11. An alternative explanation, according to which all the P-like additions may have been penned by the same person, while only some have reached the lxx text or its Vorlage at some very late stage in the transmission as a sort of a contamination, is less probable.

236

Darshan

understanding of these developmental stages, their significance, and the background of the composition still requires an in-depth linguistic and historical investigation of the book as a whole and its various forms and versions.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Alexander Rofé and Baruch J. Schwartz who read and commented on an earlier version of this paper during one of its initial incarnations. Rofé referred to this unpublished paper in his article, “The Biblical Text in Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: The Reproach of the Prophet-Man in Judg 6:7–10 and 4QJudga,” in On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofé on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Z. Talshir and D. Amara, Beersheba 18 (Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005), 33–44 (36 n. 7) (in Hebrew). My thanks go also to Ruth Clements and to my research assistant, Anat Alcalay, for their help and invaluable comments. The English translations follow the NRSV (for mt), and nets (for lxx), with some alterations. Bibliography Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings. ab 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Cohen, Menachem, ed. Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Kings I & II. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1995 (in Hebrew). Cross, Frank Moore. “The Themes in the Books of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274–89 in idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich. Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–2 Samuel. djd 17. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Darshan, Guy. “The Long Additions in LXX 1 Kgs 2 (3 Kgdms 35a–k; 46a–l) and Their Importance for the Question of the Literary History of 1 Kgs 1–11.” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 5–50 (in Hebrew). DeVries, Simon J. I Kings. wbc 12. Waco: Word Books, 1985. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. icc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

237

Feldman, Ariel. The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings: Texts and Commentary. bzaw 469. Boston: de Gruyter, 2015. Feldman, Ariel. The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations and Commentary. bzaw 438. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums. Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857. Gooding, David W. “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns.” vt 15 (1965): 153–66. Gooding, David W. “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns.” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29. Gooding, David W. Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2. sotsms 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Gooding, David W. “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power.” vt 17 (1967): 173–89. Gooding, David W. “The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct.” vt 15 (1965): 325–35. Gooding, David W. “The Shimei Duplicate and Its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns II.” jss 13 (1968): 76–92. Gooding, David W. “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the MT and the LXX.” vt 17 (1967): 143–72. Gooding, David W. “Text-Sequence and Translation-Revision in 3 Reigns IX 10–X 33.” vt 19 (1969): 448–63. Gray, John. I and II Kings: A Commentary. otl. London: scm, 1964. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. ab 22. Garden City: Doubleday, 1986. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Hugo, Philippe. Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18. obo 217. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2006. Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor). I Have Built you an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1992. Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor). “Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983 (in Hebrew). Hurvitz, Avi. “Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term ‘eda.” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 261–67 (in Hebrew). Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings. 2 vols. ncb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Joosten, Jan. “Empirical Evidence and Its Limits: The Use of the Septuagint in Retracing the Redaction History of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 247–65 in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us

238

Darshan

about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? Edited by R. Müller and J. Pakkala. cbet 84. Leuven: Peeters, 2017. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. 2 vols. hsm 52–53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Law, Timothy M. “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings.” vt 61 (2011): 280–97. Lumby, J. Rawson. The First Book of the Kings. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890. Mazor, Lea. “A Nomistic Re-Working of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in the lxx to Joshua 6:1–20.” Textus 18 (1995): 47–62. McKenzie, Steven L. “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study into the Texts of Kings Used by the Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek.” bioscs 19 (1986): 15–34. McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27. ab 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Mizrahi, Noam. “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Biblical Priestly Literature: A Linguistic Reconsideration.” htr 104 (2010): 33–58. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings. Edited by H. S. Gehman. icc 10. 1951. Repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976. Mulder, Martin J. 1 Kings. 2 vols. hcot. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Ravasco, Andrea. “Saul and the Feast of Weeks: 1 Sam 10:4 in 4QSamª and Later Tradition.” RevQ 25 (2012): 473–79. Rofé, Alexander. “The Biblical Text in Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: The Reproach of the Prophet-Man in Judg 6:7–10 and 4QJudga.” Pages 33–44 in On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofé on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Z. Talshir and D. Amara. Beersheba 18. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005 (in Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama).” Pages 75–88 in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History. Edited by P. Hugo and A. Schenker. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Rofé, Alexander. “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in 4QSama.” RevQ 14 (1989): 247–54. Schenker, Adrian. “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1 R 12, 24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 et l’histoire deutéronomiste.” Pages 193–236 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury et al. Le Monde de la Bible 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996.

The Quasi-Priestly Additions in MT 1 Kings 6–8

239

Schenker, Adrian. Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14. CahRB 48. Paris: Gabalda, 2000. Schenker, Adrian. “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1–2 Kings.” Pages 1–18 in The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by B. Halpern et al. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Segal, Moses H. The Books of Samuel. Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer, 1964 (in Hebrew). Stieglitz, Robert R. “The Phoenician-Punic Menology.” Pages 211–22 in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon. Edited by M. Lubetski et al. JSOTSup 273. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998. Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. otl. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Talshir, Zipora. “The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 249–302 (in Hebrew). Talshir, Zipora. “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 K 11–14.” Pages 41–57 in La double transmission du texte biblique: Études d’histoire du texte offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger. obo 179. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Talshir, Zipora. “The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles.” vt 50 (2000): 233–49. Tov, Emanuel. “3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions.” Pages 345– 66 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by A. Hilhorst et al. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. “The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2).” Textus 11 (1984): 89–118. Tov, Emanuel. “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada.” Pages 233–56 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. stdj 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Tov, Emanuel. “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere.” Pages 369– 93 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. wunt 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “The Ark as Sign of God’s Absent Presence in Solomon’s Temple: 1 Kings 8.6–8 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles.” Pages 1–9 in What Is It that the Scripture Says? Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation and Reception in

240

Darshan

Honour of Henry Wansbrough OSB. Edited by P. McCosker. lnts 316. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings.” bioscs 15 (1982): 12–35. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Reigns: The Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX.” Pages 55–78 in Die Septuagint: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. Edited by S. Kreuzer et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Van Keulen, Percy S. F. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiring into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. VTSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Von Rad, Gerhard. “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology.” Pages 37–49 in idem, Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by D. Stalker. sbt 9. London: scm, 1953. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992, 2014. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Presence, Divine.” EncJud 13 (1972): 1015–20. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Würthwein, Ernst. Die Bücher der Könige 1: Könige 1–16. atd 11/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

chapter 7

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts Alexander Rofé We designate as midrash the Jewish interpretation of the Bible that developed during the Second Commonwealth and thereafter. Various categories have been distinguished in the midrash. I will mention here only three of them: the exegetical midrash, which explains in its own way problems of interpretation that arise while reading the text; the literary midrash, which endeavors to embellish a biblical story with new, invented elements; and the theological midrash, which aims to plant in the biblical material concepts and ideals of a later generation. In the present essay, I shall attempt to point out instances where these aforementioned categories have infiltrated the biblical texts. By the term “biblical texts,” I intend to refer to all textual witnesses of the Hebrew Bible:1 the Masoretic Text (mt), the Septuagint (lxx), the Qumran manuscripts, and later textual witnesses in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Undoubtedly, there are differences of degree with respect to how far and how much the midrash crept into various biblical manuscripts. The Qumranic manuscript 4Q51, usually denominated 4QSama, is replete with midrashic elements,2 whereas the lxx manuscripts contain them in a rather modest measure. The mt, as far as I can see, is the most temperate, probably because its curators in the late Second Temple period were rather conservative. 1

Exegetical Midrashic Interventions

Exegetical midrash is at work when the biblical text presents a blatant contradiction or even a minor incongruity. In such cases, the midrash solves the 1 Not all of it is in Hebrew; some chapters are in Aramaic. Therefore, it would be better to call it “The Jewish Bible.” Translations into English mainly follow here the NJPS version. 2 For a different assessment, see Reinhard G. Kratz, “Bibelhandschrift oder Midrasch? Zum Verhältnis von Text- und Literargeschichte in den Samuelbüchern im Licht der Handschrift 4Q51 (4QSama),” in The Books of Samuel: Stories—History—Reception History, ed. W. Dietrich (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 153–80. In his view, the elements I define as midrashic rather belong to the “Vorgeschichte des Bibeltextes und die Geschichte seiner handschriftlichen Überlieferung” (ibid., 164). Still, the question of the character of these elements must be addressed.

© Alexander Rofé, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_008

242

Rofé

problem by supplying data that would restore the unity of the text. A classic instance found in a rabbinic text has to do with the location of Moses’s wife and children in the Exodus story. According to Exod 4:20, Moses took them with him to Egypt. However, in Exod 18:2–6 it is Moses’s father-in-law who brings them to Moses at the “Mountain of God.” The midrash Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael solves the problem by adding an episode: when Moses is on his way to Egypt, his brother Aaron meets him and advises him to send his small family back to Midian.3 A more sophisticated supplementation has been offered in 1 Chronicles 21 in its restatement of 2 Samuel 24, the story of David’s census and the ensuing plague.4 The main discrepancy in 2 Samuel 24 lies in the question of when the plague stopped. According to 2 Sam 24:16 the Lord relented concerning the calamity and commanded the smiting angel to stay his hand. But later in the story, it appears that the pestilence is still ravaging; only at the very end does one read: “The Lord responded to the plea for the Land and the plague against Israel was checked” (2 Sam 24:25). This problem of timing has properly been detected and unraveled in 1 Chronicles 21. Here, after the Lord commands the angel to stay his hand (v. 15), David still sees the angel “standing between earth and heaven with a drawn sword in his hand, directed against Jerusalem” (v. 16), but no longer continuing to strike. Then, only after the proper ritual has been performed, “The Lord ordered the angel to return his sword to its sheath” (v. 27). 1 Chronicles 21, with its supplementation, introduces into the story a distinction of two phases in the checking of the plague, in this way resolving the contradiction of 2 Samuel 24. It is possible to prove that this midrash did not originate with the Chronicler himself. Albeit fond of miracles, the Chronicler is rather reserved about angels, while 1 Chronicles 21 mentions them (and Satan, too) no fewer than nine times!5 Therefore, it is likely that the writer of 1 Chronicles 21 is an independent author, whose work most likely preceded the writing of Chronicles, since his

3 Mekhilta, Yitro 1; cf. H. Saul Horovitz and Israel A. Rabin, Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1960), 190–91. 4 For more details, see my study, “Writing, Interpolating, and Editing: 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as a Case Study,” HeBAI 3 (2014): 317–26. 5 The late Zipora Talshir, in one of her last studies, disagreed with me on this issue, arguing that 4Q51 borrowed its variants from Chronicles. See her essay, “The Census (2 Samuel 24// 4QSama//1 Chronicles 21): The Relationship between the Textual Witnesses of the Book of Samuel,” Meghillot 11–12 (2014–2015): 133–76 (148–51; in Hebrew). I cannot accept the strictures of this outstanding scholar, but a detailed response needs to be extensively done elsewhere.

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts

243

version of the sanctification of Ornan’s threshing floor was necessary for the Chronicler’s account of the building of the Temple (2 Chr 3:1).6 This midrash in 1 Chronicles 21 is also present in 4Q51 (so-called 4QSama). This text of Samuel contains phrases from 1 Chr 21:15–16; i.e., the report of the first phase of checking the pestilence.7 This scribal intervention into the text of Samuel confirms my contention that the account in 1 Chronicles 21 preceded the writing of Chronicles proper. And, incidentally, it proves the early origin of the midrash and of its integration within the biblical books. 2

Literary Midrashic Elaborations

The full range of literary elaborations in the midrash and their penetration into biblical texts will not be dealt with here. I dedicated to them the full extent of my address to an IOSOT Congress twenty-odd years ago;8 it is unhelpful to repeat that exposition here. There is only one item among those discussed there that I would like to revisit, because I nurture doubts concerning its classification in the literary category. I refer to the midrashic trend defined as the “spurious identification” of two biblical heroes who shared the same name.9 The exemplary instance of such an identification is the equation of Obadiah, the steward of the palace of Ahab (mid-ninth century BCE) with the prophet Obadiah who announced the punishment of Edom after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. This midrash is extant in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanh. 39b.10 This kind of identification has infiltrated into biblical manuscripts several times. The best known is the case of Micaiah ben Imlah, who predicted the death of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:1–28); he was identified with the prophet Micah, whose book is among the Twelve. The identification was achieved by appending the sentence, “Listen, all you peoples,” which initiates the book of Micah, to the 6 7 8 9 10

See the discussion and notes in Talshir, “Census,” for the contours of the scholarly discussion of this passage. Cf. Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel, djd 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 192, pl. XX. Alexander Rofé, “From Tradition to Criticism: Jewish Sources as an Aid to the Critical Study of the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 235–47. Isaac Heinemann, ‫דרכי האגדה‬. 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1953/1954), 29–30. See also the Lives of the Prophets 9, where the same identification is found. These identifications could, of course, have arisen independently; Charles C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation, sblms 1 (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946), 41.

244

Rofé

last speech of Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kgs 22:28b).11 The secondary origin of this sentence in Kings is confirmed by its absence from the lxx (Codex Vaticanus and Lucianic manuscripts). The same process may be seen in the Septuagint at the end of the book of the Twelve. The last prophet has the title ‫( מלאכי‬my angel or messenger or envoy). It probably derived from Mal 3:1, “I am sending my messenger” (‫)מלאכי‬. Yet, another prophet is also called “The Lord’s messenger” (‫ ;)מלאך‬this is Haggai, in Hag 1:13. A typical expression of the latter is ‫( שימו לבבכם‬consider, take note) which appears with small variations in Hag 1:5, 7; 2:15, 18, 18. However, the same expression appears in the lxx of Mal 1:1: λῆμμα λόγου κυρίου ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ θέσθε δὴ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. An issue of the Lord’s word to Israel by the hand of his messenger. Do place it upon your hearts.12 By this means the anonymous author of Malachi has been identified with Haggai. Since this kind of identification is typical of Jewish midrash, one can hardly doubt that the plus in the lxx version goes back to a Hebrew Vorlage.13 A late scribe inserted these words into his Hebrew manuscript. Since the phenomenon has been documented by variants in the textual witnesses, one is entitled to surmise it elsewhere by conjecture. Another Restoration prophet is known as Zechariah bar Iddo (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; cf. Neh 12:16). However, in his own book he is called Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo (Zech 1:1, 7), and Zechariah ben Yeberechiah was one of “the reliable witnesses” of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 8:2). Therefore, it seems likely that in this case as well, two men with the same name—Zechariah—were identified with one another, despite the wide time span (some two hundred years) separating them.14 11

12 13 14

Note that the same identification is made in Lives of the Prophets 6 (see Torrey, Lives, 40). Modern commentators noted the quality of 1 Kgs 22:28b as a gloss, but its nature apparently escaped them. Prof. Isaac L. Seeligmann mentioned orally, a few times, the relationship of this gloss to the midrash on Obadiah. The translation is that of George E. Howard, The Twelve Prophets, in the New English Translations of the Septuagint (NETS) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007; 2nd printing with emendations and corrections, 2009). This seems to be implicit in the comment of Laurence Vianès, Malachie, La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/12 (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 102. I owe this suggestion to Yair Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation (Even Yehudah: Rekhes, 1992), 26–27 (in Hebrew). He refers to Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts

245

All of the above identifications may be described as later scribal interventions into an already received text. At this point, there is room to wonder: Is it a mere chance that this phenomenon occurs again and again with prophets and their companions? In fact, the process does not seem to operate with nonprophetic figures: Manasseh the son of Joseph is not identified with his later namesake, the king of Judah; nor is Joshua, Moses’s assistant, paired up with Joshua the high priest, who rebuilt the Temple. Perhaps the reason may be found in a concept of prophecy that came to prevail in postbiblical Judaism— that is, that the word of the Lord is not bound to history, but is eternal: “The Lord exists forever; Your word stands firm in heaven” (Ps 119:89). From such a perspective, a ninth-century BCE prophet or prophets’ protector can reappear hundreds of years later in order to convey again the same eternal message. Thus, if I have understood it correctly, what has been defined as “spurious identification” is not a literary feature, but rather a theological one, for it is rooted in theological concepts and beliefs of postbiblical Judaism. On the other hand, one must take into account the comprehensively ahistorical attitude of the Jewish midrash. Laymen were also identified with one another if they exhibited the same quality. Evidently, character traits counted more than chronological accuracy. Thus, Hirah, the friend of Judah (Genesis 38) was identified with Hiram of Tyre, the ally of David and Solomon (2 Sam 5:11; 1 Kings 5).15 Obviously, Hirah and Hiram represented lasting friendship. All the same, the identification of two individuals in the rabbinic midrash should not be considered a solely literary move, but rather an ideological, more often a theological one. 3

Theological Midrashic Interventions

With these remarks, we have entered the realm of midrashic interventions into the biblical text, motivated by theological concerns. Let us explore more instances of this category. First, I shall consider the fates of the prophets; i.e., how they were treated by their contemporaries. Here, one can note a profound contrast between the reality of preexilic times and the conception of that

15

25B (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 92. However, they actually suggest four alternative explanations. Cf. Heinemann, ‫דרכי האגדה‬, 30. He referred to Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3 vols. (Berlin 1903–1936; repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965), 2:1035–36 (Gen. Rab. 85:4).

246

Rofé

era during the Second Temple period.16 In most instances, in preexilic times the personality of the prophet was respected; it inspired awe and veneration. Therefore, even when they pronounced harsh judgments, prophets seem to have been left unharmed. Only towards the end of the kingdom of Judah, in the seventh century BCE, do we find laws in Deuteronomy that prescribe the execution of a prophet who preaches idolatry (Deut 13:3–6) or a prophet who speaks falsehood (Deut 18:20). And then, right at the end of that century, we read about a prophet, Uriah ben Shemaiah from Kiriath-jearim, who was put to death by King Jehoiakim (Jer 26:20–23). Jeremiah’s lot was different: the ministers of King Zedekiah wanted him dead, but did not dare execute him themselves. This we gather from the story about Jeremiah’s imprisonment, and the anecdote about his being sunk into a pit of mud (Jeremiah 37–38).17 In the book of Kings, there is a report about the killing of the prophets of the Lord by Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:4, 13, 22; 19:10, 14). But when was this story composed? I have maintained that the narrative complex concerning Elijah’s fight against the Baal, 1 Kgs 16:29–19:18, was created in the wake of the reign of King Manasseh—once again in the seventh century BCE.18 When we come to the great confession in Nehemiah 9, we read at v. 26: “Then, defying you, they rebelled; they cast your Torah behind their back. They killed your prophets who admonished them to turn them back to You; they committed great impieties.” The charge once put in the mouth of Elijah (1 Kgs 19:10, 14) has now been extended to all generations of preexilic Israel! The course has been set. One only need compare 2 Kgs 17:13 with 2 Chr 36:15–16 and with Jub. 1:12–13. In Kings the prophets are disobeyed; in Chronicles they are despised; finally, in Jubilees they are persecuted and killed! In the Talmud, some instances are specified: Isaiah was killed by Manasseh (b. Yebam. 49b); Hur, a prophet of Moses’s time according to the rabbis, was killed by the makers of the calf (b. Sanh. 7a). Later Jewish midrashim made all the prophets victims of their contemporary kings.19 Thus, the charge contained in the Gospels that the Jewish people murdered their own prophets (Matt 5:12;

16

17 18 19

I summarize here the argument in my book, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible: Their Literary Types and History, trans. D. Levy; English version ed. E. Cindorf and S. Deutsch, rev. by J. H. Seeligmann (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1988), 189–207. Cf. Ronnie Goldstein, The Life of Jeremiah: Traditions about the Prophet and Their Evolution in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013), 13–61 (in Hebrew). See Rofé, Prophetical Stories, 183–96. Cf. Solomon Buber, ed., Agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch (Vienna: Paneṭ, 1894), on Num 30:15 (in Hebrew).

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts

247

23:23–35; Luke 6:23; 11:47–51) was not a Christian calumny, but a traditional Jewish self-deprecation. This brief excursus gives us the key to a midrashic intervention in Jer 2:30. The mt reads: .‫ אכלה חרבכם נביאיכם כאריה משחית‬.‫ מוסר לא לקחו‬,‫לשוא הכיתי את בניכם‬

In vain did I smite your children; they would not accept correction. Your sword has devoured your prophets like a ravening lion. Here we read the usual (late) charge concerning the murder of prophets by Israel. However, one has to take into account that usually in the book of Jeremiah the term “prophets, your prophets” refers to Jeremiah’s opponents, those we usually define as false prophets. The lxx has here a different reading: μάτην ἐπάταξα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, παιδείαν οὐκ ἐδέξασθε. μάχαιρα κατέφαγεν τοὺς προφήτας ὑμῶν ὡς λέων ὀλεθρεύων καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθητε. In vain I have struck your children; discipline you did not accept. A dagger devoured your prophets like a ravening lion and you did not fear. This would be retroverted into Hebrew as follows: ‫ מוסר לא‬,‫לשוא הכיתי את בניכם‬ ‫ חרב אכלה נביאיכם כאריה משחית ולא יראתם‬,‫לקחו‬. The first part of the verse contains a metaphor: The Lord as a pedagogue punishes his pupils to no avail. The second part explains the simile: the punishments inflicted on Israel by the Lord were the killing of Israel’s (false) prophets. This would refer to the killing of the Baal prophets in the legend of Elijah (1 Kgs 18:40) or the execution of the Baal prophets and worshipers by Jehu (2 Kgs 10:18–28). Some of these traditions were known to Jeremiah, as is demonstrated by his mention of prophets of Baal in Samaria (Jer 23:13). What we presently have in the mt of Jer 2:30 is a midrashic amendment of a prior text represented by the lxx. That earlier text told how the Lord had struck Israel by killing the false prophets. In contrast, the mt charges Israel with the killing of the Lord’s prophets! This charge conforms to the late conception concerning the killing of the prophets as discussed above. Next, we turn our attention to the Torah. There is no need to elaborate on the central place that the Torah attained in early postbiblical Judaism. Historical works such as 1–2 Maccabees and apocryphal novels such as Tobit and Judith attest to this reality. Years ago I noticed dozens of instances in which scribes introduced into biblical texts, references to ‫ תורה‬and its synonyms—‫מצוות‬,

248

Rofé

‫ עדות‬,‫מצוה‬.20 I will quote here only two of these instances, without repeating the relevant argumentation. In Josh 1:7a, the earlier text, attested by the lxx, reads:

ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου Be strong, therefore, and manly, to observe and to act as Moses my servant commanded you … There are good arguments to confirm that this was the primary reading. But the mt has an expanded text: ‫רק חזק ואמץ מאד לשמר לעשות ככל התורה אשר צוך משה עבדי‬

But you must be very strong and resolute to observe and to perform all the Torah that My servant Moses enjoined upon you … A less known instance may be seen in Ps 122:4: ‫ להדות לשם יהוה‬,‫ עדות לישראל‬,‫ששם עלו שבטים שבטי יה‬

[Jerusalem], to which tribes would make pilgrimage, the tribes of the Lord, an injunction upon Israel (‫)עדות לישראל‬, to give thanks to the Name of the Lord. Obviously, the pilgrimage of the tribes three times a year was “an injunction,” prescribed in Exodus 23, Exodus 34, and Deuteronomy 16. However, a Qumran scroll of Psalms presents a superior text: not ‫עדות לישראל‬, “an injunction upon Israel,” but ‫עדת ישראל‬, “the congregation of Israel”!21 A similar reading is attested by Symmachus: ἐκκλησία τῷ Ἰσραήλ.22 The verse would then run:

20

21 22

Alexander Rofé, “The Scribal Concern for the Torah as Evidenced by the Textual Witnesses of the Hebrew Bible,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. N. Sacher Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, and M. J. Williams (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 229–42. Cf. James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa), djd 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 24, pl. IV. Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, 2 vols. (1875; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 2:281.

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts

249

To which tribes would make pilgrimage, the tribes of the Lord, the congregation of Israel, to give thanks to the Name of the Lord. Here the phrase ‫ עדת ישראל‬is simply an apposition to “the tribes of the Lord,” and the parallelism of the verse is more balanced. The infiltration of halakhic concepts into biblical texts has been recognized since the time of Abraham Geiger, 160 years ago.23 A prominent case that he noted is extant in 1 Sam 9:24.24 The text had it: “The cook lifted up the thigh and fat tail, ‫האליה‬, and set it before Saul.” The Galilean Amora Rabbi Yoḥanan in the third century CE still knew this to be the correct reading (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 25a; y. Meg. 1:12). But according to the priestly regulations the fat tail of the sheep is to be burnt on the Lord’s altar (e.g., Lev 3:9–11; 7:3–5)! Therefore, scribes resorted to corrections: mt reads ‫“( והעליה‬what is upon it”—a bizarre Hebrew expression); 4Q51 reads ‫“( ה]עלינה‬the upper thigh”); the lxx-Vaticanus omits the phrase altogether.25 Let me move to a lesser-known instance. The late Jonas Greenfield, in his extensive review essay, “The Small Caves of Qumran,”26 noted, in a nonbiblical manuscript, the halakhic phrase ‫ ;תרי סדרי לח[מא‬this corresponds to the Hebrew ‫( שתי הלחם‬m. Menaḥ. 5:1, 3, 6 et passim, also m. ʾAbot 5:5), the two loaves of bread presented to the Lord on the feast of Shavuot (Lev 23:17–20). Similar halakhic terminology infiltrated biblical manuscripts. At 1 Sam 10:4, Samuel predicts to Saul that pilgrims going to Bethel will give him two loaves of bread: ‫ונתנו לך שתי לחם‬. 4Q51 reads here ‫תנ]ופות לחם‬ = “bread to be waved”;27 the same phrase is apparently represented by the Greek: δύο ἀπαρχὰς ἄρτων. An

23

24 25 26

27

An up-to-date contribution in this field is the comprehensive study by D. Andrew Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period, fat 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). See also a fine discussion of another example in Paul E. Dion, “Early Evidence for the Ritual Significance of the ‘Base of the Altar’: Around Deut 12:27 lxx,” jbl 106 (1987): 487–92. Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Madda, 1928), 380–81. Cf. Cross et al., djd 17:61, pl. IX. Review of Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les “petites grottes” de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise: Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 7Q à 10Q; Le rouleau de cuivre, djd 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962); published in JAOS 89 (1969): 128–41, and reprinted in Jonas C. Greenfield, ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, 2 vols., ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 2:573–94 (577). Greenfield was discussing 2Q24 frag. 4, which mentions the placement of the two loaves at Shavuot. Cf. Cross et al., djd 17:63 n. 6, pl. IX.

250

Rofé

halakhic elaboration probably identified the pilgrimage to Bethel as occurring on Pentecost.28 The introduction of ‫ תנופות‬into the Qumran manuscript of 1 Sam 10:4 strengthens the doubts of modern commentators about ‫ שדי תרומת‬in the mt of another passage, 2 Sam 1:21, because the terms ‫ תנופה‬and ‫ תרומה‬in time became synonymous.29 It appears that in 2 Sam 1:21, an halakhic term has been substituted for an originally “neutral” one. Of the many conjectures that have been offered about the primary text the best one, in my opinion, is that offered by H. L. Ginsberg: ‫שרע תהמתים‬, “upsurge of springs.”30 But this suggestion has not received unanimous acceptance.31 One additional case relating to Jewish cultic practices is extant in 4QNumbersb, published in djd 12.32 In Num 18:26 the Levites are enjoined: “You shall raise up from them one tenth of the tithe as a gift to the Lord”— ‫ ;והרמתם ממנו תרומת ה׳ מעשר מן המעשר‬4QNumb reads here ‫א]ת תרומת מעשר‬ ‫מן המעשר‬. The expression ‫תרומת מעשר‬, “the gift of the tenth,” passed by the Levites to the priests, is a halakhic term (m. Ter. 3:5; m. Bik. 2:5, Sifre Deut. 120– 21). The copyist inadvertently introduced it into a biblical scroll. 4

Conclusions

In this article, we have seen different ways in which Jewish midrash infiltrated biblical manuscripts. Its exegetical mode has been seen in 1 Chronicles 21 (paralleled by 4Q51); literary elaborations are extant in 1 Kgs 22:28 MT and in Mal 1:1 lxx; by conjecture we posit the same in Zech 1:1, 7. A theological intervention corrected the text of Jer 2:30 MT in order to charge preexilic Israel with the killing of the prophets; sometimes scribes enhanced the position of the Lord’s Teaching (Torah and its synonyms). Finally, scribes who copied biblical scrolls during the Second Commonwealth were already conversant with 28 29 30 31 32

Dr. Guy Darshan (Tel Aviv University) pointed out to me that this midrash could have been prompted by the reference in Samuel’s farewell speech to “the present wheat harvest” (1 Sam 12:17). Jacob Milgrom wrote: “Early in Second Temple times the midrash halacha was devised to unite the tenufa and teruma into a single ritual.” See idem, “The ‫שוק התרומה‬: A Chapter in Cultic History,” Tarbiz 42 (1972/1973): 1–11 (in Hebrew), in the English abstract. Harry L. Ginsberg, “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21,” jbl 57 (1938): 209–13. See my remarks in “Conjectural Emendations in the Masoretic Text,” Katharsis 26 (2016): 10–43 (35 with n. 78; in Hebrew). Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers, djd 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 223, pl. XXXIX.

Midrashic Elements in Biblical Texts

251

aspects of halakhic terminology.33 The present essay has reviewed some relevant instances. Bibliography Baillet, Maurice, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. Les “petites grottes” de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise; Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 7Q à 10Q; Le rouleau de cuivre. djd 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Buber, Solomon. Agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch. Vienna: Paneṭ, 1894 (in Hebrew). Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel. djd 17. Oxford, Clarendon, 2005. Dion, Paul E. “Early Evidence for the Ritual Significance of the ‘Base of the Altar’: Around Deut 12:27 LXX.” jbl 106 (1987): 487–92. Field, Frederick, ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Madda, 1928. Ginsberg, Harry L. “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21.” jbl 57 (1938): 209–13. Goldstein, Ronnie. The Life of Jeremiah: Traditions about the Prophet and Their Evolution in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013 (in Hebrew). Greenfield, Jonas C. ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001. Heinemann, Isaac ‫דרכי האגדה‬. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1953/1954. Horovitz, H. Saul, and Israel A. Rabin. Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1960. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Bibelhandschrift oder Midrasch? Zum Verhältnis von Text- und Literargeschichte in den Samuelbüchern im Licht der Handschrift 4Q51 (4QSama).” Pages 153–80 in The Books of Samuel: Stories—History—Reception History. Edited by W. Dietrich. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 25B. Garden City: Doubleday, 1987. Milgrom, Jacob. “The ‫שוק התרומה‬: A Chapter in Cultic History.” Tarbiz 42 (1972/3): 1–11 (in Hebrew). 33

Cf. Alexander Rofé, “Digesting djd 12: Its Contribution to the Textual Criticism of the Pentateuch,” dsd 23 (2016): 97–104.

252

Rofé

Rofé, Alexander. “Conjectural Emendations in the Masoretic Text.” Katharsis 26 (2016): 10–43 (in Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. “Digesting DJD 12: Its Contribution to the Textual Criticism of the Pentateuch.” dsd 23 (2016): 97–104. Rofé, Alexander. “From Tradition to Criticism: Jewish Sources as an Aid to the Critical Study of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 235–47 in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Rofé, Alexander. The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible: Their Literary Types and History. Translated by D. Levy. Edited by E. Cindorf and S. Deutsch. Revised by J. H. Seeligmann. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1988. Rofé, Alexander. “The Scribal Concern for the Torah as Evidenced by the Textual Witnesses of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 229–42 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by N. Sacher Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, and M. J. Williams. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Rofé, Alexander. “Writing, Interpolating and Editing: 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as a Case Study.” HeBAI 3 (2014): 317–26. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). djd 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Talshir, Zipora. “The Census (2 Samuel 24//4QSama//1 Chronicles 21): The Relationship between the Textual Witnesses of the Book of Samuel.” Meghillot 11–12 (2015): 133– 76 (in Hebrew). Teeter, D. Andrew. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. fat 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Theodor, Julius and Chanoch Albeck. Bereschit Rabba. 3 vols. Berlin 1903–1936. Reprint: Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965. Torrey, Charles C. The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation. sblms 1. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946. Ulrich, Eugene, et al. Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. djd 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Vianès, Laurence. Malachie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/12. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Zakovitch, Yair. An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Even Yehudah: Rekhes, 1992 (in Hebrew).

chapter 8

Demonic Deuteronomy? The Ending of Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate Jonathan Ben-Dov 1

Introduction

Is Deuteronomy a text about angels and demons?1 The answer is clearly negative, as any reader of the book can discern. Moreover, there are signs that Deuteronomy minimized the role of angels in its narratives.2 Yet at some stage in the Second Temple period, Deuteronomy—especially its concluding, poetic sections—became a proof text for circles that promoted angelology as part of their worldview.3 This interpretive track was mainly based on Deut 32:8–9, 17, 24, 43, along with Deut 33:2–3. The debate loomed large in the Second Temple period, as others undertook to downplay the angelology of Deuteronomy. Occasionally in the Hebrew Bible one finds places where, in the words of Abraham Geiger, “The spirit went beyond what had been written; so as not to violate the spirit, [Jewish piety] altered the wording.”4 Ancient religious formulations were found unacceptable in the eyes of later Judean writers, who sought to come to terms with them in various ways, one of which was textual emendation. 1 In this article I will use the terms angelology and demonology interchangeably, to indicate the veneration of a multitude of minor divinities, either “good” or “bad,” with a role in the divine court. 2 H. Louis Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982), 20; Alexander Rofé, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 9–10; idem, Angels in the Bible: Israelite Belief in Angels as Evidenced by Biblical Traditions (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012), 229–35 (in Hebrew); Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 14. 3 For these circles see Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit, tsaj 64 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987); Jonathan Ben-Dov, “The Resurrection of the Divine Assembly and the Divine Title El in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture, ed. A. Ercolani and M. Giordano, 3 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 3:9–31. 4 Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihre Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857), 345; apud Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 82.

© Jonathan Ben-Dov, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_009

254

Ben-Dov

Deuteronomy 32 and 33 are distinct pieces of poetry that were incorporated into the Book of Deuteronomy, even though their messages did not always correspond to the spirit of the Deuteronomic authors.5 The vocabulary and message are thus sometimes ambiguous or even obscure. Such problematic texts were bound to lead to differences of interpretation in the course of their reception, as was the case for some of the verses in Deuteronomy 32 and for the beginning of chapter 33. In this essay, I will trace the reception of these verses in late Second Temple times. Although the focus of the paper is Deuteronomy 32, the “Song of Moses,” I will give some attention to the introduction to the “Blessing of Moses” in Deuteronomy 33 (vv. 2–3), where angelic themes occur as well. A look at the versions of these verses that were current in the Second Temple period can tell us much about the contours of the angelology debate. The present article is written in conversation with Mark Smith, concerning the reception of Deuteronomy 32. Smith writes:6 The scribal witnesses probably embodied an interpretative tradition that read the passage according to its monotheistic norms. The original composer understood Elyon as a title of Yahweh. Despite drawing on the old polytheistic type-element, the author intended no polytheism and perhaps knew none in this case. In Smith’s view, the reception history of Deuteronomy 32 constitutes a oneway path, from polytheism to monotheism. While at an early stage some of Deuteronomy 32 carried a polytheistic meaning, that meaning was abolished already during the composition of the Song of Moses, and a monotheistic reading of the poem persisted in all subsequent sources. I suggest, in contrast, that “polytheistic,” or so to speak, nonunitary, significance was still associated with Deuteronomy 32 late into Second Temple times, in Jewish circles that sought to underscore plurality in the divine realm. Such circles, I believe, can teach us a great deal about the textual transmission and reception of Deuteronomy 32 as an angelic—demonic text. 5 Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. P. Wicksteed (London: MacMillan, 1886), 256; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, jps Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 510–13, 520–21. 6 Mark S. Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between their Biblical Past, their Inner-biblical Interpretation, their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and their Textual Witnesses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref, stdj 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 271–98, quote on p. 285.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

255

Among Bible scholars, it is universally accepted that theological corrections were inserted in the text of Deuteronomy 32. Yet not enough has been done to anchor the theological correction of Deuteronomy 32 in the religious history of Hellenistic-Roman Judea.7 Our job is not complete before we understand not only the circumstances of this correction, but also the circumstances for the reception of the versions of this chapter, both corrected and uncorrected. From some unknown time in the Second Temple period onwards there existed two alternative versions of Deuteronomy 32; the uncorrected version did not disappear, but rather gained more circulation than the corrected one. The fact that the latter ended up in the mt does not mean that it was unanimously accepted. Who are the people or circles who produced the correction and promoted it? Who are those who kept using the old, uncorrected version despite knowing that a less problematic version was available? Were these circles mere conservatives or was there another reason for their support of the old, uncensored Deuteronomy 32? The study of Deuteronomy 32 is a matter for Second Temple historians as much as it is for biblical scholars.8 Every act of performing that unit, or “receiving” it, in some way involves also an ideological or sociological choice.9 The late Second Temple period was the time when many Jews decided to endorse mt and leave other biblical versions to diverging sects and factions.10 Studying the reception of the Bible at that time is therefore a vital task, close to that of biblical criticism itself.11 7

8 9

10 11

In this direction see mainly Arie van der Kooij, “Ancient Emendations in MT,” in L’Ecrit et l’Esprit: Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker, ed. D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, and P. Hugo, obo 214 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 152–59. See the argumentation by D. Andrew Teeter, “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature,” dsd 20 (2013): 349–77. For a radical formulation of this claim see Brennan W. Breed, Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014). The renewed emphasis on reception was engendered by the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed., rev. trans. by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall (New York: Crossroad, 1989). See recently Armin Lange’s section on “Textual Standardization,” in idem, “1.2.2 Overview Articles: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” in thb 1A:112–66 (148–58), doi.org/10.1163/2452-4107_thb_COM_0001020200. Important studies on the reception of Deuteronomy 32 are those of Shraga Bar-On and Yakir Paz, “‘The Lord’s Allotment Is His People’: The Myth of the Election of Israel by Casting of Lots and the Gnostic—Christian—Pagan—Jewish Polemic,” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 23–61 (in Hebrew); eidem, “The Land of God to the Sons of God: Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and the Inheritance of the Land of Israel,” Tarbiz 85 (2017): 29–63 (in Hebrew); Menahem Kister, “Ancient Material in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliʿezer: Basilides, Qumran, the Book of Jubilees,” in ‘Go out and Study the Land’ ( Judges 18:2): Archeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. A. M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L. H. Schiffman, JSJSup 148 (Leiden:

256 2

Ben-Dov

The Prologue of Deuteronomy 33 as an Angelological Text

I begin with a brief discussion of Deut 33:2–3a, which constitutes a theophanic introduction to the blessings of Moses. The introduction was likely an ancient piece, not necessarily connected to the actual blessings.12 Some of the vocabulary is obscure enough to make it difficult to uncover the original intention. The text given here is that of mt.13 ‫ וזרח משעיר למו‬/ ‫יהוה מסיני בא‬ ‫ אש דת) למו‬Qere( ‫ מימינו אשדת‬/ ‫ ואתה מרבבת קדש‬/ ‫הופיע מהר פארן‬ ‫ כל קדשיו בידך‬/ ‫אף חבב עמים‬

A standard English rendition of the passage reads as follows: He said, “The LORD came from Sinai / and dawned from Seʿir upon us; He shone forth from Mount Paran / he came from the ten thousands of holy ones / with flaming fire at his right hand. Yea, he loved his people / all those consecrated to him were in his hand.” rsv

Among the features that stand out in this passage is that both verses 2 and 3 mention the word ‫קדש‬, the usual Hebrew and Aramaic appellation for a minor divine being (cf. Ps 89:6, 8; Prov 30:3 et al.; see halot ‫קדוש‬ §5), together with references to plurality: ‫“ רבבת קדש‬myriads of qdš” in verse 2, and ‫“ כל קדושיו‬all his qdš” in verse 3.14 As is common in archaic poetry (compare Judg 5:4–5; Hab 3:3), the poem begins with a depiction of YHWH’s arrival, coming from sites in the southeast of Canaan–Judah. The accumulation of these sites builds the poetic effect of the line, as parallelism is constructed around it. While the first three sites in Deut 33:2 are Sinai, Seir, and Paran, the next two are not as clear. The Masoretic

12 13 14

Brill, 2012), 69–93. These studies mainly address late antiquity, and I will make reference to them whenever they are relevant for the present study. The study by Sarah J. K. Pearce, The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period, tsaj 152 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), relates to Deuteronomy chapters 16–17 only. See Isaac L. Seeligmann, “A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times,” vt 14 (1964): 75–92; Rofé, Angels in the Bible, 85–87; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, otl (Louisville: West­minster John Knox, 2004), 386. SP reads ‫יהוה מסיני בא וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פראן ואתו מרבבות קדש מימנו אשדת‬ ‫למו אף חובב עמים וכל קדשיו בידך‬. English translations are my own unless otherwise specified.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

257

text reads, “He came (an Aramaism using the root ‫ )אתה‬from the myriads of holy”; and “from the south (‫ )ימין‬of ʾšdt (or “from his south [came] ʾšdt”) to them.” Since these ambiguous readings do not correspond to any known place names, scholars have long suggested that they had originally referred to the places ‫( מרבת קדש‬Num 27:14) and ‫( אשדת הפסגה‬Deut 3:17 et al.).15 These possible “original” readings notwithstanding, the verse as it stands quite clearly attests to myriads of “holy ones”; that is, minor gods or angels escorting YHWH as he appears from the south. In particular, since Sinai is mentioned earlier in the verse, it may easily be understood as an account of the Sinai theophany, and of the role of angels in that momentous event.16 This is the traditional Jewish reading of 33:2, reflected in the Sifre on Deuteronomy and in Rashi’s commentary ad loc.17 This reading resonates with the poetic depiction of angelic hosts at Sinai in Ps 68:18, and with the eschatological account of God’s appearance in Zion accompanied by His holy ones in Zech 14:5. The Septuagint translators read the word ‫“ ָא ָתה‬came,” as ‫“ ִאתֹה‬with him,” and similarly also SP (‫ )ואתו‬and Onkelos, but they left the word ‫ קדש‬untranslated, perhaps as a place name: καὶ κατέσπευσεν ἐξ ὄρους Φαραν σὺν μυριάσιν Καδης, ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. And hastened from Mount Pharan with myriads of Kades; at his right, angels with him.18 This sentence stands for three separate stichs in the original poem, squeezing them into one and the same meaning: The Lord came from the south, accompanied by angels. While the word ‫ קדש‬remained ambiguous, and was thus transcribed rather than translated, the following term, ‫אשדת‬, was clearly 15 16

17 18

Tigay, Deuteronomy, 320; and mainly Alexander Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy (Jerusalem: Academon, 1988), 237–38 (in Hebrew), who considers the entire poem to be the creation of Israelite circles east of the Jordan. See James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 670–71. This theme acquired an enormous theological load down through the ages. See, for example, Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1975), 1:152–53; and more recently Hindy Najman, “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretative Authority,” dsd 7 (2000): 313–33, and the sources cited there. Sifre Deut. 343; see Louis Finkelstein, Siphre ad Deuteronomium (Berlin: Judischer Kulturbund, 1939; repr. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969), 398–400. nets, trans. Melvin K. H. Peters.

258

Ben-Dov

understood as “angels.”19 This reading is already attested in the eschatological prologue of 1 Enoch, which alludes to several biblical verses, including Deut 33:2:20 (3) … καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ὁ ἅγιός μου ὁ μέγας ἐκ τῆς κατοικήσεως αὐτοῦ, (4) καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐπὶ γῆν πατήσει ἐπὶ τὸ Σεινὰ ὄρος καὶ φανήσεται ἐκ τῆς παρεμβολῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ φανήσεται ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῶν οὐρανῶν … (9) ὅτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων 1 En 1:3b–4, 9; Codex Panopolitanus21

(3) … The great Holy One22 will come forth from his dwelling, (4) And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) upon Mount Sinai, And he shall appear from his camp, and reveal himself in the power of his might from the highest heaven … (9) … he comes with ten thousand holy ones to execute judgment upon all.23 The phrase ‫ רבבת קדש‬of Deut 33:2 (either the Hebrew or Greek version) was read here as indicating the myriad holy ones (= divine beings) surrounding God in his march. This verse of Enoch was in turn quoted in the Epistle of Jude 19

20 21

22 23

The translations of Aquila and Symmachus replace kadesh with ἁγιασμοῦ or ἁγίαις, aligning it with the traditional Jewish interpretation. The association of the word ‫ אשדת‬with angels may have arisen against the background of the general connection between angels and fire; see Yaakov Kaduri [James L. Kugel], “Windy and Fiery Angels: Prerabbinic and Rabbinic Interpretations of Psalm 104:4,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011, ed. M. Kister et al. stdj 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 134–49. I thank Ruth Clements for the reference. Kaduri’s article, however, does not mention Deut 33:2. See James C. VanderKam, “The Theophany of Enoch 1 3b–7, 9,” in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, JSJSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 332–53. The Greek text follows Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece / Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum, pvtg 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 19. Verse 3 is partly extant in Aramaic in 4QEna 1 i 5–6. Verse 9 is partly preserved in 4QEnc 1 i 15 ‫רבו]את קדישו[הי‬. See Richard J. Bauckham, “A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch 1.9,” jts 32 (1981): 136–38. The citation in Jude 14–15 adopts a shorter reading of the last verse but is identical in meaning. Based on the Aramaic ‫קדיש[ה ר]בה‬. The Greek text reads oddly “my great Holy One.” See Joseph T. Milik with the collaboration of Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 144. The translation is that of Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition, svtp 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 25–26. Note the Greek wording: “His myriads and holy ones.”

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

259

(vv. 14–15) and found itself in the New Testament, becoming a stock phrase of Christian eschatology. The angelic reading of Deut 33:2 was no doubt supported by the presence of the word ‫ קדשיו‬in the subsequent verse. Here too, the original meaning seems to have lacked the angelic sense, referring instead to Israel as “His holy ones.”24 Yet the angelic sense is quite popular among readers, both ancient and modern.25 Thus, somewhat unexpectedly, the end of Deuteronomy has been widely seen as an angelological text. This was not a sectarian reading but a commonplace one. 3

Multiple Divinities in the Song of Moses

The poem of Deuteronomy 32 tells the story of the Israelite nation intertwined in the personal story of its God. The framework of the poem, conveying YHWH’s ascent from the status of a marginal god to that of a sovereign acknowledged by his divine peers, appears in vv. 8–9, 43; the mt version reads:26 ‫ בהפרידו בני אדם‬/ ‫( בהנחל עליון גוים‬8) ‫ למספר בני ישראל‬/ ‫יצב גבלת עמים‬ ‫יעקב חבל נחלתו‬/ ‫( כי חלק יהוה עמו‬9) ‫( הרנינו גוים עמו‬43) ‫ וכפר אדמתו עמו‬/ ‫ ונקם ישיב לצריו‬/ ‫כי דם עבדיו יקום‬

(8) When the Most High gave nations their inheritance / And set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples / in relation to Israel’s numbers. (9) For YHWH’s portion is his people / Jacob his own allotment. (43) O nations, acclaim his people! For he will avenge the blood of his servants / wreak vengeance on His foes / and cleanse the land of his people. njps with slight modifications

24 25 26

See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 320; This is also the opinion of all traditional Jewish exegetes. Compare the designation of Israel as ‫ (עם) קדישי עליונין‬in Dan 7:18, 27. Rofé, Angels in the Bible, 85–87. The angelic sense of the verse appears in Targum Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targum alongside the human sense. Both possibilities are raised by Nelson, Deuteronomy, 388–89. SP essentially agrees with only slight variants; the only major variant is the plus of the word ‫ ישראל‬at the end of v. 9.

260

Ben-Dov

This framework conveys a myth about the division of the world between the divine powers, with the god ʿelyon presiding and distributing the inheritance in the form of nations and territories. YHWH first receives his own modest inheritance but then ascends to power and establishes his supremacy, which is proclaimed by all the nations.27 Minor gods and their nations are then called upon to praise YHWH, the supreme god. The question of whether YHWH as portrayed in vv. 8–9 is identical with ʿelyon or is rather a minor god subservient to him remains open, and constitutes a serious bone of contention in deciding whether the poem is “monotheistic.” For Mark Smith, this is the main criterion for judging the level of polytheism in subsequent readings of Deuteronomy 32. As long as they “presuppose the conflation of El Elyon (Most High) with the god of Israel,” the polytheistic sting is annulled.28 However, even if this hurdle is overcome, the very presence of multiple personalities in the divine realm is problematic in a monotheistic context. The main thematic function of the framework for the Song of Moses is to mark the place of YHWH in relation to other divine beings and their respective human inheritances, the nations.29 The relation between YHWH and the multiple national gods is clearer in what is widely considered to be the original version of the above-quoted verses. This version is reflected in the Old Greek of Deuteronomy and preserved in fragmentary scrolls from Qumran.30 The original reading of v. 8 can be reconstructed from the Greek version and from the fragmentary Hebrew scroll 4QDeutj, while a full Hebrew text of v. 43 was preserved in the scroll 4QDeutq. An integrative text reads as follows:

27

28 29

30

See Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Naḥalat Yhwh,” in Studies in Bible 1986, ed. S. Japhet, ScrHier 31 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1986): 155–92; Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World, fat 57 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 208–42; Ronnie Goldstein, “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and 43 in the Light of Akkadian Sources,” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 5–21 (in Hebrew); idem, “Yhwh’s Inheritance and His Enthronement,” Tarbiz 85 (2018): 5–28 (in Hebrew). Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” quotation from p. 294. Both Loewenstamm (“Naḥalat Yhwh”) and Goldstein (“New Look”) suggest that the framework in vv. 8–9, 43 had been an independent hymn before it was merged with the song of Moses, hence the tension between the multiplicity of the divine realm in the framework and the single god in the body of the poem. Goldstein dubs this hymn “an exaltation hymn,” citing parallels from Mesopotamian literature. In this article, I use og to denote the reconstructed Greek text underlying the lxx translation. The retrieval of OG in this case is not smooth, as the lxx contains doublets and involves variations due to translation technique, but the overall sense of og is universally agreed upon. See Rofé, Angels in the Bible, 66; Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, Le Deutéronome, vol. 5 of La Bible d’Alexandrie (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 325–26, 340–41.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

261

‫ בהפרידו בני אדם‬/ ‫( בהנחיל עליון גוים‬8) 31‫ למספר בני אלוהים‬/ ‫יצב גבלת עמים‬ (lxx υἱοὶ θεοῦ) ‫ והשתחוו לו כל אלהים‬/ ‫( הרנינו שמים עמו‬43) ‫ ולמשנאיו ישלם‬/ ‫ ונקם ישיב לצריו‬/ ‫כי דם בניו יקום‬ ‫ויכפר אדמת עמו‬

(8) When the Most High gave nations their inheritance / and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples / in relation to the number of divine beings. (43) O heavenly beings (lxx: οὐρανοί), give praise with him / and bow down to him all ye gods (lxx: πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ), For he shall avenge the blood of his sons / wreak vengeance on his foes / and repay his enemies, And will atone for the land of his people. (My translation, jbd) The “sons of Elohim” in v. 8, i.e., the minor gods representing world nations, fit quite nicely into what we know about contemporary Levantine mythology.32 The division of the earth among the gods, the rise of YHWH to power, and the summons to praise—these are well-known motifs in both the Hebrew Bible and ane literature. The first two motifs are known from Psalm 82, while the summons to the gods to praise YHWH is attested in Pss 29:1–2 and 47:10.33 Later on, textual corrections were introduced in vv. 8 and 43, as represented in the mt and sp versions of Deuteronomy quoted above.34 The corrected text 31 32 33 34

The words ‫ בני אלוהים‬appear in 4QDeutj. The lxx gives ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. Noga Ayali-Darshan, “The Seventy Bulls Sacrificed at Sukkot (Numbers 29:12–34) in Light of a Ritual Text from Emar (Emar 6, 373),” vt 65 (2015): 9–19. See Goldstein, “New Look”; idem, “Yhwh’s Inheritance and His Enthronement”; for Psalms 29 and 47 see H. Louis Ginsberg, “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody,” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): *45–*50. See Alexander Rofé, “The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:42),” in idem, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, 47–54; idem, Angels in the Bible, 64–66; Jan Joosten, “Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,” vt 57 (2007): 548–55. Innocent Himbaza, “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes: Essai d’interpretation et de datation,” Biblica 83 (2002): 527–48, claimed that the correction did not originate in the wish to defend monotheism, which to him seems secure enough if one reads Yhwh in 32:8 as equal to ʿelyon. Instead, he claims that the correction resulted from an aggadic tradition, attested in Aramaic targumim, which recounted the distribution of the earth to the seventy nations. His argument, however, misunderstands the poem’s message. In addition,

262

Ben-Dov

eradicated the mention of all divine beings other than YHWH. The details of this correction have been extensively studied in literature and need not be rehearsed here. The message of the framework of the Song of Moses is based on a dialectic between the One and the Many. The glory of YHWH is manifest in the way that he gains superiority over his peers; at the same time, he gains recognition by the fact that they extoll his greatness. The poem of Deuteronomy 32, or at least its framework, is thus fundamentally “polytheistic,” in the sense that the presence of the Many is essential for establishing the sovereignty of the One.35 The multitude of gods is tied to political entities on earth, so that the supremacy of a nation indicates also the supremacy of its god. This dialectic between the One and the Many is somewhat paradoxical but unavoidable. Generations of Bible readers were required to design their own formulation of the biblical God: while a more strict monotheistic attitude was quite common, some Jewish groups embraced the multifaceted godhead until much later than is usually assumed.36 The uncorrected versions of og and Qumran preserve much of this dialectic, while the corrected reading (mt and sp) subdues it, thus obstructing much of the poem’s message. In the remainder of this article, I will tease out the context for the reception of the original reading as an angelological text. The Song of Moses mentions other types of divine beings alongside the national gods. Over the historical course described in the poem, the Israelites shift to worshipping gods other than YHWH (vv. 15–18). These gods include not only the national gods mentioned above, but also “strange” or “abominable”

35

36

his claim that the correction was only inserted in the first century CE is contradicted by the fact that it appears also in sp, and is probably also quoted in Ben Sira (see below). See also the criticism by van der Kooij, “Ancient Emendations,” 156. The term “polytheism” as well as its brother term “monotheism” are not well suited for depicting this strand of biblical religion. Nor are they suitable for characterizing Jewish belief in later periods, as Jews always had a richer divine realm than that of a single, transcendent god. For the early period see Benjamin D. Sommer, “Appendix: Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Israel,” in idem, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 145–74. For later periods, see Stefan Beyerle, “Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism in Ancient Jewish Apocalyptic,” in Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature, ed. N. MacDonald and K. Brown, Studies of the Sofija Kovaleskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 3, fat 72 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 219–46; Larry W. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” jsnt 71 (1999): 3–26; Paula Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time has Come to Go,” Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses 35 (2006): 231–46. See in detail Ben-Dov, “The Resurrection of the Divine Assembly.”

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

263

gods that are not part of the known international map of nations and their gods (v. 17b, ‫)אלהים אשר לא ידעום‬. Verse 17a characterizes these deities as demons (‫)שדים‬. Later in the poem, as YHWH punishes his nation for their religious malpractice, the reader encounters the malignant entity ‫ רשף‬next to the unidentified ‫ קטב‬and ‫( מרירי‬v. 24a). It is unclear whether the original author intended a demonic significance for these three terms, but they were clearly conceived as demonic in later transmission.37 In a largely anti-demonic Bible, these three terms convey a conspicuous demonic presence. Because of their shared mention of demonic entities, Deuteronomy 32 was early associated with Psalm 91, and these two chapters became highly popular among later Jewish writers of apotropaic texts.38 Thus the word ršp appears several times in Jubilees and Qumran texts in demonic contexts (Jub. 21:20; 4Q418 127 3; 4Q525 15 5; the latter two passages are clear allusions to Deuteronomy 32). Interestingly enough, the title of Psalm 90 declares it to be “a prayer of Moses, the man of God.” This midrashic association (as psalms’ titles usually are) is taken in rabbinic literature to refer not only to Psalm 90, but also to the entire cluster of Psalms 90–100, where indeed many allusions to Deuteronomy 32 and 33 can be found. The demonic association is certainly one of them.39 The association of gods and demons is exactly the kind of link between angelology and demonology that was later presumed in the Book of Jubilees and Qumran literature (see below). Readers of Deuteronomy 32 were predisposed to see the poem as a text about angels and demons, and this should be taken in account when tracing its reception. 4

Allusions to and Quotations of Deuteronomy 32

Numerous readers concerned themselves with the message of Deuteronomy 32, already within the Hebrew Bible. It was only later in the Second Temple period, 37 38

39

See the discussions by Karel Van der Toorn, “Meriri”; Paolo Xella, “Resheph”; Nicholas Wyatt, “Qeteb,” ddd: 1064; 1269–72; 1330. For the demonic uses of Deut 32:24 and Psalm 91 see Rofé, Angels in the Bible, 114–26; Matthias Henze, “Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 168–93, esp. 182–92. Elisa Uusimäki, Turning Proverbs towards Torah: An Analysis of 4Q525, stdj 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 118–39, dedicated a long chapter to the association of Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 91, and their use in 4Q525. See Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 90 (Midrash Tehillim, ed. S. Buber [Vilna: Romm, 1890], 194:1). On Psalms 90–91 and their connection to Deuteronomy 32–33 see Yair Hoffmann, in Olam Hatanach, vol. 17, Psalms II, ed. N. M. Sarna (Tel-Aviv: Davidson-Atai, 1995), 87, 90 (in Hebrew); Maren R. Niehoff, “Tracing Hellenistic Judaism in Caesarea: A Jewish Scholar of the Psalms in Origen’s Gloss,” Zion 87 (2022): 7–29 (in Hebrew).

264

Ben-Dov

however, that explicit angelological and demonological themes entered the discussion. The original, uncorrected reading is much more intriguing and viable for generating further ideas. This was the preferred version, not only in innerbiblical allusions—made when the correction might not yet have taken place—but also in later literature. Interestingly enough, even the late Jewish reading of Deut 32:8 in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, although it formally uses mt, injects angelic connotations into the translation, as if the translator knew either the uncorrected version or an interpretative tradition based upon it.40 The reception history of Deut 32:8, 43 begins already in biblical literature. The first such allusion comes in the Book of Deuteronomy itself, in the diachronically later verse 4:19.41 This verse addresses the power assigned to the gods of the nations, depicted here in their astral identity as “the host of heaven”. ‫וראית את השמש ואת הירח ואת הכוכבים כל צבא השמים … אשר חלק יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫אתם לכל העמים תחת כל השמים‬

… (lest) you shall see the sun, the moon and the stars, the entire host of heaven … which YHWH your God has apportioned to all the nations under Heaven. In this verse, YHWH is no longer the minor god of Deut 32:8 but, rather, the supreme master who had assigned portions to the other divinities. The astral connotation of this specific verse carries the sense that Israel in some way transcends the natural conduct of the laws of nature, due to its direct relation with the supreme god YHWH. A similar mode of inference is employed in Jer 10:16 = 40

41

The Targum reads (quoted from the CAL database, www.cal.huc,edu): ‫באחסנות עילאה‬ ‫עלמא לעממייא די נפקו מבנוי דנח באפרשותיה מכתבין ולישנין לבני נשא בדרא דפלגותא‬ ‫בי היא זימנא רמא פיצתא עם שובעין מלאכיא רברבי עממין דאתגלי עימהון למחמי קרתא‬ ‫ובי היא זימנא אקים תחומי אומיא כסכום מניין שובעין נפשתא דישראל דנחתו למצרים‬, “When the most high bestowed inheritance to the nations that descended from the sons of Noah, when He assigned scripts and languages to human beings at the generation of the Divide (i.e., Genesis 11, jbd), at that time he cast lot with the seventy angels, masters of the nations, with whom He revealed himself to view the city [i.e., Babylon in Genesis 11, jbd], and at the same time he established the borders of nations as the sum number of the seventy Israelite souls that descended to Egypt.” See Avigdor Shinan, The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992), 77–78 (in Hebrew); Kister, “Ancient Material,” 72, calls attention also to the related Targum of Deut 4:34. For the relationships between chapter 32 and chapter 4, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 50; Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” 287–92; idem, God in Translation, 203–8. The allusion to 32:8 is made clear by the scene of the assignment (‫ )חלק‬of inheritance to all gods and all nations.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

265

51:19, where YHWH is depicted not only as ‫חלק יעקב‬, “the portion of Jacob,” but also as ‫יוצר הכל‬, “He who created everything.”42 Both Deuteronomy 4 and Jeremiah 10, while alluding to the uncorrected reading of Deut 32:8, downplay the role of the Many in the divine drama and thus share the same theological unease with the message of the original reading. Job 38:7, in contrast, underscores the role of the Many when paraphrasing Deut 32:43 with a strong angelic message:43 ‫ ויריעו כל בני אלהים‬/ ‫ברן יחד כוכבי בקר‬

When the morning stars sing together / and all the sons of gods cheer loudly44 This verse alludes to the original reading of Deut 32:43a: ‫ והשתחוו לו כל (בני) אלהים‬/ ‫הרנינו שמים עמו‬

Praise, O heavenly beings with Him / and bow to him, all (sons of) gods Both passages feature two parallel phrases. The first describes the praise ‫ רננ‬/ ‫ רון‬of heavenly beings: Deuteronomy employs the term ‫שמים‬, a poetic term denoting such beings (compare Ps 89:6, Jer 14:22), while Job addresses “the morning stars,” thus retaining the astral connotation (cf. Deut 4:19). The second phrase of each portrays the actions of the ‫בני אלהים‬. It is no surprise that the Book of Job stresses the angelological aspects of Deuteronomy 32, as this book is intensively concerned with minor divinities (Job 1:6; 4:18; 5:1; 25:2–5; 33:23). As we shall see, the angelological verse Job 38:7 will later win a central 42

43

44

For a discussion of this quotation see Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” 286–87. Jer 10:16 mt apparently quotes not only the early version of Deuteronomy 32:8, but also that of verse 9, as it mentions both Jacob and Israel (as in sp). Yakir Paz has presented further insights about the allusion to Deut 32:9 in Jer 10:16 at the Haifa Megillot Workshop, May 2016. Edward L. Greenstein, “Parody as a Challenge to Tradition: The Use of Deuteronomy 32 in the Book of Job,” in Reading Job Intertextually, ed. K. Dell and W. Kynes, lhbots 574 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 66–78, claims that the Song of Moses looms large in the rhetoric of the book of Job, not only as a source for allusions but more prominently as a pretext for parody and for transforming the classical Deuteronomic message. The discussion of Deut 32:43 appears on pp. 70–71. The first stich can also mean “When the assembly of morning stars sings,” taking the word ‫ יחד‬as a noun; see Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Qumran ‫—יחד‬A Biblical Noun,” vt 3 (1953): 133–40.

266

Ben-Dov

place in writings of the yaḥad, who also promoted an angelological reading of the Song of Moses. Various sources from later Second Temple times quote Deut 32:8–9 while endorsing the “monotheistic” side of the debate, placing YHWH as the supreme god. For example, in Ben Sira 17:17, in the context of underscoring the intense relations of YHWH with his chosen people (17:1–23),45 the author stresses the intensity of God’s providence over humankind, but in particular over the Israelites. Verse 17 alludes to Deut 32:8:46 ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον / καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν. For every nation he appointed a ruler / but the portion of the Lord is Israel. Since Israel are God’s “portion,” he is committed to keeping his eyes constantly open for them (v. 18). The author is not much concerned with the nations, nor is he concerned with the angels, whom he calls ἡγούμενοι; rather he is concerned with the Israelites. He mentions the nations only to contrast to God’ attention to Israel. Interestingly, while in chapter 17, Ben Sira seems to quote the original, uncorrected version of Deut 32:8, the same author seems to build on the mt reading of the same verse in 44:22–23.47 The message of the scriptural verse is thus flexible, and either version may be interpreted to yield the desired message. A passage in Jubilees, 15:30–32 also endorses the original reading of Deut 32:8, but assigns the Many a more pronounced role than does Ben Sira:48 45 46

47

48

For Deuteronomy 32 in Ben Sira 17 see Bar-on and Paz, “The Lord’s Allotment Is His People,” 28 and nn. 17–18; Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” 292–94. This verse was not preserved in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira. The Greek is quoted from Rahlf’s edition (contained in the Accordance database). A Hebrew retroversion suggested by Segal is ‫ ;לכל גוי הקים שר וחלק יהוה ישראל הוא‬see Moshe H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sirah Hashalem, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1959), p. ‫קג‬. Bar-On and Paz, “The Land of God to the Sons of God,” 37 and n. 35; see earlier Menahem Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78 (367) (in Hebrew), and additional literature quoted by Bar-On and Paz. For other parts of the Hebrew Bible, Ben Sira seems to know both mt and non-mt versions. See Armin Lange, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. I. Himbaza, obo 273 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118–61. As far as I can see, the usage of Deut 32:8 in Ben Sira does not differ between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the book. Translation follows James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, 2 vols., Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018), 1:507. For this passage in Jubilees see

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

267

… But He chose Israel to be His people. He sanctified them and gathered (them) from all humanity. For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to Him. He made spirits rule over all in order to lead them astray from following Him. But over Israel He made no angel or spirit rule because he alone is their ruler. He will guard them and require them for himself from His angels, His spirits … The centrality of angels and spirits in this passage is evident. What were previously known as gods ruling the nations are in fact demons, leading them astray, while Israel is different, because it is the direct inheritance of God himself. Israel’s special relationship with YHWH serves to grant it extraordinary protection from the spirits.49 Jubilees thus reads the biblical statement about national gods (according to the original, uncorrected reading of Deut 32:8) as an apocalyptic discourse about spirits, and places those spirits under the authority of YHWH. The political image of struggle with world powers is shifted to one of apotropaic combat. This demonic view of world politics is also characteristic of apocalypses, such as the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, but Jubilees is unique in harnessing Deuteronomy 32 into the picture.50 Interestingly, it is possible that Jubilees, like Ben Sira, also makes use of the corrected reading of Deut 32:8, adhering to the mt and sp of that verse. This may be the case in Jub. 44:33–34.51 If this is correct, this author may also

49

50

51

ibid., 1:522–23; Bar On and Paz, “The Lord’s Allotment Is His People,” 29, and literature cited there; Cana Werman, The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2015), 40–41, 296 (in Hebrew). Werman, Book of Jubilees, 296, stresses the point that Jubilees does not recognize a multitude of gods but rather many demons, controlled by Mastema. For a wider view of spirits in the Book of Jubilees see James C. VanderKam, “The Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” in Die Dämonen / Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment, ed. A. Lange et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 339–64. VanderKam, at 352–54, stresses the role of Deuteronomy 32 in the conception of demons in Jubilees. See further: Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees: The Evidence of Angelology and Demonology,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 353–68; eadem, Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 280–82. In these sources, the domination by the nations is part of God’s plan to have Israel go through the rule of all other divinities before actualizing his sovereignty. See Devorah Dimant, “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” RevQ 22 (2006): 373–88. This idea was suggested by Werman, Book of Jubilees, 514. However, this passage in Jubilees is based on Gen 46:27, whose connection with Deut 32:8 has a long and winding history

268

Ben-Dov

have used either of the two versions to yield the appropriate message for a given context. 5

Deuteronomy 32 at Qumran

5.1 Deuteronomy 32 in the Hodayot The demonic reading of Deuteronomy 32 is shared in core yaḥad literature. This is no surprise, given the persistence of this theme in related literature, but an exact formulation has only recently been pointed out.52 This formulation is admittedly fragmentary and hence requires some elaboration. The allusion has been located by Menahem Kister in the broken column 24 of the Hodayot scroll 1QHa (24:33–37):53 ‫נ] ֯כבדתה מבני‬ ‫הצבתה ג] ֗בולות עמים‬ ‫לבלתי?] ֗הרבות אשמה‬ ‫לוא] ֗עז֗ ֗ב ֗תם ביד‬

52

53

33 34 [ ‫ לחזקם‬35 [ ‫ בנחלתו‬36 ‫מבק[שי נפשם‬ ֯ ‫ כול‬37 [ ֗‫אל שו‬

with no clear conclusion. Jub. 44:34 may thus also be understood without the connection to Deut 32:8 mt. See Bar-On and Paz, “The Land of God to the Sons of God,” n. 7. The author of Jubilees was generally not deterred from using two opposing text traditions, although his general tendency is to follow versions other than mt. See James C. VanderKam, “Jubilees and the Hebrew Text of Genesis–Exodus,” in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, JSJSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 448–61. Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” 294–95, mentions several allusions to Deut 32:8–9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 10:9–15; 4Q418 Instructiond 81 + 81a 3), but does not acknowledge 1QHa 24, which seems to be the clearest. One should also add the allusion in the Prayer of Enosh, 4Q369; see James L. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” dsd 5 (1998): 119–48, esp. 131–32. None of these allusions stresses the angelic–demonic theme as much as the one elaborated here. The reading follows Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2011), 1:99 (in Hebrew); Kister, “Ancient Material,” 76–77, with slight modifications. It is different from the reading employed in Hartmut Stegemann et al., 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f, djd 40 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 283, 287. The editors of djd 40 read the first word in line 33 as ‫כ]ו֯ בדתה‬, but Qimron’s reading matches the reading in frag. 11 8 (= 1QHa 3:30 in djd 40, p. 58). In addition, Qimron suggests a plausible reconstruction at the beginning of line 37. I added the reconstructed word ‫ לבלתי‬in line 35. The translation is Kister’s; I removed the capital letters designating the divine in order to allow for a more flexible interpretation.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

269

You are/were [more] honored than the sons of god [… you fixed the b]oundaries of the nations to strengthen them […] in order that iniquity will [not?] abound in his inheritance […] You have [not?] abandoned them in the hands of those who see[k their lives] Despite the unfortunate fragmentariness of the passage, the link to Deuteronomy 32 is established by the suggestive terms ‫בני אל‬, ‫ג]בולות עמים‬, and ‫נחלתו‬. The passage turns to YHWH in the second person (cf. the direct address ‫ואתה‬ earlier in this column, line 12). It is part of a long and fragmentary hymn, whose exact parameters in 1QHa cols. 23–24 cannot be determined.54 The remains show that columns 23–24 discuss the creation of humankind and its relations with the angels, especially the participation with benevolent angels (23:30–34) and separation from the evil spirits, called ‫רוחות ממזרים‬, “spirits of the bastards” in 24:26 (cf. line 16). The latter term prompted the djd editors to claim that the hymn alludes to the story of the Fallen Angels.55 This claim is probable, and its association with the allusion to Deut 32:8 in lines 33–37 is thus even more intriguing, as the two fundamental myths from Deuteronomy and the Book of the Watchers intertwine. According to Kister, the passage seems to make a similar claim to that of Jub. 15:31 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. YHWH, who is the leader of the divine assembly, divided the nations and took Israel as his inheritance. The aim of this choice was to prevent iniquity from taking over Israel, while the other nations are led astray by their respective leaders.56 These nations, or possibly their leaders, seek to seize Israel, but YHWH will protect them. The multiple “sons of god” from Deuteronomy 32 are depicted here as evil, using language typical of the myth of the Watchers. Note the peculiar address to YHWH here as ‫“ נ]כבדתה מבני אל‬You are (or: were) more honored than the divine beings.”57 The author has no reluctance to speak about divine beings (literally “sons of god”), while clarifying that YHWH is their sovereign. This text—like elsewhere in the scrolls—distinguishes ‫בני‬ ‫ אל‬from YHWH himself, who, confusingly, is often designated in the scrolls by the appellation ‫אל‬.

54 55 56 57

Stegemann et al., djd 40, 284. Ibid. Kister, “Ancient Material,” 77. The phrase ‫ בני אלים‬is used in 1QHa 23:23 to denote the heavenly beings, and ‫ אלים‬appear in 18:10; 23:30; 24:12, etc. with a similar meaning. The interpretation suggested here for ‫בני‬ ‫ אל‬in 24:33–34 as an allusion to Deut 32:8 requires that this term carries here a malign connotation, associated with the gods of the nations, in correlation with Jubilees 15.

270

Ben-Dov

Jubilees 15 is thus not a unique allusion to Deuteronomy 32, but is rather an expression of a well-attested, influential, and dominant conception, which saw the world, apart from Israel, as possessed by demonic powers; Israel, as the direct inheritance of YHWH, is protected from these powers. Having established this, one should now ask whether it is possible to connect this exegetical use of Deuteronomy 32 with the actual copies of the Song of Moses from Qumran. After all, both copies of Deut 32:8, 43 known to us from Qumran attest to the “polytheistic” reading. In fact, the corrected reading of mt and sp is not attested in any of the Deuteronomy scrolls from Qumran. Is this by chance? 5.2 The Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Qumran Deuteronomy 32 is represented in quite a few Qumran scrolls: 1QDeutb, 4QDeutc, 4QDeutj, 4QDeutk1, 4QpaleoDeutr, 4QDeutq, and the tefillin scroll, 4QPhyl N.58 Not all of these scrolls, however, contained the entire Book of Deu­ teronomy. Rather, some contained only excerpts, probably for liturgical purposes. Both 4QDeutj and 4QDeutq contain only excerpts from Deuteronomy, with the former presenting Deut 32:1–9 alongside selections from chapters 5–6, 8, 11, 21, as well as Exodus 12–13, while the latter consisted of a single sheet containing only chapter 32. Likewise, 4QDeuteronomyk1 contains excerpts from Deuteronomy 5, 11, and 32. The exceptional scroll, 4Q141 (4QPhyl N), in fact the remains of one small sheet of parchment, preserves only verses from Deuteronomy 32 and not any of the standard textual units in phylacteries. Doubts have been raised as to whether this scroll belonged to phylacteries at all, or whether it was a sheet written for use as an amulet. More pertinent to the present discussion, it has been suggested instead that 4QPhyl N, 4QDeutj and 4QDeutk1 point to a convergence of tefillin and amulets in the liturgical and apotropaic usage of passages from Deuteronomy.59 The use of Deuteronomy 32 in an amulet 58

59

See Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 239–43; Sidnie White Crawford, “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. K. de Troyer and A. Lange, sbl SymS 30 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 127–40. See David Nakhman, “The Contents and Order of the Biblical Sections in the Tefillin from Qumran and Rabbinic Halakhah: Similarity, Difference, and Some Conclusions,” Cathedra 112 (2004): 19–44 (in Hebrew); contrast Yehudah B. Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World, bjs 351 (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), 75–77. The matter should be reconsidered in the light of new finds on tefillin-like amulets: Ariel Feldman and Faina Feldman, “4Q147: An Amulet?” dsd 26 (2019): 1–29; Ariel Feldman and Faina Feldman, “4Q148 (4QPhylactère U): Another Amulet from Qumran?” jsj 50 (2019): 197–222.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

271

would have been directly connected with the appearance of demons in the text.60 The variant terms from verses 8–9, 43 to which we have been attending are represented in only two scrolls, 4QDeutj and 4QDeutq (see the “integrative text” quoted in section 3 above), neither of which preserves the corrected (mt and sp) reading. We should of course beware of the evidence from silence, but I argue that this particular textual profile of Deuteronomy 32 at Qumran fits quite well with the angelology of the yaḥad and hence was preferred in its scrolls. It is no coincidence that people at Qumran endorsed the reading that carries strong angelic connotations. The notion of plurality in the divine realm, and the dialectic between the One and the Many, both played a central part in yaḥad religion. 5.3 Divine Plurality and the Yaḥad Members of the yaḥad were especially fond of Deut 32:8 and 43 because they embodied the notion of multiple divine beings, which was especially suitable for Qumran demonology and theology in general. This theological context can be seen in diverse passages in the scrolls. The plurality discussed here relates to various constituents of the divine assembly, whether positive in the shape of ‫ אלים‬who join the yaḥad in prayer, or demons whom the yaḥad seeks to scare away. Both aspects are contained in various interpretations of Deuteronomy 32 and are essentially the same phenomenon as we have encountered in Ben Sira, Jubilees, and the Hodayot. Prayer texts of the yaḥad give extraordinary attention to the assembly, featuring human beings praying in unison with the angels. The role of verses such as Deut 32:43 and Job 38:7 is apparent in this conception, with the latter playing an exceptionally important part. In this verse, the assembly of stars, i.e., the Many, gives praise to the One. The common phrase ‫ יחד רינה‬in Qumran (1QHa 11:23, 19:17, cp. 19:28–29, 1QM 14:4; 4Q503 passim) echoes ‫ ברון יחד‬from Job 38:7, as the yaḥad sees itself as joining the angels in unison.61 I believe, in fact, that the very term yaḥad, the foremost designation of the Qumran community, derives from Job 38:7, and thus defines the yaḥad in premiere terms as 60 61

See Uusimäki, Turning Proverbs towards Torah, 118–39. For the concept of joining the angels in prayer see Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens, 216–19; Esther G. Chazon, “Human and Angelic Prayer in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000, ed. E. G. Chazon et al., stdj 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 35–47; Jeremy Penner, Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism, stdj 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 118–22.

272

Ben-Dov

a praying community. In addition to prayer, the yaḥad sees itself as standing together with the angels in the eschatological war (see, e.g., 1QM 1:11; 7:6; 12:4). There are recurrent indications in other texts that the holy angels stand in the midst of the human community, necessitating from the latter extraordinary levels of perfection (1QM 7:3–7, 1QSa 2:4–9).62 The writings of the yaḥad give special attention to the relation between the one deity and the many divine entities surrounding him. This worldview emerged from the environment of pre-Qumranic pseudepigrapha, where the assembly of holy ones takes central place.63 In the Aramaic writings preserved at Qumran, the head of this assembly is called ‫קדישא רבא‬, “the Great Holy One.”64 The meaning of this epithet depends directly on the scene of the divine assembly: while all the attendees of the assembly are “holy ones,” they are headed by a single, great, holy one. The assembly is so important that the name of its chief is not his private name but rather his epithet as the head of the assembly. This concept is carried forward in Hebrew epithets, such as the two that occur in one line of the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa 26:9): ‫גדול וקדוש‬, a Hebrew rendition of the Aramaic ‫ ;קדישא רבא‬and ‫קדוש קדושים‬, “the holy of all holy ones.” Once again, the One derives his name from the Many who surround him. The epithet ‫( אל אלים‬1QM 14:16 = 4Q491 8–10 i 13; 4Q510 1 2: ‫אל‬ ‫אלים אדון לכול קדושים‬, “El of the gods, master of all the holy ones”) should be understood similarly. The importance of the assembly is carried ad absurdum in the following poetic line from a hymn predating the yaḥad but embraced by it (4Q381 76–77 7):65 ‫עד]ת קדוש קדושים גורל מלך מלכים‬

The community of the holy one of holy ones, the lot of the king of kings

62

63 64 65

Devorah Dimant, “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community,” in eadem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies, fat 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 465–72; Aleksander R. Michalak, Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature, wunt 2/330 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). See Ben-Dov, “The Resurrection of the Divine Assembly.” See Moshe J. Bernstein, “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in idem, Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran, 2 vols., stdj 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1:195–216, esp. 200–202. For this characterization of 4Q381 see Mika S. Pajunen, The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381, JAJSup 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 319–69.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

273

The community is not called here “the community of holy ones,” but, rather, in a recursive way, “the community of the holy one of the holy ones.” This pleonastic construction incorporates a breathtaking maneuver, moving back and forth from the One to the Many, in order to exploit the glory maintained in each of them. I therefore suggest that the old, uncorrected, version of Deuteronomy 32 continued to be used in apocalyptic circles and in the yaḥad not merely by default, but rather as a representation of a living, deliberate, and consistent religious tradition. For followers of that tradition, Deuteronomy 32 constituted a proof text for the angelic and demonic portrait of the divine realm. Further yet, I have suggested that, as filtered through Job 38, the angelic portrait of Deuteronomy 32 became the scriptural basis for the yaḥad’s self-understanding as a praying community with direct connections to the angelic realm. In apocalyptic circles, Deuteronomy 33 played a similar role for the author of the prologue to the Book of Watchers (1 En 1). I was not able to find a similar usage of Deut 33:2 in yaḥad writings, but the overall emerging picture is that the poems at the end of the Book of Deuteronomy served as proof texts for those who sought confirmation of plurality in the divine realm. 6

Deuteronomy 32 and the Sectarian Debate

If apocalyptic circles had a reason to promote the uncorrected text of Deuteronomy 32, who then had an interest in promoting the corrected version? This question is not identical to the question about the original date and intent of the correction. The correction may have taken place at a relatively early date, because it is shared by sp and because it seems to be reflected in Ben Sira and Jubilees (see above). Regardless of its origins, I want to ask here which circles promoted the corrected Deuteronomy 32 during the centuries immediately before and after the turn of the Era. As demonstrated above, the original version remained in use in a variety of Hebrew sources, and was not in any way banned or ousted. The preference for the corrected version thus represented a deliberate choice, not simply default usage. According to Smith, the correction of 32:8—and certainly its later, more widespread adoption—may have been a reaction to the syncretism promoted by Seleucid rulers, whereby the God of Israel was equated with other chief deities like Zeus Olympius and Baal Shamen.66 The present study, however, 66

Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text,” 296–97, quoting earlier authorities about the existence of such syncretism in Judah during the second century BCE. Van der Kooij, “Ancient

274

Ben-Dov

suggests that the correction was not necessarily pointed at Greek syncretism but rather at inner-Jewish trends that presumed a multifaceted godhead, populating the divine realm with minor divinities. Angelology and demonology, then, not syncretism, were at stake. The identity of the promoters of the corrected 32:8 has some bearing on the identity of the circles that created and promoted the pre-Masoretic text in general. As we know so little about this question, I will try to offer my modest contribution to it, or at least to questions contingent on it.67 There were circles in Second Temple Judaism that opposed in varying degrees the conception of multiple minor divinities alongside the single god. The matter has been studied extensively as part of the background to the rise of Christianity and the angelic role of Jesus.68 The debate may be also present in other biblical verses; Qoh 5:5, with reasonable textual amendment, objects to the belief in an angel: ‫“ אל תאמר לפני המלאך‬do not say: the angel is before me.”69 There are, however, clearer attestations of the opposition to angels. From the writings of Josephus, for example, one gets the impression: that Josephus does not avoid the Bible’s talk of (supernatural) “angels” en principe; indeed, as we have pointed out … he occasionally introduces such angels into his account where scripture does not explicitly speak of them. At the same time, it is also clear that the historian does tend

67

68

69

Emendations in MT,” also suggested a setting among the Temple personnel of the second century BCE. For the early history of mt see Emanuel Tov, “Textual Development of the Torah,” in idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 239–49; idem, “The Socio-Religious Setting of the (Proto-) Masoretic Text,” Textus 27 (2018): 135–53; Lange, “1.2.2.3 Textual Standardization.” Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, wunt I2/70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); more recently idem, “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 45–70; Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” See recently Alexander Rofé, “Sectarian Divergences in Israel in the Light of Textual Corrections in the Hebrew Bible,” Meghillot 13 (2017): 93–112 (in Hebrew). See the longer discussion in idem, “The Wisdom Formula ‘Do Not Say …’ and the Angel in Qohelet 5.5,” in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 364–76. In addition, Rofé (Angels in the Bible, 94–96) pointed out a wisdom tradition in Job and Ben Sira which, if not opposing angels altogether, at least emphasizes the weaknesses of these minor divinities, their ignorance and their sinfulness. See further Peter Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung, sj 8 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975).

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

275

to omit, reduce and reword biblical mentions of these figures in many contexts.70 There is one source, albeit later and problematic, that explicitly objects to angels and other minor divinities: a report in Acts 23:6–8. In that story, Paul is captured and brought before the Sanhedrin. In an attempt to save his neck, he exploits the divisions inherent in that body, constituted of both Pharisees and Sadducees. 6. Γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Παῦλος ὅτι τὸ ἓν μέρος ἐστὶν Σαδδουκαίων τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Φαρισαίων ἔκραζεν ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ, Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός εἰμι, υἱὸς Φαρισαίων, περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν [ἐγὼ] κρίνομαι. 7. Τοῦτο δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος ἐγένετο στάσις τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων καὶ ἐσχίσθη τὸ πλῆθος. 8. Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν γὰρ λέγουσιν μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν μήτε ἄγγελον μήτε πνεῦμα, Φαρισαῖοι δὲ ὁμολογοῦσιν τὰ ἀμφότερα. 6 When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 [The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.] (nrsv) This source reports quite clearly that Sadducees did not believe in the existence of angels and spirits. Its reliability was commonly accepted in earlier scholarship.71 This Sadducean belief was not seen as surprising, since they were commonly seen as entertaining elitist views, distanced from popular ideas and practices. Since the Sadducees denied resurrection and endorsed free will without divine predetermination, it is reasonable to conclude that they opposed other apocalyptic beliefs as well; after all, apocalyptic writings like the Treatise on Two Spirits are the main champions of predetermination. Angels

70

71

Christoph Begg, “Angels in the Work of Flavius Josephus,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings; Origins, Development and Reception, ed. F. V. Reiterer et al., dcly 2007 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 525–36. Cf. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Hellenistic Culture and Society 27 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 212–13; Geza Vermes, “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel,” jjs 42 (1991): 149–66, esp. 165. See Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel, 130–32.

276

Ben-Dov

and spirits are the dominant agents in the apocalyptic worldview, and they are prominent in carrying out the doctrines of resurrection and predestination.72 The reliability of Acts 23:8, the only source that reports on such an attitude by the Sadducees, has been questioned by recent scholars, however, on both linguistic and exegetical grounds. The most fundamental problem raised by scholars is that the Sadducees—widely considered to be radical literalists sticking to the word of Scripture—could hardly have denied the existence of angels, which are mentioned so many times in the Torah.73 David Daube ingeniously suggested interpreting the entire verse 23:8 as an expression of the Sadducees’ objection to resurrection. According to him, the mention of angels and spirits in this verse refers to the angelic or spiritual status of the dead in their intermediate state, between death and resurrection.74 Or, more elegantly, “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, either in the form of an ‘angel’ or in the form of a ‘spirit’.”75 New Testament scholars mention both interpretations of Acts 23:8 but tend to be cautious in accepting its testimony at face value.76 I would like to make one small point with regard to the notion that Sadducees could not have ignored angels because they are mentioned so often in the Pentateuch. In my opinion, this expectation is too rigid. First of all, while angels do appear in the Torah, the text falls far short of “the exuberant angelology and demonology which flourished in that age and was cultivated 72 73

74 75 76

See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, abrl (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 3:407–8. See mainly David Daube, “On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels,” jbl 109 (1990): 493–97; further in this direction (although with a different explanation for the wording of 23:8): Benedict T. Viviano and Justin Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8– 9),” jbl 111 (1992): 496–98. I thank Lutz Doering for his advice on this matter. Daube, “On Acts 23.” Viviano and Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection,” 497. Followed by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 719. Charles K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 2:1065–66; differently, although still not accepting the evidence of this verse as disbelief in angels: Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 575. Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Luke–Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, wunt 2/94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997), 57–61 suggested that the angelic figure here is Jesus himself; but see François Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 538. It was recently suggested by Steven Mason that Luke knew Josephus’s works and that this acquaintance can be seen in his writings; the present verse, however, cannot be taken as evidence since angels and spirits are not discussed by Josephus as part of the sectarian debate; see Jonathan Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 265–66.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

277

in apocalyptic circles.”77 It might be this kind of radical angelology that the Sadducees rejected, but the Torah does not fully endorse such a view. Secondly, the presence of angels in the Torah can be and, in fact, has been accommodated in various ways. Josephus, after all, compromises the role of the heavenly host in biblical narratives, and so does Deuteronomy itself in chapter 4. There is no end to the interpretative imagination. Jewish scholarship already during the Second Temple period possessed the exegetical tools to explain away any unwanted literary or theological motif, not to mention changing the text of the biblical books themselves, as we have just seen. I therefore cannot rule out that the Sadducees did indeed oppose the belief in angels, and that the testimony of Acts 23:8 is in fact valid. If this is true, the Sadducees may have been one of the circles promoting the corrected version of Deuteronomy 32, although this position is not specifically documented. 7

Conclusion

The Sadducees of Paul’s times certainly did not insert the theological correction in Deuteronomy 32. On the other side of the coin, the yaḥad sectaries were happy to align themselves with the community of bene elim, and thus seem to have promoted the original version of that verse. I have highlighted the potential of Deuteronomy 32 as a proof text for those circles that endorsed a multifaceted view of the divine realm. A similar usage was also demonstrated for Deut 33:2 in apocalyptic writings like the Book of Watchers and Jude, although this usage is not attested in Qumran. The same biblical texts were used by other circles, who stressed the singularity of YHWH in the divine realm. These circles either used the corrected biblical version or accommodated it using biblical exegesis. Yet other writings like Ben Sira and Jubilees seem to have been oblivious to the exact scriptural reading, anchoring their professed view of Israel, the nations, and the multiple divinities by means of creative exegesis. All sides of this debate attest to the vitality of the biblical tradition, not only during its composition, but also as part of its ongoing reception. What I hope to have shown here is that the debate on the belief in angels was not only a matter of “biblical theology,” concluded already in the Persian period. Rather, it was a lively debate at the height of the Second Temple period, when two alternative readings of Deuteronomy 32 were present on the shelf from which interpreters could choose. The preference of one version or 77

George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:68.

278

Ben-Dov

another had to do with the author’s ideologies, and possibly also with sectarian affiliations. For some, the ending of Deuteronomy was an angelic/demonic text par excellence. Bibliography Ayali-Darshan, Noga. “The Seventy Bulls Sacrificed at Sukkot (Num 29:12–34) in Light of a Ritual Text from Emar (Emar 6, 373).” vt 65 (2015): 9–19. Bar-On, Shraga, and Yakir Paz. “The Land of God to the Sons of God: Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and the Inheritance of the Land of Israel.” Tarbiz 85 (2017): 29–63 (in Hebrew). Bar-On, Shraga, and Yakir Paz. “‘The Lord’s Allotment Is His People’: The Myth of the Election of Israel by Casting of Lots and the Gnostic–Christian–Pagan–Jewish Polemic.” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 23–61 (in Hebrew). Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–1998. Bauckham, Richard J. “A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch 1.9.” jts 32 (1981): 136–38. Begg, Christoph. “Angels in the Work of Flavius Josephus.” Pages 525–36 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings; Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by F. V. Reiterer et al. dcly 2007. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “The Resurrection of the Divine Assembly and the Divine Title El in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 9–31 in The Comparative Perspective. Vol. 3 of Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture. Edited by A. Ercolani and M. Giordano. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 195–216 in vol. 1 of idem, Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran. 2 vols. stdj 107. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Beyerle, Stefan. “Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism in Ancient Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 219–46 in Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by N. MacDonald and K. Brown. Studies of the Sofija Kovaleskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 3. fat 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Black, Matthew. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece/Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum. pvtg 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Black, Matthew. The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition. svtp 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Bovon, François. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Breed, Brennan W. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

279

Chazon, Esther G. “Human and Angelic Prayer in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 35–47 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000. Edited by E. G. Chazon et al. stdj 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cohn, Yehudah B. Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. bjs 351. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 127–40 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by K. De Troyer and A. Lange. sbl SymS 30. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Daube, David. “On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels.” jbl 109 (1990): 493–97. Dimant, Devorah. “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature.” RevQ 22 (2006): 373–88. Dimant, Devorah. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 465–72 in eadem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. fat 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Dogniez, Cécile, and Marguerite Harl. Le Deutéronome. Vol. 5 of La Bible d’Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Feldman, Ariel, and Faina Feldman. “4Q147: An Amulet?” dsd 26 (2019): 1–29. Feldman, Ariel, and Faina Feldman. “4Q148 (4QPhylactère U): Another Amulet from Qumran?” jsj 50 (2019): 197–222. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Finkelstein, Louis. Siphre ad Deuteronomium. Berlin: Judischer Kulturbund, 1939. Repr., New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. wunt 2/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997. Fredriksen, Paula. “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time has Come to Go.” Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 35 (2006): 231–46. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd rev. ed. Translation revisions by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihre Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857. Ginsberg, H. Louis. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982.

280

Ben-Dov

Ginsberg, H. Louis. “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody.” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): *45–*50. Goldstein, Ronnie. “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and 43 in the Light of Akkadian Sources.” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 5–21 (in Hebrew). Goldstein, Ronnie. “YHWH’s Inheritance and His Enthronement.” Tarbiz 85 (2018): 5–28 (in Hebrew). Greenstein, Edward L. “Parody as a Challenge to Tradition: The Use of Deuteronomy 32 in the Book of Job.” Pages 66–78 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by K. Dell and W. Kynes. lhbots 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Henze, Matthias. “Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran.” Pages 168–93 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Himbaza, Innocent. “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes: Essai d’interpretation et de datation.” Biblica 83 (2002): 527–48. Hoffmann, Yair. “Book Four: Chapters 90–106.” Pages 86–135 in Olam Hatanach. Vol. 17: Psalms II. Edited by N. M. Sarna (Tel-Aviv: Davidson-Atai, 1995) (in Hebrew). Hurtado, Larry W. “First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” jsnt 71 (1999): 3–26. Joosten, Jan. “Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8.” vt 57 (2007): 548–55. Kaduri, Yaakov [James L. Kugel]. “Windy and Fiery Angels: Prerabbinic and Rabbinic Interpretations of Psalm 104:4.” Pages 134–49 in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011. Edited by M. Kister et al. stdj 113. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Kister, Menahem. “Ancient Material in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli’ezer: Basilides, Qumran, the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 69–93 in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ ( Judges 18:2): Archeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by A. M. Maeir et al. JSJSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kister, Menahem. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78 (in Hebrew). Klawans, Jonathan. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Kooij, Arie van der. “Ancient Emendations in MT.” Pages 152–59 in L’Ecrit et l’Esprit: Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, and P. Hugo. obo 214. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

281

Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua). Translated by P. Wicksteed. London: MacMillan, 1886. Kugel, James L. “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation.” dsd 5 (1998): 119–48. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Lange, Armin. “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira.” Pages 118–61 in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible. Edited by I. Himbaza. obo 273. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Lange, Armin. “1.2.2 Overview Articles: Ancient Hebrew–Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts.” thb 1A:112–66. Volume 1A: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/10.1163/2452 -4107_thb_COM_0001020200. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Naḥalat Yhwh.” Pages 155–92 in Studies in Bible, 1986. Edited by S. Japhet. ScrHier 31. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1986. Mach, Michael. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit. tsaj 64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. abrl. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Michalak, Aleksander R. Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature. wunt 2/330. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Milik, Joseph T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Najman, Hindy. “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretative Authority.” dsd 7 (2000): 313–33. Nakhman, David. “The Contents and Order of the Biblical Sections in the Tefillin from Qumran and Rabbinic Halakhah: Similarity, Difference, and Some Conclusions.” Cathedra 112 (2004): 19–44 (in Hebrew). Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Pajunen, Mika S. The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381. JAJSup 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Pearce, Sarah J. K. The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period. tsaj 152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

282

Ben-Dov

Penner, Jeremy. Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism. stdj 104. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Edited by H. W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2011 (in Hebrew). Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees: The Evidence of Angelology and Demonology.” Pages 353–68 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Rofé, Alexander. Angels in the Bible: Israelite Belief in Angels as Evidenced by Biblical Traditions. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012 (in Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. “The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:42).” Pages 47–54 in idem, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to Deuteronomy. Jerusalem: Academon, 1988 (in Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. “Sectarian Divergences in Israel in the Light of Textual Corrections in the Hebrew Bible.” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 13 (2017): 93–112 (in Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. “The Wisdom Formula ‘Do Not Say …’ and the Angel in Qohelet 5.5.” Pages 364–76 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. C. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Schäfer, Peter. Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung. sj 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Seeligmann, Isaac L. “A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times.” vt 14 (1964): 75–92. Segal, Moshe H. Sefer Ben Sirah ha-Shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1959. Shinan, Avigdor. The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992 (in Hebrew). Smith, Mark S. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. fat 57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Smith, Mark S. “What is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between their Biblical Past, their Inner-biblical Interpretation, their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and their Textual Witnesses.” Pages 271–98 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. stdj 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Appendix: Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Israel.” Pages 145–74 in idem, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Demonic Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy and the Sectarian Debate

283

Stegemann, Hartmut, Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom. 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. djd 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. wunt 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism.” Pages 45–70 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Qumran ‫—יחד‬A Biblical Noun.” vt 3 (1953): 133–40. Teeter, D. Andrew. “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature.” dsd 20 (2013): 349–77. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. jps Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toorn, Karel van der. “Meriri.” ddd 1064–65. Tov, Emanuel. “The Socio-Religious Setting of the (Proto-)Masoretic Text.” Textus 27 (2018): 135–53. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Development of the Torah.” Pages 239–49 in idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene, ed. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by I. Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1975. Uusimäki, Elisa. Turning Proverbs towards Torah: An Analysis of 4Q525. stdj 117. Leiden: Brill, 2016. VanderKam, James C. “The Demons in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 339–64 in Die Dämonen/Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment. Edited by A. Lange et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. VanderKam, James C. Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018. VanderKam, James C. “Jubilees and the Hebrew Text of Genesis-Exodus.” Pages 448–61 in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2002. VanderKam, James C. “The Theophany of Enoch 1 3b–7, 9.” Pages 332–53 in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Vermes, Geza. “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel.” jjs 42 (1991): 149–66.

284

Ben-Dov

Viviano, Benedict T., and Justin Taylor. “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8– 9).” jbl 111 (1992): 496–98. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon 1972. Werman, Cana. The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2015 (in Hebrew). Wyatt, Nicholas. “Qeteb.” ddd 1269–72. Xella, Paolo. “Resheph.” ddd 1324–30.

part 2 The Text of the Jewish Scriptures from the Jewish Wars to the Early Masoretic Codices

∵

chapter 9

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration Noah Hacham and Armin Lange 1

Introduction

The first set Greek translations of the biblical books were conceived, for the most part, in Hellenistic Egypt from the third century BCE onward. These translations were utilized by Greek speaking Jews in general, and Egyptian Jewry in particular, as documented by numerous quotations and allusions in literary and other sources. With the spread of Christianity, Christians made use of these Old Greek translations included in the collection nowadays called the Septuagint. It is possible that Jews consequently began to avoid or limit their use of the Old Greek translations. While Jews began to revise these Old Greek translations towards the consonantal text of mt before the birth of Christianity, the second century CE saw the making of new Greek Jewish translations that are closer to mt, and these are attributed to Aquila and Symmachus. We have clear evidence from Church fathers (Justin, Tertullian and PseudoJustin)1 that Greek translations of the Bible were used and read by Jews, also in synagogues, by the second and third centuries. The use of various Greek translations of the Bible by Jews continued for many centuries, as evidenced by Novella 146 of the Justinian Law Code: We have learnt from their petitions, which they have addressed to us, that while some maintain the Hebrew language only and want to use it in reading the Holy Books others consider it right to admit Greek as well, and they have already been quarreling among themselves about this for a long time. Having therefore studied this matter we decided that the better case is that of those who want to use also Greek in reading the Holy Books, and generally in any language that is the more suited and the better known to the hearers in each locality.2 In this infamous Novella, Emperor Justinian prohibits the reading of the Mishnah and rules that translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek or any 1 Justin, 1 Apol. 31; Tertullian, Apol. 18; Pseudo-Justin, Cohort. 13. 2 Translation according to Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation: Edited with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 408. © Noah Hacham and Armin Lange, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_010

288

Hacham and Lange

other local language are legitimate in synagogue service. As case law from the sixth century (February 8, 553), Novella 146 evidences a relatively widespread use of Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures in the Byzantine Empire, most likely both within and outside synagogues. The work of Nicholas de Lange, in particular, has provided manuscript evidence that highlights the use of various Greek texts in Byzantine Judaism at a later time.3 It is clear, therefore, that Jews read these Greek Scriptures from “books”—as stated in the Novella—i.e., from manuscripts, scrolls, and other kinds of written material. However, not only Jews but also Christians sanctified the Septuagint and used and read it. Thus, they also had “books” of the Greek holy Scriptures. Can we distinguish between these Jewish and Christian “books”? Is it possible to recognize which biblical manuscript is Jewish and which is Christian? The aim of this paper is to suggest some criteria for answering this question. We cannot anticipate an easy and clear answer. Rather, we will try to outline the main points of the criteria posited by research as well as some historical implications of the potential answers. 2

Pre-Christian Greek Manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures

Greek manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures that predate Christianity are unquestionably Jewish. They are instructive of the dissemination of the Greek translations of the Bible during the last centuries before the Common Era and the first century CE. Furthermore, they provide information about the Greek textual versions employed by Egyptian Jews, as well as about the Jewish presence in Egypt in general, and more.4

3 Nicholas de Lange, ed., The Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism, https://gbbj.org/; Nicholas de Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, tsaj 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); idem, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); idem, “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue,” in Jews of Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil et al., Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 371–84; idem, “Jewish Greek Bible Versions,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, From 600–1450, ed. R. Marsden and E. A. Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 56–68; idem, “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 39–54. 4 On the Biblical papyri for the Ptolemaic period see Noah Hacham and Tal Ilan, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum IV (Berlin: de Gruyter; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2020), 206–61 (hereafter cpj 4).

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

289

A few papyri from up to the late first century CE have survived from Egypt proper. This date indicates a terminus ante quem for classifying biblical papyri as Jewish, since up to that point Christianity was still not pervasive in Egypt. Moreover, at that time, Christianity was still a Jewish sect, and it is difficult to make clear distinctions between Christians and Jews. In order to clarify the characteristics of early Jewish biblical manuscripts we present a few examples. The earliest known papyrus is Manchester, P.Ryl. Gr. 3 458 (cpj 610) from the second century BCE. Its eight fragments were part of a scroll, not a codex. Spaces separate verses or various word groupings. Paleographic considerations and the script appearing on the verso (an account or a memorandum) have determined the dating of the scroll, which establishes its unequivocally Jewish provenance. It is also distinguished by exceptionally beautiful calligraphy and by large (3.5 cm) upper margins.5 Additional early papyri from the first century BCE include sections of the books of Genesis and Deuteronomy (cpj 611–613). All are scrolls, and P.Fouad 266b (cpj 612) features a blank space left by the scribe where the Divine name was to be written. A second scribe filled the space using the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew characters.6 Other papyri from the first century CE contain Psalms (P.Oxy. 5101; cpj 674)—a scroll with the Tetragrammaton; Job (P.Oxy. 3522; cpj 675)—a scroll with the Tetragrammaton and spaces following verses or word grouping; and Esther (P.Oxy. 4443: cpj 673)—a scroll written in a beautiful hand, with wide margins but with no particular nomina sacra.7 Alongside this list of seven Greek papyri from Egypt, mention should be made of the copies of the Old Greek translation discovered in the Judean Desert. The seven Judean Desert manuscripts, two of them papyri, attest to the 5 Colin H. Roberts, ed., Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1936); Hacham and Ilan, “610. Fragments of LXX Deuteronomy,” cpj 4:212–15. 6 Zaki Aly, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 27 (Bonn: Habelt, 1980); Françoise Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266.): Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome (Introduction), Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire 27 (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1966); Hacham and Ilan, cpj 4:216–61. 7 See Daniela Colomo and W. B. Henry, “5101. Psalms (Fragments),” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXVII, ed. A. Benaissa (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2011), 1–11; Peter J. Parsons, “3522. lxx Job 42:11–12,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri L, ed. A. K. Bowman et al. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), 1–3; K. Luchner, “4443. lxx, Esther E16–9.3,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXV, ed. M. W. Haslam et al. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1998), 4–8. cpj numbers of these papyri refer to their entries in Noah Hacham and Tal Ilan, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum V: The Early Roman Period (30 bce–117 ce) (Berlin: de Gruyter; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2022).

290

Hacham and Lange

dissemination and reception of the purportedly Egyptian-born Greek translation in the Jewish world, in this case in the Land of Israel.8 These artifacts are sparse, yet they contribute significantly to the characterization of Jewish papyri of the Old Greek translation. Several discernible features typify these Jewish papyri: special treatment of the Divine name; utilization of scrolls (although in this period the codex had yet to be invented); occasional utilization of parchment as the writing material; margins and spaces between verses. It is possible that these characteristics or several of them bespeak public use of the scrolls; they certainly convey reverence for the sacred text inscribed upon them. The appearance and rise of Christianity prompted much broader dissemination of the Septuagint. In regard to that period and thereafter, therefore, reliable parameters for distinguishing between Jewish and Christian papyri of the Greek Bible need to be delineated. To what extent might these parameters assist the identification of the Jewishness of later texts? 3

Distinctive Features of Jewish and Christian Manuscripts

The foregoing discussion has suggested several distinctive characteristics of earlier Jewish manuscripts. Early Christian manuscripts, in turn, exhibit their own set of distinctive features. As is well known, the use of nomina sacra is a distinguishing feature of ancient Christian writings. The nomina sacra are abbreviations of fifteen sacred Christian terms. Consequently, any manuscript which contains one of those Christian abbreviations is surely a Christian text. Therefore, abbreviations of words like χριστός, Ἰησοῦς, ἄνθρωπος, etc. are unequivocally Christian. However, a papyrus which includes only the abbreviations of κύριος or θεός should not necessarily be regarded as Christian, since these words are undoubtedly sacred Jewish terms as well. The appearance of the unabbreviated words could thus suggest that a text is Jewish. The identification of papyri that lack the nomina

8 See 4QLXXLeva (“119. 4QLXXLeviticusa,” in Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, djd 9 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1992], 161–65); 4QpapLXXLevb (“120. 4QpapLXXLeviticusb,” djd 9.167–86); 4QLXXNum (“121. 4QLXXNumbers,” djd 9.187–94); 4QLXXDeut (“122. 4QLXXDeuteronomy,” djd 9.195–97); 7QpapLXXExod (“1. Exode,” in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân, ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, 2 vols., djd 3 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1962; repr. 2003], 1:142–43); 8ḤevXIIgr hand A and 8ḤevXIIgr hand B (The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever [8ḤevXIIgr], ed. E. Tov with R. Kraft, djd 8 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990; repr. with corrections 1995]).

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

291

sacra must rely on other criteria and should not automatically be considered either Christian or Jewish. These identifying criteria are: the source material—papyrus or leather; the format—roll or codex; and the manner in which the script is oriented, both relative to the writing space and to the script itself. In terms of source material, leather was generally used by Jews, papyrus by both communities. Christian manuscripts are invariably codices, while Jewish manuscripts may use either the roll or codex formats. And, in terms of the layout of the text, Jewish manuscripts, like the earliest manuscripts discussed above, tend generally to care about beauty and magnificence, more than Christian ones. According to the view that prevailed until 1973, the overwhelming majority of Greek biblical manuscripts were Christian. The first to specify clear criteria for distinguishing between Jewish and Christian papyri was Kurt Treu.9 The new criteria that he posited significantly expanded the number of papyri associated with the Jewish world and broadened scholarly perceptions of the influence of Jewish scribal practices on Christian scribes. From this point onward, two main approaches have dominated papyrological research: Treu, and Robert Kraft10 in his wake, adhere to the expansive approach, while Colin Roberts11 and Larry Hurtado12 tend to minimize the number of Jewish papyri. The debate centers mainly on papyri that lack clear identifying markers. The question therefore is the extent to which it is possible to determine the identity of biblical papyri that display indistinct identifying markers. We will present a number of examples that illustrate the debate. To begin with, the fourth-century P.Lond.Lit. 211 contains two verses of the Theodotion translation of Daniel and displays the following typically Jewish characteristics: it is a parchment; most probably from a roll, since it is written on recto only; the word θεός is uncontracted; and the script is elegant, similar to that

9 10 11 12

Kurt Treu, “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich,” Kairos 15 (1973): 123–44. Robert A. Kraft, “The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish lxx/og Papyri and Fragments,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, ed. S. McKendrick and O. A. O’Sullivan (London: British Library, 2003), 51–72. Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt: The Schweich Lectures 1977 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). Larry W. Hurtado, “The Earliest Evidence of an Emerging Christian Material and Visual Culture: The Codex, the Nomina Sacra and the Staurogram,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, ed. M. R. Desjardins and S. G. Wilson, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9 (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 2000), 271–88; idem, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

292

Hacham and Lange

of other Jewish texts. Since it manifests four criteria of Jewishness, even Colin Roberts concedes that it is Jewish.13 P.Harris 31 (Birmingham, Woodbrooke College) is a small fragment of an elegantly inscribed papyrus roll or amulet, from the third or fourth century, containing part of Psalm 43. Here, the beginning of the word ὁ θεός is uncontracted. Like P.Lond.Lit. 211, these characteristics mean that it must be regarded as Jewish.14 The fact that a codex does not necessarily denote a Christian source is attested by P.Oxy. 656.15 This papyrus codex, assigned to the second or third century, contains no abbreviations of nomina sacra, but does feature θεός and κύριος uncontracted. Where the Tetragrammaton should be written, the first scribe left a blank space, filled in by a second hand with κύριος, uncontracted. Robert Kraft notes that two remaining passages probably feature the abbreviated form κ̅ υ̅ (κυρίου).16 In any event, in this case we have a characteristic that is regarded as typically Christian—a codex format—but in a Jewish text from Oxyrhynchus.17 Emanuel Tov notes that “the isolated case of … P.Oxy. 4.656 … is unclear.”18 However, we maintain that it must necessarily be concluded that the codex criterion is not an absolute criterion, and that the determination of the Christian provenance of a papyrus must rely on additional factors. On the other hand, P.Oxy. 1075,19 a third-century papyrus roll, records the end of the book of Exodus and features the contracted form κ̅ υ̅ (κύριου), while the words “sons of Israel” are uncontracted. There is some consciousness of word or phrase division in addition to one high stop and space after Exod 40:28. The roll form, the uncontracted words, and the writing style confirm this as a Jewish papyrus. This demonstrates that Jewish papyri, too, contain contracted forms of the word κύριος, meaning that the use of nomina sacra was no less Jewish than Christian. It is important to mention that the verso of this papyrus 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Herbert J. M. Milne, ed., Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1927), 179–80; Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 77. For the text, see George D. Kilpatrick, “A Fragment of PS. XLIII (lxx). 20–3,” Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1949): 176–77; for its Jewishness, see Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 77. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IV (London: British Exploration Society, 1904), 28–36. Kraft, “Textual Mechanics,” 60–61. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 76–77; Colin H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: The British Academy, 1983), 41. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert, stjd 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 315 n. 364. Arthur S. Hunt, ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri VIII (London: British Exploration Society, 1908), 5–6.

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

293

records seventeen lines from Revelation written in a different and slightly later hand. It thus seems that the original Jewish text was later reused by Christians. The Jewish identity of other manuscripts that have the format of a roll is less certain. We know, however, of almost no Christian roll from late antiquity that contains books from the Old or New Testament. Therefore, P.Harris 166,20 a third-century papyrus roll of Exodus 22–23, which evinces no instances of nomina sacra but contains open and closed subunits, can be regarded as a Jewish text principally because of the roll format.21 The question becomes more difficult in relation to rolls with κύριος contracted, like P.Alex. 203, containing Isaiah 48,22 where the verso is blank. It seems, however, that in this case too, the papyrus has to be regarded as a Jewish one, because of the roll format. A similar case is P.Oxy. 1166.23 This is a third-century papyrus roll that contains the word κύριος contracted but not ἀνθρώπος. The writing style is biblical majuscule, with a few short blank spaces between verses. Although Roberts concludes that “it is perhaps more likely … Christian,”24 Treu and Kraft are less sure;25 it seems to us that the roll format, taken together with uncontracted anthropos and the writing style, suggest a Jewish origin. A similar situation exists with Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Gr. bibl. g. 5 (P), containing Psalms 48–49.26 This is a second-century papyrus codex,27 with uncontracted forms of θεός and ἄνθρωπος restored, conclusively (Treu) or less confidently (Roberts).28 The uncontracted form hints to the manuscript’s Jewish origin, although there is no clear indication. We would group this manuscript, with Treu, to the Jewish side. To this point, the discussion has elicited a number of conclusions. Positive absence of Christian nomina sacra—i.e., the appearance of uncontracted words—attests, with high probability to the Jewishness of a papyrus. The 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I. Andorlini et al., The Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham, Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicum, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 26 (Zutphen, NL: Terra, 1985), 1–5. See Hurtado, Artifacts, 184. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum; see Antonio Carlini, “P.Alex. inv. 203: Septuaginta, Isaias 48, 6 sgg,” Annali Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, ser. 3, 2.2 (1972): 489–94. Arthur S. Hunt, ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IX (London: British Exploration Society, 1912), 1–2. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 77. Treu, “Bedeutung des Griechischen,” 142; Kraft, “Textual Mechanics,” 62. John W. B. Barns and George D. Kilpatrick, “A New Psalm Fragment,” Proceedings of the British Academy 43 (1957): 229–32. Treu’s note (“Bedeutung des Griechischen,” 142) that it is parchment is a scribal mistake. Treu, “Bedeutung des Griechischen,” 142; Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 13, 77.

294

Hacham and Lange

appearance of Christian nomina sacra confirms the Christian provenance of the papyrus. In the absence of this parameter, the Jewishness of a text can be established with a high degree of certainty, when accompanied by at least two of the following criteria: roll format, the use of parchment, and the excellent quality of the writing. Moreover, it seems that the roll format alone is sufficient to determine the Jewishness of a text with a high degree of certainty. On the other hand, in the absence of these three criteria the text might be—though by no means irrefutably so—Christian in origin. We must keep in mind that at least one early papyrus codex, P.Oxy. 656, is identifiably Jewish. Therefore, a text inscribed upon a papyrus codex might be either Jewish or Christian. 4

Greek Translations of the Jewish Scriptures in the Vienna Collection

We turn now to the Vienna collection. What can the Vienna collection contribute to solving this enigma? Since P.Vindob. G 39777 is discussed by Emanuel Tov in his contribution to the present volume,29 we will focus here on two other manuscripts from the Vienna collection that, in all probability, document the use of Old Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures by Egyptian Jews in the fifth and sixth centuries respectively; namely, P.Vindob. G 29525 (which includes G 30465, 30893, 39786, 40405), and P.Vindob. G 02322. 4.1 P.Vindob. G 29525 (including G 30465, 30893, 39786, 40405) The individual pieces of papyrus P.Vindob. G 29525 were brought together by Kurt Treu only in 1983.30 Treu’s publication shows that the various papyrus fragments derive all from one column or leaf containing parts of lxx Ps 9:12– 25 (= mt Ps 9:12–21 and 10:1–4). The manuscript was acquired in 1886 and comes from Hermopolis Magna. The paleographic dates given in publications vary. Wessely dated the Vienna papyrus in his editio princeps to the early fourth century.31 Both Sanz and Treu corrected this to a fifth century date.32 29 30

31 32

Emanuel Tov, “P.Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus) and the Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts,” in the present volume, pp. 302–15. Kurt Treu, “24. lxx, Psalm 9, 12–25 auf Einzelblatt,” in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), 2 vols. (Vienna: Hollinek, 1983), 1:268. Earlier editions of individual fragments of this manuscript were done by Wessely (see following note) and Sanz (see n. 32 below). Carl Wessely, Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, vol. 15, Griechische und Koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts IV (Leipzig: Haessels, 1914), 104 no. 234. See Peter Sanz, “Christliche Papyri aus der Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibliothek zu Wien” (PhD diss., University of Vienna, 1936), 189, no. 31; idem, Griechische literarische

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

295

With three exceptions, the text of papyrus P.Vindob. G 29525 agrees with the og text of Psalm 9 as reconstructed by Rahlfs in his Göttingen edition. Two variants are orthographic:33 1. In verse 23, the Vienna manuscript reads ἐνπυρίζεται with a nü instead of the ἐμπυρίζεται with a mü. 2. Also in verse 23, the Vienna manuscript reads πτοχος with an omicron instead of πτωχός with an omega. 3. The other variant is reconstructed. In verse 21, the word διάψαλμα is missing in Treu’s edition of the manuscript. It translates the Hebrew word ‫ ֶסּ ָלה‬. Before Treu demonstrated that the preserved text extents over twenty-nine lines, earlier publications classified papyrus P.Vindob. G 29525 as an amulet, due to the decorative elements at the bottom margin of the page.34 Treu and de Bruyn35 argued against the interpretation of papyrus P.Vindob. G 29525 as an amulet because of the manuscript’s large size and because the preserved text ends at the bottom of the sheet in the middle of verse 25. Treu classified the manuscript instead as an “Einzelblatt.”36 In our opinion the solution to the character and origin of P.Vindob. G 29525 can be found at the back of the manuscript. The verso was originally uninscribed, pointing to either a scroll or a single page with text written only on the recto. Given that the last line of the page ends in the middle of Ps 9:25, it is likely that the manuscript preserves remnants from one column of a larger Psalms scroll. One or two other hands wrote on the back of the scroll a collection of signs and various characters. These include two or three Hebrew characters, namely lamed, alef, and maybe a final kaf. These Hebrew characters are interspersed

33 34

35

36

Papyri christlichen Inhaltes, vol. 1, Biblica, Väterschriften und Verwandtes (Baden bei Wien: Rohrer, 1946), 19–20, no. 5. Neither orthographic variant is noted in the apparatus of Rahlfs’ Göttingen edition of Psalms. See Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 3rd uncorrected ed., svtg 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 91. Sanz, “Christliche Papyri,” 189; idem, Griechische literarische Papyri, 19–20. Thus even after Treu’s edition, Hermann Harrauer and Christian Gastgeber, “Bibeltexte im Alltag: Schutzamulette,” in Ein Buch verändert die Welt: Älteste Zeugnisse der Heiligen Schrift aus der Zeit des frühen Christentums in Ägypten, ed. H. Froschauer et al., Nilus 7 (Vienna: Phoibos, 2003), 35–45, esp. 37–38; idem, “Bibel und Amulett,” in Alles echt: Älteste Belege zur Bibel aus Ägypten, ed. J. Schefzyk (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 37–43, esp. 38. Treu, “24. lxx, Psalm 9, 12–25 auf Einzelblatt,” 268; Theodore de Bruyn, “Papyri, Parch­ ments, Ostraca, and Tablets Written with Biblical Texts in Greek and Used as Amulets: A Preliminary List,” in Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach, ed. T. J. Kraus and T. Nicklas, tents 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 145–89, esp. 159. Treu, “24. lxx, Psalm 9, 12–25 auf Einzelblatt.”

296

Hacham and Lange

among what are either meaningless movements of the calamus or magical signs. In the former case the verso of P.Vindob. G 29525 would preserve a scribal exercise; in the latter case it would be an amulet. To us an amulet with magical signs seems more likely because of the mixture of Hebrew characters with other signs. This means a single column of a former psalms scroll was reused secondarily as an amulet. For this purpose, some time after the fifth century, the Hebrew characters and magical signs were added on the back. Hebrew characters in scribal exercises or otherwise argue for a Jewish origin of P.Vindob. G 29525. Such a Jewish origin is all the more likely, because our papyrus is the only known Psalms scroll from the fifth century CE. We will come back to this point below. 4.2 Manuscript P.Vindob. G 02322 Manuscript P.Vindob. G 02322 is a rather long and narrow strip of a very thin parchment which is 40.5 cm long and 8.0–8.5 cm wide. The left-hand side of the parchment is the result of a clean and somewhat curved cut. On the right-hand side, the margin is a little bit more lacerated. On the upper end, the parchment bends slightly to the right. Closer examination shows that the leather is somewhat contracted. The shrinkage could be due to exposure to humidity. Beyond its acquisition in Egypt, the provenance of the manuscript is uncertain. At the top and sides of the manuscript no margins exist. There is a 5 cm margin at the bottom. The manuscript contains Psalm 26 [27]. The psalm is completely preserved and written in small majuscule characters on the flesh side of the parchment. In his editio princeps, Wessely dates the manuscript on paleographic grounds to the sixth century CE.37 The parchment is so thin that on the verso the ink from the recto shines through and many characters can be easily recognized on verso of the manuscript. In several cases the ink ate through the parchment and produced small, character-shaped holes. On the verso of the bottom margin another hand wrote the Greek alphabet in somewhat larger uncials than the ones used for Psalm 26 on the recto. The text of Psalm 26 in this manuscript is classified as a mixed text by Rahlfs in the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint of Psalms.38 It attests to several orthographic and textual variant readings towards the og as reconstructed by Rahlfs, without a clear affiliation to any Greek text or text family.

37 38

Karl Wessely, “Eine Pergamentrolle des VI. Jahrhunderts,” Wiener Studien: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie 4 (1882): 214–23. See Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 71.

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

297

There are two possibilities for how P.Vindob. G 02322 was produced. Wessely seems to think that manuscript G 02322 always contained only Psalm 26. In this case, it would preserve remains of a small rotolus probably produced from a leftover piece of scrap leather. The scrap leather might have first been used for a scribal exercise; later on, Psalm 26 would have been copied on its flesh side. Or alternatively, the psalm was written first, on the flesh side, and the alphabet later, on the hair side. Another possibility would be that P.Vindob. G 02322 was cut out of a larger Greek Psalms scroll with narrow columns, of which it was a part. This might have been done already a long time ago, in order to salvage the text of Psalm 26 out of a damaged Psalms scroll. Alternatively, an antiquities dealer of the nineteenth century might have cut the psalm out of our hypothetical scroll in order to make more money from an individual manuscript. One important consideration is likely to help determine the identity of these Vienna Septuagint texts. The famous Handschriftenverzeichnis of the Göttingen Septuagint lists hundreds of manuscripts dating from the second century BCE through the eighth century CE.39 Of these hundreds of manuscripts only thirty are scrolls. Fourteen or fifteen of these scrolls come from the second century BCE through the first century CE. Only sixteen are from the second century or later. Given the prominence of the codex in late ancient and early medieval Christianity and the overwhelming dominance of the codex format from the fifth century CE, it seems likely to us that at least papyrus P.Vindob. G 29525, and probably also manuscript P.Vindob. G 02322, are of Jewish provenance. Both manuscripts would thus document the use of lxx Psalms among Egyptian Jews of late antiquity. 5

Conclusions

The present study points to a set of criteria for the identification of Jewish manuscripts in antiquity and late antiquity: 1) The positive absence of Christian nomina sacra—i.e. the appearance of uncontracted words; 2) The roll format; 3) The use of parchment; 4) The excellent quality of writing. 39

Alfred Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, vol. 1.1, Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert, rev. D. Fraenkel, SVTPSup 1.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

298

Hacham and Lange

All of these characteristics attest to the Jewishness of a papyrus. The results we have reached above are thus closer to Kurt Treu and Robert Kraft’s conception and contrary to the approach advocated by Colin Roberts and Larry Hurtado. They modify, in no small measure, the historical picture of the Jewish and Christian presence in Egypt of the first centuries CE. From the Jewish perspective, the more that biblical manuscripts may be identified as Jewish, the more it will emerge that Jews continued to exist in Egypt even after the Diaspora Revolt. Though Egyptian Jews suffered greatly from this revolt, their complete disappearance should not be assumed. From the standpoint of early Christian history, one of the main considerations for assessing the rapid spread of Christianity in Egypt during the first centuries CE is the prevalence of Christian literary papyri. The two hundred papyri of the New Testament and the approximately eighty papyri of patristic writings collated by van Haelst unequivocally point to a burgeoning Christian presence.40 These artifacts join the Greek biblical papyri to attest the vast spread of Christianity already by the second and third centuries CE. The reassessment of the Christian provenance of these biblical papyri calls this historical model into question. There is, however, a further possibility to be considered. The discussion has hitherto presupposed a binary history of Jews and Christians in Egypt; in other words, that only two possibilities exist—that a text is either Jewish or Christian. However, it is well known that during the first centuries of the Common Era there were various groups of Jewish Christian—Jews who, in various forms, accepted Jesus’s mission and who recognized the authority of several New Testament works. The existence of these groups upends the binary assumption and posits a much broader range of possibilities of interconnection between Judaism and Christianity. In view of this it is possible that a number of the surviving papyrological texts of the Greek Bible are neither Jewish nor Christian or, conversely and perhaps more precisely—both Jewish and Christian. This casts a different light on the absence of unequivocal characteristics manifested by a portion of the papyri. Perhaps at least some of these came from communities that retained Jewish traditions while absorbing elements of Christian scribal practice. It is understandably difficult to pinpoint with any certainty papyri that contain Christian Jewish texts; the dearth of information regarding the Christian Jews in Egypt, as well as the paucity of knowledge concerning Christianity in Egypt during the first three centuries CE, is not helpful to this theory. Yet the 40

Joseph van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus littéraires Juifs et Chrétiens (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976).

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

299

ambiguous nature of the papyrological artifacts perhaps mirrors an equally ambiguous reality. Furthermore, the fact that Jews utilized Greek biblical translations, including the Septuagint, is famously recorded in Christian sources such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr, as previously mentioned. In view of this, it is not impossible that unidentified papyri of the Septuagint, too, were used by Jews. Following Treu and Kraft, there appears to be a basis for the theory that would augment the number of Jewish papyri of the Septuagint from the early centuries CE beyond that which earlier scholarship had assumed. This bounty suggests that even after the Diaspora Revolt, and certainly by the end of the second century and throughout the third, there was a sizeable Jewish presence in Egypt that was further bolstered over the following centuries. Bibliography Andorlini, I. et al. The Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicum, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 26. Zutphen, NL: Terra, 1985. Aly, Zaki. Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. A Photographic Edition Prepared with the International Photographic Archive of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 27. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Barns, John W. B., and George D. Kilpatrick. “A New Psalm Fragment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 43 (1957): 229–32. Carlini, Antonio. “P.Alex. inv. 203: Septuaginta, Isaias 48, 6 sgg.” Annali Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, ser. 3, 2.2 (1972): 489–94. Colomo, Daniela, and W. B. Henry. “5101. Psalms (Fragments).” Pages 1–11 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXVII. Edited by A. Benaissa. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2011. De Bruyn, Theodore. “Papyri, Parchments, Ostraca, and Tablets Written with Biblical Texts in Greek and Used as Amulets: A Preliminary List.” Pages 145–89 in Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach. Edited by T. J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. tents 5. Leiden: Brill, 2010. De Lange, Nicholas, ed. The Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism, https://gbbj.org/. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue.” Pages 371–84 in Jews of Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by R. Bonfil et al. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14. Leiden: Brill, 2012. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews.” Pages 39–54 in The Old Testament in Byzantium. Edited by P. Magdalino and R. Nelson. Dumbarton

300

Hacham and Lange

Oaks Symposia and Colloquia. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010. De Lange, Nicholas. “Jewish Greek Bible Versions.” Pages 56–68 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 2: From 600–1450. Edited by R. Marsden and E. A. Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. De Lange, Nicholas. Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah. tsaj 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. De Lange, Nicholas. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Dunand, Françoise. Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266.): Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome (Introduction). Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire 27. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1966. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IV. London: British Exploration Society, 1904. Hacham, Noah, and Tal Ilan. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum IV. Berlin: de Gruyter; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2020. Hacham, Noah, and Tal Ilan. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum V: The Early Roman Period (30 BCE–117 CE). Berlin: de Gruyter; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2022. Haelst, Joseph van. Catalogue des Papyrus littéraires Juifs et Chrétiens. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976. Harrauer, Hermann, and Christian Gastgeber. “Bibeltexte im Alltag: Schutzamulette.” Pages 35–45 in Ein Buch verändert die Welt: Älteste Zeugnisse der Heiligen Schrift aus der Zeit des frühen Christentums in Ägypten. Edited by H. Froschauer et al. Nilus 7. Vienna: Phoibos, 2003. Harrauer, Hermann, and Christian Gastgeber. “Bibel und Amulett.” Pages 37–43 in Alles echt: Älteste Belege zur Bibel aus Ägypten. Edited by J. Schefzyk. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Hunt, Arthur S., ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri VIII. London: British Exploration Society, 1908. Hunt, Arthur S., ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IX. London: British Exploration Society, 1912. Hurtado, Larry W. “The Earliest Evidence of an Emerging Christian Material and Visual Culture: The Codex, the Nomina Sacra and the Staurogram.” Pages 271–88 in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Edited by M. R. Desjardins and S. G. Wilson. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Waterloo: Willfried Laurier University Press, 2000. Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Kilpatrick, George D. “A Fragment of PS. XLIII (LXX). 20–3.” jts 50 (1949): 176–77.

Greek Jewish Biblical Papyri: A Reconsideration

301

Kraft, Robert A. “The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments.” Pages 51–72 in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick and O. A. O`Sullivan. London: British Library, 2003. Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation: Edited with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Luchner, K. “4443. LXX, Esther E16–9.3.” Pages 4–8 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXV Edited by M. W. Haslam et al. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1998. Milne, Herbert J. M., ed. Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1927. Parsons, Peter J. “3522. LXX Job 42:11–12.” Pages 1–3 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri L. Edited by A. K. Bowman et al. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis. 3rd uncorrected ed. svtg 10. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Rahlfs, Alfred. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1.1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert. Revised by Detlef Fraenkel. SVTGSup 1.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Roberts, Colin H. Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1936. Roberts, Colin H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt: The Schweich Lectures 1977. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Roberts, Colin H. and T. C. Skeat. The Birth of the Codex. London: The British Academy, 1983. Sanz, Peter. “Christliche Papyri aus der Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibliothek zu Wien.” PhD diss., University of Vienna, 1936. Sanz, Peter. Griechische literarische Papyri Christlichen Inhaltes. Vol. 1, Biblica, Väterschriften und Verwandtes. Baden bei Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1946. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert. stdj 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “P. Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus) and the Use of the Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts.” Pages 302–15 in the present volume. Treu, Kurt. “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im Romischen Reich.” Kairos 15 (1973): 123–44. Treu, Kurt. “24. LXX, Psalm 9, 12–25 auf Einzelblatt.” Page 268 in vol. 1 of Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.). Vienna: Hollinek, 1983. Wessely, Karl. “Eine Pergamentrolle des VI. Jahrhunderts.” Wiener Studien: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie 4 (1882): 214–23. Wessely, Carl. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde. Vol. 15: Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts IV. Leipzig: Haessels, 1914.

chapter 10

P.Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus) and the Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts Emanuel Tov 1

Introduction

The Psalms fragments of P.Vindob. G 39777, probably from the Fayum in Egypt, kept at the Austrian National Library, were published as samples of Aquila’s translation in an editio princeps by Wessely and subsequently also by Capelle.1 At a later stage Mercati suggested that the fragments may have been part of the translation by Symmachus (approximately 200 CE),2 and this view became the communis opinio in scholarship. Indeed, anyone who is familiar with Aquila’s style recognizes immediately that the free translation style of these fragments does not suit that translator, while it would be typical of Symmachus. This paper examines the representation of the divine name in these fragments to illuminate the wider question of the representation of the divine name in Greek Scripture texts. 2

P.Vindob. G 39777 and Its Divine Names in Context

Roberts described the two fragments (Ps 69 [lxx 68]:13–14, 31–32 and 81 [80]:11–14) as deriving from a parchment roll of Psalms dating to the third or fourth century CE.3 These fragments have been mentioned in many sources,4 1 Carl Wessely, “Un nouveau fragment de la version grecque du Vieux Testament par Aquila,” in Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Chatelain (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1910), 224–29; idem, Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, 23 vols. (Leipzig: Haessel, 1901– 1924), 9:171 (containing only a transcription); Paul Capelle, “Fragments du Psautier d’Aquila?” RBén 28 (1911): 64–68. The contents of the fragment are also provided by José Ramón Busto Saiz, but this is not a publication in the usual sense of the word; idem, La traducción de Símaco en el Libro de los Salmos, Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 22 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1978), 422–23. 2 Giovanni Mercati, “Frammenti di Aquila o di Simmaco?” rb 8 (1911): 266–72. 3 Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, The Schweich Lectures 1977 (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), 32. 4 Among them: Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 19 n. 16; 103 n. 27; Joseph van Haelst, Catalogue © Emanuel Tov, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_011

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

303

and their full publication history and physical description are provided by A. Rahlfs and D. Fraenkel.5 P.Vindob. G 39777 includes the fragmentary remains of respectively three and five lines of two columns of Psalm 69 (lxx: 68) and five lines of one column of Psalm 81 (lxx: 80) in the version of Symmachus. The readings of Symmachus show his free translation style that has been analyzed by Busto Saiz for Symmachus in Psalms in general,6 with no special focus on this fragment. The most remarkable feature of the Vienna fragments is the writing of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters in the following verses: Ps 69 (lxx: 68):14, 31, 32. The fragment also includes the uncontracted form of the divine name θεoῦ (69 [68]:31). We do not know whether Symmachus himself represented the Tetragrammaton with paleo-Hebrew characters or whether this type of writing was initiated by the third–fourth century scribe of the fragment. However, in light of parallel evidence it is likely that Symmachus employed this technique in 200 CE, since it had been used as early as the end of the first century BCE in the Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever.7 Remarkably, in another source representing the translation of Symmachus in the fourth column of the Hexapla, the Tetragrammaton is likewise transmitted in Hebrew characters, but this time in the square Aramaic script. This is no independent witness, however, since the other columns of the Hexapla8 likewise present the Tetragrammaton in the square script.9

5 6

7 8 9

des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens, Papyrologie 1 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976), 167. Alfred Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, ed. D. Fraenkel, SVTGSup 1.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 428. Busto Saiz, La traducción de Símaco. For a good summary of Symmachus’s translation technique and lexical approach see Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, jss Mono­ graphs 15 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991), 283–97; and Felix Albrecht, “Die alexandrinische Bibelübersetzung,” in Alexandria, ed. T. Georges et al., comes 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 209–43 (233–34). See Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I), djd 8 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). See the Hexapla in the Psalms fragments published by Giovanni Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1958). For example, Ps 31(30):22, 24, 25; 32 (31): 10, 11. Some of these instances are transmitted in the later transmission of Symmachus with Greek characters as ΠΙΠΙ, for example in Ps 32(31):10 in the Auctarium of Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 2:*17. These Greek characters graphically resemble the square letters ‫יהוה‬. See below.

304 3

Tov

The Writing of the Tetragrammaton in Early Greek Biblical Translations

There is no consensus with regard to the original form of the presentation of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek translations, whether in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script, or any other way. The present paper presents renewed thinking on this question. Chronological considerations of the dates of the fragments are irrelevant. The paleo-Hebrew script preceded the Aramaic script, but it is possible that writing in paleo-Hebrew script reflects the revival of that script in the Hasmonean period. In any event, neither script was understandable to Greek readers at a later stage, and special scribes were needed to write words in these Hebrew scripts in some Greek manuscripts. Therefore, empty spaces were left for the writing of the divine name in P.Ryl. Gr. 458 of 2 BCE (Rahlfs 957) that were subsequently filled in everywhere, while one was left empty in Deut 26:18. Likewise, in P.Oxy. 4.656 of Genesis spaces were left open and filled in (see below). In P.Fouad 266b (Ra 848, middle of first century BCE), with portions of Deuteronomy 17–33, the first scribe left spaces for the Tetragrammaton that were subsequently filled in by the square script Tetragrammata written by the second scribe (see below).10 The representation of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew and Greek sources has drawn much interest, but many aspects remain enigmatic. While a full analysis starts with the Hebrew texts, the present analysis is limited to Greek texts. Two issues are at stake: 1. What was the shape of the representation of the name of God in the Old Greek translation? The two major options were either 1) a transliteration of the name of ‫ יהוה‬as ΙΑΩ or the like: or 2) a translation, κύριος (Lord), based on a pronunciation of ‫ יהוה‬as adonay (my Lord). Much has been written on this question, before the evidence on the transcription ΙΑΩ in 4QpapLXXLevb became known, as well as afterwards. 2. What is the background of a transcription—that is, the writing in Hebrew characters—of the name of God in the middle of the Greek text, as in the fragment of Symmachus? It is actually quite unusual to present a word in a script different from that of the surrounding document. We are not talking here about transliterations, of which there are 10

See W. G. Waddell, “The Tetragrammaton in the LXX,” jts 45 (1944): 156–61; Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, stdj 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 220. Many additional examples of this kind were provided by Frank Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iαω, cbet 70 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 265–67.

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

305

many in the Hebrew Bible—such as the Egyptian name of Joseph, ‫צפנת‬ ‫( פענח‬Zaphenath-paneah [nrsv]), presented in Hebrew characters in

Gen 41:45; but about writing a complete text in a totally different script. Nor are we talking about glosses, such as the Greek word Σαβαωθ next to its demotic equivalent in demotic magical papyri. Nor are we talking about the Rosetta Stone, containing three separate inscriptions in three scripts. The Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the Greek text resembles the writing of Greek words in the middle of demotic ostraca, both involving languages written in different directions.11 In all these cases, it is taken for granted that the readers were able to understand both scripts. At the same time, since only one word was represented in the Hebrew script, the reader could easily become accustomed to its shape in either paleoHebrew or Aramaic script and surmise that this configuration represented “the Lord.” The special care taken in writing the divine name was understandable. Returning to the Vienna Symmachus fragments, and noting that Symmachus was of the nature of a so-called revision of the lxx, we turn to the question of why this and other texts represented the Tetragrammaton with Hebrew characters and not with a translation such as κύριος or a transliteration such as ΙΑΩ, as in 4QpapLXXLevb. There is no answer to this question, but we can try to reply by reviewing the complete data for all the texts that use this system of representation. The earliest evidence for the use of the Tetragrammaton in any Greek translation is the Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, usually dated to the end of the first century BCE (see n. 7). Both scribes of this scroll used the paleoHebrew Tetragrammaton. The revisional nature of this scroll is evident, as it shares a common base with the og and corrects that text towards a Hebrew text close to the proto-Masoretic text. As part of the revision, named kaige-Th in modern research, the two scribes of this scroll represented the Tetragrammaton with paleo-Hebrew letters, each with a different handwriting. The custom itself probably represents the practice of the original kaige-Th translator and not the scribes of the scroll. The reason why this translator used a transliteration cannot be pinpointed. Possibly he thought that the Tetragrammaton should not 11

See the texts published by Edda Bresciani, Sergio Pernigotti, and Maria C. Betrò, Ostraka demotici da Narmuti, Biblioteca de studi egittologici 5 (Pisa: Giardini, 1983); Angiolo Menchetti, Ostraka demotici e bilingui da Narmuthis (ODN 100–188) (Pisa: ets, 2005). See further the analysis by Penelope Fewster, “Bilingualism in Roman Egypt,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, ed. J. N. Adams et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 220–45. Thanks are due to Tonio Sebastian Richter for providing these references.

306

Tov

be translated into Greek; possibly he thought that the writing in Hebrew characters was the most dignified representation of the sacred Hebrew name; or possibly he thought that the name of God must be presented as a proper name and cannot be translated. The use of the paleo-Hebrew script gave the name of God an especially dignified appearance. The best parallel for the presentation of the Tetragrammaton with Hebrew characters in Greek translations is the custom of writing the Tetragrammaton with paleo-Hebrew characters in Hebrew Qumran texts written in the square script. Paleo-Hebrew writing in Hebrew texts reflects the perception of these names as sacred, implying that they cannot be erased, while the prefixes of these names may be erased (thus y. Meg. 1:9 [71d]).12 While it is unknown whether paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammata or Tetragrammata in the Aramaic script were first used by the Greek translations, it is clear that the use of a paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton was not carried over from the Vorlage of the og, because the og did not use paleo-Hebrew characters. It has been shown in detail by Eidsvåg,13 that the og of the Minor Prophets was rendered from a text written in the square script. This had been claimed all along for all the books of the lxx on the basis of less evidence.14 The following two lists present the evidence for the use of the Tetragrammaton in early Greek sources. The major question surrounding the texts that use Tetragrammata with Hebrew characters is whether they have common characteristics. I had thought for some time that what these texts have in common is that they attempt to represent the Hebrew Bible in the most precise way possible, and that within that framework they considered the Tetragrammaton untranslatable, using the Hebrew script instead. This feature comes to the fore in the clearest way possible in the Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever. However, I now have some doubts with regard to that assumption, because not all texts using the Tetragrammaton are in the nature of early revisions, although it is still true for most of them. I first list the sources that transcribe the Tetragrammaton with Hebrew characters. Of the manuscripts that use paleo-Hebrew script, texts 1, 5, and 6 contain revisions; but texts 2, 3, and 4 (P.Oxy. 50.3522, 77.5101, and 7.1007) do not. These three fragments could reflect the og. On the other hand, all the evidence for the use of Aramaic 12 13 14

This was recognized early on in the discussion of the Qumran texts by Jonathan P. Siegel, “The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources,” huca 42 (1971): 159–72. Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg, “The Paleo-Hebrew Tetragram in 8ḤevXIIgr,” jscs 46 (2013): 86–100 (91–96). See my analysis in The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 3rd rev. ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 163–64.

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

307

square script pertains to revisional texts. I then list sources that translate the Tetragrammation with κύριος. 3.1 Representations of the Tetragrammaton with Hebrew Characters I here list the evidence for the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters in two different scripts in early sources of the Greek Bible, arranged chronologically. a. Paleo-Hebrew script (on leather and papyrus). All the sources use different letter shapes because each scribe has a different handwriting.15 Some scribes distinguish between a medial and final letter he:16 – Scribes A and B of 8ḤevXIIgr (Rahlfs 903; end of 1 c. BCE); the Tetragrammaton includes a final letter he. – P.Oxy. 50.3522 of Job 42 (Rahlfs 857; 1 c. CE); the Tetragrammaton includes a final letter he. The text of P.Oxy. 50.3522 presents a text similar to the main tradition of the lxx and not to the style of the revisions of the og.17 The language is that of the central lxx vocabulary and the free addition of καὶ ἐθαύμασαν shows that it could not have been a revision of the og. – P.Oxy. 77.5101 of Psalms 27, 45, 48–50, 64–65 (Rahlfs 2227; 1–2 c. CE), “probably the earliest extant copy of the Septuagint Psalms.”18 – P.Oxy. 7.1007 (leather) of Genesis 2–3 (Rahlfs 907; 3 c. CE) = PLit.Lond. 199; the Tetragrammaton consists of a double yod written with a horizontal stroke through both letters, also known from Jewish coins of 15 16

17 18

An ancient testimony to this custom is preserved in Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus (Praef. in Libr. Sam. et Malach.; PL 28:594–6): “Et nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam Graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus.” For analyses, see Hartmut Stegemann, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ Ο ΘΕΟΣ und ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ: Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des religiösen Gebrauchs von ΚΥΡΙΟΣ und seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament (Habilitationsschrift, University of Bonn, 1969), 110–33, 194–228; Patrick W. Skehan, “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint,” bioscs 13 (1980): 16–44; Giovanni Mercati, “Sulla scrittura del tetragramma nelle antiche versioni greche del Vecchio Testamento,” Bib 22 (1941): 339–66; Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 26–48; Larry W. Hurtado, “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal,” jbl 117 (1998): 655–73. Thus already Peter J. Parsons in the publication of this text: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri L, ed. A. K. Bowman et al., Graeco-Roman Memoirs 70 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), 1. Thus the editors, Daniela Colomo and W. B. Henry, “5101. LXX, Psalms xxvi 9–14, xliv 4–8, xlvii 13–15, xlviii 6–21, xlix 2–16, lxiii 6–lxiv 5,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXVII, ed. A Benaissa, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 98 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2011), 1–11 (2). See also Jannes Smith, “The Text-Critical Significance of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5101 (Ra 2227) for the Old Greek Psalter,” jscs 45 (2012): 5–22 (5).

308

b.

19

20

21

22 23

Tov

the second century CE. (At the same time, this text also has the abbreviated θ(εό)ς, which could point to a Christian scribe.) The text of P.Oxy. 7.1007 presents a text similar to the main tradition of the lxx and not to either Aquila or Theodotion.19 There is no reason to believe that this fragment was close to Symmachus. – P.Vindob. G 39777 of Psalms 68, 80 in the version of Symmachus (3–4 c. CE). – The Aquila fragments of Kings and Psalms from the Cairo Genizah published by Burkitt (6 c. CE)20 and Taylor (5–6 c. CE).21 In the Burkitt fragments the yod and waw are identical. Square Aramaic script. The Tetragrammaton is also represented by the square Hebrew script. The letters themselves were no longer understood in later times, when they were taken as the similarly shaped Greek letters πιπι, subsequently transliterated into Syriac. – P.Fouad 266b (Ra 848, middle of 1 BCE), with portions of Deuteronomy 17–33; the first scribe left spaces for the Tetragrammaton that were subsequently filled in by the square script Tetragrammata written by the second scribe. – ΠΙΠΙ in several Hexaplaric manuscripts (Qmargin, 86 [Barberinus], 88 [Chisianus], 234margin, 264) (6–7 c. CE–10–11 c. CE).22 – ΠΙΠΙ in the Hexapla fragments of Ps 22:15–18, 20–28 published by Taylor (7 c. CE) (columns of Aquila, Symmachus, and lxx).23 In one detail P.Oxy. 7.1007 differs from Aquila; in 2:19, this papyrus reads κ̣[ατ αυτον, while Aquila reads ὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ (according to M 235). In other details it deviates from mt in a fashion that is uncharacteristic of Aquila. In v. 24 the fragment does not represent the pronominal suffixes of ‫ אביו‬and ‫ ;אמו‬it has a plus of οι δυο against mt (cf. v. 25); and the last word in 3:6 has a plural form as opposed to mt. F. Crawford Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor … and S. Schechter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 4–5, 21–25. The fragments from the Cairo Genizah are inventoried as Cambridge UL, T-S 12.184 and UL, T-S 20.50. Charles Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter Collection, Including a Fragment of the Twenty-Second Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 54–65. These fragments are inventoried as Cambridge UL, T-S 12.186; UL, T-S 12.187; and UL, T-S 12.188. See Rahlfs-Fraenkel, Verzeichnis, 348. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 4–11. The fragments are inventoried as Cambridge UL, T-S 12.182. See also Benjamin Kantor, “The Oldest Fragment of Origen’s Hexapla: T-S 12.182,” Fragment of the Month, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/ 1810/298275; idem, τὸ ἑβραϊκόν | TO HEBRAIKON: A Critical Edition of the Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla (Leuven: Peeters), forthcoming. Thanks are due to Dr. Kantor for making these sources accessible to me.

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

309

– ‫ פיפי‬in the Syriac script in the margins of Syro-Hexapla manuscripts, such as the Codex Ambrosianus ms C 313 Inf. (8 or 9 c. CE). – ‫יהוה‬: The second (transliterated) column as well as the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth columns of the Hexapla by Aquila, Symmachus, the “lxx” and the “Quinta” in the Mercati fragments, e.g., Ps 18 (17):31, 32, 42 of the Hexapla of Psalms published by Mercati (10 c. CE).24 – ΠΙΠΙ in the Catena manuscripts, Rahlfs 1122 and 1173, containing Hexaplaric fragments as published by Schenker (11 and 12 c. CE).25 As is clear from this list, we have no means of determining which of these two usages represents the earlier custom. There is equally early evidence in favor of both the square Aramaic script (P.Fouad 266b [Ra 848; middle of 1 c. BCE]) and the paleo-Hebrew script (scribes A and B of 8ḤevXIIgr [Rahlfs 903; end of 1 c. BCE]). Representation of the Tetragrammaton with Either a Transliteration or κύριος – 4QpapLXXLevb (Rahlfs 802) of Leviticus 2–5 (1 c. BCE) transliterated the Tetragrammaton as ΙΑΩ (preceded and followed by a space) in Lev 3:12.26 This transcription is unique among the witnesses of Greek Scripture.27 See further below. – The first scribe of P.Oxy. 4.656 of Genesis 14–27 (Rahlfs 292; 2 or 3 c. CE) left spaces for the divine name (Tetragrammaton?), as in P.Fouad 266b (848; middle of 1 c. BCE); these were filled in by a second hand with the unabbreviated form of κύριος in 15:8; 24:31, 42. According to van Haelst,28 these occurrences of κύριος were written with a different pen. – All the uncial manuscripts of the lxx as well as P.Chester Beatty VI (Numbers–Deuteronomy) of 2 or 3 c. CE represented the divine name with

3.2

24 25 26 27

28

Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae. Adrian Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke: Die hexaplarischen Psalmenfragmente der Handschriften Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62, obo 8 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 248 and passim. See the analysis by Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use, with much bibliography. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. with a foreword by Robert A. Kraft and Emanuel Tov (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 76, misleadingly quotes in the list of the personal names a marginal reading ΙΑΩ from Codex Marchalianus (Q) in Ezek 1:2 and 11:1. These readings refer to Ιωακειμ in 1:2 and to ‫ בניהו‬in 11:1, represented in this note as οικος ιαω. They are not mentioned in the edition of Joseph Ziegler, Ezechiel, svtg 16.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952), 91, 128. Van Haelst, Catalogue, 17.

310

Tov

κύριος, usually without the article.29 This use probably represents a later stage in the development of the translation. There is no consensus among scholars which system was used by the first translators and where the Vienna fragment would fit in. Most, but not all, of the texts that transcribe the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters reflect early revisions; for these revisions, the employment of Hebrew characters was considered a sign of authenticity and antiquity, by which the reviser attempted to get close to the Hebrew original. A parallel phenomenon occurred in several Hebrew Qumran manuscripts written in square Aramaic script, mainly nonbiblical texts, in which the Tetragrammaton was written in paleo-Hebrew characters.30 This practice, reflected in both Hebrew and Greek sources, thus indicates reverence for the ineffable name of God.31 4

Concluding Observations

In the reconstruction of the history of the Greek versions, the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters, mainly in Greek revisional manuscripts, is a relatively late phenomenon. Given the available evidence, the analysis of the original representation of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek Scriptures therefore focuses on the question of whether the first translators wrote either κύριος or ΙΑΩ, as in the Qumran papyrus.32 According to Pietersma, Rösel, Perkins, and Smith, the first translators wrote κύριος, mainly without the article, considered a personal name in the Greek Torah, as “the written surrogate for the tetragram” (Pietersma).33 Rösel provides his own 29 30 31

32

33

See Wolf Wilhelm von Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, ed. O. Eissfeldt, 4 vols. (Giessen: Topelmann, 1926–1929), passim; and Stegemann, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, 200–202. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 238–46. It is not impossible that the custom of writing paleoHebrew Tetragrammata in Greek translations derived from the Hebrew Vorlagen of the Greek translations (suggestion of Dr. Oren Ableman). Origen recognized this feature, stating that the “most accurate exemplars” of Greek Scripture wrote the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (Sel. Ps.; Migne, pg 12:1104 [B]). See also Donald W. Parry, “Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts in Qumran,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. J. Bernstein et al., STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 437–49. See Kristin De Troyer, “The Pronunciation of the Names of God: With Some Notes Regarding nomina sacra,” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143–72. Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J. W. Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. A. Pietersma

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

311

arguments in favor of the originality of κύριος in the og as a representation of the later Masoretic qere (Adonay),34 and he further supports the originality of that rendering within the framework of the theology of the early translators.35 However, the internal lxx evidence offered in support of this assumption is not convincing, as all the irregularities pertaining to the anarthrous use of κύριος can also be explained as having been created by a mechanical replacement of ΙΑΩ with κύριος by later scribes. Further, there is no evidence for the use of κύριος in the pre-Christian centuries.36 It should not be forgotten that the earliest evidence for the use of κύριος is P.Oxy. 4.656, of the second or third century ce. Therefore, according to Stegemann and Skehan, ΙΑΩ reflects the earliest attested stage in the history of the lxx translation, when the name of God was represented by its transliteration, just like any other personal name in the lxx.37 Skehan38 provided important early parallels for the use of ΙΑΩ and similar forms representing the Tetragrammaton: 1) Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca historica I.29.2 (first century BCE) records that Moses referred his laws to τὸν Ιαω ἐπικαλούμενον θεόν; 2) likewise, in his commentary on Ps 2:2, Origen speaks about Ιαη (Sel. Ps.; pg 12:1104) and Ιαω (gcs 10; Origenes 4:53); 3) two onomastica used ΙΑΩ as an explanation of Hebrew theophoric names.39 The later magical papyri likewise invoke ΙΑΩ. In a similar vein, Stegemann gives a long list of arguments in favor of the assumption of the priority of this transliteration.40 This transliteration reflects an unusual

34 35 36

37 38 39 40

and C. Cox (Mississauga, on: BenBen, 1984), 85–101 (98); Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” jsot 31 (2007): 411–28. Similarly, in a more limited investigation, see Larry Perkins, “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, Articulation and Non-Articulation in Greek Exodus,” bioscs 41 (2008): 17–33; Smith, “Text-Critical Significance.” Rösel, “Reading and Translation of the Divine Name,” 413. Rösel, “Reading and Translation of the Divine Name,” 419–23. This point is made by Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, shct 179 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 62. Furthermore, the earliest evidence for the use of κύριος is P.Oxy. 4.656, from the early third century CE. Stegemann, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, 197; Skehan, “Divine Name at Qumran,” 14–44. Likewise, George E. Howard, “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” jbl 96 (1977): 63–68 (65). Skehan, “Divine Name,” 29. For full details, see Skehan, “Divine Name.” For additional references in early Christian literature, see Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton, 65. Among other things, Stegemann claims that a transliteration rather than a translation or transcription in Hebrew characters is the natural representation of this proper noun. He also claims that ΙΑΩ cannot be considered a change of an original form out of reverence to the divine name, since the use of the equivalent of ‫ יהוה‬in Greek does not prevent the pronunciation of God’s name. The fact that this system is not encountered in later manuscripts of the Greek Bible, as opposed to the other systems, is a sign of its originality rather than of its secondary nature.

312

Tov

pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, such as that known from the Elephantine papyri (‫)יהו‬.41 There is no convincing evidence in favor of any one explanation, but it seems to me that the view of Skehan and Stegemann is most plausible in light of the parallels provided. This argument serves as support for the view that ΙΑΩ in 4QpapLXXLevb reflects the og representation of ‫יהוה‬. This view is also maintained, in great detail, in recent studies by Shaw, who also mentions other scholars who prefer ΙΑΩ, as well as by Vasileiadis.42 There is one important appendix to this analysis. In section 3.1a above, I present three important fragments that feature the Tetragrammaton in paleoHebrew script but are not revisional, and may well reflect the og: P.Oxy. 50.3522 of Job 42 (Rahlfs 857; 1 c. CE); P.Oxy. 77.5101 of Psalms 27, 45, 48–50, 64–65 (Rahlfs 2227; 1–2 c. CE); P.Oxy. 7.1007 (leather) of Genesis 2–3 (Rahlfs 907; 3 c. CE). These three fragments could overturn the suggestion just put forward. We could claim that the og contained neither ΙΑΩ nor κύριος, but a Hebrew representation of the divine name. However, in my view, the evidence is too scanty for this, and I rather think that three independently thinking scribes used these Hebrew forms, in the first centuries of the Common Era. I thus support the view that the og included the Greek transliterated divine name ΙΑΩ as in the Qumran fragment 4QpapLXXLevb. The study of the Vienna fragment of Symmachus thus led to a reinvestigation of the divine names in Greek Scripture manuscripts. It provides additional evidence of the generally late practice of presenting the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters to emphasize the sanctity of that word. Bibliography Albrecht, Felix. “Die alexandrinische Bibelübersetzung.” Pages 209–43 in Alexandria. Edited by T. Georges et al. comes 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm, Graf von. Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte. Edited by O. Eissfeldt. 4 vols. Giessen: Topelmann, 1926–1929. 41 42

Cf. also ‫ הו‬in 4QDa (4Q266) 11 9, and m. Sukkah 4:5, together with J. Baumgarten, “A New Qumran Substitute for the Divine Name and Mishna Sukkah 4:5,” jqr 83 (1992): 1–5. Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, “Aspects of Rendering the Sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek,” Open Theology 1 (2014): 56–88; idem, “The Sacred Tetragrammaton and Its Reception in the Medieval Literature: A Study on the Translation of the Hebrew Theonomy with Special Emphasis on Two Bible Translations” (PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2017) (in Greek); idem, “The God Iao and His Connection with the Biblical God, with Special Emphasis on the Manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb,” Vetus Testamentum et Hellas 4 (2017): 21–51.

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

313

Baumgarten, Joseph M. “A New Qumran Substitute for the Divine Name and Mishnah Sukkah 4.5.” jqr 83 (1992): 1–5. Bowman, Alan K. et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri L. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 70. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983. Bresciani, Edda, Sergio Pernigotti, and Maria C. Betrò. Ostraka demotici da Narmuti. Biblioteca di studi egittologici 5. Pisa: Giardini, 1983. Burkitt, F. Crawford. Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor … and S. Schechter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Busto Saiz, José Ramón. La traducción de Símaco en el Libro de los Salmos. Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 22. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1978. Capelle, Paul. “Fragments du Psautier d’Aquila?” RBén 28 (1911): 64–68. Colomo, Daniela, and W. B. Henry. “5101. LXX, Psalms XXVI 9–14, XLIV 4–8, XLVII 13–15, XLVIII 6–21, XLIX 2–16, LXIII 6–LXIV 5.” Pages 1–11 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXVII. Edited by A. Benaissa. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 98. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2011. De Troyer, Kristin. “The Pronunciation of the Names of God: With Some Notes Regarding nomina sacra.” Pages 143–72 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Eidsvåg, Gunnar Magnus. “The Paleo-Hebrew Tetragram in 8ḤevXIIgr.” jscs 46 (2013): 86–100. Fewster, Penelope. “Bilingualism in Roman Egypt.” Pages 220–45 in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Edited by J. N. Adams et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Field, Frederick, ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2nd edition with a foreword by Robert A. Kraft and Emanuel Tov. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Howard, George E. “The Tetragram and the New Testament.” jbl 96 (1977): 63–68. Hurtado, Larry W. “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal.” jbl 117 (1998): 655–73. Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Kantor, Benjamin. “The Oldest Fragment of Origen’s Hexapla: T-S 12.182.” Fragment of the Month, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/298275. Kantor, Benjamin. τὸ ἑβραϊκόν | TO HEBRAIKON: A Critical Edition of the Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Menchetti, Angiolo. Ostraka demotici e bilingui da Narmuthis (ODN 100–188). Pisa: ets, 2005.

314

Tov

Mercati, Giovanni. “Frammenti di Aquila o di Simmaco?” rb 8 (1911): 266–72. Mercati, Giovanni. Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae. Vatican City: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1958. Mercati, Giovanni. “Sulla scrittura del tetragramma nelle antiche versioni greche del Vecchio Testamento.” Bib 22 (1941): 339–66. Parry, Donald W. “Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts in Qumran.” Pages 437–49 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, 1995. Edited by M. J. Bernstein et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Perkins, Larry. “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, Articulation and Non-Articulation in Greek Exodus.” bioscs 41 (2008): 17–33. Pietersma, Albert. “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX.” Pages 85–101 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by A. Pietersma and C. E. Cox. Mississauga, ON: BenBen, 1984. Rahlfs, Alfred. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, pt. 1, Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert. Edited by D. Fraenkel. SVTGSup. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Roberts, Colin H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. The Schweich Lectures 1977. London: Oxford University Press, 1979. Rösel, Martin. “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch.” jsot 31 (2007): 411–28. Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. jss Monographs 15. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. Schenker, Adrian. Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke: Die hexaplarischen Psalmenfragmente der Handschriften Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62. obo 8. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Shaw, Frank. The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iαω. cbet 70. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Siegel, Jonathan P. “The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources.” huca 42 (1971): 159–72. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint.” bioscs 13 (1980): 14–44. Smith, Jannes. “The Text-Critical Significance of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5101 (Ra 2227) for the Old Greek Psalter.” jscs 45 (2012): 5–22. Stegemann, Hartmut. ΚΥΡΙΟΣ Ο ΘΕΟΣ und ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ: Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des religiösen Gebrauchs von ΚΥΡΙΟΣ und seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament. Habilitationsschrift, University of Bonn, 1969. Taylor, Charles. Hebrew–Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor–Schechter Collection: Including a Fragment of the Twenty-second Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Use of Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts

315

Tov, Emanuel, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I). djd 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. stdj 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 3rd rev. ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Van Haelst, Joseph. Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens. Papyrologie 1. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976. Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. “Aspects of Rendering the Sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek.” Open Theology 1 (2014): 56–88. Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. “The God Iao and His Connection with the Biblical God, with Special Emphasis on the Manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb.” Vetus Testamentum et Hellas 4 (2017): 21–51. Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. “The Sacred Tetragrammaton and Its Reception in the Medieval Literature: A Study on the Translation of the Hebrew Theonomy with Special Emphasis on Two Bible Translations.” PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2017 (in Greek). Waddell, W. G. “The Tetragrammaton in the LXX.” jts 45 (1944): 158–61. Wessely, Carl. “Un nouveau fragment de la version grecque du Vieux Testament par Aquila.” Pages 224–29 in Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Chatelain. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1910. Wessely, Carl. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde. 23 vols. Leipzig: Haessel, 1910–1924. Wilkinson, Robert J. Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century. shct 179. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ziegler, Joseph. Ezechiel. svtg 16.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952.

chapter 11

A Byzantine Armband with Psalm 91(90):1 and the Rabbinic Shema in Greek: Text, Date, Provenance, and Function Nancy Benovitz 1

Introduction

The armband discussed here (diameter 7 cm) is in the collection of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem (Figs. 11.1–11.4).1 It is made of silver and probably originally consisted of eight medallions of alternating sizes: four small medallions (diameter 2.7 cm each; one now almost entirely missing) and four large medallions (diameter 3 cm each). The medallions are connected by eight narrow, lozenge-shaped links (height 1.5 cm each; one only partially preserved), the flanks of which are slightly overlapped by the medallions. The armband is broken and mended in several places. One of these breaks, where the partial link and partial medallion have been rejoined (Fig. 11.3), may have been intentional. In addition, one of the large medallions is broken on top, and 2–4 of its lines are missing. Otherwise, the armband is complete. The medallions and links are covered with a dense but neat Greek inscription. The large medallions have 13–15 lines of text each; the small medallions have 12–13 lines each. At the top of each medallion is a small incised decorative circle from which a circular outline, surrounding the text, emerges. Three of the medallions also have a small “figure-eight” or double circle at the bottom. The links have 3–5 lines each, with 1–3 letters per line. 1 The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Bequest of Dan Barag, Jerusalem, 2010.65.381. I am grateful to David Mevorah, Senior Curator of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods at the Israel Museum, for permission to publish this object; to Haim Gitler, Chief Curator of the Archaeology Wing, for facilitating the project; and to the Bequest of Dan Barag, Jerusalem, for support for the research. I am deeply indebted to Leah Di Segni for her invaluable input and her unstinting assistance and advice; and to Moshe Benovitz, for his help with the rabbinic sources, and more. Finally, I thank Vladimir Naikhin for the photographs of the armband in Figs. 11.1, 11.2. The inscription was first published, along with a critical apparatus comparing it to mt, sp, lxx, and the other ancient Greek translations in Nancy Benovitz, “Psalm 91:1 and the Rabbinic Shemaʿ in Greek on a Byzantine Amuletic Armband,” Textus 26 (2016): 143–71.

© Nancy Benovitz, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_012

Byzantine Armband

figure 11.1

317

Silver armband in the Israel Museum collection Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Vladimir Naikhin

The beginning of the inscription, most of which is missing, was in all likelihood a Greek translation of Deut 6:4 and Ps 91(90):1.2 The continuation, which is almost entirely preserved, is a unique conflation of the first two paragraphs of the rabbinic Shema (Deut 6:5–9 and Deut 11:13–21), also in Greek translation. The text exhibits typical features of Byzantine inscriptions, especially those written on objects for personal use, including phonetic spelling (e.g., κέ for καί; ὑμο͂ν for ὑμῶν)3 and iotacism (e.g., πάσι for πάσῃ); confusion of case endings; lunate sigmas; and horizontal strokes over abbreviated nomina sacra. Apart from one instance (ῥήματα [III.9]), the long vowels eta and omega are not used.

2 See below, 3.1.1. 3 Note that the common spellings κέ and ὑμο͂ν are not corrected here.

figure 11.2

Panoramic view of the armband Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Vladimir Naikhin

318 Benovitz

Byzantine Armband

figure 11.3

View of the armband showing the place where the partial final link joins the remains of the first medallion. The separation may have been intentional. Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

figure 11.4

View of the armband showing the place where Link VIII and Small Medallion IX seem to have naturally separated. Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

2

319

Text of the Inscription

The diplomatic and normalized texts of the inscription are presented in the table below along with the text of lxx for comparison.4 The medallions and 4 The text of lxx is according to John William Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, svtg 3.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); and Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, svtg

320

Benovitz

links have been numbered consecutively from I–XVI. The table is followed by an English translation. Text

I

II

III

Diplomatic text

Normalized text

LXX

1 [—] 2 [—] 3 [—] Ο̣ 4 [—] Α 5 [—] Υ̣ /Ψ̣ /Σ̣ 6 [—] Π 7 [—] Υ̣ 8 [—] 9 [—] [.] 1 2 ΑΝ 3 ΟΥ 4 ΑΥΛ 5 I ̣ʹ ΚΕΑΓ 1 2 ΑΠΙΣΙΣΤ 3 [.]ΝΚΥΡΙΟΝ 4 [..]ΣΟΥΕΝΠΑΣ 5 ΙΚΑΡΔΙΑΣΟΥΚΑΝ̣ 6 ΕΝΠΑΣΙΨΨΥΧΙΣΟΥ 7 ΚΕΕΝΠΑΣΙΣΦΟΔΡΟ 8 ΤΙΤΙΣΟΥΚΕΕΝΠΣ̣ 9 ΟΝΤΕΤΑΡΗΜΑΤΑΤ 10 ΑΤΑΥΤΑΑΕΓΟEΝ

[— | — | — Ο̣ | — Α | — Υ̣ /Ψ̣ /Σ̣ | — Π | — Υ̣ | — | —]

[Deut 6:4] ῎Ακουε, Ἰσραήλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν. [Ps 90:1] ῾Ο κατοικῶν ἐν βοηθείᾳ τοῦ ὑψίστου ἐν σκέπῃ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ

ρ̣|αν|οῦ | αὐλ|ι(σθήσεται)

οὐρανοῦ αὐλισθήσεται.

κὲ ἀγ|απίσις τ|[ὸ]ν κύριον | [θ(εό)ν] σου ἐν πάσ|ι καρδίᾳ σου κα⟨ὶ⟩ | ἐν πάσι ψ{ψ}υχῖ σου | κὲ ἐν πάσι σφοδρό|τιτί σου κὲ ἐν π(ά)σ(ῃ) | ὄντε τὰ ῥήματα τ|ὰ ταῦτα ἅ ἐγὸ ἐν|τέλομε ὑμο̑ν | σίμερον τοῦ | ἀγαπᾶν

[Deut 6:5] καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου. [Deut 6:6] καὶ ἔσται τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα … [Deut 11:13] … ὅσας ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον, ἀγαπᾶν

10, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). The apparatuses of these editions, as well as those of Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), and John William Wevers, ed., Exodus, svtg 2.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) were used for the comparison with the other ancient Greek translations. The siglum ⟨ ⟩ refers to corrections by the editor. The siglum {} refers to superfluous letters that should be ignored. A dot under a letter indicates that the reading is uncertain. In the normalized text of the inscription, the iota subscriptum was not inserted below iotas, where applicable, for technical reasons. The restored text of XV.1 and XVI is written in full, even though some of the words might have been spelled differently or abbreviated on the armband.

321

Byzantine Armband (cont.)

Diplomatic text 11 12 13 IV 1 2 3 V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VI 1 2 3 VII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 VIII 1 2 3 4

ΤΕΛΟΜΕΥΜΟΝ ΣΙΜΕΡΟΝΤΟΥ ΑΓΑΠΑΝ̣ ΤΟ Ν Κ̅ Ν̅ […]Ν̣ Υ ΜΟΝΚΕΤΟ ΥΔΟΥΛΕΥΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΥΕΝΕΝΠΑΣ ΙΚΑΡΔΙΑΥΜΟΝΚΕ ΕΝΠΑΣΙΨΥΧΙΥΜΟ ΚΕΔΟΣΟΟΜΡΟΥΣ ΥΜΟΝΕΝΚΕΡΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥΠΡΟΙΜ ΟΝΚΑΙΟΨΙΜ ΟΝΚΕΣΥΛ ΕΛΣ̣ Ι ̣Σ̣ ΧΕΙ ΥΙ ΜΑ ΣΟΥ̣ [—] ΝΙΑΝΣΟ̣Υ̣ ΚΕΕΙΣΤΙΛΠ ΝΟΤΙΤΑΝΣΟΥ ΚΕΔΟΣΟΧΛΟΙΝΕ ΝΤΙΧΟΡΑΣΟΥΤΟΥ [.]ΤΙΝΙΣΟΥΚΕΦΑΓΙΣ [.]ΕΕΝΠΛΙΣΘΙΣΠΑΡΑ ΦΥΛΖΕΣΤΕΥΜΙΝΜΙΠ ΟΤΕΘΕΛΧΘΙΚΑΡΔΙΑ ΥΜΟΝΚΕΑΠΟΣΤΙΤΕ ΚΕΔΟΥΛΕΥΣΑΤΕΘΕ Υ[.]ΕΤΕΡΥΣΚΕΠ ΡΟΣΚΥΝΙ ̣ ΣΑ ΤΕ ΑΥ Τ

Normalized text

LXX

τὸ|ν | κ(ύριο)ν

κύριον

[θεὸ]ν ὑ|μο̑ν κὲ το|ῦ δουλεύειν | αὑτοῦ ἐν {ἐν} πάσ|ι καρδίᾳ ὑμο̑ν κὲ | ἐν πάσι ψυχῖ ὑμο̑(ν) | κὲ δο̑σο ὅμρους | ὑμο̑ν ἐν κεροῦ | αὑτοῦ πρόιμ|ον καὶ ὄψιμ|ον κὲ συλ|⟨λέ⟩σις

τὸν θεόν σου καὶ λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου, [Deut 11:14] καὶ δώσει τὸν ὑετὸν τῇ γῇ σου καθ᾽ ὥραν πρόιμον καὶ ὄψιμον, καὶ εἰσοίσεις

χει|ῦι|μα

τὸν σῖτόν

σου [κὲ ο]|⟨ἶνό⟩ν σου | κὲ εἰστιλπ|νότιτάν σου | κὲ δο̑σο χλόιν ἐ|ν τι χόρᾳ σου τοῦ | [κ]τίνι σου κὲ φάγις | [κ]ὲ ἐνπλίσθις παρα|φυλ⟨ά⟩ζεστε ὑμῖν μίπ|οτε θελχθῖ καρδία | ὑμο̑ν κὲ ἀποστῖτε | κὲ δουλεύσατε θε|ὺ[ς] ἑτέρυς κὲ π|ροσκυνί-

σου καὶ τὸν οἶνόν σου καὶ τὸ ἔλαιόν σου· [Deut 11:15] καὶ δώσει χορτάσματα ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς σου τοῖς κτήνεσίν σου· [Deut 11:16] καὶ φαγὼν καὶ ἐμπλησθεὶς (MT 11:16) πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ, μὴ πλατυνθῇ ἡ καρδία σου, καὶ παραβῆτε καὶ λατρεύσητε θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσητε

σα|τε | ἀυ|τ-

αὐτοῖς·

322

Benovitz

(cont.)

IX

X

XI

XII

Diplomatic text

Normalized text

LXX

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

οὺς | καὶ ὀργ|ίσθτι κύ(ριος) ἐν | {ἐν} ὑμὶν κὲ | ἐπέχι τὸν οὐ|ρανόν κὲ οὐκ | ἔστε ὑετός κὲ | ἱ χθ⟨ό⟩ν οὐ δό⟨σ⟩ι φυ|ὶν αὐτῖς κὲ ἀπ|ολῖστε ταχέο|ς ἀπὸ τῖς γῖς | τῖς ἀγαθῖ|ς ἷς κ(ύριο)ς

[Deut 11:17] καὶ θυμωθεὶς ὀργισθῇ κύριος ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ συσχῇ τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὑετός, καὶ ἡ γῆ οὐ δώσει τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀπολεῖσθε ἐν τάχει ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς, ἧς ἔδωκεν κύριος

δ|ιδ|ῖ ὑ|μῖ|ν

ὑμῖν.

καὶ θίσα|τε τὰ ῥίμα|τά{ματα} μου τ|αῦτα ἐπὶ καρδ|ίᾳ ὑμο̑ν κὲ ⟨ἐ⟩πὶ ψ|υχο̑ν ὑμο̑ν καὶ | συνδίσατε αὐτὰ | σιμῖον ἐπὶ χιρ|ον ὑμῖν κὲ ἔσον|τε διανυκτὰ με|ταξὺ ὀφθαλμ|ο̑ν ὑμο̑ν κ|αὶ διδ-

[Deut 11:18] καὶ ἐμβαλεῖτε τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν καὶ εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν ὑμῶν· καὶ ἀφάψετε αὐτὰ εἰς σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἀσάλευτα πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν· [Deut 11:19] καὶ διδάξετε

ΟΥΣ ΚΑΙΟΡΓ ΙΣΘΤΙΚ̅ Υ̅ Ε Ν ΕΝΥΜΙΝΚΕ ΕΠΕΧΙΤΟΝΟΥ ΡΑΝΟΝΚΕΟΥΚ ΕΣΤΕΥΕΤΟΣΚΕ ΙΧΘΣΝΟΥΔΟΙΦΥ ΙΝΑΥΤΙΣΚΕΑΠ ΟΛΙΣΤΕΤΑΧΕΟ ΣΑΠΟΤΙΣΓΙΣ ΤΙΣΑΓΑΘΙ ΣΙΣΚ̅ Σ̅ Δ ΙΔ ΙΥ ΜΙ Ν ΚΑΙΘΙΣΑ ΤΕΤΑΡΙΜΑ ΤΑΜΑΤΑΜΟΥΤ ΑΥΤΑΕΠΙΚΑΡΔ ΙΑΥΜΟΝΚΕΠΙΨ ΥΧΟΝΥΜΟΝΚΑΙ ΣΥΝΔΙΣΑΤΕΑΥΤΑ ΣΙΜΙΟΝΕΠΙΧΙΡ ΟΝΥΜΙΝΚΕΕΣΟΝ ΤΕΔΙΑΝΥΚΤΑΜΕ ΤΑΖΥΟΦΘΑΛΜ ΟΝΥΜΟΝΚ ΑΙΔΙΔ Α ΖΑ Τ ΕΑ Υ

ά|ζα|τ|ε α|ὐ-

323

Byzantine Armband (cont.)

Diplomatic text XIII 1 ΤΑΤΟ 2 ΥΣΥΟΣΥΝ̣ 3 ΟΝΤΟΥΛΑΛ 4 ΙΝΕΝΑΥΤΟΥΣ 5 ΕΝΤΟΥΚΑΘΙΣ 6 ΤΕΣΕΕΝΥΚΟΝΣΟΥ 7 ΚΕΕΝΤΟΥΠΟΡΕ 8 ΥΕΣΤΕΣΕΕΝΟΔ 9 ΟΥΕΝΤΟΥΚΥΤ 10 ΑΖΕΣΤΕΣΕΚ 11 ΕΕΝΤΟΥ 12 ΑΝΙ [.] XIV 1 2 ΤΑ 3 ΣΤ 4 ΕΣ 5 Ε XV [2–4 missing lines] ΕΠΙΣΤ̣ [—] 1 2 ΥΥΚΟΥΣΟΥ̣ Κ̣ Ε̣ [—] 3 ΠΥΛΙΣΟΥΟΠΟΣΠ 4 ΛΙΘΥΝΘΘΟΥΣΙΝΙΜ 5 ΕΡΕΥΜΟΝΚΑΙΙΜΕ 6 ΡΕΥΟΝΙΜΟΝΕΠΙΤ 7 ΙΣΧΘΔΝΟΕΙΣΟΜΟΣΕ 8 ΝΚ̅ Σ̅ Τ ΥΣΠΑΤΡA 9 ΣINYMONTOYΔO 10 YNΕAYTOYΣ 11 ΟΣΙMΕΡΕ̣ XVI [2–3 missing lines] Ε[.] 1 2 Ι ̣Σ̣

Normalized text

LXX

τὰ το|ῦς ὑο̑ς ὑ⟨μ⟩|ο̑ν τοῦ λαλ|ῖν ἐν αὐτούς | ἐν τοῦ καθῖστέ σε ἐν ὖκόν σου | κέ ἐν τοῦ πορε|ύεστέ σε ἐν ὁδ|οῦ ἐν τοῦ κυτ|αζέστε σε κ|έ ἐν τοῦ ἀνί-

τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν λαλεῖν αὐτὰ καθημένους ἐν οἴκῳ καὶ πορευομένους ἐν ὁδῷ καὶ κοιταζομένους καὶ διανισταμένους·

[σ]|τα|στ|έ σ|ε

[κὲ γράψις? αὐτὰ] ἐπὶ στ[αθμούς? το]|ῦ ὔκου σου κὲ [ἐν] | πύλις ⟨σ⟩ου ὅπος π|λιθυνθ{θ}ουσιν ἱμ|έρε ὑμο̑ν καὶ ἱμέ|ρε υο̑ν ⟨ὑ⟩μο̑ν ἐπὶ τ|ῖς χθ⟨ο⟩νό⟨ς⟩ ἷς ὄμοσε|ν κ(ύριο)ς τῦς πατρά|σιν ὑμο̑ν τοῦ δο|ῦνε αὐτοὺς | ὁς ἱμέρε

[Deut 11:20] καὶ γράψετε αὐτὰ ἐπὶ τὰς φλιὰς τῶν οἰκιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν πυλῶν ὑμῶν, [Deut 11:21] ἵνα πολυημερεύσητε καὶ αἱ ἡμέραι τῶν υἱῶν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἧς ὤμοσεν κύριος τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς, καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι

[τοῦ οὐρανοῦ] | ἐ[πὶ τῖς γ]|ῖς

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

324

Benovitz

Translation5 [—] (Ps 91(90):1) of the sky (or: of Shaddai) he will lodge. (Deut 6:5) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your vehemence, and with all (your) being (property?). (6) These very words that I (Deut 11:13) command you today about loving the Lord your God and about serving him with all your heart and with all your soul. (14) I shall give your rains in their [literally, its] season, (the) early rain and (the) late rain, and you shall gather your stream and your wine and your brightness.6 (15) And I shall give grass in your country for your beast, and you shall eat and you shall be satiated. (16) Be on your guard lest your heart be beguiled and you fall away and serve other gods and make obeisance to them. (17) And the Lord shall become angry with you and shut the sky, and there shall be no rain, and the land shall not give forth its produce, and you shall perish quickly from the good earth that the Lord gives you. (18) And you shall place these my words on your heart and on your souls, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hands, and they shall be sentinels between your eyes. (19) And you shall teach them to your children, speaking of them during your sitting in your house and during your going on the way, during your lying down and during your rising. (20) [And you shall write them] on the [doorpost]s of your house and your gate, (21) in order that your days be multiplied, and the days of your children, on the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days [of the sky] on the earth. 3

Epigraphic, Orthographic, and Other Comments

3.1 Sections I–III 3.1.1 I.1–9?, II.1–5 Owing to the fragmentary state of the first medallion (I.1–9?) and its connection to the link that follows it (II.1–5), the two are discussed here together. Only a fraction of the medallion has survived. In the editio princeps of the armband text, I proposed that the first medallion, which was one of the four small ones, contained only 5–6 lines of text, with 3–6 letters per line. I observed three broken letters from the ends of the middle rows: an alpha on line 2, a possible sigma on line 3, and another sigma on line 4.7 Subsequently, however, using a photographic method called Reflectance Transformation Imaging (rti), I came 5 In producing this translation, I have made use of the nets translations of Melvin K. H. Peters Deuteronomion, and Albert Pietersma, Psalms. 6 See discussion below on the Greek terms reflected in the translation here. 7 Benovitz, “Psalm 91:1 and the Rabbinic Shema‌ʾ in Greek,” 145, 164, and n. 29.

Byzantine Armband

325

to the conclusion that the first medallion probably had 9 lines of text (which is still slightly fewer than the number of rows on the other small medallions), and that there were 10–11 letters in the longest lines (the letters were probably somewhat larger than those of the rest of the armband).8 The surviving letters from the ends of the middle lines are a possible omicron; an alpha; an upsilon, psi, or sigma; a pi; and another possible upsilon (see the table above). The link that follows this partial medallion (II.1–5) is slightly larger than the other links (height 1.7 cm) and, like the medallion, its letters are slightly larger as well. Its text preserves part of the second-to-last word and an abbreviation of the last word of Ps 91(90):1. The first letter, at the top of the link, is worn and cannot be read with certainty. In the editio princeps, I preferred to read it as a kappa, from the word ἱκανοῦ, used by both Aquila and Symmachus for this verse (and by them and others elsewhere) to translate the Hebrew ‫שדי‬.9 However, the rti photograph shows that this letter is more likely to be a rho, from the word οὐρανοῦ, used in the lxx translation of Ps 91(90):1. The final letter, iota, is followed by what seems to be a stroke indicating an abbreviation. In all probability, the first medallion bore a translation of Deut 6:4, along with the first part of Ps 90:1. While it is impossible to reconstruct the text, all the surviving letters could have been used in a translation of these verses, and there seems to be sufficient space for them. The missing part of the medallion may have at some point been intentionally separated from the armband, possibly to make two amulets out of one. This is borne out by the manner in which the band was cut: straight down through the medallion and through Link XVI (Fig. 11.3). By contrast, the armband’s second break is curved, occurring along the left contour line of Medallion IX, where it meets the link before it (Fig. 11.4). If indeed the missing section bore the text of Deut 6:4 and part of Ps 91(90):1, as proposed here, it surely would have made a valuable amuletic pendant in its own right, and its detachment from the armband would have in effect made two amulets out of one. This explanation, however, is speculative, and the medallion may have been removed to make the armband smaller or for some other reason.

8 The RTI imaging was conducted by Michael Maggen, Head of Paper, Prints, and Drawings Conservation at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, to whom I am most grateful. I am also indebted to Ester Stark, illustrator, for her invaluable input regarding the reconstruction. 9 I am grateful to Menahem Kister for pointing out this possibility. See Georg Bertram, “ἹΚΑΝΟΣ in den griechischen Übersetzungen des ATs als Wiedergabe von schaddaj,” zaw 70 (1958): 20–31; Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 683–84.

326

Benovitz

3.1.2 III.1–13 Lines 1–2: ἀγαπίσις for ἀγαπήσεις. Lines 4–5: πάσι for πάσῃ (here and below). κα⟨ί⟩. The kappa and alpha are clearly visible, and I have thus read καί, even though κέ is more common in this inscription. The alternation of καί and κέ in a single inscription is common in Byzantine inscriptions. Line 6: ψυχῖ for ψυχῇ (here and below). Here, a second psi seems to have been accidentally repeated. Lines 7–8: σφοδρότιτι for σφοδρότητι. Line 9: ῥήματα, with a ligature of eta and mu. Lines 10–11: ἐγό for ἐγὼ. ὲντέλομε for ὲντέλλομαι. ὑμο̑ν, in the genitive instead of the dative ὑμῖν—an instance of the confusion of cases common in this inscription. Line 12: σίμερον for σήμερον. Line 13: The top of the “figure-eight” at the base of the medallion protrudes into line 13, resembling an omicron, but it is merely a decoration. Additional Comments 3.1.3 The text of the armband provides two translations, or interpretations, of the Hebrew word ‫מאד‬: σφοδρότιτι (III.7–8) and ὄντε (III.9). Both of these differ from the lxx lexical choice, δυνάμεώς. ‫ מאד‬is usually an adverb meaning “very” or “very much,” but it is used in Deut 6:5 as a noun. The only other place in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ מאד‬is used in this way is 2 Kgs 23:25, a verse that employs a formula like that of Deut 6:5 in reference to Josiah, King of Judah. The first translation of ‫ מאד‬on the armband is σφοδρότιτι, a dative singular form of the noun σφοδρότης (“vehemence”), which, like the word ‫מאד‬, is closely related to an adverb (σφόδρα) meaning “very much, exceedingly.” This word is attested, without the iotacism, on a fragment of a palimpsest from the Cairo Genizah, the underlying text of which is a Greek translation of 1 Kgs 20:7–17 and 2 Kgs 23:11–27 attributed to Aquila.10 The underlying manuscript is dated by Burkitt to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century ce, and most resembles codices that have come from Egypt.11 The relevant part of the text reads: “[εν] [παση] καρδια [αυτου] και εν πα[ση] [ψυ]χη αυτου και εν παση σφ(ο)δροτητι αυτου …” (2 Kgs 23:25, “with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his vehemence”), which closely resembles the translation preserved on the armband. 10

11

T-S 12.184 and T-S 20.50; https://gbbj.org/manuscripts/manuscripts_12.html; published in F. Crawford Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor … and S. Schechter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 8, 13; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Appendix 3, 214. Burkitt, Fragments, 10–11.

Byzantine Armband

327

The second interpretation of ‫ מאד‬on the armband is ὄντε. It is likely that ὄντε is the dative singular ὄντι, in the sense of “being,” with epsilon instead of iota. However, it is tempting to consider the possibility that ὄντε is somehow derived from the expression τὰ ὄντα, attested already in the fourth century BCE and, more importantly, in the sixth century CE, as “that which one has, property, fortune.”12 The fact that the word σου does not follow the word ὄντε leads me to believe that what was intended here was not a fourth item in the list of ways to love the Lord, but rather another interpretation of the rare Hebrew noun ‫מאד‬. The interpretation of ὄντε in the sense of property corresponds to the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew word ‫ מאד‬as wealth or property: It appears to have this meaning in the Hebrew Ben Sira 7:30–3113 and is attested in this sense at Qumran in 1QS 1:1–12 (note also CD 13:11). The Jewish Aramaic versions (Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., and Tg. Neof.) of Deut 6:5 all translate ‫ מאד‬in this sense, and this is the way it is understood in the early rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut 32 and m. Ber. 9:5). For additional Greek translations of ‫( מאד‬διάνοια, ἰσχύς) see Matt 22:37; Mk 12:30; and Lk 10:27; in Mark and Luke both terms are offered. Beginning with the words ἅ ἐγό (III.10), the text segues into a translation of Deut 11:13. This transition is made possible by the similarity between phrases in the two verses. However, it results in the omission of the conditional clause that begins Deut 11:13 (“And if you earnestly obey …”). 3.2 Sections IV–VII 3.2.1 IV.1–3 Line 3: Horizontal stroke over the abbreviated nomen sacrum. 3.2.2 V.1–12 Line 4: αὑτοῦ. In the genitive instead of the dative. The word ἐν seems to have been accidentally repeated. Line 7: δο̑σο for δῶσω (here and below). ὅμρους for ὅμβρους. Lines 8–9: κεροῦ for καιροῦ, and in the genitive instead of the dative. Lines 11–12: συλ⟨λέ⟩σις for συλλέξεις. The second lambda and the epsilon were accidently transposed, and there is a sigma instead of a xi. The top of the “figure-eight” at the base of the medallion protrudes into line 12, in between the lambda and the sigma.

12 13

LSJ, s.v “ὄντα”; see also the Supplement, 228. This and most of the following references to interpretations of ‫ מאד‬are collected in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 332, 339–40. See also more recently Serge Ruzer, “The Double Love Precept: Between Pharisees, Jesus, and Qumran Covenanters,” in idem, Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 71–99, esp. 82–86 on 1QS 1:1–12.

328

Benovitz

3.2.3 VI.1–3 Lines 1–3: χειῦιμα for χεῦμα. 3.2.4 VII.1–14 Lines 1–2: [κὲ ο]⟨ἶνό⟩ν. The first line of this medallion is worn, and it is impossible to make out the last letters, though there may have been at least a kappa or kappa epsilon for καί there. κὲ οἶνόν is tentatively restored based on the assumption that the iota and nu were accidentally switched and that a first declension as opposed to second declension accusative singular ending was used. This reconstruction is not certain, and another word may well have been employed. Lines 3–4: εἰστιλπνότιταν for στιλπνότητα. The addition of the euphonic vowel, spelled here ει, before the sound στ, is a common feature of Hebrew/Aramaic speakers using Greek terms (e.g., the Greek στάδιον became the Hebrew ʾṣtdn [m. B. Qam. 4:4] or the Aramaic ʾstdn;14 for an example in a Greek inscription from Evron written by an Aramaic speaker, see seg 37–1516, in which the name Strategios is spelled Ἰστρατήγιος). Note also the use of iota instead of eta and the addition of a nu at the end, which creates a false accusative of the first declension as opposed to a third-declension accusative. Line 5: χλόιν for χλόηv. Lines 6–7: τι xόρᾳ for τῃ xώρᾳ. τοῦ [κ]τίνι σου for τῷ κτήνει σου, with the usual iotacism and substitution of genitive for dative. κτῆνος is more common in the plural, but is acceptable in the singular, when it refers to a single beast. φάγις for φάγῃς. Line 8–10: ἐνπλίσθις for ἐμπλησθῇς, with a nu instead of a mu before the pi and the usual iotacism. παραφυλ⟨ά⟩ζεστε for παραφυλάσσεσθε. μίποτε θελχθῖ for μήποτε θελγθῇ. Line 11: ἀποστῖτε for ἀποστῆτε. Lines 12–13: δουλεύσατε for δουλεύσητε. θεὺ[ς] ἑτέρυς for θεοῖς ἑτέροις. Line 14: The top of the “figure-eight” at the base of the medallion protrudes in between the kappa and the upsilon. 3.2.5 Additional Comments In the Epistle to Pammachius,15 Jerome criticizes Aquila’s translation of mt ‫דגנך‬ ‫ ותירושך ויצהרך‬as χεῦμα, ὀπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα (“stream,” “[thing] of fruit,” 14 15

Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), 51. Jerome, Epist. 57.11 (pl 22:577–78). This source is noted in Jenny R. Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” htr 102 (2009): 353–88 (383 n. 118).

Byzantine Armband

329

“brightness”), translating Aquila’s words into Latin as fusionem, pomationemque, splendentiam. Thus χειῦιμα (VI.1–3) and εἰστιλπνότιταν (= στιλπνότητα, VII.3–4) in our inscription again demonstrate affinities with Aquila, the latter term reflecting Aquila’s awareness of the connection between the Hebrew words ‫ יצהר‬and ‫זהר‬/‫צהר‬. 3.3 Sections VIII–XI VIII.1–4 3.3.1 Lines VII.13–14, VIII.1–2: προσκυνίσατε for προσκυνήσητε. IX.1–13 3.3.2 Lines VIII.3–4, IX.1: αὐτούς. προσκυνέω takes the accusative in Attic and later Greek, but the Koine also uses the dative.16 Lines IX.2–3: ὀργίσθτι for ὀργισθήσεται. κύ(ριος). Faint trace of a horizontal stroke over the nomen sacrum. Line 4: ἐν appears to have been accidentally repeated. Line 5: ἐπέχι for ἐπέχει. The present is used, though the future would have been expected and is used in the following verbs in this verse. Line 7: ἔστε for ἔσται, future. Line 8: ἱ χθ⟨ό⟩ν for ἡ χθών. A lunate sigma was mistakenly written instead of an omicron, which consistently replaces omega in this inscription. δό⟨σ⟩ι for δώσει. The sigma seems to have been accidentally omitted. Lines 8–9: φυίν for φυήν. αὐτῖς for αὐτῆς. ἀπολῖστε for ἀπολεῖσθε. ταχέος for ταχέως. τῖς γῖς for τῆς γῆς. Lines 12–13: τῖς ἀγαθῖς ἷς for τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἧς. κ(ύριο)ς. Horizontal stroke over the nomen sacrum. X.1–5 3.3.3 Lines 1–3: διδῖ for διδοῖ, the present indicative, using the thematic form of the verb frequent in Epic and Ionic Greek. XI.1–13 3.3.4 Lines 1–2: θίσατε for θήσετε. Lines 2–3: ῥίματα for ῥήματα. Cf. line III.9, above: ῥήματα. The following letters ματα seem to have been accidentally repeated. Line 5: κὲ ⟨ἐ⟩πί. It is likely that the engraver accidently omitted the second epsilon; an alternate restoration would be κ(αὶ) ἐπί. Line 7: συνδίσατε for συνδήσετε. Line 8: σιμῖον for σημεῖον. 16

BDAG, s.v. “προσκυνέω.”

330

Benovitz

Lines 8–9: χιρο̑ν for χειρῶν. ὑμῖν, in the dative instead of genitive. Lines 9–10: ἔσοντε for ἔσονται. Lines 11–12: ὀφθαλμο̑ν for ὀφθαλμῶν. 3.3.5 Additional Comments The translation of Deut 11:18 found on the armband, κὲ ἔσοντε διανυκτὰ μεταξὺ ὀφθαλμο̑ν ὑμο̑ν (XI.9–12), is similar to that attested for Aquila on this verse (καὶ ἔσονται εἰς νακτὰ μεταξὺ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν) and, to a lesser extent, to that of Symmachus (καὶ ἔσονται διεσταλμένοι μεταξὺ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν). The difference between these translations is in the way they render the rare and enigmatic Hebrew word ‫טוטפת‬, which appears only three times in the Bible: Exod 13:16, Deut 6:8, and Deut 11:18.17 In the Aramaic translations, ‫ טוטפת‬are rendered ‫תפלין‬, a word that may have originally meant amulet18 and which was the technical rabbinic term denoting the leather capsules (containing parchments with scriptural verses) worn on the forehead and arm in compliance with these verses. Aquila’s εἰς νακτά translates ‫ טוטפת‬along with its particle ‫ל‬, literally, “to.” He used this term to translate ‫ טוטפת‬not only in our verse, but in Exod 13:16 and Deut 6:8 as well. It is difficult to understand what Aquila meant by νακτά. In the neuter plural, the term refers to felt fabric, based on νακτός, meaning “closepressed, solid,” from the verb νάσσω; perhaps Aquila was referring to something pressed close against or solidly affixed between the eyes (similar to lxx, καὶ ἔσται ἀσάλευτα, “and they shall be things unshakeable”). Another possibility is that the term refers to the felt hat called a pileus (πίλος), which was worn low over the brow: Hesychius defines νακτά as “τοὺς πίλους, καὶ τὰ ἐμπίλια” (i.e., “felt hats, and felt shoes”).19 Symmachus translates ‫ טוטפת‬as διεσταλμένοι (διεσταλμένα in Deut 6:8). The term is the perfect passive participle of διασταλάσσω, “to shed,” which is based on σταλάσσω, “to drop, drip,” together with the preposition διά, “through, or in between.” This translation reflects the seeming connection between the term ‫ טוטפת‬and the biblical and rabbinic Hebrew words for “drop” and “to drip” (‫לטפטף‬, ‫ ;)טיפה‬it suggests that the word might have designated a kind of pendant. Returning to our translation, one cannot help but wonder if there is a connection between Aquila’s εἰς νακτά and the enigmatic hapax διανυκτά used in our inscription. Is it possible that over the course of time, the original meaning of Aquila’s εἰς νακτά was no longer understood, and the similarly sounding word διανυκτά was supplied instead? This word may have been associated with 17 18 19

For a detailed discussion of the word ‫טוטפת‬, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 333–35, 341–43. Ibid., 335. Maurice Schmidt, ed., “νακτά,” Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Jenae: Sumptibus Hermanni Dufftii, 1867), 1073.

Byzantine Armband

331

the verb διανυκτερεύω, “pass the night, keep vigil” and διανυκτέρευσις, meaning vigil by night,20 or night-watch;21 and it thus may convey the notion of these objects as “sentinels,” vigilant, watchful, protective objects, functioning, in fact, like amulets. This interpretation is particularly interesting in light of the association of tefillin with amulets, attested already in Second Temple times.22 3.4 Sections XII–XVI 3.4.1 XII.1–5 Lines XI.13, XII.1–4: διδάζατε for διδάξετε. 3.4.2 XIII.1–12 Lines 1–3: τοῦς for τοῖς. ὑο̑ς for υἱοῖς. ὑ⟨μ⟩ο̑ν for ὑμῶν. Nu was written erroneously instead of mu; magnification shows that there may have even been an attempt to correct the nu to mu already at the time of the writing of the inscription. Lines 3–4: λαλῖν for λαλεῖν. ἐν αὐτούς, with the pronoun in the accusative instead of the dative. Lines 5–6: καθῖστε for καθῆσθαι. ὖκον for οἶκον, in the accusative as opposed to the dative. Lines 7–8: πορεύεστε for πορεύεσθαι. Lines 9–10: κυταζέστε for κοιταζέσθαι. 3.4.3 XIV.1–5 Lines XIII.12, XIV.1–5: ἀνί[σ]ταστε for ἀνίστασθαι. 3.4.4 XV.[2–4 Missing Lines] 1–11 Missing lines: [κὲ γράψις? αὐτά]. Tentatively restored with the spelling characteristic of the inscription. Line 1: στ[αθμούς?] may have been abbreviated or spelled differently. Line 2: ὔκου for οἴκου. Lines 3–6: πύλις for πύλης. ὅπος for ὅπως. πλιθυνθοῦσιν for πληθυνθῶσιν. The third theta in the original (not indicated here; see normalized text) seems to have been an accidental misspelling. ἱμέρε for ἡμέραι. υο̑ν for υἱῶν. ⟨ὑ⟩μο̑ν for ὑμῶν, with the upsilon accidentally rendered as an iota. Lines 6–8: τῖς for τῆς. In the word χθ⟨ο⟩νό⟨ς⟩, the engraver mistakenly made the first omicron like a delta and the final sigma like an epsilon. ἷς for ἧς.

20 21 22

PGL, s.v. “διανυκτέρευσις,” “διανυκτερεύω.” BDAG, s.v. “διανυκτέρευσις.” For a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between tefillin and amulets, see Yehudah Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World, bjs 351 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2008).

332

Benovitz

ὄμοσεν for ὤμοσεν. κ(ύριο)ς, with a horizontal stroke over the nomen sacrum. τῦς for τοῖς. Lines 9–10: δοῦνε for δοῦναι. αὐτούς, with the accusative instead of the dative. Line 11: ὁς ἱμέρε for ὡς ἡμέραι. 3.4.5 XVI.[2–3 Missing Lines of 1–2 Letters] 1–2 Missing lines: [τοῦ οὐρανοῦ]. The text has been tentatively restored based on lxx, but the spelling might have been different, and the words would have to have been abbreviated. Lines 1–2: ἐ[πὶ τῖς γ]|ῖς The text would have to have been abbreviated, as the longest lines of the connecting lozenges have at the most three letters. γῖς for γῆς. 4

Relation to Other Translations

In the editio princeps of this inscription,23 the text was carefully compared with that of the other ancient Greek translations, as well as mt and sp, which enabled me to reach a number of conclusions. 4.1 Relation to LXX The Greek version of the biblical verses preserved on the armband is not that of lxx, but a different Greek translation. These differences go beyond the orthographic changes and confusion of cases typical of inscriptions of the Byzantine period. Many of the differences are lexical, but there are also significant stylistic differences, including: 1. Placement of the definite article before κύριος (τὸν κύριον θεόν) when the Tetragrammaton is followed by ‫אלהים‬, whereas lxx places the article between κύριος and θεός. 2. A tendency towards literal translation of Hebrew prepositional particles, especially ‫ב‬, for which the Greek ἐν is given (e.g., ἐν πάσι καρδίᾳ σου, ἐν κεροῦ αὑτοῦ, καὶ ὀργισθτι κύριος ἐν ὑμὶν). 3. A tendency to avoid the definite article before nouns that do not have the definite article in mt (e.g., κὲ ἐπέχι τὸν οὐρανόν κὲ οὐκ ἔστε ὑετός κὲ ἱ χθόν οὐ δόσι φυὶν αὐτῖς). 4. Use of the definite article in the genitive singular before infinitives for the purpose of connectivity (e.g., τοῦ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κύριον θεόν ὑμο̑ν κὲ τοῦ δουλεύειν αὑτοῦ). 5. A closer adherence to the word order of mt (e.g., ἷς κύριος διδῖ ὑμῖν). 23

Benovitz, “Psalm 91:1 and the Rabbinic Shemaʿ in Greek.”

Byzantine Armband

333

6.

The careful translation of specific words, such ‫מאד‬, rendered σφοδρότιτι, and the closely related terms ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ארץ‬, differentiated respectively as χθόν (χθών) and γῖ (γῆ). The translation thus exhibits a literal style that clings tightly to the source language. Its Vorlage appears to have been closer to mt than the Vorlage of lxx, as suggested by its greater correlation with mt, particularly in matters of number and person. The lack of consistency in the application of the abovementioned principles of translation might reflect changes introduced into the translation over the years, and perhaps the incorporation of parts of other available translations. 4.2 Relation to the Other Greek Translations The translation has quite a few words and phrases in common with what we know of the famous second-century Greek Bible translation of Aquila, and to a lesser extent, with the translations of Theodotion and Symmachus. The strongest ties to Aquila’s translation include: 1. ἐν πάσι καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν πάσι ψυχῖ σου κὲ ἐν πάσι σφοδρότιτι σου (III.4–8) from Deut 6:5, which is closely linked to the translation of 2 Kgs 23:25 attributed to Aquila on the late fifth–early sixth century palimpsest from the Cairo Genizah. The formula recurs in V.4–6 (Deut 11:13) as well. 2. The translation of Deut 11:14, which contains a phrase linked to Aquila— ἐν κεροῦ (V.8), and two single words—χειῦιμα (VI.1–3) and εἰστιλπνότιταν (VII.3–4). 3. Additional single words linked to Aquila: χλόιν (VII.5, Deut 11:15); συνδίσατε (XI.7, Deut 11:18); and in all likelihood, σταθμούς (partially restored on XV, Deut 11:20). The literal approach that characterizes this translation dovetails with many of the stylistic features that have been attributed to Aquila’s translation, such as his fidelity to the Hebrew text; expression of the same Hebrew words with the same Greek words; translation of Hebrew words with an eye to etymology; careful translation of particles; and a close connection to (but not necessarily identity with) mt.24 However, there is no trace of Aquila’s characteristic use of σύν for ‫ את‬whenever ‫ את‬is followed by the definite article (but not before proper nouns or nouns with suffixes or in the construct state);25 albeit there is only one place in the present text where this might have occurred: Deut 11:17 ‫השמים‬-‫את‬. Moreover, the Tetragrammaton is translated as κύριος and not written in paleo-Hebrew characters, which is characteristic of some of the manuscripts containing translations close to Aquila’s. In addition, some 24 25

Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115–18. Burkitt, Fragments, 12.

334

Benovitz

of the variants are attested for οἱ λοιποί (λʹ)—that is, all three of the major non-lxx translations—Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian; and one variant (VII.10 θελχθῖ) is linked to Theodotian alone. The use of τοῦ with the infinitive is attested for both Aquila and Theodotion in the translation of Deut 11:19 (XIII.3–4 τοῦ λαλῖν), and for οἱ λοιποί (λʹ) in the translation of Deut 6:8. Finally, the translations of both Aquila and Symmachus for Deut 11:18 are both very close to ours, the only difference being the translation of the word ‫טוטפת‬. In this case, the inscription’s translation of ‫ טוטפת‬as διανυκτά may stem from Aquila’s εἰς νακτά. Special Variants and Possible Exegesis 4.3 Apart from the words σφοδρότιτι for ‫ מאד‬and διανυκτά for ‫טוטפת‬, already mentioned, there are a few translations for which I have found no parallels in the Greek witnesses to these verses: the use of κὲ τοῦ δουλεύειν αὐτοῦ and κὲ δουλεύσατε for ‫ ולעבדו‬and ‫( ועבדתם‬Deut 11:13, 16); ὃμρους ὑμο̑ν for ‫ארצכם‬-‫מטר‬ (Deut 11:14); κὲ ἐπέχι for ‫( ועצר‬Deut 11:17); κὲ ἱ χθόν and ἐπὶ τῖς χθονός for ‫והאדמה‬ and ‫( על האדמה‬Deut 11:17, 21); φυὶν αὐτῖς for ‫( יבולה‬Deut 11:17); and τοῦς ὑο̑ς ὑ⟨μ⟩ ον for ‫( את־בניכם‬Deut 11:19).26 The additional translation of ‫מאדך‬-‫ ובכל‬as κὲ ἐν π(ά)σ(ῃ) ὄντε might reflect an understanding of the word ‫ מאד‬as wealth or property, as found in a number of Jewish contexts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Aramaic translations and early rabbinic exegesis (see discussion above). 5

The Source of the Translation: A Tentative Proposal

In his studies on the development of the Greek Bible within the Jewish milieu, de Lange has demonstrated that the influence of the ancient Greek versions, particularly that of Aquila, continued to be felt on the Greek translations of the Bible used by Jews well into medieval times, though it gradually weakened over time:27 A striking feature of these medieval texts is their relationship to the ancient versions, particularly that of Akylas…. It would probably be mistaken, however, to think of the medieval versions as being solely derived 26 27

It is possible that these phrases are used elsewhere in the various translations. See especially Nicholas de Lange, “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. Magdalino and R. Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010), 39–54 (quotation p. 51) and idem, “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 371–84.

Byzantine Armband

335

from Akylas. The distinctive features of Akylas’s translation do not appear consistently in the medieval versions, and we have also noted some hints of a plurality of versions circulating side by side. The translation preserved on our armband shows pronounced ties to Aquila’s version as well as some affinities with the translations of his contemporaries; it is not Aquila’s translation, but does seem to be based on it. The translation used was one of a number that circulated among Jews and evolved dynamically over the course of many centuries; it was known to or available to the maker of the armband or to the individual who commissioned it; it preserved features of the ancient versions while incorporating later and contemporary developments; and it may have even been a basis for later medieval versions. To ascertain where and when the armband was produced, we must now turn to the artifact itself. 6

The Date, Provenance, and Function of the Armband

Typologically, the armband belongs to a broad group of Byzantine amuletic armbands that have been studied by scholars for over a century.28 The most recent list compiled by Kraus numbers thirty-five specimens, though there are undoubtedly many more unpublished examples that will some day be added to the corpus.29 As Vikan and Kraus note, the armbands comprise from one to eight medallions each. They exhibit a variety of protective and magical symbols, some of pagan and Jewish origin, as well as Christian iconography based on scenes from the life of Jesus: the Annunciation, the Visitation of the Magi, and so forth. We may therefore assume that these armbands were for the most part Christian objects. The majority of the armbands are also inscribed, like our armband, with at least part of the first verse of Psalm 91(90) in Greek 28

29

Key publications of Byzantine armbands range from Jean Maspero, “Bracelets—amulettes d’époque byzantine,” asae 9 (1908): 246–58; to Gary Vikan, “Two Byzantine Amuletic Armbands and the Group to Which They Belong,” Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 49/50 (1991/1992): 33–51; Thomas J. Kraus, “Fragmente eines Amulett-Armbands im British Museum (London) mit Septuaginta-Psalm 90 und der Huldigung der Magier,” jac 48/49 (2005/2006): 114–27; and idem, “‘He That Dwelleth in the Help of the Highest’: Septuagint Psalm 90 and the Iconographic Program on Byzantine Armbands,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias, ssejc 13, lsts 70 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 137–47; see also additional references cited in these publications. Kraus, “Fragmente.” I am personally aware of several unpublished examples in the collection of the Israel Museum.

336

Benovitz

translation; but other Greek inscriptions, such as the Εἷς Θεός (“One God”) formula, the trisagion, and invocations, are attested as well. Within this group of armbands, a number of subgroups may be discerned, and both Vikan and Kraus deal with the question of whether “it is appropriate to speak of the genre as being constituted of a Syrian/Palestinian subgroup and an Egyptian subgroup? Or should one instead imagine that all armbands originated from a single center—which presumbably would have been the Holy Land, by virtue of the locus sanctus iconography?”30 This is not the place to delve deeply into the issue, but it is important to note that our armband, even though it is entirely lacking in Christian iconography (or any iconography for that matter), closely resembles, in terms of its general design concept (alternating medallions and lozenges) and in terms of its material (silver), the examples attributed to Egypt in Vikan’s list. The armbands attributed to Syria/ Palestine, by contrast, consist of one or more bronze medallions connected by a thin straight band.31 It is thus reasonable to assume that our armband was manufactured in Egypt. The armbands most closely resembling ours have been dated to the mid-sixth to mid-seventh century,32 and this date should probably be adopted for our armband as well. Yet the question remains: How are we to interpret the armband’s particular combination of biblical verses—Deut 6:4 and Ps 91(90):1 (if the reconstruction proposed here for the missing medallion [I] is correct), followed by a conflation of Deut 6:5–9 and Deut 11:13–21? 30 31

32

Vikan, “Two Byzantine Amuletic Armbands,” 37–38. This observation is based on an examination of the twenty-two items in Vikan’s study, without taking their iconography into account. Vikan’s nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 18 are all composed of medallions and lozenges and are all made of silver. Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are attributed to Egypt, but no. 14 is attributed to Cyprus and no. 18 to Syria. However, in the first publication of no. 14 (O. M. Dalton, “A Gold Pectoral Cross and an Amuletic Bracelet of the Sixth Century,” in Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger à l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance [17 octobre 1924], vol. 2: Numismatique et sigillographie archéologie [Paris: Geuthner, 1924], 386–90), the object is said to have probably originated in Egypt. As for no. 18, an armband formerly in the collection of Comtesse R. de Béarn, Paris, the present whereabouts of which are unknown, its publisher (Wilhelm Froehner, Collection de la comptesse R. de Béarn [Strasbourg: Fischbach, 1905], 1:9–12) provides no explanation whatsoever for his assignment of the artifact to Syria. Considering its close resemblance to the other items in this subgroup, I suspect that it also comes from Egypt. In a recent article, Spier has posited the existence in the Syria-Palestine region of an early sixth-century Christian workshop that specialized in the production of bronze pendant-amulets, as well as amuletic rings and armbands. The popularity of these objects led to the establishment of other workshops in the region and even farther afield; see Jeffrey Spier, “An Antique Magical Book Used for Making Sixth-Century Byzantine Amulets?” in Les savoirs magiques et leur transmission de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, ed. V. Dasen and J.-M. Spieser, Micrologus Library 60 (Florence: Sisel, 2014), 43–66 (43–44). To my mind, this further strengthens the connection between the bronze armbands and the Syria/Palestine region. Vikan, “Two Byzantine Amuletic Armbands,” 38–39; Kraus, “He That Dwelleth,” 141.

Byzantine Armband

337

Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21 play a paramount role in Jewish rituals that had developed long before this armband was made. In Second Temple times, they were among the texts inscribed upon the parchments inserted into mezuzot and tefillin. By rabbinic times, the use of Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21 in mezuzot and tefillin became standardized, and these passages also formed part of the liturgical text known as “the Shema” or the “Shema liturgy.”33 I have thus referred to the inscription on the armband as the “rabbinic Shema,” even though it is, in fact, a conflation of the first two paragraphs of this text. By contrast, while according to some scholars, a number of Samaritan amulets of the late Roman-Byzantine period seem to incorporate part of Deut 6:4,34 I am aware of no evidence for the particular combination of Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21 in Samaritan contexts, epigraphic or liturgical.35 As for the Christian use of these verses, it appears that neither Deut 6:4–9 nor Deut 11:13–21 were used epigrapically on Christian artifacts at all.36 On a final note, it should be mentioned that while some scholars presume a relationship between Deut 6:4 and the popular 33

34 35

36

Rabbinic tefillin also contain parchments inscribed with Exod 13:1–10 and Exod 13:11–16, in addition to Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21. Evidence for tefillin that were not produced in accordance with rabbinic law has come to light at Qumran; see Emanuel Tov, “Tefillin of Different Origin from Qumran?” in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht, ed. Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1997), 44*–54*; and Cohn, Tangled Up in Text. The rabbinic Shema liturgy includes, in addition to Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21, a third biblical passage (Num 15:37–41) as well as several blessings; see Reuven Kimelman, “The Shemaʿ Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation,” in Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World 1, ed. J. Tabory (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001), 9–105. According to Kimelman, “between 70 and ca. 200 the three Shemaʿ sections received their present liturgical status and order. The third section of the Shemaʿ (Num 15:37–41), however, was still not the universal norm in the evening service as late as the amoraic period” (13). For an overview of the protective/magical and liturgical uses of Deut 6:4 from the Bible through late antiquity, see Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel and Armin Lange, “‘Hear, O Israel’ in Gold: An Ancient Amulet from Halbturn in Austria,” jaj 1 (2010): 43–64; Armin Lange, “The Shema Israel in Second Temple Judaism,” jaj 1 (2010): 207–14. Usually just the words ‫ה׳ אחד‬. For a catalogue of these amulets, see Ronny Reich, “Samaritan Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in The Samaritans, ed. E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2002), 289–309 (in Hebrew). For a discussion of the various types of Samaritan inscriptions, see Joseph Naveh, “Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria,” iej 48 (1998): 91–100. Mention should also be made of a late (perhaps medieval) Samaritan inscription containing the entire text of Deut 6:4– 9, engraved on a lintel in Gaza; see Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Sefer Hashomronim (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1976), pl. 13 (in Hebrew); apud Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1993), 30. On the Samaritan liturgy, see Arthur Ernest Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909). See Antonio Enrico Felle, Biblia epigraphica: La sacra scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’ Orbis Christianus Antiquus (III–VIII Secolo), Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae, Subsidia 5 (Bari: Edipuglia, 2006), 523.

338

Benovitz

Εἷς Θεός (“One God”) formula used (alone and in composite formulae) on many of the amulets of this period,37 according to Di Segni, the formula does not derive from the first verse of the Shema.38 The first verse or verses of Deut 6:4–9 are attested on a number of late Roman-Byzantine metal amulets39 and magic bowls40 believed to be Jewish.41 While Deut 6:5–9 and Deut 11:13–21 are not, to the best of my knowledge, found together on any metal amulets that have survived from antiquity apart from our armband, their combination in mezuzot and tefillin and in the liturgical text of the Shema seem to point to the Jewish ownership of this artifact.42 The other biblical verse appearing on the armband is Ps 91(90):1. Evidence for the apotropaic use of Psalm 91(90) in the Second Temple period has come to light at Qumran: The last column of a collection of incantations (11Q11) bears a version of the psalm, intentionally adapted for use as an apotropaic prayer.43 37 38 39

40 41

42 43

See, for example, Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, 25; and Eshel et al, “‘Hear, O Israel,’” 46. Leah Di Segni, “Εἷς Θεός in Palestinian Inscriptions,” Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994): 94–115. Examples include the recently excavated gold amulet from Halbturn, Austria, dated to the third century CE, which is inscribed with the Hebrew text of Deut 6:4 in Greek characters (Eshel et al, “‘Hear, O Israel’”; Armin Lange and Esther Eshel, “‘The Lord Is One’: How Its Meaning Changed,” bar 39.3 (2013): 58–63, 69); a silver amulet believed to be of Palestinian origin and roughly dated between the third and the seventh centuries, which bears an Aramaic and Hebrew inscription combining a magical formula with Deut 6:4– 7, published by Émile Puech, “Une amulette judéo-palestinienne bilingue en argent,” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): *177–*86; and an unpublished Byzantine silver amulet in the collection of René and Susanne Braginsky, Zurich, on extended loan to The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, which combines the Hebrew text of Deut 6:4–7, the first verse of Psalm 91(90), and Prov 18:10. I thank Rivka Elitzur Leiman for her helpful input on this matter. For examples, see Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, 25. Mention should also be made of a lintel in Palmyra, dated to the third century CE and presumably belonging to a Jewish house, on which all six verses were carved, along with Deut 7:15 on the left doorpost; see Eugen Mittwoch, “Hebräische Inscrhriften aus Palmyra,” BzA 44 (1902): 203–6; apud Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, 30; and Eshel et al, “‘Hear, O Israel,’” 46 and n. 14. On the difficulty of securely establishing Jewish ownership of magical objects inscribed in Greek, see Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 209–14. For the editio princeps of this scroll, see Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, djd 23 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181–205. For a discussion of this text, see Esther Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000, ed. Esther G. Chazon, R. A. Clements, and A. Pinnick, stdj 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 69–88, especially 72–73; and Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 108–11

Byzantine Armband

339

However, this psalm does not seem to have been combined with the Shema until rabbinic times. The practice of reciting the Shema and Psalm 91(90) before bedtime is attributed, albeit in separate Talmudic passages, to the early third-century Palestinian amora R. Joshua b. Levi (b. Ber. 4b; b. Shebu.15b); and their use together in the Jewish bedtime prayer ritual of reading the Shema is attested in the ninth-century prayer book Seder Rav Amram Gaon.44 On one of the Jewish metal amulets mentioned above, an apotropaic silver pendant in a private collection, Deut 6:4–7 is interwoven with Ps 91(90):1, both verses written in Hebrew.45 These verses also are interwoven on Jewish Aramaic magic bowls and at least one amulet from the Cairo Geniza.46 By contrast, Psalm 91(90) does not appear together with verses from Deuteronomy in Christian contexts, even though it is widely used on Christian amulets.47 The fact that Psalm 91(90) is combined with the Shema in Jewish prayers and on Jewish magical objects provides further support for the identification of the armband as a Jewish object. Since the group of armbands to which our armband belongs had apotropaic functions, it is reasonable to assume that our armband was an apotropaic object as well. Though it lacks the usual magical symbols, its inscription, a Greek translation of biblical verses traditionally combined in Jewish amulets, mezuzot, tefillin, and prayers, must have been regarded as a powerful source of protection in its own right.48 The particular combination of biblical verses, coupled with the absence of Christian iconography, strongly suggest that the armband was made for a Jew. It would appear, then, that that the armband was

44

45 46 47 48

with references cited there. I thank Esther Chazon and Ruth Clements for these important references. Daniel Goldschmidt, ed., Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1971), 54–55. The Shema also appears together with Psalm 91(90) in the Havdalah of R. Akiva, a medieval composition, the precise history of which is difficult to reconstruct, but which preserves elements from Gaonic times and perhaps even earlier; see Gershom Scholem, “Havdalah De-Rabbi ʿAqiva: A Source for the Tradition of Jewish Magic During the Geonic Period,” Tarbiz 50 (1980–81): 243–81 (in Hebrew); see also Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, 23–24. The Braginsky amulet, cited in n. 39, combines these verses along with Prov 18:10. Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1985), 184–87, and references cited there. Kraus, “Fragmente,” 39–73; Spier, “An Antique Magical Book,” 47–49 and n. 20. See also Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 213, who notes the need for future research on the use of this psalm in Greek by Jews. While it is tempting to imagine that this object, worn on the arm, might have been a nonrabbinic form of tefillin, I am personally more inclined to a simpler scenario, according to which verses regarded as apotropaic by Jews were co-opted for use on an apotropaic piece of jewelry.

340

Benovitz

a Jewish adaptation of the common Christian model. Though it is theoretically possible that a Christian patron sought to enlist the power of Jewish magic by copying a powerful Jewish text onto a classically Christian amuletic armband, it is difficult to imagine that the use of the Jewish text would be to the complete exclusion of the traditional Christian symbols and iconography. 7

Conclusion

The armband presented here preserves an otherwise unknown Greek translation of a conflation of Deut 6:5–9 and Deut 11:13–21, along with the end of Ps 91(90):1. It probably originally also featured Deut 6:4 and the beginning of Ps 91(90):1. The translation shows notable ties to Aquila’s second-century translation and seems to have been based significantly on it. At the same time, the text exhibits linguistic features typical of Byzantine inscriptions. On the basis of the object’s similarity to a subgroup of Christian armbands used for magical protection, I have proposed that our armband should be dated to the mid-sixth to mid-seventh century and that it was probably manufactured in Egypt. Like its Christian parallels, this armband was an apotropaic object; but its lack of Christian iconography and the fact that it is inscribed with biblical passages traditionally combined by Jews, particularly in the ritual practices of mezuzot and tefillin and in the rabbinic Shema liturgy, indicate that its owner was probably a Jew—presumably an inhabitant of the Egyptian diaspora. We may thus posit that the hypothetical Egyptian Jewish patron who commissioned the armband was at least to some degree within the sphere of rabbinic influence. At the same time, he obviously felt free to express his religious identity in a magical format used by his Christian neighbors. The Greek translation that was engraved on the armband must have been in current use among the Jews of Egypt in the mid-sixth to mid-seventh century, on the eve of the Arab conquest, and perhaps even later. We need not assume, however, that this translation was used only in Egypt.49 Indeed, in view of the 49

I thank Hillel Newman for sharing with me the text of his paper, “The Jews of Egypt and North Africa in the Orbit of the Land of Israel,” delivered at the conference, “Mapping the Jewish Diaspora of Late Antiquity,” 2–3 November 2015, University of Haifa. See also Allen Kerkeslager, “The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica, 66–235 CE,” in chj 4:53–68 (63–68). On the Jews of Alexandria in late antiquity, see Guy G. Stroumsa, “Jewish Survival in Late Antique Alexandria,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil et al., Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 257–69 (261–62). On the presence of a community of Egyptian Jews in Jaffa, see Jonathan J. Price, “Five Inscriptions from Jaffa,” Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 215–32; and idem, “The Ancient Necropolis of Jaffa,” in Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, ed. W. Ameling et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 3:36–38.

Byzantine Armband

341

part that Palestinian Jews played in the reestablishment of the Jewish community of Egypt at the end of the third century (after its devastation by Trajan in the early second century) and the strong ties between the communities over the following centuries, it is possible that the translation also was used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities of the Land of Israel. Bibliography Benovitz, Nancy. “Psalm 91:1 and the Rabbinic Shema‌ʾ in Greek on a Byzantine Amuletic Armband.” Textus 26 (2016): 143–71. Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak. Sefer Hashomronim. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1976 (in Hebrew). Bertram, Georg. “ἹΚΑΝΟΣ in den griechischen Übersetzungen des ats ALs Wiedergabe von schaddaj.” zaw 70 (1958): 20–31. Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Burkitt, F. Crawford. Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor … and S. Schechter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Cohn, Yehudah. Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. bjs 351. Providence: Brown University Press, 2008. Cowley, Arthur Ernest, ed. The Samaritan Liturgy. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909. Dalton, O. M. “A Pectoral Cross and an Amuletic Bracelet of the Sixth Century.” Pages 386–90 in Numismatique et sigillographie archeology. Vol. 2 of Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger à l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance (17 octobre 1924). Paris: Geuthner, 1924. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible in the Medieval Synagogue.” Pages 371–84 in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by R. Bonfil et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012. De Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews.” Pages 39–54 in The Old Testament in Byzantium. Edited by P. Magdalino and R. S. Nelson. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010. Di Segni, Leah. “Εἷς Θεός in Palestinian Inscriptions.” Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994): 94–115. Eshel, Esther. “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 69–88 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000. Edited by E. G. Chazon, R. A. Clements, and A. Pinnick. stdj 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Eshel, Esther, Hanan Eshel, and Armin Lange. “‘Hear, O Israel’ in Gold: An Ancient Amulet from Halbturn in Austria.” jaj 1 (2010): 43–64.

342

Benovitz

Felle, Antonio Enrico. Biblia epigraphica: La sacra scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’ Orbis Christianus Antiquus (III–VIII Secolo). Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae, Subsidia 5. Bari: Edipuglia, 2006. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Field, Frederick, ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. Froehner, Wilhelm. Collection de la comptesse R. de Béarn. Strasbourg: Fischbach, 1905. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181–205 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. djd 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Goldschmidt, Daniel, ed. Seder Rav Amram Gaon. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1971. Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. Kerkeslager, Allen. “The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica, 66–c. 235 CE.” Pages 53–68 in The Late Roman–Rabbinic Period. Vol. 4 of chj. Edited by S. T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kimelman, Reuven. “The Shemaʿ Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation.” Pages 9–105 in Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World 1. Edited by J. Tabory. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001. Kraus, Thomas J. “Fragmente eines Amulett-Armbands im British Museum (London) mit Septuaginta-Psalm 90 und der Huldigung der Magier.” jac 48/49 (2005/6): 114–27. Kraus, Thomas J. “‘He That Dwelleth in the Help of the Highest’: Septuagint Psalm 90 and the Iconographic Program on Byzantine Armbands.” Pages 137–47 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias. ssejc 13; lsts 70. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Labendz, Jenny R. “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives.” htr 102 (2009): 353–88. Lange, Armin. “The Shema Israel in Second Temple Judaism,” jaj 1 (2010): 207–14. Lange, Armin, and Esther Eshel. “‘The Lord Is One’: How Its Meaning Changed.” bar 39.3 (2013): 58–63, 69. Maspero, Jean. “Bracelets-amulettes d’époque byzantine.” asae 9 (1908): 246–58. Mittwoch, Eugen. “Hebräische Inschriften aus Palmyra.” BzA 4 (1902): 203–6. Naveh, Joseph. “Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.” iej 48 (1998): 91–100. Naveh, Joseph, and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1985. Naveh, Joseph, and Shaul Shaked. Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1993. Newman, Hillel. “The Jews of Egypt and North Africa in the Orbit of the Land of Israel.” Paper presented at the conference, “Mapping the Jewish Diaspora of Late Antiquity.” University of Haifa, 2–3 November 2015.

Byzantine Armband

343

Price, Jonathan J. “Five Inscriptions from Jaffa.” Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 215–32. Price, Jonathan J. “The Ancient Necropolis of Jaffa.” Pages 36–38 in South Coast 2161– 2648. Vol. 3 of Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae. Edited by W. Ameling et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Puech, Émile. “Une amulette judéo-palestinienne bilingue en argent.” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 5–6 (2007): *177–*86. Rahlfs, Alfred ed. Psalmi cum Odis. svtg 10, 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Reich, Ronny. “Samaritan Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods.” Pages 289–309 in The Samaritans. Edited by E. Stern and H. Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2002 (in Hebrew). Ruzer, Serge. “The Double Love Precept: Between Pharisees, Jesus, and Qumran Covenanters.” Pages 71–99 in idem, Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schmidt, Maurice, ed. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Jenae: Sumptibus Hermanni Dufftii, 1867. Scholem, Gershom. “Havdalah De-Rabbi ʿAqiva: A Source for the Tradition of Jewish Magic During the Geonic Period.” Tarbiz 50 (1980–81): 243–81 (in Hebrew). Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990. Spier, Jeffrey. “An Antique Magical Book Used for Making Sixth-Century Byzantine Amulets?” Pages 43–66 in Les savoirs magiques et leur transmission de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance. Edited by V. Dasen and J.-M. Spieser. Micrologus Library 60. Florence: Sisel, 2014. Stroumsa, Guy G. “Jewish Survival in Late Antique Alexandria.” Pages 257–69 in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by R. Bonfil et al. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. “Tefillin of Different Origin from Qumran?” Pages 44*–54* in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht. Edited by Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1997. Vikan, Gary. “Two Byzantine Amuletic Armbands and the Group to Which They Belong.” Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 49/50 (1991/92): 33–51. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Wevers, John William, ed. Deuteronomium. svtg 3.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Wevers, John William, ed. Exodus. svtg 2.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).

chapter 12

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun from the Judean Desert to the Babylonian Talmud: ‫דיכי‬ Shamma Friedman 1 Introduction The rare Aramaic demonstrative pronoun ‫ דיכי‬is found in the Babylonian Talmud in three types of contexts. Two of them involve the fixed phrase ‫מרי‬ ‫דיכי‬, “This Lord,” an epithet for God’s name. One of these usages is an exclamatory oath formula regularly employed by Rav Ḥisda as a substitute for the divine name, possibly inspired by Onkelos on Gen 37:19. The phrase was reused as a soubriquet for God’s name in an idyllic passage, in keeping with its tranquil style. The third usage is found in a legal context, in a quote from a promissory note whose language is an exact equivalent of a standard clause common in documents from the Judean Desert.1 2

The Phrase ‫ מרי דיכי‬in Two Talmudic Passages: Baba Qamma 49a and Baba Meṣiʿa 86a

I begin with discussion of the demonstrative ‫ דיכי‬in its nonlegal contexts. 2.1 Precedents: ‫ דיכי‬as Related to Biblical Aramaic and in Targum Onkelos ‫ דיכי‬is a rare demonstrative pronoun related to the biblical Aramaic ‫ ֵּדְך‬, e.g., Ezra 5:17: ‫למבנא בית אלהא ֵדְך בירושלם‬, “to rebuild this house of God in Jerusalem.”2 The very rarity of ‫ דיכי‬in most Aramaic corpora gives the word a 1 This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF grant No. 1671/13). I am grateful to Elnatan Chen for copyediting the final draft. 2 See, e.g., Abraham Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1975), 11 (in Hebrew); G. Wilhelm Nebe, “Zu den Bausteinen der deiktischen Pronomina im babylonischtalmudischen Aramäischen,” in “Der Odem des Menschen ist eine Leuchte des Herrn”: Aharon

© Shamma Friedman, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_013

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

345

special rhetorical flavor in its few sporadic usages. Targum Onkelos renders the rare bh demonstrative ‫ ַה ָּלזֶ ה‬with the (equally) rare ‫דיכי‬,3 as in Gen 37:19, ‫ הנה בעל החלמות הלזה בא‬/ ‫הא מרי חלמיא דיכי אתי‬, “Here comes that dreamer.”4 2.2 The Divine Epithet ‫ מרי דיכי‬5 The Phrase ‫ מרי דיכי‬in b. Baba Qamma 49a 2.2.1 The use of ‫ מרי דיכי‬as a divine epithet in the Babylonian Talmud most probably originated in its use as an oath formula. We find it in Baba Qamma 49a, attributed to the third generation Babylonian Amora Rav Ḥisda. He was accustomed to using ‫ מרי דיכי‬as an oath formula when he wanted to highlight the deliberateness of his position in debate: Said Rav Ḥisda: “Master of this (‫!)מרי דיכי‬6 Are embryos packets of money to which a title can be acquired?” b. B. Qam. 49a

3 4 5

6

Agus zum Gedenken, ed. R. Reichman (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 2006), 251–73 (258– 59); Margaretha Folmer, “Rare Demonstrative Pronouns in Targum Onqelos: ‫ דנן‬and ‫דיכי‬,” in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, ed. A. F. Botta, chane 60 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 89–124 (esp. 109–10), concerning the close connection to the biblical ‫ ֵּדְך‬, the nature of the added [i], etc. (cf. halot 5:1853). Cf. Folmer, “Onqelos,” 110. Serving in the “recognitial use.” For this function see Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Nonanaphoric Uses of Demonstrative Pronouns in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic,” Lĕšonénu 74 (2012): 229–66 (253–56, XII) (in Hebrew). In Michael Sokoloff’s dictionary of Babylonian Aramaic (A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 2nd ed., Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3 [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002] [hereafter djba]) the entry for ‫( דיכי‬p. 330) refers the reader to “‫מרי דיכי‬,” a subentry s.v. ‫( מרי‬p. 709), where the phrase is glossed: “a pseudonym for the name of God (etym.[ology] unkn.[own]).” However, both words are well known: ‫מרי‬, meaning “lord,” and ‫דיכי‬, the demonstrative pronoun. Since the entry presents ‫ דיכי‬only in the frozen phrase ‫מרי דיכי‬, it must be the phrase itself for which further elucidation was required. The literature rubric of this entry reads: “S. Friedman, BM VII (forthcoming).” The task is thus left for me, and I will attempt to fulfill that duty here. This translation would take dekhi as a substantive and mare as construct state (as is common with mare, see Sokoloff, djba, 708–9). In Targum Onkelos as quoted above, dekhi is an adjective, modifying mare (see below, n. 12). Nebe, “Zu den Bausteinen,” 258, translating, as one possibility “Jener ‘mein Herr’” (compare Folmer, “Onqelos,” 110: “that Lord of mine”), would point, not ‫=( ָמ ֵרי‬ ‫) ָמ ֵרא‬, but ‫ ָמ ִרי‬, a form documented in Galilean Aramaic (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2nd ed., Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2 [Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002], 329, meanings a and d), but apocopated in Babylonian Aramaic (Sokoloff, djba, 707–8); this would also be in “recognitial use.”

346

Friedman

Rashi explains this use of ‫ מרי דיכי‬as a vocative addressed by Rav Ḥisda to his partner in debate, and glosses: “Master of this opinion [which I oppose] (‫בעל‬ ‫)שמועה זו‬.”7 However, it is more likely that Rav Ḥisda is mustering an exclamatory oath formula, appealing to God to strengthen his objection.8 This was also done by other Amoraim in various situations, using various formulas. Rav Yosef proclaims: “Lord of Abraham”;9 Rav Kahana cries: “Lord of everything”;10 and Rav Ḥisda himself (and others) also often used the exclamatory oath formula ‫האלהים‬, “[by] God!”11 Thus, in our case Rav Ḥisda is following the pattern used by other Amoraim in employing the word ‫מריא‬, “Lord,” in an oath formula. But what is the force of ‫ מרי דיכי‬in an oath formula, and more specifically, to what does the demonstrative ‫ דיכי‬refer? I propose here several possibilities, any of which, or even the combination of which, may be the background for this clever, creative phrase used as an epithet for the Divine: 1) ‫ מרי דיכי‬may denote ‫אדון זה‬, “this lord.”12 We do find ‫ אדון זה‬referring to the divine presence: R. Joshua b. Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R. Simeon b. Yoḥai’s tomb. He asked him: Have I a portion in the World to Come? He replied, if this Master (‫ )אדון זה‬desires it. R. Joshua b. Levi said, I saw two, but heard the voice of a third.13 The “voice of a third” is that of the divine presence,14 heard but not seen, referred to as ‫אדון זה‬, “this Master”/“this Lord.” As noted above, ‫ דיכי‬is attested in Targum Onkelos as a demonstrative adjective with a rhetorical flavor, occurring in proximity to the word ‫מרי חלמיא( מרי‬ ‫)דיכי‬. Onkelos’s phrase, “that lord of dreams,” could itself have provided a sufficient model for ‫מרי דיכי‬, “this Lord.”15 However, the use of such a demonstrative requires providing some narrative context. The divine presence referred to by the term ‫ אדון זה‬in the R. Joshua b. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

See also R. Ḥisda’s use of the formula in b. Zebaḥ. 43b and b. Ḥul. 90b, and Rashi’s comments there. Cf. Alexander (H. Y.) Kohut, ed., Arukh ha-Shalem of R. Nathan b. Yeḥiel of Rome, vol. 3 (Vienna: Georg Brog, 1882), 56, entry ‫ ֵּדְך‬. Chaim Josua Kasowski, Oṣar Leshon ha-Talmud, 41 vols. (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture and Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954–1982), 25:946. B. Ned. 22b. Rashi: “He swore by the Lord of the world, ‘I will not eat.’” Kasowski, Oṣar Leshon ha-Talmud, 3:1126–27 (often with waw). This would also be an adjectival usage, see above, n. 6. B. Sanh. 98a; cf. Cod. Reuchlin 2 in the Badische Landes-Bibliothek, Karlsruhe. Rashi: “the divine presence was with them.” See below, at the end of this article, for a discussion of near and remote deixis.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

347

Levi narrative was indicated by a voice that was heard. In Rav Ḥisda’s oath to ‫מרי דיכי‬, such contextual indication for the divine is lacking. 2) S. D. Luzzatto made the following suggestion regarding Rav Ḥisda’s ‫מרי דיכי‬: I think it to express: “Lord of the world!” And ‫ ֵד ִיכי‬, “this,” to relate to the earth—an exclamation accompanied by the gesture of treading on the floor where the excited speaker was standing.16 Thus, Luzzatto understands ‫ דיכי‬to function as a demonstrative pronoun, contextualized by a gesture. 3) I suggest, alternatively, that the accompanying gesture may have pointed upward, similar to the gestures of the young Abbaye and Rava when asked questions by Rabba: Abbaye and Rava [when boys] were once sitting in the presence of Rabba. Said Rabba to them: To whom do we address the benedictions? They replied: To the All-Merciful. And where does the All-Merciful abide? Rava pointed to the roof; Abbaye went outside and pointed to the sky.17 Thus, I propose that Rav Ḥisda said ‫“—מרי דיכי‬by this Lord”—pointing upward (demonstrative adjective use, again contextualized by the gesture). Without pronouncing a holy name, he makes quite clear to Whom he is referring. 2.2.2 The Phrase ‫ מרי דיכי‬in b. Baba Meṣiʿa 86a The phrase occurs once again as a divine epithet in a vignette at the end of a long aggadic sequence, in the seventh chapter of Baba Meṣiʿa (b. B. Meṣ. 86a): R. Simeon b. Ḥalafta, a portly gentleman, feeling hot one day, climbed up and sat on a mountain boulder and said to his daughter, “Daughter, fan me with a fan, and I will give you cakes of spikenard (‫)ככרין דנרד‬.” Just then, however, a breeze arose, whereat he observed, “How many cakes of spikenard [do I owe] to ‫( מרי דיכי‬the Master of this [breeze]).”18

16 17 18

Samuel D. Luzzatto, Grammar of the Biblical Chaldaic Language and the Talmud Babli Idioms, trans. J. S. Goldammer (New York: Wiley, 1876), 120–211. B. Ber. 48a; cf. ms Paris 671 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Héb. 671). As glossed by Rashi: ‫( למרי דיכי—לבעליו של זה הרוח‬all manuscripts).

348

Friedman

What could be a better closing for this idyllic vignette—a passage about fragrant spices and the refreshing breeze that accomplishes so much more than a few strokes of the fan. Exclaims R. Simeon, “How many cakes of spikenard do I owe to this Lord,” or: “the Lord of this [breeze],” while gesturing upwards. The phrase preexists, in the oath formula coined by Rav Ḥisda. The author of the vignette cleverly reuses it to joyfully invoke the Lord who stands behind the gentle breeze. Although this explanation is sufficient, I can offer a further possibility in the form of associative rhetoric. The mention of spikenard recalls Song 4:14 both in terms of the appearance of this spice and the similar fragrant idyllic atmosphere: ‫וכרּכֹם קנה וקנמון עם כל עצי לבונה‬ ַ ‫נרד‬ ‫מֹר וַ ֲא ָהלות עם כל ראשי בשמים‬

Nard and saffron, fragrant reed and cinnamon, with all aromatic woods, myrrh, and aloes—all the choice perfumes. At the head of the two main stiches we find ‫“( נֵ ְר ְּד … מֹר‬spikenard … myrrh”; according to some, spikenard is myrrh).19 The Talmud has elsewhere played on “myrrh.” Expanding on Exod 30:23 ‫ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר־דרור חמש מאות‬, “Take now choice spices: five hundred weight of solidified myrrh,” the Talmud states: Where is Mordecai indicated in the Torah? In the verse ‫מר דרור‬, “solidified myrrh” which the Targum renders ‫“[ מרדכי‬pure myrrh,” which sounds like “Mordechai”].20 Targum Onkelos on this verse translates ‫ מר דרור‬as ‫מירא דכיא‬.21 If the Talmud can cite this translation as a pun on Mordechai, perhaps our most talented author also wanted to imply a pun connecting ‫ מרי דיכי‬with ‫מירא דכיא‬, the 19

20 21

Compare Tg. Neof. Exod 30:34 ‫ שבלה מרייא‬to talmudic ‫( שיבולת נרד‬y. Yoma 4:5, 41d; b. Ker. 6a). See Immanuel Löw, Die Flora der Juden, 4 vols. (Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 3:485, and the asterisk note there, with reference to Ḥassan bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum, ed. Rubens Duval, 3 vols. (Paris: E Reipublicae typographae, 1901), 3:1040. B. Ḥul. 139b: ‫( מנין למרדכי מן התו׳ דכת׳ מר דרור ומתרגמינן מרדכי‬Oxford, Bodl. Heb. c. 21 [2666] 23). See Edward M. Cook, A Glossary of Targum Onkelos according to Alexander Sperber’s Edition, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 61, 147; cf. Onkelos and Peshitta, ad. loc.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

349

“solidified myrrh” of the Targum to Exod 30:23, to complement the mention of ‫“ ככרין דנרד‬cakes of spikenard.” In any case, my previous explanation is sufficient without this additional pun. 3 “‫ ”דיכי‬in a Legal Formula Attested in b. Baba Meṣiʿa 104a The word ‫ דיכי‬is attested in a formula that appears in a promissory note cited in b. B. Meṣ. 104a. The context is a law according to which a creditor may not take a pledge (against a loan) that is worth more than the debt. This law is derived from language included by the debtor in the promissory note: R. Joshua b. Korḥah interpreted the text of secular documents. For it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korḥah said: If a man makes a loan to his neighbor, he must not seize from him a pledge that is worth more than the debt; because he (the debtor) writes thus unto him [namely, the debtor uses the following terminology in his promissory note]: “The repayment which is due to you from me shall be in accordance with the full value of this (‫[ )דיכי‬namely, the loan].” ‫ שכך‬,‫ המלוה את חברו לא ימשכננו יתר מחובו‬:‫ ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה או׳‬:‫דתניא‬ 23”.‫ דאית לך עלאי כל קבל דיכי‬22‫ ”תשלומתא‬:‫כותב לו‬

The statement recorded in the promissory note is interpreted here to provide the following ruling, namely, that the required pledge must be limited to the full value of the loan. This law is part of a longer passage dealing with “expounding secular language” (‫ ;)דורשין לשון הדיוט‬the primary occurrence of the passage is in t. Ketub. 4:9–13, where several sages expound legal principles based on language in secular documentary texts.24 In this case, we are dealing with a standard-issue promissory note. Before we can evaluate the use of ‫ דיכי‬in this passage we must survey the passage’s parallel occurrences within the rabbinic corpus. I cite the parallel

22 23 24

Concerning the morphology of the Babylonian form versus the Palestinian, compare Targum Jonathan 2 Sam 19:37 ‫שלוּמ ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ; ַת‬see also n. 42. B. B. Meṣ. 104a; Hamburg, Staats- und Universitӓtsbibliothek, Cod. hebr. 19 (Cod. Hamburg), 165. See Shamma Friedman, “Hillel and the Alexandrian Ketubba: Expounding Secular Language,” in Semitic, Biblical and Jewish Studies in Honor of Richard C. Steiner, ed. A. J. Koller et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2020), 176–255 (in Hebrew).

350

Friedman

passages in t. Ketub. 4:12, y. Ketub. 4:8, and y. Yebam. 15:3, for comparison to the text of the Bavli as given above:25 :‫ שכן כותב לו‬,‫ המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו יותר מחובו‬:‫דרש ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה‬ ”.‫“תשלמתא מנכסיא דאית לי מנכסיא דקניתי מן קדמת דנא‬ t. Ketub. 4:12 26

‫ לא יכנס‬,‫ המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו אלא בבית דין‬:‫דרש ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה‬ ‫ די אתיין לי ודי‬27‫ “תשלומה מן ניכסיה‬:‫ שכן הוא כותב‬,‫לביתו ליטול את משכונו‬ y. Ketub. 4:828

25

”.‫אקנה לקבל דנה‬

See below for a discussion of the only major significant variant in the manuscript evidence of the Bavli passage, which appears in MS Florence. 26 So read Cod. Vienna and the first printed edition (Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1521), mentioning “property” twice in asyndetic fashion, as in the text of y. Yebamot. Cod. Erfurt, however, lists these in syndetic style with a connecting copula: ‫תשלומתא מניכסיא דאית‬ ‫לי ומניכסיא דקניתי מן קדמת דנא‬, similar to the text of y. Ketubbot. (Concerning the use of the past tense in this manuscript, see below, near n. 51.) Citations of the Tosefta manuscripts are found in Saul Lieberman, The Tosefta, Seder Nashim, part A (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967). Editorial textual reworking usually changes asyndesis to syndesis, which might explain the Erfurt reading of the Tosefta. It is possible that the Tosefta (Cod. Vienna) and y. Yebamot reflect an original asyndetic style found in the ancient documentary tradition; see below, however, concerning the ancient Judean material. In dealing with the Tosefta, Brody suggests that waw was deleted (in Cod. Vienna and the printed edition) in order to accommodate the entire sequence to the mistaken past tense at the end; see Robert Brody, Mishnah and Tosefta Ketubbot: Text, Exegesis and Redaction (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015), 26 (in Hebrew). 27 Brody, ibid., emends ‫ מן ניכסיה‬to ‫מנכסיא‬, as in the Tosefta. This correction includes, in effect, three separate emendations: (1) ‫ מ־‬for ‫ ;מן‬however, the nonapocopated form, standard in Aramaic, is also standard in the Judean dialect (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic [Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003], 62–63; hereafter dja). The Yerushalmi text, in both tractates, is more loyal to the original than the Tosefta (cf. Friedman, “Hillel,” n. 14); (2) Removal of yod after nun. Even though this mater lectionis is not consistent with standard Judean orthography, it is not inappropriate in the Yerushalmi text; (3) ‫ ־א‬for ‫־ה‬. However, final he as the definitive marker is well known in early Aramaic sources, cf. ‫תשלמתא‬/‫ תשלמתה‬three to one in the Judean collection cited here, and so in the two Yerushalmi passages (and in our selfsame line: ‫)תשלומה מן ניכסיה‬. Compare also ‫ נכסיה‬alongside ‫ נכסיא‬in Elephantine. See Bezalel Porten and Jerome A. Lund, Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project: Texts and Studies 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002; hereafter kwic), 232 (nos. 038, 039, 041); See also the Babylonian Talmud: ‫דהוו נפישי ליה ניכסיה‬ ‫( טובא‬b. Šabb. 19a; Cod. Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23). 28 First print edition (Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1523), 29a.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

351

‫ שהוא כותב‬,‫ המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו יותר על חובו‬:‫דאמר ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה‬ “.‫ לקבל דנה‬30‫ לי די אקנה‬29]‫ ”תשלמתה מן ניכסיי דיאתי(ק)[ין‬:‫לו‬ y. Yebam. 15:3

I note a redundancy in the version of Tosefta Ketubbot, in the use of the adverbial phrase ‫מן קדמת דנא‬, “from before this [time]” (i.e., previously). As Lieberman has determined,31 the phrase is a faulty repetition from the previous passage in the Tosefta.32 Therefore no help can be derived from the Tosefta in evaluating the Bavli’s ‫כל קבל דיכי‬. On the other hand, the parallels in the Yerushalmi record ‫ לקבל דנה‬at the end of the baraita, and this language is similar to the Bavli’s ‫כל קבל דיכי‬, both meaning “in accordance with”; they differ

29

30 31 32

]‫דיאתי(ק)[ין‬. The reading as corrected by the second hand is ‫ ;דיאתיין‬in y. Ketubbot: ‫די אתיין‬. David Fränkel, in his commentary to y. Yebam. 15:3 (Qorban ha-ʿEdah ad loc.), regards this as the verb ‫את״י‬, “to come”: ‫ ;מנכסים שיבואו לידי ואפי׳ דאקנה מהיום‬as does Moses Margolies (Pene Moshe, ad loc.): ‫( דמי משכון זה שבא לידי‬see next note regarding the first printed edition). Brody, Ketubbot, 26 n. 102, seems to understand Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah [New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967], 6:250 n. 93) as also taking this word from ‫ את״י‬and translating it as “‫ ;”שתבאנה‬meaning within the context: “which are coming to me which I shall acquire.” Lieberman does not say this explicitly, and such a deduction is unlikely. The clause under discussion is composed in Judean Aramaic, a dialect that maintains the early Aramaic form ‫ איתי‬for the particle of existence, as biblical ‫יתי‬ ַ ‫( ִא‬Sokoloff, dja, 30–1, s.v. ‫ ;איתי‬Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols. [Leiden: Brill, 1995], 1:50–51). The form ‫ איתי‬is not preserved here in the Tosefta but is recorded three times in the Tosefta in related documentary citations (t. Ketub. 4:11 x2; 12:1) in the form ‫( איתאי‬a spelling also found in Bavli, search www.lieberman-institute.com) with erroneous variations in some textual witnesses but correct in others (Cod. Vienna: ‫ איתאי‬,‫ איתאי‬,‫;א[י]תאי‬ Cod. Erfurt: ‫ דאית‬,‫ דלא אית‬,‫ ;דאית‬first print edition [Venice]: ‫ דאית‬,‫ דאיתאי‬,‫)דאיתיאי‬. The form with final nun is found in a documentary citation at m. Ketub. 4:7 ‫ָּכל נִ ְכ ִסים‬ ‫יתיִ ן ִלי‬ ַ ‫ ְּד ִא‬ = all assets which I have (lit. “which there are to me”); see Sokoloff, dja, 30, s.v. ‫ אחרי‬no. 1 (and add ‫ לי‬to his citation). Compare ‫( די איתין לי‬Sifra Meṣora, 4:1, cod. Parma 3259); ‫( די איתיין לי‬ibid., cod. Vatican 66; Venice print). Closing the final diphthong ay with [n] is similar to the tendency in Mishnaic Hebrew to close uninflected words ending in a vowel with a final nun (cf. Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, ‫ ;)נה‬compare Galilean Aramaic, ‫( תמה-ayin follows automatically. This orthography is still reflected in the Yerushalmi text, ‫די אתיין‬, ‫דיאתיין‬, even if the derivation from ‫ איתי‬was no longer recognized, and consequently the yod after alef was dropped. Brody, Ketubbot, 26 n. 102, conjectured that the forms in the Yerushalmi are corrupt plurals of ‫אית‬. On ‫לי די אקנה‬, see Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah, 6:250 n. 93. In Cod. Leiden: ]‫ליידי [ד‬ ‫ ;אקנה‬first print edition (Venice) 14d: ‫דיאתיין לידי דאקנה‬. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah, 6:250. ‫( ואחרי די איתאי ליך עליי מן קדמת דנא‬t. Ketub. 4:11; Lieberman, Tosefta Nashim, 68).

352

Friedman

only regarding the demonstrative pronoun: Bavli has ‫ דיכי‬whereas Yerushalmi reads ‫דנה‬. The Yerushalmi’s ‫ לקבל דנה‬is attested already in Ezra 4:16: ‫ לָ קֳ בֵ ל דְּ נָה חלק‬,‫מהודעין אנחנה למלכא די הן קריתא דך תתבנא ושוריה ישתכללון‬ ‫בעבר נהרא לא איתי לך‬

We advise the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are completed; in accordance with this, you will no longer have any portion in the province of Beyond the River. In the context of the Yerushalmi passage this phrase signifies “in accordance and commensurate with the amount of the debt.” Lieberman thus suggested emending the Tosefta reading ‫ מן קדמת דנה‬to the Yerushalmi’s ‫לקבל דנה‬.33 If we also adopt the Yerushalmi’s future tense ‫“( ודי אקנה‬and those which I shall acquire”) instead of ‫דקניתי‬,34 the emended Tosefta now properly speaks about liability payable from both past and future property. The warranty clause in the Bavli, in which the phrase indicating payment of liability “from property” is lacking, differs significantly from the wording common to the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. The use of the demonstrative ‫ דיכי‬may simply be an example of the well-known Babylonian propensity to rework tannaitic formulations, in which case we may see the Bavli’s use of ‫ דיכי‬as an idiosyncratic formulation, perhaps influenced by the language of Onkelos. However, we may consider an alternate possibility, namely that this phrase reflects original tannaitic diction. To this end, a comparison with language attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls yields interesting data. 4

The Phrase ‫ לקבל דך‬in Legal Documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls

The data from various deeds and promissory notes found among the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the rabbinic warranty clause finds a parallel in a standard legal formulation in documents from the Judean Desert.35 The Judean evidence is as follows: 33 34 35

Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah, 6:250. Brody, Ketubbot, 25. I touched upon the Judean clause and its rabbinic echoes in a note in my commentary to ‫( השוכר את האומנין‬Shamma Friedman, Talmud Arukh: BT Baba Meṣiʿa VI: Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary [Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990], 312 n. 107). I return to it here in greater detail.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

353

‫ה] לך מנכסי ודי אקנה לקובלדך‬/‫תשלמ[תא‬

Mur 18:7–8; loan bill

[The pa]yment to you (will be) from my property and (from) whatever I shall acquire, accordingly36 ‫ותשלמתה מן נכסי ודי אקנה לקבלדך‬

Sdeir 2:6–7; promissory note?

Then the payment (will be) from my property and (from) whatever I shall acquire, according to that37 Naḥal Ṣeʾelim 9:10; deed of sale

‫פר]ען תשלמתה מן נכ[סי ודי אק]נה לקבל דך‬

[… the fulfill]ment of the payment (will be) from my pro[perty and (from) whatever I will acq]uire, accordingly38 [‫פ]רע[ן ]תשלם די ל‬

Naḥal Ṣeʾelim 9:21

[.. the ful]fill[ment]of the payment of/that […]39 4Q344 10–11; fragment of a loan bill

‫[תשלמתה מן נ]כסי ודי אקנה לקבלך‬

[the payment from] my [p]roperty and (from) whatever I will acquire, according to that40

36

37 38 39 40

Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000), 1:15 (Aramaic text); 2:19 (translation). Ibid., 1:20 (Aramaic text); 2:20 (translation). Ibid., 1:23, recto (Aramaic text); 2:21 (translation). Ibid., 1:23, lower text (Aramaic text); 2:22 (translation). Ibid., 1:21 (Aramaic text); 2:20 (translation). For the derivation of this document from the Judean Desert, see Emanuel Tov, “The Corpus of the Qumran Papyri” in Semitic Papyrology in Context—A Climate of Creativity: Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine, ed. L. H. Schiffman, chane 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 85–103 (90).

354

Friedman

Mur 26:21; deed of sale

‫ותשלמתא מן נכסי[נה ודי נקנה ]ל[ק]ב[לדך‬

And the payment (will be) from my property [and from whatever I will acquire] acc[or]di[ngly41 In a parallel Hebrew document, we find the following formulation:42 ‫והתשלם [מן ]ביתי ומן נכסי וקים עלי כול שאש על השטר הזא‬

Naḥal Ṣeʾelim 49:10–11; loan bill

Then the payment (will be) [from]my house and from my property. And it is established by me all that is in this deed.43 The Judean formulae present important features relevant to the current discussion: the syndetic listing of two types of property (“my [current] property and that which I shall acquire [in the future]”); and the use of the term ‫ לק[ו]בלדך‬or ‫לקבל דך‬, “according to that.” One may compare ‫ דך‬in these documents to the demonstrative ‫דכי‬/‫זכי‬, a regular linguistic feature in the Elephantine papyri corpus,44 which is an earlier representative of the ancient Aramaic documentary tradition. In contrast to the form of the phrase in y. Ketub. 4:8, and y. Yebam. 15:3 (‫לקבל‬ ‫)דנה‬, we now find that the form of the phrase in b. B. Meṣ. 104a, ‫דכי‬/‫לקביל דיכי‬, is actually closer to the term ‫ קבל דך‬/‫ קבלדך‬attested in the Judean corpus!45 It is worth noting that, in contrast to the readings of the majority of Bavli manuscripts on this passage,46 the Florence manuscript, which often preserves 41 42

43 44 45 46

Yardeni, Textbook, 1:37 (Aramaic text), 2:25 (translation). See Uri Mor, “On the Verbal Nouns of ‫ של״ם‬in the Heavy Conjugation,” in ZaphenathPaneah: Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. D. Sivan et al. (Beer Sheva‌: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2009), 279–87 (in Hebrew), regarding the relationship of the Hebrew and Aramaic, and a detailed study on the morphology of ‫תשלומתא‬/‫תשלמתא‬/‫ תשלום‬on the backdrop of *tušlūm/*tušlūm(a)t. Yardeni, Textbook, 1:19 (Aramaic text), 2:19 (translation). Porten and Lund, kwic, 124–25. The Judean pronoun (see Yardeni, Textbook, 2:37 for occurrences) can be reasonably vocalized dekh (‫ ) ֵּדְך‬in light of the biblical masculine form (cf. Sokoloff, dja, 41). Most manuscripts read here ‫( כל קבל‬or ‫כלקבל‬, ‫)כל קביל‬, reflecting the form in Daniel (‫ָּכל‬ ‫ ֳק ֵבל‬: Dan 2:12, 24; 3:7, 8, 22; 6:10; Ezra 7:17 [all attestations of ‫ ;]כל קבל דנה‬see also Dan 2:8, 10; 3:29; 4:15; 5:22; 6:4, 5, 11, 23; Ezra 7:14). Most occurrences make ‫ כל‬a separate word. See halot 5:1966.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

355

original readings,47 presents ‫ ;לקביל דיכי‬this corresponds to the Judean desert ‫לקבל־‬, and thus maintains the basic form of the biblical Aramaic word (‫) ָל ֳק ֵבל‬.48 The Judean texts thus suggest that the reading of the Bavli may provide an accurate reconstruction of the original reading of t. Ketub. 4:12, which may now be emended in accordance with the Bavli’s use of ‫לקביל דיכי‬, rather than to the phrase in the Yerushalmi (‫)לקבל דנה‬, as Lieberman suggested. It thus may be that the Yerushalmi text reflects a classicizing of the original tannaitic formulation in the direction of the biblical ‫ ָל ֳק ֵבל ְּדנָ ה‬. The correspondence of a rabbinic text with a Judean document deriving from the first century CE, which undoubtedly reflects a more ancient Aramaic formulary tradition, is extraordinarily significant for the study of the rabbinic corpus. Before we expand our discussion in this direction, let us take a closer look at the clause as a whole. The full clause is attested in five documents in Aramaic and in a sixth in Hebrew translation. It appears as one of the standard warranty clauses appearing at the end of documents. It is used not only in loan documents, where it clearly originated, but also in other categories such as bills of sale. In the latter context, our clause promises that the seller will “reimburse the buyer for any costs that he may incur as a result of claims against his ownership of the property”; the force of the clause is that “[t]he seller promises to indemnify the buyer even from property that he [the seller] has not yet bought [at the time of the sale].”49 By the first century CE, the clause had become so standardized that its language had become elliptic through abbreviation, and phrases were introduced perfunctorily beyond the application for which they were originally formulated. The elliptic style is reflected in the clause we are dealing with: ‫ ודי אקנה‬,‫“( ותשלמתה מן נכסי‬The payment from my property, and [from property] which I shall acquire”); the phrase ‫ ודי אקנה‬is abbreviated from ‫[ומן נכסי] די אקנה‬. An expanded form appears in t. Ketub. 4:12, which mentions the word property twice: )‫ מנכסיא דקניתי (מן קדמת דנא‬,‫תשלמתא מנכסיא דאית לי‬ As mentioned above, the redundant past tense of the Tosefta, ‫דקניתי‬, emended in line with the Yerushalmi text to future tense, ‫דאקנה‬, brings the Tosefta 47 48 49

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.1.8–9. See my introduction to Talmud Ha-Igud, Baba Meṣʿia VII (forthcoming). See Dan 2:31 (‫ ;)לקבלך‬3:3; 5:1, 5, 10; Ezra 4:16 (‫ ;)לקבל דנה‬6:13. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Reflections on the Deeds of Sale from the Judaean Desert in Light of Rabbinic Literature,” in Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert, ed. R. Katzoff and D. Schaps, JSJSup 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 185–203 (199).

356

Friedman

version even closer to the Judean Desert documents.50 Even the seemingly minor detail of the syndetic formula attested in y. Ketub., ‫ודי אקנה‬, is now seen to match the Judean formula, ‫נקנה‬/‫ודי אקנה‬.51 We are able to compare these minute details of style due to the remarkably precise correspondence of the rabbinic documentary citation with its Judean use in the context of authentic legal documents. This is not the only example of such correspondences, which may be exemplified through studies of other citations in the Tosefta Ketubbot collection of formulae. These fragmentary extracts of legal formulae are cited in rabbinic texts due to the importance given to the legal principles and legal terminology embedded in them, even when the contexts to which they are applied in the rabbinic sources differ from the original contexts of the Aramaic formulary from which they were drawn. Thus the tašlamta clause, used in the Judean formulary as a warranty for payment of debt and similar obligations, is extended in the Tosefta passage to define the limit of value for seizure of a pledge for a loan. It was largely the idea of the commensurability of the payment to the obligation, expressed in the phrase ‫לקבל דך‬, “in accordance with that,” in the Judean documentary tradition, that enabled reuse of the entire clause to express the commensurability of the pledge to the amount of the loan in the rabbinic texts. 5 Conclusion The demonstrative pronoun ‫ דיכי‬occurs in three vastly dissimilar contexts in the Babylonian Talmud. Although there are no less than five occurrences in three contexts, the demonstrative pronoun does not belong to the standard Babylonian Aramaic dialect. In two contexts, it is a rhetorical borrowing from literary Aramaic, possibly influenced by the dialect of Babylonian Aramaic transmitted by Targum Onkelos. First, in the phrase ‫מרי דיכי‬, “this Lord,” it forms a substitute for the divine name in Rav Ḥisda’s oath formula. From there the phrase was borrowed to serve in an idyllic context as a delicate, ornate epithet for God as the creator of a pleasant breeze. The third context is a citation from a legal formulary, originating in the ancient Aramaic documentary tradition. The primary rabbinic source of this tradition is the Tosefta, with derivative parallels 50 51

See above, near n. 34. Uri Mor has already noted that syndesis is the prevalent style in the Judean corpus, both in Hebrew and Aramaic; see Uri Mor, Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea between the First and the Second Revolts (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015), 337–8 and n. 313 (in Hebrew).

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

357

in the Yerushalmi and Bavli. Through a textual error, the phrase was not preserved in the surviving textual witnesses to the Tosefta. However, the attempt to reconstruct it suggests that the Bavli’s parallel, similar to the Judean Desert use of ‫ דך‬in the clause under discussion, is a likely candidate, yielding dekhi or dekh. This pronoun, ‫ דכי‬or ‫דיכי‬, has substantial attestation in documentary Aramaic as evidenced in Elephantine, as does the related ‫ דך‬among the Judean Desert documents. In later corpora (the Babylonian Targums52 and the Babylonian Talmud) this pronoun is rare53 and exotic. Its occurrence in the Babylonian Talmud within the tašlumta clause could, in theory, stem from targumic influence. However, the close correspondence to language attested in the Judean Desert scrolls makes this an improbable coincidence. At most, ‫ דך‬might have been pronounced as dekhi under influence from the language of Targum Onkelos. The evaluation of the Bavli text supports the reconstruction of the Tosefta as ‫דיכי‬/‫דך‬. Rabbinic sources reflect a close acquaintance with a corpus of documentary texts identical to, or at least largely corresponding to, the Judean Desert documents. Indeed, this corpus is mentioned by name: it is explicitly referred to as ‫“—שטרי הדיוטות‬secular documents,”54 and the technical vocabulary appearing therein as ‫“—לשון הדיוט‬secular language.”55 These texts appear to have been a corpus of Aramaic writs and deeds, from which exact quotes were cited and analyzed in the tannaitic sources. In the course of this process, the language was often reapplied to a rabbinic subject in a way that differed from the simple meaning of the phrase in its original setting. In our case, as there is no “pledge” mentioned in the DSS formula, it seems that R. Joshua b. Korḥah “re-interprets” the ancient phrase, to make it mean that the pledge should be no greater that the amount of the loan. This “rough fit,” and the terse or truncated nature of the citation, is the reason for the unclear nature of these citations in context and the difficulties besetting their interpretation.56 In sum, the rabbinic citations of legal formulae analyzed here are based in part on documentary texts drawn from a developed formulary tradition, heir to 52 53

54 55 56

I.e., Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan b. Uziel to the Prophets, and Targum PseudoJonathan to the Pentateuch. On the occasional influence of Onkelos on later Palestinian targumim, see Steven E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah, Harvard Semitic Studies 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 123, 207 n. 160; Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, 2 vols., Handbook of Oriental Studies 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 180. T. Šabb. 13:1 (Lieberman, Tosefta Moed, 57). T. Ketub. 4:9 (Lieberman, Tosefta Nashim, 68); t. B. Bat. 11:13 (Lieberman, Tosefta Nezikin, 170). See Friedman, “Hillel,” n. 38.

358

Friedman

the classic Assyrian-Aramaic formulary,57 one of the manifestations of which was the great Elephantine documentary hoard, and another of which was the Judean Desert finds. We have been able to pinpoint the tašlamta clause within the Judean Desert formulary. These and other such quotations, in the “secular language” pericopae of t. Ketub. 4:9–13 and elsewhere, exhibit an Aramaic dialect similar to that of the Judean deeds, and therefore are treated in Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Indeed, in certain cases the relevant Talmudic passages can be properly explained only when compared to the Judean Aramaic style,58 and so it happens in the present case. However, ‫דיכי‬, with the contextual meaning discussed here, was treated neither in DJA, which does not include texts originating in the Babylonian Talmud, nor in Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, since Judean Aramaic texts recorded in the Bavli are not included in the base corpus of that dictionary; thus the present study undertook to elaborate the connection. Excursus The classical commentators, working from the baraita cited in the Bavli and the sugya attached to it, had great trouble ironing out the formula ‫תשלומתא דאית‬ ‫—לך עלאי כל קבל דיכי‬significantly altered from the original tannaitic language and thus doubly removed from the formulae of the original documents—in a way suitable for that context.59 It is interesting to note that, despite the use 57

58

59

See Yochanan Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Handbook of Oriental Studies 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 12–13, 103–4; Mordechai Akiva Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study, vol. 1, The Ketubba Traditions of Eretz Israel (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1980), passim; Friedman, “Hillel,” n. 1 and literature cited there. For a general treatment and further analyses of passages, see Shamma Friedman, “The Jewish Bill of Divorce: From Masada Onwards,” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy, ed. A. I. Baumgarten et al., JAJSup 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 175–83; idem, “Hillel.” Rashi’s comment here (b. B. Meṣ. 104a) explains the document as one drawn up at a later time during the loan period, when the creditor returns the pawn to the debtor (without receiving the loan in return): “If the creditor returned the pawn to the debtor over a long period of time, the value of the pawn is assessed, and he [the debtor] writes [in a special legal document to the creditor], ‘You will have a [valid] claim to me for all payments [for the outstanding loan], to collect from me the [full] value of this pawn,’ and therefore, if the pawn were to be of greater value than the [amount of the] loan, the result would be illegal over-collection.” Jacob J. Rabinowitz, “Interpretation of Legal Formulae in the Talmud,” Tarbiẓ 22 (1951): 193–95 (in Hebrew), addresses the difficulty of Rashi’s explanation. For other commentators, see Lieberman to t. Ketub., loc. cit. (Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah, Nashim, 249).

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

359

of the word ‫ תשלומתא‬and not ‫משכנתא‬, as the new context should require, R. Ḥananel’s attempt to unlock the meaning of this clause corresponds almost verbatim to the Judean formula. Compare R. Ḥananel’s paraphrase of the formula, ‫יש לך להשתלם מנכסי כנגד חובך‬,60 with that of the Judean Desert documents: ‫תשלמת[ה] לך מנכסי ודי אקנה לקובלך‬. The Talmudic sources recognized the citation in the baraita as reflecting contemporary formulation of promissory notes, in the same way that other citations in Tosefta Ketubbot were similarly recognized as standard usage in contracts. As noted by the classical commentators,61 all of these are introduced with the phrase “for thus he writes to him.”62 Without being able to point to the Judean Desert parallels, the commentators nonetheless succeeded in locating this type of citation as part of a documentary corpus, which sufficed for their local analyses; subsequent scholarship agreed with this view.63 It is worth noting that, beyond its special usage in the Babylonian Talmud,64 the demonstrative pronoun ‫ דיכי‬poses particular challenges across different linguistic fields. It is related to, but not identical with, the biblical ‫ ֵּדְך‬. Its gender is not consistent throughout the various corpora,65 nor is its deixis status unequivocal.66 The elements of which it is composed are open to various interpretations.67 The three positions of near deixis, medial deixis, and remote deixis have been studied from the vantage point of participants in a conversation, yielding I-deixis, you-deixis, and he-deixis. With regard to the word ‫דיכי‬, this approach tends to strengthen the possible connection of the deictic 60 61 62 63

64 65

66 67

R. Ḥananel to b. B. Meṣ. 104a, see I. B. Halevi Soloveitchik, Perushé Rabbenu Ḥananel bar Ḥushiel la-Talmud: Bava Metziʾa (Jerusalem: Machon Lev Sameach, 2012), ‫רסג‬. Rav Hai Gaon, see Robert Brody, Carmiel Cohen, and Yehuda Zvi Stampfer, Otzar haGeonim he-Ḥadash: Tractate Bava Metziʾa (Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute, 2012), 291; Tosafot to b. Ketub. 53a–b, incipit ‘‫( שאין אני קורא בה לכשתנשאי לאחר וכו‬top of folio 53b). T. B. Meṣ. 5:10 (Lieberman, Tosefta Nezikin, 89); t. B. Meṣ. 9:13 (ibid., 113); t. Ketub. 4:9–12 (Tosefta Nashim, 68–69). Cf. Asher Gulak, History of Jewish Law: Talmudic Period, vol. I, Law of Obligation and its Guaranties (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1939), 66 (in Hebrew); “It would appear that here we have a quote from a prevalent documentary text” (Brody, Ketubbot, 26). Jacob N. Epstein, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1960), 25 (in Hebrew): “irregular.” Folmer, “Onqelos,” 109. In the Elephantine texts ‫דכי‬/‫ ז‬is feminine; see Porten and Lund, kwic, 124–25; Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, Handbook of Oriental Studies 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 57 and n. 274; Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 553: “déḳī (= Suffix sing. 2. f.).” Folmer, “Onqelos,” 108, 122. Folmer, “Onqelos,” 109–10, with references there.

360

Friedman

element ‫ כ‬in this word with a second person suffix, taking ‫ כי‬as feminine.68 These ambiguities account for the elusiveness of this phrase in its Talmudic contexts. Bibliography Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. “Non-anaphoric Uses of Demonstrative Pronouns in Baby­ lonian Jewish Aramaic.” Lĕšonénu 74 (2012): 229–66 (in Hebrew). Bar Bahlul, Ḥassan. Lexicon Syriacum. Edited by R. Duval. 3 vols. Paris: E Reipublicae Typographae, 1888–1901. Beyer, Klaus. Die aramӓischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Brody, Robert. Mishnah and Tosefta Ketubbot: Text, Exegesis and Redaction. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015 (in Hebrew). Brody, Robert, Carmiel Cohen, and Yehuda Zvi Stampfer. Otzar ha-Geonim he-Ḥadash: Tractate Bava Metzi’a. Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute, 2012. Cook, Edward M. A Glossary of Targum Onkelos according to Alexander Sperber’s Edition. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 6. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Epstein, Jacob N. A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1960 (in Hebrew). Fassberg, Steven E. A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. Harvard Semitic Studies 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Folmer, Margaretha. “Rare Demonstrative Pronouns in Targum Onqelos: ‫ דנן‬and ‫דיכי‬.” Pages 89–124 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. chane 60. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Friedman, Mordechai Akiva. Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study. Vol. 1: The Ketubba Traditions of Eretz Israel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1980. Friedman, Shamma. “Hillel and the Alexandrian Ketubba: Expounding Secular Language.” Pages 176–255 in Semitic, Biblical and Jewish Studies in Honor of Richard C. Steiner. Edited by A. J. Koller et al. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2020 (in Hebrew). Friedman, Shamma. “The Jewish Bill of Divorce: From Masada Onwards.” Pages 175– 83 in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy. Edited by A. I. Baumgarten et al. JAJSup 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. 68

See most recently Bar-Asher Siegal, “Non-anaphoric Uses,” 229–33, with reference to E. Yechezkel Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1977), 2.

The Strange Journey of a Demonstrative Pronoun

361

Friedman, Shamma. Talmud Arukh: BT Bava Meṣiʿa VI: Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary. Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990. Friedman, Shamma. Talmud Ha-Igud, Baba Meṣiʿa VII (forthcoming). Gulak, Asher. History of Jewish Law: Talmudic Period. Vol. 1: Law of Obligation and its Guaranties. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1939 (in Hebrew). Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Kasowski, Chaim Joshua. Oṣar Leshon ha-Talmud. 41 vols. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture and Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954–1982. Kohut, Alexander (H. Y.), ed. Arukh Ha-Shalem of R. Nathan b. Yeḥiel of Rome. Vol. 3. Vienna: Georg Brog, 1882. Kutscher, E. Yechezkel. Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1977 (in Hebrew). Lieberman, Saul. The Tosefta, Seder Nashim, part A. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah, Part 6. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967. Löw, Immanuel. Die Flora der Juden. 4 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Luzzatto, Samuel D. Grammar of the Biblical Chaldaic Language and the Talmud Babli Idioms. Translated by J. S. Goldammer. New York: Wiley, 1876. Mor, Uri. “On the Verbal Nouns of ‫ של”ם‬in the Heavy Conjugation.” Pages 279–87 in Zaphenath-Paneaḥ: Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by D. Sivan et al. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2009 (in Hebrew). Mor, Uri. Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea between the First and the Second Revolts. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015 (in Hebrew). Muffs, Yochanan. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine. Handbook of Oriental Studies 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Muraoka, Takamitsu, and Bezalel Porten. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Handbook of Oriental Studies 32. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Nebe, G. Wilhelm. “Zu den Bausteinen der deiktischen Pronomina im babylonischtalmudischen Aramäischen.” Pages 251–73 in “Der Odem des Menschen ist eine Leuchte des Herrn”: Aharon Agus zum Gedenken. Edited by R. Reichman. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 2006. Porten, Bezalel and Jerome A. Lund. Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A Key-Word-inContext Concordance. Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project: Texts and Studies 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Rabinowitz, Jacob J. “Interpretation of Legal Formulae in the Talmud.” Tarbiz 22 (1951): 193–95 (in Hebrew).

362

Friedman

Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Reflections on the Deeds of Sale from the Judaean Desert in Light of Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 185–203 in Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert. Edited by R. Katzoff and D. Schaps. JSJSup 96. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. 2nd ed. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2nd ed. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni­ versity Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003. Soloveitchik, I. B. Halevi. Perushé Rabbenu Ḥananel bar-Ḥushiel la-Talmud: Bava Metziʿa. Jerusalem: Machon Lev Sameach, 2012. Tal, Abraham. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. 2 vols. Handbook of Oriental Studies 50. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Tal, Abraham. The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1975 (in Hebrew). Tov, Emanuel. “The Corpus of the Qumran Papyri.” Pages 85–103 in Semitic Papyrology in Context—A Climate of Creativity: Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. chane 14. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yardeni, Ada. Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000.

Chapter 13

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible Geoffrey Khan Karaism arose in the early Islamic period as a movement within Judaism whose essential difference from Rabbanite Judaism consisted in their rejection of the legal authority of the oral law embodied in the Mishnah and Talmuds. The Karaites held that the basis of legal authority was the Bible. They shared the Bible in common with Rabbanite Jews and felt no need to adopt a separate version of the biblical text that deviated from that of the Rabbanite Jewish tradition. This may be contrasted with the Samaritans, who adopted a different, non-Masoretic, biblical text type with its own distinct modifications and additions.1 The fact that the Karaites and the Rabbanites shared the same Scripture meant that Karaites and Rabbanites had a common interest in carefully preserving the transmission of this Scripture. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of Karaite scholars and communities in preserving and developing the masoretic tradition. 1

Introduction

In the Middle Ages, all Jewish communities shared the same consonantal text of the Bible, but there were conspicuous differences across various communities regarding the reading traditions of the text, i.e., the ways in which the text was read aloud. This is reflected in the different vocalization sign systems that are attested in medieval manuscripts. These sign systems can be classified broadly into the Tiberian, Palestinian and Babylonian systems, though in each case the manuscripts attest to a number of variant subsystems. The different vocalization systems do not represent any substantial textual differences among the different reading traditions, but they do reflect considerable differences in pronunciation and also, in many cases, differences in morphology. The so-called standard Tiberian system of vocalization signs was regarded in the Middle Ages as the most prestigious and authoritative system. The reading 1 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 74–93.

© Geoffrey Khan, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_014

364

Khan

tradition reflected by this sign system, known as the Tiberian reading tradition, was held in similar prestige. The Tiberian vocalization sign system was developed in the early Islamic period by the Masoretes of Tiberias. The purpose of the sign system was to function as a written notation representing a tradition of reading that had been transmitted orally over many generations, from the Second Temple period. The activities of the Tiberian Masoretes came to an end in the tenth century. Shortly thereafter, the Tiberian reading tradition fell into oblivion among Jewish communities. The Tiberian sign system, however, which had been developed to represent the reading tradition, was eventually adopted by all Jewish communities, and it replaced the other sign systems. As a result, the Tiberian signs came to be read with various local reading traditions, none of which were direct continuations of the Tiberian reading tradition.2 It is important to note that the Karaites shared with the Rabbanites not only a common consonantal scriptural text, but also the recognition of the Tiberian reading tradition as the most authoritative. It is for this reason that the Karaites had a particular interest in the Tiberian masoretic tradition. The close Karaite association with the Tiberian masoretic tradition may be demonstrated in a number of ways. 2

The Evidence of the Manuscript Tradition

Many of the surviving monumental Tiberian Masoretic codices that were written towards the end of the Masoretic period in the tenth and early eleventh centuries contain inscriptions indicating that the manuscript was dedicated to a Karaite community.3 Some of these codices, dedicated to the Karaite 2 For further details concerning the Tiberian reading tradition and its background, see Geoffrey Khan, The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew: Including a Critical Edition and English Translation of the Sections on Consonants and Vowels in the Masoretic Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘Guide for the Reader’, 2 vols., Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge; Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2020. https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/951). 3 Evidence of such dedications are found in the colophons of several of the Bible manuscripts in the Second Firkovitch Collection, published by Paul E. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 2 vols., Texte und Untersuchungen zur vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen 1, 4 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927–1930), 1:56–77; e.g., no. 2 (Cod. 159, dedicated to the Jerusalem Karaite community, 937 ce); no. 3 (Cod. 10, dedicated to the Fustat Karaite community, eleventh century); no. 8 (Cod. 223, 225, dedicated to the Jerusalem Karaite community, 1017 ce); no. 11 (Cod. 25, 26, dedicated to the Fustat Karaite community, eleventh century); no. 12 (Cod. 94, dedicated to the Karaites of Egypt, 1100 ce); no. 13 (Cod. 34, dedicated to the Karaites

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

365

community of Jerusalem, were subsequently transferred to Egypt; a number have been held by the Karaite community of Cairo down to the present. This applies to several of the old Bible codices kept in the Karaite synagogue of Cairo,4 including the manuscript known as C3 (tenth century, no. 18 in Gottheil’s list),5 and the so-called Cairo Codex of the Prophets (datable to the eleventh century; the colophon bearing the date 895 ce is a copy of an earlier colophon).6 Bible manuscripts often passed from Rabbanite into Karaite hands and vice versa, and some manuscripts dedicated to Karaite communities may originally have been in the possession of Rabbanites. Such is the case with the Aleppo Codex. This manuscript contained an inscription indicating that it had been written by the scribe Shlomo ben Buyāʿā, that its vocalization and masorah had been supplied by Aharon ben Asher, and that a certain Israel ben Simḥa of Baṣra had dedicated the manuscript to the Karaite community of Jerusalem. The first folio of the manuscript, however, contained a notice of its dedication to the Rabbanite community of Jerusalem (‫על ישראל הרבנים השוכנים בעיר‬ ‫)הקו׳‬.7 The dedication to the Karaite community should be dated to the middle of the eleventh century, about a hundred years after the manuscript was first produced by Ben Buyāʿā and Ben Asher. The notice at the beginning of the manuscript suggests that it was originally in Rabbanite hands and had subsequently been purchased by the Karaite Israel ben Simḥa. This manuscript was transferred to Egypt following the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, where it was placed in the Rabbanite synagogue of the Palestinians. In Egypt, it was consulted by Maimonides, who declared it to be the most reliable model

4 5 6

7

of Fustat after the death of its owner, eleventh century). See also the colophons published by Samuel Poznanski, “‫ראשית התיישבות הקראים בירושלים‬,” ed. A. M. Luncz, Jerusalem 10 (1913): 83–116, e.g., p. 115 (dedicated to the Karaites of Ramle, 1013 ce). Richard Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” jqr 17 (1905): 609–55 (647). See Jordan S. Penkower, “A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal ms from Jerusalem (ms C3), Corrected by Misha‌ʾel Ben ʿUzziʾel,” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 49–74 (in Hebrew). For the arguments regarding its dating, see Menahem Cohen, “Has the Cairo Codex of the Prophets Indeed Been Written by Moshe b. Asher?” Alei Sefer 10 (1982): 5–12 (in Hebrew); Mordechai Glatzer, “The Aleppo Codex: Codicological and Paleographical Aspects,” Sefunot 4 (1989): 167–276 (in Hebrew); Lazar Lipschütz, “Kitāb al-Khilaf, The Book of the Ḥillufim: Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali,” Textus 4 (1964): 1–29 (6–7). The original inscriptions are now lost and survive only in copies. See Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 1:7–12; Yosef Ofer, “M. D. Cassuto’s Notes on the Aleppo Codex,” Sefunot 68 (1989): 277–344 (in Hebrew).

366

Khan

manuscript.8 By the sixteenth century the manuscript had passed into the possession of the Rabbanite community of Aleppo.9 The dedication inscription of the Aleppo Codex indicates that even when this carefully produced model manuscript, written by Tiberian Masoretes, came into the possession of a Karaite community, it was made available also for Rabbanites to consult in order to check readings: ‫ואם יחפוץ איש מכל זרע ישראל מבעלי המקרא והרבנים בכל ימות השנה לראות‬ ‫בו דברי יתר או חסר או סתור או סדור או סתום או פתוח או טעם מהטעמים האילו‬ ‫יוציאוהו אליו לראות ולהשכיל ולהבין‬

If anybody of the seed of Israel, from among the Karaites or the Rabbanites, wishes on any day of the year to see in matters relating to full or defective orthography, what is disordered or ordered, closed or open sections, or one of the accents, they should bring it out for him to see and check and so gain understanding.10 Although the dedication of a manuscript to a Karaite community does not necessarily mean that it originated in Karaite circles, the identification as Karaite of the person who commissions the writing of the manuscript is proof that its production was a Karaite initiative. This is, indeed, the case with the Codex Leningradensis (II Firkovitch B19a), which was commissioned by the Karaite Mevorakh ben Joseph ha-Kohen, who, therefore, was the manuscript’s first owner. According to the colophon of this manuscript, it was written by the

8

9 10

See Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex,” Textus 1 (1960): 17–58; Jordan S. Penkower, “Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex,” Textus 9 (1981): 39–128; and Ofer, “Cassuto’s Notes,” for the evidence that the Aleppo Codex was indeed the manuscript that Maimonides saw in Egypt. It is generally believed that this pronouncement of Maimonides ensured that the Ben Asher masoretic tradition became the authoritative one in Judaism. A source from the eleventh century refers to the possibility of following either the school of Ben Asher or that of Ben Naphtali. See Ilan Eldar, “On Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali,” Lĕšonénu 45 (1981): 311–13 (in Hebrew). It is relevant to note, however, that the original vocalization and accents of manuscript C3 of the Karaite synagogue in Cairo (see Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” no. 18) exhibited features of Ben Naphtali’s system; but these features were corrected by Misha‌ʾel ben ʿUzziʾel in the early eleventh century to the reading of Ben Asher. See Penkower, “A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal ms from Jerusalem (ms C3)”; and see discussion below. See the reconstruction of the history of the manuscript by Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 1:3–12, and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, “The Codex of Ben Asher,” Textus 1 (1960): 1–16. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 1:4–5; Ofer, “Cassuto’s Notes,” 288–89.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

367

scribe Samuel ben Jacob in the first decade of the eleventh century.11 Samuel is said to have added the vocalization, accents and masoretic notes based on “the corrected and clear12 books of the teacher Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher, may he rest in Gan Eden” (‫והמבואר אשר עשה המלמד אהרן‬ ̇ ‫מן הספרים המוגהים‬ ‫)בן משה בן אשר נוחו בגן עדן‬. This, therefore, was a copy of a Tiberian masoretic manuscript and was not itself produced by a Tiberian Masorete. Samuel ben Jacob also wrote a Bible manuscript preserved in the Karaite synagogue in Cairo, no. 14 in the list of Gottheil.13 The colophon indicates that this manuscript was commissioned by David ben Yeshua ha-Levi, who presented it to the Karaite community of Cairo. So the production of this manuscript, too, appears to have been a completely Karaite initiative.14 3

The Evidence of the Grammarians

Some scholars who are known to have been Karaites can be shown to have been closely associated with the Tiberian masoretic tradition. This applies to the Karaite grammarians who were active in Jerusalem towards the end of the Masoretic period. The two most important Karaite grammarians in this respect are ʾAbū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ (known in Hebrew as Joseph ben Noaḥ, second half of the tenth century) and ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj (first half of the eleventh century).15 11

12 13 14

15

The various dating formulas correspond to dates between 1008 and 1010. See Ben Outhwaite, “Beyond the Leningrad Codex: Samuel b. Jacob in the Cairo Genizah,” in Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan, edited by N. Vidro et al., Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 30 (Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 2018), 320–40. Kahle interprets the term ‫מבואר‬ ̇ as “supplied with masorah”; see Masoreten des Westens, 1:67. Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo.” Samuel ben Jacob also wrote manuscript no. 27 of Gottheil’s list, which was preserved in the Karaite synagogue, for a certain Yaḥya ben Jacob. For further details about Samuel ben Jacob, see Ben Outhwaite, “Beyond the Leningrad Codex.” There have been recent discoveries of additional Bible manuscripts written by Samuel ben Jacob in the Cairo Genizah; see Kim Phillips, “Two New Fragments from the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex,” in Research Approaches in Hebrew Bible Manuscript Studies: Proceedings of the EAJS LAB Conference, 6–8 June 2016, Aix-En-Provence, ed. E. Attia et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2022); and idem, “The Masora Magna of Two Biblical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah and the Unusual Practice of the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex,” TynBul 67 (2016): 287–307. For details of the Karaite grammarians of Jerusalem and their grammatical thought, see Geoffrey Khan, “The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of the Hebrew Language,” in A Guide to Karaite Studies: The History and Literary Sources of Medieval and Modern

368

Khan

According to David ibn al-Hītī, who wrote a chronicle of Karaite scholars, Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ had a college (dār li-l-ʿilm) in Jerusalem, which appears to have been established around the end of the tenth century.16 ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn belonged to this college of Karaite scholars. In some sources Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ is referred to as ʾAbū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Baḵtawaih (also Baḵtawi), or Joseph ben Baḵtawaih. Baḵtawaih may have been the Iranian equivalent of the name Nūḥ or Noaḥ (cf. Persian baḵt “fortune, prosperity”). Inscriptions on some of the early masoretic Bible codices dedicated to the Jerusalem Karaite community give instructions for them to be deposited in the ḥaṣer (“compound”) of Joseph ben Baḵtawaih; this is likely identical with Ibn Nūḥ’s college, which is referred to by Ibn al-Hītī using the corresponding Arabic term dār.17 The manuscript C3 of the Karaite synagogue in Cairo18 contains the inscription ‫אני מישאל בן עזיאל‬ ‫בן יוסף בן הלל בדקתי זאת התורה של קדש חצר בן בכתויה ירחמיהו אל‬, “I, Misha‌ʾel ben ʿUzziʾel ben Joseph ben Hillel, checked this holy Torah in the enclosure of ben Baḵtawaih, may God have mercy on him.” This indicates that the codex must

16

17

18

Karaite Judaism, ed. M. Polliack, HdO 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 291–318; idem, “The Medieval Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammar,” in A Universal Art: Hebrew Grammar across Disciplines and Faiths, ed. N. Vidro et al., Studies in Jewish History and Culture 46 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 15–33; idem, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought: Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of ʾAbū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ on the Hagiographa, Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2000); Geoffrey Khan, María Ángeles Gallego, and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in Its Classical Form: A Critical Edition and English Translation of al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn alFaraj, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Nadia Vidro, “Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kitāb al-ʿUqūd fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2009); idem, Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kitāb al-ʿUqūd fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya, Études sur le Judaïsme médiéval 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). For the text of Ibn al-Hītī, see George Margoliouth, “Ibn al-Hītī’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors,” jqr, o.s., 9 (1897): 429–43 (433, 438–39). Ibn al-Hītī was writing in the fifteenth century. For the background of Ibn Nūḥ’s college, see Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vol. 2: Karaitica (Philadelphia: Hebrew Press of the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1935), 33–34. See Cod. 159 of the Second Firkovitch Collection, dedicated 937 ce; Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, no. 2, 1:60; Cod. 225 of the Second Firkovitch Collection, dedicated 1017 ce; ibid., no. 8, 1:67. The inscription in Cod. 159 relating to the compound of Joseph ben Baḵtawaih is separate from the main dedication. Since Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ/Joseph ben Baḵtawaih is known to have been active in the second half rather than the first half of the tenth century, the inscription relating to his compound must have been added later. The inscriptions in both manuscripts add the blessing ‫ירחמהו ייי‬, “may God have mercy on him,” after the name Joseph ben Baḵtawaih, which indicates that they were written after his death. Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” no. 18; Penkower, “A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal ms from Jerusalem (ms C3).”

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

369

have been kept in ben Baḵtawaih’s enclosure, where the scholar Misha‌ʾel ben ʿUzziʾel consulted it.19 The close relationship of the early (tenth-century) Karaite grammarians such as Ibn Nūḥ to the Tiberian masoretic tradition is reflected in the methodology and disciplinary structure of their works. The main source of our knowledge of this early Karaite grammatical tradition is the grammatical commentary on the Bible by Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ known as the Diqduq.20 The term diqduq does not have the sense here of “grammar” as an independent discipline, but rather as the “study of the fine details of Scripture.” Ibn Nūḥ did not offer a systematic description of Hebrew grammar but, rather, concentrated on points that he believed might be problematic for the reader or concerning which there was controversy. A central feature of Ibn Nūḥ’s method of presentation was the explanation of why a word has one particular form rather than another. This often involved comparing closely related forms that differ only in small details from the form that is under investigation; Ibn Nūḥ sought to show that apparent inconsistencies in similar words can be explained as conforming to rational rules of grammar. The issue that is addressed is why these fine distinctions in form exist, with a view to finding hermeneutical significance in them. This was often achieved by arguing that similar forms differing in small details were derived from different morphological bases. In the class of verbs that we refer to as final geminates, for example, there is variation in the position of stress in the past forms, e.g., ‫( ַ ֭קּלּו‬qállū, “they are swift”) (Job 9:25) vs. ‫( וְ ַק ּ֨לּו‬wə-qallū, “and they are swift”) (Hab 1:8). According to Ibn Nūḥ this was not an arbitrary variation. Rather, the forms with the penultimate stress are derived from a noun base, whereas the forms with final stress have an imperative base. This approach may be compared to the masoretic practice of collating words that were similar in form but differed only in details. This was a central feature of the masoretic method, and lists recording these collations are found throughout the masoretic notes that were attached to Bible codices. The purpose of this practice was to draw attention to fine details of form, to ensure that these were preserved in the transmission of Scripture. Collations of pairs of closely related forms were also compiled in independent masoretic treatises, such as ʾOḵlah we-ʾOḵlah.21 By the tenth century, the Masoretes had also 19 20 21

Again, the formula “may God have mercy on him” indicates that ben Baḵtawaih was dead by the time this consultation took place. Geoffrey Khan, “The Book of Hebrew Grammar by the Karaite Joseph Ben Noaḥ,” jss 43 (1998): 265–86; idem, Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought. The treatise ʾOḵlah we-ʾOḵlah is named after the first two words of the first list (“eating” [1 Sam 1:9] “and eat” [Gen 27:19]), which enumerates pairs of words in which one occurs

370

Khan

compiled treatises that formulated rules for the occurrence of some of these fine distinctions in form with regard to vowels and accents. The most famous work of this kind is the Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (“The Rules of the Details of the Accents”), which was compiled in the first half of the tenth century by Aharon ben Asher.22 Apart from these parallels in methodology, another feature that reflects the close relationship of Ibn Nūḥ’s work to masoretic activities is that Ibn Nūḥ’s grammatical comments relate mainly to morphology, with some consideration of syntactic issues. They make only very marginal reference to issues of vocalization and accents. They therefore complement the masoretic treatises, which indicates that the early Karaite grammarians were developing the masoretic tradition as received, rather than setting up an independent discipline. This complementary relationship between the masorah and grammar that characterizes the early Karaite grammatical tradition contrasts with the scope of the grammatical work composed by Saadya Gaon in the tenth century. After leaving Egypt, Saadya spent a few years in Tiberias studying among the Masoretes. According to Dotan, he composed his grammar book (Kitāb Faṣīḥ Luġat al-ʿIbrāniyyīn [The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews]) while he was in Tiberias during the second decade of the tenth century.23 Unlike the Diqduq of Ibn Nūḥ, the grammatical work of Saadya does not complement the work of the Masoretes, but rather incorporates numerous elements from it. The surviving sections of the work include not only treatments of grammatical inflection and word structure but also several chapters relating to the Tiberian reading tradition. The material for some of these has clearly been incorporated from the masoretic tradition, and direct parallels can be found

22 23

with the conjunctive waw and the other without it. For a general discussion of the background of the text, see Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. and ed. E. J. Revell, MasS 5 (Missoula, mt: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1980), 128–31. An edition of the text based on the best manuscripts has been made by Fernando Díaz Esteban, Sefer Oklah we-Oklah: Colección de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la intégridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los judíos de la Edad Media (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975); see also Bruno Ognibeni, La seconda parte del Sefer ʾOklah we-ʾoklah: Edizione del ms. Halle, Universitätsbibliotek Y b 4 10, ff. 68–124 (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del csic, 1995). The definitive edition of this text is by Aron Dotan, The Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim of Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967) (in Hebrew). Aron Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics: The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1997), 1:33–40 (in Hebrew).

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

371

in the extant masoretic treatises such as Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim.24 Saadya refers to the accents on various occasions. Dotan, indeed, suggests that one of the missing chapters from Saadya’s work may have been concerned specifically with accents.25 We may say that Saadya’s grammar book is not a product of collaboration with the Masoretes or a complementary expansion of the scope of masoretic teaching, as is the case with the Diqduq of Ibn Nūḥ, but rather was intended to stand separately from the masoretic tradition. The complementary relationship of Ibn Nūḥ’s grammatical work to masoretic activity is further shown by an early masoretic text published by Allony, which contains a list of technical terms for the various aspects of biblical study.26 These are described in the text as diqduqe ha-miqra, which has the sense of “the fine points of Scripture established by detailed investigation.” The list includes masoretic, grammatical, and hermeneutical terms. These correspond closely to the terminology and concepts of Ibn Nūḥ’s Diqduq. The range of the topics of analysis denoted by the terms also parallels the scope of analysis that is found in the Diqduq, although, as we have remarked, the focus of the Diqduq is more on the grammatical and hermeneutical aspects than on the masoretic. It is more accurate to say that the masoretic works and Ibn Nūḥ’s Diqduq together cover the range of topics contained in the diqduqe ha-miqra. This list was not intended primarily as a foundation for the study of grammar per se, but rather as a methodology for establishing the correct interpretation of Scripture. It appears to reflect the scope of the scholarly work that developed around the core masoretic activities, in which the grammatical work of Karaite scholars such as Ibn Nūḥ play an integral role. Allony claimed that this list was of Karaite origin.27 One should be cautious, however, of being too categorical on this issue. Certain details of the list’s content suggest that it was composed in the early Islamic period. It would therefore come from a period when Karaism was in its embryonic stages of development. The main evidence that Allony cites to identify the list as a Karaite work is the reference in the text to the “masters of Bible study” (baʿale ha-miqra). This term was used in some texts in the Middle Ages to designate Karaites.28 It is already found, however, in rabbinic literature, in the sense 24 25 26 27 28

Ibid., 1:34–36. Dotan, Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 1:41–51. Nehemiah Allony, “‫רשימת מונחים קראית מהמאה השמינית‬,” in ‫כתבי הברה לחקר המקרא‬ ‫ קרנגרין ז״ל‬.‫ פ‬.‫בישראל לזכר ד״ר י‬, ed. A. Weiser and B. Z. Luria (Tel Aviv: Niv, 1964), 324–63. Allony, “‫רשימת‬,” 330–35. Ibid., 330–35. The term is frequently used in this way in the inscriptions on the Bible codices discussed above and also in the writings of medieval Karaite scholars such as Salmon ben Yeruḥam and Judah Hadassi (ibid., 333).

372

Khan

of “those who study only the Bible [and not the Mishnah or Gemara].”29 It should be noted, moreover, that in masoretic writings this phrase is sometimes used as an epithet for the Masoretes themselves, who were professionally occupied with the investigation of the Bible.30 The contents of the list were incorporated by a number of later authors into their works. These included not only Karaites but also Rabbanites, such as Dunaš ben Labraṭ.31 ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn, who was based in Jerusalem at the college of Karaite scholars, is said by Ibn al-Hītī to have been the student of Ibn Nūḥ. The content of ʾAbū al-Faraj’s work, however, is very different from that of Ibn Nūḥ, mainly because it conforms more closely to the theories of grammar propounded by the mainstream Baṣran school of Arabic grammar. The Arabic works of ʾAbū al-Faraj, nevertheless, still maintain the complementarity between grammar and masorah that is characteristic of the work of Ibn Nūḥ, in that by and large they are restricted to matters of morphology and syntax with minimal consideration of vocalization and accents. This focus reflects the close relationship of ʾAbū al-Faraj to the masoretic tradition and again contrasts with the grammatical work of Saadya. Moving now from the paramasoretic discipline of Karaite grammar to core masoretic activities, we are able to identify as Karaite the authors of some masoretic treatises from the end of the Masoretic period in the eleventh century. ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn himself wrote a treatise known as Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ (“Guide for the Reader”), which describes the pronunciation of consonants and vowels and the principles of the accents.32 This work complemented his grammatical writings on morphology and syntax.33 He states that his sources for the work were earlier masoretic treatises and the pupils of the writers of these earlier treatises (‫)תלאמידהם‬,34 which indicates that he had access to an oral tradition of instruction in the Tiberian reading practice. Another scholar working in the

29 30 31 32 33 34

See Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), 1:118. E.g., Seligman I. Baer and Hermann L. Strack, Die Dikduke ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moschen ben Ascher und andere alter grammatisch-massoretische Lehrstücke zur Festellung eines richtigen Textes der hebräischen Bibel (Leipzig: Fernau, 1879), xxxviii. Angel Sáenz-Badillos, ed., Teshubot de Dunash ben Labrat (Granada: University of Granada and Pontifical University of Salamanca, 1980), 15*. Ilan Eldar, The Study of the Art of Correct Reading as Reflected in the Medieval Treatise Hidāyat Al-Qāri (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1994) (in Hebrew). Geoffrey Khan, “The Relationship of Hidayat Al-Qariʾ to the Karaite Grammatical Tradition,” in Studies in Hebrew and Related Fields Presented to Ilan Eldar, ed. M. Bar-Asher and I. Meir (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2014), 277–83 (in Hebrew). ms Arab.-Evr. 1 2390, fol. 7a.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

373

Karaite college founded by Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ/Joseph ben Baḵtawaih was Misha‌ʾel ben ʿUzziʾel. As we have seen above, in an inscription in manuscript C3 of the Karaite synagogue in Cairo, he writes that he checked the manuscript in the “enclosure of ben Baḵtawaih.” This implies that he was a Karaite belonging to the circle of scholars in the Karaite college, most likely contemporary with ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn in the first half of the eleventh century. This is almost certainly the same Misha‌ʾel ben ʿUzziʾel who composed a masoretic treatise concerning the differences between the leading Masoretes Aharon ben Asher and Moshe ben Naphtali, known as Kitāb al-Khilaf (“The Book of Differences”).35 Fragments are also extant of a book of differences between the Masoretes written at roughly the same period by the Karaite Levi ben Yefet, also known as Levi ben al-Ḥasan, who was the son of the Karaite translator and exegete Yefet ben ʿEli.36 Several modern scholars have argued that some of the Masoretes themselves were Karaites, in particular Aharon ben Asher, who was one of the most prominent Masoretes towards the end of the Masoretic period in the tenth century. In all cases, however, the arguments are based on indirect or doubtful evidence. Pinsker says that all the Masoretes should be “suspected” of being Karaites, since they spent their time occupied with vocalization and accents of the Bible and there is no evidence that they showed any interest in the Talmud.37 Klar identified the name “Ben Asher” in the heading of a manuscript copy of Saadya Gaon’s polemical poem against the Karaites, ‫אשא משלי‬. He claimed that this proved that Saadya’s Karaite opponent, against whom the poem was addressed, must have been the Masorete Aharon ben Asher.38 Zucker and Dotan have each convincingly argued against this claim based on the contents of the poem, which are inconsistent with such an identification, especially the attribution of anti-Talmudic pronouncements to the opponent.39 Some scholars claim that Karaite doctrines may be identified in masoretic treatises attributed to Aharon ben Asher, as well as in the extant “Song of the 35 36 37 38 39

Lipschütz, “Kitāb al-Khilaf, The Book of the Ḥillufim”; idem, ‫ כתאב אלכלף‬:‫ספר החילופים‬ ‫אלדי בין אלמעלמין בן אשר ובן נפתלי‬, hubp 2 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1965). Lipschütz, “Kitāb Al-Khilaf, The Book of the Ḥillufim,” 3. Simcha Pinsker, Likutei Qadmoniyot: Zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der karaïschen Literatur (Vienna: Adalbert della Torre, 1860), 34 (in Hebrew). Benjamin Klar, ‫מחקרים ועיונים בלשון השירה ובספרות‬, ed. A. M. Habermann (Tel Aviv: Maḥbarot le-Sifrut, 1954), 276–319. See Moshe Zucker, “Against Whom Did Seʿadya Ga‌ʾon Write the Polemical Poem Essa meshali?” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 61–82 (in Hebrew); and Aron Dotan, Ben Asher’s Creed: A Study of the History of the Controversy, MasS 3 (Missoula, mt: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1977).

374

Khan

Vine” attributed to his father, Moshe ben Asher;40 but again, these references are not at all clear and have also been rebutted by Zucker and Dotan.41 More recently, Zer has argued that evidence for the Karaite persuasion of Aharon ben Asher can be found in the masoretic notes that he wrote in the Aleppo Codex.42 One of Zer’s central arguments is based on the masoretic note on ‫יׁשֹון‬ ֑ ‫ל־נא ְל ֣ד ֹר ִר‬ ֭ ָ ‫י־ׁש ַא‬ ְ ‫( ִ ּֽכ‬Job 8:8), which reads: ‫אין כמהו במקרא חסר ולמה כי הדור הראשון לא נכללו כל המצוות שבתורה והוא‬ ‫מחוסר מצות הרבה לכן הוא מיוחד במקרא כי המצות לא נכללו אלא על יד משה‬ ‫אדונינו‬

It [i.e., the word ‫יׁשֹון‬ ֑ ‫ ] ִר‬is defective [in orthography] unlike any (other occurrence of the word) in the Bible. Why? Because in the first generation all the commandments that are in the Torah were not completed, but it lacked many commandments, therefore it [i.e., the word ‫יׁשֹון‬ ֑ ‫ ] ִר‬is unique in the Bible, because the commandments were only completed by the hand of Moses, our master. Zer points out that Karaites held this doctrine of the gradual revelation of commandments. Erder has presented various medieval Karaite sources that adhere to this doctrine.43 There is, however, some degree of variation of thought in these sources. Moreover, the view that commandments were given before Sinai is also found in the Talmud and in the writings of Maimonides, although Maimonides maintains that only those revealed at Sinai are obligatory.44 The use of differences in full and defective orthography of the ketiv as a source of interpretation is a practice found in rabbinic texts,45 but it was not approved of by many medieval Karaites, who regarded the reading tradition (qere) to 40 41 42 43 44 45

E.g., Heinrich Graetz, “Die Anfänge der Vocalzeichen im Hebräischen,” mgwj 30 (1881): 348–67, 395–405 (366); Klar, ‫מחקרים ועיונים‬, 276, 319. See again Zucker, “Against Whom Did Seʿadya Ga‌ʾon Write the Polemical Poem Essa meshali?”; and Dotan, Ben Asher’s Creed, 3. Rafael Isaac Zer, “Was the Masorete of the Aleppo Codex of Rabbinite [sic] or Karaite Origin?” Sefunot 23, n.s. 8 (2003): 573–87 (in Hebrew); repr. in English, Textus 24 (2009): 239–62. Yoram Erder, “Early Karaite Conceptions about Commandments Given before the Revelation of the Torah,” paajr 60 (1994): 101–40. Ibid., 137–39. Arnold Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White, JSOTSup 100 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1990), 153–66.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

375

be the only legitimate source of textual authority. This is stated explicitly by al-Qirqisānī.46 It would, therefore, be highly unusual for a Karaite Masorete to use this type of hermeneutics. Yeivin draws attention to a peculiarity in the vocalization of the Aleppo Codex whereby, in words that have a qere with inversion of the letters of the ketiv, the vocalization signs are not marked in the order required by the qere, but rather are marked on the letters of the ketiv in a different order from the word of the qere that they are intended to represent.47 In Ezek 36:14, for example, the ketiv ‫ תכשלי‬has a qere with inversion of letters, which the Codex Leningradensis represents as ‫ ; ְּת ַכ ְּׁש ִלי־‬that is, the vocalization reflects the form ‫ ְת ַׁש ְּכ ִלי־‬, “you will [not] bereave,” with the vowels in the correct order. The Aleppo Codex, however, represents this as ‫ ְּת ְּכ ַׁש ִלי־‬, with the vowels of the qere placed directly under the corresponding consonants of the ketiv, with the result that the vocalization does not follow the order of vowels in the qere. Another example, this time a word with an accent, is in 2 Sam 20:14, where the ketiv ‫ ויקלהו‬is represented by Codex Leningradensis as ‫וַ ּיִ ָּק ֲל ֔הּו‬, reflecting the form ‫וַ ּיִ ָ ּ֣ק ֲה ֔לּו‬, “and they assembled”; but which the Aleppo Codex vocalizes ‫וַ ּיִ ָּק ֔ל ֲהּו‬. Yeivin proposes that this unusual practice of vocalization in the Aleppo Codex reflects the vocalizer’s view that the vocalization and accents were also given at Sinai and are as old as the letters, with the consequence that the vowel signs should be considered bound to the letters; that is, if the letters are inverted, then the vocalization and accents should follow the letters. Yeivin argues that this demonstrates that the vocalizer, i.e., Aharon ben Asher, was a Karaite, because the Karaites held the view that the vowels and the accents were given at Sinai. To my knowledge, however, there is not clear evidence of such a doctrine being held by the Karaites before Judah Hadassi (twelfth century), who states in his work Eškol ha-Kofer that the original Tablets given to Moses at Sinai had the vowels and accents, “for without the five vowels which are [represented by] the vowel signs a word could not be articulated nor could it be understood without the pronunciation of the vowels and accents.”48 Earlier Karaites, however, did not express this doctrine. The diqduqe ha-miqra list published by Allony only states, ‫ואותיות בנקודות ונקודות במסורות‬, “letters are [known] by vowels and the vowels are known by the masorot.”49 One cannot infer from 46 47 48 49

The relative passages of al-Qirqisānī’s work are discussed below. Israel Yeivin, “The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A,” Textus 2 (1962): 146–49. ‫כי בלי חמשת הקולות שהם מלכי הנקוד לא תולד המלה ולא תעמוד בפה ולא יודע מה‬ ‫היא כי אם בנועם נקודים וטעמים‬, Judah ben Elijah ha-Abel Hadassi, Sefer Eškol ha-Kofer (Eupatoria: Mordecai Tirisken, 1836; repr., Westmead, UK: Gregg, 1971), 70a. Allony, “‫רשימת‬,” 337.

376

Khan

this, as Allony does,50 that the author believes that the original Tablets were inscribed with the vowels and accents. The Karaite al-Qirqisānī (tenth century) states that the vowels are subordinate to the letters and are not part of the “holy” script.51 At approximately the same period as Hadassi expressed the doctrine that the vowel points were given to Moses at Sinai, the same view was expressed by several Rabbanites, e.g., David Qimḥi and Moses ben Isaac of England.52 There is no evidence that the doctrine was specifically Karaite. It seems to have arisen due to the chronological distance between the scholars in question and the period in which the pointing and accentuation were first developed rather than due to any doctrinal Tendenz. We may conclude, therefore, that there is no incontrovertible evidence that Aharon ben Asher or his family were Karaites. The medieval sources refer to several generations of Masoretes, some of them belonging to the same family. They indicate that the family of Aharon ben Asher had been involved in masoretic activities over five generations. Aharon ben Asher lived in the tenth century, and so Asher “the elder,” who is stated to be the great-great-grandfather of Aharon, is likely to have lived in the second half of the eighth century ce, before the emergence of Karaism on the historical scene in Palestine.53 Some of the Masoretes, furthermore, were closely associated with the Rabbanite Jewish authorities, e.g., Pinḥas Rosh ha-Yeshiva (“head of the academy”), who lived in the ninth century, and ʾAḥiyyahu ha-Kohen he-Ḥaver (“member of the academy”).54 The “academy” (yeshiva) was the central body of Rabbanite Jewish communal authority in Palestine. In fact, some close parallels to the format and phraseology of the masoretic notes can be found in midrashic literature composed before the Islamic period.55 As has been noted above, there 50 51 52

53 54 55

Ibid., 333, 349. Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq Qirqisānī, Kitab al-Anwār wal-Marāqib: Code of Karaite Law, ed. L. Nemoy, 5 vols. (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939–43), 1:554. David Qimḥi, ‫ספר מכלול‬, ed. Isaac ben Aharon Rittenberg (Lyck: Pettsall, 1862; repr. Jerusalem, 1966), 73; cf. Wilhelm Bacher, Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik (1895), together with Die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (1892), Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 4 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1974), 83–84; and Bruno Chiesa, The Emergence of Hebrew Biblical Pointing: The Indirect Sources, Judentum und Umwelt 1 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1979), 5–8. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), 75–82; idem, Masoreten des Westens, 1:39. See the document published by Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid Caliphs, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1920–1922; repr., New York: Ktav, 1970), 2:43–44. Elvira Martín-Contreras, “Terminología masorética en la exégesis de Génesis Rabba (secciones ‘Bĕrešît’ y ‘Noah’),” Sefarad 59 (1999): 343–52; eadem, “Noticias masoréticas en el midrás Lamentaciones Rabbâ.” Sefarad 62 (2002): 125–41; eadem, “Noticias masoréticas

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

377

are references already in rabbinic literature to the existence of “Bible scholars” (baʿale ha-miqra), who were likely the forerunners of the Masoretes. All this suggests that Karaite scholars joined forces with an existing stream of tradition of “Bible scholarship” in Rabbanite Judaism, enhancing it and developing it. The evidence suggests that this took place mainly towards the end of the Masoretic period in the second half of the tenth century and the eleventh century. The particular contribution of these scholars to the Tiberian masoretic tradition was (i) the safekeeping of the model masoretic codices produced by the Masoretes and, particularly in the eleventh century after the cessation of the activities of the Tiberian Masoretes, the production of accurate copies of masoretic Bibles; (ii) the production of some masoretic treatises; and (iii) the development of the paramasoretic philological activity of grammar. As we have seen, the inscriptions on several of the Bible codices that were dedicated to Karaite communities indicate that they were to be used as models for scribes to consult. The inscription on the Aleppo Codex indicates that the manuscript was to be made available to both Karaites and Rabbanites for this purpose. Several of these inscriptions also indicate that the codices should be used for liturgical reading by the Karaite communities on Sabbaths and festivals. This is found, for example, in the Aleppo Codex (‫כדי שיוציאוהו אל המושבות והקהלות‬ ‫“ ;שבעיר הקודש בשלשה רגלים חג המצות חג השבועות וחג הסוכות לקרות בו‬in order that they bring it [the codex] out to the settlements and communities in the holy city on the three pilgrimage festivals, the festival of Passover, the festival of Weeks and the festival Tabernacles to read in it”);56 in the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (… ‫זה הדפתר שמנה נביאים שהקדיש אותו יעבץ בן שלמה בירושלים‬ ‫;לקראין העושים המועדים על ראות הירח יקראו בו כלם בשבתות ובחדשים ובמועדים‬ “This is the codex, the Eight Prophets, which Yaʿbeṣ ben Shlomo consecrated in Jerusalem … for the Karaites who celebrate the feasts at seeing the moon, for them all to read on Sabbath days, at new moons and at the feasts.”);57 and in Cod. 34 of the Second Firkovitch Collection (‫יאסף זה המקרא אל אחת המושבות‬ ‫שיהיה בה קהלות הקראיין בשבתות ובמועדים במדינת מצרים לקראת הקהל בו בכל שבת‬ ‫“ ;ומועד ברוך‬This Bible should be taken to one of the settlements in which there

are Karaite communities on Sabbaths and festivals in the city of Cairo so that the congregation can read it each Sabbath and blessed festival”).58

56 57 58

en los midrasim halákicos más antiguos y su comparación con los midrasim exegéticos,” Sefarad 63 (2003): 119–39. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 1:4. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Schweich Lectures of the British Academy (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1947), 112–14. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, no. 13, 1:74–77.

378 4

Khan

The Karaites and Muslim Scribal Activity: Convergences and Divergences

The introduction of the codex in the Islamic period for the writing of Jewish Scripture is likely to have been influenced by the use of the codex for the writing of the Qurʾān. This is reflected in the medieval Hebrew term for codex, viz. ‫מצחף‬, which is clearly a borrowing of the Arabic term muṣḥaf.59 The use of the codex by the Karaites for liturgical reading can be interpreted as a further reflection of rapprochement to the Islamic environment and represents a divergence between Karaite and Rabbanite practice; Rabbanites remained more conservative and restricted the codex to nonliturgical use.60 An even greater degree of rapprochement of the Karaites to the Muslim environment is reflected by an extant corpus of Hebrew Bible manuscripts in Arabic transcription, which were written by Karaites in the Middle Ages. 4.1 Hebrew Bibles in Arabic Transcription Most of the known manuscripts containing Karaite transcriptions of Hebrew into Arabic script are found in the British Library,61 the Firkovitch collections of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg,62 and the Cairo Genizah 59 60 61

62

Geoffrey Khan, A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition, 2nd ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013), 6–7. Nehemiah Allony, “‫ספר התורה והמצחף בקריאת התורה בציבור בעדת הרבנים ובעדת‬ ‫הקראים‬,” Beit Mikra 78 (1979): 321–34. Reinhart Hoerning, British Museum Karaite MSS.: Descriptions and Collation of Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters (London: Williams & Norgate, 1889); Geoffrey Khan, “Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew,” jss 32 (1987): 25–33; idem, “The Orthography of Karaite Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in Arabic Transcription,” jss 38 (1993): 49–70. Tapani Harviainen, “Karaite Arabic Transcriptions of Hebrew in the Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in St. Petersburg,” in Estudios masoreticos (X Congreso de la IOMS): En memoria de Harry M. Orlinsky, ed. E. Fernandez Tejero and M. T. Ortega Monasterio, Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 55 (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del csic, 1993), 63–72; idem, “Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate Use of Tiberian Pataḥ and Segol Vowel Signs,” in Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, ed. R. Contini et al., Pubblicazioni del gruppo di ricerca “Lessicografia semitica e lessico ebraico” finanziato dal C.N.R. 6 (Turin: Zamorani, 1993), 83–97; idem, “A Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate Counterparts of Tiberian Qameṣ and Ḥolam (Ms. Firkovitsh II, Arab.-Evr.1),” in Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS), Jerusalem June 21–22, 1993, ed. A. Dotan (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994), 33–40; idem, “A Karaite Letter-for-Letter Transliteration of Biblical Hebrew: ms Firkovitsh II, Arab.-Evr. 355,” Textus 18 (1995): 169–77; idem, “ms Arab.-Evr. 2 of the Second Firkovitsh Collection: A Karaite Bible Transcription in Arabic

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

379

collections.63 These manuscripts emanate from Palestinian circles of Karaites or Karaites in Egypt who had migrated to Egypt from Palestine after the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099. The majority were written in the tenth and eleventh centuries. One of the transcriptions in the British Library (Or 2554) has a colophon stating that it was written in Ramle in 395 ah (1004–1005 ce). Several of the other manuscripts of the British Library corpus are written with the same form of script and orthography. These include Or 2548, Or 2550, Or 2551 fols. 31–56, Or 2551 fols. 57–101, and Or 2581A fols. 31–46. It would appear that these manuscripts all come from the pen of the same scribe. The manuscripts have been preserved down to modern times mainly in Egypt. The British Library corpus comes from a collection of mainly Karaite manuscripts that were purchased by the library from the bookseller M. W. Shapira of Jerusalem in 1882. The main source of Shapira’s manuscripts and also the manuscripts acquired by Abraham Firkovitch appears to have been the Karaite community of Cairo. A number of transcription fragments later recovered from the Cairo Genizah originally came from some of the manuscripts acquired by Shapira, which are now in the British Library; this shows that these British Library manuscripts must have come from Cairo.64 Some of the other transcriptions in the British Library and Firkovitch collections may have been acquired from the Karaite community of the Iraqi town of Hīt on the Euphrates.65 These transcriptions represent a convergence with the external form of the Muslim Arabic Qurʾan and also with the concepts of authority associated with the transmission of Muslim scripture.

63

64 65

Script,” in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996), 41–59. Geoffrey Khan, Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, Cambridge University Library Genizah Series 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” 647, mentions the existence of an Arabic transcription of part of the book of Daniel in the Khedevial Library of Cairo (now the Egyptian National Library and Archives). Khan, Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, 3–4. Reinhard Hoerning, British Museum Karaite MSS., v; Tapani Harviainen, “Abraham Firkovitsh, Karaites in Hīt, and the Provenance of Karaite Transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew Texts in Arabic Script,” fo 28 (1991): 179–91; idem, “The Cairo Genizot and Other Sources of the Second Firkovich Collection in St. Petersburg,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, ed. E. J. Revell, MasS 8 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 25–36; idem, “Abraham Firkovich and the Karaite Community in Jerusalem in 1864,” Manuscripta Orientalia 4, no. 2 (1998): 66–70.

380

Khan

The authoritative written form of Muslim scripture was fixed in the early Islamic period. This form was known as the Uthmanic text, since it was based on a codex (muṣḥaf ) authorized by the caliph Uthman in the first century ah/ seventh century ce. To be precise, what was authorized was the rasm of the Uthmanic text, i.e., the body of the letters, though not the diacritical points. In early Qurʾan manuscripts the diacritical points of the Arabic letters are, in fact, frequently omitted. Although the rasm became fixed, this could potentially be read in various ways, and a variety of reading traditions (qirāʾāt) existed. The qirāʾa was regarded as the authoritative core of the text of scripture, which was based on the matrix of the rasm. It was crucially important, therefore, to establish principles for determining which qirāʾāt were authoritative. The early generations of Qurʾan readers felt a considerable amount of freedom in determining the reading of the Uthmanic fixed consonantal text. They often adopted one reading of the consonantal text rather than another on the basis of their judgment of its grammatical “correctness,” unconstrained by any other criteria.66 By the time of the Abbasid period, however, in the middle of the second century ah, the freedom allowable in the choice of Qurʾanic readings began to be narrowed down. The basic requirement remained: that a reading be grammatical and in conformity with the fixed consonantal text. Two additional conditions now narrowed the field: the reading must be based on the normative usage of prestigious readers of earlier times; and the reading must be agreed upon by a majority of readers. The two conditions were not necessarily mutually exclusive; they were both aspects of the concept of a generally agreed practice. The sources of authority for establishing the correct reading of the consonantal text of the Qurʾan which are recognized by Sībawayh (d. 180 ah/796–797 ce) are those of the majority (qirāʾat al-ʿāmma) and the model of former authoritative sources (al-sunna). He, in fact, identifies the one with the other, as is shown by his statement: al-qirāʾa lā tuḵālaf liʾannahā al-sunna (“The reading [of the majority] is not to be disputed, because it is the normative usage”).67 This expresses the view that the majority reading has religious sanction, since it is the normative ideal usage of the community. This notion of sunna and its

66

67

Gotthelf Bergsträsser and Otto Pretzl, Die Geschichte des Korantexts, part 3 of Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Dieterichsche, 1938), 120; Edmund Beck, “Arabiyya, Sunna und ʿĀmma in der Koranlesung des zweiten Jahrhunderts,” Orientalia, n.s., 15 (1946): 180–224 (188). Sībawayh, Le livre de Sîbawaihi; Traité de grammaire arabe., ed. H. Derenbourg, 2 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1881–1889), 1:62.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

381

merging with consensus is found also in the doctrine of the ancient schools of Islamic jurisprudence before al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 ah/820 ce).68 Throughout the third century ah the so-called “majority principle” was widely used to establish the authoritative qirāʾa of the Qurʾanic text. This was due mainly to the work of ʾAbū ʿUbayd (d. 224 ah/834 ce) and ʾAbū Ḥātim (Sahl ibn Muḥammad) al-Sijistanī (d. 255 ah/869 ce).69 The application of the “majority principle” in the selection of readings excluded those of small minorities. In cases where there was no agreement by a clear majority, ʾAbū ʿUbayd, ʾAbū Ḥātim and others restricted their notion of “majority” to reading traditions from specific centers, such as Medina and Kūfa, or Medina and Mecca, or coming from specific readers, such as Nāfiʿ and ʿĀ ṣim.70 By the fourth century ah, under the instigation of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324 ah/ 936 ce), the “tradition principle,” whereby authority was given to the tradition of specific readers, began to replace the “majority principle.” Ibn Mujāhid established seven canonical traditions of reading, which were endorsed by the ruling ʿAbbāsid regime.71 These still fulfilled the requirements that they should conform to the rasm of the authoritative text, that they should be grammatically correct, and that they should be broadly authenticated. At a later period the seven canonical traditions came to be accepted on the basis of their authoritative pedigree alone, in the manner of the principles of establishing the authority of ḥadīth (traditions of the sayings of the prophet Muḥammad). Ibn Mujāhid himself applied some degree of critical assessment of the content of the traditions, notably in their degree of grammatical correctness.72 4.2 Al-Qirqisānī on the Basis of Scriptural Authority We find eloquent evidence for Karaite convergence with Muslim thought regarding the authoritative transmission of Scripture in the writings of the Karaite author, Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Qirqisānī (first half of the tenth century ce). In a number of passages in his work Kitāb al-ʾAnwār wal-Marāqib, he expresses his opinion about the basis of authority of Hebrew Scripture. He makes it clear that the authority lies in the text represented by the reading tradition (qere) and not in that represented by the written tradition (ketiv). Moreover, 68 69 70 71 72

Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950), 58–81. Bergsträsser and Pretzl, Geschichte des Korantexts, 130. Bergsträsser and Pretzl, Geschichte des Korantexts, 131. ʾAḥmad ibn Mūsā Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sabʿa fī al-Qirāʾāt, ed. S. Ḍayf (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1972). Shady Hekmat Nasser, “Revisiting Ibn Mujāhid’s Position on the Seven Canonical Readings: Ibn ʿĀmir’s Problematic Reading of kun fa-yakūna,” jqs 17 (2015): 85–113.

382

Khan

the reading tradition derives its authority from the agreement of the entire community (known as ʾijmāʿ) and not from the authority of the sages or that of any specific group of people. The ketiv of the Hebrew Bible can be read in several different ways, and the correctness of one reading rather than another can only be established by ʾijmāʿ. Furthermore, in many cases, reading the text on the basis of the written tradition blatantly results in the wrong meaning.73 For example, the frequent word ‫ נַ ֲע ָר‬in the Pentateuch would be read as “boy” rather than “girl” if the ketiv is followed. The word ‫ שברתי‬in ֣‫יׁשּוע ְתָך‬ ָ ‫ִׂש ַ ּ֣ב ְר ִּתי ִ ֽל‬ (Ps 119:166) would have to be read with a šin as ‫ ִׁש ַּב ְר ִּתי‬if the ketiv is the basis of the reading and the meaning would be “I have broken” rather than “I hope.”74 Al-Qirqisānī was aware of the fact that there were some differences in reading between the communities of Palestine and Iraq (ʾahl al-Shām wa-ʾahl al-ʿIrāq). In such cases the reading of the community of Palestine must have the supreme authority, even though the community of Iraq was larger. By the term ʾahl al-Shām al-Qirqisānī was referring to the Tiberian tradition of reading. The position of al-Qirqisanī with regard to the biblical text, therefore, is as follows. The authoritative text of the Bible was represented by the reading tradition, which was validated by the ʾijmāʿ of the entire nation (al-ʾumma) in most of its details. Where there was no overriding consensus in the nation as a whole with regard to certain aspects of the tradition, the reading (qirāʾa) of the Palestinians (ʾahl al-Shām) was the correct and authoritative one. That is to say, the correct tradition in all its details is established by the ʾijmāʿ of the ʾahl al-Shām rather than that of the nation as a whole. This has clear parallels to the overriding authority attributed to orally transmitted reading traditions (qirāʾāt) of the Qurʾan and also to the notion that the majority reading (ʾijmāʿ) was a key determinant of the authority of a reading tradition. Al-Qirqisanī’s advocacy of ʾijmāʿ as a source of authority may have been further reinforced by the influence of by Muʿtazilī thought, which had a major impact on medieval Karaite thought in general at this period.75 The Muʿtazila 73 74

75

al-Qirqisanī, Kitab al-Anwār wal-Marāqib, 2.23.6. In rabbinic tradition the ketiv of the letter ‫ ש‬was regarded as being /š/ and its reading as /s/ was considered to be the qere of this ketiv. The qere was considered to be a samekh; i.e., the letter sin did not exist in the qere but only a samekh. See Richard Steiner, “Ketiv– Ḳerē or Polyphony: The ‫שׂ‬-‫ ׁש‬Distinction According to the Masoretes, the Rabbis, Jerome, Qirqisānī, and Hai Gaon,” in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996), *151–*79. It is well known that the Karaites were influenced by many doctrines of Muslim Muʿtazilī theologians. For Muʿtalizī ideas elsewhere in al-Qirqisānī’s Kitāb al-ʾAnwār, see Haggai Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites towards Islam,” in Studies in Medieval

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

383

rejected tradition as a source of law but accepted the validity of ʾijmāʿ.76 The Muʿtazilī theologian ʿAbd al-Jabbār (320 ah/932 ce to 414–16 ah/1023–1025 ce) considered traditionalism (taqlīd) to be an unsatisfactory way of acquiring knowledge, since it involved the uncritical acceptance of a report without demanding proof or evidence.77 He maintained that ʾijmāʿ, on the other hand, had probative value (ḥujjiyya). The probative value followed from the existence of ʾijmāʿ. It does not require any proof that the information it conveys is true.78 The Karaite adoption of the reading tradition as the overriding basis of authority had the consequence that the Hebrew Bible could not be considered to offer two sources of authoritative interpretation, one on the basis of the way it is read and the other on the basis of the way it is written. The interpretation of Scripture on two levels, one according to the ketiv and one according to the qere, is a practice that is found in rabbinic sources. As shown by Naeh,79 this was a phenomenon that developed in the talmudic period. It is reflected by the talmudic dictum ‫“( יש אם למקרא ויש אם למסורת‬The reading has authority, and the traditional text has authority”). The details of the spelling of the written

76

77 78

79

Jewish History and Literature, ed. I. Twersky, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979–2002), 2:3–40 (27). Abū ʿAbdillāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-ʾUmm, 7 vols. (Bulaq, 1903– 1907), 7:252–53; cf. Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 41, 258–59; also Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā Ibn al-Murtaḍā, Kitāb Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, ed. S. Diwald-Wilzer (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1961), 81, 95; ʿImād al-Dīn ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Kitāb Faḍl al-ʾIʿtizāl wa-Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, ed. F. Sayyid (Beirut: Orient Institut, 2017), 186. ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Al-Muġnī fī ʾAbwāb al-Tawḥīd w-al-ʿAdl, ed. Ṭaha Ḥusayn (Cairo: Wizārat al-Ṯaqāfa w-al-ʾIršād al-Qawmī), 1960–1969, 12:123–26; idem, Šarḥ al-ʾUṣūl al-Ḵamsa, ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm ʿUṯmān (Cairo: Maktabat Wahba 1965), 61. ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Al-Muġnī, 17:199 ( fa-’ammā istidlāl ʿalā ṣiḥḥat al-ʾijmāʿ min jihat al-ʿaql fa-baʿīd, “As for the demonstration of the validity of ʾijmāʿ by reason, [this] is unnecessary”). Cf. Marie Bernand, “L’iǧmāʿ chez ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār et l’objection d’an-Naẓẓām,” SIs 30 (1969): 27–38; idem, “Nouvelles Remarques sur l’iǧmāʿ chez le Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār,” Arabica 19 (1972): 78–85. A similar fideistic acceptance of the probative validity of ʾijmāʿ and the rejection of traditions is expressed by ʾAbū al-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī, who was the pupil of ʿAbd al-Jabbār, cf. his Kitāb al-Muʿtamad fī ʾUṣūl al-Fiqh (Damascus: al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī al-Faransī li-l-Dirāsāt al-ʿArabīyah bi-Dimašq, 1964), 457–540. Elsewhere ʿAbd al-Jabbār states that ʾijmāʿ is supported by the Qurʾān and sunna; see Šarḥ, 89. The extreme rationalist Muʿtazalī al-Naẓẓām and his school, however, had misgivings about the reliability of ʾijmāʿ, on the grounds that information must be supported and ascertained before it can form the basis of ʾijmāʿ; i.e., ʾijmāʿ is only the consequence of truth, not the source of truth. See ʿAbd al-Qāhir ibn Ṭāhir al-Baġdādī, Kitāb ʾUṣūl al-Dīn (Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-Dawlat, 1928), 19–20. Shlomo Naeh, “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Script of the Torah Differently from the Authorized Reading?” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 401–48 (in Hebrew); idem, “En Em Lammasoret— Second Time,” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 455–62 (in Hebrew).

384

Khan

text, in particular the distribution of full and defective orthography, were used as a source for interpretation in various rabbinic texts.80 According to Genesis Rabbah (58:7), for example, there is exegetical significance as to why the second instance of the name Efron is spelled without a waw in the verse Gen 23:16 whereas the first instance of the name in the verse and elsewhere in Genesis 23 has a waw: ‫י־חת‬ ֑ ֵ ֵ‫ת־ה ֶּ֕כ ֶסף ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר ִּד ֶ ּ֖בר ְּב ָאזְ ֵנ֣י ְבנ‬ ַ ‫ל־ע ְפרֹון֒ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ֤קֹל ַא ְב ָר ָה ֙ם ְל ֶע ְפ ֔ר ֹן ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַ ֣מע ַא ְב ָר ָה ֮ם ֶא‬ ‫ׁש ֶקל ֶּ֔כ ֶסף ע ֵ ֹ֖בר ַלּס ֵ ֹֽחר׃‬ ֣ ֶ ‫אֹות‬ ֙ ‫ַא ְר ַ ּ֤בע ֵמ‬

Abraham agreed with Efron; and Abraham weighed out for Efron the silver which he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants. Gen 23:16

The lack of waw (ketiv ḥaser) indicates that Efron will suffer want because he was envious and mean in accordance with the verse: ‫י־ח ֶסר יְ ב ֶ ֹֽאּנּו‬ ֥ ֶ ‫א־י ַ֝דע ִּכ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ִ ֽנ ֳב ָ ֥הל ַל ֗הֹון ִ ֭איׁש ַ ֣רע ָ ֑עיִ ן וְ ֽל‬

A miserly man hastens after wealth and does not know that want will come upon him. Prov 28:22

In some cases, such midrashic texts exhibit a terminology and style of presentation that constitute embryonic masoretic notes regarding differences in orthography of similar words.81 As has been remarked above, exegetical comments based on differences in orthography are indeed found embedded within the masoretic notes in some of the Tiberian codices, e.g., the comment on the orthography of ‫יׁשֹון‬ ֑ ‫( ִר‬Job 8:8) in the masorah of the Aleppo Codex, discussed above.82 If the qere is the only source of authority, as is the opinion of al-Qirqisānī, then variations in orthography cannot be a legitimate source of authoritative 80 81 82

Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Martín-Contreras, “Terminología masorética en la exégesis de Génesis Rabba”; eadem, “Noticias masoréticas en el midrás Lamentaciones Rabbâ”; eadem, “Noticias masoréticas en los midrasim halákicos.” See p. 374.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

385

exegesis, contrary to the comment on Job 8:8 in the Aleppo Codex. Furthermore, convergence with the Islamic model of scriptural authority would logically have resulted in the inconsistency between the ketiv and the qere being considered problematic. One of the key requirements of authoritative Qurʾanic reading traditions at this period was that they conform to the rasm of the written text. This was clearly not the case in Hebrew Scripture, in which the difference between ketiv and qere is sometimes very substantial, including reading whole words that are not written and writing whole words that are not read. 4.3 Arabic Transcriptions and the Hebrew Reading Tradition In Karaite thought the Hebrew Bible required a written rasm that corresponded to the reading tradition. The Karaite Arabic transcriptions of Hebrew Bibles represent the resolution of this tension by the abandonment of the traditional Hebrew written text and the provision of an acceptable rasm. The new rasm was created on the model of Islamic scripture in Arabic script. In addition to the use of Arabic script, the manuscripts of the transcribed Bibles exhibit a convergence with the Arabic Qurʾan in codicological features, such as the use of red ink to mark vocalizations, the occasional use of Arabic vocalization signs, and the insertion of ornamentation at various points on the page that resemble what is found in contemporary Qurʾan manuscripts. Moreover, in some manuscripts the Arabic word ‫ ا �ل�ـ�ل�ه‬is written where the reading tradition has the qere of the Tetragrammaton. A few of the extant Karaite Bibles in Arabic script exhibit what is essentially a letter-for-letter transliteration of the Hebrew orthography rather than a phonetic transcription in Arabic orthography. It is likely that these are among the oldest manuscripts. The Hebrew matres lectionis, for example, are reproduced in Arabic script where they would not be appropriate according to Arabic orthography, e.g., [lleːˈmoːoʀ̟ ]83 (bl Or 2541, fol. 18v, 11 | bhs: ‫מר‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ ֵּלא‬Exod 13:1 “saying”). [ˈʀ̟ oːoʃ] (bl Or 2541, fol. 30v, 13 | bhs: ‫ ֣־ר ֹאׁש‬Exod 17:9 “top of”) [halˈlaːajlɔː] (bl Or 2541, fol. 16v, 9 | bhs: ‫ ַה ֗ ַּליְ ָלה‬Exod 12:29 “the night”)

83

The transcriptions have been made according to the reconstruction of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition of Hebrew in Khan, Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition.

386

Khan

Conversely Arabic matres lectionis are not used when they are lacking in the Hebrew text even where they would be required in Arabic orthography to represent long vowels, e.g., [hɔːˈʕɔːɔm] (bl Or 2541, fol. 17r, 9 | bhs: ‫־ה ֔ ָעם‬ ָ Exod 12:33 “the people”). [ˈħeːen] (bl Or 2541, fol. 17r, 2 | bhs: ‫־חן‬ ֥ ֵ Exod 12:36 “favour”) It is important to note, however, that where there is a conflict of qere and ketiv, these transcriptions represent the qere, e.g., [vaɟɟilˈloːnuː] (bl Or 2541, fol. 26v, 4 | bhs: ketiv ‫וילינו‬, qere ‫וַ ּיִ ּ֜לֹונּו‬ Exod 16:2 “and they murmured”) [θalˈliːnuː] (bl Or 2541, fol. 29r, 8 | bhs: ketiv ‫תלונ‬, qere ‫ ַת ִ ּ֖לינּו‬Exod 16:7 “you will murmur”) Moreover, there is a tendency to eliminate the inconsistency that is found in the distribution of the matres lectionis waw and yod of the Hebrew ketiv, to which exegetical significance was attached in rabbinic sources. This is seen in the fact that in many such contexts in the Hebrew ketiv, the Arabic text more regularly uses the corresponding Arabic mater lectionis, wāw or yāʾ. This results in the use of the Arabic matres lectionis in many cases where the Hebrew ketiv has defective orthography, e.g., [ʁaðoːˈlɔː] (bl Or 2541, fol. 17r, 2 | bhs: ‫ גְ ד ָֹל֖ה‬Exod 12:30 “great” [f. sg.]) [basimloːˈθɔːɔm] (bl Or 2541, fol. 17r, 12 | bhs: ‫ֹלתם‬ ֖ ָ ‫ ְּב ִׂש ְמ‬Exod 12:34 “in their garments”) [vaʃɔːliːˈʃiːim] (bl Or 2541, fol. 21v, 5 | bhs: ‫ וְ ָׁש ִל ִ ׁ֖שם‬Exod 14:7 “officers”) [meːʔeːˈliːim] (bl Or 2541, fol. 26r, 13 | bhs: ‫ ֵ ֽמ ֵא ֔ ִילם‬Exod 16:1 “from Elim”) These early Karaite Bibles, therefore, attempted to produce a rasm that corresponded to the reading tradition and had internal consistency.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

387

The majority of extant Karaite Bibles in Arabic script, however, use a transcription system that is based essentially on the orthographic practices of classical Arabic. These transcriptions use matres lectionis to represent all long vowels, as is the practice in Arabic orthography. This appears to be a later development. Indeed, a few manuscripts exhibit a hybrid system of orthography, which include features of both Hebrew and Arabic orthography. These represent a transitional stage of development between the Hebrew type of orthography followed in the earlier transcriptions and the Arabic type of orthography used in the later ones, e.g., [ʔiʃˈʃɔː] (bl Or 2551 fol. 34v, 13 | bhs: ‫ ִא ָּׁש ֙ה‬Deut 21:7 “wife”) [ˈʀ̟ oːoʃ] (bl Or 2539 MS B, fol. 115r, 1 | bhs: ‫ ֣ר ֹאׁש‬‎Num 6:18 “head”) In general, the written transcription in the Karaite Bibles cannot be read correctly without a knowledge of the reading tradition. This is shown by the fact that they often omit crucial details, such as diacritical points on the Arabic consonants. Moreover, the spelling is often ambiguous. Each Arabic mater lectionis, for example, represents different qualities of Hebrew vowels. The transcription manuscripts appear to have been produced for private use. The Bible manuscripts discussed above that have colophons indicating that they were deposited in Karaite synagogues for public liturgical reading are all large monumental codices in Hebrew script. The innovative use of Arabic script for Hebrew Bible manuscripts seems to have been restricted to private copies. This distinction in script between private and public copies of works is found also in medieval Karaite works written in the Arabic language. A good example is the work on Hebrew grammar known as al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (“The Sufficient Book”), which was written in Arabic in the first half of the eleventh century by the Karaite ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn. This is extant in numerous manuscripts. The manuscripts are almost exclusively written in Hebrew script. The surviving manuscripts include the autograph draft of the work by the author himself. It is significant that this private autograph manuscript is written in Arabic script. The other manuscripts appear to be published copies of the Arabic original.84 In principle, the traditional ketiv of Hebrew Scripture could have been adjusted to conform to the qere without changing the script. Indeed, this is found in some fragments of medieval Bible manuscripts that were written in 84

Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought, xlvii–li.

388

Khan

Hebrew script for private use and have been preserved in the Cairo Genizah.85 The private nature of such manuscripts facilitated the deviation from the traditional orthography. The Karaites, however, were even more innovative in their adoption of the Arabic script in the transcriptions, which reflects a convergence with the external form of the Qurʾan. The Islamic model required not only conformity of the reading to the rasm of the written text but also conformity of the reading to Arabic grammar. It was important for the Karaites, therefore, to legitimize the grammatical integrity of the Tiberian reading tradition. This very likely contributed to the development and focus of the early tradition of Karaite Hebrew grammatical thought that emerged, as we have seen, in the tenth century.86 The Karaite grammarians were concerned with the Tiberian reading tradition and did not take account of the ketiv. Their work vouchsafed the grammatical integrity of the reading tradition. The Arabic transcriptions of the Hebrew Bible represent an extreme case of convergence with the Islamic environment. As has been remarked, there was variation in the Karaite community as to the degrees and direction of this convergence. During the period in which the transcriptions were made, for example, Karaites also used Hebrew script to write manuscripts in Arabic.87 Likewise, there is evidence that some Karaites continued to maintain the talmudic principle of ‫ ;יש אם למקרא ויש אם למסורת‬that is, that the ketiv also represented a legitimate source of interpretive authority. The Karaite lexicographer David ben Abraham al-Fāsī (second half of the tenth century), for example, cites this as a legitimate principle of exegesis in the introduction to his lexicon Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ.88 Of course, convergence with the culture of the Islamic environment was not unique to the Karaites. Rabbanite scholars of the tenth and eleventh centuries adopted both the Arabic language and many elements of the Islamic intellectual tradition in their writings. This included a preference for the qere of the 85

86 87 88

Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein “Biblical Manuscripts in the United States,” Textus 2 (1962): 28–59 (39–42); Alejandro Díez Macho, Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia: Contribución al estudio de las diversas tradiciones del tecto del Antiguo Testamento (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1971), 92; Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, 30–31. See discussion above, section 2. See Geoffrey Khan, “On the Question of Script in Medieval Karaite Manuscripts: New Evidence from the Genizah.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75 (1993): 133–41. Solomon Leon Skoss, ed., The Hebrew–Arabic Dictionary of the Bible, Known as Kitāb Jāmi‘ Al-Alfāẓ (Agrōn) of David Ben Abraham Al-Fāsī the Karaite. yosr 20–21 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936), 1:1–13. It was also accepted by the Byzantine Karaite scholar Judah Hadassi (twelfth century); cf. Wilhelm Bacher, “Jehuda Hadassi’s Hermeneutik und Grammatik,” mgwj 40 (1895): 109–26 (113).

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

389

Hebrew Bible. Saadya Gaon, for example, in principle follows the qere in his Arabic translations of the Bible and exegesis. The extent of this convergence, however, was to a lesser degree, and this is reflected by the fact that Rabbanite scholars maintained Hebrew script in their writings. 5

Conclusions

The Karaites played a central role in the consolidation and development of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. The Masoretes themselves during the masoretic period appear not to have been Karaites, but the Karaites ensured that the Tiberian Masoretic tradition survived and maintained its prestige after the circle of Tiberian Masoretes dispersed, following the generation of Aharon Ben Asher and Moshe Ben Naftali. They preserved model Tiberian Bible manuscripts and extended the activities of the Masoretes into a more theoretical level of grammatical analysis of the Hebrew language, involving both the documentation and explanation of small differences in the text. They also preserved records of the now extinct Tiberian oral reading tradition by transcribing the oral tradition into Arabic script and describing it in treatises.89 Bibliography ʾAbū al-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī ibn Ḥusayn. Kitāb al-Muʿtamad fī ʾUṣūl al-Fiqh, Damascus: al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī al-Faransī li-l-Dirāsāt al-ʿArabīyah bi-Dimašq. 1964. ʿAbd al-Jabbār, ʿImād al-Dīn ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan. Kitāb Faḍl al-ʾIʿtizāl wa-Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, ed. Fuʾād Sayyid. Beirut: Orient Institut, 2017. ʿAbd al-Jabbār, ʿImād al-Dīn ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan. ʾAl-Muġnī fī ʾAbwāb al-Tawḥīd w-al-ʿAdl, ed. Ṭaha Ḥusayn, Cairo: Wizārat al-Ṯaqāfa w-al-ʾIršād al-Qawmī, 1960–1969. ʿAbd al-Jabbār, ʿImād al-Dīn ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan. Šarḥ al-ʾUṣūl al-Ḵamsa, ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm ʿUṯmān. Cairo, 1965. ʿAbd al-Qāhir ibn Ṭāhir al-Baġdādī. Kitāb ʾUṣūl al-Dīn. Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-Dawlat, 1928. Allony, Nehemiah. “‫רשימת מונחים קראית מהמאה השמינית‬.” Pages 324–63 in ‫כתבי החברה‬ ‫ קרנגרין ז״ל‬.‫ פ‬.‫לחקר המקרא בישראל לזכר ד”ר י‬. Edited by A. Weiser and B. Z. Luria. Tel Aviv: Niv, 1964. Allony, Nehemiah. “‫ספר התורה והמצחף בקריאת התורה בציבור בעדת הרבנים ובעדת הקראים‬.” Beit Mikra 78 (1979): 321–34. 89

For a detailed reconstruction of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition see Khan, Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition.

390

Khan

Bacher, Wilhelm. Die älteste Terminologie der jüdischen Schriftsauslegung. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. Bacher, Wilhelm. Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik (1895), together with Die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (1892). Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1974. Bacher, Wilhelm. “Jehuda Hadassi’s Hermeneutik und Grammatik.” mgwj 40 (1895): 109–26. Baer, Seligman I., and Hermann L. Strack. Die Dikduke ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moschen ben Ascher und andere alter grammatisch-massoretische Lehrstücke zur Festellung eines richtigen Textes der hebräischen Bibel. Leipzig: Fernau, 1879. Beck, Edmund. “Arabiyya, Sunna und ʿĀmma in der Koranlesung des zweiten Jahrhunderts.” Orientalia, n.s. 15 (1946): 180–224. Ben-Shammai, Haggai. “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites towards Islam.” Pages 3–40 in vol. 2 of Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature. Edited by I. Twersky. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak. “The Codex of Ben Asher.” Textus 1 (1960): 1–16. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf, and Otto Pretzl. Die Geschichte des Korantexts. Part 3 of Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Dieterichsche, 1938. Bernand, Marie. “L’iǧmāʿ chez ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār et l’objection d’an-Naẓẓām.” SIs 30 (1969): 27–38. Bernand, Marie. “Nouvelles Remarques sur l’iǧmāʿ chez le Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār.” Arabica 19 (1972): 78–85. Chiesa, Bruno. The Emergence of Hebrew Biblical Pointing: The Indirect Sources. Judentum und Umwelt 1. Frankfurt: Lang, 1979. Cohen, Menahem. “Has the Cairo Codex of the Prophets Indeed Been Written by Moshe ben Asher?” Alei Sefer 10 (1982): 5–12 (in Hebrew). Díaz Esteban, Fernando. Sefer Oklah we-Oklah: Colección de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la intégridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los judíos de la Edad Media. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975. Díez Macho, Alejandro. Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia: Contribución al estudio de las diversas tradiciones del tecto del Antiguo Testamento. Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1971. Dotan, Aron. Ben Asher’s Creed: A Study of the History of the Controversy. MasS 3. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1977. Dotan, Aron. The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics: The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon. 2 vols. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1997 (in Hebrew). Dotan, Aron. The Diqduqe ha-Teʿamim of Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967 (in Hebrew).

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

391

Eldar, Ilan. “On Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali.” Lĕšonénu 45 (1980): 311–13 (in Hebrew). Eldar, Ilan. The Study of the Art of Correct Reading as Reflected in the Medieval Treatise Hidāyat Al-Qāri. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1994. Erder, Yoram. “Early Karaite Conceptions about Commandments Given before the Revelation of the Torah.” paajr 60 (1994): 101–40. Glatzer, Mordechai. “The Aleppo Codex: Codicological and Paleographical Aspects.” Sefunot 4 (1989): 167–276 (in Hebrew). Goldberg, Arnold. “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Pages 153–66 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P. R. Davies and R. T. White. JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1990. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex.” Textus 1 (1960): 17–58. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Biblical Manuscripts in the United States.” Textus 2 (1962): 28–59. Gottheil, Richard. “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo.” jqr 17 (1905): 609–55. Graetz, Heinrich. “Die Anfänge der Vocalzeichen im Hebräischen.” mgwj 30 (1881): 348–67, 395–405. Hadassi, Judah ben Elijah ha-Abel. Sefer Eškol ha-Kofer. Eupatoria: Mordecai Tirisken, 1836. Reprinted, Westmead, UK: Gregg, 1971. Harviainen, Tapani. “Abraham Firkovich and the Karaite Community in Jerusalem in 1864.” Manuscripta Orientalia 4.2 (1998): 66–70. Harviainen, Tapani. “Abraham Firkovitsh, Karaites in Hīt, and the Provenance of Karaite Transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew Texts in Arabic Script.” fo 28 (1991): 179–91. Harviainen, Tapani. “The Cairo Genizot and Other Sources of the Firkovich Collection in St. Petersburg.” Pages 25–36 in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies. Edited by E. J. Revell. MasS 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Harviainen, Tapani. “Karaite Arabic Transcriptions of Hebrew in the Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in St. Petersburg.” Pages 63–72 in Estudios masoreticos (X Congreso de la IOMS): En memoria de Harry M. Orlinsky. Edited by E. Fernandez Tejero and M. T. Ortega Monasterio. Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 55. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del csic, 1993. Harviainen, Tapani. “A Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate Counterparts of Tiberian Qameṣ and Ḥolam (Ms. Firkovitsh II, Arab.-Evr.1).” Pages 33–40 in Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS), Jerusalem June 21–22, 1993. Edited by A. Dotan. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994. Harviainen, Tapani. “Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate Use of Tiberian Pataḥ and Segol Vowel Signs.” Pages 83–97 in Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata. Edited by R. Contini et al. Pubblicazioni del gruppo di ricerca

392

Khan

“Lessicografia semitica e lessico ebraico,” finanziato dal C.N.R. 6. Turin: Zamorani, 1993. Harviainen, Tapani. “A Karaite Letter-for-Letter Transliteration of Biblical Hebrew: MS Firkovitsh II, Arab.-Evr. 355.” Textus 18 (1995): 169–77. Harviainen, Tapani. “MS Arab.-Evr. 2 of the Second Firkovitsh Collection: A Karaite Bible Transcription in Arabic Script.” Pages 41–59 in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag. Edited by M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996. Hoerning, Reinhart. British Museum Karaite MSS.: Descriptions and Collation of Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters; with a Complete Reproduction of the Autotype Process of One, Exodus I.1–ZVIII.5, in 42 Facsimiles. London: Williams & Norgate, 1889. Ibn Mujāhid, ʾAḥmad ibn Mūsā. Kitāb al-Sabʿa fī al-Qirāʾāt. Edited by S. Ḍayf. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1972. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1947. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959. Kahle, Paul E. Masoreten des Westens. 2 vols. Texte und Untersuchungen zur vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen 1, 4. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927–1930. Khan, Geoffrey. “The Book of Hebrew Grammar by the Karaite Joseph Ben Noaḥ.” jss 43 (1998): 265–86. Khan, Geoffrey. “The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of the Hebrew Language.” Pages 291–318 in A Guide to Karaite Studies: The History and Literary Sources of Medieval and Modern Karaite Judaism. Edited by M. Polliack. HdO 73. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Khan, Geoffrey. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought: Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of ʾAbū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ on the Hagiographa. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 32. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Khan, Geoffrey. Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. Cambridge University Library Genizah Series 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Khan, Geoffrey. “The Medieval Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammar.” Pages 15–33 in A Universal Art: Hebrew Grammar across Disciplines and Faiths. Edited by N. Vidro et al. Studies in Jewish History and Culture 46. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Khan, Geoffrey. “On the Question of Script in Medieval Karaite Manuscripts: New Evidence from the Genizah.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75 (1993): 133–41. Khan, Geoffrey. “The Orthography of Karaite Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in Arabic Transcription.” jss 38 (1993): 49–70.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

393

Khan, Geoffrey. “The Relationship of Hidayat Al-Qari’ to the Karaite Grammatical Tradition.” Pages 277–83 in Studies in Hebrew and Related Fields Presented to Ilan Eldar. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and I. Meir. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2014 (in Hebrew). Khan, Geoffrey. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition. 2nd ed. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2013. Khan, Geoffrey. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew: Including a Critical Edition and English Translation of the Sections on Consonants and Vowels in the Masoretic Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘Guide for the Reader’. 2 vols. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2020. https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/951. Khan, Geoffrey. “Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew.” jss 32 (1987): 23–82. Khan, Geoffrey, María Ángeles Gallego, and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger. The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in Its Classical Form: A Critical Edition and English Translation of al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Luġa al-‘Ibrāniyya by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn al-Faraj. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Klar, Benjamin. ‫מחקרים ועיונים בלשון בשירה ובספרות‬. Edited by A. M. Habermann. Tel Aviv: Maḥbarot le-Sifrut, 1954. Lipschütz, Lazar. “Kitāb al-Khilaf, The Book of the Ḥillufim: Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Napthali.” Textus 4 (1964): 1–29. Lipschütz, Lazar. ‫ כתאב אלכלף אלדי בין אלמעלמין בן אשר ובן נפתלי‬:‫ספר החילופים‬. hubp 2. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1965. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid Caliphs: A Contribution to their Political and Communal History, Based Chiefly on Genizah Material Hitherto Unpublished. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1920–1922. Reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1970. Mann, Jacob. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. Vol. 2, Karaitica. Philadelphia: Hebrew Press of the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1935. Margoliouth, George. “Ibn al-Hītī’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors.” jqr, o.s. 9 (1897): 429–43. Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “Noticias masoréticas en el midrás Lamentaciones Rabbâ.” Sefarad 62 (2002): 125–41. Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “Noticias masoréticas en los midrasim halákicos más antiguos y su comparación con los midrasim exegéticos.” Sefarad 63 (2003): 119–39. Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “Terminología masorética en la exégesis de Génesis Rabba (secciones ‘Bĕrešît’ y ‘Noah’).” Sefarad 59 (1999): 343–52. Naeh, Shlomo. “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Script of the Torah Differently from the Authorized Reading?” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 401–48 (in Hebrew). Naeh, Shlomo. “En Em Lammasoret—Second Time.” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 455–62 (in Hebrew).

394

Khan

Nasser, Shady Hekmat. “Revisiting Ibn Mujāhid’s Position on the Seven Canonical Readings: Ibn ʿĀmir’s Problematic Reading of kun fa-yakūna.” jqs 17 (2015): 85–113. Ofer, Yosef. “M. D. Cassuto’s Notes on the Aleppo Codex.” Sefunot 68 (1989): 277–344 (in Hebrew). Ognibeni, Bruno. La seconda parte del Sefer ʾOklah we-ʾoklah: Edizione del ms. Halle, Universitätsbibliotek Y b 4 10, ff. 68–124. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del csic, 1995. Outhwaite, Ben. “Beyond the Leningrad Codex: Samuel b. Jacob in the Cairo Genizah.” Pages 320–40 in Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan. Edited by N. Vidro et al. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 30. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 2018. Outhwaite, Ben. “Samuel Ben Jacob: The Leningrad Codex B19a and T-S 10J5.15.” Fragment of the Month, January 2016. http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/ taylor-schechter-genizah-research-unit/fragment-month/fragment-month-5. Penkower, Jordan S. “A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal MS from Jerusalem (MS C3), Corrected by Misha‌ʾel Ben ʿUzziʾel.” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 49–74 (in Hebrew). Penkower, Jordan S. “Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex.” Textus 9 (1981): 39–128. Phillips, Kim. “The Masora Magna of Two Biblical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah and the Unusual Practice of the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex.” TynBul 67 (2016): 287–307. Phillips, Kim. “Two New Fragments from the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex.” Research Approaches in Hebrew Bible Manuscript Studies: Proceedings of the EAJS LAB Conference, 6–8 June 2016, Aix-En-Provence. Edited by E. Attia et al. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Pinsker, Simcha. Lickute Kadmoniot: Zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der karaïschen Literatur. Vienna: Adalbert della Torre, 1860 (in Hebrew). Poznanski, Samuel. “‫ראשית התיישבות הקראים בירושלים‬.” Edited by A. M. Luncz. Jerusalem 10 (1913): 83–116. Qimḥi, David. ‫ספר מכלול‬. Edited by Isaac ben Aharon Rittenberg. Lyck: Pettsall, 1862. Reprinted, Jerusalem, 1966. Qirqisānī, Ya‘qūb ibn Isḥāq. Kitab al-Anwār wal-Marāqib: Code of Karaite Law. Edited by L. Nemoy. 5 vols. New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939–1943. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel, ed., Tesubot de Dunas ben Labrat. Granada: University of Granada and Pontifical University of Salamanca, 1980. Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon, 1950. Sībawayh. Le livre de Sîbawaihi: Traité de grammaire arabe. Edited by H. Derenbourg. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1881–1889.

The Karaites and the Hebrew Bible

395

Skoss, Solomon Leon, ed. The Hebrew–Arabic Dictionary of the Bible, Known as Kitāb Jāmi‘ Al-Alfāẓ (Agrōn) of David Ben Abraham Al-Fāsī the Karaite. 2 vols. yosr 20–21. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936–1945. Steiner, Richard. “Ketiv-Ḳerē or Polyphony: The ‫ׁש‬-‫ ׂש‬Distinction According to the Masoretes, the Rabbis, Jerome, Qirqisānī, and Hai Gaon.” Pages *151–*79 in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag. Edited by M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Vidro, Nadia. “Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kitāb al-ʿUqūd fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2009. Vidro, Nadia. Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar: Kitāb al-‘Uqūd fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa al-‘Ibrāniyya. Études sur le Judaïsme médiéval 51. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Yeivin, Israel. “The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A.” Textus 2 (1962): 146–49. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E. J. Revell. MasS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1980. Zer, Rafael Isaac. “Was the Masorete of the Aleppo Codex of Rabbinite [sic] or of Karaite Origin?” Sefunot, n.s. 8 (2003): 573–87 (in Hebrew). Republished in English: “Was the Masorete of the Aleppo Codex of Rabbanite or of Karaite Origin?” Textus 24 (2009): 239–62. Zucker, Moshe. “Against Whom Did Seʿadya Ga‌ʾon Write the Polemical Poem Essa meshali?” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 61–82 (in Hebrew).

Part 3 The Biblical Manuscripts in the Vienna Papyrus Collection

∵

Hebrew Manuscripts from the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library Discussed in This Section Catalogue number

Contents

Author(s)

Figure number(s)

H6 H8

Exodus 22:21–24:5 1: Masoretic notes to Psalms 2: Masoretic notes to Proverbs and Daniel Psalms 9:8–12:8 Hosea 6:1–11; 10:12; Ezekiel 16:9–19; Isaiah 66:3–7 Job 6:21–8:5 Genesis 17:19–18:24 Numbers 21:24–29:30 Genesis 48:5–49:16 Psalms 18:12–19 Leviticus 7:3–37 Daniel 8:19–9:2 Birkat ha-Mazon (beginning) Genesis 1:19–24; Genesis 2:22–3:3 Genesis 39:22–40:7 Joshua 1:11; 6:27; 1 Kings 18:46–19:21 Genesis 36:3–38:24; 41:1–48:17; Obadiah 1:1–21; Amos 3:7–8; 1 Kings 3:15–4:1 1 Samuel 7:1–8:13 Leviticus 23:4–28; 25:15–42 Zephaniah 3:4–14 Esther 9:13–10:3 Passages from Leviticus, Genesis, and other texts

Schattner-Rieser Attia

16.1, 16.2 20.1–20.5

Oesch Gottlieb; Golinets Oesch Ofer Schattner-Rieser Ofer Oesch Schattner-Rieser Oesch

19.1, 19.2 17.1, 17.2 18.1, 18.2 19.3, 19.4 15.25, 15.26 16.9–16.30 15.27 19.5, 19.6 16.3, 16.4 19.7, 19.8

Ofer

15.21, 15.22

Ofer Golinets

15.24 18.3–18.8

Ofer

15.1–15.5, 15.11, 15.15, 15.18, 15.20

Golinets Schattner-Rieser Golinets Oesch Attia

18.9, 18.10 16.5–16.8 18.12 19.9, 19.10 20.6, 20.7

H 11 H 12 H 14 H 15 H 27 H 32 H 104 H 109 H 119 H 120 H 121 H 122 (folios  1r/v–3r/v) H 133

H 142 H 143 H 153 H 156 H 168

© RUTH A. CLEMENTS ET AL., 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_015

400

Hebrew Manuscripts Discussed in This Section

(cont.)

Catalogue number

Contents

Author(s)

Figure number(s)

H 170 H 173 H 191

Genesis 48:3–7 Zephaniah 2:5–3:2 Esther 7:6–8:12

Ofer Golinets Oesch

15.23 18.11 19.11–19.18

Chapter 14

The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts Bernhard Palme The Austrian National Library houses an extensive collection of ancient documents written on papyrus, parchment, ostraca, and early paper, dating from the fifteenth century bce to the fifteenth century ce. With 180,000 objects, it is one of the largest collections of ancient manuscripts in the world.1 It originates from the collection of Archduke Rainer, a member of the Habsburg family, who began acquiring texts written on papyrus in 1883. Almost all the objects come from Egypt, where climate conditions are favorable for the preservation of the organic materials and fragile documents, and the vast majority of the collection’s holdings were acquired before 1899. In October 2001, the entire Papyrus Collection was included in unesco’s Memory of the World Register as a world documentation heritage site. Among its objects, the Papyrus Collection preserves an important collection of approximately two hundred Jewish texts illustrating the Jewish communities in late antique and medieval Egypt, among them also biblical manuscripts. However, the exact provenance of the individual manuscripts is difficult to determine, due to the specific circumstances of their acquisition in the late nineteenth century. 1

The History of the Papyrus Collection

The history of the Papyrus Collection goes back to the pioneering days of papyrology and is closely linked to the establishment of papyrology as a scholarly discipline.2 In 1878–1879 Egyptian workers came upon extensive papyrus finds 1 The most detailed account of the history of the Papyrus Collection, with an overview of its holdings, is provided by Helene Loebenstein, “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren,” in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P.Rainer Cent.), ed. H. Loebenstein et al., 2 vols. (Vienna: Hollinek, 1983), 1:3–39 (hereafter P.Rainer Cent.). 2 On the early acquisitions see Loebenstein, “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’,” 3–11.

© Bernhard Palme, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_016

402

PALME

near the ancient city of Arsinoe (today’s Medinet el-Fayum), about 80 km southwest of Cairo.3 By chance, the Viennese antiquities dealer Theodor Graf (1840–1903) was in Egypt at that time. He acquired some papyri and brought them to the attention of Josef von Karabacek (1845–1918), then Professor of the History of the Near East at the University of Vienna. Karabacek recognized the scholarly value of these authentic documents from antiquity and prompted Graf to make extensive acquisitions.4 Graf succeeded in buying thousands of papyri from Medinet el-Fayum and the neighboring Ehnasya el-Medina (the ancient town of Heracleopolis). In the course of the years 1881 and 1882, Graf brought about ten thousand papyri to Vienna. This oldest part of the collection is known as the “First Fayum Find” and includes papyri from the Arsinoite and Heracleopolite nomes. Karabacek convinced Archduke Rainer (1827–1913), a member of the imperial family, to purchase all of the material. This is how the private collection, “Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer,” was created at the end of 1883. In the following years Graf brought additional, very substantial amounts of papyri to Vienna, which came predominantly from various sites in the Fayum and Ehnasya (Heracleopolis) in Middle Egypt as well as el-Ashmuneyn (the ancient Hermopolis) in Upper Egypt. Archduke Rainer also purchased this entire bulk of manuscripts and documents, so that within a few years the collection grew almost to its present level. Particularly significant were the acquisitions of 1885, which again comprised papyri from the Fayum and therefore are referred to as the “Second Fayum Find.” In 1886, numerous holdings from el-Ashmuneyn (Hermopolis) were added. In 1899, Archduke Rainer gave his entire papyrus collection as a birthday gift to Emperor Franz Josef I, so that he could assign it to the Hofbibliothek, the immediate predecessor of the Austrian National Library. This turned the private collection of Rainer into a public institution. The enormous number of papyri confronted the first editors, the Arabist Karabacek and the Hellenist Karl Wessely (1860–1931), with great challenges. The exact locations and circumstances of the finds remained largely unknown. Step by step, Karabacek and Wessely worked their way through tens of 3 For the history of papyrus finds see in general Karl Preisendanz, Papyrusfunde und Papyrusforschung (Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1933); and Hélène Cuvigny, “The Finds of Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. R. S. Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 30–49; on the First Fayum Find, see esp. 32–33. 4 In a letter to Karabacek dated March 7, 1881, Graf reported the first success in the targeted search for papyri and antique textiles: Herbert Hunger, ed., Aus der Vorgeschichte der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Briefe Theodor Grafs, Josef von Karabaceks, Erzherzog Rainers und anderer, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, n.s. 7 (Vienna: Prachner, 1962), letter no. 8.

The Papyrus Collection and Its Jewish Manuscripts

403

thousands of fragments written in all languages and scripts spoken in Egypt from Pharaonic times until the late Middle Ages. A first exhibition had an overwhelming echo in the public realm, as well as in the scholarly world, and the extensive catalogue for the 1,400 exhibits documents the state of the work on the collection around 1893–1894.5 Several attempts were made to develop a suitable inventory system. Finally, it was decided to make a first, rough order according to the languages of the documents.6 Thus, since these early days the collection has been organized according to the languages of the documents. The label H (for the German word “Hebräisch”) denotes documents in Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic; the latter are documents which are in the Arabic language but written in Hebrew script.7 The label Aram (for the German word “Aramäisch”) denotes documents in Aramaic. Since the inventory systems were only just emerging, it was not possible to create a proper acquisition book for the extensive early acquisitions. For most of the papyri, parchments, and papers in the collection, there is no individual information available as to the find or purchase from which they came. This situation makes it difficult to keep track of the provenance of the Jewish texts and when they entered the collection. For the individual documents, provenance can only be reconstructed indirectly from various reports, publications, and letters preserved from the correspondence between Graf, Karabacek, and Rainer. 2

Jewish Texts in the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library

The first batches of papyri which were brought to Vienna in 1883 comprised some papyri in Hebrew, and by 1884 the survey through the unpublished material had brought to light twenty-two papyri and two parchments—almost half of the Hebrew papyri housed by the collection at present (the rest are paper documents).8 In 1886, David Heinrich Müller and David Kaufmann published 5 Josef Karabacek, ed., Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Führer durch die Ausstellung (Vienna: Holder, 1894). 6 Hermann Harrauer and Klaas A. Worp, “Die Signatursysteme des griechischen Bestandes der Papyrussammlung Erzherzog Rainer,” in Loebenstein et al., P.Rainer Cent., 61–89. 7 Originally, a distinction was also made between writing materials within the language groups: HPap for “Hebräisch, Papyrus” and HPerg for “Hebräisch, Pergament.” This was given up in 1939 and the Numerus currens system was applied to the entire collection. 8 Josef Karabacek, “Miscelle: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer,” Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient 10 (1884): 172.

404

PALME

an article, “Über die hebräischen Papyri,” and edited four of the papyri.9 Both authors had already observed that the collection of the Archduke had a small number (compared to Greek, Coptic, and Arabic texts) of papyri in Hebrew, but that those texts shed interesting spotlights on Jewish culture in late antique Fayum. Although mostly small and mutilated fragments, difficult to read, there are also some objects of remarkable content: liturgical texts and responsa literature. Moreover, there are business letters and various memoranda from everyday life. Both Müller and Kaufmann assumed that all the material they dealt with originated from the Fayum. In 1892, the number of papyri identified as Hebrew had increased, due to the continued scrutinizing of the unpublished material by Müller and Kaufman.10 Since all later purchases included Hebrew items on paper, but not papyri, it turns out that practically all documents on papyrus (H 33–81), one document written on leather (H 32), and some of the parchments (of H 1–31) in Archduke Rainer’s collection came from Theodor Graf. But apart from the twenty-four texts that were identified as early as 1886, there is no evidence as to whether the other papyri and parchments acquired by Graf come from the so-called First or Second Fayum Finds, or from other sites such as Hermopolis (this lot was purchased in 1886). In any case, the old records speak only of the Fayum (Arsinoite and Heracleopolite nomes) as the area of origin of the Hebrew papyri (in contrast to the Hebrew paper documents). From a letter of Archduke Rainer to Karabacek, dated on July 18, 1890, we learn that “Hebrew papers” (not papyri) were offered to him for purchase. Unfortunately, the name of the seller is not mentioned. Apparently, however, the business was soon completed. Already on July 26, 1890, a week later, Karabacek informed Rainer that 188 Hebrew folios had been purchased.11 From a written evaluation of fifteen objects from this purchase we understand that apart from the paper documents there were also texts on parchment and leather (but no papyri).12 Various details allow us to suppose that those parchments are nowadays housed under the inventory numbers H 1–31, while the 9 10 11 12

David Heinrich Müller and David Kaufmann, “Über die hebräischen Papyrus,” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 1 (1886): 38–44. The items edited in that article are H 34, H 37, H 49, and H 50. David Heinrich Müller and David Kaufmann, “Der Brief eines ägyptischen Rabbi an den Gaon (Salomo) Ben Jehuda,” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 5 (1892): 127. The letter edited there is H 135. Hunger, Vorgeschichte, letters nos. 66–68. Documented in the files of the Papyrus Collection. The reviewer was Dr. Benjamin Feilbogen, teacher of Jewish religion at a high school (Gymnasium) in Hernals district, Vienna.

The Papyrus Collection and Its Jewish Manuscripts

405

paper documents form the bulk of the material in H 82–137.13 In their publication of 1892, Müller and Kaufmann indicate that the Rainer collection also houses a small number of manuscripts that most likely originated from the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo (al-Fustât). In 1892, only the papyri from the Fayum area, from Hermopolis, and the 188 Hebrew folios of 1890 had already entered the collection; consequently, Müller’s and Kaufmann’s note refers to the inventory numbers H 82–137, purchased in 1890. The Genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo is therefore the most likely provenance of these paper manuscripts.14 A few years later, in 1899, Rainer bought another substantial number of papyri, parchments, and papers, which the Swedish Arabist Graf Carlo Landberg had acquired in Cairo in 1898.15 According to Adolf Grohmann (1887–1977), these manuscripts came at least for the most part from elAshmuneyn (Hermopolis), because this place name is frequently mentioned in the documents themselves.16 Included in this group were fifty-two Hebrew texts (one papyrus, eight parchments, forty-three papers), but unlike the Greek and Arabic texts of that purchase, the Hebrew pieces (H 138–189) again seem to have come from the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo.17 These were the last purchases that Rainer made. After 1899 only a few items were added to the collection. In 1911 came four Aramaic ostraca, which Hermann Junker (1877–1962) had acquired in Edfou.18 Four additional documents followed much later: H 192 (leather) was purchased in 1970 in Vienna, while H 193 (paper) was donated in 1975 by the Austrian

13 14 15 16

17 18

Karabacek talks about 188 folios, but folios are certainly not identical with inventory numbers. For example, H 97 is the fragment of a codex that consists of twenty-six folios. Müller and Kaufmann, “Brief eines ägyptischen Rabbi.” Landberg (1848–1924) was also the head of the expedition of the Imperial Academy of Science to South Arabia in 1899. Adolf Grohmann, “Rückblick auf die Geschichte der Sammlung Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer,” in Allgemeine Einführung in die Arabischen Papyri, ed. A. Grohmann, Corpus Papyrorum Raineri III, pt. 1 (Vienna: Zöllner, 1924): 3–14 (6). Adolf Grohmann was director of the Papyrus Collection from 1918 to 1923, when he accepted a professorship at the German University at Prague. For the provenance of these items, which are referred to as “Genizah fragments,” see Nehemiah Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” in Loebenstein et al., P.Rainer Cent., 229–45, esp. 230–32. Nos. O.Aram. 1–4, see Grohmann, “Rückblick,” 7. Loebenstein, “Vom ‘Payrus Erzherzog Rainer’,” 8. Hermann Junker was professor of Egyptology at the University of Vienna from 1907 to 1929 and conducted several important field campaigns in Egypt, including excavations in Gizeh and the temples of Philae.

406

PALME

Academy of Science. The provenance and acquisition years of H 190 (parchment) and H 191 (paper) remain unknown.19 In addition to these acquisitions, approximately a dozen papyri were bought in the early 1990s. These papyri, written in Greek, form part of the dossier of the politeuma of Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt and contain highly important information about the Jewish community in second century bce Egypt.20 Coming from mummy cartonnage, the dossier was bought from the German antiquities market by the collections of Vienna, Heidelberg, and Cologne in equal shares.21 Dating to the years around 135 bce, these papyri document the activities of the Jewish community at Heracleopolis, in particular some actions by a politarches named Alexandros. Already the publication of a first corpus volume of the politeuma papyri22 solved the hitherto hotly debated question about the existence of such politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt, but it also opened up a series of other scholarly debates. Research continues on this material and related documents,23 and more texts from the dossier are awaiting publication.24 Up to the present day, only approximately a quarter of the documents denoted as Jewish by the H signature and Aram label in the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library have been published in critical editions with 19

20

21 22 23

24

H 192, 190, 191 were catalogued by Walter Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek,” Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 117 (1980): 1–8 under nos. I.3, II.7 and III.9 respectively. James M. S. Cowey and Klaus Maresch, eds., “Introduction,” in idem, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.), (P.Polit.Iud.), Abhandlungen der Nordrhein–Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 29 (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001), 1–34. As the texts are in Greek, those acquisitions were not entered under the label H, but under G (“Griechisch”). Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma; the texts from the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library are published as nos. 5, 12, 15, 18, and 19. Closely related to the politeuma papyri is the dossier of the phrouraches Dioscurides, coming from the same mummy cartonage: James M. S. Cowey, Klaus Maresch, and Christopher Barnes, Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.), (P.Phrur. Diosk.): Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien, Abhandlungen der Nordrhein–Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 30 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003). Recent overviews of ongoing studies are provided inter alia by Thomas Kruse, “Ethnic Koina and Politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010, ed. V. Gabrielsen and C. A. Thomsen (Copenhagen: Det kongelige Danske videnskabernes selskab, 2015), 270–300; and Patrick Sänger, Die ptolemäische Organisationsform politeuma: Ein Herrschaftsinstrument zugunsten jüdischer und anderer hellenischer Gemeinschaften, tsaj 178 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), esp. 7–20.

The Papyrus Collection and Its Jewish Manuscripts

407

full commentary. Although about a dozen texts were edited by Müller und Kaufmann, and others were described in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Führer25 at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, the H signature documents were only sparsely edited for several decades. An edition of a substantial number of Hebrew and Aramaic papyri and papers, studied by Arthur Zacharias Schwarz (1880–1939) and announced for publication in 1936, sadly never appeared due to the political events of 1938, when Austria became part of Nazi Germany.26 After the Second World War, a representative of the newly founded Institute of Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem was sent to the Papyrus Collection in order to compile a list of the Hebrew holdings; this was subsequently published in print in 1957,27 and in German translation, in a different order (arranged according to content), in 1973.28 In its 1973 version—as a systematic survey of the contents and brief description of the manuscripts and documents— this list gave impetus for a number of investigations into individual texts or groups of texts with shared features, such as legal documents. Moreover, Nehemiah Allony provided an overview of the composition and the content 25

See the articles cited in nn. 9 and 10; Karabacek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, nos. 876 (H 34); 877 (H 1); 881 (H 50), 1120 (H 135), 1121 (H 136), 1143 (H 86), 1151 (H 85), 1177 (H 137), 1242 (H 31). On the content of the published documents see Allony, “Geniza Fragments,” 229 n. 4; on H 24 and H 49: Shaul Shaked, A Tentative Bibliography of the Geniza Documents (Paris: Mouton, 1964), 234–36. 26 Hans Gerstinger, “Bericht über den derzeitigen Stand der Arbeiten and den ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’,” in Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia: Firenze, 28 aprile– 2 maggio 1935 (Milan: Società editrice “Vita e Pensiero,” 1936), 305–12 (311). Publication was scheduled for Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbiblothek in Wien. Arthur Schwarz had published two comprehensive catalogues of the (medieval) Hebrew manuscripts of the Austrian National Library (1925) and other Austrian libraries (1931). Schwarz suffered imprisonment and torture after March 1938. He escaped to Palestine but passed away soon after his arrival. Schwarz’s study of the texts of the Rainer collection, announced by Gerstinger, seems to be lost; it is not Part 2A in Arthur Zacharias Schwarz, David Samuel Loewinger, Ernst Roth, Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich, vol. 2 (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973), 3–54, as this catalogue does not contain manuscripts of the Rainer Papyrus Collection. However, Part 2B, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs,” by Loewinger and Roth, does contain brief descriptions of the Rainer manuscripts and is referenced by a number of the papers in this volume (see n. 28 below). 27 Nehemiah Allony and David Samuel Loewinger, List of Photocopies in the Institute, vol. 1, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Libraries of Austria and Germany (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1957), 8–16. 28 David Samuel Loewinger, Ernst Roth, “Anhang A: Erzherzog Rainer Sammlung in der Nationalbibliothek in Wien (Nr. 1–187),” in Schwarz, Loewinger, Roth, Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich, 57–79.

408

PALME

of the holdings in the Festschrift, a commemorative publication for the centennial anniversary of the Papyrus Collection.29 From his description of the texts, the contents of the holdings—which are both chronologically broad and very diverse—become clearly evident. The collection includes manuscripts of the Bible, commentaries on biblical Scriptures, texts on liturgy, philosophy and poetry, as well as a considerable number of historically relevant documents (legal contracts, letters etc.) that shed light on the activities of the Jewish communities in medieval Cairo. In 2005, most of the H signature group was digitized by the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society. The remaining documents have since been scanned by the Papyrus Collection, so that today digital images of all its Jewish manuscripts are available in open access on the homepage of the Austrian National Library.30 With such a diversity of content, it is evident that a systematic publication of all texts of the H signature in a single corpus edition, which indeed had been envisioned in the past, cannot be carried out by a single editor.31 A group of specialists is required to cope with this difficult task. Armin Lange, who had familiarized himself with these manuscripts and who is organizing work on a corpus edition, has taken on this project in cooperation with a team of selected specialists. The present volume on the biblical manuscripts is the first in a series of publications regarding those Jewish manuscripts from the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library that carry the labels H and Aram. The Papyrus Collection is delighted to participate in this volume as part of the interdisciplinary cooperation of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, and the University of Vienna’s Institute for Jewish Studies. Bibliography Allony, Nehemiah. “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology.” Pages 229–45 in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P.Rainer Cent.). Edited by H. Loebenstein et al. 2 vols. Vienna: Hollinek, 1983.

29 30 31

Allony, “Geniza Fragments.” https://www.onb.ac.at/. Such a project was planned by Walter Kornfeld, then professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Vienna, in the early 1960s: see Hunger, Vorgeschichte, letter nr. 68.

The Papyrus Collection and Its Jewish Manuscripts

409

Allony, Nehemia, and David Samuel Loewinger. List of Photocopies in the Institute, Vol. 1, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Libraries of Austria and Germany. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1957. Cowey, James M. S., and Klaus Maresch, eds. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.), (P.Polit.Iud.). Abhandlungen der Nordrhein– Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 29. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001. Cowey, James M. S., Klaus Maresch, and Christopher Barnes, eds. Das Archiv des Phrur­ archen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.), (P.Phrur.Diosk.): Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien. Abhandlungen der Nordrhein–Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 30. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003. Cuvigny, Hélène. “The Finds of Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology.” Pages 30–49 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by R. S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Gerstinger, Hans. “Bericht über den derzeitigen Stand der Arbeiten and den ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’.” Pages 305–12 in Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia: Firenze, 28 aprile–2 maggio 1935. Milan: Società editrice “Vita e Pensiero,” 1936. Grohmann, Adolf. “Rückblick auf die Geschichte der Sammlung Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.” Pages 3–14 in Allgemeine Einführung in die Arabischen Papyri. Edited by A. Grohmann. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri III, pt. 1. Vienna: Zöllner, 1924. Harrauer, Hermann, and Klaas A. Worp. “Die Signatursysteme des griechischen Be­­ standes der Papyrussammlung Erzherzog Rainer.” Pages 61–89 in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P.Rainer Cent.). Edited by H. Loebenstein et al. 2 vols. Vienna: Hollinek, 1983. Hunger, Herbert, ed. Aus der Vorgeschichte der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Briefe Theodor Grafs, Josef von Karabaceks, Erzherzog Rainers und anderer. Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Natio­ nalbibliothek, n.s., 7. Vienna: Prachner, 1962. Karabacek, Josef. “Miscelle: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.” Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient 10 (1884): 172. Karabacek, Josef, ed. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Führer durch die Ausstellung. Vienna: Holder, 1894. Kornfeld, Walter. “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek.” Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 117 (1980): 1–8. Kruse, Thomas. “Ethnic Koina and Politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 270–300 in Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010. Edited by

410

PALME

V. Gabrielsen and C. A. Thomsen. Copenhagen: Det kongelige Danske videnskabernes selskab, 2015. Loebenstein, Helene. “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren.” Pages 3–39 in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P.Rainer Cent.). Edited by H. Loebenstein et al. 2 vols. Vienna: Hollinek, 1983. Loewinger, David Samuel, and Ernst Roth. “Anhang A: Erzherzog Rainer Sammlung in der Nationalbibliothek in Wien (Nr. 1–187).” Pages 57–79 in Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (außerhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2. Edited by A. Z. Schwarz, D. S. Loewinger, and E. Roth. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Müller, David Heinrich, and David Kaufmann. “Der Brief eines ägyptischen Rabbi an den Gaon (Salomo) Ben Jehuda.” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 5 (1892): 127–32. Müller, David Heinrich, and David Kaufmann. “Über die hebräischen Papyrus.” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 1 (1886): 38–44. Preisendanz, Karl. Papyrusfunde und Papyrusforschung. Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1933. Schwarz, Arthur Zacharias, David Samuel Loewinger, Ernst Roth, eds. Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (außerhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Sänger, Patrick. Die ptolemäische Organisationsform politeuma: Ein Herrschafts­ instrument zugunsten jüdischer und anderer hellenischer Gemeinschaften. tsaj 178. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Shaked, Shaul. A Tentative Bibliography of the Geniza Documents. Paris–The Hague: Mouton, 1964.

Chapter 15

Masoretic Summaries of the Weekly Portions in P.Vindob. H 133 from the Rainer Collection in Vienna Yosef Ofer The manuscript P.Vindob. H 133 of the Rainer Collection in the Austrian National Library in Vienna1,2 is an interesting and important manuscript of Genesis, found in the Cairo Genizah.3 No less than twenty-seven leaves survive, giving a consecutive text except in one place, where five leaves are missing. The manuscript is written on paper; every page contains one wide column of sixteen lines. The text is punctuated and accentuated, with Masorah parva (Mp) comments, but without Masorah magna (Mm). The text contains four weekly portions from Genesis: Vayyishlaḥ, Vayyeshev, Miqqeṣ, and Vayyigash.4 According to the examination conducted by Dr. Ezra Chwat of the National Library of Israel, the manuscript may be dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century.5

1 This article is based on my lecture, “The Genesis Manuscripts from the Vienna Papyrus Collection,” delivered on April 13, 2016, at the Fifteenth International Orion Symposium: “The Texts of the Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Biblical Manuscripts of the Vienna Papyrus Collection.” 2 Vienna, Öesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Rainer Collection P.Vindob. H 133; for the complete manuscript, see: onb.ac.at. A brief paleographic description of manuscript H 133 appears in David S. Loewinger and Ernst Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs,” pt. 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2., ed. A. Z. Schwarz et al., Texts and Studies 4 (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973), 57–58. The Genizah fragments discussed in the appendix to this article are also described there, 57–60: nos. 1 (H 120), 2 (H 15), 4 (H 121), 5 (H 170), and 21 (H 32). 3 See the discussion of Bernhard Palme concerning the provenance of the Vienna manuscripts, “The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts,” in this volume, esp. pp. 404–5. 4 Folios 1–8 contain Gen 36:3–43; the haftarah of Vayyishlaḥ (Obad 1:1–21) and its masoretic data; Gen 37:1–38:24. Five folios are missing. Folios 9–27 contain the end of the haftarah of Vayyeshev (Amos 3:7–8) and its masoretic data; Gen 41:1–44:17; the haftarah of Miqqeṣ (1 Kgs 3:15–4:1) and its masoretic data; and Gen 44:18–47:17. 5 Personal communication, January 5, 2016.

© Yosef Ofer, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_017

412 1

Ofer

The Biblical Text and Its Degree of Accuracy

On occasion the scribe erred and omitted some words from his original copy of the manuscript. These words were subsequently added in the margin or between the lines. For example, the phrase ‫“( ואת כל בהמתו‬and all his livestock,” Gen 36:6) was omitted in the first copying and filled in vertically in the margin with vocalization and cantillation marks. Another example: In the haftarah of Vayyishlaḥ, the Tetragrammaton was omitted and then filled in between the lines (Obad 1:1, Fol. 3r). In one place a dittography occurred. The words ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֶשׁ ַבע ִשׁ ֳבּ ִלים עֹֹלת ְבּ ָקנֶ ה‬ ‫“( ֶא ָחד ְמ ֵלאֹת וְ טֹבֹת‬seven ears of grain, full and healthy, growing on a single stalk,” Gen 41:22) were duplicated erroneously. The scribe vocalized them, but noticed his mistake only when he came to add the cantillation marks (after adding to the first three words the marks for pashta, munaḥ, and zaqef, corresponding to verse 23). The Masorete stopped adding the marks and deleted the superfluous words by inserting a line above them in red ink (Fol. 10v). In terms of defective and plene orthography, the first hand of H 133 is quite different from the Masoretic Text (mt), but was systematically corrected towards it. I examined, for example, chapter 36 (from the beginning of the fragment to the end of the chapter (vv. 3–43). In this passage I found six additions of vowel letters and five erasures, and in every case the correction represents the version of the mt. Nevertheless, two instances of divergence from the mt remained uncorrected (Fig. 15.1).6

Figure 15.1

Deletion of vowel letters in P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 3r (Gen 36:40)

6 Addition of the letter ‫ ו‬to correspond to the masorah: ‫תלד[ו]ת‬, ‫( אד[ו]ם‬36:9); ‫הת[י]מני‬ (36:34); ‫( מרחב[ו]ת‬36:37); ‫עכב[ו]ר‬, ‫( מה[י]טבאל‬36:39). Deletions to correspond to the masorah: ‫( ח(ו)שם‬36:34, 35); ‫( למק(ו)מ(ו)תם בשמ(ו)תם‬36:40, shown in Fig. 15.1). Divergence from the masorah: ‫( ודישון‬36:21; in the mt: ‫( והמם ;)ודשון‬36:22; in the mt: ‫)והימם‬.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

2

413

Attempts at Pagination

The last lines on the verso of some of the leaves are written with spaces between the letters or with the letters specially condensed. Evidently the scribe was trying to match his writing to the original that he was copying, and when he approached the end of the verso, he tried to make his copy end with the same word as the original. Such spacing of the letters and expanding them may be noted on Fol. 12v (last three lines, Gen 41:50–51), Fol. 13v (last three lines, Gen 42:7), and Fol. 16v (last four lines, Gen 43:8–9; Fig. 15.2). Condensed writing is also noticeable, where the scribe wrote the last word in a line diagonally for lack of space. Such writing occurs elsewhere as well, but it is particularly evident towards the end of a page. On Fol. 8v, for example, the last lines are written condensed, and the two words at the end of the lines are written diagonally (Gen 38:24; Fig. 15.3). A similar phenomenon occurs on Fol. 14v (Gen 42:21) and Fol. 20v (1 Kgs 3:25; haftarah of Miqqeṣ). On Fol. 7v the scribe added a line of two words adjacent to the left margin: ‫“( פן ימות‬lest he die,” Gen 38:11). The words appear in the form of a page marker, but they do not recur on the next page. 3

Vocalization and Cantillation Marks

In this manuscript there is normally a rafe sign on the letters begadkefat when they are weak, and for the letters ‫א‬, ‫ ה‬when they do not represent a consonant (see Fig. 15.4). I should point out that in ancient manuscripts like the Aleppo Codex (hereafter mtA) the rafe sign is not marked consistently. In some cases in ms H 133, the vocalization is erroneous: ‫הּכר נא‬ ַ (“Please examine it,” Gen 37:32—pataḥ instead of segol); ‫“( וּיַ קרע‬rent”—pataḥ instead of ḥiriq, Gen 37:34). Some of these errors may have already been in the original that the scribe was copying; in some places he wrote in the margin a kind of masoretic note, ‫“( כצ״ל‬thus it should be”), indicating that he was aware of the exceptional vocalization and that it was not his error. Such is the case in the haftarah of Miqqeṣ, adjacent to the words ‫“( ובני ַהחי‬and my son is the live one,” 1 Kgs 3:23). The vocalizer placed a pataḥ beneath the letter ‫ה‬, and not a segol as in the mt, both here and in the previous verse, 3:22. Another ‫ כצ״ל‬note appears at the beginning of verse 28, which may refer to the vocalization of the letter ‫ י‬in ‫“( ויַ שמעו‬heard”) with a pataḥ rather than a ḥiriq, as in the usual masoretic version. However, the exchange of pataḥ and segol may have resulted from a copy that was vocalized in the Babylonian vocalization system (which has

414

Figure 15.2

Ofer

P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 16v, Gen 43:3–9, expanded writing

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

Figure 15.3

P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 8v, Gen 38:18–24, condensed writing

415

416

Ofer

Figure 15.4

Rafe signs in P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 1r (above the letters ‫ב‬, ‫ ב‬and ‫ת‬, ‫ג‬, ‫ א‬and ‫ת‬, ‫)ת‬

only one sign for pataḥ and segol), or by a Yemenite scribe (who would not distinguish between these two signs in his pronunciation).7 Sometimes there are errors in the cantillation marks; for example, the word ‫ ֵא ֶלּה‬in Gen 36:19 is marked with a munaḥ instead of a darga. 4

Divisions of Scripture

The division of the Torah into weekly portions (parashiyyot) is clearly marked; after each portion, the haftarah is given, followed by an ornamental passage with masoretic details of the portion. I will discuss these masoretic passages in detail below. At the end of every portion, the Masorete wrote the number of verses in it: at the end of Vayyishlaḥ ‫( קנ״ד‬154) and at the end of Miqqeṣ ‫קמ״ו‬ (146). (The end of Vayyeshev is not extant in this manuscript.) These numbers were inscribed at the end of the passage, as was common in ancient manuscripts. They were given even though the number of verses in the portion was included in the special masoretic summaries that appear after the haftarah. Division into sedarim (triennial weekly reading portions) is recorded in the margins of the manuscript by means of the letter ‫ס‬. The mark is recorded throughout the manuscript and eight sedarim divisions are indicated: Gen 37:1; 38:1, 41:1; 41:38; 42:18; 43:14 (marked erroneously on the previous verse: 43:13!); 46:8; and 46:28. No triennial portion is marked at the beginning of Vayyigash (44:18). Instead, there is a mark on 46:8 (‫ואלה שמות‬, “And these 7 For remarks on this phenomenon in other manuscripts of the Rainer collection, see Viktor Golinets, “Manuscripts of the Former and Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection,” in this volume, esp. pp. 535–36, 547–48.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

417

are the names”), and that may have indicated a different tradition for the division of the sedarim. Open and closed passages: In the extant fragment there are not many such passages indicated, but all of them correspond to Maimonides’s list of open and closed passages (Laws of the Sefer Torah, ch. 8).8 The type of passage is clear due to the space before the text, but passage type is also specified in a masoretic note: ‫פתוחה=פת‬, open passage; ‫סתומה=סת‬, closed passage. At one place there is a closed passage without the masoretic note (Gen 36:20). At the end of the weekly portions, it is difficult to distinguish clearly the type of space before the new passage (since the haftarah and the masoretic data intervene between one portion and the next). Nor did the scribe indicate the type of passage in the margin. That is the case at the end of Vayyishlaḥ and Miqqeṣ (as noted, the end of Vayyeshev is not extant). 5

Masorah parva

As mentioned above, the manuscript includes only Masorah parva and no Masorah magna. A partial examination of the masoretic notes shows that the Masorete did not always understand the meaning of the notes that he copied. Here are a few examples: 1. Genesis 36:22: ‫ח ִֹרי וְ ֵה ָמם‬. The Masorete placed a tiny circle on each of these words, but the Mp note refers to both words together: ‫ל׳ וחד חרי‬ ‫והומה בדב׳ ימים‬. (“This combination is unique; one close combination, ‫חרי‬ ‫והומה‬, appears in Chronicles”; cf. 2 Chr 1:39; should be: ‫)חרי והומם‬. 2. Genesis 37:12: ‫את‬. The Masorete notes: ?‫ה׳י׳ נקי׳ י׳ בתו׳[רה] ד׳? כות׳? ט׳‬ ?‫דכתי׳‬. This note refers to the well-known masorah describing fifteen dotted words in Scripture.9 However it seems that the Masorete did not understand the masorah that he copied, which is clear from the fact that he did not place two dots over the word ‫ את‬in the text. 3. Genesis 37:25—‫ ָּב ָאה‬. Mp: ]‫י׳א׳ בטע׳[מא] וכל מל׳[כים] ויחזק[אל] דכו׳[תהון‬ ‫“( בר מ׳[ן] ב׳‬This word has eleven occurrences with this stress, and also all but two of the occurrences that appear in Kings and Ezekiel”). This 8 Based on his examination of mtA; see Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex,” Textus 1 (1960): 17–58. 9 See, for example, Salomon Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora) (Hanover: Hahn, 1864), par. 96; the masorah comment of H 133 is difficult to read, and apparently its wording is distorted. It should be: ‫ י׳ בתורה ד׳ בנביאים וחד בכתובים‬,‫ה׳י׳ נקודים‬.

418

Ofer

Figure 15.5

4.

P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 6v: A masoretic note out of place in the margin

note deals with the stress of the word, whether on the last or the penultimate syllable. There is a similar note on this verse in the Mm of Codex Leningradensis (St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ebr. I B19a; hereafter mtL). However, here as well, our Masorete did not understand the note, a fact which is demonstrated by the fact that he inserted it out of place, two lines above the word concerned, and did not add a circle over the word discussed (see Fig. 15.5). Genesis 38:17: ‫שׁ ְל ֶ ֽחָך‬-‫ד‬ ָ ‫ ַע‬. Mp: ‫י׳א׳ בטע׳ בסופ׳ פסו׳‬. (“Eleven cases of such cantillation at the end of the verse”). A similar note appears in the Mm of mtL to the same verse and includes a list of the affected verses. The masorah deals with cases in which the word ‫( ַעד‬or ‫ )וְ ַעד‬is cantillated with a merkha followed by a sof pasuq. The purpose of such a note is to distinguish between these cases and those in which the same word is hyphenated together with the last word in the verse. However, our Masorete cited the note while leaving the word hyphenated.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

6

419

The Special Design of P.Vindob. H 133: A Weekly Portion, Haftarah, and Masorah Data

P.Vindob. H 133 reflects a changing design of biblical manuscripts. Weekly portions are not in sequence one after the other; the haftarah (i.e., the passage from the Prophets read after the weekly portion) is written between the two portions. This model is optimized and easier to use in the synagogue, since the haftarah is read just after the weekly Torah portion. In the ancient oriental manuscripts such as mtA (Fig. 15.6) and mtL (Fig. 15.7) there are no references to haftarot. The text of the Torah is written continuously (as it is in a Torah scroll), and the division into weekly portions or sedarim is indicated in the margins, as is the number of verses of every weekly portion. The haftarot are not listed in the margins, either in the Torah (at the end of the weekly portions) or in the Prophets, where no indication of the beginning of each haftarah is given.

Figure 15.6

Aleppo Codex (mtA), Fol. 2r. The end of the weekly portion Ki Tavo and the beginning of Niṣavim (Deut 29:8–10) Courtesy of Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama

420

Ofer

Figure 15.7

Leningrad Codex (mtL), St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ebr. I B19a, Fol. 22v. The end of Vayyishlaḥ and the beginning of Vayyeshev (Gen 36:43–37:2) Courtesy of National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg

Figure 15.8

London, British Library, Harley ms 5710, Fol. 30r. The end of Miqqeṣ and beginning of Vayyigash (Gen 44:17–18) © British Library Board

In later manuscripts (such as London, British Library, Harley ms 5710 from the late thirteenth century; Fig. 15.8) the first word of a weekly portion is presented as an illuminated initial. This design distorts the division into open and closed passages, and consequently the Masorete needed to describe them verbally (‫=סתומה‬closed passage).

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

Figure 15.9

421

London, British Library, Add ms 15451, Fol. 33r. End of Miqqeṣ and beginning of Vayyigash (Gen 44:17–18) © British Library Board

In other manuscripts the open passage at the beginning of a new weekly portion is marked by the letter ‫ פ‬twice or three times, as in a thirteenth-century manuscript from the British Library, Add ms 15451 (Fig. 15.9).10 This practice is common in many printed editions of the Torah to this day.11 At the beginning of this same manuscript (Fol. 1v) a list of haftarot is given (Fig. 15.10). It is also common to find manuscripts that contain the entire text of the haftarot, but separately from the Torah. These manuscripts contain Torah and haftarot, or Torah, haftarot, and the Five Scrolls. A general picture, if not entirely accurate, may be attained from a look at the catalogue of the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the National Library of Israel (imhm), Jerusalem: 152 manuscripts are listed under the rubric “Torah, Haftarot, and Scrolls.” The six earliest manuscripts are from the twelfth century, thirty-eight 10 11

The beginning of the weekly portion Vayyigash is marked by an ornamentation containing the word seder. It is noteworthy that in common practice this portion begins with a closed passage. Among the earliest of them: the Torah with Onkelos’s translation, Rashi’s commentary, and translations into Greek and Ladino, printed by Soncino Press, Constantinople, 1547 (generally cited as Constantinople Pentateuch or the Ladino Pentateuch).

422

Ofer

Figure 15.10 London, British Library, Add ms 15451, Fol. 1v. List of haftarot © British Library Board

are from the thirteenth, sixty from the fourteenth, and the rest from the fifteenth century (six are undated). Some of these manuscripts also include Onkelos’s translation, Rashi’s commentary, and additional elements. Under the rubric “Torah and Haftarot,” twenty-seven additional manuscripts are listed, from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. In most of these manuscripts in both categories, the haftarot appear as a separate unit after the entire text of the Torah, and not after each weekly portion. The later model of writing was that in which the haftarot appear after each weekly portion. An example of this style is Paris, BnF, Ms hebr. 48–49 from the fourteenth century (which also includes Onkelos’s translation, a guide for scribes, and Rashi’s commentary).12 And this is also the case in H 133. This model was novel, taking one step further towards the practical use of the manuscript in the synagogue: no longer continuous writing of the Torah and a modest indication in the margins where the weekly portion ends, but clear

12

My thanks go to Javier de Barco, a researcher at csic, Madrid, who referred me to this manuscript.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

423

demarcation of the division into portions and integration of the appropriate haftarah after each one.13 A comprehensive examination of this model should be made in order to determine when and where it first appeared. If our manuscript is indeed from the twelfth or thirteenth century, it may be one of the earliest examples of this model. 7

Masoretic Data Related to the Weekly Portion

7.1 The Literary Form of the Masoretic Data in H 133 P.Vindob. H 133 contains a unique novelty: the haftarah is followed by an illuminated frame with ornamental flowers that presents a variety of masoretic details summarizing the weekly portion (Fig. 15.11). There seems to be a correlation between the placement of the haftarah at the end of the weekly portion and the prominent display of masoretic data. As long as the biblical text was given continuously, and not split up, the masoretic details related to the end of the weekly portion could appear only concisely in the margins. However, once the portions could be separated from each other, this change could be exploited for a colorful celebration. The Masorete tries to collect as many masoretic details as possible and displays them prominently in an illuminated frame. How widespread was this model, including the masoretic details that summarize the weekly portion? This question is difficult to answer. The biblical manuscripts from the Genizah and elsewhere have not yet been described comprehensively and, consequently, many more manuscripts must be examined to know how widespread this model was. I found one manuscript that presents masoretic material in a similar format: Madrid, Universidad Complutense bh mss 1 (M1), which contains the whole Bible and was written in the thirteenth century;14 but the masoretic details come in concentrated form at the end of the whole Torah (fols. 81r–82v) and not after each weekly portion. In the first edition of the Tanakh by C. D. Ginsburg (1894), similar masoretic data appears 13 14

MS Leipzig University Library B.H. 1 reflects an intermediary case: The text of the Torah is written in the center of the page continuously, one portion after another; the haftarot appear in the margins, as do both Onkelos’s translation and Rashi’s commentary. Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, bh mss 1 (IMHM Film no. F 15657). The manuscript contains an inscription testifying to its sale in Toledo in 1280. Its writing preceded that date, of course.

424

Figure 15.11

Ofer

P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 4v, with masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

425

in the margins after each weekly portion; the editor elsewhere declares that he made use of the Madrid manuscript in compiling the data.15 ms H 133 preserves three masoretic summaries—for the portions Vayyishlaḥ, Vayyeshev, and Miqqeṣ. All three are constructed in a uniform pattern, and fourteen elements (as detailed in the table below) may be noted. Here, for example, is the text of the summary for Vayyishlaḥ (see also Fig. 15.11 above): ‫ ומניין הפסוקים שלה ק׳נ׳ד׳ סימן להם‬.‫נשלמה פרשת וישלח בעזרת אל טוב וסלח‬ .(33:18) ‫ ויבא יעקב שלם‬.(32:4) ‫ ומנין הסדרים שלה שלשה וישלח יעקב‬.‫א׳ב׳י׳א׳ס׳ף׳‬ ‫ ומנין המלות שלה אלף ותשע מאות ושבעים וששה‬.(35:9) ‫וירא אלהים אל יעקב‬ .‫ ומנין האותיות שבעת אלפים וארבע מאות וחמשים ושמונה‬.‫סימן להם א׳ת׳ת׳ק׳ע׳ו׳‬ ‫ וחצי הפרשה בני יעקב באו על החללים ויבוזו העיר‬.‫[ומספר] שנותיה עשר שנים‬ ‫ לא אשלחך‬.(32:9) ‫ והיה המחנה‬.(32:9) ‫ וחלופים שמונה אל המחנה האחת‬.(34:27) ‫ בן בשמת‬.(35:12) ‫ ולזרעך‬.(34:3) ‫ ויאהב את הנער׳‬.(32:31) ‫ שם המקום‬.(32:27) ‫ כל יוצאי‬.(33:10) ‫ כי על כן‬. (32:18)‫ ובלא חילוף כי יפגשך‬.(36:16) ‫ אלוף קרח‬.(36:10) (36:5) ‫) יעוש‬35:21—‫ וכתיב ד׳ אסלה (צ״ל אהלה‬.‫( בלא געיה‬34:24) ‫( וחבירו‬34:24) (33:4) ‫ ונקוד אחד ו׳י׳ש׳ק׳ה׳ו׳‬.(33:4) ‫( צוארו‬36:14) ‫וחבירו‬

The portion Vayyishlaḥ is finished / With the assistance of the good and forgiving G-d. And the number of its verses is 154; their mnemonic sign is Aviasaf. And the number of its sedarim is 3: [listed] … And the number of its words is: 1,976; their sign is ‫א׳ת׳ת׳ק׳ע׳ו‬. And the number of the letters is 7,458. And the number of its years is 10 years. Middle Verse: [cited] Gen 34:27. Disputes [between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali]: 8 [listed] …; and without dispute: [4 cases] … ketiv [qere]: 4 [cases, listed] … One dotted word: ׄ‫( וׄ יׄ ׄש ׄק ׄהו‬Gen 33:4). The first two elements create a kind of opening statement; the name of the weekly portion is incorporated in a rhyme in which Vayyishlaḥ is rhymed with salaḥ (“forgiving”). From here the note continues with masoretic data; i.e., numbers, some detailed and others without detail, according to the subject matter.

15

Ginsburg, Christian D., ‫עשרים וארבעה ספרי הקדש מדויקים היטב על פי המסורה ועל פי‬ ‫( דפוסים ראשונים עם חלופים והגהות‬London: ‫ חברת מוציאי לאור תורת יהוה התמימה‬, 1894) (hereafter Tanakh). See idem, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), 112: “Thus the Madrid Codex No. 1, from which in conjunction with the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise in the Yemen mss, I printed the Summaries at the end of each Parasha….” In these last words, Ginsburg refers to the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali that he found listed in Yemenite manuscripts.

426

Ofer

First, we are given the number of verses in the portion and a mnemonic for remembering them: “And the number of its verses is 154; their mnemonic sign is Aviasaf.” Then follows the number of sedarim and the verses where they fall; the number of words in the portion; the number of letters; the number of years that transpire over the course of the narrative; and the middle verse of the portion.16 The next two elements of data relate to disagreements between the Masoretes Ben Asher and Ben Naftali concerning the readings of particular words found in the portion. The number and details of the disagreements are listed first, followed by the number and details of the cases in which they agree.17 That is followed by the number and details of cases of differences between the ketiv and the qere; and finally, by the number and details of dotted words. As mentioned, masoretic data are presented in this manuscript in an identical format at the end of both Vayyeshev and Miqqeṣ. 7.2 Masoretic Notes in Madrid, Universidad Complutense bh mss 1 (M1) In M1 we also find these data, but not at the end of each portion. In this manuscript, in contrast to H 133, the weekly Torah portions are written continuously, as in earlier manuscripts. The masoretic data are then given as an appendix at the end of the complete text of the Torah, portion by portion. This format seems strange, since the natural place for details summarizing each portion would be at the end of the portion itself. It seems that the masoretic scribe who wrote this manuscript had before him another manuscript in which the data was given after each portion, but he did not want to break the continuity between the portions, and therefore presented all the data consecutively at the end. This may be demonstrated by the fact that the name of each portion is not stated at the beginning of each section of the masoretic data; and only on the basis of the data themselves can one identify what portion is concerned. When the data are presented following each individual portion, there is no need to cite the name of the portion since its location makes that clear; but when the data are presented together, one would expect to see a label distinguishing each portion. For comparison of M1 and H 133, we will examine the details in M1 regarding Vayyishlaḥ (Fig. 15.12):

16

17

For the summaries for both Vayyeshev and Miqqeṣ in H 133, an additional element is given in the sequence, following the number of years and before the middle verse: the number and details of paseq signs. A paseq is marked by a short vertical line between two words; it indicates a break after a conjunctive accent. In Vayyishlaḥ there are no paseq signs. See the discussion in section 8 below on the significance of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

427

Figure 15.12 Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. bh msS 1, Fol. 81r. Masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ Courtesy of Universidad Complutense Madrid

‫ וירא‬.)33:18( ‫ ויבא יעקב שלם‬.)32:4( ‫ וסדרים ג׳ וישלח יעקב‬,‫שם הפרשה לעדן‬ ‫ ומלים אלף ותשע מאות‬.‫ ופסוק׳ מאה וחמשים וארבעה‬.)35:9( ‫אלהים אל יעקב‬ ‫ וחילופים ח׳‬.‫ ואותיות שבעת אלפים וארבע מאות וחמשים ושמונה‬.‫ושבעים וששה‬ ‫המקום‬-‫ ֵ ֽשם‬.)32:27( ‫אשלחך‬ ֽ ַ ‫ לא‬.)32:9( ‫ והיה ַ ֽהמחנה‬.)32:9( ‫אל ַ ֽהמחנה האחת‬ ‫ אלוף קרח‬.)36:10( ‫בשמת‬-‫ ֶבן‬.)35:12( ֽ‫ ולזרעָך‬.)34:3( ‫ ויאהב את הנערה‬.)32:31( ‫ וחברו‬.)34:24( ‫יוצאי‬-‫ ָּכל‬.)33:10( ‫ ִ ֣כי על כן‬,)32:18( ‫ ובלא חילוף כי יֽ פגשך‬.)36:16( .)36:14( ‫ וחבירו‬.)36:5 ;‫ עיש (צ״ל יעיש‬.)35:21( ‫ וכתו׳ ד׳ אהלה‬.‫) בלא געיה‬34:24( )33:4( ‫ ונקוד א׳ ו׳י׳ש׳ק׳ה׳ו׳‬.‫ ומספר שנותיה עשר שנים‬.)33:4( ‫צוארו‬

The portion’s name is Laʿadan (‫=לעדן‬154). And [the number of] sedarim [is] 3 [listed] … And [the number of] verses [is] 154. And [the number of] words [is] 1,976. And [the number of] letters [is] 7,458. And disputes [between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali]: 8 [listed] … And without dispute: [4 cases listed] … And ketiv [qere]: 4 [listed] … And the number of its years: 10 years. And one dotted word: ׄ‫( וׄ יׄ ׄש ׄק ׄהו‬Gen 33:4). The data are nearly identical to those in H 133. Only the opening rhyme is missing, and the mnemonic is ‫( לעדן‬1 Chr 7:26 and elsewhere) instead of ‫אביאסף‬ (Exod 6:24; the numerical value of both names is 154); the number of years appears towards the end of the list. One significant difference may be seen between the two: M1 includes geʿayot, secondary stress marks (vertical lines beneath letters to be stressed) while H 133 does not; see discussion below.

428

Ofer

It is interesting to compare these data with those Ginsburg gives in his first edition of the Tanakh (Fig. 15.13):18

Figure 15.13 Masoretic summary of Vayyishlaḥ in Ginsburg, Tanakh

The topics Ginsburg presents are identical to those in ms M1, and as we have seen, he mentions explicitly that he has relied on that manuscript. Nevertheless, Ginsburg allowed himself to improve the data. For the disputes themselves, he followed Sefer ha-Ḥillufim, giving both positions in the dispute (unlike M1). He also corrected some of the numbers that he thought were mistaken; and he added explanations for the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, as we shall see below. In Table 15.1 below I present a comparison of three sources: ms H 133, ms M1 and Ginsburg’s edition: Table 15.1 Comparison of ms H 133, ms M1, and Ginsburg, Tanakh

Element

H 133

1 2

Portion name Rhyme of blessing

√ √

18

Ginsburg, Tanakh, 68–69.

M1

Ginsburg, Source Tanakh

429

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133 Table 15.1 Comparison of ms H 133, ms M1, and Ginsburg, Tanakh (cont.)

Element

H 133

M1

Ginsburg, Source Tanakh

3

Number of verses

√

√

√

4

Mnemonic for number of verses

√ (ʾAviasaf)

√ (Laʿadan)

√ (Laʿadan)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Details of Sedarim Number of words Number of letters Paseqs Years of the portion The middle verse Ben Asher–Ben Naftali disputes

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √

12

Ben Asher–Ben Naftali agreements Ketiv/Qere Dotted words

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ (no markings) √

√ (one position) √

Kitāb al-Khilaf √ (both positions) √ Kitāb al-Khilaf

√ √

√ √

√ √

13 14

Kitāb al-Khilaf a Kitāb alKhilaf b (ʾAviasaf) Kitāb al-Khilaf

a Lazar Lipschütz, Kitāb al-Khilaf: Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences Between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, HUBP 2 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1965) (in Hebrew). b The apparatus also gives the mnemonics ‫( קליטה‬Qlita) and ‫( עדלמי‬Adullami).

The connection between the forms of the note as found in H 133 and M1 is clear. This note was surely the work of a single Masorete. Obviously the Masorete was not one of the copyists of these manuscripts, but a different Masorete whose work, no longer extant, is the common source of both.19 19

Madrid M1 cannot be the original source, since it lacks the opening rhyme and the middle verse of the weekly portion; and we have already ascertained that in the original, the notes appeared after each weekly portion and not at the end of the whole Torah. H 133 cannot be the source because, as noted, it does not include the geʿayot (secondary stress marks) that indicate the opinions of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.

430

Ofer

The anonymous Masorete who created this set of data made use of several sources. Some of them are easy to locate, and the primary one is the Book of Disputes, written in Arabic by Mishael ben Uzziel, who flourished in Jerusalem in the eleventh century.20 Its original Arabic name is Kitāb al-Khilaf and its Hebrew name is Sefer ha-Ḥillufim. Regarding other data, it is difficult to determine whether the Masorete found them in some work that was available to him or if he created them himself by counting and examining the text. This refers primarily to the data regarding the number of words and letters in the portion and the calculation of the “number of years” that transpired in the course of the weekly portion. Both of these have some basis in ancient masoretic notes, but they require effort to make them fit into the new framework of masoretic summaries. Below I shall discuss in detail the various elements in the lists. 8

Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali

The main purpose of Mishael ben Uzziel’s Sefer ha-Ḥillufim was to describe and detail the disputes between the Masoretes Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher and Moshe ben David ben Naftali (Tiberias, tenth century). The work details seven general disagreements between them—as well as 867 specific disputes and 400 cases in which Ben Asher and Ben Naftali agreed, presumably in opposition to other Masoretes. This book is the main source, though not the only one, for our knowledge of the disputes between these two Masoretes. As mentioned, the book was written in Arabic. A Hebrew translation appeared in the work ʿAdat Devorim by Yosef ha-Konstandini in the mid-eleventh century.21 Mishael ben Uzziel arranged his book according to the sequence of the weekly portions. For every portion he details the number of verses in it and finds a name of a biblical personality with the numerical equivalent of the number of verses. Next, he details the number of sedarim in the weekly portion; the sedarim reflect the triennial apportioning of the Torah readings practiced in Palestine and the portions reflect the annual apportioning practiced in 20 21

Lipschütz, Kitāb al-Khilaf, 26; Jordan S. Penkower, “A Tenth-century Pentateuchal ms from Jerusalem (ms C3), Corrected by Mishael ben Uzziel,” Tarbiz 58 (1988): 49–74 (52–61) (in Hebrew). The only manuscript of ʿAdat Devorim is ms St. Petersburg, Russian National Library ebr. II C 161 (written in 1207). For a scientific edition of this treatise, see Rafael Peretz, “Sefer ʿAdat Devorim le-Rabbi Yosef Konstandini” (PhD diss., Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, 1984) (in Hebrew and French).

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

431

Babylonia. Following this information, Mishael details the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in the weekly portion and after that the agreements between them. Here, for example, is his description of the weekly portion Vayyeshev. Note that in listing the disputed readings he gives each reading twice, once with Ben Asher’s marking and once with Ben Naftali’s (Fig. 15.14):

Figure 15.14 Mishael ben Uzziel’s note on Vayyeshev in Sefer ha-Ḥillufim, p. ‫ח‬ (ed. L. Lipschütz) Courtesy of the Hebrew University Bible Project and The Hebrew University Magnes Press

The Masorete who created the masoretic notes found in both H 133 and M1 (we may call him Masorete A) used Mishael’s book and presented all of Mishael’s data for each portion: the number of verses, the mnemonic, the details of the sedarim, the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali and their agreements. However, regarding the disputes, he cited only one opinion, giving the disputed term and its marking only once, as we can see from the way the disputes are set out in H 133 and M1. For example, H 133 lists two disputes for Vayyeshev and then indicates cases “without dispute”, i.e., cases of agreement (Fig. 15.15):

Figure 15.15 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 9r. Disputes and agreements between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Vayyeshev

432

Ofer

.)39:6( ‫ ויהי יוסף יפה תואר‬.)37:10( ‫ להשתחות לך‬:‫וחלוף שנים‬ .)39:14( ‫ לצחק בנו‬.)38:9( ‫ כי לא לו‬.)38:2( ‫ ושמו שוע‬.)37:18( ‫ ויתנכלו‬:‫ובלא חילוף‬ .)39:23( ‫רואה את כל מאומה בידו‬ And two disputes [listed] … and without dispute (i.e., cases of agreement): [listed] I should point out that most of the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali focused on details of pronunciation, such as whether a particular word had a secondary stress mark (gaʿaya—a vertical line beneath a letter to be stressed) or not. Mishael Ben Uziel accurately recorded the opinion of each of the two disputants; but some scribes that were not well versed in these matters copied the words that were in dispute, but did not mark the gaʿaya, which is the subject of the dispute. Masorete A, who created the source used by M1 and H 133, did mark a gaʿaya on the disputed word, but did not state which of the disputants he was following. The scribe of H 133 cited the word regarding which there was a dispute, but did not mark it with a gaʿaya or a hyphen, so that it is impossible to determine the respective opinions of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. The Masorete of M1 was more accurate. He copied the disputed words as given by Masorete A, along with the required gaʿaya marks. The contrast may be seen by comparing the summaries for Miqqeṣ in M1 and H 133, for which Mishael presents four disputes (Figs. 15.16, 15.17, and 15.18):

Figure 15.16 Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ in Sefer ha-Ḥillufim, pp. ‫ח‬-‫( ט‬ed. L. Lipschütz) Courtesy of the Hebrew University Bible Project and The Hebrew University Magnes Press

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

433

Figure 15.17 Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. bh mss 1, Fol. 81r. Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ Courtesy of Universidad Complutense Madrid

Figure 15.18 P.Vindob. H 133, Fol. 21r. Disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in Miqqeṣ

M1 and H 133 cite the words in dispute only once. However, M1 points out the vocalization and the stress marks, so that it is clear which reading it is presenting, but ms H 133 gives neither the vocalization nor stress marks. It seems, then, that M1 must most accurately reflect the common source of the two manuscripts; that is, the text prepared by Masorete A; therefore, we can refer to M1 to learn more about Masorete A’s use of the Sefer ha-Ḥillufim. Which of the two opinions does he follow? It was conceivable that he would always follow the opinion of Ben Asher. But comparison of M1 with Sefer ha-Ḥillufim reveals a surprising phenomenon: in three out of four cases M1 follows Ben Naftali: ‫ יֻ ָלד‬with a qamaṣ (Gen. 41:50); ‫תחננ֥ ו‬ ֽ ַ ‫בה‬ ֽ ִ with a stress mark beneath the letter ‫( ה‬42:21); ‫שתּחו֥ וּ‬ ֽ ַ ִ‫ וַ י‬with a merkha (43:26).22 It is difficult to presume that Masorete A indeed intended to support 22

That is Ben Naftali’s ruling in this verse; cf. textual variants cited in Lipschütz’s note; see Kitāb al-Khilaf, ad loc. One should not presume that the dispute relates to the light gaʿaya on the letter ‫ת‬. Additional evidence stems from ms M1 ad loc.

434

Ofer

Ben Naftali’s ruling systematically, since he did not do so in every case; and in the first verse (41:45) he cantillated the word ‫ פרעה‬with a munaḥ, following Ben Asher. I checked the system of M1 regarding all forty disputes cited by Mishael in Genesis: In the first three cases, M1 reflects both opinions, without specifying which opinion is that of Ben Asher and which that of Ben Naftali. Twice Ben Naftali is cited first (according to Sefer ha-Ḥillufim), and in the third case it is impossible to tell because the gaʿaya is not provided. After that, the Masorete decided to be brief, and in the following thirty-seven cases he cited only one opinion: twenty-three of Ben Naftali and fourteen of Ben Asher (i.e., a sixty-two percent preference for Ben Naftali). Did Masorete A mean to decide every case according to his own opinion? It seems more likely that this Masorete was not so precise, nor was he an expert regarding the different systems of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, but gave one opinion or the other without consistency.23 Thus the question reverts to whether Masorete A, who developed the summaries for weekly portions (the source for the Masoretes of both M1 and H 133), distinguished clearly between the systems of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali and presented them accurately? Until new sources are discovered, this question will remain unanswered. An examination of the Ginsburg Tanakh shows that Ginsburg found an interesting solution to the problem of unclear presentation of the disputes in M1. Ginsburg copied the disputes from M1 but added to them his own adaptation, detailing in every case the opinion of Ben Asher and the opinion of Ben Naftali according to the manuscripts of Sefer ha-Ḥillufim that were at his disposal. As mentioned, besides the data regarding the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali and their agreements, the Masorete who created the lists that are reflected in M1 and H 133 took three more elements from Sefer ha-Ḥillufim: the details of the sedarim in every portion, the number of verses in it, and the mnemonic biblical name for that number. 23

Examination of the agreements in the book of Genesis in M1 in comparison with Sefer ha-Ḥillufim indicates conformity in twenty-four cases out of thirty. Maria Teresa Ortega Monasterio compared the comments of the masoretic summaries in the M1 “appendix” with the text of the manuscript itself, and with comments on Ben Asher and Ben Naftali’s disputes that appear in the Mp of M1. See Maria Teresa Ortega Monasterio, “Some Ḥil-lûfîm Ben Asher/Ben Naftali in the Manuscript M1,” Sefarad 59 (1999): 371–90. From the data she presents, very many cases arise of a mismatch between the version in the biblical text of the manuscript and the version presented in the list of disputes discussed here. Also, there is no correspondence between the cases of dispute recorded in the Mp and those recorded in the appendix. For example, for the book of Genesis, fifty-two cases are recorded in the Mp and forty cases in the appendix, only twenty-two of which are common to both sources.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

435

There are other data that Masorete A culled from broader lists: the paseqs and the dotted words. In many manuscripts there are lists of paseqs throughout the Tanakh; the Masorete only had to present the ones that occurred in a particular portion. The same applies to the eleven words in the Torah that are dotted. Masoretic lists of ketiv and qere are not common in manuscripts, but it was not difficult for the Masorete to find them in every portion.24 9

The Middle Verse of the Portion

As mentioned, this datum appears in H 133 but not in M1. This would seem to be a novel creation of Masorete A who made up the lists (or perhaps the scribe of H 133), checking himself and identifying the verse in the middle of the portion. Sefer ha-Ḥillufim does not provide this information, but it may have given the Masorete the idea to do so since it does cite the middle verse of most of the books of Scripture.25 10

The Number of Words and Letters in the Weekly Portions

The masorah in ancient manuscripts provided the number of verses in each weekly portion. This number appears in all of the ancient manuscripts.26 However, these manuscripts do not cite the number of words or letters. An ancient work, attributed to Saʿadya Gaon and opening with the words ‫אהל מכון בניני‬, cites the total number of occurrences of every letter of the alphabet in Scripture,27 but there is no connection between the lists we are discussing and this list. 24

25

26 27

For lists of paseqs in the Torah, see, for example, Christian D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged, 4 vols. (London 1880– 1905), pars. 200‫–ט‬204‫ט‬, 647–48. For a list of dotted words, see Frensdorff, Ochla W-ochla, par. 96. For early lists of ketiv and qere, see Yosef Ofer, “Ketiv and Qere: The Phenomenon, Its Notation, and Its Reflection in Early Rabbinic Literature,” Lĕšonénu 70 (2008): 55–73 (65–66) (in Hebrew). The list of ketiv and qere that Ginsburg published in par. 488‫ כ‬ff. was evidently based on his own investigation and not on extant masoretic lists. Mishael does not cite the middle verse of every book within the Minor Prophets, the middle of the Minor Prophets as one unit, nor the middle verse of each of the five books that comprise the Book of Psalms or of the entire Book of Psalms, nor of each of the portions of the Torah or the books that comprise the Torah (except for Deuteronomy). See Mordechai Breuer, The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1977) (in Hebrew), 290–91; see Ginsburg, Massorah, pars. 372‫–פ‬376‫;פ‬ 3:269, 301. See Ginsburg, Massorah, par. 224‫( א‬in the volume of explanations in English, on this paragraph, three manuscripts are mentioned that contain this poem); ibid., 3:299. See also Christian D. Ginsburg (ed.), The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita (London:

436

Ofer

Besides H 133 and M1 under discussion here, I do know of a few other sources—direct and indirect—that mention the number of words or letters of the weekly portion:28 1. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, L44a 1–3 (imhm, F 23510), a manuscript of the Torah written in Toledo in 1241 and checked according to the book known as “Halleli.” The number of letters appears at the end of some of the weekly portions.29 2. In Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Plut.3.10 (Torah, haftarot, and Five Scrolls, Ashkenazi, fourteenth–fifteenth century), the number of words appears at the end of the weekly portions in most of Genesis. 3. In Parma, Palatina Library Codex Parm. 3218 (Ashkenazi Italian, 1475) the number of words in a few weekly portions is mentioned; e.g., Vayyeḥi, 985; Shemot, 1,063. 4. R. Moshe Halawa was active in Tortosa, Catalonia, in the fourteenth century. One correspondent asked him about an accurate Pentateuch that existed in Spain, in which the lists of princes in the Book of Numbers were written in a special way. This is the description of the Pentateuch: “A perfectly checked Pentateuch regarding defective and plene and passages and tagim [‘crowns’ atop the letter heads], everything as in a guide for copying Torah scrolls (‘tiqqun’), and at the end of every portion and book, the total of letters and words, and Torah scrolls were copied from it.”30 Clearly this was a manuscript of the Torah, evidently a codex that included vocalization and cantillation marks, and that was used by scribes to prepare Torah scrolls. This Pentateuch was considered accurate and authoritative with regard to all the elements required for writing a Torah scroll: defective and plene orthography, open and closed

28

29 30

Longmans‎, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1867), 269–78. A search for the title ‫ אהל מכון בניני‬in the manuscripts catalogue of National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, provides a dozen references, both early and late, to this poem. The first three sources are drawn from Aharon Ahrend, “The Mnemotechnical Notes of the Numbers of Verses in the Torah Portions,” in Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, ed. M. Bar-Asher, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), 1:157–71 (165 nn. 35, 44). I checked and found the number of letters listed at the end of the following weekly portions: Tazria-Meṣora, Aḥarei Mot–Kedoshim, Behar–Beḥuqotai, Ḥuqat, Balaq, Pinḥas, MatotMassei, Va‌ʾetḥanan, Eiqev, Reʾeh, Niṣavim–Vayyelekh. See S. Assaf, “On Ancient Torah Scrolls in Barcelona,” Sinai 12 (1953): 334–37 (in Hebrew); Moshe Hershler and M. Ben Zion Hershler, eds., Responsa of Maharam Halawa (Jerusalem: Machon Shalem, 1987), Responsa 144, p. 170 (in Hebrew); Yosef Ofer, “The Passages of ‘Book of Tamid’ from Barcelona,” Megadim 4 (1988): 67–74 (in Hebrew).

437

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

passages, and crowns over the letters. Evidently it also included masoretic notes, among them the note quoted in the question addressed to R. Moshe Halawa referring to how the lists of princes should be written. The most important detail for our purpose is that at the end of every weekly portion, the number of words in the portion was recorded. These data also appeared at the end of each book of the Pentateuch, and one may presume at the end of the entire Torah. The first and last witnesses seem to me the most significant ones. They stem from thirteenth-century Spain. We may be able to attribute this intensive masoretic activity to the center that operated in Toledo at that time, where the famous individual involved in it was R. Meir Halevy Abulafia (ca. 1170, Burgos–1244, Toledo), author of Masoret Seyag la-Torah. After all, JTS, L44a 1–3 was also written in Toledo in the middle of the thirteenth century, and M1 was sold there at the end of that century. To examine the validity and the transmission history of the numerals of words and letters that appear H 133, I have compared the data in this manuscript with those in M1 and in Ginsburg, Tanakh, and with a calculation I made myself by computerized means.31 The comparison is presented in Table 15.2 and Table 15.3, and refers to the five last portions of Genesis. The identical values in H 133 and M1 are striking, and demonstrate that they were copied from a common source. Table 15.2 Number of words in the weekly portions

Weekly portion

My count

Ginsburg Tanakh

M1

H 133

Vayyishlaḥ Vayyeshev Miqqeṣ Vayyigash Vayyeḥi

1,976 1,558 2,022 1,480 1,158

1,996 1,558 2,022 1,480 1,158

1,976 1,658 1,871 1,469 1,149

1,976 1,658 1,871

31

I copied the text to a Word file and made use of the word count and character count the program provides. The process required specific care with regard to certain elements, such as the Tetragrammaton and cases of ketiv and qere.

438

Ofer

Ginzburg knew the numbers of words and letters in M1 and possibly also in H 133,32 but he preferred to rely upon a nineteenth-century manuscript he owned, in which Shimon Halevi Zilberberg wrote, in detailed tables, the numbers of words and letters in all the portions of the Torah.33 According to my examination, Ginzburg was right in relation to most of the weekly portions in the table, but in Vayyishlaḥ he erred, and the correct numbers appear in the manuscripts M1 and H 133. The gap between the two manuscripts and Ginsburg’s count and mine is not uniform. In Vayyigash and Vayyeḥi the difference is small—eleven or nine words—but in Miqqeṣ the difference is very big—about 150 words. The difference in Vayyeshev is exactly 100 words, from which we may presume that there was a scribal error in the number in the source of H 133 and M1: ‫( א׳תקנח‬1,558) was transcribed as ‫( א׳תרנח‬1,658). Comparison of the number of letters in each portion yields even more striking results: Table 15.3 Number of letters in the weekly portions

Weekly Portion

My count

Ginsburg, Tanakh

M1

H 133

Vayyishlaḥ Vayyeshev Miqqeṣ Vayyigash Vayyeḥi

7,458 5,972 7,914 5,680 4,448

7,430 5,970 7,914 5,680 4,448

7,458 5,972 7,914 5,680 4,448

7,458 5,972 7,914

In all five weekly portions the data of M1 is accurate and is identical to the data of H 133 in the three portions that survived in it. This is surprising since in four portions there was a notable difference between M1 and my word count. This fact proves that all of these counts were based on a biblical text that was

32

33

Ginzburg, Introduction, 109, states that word numbers for each weekly portion appear in the “Standard Codex No. 1 in the Imperial and Royal Court Library Vienna.” It is not clear what the sign of this manuscript is today, and whether it refers to H 133. However, on page 66, Ginzburg quotes a masorah comment from this manuscript that appears at the beginning of Vayyeṣei, and this page is not found today in H 133. See Ginsburg, Introduction, 109–13. Ginsburg describes Zilberberg’s manuscript on pp. 762–65 and expresses admiration for his work. He pointed out (on p. 112), that in ten out of fifty-four weekly portions the values in M1 are inaccurate, including the portions at the end of Genesis.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

439

identical or nearly identical to our version, and the differences in the number of words derive from errors in transmission of the numbers. In Vayyishlaḥ and Vayyeshev, the numbers found in H 133 and M1 are accurate, and Ginsburg erred. He knew M1, but was misled by the counting of Zilberberg.34 11

The Time That Lapsed in the Course of a Weekly Portion

The last topic we discuss is particularly interesting: the lapse of time over the course of every weekly portion. In some ancient manuscripts a time span is given for each of the five books of the Pentateuch. The data are based on the verses in each book and presume that the five books are arranged chronologically. Figure 15.19, for example, shows the masoretic note from mtL relating the length of time that transpired in the course of each of the five books of the Pentateuch.35 According to all of the parallel texts, the length of Genesis is 2,309 years. The Masorete of the lists that appear in M1 and H 133 took upon himself a difficult task: to calculate how much time transpired in every weekly portion. He was able to do so successfully in most of the portions of Genesis, but was forced to give up in the other books of the Torah.36 It is interesting to note that there is no correspondence between the number of years that transpired in Genesis according to the ancient lists (2,309 years) and the summary of the times in the weekly portions in Genesis according to M1. That is because the length of time in the weekly portion Bereshit (1,656 years) is calculated until the flood, but the length of Noach (465 years) is calculated from the birth of Shem b. Noach. Shem was born ninety-eight years before the flood (cf. Gen 11:10).

34

35 36

See Albert Hembd, “A Critical Examination of C. D. Ginsburg’s First Edition of the Pentateuch (1894) and His Use of the Masoretic Notes to Correct the Text of the Miqraot Gedolot of Jacob ben Chayyim (1523–1525)” (master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2020), 214–45 (in Hebrew). Hembd systematically examined Ginsburg’s counting of words and letters in all Torah weekly portions and identified many errors (including the errors I pointed out above). He also examined the data Zilberberg included in his Bible and even there revealed many errors. See the lists published by Ginsburg, Massorah, pars. 175‫–ס‬178‫ס‬. The time that transpired in the weekly portion is mentioned in M1 for all the portions of Genesis and subsequently only for Shemot, Va’era, Beshalach, Yitro, Mishpatim, Ki Tisa, Tzav, and Beha’alotkha.

440

Ofer

Figure 15.19 St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ebr. I B19a (mtL), Fol. 464v. “The Number of Years in the Books” Courtesy of National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

441

By way of example, here are the numbers of years in the last portions of Genesis and the verses on which they are based. The first three values appear in the remaining fragments of H 133. Table 15.4 Number of years in the weekly portions

Weekly portion

H 133 and M1 and Ginsburg’s Tanakh

Explanation

Based on Genesis

Vayyishlaḥ

10

31:41; 37:2

Vayyeshev

14

Joseph—from age 6 to 17 Joseph—from age 17 to 30 7 healthy years and 2 years of famine 5 years of famine Joseph—from age 44 to 110

Miqqeṣ

9

Vayyigash Vayyeḥi

5 66

41:46 41:53; 45:6 45:6 50:26

Obviously, data regarding the number of years in each weekly portion is not essential to the masorah. The editor of the lists presented numerical data regarding every portion, and therefore he saw fit to cite as well the number of years or days that transpired in the course of the portion. However, the flawed way in which he presented the disputes between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali demonstrates that this was not an expert Masorete familiar with every detail of pronunciation and text who tried to create an efficient tool for preserving them but, rather, a collector who wanted to ornament the end of the weekly portion with a rich and varied collection of related and interesting data. 12

Deleting the Name of Pharaoh from the Manuscript (at a Later Stage)

Finally, I would like to call attention to a strange thing that happened to H 133 at a later time. Someone went over the manuscript and tried to erase all mention of the name of Pharaoh. It is difficult to understand why he did so, damaging his book. Perhaps he did so when the text had already been relegated to the Genizah.

442

Ofer

Figure 15.20 Erasure of the name “Pharaoh” in P.Vindob. H 133, fols. 11v–12r (Gen 41:30–45)

13

Summary

Our manuscript witnesses to a transition in the practice of the writing of a Torah codex in which the haftarah is placed after the weekly portion, breaking up the continuity of the verses of the Torah. This model is convenient for synagogue use. One of the Masoretes took advantage of the new model of writing to create a collection of data related to the masorah and to other characteristics of the weekly portion, and his work is reflected in both M1 and H 133. The basis for these data was Sefer ha-Ḥillufim by Mishael ben Uziel, which contains rich masoretic material arranged according to weekly portions. This Masorete added to that material many additional details, some culled from masoretic lists available to him and others that he created himself. Providing the number of words or letters in every weekly portion required intensive masoretic activity, beyond the data that existed in the ancient manuscripts of the masorah. Calculating the number of years that transpired in every portion is an exegetical task, and the Masorete evidently carried it out himself.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133



443

Appendix: Additional Genesis Manuscripts from the Rainer Collection

The Cairo Genizah corpus contains tens of thousands of biblical fragments, but paradoxically these fragments have been researched less than all the other kinds of texts. Genizah research has contributed enormously to every branch of Jewish studies, because of what we have learned from historical documents, deeds, letters, marriage and divorce writs, remnants of legal works, grammars, and manuscripts dealing with philosophy, mysticism, liturgical and secular poetry. However, most of the biblical fragments have yet to be researched. Israel Yeivin explained this anomaly in his book Hamasora la-Miqra: “While in other areas (such as the Babylonian Masorah and the Palestinian Masorah) we are dependent mainly on Genizah fragments, with regards to the Tiberian Masorah we do not need the Genizah fragments specifically, because several dozen of fine, ancient manuscripts from this period, before 1100 CE, have been preserved. And since these manuscripts are more comprehensive than the Genizah fragments, first of all we use them.”37 The enormous quantity of biblical fragments, and also their great variety, has made scholars hesitant to invest untold hours in describing and studying them. The challenge remains for the next generation of researchers. They require modern techniques of scanning and digital recording of the materials, and only with the help of these techniques may they be able to study the thousands of biblical fragments from the Genizah and to uncover the hidden treasures they contain. The six fragments from the book of Genesis in the Rainer Collection of the Austrian National Library in Vienna provide a representative sample of the variety of biblical manuscripts from the Genizah. I described H 133 at length in this article, and shall describe the other five fragments more briefly in this appendix. Two of the six fragments belong to “popular” manuscripts—that is, manuscripts intended for private, personal use. They were written on small sheets of paper, not on parchment, in miniscule script, imprecisely, and not vocalized. In the modern reality in which we live, it is difficult to imagine how the study of Torah was conducted in earlier times. In Bible lessons in the contemporary elementary school every child has a Pentateuch with Rashi’s commentary, and in upper classes a complete Tanakh—containing the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings, vocalized and including cantillation marks, available at low cost. Before the invention of printing, this was, of course, out of the question. Copying an entire Tanakh with vocalization and cantillation marks was a task that required many months of work by a qualified

37

Israel Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah, Studies in Language 3 (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003), 5 (in Hebrew).

444

Ofer

Masorete, and only a wealthy individual or community could finance the writing or acquisition of such a manuscript. Thus, the question arises: how did school children, or ordinary laymen, study the weekly Torah portion? Quite probably every pupil copied for himself the verses or chapters he was meant to learn. That is the background for the many biblical Genizah fragments discovered, written in simple script, without vocalization and without cantillation marks, and with multiple scribal errors. Many more examples of this type of material can be found in box T-S A22 in the Genizah collection of the Cambridge University Library.

A

P.Vindob. H 120

H 120 is a small bifolium of paper, consisting of two pages of nonconsecutive text with ten lines on each page, written in large letters, approximately four words to a line, without vocalization or cantillation marks, except for two dots (:), which indicate the ends of verses. Folio 1r–v contains Gen 1:19–24, and Fol. 2r–v, Gen 2:22–3:3. Two words were erased by means of dots around them, either because they were written by mistake or because they were written at the end of a line and the space was insufficient for copying the whole word (Fol. 2r, lines 2, 7). The spelling generally conforms to the masoretic version, but there are exceptions: e.g., the combination ‫( התנינים הגדולים‬Gen 1:21),

Figure 15.21 P.Vindob. H 120, Fols. 1r (Gen 1:19–2:21a; on left) / 2v (Gen 2:25b–3:3a; on right)

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

445

which is written, according the masorah, ‫התנינם הגדלים‬. The letter waw in the word ‫ הגדולים‬was marked for deletion by one of the users of the manuscript. The spelling ‫ יירב‬with two yods (1:22) does not conform to biblical orthography, nor the defective spelling of ‫ וימר האדם‬without an alef (2:23). The fragment contains two spaces: before Gen 1:14 and before Gen 1:20. According to the common practice (based on mtA) both verses are open passages; this is also reflected in other sources, such as mtL and the list of open and closed passages (Babylonian practice) included in New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, L 715, which does not show any closed passages in Genesis 1. In the manuscript under discussion, however, the space in each case conforms to that of a closed passage. Evidently this does not reflect a different tradition regarding open and closed passages but only a lack of meticulousness. Judging from the biblical passages witnessed in each of these two connected leaves, it is possible to reconstruct the structure of this quire. Six pages from the beginning of Genesis preceded the first page before us, and twenty pages interceded between the two pages that survived. Thus, the quire contained nine folded bifolia: three outside our fragment, one—the fragment itself—and five inside the quire.

Figure 15.22 P.Vindob. H 120, Fols. 1v (Gen 1:21b–24a; on right) / 2r (Gen 2:22b–25a; on left)

446 B

Ofer

P.Vindob. H 170

P.Vindob. H 170 is a small page of paper containing nine narrow lines per side, without left alignment. It contains Gen 48:3–7, without vocalization or cantillation marks, in an awkward script. The orthography does not conform to that of the mt: ‫( והרביתיך‬48:4; in the accepted text: ‫( ומלדתך );)ורביתך‬48:6; ‫( הולדתה ;)ומולדתך‬48:6; ‫( אחרהם ;)הולדת‬48:6; ‫)אחריהם‬. There are also genuine errors: ‫( באו‬48:5; ‫( אחהים ;)באי‬48:6; ‫)אחיהם‬. Of particular interest is the error ‫( מבדן‬48:7; instead of ‫ ;)מפדן‬The exchange of bet for pe reflects the Arabic language spoken by the scribe, evidently a child who had not yet acquired knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Figure 15.23 P.Vindob. H 170, r–v (recto on left), Gen 48:3–7

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

C

P.Vindob. H 121

D

P.Vindob. H 15

447

P.Vindob. H 121 comprises one small paper page consisting of ten lines, containing Gen 39:22–40:7 (Fig. 15.24). This fragment includes vocalization and cantillation marks, and at first sight seems more like an accurate masoretic type of manuscript. However, an analysis of the orthography reveals that in such a brief fragment there are five cases of nonconformity to the accepted spelling: ‫( האסרים‬39:22; ‫האפים ;)האסירם‬ (40:2; ‫( הסוהר ;)האופים‬40:3; ‫( חלומו ;)הסהר‬40:5; ‫( אדוניו ;)חלמו‬40:7; ‫)אדניו‬. This text does not reflect a different tradition, but simply a lack of meticulousness regarding orthography, by a scribe who was a knowledgeable reader and generally precise regarding vocalization and cantillation. In some cases, the cantillation mark is not placed correctly, as in ‫הוּא‬ ֥ (39:23); ‫( ָס ִרי֑ ָסיו‬40:2). In Gen 40:1 (H 121, recto) space is given for a closed passage, as in mtL, but unlike the masorah according to Maimonides based on mtA.

P.Vindob. H 15 is representative of the classic type of sophisticated masoretic codex. Every page had two columns of biblical text consisting of twenty lines, and in the margins are notes of the Mp and Mm. In fact, the famous manuscripts, such as mtA and mtL are larger in size, and have three columns of twenty-eight lines to a page, but the structure of this manuscript is similar in principle. Only one page survived here, written on both sides, torn at the bottom, containing Gen 17:19–18:24. At the beginning of chapter 18 (Fig. 15.25, left column), the transition between the weekly portions of Lekh Lekha and Vayyera, there is a space for a closed passage (according to mtA, mtL, and the list of passages in the Babylonian rite there should be an open passage here). In the margin there is an ornament here to indicate the beginning of a new weekly portion, and in the space between the portions, the manuscript gives the number of verses in Lekh Lekha, 126. This was the standard practice followed in ancient manuscripts to indicate a new weekly portion.38 The orthography corresponds throughout to that of the mt, testifying to the skill of the Masorete. ‫( אליו‬18:9; Fig. 15.26, right column, line 5) has dots on all four letters of the word (and not only on alef, yod, and waw as usually done). The words ‫( כי רבה‬18:20; Fig. 15.26, left column) were omitted in the first writing, and the scribe added them in the right- and left-hand margins. In some places, vocalization signs are missing, and

38

On other types of markers developed for indicating the transition between weekly portions, see above, section 6.

Figure 15.24 P.Vindob. H 121, r–v (recto on right), Gen 39:22–40:7

448 Ofer

449

Figure 15.25 P.Vindob. H 15, recto, Gen 17:19–18:7

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

evidently were never inscribed: in ‫( י� ַ ֻֽקח‬18:4; Fig. 15.25, left column) there is no dagesh in the letter qof; in ‫הנּ֥ה‬ ֵ (18:9; Fig. 15.26, right column) no ḥiriq beneath the first heh; in ‫יהו֖ה‬ ָ ‫( ֵמ‬18:14; Fig. 15.26, bottom right) no vocalization beneath the letter yod. ‫מּוֹעד‬ ֵ ֕ ‫ַל‬ (18:14) is inscribed with the cantillation mark zaqef gadol instead of gershayim. ‫ַ ֽה ְמ ַכ ֶ ֤סּֿה‬ (18:17; Fig. 15.26, top left) has a gaʿaya (secondary stress mark) on the letter heh and a shwa on the letter mem. In ‫( ֵ ֽא ֲר ָדה‬18:21; left column), the letter resh has a ḥatef pataḥ. The Masorete who added the vocalization often indicated rafe signs for soft letters, and added light geʿayot a bit more frequently than the scribe who vocalized mtL.

Ofer

Figure 15.26 P.Vindob. H 15, verso, Gen 18:7–24

450

There are four notes of the Mm at the top of the bifolium (on both sides), and two have survived on the bottom. One of the notes (Fig. 15.25, top) gives the number of occurrences of the form in question without details of where it occurs: ‫ורחצו ב׳ וחד רחצו הזכו‬ (i.e., “the form ‫[ וְ ַר ֲחצּו‬in which the letter resh is vocalized with a pataḥ] appears twice in Scripture and once more without the conjunctive waw”; the occurrences are: Gen 18:4; 19:2; Isa 1:16). Ordinarily notes without details of occurrences appear in the Mp, and the form of the note here may be an indication of the Masorete’s lack of experience.

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

E

P.Vindob. H 32

451

This fragment is a leather sheet belonging to a Torah scroll, a relatively rare find in the Genizah. The sheet was disqualified at the time it was written and was never completed and incorporated into an actual scroll. It contains two columns, consisting of the last chapters of Genesis (48:5–49:16). Shlomo Zucker and Ezra Chwat, of the National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, presume that the sheet was written in Spain in the fifteenth century.39 They point out that in the letters heh and qof the leg is already separate from the roof, an indicator of later scribal practice. The right column contains forty-five lines, beginning with the word ‫( שני‬Gen 48:5), from which it is clear that the sheet was not written in the technique of wawei haʿamudim, according to which every column of a Torah scroll begins with the letter waw. In fact, the second column begins with the word ‫( יהודה‬49:8), and evidently the scribe wanted to follow the tradition of ‫בי״ה שמ״ו‬, as is common today (‫ יהודה‬at the beginning of an open passage at the top of the column). The sheet was ruined, and its copying was never completed. It may be that the rip that appears in the sheet led to its disqualification before the copying was finished. In the left column the scribe wrote fourteen lines and stopped writing. After it was disqualified, a piece of parchment was cut out from the unwritten part of the left column and taken to be used elsewhere. Meaningless letters were written in the spaces and in the unwritten part, evidently as an exercise by one of the scribes.40 The sheet contains five open passages (Gen 49:1, 5, 8, 13, 14) and one closed passage (49:16), all of them in conformity with Maimonides’ list, based on mtA. For comparison, in mtL, and likewise in the Babylonian list of passages, this sequence contains two closed passages (49:8, 14). One of the open passages is designed as a full line space (49:13). The orthography is entirely in conformity with the accepted version.

39 40

Personal communication from E. Chwat, January 10, 2016. The writer sometimes copied a few words from the adjacent verses.

452

Ofer

Figure 15.27 P.Vindob. H 32, left column; Gen 49:8–16: The unfinished left column of the scroll and a transcription (facing page). The letters written after the sheet was disqualified are displayed in red letters in the transcription. To see the full sheet (both columns), please go to Torahfragment (P.Vindob. H 32) (onb.ac.at).

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

453

454

Ofer

Bibliography Ahrend, Aharon. “The Mnemotechnical Notes of the Numbers of Verses in the Torah Portions.” Pages 157–71 in vol. 1 of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies. Edited by M. Bar-Asher. 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Academon, 1992) (in Hebrew). Assaf, S. “On Ancient Torah Scrolls in Barcelona.” Sinai 12 (1953): 334–37. Breuer, Mordechai. The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1977 (in Hebrew). Frensdorff, Salomon. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora). Hanover: Hahn, 1864. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1966. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. London: 1880–1905. Repr., Jerusalem: Makor 1971; New York: Ktav 1975. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita: Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or, The Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament. London: Longmans‎, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1867. Ginsburg, Christian D. ‫עשרים וארבעה ספרי הקדש מדויקים היטב על פי המסורה ועל פי דפוסים‬ ‫ראשונים עם חלופים והגהות‬. London: ‫חברת מוציאי לאור תורת יהוה התמימה‬, 1894. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex.” Textus 1 (1960): 17–58. Hembd, Albert. “A Critical Examination of C. D. Ginsburg’s First Edition of the Pentateuch (1894) and His Use of the Masoretic Notes to Correct the Text of the Miqraot Gedolot of Jacob ben Chayyim (1523–1525).” Master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2020 (in Hebrew). Hershler, Moshe, and M. Ben Zion Hershler, eds. Responsa of Maharam Halawa. Jerusalem: Machon Shalem, 1987. Lipschütz, Lazar. Kitāb al-Khilaf: Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences Between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. The Hebrew University Bible Project 2. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1965 (in Hebrew). Loewinger, David S., and Ernst Roth. “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs.” Part 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2. Edited by A. Z. Schwarz, D. S. Loewinger, and E. Roth. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Ofer, Yosef. “Ketiv and Qere: The Phenomenon, Its Notation, and Its Reflection in Early Rabbinic Literature.” Lĕšonénu 70 (2008): 55–73 (in Hebrew). Ofer, Yosef. “The Passages of ‘Book of Tamid’ from Barcelona.” Megadim 4 (1988): 67–74 (in Hebrew).

MASORETIC SUMMARIES OF THE WEEKLY PORTIONS IN MS H 133

455

Ortega Monasterio, Maria Teresa. “Some Ḥil-lûfîm Ben Asher/Ben Naftali in the Manuscript M1.” Sefarad 59 (1999): 371–90. Penkower, Jordan S. “A Tenth-century Pentateuchal MS from Jerusalem (MS C3), Corrected by Mishael ben Uzziel.” Tarbiz 58 (1988): 49–74 (in Hebrew). Peretz, Rafael. “Sefer Adat Devorim le-Rabbi Yosef Konstandini.” PhD diss., Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, 1984 (in Hebrew and French). Yeivin, Israel. The Biblical Masorah. Studies in Language 3. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003 (in Hebrew).

Chapter 16

The Vienna Biblical Fragments (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) in Light of the Karaite Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish Halakhah, with a Detailed Study of the Unit Divisions by Josef Oesch Ursula Schattner-Rieser The Vienna Papyrus Collection of the National Library of Austria hosts some interesting biblical fragments, brought to Vienna from Egypt in the nineteenth century, among which are fragments from Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus. The fragments belong to the first and second Fayum collections of 1882 and 1885 and are conserved among the Hebrew–Aramaic Papyri in the Austrian National Library, Department of Papyri, where they are designated as “Genizah” with a question mark.*,1 The exact provenance is unknown. All the fragments, except for one on a leather scroll, are leaves from codices written in Oriental square script on parchment (one on paper); they bear similarity to some tenth to eleventh century Bible codices such as the Aleppo Codex (mtA), the Leningrad Codex (St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ebr. I B19a; mtL), and London, British Library, ms Or 4445 (mtB). Fragments P.Vindob. H 27 (Numbers) and P.Vindob. H 109 (Leviticus), in the Oriental text tradition and vocalized according to the Tiberian system, clearly attest to the Palestinian triennial Torah reading cycle. The Vienna fragments P.Vindob. H 6 (Exod 22:21–24:5), H 27 (Num 21:24– 29:30), H 109 (Lev 7:3–37), and H 143 (Lev 23:4–25; 25:36–42).2 are therefore important witnesses for tracing the history of the biblical text and transmission of its content and formal layout. * I wish to express my appreciation also to Dr. Ruth Clements, for her editing assistance and valuable insights. 1 See the article of Prof. Bernhard Palme, the Director of the Vienna Papyrus Collection, in this volume, “The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts,” for discussion of the history and provenance of the acquisitions. 2 The manuscripts are accessible via the National Library of Austria website: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (onb.ac.at); enter the manuscripts’ signatures—H 00006; H 00109; H 00143; H 00192; H 00027—and you will be taken to an information page with link to the manuscript.

© Ursula Schattner-Rieser, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_018

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

457

Each manuscript is presented in the following format: (1) a brief codicological description; (2) content and textual variants; (3) the textual units or text divisions known as petuḥot, setumot, and sedarim; (4) comparison of the unit divisions with the Dead Sea Scrolls and later traditions as listed in the database compiled by Josef Oesch;3 and (5) concluding remarks. The paper aims to locate the Vienna manuscripts within the masoretic traditions fixed in the talmudic tractates Sefer Torah and Soferim; outlined in Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, ch. 8 (hereafter Maimonides’s list), which relied on mtA;4 and in the Karaite reading tradition (of parashiyyot/sedarim and haftarot). Comparisons are also made with the scriptural particularities of orthography and sectional divisions in the corresponding biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1

P.Vindob. H 6: Exod 22:21–24:5

Codicological Description 1.1 Austrian National Library P.Vindob. H 6 consists of a single parchment leaf from a codex measuring 23 × 25 cm. It is ruled by hard point in two columns with twenty-nine lines. The text is unvocalized and there is no Masorah parva (Mp) and no Masorah magna (Mm). Sof pasuq is sometimes visible before paragraphing (petuḥot/setumot). The text is written in square Oriental script, similar to that of some eleventh century manuscripts from Tyre, Lebanon and Fustat, Egypt.5 Content and Textual Variants 1.2 The fragment contains the text of Exod 22:21–24:5, with Exod 22:21–23:17a on the recto and Exod 23:17b–24:5 on the verso. In the absence of vocalization, we have no information regarding variants. Instead of the qere/ketiv, the qere is written twice for Exod 22:26 (‫) ִהוא‬. Although there are no textual variants, we can draw some further information from the paragraphing of the preserved text. 3 Private database including all known biblical manuscripts. 4 See Yosef Ofer, “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,” in Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem—Companion Volume, ed. M. Glatzer (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2001), 25–50 (37–39). 5 See the manuscripts in Malachi Beit-Arié, Edna Engel, and Ada Yardeni, Specimens of Mediaeval Hebrew Scripts, 3 vols. ( Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987–2017), vol. 1, plate 20 from Tyre and plate 23 from Fustat.

458

Figure 16.1

Schattner-Rieser

P.Vindob. H 6, recto, Exod 22:21–23:17a

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

Figure 16.2

P.Vindob. H 6, verso, Exod 23:17b–24:5

459

460

Schattner-Rieser

1.3 Textual Units The preserved text is in general agreement with the Oriental tradition, and the method of division markers accords with tractate Sefer Torah (and not with tractate Soferim). The passage Exod 22:21–24:5, as represented in Maimonides’s list and various manuscripts dating to the Middle Ages, features ten instances of unit divisions. All seven preserved delimitation markers in H 6 (four petuḥot: Exod 22:4, 24; 23:20; 24:1; three setumot: Exod 23:3, 4, 5) correspond to delimitation markers in medieval manuscripts. Unit Divisions Compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Traditions Five of the H 6 units are also found in Qumran manuscripts 4Q11 (4QpaleoGenExodl) and 4Q22 (4Qpaleo Exodm), namely: Exod 22:24; Exod 22:27; Exod 23:5; Exod 23:6; and Exod 24:1.6 Compared to other traditions we observe that all seven markers exist in Oriental, Sephardic, and Ashkenazic codices. In contrast to Maimonides’s list and mtA, in H 6 there is no unit marker at Exod 23:2. After Exod 22:23 there is a long empty line as petuḥah before Exod 22:24, which starts at the beginning of the next line. Some Oriental, Sephardic, and Ashkenazic traditions have a setumah in Exod 23:27. The following table compares the distribution of petuḥot (P) and setumot (S) across H 6, 4Q11/4Q22, and the three traditions (P/S means that the tradition is divided):7 1.4

Table 16.1 Unit divisions in H 6 compared with other manuscripts

Text

H6

4Q11/4Q22

Oriental

Sephardic

Ashkenazic

Exod 22:4 Exod 22:24 Exod 22:27 Exod 23:2

P P – –

x/x P x/S –/

S P/S S –/S

S P/S S S

P/S P/S S S/SD

6 For 4Q11 and 4Q22, see P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: PalaeoHebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, djd 9 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 17–50 and 53–130. 7 In this paper, x indicates no text for that verse; vac, >, or < indicates a space, broader or narrower than the number of letters following the symbol. The sign ’>>’ indicates an overlong space; vac-b indicates a space at the beginning of a line; vac-m a space in the middle of the line; vac-e indicates a space at the end of the line; vac-l indicates an empty line. SD denotes a sedura. See Josef M. Oesch, “Sedura, eine dritte …: Und eine alternative Paraschenliste aus dem 13. Jahrhundert,” in Text—Textgeschichte—Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer, ed. T. Wagner et al., aoat 419 (Münster: Ugarit, 2014), 476–80 and Appendices 1–3.

461

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers ) Table 16.1 Unit divisions in H 6 compared with other manuscripts (cont.)

Text

H6

4Q11/4Q22

Oriental

Sephardic

Ashkenazic

Exod 23:3 Exod 23:4 Exod 23:5 Exod 23:6 Exod 23:20 Exod 24:1

S S S – P P

x/x x/x x/ x/P x/x P/x

S/– S S P/S/– P/S P/S

– S S S P/S P/S

P/S/– S/– P/S/SD/– P/S/– P/S/– P/S/–

1.5 Concluding Remarks The four columns of text contain three petuḥot that also occur in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q23)8 as well as in the Oriental, Spanish, and Ashkenazic traditions, and one that is given as setumah in the other medieval manuscripts (Exod 22:4). The three setumot correspond as such to the other manuscripts with few exceptions. 2

P.Vindob. H 109: Leviticus 7:3–37

2.1 Codicological Description P.Vindob. H 109 consists of one bifolium of paper that is damaged on the upper part. The text is written with black ink. The four pages of the bifolium contain between sixteen and eighteen lines each. The text is continuous from fol. 1r through fol. 2v, which implies that this bifolium was the middle page of a codex. There are approximately twenty-three to twenty-four letters per line, with occasional expanded letters. The text features Tiberian vocalization with accents (‫ ) ְט ָע ִמים‬and rafe over all fricative begadkefat. The manuscript has no masorah. The Egyptian Oriental square script is similar to that of mtL and mtL34  9 and can be dated to the tenth/eleventh centuries. This dating is supported by the use of paper, and by unit divisions that accord with tractate Soferim.

8 For 4Q23, see Eugene Ulrich, “23. 4QLev–Numa,” in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers, ed. E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al., djd 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994; repr., 1999), 153–76. 9 St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms ebr. II B 34.

Figure 16.3

P.Vindob. H 109, Fols. 1r (Lev 7:3–12a; on left)/2v (Lev 7:29b–37; on right)

462 Schattner-Rieser

Figure 16.4

P.Vindob. H 109, Fols. 2r (Lev 7:20b–29a; on left)/1v (Lev 7:12b–20; on right)

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

463

‫‪464‬‬

‫‪Schattner-Rieser‬‬

‫ ‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪Content: Text and Variants: Lev 7:3–37‬‬ ‫‪P.Vindob. H 109 features differences from MTL in orthography, vocalization,‬‬ ‫‪and accentuation. In places, the manuscript has been corrected towards mtL.‬‬ ‫‪Table 16.2 Text of Leviticus 7:3–12a; 7:29b–37a‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 2v‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 1r‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:29b–37‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:3–12a‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬

‫ל־ח ְל ּ֖בֹו יַ ְק ִ ֣ריב ִמ ֶ ּ֑מּנּו ֵ ֚את‬ ‫‪3‬וְ ֵ ֥את ָּכ ֶ‬ ‫ואת־‬ ‫ָ ֽה ַא ְל ָ֔י ה ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ֶ ּֽק ֶרב׃ ‪4‬וְ ֵא ֙ת ְׁש ֵ ּ֣תי‬ ‫ַה ֵ ֖ח ֶלב ַ ֽה ְמ ַכ ֶ ּ֥סה ֶא ַ‬ ‫ַה ְּכ�ל ָ֔י ֹת‬ ‫יהן ֲא ֶ ׁ֖שר‬ ‫ׁשר ֲע ֵל ֶ֔‬ ‫ת־ה ֵ֙ח ֶל ֙ב ֲא ֶ ֣‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ְּכ ָס ִ ֑לים‬ ‫ַע ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ְּכ ָל ֹ֖ית‬ ‫ל־ה ָּכ ֵ֔בד ַע ַ‬ ‫ֿת־הּי ֶֹ֙ת ֶר ֙ת ַע ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫ירּנָ ה׃‬ ‫יְ ִס ֶ ֽ‬ ‫ֹהן ַה ִּמזְ ֵּ֔ב ָחה ִא ֶ ּׁ֖שה‬ ‫‪5‬וְ ִה ְק ִ֙טיר א ָ ֹ֤תם ַהּכ ֵ ֙‬ ‫יהו֑ה‬ ‫ַל ָ‬ ‫אכ ֶלּ֑נּו‬ ‫אׁשם ֽהּוא׃ ‪ָּ 6‬כל־זָ ָ ֥כר ַּבּכ ֲֹה ִנ֖ים י ֹ ְ‬ ‫ָ֖‬ ‫ְּב ָמ ֤קֹום‬ ‫קדֹוׁש יֵ ָא ֵ֔כל ֥קֹ ֶדׁש ָ ֽק ָֿד ִ ׁ֖שים ֽהּוא׃‬ ‫֙‬ ‫את‬ ‫‪ּֽ ַ 7‬כ ַח ָּט ֙‬ ‫ּתֹורה ַא ַ ֖חֿת ָל ֶ ֑הם ַהּכ ֵ ֹ֛הן ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬ ‫ָ ּֽכ ָא ָׁ֔שם ָ ֥‬ ‫יְ ַכ ֶּפר־‬ ‫ּ֖בֹו ֥לֹו יִ ְהֶיֽה׃ ‪8‬וְ ַ֙הּכ ֵֹ֔הן ַה ַּמ ְק ִ ֖ריב ֶאת־ ֣עֹ ַלת‬ ‫ִ ֑א ֒ ֒יׁש‬ ‫ׁשר ִה ְק ִ ֔ריֿב ַלּכ ֵ ֹ֖הן ֥לֹו‬ ‫֤עֹור ָ ֽהע ָֹל ֙ה ֲא ֶ ֣‬ ‫יִ ְהֶיֽה׃‬ ‫ל־מנְ ָ֗חה ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ֵ ּֽת ָא ֶפ ֙ה ַּב ַּתּנ֔ ּור‬ ‫‪9‬וְ ָכ ִ‬ ‫וְ ָכל־נַ ֲע ָ ׂ֥שה‬ ‫ל־מ ֲח ַ ֑בֿת‪ַ b‬לּכ ֵ ֹ֛הן ַה ַּמ ְק ִ ֥ריֿב‬ ‫ַב ַּמ ְר ֶ ֖ח ֶׁשת וְ ַ ֽע ַ‬ ‫א ָ ֹ֖תּה‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫מר ַה ַּמ ְק ִ ֞ריב‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֥י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ֵלא ֑ ֹ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬ ‫ת־ז ַ֤בח‬ ‫ֶא ֶ‬ ‫יהו֖ה‬ ‫ת־ק ְר ָּבנ֛ ֹו ַל ָ‬ ‫יָביא ֶא ָ‬ ‫יהוה ִ ֧‬ ‫ְׁש ָל ָמ ֙יו ַל ָ ֔‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫יאינָ ה ֵ ֖אֿת‬ ‫ִמ ֶּז ַ֥בח ְׁש ָל ָ ֽמיו׃ ‪30‬יָ ָ ֣דיו ְּת ִב ֶ֔‬ ‫ּׁשי‬ ‫ִא ֵ ֣‬ ‫יאּנּו ֵ ֣את‬ ‫ל־ה ָחזֶ ֙ה ִיְב ֶ֔‬ ‫ת־ה ֵ ֤ח ֶלב ַע ֶ ֽ‬ ‫הו֑ה ֶא ַ‬ ‫יְ ָ‬ ‫ֶה ָח ֶ֗זה‬ ‫הוה׃‬ ‫נּופה ִל ְפ ֵנ֥י יְ ָ ֽ‬ ‫ְל ָה ִנ֥יף א ֹ֛תֹו ְּת ָ ֖‬ ‫‪ 31‬וְ ִה ְק ִ ֧טיר‬ ‫את־ה ֵ ֖ח ֶלֿב ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּ֑ב ָחה וְ ָהיָ ֙ה ֶ ֽה ָח ֶ֔זה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַהּכ ֵ ֹ֛הן‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫לאהרן ולבניו׃ ‪32‬וְ ֵא ֙ת ׁ֣שֹוק ַהּיָ ִ֔מין‬ ‫רּומה‬ ‫ִּת ְּתנ֥ ּו ְת ָ ֖‬ ‫יכם׃ ‪ַ 33‬ה ַּמ ְק ִ ֞ריֿב‬ ‫לּכ ֵ ֹ֑הן ִמּזִ ְב ֵ ֖חי ַׁש ְל ֵמ ֶ ֽ‬ ‫ֿת־ּדם‬ ‫ֶא ַ ֧‬ ‫ֿת־ה ֵ ֖ח ֶלֿב ִמ ְּב ֵנ֣י ַא ֲה ֑ר ֹן ֧לֹו‬ ‫השל ִ ֛מים וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ִת ְהֶי֛ה‬ ‫ֿת־ח ֙ ֵזה‬ ‫ׁ֥שֹוק ַהּיָ ִ ֖מין ְל ָמ ָנֽה׃ ‪ִּ 34‬כי֩ ֶא ֲ‬ ‫נּופה וְ ֵ ֣אֿת׀‬ ‫ַה ְּת ֜ ָ‬ ‫ּתי ֵמ ֵ ֣אֿת‬ ‫רּומה ָל ַ ֙ק ְח ִ ֙‬ ‫֣שֹוק ַה ְּת ָ֗‬ ‫ְּב ֵנֽי־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ֔אל‬ ‫א ָתם ְל ַא ֲה ֙ר ֹן‬ ‫יהם וָ ֶא ֵ ּ֣תן ֠ ֹ‬ ‫ִמּזִ ְב ֵ ֖חי ַׁש ְל ֵמ ֶ ֑‬ ‫ַהּכ ֵ ֹ֤הן‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪a Because of the damage to the manuscript, the library photographs of H 109 present the recto‬‬ ‫‪and verso of the bifolium as a whole rather than presenting each folio individually; the text‬‬ ‫‪transcriptions in this paper follow the layout of the photographs.‬‬ ‫‪b The copyist had forgotten the initial mem of the noun and added it beneath the line.‬‬

‫‪465‬‬

‫) ‪Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers‬‬ ‫)‪Table 16.2 Text of Leviticus 7:3–12a; 7:29b–37 (cont.‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 2v‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 1r‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:29b–37‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:3–12a‬‬ ‫ה־ב ֶ ּׁ֖ש ֶמן‬ ‫לּול ַ‬ ‫ל־מנְ ָ ֥חה ְב ָ ֽ‬ ‫֥לֹו ִ ֽת ְהֶיֽה׃ ‪10‬וְ ָכ ִ‬ ‫וַ ֲח ֵר ָ ֑בה‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֧י ַא ֲה ֛ר ֹן ִּת ְהֶי֖ה ִ ֥איׁש ְּכ ָא ִ ֽחיו׃‬ ‫ְל ָכ ְ‬

‫ק־עֹולם ֵמ ֵ ֖אֿת ְּב ֵנ֥י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬ ‫ָ֔‬ ‫ּול ָבנָ ֙יו ְל ָח‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪֣ 35‬ז ֹאֿת‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ַ ֣חֿת ָּב ָ֔ניו ֵמ ִא ֵ ּׁ֖שי‬ ‫ִמ ְׁש ַ ֤חֿת ַא ֲה ֙ר ֹן ִ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫הו ֒‬ ‫יְ ָ ֑‬ ‫֔‬ ‫יהוה׃‬ ‫ּביֹום ִה ְק ִ ֣ריֿב א ָֹתם ְל ַכ ֵ ֖הן ַל ָ ֽ‬ ‫֙‬ ‫‪ֲ 36‬א ֶׁשר֩ ִצ֙ ָּוה‬ ‫יֹום ָמ ְׁש ֣חֹו א ָֹ֔תם‬ ‫הוה ָל ֵ ֣תֿת ָל ֶ֗הם ְּב ֙‬ ‫יְ ָ ֜‬ ‫ֵמ ֵ ֖אֿת‬ ‫עֹול֖ם ְלדֹר ָ ֹֽתם׃‬ ‫ְּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל ֻח ַ ּ֥קֿת ָ‬ ‫‪֣ 37‬ז ֹאת‬ ‫ּתֹורה ָלע ָֹל ֙ה‪ַ c‬ל ִּמנְ ָ֔חה וְ ַ ֽל ַח ָ ּ֖טאֿת‬ ‫ַה ָ ֗‬ ‫וְ ָל ָא ָ ׁ֑שם‬

‫ּתֹורֿת ֶז ַ֣ב ֿח ַה ְּׁש ָל ִ ֑מים ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬ ‫‪11‬וְ ֥ז ֹאת ַ ֖‬ ‫יַ ְק ִ ֖ריֿב‬ ‫ל־ּתֹוד ֘ה יַ ְק ִר ֶיבּנ ּ֒ו‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ליהוה׃ ‪֣ ִ 12‬אם ַע‬ ‫וְ ִה ְק ִ ֣ריֿב׀‬ ‫עלזבח ַה ָ ֗‬ ‫לּוֹלת‬ ‫ּצֹות ְּב ֣‬ ‫ּתֹודה ַח ּ֤לֹוֿת ַמ ֙‬ ‫ַּב ֶּׁ֔ש ֶמן‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬

‫‪ֽ ָ .‬לע ָֹל ֙ה ‪c No meteg as in mtL:‬‬

‫‪There are minor variants and variations:‬‬ ‫‪ַ .‬מ ֲח ַ ֑בתם ‪ in‬מ ‪Lev 7:9: Sublinear addition of missing final‬‬ ‫ָלע ָֹל ֙ה ‪Lev 7:37: no meteg in‬‬ ‫‪Table 16.3 Text of Leviticus 7:12b–20a, 7:20b–29a‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109 1v‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 2r‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:12b–20a‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:20b–29a‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫ְּור ִק� ֵ ֥יקי ַמ ּ֖צֹות ְמ ֻׁש ִ ֣חים ַּב ָ ּׁ֑ש ֶמן וְ ֣סֹ ֶלת‬ ‫ֻמ ְר ֶּ֔ב ֶכת‬ ‫ֹּלת ֶל ֶ֣חם‬ ‫ל־ח ֙‬ ‫ַח ֹּ֖לות ְּבלּוֹל֥ ת ַּב ָ ּֽׁש ֶמן׃ ‪ַ 13‬ע ַ‬ ‫ָח ֵ֔מץ יַ ְק ִ ֖ריב‬ ‫ּתֹודת ְׁש ָל ָ ֽמיו׃ ‪14‬וְ ִה ְק ִ ֙ריב‬ ‫ל־ז ַ֖בח ַ ֥‬ ‫ָק ְר ָּבנ֑ ֹו ַע ֶ‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬

‫יהוה‬ ‫ׁשר ַל ָ ֔‬ ‫ָּב ָׂ֗שר ִמ ֶּז ַ֤בח ַה ְּׁש ָל ִמ ֙ים ֲא ֶ ֣‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫וְ ֻט ְמ ָא ֖תֹו ָע ָל֑יו וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָ ֛תה ַה ֶּנ ֶ֥פׁש ַה ִ ֖הוא‬ ‫יה׃‬ ‫ֵמ ַע ֶ ּֽמ ָ‬ ‫ל־ט ֵ֗מא ְּב ֻט ְמ ַ ֤את‬ ‫י־ת ַּג֣ע ְּב ָכ ָ‬ ‫‪21‬וְ ֶ֜נ ֶפׁש ִ ּֽכ ִ‬ ‫ָא ָד ֙ם‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫‪466‬‬

‫‪Schattner-Rieser‬‬

‫)‪Table 16.3 Text of Leviticus 7:12b–20a, 7:20b–29a (cont.‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109 1v‬‬

‫‪P.Vindob. H 109, 2r‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:12b–20a‬‬

‫‪Lev 7:20b–29a‬‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫יהו֑ה‬ ‫רּומה ַל ָ‬ ‫ל־ק ְר ָּ֔בן ְּת ָ ֖‬ ‫ִמ ֶ ּ֤מּנּו ֶא ָח ֙ד ִמ ָּכ ָ‬ ‫ַלּכ ֵֹ֗הן‬ ‫ת־ּדם ַה ְּׁש ָל ִ ֖מים ל֥ ֹו יִ ְהֶיֽה׃‬ ‫ַהּז ֵ ֹ֛רק ֶא ַ ֥‬ ‫ּוב ַׂ֗שר‬ ‫‪ְ 15‬‬ ‫ּתֹודת ְׁש ָל ָ֔מיו ְּבי֥ ֹום ָק ְר ָּבנ֖ ֹו יֵ ָא ֵכ֑ל‬ ‫ֶז ַ֚בח ַ ֣‬ ‫ֽל ֹא־‬ ‫ם־נ ֶ�֣דר׀ ֣אֹו‬ ‫יַ ִּנ ַ֥יח ִמ ֶ ּ֖מּנּו ַעד־ ּֽבֹ ֶקר׃ ‪16‬וְ ִא ֶ‬ ‫נְ ָד ָ֗בה‬ ‫ֶז ַ֚בח ָק ְר ָּבנ֔ ֹו ְּבי֛ ֹום ַה ְק ִר ֥יבֹו ֶאת־זִ ְב ֖חֹו‬ ‫יֵ ָא ֵכ֑ל‬ ‫ּנֹותר‬ ‫ּנֹותר ִמ ֶ ּ֖מּנּו יֵ ָא ֵ ֽכל׃ ‪17‬וְ ַה ָ ֖‬ ‫ּומ ָּמ ֳח ָ ֔רת וְ ַה ָ ֥‬ ‫ִֽ‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫יׁשי ָּב ֵ ֖אׁש‬ ‫ּיֹום ַה ְּׁש ִל ִ֔‬ ‫ִמ ְּב ַ ׂ֣שר ַה ָּז ַ֑בח ַּב ֙‬ ‫יִ ָּׂש ֵ ֽרף׃‬ ‫יו‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫֜‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ר־ז‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫֙‬ ‫ׂש‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּב‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יֵ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ֹ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫֣‬ ‫א‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫‪18‬וְ ִ ֣אם‬ ‫֒‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫יׁשי֘ ֣ל ֹא יֵ ָר ֶצ ֒‬ ‫ַּבּי֣ ֹום ַה ְּׁש ִל ִ‬ ‫ה ַה ַּמ ְק ִ ֣ריֿב א ֹ֗תֹו ֒‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫֧ל ֹא יֵ ָח ֵ ֛‬ ‫ׁשב ל֖ ֹו ִּפּג֣ ּול יִ ְה ֶי֑ה וְ ַה ֶּנ ֶ֛פׁש ָהא ֶ ֹ֥כ ֶלת֒‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫ִמ ֶ ּ֖מּנּו ֲע ָֹונּ֥ה ִּת ָ ּֽׂשא׃ ‪19‬וְ ַה ָּב ָׂ֞שר ֲא ֶׁשר־יִ ַּג֤ע‬ ‫ְּב ָכל‬ ‫ָט ֵמ ֙א ֣ל ֹא ֵי ָֽא ֵ֔כל ָּב ֵ ֖אׁש יִ ָּׂש ֵ ֑ר ֿף וְ ַ֙ה ָּב ָׂ֔שר ָּכל‬ ‫אכל ָּב ָ ֽׂשר׃ ‪20‬וְ ַה ֶּ֜נ ֶפׁש ֲא ֶׁשר תאכל‬ ‫ָט ֖הֹור י ֹ ַ ֥‬

‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫ל־ׁש ֶקץ‬ ‫֣אֹו‪ִּ a‬ב ְב ֵה ָ ֣מה ְט ֵמ ָ֗אה ֚אֹו ְּב ָכ ֶ ֣‬ ‫ָט ֵ֔מא‬ ‫ׁשר‬ ‫ר־ז ַ֥בח ַה ְּׁש ָל ִ ֖מים ֲא ֶ ֣‬ ‫וְ ָא ַכ֛ל ִמ ְּב ַׂש ֶ‬ ‫יהו֑ה‬ ‫ַל ָ‬ ‫יה׃‬ ‫וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָ ֛תה ַה ֶּנ ֶ֥פׁש ַה ִ ֖היא‪ֵ b‬מ ַע ֶ ּֽמ ָ‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫מר׃ ‪ַּ 23‬ד ֵ ּ֛בר‬ ‫הו֖ה ֶאל־מ ֶ ֹׁ֥שה ֵּלא ֽ ֹ‬ ‫‪22‬וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּ֥בר יְ ָ‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫ל־ח ֶלב ׁ֥שֹור‬ ‫מר ָּכ ֵ֜‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֥י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ֵלא ֑ ֹ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬ ‫וְ ֶכ ֶׂ֛שב‬ ‫אכלּו׃ ‪24‬וְ ֵ ֤ח ֶלב נְ ֵב ָל ֙ה וְ ֵ ֣ח ֶלב‬ ‫וָ ֵ ֖עז ֥ל ֹא ת ֹ ֵ ֽ‬ ‫ְט ֵר ֔ ָפה‬ ‫אכה וְ ָא ֖כֹל ֥ל ֹא‬ ‫ל־מ ָל ָ ֑‬ ‫יֵ ָע ֶ ׂ֖שה ְל ָכ ְ‬ ‫אכ ֻלֽהּו׃‬ ‫תֹ ְ‬ ‫ן־ה ְּב ֵה ָ֔מה ֲא ֶׁ֙שר‬ ‫‪ִּ 25‬כ֚י ָּכל־א ֵֹכ֣ל ֵ֔ח ֶלב ִמ ַ֙‬ ‫יַ ְק ִ ֥ריב‬ ‫יהו֑ה וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָ ֛תה ַה ֶּנ ֶ֥פׁש‬ ‫ִמ ֶ ּ֛מּנָ ה ִא ֶ ּׁ֖שה ַל ָ‬ ‫ָהא ֶֹכ ֶ֖לת‬ ‫אכ ֔לּו ְּב ֖כ ֹל‬ ‫ל־ּד ֙ם ֣ל ֹא ת ֹ ְ‬ ‫יה׃ ‪26‬וְ ָכ ָ‬ ‫ֵ ֽמ ַע ֶ ּֽמ ָ‬ ‫מֹוׁשב ֵֹת ֶיכ֑ם‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ל־נ ֶ֖פׁש ֲא ֶׁשר־‬ ‫ָל ֖ע ֹֿוף וְ ַל ְּב ֵה ָ ֽמה׃ ‪ָּ 27‬כ ֶ‬ ‫ל־ּדם‬ ‫אכ֣ל ָּכ ָ ֑‬ ‫ּת ֹ ַ‬ ‫יה׃‬ ‫וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָ ֛תה ַה ֶּנ ֶ֥פׁש ַה ִ ֖היא‪ֽ ֵ c‬מ ַע ֶ ּֽמ ָ‬ ‫מר׃‬ ‫הו֖ה ֶאל־מ ֶ ֹׁ֥שה ֵּלא ֽ ֹ‬ ‫‪28‬וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּ֥בר יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ַּ 29‬ד ֵ ּ֛בר‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫‪֣ as in Lev 7:21 of mtL.‬אֹו ‪a No stroke after‬‬ ‫‪ַ ).‬ה ִ ֖הוא( ‪b No qere/ketiv‬‬ ‫‪ַ ).‬ה ִ ֖הוא( ‪c No qere/ketiv‬‬

‫‪We can observe the following variants and variations:‬‬ ‫ַחֹּל֖ ת ‪ַ , contra mtL‬ח ֹּ֖לות ‪Lev 7:12: scriptio plena in‬‬ ‫ּנֹותר ‪Lev 7:17: expanded letters at the end of the lines in‬‬ ‫וְ ַה ָ ֖‬

467

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

Lev 7:21: no vertical break-stroke in ‫֣או‬ Lev 7:22: no qere/ketiv but qere in ‫ ַה ִ ֖היא‬, contra mtL ‫ ַה ִ ֖הוא‬. Lev 7:28: no qere/ketiv but qere in ‫ ַה ִ ֖היא‬, contra mtL ‫ ַה ִ ֖הוא‬. 2.3 Textual Units The text contains three units that are marked as petuḥot. All known Oriental manuscripts have either a petuḥah or no delimitation marker before Lev 7:11, Lev 7:22, and Lev 7:28 (in the list of Maimonides, there is a petuḥah only before Lev 7:22). And 4Q26b10 marks the beginning of Lev 7:22 with an empty line, corresponding with a rabbinic petuḥah. It is thus evident that the text delimitations conform to the regulations set out in tractate Soferim (1:14). Unit Divisions Compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Traditions There is substantial agreement between the placement of the three delimitation markers in this manuscript and that followed in the Oriental, Sephardic, and Ashkenazic traditions. Furthermore, as noted, the petuḥah before Lev 7:22 is also indicated by an empty line in the Qumran fragment 4Q26b.

2.4

Table 16.4 Division markers in H 109 compared with other manuscripts

Text

H 109

4Q26b

Oriental

Sephardic

Ashkenazic

Lev 7:11 Lev 7:22 Lev 7:28

vac-e>7 (P) vac-e>7 (P) vac-e>7 (P)

empty line

P/S P/S P/S

P P P

P/S P/– P

2.5 Concluding Remarks The scribal practice and the text delimitation in H 109 conform to the (later) regulations of Maimonides. Unit divisions, script, and the use of paper point to a likely tenth/eleventh century date, following the Oriental tradition.

10

For 4Q26b, see Emanuel Tov, “26b. 4QLevg,” in djd 12:203–4.

468 3

Figure 16.5

Schattner-Rieser

P.Vindob. H 143: Leviticus 23:4–28; 25:36–42

P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 1r, Lev 23:4b–17a

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

Figure 16.6

P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 1v, Lev 23:17b–28

469

470

Figure 16.7

Schattner-Rieser

P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 2r, Lev 25:15–29a

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

Figure 16.8

P.Vindob. H 143, Fol. 2v, Lev 25:29b–42

471

472

Schattner-Rieser

3.1 Codicological Description P.Vindob. H 143 consists of one bifolium of a codex, 30 × 42 cm, written on both sides on parchment, ruled by hard point. Each folio has two columns with twenty lines and approximately twenty-four letters per line. The writing is regular and the columns are perfectly justified and filled out with filling letters (e.g., fol. 2v, col. 1, line 5)11 or extendable letters (litterae dilatabiles) such as resh and tav (e.g., fol. 2v, col. 2, lines 6, 13, and 17), so that words are not divided between one line and the next. The text on fol. 2 is not continuous with that on fol. 1v, which means that there was an intervening bifolium bound between the two folia of this single leaf. The text features Tiberian vocalization with accents (‫) ְט ָע ִמים‬. There is no masorah. The Oriental square script or proto-Sephardic square script indicates a probable date in the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century, similar to thirteenth century Bible manuscripts from Spain, such as the Damascus Keter (Jerusalem, National Library of Israel), which originates from Burgos;12and mtKenn2, a Bible manuscript from Soria.13 3.2 Content and Text Variations The two folia are written on both sides with the following content: Fol. 1r– Lev 23:4–17; fol. 1v–23:17–28; fol. 2r–Lev 25:15–29; fol. 2v–25:29–42. There are some variants, as for example: Lev 23:14 (fol. 1r, col. 2, line 9): ‫ ֵע ֶצם‬is written with ṣere instead of segol as correctly written in other places in H 143; compare to mtL: ‫ד־ע ֶצ ֙ם ַהּי֣ ֹום ַה ֶּ֔זה‬ ֶ֙ ‫ ַע‬. Lev 25:21 (fol. 2r, line 19): ‫וע ַש ֹת‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִׁש ִּׁשית‬without dagesh in the first shin and ‫ ַע ַש ֹת‬with two pataḥs instead of the two qamaṣim found in mtL (‫)וְ ָע ָׂשת‬. 3.3 Unit Divisions The text division follows the method of tractate Sefer Torah and comprises eight unit divisions, one petuḥah (Lev 23:26) and seven setumot (Lev 23:9, 15*23*; Lev 25:25, 29*35*39*). 11 12 13

In lines 3, 5 and 9 (fol. 1r, Lev 23:4b–17a). http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/collections/treasures/shapell_manuscripts/mikra/ damasc/Pages/default.aspx. Not to be confused with the Damascus Pentateuch (tenth/ eleventh century; Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, JNUL hebr. 4 5702; hereafter mtS5). Oxford, BL Kennicott 2, fol. 20r; and Vatican, BA Urb. ebr. 11, fol. 175v; see more in M. Beit-Arié and E. Engel, Specimens of Mediaeval Hebrew Scripts, vol. 2, Sephardic Script (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2002), plates 31 and 32; Edna Engel, “The Sephardic Scripts of the 13th–14th Centuries in View of the Gerona Fragments,” Materia Giudaica 6 (2001): 145–60; esp. 150–51.

473

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

The petuḥah before Lev 23:2614 is in accord with the rules described in tractate Sefer Torah,15 insofar as the verse following the petuḥah starts at the beginning of the line.16 Had the scribe intended a setumah as in mtL, he would have had to inscribe the first word of 23:26 after a space. Thus, it seems evident that a petuḥah was intended. Whether the open section is typical for the Oriental tradition is uncertain, because the Oriental tradition is divided in this case: the Babylonian list of open and closed sections reconstructed by Yosef Ofer,17 and the Damascus Pentateuch (mtS5),18 indicate here a petuḥah. Unit Divisions Compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Later Traditions

3.4

Table 16.5 Unit divisions in H 143 compared with other manuscriptsa

Passage

4Q24b/4Q40

11Q1

H 143

Oriental

Sephardic

Ashkenazic

Lev 23:9 Lev 23:15 Lev 23:23 Lev 23:26 Lev 25:25 Lev 25:29 Lev 25:35 Lev 25:39

vac-e 3? (p-rec) vac-e >9 vac-e 3/S x x/x – x –

x x vac-e 9 vac-e 9 x vac-e 3? (rec) – –

S S S P S S S S

P/S S P/S P/S S/– S/– P/S/SD P/S

P/S S S P S S S S

P/S/SD P/S/SD P/S/SD P/S S/SD/– S/SD/– –/S/– S/SD

a Reconstructed spaces are indicated by (rec) or (p-rec) = “partly reconstructed.” b For 4Q24, see Eugene Ulrich, “24. 4QLevb,” in djd 12:177–87.

14 15 16 17

18

Lev 23:26: ‫מר‬ ֹ ֽ ‫הו֖ה ֶאל־מ ֶ ֹׁ֥שה ֵּלא‬ ָ ְ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּ֥בר י‬. Tractate Sefer Torah goes back to the third century according to Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 9th ed. (München: Beck, 2011). While in tractate Soferim (eighth century), a petuḥah begins in the next line with an open space of at least three letters. Yosef Ofer, The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch: Its Principles and Methods (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001) (in Hebrew); idem, “A Babylonian List of Open and Closed Parashiyyot in the Pentateuch,” in Masʿat Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to Aharon Dotan, ed. M. Bar-Asher and C. E. Cohen (Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik, 2010), 392–434 (in Hebrew). See n. 17 above.

474

Schattner-Rieser

3.5 Concluding Remarks The method of delimitation in H 143 is in accord with that of tractate Sefer Torah, but the petuḥot and setumot do not agree completely with Maimonides’s list and mtL. The tradition of the delimitation markers is not very uniform in the Oriental and Ashkenazic manuscripts. 4

P.Vindob. H 27: Numbers 21:24–29:30

4.1 Codicological Description P.Vindob. H 27 consists of eight leaves (= 8 folia) of a parchment codex measuring 30 × 42 cm.19 Rectos and versos are divided into three columns of twentyone lines, ruled with a hard point, with approximately twelve to fifteen letters per line. The text is laid out as prose, with breaks. The text is written in dark brown ink that has faded; some letters have been rewritten in a dark brown or black ink by another hand. There are filling letters at the ends of some lines. Vocalization is Tiberian, with accents (‫) ְט ָע ִמים‬, rafe, Mm, and Mp. Damage consists of small holes and tears in fols. 2, 7, and 8; tears are sewn together in fol. 2. The text is written in an Oriental square script of the tenth/eleventh century. Contents and Textual Variants

4.2

Table 16.6 Contents of the eight folia: Numbers 21:24–29:30

Figure

r/v

Text: Numbers

Figure

r/v

Text: Numbers

Fig. 16.9 Fig. 16.10 Fig. 16.11 Fig. 16.12 Fig. 16.13 Fig. 16.14 Fig. 16.15 Fig. 16.16

(1r) (1v) (2r) (2v) (3r) (3v) (4r) (4v)

21:24–22:5 22:5–22:21 22:21–22:35 22:35–23:10 23:10–23:30 23:30–24:18 24:18–25:14 25:14–26:15

Fig. 16.17 Fig. 16.18 Fig. 16.19 Fig. 16.20 Fig. 16.21 Fig. 16.22 Fig. 16.23 Fig. 16.24

(5r) (5v) (6r) (6v) (7r) (7v) (8r) (8v)

26:15–34 26:34–52 26:52–27:2 27:2–18 27:18–28:11 28:11–28:26 28:26–29:13 29:13–29:30

19

Michèle Dukan, La Bible hébraïque: Les codices copiés en Orient et dans la zone séfarade avant 1280, Bibliologia 22 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 187, classified codices which are over 290 mm high as large-format codices.

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.9

P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 1r, Num 21:24–22:5

475

476

FIGURE 16.10 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 1v, Num 22:5–22:21

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.11

P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 2r, Num 22:21–22:35

477

478

FIGURE 16.12 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 2v, Num 22:35–23:10

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.13 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3r, Num 23:10–23:30

479

480

FIGURE 16.14 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3v, Num 23:30–24:18

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.15 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 4r, Num 24:18–25:14

481

482

FIGURE 16.16 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 4v, Num 25:14–26:15

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.17 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5r, Num 26:15–34

483

484

FIGURE 16.18 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5v, Num 26:34–52

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.19 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 6r, Num 26:52–27:2

485

486

FIGURE 16.20 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 6v, Num 27:2–18

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.21 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7r, Num 27:18–28:11

487

488

FIGURE 16.22 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7v, Num 28:11–28:26

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

FIGURE 16.23 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8r, Num 28:26–29:13

489

490

FIGURE 16.24 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8v, Num 29:13–29:30

Schattner-Rieser

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

491

4.2.1 Overview of Variants The variations include: (a) orthographic variants, such as the use of scriptio plena and ketiv/qere variants; (b) textual variants, such as other word choice (e.g., the variant which agrees with LXX in Num 23:12 in fol. 3r [Fig. 16.13]) and corrections (see, e.g., the cancellation and addition to Num 28:12 in fol. 7r, col. 3, lines 7–8 [Fig. 16.21]); and (c) differences in unit divisions—i.e., the choice of petuḥah or setumah (P/S) marking of liturgical units. 1. Num 21:32 (Fig. 16.9: fol. 1r, col. 2, line 8): strange ketiv ‫ וַ וִ ֶירׁש‬instead of the ketiv ‫ וַ ּי ֶֹירׁש‬of mtL, with its qere ׁ‫ק‬: ‫( וַ ּי֖ ֶֹורׁש‬wayyoresh is written as qere in the margin). 2. Num 23:12 (Fig. 16.13: 3r, col. 1, line 6) no maqqef. 3. Num 23:12 (Fig. 16.13: 3r, col. 1, line 6): “And he answered and said, ‘Must I not be careful to speak what God puts in my mouth?’” Puncta extraordinaria below Elohim and a line above to cancel the word with replacement by Yhwh as in lxx ho theos and vl.20 4. Num 23:13 (Fig. 16.13: 3r, col. 1, line 9): the qere ‫ ְל ָכה‬lkh is written plene in the text (instead of ketiv ‫ ְלָך‬in mtL), without marginal remark. 5. Num 24:17 (Fig. 16.14: 3v, col. 3, line 16): Marginal addition to the word ‫כוכב‬ (kokav) in the passage “a star shall rise from Jacob”: ‫ּכֹוכ ֙ב ֱאֹל֣ ֵה ֶ֔יכם‬ ַ (kokav elohekem). This is drawn from Amos 5:26: “You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves,” referring Israel’s sin of idolatry and their punishment on the Day of the Lord.21 6. Num 26:35 (Fig. 16.18: 5v, col. 1, line 3): Ephraim, written in smaller letters and positioned above the line of text. 7. Num 28:12 (Fig. 16.22: 7v, col. 1, line 7): cancellation dots above some words, which the scribe mistakenly inserted, because they appear in the same verse at the end of the verse (see below). 8. Num 29:5 (Fig. 16.23: 8r col. 2, line 12): omitted words added above the line: ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר־ ִע ִ ּ֥זים ֶא ָ ֖חד ַח ָ ּ֑טאת ְל ַכ ֵ ּ֖פר ֲע ֵל‬ ְ . 9. Num 29:14 (Fig. 16.24: 8v, col. 1, line 8): missing letters in ‫ ָל ַ ֣איִ ל ָ ֽה ֶא ָ֔חד‬.

20 21

For the double cancellation, see below 4.2.3. The same connection is made between Num 24:17 and Amos 5:26 in CD 7:14–20, with fragmentary parallels in 4Q266 and 4Q269. See the discussion of this midrash by Russell Fuller, “Isaiah and the Twelve in Quotations and Allusions in Some Second Temple Period Writings: Textual History and Textual Reception,” pp. 25–32 (esp. 30–31) in this volume.

492

Schattner-Rieser

4.2.2

Correction of Errors, Cancellations by Dots, Marginal nun, and Variants In Num 23:12 (Fig. 16.13: 3r, col. 1, line 6) we have a textual variant and a double cancellation of the word Elohim, written instead of Yhwh. There are cancellation dots below and above Elohim; a stroke above, as well as a nun-like sign beside the word in the left margin indicate the correction to Yhwh in the next line, in conformity with the text of mtL. It seems that the original scribe had a text before him that conformed to lxx manuscripts, which have ὁ θεὸς in that place. ‫אמר ֲה ֗ל ֹא ֵא ֩ת‬ ֑ ַ ֹ ‫וַ ַּי ַ֖ען וַ ּי‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁ֙שר יָ ִ ׂ֤שים אלהים‬ ‫מר‬ ֹ ֖ ‫יְ הוָ ֙ה ְּב ֔ ִפי א ֹ֥תֹו ֶא ְׁש‬ ‫ְל ַד ֵ ּֽבר׃‬

Figure 16.25 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 3r, col. 1, line 6 (see Fig. 16.13): Num 23:12

In Num 28:12 there are dots over a group of words that are not in the right place: ‫ֹלׁשה ֶע ְׂשר ִֹ֗נים‬ ֣ ָ ‫ּוׁש‬ ְ ‫לּול֣ה ַב ֶּׁ֔ש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫֤סֹ ֶלת ִמנְ ָח ֙ה ְּב‬ ‫לּול֣ה ַב ֶּׁ֔ש ֶמן ָל ַ ֖איִ ל‬ ָ ‫ְּב‬ ‫ּוׁש ֵנ֣י ֶע ְׂשר ִֹ֗נים‬ ְ ‫ַל ָ ּ֖פר ָה ֶא ָ ֑חד‬ ‫לּול֣ה ַב ֶּׁ֔ש ֶמן ָל ַ ֖איִ ל‬ ָ ‫֤סֹ ֶלת ִמנְ ָח ֙ה ְּב‬ ‫ָ ֽה ֶא ָ ֽחד‬ Figure 16.26 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 7v, col. 1, line 7 (see Fig. 16.22): Num 28:12

4.2.3

Supralinear Additions ‫ׁשּות ַלח‬ ֶ֗ ‫ם ְל‬ ֒ ‫ֵ ֣א ֶּלה ְבנֵ י־ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם֘ ְל ִמ ְׁש ְּפח ָֹת‬ ‫ּׁש ַת ְל ִ֔חי ְל ֶ֕ב ֶכר ִמ ְׁש ַ ּ֖פ ַחת‬ ֣ ֻ ‫ִמ ְׁש ֙ ַּפ ַח ֙ת ַה‬ ‫ַה ַּב ְכ ִ ֑רי ְל ַ֕ת ַחן ִמ ְׁש ַ ּ֖פ ַחת ַ ֽה ַּת ֲח ִנֽי׃‬

Figure 16.27 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 5v, col. 1, line 3 (see Fig. 16.18): Num 26:35

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

493

‫ּוׂש ִעיר־ ִע ִ ּ֥זים ֶא ָ ֖חד ַח ָ ּ֑טאת ְל ַכ ֵ ּ֖פר‬ ְ ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬

Figure 16.28 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8r, col. 2, line 12 (see Fig. 16.23): Num 29:5

‫ְׁש ֵנ֤י ֶע ְׂשר ֹנִ ֙ים ָל ַ ֣איִ ל ָ ֽה ֶא ָ֔חד‬ ‫ילם׃‬ ֽ ִ ‫ִל ְׁש ֵנ֖י ָה ֵא‬ Figure 16.29 P.Vindob. H 27, Fol. 8v, col. 1, line 8 (see Fig. 16.24): Num 29:14

4.3 Masorah and qere/ketiv Notes 4.3.1 Masorah magna Notes and the Babylonian Abbreviation ‫דק‬22 On the tops of some pages, there are masoretic lists preceded by the abbreviation ‫ דק‬for “which is spelled,”23 which is a term unique to the Babylonian masorah and refers to the counting of the words. According to Ofer24 the term has no exact parallel in Tiberian terminology and may signify a variety of meanings, such as: ‫ בע׳ ;ל׳‬,‫בעל׳‬ = ‫“ ;בעלמא‬in the whole Bible”; and ‫“ לית‬which is nowhere else, unique,” thus, a hapax. – So, at the top of fol. 1r (Fig. 16.9), the masorah is written in three lines in a decorative presentation. In the first line, the abbreviation ‫דק‬-dq25 ‫ דקרין‬is written twenty-two times. The second line records the occurrences of words that appear one time with a vocalized lamed: ‫ לאמרי‬/‫ לאלפים‬/‫לאנשים‬, etc., beginning with the occurrence of Numbers. The list of words corresponds most closely to a list in Sefer Oklah we-Oklah, as published by Fernando Díaz

22 23 24 25

For a comprehensive list and discussion of the Babylonian masoretic terminology, see Israel Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah, Studies in Language 3 (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003), 54–55; Ofer, Babylonian Masora, 39–59. ‫ קרי >9; Ashkenazic) or Exod 37:25 in BnF hébr. 25 (space>>9; Sephardic); the interpretation as petuḥah is possible because a length of nine letters can mean a petuḥah according to the relevant literature. Before Exod 11:1 and 37:25 most manuscripts mark a petuḥah, so that this overlong space may have been intended as petuḥah in these exceptional cases. The doubled sign “>>” marks overlong spaces. The comparison of the breaks in H 27 with the data of the Oriental tradition shows a high degree of correspondence. There are thirty-five breaks in H 27; all of them also exist in the Oriental tradition. In three cases we find additional breaks in some Oriental manuscripts, but not in others. Taking the quality of the breaks into account, we have an agreement of twenty-five percent with all Oriental manuscripts and of fifty percent with the majority of the scrolls and codices, when the empty spaces are interpreted in accordance with tractate Sefer Torah.

502

Schattner-Rieser

days: mtA and mtL have a setumah before the individual days; while mtB, mtC, and the Babylonian masorah (in part) separate the days by a petuḥah. This is also the practise of H 27; the petuḥot are indicated either by an “empty space at the end of the line” or by an “empty line,” and the text always continues at the beginning of the new line (as prescribed in Sefer Torah 1:10). 4.5.2.2 Comparison with the Masoretic Tradition The comparison with the masoretic tradition takes into account the most representative manuscripts of the Oriental tradition (Maimonides’ list/mtA, mtL, mtS5, mtL10, mtL17, and the Babylonian masorah); one old Sephardic codex (B1213); and representative Ashkenazic scrolls (bsb487; B1216) and codices (Regensburg Pentateuch (im180/52); Vienna11; Vienna19; and the list of Rabbenu Tam [hereafter RTam]).37 The data of the Dead Sea Scrolls are listed in the second column of the following table, after the notation of the chapters and verses. Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

22:2

L

S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; H 27: vac-e 5+vac-b 5 L: mtL10; mtL17

S: B1213

24:10b

vac-m 9: 4Q27

–

–

P: B1216; Vienna11 S: bsb487; Vienna19; im180/52 SD: RTam –

37

Identifying information for manuscripts not cited earlier in this article and referenced in Table 16.8: Berlin, State Library, Ms. Or. fol. 1213 (B1213); Berlin, State Library, Ms. Or. fol. 1216 (B1216); Berlin, State Library, Ms. Or. fol. 134 (B134); Cairo Pentateuch Codex/Ms. Gottheil 18 (mtC3); Göttingen State and University Library Ms. 148 (hab148); Regensburg Pentateuch, Jerusalem, Israel Museum, Ms. 180/52 (im180/52); Damascus Pentateuch, Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, Ms. Heb. 24°5702 (mtS5); Munich, Bavarian State Library, Cod. hebr. 212 (bsb212); Munich, Bavarian State Library, Cod. hebr. 487 (bsb487); Munich, Bavarian State Library, Cod. hebr. 488 (bsb488); St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. ebr. II B 10 (mtL10); St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. ebr. II B 17 (mtL17); Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. heb. 11 (Vienna11); Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. heb. 19 (Vienna19). BMas refers to the list of Ofer, Babylonian Masora; BMasGinsburg refers to Ginsburg, Massorah. Maimon. = the list of Maimonides; RTam = the list of Rabbenu Tam; L means text is lacking for that verse in the given manuscript. See nn. 7 and 25 above for abbreviations to indicate the quality and position of spaces. Numerals indicate the number of letter-spaces (vac-m 9 = a space in the middle of the line, 9 letters wide).

503

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers ) Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts (cont.)

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

25:1

L

P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-l

P: B1213

25:4

–: 4Q27

P: mtB; mtC3 S: Nehardea –: Maimon.; mtL; mtS5; BMas; mtL10; H 27

P/S: B1213

25:10

L

P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-l

P: B1213

25:16

vac-e 5 (p-rec)

P: B1213

26:1

–(rec)

P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtL10; H 27: vac-e 6 S: mtL17 P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17 S: H 27: vac-e 3+ vac-b 5

26:5

vac-m 9 (rec)

SD: BMas –: Maimon,; mtL; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27

SD: B1213

26:12

vac-e 5 (p-rec)

S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 4 + vac-b

S: B1213

26:15

vac-b 9 (p-rec)

S: B1213

26:19

vac-m 9 (p-rec)

S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5 + vac-b 3 –: mtS5 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-b 3

P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; RTam S: Vienna11; im180/52 SD: B134 P: bsb487 (vac-l); B1216 (vac-l); Vienna19 (P–> 0) S: Vienna11; RTam –: Vienna19; im180/52 P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52 SD: B134; RTam P: bsb 487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52; RTam P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19 (S–>P); im180/52 S: Vienna19 (S–>P); Vienna11 SD: RTam P: bsb487 SD: bsb488; B1216; Vienna11; bsb212; im180/52 (SD–>S) P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 (S–>P) S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52

P: B1213

S: B1213

504

Schattner-Rieser

Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts (cont.)

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

26:23

vac-m 5 (p-rec)

S: B1213

26:26

vac-m 5 (p-rec)

26:28

vac-m 5 (rec)

P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52 P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52 P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52

26:35

L

26:38

L

26:42

L

26:44

L

P: mtB S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e +vac-b 5 P: mtB; H 27: vac-e 5 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtL17 L: mtL10 P: mtB S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtC3; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5+vac-b 3 L: mtL10 P: H 27: vac-e 9 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL17 L: mtL10 P: mtC3 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtL17; H 27: vac-b 5 L: mtL10 P: H 27: vac-e 9 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17 SD: BMas S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; –mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 9 + vac-b 3

26:48

L

S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; –mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 9 + vac-b 3

S: B1213

26:52

L

P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtC3; mtL17 S: mtB; mtL10; H 27: vac-b 3

P: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

S!: B1213 (vac-e 3)

S: B1213

P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 P: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 SD: hab148; RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 SD: RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 SD: RTam P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 SD: RTam

505

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers ) Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts (cont.)

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

26:57

L

S: B1213

26:63

vac-b 9 (p-rec) vac-m 9 (rec)

P?: mtL10 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtC3; mtL17 –: mtB; H 27: – –

S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam –: Vienna11 S: RTam

S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5 + vac-b 3 SD: B288 –: mtL10

S: B1213

P: Maimon.; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17 S: mtL; H 27: vac-b 5

P: B1213

27:1

27:6

vac-e 9 (p-rec)

27:12

P: Maimon.; BMas; mtL17; mtB; vac-l: XḤev/Se2 mtC3; H 27: vac-e 9 S: BMas (Neh); mtL10? (p-rec) SD: mtS5 L P: mtL; mtS5; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-e 6 S: Maimon.; mtB; mtL17; BMas vac-m 9: P: mtC3 S: BMas; mtB; mtL17; 4Q27 H 27: vac-e 3! (p-rec) SD: mtS5; mtL17? –: Maimon.; mtL; mtL10 vac-m 9 – (p-rec) L P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5

27:15

27:18

27:22 28:1

–

P: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

S: bsb487; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam SD: mtS5 (vac-e 9 + vac-b 9)? –: B134? P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; im180/52 S: Vienna11 –: RTam P: bsb487; Vienna19 S: Vienna11 SD: B1216; bsb212; im180/52 (SD–>S) S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52; RTam S: B1216; Vienna11; RTam –: bsb487; Vienna19; im180/52

–

–

P: B1213

P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam P/S: Vienna11 (vac-b 5)?

506

Schattner-Rieser

Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts (cont.)

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

28:9

L

P: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17 S: H 27: vac-e 3 + vac-b 5

P: B1213

28:11

L

28:16

vac-e 9 (p-rec)

P: Maimon.; mtL; (BMasGinsburg); P: B1213 mtB; mtL10; H 27: vac-e 8 S: BMas; mtS5; mtC3 P: mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: S: B1213 vac-e 7 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5

28:26

L

29:1

vac-e 9 (p-rec)

29:7

L

29:12

vac-e 9 (rec)

29:17

vac-b 5 (rec)

29:20

L

P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam S: Vienna11 (vac-m 9) SD: bsb488 P: bsb487; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam S: B1216; Vienna11 P: bsb487 (P–>S); B1216; im180/52 (P–>S) S: bsb487 (P–>S); Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 (P–> S); RTam SD: VA P: B1216 S: bsb487; Vienna19; Vienna11 P: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam S: Vienna11 S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna11; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam S: bsb487; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 –: RTam P: Vienna11 S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19?; im180/52 –: RTam

P: mtB; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-l S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtS5; mtL17 P: Maimon.; mtL; (BMasGinsburg); mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17 S: mtS5; BMas; H 27: vac-b 5 P: mtS5; mtC3; H 27: vac-e 8 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtB; mtL10?; mtL17 P: mtL; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL17 S: Maimon.; BMas; mtL10; H 27: vac-b 5 P: mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-l S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtL17 P: mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; H 27: vac-e 5 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtL17

S: B1213

S: B1213

P: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

S: B1213

507

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers ) Table 16.8 Unit divisions in H 27, Dead Sea Scrolls, and medieval manuscripts (cont.)

Numbers

dss

Oriental mss

Seph. mss

Ashkenazic mss

29:23

L

P: mtS5; mtB; mtC3; H 27: vac-e 5 S: Maimon.; mtL; BMas; mtL10; mtL17

S: B1213

29:26

vac-b 9 (rec)

P: BMas; mtS5; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; P: B1213 mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5 S: Maimon.; mtL

29:29

vac-e 9 (rec)

P: BMas; mtB; mtC3; mtL10; mtL17; H 27: vac-e 5 S: Maimon.; mtL; mtS5

P: Vienna11 S: bsb487; B1216; Vienna19; im180/52; RTam P: bsb487; im180/52 (P–>S); RTam P/S: B1216 S: Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52 (P–>S) P: B1216; im180/52 (P–>S); RTam S: bsb487; Vienna19; Vienna11; im180/52(P–>S)

P: B1213

The overview in Table 16.8 shows that fragment H 27 corresponds entirely with manuscripts of the Oriental tradition; with B1213 (Sephardic); and with the representative Ashkenazic scrolls and codices in twenty-one cases.38 In eleven additional instances, its breaks correspond entirely with breaks in the rest of the Oriental and the Ashkenazic traditions. In four instances, the quality of the breaks is unique to H 27 among masoretic manuscripts.39 Unlike many other Oriental codices, H 27 puts no break at Num 26:5; by contrast, B1213 and many Ashkenazic manuscripts have a seder mark there.40 Special cases are Num 26:57; 27:6; 29:20; and 29:23; where an atypical break is found in Vienna11 alone among the Ashkenazic manuscripts; and Num 27:15 and 29:17, where the two petuḥot in H 27 have no corresponding breaks in B1213 or the Ashkenazic manuscripts.

38 39 40

“Totally” means a coincidence in the existence of a break and in its quality (petuḥah/ setumah). The four cases are: Num 26:1 (setumah = Vienna11; Vienna19); 26:35 (petiḥah = RTam); 26:42 P ≠ SD in BMas, HAB148); 28:9 (setumah = only in Vienna11). Sedarim in the manuscripts instead of petuḥot or setumot are a sign of an uncertainty in the tradition. See Josef M. Oesch, “Sedura.”

508

Schattner-Rieser

4.5.2.3 Results of Comparison with the Masoretic Tradition Nearly all breaks in fragment H 27 also exist in the Oriental text tradition and thus in the masoretic tradition. There is also a high correspondence with the delimitation markers in the dss.41 The concordance of H 27 with the manuscripts of the Oriental and the Ashkenazic traditions is about 65–70 percent, and a little lower with the codex of the Sephardic tradition.42 4.5.2.4 Palestinian Features in H 27 – Liturgical seder units of the 3.5–year cycle – Ancient haftarot readings (Karaite Genizah frags.; Palestinian tradition; Yannai) – Num 22:02*43 → Mic 7:16 (Karaite Genizah frags; Palestinian tradition; Yannai) – Num 25:10 → Mal 2:5 (Karaite; Palestinian tradition; Yannai; minhag Romania) – ‫שלמ׳‬: The haftarah portion according to the triennial cycle is indicated in the margins, preceded by the word shlema “completed”; this designation is known also as ʾashlamata or ʾashlamuta (‫)אשלמתא‬, “what completes the Torah.” 4.5.2.5 Babylonian Features in H 27 – Babylonian features are most recognizable in the Mm and Mp notes and need further study. 4.6 P.Vindob. H 27: Concluding Remarks The fragment P.Vindob. H 27 of the Department of Papyri in the Austrian National Library was part of an old, large parchment codex. It reproduces the masoretic text with Palestinian punctuation and Mm and Mp in high quality. Its text division corresponds to that of the oldest Oriental codices. There are clearly two traditions interwoven: on the one hand, we have the Palestinian 41 42

43

Twenty of the twenty-three breaks in dss are also present in fragment H 27 (see Table 16.8). Table of the sum of correspondences between fragment H 27 and the masoretic tradition: Breaks in H 27

Oriental

Sephardic

Ashkenazic

Petuḥot (18) Setumot (17) -(6) Total (41)

15 (85%) 12 (70%) 5 (85%) 32 (80%)

8 (45%) 9 (50%) 2+SD (50%) 20 (19+SD) (50%)

15+SD (90%) 12+SD (75%) 4+SD (85%) 34 (31+3) (85%)

The asterisk (*) marks an incomplete verse in fragmentary texts.

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

509

tradition; on the other, there are elements of Babylonian tradition in the Mp. Of special interest are the liturgical annotations, inscribed in the margins and the empty spaces of the text, where the triannual Palestinian cycle is marked by seven seder marks (original to the manuscript) in the space between the columns, while the annual Babylonian cycle is marked by a second, later hand. That same hand added to the sedarim, marks at the beginning of each haftarah, which was read at the conclusion of the portion from the Torah. The selection of these haftarot indicates a Babylonian influence, which may have been mediated by the presence of Karaites in Palestine and Egypt.44 5

Conclusions

An initial examination of the Vienna biblical manuscripts demonstrates that the writing practice of petuḥot goes back to an early tradition. In many cases the medieval manuscripts show correspondences with Dead Sea Scrolls pausal practice, which suggests continuity between these early manuscripts and the masoretic system known from the later Babylonian and Palestinian treatises, Sefer Torah and Soferim. Further examination and study of all known Torah scrolls and texts, as well as the Masorah parva and magna and writings about the masoretic notes from ancient and medieval times, will give us an objective idea of the evolution of biblical scribal traditions. Features like the presence of parashiyyot markers beside sedarim marks give an insight into the shift from the Palestinian (three-year) to the Babylonian (one-year) cycle. This preliminary overview of selected variants in the Vienna biblical manuscripts also calls for reconsidering the question of what a variant is. First, it is important to recognize that most of the variants noted in the discussion above represent, not differences in the consonantal biblical text, but differences in vocalization or accents. Although there are some genuine textual variants among these manuscripts, what we may witness here to an even greater degree is the struggle to accurately represent the reading tradition of a more or less set consonantal text. Thus, when we speak of differences between old 44

Cf. Louis Finkelstein, “The Prophetic Readings according to the Palestinian, Byzantine, and Karaite Rites,” huca 17 (1942/43): 423–26; Mourad El-Kodsi, The Karaite Jews of Egypt (Lyons, NY: Wilprint, 1987); Leon Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy: The Liturgy of al-Qirqisani,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev, ed. C. Berlin (New York: Ktav, 1971), 305–32; Yoram Erder, “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources, ed. M. Polliack (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 213–35.

510

Schattner-Rieser

manuscripts—perhaps as old as or older than the reference texts such as the Aleppo Codex or Leningrad Codex—what we now call variants really represent instances of diversity in reading traditions on the way to the fixing of the text. The Vienna biblical manuscripts give us a window onto the way this process evolved. Bibliography Beit-Arié, Malachi, Edna Engel, and Ada Yardeni. Specimens of Mediaeval Hebrew Scripts: Oriental and Yemenite Scripts. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987. Beit-Arié, Malachi, and Edna Engel. Specimens of Mediaeval Hebrew Script: Sephardic Script. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2002. Díaz Esteban, Fernando. Sefer Oklah we-Oklah: Colección de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la intégridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los judíos de la Edad Media. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975. Dotan, Aron. “Masora.” ej 13:603–56. Dukan, Michèle. La Bible hébraïque: Les codices copiés en Orient et dans la zone séfarade avant 1280. Bibliologia 22. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. El-Kodsi, Mourad. The Karaite Jews of Egypt. Lyons, NY: Selbstverlag, 1987. Engel, Edna. “The Sephardic Scripts of the 13th–14th Centuries in View of the Gerona Fragments.” Materia Giudaica 6/2 (2001): 145–60. Erder, Yoram. “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” Pages 213–35 in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Edited by M. Polliack. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Finkelstein, Louis. “The Prophetic Readings according to the Palestinian, Byzantine and Karaite Rites.” huca 17 (1942/3): 423–42. Flint, Peter W. “2. XḤev/Se Numbersb.” Pages 167–70 in Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady. djd 38. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Frensdorff, Salomon. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora). Hannover: Hahnsche Hof­ buchhandlung, 1864. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Masorah Compiled Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. London: 1880–1905. Himbaza, Innocent. “Le nûn marginal et la petite Massore.” Textus 20 (2000): 173–91. Jastram, Nathan. “27. 4QNumb.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al. djd 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994; repr. 1999. Mann, Jacob. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. 2 vols. New York: Ktav, 1971.

Vienna Biblical Fragments ( Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers )

511

Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “The Marginal Nun in the Masora of the Cairo Codex of the Prophets: Use and Function.” VT 64 (2014): 81–90. Nemoy, Leon. “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy: The Liturgy of alQirqisani.” Pages 305–32 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I. Edwar Kiev. Edited by C. Berlin. New York: Ktav, 1971. Oesch, Josef M. Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments. obo 27. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1979. Oesch, Josef M. “Sedura, eine dritte … Und eine alternative Paraschenliste aus dem 13. Jahrhundert.” In Text—Textgeschichte—Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer. Edited by T. Wagneret al. AOAT 419 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 476–80 and Appendices 1–3. Ofer, Yosef. “A Babylonian List of Open and Closed Parashiyyot in the Pentateuch.” Pages 392–434 in Masʿat Aharon—Linguistic Studies Presented to Aharon Dotan. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and C. E. Cohen. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2010 (in Hebrew). Ofer, Yosef. The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch. Its Principles and Methods. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001 (in Hebrew). Ofer, Yosef. “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex.” Pages 25–50 in Jerusalem Crown, The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Companion Volume, ed. M. Glatzer. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2001. Ofer, Yosef. “Masoretic List of Babylonian Origin of Dotted Words in the Pentateuch.” Pages 71–85 in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, ed. E. J. Revell = Masoretic Studies 8 (1996). Schreiner, Stefan, ed. Benjamin von Tudela and Petachja von Regensburg, Jüdische Reisen im Mittelalter. Leipzig: Sammlung Dieterich, 1991. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001. Ulrich, Eugene, Frank Moore Cross, et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Repr. 1999.

Chapter 17

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book in the Vienna Papyrus Collection Leeor Gottlieb 1

Physical Description

P.Vindob. H 12 of the Austrian National Library is a two-sided parchment page from the Cairo Genizah (Figures 17.1 and 17.2). It was once part of a codex of haftarah readings based on the triennial reading cycle of the Torah as practiced primarily by Palestinian Jewry.*,1 It measures approximately 28 × 23 cm.2 Each side of the page contains two columns. Each column is approximately 21 × 8 cm and contains thirty-one lines of Oriental Hebrew and Aramaic script. The text is comprised of a title for each haftarah, followed by the haftarah text itself in the form of a Hebrew verse, its Aramaic translation in the form of the traditional Targum Jonathan, then the next Hebrew verse and its translation, and so on. Accompanying the letters of the Hebrew verses are Tiberian vocalization marks and cantillation marks. The Aramaic translation is comprised generally of letters alone. However, some of the Aramaic verses contain vocalization marks. The ink of the vocalization and cantillation marks is darker than * I am pleased to acknowledge the Beit Shalom–Japan fund for its support of this study. 1 On the triennial cycle of the Torah for the three sedarim included in H 12, see Jacob Mann and Isaiah Sonne, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, vol. 2, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Leviticus and Numbers to Seder 106 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1966), 79–93. For a study of the triennial haftarah readings, see Yosef Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographa,” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 155–89 (in Hebrew). Yosef Ofer’s updated and comprehensive table of the haftarah readings (July 2017) may be accessed at https://fac ulty.biu.ac.il/~ofery/papers/Haftarot%203%20years%20_%20Ofer2016.xls. A Jewish community that used the triennial cycle was known to have existed in Fustat (ancient Cairo) in close proximity to the Genizah in the Ben Ezra Synagogue. Maimonides famously cited the custom of a triennial cycle and called it uncommon; see Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 13:1. 2 A terse description of the character of H 12 appears in D. S. Loewinger and Ernst Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs,” pt. 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2, ed. A. Z. Schwarz et al., Texts and Studies 4 (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973).

© Leeor Gottlieb, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_019

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book

FIGURE 17.1

513

P.Vindob. H 12, recto, Hos 6:1–11; 10:12; Ezek 16:9–12a

that of the letters, indicating that they were added secondarily to the existing consonantal text. The ink on the recto side has faded to a greater degree than that on the verso side. Signs of exposure to liquid appear on parts of the manuscript, resulting in a discoloring of the parchment and of the ink in some places. Time’s ravages have also resulted in the crumbling of parts of the page—most prominently on the top section of recto, col. 2 (verso, col. 1), but other parts of the manuscript display damage and holes as well. Other pages that were part of the original

514

figure 17.2

Gottlieb

P.Vindob. H 12, verso, Ezek 16:12b–19, Isa 66:3–7

codex, but that are now found in other collections, have been identified based on size of sheet and scribal characteristics.3 3 Ofer associated H 12 with Geneva ms gen 147 and Oxford, Bodleian Library ms Heb. b. 2 (Neubauer 2606/7) in his list of biblical manuscripts in the Genizah collection in Geneva; see David Rozenthal, The Cairo Geniza Collection in Geneva: Catalogue and Studies (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2010), 56 (in Hebrew). New York, jts ms Lutzki 241 (ena 2103)/5–6 was added a year later by Aharon Shweka et al., “Automatic Computerized Identification of Handwriting and Matching of Genizah Fragments,” Ginzei Qedem 7 (2011): 171–207 (182) (in Hebrew).

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book

2

515

Textual Contents

The text of H 12 contains three haftarah portions. Each portion opens with a title comprised of the name of the pentateuchal seder to which it belongs and the name of the book from the Prophets from which the ensuing haftarah is to be read. For example, the title in recto, col. 2, line 18 reads: ‫ואשה כי יזוב ביחזקﭏ‬.4 This means that the seder beginning at ‫( ואשה כי יזוב‬Lev 15:25) is accompanied by an haftarah from the book of Ezekiel. The title does not specify what part of Ezekiel is to be read. It simply informs its reader that the following lines are taken from Ezekiel. On the right-hand side of each title, in the margin, appears a scribal mark signifying the beginning of a seder. The title on the verso, col. 2, line 6 reads: ‫אשר ישחט בישעיה‬. This means that the pentateuchal seder beginning at ‫( אשר ישחט‬Lev 17:1) is accompanied by a haftarah from the book of Isaiah. This third haftarah in H 12 begins with Isa 66:3 (verso, col. 2, line 7). The text of H 12 ends after the third Hebrew word of Isa 66:7. Where this haftarah ended in the original codex remains unknown. Two other Genizah manuscripts contain a haftarah from Isaiah 66 for the seder of ‫אשר ישחט‬, however they differ with regard to its ending. Cambridge, cul: T-S B17.7 ends this haftarah after verse 11, while Cambridge, cul: T-S NS 80.50 continues through verse 13.5 The first column and a half of H 12 (recto, col. 1, line 1 to col. 2, line 16) contains Hebrew verses and their Aramaic targum beginning with Hos 6:1. The title for this haftarah would have been written on the previous page in the original codex. While we do not have this page (as yet), we may reconstruct the title of this haftarah through comparison to another Genizah manuscript. Cambridge, cul: T-S B17.17 contains an haftarah that begins with Hos 6:1. Its title reads ‫כי‬ ‫יהיה זב‬, which is a seder that begins at Lev 15:1–2.6 We therefore may infer that in the final line of the page immediately preceding H 12 in its original codex were the words ‫כי יהיה זב בהושע‬, and that in the right hand margin of that line, a seder mark appeared. The textual contents of H 12 may be summarized as follows: 4 The ligature for the alef and lamed in ‫ יחזקﭏ‬appears as such in the manuscript. This is true also for almost all other cases of alef followed by lamed in the Aramaic sections of the text. See recto, col. 2, line 22; verso, col. 1, lines 13, 15; col. 2, line 5. However, the scribe refrained from employing a ligature throughout the Hebrew biblical text. 5 Already Mann, Bible as Read, 79, discussed the end verse of this haftarah and conjectured that it concluded with verse 11. 6 Note that the scribe of Cambridge, cul: T-S B17.17 wrote the names of each pentateuchal seder in the line above the beginning of an haftarah, but did not add the name of the book of Prophets from which the haftarah for each seder was taken.

516

Gottlieb

Haftarah #1: recto, col. 1, line 1 to col. 2, line 16 Title: ‫( כי יהיה זב בהושע‬reconstructed, as explained above; would have appeared in final line of previous page in original codex). Biblical content: Hos 6:1–11; 10:12 Each biblical verse is followed by Aramaic Targum Jonathan. Haftarah #2: recto, col. 2, line 17 to verso, col. 2, line 5 Title: ‫ואשה כי יזוב ביחזקﭏ‬ Biblical content: Ezek 16:9–19 Each biblical verse is followed by Aramaic Targum Jonathan. Haftarah #3: verso, col. 2, line 6 to end of page (line 31) Title: ‫אשר ישחט בישעיה‬ Biblical content: Isa 66:3–7 (Verse 7 appears only through its third Hebrew word. The full extent of this haftarah remains unknown, as explained above.) Each biblical verse is followed by Aramaic Targum Jonathan. 3

Some Scribal Features

Abbreviations for divine names are used in the Aramaic targum sections of the text. They are so marked by a dot above the middle letter. The abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton is ‫יי֗ י‬. The abbreviation for ‫ אלהים‬is ‫ﭏי֗ ם‬.7 In four instances the scribe filled in open space at the end of the line with a designated mark, represented in this article thus ;>.8 In verso, col. 2, line 9 the word ‫ ֯אלה‬appears, as it does here, with a circle above the alef, with the purpose of referring the reader to a marginal qere instruction. Per this instruction, the word ‫ אלה‬is to be read ‫ ֵ֗ה ָמּה‬. The vocalization and cantillation mark of ‫ ֵ֗ה ָמּה‬, as well as the lack thereof in ‫ אלה‬appear as such in the manuscript. The reference to a qere instruction by means of a circle above the word is not surprising at all. However, this particular qere instruction is not one that is found in manuscripts of the Masoretic Text such as the Aleppo Codex or the Leningrad Codex. It stands to reason that this qere instruction was added secondarily as a correction measure for ‫ אלה‬of the prima manu with the intention of aligning it with the mt. 7 On the ligature of alef and lamed see above, n. 4. 8 These four instances may be found at the end of the following lines: recto, col. 1, line 6; col. 2, line 15; verso, col. 2, lines 3, 15.

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book

517

The naqdan (the scribe who added vocalization marks) added rafe signs (e.g.,

‫ )ֿב‬for fricative ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants in many instances throughout the Hebrew

verses and in some of the instances in which he vocalized the Aramaic targum. I retained these signs in the text below where they appear in the manuscript. The naqdan’s vocalization system usually conforms with mt, but in several cases segol is used where mt features a pataḥ, or vice versa: Recto, Col. 1 line 12 ‫— ַא ֲע ֶשׂה‬mt ‫( ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה‬Hos 6:4) line 22 ‫—זָ ֶבח‬mt ‫—וְ ֶד ֶעת || זָ ַבח‬mt ‫( וְ ַד ַעת‬Hos 6:6) Recto, Col. 2 line 18 ‫—וָ ַא ְר ָח ֵצ֣ך‬mt ‫( וָ ֶא ְר ָח ֵצְ֣ך‬Ezek 16:9) Verso, Col. 1 line 4 ]‫שׁי‬ ֙ ִ [‫—[וָ ] ַ֙מ‬mt ‫שׁי‬ ֙ ִ ‫( וָ ֶ֙מ‬Ezek 16:13) line 12 ‫— ַבּ ֱה ָֿד ִר֙י‬mt ‫( ַבּ ֲה ָד ִר֙י‬Ezek 16:14) Verso, Col. 2 line 2 ‫—וַ ַיּ ִ֑הי‬mt ‫( וַ ֶיּ ִ֑הי‬Ezek 16:19) line 14 ‫— ַא ְב ַ ֣חר‬mt ‫( ֶא ְב ַ ֣חר‬Isa 66:4) This phenomenon suggests that the naqdan was influenced by a tradition that did not distinguish between segol and pataḥ—either in writing, as does the Babylonian vocalization system, or in speech, as is common in the traditional liturgical readings of Yemenite Jews.9 4

Textual Edition of H 12 Recto, Column 1

‫הוה ִ ֛כּי ֥ה]וּא ָט ָ ֖רף וְ יִ ְר ָפ ֵ ֑אנוּ‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫כוּ וְ נָ ֣שׁוּ]בה [ ֶאל־י‬ ֙ ‫[ ְל‬ ‫ ֵאיתוֹ וְ נתוב לפולחנא דיי֗ י ארי‬:‫[ ַי�ְ֖ך וְ יַ ְח] ְבּ ֵ ֽשׁנוּ‬ ‫תבר ינִ יח‬ ָ ‫יתי ְע ַלנא‬ ִ ‫מחנָ א יַ ֵסינָ א ֶוד ֶא‬ ֵ ‫הוא ִד‬ ‫ישׁי יְ ִק ֵ ֖מנוּ‬ ִ֔ ‫יוֹם ַה ְׁש ִל‬ ֙ ‫ יְ ַח ֵי֖נוּ ִמי ָ ֹ֑מיִ ם ַ ֥בּ‬:‫לנא‬

1 2 3 4

9 For a detailed list of orthographic, linguistic, and other variants in the Hebrew text, as well as a description of some aspects of the targumic text, consult the article of Viktor Golinets, “Manuscripts of the Former and the Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection,” included in this volume.

‫‪518‬‬

‫‪Gottlieb‬‬

‫עת ִידין‬ ‫וְ נִ ְח ֶי֥ה ְל ָפ ָנֽיו‪ :‬יַ חיֵ ינַ נָ א ליוֹמי נַ ָח ָמ ָתא ַד ִ‬ ‫ ‪5‬‬ ‫למיתי ביום ַא ָחיוּת מיתיא ִיק ִימנַ נָ א ונֵ ֵיחי line fill-in mark (cf. recto, col. I, line 6; col. 2, line 15; verso, col. 2, line 15) || line 5 ‫—ﭏי֗ ם‬Sperber ‫|| אלהים‬ line 7 ‫—שוחט‬Isa 66:3 || line 8 ‫—לבונה‬mt ‫|| ְלבֹנָ ה‬ line 9 ‫—גם ֯אלה‬mt ‫ם־ה ָמּה‬ ֵ֗ ַ‫ ;גּ‬the naqdan corrected text in direction of mt by not adding niqqud on ‫גם אלה‬, while adding the masoretic circular reference marker above the alef in ‫ ֯אלה‬, thus instructing to read as per right hand margin ‫|| ֵ֗ה ָמּה‬ line 10 ‫—אימר‬Sperber ‫|| אמר‬ line 12 ‫—אינון‬Sperber ‫|| אנון‬ line 13 ‫—ובשיקוציהון‬Sperber ‫|| ובשקוציהון‬ line 14 ‫אני‬-‫—גם‬Isa 66:4 || ‫לּול ֶיהם‬ ֵ ‫— ְבּ ַת ֲע‬mt ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫|| ְבּ ַת ֲע ֻל ֵל‬ line 15 ‫—ולא‬followed by ;> line fill-in mark (cf. recto, col. 1, line 6; col. 2, line 15; verso, col. 2, line 3) || line 17 ‫—איצבי‬Sperber ‫—ומימא || אצבי‬Sperber ‫|| וממא‬ line 18 ‫—שלחית‬Sperber ‫—נבייי || דשלחית‬Sperber ‫|| נביי‬ line 20 ‫—אתרעיאו‬followed by vacat to the end of line, corresponding with masoretic setumah || line 21 ‫—שמעו‬Isa 66:5 ||

524

Gottlieb

line 24 ‫—דמשתוון‬Sperber ‫|| דמשתון‬ line 27 ‫—וניחזי‬Sperber ‫—ואינון || ונחזי‬Sperber ‫—קול || ואנון‬Isa 66:6 || line 28 ‫— ֖קו֤ ל‬accompanied by two cantillation marks (tipḥa and mahpakh) to mt’s tipha || line 29 ‫—קלא‬Sperber ‫|| קל‬ line 31 ‫—גימלא‬Sperber ‫—לבעיל || גמלא‬Sperber ‫—בטרם || לבעלי‬Isa 66:7 || 6

Conclusions

P.Vindob. H 12 thus provides a vista to a world that was marginalized and ultimately vanished in wake of the Babylonian custom of Torah and haftarah reading. Its meticulous form and titles suggest that the codex of which our manuscript was originally part was meant for liturgical use in the synagogue, to be read from publicly, or to be read by an individual, to follow the public reading privately. The manuscript is a living preservation of the triennial cycle and of the practice of translating the haftarah into Aramaic during the public synagogue reading. A distinction is created in the manuscript between the Hebrew text and the Aramaic text via the careful use of Masoretic orthography, niqqud and cantillation throughout the Hebrew text, in contrast to the use of abbreviations and only partial niqqud for the accompanying Aramaic text. This is completely in line with the traditional requirement to preserve the elevated status of the Hebrew text over that of its translation. P.Vindob. H 12 also provides an example of how the secondary naqdan may serve as a proofreader and correct the text where needed. Notwithstanding the quantity of comments in the textual apparatus above, neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic text differ in principle from the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the traditional Targum Jonathan. The types of textual variants found in P.Vindob. H 12 are generally no different in character than those found in scores of other medieval manuscripts. Therefore, the text-critical value of this manuscript is similar to that of other typical medieval manuscripts.

P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from a Haftarah Book

525

Bibliography Loewinger, D. S., and Ernst Roth. “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Biblio­ theken Österreichs.” Part 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2. Edited by A. Z. Schwarz, D. S. Loewinger, and E. Roth. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Mann, Jacob, and Isaiah Sonne. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies. Vol. 2, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Leviticus and Numbers to Seder 106. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1966. Ofer, Yosef. Comprehensive list of haftarot according to the triennial cycle: https:// faculty.biu.ac.il/~ofery/papers/Haftarot%203%20years%20_%20Ofer2016.xls. Ofer, Yosef, “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographa.” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 155–89 (in Hebrew). Rozenthal, David. The Cairo Geniza Collection in Geneva: Catalogue and Studies. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2010. Shweka, Aharon, Yaacov Choeka, Lior Wolf, and Nachum Dershowitz. “Automatic Computerized Identification of Handwriting and Matching of Genizah Fragments.” Ginzei Qedem 7 (2011): 171–207 (in Hebrew). Sperber, Alexander, ed., The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Vol. 3, The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Leiden: Brill, 1962.

Chapter 18

Manuscripts of the Former and the Latter Prophets in the Vienna Papyrus Collection Viktor Golinets The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library in Vienna houses over two hundred manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic languages.1 Most of the manuscripts were purchased by the collection founder Archduke Rainer in 1883, 1890, and 1899, while some were acquired in the second half of the twentieth century.2 The manuscripts come from Egypt and are associated with the Cairo Genizah, partly because Rainer obtained the manuscripts shortly after the Genizah’s discovery.3 However, in the old correspon1 Publications dealing with these manuscripts are listed in Nehemiah Allony and D. S. Loewinger, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Libraries of Austria and Germany, vol. 1 of List of Photocopies in the Institute (Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education and Culture, 1957), 8; Shaul Shaked, A Tentative Bibliography of Genizah Documents, Études juives 5 (Paris: Mouton, 1964), 234–36; Walter Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek,” Anzeiger der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 117 (1980): 62–69 (63 n. 8). The published Judeo-Arabic manuscripts are listed in Lucian Reinfandt, “Handlist of Published Arabica from the Vienna Papyrus Collection (Austrian National Library),” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 97 (2007): 367–411 (380). A number of manuscripts are briefly described in Armin Lange and Bernhard Palme, eds., Kinder Abrahams: Die Bibel in Judentum, Christentum und Islam, Nilus: Studien zur Kultur Ägyptens und des Vorderen Orients 21 (Vienna: Phoibos, 2014), 83–86, 95–99. 2 Helene Loebenstein, “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren,” in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), ed. H. Loebenstein et al., 2 vols. (Vienna: Hollinek, 1983) 1:3–39 (32–33). The oldest acquisitions are described in Josef Karabacek, “Arabische Abteilung,” in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Führer durch die Ausstellung (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1984), 131–278, nos. 816, 829, 876, 877, 878, 881, 1120, 1121, 1143, 1151, 1177, and 1242. 3 David H. Müller and David Kaufmann, “Der Brief eines aegyptischen Rabbi an den Gaon [Salomo] Ben Jehuda,” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 5 (1982): 127–32 (127): “Nebst den hebräischen Papyrusfragmenten, welche in diesen Mittheilungen, Bd. I, S. 38 ff. kurz besprochen worden sind und die seither aus dem inzwischen geordneten Materiale an Zahl zugenommen haben, befindet sich auch in der erzherzoglichen Sammlung eine kleine Collection von hebräischen Manuscriptfragmenten, die anderer Provenienz sind und wahrscheinlich aus einer Synagoge in Alt-Kairo stammen.”

© Viktor Golinets, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_020

Manuscripts of the Prophets

527

dence connected with the acquisition of the Hebrew papyri, Fayum is always mentioned.4 Nehemiah Allony reviewed the description history of the collection and pointed out that the exact provenance of this material within Egypt cannot be determined.5 It is possible that Fayum was considered pars par toto as the place of origin of all manuscripts because many of the other papyri of the Rainer Collection originate from Fayum. The present paper studies the manuscripts of the Former and the Latter Prophets. The library’s catalog numbers of these fragments are P.Vindob. H 12, H 122, H 142, H 153, and H 173. These manuscripts are mentioned in the descriptions by Allony and Loewinger, by Schwarz, Loewinger and Roth, and by Kornfeld,6 but only one of them—P.Vindob. H 122—has yet been extensively described.7 The library descriptions of these five manuscripts as well as links to the photos of the manuscripts are accessible on the National Library of Austria internet page.8 The photos of all manuscripts of the collection are also accessible through the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society project.9 The following discussion presents the five manuscripts and describes their content as well as their textual and grammatical features. It compares their texts with those of the Aleppo (mtA), Cairo (mtC),10 and Leningrad (mtL) codices. I examined the manuscripts in person in the Austrian National Library on March 23–24, 2017.11

4 5

6

7 8 9 10 11

Loebenstein, “Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer,” 33. Nehemiah Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” in Loebenstein et al., P. Rainer Cent., 1:229–47 (229–31). See further on the issue of provenance, Bernhard Palme, “The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts,” in this volume. Allony and Loewinger, Hebrew Manuscripts, 9–16; D. S. Loewinger and Ernst Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs,” pt. 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2, ed. A. Z. Schwarz et al., Texts and Studies 4 (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973); Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente.” By Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” 233–37. See the references given at the beginning of every manuscript description. https://fjms.genizah.org. That is, the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, no. 34 in the list of Richard Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” jqr 17 (1905): 609–55. I am indebted to the staff members of the Papyrussammlung, Ms. C. Jakauby and Ms. A. Donau, as well as the head of the collection Prof. Dr. Bernhard Palme for their assistance during my stay in the library. I thank D. Ross Teasler for proofreading and valuable comments.

528 1

Golinets

Manuscript P.Vindob. H 12

References for the manuscript: Library description and photos: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00001100. Short description: Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Hand­schrif­ ten,” 59–60, no. 20.12

Figure 18.1

12

P.Vindob. H 12, recto, Hos 6:1–11; 10:12; Ezek 16:9–12a

For a transcription and edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, see the paper of Leeor Gottlieb, “P.Vindob. H 12: A Page from an Haftarah Book in the Vienna Papyrus Collection,” included in this volume.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

Figure 18.2

529

P.Vindob. H 12, verso, Ezek 16:12b–19; Isa 66:3–7

1.1 Description of the Manuscript This is a single page of a parchment codex. Page size is 33.1 × 28.3 cm. The text is written in two columns with thirty-one lines in a column. The size of the ruled column is 9 × 25.1 cm. The text size within a column is 9.5 × 25.3 cm. Some letters, vocalization, and accentuation signs have been renewed with black ink. The page is torn on the left, right, and top edges and has holes and stains. The fragment contains haftarot texts from the books of Hosea (6:1b–11 and 10:12), Ezekiel (16:9–19), and Isaiah (66:3–7a) with their targum. The right column of the recto side (flesh side of the parchment) contains Hos 6:1b–9. The left column contains Hos 6:10–11; 10:12; Ezek 16:9–12a. The targum of Hos 6:9

530

Golinets

and the Hebrew text of Hos 6:10 are almost completely lost because of the ‎ ‫ׁשּובי ְׁש ֥בּו‬ lacuna. The words ‫ת‬ ֖ ִ ‫ ְּב‬of Hos 10:11 are lost because the ink has etched the parchment away, and only vocalization signs have remained. The text of Ezekiel is preceded by the superscription ‫“( ואשה כי יזוב ביחזקﭏ‬if a woman has a discharge / in Ezekiel”). The first three words are a citation from Lev 15:25, and they introduce the haftarah from Ezek 16:9–14, which is one of the haftarah texts to Lev 15:25–16:34 (seder 88) according to the triennial reading cycle used in the Land of Israel.13 A seder sign is put in the intercolumnar space opposite to the Hebrew superscription. The right column of the verso side (hair side of the parchment) contains Ezek 16:13–19a. The Hebrew text of verse 13 is partly preserved, while the second part of verse 12 and its targum are lost. The left column contains Ezek 16:19b and Isa 66:3–7a. The words ‫“( אשר ישחט בישעיה‬one that slaughters / in Isaiah”) precede the text of Isaiah. The first two words are a citation from Lev 17:3. They introduce the text from Isaiah 66, which is the haftarah to the section Lev 17:1–16 (seder 89) according to the triennial reading cycle.14 The Hebrew and the Aramaic texts feature Standard Tiberian vocalization and accentuation. Originally, the Hebrew text was neither vocalized nor accentuated. The original text is written in brownish ink. Another hand has added vocalization signs in the Hebrew text, using black ink. The same hand has also partly re-inked the Hebrew text. The targum text is partly vocalized. This vocalization is original. The most striking feature of the targum text are several Babylonian vocalization signs (see section 1.3.2 below). The Hebrew text of H 12 exhibits a number of variants as compared with the vocalization and accentuation of other manuscripts of the Tiberian tradition, such as the Aleppo, Cairo, and Leningrad codices.15 Some of these variants touch upon the content, others are merely graphic, while still others document phonetic variations in the pronunciation tradition. These three types of variants are described in the following section. 13

14 15

Cf. Jacob Mann and Isaiah Sonne, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Leviticus and Numbers to Seder 106, vol. 2 of The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1966), 80, and Charles Perrot, “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder, crint 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 137–59, for the haftarot texts of this section (142). According to Mann and Sonne, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle, 88, and Perrot, “The Reading of the Bible,” 142, the haftarah text is Isa 66:1–11. See Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Aleppo Codex (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1976); D. S. Loewinger, ed., Codex Cairo of the Bible (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971); David Noel Freedman, ed., The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

Manuscripts of the Prophets

531

1.2 Variants of the Consonantal Text Variants with Regard to the Content 1.2.1 Isaiah 66:3 features ketiv/qere variance unattested in other manuscripts: ‫אלה‬ and ‎‫ ֵ֗ה ָּמה‬. A proper qere note corrects here the erroneous form. In contrast, there is no ketiv/qere variance in Ezek 16:18, and the form ‫“( נָ ַת ִ ֖תי‬I have given”)16 differs from ketiv ‎‫ נתתי‬and qere ‫ּת‬ ‎ ְ ‫ נָ ַ ֖ת‬of other manuscripts like Aleppo and Leningrad codices.17 The first-person singular form ‫נָ ַת ִ ֖תי‬, however, semantically does not fit the context. The form should be third person feminine, as the qere has it. The perception of the form as first singular may have been triggered by the preceding nominal singular forms ‫י‬‎ ִ‫“( וְ ַׁש ְמנ‬my oil”) and ‫י‬‎‫“( ְּוק ָט ְר ִּת‬and my incense”). Ezek 16:13 has no qere note, while the vocalization of the verb ‫י‬‎‫ָא ָכ ְל ְּת‬ (“you have eaten”) as second person feminine singular corresponds to the note ‫“( יתיר י‬superfluous yod”) of mtA and mtC, and to the qere of mtL. Hosea 6:5 features the form ‫“( ִּומ ְׁש ָּפ ַ ֖טיִ ְך‬and your judgments”) with the feminine pronoun, but manuscripts like Aleppo, Leningrad and Cairo codices have ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ֶ ֖טיָך‬ ִ with the masculine pronoun. The feminine pronoun has no antecedent in this context. The original form of this biblical passage was ‫אֹור‬ ‎‎‎ ‫ִּומ ְׁש ָּפ ִטי ָכ‬ (“and my judgment as light”).18 1.2.2 Graphic Variants The consonantal text features one case of plene spelling (‎‫ֹֿבונה‬ ֖ ָ ‫ ְל‬Isa 66:3) and two cases of defective spelling (‎‫ ע ֵ ֹ֖בר‬Ezek 16:15 and ‫ת‬ ‎ ‫ ְט ֻל ֔ ֹא‬in 16:16). The sign rafe is marked unsystematically. The sign shewa is sometimes not indicated in the final letter kaf: ‫ וָ ֶא ְר ָח ֵצ֣ך‬and ‎‫ ֵ ֽמ ָע ָל֑יִ ך‬in Ezek 16:9; ‎‫ וָ ֶאנְ ֲע ֵ ֖לך‬and ‎‫וַ ֲא ַכ ֵ ּ֖סך‬ (16:10); ‎‫( יָ ַ ֔דיִ ך‬16:11); ‎‫( ַא ֵּ֔פך‬16:12); ‫ך‬‎ ‫ ָ ֥ל‬and ‎‫( ְּביָ ְפֵי�֑ך‬16:14); ‫ך‬‎ ‫( ְּביָ ְפ ֵ֔י‬16:15); ‎‫( ִמ ְּבגָ ַ ֗דיִ ך‬16:16); ‫ְך‬‎ ‫֔ ָל‬ and ‎‫( ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֵּ֗תך‬16:17); ‫( ִר ְק ָמ ֵ ֖תך‬16:18). Since the vocalization has been added by the second hand, the missing signs on final letters should be considered as a slip of the vocalizer. This explanation gains strength from the fact that shewa is also present in final kaf in words attested in the same verse: ‫ְך‬‎ ִ‫ ָּד ַ ֖מי‬and ‎‫ וָ ֲא ֻס ֵ ֖כְך‬in Ezek 16:9; ‫ְך‬‎ ‫יׁש‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ וָ ַא ְל ִּב‬and ‫ְך‬‎ ‫ׁש‬ ֣ ֵ ‫( וָ ֶא ְח ְּב‬16:10); ‫ְך‬‎ ‫ וָ ֶא ְע ֵ ּ֖ד‬and ‫ְך‬‎ ֽ�‫רֹונ‬ ֵ ְ‫( ּג‬16:11); ‫ְך‬‎ ִ‫( ָע ֔ ַלי‬16:14); ‫ְך‬‎ ‫ ְׁש ֵ ֑מ‬and ‫ְך‬‎ ִ‫נּותי‬ ֛ ַ ְ‫( ַּתז‬16:15); ‫ְך‬‎֙ ‫( ָל‬16:16); ‫ְך‬‎ ‫( ָ ֖ל‬16:17). These observations help to understand other deviations from the standard vocalization patterns.

16 17 18

Dageš is missing in the second taw. The note in the Cairo codex has ‫יתי י‬ ֗ “superfluous yod.” See Christian D. Ginsburg, ‫ מדויק היטב על פי המסורה ועל פי דפוסים‬.‫נביאים אחרונים‬ ‫( ראשונים עם חלופים והגהות מן כתבי יד עתיקים ותרגומים ישנים‬London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1911); Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997); and Anthony Gelston, ed., The Twelve Minor Prophets, bhq 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), ad loc.

532

Golinets

Other deviations include: missing deḥiq, superfluous dageš, and missing dageš. Deḥiq19 is missing in lamed in ‫ה־ל ָֿ֙ך‬ ְ ‫ ַא ֲע ֶׂש‬and ‫ה־ל ֿ ָ֖ך‬ ְ ‫( ֶא ֶע ֶׂש‬Hos 6:4). A superfluous dageš (if it is not a deḥiq) is attested in the letter bet following a final vowel of a word with a conjunctive accent: ‫( וַ ִּת ְב ְט ִ ֣חי ְּב ְיָפ ֵ֔יְך‬Ezek 16:15). Dageš lene is missing in begadkefat letters after a consonant: ‫ל־כן‬ ֵ֗ ‫( ַע‬Hos 6:5); ‫י‬‎‫( ָה ַר ֙ע ְב ֵע ַ֔ינ‬Isa 66:4); ‫וָ ֶא ְר ָח ֵצְ֣ך ַב ַּ֔מיִ ם‬ (Ezek 16:9); ‫( ַּבּגֹויִ ֖ם ְּביָ ְפֵי�ְ֑ך‬16:14); ‫י‬‎‫( וַ ִּת ְׁש ְפ ִ ֧כ‬16:15). Dageš forte is missing in many places and in different grammatical forms. Since it is present in corresponding positions in other words, the absence of this sign cannot depend on the morphology of the forms. There is also no phonetic reason for the omission of gemination.20 Due to these considerations, I list the following cases of missing dageš as graphic variants. It should also be considered that some dots may be indiscernible due to ink wear. 1.2.2.1 Missing Dageš after the Article P.Vindob. H 12 Isa 66:3 Hos 6:3 Hos 6:4 Hos 6:5 Ezek 16:9 Ezek 16:10

‫ ַה ֶׂש ֙ה‬‎ ‫ ַכגֶ֙ ֶׁש ֙ם‬‎ ‫וְ ַכ ַ ֖טל‬‎ ‫יאים‬ ִ֔ ‫ ַּבנְ ִב‬‎ ‫ ַב ַ֔מיִ ם‬‎ ‫ ַּב ֵׁ֔שׁש‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ַה ֶּׂש ֙ה‬‎ ‫ ַכּגֶ֙ ֶׁש ֙ם‬‎ ‫וְ ַכ ַ ּ֖טל‬‎ ‫יאים‬ ִ֔ ‫ ַּבּנְ ִב‬‎ ‫ ַּב ַּ֔מיִ ם‬‎ ‫ ַּב ֵּׁ֔שׁש‬‎

1.2.2.2 Missing Dageš after the Preposition ‫ִמן‬ P.Vindob. H 12 Ezek 16:17

19 20

‫ ִמזְ ָה ִ ֤בי‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ִמּזְ ָה ִ ֤בי‬‎

Cf. Viktor Golinets, “Dageš,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. G. Khan et al., 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1:649–54 (652–54) about this sign. For cases of the omission of gemination for phonetic reasons in the Leningrad codex see Viktor Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis,” kusatu 15 (2013): 233–63 (237–47).

533

Manuscripts of the Prophets

1.2.2.3 Missing Dageš in the Nominal Form P.Vindob. H 12 Hos 6:8

mtA, mtC, mtL

‫ ֲע ֻק ָ ֖בה‬‎

‫ ֲע ֻק ָ ּ֖בה‬‎

1.2.2.4 Missing Dageš in Verbal Forms P.Vindob. H 12 Hos 6:2 Hos 6:9 Ezek 16:17 Ezek 16:18

mtA, mtC, mtL

‫יְ ַח ֵי֖נּו‬‎ ‫יְ ַר ְצחּו‬ ‫נָ ַ ֣ת ִתי‬‎ ‫וַ ְּת ַכ ִ ֑סים‬‎

‫יְ ַח ֵּי֖נּו‬ ‫יְ ַר ְּצחּו‬ ‫נָ ַ ֣ת ִּתי‬‎ ‫וַ ְּת ַכ ִ ּ֑סים‬‎

1.2.2.5 Missing Dageš in wa-yyiqtol P.Vindob. H 12 Ezek 16:16 Ezek 16:17 Ezek 16:18

‫וַ ִתזְ ִנ֖י‬‎ ‫וַ ֲת ֲע ִׂשי־‬‎ ‫וַ ִת ְק ִ ֛חי‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫וַ ִּתזְ ִנ֖י‬‎ ‫וַ ַּת ֲע ִׂשי־‬‎ ‫וַ ִּת ְק ִ ֛חי‬‎

In only one instance, the form ‫( ַּבנְ ִב ִ֔יאים‬Hos 6:5; see 1.2.2.1), is it possible that the omission of the gemination of the consonant with shewa after the article may have a phonetic explanation. This feature is regularly attested in the Standard Tiberian system21 and in the Codex Reuchlinianus.22 All other cases of missing dageš and deḥiq, as well as superfluous dageš, are errors of the vocalizer.

21 22

Cf. forms like ‫ה‬ ‎ ‫ׁשּוע‬ ָ ְ‫ ַהי‬, ‫ם‬ ‎ ִ‫ ַה ְלוִ ּי‬, ‫ת‬ ‎ ‫ ַה ְמזַ ְּמרֹו‬, ‫ת‬ ‎ ‫ ַהנְ ַׁשּמֹו‬, ‫ם‬ ‎‎ ‫( ַה ְק ַט ִּנ֑י‬Isa 36:9 in mtL), ‎‫וְ ַ ֽה ְׁש ַפ ַּ֗תיִ ם‬ (Ezek 40:43 in mtL and mss in Ginsburg, ‫)נביאים אחרונים‬, ‫ וְ ַ ֽה ֲׁש ַפ ַּ֗תיִ ם‬in mtA and mtC; cf. Golinets, “Dageš,” 651. Shlomo Morag, “The Vocalisation of the Codex Reuchlinianus: Is the ‘Pre-Masoretic’ Bible Pre-Masoretic?” jsj 4 (1959): 216–37 (229).

534

Golinets

1.2.3 Phonetic Variants There are examples of several types of vowel variation. The question arises whether this variation is also due to errors, as in section 1.2.2, or if it reflects pronunciation divergent from the Standard Tiberian. Segol instead of ṣere appears once in the participle ‫ה‬‎ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ֤ל‬in the construct state (Isa 66:3). This interchange often appears in Genizah manuscripts,23 and it is a typical feature of the Extended Tiberian vocalization system.24 Since this type of variation as well as other striking features of the Extended Tiberian system are not attested in this manuscript,25 an error or confusion with the vocalization of the form in absolute state is the best explanation for this example of the interchange. Other instances of vowel interchange can be assigned to the following types. 1.2.3.1

Full Vowel Instead of a Ḥatef P.Vindob. H 12

Isa 66:3 Hos 6:4 Hos 6:5

‫ ַח ִ֔זיר‬‎ ‫ה־ּל ֿ ָ֖ך‬ ְ ‫ ֶא ֶע ֶׂש‬‎ ‫ ַה ַרגְ ִ ּ֖תים‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ֲח ִ֔זיר‬

a‎‫ה־ּל ֿ ָ֖ך‬ ְ ‫ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶׂש‬

‫ ֲה ַרגְ ִ ּ֖תים‬‎

a Without meteg in MTA and MTL, and without rafe in MTL.

1.2.3.2

Ḥatef Instead of a Full Vowel P.Vindob. H 12

Ezek 16:10 Ezek 16:17

23

24 25

‫יׁשְך‬ ֣ ֵ ‫וָ ֲא ְל ִּב‬‎ ‫ ֲַּת ֲע ִׂשי‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫יׁשְך‬ ֣ ֵ ‫וָ ַא ְל ִּב‬‎ ‫וַ ַּת ֲע ִׂשי־‬

Rebecca J. W. Jefferson, “Vocalization of Medieval Hebrew Poetry,” in Khan et al., Encyclopedia, 3:937–39 (937); Samuel Blapp, “The Non-Standard Tiberian Hebrew Language Tradition according to Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah,” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2017), secs. 4.3.2, 5.3.2, 6.3.2, 9.3.2, and 10.1.2. This system is also called “Palestino-Tiberian.” Cf. Shai Heijmans, “Vocalization, PalestinoTiberian,” in Khan et al., Encyclopedia, 3:967–71. E.g., there is no interchange between pataḥ and qamaṣ. This interchange (see Blapp, NonStandard Tiberian, secs. 4.3.1, 5.3.1, 6.3.1, 7.3.1, 8.3.1, 9.3.1, and 10.1.1) together with the interchange between ṣere and segol is the most prominent feature of the Extended Tiberian vocalization system.

535

Manuscripts of the Prophets

The interchange between a full vowel and ḥatef may have arisen as a result of confusion of signs for marking short vowels. Since this interchange is also attested in other biblical manuscripts,26 it may also represent phonetic variance. 1.2.3.3

Segol Instead of Pataḥ P.Vindob. H 12 ‫ ַּב ֱה ָד ִר֙י‬‎ ‫ ָז ֶ֑בח‬‎‎ ‫וְ ֶ ֥ד ֶעת‬‎

Ezek 16:14 Hos 6:6 Hos 6:6

mtA, mtC, mtL a‫ַ ּֽב ֲה ָד ִר֙י‬

‫ ָז ַ֑בח‬‎ ‫וְ ַ ֥ד ַעת‬‎‎

a Without meteg in mtA.

1.2.3.4

Pataḥ Instead of Segol P.Vindob. H 12

Isa 66:4 Ezek 16:9 Ezek 16:10 Ezek 16:11 Ezek 16:13 Ezek 16:19 Hos 6:4

‫ ַא ְב ַ ֣חר‬‎ ‫וָ ַא ְר ָח ֵצ֣ך‬ ‫וָ ַאנְ ֲע ֵל֖ך‬‎ ‫וָ ַא ְע ֵ ּ֖דְך‬‎ a‎‫ַׁשי‬ ִָ֙ ‫וַ ַּי ִ֑הי‬‎ ‫ה־ל ָֿ֙ך‬ ְ ‫ ַא ֲע ֶׂש‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ֶא ְב ַ ֣חר‬‎ ‫וָ ֶא ְר ָח ֵצְ֣ך‬ ‫וָ ֶאנְ ֲע ֵלְ֖ך‬‎ ‫וָ ֶא ְע ֵ ּ֖דְך‬‎ ‫ׁשי‬ ֙ ִ ‫֙ ָו ֶמ‬‎ ‫וַ ֶּי ִ֑הי‬‎ b‎‫ה־ּל ָֿ֙ך‬ ְ ‫ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶׂש‬

a The letters waw, mem, and a part of šin, as well as the stroke of pašta above mem are missing because of the lacuna in the parchment. Only the vowel signs are preserved. b Without rafe in mtL.

The interchange between pataḥ and segol has phonetic reasons, because it goes in both directions, and morphological distribution of forms is clearly attested. In five cases in H 12 where pataḥ is used instead of segol, the vowel /a/ appears in a closed unstressed syllable: /ʾaḇḥár/, /wā-ʾarḥāṣḗḵ/, /wā-ʾanʿălḗḵ/, /wā-ʾaʿdḗḵ/, /ʾaʿăśɛ-lĕḵā́/. Such forms suggest that pataḥ represents the original /a/ vowel. This vowel belongs to the underlying morphological form yaqtol 26

See examples in Viktor Golinets, “Die Biblia Hebraica Quinta und ihre Behandlung des Textbefundes masoretischer Handschriften,” kusatu 21 (2016): 75–99 (82–85).

536

Golinets

(respectively yaqtal, yaqtil), while /ɛ/—represented by segol—is an umlaut of short /a/. This explanation is also applicable to the forms ‫ַׁשי‬ ֙ ִ ָ /wā-mášī/ and /wa-yyáhī/, with stressed short /a/. There are also cases in mtL where segol marks a reduced vowel in closed stressed syllables, where other manuscripts vocalize with pataḥ: ‫ן‬‎‫ וְ ֶע ְר ֑מֹו‬compared with ‫( וְ ַע ְר ֑מֹון‬Gen 30:37);27‎ ‫ ֶמ ְח ַּב ְר ּ֑תֹו‬compared with ‎‫( ַמ ְח ַּב ְר ּ֑תֹו‬Exod 39:20);28 ‫י‬‎‫ף־ּב‬ ֖ ִ ֶ‫ ִה ְת ַאּנ‬compared with ‫י‬‎‫ף־ּב‬ ֖ ִ ַ‫( ִה ְת ַאּנ‬Deut 4:21).29 In the forms ‫ ָז ֶ֑בח‬and ‫וְ ֶ ֥ד ֶעת‬, the segol represents an anaptyctic vowel of segolate forms. This vowel on ʿayin and before ḥet is marked by pataḥ in the Standard Tiberian vocalization system. The segol in ‫ ָז ֶ֑בח‬and ‫ וְ ֶ ֥ד ֶעת‬cannot be a standardized graphic form for marking this vowel because there is no other evidence for such a standardized form of segolate noun vocalization. A phonological explanation is preferable. Here, the segol represents a short vowel whose quality is comparable to /ă/ but is less distinct. There is no reason to regard the sounds represented in this manuscript by the signs pataḥ and segol as identical, because they are employed in the majority of cases according to the rules of the Standard Tiberian vocalization system. 1.2.4 Variants in Accentuation There are slight variations in accentuation. They are negligible and may have occurred due to inattention of the scribe. P.Vindob. H 12 Isa 66:3 Isa 66:4 Hos 6:3

27

28 29 30

‫ ֶּ֔כ ֶל ֖ב‬‎ ‫ֿתי‬ ֙ ִ ‫ ָק ָר ֿא‬‎ ‫ ָל ַד ַע ֙ת‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ֶּ֔כ ֶלב‬‎ 30‫תי‬ ֙ ִ ‫ ָק ָ֙ר ֿא‬‎ ‫ ָל ַ ֙ד ַע ֙ת‬‎‎

In the Pentateuch manuscripts: National Library of Russia, shelf mark ebr. I B 17 (dated 929); Jewish National and University Library, shelf mark Heb. Quart. 5702 (tenth century; D. S. Loewinger, ed., The Damascus Pentateuch, Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1 (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1978); British Library Or 4445 (http://www.bl.uk/ manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_4445; second, Yemenite hand of 1540); see also variants in the mss collated by Christian D. Ginsburg, ‫ מדויק היטב על‬.‫חמשה חומשי תורה‬ ‫פי המסורה ועל פי דפוסים ראשונים עם חלופים והגהות מן כתבי יד עתיקים ותרגומים ישנים‬ (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1908). Heb. Quart. 5702; British Library Or 4445 (first hand, tenth century); see also variants in the mss collated by Ginsburg for his edition ‫חמשה חומשי תורה‬. ebr. I B 17; Heb. Quart. 5702; British Library Or 4445 (second, Yemenite hand of 1540); see also variants in the mss collated by Ginsburg for his edition ‫חמשה חומשי תורה‬. In mtA and mtC, rafe is put between the letters ʾalef and taw.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

537

1.2.5 Variants in the Use of Meteg The forms ‫ל‬‎ ‫יכ‬ ֑ ָ ‫( ֵמ ֵה‬Isa 66:6), ‎‫מֹוצ ֑אֹו‬ ָ (Hos 6:3), ‎‫( ַּכ ֲענַ ן־ ּ֔בֹ ֶקר‬Hos 6:4) have no meteg in the first syllable. This is also the case in the Aleppo codex, while the Cairo and the Leningrad codices feature this sign: ‫ל‬‎ ‫יכ‬ ֑ ָ ‫ ֵ ֽמ ֵה‬, ‫ֹו‬‎‫ֹוצ ֑א‬ ָ ‫ ֽמ‬, ‫ר‬‎ ‫ ַ ּֽכ ֲענַ ן־ ּ֔בֹ ֶק‬. 1.3

Remarks on the Targum Text

1.3.1 Graphic Features – There are a number of plene spellings for short vowels. For /ĭ/: ‫( גִ ימלא‬Isa 66:6); ‫( ציבענין‬Ezek 16:10); ‫ן‬‎‫ תיקו‬and ‎‫( פיתגמי‬Ezek 16:11); ‫ף‬‎ ‫( נִ ירדו‬Hos 6:3); ‫א‬‎ ‫חיסד‬ and ‫ח‬‎ ‫( מיּדידּב‬Hos 6:6); ‎‫ עיבידו‬and ‎‫( עידן‬Hos 10:12)‎. For /ŭ/: ‫( בשופריך‬Ezek 16:14, 15); )‫( לפולחנ(א‬Ezek 16:19; Hos 6:1; 10:12). – There is a triple yod in ‎‫“( נביייא‬the prophets”; Hos 10:12) and ‎‫“( נבייי‬my prophets”; Isa 66:4). – The Tetragrammaton is rendered by ‫( יי̇ י‬Hos 6:1, 3; Ezek 16:14, 19; Isa 66:5, 6). – ‎‫ אלהים‬is shortened to ‫( ﭏי̇ ם‬Ezek 16:14, 19). – The verb ‫ יאמרון‬of Hos 6:1 has been omitted and then supplemented in the right margin. There is a circellus at the beginning of the verse, referring to the qere. – In Hos 6:6, the beginning of the Hebrew verse is indicated: ‫ן‬‎‫על כ‬. – Hos 6:10 has a qere note in the left margin. It reads ‫ו‬‎‫שנ‬, which corrects the form ‎‫ ְׁשני‬. The latter form is lost because of a damage in the line, and only traces of what may be the remaining parts of the letters yod and nun are discernible. – The designations ‫ם‬‎ ‫ דבית אפרי‬and ‫( דבית יהודה‬Hos 6:4) are abbreviated as ‎‫דבית‬ ̇ ‫דבית‬, respectively. ‫ם‬ ‎ ‫ בית אפרי‬and the second occurrence of ‫ל‬‎ ‫בית יׁשרא‬ ‫אפ‬ ̇ and ‫יהו‬ in Hos 6:10 are abbreviated as ‫בית אפ‬ ̇ (with a dot above the taw) and ‎‫יש‬ ̇ ‫בית‬, respectively. – In Hos 6:10, the relative particle is written before the subject: ‫יש‬ ‎ ̇ ‫אסתאבו דבית‬ (“those of the House of Israel became unclean”). This variant is not attested in the manuscripts collated by Sperber for his edition.31 Another parallel subject in the verse is construed without the particle. The reading ‫יש‬ ̇ ‫דבית‬ may be an error, but it also may be an intentional variant in order to diversify the form of expression.

31

Alexander Sperber, ed., The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1962).

538

Golinets

1.3.2 Linguistic Features As mentioned above, the targum text features some Babylonian vocalization signs. The following signs are discernible: waw for /ŭ/ above the ʿayin of ‎‫צבענין‬ (Ezek 16:10); waw for /ū/ above the ʾalef of ‎‫( אנוסין‬Hos 6:8); two dots for /ē/ above the first yod of ‎‫( איתיתי‬Hos 6:5). These vocalizations are also attested in other manuscripts of the targum.32 There is also a blurred sign above the nun of ‫ק‬‎ ‫( נפי‬Hos 6:5), and there is a dot above the yod of this word. According to the rules of Babylonian vocalization of Aramaic, the sign for the vowel /ē/ composed of two dots is expected in the latter position. The word ‫( מיּדידּבח‬Hos 6:6) features a clumsily written Babylonian vocalization sign above the second dalet. Due to the lack of another example for comparison, this sign could be considered both as pataḥ and as qamaṣ. The parallel existence of a Babylonian vocalization sign and the Tiberian dageš is problematic, and the correlation between the two is not clear. Did they enter the text at the same time? If yes, should they then be read together, or does each of them hint at a different form? Could the vocalization sign—if it is a qamaṣ—indicate that the form is participle, while the dageš (together with pataḥ) indicates the notion of the form either as dabbaḥ (“sacrifice”) or dabbāḥ (“one who sacrifices”)? The second explanation is rather improbable because the forms dabbaḥ and dabbāḥ are not attested in Jewish Aramaic, and the context of the verse and the parallelism with other verbal forms demand the participle dābaḥ. The vocalization as participle is attested in other manuscripts.33 The suffix pronoun of the third person plural on verb ‫ן‬‎‫“( ושליטתנו‬I have made them rule”; Ezek 16:13) is written in the full form ‫נון‬-, while the short form ‫ון‬- is attested on other three verbs in the same verse: ‫ן‬‎‫“( ועתרתו‬I have made them rich”), ‫ן‬‎‫“( ותקיפתו‬I have made them powerful”), and ‫ן‬‎‫“( ואצלחתו‬I have made them succeed”). The full form is also attested in ‫ן‬‎‫“( וכסיתינו‬you have covered them”) and ‫ן‬‎‫“( ויהבתינו‬you have given to them”) in verses 18 and 19. Double waw indicates the consonantal status of the letter: ‫דמשתוַ ון‬ ִ (Isa 66:5); ‫ן‬‎‫וטבוָ ותכו‬ ַ (Hos 6:4); ‫ן‬‎‫( ַעלוָ ו‬Hos 6:6); ‫ת‬ ‎ ‫( גלוו‬Hos 6:11); ‫ן‬‎‫( זָ ְכוָ ו‬Hos 10:12).

32 33

Cf. Sperber, Latter Prophets, 293, 395. In Hos 6:8, the vowel is /ō/ in the manuscripts collated by Sperber, ibid., 396. Sperber, Latter Prophets. While the manuscripts have the participle of the basic stem, the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice 1524/1525) and the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (1571) feature the participle paʿel ‫מדבח‬.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

2

539

Manuscript P.Vindob. H 122

References for the manuscript: Library description and photos: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00001208. Description: Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” 233–37. Short description: Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften,” 59, no. 19; Bernhard Dolna, “Kat.-Nr. 45: Sammelhandschrift mit Haftarot und Kommentaren,” in Lange and Palme, Kinder Abrahams, 112, no. 45. Photos: P. Rainer Cent., 2 (Tafelband): fol. 1r: pl. 35; fols. 5r and 6r: pl. 34. 2.1 Description of the Manuscript This is a haftarot manuscript with commentaries on the haftarot by Rashi, Rabbi Hoshayah, Yonah ibn Janaḥ, and Rabbi Tanḥum.34 The latter two commentaries are written in Judeo-Arabic. The commentary of Rashi was partly edited by Allony;35 the commentary of Hoshayah was fully edited by Allony.36 The present edition treats only the biblical text. Six bifolia (twelve pages) of this paper manuscript are preserved. Pages have stains and holes. Page size is 14.5–14.9 × 11.2 cm. Text area size is 7.5 × 9.9 cm. The biblical text is written in a single column, with twelve lines per page, on the first six pages (fol. 1r/v to 3r/v). The commentary section begins on fol. 4r, unvocalized and in a different hand. The vocalization and accentuation of the biblical text are Standard Tiberian. Some of the vowel and accent signs were restored by a second hand. This restoration of signs is discernible particularly clearly on fol. 2r. The manuscript contains three sections of the biblical text: fol. 1r: Josh 1:11b; 6:27; 1 Kgs 18:46–19:2a; fol. 1v: 1 Kgs 19:2b–7a; fol. 2r:37 1 Kgs 19:7b–11a; fol. 2v: 1 Kgs 19:11b–14a; fol. 3r: 1 Kgs 19:14b–18a; fol. 3v: 1 Kgs 19:18b–21.

34 35 36 37

Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” pp. 233–37. Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” p. 234. Allony, “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology,” pp. 235–36. At the lower part of the page, the original text was erased, and a new text, probably the corrected version of the biblical text, was written above it.

540

FIGURE 18.3

Golinets

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 1r, Josh 1:11b; 6:27; 1 Kgs 18:46–19:2a

Manuscripts of the Prophets

FIGURE 18.4

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 1v, 1 Kgs 19:2b–7a

541

542

FIGURE 18.5

Golinets

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 2r, 1 Kgs 19:7b–11a

Manuscripts of the Prophets

FIGURE 18.6

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 2v, 1 Kgs 19:11b–14a

543

544

FIGURE 18.7

Golinets

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 3r, 1 Kgs 19:14b–18a

Manuscripts of the Prophets

FIGURE 18.8

P.Vindob. H 122, Fol. 3v, 1 Kgs 19:18b–21

545

546

Golinets

There is a superscription written on two lines between the text of Josh 6:27 and the beginning of Kings: ‫ ]…[“( ]…[מ?פל? כי | תשא במלכים‬when | you take in Kings”).38 The first line of this superscription starts on the same line on which the text from the book of Joshua concludes. The first words of the superscription are indiscernible. ‫ כי תשא‬is the title of the section Exod 30:11–34:35; its haftarah is 1 Kgs 18:20–39 according to the Babylonian reading cycle.39 At the bottom of fol. 3v, after the biblical text, there is a blessing in Aramaic ‫“( בריך רחמנא | דסייען‬Blessed be the merciful one, | who has helped us”). The consonantal text of this fragment follows the text type attested in other manuscripts of the Tiberian text type. It has the same ketiv/qere variation in 1 Kgs 19:4 as mtA, mtC, and mtL. There is a defective spelling of ‫ ֱא ֽכֹל‬1 Kgs 19:5. In some details, the vocalization and accentuation differs from that of the Aleppo, Cairo and Leningrad codices. 2.2 The Use of Rafe This fragment exhibits extensive use of rafe. It marks not only begadkefat letters but also postvocalic word-final heh: ‫( ַה ֶּ֔זֿה‬Josh 1:11); ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫אל‬ ָ ‫( יִ זְ ְר ֶ ֽע‬1 Kgs 18:46); ‫ֿה‬ ‎ ‫ָע ָ ׂ֖ש‬ (19:1); ‫ֿה‬‎ ֵ‫( וְ ִהּנ‬19:6, 9, 13); ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ֶ ּ֑ת‬, ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫יל‬ ֣ ָ ‫ ָה ֲא ִכ‬and ‎‫( ֔ ַליְ ָלֿה‬19:8); ‫ ַה ְּמ ָע ָ ֖רֿה‬and ‎‫( ַמֿה‬19:9); ‎‫ְּד ָמ ָ ֥מֿה‬ (19:12); ‎‫ ַה ְּמ ָע ָ ֑רֿה‬, ‎‫ ֖פֹֿה‬and ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫( ַמ‬19:13); ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫( ִמ ְד ַ ּ֣ב ָר‬19:15); ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫חֹול‬ ָ ֔ ‫( ְמ‬19:16); ‫ֿה‬ ‎ ‫( וְ ָה ָ֗י‬19:17); ‫־‬‎ ‫ֶא ְּׁש ָקֿה‬ and ‎‫( ֶמֿה־‬19:20). In ‫ה‬‎ ‫( וְ ֵא ְל ָ ֖כ‬19:20), rafe is placed between kaf and heh. Sometimes this rafe is missing: ‫ה‬‎ ֙ ‫( ָ ֽהיְ ָֿת‬1 Kgs 18:46); ‫ וְ ִה ֵּנ֧ה‬and ‎‫ֿדֹולה‬ ָ ֡ ְ‫( ּג‬19:11); ‎‫( ַד ָ ּֽקה‬19:12). This sign is also present together with mappiq in ‫ּה‬‎‎ ֿ ‫( ְל ִר ְׁש ָ ּֽת‬Josh 1:11) where only mappiq is expected (as in mtA and mtL).40 The juxtaposition of both signs recalls their presence on the same letter in Codex Reuchlinianus.41 The extensive use of rafe is also attested in the last consonant of the Tetragrammaton: ‫ֿה‬‎ ‫הו‬ ֗ ָ ְ‫ י‬Josh 1:11; 6:27; 1 Kgs 18:46; 19:4, 10, 11 (1°, 3°–5°),42 15. This rafe is missing in verses 11 (2°), 12, and 14. The reason for the use of rafe in this position in the Tetragrammaton is not phonetic, since there is no pronunciation feature of the form ădōnāy it could indicate. Thus, the rafe on the final heh has been applied somewhat mechanically to make it consistent with other cases of rafe in final position. 38 39

40 41 42

I use the vertical stroke to here mark the separation of lines. Cf. Christian D. Ginsburg, The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged (London: 1880–1905.; repr. Jerusalem: Makor 1971; New York: Ktav 1975), 2:472. According to another list, ibid., 2:469, the haftarah is Jer 16:19–31:1. According to the modern rite, the haftarah is 1 Kgs 18:1–39; cf. Arthur A. Chiel, Guide to Sidrot and Haftarot (New York: Ktav, 1971), 103. The text of mtC is here indiscernible. Cf. examples in Morag, “Vocalisation,” 225, sec. 2.351. The raised circle after a digit indicates the number of an occurrence of a form within a verse.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

547

2.3 The Use of Mappiq Another peculiarity of this manuscript’s Masoretic marking is the use of mappiq in the consonantal waw that ends the third person masculine singular suffix: ‫ ָמ ְת ָנ֑יּו‬‎(1 Kgs 18:46); ‎‫( ֵא ָליּו‬19:9, 15, 19 [×2]); ‎‫( ְל ָפ ָ֔ניּו‬19:19);43 ‫ּו‬‎ ‫( ֵמ ַא ֲח ָ ֜רי‬19:21). There are two forms without mappiq: ‫יו‬‎֙ ָ‫ ָּפנ‬and ‫יו‬‎֙ ‫ ֵא ָל‬in verse 13. The marking of the consonantal waw with mappiq is sometimes employed in the Extended Tiberian system.44 For example, the final waws of both the root and the third person masculine pronoun are marked with mappiq in the Ashkenazic Add. MS 21161 of the British Library.45 This practice of marking consonantal waw is also sporadically attested within the Standard Tiberian system. For example, the forms ‫ּו‬‎ ‫ ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחּו‬and ‎‫ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּוּו‬in the Leningrad codex sometimes feature mappiq in the next to last waw.46 Such forms in the oldest layers of the Tiberian System are not confined to the Leningrad codex. The form ‎‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּוּו‬is also attested in the Aleppo codex in Deut 29:25, while the Cairo codex features mappiq in ‎‫וְ ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחו֣ ּו‬ in Ezek 46:3. 2.4 The Use of Meteg The second syllable of the form ‎‫( וַ יְ ָ ֽׁש ְר ֵ ֽתהּו‬1 Kgs 19:21) has a meteg.47 It is employed here to indicate that the vowel is a “great qamaṣ” (‫)קמץ גדול‬. The meteg is used in this function also in ‫( ָ ֽהיְ ָת ֙ה‬18:46), where it is also attested in the Aleppo, Cairo, and Leningrad codices. 2.5 Phonological Variation In two forms, segol occurs, instead of the pataḥ that appears in other manuscripts: ‎ ‫( ֶא ְח ָ֔אֿב‬for ‫ ַא ְח ָ֔אב‬, 1 Kgs 18:46) and ‫( ְּב ֵ ֥אר ֶ ׁ֖ש ֶבע‬for ‎ ‫ ְּב ֵ ֥אר ֶ ׁ֖ש ַבע‬19:3).48 The reason for segol instead of pataḥ in these two forms is the same as that for the manuscript P.Vindob. H 12 (see section 1.2.3.4). In ‫ ֶא ְח ָ֔אֿב‬, segol marks the umlaut of the unstressed /a/ in a closed syllable. This vocalization is also attested in 43

44 45 46 47 48

I saw the rest of the ink of the original mappiq in ‫ּו‬‎ ‫ ְל ָפ ֔ ָני‬under the microscope and photographed on 23.03.2017. As I opened this manuscript anew after an hour and a half, this rest of the ink was not there—it had flaked off because of the friction of the manuscript pages. This example shows how easily the ink wear may occur. A discoloration in the place of mappiq can be seen under the microscope. Cf. Heijmans, “Vocalization,” 969 (d). Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr., New York: Ktav, 1966), 637. Cf. Exod 11:8; 33:10 for the former, and Gen 27:29 (2°); 49:8; Exod 4:31; 12:27; Num 25:2; Deut 29:25; Isa 45:14; 46:6; 49:7; Ps 22:30 for the latter. See also Golinets, “Biblia Hebraica Quinta,” 90. This is also the accentuation of the Cairo codex. The Aleppo codex has a meteg under the conjunction -‫)ַו�ֽיְ ָׁש ְר ֵ ֽתהּו( ו‬, while in the Leningrad codex this meteg has been deleted. Without rafe in L.

548

Golinets

the names ‫ ֶא ְביָ ָסף‬and ‫ר‬‎ ‫ ֶא ְב ָיָת‬in the Standard Tiberian vocalization system. The vocalizers heard a slight difference between /a/ and /ɛ/ in this position.49 It is, however, not clear why only a few attestations of these names feature segol. Thus, the regular form ‫ב‬‎֙ ‫ ַא ְח ָא‬is also attested in H 122 (1 Kgs 19:1). The second segol in ‫ ְּב ֵ ֥אר ֶ ׁ֖ש ֶבע‬marks the anaptyctic vowel of segolate forms. Either it designates an umlaut of /ă/ (while /ă/ is the original form of the anaptyctic vowel); or it is simply another graphic representation of the anaptyctic vowel whose quality lay between /ă/ and /ɛ/. The same phenomenon is attested in ‫ ָז ֶ֑בח‬and ‫ וְ ֶ ֥ד ֶעת‬of the manuscript P.Vindob. H 12 (see section 1.2.3.4). This way of vocalizing the second syllable of segolates with final /ḥ/ or /ʿ/ is attested in manuscripts with the Palestinian vocalization.50 2.6

Morphological Variation

2.6.1 Omission of Dageš The dageš is missing in the letter qof of the form ‫ח‬‎ ‫ וַ ּי� ַ ִ֣ק‬in 1 Kgs 19:21. The absence of the gemination can be a morphological feature. For instance, one of the geminations in two adjacent syllables is sometimes dropped in the Leningrad codex.51 Waw-imperfect forms of verbs in nifʿal and verbs with the weak first radical are one of the morphological categories where this dropping occurs.52 In such cases, there is no dageš in the preformative yod, e.g., ‫ח‬‎ ‫( וַ יִ ַּק‬Lev 8:29; Josh 11:16). The dropping of the first or the second gemination facilitates the pronunciation of a word. While the first description of this phenomenon was done by Aron Dotan,53 most of its occurrences are still unrecognized in the later printings of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and in the new Biblia Hebraica Quinta.54 49 50 51

52 53 54

Contamination between ‫ * ַא ְביָ ָסף‬and ‫ף‬‎ ‫ ֶא ְליָ ָס‬, which has also been suggested as an explanation for the names (cf. Hans Rechenmacher, Althebräische Personennamen [Münster: Ugarit, 2012], 53 n. 23), ‎is unlikely. E. J. Revell, “Studies in the Palestinian Vocalization of Hebrew.” Essays on the Ancient Semitic World, ed. J. W. Wevers & B. D. Redford (Toronto: 1970), 51–100, p. 64. Aron Dotan, “Deviation in Gemination in the Tiberian Vocalization,” in Estudios masoréticos (V Congreso de la ioms): Dedicados a Harry M. Orlinsky, ed. E. Fernández Tejero, Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 33 (Madrid: “Arias Montano” csic, 1983) 63–77 (68–72) (reprinted with additions in bhl, 1243–51); Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum,” 237–47. See examples in Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum,” 244. Dotan, “Deviation in Gemination,” 66–75. Cf. Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum,” 240–42; idem, “Biblia Hebraica Quinta,” 89. The electronic texts of the Leningrad codex feature erroneous forms of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum,” 249, 258).

Manuscripts of the Prophets

549

In the form ‫וַ ּי� ַ ִ֣קח‬, the dageš is missing in the root consonant. It is tempting to see this form as attesting this feature as known from the Leningrad codex. However, this feature is not attested in P.Vindob. H 122 in other comparable forms,55 and the omission of dageš in ‫ וַ ּי� ַ ִ֣קח‬could merely be an error. Presently, we do not know how broadly this feature is attested in the manuscripts of the Standard Tiberian tradition. A systematic study of the variations in gemination in all medieval manuscripts could broaden our knowledge about the minutiae of Hebrew phonetics and morphophonology. 2.6.2 Superfluous Dageš The form of the dot in the letter lamed in the noun ‫ה‬‎ ‫( ָה ֲא ִכ ָיּל‬1 Kgs 19:8) gives the impression that it is an intentional sign and not a speck on the surface of the paper.56 If it is a dageš and if it is not inserted erroneously, then the form of this noun is a mixture of the noun patterns QaTīL-ā and QaTiLL-ā. Another unexpected dageš appears in the letter mem of ‎‫אּמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַ ּי‬1 Kgs 19:9). Since there is no morpho-phonological motivation for this dageš, it should be regarded as an error. The same verbal form in verse 10 has no dageš. 3

Manuscript P.Vindob. H 142

References for the manuscript: Library description and photos: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00001227. Short description: Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften,” 58, no. 9; Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente,” 4, no. 5. 3.1 Description of the Manuscript This heavily damaged parchment leaf contains the text of 1 Sam 7:1b–8:13. The leaf was originally a part of a biblical codex. The right part of the recto (corresponding to the left part of the verso) and the lower part of the page are missing, and neither the page size nor column height can be determined. The text is written in three columns. Column width is 6.6 cm. The right column of the recto side contains 1 Sam 7:1b–4a; the middle column contains 7:6b–7a; the left column contains 7:10b–13a. The right column of the verso side contains 1 Sam 7:15b–8:2a; the middle column contains 8:5b–8a; the left column contains 8:10b–13a. The consonantal text (except for verse 11) 55 56

Cf. the regular use of dageš in the forms ‫( וַ ּיַ ּגֵ ד‬1 Kgs 19:1), ‫ט‬ ‎ ‫ּיַּב‬ ֵ ַ‫( ו‬19:6), and ‫ע‬ ‎ ַ‫( וַ ּיִ ּג‬19:7). Cf. Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum,” 247–52, about the confusion of specks on vellum with dageš and mappiq signs.

Figure 18.9

P.Vindob. H 142, recto, 1 Sam 7:1–13

550 Golinets

Figure 18.10 P.Vindob. H 142, verso, 1 Sam 7:15–8:13

Manuscripts of the Prophets

551

552

Golinets

on the recto side (flesh side) and the qamaṣ qaṭan in ‎‫( ְּב ָכל‬1 Sam 7:3) have been restored with black ink by an inexperienced hand.57 The text is vocalized and accentuated according to the Standard Tiberian system. The leaf has Masorah parva notes on the outside and intercolumnar margins on both pages. No Masorah magna notes are discernible, however, on the rest of the upper part of the leaf, on either recto or verso. The consonantal text of this page exhibits no differences from the text of the Aleppo, Cairo, and Leningrad codices. The word ‫קֹומֹות‬ ֖ ‫ ַה ְּמ‬in 1 Sam 7:16 had originally been written without the first waw. Then the missing letter was supplied above the line to conform with the masorah (cf. below). There had been a dittography of the letter bet in ‫ֹו‬‎‫ ְּות ֻׁש ָב ֤ת‬1 Sam 7:17, which the scribe corrected by making one bet with a very broad body. In several instances this manuscript features rafe on nun and on final heh: ‎‫ ַּב ִּמ ְצ ָ ּֽפֿה‬1 Sam 7:6; [‫( ָתה] ַה ִּמ ְצ ָּ֔פ‬7:7, with rafe between taw and heh); ‎‫ ַה ִּמ ְצ ָּפ ֿ֙ה‬and ‎‫ֵ ֖הּנָ ֿה‬ (7:12); ‎‫( ָה ֵ ֽא ֶּלֿה‬7:16); ‎‫( ָה ָר ָ֙מ ָת ֙ה‬7:17); ‎‫ ַע ָּ֗תֿה‬, ‎‫ ִ ֽׂש ָימֿה‬and ‎‫( ְל ָׁש ְפ ֵ ֖טנֿ ּו‬8:5); ‎‫( ְל ָׁש ְפ ֵ ֑טנֿ ּו‬8:6). The use of rafe in postvocalic position on letters other than begadkefat—such as nun—brings this manuscript into the proximity of the Extended Tiberian system.58 At the same time, this manuscript shares with mtA and mtC the use of rafe on quiescent ʾalef in ‎‫( וַ ּי ֹ ֿא ֶמר‬1 Sam 7:3, 12; 8:7). The Leningrad codex has no rafe in these instances. We have seen that the use of rafe on the final heh is also attested in the manuscript P.Vindob. H 122. 3.2 Masorah In this section, I have edited the Masorah magna notes. The abbreviation “Mm” followed by a number refers to the masorah lists of the Leningrad codex edited by G. E. Weil.59 3.2.1 Recto Side, First Intercolumnar Space – [‫( ]ַו�ּֽיִ ְׁש ְּפ ֣כּו׀‬1 Sam 7:6): ‫“( לג‬accent legarmeh”). The manuscripts mtA, mtC, and mtL have no note.

57 58 59

A similar partial refurbishment of the text is attested in the Pentateuch manuscript of the Jewish National and University Library, shelf mark Heb. Quart. 5702 (Loewinger, Damascus Pentateuch), e.g., on pp. 6, 10, 11, 22, etc. Cf. Blapp, Non-Standard Tiberian, secs. 3.3, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, 95, and 10.3 for the use of rafe on non-begadkefat letters in the Extended Tiberian System. Gérard E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19 a (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971); these numbered notes are also listed in the Masorah apparatus of the bhs.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

553

– [‫ּומּו‬ ֙ ‫( ]וַ ּיָ ֙צ‬1 Sam 7:6): ‫“( ג | מל‬three times plene”). This note is also featured in mtA, mtC, and mtL (Mm 1519; Marcus, 1 Samuel).60 – [‫( ָתה] ַה ִּמ ְצ ָּ֔פ‬1 Sam 7:7): ‫“( ח‬eight times”). This note is also featured in mtL (cf. Marcus, 1 Samuel). – [‫ ֶאל־̊יִ ְׂש ָר[ ֵ ֑אל‬‎(1 Sam 7:7): ‫“( ז | וכל‬seven times and all”). This a defective form of a note like that attested in mtA: ‫משחת | למלך | כות | ב מ | א‬ ̇ | ‫“( ז̇ | וכל‬seven times, and all cases of anointment of kings are similar except for one instance”).61 The masorah notes that the preposition ‫ ֶאל‬is employed here and where the anointment of kings is mentioned.62 The exceptional case is 2 Sam 12:7, where the preposition ‫ל‬‎ ‫ ַע‬is used. 3.2.2 Recto Side, Second Intercolumnar Space – ‎‫( וַ ּיַ ּ֕כּו̊ ם‬1 Sam 7:11): ‫“( י̇ א‬eleven times”). This note is also attested in mtA and mtL (Mm 917). The note of the Cairo codex (MTC) is ‫חס‬ ̇ | ‫וא‬ ̇ | ‫“( י̇ ̇א | י | ̇מל‬eleven times: ten plene and one defective”). – ‎‫( ָ ּֽכר‬1 Sam 7:11): ‫“( ̇ל‬unique”). This note is also attested in mtL (Marcus, 1 Samuel). 3.2.3 Verso Side, Right Margin – [‫( ]וְ ָס ַב ֙ב‬1 Sam 7:16): ‫“( ̇ד‬four times”). This note also appears in mtA and counts the four occurrences of the suffix conjugation form ‫ ָס ַבב‬.63 The note in mtL is ‫“( ̇ג‬three times”), and it highlights the three occurrences of this form with the conjunction -‫ו‬.64 – ‫( ַה ְּמ ̊ק ֹ֖ומֹות‬1 Sam 7:16): ‫“( ̇ב | מל‬twice plene”). This note is also attested in mtA, mtC, and mtL (Mm 1562; Marcus, 1 Samuel). – ‫( ְּות ֻׁ̊ש ָב ֤תֹו‬1 Sam 7:17): ‫“( ̇ל | וחס‬unique and defective”). This note is also attested in mtA, mtC, and mtL (Marcus, 1 Samuel). – ‫( ָׁש ָ ֣̊פט‬1 Sam 7:17): ‫ברנש‬ ̇ ‫“( ̇ל | ק | וכל | שם‬unique with qamaṣ, and all occurrences of personal names”). The note comments on the vocalization of the verbal form with two qamaṣim, which is also attested in corresponding personal names (cf. Marcus, 1 Samuel). The reading ‫ ק‬is uncertain because of the fading of the ink. The letter looks like ‫ד‬, but the context

60 61 62 63 64

David Marcus, 1 Samuel, vol. 3 of The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018); see his notes ad loc. The note in mtC read ‫דכו | ̇ב ̇מ | ̇א‬ ̇ | ‫משח | למלך‬ ̇ | ‫ז̇ | וכל‬. The note in mtL has only ̇‫ז‬ (Mm 1021). See the enumeration of corresponding verses in Mm 1021 and Marcus, 1 Samuel. 1 Sam 7:16; Ezek 42:9; Qoh 9:14; 2 Chr 33:14. 1 Sam 7:16; Qoh 9:14; 2 Chr 33:14 (Mm 1561; Marcus, 1 Samuel).

554

Golinets

demands a qof.65 This note is also attested in similar forms in mtA, mtC, and mtL.66 – ‎‫( ַ̊ויְ ִ֞הי‬1 Sam 8:2): ‫“( ו | בטע | בספ‬six times with this accent in the book”). The corresponding occurrences are 1 Sam 4:18; 5:9; 8:2; 9:26; 30:1; 2 Sam 4:4. This note is also featured in mtC. – ‫( ֶׁ̊שם‬1 Sam 8:2): ֶ‫“( ו‬six times with segol”). This note is also featured in mtA, mtC, and mtL (Mm 1989; Marcus, 1 Samuel). Verso Side, First Intercolumnar Space 3.2.4 – ‫( ְל ָׁש ְפ ֵ ֖̊טינֿ ּו‬1 Sam 8:6): ‫“( ̊ב | וחס‬twice and defective”). The text contradicts the masorah, since the word is written here plene. The note in mtA and mtL reads ‫( ב‬cf. Marcus, 1 Samuel). Verso Side, Second Intercolumnar Space 3.2.5 – ‫( ְל ָׁש ְפ ֵ ֑̊טינֿ ּו‬1 Sam 8:5): ‫“( ̇חס‬defective”). The note contradicts the spelling of the form (cf. the note on 8:6 above). – There is a note above ‫ ̇חס‬of verse 5 that is difficult to decipher. It seems that it is written by a different hand from that of other notes and seems to read ‫“( פל‬difference of opinion”).67 The note may indicate that there is a discrepancy between the spelling of ‫ ְל ָׁש ְפ ֵ ֑̊טינֿ ו‬and the note ‫ ̇חס‬. There is no other word in verse 5 to which the note—whatever it reads—might refer. Another possible reading for the note could be ‫מל‬. It may then refer to the word ‫ ַהּׁש ֲֹא ִ ֥לים‬in the second part of verse 10 of the opposite third column. This word and a circellus—if there was one—are lost in the lacuna. Other manuscripts have no note on this word, and it is doubtful if there should be any. – ‎‫ יִ ָ ּ̊קח‬1 Sam 8:11: ‫“( ג | וכל‬three times and all”). This is a defective form of a note like the one attested in mtL: ‫אתנח | וסופ | פסוק | דכות‬ ̇ | ‫“( גָ | וכל‬three times with qamaṣ and similarly all cases of atnaḥ and sof pasuq”; Mm 1566; Marcus, 1 Samuel). The note in mtA reads ‫ ̇ג | וכל | את | וסופ | פסו‬. The note in mtC has simply ָ‫ג‬. – ‫( וְ ָר ֖̊צּו‬1 Sam 8:11): ‫“( ̇ל‬unique”). This note is also attested in mtA and mtC. – ‫( וְ ̊ ָל ׂ֣שּום‬1 Sam 8:12): ‫“( ב‬twice”). This note in this form is also attested in mtA, while mtC has ‫“( ̇ב לו שם‬twice; 2 Sam 7:23”). 65 66 67

A dalet would contradict the intent of the masorah, since “four” is the tally for the form ‫ ׁשפט‬with both qamaṣ and pataḥ (with pataḥ: Judg 16:31; 1 Sam 4:18; 1 Kgs 3:28). Furthermore, the tally “four” would not make sense in the context of the note. A: ‫דכות‬ ̇ | ‫ ; ̇ל | וכל | שם | אנש‬C: ‫דכו‬ ̇ | ‫ברנ‬ ̇ | ‫קמ | וכל | שם‬ ̇ | ‫ ; ̇ל‬L: ‫ברנש‬ ̇ | ‫ ̇ל | וכל | שם‬. I am indebted to Sebastian Seemann for this reading suggestion.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

555

– ‫וְ ָׂש ֵ ֣רי ̊ ֲח ִמ ִ ּׁ֑שים‬‎ (1 Sam 8:12): ‫“( ל‬unique”). The note is incorrect because there is another attestation of this syntagma in Deut 1:15. The note may refer to [‫וְ ַל ֲח[ ֤ר ֹׁש‬‎, where the circellus may have vanished in the lacuna. The Aleppo codex has the note ‫ ̇ל‬on ‫ׁש‬ ‎ ֹ ‫וְ ַל ֲח ֤ר‬. – ‎‫( וְ ַל ̊ ֲע ׂ֥שֹות‬1 Sam 8:12): ‫“( יד‬fourteen times”). The letter yod is barely legible. The masorah notes fourteen plene occurrences according to the Eastern Masoretes (cf. Mm 1376). According to the Western Masoretes, there is a fifteenth plene occurrence in Ezra 7:10, and manuscripts feature the corresponding note: ̇‫ הי‬in mtA and mtC, ‫ ̇יה‬in mtL (cf. Mm 1376; Marcus, 1 Samuel).68 – [‫ ְל ַר ָ ּ̊ק ֥ח[ֹות‬‎(1 Sam 8:13): ‫“( ל מל‬unique plene”). The note in mtA, mtC, and mtL reads ‫ ̇ל‬. – [‎‫( ] ְּול ַט ָּב ֖חֹות‬1 Sam 8:13): ‫“( ̇ל מל‬unique plene”). The note in mtA and mtL reads ‫ ̇ל‬, while mtC has ‫ומל‬ ̇ ‫ ̇ל‬. – [‫( ְּול ֹא[ ֽפ]ֹו[ת‬1 Sam 8:13): ‫“( ל מל‬unique plene”). The note in mtA, mtC, and mtL reads ‫ ̇ל‬. – [‎‫( ] ְׂ֠ש ֽד ֵֹות ֶיכם‬1 Sam 8:14): ‫“( כתי ̇ל‬unique written this way”). mtL has here the note ‫מל‬ ̇ ‫( ̇ל‬cf. Marcus, 1 Samuel), while mtA and mtC have none. 4

Manuscripts P.Vindob. H 153 and 173

References for P.Vindob. H 153: Library description and photos: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00001238. Short description: Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschrif­ ten,” 58, no. 11; Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente,” 7, no. 7. References for P.Vindob. H 173: Library description and photos: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00001239. Short description: Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschrif­ ten,” 58, no. 10; Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente,” 7, no. 6.

68

Masoretic notes in other places and in other manuscripts give divergent tallies; cf. Mordechai Breuer, ‫( נוסח המקרא ב״כתר ירושלים״ ומקורותיו במסורה ובכתבי היד‬The Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and Its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts) (Jerusalem: Keren ha-Masorah, 2003), 344, n. 22.

556

Figure 18.11

Golinets

P.Vindob. H 173, recto (Zeph 2:5b–9a; facing page) and verso (Zeph 2:12–3:2a)

Manuscripts of the Prophets

557

558

Golinets

Figure 18.12 P.Vindob. H 153, recto (Zeph 3:4b–8a; facing page) and verso (Zeph 3:9b–14a)

Manuscripts of the Prophets

559

560

Golinets

4.1 Description of the Manuscripts The two paper leaves with the shelf marks P.Vindob. H 153 and H 173 originally belonged to the same manuscript. The text of H 153 is the continuation of H 173. H 173 contains the text of Zeph 2:5b–9a on its recto side and 2:12–3:2a on its verso side. H 153 contains the text of Zeph 3:4b–8a on the recto side and 3:9b–14a on the verso side. Page size of H 153 is 15.7 × 14.4 cm. Page size of H 173 is 15.1 × 14.4 cm. Both pages have holes, and the upper, lower, and right margins—when facing the recto side—are torn. The text is written in one column by an inexperienced hand. It features the Standard Tiberian vocalization and accentuation. No rafe is indicated. In some words, vocalization signs have either been omitted (e.g., ‎ ‫יה‬ ‫ם‬ ֣ ֶ ‫על‬ ֵ Zeph 2:6; ‫ף‬‎ ֹ ‫ ֶלא ֙ס‬3:8) or have disappeared owing to paper wear. Textual Features 4.2 The irregular letter forms and many scribal mistakes like dittography, omissions, and fluctuation of vocalization betray that this text is a writing exercise. Some of the errors have been corrected. 4.2.1 Dittography – ‎‎‎‫צבאות‬ ֜ ‫יהוה‬ ֙ ‫צֿבאוֿ ת‬ ֿ ‫יהוֿ ֿה‬ ̈ (Zeph 2:9). The first occurrence of the syntagma is marked by two dots above the first heh and strokes above the other letters.69 The second occurrence of these words features accent signs but no vowel signs. The second heh of the first Tetragrammaton had originally been written as mem and then corrected. – ‫( ַה ַע ִּליזָ ֙ה ַה ַע ִּליזָ ֙ה‬Zeph 2:15). Both occurrences are vocalized. – ‎‫( הֹוונָ ה׃ היונה׃‬Zeph 2:16). This may be a dittography, but the second occurrence may also be a correction of the first one. There are, however, no correction marks on the first occurrence; the erroneous form is vocalized. – ‫( ̇א ַא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬Zeph 3:11). This is a dittography of the first letter of the word corrected through marking the ʾalef with a dot.

69

Unfortunately, the font sbl Hebrew used in this paper does not allow for representing two dots above a letter, nor for adjusting the position of dots, vocalization, and accentuation signs.

561

Manuscripts of the Prophets

4.2.2 Corrected Omissions There are cases of corrected omissions in this fragment. It is striking that in all cases of omission the letter reš is involved. – The letter was supplemented above the word in ‫ּו‬‎‫( וָ רבצ‬Zeph 2:14). As it seems, the omission was noticed as the qamaṣ was placed beneath waw instead of reš. – The omission in ‫( מ ְֹר ָ ֖אה‬Zeph 3:1) was noticed, as qamaṣ was placed beneath the ʾalef. Then the ʾalef was corrected by reš, and the correct form of the word in plene spelling was written above the first occurrence. Since the left margin is torn, only the forms ‫מוא‬ ָ and ‫ מור‬of the first and second occurrence respectively are preserved. – The letter in ‫( ְב ִק ְר ֵּ֔בְך‬Zeph 3:12) was supplemented above the word. 4.2.3

Missing Letters P.Vindob. H 173 ‫וא ֵ ֖בד‬ ַ ‎ ‫ופסי‬ ִ֣

Zeph 2:13 Zeph 2:15

mtA, mtC, mtL a‫ִ ֽויֿ ַא ֵּבֿ֖ד‬‎ b‫וְ ַא ְפ ִ ֣סי‬

a Without rafe on yod in mtA and mtL. b Without rafe in mtA and mtL.

Both forms with missing letters are due to an error. The context of verse 13 demands a form of the prefix conjugation, since the verbs before and after this one depend on the same subject and they are in the prefix conjugation. 4.2.4

Zeph 2:7

Ketiv/Qere P.Vindob. H 173

mtA, mtC, mtL

‫בּותם‬ ָ ‫ ְׁש‬‎

‫יתם‬ ֽ ָ ‫ ְׁש ִב‬Q ‫ם‬ ‎ ‫שבות‬‎‎K

The form in H 173 corresponds to ketiv of other manuscripts.

562 4.2.5

Golinets

Plene Spelling P.Vindob. H 173/153

Zeph 2:9 Zeph 2:9 Zeph 2:14 Zeph 2:14 Zeph 2:15 Zeph 2:15 Zeph 3:4 Zeph 3:5 Zeph 3:11

‫ִּכ ְס ֹ֤דום‬ ‫מֹורה‬ ֔ ָ ‫ ַ ּֽכ ֲע‬‎ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ּתֹור‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ְּב ַכ ְפ‬ ‫ ֹ֣ח ֶורב‬‎ ‫ֹאומ ָר ֙ה‬ ְ ‫ ָה‬‎ ‫יִ ְׁש ֖רוק‬‎ ‫ ֔קודש‬‎ b‫ֹבושת‬‎ ‫יפי‬ ִ ‫תֹוס‬ ִ֧

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ִּכ ְס ֤ד ֹם‬ ‫ ַ ּֽכ ֲעמ ָ ֹ֔רה‬‎ a‫ ְּב ַכ ְפּת ֶ ֹ֖ר ָיה‬‎ ‫֣חֹ ֶרב‬ ‫א ְמ ָר ֙ה‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ ָה‬‎ ‫יִ ְׁש ֖ר ֹק‬‎ ‫ ֔קֹ ֶדׁש‬‎ ‫ּֽבֹ ֶׁשת‬ ‫תֹוס ִפי‬ ִ֧ ‎

a Without rafe in mtL. b The presence of dageš in the letter bet cannot be established due to the damage of the paper.

In most cases, there is a facultative plene spelling where other manuscripts employ no matres lectionis. The spellings of ‫ ֔קודש‬, ‫ ֹבושת‬and ‫ ֹ֣ח ֶורב‬are cases of erroneous marking of the short /o/ with waw. The noun ‫י‬‎‫ ָק ְד ִ ֽׁש‬in verse 11 is properly written without a waw. 4.3 Vocalization The vowel and the accent signs in ‫יֹוׁשב‬ ֵֽ (Zeph 2:5) have been erroneously put under the letter bet. In addition, there are several types of vowel sign variation. 4.3.1

Full Vowel Instead of a Ḥatef P.Vindob. H 173/153

Zeph 2:15 Zeph 3:6 Zeph 3:11 Zeph 3:11

‫ ַע ָד ִר ֙ים‬‎ ‫ ֶה ֶח ַ ֥ר ְב ִּתי‬‎ ‫ַא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬ ‫ּגֲ ַאוָ ֵ֔תְך‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ֲע ָד ִר ֙ים‬‎ ‫ ֶה ֱח ַ ֥ר ְב ִּתי‬‎ ‫ ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬‎ ‫ּגַ ֲאוָ ֵ֔תְך‬

The vocalization with a full vowel instead of a ḥatef is due to the inexperience of the scribe, because both signs depict sounds of comparable quantity.

563

Manuscripts of the Prophets

4.3.2

Pataḥ Instead of Qamaṣ P.Vindob. H 173

Zeph 2:15

mtA, mtC, mtL

‫ַה ַע ִּליזָ ֙ה‬

‫ָה ַע ִּליזָ ֙ה‬

Similar to the previous cases, pataḥ instead of qamaṣ in the vocalization of the article before a laryngeal results from sign confusion. Segol Instead of Pataḥ

4.3.3

P.Vindob. H 173/153 Zeph 2:15 Zeph 3:10

‫ֶל ַח ָּ֔יה‬ ‫ ְלנֶ ֲה ֵרי‬‎

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫ ַ ֽל ַח ָּ֔יה‬‎

a‫ְל ַנ ֲֽה ֵרי‬

a Without meteg in mtA.

Segol instead of pataḥ is rather a phonetical phenomenon, comparable to that attested in the manuscripts P.Vindob. H 12 and H 122. Ḥiriq Instead of Segol

4.3.4

P.Vindob. H 153 Zeph 3:5

mtA, mtC, mtL ‫נִ ְע ָ ּ֔דר‬

‫נֶ ְע ָ ּ֔דר‬‎

The sign ḥiriq reflects the original /ĭ/ of the nifʿal conjugation form that has become /ɛ/ before a laryngeal in the Tiberian vocalization tradition.70 Ḥiriq instead of the Standard Tiberian segol in nifʿal of primae ʿayin verbs has parallels in the Babylonian vocalization system.71 Since there are no other Babylonian vocalization features in this manuscript, the ḥiriq here may be a dialectal feature of the manuscript. 70 71

Cf. Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1991), secs. 18l, 49c. Cf. Israel Yeivin, ‫( מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization), Academy of the Hebrew Language Text and Studies 12 (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language), 502, secs. 12–11.‫יט‬.

564 5

Golinets

Conclusions

The five manuscripts of the Latter Prophets from the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library present material that is typical for the biblical manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah: a parchment leaf of a biblical codex with masorah (P.Vindob. H 142); a page of a parchment manuscript of haftarot with targum (H 12); a paper manuscript of haftarot with commentaries (H 122); a paper manuscript with text written by a child or an unexperienced scribe (H 153 and H 173). While the text and vocalization of these manuscripts are Standard Tiberian, the inventory of signs and their distribution exhibit slight deviations that are attested within this vocalization system in other places. Some of these deviations are scribal errors, while others are alternative markings either in the graphic or phonetic realm. The extended use of rafe (in P.Vindob. H 122; H 142) belongs to the former. To the latter belong variation between pataḥ and segol (in H 12; H 122; H 153, H 173) as well as omission of gemination of a consonant with shewa (in H 12), and omission of one of two adjacent geminations (in H 122). These types of variation are sporadically documented in the oldest manuscripts of the Tiberian tradition, such as the Aleppo, Cairo, and Leningrad codices. Graphic features like the use of rafe on nun (in H 142) and the use of mappiq in waw (in H 122) are attested in the Extended Tiberian vocalization system. Variations between pataḥ and segol attest to the struggle of the scribes for proper notations of phonetic phenomena. Using one of them where another one could be applied testifies to the efforts towards precise graphic expression of the sound the scribes discerned. The variations within the Standard Tiberian vocalization tradition exhibited by the five manuscripts of the books of prophets in the Vienna collection are also observable in many other Genizah manuscripts. Thus, the vocalization with pataḥ instead of segol is attested in the fragment Rylands Genizah A 36–1. Whether this vocalization in other manuscripts represents phonetic variation, or is rather due to the scribe’s ignorance of proper sign application, is a matter for further study. A systematic description of these variants in all medieval manuscripts would enrich our knowledge about the linguistic variations within the Tiberian Masoretic tradition, about the transition from Standard to Extended Tiberian vocalization, and about alternative medieval Jewish exegetical traditions.

Manuscripts of the Prophets

565

Bibliography Allony, Nehemiah. “Geniza Fragments of Hebrew Philology.” Pages in 229–47 in vol. 1 of Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.). Edited by H. Loebenstein et al. 2 vols. Vienna: Hollinek, 1983. Allony, Nehemiah, and D. S. Loewinger. Hebrew Manuscripts in the Libraries of Austria and Germany. Vol. 1 of List of Photocopies in the Institute. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education and Culture, 1957. Blapp, Samuel. “The Non-Standard Tiberian Hebrew Language Tradition According to Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2017. Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer, 1922. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1991. Breuer, Mordechai. ‫( נוסח המקרא ב״כתר ירושלים״ ומקורותיו במסורה ובכתבי היד‬The Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and Its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts). Jerusalem: Keren ha-Masora, 2003. Chiel, Arthur A. Guide to Sidrot and Haftarot. New York: Ktav, 1971. Dotan, Aron, ed. Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared According to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Dotan, Aron. “Deviation in Gemination in the Tiberian Vocalization.” Pages 63–77 in Estudios masoréticos (V Congreso de la IOMS): Dedicados a Harry M. Orlinsky. Edited by E. Fernández Tejero. Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 33. Madrid: “Arias Montano” CSIC, 1983. Reprinted with additions in bhl, 1243–51. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Gelston, Anthony. The Twelve Minor Prophets. bhq 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft, 2010. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1966. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. London: 1880–1905. Repr., Jerusalem: Makor 1971; New York: Ktav 1975. Ginsburg, Christian D. ‫ מדויק היטב על פי המסורה ועל פי דפוסים ראשונים‬.‫נביאים אחרונים‬ ‫( עם חלופים והגהות מן כתבי יד עתיקים ותרגומים ישנים‬Prophetae Posteriores. Diligenter revisi juxta massorah atque editiones principes cum variis lexionibus e mss. antiquis versionibus collectis). London: British and Foreign Bible Society. 1911.

566

Golinets

Ginsburg, Christian D. ‫ מדויק היטב על פי המסורה ועל פי דפוסים ראשונים‬.‫חמשה חומשי תורה‬ ‫( עם חלופים והגהות מן כתבי יד עתיקים ותרגומים ישנים‬Pentateuchus: Diligenter revisus juxta massorah atque editiones principes cum variis lexionibus e mss. antiquis versionibus collectis). London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1908. Golinets, Viktor. “Die Biblia Hebraica Quinta und ihre Behandlung des Textbefundes masoretischer Handschriften.” Pages 75–99 in Hebräische Schrift zwischen Judenund Christentum in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit: Beiträge zur 45. Internationalen Hebräischlehrerkonferenz (IÖKH) vom 8. bis 10. Mai 2015 in Erfurt. Edited by P. Stein. kusatu 21. Kamen: Harmut Spenner, 2016. Golinets, Viktor. “Dageš.” Pages 649–54 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan et al. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Golinets, Viktor. “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Lenin­ gradensis.” kusatu 15 (2013): 233–63. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. The Aleppo Codex Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aron Ben Asher, The Text Considered Authoritative by Maimonides. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1976. Gottheil, Richard. “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo.” jqr 17 (1905): 609–55. Heijmans, Shai. “Vocalization, Palestino-Tiberian.” Pages 967–71 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Jefferson, Rebecca J. W. “Vocalization of Medieval Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 937–39 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan et al. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Karabacek, Josef. “Arabische Abteilung.” Pages 131–278 in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Führer durch die Ausstellung. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1984. Kornfeld, Walter. “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek.” Anzeiger der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 117 (1980): 62–69. Lange, Armin, and Bernhard Palme, eds. Kinder Abrahams: Die Bibel in Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Nilus: Studien zur Kultur Ägyptens und des Vorderen Orients 21. Vienna: Phoibos, 2014. Loebenstein, Helene. “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren.” Pages 3–39 in vol. 1 of Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.). Edited by H. Loebenstein et al. 2 vols. Vienna: Hollinek, 1983. Loewinger, D. S., ed. Codex Cairo of the Bible from the Karaite Synagoge at Abbasiya: The Earliest Extant Hebrew Manuscript Written in 895 by Moshe ben Asher. Jerusalem: Makor, 1971. Loewinger, D. S., ed. The Damascus Pentateuch: Manuscript from about the Year 1000 Containing Almost the Whole Pentateuch; Jewish National and University Library,

Manuscripts of the Prophets

567

Jerusalem, Heb. Quart. 5702. Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1978. Loewinger, David S., and Ernst Roth. “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs.” Part 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol. 2. Edited by A. Z. Schwarz, D. S. Loewinger, and E. Roth. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Mann, Jacob, and Isaiah Sonne. The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Leviticus and Numbers to Seder 106, with Hebrew Section Containing Manuscript Material of Midrashim to These Books. Vol. 2 of The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as Well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1966. Marcus, David. 1 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018. Morag, Shlomo. “The Vocalisation of Codex Reuchlinianus: Is the ‘Pre-Masoretic’ Bible Pre-Masoretic?” jsj 4 (1959): 216–37. Müller, David H., and David Kaufmann. “Der Brief eines aegyptischen Rabbi an den Gaon [Salomo] Ben Jehuda.” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 5 (1982): 127–32. Perrot, Charles. “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 137–59 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. crint 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Rechenmacher, Hans. Althebräische Personennamen. Münster: Ugarit, 2012. Reinfandt, Lucian. “Handlist of Published Arabica from the Vienna Papyrus Collection (Austrian National Library).” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 97 (2007): 367–411. Revell, E. J. “Studies in the Palestinian Vocalization of Hebrew.” Pages 51–100 in Essays on the Ancient Semitic World. Edited by J. W. Wevers & B. D. Redford. Toronto: 1970. Shaked, Shaul. A Tentative Bibliography of Genizah Documents. Études juives 5. Paris: Mouton, 1964. Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan. Vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Weil, Gérard E. Massorah Gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19 a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971. Yeivin, Israel. ‫( מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization). Academy of the Hebrew Language Text and Studies 12. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985.

Chapter 19

Ketubim Fragments in the Austrian National Library: P.Vindob. H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, H 191 Josef M. Oesch The six Hebrew fragments H 11, H 14, H 104, H 119, H 156, and H 191 of the Ketubim (Writings) belong to the collection of 196 designated Hebrew–Aramaic Papyri in the Austrian National Library, Department of Papyri. Their precise provenance is unclear. Loebenstein writes that the documents always name the Fayum as place of provenance.1 By contrast, the Austrian National Library catalogue labels them “Genizah” with a question mark. The provenance of H 191, however, is definitely unknown. In any case, they belong to the First and Second Fayum collections of 1882 and 1885.2 Two fragments are written on parchment and date back to the eleventh or twelfth century. The material of the other four is rag paper, which is less expensive than parchment and more suitable for private use. They belong to later centuries.3 1

P.Vindob. H 11

Fragment H 11 is a light brown parchment leaf (ad)4 dating from the tenth or eleventh centuries, containing Ps 9:8*–12:8*. Its overall measurement is 27.7 × 19 cm; the inscribed size is 19 × 15.8 cm. This is an Oriental format of medium 1 Helene Loebenstein, “Vom ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren,” in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), ed. H. Loebenstein, 2 vols. (Vienna: Hollinek, 1983), 1:3–39. 2 See Bernard Palme’s discussion of the history of the acquisition of the papyri, “The Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library and Its Jewish Manuscripts,” in this volume. 3 Walter Kornfeld, “Nichtpublizierte hebräische Bibelfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek,” Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 117 (1980): 66–69, dates all these fragments before 1500. 4 The abbreviation (ad) indicates that Mag. Andrea Donau of the Department of Papyri of the Austrian National Library has contributed her expert advice to a particular statement, and  I am grateful for her friendly assistance.

© Josef M. Oesch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511705_021

Ketubim Fragments in the Austrian National Library

569

size.5 The upper margins are ‫בס‫בט‫וסימ‫) ‫) צ׳׳ל‬ :‫) חזק (צ׳׳ל‬Ps 78:22( ‫) האמינו‬Ps 75:9( ‫) כוס‬Ps 75:7( ‫) ממוצא‬Ps 73:4( ‫ חרצבות‬/6 ‫) טוב‬Ps 83:6( ‫( נועצו‬Ps 81:5( )‫חוק‬ ̊ )Ps 89:7( ‫) ̊בשחק‬Ps 84:12( ]‫) ̊ש[מש‬Ps 84:11( ‫ יום‬/7 )Ps 91:3( ‫) יצילך‬Ps 90:4( ‫אלף‬ )Ps 92:5( ‫) שמחתני‬Ps 91:14( ‫חשק‬ ̊ )Ps 103:11( ‫) כגבה‬Ps 95:3( ‫) כי אל‬Ps 92:10( ‫ איביך‬/8 ̊ ‫) [ ̊פי ̊ר‬Ps 103:16( ‫רוח‬ ]‫שע‬ )Ps 122:5( ‫) שמה‬Ps 116:8 ‫) חלצתה (חלצת‬Ps 109:2( )Ps 139:4( ‫) מילה‬Ps 137:3( )‫ שאלונו‬:‫) שאלוני (צ״ל‬Ps 135:4( ‫) ̊ידעתי‬Ps 125:3( ‫ ינוח‬/9 13>‫וסימ‫) (◦) אלהים וסימנהון< שמונה עשר‬ ̇ )Ps 14:6( ‫ ◦ ישועת‬17(Job 18:11( ‫) בעתיהו בלהות‬Ps 12:9( ‫ ית[ ̊ה ̊]לכון‬/16 )1 Chr 10:12( ‫) גופת‬Ps 53:7(‫ישועות‬ ‫) (כ)ערוגת‬1 Sam 31:12( ‫) גויות‬1 Sam 31:12( ‫) גוית‬1 Chr 10:12( ‫ גופות‬/17 ̊ ̊ ‫) ̊[ל‬Ps 16:2( ‫ ◦ ָא ַמ ְר ְת ̇ל‬18)Cant 6:3( ‫) (ל)ערוגות‬Cant 5:13( ]‫ש ̊ון‬ )Ezek 18:10( ‫ ◦ פריץ ̇ב והוליד‬19>‫ זכר וכל שום נקבה דכוו̇ >תהון‬/18 ֘‫ ◦ וַ יִ גָ לו‬20(Ps 17:4) ‫ארחות‬ ̊ )Ps 18:43( ‫ ◦ אריקם ̇ל‬21)Ps 18:16( ‫) מוסדות‬1 Sam 14:11( ‫שניהם‬ וסימנהון‬/19 ̊ ‫וחד‬ ̊ ]] [[ 22]])2 Sam 22:43( ‫אדיק[[ם‬ ]‫ ̊ ̊מ ̊ון‬..[ ]]‫ל‬.[[ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ]] [[ )Josh 22:3 ‫בתם (מצוַ ת‬ ֶ ‫ לא[דכיא] ִמ ְצֹות בר מין ̇ג לא־עז‬/20 ]] [[ ‫פת בר מן ̊ ג‬ ̇ ]…[ ]]  [[ ‫ שמאל‬/21 ◦ ‫]]וני‬..……[[ ‫]ח‬.[ ]]..[[ ‫] [[     ]]רי‬.…[ /22 ̊ )Deut 23:17( ‫ ̊א ̊ש ̊ח ̊ר[[  ]] תוונינו‬/23 ‫[[י ]] ̊ץ ̊מין ̊ ̊מן‬ ̊ ‫ ששת [[  ]]ע ̇ד‬/24 ]..[‫] ̊ ז ̊ה ̊ ̊ע ̊ני ̊צ ̊ע‬.[‫ויגר ב‬ Folio 1v (Fig. 20.2, right side): ̇ ‫מב] [אתנחת[[יא בפ]] ̇ת‬ ̊ ̊ [ ◦ ].[ ‫ ]]  [[ ]……[ ̊שלמהי לעם‬/11 ‫> ̇‫ׁ‫ ◦ וְ ̇קוֵ י־‫בׁ < וסימנהון‬ (Gen 28:22) >‫(]] ולאבן ‫דס‫ ̇ה וסימנהון< ועל פיך‬/2 ].̊[ 42)Prov 24:26( 33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42

See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:271, no. 50; Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 3177. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:493, no. 312; Weil indicates directly Ps 34:8 in bhs. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:424, 867; Weil, Massorah Gedolah, indicates only a Mp. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:410, no. 617: “This lemma ‫ ְב ַעם‬occurs twice with pataḥ in […] and the lemma ‫ועם‬ ַ is written similarly with pataḥ except three times with qamaṣ in 1 Sam 13:5; Hos 4:14; and Amos 3:6.” Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 3260 indicates only the first part of the note. “This lemma is twice בתרין לישני וסימנהון< חלקת וַ ֲח ִלי‬/4 ‫) שן‬Gen 29:9( ‫ • ר ַֺעה ̇ב >מלרע וסימנהון< כי ר ַֺעה ִהוא‬45)Prov 25:12( )Job 40:29( דגשין וסימנהון< ַה ַת ַשׂ ֶח > ַה ְת ַשׂ ֶחק‬46)Prov 25:19( ‫ ר ַֺעה‬/5 ‫ • ַה ְשׁ ֶכּ֑ם‬47)Lam 3:52( ‫) צוד צדוני‬Prov 26:2( ‫לנוד‬ • 48(Prov 27:14) ‫) ְמ ָב ֵרְך‬Jer 35:15( ‫) שובו נא‬Jer 44:4( ‫כת י̇ >וסימנהון< אל נא‬ ̇ ‫ ̇ג‬/6 )Jer 10:23( ידעתי‬Exod 4:11( ‫ָל ָא ָדם ̇ה >בקריה קמץ וסמנהון< ִמי ָשׂם‬ ‫ • ָה ִריפו ֺת ̇ב >חד‬49)Job 28:28( ‫) ויאמר‬Prov 27:19( ‫) כמים‬Zeph 1:17( ‫ והצירותי‬/7 • 50)Prov 27:22( ‫) תכתוש‬2 Sam 17:19( ‫חסר וחד מלא וסימנהון< ותשטח‬ ‫ • יָ ד ַֺע‬51)Prov 27:23( ‫) שית לבך‬Isa 17:2( ‫ ַל ֲע ָד ִרים ̇ב >וסימנהון< תהיינה ורבצו‬/8 מיכין‬ ̇ ‫ֵת ַדע ̇ב‬ ‫ • ַמ ְשגֵ ה ̇ב‬52)Prov 27:23( ‫) ידע תדע פני צאנך‬Gen 15:13( ‫ >וסימנהון< כי גר יהיה‬/9 • 53)Prov 28:10( ‫) ישרים‬Deut 27:18( ‫>וסימנהון< עור‬

43 44 45 46

47 48

49 50 51 52

53

Lemma indicated as hapax in mtL. The word is accentuated with a reviaʿ. “This lemma with ḥatef-pataḥ occurs as a hapax in Prov 25:7 and as a hapax in Ezek 25:8.” No list in Ginsburg. Weil (in bhs) indicates a Mp on Prov 25:7 (hapax), and no Mp on Ezek 25:8 (also mtL). This is a specific note found only in this fragment. “Twice these terms, once in Josh 19:25 and once in Proverbs”; Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:489, no. 237; Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1352. This note is indicated in mtL as a tripartite note (see Mm of mtL on Gen 29:9 in Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 205). The fragment mentions only the first part of this note, “The lemma ‫ ר ַֺעה‬occurs twice (with milraʿ accentuation) in Gen 29:9 and Prov 25:19.” Ginsburg indicates a masoretic note concerning the defective spelling that seems not to be recorded here (see Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:580, 409). “This lemma occurs three times (with dagesh) in Job 40:29; Prov 26:2; and Lam 3:52.” See Ginsburg, 2:517, no. 191. No Mm entry in Weil, Massorah Gedolah. “The lemma ‫ השכים‬written with yod (= plene) in Jer 44:4; Jer 35:15; and Prov 27:14.” This note is apparently not in Ginsburg. The list in Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 2595 refers to a Mp note in mtL found on Jer 25:3 (for the term ‫ )אשכים‬and Prov 27:14 (‫)השכים‬, concerning the plene spelling of the lemma (with yod). Our fragment suggests a note concerning the term ‫ השכים‬only. “This lemma ‫ לאדם‬occurs in all the Bibles with qamaṣ in Zeph 1:17; Prov 27:19; and Job 28:28.” See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:28, no. 131. See Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 391 (first part of the note). “This lemma occurs twice, once defective and once plene spelling in 2 Sam 17:19 and Prov 27:22”; Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:577, no. 342; Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1801. “The lemma occurs twice, in Isa 17:2 and Prov 27:23.” See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:377, no. 153. No Mm list in Weil, Massorah Gedolah. “The lemma ‫ יָ ד ַֺע ֵת ַדע‬occurs twice in this construct form, once in Gen 15:13 and once in Prov 27:23.” This note seems not recorded by Ginsburg nor by Weil (no Mm). In mtL, there is no Mm mentioned. This note seems incomplete. According to Abraham Even-Shoshan, New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1977) and BibleWorks 10, ‫ֵת ַדע יָ ד ַֺע‬ can be found also in 1 Sam 28:1; 1 Kgs 2:37; and 1 Kgs 2:42. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:607, no. 136; Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1200.

606

Attia

‫פת>ח< וחד קמ>̇ץ וסי�מ‬ ̇ ‫ יְ ֻר ָחם ̇ב חד‬55‫ • ומדה ב‬54○ )Prov 25:13( ‫ כצנת שלג‬/100 ‫) אשר בך‬Ps 28:13(< ‫נהון‬ ‫) בין תבין‬Deut 25:2( ‫ • ̇ג ִבין בין >וסימנהון< ִּבן הכות‬56)Hos 14:4( ‫ירוחם יתום‬ ַ ‫ בך‬/11 57)Prov 30:1( ‫) בין (בן) יקה‬Prov 23:1( ‫) שאלה‬1 Kgs 18:12? 2 Kgs 2:10?( ‫ ֵמ ִא ָתְך ̇ה >וסימנהון< השאלים טוב‬/12 ]‫ • משלי פס[וקים‬58)Prov 30:7( ‫) שתים‬1 Kgs 2:20( ‫) שאלה‬1 Kgs 2:16( )Prov 6:9( ‫) ָע ֵצל‬Prov 1:22( 61‫ >וסימנהון< פתאים‬60 ̇‫דסיפ>רא< י‬ ̇ ‫ פסקתה‬59ֹ ‫ ̇ץ ל‬/13 )Prov 8:21( יל‬Prov 6:3( ‫) עשה ̇וג‬62?(‫וחבירו‬ ‫) הב‬Prov 15:25( ‫) יסח‬Prov 24:24( ‫) אומר‬Prov 8:34( ‫) וחבירו‬Prov 8:30( ‫ יום‬/14 ][ )Dan 2:4( ‫ וידברו‬64>‫בס>ירא‬ ̇ ̇‫ • וְ ִפ ְש ָרא י‬63(Prov 30:15( ‫) יכלין‬Dan 2:30( ‫) בחכמה‬Dan 2:25( ‫) הנעל‬Dan 2:24( ‫) העלני‬Dan 2:16( ‫ ובעא‬/15 ]• .…[‫) מב‬Dan 5:12( ‫) מפרש‬Dan 4:21( ‫) מטת‬Dan 4:15*2( ̊ ‫בט בחית‬ ‫וחד‬ ̇ )Dan 2:35( ‫ רוחה >רוחא< עור וכל אתר‬65‫ ̇ל בט ̇בחית רוחה ̇ב‬/16 ‫ • ֵּ֠ב ֿא ַדין ֠אדין ̇ט‬66)Dan 2:35( ‫) • ◯ דקו כחדא‬Jer 52:23( ‫ ויהיו הרמונים רוחה‬/17 ]‫̊ב[ ̊ט‬

54 55 56

57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66

Beginning of the seventh section in Proverbs (Prov 25:13–28:16). A specific graphic sign is found in mtL. The point is that this note should have come after the next note on Prov 28:13. The beginning of the eighth section of Proverbs is not recorded. Words struck out by the scribe. “This lemma occurs twice, once with pataḥ and once with qamaṣ, and here are the occurrences: Prov 28:13 and Hos 14:4.” Apparently not in Ginsburg or Weil. The text is not fully visible in mtL. According to the Even–Shoshan Concordance and BibleWorks 10, this note is accurate. Not recorded by Weil. Not recorded by Ginsburg (Massorah, vol. 1, ‫ בן‬or ‫)בין‬. The lemmata in Prov 30:1 and Deut 25:2 come from ‫ בן‬ben (son); the lemma in Prov 23:1 comes from the verb ‫בין‬. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:138, no. 1452. See Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1877. This note states that the number of verses in Proverbs is 930. The standard tradition gives 915. I warmly thank Yosef Ofer for his remarks on this note. “Ten times with paseq, and these are the simanim: Prov 1:22; Prov 6:9; [unclear reference]; Prov 6:3; Prov 8:21; Prov 8:30; Prov 8:34; Prov 24:24; Prov 15:25; Prov 30:15.” On the paseq (a kind of separator), see P. Joüon, Grammaire De L’Hebreu Biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute), 1996, 46. In the Standard Tiberian tradition, this is considered a legarmeh (with munaḥ preceding). I warmly thank Yosef Ofer for his remarks on this note. In the Standard Tiberian tradition, there is no other case in Proverbs (see next footnote). Ginsburg mentions only nine cases. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:650, no. 214, ‫טעמים‬. I warmly thank Yosef Ofer for his remarks on this note. This note refers to different forms of this word (with alef/he at the end, with waw and without). See Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:441, no. 334. “An accent on the ḥet of the lemma ‫רוחה‬, twice, one in Dan 2:35 and one in Jer 52:23.” This note appears in Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:572, no. 250 and refers to milʿel and milraʿ accentuation. Beginning of the second section of Daniel. The beginning of the first section is not marked in the expected place.

Masoretic Lists and Scribal Exercises

607

)Dan 6:19) ‫) אזל‬Dan 5:9( ‫) ִמ ̊ ְת ַב ֵהל‬Dan 2:46) ‫ נפל‬67‫בס>ירא< וחד בעזרא‬ ̇ /18 )Dan 6:7( ‫) ִא ִיּל ̊ין‬Dan 6:16( ‫אלך‬ ֵ )Dan 2:25) ‫גלּותא‬ ָ )Dan 6:13( ‫ְק ְריבּו‬ ‫קמ וכל‬ ̇ )Dan 4:28?( ‫) • כל דניאל ָקל ַע ָדת‬Ezra 6:13( ‫) ִּת ְּתנַ י‬Dan 6:12( ‫ ִא ֵלְך‬/19 ̇ ‫קריה‬ ]?[‫פת כל ק‬ ̇ ‫פת ָּדגֵ שׁ בר מן‬ ̇ /20 ‫ • סימן בטעם ָקל‬68(Dan 11:45?( ‫רפ פטשיהון אפדנו‬ ‫] ֣ק[ ̊ל] ̊ק ̊רנא‬.[‫……]] טעם חד הש‬.[[ )Dan 3:5( ‫ קרנ֣ א ֠משרוקתא‬/21 ]‫…][ׂש‬.[ ]])Dan 3:10( ‫…קרנ֣ ]] ̊א משרוק[[יתא‬.[[.[‫) ה‬Dan 3:7( ‫וקיתא‬ ֜ ‫משר‬ ֨ /22 69)Dan 3:15( ‫̊ב̊כא‬ )Dan 5:17( ‫) מתנתך‬Dan 3:26( ‫קרב‬ ̊ ].[ ]])Dan 3:21(…….[[..[‫אדין ̇ה‬ ֜ ‫אדין‬ ֜ ‫ ֵב‬/23 • 70)Dan 6:26( ‫) דריוש‬Dan 6:17( ‫והיתיו‬ Folio 2v (Fig. 20.1, right side) ]….[ ]]….‫…… ̊כ‬..[[………[ ]‫]]̊ק ̊ר ̊ ָל [̊ק ̊ם‬.[[ /1 )Dan 5:24( ‫• ְש ִל ַיח ̇ב ַּפ ָ ּ֣סא‬71)Joel 4:11( ‫ [ ̊ח]טף דניאל וחד פת ̇ש̊מ̊ה ̊ ַ ̊הנְ ̊ ַחת‬/2 • 73‫דגש • חצי סדרים‬ ̇ ‫) • ַט ְׂש ָריָ א ̇ל‬Dan 5:23( ‫ • ַה ַ ֽד ְר ָּת ̇ל‬72)Ezra 7:14( ‫לבק ָרה‬ ַ /3 ‫ • חצי הספר‬74‫ כל דניאל ְּכ ַב ̊ר פת ̇וכל קריה ְּכ ָבר קמץ‬/4 ̇ ‫ • ◯ ודניאל דנה‬75(Dan 6:12( ‫בפסוק אדין גבירא אילך הרגישו‬ /5 ‫ • ותיניינה וחד יהודעוּנַ נִ י‬77)Dan 7:16( ‫הֹוד ִעּנַ נִ י ̇ל‬ ְ ְ‫ • י‬76)Dan 6:29( ‫ הצלח‬/6 • 78)Dan 4:3( ‫בק ְל ִה ָיּל ֵחם‬ ̇ ‫ • יָ ָצא ̇ג‬79)Dan 8:1( ‫) ַב ְת ִח ָילה‬1 Kgs 11:9( ‫ ַהּנִ ְר ָאֿה ̇ב ַפ ֲע ַמיִ ם‬/7 )Dan 10:20( ̊ ◯ 81)Dan 9:24( ]‫ • [ו]א[תפ]לל[ה‬80(Dan 8:9( ‫) ֶק ֶרן‬1 Kgs 6:1?( ‫ ̊ ִל ְמלְֺך‬/8 ‫•[י ̊ש]ב־‬ )2 Sam 19:38( ‫ואמות‬ ָ ‫ב‬ ׁ ‫נא‬ 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

“This lemma occurs nine times accentuated in the book (of Daniel) and once in Ezra.” See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:27, no. 120. This note is unclear to me: “Each time in Daniel, in Dan 4:28 ‫ ַע ָדת ָקל‬is with qamaṣ, and in the whole Bible ‫ ַע ָדת‬,)‫ (וכל קריה‬is with pataḥ Dan 4:28? and Dan 11:45?.” This form has pataḥ pataḥ. Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 3807. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:27, no. 122. The lemma occurs also once with qamaṣ in Dan 5:20 (‫) ָהנְ ַחת‬. Only a Mp in mtL. “Half of the sedarim.” Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:192, no. 452. “Half of the book of Daniel on the verse Dan 6:12” (marked in mtL). Beginning of the fifth seder of Daniel (marked in mtL). Hapax appearing in mtL. This note, connected to the previous one, seems to not appear in mtL and is not recorded by Weil or by Ginsburg. According to BibleWorks 10, it is correct (the form appears only twice in Daniel). Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 3853; Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:560, no. 62, first part of the note. This note is unclear. One occurrence appears in the list; Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:731, no. 472. Beginning of the sixth seder of Daniel (marked in mtL).

608

Attia

• )Dan 9:12( ‫] ד̊ברו וַ ּיָ ֶקם דניאל‬..[ ‫ ̊ת] ̊ד ̊ע ̊ר ̊ק‬..[ • 82)Dan 9:16( ‫ ַא ְּפָך וחמתך‬/9 ‫ • וַ ֶּיָבן ̇ד‬83)Dan 9:21( ‫מּועף דניאל‬ ָ ‫בתח ָילה‬ ִ )Isa 8:23( ‫מועף‬ ָ ‫מּוע֣ף ̇ב כי לא‬ ָ /10 ̊‫) ויפ[רוץ] [דניא ̇]ל‬Dan 9:22( ‫) צא(?) דניאל‬2 Sam 12:19( ‫) דויד‬1 Sam 3:8( ‫ עלי‬/11 מיך‬ ̇ ‫ • ֶאל ִפי ̇ה‬84)2 Chr 11:23( )?(‫צא‬ ̊ ‫ ̊ ו ̊ה‬/12 ]‫) ל[ ̊ח̊ם‬Josh 17:4( ‫) ̊ ו ̊ת ̊קרבנה‬Josh 15:13( ‫) (ו)לכלב‬Josh 10:18( ‫פקידו‬ ‫ א יי̇ אל פי‬85)Josh 21:3( ‫) ̊ ̊מנחלתם‬Dan 10:3( ]‫) נשא[ר‬1 Sam 3:15( ‫]שתרא ̊ ̊על פי • ̊ה ַמ ְר ָאה ̊ד מהגיד‬.[ ‫ […]את על פי‬/13 86)Dan 10:8( 87]…[‫] [ ̊כד] ̊השיחים ההרים ̊ה‬..[‫דום ̊א‬ ̊ ‫… ̊כ] ̊ב ̊א‬.[ /14 ‫אחים‬ ̊ ̊ ‫מחורב‬ ֵ ‫] ̊כו הרעותי‬..[ ]..[‫ [……] ָילדיו עו‬/15 ̊ ‫הר‬ ̊ ‫…]וך‬..[ ‫…] האתונות‬.[ /16 ]….[ ]‫ר‬.‫נע‬ ̊ [ ‫קיב ולא‬ ̊ ̊ ‫רצ ̊י‬ ̊ ̊ ‫לא ̊א‬ ‫ואי ̊ך‬ ̊ ]….[ ‫]י נא‬.[ ‫ […] ּ̊פנֵ יי כנפש‬/17 ̇‫[ל ̊ש ̊כו̊ ̊ח] […] […] [ו̊ ̊אדבר] דכו‬ ̊ ‫הם ̊ב ̊רים‬ ̊ ‫ […] ̊רו‬/18 ̇ ‫ [וָ אדבר][ב] ̊ר ̊מן ̇א‬/19 ‫]לך ואדבר‬..[ ]..[ ]…[ )Ezek 2:1( ‫אדם‬ ̊ ] ̊‫פת [ ̊בי‬ ̊‫וה ̊כי̊ נ̊ י‬ ̊ ‫] ̊כ ̊ת‬.[ ]…[ ]….[ ].[ 88)Dan 10:21( ‫…] ̊○ ַא ָבל א[ ̊ג]ד‬.[‫ א‬/20 ]…………………………………………….[ ]………..‫ [ ̊א ̊כ‬/21 ‫[[ ]]…… ̊ר] ושמחת‬..[ ‫…]] ̊קבו̊ עו̊ ת‬.[[.‫ [ו̊ ̊חי̊ ̊ר ̊ק] [וק‬/22 ‫השמר‬ ̊ ‫] י̊ גידו יגיד[ו̊ ] [[ ]] […] וכל‬.……‫ […מעת] [ ̊עו‬/23 ‫ור ̇ל [[ ]] ̊בטנא דתבוא ָלך‬ ̇ ̇‫ [[ ]] דכו‬/24 ‫דכות‬ ̇ ‫פס‬ ̇ /25 1.7 Concluding Remarks on P.Vindob. H 8 Most of the time, the masoretic annotations are copied in order of the verses in the biblical book. It is not clear why the masoretic notes of Daniel are written directly after those on Proverbs.89

82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89

Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 87 (part). Not as such in Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:742, no. 631, but correct according to BibleWorks 10. As it is, this note seems to record the same lemma ‫מּועף‬ ָ in plene spelling and with a munaḥ. In the Standard Tiberian tradition, the lemma in Daniel is defective according to mtL and as recorded ‫ מעף‬with munaḥ in the list of Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:729, no. 455. Also Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 3863. This note is blurred and part of the text is illegible. See Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:178 no. 229. See Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1545. “A construct form like this appears five times”; see Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1334; Ginsburg, Massorah, 1:70, no. 602. The end of the note is unclear to me. Weil, Massorah Gedolah, 1548; Ginsburg, Massorah, 2:244, no. 746. The end of the note is missing, especially the occurrences of Dan 10:7. After this line, the text is barely legible. Beginning of the seventh seder of Daniel (marked in mtL). The general order of the books in Ketubim may follow b. Baba Batra 14a–15b (where Daniel precedes Lamentations and Esther) or the Tiberian textual tradition (which places Daniel between Esther and Ezra). In all cases, Psalms come before Proverbs and Daniel afterwards.

Masoretic Lists and Scribal Exercises

609

The edited text above reflects all kinds of marginal masoretic annotations. Most of them are Mm notes and display a lemma, the nature of the note, and the simanim, introduced by the term simanehon. Sometimes, the fragment displays Mp, Masorah finalis, and other information, such as the beginning of the pericope, middle of the book, counts of verses in a book (especially for Proverbs and Daniel, fol. 2r–v). The fragment does not record all possible masoretic notes existing for those books and is not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the masorah.90 For instance, in fol. 2r–v, the beginnings of the sedarim are not exhaustively quoted: between the seventh seder of Proverbs and the second seder of Daniel, the eighth seder of Proverbs and the first of Daniel are not listed. Furthermore, the masoretic notes are more clearly numerous after the beginning of the eighth seder of Proverbs and rather less extensive after the mark of the fifth and sixth seder of Daniel. Hypothetically, the fragment H 8 could have been a private booklet. The intention was perhaps to gather only specific masoretic notes, from a “masoretic codex” or from an existing booklet already dedicated to specific masoretic notes on Psalms, Daniel, and Proverbs. These elements were required for the copying of a manuscript Bible or for exegetical purposes. Moreover, in fol. 2r–v, the reason for the use of a different graphic sign from those of fol. 1r–v also remains unclear; maybe these pages were copied for different purposes and from different sources as well. In addition, the use of vowels and accentuations signs is much more frequent in Daniel, probably to distinguish the Aramaic lemmas more easily. Finally, this fragment, produced around 1100 ce in an Oriental context, is clear evidence of the transmission of masoretic notes in a separate document, even after the appearance of the so-called Ben Asher codices.91 Fragment H 8 shows that lists and annotations were still written and preserved independently of the biblical text and the biblical manuscript they were related to. In this regard, Aron Dotan remarks that such practices may have been very ancient, dating back probably to the time when the writing of the masorah in the margins was forbidden.92 Other practices have also been discovered 90 91

92

See, for instance, fol. 1v, lines 14 and 15; the note on the lemma from Ps 34:8, ‫חֹנֶ ה‬, is followed by a note on the lemma ‫ בע ֵֹשי‬from Ps 34:17. The integration of the masorah into the margins of biblical codices itself dates back probably to the ninth century; see Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, “The Hebrew Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. R. Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012–2016), 2:19–40 (31). “Fragments of such manuscripts were discovered in the Cairo Genizah which appear to be remnants of independent works of masorah. That is, works which contain masoretic notes in the order of the book of the Bible but without an accompanying biblical text. It is possible that these works go back to a very ancient period, perhaps even to the time when

610

Attia

through the Genizah manuscripts, such as the system of serugin, topical lists according to specific subjects, spellings, issues about vocalization, or about unique words.93 Fragment H 8 highlights, then, that there were multiple ways to record masoretic annotations in writing. 2

P.Vindob. H 168: Learn to Write with the Bible—Scribal Exercises with Biblical Verses

Figure 20.6

93

P.Vindob. H 168, recto

it was not permitted to write the masorah in the margins”; see Aron Dotan, “Masorah,” in EncJud 13:603–56 (621). On the serugin, see Israel Yeivin, “A Babylonian Fragment of the Bible in the Abbreviated System,” Textus 2 (1962): 120–39.

Masoretic Lists and Scribal Exercises

Figure 20.7

611

P.Vindob. H 168, verso (blank)

In Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich, this fragment is described as follows:94 187. (H 168 = 128) Schreibübungen. 22 Zeilen. Schriftspiegel 16 × 17 cm. Namen :‫ שר שלום ברבי יוסף ברבי ערמם אברהם בר סהלאן‬..‫בר משה‬ This fragment is made of paper, 20 × 17 cm (the upper and lower part of the fragment have been cut). It is written on one side. Palaeographically, the writing is in an Oriental Egyptian square script, datable to the beginning of the eleventh century.95 The text has features representative of scribal exercises meant to improve the ductus of certain letters within words. This is clearly visible when the 94 95

Loewinger and Roth, “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften,” p. 79 no. 187 (and not 789 as mentioned in the online catalogue). I thank Judith Olszowy-Schlanger for this suggestion of estimated date.

612

Attia

scribe repeats letters, combinations of certain letters or words, and even tries to improve the ductus of certain letters by partially writing them. For instance: – Lines 3 and 5: words are repeated. – Line 7 and 21: the letters ‫ צ‬and ‫ א‬are combined several times; then the letter ‫ צ‬is repeated 5 times; then again the combination of ‫ צ‬and ‫א‬. – Line 8 and 19: the ductus of the letter ‫ ש‬is practiced by writing the first stroke (the basis of the letter). – Line 13: the letters ‫ ד‬and ‫ ר‬are repeated, to practice the differences in their shapes; the combinations ‫ עה‬and ‫ ינו‬are practiced (the similarities between them seem to be a source of confusion). – Lines 14 and 19: the word ‫ ארץ‬is practiced, written partially in several steps, and repeated several times. – Line 14: the scribe practiced writing ‫ שה‬and ‫ טה‬at the end of words (another source of confusion). – Line 15: the scribe practiced writing ‫ ח‬and ‫ דו‬at the end of a word (another source of confusion); also ‫ פי‬and ‫פו‬. – Line 16: some letters are partially written. – Line 19: the name of Abraham is written partially in several steps, especially the ‫ ר‬and the ‫ם‬, partially repeated. The sigla for this edition are the same as those for that of fragment H 8. In addition, I use the symbol * to indicate the presence of a letter partially written by the scribe in order to practice and improve the ductus of the letter. ̊ ‫ אדם כי יקריב‬/1 ]‫מכם קרבן (ליהוה) מן הבהמה מן הבקר [ומן הצאן תקריב‬ ‫]לה קר[בנו] מן הבקר זכה (זכר) תמים‬96‫) אם [ע‬end of Lev 1:2( ‫ את קרבנכם‬/2 ]‫יק[ריבנו אל פתח אהל‬ )part of Lev 1:3( ‫ מועד מועד * * מועד יקריב [או]ת(ו) א אותו‬/3 ]…………….[‫………] * * א‬.[‫ ̊ויקרא אל [המש] ד וידבר אל א‬/4 ‫ו‬..* ‫……ע‬.[ ]‫] אם כ ם א אם אם שמ[ע‬.[ ‫) מר א‬Lev 1:1 ends here(‫ מאהל מאהל‬/5 ] * *‫ר‬ ]‫) שמעון ולוי אחי[ם] כל[י‬Gen 49:5( ‫ שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם‬/6 ].[‫ צאצי צאצאיה צ ץ צ צ צא יצ צאאנו נ ם גינו בו מש‬/7 ̊ ]…..[‫השפט חזק ונתרוק ב‬ ].[‫ שר שלום * שלום ברבי יוסף בר ̇עמר‬/8 ]…………………….‫ל…עדי‬..[ ‫ סוד ומתי און והד הלכו ואל תפנו חדש‬/9 ]………………………………………………………[ ]..‫] בשק‬..[‫]בי ורוחי שי‬..[ ‫ שמח‬/10 5.………………………………………[ ‫] סל‬.[‫…] סיחי איס‬.[ /11 ]..[ ‫] לאם יקר ה[…]פתה‬.[‫] סקרה דגמ‬.[‫ הגונה הדי‬/12 ]…….[ ‫…] ושמעה ואהזינו לפידי לפיד אש נר או‬.[ /13 96

Difficult to read.

Masoretic Lists and Scribal Exercises

613

]..[ ]..[‫ ארץ אר ארץ א ארץ רעשה ונפטה פי מע‬/14 ]….[‫ […] רצח רצדו גבנונים מפני אל קנא נט נטפי נטפו ור‬/15 ‫]ב בנח * בנ ב בנחשא טאב *כ ב טאבא וסימנא מעליא יבויצלחון‬..[ /16 ‫…]יץ וחרב‬.[ ‫ בחמשא בחמש *אמון ש שחקה אצל אצלו אלפ* אלפ פי‬/17 ‫ ו ויצא יעקב מבא ארץ ארץ **ארץ וש * שומה * * * * * [א]רץ‬/18 ]………..[ ].[‫ ויצא [וי]צא אברם ר ה ה הם א אברהם בר סהלאן שנבא‬/19 ‫ צאצאיה כן פי כן ויצ* צ צאצאיה‬/20 Vertical exercises on the left margin ].[‫] רח‬..[‫] וא‬.……[‫] ואד‬.[‫ותה פתים רח‬ This fragment shows common exercises similar to those found in other fragments from the Cairo Genizah, produced between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries.97 The fragment displays a consonantal text, without vowels,98 executed by a young person; the exercises show an intermediate level of training, as the features of beginners’ exercises are missing.99 This intermediate training level (or quasi-high level?) can be observed in the writer’s persistent attempts to improve the exact shape of the letters; and in his repeated copying of specific combinations of words/letters in order to avoid confusing combinations of letters that might be misread (for instance ‫ ע‬read instead of ‫)ני‬. As for the contents, it is not surprising to find some verses from Leviticus and Genesis. But these very common verses are abandoned after line 6 for a text that seems to be a hodgepodge, sometimes appearing to contain references to rabbinic literature (see line 8, the mention of a Rav?). The possible next task for the scribe of H 168 may have been that of writing a Torah scroll. 3

Concluding Remarks

The two fragments H 8 and H 168 give evidence of “parabiblical” tools: they do not directly copy the Hebrew biblical text as such, but they attest to the study, learning, and copying of the Hebrew Bible in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the Jewish community of Egypt, more than a century after production 97 98 99

See Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, “Learning to Read and Write in Medieval Egypt: Children’s Exercise Books from the Cairo Geniza,” jss 48 (2003): 47–69. As in the large majority of such examples from the Genizah. In examples of full beginners’ exercises, the fragments feature outlines of individual letters that were filled with color by the student, with vowels and model letters placed at the beginning of the line, executed by a teacher or a professional scribe.

614

Attia

of the so-called Ben Asher codices.100 Fragment H 168 reminds us that learning to write Hebrew was traditionally accomplished by copying biblical verses. Fragment H 8 shows that long after the integration of the masorah within the margins of the biblical codices, the ancient tradition of copying masoretic materials in separate booklets was still in use in Egypt in the years around 1100. This reminds us, first, that during the Middle Ages the biblical text and the masoretic tradition were not necessarily transmitted together as a unit (in the form, for example, of the Leningrad Codex), but rather, might be transmitted in a variety of forms, for different functions and uses; and, second, that even after the formal normalization of the well-known Ben Asher manuscripts, the masoretic lists comprised a corpus of information that was not standardized and homogenous at least up to the fourteenth century.101 Bibliography Beck, Astrid B., David Noel Freedman, and James A. Sanders. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1998. Beit-Arié, Malachi. Specimen of Mediaeval Hebrew Scripts. Vol. 1, Oriental and Yemenite Scripts. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987. Beit-Arié, Malachi, Colette Sirat, and Mordechai Glatzer. Codices hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fuerint exhibentes. 4 vols. Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi. Series Hebraica. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997–2006. Díaz Esteban, Fernando. Sefer Oklah we-Oklah: Colección de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la intégridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los judíos de la Edad Media. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975. Dotan, Aron. “Masorah.” EncJud, 13: 603–56. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th amend. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. Frensdorff, Salomon. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora). Hannover: Hahnsche Hofbuchhandlung, 1864. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. London: 1880–1905.

100 In this regard, mtL is not unique, but it is the earliest-dated and most complete biblical manuscript preserved. Cf. Beit-Arié, Sirat, and Glatzer, Codices hebraicis, 114–31 (114), manuscript 17. See its features in Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, 18–19, among other biblical manuscripts, 16–29. 101 Martín-Contreras and Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa, Masora, 33–34. Khan, A Short Introduction, 10.

Masoretic Lists and Scribal Exercises

615

Golinets, Viktor. “Tiberian Masorah.” Pages 588–89 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hyvernat, Henry. “Le Langage de la Massore.” rb n.s. 1 (1904): 521–46; rb 2/2 (1905): 203–34; rb 2/4 (1905): 515–42. Hyvernat, Henry. “Petite introduction: A l’étude de la Massore.” rb 11 (1902): 551–63; rb 12 (1903): 529–49. Khan, Geoffrey. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Massoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012. Loewinger, D. S., and Ernst Roth. “Fragmente hebräischer Handschriften in den Bibliotheken Österreichs.” Part 2B of Die hebräischen Handschriften in Österreich (ausserhalb der Nationalbibliothek in Wien), vol 2. Edited by A. Z. Schwarz, D. S. Loewinger, and E. Roth. Texts and Studies 4. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1973. Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “1.5.1 Medieval Masoretic Text.” thb 1A:420–29. The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. doi.org/ 10.1163/2452–4107_thb_COM_0001050000. Martín-Contreras, Elvira, and Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa. Masora: La transmisión de la tradición de la Biblia Hebrea. Instrumentos para el estudio de la Biblia 20. Estella, Navarre: Verbo Divino, 2010. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “The Hebrew Bible.” Pages 19–40 in vol. 2 of The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by R. Marsden and E. Ann Matter. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012–2016. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “Learning to Read and Write in Medieval Egypt: Children’s Exercise Books from the Cairo Geniza.” jss 48 (2003): 47–69. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Weil, Gérard E. “La Massorah.” REJ 131 (1972): 5–104. Weil, Gérard E. Massorah Gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19 a. Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute, 1971. Yeivin, Israel. “A Babylonian Fragment of the Bible in the Abbreviated System.” Textus 2 (1962): 120–39. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E. J. Revell. MasS 5. Missoula, mt: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1980. Yeivin, Israel. The Biblical Masorah. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2011 (in Hebrew).

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin, Jr. 27n5, 34n27 Adamczewski, Bartosz 90n190 Adcock, James Seth 45n6, 51, 83n163, 84, 111n234, 113n241, 115 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 47n14, 58n64, 128n270, 158n15 Aḥituv, Shmuel 212nn89, 90, 91, 92 Ahrend, Aharon  436n28 Albeck, Chanoch 245n15 Albrecht, Felix 303n6 Allgeier, Arthur 117n261 Allony, Nehemiah 371, 375–76, 378n60, 405n17, 407, 408n29, 526n1, 527, 539 Alt, Albrecht 206n67 Aly, Zaki 289n6 Amphoux, Christian-Bernhard 47n14, 58n64, 128n270, 158n15 Andersen, Francis I. 54n47 Andorlini, I. 293n20 Assaf, S. 436n30 Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle 82–86 Assefa, Daniel 38n42 Auwers, Jean-Marie 170n90 Ayali-Darshan, Noga 261n32 Bacher, Wilhelm 372n29, 376n52, 388n88 Baer, Seligman I. 372n30 Baillet, Maurice 55n51, 67–68, 82n158, 290n8 Bali, Joseph 117n260 Ball, Charles J. 8n56, 83n65, 87n181 Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 345n4, 360n68 Bar-On, Shraga 255n11, 266nn45, 47, 268n5 Barmash, Pamela 200n50, 207n67 Barnes, Christopher 406n23 Barns, John W. B. 293n26 Barr, James 211n84 Barrett, Charles K. 276n76 Barthélemy, Dominique 94n202, 158n15, 163 Bauckham, Richard J. 258n21 Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm 310n29 Bauer, Hans 563n70 Baumgarten, Joseph 30–31, 196–97, 312n41 Beck, Astrid B. 54n42, 601n14

Beck, Edmund 380n66 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 35n29, 102n213 Begg, Christoph 275n70 Beit-Arié, Malachi 457n5, 472n13, 594n2, 598n5, 600n9, 614n100 Bendavid, Abba 184n4 Ben-Dov, Jonathan 58n65, 125n265, 253n3, 262n36, 272n63 Ben-Shammai, Haggai 382n75 Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak 337n35, 366n9 Benovitz, Moshe 197 Benovitz, Nancy 316n1, 324n7, 332n23 Bergstrasser, Gotthelf 380n66, 381nn69, 70 Bernand, Marie 383n78 Berner, Christoph 90n190 Bernstein, Moshe J. 27n6, 272n64 Bertram, Geord 325n9 Betrò, Maria C. 305n11 Beyer, Klaus 359n65 Beyerle, Stefan 262n35 Biddle, Mark E. 50, 84, 129n274 Billen, A. V. 158n14 Black, Matthew 258nn21, 22, 23 Blapp, Samuel 534nn23, 25, 552n58 Blondheim, David S. 161 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 45–47, 63n80, 70n118, 128, 161–69 Bohak, Gideon 338nn42, 43, 339n47 Bovon, François 277n76 Boyd, Samuel L. 203n58 Bozak, Barbara 68 Brady, Monica L. Walsh 90, 92n197, 97n208 Breed, Brennan W. 255n9 Bresciani, Edda 305n11 Breuer, Mordechai 53n41, 435n26, 555n68 Brock, Sebastian P. 163n39 Brockelmann, Carl 188n21 Brody, Robert 350–52, 359n61 Brooke, George J. 27n7, 84–86, 109n220, 111n234, 112n236, 236 Broshi, Magen 25n1 Buber, Solomon 185n9, 246n19, 263n39 Burkitt, Francis C. 117n261, 162, 175, 308n20, 326, 333n25 Burney, Charles F. 219–34

618 Burns, Dylan M. 38n43 Busto Saiz, José Ramón 170n80, 302n1, 303 Caird, George B. 71n123 Calduch-Benages, Núria 117n260 Campbell, Jonathan G. 27n5 Cañas Réillo, Jose Manuel 166nn53, 55, 60, 169n73, 174n90 Candiard, Adrien 8n12 Capelle, Paul 159, 160n27, 302 Capron, Laurent 38n48 Carlini, Antonio 293n22 Carmignac, Jean 113n242, 116n253 Carr, David M. 205n62, 208n72 Cassuto, Umberto 161n30, 204n60 Ceresko, Anthony R. 200n49 Charlesworth, James H. 81, 155n3 Chazon, Esther G. 108n216, 109n220, 110–15, 271n61 Chevalier-Royet, Caroline 8n12 Chiel, Arthur A. 546n39 Chiesa, Bruno 376n52 Cogan, Mordechai 233n41 Cohen, Carmiel 359n61 Cohen, Maimon 211n88 Cohen, Menachem 225n19, 365n6 Cohn, Yehudah B. 270n59, 330n22, 337n33 Colomo, Daniela 289n7, 307n18 Cook, Edward M. 27n5, 348n21 Cook, Johann 77n45, 78n147 Corley, Jeremy 38n39 Cowey, James M. S. 406nn20, 22, 23 Cowley, Arthur Ernest 34n25, 337n35 Cozza-Luzi, Giuseppe 117n261 Craigie, Peter C. 50n26 Crawford, Sidnie White 270n58 Crawford, Timothy G. 13n17 Cross, Frank Moore 64, 65nn84, 85, 69n109, 72n126, 157n10, 223n12, 230n34, 243n7, 249n25 Cuvigny, Hélène 402n3 Dahmen, Ulrich 108n216, 115n248 Dahood, Mitchell S. J. 74n134, 200n49 Dalman, Gustaf 86n178 Dalton, O. M. 336n31 Daniélou, Jean 161n13 Darshan, Guy 221n7, 250n28 Daube, David 206n67, 276

Index of Modern Authors Davis, Kipp 43n3, 80n151, 81n152, 90–92, 95n204, 98n209, 101n212 De Bruyn, Theodore 295 De Bruyne, Donatien 159, 160n27, 170n82 De Hoop, Raymond 60n72 De Lange, Nicholas 10–11, 288, 334 De Moor, Johannes C. 207n70 De Regt, Lénart J. 47n14 De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo 113n245, 116, 119 De Troyer, Kristin 310n32 Deist, Ferdinand 86n178 DeVries, Simon J. 223n12 Di Lella, Alexander A. 34n28, 36n32, 39n50, 72n124 Di Pede, Elena 58n63 Di Segni, Leah 337 Díaz Esteban, Fernando 370n21, 493–94, 599n7, 601n15 Dickie, Matthew M. 70n115 Diebner, Bernd Jørg 187n15 Dieu, L. 162 Díez Macho, Alejandro 388n85 Dimant, Devorah 90–97, 101, 126n267, 267n50, 272n62 Dion, Paul E. 249n23 Dogniez, Céline 260n30 Dold, Alban 117n261 Dorival, Gilles 72n125 Dotan, Aron 54n42, 370–71, 373–74, 495n29, 548, 609 Drinkard, Joel F. 50n26 Driver, Samuel R. 162, 199n49, 229n30 Dubarle, André-Marie 164n45 Duhm, Bernhard 128n269 Dukan, Michèle 474n19, 569nn5, 6 Dunand, Françoise 289n6 Ehrlich, Arnold B. 197n43, 198n44 Eichhorn, Johann G. 45 Eidsvåg, Gunnar Magnus 306 El-Kodsi, Mourad 509n44 Eldar, Ilan 366n8, 372n32 Elgvin, Torleif 80n151, 81nn152, 153 Elliger, Karl 531n18 Engel, Edna 457n5, 472n13 Engel, Helmut 50n27 Epstein, Jacob N. 359n64 Erder, Yoram 374, 509n44

Index of Modern Authors Ernst, Alexander 186n11, 187n14, 189n21 Eshel, Esther 65n85, 66n81, 67n95, 69n110, 72n128, 73n130, 76n140, 337nn33, 37, 338nn39, 41 Eshel, Hanan 90n190, 337nn33, 37, 39, 338nn39, 43 Fassberg, Steven E. 357n53 Feder, Yitzhaq 202n55, 207n69 Feldman, Ariel 221n9, 231n39, 270n59 Feldman, Faina 270n59 Feldman, Louis H. 187n17, 275n70 Felle, Antonio Enrico 337n36 Fernández Marcos, Natalio 84n166, 94n202, 168n70, 174n90, 333n24 Ferrer Costa, Joan 117n260 Fewster, Penelope 305n11 Field, Frederick 248n22, 303n9, 319n4 Finkelstein, Louis 257n17, 507n44 Finsterbusch, Karin 44n4, 49–50, 63n80, 73n132, 75, 79n148 Fischer, Bonifatius 160nn23, 28, 162, 164n46, 165, 168nn68, 70, 190n26 Fischer, Georg 44n5, 50–51, 63n83, 73n132, 75, 79n148 Fishbane, Michael 207n70 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. S. J. 276n75 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. 276n76 Flint, Peter W. 108n217, 500n33 Fokkelman, Jan P. 189n21 Folmer, Margaretha 345nn2, 3, 6, 59nn65– 67 Frankel, David 208n72, 211n81, 351n29 Fredriksen, Paula 262n35 Freedman, David Noel 51n35, 54n42, 65nn85, 87, 530n15, 601n14 Frensdorff, Salomon 417n9, 435n24, 494, 599n7, 601n15, 602n18 Friedman, Mordechai Akiva 358n57 Friedman, Shamma 349n24, 350n27, 352n35, 357n56, 358nn57, 58 Froehner, Wilhelm 336n31 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva 200n50, 202n58, 208n73 Fuller, Russell E. 108, 491n21 Gäbel, Georg 83n162, 84n165, 85n177, 87n181 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 255n9 Gallego, María Ángeles 368n15, 387n84

619 Ganzfried, Shlomo 583n13 García Martínez, Florentino 109–11, 115n247, 338n43 Gastgeber, Christian 295n34 Gehman, Henry Snyder 170n91 Geiger, Abraham 228n29, 249, 253, 275n71 Gelston, Anthony 29n11, 531n18 Gentry, Peter J. 8n13, 94n202 Gerstinger, Hans 407n26 Gesche, Bonifatia 163nn41, 43, 166nn58, 59 Gesundheit, Shimon 51 Giere, Samuel D. 109n221, 110n227, 111nn234, 235, 116n252 Giesebrecht, Griedrich 45 Ginsberg, H. L. 250, 253n2, 261n33 Ginsburg, Christian D. 8n12, 423, 425n15, 428–29, 434, 435nn24, 26–27, 437–41, 494, 502n37, 506, 531n18, 533n21, 536nn27–29, 546n39, 547n45, 600–609 Glatzer, Mordechai 365n6, 595n2, 600n9, 614n100 Goldberg, Arnold 374n45, 384n80 Goldman, Moshe 192n29, 193n35 Goldman, Yohanan 48, 60n71, 129n274 Goldschmidt, Daniel 339n44 Goldstein, Ronnie 246n17, 260nn27, 29, 261n33 Golinets, Viktor 416n7, 517n9, 532nn19, 20, 533n21, 535n26, 547n46, 548nn51, 52, 54, 549n56, 598n6 Gooding, David 219–21, 222n11, 225n21 Gordis, Robert 212n88 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. 53n41, 366n8, 388n85, 417n8 Gosse, Bernard 48, 49n20 Gottheil, Richard 54, 365–68, 379n63, 527n10 Gottlieb, Leeor 528n12 Graf, Karl Heinrich 45 Grant, Deena E. 110n27, 111n234, 112nn236, 113nn240, 241 Graves, Michael 8n12 Gray, George B. 199n49 Gray, John 223n12, 228n29, 233nn240, 41 Greenberg, Moshe 183n2, 184n7, 187n19, 202nn55, 56, 223n15, 234n42 Greenfield, Jonas C. 249 Greenstein, Edward L. 265n43 Gregory, Bradley 38n41

620 Grenfell, Bernard P. 292n15 Gribomont, Jean 161n29 Grohmann, Adolf 405 Gryson, Roger 117nn258, 261, 160n25, 165n47 Gulak, Asher 359n63 Gunkel, Hermann 184n4 Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. 83n164, 85n177 Habel, Norman C. 199n49 Hacham, Noah 288n4, 289nn5, 6, 7 HaCohen, Aviyah 65 Haelewyck, Jean-Claude 165n48, 166nn54, 61, 62, 63, 169 Haelst, Joseph van 298, 302n4, 309 Halpern, Baruch 208n71, 209n76 Hambardzumyan, Garegin 38n44 Hamilton, Victor P. 185n9, 187n19 Hanhart, Robert 159–60, 163n43, 166n62 Hanneken, Todd R. 90n190 Haran, Menahem 51–52, 229n30, 235n44 Harl, Marguerite 260n30 Harland, Peter J. 184n7, 187n19 Harrauer, Hermann 295n34, 403n6 Harviainen, Tapani 378n62, 379n65 Hatch, Edwin 307n27, 325n9, 326n10 Heijmans, Shai 534n24, 547n44 Heinemann, Isaac 243n9, 245n15 Heller, Chaim 191n28 Hembd, Albert 439n34 Hempel, Charlotte 30n20 Hendel, Ronald S. 190 Hengel, Martin 4n7 Henry, W. B. 289n7, 307n18 Henze, Matthias 7n9, 263n38 Hershler, M. Ben Zion 436n30 Hershler, Moshe 436n30 Heschel, Susannah 253n4 Himbaza, Innocent 261n34, 495n29 Hoerning, Reinhart 378n61, 379n65 Hoffmann, Yair 209n76, 263n39 Hoftijzer, Jacob 351n29 Holladay, William L. 74n133, 78nn146, 147 Holt, Else K. 62nn78, 79 Horovitz, H. Saul 242n3 Howard, George E. 35n31, 94n202, 244n12, 311n37 Hubmann, Franz D. 44n5 Hugo, Phillipe 220, 221n9

Index of Modern Authors Hunger, Herbert 402n4, 404n11, 408n31 Hunt, Arthur S. 292nn15, 19, 293n23 Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor) 225n20 Hurtado, Larry W. 262n35, 274n68, 291, 293n21, 298, 302n4, 307n16 Hurvitz, Avi 229n31 Huwyler, Beat 44n5 Hyvernat, Henry 598n6, 604n39 Jackson, Bernard S. 185n7, 187n19, 189n21 Jacobson, Howard 191n27, 196 Jacoby, Norbert 49n22, 70n115, 71, 86n179 Janzen, J. Gerald 45, 56–60, 65n89, 72–78, 129n274 Japhet, Sara 206n66 Jefferson, Rebecca J. W. 534n23 Jobes, Karen H. 73n130, 76n140, 94n202 Jones, Gwilym H. 223n12 Jongeling, Karel 351n29 Joosten, Jan 129, 156n5, 221n7, 261n34 Kahle, Paul E. 364–68, 376n53, 377nn56– 58, 573n11 Kaiser, Otto 72n124, 83n164 Kaminsky, Joel S. 207n70, 208n75, 209n76 Kantor, Benjamin 308n23 Karabacek, Josef 402–5, 407n25 Kartveit, Magnar 156n6 Kasher, Shimon 186n13, 207n68 Kasowski, Chaim Joshua 346nn9, 11 Kaufmann, David 403–7, 526n3 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 208n73 Kauhanen, Tuukka 158n15, 163n39, 170n85 Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin 161n30 Kelley, Page H. 13n17, 50n26 Kennicott, Benjamin 113, 116 Kenyon, Frederic G. 164n46 Kerkeslager, Allen 340n49 Khan, Geoffrey 13n17, 364n2, 367n15, 369n20, 372n33, 378nn59, 61, 379nn63, 64, 385n83, 387n84, 388n87, 389n89, 598n6, 614n101 Kharanauli, Anna 38n45 Kilpatrick, George D. 292n14, 293n26 Kimelman, Reuven 337n33 Kiraz, George A. 117n260 Kister, Menahem 30n20, 255n11, 264n40, 266n46, 268–69, 325

Index of Modern Authors Klar, Benjamin 373, 374n40 Klawans, Jonathan 276n76 Klein, Ralph W. 73n130 Knibb, Michael A. 90n190 Knohl, Israel 205n62, 224n18 Knoppers, Gary N. 222n10 Kohut, Alexander (M. Y.) 346n8 Kornfeld, Walter 406n19, 408n31, 526n1, 527, 549, 555, 568n3 Kraft, Robert A. 291–93, 298–99 Kratz, Reinhard G. 82n156, 83nn160, 162, 163, 84–89, 241n2 Kraus, Thomas J. 335, 336n32, 339n47 Kraus, Wolfgang 83n162, 84n165, 85n177, 87n181 Kruse, Thomas 406n24 Kuenen, Abraham 254n5 Kugel, James L. (Yaakov Kaduri) 109n220, 110n227, 111n234, 112nn236, 113nn240, 241, 257n16, 258n19, 268n52 Kutscher, E. Yechezkel 351n29, 360n68 Kutz, Karl 81n152 Kvanvig, Helge S. 206n64 Laato, Antii 207n70 Labendz, Jenny R. 328n15 Lange, Armin 2n4, 4n7, 5n8, 8n11, 37n34, 43n2, 44nn4, 5, 55n52, 60n73, 63nn82, 83, 66n91, 67n96, 69n11, 71n123, 73n130, 76n141, 80nn149, 150, 83n160, 90, 92–93, 102n214, 108nn215, 217, 109n218, 110, 112nn236, 237, 113n241, 116nn254, 255, 127n268, 130n276, 133nn278, 279, 212n95, 255n10, 266n47, 274n67, 337n33, 338n39, 408, 526n1, 539 Langlois, Michael 43n1, 80n151, 81n153 Law, Timothy M. 220n5 Leander, Pontus 563n70 Levin, Christoph 128n269 Licht, Jacob 202n56 Lieberman, Saul 350–52, 355, 357nn54, 55, 358n59, 359n62 Liesen, Jan 117n260 Lilly, Ingrid E. 168n72 Lindars, Barnabas 158n14 Linder, Amnon 287n2 Lipschütz, Lazar 365n6, 373nn35, 36, 429, 430n20, 433n22

621 Loebenstein, Helene 401nn1, 2, 405n18, 526n2, 527nn4, 5, 568 Loewenstamm, Samuel E. 184n4, 260nn27, 29 Loewinger, D. S. 53n40, 54n42, 407nn26–28, 411n2, 512n2, 526n1, 527–28, 530n15, 536n27, 539, 549n57, 555, 594n1, 595n3, 611n94 Lohfink, Norbert 210n80 Loll, Colette 80n151 Löw, Immanuel 348n19 Luchner, K. 289n7 Lumby, J. Rawson 222n10 Lund, Jerome A. 350n27 Lundbom, Jack R. 50n26, 51, 74n134 Lust, Johan 46n14, 184n6, 188n21, 189–90 Luzzatto, Samuel D. 347 Mach, Michael 253n3, 271n61 Mann, Jacob 68n16, 376n54 Marcus, David 553–55 Maresch, Klaus 406nn20, 22, 23 Margoliouth, George 368n16 Margolis, Max L. 162n34 Martín-Contreras, Elvira 376n55, 384n81, 495n29, 598n6, 614n101 Maspero, Jean 335n28 Mathews, Kenneth A. 65nn85, 87 May, Herbert 209n76 Mazor, Lea 230n33 McKeating, Henry 184n7 McKenzie, Steven L. 223n13, 228n29, 233n41 Meade, John D. 70n155 Meier, John P. 276n72 Menchetti, Angiolo 305n11 Meyer, Esias E. 200n52 Meyers, Carol L. 244n14 Meyers, Eric M. 244n14 Michael, Tony S. L. 71n121 Michalak, Aleksander R. 272n62 Milgrom, Jacob 187n19, 189n21, 210n79, 224n17, 250n29 Milik, Józef T. 29n12, 30–32, 258n22 Milne, Herbert J. M. 292n13 Miltenova, Anissava 36n46 Min, Young-Jin 48n19 Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike 90 Mittwoch, Eugen 338n41

622 Mizrahi, Noam 232n39 Moatti-Fine, Jacqueline 82–86 Montgomery, James A. 174, 222n10, 223n13, 233n41 Moon Kwon Chae 47n14 Moore, Carey A. 82–87 Moore, George Foot 277n77 Mor, Uri 354n42, 356n51 Morag, Shlomo 533n22, 546n41 Moreno Hernández, Antonio 165n50, 171n86 Movers, Franz Carl 45 Muffs, Yochanan 358n57 Mulder, Martine J. 223n12 Müller, David Heinrich 403–7, 526n3 Muraoka, Takamitsu 359n65 Mynatt, Daniel S. 13n17 Naeh, Shlomo 383 Najman, Hindy 257n16 Nakhman, David 270n59 Nasser, Shady Hekmat 381n72 Naumann, Weigand 82n156, 84n166, 85n177 Naveh, Joseph 337nn35, 37, 338nn40, 41, 339nn44, 46 Nebe, G. Wilhelm 344n2, 345n6 Nelson, Richard D. 256n12, 259n25 Nemoy, Leon 509n44 Nestle, Eberhard 83n163 Neubauer, Adolf 34n25 Newman, Hillel 340n49 Newsom, Carol A. 109n219, 268n53, 269n54 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 83n165 Nihan, Christophe 207n67 Oesch, Josef M. 457, 460n7, 500–509, 501n34, 507n40 Ofer, Yosef 13n17, 53n41, 365n7, 366nn8, 10, 435n24, 436n30, 457n4, 473, 493, 495n29, 502n37, 512n1, 514n3, 601nn12, 13, 602n23, 606nn59, 61, 63 Ognibeni, Bruno 370n21 Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith 12n16, 368n15, 387n84, 598n5, 609n91, 611n95, 613n97 Ortega Monasterio, Maria Teresa 8n12, 434n23 Outhwaite, Ben 367nn11, 14

Index of Modern Authors Pajunen, Milka S. 272n65 Palme, Bernhard 411n3, 456n1, 526n1, 527n5, 539, 568n2 Paran, Meir 184n4 Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. 47n17 Parry, Donald W. 157n10, 230n34, 243n7, 249nn25, 27, 310n31 Parsons, Peter J. 289n7, 307n17 Patton, Corinne 60n67 Paz, Yakir 255n11, 265n42, 266nn45, 47, 48, 268n51 Pearce, Sarah J. K. 256n11 Pedersen, Johannes 188n21 Penkower, Jordan S. 365n5, 366n8, 368n18, 430n20 Penner, Jeremy 271n61 Peretz, Rafael 430n21 Pérez Castro, Federico 8n12, 53n40 Perkins, Larry 310 Pernigotti, Sergio 305n11 Perrot, Charles 530nn13, 14 Pervo, Richard I. 276n76 Peters, Norbert 72n124, 257n18, 323n5 Phillips, Anthony 207n67 Phillips, Kim 367n14 Pietersma, Albert 71n21, 84n203, 310, 323n5 Pinsker, Simcha 373 Piovanelli, Pierluigi 128n269 Piquer Otero, Andres 160n26 Plöger, Otto 210n79 Porten, Bezalel 250n27, 354n44, 359n65 Poznanski, Samuel 365n3 Preisendanz, Karl 402n3 Pretzl, Otto 380n66, 381nn69, 70 Price, Jonathan J. 340n49 Puech, Émile 36, 72n27, 109n219, 157n13, 336n39 Pummer, Rudolph 156n5 Qimron, Elisha 25n1, 31, 59nn23, 24, 197, 268n53 Quast, Udo 163n41 Rabin, Chaim 26n4, 28–29, 54n48, 113n245 Rabin, Israel A. 242n3 Rabinowitz, Jacob J. 358n59 Rahlfs, Alfred 37n35, 158n14, 162, 168n69, 169n78, 266n46, 295–97, 303–5, 307–9, 312, 319n4

Index of Modern Authors Ranke, Ernst 117n261 Ravasco, Andrea 230n37 Rechenmacher, Hans 548n49 Redpath, Henry A. 309n27, 325n9, 326n10 Reed, Annette Yoshiko 267n42 Reich, Ronny 337n34 Reinfandt, Lucian 526n1 Renaud, Bernard 51 Revell, E. J. 548n50 Reymond, Eric D. 38n38, 109–12, 115nn247, 248, 116n252 Reynolds, Bennie H., III 90–92, 97n207 Riley, Jason 63n81 Roberts, Colin H. 289n5, 291n11, 292n17, 302n3 Rofé, Alexander 51, 56n53, 221n9, 230n33, 231n38, 243n8, 246n18, 248n20, 251n33, 253n2, 256n12, 257n15, 259n25, 260n30, 261n34, 263n38, 274n69 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 207n70, 208n71, 209n77 Rösel, Martin 310–11 Rosen-Zvi, Assaf 7n10 Roth, Ernst 407nn26, 28, 411n2, 512n2, 527–28, 539, 549, 555, 594n1, 595n3, 611n94 Rozenthal, David 514n3 Rudolph, Wilhelm 531n18 Ruzer, Serge 327n13 Sabatier, Petrus 117 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel 372n31 Saley, Richard J. 73nn130, 131, 157n10, 230n34, 243n7, 249nn25, 27 Salvesen, Alison 303n6 Sanders, James A. 54n42, 108–15, 601n14 Sanger, Patrick 406n24 Sanz, Peter 294, 295n34 Sarna, Nahum M. 8n12 Schacht, Joseph 381n68, 383n76 Schäfer, Peter 274n69 Schauerte, Gabriele 81n74 Schechter, Solomon 26n4 Schenker, Adrian 46n14, 128n269, 156n6, 220–21, 309 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 196, 355n49 Schildenberger, Johannes 160n24, 164n46 Schmid, Konrad 48n19, 62n76 Schmidt, Maurice 330n19

623 Scholem, Gershom 339n44 Scholz, Anton 45 Schreiner, Stefan 496n30 Schroer, Silvia 86nn178, 179 Schuller, Eileen 268n53, 269n54 Schult, Hermann 187n15 Schulz-Flügel, Eva 161n29, 169n74, 170n81 Schwartz, Daniel R. 196–97 Schwarz, Arthur Zacharias 407, 527 Segal, Michael 9n14 Segal, Moses H. 3n6, 9n14, 31n22, 230n35, 231n38, 266n46 Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa, Guadalupe  598n6, 614n101 Sen, Felipe 113n241 Sérandour, Arnaud 47n14, 129n269 Seybold, Klaus 108n216, 109n218, 111, 115n251 Shaked, Shaul 337nn35, 37, 338nn40, 41, 339nn44, 46, 407n25, 526n1 Shaw, Frank 304n10, 309n26, 312 Shead, Andrew G. 51, 70n115, 72n125 Shemesh, Aharon 196n40 Shinan, Avigdor 264n40 Shweka, Aharon 514n3 Siegel, Jonathan P. 212n93, 306n12 Silva, Moisés 36n33, 73n130, 76n140, 94n202 Sirat, Colette 594n1, 600n3, 614n100 Skeat, T. C. 292n17 Skehan, Patrick W. 34n28, 36n32, 72n124, 108–113, 116n252, 290n8, 307n16, 311–12, 460n6 Skinner, John 184n4 Skoss, Solomon Leon 388n88 Smend, Rudolf 72n124 Smith, Jannes 307n18, 310 Smith, Mark 80n188, 254, 260, 264n41, 265n42, 266n45, 268n52, 273 Sodar, Bonaventure 159, 160n27 Soderlund, Sven 51 Sokoloff, Michael 328n14, 345nn5, 6, 350n27, 351n29, 354n45, 358 Soloveitchik, I. B. Halevi 359n60 Sommer, Benjamin D. 262n35 Sonne, Isaiah 512n1, 530nn13, 14 Sperber, Alexander 54n46, 113n245, 117n259, 519–22, 535, 536nn32, 33 Spier, Jeffrey 336n31, 339n47 Spohn, Gottleib Leberecht 45

624

Index of Modern Authors

Spottorno Díaz-Caro, María Victoria 90n174 Stampfer, Yehuda Zvi 359n61 Steck, Odil Hannes 184n6, 187n16 Stegemann, Harmut 268n53, 269nn54, 55, 307n16, 310n29, 311–12 Steiner, Richard 382n74 Sternberg, Meir 183n1 Steudel, Annette 29n13 Stieglitz, Robert R. 228n28 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 47–48, 50n27, 56nn53, 56, 57, 60n71, 71n121, 73n131, 75, 94n203, 129, 203n58 Strack, Hermann L. 54n43, 372n30 Strawn, Brent A. 108n217 Stroumsa, Guy G. 340n49 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 90n190, 374n68 Stulman, Louis 44n5, 48n19 Sundberg, Albert C. 4n7 Sweeney, Marvin A. 49–50, 129n274, 223n12

143, 77n144, 79n148, 82, 93–94, 113n245, 125n265, 155, 156n4, 211n83, 212n94, 219–20, 231n39, 274n67, 290n8, 292, 294, 303n7, 304n10, 310n30, 337n33, 353n40, 363n1, 467n10, 495n29, 569n7, 598n6 Trebolle Barrera, Julio 156n7, 157n9, 160n26, 161n32, 163nn38, 40, 164n45, 166nn56, 57, 167nn64– 66, 168nn70– 72, 169n79, 173n87, 220 Treu, Kurt 291, 293–95, 298–99 Tur-Sinai, Naftali Herz 212n93

Tal, Abraham 344n2, 357n53 Tal, Ilan 288n4, 289nn5, 6, 7 Talmon, Shemaryahu 54n48, 113n245, 199n48, 211n82, 265n44 Talshir, Zipora 219, 222n11, 230n35, 231n38, 242n5, 243n6 Tamási, Balázs 92n196 Tarras, Peter 36n47 Taylor, Charles 308 Taylor, Justin 276nn73, 75 Teeter, D. Andrew 249n23, 255n8 Thackeray, H. St. John 71nn119, 121, 83n163, 93–94, 159n19 Theodor, Julius 245n15 Thiele, Walter 164n46, 170n83 Thomas, Benjamin D. 84–85, 86n179, 87n181 Thornhill, Raymond 162n34 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 208n74, 254n5, 257n15, 259n24, 264n41 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 80n150, 91, 338n43 Torijano Morales, Pablo A. 160n26, 161n32, 166n52, 168n67 Torrey, Charles C. 243n10, 244n11 Tov, Emanuel 2n4, 3n5, 11, 45–48, 52n39, 55n51, 56n53, 65, 66n91, 67nn93–95, 69nn109, 110, 71nn120, 121, 72nn125, 127–129, 73nn130, 131, 76nn138–140,

Van der Kooij, Arie 51, 94n202, 255n7, 262n34, 273n66 Van der Woude, Adam S. 338n43 Van Keulen, Percy S. F. 219 Van Peursen, Wido 38n40 Van Selms, Adrianus 185n9, 187n18 VanderKam, James C. 192–93, 258n20, 266n48, 267n49, 268n51 Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. 312 Vattioni, Francesco 117n260 Vercellone, Carlo 162 Vermes, Geza 275n70 Vermeylen, Jacques 49n19 Vianès, Laurence 244n13 Vidro, Nadia 368n15 Vikan, Gary 335–36 Viviano, Benedict T. 276nn73, 75 Von Rad, Gerhard 184nn4, 5, 7, 186n12, 223nn15, 16, 234n42 Vööbus, Arthur 164n46

Ulrich, Eugene 47n14, 65n89, 68n108, 73nn130, 131, 126n266, 155n3, 156n7, 157nn10–12, 163n38, 164n44, 165n49, 168nn67, 68, 230n34, 243n7, 249nn25, 27, 250n32, 270n58 Urbach, Ephraim E. 257n16 Uusimäki, Elisa 263n38, 271n60

Waddell, W. G. 304n10 Wanke, Gunther 61n75 Weber, Robert 117n258 Weigold, Matthias 83n160, 92–93, 102, 110 Weil, Gérard E. 494, 552, 595n4, 600n9, 601–8

625

Index of Modern Authors Weinfeld, Moshe 109n220, 110, 208n74, 209n77, 223n16, 224n17, 253n2, 327n13, 330nn17, 18 Weis, Richard D. 44n5, 49, 73n131, 129n274 Weiss, Judy 54n44 Weiss, Meir 183n1 Welch, John W. 184n4 Wellhausen, Julius 162, 219n2, 233n41 Werman, Cana 90n190, 192–94, 267nn48, 49, 51 Wessely, Carl 294, 296–97, 302, 402–3 Westermann, Claus 187n19 Wevers, John William 155n2, 156n5, 319n4 Wijesinghe, Shirley L. 47n14 Wilcken, Ulrich 72n124 Wilkinson, Robert J. 311nn36, 39 Wise, Michael 27n5 Wolff, Hans Walter 26n3 Worp, Klaas W. 403n6 Wright, Benjamin G. 34n26, 35n29, 38nn36, 37, 49, 82n156

Wright, David 201n53 Wyatt, Nicholas 263n37 Xella, Paolo 263n37 Xeravits, Géza 111nn234, 235 Yardeni, Ada 65, 72nn127, 128, 76n138, 353nn36–40, 354nn41, 43, 45, 457n5 Yeivin, Israel 8n12, 13n17, 54n49, 370n21, 375, 388n85, 443, 493n22, 563n71, 598n6, 610n93, 614n100 Zakovitch, Yair 244n14 Zehnder, Markus 184n6, 186n10 Zer, Rafael Isaac 374 Ziegler, Joseph 35n30, 70, 71n23, 117n257, 309n27 Zimmerli, Walter 202n57 Zipor, Moshe A. 190n25, 204n59 Zucker, Moshe 373–74

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible: Masoretic Text Genesis 160, 188, 199n49, 304, 434, 439, 612–13 1 110n227 1–9 204–6, 210–11 1:1–5 110 1:4 111 1:14 445 1:19–24 14, 444 1:20 445 1:21 444–45 1:22 445 1:29–30 202–3n58 2:1–3 188n20 2:5 205n63 2:6–7 212 2:22–3:3 14, 444 2:23 445 4:5 188n19 4:10–11 213 4:10–12 199n49, 200n50 4:11 204 4:12 204 4:14–17 9 4:15 188n19, 205 4:23 205 5:10–18 9 5:32–6:7 9 6–8 205n62 6:1 212–13 6:5–6 204–6 6:7 198n44 6:13 201–2 6:18 224n17 7:4 198n44 7:23 198n44 8:21 210, 213 8:21–22 205 9:1–7 205–6 9:1–16 205n62 9:1–19 203 9:2 188n19, 207n69 9:4–6 195, 204n62 9:5 204 9:5–6 207, 209–10

6, 183–213 9:6 9:9 224n17 9:11 224n17 9:17 224n17 11 264n40 11:10 439 13:10 9 14:9–22 9 15:5–21 9 15:13 605 15:16 96 16:5–17:2 9 17:7 224n17 17:9–20 9 17:19–18:24 14, 447–50 17:19 224n17 17:21 224n17 18:1 447 18:4 449, 450 18:9 447, 449 18:14 449 18:17 449 18:19 447 18:20 447 18:21 449 19:2 450 23:16 384 24:14 211n85 24:28 211n85 24:55 211n85 26:11 188n19 27:19 369 27:29 547n46 28:17 604 28:22 604 29:9 605 30:37 536 31:41 441 32:4 425, 427, 428 32:4–33:6 428 32:9 425, 427, 428 32:18 425, 427, 428 32:27 425, 428 32:31 425, 427 32:37 427 33:4 425, 427, 428

627

Index of Ancient Sources Genesis (cont.) 33:10 425, 427, 428 33:17 428 33:18 425, 427, 428 34:3 85n85, 425, 427, 428 34:12 211n85 34:24 425, 427, 428 34:27 425 35:9 318, 427, 428 35:12 425, 427, 428 35:21 425, 427, 428 36:3–43 14, 411n4, 412 36:5 425, 427, 428 36:6 200n49, 412 36:9 412n6 36:10 425, 427, 428 36:14 247, 425, 428 36:16 425, 427, 428 36:16–17 200n49 36:19 416 36:20 417 36:21 200n49, 412n6 36:22 412n6, 417 36:24 412n6 36:31 200n49 36:34–35 412n6 36:37 412n6 36:39 412n6 36:40 412 36:43–37:2 420 37:1 416, 431 37:1–38:24 411n4 37:2 441 37:10 43, 432 37:12 417 37:18 431, 432 37:19 345 37:25 417–18 37:32 413 37:34 413 38 245 38:1 416, 431 38:2 431, 432 38:9 431, 432 38:11 413 38:17 418 38:18–24 415 38:24 413 39:1 431

39:6 431, 432 431, 432 39:14 39:22–40:7 14, 447–48 39:23 431 40:1 431 41:1 416 14, 411n4 41:1–44:17 41:22 412 41:30–45 442 41:38 416 41:40 604 41:45 305, 432, 434 41:46 441 41:50 432, 433 41:50–51 413 41:53 441 42:7 413 42:18 416 42:21 413, 432, 433 43:3–9 414 43:8–9 413 43:13 416 43:14 416 43:26 432, 433 44:17–18 420, 421 44:18 416 44:18–47:17 14, 411n4 45:6 441 46:8 416–17 46:27 267–68n51 46:28 416 48:3–7 14, 446 48:5–49:16 14, 451–53 48:5 451 48:7 212 49:1 551 49:4 99 49:5 14, 551, 606 49:8 547n46, 451 49:13 551 49:14 551 49:16 551 50:26 441 Exodus 188n20, 292, 456 2:12 199n49 2:23–25 9 3:13–16 9 3:18–22 9

628 Exodus (cont.) 4:1–9 9 4:11 605 4:20 242 4:31 547n46 6:4 224n17 6:24 427 6:25 228n27 9:18–13:2 9 11:1 501n35 11:8 547n46 12–13 270 12:27 547n46 12:29 385 12:30 386 12:33 386 12:34 386 12:36 386 13:1 385 13:1–10 337n33 13:11–16 337n33 13:16 330 13:19–16:1 9 14:7 386 16:1 386 16:2 386 16:7 234n42, 386 16:10 234n42 17:9 385 18:2–6 242 18:5 604 18:20 206n66 22–23 293 22:4 460, 461 22:21–24:5 14, 456, 457–60 22:23 460 22:24 460 22:26 457 22:27 460 23 248 23:2 460 23:3 460 23:4 460, 461 23:5 460, 461 23:6 460, 461 23:16 228 23:20 460, 461 23:27 460

Index of Ancient Sources 24:1 460, 461 24:16–17 234n42 25 235 25:8 223 25:22 232 26:33–34 232n40 27:21 175n93 28:43 175n93 29:4 175n93 29:10 175n93 29:30 175n93 29:32 175n93 29:42 175n93 29:44 175n93 29:45–46 223n15 30:11–34:35 546 30:16 175n93 30:18 175n93 30:20 175n93 30:21 175n93 30:23 348 30:26 175n93 30:36 175n93 31:7 175n93 33:5 604 33:10 547n46 34 248 34:7 208 34:22 228 35:21 175n93 36:8 604 37:5 175n93 37:19 175n93 37:25 501n35 38:26 175n93 38:27 175n93 39:1 230n36 39:7 175n93 39:20 536 39:21 175n93 40:2 175n93 40:5 175n93 40:22 175n93 40:26 175n93 40:28 292 40:34 175n93 40:34–35 233–34 40:35 175n93

629

Index of Ancient Sources Leviticus 456, 613 1:1 175n93, 234, 612 1:1–3 14 1:1–8 9 1:2 612 1:3 175n93, 612 1:5 175n93 3:2 175n93 3:8 175n93 3:9–11 249 3:13 175n93 4:3 230 4:4 175n93 4:5 175n93 4:7 175n93, 198n46 4:14 175n93, 230 4:16 175n93 4:18 175n93, 198n46 4:25 198n46 4:30 198n46 4:35 198n46 6:9 175n93 6:19 175n93 6:23 175n93 7:3–5 249 7:3–37 14, 456, 462–67 7:9 465 7:11 467 7:12 466 7:13 230n35 7:17 466 7:21 466na, 467 7:22 467 7:28 467 7:31–34 231 7:37 465 8:4 175n93 8:29 546 8:31 175n93 8:33 175n93 8:35 175n93 9:5 175n93 9:6 234n42 9:23 175n93, 234n42 9:23–24 234 10:7 175n93 10:9 175n93 12:4 83

12:6 175n93 14:11 175n93 14:23 175n93 15:29 175n93 15:1–2 515 15:14 175n93 15:25 515, 530 15:25–16:34 530 15:31 223n15 16:7 175n93 16:16 175n93, 223n15 16:17 175n93 16:20 175n93 16:23 175n93 16:33 175n93 17:1 515 17:1–16 530 17:3 530 17:4 175n93 17:5 175n93 17:6 175n93 17:9 175n93 17:21 175n93 18:4 223n14 18:5 223n14 18:6 93 18:25 200n52 18:26 223n14 18:27 200n52 18:27–28 210n79 18:28 200n52 19:29 200n52 19:37 223n14 200–201, 200n52, 20:22 223n14 23:20 230 14, 456, 468–74 23:4–25 23:9 472–73 23:14 472 23:15 472–73 23:17 230 23:17–20 249 23:23 472–73 23:26 472–73 23:33–44 228 23:39–44 204n62 24:3 175n93 25:2 200n52

630 Leviticus (cont.) 25:18 223n14 25:19 200n52 25:21 472 25:25 472–73 25:29 472–73 25:35 472–73 25:36–42 14, 456, 468–74 25:39 472–73 26 235 26:3 223n14 26:3–11 224–25 26:4 200n52 26:9 224n17 26:11 223n15 26:15 223n14 26:20 200n52 26:32 93 26:34 200n52, 201 26:34–35 210n79 26:38 200n52 26:39–40 210n79 26:40 93 26:43 93, 95–96, 200n52, 223n14 27:10 603 27:28–29 196–97 Numbers 1:1 175n93 1:16 228n27 1:50 175n93 1:53 175n93 2:2 175n93 2:17 175n93 3–4 229 3:7 175n93 3:8 175n93 3:10 175n93 3:24 228n27 3:25 175n93 3:30 228n27 3:31 235n44 3:35 228n27 3:38 175n93 4:3 175n93 4:4 175n93, 232n40 4:5 175n93 4:15 175n93, 235n44

Index of Ancient Sources 4:19 232n40 4:23 175n93 4:26 175n93 4:28 175n93 4:30 175n93 4:31 175n93 4:37 175n93 4:39 175n93 4:41 175n93 4:43 175n93 5:3 223n15 5:17 175n93 6:10 175n93 6:13 175n93 6:18 175n93, 387 7:2 228n27 7:4–9 229 7:89 175n93 8:8 230 8:9 175n93 8:15 175n93 8:19 175n93 8:22 175n93 8:24 175n93 8:26 175n93 10:3 175n93 10:11 175n93 10:16 175n93 11:15 211n88 11:16 175n93 12:4 175n93 12:5 175n93 14:10 175n93, 234n42 14:21 234n42 229, 229n31 14:35 15:24 230 15:30–31 93 15:37–41 337n33 16–17 210n79 16:1 229n31 16:3 223n15 16:11 229 16:18 175n93 16:19 175n93, 234n42 16:20–22 210n79 16:32 198n44 17:7 175n93, 234n42 17:8 175n93 17:15 175n93

631

Index of Ancient Sources Numbers (cont.) 17:19 175n93 17:22 175n93 17:23 175n93 17:25 175n93 18:1–7 229 18:2 175n93 18:3 235n44 18:4 175n93 18:6 175n93 18:9 232n40 18:10 232n40 18:18 231 18:21 175n93 18:22 175n93 18:23 175n93 18:26 250 18:41 175n93 19:4 175n93 20:6 175n93, 234n42 20:11 112 20:20 604 21:24–29:30 14, 456, 474–509 21:26 494, 495 21:28 68 491, 494–95 21:32 22:2 495–97, 502 22:4 494, 495 23:10 496–97 23:12 491, 492 23:13 491, 495 24:7 112 24:10 500, 502 24:17 31–32, 491, 494 25:1 494, 496–97, 503 25:2 547n46 500, 503 25:4 25:6 175n93 495–96, 498, 503 25:10 25:14 228n27 25:16 503 26:1 500, 503 26:5 503 26:12 503 26:15 503 26:19 503 26:23 504 26:26 504 26:28 504

26:35 491–92, 504, 507n39 26:38 504 26:42 504 26:44 504 26:52 496, 498, 504 26:57 505 500, 505 26:63 27:1 505 27:2 175n93 27:3 229n31 27:6 505 27:12 500, 505 27:14 257 27:15 496, 499, 505 27:18 505 27:22 500, 505 28:1 505 28:9 506 28:11 506 28:12 491–92 28:16 506 28:26 496, 499, 506 29:1 506 29:2 230 29:5 491, 493 29:7 506 29:8 230 29:12 506 29:12–39 228 29:14 491, 493 29:17 506 29:17–30 501–502 29:20 506 29:23 507 29:26 507 29:29 507 30:2 228n27 30:15 246n19 31:6 235n44 31:26 228n27 31:54 175n93 32:28 228n27 35:31–33 194–95 35:33 6, 191, 198–99 35:34 223n15 36:2 186n10 Deuteronomy 253, 289, 309, 435n25

632 Deuteronomy (cont.) 1:15 555 1:26 212 3:17 257 4 264n41, 277 4:19 264–65 4:21 536 4:27–28 83 5 270 5–6 270 5:27 211n88 6:4 11, 317, 320, 325, 336, 340 6:4–7 338n39, 339 6:4–9 337–38 6:5 326–27, 333 6:5–6 320, 324 6:5–9 11, 317, 336, 340 6:8 330 7:9–10 208–9 7:10 210n79 7:15 339n41 8 270 9:5 224n17 11 270 11:6 198n44 11:13 327, 333, 334 11:13–21 11, 217, 320–23, 324, 336, 337–38, 340 11:14 328–29, 333 11:16 334 11:17 334 11:19 334 11:21 334 12:5 223n16 12:11 223n16 12:16 198n46 12:21 223n16 12:24 198n46 13:3–6 246 14:24 223n16 16–17 256n11 16:13 228 18 229n30 18:3 231 18:20 246 19:10 200n50 19:21 188 21 270

Index of Ancient Sources 21:7 387 22:15 211n85 22:16 211n85 22:21 211n85 22:24 211n85 22:25 211n85 22:27 211n85 22:29 211n85 23:17 602 25:2 606 26:18 304 27:4 155–56 27:18 605 29:8–10 419 29:18 98 29:25 547 31:14 175n93 31:15 175n93 31:17–18 96 32 259 32–33 6, 254–78 32:1–9 270 32:8 264n41, 265, 273–74 32:8–9 253, 259–62, 265n42, 266–70, 271 32:15–18 262–63 32:17 253 32:20 96 32:24 253, 263 32:43 253, 259–62, 264–65, 270, 271 33:2 256–59, 277 33:2–3 253, 256 33:3 259 33:8 157 33:29 186n10 Joshua 221, 231, 235 1:7 248 1:11 14, 546 6:27 546 7:21 199n49 10:12 604 10:18 608 11:5 229 14:1 228n27 15:13 608 17:1 175n93 17:4 608

633

Index of Ancient Sources Joshua (cont.) 18:51 175n93 19:25 605 19:51 228n27 21:1 228n27 21:3 608 22:3 602 Judges 162 2:1 158n14 5:4–5 256 5:6 167 6:5 156 7:4 604 9:4 99 9:24 202n55 9:29 157–58 9:44 158 16:31 554n65 17:5 604 Samuel–Kings

158, 162, 167, 224

1 Samuel 163n39 1:9 369n21 1:15 187n18 1:23 157 1:24 230 2:1–10 237–40 2:12–17 231 2:22 234n44 3:8 608 3:15 608 3:21 603 4:18 554 5:9 554 7:1–8:13 14, 549–55 7:3 552 7:6 187n18, 552, 553 7:7 552, 553 7:11 553 7:12 552 7:16 552, 553 7:17 552, 553–54 8:2 554 8:5 552, 554 8:6 552, 554 8:7 552 8:11 554

8:12 554, 555 8:13 555 8:14 555 9:24 249 9:26 554 10:4 230, 249–50 10:27–11:1 157 12:17 250n28 13:5 604 13:7 174n88 14:11 602 14:15 174n88 16:4 174n88 17:11 174n88 17:37 603 20:34 99 21:2 174n88 21:14 200.n50 24:19 211n88 25:9 99 28:1 605n52 28:5 174n88 30:1 554 31:12 602 2 Samuel 1:21 250 3:27 188 4:4 554 5:11 245 7 224 7:14 123–125, 156 7:23 157, 554 12:7 553 12:10 174n89 12:19 608 13:10 174n89 13:18 211n86 17:2 174n88 17:19 605 19:38 607 20:14 375 21:1–6 200n50 22:17 112 22:43 602 24 242 25:15 174n89 1–2 Kings

8

634 1 Kings 235 1:15 174n89 2:4 224n17 2:16 606 2:20 606 2:37 605n52 2:42 605n52 3 223 3:8 227n26 14, 411n4 3:15–4:1 3:22 413 3:23 413 3:25 413 3:28 554n65 6 75 6–8 232–33, 235 6:1 607 6:1–10 222 6:5 232 6:9 225 222–25, 234 6:11–14 6:12–13 224–25 6:15 222 6:16 232 225, 232 6:19 6:19–20 232 6:23 232 6:31 232 7:1–12 226n22 7:49 232 232, 233 7:50 7:51 226n22 225–29, 234 8:1–5 8:1–11 225–29 8:4 229 8:6 232 8:8 232 8:10–11 233–35 8:20 224n17 8:22–53 234 8:27 223 8:65 228 9:2 222–23 9:3 223n16 11:9 607 12:15 224n17 13:26 603 16:29–19:18 246

Index of Ancient Sources 18:1–39 546n39 18:4 246 18:12 606 18:13 246 18:20–39 546 18:22 246 18:31 37 18:40 247 546, 547 18:46 18:46–19:21 14, 546 19:1 546, 548, 549n55 19:3 547 19:4 546 19:5 546 19:6 546, 549n55 19:7 549n55 546, 549 19:8 19:9 546, 547, 549 19:10 246, 546, 549 19:11 546 19:12 546 19:13 546, 547 19:14 246, 546 19:15 546, 547 19:16 546 19:17 546 546, 547 19:19 19:20 546 19:21 547, 548 20:35 603 21:30 174n89 22:1–28 243–44 22:12–18 9 22:25 174n89 6, 250 22:28 22:28–33 9 2 Kings 2:10 606 4:13 174n88 4:32 171 6:12 174n89 9:2 174n89 10:18–28 247 11:2 174n89 17:13 246 19:18 83 21:8–9 9 23:25 326

635

Index of Ancient Sources 2 Kings (cont.) 23:26–27 208 24:3 208 24:18–20 60n70 24:18–25:26 59 25 60n70 25:29 220 Isaiah 43, 515 1:16 451 2:10 199n49 6:3 110 6:12 93 8:2 244 8:17 96 8:23 608 9:6 212 17:2 605 17:13 112 23:3 112 24:1 211n82 26:21 199n49, 200 30:24 212 32:7 601 36:9 533n21 39:8 209n78 40:13 496 40:18–20 83 40:19 87n181 40:31 604 41:6–7 83 44:9–20 83 45:14 547n46 45:17 186 45:20 83 46:5–7 83 46:6 547n46 46:7 86 49:6 5, 34, 35–37, 38 49:7 547n46 49:23 496 54:8 96 57–66 13 57:13 496 59:2 96 60:5 112n238 64:6 96 65:7 209

66:1–11 530n14 66:3 523, 531–32, 534, 536 66:3–7 14, 515, 516, 529, 530 66:3–11 515 66:3–13 515 66:4 93, 517, 523, 532, 535–37 66:5 523, 537–38 66:6 524, 537 66:7 524 Jeremiah 5, 43–154, 229, 247 1 62 1–25:14 53 1–33 126 1:4 63 1:4–10 62 1:5 103, 118 1:10 103, 118, 127 1:11–19 62 1:14 74, 107, 123 1:18 103, 118 1:24 51 2–45 62 2:1–2 56, 57 2:3 103 2:7 107, 124, 127 2:8 103 2:11 63 2:15 63 2:17 63 2:21 63 2:25 63 2:28 79 2:30 6, 247, 250 2:31 63 2:32 103 3:1 63 3:3 63 3:4 63 3:7 64 3:10 56, 103 3:12 63 3:17 98, 103 4–6 62 4:5 69 4:11 63 4:13–16 69

636 Jeremiah (cont.) 5:1 103 63, 64 5:3 5:7 103 5:8 103 5:9–12 63 5:11 56 5:14 56 5:19 103, 118 5:27 103, 118 6:6 56 6:8 63 6:12 74 6:13–15 59, 60n68 6:15 74 6:19 107, 123 7:1–2 56, 57, 59, 59, 64 7:3–8:3 59 7:13 56 7:15–19 64 7:19 63 7:24 98–99 7:26–28 63 7:27 64 7:28–34 64 7:30–8:3 65 8:1–3 69 8:1–12 64 8:3 56, 66, 69, 70n114 8:4 57, 66 8:6 63 8:9 603 63, 66 8:10 8:10–12 56, 59, 60n68 8:11 59n66 8:12 74 8:17 56 8:18–19 64 8:20 63 8:21–23 69 8:23 64 9:1–2 64 9:1–5 69 9:2 56, 70 9:5 56 9:7–15 64 9:8 66 9:9 66

Index of Ancient Sources 9:12 66 9:13 98 9:14 66 9:21 56 9:22 103 9:22–25 72 9:25 74 10 85, 87n181, 265 10:1–5 72 10:1–11 73 10:1–18 51 10:2 64, 74–75 10:3 87n181 10:4 63, 73 10:5 64, 85–86, 89, 128 10:5–11 72, 85 10:6–8 73, 85 10:6–10 56, 58, 131 10:7 129 10:9 72, 87, 89 10:9–10 66 10:9–14 64 10:10 66, 73, 85 10:11–15 85 10:11–21 72 10:12 103 10:12–13 69, 110–13 10:13 66, 103–4, 119 10:15 73–74 10:16 264–65 10:18 73–74 10:23 64, 104, 119, 605 11:2–3 104 11:3 57 11:3–6 64 11:4 60n68 11:6 104 56, 59 11:7–8 11:8 98–99, 101, 104 11:17 58 11:19–20 64 11:21 53 11:22 53, 56 12:3 66, 104, 119 12:3–7 64 12:5 64 12:13–17 64 12:14 66, 104

637

Index of Ancient Sources Jeremiah (cont.) 12:17 56, 66 66, 79 13:1 13:1–7 64 13:3 66 13:4 66 13:7 107 98–99, 101, 107 13:10 13:11 56 13:12 56 13:13 57, 74 13:14 56 13:17 602n16 13:21 63, 104, 104 13:22 64, 67 13:27 64 14:4 66 14:4–7 64 14:6 66 14:7 104, 119 14:16 64 14:19 95–96, 100 14:22 84, 104, 119, 124, 265 15:1 66 15:1–2 64 15:2 57 15:7 63 15:9 56 15:10 53 15:11 63 15:20 56 16:6 104 16:11–13 209 16:12 98 16:16 104, 119 16:19–31:1 546n39 56, 59, 131 17:1–4 17:4 64 56, 57 17:5 17:6 104, 107, 124 17:8 104 17:8–26 64 17:9 104, 119, 127 17:12 66 17:13 104, 120, 127 17:18 66 17:19 57 17:20 66

17:21 57 17:22 66 17:24 66 56, 104, 120, 127 18:6 18:7–9 104 18:11 56 18:12 98 18:15–19:1 64 18:17 66 18:18 66, 104 18:21 66 18:22 104, 120 19:1 56 19:8–9 69 19:9 66 19:11 57 20:2 57n59 20:2–5 69 20:3 69 20:5 107, 124, 127 20:7 63 20:7–9 69 20:9 104, 120 20:13 105, 120 20:13–15 69 20:14–18 64 21:1 64 21:2 56, 57n61 21:7 69n113 21:7–10 69 21:8 66 21:9 67n92 21:10 56 21:13–14 56 22:3–16 64 22:4–6 69 22:6 63 22:10–28 69 22:11 69n112 66, 79 22:14 22:15–16 63 22:18 63 22:20 69n113, 70 22:25 67n92 22:28–33 69 22:30 56 23:1 56 23:3 60n68

638 Jeremiah (cont.) 23:5 105 23:9 61n75 23:11–12 56 23:13 247 23:17 98–99 23:20 105, 120 56, 63, 602n16 23:24 23:28–29 56 23:29 63 23:31–32 56 23:32 99–100, 101 24 62 24:1 97 24:1–10 60n68 24:6–7 69 24:7 210 25 62 25–45 53 25:1 58 25:2 57n60 25:3 605n48 25:4 60n68 25:7 56 25:7–8 69 25:9 56 25:12 56, 83, 87 56, 59 25:14 25:15 55, 64 25:15–17 69 25:15–38 53, 62 105, 120–21 25:18 25:19–26 62n77 25:23 74 25:24–26 69 25:26 97, 100 25:28 57 56, 105, 121 25:29 25:29–30 74 25:31 107 26–43 53 26–45 62 26:4 57 26:5 60n68 26:6 63 26:10 64 26:10–13 69 26:18 105, 121, 127

Index of Ancient Sources 26:20–23 246 56, 57nn61, 62, 130 26:22 26:24 77 27 130n276 27–30 69 27:1 58 27:1–3 69 27:2 69n113 27:7 59 27:11 56 27:12 105, 121, 127 27:13–14 58, 59 27:13–15 69 27:15 56 27:16 57 27:17–18 58 27:18 59 27:18–22 130n276 27:20 64, 129 27:21–22 59 27:22 59 28 105 28:1 58 28:3 97, 100 56, 64 28:4 28:5–6 56 28:15 56 29 81 29:1 56, 88–89, 128 29:1–14 83, 87–89, 92 60–62, 129 29:1–23 29:2 64 56, 88–89 29:3 29:4 56 29:9 56 29:9–31:34 53 29:10 60, 61, 83, 224n17 84, 87 29:10–11 29:10–12 56 129, 131 29:10–14 29:11 56 29:12 61 29:14 56, 59, 60, 61 29:16–20 59, 61–62, 131 29:17–18 60n68 56, 121 29:21 29:21–24 105 29:23 63

Index of Ancient Sources Jeremiah (cont.) 29:24–32 105 29:25 56, 64 29:26 64 29:29 56 29:32 56 30–31 68 30:3 60, 60n68 30:6–9 69 30:7 105 30:8 107 30:9 83 30:10 97–98, 100 30:10–11 59, 60n68, 131 30:17 70n114 30:17–25 69 30:18 60n68, 70n114 30:20–21 66 30:22 60n68, 131 31:1 60n68 31:1–9 69 31:8 70n114 31:9 66 31:11 105 31:11–14 69 31:12 66 31:13 128 31:14 56 31:16–17 56 31:17 59, 131 31:19–23 69 31:25–26 69 31:28 105, 118, 127 31:29–30 208–9, 210 31:31 105 31:31–34 51 31:33 210 31:34 56, 64 31:35 105, 121 31:35–37 60n68 31:36 106 31:37 56 32:2 56, 64 32:5 56 32:7 79 32:17 106 32:18 95–96 32:19 106, 107, 122

639 32:20 79 32:23 64 32:24–25 67 32:25 79 32:30 56 32:44 56 33:5 95–96, 100 33:6 106, 122 64, 106, 122, 128 33:8 33:14 60, 224n17 33:14–16 59 33:14–26 50, 61, 126, 128n269, 130n276, 131 33:15 105, 106, 122 33:16 106, 122, 128 33:16–20 69 33:17 106, 122 33:18–22 59–60 33:19 69 33:20–26 60n68 33:24 63 33:26 60 34 75 34:6 56 34:17 56 35:13 56, 63, 107 35:15 60n68, 605 35:19 56 36:2 79 36:8 56 36:12 107 36:26 53, 56, 58 36:32 64 37–38 246 37:2–3 56 37:4 64 37:6 56 37:13 56 38:10 57n59 38:15 63 38:17 57n59, 64 38:22 106 39–41 50 39–44 92 39:1–2 168 39:4–13 59, 60n68, 131, 168 39:5 92 39:6 129

640 Jeremiah (cont.) 39:9–11 77 39:13 77 39:14 77 39:17 56 40:1 77 40:5 77 40:8 76 40:9 77 40:10 77 40:11 77 40:13 76 40:15 64, 76 41:2 77 41:10 77 41:11 76 41:12 112 41:13–14 76 41:16 76 42:1 76 42:2 56, 56n55 42:4 56 42:7–11 67 42:8 76 42:9 67nn97, 99 42:14 67 43:2 76 43:2–10 76–79 43:3 79 43:4–5 76 43:4–6 76 43:5 77–78 43:6 56n55, 76–77 43:7 77, 78, 79 43:8–11 67 43:9 66, 67n92, 78–79, 130 43:10 57 43:11–13 78 44:1 79 44:1–3 67 44:1–13 53 44:4 60n68, 605 44:12–14 67 44:21 63 44:29 56, 95–96, 106 45:1 56n55, 106 53, 62 45:1–5 45:5 79 46 53

Index of Ancient Sources 46–51 53, 62n77 46–53 62 46:1 56 46:1–51:64 62 46:2–28 62n77 46:13 56 46:26 59 46:27 97–98, 100 46:27–28 60n68 46:27–47:7 67 47 62n77, 128–29, 129 47:1 57, 129, 130 47:1–7 53, 63 47:2 74, 106 47:3–4 66 47:4 67n92, 99, 129, 130 47:5 67n98 48 53, 62n77 48:2–4 67 48:7 60n68, 67 48:14 106, 123 48:25 56 48:25–39 67, 68–69 48:26–31 68 48:27 63 48:29–30 66 48:30 56 48:31 63 48:37 66 48:38 63 48:41–45 67 48:43–44 56 48:45 68–69 48:45–46 59 48:45–47 68n107 48:47 59 49 53 49:1–7 62n77 49:6 59, 60n68 49:7–22 63 49:8 74 49:8–22 62n77 49:10 67 49:16 56 49:23–27 62n77 49:28–33 62n77 49:30–31 56 49:34 56, 57, 129 49:34–39 53, 62n77

Index of Ancient Sources Jeremiah (cont.) 49:37–38 56 53, 62n77 50–51 50:1 57 50:4 56 50:4–6 80 50:10 56 50:20 56 50:27 74 50:31 74 50:35 56 51:5 106 51:7 106, 123 51:13 112 51:15 103, 123 51:15–16 106, 108–16, 126–27, 132 51:16 103–4, 106, 119, 123 51:18 74 51:19 265 51:20 107 51:25 56 51:35 202n55 51:39 106 51:45–46 58 51:45–48 59 51:47–48 59 51:55 106, 112, 123 51:56 74 51:59 56n55 51:59–64 92 51:64 63 52 53, 59, 60n70, 62, 92 52:12 77 52:15–16 77 52:18–22 59 52:18–23 130 52:26 77 52:28–30 57–58, 60n70 52:30 77 52:31 64 Ezekiel 43, 112, 168, 223, 234, 417, 515 1:24 110, 112, 115 1:28 234n42 2:1 608 3:12 234n42 3:23 234n42

641 5:6–7 223n14 7:11–14 112 7:23 202 8:9 223n14 8:17 202n55 9:9 202n55 10:4 234n42 10:18 234n42 11:19 210 11:20 223n14 11:23 234n42 14:12–23 208 16:9 517, 531, 532, 535 16:9–13 522 16:9–14 530 16:9–19 14, 516, 529–30 16:10 531, 532, 534, 535, 537–38 16:11 531, 535, 537 16:12 531 16:13 517, 531, 535, 538 16:13–19 522–23 16:14 517, 531, 532, 535, 537 16:15 531, 532 16:16 531, 533 16:17 531–32 16:18 531, 533 16:19 517, 535, 537 16:60 224n17 16:62 224n17 17:5 112 17:8 112 18 208, 210n79 18:4 208–9 18:9 223n14 18:10 602 18:17 223n14 19:10 112 20:11 223n14 20:13 223n14 20:16 223n14 20:19 223n14 20:21 223n14 20:24 223n14 22:16 186n10 23:42 112 23:43 211n87 24:7–8 199n49, 200n50 24:17 604n37

642 Ezekiel (cont.) 25:8 605 with n44 26:13 112 26:19 112 27:26 112 28:14 211n88 30:4 112 30:10 112 30:15 112 31:2 112 31:5 112 31:7 112 31:15 112 31:18 112 32:12 112 32:13 112 32:16 112 32:18 112 32:20 112 32:24–26 112 32:31–32 112 36:14 375 36:23–28 168 36:26 210 36:27 223n14 37–39 168 37:3–4 223n14 38:22 93 39:11 112 39:23–24 96 40:43 533n21 42:9 553n63 43:2 112 43:4–5 234n42 43:9 223n15 43:19 230 43:23 230 44:4 234n42 33, 39 44:15 44:24 223n14 45:18 230 46:3 547 46:6 230 48:35 602 Hosea 4:14 604 5:15 93 515, 537 6:1 6:1–6 521

Index of Ancient Sources 6:1–11 14, 516, 529–30 6:2 533 532, 536, 537 6:3 6:4 517, 532, 534, 535, 537, 538 6:5 531, 532–33, 534, 538 6:6 517, 535, 537, 538 6:6–11 522 6:8 533, 538 6:9 533 6:10 537 6:11 538 14, 516, 522, 529–30, 10:12 537, 538 12:14 186n10 14:4 606 Joel 4:11 607 4:18 496 Amos 40 3:6 604 14, 411n4 3:7–8 5, 25–28, 31–32, 491 5:26–27 8:11 93 5, 25–30, 32 9:11 9:11–15 341 Obadiah 1:1 412 1:1–21 14, 411n4 Jonah 208n73 Micah 1:2 243–44 3:4 96 7:16 496, 508 Nahum 3:8–10

93, 101, 126

Habakkuk 1:8 369 2:8 202n55 2:17 202n55 3:3 256 3:15 112

643

Index of Ancient Sources Zephaniah 1:17 605 2:5 562 2:5–9 15, 555–63 2:6 560 2:7 561 2:9 560, 561 2:12–3:2 15, 555–63 2:13 561 2:14 561, 562 2:15 560, 561, 562, 563 2:16 560 3:1 561 3:4 99, 562 3:4–8 15, 555–63 3:5 562, 563 3:6 562 3:8 560 3:9–14 15, 555–63 3:10 563 3:11 259, 560 3:12 561 Haggai 1:5 244 1:7 244 1:13 244 2:15 244 2:18 244 Zechariah 6, 244, 250 1:1 1:7 244, 250 14:5 257 14:11 128 Malachi 2:5 496, 508 3:1 244 3:4 496 3:24 5, 34–36 Psalms 16, 289, 435n25, 577, 598, 598–99, 601n12, 602n16, 602n23, 608n89, 609 1:2 601 2:7 602 5:10 601 6:4 211n88

6:6 601 6:8 603 7:12 601 9:7 602 9:8–12:8 15, 568–73 9:12–21 294 9:13 206, 601 9:13–9:16 569 9:17–12:8 572 9:19 569, 573, 601 9:21 569 10 569 10:1–4 294 10:8 601 10:8–18:43 599 10:10 573 10:11 96 10:12 601 11 569 11:2 601 12:1 569 12:9 602 14:4 602 14:6 602 16:2 602 17:4 602 17:12 602 18 593 18:4–19 577–79 18:7 577 18:8 577 18:10 577, 602 18:11 577 18:12–19 15, 577 18:13 577 18:16 577, 602 18:17 112 18:19 577 18:31 602n19 18:32 601 18:43 602 22:25 96, 601 22:30 547n46 23:4 605 24:1 603n31 25:7 602 25:13 603 26:1 603 26:1–56:8 599 27:1 603

644 Psalms (cont.) 27:4 602 27:5 601 27:9 96 28:5 601 28:13 606 29 261n33 29:1–2 261 30:6 601 30:8 96 30:12 603 31:10 603n28 31:11 601 31:14 601, 602 31:21 96 32:8 603 33:1 603 33:6 603 33:9 601 34:1 603n31 34:5 603 34:6 604 34:8 604, 609n90 34:17 604, 609n90 35:1 602, 603 35:15 602 35:18 604 35:19 603 35:20 601, 603 35:22 603 37:1 603, 604 37:7 604 37:9 604 37:17 601 37:20 601 37:28 601 40:13 601 40:18 603 42:5 604 44:4 601 44:7 601 44:23 604 44:26 601 46:3 183n1 46:5 183n1 47 261n33 47:8 601 47:10 261

Index of Ancient Sources 48:11 603 48:15 601 49:11 601 49:18 601 50:23 603 51:11 96 53:7 602 54:3 601 54:4 601 54:5 601 54:9 603 55:13 601 56:8 604 56:14 601 59:4 601 60:3 601 62:9 187n18 64:5 602 66:12 603 68:1 603 68:9 603 68:14 603 68:18 257 69:4 603 69:5 603 69:7 186n10 69:13–14 302 69:18 96 69:21 603 69:31–32 302 69:36 601 70:6 603 71:12 601 73:4 601 74:6 211n87 74:12 601 75:7 601 75:9 601 77:14 601 78:22 601 81:5 601 81:8 603 81:11–14 302 82 261 83:6 601 83:14 603 84:11 601, 603 84:12 601

645

Index of Ancient Sources Psalms (cont.) 86:2 603 88:10 603 88:14 603 88:15 96 89:6 256, 265 89:7 601 89:8 256 89:15 111 89:20 212 90 263 90–100 263 90:4 601 90:12 603 91 263 91:1 11, 336, 338–39 91:3 601 91:14 601 92:5 601 92:10 601 92:12 603 93:1–2 110 95:3 601 96:6 110 97:2 111 100:3 603 102:3 96 102:26 603 103:1 603 103:11 601 103:16 601 104:29 96 105:19 602n19 107:35 603 109:2 601 114:7 183n1 115:3–8 83 116:7 212 116:8 601, 603 116:16 603 119 569n8 119:13 603 119:89 245 119:99 603 119:166 382 120:2 603 122:4 248 122:5 601

123:1 603 125:3 601 129:1 603 131:1 603 135:4 601 135:6–7 83 135:7 111 135:15–17 83 137:3 601 137:7 603 138:1 603 139:4 601 141:8 601 142:7 603 143:1 603 143:7 96 144:1 603 147:1 603 148:1 603 148:3 110 Proverbs 16, 62, 63, 598, 599, 606nn59, 608–9 1:22 606 3:34 601 6:3 606 6:9 606 8:21 606 8:22 110 8:30 606 8:34 606 9:2 604 14:21 601 15:25 606 16:19 601 17:7 603 18:10 338n39, 339n45 23:1 606 24:24 606 24:26 604 24:26–30:7 599 25:7 605 25:12 605 25:13 606 25:13–28:16 606n54 25:19 605 26:2 605 26:24 604n42

646 Proverbs (cont.) 27:14 605 27:19 605 27:22 605 27:23 605 28:10 605 28:13 606 28:22 384 30:1 606 30:3 256 30:7 606 30:14 212 30:15 606 Job 8, 208n73, 265, 274n69 1:6 265 1:10 211n88 1:19–2:4 9 4:18 265 5:1 265 5:6–7 199n49 6–8 576 6:21–8:5 573–76 6:19 604 6:21–8:5 15 6:23–7:5 576 7:4–8 573 7:8 576 7:10–19 576 7:11–15 573 7:20–21 573 8:1 573 8:8 374, 384–85 9:25 369 13:10 96 16:18 199n49, 200 18:10 199n49 18:11 602 20:24–21:14 9 24:15 96 25:2–5 265 28:28 605 31:33 199n49 31:38–40 199–200n49 33:23 265 34:29 96 38:7 265–66, 271–73 39:6 107, 124

Index of Ancient Sources 40:13 199n49 40:29 605 Song of Songs 4:14 348 5:12–6:11 169n74 5:13 602 6:3 602 6:4 603 8:7 112 Lamentations 608n89 3:10 602n16 3:52 605 Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 131 1:14 200n49 2:1 603 2:17 200n49 4:1 200n49 4:3 200n49 5:1 200n49 5:5 274 6:1 200n49 7:14 603 7:22 211n88 7:26 186n10 8:6 200n49 8:9 200n49 8:14 200n49 8:16 200n49 8:17 200n49 9:3 200n49 9:6 200n49 9:14 553nn63, 64 10:7 200n49 10:9 186n10 11:2 200n49 11:3 200n49 12:7 200n49 Esther 16, 592, 608n89 2:6 64 15, 587–92 7:10–8:12 8:1 591 8:3 592 8:4 592 8:5 592

647

Index of Ancient Sources Esther (cont.) 8:7 592 8:8–9 592 8:12 592 9:13 583 9:13–10:3 15, 582–86 9:16 582–83, 583 9:16–17 583 9:18 583 9:19 583 9:20 583, 586 9:21 586 9:22 128 9:22–26 586 9:28 586 9:29 586 9:31 586 9:32 586 10:1 586 10:3 586 Daniel 16, 76, 78, 81, 92n197, 97, 595n4, 598, 599, 606n66, 607nn75, 608–9 2:4 606 2:7 606 2:8 354n46 2:10 354n46 2:12 354n46 2:16 606 2:24 354n46, 606 2:25 606 2:30 606 2:31 355n48 2:35 606 2:46 607 3:3 355n48 3:5 607 3:7 607 3:7–8 354n46 3:10 607 3:15 607 3:21 607 3:22 354n46 3:26 607 3:29 354n46 4:3 607 4:15 354n46, 606

4:21 606 4:28 607 5:1 355n48 5:5 355n48 5:9 607 5:10 355n48 5:12 606 5:16 606 5:17 607 5:20 607n71 5:22 354n46 5:23 607 5:24 607 6:4–5 354n46 6:7 607 6:11 354n46 6:12 607, 607 6:13 607 6:16 607 6:17 607 6:19 607 6:23 354n46 6:26 607 6:29 607 7:16 607 7:18 259n24 7:27 259n24 8:1 607 8:9 607 8:19–9:2 15, 580–82 9:1–2 582 9:12 608 9:16 608 9:21 608 9:22 608 9:24 607 10:3 608 10:7 608n86 10:8 608 10:20 607 10:21 608 11:6–8 97 11:11 97 11:13 97 11:15 97 11:32 93 11:40 97 11:45 607

648 Ezra–Nehemiah

Index of Ancient Sources 163, 166

Ezra 609n90 4:16 352, 355n48 5:1 244 5:17 344 6:13 355n48, 607 6:14 244 7:10 555 7:14 354n46, 607 7:17 354n46 Nehemiah 2:13 212 9:6 211n88 9:26 246 9:36 127 12:16 244 1–2 Chronicles 36, 221, 228n29, 234n44, 246 166 1 Chronicles 3:16–17 64 7:26 427 10:12 602 11 157 6, 242–43, 250 21 21:15–16 242–43, 243 21:27 242 166 2 Chronicles 1:39 417 3:1 243 5:4 229n30 5:6 229n31 5:11–14 234 6:37–38 97 7:1–3 234 8:1 226n22 11:23 608 30:12 603 32:4 112 33:14 553nn63, 64 34:9 604 36:15–16 246 36:18 97

Hebrew Bible: Other Versions and Translations Aquila 334 Deuteronomy 6:4–9 316–340 6:5–9 340 6:8 334 11:13–21 340 11:14 328–29, 333 11:15 333 11:17 333 11:18 330, 333, 334 11:19 334 11:20 333 33:2 258n19 308 1–2 Kings 1 Kings 20:7–17 326 2 Kings 23:11–27 326 23:25 333 Jeremiah 52 Psalms 308 22:15–18 308 22:20–28 308 316–340, 325 91(90):1 Arabic Daniel 379n63 Armenian Esther 166 Jeremiah 52 Christian Arabic Jeremiah 52 Coptic Jeremiah 52 Judges 2:1 158n14 9:44 158 Ethiopic Jeremiah 52

649

Index of Ancient Sources Georgian Jeremiah 52 Hexapla 308–9 2 Kings 4:12 171 4:15 171 4:16 171 4:42 171 Jeremiah 52 39:1–2 168 39:4–13 168 Psalms 303n8, 309 Judeo–Arabic Isaiah 57–66 13 Jeremiah 52 Psalms 60:3–13 13 Kaige 2 Kings 4:29 172 Jeremiah 94 Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 94 Old Greek 71–72 Exodus 36–40 167 Leviticus 3:12 312 Deuteronomy 32:8 260–61 32:43 260–61 Judges 5:6 167 Samuel–Kings 163n39 168 1–2 Samuel 1 Samuel 163n39 168 1–2 Kings 2 Kings 4:10 172 4:13 173–74 172, 174–75 4:16 4:19 172

4:23 172 4:27 172 4:28 172 4:29 172 4:35 172 4:39 173 4:41 172 4:42 172 4:43 172 Jeremiah 52, 70–72, 84–85, 94, 117 Ezekiel 168–69 with n72 37–39 Psalms 9 295 26 296–97 Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 94 Baruch 169 1:1–3:8 71 Daniel 169 Bel and the Dragon 169 Susannah 169 Judith 169 Wisdom of Solomon 170 Peshitta Genesis 9:6 191 Exodus 30:23 348n21 Isaiah 49:6 37 Jeremiah 52, 117 1:5 118 1:10 118 1:14 123–24 1:18 118 2:7 124 5:19 118 5:27 118 6:19 123 10:5 89 10:9 89 10:13 119

650 Peshitta, Jer (cont.) 10:23 119 11:8 101 12:3 119 13:10 101 14:7 119 14:19 100 14:22 119 17:3 120 17:6 124 17:9 119 18:6 120 18:22 120 20:5 124 20:9 120 23:20 120 23:32 101 25:18 120–21 25:26 100 25:29 121 26:18 121 27:12 121 28:3 100 29:1 88, 89 29:21 121 31:28 118 31:35 121 32:19 122 33:5 100 33:6 122 33:8 122 33:15 122 33:16 122 33:17 122 37:10 100 46:27 100 48:14 123 51:7 123 51:15 123 51:16 119, 123 51:55 123 Ben Sira 117n260 11:29 118 36(33):13 120 49:7 118 51:26 121 Samaritan Pentateuch 175, 332

Index of Ancient Sources Deuteronomy 27:4 155–56 32:8 261, 267, 273 32:8–9 259n26 32:9 265n42 32:43 261 33:2 257 33:2–3 256n13 33:43 259n26 Septuagint 175 Genesis 2–3 307–8 9:6 189, 189–91, 206n65 14–27 309 15:8 309 24:31 309 24:42 309 Leviticus 2–5 309 3:12 309 Numbers 23:12 491, 492 Deuteronomy 6:4 319, 325 6:5 326 6:5–6 320 11:13–21 320–23 11:18 330 17–33 304, 308 32:8 261n31 32:43 261 33:2 257–58 Joshua 1:7 248 Judges 158 6:5 156 9:44 158 Samuel–Kings (1–4 Kingdoms) 158, 159n19, 162 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms) 1:23 157 1:24 230 2:22 234n44 9:24 249 10:4 249–50 10:21–11:1 157 13:7 174n88 14:15 174n88

651

Index of Ancient Sources Septuagint, 1 Sam (cont.) 16:4 174n88 17:11 174n88 21:2 174n88 28:5 174n88 2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms) 7:23 157 12:10 174n89 13:10 174n89 17:2 174n88 25:15 174n89 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms) 235 1–2:11 168n70 1:15 174n89 6:11–14 234 226–29, 234 8:1–5 8:4a 234 8:10–11 234 21:30 174n89 22–2 Kings 168n70 22 244 22:25 174n89 2 Kings (4 Kingdoms) 4:12 171 4:13 174n88 4:15 171 4:16 171, 174–75 4:29 171 4:33 171 4:39 171 4:42 171 6:12 174n89 9:2 174n89 11:2 174n89 Isaiah 48 293 36, 37 49:6 Jeremiah 43–154 passim, 45–52, 68n107, 70–75, 93, 94, 117, 168, 229 1:1–25:13 53, 62 1:4 63 1:5 118 1:10 110, 118 1:14 123–24 1:18 118 2:7 124 2:30 247

5:19 118 5:27 118 6:19 123 7:1–2 59 7:24 98–99 9:3 56 9:6 56 9:18 60n68 9:22 56 10:1–11 66, 73 10:2 74–75 10:3 87n181 10:4 73 10:5 85–86, 89 10:9 87, 89 10:13 111, 113, 115, 119 10:15 73–74 10:18 73–74 10:23 119 11:3 57 11:8 98–99, 101 12:3 119 13:10 98–99, 101 13:13 57 14:7 119 95–96, 100 14:19 14:22 119 15:2 57 17:6 124 17:9 119 17:13 120 18:6 120 18:22 120 19:9 66 20:5 124 20:9 120 23:9 61n75 23:17 98–99 23:20 120 23:32 99–100, 101 25:1 58 25:2 57n60 25:14 56, 57 25:14–26:1 62n77 53, 62 25:14–32:24 25:17–18 56 26–31 62 26:1 56 26:2–28 62n77

652 Septuagint, Jer (cont.) 26:13 56 97–98, 100 26:27 26:27–28 60n68, 67 27–28 62n77 27:1 57 27:4 56 27:4–6 80 27:10 56 27:20 56 27:35 56 28:5 106 28:7 106, 123 28:15 103, 123 106, 108–16, 132 28:15–16 28:16 103–4, 106, 119, 123 28:20 107 28:25 56 28:39 106 28:55 106, 123 28:56 74 28:59 56n55 63, 128–29, 129 29 29–52 71, 93–94 29:1 57, 129, 130 29:1–7 62n77, 67 29:2 106 29:3 66 29:4 67nn92, 99, 129, 130 29:5 67n98 29:8–23 62n77 29:15 56 30:1–5 62n77 30:4 67 30:6–11 62n77 30:8–9 56 30:12–16 62n77 31 62n77 31:2–4 67 31:7 67 106, 123 31:14 31:25 56 31:25–39 67, 68 31:26–31 68 31:29 66 31:29–30 66 31:30 56 31:37 66

Index of Ancient Sources 31:43–44 56, 67 32:1 55 105, 120–21 32:4 32:5–12 62n77 32:9 74 32:12 97, 100 32:14 57 32:15 56, 105, 121 32:17 107 33–51 54, 62 33:4 57 33:10 64 33:10–13 69 33:18 105, 121, 127 33:22 56, 57nn61–62, 130 33:24 77 34–37 69 34:1 58 34:2–3 69 34:9 56 105, 121, 127 34:10 34:12 56 34:13 57 34:14–15 69 35 105 35:1 58 35:3 97, 100 35:4 56 35:5–6 56 35:10–12 56 35:15 56 36:1 56, 88–89 36:1–14 87–89 56, 88–89 36:3 36:4 56 36:9 56 84, 87 36:10–11 61, 129 36:10–14 36:11 56 36:14 56 36:21 56 36:21–24 105 36:24–32 105 36:25 56 36:29 56 36:32 56 37:6–9 69 37:7 105

Index of Ancient Sources Septuagint, Jer (cont.) 37:8 107 37:9 83 37:10 97–98, 100 37:17 70n114 37:17–25 69 37:18 70n114 37:20–21 66 38:1–9 69 38:8 70n114 38:9 66 38:11 105 38:11–14 69 38:12 66 38:13 128 38:14 56 38:16–17 56 38:19–23 69 38:25–26 69 38:28 105, 118, 127 38:31 105 38:31–34 51 38:34 56 38:36 105, 121 38:37 56, 106 39:2 56 39:5 56 39:7 79 39:17 106 39:18 95–96 39:19 106, 107, 122 39:24–25 67 39:30 56 39:44 56 95–96, 100 40:5 40:6 106, 122 40:8 106, 122, 128 40:19 69 41 75 41:6 56 41:17 56 42:13 56, 107 42:19 56 43:2 79 43:8 56 43:12 107 43:26 53, 56, 58 44:2–3 56

653 44:6 56 44:13 56 45:10 57n59 45:17 57n59 45:22 106 46:14 77 46:17 56 47:1 77 47:5 77n144 47:8 76 47:9 77n144 47:10 76 47:11 77n144 47:15 76 48:2 77n144 48:10 77 48:11 76 48:13–14 76 48:16 76 49:1 76 49:2 56, 56n55 49:4 56 49:7–11 67 49:8 76 49:9 67nn97, 99 49:14 67 50:2 76 50:2–10 76–79 50:3 79 50:4–5 76 50:4–6 76 50:5 56n55, 77–78 50:6 76–77 50:7 77, 78, 79 50:8–11 67 50:9 66, 67n92, 78–79, 130 50:10 57 51:1 79 51:1–3 67 51:12–14 67 51:29 56, 95–96, 106 51:31 56n55, 106 51:31–35 63 51:35 79 53, 62 52 52:12 77n145 52:16 77n145 52:26 77n145

654 Septuagint (cont.) Ezekiel 1:2 309n27 11:1 309n27 Malachi 1:1 6, 244, 250 Psalms 295–96 2:2 311 9:12–25 294–96 9:25 295 17:31 309 17:32 309 17:42 309 26 296–97 27 307, 312 43 292 45 307, 312 48–49 293 48–50 307, 312 64–65 307, 312 68:13–14 302 68:31–32 302 80:11–14 302 88:15 111 90:1 11, 316–40, 319–20, 324–25, 335 96:2 111 113:11–16 83 134:6–7 83 134:15–17 83 Job 289, 307, 312 42 Esther 169, 289 Baruch 1:1–3:8 93 Ben Sira 11:29 118 36(33):13 120 48:10 37–38 49:7 118 51:26 121 Judith 169 3:24 35 Slavonic Jeremiah 52

Index of Ancient Sources Symmachus Deuteronomy 6:8 330, 334 330, 334 11:18 33:2 258n19 Jeremiah 52 Psalms 303 22:15–18 308 308, 334 22:20–28 68:13–14 302–3, 308 68:14 303 68:31–32 302–3, 308 80:11–14 302–3, 308 91(90):1 325 Syro–Hexapla Jeremiah 52 Targums Fragmentary Targum Deuteronomy 33:3 259n25 Targum Jonathan 357n52 2 Samuel 19:37 349n22 Isaiah 49:6 37 66:3–7 516 Jeremiah 52, 117 1:5 118 1:10 118 1:14 123–24 1:18 118 2:7 124 5:19 118 5:27 118 6:19 123 10:5 89 10:9 89 10:13 119 10:23 119 11:8 101 12:3 119 13:10 101 14:7 119 14:19 100

655

Index of Ancient Sources Targum Jonathan, Jer (cont.) 14:22 119 17:6 124 17:9 119 17:13 120 18:6 120 18:22 120 20:5 124 20:9 120 20:13 120 23:20 120 23:32 101 25:18 120–21 25:26 100 25:29 121 26:18 121 27:12 121 28:3 100 29:1 89 29:21 121 30:10 100 31:28 118 31:35 121 32:19 122 33:5 100 33:6 122 33:8 122 33:15 122 33:16 122 33:17 122 46:27 100 48:14 123 51:7 123 51:15 123 119, 123 51:16 51:55 123 Targum Neofiti Exodus 30:34 348n19 Deuteronomy 6:5 327 33:3 259n25 Targum Onkelos 356, 357n52 Genesis 11, 344–45, 346 37:19 Exodus 30:23 348–49

Deuteronomy 6:5 327 Targum Ps.–Jonathan 357n52 Genesis 9:6 191–92, 196 Deuteronomy 4:34 264n40 6:5 327 32:8 264 Theodotion 40, 158, 163nn39, 334 Daniel 291–92 Deuteronomy 6:8 334 11:19 334 Jeremiah 52 48:45 68 Judges 5:6 167 Vetus Latina Exodus 36–40 167 Numbers 23:12 491 Deuteronomy 27:4 155–56 Joshua 160, 162n34 Judges 160, 162, 167 2:1 158n14 6:5 156–57 9:29 157–58 9:44 158 Samuel–Kings 50, 158, 159n19, 162, 165nn49, 166, 167 1–2 Samuel 168 1 Samuel 1:23 157 10:21–11:1 157 2 Samuel 5 157 7:23 157 14:7 157 1–2 Kings 168 1 Kings 1–2:11 168n70 22–2 Kings 168n70

656 Vetus Latina (cont.) 2 Kings 4 170–75 4:10 172 4:12 171 4:13 173–74 4:15 171 4:16 171, 172, 174–75 171, 172 4:19 4:23 172 4:27 172 171, 172 4:28 171, 172 4:29 4:31 171 4:33 171 4:35 172 171, 173 4:39 4:41 172 171, 172 4:42 4:43 172 160, 165, 166 Isaiah Jeremiah 52, 70, 117, 168 1:5 118 1:10 118 1:14 123–24 1:18 118 2:7 124 5:19 118 5:27 118 10:13 119 10:23 119 11:8 101 13:10 101 14:19 100 14:22 119 17:6 124 17:9 119 17:13 120 18:6 120 18:22 120 20:9 120 23:20 120 23:32 101 25:18 120–21 25:26 100 25:29 121 28:3 100 31:28 118 51:7 123

Index of Ancient Sources Ezekiel 37–39 168 Psalms 159–60 Proverbs 160, 166, 166 166, 169 Job Song of Songs 163, 166 5 169 Ruth 166 Lamentations 163 160, 166, 169 Esther Daniel Bel and the Dragon 169 Susannah 169 Ezra–Nehemiah 163, 166 1 Chronicles 166 11 157 166 2 Chronicles Baruch 165, 169 Ben Sira 165 30:25–33:15 169 33:13–36:10 169 160 1 Esdras 3–4 Esdras 166 Epistle of Jeremiah 165 Judith 160, 169 1–2 Maccabees 159–60, 165, 170 Tobit 170 Wisdom of 159–60, 165, 170 Solomon 7, 159, 164, 165 Vulgate Genesis 9:6 191 Judges 9:29 157–58 Isaiah 49:6 37 Jeremiah 52 1:5 118 1:10 118 1:14 123–24 1:18 118 2:7 124 5:19 118 5:27 118 6:19 123 10:5 89

657

Index of Ancient Sources Vulgate, Jer (cont.) 10:9 89 10:13 119 10:23 119 11:8 101 12:3 119 13:10 101 14:7 119 14:19 100 14:22 119 17:6 124 17:9 119 17:13 120 18:6 120 18:22 120 20:5 124 20:9 120 23:20 120 23:32 101 25:18 120–21 25:26 100 25:29 121 26:18 121 27:12 121 28:3 100 29:1 89 29:21 121 30:10 100 31:28 118 31:35 121 32:19 122 33:5 100 33:6 122 33:8 122 33:15 122 33:16 122 33:17 122 46:27 100 48:14 123 51:7 123 51:15 123 51:16 119, 123 51:55 123 Baruch 6 82 Ben Sira 169n77 11:29 118 36:29(24) 118

36(33):13 118 49:9 118 51:26 121 New Testament Matthew 5:12 246–47 22:37 327 Mark 12:30 327 Luke 6:23 246–47 10:27 327 11:47–51 246–47 Acts 15:16 29 23:6–8 275 23:8 276–77 Jude 277 14–15 258–59 Revelation 292–93 Deuterocanonical Literature and Pseudepigrapha Aramaic Levi Document 130n276 Letter of Aristeas 12–27 129n275 92–94, 92n199, 93, 133 Baruch 1:1–3:8 71, 93–94 6 81–82 Ben Sira 5, 25, 71, 102, 262n34, 271, 273, 274n69, 277 4:30 99 6:14–15 102 6:20–31 102 7:30–31 327 8:2 99 11:29 103, 118 15:1 103 17:1–23 266 17:17 266 17:18 266 19:2 99 103, 118 36:29 36:29(24) 118

658 Ben Sira (cont.) 36(33):6 103 104, 120, 127 36(33):13 37:25 103 39:27–44:17 102 41:13 103 41:17 99 44:1–49:16 34 44:22–23 266 48:10 34–39 48:13 106 48:15 103 49:7 103, 104, 105, 118, 127 51:26 105, 121, 127 Biblical Antiquities (lab; Pseudo–Philo) 195–96 3:11 191, 195–96 Daniel (Additions to) 169 1 Enoch 1 273 1:3–4 258–59 1:9 107, 258–59 85–90 267 Epistle of Jeremiah 81–89 1 89 1–2 87–89 2 84 3 86 7 86, 89, 128 7–14 85–86 23–28 85–86 26 86 29–64 85 33 81 45 87, 89, 128 52 81, 84 65–68 85 69 85–86, 89, 128 Heading 87–89, 89, 128 1 Esdras 160 1:54 97 3–4 Esdras 166 Jubilees 52, 92, 109, 188, 196, 271, 273, 277 1:12–13 246 2:2–3 109n220 5:2 203n58 6:7–8 192–95

Index of Ancient Sources 6:8 199n48 7:25 199 7:27 6, 199 with n48 7:27–29 192–93, 195 7:32 193n34 15:30–32 266–67 15:31 269–70 21:19–20 194–95, 198 21:20 263 36:18 106 44:33–34 267–68 Judith 169, 247 Lives of the Prophets 6 244n11 9 243n10 1–2 Maccabees 133, 247 Tobit 247 Wisdom of Solomon 159, 165, 170 Judean Desert Documents Qumran 1Q5 (Deutb) 270 1Q6 (Judg) 157–58 1Q10 (Psa) 569n8 1Q27 (Mysteries) 1 i 5 106 1 ii 5 107 1QHa (Hodayot) 109, 268–70, 271 3:30 268n53 4:26 106 5:28 109n218 7:25–26 104 7:26 119 7:28 103 7:30 103, 104, 118, 119 7:34 104 8:26 106, 122 8:27 104, 119, 124 9:7 107 9:15–16 103 10:18 103, 109n218, 112 10:29 104, 106, 109n218, 112, 123 10:31 104, 120 10:37 105 11:8 104 11:15 112

659

Index of Ancient Sources 1QHa (Hodayot) (cont.) 11:23 271 12:31 119 12:31–32 104 104, 119 13:10 15:5 106 16:8 104 16:11 104 16:18 106 16:25 104 16:31 104, 120 17:30 103 18:10 269n57 19:17 271 19:28–29 271 23–24 269 23:23 269n57 23:30 269n57 23:30–34 269 24:12 269n57 24:16 269 24:26 269 24:33–37 268–69 1QIsaa 25:7 212 41:3 37 1QM (1Q33; War Scroll) 1:11 272 1:11–12 105 3:9 105, 120 6:13 106, 123 7:3–7 272 7:6 272 10:9–15 268n52 12:4 272 14:4 271 15:1 105 16:1 105, 121 18:8 104, 119 1QSa (1Q28a; Rule of the Congregation) 2:4–9 272 1QS (Rule of the Community) 1:1–12 327 98, 103 1:6 2:13 104 2:14 98 2:26 98 5:4 98

7:19 98 7:24 98 9:10 98 11:10 104 2Q2 (2QExoda) 187 2Q6 (Numa) 187, 197 55, 66–69, 81 2Q13 (Jer) 102 2Q18 (Sir) 2Q24 (New Jerusalem ar) 4 249n26 4Q11 (paleoGen–Exodl) 460–61 4Q22 (paleoExodm) 175, 460–61 4Q23 (4QLev–Numa) 461 4Q24 (Levb) 473 4Q26b (Levg) 467 4Q27 (Numb) 175, 250, 500, 502–7 4Q30 (Deutc) 270 4Q35 (Deuth) 157 4Q37 (Deutj) 260–61, 270–71 4Q38 (Deutk1) 270–71 4Q40 (Deutm) 473 4Q44 (Deutq) 260–61, 270–71 4Q45 (paleoDeutr) 270 4Q47 (Josha) 156, 175 4Q49 (Judga) 156, 175 4Q51–53 (4QSamuel) 5 4Q51 (Sama) 99, 126, 157, 158, 175, 221, 230–31, 234n44, 235, 241, 242n5, 243, 249–50 4Q52 (Samb) 99 4Q53 (Samc) 157 4Q70 (Jera) 55, 64–66, 81, 119, 127, 133 4Q71 (Jerb) 45, 51–52, 55, 72–75, 76, 80, 127, 132, 175 4Q72a (Jerd) 55, 60, 67n92, 72, 76–80, 81, 130, 132, 175 4Q72b (Jere) 55, 72, 76, 80 4Q72 (Jerc) 55, 66–67, 69–70, 132 4 69 16 69 21 69 23 69

660 4Q85 (Psc) 569n8 4Q96 (Pso) 2 3 212 4Q98g (Psx; olim 4Q236) 2 212 4Q119 (LXXLeva) 290n8 4Q120 (papLXXLevb) 290n8, 304–5, 309, 312 4Q121 (LXXNum) 290n8 290n8 4Q122 (LXXDeut) 270–71 4Q141 (Phyl N) 4Q159 (Ordinancesa) 2–4 + 8 2 107 4Q161 (pIsaa) 8–10 22 105 4Q163 (pap pIsac) 25 3 107 4Q167 (pHosb) 2 6 96 4Q172 (pUnid) 99 24 5 4Q174 (Florilegium = 4QMidrEschata) 25 1 12 32 1 12–13 29–30 3:11 105 4Q177 (Catena A [= 4QMidrEschatb?]) 1–4 7 [10:7] 99 10–11 8 96 11:6 104 4Q182 (4QMidrEschatc?) 1 5 103 4Q184 (Wiles) 1 2,13,15 99 3 5 99 4Q200 (Tobe) 2 6 96 4Q201 (Ena ar) 1 i 5–6 258n21 4Q204 (Enc ar) 1 i 15 258n21 1 i 16 107 12:23,25,27 28n10 4Q216 (Jubileesa) 2 14 96 5 9–10 109 4Q223–224 (papJubh) 2 iii 10 106 4Q249 (pap cryptA; Midrash Sefer Moshe) 1–4 9a, 9b, i 12 5 107

Index of Ancient Sources 4Q252 (CommGen A) 4:4 99 106, 122 5:2 106, 122 5:3–4 4Q258 (Sd) 1:4 98 4Q266 (Da) 25, 28, 491n21 2 i 8 96 2 iii 19–20 33 3 iii 17–21 30–32 11 9 312n41 4Q268 (Dc) 1 11 96 4Q269 (Dd) 28, 491n21 5 1–4 30–32 4Q270 (De) 7 I 8 98 4Q271 (Df ) 4 ii 2 105 4Q280 (Curses) 2 7 98 4Q285 (4QSefer ha–Milḥamah) 7 3–5 105 4Q298 (cryptA; Words of the Maskil) 1–2 i 2 103 4Q299 (Mysta) 2 1 107 4Q339 (List of False Prophets) ar 105, 121 5 6 105, 121 7 105 8 105 4Q344 (Debt Acknowledgement ar) 10–11 353 4Q369 (Prayer of Enosh) 268n52 4Q370 (Admonition Based on the Flood) 109 1 i 8 112 4Q371 (Narrative and Poetic Compositiona) 1a–b 5 105, 121 4Q372 (Narrative and Poetic Compositionb) 1 8 105, 121, 127 3 10 104 4Q379 (apocrJoshb) 1 232 17 232 4Q380 (Non–Canonical Psalms A) 7 ii 3 109

661

Index of Ancient Sources 4Q381 (Non–Canonical Psalms B) 76–77 7 272–73 4Q383–4Q391 90 4Q383 (apocrJer A) 81, 90–91 3 99–100 101 A 3 4Q384 (pap apocrJer B?) 81, 90–91 4Q385a (apocrJerCa) 81, 90–91 3a–c 9–10 93 4 7 96, 100 4 9 97–98 5 8–9 93 17a–e ii 4–9 93, 101, 126 18 1 4 92 18 i a–b 5–6 97, 100 18 i a–b 7 97–98 4Q386 (psEzekb) 1 iii 1 106, 123 4Q387a (apocrJerCf ) 81, 90–91 4Q387 (apocrJerCb) 81, 90–91 1 5 93 1 8 93 A 2 93 2 ii 2 93 2 ii 3 93 2 ii 9 96, 100 2 ii 11 97–98 2 ii 12 95–96 2 iii 3 93 2 iii 3–4 93 2 iii 4–5 96, 100 3 4 91n195 3 6 93 3 8–9 93 4 i 2 97, 100 4 i 4 93 4Q388a (apocrJerCc) 81, 90–91 3 7 93 6 2 96, 100 7 ii 6 93 4Q389 (apocrJerCd) 81, 90–91 1 5 91 6 2 93 8 ii 3 97–98, 100 8 ii 4 93, 100 8 ii 4–5 96, 100 8 ii 4–6 95–96

4Q390 (apocrJer Ce) 81, 90–91, 92n196 1 5 97 1 9–10 96, 100 98, 101 1 12 2 i 8 93 4Q392 (Works of God) 1 6 105, 121 1 9 104, 119 4Q393 (Communal Confession) 3 3–5 98 4Q396 (MMTc) 103 1–2 iv 5 4Q416 (Instructionb) 2 ii 11–12 104, 119 4Q418 (Instructiond) 8 12 104, 119, 127 81 + 81a 3 268n52 104, 120, 127 103 ii 6 127 3 263 4Q427 (Ha) 7 ii 10 212 7 ii 17 212 4Q429 (Hc) 1 i 2 104 4Q432 (papHf ) 5 1 112 4Q434 (4QBarkhi Nafshia) 1 i 1 105, 120 1 i 9 106, 122 4Q437 (Barkhi Nafshid) 2 i 7 96 4Q438 (4QBarkhi Nafshie) 3 3 105, 121 4Q439 (Lament by a Leader) 1–2 i 4 107 4Q460 (Narrative Work and Prayer) 8 2 103 9 i 4 106 4Q469 (Narrative 1) 2 2 107 4Q491 (Ma) 8–10 i 13 272 4Q503 (papPrQuot) 271 4Q504 (DibHama) 1–2 v 1–2 120 1–2 v 3 104 1–2 v 4 103, 118 1–2 vi 4 119, 124

662 4Q504 (DibHama) (cont.) 1–2 vi 4–5 104 107, 123 6 2 4Q510 (Shira) 272 1 2 4Q511 (Shirb) 99 24 5 4Q522 (Prophecy of Joshua (4QapocrJoshc?) 9 ii 8 106, 122, 128 9 i–ii 231–32 4Q525 (Beatitudes) 15 5 263 4Q537 (TJacob?) ar 5 1 107, 124 4Q583 (Prophecye) ar 1 1 107, 123–24 5Q16 (Unclassified Fragments) 4 3 99 6Q13 (PriestlyProphecy) 4–5 129 7Q1 (papLXXExod) 290n8 7Q2 (papEpJer gr) 81–83 11Q1 (paleoLeva) 473 11Q5 (11QPsa; Psalms Scroll) 19:13–14 (Plea for Deliverance) 106, 122 19:13 (Plea for Deliverance) 128 26:9–15 (Hymn to the Creator) 108–9 26:9 (Hymn to the Creator) 272 26:10–11 (Hymn to the Creator) 111 26:10 (Hymn to the Creator) 106, 109n218, 110, 111–12 26:11–12 (Hymn to the Creator) 109n220 26:11 (Hymn to the Creator) 109n221, 111 26:12–15 (Hymn to the Creator) 80 26:13–15 (Hymn to the Creator) 106, 108–16, 111

Index of Ancient Sources 26:13 (Hymn to the Creator) 123 26:14–15 (Hymn to the Creator) 123 26:15 (Hymn to the Creator) 115 11Q6 (Psb) 569n8 11Q7 (Psc) 569n8, 572 11Q10 (tgJob) 107, 124 32:5 11Q11 5 338 11Q14 (Sefer ha–Milḥamah) 105 1 i 7 1 i 11 105 11Q19 (Ta; Temple Scroll) 52 49:4 105, 120–21 57:9 106 59:7 96 CD (Damascus Document) 5, 27n6, 30, 39–40 1:3 96 2:8 96 2:17 98 3:5 98 3:21–4:2 33 A 6:19 105 7:14–15 28, 32 7:14–16 32 7:14–19 25–27 7:14–20 25–30, 491n21 7:15 28 7:16 28–30 7:17–18 32 7:17–20 28, 31–32 7:18 31 7:19 31 A 8:20 106 A 8:21 105 9:1 196–97 13:11 327 19 27n5 B 19:33–34 105 B 19:34 104, 120 B 20:9 98 B 20:12 105

663

Index of Ancient Sources Wadi Murabbaʿat Mur 18 (papAcknowledgement of Debt ar) 7–8 353 Mur 26 (papDeed of Sale ar) 354 Mur 88 (Minor Prophets) 29n12, 32 Wadi Sdeir Sdeir 2 (papPromissory Note? ar) 6–7 353 Naḥal Ḥever 5/6ḤevPs 192 8ḤevXII gr (Minor Prophets) 94, 158, 290n8, 303, 305–7, 309 Naḥal Ḥever/Seiyal XḤev/Se 2 (Numb) 500, 505 XḤev/Se 9 (papDeed of Sale D ar) 10,21 353 XḤev/Se 49 (Promissory Note) 10–11 354 Masada Mas1h (Sir)

102

Philo and Josephus Philo 133 Questions on Genesis 2.61 189–90 Josephus 133, 134, 274–75, 277 Against Apion 1.186–187 129n275, 130 Jewish Antiquities 125–26, 157 1.102 187n17 Other Jewish Literature Mishnah m. ʾAbot 5:5 249 m. Baba Qamma 4:4 328 m. Bikkurim 2:5 250

m. Ketubbot 4:7 351n29 m. Megillah 2:2 10 m. Menaḥot 5:1,3,6 249 m. Terumot 3:5 250 Tosefta t. Baba Batra 11:13 357n55 t. Baba Meṣiʿa 5:10 359n62 9:13 359n62 t. Ketubbot 4:9 357n55 4:9–12 359n62 349, 358 4:9–13 4:11 32, 351nn29 4:12 350–51, 355–56, 358n59 12:1 351n29 t. Shabbat 13:1 357n54 Babylonian Talmud b. ʿAbodah Zarah 25a 249 b. Baba Batra 14a–15b 608n89 14b 598 b. Baba Meṣiʿa 86a 347–49 104a 349–52, 354, 358n59, 359n60 b. Baba Qamma 49a 345–47 b. Berakhot 4b 339 9:5 327 13a 10 48a 347n17 b. Ḥullin 90b 346n7 139b 348n20 b. Keritot 6a 348n19

664

Index of Ancient Sources

b. Ketubbot 19b 10 53a–b 359n61 b. Nedarim 22b 346n10 b. Pesaḥim 112a 10 b. Sanhedrin 7a 246 39b 243 56b 206n66 98a 346n13 b. Shabbat 19a 350n27 103b 500 b. Shebuot 15b 339 b. Yebamot 49b 246 b. Zebaḥin 43b 346n7

Mekhilta de–Rabbi Ishmael Yitro 1 242 Midrash Tehillim Psalm 90 263n39 Sifra Meṣora 4:1 351n29 Sifre Deuteronomy 32 327 120–121 250 343 257

Tractate Sefer Torah 16, 457, 460, 472–73, 474, 500–502, 509 1:10–11 501–502 Tractate Soferim 457, 460, 461, 473n16, 500–502, 509 467, 501 1:14

Radak Gen 9:6

185n9

R. Hoshayah

539

Talmud Yerushalmi y. Ketubbot 2:3 10 4:8 350–52, 354, 356 y. Megillah 306 1:9, 71d 1:12 249 y. Rosh Hashanah 6a 228n28 y. Shabbat 16:1 10 y. Yebamot 350–52, 354 15:3 y. Yoma 348n19 4:5, 41d Midrashim Genesis Rabbah 58:7 384 85:4 245n15

Medieval Writers and Writings Abraham Ibn Ezra Gen 9:6

186n12, 188n21

Aharon ben Asher Diqduqe ha–Ṭeʿamim 370–71, 496 Havdalah of R. Aqiva 339n44

Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel 366, 368–69 Kitāb al–Khilaf/Sefer Ha–Ḥillufim 373, 428–35, 442 Rambam (Maimonides) 365–66, 374 Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Sefer Torah Chapter 8 417, 447, 451, 457, 460, 467, 474, 502–507 Hilkhot Tefillah 13:1 510n1 373, 389, 435 Saadya Gaon The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews 370–71 Rashi 539 Gen 9:6 185n9 b. Baba Meṣiʿa 86a 347n18 b. Baba Qamma 49a 346

665

Index of Ancient Sources Rashi (cont.) b. Ḥullin 90b b. Nedarim 22b b. Sanhedrin 98a b. Zebaḥim 43b

346n7 346n9 346n14 346n7

Seder Rab Amram Gaʾon 339 Birkat ha–Mazon 15, 580–81 Sefer Oklah we–Oklah 369–70, 417n9, 435n24, 493, 599, 601n15, 602n18 Severus Scroll

7–8, 10, 212

Rabbenu Tam [Hilkhot Sefer Torah] 502–507

Liber de diuinis scripturis 165n51 Lucifer of Cagliari 165n51, 166 De regibus apostaticis 170 Origen Commentary on Psalms 2:2 310n31, 311 Pseudo–Augustine Speculum

171–72, 174

Pseudo–Justin Cohort. 13 287

R. Tanḥum

539

Tertullian 165, 299 Apology 18 287

Yonah ibn Janaḥ

539

Tyconius 165n51

Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ Diqduq

367–71,373 369–371

Manuscripts Referenced in This Volume (apart from those edited in Part 3)

Christian Writers and Writings Augustine 165n51 Doctr. chr. 2.11. 159n16 Cyprian 165n51 Jerome 7, 159, 164, 165n51 Epistle to Pammachius 57.11 328 Praef. in libro Iosue 11–12 159n17 Prol. in Job 159n18 Prologus Galeatus (Praef. in Libr. Sam. et Malach.) 307n15 Justin First Apology 31

287, 299

Alexandria, Graeco–Roman Museum 293 P.Alex 203 Berlin, Staatliche Museum P 10598 9 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek ms. Or. fol. 134 (B134) 502–10 ms. Or. fol. 1213 (B1213) 502–10 ms. Or. fol. 1216 (B1216) 501n35, 502–10 ms. Or. fol. 1220 (Codex Erfurt) 350n26, 351n29 ms. Or. Qu. 680 569n8, 573 Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library P.Harris 166 293 Birmingham, Woodbrooke College P.Harris 31 292

666 Cairo Genizah (Gottheil) Gottheil 14 367 Gottheil 18 (Cairo Pentateuch; mtC3) 365–66, 368, 373, 502–7 Gottheil 22 54 Gottheil 27 367n14 Cairo, Societé Royale de Papyrologie 289, 304, 308–9 P.Fouad 266b Cambridge University Library Add. ms. 1753 (mtY) 583n12, 586, 592 Taylor–Schechter Cairo Genizah Collection: T–S 12.182 308n23 T–S 12.184 308n20, 326n10 T–S 12.186 308n21 T–S 12.187 308n21 T–S 12.188 308n21 T–S 20.50 308n20, 326n10 T–S A22 444 T–S B17.7 515 T–S K6.78 598n5 T–S NS 3.21 9 T–S NS 4.3 9 T–S NS 80.50 515 Durham, NC, Duke University Library Ashkar–Gilson Hebrew ms # 2 9 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Plut.3.10 436 Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale ms II.1.8–9 355n47 Geneva, Bibliothèque de Genève ms gen 147 514n3 Göttingen State and University Library ms 148 (hab 148) 502n37, 504, 507n39 Hamburg, Staats– und Universitӓts– bibliothek Cod. hebr. 19 b. B. Meṣ. 104a 349n23

Index of Ancient Sources Jerusalem, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Cairo Codex of the Prophets (Codex Cairensis; mtC) 53, 100–101, 118–24, 365, 377, 494, 502, 527, 530–37, 546–63 Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll 9 Jerusalem, Israel Museum Aleppo Codex (mtA) 53–54, 100–101, 118–24, 365–66, 374–75, 377, 384–85, 413, 419, 445, 447, 451, 456–57, 460, 494–95, 502, 508, 516, 527, 530–37, 546–63, 569, 583, 586, 594, 592 Regensburg Pentateuch, ms. 180/52 (im180/52) 502–510 Jerusalem, National Library of Israel Damascus Pentateuch, ms. Heb. 24°5702 (mtS5) 473, 495, 502–10, 549n57 ms. Sassoon 1053 (mtS1) 54, 100–101, 118–24 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Cod. Reuchlin 2 b. Sanh. 98a 346n13 Codex Reuchlin 3 (mtR) 54, 100–101, 118–24, 533, 546 Leiden, University Library Codex Leiden (Or. 4720 / ms Scaliger 3) 351n30 London, British Library Add ms 15451 421–22 Add ms 21161 547 Harley ms 5710 420 Or 2539 ms B 387 Or 2541 385–86 Or 2548 379 Or 2550 379 Or 2551 379, 387 Or 2554 379 Or 2581A 379 Or 4445 (mtB) 456, 536nn27–29, 592

667

Index of Ancient Sources London, British Library (cont.) P.Oxy. 7.1007 = P.Lond.Lit. 199 306–8, 312 P.Oxy. 1075 292 293 P.Oxy. 1166 P.Lond.Lit. 211 291–92 London, British Museum P.Chester Beatty VI 309 Madrid, Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad Complutense bh mss 1 423, 426–42 Manchester, John Rylands Library P.Ryl. Gr. 7458 289, 304 Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana ms C 313 Inf. 309 Munich, Bavarian State Library Cod. hebr. 212 (bsb212) 502, 503, 505 Cod. hebr. 487 (bsb487) 502–10 Cod. hebr. 488 (bsb488) 502, 503, 506 New York, Jewish Theological Seminary 436–37 L44a 1–3 Lutzki 241 512n3 ms 232 (mtN) 54, 89, 100–101, 118–24, 120, 123 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum Pap. Antinoopolis 47–48 9 Pap. Antinoopolis 49–50 9 Oxford, Bodleian Library ms. Gr. bibl. g. 5 293 ms. heb. b. 2 512n3 ms. Heb. c. 21 b. Ḥul. 139b 348n20 Kennicott 2 472n13 Opp. Add. fol. 23 b. Šabb. 19a 350n27 P.Oxy. 4.656 292, 294, 304, 309, 311

Oxford, Sackler Library P.Oxy. 50.3522 289, 306–7, 312 166, 289 P.Oxy. 65.4443 P.Oxy. 77.5101 289, 306–7, 312 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France ms. hébr. 25 501n35 ms. hébr. 48–49 422 ms. hébr. d. 89 (p) i 9 ms. hébr. 671 b. Ber. 48a 347n17 ms. hébr. 148 601n15 Parma, Biblioteca Palatina Parma 3218 436 Parma 3259 351n29 Rome, Vatican Library Vat. ebr. 66 351n29 Vat. gr. 1670 (Codex Vaticanus; vl178) 117–18, 123, 168n70, 244 St. Gall Abbey Codex Sangallensis 912 (vl180) 117, 120 St. Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Studies ms D62 (Codex Karasu Bazar) 54 St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia ebr. I B19a (Leningrad Codex, mtL) 54, 63–64, 66, 68, 100–101, 118–24, 133, 366–67, 375, 418–20, 439–40, 445,447, 450, 451, 456, 461, 464–67, 472–74, 491, 493–95, 502–510, 516, 527, 530–36, 546–63, 569, 594, 602, 614 ebr. I B 3 (Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus; mtP) 54, 100–101, 118–24 ebr. Arab. I 2390 372n34 ebr. II C 161 430n21 ebr. II B 10 (mt L10) 495, 502–10 ebr. II B 17 (mt L17) 502–10

668 St. Petersburg (cont.) ebr. II B 34 (mt L34) 583n12, 583, 586, 592 Additional Manuscripts from the Second Firkovich Collection Cod. 9 54 Cod. 10 364n3 Cod. 25 364n3 Cod. 26 364n3 Cod. 34 364n3 Cod. 51 54 Cod. 59 54 Cod. 94 364n3, 377 Cod. 116 54 Cod. 124 54 Cod. 159 364n3, 368n17 Cod. 223 364n3 Cod. 225 54, 364n3, 368n17 Cod. 1283 54

Index of Ancient Sources Vienna, Austrian National Library Cod. heb. 11 (Vienna11) 502–10 Cod. heb. 19 (Vienna19) 502–10 Cod. heb. 20 (Codex Vienna) 350n26, 351n29 Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek Codex Wirceburgensis (vl177) 100, 101, 117, 119, 120, 168 Additional Papyri Greek Papyrus 952 Greek Papyrus 967

169 168–69