‎4QIsc: A Rabbinic Production of Isaiah found at Qumran?

journal of jewish studies, vol. liii, no. 1 , spring 2002

Qumran Corner 4QIsc: A Rabbinic Production of Isaiah found at Qumran? 1 Dennis Green University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

D

espite the title of this paper it is not our intention to argue, or even to suggest, that 4QIsc represents a document produced by ‘scribes of the Pharisees’. We recognise that, orthographically, 4QIsc falls squarely into the category of Qumran productions. However, we will demonstrate that one aspect of the scribal technique utilised in the production of 4QIsc means that either (a) the possibility that 4QIsc is a Rabbinic production remains open, or (b) that scribes from the Qumran scribal school and scribes from Rabbinic circles shared this scribal predilection. The aspect of the scribal technique we are referring to is the use of palaeo-Hebraic script when writing Divine titles. The ‘post-consensus’ position admits that not all of the works discovered in caves one to eleven in and around Wadi Qumran were produced locally. It is now recognized that a certain percentage of the texts loosely labelled the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ were produced elsewhere and were only subsequently brought to Qumran by the sectarians who produced the sectarian documents and copied other non-sectarian documents. This being the case, the possibility that documents were purchased from Pharisaic circles or Pharisaic scriptoriums must be considered one of the alternative possibilities for the provenance of some of the documents found at Qumran. While we do not wish to argue that 4QIsc represents a Rabbinic production, we do wish to argue that certain aspects of such a document could look very similar to 4QIsc. Two scholars involved in Qumran research have stressed the importance of the scribal practices utilized in the production of 4QIsc. P. W. Skehan sees 4QIsc as having been penned just prior to the destruction of Qumran occupation level II, and claims that the use of palaeo-Hebraic script in 4QIsc represents ‘the end of the line in such developments’.2 He claimed: ‘For its scribe, the initial purpose of avoiding unwarranted utterance of the Divine name by

1 The following was first presented as a lecture at the Qumran Forum at Wolfson College, Oxford, on 8 February 2000. I would like to thank Professor Dov Bing and Associate Professor Mary Foster, both of the University of Waikato, for their assistance in obtaining a special study grant in order to enable me to carry out this research. I would also like to thank Ayala Sussmann and Lena Lebmann, from the Israel Antiquities Authority, for so readily allowing access to 4QIsc and 2QExb at the Rockefeller (PA) Museum. I would also like to thank Brad Sabin Hill from the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies for reading a draft of this article and providing valuable comments. 2 See P. W. Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint’, BIOSCS 13 (1980), pp. 14–44 (henceforth ‘The Divine Name’), p. 28.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

121

his readers has given way to a kind of partly reverential, partly decorative, fetish.’3 In discussing Tannaitic passages which might shed light on the practice of writing Divine names in palaeo-Hebraic script within some Qumran documents J. P. Siegel claimed that 4QIsc ‘is particularly significant . . . ’.4 We agree that 4QIsc is particularly significant for understanding the motivation behind the numerous methods used to accentuate the Divine name within a number of Qumran manuscripts. With 4QIsc now officially published more can perhaps be written to fuel the debate.5 Briefly, the significant factor is that within 4QIsc not only does äåäé, but also éðåãà, íéäåìà, åðéäåìà, äëéäåìà and úåàáö all appear in palaeo-Hebraic script. In noting this Skehan claimed: The scroll 4QIsc is remarkable also among the biblical manuscripts of Qumran in that, while written in square letters, it uses paleohebrew script for the divine names—Yhwh (sometimes also sb’wt), and (with the full spellings) ‘dwny, ‘lwhym. This it does not by way of rigid archaizing, but currently: it will write forms like byhwh and ‘lwhynw complete in paleohebrew characters (the suffix in question is even ligatured).6

However, evidence of the interpretative difficulties that this scribal phenomenon entails is indicated when Skehan went on to write: ‘A correct historical evaluation of this practice will need to take into consideration another type of text from Qumran also awaiting publication. This consists of fragments of a complete scroll of Exodus, wholly written in paleohebrew characters . . . ’.7 Skehan is, of course, referring to 4QpalaeoExodm.8 However we would question whether it is methodologically sound to link the phenomenon of second Temple Archaic Hebrew scripts and the accentuation technique used in texts like 4QIsc, 1QpHab, 11QPsa or 4Q183. Texts which were reproduced using palaeo-Hebraic script, and texts which were reproduced in Aramaic square script but with occasional insertions of the archaic script, carry not just quantitative, but qualitative differences. Whatever reasons we may wish to posit for these two scribal practices, the reasons must be seen as being manifestly different. To suggest, as Skehan has done, that one ought to interpret the motivation of these two types of scribal phenomena using but a single model is unnecessary and in fact very misleading. An attempt to evaluate the scribal practice utilized for 4QIsc in light of documents such as 4QpalaeoExodm will ultimately lead to a misunderstanding of the motivation underlying the scribal techniques for both texts. 3

Ibid. See J. P. Siegel, ‘The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources’, HUCA 42 (1971), pp. 159–172 (henceforth ‘PalaeoHebrew characters’), p. 169. 5 See E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross et al. (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XV: Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets (OUP, 1997) (henceforth DJD XV), pp. 45–74 and Plates vii–xii. 6 See P. W. Skehan, ‘The Text of Isaias at Qumran’, CBQ 17 (1955), pp. 38–43, p. 42. 7 Ibid. pp. 42f. 8 See P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich et al. (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, IX: Qumran Cave 4, IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (OUP, 1992) (henceforth DJD IX), pp. 17– 157. 4

122

journal of jewish studies

But it has been Siegel who has been instrumental in fostering what appears to be a growing acceptance of one particular understanding of accentuating Divine names using palaeo-Hebraic script. Siegel argues that this scribal phenomenon is a technique to ensure the non-erasure of those names.9 Siegel presents his theory as being the key to unlocking the mystery of the elusive motivation behind the occasional use of palaeo-Hebraic script. In fact Siegel’s theory does nothing of the kind. What is more, all of those scholars who have used Siegel’s interpretative framework have been misled as to the Qumranic ideology behind the practice. Yet Siegel’s theory is only one of a number of different theories designed to account for this particular scribal phenomenon. As noted Siegel understands the use of archaic script as a means to ensure non-erasure of the Divine name(s). Skehan decides in favour of archaic script being used to ensure non-pronouncement of the Divine name(s).10 Wolters opts for both nonpronouncement and non-erasure as providing possible motivations for using archaic script.11 For some the use of palaeo-Hebraic script is presented as impinging on the canonical status awarded to the text by the Yahad. Yadin saw the inclusion of a palaeo-Hebraic Tetragrammaton in texts as evidence of the no-canonical status of the text in question. In his inaugural announcement and discussion of 11QT, he wrote: That the scribe of the scroll took its text to be a part of the Holy Scriptures sensu stricto is also obvious from the fact that the Tetragrammaton—YHWH— is always written in the same script as the scroll itself, as was the practice of the Qumran scribes when copying biblical texts. As is well known, in non-biblical texts Qumran scribes were very careful to write the Tetragrammaton in the Paleo-Hebrew script.12 9 Siegel’s understanding has been endorsed, to a greater or lesser extent, by E. Tov, ‘Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism’, pp. 107–137, in S. Talmon (ed.), Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 10 (JSOT Press, Sheffield / London, 1991). See also: ‘Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism’, JJS 39 (1988), pp. 5–37; ibid., ‘Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study’, pp. 383–403, in M. V. Fox, V. A. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, M. L. Klein, B. J. Schartz and N. Shupak (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions (Eisenbrauns, Indiana, 1996); K. A. Matthews, ‘The Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Texts at Qumran’, pp. 549–568, in C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (published for ASOR by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1983); and most recently A. Wolters, ‘The Tetragrammaton in the Psalms Scroll’, Textus 18 (1995), pp. 87–99 (henceforth ‘The Tetragrammaton’). 10 P. W. Skehan, ‘The Divine Name’, p. 28. 11 Wolters claimed: ‘. . . the use of an unfamiliar alphabet may have been designed to prevent the reader from inadvertently pronouncing the tetragrammaton. This hypothesis seems preferable to that of Jonathan Siegel, who argues that its purpose was to forestall erasure, although the one reason does not rule out the other.’ See ‘The Tetragrammaton’, p. 98. 12 See Y. Yadin, ‘The Temple Scroll’, pp. 156–166, in D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (eds), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Doubleday, NY, 1971), p. 159. Following Yadin, Jacob Milgrom wrote: ‘A further indication (‘that the Dead Sea sectarians regarded the Temple Scroll as quintessential Torah’) was that the Tetragrammaton was written in the square alphabet, the same as the other canonical books of the Dead Sea scrolls, whereas it was written in palaeoHebrew in the non canonical scrolls.’ See J. Milgrom, ‘The Temple Scroll’, BA 41 (1978), pp. 105–120, p. 119.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

123

S. Talmon has also made this suggestion. But J. A. Sanders, in response to S. Talmon’s review of Sanders’s publication of the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa),13 has argued that palaeo-Hebraic script has no ramifications regarding the canonical status of the text in question.14 Below we will compare those words that are archaized within 4QIsc with those words which, according to Rabbinic literature, are not to be erased. This will be done in an attempt to ascertain exactly what degree of correlation exists. What we find is that the level of correlation is so high that we are forced to conclude that one single ideological motivation lies behind the Rabbinic concept of inerasability and the Qumranic practice of archaizing. We will see that the 4QIsc scribe(s) archaized the very same words that were considered inerasable within the Rabbinic literature. This is because those very words which are inerasable are not to be pronounced, and those words that are unpronounceable are therefore archaized. But the actual archaizing is not a factor in either the inerasability or the unpronounceability of any given word. Certain words are inerasable and/or unpronounceable, regardless of whether they are written in Aramaic square script or palaeo-Hebraic script. In concluding we will show that protection against pronouncement is the only option for understanding the Qumran practice. But more importantly, it is the high correlation between the archaized words of 4QIsc and the Rabbinic lists of inerasable words that justifies the methodology of using the Rabbinic model as an ideological background with which to analyze and hence to understand this Qumran scribal phenomenon. We will also briefly address the question of whether the original scribe wrote the palaeo-Hebraic script at the time of writing or whether these words were added in later by the same, or by a different, scribe. This will be attempted by first placing two fragments, labelled frag. 62 and frag. 63 by Ulrich, in the correct position in relation to the rest of the 4QIsc document. Of the twenty fragments not placed by Ulrich/Skehan, these are the only two with definite traces of palaeo-Hebraic script. In placing these fragments we will be mustering all of the relevant evidence that the decay of the document has made available. Having done this, our intention is to apply the method used by A. Wolters to the same end on 11QPsa. This involves measuring word spaces and noting any anomalies which suggest blank spaces, to be filled with palaeo-Hebraic words, were left by the original scribe. The relevant facts relating to the palaeo-Hebraic words in 4QIsc are as follows. The Tetragrammaton (or extant parts thereof) is represented twenty-seven 13 See J. A. Sanders (ed.), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, IV: The Pslam Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (OUP, 1965) (henceforth DJDJ IV). 14 Sanders wrote: ‘the Tetragrammaton whether in archaic or block script is indeterminate for judging if a scroll was considered “canonical” at Qumran’. See J. A. Sanders, ‘Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon’, pp. 113–130, in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, loc. cit., pp. 117f. Talmon had reviewed Sanders’s DJDJ IV in ‘The Qumran Psalms Scroll’, Tarbiz 37 (October 1967), pp. 99–104 . Yet Talmon has also noted the similarity to Rabbinic scribal practice; see S. Talmon, ‘Aspects of the Textual transmission of the Bible in light of the Qumran manuscripts’, Textus 4 (1964), pp. 95–132, p. 96.

124

journal of jewish studies

times.15 The Mt of Isaiah (henceforth Mt) contains the Tetragrammaton four hundred and eighteen times. On all occasions the Tetragrammaton is reproduced within 4QIsc in palaeo-Hebraic script. On only four occasions does the text now retain a measurable word division space on either side of the word. On seventeen occasions the text now retains a measurable word division space on one side of the word. On six occasions the destruction of the document is such that no gaps are available. ‘Elohim’ (or extant parts thereof) appears only once, it is in palaeo-Hebraic script and has only one measurable space.16 The Mt contains the word ‘Elohim’ fifteen times. The single extant palaeo-Hebraic example in 4QIsc is, on the basis of contextuality, a reference to the Israelite Deity. ‘Elohenu’ (or extant parts thereof) appears only once, it is in palaeoHebraic script and has only one measurable space.17 The Mt contains the word ‘Elohenu’ twelve times. As with the word ‘Elohim’ the single extant palaeo-Hebraic example of ‘Elohenu’ in 4QIsc is also, on the basis of contextuality, a reference to the Israelite Deity. ‘Elohekhah’ (or extant parts thereof) appears only twice, once in palaeoHebraic script and once in Aramaic square script.18 The Mt contains the word ‘Elohekha’ nineteen times. Of course this word is reproduced in 4QIsc using Qumran morphology.19 Only one word division gap still exists in the extant document. We must note here that of the nineteen examples of this word that appear within the Mt only ten times does the word directly follow the Tetragrammaton. The two examples remaining within 4QIsc would both have directly followed the Tetragrammaton if 4QIsc duplicated the Mt on this point. Yet as noted, one, Is. 51:15, is reproduced in palaeo-Hebraic script, while the other, Is. 55:5, is reproduced in Aramaic square script. ‘Tzebaoth’ (or extant parts thereof) occurs within the extant manuscript five times. The Mt contains the word ‘Tzebaoth’ sixty two times.20 Three of the examples in 4QIsc are written in palaeo-Hebraic script.21 As we will demonstrate below, the two small extant ink marks on frag. 9 col. 1 line 28 constitute parts of the palaeo-Hebraic letters ‘Bet’ and ‘Aleph’. These letters are part of the word ‘Tzebaoth’ which appears on line 1 of frag. 62. The word occurs twice in Aramaic square script.22 Only one word division gap is still retained in the extant document. In all five instances, whether in palaeo-Hebraic script and Aramaic square script, the word directly follows the Tetragrammaton. 15 If one wishes to include the no-longer-extant instance which follows the palaeo-Hebraic prefix å on frag. 23 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 33:22)] the total becomes twenty-eight. If one wishes to include the trace of ink on frag. 57 [PAM 43.162 (Is. 51:15–16)] the total becomes twenty-nine. 16 See frag. 24 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 44:6)]. 17 See frag. 37 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 52:10)]. 18 See frag. 35 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 51:15)] for the palaeo-Hebraic example, and frag. 47 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 55:5)] for the Aramaic square script example. 19 See DJD XV, Table 3, p. 49. 20 All instances follow directly after the Tetragrammaton. 21 See frag. 24 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 44:6)], frag. 50 [PAM 42.010 (Is. 10:33)], and frag. 62 [PAM 43.162 (unplaced by Ulrich)]. 22 See frag. 57 [PAM 43.162 (Is. 51:15–16)], and frag. 40 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 54:5)].

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

125

‘Adonai’ (or extant parts thereof) occurs within the extant manuscript six times. The Mt contains the word ‘Adonai’ fifty-five times.23 Three of the examples in 4QIsc are written in palaeo-Hebraic script24 and three in Aramaic square script.25 Only six word division gaps still exist in the extant document. In at least three of the surviving instances (and possibly a fourth), whether in palaeo-Hebraic script or Aramaic square script, the word directly precedes the Tetragrammaton. How then are we to account for this practice? Our suggestion is that we need to view this practice against the background of the Rabbinic Halakhah surrounding the dual and joint issues of unpronounceability and inerasability of the Tetragrammaton.26 Israelite law decreed that the Tetragrammaton was not to be pronounced, while Rabbinic interpretation of Israelite law was that the Tetragrammaton was Holy and, as such, was never to be removed or destroyed from any kind of written work.27 Yet according to a consensus of Tannaitic and Amoraic Rabbis, various other titles were also considered to carry some inherent sanctity or sacrality. This conclusion was made on the grounds that particular terms are only ever used in the Bible in reference to the Deity. According to the majority of Rabbis some titles used in reference to the Israelite Deity, for example ‘El’, ‘Shaddai’, and ‘Tzebaoth’, may not be erased. Whereas other titles used in reference to the Israelite Deity, for example ‘the Great’, ‘The Mighty’, or ‘The Strong’, are erasable. Distinction was based upon the precedence of the title in question having received and/or included a ‘secular’ usage within the Rabbinic canon. Such distinctions gave rise to a situation where various terms were Halakhically differentiated according to their perceived level of sacrality. In order to avoid vocalizing the Tetragrammaton one used other terms. But in time some of the substitutory titles were seen, and treated according to Halakhah, as having acquired an inherent sanctity in their own right. Some substitutory titles, like the Tetragrammaton itself, became inerasable and some even became unpronounceable under certain conditions. This gradation, in effect, created what can best be understood as three layers or ‘tiers’ of sacrality. The uppermost tier of sanctity contains one word and one word alone: the Tetragrammaton. This term is both unpronounceable and inerasable. 23 Note that 4QIsc, in all probability, contained this word fifty-six times. On frag. 9 col. 2 line 27 (Is. 24:1) the scribe seems to have erroneously transposed ‘Adonai’ for the Tetragrammaton. 24 See frag. 9 col. 1 line 25 [PAM 43.020 (Is. 22:12)], frag. 20 line 11 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 30:15)], and frag. 63 [PAM 43.029 (unplaced by Ulrich)]. 25 See frag. 9 col. 2 line 27 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 24:1)], frag. 9 col. 2 line 28 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 24:2)], and frag. 3 line 2 [PAM 43.020 (Is. 10:24)]. 26 This issue is discussed in greater detail in my ‘Divine Names: Rabbinic and Qumran Scribal Techniques’, in L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: 1947–1997 (The Israel Exploration Society, The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 497–511. 27 According to Lev. 24:16: ‘Anyone who blasphemes God shall bear his guilt; if he also pronounces the name lord (äåäé) he shall be put to death.’ According to Deut. 12:3f: ‘. . . you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name out of that place. You shall not do so to YHWH your God.’

126

journal of jewish studies

The second tier contains those titles whose semi-sacred status is derived from their perceived exclusive affiliation with the object of the sole term in the first tier. As noted, the basis for the claimed semi-sacral status of these terms is that they are supposedly used within the Rabbinic canon solely in reference to the Israelite Deity. Obviously such a claim as this is debatable and indeed, as we will see, this issue was debated. But arising from the debates over which terms ought to be included in this category are discrepant lists of inerasable terms. There are eight such terms according to some Rabbinic literature, for example B. Shevuot, and nine, or even eleven, according to other Rabbinic literature, for example Avot de-Rabbi Nathan and the Yerushalmi respectively.28 Those titles which we have categorized as belonging to the third tier are, like the second tier terms, utilized to ‘fence in’ the sanctity of the name in the first tier. Yet, insofar as these terms have Biblical precedence to be used outside of reference to the Deity, these terms are erasable. The vast majority of those titles used in Rabbinic literature as substitutes for the Tetragrammaton fall under this heading. These titles themselves, however, have no place in this first part of this discussion. But the underlying presuppositions within the Rabbinic debates provide us with a window to the Halakhic motivation which lead to both the creation of lists and the categorizing into a strata of relative sacrality of any given title. The overwhelming correlation of titles in the Rabbinic lists to the praxis of Qumran sectarian scribes reveals that the sectarians must have shared very similar, if not the same, ideological presuppositions. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan lists ten sacral titles, the Bavli lists nine, and the Yerushalmi lists twelve. If we are to conflate these three lists we have a total of fifteen words which a broad consensus of Rabbis invested with such significance that they were also considered, like the actual Tetragrammaton itself, to be inerasable. All six of those words that are accentuated by the use of palaeo-Hebraic script within 4QIsc are found within this list of fifteen Divine titles obtained from conflating the three Rabbinic sources. We concede that this does not initially appear to be a significant overlap in the Rabbinic Halakhic stance and the Qumran legislative stance.29 However the overlap is broader, and hence 28 Two texts redacted in the Gaonic period but consisting largely of Tannaitic material, the Masseketh Soferim and the Masseketh Sefer Torah, list only six titles. Both of these lists will, on occasion, be referred to, but as both lists are identical, and neither includes titles not found in the other lists, we will not analyze either of these lists. 29 We will not use the word ‘Halakhah’ in reference to the Qumran system of legislation, even though the term can denote both legislative interpretation of biblical law and legislation with no apparent biblical authority. The number of objections that can be raised about the use of this word in the context of the Qumran covenanters is such that we feel that the term cannot appropriately be used for the Qumran covenanters. Strugnell cautioned against using the term thus: ‘Modern scholars describe this (4QMMT) material as äëìä, and in Rabbinic language that is perfectly correct. But MMT fails consistently to use this description for its own laws, using instead more general terminology such as ÷åç, èôùî, äøåú, etc. We may suspect that this is not without significance. Also in all the other Qumran texts, both the proto-Qumranic ones and the later Qumranic ones also, the word äëìä is avoided . . . Could the absence in MMT of the word preferred by their opponents be insignificant and due to chance? After all the legal section of MMT is fairly brief. This, however, is not likely, since the same word äëìä is

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

127

potentially more significant, than it initially appears to be for three reasons. Firstly, the total of fifteen sacral titles provided from a broad cross-section of Rabbinic literature is obtained only if one conflates three individual lists; lists which, as noted, are all individually shorter than fifteen. Secondly, there are disagreements between the three individual Rabbinic lists, and, more importantly, within the lists themselves. Thirdly, there are other sacral titles and other accentuation methods which, while not utilized in the extant 4QIsc, are utilized in other Qumran texts. These three factors, and how they impinge on the use of archaic script in 4QIsc will be discussed in order. Firstly the total of fifteen sacral titles from the top two tiers of sacrality is produced by conflating three separate lists. If we treat each Rabbinic list separately the convergence between the Rabbinic lists and the practice utilized in the production of 4QIsc becomes much greater and the correlation, therefore, has the possibility of exhibiting a much greater degree of significance. When we treat each Rabbinic list in turn five points will become apparent.

Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 34:2 lists ten sacral names. These ten are: ú¢ìã ó¢ìà à¢ä ã¢åéå, ä¢é, í¢éäìà, ä¢åìà, ê¢éäìà, íëéäìà, ìà, ä¢éäà ø¢ùà ä¢éäà, é¢ãù and úåàáö.30 Three of these words are given accentuation using palaeoHebraic script within 4QIsc. These are íéäåìà, äëéäåìà and úåàáö. One problem that we will encounter with each list is that it is not always obvious what is meant by a number of titles included within the list. This problem becomes even more apparent when we analyze the lists from the other two Rabbinic sources. In order to analyze this section of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (henceforth ARN) we need to decide exactly what is meant by the terms äé and äéãà. In the case of ARN this seems relatively straightforward. This is absent also from those other works we have defined as pre-Qumranic and close to MMT, and indeed absent from the whole Qumran corpus.’ See J. Strugnell ‘MMT: Second thoughts on a Forthcoming edition’, pp. 57–73, in E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam (eds), The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 1994), esp. pp. 65f. See also D. Schwartz’s distinction between Priestly ‘realism’ and Rabbinic ‘nominalism’ in ‘Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law’, pp. 229–240, in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (E. J. Brill, Leiden / New York, 1992). In opposition to Strugnell, Davies has claimed: ‘If “halakhah” be defined as a set of laws governing the behaviour of a Jewish society, the term is appropriate.’ See P. Davies ‘Halakhah at Qumran’, pp. 113–126, in Sects and Scrolls: Essays on Qumran and Related Topics (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism no. 134; Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1996), p. 114. Such a definition, we feel, does not take into consideration what can only be seen as a deliberate and therefore significant avoidance of the word by the Covenanters. In all probability the Yahad saw the term as conveying the liberal Tannaitic type of legislation (úå÷ìç according to the sect) which the Yahad reacted against very strongly. To distinguish Tannaitic Halakhah from Yahadic legislation we will simply refer to the latter as ‘legislation’. 30 ‘By ten terms of praise was the Holy One, blessed be He, designated: viz. The Name beginning with alef-daleth, YHVH, ‘Elohim, ‘Eloah, ‘Eloheka, ‘Elohekem, ‘El,‘Ehyeh ‘asher ‘eheyeh, Shaddai, and Zeba’oth.’ All translations of Rabbinic literature, unless specified otherwise, are taken from the editions published by the Soncino press.

128

journal of jewish studies

because while one would reasonably expect both the Tetragrammaton and ‘Adonai’ to be listed, apart from the two possibilities, äé and äéãà, neither are. We, therefore, feel confident that it is justified to read äé as the Tetragrammaton and äéãà as ‘Adonai’ within the context of this particular list.31 Thus, given our reading of ARN, five of those titles listed are accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script within 4QIsc. Five points need to be raised regarding the correlation between those words listed in ARN and those words accentuated within 4QIsc. (i) One of the remaining five sacral titles which are not accentuated in 4QIsc, ‘I am that I am’, is a phrase which is not found in the Mt. Therefore, in all reality this title, while listed in ARN, has no bearing on a discussion of the book of Isaiah. Thus 4QIsc exhibits accentuation for five, not out of ten, but out of nine actual possibilities. (ii) ‘Elohekhem’, ‘Eloah’ and ‘Shaddai’, while having a place in the Mt, and presumably in 4QIsc as it was first copied, are not extant anymore due to the destruction of the manuscript.32 It has to be admitted, as implausible as it may seem, that all three of these titles may have been written in palaeoHebraic script in the original text. This, we will now never know with any degree of certainty, but the fact remains that the extant 4QIsc has accentuation for five not out of nine, but out of six actual possibilities. (iii) ‘El’ is the one sacral title that is listed in ARN, appears in the Mt,33 is extant in 4QIsc and yet is found in 4QIsc written in Aramaic square script. This is found on frag. 27 line 2 (Is. 46:9).34 Thus there is only one word from the list of ten in ARN that can positively be said to appear in 4QIsc without accentuation. (iv) Having made point iii, we must also point out that ‘Tzebaoth’ ‘Elohekha’ and ‘Adonai’ are listed in ARN, are found within 4QIsc and all are accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script on at least one occasion and are written in Aramaic square script on at least one occasion. (v) Finally, it must also be pointed out that ‘Elohenu’ is accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script one on occasion in 4QIsc. Yet this word is not listed in ARN. Thus the list of sacral titles from ARN and the list of palaeo-Hebraic words from the extant 4QIsc have only two differences; one in either direction. That is; one word is listed by ARN but is not accentuated in the extant 4QIsc, and one word is accentuated in 4QIsc but is not listed in ARN.

31 This confidence does extend to the Bavli, but not to the Yerushalmi where both äåäé and äé are listed. However, note that in two lists of Divine titles produced in the Gaonic era the Tetragrammaton is rendered as àä åàå àä ãåé and é¢ä ã¢åé. See Masseketh Sefer Torah 4:1 and

Masseketh Soferim 4:1 respectively. 32 For ‘Elohekhem’, see Is. 8:19, 35:4, 40:1, 40:9, 59:2, for ‘Eloah’ see Is. 44:8, and for ‘Shaddai’ see Is. 13:6. None of these passages remain in the extant document. See Table 1, DJD XV, p. 45. 33 See Is. 5:16, 8:10, 9:5, 10:21, 12:2, 14:13, 31:3, 40:18, 42:5, 43:10, 43:12, 45:14, 45:15, 45:21, 45:22, 46:9. 34 A part of Is. 14:13 exists in the extant 4QIsc but not the portion containing the word ‘El’.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

129

Bavli The Bavli, B. Shevuot 35a, lists nine sacred names. These nine are: ìà, êéäìà, íéäìà, íëéäìà, äéäà øùà äéäà, úìã óìà, éä ãåé, éãù and úåàáö.35 Of these only three are accentuated within 4QIsc. Again, as in ARN, these are íéäåìà, äëéäåìà and úåàáö. However the topic under discussion within the Bavli assumes the sanctity of the Tetragrammaton, giving the initial impression that this is a list of what we had earlier labeled ‘second tier’ titles. Yet despite this we cannot automatically assume that ‘YHWH’ ought to be included and thus speak of a list of ten. This is due to the fact that while ‘Alef Daleth’ is mentioned in the list ‘Adonai’ is not; and while ‘Yod Hei’ is mentioned the Tetragrammaton is not. Are we then to read ‘Alef Daleth’ as ‘Adonai’, and ‘Yod Hei’ as the Tetragrammaton, or are we to consider ‘Alef Daleth’, ‘Adonai’, ‘Yod Hei’, and the Tetragrammaton as four distinguishable sacral titles? As noted, this is a similar question as was posed by ARN and, as we will see, by the Yerushalmi. What is more, as we shall also see, a passage in the CD also poses a similar question. We therefore propose to treat the list as we did with ARN and consider the Bavli’s list to be of both first and second tier names. Thus the list will be considered to include the Tetragrammaton, written as éä ãåé, and ‘Adonai’, written as úìã óìà. The same five points raised in relation to ARN must also be raised here. A number of these points, it will be noted, are simply repetitions of those points made in respect to the correlation between 4QIsc and ARN. (i) ‘I am that I am’ does not appear in the Mt and so can not play a part in our discussion. Thus 4QIsc contains accentuation of five names, including the Tetragrammaton (éä ãåé) and ‘Adonai’ (úìã óìà), but out of a total of eight actual possibilities from the list provided in Shevuot. (ii) ‘Elohekhem’ and ‘Shaddai’, for the reasons given above, cannot be included. Therefore 4QIsc has accentuation for five, not out of eight, but out of six actual possibilities. (iii) As mentioned above, ‘El’, appears only one time in the extant 4QIsc. It is not accentuated, yet ‘El’ is listed in the Bavli. (iv) The word ‘Elohekha’ is listed in the Bavli, it occurs nineteen times in the Mt,36 but is only retained in the extant manuscript twice. It is accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script once and is written in Aramaic square script once. As noted above, both ‘Tzebaoth’ and ‘Adonai’ are only accentuated on occasion, and, like ‘Elohekha’, both are listed in the Bavli. (v) ‘Elohenu’ is accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script in 4QIsc while not being listed in the Bavli. As in the case of the list provided in ARN, the list provided by the Bavli 35 According to the Soncino translation the passage reads: ‘These are the Names which may not be erased, such as: El, Eloha, Elohim, your God, I am that I am, Alef Daleth, Yod He, Shaddai, Zebaoth—these may not be erased.’ We are not sure why this edition translates êéäìà as ‘Eloha’, but we will follow the Hebrew. 36 See Is. 7:11, 37:4, 37:4, 37:10, 41:10, 41:13, 43:3, 48:17, 51:15, 51:20, 51:22, 52:7, 54:6, 55:5, 60:9, 60:19, 62:3, 62:5 and 66:9.

journal of jewish studies

130

corresponds to those words written in palaeo-Hebraic script within 4QIsc to a much greater extent than it initially appeared. There are two differences, and again these two consist of one difference in either direction. That is; one word, ‘El’, is listed in the Bavli but not accentuated in the extant 4QIsc, and one word, ‘Elohenu’ is accentuated in 4QIsc but is not listed in the Bavli.

Yerushalmi The Yerushalmi, Y. Meg. 1:9 (71d), lists twelve sacral titles. These are: íùä úåéúåà òáøàá, à¢äáå ã¢åéá, ú¢ìãáå ó¢ìàá, ìà, íéäìà, êéäìà, éäìà, åðéäìà, íëéäìà, é ã ù, úåàáö and äéäà øùà äéäà.37 Of these twelve, 4QIsc has four with accentuation. These are íéäåìà, åðéäåìà, äëéäåìà and úåàáö. Yet again, this depends to a certain extent on how we read the Yerushalmi (henceforth Y). ú¢ìãáå ó¢ìàá appears to mean éðãà in the Y list, but because úåéúåà òáøàá íùä is also listed, à¢äáå ã¢åéá cannot be considered to represent the Tetragrammaton. We have no option then but to treat ã¢åéá à¢äáå and úåéúåà òáøàá íùä as two separate sacral titles within Y. This differs from the case of ä¢é in ARN and éä ãåé in the Bavli, insofar as the Tetragrammaton is not listed as a distinct title in either. It appears that both ARN and the Bavli respectively present ä¢é and éä ãåé as specialized ways of writing which nonetheless represent äåäé. We must therefore consider the Y list to represent the top two tiers and to contain twelve distinct Divine titles; à¢äáå ã¢åéá not equating with the Tetragrammaton while ú¢ìãáå ó¢ìàá does equate with ‘Adonai’. Thus 4QIsc reproduces six words from the Y list which are accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script. The five points relating to the possible convergence between 4QIsc and the Y list are as follows. (i) Two terms, ‘Yod Hei’ and ‘I am that I am’, are non-applicable as they are not found in the Mt. (ii) As above ‘Shaddai’ and ‘Elohekhem’ are non-applicable as they are no longer represented in the extant 4QIsc. The word ‘Elohi’ is listed in Y but, while the word appears thirty three times within the Mt,38 no trace of the word remains in the extant 4QIsc manuscript.39 Thus this word, too, can play no part in a discussion of 4QIsc. (iii) As mentioned above, ‘El’ appears only one time in the extant 4QIsc. It is not accentuated, yet ‘El’ is listed in Y. (iv) ‘Adonai’, ‘Elohekha’ and ‘Tzebaoth’ are the only words listed in Y which are sometimes accentuated and sometimes not within 4QIsc. 37 The translation by J. Neusner reads: ‘These are names that may not be erased: He who writes the Divine name as four letters, with a Y and an H, with an A and a D, El (the Almighty), God, your God, my God, our God, your God, the Almighty, the Lord of Host, I am that I am.’ See Meg. 1:9 in J. Neusner (trans.), The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism, eds J. Neusner, W. S. Green and C. Goldscheider; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987), Megillah, vol. 19, p. 61 [xv. D]. 38 See Is. 7:13, 8:19, 8:21, 17:6, 17:10, 21:10, 21:17, 24:15, 25:1, 28:26, 29:23, 30:18, 37:16, 37:21, 37:38, 38:5, 40:27, 40:28, 41:17, 45:3, 45:15, 48:1, 48:2, 49:4, 49:5, 50:10, 52:12, 54:5, 57:21, 58:2, 61:10, 65:16 and 65:16. 39 Parts of Is. 24:15, 25:1, 45:3, 52:12 and 54:5 exist in the extant 4QIsc but not the portions containing the word ‘Elohi’.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

131

(v) There is not one word that is accentuated within 4QIsc which is not listed within the Yerushalmi. This time we are presented with only one difference. That is, one word, ‘El’, is listed in the Yerushalmi but is not accentuated in the extant 4QIsc. There is no word that is accentuated in 4QIsc but is not listed in the Yerushalmi. We noted that the correlation between those words accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script in 4QIsc and the proposed Divine titles according to the Rabbinic literature is much broader, and hence potentially more significant than it initially appeared to be for three reasons. The first was that greater correlation becomes apparent when the lists are treated individually rather than when conflated. Admittedly the close correlation is also dependent on the extent of the damage to the manuscript of 4QIsc and, in the case of all three Rabbinic lists, how we are to understand a number of the titles each list contains. However these mitigating factors in no way detract from the very high level of correlation, especially when the lists are treated individually rather than conflated. In assessing the amount and the significance of any correlation between those words accentuated using palaeo-Hebraic script in 4QIsc and those words listed in the Rabbinic literature, we not only need to take into account conflation we also need to take into account the disagreement between the Rabbinic lists, and more importantly within the Rabbinic lists. The three lists are all unquestionably Rabbinic, but all three differ, not just from 4QIsc but from each other. ARN has two differences from the extant 4QIsc, one from Bavli and four from Yerushalmi. The Bavli has two from the extant 4QIsc, one from ARN and three from the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi has one from the extant 4QIsc, four from ARN and three from the Bavli. The extant 4QIsc has two differences from ARN, two from the Bavli and one from the Yerushalmi.40 The list of those words reproduced in palaeo-Hebraic script within 4QIsc certainly does not stand out as being either qualitatively or quantitatively different from any of those lists of words compiled by the Rabbis as being inerasable. In fact the Rabbinic lists tend to differ from each other to a greater extent than they differ from 4QIsc. But more important than the differences between the lists are the disagreements in the discussions undertaken when compiling the lists. All three of the Rabbinic lists specifically mention disagreement between leading Hakhamim from the Tannaitic and Amoraic era. These disagreements can all be traced to the Halakhic motivation for establishing tiers of sacrality and hence the creation of the lists. As noted above, this motivation was to ensure non-erasure because the word was claimed to have been used in exclusive reference to the Israelite Deity. The Tetragrammaton, or the single word in the first tier, was decreed to be both inerasable and unpronounceable; those various terms, the second tier titles, nine according to ARN, eight according to the Bavli and eleven according to Y, were considered inerasable but pronounceable; and all 40 See Table 1. On this table we have added the titles found within Masseketh Sefer Torah (left) and Masseketh Soferim (right). Note, therefore, that the Gaonic lists have two differences from the extant 4QIsc, four from ARN, three from the Bavli and six from the Yerushalmi.

132

journal of jewish studies

other sacral titles, which is to say all third tier titles, were considered both erasable and pronounceable. Yet within a number of traditions it is claimed by Rabbi Yose Halafta that úåàáö ought not to be listed as one of the sacral titles. According to ARN: ‘R. Jose said: I disagree as regard to Zeba’oth, since it is stated, Captains of hosts shall be appointed at the head of the people.’ According to the Bavli: ‘R. Jose said: The whole word Zebaoth may be erased, because Zebaoth refers only to Israel, as it is said: I will bring forth My hosts (úåàáö), My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt (Ex. 7:4). Samuel said: The halachah is not in accordance with R. Jose.’ ˝ says, ‘MemAccording to the Yerushalmi: ‘It has been taught: “R. YosO bers of the house of Hagirah were expert scribes in Jerusalem. They would erase the word “Hosts”, for in fact it is a nondivine name under other circumstances: “Then the heads of hosts shall be appointed as the head of the people” ’ ” (Deut. 20:9).’41 Thus R. Yose (or R. Simeon b. Eleazar) is able to find two instances where ‘Tzebaoth’ is used outside of reference to the Deity.42 However, the scholarly consensus went against him. Disagreeing in the opposite direction, R. Meir considered all of the substitutions to be of equal sanctity to the Tetragrammaton, but the scholarly consensus went against him as well. R. Abaye maintained that both ‘Gracious’ and ‘Merciful’ do exhibit inherent sacrality. He claimed such appellations must be considered to mean ‘Him who is Gracious’, and ‘Him who is Merciful’. His reasoning was that; ‘there is nothing else which is called Merciful and Gracious’. Thus he, too, is attempting to utilize the underlying presupposition that these terms are applicable only to YHWH, and therefore insists that, on the grounds of the Biblical precedent, these terms should be considered inerasable.43 What is at issue here, to use the language of the model we have proposed above, is whether terms like ‘Merciful’, ‘Gracious’ or ‘Tzebaoth’ are secondor third-tier words; that is, words that have a scriptural precedence to be used for humans. R. Yose claimed that ‘Tzebaoth’ belonged not in the second tier, but in the third, R. Abaye considered ‘Merciful’ and ‘Gracious’ to be second tier titles, while R. Meir claimed that all substitutory titles belonged in the second tier. Given that the scribe who produced 4QIsc rendered ‘Tzebaoth’ in palaeoHebraic script it is apparent that he disagreed with R. Yose. It is also apparent that he disagreed with R. Abaye regarding the status of ‘Merciful’ and ‘Gracious’, and neither does he take the extreme position held by R. Meir. In 41 See respectively Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 34:2; B. Shevuot 35b; and Y. Megillah 1:9 (XV H) translation Neusner pp. 61f. Note also that Masseketh Soferim has: ‘R. Jose says: Zeba’oth is a secular noun. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: The Aguddah family, who were scribes in Jerusalem, used to erase Zeba’oth because they treated it as a secular noun, as it is stated, Captains of hosts shall be appointed at the head of the people.’ Masseketh Sefer Torah simply states: ‘R. Jose says: Zeba’oth is generally treated as a secular noun.’ 42 R. Yose could have used any number of different Biblical citations as his proof texts because úåàáö and äàáö are used many times in the Israelite literature to describe the army of Israel. As we will see below, the word ‘Elohim’ caused identical problems, as did ‘Adonai’ and ‘El’. 43 See the discussion in B. Sheb. 35a–b.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

133

other words the 4QIsc scribe was in total agreement with the majority of the Rabbis concerning the sacral status of a considerable number of titles. One also wonders if it can be tentatively suggested that the lack of archaizing in other Qumran documents suggests that other sectarian scribes were in agreement with R. Yose against the 4QIsc scribe. The lack of consistency in the archaizing within sectarian documents could be evidence of a lack of consensus within the Qumran scribal school. This, in turn, may point to exactly the same type of ideological disagreements which are presented within the Halakhic disagreements found within the Rabbinic literature. A third factor needs to be taken into consideration when comparing the archaizing of Divine titles within 4QIsc and the inerasable titles listed in the Rabbinic literature. This is the fact that while not appearing in 4QIsc, four further Divine titles are either written in palaeo-Hebraic script or are mentioned in the context of reference to sacral titles in other texts from Qumran. These four are ìà,44 éìà, úìãå óìà and ãîìå óìà. The latter two titles, while never appearing in any Qumran manuscript written in palaeo-Hebraic script, are included on the basis of a reference in the CD. The CD, col. 15 lines 1-2, states: ‘. . . (He shall not) swear by (the Name), nor by Aleph and Lamed (Elohim), nor by Aleph and Daleth (Adonai), but a binding oath by the curses of the Covenant’: óìàá íâå ãîìå óìàá íâå òáþùåü úåøáä úåìàá íéðáä úòåáù íà éë úìãå.45 44 See the palaeo-Hebraic ìà in frag. 1, col. 2, line 3 of 4Q183 in J. Allegro (ed.), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, V: Qumran Cave 4, I (OUP, 1968) (henceforth DJDJ V), pp. 81f and Plate xxvi. See also 1QH col. 1, line 26, and col. 15, line 25 in E. L. Sukenik (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1955), Plates 35 and 49. ìà in palaeo-Hebraic script also appears in an unnumbered fragment excavated from 1Q and reproduced in both E. L. Sukenik, op. cit., fig. 30, and D. Barthélemy, J. Milik et al. (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, I: Qumran Cave 1 (OUP, 1955) (henceforth DJD I), p. 137, fig. 1 and Plate 31, text 35, fig. 1. See also the commentary on Micah (1Q14) line 27, and a badly fragmented collection of Hymns from Cave 6. The Cave 6 Hymns (6Q18) have ìà on frags. 6, 8 and 10 in palaeo-Hebraic script. However the frag. 8 example has an Aramaic square-script prefix. 6Q15 (6QCD), frag. 3, line 5 has two examples of ìà in palaeo-Hebraic script, and frag. 5, line 5 has an Aramaic square example of ìà. Baillet posits one other palaeo-Hebrew ìà on frag. 3, line 4. See M. Baillet, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, III: Les petites grottes de Qumran (OUP, 1962) (henceforth DJDJ III), pp. 128–131. 4QSd (4Q258), col. 8, line 9 and col. 9, line 8 also reproduce ìà in palaeo-Hebraic script. See P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXV: Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh Ha-Yahad and Two Related Documents (OUP, 1998), p. 115 and 121, Plates XII and XIII. An isolated Hebrew fragment, 18, from 3Q14 uses a palaeo-Hebraic ìà, although the context is now completely lost. See DJDJ III, p. 104. Note also that 4QCDb (4Q267), like 6Q15 (6QCD), uses both the palaeo-Hebraic and Aramaic square scripts when writing ìà. See J. M. Baumgarten et al. (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XVIII: Qumran Cave 4, XIII: Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (OUP, 1996). See the discussion of frag. 9, cols. 1, 4 and 5 on p. 95. 45 Translation by G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Books, London, 1997), p. 136. Transcription by M. Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered (The Israel Exploration Society / The Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem, Israel, 1992), p. 39. The transcription proposed by Rabin differs slightly; see C. Rabin (ed.), The Zadokite Documents, I: The Admonitions, II: The Laws (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd edn 1958), pp. 71ff. His translation reads: ‘[swear], nor by Aleph and Lamedh, nor by Aleph and Daleth, but with an oath of [agreement] by the curses of the covenant’ (see pp. 70ff). The disagreements in transcription and translation, however, remain incidental to our argument.

134

journal of jewish studies

We agree with Vermes that in all probability the term úìãå óìà represents the word ‘Adonai’. It, therefore, seems very safe to assume that úìãå óìà represents the same term represented in ARN as à¢ä ã¢åéå ú¢ì ã ó¢ì à, in the Bavli as úìã óìà, and in the Yerushalmi as ú¢ìãáå ó¢ìàá.46 We would equate all three as intending the same word unless ‘Adonai’ is specifically listed as well. This, we will recall, was not the case in any of the Rabbinic lists. None of the three lists provided éðãà as a stand-alone sacral title along with the particular representation of Adonai the list did provide. But whether the CD’s ãîìå óìà represents ‘Elohim’ rather than ‘El’ is less clear. The CD’s ãîìå óìà is found in none of the Rabbinic lists we are analyzing, whereas Masseketh Soferim does list ã¢îì ó¢ì à.47 If, however, we were to understand the term simply as ìà we find that ãîìå óìà is also listed in ARN (along with í¢éäìà, ä¢åìà, ê¢éäìà and íëéäìà) and in the Bavli (along with êéäìà, íéäìà and íëéäìà) and in the Y (along with íéäìà, êéäìà, éäìà, åðéäìà and íëéäìà). However ìà is found in neither of the Gaonic lists. But an even greater level of correlation is found if the CD’s óìà ãîìå is understood as a representation of ‘Elohim’. All three of the Rabbinic sources list ‘Elohim’. Masseketh Soferim’s ã¢î ì ó¢ì à, given the absence of íéäìà, must also be taken to mean íéäìà. Unlike the other Rabbinic sources neither of the Gaonic sources list ‘El’ nor the various pronominal suffixed forms of ‘Elohim’. We think a case could be made that unlike ARN, the Bavli and Y, the CD used ãîìå óìà, Masseketh Sefer Torah used íéäìà and Masseketh Soferim used ã¢îì ó¢ìà, to represent, and hence include, ‘El’ as well as all the various suffixed forms of ‘Elohim’. So given the two possibilities of understanding the CD’s ãîìå óìà and úìãå óìà as specialized ways of writing, both of the titles mentioned in the CD are actually attested to in palaeo-Hebraic script within 4QIsc. Both are also attested to in ARN, the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. On the other hand éìà, which is written in palaeo-Hebraic characters in 1QH, is found in none of the three Rabbinic lists.48 Despite the fact that 4QIsc has only six titles rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script and the Rabbinic literature lists fifteen inerasable titles, we have shown that the correlation is much greater than it initially appeared. Three factors mitigate this seeing incongruity between the Qumranic total of six titles and the Rabbinic total of fifteen titles. These mitigating factors are as follows. Firstly, the treating of the Rabbinic lists as several individual lists, rather than a single conflated list. The total of fifteen Rabbinic titles is obtained by conflating lists from numerous discrepant Rabbinic sources. Solely in terms of numerical total, the six titles in 4QIsc is only marginally different from the ten of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, the nine of the Bavli, or the twelve of the Yerushalmi. Secondly, we have noted that the various Rabbinic sources contain dis46

Note that while Masseketh Sefer Torah lists éðãà, Masseketh Soferim lists ú¢ìã ó¢ìà. Note that while Masseketh Soferim lists ã¢îì ó¢ìà, Masseketh Sefer Torah simply lists íéäìà. 48 See 1QH, col. 2, line 34 in E. L. Sukenik, op. cit., Plate 36. 47

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

135

crepancies in those words included in their respective lists of titles. Also the Rabbinic discussions concerning which titles ought to be included in the lists show evidence of internal Rabbinic disagreement. Therefore, disagreements between the Rabbinic lists and the list of archaized words within 4QIsc does not automatically imply a Rabbinic versus Qumranic, nor a ‘normative’ versus ‘sectarian’ divide. Such differences as are apparent between the Rabbis and 4QIsc certainly do not warrant a search for two separate ideological motivations behind the Rabbinic concept of inerasability and the Qumranic practice of archaizing. Thirdly, other titles from the Rabbinic lists are rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script, or mentioned within the context of sacrality, in other Qumran documents. All three of these factors have the effect of aligning the list of archaized titles within 4QIsc with the Rabbinic lists of inerasable titles. So, in all, only five Divine titles from the conflated Rabbinic list of fifteen are unattested with special accentuation, or mentioned within the context of sacrality, within the Qumran literature. These five are ‘Yod Hei’, ‘Eloha’, ‘Shaddai’, ‘Elohekhem’ and ‘I am that I am’. When dealing solely with 4QIsc we must add ‘El’ as, while this term is mentioned in the CD, and appears in all three of the Rabbinic lists, it is not accentuated in palaeo-Hebraic script in its sole occurrence within the 4QIsc manuscript. Also when dealing solely with 4QIsc one must remove from consideration two titles, ‘Yod Hei’, and ‘I am that I am’, as neither are found in the Mt. At the same time, however, none of the remaining three titles, ‘Eloha’, ‘Shaddai’ and ‘Elohekhem’ are found within 4QIsc written in Aramaic square script. We have noted a number of ‘anomalies’ within 4QIsc. A number of words— ‘Adonai’, ‘Tzebaoth’, ‘El’ and ‘Elohekhah’—do not appear to conform to the pattern established by the Rabbis. We will address the question of ‘anomalies’, but must first make sure we are working with all of the evidence that we have at our disposal. To do this we must place all of the extant fragments that contain words rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script. In other words we must place fragments 62 and 63. The correct placement of fragments 62 and 63 actually throw into sharper relief various apparent inconsistencies in the rendering of sacral titles in palaeo-Hebraic script throughout 4QIsc. This is because the correct placement of these two fragments show that in these instances the words rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script are the very words we ought to have expected to have been rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script. The two fragments include the Tetragrammaton twice, ‘Adonai’ and ‘Tzebaoth’. A palaeo-Hebraic éðüåãà is found on frag. 63, and a palaeo-Hebraic úåàáüö äþåäé and a palaeo-Hebraic äüåäé on frag. 62.49 Note that part of the úåàáö äåäé from line 1 of frag. 62, in fact the very tops of the palaeo-Hebraic ‘Bet’ and ‘Aleph’ (úåüàáþö äåäé), can be clearly seen as two ink traces on frag. 9 col. 1 line 28. Figure 1 represents what we believe 4QIsc frag. 9 col. 1 lines 22–30, as they are now labeled, would have looked like.50 While the orthography we have 49 50

See DJD XV, p. 73 and Plate xii. At Oxford on 24 February 2000, Eugene Ulrich expressed a high degree of confidence that

136

journal of jewish studies

provided is from the Mt we do not wish to suggest that this is correct; in fact we can be reasonably confident that on occasion the reconstruction is orthographically incorrect. Yet even though Fig. 1 in reality represents 4QIsc ‘draped’ over a Mt background it still gives a very good approximation of how Is. 22:10-15 would have looked within 4QIsc.51 We have managed to place both frags. 62 and 63 in their respective positions in relation to frag. 9 col. 1, not only in terms of word sequence, but also, and equally as importantly, in terms of patterns of destruction. Frag. 62 clearly follows the same damage patterns as the crease and tear running diagonally downward left to right through lines 25-7 of frag. 9 col. 1. Fragment 63 (which also appears on PAM 43.162 and PAM 42.719) was correctly identified by the original compiler (Skehan?) of plate PAM 42.719 as belonging in close proximity to the small frag. (containing a palaeo-Hebraic äé above an Aramaic square scripted ÷) which have been incorporated into frag. 9 col. 1 lines 25 and 26. As noted frag. 63 comes originally from frag. 9 col. 1 lines 28 and 29. Note also the recognition of the close proximity of frags. 62 and 63 attested to by the compiler of PAM 43.162. Again the compiler has noted the similarity of the two pieces and our placing of these two fragments in relationship to frag. 9 col. 1 and to each other has confirmed this compiler’s initial tentative placement. It will be recalled that R. Yose (or R. Simeon b. Eleazar) expressed dissatisfaction with ‘Tzebaoth’ being included as a second tier title. His reason was that this word is, on occasion, used without reference to the Israelite Deity within the sacred canon, and, as a precedence was set for its use in a secular fashion, this word could be erased. Yet this same objection could have been raised for a number of the other inerasable substitutory titles. While objection was never voiced to the inclusion of ‘Elohim’ in any list, this word, too, could be used in a non-sacral sense. The uses of ‘Elohim’, within secular contexts are categorized in discussions in B. Shevuot 35b, Masseketh Sefer Torah 4 and Masseketh Soferim 4. Problems were particularly noted when the term ‘Elohim’ was used in reference to people. For example Gen. 3:5 has ‘God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God [íéäìà]’, and Gen. 3:22 has ‘Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us.” ’ The problematic nature of these verses is testified to in the torturous explanations of Gen. R. 21:1-5. In the same fashion Ex. 7:1 (‘I make you as God [íéäìà] to Pharaoh’) is given a lengthy explanation in Ex. R. 8:2. ‘Elohim’, then, could be considered as either sacred or secular: it was a matter of context. If we were to ‘transfer’ the issue if contextuality to the sphere of 4QIsc scribal techniques we could reasonably expect to find the word written in either palaeo-Hebraic script or in Aramaic square script depending on the context of the word. Unfortunately, both fragments had been correctly placed in relation to fragment 9. It must be pointed out, however, that this judgement was made on the basis of only a cursory examination of Fig. 1. 51 As wrote Skehan/Ulrich: ‘. . . filling in of missing but unproblematic text should be regarded as an aid to the reader and not as a conclusion of the editor that the scroll agreed with the text . . . ’. In this case the text is the Mt. See DJD IX, p. 4.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

137

there is only one remaining example of this word found in 4QIsc. Contextually it is a reference to the Israelite Deity and, as we ought to have expected, it is written in palaeo-Hebraic script. But this single instance is insufficient evidence on which to base a claim of unanimity between Rabbinic ideology and Qumran scribal technique. Such a claim can only be made on the basis of multiple attestation of the scribal phenomenon as well as the word used within a secular context and written in Aramaic square script as a control. The same holds true with the word ‘Adonai’. Masseketh Sefer Torah 4:5 lists sacred and secular usages and also points out an instance where the word is used in both a sacred and a secular context within the one phrase, ‘Lord of lords’ (Deut. 10:17). Masseketh Sefer Torah 4:2 notes that ‘El’, too, is on occasion erasable as it can simply mean ‘to’. The same text goes on to point out that one cannot erase ìà if one had intended to write ‘Elohim’, nor äé if one had intended to write the Tetragrammaton. This is because both ìà and äé are sacred titles in their own right. We may then expect within 4QIsc scribal techniques which initially appear to be inconsistencies, but which, in reality, reflect the differentiation of contextuality which is discussed within the Rabbinic arguments. It will be recalled that ‘Adonai’, ‘Tzebaoth’ and ‘Elohenu’ are sometimes rendered in palaeoHebraic script within 4QIsc, but on other occasions are not. ‘El’, another of the words which is listed as inerasable in Rabbinic texts, yet qualified in others, is written in Aramaic square script in its only surviving instance within the 4QIsc, when one could have expected it to have been reproduced in palaeoHebraic script. We may now ask whether the apparent ‘anomalies’ within 4QIsc reflect the differentiation of context discussed in the Rabbinic arguments. ‘Adonai’ is used in reference to humans only four times within the book of Isaiah.52 While, due to the fragmentary nature of 4QIsc, the second, third and fourth instances have not been preserved, the first instance, 24:2, has. As we may have reasonably expected, this word, when not representing a Divine title, is written in Aramaic square script.53 Such a scribal rendition is perfectly consistent with the position expressed in the Rabbinic literature. However not all of the six instances of the word preserved within the extant 4QIsc adhere so closely to the Rabbinic pattern. On frag. 3 line 2 (Is. 10:24) the first letter testifies that, at least ‘Adonai’, of the phrase úåàáö äåäé éðåãüà, is written in Aramaic square script. Had the destruction of the manuscript been more advanced, thus obliterating the Aramaic square-scripted aleph, we would have reasonably expected to find all three of these words in palaeo-Hebraic script. We would have done so with a similar level of confidence as our assumption that the Tetragrammaton would have been in palaeo-Hebraic script in the original document. However, in the case of ‘Adonai’, we would also have been wrong. Assuming that 4QIsc followed the Mt at this point, the ‘Adonai’ of frag. 3 line 2 ought to have 52 The first instance is Is. 24:2’s ‘the servant like his master’, the second is 19:4’s ‘I will deliver the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel master’. The third is 26:13’s ‘other masters than Thou have ruled us’, and the fourth is 37:4’s ‘The King of Assyria, his master’. 53 This verse is represented in 4QIsc by frag. 9, col. 2, line 28.

138

journal of jewish studies

been rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script. Thus, given the context of the word ‘Adonai’, its rendition in palaeo-Hebraic script in this instance can only be seen as a genuine scribal inconsistency. In frag. 9 col. 1 line 25 (Is. 22:12 in reference to the Israelite Deity [Mt úåàáö äåäé éðãà]) there is a palaeo-Hebrew scripted üäåäé ® éðåãà.54 In all probability ‘Tzebaoth’ was also reproduced in archaic script. But regardless of whether ‘Tzebaoth’ was included or not, the reproduction of ‘Adonai’ in palaeo-Hebraic script is consistent with the Rabbinic position. As noted, the word ‘Adonai’ on frag. 9 col. 2 line 28 (Is. 24:2 in reference to a human) is reproduced in Aramaic square script and is, therefore, also consistent with the Rabbinic position. ‘Adonai’ reproduced on frag. 20 line 11 (Is. 30:15 in reference to the Israelite Deity) is reproduced in palaeo-Hebrew and is what we would reasonably expect. As is the example on frag. 63 (Is. 22:14 in reference to the Israelite Deity) which, as noted, is reproduced in palaeo-Hebraic script. Yet the word ‘Adonai’ on frag. 9 col. 2 line 27 (Is. 24:1 Mt äåäé) is rendered in Aramaic square script (éðåãàþ). This rendition could simply be a scribal error; the 4QIsc scribe accidentally transposing éðåãà for the Mt’s äåäé. Conversely, this rendition within 4QIsc could be understood as exhibiting some sort of theological tendenz with the word reproduced in Aramaic square script to indicate it’s secular nature. As the former seems the more likely, we will consider ‘Adonai’ as being used in reference to the Israelite Deity. The word, then, ought to have been reproduced in palaeo-Hebraic script if the scribe was being at all consistent. As noted ‘Tzebaoth’ appears on five occasions within the extant 4QIsc manuscript. It is written in palaeo-Hebraic script on frag. 62 [PAM 43.162 (Is. 22:14)] and frag. 24 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 44:6)] where, on both occasions it can be seen following a palaeo-Hebraic Tetragrammaton. The tops of a palaeoHebraic ‘Tzebaoth’ can be deciphered on frag. 50 [PAM 42.010 (Is. 10:33)] but not the words directly preceding nor following it. According to Mt the text reads ‘YHWH Tzebaoth’ and we think it can be safely assumed that 4QIsc follows this reading. However ‘Tzebaoth’ is written in Aramaic square script on frag. 57 [PAM 43.162 (Is. 51:15)] and frag. 40 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 54:5)]. Yet the text in both instances, according to Mt, reads ‘YHWH Tzebaoth’. There are two ways one could interpret the fact that ‘Tzebaoth’ is written in Aramaic square script. Firstly the Aramaic square scripted ‘Tzebaoth’ could be understood as evidence that 4QIsc Is. 51:15 and 54:5 did not contain the Tetragrammata which precedes ‘Tzebaoth’ in the Mt. Secondly one could view ‘Tzebaoth’ written in Aramaic square script as yet another anomaly within 4QIsc. Which of these two possibilities is correct cannot be decided on the evidence at hand. Although given the extent to which 4QIsc reflects the Mt stream, the second seems more likely. Thus, an assumption that ‘Tzebaoth’ would have been in 54 Note that this is the only surviving instance of a word division dot that is customarily used in palaeo-Hebrew texts. Note, however, in the other two surviving instances of consecutive palaeo-Hebraic words there is no word division dot. See frag. 24, line 6, üáö äåäþ, and frag. 62, line 1, üö äþ.

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

139

palaeo-Hebraic script is an assumption that could reasonably have been made with a high degree of confidence. But yet again we would have been wrong had the destruction of the manuscript required that we had made such an assumption. Again, it appears that we are faced, not so much with issues of contextuality, but with two genuine inconsistencies. ‘Elohekhah’ is the other Divine title that is accentuated on one occasion but not accentuated on another. The word is rendered as äþëéäåìà in palaeoHebraic script on frag. 35 [PAM 43.022 (Is. 51:15 Mt êéäìà äåäé)], and as äëéäåìàþ in Aramaic square script on frag. 47 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 55:5) Mt êéäìà äåäé)]. The context in both instances is the same; reference to the Deity, and, if consistent with the Mt, directly following the Tetragrammaton. Both ought to have been rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script, or at the very least, for the sake of consistency, both ought to have been rendered in Aramaic square script. It should be noted that ‘Elohekha’ is listed in the ARN, the Bavli, and Y, but in neither of the Gaonic lists. But regardless of whether the word appears in one particular lists but not another, we are still faced with a genuine inconsistency in the way this word has been rendered within 4QIsc. It is very difficult to establish a pattern when one is dealing with so little evidence. It becomes even more so when ‘anomalies’ obscure the pattern. It could be claimed on the basis of these ‘anomalies’, that no pattern is discernible. Conversely, one could uphold the integrity of the pattern by simply positing inconsistencies resulting from scribal errors. As it seems obvious that a pattern does exist, we feel we are justified in treating those instances that do not conform to the pattern as simple scribal errors. But, further to this, those titles chosen for archaizing come from the same pool of titles agreed upon by the majority of the Rabbis. All of the titles archaized within 4QIsc also appear in at least one of the lists of second tier titles compiled by the Rabbis, and the vast majority appear in all of the lists compiled by the Rabbis. The 4QIsc scribe indicated the level of sacrality of a given word by rendering that word in palaeo-Hebraic script, even though the scribe erred by not doing this consistently. The small number of inconsistencies are easily outweighed by the volume of the consistencies. But more telling than when words appear in palaeo-Hebraic script, is when they do not. That the word ‘Adonai’ appears in a non-sacral context rendered in Aramaic square script provides an important, and we think decisive, control factor. The scribe who copied 4QIsc made at least five errors regarding sacral titles, their level of sacrality, and, hence, their written form. On one occasion ‘Elohekhah’ was wrongly rendered in Aramaic square script.55 ‘Adonai’ was wrongly rendered in Aramaic square script twice, and was correctly rendered in Aramaic square script once.56 ‘Tzebaoth’ was wrongly rendered in Aramaic 55

As noted, this occurs on frag. 47 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 55:5)]. As noted, the incorrect examples are on frag. 9, col. 2, line 27 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 42:1)], and frag. 3, line 2 [PAM 43.020 (Is. 10:24)]. The correct example is on frag. 9, col. 2, line 28 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 24:2)]. 56

140

journal of jewish studies

square script twice.57 While the Rabbis could consider two of these words to be appropriately rendered in Aramaic square script, on the basis of their context, none of these ‘anomalies’ fit this pattern. All of these ‘anomalies’ are simple scribal errors, with the exception of ‘Adonai’ reproduced in Aramaic square script in a non-sacral context. And it is this single instance, as much as any other factor, which reveals the pattern that the 4QIsc scribe was attempting to adhere to. It could be suggested that in the original manuscript ‘Elohekhem’, ‘Eloah’, Shaddai’ and ‘Elohi’ may have been rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script. This would follow the pattern, and while it might seem unlikely, it is no more unlikely that the large number of archaized titles that do appear within 4QIsc. However, it must also be kept in mind that ‘El’ has survived in the extant manuscript, is listed in all three of the Rabbinic lists, but appears within 4QIsc in reference to the Deity and is reproduced in Aramaic square script. Prior to concluding we will investigate one further issue generated by the use of archaic script within 4QIsc. This is the question of whether the palaeoHebrew words were written at the time of the production of the bulk of the Ms, or whether they were only subsequently added in by the same, or another, scribe. A number of ancient Jewish Old Greek manuscripts also use the palaeoHebraic rendering of the Tetragrammaton. One particular text was discovered at the ‘Cave of Horrors’, in Nahal Hever. After some initial confusion, due to the fact that it was discovered and removed to Jordan by Bedouin, the ‘Seiyal’ text was finally reunited with the portions of the Ms held by the Israelis. Within this particular revision of the Lxx (terminus ante quem 135 Ce.) the Tetragrammaton is rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script a total of twenty eight times, which is to say in all instances that it appears.58 The evidence of the text suggests that scribe who worked on the first part of the document inserted the Tetragrammaton at the time of writing. Col. 28 line 37 has the palaeo-Hebraic é flowing almost straight into the Τ of the next Greek word.59 The normal practice for this particular scribe was to hang the Hebrew from the line while writing the Greek on the line. But in col. 8 line 40 the scribe hung the Tetragrammaton from the line but accidentally continued the Greek text at this lower level after writing the Tetragrammaton.60 These two factors suggest three things about the writing of the Tetragrammaton: (1) it was written by the same scribe who produced the majority of the text; (2) it was included as it appeared, rather than being added in later; and (3) it was written from left to right, though this may be less certain. 57 As noted, these occur on frag. 57 [PAM 43.162 (Is. 51:15–16)], and on frag. 40 [PAM 43.029 (Is. 54:5)]. 58 See E. Tov (ed.), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, VIII: The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection 1; OUP, 1990), p. 12 (henceforth DJD VIII). See also B. Lifshitz, ‘The Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror’, IEJ 12 (1962), pp. 201–207; Y. Aharoni, ‘Expedition B’, IEJ 11 (1961), pp. 11–24; ibid., ‘Expedition B—The Cave of Horror’, IEJ 12 (1962), pp. 186–199; and J. Aviram, ‘Introduction (To the Judaean Desert Expeditions)’, IEJ 11 (1961), pp. 3–5. 59 See DJD VIII, Plate xvi (PAM 40.561). 60 See DJD VIII, Plate vi (PAM 40.560).

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

141

The evidence, as incomplete as it admittedly is, tends to suggest that another practice from antiquity was to leave out the Tetragrammaton in Greek texts, and only later to include the Hebrew word. Evidence for this practice is suggested in two places in P. Foud Inv. No. 266. As can be seen in P Foud 266, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton has a dot on either side of it. This is explained by Waddell as the scribe having left a blank space of appropriate size, demarcated by the two dots. This can only have been a necessity if the Hebrew word was to be written in later, and from right to left.61 Tov also notes that a portion of the Ms not published by Waddell has the two dots, but the Tetragrammaton has been accidentally left out. So too with the third century P. Oxy. iv. 656. The blank spaces were filled in by another hand with the Greek word κυριο.62 We will note here that the palaeo-Hebraic Tetragrammata in some of the Qumran scrolls also appears to have been written in after the writing of the majority of the text. This phenomenon, first noted by Talmon,63 is suggested by an omission which can be seen in 4Q165 (4QpIse) frag. 6 line 4.64 In this instance the Tetragrammaton of Is. 32:6 has, inadvertently we assume, not been inserted into the space left for it by the original scribe. Given that the standard practice within the pesherim was to write the Tetragrammaton in archaic script in the lemma we can safely assume that it ought to have been written in palaeo-Hebraic script despite the fact that no Tetragrammata survive within this particular Ms. An identical omission can be seen in 11QPsa, col. 3 line 4 (Ps. 121:5). Here too the scribe has left a blank for the Tetragrammaton which has accidentally been left open.65 Despite the lack of demarcation dots in 11QPsa, Wolters has shown through careful measurements of both the Tetragrammata and the word division gaps on either side of the Tetragrammata, that blank spaces were deliberately left in the text. Wolters’ results reveal that the original 11QPsa scribe left blanks of such varying sizes that the later scribe, whose task it was to insert the Tetragrammata, had sometimes to squeeze them in, and at other times to stretch them to fill the gap.66 Yet while Wolter’s method is appropriate for a document such as 11QPsa, sadly, the destruction of 4QIsc discounts the appropriateness of applying the same methodology in this instance. Wolters had one hundred and forty five palaeo-Hebraic words at his disposal. What is more, in every instance the palaeo-Hebraic words were four letters long. We have, by comparison, only thirty six palaeo-Hebraic words at our disposal. Further to this the palaeoHebraic words in 4QIsc range in length from four letters (twenty seven instances), through five letters (six instances), six letters (once) and seven letters (twice). Wolters also based his findings on a total of just under two hundred word division gaps. We have been working with only thirty-five word division gaps. 61 62 63 64 65 66

See W. G. Waddell, ‘The Tetragrammaton in the LXX’, JTS 45 (1944), pp. 158–161, p. 161. See DJD VIII, p. 12. See S. Talmon, ‘The Qumran Psalms Scroll’, loc. cit., p. 101. See DJDJ V, p. 30 and Plate ix. See DJDJ IV, p. 24 and Plate iv (PAM 43.778). See the convincing argument in A. Wolters, ‘The Tetragrammaton’.

142

journal of jewish studies

As this, surely, represents too small a sample from which to posit any valid or meaningful generalizations about the text as a whole, we will not attempt to do this. But despite the fact that no valid conclusion can be reached on the basis of measurements, more can be said to shed light on the subject. It appears to us that the same scribe(s) who produced 4QIsc also produced 2QExb (2Q3).67 By this we mean to include both the palaeo-Hebraic script and the Aramaic square script. That is; the same scribe who wrote the majority of 4QIsc also wrote the Aramaic square script of 2QExb. Also the same scribe who wrote the palaeo-Hebraic portions of 4QIsc also wrote the archaic script of 2QExb. Yet whether these were two scribes or one cannot be presently ascertained. Given this, neither can we know whether the palaeo-Hebraic words were added at the time of the writing of the bulk of the manuscripts, or whether these were added by another, or the same scribe, at a later time. The only real further avenue which might go part of the way to solving this dilemma would be the employment of energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence tests on ink samples taken from the documents.68 Yet even so, a marked difference between the chemical composition of the ink used to write the palaeo-Hebraic words and the chemical composition of the ink used to write the Aramaic square scripted portions of the document can only tell us that the archaic script must have been added later; not by whom. But conversely, any lack of difference in the chemical composition of the ink used to write the two different scripts does not rule out the possibility of two scribes, nor that the palaeo-Hebraic script was added after the production of the bulk of the manuscript. We cannot, presently, ascertain if the palaeo-Hebraic titles within 4QIsc were written at the time of writing the bulk of the manuscript, nor if they were written by the scribe who produced the bulk of the manuscript. However the patterns of archaizing a word within a sacred setting, but rendering the same word in Aramaic square script within a secular setting are quite evident, despite the fact that the 4QIsc scribe did not adhere to this pattern consistently. It surely cannot be seen as mere coincidence that in the Rabbinic literature there are perceived problems and discussions regarding the anomalous status of ‘Tzebaoth’, ‘Adonai’, ‘Elohim’ and ‘El’, and within 4QIsc there are scribal anomalies in the representation of ‘Tzebaoth’, ‘Adonai’, ‘Elohekhah’ and ‘El’. We have shown that the titles listed as inerasable by the Rabbis and the list of titles that are archaized within 4QIsc are sufficiently similar to posit a single Halakhic/legislative motivation. It would appear that both the socalled ‘normative’ and the so-called ‘sectarian’ circles had exactly the same understanding of the negative injunctions found in Lev. 24:16 and Deut. 12:34. We know this in the former case through records of their discussions, and in the latter case through the evidence of their scribal practice. Siegel, while incorrectly maintaining that archaizing was utilized to ensure 67

See DJDJ III, pp. 52–55. See the discussions of the technology and techniques involved in Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi, ‘The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls’, DSD 3 (1996), ppl 157–167, and ibid., ‘The Red Ink of the Qumran Scrolls’, Archaeometry 38 (1996), pp. 97–102. 68

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?

143

against non-erasure, is justified to claim that the use of: ‘ “normative” and “sectarian” in such a discussion is to empty those terms of their content’.69 Siegel, while rightly perceiving the commonality of Biblical interpretation expressed in the respective Halakhic and legislative stances, was mistaken to present accentuation of Divine titles as insurance against erasure. The Tetragrammaton is inerasable whether it is rendered in palaeo-Hebraic script or in Aramaic square script. For the Rabbis what was at issue, given their understanding of Lev. 24:16 and Deut. 12:3–4, was how many titles ought to be included under the rubric of these prohibitions. However they never mentioned archaizing within this context. On the other hand, Qumran did exhibit, in the concrete setting of scribal practice, that archaizing and erasure were not treated as a single issue. A number of documents reproduced by the Covenanters have cancellation dots above and below various Divine titles which had been inadvertently copied. On some occasions the offending Divine title had been reproduced in palaeo-Hebraic script, on other occasions in Aramaic square script; neither were erased. Archaizing, for the Qumran sectarians, as well as for the Rabbis, was not a decisive factor in inerasability. There was nothing conspicuously ‘normative’ nor ‘sectarian’ about the decisions reached by either the Rabbis or the scribe of 4QIsc. The fact that ‘El’ was not accentuated by the scribe who produced 4QIsc would have been considered unacceptable according to the compilers of the lists in ARN, the Bavli and Y. The compilers of the Gaonic lists apparently did not invest the title ‘Elohekha’ with any sacral significance. But the scribe of 4QIsc, the compilers of ARN, the Bavli and Y did. The fact that ‘Elohenu’ was accentuated by the scribe who produced 4QIsc would have been considered acceptable according to the compilers of the list in Y, but not by the compilers of the lists in ARN and the Bavli. The fact that the Y list includes ‘Elohi’ was not considered acceptable to the compilers of the lists in ARN and the Bavli. All were in agreement regarding the status of ‘Tzebaoth’, with the notable exception of R. Yose. Apparently all were in agreement regarding the status of ‘Elohim’, with no exceptions whatsoever, despite the fact that valid objections could have been raised. Obviously disagreements of this nature are still within the bounds of Rabbinic disagreements. There is nothing noticeably sectarian about the ‘sectarian’ position. This correlation is so close that we are forced to posit, not influence and derivation—these can safely be ruled out on chronological grounds—but a shared heritage. That is, the scribe(s) who produced 4QIsc and the group of Rabbis who compiled the lists of inerasable titles were both independently using ideological presuppositions which neither devised, and which must have predated both the Qumran sectarians and the Rabbis. The use of palaeoHebraic script in the reproduction of such a variety of Divine titles in 4QIsc and the correlation of these titles to titles considered inerasable by the Rabbis points to one thing. This shared phenomenon is one aspect of a much larger ‘common Judaism’.

69

See ‘Palaeo-Hebrew characters’, p. 170.

journal of jewish studies

144 Table 1 ARN

Bavli

Yerushalmi

Gaonic lists

4QIs c

äé

éä ãåé

òáøàá íùä úåéúåà

àä ãåé ¯ é¢ä ã¢åé àä åàå

äåäé

Ñ

Ñ

à¢äáå ã¢åéá

Ñ

N/Mt

äéãà

úìã óìà

íéäìà

íéäìà

ú¢ìãáå ó¢ìàá éðãà ¯ ú¢ìã ó¢ìà íéäìà

¯ ã¢îì ó¢ìà íéäìà

íéäåìà

éðåãà

êéäìà

êéäìà

êéäìà

Ñ

äëéäåìà

úåàáö

úåàáö

úåàáö

úåàáö

úåàáö

íëéäìà

íëéäìà

íëéäìà

Ñ

äéäà øùà äéäà äéäà øùà äéäà

äéäà øùà äéäà

äéäà øùà äéäà

N/eMs N/Mt N/eMs eMs

N/eMs eMs N/Mt

éãù

éãù

éãù

éãù

ìà

ìà

ìà

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

åðéäìà

Ñ

åðéäåìà

äåìà

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

éäìà

Ñ

N/eMs N/eMs

10

9

12

6

6

Not in extant manuscript of 4QIsc Within extant manuscript of 4QIsc, but not written in palaeo-Hebrew script Not within the Massoretic text of Isaiah

145

Figure 1

4qis c : a production of isaiah at qumran?