Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 1–12 brill.nl/dsd Reconstructing 4QJerb According to the Text of the Old Greek Richard ...

Author: Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar | Editor

51 downloads 723 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 1–12

brill.nl/dsd

Reconstructing 4QJerb According to the Text of the Old Greek Richard J. Saley Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Divinity School; Harvard University, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-2091, U.S.A. [email protected]

Abstract It is generally held that 4QJerb and the Septuagint agree with each other against the Masoretic Text with regard to verse order and brevity of text. Nonetheless, there has never been an attempt to reconstruct the whole of 4QJerb—ninety percent of which is missing—on the basis of the Old Greek. Doing such underscores the closeness of 4QJerb to the text from which the Old Greek was translated. Keywords 4QJerb; Septuagint; Masoretic Text; retroversion

Introduction It has long been known that the Septuagint of Jeremiah is considerably shorter than the Masoretic Text of the same book with a different ordering and placement of some passages and sections.1 However, it was not 1

For a succinct review of scholarly opinion in this regard from the nineteenth century onward, see J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 1–9; also P.-M. Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” RB 101 (1994): 363–406, esp. 363–69. The Septuagint text is usually said to be one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text based on the count of 2700 words by Karl Heinrich Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1862). More recently a computer count of 3097, or one-seventh, has been claimed by Young-Jin Min, “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins” © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484523

2

R. J. Saley / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 1–12

until the discovery of 4QJerb that the significance of the Septuagint could be fully understood. Though 4QJerb contains only the ends of 13 lines comprised, in whole or in part, of 31 legible words, this early secondcentury b.c.e. Hebrew manuscript unmistakably displays agreement with the Septuagint and disagreement with the Masoretic Text as regards verse order and brevity of text.2 As such, the conclusion generally drawn by scholars is that the Old Greek gives witness to an earlier Hebrew Vorlage than that of the later and fuller Hebrew version adopted for the Masoretic Text.3 Unfortunately, only about ten percent of the 4QJerb fragment has been preserved and the other ninety percent has to be reconstructed. Until now attempts at such a reconstruction have been based on the Masoretic Text.4 In light of what has been said above, and the fact that the date of 4QJerb is more or less contemporaneous with that of the Old Greek translation of Jeremiah,5 it would seem appropriate that such also be attempted on the basis of the Old Greek. This paper, then, aims to present a credible reconstruction of 4QJerb according to the text of the Old Greek. Before (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1977), 1, apud Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 57–58. 2 The author is here following Tov’s division of what was originally called 4QJerb into the work of three different scribes found on two, and perhaps three different scrolls: 4QJerb (9:22–10:21); 4QJerd (43:2–10); 4QJere (50:4–6). Cf. Emanuel Tov, DJD 15:171–72; also, Emanuel Tov, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14/54 (1989): 189–206, esp. 191–97. 3 Not all scholars would agree; so, for example, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 57–62, who argues that scholars have failed to realize “the full extent to which the LXX’s Hebrew Vorlage of Jeremiah must have suffered from haplography” (61). 4 Two attempted reconstructions which differ only in the most minute details have been published by Tov. See Emanuel Tov, “Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4,” RevQ 15/60 (1992): 531–41, esp. 537; and DJD 15:176. The latter study calls attention to lines 3 and 7 as being excessively long in a reconstruction based on the Greek; cf. below Length of Lines. 5 For the dating of 4QJerb and the Old Greek, see Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Textual History,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84, esp. 363–64; repr. from J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); see also his “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” 197 for additional information on the dating of 4QJerb.

3


delving into that, however, a quick look at what is on the leather, and hence does not have to be reconstructed, is in order.

Preserved Portion of 4QJerb Following is a slightly compressed version of the transcription of 4QJerb as it appears in DJD 15: [‫יתהל]ל‬ ֯ ‫ואל‬ ̇ ‫בח[כמתו‬ ֯ ‫משפ[ט וצדקה בארץ כי‬ ֯ ‫הישב]י[ם‬ ̇ ‫[קצו֯ ̇צי֯ ̇פ ֯אה‬ ̇ ‫[ אל דרך הגוים‬ ‫ובז[הב ייפהו במקבות‬ ֯ ‫[תכלת וארגמן‬ ֯ ‫[י̇ אבדו מן ארעא‬ ‫מק[צה ̇א ̇רץ ברקים‬ ‫[בעת פקדתים‬ ‫קו[ל]ע[ את ישב‬ ‫יצא[נ֯ י‬ ‫רשו‬ ֯ ‫[ד‬ ̇ [ °°

∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

(9:22) (23) (24,25) (10:1,2) (3,4) (5a,9) (5b,11) (12,13) (14,15) (16–18) (19,20) (21) (22)

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

Comments on the Preserved Portion of 4QJerb Two factors in the above transcription reveal close alignment with the Old Greek.6 The first is at the end of line 5 where the word ‫“( במקבות‬with hammers”) occurs. It is of note that the MT and the Old Greek both mention hammers and nails at this point, but in different order. The MT has “with nails and hammers” (‫וּב ַמ ָקּבוֹת‬ ְ ‫)בּ ַמ ְס ְמרוֹת‬ ְ while the Old Greek 6

All references to the Septuagint text are to the edition prepared by Joseph Ziegler, ed., Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (3d ed.; Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). All references to the MT are from BHS and were checked against the Aleppo Codex (Chaim Rabin, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Book of Jeremiah [Hebrew University Bible Project; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997]).

4


reads “with hammers and nails” (ἐν σφύραις καὶ ἥλοις). Though 4QJerb has only one of the two words on the leather, ‫“( במקבות‬with hammers”), there seems no reason to doubt that ‫“( ובמסמרות‬and with nails”) followed at the beginning of line 6, thereby giving 4QJerb the same reading as the Old Greek. The second factor is even more striking: as the verse numbers in the right-hand column above indicate, the verse order of 4QJerb in ch. 10 is Jer 10:1–4, 5a, 9, 5b, 11–22. That is, vv. 6–8 and 10 are missing in 4QJerb while v. 9 appears between the two halves of v. 5. The same is true for the Old Greek. This, then, forms the indisputable basis for the claim that, as regards verse order and brevity of text, 4QJerb agrees with the Old Greek against the MT. That having been said, however, it needs to be noted that there are four instances of possible 4QJerb agreement with the MT against the Old Greek, admittedly all in minor matters. 4QJerb in line 2 reads ‫“( בארץ‬in the land”) in agreement with the MT, while the Old Greek has ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (“on the land”). Normally one would expect ἐπί to be rendering ‫ ַﬠל‬or the like, though it is uncertain here whether the Vorlage of the Old Greek differed from that of 4QJerb and MT. Of the 25 occasions in Jer 1–287 in the Septuagint version where there is a translation given for the reading ‫ בארץ‬in the MT, ἐν (τῇ) γῇ (“in [the] land”) appears 14 times and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (“on the land”) 10 times.8 To put it differently, of the 12 times in Jer 1–28 in the Septuagint version where ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς occurs with a corresponding reading in the MT, on 10 occasions that reading is ‫בארץ‬.9 In short, the data are sufficiently ambiguous here to allow for a decision on the Vorlage of the Old Greek vis-à-vis 4QJerb and the MT. The second instance is in line 3 where 4QJerb reads ‫קצו֯ ̇צי֯ ̇פ ֯אה‬ ̇ (“temples clipped”) in agreement with the MT but in disagreement with the 7

For Jer 1–28 as the older and thus more original section of the Septuagint text, see H. St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” JTS 4 (1902–1903): 245–66, esp. 246; and 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, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), esp. 105–6. Also of note are the remarks of Anneli Aejmelaeus, “‘Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant,’” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 1–18, esp. 10–18. 8 The other occurrence has ἀπὸ γῆς. 9 The other two occurrences are ‫ לארץ‬and ‫על האדמה‬.


5

περικειρόμενον τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (“shaven all around on his face”) of the Greek. The singular form of the participle in the Greek as well as the singular personal pronoun might indicate a different Vorlage, though it is also possible that the Greek is simply idiomatic here. It should be noted that a similar occurrence of the phrase in Jer 32:9 (25:23 M) yields the same basic construction in the Greek.10 A third instance in line 4 has 4QJerb siding with the MT for the phrase ‫“( אל דרך‬into the way”) while the Old Greek has κατὰ τὰς ὁδούς (“according to the ways”). Tov’s opinion that the Greek preposition is owing to the unusual construction in the Hebrew seems much more likely than does positing a different Vorlage.11 Such is not the case with the number of the noun, however, and here 4QJerb clearly agrees with the MT against the Old Greek.12 The fourth and final instance occurs in line 5 where the Masoretic ‫יְ יַ ֵפּהוּ‬ (“he beautifies it”) found also in 4QJerb is reflected in Greek by κεκαλλωπισμένα ἐστίν (“they are beautified”), i.e., the Hebrew is singular, active (Piel) with object; the Greek is plural, passive, without object. It is difficult to know what reading lay before the Greek translator. It could have been the same as that in the MT and 4QJerb for which he chose a paraphrastic rendering. Equally, if not more likely, however, would have been a different Hebrew form, perhaps ‫יפו‬, a Qal perfect plural of the stative verb, or even ‫ ייפו‬taken as a Pual imperfect, third plural. It is also possible that it was simply ‫יפה‬, the Qal perfect singular, which he rendered as a neuter plural in accord with his interpretation of the previous verse which ends with compound neuter nouns (ἔργον τέκτονος καὶ χώνευμα; a work of a craftsman and a molten image). Still another option would be to view the Vorlage as ‫יפיָּ ה( יפה פיה‬ ִ ‫ה־פיָּ ה = יְ ֵפ‬ ִ ‫ )יְ ֵפ‬in light of Jer 26:20 (46:20 M) where κεκαλλωπισμένη is given as the translation. Other options are no doubt possible, but in the end no proposed Vorlage stands out as more compelling than another, and the matter of possible agreement of 4QJerb here with the MT against the Old Greek must be left open. 10

Though admittedly this occurs in the later section of Greek Jeremiah (cf. n. 7 above). 11 DJD 15:174. 12 So also, Tov; cf. “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, esp. 147.

6


There are also two instances of 4QJerb agreeing with neither the MT nor the Old Greek. 4QJerb in line 9 reads the verbal form plus object, ‫“( פקדתים‬I visit them”) as opposed to the nominal form plus possessive, “their visitation,” of MT (‫)פּ ֻק ָדּ ָתם‬ ְ and the Greek (ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν). In line 10 the ‫“( ישב‬the one dwelling [sg.])” of 4QJerb contrasts with the plural forms of MT (‫)יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ and the Old Greek (τοὺς κατοικοῦντας). What then is to be made of the case(s) where 4QJerb agrees with the MT against the Old Greek or of the cases where 4QJerb has a unique reading against the combined testimony of the MT and Old Greek? Simply put, such data simply demonstrate the individuality of every manuscript as a member of a family of texts where no two exemplars read precisely the same. Such deviations as those just cited, then, should not preclude an attempted reconstruction of 4QJerb on the basis of the Old Greek. Preliminary to that effort, however, we need to consider the restrictions imposed by line length.

Length of Lines Through a complex process of analysis and comparison Tov was able to conclude that the average count per line for this wider than normal column would have been approximately 115 letter-spaces (individual letters and spaces).13 In this regard he also noted that a reconstruction based on the Greek would be excessively long in lines 3 and 7, though the length of line 3 could be reduced by presuming either a shorter list or homoioteleuton in v. 25.14 Our approach to the length of line 3 is somewhat analogous— see the following section—though we posit the loss in v. 24. (The length of line 7 will be treated below.)15 Suffice it to say here in general that the reconstruction of 4QJerb will have 115 letter-spaces per line as its goal.

A Presumed Haplography in 4QJerb The presumption is here being made that either 4QJerb or its Vorlage suffered a haplography in line 3. The beginning of line 3 (9:23c M), 13 14 15

DJD 15:174–75. DJD 15:176. Cf. Comments on the Reconstruction of 4QJerb below; also n. 19.


7

when reconstructed according to the retroverted Old Greek, reads: ‫באלה‬ ‫חפצי נאם יהוה הנה ימים באים נאם יהוה ופקדתי‬.16 The argument being developed here presumes that the scribe’s eye skipped from the first ‫נאם‬ ‫ יהוה‬to the second ‫( נאם יהוה‬both homoioteleuton and homoiarkton), deleting the intervening words and producing a reading of ‫באלה חפצי נאם יהוה‬ ‫ופקדתי‬.

Proposed Reconstruction of 4QJerb The following reconstruction has been made completely on the basis of the Old Greek. The retroversions were made with the use of Hatch-Redpath17 and computer software, and are in the main quite straight forward. There are, however, a few places where the evidence is ambiguous and more than one reading is plausible. It is important to note, though, that there is no instance where the choice of the retroverted Hebrew word affects the plausibility of the case being developed. The orthography is based on the MT.18 The numbers in the left-hand margin indicate the letter-space count for the line in question. ‫והיתה נבלת האדם כדמן על פני האדמה וכעמיר מאחרי‬21 ‫]ובחורים מרחבות‬9:20 1 118 [‫יתהל]ל‬ ֯ ‫ואל‬ ̇ ‫בח[כמתו‬ ֯ ‫כה אמר יהוה אל יתהלל חכם‬22 ‫הקצר ואין מאסף‬ 23 ‫ ]הגבור בגבורתו ואל יתהלל עשיר בעשרו כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל‬2 108 ‫ומשפ[ט וצדקה בארץ כי‬ ֯ ‫השכל וידע כי אני יהוה עשה חסד‬ ‫על מצרים ועל יהודה‬25 ‫ופקדתי על כל מול בערלתם‬24 ‫ ]באלה חפצי נאם יהוה‬3 120 ‫הישב]י[ם‬ ̇ ‫[קצו֯ ̇צי֯ ̇פ ֯אה‬ ̇ ‫ועל אדום ועל בני עמון ועל בני מואב ועל כל‬ 10:1 ‫ ]במדבר כי כל הגוים ערלי בשר וכל בית ישראל ערלי לבותם שמעו את‬4 117 ‫כה אמר יהוה[ אל דרך הגוים‬2 ‫דבר יהוה אשר דבר עליכם בית ישראל‬ ‫כי חקות הגוים‬3 ‫ ]אל תלמדו ומאתות השמים אל תיראו כי ייראו אותם לפניהם‬5 121 ‫ובז[הב ייפהו במקבות‬ ֯ ‫בכסף‬4 ‫הבל עץ מיער כרות מעשה חרש ומסכה‬ 9 ‫כסף מקשה המה לא ילכו כסף מרקע‬5a ‫ ]ובמסמרות יחזקום ולא יפיקו‬6 115 ‫[תכלת וארגמן‬ ֯ ‫מתרשיש יבוא זהב מאופז ויד צורפים מעשי חרשים כלם‬ 16

The MT differs only in having ‫ חפצתי‬rather than ‫ ;חפצי‬cf. below. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 18 For the orthography of 4QJerb being almost identical to that of the MT, see DJD 15:172. 17

8


‫נשוא ינשוא כי לא יצעדו אל תיראו מהם כי לא ירעו וטוב אין בם‬5b ‫ ]לבשום‬7 19 123 ‫כדנה תאמרון להום אלהיא די שמיא וארקא לא עבדו [י̇ אבדו מן ארעא‬11 ‫יהוה עשה ארץ בכחו מכין תבל בחכמתו ובתבונתו‬12 ‫ ]ומן תחות שמיא אלה‬8 112 ‫והמון מים בשמים ויעלה נשאים מק[צה ̇א ̇רץ ברקים‬13 ‫נטה שמים‬ ‫נבער כל אדם מדעת הביש כל צורף על‬14 ‫ ]למטר עשה ויוצא אור מאצרתיו‬9 119 ‫הבל המה מעשה תעתעים [בעת פקדתים‬15 ‫פסיליו כי שקר נסכו לא רוח בם‬ ‫אסף מחוץ‬17 ‫לא כאלה חלק יעקב כי יוצר הכל הוא נחלתו יהוה שמו‬16 ‫ ]יאבדו‬10 112 ‫כי כה אמר יהוה הנני קו[ל]ע[ את ישב‬18 ‫כנעתך ישבתי במבחר‬ ‫אוי על שברך נחלה מכתך ואני‬19 ‫ ]הארץ הזאת בצרה למען תמצא מכתך‬11 117 ‫אהלי שדד וכל יריעותי נתקו בני וצא[נ֯ י‬20 ‫אמרתי אך זה חליי וישיגני‬ vacat or unknown expansion ‫ ]אינם אין עוד מקום אהלי מקום יריעותי‬12 ??? ‫רשו‬ ֯ ‫[ד‬ ̇ ‫כי הרעים נבערו ואת יהוה לא‬21 ] 13 ??? [ °° Comments on the Reconstruction of 4QJerb All differences between the retroverted text of the Old Greek and the Masoretic Text are listed below. Where verse numbers differ, that of the MT is given first, the Septuagint second. L. 1: (9:20[21]) [‫ ]]ובחורים‬M ‫חוּרים‬ ִ ‫בּ‬. ַ (9:21[22]) [‫ ]]והיתה‬M ‫דּ ֵבּר כֹּה נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה וְ נָ ְפ ָלה‬.ַ Cf. Jer 7:33. (9:21[22]) [‫ ]]על פני האדמה‬M ‫ﬠל ְפּנֵ י ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה‬. ַ Cf. Jer 8:2; 16:4. (9:21[22]) [‫( ]וכעמיר‬although [‫ ]וכעשב‬is also possible; cf. Jer 12:4; 14:6)] M ‫וכעמיר‬.20 L. 2: (9:22[23]) [‫ ]]ואל‬M ‫אל‬. ַ (9:23[24]) [‫ ]]וידע‬M ‫אוֹתי‬ ִ ‫וְ יָ ד ַֹע‬. (9:23[24]) ‫]]ומשפ[ט‬ ֯ M ‫מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. ִ 19

For the phrase ‫תאמרון להום‬, (impf. plus object, “you shall say to them”) in v. 11, La reads dicite (= ‫ ;אמרו‬impv., “say”); cf. Pierre Sabatier, ed., Bibliorum Sacrorum Versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica (Rheims, 1743; repr., Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 2:663. If this Old Latin reading reflects an Old Greek reading consistent with 4QJerb, then the length of line 7 would be reduced from 123 to 116. Of course, we have no way of knowing if such were actually the case. 20 Muraoka favors ‫ ;וכעמיר‬cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 112.


9

(9:23[24]) [‫ ]]חפצי‬M ‫ח ַפ ְצ ִתּי‬. ָ G has the nominal form. (9:24[25]) [‫ ]]בערלתם‬M ‫;בּ ָﬠ ְר ָלה‬ ְ cf. Gen 17:23. (9:25[26]) [‫ ]]בני מואב‬M ‫מוֹאב‬. ָ L. 4: (9:25[26]) [‫ ]]ערלי בשר‬M ‫;ﬠ ֵר ִלים‬ ֲ cf. Ezek 44:7. (9:25[26]) [‫( ]לבותם‬or [‫ ])]לבם‬M ‫לב‬.ֵ (10:1) [‫ ]]דבר יהוה אשר דבר‬M ‫ה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה‬. ַ L. 5: (10:2) [‫( ]תיראו כי ייראו‬or less likely [‫ ])]תחתו כי יחתו‬M ‫ֵתּ ָחתּוּ ִכּי‬ ‫ ;יֵ ַחתּוּ‬cf. Jer 10:5, but also 1:17. (10:2) [‫ ]]אותם לפניהם‬M ‫הגּוֹיִ ם ֵמ ֵה ָמּה‬. ַ The word ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ִל ְפנ‬seems best taken as the Vorlage of τοῖς προσώποις αὐτῶν. For the two occurrences of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ִל ְפנ‬in that portion of M corresponding to Jer 1–28 G, see 1:17 (G = ἐναντίον αὐτῶν) and 9:12 (G = πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν). (10:3) [‫ ]]הגוים‬M ‫ה ַﬠ ִמּים‬. ָ (10:3) [‫ ]]הבל‬M ‫ה ֶבל הוּא ִכּי‬. ֶ (10:3) [‫ ]]כרות‬M ‫כּ ָרתוֹ‬. ְ The verb has suffered metathesis in one of the Hebrew traditions. (10:3) [‫ ]]חרש‬M ‫ ;יְ ֵדי ָח ָרשׁ‬cf. Deut 27:15. (10:3) [‫ ]]ומסכה‬M ‫בּ ַמּ ֲﬠ ָצד‬. ַ L. 6: (10:4) [‫ ]]ובמסמרות‬M ‫וּב ַמ ָקּבוֹת‬. ְ 21 (10:4) [‫ ]]יפיקו‬M ‫יָ ִפיק‬. (10:5a) [‫ ]]כסף מקשה‬M ‫כּת ֶֹמר ִמ ְק ָשׁה‬. ְ G and M reflect two different etymologies for the form ‫מקשה‬, that of G yielding the meaning “hammered” and that of M, “field of cucumbers.” (10:5a) [‫ ]]לא ילכו‬M ‫וְ לֹא יְ ַד ֵבּרוּ‬. (10:9) [‫ ]]יבוא זהב‬M ‫יוּבא וְ זָ ָהב‬. ָ The verb has suffered metathesis in one of the Hebrew traditions. Ll. 6–7: (10:9) [‫ ]]ויד צורפים מעשי חרשים כלם[ ֯תכלת וארגמן ]לבשום‬M ‫בוּשׁם ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ֲח ָכ ִמים ֻכּ ָלּם‬ ָ ‫אַרגָּ ָמן ְל‬ ְ ְ‫צוֹרף ְתּ ֵכ ֶלת ו‬ ֵ ‫מ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ָח ָרשׁ וִ ֵידי‬. ַ There are three phrases in M (‫ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ָח ָרשׁ‬and ‫צוֹרף‬ ֵ ‫ וִ ֵידי‬and ‫ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫)כּ ָלּם‬ ֻ but only two (‫ ויד צורפים‬and ‫מעשי חרשים‬, with changes in number) in G.22 The order of the phrases in M and G is also L. 3:

See above, Comments on the Preserved Portion of 4QJerb. The retroverted ‫ כלם‬in G may be the remnant of an earlier third phrase in the Vorlage of G. That is, ‫ מעשה חכמים‬in an earlier phrase, ‫ויד צורפים מעשי‬ ‫חרשים מעשה חכמים כלם‬, could easily have been lost both through homoioteleuton and homoiarkton. 21 22

10


reversed, somewhat reminiscent of the phraseology of the “nails and hammers” [M] and “hammers and nails” [G] earlier in 10:4.23 The ‫ לבשום‬underlying G and the ‫ לבושם‬of M reflect metathesis in one of the Hebrew traditions. L. 7: (10:5b) [‫( ]וטוב אין בם‬καὶ ἀγαθὸν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς)] M ‫וְ גַ ם־‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫יטיב ֵאין‬ ֵ ‫ה‬. ֵ Cf. Eccl 3:12. A retroversion similar to M (‫וגם היטיב‬ ‫ )אין ִא ָתּם‬is also possible but unlikely owing to space considerations. L. 8: (10:12) [‫ ]]יהוה עשה‬M ‫ע ֵֹשׂה‬. (10:13) [‫ ]]והמון‬M ‫לקוֹל ִתּתּוֹ ֲהמוֹן‬.ְ L. 9: (10:13) [‫ ]]אור‬M ‫רוּח‬. ַ (10:14) [‫ ]]על פסיליו‬M ‫מ ָפּ ֶסל‬. ִ The retroversion of the preposition in G is not certain. See the same phrase in Jer 28:17 (51:17 M) where G reads the expected ἀπό rather than the ἐπί found here. (10:14) [‫ ]]נסכו‬M ‫נִ ְסכּוֹ‬. The choice of verb in G (ἐχώνευσαν) probably indicates that the translator understood the form as ‫נָ ְסכוּ‬. (10:14) [‫ ]]לא‬M ‫וְ לֹא‬. L. 10: (10:16) [‫ ]]נחלתו‬M ‫וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵשׁ ֶבט נַ ֲח ָלתוֹ‬. (10:16) [‫ ]]יהוה‬M ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬. (10:17) [‫ ]]אסף מחוץ‬M ‫א ְס ִפּי ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ‬. ִ M has the 2d fem. sg. impv.; G translates a 3d masc./fem. sg. pf. form. (10:17) [‫ ]]ישבתי‬Mk ‫ ;ישבתי‬Mq ‫י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬. The Vorlage of G could have been either; cp. Jer 22:23; Lam 4:21. Cf. GKC §90n. (10:17) [‫ ]]במבחר‬M ‫בּ ָמּצוֹר‬. ַ Cf. Jer 22:7. L. 11: (10:18) [‫ ]]הארץ הזאת‬M ‫ה ָא ֶרץ ַבּ ַפּ ַﬠם ַהזֹּאת‬. ָ (10:18) [‫ ]]בצרה‬M ‫רוֹתי ָל ֶהם‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲה ֵצ‬.24 Cf. Jer 6:24. (10:18) [‫ ]]תמצא מכתך‬M ‫יִמ ָצאוּ‬. ְ The Vorlage of G is best taken as a Niphal. (10:19) [‫ ]]אוי‬M ‫אוֹי ִלי‬. (10:19) [‫ ]]שברך‬M ‫שׁ ְב ִרי‬. ִ (10:19) [‫ ]]מכתך‬M ‫מ ָכּ ִתי‬. ַ (10:19) [‫( ]חליי‬or possibly [‫ ]חלי‬as M)] M ‫ח ִלי‬. ֳ Cf. GKC §126y. (10:19) [‫ ]]וישיגני‬M ‫וְ ֶא ָשּׂ ֶאנּוּ‬. M reads a Qal impf. 1st sg. with a 3d masc. sg. suffix from ‫נשׂא‬. G translates a Hiphil impf. 3d masc. sg. with a 1st sg. suffix from ‫נשׂג‬.

23

For other examples of transposed pairs in M and G, see Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 122, 230 n. 2. 24 Aleppo Codex: ‫וַ ֲה ֵצר ִֹתי‬.


11

(10:20) [‫ ]]יריעותי‬M ‫ית ַרי‬ ָ ‫מ‬. ֵ δέρρις normally translates ‫יﬠה‬ ָ ‫ יְ ִר‬in the Septuagint including later in this verse. (10:20) ‫ ]]וצא[נ֯ י‬M ‫יְ ָצ ֻאנִ י‬. Graphic confusion between waw and yod has resulted in M having a verbal form from ‫ יָ ָצא‬and G rendering a nominal form from ‫צֹאן‬. L. 12: (10:20) [‫ ]]אינם‬M ‫ואינם‬. (10:20) [‫( ]עוד מקום‬or less likely [‫ ])]עוד נוה‬M ‫נ ֶֹטה עוֹד‬. (10:20) [‫ ]]מקום‬M ‫וּמ ִקים‬. ֵ Waw-yod confusion has again led to different interpretations, M taking the word as a verbal form (from ‫ )קוּם‬and G as a nominal form (‫)מקוֹם‬. ָ (10:21) [‫ ]]הרעים נבערו‬M ‫נִ ְב ֲﬠרוּ ָהר ִֹﬠים‬. Two final points remains for this section. The first is this: 4QJerb has been reconstructed above on the basis of the retroverted Old Greek. However, this not to say that every word in the reconstruction would have appeared on the scroll exactly as we have it in the reconstruction. Rather, what we have above are approximations, or to put it differently, we would be sure to find the same sort of minor variations in agreement in the now missing portion of the scroll as we saw on the preserved portion of the scroll at the outset. The second point concerns the optimum line length of 115 described above. The following table shows the line lengths as reconstructed in DJD 1525 (based on the MT) and as reconstructed in this study (based on the Old Greek). Line: 1 M-base: 118 G-base: 118

2 111 108

3 139 120

4 112 117

5 129 121

6 7 8 9 10 11 116 130 11526 115 130 124 115 123 112 119 112 117

The average in DJD 15 with the MT as the base for reconstruction is 121.7 letter-spaces per line with the longest being 139 and the shortest being 111. By contrast the average with the Old Greek as the base for reconstruction is 116.5 with the longest being line 7 with 12327 and the 25

DJD 15:176. Excluding the four letter-spaces to mark a closed section posited before v. 12 in DJD 15:175. 27 If the Old Latin reading in line 7 were to be followed (cf. n. 19 above), then the length of that line would be 116 and the average 115.9. 26

12


shortest 108. Thus, neither reconstruction completely attains the goal of 115, though the reconstruction on the basis of the Old Greek more closely approximates it.

Conclusion This paper has sought to present a credible reconstruction of 4QJerb according to the text of the Old Greek. A presumed haplography in line 3 in either 4QJerb or its Vorlage between the first ‫ נאם יהוה‬and the second ‫ נאם יהוה‬is critical for the thesis here developed. Admittedly, this cannot be proven given the present state of our textual evidence. Nonetheless, in this author’s opinion the probability of such is increased by the uniformity this reconstruction as a whole brings to our understanding of the relationship between 4QJerb and the Old Greek, underscoring as it does the closeness of 4QJerb to that text from which the Old Greek of Jeremiah was translated.


brill.nl/dsd

Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira* Shulamit Elizur Department of Hebrew Literature, Humanities room 6304, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel, 91905 [email protected]

Abstract This article presents the slightly revised English translation of the first edition, originally published in 2007 in Hebrew, of two new leaves of the Geniza manuscript C of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira. With those two new leaves, from a nonconsecutive bifolio, we now have eight leaves from four continuous bifolios of the manuscript. The second new leaf contains the first Hebrew evidence for verses ranging between Sir 20:30 and 25:7. Keywords Ben Sira; Geniza; codicology

I The Genizah fragments containing the Hebrew version of Ben Sira drew scholarly attention towards the discovery of the Cairo Genizah, and within only a few years (between 1896 and 1900) fragments containing extensive sections of the book were identified and published.1 Later,

* This article was published in Hebrew in Tarbiz 76 (2007): 17–28. I would like to thank the David and Jemima Jeselsohn Epigraphic center of Jewish History in Bar-Ilan University for its support, and Prof. Menahem Kister and Dr. Avi Shmidman for their help. 1 For a list and summation of the publications, see Moshe H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 48. For a survey of the process of the discovery of the book’s Hebrew version and the verification of its originality, see also Menahem Kister, “Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira,” in The © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484505

14

S. Elizur / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 13–29

as well, and especially upon the opening of the New Series crates in the Taylor-Schechter collection in the Cambridge University Library, scholars continued to identify and publish fragments from Ben Sira.2 The probability of finding a significant fragment of the book today seems negligible. The ways of the Genizah, however, are mysterious. At 2007 a private collector commissioned a book dealer to sell several Genizah fragments at public auction, and they were purchased by the prominent collector Gifford Combs from Los Angeles, and are now in his possession.3 Before their sale, the fragments were given to the Cambridge University Library for scanning. I gained access to the computerized images of three frag-

Cambridge Genizah Collections: Their Contents and Significance (ed. S. C. Reif; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 36–40. 2 The publications until the 1970s are listed in the Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book edition: The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973), 12. 3 The auction was held in London in April 2007 on behalf of the Bernard Quaritch rare book and manuscript firm. A description of the manuscript published here appeared as no. 39 in the bookseller’s Catalogue 1348 (“Medieval Manuscripts,” no. 39). It is described as a manuscript from the Cairo Genizah that contains unrhymed Hebrew proverbs. The physical description in the catalogue states that the paper manuscript, that contains an almost whole bifolio, measures 100 × 140 mm (70 × 100 mm), with each leaf containing a single column of twelve lines of Eastern Hebrew script written in black ink. The second leaf is damaged in its external upper corner, and the text there is missing. The rest of the text is in good condition. According to the catalogue, the fragment was written in the Middle East in the eleventh or twelfth c. (see also below, n. 5). According to information provided by the auction house, the manuscript came from a collection of twelve Genizah fragments that had been purchased by a German collector named Ferdinand Schmitz from Aachen in an auction conducted in Cologne on July 6, 1898, and had been privately held since. I wish to thank Gifford Combs for his permission to publish the manuscript. I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Ben Outhwaite, Head of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit in the Cambridge University Library, for contacting the auction house and transmitting this information to me; he also sent me excellent images of the manuscript.


15

ments that were identified as poetical passages,4 one of which I realized, after studying them, is a (nonconsecutive) bifolio of MS C of Ben Sira.5

II Presently, six leaves of MS C of Ben Sira have been published, four of them in 1900: one bifolio whose two leaves are not consecutive was published by Solomon Schechter;6 a single leaf, by Israel Levi;7 and another leaf was published by Moses Gaster, from his private library.8 Sixty years

4

The two other fragments not published here contain already published poems by R. Samuel ha-Shelishi b. Hoshana (part of his “seder” for the seventh day of passover. See Israel Davidson, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, Vol. 3 [New York: The Theological Seminary of America, 1928], 73–83) and by R. Judah ha-Levi (his poems to Samuel b. Hananya from Cairo ‫“ אמור לצבא שחקים איך כליתם‬Say to the heavenly host: wherefore have you vanished?” for which see H. Brody, Diwan Abu-l-Hasan Jehuda ha-Levi, Vol. 1 [Berlin: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1894], 144 and ‫“ עדה גאון‬Don pride,” for which see J. Schirmann, “Poets of the Generation of Moses Ibn Ezra and Jehuda ha-Levi,” Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem, Vol. 6 [ Jerusalem, 1945], 318). 5 This identification might require a correction of the dating of the fragment given in the auction house catalogue (see above, n. 3); according to M. Gaster (see below, n. 8), this is the earliest manuscript of Ben Sira, and was written in the late tenth or early eleventh century (see Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 52). 6 Solomon Schechter, “A Further Fragment of Ben Sira,” JQR 12 (1900): 456–65. The manuscript is currently in the holdings of the Cambridge University Library, T-S 12.727. 7 Israel Lévi, “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique,” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. The manuscript is among the holdings of the Alliance Israélite Universelle library in Paris: ID 2. Levi called the fragment “Fragment D,” but its scholarly notation is MS C. 8 Moses Gaster, “A New Fragment of Ben Sira,” JQR 12 (1900): 688–702 (= M. Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology [London: Maggs, 1925], 1:182–98). Facsimiles of all the fragments mentioned in the preceding three nn. appear in the book: Solomon Schechter, Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901).

16


later, Jefim Schirmann published two additional leaves from a manuscript in the New Series at Cambridge.9 An additional piece from one of the leaves discovered by Schechter was published by Alexander Scheiber from the Additional Series in that library.10 The unique nature of MS C was immediately realized by scholars upon its discovery. Unlike the other sources of Ben Sira, this manuscript does not contain a continuous version, but only a selection from it, with omissions. At times it also incorporates later proverbs in early chapters. The version of this source, as well, is unique: along with passages that are quite similar to those in the other Hebrew sources, we also find proverbs in a completely different version.11 All of these distinguishing marks are present in the fragment published here, as we will see in detail below. This fragment, which comprises a single nonconsecutive bifolio, finely joins together with the known fragments, and allows us to precisely reconstruct the nature of the entire work. Two of the bifolios in the quire were already identified as being connected to one another: the bifolio published by Schirmann physically enveloped that published by Schechter. This latter fragment, in turn, envelopes the new fragment published here: the first leaf opens with the conclusion of the verse which is found at the end of the first leaf of Schechter’s bifolio; and the second leaf of the new

9

See Jefim Schirmann, “Some Additional Leaves from Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew,” Tarbiz 29 (1960): 125–34 [Hebrew], with the publication of MS C: 131–34. The number given it at the time in the Cambridge University Library was T-S NS 194.114; it was later moved, and its current number is T-S 12.867. 10 MS T-S AS 213.4; see Alexander Scheiber, “A Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza,” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85; idem, “An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew,” Jubilee Volume in Honor of Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik Shelita (ed. S. Israeli, N. Lamm, and Y. Raphael; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984), 1180–85 [Hebrew]. See also A. A. Di Lella, “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben-Sira from the Cairo Geniza,” Bib 69 (1988), 226–39. For the part played by Israel Yeivin and S. C. Reif in the discovery of this fragment, see S. C. Reif, “The Discovery of the Cambridge Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira: Scholars and Texts,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. P. C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997), 1–22, at 19–20. 11 See the articles mentioned in nn. 4–7, above; cf. Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 52.


17

fragment ends with 25:7,12 while Schechter’s second leaf begins with the following verse.13 It happens that we also possess the bifolio that originally followed the bifolio published here: the leaf published by Levi is the direct continuation of our leaf 1, and our leaf 2 is the immediate continuation of the fragment published by Gaster. We learn from this that the two individual leaves published by Levi and Gaster were originally a single bifolio.The fringes of the leaves fit well with each other, and with them the text can be completed in several places.14 Thus, we now have eight leaves from four continuous bifolios of the manuscript. What was the size of the complete quire? The outer bifolio published by Schirmann begins in the middle of ch. 3 and ends with ch. 26 (with the addition of verses from ch. 36). The little missing from the beginning of the book compels us to assume that this quire was not preceded by another, and that only a single additional bifolio enveloped it.15 It is more difficult to assess the number of bifolios missing from the middle of the 12

The verse numeration used throughout the current article follows LXX (this is the numeration of the Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book editions. Segal brings it by numbers, beside another numeration, signs by Hebrew letters). 13 This was noted by Schirmann in his article (“Some Additional Leaves”), 127. 14 This escaped the attention of most of the editors of Ben Sira: Smend (R. Smend, Sefer Hokhmat Yeshuʿa ben Eliezer ben Sira [Berlin: Raymer, 1906); Segal (Ben Sira ha-Shalem); and the Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book edition (The Book of Ben Sira), and was clarified only in 1986. See P. C. Beentjes, “Some Misplaced Words in the Hebrew Manuscript C. of the Book of Ben Sira,” Bib 7 (1986): 397–401 (my thanks to Prof. Hanan Eshel for this reference); the passages were accordingly emended in Beentjes’s up-to-date edition: P. 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). 15 This is a collection of verses, and the copyist therefore could include his selections from chs. 1–2 in a single leaf. The existence of two leaves, obviously, is another possibility, but if we were to assume this the quire would be unreasonably large; additionally, the middle leaves, as well, are missing. As regards what is missing from the end of the book, the continuation might have consisted only of selected passages, since, as was noted, portions of the later chapters were already incorporated in the earlier chapters of the manuscript.

18


quire: in the middle bifolio that we possess (that is composed of the Levi and Gaster fragments) the first leaf ends toward the end of ch. 7, and the second leaf finds the copyist in ch. 20. What is missing is therefore quite great, and seemingly forces us to assume the existence of several additional bifolios. A regular Eastern quire, however, comprises five, at most six, bifolios;16 this assumption is therefore not straightforward, although when we possess only a single quire, it might contain more bifolios than usual. Significantly, the more the copyist progressed, the larger the omissions, and in the fragment published here, for example, in the second leaf he brings a selection from six chapters (20–25).17 Consequently, the material in the middle of the quire, as well, might have been brought with large omissions, and there might have been only one or two additional bifolios. In light of the above, it is not inconceivable that MS C originally comprised only a single, larger than usual, quire (with six or seven bifolios). Possibly, as the copyist sensed that the number of leaves at his disposal was decreasing, he increased the intervals between the collected proverbs and chose fewer from each chapter, or increased the omitted quantity and even skipped entire chapters.18 It is difficult to determine the nature of

16

See Malachi Beit-Arie, Hebrew Codicology: Tentative Typology of Technical Practices Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1981), 44, 47. 17 To be sure, verses from chs. 20 and 25 also appear in the neighboring leaves; we therefore have some three and a half chapters on a single leaf. It is noteworthy, however, that only a single verse from ch. 23 appears here, and ch. 24 is entirely omitted. 18 This is evident in most of the leaves in this fragment; suffice it to say that the selection in the first four leaves of the quire is from chs. 3–7 (with several small additions from later chapters), while the last four leaves collected proverbs from chs. 18–26 (on the assumption that the verses from ch. 36 on the last leaf do not represent an omission, but are rather the incorporation of material from a later chapter, as is the case with additional leaves; if the copyist had skipped to ch. 36 and did not return to the earlier chapters, the size of the omission would be even greater). Although several groups of continuous verses appear in the last two leaves, the gaps between the sequences are larger. To illustrate this I will list the contents of each of the leaves of MS C, according to their order in the quire: leaf 1 (Schirmann, leaf 1): 3:14–18, 21–22; 41:16; 4:21; 20:22–23; 4:22–23; leaf 2 (Schechter, leaf 1): 4:30–31; 5:4–7, 9–13; 36:24a;


19

the collection based on the eight leaves we possess. Its most outstanding characteristic is the combining of verses on similar topics from different chapters.19 The collector apparently preferred focused wisdom and ethical proverbs, and skipped the general paeans, such as the paean to wisdom in ch. 24.

III The first page of the manuscript published here contains an almost continuous passage from ch. 6 (vv. 5–6, 9–10, 8, 12–15, 17),20 with only minor omissions and order changes, and with the inclusion of individual verses from other chapters (36:24; 37:1–2; 3:27). All of the material on this leaf (excluding the last proverb) appears in other sources of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira; however, as in other places, MS C presents here a number of interesting textual variants and some essential changes as well, as noted above. The second leaf is even more important, because none of its verses is known from any other Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript.

leaf 3 (published here, leaf 1): 36:24b; 6:5–6; 37:1–2; 6:7, 9–10, 8, 12–15; 3:27(?); 6:18; leaf 4 (Levi): 6:19, 28, 35; 7:1, 4, 6, 17, 20–21, 23–25 (possibly followed by 8:7 or 11:2); leaf 5 (after an omission; Gaster): 18:31–33; 19:1–2; 20:5–7; 37:19, 22, 24, 26; 20:13, 30; leaf 6 (published here, leaf 2): 20:30–31; 21:22–23, 26; 22:11–12, 21–22; 23:11; 25:7; leaf 7 (Schechter, leaf 2, with the addition of Scheiber’s fragment): 25:8, 13, 17–24; 26:1–2; leaf 8 (Schirmann, leaf 2): 26:3, 13, 15–17; 36:27–31, followed by a single word from another, as yet unidentified, verse. 19 Vv. 20:22–23 are included between 4:21 and 4:22–23, because of their common content (shame and disgrace) and language (4:21, 22–23 begin with the word ‫ ;)יש‬36:24 precedes 6:5, because of their common beginning with ‫;חיך‬ the verses 37:1–2, that are concerned with the unreliable lover, were inserted within the verses of ch. 6, that has the same subject; 36:27–31 follow vv. 15–17, apparently due to their similar topic: the traits of the good woman. 20 The exact order of the verses is listed in n. 18, above; see also below, in the text.

20


It contains, with omissions, passages from the end of ch. 20 to the middle of ch. 25 (20:30–31; 21:22–23, 26; 22:11–12, 21–22; 23:11; 25:7). Thus, for the first time we possess a Hebrew version of these verses. Unfortunately, the upper corner of this leaf is torn, and the first six or seven lines on each page are damaged at their end (on page A) or at their beginning (on page B). Unlike the other Hebrew sources, the MS C copyist did not emphasize the poetical structure of the proverbs. Nevertheless, in all the previous publications of passages from it the original (and arbitrary) lines of the manuscript were preserved; accordingly, here the text is reproduced exactly as it appears in the manuscript.21 Broken letters in the manuscript are marked by a superior line (it should be stressed that, despite their truncation, the identification of these letters is not in question). In the notes, I relate to each verse separately, with a preliminary comparison to the other sources.22 The interpretation and reconstruction of the verses are in most cases based on the Segal edition, that includes many of his predecessors’ achievements and adds to them. For the reader’s convenience, I have added the verse numbers in the book alongside the text,23 as well as a line count. This is not an exhaustive treatment of this material, but only an initial presentation, to provide a basis for fundamental scholarly examination and analysis.

21

The scribe marked the end of each proverb with an upper dot, and it generally is followed by one or two spaces. 22 I was aided by Segal’s comments regarding LXX; I also examined the verses in accordance with A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est, Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). For the Peshitta, I generally followed Yehuda Leib ben Zeʾev, Hokhmat Yehosha ben Sira (Breslau: Grassische Stadt Buchdrückerey, 1798). 23 On the numeration of the verses, see above, n. 12.


.‫ולב נכון יטעם מטעמי כזב‬ ‫חיך ערב ירבה אוהב ושפתי‬ ‫ אנשי‬.‫חן שואלי שלום‬ ‫שלומיך יהיו רבים ובעל‬ ‫ כל אוהב‬.‫סודך אחד מאלף‬ ‫יאמר אהבתו הלא בעת‬ ‫ דין מות רע‬.‫יגיע עליו‬ ‫ קנית‬.‫כנפש יהפך לצר‬

21

MS C folio II Aa r 36.24 6.5 6.6 5

37.1 37.2 6.7

1 ‫—ולב נכון יטעם מטעמי כזב‬A ready mind will understand false words. The beginning of the verse appears in the fragment published by Gaster, and the whole proverb is therefore: ‫ ולב נכון יטעם מטעמי כזב‬/ ‫“ חיך יטעם מטעמי זבד‬The palate will taste the meat of game / And a ready mind will taste false words.” The verse here is not in its place, as is usual in this source. The version of the proverb in MS B: ‫ ולב מבין מטעמי כזב‬/ ‫“ חיך בוחן מטעמי דבר‬The palate discerns between tastes of davar (a corruption of ‫זבד‬, “game”) / And a ready mind detects false words.” The words ‫ זבד‬and ‫ נכון‬appear in the MS B margin as well, but that reading ‫ חך בוחן מטעמי זבד וחן נכון מטעמי זבד‬is evidently corrupted; regarding this passage see M. Kister, “Additions to the Article ‘At the Fringes of the Book of Ben Sira,’” Lĕšonenu 53 (1989): 39–40 [Hebrew]; the version in the margin was probably a corruption of the version close to that of MS C. The word ‫ נכון‬might contain an correction, and should possibly be read as ‫“ נבון‬intelligent”; for ‫לב נבון‬ see Prov 14:33, 15:14, 18:15 (this observation was made by D. Talshir). The word ‫“ יטעם‬will taste” in the second hemistich in MS C, that disturbs the meter, is suspect (following the parallels) of being a later addition. 2–3 ‫ ושפתי חן שואלי שלום‬/ ‫—חיך ערב ירבה אוהב‬A pleasing palate makes many friends / And gracious lips prompt friendly greeters, as the version of MS A. In MS A ‫שואלו‬, which scholars already amended to ‫שואלי‬. 3–5 ‫ ובעל סודך אחד מאלף‬/ ‫—אנשי שלומיך יהיו רבים‬Let your acquaintances be many / and your confidant, one in a thousand, as the version of MS A. The verse appears, in a slightly different version, in b. Sanh. 100b; b. Yev. 63b; and in the introduction by R. Saadiah Gaon to the second edition of Sefer ha-Galui. See Abraham E. Harkabi, Zikaron la-Rishonim, Fifth Booklet: Zikaron ha-Gaon Rav Saadiah al-Faiyumi u-Sefarav (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1891 [= Leben und Werke Saadia’s Gaon (Berlin: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1891)]), 179; cf. 200–203; M. Z. Segal, “Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and Ben Sira,” in Rav Saadya Gaon (ed. J. L. Fishman; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953), 98–118, esp. 112 [Hebrew]. 5–8 ‫ רע כנפש יהפך לצר‬/ ‫ הלא בעת יגיע עליו דין מות‬/ ‫—כל אוהב יאמר אהבתו‬Every friend will declare his friendship / But when a sentence of death comes to him / A companion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy; the word ‫“ כנפש‬as a

22


‫אוהב בנסיון קנהו ואל‬ ‫ יש‬.‫תמהר לבטוח עליו‬ ‫אוהב נהפך לשונא ואת‬ ‫ יש‬.‫ריב חרפתך יחשוך‬

10

6.9 6.10

bosom friend” might have been emended from ‫“ כנחש‬as a serpent.” Here, too, verses from a later chapter appear in the middle of ch. 6. The division of the verses and hemistiches is corrupted; the scribe placed a dot in the middle of the second hemistich (after ‫)עליו‬, as if the verse ended there. ‫כל אוהב יאמר אהבתו‬ “Every friend will declare his friendship” resembles the beginning of v. 1 in the margins in MS B and MS D: ‫ ;כל אוהב אומר אהבתי‬this is followed in these two sources, and in LXX and the Peshitta, by an additional hemistich (‫אך יש אוהב‬ ‫“ שם אוהב‬But sometimes a friend is a friend only in name”) that is absent here, as it is in the body of MS B. This continues with the two hemistiches of v. 2: ‫הלא‬ ‫ רע כנפש יהפך לצר‬/ ‫“ בעת יגיע עליו דין מות‬But when a sentence of death comes to him / A companion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy.” The wording of the verse in the other Hebrew sources (MS B; the margin of MS B; MS D): ‫הלא‬ ‫ רע כנפש נהפך לצר‬/ ‫“ דין מגיע על מות‬suffering as great as death / when a companion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy.” The phrase ‫ על מות‬appears as ‫אל מות‬ in the body of MS B, while MS D reads there: ‫עד מות‬. In the second hemistich, MS D reads ‫ ריע‬instead of ‫רע‬, and in the body of MS B we find ‫ כנפשך‬instead of ‫כנפש‬. The version of MS C seems to be an explanatory addition, and is most probably not original (but the wording ‫“ עליו‬to him” implies that the copyist possessed the version ‫“ על‬to”), and he appears to have understood the meaning: when a person is sentenced to death, even his best friend (‫ )רע כנפש‬becomes his bitter enemy. This is in opposition to the interpretation proposed for the verse, that when a close friend (‫ )ריע כנפש‬becomes a person’s enemy, the latter’s suffering is as great as that for death See Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem; Smend, Sefer Hokhmat Yeshuʿa, reads ‫“ דון‬sorrow”; and Segal, who reads ‫דין‬, emends it to ‫ָדּוֹן‬ “sorrow”; however, the version ‫ דין‬might be understood in this sense, without emendation. See M. Kister and E. Qimron, “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2–3),” RevQ 15/60 (1992): 599–600. 8–10 ‫ ואל תמהר לבטוח עליו‬/ ‫—קנית אוהב בנסיון קנהו‬When you gain a friend, gain him through testing / And do not trust him hastily, as the version of MS A, with the spelling ‫בניסין‬, which was already correctly understood as ‫בניסיון‬. This verse, too, is cited by R. Saadiah Gaon (Harkabi, Zikaron la-Rishonim, 179; Segal, “Rabbi Saadiah Gaon,” 113), who has ‫“ במסה‬trial” instead of ‫בנסיון‬. 10–12 ‫ ואת ריב חרפתך יחשוך‬/ ‫—יש אוהב נהפך לשונא‬There is a friend who changes into an enemy / And yakhsokh the quarrel to your shame, as the version of MS A, except for the last word,which appears here in the corrupted form


‫אוהב חבר שלחן ולא ימצא‬ ‫ יש אוהב בפני עת‬.‫ביום רעה‬ ‫ אם‬.‫ולא יעמד ביום צרה‬ .‫תשיגנו נרפך בך ומפניך יסתר‬ ‫משונאיך הבדל ומאוהביך‬ ‫ אוהב אמונה מגן‬.‫השמר‬ .‫תקיף ומוצאו מצא הוא הון‬

23

MS C folio II Aa v 6.10 6.8 15 6.12 6.13 6.14

‫יחשוך‬, instead of ‫“ יחשוף‬tell of, reveal” in MS A (on the partial writing of a letter in MS C, cf. also below, the commentary to lines 15–16). 12–14 ‫ ולא ימצא ביום רעה‬/ ‫—יש אוהב חבר שלחן‬There is a friend who sits at your table / But who will not be found in time of trouble, as the version of MS A. 14–15 ‫ ולא יעמוד ביום צרה‬/ ‫—יש אוהב בפני עת‬There is a friend who is so when it suits him/ But who will not stand by you in time of distress. In MS A with minor changes: ‫ ואל יעמוד ביום צרה‬/ ‫כי יש אוהב כפי עת‬. The version of the first hemistich in MS A is identical to that of R. Saadiah Gaon (Harkabi, Zikaron laRishonim, 179; Segal, “Rabbi Saadiah Gaon,” 119); while MS C: ‫ בפני עת‬is also reflected in the Peshitta: . The second hemistich in R. Saadiah’s version is identical to that of MS C. 15–16 ‫ ומפניך יסתר‬/ ‫—אם תשיגנו נרפך בך‬But if he is brought low [. . .] / And he will hide himself from you. In MS A: ‫ ומפניך יסתר‬/ ‫אם תשיגך רעה יהפך בך‬ “But if evil catches up with you, he will turn against you/ And hide himself from you”; clearly, the word ‫ נרפך‬in our manuscript is simply ‫נהפך‬, with the omission of the short leg of the letter he (cf. also above, the commentary to lines 10–12). Joining this verse to v. 8 in MS C enabled the omission of the word ‫“ רעה‬evil,” since the “bringing low” at the beginning of the verse now refers to the “distress” mentioned immediately prior, but ‫ תשיגך‬in MS A seems more correct than ‫תשיגנו‬, since, here too, the intent is to the seeming friend who estranges himself from his fellow in the latter’s time of trouble. 17–18 ‫ ומאוהביך השמר‬/ ‫—משונאיך הבדל‬Separate yourself from your enemies / And beware of your friends, as the version of MS A; R. Saadiah brings it while changing the last word to ‫( הזהר‬with the same meaning) (Harkabi, Zikaron la-Rishonim, 179; Segal, “Rabbi Saadiah Gaon,” 115). 18–19 ‫ ומוצאו מצא הוא הון‬/ ‫—אוהב אמונה מגן תקיף‬A faithful friend is a strong shelter / He who has found one he has found a treasure. In MS A: ‫אוהב אמונה‬ ‫ ומצאו מצא הון‬/ ‫“ אוהב תקוף‬A faithful friend is a strong friend / He who has found one has found a treasure.” The version of MS A is close to the Peshitta ( ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܬܘ‬ ‫“ ܕ ܪ ܪ‬A faithful friend is a strong friend”), while the version of MS C corresponds to LXX (σκέπη, “shelter”), and is more understandable.

24


‫אוהב אמונה אין מחיר ואין‬ ‫ לב כבד‬.‫משקל לטובתו‬ ‫יכביד כאבן וחוטא יוסיף‬ ‫ בני מנוער‬.‫חטא על חטא‬ ‫קבל מוסר ועד שיבה‬

[. . .]‫טמונה ואוצר מ‬ [. . .]‫ומה תולעת בש‬

20

6.15 (?) 3.27 6.18

MS C folio II Ab r 25 20.30

20–21 ‫ ואין משקל לטובתו‬/ ‫—אוהב אמונה אין מחיר‬A faithful friend is beyond price / And his value cannot be weighed, similar to the version of MS A, excluding the addition there of the letter lamed to the first word: ‫לאוהב‬. Previously as well we encountered a case in which the opening formulation of a verse in MS C omitted a preposition at the beginning of a line in order to match the opening of an adjacent proverb (lines 14–15). 21–23 ‫ וחוטא יוסיף חטא על חטא‬/ ‫—לב כבד יכביד כאבן‬An obstinate heart will be weighed down like stone / And the sinner will add sin upon sin: this verse does not appear in ch. 6, and seems to be a different version of 3:27 formulated in accordance with MS A: ‫ ומתחולל מוסיף עון על עון‬/ ‫“ לב כבד ירבו מכאביו‬An obstinate heart will be loaded with troubles / And the profaner will add iniquity upon iniquity.” The disparity is great, but we find ‫“ חטאת‬sin” in MS C corresponding to ‫“ עון‬iniquity” in MS A in an additional place (3:15); and the expression ‫“ יכביד כאבן‬will be weighed down like stone” instead of ‫“ ירבו מכאביו‬will be loaded with troubles” might easily be explained by a graphic error on the part of the scribe. As regards the formulation ‫“ מתחולל‬the profaner” versus ‫“ חוטא‬sinner,” the former, the lectio difficilior, is preferable, but ‫ חוטא‬seems closer to LXX, that uses the same root three times in this hemistich. 23–24 ‫ ועד שיבה‬/ ‫—בני מנוער קבל מוסר‬My son, from youth embrace discipline / And until old age. The completion of the verse appears in the fragment published by Levi, and the proverb in its entirety reads: ‫ ועד שיבה תשיג חכמה‬/ ‫בני מנוער קבל מוסר‬ My son, from youth embrace discipline / And until old age attain wisdom. The verse is absent from MS A, and appears now for the first time in its entirety in the Hebrew version. This version also corresponds to the Peshitta and LXX (with the exception of a single corrupted word already noted by Segal in his interpretation of the verse). 25–26 [. . .]‫ ומה תולעת בש‬/ [. . .]‫—טמונה ואוצר מ‬The proverb begins with ‫חכמה‬ “wisdom”: the word appears at the end of the fragment published by Gaster.

25


[. . .] ֿ‫טוב איש מצפין‬ [. . .]‫חכמ‬ ֿ ‫מאיש מצפין‬ [. . .]‫רגל נבל ממהרת א‬ [. . . ‫בית וכבוד לאיש בח]ו‬ ‫מפתח‬ ֿ ‫ כסיל‬.‫יעמוד‬ ‫יביט אל בית ואיש מזמות‬ ‫ בפי כסילים‬.‫יכניע פנים‬

20.31 21.22 30 21.23 21.26

‫ תולעת‬is an obvious corruption of ‫( תועלת‬Peshitta: ‫“ = ܗ‬benefit”; Greek: ὠφέλεια “benefit, utility”). The verse as a whole is to be completed (similar to Segal): [‫ ומה תועלת בש]ניהם‬/ [‫“ ]חכמה[ טמונה ואוצר מ]וסתר‬Hidden [wisdom] and un[seen] treasure / Of what value is e[ither].” 27–28 [. . .]‫ מאיש מצפין חכמ‬/ [. . .] ‫[טוב איש מצפין‬. . .]—Better the man who hides [. . .] / Than the one who hides his wis[dom]. Segal reconstructs: ‫טוב איש‬ ‫ מאיש מצפין חכמתו‬/ ‫“ מצפין ִאוַּ ְלתּוֹ‬Better the man who hides his folly / Than the one who hides his wisdom”; this appears correct. 29–33 ‫ כסיל מפתח יביט‬.‫[ יעמוד‬. . .‫ וכבוד לאיש בח]ו‬/ ‫[ בית‬. . .]‫רגל נבל ממהרת א‬ ‫ ואיש מזמות יכניע פנים‬/ ‫—אל בית‬The foot of a fool rushes [. . .] a house / But honor is due to a man [. . .] will stand. A senseless person will peer into a house from the door / But a man of sensibility will lower his gaze. As Segal observes, the two verses appear in Pirka de-Rabbenu ha-Kadosh (S. Schenblum, Sheloshah Sefarim Niftahim [Three Books Opening] [Lemberg: Menkes, 1877], fol. 14a), but their version there is corrupted. The wording there (arranged by its poetical structure): ‫ולעולם אל ימהר אדם לבית חבירו שכך כתיב בספר בן סירא‬ ‫ ואיש מזימות יכניע רבים‬/ ‫רגל נבל מהרה אל בית‬ ‫ולעולם אל יסתכל אדם לשערו של חבירו שכן כתוב בספר בן סירא‬ ‫ וכבוד לאיש בבית עמיו‬/ ‫אויל מפתח יביט אל בית‬ A person should never be quick to the house of his fellow, for it is written in the book of Ben Sira The foot of a fool is quick to enter a house / And a man of sensibility will best many A person should never look through the gate of his fellow, since it is written in the book of Ben Sira A senseless person will peer into a house from the entrance / [the remainder of the passage is corrupted] Scholars have already raised the question of the connection between the beginning and the end of v. 22, and proposed that the second hemistiches of the two verses were interchanged (see Segal’s interpretation), although the order in LXX

26


‫לבם ובלב חכמים פיהם‬ ‫על מת לבכות כי חדל אורו‬ ‫ועל כסיל לבכות כי חדל בינה‬

35

22.11

and the Peshitta resembles that in Pirka de-Rabbenu ha-Kadosh. The details of the text also raised difficulties, and, based on the translations, the reading ‫יכניע פנים‬ “will lower his gaze” was suggested in place of ‫“ יכניע רבים‬will best many”; and ‫“ בבר יעמוד‬let him wait outside” instead of ‫“ בבית עמיו‬the house of his people” (the proposals of Smend; cf. R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach [Berlin: Reimer, 1906], 194–95; see also the interpretation by Segal). Our version confirms most of the proposed reconstructions, with the exception of ‫ בבר‬instead of ‫בחוץ‬, including the exchange of the second hemistiches, and resolves these difficulties: ‫ וכבוד לאיש בח]וץ[ יעמוד‬/ ‫רגל נבל ממהרת א]ל[ בית‬ ‫ ואיש מזמות יכניע פנים‬/ ‫כסיל מפתח יביט אל בית‬ The foot of a fool rushes to enter a house / But honor is due to a man who stands outside. A senseless person will peer into a house through the door / But a man of sensibility will lower his gaze. Verse 22 is concerned with a person entering his fellow’s house (as Pirka deRabbenu ha-Kadosh correctly interprets): the fool is quick to suddenly enter (cf. b. Nid. 16b), and the one who waits outside (until he is invited in) is better and more respectable than him. I completed [‫“ בח]וץ‬ou[tside]” according to the context (and like Segal); traces of the letter vav are evident in the manuscript (thereby ruling out, for example, the completion [‫[ בח]צר‬in the c[ourtyard]); cf. Deut 24:11. Verse 23 is concerned with a person who stands at the entrance to his fellow’s house: the senseless person peeps—without permission—into the house, while the wise person (‫ )איש מזמות‬lowers his gaze and refrains from looking. 33–34 ‫ ובלב חכמים פיהם‬/ ‫—בפי כסילים לבם‬The mind of fools in is their mouth / but the mouth of the wise is in their mind. The reading ‫ בפי‬is questionable, and seemingly should be ‫כפי‬. However, the letters bet and kaf resemble each other in MS C, and, according to the translations and the continuation, ‫ בפי‬is preferable. Segal reconstructed the verse precisely, except for ‫“ כסילים‬fools,” instead of which he has the synonymous ‫אוילים‬. 35–36 ‫ ועל כסיל לבכות כי חדל בינה‬/ ‫—על מת לבכות כי חדל אורו‬Over the dead man to weep, for his light is gone / Over the fool to weep, for his sense is gone. Line 36 (‫ בינה‬. . . ‫ )ועל כסיל‬is copied at the bottom of the page in small letters and indented. Segal reconstructed on the basis of Greek (κλαῦσον), ‫בכה‬ “cry” (imperative) instead of ‫( לבכות‬literally, “to weep”), but this infinitive form (‫ )לבכות‬corresponds to the Peshitta ( ). ‫—אורו‬rendered in both translations as ‫( אור‬Greek: φῶς; Peshitta: ‫) ܗܪ‬.


‫[כות על מת כי נח‬. . . . . . ] .‫[ממות חיים רעים‬. ֿ . .] ‫[וע שבעת ימים‬. . . . . .] ‫ אל‬.‫[רש כל ימי חייו‬. . .]

27

MS C folio II Ab v 22.11

40

22.12 22.21

37–38 ‫[ ממות חיים רעים‬. . .] / ‫[כות על מת כי נח‬. . .]. Segal reconstructs, mainly on the Greek: ‫ וחיי אויל ממות רעים‬/ ‫“ מעט בכה על מת כי ינוח‬Weep but a little over the dead man, for he is at rest / but worse than death is the life of a fool.” The MS C version is closer to the Peshitta, and the latter’s version ( ‫ )ܕ ܬ‬enables us to reconstruct the first part of the verse: ‫]אין לב[כות על מת כי‬ ‫[“ נח‬Do not we]ep for the dead man, for he is at rest”; regarding the style cf. 10:23). But a precise reconstruction of the second part of the verse is difficult; possibly, once again following the Peshitta ( ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ), we can suggest a formulation such as the following: ‫]ומרים[ ממות חיים רעים‬ (A bad life [is more bitter] than death). The reconstruction [‫“ ]ורעים‬is worse” is also possible, but it is unlikely that the author would use the same word twice, without variation; cf. Eccl 7:26. Death is presented here as rest, and a bad life, as worse than death. It is noteworthy that the version of LXX, with its primary focus on the fool, well suits the context of the nearby verses in the chapter, unlike the version of MS C; see also below, the interpretation to the following verse. 39–40 ‫[רש כל ימי חייו‬. . .] / ‫[וע שבעת ימים‬. . .]. Based on the translations (mainly the Peshitta), Segal reconstructs: ‫ ואבל אויל כל ימי חייו‬/ ‫“ אבל מת שבעת ימים‬Seven days of mourning for the dead / But mourning for the fool, all the days of his life.” We could accordingly suggest the reconstruction of MS C: ‫]אבל ג[וע שבעת‬ ‫ ]ואבל[ רש כל ימי חייו‬/ ‫“ ימים‬Seven days of [mourning for the man who is d]ead / [But mourning] for the pauper, all the days of his life,” or something similar. For ‫ גּ ֹוֵ ַע‬instead of ‫מת‬, cf. also 8:7; 48:5. ‫ רש‬is unsuitable for the context in Ben Sira, since the adjoining verses speak of a fool; likewise, it seemingly counters the translations, as well, since they speak explicitly of the fool (in the Peshitta: ; in LXX, a dual translation: μωροῦ δὲ καί ἀσεβοῦς- wicked, fool). Thus ‫ רש‬here might be a corruption of ‫( רשע‬wicked), which is reflected in the word ἀσεβοῦς in LXX. Since, however, the preceding verse in MS C, too, speaks of a person who lives a bad life (and not of a fool), the copyist could say here, as well, that it is not the life of the fool but that of the pauper (who is regarded as dead: cf., e.g., b. Ned. 64b) which is prolonged mourning (my thanks to Prof. M. Kister for this observation). It is possible, however, that ‫ רש‬here means fool, in a metaphorical sense (poor in wisdom), which seems to emerge from Eccl 4:14 as well (apparently ‫ רש‬there is parallel to ‫ כסיל‬in the previous verse; cf. the commentary by R. Samuel ben Meir ad loc. [Sara Japhet and Robert B. Salters, eds., The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir, Rashbam, on Qohelet (Hebrew and English; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 88]); it should be noted, however, that the translators into Aramaic and Syriac rendered ‫ רש‬as ‫“ מסכנא‬pauper.”

28


‫[ֿהב אל תשלוף חרב אל‬. . .] ‫ אל‬.‫]ת[גור כי יש כופר‬ ‫[הב אל תפתח פה אל‬. . .] .‫תדאג כי יש תשובה‬

22.22

40–42 ‫ אל ]ת[גור כי יש כופר‬/ ‫[הב אל תשלוף חרב‬. . .] ‫אל‬. The reconstruction ‫“ ]ת[גור‬fret” is based on the lower left end of the letter tav that is discernible in the manuscript. The beginning of the verse is to be reconstructed (based on the translations): ‫“ אל ]או[הב אל תשלוף חרב‬Do not draw a sword against a [fr]iend.” The end of the verse relates to the person who nevertheless sinned against his friend, and encourages him not to despair, because he can atone for his sin (or pay a fine): ‫“ אל ]ת[גור כי יש כופר‬Do not fret, for there is atonement.” In both translations, this is a conditional clause: “If you drew a sword” (and in the next verse: “If you opened”), and Segal accordingly reconstructs them (Greek: ἐάν in both verses; Peshitta: ‫ ܐ‬in v. 21, ‫ ܐܢ‬in v. 22). The version ‫לא‬, however, is reflected in a verse that appears only in the Peshitta, close to the current verse. This verse states: ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܢ‬. ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܪ‬ , that is, “Do not change toward your friend, and if you changed, do not expect that you [still] have friendship with him”; and in the style of Ben Sira: ‫תקוֶ ה כי יש אהבה‬ ַ ‫ לא‬/ ‫( אל אוהב אל תהפך‬alternatively: ‫ אם תהפך‬instead of ‫אל‬ ‫)תהפך‬. This verse’s structural resemblance to the following verses apparently joins the evidence for the wording ‫( אל‬instead of ‫ )אם‬in MS C (my thanks to Prof. Kister for the attempted reconstruction and for clarifying the relationship between the verses); see also below, the interpretation to lines 42–44. At the end of the verse LXX reads (instead of “there is atonement [‫“ )”]כי יש כופר‬there is repentance [‫]כי יש תשובה‬,” as in the end of the following verse; here, too, the two final hemistiches might have been interchanged (cf. above, the interpretation to lines 29–33). 42–44 ‫ אל תדאג כי יש תשובה‬/ ‫[הב אל תפתח פה‬. . .] ‫[—אל‬. . .] don’t open your mouth / Do not worry, for there is repentance. Here, too, we should reconstruct: ‫“ אל ]או[הב‬to a friend.” The relationship between the hemistiches of the proverb is similar to that in the preceding verse: each begins with a warning, and reassures the one who nevertheless transgresses. Here, as well, Segal reconstructs the verse as beginning with a conditional clause (‫ אל‬/ ‫על אוהב אם פתחת פה‬ ‫“ תפחד כי יש ִרצוי‬If you open your mouth against your friend / Do not be afraid, because there is reconciliation”), similar to LXX and the Peshitta. It should be noted that these last two proverbs are not independent, and Ben Sira does not advocate sinning against one’s fellow. They are contrasted with a third proverb (absent here), and the meaning of the entire passage is: If a person draws a sword against his friend or speaks sharply against him, he can still anticipate making amends; but if someone shames his fellow, reveals his secret, or secretly strikes


‫איש שבועות ימלא אשמה‬ .‫ולא ימוש מביתו הנגע‬ ‫אשרי איש שמח באחריתו‬ .‫חי וראה בשבר צריו‬

45

29

23.11 25.7

him, he can never correct what he has put amiss. The copyist of MS C, who omitted the third proverb, altered the meaning of the entire passage. It presumably could be assumed that to this end the beginning of each of the proverbs was couched as a prohibition (in imperative wording) and not as a conditional clause, but the Peshitta indirectly indicates (as we showed above, the interpretation to lines 40–42) that the copyist might have possessed the version ‫אל‬. At any rate, the conditional clause meaning reflected in the translations already potentially exists in the version beginning with ‫אל‬. On the second hemistich in the verse, see above, the interpretation to lines 40–42. 45–46 ‫ ולא ימוש מביתו הנגע‬/ ‫—איש שבועות ימלא אשמה‬A man who often swears is full of iniquity / And the scourge will not leave his house. Segal reconstructed this content, but with different wording. 47 ‫ חי וראה בשבר צריו‬/ ‫—אשרי איש שמח באחריתו‬Happy is the man who rejoices in his end / One who lives to see the fall of his enemies. Here, too, Segal reconstructed the content in different wording. The following verse (25:8) begins the following leaf in the manuscript (Schechter fragment, leaf 2).


brill.nl/dsd

Scripture Citations as an Internal Redactional Control: 1QS 5:1–20a and Its 4Q Parallels1 Alec J. Lucas Loyola University Chicago, Theology Department, Crown Center—Floor 3, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60660 [email protected]

Abstract This article first deconstructs the internal arguments proposed by Sarianna Metso for the priority of the 4QSb,d textual tradition in relation to 1QS 5:1–20a. It then constructs its own internal argument for the priority of 4QSb,d on the basis of the scriptural citations present in 1QS 5:1–20a but absent in 4QSb,d. It is argued that each citation (Zeph 1:6 in 1QS 5:11; Lev 22:16 in 1QS 5:14–15; Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15; Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17) is employed with due regard for its original context and is anticipated by key vocabulary that is without parallel in 4QSb,d. The consistency of this redactional pattern suggests the priority of 4QSb,d since it is easier to explain how the unparalleled citations and vocabulary could have been added to the S textual tradition than it is to explain how both the citations and vocabulary could have been eliminated from it. Keywords textual development S; Community Rule; Serekh; biblical interpretation; redaction

1

I would like to thank Robert A. Di Vito and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper as well as the participants of the Qumran section at the 2008 SBL meeting in Boston, MA for their helpful remarks, especially Sarianna Metso and Charlotte Hempel. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484532

A. J. Lucas / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 30–52

31

Introduction Among her many contributions to the study of the Community Rule (Serekh ha-yaḥ ad or S) texts, S. Metso provides several internal arguments2 to establish that 1QS 5:1–20a is a later version of its 4QSb,d parallels (4Q256 9:1–13; 4Q258 1:1–11).3 Given that the relationship between these two textual traditions is central to determining the redaction history of S,4 and, arguably, to reconstructing the community history behind the S texts,5 Metso is certainly on firm methodological ground in focusing on 2

These arguments (to be discussed below) may be found in S. Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library, 2002), 81–92 at 86–87; and in less detail, eadem, The Serekh Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 9; Library of Second Temple Studies 62; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 9–10. 3 As is well-known, although there are important differences between the reconstructed 4QSb and 4QSd manuscripts as a whole (4QSb includes text corresponding to 1QS 1–4 and has full orthography, whereas 4QSd lacks text corresponding to 1QS 1–4 and has defective orthography), there is only one significant variation, in terms of content, between 4QSb 9:1–13 and 4QSd 1:1–11: 4QSb 9:13 has ‫ וכל מעשיה‬while 4QSd 1:11 lacks the ‫ כל‬and just has ‫ומעשיהם‬. The comparison that follows is between 4QSb 9:1–13 and 1QS 5:1–20a (which also has ‫ כל‬in its final line). Although I refer to the 4QSb,d textual tradition, to conserve space I am including line numbers for 4QSd 1:1–11 only in the comparative outline below. On the differences between the 4QSb,d manuscripts and for their reconstructed versions see DJD 26:10–11, 53–55, 93–98. 4 So, e.g., C. Hempel, “The Literary Development of the S Tradition—A New Paradigm,” RevQ 22/87 (2006): 389–401 at 390: “It is probably no exaggeration to say that these differences [between the opening lines of 1QS 5 and its 4QSb,d parallels] have become a linchpin in one’s assessment of the relationship of the various manuscript traditions of S to one another and the related matter of the literary development of the S tradition.” 5 E.g. because 1QS twice ascribes communal authority to the “Sons of Zadok, the priests, keepers of the covenant” (5:2, 9) whereas these Zadokites are entirely absent from 4QSb and communal authority is instead ascribed simply to “the many” (9:3) and to the “council of the people of the community” (9:8), M. N. A. Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),” RevQ 18/72 (1998): 541–60 at 542, and idem, “1QS and Salvation at Qumran,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 381–414 at 403,

32


internal considerations. Yet, upon further examination, each of her arguments may be questioned, if not outright overturned. This is especially applicable to Metso’s treatment of the explicit and implicit citation of Scripture present in 1QS 5:1–20a but relatively absent in 4QSb,d. Exodus 23:7 and Isa 2:22 are explicitly cited in1QS 5:15b, 17b, while Mic 6:8, Zeph 1:6, and Lev 22:16 are implicitly cited in 1QS 5:3c–4a, 11b, 14c–15a (cf. the comparative outlines below).6 Of these five scriptural texts, only the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 is found in the shorter 4QSb 9:3b–4a. In Metso’s view, the relative absence of Scripture citations in 4QSb,d supports the priority of this tradition since the “alternate hypothesis [i.e. the priority of 1QS 5:1–20a] would posit that the citations were omitted because they were considered self-evident,” and yet “[e]ven with an interpretative explanation, the connection between a regulation and the supporting citation appears, at least for a modern reader, arbitrary.”7 Interestingly, in identifying the use of Scripture in 1QS 5:1– 20a as arbitrary, Metso aligns herself with treatments published prior to the dissemination of the cave 4 parallels. Thus, for example, she follows A. R. C. Leaney’s 1966 commentary in attributing the citation of Isa 2:22 merely to a word-play involving ‫חשב‬. In Isa 2:22, cited in 1QS 5:17b, ‫חשב‬ means “to be accounted, esteemed,” but in 1QS 5:18a it possesses another meaning: “to be reckoned” as included within the covenant. The result of this word-play, says Metso, is that “Isaiah’s prophecy has been given a

contends that the wider implication of determining which textual tradition is prior, 1QS 5:1–20a or 4QSb, is “either that of a relatively lay-oriented renewal movement becoming increasingly authoritarian under explicit Zadokite governance, or else a development in the opposite direction.” 6 There are, of course, subconscious echoes, if not intentional allusions, to other scriptural texts. For example, echoes of Jer 3:7, Ps 95:10, Jer 4:4, and Deut 10:16 may be found in 1QS 5:4–5. So A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 167. Regarding the terminology, “citation/quotation,” “allusion,” and “echo,” R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University, 1989), 23, notes that “Quotation, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.” See pp. 29–32 for seven criteria for determining the presence of an echo. 7 Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” 87.


33

totally different point of reference.”8 While the word-play involving ‫חשב‬ is undeniable, the claim that Isa 2:22, as well as the other scriptural citations, appear to be employed arbitrarily is questionable. Indeed, an investigation of the original context of Lev 22:16, aided by the unparalleled occurrence of ‫“( אכל‬to eat”) in 4QSb,d, will lead us down a path toward the recognition that not only are these scriptural texts being employed with due regard for their original contexts but they may also provide us 8

S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 83; eadem, “The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson; Copenhagen International Seminar 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 217–31 at 222; or more recently eadem, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” 84, and eadem, Serekh Texts, 43 says that Isaiah’s warning “has been turned into a sort of precept concerning an entirely different matter.” This more recent formulation actually derives verbatim from J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1961): 297–333 at 317; reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), 3–58 at 34. Cf. Leaney, Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 174–75. See also H. Gabrion, “L’interprétation de l’écriture dans la littérature de Qumrān,” ANRW 19.1: 779–848 at 787–88, who says that 1QS “modifie totalement ce que le prophète [Isaiah] a voulu dire”; M. Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder; CRINT 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 339–77 at 349; and G. Vermes “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” JSS 34 (1989): 493–508 at 503–4, who places the citation of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:16–18 in the category of “Reinforced Proof,” the most common type of Qumran exegesis which “assumes that a straight quotation of a biblical passage falls far short of expressing the full, and at least partly concealed, meaning of Scripture, and in consequence cannot supply real proof.” J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 194, stands out as an exception to this general trend in that he comments positively on the use of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17 stating that its “reading is more in keeping with the [Isaianic] context than an expression of the transitory nature of human life in the manner of Qoheleth.” See the remarks on Blenkinsopp’s exegesis in A. van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isa 2:22 and 36:7,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P. W. Flint et al.; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 377–86 at 378.

34


with an internal redactional control for establishing the priority of 4QSb,d in relation to 1QS 5:1–20a.9 The aim of this article, then, is both deconstructive and constructive: deconstructive because I will question the internal arguments put forward by Metso for establishing the priority of 4QSb,d; and constructive because I will propose an alternative internal redactional control for the priority of 4QSb,d, one rooted in the explicit and implicit citation of Scripture.

Outlining the Texts As a prelude to accomplishing my dual aim, it will be helpful first to outline 1QS 5:1–20a and 4QSb 9:1–13, along with 4QSd 1:1–11, and briefly note how their contents differ. The texts may be outlined as follows:

9

The priority of the 4QSb,d textual tradition in relation to 1QS 5:1–20a is the predominant view among scholars. Besides Metso, see G. Vermes, “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 42 (1991): 250–55; idem, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok—Priests—Congregation,” in Geschichte—Tradition— Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik et al.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 1:375–84; C. Hempel, “Comments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1,” JJS 44 (1993): 127–28; eadem, “Literary Development of the S Tradition,” 396; Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),” 541–60; idem, “1QS and Salvation at Qumran,” 381–414. Note that none of the “Possible Secondary/Corrupt Readings in 4QSb,d (compared to 1QS)” cited by A. Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 92–94, 104, derive from 4QSb 9:1–13; 4QSd 1:1–11 and that Schofield regards the 4QSb,d textual tradition as generally closer to the original than 1QS. There are, however, exceptions to the predominant view of the priority of 4QSb,d. See P. S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh Ha-Yaḥ ad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17/65–68 (1996): 437–56; and P. Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5.1–7: Towards a Serek Text History,” JSP 15 (1997): 67–78. Unfortunately, space limitations preclude a detailed critique of their arguments.

A. J. Lucas / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 30–52 4QSb(4Q256) 9:1–13; 4QSd (4Q258) 1:1–11

1QS 5:1–20 I.

Introduction (5:1–3a)

35

I.

Introduction (9:1–2; 1:1–2a)

II. Description of the Character of the Community (5:3b–7a) A. An Obedient Community in Every Matter: Law, Wealth, and Judgment (5:3b) B. The Community’s Virtues: Mic 6:8 (5:3c–4a) C. An Inwardly Transformed Community (5:4b–5a) D. A Community with a True Foundation in Israel (5:5b–6a) E. An Atoning Community in Aaron (5:6b) F. A Prophetic Community: Declaring Transgressors Wicked (5:7a)

II. Description of the Character of the Community (9:3a–6a; 1:2b–5a) A. An Obedient Community in Every Matter: Law and Wealth (9:3a; 1:2b–3a) B. The Community’s Virtues: Mic 6:8 (9:3b–4a; 1:3b) C. An Inwardly Transformed Community (9:4b; 1:4a) D. A Community with a True Foundation in Israel and Aaron (9:5–6a; 1:4b–5a)

III. Entrance and Oaths (5:7b–13a) A. Title (5:7b) B. Entrance (5:7c–8a) C. Oaths of Allegiance and Separation (5:8b–13a) 1. Oath of Allegiance (5:8b–10a) a. Allegiance to the Law of Moses (5:8b–9a) b. Allegiance to the Sons of Zadok (5:9b) c. Allegiance to the Multitude of People (5:9c–10a) 2. Oath of Separation (5:10b–13a) a. The Oath to Separate from the People of Iniquity (5:10b–11a) b. Scriptural Warrant for Separation: Zeph 1:6 (5:11b–12a) c. Judgment upon the People of Iniquity (5:12b–13a)

III. Entrance and Oaths (9:6b–8b; 1:5b–7b) A. Entrance (9:6b; 1:5b–6a) B. Oaths of Allegiance and Separation (9:6c–8b; 1:6b–7b) 1. Oath of Allegiance (9:6c–8a; 1:6b–7a) a. Allegiance to the Law of Moses (9:6c–7a; 1:6b) b. Allegiance to the Council of the People of the Community (9:7b–8a; 1:6c–7a) 2. Oath of Separation (9:8b; 1:7b)

36


(cont.) 1QS 5:1–20

4QSb(4Q256) 9:1–13; 4QSd (4Q258) 1:1–11

IV. Separation from the People of Iniquity IV. Separation from the People of Iniquity in Practice: Five Examples in Practice: Five Examples (9:8c–13; 1:7c–11) (5:13b–20a) A. First Example: Not Touching and A. First Example: Not Entering into Eating the Purity Their Waters to Touch the Purity (9:8c–9a; 1:7c–8a) (5:13b–14a) 1. Command (5:13b) 2. Warrant for Command (5:13c–14a) B. Second Example: Not Submitting B. Second Example: Not Joining to Their Authority in Law and with Him in Work and Wealth Judgment (9:9b–10a; 1:8b–9a) (5:14b–15b) 1. Command (5:14b) 2. Scriptural Warrant for Command: Lev 22:16 (5:14c–15a) 3. Scriptural Warrant for Command: Exod 23:7 (5:15b) C. Third Example: Not Joining with C. Third Example: Not Submitting to Him in Work and Wealth Their Authority in Law and (9:10b; 1:9b) Judgment (5:15c–16a) D. Fourth Example: Not Eating and D. Fourth Example: Not Eating, Taking from Their Hand Drinking and Taking from Their (9:10c–11a; 1:9c–10a) Hand without Pay (5:16b–18a) 1. Command (5:16b–17a) 2. Scriptural Warrant for Command: Isa 2:22 (5:17b) 3. Clarification of Scriptural Warrant (5:17c–18a) E. Fifth Example: Not Relying upon E. Fifth Example: Not Relying upon Vain Works (9:11b–13; 1:10b–11) Vain Works (5:18b–20a) 1. Command (9:11b–12a; 1:10b) 1. Command (5:18b–19a) 2. Warrant for Command 2. Warrant for Command (5:19b) (9:12b; 1:10c–11a) 3. Judgment (5:19c–20a) 3. Judgment (9:12c–13; 1:11b)

Besides differences in detail at various points, such as further explication concerning the manner of inward transformation when 1QS 5:4b–5a is compared to 4QSb 9:4b, there are six differences worthy of note. First,


37

the introductions differ. Whereas 1QS 5:1–3a identifies itself as a “rule for the people of the community who freely offer themselves for repentance,” 4QSb 9:1–2 identifies itself as “instruction for the Maskil over the people of the Law who freely offer themselves for repentance.” Second, the representation of communal authority differs. In 1QS the bearers of authority consist of the “Sons of Zadok” (5:2c, 9b) and the “Multitude of People of the Community” (5:2d–3a) or “Multitude of People of Their Covenant” (5:9c), while in 4QSb the bearers of authority are not only the Maskil (9:1a) but also the “Multitude” (9:3a) or the “Council of People of the Community” (9:7b–8a). Third, the texts differ in terms of structural indicators: 1QS contains a title in 5:7b and a space as well as a marginal mark in 5:13b, all of which are absent in 4QSb. Fourth, besides the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 in the description of the character of the community (1QS 5:3c–4a; 4QSb 9:3b–4a), the warrants, scriptural and otherwise, for the oath of separation and three of the five examples of separation in practice from the “People of Iniquity” (‫ )אנשי העול‬present in 1QS are lacking in 4QSb. The one exception is the fifth command not to rely upon vain works: in both texts this command is buttressed by a non-scriptural warrant and followed by a proclamation of judgment (1QS 5:18b–20a; 4QSb 9:11b–13). Interestingly, the command not to submit to the authority of the “People of Iniquity” in Law and judgment lacks a warrant of any kind or further explanation in both texts. In 1QS this is the third example (5:15c–16a) while in 4QSb it is the second example (9:9b–10a). This brings us to the fifth difference worthy of note: the command not to submit to the authority of the “People of Iniquity” in Law and judgment is reversed with the command not to join him in work and wealth in the two texts. In 1QS the latter precedes the former (5:14b–16a) whereas in 4QSb this order is reversed (9:9b–10b). Sixth, theologically significant terms like ‫“( ברית‬covenant”) and ‫“( כפר‬to atone”) present in 1QS (‫ ברית‬occurs in 5:2, 3, 5, 8, 9[2x], 10, 11, 12, 18, 19; ‫ כפר‬occurs in 5:6) are absent in 4QSb (‫ ברית‬occurs only in 9:12; 1:11; and ‫ כפר‬does not occur at all).

Deconstructing Internal Arguments for the Priority of the 4QSb,d Textual Tradition With these outlines and differences of content in mind, we may now proceed to S. Metso’s internal arguments for the priority of 4QSb in relation

38


to 1QS 5:1–20a. She provides three such arguments, two positive and one negative. First, “the insertion of theologically significant words,” like ‫“( ברית‬covenant”), “into the text is natural and to be expected in the developmental process, whereas intentionally omitting them is very difficult to explain.”10 Second, as noted above, the “alternate hypothesis [i.e. the priority of 1QS 5:1–20a] would posit that the citations were omitted because they were considered self-evident,” and yet “[e]ven with an interpretative explanation, the connection between a regulation and the supporting citation appears, at least for a modern reader, arbitrary.” Third, the priority of 4QSb is suggested by the fact that its text “runs smoothly without any breaks in syntax and line of thought, whereas in 1QS the natural flow of the text is interrupted.” This interrupted flow in 1QS is indicated by three features: (1) the problem of awkward alternation between singular and plural; (2) peculiar syntax involving the fivefold use of the particle ‫ ;כיא‬and (3) the blank space in the middle of line 13 and the accompanying marginal mark. I will respond to the last argument concerning smoothness in syntax and line of thought first. To support her claim that there is an awkward alternation between singular and plural in 1QS, Metso notes that “In the middle of 1QS V, 13 the third person plural used for the men of injustice changes to the singular, although the theme of separation is maintained.”11 Then, following the citation of Exod 23:7, plural forms are once again used to depict the wicked. In contrast to this awkward alternation in 1QS, “there is no problem of plural vs. singular in 4QSb,d.”12 As the following translation indicates, Metso is correct to observe: (1) that the depiction of the “People of Iniquity” changes from the plural to the singular, though this occurs in the middle of 1QS 5:14 (not 1QS 5:13); and (2) that this singular depiction then changes back to the plural following the quotation of Exod 23:7.

10

Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” 87. The following quotes are all from this page. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.


39

1QS 5:13b–16a13 13b

He shall not enter into the water to touch the purity of the people of holiness. For they shall not be purified 14a unless they turn from their wickedness; for unclean are all those who transgress his word. 14b

Furthermore, he shall not be joined with him in his work and in his wealth, lest he “burden him 15 with the iniquity of guilt” (Lev 22:16); for he shall keep far from him in every matter; for thus it is written, “from every matter of deception, you shall keep far” (Exod 23:7). 15c

Furthermore, a person from the people of the 16a community shall not appropriate their authority regarding any law or judgment.

Before discussing the alternation between singular and plural, it is important to recall (cf. the above outline) that 1QS 5:13b–16a consists of the first three of five examples in which a member of the “People of the Community” is called to separate from the “People of Iniquity” in practice. Interestingly, in 1QS 5:13b the “People of Iniquity” are referred to as the “People of Holiness,” a designation that in 1QS 5:18b, in the singular form (‫“ ;איש הקודש‬person of holiness”; though cf. the plural form in 4QSb 9:11a), is used to refer to a member of the “People of the Community,” suggesting a closeness between these rival groups that “at times . . . borders on identity.”14 13

This English translation and the ones that follow are my own and are based on the Hebrew text found in J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994). 14 So C. Hempel, “The Community and Its Rivals According to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4,” RevQ 21/81 (2003): 47–81 at 53; pace Metso (Serekh Texts, 10), who says that the lines comprising 1QS 5:13b–15a [1QS 5:13b–15b in my outline] seem “to speak about one of the men of injustice, or about a person whose conversion is insincere” and further notes that “Some commentators on 1QS suspected that this passage was an interpolation even before the material from Cave 4 was available,” citing the work of J. Murphy-O’Connor, “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 (1969): 528–49 at

40


As for the alternation between singular and plural depictions of the “People of Iniquity,” it may not be all that awkward, if the scriptural citations of Exod 23:7 and Lev 22:16 are taken into account. The change from singular to plural may have been made in an effort to cohere more closely with the substantiating quotation of Exod 23:7, a text which contains a singular, not a plural, verb. The implicit citation of Lev 22:16 corroborates this since in the MT the verb ‫“( נשא‬to lift, carry”) is plural but in 1QS 5:14c it has been changed to the singular. Admittedly, one could object to this suggestion since the singular verb in the citation of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15b is directed at a member of the “People of the Community,” depicted as singular throughout, and not at someone from the “People of Iniquity.” Even so, it is nonetheless incorrect to say that “there is no problem of plural vs. singular in 4QSb,d,” as the following text indicates.15

4QSb 9:9b–11a 9b

Furthermore, a person from the people of the community shall not appropriate their authority 10a regarding any law or judgment. 10b

Furthermore, he shall not be joined with him in wealth and work.

10c–11a

And no man from the people of holiness shall eat from their wealth.

546–47, and M. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987), 110–11. The interpolation theory is unnecessary. The discussion so far and the one that follows provides a perfectly coherent interpretation of 1QS 5:13–15a without the need to resort to an interpolation theory. 15 What follows is my own translation based on the text from DJD 26:53. Note that the reconstructed Hebrew text underlying the translation “from their wealth” in 4QSb 9:11a is ‫מהונם‬. In the course of providing editorial feedback on this article, E. J. C. Tigchelaar made the significant observation that since ‫מהונם‬ is not preserved in either 4QSb or 4QSd, but reconstructed, it cannot be ruled out that the text could have read ‫“( מהונו‬from his wealth”). I would like to thank him for this important point which must be kept in mind.


41

Note that the depiction of the “People of Iniquity” in the command not to join in wealth and work in 4QSb is, like its parallel in 1QS, in the singular, even though it is preceded and followed by plural depictions (9:9b–11a). Whereas the citation of Exod 23:7 provides a potential explanation for this change in 1QS, no such rationale commends itself for 4QSb. Indeed, one could even point to this instance to claim that the inconsistent singular depiction of the “People of Iniquity” in 4QSb 9:10b is, in fact, evidence for the priority of 1QS: the substantiating scriptural citations, which led to the singular depiction of the “People of Iniquity” in the command relating to work and wealth, were removed without also changing the depiction to plural. Yet, before one begins to conclude that the alternation between singular and plural supports the priority of 1QS it is important to observe that evidence along these lines may be marshaled in the opposite direction as well. This is so in two respects. First, in 1QS each command for separation in practice is cast in terms of third-person singular verbs (‫ ולוא ישען‬,‫ לוא יוכל‬,‫ לוא ישוב‬,‫ לוא ייחד‬,‫ אל יבוא‬in 5:13b, 14b, 15c, 16b, 18b respectively) while in 4QSb the first and last commands are thirdperson plural verbs (‫ ולוא ישענו‬,‫ לוא יגעו‬in 9:8c, 11b respectively) but the middle three are third-person singular verbs (‫ ואל יואכל‬,‫ לוא יוחד‬,‫לוא ישיב‬ in 9:9b, 10b, 10c respectively). On this basis, one could claim that 1QS represents an attempt to render more consistent the use of verbs in the earlier 4QSb. Second, 4QSb 9:4b–6a states the following:

4QSb 9:4b–6a 4b

Furthermore, a man shall not walk in the stubbornness of his heart in order to err 5 but [shall walk so as] to lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community, regarding every person offering himself for holiness in Aaron and [for] the house of 6a truth for Israel, and those joining with them for community. Note that the text initially speaks of “every person offering himself for holiness,” but then refers to “those joining with them for community,” rather than with him. In other words, there is an awkward shift from the singular to the plural. This awkwardness is absent from 1QS 5:5b–6:

42


1QS 5:5b–6 5b

. . . to lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community of the eternal 6 covenant, to atone for all those offering themselves for holiness in Aaron and for the house of the truth in Israel and all those joining with them for community “Those offering themselves for holiness” are depicted in the plural to match the later use of the plural: “joining with them for community.” One could also cite this instance as evidence that the earlier 4QSb has been rendered more consistent in the later 1QS text.16 These contrary indications regarding the alternation between singular and plural simply go to show, as P. S. Alexander states, “The trouble with redaction criticism is that the signs can nearly always be reversed.”17 Indeed, this point is applicable to all of the other internal indicators given by Metso for the priority of 4QSb. Metso points to the peculiar syntax of 1QS 5:13b–15b, noting that the particle ‫ כיא‬appears five times in this short section of text. This is taken to be an indication that the earlier, more consistent text of 4QSb has been rendered more awkward by an accumulation of clauses added to it. Yet, the same evidence could be used to support the opposite argument: One could just as easily claim that the earlier 1QS text is rendered more consistent in the later 4QSb text. Similarly, the space in the middle of 1QS 5:13 and the accompanying marginal mark could either be an indication that an earlier text without such structural indicators has been given them or that such indicators in an earlier text were regarded as superfluous and therefore left out of a later text. With regard to the claim that “the insertion of theologically significant words,” like ‫“( ברית‬covenant”), “into the text is natural and to be expected in the developmental process, whereas intentionally omitting them is very difficult to explain,”18 history suggests this is not always the case. It is well-known, for example, that in Jewish Antiquities Josephus

16

In relation to this instance, further evidence could be found in the use of prepositions ‫ ל‬and ‫ב‬. Whereas 4QSb 9:5b–6a has ‫לקודש באהרון ובית אמת לישראל‬, we find in 1QS 5:6b the more consistent ‫לקודש באהרון ולבית האמת בישראל‬. 17 Alexander, “Redaction-History of Serekh Ha-Yaḥ ad,” 447. 18 Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” 87.


43

downplays or omits “material from his sources dealing with Israel’s landbased election and covenant.”19 Certainly, one may protest that this omission on the part of Josephus, a resident of Rome while Jerusalem lay in ruins, is entirely understandable as an attempt to accommodate the vast religious and socio-political change following the Jewish War of 66–70 c.e. and that no such change can be attributed to the Qumran community. Yet, if A. Schofield is correct about the overall development of the S texts, that their “traditions radiated out early to undergo semi-independent development,”20 then one must at least be open to the possibility that different socio-political contexts, such as living in proximity to Hellenistic influences, could have led to divergent developments in the S tradition. Indeed, a comparison of Jubilees, a text of Palestinian provenance,21 with the Wisdom of Solomon, a text arising out of the Diaspora, likely Alexandria,22 shows a striking difference precisely when it comes to the concept of “covenant.” In Jubilees, the term “covenant” occurs repeatedly and the concept is central to the setting of the book ( Jub. 1:1–4).23 In the Wisdom of Solomon however, the term appears only once (Wis 18:22) and the concept is certainly not explicit.24 Surely the Diaspora setting of the Wisdom of Solomon, one in 19 S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2d ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 110. See also H. W. Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings (ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: van Gorcum, 1984), 185–232 at 218. 20 A. Schofield, “Rereading S: A New Model of Textual Development in Light of the Cave 4 Serekh Copies,” DSD 15 (2008): 96–120 at 106. 21 See O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP 2:35–142 at 45. 22 As J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 195, observes regarding the Wisdom of Solomon: “The Egyptian provenance of the work is not seriously in doubt in view of the prominence of Egypt in chapters 10–19, and the philosophical coloring of the work is most obviously compatible with an Alexandrian setting.” 23 On the covenantal setting of Jub. 1:1–4, see J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 27. 24 Even if one were to argue that the notion of covenant underlies the particularistic aspects of the book (cf. e.g. Wis 19:22), the universalistic statements regarding God’s mercy to and love for all (cf. Wis 11:21–12:2) are not easily

44


which the covenantal notion of God’s preferential treatment of Israel would have been objectionable on moral grounds is, in part, the reason why this concept recedes into the background and is replaced by an emphasis on God’s advocacy for the righteous and opposition against the wicked (i.e. moral categories rather than covenantal ones). This is not to suggest that some S texts first made their way to Egypt, where the term “covenant” was excised, and then returned to Qumran to exert their influence. It is rather to illustrate how a different socio-political context may influence the theology of a text. Moreover, even if Schofield’s view of semi-independent development is not adopted, one could still suggest that the absence of the term “covenant” in 4QSb does not necessarily imply that this textual tradition is earlier than 1QS 5:1–20a. The “People of the Community” could have dropped the term, for instance, in an attempt to differentiate themselves from “People of Iniquity,” who, given the close similarity between these two groups, likely also regarded their communal relationships as covenantal. This leaves one remaining internal argument given by Metso for the priority of 4QSb: it is that the “alternate hypothesis would posit that the citations were omitted because they were considered self-evident,” and yet “[e]ven with an interpretative explanation, the connection between a regulation and the supporting citation appears, at least for a modern reader, arbitrary.”25 That the supporting citations present in 1QS 5:1–20a but absent in 4QSb 9:1–13 appear arbitrary is precisely what I wish to question. Indeed, I suggest that close attention to them provides us with the strongest internal argument for the priority of the 4QSb,d textual tradition. It is to a constructive consideration of these citations that we now turn.

Constructing an Internal Argument for the Priority of the 4QSb,d Textual Tradition Let us begin with the implicit citation of Lev 22:16, ‫ישיאנו עוון אשמה‬ (“[lest] he burden him with the iniquity of guilt”) in 1QS 5:14c–15a. In examining the original context of this text, one discovers that the Lev subsumed under the covenant concept. Cf., e.g., Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 201–2. 25 Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” 87.


45

citation derives from the last verse of a passage (Lev 22:1–16) devoted to regulations governing priestly food offerings (the verb ‫“[ אכל‬to eat”] appears 13x in this text: 22:4, 6, 7, 8, 10[2x], 11[2x], 12, 13[2x], 14, 16) and seems to be a warning against a person outside of a priestly household who improperly eats of food offerings and does not make restitution.26 This emphasis on eating in priestly community coheres quite well with the context of the Lev citation in 1QS 5:14–15. The first command not to enter the waters of the “People of Iniquity” to touch their ‫טהרה‬ (“purity”) in 1QS 5:13b–14a has to do with communal meals. As M. Knibb notes, the usage of the term ‫ טהרה‬in the rabbinic writings “indicates that the word refers to the ritually clean articles and, particularly, to the ritually clean food of the community.”27 That this is the case in 1QS is suggested by comparison with the parallel command in 4QSb 9:8c–9a. Included in the command not to touch the “purity” of the “People of Iniquity” (here identified as the “People of Holiness”) is the further unparalleled clarification that neither should one “eat” it in the community.28 Of course, the citation of Lev 22:16 does not support the first command to refrain from touching the “purity” but the second command not to join with him, the “People of Iniquity” represented as a single individual, in work and wealth in 1QS 5:14b–15b. Yet this command may also be related to priestly eating. The term ‫“( הון‬wealth”) occurs not only in 5:14 but also in 5:16 (cf. further 5:2, 3, 20; 4QSb 9:2, 3, 10, 11, 13) in relation to the command not to eat, drink, or take anything from the “People of Iniquity” without ‫“( מחיר‬pay”), that is, proper recompense. In other words, the citation of Lev 22:16 seems to be creatively employed to portray the “People of Iniquity” as a rival priestly community from whose food offerings one should not eat without proper recompense ‫פן ישיאנו‬ ‫“( עוון אשמה‬lest he burden him with the iniquity of guilt”; 5:14c–15a), 26 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1860, 1869–70, titles Leviticus 22:10–16 “Nonpriests Eating Sacred Food.” Regarding the affinities between Lev 22 and 1QS 5:1–20a, only Hempel, “Community and Its Rivals,” 55 n. 20, observes: “The context of this allusion in Lev 22 deals with the wrong kind of people eating sacred food. This material may well have been in the back of the author’s mind to bolster the case against the people of injustice.” 27 Knibb, Qumran Community, 111. 28 Hempel, “Community and Its Rivals,” 54, suggests that the unparalleled occurrence of ‫ אכל‬in 4QSb 9:8c–9a may not refer to the pure meal but “to a less formal type of table fellowship.” This is unlikely given the later prohibition against such informal table fellowship in both 1QS 5:16b–18a and 4QSb 9:10c–11a.

46


likely not only a warning but also a play on the label of the rival group as ‫“( אנשי העול‬People of Iniquity”; 1QS 5:2, 10; cf. 4QSb 9:2, 8). We may further note that the key term ‫“( אשמה‬guilt”) in the citation of Lev 22:16 in 1QS 5:14c–15a is preceded by a prior use of this same word (written erroneously as ‫ )אששמה‬in 1QS 5:12. Interestingly, the use of the term ‫ אשמה‬in 1QS 5:12 appears to be quite unnecessary; the meaning of the overall statement in which it appears would be little altered were it not included. Significantly, the use of ‫ אשמה‬in 1QS 5:12 is without parallel in 4QSb. This turns out to be the first indication of a pattern in the use of scriptural citations present in 1QS 5:1–20a but absent in 4QSb: they are employed with due regard for their original contexts and in each case are anticipated by key vocabulary that is without parallel in 4QSb. The explicit citation of Exod 23:7, ‫[“( דבר שקר תרחק‬from every] matter of deception, you shall keep far”), in 1QS 5:15b may be understood in concert with the earlier implicit citation of Lev 22:16.29 This Exod verse is part of a series of loosely-related legal admonitions (Exod 23:1–9); it is preceded by a warning against denying ‫“( משפט‬justice”) to the poor in a ‫“( ריב‬lawsuit”) and followed by a warning against putting an innocent or righteous person to death. When one interprets the Exod citation in relation to the Lev text, its meaning seems fairly clear: The person who would be tempted to fail to make restitution for an improper use of priestly food offerings is being warned to stay far from such a deceptive act. That this interpretation is on the right track, if not correct, is suggested by the prohibition in 1QS 5:14b for which the Lev citation serves as support: ‫“( לוא יוחד עמו בעבודתו ובהונו‬he shall not be joined with him in his work and in his wealth”). Assuming the priority of 4QSb for the moment, this prohibition has been moved by the redactor of 1QS to a different location than its parallel, perhaps to bring it into closer proximity to the first prohibition in 1QS 5:13b–14a regarding refraining from the communal meal of the “People of Iniquity” (identified here as the “People of Holiness”). Moreover, the redactor may have reversed the order of ‫בהון‬ ‫ ובעבודה‬in 4QSb 9:10b to ‫ בעבודתו ובהונו‬in 1QS 5:14b because of the implicit restitutionary aspect of the Lev 22:16 citation which follows. The citation of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15b is anticipated in three respects. First, as is commonly observed, ‫“( רחק‬to be far”) and ‫“( דבר‬word, matter, 29

The ‫ מכול דבר‬of 1QS 5:15b reflects the Vorlage of the LXX which has ἀπὸ

παντὸς ῥήματος as opposed to the ‫ מדבר‬of the MT.


47

thing”), also in 1QS 5:15b, prepare for the immediately-following citation,30 and neither has a parallel in 4QSb. Second, what has not been recognized previously, at least in the literature I have surveyed, is that the phrase ‫“( ולריב ולמשפט‬and for lawsuit and for justice”) at the end of 1QS 5:6, without parallel in 4QSb (even though the rest of 1QS 5:6 is for the most part paralleled by 4QSb 9:5), may also anticipate the citation of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15. This is because, as noted earlier, ‫ משפט‬and ‫ ריב‬appear together in Exod 23:6. Third, when Exod 23:7 is viewed within the larger context of which it is a part, namely the ‫ספר הברית‬ (“book of the covenant”; Exod 24:7) consisting of Exod 20:22–23:33,31 it may further be the case that the preceding nine instances of ‫( ברית‬in 1QS 5:2, 3, 5, 8, 9[2x], 10, 11, 12), none of which are paralleled in 4QSb, implicitly anticipate the citation of Exod 23:7 as well.32 The implicit citation of Zeph 1:6, ‫“( לוא בקשו ולוא דרשהו‬they have not sought and they have not inquired after [his decrees]”), in 1QS 5:11b also fits this developing pattern. Though in Zeph 1:6 it is YHWH who has not been sought or inquired after, the meaning of this text as used in 1QS 5:11b is little different. As Leaney notes, it is typical of the S community to interpret seeking after YHWH as meaning study of Torah (e.g. cf. 1QS 8:14–15).33 Moreover, those who have not sought YHWH in Zeph 1:6 are idolatrous priests (cf. Zeph 1:4–5); this coheres quite well with use of this text in relation to ‫“( אנשי העול ההולכים בדרך הרשעה‬people of iniquity who walk in the way of wickedness”) in 1QS 5:10b–11a and further suggests that the opponents of the S community are a rival priestly group. The citation of Zeph 1:6 in 1QS 5:11b is anticipated in two ways. First, the term ‫“( דרש‬to inquire”) appears in 1QS 5:9b and is without parallel in 4QSb. Second, there seems to be an allusion to Zeph 2:3, in addition to the implicit citation of Mic 6:8, in 1QS 5:3–4. The implicit citation of Mic 6:8 is clear and the allusion to Zeph 2:3 is suggested by ‫“( וענוה צדקה‬and humility [and] righteousness”), both of which terms

30

E.g. Metso, “Use of Old Testament Quotations,” 221, who observes that an anticipatory ‫ דבר‬appears in 1QS 5:14 as well. 31 So e.g. J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco: Word, 1987), 315. 32 However, cf. 1QS 5:19 vs. 4QSb 9:12 in which ‫ ברית‬appears in both textual traditions. The term ‫ ברית‬also appears in 1QS 5:18, without parallel in 4QSb. 33 Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 172.

48


may allude to Zeph 2:3 (a verse in which ‫“[ משפט‬justice”] and ‫“[ בקש‬to seek”] are also found).34 Although the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 and possible allusion to Zeph 2:3 are also present in 4QSb 9:3b–4a,35 there is one slight and perhaps significant difference. In 4QSb one finds ‫ענוה‬ ‫ ;וצדקה‬in other words, there is a waw (“and”) separating ‫ ענוה‬and ‫צדקה‬ which is absent from 1QS. Assuming once again the priority of 4QSb, the redactor of 1QS may have wished to bring ‫ ענוה‬and ‫ צדקה‬into closer association with one another in an effort to foster recognition of an allusion to Zeph 2:3, a text in which the cognate term ‫ צדק‬and ‫ ענוה‬occur successively, each as the object of the verb ‫בקש‬.36 Even if one rejects this proposal of an allusion to Zeph 2:3, the citation of Zeph 1:6 still fits the pattern for which I have argued because of the unparalleled ‫ דרש‬in 1QS 5:9b. 34

Note that it is a close cognate of ‫צדקה‬, namely ‫צדק‬, which occurs in Zeph 2:3. While this might be taken as lessening the likelihood of an allusion, it should also be observed that Zeph 2:3 is only one of six occurrences of ‫ ענוה‬in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. also Pss 18:36; 45:5; Prov 15:33; 18:12; 22:4); this strengthens the likelihood of an allusion. 35 The recognition that 4QSb 9:3b–4a also contains an implicit citation of, or allusion to, Mic 6:8, as does 1QS 5:3c–4a, may help explain the unparalleled occurrence of ‫ כפר‬in 1QS 5:6b. As Hempel, “Emerging Communal Life and Ideology in the S Tradition,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Popović; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–61, at 52–54, notes, the virtues of Mic 6:8 are listed as “the culmination of an extended passage dealing with the importance of these ethical guidelines over and above the cult” (p. 52). Thus these virtues are implicitly associated with atonement in Mic. Moreover, the terms ‫“( פשע‬transgression”) and ‫“( חטאת‬sin”) found in Mic 6:7 occur along with ‫ כפר‬in Lev 16:16 (cf. also Dan 9:24) in the context of the Day of Atonement ceremony. Thus, assuming the priority of 4QSb, by adding ‫ כפר‬the redactor of 1QS could have intended to make explicit the notion of atonement that is implicit in the allusion to Mic 6:8. 36 In the course revising this article for publication, E. J. C. Tigchelaar pointed out that the absence of the waw in 1QS could be due to the influence of Ps 45:5 where, like 1QS 5:3–4, the expression ‫ וענוה צדק‬is found. This is possible, but, in my view, less likely than the influence of Zeph 2:3. Psalm 45:5 lacks the additional terminological similarities that, as noted above, Zeph 2:3 possesses. Moreover, 1QS 5 and Zeph 2, as we shall shortly see, have a thematic similarity that is lacking in Ps 45.


49

If 1QS 5:3c–4a does allude to Zeph 2:3, a text which counsels seeking YHWH in an effort to be hidden (‫ )סתר‬from his impending wrath, then this coheres well with the explicit citation of Isa 2:22, ‫חדלו לכם מן האדם‬ ‫“( אשר נשמה באפו כיא במה נחשב הואה‬separate yourselves from man whose breath is in his nostrils for of what account is he?”) in 1QS 5:17b.37 As noted previously (cf. footnote 8 above), it is often charged that Isa 2:22 has been divorced from its original context in service of a dubious word-play involving the term ‫חשב‬, which in 1QS 5:18a means to be “reckoned” within the covenant, while in Isa 2:22 it means merely to be “accounted, esteemed.” This word-play is beyond dispute; what is questionable, however, is that this citation of Isa 2:22 represents an unintelligible use of the precursor text. Like Lev 22:16, Isa 2:22 concludes the passage of which it is a part, whether it begins in v. 5 or v. 6.38 This passage is an indictment of the house of Jacob for its idolatrous worship and acquisition of wealth (vv. 6–8, 18, 22). The house of Jacob is warned that even as this idolatry already debases humanity (v. 9), so also human arrogance will be brought low on the day of YHWH’s wrath when he alone will be exalted (vv. 11–17, 20). In light of this impending Day of YHWH, one finds the following threefold refrain in vv. 10, 19, 21: 10

19

37

Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty . . . Enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth . . .

Van der Kooij, “Septuagint of Isaiah,” 379–80, argues that ‫ מן‬+ ‫ חדל‬should be translated as “cease” in light of 2 Sam 9:5; 2 Chron 35:21; Isa 10:20; 31:3. While ‫ מן‬+ ‫ חדל‬undoubtedly has this meaning in these instances, in Exod 4:12 and Job 7:16 it has to have the sense of “leave.” Consequently, I have translated its use in 1QS 5:17 as “separate” because this is how the S community appears to have understood the phrase in Isa 2:22. 38 So e.g. J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco: Word, 1985), 33–34; J. Blenkinsopp, “Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Jes 2 6–22),” ZAW 93 (1981): 51–62. Other analyses are of course possible. E.g. see M. L. Barré, “A Rhetorical-Critical Study of Isaiah 2:12–17,” CBQ 65 (2003): 522–34, who argues that Isa 2:12–17 is a complete poem:

50

A. J. Lucas / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 30–52 21

. . . enter the caverns of the rocks and the clefts in the crags, from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth.39

Whether this threefold refrain in Isaiah was originally intended to call the faithful to find refuge, warn the unfaithful against the futility of hiding, or perhaps a combination of the two (though v. 21 is clearly directed at the unfaithful), it is easy to imagine how the S community might have read this text as an assurance that their enemies—from whom they had separated (1QS 5:1c, 10b; cf. 4QSb 9:2b, 8b) and in whose idolatrous work and wealth they were not to share or profit from without cost (1QS 5:14, 16–17)—would be numbered among the proud of humanity facing YHWH’s terrifying debasement (cf. 1QS 5:18–20). I suggest, then, that this citation of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17b fits quite well with the original context of Isa. Indeed, the commentary immediately following this citation in 1QS 5:17c–18 suggests just this since it emphasizes that those who are not reckoned in God’s covenant will be separated along with their possessions, the very point made in Isa 2:20–21: “On that day people will throw away to the moles and to the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to enter the caverns of the rocks” (NRSV; cf. Isa 2:7–9). As for the anticipation of this citation through key vocabulary, ‫ חשב‬occurs in 1QS 5:11b and ‫ אף‬in 1QS 5:12b, both without parallel in 4QSb. Though neither term occurs with the same meaning as in the Isa 2:22 citation of 1QS 5:17, the preceding pattern established with the other scriptural citations suggests that these terms are nevertheless anticipatory.

Conclusion The aim of this article has been both deconstructive and constructive. In its deconstructive aim, I have questioned the internal arguments provided 39

This translation is taken from the NRSV. Note that v. 10 does not appear in 1QIsaa; however, vv. 19, 21 do. Additionally, Isa 2:22 does not appear in the LXX, though it does in the MT and 1QIsaa. See the discussion in Blenkinsopp, “Fragments of Ancient Exegesis,” 55–56; Van der Kooij, “Septuagint of Isaiah,” 377–86. The latter study concludes that the omission of MT Isa 2:22 and 36:7 is due to the working method of the LXX translator.


51

by S. Metso for the priority of the 4QSb,d textual tradition in relation to 1QS 5:1–20a, especially her view that the scriptural citations appear arbitrary, a view shared by many others. In its constructive aim, I have suggested, on the contrary, that the scriptural texts present in 1QS 5:1–20a, but absent in 4QSb,d, are employed with due regard for their original contexts and are also anticipated in 1QS 5:1–20a through the use of unparalleled key vocabulary prior to each citation. The best explanation for this pattern established on internal grounds is, I contend, the priority of 4QSb,d. The logic of my contention is simply this: it is easier to imagine how the unparalleled scriptural citations and anticipatory vocabulary of 1QS 5:1–20a could have been added to an earlier textual tradition similar or identical to 4QSb,d, than it is to imagine how not only the scriptural citations but also their anticipatory vocabulary could have been eliminated from an earlier version of 1QS 5:1–20a in producing an abridged text like 4QSb,d. This is one redactional sign that, at least to me, does not seem to be reversible. In short, then, the use of unparalleled scriptural citations in 1QS 5:1–20a appears to provide us with an internal control for determining the redactional direction with the 4QSb,d textual tradition. In closing, I wish to note the significance of this study in relation to any future redactional work done on 1QS and its 4Q parallels. In their DJD volume on the cave 4 S texts, P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes state that the redactional history of S “is only beginning to be explored.”40 Metso’s dissertation and subsequent articles are widely and rightly regarded as a significant step toward establishing that redaction history.41 Yet, concerning this very redaction history Metso says, “There was no ready-made scheme in the minds of redactors which they would have followed when arranging the material and editing the text. A vague association prompted by a key-word was sufficient to provide the impulse for creating a new sentence or including a new passage.”42 Our study of the unparalleled 40

DJD 26:9. Similarly, Metso, Serekh Texts, 15, herself states: “The material of Cave 4 did not become widely accessible until the 1990s, and its analysis is still in an early stage, but the results that have been achieved already offer promise of a lively discussion in the near future.” 41 E.g. see the remarks by Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community,” 542; Hempel, “Literary Development of the S Tradition,” 390, 392. 42 S. Metso, “The Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International

52


scriptural citations in 1QS 5:1–20a suggests that this is not the case for this particular section of S. The redactor of 1QS 5:1–20a appears to have taken care to add not only the scriptural warrants for the five examples of separation in practice but also anticipatory key vocabulary in each case. Whether or not a similar, or even identical, procedure is reflected in other portions of S is a subject for future research.

Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141–47 at 147.


brill.nl/dsd

4Q274 Fragment 1 Revisited—or Who Touched Whom? Further Evidence for Ideas of Graded Impurity and Graded Purifications1 Thomas Kazen Stockholm School of Theology, Åkeshovsvägen 29, SE-16839 Bromma, Sweden [email protected]

Abstract This fragment concerns impurity bearers in intermediate stages of lessened impurity and their contact with the clean and unclean. It is evidence for an early origin for ideas of graded impurity and graded purification. The referent in the first section is the purifying “leper” rather than the zav. The initial impurity of the menstruant is supposed to be mitigated by a first-day purificatory water rite, analogous to that of purifying “lepers” and the developing practice of a first day ablution for the corpse-impure. The semen emitter is a different case from the zav, and the point is that purifying people may not contact any “active” discharger. The text should not be read within the framework of a narrow sectarian environment only, but reflects a more general development of expanding purity practises during the Second Temple period. Keywords 4Q274, graded impurity, menstruant, purification, first day ablution

1

I wish to thank the DSD reviewers for constructive suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this material. I am also indebted to Swedish and Finnish colleagues for responses and observations, especially to Åke Viberg for assisting with necessary software and for numerous discussions about readings and reconstructions. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484514

54

T. Kazen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 53–87

Introduction The fragments numbered 4Q274 and named 4QTohorot A are usually dated to the first century b.c.e., due to the early Herodian script.2 The texts show little signs of dispute, however, and may be presectarian, originating in the second century b.c.e.3 The text of frgs. 1–2 discusses contamination by touch, and genital dischargers are prominently in focus. The instructions are often thought to be ambiguous and confusing, and, according to Jacob Milgrom, “not a single one of its halakhic cases is mentioned in rabbinic literature.”4 In this article I argue that the text deals with the behaviour of impurity bearers in intermediate stages of less or lessened impurity compared to more permanent impurity bearers and that it attests to an early origin for ideas of graded impurity and graded purification. As we will see, the text may be read as evidence that not only the corpse-impure sought early purification, but dischargers also “peeled off” the most virulent layer of impurity through some type of first day ablution. When further contextual evidence is taken into consideration, this should not be seen as a sectarian development only.

Previous Research The text, including a photograph, was first published by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise in 1992.5 It was followed in 1995 by Ben Wacholder and Martin Abegg’s reading and reconstruction, mainly based on Milik’s transcriptions in the Preliminary Concordance.6 In the same year, Joseph Baumgarten and Jacob Milgrom published separate reconstructions and 2

Joseph M. Baumgarten, “D. Tohorot,” in Qumran Cave 4, XXV: Halakhic Texts (ed. J. M. Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 79–122 (99). 3 Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 57. 4 Jacob Milgrom, “4QTohoraa: An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. D. Dimant and L. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 59–68 (59). 5 Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years (Shaftesbury: Element, 1992), 207–10, plate 18. 6 Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the


55

translations of frg. 1 in a volume containing papers from 1989–1990.7 In 1999, Baumgarten, who had access to Milik’s transcriptions, published his own version with a few revisions in DJD 35.8 Meanwhile, the text was published by Florentino García Martínez, first in his translation, and then, together with Eibert Tigchelaar in the DSS Study Edition.9 Baumgarten understands the text as referring to various types of dischargers and reads it in light of other texts found at Qumran. He refers to 4Q512 for a “markedly penitential tone” and sees affinities with the Temple Scroll ’s demand for separated areas for “lepers,” zavim and semen emitters. Similarly, the zav is not only to be kept outside of cities, but, according to 4Q274, also at a certain distance from other impurity bearers. Female dischargers, too, must not contact other impure people. Baumgarten notes that this is more stringent than rabbinic halakah. Another stringent ruling is the demand for purification before eating.10 In DJD 35, Baumgarten sets 4Q274 in the larger context of expansive purity practices in the Second Temple period. The practice of eating nonconsecrated food (chullin) in purity together with the application of a first day water rite to make this possible for impurity bearers whose purification took seven days, is evidenced by texts found at Qumran. Baumgarten finds this comparable to the Pharisaic tevul yom, which similarly made eating in purity possible in advance, in this case before sundown.11 Although Milgrom agrees with Baumgarten on the penitential tone, he differs on the reference of the first three and a half lines, which he reads as referring not to the zav but to the metzora. Milgrom also refers to the quarantine laws of the Temple Scroll, although he notes that compass directions are only given for the Temple city. Milgrom argues that the call Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle 3 (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1995), 79–80. 7 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohoraa (4Q274),” in Dimant and Schiffman, eds., Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, 1–8; Milgrom, “4QTohoraa.” 8 Baumgarten, DJD 35:99–109. 9 Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997– 1998; rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 628–29. 10 Baumgarten, ”The Laws about Fluxes,” 7. Cf. 11QT a XLVI 16–18. 11 Baumgarten, DJD 35:89–90.

56


of the metzora is interpreted as “unclean to the unclean,” which explains the need for impure people to keep apart from other impure people, as exemplified in the fragment. This is supposed to be one of Qumran’s innovative teachings: any impurity is increased by contact with a stronger impurity. Another innovative teaching is that a purifying zav does not transmit impurity by touch, presumably because he has undergone a first day ablution. He also finds a third new idea in the requirement of purification before eating for people with increased impurity. Milgrom reads the text as divided into three cases and points out that bathing and laundering before eating is required in all three.12 This is interpreted within the larger context of early purification to avoid what Milgrom understands as airborne defilement of the sanctuary.13 In 1992, Hannah Harrington discussed the text in her dissertation comparing Qumran and Rabbinic purity halakah, based on the reading of her supervisor Milgrom.14 Some further discussion is also found in a more recent volume on purity texts found at Qumran.15 Harrington regards frg. 1 as evidence for “the requirement that all Israelites bathe before eating any food,” which resulted from “homogenization” in the interpretation of purity legislation. This applied even to impure people, who were not thereby entitled to partake of the communal meal, only to eat at all. Although Harrington takes 4Q274 1 as referring to “impure persons, who continue in their impurity or purification for an extended period,” she specifically mentions purifying persons as a particular threat for contaminating food, since they were no longer isolated outside of the camp, but had to come inside for their purification.16 Generally, Harrington finds the discharge laws of 4Q274 stricter than rabbinic law,17 although she follows Milgrom’s understanding that a purifying zav did not defile by 12

Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 61, 65–68. This is only alluded to in “4QTohoraa,” but more clearly spelled out in Milgrom’s discussion about first day ablutions and intermediate levels of impurity in Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991), 969–76, 991–1000. 14 Hannah K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBLDS 143; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 48, 61–62, 65, 79–90, 92, 94. 15 Harrington, Purity Texts, 57–60, 88, 95–98, 102. 16 Ibid., 57, 59. 17 Ibid., 95–96. 13


57

touch unless he had a semen emission, which is strangely lenient.18 Harrington also notes that menstrual blood is equalled to other discharges.19 The text is also discussed by Jonathan Lawrence, using the translation of Wise, Abegg and Cook. According to Lawrence, the fragment is in general agreement with the rules of the Hebrew Bible concerning when washing for purification is required or not. When it comes to details, however, he finds a number of departures. As Lawrence reads the text, the woman who has touched a zav or a zav’s vessel does not have to wait until sundown, but may eat after bathing. He furthermore claims that the text equates menstrual blood with semen. He also finds it strange that a zavah is allowed to eat the food at all. Lawrence finds the text ambiguous as to whether the purity of the woman or that of others who are contacted by her stands in focus. Like Baumgarten, he understands the referent in the first three and a half lines of the text as a zav rather than a metzora—an interpretation that is facilitated by the translation of Wise, Abegg and Cook.20 He also hints at a first day ablution for corpse-impure being extended to other cases, but this possibility is not followed up in any detail.21 In a recent publication on ritual purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ian Werrett deals with 4Q274 too. Werrett relies on the reconstruction and translation of Baumgarten and, like Lawrence, follows Baumgarten in seeing the zav as the referent for 1 i 1–4a.22 Werrett understands the primary 18

Harrington, Impurity Systems, 85–87. Harrington, Purity Texts, 96, 102; Impurity Systems, 87. 20 Jonathan D. Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (SBL Academia Biblica 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 89–91. Abegg reconstructs and translates line 3: “Any one of the unclean [wh]o h[as a dischar]ge . . .” (this is different from others, see further below). Cf. Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 281. 21 Lawrence, Washing in Water, 99, see especially note 40, referring to Esther Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2: Purification of a Corpse-Contaminated Person,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 3–10. This is basically identical with Esther Eshel, “4QRitual of Purification A,” DJD 35:135–53 (135–39). 22 Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 220–21, 245–46. The translation strangely enough contains a few 19

58


interest of frg. 1 as preventing impure persons from contacting other impure individuals. This presupposes that “unclean individuals were capable of contracting additional forms of impurity if that form of impurity was greater than their own,” something that goes beyond ideas found in the Torah.23 In addition to the instructions concerning the zav, the fragment consists of a series of examples of less serious types of bodily discharge. One detail, however, does not fit into this scheme neatly, according to Werrett: the equalling of menstrual blood and bodily discharge in 1 i 7–8. Werrett does not regard this as evidence for the zav and menstruant being equally impure, but rather as a result of gap-filling the laws of Leviticus. Blood and discharge were considered equally defiling for purifying people, in the sense that contact necessitated bathing before eating. Werrett finds similarities between 4Q274 and the Temple Scroll with regard to quarantine regulations and the keeping apart of various impurity bearers. He notes, however, that the instructions of 4Q274 seem to assume that contact actually took place, which suggests a different context with other concerns.24 As is clear from this overview, there are a number of common suggestions and questions with regard to this text. While most agree on the penitential note at the beginning, the referent of the first three and a half lines is debated. While some affinity with rules for isolation or segregation in other texts is evident, the extent of the present rules is unclear. The context is certainly one of expansive purity practices, which fits ill with suggestions about lenient practices concerning the zav. Bathing before eating is definitely an issue, even for some types of impure people, but on what grounds? Contact between various categories of impurity bearers is found at the heart of the discussion, but does contamination only spread from the more impure to the less? Blood and discharge are somehow equalled, but in what way? And are some sorts of first day water rites being extended to and presupposed for other impurity bearers than the corpse impure?

unexplained deviations from Baumgarten in DJD 35: “(ones)” in line 1, a closing citation mark moved from “out” in line 4 to “unclean!” in line 3, “has lain” instead of Baumgarten’s “touched or laid” in line 4, a changed word order in line 5 and two spelling mistakes in line 9. 23 Ibid., 246–47; citation from 247. 24 Ibid., 247–48, 280–81.


59

Such questions give reason for revisiting the text. A number of ambiguities depend on uncertain readings and reconstructions due to faded or damaged text and tears in the leather. Certain progress can be made by studying high resolution photographs with software applications,25 but the main options have been laid out before. My suggestions for revisions of previous readings and reconstructions in such cases are modest and frequently limited to an evaluation and a choice between them. Following the reconstruction and translation below, I will first offer notes regarding possible readings and reconstructions, and subsequently a discussion of content and interpretation.

Reconstruction and Reading 4Q274 1 i ‫ו[מו֯ ̇שב אנחה ישב בדד לכול‬ ֯ ‫תחנ֯ ו̇ נו ̇מ ̇שכב יגו֯ ן ישכ]ב‬ ̇ ‫ יחל להפיל את‬1 ‫הטמאים ישב ורחוק ̇מן‬ ‫באברו אליו ומערב צפון לכול בית מושב ישב‬ ̇ ‫עשרה ֯ב ̇אמה‬ ֯ ‫ הטהרה שתים‬2 ‫רחוק כמדה הזות‬ ‫]אש[ר ]יגע[ ̇בו ירחץ במים ויכבס בגדיו ואחר יואכל כי‬ ֯ ‫ איש מכול הטמאים‬3 ‫הוא אשר אמר טמא טמא‬ ‫והזבה דם לשבעת הימים אל תגע בזב ובכול‬ ̇ ‫הנ[ג ̇ע‬ ֯ ‫היות ]בו‬ ֯ ‫ יקרא כול ימי‬4 [‫וש]כב‬ ̇ ‫]א[שר יגע בו הזב‬ ̇ ‫כלי‬ ‫וא ֯ם נגעה תכבס בגדיה ורחצה ואחר תוכל ובכול‬ ̇ ‫ עליו או אשר ישב עליו‬5 ‫]א[ל תתערב בשבעת‬ ̇ ‫מודה‬ ‫מחנ֯ י֯ קדו֯ ]שי[ י̇ שראל וגם אל תגע בכול‬ ֯ ‫ל]ו[א ̇ת ̇גאל את‬ ֯ ‫ ימיה בעבור אשר‬6 [‫]זב[ה דם לימים רבי֯ ]ם‬ ֯ ‫אשה‬ ̇ ‫בזו[בו בדוה בנדתה כי אם טהרה‬ ֯ ‫וא ̇ם נקבה אל ̇יג]ע בזב‬ ̇ ‫ והסופר אם ז֯ כר‬7 ‫דם‬ ̇ ‫]נד[תה כי הנה‬ ̇ ‫֯מ‬ ‫וטמא ̇ה]וא‬ ̇ ‫שב ]ל[נוגע בו ואם ֯ת ֯צ]א מאיש[ ֯שכבת הזרע מגעו‬ ֯ ‫יח‬ ֯ ‫ הנדה כזוב‬8 ‫מכו֯ ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫וכו[ל נ֯ וגע באדם‬ ֯ ‫טה]רתו א[ל יוכל כאשר יטמא לנפ]ש האדם‬ ֯ ‫ הטמאים האלה בשבעת ימי‬9 [‫ור[ח ̇ץ וכבס ואח]ר‬ ֯ . . . ‫ יא]כל‬ii 1

25

For this study, PAM 43.309 in Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (rev. ed. 2006; version 7.0.24; Leiden: Brill, 2006; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991–2006) has been used, together with PAM 42.601.

60


Translation 1

He shall begin to lay down his pleading. He shall recli[ne] on a bed of sorrow [and] dwell in a dwelling of groaning. He shall dwell separate from all the unclean and far from what is pure, twelve cubits, in his quarter of mourning, and he shall dwell as far as this distance northwest of any dwelling-house. Any man of the unclean [wh]o [touches] him shall bathe in water and launder his clothes and afterwards he may eat, for this is as it says: Unclean, unclean, shall he cry all the days [the afflic]tion is [on him]. And the woman discharging blood (zavah dam) for seven days shall not touch the man discharging (zav) or any utensil [t]hat the man discharging (zav) has touched or lain on or that he has sat on. And if she touched, she shall launder her clothes and bathe, and afterwards she may eat. And with all her strength she shall not mix during her seven days in order n[o]t to defile the camps of the ho[ly] (ones) of Israel, and also, she shall not touch any woman [discharg]ing blood (zavah dam) for man[y] days. And the one who counts, whether male or female, shall not tou[ch the man discharging (zav) in] his [dischar]ge (or) the menstruant in her (initial) niddah (bleeding), unless she is pure from her [nidd ]ah (bleeding), for behold, niddah blood is considered like a discharge [to] the one touching it. And if a semen emission com[es forth from a man]—his touch i[s] unclean. And [anyo]ne who touches a person from all these unclean ones during the seven days of [his] puri[fication] shall [no]t eat, as if he were defiled by [a human cor]pse, [and he shall b]athe and wash (his clothes) and afterwar[ds] [Col ii 1] he shall e[at . . .

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Notes Column i, line 1 Milgrom reads ‫תחנ֯ ו֯ נו‬, and is followed in this by Baumgarten,26 while García Martínez and Tigchelaar, following Eisenman and Wise, suggest 26

Baumgarten, DJD 35:100; Milgrom “4QTohoraa,” 59–60.


61

‫תיכונו‬, rendering the sentence: “he shall begin to lay down his rank.”27 Although three letters are faded and thus capable of being variously interpreted, a ‫ ח‬is more likely than a ‫ ;י‬the left stroke of the ‫ ח‬is faintly visible.28 A penitential note also suits the context well. Baumgarten inserts a negation (‫ )אל‬on the last line of the preceding non-extant column, arguing that according to the instructions for a zav in 4Q512 he “may recite blessings only after his purification.”29 This presupposes, however, that the referent in the present text is not under purification. The penitential prayers in 4Q512 for the zav’s seven days of purification rather suggest that the referent in our text could be a purifying impurity bearer, too, and that this is the reason why he is told to begin his penitential activity. line 2 ‫“( באברו אליו‬in his quarter of mourning”). This partly follows Eisenman and Wise’s reading,30 which García Martínez rendered “in the quarter reserved for him” in his 1994 translation.31 This translation still remains (by mistake) in García Martínez and Tigchelaar, although the Hebrew is now read as ‫בדברו‬, like Abegg & Wacholder, Baumgarten and Milgrom.32 Both readings have their problems, but the shape of the second letter is rather strange for a ‫ד‬. If an ‫א‬, the left downstroke is missing, but there are 27

García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:628–29. This is clearer in PAM 42.601 than in 43.309, and also suggested by Tigchelaar (personal communication). 29 Baumgarten, DJD 35:102. 30 Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; “in the designated part of town” (209). 31 García Martínez, DSS Translated, 88, i.e., ‫ אבר‬is taken to mean “separate dwelling” or “(town) quarter” (cf. Jastrow) from “wing.” 32 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:628–629. A similar translation could, possibly, base itself on ‫בדברו‬, taking ‫ דבר‬as a deficient reading of ‫דביר‬, meaning “back-room” or “separate chamber.” A “secular” use of ‫ דביר‬is, however, difficult to ascertain; in the DSS as well as in the Hebrew Bible it is commonly used for the Most Holy, or for the shrine(s) of God or the chamber(s) of the king (1 Kgs 6; 4Q400, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q405 and 11Q17). Another possibility would be to read ‫ בדברו‬as an infinitive construct of ‫ דבר‬I (“turn aside,” pi.), hence “in his turning aside with regard to him,” i.e., he must not exceed this distance before turning aside for the other person’s sake (cf. the use of an infinitive construct with a similar meaning in Song 5:6). The context, however, is clearly on living or staying (“sit”); the verb ‫ ישב‬is repeated. 28

62


other examples of this,33 and a small visible crack in the leather plausibly explains this particular case. The reading ‫“( בדברו אליו‬in his speaking to him”) furthermore causes a problem of reference: who is the “him”? Baumgarten assumes that this refers to persons having pure things in their hands, hence presumably pure persons.34 According to Milgrom the only possible antecedent is ‫“( הטמאים‬impure persons”) in line 1. The incongruence in number is, however, awkward and seems unnatural.35 While the reading ‫ באברו אליו‬is more likely, the use of the preposition ‫ אל‬would be strange and likewise unnatural (“in his town quarter, to him”).36 I suggest that we read ‫ אליו‬as “his mourning.”37 This solves the problem of reference and fits perfectly into the penitential context: ‫אברו‬ ‫ אליו‬would then parallel ‫ משכב יגון‬and ‫ מושב אנחה‬in line 1. line 3 It is not totally certain which act necessitates the bathing of ‫איש מכול‬ ‫הטמאים‬. In the phrase ‫]אש[ר ]יגע[ ̇בו‬, ֯ which follows Baumgarten and 38 Milgrom, there is hardly one undisputed letter among the few that are at all visible. Eisenman and Wise’s reading (‫ )]ביו[ם ]השבי[עי‬is unlikely;39 although a ‫ ם‬would be possible, a ‫ ר‬is more probable, and the ‫ ע‬is doubtful, since the photographs show a faint horizontal upper stroke. Wacholder and Abegg’s suggestion, presumably based on Milik (‫)אשר ז֯ ]ב זו[בו‬ ̇ is theoretically possible,40 but redundant, or at least a roundabout way to define a zav. I reluctantly accept the majority reading, although the ‫ בו‬at the end 33

See for example ‫וא ֯ם‬ ̇ in line 5. Baumgarten, DJD 35:102. 35 Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 61–62. For examples of the idiom, see 1 Sam 17:28 and 2 Chron 25:6. The latter is also followed by ‫אליו‬. The construction ‫בדברו אל‬ is, however, less common than one might think. 36 Theoretically, ‫ אבר‬could be read as “penis,” hence “with his penis for himself,” which would require Baumgarten’s identification of the man as a zav and taking the expression as some kind of euphemism. I find this very unlikely, however. 37 I.e. ‫“( אלי‬mourning”) with a suffix. Cf. Jastrow. 38 García Martínez and Tigchelaar prefer not to conjecture, but leave the phrase as [. . .] . . . [. . .] . . . 39 Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207. 40 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 79. But any possible trait of a ‫ז‬ is only seen in PAM 42.601, and is too tiny for identifying the letter. 34


63

looks more like a ‫ ס‬to me. I find no plausible alternative verb, however, that would not destroy the context altogether.41 I read ‫ ירחץ‬with Eisenman and Wise and García Martínez and Tigchelaar, rather than ‫ ורחץ‬with the others. Differences between the letters ‫י‬ and ‫ו‬are not consistent enough to ensure certainty. Here an imperfect makes a smoother sentence. line 4 The reconstruction ‫הנ[ג ̇ע‬ ֯ ‫היות ]בו‬ ֯ ‫ כול ימי‬is suggested by Eisenman and Wise, as well as by Milgrom42 and later followed by Baumgarten.43 line 5 I follow Baumgarten who argues against Qimron that ‫ תתערב‬does not refer to intercourse.44 line 6 It is tempting to translate ‫מחנ֯ י֯ קדו֯ ]שי[ י̇ שראל‬ ֯ ‫ את‬as “the holy camps of Israel,” not least in view of Deut 23:15, which can also be regarded as an “extended” purity law. The position of the adjective, however, speaks for “the camps of the holy (ones) of Israel,” cf. 1QM III 5.

41

The fragment contains several instances of ‫ ס‬that are similarly shaped, although the present letter is faded. For possible verbs ending on samek, ‫ יכבס‬is impossible, because it returns later on the same line. One could possibly suggest ‫יכנס‬, hence ”any man of the unclean [wh]o [gathers, i.e., food] shall bathe in water and launder his clothes and afterwards he may eat.” This does not make sense, however, in view of the subsequent motivation and the recurring sequence of touch, bathing, washing and eating in the following lines. 42 Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 62–63. 43 Baumgarten, DJD 35:100. Wacholder and Abegg’s reading is less likely (‫]ז[רע‬ ֯ ‫)הזוב ]את[ ̇ה‬, ֯ since the second letter is a ‫ י‬rather than a ‫ז‬, and this reading would make the man in lines 3–4a a semen emitter. 44 Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 5–6.

64


line 7 Here one of the two main tears necessitates advanced guess-work. Eisenman and Wise suggest ‫ אל י]גע בזבה[ או‬while Wacholder and Abegg reconstruct ‫זו[בו‬ ֯ ‫אל ֯יג]ע בדם‬, presumably based on Milik’s early transcription.45 Milgrom reluctantly proposes ‫זו[בו‬ ֯ ‫אל יג]ע בזב‬, referring to Milik.46 Neither of these suggestions really fill the lacuna. Baumgarten, however, reports Milik’s restoration as ‫אל יג]ע בזב את זוב[ו‬,47 which just fills the lacuna, while his own reconstruction in DJD 35, ‫אל ̇יג]ע בזב זוב טמ[א‬, needs a little more space, despite the same number of letters.48 The crucial problem is the letter(s) at the left edge of the tear. If it is an ‫א‬, then it is more or less unique: the left downstroke is too short.49 Moreover, the photographs suggest that the strokes are not connected, which speaks for two letters. Reading ‫ ֯בו‬is possible, even if not without problems; a ‫ ב‬seldom comes that close to the following letter at the top and when it does, the bottom stroke usually protrudes under the next letter.50 A plural with a pronominal suffix (ending ‫ )־י֯ ו‬would perhaps provide a solution, but is difficult to fit into the context.51 Lines 7–8a contain three phrases echoing Lev 15:32–33. Although in reverse order, Lev 15:33 reads ‫והדוה בנדתה והזב את זובו‬, with pronominal suffixes in both cases. This is very similar to Milik’s reconstruction,

45

Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 79. 46 Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 59, 63. 47 Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 2. 48 Baumgarten, DJD 35:100. For the expression ‫זוב טמא‬, see 4Q270 2 ii 12 and Lev 15:2 (cf. Lev 15:25, 30). 49 There is a possible exception in ‫ אם‬a bit earlier on the same line, where the ‫ א‬comes rather close but not quite. 50 This applies even more to a ‫כ‬. The little stroke besides what could be a ‫ ו‬or a ‫ י‬could also suggest another ‫ ו‬or ‫י‬, or a ‫ה‬. Less likely is the left edge of an ‫א‬ which could render ‫[או‬ ֯ ‫ אל ̇יג]ע בזב זוב‬. . . , resulting in smooth syntax and good sense, but the lower left stroke of an ‫ א‬in this fragment almost always protrudes further to the left than its upper corner and of this we find no trace. 51 We would then need something like ‫ בזב או בכליו‬or ‫בזב ובגדיו‬. While clothes figure elsewhere in the close context they do so mainly as objects to wash. However, fragment 2 ii 4–7 discusses touching semen as well as clothes and vessels in contact with it.


65

according to Baumgarten. While it is reasonable to supply ‫זב )את( זוב‬ from Lev 15:33, none of the allusions are exact quotations, and I would suggest the conjecture ‫בזו[בו‬ ֯ ‫אל ̇יג]ע בזב‬, which is enough to fill the lacuna. This phrase would describe an “active” zav with language analogous to the subsequent “active” menstruant (‫)בדוה בנדתה‬. For further discussion and an interpretation of the initial niddah blood, see below. line 8 The choice between Eisenman and Wise’s ‫שב‬ ֯ ‫יח‬ ֯ and Milik’s ‫שר‬ ֯ ‫וא‬ ֯ is difficult; the former is followed by Wacholder and Abegg and García Martínez and Tigchelaar, while Baumgarten and Milgrom follow the latter.52 However, I think the remnants of the second letter belong to a ‫ ח‬rather than an ‫א‬. What remains of the right stroke is long enough to suggest a straight vertical line, which would be very exceptional in an ‫ ;א‬hence the reading ‫“( יחשב‬is considered,” nipʿal ). This makes good sense if one follows Eisenman and Wise in inserting the preposition ‫ ל‬before ‫נוגע בו‬. In view of the diversity in size and shape of ‫ ל‬elsewhere in the fragment, the letter may be fitted in along the vertical crack in the leather. The lack of any remaining traces may be explained by this crack, which has caused a total erasure of several letters on other lines as well. For the next phrase, ‫ואם ֯ת ֯צ]א מאיש[ ֯שכבת הזרע‬, I follow Baumgarten’s modification in DJD 35 of Milik’s reconstruction (‫ מאיש‬instead of ‫)ממנו‬.53 Although the phrase is another echo from Lev 15:32 (‫ואשר תצא‬ ‫)ממנו שכבת־זרע‬, the semen emitter is introduced in Lev 15:16 as ‫איש כי‬ ‫תצא ממנו שכבת זרע‬. None of the three allusions to Lev 15:32–33 in lines 7–8a are precise quotations, for example, ‫ שכבת הזרע‬is used rather than the biblical ‫שכבת זרע‬. We should thus expect a pragmatic paraphrase of the biblical expression when the semen emitter is introduced in this text. Reconstructing ‫ ממנו‬furthermore causes problems of reference, since there

52

Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 80; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:628; Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 59; Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 2; idem, DJD 35:100. 53 The latter is adopted by almost everyone else, except Eisenman and Wise, whose conjecture is too long for the lacuna (DSS Uncovered, 207).

66


is no suitable person around.54 The phrase, however, introduces a new figure, the semen emitter. Although the following words are differently reconstructed, most interpreters end up with similar translations. The letter before the lacuna is most probably a ‫ ה‬and to the left of the tear the extant ‫ וגע‬is preceded by a small dot at the bottom of the ‫ו‬, which has been taken as a trace of a preceding ‫נ‬, and by the likely remains of the top of a ‫ל‬. This makes Milik’s reconstruction (‫וכו[ל נ֯ וגע‬ ֯ ‫וטמא ̇ה]וא‬ ̇ ‫ )מגעו‬plausible55 and Baumgarten’s 56 unlikely (‫יטמא ̇ה]איש הנ[וגע‬ ̇ ‫)מגעו‬. The syntax of Milik’s suggestion is not smooth (a conditional clause followed by a nominal clause) but possible. The use of ‫ הוא‬may be inspired by the introduction to the biblical discharge laws (Lev 15:2). line 9 Milgrom suggests ‫ טה]רתם‬instead of ‫טה]רתו‬, ֯ which would eliminate the ambiguity regarding whose purification period is in question and refer to “all these unclean ones.” With ‫טה]רתו‬ ֯ the ambiguity remains, however. The reference could either be “anyone who touches” or “a person from all these unclean ones.” It is preferable to keep the ambiguity and let the context decide.

54

It cannot be the hypothetical one who touches blood or discharge, but must either refer to the one who is counting or to the zav in line 7. The latter has been suggested by Milgrom (“4QTohoraa,” 66–67) as well as by Harrington (Impurity Systems, 86–87), and has caused undue speculation about whether the zav defiles only when he has had a semen emission. Milgrom even makes a major point of this, understanding this surprisingly lenient rule as the “second innovation” of the text. This discussion is unnecessary, however, if we supply ‫איש‬, as pointed out by Baumgarten (DJD 35:102–3). 55 Cf. Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 80; Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 2. Milik’s suggestion is also followed by García Martínez and Tigchelaar (DSS Study Edition, 2:628). Milgrom’s reconstruction ignores the ‫ה‬ and does not have enough letters to fill the lacuna. 56 Baumgarten, DJD 35:101.


67

Column ii While only two letters remain on the first line, the context from i 9 demands ‫יא]כל‬. Apart from this, the only remains of column ii are found on line 2 (‫ישב‬ ֯ or ‫)ושב‬ ֯ and line 7 (‫)ו‬.

Discussion According to Milgrom, the text of the fragment describes three cases, each in which bathing and laundering is required after contact with a more severe kind of impurity (lines 3, 4–5 and 8–9).57 While I differ in details, a general division in three main sections is practical (1 i 1–4a, 4b–6, 7–9 & ii 1). Baumgarten suggests that the referent in the first section (i 1–4a) is a zav, because of the mention of bed and seat, as well as the following context. The cry “unclean, unclean” (Lev 13:45) is extended from the metzora to the zav, who is to be kept outside of the city and at a certain distance from other impurity bearers.58 Milgrom claims that the metzora is the subject, suggested by scriptural allusions to Lev 13 and by the requirement to live separate from others.59 He admits that the thought of pure food coming as close as twelve cubits from a banished “leper” makes no sense when he is supposed to be banished from towns altogether. Also, the demand for “lepers” to dwell north-west of habitations is thought to contradict the Temple Scroll explicitly, according to which “lepers” are assigned a special area east of the Temple city, similarly to dischargers (zavim) and semen emitters (11QT a XLVI 16–18).60 Since Baumgarten thinks that all this refers to the zav, these objections are less relevant to him. Nevertheless, with his reading “at a distance of twelve cubits from the purity when he speaks to him” it is not clear who is supposed to be speaking to whom (see note to line 2 above). And what 57

Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 65–68. Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 6–8; cf. DJD 35:87–88, 101–2. 59 Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 61, 65. Not least the use of “affliction” (‫ )נגע‬in line 4, so frequently used in Lev 13 for symptoms of tzara‘at, indicates that this is about the “leper.” 60 Ibid., 61–62. 58

68


is the point of stipulating a minimum distance to ‫( הטהרה‬pure food?) during conversation? I suggest that the text speaks of a purifying “leper,” i.e., what the rabbis called a mittaher. It is not a matter of expelling a “leper” to an area east of the city, as in the Temple Scroll. This text is about something entirely different; it gives instructions for how to handle a healed “leper” in the precarious in-between state subsequent to the bird rite and initial shaving, bathing and laundering, but prior to his final shaving, bathing and laundering on the seventh day and the asham and chattat sacrifices on the eighth day, i.e., during his seven-day purification period. Scripture rules that he can enter the camp, but not his “tent” (Lev 14:8). A number of unanswered details remain, however. For example, where is this person supposed to stay? In lines 1–2 we learn that a purifying “leper” must no longer come in contact with “all the impure,” nor yet come closer to what is pure than twelve cubits.61 He is not allowed into inhabited houses but is allowed to “sit” in a separate place associated with penitential activity, at this minimum distance from his house during the purifying period.62 The text provides important clarifications as to the status and behaviour of the purifying “leper.” An interpretation of ‫ באברו אליו‬as a special area, quarter or shelter associated with penitence, fits this general understanding, although even without it the instruction to live twelve cubits from any ordinary dwelling-house (‫ )בית מושב‬speaks for itself. Scripture’s general requirement that the purifying “leper” should stay within the settlement but out of his house is thus specified to a set distance. The point of alluding to Lev 13:46 (‫ )כול ימי היות בו הנגע‬is that this text provides an argument for an interpretation that severely restricts the “leper” during his purification period; in spite of being admitted into the “camp” he is considered unclean all the days of his affliction, i.e., until the eighth day. A similar concern with the status of the purifying “leper” is found in 4QMMT B 64–72. In that text the focus is solely on preventing purifying “lepers” from contact with what is pure, from entering their house and

61

It is possible that ‫ טהרה‬here as in some other texts found at Qumran refers to pure food (cf. 1QS V 13; VI 16; VIII 17). It is, however, not certain, and I prefer to leave the issue open, especially since it is not of crucial importance for my argument. 62 We may note that in rabbinic idiom, the yoledet in her second stage impurity is called a “sitter” (‫)יושבת‬.


69

from eating holy things until sunset on the eighth day.63 In 4Q274, continued contact with what is impure is considered just as problematic. It is not clear, however, who the unclean people in line 1b are. Here we find the first of three occurrences of the expression ‫כול הטמאים‬. While the most immediate understanding would be the fully impure, this interpretation fits the next occurrence (line 3) less well, where the expression ‫ איש מכול הטמאים‬more likely refers to other purifying impurity bearers. In lines 8–9 the reference is again ambiguous. We should not presuppose absolute consistency, but the context will have to decide. In line 1b it is reasonable to read the injunction to dwell separate from all the unclean to mean that the purifying “leper” should avoid contact with any impurity bearers, whether “full” or purifying. However, the following reference in line 3 to any man of all the unclean (‫)איש מכול הטמאים‬, can hardly refer to any impurity bearer if ‫ בו‬in “who touches him” is supposed to refer to the purifying “leper.” Why would a fully impure need to bathe after having touched a purifying person, in order to eat? Such an interpretation seems very unlikely, suggesting a context in which the fully impure were supposed to eat their food in purity. Unless we propose a different reconstruction of line 3 (see comment to line 3 above), we should understand ‫ איש מכול הטמאים‬as referring to any of the other purifying impurity bearers discussed in this fragment. A purifying zav, zavah, or menstruant is not supposed to touch a purifying “leper” and if this happens the person touching must bathe and wash his or her clothes before eating. The rationale would be that being almost pure, a purifying person would be supposed to eat food in relative purity. At the same time, not yet being fully pure such a person would still transmit a minor impurity by contact. Whith these presuppositions, one would need to address the situation that is presented here. The “leper” was generally considered to be the most severe case among the impurity bearers mentioned in this fragment.64 A similar logic is applied to the relative impurity of purifying impurity bearers. Purifying zavim or menstruants that are subsequently mentioned, are thus to be prevented from contact63

Cf. Martha Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,” DSD 8 (2001): 9–37 (24–25). 64 Cf. the rabbinic hierarchies of impurity collected in m. Kel. 1. Milgrom also assumes a hierarchy of impurities in 4Q274, with the effect that any impurity is increased by contact with a stronger impurity, but he takes the text as referring to the fully impure.

70


ing a purifying “leper,” lest their intermediate state be affected. While the purifying “leper” is in an intermediate state, too, his impurity is slightly higher than that of purifying dischargers. In the following section (i 4b–6), the woman discharging blood (‫ )הזבה דם‬is discussed. Baumgarten and Milgrom agree that this refers to the menstruant, pointing to the similar terminology in Lev 15:19.65 This may also be argued from the order in which various impurity bearers are mentioned in the version of the Damascus Document represented by the group of fragments 4Q266–273.66 In spite of the damaged text of 4Q266 6 i–ii, complemented by 4Q272 1 i–ii, which partly overlap, it is clear that the “leper”67 and the zav68 are followed by the menstruant69 and then by the yoledet.70 While this is persuasive the evidence is not conclusive. Our text does not necessarily follow the same order, nor does it have the

65

Baumgarten, “Laws about Fluxes,” 5; Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 62. It is true that the text of Lev 15:19 may be subdivided in different ways; it is possible to read ‫( ואשה כי תהיה זבה‬and when a woman is discharging), followed by ‫דם יהיה‬ ‫( זבה בבשרה‬her discharge in her flesh is blood). This cannot be the reading presupposed by the text in 4Q274, however, since it keeps together ‫ הזבה‬and ‫ דם‬in alluding to Lev 15:19. 66 Cf. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin,” 16–26. For overviews of the 4QD documents and their relationship to the CD, see Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Cecilia Wassén, Women in the Damascus Document (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 19–44. For a recent new reconstruction and translation of these texts, see Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (STDJ 56; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Wacholder understands the sequence of the categories here to follow the order of the Temple Scroll (11QT a XLVIII 15). See pp. 269–74. 67 ‫( הצרעת‬in 4Q266 6 i 13); see 4Q266 6 i 1–13 and 4Q272 1 i 1–ii 2. 68 ‫( הזב את זובו‬in 4Q266 6 i 14); see 4Q266 6 i 14 and 4Q272 1 ii 3–7. 69 ‫( הזבה דם שב]עת ימים‬in 4Q272 1 ii 8); see 4Q266 6 ii 1–4 and 4Q272 1 ii 7–17. It is possible to argue that the zavah is discussed between the menstruant and the yoledet (4Q266 6 ii 2a–4; cf. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin, 20–21), but this rather seems as an occasional case of irregular bleeding outside of normal periods, included in the instructions about menstruants. 70 ‫( אשה אשר] תזרי[ע וילדה‬in 4Q266 6 ii 5); see 4Q266 6 ii 5–13.


71

same focus.71 The expression might possibly include a zavah during her seven-day purification period,72 but since the purifying zavah is addressed together with the purifying zav in the following section, the most probable conclusion is that the menstruant is in focus in lines 4–6. During her seven-day purification period, which begins at the onset of menstruation, she is not allowed, according to the text, to touch any type of zav or zavah impurity, since that would incur a more severe type of impurity. At the same time, the purifying menstruant may not mingle with pure people but must avoid contaminating them. Her intermediate state of impurity is lower than that of other purifying dischargers, but she still contaminates the fully pure. In the subsequent section (i 7–ii 1) the purifying discharger, whether zav or zavah, is specifically addressed. Although the wording on several points alludes to the summary in Lev 15:32–33, it is clear that those in focus here are purifying dischargers, or possibly any purifying impurity bearer. “One who counts” may neither touch a zav, nor a zavah. However, the prohibition is given a condition that may seem strange. Baumgarten translates: “unless she was purified of her [unclean]liness.”73 Milgrom’s rendering is similar: “unless she is purified from her me[nses].”74 But why does anyone want to add “unless she is purified”? It should be self-evident that a menstruant who is purified is no longer a menstruant, but clean, and could thus be touched.

71

I.e., it does not provide general rules for impurity bearers, but special rules for intermediate states of impurity. 72 In Lev 15:25 the latter is called ‫אשה כי יזוב זוב דמה ימים רבים‬, which reminds of ‫ אשה זבה דם לימים רבים‬in line 6 of our text. At first sight, then, the two categories seem to be kept apart, but we should perhaps allow for the possibility that ‫ הזבה דם‬could be used generically for all female dischargers, only that it is supplemented by ‫ ימים רבים‬in line 6 to indicate an irregular condition. The phrase ‫ הזבה דם לשבעת הימים‬of line 4 could thus be taken to include a purifying zavah during her seven-day purification period together with the menstruant. From a perspective of graded impurity and purification the two share a similar status; both are in a sort of in-between state. The syntax of line 4 is ambiguous, however, since the words ‫ לשבעת הימים‬may be taken together with the following injunction not to touch; in Lev 15:19 these words most probably belong to what follows. 73 Baumgarten, DJD 35:101. 74 Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 60.

72


Although reconstructed in part, the reconstruction is supplied from Lev 15:33 and close attention should be paid to the details of the text. In the sentence ‫בזו[בו בדוה בנדתה‬ ֯ ‫ אל ̇יג]ע בזב‬the zav is not a purifying zav, but an “active” discharger. Purifying people, purifying dischargers in particular, who count off their seven days before full purity, must not touch an “active” zav, i.e., one who is still discharging an unclean emission. Such a person is fully impure and should not be contacted by purifying people. He will not begin his purificatory seven-day period until his discharge has ceased. If the subsequent phrase (‫ )בדוה בנדתה‬is understood in analogy, it would refer to a “full” or an “active” menstruant. The menstruant differs, however, from the zav, by entering her purificatory period immediately. In what sense, then, could we envisage a menstruant that has not yet begun to purify? Is there a difference between a menstrual state of “full” impurity and an intermediate one during the purificatory period? In Samaritan halakah a clear difference is made between niddå blood and dā˚bå blood. The former refers to the initial bleeding, which is considered more virulent, and has to be washed off before the counting of days can start. It contaminates with a seven-day impurity and continues to do so if the woman does not wash. The latter refers to continued bleeding after washing and contaminates with a one-day impurity, i.e., one that can be dealt with by bathing and waiting until evening.75 While Samaritan texts as we have them are relatively late, there is reason to believe that the halakah often has more ancient roots. During the Second Temple period an initial first day ablution for the corpse-impure, peeling off one layer of impurity, is attested. Evidence for such a practice comes not only from texts found at Qumran, but from a number of Jewish sources of various origins. It is reflected in Tobit and in Philo. Both Josephus and the Gospel of John imply that people came to Jerusalem one week in advance of Passover for purification, which fits with a requirement for an additional first day ablution.76 75

Kitâb aṭ-Ṭubâkh [2–15]; Kitâb al-Kâfi XI [48–60, 84–87], XIII [13–18], in I. Ruairidh M. Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah (SJLA 38; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 141, 149–51, 154. Cf. Bóid’s comments, 198–205, 231, 235–36. 76 11QT a XLIX 16–21; L 13–16; 1QM XIV 2–3; 4Q414 2 ii, 3, 4, line 2; Tobit 2:5, 9; Spec. Laws 1.261; 3.205–206; Josephus, J.W. 6.290; John 11:55; cf. 12:1. A first day purification rite may even be implied in Ezek 44:26–26. Some of this evidence will be discussed in more detail below. For further discussion and references to secondary literature, see Thomas Kazen, “Concern, Custom


73

An additional first day ablution made it possible for corpse-impure people to remain within towns, even in the eyes of those following a strict practice. Historical evidence suggests that menstruants were similarly allowed within ordinary cities. While the Temple Scroll seems to include them with other dischargers outside of settlements in general, Josephus envisages menstruants within Jerusalem, although in some kind of seclusion, which means that he cannot think of them as expelled from ordinary towns. Rabbinic texts seem to exclude the menstruant from the Temple mount only.77 These pieces of evidence stretch over a long time period and represent varying degrees of strictness, but for a historical picture of actual practice at the end of the Second Temple period, we must in this case give priority to Josephus.78 Without some kind of analogy to a first day ablution for the corpse-impure, the inclusion of menstruants would have been an inconsistency. I suggest that 4Q274 attests to an initial purificatory practice similar to what is later attested in Samaritan halakah, i.e., a first day ablution for menstruants.79 The idea of some sort and Common Sense: Handwashing and Graded Purification,” in Jesus as Restoration Prophet: Engaging the Work of E. P. Sanders (ed. Robert L. Webb and Mark Goodacre; LNTS 372; New York: T&T Clark, 2011, forthcoming). 77 11QT a XLVIII 14–17; Ant. 3.261; J.W. 5.227; Ag. Ap. 2.103; m. Kel. 1:8. See below for further discussion of some of this evidence. 78 While Josephus is sometimes thought to talk of an ideal at the time of Moses rather than reflecting contemporary practice (E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies [London: SCM, 1990], 157; Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 36), or to reflect legal interpretations of the aristocratic priesthood (Sanders, Jewish Law, 160), I am more inclined to trust Josephus than the fairly utopian Temple Scroll or the schematic lists in m. Kelim for actual practice. Although I have no problems in envisaging more lenient practices, especially in ordinary towns and villages, Josephus probably reflects a general “expansionist” tendency that did not lack influence and sometimes was able to set the agenda. 79 In Samaritan halakah we encounter a further peculiarity: the left hand used for washing off the first blood is seen to remain in a more virulent state of impurity than other parts of the body, i.e., transmitting a seven-day impurity like the first blood (Kitâb al-Kâfi XIII [19–21, 29–30] in Bóid, Principles, 154). While the context is one of childbirth, the text has—at least by some—been understood as a reference to a general principle regarding the hand used for washing off the niddå blood (marginal note IV to the text, in Bóid, Principles, 196). Cf. Bóid’s

74


of initial purification for dischargers in addition to the corpse-impure has been suggested both by Milgrom and Baumgarten and will be discussed further below. Since the purification period of the menstruant was counted from the beginning of her bleeding, not from the end,80 as in the case of the zav and the zavah, it was only logical to assume that the initial bleeding had somehow contaminated her with a seven-day impurity and that its contamination potential was higher than the bleeding during subsequent days. If so, this bleeding needed to be removed. In 4Q274, purifying people are thus warned not to touch a menstruant unless this initial purification has been carried out.81 The juxtaposition with an “active” zav suggests an analogy, which is made explicit in the motivation that follows: “for behold, niddah blood is considered like a discharge [to] the one touching it.” While the menstruant is below the zav and the zavah in an ordinary hierarchy of graded impurities, the first blood is an exception. To touch such a person for one who is purifying, is just as contaminating as touching an “active” zav. In the following sentence the semen emitter is suddenly introduced. The comment is very short, only stating that when semen goes forth from a man his touch is defiling. One possible reason why the semen emitter turns up at this point is that he, too, could be thought of as the bearer of comments, 244, 281. Possibly, some similar notion may lay behind 4Q272 1 ii 17, where in a context of purification of zavah and menstrual impurity “her hand” (‫)ידה‬ ֯ is mentioned. The text is fragmentary, to say the least, and no decisive reconstruction and interpretation is possible. Line 17 cannot, however, reasonably refer to a general washing of hands (plural) as in the case of the zav, but must be a special case, because “her hand” is mentioned in the singular. 80 In later rabbinic practice the seven days were added to the menstrual period. The beginning of this development can be seen in b. Nid. 66a. While this increased stringency was neither self-evident, nor generally accepted in Talmudic times, the menstruant in the end came to be equalled with the zavah gedolah. For details, see Tirẓah Meacham (leBeit Yoreh), “An Abbreviated History of the Development of the Jewish Menstrual Laws,” in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law (ed. R. R. Wasserfall; Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1999), 23–39 (29–32); idem, “Appendix” in ibid., 255–60 (255–56). 81 Some similar understanding is possibly indicated by the translation of García Martínez and Tigchelaar: “And the one who counts (one’s seven days), whether male or female, should not to[uch . . . ] . . . at the onset of her menstruation.” García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:629.


75

an intermediate type of impurity, just like all the preceding categories. 4Q274 1 lists purifying “lepers,” the menstruant who begins her purification period at the onset of her menstruation when she washes off the first blood, zavim, whether male or female, during their period of purification and, also, the semen emitter, whose impurity lasts for one or three days only.82 I do not think, however, that the purpose here is to discuss the semen emitter as a new category. His case and the way he defiles is discussed at length in frg. 2 i. In the context of frg. 1, however, the semen emitter should rather be understood as a complement to the two previously mentioned cases of unclean persons that must not be contacted by those in an intermediate purifying status. The semen emitter should in particular be compared to the menstruant who has not yet purified herself from her initial niddah bleeding. The text states that one who is counting will be just as defiled by contact with a menstruant in her initial impurity as by contact with an “active” zav, since the initial blood is just as contaminating as a discharge. This begs for one further question: what about the semen emitter who does not require a seven-day purification period? He is clearly below the other dischargers in a hierarchy of impurities. Does he still defile a purifying person as much as the previous two cases? The answer is yes, he does. It may be objected that in the previous cases people are warned not to touch someone that might contaminate them, whereas in the case of the semen emitter the perspective is reversed; the text explicitly talks of his touch as defiling. A reversibility is, however, implied for the purifying

82

According to biblical law, the semen emitter is impure for one day only (Lev 15:16–17). The utopian Temple Scroll (11QT a XLV 7–8) prohibits the semen emitter from entering the Temple area for three days. The same time limit applies to a man who had intercourse (XLV 11–12), and concerns the whole Temple city (‫)עיר המקדש‬. This extension of biblical law is probably based on Exod 19:10–15 and is modelled on ideas of the war camp. We cannot conclude from this that semen emitters were generally considered impure for three days by the circles responsible for this text, although this is possible. Cf. Harrington, Impurity Systems, 91–94; Werrett, Ritual Purity, 156–59. In any case, the semen emitter and the way he contaminates is elsewhere compared with or adapted to the rules regarding the zav or the menstruant (4Q272 1 ii 4–5; 4Q274 2 i), which makes Werrett suggest that “the defiling power of semen has been intensified beyond that of the Torah” (ibid., 283).

76


“leper,” too, since he must keep at a distance, and the menstruant must similarly avoid mixing with others that are more pure than she is. One implication of our interpretation of the text’s argument is that no distinction is made between touching and being touched. Although such distinctions are sometimes resorted to in order to explain seeming discrepancies in the text, this is not necessary.83 To the rabbis, touching and being touched was basically regarded the same,84 which is best explained as the result of an equalizing tendency in Second Temple Judaism, in which systemic readings and interpretations were sought for.85 While we cannot and should not expect systemic consistency in all purity texts found at Qumran, as they may be of diverse origin and reflect an extended period of development,86 the equalling of touching and being touched is likely a general development towards the end of the Second Temple period. In the last part of the third section we find another occurrence of ‫( כול הטמאים‬lines 8–9). Here we have to decide whether ‫אדם מכול‬ ‫ הטמאים האלה‬refers to the purifying or to the fully impure. Furthermore, the ambiguous ‫( טהרתו‬line 9) could either refer back to “anyone who touches” or to “a person from all these unclean ones.” We are faced with four possible meanings: (1) Any person (a pure person) must not touch a purifying impurity bearer during the latter’s period of purification; (2) A purifying impurity bearer must not touch another purifying impurity bearer during the latter’s period of purification; (3) A purifying impurity bearer must not touch another purifying impurity bearer during the former’s period of purification; (4) A purifying impurity bearer must not touch a fully impure during the former’s period of purification. Although the expression “all the impure” (‫ )כול הטמאים‬in lines 8–9 is ambiguous, it is qualified with the demonstrative ‫האלה‬, reasonably identifying “all the impure” with those cases that were just discussed: the “active” zav, the not-yet-purifying menstruant and the semen emitter. This speaks for the fourth alternative. The end of line 8 together with line 9 summarize the third section, which addresses “the one who counts.” “Anyone who touches” during his purification refers to the same category that is introduced in line 7, i.e., purifying impurity bearers during their 83

Cf. Harrington, Impurity Systems, 86. m. Zabim 5:1, 6. 85 Thomas Kazen, “Explaining Discrepancies in the Purity Laws on Discharges,” RB 115 (2007): 348–71 (350–53). 86 Cf. Werrett, Ritual Purity, particularly the concluding discussion, 302–4. 84


77

seven-day period, in particular purifying dischargers. Our interpretation thus fits the structure of the text. It is admittedly precarious to talk of a text’s structure when dealing with a fragment. We can only guess as to what preceded frg. 1. Fragment 2 i deals with purification, in particular cases of semen contamination. Fragment 2 ii and 3 seem to be focused on impure foodstuff. It has become clear, however, that frg. 1 deals with various types of lessened or intermediate states of impurity: the purifying “leper,” the menstruant, and those who count, presumably purifying dischargers. These people must avoid contact with that which is pure as well as that which is impure. The text implies a hierarchy also of intermediate impurities in which contact must be avoided with impurities higher than one’s own. This is in line with the first of the three “innovative teachings” claimed by Milgrom.87 It is possible to argue that the real focus of each of the three sections in the text is on purification and eating, i.e., on what Milgrom calls the “third innovation” of this text. The requirement to bathe and wash one’s clothes is repeated with regard to the one who touches a purifying “leper,” the menstruant who touches a zav and a zavah, and any purifying person who touches any of the three “active” categories in lines 7–8. People in an intermediate state of purity are clearly expected to eat their food in some sort of supposedly intermediate purity. To eat in purity is apparently the primary, although not the sole, reason for the careful and detailed rules in this text. Not defiling “the camps of the holy ones of Israel” is one reason for not mixing with pure people, but the warning against contracting further impurity is motivated by the purity of food.

First-day Ablutions and Graded Impurity In 4Q274 1 i 9, the prohibition against eating before initial purification is compared to the rules for corpse-impure persons. As already mentioned, an initial ablution for the corpse-impure seems to have been widely practiced during the Second Temple period and probably served the function

87

For Milgrom’s suggestions, see above under “Previous Research.” Cf. Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 66.

78


of allowing the corpse-impure to stay within settlements during their purificatory period.88 According to i 9, however, early purification had a further function for the corpse-impure; it made it possible to eat food in purity. Since the text of 4Q274 1 requires other purifying impurity bearers to bathe and wash their clothes, too, when they had acquired a further impurity, in order to be able to eat in purity, we might be justified to expect similar purificatory water rites as they entered their period of purification. Several interpreters have suggested an understanding of impurity as consisting of multiple layers that may be “peeled away” one by one through various purification rites. Milgrom discussed a graded understanding of impurity in an early study on the Temple Scroll, with a view to admission to and exclusion from the temple city and ordinary cities.89 He later repeated part of the study with a complement, this time with a focus on early purification as a requirement for eating.90 Milgrom finds his earlier conclusions confirmed by 4Q514, which he claims “deals exclusively with the zāb,”91 and suggests that he, too, was obliged to bathe and laun88

In a recent review of the archaeological evidence from miqvaot adjacent to burial grounds, Yonatan Adler argues that these were not used for first-day ablutions in cases of a seven-day corpse impurity, but for mourners that had contracted a one-day impurity from contact with other corpse-impure people. Adler somewhat confusingly talks of a first-degree and second-degree impurity for a seven-day and a one-day corpse impurity respectively, in spite of the fact that in rabbinic terminology as well as in modern scholarly discourse, a numbering of degrees or “removes” is often employed for one-day impurities only, and not including the “fathers of impurity.” While Adler may be right that these miqvaot were (also) used by many mourners who had contracted a one-day rather than a seven-day impurity, he simply omits or disregards the full range of textual evidence relevant to the Second Temple period, in his dismissal of a first-day immersion as a merely sectarian phenomenon. Yonatan Adler, “Ritual Baths Adjacent to Tombs: An Analysis of the Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic Sources,” JSJ 40 (2009): 55–73. 89 Jacob Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 501–23 (512–18). 90 Jacob Milgrom, “First Day Ablutions in Qumran,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 561–70. 91 Ibid., 566.


79

der his clothes at the beginning of his purification in order to eat, although not yet the pure food, but the common food of the community. This would have been done in emulation of the “leper” (Lev 14) and taking Lev 22 (prohibiting the eating of sacred foods in a state of impurity) as a precedent.92 Baumgarten has similarly dealt with the issue. In a study of 4Q512 and 4Q514 he suggests that at least the latter text indicates that dischargers were supposed to begin their purification in order to eat non-sacred food in purity. “Immersion was required before meals even during a person’s period of impurity in order to remove the primary degree of ritual uncleanliness.”93 In DJD 35, Esther Eshel suggests that the mention of the first, third and seventh days in 4Q414 2 ii, 3, 4, line 2, reveals the same outlook as 11QT a regarding immersion on the first day, but she argues that 4Q414 might deal with other types of impurities than corpse impurity.94 It is reasonable to follow Milgrom and suggest that a graded understanding of impurity, including a first day ablution for corpse impurity, in part developed from the biblical legislation concerning the “leper.”95 According to Lev 14, the purifying “leper” goes through three stages: the bird rite followed by washing of clothes, shaving and bathing on the first day, a second shaving, washing of clothes and bathing on the seventh day and, finally, sacrifices together with the rite of smearing oil and blood on the former “leper” on the eighth day. These stages were recognized by the Rabbis and defined and associated with corresponding grades of impurity

92

See also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 969–76, 991–1000, for further discussion about first day ablutions and intermediate levels of impurity. 93 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 199–209 (208). 94 Eshel, DJD 35:135–53. 95 Cf. Tobit, who enters his courtyard but sleeps outside of his house after having contracted corpse-impurity and subsequently undergone a first day ablution (Tob 2:9), similarly to the purifying “leper” in our interpretation of 4Q274. Manuscript evidence exhibit a number of variant readings here, perhaps due to varying halakic practices; cf. Bóid, Principles, 321–22.

80


(m. Neg. 14:2–3).96 They are then said to be similar to three stages of purification for the yoledet. It is also reasonable to see a graded understanding of impurity and purification as a general framework towards the end of the Second Temple period.97 Such a framework may explain why the corpse-impure are not expected to stay outside of settlements according to a number of texts from the Second temple period that otherwise assume or require the expulsion not only of “lepers,” but also of dischargers, in line with the strict tradition of Num 5:2–3. In Ant. 3.261, Josephus makes a difference between “lepers” and zavim on the one hand whom Moses expelled (ἀπήλασε) from the city (i.e., Jerusalem), and menstruants and the corpse-impure on the other, whom he set aside (μετέστησε) until day seven after which they were allowed to live in their place (ἐνδημεῖν).98 Philo, when discussing purification after contact with a corpse, suggests that while the corpseimpure were excluded from the temple for seven days, mere bathing and washing of clothes sufficed for other purposes (Spec. Laws 1.261; 3.205– 206). Even the Temple Scroll that takes a “maximalist” stance and excludes the corpse-impure from the Temple city (‫ )עיר המקדש‬for the whole period (11QT a XLV 17),99 does not require their expulsion from ordinary cities, 96

I.e., ‫( טמא בביאה‬impurity of entry), ‫( טמא כשרץ‬impurity like a “swarmer”), and ‫( טבול יום‬tevul yom). The third stage is then further specified: after shaving and immersing on the seventh day the purifying “leper” may eat second tithe, after sundown he may eat terumah and after the final sacrifice he may eat qodashim. 97 Cf. Eyal Regev, “Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 31 (2000): 176–202 (177–86). Regev talks of “gradual purification” (179). 98 While it is true that μεθίστημι could be taken to mean “remove from one place to another,” Josephus elsewhere expresses a difference between “lepers” and dischargers, for whom the whole city was closed, and menstruants, who were only excluded (ἀπεκέκλειστο) from the temple ( J.W. 5.227). Also, in Ag. Ap. 2.103 he says that women could not enter the outer court during menstruation. 99 Although in 11QT a XLV 15–18 only the zav is explicitly said to have to count seven days before entering the Temple city, the subsequent instructions concerning the “leper” and the corpse-impure (‫ )לוא יבואו לה עד אשר יטהרו‬must be understood as abbreviated and implying the same requirements as those applying to the zav. The phrase cannot be taken to mean that only a first day ablution was needed for entrance, since for the “leper,” the concluding sacrifice is said to follow the act of purification (11QT a XLVIII 18); it must thus refer to the full


81

but allows them within, after a first day ablution, which is described as part of the standard procedures (11QT a XLIX 16–21).100 Although the Temple Scroll is partly utopian, it is not a sectarian text; it represents ideals that belonged to a wider expansionist tendency.101 Later, the rabbis of the Mishnah seemingly think of the corpse-impure as even allowed within the court of gentiles (m. Kel. 1:8). Here, we must reckon with a first day ablution, lessening the power of corpse impurity, as taken for granted, just as such a rite may explain the presence of the corpse-impure person within the ordinary city of the stricter Temple Scroll. Thus there is every reason to regard a first day water rite for the corpseimpure as common practice at the end of the Second Temple period. This rite did not shorten the duration of their seven-day impurity, but somehow lessened its strength. Without it, the presence of corpse-impure people would be an anomaly in any context that otherwise followed the strict tradition of Num 5 with regard to zavim and “lepers,” since they are the third category that should be expelled from the “camp.” Josephus is not alone in placing zavim together with “lepers” outside, while the corpseimpure are envisaged within; the Temple Scroll does so, too, although not for Jerusalem, as in Josephus, but with regard to the ordinary city (11QT a XLVIII 14–17).102

seven day ritual. There are a number of competing interpretations of the “temple city” and the problem partly depends on how the temple area was defined by various groups and at various times. The outline of ten degrees of holiness in the land of Israel that is attested later (m. Kel. 1:6–9) suggests a complicated development. 100 Cf. 11QT a L 10–16; 1QM XIV 2–3. 101 Cf. Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 88, 92–93. 102 The text of 11QT a XLVIII 14–17 is admittedly ambiguous. The preposition ‫ ב‬may point to the presence of both “lepers” and dischargers within ordinary cities (‫)ובכול עיר ועיר‬, but this cannot be the case for “lepers,” since the purpose of making special places for them is to prevent them from entering the cities and defiling them (‫)אשר לוא יבואו לעריכמה וטמאום‬. “In every city” must hence include the surrounding country. The purpose with a similar treatment (–‫ )גם ל‬of male and female dischargers, menstruants and parturients is, however, to prevent them from “defiling in their midst” (‫)אשר לוא יטמאו בתוכם‬. This could possibly mean that these dischargers were supposed to be secluded within settlements, but the most natural reading is that they, too, were supposed to stay outside.

82


First day Ablutions for Dischargers Josephus’ differentiation between “lepers” and zavim on the one hand and menstruants and the corpse-impure on the other is significant.103 It does fit with suggestions about an initial first day water rite not only for the corpse-impure but also for purifying dischargers, at least for menstruants. I am inclined to include the yoledet here as well; she is in many respects likened to the menstruant in biblical as well as in rabbinic legislation, and her stages of purification are likened to those of the mittaher (purifying “leper”), which include a first day ablution (m. Neg. 14:2–3). Since a homogenizing tendency is at work towards the end of the Second Temple period, we might even expect all impurity bearers with a similar (sevenday) contamination potency, i.e., all those “counting,” to have been treated alike. This seems to be implied in the fragment 4Q514 1 i, referred to both by Milgrom and Baumgarten: 1 . . . [. . .] a woman [. . .] 2 he must not eat [. . .] for all the im[pu]re [. . .] 3 to count for [him seven days of ablu]tions; and he shall bathe and wash (his clothes) on the d[a]y of [his] purification [. . . And] 4 who[ever] has not begun to purify himself of “his spri[ng]” is not to eat, [nor shall he eat] 5 in his original impurity. And all the temporarily impure, on the day of their pur]ification, shall bathe 6 and wash (their clothes) in water and they will be pure. Blank Afterwards, they shall eat their bread in conformity with the regulation of [pu]rity. 7 He is not to eat insolently in his original impurity, whoever has not started to cleanse himself from “his spring”, 8 nor shall he eat any more during his original impurity. All the temporarily [im]pure, on the day of 9 their pu[rification,] shall bathe and wash (their clothes) in water and they will be pure and afterwards they shall eat their bread 10 in conformity with the reg[ulation. No-]one is to [e]at or drink with anyo[ne] who prepares 11 [. . .] . . . in the [ser]vice [. . .]104

103

Cf. Vered Noam, “Impurity and Sanctity in Josephus and in Rabbinic Halakhah: The Exclusion of Impure Persons from Holy Precincts.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Boston, November 22–25, 2008. 104 Translation in García Martínez and Tigchelaar DSS Study Edition, 2:1043, 1998 ed. In the 2000 rev. ed. “original” is replaced by “primary” in lines 5 and 7,


83

The text is repetitive and one may suspect “extensive dittography.”105 According to Milgrom, “the first day ablution allows the person to eat from the common food of the community.”106 There is some uncertainty as to the interpretation of the text, however. While the “temporally impure” (‫ )טמאי הימים‬refer to purifying impurity bearers during their seven day purification period (including dischargers), and the “original impurity” (‫ )בטמאתו הרישנה‬of which a person must begin to purify himself before eating must refer to the beginning of the seven day purification period, bathing takes place on “the day of his/their purification” (‫ם‬/‫)ביום טהרתו‬. The meaning of this phrase is unclear; does it refer to the first or the final day of the purificatory process? Since washing and eating are linked here as in many texts found at Qumran, it is plausible to take “the day of purification” as the first day of the seven-day period, not least in view of this text’s emphasis on beginning purification.107 It is best to understand the one who has not begun to purify from his spring as a semen emitter,108 who is distinct from “all the temporally impure” (‫)טמאי הימים‬.109 The text seems to address two categories; both semen emitters and every other purifying impurity bearer (which includes purifying dischargers in general) must undergo an initial first day ablution before they can eat. It may be necessary to specify this, since semen emitters are lower in the hierarchy of impurities than other dischargers. The text is thus evidence for an initial purificatory rite for dischargers in general, to enable them to eat in some intermediate state of purity although not in line 8. The variation between “begun” and “started” (lines 4 and 7) for ‫ החל‬in both editions is inconsistent. 105 Baumgarten, “Purification Rituals,” 204. 106 Milgrom, “4QTohoraa,” 67. 107 It might be possible to understand the initial purification that is necessary for the temporally impure in order not to eat in their original impurity as something else than a first day water rite (but what would it be then?), separate from a bathing on the “the day of purification.” This seems too far-fetched, however. 108 The term ‫“( מקור‬source,” “spring”) is elsewhere found in the war camp regulations of the War Scroll (1QM VII 6) and definitely alludes to Deut 23:9–11, which prohibits a semen emitter from staying inside the war camp. The allusion is certain since the subsequent line (VII 7) about the location of latrines corresponds to the following verses (23:12–14) in Deuteronomy. 109 In biblical legislation, ‫ מקור‬is used with regard to the menstruant and the yoledet, but not for irregular bleeding (Lev 12:7; 20:18). Similarly, the term is used positively for the source of male seed in Prov 5:18.

84


during their seven-day purificatory period, and most probably this is what is referred to as bathing and laundering on “the day of his/their purification.” With 4Q514 in mind we can return to 4Q274 1. In both texts dischargers are particularly in focus and in both texts the special case of the semen emitter is deemed necessary to address separately. While the point in 4Q514 is that purifying people must bathe at the beginning of their period of purification in order to eat, 4Q274 1 states that such people must also bathe during their period of purification, if they happen to contact someone with a higher degree of impurity, in order to eat. This is said to be similar to what applies to the corpse-impure (i 9) and it is difficult to believe that the comparison is valid only for bathing during one’s purificatory period and not at the beginning. Moreover, the phrase “whoever has not begun to purify himself from ‘his spring’ ” (‫ )אשר לא החל לטהור ממקרו‬in 4Q514 1 i 4, 7 is somewhat comparable to the phrase “unless she is pure from her niddah bleeding” (‫]נד[תה‬ ̇ ‫ )כי אם טהרה ֯מ‬in 4Q274 1 i 7. The former explicitly refers to an initial purification of the semen emitter.110 I have argued that the latter refers to an initial purification of the menstruant. One is relative and the other conditional, but their intent is similar: purification (‫ )טהר‬from (‫)מ־‬ contamination by semen and niddah blood respectively. A parallel reading of 4Q514 1 i thus supports my interpretation of 4Q274 1 i. Baumgarten has argued for a general use of “purification water” (‫ )מי נדה‬in Qumran, not only for removing corpse impurity but for all sorts of impurities.111 He refers to 4Q277 1 ii 8–9, where the sprinkling of purification water is said to effect purification from corpse impurity and “any other impurity,” which is followed by a discussion of the zav (lines 10–12).112 The translation “any other impurity” is uncertain, however, due to the fragmentary state of the text ([. . . ‫ )אחרת ]ומכל טמאה‬and although Baumgarten suggests that it is the sprinkling that effects purification from corpse-impurity and other impurities, an alternative reading would be that other impurities must be removed by immersion before 110

Cf. the use of the same verb (‫ חלל‬hi.) for the beginning of penitential prayers belonging to the initial stage of the purifying “leper” in 4Q274 1 i 1. 111 Baumgarten, DJD 35:83–87. This text is repeated in “The Use of ‫מי נדה‬ for General Purification,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 481–85. 112 Baumgarten, DJD 35:83.


85

sprinkling can effect purification from corpse impurity. Another piece of evidence is 4Q512 1–3, where sprinkling water is envisaged on the “temporarily impure,” which would include all sorts of purifying impurity bearers, but here the term ‫ מי נדה‬is not used. Baumgarten also refers to 4Q284 1, where “sprinkling water for purification” (‫]קד[ש‬ ̇ ‫להת‬ ֯ ‫)מי֯ נדה‬ ֯ 113 is followed by “seminal discharge” on the next line.114 A similar juxtaposition is found in 4Q274 2 i, where a first sprinkling (possibly on the third day?) and the seventh day are mentioned, followed by a discussion of semen emission.115 None of these texts are, however, unambiguous enough to conclude with any degree of certainty that the ‫ מי נדה‬was used for dischargers, and they do not refer particularly to an initial first-day water rite.116 Together with other, stronger evidence, however, they do suggest an “expansion of ritual washing to new uses not known in the Hebrew Bible.”117

Conclusions In this article I have argued that the text of 4Q274 1 does not discuss contact between impure people in general, but primarily deals with purifying people in intermediate states of impurity, and their contact with what is clean and unclean. The text presupposes a graded understanding of impurity and reflects the ambition to prevent people who are lower on the scale from contacting people who are subject to a higher degree of impurity. The text is thus evidence for developing hierarchies of impurities. I have given special attention to the status of the menstruant and suggested that the text expects her initial impurity to be mitigated by a 113

Ibid., 84. García Martínez and Tigchelaar reconstruct ‫מי נדה להזו]ת אי[ש‬ (DSS Study Edition, 2:638). In fact, in this phrase, only six letters are clearly visible in the fragment (‫ ש‬. . . . . . ‫)נדה לה‬, but ‫ מי‬is a likely conjecture although the remains are minimal. 114 Baumgarten, DJD 35:83–84. 115 Cf. Baumgarten, DJD 35:104. 116 This is even less the case with the list in 1QS III 4–5, which Baumgarten understands as indicating that sprinkling was used not only for corpse impurity. This passage may be read as thoroughly metaphorical, emphasizing that no possible purificatory rite can ever purify the wicked man. 117 Cf. Lawrence, Washing in Water, 189.

86


first day purificatory water rite, analogous to the biblical rule for purifying “lepers” and the developing practice of a first day ablution for the corpse-impure. I have argued that the referent in the first section is the purifying “leper” rather than the zav and that the penitential note suits such an interpretation well. The reason for the strict rules against contacting him is the biblical statement that he remains unclean all the days the affliction is on him. I have also tried to demonstrate that the zav in i 7 is not to be understood as a surprisingly lenient case, only defiling if/when he has a semen emission, but that the semen emitter in i 8 is a different case from the zav and that the point of the argument is that all three—the “active” zav, the menstruant before she has washed off her initial niddah blood, and the semen emitter—contaminate any purifying impurity bearer alike. There is convincing evidence that a first-day ablution for corpse impurity developed and became wide-spread practice during the Second Temple period. As has been pointed out before, this rite should be understood as mitigating the status of the corpse-impure, which explains the acceptance of such people within settlements and even within Jerusalem (except for the views of the stricter Temple Scroll ). In view of Josephus’ accounts and their relationship to the strict tradition in Num 5, it would be logical to expect a similar first-day water rite for menstruants; it could almost be seen as a “systemic necessity.” Some scholars have argued that certain texts from Qumran suggest that the use of water rites for the corpse-impure were being extended to dischargers. In particular, 4Q514 gives evidence for a first day ablution being employed for all purifying impurity bearers, i.e., not only “lepers” and the corpse-impure, but also various types of dischargers. I have suggested that this is not a sectarian development only, but that the menstruant (and probably the yoledet as well) employed a first-day water rite in order to lessen her initial state of impurity and that this represents a developing expansionist practice during the Second Temple period. It is attested in 4Q274 1 i 7–8, as I read it, and the date and character of the text give no reason for restricting this practice to a narrow sectarian environment only. Whether the practice of a first-day ablution was being extended to all purifying dischargers (as suggested in 4Q514) also outside of sectarian circles, may remain an open question. When the developing practise of initial purification in general is considered, it is usually related to questions of inclusion within and exclusion from society. The relevant texts from Qumran, however, have a different


87

focus on eating in purity. The requirement even for purifying people to eat common food in relative purity seems to be particular for the type of expansionist trajectory that finds expression in these texts, but a preoccupation with pure food is found elsewhere, too, in Second Temple society. The rabbinic solutions of tevul yom and hand-washing for secondary impurities, which presumably go back to Pharisaic developments, serve a similar function, and express increasing aspirations for purity not only among small circles of “associates,” but in larger segments of Second Temple society.118 The extension of first-day ablutions for initial purification, first to corpse-impure people and then to dischargers, not only in sectarian circles, but to some extent in other parts of society, thus served double purposes: social integration and eating in purity. A graded understanding of impurity not only caused halakic elaboration, but also provided solutions.

118

Kazen, “Concern, Custom and Common Sense,” forthcoming.


brill.nl/dsd

A New Suggestion for the Reconstruction of 4Q370 1 i 2 and the Blessing of the Most High (Elyon) in Second Temple Judaism1 Alex P. Jassen Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies, 216 Pillsbury Dr SE, 245 Nicholson Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA [email protected]

Abstract This article offers a new suggestion for restoring a lacuna in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript 4Q370 (Admonition Based on the Flood) and discusses its implications for the liturgical blessing of God in the Second Temple period. The first two lines of 4Q370 recount the expectation of human gratitude for the antediluvian agricultural abundance described in the text. Paraphrasing Deut 8:10, 4Q370 exhorts humans to eat, be sated, and bless. The extant text provides part of the direct object of the blessing—“the name of . . .”—followed by a short lacuna. Based on paleographic and comparative literary evidence, this article proposes that the lacuna should be reconstructed with the divine name “Most High” (‫)עליון‬. This paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 is part of a larger tradition of exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10 in Second Temple period post-meal thanksgiving prayers, in which the divine epithet “Most High” (‫ )עליון‬replaces the Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing. Keywords 4Q370, Deuteronomy 8:10, Names of God, “Most High God,” Jewish Liturgy, Grace after Meals 1

A version of this article was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies (Washington D.C.). Thank you to all those in attendance for their helpful feedback. Several colleagues were instrumental in lending their wisdom to this project either in answering queries or reading earlier drafts. Thank you to Aryeh Amihay, Moshe Bernstein, Raʿanan Boustan, Uri Ehlrich, Ariel Feldman, Bernard Levinson, Stefan Reif, Avi Shmidman, Jeffrey Stackert, and James VanderKam. I had occasion to view the manuscript of © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484541

A. P. Jassen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 88–113

89

1. Introduction 4Q370 is a fragmentary text that contains a retelling of portions of the biblical flood story, with particular emphasis on the reasons for the flood.2 The text asserts that God created the world in a state of agricultural bounty.3 In order for humans to enjoy this abundance, God required that they properly acknowledge its divine origins through thanksgiving and blessing. As the text continues, 4Q370 narrates how humans failed to fulfill this one obligation, but rather rebelled against God and were therefore punished with the flood.4 4Q370 while in Jerusalem in January 2009. Thank you to the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority for their helpful assistance and for making available to me the digital images that appear in the article. All errors or shortcoming of course remain my own. Hebrew Bible translations follow NJPS unless otherwise noted. 2 4Q370 is represented by one fragment with two columns. For the editio princeps, see Carol A. Newsom, “4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood,” RevQ 13/49–52 (1988): 23–43 (hereafter Newsom, “4Q370”); eadem, “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. Magen Broshi et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 85–97 (hereafter Newsom, “4QAdmonition”). Recent discussion of this text has focused on its exegetical elements (while often improving at places Newsom’s reconstruction): Ariel Feldman “The Reworking of the Biblical Flood Story in 4Q370,” Henoch 29 (2007): 31–49 = “Miqra ve-aggada be-qetaʿ tokhaḥa me-qumran (4Q370),” Meghillot 5–6 (2007; Dimant Volume): 219–36; Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies in Antiquity (SBLEJL 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 144–48; Alex P. Jassen, “Admonition Based on the Flood (4Q370),” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Not Included in Scripture (ed. Louis Feldman, James Kugel, and Lawrence Schiffman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society; forthcoming). A second fragment containing only the word “Israel” can be detected on the PAM photographs (43.369). Feldman, however, argues that this fragment likely does not come from the same manuscript as the larger fragment of 4Q370 (“Reworking,” 31–32). 3 The description of the ideal antediluvian conditions draws upon a passage in the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa XXVI 13). See Newsom, “4Q370,” 30–31; Feldman, “Reworking,” 33–34. 4 The second column draws upon this historical experience to admonish its audience to remain steadfastly obedient to God. On the relationship between the agricultural bounty and the human rebellion (and its relationship to related rabbinic traditions), see Newsom, “4Q370,” 32–33.

90


This article focuses on the first two lines of the text, which recount the expectation of human gratitude for the antediluvian agricultural abundance. Paraphrasing Deut 8:10, 4Q370 exhorts humans to eat, be sated, and bless. The extant text provides part of the direct object of the blessing—“the name of . . .”—followed by a short lacuna. Based on paleographic and comparative literary evidence, I propose that the lacuna should be reconstructed with the divine name “Most High” (‫)עליון‬. I further argue that the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 is part of a larger tradition of exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10 in Second Temple period postmeal thanksgiving prayers, in which the divine epithet “Most High” (‫ )עליון‬replaces the Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing.

2. The Lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 1–2 The divine imperative to humans to bless God on account of the agricultural abundance they have enjoyed is expressed in 4Q370 1 i 1–2: [ ] ‫יוכלו וישבעו כל אשר עשה רצוני אמר י]ה[וה ויברכו את שמ‬ The first part of this expression is easily rendered as: “‘Let all who do my will eat and be satisfied,’ said the L[o]rd.”5 In the second half of the construction, God demands blessing following human satiety. The extant text provides part of the direct object of the blessing—‫שמ‬. Unfortunately, a lacuna is found directly after the reference to “the name,” with little indication how to complete the clause. Since ‫ שמ‬is most likely definite (on account of the preceding ‫)את‬, it must be the nomen regens of a construct phrase.6 The physical evidence of the manuscript is frustratingly opaque regarding the reconstruction of the lacuna. There is a very small ink trace immediately following the lacuna, though little can be discerned regarding the letter that it represents. Accordingly, scholars have been forced to rely 5

Newsom, “4Q370,” 28; eadem, “4QAdmonition,” 91. The manuscript contains a relatively significant amount of blank space after ‫שמ‬, thus precluding the option of adding a possessive suffix (e.g., ‫)שמי‬. The use of nonfinal mem at the end of the word is not uncommon in Qumran orthography. See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 230–34. 4Q370 is inconsistent in its use of nonfinal and final mem. 6


91

upon context and appeal to related expressions in biblical and Second Temple literature in order to provide the nomen rectum of ‫שמ‬. Commentators on this text have noted that the entire construction represents a reformulation of Deut 8:10: ‫ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את יהוה אלהיך על הארץ הטבה אשר נתן לך‬ When you have eaten your fill, give thanks (lit. bless) to the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you. The three main verbs from the biblical verse are reused in 4Q370 in the same sequence: to eat—to be sated—to bless.7 4Q370 reuses language from Deut 8:10 in order to create an equivalency between the land of Israel and Earth at the time of creation. The preceding verses in Deuteronomy praise the abundant natural resources of the land of Israel, just as 4Q370 describes the Earth at creation. In both cases, failure to acknowledge God’s munificence results in removal of humans from the location of the agricultural bounty. For Deuteronomy, it is exile, while for 4Q370 it is the flood. In Deuteronomy, the way to avoid this outcome is blessing “the Lord your God.” 4Q370, while closely paraphrasing the three verbs of Deut 8:10, clearly does not retain this locution as the object of the blessing. As already indicated, the manuscript contains ‫ שמ‬as the direct object. The lacuna, moreover, does not contain enough space to supplement with ‫יהוה אלהיך‬.8 In light of these textual and exegetical issues, 4Q370 must be understood as an exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10. Unfortunately, reconstruction of the most significant exegetical modification is hindered by the lacuna.

3. The Common Suggestion In the editio princeps, Carol Newsom offered the following reconstruction: ‫שמ ]קדש[י‬, “my [holy] name.”9 This reading has been subsequently 7

See Newsom, “4Q370,” 32; eadem, “4QAdmonition,” 93; Feldman, “Reworking,” 35–36. 8 No significant variants exist for Deut 8:10 in the ancient versions that would suggest an alternate reconstruction. Deut 8:10 is partially extant in five Qumran Deuteronomy manuscripts, all of which seem to correspond to MT (4QDeute 3 ii + 5 9; 4QDeutf 4–6 11–12; 4QDeut j V 10–11; 4QDeutn I 7–8; 5QDeuta II 4). 9 Newsom, “4Q370,” 26–27; eadem, “4QAdmonition,” 91.

92


adopted by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Michael Wise, Geza Vermes, and Ariel Feldman.10 In presenting this restoration, Newsom noted that it is not supported by the physical features of the manuscript. Indeed, she observes that the head of the yod would be “rather low.” Newsom suggests that “the restoration is schematic and based on the frequent occurrence of this phrase in biblical literature.”11 As the preceding discussion has demonstrated, Newsom was clearly correct in looking for some common Hebrew expression to fill the lacuna. The suggested reconstruction, while working well with ‫ שם‬as a biblical idiom, lacks contextual coherence within the larger clause. The construct phrase in this text functions as the direct object of the human blessing. Thus, we should be looking for a clause referring to the divine name with ‫ שם‬as the nomen regens and the entire construct chain as the direct object of the verbal root ‫ברך‬.12 Moreover, we must understand how 4Q370 functions as a reformulation of Deut 8:10 and the requirement to offer thanksgiving to God for consumption. In later rabbinic tradition, this biblical verse is the source for the commandment to recite the Birkat Hammazon (Grace after 10

Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998), 2:732; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2d ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 419; Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 2004), 551; Feldman, “Reworking,” 35. 11 Newsom, “4Q370,” 26–27; eadem, “4QAdmonition,” 91. She notes that the locution occurs twenty-one times in biblical Hebrew. 12 Though not mentioned by Newsom, there are some supporting comparative texts that refer to the blessing of God’s “holy name.” See Pr Azar 30; 4Q408 3+3a 9; 4Q409 1 i 7; 11Q14 1 ii 4 (though, see further discussion below); cf. 4Q504 XX 5–6 (1–2 vii recto 5–6; ‫ ברכו‬is reconstructed here). See also the Geʿez text of Jub. 25:12, which blesses the holy name of the “Lord God.” The divine title “Most High God,” however, is found in the immediately preceding portion of the blessing likewise as the object of blessing (see below for v. 11). The Hebrew of Jub. 25:12 is fragmentary and the reference to the divine name is lost in the lacuna (4Q222 [4QJubg] 1 5). Based on the length of the lacuna, James VanderKam recommends against restoring with the Geʿez and thus reconstructs the pertinent text as ‫ברוך יהוה אלוה]ים וברוך שמו‬. See James C. VanderKam, “4QJubilees g,” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 92. See also 4Q403 1 i 24, which identifies the seventh of the chiefs as blessing the holy ones “in the name of his holiness.”


93

Meals).13 It is unlikely that a similar formal prayer existed in the Second Temple period. At the same time, our evidence suggests that already in the Second Temple period Jews were reciting an informal grace after meals and several sources contain close parallels in language and structure to the later formalized text of the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon.14 Indeed, in 4Q370 humans are obliged to bless God on account of the abundant resources they can consume freely. Thus, it is likely that the reconstruction of the lacuna in 4Q370 contains overlaps with the language of the grace after meals—whether in its informal Second Temple versions or later formalized rabbinic version—and its relationship to Deut 8:10.15 13

Mek. Boʾ Pisḥ a 16; y. Ber. 7:2 11a; Meg. 4:1 74d; b. Ber. 21a, 48b. Josephus reports that the Essenes praise God before and after meals (War 2.131). Two Qumran Deuteronomy manuscripts contain (along with other passages) excerpts from Deut 8:5–10 (4QDeut j,n), which likely served a liturgical purpose for the prayer after meals. See discussion in Moshe Weinfeld, “Grace after Meals in Qumran,” JBL 111 (1992): 427–40 (at 428–29). These manuscripts further suggest that the source for this practice was traced to Deut 8:10 (in addition to the evidence from 4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 discussed here). For parallel language and structure see Jub. 22:6–9; Sir 36:12–14, 17–19; 4Q434 2; Did. 10, with discussion in Louis Finkelstein, “The Birkat Ha-Mazon,” JQR 19 (1929): 211–62; K. Hruby, “La ‘Birkat Ha-Mazon,’” in Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R. Dom Bernard Botte O.S.B. (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1972), 205–22; Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (StJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 115–22; Weinfeld, ibid., esp. 436–37. 15 There is some additional possible support for Newsom’s reconstruction following this criterion. Scholars have long suggested that the prayer for thanksgiving in Did. 10 contains significant overlaps with the structure and language of the rabbinic Grace after Meals. In v. 2, God is thanked for allowing “your holy name (τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου) to dwell in our hearts.” The reference to God’s “holy name” in this prayer is suggestive. However, the name itself is not the direct object of blessing. Indeed, the main thrust of the passage is that the name, understood as an allusion to God himself, dwells in the community (see Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 156). Some rabbinic formulations of the second blessing of the Birkat Hammazon refer to the blessing of God’s holy name as an application of Deut 8:10. For example, the medieval Seder Ḥ ibbur Berakot formulation: ‫ומברכים את שם‬ ‫( קודשך תמיד‬Abraham I. Schechter, Studies in Jewish Liturgy Based on a Unique Manuscript Entitled Seder Ḥ ibbur Berakot [Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1930], 92). See also similar formulations in Maḥ zor Turin: ‫ ומברכים את שם קודשך‬and ms Maḥ zor Romania: ‫( ומברכים לשם קדשך‬Finkelstein, “Birkat Ha-Mazon,” 251). 14

94


4. A New Suggestion This article argues that the lacuna should be supplemented with the divine name ‫עליון‬. Thus, the entire second half of the clause should be rendered as ‫ויברכו את שמ ]עליו[ן‬, “and let them bless the name of [the Most Hig]h.”16 This reconstruction works within the physical space of the lacuna and contains some (slender) support from the slight ink trace following the lacuna. Most importantly, this suggestion has greater support of contextual Second Temple literary evidence, particularly in the two criteria I outlined in the previous section. 5.1. The Physical Evidence As noted above, the manuscript contains a blank space immediately following ‫שמ‬. Two issues regarding the proposed reconstruction must be considered with regard to the physical evidence: (1) the length of the lacuna and its relationship to the reconstruction of the lacuna in line 1; (2) the trace remains of the final letter that I am suggesting is a final nun. 5.2. The Length of the Lacuna Comparison with the length of word dividers throughout the manuscript suggests that the next word after ‫ שמ‬would begin at the immediate beginning of the lacuna. The lacuna itself is approximately 7 mm.17 Unfortunately, letter spacing throughout the manuscript is uneven so it is difficult 16

It should be noted that this reconstruction requires that God (the speaker in this line) refer to himself in the third person. As I will demonstrate below, however, the language of line 2 represents a common understanding and reformulation of Deut 8:10. Thus, 4Q370 has mapped this application of Deut 8:10 onto its own exegetical reformulation of the preflood narrative (which recounts the first person divine speech). 17 This measurement spans from where the manuscript breaks off following ‫ שמ‬to the ink trace to the immediate left of the lacuna. Note that the prelacuna and postlacuna content of line 2 do not line up perfectly. The misalignment is also present in lines 1 and 3, though less pronounced. Elsewhere in the manuscript, the scribe maintains relatively straight lines and thus this misalignment is likely the result of contraction and/or distortion of the leather due to the large lacuna.


95

Figure 1: The Lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 1–2 (PAM 43.369) to know with certainty how many letters should be restored. Comparison of the length of the lacuna with other letters and words on the manuscript allows for between 4–5 letter spaces in the lacuna, depending on the width of the proposed letters (including the final letter that is almost entirely in the lacuna). This suggestion is confirmed by the reconstruction proposed for line 1. As noted above, line 1 draws upon language from the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa XXVI 13).18 Thus, Newsom reconstructs the first part of the line as ‫ויעטר הרים תנו]בה‬, corresponding to ‫ מעטר הרים תנובות‬in the Hymn. 4Q370 continues by adding a verb (‫ )שפך‬not found in the Hymn, before which Newsom reconstructs a conjunctive waw: ‫ו[שפך אכל על‬ ‫ = ( פניהם‬Hymn: ‫)}ו{אוכל טוב לכול חי‬.19 Newsom’s reconstruction accounts well for the limitations of space and the techniques of 4Q370’s reformulation of the language of the Hymn.20 The addition of the verb ‫שפך‬ 18

See above, n. 3. The simple perfect is reconstructed here on account of the perfect form for the next verb (line 1: ‫)השביע‬. 20 See Newsom, “4Q370,” 30–31; Jassen, “Admonition Based on the Flood.” 19

96


requires the reconstructed waw and thus does not leave enough space for the plural ‫ תנובות‬as in the Hymn. The precision of the reconstruction in line 1 is helpful for determining the possible letter spaces in line 2. The nun of ‫ תנו]בה‬is almost directly above the mem of ‫שמ‬. The following waw (which is nearly entirely in the lacuna) and the beginning of the bet therefore corresponds to the word divider following ‫שמ‬. The trace remains of the final letter on line 2 line up with the pe of ‫ ו[שפך‬from line 1. Thus, the portion of the lacuna in line 1 that corresponds with the lacuna in line 2 evinces three full letters (he, waw, šin), one partial letter (bet), and one word divider—approximately 4–5 letter spaces. Analysis of the length of the lacuna in line 2 cannot tell us what should be restored in the lacuna. It can, however, provide an approximate guide for the length of any proposed word. The physical length of the lacuna and the corresponding evidence of the reconstructed lacuna in line 1 suggest that the lacuna in line 2 contains approximately 4–5 letters spaces. The length of the lacuna would therefore permit my suggested reconstruction. ‫ עליון‬also contains three letters of smaller width ( yod, waw, final nun) that would more easily facilitate the reconstruction of a five-letter word in the lacuna. 5.3. The Final Letter as a Final Nun The final letter is preserved only as a slight ink trace. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to decipher this letter (or even any of its paleographic features) with any degree of certainty and thus even more difficult to build an argument based on such trace remains. As Newsom notes, however, her reconstruction of a yod is slightly problematic since it places the upper stroke of the yod too low. My restoration deciphers this letter as a final nun. While the rest of the manuscript displays inconsistency in the use of nonfinal and final mem, it is entirely consistent in using the final nun in last position rather than a nonfinal nun.21 Thus, a final nun appears in col. 1, line 6 (‫)עלכן‬, line 7 (‫)נתן‬, line 8 (‫)המון‬, and col. 2, line 1 (‫)מעון‬: In particular, the expression “good food” (‫ )אוכל טוב‬in the Hymn to the Creator is reformulated, such that in 4Q370 each of these words appears in a separate clause with its own verb of divine action. 21 It is also consistent for the other nonfinal and final forms. For inconsistent use of final and nonfinal mem, see, e.g., ‫( שמ‬in 1 i 2), ‫( םוסדי‬in 1 i 4).

97


4Q370 1 ii 1

4Q370 1 i 8

4Q370 1 i 7

4Q370 1 i 6

Figure 2: The Final Nuns in 4Q370 (PAM 43.369) Comparison of the ink trace in line 2 with these forms provides some paleographic support for my reconstruction. In all cases, the final nun is represented by three strokes. The middle horizontal stroke, which curves very slightly upward to the left, is located near the middle point of the line as compared to the surrounding letters in each example in column one.22 The upper stroke moves straight upward from the left side of the middle stroke and the lower stroke moves downward also relatively straight from the right side of the middle stroke. The extant ink trace in line 2, unfortunately, preserves none of the manuscript that would contain either the upper or lower stroke. I am suggesting that the minimal ink trace represents the extreme left portion of the horizontal middle stroke of the final nun. The place of the ink trace directly at the middle point relative to the following letter (waw) is consistent with the placement of the middle stroke in the other occurrences of the final nun. As in the discussion of the length of the lacuna, the slender paleographic evidence cannot definitively identify the word as ‫ ;עליון‬indeed, it cannot even definitively identify the letter as a final nun. It does, however, indicate the final nun is a possible reading and fits the ink trace better than the previously suggested yod. The paleographic evidence taken together with the proposed length of the lacuna makes the reconstruction

22

The final nun in 1 ii 1 (‫ )מעון‬is slightly problematic both because of the poor condition of the manuscript here and the fact that the following letter is a waw, which is written at the upper portion of the line. The middle stroke of the final nun, however, does seem to be near the center point of the preceding waw. Comparison with the mem of ‫ מעון‬provides more explicit evidence of this paleographic feature. Only a slight trace of the upper stroke of the final nun of ‫ נתן‬in 1 i 7 is preserved.

98


‫ עליון‬a reasonable possibility. Ultimately, however, the physical evidence is lacking and the strength of my argument rests on the comparative literary evidence, to which I now turn. 6.1. The Larger Literary Context I: ‫ עליון‬in Second Temple Hymns and Prayers The divine name ‫ עליון‬appear 35 times in the Hebrew Bible, either alone or in combination with other divine names (most commonly ‫)אל עליון‬.23 The term is found in Second Temple literature as one of the most common divine epithets, whether in Hebrew or its Aramaic (‫ )עליא‬or Greek (ὕψιστος) equivalents.24 It can also appear together with the divine name

23

The biblical uses seem to employ the designation as an adjectival honorific description of God. For discussion of the biblical and nonbiblical comparative Semitic evidence, see E. E. Elnes and D. Miller, “Elyon ‫עליון‬,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 293–99. 24 Bibliography on this divine epithet in Second Temple literature is voluminous. See Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; München: Beck, 1924), 1:99–100; G. Bertram, “ὕψιστος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; 9 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976), 8:614–20; F. Schubert, “ʾEl ʿÆljôn als Gottesname im Jubiläenbuch,” Mitteilungen und Beiträge. Forschungsstelle Judentum an der Theologischen Fakultät Leipzig 8 (1994): 3–18; Christfried Böttrich, “Gottesprädikationen im Jubiläenbuch,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 221–41; Robert C. T. Hayward, “El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference: Durham—Ushaw College 2001 (ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 180–98; James K. Aitken, “The God of the pre-Maccabees: Designations of the Divine in the Early Hellenistic Period,” in The God of Israel (ed. Robert Gordon; Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2007), 246–66 (at 264–65); Richard Bauckham, “The ‘Most High’ God and the Nature of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 39–53, 378–86; Moshe J. Bernstein, “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon,” JBL 128 (2009): 291–310.


99

‫ אל‬or θεός, following biblical precedent.25 Unlike the biblical examples, however, the Second Temple period use reflects the growing employment of the designation as a proper name for God. Two particular closely related features of its use in Second Temple Judaism are helpful for our purposes: (1) in hymns and prayers in general, often as the object of human praise; (2) more specifically, as the object of blessing in prayer. In both categories, the divine epithet often appears in a construct phrase as the nomen rectum of ‫שם‬.26 6.2. ‫ עליון‬in Hymns and Prayers in General In the first class, ‫עליא‬/‫עליון‬/ὕψιστος is employed as a divine epithet in hymns and prayers.27 In particular, it is the object of human praise in these hymns and prayers. In several instances, the divine epithet is further distinguished as God’s name. The exegetical basis for this use in Second Temple literature can be traced to Pss 7:18 (‫אודה יהוה כצדקו ואזמרה שם‬ ‫)יהוה עליון‬, 9:3 (‫ )אשמחה ואעלצה בך אזמרה שמך עליון‬and 92:2 ‫)טוב להדות‬ ‫)ליהוה ולזמר לשמך עליון‬. In each Psalm, the object of human praise is either “your name, O Most High” (Psalms 9, 92) or “the name of the Lord Most High” (Psalm 7). In the original theological context of the Psalms, praise of God’s “name” most likely indicates praise of God’s actions.28 Moreover, commentators have observed that in each case the

See also the tabulation of the uses of this term in R. H. Charles, “The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:67 n. 16. A more recent catalog of the use the title in ancient Jewish literature is found in Bauckham, “The ‘Most High’ God,” 51–53. 25 On the use of ὕψιστος and the cult of Theos Hypsistos in the wider Mediterranean world (and possible connections to the Jewish use), see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1981), 298; Stephen Mitchell, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians,” in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (ed. P. Athanassiadi and Michael Frede; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 81–148; Bauckham, “The ‘Most High’ God,” 42. 26 See Hayward, “El Elyon,” for fuller discussion of the range of applications of this divine epithet in Ben Sira and related Second Temple literature. 27 See further Hayward, “El Elyon,” 182–83. 28 See A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Volume I (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 175.

100


object of the praise is YHWH, with ‫ עליון‬therefore in apposition.29 For later readers, particularly in the Second Temple period when use of the Tetragrammaton was limited, these verses provided a literary formulation for the object of human praise of God—the name Most High (‫שם‬ ‫—)עליון‬with ‫ עליון‬as a proper noun designating YHWH.30 Furthermore, the poetic parallelism of these verses indicates that singing to the Most High is commensurate with exulting (Ps 9:3) and thanking (Pss 7:18; 92:2) YHWH. In the Second Temple period, several prayers and hymns contain ‫עליון‬ or ‫ שם עליון‬as the object of praise. For example, the name ‫ עליון‬is found in several places in the Apocryphal Psalms of the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll. Thus, 11QPsa XVIII 1 (Syriac Psalm II) reads: ‫]חברו[ לטובים נפשתכמה‬ ‫ולתמימים לפאר עליון‬, “[Bind] your souls with the good ones and with the pure ones to glorify the Most High.”31 An additional reference to praising the Most High is found later in the same psalm: ‫ואדם מפאר עליון ירצה‬ ‫כמגיש מנחה‬, “And a man who glorifies the Most High he accepts as one who brings a meal offering” (11QPsa XVIII 7–8).32 Similarly, the Most High is praised in the final stanza of the Apostrophe to Zion: ‫רומי ורחבי‬ ‫ציון שבחי עליון פודך תשמח נפשי בכבודך‬, “Be exalted, and spread wide, O Zion; praise the Most High, thy savior: let my soul be glad in thy glory” (11QPsa XXII 14–15).33 Similarly, in Ben Sira’s praise of David, among the many honorific descriptions of David we are told: ‫בכל מעשהו נתן הודות לאל עליון‬ ‫]בדברי כ[בוד‬, “with his every deed he offered thanks; to God Most High, [with words of g]lory” (Sir 47:8).34 Robert Hayward has also identified 29

See, e.g., Craig A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), 2:284. 30 Hayward, “El Elyon,” 181. 31 Text and translation following James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 64–65 (with the typo on ‫[ עליון‬missing final nun] corrected). The first word is reconstructed based on the Syriac text. 32 The use of this divine title in connection with cultic aspects is found elsewhere in Second Temple literature (see, e.g., Sir 7:9; 34:19; 3 Macc 1:9). See further Hayward, “El Elyon,” 193–95; Bauckham, “The ‘Most High’ God,” 45. 33 Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 87–88. 34 The Hebrew is extant in ms B and here follows Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 84. The restoration


101

examples in the Septuagint’s additions to the Psalms where ὕψιστος is introduced specifically with praise and thanksgiving of God. In MT Ps 13:6 the psalmist exclaims: “I will sing to the Lord, for he has been good to me.” The corresponding Septuagint translation (Ps 12:6) adds: “I will sing a psalm to the Name (ὀνόματι) of the Lord Most High (κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου).”35 The prominence of this use of ‫עליון‬/ὕψιστος in Apocryphal Psalms, Septuagint to the Psalms, and in Ben Sira’s description of David is based in the understanding of the Psalms verses discussed above (Pss 7:18; 9:3; 92:2).36 For Second Temple period writers, David was understood to be the author of the Psalms. Thus, the Second Temple period psalmic compositions represent David’s continuing literary production, following the compositional technique of the scriptural Psalms.37 For our purposes, the Second Temple period psalmic references attest to the developing use of ‫ עליון‬or ‫ שם עליון‬as the object of praise. 6.3. ‫ עליון‬as the Object of Blessing in Prayers Within the larger use of ‫ עליון‬and ὕψιστος as the object of human praise in Second Temple literature, several texts employ the divine epithet as the object of blessing in thanksgiving and praise of God. In these texts, the divine name is the direct object of the verbal root ‫ברך‬. Moreover, several of these examples contain the fuller designation of the divine epithet as

follows the suggestion of Moshe Z. Segal, Sefer ben Sira ha-Shalem [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958], 324, based on the Greek text for 47:8b (ἁγίῳ ὑψίστῳ ῥήματι δόξης). Segal, however, rendered ‫ בדבר‬in the singular. I restore the plural ‫ בדברי‬following the Syriac, which makes better sense with the extant Hebrew text. The translation of 47:8a follows Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 522. Note as well that the Greek has ἁγίῳ ὑψίστῳ (“the Holy One Most High”) rather than the expected θεῷ ὑψίστῳ (see Hayward, “El Elyon,” 182). 35 Hayward, “El Elyon,” 183 n. 11. See also his discussion of LXX to Pss 45:7; 65:4 (ibid.). 36 See also Sir 17:27: “Who in the netherworld can glorify the Most High in the place of the living who offer their praise.” No Hebrew is preserved for this verse. 37 Note as well that the description of David’s literary activity in the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa XXVII 2–11) attributes his entire oeuvre to prophecy granted by the Most High (‫)כול אלה דבר בנבואה אשר נתן לו מלפני העליון‬.

102


‫שם עליון‬.38 This particular locution and its use in blessings to God is especially helpful in providing a larger literary context for the related expression in 4Q370. Like the more general use of ‫ עליון‬as the object of praise in Second Temple literature, the name ‫ עליון‬as the direct object of human blessing can similarly be traced to a scriptural basis. Gen 14:19–20 narrates the blessing bestowed upon Abram by Melchizedek, who is identified as a priest of ‫אל עליון‬. Melchizedek blesses Abram by ‫( אל עליון‬v. 19: ‫ )ברוך אברם לאל עליון‬and then blesses ‫ אל עליון‬directly (v. 20: ‫וברוך אל‬ ‫)עליון‬.39 Several examples from Second Temple period texts follow this model. Jubilees 25:11–12 (4Q222 [4QJubg] I 3–7) recounts the beginning of Rebecca’s blessing of Jacob. After lifting up her hands toward the heavens, the text reports: ‫ותפתח פיה ותברך את ׅׄעאל עליון ק]ונה שמים וארץ ותתן לו‬ ‫תו[דות ותהלה‬, “she opened her mouth, and blessed the most high God, c[reator of heaven and earth. She gave to him than]ks and praise” ( Jub. 25:11 = 4Q222 I 4–5).40 The divine epithet as the object of blessing is clearly borrowed from Gen 14:19, while the description of the blessing as thanksgiving seems to be based on Ps 92:2. In the transcript of the Rebecca’s blessing that follows, she blesses “the Lord God” and his name (line 5). The use of two different divine names here indicates that the 38

The blessing of God’s “name” in general is a widespread development in the Second Temple period, within which the specific blessing of ‫ שם עליון‬should be located. On the general evidence, see Avi Hurvitz, Ben lashon le-lashon: le-toledot leshon ha-Miqra bime bayit sheni (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972), 96–100. On the blessing of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see also Eileen Schuller, “Some Observations on Blessings of God in Texts from Qumran,” 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. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin; Lanham: University Press of America, 1990), 133–43. Schuller classifies the blessing of the “name” as subcategory of the blessing of God in Second Temple Judaism (ibid., 134 n. 6). 39 The prepositional lamed in v. 19 should be understood as a lamed of agency. See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §11.2.10g (p. 210). 40 VanderKam, “4QJubilees g,” 89–90. The initial ʿayin before ‫ אל‬is clearly a scribal error, as indicated by the correction marks. On the reconstruction of ‫ק]ונה‬ ‫שמים וארץ‬, see VanderKam, ibid., 91. The lacuna does not contain enough space for the reconstruction of the full text represented in the Geʿez (“who had created the heavens and the earth”).


103

appearance of ‫ אל עליון‬is not merely the result of its frequent appearance in Jubilees.41 Rather, the narrator has aligned Rebecca’s blessing of “the Lord God” with the blessing and praise of ‫ אל עליון‬as found in Genesis and Psalms.42 The Genesis Apocryphon contains several similar examples. While the Aramaic equivalent ‫ עליא‬appears several times in this text (2:4; 2:6 [recons.]; 6:9, 24; 10:18), all the relevant examples of blessing the divine epithet preserve the Hebrew original ‫עליון‬. For example, 1QapGen 22:15–16 contains an Aramaic rendering of Melchizedek’s blessing in Gen 14:19–20. Following the translation technique of this portion of the Apocryphon, the text here follows the Hebrew closely with minimal exegetical amplification.43 Two further examples provide better evidence for the independent compositional technique of the author of the Genesis Apocryphon. 1QapGen 12:17 contains a narrative expansion based on the reference to Noah planting a vineyard and drinking its wine in Gen 9:20–21. The Apocryphon recounts how Noah offers thanksgiving to 41

In the Ethiopic text of the Jubilees, the Geʿez equivalent of ‫( אל עליון‬ʾamlāk leʿul ) appears twenty times. “Most High” (leʿul ) also appears four times preceded by the Geʿez equivalent of the Tetragrammaton (ʾegziʾabḥ ēr). This enumeration follows the tabulation provided by James C. VanderKam in Bernstein, “Divine Titles,” 303 n. 39 (Schubert, “ʾEl ʿÆljôn,” 3, lists only fourteen occurrences of ‫)אל עליון‬. For the additional Qumran evidence, see 4Q219 II 21 = Jub. 21:20; 4Q219 II 32 = Jub. 21:25 (only ‫ ;) [ליון‬and 4Q221 1 5 = Jub. 21:23. In all cases, the Geʿez text matches the Hebrew original. 42 There may be one additional example in Jub. 22:27 (not preserved in Hebrew). This verse contains Abraham’s praise of the “Most High God” who took him from Ur of the Chaldees and gave him the land “in order that I should possess it forever and raise up holy descendents.” The uncertainty centers on the subject of the main verb of the following clause: yetbārak, “may it (masc., sg.) be blessed.” Full discussion of the manuscript variants and translation issues can be found in James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 510– 511; SA 87–88; 2 vols.; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 2:133–34. Several early translators rely on some manuscript evidence that inserts leʿul (“Most High”) immediately following the verb. Thus, the object of the blessing would be the Most High God (see VanderKam, ibid., for the different ways this understanding is rendered in translation). VanderKam, however, follows the more common manuscript tradition that lacks leʿul. He understands the subject of yetbārak as Abraham’s descendents (zarʿ, “seed”—sg., masc.), producing the translation “so that they may be blessed forever.” 43 See Bernstein, “Divine Titles,” 302.

104


God at the altar in celebration of the cultivation of the wine from his vineyard in the fourth year. The text of the Apocryphon does not render any material directly from Genesis, but rather introduces this new narrative element in order to make Noah conform to the laws of harvesting a vineyard in Lev 19:23–25.44 Noah’s blessing contains three divine titles as direct objects: ‫והוית מברך למרה שמיא לאל עליון לקדישא רבא‬, “And I was blessing the Lord of Heaven, God Most High, the Great Holy One.” The biblical ‫ אל עליון‬is here accompanied by two “nonbiblical” Second Temple period divine epithets.45 Thus, ‫ אל עליון‬continued to be employed as the object of blessing alongside newly introduced divine epithets. The final example from the Apocryphon further illustrates the prominence of ‫ אל עליון‬as the object of blessing in independent compositions from the Second Temple period. 1QapGen 20:12–13 narrates Abram’s plea to God for assistance in rescuing Sarai, material not found in the scriptural account. Abram initiates his request with a blessing to God: ‫בריך אנתה אל עליון מרי לכול עלמים‬, “Blessed (are) you, O God Most High, my Lord for all ages.”46 One final example from a narrative text is the blessing that was expected to be recited by the (high?) priest over the eschatological community following the final defeat of the Kittim and victory in the eschatological war. This blessing is preserved in 11Q14 (Sefer ha-Milḥ amah) 1 ii 2–5.47 (2) and he shall bless them in the name of [the God of (3) I]srael, and he shall begin to speak[ and say ] Israel, blessed be y[ou] (4) in the 44

See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (BibOr 18/B; 3d ed.; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2004), 162. See also the introduction of this law into the postflood narrative in Jub. 7:36–37, where the fruit of the fourth year is accounted as acceptable before the Most High God. 45 Bernstein, “Divine Titles,” 298–99. 46 Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 100–1. See also Fitzmyer’s discussion (p. 201) of the translation of ‫ מרי‬as “my Lord.” Most other commentators render it as a construct noun. Fitzmyer notes that this word only appears in the suffix form throughout the Genesis Apocryphon. 47 See Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Adam S. van der Woude (eds.), Qumran Cave 11.II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 246–47. This passages overlaps with 4Q285 8 1–3 (though the reference to ‫ עליון‬is not preserved in 4Q285).


105

name of God Most High (‫ ] [ )בשם אל עליון‬and blessed be [his] holy name ([‫( )וברוך שם קודש]ו‬5) for ever and ever. The formula follows the twofold structure of Melchizedek’s blessing in Gen 14:19–20. The priest first blesses Israel by the name of the Most High God, similar to Melchizedek’s blessing of Abram by ‫( אל עליון‬v. 19). Just as Melchizedek continues by blessing ‫ אל עליון‬directly, the priest in 11Q14 proceeds to bless God’s “holy name.” The name here is certainly to be understood as ‫אל עליון‬, which was identified explicitly as the “name” in the previous clause. Melchizedek’s twofold blessing has been modified in 11Q14 and transposed to an eschatological context. Most important for our purposes is the introduction of the designation “name” with the use of ‫ אל עליון‬in a blessing formulation. The examples furnished thus far all come from narratives—either the voice of the narrator or blessings placed in the mouth of characters. A final example provides evidence for the blessing of the divine epithet in an actual Second Temple period liturgical composition.48 4Q291 (4QWork Containing Prayers A) is extremely fragmentary and it is therefore difficult to identify its genre with certainty. The extant remains, however, suggest that it is a prayer and the poetic style has led its editor Bilhah Nitzan to propose that it is a psalm of praise.49 Fragment 1, following Nitzan’s understanding of the manuscript, contains “a call for blessing the Lord and the liturgical blessing itself.”50 The call for blessing God is expressed in line 3 as: ‫לברך שם אל ○○ עליו]ן‬, “to bless the name of God the Most Hig[h.”51 The call for blessing is then followed in line 5 with the liturgical blessing formula: ]‫ברוך אתה אל̇] אל‬, “Blessed are You God[.”52 Unfortunately, the lacuna intervenes before the liturgical formula is completed. If the liturgical blessing follows the language of the call for blessing expressed earlier, it is likely that line 5 should be supplemented with ‫עליון‬. While 48

On this category, see more generally Schuller, “Observations,” 134–42. Bilhah Nitzan, “4Q291. 4QWork Containing Prayers A,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. Esther Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 10. 50 Ibid. 51 It is unclear what should be restored immediately prior to ‫( עליון‬if anything). Nitzan (p. 11) notes that the slight traces may yield the word ‫כי‬. In this case, the clause “may allude to Ps 47:3.” 52 Nitzan, ibid. The supralinear ‫ אל‬is written in a later scribal hand, though it is not clear why a correction was warranted. 49

106


4Q291 is extremely fragmentary and opaque, it does contain several elements that are helpful for our larger understanding of the liturgical function of the divine epithet ‫ עליון‬as the object of blessing in the Second Temple period. 4Q291 preserves a firsthand Second Temple liturgical formulation that alludes to the blessing of the divine name ‫עליון‬. In particular, the liturgical formulation further singles out the blessing as directed at the name. The examples provided here demonstrate the important function of the divine epithet ‫ עליון‬as the object of human blessing in Second Temple period liturgical formulations.53 To be sure, ‫ עליון‬is not the only divine name employed in such benedictory formulations. The Tetragrammaton is regularly found as well as additional biblical and postbiblical divine epithets. ‫עליון‬, however, is chosen in several instances where no biblical precedent is followed. Thus, the Second Temple period writers chose ‫עליון‬ from among the many divine epithets to serve as the direct object of the human blessing of God.54 As already suggested, this locution is based on the blessing of ‫ אל עליון‬in Gen 14:19–20. The several examples of this phenomenon in narrative texts are further reinforced by one example from an actual Second Temple liturgical formulation. Here, in particular, it is the name that is singled out as the object of blessing. 7.1. The Larger Literary Context II: ‫ עליון‬in Second Temple Period Thanksgiving Prayers after Meals In the preceding section, I examined the use of ‫ עליון‬as an object of praise and blessing in Second Temple period hymns and prayers, following the first criterion I outlined for identifying the larger literary context of 4Q370 1 i 1–2. As suggested above, the second criterion for the larger literary context is to explore similar locutions in the formulation of thanksgiving prayers after meals in Second Temple period literature. To be sure, the examples that follow are really part of the same class of 53 See also the related passages where ‫ עליון‬blesses humans: Sir 50:21; Jdt 13:18; Jub. 22:13, 19; 36:16 (cf. Bauckham, “The ‘Most High’ God,” 45). 54 See also the first-century c.e. inscription from Gorgippia in the Bosphorus that refers to the manumission of a slave. It opens with: θεῶι ὑψίστωι παντοκράτορι εὐλογητῷ, “To the Most High God, Almighty, blessed.” Text and analysis in Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 122 (read εὐλογητῷ for Levine’s εὐλογητῷι).


107

hymnic/liturgical texts treated in the previous section. I have singled them out, however, because their more narrow use in a prayer of thanksgiving following a meal corresponds more closely to the literary context of 4Q370. As I have already noted, several Second Temple period texts allude to the articulation of a prayer of thanksgiving following the consumption of a meal. Only a few texts, however, preserve any portion of the actual liturgical formulation.55 7.2. Jubilees 22:6–9 Jubilees 22:6–9 recounts Abraham’s articulation of a thanksgiving prayer following his celebration of the feast of the firstfruits with his family. In this prayer, Abraham blesses God for the food he has enjoyed. The formula in which Jubilees narrates Abraham’s blessing is similar to Rebecca’s blessing of Jacob discussed above. Thus, we are first provided with a narrative summary of the blessing, which is then followed by a transcript of the blessing. The narrator reports that: He ate and drank. And he blessed the Most High God (ʾamlāk leʿul ) who created the heavens and the earth, who made all the fat things of the earth, and gave them to mankind to eat, drink, and bless their Creator. (22:6)56 While the description here is expressed in the words of the narrator, it is likely that this formulation is intended to replicate the content of the first part of Abraham’s blessing.57 Thus, it serves as the first section of Abraham’s tripartite thanksgiving prayer after eating. In Abraham’s thanksgiving blessing, the direct object of the blessing is the Most High God (ʾamlāk leʿul = ‫)אל עליון‬.58 55 In addition to the texts treated here, see also Did. 10. Sirach 36:12–14, 17–19, though not a prayer of thanksgiving, contains several parallels with the language and themes of the third blessing of the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon. For further discussion of the prerabbinic texts, see bibliography above, n. 14. 56 Translation of the Geʿez text of Jubilees follows VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:128. The Hebrew is not extant for this passage. The preserved Latin corresponds to the Geʿez (see VanderKam, ibid., 345). 57 See Finkelstein, “Birkat Ha-Mazon,” 218–19; Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3.5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 317. 58 The second and third sections of Abraham’s prayer refer to God as “my

108


There are several elements in Jub. 22:6 that suggest an exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10. Jubilees underscores how God provided humans with all the bounty (“fat things”) of the earth for consumption.59 Jubilees 22:6b describes a three-step process that God expects of humans as a condition of their enjoyment of the bounty from God: eating—drinking— blessing. The consonance of two of these three elements with Deut 8:10 suggests that Jubilees has reformulated Deut 8:10 in order to express the requirement for humans to offer a blessing of thanksgiving following a meal.60 Thus Jub. 22:6a represents Abraham fulfilling this precise injunction. 7.3. 4Q434 (4QBarkhi Nafshia) 2 9–11 4Q434 2 (4QBarkhi Nafshia) similarly preserves a Second Temple period formulation of a thanksgiving prayer after meals. Unlike the narrative framework of Jub. 22, 4Q434 2 likely represents an actual liturgical formulation. Moshe Weinfeld has argued that this fragment contains several thematic and linguistic parallels with the rabbinic Grace after Meals (Birkat Hammazon) recited in a mourner’s house.61 In the years since Weinfeld first made this claim, several scholars have voiced opposition, though with minimal discussion of the basis for such opposition.62 More recently, God” (vv. 7, 9). The use of “Most High God” as the object of blessing in the first section therefore seems to be deliberate rather than the result of its common occurrence throughout Jubilees (as also in Rebecca’s blessing treated above). 59 This emphasis in the first blessing in Jubilees corresponds further to the later rabbinic Birkat Hammazon, in which the first blessing praises God for providing food for humans (Birkat Hazzan). 60 Why the second component is “drinking” rather than “satiety” is not clear. No evidence of textual corruption exists. The most likely explanation is that the author (mistakenly?) continued “eating” with its common word pair “drinking,” thereby diverting from the exact paraphrase of Deut 8:10. 61 Weinfeld, “Grace after Meals.” See also idem and D. Seely, “Barkhi Nafshi,” in DJD 29:279–81. For the rabbinic Grace after Meals for a mourner’s house, see b. Ber. 46b. 62 See, for example, Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai; Kampen: Pharos, 1996), 73–88 (at 74); Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 217 n. 1; Stefan C. Reif, “The Second Temple Period, Qumran Research, and Rabbinic Liturgy: Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons,” in


109

Avi Shmidman has called into question Weinfeld’s identification of 4Q434 2 as a grace after meals for a mourner, while at the same time supporting the identification of the general textual and thematic overlaps with the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon. Shmidman notes that the theme of consolation in 4Q434 2 1, 6 that Weinfeld identified as distinctive of the mourner’s Birkat Hammazon is likewise prescribed in rabbinic literature for the Sabbath Birkat Hammazon (b. Ber. 48b) and indeed, several medieval versions attest to this liturgical practice.63 Thus, even if this fragment is not necessarily a mourner’s grace after meals, there is much evidence to support its identification as an early version of a postmeal thanksgiving prayer. Several references to blessing God are found in the fragmentary remains of lines 9–11. Line 9 preserves the initial language of a blessing, though the direct object of the blessing is lost in the lacuna: ‫אברכה את‬, “I will bless.” Line 11 also contains the fragmentary ]‫[ברכי‬, “]bless[.” The most important of these references, however, is found in line 10: ‫[ברוך שם עליו]ן‬, “]Blessed be the name of the Most Hig[h.” As in several examples treated earlier, the direct object of the blessing is a construct phrase with ‫ שם‬as the nomen regens and the divine epithet ‫ עליון‬as the nomen rectum.

8. Deut 8:10 and the Blessing of ‫ עליון‬in Second Temple Period Thanksgiving Prayers The foregoing discussion has sought to outline the evidence for the widespread praise and blessing of ‫ עליון‬in Second Temple period hymns and Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceeding 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; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 133–39 (at 140). 63 Avi Shmidman, “A Note Regarding the Liturgical Function of DSS Document 4Q434a,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 5 (2008): 15–22. Moreover, like the Sabbath themes of consolation that focus on Jerusalem, 4Q434 2 1 does not refer to the individual mourner but rather also Jerusalem (see Weinfeld, “Grace after Meals,” 433). Shmidman further notes the evidence from y. Ber. 1:5 3d (as understood by Louis Ginzberg) that there may have also existed a weekday Birkat Hammazon that similarly incorporated the theme of consolation.

110


liturgy, within which I have suggested we should also classify its proposed function in 4Q370 1 i 2. The use of ‫ עליון‬in 4Q370’s paraphrase of Deut 8:10, however, raises a critical question: why does ‫ עליון‬replace the scriptural Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing in 4Q370? If, as I have suggested, Jub. 22:6 is also a paraphrase of Deut 8:10, the same question should be asked of Jubilees. The solution lies in a closer analysis of the reformulation of Deut 8:10 in both these texts. 4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 each contain several linguistic and thematic similarities with Deut 8:10. 4Q370 paraphrases the three main verbal elements in Deut 8:10 and transposes the description of the divinely granted bountiful land (of Israel) to the similarly divinely granted bountiful Earth at the time of creation. Just as humans are expected to bless God after enjoying the bounty of the land in Deuteronomy, in 4Q370 they are obliged to bless God after enjoying the bounty of the Earth. Jubilees 22:6 similarly contains two of the three verbal elements from Deut 8:10—eating and blessing. Like 4Q370, Jubilees also transposes the Deuteronomic description of the good land to the good Earth. Abraham blesses God as the creator of all the “fat things of the Earth.” Just as God gave the good land to Israel in Deuteronomy, in Jubilees he gave the fat things to humans to enjoy. Following Deuteronomy, humans must bless God for this divinely sent bounty. The paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 therefore contains two central reformulations: (1) the transposition of the bounty of the land to the bounty of the Earth; (2) the modification of the object of the blessing from ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬to ‫( שם עליון‬in 4Q370) or ‫ ( אל עליון‬Jubilees). If 4Q434 also has Deut 8:10 lurking in the background, it would also reflect the substitution of ‫שם עליון‬.64 The explanation for the first modification is clear. By shifting the context of Deut 8:10 from the bounty of the land of Israel to the Earth’s bounty, the requirement to offer thanksgiving becomes a universal obligation. Why, however, do both 4Q370 and Jubilees modify the divine object of the blessing? The avoidance of the Tetragrammaton in the Second Temple period both in scribal practice and literary use (and presumably also everyday speech) is well known.65 Second Temple period literature reflects a wealth 64

Several fragmentary elements in 4Q434 2 are highly suggestive of a relationship to Deut 8:10: lines 4–5: “to eat its fruit and goodness” (‫לאכול פריה‬ ‫ )וטובה‬and line 8: “and their desirable [l]and” (‫)ו]א[רצם חמדה‬. 65 See summary of the evidence for the origins and development of the nonuse


111

of substitute names and alternative scribal techniques to render the Tetragrammaton.66 Indeed, ‫ עליון‬and ὕψιστος are commonly found as substitutes for the Tetragrammaton.67 In the case of 4Q370, however, this explanation is not sufficient to explain the use of ‫ שמ עליון‬in the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 since the Tetragrammaton is employed elsewhere throughout the manuscript (1 i 1, 2, 3; ii 2, 7, 9 [recons.]).68 Moreover, if a substitute name is desired in this case, why ‫ עליון‬rather than ‫ אל‬or ‫אדני‬, as is found in many other Qumran texts that bless God?69 The explanation for the use of ‫ עליון‬in the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 must be located both in the widespread avoidance of the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Second Temple period and the growing employment of ‫ עליון‬and its variants in Second Temple period liturgical formulations. Deut 8:10 enjoins the blessing of ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬in gratitude for the food the Israelites will enjoy upon entering the land of Israel. In the Second Temple period, this formulation had already acquired a universal application. It was understood to require humans to offer a thanksgiving blessing to God. The formulation of such a blessing in the Second Temple period, however, would avoid using the Deuteronomic locution ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬as the direct object of the blessing. ‫ עליון‬and its variants provided a natural substitute for the Tetragrammaton. Based on an exegetical reading and application of ‫ עליון‬in Gen 14:19–20 and Pss 7:18; 9:3; 92:2, this divine epithet came to be closely aligned with praise and blessing of God in Second Temple period literature. The further employment of ‫ עליון‬as the of the Tetragrammaton in Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 133–36. This phenomenon is well-attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, both by the explicit prohibition found in 1QS 6:27–7:2 and the scribal practice of the scrolls (see following note). 66 See Patrick W. Skehan, “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 13 (1980): 14–44; Tov, Scribal Practices, 218–19, 238–46. 67 See for example Sir 43:2, where ms B contains the three yods representing the Tetragrammaton, while the Masada scroll has ‫( ]ע[ליון‬Beentjes, Ben Sira, 75, 118, 170) and the Greek has ὑψίστου. See discussion of further examples from the Ben Sira manuscript tradition in Skehan, “Divine Name,” 18–20; Hayward, “El Elyon,” 181–82. 68 Only in 1 i 2, 7 is the substitute divine name ‫ אל‬used. 69 For evidence of ‫ אל‬or ‫ אדני‬with blessings, see Heinemann, Prayer, 121 n. 38; Schuller, “Some Observations.”

112


nomen rectum of ‫ שם‬should be understood within the larger context of its appearance with ‫ עליון‬in the Psalms passages and the use of ‫ שם‬as an additional substitute for the Tetragrammaton.70 Thus, ‫ ( אל עליון‬Jub. 22:6) or ‫( שם עליון‬in 4Q370, 4Q434 2) becomes the divine name that serves as the object of blessing in accordance with Deut 8:10. Though the Second Temple period evidence does not reflect a stabilized text of a postmeal thanksgiving prayer, the evidence treated here suggests the employment of ‫ עליון‬and its variants as the direct object of human blessing in such prayers. For 4Q370, this linguistic reformulation of Deut 8:10 explains the nonuse of the Tetragrammaton in its paraphrase of Deut 8:10.

9. Conclusion The foregoing discussion has sought to offer a suggestion for restoring the lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 2 that is based on the scant physical evidence of the manuscript together with the larger Second Temple period literary context. I have proposed that the lacuna should best be restored as ‫שמ ]עליו[ן‬, “the name of [the Most Hi]gh.” In supporting this suggestion, I have gathered evidence from Second Temple period prayers and hymns where ‫עליון‬ or it various equivalents (often as the nomen rectum of ‫ )שם‬is the object of praise and blessing. An important subclass of the uses of ‫ עליון‬as the object of blessing is in Second Temple period formulations of thanksgiving prayers following meals. Jubilees’ narration of Abraham’s thanksgiving

70

As noted above, ‫ שם‬in the Psalms passages likely refers to the YHWH rather than ‫עליון‬. The exegetical tradition, however, seems to understand ‫ שם עליון‬as a single designation for God. The evidence for the use of ‫ שם‬as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton is most prominent in the Masoretic scribal traditions. The Leningrad and Aleppo codices both vocalize the Tetragrammaton as ‫יְ הוָ ה‬. The še ̆wa and qāmeṣ found in the vocalization presumably represent a reading tradition of the Aramaic ‫שמא‬, “the name.” This precise designation is also found in the Masoretic marginal notes. See full discussion in Kristen De Troyer, “The Names of God, Their Pronunciation and Their Translation: A Digital Tour of Some of the Main Witnesses,” Lectio Difficilior 2 (2005): 1–35 (at 3–4). See also the other explanations of the Masoretic vocalization noted by De Troyer (26 n. 12). On the rabbinic evidence for use of the Hebrew ‫ השם‬as a divine name, see A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Vol. 1, The Names & Attributes of God ( Jews’ College Publications 10; London: Oxford University, 1927), 105.


113

prayer identifies the blessing of the Most High God (ʾamlāk leʿul = ‫אל‬ ‫ )עליון‬as the very first element of his prayer. The fragmentary 4Q434 2 contains a similar formulation of blessing “the name of the Most High” (‫)שם עליון‬. I am suggesting that we should add 4Q370 to this category. As I have reconstructed 4Q370 1 i 2, ‫ עליון‬replaces ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬as the object of human blessing in the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 that exhorts humans to bless God in gratitude for food. This proposed modification is explained based on the growing disuse of the Tetragrammaton and the emergence of ‫ עליון‬as a commonly employed divine epithet in Second Temple period hymns and prayers.


brill.nl/dsd

Book Reviews Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. By Sidnie White Crawford. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Paperback. Pp. 160. US$ 16.00. ISBN 9780802847409. In recent years the term “rewritten Bible”—felicitously coined by Geza Vermes almost half a century ago—has become object of a vigorous scholarly debate. Recent discussions revolve around two contested issues. The first pertains to the question of genre. To what extent do the texts traditionally classified as rewritten Bible constitute a distinct genre? Do they—rather than representing a genre— share a textual strategy also found in a wide array of writings belonging to different genres? The second issue relates to the question of terminology and is twofold. Is “Bible” an appropriate term for the category or is it anachronistic with regard to writings predating the third century c.e.? To what extent is “rewriting” an adequate term for capturing the textual activity? Should emphasis be attributed to the aspect of textual reiteration and loyal continuity of literary antecedents rather than being placed on the innovative and potentially polemic changes of authoritative predecessors? Is it possible at all to reach results that hold true of all texts traditionally subsumed under the category? Crawford’s book is a well-written and well-argued wrestle with these difficult questions. In less than 140 pages she succeeds to offer a pedagogically lucid and persuasive argument of her own understanding, which she develops by analyses of a number of well-chosen examples of Jewish literature of the late Second Temple period. It is an admirable example of scholarship not only accessible to the scholarly community but also—as the programmatic preamble of the series makes clear—to students and the general (thinking) public. In the introductory chapter, Crawford argues in favour of that current of recent scholarship which prefers to replace Bible with Scripture in order to free the category from the anachronistic elements implied by the term Bible. Second, she endorses the view that rewritten Scripture should be retained as the designation of a distinct literary genre, which during the last part of the Second Temple period increasingly detached itself exegetically from its literary antecedents. Even though the historical argument is not fully elaborated, it appears not only at distinct and important points, but also from the overall structure of the book. As the chapters proceed, the writings discussed embody increasingly freer forms of rewriting. In this manner, Crawford argues for a historical development during © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484613

116

Book Reviews / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 115–139

which the difference with regard to authority between authoritative writings and subsequent rewritings became greater and more explicit. Increasingly freer forms of rewriting, therefore, are a token of the fact that the texts being rewritten gradually obtained a correspondingly greater degree of authoritative status, eventually developing into canonical writings with a fixed wording. The development of explicit exegesis (quotation plus comment) correlates with the decrease in number of rewritten scriptural texts which represent an implicit type of exegesis (130, 146). In the same vein, Crawford appears to imply that the appearance of parabiblical literature is indicative of a later stage, when freer forms of interpretation were allowed or made possible based on the increasingly fixed nature of authoritative Scriptures (142, cf. 14–15). A corollary to this claim seems to be the idea that parabiblical texts did not arrogate to themselves the same authority as the writings which they used as springboard for their narrative embellishments. Crawford understands rewritten Scripture parallel with George Brooke’s and Moshe Bernstein’s conceptions. From Brooke she adopts the idea of a “sliding scale” designating different degrees of rewriting, but it is conspicuous that Brooke contrary to Bernstein and Crawford does not think of the category in terms of a genre. She concurs with Bernstein’s interest in retaining the category as a genre designation and approves of his (and others’) plea for extending it to include also legal texts. Crawford defines rewritten Scripture as a “group of texts which are characterized by a close adherence to a recognizable and already authoritative base text (narrative or legal) and a recognizable degree of scribal intervention into that base text for the purpose of exegesis. Further, the rewritten scriptural text will often (although not always) make a claim to authority of revealed Scripture, the same authority as its base text. The receiving community will not necessarily accept such a claim” (13). This is a heuristically operational definition, but I doubt that it designates a literary genre. Certainly, it does not from an emic perspective as seems to be the argument. Chapter 2 is the first of six chapters which discusses various forms of rewriting beginning at that end of the spectrum, where it is difficult to distinguish base text from rewriting. In the following chapters, the focus is increasingly directed towards the other end of the spectrum, where the distance between the rewritten composition and base text is greater. Contrary to parabiblical literature, Crawford maintains as a characteristic of works belonging to rewritten Scripture that they do not move so far apart from their base text that we are unable to recognise a clear connection. Chapter 2 is a discussion of the text of the Pentateuch of Qumran and documents related to it. Crawford shows how Qumran “biblical” texts are marked by some textual fluidity, “even to the point of accepting two parallel literary editions of the same text as valid Scripture” (37). In addition, she documents how scribes—with the aim in mind of creating through harmonisation a more complete text— removed what they perceived to be imperfections of the text.


117

Chapter 3 discusses Reworked Pentateuch for which Crawford has earned scholarly fame by her DJD edition (vol. XIII) (together with Emanuel Tov) of the manuscripts 4Q364 to 4Q367. She suggests that 4Q158, 2QExodb and 4QparaGen-Exod belong to the same group of texts, even though they are not copies of the same composition. These texts share with the scribal tradition responsible for the proto-Samaritan group of Pentateuch texts the use of harmonisation, but they also differ from it by the amplification of the received text with theological additions. The Reworked Pentateuch group represents the end of a long tradition of innerscriptural exegesis soon to be replaced by another tradition of separating the authoritative text from its commentary (57). I think Crawford overestimates the extent to which these compositions deviate from Scripture “proper.” I would be more inclined to see at least some of them in terms of Scripture (cf. the recent article by E. Tov, “Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday [ed. A. Lange et al.; FRLANT 230; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2009], 11–28), in particular because the assessment of this textual group as “reworked” is our modern observation. I doubt that the text-writers understood themselves in this manner. The next chapter deals with Jubilees, the composer of which used verbatim quotation of the base text, harmonisation, paraphrase, scriptural allusions and paraphrases, and inclusion of new material. Crawford emphasises how the text was meant to be read not only alongside Genesis-Exodus, but also to be accepted as an equal, if not greater, authority (81–82). I think that the last point is of great importance and has been underestimated by recent scholarship. Even though Jubilees does not by its acknowledgement of the Torah as the First Law deliberately seek to replace it, by virtue of creating a new narrative and by ascribing to itself the status of being given by God it does de facto supersede it by providing the decisive interpretative key to it. Unfortunately, Crawford does not pursue this point, but settles with the understanding that Jubilees was meant to stand beside its scriptural predecessors, to supplement and to explain them (81, 87). Chapter 5 deals with the Temple Scroll which Crawford sees parallel to Jubilees. It is still recognisably tied to its scriptural antecedents and claims the same authority as the base text: “The result is a new Book of the Law, meant to stand beside the received Torah as an equally authoritative representation of God’s revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai” (102). However, there is no firm evidence that any community ever ascribed the text the authority which it purports to have. Chapter 6 discusses the Genesis Apocryphon as a last example of rewritten Scripture. Crawford sees it “at the farthest removed from the scriptural text by the simple fact that it is written in Aramaic and not Hebrew” (105). Hence, its intended audience could not have misunderstood it for Genesis. She adds to this that Genesis Apocryphon does not make the claim to authority as the composer of

118


Jubilees or the redactor of the Temple Scroll. That is, of course, true, but neither did the composers of Reworked Pentateuch or the Pentateuchal texts discussed in ch. 2. The fact that the author uses a combination of authoritative traditions from Genesis, Jubilees and the Enoch literature along with other older sources and new material as springboard for creating a more complete narrative cannot be an argument against the potential claim to authority of the text. In chapter 7, Crawford discusses 4QCommentary on Genesis A, which she considers to represent a new type of text different from rewritten Scripture, even though it also contains a rewritten Scripture section. It represents the transition occurring in the last centuries of the Second Temple period from the implicit exegesis of rewritten Scripture to the explicit exegesis of citation plus comment. The final chapter presents a conclusion and a summary of the main results. Crawford also proposes a historical sketch in which she ties the examined innerscriptural types of exegesis to a specific school, which she identifies as the priestlyLevitical/Essene exegetical tradition. She claims that this type of interpretation appeared “sometime in the early Second Temple period, flourished in the third and second centuries b.c.e., and found a congenial home in the Essene movement, a subset of which settled at Qumran” (147). Intriguing as this may sound, I think it is one of the book’s weakest points, since Crawford hardly provides the arguments needed for the existence of such a historical development. The reification of a particular type of exegesis with a corresponding social and historical development is very problematic, given our limited knowledge of groups and sources once existing. I think that the clear pedagogical structure and argument of the book at this point has been conflated with the contention of a particular historical development that is too neat to fit the muddled complexities of human life. Crawford’s typology of rewritten Scripture is pedagogically persuasive, but I wonder what would have happened with the typology if she had included a discussion of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Josephus’ Antiquitates traditionally among the four prime examples of rewritten Scripture. Similarly, it would have been useful if Crawford had discussed “biblical” examples of rewritten Scripture such as, for example, Deuteronomy and Chronicles. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that underlying Crawford’s typology is a strong (canonically influenced) sense of Scripture, with which I am not entirely comfortable. Jubilees, for instance, may be a piece of a freer form of rewriting, but does that place Jubilees in another category than, for instance, Deuteronomy or the Masoretic Jeremiah? What about the additions to LXX Daniel? Is that an example of rewritten Scripture or parabiblical literature? It would have been useful if Crawford had spelled out in more detail how she conceives of the differences between what she calls rewritten Scripture and parabiblical literature. Although it may be wise at the etic level to differentiate between the two, I find it hard to see how one can make such a distinction at the emic level. The more so, if one also contends that the


119

differentiation should be linked to a particular historical development. Finally, I concur with Crawford’s emphasis on the question of authority as central to any debate on rewritten Scripture, but I think it is a point where progress still can be made. The works are not only very different from each other to warrant a simple discussion, but it is also decisive to differentiate between various gradations of authority pertaining to form, content, social context, and reception. Be that as it may, these are minor critical points to a book which I have truly enjoyed reading and benefited from discussing with. It is indispensable to scholars interested in Second Temple Judaism in general and in the question of rewritten Scripture in particular. Aarhus University

Anders Klostergaard Petersen

120


The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. By Lorenzo DiTommaso. SVTP 20. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hardback. Pp. xx + 548. € 145.00/US$ 215.00. ISBN 978900414412 5. This compendious monograph about the ancient and medieval apocryphal Daniel literature is the most complete treatment of the post-biblical Literatur- und Interpretationsgeschichte of this mesmerizing biblical figure to date. Apart from Daniel’s reception in art, literature, and the commentary tradition, which is acknowledged but not treated here, the book is truly comprehensive in its scope, covering a vast number of primary texts composed or preserved in languages such as Arabic, Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Old and Middle English, Medieval German, Greek, Hebrew, Old Icelandic, Old Irish, Latin, Persian, Old Slavonic, Syriac, and Turkish. It brings together diverse materials, both previously published and as of yet unpublished. As DiTommaso explains at the outset, “the present study represents the first attempt to identify and evaluate the complete body of texts and to clarify the state of their manuscript evidence” (15). Whether the massive nature of the material makes Daniel “arguably . . . the greatest postbiblical afterlife of any biblical figure,” as DiTommaso asserts (308), can be debated—after all, figures such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David were not exactly forgotten either once the biblical canon was closed. But still, the sheer vastness of the Daniel material here collected is truly impressive. Of course, we have come to expect nothing less from Lorenzo DiTommaso. Only four years prior the author published a project of similar ambition, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), a bibliography of over one thousand pages that lists scholarship worth a century and a half on more than one hundred primary texts. The present volume, which overlaps with and at the same time builds on the Bibliography, is similarly comprehensive. Daniel scholars as well as students of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha are deeply in DiTommaso’s debt. The first chapter serves as an introduction to both the biblical book and to the present study. DiTommaso then organizes the apocryphal Daniel literature according to genre into three groups: the legends, the apocalypses, and the prognostica. Chapter two is devoted to the “Daniel legenda,” that is, to postbiblical interpretations of the court narratives of Dan 1–6; the chapter is organized according to stages in Daniel’s life: the young Daniel, the chronology of the kings, and the last days. Chapter three deals with twenty-four extant Daniel apocalypses; it first catalogues the texts and provides bibliographical information, and then offers some general observations. Chapter four discusses a handful of prognostica, “texts concerned with communicating knowledge of the future” (234). Of course, such genre recognition can seem overly rigid and somewhat arbitrary (the distinction between apocalypses and apocalyptic oracles in chapter three, for example, is less convincing). Similarly, premodern interpreters did not © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484631


121

all limit themselves in their exegeses either to the first or to the second half of the biblical book. Diverse authors such as the author of Qumran’s Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246), Josephus, and the author of The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel all refer to and interpret both Daniel’s narrative frame and his apocalyptic visions. But DiTommaso’s intentions are sufficiently clear. In chapter five DiTommaso offers a few concluding remarks. And chapter six, titled “The Apocryphal Daniel Literature: Inventory and Bibliography,” resembles much DiTommaso’s Bibliography, in that he lists all known apocryphal Daniel material, complete with a list of the manuscript evidence and modern publications. We have known already from his Bibliography that DiTommaso is not exactly a man of few words. As is true for the Bibliography, there is considerable redundancy and unnecessary repetition here which should have been avoided. For example, detailed bibliographical information is provided for all twenty-four apocalypses in chapter three, and then again in chapter six. Texts such as 4Q243/244 are listed twice in the index, which defeats the purpose of an index. Clearly the print medium reaches its limits here. Material of this kind is best published in electronic form: it is more accessible, easier for the reader to maneuver, and it is convenient to keep updated. The book raises other organizational questions: why do chapters two, three, and four, which contain the heart of argument, take different forms? What determines which form is chosen? Similarly, chapter six, the “Inventory and Bibliography,” lists all texts by languages rather than genre (a less intrusive and hence thoughtful decision, no doubt), but there seems to be no rhyme and reason to the order in which the languages are arranged (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Hebrew, . . .), which, again, makes maneuvering rather difficult. The book also raises a number of more important, and rather intriguing, conceptual questions. Chief among them: what exactly is the connection between the postbiblical Daniel material and the book of Daniel itself? In addressing this question, DiTommaso does well to differentiate between each of his three groups (legends, apocalypses, and prognostica), but his answers will not go unchallenged. With respect to the first group, for example, he claims repeatedly that “the exegetical motivations behind the legenda were . . . identical to those which stood behind the formation of MT Daniel and the creation of the Greek witnesses to the Book of Daniel” (310; already 82 and 84). Really? How do we know this? DiTommaso also claims that the Daniel legenda “are all court tales” (83), which is obviously not true. He makes the most elaborate case for the continuity from the biblical into the post-biblical material with respect to the apocalypses. Here, too, he wants to find a very close connection between the biblical and the post-biblical material, and insists, uncompromisingly, that Collins’ Semeia definition of an “apocalypse” applies to all of these texts, too. What motivates DiTommaso’s zeal to fit such diverse texts under one definition? The one element missing from Collins’ famed definition, as is now widely recognized, is the function of the

122


apocalypse. DiTommaso’s impressive list of twenty-four diverse texts exemplifies better than anything the variety of functions and the evolution of a genre. The single most frustrating aspect of DiTommaso’s compilation, perhaps unavoidable in a tome of this size, is the fact that there is a lot of talk here about texts, yet no text is ever allowed to speak for itself. There are plenty of assertions, but no quotations from or even paraphrases of any text, so that the reader is at the mercy of the interpreter without being given any evidence. The problem is exacerbated in chapter three, where DiTommaso discusses in great detail the secondary literature. All too often he dismantles a text-based argument advanced by a scholar but then fails to produce an alternative reading that is superior. DiTommaso’s compendious monograph will prove indispensable for future generations working on the reception history of the book of Daniel; the aficionado of Daniel manuscripts in particular will not be able to put the book down. Those of us interested in careful and creative textual work will find this a perfect point of departure. Rice University

Matthias Henze


123

Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint: Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. VTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hardcover. Pp. xxxviii + 474. € 152.00/US$ 225.00. ISBN 9789004137387. This Festschrift, presented to Eugene Ulrich, is a collection of essays by colleagues and former students, on topics reflected in Ulrich’s own publications. There are ten essays grouped under the rubric “Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Including the Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert),” nine essays under “Qumran and the Non-Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert,” and six under “Septuagint and Other Ancient Versions.” The book also contains a preface which functions as a tribute to Professor Ulrich, his up-to-date (2006) bibliography, and several indices. Since the essays are too numerous to discuss each one individually, I will focus on a few of particular interest to readers of this journal. In the first section, Frank Moore Cross presents a new reconstruction of 4QSama 24:16–22. This reconstruction incorporates a newly identified fragment (frg. 7.5, PAM 43.124) into the column. Text critics will recognize Cross’s meticulous work and familiar style in this short but valuable article. Julio Trebolle, “Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition,” investigates the editing process that resulted in the book division and textual arrangement within 1 and 2 Samuel/1 Kings and their parallels in 1 Chronicles. He notes that different versions of the historical books within the Deuteronomistic History contain different divisions, resulting in multiple endings and beginnings. This is certainly true of the versions of 1 and 2 Samuel/1 Kings/1 Chronicles, and points to different editorial emphases in the versions. The second section includes articles by Daniel Harrington, John Collins, Devorah Dimant, and James VanderKam. Harrington surveys “‘Holy War’ Texts Among the Qumran Scrolls.” He concludes, “the most important contribution of these Qumran texts is their placing the Jewish ‘holy war’ tradition in the context of eschatology” (176). VanderKam’s contribution, “To What End? Functions of Scriptural Interpretation in the Qumran Texts,” determines that scriptural exegesis in the Scrolls functions to serve the Qumran community in three ways: (1) to inform/instruct; (2) to encourage by noting predictions; and (3) to warn (311). John Collins’s intriguing article, “The Time of the Teacher: An Old Debate Renewed,” critiques the old scholarly consensus dating the Teacher of Righteousness to the second century b.c.e. on the basis of the identity of the Wicked Priest as Jonathan the Hasmonean. He resurveys all the references to the Teacher and the Wicked Priest (both together and separately) in the Damascus Document and the pesharim, and tries to fit those passages to what we know about the Hasmonean high priests (mainly from Josephus). He concludes that the evidence of the pesharim points to Hyrcanus II (!) as the Wicked Priest (224), although he admits that some passages (chiefly referring to drunkenness) seem better suited © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484569

124


to Alexander Jannaeus (228). I find it hard to imagine the inept and indolent (as portrayed by Josephus) Hyrcanus II as the ruthless Wicked Priest who attacks the Teacher on the Day of Atonement, as Collins himself acknowledges (226). Collins is convinced, however, that the arguments for dating the Teacher and the Wicked Priest to the second century b.c.e. are no longer acceptable (228). I found the most challenging article in the second section to be Devorah Dimant’s “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of Jubilees in CD 16:3–4.” In it, she challenges two long-held scholarly assumptions. Dimant argues that the existence of an actual “Book of Noah,” used by the authors/redactors of the Enoch books and Jubilees, first proposed by R. H. Charles, has never been proven and rests on flimsy evidence. Dimant argues that the most solid piece of evidence for the hypothesis, the phrase ‫כתב‬ ‫“( מלי נוח‬the book of the words of Noah”) in col. 5 of the Genesis Apocryphon, does not point to an actual, real lost book, but is a literary fiction used by the author/redactor of the Genesis Apocryphon. Instead, Dimant believes that the Noah passages/references in Second Temple literature relate to legendary traditions about Noah, not an actual book (238). I generally agree with Dimant, although the discovery of the Scrolls has taught us never to be too dogmatic about what literature actually existed in the Second Temple period. Dimant also takes on the consensus that the phrase ‫ספר מחלקות העתים‬ ‫“( ליובליהם ובשבועתיהם‬the book of the divisions of the times according to their jubilees and their weeks”) is a citation of the opening of Jubilees. She notes that various parts of the phrase, especially ‫מחלקות העתים‬, occur throughout Qumran literature, especially calendar texts. She argues that “We may therefore conclude that when combined with the term ‫“( ספר‬book”) . . . the pair ‫ מחלקות העתים‬. . . is not the title of the book but stand for the topic it covers” (246), and is therefore not a citation of Jubilees. I do not find this argument convincing, since the common meaning of the noun ‫( ספר‬both in Qumran and non-Qumran texts) is “document, scroll,” referring to a physical thing, and, given the popularity of Jubilees in the Qumran collection, the most likely candidate for that scroll remains Jubilees. The third section contains an interesting article by Natalio Fernández Marcos entitled “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High Priests.” Fernández Marcos proposes that those working in the area of Rewritten Bible might profit from taking a broader look at literary composition in the Greco-Roman world, in particular the phenomenon of imitatio. He states that “mimesis or imitatio of the models was an essential element in all literary composition” of the period (322). The model par excellence was of course Homer. Marcos notes that for a Jewish author, the model par excellence would be the Torah, with Moses as its inspired author. He sees imitatio at work in the description of the High Priest’s vestments in the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, Josephus, and Philo, the model being Exod 28. This idea of imitatio influencing the scribes who


125

produced the Rewritten Bible texts is a stimulating one, which would have been strengthened if Fernández Marcos could have supplied a Hebrew or Aramaic example. To sum up, this volume should contain “something for everyone,” and is a worthwhile addition to the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum series. University of Nebraska

Sidnie White Crawford

126


Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. By Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Third revised edition. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2004. Paperback. Pp. 343. US$ 30.00. ISBN 9788876533181. Professor Joseph Fitzmyer’s editions of the Genesis Apocryphon have long been the starting point for all discussions of this fascinating text. Since the appearance of the first edition in 1966, Fitzmyer has been the teacher in spirit of a generation of Aramaists, including the present reviewer. The news that Fitzmyer was preparing an updated edition of this standard work was therefore gratefully received by the research community. The latest edition contains all of the material published (or made known to the public) to date. Fitzmyer has reread the material using the best photographs available to him, and proposed his own independent interpretation of the text. Thus he has managed, for example, to correct the meaningless reading of the edition princeps ‫( בזוי עופיאן שגיאן‬XIII 13) to the more reasonable ‫בזיו עופיאן שגיאן‬ “the glory of many leaves.” Some of his revised readings agree with my own proposals presented my 1996 dissertation, e.g. ‫( מן נתיב שקר‬VI 3) “from the path of falsehood”; and ‫( בגדם‬XIV 11) “the stump” instead of ‫( בגרם‬as well as the reconstruction in line 14 of the same column, ‫)ב]גד[ם‬. In other cases, he has retained readings of the editio princeps which I would now revise. For example, in VI 15 the editio princeps reads ‫ידעת וחוית‬, which Fitzmyer accepts and translates “I understood and made known.” However, I would now read ‫ ידעת וחזית‬and translate “I understood and saw.” Similarly, for ‫ חוית]ה‬in XVI 19 I would read ‫“ חזית]ה‬I saw it.” In some cases, Fitzmyer correctly challenges the editio princeps but proposes a reading which itself may be subject to critical review, e.g., in I 22, where the editio princeps reads ‫( אסור תקוף‬untranslated) and Fitzmyer reads ‫“ אסיר תקיף‬a strong prisoner.” However, I would propose the reading ‫“ אסור תקיף‬a strong bind,” a phrase found in the Book of the Giants and perhaps in 1 En. 10:4. In XIII 13 the editio princeps contained a printing error which has found its way into Fitzmyer’s edition; for ‫ ברומא‬it should read ‫“ ברומה‬in its height.” The difficult ‫ שרין ארעא ושרין מיא‬of the editio princeps (XIII 11) is translated by Fitzmyer “they were releasing the land and releasing the waters,” but the correct reading would seem to be ‫“ שרץ ארעא ושרץ מיא‬the creepy-crawlies of the land and the waters.” The same corrected reading has been independently proposed by D. Machiela in his 2007 PhD thesis. For ‫ך‬°‫ כי א‬in XIV 10 one may propose the reading ‫“ כואתך‬like you.” In XV 22 I would propose reading ]°‫“ [ת אנה לשם ברי וכולא לא‬I [ ]ed my son Shem and everything.” Most of these words appear in broken passages, and these minor differences of reading do not detract from the value of the book. Anyone, who has studied the Apocryphon closely, will know that the damaged columns contain many doubtful letters, and differences of reading and interpretation are inevitable. Fitzmyer has © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484578


127

sensibly chosen to concentrate on elucidating the readable sections of the work and not to get bogged down too much in speculative reconstructions. Those familiar with the previous editions of this work will recognize the nature of these concise observations, which draw widely upon other contemporary and later sources, in particular the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. The brief commentary deals with both linguistic and religious matters, and provides an excellent orientation point for further study of the scroll. Fitzmyer has made a most welcome contribution to the study of the Genesis Apocryphon. It is certainly not the last word on the scroll, but another generation of students will be indebted to him for this expanded edition of a now-classic work. University of Haifa

Matthew Morgenstern

128


Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. By George W. E. Nickelsburg. Second edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Paperback. Pp. xxiii + 445. US$ 30.00. ISBN 0800637798. Das 1983 in Philadelphia im Umfang von 234 S. erschienene und bewährte Werk liegt nun gründlich überarbeitet und erheblich erweitert in zweiter Auflage vor und präsentiert sich prominent innerhalb der verfügbaren Einleitungen in die antike jüdische Literatur. Doch handelt es sich nicht um eine primär literaturwissenschaftliche Darstellung, vielmehr werden die einzelnen Schriften innerhalb eines historischen Rasters gruppiert und somit vor allem als Quellen für ein vorgegebenes Geschichtsbild beschrieben, in deutlichem Gegensatz etwa zur ebenfalls umfangreichen Darstellung von Aranda-Pérez—García Martínez—Pérez Fernández (Literatura Judía Intertestamentaria; Estella: Editoria Verbo Divino, 1996). Diese bleibt aber ebenso wie andere nicht englisch verfasste Publikationen außerhalb des US-amerikanischen Gesichtskreises, eine bedauerliche Mangelerscheinung, die derzeit von selbstvergessenen europäischen Bildungspolitikern durch Vernachlässigung der eigenen Bildungstraditionen auch noch gefördert wird. Damit wird—nicht zufällig wie in der großen Politik—das Absurdum eines in „splendid isolation“ erhobenen universalen Geltungsanspruchs gepflegt. Das ist ein Irrweg auf beiden Seiten des Atlantik, in Europa als kapitulierender Verzicht auf den gerade in der sprachlichen Vielfalt begründeten Reichtum der eigenen Kultur. So begegnet man als Europäer bei der Lektüre englischsprachiger Publikationen immer häufiger erstaunlichen Lücken und wird von angeblich neuen Erkenntnissen und Positionen überrascht. Für eine (durchaus wünschenswerte) Übersetzung in eine andere europäische Sprache müsste Nickelsburgs Werk gründlich überarbeitet werden, um neben dringend notwendigen Neubearbeitungen der Darstellungen der frühjüdischen Literatur bestehen zu können, wie sie L. Rost oder O. Eißfeldt in engem Zusammenhang mit den alttestamentlichen Schriften geboten haben. Die übliche Abgrenzung „kanonischer“ biblischer Schriften von anderen Werken der Zeit hat zwar theologisch zum Teil einen Sinn, in einer Literaturgeschichte aber erst dort einen Platz, wo tatsächlich eine „kanonische“ Geltung in ihrer Wirkung nachweisbar ist. Hier liegt eine Schwäche fast aller Forschungen auf diesem Gebiet: die christliche und rabbinische Konzeption einer inhaltlichen Autorität der „Bibel“ bzw. der „Heiligen Schriften“ wird—oft auch nur unbewusst—zurückprojiziert und dient anachronistisch als Kriterium bei der Beurteilung frühjüdischer Schriften. Dies trifft auch für dieses stattliche Werk durchgehend zu. Nickelsburg behandelt die Texte nach der Einleitung (S.1–7) und einem „Prologue: Exile—Return—Dispersion“ (S. 8–16) in neun weitgehend chronographisch definierten Einheiten:

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484640


129

1. (S. 17–39) „Tales of Dispersion“ (Dan 1–6; Danielzusätze, 3Esr 3–4; Tob, Ep. Jer.). 2. (S. 41–65) „Palestine in the Wake of Alexander the Great“ (Überblick, Hellenisierung, Hen 72–82; Hen 1–36; Sirach). 3. (S. 67–89) „Reform—Response—Revolt“ ( Jub; TestMos; Dan 7–12; Komposition von Dan 1–12; Hen 83–90). 4. (S. 91–117) „The Hasmoneans and Their Opponents“ (Bar; Jud; 1 und 2 Makk; Hen 92–105; Henoch-Redaktionsstufen). 5. (S. 119–189) „The People at Qumran and Their Predecessors“ (Die DSS; CD, Pesharim, 1QH; 1QS/4QS; 1QM; 4QMMT, 1QSa, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; Temple Scroll; Aramaic Levi; 11Q5 und der Psalter; 4QInstr.; 1QGenAp; New Jerusalem). 6. (191–229) „Israel in Egypt“ (Septuaginta; Sibyllinen; Aristeasbrief; 3Makk; Esterzusätze; SapSal; Philo; SlawHen). 7. (231–261) „The Romans and the House of Herod“ (Übergang zur römischen Herrschaft, Herodianer; römische Statthalter, Agrippa I.; PsalSal; TestMos; Hen 37–71; 4Makk.) 8. (263–299) „Revolt—Destruction—Reconstruction“ (Pseudo-Philo LAB; 4Esr; syrBar; ApkAbr; Flavius Josephus). 9. (301–344) „Texts of Disputed Provenance“ (TestXII; TestJob; Test.Abr; Vita Adae et Evae; Josef und Aseneth; Gebet Manasses). Auf den SS. 345–423 folgen—recht leserunfreundlich—die Anmerkungen zu den einzelnen Kapiteln, darauf (literaturgeschichtlich nicht nötige) Genealogietafeln für Seleukiden, Hasmonäer und Herodianer, auf den SS. 429–438 ein Sachregister und zuletzt S. 439–445 ein Register der angeführten modernen Autoren, die aber meist in den Anmerkungen S. 345–423 gesucht werden müssen. Die einzelnen Schriften werden der englischsprachigen Forschungssituation entsprechend knapp, aber einprägsam beschrieben, Philo kommt mit den wenigen Seiten 212–221 allerdings viel zu kurz. Literaturwissenschaftliche Gesichtspunkte begegnen freilich selten und alles wird unter der selbstverständlichen kanontheologischen Vorgabe behandelt, dass biblische Schriften, sofern relevant, als Voraussetzung zu gelten haben. So wird etwa die planvolle literarische Komposition der Tempelrolle (S.154–159) und ihr Entwurf als rituell orientierte und tempelzentrierte Ordnung gegenüber der These eines „rewritten“ Deuteronomiums zuliebe nicht vermittelt. Die Frage der Konzeption und Institutionen der Torah sowie deren Verhältnis zum Pentateuch und dessen Karriere kommen, weil kanontheologisch abgeblockt, kaum zur Sprache. Auch die deutliche hermeneutische Differenz zwischen der Behandlung von Torah-Texten und prophetischen Texten und „Psalmen Davids“, also Pesharim, bleibt S. 128f. dem Leser verbor-

130


gen, außerdem vermißt man in einer derart historisch angelegten Darstellung die Feststellung, dass Pesharim erst in römischer Zeit auftauchen. Eine zweite folgenreiche Vorgabe ist die Annahme einer von Jerusalem und dem dortigen Kult ganz abgewandte „Qumrangemeinde“ auf Khirbet Qumran mit einer „sectarian theology“, der die meisten Texte zugeordnet werden. Damit kommt das traditionelle Bild von der Geschichte des frühen Judentums, das der Autor im Konsens mit der Mehrheit vertritt, auch in den Detailbeschreibungen zum Tragen. Es ist die an der hasmonäischen Historiographie und an Josephus orientierte Wertung des Hellenismus als einer Gefährdung der Religion Israels, die unter Antiochus IV. ihren krisenhaften Höhepunkt erreicht und dank der Hasmonäer abgewendet wurde. Demgegenüber treten konkrete Angaben über frühere Krisen, die in manchen Quellen auftauchen, in den Hintergrund; so die „Siebente Jobelperiode“ (im 3. Jh. v. Chr.) und das erste Drittel des 2. Jh. (laut CD I). Als Angelpunkt aller Datierungen dienen wie üblich das Buch Daniel (Kap. 7–12) und das Geschehen zwischen 169–164 v. Chr. Obwohl bestimmte Texte bzw. Textteile, etwa aus der Henochliteratur, dem paläographischen Befund folgend auch durch Nickelsburg früher datiert werden, wird der Regel also der Befund der Qumrantexte so weit als möglich dem traditionellen Geschichtsbild eingefügt und das Geschichtsbild der Texte selbst kaum erörtert. Das Buch vermittelt auf der Basis dieser Voraussetzungen Studierenden der Theologie einen gediegenen Überblick, der bei Benützung der mitgelieferten, didaktisch gut aufbereiteten CD noch erheblich vertieft werden kann. Es wird daher für längere Zeit meinungsbildend wirken und den „Konsens“ in bezug auf die Qumranfunde und ihren Platz in Literatur und Geschichte des frühen Judentums weiter festigen. Es wird schwierig sein, angesichts der hohen Qualität und der vorauszusehenden Wirkung dieses Werkes mögliche alternative Sichtweisen zu Bewusstsein zu bringen und zur Diskussion zu stellen. Universität Köln

Johann Maier


131

From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Community Rule. By Alison Schofield. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pp. xviii + 366. Hardcover. € 119.00/US$ 189.00. ISBN 9789004170070. Alison Schofield’s Notre Dame dissertation is an important contribution to the study of the Community Rule. She proposes a model that “reads the S versions as sharing a common core of material but reconstructs them as primarily diverging traditions without the unwarranted assumption that a limited group of scribes at Qumran developed all S traditions” (7). After a brief introduction, the study is divided into five chapters. The first chapter considers recent work on the Yaḥad and the Serekh. She demurs from using the term sect, on the grounds that there was no normative Judaism in the Second temple period. The usual “sectarian” view of the movement has been exaggerated by the tendency to identify it with the community at Qumran. The simple identification of the Yaḥad with the Qumran community has already been challenged by the reviewer, and also by Eyal Regev and Torleif Elgvin. Schofield approaches this issue from the perspective of the variant texts of S. Here she tries to apply the theories of the anthropologist Robert Redfield on “Great and Little Traditions” to develop what she calls a “radial-dialogic model”: “Assuming that religious and literary traditions radiated out from codifying centers of the hierarchical, ‘reflective’ few to the periphery, a defining feature of my model is that, though it is primarily radial, it also takes into account that when outlying communities appropriate traditions, they were continually redefining them for their own use on ‘on the ground.’ But they remained in regular exchange with the center” (67). She understands the Qumran collection as consisting of ideologically related texts, not all of which originated at Qumran. The second chapter provides a detailed analysis of the variants between the different S manuscripts. Rather than assume that the shorter forms of the Rule were derived from 1QS, or, conversely, that 1QS represents the end of a process of diachronic development, she supposes that a core of shared traditions radiated out early and underwent independent development. She rejects the hypothesis of a Qumran scribal school. She allows that 1QS may have been the official Qumran copy of the Rule. The remaining chapters seek to test this hypothesis against other evidence. Chapter three compares the organizational terminology in the Serekh with that in the D tradition. She notes that the term for plural residences in 1QS 6:3–4 (mgwryhm) is paralleled in the D manuscripts (“land of residences,” 4QDa 6 iv 3) and that the term “camp” in D reflects the same type of impermanence. She attributes this impermanence to the ideology of the movement rather than to the nature of the structures. The Many constituted the full members of a given community. The fact that the Zadokites do not appear in all copies of the S rule is explained by the suggestion that Zadokites may not have been present in all © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484587

132


outlying communities. Despite their differences, D and S reflect communities that must have been closely related, and in contact with each other. Correspondences in the penal codes are especially striking. S also has parallels in other documents. Schofield takes this as corroboration of her “radial-dialogic” view of the movement. Chapter Four discusses the evidence for the Essenes from classical sources. Here Schofield is not concerned to argue for the identification of the Yaḥad with the Essenes, but only to show that the classical accounts are compatible with her model. Philo and Josephus are quite explicit that the Essenes were not confined to a single settlement. Schofield also discusses the references to the Essenes in other ancient sources, such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius. She entertains the possibility that the Transjordanian Ossaeans of Epiphanius were Essenes who migrated east of the Jordan when the Romans destroyed Qumran, but she admits that there is little evidence to support this theory. The final chapter is devoted to the archaeology of Qumran. While Schofield broadly reviews the debate, her main concern is not to argue for the identification of the site but for its compatibility with her model for understanding the community. In light of Jodi Magness’ revision of the date of the settlement, at least the early core of the S rules must have been composed elsewhere. The discovery of related pottery at Jericho and elsewhere is taken to support the “radialdialogic” model of the community, rather than to question the sectarian character of the site. She entertains the possibility that burials in the same style as the Qumran cemetery were “Essene burials,” despite the problems posed by the cemetery at Khirbet Qazone, but she concludes properly that there is a danger of circular reasoning in the assumption that only sectarians used this style of burial. The discovery of some coffins at Qumran is taken as evidence that it was a revered center, to which people were brought for burial. The location in the wilderness was important for the ideology of the movement. She concludes that Qumran was a special religious center for the Yaḥad members living in the area of the Dead Sea and beyond. It served as a hierarchical center, the source of many legal and religious traditions for the Yaḥad. Since I have been persuaded for some time that the Yaḥad cannot be confined to the community that lived at Qumran, I find Schofield’s model for understanding the various forms of the S rule highly attractive. The “radial-dialogic” model for understanding relations within the movement also makes good sense. The main contribution of the book, however, is to the understanding of the S rules. Other aspects of the monograph are not as fully worked out. In a passing reference, she denies that the council of the community can be the same as the Yaḥad itself (46), but she never examines the use of that phrase, and the rejection is based on a misunderstanding of 1QSa, which is a rule for all Israel at the end of days. (There is no sustained analysis of 1QSa either.) I am not persuaded that there is actual evidence that Qumran was the hierarchical center of the sect


133

(although this is not impossible). At that point Schofield seems to rely on common assumptions about the central role of Qumran, of the kind she questions in her work on the Serekh. But this is primarily a proposal for the way that the variety in the S tradition should be explained, and as such it is an important contribution. It removes the need for fanciful suggestions that the rules were not really rules, or that a single community had multiple, contradictory, forms of its rules. This book represents a real advance in the study of the Community Rule. Yale Divinity School

John J. Collins

134


Der Opferkalender der Tempelrolle: Eine Untersuchung zu 11Q19 Kolumne 13–30. By David Volgger. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 79. St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 2006. Paperback. Pp. 208. € 19.50. ISBN 3830672365. The present work sets itself the task of investigating the sacrificial calendar of the Temple Scroll. The book gives the impression of the text of a lecture provided with footnotes. The author wants to discuss the sacrificial calendar of the Temple Scroll as based on certain central components and to uncover the composition principles of this text. The attached bibliography is eclectic. Even though the inclusion of frequent summaries makes the book seem to be very user-friendly, the author deals with the basic questions in a superficial way. In the introduction Volgger provides preliminary information about the Temple Scroll. He argues that the author (undifferentiated “authorship”) of this text uses the first person singular, to give the impression that the text has been directly revealed as God’s speech. He adopts, uncritically, the “Essene-Hypothesis” as a common hypothesis of Qumran, into which the text of the older Temple Scroll fits well. Finally, the author reports on Yadin’s Editio princeps, in order to deal with the question of possible biblical references within the Temple Scroll, superficially and with artificial criticism of the proposals from Maier and Swanson. As a result, one receives the impression that the author understands the Temple Scroll with its sacrificial calendar as an answer of a social group to a very particular historical challenge. This proposal is too broad, and therefore meaningless. The main part of the book is made up of the following excerpts: comparison of the two festival lists in 11QTa 11:9–13 and 11QTa 43:1–4; neither text agrees with the other, nor are they in consensus about the dates of the sacrificial calendar. The author questions the reasons for this lack of agreement or consensus, but does not come up with a plausible alternative. The third excerpt deals with the Tamid-sacrifice (11QTa 13:8–16; 3:14–20; 8:8–14), for which the author sees in 11QTa 13:8–16 “einen präzisen Platz in der gesamten Textstruktur der TR” (34). Such a comprehensive statement is surprising, since up to this point his analysis had been focused on small sections of the Temple Scroll. It becomes complicated when the author says: “In den Reflexionen von Kol. 3–12 bedient sich der Autor . . . in erster Linie der Textkomponenten ‘Material’, ‘räumliche Dimension’ und ‘funktionaler Aspekt’, und zwar in dieser Reihenfolge. Der schrittweise Bau des Tempels mitsamt seiner Ausstattung entspricht dieser architektonischen Denkgestalt. Dabei stehen die Ausführungen des Opferkalenders (Kol. 13–29) zur vorangehenden Beschreibung des Brandopferaltars (Kol. 12) in funktionaler Beziehung, da der Altar dazu dient, Gaben, besonders blutige Tieropfer, darzubringen” (sic p. 35).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484604


135

If I see it correctly, the sequence mentioned in the first sentence turns the sequence in the second sentence on its head. Chapters four through eighteen (pp. 36–171) deal respectively with the Sabbath (11QTa 13:17); the “First day of the month” (11QTa 14:1–8); the New Year (11QTa 14:9–15:3a); the “Days of the ordination of the offer-bearers and of the great (!) priest” (11QTa 15:3b–17:5); Pesach (11QTa 17:6–9); the “Feast of unleavened bread” (11QTa 17:10–16); the “Festival of the first fruits of the barley and the day of the waving of the sheaf ” (11QTa 18:1–10); the “Weeks or festival of the first fruits of the wheat” (11QTa 18:10b–19:9); the “Festival of the first fruits of the new wine’” (11QTa 19:11–21:10); the “Festival of the first fruits of the fresh oil” (11QTa 21:12–23:01); the “Festival of the wood offering” (11QTa 23:?–25:2); the “Day of remembrance” (11QTa 25:2–10); the “Day of reconciliation” (11QTa 25:10–27:10); the “Festival of Tabernacles” (11QTa 27:10–29:2); and finally the completion of the sacrificial calendar. It is not worth reciting the fruits of these excerpts, as none are apparent. The author has intensively “examined” the particular texts, and has allowed them to stand synchronically next to one another. Relationships to Old Testament guidelines or to other texts in Qumran—independent of how one wants to clarify such a relationship—are not substantiated. The physical limitation of the Temple Scroll is a cusp, which is never looked beyond. Linguistic explanations and proofs are completely absent, and even the syntactical editing of the text, which would be expected from the author, is not shown. The book closes with the summary chapter 19 (pp. 172–186), a summary of summaries, but one is still not better informed. Question upon many questions remain: Why do the festival lists vary? How do they relate to the festival calendars in the Old Testament? Why does the sacrificial calendar deal with only a selection of this exalted text? How is this choice justified? What can account for the texts which have been left out? Is it really only a matter of a “systematische Reflexion zu den grundlegenden Opfervollzügen” (p. 173) in view of an unclearly explained sacrificial service at the sanctuary? This alone must be subject to strong objection, in view of the description of the cult which is carefully structured through numerous tôrôt. One might agree with the author in his understanding of the “Place/Altar” (or better “altar for the burnt offering”), the “time,” “cult members” and “oblation” as the four components of the text 11QTa 13–29 (174 ff.). This composition principle is coherent throughout, even when it is not consistently enacted, but rather can vary throughout: Wenn die Autorenschaft die Komponente ‘Ort’ an zahlreichen Stellen mit dem Brandopferaltar konkretisiert, rechtfertigt sie die aktuelle Position des Kalenders im gesamten Tempelbauplan. Dagegen bedient sie sich der

136


Komponente ‘Zeit’, um den internen Textverlauf von Kol. 13–29 zu strukturieren. Besonders detailliert entfaltet sie aber die Komponente ‘Opfergaben’ und entwickelt diesbezüglich eine umfangreiche Reflexion zum israelitischen Kult. Wie das ganze Volk Israel dabei in Erscheinung tritt, veranschaulicht die Autorenschaft schließlich mit Hilfe der Komponente ‘Kultteilnehmer’ bzw. Akteure (174). The question, however, is what really is achieved by the analysis of such components, particularly those components which are also otherwise well-known basic elements of all kinds of sacrificial cult at the temple. Although the author begins with the component “Altar,” by the end he provides a wide range of examples, in which the oblations are not absolutely associated with the altar, and therefore are not thoroughly consistent with this component. The component “time” has a double application. Festivals and offerings are determined according to the calendar year, as well as in relation to one other, for example Pentecost. The component “cult members” is most closely connected with the different “oblations.” The concluding remarks of the author run as follows: Der Opferkalender der TR stellt insgesamt ein Wissens- und Informationsnetz dar, das im großen und ganzen durch die vier Komponenten ‘Ort/ Altar’, ‘Zeit’, ‘Kultteilnehmer’ und ‘Opfergaben’ strukturiert wird. Dieses Netzwerk wird den Rezipienten in seinen Aktivitäten und Wahrnehmungen leiten . . . Das Wort YHWHs, nämlich das Wissens- und Informationsnetz des Opferkalenders, wird . . . zuallererst im aufmerksamen Hörer verankert und dient Mose und Israel als innerer, mentaler Kompaß auf ihrem Weg in die Zukunft (186). The reader gains but meager knowledge. The author seeks to comment on the sacrificial calendar. An elaborate re-narration is the result, which, for lack of any cross-reference to the Old Testament, is of questionable value. Bonn University

Heinz-Josef Fabry


137

Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. By Ian C. Werrett. STDJ 72. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Pp. x + 350. Hardcover. Pp. x + 350. € 119.00/US$ 177.00. ISBN 9789004156234. Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls is an in-depth study of purity laws in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ian Werrett takes all of the purity data into account and attempts to refine existing scholarly analyses of them. Texts are presented in Hebrew and English and discussion is presented in a clear style. One of Werrett’s key arguments is that the Qumran documents must be viewed as independent sources rather than reading them in light of each other. This seems to be a healthy approach, but Werrett often overstates the differences between the texts. Various composition styles, emphases and foci do not necessarily mean contradiction (cf. 106, 228). Rather, while appreciating differences in the texts (spanning over 200 years), I am struck by the unusual similarities of the purity laws of the Scrolls representing a stringent halakic strain as yet unknown. To his credit, Werrett recognizes the shared use of Scripture behind the texts. However, just because a position can be interpreted from Scripture does not mean it carries no polemic (43–44, 49). For example, both prohibition and permission for uncle-niece marriages can be supported by using Scripture. Werrett states that he is against using rabbinic material to clarify the Scrolls when the latter are written much earlier (45), yet he cites the Rabbis repeatedly (89, 129). Indeed, the Rabbis are sometimes the only available source of explication for purity issues reflected in the Scrolls and they reveal a broader context for them beyond Qumran. Werrett expresses concern that the Rabbis may not have accurately recorded the Pharisee/Sadducee disputes, but this could be said about any author (ancient or modern). More specifically, I turn to Werrett’s claim that “there is nearly as much explicit disagreement on the subject of ritual purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls as there is agreement, thereby calling into question the proposition that the ‘similarity of the concept and laws of purity [in the scrolls] are more striking than [sic] the differences’ ” (3). (This quote is from my book, Purity Texts, [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 12.) Werrett charts eight topics of “disagreement” which, in my view, could have been better discussed in terms of agreement. The first “disagreement” Werret discusses concerns the nature of the one who sprinkles the me niddah on the corpse-impure. He points out that the texts differ on whether the one who sprinkles purgation water on the corpse-impure should be a layperson or a priest. For the Damascus Document (combination of 4Q269 8 ii 5–6 and 4Q271 2 12–13) the issue is that the sprinkler must be (1) truly pure, i.e., having waited until evening as part of his purification process; and (2) not be a youth. The author does not argue about the matter of priest vs. layperson, thus it is not in conflict with 4Q277, as Werrett implies. In fact, 4Q277 agrees with © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484622

138


the Damascus Document that a child is prohibited from doing the sprinkling (4Q277 1 ii 7). The writer of 4QMMT too is concerned that those involved in the purgation ash burning, collection and sprinkling must be fully pure, i.e., they have waited until sunset (as part of their purification from any impurity) before performing these rites (4Q394 3–7 i 16–20). Werrett fails to appreciate the agreement between these texts that (1) only fully pure persons may be ash sprinklers (4Q269/4Q271, 4Q277, 4Q394); and (2) no children may be ash sprinklers (4Q269/4Q271, 4Q277). Both of these positions conflict with Pharisaic practice known from rabbinic literature (m. Par. 3:2–4; Ep. Barn. 8:1; m. Par. 3:7; 5:4). Concerning the second “disagreement,” Werrett states: “Household items that are corpse-contaminated are either washed in water or sprinkled with the me niddah [Heb] (4Q269 8 ii 3–6; 11QT 49.16–20)” (289). But this is not a disagreement between texts but one of focus. Scripture is already clear that both sprinkling and immersion are required (cf. Num 19:18; 31:23), and these texts simply emphasize particular aspects of the purification process. The Damascus Document (only seven lines of 4Q269 are extant) is interested in sprinkling methods, especially the issue of the purity of the sprinkler. To say that the Temple Scroll writer only requires immersion but not sprinkling of corpse-contaminated vessels is to say that he rejected the clear meaning of Scripture (Num 19:18; 31:23). A third “disagreement” is over the distance of latrines from the camp or city. The War Scroll stipulates 2000 cubits (1QM 7:6b–7) and the Temple Scroll 3000 cubits (11QT 46:13–16a). Setting aside the reality or unreality of the matter, this is truly a numbers disagreement. What is of greater significance is the agreement of these Scrolls that latrines should be excluded from the camp or city, especially when this contrasts with Pharisaic halakah. The fourth “disagreement” concerns the matter of newborn children being either pure or impure at birth. In a reconstruction of a fragment of the Damascus Document (4Q266 6 ii 5–12) the parturient is required to give her baby to a wet nurse for the sake of purity. This does not necessarily mean (contra Werrett) that the baby was considered free of impurity. It has been born in post-partum blood and most likely does carry an impurity although Scripture is silent on this point (cf. 4Q265 7 11–17; Luke 2), but handing it to a wet nurse prevents a continuing impure situation. The fifth “disagreement” is purportedly between 4Q512 10 1–2, 11 2–5 and 11QTa 46:13–16a on purification rules for the zab. Both texts require the healed zab to wait for seven days, wash his clothing and bathe in water. Additionally, fragments of 4Q512 describe a blessing which the zab gives while still in the water. Is this a disagreement between the two texts? Werrett claims that the blessing in 4Q512 reveals the writer’s interest in combining moral and ritual purity unlike the Temple Scroll (296). The Temple Scroll’s application of pure food restric-


139

tions to the pagan captive bride, however, would seem to make just that kind of combination (11QTa 63:10–15). The sixth “disagreement” concerns those who have come in contact with objects contaminated by a zab. The Tohorot texts cited here are too fragmentary to support the “disagreement.” The seventh “disagreement” deals with uncle-niece marriages. Three texts prohibit them (CD 5:7–11; 4Q251 17 2–3; 11QTa 66:16–17). Leviticus does not prohibit them explicitly but does prohibit marriage between a man and his aunt (Lev 18:12–13). Werrett points out as a disagreement among the texts that 4Q543 1 5–6 1–7 mentions that Miriam was married to her father’s brother, Uzziel. First, this is not a legal text but a vision. Secondly, it may well be that the author, like the Rabbis, saw no problem with illicit practices of the Hebrews before the law was given (cf. David’s polygamy in ignorance, CD 5:2–5; Abraham’s violation of kashrut, Gen 18, eating curds and meat). The agreement among the three texts which outlaw uncle-niece marriages should be appreciated; it is polemical by its own admission, cf. CD 5:7–11, and the view of the opposition is known from other sources (b. Yeb. 62b; b. Giṭ. 83a; b. Sanh. 76b). The final “disagreement” is on the prohibition or allowance of Jew/Gentile unions. Werrett lists six texts which agree that intermarriage is forbidden. He claims, however, that the Temple Scroll is in disagreement with this notion because the captive war bride is allowed to marry the Israelite soldier. Careful analysis reveals that the Temple Scroll too rejects intermarriage. The Bible allows for the captive bride and so this cannot be explicitly overruled. The Temple Scroll author, however, has cleverly inserted an extra restriction into the marriage procedure: the pagan war bride cannot eat of her husband’s food for seven years. With one stroke, the author has cancelled the threat of this union. The fact that these two will not be able to eat the same food places a restriction upon them that will mitigate against such a marriage ever taking place. In conclusion, in his effort to make a more “nuanced” presentation of the purity texts of the Scrolls, Werrett has unfortunately left the impression that the Scrolls are unrelated in the matter of purity. His atomistic approach to each text without sufficient recourse to other ancient Jewish texts, both from Qumran and elsewhere, has led to some distortions in the overall picture of purity in the Scrolls and its significance within Second Temple Judaism. Patten University

Hannah K. Harrington

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Dead Sea Discoveries, 11, 2004

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Walking Dead Weekly #17

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Cipher

Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The Dead Sea Deception

Deep Sea Dead

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Deception

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Cipher

Deep Sea Dead

Do-17 (Vol.1)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Deciphering The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Vol 1 & 2)

Hard Discoveries

Remarkable Discoveries!

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Dead Sea Discoveries, 11, 2004

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Dead Sea

Walking Dead Weekly #17

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Cipher

Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The Dead Sea Deception

Deep Sea Dead

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Deception

The Dead Sea Cipher

The Dead Sea Cipher

Deep Sea Dead

Do-17 (Vol.1)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Deciphering The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Vol 1 & 2)

Hard Discoveries

Remarkable Discoveries!

Recommend Documents