1 From Enoch through Abram
4Q201, Enocha (Ena)/4Q338, Genealogical List?
[ed. Milik, BE, 139–63; Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:3–7 (frags. 2–8); Drawnel, ABE, 59–142]1
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserves portions of the Enochic Book of Watchers, in which the story of the descent of the Watchers from heaven and its consequences is recounted (cf. Gen 6:1–8). Along with the other copies of Enoch from Qumran, of which 4Q201 is apparently the earliest, this scroll is by far the oldest physical witness to the book. It also shows clearly that at least most of Ethiopic 1 Enoch was first composed in Aramaic. 4Q201 1i–v and Stuckenbruck’s frags. 4–7 contain material corresponding to chapters 1–9 in the later Ethiopic version: Enoch’s introductory words and description of the constancy of the created order, parts of the list of wayward angels, an account of the angels’ offenses, and notice of their resulting condemnation. In addition, 4Q201 1v–vi and Stuckenbruck’s frags. 2–3 and 8 preserve text that does not seem to correspond to other known versions of 1 Enoch, suggesting that the Aramaic Book of Watchers may have contained material not found in later versions of the book. Drawnel (ABE, 68) raises the alternative possibility that these fragments may belong to another manuscript. As part of the literature focused on Enoch, 4Q201 attests to the active development of Enoch’s very important role as a primordial wisdom figure during the Second Temple period, a role that continued to exert influence through a variety of later Jewish and Christian writings. The myth of the Watchers, their transgressions, and their judgment, also became popular subjects in subsequent literature (e.g., Jubilees and the Damascus Document). Among the Aramaic literature from Qumran, the story of the Watchers figures prominently in the Book of Giants and the Genesis Apocryphon, both of which were almost certainly influenced directly by the Book of Watchers.
Material remains: Combining the materials published by Milik and Stuckenbruck, Drawnel counts twenty-four fragments of 4Q201 in total. The largest fragment by far is labeled by Milik as 4QEna 1iic and 1iiic, and by Drawnel as 4Q201 3i and 3ii (pictured below). This fragment, though badly damaged, preserves significant portions of two columns and a considerable amount of text. The first of its columns contains parts of seventeen lines, some of which are over thirty letters in length, and the second contains parts of twenty-three lines. Milik concluded that 4Q201 preserved parts of six consecutive columns, three on one sheet and three on another (BE, 139), though this is based heavily on his extensive reconstructions. A few of the remaining fragments are nearly the size of a standard playing card, though most are much smaller than this. 4Q201 overlaps directly with other copies of the Book of Watchers (4Q202 [Enb] and 4Q204 [Enc]) at the following locations: 4Q201 1iii.1–2//4Q202 1ii.6–7, 4Q201 1iii.10–15//4Q202 1ii.15–19, 4Q201 1iv.1–7//4Q202 1iii.1–8, 4Q201 1iv.10–11//4Q202 1iii.10–11, 4Q201 1ii.1–3//4Q204 1i.20–22, and 4Q201 1ii.5–11//4Q204 1i.24–30. While the recto side of 4Q201 contains the Book of Watchers, the manuscript is an opisthograph, and the otherwise unknown text of the verso was designated by Tov as 4Q338 (Genealogical List?).
Notes on provenance: Milik mentioned in several publications that some of the Enoch fragments were discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin in 1952, while others were excavated by him and de Vaux as part of the official excavations of Cave 4 in the same year (Milik, “Hénoch,” 70; Milik, BE, vi; Mébarki and Grenache, “Milik,” 132). Unfortunately, in most cases it can no longer be determined to which of these groups a manuscript should be assigned. At least the large frag. 2 of 4Q201 was recovered in the official excavations, being included on PAM 40.985 in the “E series” plates.
Sample image: 4Q201 ii–iii
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-cursive (Milik) or semi-formal (Langlois); several affinities with semi-cursive ‘Idumaean’ bookhand (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 200–150 BCE (Milik, who speculated this copy was made from an exemplar dating to the third cent. BCE); ca. 225–175 BCE (Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript stands out for its relatively low levels of quality and scribal execution when compared to other Qumran copies. It is also the only opisthograph identified among the Aramaic Qumran scrolls, with the Book of Watchers written on what remains of the recto (hair side of the skin) and another, poorly-preserved Hebrew text on the verso (flesh side of the skin), designated 4Q338 (Genealogical List?). It is virtually certain that 4Q201 was the text first written on the manuscript, to which 4Q338 was later added. As in other Qumran opisthographs, 4Q338 was written as if the manuscript was flipped toward the reader from top to bottom, so that the top margin and beginning of the text on 4Q338 are located where the bottom margin of 4Q201 is located on the recto (Milik BE, 139; Tov DJD 36:290). Little of the text on 4Q338 is now legible, but the word
There are several scribal habits that set this manuscript yet farther apart from most others at Qumran. Milik had already noted the general tendency to assimilate the aleph in words such as
Original manuscript quality: Fair
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Langlois, Le Premier; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 44–47.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear insertion (1ii.1):
(b) Supralinear ayin added to correct
(c) Supralinear insertion with what Milik considered sublinear and supralinear scribal marks indicating placement of corrected content (1iii.13): ]
(d) Supralinear insertion (1iii.21):
Language
Syntax:
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1ii.7[SOV], 1ii.11, 1ii.12, 1iv.1, 1iv.4, 1iv.8
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1i.4
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.6, 1ii.1, 1ii.2, 1ii.6, 1ii.13
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1ii.8
Verbless clause:
1iii.13
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1ii.11
Double
1ii.4, 1ii.9(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1iii.16, 1iii.17
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1iii.3, 1iv.6
1iiv.8
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1i.5
Orthography/Phonology:
1ii.5, 1ii.15, 1iii.9(3x), 1iii.10(2x), 1iii.11(2x), 1iii.12, 1iii.13, 1iv.7, 2.2
1iii.11, 1iii.21, 1iv.4
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q202, Enochb (Enb)
[ed. Milik, BE, 164–78; Drawnel, ABE, 143–93]2
Content synopsis and significance: Like 4Q201 (Ena), the fragments of this manuscript preserve parts of the Enochic Book of Watchers corresponding to some verses of 1 Enoch 5–10, 14, and 22. These chapters include Enoch’s notification of the errant Watchers’ deeds, a list of the Watchers’ names, the reaction of the four archangels, the Lord’s subsequent instructions to them, and Enoch’s angelically-guided tour of the cosmos. Milik extensively reconstructed portions of five columns, though his reconstruction is often based on very scanty remains. Nevertheless, the general identification of the contents is not in doubt. Along with 4Q201 (Ena), this Hasmonean-period manuscript provides our earliest attestation of the Book of Watchers, and proves that it was composed in Aramaic.
Material remains: This badly damaged manuscript comprises thirty-one small fragments. The largest ones (e.g., 1iia, 1iid, 1iik, 1iiip, and 1iiiw) preserve between four and eight lines, but even these do not contain much running text. Most of the fragments are tiny scraps with only partial words or phrases remaining. There does appear to be evidence of horizontal and vertical ruling, as both Milik (BE, 164) and Drawnel (ABE, 145) observed. However, as Milik noted, these lines are now “barely visible” (BE, 164). A few of the fragments preserve intercolumnar and lower margins, but the manuscript’s poor state of preservation prevents us from saying anything with confidence about the original size of the scroll or its columns (see also Drawnel, ABE, 146). Milik attempted an extensive reconstruction, though his proposals are often hypothetical and quite speculative. 4Q202 overlaps directly with other copies of the Book of Watchers (4Q201 [Ena] and 4Q204 [Enc]) at the following locations: 4Q202 1ii.6–7//4Q201 (Ena) 1iii.1–2, 4Q202 1ii.15–19//4Q201 (Ena) 1iii.10–15, 4Q202 1iii.1–8//4Q201 (Ena) 1iv.1–7, 4Q202 1iii.10–11//4Q201 (Ena) 1iv.10–11, and 4Q202 1vi.9//4Q204 (Enc) 1vi.16.
Notes on provenance: At least two fragments of 4Q202 are included on the “E series” plate PAM 40.967 (Milik’s frags. 1u and 1i’; Drawnel’s frags. 32–33), with Tigchelaar identifying a possible third fragment on PAM 40.970 (not identified by Milik or Drawnel). One fragment (the right piece of Milik’s 1w; Drawnel’s frag. 20) was also photographed as part of the “G series” plate PAM 40.613, showing that fragments of this scroll were found by both the Bedouin and those conducting the official excavations in 1952. The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q202 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q202 1ii j, k
Material: Skin
Script: Early Hasmonean semi-cursive (Milik); archaic or early Hasmonean semi-formal (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 200–150 BCE (Milik); 175–100 BCE (Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: This scroll is written in a well-trained, steady scribal hand, and its layout (relatively large margins and spacing between lines, vacats, etc.) indicates considerable care and high quality. It is, therefore, surprising to find a high number of corrections: eleven supralinear additions in only thirty-five fragments, at one point with a rare two lines of supralinear text (see below). Milik described the manuscript as “rather careless, unless it is a question of a defective archetype” (BE, 165). Additionally, the scribe did not distinguish between medial and final forms of the letters kaph and pe. The script and technical execution itself, however, is far from careless, and it may well be that the manuscript was compared with a better archetype after copying, as Milik (followed by Drawnel) suggested. Milik noted that the corrections were made in the same hand as the main text, which appears to be correct, meaning that the corrections were made in relatively close chronological proximity to the original copying.
Despite Milik’s extensive reconstructions, very little actually remains of the text, limiting our ability to gain an accurate sense of its linguistic contours. Aleph-prefix forms in the causative and reflexive-passive stems seem to have been preferred, and aleph is also used for the definite article and other endings, as expected. An exception is found with the pael infinitive
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 47.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Excerpt of two added lines of supralinear text (1ii.25a–25b):
24
25a ]
25b ]
25 ]
(b) Supralinear additions (1ii.2): ]
(c) Supralinear addition and probable erasure by scraping (1iii.15):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii.6(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1iii.4, 1iii.5
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1ii.25(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii2, 1ii.7(?), 1ii.8(?), 1ii.18(?), 1ii.26–27(?)
Verbless clause:
1ii.16, 1ii.17, 1ii.18(?), 1.iii.14, 1iii.15
Use of
1ii.26(2x?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1iii.1(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1iv.8(?)
1ii.4, 1iv.9
Object suffix on verb:
1ii.27(2x)
Other noteworthy features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q204, Enochc (Enc)
[ed. Milik, BE, 178–217; Drawnel, ABE, 194–308]3
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript contains portions of the Enochic Book of Watchers, Book of Dreams, Epistle of Enoch, and the Birth of Noah appendix. The fragments of 4Q204 correspond to chapters from across Ethiopic 1 Enoch, including 1–3, 6, 10, 12–15, 18, 30, 35, 89, and 104–106. This wide variety of chapters from the later Ethiopic book is significant, since it suggests that 4Q204 contained a large number – if not all – of the major sections of the later 1 Enoch. Milik proposed that 4Q203 (EnGiantsa) belongs to the same scroll as 4Q204, which, if accepted (it is rejected by Drawnel, ABE, 3, 196), would mean that the Book of Giants was also included with the portions of 1 Enoch listed above. Milik further suggested that, along with the Astronomical Book, the contents of 4Q203/204 may have formed what Milik deemed an “Enochic Pentateuch” (with the Book of Giants later being displaced by the Parables/Similitudes), though this hypothesis is speculative and has not gained wide acceptance. From the Book of Watchers, 4Q204 preserves parts of the initial description of creation and its majestic constancy, the list of names for the leaders of the fallen Watchers, the announced doom of the Watchers, the promise of a renewed, abundant creation, and a dream-vision in which Enoch is told the fate of the Watchers after they had petitioned the Lord for mercy. Parts of Enoch’s cosmic journey in the latter section of the Book of Watchers are also extant. From the Book of Dreams we find remains of the Animal Apocalypse, which symbolically recounts and foretells human history through vibrant animal imagery. Finally, a very small portion of the Epistle’s conclusion is preserved, followed by parts of the story of Noah’s birth as preserved in 1 En. 106–7. The latter is found in an alternate, probably earlier form in 1Q20 (apGen) 2–5. It may also be echoed in other Aramaic Qumran texts (4Q534–536 [Birth of Noaha–c]) and the Hebrew text 1Q19 (Noah).
Material remains: 4Q204 is the most extensively preserved of the Qumran Enoch manuscripts. It comprises twenty-nine fragments, some of which can give us a sense of the manuscript’s original dimensions, and those of its columns. Outside dimensions of the largest fragments (e.g., 1g, n, 5b) exceed those of a standard playing card, while roughly half of the fragments are about the size of small coins. Milik’s reasonable placement of frags. 1g, 1h, and 1i imply that 4Q204 contained columns of at least thirty lines. On the basis of this reconstruction, he concluded that the written columns were about 20 cm in height, and the entire scroll around 24 cm in height (Milik, BE, 182; so too Drawnel, ABE, 196). Milik’s frag. 5b, the widest preserved, has lines of over forty letters. Drawnel estimates that the column in this fragment originally contained lines of over fifty letters, and was roughly 11 cm wide (ABE, 196). Nevertheless, 4Q204 is still a relatively poorly-preserved manuscript with few segments of sustained, running text. Several fragments preserve parts of two columns (e.g., 1c, 1g, 1i, 1m, and 1n) and some contain the remnants of seven or more lines, but most fragments are very badly damaged. The reconstructions of Milik, Drawnel, and others rely on parallels with the Ethiopic Enoch manuscripts. 4Q204 overlaps directly with four other Qumran copies of Enoch (4Q201 [Ena], 4Q202 [Enb], 4Q205 [End], and 4Q206 [Ene]) at the following locations: 4Q204 1i.20–22//4Q201 (Ena) 1ii.1–3, 4Q204 1i.24–30//4Q201 (Ena) 1ii.5–11, 4Q204 1ii.24–29//4Q201 (Ena) 1iii.5–11, 4Q204 1vi.16//4Q202 (Enb) 1vi.9, 4Q204 1xii.28–30//4Q206 (Ene) 1xxvi.14–17, and 4Q204 4.1//4Q205 (End) 2ii.30
Notes on provenance: 4Q204 is one of several copies of Enoch that can confidently be assigned to the group of fragments excavated by de Vaux’s team in 1952. This can be seen in Milik’s first-hand accounts (see Milik, “Hénoch,” 70; Milik, BE, vi; Mébarki and Grenache, “Milik,” 132), and especially by the fact that many fragments of 4Q204 were photographed as part of the “E series” plates on PAM 40.963 (5g), 40.965 (1g, 1i, and 1n), 40.975 (1d, 1g, and 1h), 40.978 (1g), 40.979 (1g and 5h), and 40.982 (1c and 1e). While some of the fragments coming from the Bedouin discoveries cannot be ruled out absolutely, it is clear that a significant portion of the scroll was recovered in the official excavations.
Sample image: 4Q204 1xii–xiii
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian, the same scribe as 4Q203 (EnGiantsa) (Milik); early Herodian formal, with some early Herodian round semiformal features (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Milik); 33–1 BCE (Drawnel; “toward the end of that period, the turn of the century,” ABE, 200)
Special traits and general comments: The scribe who wrote this manuscript was highly trained and relatively consistent, using, as Milik observed, a somewhat “broken” form of early Herodian period script recalling styles known from Syria and Palmyra. Though the script itself is petite, the layout and execution of the manuscript is very generous in terms of margins, spacing, and the frequent, sometimes capacious use of vacats. Milik drew attention to a very interesting distinguishing feature of this scribe: the practice of “justifying” the left-hand margin of columns, occasionally causing the last word of a line to be separated from the preceding one by more than the expected distance (see frags. 1g.5–8, 1n.2–8, 5a.4). This also appears to take place in 4Q203 (EnGiantsa) 7ib.3–5, and Milik noted the same practice in other epigraphic sources from outside of Qumran. There are very few corrections in this manuscript, and those present are limited to the supralinear addition of single letters by the original scribe. Milik’s proposal of a crossed-out and corrected aleph in 1i.24 (
The orthography of the scribe is fairly full and somewhat varied, with a tendency to retain or insert etymological and non-etymological alephs for marking vowels that are to be pronounced at the middles or ends of words (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 47–51; Tigchelaar, “Notes.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1i.25):
(b) Vacat in list of names (1ii.26):
(c) Vacat (5ii.29) and supralinear letter added (5ii.30):
29
30
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
5ii.26(part.)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1v.5, 1v.6, 1vi.10(?), 4.1, 4.3, 4.4(2x), 5i.22, 5ii.26, 5ii.27, 5ii.28(2x)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1v.5(?), 1vi.19, 4.10
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.20(2x), 1v.2, 1v.5, 1vi.5, 1vi.7, 1vi.12, 1vi.27, 1xii.23, 1xii.26, 1xii.27, 1xii.30, 1xiii.25, 1xiii.27(?), 4.3, 4.5(2x), 4.7, 4.10(2x), 5ii.27
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
5ii.27
Verbless clause:
1ii.24, 1ii.24–25, 1ii.25, 1ii.26(4x?), 1ii.27(2x), 1ii.28, 1vi.6, 5ii.30
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1vi.5, 1xii.24
Double
1i.28
Verb of movement +
4.5
Verb of movement +
1xiii.25, 4.3, 4.8
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1vi.17–18(?), 4.1
Participle + finite form of
5ii.2(?)
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1v.3, 1vi.21, 1vi.23, 1vi.29, 1xii.23, 1xiii.25, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9
4.10
Object suffix on verb:
1vi.21(2x), 5ii.26(2x)
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1vi.12
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q205, Enochd (End)
[ed. Milik, BE, 217–25; Drawnel, ABE, 309–39]4
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserves small portions of Enoch’s cosmic journey in the latter part of the Book of Watchers, and the Animal Apocalypse from the Book of Dreams. The fragments of 4Q205 correspond to verses from Ethiopic 1 Enoch 22–23, 25, and 89. In the extant passages from the Book of Watchers, Enoch is transported to different parts of the earth, where he is shown incredible aspects of creation, attesting to the Lord’s power, order, and justice. In the Book of Dreams Enoch recounts for his son, Methuselah, a dream-vision premised on animal symbolism, which reveals what has been and what is yet to come in human (and specifically Israel’s) history. Symbolic dream-visions as a mode of revelation are quite common in the Aramaic Qumran texts, also being found, for example, in the Book of Giants, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Daniel court-tales, and Four Kingdoms. For some thematic affinities between the Animal Apocalypse and 4Q245 (psDanc), see the profile for the latter scroll.
Material remains: Only eight small fragments remain of this manuscript, none preserving more than nine partial lines of text. Drawnel recently suggested that some of the fragments originally belonged to columns with more than fifty letters per line (ABE, 310), but little else can be said about the original size of the manuscript or its columns. There are clear traces of horizontal script guidelines, along with a vertical column guideline preserved on 2a. Some of the fragments have upper and intercolumnar margins (1a, 1d, and 2a). A few direct textual overlaps occur between 4Q205 and other copies of Enoch (4Q204 [Enc] and 4Q206 [Ene]): 4Q205 2ii.30//4Q204 (Enc) 4.1, 4Q205 2i.26–29//4Q206 (Ene) 4ii.12–16, and 4Q205 2ii.27–29//4Q206 (Ene) 4iii.19–21.
Notes on provenance: Fragment 1a of 4Q205 is found on an early PAM “G series” photograph (PAM 40.624), meaning that it was among the many fragments discovered by the Bedouin in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32).
Sample image: 4Q205 1xi
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian (Milik; “fairly similar to that of Enc” [4Q204]); early Herodian formal, with some letters having early Herodian round semiformal features (Drawnel; “the hand is similar to the one used in 4Q204”)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Milik)
Special traits and general comments: Though there is little left of this manuscript, it is obvious that it was of very high quality, both materially and in terms of its scribal execution. It has upper and intercolumnar margin sizes comparable with 1Q20 (apGen), though the lines of 4Q205 are spaced more closely together than in that manuscript. The hand is exceptionally uniform and meticulous, whatever one makes of Milik’s somewhat disparaging remark (BE, 217) that it is “less assured and less firm” than the scribal hand of 4Q203 (EnGiantsa)/4Q204 (Enc). Milik considered the scripts of these manuscripts to be closely related, as did Drawnel. Of further note are the well-regulated line spacing of the columns, the absence of mistakes in the available fragments, and the liberal use of vacats. If Milik’s reconstructed vacats are even approximately correct, this scribe employed remarkably large blank spaces between relatively minor sense divisions within literary units (e.g., within the same dream-vision). Based on most other manuscripts, we would instead expect vacats of this size to indicate a major transition (e.g., between two completely different dream-visions, or different Enochic works). This also speaks to the care and expense invested in this copy.
The orthography and language of 4Q205 is similar to that of 4Q203 (EnGiantsa)/4Q204 (Enc), as already observed by Milik. Aleph is preferred to he in the usual cases of variation, and is used in full spellings such as
Original manuscript quality: Excellent
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Beyer, ATTME, 117; Beyer, ATTM2 153; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 51.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1xi.2
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2i.25–26(?), 2i.28–29(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1xi.1, 1xi.2, 1xi.3, 1xii.8
Verbless clause:
1xi.5–6(?), 1xii.5, 2ii.29
Use of
2i.26, 2iii.29
Verb of movement +
1xi.3
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1xi.3
Orthography/Phonology:
2i.27, 2i.29(?), 2iii.28
4Q206, Enoche (Ene)/4Q206a, Enoch Giantsf (EnGiantsf)
[ed. Milik, BE, 225–44; Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:42–48; Puech, DJD 37:509–10; Drawnel, ABE, 340–94]5
Content synopsis and significance: Milik considered 4Q206 to be a scroll (along with 4Q203 [EnGiantsa]/4Q204 [Enc]) that contained both an early form of parts of 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants, thus forming the basis of his argument that the Book of Giants originally constituted part of an “Enochic Pentateuch.” Stuckenbruck observed that 4Q206 2–3 (Milik’s suggested Book of Giants fragments) cannot be placed definitely with the rest of the manuscript, though he deemed such a connection plausible based on their very limited contents, including a direct mention of Enoch in 2.2. Because of the uncertainty of associating frags. 2–3 with the rest of the 4Q206 fragments, the former are often designated as 4Q206a in recent publications (e.g., Tigchelaar, “Notes”). Puech considered frags. 2–3 to belong instead to 4Q533 (EnGiantse; DJD 31:111–13), Tigchelaar expressed similar doubts about their association with 4Q206 (“Notes,” 191–92), and Drawnel does not include them in his re-edition of 4Q206 (see ABE, 341). Based on the cautiousness of these scholars, it seems best to treat Milik’s 4Q206 2–3 as not belonging with the remaining fragments of this scroll.
Aside from frags. 2–3, which do not have any unambiguous, direct parallels with other copies of the Book of Giants (though see Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:46–48), 4Q206 contains fragmentary portions of the Book of Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse from the Book of Dreams. Most of the material from the Book of Watchers comes from Enoch’s tour of the cosmos in the Book’s latter part, after the account of the Watchers’ rebellion and the Lord’s judgment. These fragments correspond to various verses of 1 En. 21–22, 28–29, and 31–33, though one fragment appears to contain a few words from the throne room vision in 1 En. 14. The majority of the extant text comes from the Animal Apocalypse, the best representative of this part of 1 Enoch among the Qumran manuscripts. We find portions of the Apocalypse that tell symbolically of Noah and the great flood, and the generations of Joseph and Moses. In general, the visionary genre of these parts of the Enochic corpus in 4Q206 invites comparison with many other Aramaic compositions from Qumran, on which see Perrin, Dynamics. More detailed connections with other Aramaic works also exist, such as the mention of
On PAM 43.204, among the other fragments considered by Milik belong to 4Q206 (which he at that time labelled “Hénochd”), are two small fragments that he did not include in his later edition. Drawnel included these in his re-edition of the scroll as possibly, but not certainly, belonging to it. However, he does not seem aware of Tigchelaar’s earlier treatment (Tigchelaar, “Notes,” 198–99), in which Tigchelaar proposed that Drawnel’s frag. 15 belongs instead to 4Q59 (Isae).
Material remains: If we included all of the fragments that have, at various times, been associated with 4Q206, they would total eighteen (for an overview that does not include Milik’s frags. 2–3, see the helpful chart in Drawnel, ABE, 340). However, it seems best to remove from this list at least frags. 2–3, the fragment identified by Tigchelaar as belonging to 4Q59 (Drawnel’s frag. 15), and perhaps Milik’s frag. 1a, based on Tigchelaar’s reasoning. This leaves us with fourteen fragments belonging to 4Q206 with a reasonably high degree of confidence. The two largest fragments are 1b and 4a–b, each containing significant portions of multiple lines of text. Roughly half of the fragments are much smaller and preserve only a few words or broken phrases, including the three fragments not present in Milik’s edition (Drawnel’s frags. 14–16; Drawnel’s frag. 16 is Puech’s 4Q206 frag. 5). Fragment 4a–b preserves parts of two columns with traces of horizontal script lines, and there are upper, lower, and intercolumnar margins on several fragments. A few textual overlaps occur between fragments proposed to belong to 4Q206 and other copies of Enoch (4Q204 [Enc] and 4Q205 [End]) or the Book of Giants (4Q533/4Q556 [EnGiantse/Prophecya]): 4Q206 1xxvi.14–17//4Q204 (Enc) 1xii.28–30, 4Q206 4ii.12–16//4Q205 (End) 2i.26–29, 4Q206 4iii.19–21//4Q205 (End) 2ii.27–29, and perhaps 4Q206 3i.5–6//4Q533/4Q556 (EnGiantse/Prophecya) 4.1–2.
Provenance: A large piece of Milik’s frag. 4b is found in an early PAM “G series” photograph (PAM 40.602), meaning that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified another part of frag. 4b and frag. 4f on the “E series” PAM image 40.978, connected with the official excavation of Cave 4 led by de Vaux in 1952. As a result, we can see that some fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, and others by the official excavation team.
Sample image: 4Q206 1 xxi–xxii
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean semi-cursive (Milik, Stuckenbruck); late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal bookhand (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (Milik, Stuckenbruck); 75–25 BCE (Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: Milik’s initial identification of the fragments belonging to this scroll has been repeatedly scrutinized, most notably by Stuckenbruck, Puech (DJD 31:12, 16, 111–12), Tigchelaar, and Drawnel. Based on the combined results of their enquiries, we should now consider frags. 2–3 to belong to a different manuscript, designated by Puech and others as 4Q206a (all those after Milik also reversed the order of the fragments). Tigchelaar further argued that even these two fragments exhibit differences, and may not belong together. He also made the plausible claim that Milik’s frag. 1a should be distinguished from the main group. All of this leaves us with 4Q206 1b–g, 4a–d as part of a single manuscript. Of course, this discussion should be kept in mind when using the “Profile of physical layout” section for this profile, since some of the variation there is, in fact, likely due to differing manuscripts.
As noted by Milik, the layout and dimensions of this manuscript appear aimed at economy, and are not as lavish as some of the other manuscripts in the Aramaic Qumran corpus. He observed that the lines in columns became “progressively more closely crammed together” (BE, 225), though it is clear that for the fragments where this appears to be case, the leather has become shrunken and puckered. It seems that this physical degradation better accounts for the apparently tight spacing than scribal dereliction. The scribal execution is, in fact, of quite high quality, and Milik probably made too little of the preserved vacats (so too Drawnel, ABE, 341), which are relatively generous for the minor nature of the sense divisions that they mark.
The script is slightly less meticulous than in the best Aramaic manuscripts (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q529 [Words of Michael], 4Q537 [TJacob?]), and average in terms of neatness and consistency. Some letters are formed with a more “rounded” Hasmonean style. It is noteworthy that both the earlier
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 191–96; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 51–52; Tigchelaar, “Notes.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letters added on two successive lines (1xxvii.20–21):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
4ii.3(?), 4ii.16, 4ii.21(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
3i.20, 4i.18, 4i.20, 4i.21, 4ii.2, 4ii.15, 4ii.18(?), 4iii.15, 4iii.17
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1xxii.3, 1xxii.4
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1xxii.3, 1xxvi.18, 1xxvi.19, 1xxvi.20(2x), 1xxvi.21, 1xxvii.1, 1xxvii.21, 4i.12, 4i.13, 4i.17(2x), 4iii.18
Verbless clause:
1xxii.1, 1xxii.6, 4i.16, 4i.18, 4i.19, 4iii.14
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1xxii.1
Use of
1xxii.2, 4ii.13(?;
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
3i.21, 3i.22, 4i.16(?), 4i.18
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1xxvi.19, 1xxvi.20(2x), 1xxvi.21, 1xxvii.1, 1xxvii.21
1xxvi.18(hofal)
4ii.17(?), 4iii.17
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1xxvii.20 (supralinear nun)
Orthography/Phonology:
1xxvi.20(
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q207, Enochf (Enf)
[ed. Milik, BE, 244–45; Drawnel, ABE, 395–401]
Content synopsis and significance: The single fragment of 4Q207 preserves just over a dozen words identifiable as part of the Animal Apocalypse, from the Enochic Book of Dreams. The fragment corresponds to portions of the later Ethiopic 1 En. 86:1–3, which recounts the fall of the heavenly Watchers using symbolic astral and animal imagery. This is one of four copies of the Animal Apocalypse from Qumran, making it one of the best-attested portions of 1 Enoch among the Qumran scrolls (the Book of Watchers is also preserved in four copies). Of special note in 4Q207 is the common dream-vision idiom “Behold, then [I] saw[…” (
Material remains: Only one small fragment remains of this scroll, containing segments of five lines from which some of the writing has flaked off. The fragment comes from the right edge of a column of text, with a small part of the intercolumnar margin preserved. According to Milik’s and Drawnel’s reconstructions, the lines would once have been between fifty and fifty-five letters long (ABE, 395).
Notes on provenance: The single fragment of 4Q207 is not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While its discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q207 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Early Hasmonean (Milik, Drawnel); Milik (BE, 244) suggested that the same scribe wrote 4Q214a–b (his 4QTestLevib)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–125 BCE (Milik, Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: Though there is not much remaining text by which to judge this fragment, it is clear that the scribal execution was of high quality, with small, consistent letters and generous spacing between lines. Nevertheless, where we might expect a small vacat in other manuscripts (midway through line 2, before
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 52.
Script sample:
Language
Lexical items:
Orthography/Phonology:
1.4
4Q208, Astronomical Enocha (Enastra)
[ed. Tigchelaar and García Martínez, DJD 36:104–131; Drawnel, AAB, 71–133]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserved a highly formulaic computational treatise on the waxing and waning of the moon in its various phases, reckoned according to a system of “sevenths” (
Beginning with Milik, 4Q208 was closely associated with the astronomical chapters of Ethiopic 1 Enoch (72–82), a section often called the Astronomical Book or the Book of the Luminaries. The fragments of 4Q208 actually attest to a fuller, much more detailed calendar than is found anywhere in 1 Enoch, though 1 En. 73:4–8 and 78:6–17 have extremely truncated, essentialized extractions that use terminology clearly dependent on a calendar like that in 4Q208 (e.g., 1 En. 73:4–8 has both “sevenths” and “gates”). VanderKam (1 Enoch 2, 357) observed that, “[t]here is no doubt that something drastic happened between the Aramaic and the Ethiopic form of the Enochic astronomical work.” Unlike the related 4Q209 (Enastrb), all of the extant fragments of 4Q208 belong only to the “synchronistic calendar,” with no other parts of the later Ethiopic astronomical work attested. Based on the size of the scroll presumably required for the calendar of 4Q208 and the absence of any non-calendrical material in the scroll analogous to other parts of 1 Enoch 72–82, Tigchelaar expressed serious doubt about the strength of the relationship first suggested by Milik. In Tigchelaar’s opinion (“Remarks,” 145), “4Q208 was not a copy of the Astronomical Enoch, but only a Synchronistic Calendar.” Most others have taken a more restrained view, noting that Tigchelaar makes an argument from silence, and that the balance of probability favors some sort of literary relationship between 2Q208 and the later 1 Enoch (see, e.g., Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 342).
Whatever the precise relationship of 4Q208 to the Astronomical Book of Enoch, the scroll attests to Jewish calendrical interests during the Second Temple period, and to the promulgation of a 364-day calendar. As many scholars have noted, rival Jewish calendars seem to have been a cause of serious social divisions among Jews at that time.
Material remains: Thirty-seven fragments have been assigned to 4Q208 (Ratzon, “Reconstruction,” counts thirty-six fragments), of which the majority are very small, containing only a handful of words and phrases on three or fewer broken lines of text (e.g., frags. 2–4, 6–9, 10b–13, 20–22). A few of the larger fragments preserve parts of five to ten lines, but even these are very badly damaged and contain little running text (e.g., frags. 10a, 15–17, 19, 24). The largest fragments are 10a and 24, the outside measurements of which are slightly smaller than a standard playing card. Fragments 10a, 14, 24, and 35 have intercolumnar margins, and there is a lower margin on frag. 35. Evidence of stitching can be found on frags. 10a, 31, and 35. There are no signs of vertical or horizontal scribal guidelines. Drawnel has suggested that the manuscript’s poor state of preservation makes it difficult to reconstruct the original size of the manuscript or its columns (Astronomical, 71–72), though see now the extensive discussion of Ratzon (“Reconstruction”) on this topic.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q208 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q208 10a, 24 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photos: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Archaic Hasmonean semi-formal (Milik, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: Ca. 225–175 BCE (Milik, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Drawnel)
Radiocarbon date (1-sigma calibration): 166–102 BCE (see Van der Schoor, “Radiocarbon”)
Special traits and general comments: There are several noteworthy attributes of this manuscript. The scribe used only medial letters, including in final positions, and exhibits an unusual variation in the spacing of both lines and words, eliciting Milik’s remark that the “orthography is extremely variable and unusual” (BE, 273). He noted the striking variation in spelling the word “day” (
It is somewhat difficult to compare the syntax and general style of this manuscript with other Aramaic texts (apart from 4Q209–211 [Enastrb–d]) because the list-like content entails a highly repetitive, formulaic recurrence of syntactic structures. The presumed subject of all verbs is the moon or its light, but the subject is almost always implied, not stated explicitly (though in a great many cases we have the verb directly preceding a break in the text). The one exception to this, based not only on 4Q208 but also 4Q209 (Enastrb), is the verb
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 273–78; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 57–59; Ben-Dov, Astronomy, 69–108; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 339–42; Jacobus, “Reconstructing”; Ratzon, “Reconstruction.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Medial nun in final position and tav written over another letter, possibly nun (so Drawnel; 5.2): תרינ
Image B-284658
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Mem written over another letter, possibly qoph (so Drawnel; 15.4): בימימא
Image B-298884
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Cancellation dot (16.4):
Image B-298884
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(d) Cancellation dots above letters (18.2):
Image B-298884
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(e) Supraliner letter added (20.2):
Image B-298884
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
3.1(?), 10a.10(?), 19.1(?), 19.5, 24i.2(?), 26.2(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.2, 1.4, 5.1, 5.5(?), 8.1(?), 8.2, 11.3(?), 14i.2(?), 15.2, 15.3(?), 15.4, 17.5, 18.2(?), 20.1, 21.1(?), 23.3, 24i.1(?), 24i.7(?), 24ii.2(?), 24ii.3, 25.3(?), 28.1(?), 32.2(?), 33.2(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
8.3(?), 13.1(?), 15.6(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.2, 5.3, 15.3, 18.2, 23.3, 28.1(?)
Orthography/Phonology:
20.2, 23.1
4Q209, Astronomical Enochb (Enastrb)
[ed. Milik, BE, 273–97; Tigchelaar and García Martínez, DJD 36:132–171; Drawnel, AAB, 134–208]
Content synopsis and significance: Like 4Q208 (Enastra), 4Q209 is a scroll apparently dealing mainly with lunar calendrical computations, forming what Milik and many after him called a “synchronistic calendar” that coordinates lunar phases with a 364-day solar scheme using a system of “sevenths” (
Material remains: 4Q209 comprises forty-one numbered fragments, though a significant portion of them are actually made up of multiple pieces (e.g., frags. 1–3, 6, 7). The largest fragment by far is 7, the outside dimensions of which are nearly those of a small, quarto-sized book. This fragment has parts of three separate columns preserved, though almost nothing remains of the first column. However, significant sections remain of the second and third columns, which along with frag. 23 (approximately the size of a playing card) give an impression of the overall manuscript quality. Seven lines from the second column of frag. 7 are completely (or almost completely) intact, providing us with a sense of the width of the scroll’s columns. There is a handful of smaller, but still relatively well-preserved fragments with between six and ten fragmentary lines of text (e.g., frags. 1a, 2, 6, 23, and 26). Over half of the scroll’s fragments are nothing more than tiny scraps, containing only a few words or phrases (frags. 1b, 10, 11–22, 24–25, 27, 29–41). We find evidence of stitching on frag. 23, and fully or partially preserved column margins on frags. 1a, 1b, 2, 7, 12, and 23. The only direct overlap with another Qumran manuscript is at 4Q209 23.5–8//4Q210 (Enastrc) 1iia+b+c.15–18, corresponding to 1 En. 77:2–3.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q209 (23, and portions of 2ii, 6 and 7) were photographed as part of the PAM “G series,” the relevant plates being PAM 40.581 (various pieces of frag. 2), 40.586 (the left, lower piece of frag. 6), 40.614 (the main piece of frag. 7), and 40.622 (frag. 23). The fragments in this series of images are said to have been discovered in 1952 by the Bedouin in Cave 4 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32), prior to de Vaux’s official excavations of Cave 4 from September 22 to 29, 1952.
Sample image: 4Q209 23
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian formal (Milik, Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25 BCE–25 CE (Milik, Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: 4Q209 is a very high-quality copy, comparable in most respects to the best manuscripts such as 1Q20 (apGen) and 4Q529 (Words of Michael). The scribe wrote in an impeccable, small print that is remarkably consistent in size and shape. Generous empty space is left on the copy, though slightly less than in 1Q20 (apGen). Milik (BE, 273) observed that 4Q209 was “written in the same beautiful Herodian script as 1QIsab, 1QM, 1QGenAp, and the original hand of 1QH,” though it is unclear whether he thought that the scripts were simply of a very similar style, or that all of these scrolls were penned by the same scribe. In contrast to 4Q208 (Enastra), with which the content of 4Q209 is similar, in 4Q209 there are many vacats used to indicate minor breaks in thought, and the spelling is far more consistent. For example, where 4Q208 has four different spellings for the word
A surprising practice of the scribe (or his exemplar) is the habit of collapsing the preposition
In frags. 23–28 it is clear that the whole register of the Aramaic idiom shifts from the quasi-scientific account preceding it (reflected again in frags. 29–41) to a more narrative style. This change is reflected in a perusal of the language section below, with alternative syntactic arrangements and transition words (
Original manuscript quality: Excellent
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 251–58; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 57–59; Ben-Dov, Astronomy, 69–108; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 339–42; Jacobus, “Reconstructing”; Ratzon, “Reconstruction.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Characters erased (23.4):
(b) Supralinear letter added (2ii.2): ]
No image available
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ai.2(?), 1ai.5(?), 1ai.6, 1b.2, 2ii.1(?), 2ii.3(?), 3.3(?), 6.9(2x), 7iii.1, 7iii.5, 7iii.7, 8.1, 23.10(?), 25.3(?), 26.6(part.), 35.2(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
7iii.2–3(?), 7iii.6, 34.2
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
23.3(part.), 23.6(part.), 23.7(part.)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
26.4(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ai.1(?), 1ai.4(?), 1ai.6, 1ai.7, 2ii.4, 2ii.5, 2ii.6, 2ii.7, 2ii.8, 2ii.10, 2ii.11, 3.7, 4.3(?), 5.3(?), 5.5, 5.6(?), 6.4, 6.5(?), 6.6(?), 6.7, 6.8(2x), 7ii.3, 7ii.4(2x), 7ii.5, 7ii.6, 7ii.7(2x), 7ii.8(2x), 7ii.9, 7ii.10(3x), 7ii.11, 7ii.12, 7ii.13, 7iii.1, 7iii.2(part.), 7iii.3, 7iii.4(2x?), 7iii.5, 7iii.6, 7iii.7, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 12.2(?), 13.1, 14.2(?), 16.4(?), 19.1(?), 22.2(?), 23.3(part.), 23.5(part.), 23.6(2x, both part.)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2ii.7, 5.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7ii.3, 7ii.6, 7ii.9, 7ii.12, 16.3(?), 18.1(?), 23.2(?), 23.7, 25.3, 37.2(?)
Verbless clause:
23.4, 23.5, 26.4, 26.5
Object early in clause:
23.2(?), 23.4, 25.3
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Double
2ii.5, 8.2
Verb of movement +
23.6
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
1ai.5, 1ai.7, 2ii.4, 2ii.6, 2ii.10, 5.5, 7ii.4, 7ii.7, 7iii.1, 7iii.4, 12.2, 13.1, 16.4, 39.1
26.4(?)
Assimilated nun:
6.5, 6.7, 7ii.3, 7ii.6, 7ii.9, 7ii.12, 7iii.2, 14.2, 23.5(2x?), 23.7(?)
Orthography/Phonology:
1b.1, 2ii.2, 2ii.6, 2ii.7, 5.4, 6.7, 7ii.6, 7ii.9, 8.3, 16.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q210, Astronomical Enochc (Enastrc)
[ed. Milik, BE, 273–97; Drawnel, AAB, 209–26]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript contains portions of the Enochic Astronomical Book now found in the later, and somewhat altered, Ethiopic 1 Enoch 72–82. The extant text of 4Q210 corresponds to various portions of 1 Enoch 76–78. In 1 Enoch 76–77 (cf. 4Q210 1i–ii), we learn about the division of the sky into twelve “gates” (
Material remains: 4Q210 comprises five fragments. The first and largest fragment (1i–1ii1; approximately the size of a standard playing card) preserves parts of two columns on two separate sheets, with the stitching still intact for what remains of the seam, using plant-based thread. No text from the first column remains, but nine partial lines from the second column have survived. Ink dots for making the horizontal script guidelines are clearly visible on the right side of the seam, and also on the left side of the sheet seam on frag. 1ii2a. Three fragments (1ii2a, 1ii 2b, and 1ii2c) also belong to the second column of frag. 1i–1ii1, according to the reconstructions of Milik (BE, 287) and Drawnel (AAB, 209). They consider the final fragment (1iii) to preserve material from a third, successive column. The only direct overlap with another Qumran manuscript is at 4Q210 1iia+b+c.15–18//4Q209 (Enastrb) 23.5–8, corresponding to 1 En. 77:2–3.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q210 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q210 1i–1ii 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean (Milik, Drawnel [comparable to the script of 4QSama])
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Milik, Drawnel)
Special traits and general comments: Some of the material features of this manuscript indicate a level of professional care and expense that might be placed in the “Good–very good” category for quality. The scribe left generous vacats between minor breaks in the narrative, and in general the spacing and consistency of the script is quite even. At the same time, however, the scribe made many mistakes – or at least what were perceived to be mistakes – in the meager amount of text preserved. There are at least nine errors, depending upon how one counts (Milik and Drawnel count more), in twenty-one very fragmentary lines. These include starting to write one letter and changing it to another, writing letters that do not make sense in the context, adding supralinear words that had been missed during the initial writing process, and going back to change letters and words once they had been written – often with poor results. We are fortunate to have a parallel to parts of the text in 4Q209 (Enastrb), and this allows us to guess what the scribe may have been thinking while emending (corrections in 4Q210 appear to be in the same hand as the original). For example, 4Q209 (Enastrb) has what looks to be the Hebrew word
The use of
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 251–58; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 57–59; Ben-Dov, Astronomy, 69–108; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 339–42.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(b) Supralinear letters added and erasure (1ii2a.16):
Image B-284661
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Supralinear letter added and letter conversion (?) (1ii2a.18):
Image B-284661
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language (Numbering Follows Drawnel, AAB)
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii1.9, 1ii2a.14
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1ii1.4, 1ii1.5, 1ii1.7(?), 1ii2a.17(part.), 1ii2a.18(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii1.2(?), 1ii1.8(part.), 1ii2a.15(part.), 1iii.5(part.), 1iii.6
Verbless clause:
1ii1.1, 1ii1.6, 1ii2a.15
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Verb of movement +
1ii2a–b.17(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ii1.2
1ii2b.18, 1iii.3
1ii2a.18
Object suffix on verb:
1ii1.2(2x; inf.)
Assimilated nun:
1ii2a.17
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1ii2a.16(2x, one corrected)
Orthography/Phonology:
1iii.4, 1iii.5, 1iii.8
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q211, Astronomical Enochd (Enastrd)
[ed. Milik, BE, 273–97; Drawnel, AAB, 227–34]
Content synopsis and significance: Though relatively small in terms of its preserved text, 4Q211 is of interest for the study of 1 Enoch because it contains a portion of the Aramaic Astronomical Book that scholars assume was lost in later Greek or Ethiopic transmission. 1 En. 82:15–20, the concluding section of the Ethiopic Astronomical Book, has descriptions of the spring and summer seasons, but no corresponding descriptions of fall and winter. In the first column of 4Q211 (frag. 1i), we find a description of winter that matches fairly well those of spring and summer in the Ethiopic version, including an account of the trees during that season, and other associated natural phenomena such as rain and dew. These correspondences have led some scholars to posit that the description of winter belongs at or near the end of the Aramaic version of the Astronomical Book (note, however, the cautionary comments of VanderKam in Nicklesburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 566). In the second and third columns, after the description of winter, we find astral calculations generally reminiscent of the kinds of calendrical computation present in 4Q208–210 (Enastra–c), on which see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 567. The calculations of 4Q211, however, have no direct parallels in 1 Enoch or the extant parts of the other Qumran copies of the Aramaic Astronomical Book. This suggests that the Aramaic version may have had yet other, now-lost sections of the Enochic Astronomical Book that did not survive the chain of transmission to the Ethiopic version. Along with the “synchronistic calendar” of 4Q208 (Enastra), and especially 4Q209 (Enastrb), 4Q211 provides evidence that the early Aramaic Astronomical Book was significantly more extensive than the later, Ethiopic version, the latter having been abbreviated and reorganized over centuries of transmission through Greek and into Ethiopic.
Material remains: This manuscript preserves the remnants of three consecutive columns, skillfully arranged by Milik in “two composite fragments” (Drawnel, AAB, 227; see Milik, BE, 296). The first composite fragment (frag. 1i) was produced by joining two smaller pieces, and the second (frag. 1ii–1iii) is also made up of two separate pieces. The material joins are certain, in the studied opinion Drawnel (AAB, 227), and as a result the manuscript is typically numbered as a single fragment (frag. 1) with three columns, despite its composite character. Arranged thus, 4Q211 is approximately the length of a quarto-sized book (ca. 22 cm), though it is only a few centimeters high at its tallest point. Its shape resembles that of a measuring ruler.
Notes on provenance: A large piece of the right-most “composite fragment” of 4Q211 1i–ii is found on an early PAM “G series” photographic plate (PAM 40.619), meaning that this fragment, at least, was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32).
Sample image: 4Q211 1i–ii
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian (Milik); late Hasmonean formal (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Milik)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript, while not very well-preserved, exhibits tidiness and economy of layout, neat handwriting, few mistakes or corrections, and the clear use of vacats, some of significant length. The columns, margins, and line spacing are narrower than in 4Q209 (Enastrb) or 4Q210 (Enastrc), though the scribal execution is otherwise excellent. The language and orthography of 4Q211 fit well the overall profile of most Qumran manuscripts, though one may note the repeated use of the subject to head a clause in the description of winter, and the correct use of etymological sin in words such as
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 251–58; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 57–59; Ben-Dov, Astronomy, 69–108; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 339–42.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1ii.5):
Image B-284660
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1i.3(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i.2(?), 1i.4, 1i4–5(?), 1i.6(?; part.), 1ii.4
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii.4(?)
Verbless clause:
1i.5
Verb of movement +
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Assimilated nun:
1i.2
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.5, 1ii.3, 1ii.5, 1ii.6, 1iii.6
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraism:
4Q212, Enochg (Eng)
[ed. Milik, BE, 245–72; Drawnel, ABE, 402–47]7
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is the only one at Qumran to preserve segments of the Epistle of Enoch with its narrative introduction (= 1 En. 91–105), including the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:1–10, 91:11–17). 4Q212 makes a major contribution to the study of 1 Enoch by showing that the original Aramaic Epistle was altered considerably by the time it reached its current form in the Ethiopic versions. Some sections of the Aramaic copy require a text longer than in the Ethiopic 1 Enoch, sometimes much longer. At other points we find that the Aramaic version is shorter than the Ethiopic. The Qumran scroll also confirmed the opinion of scholars that the ordering of verses in the Ethiopic versions of the Epistle had at some point during transmission become confused, with 4Q212 seeming to preserve a more original, intelligible arrangement of the text. According to Milik’s placement of the fragments, which has been debated (see Drawnel, ABE, 402–3), the extant text begins with Enoch’s wisdom exhortation, commanding his sons to follow the ways of righteousness and spurn the paths of the wicked (1ii). This is followed by the narration of a dream-vision (the Apocalypse of Weeks), in which Enoch relates future events according to a scheme of ten “weeks,” culminating in eschatological judgment (1iii–iv). In Milik’s last column (1v), we find a fragmentary meditation on the preceding vision, which leads to instruction on the two, opposed paths of righteousness and wickedness. 4Q212 attests to the early date of the Epistle of Enoch, including the Apocalypse of Weeks, and to their composition in Aramaic. The wisdom sections of the Epistle build on biblical exemplars such as Proverbs and Psalms, recasting them in a new mold and placing them in the mouth of one of Israel’s most venerable ancestors. Very similar episodes of wisdom teaching are found in a significant number of other Aramaic works at Qumran (Machiela, “Wisdom”). Something similar can be said about the literary mode and contents of the dream-vision in the Apocalypse of Weeks. Drawing on some possible antecedents in the ancestral Hebrew literature of Israel, a surprising number of the Aramaic texts at Qumran share the visionary framework employed in the Apocalypse of Weeks for transmitting heavenly knowledge to humans (see Perrin, Dynamics).
Material remains: Both Milik and Drawnel counted three fairly large fragments of this manuscript, and two or three very small ones (Milik counts two, and Drawnel three; see Drawnel, ABE, 402). The largest fragment, 1c, actually comprises several separate pieces, which together preserve three partial columns of text. The best-preserved, central column is incomplete, but contains parts of sixteen lines and a bottom margin. The outer dimensions of frag. 1c are roughly the size of a standard quarto book page. Fragment 1b evidently contains the bottom, right-hand corner of the first (right-most) column of 1c, confirming that the fragments belong to the same manuscript (Drawnel, ABE, 403). Fragment 1a has the remnants of two columns, though only two letters are preserved of the first column. Intercolumnar margins are preserved on frags. 1a, 1b, and 1c, along with fully in-tact lower margins on frags. 1b and 1c. There are no traces of horizontal or vertical scribal guidelines (Drawnel, ABE, 403).
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q212 were photographed as part of the PAM “G series” on plates 40.604 (frag. 1b), 40.624 (part of the first two columns of frag. 1c), and 40.610 (part of the last column of frag. 1c). The fragments in this series of images are said to have been discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32).
Sample image: 4Q212 1iii–v
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian semi-cursive (Cross, Milik); late Hasmonean with cursive features (Drawnel)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Cross); 75–25 BCE (Milik)
Special traits and general comments: This is an interesting copy, written in the first century BCE (if the standard dating is correct), but clearly based on an earlier manuscript judging by the archaisms and the uncharacteristically defective orthography, in comparison with the Aramaic Qumran scrolls more generally. The letters are relatively large, but the overall layout of the text compact, with large fluctuations in intercolumnar margins and spacing between lines and words. The script itself must have been written in greater haste, with less precision, or by a less expert scribe than that of finer manuscripts (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q544 [Visions of Amramb], and 4Q205 [End]). The scribal hand of 4Q212 is fluid, but quite untidy; note especially the formation of final mem and tsade. Other letters with strong cursive characteristics are medial mem, shin, and tav. These features indicate that 4Q212 is a second-tier, or “reading” copy, a relatively unusual occurrence among the Qumran Aramaic scrolls. There are a number of “cover-up” corrections evident in the manuscript, which seem likely to have been carried out by the original scribe (see below). The same practice is found in other manuscripts, such as 4Q210 (Enastrc). Most interesting is the correction of the more archaic form of the relative pronoun
On the repeated use of
Overall manuscript quality: Fair
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 225–58; Olson, “Recovering”; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 53–54; Tigchelaar, “Evaluating.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Partially erased suffix? (so Milik; 1iv.12):
(b) The word
(c) Horizintal line to strike through (delete) a word (1iv.16):
(d) Partial erasure and overwritten character (1iv.22):
(e) Overwritten character for correction (1iii.25):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii.16, 1ii.21(?), 1iii.23, 1iv.15(2x), 1iv.18
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1iii.25, 1iv.13, 1iv.19(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1iii.20, 1iii.22(2x?), 1iv.24, 1v.16(?), 1v.20, 1v.22, 1v.24
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii.19, 1iv.14, 1iv.17, 1iv.21
Subject implied (verb late in clause):
1iv.17, 1iv.26(?)
Verbless clause:
1v.23
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1v.21
Double
1iv.20, 1iv.21
Verb of movement +
1iv.21
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1iv.14
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1iii.21
Assimilated nun:
1iv.13
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1v.15
Orthography/Phonology:
1iv.25
Other notable features:
Chain use of
1iv.15, 1iv.19
1Q23, Book of Giantsa (EnGiantsa)
[ed. Milik, DJD 1:97–98; reed. Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:49–66]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript very likely preserves portions of what scholars have called the Book of Giants, a composition with clear affinities to the corpus of texts focused on Enoch, and especially to the Book of Watchers. There is little coherent text in what remains of 1Q23, but Stuckenbruck included it, along with 6Q8 (papGiants), 4Q203 (EnGiantsa), 4Q530 (EnGiantsb), and 4Q531 (EnGiantsc), among the manuscripts “whose identification with BG is virtually certain” (Giants, 41; cf. Milik, BE, 301–9). The identification of 1Q23 as a Book of Giants manuscript is strengthened significantly by the probable mention of Mahavai, one of the giants, in 27.2 (see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 54). In addition, several groups of two-hundred animals are mentioned (e.g., wild asses, sheep, and rams) in frag. 1, which may predict fertility following the flood. The destructive deeds of the Watchers or their gigantic offspring may also be under discussion in frags. 9, 14, and 15. Not much else can be said regarding the contents of 1Q23, since the scroll is rather poorly preserved. However, we do find a broken reference to a tablet (
Material remains: This manuscript comprises thirty-one badly damaged fragments, only a handful of which contain more than a few letters or words. At approximately 3 by 4 cm, frag. 1 (see image below) is more than twice as large as any other fragment, containing parts of four lines of text and an intercolumnar margin, with some of the stitching between sheets still preserved. The poor state of preservation has made arranging the material difficult, though scholars have offered several proposals. Milik suggested grouping frags. 1, 6, and 22, and frags. 9, 14, and 15, respectively (BE, 301–3). Stuckenbruck judged these two arrangements “justifiable,” though he is more skeptical of Beyer’s combination of frags. 24 and 25 or García Martínez’s arrangement of frags. 16 and 17 (Giants, 43). 1Q23 contains only one possible textual overlap with another Qumran Book of Giants manuscript (i.e., 1Q23 29//6Q8 [papGiants]; see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 197). However, Beyer and Stuckenbruck have argued that 1Q23 9+14+15 comes from a section of the composition that generally corresponds to 4Q531 (EnGiantsc) 1 and 5, since each of them contains a description of “the giants’ violent deeds” (Stuckenbruck, Giants, 144). On the ordering of the material more generally, see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 144–5.
Notes on provenance: 1Q23 was discovered during the official excavation of Cave 1 from February 15 to March 5, 1949 (DJD 1:43), supervised by Roland de Vaux and Gerald Lankester Harding. The fragments are currently in the possession of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, in Amman (Tov, Revised Lists, 13).
Sample image: 1Q23 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian semi-formal (comparable in style to, e.g., 4Q537 [TJacob?], 4Q548 [Visions of Amramf], and 5Q15 [NJ])
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–1 BCE
Special traits and general comments: There is not much remarkable about this manuscript. It was of good quality, written by a reasonably-skilled, though not exceptional, scribe. The spacing is fairly well-regulated, both between lines and words, though some variation does exist (e.g., frag. 20). There is at least one addition/correction, the supralinear script of which is somewhat smaller than the main hand (frags. 24 and 25). In terms of language, there is little by which to reckon, given the limited amount of running text. However, we may find the disjunctive phrase
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 301–3; Beyer, ATTM1, 266–68; Beyer, ATTM2, 159; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 100; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 122; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 43–59.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear additions on frags. 24 and 25, in a noticeably smaller script (1–1.5 mm)
Images [left to right] B-278283 and B-277253
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photos: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
9+14+15.2(?), 9+14+15.4, 17.3(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
3.2(?)
Lexical items:
Orthography/Phonology:
9+14+15.4
1Q24, Book of Giantsb? (EnGiantsb?)
[ed. Milik, DJD 1:99; reed. Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:67–72]
Content synopsis and significance: Several scholars have associated 1Q24 with the Book of Giants, but caution is required when attempting to identify this manuscript, given its poor state of preservation. Milik included 1Q24 among the manuscripts that he deemed “too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently certain identification” (BE, 309), and Stuckenbruck classified it as one of the manuscripts “whose identification with BG is plausible” (Giants, 41). Beyer included it in his treatment of Book of Giants manuscripts, while other scholars have left it out of theirs (see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 59). The best evidence for identifying 1Q24 as a copy of the Book of Giants comes from frags. 5 and 8. Fragment 5 contains the phrase “]and the rain and [the] dew[” (
Material remains: This manuscript consists of eight, poorly-preserved fragments, each of which contains only a few words and/or short phrases. The scroll held at least eight lines of text (and probably more), as can be seen from frag. 1, but almost nothing else can be said about its original dimensions.
Provenance: 1Q24 was discovered during the official excavation of Cave 1 from February 15 to March 5, 1949 (DJD 1:43), supervised by Roland de Vaux and Gerald Lankester Harding. The fragments are currently held in the manuscript collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de Paris (Tov, Revised Lists, 13).
Sample image: 1Q24 1 and 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Early to mid-Herodian semi-cursive (Stuckenbruck)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Stuckenbruck)
Special traits and general comments: The script and scribal execution is of medium quality, and little stands out about this very fragmentary scroll. The word spacing is at places quite generous, though it varies considerably. For such a small amount of text these fragments contain a noticeably high concentration of lamed used as the direct object marker, a feature linked to the list-like format of frag. 1 in particular.
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 309; Beyer, ATTM1, 267–68; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 100–101; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 59–63.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Lexical items:
2Q26, Book of Giants (EnGiants)
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:90–91; reed. Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:73–75]
Content synopsis and significance: This fragmentary manuscript, which describes a tablet (
Material remains: Only a single fragment of this manuscript is extant. Remains of at least four lines are preserved, but the lack of margins precludes any conclusions about the original size of the scroll or its columns. As noted above, the contents of the fragment share affinities with the Manichaean Book of Giants and the Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael, but there are no textual overlaps with any of the other Qumran copies of the Book of Giants.
Notes on provenance: Cave 2 was discovered around February 1952 by Bedouin (DJD 3:3; Fields, Scrolls, 132). Khalil Iskander Shahin (Kando) facilitated the subsequent sale of the Cave 2 fragments, including 2Q24, to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (DJD 3:3; Fields, Scrolls, 563). A survey of the caves near Qumran, which included Cave 2, was organized and carried out from March 10–29, 1952. The expedition uncovered a small number of additional fragments from Cave 2 (de Vaux, “Exploration,” 553; Reed, “Qumran Caves,” 13), but de Vaux made clear that all fragments of significance from the cave had been part of the earlier lot discovered by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 2Q26 1
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian semi-cursive (Stuckenbruck)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Stuckenbruck)
Special traits and general comments: The scribal hand and manuscript preparation are very uniform and of high quality. This was likely a manuscript of considerable expenditure and workmanship. The Aramaic prepositional phrase
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 266; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 101; Milik, BE, 309; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 63–66.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1(?)
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q203, Book of Giantsa (EnGiantsa)
[ed. Milik, BE, 310–17; reed. Puech, DJD 31:17–18 (frag. 1); DJD 37:507–8 (frag. 14); reed. Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:8–41 (frags. 1–13)]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is a copy of the Book of Giants, a work that bears clear affinities with the Enoch tradition. Yet, as 4Q203 helps to demonstrate, the Book of Giants can be distinguished from the rest of the Enochic writings, inasmuch as it is told in significant part from the perspective of the giant offspring of the fallen Watchers. In fact, Stuckenbruck has pointed out that, “in both degree and kind, Qumran BG casts the spotlight on the progeny of the fallen Watchers more than any other Jewish writings composed during the Second Temple period” (Giants, 26).
A number of fragments from 4Q203 recount conversations between the giants themselves, or between the giants and Enoch. Fragment 2 recounts a speech given to a group of giants by Mahaway, a giant and son of a Watcher named Baraq’el, mentioned the Book of Watchers and the Parables of Enoch (see 1 En. 6:7 and 69:2, respectively; Baraq’el is identified as Mahaway’s father in 6Q8 [papGiants] 1). Fragments 4 and 7ii also contain parts of a conversation between two giants named Ohyah and Hahyah. These three giants play prominent roles throughout the composition, a point discussed further in the profiles for 4Q530 (EnGiantsb) and 6Q8 (papGiants). Here, it is sufficient to note that Ohyah and Hahyah receive divine revelations through dream-visions (see also 4Q530 [EnGiantsb] col. ii, and probably 2Q26 [EnGiants] and 6Q8 [papGiants] 2), and that Mahaway acts as an intermediary between Enoch and rest of the giants (4Q530 [EnGiantsb] col. ii–iii).
Enoch is a key figure in 4Q203, and in the Book of Giants more generally. Fragment 8 purports to contain the contents of “a copy of the s[ec]ond tablet of the le[tter” written by “the hand of Enoch, the scribe of interpretation” (8.3–4). The phrase “scribe of interpretation (
The tablet to which frag. 8 refers contains an indictment against the fallen Watchers and their gigantic offspring (8.7–14), and is “presented in the form of an official letter decree” (Stuckenbruck, Giants, 90). As Doering has demonstrated, “Indications of the epistolary nature of the second tablet are the use of pršgn ‘copy,’ an Aramaic terminus technicus – borrowed from the Old Persian – for copies of official documents, amongst them letters, and a number of epistolary features” (Letters, 171). The same Aramaic term occurs in the incipit of the Visions of Amram: “a copy (
Enoch’s scribal identity in 4Q203 is consistent with his depiction throughout the Aramaic literature at Qumran. Various compositions comprising 1 Enoch also give him the title “scribe” (1 En. 12:3, 4; 15:1; 92:1), and include scenes in which he writes down information (1 En. 13:4–6; 14:4; 33:3; 82:1; 83:10; 92:1; 108:1). The Genesis Apocryphon also recounts a story involving Abraham’s possession of “the book of the words of Enoch” (1Q20 [apGen] 19.25). In fact, the Aramaic Qumran literature is replete with examples of pious protagonists who are endowed with scribal knowledge, possess written documents, write down information, and/or are associated with books bearing their names, e.g., Noah, Abraham, Levi, Qahat, Amram, and Daniel. An interest in writing and book lore pervades the Qumran Aramaic texts as a corpus.
Material remains: Milik identified thirteen fragments belonging to this manuscript, though his frags. 7 and 8 each represent combinations of three separate pieces. His arrangement of the pieces that comprise frag. 8 is uncontroversial, but his reconstruction of frag. 7 has been disputed by Stuckenbruck (see 1 Enoch, 77–85). Fragment 8 is by far the largest, preserving a relatively substantial amount of running text and parts of fifteen lines. The rest of the manuscript is much more fragmentary. Fragments 1–3 appear to belong together, as Milik suggested (BE, 311). Others of his proposed arrangements are less certain (for a summary and assessment of each, see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 66). There has been significant agreement among scholars working on 4Q203 that it likely belongs with 4Q204 (Enc) as part of the same scroll, since the two batches of fragments share a number of physical and scribal characteristics, including the same scribal hand (so, e.g., Milik, BE, 310; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 66–67). The implication would be that the Book of Giants was copied on the same scroll as other portions of 1 Enoch (the Book of Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch), and was therefore considered by the copyist to be closely related to the other Enochic works. For more on the relationship between 4Q203 and 4Q204 (Enc), see the Special traits and general comments sections of their respective profiles. Klaus Beyer (ATTM2, 125–26) considered 4Q203 1 to belong instead with 4Q535 (Birth of Noahb), though this association has been widely rejected (see Puech, DJD 31:17).
In addition to the fragments identified by Milik and reedited by Stuckenbruck (and, in the case of frag. 1, also by Puech), Puech discovered what he considered to be frag. 14 of 4Q203 on PAM 43.610. His identification is reasonable, and adds to the scroll another small fragment with a stitched margin at the beginning of a sheet.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q203 were photographed as part of the PAM “G series,” the relevant plates being PAM 40.617 and 40.622. The fragments in this series of images are said to have been discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). If 4Q203 is considered alongside 4Q204 (Enc), then the batch of fragments under the latter designation, found as part of de Vaux’s excavation and included on several “E series” plates, should also be taken into account for 4Q203. In this case, fragments of the same scroll (4Q203/4Q204 [Enc]) were found both by the Bedouin and in the excavations led by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q203 8
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian, the same scribe as 4Q204 (Milik); Herodian round semi-formal (Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Milik); 25 BCE–25 CE (Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: For a discussion of the scribal traits of this manuscript, see the entry for 4Q204 (Enc), to which I am convinced the 4Q203 fragments also belong. In addition to the matching scribal hand, the measurements and other characteristics of the fragments under these two sigla are fairly well-aligned, within the range of normal variance for a single scroll (though see the observations of Stuckenbruck on the use of vacats and indentation). The overall quality of both batches of fragments (those belonging to 4Q203 and 4Q204 [Enc]) is very high and nearly free of scribal miscues, though the line spacing does vary noticeably from column to column in each group. Like 4Q204 (Enc), it appears from frag. 7b that the scribe often “justified” the left margin of columns, depending on the distribution of words at the end of one line and the beginning of the next. This is, in fact, one argument for the vertical ruling of columns in 4Q203, though the lines cannot be discerned in the images currently available.
As for orthography and morphology, these fragments generally correspond to 4Q204 (Enc). For example, we find a similar, “full” use of aleph as a vowel or syllable marker (e.g., 1.4, 8.14;
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Sokoloff, “Notes”; Beyer, ATTM1, 261, 263, 268; Beyer, ATTM2, 156; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 102–103; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 66, 82–84, 109–10, 124–27; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 59–63; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 47–51; Tigchelaar, “Notes”.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
4.3, 7a.5(?), 7a.7
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
8.12
Verb-subject (verb late in clause):
9.3(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
7a.6
Use of
8.3
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Participle + finite form of
8.6
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
3.4, 7bi.5
Orthography/Phonology:
3ms defective suffix
See 3.2 (
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
7a.3, 7bi.5(?), 7bii.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 13.3
4Q530, Book of Giantsb (EnGiantsb)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:19–47]
Content synopsis and significance: These fragments represent one of the best-preserved Book of Giants manuscripts. Much of the extant text recounts the deliberations and dream-reports of several giants gathered in an “assembly” (
The fragmentary character of the manuscript results in a number of interpretative difficulties, but the basic gist of the preserved narrative can be reconstructed with relative confidence. Two of the giants, Hahyah and his brother Ohyah, relate the contents of their dreams to their assembled companions. In Hahyah’s dream, gardeners are watering a garden and shoots begin to emerge from the soil, but the garden is destroyed by water and fire (frags. 2ii+6–12[?].6–12). As Stuckenbruck has shown, the dream appears to be a symbolic retelling of the Watchers myth (Giants, 114). The giants are unable to comprehend the meaning of the dream, and Hahyah proposes to inquire of Enoch, “the scribe of interpretation, so that he may interpret for us the dream” (
As the discussion above has shown, the Book of Giants has a close literary relationship with the Book of Watchers. However, it is also firmly at home within the broader scope of the Qumran Aramaic literature, as seen in its clear affinities with the Danielic writings and the Genesis Apocryphon, and in its engagement with Mesopotamian traditions.
Material remains: This manuscript comprises twenty fragments, several of which come from the same sheet and can be combined to form the remains of three consecutive columns (frags. 2+3 and 6–12). Fragment 1 preserves the remnants of two additional columns, bringing the total of recognizable columns in 4Q530 to at least five. According to Milik’s arrangement of the main fragments, at least of one of the columns had twenty-four lines (BE, 303–6; so also Stuckenbruck, Giants, 104–24; Puech, DJD 31:28). This column in particular (the second of the three continuous columns [= col. ii]), has been reconstructed “to provide an almost continuous text” (Stuckenbruck, Giants, 102). Despite the relatively large amount of text extant for 4Q530, there are no clear overlaps with other copies of the Book of Giants. However, Milik (BE, 309) noted that 6Q8 2 is part of the dream vision also found partially in 4Q530 2ii+6–12, and Puech accordingly incorporated the text of 6Q8 3+2 into his reconstruction of that column (DJD 31:28).
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q530 were photographed as part of the PAM “G series,” the relevant plates being PAM 40.585 and 40.620. In addition, frag. 17 was included on the “E series” PAM plate 40.979. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while at least one was discovered in the official excavations led by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q530 9–11
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-cursive (Cross, Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 100–50 BCE (Cross); 75–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This scribe wrote in a legible but relatively untidy hand, with letter size and spacing varying considerably. Cross opined that 4Q530 has “an unusual semicursive” style (“Development,” 149), with certain letters – for example, aleph, bet, mem, shin/sin – lacking the more square features typically associated with them in Hasmonean formal scripts. Milik called the script “spidery” in appearance. The space between lines is inconsistent from column to column, and even line to line. If portions of the top and bottom margins are completely preserved, they are fairly small. Several significant corrections are preserved using the relatively uncommon practice of striking words and letters through with a line. Vacats do not appear to have been widely used. We may also note a likely case of uncorrected dittography through homoioarcton in col. 2, line 4 (2ii+6–12[?].4;
The archaic form of the relative pronoun
Overall manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 303–7; Beyer, ATTM1, 261, 264–65, 268; Beyer, ATTME, 120–21; Beyer, ATTM2, 157–59; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 99–105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51–164; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 59-63; Machiela and Perrin, “New Reading”; Stuckenbruck, “Considerations,” 129–39.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Vertical deletion line through a letter (7i.1):
Image B-283986
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Horizontal deletion line through a word (7ii.4; homoioarcton):
Image B-283986
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Supralinear letter added (8.1):
Image B-283986
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(d) Alteration of existing letter (7ii.7):
Image B-283986
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1i.7, 2ii+6–12(?).1, 2ii+6–12(?).3(2x), 2ii+6–12(?).4, 2ii+6–12(?).20, 2ii+6–12(?).21, 7ii.6
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2ii+6–12(?).1, 2ii+6–12(?).2, 2ii+6–12(?).8, 2ii+6–12(?).10, 2ii+6–12(?).16(2x), 2ii+6–12(?).17, 2ii+6–12(?).18
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2ii+6–12(?).3, 2ii+6–12(?).4, 2ii+6–12(?).5(2x, once after obj.), 2ii+6–12(?).7, 2ii+6–12(?).13, 2ii+6–12(?).14, 2ii+6–12(?).15, 2ii+6–12(?).21(2x), 2ii+6–12(?).22, 2ii+6–12(?).23(3x), 2ii+6–12(?).24, 7ii.4, 7ii5, 7ii6(2x)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.5, 2ii+6–12(?).17, 2ii+6–12(?).18, 2ii+6–12(?).23–24
Verbless clause:
2ii+6–12(?).12, 2ii+6–12(?).20
Object early in clause:
2ii+6–12(?).5, 2ii+6–12(?).6, 2ii+6–12(?).17, 2ii+6–12(?).23–24
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
2ii+6–12(?).23
Verb of movement +
2ii+6–12(?).5, 2ii+6–12(?).21
Verb of movement +
1i.3, 1i.8, 7ii.5
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1i.6, 2ii+6–12(?).6, 2ii+6–12(?).7, 2ii+6–12(?).18
Participle + finite form of
2ii+6–12(?).8, 2ii+6–12(?).15(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
2ii+6–12(?).2
2ii+6–12(?).13
2ii+6–12(?).3, 2ii+6–12(?).5, 17.2
Object suffix on verb:
2i+3.1, 2ii+6–12(?).21, 7ii.6(2x)
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms verbal affix
2ii+6–12(?).23 (cf. also 2ii+6–12[?].22)
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
2ii+6–12(?).22, 7ii.7
2ii+6–12(?).2(2x), 2ii+6–12(?).19, 18.1(?)
1i.6
Other notable features:
Use of negative particle
2i+3.6 (pair), 5.3, 5.4
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q531, Book of Giantsc (EnGiantsc)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:49–94; DJD 37:521–22 (frags. 48–51)]
Content synopsis and significance: Another manuscript thought to be a copy of the Book of Giants, 4Q531 preserves fragments recounting episodes associated with the gigantic offspring of the fallen Watchers, the
Material remains: Forty-eight fragments of this scroll were initially identified by Starcky, though in his DJD edition Puech puts the number at forty-seven, having joined two pieces to form his frag. 19 (DJD 31:49). At twelve lines, frag. 22 is the largest of the extant fragments, and has attracted the greatest scholarly attention (Stuckenbruck, Giants, 165). The majority of the fragments are small scraps of skin with no more than a few letters or words preserved on them (e.g., frags. 3, 8–12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24–47). Others contain several lines of readable text (e.g., seven lines on frag. 7; eight lines on frag. 1; ten lines on frag. 2+3), but even these fragments are badly damaged. There are no clear overlaps with other copies of the Book of Giants at Qumran, though a possible parallel does occur between 4Q531 1.5 and 4Q532 (EnGiantsd) 2.10.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q531 were photographed as part of the PAM “G series,” the relevant plates being PAM 40.592, 40.607, 40.619, 40.622, and 40.626. In addition, Tigchelaar has identified several fragments included on the “E series” PAM plates 40.975 (frag. 4), 40.978 (frag. 37), and 40.979 (frags. 3 and 29). As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q531 22
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean formal (Puech); Herodian round semi-formal (Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 67–33 BCE (Puech); 25 BCE–25 CE (Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: 4Q531 is written in a consistent, well-trained formal hand, reminiscent of 4Q203 (EnGiantsa), though it is not the same scribe. Yardeni did believe both copies to be written by the same person, including them as part of her long list of scrolls penned by a single, Herodian-period scribe (“Scribe,” 288–89). Puech’s disagreement on this point is telling, and speaks to the variation among scribal hands for the scrolls listed by Yardeni. Spacing is consistent and relatively generous. Especially noteworthy is the high number of medium and large vacats, though very few of them are preserved in their entirety. Context for deciphering these vacats is lacking in most cases, though where available the evidence suggests that medium and large blank spaces were used to mark relatively minor sense divisions, such as separating new speech vignettes in a discussion between Gilgamesh and Ohaya on frag. 22. Corrections are minimal, with a possible strike-though deletion, an erasure, and a single instance of an added, supralinear letter. Assimilation occurs with tav in a presumed ithpaal form in 1.1 (see also 4Q557 [Visiona]), and the same word is apparently corrected to this orthography in 6.4. Aleph is assimilated in the noun
In terms of language and idiom, 4Q531 fits well the broader profile of the Qumran Aramaic texts. The phrase ]
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 307–9; Beyer, ATTM1, 260, 262–63; Beyer, ATTME, 119; Beyer, ATTM2, 155–56; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 99–105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51–164; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 141–77.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Erasure (2.6; reading uncertain):
(b) Possible horizontal strikethrough of first extant letter (6.4; reading uncertain):
(c) Apparent conversion of vav to he, with supralinear letter added (17.1):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.8, 22.5, 22.9, 22.10(2x)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2+3.2, 5.3, 7.5, 14.3, 22.12, 45.3
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
22.9
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
6.3(?), 6.4(?), 14.4(2x), 19.4, 22.4, 22.11
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
14.3(?), 17.2, 22.9, 22.11
Verbless clause:
18.1, 18.3(?), 19.3(2x)
Object early in clause:
14.3, 22.9
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
12.3(?), 20.3(?), 22.8
Use of
5.3, 22.8(?)
Verb of movement +
46.2(?)
Interrogative
7.5(?), 15.2
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1.1, 1.3, 13.1, 15.3
17.1
1.1, 22.5
Object suffix on verb:
1.8, 22.9(?)
Assimilated nun:
2+3.10(?)
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms verbal affix
4.3, 6.3, 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 34.2
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
5.4, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 16.4, 19.5, 22.12, 28.4
1.6, 2+3.1, 17.5, 19.3, 19.4, 22.4, 22.12
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
22.3, 22.6
4Q532, Book of Giantsd (EnGiantsd)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:95–104]
Content synopsis and significance: For this copy of the Book of Giants we have preserved only two very fragmentary columns of text. The first column has nine complete words, which include several verbs (or perhaps participles) in the third-person, singular voice. The second column brings to mind the first four fragments of 4Q531 (EnGiantsc), though there is no clear textual overlap between the two copies (the closest parallel in wording is found at 4Q531 [EnGiantsc] 1.5 and 4Q532 2.10). In both texts we find what is presumably a description of the monstrous acts of the giants, perpetrated against the earth and its inhabitants. 4Q532 casts this account in the past, twice using the past-continuative (periphrastic) tense. There are several striking correspondences of this text with the early columns of 1Q20 (apGen), in which Noah is suspected of being a giant. These include the distinctive phrases
Material remains: Starcky grouped six fragments under the heading “‘Sy 5 = Ps(eudo)-Hénochc.” Upon further analysis, Puech concluded that two of these fragments belonged together, comprising another Cave 4 copy of the Book of Giants (DJD 31:95). Starcky’s other four fragments are treated by Puech in DJD 37 under a different number and heading (4Q582 [Testamentc]). As a result, 4Q532 now refers only to the first two of Starcky’s six fragments. Both fragments of 4Q532 are tall and slender, having remnants of between ten and thirteen lines of text (neither fragment seems to preserve the full column height). No line of text contains more than two complete words, and most contain only a single word or less. Fragment 1 contains portions of two columns of text and an intercolumnar margin, while frag. 2 preserves part of a single column. Puech suggested that there is “une correspondance possible des lignes” between frag. 1ii and 2 (DJD 31:95), such that frags. 1 and 2 may together represent two consecutive columns of the scroll. There are no certain overlaps between 4Q532 and other copies of the Book of Giants, though a possible parallel exists at 4Q532 2.10 and 4Q531 (EnGiantsc) 1.5.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q532 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q532 1–2 (Fragment placement follows Puech)
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE, with a preference for ca. 75 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This copy is written in a rather defective orthography, as noted by Puech (e.g.,
The use of a reading mark (a so-called “paragraphos” sign) in the only preserved, intercolumnar margin is a rare feature in the Aramaic Qumran scrolls (see 4Q542 [TQahat] 1ii.9), though it is better known from the Hebrew manuscripts, such as 1QIsaa XXIII.26, 4QDeutb 2ii.15, and 4Q448 (Apocryphal Psalm and Prayer) 2–3. The mark in 4Q532 is of the sort Tov called the “straight line” paragraphos, as opposed to the “fish hook” or other types (cf. 4Q213 [Levia]) (Scribal Practices, 179–85).
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Stuckenbruck, Giants, 178–85.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Marginal reading mark (1.7)
(b) Supralinear letters added (2.6):
Language
Syntax:
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2.9
Object early in clause:
2.9
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
2.4, 2.6
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
2.9
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.10, 2.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
2.8(?)
4Q533, Book of Giantse (EnGiantse)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:105–15]
Content synopsis and significance: The manuscript designated here as 4Q533 is occasionally elsewhere referred to by the label 4Q556, on which see the profile for 4Q556 or below under Material remains. Several words and phrases in 4Q533 suggest an association with the so-called Book of Giants, or at least the Enochic tradition more generally. These words and phrases include the first-person plural pronoun
Material remains: Stuckenbruck and others have referred to this manuscript using the label 4Q556 (e.g., in his re-edition of 4Q206 in DJD 36:42–48), while using the designation 4Q533 for what Puech titled 4Q556 and 4Q556a in DJD 37. The result is a confusing swap of manuscript numbers for the scrolls among some publications. Thankfully, the label 4QEnGiantse is consistent across the different editions. Puech’s siglum and DJD numbering are followed here. The scroll itself is incredibly fragmentary, numbering eight fragments. Fragments 3 and 4 contain only a few readable words and phrases, with most of the other fragments having only a few stray letters or words. Fragment 3, the largest of this scroll, is roughly the size and shape of a postage stamp, as are the slightly smaller frags. 1 and 4. Fragments 5–8 are little more than tiny specks of leather. None of the fragments preserves more than four partial lines of text, although frag. 1 does contain part of an intercolumnar margin. 4Q533 has no parallels with other Qumran copies of the Book of Giants.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q533 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q533 1, 4 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-cursive (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE, possibly closer to the middle of that century (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Although there is little by which to judge, the scribal execution of this manuscript appears of middle or middle-lower quality. The script is somewhat messy, and the spacing fairly compact. What spelling is preserved fits well the broader orthographic picture of the Qumran Aramaic texts, with yod and aleph regularly representing vowels and full spellings. Puech reads the unusual orthography
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 237–38; Beyer, ATTM1, 260–61; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51–164; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 185–91.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Words struck through (3.2):
Image B-284602
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
3.1
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
4.2(2x)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
3.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraism:
6Q8, Book of Giants (papEnGiants)
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:116–19; reed. Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:76–94]
Content synopsis and significance: Maurice Baillet originally called this text “un apocryphe de la Genèse,” which he thought might be related to 1Q20 (apGen). However, in view of the wider Qumran corpus it was eventually identified with Cave 1, 2, and 4 copies of what is now called the Book of Giants. Though the remains are very fragmentary, we can glean some basic insights into the scroll’s contents. Fragment 1 has the names of the giant brothers Ohaya and Mahaway (known from other Book of Giants manuscripts), as well as that of their father Baraqel. We learn of a discourse between the brothers, which mentions their having been “shown everything.” This statement undoubtedly refers to the visions given to the brothers elsewhere in the Book of Giants, on which see the profiles for 2Q26 (EnGiants), 4Q530 (EnGiantsb), and 4Q531 (EnGiantsc). Fragment 2 refers to “three shoots” and a “garden” (
Material remains: 6Q8 is the only extant papyrus copy of the Qumran Book of Giants. The scroll is very poorly preserved, with the majority of fragments being little more than tiny scraps of papyrus containing a few extant letters or words. Slightly more continuous text can be found on frag. 1, the largest of the thirty-three extant fragments. This fragment contains portions of six lines and several complete phrases. With the exception of frag. 1, even the largest fragments (i.e., frag. 2, 3, 4, and 26) contain little readable material. There are no textual overlaps between this and other copies of the Book of Giants.
Notes on provenance: Cave 6 was discovered by Bedouin in September 1952. Most of the fragments from this cave, presumably including 6Q8, were excavated by the Bedouin and then sold to the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Only a small number of remaining fragments were discovered during the official excavation of Cave 6 in late September 1952 (DJD 3:26), a group that seems not to have included the 6Q8 fragments.
Sample image: 6Q8 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Papyrus
Script: Herodian semi-cursive (Baillet, Stuckenbruck)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Cross); 25–70 CE (Baillet)
Special traits and general comments: Although thirty-three fragments remain of this papyrus manuscript, the writing is very poorly preserved and little of the text can be recovered with confidence. The spacing of lines and words is erratic, as is the sizing of letters, although it is clear from 1.3 that vacats were employed for minor sense divisions. Some margins are preserved, though it is not always clear how fully. The very large right margin (2.7 cm) on frag. 26 deserves special comment, since it has escaped the attention of others working with the manuscript. The space of the margin is considerably larger than we should expect for an intercolumnar margin, the largest of which – even in the best manuscripts – typically do not reach 2 cm. Compare, for example, the slightly better-quality papyrus manuscript 4Q196 (papTobita), which has an intercolumnar margin of 1.8 cm. Given the lesser quality of 6Q8, it would be very surprising indeed to have an intercolumnar margin of that size on frag. 26. Instead, we ought to consider other options for this large space. One possibility is that this is, in fact, the beginning of the manuscript. Another is that there was a large break preceding this section (e.g., a large portion of the preceding column was left blank to indicate a major sense division). Whatever the case, it may be worth reassessing the fragment’s placement in the scroll. Baillet was the first to notice that the scribe distinguished between medial and final forms of aleph (compare the words
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Milik, BE, 300–1, 309–10; Beyer, ATTM1, 262, 265, 268; Beyer, ATTM2, 162; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 101–2; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59, 63–64, 107–8; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 196–213; Puech, “Les Fragments”.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (3.2):
Image B-284840
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.2, 1.5, 1.6
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1.4
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.2, 1.3
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.6
Object early in clause:
1.6
Double
1.5–6(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Participle + finite form of
2.1–2
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
1.3
Orthography/Phonology:
12.2
4Q529, Words of Michael
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:1–8; DJD 37:519 (additional frag. 3)]
Content synopsis and significance: This remarkable text, which was unknown before its discovery at Qumran, relates “The words of the written account that Michael said to the angels …” (1.1). Michael is an angel named in several other texts from the Second Temple period; he is the first angel listed in 1 En. 9:1, while in 1 En. 10 he is instructed by the Lord to bind the rebellious Watchers, to destroy their sons, and to cleanse the earth so that it may be renewed. He has a military role tied to Israel’s fate in Dan 10. In 4Q529, he recounts to his fellow angels what seems to be a journey in which various natural and fantastic phenomena are described. These include mountains and other geographic regions, the angel Gabriel, and a city built for the name of “my master, the Lord of Eternity” (
In the opinions of Milik (BE, 91), Puech (DJD 31:1), and Dimant (“Textes Araméens,” 293), Michael recounts for the other angels the contents of a vision revealed to Enoch. It is possible that this is a different account of Enoch’s heavenly journey also recorded in the Book of Watchers, with Milik having highlighted connections between 4Q529 1.2–4 and details from 1 En. 14, 17–18, and 20–21. At 4Q529 1.6, Michael tells of something written “in the books of my master, the Lord of Eternity.” The themes of writing in heavenly books or the transmission of revealed wisdom among righteous individuals from Israel’s past is shared by a number of the Aramaic texts from Qumran, such as 4Q204 [Enc] 1vi.9 (cf. 1 En. 82:1–3, 83:10); 1Q20 (apGen) 5.29, 19.25; 4Q543 (VisAmrama) 1.1; 4Q547 (VisAmrame) 4.8; 4Q542 (TQahat) 1ii. 9–13; and ALD 10:10. The idea of heavenly books or tablets is also found more broadly in Jewish literature of this period, as in the Book of Jubilees (see Baynes, Heavenly Book, 107–34). Later in 4Q529, Michael’s account shifts to speaking of evil deeds, and the Lord of Eternity remembering his covenant (1.10–11). Here we pivot to events associated either with interactions between Israel (or Israel’s ancestors) and God, or perhaps with an eschatological scenario, judging by the future-looking statements in 1.13–14. Puech considered these lines to be speaking of Noah and Abraham (DJD 31:6–7).
Material remains: 4Q529 comprises three fragments, of which frag. 1 is by far the largest (approx. 5 × 11 cm) and contains most of the preserved text. The fragment is actually made up of five separate pieces originally joined by Jean Starcky, with all of the joins being absolutely certain. Puech noted that the skin was apparently treated with an oil substance in the laboratories of the British Museum in the years after its discovery, which has left it badly darkened in non-infrared photographs. Fragments 2 and 3 are very small, with frag. 2 having gone missing since being photographed on PAM 43.572 in June, 1960. Fragment 3 contains only one complete word, and was identified with 4Q529 after Puech had already published frags. 1–2 in DJD 31. A second copy of this text is found in 4Q571 (Words of Michaela), with five overlapping words on two, successive lines in 4Q529 1.12–14 and 4Q571 1.13–14. 6Q23 (Words of Michael) is often assumed to be a third copy of the Words of Michael, though there is no certain overlap in text between it and 4Q529 or 4Q571.
Notes on provenance: Fragment 1 of 4Q529 was photographed as part of the PAM “E series” on plate 40.965. The fragments in this series of images were discovered as part of the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32; see also the comments of Puech in DJD 31:1).
Sample image: 4Q529 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript is written in a neat, formal hand that is free of mistakes and corrections in what is preserved. When compared to other manuscripts for which the right, sewn edge-seam of a sheet is preserved (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q213a [Levib], 4Q542 [TQahat], 4Q543 [Visions of Amrama], 4Q546 [Visions of Amramd]), the writing in 4Q529 is placed unexpectedly close to the seam. Based on the likelihood that we have the beginning of the composition in the first words of this sheet, this is perhaps due to a separate, blank sheet being placed before the one we have preserved. In other cases the preceding blank space is part of the same sheet (e.g., 1QM, 4Q571 [Words of Michaela]). It is also possible (though less likely) that another, related composition preceded this one on the same scroll, as with, e.g., the blank space preceding 1Q20 (apGen) 5.28 and 4Q203 (EnGiantsa) 8.3–5. A noteworthy practice of the scribe is an abnormal variation in spacing between words, ranging from no more than the usual distance between letters in the same word (0.5 mm) and what elsewhere would be considered a small vacat (4 mm, as between
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 127–28; Beyer, ATTM2, 165–66; Hamidović, “Transtextualité.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Possible sheet number mark:
(b) Erasure of
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.9(part.)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1.1, 1.10, 1.13, 2.1
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.4, 1.5, 1.6(pass. part.), 1.11, 1.14, 2.2(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.2(?)
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1.6, 1.9
Use of
1.2, 1.5
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1.14
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.2, 1.5
Object suffix on verb:
1.5
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1.8(?), 1.13
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q571, Words of Michaela
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:399–403]
Content synopsis and significance: On the composition Words of Michael, see the entry for the better-preserved 4Q529 (Words of Michael), with which 4Q571 has an overlap of five words. Milik (BE, 91) was apparently the first to make an identification between these two manuscripts, and with 6Q23 (Words of Michael). 4Q571 fills in slightly the fragmentary scenario of 4Q529 (Words of Michael), in which Michael describes a revelation (perhaps given to Enoch) in the presence of other angels. 4Q571 1.12–13 mentions a city (
Material remains: Only one, tapering fragment remains of this scroll, containing most of the width of its first column preceded by a sizable blank space on the same sheet of skin. It should be noted that the letter “G” has been stamped in ink on the verso of this fragment after its modern discovery. This letter identifies the fragment as part of the “G series,” on which see the Provenance section, below. The “G” stands for “Government,” signifying a fragment purchased by the Jordanian government from the Bedouin, and therefore not excavated by the official team led by de Vaux. Similar “G” marks are found, for example, on the versos of 4Q84 (Psb) 25, 4Q434 (Barkhi Nafshia) 7, 4Q525 (Beatitudes) 14, and 4Q550 (Jews at the Persian Court) 1. A clear overlap of multiple, successive words occurs between 4Q571 1.13–14 and 4Q529 (Words of Michael) 1.13–14, making clear that these are copies of the same work. The inclusion of a third copy, 6Q23 (Words of Michael), is inferred from similar contents, though not on direct textual overlaps.
Notes on provenance: The single fragment of 4Q571 has a letter “G” stamped on its verso side (see above, under Material remains), marking it as one of those discovered in Cave 4 by Bedouin in 1952, and then sold to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (either directly or through the Bethlehem antiquities dealer Kando).
Sample image: 4Q571 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–100 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This fragment preserves the beginning of the composition, as shown by a blank area of the scroll preceding the first column of text. Another scribal option was to begin writing on the first column of the second sheet, leaving an entire blank sheet to begin the scroll (as with, for example, 4Q529 [Words of Michael] and 4Q543 [VisAmrama]). Puech noted that this is the oldest copy of the Words of Michael, based on palaeography. Parts of only three lines are preserved on the extant fragment, but we can see the scribe’s style quite well within this limited space. The writing is fairly consistent and neat; a typical formal hand of the Hasmonean period. The orthography is generally full, with yod and vav indicating long vowels, (with the exception of
If Puech’s transcription and reconstruction are correct, we find some unusual syntactic constructions, leaving the sense of the text at these points uncertain. For example, we would have two periphrastic constructions in which a finite, prefix conjugation of the verb
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.13
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1.14(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.12
Use of
1.14
Verb of movement +
1.12
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1.12–13(?), 1.13–14(?), 1.14(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.14 (hofal)
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1.13
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
6Q23, papWords of Michael
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:138]
Content synopsis and significance: Maurice Baillet did not know when editing the four fragments of 6Q23 that a larger context for understanding them would be revealed from Cave 4, with 4Q529 (Words of Michael) and 4Q571 (Words of Michaela). These connections were first identified by Milik (BE, 91), and have subsequently been adopted by Émile Puech (DJD 31 and 37) and others (e.g., Dimant, “Textes Araméens,” 292). Only four full words are preserved on these Cave 6 fragments, but they strongly suggest that the fragments belonged to a copy of the Words of Michael, thereby providing one of the links between Caves 4 and 6. In 4Q529 (Words of Michael), Michael repeatedly uses the unique title
Material remains: Only four small, badly-damaged papyrus fragments have been identified with 6Q23, none preserving more than two complete words. There are no certain textual overlaps with the other two Words of Michael scrolls (4Q529 and 4Q571), but the reconstructed divine epithet
Notes on provenance: Cave 6 was discovered by Bedouin in September, 1952. Most of the fragments from this cave, presumably including 6Q23, were excavated by the Bedouin and then sold to the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Only a small number of remaining fragments were discovered during the official excavation of Cave 6 in late September 1952 (DJD 3:26), a group that seems not to have included the 6Q23 fragments.
Sample image: 6Q23 1–4 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Papyrus
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian semi-cursive
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–1 BCE
Special traits and general comments: This papyrus manuscript has generous spacing, but relatively small margins compared with the better skin copies (if the margins of 6Q23 are, indeed, fully-preserved). The scribal hand is fairly consistent, and employs a mixture of more formal letter forms (e.g., aleph, lamed, and samek) and cursive ones (e.g., mem and tav). The cursive mem as found in 6Q23 is relatively rare in the Aramaic literary manuscripts from Qumran, though it is much more common in documentary texts from around the same period. The letters vav and yod are practically indistinguishable from one another in this copy. In general, the script aligns quite well with those semi-cursive examples dated by Cross to the first cent. BCE (“Development,” 149), hence my proposed dating here. Along with the use of papyrus, I take use of the semi-cursive script as an indicator of a somewhat lower-quality scroll. Baillet read incorrectly
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 127–28; Beyer, ATTM2, 165–66; Puech, DJD 31:1; Hamidović, “Transtextualité.”
Script sample:
4Q534, Birth of Noaha
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:129–52]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is part of a composition that has been called both the Birth of Noah and the Elect of God. The latter designation comes from an appellation in 4Q534 1i.10 is used to describe the text’s protagonist, a certain
The extant portions of 4Q534 begin with a description of the protagonist’s physical features, including his hands, knees, hair, distinguishing moles (
The physical description of the person under discussion is followed by an account of his intellectual journey. Despite lacking knowledge as a youth (1i.4), the central character comes to a place of profound understanding after an encounter with “the three books” (
Ever since Fitzmyer’s seminal 1965 article on this text most scholars have followed him in identifying the “Elect of God” figure with Noah, though many have acknowledged that the evidence is circumstantial and the conclusion only provisional (Grelot, “Hénoch,” 481–500; Starcky, “Le Maître,” 53–55; García Martínez, “El Libro,” 195–232; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 1–44; Stuckenbruck, “Lamech,” 253–73; and Eshel, “Genesis,” 277–98). Not everyone, however, has accepted Fitzmyer’s interpretation. Proposed alternatives include the protagonist being a/the messiah, Enoch, an Enoch redivivus, Melchizedek, or simply an unnamed, extraordinary individual; see Davila (“Merkavah,” 367–81) and Peters (Traditions, 101–2) for summaries of the various scholarly opinions. Most recently, Dimant (“Themes,” 15–46) challenged the consensus regarding the Noahic identity of the “Elect of God,” while Stökl Ben Ezra (“Messianic,” 515–45) maintained that messianic and Noahic identities are not incompatible in light of the Urzeit-Endzeit eschatological model common in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Finally, Cook (WAC, 539–40) and Peters (Traditions, 100, 106) noted several similarities between the “Elect of God” figure in 4Q534 and the description of the eschatological high priest in 4Q541 (apocrLevib?) 9i.2–3. Both figures are associated with “wisdom” (4Q534 1i.8, 2i+3.5; 4Q541 [apocrLevib?] 9i.2) and “teaching” (4Q536 [Birth of Noahc] 2i+3.4; 4Q541 [apocrLevib?] 9i.3), have a mission that is universal in scope (4Q534 1i.8; 4Q541 [apocrLevib?] 9i.2), and yet face considerable opposition (4Q534 1i.9; 4Q541 [apocrLevib?] 9i.5–7). Of whomever the text is speaking, it is clear that he was considered very important, playing a significant role in God’s plan for human history.
Material remains: The preserved portions of 4Q534 comprise seven fragments, though the inclusion of frag. 4 in the collection is uncertain. Each of the two largest fragments (1 and 2) are, in fact, made up of several smaller ones, based on arrangements that were originally suggested by Starcky and later accepted by Puech in the editio princeps. Fragment 1 consists of seventeen collated fragments, while fragment 2 consists of seven pieces. Together, these two fragments allow us to reconstruct parts of two consecutive columns, each of which contains at least twenty lines. The rest of 4Q534’s fragments contain little written material, though some sections of frag. 7 may be reconstructed on the basis of a possible overlap with 4Q536 (Birth of Noahc; 4Q534 7.1–6//4Q536 2ii.11–13). In addition to the damage on the surface of the manuscript, there are also signs of significant shrinkage that may affect the precision of particular joins, measurements, and readings (Fitzmyer, “Aramaic,” 357–58; DJD 31:129).
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q534 (the lower part of 1ii1, 2, and 7) were photographed as part of the PAM “G series” plates 40.592, 40.621, and 40.618. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32).
Sample image: 4Q534 1
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian semi-formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Considerable care and skill were invested in this manuscript, in the phases of both production and writing. It was fully ruled, with horizontal script lines and vertical guidelines at both ends of the columns. The margins appear to be only moderate in size, though the script lines spaced quite generously. Without the end of a sheet preserved, it is impossible to tell if guide dots were used to assist in plotting the script lines. The two preserved columns are considerably wider than, say, in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) or the Cave 11 Job translation (11Q10), with the full height now lost.
The scribe wrote in an adept, Early Herodian hand, using fairly large letters to fill the generous line spacing. A notable practice is the use of large vacats for quite minor sense-divisions. What remains of this copy contains only one, minor scribal correction. In terms of orthography, the scribe generally preferred full spellings with vav, yod, and aleph as matres lectionis, as is typical in the Qumran manuscripts. We find a relatively rare full spelling of the 2ms suffix
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Fitzmyer, “Aramaic”; Starcky, “Messianique”; Caquot, “‘4QMESS AR’”; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 1–44; Beyer, ATTME, 125–26.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear word added by original scribe (1.3):
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i.11, 1ii+2.12, 1ii+2.14, 1ii+2.12(?), 1ii+2.13
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1i.7
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1i.3(?), 1i.7, 1i.8, 1i.9(2x)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.5, 1i.6(2x), 1i.8(2x), 1ii+2.13, 1ii+2.16, 1ii+2.18(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.4, 1ii+2.1(?), 1ii+2.15
Verbless clause:
1i.10, 1ii+2.15
Object early in clause:
1ii+2.15
Verb of movement +
1i.8
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
1i.7
Assimilated nun:
1i.4
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1i.5
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
7.2
1i.9
4Q535, Birth of Noahb
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:153–59]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of three copies from Qumran of a text typically referred to as The Birth of Noah (cf. 4Q534 [Birth of Noaha] and 536 [Birth of Noahc]). It was given this name based on proposed literary and thematic parallels between the account of the unnamed individual in this text and that of Noah in portions of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 2–5) and 1 Enoch (106–7). The passages are connected by some scholars with a hypothetical Book of Noah. See the profile on 4Q534 (Birth of Noaha) for a fuller discussion of this composition and its relationship to Noahic (and other) traditions. The majority of what little is preserved of 4Q535 deals with the extraordinary birth of an individual. Fragment 3 contains most of the material related to this event, though even this portion of the scroll is poorly preserved. In that fragment it is reported that the central figure is born at night and that he “comes out perfect/complete” (3.2). This statement is followed in the next line by a broken reference to his weight, presumably at the time of his birth (three hundred and fif[ty] [one?] shekels). Several scholars have noted that this particular aspect of the birth relates most directly to the description of Noah in 1Q20 (apGen) 2–5 and 1 En. 106–7 (e.g., Stuckenbruck, “Lamech,” 256; Eshel, “Genesis,” 289). Fragment 2 contains another reference to “the time of [his] birt[h” (2.1). Eshel suggested that this passage may depict the newborn’s horoscope (“Genesis,” 288–89). The same fragment refers to “his signs” in a very broken context. Puech noted that this term may refer either to some sort of omen connected with the figure’s birth or to bodily markings that are part of a physiognomic description (DJD 31:157).
Material remains: Three fragments remain of this scroll, with frag. 3 preserving the most material in six, partial lines. Puech plausibly assumed that frag. 3 preserves the entire height of a column, based on the probable presence of both an upper and a lower margin. At six lines per column (perhaps five for frags. 1 and 2), 4Q535 would rank among the smallest scrolls in the Qumran library in terms of manuscript height. The various measurements of frag. 3 differ somewhat from those of frags. 1 and 2, the latter being quite consistent with one another. This led Puech to propose that frags. 1 and 2 derive from a different sheet of leather than frag. 3. He further hypothesized that these two sheets were sewn together and formed two consecutive columns (DJD 31:153).
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q535 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q535 3
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian semi-formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: There are several outstanding questions about this manuscript. Puech, following Starcky, attributed all three main fragments to the same copy, despite a larger upper margin and wider line spacing on frags. 1–2 than on frag. 3. Puech assumed that the entirety of the manuscript height is preserved on frag. 3, which would make this a remarkably small scroll for Qumran in terms of its height, smaller even than the custom copy of Psalm 119 in 4QPsg (4Q89). I see no reason to doubt Puech on this latter point, while the association of the three fragments must remain an open question.
This copy is written in a tidy, consistent hand on a manuscript with moderate margins and otherwise standard spacing. Though horizontal script lines are no longer visible, the consistency of line spacing suggests that they were originally inscribed very lightly as part of the manuscript preparation. The small amount of text preserved makes it difficult to know whether vacats were used regularly, or how much weight should be placed on the absence of corrections. There is nothing abnormal in the orthography for the corpus. As for vocabulary, Puech reads what would be a rare direct object marker
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Fitzmyer, “Aramaic”; Starcky, “Messianique”; Caquot, “‘4QMESS AR’”; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 1–44; Beyer, ATTME, 125–26.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3.1, 3.2
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
3.2(part.; ?), 3.4
Lexical items:
4Q536, Birth of Noahc
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:161–70]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript represents one of three Qumran copies of a text typically referred to as The Birth of Noah (cf. 4Q534 [Birth of Noaha], 535 [Birth of Noahb]). See the profile of 4Q534 (Birth of Noaha) for a fuller discussion of this composition and its relationship to Noahic (and other) traditions. Fragment 1 is typically interpreted to tell of the miraculous birth of an individual, though this section is quite fragmentary in 4Q536 and its parallel in 4Q535 (Birth of Noahb). Fragment 2i+3 displays some thematic and conceptual affinities with 4Q534 1i, though there is no direct overlap between the two copies. This passage describes a revelatory figure who discloses “mysteries like the Watchers” (2i+3.8; “mysteries” are also mentioned in lines 9 and 12). The divine mysteries (
Material remains: 4Q536 is preserved in four fragments. Of these, frag. 2 is by far the largest, containing a significant amount of text from two successive columns. In fact, it appears that frag. 2 preserves the entire height of the first column, based on the likely presence of both upper and lower margins. The rest of the fragments are much smaller, though they all preserve margins. Stitching between sheets is preserved on frag. 4. Textual parallels between 4Q536 and the other two Birth of Noah copies are found at 4Q536 1.1–3//4Q535 (Birth of Noahb) 3.4–6 and 4Q536 2ii.11–13//4Q534 (Birth of Noaha) 7.1–6; cf. DJD 31:121–22.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q536 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q536 2
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian semi-formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The line spacing varies considerably in this manuscript, raising the possibility that horizontal script guidelines were not used (despite vertical column lines being present). This is unusual, the opposite arrangement being found more regularly among the Aramaic Qumran scrolls. The script of 4Q536 is of high quality, though not as nice as in the finest examples of handwriting in the corpus (e.g., 4Q535 [Birth of Noahb]). From what remains of the scroll, the copyist seems to have made very few mistakes. The scribe’s spacing of words was quite generous, and small vacats appear to have been used regularly for both minor (the continuation of a description of an individual) and somewhat more significant (a moderate change of topic) sense-divisions in the text. In the very small amount of text evidently overlapping with 4Q534 (Birth of Noaha), it is worth noting that 4Q534 7.4–6 has what appears to be a full line vacat where 4Q536 2ii.13 has none at all (preceding the word
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Fitzmyer, “Aramaic”; Starcky, “Messianique”; Caquot, “‘4QMESS AR’”; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 1–44; Beyer, ATTME, 125–26.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (2.4), apparently by the original scribe:
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2ii.9(part.), 2ii.11
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
2i+3.3
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2i+3.8(?), 2i+3.13, 2ii.11, 2ii.13, 2ii+3.12
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.1, 2i+3.2(?), 2i+3.6(?), 2i+3.10
Lexical items:
Morphology:
2ii.10
Object suffix on verb:
2ii.11
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
2ii.11
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
2ii.11(2x)
Other notable features:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
2ii+3.12
1Q20, Genesis Apocryphon (apGen)
[ed. Machiela, DSGA, 1–84]
Content synopsis and significance: The most extensively preserved of the Aramaic scrolls from the Qumran caves, 1Q20 contains a lengthy retelling of Gen 5:28–15:4 in what remains of the manuscript. There is not only a difference in compositional languages between 1Q20 and Genesis, but a wide range of rearrangements, additions, omissions, harmonizations, and literary fusions carried out by the author(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon in relation to its Hebrew forerunner (see, e.g., Bernstein, “Compositional,” 166–75). A special interest in the Apocryphon seems to have been the portrayal of the patriarchs (e.g., Enoch, Noah, and Abram) as paradigmatic, righteous individuals who exhibited a litany of virtuous traits. Divine revelation is regularly imparted by way of dream-visions, often apocalyptic, and a number of other concerns come to the fore, such as the observance of cultic regulations, rights to the Land of Canaan/Israel, endogamy, and the chronology of the events recorded in Genesis. There is an added layer of human interest in 1Q20, with vigorous exchanges between characters and an elevated role for various women in the story (e.g., Batenosh and Sarai). New elements of humor and suspense are also palpable, especially in the exchange between Lamech and Batenosh in col. 2, and the interactions between Abram, Sarai, the Pharaoh, and his nobles in cols. 19–20.
Since its partial publication by Avigad and Yadin, scholars have struggled to place the Genesis Apocryphon within existing literary categories, originally classifying it as targum, midrash, or pseudepigrapha (see Bernstein, “Apocryphon”; Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 41–2). Beginning with the landmark study of Vermes (Haggadic Studies), the Genesis Apocryphon figured prominently into scholarly discussions of Jewish biblical interpretation during the Second Temple period, and especially the much-debated literary category of “rewritten Bible” or “rewritten Scripture.” An ongoing discussion about the genre of the Apocryphon ensued, with others arguing for a classification as “parabiblical.” However we classify this work, it is clear that it challenges the literary categories typically used at the time of its discovery, and in this way the scroll has generated important discussions on the interpretation of earlier, authoritative texts in Second Temple Judaism.
Avigad and Yadin recognized that the Genesis Apocryphon had close literary relationships with 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and this, too, has sparked much further study. The early columns of 1Q20 exhibit clear overlaps in general content with the Enochic Books of Watchers (1 En. 1–36) and the so-called Birth of Noah story (1 En. 106–107), and, occasionally, close parallels in specific wording. There are also affinities with the Book of Giants, discovered at Qumran and evidently part of the Enochic corpus of the Hellenistic period that had been lost. Later columns of 1Q20 contain striking parallels with the Hebrew book of Jubilees, as in Noah’s very similar division of the earth among his sons in 1Q20 16–17 and Jub. 8:11–9:15. Opinions are divided on the chronological order of these relationships, leading to disagreements on relative dating. In the cases of both 1 Enoch and Jubilees, it is typically asked whether the Genesis Apocryphon borrowed from the other text, or vice versa. In reality, the situation is unlikely to have been so simplistic. What is clear, however, is that the Apocryphon has a striking affinity to others of the Aramaic writings now known from the Qumran caves. The portrayals of Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon and Joseph in the Aramaic Levi Document bear a strong resemblance to each other, both describing exemplary wisdom figures who ably navigated the foreign culture of Egypt (Machiela, “Wisdom”). The story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt shows clear literary affinities with that of Tobias and Sarah (Machiela and Perrin, “Family Portrait”). A number of other Aramaic compositions found at Qumran exhibit sundry literary affinities with the Genesis Apocryphon. This is seen, for example, in their shared use of dream-visions (Perrin, Dynamics), wisdom language (Machiela, “Wisdom”), cultic practices, and court tale elements. Another shared feature is the use of first-person narration by a figure from Israel’s past in telling the story (i.e., pseudepigraphy), which in the Apocryphon takes the form of several, distinct sections narrated by different characters: the first columns are narrated by Enoch and Lamech, from 5.29 Noah becomes the first-person narrator, and from 18.24 until 21.22 Abram takes over narration. Curiously, from 21.23 to the end of the preserved scroll is narrated in the third-person voice. In light of the affinities listed above, we can see that from a literary point of view the Genesis Apocryphon is very much at home among the Aramaic writings from Qumran, despite the fact that it has often been placed in a generic category (rewritten Bible/Scripture) different than the rest of the corpus.
Upon close reading in comparison with other Aramaic documents and literary texts from the fifth century BCE onward, it is evident that the Genesis Apocryphon is a fine example of Jewish haute literature from the Second Temple period. As such, the Aramaic is highly “literary” (as argued by Greenfield, “Standard”), and should probably not be read as an example of the spoken Aramaic of Roman Palestine (contra Dalman, Díez Macho, and Black; for bibliography see Machiela, “Translation,” 217–18).
Material remains: 1Q20 is the only Aramaic manuscript from Qumran to be discovered as a fairly well-preserved, rolled scroll. Parts of at least twenty-three columns are now preserved, but the scroll was once longer than this. Because no other copies of this composition are known from Qumran or elsewhere (with the possible exception of 3Q14 8), it is now impossible to tell just how much longer the scroll may once have been. The manuscript was deposited in Qumran Cave 1 (see Provenance, below) with the last part of the composition rolled to the inside, and its beginning at the outside of the scroll; i.e., it was rolled as if ready to read from the beginning (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 40, 108). Based on the preservation of the scroll when it was found, this suggests that what is now designated “col. 0” stood at or near the beginning of the scroll, possibly preceded by a lost column or two. If so, it is reasonable to conclude that the composition began with a version of the story of the Watchers, their offspring the giants, and Enoch also known from the Book of Watchers and Book of Giants. Following these events, attention turned to the astounding birth of Noah. The outermost columns of the scroll were badly or entirely disintegrated by the time it was discovered in the late 1940s, and it becomes progressively better-preserved as we move further along in the text, towards the innermost revolutions of the scroll. Consequently, some portions of the early columns are now only isolated fragments. A complicating physical feature of the scroll when it was discovered is that one of its sides was more pliable and better-preserved than the other, probably due to the way it was stored (and, hence, deteriorated) in the cave over a long period of time. The upper part of the scroll is also better-preserved than the lower portion, perhaps from a prolonged period standing in a jar. Those columns preceding col. 2 exist only in relatively small, isolated fragments, the arrangement of which has been partially reconstructed by scholars. Columns 2–9 consist of larger fragments, each making up part of one or two columns. From col. 10 onward the fragments become larger, preserving parts of two or three columns, leading to the final, best-preserved piece of the scroll containing five columns (18–22), of which the last three were originally almost fully in-tact. A point of special interest is that the scroll was cut cleanly in antiquity after col. 22, directly following the seam beginning a new sheet of skin, so that the text ends mid-sentence at a point corresponding to Gen 15:4. Another curious feature of the scroll is that it was rolled together with another protective (or backing) sheet of moderately-prepared skin, considerably lighter in color than the scroll itself and covering only its lower portion (Avigad and Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon, 14; Elgvin and Davis, “1QApocryphon,” 283–84). The purpose of this sheet is not entirely clear, though most consider it to have been part of repairing or protecting the (perhaps partially-damaged) scroll in antiquity. The scroll has deteriorated badly since its modern discovery, and later photographs show that parts of it once relatively well-preserved and physically connected are now cracked and separated. Other parts have disintegrated into a dark, gelatinous substance. This process is attributable, in part, to the ink used to write the text, which in some places has eaten away the skin where the script was written while the surrounding skin is left in-tact (Nir-El and Broshi, “Black Ink”). The composition of the ink clearly caused this type of decay, perhaps due to storage in a metal inkwell, or to the particular concoction of binding agents used in the ink’s production. Deterioration of this type is uncommon among the Qumran scrolls, though a handful of other scrolls do have the same phenomenon, including 4Q115 (Dand) among the Aramaic manuscripts (Tov, Scribal Practices, 53–54).
1Q20 has a complicated history of publication, with portions of the scroll being made available in segments over a period of more than fifty years, in a number of locations, and by different editors. The main stages of this process have been documented by Machiela (DSGA, 21–26), with the only major publication on the manuscript in the meantime being Machiela, “Genesis Apocryphon.”
Notes on provenance: The modern discovery of 1Q20, sometimes called in early literature “the fourth scroll,” is somewhat confused because of conflicting firsthand accounts. However, all accounts place the findspot of the scroll in Qumran Cave 1, and there is no compelling reason to doubt this fact. It is quite clear that the seven main scrolls typically associated with the first discoveries from Cave 1 belonged to two batches, often distinguished by those who purchased them: four scrolls by Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel at St. Mark’s Monastery, and three by Eleazar Sukenik on behalf of the Hebrew University. 1Q20 was part of the four scrolls bought by Mar Samuel, but there are discrepancies among firsthand testimonies over whether it was discovered with the other three scrolls owned by Mar Samuel (1QIsaa, 1QS, and 1QpHab), or with the three scrolls eventually purchased by Sukenik (1QIsab, 1QM, 1QHa) before the sale to Mar Samuel was made (on the conflicting reports see Trever, Untold Story, 106, with notes). In the account endorsed by John Trever (Untold Story, 106), in the summer of 1947 the Bedouin tribesmen Jum’a Muhammad and Khalil Musa went back to the cave where they had initially discovered 1QIsaa, 1QS, and 1QpHab, by which time Mar Samuel and his associates knew about this first batch of scrolls. They discovered four additional scrolls, which included 1Q20, and brought them to an antiquities dealer, Faidi Salahi, in Bethlehem (see also Fields, Scrolls, 29; Taylor, Mizzi, and Fidanzio, “Revisiting Qumran,” 301). However, another dealer, Kando, kept 1Q20, and eventually added it to the lot sold to Mar Samuel in July, 1947. The remaining three scrolls were sold to Sukenik in November-December, 1947. Whatever actually happened, we can say with some confidence that 1Q20 was discovered by Bedouin on one of their early visits to Cave 1 and was brought to Bethlehem, whence it was sold to Mar Samuel in the summer of 1947.
According to Mar Samuel (Treasure), his four scrolls were transferred to a bank vault in Beirut in 1948, and then eventually to New Jersey in 1949. In 1954, Yigael Yadin arranged for the scrolls to be purchased from Samuel, through an intermediary, for the State of Israel (Avigad and Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon, 7). The main part of the rolled scroll eventually made its way to the Israel Museum, where it was unrolled and remains today in a vault at the Shrine of the Book. Around the time of its discovery, however, some fragments from the outside layers of the scroll broke away and made their way to three different locations. In 1955, eight fragments were published by J.T. Milik in DJD 1 (86–87, PL. XVII; cf. PAM 43.753) under the title “Apocalypse de Lamech.” They were part of a batch of fragments bought by the Palestine Archaeological Museum from an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem (presumably Kando) in the early 1950’s, who must have acquired them from Bedouin (DJD 1:43). It is unclear whether the fragments had broken off the original scroll while in Bethlehem and stayed in the possession of dealers there, or had been looted from Cave 1 by Bedouin sometime after the discovery of the main scroll. It is often claimed that they were found in the controlled excavation of Cave 1 conducted by Harding and de Vaux from February to March, 1949, but de Vaux made clear in DJD 1 (43) that this was not the case. These eight fragments were later reconstructed by Bruce Zuckerman and Michael Wise (cf. Fitzmyer, Genesis, 117) as parts of what are now called cols. 0–1, and are currently held by the National Archaeological Museum in Amman, Jordan. Another piece of the scroll fell into the possession of John Trever during his famous first examination of it on February 21, 1948 (cf. Elgvin and Davis, “1QApocryphon,” 283). At this time a small “wad” of leather with four layers broke off of the brittle, rolled scroll, and were kept by Trever. The wad was sold to Martin Schøyen in 1994 and added to his private collection in Oslo, Norway (MS 1926/2). The fragments were subsequently photographed by Bruce Zuckerman and published by Elgvin and Davis (“1QApocryphon”). Containing only margins and a few legible letters, the fragments belong to the upper part of the scroll’s early columns. Finally, to these may be added the so-called “Trever Fragment,” which was part of col. 1. This fragment of seven partial lines was originally removed from the outside of the scroll by Trever during his first inspection of it at St. Mark’s Monastery in March, 1948 (Fields, Scrolls, 78), and allowed him to determine that the scroll was written in Aramaic. The fragment stayed in Trever’s possession, and its whereabouts were unknown until a 2012 publication (Wolff et al., “Provenance”) suggesting that it is now kept at the Israel Museum as part of their scroll collection.
Sample image: 1Q20 20–22
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian formal (Avigad)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50 BCE–70 CE (Avigad); 25 BCE–25 CE (Fitzmyer)
Radiocarbon date: 73 BCE to 14 CE (see Van der Schoor, “Radiocarbon”)
Special traits and general comments: 1Q20 is among the most finely made manuscripts dating to this period from the Judean Desert. The leather is very well-prepared, including guide dots, full dry ruling, ample space between lines, large margins, and sheet numbering. We possess the remains of four sheets of skin (not including the slight remains of a fifth sheet, cut from the scroll after col. 22), with the first sheet containing at least six columns of text, and the following sheets containing five, seven, and six columns, respectively. As in a number of other Qumran manuscripts, the last column on a sheet was typically narrower than those preceding it. This can be seen especially in cols. 16 (approx. 8 cm w.) and 22 (9 cm w.). The text was written by an experienced scribe with an expert hand and a low occurrence of mistakes. Vacats are used liberally, though spacing between words is relatively tight compared to some manuscripts of a similar quality (e.g., 4Q544 [Visions of Amramb]). This scribe had a neat, consistent style that has often been compared to the Cave 1 copy of the War Scroll (1QM). Vav and yod can often be distinguished, as can bet and kaph, and the scribe consistently used final letters in the proper place. Avigad distinguished this script type by “its strict formal hand and by the more developed form of characteristic key letters” (Avigad and Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon, 71). Milik (BE, 274) suggested that this is the same scribal hand (probably meaning the same script style) as in 4Q209 (Enastrb), 1QIsab, 1QM, and the original hand of 1QHa. The fact that the sheets of 1Q20 were numbered in a different hand than the main text indicates the various stages of creating this manuscript, with the sheet numbers presumably representing a part of the production process prior to the writing of the text by a scribe. The high numbers used on the existing sheets (equating to 17, 18, and 19) suggests that they are not related to the number of sheets in this particular scroll, but were used by those treating and cutting the sheets to mark the order in which they were to be matched for later sewing. Similar sheet numbers are found on only a few other Qumran manuscripts (the clearest examples being 4Q256 [Sb] and 4Q493 [Mc]; cf. Tov, Scribal Practices, 211–12), and are very rare. Another possible occurrence among the Aramaic Qumran scrolls is found on 4Q529 (Words of Michael). 1Q20 was corrected by a different hand at some stage after the main text was written (see below). The orthography of the scroll is nearly always full, sometimes startlingly so (e.g.,
The syntax of the scroll is mixed, though some patterns are clearly discernable. As expected, the verb is typically fronted in the sentence or clause, and very often assumes an implied subject from an earlier, governing clause. When a subject is present, it more regularly follows the verb, but many examples of a subject preceding the verb are found. The verb is, on occasion, placed later in the sentence or clause, especially in sections of heightened or poetic language, such as prayers or prophetic utterances. Frequent use is made of the periphrastic construction to express a continuative action. One trend worth noting is the habitual placement of the indirect object – usually indicated by lamed with a pronominal suffix (e.g.,
A curious trait of 1Q20 is the cut made directly after the stitching of what would have been sheet
Overall manuscript quality: Excellent
Select bibliography: Milik, DJD 1:86–87; Avigad and Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon; Fitzmyer, Genesis; Beyer, ATTM1, 165–86; Beyer, ATTME, 68–70; Beyer, ATTM2, 89–101; Greenfield and Qimron, “Col. XII”; Qimron, “Towards”; Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan, “Unpublished Columns”; Qimron, “New Edition”; Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 26–106; Machiela, “Genesis Apocryphon”; Elgvin and Davis, “1QApocryphon”.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Cancelation dots above and below a letter (5.9):
(b) Supralinear letter added in an apparently different hand (6.11):
(c) Supralinear letter added (22.17):
(d) Cancelation dots above and below a letter (22.27):
(e) Sheet number marks:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.12(2x), 2.14(part.), 2.21, 5.24, 6.2(?), 6.6, 6.9(2x; sub. late in 1), 6.11(?; sub. late?), 6.18(?), 6.19, 6.23, 8.1(?), 9.3(part.), 10.13(?), 10.14(?), 11.15(?), 12.8(sub. late), 12.9(sub. late), 12.13, 12.14, 13.11, 13.16(?), 14.10, 16.15, 16.17, 16.23(?), 16.26(?), 17.10, 17.15(sub. late), 19.10, 19.14, 19.16(2x), 19.20, 19.21, 19.22(?), 19.23, 19.29(?), 20.8, 20.9, 20.10(2x), 20.11(sub. late), 20.14, 20.20, 20.21(sub. late), 20.22(2x, sub. late in 1), 20.24, 20.26(2x, sub. late in 1), 20.29(sub. late), 20.30(sub. late), 20.31(sub. late), 20.33(2x), 21.7, 21.8(sub. late), 21.13, 21.15, 21.20–21(sub. late), 21.25, 21.31, 21.32, 21.33, 21.34, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5(2x), 22.12(2x), 22.18, 22.20(2x; 1 part.), 22.23, 22.24, 22.27, 22.32, 22.34
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
0.13, 2.3, 2.4(part.), 2.19, 2.22(?), 3.17, 5.3, 5.26, 10.12(2x?), 10.18(?), 11.1(2x), 11.11, 11.17(part.), 12.3(?), 12.9, 12.18, 13.9, 13.10(part.), 13.11(part.), 13.13, 13.16(part.), 14.9, 14.11, 14.13, 14.16(part.), 14.17(part.), 15.10, 15.11, 15.15, 15.18, 15.19, 15.21(?), 15.21, 16.12, 17.7, 17.16, 19.10, 19.15, 19.18(part.), 20.27, 20.34, 21.6, 21.7, 21.10(part.), 21.13, 21.25, 21.33, 22.7, 22.9, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.31–32, 22.33(2x; 1 sub. early)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
5.7, 5.27, 12.10, 16.14, 17.10, 20.16(?), 20.18(2x), 21.5, 21.23, 21.27
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
2.2(part.), 2.8(2x), 2.10, 2.11, 2.17(3x), 2.24, 5.9(2x), 5.20, 6.15, 7.5(late), 10.17, 14.12, 19.3, 19.14–15, 19.16, 20.6, 20.8(part.), 21.9(part.), 22.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
0.11, 0.13, 1.10, 1.13, 2.1, 2.3(2x), 2.9, 2.13, 2.23(2x), 2.24, 2.25, 3.32, 4.11(?), 5.1, 5.12, 5.16(2x), 6.1, 6.2, 6.6(2x), 6.7(2x), 6.9, 6.10, 6.11(3x), 6.12, 6.16(3x), 6.17, 6.19(2x), 6.21(2x), 7.1(?), 7.7(2x), 7.9(?), 7.11(?), 7.17(?), 7.18, 7.20, 7.22(2x?), 8.35, 10.1, 10.3(?), 10.11, 10.15, 10.16, 11.12, 11.13(2x), 11.14, 11.15, 11.16(imp.), 11.18, 12.1, 12.8, 12.13, 12.15, 12.16(2x), 12.17, 12.18(2x), 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.15(x2), 13.16(part.), 13.16, 13.17(3x), 14.1(?), 14.10, 14.11, 14.14, 14.15, 14.17, 15.8 (part.), 15.9(2x), 15.10, 15.12, 15.13(3x), 15.17(2x), 15.19, 15.20, 16.8(?), 16.9, 16.10, 16.11(2x), 16.16, 16.18(?), 16.19, 17.7(2x), 17.8, 17.9, 17.10, 17.11, 17.13, 17.14(2x), 17.15, 17.16(2x), 19.7(2x), 19.8(2x), 19.9(4x), 19.10(2x), 19.11(?), 19.12(2x?), 19.13(2x), 19.14, 19.15(part.), 19.16, 19.17(3x), 19.18(2x), 19.19(2x), 19.20, 19.22, 19.23, 19.25(2x), 19.26(2x), 19.29, 20.6, 20.8, 20.9(4x), 20.10(2x), 20.12, 20.14, 20.15(2x), 20.17(3x), 20.18, 20.19, 20.21(4x), 20.22(2x), 20.23(3x), 20.24(2x), 20.25, 20.26(3x), 20.27, 20.28(3x), 20.29(5x), 20.30(3x), 20.32(3x), 20.33, 20.34(2x), 21.1(3x), 21.2(4x), 21.3(4x), 21.5(2x), 21.6(3x), 21.7, 21.8, 21.10(2x), 21.12(2x), 21.13, 21.15(2x), 21.16(3x), 21.17(4x), 21.18(4x; 1 part.), 21.19(5x), 21.20(3x), 21.21(2x), 21.22, 21.24, 21.26, 21.28(3x), 21.29, 21.30, 21.31, 21.32, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3(2x), 22.5, 22.6, 22.7(3x), 22.8(2x), 22.9(2x), 22.10(2x), 22.11, 22.13(2x), 22.17(2x), 22.18, 22.19, 22.24, 22.25, 22.26, 22.27, 22.28, 22.30(3x), 22.34
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
0.2, 0.5(2x), 0.13, 1.25, 1.28, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.13(2x), 2.18(part.), 2.19, 2.20, 5.11, 5.12, 5.18, 5.19, 5.21, 5.22, 5.25, 5.27(?), 6.1(2x), 6.2, 6.4, 6.7(2x), 6.8(2x), 6.10, 6.12, 6.14(4x), 6.17, 7.9(?), 7.20(?), 9.2, 10.13, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 10.17, 11.14, 11.15, 11.17, 12.1, 12.13, 12.14, 12.15, 12.16, 14.12, 15.17(2x), 15.20, 15.22, 19.8, 19.9, 19.18(2x), 19.20(?), 19.26, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.12(3x), 20.14, 20.22(?), 21.12, 21.14, 21.26, 21.27, 21.34(?), 22.10, 22.11, 22.12, 22.25, 22.28, 22.29(2x), 22.33
Verbless clause:
0.8, 0.12, 1.7–8, 2.1(2x), 2.15(3x), 2.20, 3.17, 5.13, 10.16, 11.12(2x), 11.13(2x?), 11.15, 12.11(?), 12.12, 14.9, 17.8, 17.9, 17.16, 17.17(3x), 19.7, 19.12, 19.20, 20.2, 20.3(4x), 20.4(5x), 20.5(3x), 20.6(2x), 20.7(3x), 20.10, 20.12, 20.13(2x), 20.15, 20.17, 20.23, 20.25, 20.27, 21.7, 21.24, 21.26, 21.28, 21.29(3x?), 21.30(2x), 21.32, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.16(2x), 22.20, 22.22, 22.24, 22.27–28, 22.28, 22.28–29, 22.30, 22.31(2x), 22.32(2x), 22.33
Object early in clause:
0.5, 2.2, 2.5, 2.10, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 7.5, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 11.14, 11.17, 12.1, 12.14, 16.14, 16.26, 17.9, 17.15, 17.16, 19.17
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
0.13, 16.9, 19.13(?), 20.31, 21.16, 21.25, 21.28, 21.29, 21.32(?), 21.33(2x), 22.1, 22.14, 22.17, 22.18, 22.21, 22.22–23
Use of
2.25, 20.10, 20.27, 22.22
Double
10.13, 12.10, 16.10 (cf. 19.10)
Verb of movement +
2.3, 2.19, 2.22, 20.21(2x?), 22.1–2, 22.8
Verb of movement +
1.25, 2.24, 15.22(?), 20.16, 20.23, 20.25, 20.30, 21.21, 22.14–15
Verb of movement +
22.10(?)
Verb of movement +
0.11, 2.23(2x), 2.25, 6.3, 10.17, 12.8, 17.10, 19.9, 19.13(2x), 19.22, 20.6, 21.8, 21.10, 21.15, 21.16, 21.17(2x), 21.18, 21.19, 22.4, 22.4–5, 22.13
Verb of movement with no linking preposition:
21.3, 21.18, 21.28
Verb + reflexive pronoun:
2.9, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 16.26(?)
Copula pronoun:
11.13, 19.7, 19.20
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1.1, 6.2, 10.17, 12.17, 13.9, 13.15, 14.9, 14.18, 15.18, 19.9, 19.24, 19.26, 19.29(?), 20.10, 20.17, 20.20(intervening sub.), 20.26, 20.34, 21.6, 21.7, 21.17, 21.26–27, 21.28(double part.), 22.1, 22.2–3, 22.7, 22.8, 22.9(2x), 22.15, 22.22
Participle + finite form of
1.25(?), 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.14
Infinitive + participle:
14.14(?)
Lexical items:
–
(
Morphology:
0.12, 2.23, 6.3, 6.11(2x), 6.12, 6.15, 6.23, 7.7, 11.13, 12.3, 13.11, 13.17, 15.10, 15.20, 19.21, 20.30, 20.32, 21.3, 21.6, 21.19, 21.20(2x), 21.22, 22.6, 22.7, 22.10, 22.14, 22.19, 22.24
1.26, 14.19(?), 15.17, 15.19
0.13, 2.3, 2.11, 2.12, 6.6, 11.15(?), 13.13, 19.17, 19.18(2x), 19.26, 20.12(2x), 20.29, 21.3, 21.8, 21.25, 21.32, 22.5, 22.27
Object suffix on verb:
2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 6.3, 6.12, 7.9, 7.19, 12.17, 13.11, 13.17(2x), 15.20, 19.17, 19.19, 19.21(2x), 19.23, 20.8, 20.9(5x), 20.14, 20.15, 20.16, 20.17, 20.19, 20.20, 20.22(?), 20.27(2x), 20.30(2x), 20.32(2x?), 21.1, 21.3, 21.12, 21.13, 21.14, 22.3, 22.33, 22.34(2x)
Assimilated nun:
1.26, 6.10, 12.15, 13.17, 14.13, 22.4, 22.10, 22.19, 22.22, 22.30, 22.34
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
2.20, 2.22, 19.18, 20.15(added), 21.12, 21.14, 22.14, 22.24
Assimilated lamed:
21.20
Assimilated he:
21.34, 22.4
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms verbal affix
14.14, 14.15, 15.9(2x), 15.13, 22.19, 22.28
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
5.9 (corrected), 20.26
2mp (pro)nominal suffix
8.16, 10.7(?)
1.24, 2.11, 3.11, 3.27, 4.1, 4.3, 5.18, 7.2, 7.16, 7.20, 11.16, 12.3, 12.9, 12.14, 13.10, 13.13(2x), 13.15, 14.19, 15.16, 15.17, 19.27(2x), 20.7, 20.8, 20.30, 20.31(2x), 20.33, 20.34, 21.6, 21.13, 21.33, 21.32, 22.10, 22.29, 22.32
Other notable features:
Use of negative particle
2.25, 8.34(2x), 11.15, 15.19(2x), 19.16, 20.15, 22.30
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
Use of
13.7(?), 17.8(2x), 17.9, 17.16(2x), 17.17
Poetic doublets/triplets:
1.9(noun), 2.1, 2.4, 2.14(?), 2.15, 2.16, 6.11, 6.13, 6.23, 7.7, 7.22, 8.34, 10.8, 11.16, 12.17, 15.16, 19.25, 20.9, 20.12, 20.19, 20.20, 20, 24, 20.25, 20.26, 20.27, 21.13–14
2 From Jacob through Aaron and His Family
4Q537, Testament of Jacob? (TJacob?)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:171–90]
Content synopsis and significance: This composition was originally titled Testament-Visions de Jacob by Józef Milik (“Écrits,” 103–5) and then Das Genesis-Apokryphon by Klaus Beyer (ATTM1, 186; later changed to Jakob in Bethel in ATTME, 70; ATTM2, 102), who believed it to be a later portion of the rewritten account of Genesis also preserved in 1Q20 (apGen). We join a story in progress at 4Q537 1–3, which begins a new sheet of the scroll. Here we find an exchange between a central figure, who speaks in the first-person voice, and a secondary character who addresses the central figure (see also 24.3). Though fragmentary, the episode clearly involves tablets that are presented to the central figure, on which things about him and his future are written. The presence of tablets addressing future events makes it highly probable that the second figure is an angelic messenger, and that the episode is a vision narrated by the central figure. Other parts of the scroll mention tribulations (frags. 1–3), episodes from the life of the protagonist (e.g., frags. 14, 24), and cultic activity in a temple (frag. 12; it is unclear if this is part of the vision recounted in frags. 1–3). Some fragments (5–9) have the central figure addressing a group – most plausibly his sons – in the second-person voice, which accounts for the frequent identification of this text as a “testament” (on which see Frey, “Testament”). As in a number of other Aramaic texts found at Qumran, there is a strong, wisdom-based ethical element present in 4Q537, seen especially in the contrast of justice and uprightness with corruption and lies in 1–3.1–2, and the metaphor of walking on a crooked path in frag. 5 (see Machiela, “Wisdom”). It is clear that some of the narrative is focused on the future events and activities of the protagonist’s descendants, with a significant portion of the existing text dedicated to cultic or priestly concerns (most notably frag. 12) and the travels of the protagonist (frags. 14, 24). These topics, too, have affinities with other Qumran Aramaic texts: the former is found especially in the Aramaic Levi Document, the Visions of Amram, and the New Jerusalem (see Jones, “Priesthood”), while the latter bears a resemblance to the peregrinations of Abram as described in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) 21.9–22 and 21.33–22.1.
The central figure of 4Q537 has been identified by several scholars as Jacob, based especially on comparison with the description of Jacob’s (second) vision in Jub. 32:21–26 (see Milik, “Écrits,” 104; Tigchelaar, “Visionary,” 263–64, 268–69). Jubilees’ vision tells of Jacob reading tablets delivered by an angel, revealing what would happen to him and his descendants over future generations in a way that strongly resembles 4Q537 1–3. Although Jub. 32:21–26 does not include an explicit account of Jacob seeing the eschatological temple, Tigchelaar (“Visionary”) drew further connections among Jub. 32, the vision of the New Jerusalem text, and 4Q537 12, proposing that all three texts (along with several others) assume an episode in which the future temple was shown to Jacob. Based on these correspondences, some scholars have suggested that 4Q537 is a copy of the composition used as a source by the author of Jubilees, though this remains a matter of debate. The geographic descriptions in 4Q537 seem to accord with the travels of Jacob in Genesis, especially the probable mention of Bethel at frag. 14.2. Several of the place names used in the scroll are not those found in Genesis, but are instead later, updated toponyms such as Beer Zayit (14.2), Rimmon (14.3), and Ramat Hazor (24.2) (see Puech in DJD 31 for discussion). The last toponym is also found at 1Q20 (apGen) 21.8, 10, in a description of Abram’s travels, with the broader narrative setting of the Genesis Apocryphon providing an analogous tendency to update place names.
In summary, 4Q537 provides a narrative most plausibly focused on Jacob. In the text, Jacob recounts episodes from his life very like the first-hand accounts found across the Aramaic literature more broadly (e.g., the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Visions of Amram, and Tobit, to name only a few). These episodes included visions, descriptions of the temple and its service, and wisdom instruction passed on to Jacob’s sons.
Material remains: Puech identified twenty-five fragments as belonging to this manuscript, though the inclusion of the last three (frags. 23–25) he labelled as “non assurée” (DJD 31:190). Two of the fragments (1 and 12) were in fact constructed of multiple pieces by Puech and the editors before him, all of the joins being quite certain. The largest piece of frag. 1 (roughly 5.5 by 5 cm), and of the entire manuscript, is often called the Testuz Fragment (or 4QTestuz), named after Michel Testuz, a French scholar and collector of antiquities who died in 1987. This piece is labelled frag. 1a in more recent editions, and since the death of Mr Testuz its location is unknown (for this reason it is drawn, not photographed, in DJD 31, Plate XI). Other fragments with significant text preserved are 2, 5, 12, 14, and 24. The remaining nineteen fragments are quite small, though some of them contain several successive words. A few of the fragments have partially-preserved margins, adding somewhat to our sense of the scroll’s physical features. It should be noted that Starcky, and originally Milik, included a fairly large fragment with a fully-preserved bottom margin as part of 4Q537, and it is still presented as if part of 4Q537 in the Leon Levy Digital Library. Milik later placed the fragment with 4Q550 (Jews at the Persian Court), but Puech rejected both identifications and has instead published the fragment as 4Q583 (Prophecye; DJD 37:447–52). I follow Puech’s identification here.
Notes on provenance: A fragment originally identified by Starcky and Milik with 4Q537 was photographed as part of the PAM “G series” (see the lower portion of PAM 40.622), which implies that the fragment was discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). However, the fragment was subsequently re-identified by Milik with 4Q550 (Jews at the Persian Court; Milik, “Les modèles”), and Puech later argued that it belonged with neither scroll, publishing it independently as 4Q583 (Prophecye; DJD 31:171, 37:447–52). Despite the separation of this fragment from those included with 4Q537 by Puech in DJD 31, it remains very likely that the 4Q537 fragments were discovered in Cave 4 by Bedouin, who then sold them to the Palestine Archaeological Museum, either directly or through Kando. A supporting datum for discovery by the Bedouin, and brokerage by Kando or another Bethlehem antiquities dealer sometime during the early 1950s, is the so-called Testuz Fragment (4QTestuz). This fragment was purchased by the French collector Michel Testuz, presumably on the Bethlehem or Jerusalem antiquities market, and was published by him in 1955 (“Deux fragments”). The fragment constitutes the major portion of 4Q537 1, and is typically labelled as frag. 1a in the editions. Unfortunately, no infrared photograph of the Testuz Fragment is available (only a drawing made by Puech), and the fragment’s location is no longer known (see DJD 31:xiv).
Sample image: 4Q537 12
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean, with an inclination towards early Herodian in some forms (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE, perhaps 50–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: A small, tidy, and remarkably consistent scribal hand marks this copy, with spacing that suggests a very high-quality manuscript. Though it is not possible to judge the nature of the pause in our story, the large vacat on frag. 12 (see the “Sample image,” above) reflects a scribal practice similar to manuscripts like 1Q20 (apGen) and 4Q203/204 (EnGiantsa/Enc). In many respects, 4Q537 resembles those manuscripts and others like them. Etymological aleph is typically retained (e.g.,
As an aside, the reading of Puech at the end of 12.1 (
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Testuz, “Deux fragments”; Milik, “Écrits”; Beyer, ATTM1, 186–87; Beyer, ATTME, 70–71; Beyer, ATTM2, 102–3; Puech, “Fragments”.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1–3.1, 1–3.3(2x)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
9.2, 15.1(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1–3.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1–3.5(2x?), 5.1(2x), 5.3, 14.1(?), 24.4–5(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1–3.4
Verb of movement +
1–3.4
Verb of movement +
12.2, 14.3
Verb of movement with no linking preposition:
14.1(?), 14.2(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1–3. 6(?), 9.2, 12.1(2x?), 12.2(?), 12.3(2x)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
24.3
Assimilated nun:
1–3.6
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
7.2(?), 8.1
Assimilated lamed:
12.2
Orthography/Phonology:
5.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
5.2, 6.1, 9.2
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
1Q32, New Jerusalem? (NJ?)
[ed. Milik, DJD 1:134–35]
Content synopsis and significance: Already at the time of its initial publication by Milik in 1955, 1Q32 was identified with a composition called the New Jerusalem, represented by manuscripts from Caves 2, 4, and 5, to which an important copy from Cave 11 was later added. Scholars now count seven copies of the work, though 1Q32 and 4Q555 (NJc) have no direct overlaps with other New Jerusalem copies. 1Q32 is extremely fragmentary, and little of its contents can now be discerned. The extant text consists mostly of isolated architectural terms, typically thought to connect this manuscript to the better-preserved New Jerusalem copies (García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 446): “column base” (
Material remains: Milik identified twenty-three fragments with 1Q32, most of which do not preserve even one full word. Milik admitted that “[c]e groupe de fragments n’est pas très homogène,” and the inclusion of frag. 14, especially, has been considered doubtful (DJD 1:135; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 446). Fragment 14 is the largest of the lot, but is damaged and difficult to read. Most scholars speak of frags. 1–7 as the group containing architectural terms, and therefore demonstrating the greatest affinity with other New Jerusalem copies.
Notes on provenance: The fragments assigned to 1Q32 were collected during controlled excavations in Cave 1, supervised by Roland de Vaux and G. Lancaster Harding from February to March, 1949 (DJD 1:43). The fragments are currently housed in the manuscript collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de Paris (Tov, Revised Lists, 14).
Sample image: 1Q32 1, 5, 14 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian round semi-formal (Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25 BCE–25 CE
Special traits and general comments: There is little that can be said about this manuscript, with even the connection between the various fragments being uncertain. Milik reported that guidelines were inscribed lightly, though this is impossible to see on the available images. The script is fairly small and neat, with hardly enough material remaining to give an accurate palaeographic assessment. Milik said nothing on this front, though Yardeni (“Scribe,” 288) included it in the long list of scrolls she argued were written by a single, middle-Herodian period scribe. I am highly skeptical of the claim that all scrolls on her list were written by the same scribe (see further the final chapter on scribal practices), but Yardeni’s association of 1Q32’s script with other Herodian-period scrolls is reasonable. Given the scant remains of this scroll, I have refrained from offering an opinion on the original manuscript quality. There is simply not enough material to make such an assessment.
Select bibliography: Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:235; Beyer, ATTM1, 220; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 17–18; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 446; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 4–5, 156.
Script sample:
Language
Lexical items:
2Q24, New Jerusalem (NJ)
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:84–89]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of only two New Jerusalem copies for which we have a significant amount of material preserved describing the idealized temple and the functioning of the sacrificial cult (see also 11Q18 [NJ]; in 4Q555 [NJc] we also find some small fragments possibly related to sacrificial practice). The best-preserved portion of 2Q24 is frag. 4, which overlaps with frag. 20 of 11Q18 (NJ). These fragments contain an elaborate description of the showbread ritual also found in Lev 24:5–9, in which twelve loaves of bread are baked using choice flour, arranged in two rows on a table of pure gold, replaced every Sabbath day, and then eaten by the priests in a holy place. While there are clear similarities between the accounts in 2Q24 and Leviticus, a close reading reveals several differences that distinguish the former from the latter. Most notably, 2Q24 appears to describe precisely where the showbread should be consumed – i.e., “[outside the Temple, to the right of] its west side” (4.9–10; cf. 11Q18 [NJ] 20.2) – delineates the roles of the high priest and his deputy (lit. “second one”) in the ritual (4.15–16; cf. 11Q18 [NJ] 20.6–7), and notes the specific number of priests involved in the eating of the bread (4.11–14; cf. 11Q18 [NJ] 20.3–5). The rest of the fragments in this manuscript are rather poorly preserved, but refer to the detailed architectural elements and measurements characteristic of this composition. We can discern fragmentary descriptions of the interior of the city in frag. 1, which finds parallels in 4Q554 (NJa) and 5Q15 (NJ). A sapphire door is mentioned in frag. 8, along with the temple and its courtyard, and the atoning role of the priests (cf. 1Q20 [apGen] 10.13). Frag. 4 also contains clear evidence that this text is framed as a first-person vision report, as seen in the phrases
Material remains: Eleven fragments of various sizes remain of 2Q24, the largest by far being frag. 4. This fragment contains twenty partial lines of text, with lines 9–16 having some correspondence with the text of 11Q18 (NJ) 20.2–7. The overlap is important, since it firmly connects 2Q24 with other copies of New Jerusalem. Fragment 1 also has several words that overlap with 4Q554 (NJa) 1ii.12–15 and 5Q15 (NJ) 1i.1–2. All of the fragments preserve some text, but frags. 2 and 9–11 are very small. As noted by DiTommaso (New Jerusalem, 5 n. 12), Baillet’s DJD edition of this manuscript differs in the fragment sigla and joins from his earlier, preliminary edition (Baillet, “Fragments”). Baillet’s frag. 8 accrued two additional, tiny fragments over time, as reflected in the various images.
Notes on provenance: Cave 2 was discovered around February 1952 by Bedouin (DJD 3:3; Fields, Scrolls, 132). Khalil Iskander Shahin (Kando) facilitated the subsequent sale of the Cave 2 fragments, including 2Q24, to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (see Fields, Scrolls, 563). A survey of the caves near Qumran, which included Cave 2, was organized and carried out from March 10–29, 1952. The expedition uncovered a small number of additional fragments from Cave 2 (de Vaux, “Exploration,” 553; Reed, “Qumran Caves,” 13), but de Vaux made clear that all fragments of significance from the cave had been part of the earlier lot discovered by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 2Q24 4
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian formal (Baillet); Herodian round semi-formal (Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–25 CE (Baillet); 25 BCE–25 CE (Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: It is clear that this was once a beautiful, high-quality manuscript, with generous spacing, few mistakes, regular vacats, and an elegant, Herodian-period scribal hand. Yardeni (“Scribe,” 288) included 2Q24 among the many scrolls she assigned to a single scribe. Even if all scrolls on her list were not written by the same scribe (see the last chapter on scribal practices), their being classed together stylistically is justified. The margins of 2Q24 are only slightly smaller than, for example, those in 1Q20 (apGen). As in 11Q10 (Job) and other manuscripts with formal Herodian scripts, the final mem is typically the same height as standard medial letters. The lower extension of qoph is also relatively short. This particular scribe had a penchant to add small, leftward ticks at the bottom of vertical strokes, seen especially in the rightmost strokes of aleph, dalet, he, and tav. The scribe also preferred full spellings, most notably when vav could be used to signify vowels. As usual in the Qumran Aramaic corpus, the aleph prefix was used exclusively for the causative verb conjugation (i.e., the aphel). The syntax is also what we might expect, with the verb typically placed at the beginning of a clause. In keeping with the generic style of recounting a dream-vision, we find several occasions of the periphrastic construction marking durative past action.
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 216–17, 220–22; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 15–32; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem”; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 5, 33.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (4.12):
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
4.15, 4.16
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.3, 3.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.16(part.), 4.17, 4.19, 8.6, 8.7
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
8.5
Participle + finite form of
4.15(?), 4.17
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.3, 8.7
Object suffix on verb:
1.3, 8.7
Assimilated nun:
4.5, 4.9
Orthography/Phonology:
4.1, 4.13(2x), 8.4, 8.8
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q554, New Jerusalema (NJa)
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:103–38]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of three copies of New Jerusalem found in Cave 4 (with 4Q554a [NJb] and 4Q555 [NJc]). Copies of this composition were also discovered in Caves 1, 2, 5, and 11 (1Q32 [NJ?], 2Q24 [NJ], 5Q15 [NJ], 11Q18 [NJ]), which suggests its relative popularity in the Qumran library. New Jerusalem recounts a dream-vision in which a seer, whose identity is no longer preserved, is taken on a tour of a colossal city and its temple by an angelic figure. The angelic figure measures and recounts the dimensions of the city’s various features, primarily using rods (
New Jerusalem has often been compared to Ezek 40–48, a text that should likely be seen as an early example of this literary tradition. However, as the Qumran scrolls attest, the “new Jerusalem” was a much more pervasive literary topos in Second Temple Jewish literature than scholars had originally thought, with New Jerusalem and the Temple Scroll (11Q19) being the most conspicuous examples of this motif added to a group that already included the more well-known examples of Ezek 40–48 and Rev 20–21. Earlier scholars often made comparisons between New Jerusalem and the Temple Scroll, with several positing some sort of direct literary dependence. For example, Wacholder (Sectarian Torah) suggested that New Jerusalem depends on the Temple Scroll, whereas Wise (Critical Study) argued for the opposite relationship. García Martínez, however, has shown that the correspondences between these two texts are tenuous at best, and are certainly not enough to demonstrate direct dependence in either direction (“Apocalyptic”; cf. DiTommaso, New Jerusalem).
The now lost identity of the seer is a question that has interested interpreters. In a seminal article on this topic, Tigchelaar (“Visionary”) listed various proposals that have been made as to the seer’s identity: 1.) Ezekiel (Lange, Dimant; cf. Wacholder, Tov), 2.) Jacob? Levi? Qahat? Amram? (Beyer), 3.) one of the ancestors of Israel (Frey), and 4.) Moses (Puech). Many of these proposals were tentative, and still other researchers chose not to offer any conjecture at all based on such uncertainty (e.g., García Martínez). Tigchelaar argued that Moses and Ezekiel should be ruled out as options, since his analysis of the other extant Aramaic Qumran scrolls led him to observe that the protagonists of these texts are taken only from the periods of biblical history related to the pre-Mosaic patriarchs and the Babylonian-Persian exiles. Tigchelaar argued that Jacob is most likely the seer in New Jerusalem, based on literary connections to the visionary experiences of Jacob in 4Q537 and Jub. 32, wherein Jacob is shown a future cultic site in a dream-vision. Whoever the seer is, New Jerusalem fits within a broader tradition in which one of the heroes of Israel’s past is taken on a tour of cosmic or geographical spaces by an angelic figure. These texts are often called heavenly or otherworldly journey apocalypses. Early examples of this type include the Book of Watchers and the Astronomical Book of Enoch, both of which were found at Qumran. Although it is unclear whether or not New Jerusalem should be seen as a heavenly or otherworldly journey, there are striking affinities between these three Aramaic texts.
4Q554 is noteworthy among the other copies of New Jerusalem for two reasons: First, it contains a lengthy (though highly fragmentary) account of the city’s gates in frag. 1 (cols. 1–2). It is clear that the wall contains twelve gates, with each bearing the name of one of the sons of Jacob. In this respect, New Jerusalem participates in the tradition also found in Ezek 40–48, the Temple Scroll, and Rev 20–21, in which the twelve gates of the new Jerusalem correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel, based on the layout of the wilderness tabernacle in Num 2. Not all of the names have been preserved, but there is general agreement that Levi’s gate occupied pride of place, namely, the central gate on the eastern wall (as in 11Q19 [Ta], contra Ezek 48:31–34). On this point, see Puech (“Gates,” 379–92) and DiTommaso (New Jerusalem, 25–31). Second, frag. 13 preserves the only explicitly eschatological material, in a poorly preserved passage recounting the succession of empires. Although only the names of Babylon and the Kittim are extant, DiTommaso argued that this fragment depicts a four-kingdoms schema, such as those preserved in Dan 2 and 7, and perhaps Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 553). Fragment 13 also contains references to Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites, the traditional enemies of Israel, possibly in the context of an eschatological battle, as in the War Scroll (cf. García Martínez, “Apocalyptic”). DiTommaso, however, saw no need to understand this list of enemies as depicting the opponents of Israel in a martial conflict at the end of days. On his reading, the rehearsal of Israel’s enemies simply reflects an example of the “humbling of the enemy nations” motif. On the question of whether all of the aforementioned nations comprise a single list or two separate lists with separate functions, see DiTommaso (New Jerusalem, 173–78). Whatever the case, frag. 13 clearly demonstrates the eschatological character of New Jerusalem, which only strengthens the case for understanding the text as being or containing an apocalypse.
Material remains: Puech numbered fourteen fragments as part of this manuscript, though the larger ones (frags. 1, 2, and 13) actually comprise several smaller pieces, with some joins being more certain than others. Puech (“Jérusalem nouvelle”; DJD 37:139) separated from this lot a single, large fragment originally included by Starcky as part of 4Q554, but now designated as 4Q554a (NJb; see the following profile). Fragment 1 of 4Q554 is relatively large, representing significant parts of three columns, and containing a bottom and two intercolumnar margins. Portions of frag. 1ii.13–22 overlap with 5Q15 (NJ) 1i.1–6, and 1iii.11–21 with 5Q15 (NJ) 1i.15–ii.4. A few letters of 1iii.21 also appear to overlap with the first word of 4Q554a (NJb) 1.1. Fragments 2 and 13 are also significant in size, with parts of ten and nine lines preserved, respectively. As seen on PAM 43.589 and subsequent photographs taken by the IAA, Starcky seems to have joined frags. 2 and 13 at the sewn joint between two sheets. However, Puech considered the join to be improbable based on the stitching. Puech does, however, associate frags. 13 and 14 as parts of the same column. The remaining fragments are quite small, the largest of them preserving small bits of three lines. Parts of at least three sheets are represented in the fragments, based on the preserved seams, and at least six or seven columns.
Provenance: 4Q554 13 is found on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.608. This means that frag. 13 was among the fragments discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q554 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q554 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal with some traits of the Herodian period (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE
Special traits and general comments: This copy has no ruling, despite the fact that it is of rather good quality in many respects. The absence of horizontal ruling is clearly seen in the non-alignment of lines in successive columns on the same sheet (see frags. 1i–ii and 2i–ii). The right margin alignment of lines also varies somewhat on frag. 13, though in general the scribe kept quite straight right margins. 4Q554 appears to have been a fairly large-format scroll, on well-prepared skin, though the preserved columns are relatively narrow. The extant margins are of average size for the corpus, or slightly above average, but not as large as those in the best manuscripts. The scribe appears to have used several, small vacats in frag. 1ii, but these occur in continuously running text (there are no natural sense divisions), and at 1ii.9 an imperfection in the skin can be seen on the images. Puech suggested that a correction was made here, with some of the original text having been erased through scraping. This seems to me uncertain, and it should be considered whether the scribe simply skipped over a pre-existing imperfection in the skin (see also DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 38). There is a large vacat of nearly one, full line preserved, marking the transition between two sections of the city tour, from the description of the gates in the outer wall to that of the city’s interior. The scribe occasionally left especially large spaces before the final word of a line (though the left margin is not “justified,” as in a few other manuscripts). The script is generally tidy and even, with very few corrections, and Puech (DJD 37:106) described the orthography as “semi-defective.” That is to say, the scribe did use full orthography, but not consistently or even predominantly. For example, we find
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Starcky, “Jerusalem”; Beyer, ATTM1, 216–20; Beyer, ATTME, 95–104; Beyer, ATTM2, 129–38; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; Puech, “Jérusalem nouvelle”; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 15–32; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 446; Puech, “Gates”; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 13–48, 57–72.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Deletion with a horizontal line (1ii.18):
(b) Unit abbreviation,
(c) Possible erasure of letters through scraping (so Puech; 1ii.9):
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1iii.18(part.), 1iii.21, 2ii.14–15, 2ii.22(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii.9, 1ii.11(2x), 1ii.14, 1iii.14, 1iii.15, 13.19(?), 13.20, 13.22
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.13–14, 1i.15, 1i.16, 1i.17–18(?), 1i.18(part.; ?), 1i.19(?), 1i.19–20(part.; ?), 1i.20–21, 1i.21(part.; ?), 1i.21–22(part.; ?), 1i.22, 1ii.6(part.; ?), 1ii.6–7(?), 1ii.7(part.), 1ii.7–8(?), 1ii.8–9(part.), 1ii.17–18, 1ii.21, 1iii.19
Verbless clause:
1i.10, 1i.11, 1i.12–13(?), 1i.14–15, 1ii.13, 1ii.15, 1iii.17(2x), 2ii.15, 2ii.15–16, 2ii.16
Object early in clause:
1ii.17, 1ii.20–21(?)
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
13.19
Verb of movement +
1ii.11
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ii.11, 1iii.15, 1iii.19
Object suffix on verb:
1ii.11, 1iii.15, 1iii.19, 10.2
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.9, 1ii.14, 3.2, 3.3, 13.17
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q554a, New Jerusalemb (NJb)
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:139–46]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of three Cave 4 copies of New Jerusalem (with 4Q554 [NJa] and 4Q555 [NJc]), and overlaps significantly with the New Jerusalem manuscript found in Cave 5 (5Q15 [NJ]). For a fuller introduction to New Jerusalem as a composition, see the profile for 4Q554 (NJa). Much of the content of 4Q554a can be better understood when read in light of its parallel material in 5Q15 (NJ). Both manuscripts provide a description of the interior of the city, with the locations and measurements of staircases, houses, and gates being shown to the seer by an angelic guide. From other New Jerusalem manuscripts we can determine that the city is divided into “blocks” (
Material remains: Only one, large fragment remains of this manuscript. Starcky had originally included it with the lot of fragments belong to 4Q554 (NJa; his col. IV), but Puech (“Jérusalem nouvelle”; DJD 37:139) argued to assign it an independent siglum based on a clear difference in scripts, and the parts of the scroll preserved (its upper portion for 4Q554a, but the middle and lower portions for 4Q554 [NJa]). He also drew attention to a probable overlap between 4Q554 (NJa) 1iii.21 and 4Q554a 1.1. Finally, 4Q554a is very clearly ruled with horizontal and vertical guidelines, while the 4Q554 (NJa) fragments are not. Combining all of these points, Puech’s reasoning is entirely persuasive. There is extensive overlap between 4Q554a 1.1–12 and 5Q15 (NJ) 1ii.4–15.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q554a are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q554a 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late formal Hasmonean with a tendency toward semi-cursive (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Although this copy consists of only one fragment, we have enough indicators to determine that it is from a manuscript of quite high quality. The margins and other spacing measurements are approximately the same as for 1Q20 (apGen), though the script is slightly smaller in 4Q554a (among the tiniest of the entire corpus). The manuscript was fully ruled on beautifully-prepared skin. The scribe was clearly well-trained, but one can easily see that the writing is more erratic and untidy than in some of the very best manuscripts. There is little distinction between vav and yod, and the final kaph has a distinctively large lower, horizontal stroke. As in some other New Jerusalem copies, the scribe used the Aramaic number symbols mixed with numbers fully written out. Few mistakes are present in the small amount of preserved text. There is what appears to be a dot of ink between the words
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Starcky, “Jerusalem”; Beyer, ATTM1, 219–20; Beyer, ATTME, 97; Beyer, ATTM2, 131; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; Puech, “Jérusalem nouvelle”; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 29–30; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem”; Puech, “Gates”; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 49–56.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1.9):
(b) Ink dot/abraded surface (1.12):
Language
Syntax
Verbless clause:
1.1(?), 1.4, 1.5(2x), 1.6, 1.7, 1.10
Direct object marker (if present):
Lexical items:
Orthography/Phonology:
1.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q555, New Jerusalemc (NJc)
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:147–52]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is grouped by Puech with the other two New Jerusalem manuscripts from Cave 4 (4Q554 [NJa] and 4Q554a [NJb]). The highly fragmentary nature of this manuscript makes it difficult to glean much about its contents. However, based on some of the preserved words, it does appear to be related to the description of the temple in 11Q18 (NJ) (Puech, DJD 37, DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 73). The following cultic terms are extant or partially-extant: “table” (
Material remains: This manuscript was originally designated by Starcky as the second Cave 4 copy of New Jerusalem (4QSy 57–NJb), but since Puech’s delineation of 4Q554a (NJb) from 4Q554 (NJa) it has been deemed the third copy. To Starcky’s original three fragments Puech has now added a fourth, based on similarities in line-spacing and script. However, by Puech’s count there are, in fact, five separate fragments, because he also separated Starcky’s frag. 1 into frags. 1a and 1b (followed in most other transcriptions). Other scholars have proposed varying numbers and configurations of fragments, up to six by DiTommaso (New Jerusalem, 73). Several of the fragments not included by Puech under his siglum 4Q555 are gathered together in his 4Q584a–c (Unidentifieda–c). None of the fragments identified by Puech contains much text, with frags. 1a and 3 being very small (frag. 4 primarily contains an intercolumnar margin). There are no clear overlaps between 4Q555 and other copies of New Jerusalem, though the contents of the fragments make it quite certain that they belong to that work.
Provenance: Fragment 4 of 4Q555 is found in the early PAM “G series” plate 40.589, meaning that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q555 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q555 3, 1, 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: There is little that can be said about this manuscript based on the few preserved fragments. The intercolumnar margin in frag. 4 was slightly larger than average, and the line spacing was around the norm for the Qumran manuscripts. The scribe wrote in a neat Herodian-period formal script, with the full spellings using vav and yod seen more broadly across the corpus. This includes the typical Qumran Aramaic form of the demonstratives
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 99; Beyer, ATTM2, 133; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem”; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 73–76.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb of movement +
3.2
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
4i.8(?)
5Q15, New Jerusalem (NJ)
[ed. Milik, DJD 3:184–97]
Content synopsis and significance: Much of the material preserved in this copy of New Jerusalem overlaps with portions of 4Q554 (NJa) 1. The preserved parts of 5Q15 describe the interior of the city, including physical features such as entryways, staircases, and pillars. An important aspect of this copy is that it details the interior of one city block, along with its residential spaces, giving us a reasonably good idea of this part of the composition. The measurements of various architectural features are shown to the seer by his angelic tour guide, who is said to be measuring each item as the two of them progress through the city. The tour is told from the first-person perspective of the seer. As in several other New Jerusalem manuscripts, the description of the city in 5Q15 has a repetitive, list-like quality, amounting to a textual blueprint of sorts. For a fuller description of New Jerusalem as a composition, along with its broader significance and the units of measurement used to describe the city and its physical structures, see the profile for 4Q554 (NJa).
Material remains: Milik numbered twenty-one fragments in his DJD edition of 5Q15, though the photographs make clear that several these comprise multiple, smaller pieces. In fact, his frag. 1 – which contains parts of two columns – is made up of around thirty individual pieces, and frag. 13 is also composite. Fragment 1 is by far the largest remaining “piece” of the manuscript, with frags. 3–21 being very small and containing little or no readable text. Portions of frag. 1i.1–6 overlap with 4Q554 (NJa) 1ii.13–22, and 1i.15–ii.4 with 4Q554 (NJa) 1iii.11–21.
Notes on provenance: After Bedouin discovered Cave 4 in September of 1952, an official survey of Cave 4 and the surrounding area was organized by the French Archaeological School and the Palestine Archaeological Museum (September 22–29, 1952). It was at this time that Cave 5 was discovered by J.T. Milik, with an excavation overseen by him and carried out by Bedouin workers on September 25–28 (DJD 3:26; Fields, Scrolls, 142, 505). 5Q15 was among the fragments discovered by Milik during this excavation.
Sample image: 5Q15 portion of 1i, and 1ii
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian formal (comparable in style to, e.g., 1Q23 [EnGiantsa], 4Q529 [Words of Michael], and 4Q543 [Visions of Amrama]); Herodian (Milik)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–1 BCE
Special traits and general comments: 5Q15 was a nicely made manuscript, with margins and line spacing that are around average (or slightly above) relative to the wider corpus. Script lines were ruled with unusual regularity, almost always at 7 mm. Although some reconstruction is required, it appears that the columns were more square in shape than was typical, with frag. 1i seeming to be slightly wider than it is tall. In manuscripts of fairly high quality, columns tend to be noticeably taller than they are wide, though this is the rule and there are certainly exceptions. The scribe of this copy wrote in a small, neat, square script, with few mistakes (only a few supralinear letters added). A small vacat was used near the beginning of a line to mark narrative movement within a description of one part of the city (1i.2), but approximately one-third of a line was left open to signal a similar break later in the same column (1i.7). We may thus surmise that vacats were used often in the scroll, probably of at least a full line for more significant transitions in the narrative. Full spellings are found regularly (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Licht, “Town Plan”; Beyer, ATTM1, 214–22; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 15–32; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 448–49; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 5–6.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1i.9):
Language
Syntax:
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i.3(part.), 1i.4(part.), 1ii.4, 1ii.5
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.17, 1i.18, 1ii.5, 1ii.6(2x), 10.2(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.3–4, 1ii.2
Verbless clause:
1i.1, 1i.9, 1i.19, 1ii.2
Direct object marker (if present):
Use of
1i.9
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ii.2, 1ii.6(2x)
Object suffix on verb:
1i.18, 1ii.2(?), 1ii.6(2x)
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.1, 1i.3, 1i.6, 1i.10, 1i.11(?), 1i.15, 1i.16, 1ii.3, 1ii.7, 1ii.8, 1ii.9(?), 1ii.11(2x), 1ii.11(?), 1ii.13, 2.4, 5.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
11Q18, New Jerusalem (NJ)
[ed. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude, DJD 23:305–55]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is in an especially poor state of preservation. It was discovered as “a partially petrified scroll which could not be unwrapped” (DJD 23:305). Attempts to unravel the scroll were unsuccessful, and what remains is only a relatively meager collection of tiny fragments from the rolled scroll. With a few exceptions, much of the material is hard to interpret or contextualize. García Martínez has attempted to arrange some of the fragments in order according to columns (“Last Surviving”), though several aspects of his reconstruction were challenged by Kister (“Notes”). García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude detailed the extreme difficulty of reconstructing the correct order of the 11Q18 fragments in their 1998 DJD edition of the scroll (DJD 23:305–9), a conundrum that remains unresolved. The extant fragments of the scroll deal primarily with issues pertaining to the temple and its cult, overlapping on occasion with 2Q24 (NJ). For example, both 11Q18 20 and 2Q24 (NJ) 4 describe the ritual of showbread (cf. Lev 19:5–9; discussed in greater detail in the profile for 2Q24). One of the most significant and best-preserved portions of 11Q18 is the account of the bovine offering in frag. 13. This fragment shares a number of striking correspondences with cultic scenes from the Aramaic Levi Document and the Genesis Apocryphon, namely, Isaac’s sacrificial instructions to Levi and Noah’s sacrifice following the flood. However, there are a few distinguishing elements in the sacrificial material among the three texts. A comparison of the sacrificial halakha in all three works has been done by Perrin (Dynamics, 171–77), who drew on the earlier work of Kister (“Notes”) and Schiffman (“Architectural”).
The extant fragments of 11Q18 also describe the vestments of the high priest – a description that uniquely includes his seven crowns (frag. 14) and possibly the ephod or breast-piece – the weekly courses of the priests, the physical features of the temple and its furniture, various cultic implements, priestly blessings and sacrifices, and the rising and setting of the sun. Reference is made in frag. 30.4 to the “festivals of God” (]
New Jerusalem’s thoroughgoing interest in the temple, priesthood, and cult, seen especially in 2Q24 (NJ) and 11Q18, situate it firmly within the broader Qumran Aramaic collection, insofar as a concern for matters related to the priesthood characterize a considerable segment of the corpus. Other texts exhibiting this interest include the Testament of Jacob?, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Apocryphon of Levi, the Testament of Qahat, the Visions of Amram, the Book of Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Genesis Apocryphon, and Tobit. Milik already recognized this shared interest among a number Qumran Aramaic texts in 1957 (Dix ans, 95–96), and more recently Angel (Otherworldly) and Perrin (Dynamics, 158–89) have advanced our understanding of the priestly material in these texts. At the same time, there are features distinguishing New Jerusalem from the other priestly-oriented texts among the Aramaic Scrolls, such as its mention of the name Israel and sacrifices related to the Passover festival.
Material remains: 11Q18 originally surfaced as a badly-damaged, desiccated, rolled scroll approximately 10.6 cm long and with a circumference at its center of around 3.5–3.8 cm (DJD 23:306, Plate LIII). There is clear evidence that it was stored in a textile wrapping, since part of the wrapping was still stuck to the outside of the scroll. Many such wrappings were found in Cave 11 (Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 97–124). One piece of cloth associated with the scroll has been identified as wool (DJD 23:306), but given that all known scroll wrappings from Cave 11 are linen, this flax-based material is almost certainly the fabric used to wrap the scroll. Unrolling the scroll proved impossible, due to gelatinization of much of it (Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 181–82), and the best that could be done was to remove a less-damaged portion of it on the advice of H.J. Plenderleith. It seems that at least eight layers from the outside of the scroll were completely lost (DJD 23:309). The fragments currently available derive from the portion removed under Plenderleith’s guidance, or otherwise broken off from the brittle scroll. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude numbered thirty-seven fragments of 11Q18, though several of them comprise multiple pieces with definite joins. Approximately fifty additional very small or uninscribed fragments were not numbered, but are included on Plate XL of DJD 23, and García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude described other hardened “wads” of skin, the layers of which could not always be separated (e.g., frag. 3 on Plate XXXV). Since the main fragments were manually removed from the larger scroll, frags. 4–32 are of a somewhat similar shape, with generally diminishing sizes as one moves higher in the fragment numbers (with several exceptions), and presumably closer to the scroll’s center. The largest of these fragments (e.g., frags. 12 and 13) are roughly 8 cm high and 5 cm wide, with the smallest (e.g., frags. 22 and 29) being about 5 cm high by 2 cm wide. The fragments have begun to crack since their removal, but are generally still legible. However, it should be noted that frags. 1–8 are more badly damaged (and less legible) than most others, since they were closest to the damaged outer revolutions of the scroll. The only assured overlap with another copy of New Jerusalem is at frag. 20.2–7, which finds partial parallel in 2Q24 (NJ) 4.9–16.
Notes on provenance: The majority of the Cave 11 manuscripts were discovered by Bedouin in early (probably January) 1956, including 11Q18. Only a few Palaeo-Hebrew fragments and a small scroll titled Apocryphal Psalms (11Q11) were found in the official excavations led by Roland de Vaux in February, 1956 (de Vaux, “Fouilles,” 574; Tigchelaar in Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 250–51). The Palestine Archaeological Museum provisionally purchased a batch of Cave 11 manuscripts that included 11Q18 in July, 1956, and there is no reason to believe that the scroll did not originate in Qumran Cave 11. The cost of a number of the Cave 11 manuscripts, including 11Q18, was eventually covered by the Dutch Academy in 1961–62, with funds provided by the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (ZWO). As a result, these manuscripts were published by a group of Dutch scholars. For an extensive discussion of the provenance, publication, and nature of the Cave 11 scrolls, see Tigchelaar’s account in Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 249–58.
Sample image: 11Q18 20, 21 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian round semi-formal (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude; Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25 BCE–25 CE (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude; Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: A notable feature of this scroll is that it was found with its textile wrapping still partially in-tact and stuck to the outer layers. If we assume that the preserved scroll height of around 10.6 cm is close to its original size when produced and used in antiquity, we would have to assume that the columns were quite short in height. Fragment 13 shows that there were at least eleven lines in that column, with a minimum column height of 6.5 cm. Adding the 2.5 cm upper margin and a slightly larger lower margin of, say, 2.8 cm would result in a scroll height of around 11 cm. Based on the appearance of the scroll when it was found, it is plausible that this was close to its original height. The result would be a scroll (and columns) 3–4 cm shorter in height than 11Q10 (Job), the date of which is quite close to that of 11Q18 on palaeographic grounds. Still, 11Q18 would be slightly greater in height than other short manuscripts, such as 4Q246 (apocrDan) and 4Q542 (TQahat). The upper and intercolumnar margins of 11Q18 are relatively large, and the scroll was fully ruled, with ruling guide dots at the ends of sheets (the dots were used for marking both vertical and horizontal lines). Stitching is still seen on the left side of frag. 21.
The scribe wrote in a relatively large script, comparable in size to 11Q10 (Job) and noticeably larger than in most Qumran Aramaic manuscripts. Yardeni included 11Q18 among the list of scrolls attributed by her to a single, Herodian period scribe (“Scribes,” 289). Though her palaeographic assessment agrees with that of the scroll’s DJD editors, the attribution of all scrolls on her list to a single scribe is open to criticism (see the last chapter on scribal practices). At some points the scribe of 11Q18 fluctuated markedly in script size, using smaller letters, e.g., in frags. 9, 31, 33, and 37. As with many formal Herodian scripts (e.g., 11Q10 [Job], 4Q246 [apocrDan]), the heights of final letters and other typically taller letters, such as qoph, are much closer to the size of a standard medial letter than we would expect to find in earlier, Hasmonean-period hands. The scribe of 11Q18 did not differentiate between medial and final tsade (cf. 14ii.4), always using the former. In line with many other Aramaic manuscripts at Qumran, he tended to use aleph as a vowel letter more often than he, and regularly used full spellings with vav and yod. There is an unusual fluctuation in the 3ms pronominal suffix between the expected
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 222; Beyer, ATTME, 99–104; Beyer, ATTM2, 133–38; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 180–213; García Martínez, “Last Surviving”; Kister, “Notes”; Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 15–32; García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” 446; Puech, “Gates”; DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 6–7.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear word added in same hand (13.4):
(b) Erasure of final nun by scraping (28.5):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
14ii.5(?), 16ii+17i.3–4, 18.5(part.), 20.5, 26.3, 27.4(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
11.2, 11.6(?), 13.6(part.), 15.2, 15.3(part.), 16ii+17i.2–3(part.), 20.6(?)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
19.3, 20.3a
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
18.2(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
9.4, 13.1, 13.2(2x), 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 14ii.1, 15.4, 18.5, 19.5, 25.6, 26.2, 28.2(?), 30.3, 32.2(?), 32.7
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
8.3(?)
Verbless clause:
14i.4
Object early in clause:
8.3
Verb of movement +
13.3
Verb of movement +
13.4, 16ii+17i.3–4
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
7.2, 14ii.5, 15.1(?), 15.2, 26.6(?), 28.1
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
13.4
Object suffix on verb:
13.3, 13.4, 32.7
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
32.7
Assimilated lamed:
13.4
Orthography/Phonology:
3ms defective suffix
8.3, 9.4
23ii.5(?)
8.2, 10i.7(?), 13.6, 15.4, 17ii.3, 20.3a, 20.4, 25.4
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q538, Testament of Judah/Words of Benjamin (TJud/Words of Benjamin)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:191–99]
Content synopsis and significance: This previously unknown work records a character narrating, in the first-person voice, events from the Joseph story of Genesis. The extant portions of the scroll retell the parts of the story in which Joseph tested his brothers with the hidden silver cup (Gen 44), and in which Joseph revealed his true identity (Gen 45). Connections to the Joseph story are seen throughout the fragments, but are most explicit in the naming of Joseph at 2.3, and in the phrase
As Dimant has shown, Milik’s connection to Judah are not compelling, and the fact that Joseph falls upon Benjamin’s neck in Gen 45:14 (a tradition followed by Philo, Josephus, and others) heavily favors Starcky’s original identification of Benjamin as the speaker and protagonist of 4Q538. In this scroll, we find an Aramaic expansion of a story from Genesis, told from the first-person perspective of a character from that book. This literary style closely resembles many other Qumran Aramaic texts, such as the Enochic writings, the Book of Giants, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Aramaic Levi Document, to name only a few. Although the speaker of 4Q538 is Benjamin, it is probable that a major focus of the text was Joseph, whose impeccable character was also the focus of the didactic poem at the end of the Aramaic Levi Document, and much of the Greek Testament of Benjamin.
Material remains: We possess four fragments of this scroll, with frags. 1 and 2 being relatively large (approx. 5–6 × 4 cm) and containing most of the preserved text. Already in 1978 Milik proposed that these two fragments belonged to the same column, offering a plausible reconstruction followed by Beyer, Puech, and Dimant. Fragment 2 has a partial left margin preserved. Fragments 3 and 4 are significantly smaller than frags. 1–2, and were first published by Puech in DJD 31. Fragment 3 contains part of a right margin, with clear evidence of a vertical dry-ruled line demarcating the edge of the column. Milik (“Écrits,” 98) suggested that 3Q7 contains a very partial Hebrew copy of the same work as 4Q538, but this identification is extremely tenuous and has not been widely accepted.
Provenance: The fragments of 4Q538 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q538 2, 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: It is difficult to get an accurate read on the quality of this manuscript based on the remaining fragments. The script and spacing are uniform and neat, the manuscript is ruled, with what appear to be relatively generous intercolumnar margins, and it seems there were at least some vacats marking minor sense divisions based on frag. 2. These factors point toward a manuscript of estimable quality and investment. Though based on a very small sample size, notable linguistic traits include a high frequency of the word
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Écrits”; Beyer, ATTM1, 187; Beyer, ATTM2, 103; Dimant, History, 441–54.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.4, 3.4(?), 4.1(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.4(?), 1.5
Verbless clause:
3.3
Lexical items:
Morphology:
2.2(2x)
Object suffix on verb:
1.5, 3.4(?)
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q539, Testament of Joseph (TJoseph)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:201–11]
Content synopsis and significance: Like a number of other Aramaic texts found at Qumran, 4Q539 records the story of a figure from the Hebrew book of Genesis, told from the first-person perspective. This is seen most clearly in the name Jacob two lines before the noun “my father” (
Material remains: Józef Milik originally published frags. 1–3 of this scroll (“Écrits,” 101–2; following the preliminary identification of Jean Starcky), to which Puech later added frags. 4–5 (DJD 31). All of the fragments are rather small and difficult to read. None of them preserves more than three or four consecutive words on a line, with frag. 2 having the most successive lines, at seven. Both Milik and Puech reconstructed frags. 2–3 to form part of a single column, which Puech estimated to be approximately 12 cm wide, containing lines of around fifty to sixty letters. A left margin is preserved on frag. 4, with a damage pattern suggesting a vertical column guideline. 4Q539 is the only known copy of this work from Qumran or elsewhere.
Provenance: The fragments of 4Q538 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q539 2 and 5 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (favoring 80–50 BCE), slightly earlier than 4Q538 (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The left side of a column is preserved on frag. 4, though the fragments are in poor condition and difficult to assess for overall manuscript quality. The scroll was evidently ruled throughout, although the horizontal ruling is now too faint to see on the fragments. Lines are evenly spaced, and the scribe wrote in a small, fairly-consistent formal hand. There are no clear instances of vacats or scribal mistakes in the few bits of text preserved. The orthography of 4Q539 is mostly typical of the Qumran Aramaic corpus, with full spellings that included aleph to indicate internal vowels (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Écrits”; Beyer, ATTM1, 188; Beyer, ATTME, 71; Beyer, ATTM2, 103–4.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
5.3
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
5.2
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
2.3(?)
Morphology:
2.3
5.2
1Q21, Levi
[ed. Milik, DJD 1:87–91]
Content synopsis and significance: The contents of this scroll are difficult to discern, due to its extremely poor state of preservation. However, it does overlap in several places with other known copies of the Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran and elsewhere, confirming that it is the only copy of this work from Cave 1. Some important words and phrases reinforcing a connection to the Document are
Material remains: This manuscript consists of sixty tiny fragments, none containing more than a few letters, words, or, in several cases, an isolated phrase. Milik identified the fragments with one another primarily on palaeographic grounds (DJD 1:87; cf. Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 22). Most are too small to assess or place with any confidence. Several fragments, however, overlap or share verbal affinities with copies of the Aramaic Levi Document known from Qumran, the Cairo Geniza, and Mt. Athos. While no direct overlap exists between frag. 1 and other witnesses to the Document, Milik, Grelot, Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, and Drawnel place it in the story of Levi’s vision(s) as a young man (see Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 22; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi, 66, who also place frag. 7 here). 1Q21 3 overlaps for up to two words (3.2) with the Geniza Bodleian manuscript, also as part of Levi’s vision (Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 54; Greenfield, Eshel, and Stone also place 1Q21 26 here). 1Q21 4 and 45 appear to overlap for one or two partial words with sections of the Bodleian manuscript (lines 9 and 26, respectively) recounting Isaac’s instructions to Levi, following Levi’s vision(s) (Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 54). 1Q21 45 also seems to overlap with 4Q214 (Levid) 2.3 (see DJD 22:46), the only correspondence of 1Q21 with a Cave 4 copy of the Aramaic Levi Document. For a recent, comprehensive overview of the discovery and publication of the Qumran Aramaic Levi materials, focused especially on the central role of J.T. Milik, see Drawnel, “Milik.”
Notes on provenance: The fragments assigned by Milik to 1Q21 were found as part of the official excavation of Qumran Cave 1, under the direction of Roland de Vaux and G. Lankester Harding in February and March, 1949 (DJD 1:43).
Sample image: 1Q21 1, 3
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean (Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel) formal
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–1 BCE (Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel)
Special traits and general comments: Although we possess only very fragmentary remains of this copy, it is evident from the larger fragments (1, 3, 7–8, 48) that it was of high quality, comparable in its spacing and scribal execution to manuscripts such as 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb), 4Q537 (TJacob?), and 1Q20 (apGen). The only extant intercolumnar margin is very generous in size, and it appears that vacats were used based on frag. 8, and perhaps also frag. 48. The scribe wrote in a small, tidy Late Hasmonean or Early Herodian script that is closely comparable to that of 1Q20 (apGen). A lamed prefix with the verb
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 195–98, 208–9; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Schattner-Rieser, “Levi”; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
7i.1(?), 8.1(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
3.2(2x?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
57.2
Lexical items:
Morphology:
30.3
Orthography/Phonology:
18.1(?)
4Q213, Levia
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:1–24]
Content synopsis and significance: The DJD editors considered 4Q213 to be one of seven Qumran copies of a work commonly called the Aramaic Levi Document (alternatively, the Visions of Levi [Drawnel] or Aramaic Testament of Levi [Milik]). 1Q21 (Levi), 4Q213, 4Q213a (Levib), 4Q213b (Levic), 4Q214 (Levid), 4Q214a (Levie), and 4Q214b (Levif). The division of the manuscripts is, in fact, a matter of dispute, and there may be as few as three Qumran copies (see the section on Material remains, below). Copies of the Aramaic Levi Document were also discovered in the Cairo Geniza and at Mt. Athos, the latter preserving a Greek translation of parts of the original Aramaic composition. The fragments assigned by Stone and Greenfield to 4Q213 contain portions of Levi’s first-person account addressed to his children, seen most clearly in frag. 4. The bulk of the extant text belongs to what most commentators have called a wisdom poem, an ethically-charged discourse in which Levi exhorts his children to walk in the paths of wisdom and knowledge, which includes the cultivation of scribal skills. Fragment 1 provides a stirring description of the ideal sage, with the Cairo Geniza parallel showing that Levi’s brother, Joseph, serves as the paradigmatic example to be emulated. Following this introduction, we find a call to seek wisdom that recalls Job 28 and the early chapters of Proverbs. Fragments 2–5 appear to address the future situation of Levi’s children and their descendants, at times using apocalyptic language. Many of the literary features found in this manuscript invite comparison with other texts among the Qumran Aramaic corpus. The theme of paternal instruction is shared by many other texts. Modelled on the book of Proverbs and other wisdom literature, such instruction is found most often in texts related to the pre-Mosaic patriarchs (i.e., Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Levi, Qahat, and Amram), but it also figures prominently in the book of Tobit. Frey (“Testament”) suggested that the literary device of paternal instruction in the Aramaic Qumran literature demonstrates that it was integral to the development of the later testamentary genre (cf. Drawnel, “Education”; Dimant, “Themes”) exemplified by the Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In addition, one passage of Levi’s wisdom poem recalls an episode in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). In 4Q213 1i.10–19, we read that the “one who learns wisdom” will not be treated “like a foreigner” in “every land and country to which he will go” (4Q213 1i.10, 16–17, 15). Instead, the inhabitants of those places “wi]ll honor him” as a result of their desire “to hear his words of wisdom” (4Q213 1i.14, 19). A strikingly similar scenario, accompanied by close parallels in specific wording, is found in the encounter between Abram and the nobles of the Pharaoh in 1Q20 (apGen) col. 19 (Machiela, “Wisdom,” 233–47). In this account, Pharaoh’s nobles are aware of Abram’s reputation for wisdom. They seek him out during his sojourn in Egypt, so that he might teach them “scribal craft, and wisdom, and truth” (1Q20 [apGen] 19.24–25). In response to their inquiry, Abram reads to them from “the book of the words of Enoch” (1Q20 [apGen] 19.25). In 4Q213, Levi uses a triad of terms (
Material remains: What Stone and Greenfield designated 4Q213 comprises five fragments, frag. 1 being much larger than the rest. Fragment 1 contains parts of two columns on adjoining sheets, each preserving roughly twenty lines of text. The first column overlaps with material from the Cairo Geniza, and has notable similarities with the Greek Testament of Levi 12–13 (this led scholars as early as R.H. Charles to argue that the Aramaic Levi Document served as a source for the Greek testament; Charles, Testaments, 245–56; cf. DJD 22:2). There are some possible, minor overlaps between 4Q213 1ii and 4Q214a (Levie) 2–3 and 4Q214b (Levif) 8. Fragment 2i may belong to the same column as found on frag. 1ii (so Stone and Greenfield). Fragments 3–5 have no parallel in any extant copy of the Aramaic Levi Document, Qumran or otherwise. Of these final three fragments, only frag. 4 contains any more than a few words and phrases. A tiny, sixth fragment is found on PAM 43.241, though the DJD editors did not consider it to be a part of 4Q213 or the Aramaic Levi Document. In fact, we cannot even be sure that it is part of an Aramaic text (DJD 22:24).
Hanneke van der Schoor (“Variation”) recently challenged Stone and Greenfield’s division of the manuscripts 4Q213, 4Q213a (Levib), 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid), a division generally followed by Drawnel and other scholars. Van der Schoor argued that the fragments constituting Stone and Greenfield’s four manuscripts should instead be considered parts of a single copy. In this she followed the earlier opinion of Milik, who originally (“Le Testament”) discerned three copies (see also the label on PAM 42.363), but a decade later changed his mind (“Fragment”) and claimed that they were, in fact, parts of “un seul rouleau,” which he designated “4Q213 TestLevia.” This is confirmed by the labels on PAM 43.241–243, all of which are written in Milik’s distinctive hand. They clearly identify the fragments gathered by Stone and Greenfield under 4Q213, 4Q213a (Levib), 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid) as TestLevia. Milik’s judgement has now been treated in even more depth by Drawnel (“Milik”), who now seems to endorse Milik’s view. Van der Schoor built her case on the scribal variation to be expected in an informal script like that used for 4Q213, 4Q213a (Levib), 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid). In her opinion, Stone and Greenfield misinterpreted this variation, along with some inconsistencies between the skin of different fragments, though they did consider 4Q213a (Levib) and 4Q213b (Levic) to be different copies written by the same scribe. As a result, they wrongly divided the fragments into four different manuscripts based on palaeographic traits that fall within the acceptable range of variation for an informal script from this period. For example, handwriting features that Stone and Greenfield (in consultation with Frank Moore Cross) isolated as distinctive on 4Q213a (Levib), such as the small aleph, the rounded final nun, the large kaph, and the formation of tet, are rightly shown by van der Schoor also to be present on 4Q213 and 4Q214 (Levid). She correctly noted, for example, that tet could be written using either one or two strokes even on the same fragment (4Q213 1), clearly by the same scribe. Final letters show varied forms in several of the fragments. In my opinion, Milik and Van der Schoor (now tentatively affirmed by Drawnel, “Milik”) are quite plausibly correct, and all (certainly most) fragments of Stone and Greenfield’s 4Q213, 4Q213a (Levib), 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid) may justifiably be gathered under the single designation, 4Q213. Some scribal features not discussed by Milik or van der Schoor support their position, such as overall spacing and sizes of columns, sizes of margins, use of vacats, orthography, comparable “fishhook” scribal marks in the margins of 4Q213 1 and 4Q213a (Levib) 2, similarly-spaced guide dots in the margins of 4Q213 2 and 4Q213a (Levib) 2, and manuscript construction (e.g., the guide dots were marked at the edge of sheets before they were sewn on 4Q213 and 4Q213a [Levib]). As noted by all scholars working on the text, 4Q214a (Levie) and 4Q214b (Levif) should be treated as one, or possibly two, separate manuscripts (on the question of their unity, see the profile for 4Q214a [Levie]). For a recent, comprehensive overview of the discovery and publication of the Qumran Aramaic Levi materials, focused especially on the central role of J.T. Milik, see Drawnel, “Milik.”
Notes on provenance: Most of 4Q213 1 and 4 are present on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.612, meaning that these fragments were among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). Tigchelaar also identified a very small piece of frag. 1 (attached to the left edge of the fragment in later photos) on the “E series” PAM image 40.978. As a result, we can see that some fragments of this scroll were found in Cave 4 by the Bedouin, and others by the official excavation team.
Sample image: 4Q213 1, 2
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); pre-Hasmonean (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 50–25 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); 175–150 BCE (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Radiocarbon date: 191–155 BCE (59%) or 146–120 BCE (41%) (see Van der Schoor, “Radiocarbon”)
Special traits and general comments: The construction of this manuscript is of immediate interest, since, assuming that the reconstruction of frags. 1–2 is correct, there is a stitched seam on both sides of a single column that presumably fell somewhere towards the middle or end of this composition. Given the combined facts that every other preserved fragment of 4Q213–4Q214 (Levid) also has stitching preserved at one of its edges (on the unity of these manuscripts, see above), and that frags. 3–4 seem to follow in relatively close proximity to the wisdom poem of frags. 1–2 (Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 342–48; cf. T. Levi 13–14), there is a strong probability that other single columns were also written on small, individual sheets of skin and then sewn together. This is highly irregular for the Qumran scrolls, which almost always include several or more columns on each sheet for lengthy literary works like the Aramaic Levi Document (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 33–36). The skin looks to be of good quality, but whoever was responsible for making this manuscript chose small sheets rather than the larger ones often dedicated to the Qumran manuscripts. This trait could be evidence of a somewhat lower-quality manuscript, which accords well with several other scribal features. Judging from the high-quality images made available by the Israel Antiquities Authority, it is clear that the thread used to sew the columns is of a spun, plant-based material, and not animal sinew. The dimensions of the scroll and its columns fall in the middle of the corpus range, roughly comparable to the size of 11Q10 (Job). The same is true of the margins, which appear to vary somewhat from sheet to sheet on the scroll. What Stone and Greenfield considered to be a vacat on 4Q213 1i.1 may, in fact, simply be a slightly larger upper margin on the sheet containing that column. A measurement of that margin shows that it is similar in size to the left side of the upper margin on the following sheet (col. ii).
While frags. 1, 2, and 6 suggest that a fairly regular space of 5–10 mm was left between the right-hand stitched edge of a sheet and the beginning of the written lines, ends of lines often come close to the left edge of the column/sheet (cf. frags. 1–5). In fact, at the end of 1i.7 we see that the word
This scribe had the idiosyncratic habit of putting a lower, horizontal “foot” stroke on the final pe, something witnessed several times in frags. 1 and 2. While this results in the final pe being similar to medial pe in shape, the final letters are much larger than medial ones in frag. 1i. There are few clear mistakes in what remains of the manuscript, aside from several instances of supralinear addition, though Stone and Greenfield noted the unusual number of ink dots on the fragments. While dots are sometimes used as deletion markers (e.g., in 1Q20 [apGen]), the high number of dots and their placement on the manuscript make it likely that at least some of them are the result of ink having dripped accidentally from the pen during the course of copying. Medium-sized vacats were used to indicate minor progressions in the text. A final scribal mark of note is the “fishhook” symbol in the margin of 1ii.11, which probably indicates some sort of section break, as suggested by Stone and Greenfield.
This scribe tended toward a more defective orthographic style (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Schattner-Rieser, “Levi”; Van der Schoor, “Variation”; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letters added, possibly in a different hand (1i.14):
(b) Supralinear word or letters (1ii.9):
(c) Scribal “fishhook” symbol in margin (1ii.11)
(d) Supralinear letter added and possible scribal dot following aleph (4.5):
(e) Ink dots from possible spills:
Language
Syntax:
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i.14(part.), 4.7
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
4.3
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1i.8(part.), 1i.11(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.13, 1i.16(part.), 1ii.1, 1ii.2(?), 1ii.3(?), 4.4, 4.6(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.15, 1i.17(part.), 4.5, 4.6(?), 4.8
Verbless clause:
1i.18
Use of negative particle
Interrogative
4.2, 4.4
Lexical items:
–
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.18 (note also
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q213a, Levib
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:25–36; Puech, DJD 37:511–17 (additional frag. 3)]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of up to seven, and as few as three, Qumran copies of the Aramaic Levi Document, parts of which were also found in the Cairo Geniza and at Mt. Athos (see profile for 4Q213 [Levia]). Fragments 1–2 likely fall somewhere near the beginning of the composition (compare the contents of frag. 2 with T. Levi 2). These fragments contain enough text to provide a basic knowledge of this part of the composition, portions of which correspond with Jub. 30–31 and the Greek Testament of Levi. Fragment 1 is a first-person prayer by Levi, addressed to “my Lord” (1.10). The prayer displays several themes also found in other Aramaic compositions from Qumran, such as the “ways of truth” mentioned in 1.12 (cf. 4Q212 [Eng] 1ii.18; 1iv.22; 1v.25; 4Q213 [Levia] 4.5; 4Q243 [psDana] 7.3; Tob 1:3) or the triad “wisdom, knowledge, and strength” in 1.14 (cf. 1Q20 [apGen] 19.25). Levi also asks that God not allow “any satan” to have dominion (
Material remains: Stone and Greenfield grouped six fragments under the label 4Q213a, with frags. 5 and 6 being roughly the size of a postage stamp and containing little readable text. However, see the discussion of Material remains for 4Q213 (Levia) on the likelihood that the fragments of 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q213a, 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid) should be considered parts of a single manuscript, as suggested by Milik (see now Drawnel, “Milik”) and argued more substantially by Van der Schoor (“Variation”). 4Q213a 1–2 are the most substantial fragments under this manuscript heading, each having fourteen preserved lines of text. They are “triangular fragments from the bottom corners, right and left respectively, of two adjoining sheets that were originally sewn to one another” (DJD 22:25). The maximum height and width of the triangular, combined fragments are slightly larger than a typical playing card. Overlapping material shared by frags. 1–2 and the Greek Mt. Athos manuscript has allowed the editors to reconstruct a substantial portion of the lines on these fragments (DJD 22:31–33). Fragments 3 and 4 have been plausibly joined by the editors, resulting in seven partial lines of writing. To these Puech added a small, additional fragment with a clear join to the top, right corner of frag. 3 (DJD 37:511–17). These fragments contain text with no apparent parallels in the other extant Aramaic Levi Document copies, at Qumran or elsewhere.
Notes on provenance: Fragment 2 of 4Q213a is found on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.609, meaning that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). If 4Q213a is treated with 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q213b (Levic), and 4Q214 (Levid) as part of the same scroll, then the small fragment of 4Q213 (Levia) 1 found in the official 1952 excavations of de Vaux, and included on the “E series” PAM plate 40.978, also attests to the Cave 4 origins of 4Q213a.
Sample image: 4Q213a 1, 2
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); pre-Hasmonean (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 75–50 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); 175–150 BCE (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Special traits and general comments: The fragments of 4Q213a are comparable in many ways to those of 4Q213 (Levia), and all are likely parts of the same manuscript. Nevertheless, the fragments of 4Q213a give the overall impression of having slightly more even spacing and thicker lettering. Full (plene) spellings are found somewhat more often than in 4Q213 (Levia), but some words are spelled defectively (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliograpy: Milik “Le Testament”; Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Stone and Greenfield, “Prayer”; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Schattner-Rieser, “Levi”; Van der Schoor, “Variation”; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Marginal “fishhook” symbol (2.10–11)
(b) Supralinear letter added (1.13):
(c) Letter deleted with vertical and horizontal lines (3–4.6):
(d) Possible erasure of letter by scraping (leather is abraded; Stone and Greenfield and Puech suggest aleph) (3–4.6):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.14, 3.16
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2.18(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1.11(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.17, 2.11, 2.16, 2.17, 3.13, 3.15
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2.15(?)
Object early in clause:
2.15
Use of
2.7
Verb of movement +
1.8, 2.17
Use of negative particle
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1.12, 2.15
Object suffix on verb:
1.18
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1.10, 1.11, 1.14, 3.13
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1.18
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q213b, Levic
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:37–41]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of up to seven, and as few as three, Qumran copies of the Aramaic Levi Document, a composition which was also found in the Cairo Geniza and at Mt. Athos (see profile for 4Q213 [Levia]). 4Q213b contains a small part of the end of a dream-vision received by Levi, followed by several lines of first-person narration by the patriarch (see the discussion on the importance of dream-visions in Aramaic Scrolls in the profile of 4Q213a [Levib]). The vision evidently focused on the election of Levi to the priesthood. In line 2, Levi reports awaking from his sleep. Subsequent lines mention Levi’s secrecy regarding the dream’s content, that Levi’s father Jacob presented a tithe (another priestly theme), and the bestowal of something upon Levi from among Jacob’s sons, likely related to his receiving the priesthood. On the importance of the priesthood in the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Qumran Aramaic corpus as a whole, see the profile for 4Q213a (Levib). Several phrases in this fragment recall language found in other Qumran Aramaic texts, most notably the Genesis Apocryphon. These include the expression
Material remains: Stone and Greenfield included only one fragment under this manuscript designation, though it most probably belongs together with 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q213a (Levib), and 4Q214 (Levid) as part of a single scroll (see the Material remains section for 4Q213 [Levia]). The fragment contains six partial lines of text, most having between four and six complete or nearly-complete words (with the exception of line 6, which is badly damaged). It comes from the left side of a column, with a small part of the margin preserved. 4Q213b overlaps with several lines of the Cairo Geniza text, allowing scholars to reconstruct some missing portions of the Qumran fragment. As Stone and Greenfield highlight in the textual notes, “[W]here the text is extant in the two manuscripts, it is almost completely identical” (DJD 22:40). It is worth noting that their reconstructed text, based on the Cairo copy, makes for an appreciably wider column (approx. fifty-five letters) than that reconstructed in 4Q213 (Levia; approx. forty letters). While this should be considered in connection with Van der Schoor’s argument about 4Q213 (Levia)–214 (Levid) being parts of a single scroll, it is a rather weak reason for separating 4Q213 (Levia) and 4Q213b into two different copies. We know that widths can vary significantly in different columns of a single copy, as seen, for example, in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). For a recent, comprehensive overview of the discovery and publication of the Qumran Aramaic Levi materials, focused especially on the central role of J.T. Milik, see Drawnel, “Milik.”
Notes on provenance: 4Q213b is found on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.618, meaning that it was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). If 4Q213b is treated with 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q213a (Levib), and 4Q214 (Levid) as part of the same scroll, then the small fragment of 4Q213 (Levia) 1 found in the official 1952 excavations of de Vaux, and included on the “E series” PAM plate 40.978, also attests to the Cave 4 origins of 4Q213b.
Sample image: 4Q213b 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); pre-Hasmonean (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 75–50 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); 175–150 BCE (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Special traits and general comments: This single fragment has no fully-preserved margins, though a part of the left column margin remains. The scribe of this manuscript wrote in an even script with tightly-packed word spacing, but generous, regular spacing between lines. Although there are no significant vacats, a measurement of spacing reveals that approximately 1 mm extra was left before
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Schattner-Rieser, “Levi”; Van der Schoor, “Variation”; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.4
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1, 1.3(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.5(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1.4
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.2
Object suffix on verb:
1.1
Orthography/Phonology:
1.1, 1.4
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q214, Levid
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:43–51]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of up to seven, and as few as three, Qumran copies of the Aramaic Levi Document, a composition which was also partially found in the Cairo Geniza and, in Greek translation, at Mt. Athos (see the profile for 4Q213 [Levia]). In frag. 2 of 4Q214, we read part of the cultic instructions for sacrificing a bull, handed down from Isaac to Levi during a visit by Levi to his grandfather’s house. The Qumran Aramaic corpus includes a number of texts that take special interest in sacrificial and other cultic procedures. The Genesis Apocryphon recounts the sacrifices of Noah and Abraham, both of which are elaborated in much greater detail than in their counterparts from the Hebrew Bible (Reeves, “Noah”). New Jerusalem and Testament of Jacob? also include visions in which the sacrificial cult is described in some detail. Schiffman (“Halakha,” Qumran) has compared the sacrificial regulations found in New Jerusalem to that of the Aramaic Levi Document, and other studies of this part of the composition include Mali, “Instruction,” Feldman, “Sacrifice,” and Machiela and Jones, “Beginnings.” Fragment 3 contains an otherwise unknown part of the Aramaic Levi Document, discussing the topic of honor (
Material remains: Four fragments are included by Stone and Greenfield under the siglum 4Q214, though if Van der Schoor is correct they should be included together with 4Q213 (Levia), 213a (Levib), and 213b (Levic) as parts of a single scroll (see the Material remains section for 4Q213 [Levia]). Fragment 1 is very narrow, with parts of eight lines preserved, none with more than a single word. Fragment 2 contains the most preserved text, though its surface is partially abraded. This fragment overlaps with 4Q214b (Levif) 2–3.8 and 1Q21 (Levi) 45, as well as parts of the Cairo Geniza and Mt. Athos witnesses. Fragments 3 and 4 have suffered less damage than frags. 1 and 2, but contain little text, especially frag. 4. A fifth fragment appears on PAM 43.243, but the editors considered it to be an “unidentified fragment” not affiliated with the Aramaic Levi Document (DJD 22:51). It contains very little legible text, and no complete words. For a recent, comprehensive overview of the discovery and publication of the Qumran Aramaic Levi materials, focused especially on the central role of J.T. Milik, see Drawnel, “Milik.”
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q214 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. However, if they are treated together with 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q213a (Levib), and 4Q213b (Levic) as part of the same scroll, then the small fragment of 4Q213 (Levia) 1 found in the official 1952 excavations of de Vaux, and included on the “E series” PAM plate 40.978, also attests to the Cave 4 origins of 4Q214.
Sample image: 4Q214 2
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); pre-Hasmonean (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 75–50 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); 175–150 BCE (Milik, as reported by Drawnel, “Milik”)
Special traits and general comments: The orthography of this scribe tends to be defective, though the long form of the demonstrative
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Schattner-Rieser, “Levi”; Van der Schoor, “Variation”; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear word added (3.2): ]
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.4, 3.1–2(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3.2
Use of
3.2
Use of negative particle
2.4
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.6(?)
Assimilated lamed:
1.6(?)
Other features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q214a, Levie
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:53–60
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of up to seven, and as few as three, Qumran copies of the Aramaic Levi Document, a composition also found in the Cairo Geniza and at Mt. Athos (see further the profile for 4Q213 [Levia]). The three fragments (or two, in Drawnel’s assessment) of 4Q214a contain only a small amount of text, some of it also being found in other witnesses to the Document. Fragment 1 contains bits of a description of what types of wood to use for sacrifices on the altar, which is a part of Isaac’s instructions to Levi on proper cultic practices (see the profile of 4Q214 [Levid] for a discussion of the sacrificial material in this section). Parallels with other copies allow us to see that col. 1 of frags. 2–3 was part of an autobiographical account of the birth of Levi’s children with his wife, Melcha. The issues raised in these two fragments highlight one of the salient themes of the Aramaic Levi Document and the Aramaic literature at Qumran more broadly: endogamy (see Eshel, “Proper,” “Marriage”; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context”; and Dimant, “Tobit”). The Aramaic Levi Document recounts that Levi’s wife Melcha was a member of Abraham’s line, and reports that Levi’s daughter Jochebed married Levi’s grandson Amram. It also contains the command to “take a wife for yourself from my family, so that you may not defile your seed” (ALD 6:4). This theme is also found in the Visions of Amram, in which the opening scene records the marriage of Amram’s sister Miriam to her uncle Uzziel. The Testament of Qahat seems to allude to the practice of endogamous marriage when it refers to remaining “pure from intermingling” (4Q542 [TQahat] 1i.8–9; cf. Drawnel, “Education”; Harrington, “Identity”). Some scholars have associated the emphasis on endogamy in the above texts with their priestly character (e.g., Tervanotko, “Ideal Marriages”); however, the theme of endogamy, and specifically marriage within the family or tribe, is also an important theme in both the Genesis Apocryphon (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen] 6.7–9) and Tobit (1:9; 3:15; 4:12–13) (see Machiela and Perrin, “Family Portrait”; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context”). Column 2 appears to be part of the wisdom discourse placed by scholars near the end of the composition. The discourse is directed at Levi’s sons, extolling the virtues of wisdom and the difficulty of finding it (cf. 4Q213 [Levia] and 4Q214b [Levif]). For a recent, comprehensive overview of the discovery and publication of the Qumran Aramaic Levi materials, focused especially on the central role of J.T. Milik, see Drawnel, “Milik.”
Material remains: 4Q214a consists of three very small fragments, at several points overlapping with other copies of the Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran, the Cairo Geniza, and Mt. Athos. Milik (BE, 5, 244) evidently thought that Stone and Greenfield’s 4Q214a and 4Q214b (Levif) were parts of a single copy, which Milik called 4QTestLevib. This is confirmed by the fact that all fragments of 4Q214a and 4Q214b (Levif) were placed by Milik on same photographic plate (PAM 43.260), and were clearly labelled in his hand as 4QTestLevib in the bottom, left-hand corner of the plate. The writing is very similar across the fragments, as are their physical and scribal features (this view was recently affirmed by Drawnel, “Milik,” 113–15). Stone and Greenfield, seemingly followed by Drawnel (Aramaic Wisdom, 27), noted the similarity of script in the two groupings, but maintained their separation on two bases: 1.) slight differences in the formation of the letters mem, final nun, and lamed; and 2.) what they considered to be overlapping text between 4Q214a 1 and 4Q214b (Levif) 2–3, and 4Q214a 2–3ii and 4Q214b (Levif) 8. Regarding the differences in script, an argument similar to that mounted by Van der Schoor for 4Q213 (Levia)–214 (Levid) (see the profile for 4Q213 [Levia]) could also be made in this case. The script of 4Q214a–214b is slightly more formal than in 4Q213 (Levia)–214 (Levid), but it is plausible that a single scribe could make the kinds of small variation noted by Stone and Greenfield between 4Q214a and 4Q214b (Levif; see also the comments of Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom, 27, for 4Q214b). As for the overlaps among the fragments, they are very minimal, and the text for this section of the composition is not well established (see now Drawnel, “Milik,” 117–18). In view of these considerations, it is entirely possible that Milik’s view is the correct one. On balance, Milik’s original combination of 4Q214a and 4Q214b (Levif) as a single scroll seems preferable.
Fragment 1 of 4Q214a is no bigger than a postage stamp, but its few preserved phrases are thought by Stone and Greenfield to overlap with words from the Cairo Geniza text and 4Q214b (Levif) 3 (DJD 22:54, 64). Fragments 2 and 3 were joined by Milik on PAM 43.260 (accepted as correct by the editors in DJD 22:53), with the fragments containing parts of two columns. Drawnel claims, however, that the two pieces are still connected, and should be labelled as a single fragment (Aramaic Wisdom, 27). Despite the poor state of preservation, the editors find material in frags. 2–3, col. 1 that may overlap with the Cairo Geniza copy, while small parts col. 2 were thought to overlap with the Geniza text, 4Q213 (Levia), and 4Q214b (Levif; DJD 22:54, 57–60). The small overlap with the Cairo Geniza text is the most certain of these possibilities. Although the evidence is very fragmentary, Stone and Greenfield, followed by Drawnel, concluded that 4Q214a contains a significantly shorter (or perhaps rearranged) text than the other witnesses to the Aramaic Levi Document. This led to talk of two recensions of the Document (or at least this section of it), with 4Q214a representing the shorter recension, and 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q214b (Levif), and the Cairo Geniza copy the longer one. See Kugler (“Reflections”) on whether the Qumran fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document attest to a “single, relatively consistent work” or “a work that existed in diverse recensions.”
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q214a are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q214a 2–3
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); Early Hasmonean (Milik [BE, 244], who identified the scribe as the same who wrote 4Q207 [Enf]; see also Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 50–25 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); Milik implicitly dated this script to ca. 150–125 BCE, based on its association with 4Q207 (Enf) (BE, 244; Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Special traits and general comments: The scribe of this manuscript (probably to be combined with 4Q214b [Levif]) also appears to have written 4Q207 (Enf). Little remains of this scroll, but from our scant evidence it appears that it was of quite high quality. The script is relatively regular, upright, and neat. Spacing is even and moderate, with small vacats used to indicate minor narrative progressions. Although scribal guidelines are for the most part not discernable, the regular spacing of lines hints that they were once present, but very lightly inscribed. The breakage pattern at the right edge of 4Q214a 2–3ii strongly suggests that a vertical guideline was inscribed there with more pressure, although there is no evidence of such a line at the left edge of the preceding column. There is little that can be said about this manuscript in terms of scribal practices or language. The lengths of lines at the left edge of the column vary considerably, and at least in the case of
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2–3i.4(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Assimilated nun:
2–3ii.1
4Q214b, Levif
[ed. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22:61–71]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of up to seven, and as few as three, Qumran copies of the Aramaic Levi Document, a composition also found in the Cairo Geniza and at Mt. Athos (see further the profile for 4Q213 [Levia]). The preserved text of frags. 2–3 and 5–6 is part of a pedagogical discourse given by Isaac to Levi, while Levi was visiting his grandfather’s home (see the profile of 4Q213 [Levia] for a discussion of the significance of paternal instruction in the Aramaic literature from Qumran). Fragment 7 contains only three words,
Material remains: Stone and Greenfield’s 4Q214b comprises eight fragments, few being larger than a postage stamp. It is quite possible that the fragments of 4Q214a (Levie) and 4Q214b belong to a single copy, on which see the Material remains section for 4Q214a (Levie). In virtually every respect, the fragments assigned to the two manuscripts are closely comparable. 4Q214b frags. 2–6 overlap with portions of the Cairo Geniza manuscript, as well as several of the other Qumran manuscripts. For a proposed reconstruction of the combined texts, see DJD 22:68–69. Fragment 1 contains only a handful of complete words, and has no parallels with any extant Aramaic Levi Document manuscript. Fragment 7 has only a single, legible phrase. It may overlap with material from 4Q213b (Levic) 1 or the Geniza text, though this is not certain (cf. DJD 22:69–70). Fragment 8 is also very poorly preserved, but it appears to overlap with portions of 4Q213 (Levia), perhaps 4Q214a (Levie; in the opinions of Stone and Greenfield), and the Geniza material (DJD 22:71). This fragment evidently comes from the wisdom poem, which can be partially reconstructed on the basis of 4Q213 (Levia), 4Q214a (Levie), 4Q214b, and the Cairo Geniza codex (DJD 22:72).
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q214b 1 on the early PAM “E series” plate 40.976. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining fragments of 4Q214b in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q214b 1–6
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean formal (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); Early Hasmonean (Milik [BE, 244], who identified the scribe as the same who wrote 4Q207 [Enf]; see also Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 150–100 BCE (Stone and Greenfield, based on Cross); Milik implicitly dated this script to ca. 150–125 BCE, based on its association with 4Q207 (Enf) (BE, 244; Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Special traits and general comments: This scribe, who is likely also responsible for 4Q207 (Enf), wrote in a tidy, well-regulated script, very evenly spaced despite the apparent lack of scribal lines (these may simply be no longer visible). The single intercolumnar margin is smaller than in many higher-quality manuscripts, and in the extant text the scribe twice used very small vacats to indicate minor pauses in the narrative progression. The width and variation in this margin closely resembles that of the margin in 4Q214a (Levie) 2–3, supporting the idea that they belong to the same copy, written by a single scribe. This scribe tended to employ the plene orthographic conventions typical of the Qumran Aramaic manuscripts, though as in 4Q214a (Levie) 1.1 the short form
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 188–208; Beyer, ATTME, 71–78; Beyer, ATTM2, 104–10; Kugler, Levi-Priestly; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi; Drawnel, “Milik.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
2–3.3(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
5–6i.2
Verbless clause:
2–3.5
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Lexical items:
Morphology:
5–6i.3
Assimilated lamed:
5–6i.3
Orthography/Phonology:
2–3.2
Other notable features:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q540, Apocryphon of Levia (apocrLevia?)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:217–23]
Content synopsis and significance: The preserved text of these fragments tells of an individual, identified in line 1 as “the youth/little one,” who will suffer a variety of maladies. In line 3, it may be that these maladies are reversed, if the same individual is still the subject. “Possessions” (
Material remains: 4Q540 comprises only three fragments, none of which overlaps with any other Qumran Aramaic manuscript. Fragment 1 is the only one containing a significant amount of text. This fragment is rectangular in shape, greater in width than height. Neither the full height nor width of the fragment’s single column can be discerned with certainty. Parts of six lines remain, but we cannot know how many are missing. The upper margin is visible, though Puech does consider the possibility that what has been taken as the upper margin is actually a large vacat (DJD 31:217). The final two fragments are tiny scraps, containing only a few letters each and smaller than an average postage stamp.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q540 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q540 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean (Puech, noted that the hand is similar to that of 4Q541 [apocrLevib?]); early Hasmonean (Milik, as reported in Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Proposed palaeographic date: 125–100 BCE (Puech); ca. 175 BCE (Milik, as reported in Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Special traits and general comments: The orthography in this manuscript is of the sort seen in many of the other Qumran Aramaic scrolls, with a number of full spellings, particularly those using vav and yod to represent vowels. The word
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 78–82; Beyer, ATTM2, 110–14.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Numerical cipher for ‘52’ (1.2)
Image B-358679
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.1(2x), 1.2(2x?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.4
Object early in clause:
1.1, 1.2(?)
Verb of movement +
1.1
Verb of movement +
1.2
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Assimilated nun:
1.4
4Q541, Apocryphon of Levib (apocrLevib?)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:225–56; 37:523 (frag. 25)]
Content synopsis and significance: What remains of this text is focused on the discourse between a first-person speaker and an individual addressed in the second-person voice (see frags. 2–6, 24). Discourse of this sort is common in the Aramaic literature found at Qumran, often taking place between a father and his son(s) or an angel and the recipient of a dream-vision. Within the framework of this discourse, several fragments (notably 7–9) contain predictive proclamations in the third-person voice about a remarkable individual who bears the marks of a priest: He will “atone for all the children of his generation,” “his teaching (will be) according to God’s will,” and “his light will show to all the ends of the earth” (on this theme see Angel, Otherworldly, 77–82). Puech and others have noted that frags. 9 and 24, in particular, bear a close resemblance to the Greek Testament of Levi 4 and 18. This has provided the basis for an identification of the scroll’s central figure with Levi, though the precise nature of that connection remains unclear, as does any potential connection to other Aramaic texts connected with Levi (e.g., the Aramaic Levi Document). Fragment 24 has been the subject of much discussion, with Puech arguing that lines 4–5 refer to crucifixion as part of the maladies that will come upon the addressee. Cook (“4Q541”) and others have offered alternative readings that exclude crucifixion, and Cook’s interpretation seems more plausible than that of Puech. The fragment ends with a dualistic appeal for the hearer to act uprightly, recalling similar statements in the Testament of Qahat, the Aramaic Levi Document, and elsewhere in the Aramaic literary corpus at Qumran. Unfortunately, the central figure of 4Q541 cannot be identified with certainty, even if Levi is a strong candidate. Whoever the figure is, he has unambiguous priestly attributes set within a future-oriented eschatological frame, and scholars have discerned in his suffering (frag. 24) intertextual relationships with earlier Hebrew literature such as the “suffering servant” passage of Isa 53 (Brooke, Scrolls, 140–51; Hengel, “Isaiah 53,” 106–18) and the vision of restoration in Jer 30 (Elgvin, “Trials”). Others (e.g., Peters, Traditions, 100–106) have seen connections with traditions about Noah found in the Aramaic Enoch materials and the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), which may be premised on a basic analogy during the Second Temple period between the flood of Noah’s generation and the expected eschatological restoration. Based on the description and role of the central figure outlined above, a number of scholars have included the scroll in discussions of Second Temple period Jewish messianism, especially in connection with the New Testament (Brooke, Scrolls, 140–57). While Collins (Apocalypticism, 86–87) seemed to suggest that the work represented by 4Q541 was composed by the group also responsible for the Hebrew sectarian literature kept at Qumran, this view is rightly rejected by Elgvin (“Trials,” 97) and others (cf. Angel, Otherworldly, 77–78). It is reasonable to assume, however, that the work was of great interest to the later sect because of its contents.
Material remains: Twenty-four fragments of varying sizes constitute 4Q541, the most substantial of which are frags. 9 and 24. These two fragments contain by far the most running text. Fragments 1–4 and 6–7 also contain a significant amount of text, while the remaining fragments are tiny scraps with only a few letters and/or words. However, even the stray words and phrases on some of the smaller fragments help to establish 4Q541’s themes and genre. None of the preserved fragments overlap with other works known from Qumran or elsewhere, despite Puech’s argument that 4Q541 is to be associated with 4Q540 (apocrLevia?). (See the profile on 4Q540 [apocrLevia?] for a discussion of the possible relationship between these manuscripts.) The width of an entire column is preserved on frag. 24, with part of an intercolumnar margin extant on both sides. Fragment 9 also has nearly the entire width of a column. Based on the preserved margins, Puech has concluded that 4Q541 originally contained at least eight or nine columns (DJD 31:225).
It should be noted that images B-370756 and B-370757 – taken in August, 2012, by the Israel Antiquities Authority and available in the Leon Levy Digital Library – show two stamps of the letter “S” on the verso of frag. 9. These letters were stamped on some large fragments from Cave 4 in the 1950’s in order to indicate the institution that donated money to the Palestine Archeological Museum for purchasing fragments from the Bedouin (see Fields, Scrolls, 142). The letter “S” shows that the money for these fragments was donated by McGill University, as arranged by R.B.Y. Scott. Other scrolls bearing “S” stamps include 4Q84 (Psb, along with a “G” stamp), 4Q370 (AdmonFlood), and 4Q525 (Beatitudes, again with a “G” stamp).
Notes on provenance: Fragment 2 of 4Q541 is found on the PAM “G series” plate 40.594, indicating that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified several fragments included on the “E series” PAM plate 40.976 (frags. 11, 13–14). As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux. The connection with Cave 4 is further confirmed by two “S” letters stamped on the verso of frag. 9, associating it clearly with the Cave 4 Bedouin finds (see Material remains, above).
Sample image: 4Q541, 9
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean (Puech); late Hasmonean (Milik, as reported in Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Proposed palaeographic date: 125–100 BCE (Puech); ca. 75–50 BCE (Milik, as reported in Drawnel, “Milik,” 114)
Special traits and general comments: Puech noted that the hand of this manuscript is close to that of 4Q540, with some differences evident in the letters gimel, dalet, resh, vav (in the combination vav-yod), lamed, nun, pe, samek, and ayin (DJD 31:217). He also situated the hand of 4Q541 close to that of 4Q542 (TQahat; DJD 31:226–27). The orthography of 4Q541 is generally full, sometimes exceptionally so, as with
The elevated language used in this text, particularly in frag. 9, has led to some aberrations from the syntax expected in an Aramaic narrative text from Qumran. There is a higher than usual number of fronted objects, leading to a relatively high number of verb-late clauses. This should be seen as a stylistic device, also found in a number of other Aramaic texts from this corpus. The prepositional phrase in 2(+(?)1ii).8 and 3.4 (
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 78–82; Beyer, ATTM2, 110–14; Cook, “4Q541”; Elgvin, “Trials,” 89–95.
Script samples:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) According to Puech, correction from
Image B-285363
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) According to Puech,
Image B-285363
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Supralinear letter added and, according to Puech, erasure of second letter (24ii.6):
Image B-285363
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
3.2(?), 7.3, 7.4, 9i.4(2x), 9i.7, 9i.7(?), 9ii.6, 10.4
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
3.4, 9i.3
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2(+(?)1ii).7, 2(+(?)1ii).9, 2ii.3(?), 2ii.4, 2ii.5, 2ii.8, 6.2, 9i.2(3x), 9ii.7, 17.2, 24.2, 24.4, 24.5, 24.6(2x)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2(+(?)1ii).4(?), 2(+(?)1ii).5, 3.5(?), 9i.4, 9i.5, 9i.5–6, 9i.6, 9i.7(?), 24.5, 24.5–6
Verbless clause:
9i.3(2x), 9i.5, 9i.6, 9i.7
Object early in clause:
2(+(?)1ii).4(?), 2(+(?)1ii).5, 9i.5, 9i.5–6, 9i.6, 24.5
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Verb of movement +
2(+(?)1ii).8, 3.4
Verb of movement +
9i.2–3
Verb of movement +
10.4
Use of negative particle
24.2(2x?), 24.4, 24.5
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
24.4
Assimilated nun:
1i.2, 1ii.2
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
2ii.4(first hand), 3.1(?), 3.2, 3.4, 4ii.3, 4ii.4, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5
3.5, 4i.6, 9i.5(2x), 24.3(2x), 24.6
Other notable features:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
9i.3, 9i.3–4, 9i.4–5, 9i.5–6, 9i.7(?), 24.4, 24.5, 24.6
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q542, Testament of Qahat (TQahat)
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:257–82]
Content synopsis and significance: The extant portions of this manuscript purport to record an exhortation of Qahat, son of Levi, which was unknown prior to the Qumran discoveries. Qahat is a relatively minor figure in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Jewish traditions, although the Aramaic Levi Document credits Qahat with a high-priestly pedigree (ALD 12; cf. 4Q245 [psDanc]). The purpose of this composition seems aimed, at least in part, at bolstering the image of Qahat as a member of the priestly genealogy, and as a link between the more important figures of Levi and Aaron (cf. Tigchelaar, “Pseudepigraphy”; Tervanotko, “Trilogy”). As with many other Qumran Aramaic works, this one is written in the first-person voice of Qahat, and is aimed at teaching and admonishing his sons. Amram, in particular, is singled out in 1ii.9, and we find a number of noteworthy verbal, stylistic, and thematic features connecting this composition to the larger Qumran Aramaic corpus. Machiela (“Testament of Qahat”) has argued on material grounds that 4Q542 belongs to the same scroll as 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame), and that the Testament of Qahat may, in fact, be a part of the Visions of Amram. For further discussion of this possibility, see the profile for 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame).
The narrative framing of 4Q542 is one place where we see a connection to the Aramaic Qumran literature more broadly. Many Aramaic texts from Qumran, especially those related to the pre-Mosaic patriarchs, are presented as the first-person speech of a father to his son(s) or grandson(s) in an instructional context (e.g., 1 En. 82.1–3; 83.1–2; 91.1–4; 1Q20 [apGen] 5.20–25; 4Q213 [Levia] 1i.3–6; 4Q543 [Visions of Amrama] 1.1–4). First-person narration is one of the clearest unifying features of this literature, the importance of which has been discussed in a number of studies (Dimant, “Qumran Aramaic,” “Themes”; Tigchelaar, “Pseudepigraphy”; Stuckenbruck, “Pseudepigraphy”; Perrin, “Capturing”). The propensity of these texts to use the first-person voice, combined with their emphasis on the theme of ancestral instruction, has drawn scholars to investigate the relationship of the Aramaic literature from Qumran and the Jewish literary genre of “testament” (Drawnel, “Admonitions”; Dimant “Themes”; Frey, “Testament”). Scholars working in the early years after the Qumran discoveries gave several previously-unknown Aramaic compositions the title “Testament of X” (e.g., 4Q537 [TJacob?], 4Q538 [TJud/Words of Benjamin], and 4Q539 [TJoseph]), based on their similarity to the later Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and related texts. Subsequent scholars noted that the Aramaic texts bearing these titles often do not clearly contain some central features of the later, more developed testamentary genre, such as a death-bed setting. Nevertheless, there is general agreement that some of these compositions very likely served as sources for the later Greek testaments (e.g., the Aramaic Levi Document). Frey concluded that, although not all of the Aramaic compositions should be classified as testaments, we should nevertheless look to the Aramaic works kept at Qumran to understand the origin and development of the later testamentary genre (see also Reed, “Textuality”).
4Q542 explicitly associates Qahat’s teaching with a chain of patriarchal transmission along which knowledge was handed from one generation to the next, beginning with Abraham and continuing down to Qahat and his sons (4Q542 1i.7–12; cf. 4Q214b [Levif] 5–6i; 4Q545 [Visions of Amramc] 3.5; see Dimant, “Themes,” 35). Elsewhere, we see that much of this ancestral teaching ultimately derives from the prediluvian heroes Enoch and Noah (Stone, “Axis”). One means by which Qahat’s teaching was passed on is described in 4Q542 1ii. 9–13, where Qahat entrusts Amram with “all my writings” (
Qahat’s instructions include topics related to the priesthood (1i.13) proper ethical conduct (1ii.6, 8), and the eschatological future (1ii.4–8), all of which appear as common topics and themes in other Aramaic texts from Qumran (e.g., the Aramaic sources of 1 Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the New Jerusalem, the Testament of Jacob?, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Visions of Amram, Daniel, and Four Kingdoms). Qahat implores his children to attend to their “inheritance” while living among “foreigners” (e.g., 1i.4–ii.1), a concern which some have associated with the practice of endogamy (Drawnel, “Admonitions”; Harrington, “Intermarriage”). As pointed out by several scholars, the concern for endogamy is a theme repeated often among the Aramaic texts from Qumran (Eshel, “Marriage”; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context”; Dimant, “Tobit”). We also find a strong dualistic juxtaposition between righteous and wicked conduct, with the associated imagery of light and darkness (2.11–12), another motif common in the Aramaic Qumran scrolls (e.g., the Enoch materials, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Levi Document, and especially the Visions of Amram; see Machiela, “Wisdom”).
The Testament of Qahat shares a number of salient verbal parallels with other texts from among the Aramaic Qumran scrolls, especially the Aramaic Levi Document and the Visions of Amram. These parallels include use of the verbs
Material remains: The remnants of this manuscript consist of three fragments, two of which are made from a combination of smaller fragments joined by Jean Starcky, the manuscript’s original editor (DJD 31:257). The original manuscript had at least four columns (very likely more), based on the right margins preserved on frags. 2 and 3, in addition to those on frag. 1. Fragment 1 is by far the largest of the three, measuring approximately 9.5 by 27 cm and containing the majority of two text columns. The first column is preserved nearly in its entirety, with the exception of a few small pieces missing from the final few lines. It also has preserved upper and lower margins, allowing for an accurate measure of scroll’s original height. Fragments 2 and 3 are significantly smaller. Fragment 2 is slender and curved, preserving parts of only single words on each of its seven lines. Fragment 3 is wider than frag. 2, but has fewer lines. Fragment 3 appears to contain the remnants of two columns, though col. i is attested by only a single complete word.
Notes on provenance: Fragment 3 of 4Q542 is found on the PAM “G series” plate 40.613, and so was among those fragments discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q542 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q542 1
Material: Skin
Script: Early Hasmonean (Puech) semi-formal
Proposed palaeographic date: 125–100 BCE (Puech)
Radiocarbon date: 388–353 BCE (34%); 309–235 BCE (66%) (see Van der Schoor, “Radiocarbon,” with the discussion in Doudna, “Radiocarbon,” 445–46)
Special traits and general comments: Emile Puech described in personal correspondence (Sept. 14, 2019) the rough, thick skin used for this manuscript relative to the higher-quality skins used for the large majority of the Qumran Aramaic corpus. The skin had an unusual hole at 1ii.2 when the text was written in antiquity, as seen by the large space left between the continuous words
Puech proposed that the scribe of this manuscript is also that of 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame) (DJD 31:377), an assessment with which I agree. For more on the scribal affinities between these two manuscripts, and the possibility that they may in fact belong to a single scroll, see the profile for 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame).
Hebraisms abound in this copy, showing lexical, morphological, and semantic influence from Hebrew. As noted by Stadel, many of these cases may be explained through familiarity with biblical usage, though this does not adequately explain every case. The orthography of the scroll falls within the parameters of other Qumran manuscripts, with full spellings predominating: Aleph is employed often (though not always) for the definite article, the fem. noun ending (as opposed to he in most Qumran Aramaic scrolls), and various other prefixes and vowels (e.g.,
The syntactic profile of 4Q542 follows roughly that of 1Q20 (apGen), with a mix of verb-subject and subject-verb constructions, the latter often using a verbal participle. Both constructions are outweighed by those with a verb only, assuming the subject from prior clauses. There is a high concentration of poetic doublets in this text, distinguishing Qahat’s teaching from normal prose and giving his speech the elevated, expressive character of wisdom texts like Proverbs and the instructions of Ahiqar.
Original manuscript quality: Fair
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 209–10; Beyer, ATTME, 82–85; Beyer, ATTM2, 114–17; Cook, “Kohath”; Drawnel, “Admonitions”; Machiela, “Testament of Qahat.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1i.1):
(b) Dittography and subsequent erasure of second word by scraping (1i.2):
(c) Use of final mem in medial position (1i.2 [2x]; cf. 2.1):
(d) Supralinear letter added and possible erasure of second vav by scraping (1i.4):
(e) Supralinear he, according to Puech superimposed over an erased supralinear aleph (1i.4):
(f) Erasure and subsequent corrections by a second hand, from verb +
(g) Erasure of tav by scraping following
(h) Correction of tav (1i.7):
(i) Erasure and overwritten characters from
(j) Possible erasure(s) and subsequent corrections of second letter (1ii.2): Originally
(k) Original supralinear yod later re-inked by second hand (1ii.7)
(l) Scribal “paragraph” mark in margin (1ii.9; at far right edge)
(m) Aleph overwritten with he and deletion dots for lamed of following word (1ii.10)
(n) Corection in second hand of pronominal suffix from
(o) According to Puech,
(p) Vertical insertion of text in right margin (frag. 3)
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1i.5, 1i.12, 1ii.8
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1ii.2, 1ii.3, 1ii.9(part.), 1ii.10(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.1(2x), 1i.2, 1i.3, 1i.5, 1i.6(2x), 1i.7(2x), 1i.10, 1i.11, 1i.12, 1i.13, 1ii.1, 1ii.5, 1ii.11, 1ii.12
Verbless clause:
1i.2, 1i.3, 2.13(?)
Use of negative particle
1i.5
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1i.8–9, 1ii.3–4(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1i.8
1i.4 (corrected from aphel)
1i.4, 1ii.13
Object suffix on verb:
1i.1, 1i.2, 1i.13, 1ii.1
Assimilated nun:
1i.5
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1i.1, 1i.2, 1i.10
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1ii.9, 1ii.10
3ii.12
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
]
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
1i.2–3, 1i.5–6, 1i.7–8, 1i.8–9, 1i.10, 1i.10–11, 1i.13–1ii.1
4Q543, Visions of Amrama
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:289–318]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of at least five copies of a composition known only from Qumran, referred to as the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547 [Visions of Amrama–e], possibly with 4Q548–549 [Visions of Amramf–g]). The composition centers on the activities of Levi’s grandson, Amram, the eponymous protagonist of the text. This copy of the Visions contains a rare opening superscription, which presents the document as a written copy of a first-person speech that Amram recounted to his children near the time of his death: “A copy of the words of visions of Amram son of Qahat son of Levi, all that he explained to his children and commanded them on the day of his death” (4Q543 1a–c.1–2; cf. 4Q545 [Visions of Amramc] 1ai.1–2). On the basis of this superscription, scholars have considered whether the Visions of Amram should be understood as an early example of the Jewish genre of “testament,” known especially from the later Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (cf. Frey, “Testament”; Reed, “Textuality”). The first-person narrative voice of the Visions of Amram demonstrates its affinity with a large number of the Aramaic texts from Qumran, many of which purport to record the first-person speech of venerable figures from Israel’s past (e.g., the Aramaic sources of 1 Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Testament of Jacob?, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Testament of Qahat, and Tobit). On this phenomenon, see Tigchelaar (“Pseudepigraphy”), Stuckenbruck (“Pseudepigraphy”), and Perrin (“Tobit’s Context”). The Visions of Amram also shares a number of features in common with a smaller group of Aramaic works, especially those related to the Levitical family (Aramaic Levi Document and Testament of Qahat). Beginning with Milik (“4Q Visions”), several scholars have suggested that these three texts comprise a “priestly trilogy” (Drawnel, “Admonitions”) or “trilogy of testaments” (Tervanotko, “Trilogy”) due to the fact that they “are connected stylistically, thematically, and linguistically” (Tervanotko, “Trilogy”; cf. Puech, “Qahat”; DJD 31:257–75).
4Q543 is a relatively poorly-preserved copy of the Visions of Amram, but it does contain a portion of the composition’s superscription and opening scene, which can be partially reconstructed with the help of 4Q545 (Visions of Amramc) and 4Q546 (Visions of Amramd). Fragment 1a–c records the date of Amram’s farewell speech, his one hundred thirty-sixth year, in the one hundred fifty-second year of Israel’s exile in Egypt (lines 2–4). It also recounts Amram’s arrangement of his daughter Miriam’s marriage to his brother Uzziel (lines 4–6), and the subsequent wedding banquet (lines 6–7). The focus on endogamy in this passage has drawn the attention of a number of scholars (Loader, Sexuality, 324–26; Tervanotko, “The Hope”; Tervanotko, “Ideal Marriages”). Endogamy is also an important theme later in the Visions of Amram, in the context of its description of Amram’s marriage to his aunt Jochebed. Interestingly, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages are prohibited in several Second Temple texts, including some from Qumran (4QHalakha A [4Q251] 17.3–5; 4QTemple Scrollb [4Q524] 15–22.3–4; 11QTemple Scrolla [11Q19] 66.15–17; and the Damascus Document [CD] 5.7–11). For a discussion of the importance of endogamy as a motif in the Aramaic Scrolls more broadly, see Eshel (“Proper,” “Marriage”), Perrin (“Tobit’s Context”), and Dimant (“Tobit”). 4Q543 also contains fragmentary portions of a few other passages from the Visions of Amram, on which see the profiles of the additional copies of the text, below.
Material remains: This manuscript consists of forty-six fragments, most of which are only tiny scraps and contain little more than a few letters, words, or phrases. Several fragments are somewhat more substantial, though none is larger than a standard playing card. 4Q543 overlaps with four other Visions of Amram manuscripts: 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb; at 4Q543 3; 4; 5–9; 14), 4Q545 (Visions of Amramc; at 4Q543 1 a, b, c; 2a–b; 3), 4Q546 (Visions of Amramd; at 4Q543 1 a, b, c; 3; 15), and 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame; at 4Q543 4; 5–9). Fragment 1a–c contains a significant portion of the right and upper margins. Margins are also found on frags. 4 and 15, though the manuscript’s poor state of preservation does not allow us to say anything about the scroll’s original overall dimensions, or those of its columns.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q543 (e.g., frag. 5) were photographed on the PAM “G series” plate 40.620, and so are part of the lot of fragments discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified several fragments included on the “E series” PAM plates 40.978 (frags. 1c, 23, 33) and 40.979 (1b, 2b, 45), associated with the official excavations of Cave 4 led by de Vaux in 1952. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 5Q543 1a–c
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–100 BCE, perhaps around 125 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The beginning of this manuscript is partially preserved, and we can see from the clear evidence of stitching at the right edge of the first preserved sheet (frags. 1a–c) that another one preceded it. This must have been either a blank cover sheet or a sheet containing part of another composition. Of these two options, I find the former more likely, since we know of blank cover (or handle) sheets for other Qumran scrolls (e.g., 1QIsaa, 1QS, and 1QHa; see also the end of 11QTa). An alternative method to an entire blank sheet was to leave a part of the initial sheet blank, placing the first column of writing part-way through it (as with 4Q571 [Words of Michaela] and 1QM). Margins and line spacing fall toward the larger end of the spectrum for our manuscripts. The script of 4Q543 is also relatively large, and the scribe spaced words generously. The evenness of the line spacing supports Puech’s claim that script guidelines were used, even though they are no longer visible on the available images. Vacats seem to have been used regularly to signal minor narrative progressions. Orthography and morphology are generally typical for the Qumran Aramaic texts, with noteworthy features being a possible haphel verb form at 28.2 and what appears to be the long form of the 2ms suffix at 19.1.
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 9–34.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
16.2(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
5–9.4(2x), 5–9.7(part.), 15.1(?), 32.1
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
5–9.6
Verbless clause:
5–9.7 (understanding
Object early in clause:
5–9.6, 16.2(?)
Verb of movement +
15.1(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
28.2(?)
Assimilated nun:
4.3, 28.1
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
19.1(?)
15.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q544, Visions of Amramb
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:319–29]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript represents one of at least five copies of a composition known only from the Qumran finds, referred to as the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547 [Visions of Amrama–e], possibly with 4Q548–549 [Visions of Amramf–g]). The preserved portions of 4Q544 contain an account of the events that transpired during Amram’s journey from Egypt to Canaan, of which we hear nothing in Exodus. In frag. 1 we learn that Amram and a group, which included his father Qahat and a number of other Israelites, traveled to Canaan in order to build family tombs. (On burial as an important indicator of piety in both the Visions of Amram and Tobit, see Goldman, “Burial”). The theme of rebuilding ancestral tombs as part of the city of Jerusalem also appears in the late Persian-period Neh 2:1–5, which uses language similar to the Visions of Amram. Before Amram’s building project is complete, the group hears rumor of a coming war between Philistia and Egypt, causing them to return to Egypt. Amram, however, stays behind to complete the work. A border closure resulting from the war leaves Amram stranded in Canaan for forty-one years, during which time he longs for his wife Jochebed, but points out that he refrained from taking another wife from among the nations. Here, as we see elsewhere in the Aramaic literature from Qumran, endogamy is an important indicator of personal piety and faithfulness to one’s Israelite identity (see Eshel, “Marriage”; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context”; Tervanotko, “Ideal Marriages”; Dimant, “Tobit”). For more on the relationship between Amram and Jochebed, see the profile for 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama). Fragment 1 ends with a fascinating dream-vision seen by Amram. The vision is lengthy, continuing in frags. 2–3, and tells of two opposed “judges” – presumably angelic spiritual beings – who have “a great dispute” over Amram. The two beings represent the two paths of righteousness and wickedness. Language of light and darkness features prominently in the dream-vision, with one of the judges ruling over the light and the other ruling over the darkness. This theme has led to discussions about the place of the Visions of Amram in the development of Jewish dualistic thinking and its relation to those Qumran sectarian texts using similar light/darkness imagery, such as the War Scroll (1QM) and the Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3–4) (cf. Goldman, “Dualism”; Perrin, “Dualism”). The use of light/darkness imagery characterizes a significant number of the Aramaic texts from Qumran (the Aramaic sources of 1 Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Apocryphon of Levi?, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Testament of Qahat). In these texts, the motifs of light and darkness function as a way to distinguish between righteousness and wickedness in ethical, cosmological, and eschatological contexts. Several scholars have also speculated as to the identity of the two angelic beings in Amram’s vision, especially the judge who rules over the realm of light. His name is not preserved in the extant manuscript, but he has often been identified with Melchizedek due to the fact that his opposite is identified clearly in the text as Melchiresha (
Material remains: Three fragments comprise what remains of this manuscript. Fragment 1 is quite large and well-preserved, containing an upper and right margin, as well as parts of fourteen lines. Parallels with material from 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama), 545 (Visions of Amramc), 546 (Visions of Amramd), and 547 (Visions of Amrame) allow us to reconstruct even more of this fragment’s original content. The stitching visible on its right margin also indicates that this fragment begins a new sheet. Fragment 2 is much smaller, but preserves portions of six lines and a bottom margin. Fragment 3 is the smallest by far, preserving only a few words. It does, however, contain a full upper margin.
Provenance: Some fragments of 4Q544 (e.g., 2 and the right half of 1) were photographed on the PAM “G series” plates 40.609 and 40.617, having been discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q544 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q544 1, 3 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-formal with some semi-cursive features (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–100 BCE, perhaps ca. 125 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This is a very well-executed manuscript with a small, tidy script, a generally high level of consistency in spacing, and the use of small vacats to indicate minor pauses or shifts in the narrative. Margins are fairly large and uniform and there are no extant corrections, indicating a skilled copyist. Word spaces are exceptionally large, regularly reaching 3 and sometimes even 4 mm.
Despite the generally high quality of the manuscript and scribal work, the scribe of this copy had several idiosyncratic spelling practices in comparison with the larger Qumran Aramaic corpus. The letters aleph and he are freely interchanged at the end of words (e.g.,
Overall manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Vivions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 9–34.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.1(?), 1.5
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.4(part.), 1.4, 2.15(part.), 2.15(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
2.15(?, part.)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1.8
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.3, 1.6, 1.9(2x), 1.10(part.), 1.11(part.), 1.11, 1.12, 2.12, 2.13, 3.1, 3.2(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.8, 3.1
Verbless clause:
1.10, 1.11(?), 1.13(2x), 1.14, 2.12, 2.14, 2.16
Object early in clause:
1.8
Use of
1.3, 1.10
Verb of movement +
1.9
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1.6
Lexical items:
Morphology:
3.1
Object suffix on verb:
3.1(?)
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
1.1
4Q545, Visions of Amramc
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:331–49]
Content synopsis and significance: Like 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama) and 546 (Visions of Amramd), 4Q545 preserves the beginning of the Visions of Amram, including the introductory superscription and the subsequent marriage of Miriam to Uzziah. Unlike any of the other Visions of Amram manuscripts, however, 4Q545 records what happens immediately after the wedding of Miriam and her paternal uncle. Following seven days of celebration, Amram summons his son Aaron, who is instructed to fetch a figure called
Material remains: Twelve fragments remain of this manuscript, of which only frags. 1 and 4 exceed the size of a typical postage stamp. Frags. 10, 11, and 12 are tiny scraps of skin, preserving only a few letters each. The large majority of the preserved material comes from the two columns of frag. 1, which itself comprises two fragments (a and b), the second of which is much smaller than the first. The remnants of this fragment include parts of both the upper and the lower margins, demonstrating that this sheet contained nineteen lines of text with a column height of over 14 cm. The text of frag. 1 is quite poorly preserved, but the parallels that it shares with 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama), 544 (Visions of Amramb), and 546 (Visions of Amramd) allow us to reconstruct some of its contents with confidence, including the superscription in lines 1–4. Fragment 4 preserves considerably less text than frag. 1, but its seven lines contain an interesting section of the Visions of Amram not extant elsewhere in the Qumran fragments.
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q545 1 on the early PAM “E series” plate 40.965. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining fragments of 4Q545 in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q545 1a–b
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE, favoring 67–33 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The preparation of this manuscript included full ruling of the script lines and column limits on both sides, including guide dots at the beginning and end of sheets. Close examination of the fragments reveals that the bottom margin is likely not fully preserved on frags. 1a or 1b. It may be that the full height of this margin was around 1.2–1.3 cm, as on frags. 2, 4, 6, and 8. However, as Puech noted, frag. 8 contains clear evidence of an unused ruled line between the last line of writing and what appears to be the bottom of the scroll. Were this empty line to contain writing, the bottom margin would be exceptionally small, around 4–5 mm. Puech thought that the blank spaces at the bottom of frags. 2, 4, 6, and 8 may be vacats, but I find it more likely that the scribe simply left this line blank in all columns of this sheet (or perhaps the entire scroll) in order to leave a more reasonably-sized bottom margin. In either case the bottom margin is notably small relative to the broader corpus. The top margin is claimed by Puech to be 1.8 cm (DJD 31:331), though we have only 8 mm preserved on frag. 1a. The top edge of the fragment is quite obviously torn in the images, and the original margin was certainly larger than 8 mm. Judging by the evidence available, the intercolumnar margins were quite narrow, around 1.1 cm on frags. 1a and 3, though the latter is measured to the seam at the beginning of a new sheet, meaning that the overall intercolumnar margin here likely would have been in the range of 1.5–2 cm. The stitching holes can still be seen on frag. 3, along with the guide dots for the horizontal ruling. As with the intercolumnar margins, the columns are relatively narrow, roughly half the width of those in 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb). The height of 4Q545 falls around the middle of the spectrum for those manuscripts with a full height preserved in the corpus. It is slightly taller than 4Q112 (Dana) or 11Q10 (Job), but considerably shorter than the largest manuscripts, such as 1Q20 (apGen), 4Q202 (Enb), and 4Q204 (Enc). An incomplete 2.4 cm area of uninscribed skin precedes the first column of frag. 1a. This is a much larger distance than would be expected to the stitched seam of a preceding, blank cover sheet (as on 4Q543 [Visions of Amrama]), suggesting instead that one or more blank columns were left at the start of the manuscript, as on 4Q571 (Words of Michaela) and 1QM.
The scribe of 4Q545 wrote in a very neat, square, upright script, with words spaced quite compactly (cf. the much more open spacing of 4Q544 [Visions of Amramb]). Vacats were clearly used, though their size and the nature of their narrative function is for the most part not clear. Some of them seem to have been quite large (at least 3.3 cm at 4.19). The orthography, morphology, and syntax adopted by the scribe is generally in keeping with the broader Qumran Aramaic corpus. Aphel and Ithpael verb forms were used in what little text is preserved, and this scribe preferred the long form of the 2ms suffix (
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 9–34.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ai.7–8, 1a–bii.15(?), 1a–bii.16, 1a–bii.17(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
4.18
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ai.4, 1ai.5, 1ai.6, 1ai.7(2x), 1ai.8, 1ai.9(?), 1ai.10, 1a–bii.11, 1a–bii.12(?), 1a–bii.17(?), 4.14, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 7.1
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
6.3
Verbless clause:
1ai.3, 7.1
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1ai.3, 1a–bii.17
Verb of movement +
1ai.4(?)
Verb of movement +
1a–bii.16
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ai.7
1ai.7
Assimilated nun:
1a–bii.18
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1ai.14, 4.14, 4.16
1a–bii.14
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q546, Visions of Amramd
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:351–74]
Content synopsis and significance: This copy of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547 [Visions of Amrama–e], possibly with 4Q548–549 [Visions of Amramf–g]) consists mostly of small fragments, the context and content of which are difficult to discern. However, several of the fragments provide important details that give insight into the composition as a whole. For example, frag. 12 contains a reference to the “mystery of Miriam” (
Material remains: This manuscript consists of twenty-five small, relatively poorly-preserved fragments, very few of which contain any more than four or five lines of text. Frags. 1, 2, 4, and 6 have clear parallels with other Visions of Amram manuscripts (i.e., 4Q543 [Visions of Amrama], 544 [Visions of Amramb], 545 [Visions of Amramc]). The manuscript’s poor state of preservation prevents us from getting a sense of its original dimensions, but a number of its fragments contain sizeable upper, lower, and intercolumnar margins.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q546 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q546 2, 14 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean formal hand, with some semi-cursive influence (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 67–33 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: If Puech is approximately correct in his reconstruction, this was a relatively tall scroll, nearly the same height as the better-preserved 4Q204 (Enc). Margins are toward the more generous end of the spectrum relative to the overall corpus, and we possess part of the beginning of a new sheet (including the flax thread) on frag. 14. The layout of the manuscript included guide dots, as seen clearly on frag. 14. These dots are spaced quite regularly at around 6 mm, and most written lines are also spaced at 6–7 mm. There does occasionally seem to be larger variation in line spacing, though it should be kept in mind that the leather has become shrunken and contorted in places. Horizontal ruling for writing was used, but there does not appear to be vertical column ruling. The absence of these lines is supported by the irregular distance of where the scribe began writing lines relative to the right side of the column on frag. 14. The scribe was very capable, but wrote in a less tidy script than we find in some of the highest-quality manuscripts. There are no scribal mistakes on the preserved fragments, and the scribe apparently used sizeable vacats. Puech’s proposed vacats on frags. 3.2 and 15.1–4 are quite uncertain, and for this reason I have not measured an intercolumnar margin at the right side of frag. 15. The only sure vacats are at 15.5 and 24.2, in uncertain narrative contexts. One minor scribal idiosyncrasy on this copy is the use of a medial kaph as the final letter of
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 9–34.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Large medial mem in bottom margin (frag. 9)
(b) Medial kaph used in final position (frag. 14.3)
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.3, 9.2(?), 12.2(part.; ?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2.2, 3.3(?), 4.1(?), 4.3(2x), 8.4, 9.3(?), 12.3(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
12.4(?)
Verbless clause:
4.2, 11.3(?)
Object early in clause:
12.4(?)
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Verb of movement +
9.6(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
2.3, 4.3
Assimilated nun:
2.4
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
14.2
Orthography/Phonology:
10.1(?)
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q547, Visions of Amrame
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:375–90]
Content synopsis and significance: This is the last of the numbered manuscripts identified with certainty as a copy the Visions of Amram, the identifications of 4Q548 (Visions of Amramf) and 4Q549 (Visions of Amramg) being debated by scholars. 4Q547 is very fragmentary and contains little overlapping material with the other Visions of Amram copies. The absence of context for most fragments makes it is difficult to interpret the contents of this copy, though several of the fragments contain phrases that aid in our understanding of the larger composition. For example, some of the fragments apparently focus on the cultic activities of Amram’s ancestors. Fragment 5 appears to have a reference to Noah in close proximity to the verb
Building on Puech’s observation (DJD 31:377) that the same scribe wrote 4Q547 and 4Q542 (TQahat) I have argued (Machiela, “Testament of Qahat”) that these two manuscripts are, in fact, part of the same scroll (see further below, under Special traits and general comments). I also made the additional suggestion that the Testament of Qahat, which hitherto has been considered an independent literary work, may have originally been part of the Visions of Amram. This would, in turn, reshape somewhat our conceptions of both the Testament of Qahat and the Visions of Amram, showing that the latter text has a section in which the first-person narration of Amram includes a secondary layer of first-person instruction by Qahat. A very similar situation is found in the Aramaic Levi Document, where Levi’s grandfather Isaac gives a long sub-discourse on cultic matters in the first-person voice.
Material remains: Nine fragments are all that remain of this manuscript, the first three of which overlap with other copies of the Visions of Amram. Of the other six fragments, only frag. 9 contains any significant amount of running text. It is possible that both the upper and lower margins are preserved on this fragment, which would attest to a column height of twelve lines and roughly 7 cm. However, the presence of the upper margin is uncertain. Fragment 5 has a fairly sizable left margin with remains of the stitching between two sheets still preserved. Some of the other fragments may also have preserved margins, but it is often not clear whether these are margins or vacats.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q547 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented. If 4Q547 does belong to the same scroll as 4Q542 (TQahat), as I believe it does, then the presence of 4Q542 (TQahat) 3 on the PAM “G series” plate 40.613 is also of relevance for 4Q547.
Sample image: 4Q547 9
Material: Skin
Script: Early Hasmonean (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–100 BCE (Puech)
Radiocarbon date: If 4Q547 and 4Q542 (TQahat) are parts of a single scroll, the radiocarbon date for 4Q542 (TQahat) would also apply to 4Q547.
Special traits and general comments: If Puech’s reconstructions are correct, this was a relatively small manuscript in terms of its height. A reconstruction of column heights, containing twelve to thirteen lines of text, depends mainly on the relative placement of frags. 1–2, considered alongside frag. 9. Supporting evidence for such a reconstruction is not completely absent, but it is meager. Margins are small, and the use of script lines are indicated by Puech, though they cannot be seen on the available images. The erratic spacing of the lines does make one wonder if they were, indeed, used. There is a rare manuscript repair on frag. 5, where a 3 cm diagonal tear in the skin that started at the seam between two sheets (toward the bottom half of the column) has been sewn back together. Given the placement of the tear’s beginning near the middle of the sheet, it seems likely that it was made before the sheets were sewn, and that the repair was made when the scroll was first being assembled.
Puech proposed that the scribe of 4Q547 is the same as that who wrote 4Q542 (TQahat), and I completely agree with his assessment. The similarity is seen not only in the untidy scribal hand, but also in other scribal habits. For example, in both manuscripts we find full spellings of the long /i/ vowel with aleph (e.g.,
The similarities between 4Q547 and 4Q542 (TQahat) extend beyond the scribal hand alone, as I have argued elsewhere (Machiela, “Testament of Qahat”). If Puech’s estimate of the lines per column in 4Q547 is correct, this is precisely the same number as found in 4Q542 (TQahat). In almost every other respect the manuscripts are closely comparable. They are written on similarly colored and tanned skins, with the hair follicle grain moving in the same direction (horizontally from lower left to upper right), and all of the measurements (margins, line spacing, etc.) are quite similar. The one possible exception to this trend is the use of horizontal script ruling in 4Q547, but not 4Q542 (TQahat). However, as mentioned above, this trait can be questioned for both scrolls. When combined with Puech’s observation that the scrolls share the same scribe, the striking similarity in manuscript size and execution raises the possibility that both 4Q542 (TQahat) and 4Q547 are, in fact, parts of one and the same scroll. In this case, we could then understand the speech from Qahat in 4Q542 (TQahat) to be either a distinct work included on the same manuscript as the Visions of Amram, or a sub-section of the larger Visions of Amram narrative. The latter possibility is quite plausible when we consider that the Aramaic Levi Document incorporates a long speech by Levi’s father Isaac, teaching cultic regulations associated with Levi’s election to the priesthood. In the Aramaic Levi, Isaac’s speech proceeds in the first-person voice after a third-person introduction by Levi. We also find serial narratives in the first-person voice in other Aramaic works, like the Genesis Apocryphon and Tobit.
Original manuscript quality: Fair
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 9–34; Machiela, “Testament of Qahat.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:10
(a) Supralinear word added: [
(b) Possible scribal dots between columns (frag. 4)
(c) Manuscript repair by stitching (frag. 5)
(d) Possible cancellation dots under and over final two characters (6.2):
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
9.8
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
8.2, 9.6
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1–2.12(part.; ?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1–2.8, 1–2.9, 1–2.10(part.; ?), 6.5, 8.3(?), 9.9
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
3.1, 3.3, 9.7, 9.10
Object early in clause:
3.1, 8.2, 9.7, 9.8
Use of
8.3
Verb of movement +
1–2.5, 1–2.8
Lexical items:
Morphology:
6.2
3.5(?)
9.8
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms verbal affix
9.11
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
8.3
9.10
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q548, Visions of Amramf
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:391–98]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript has often been treated as a copy of the Visions of Amram (with 4Q543–547 [Visions of Amrama–e] and possibly 4Q549 [Visions of Amramg]), though scholars disagree over the certainty of this identification. Puech tentatively associates 4Q548 with the other Visions of Amram manuscripts in his editio princeps, though he notes that this or any other proposal about the identity of 4Q548 is made “sans certitude en l’absence de recoupement avec les autres exemplaires” (DJD 31:392; see also the earlier suggestions of Milik along these lines “4Q Visions,” “Écrits”; cf. Puech, “Fragments”). For arguments against identifying 4Q548 with the Visions of Amram, see Duke (Social Location, 35–42) and Goldman (“Dualism”). The preserved sections of the scroll contain the first-person address of an individual to a plural “you.” Taking into account the broader context of the Aramaic literature found at Qumran, it seems very likely that the speaker is one of the ancestors of Genesis or Exodus addressing his sons about their future conduct and the course of human history. This preview of history appears to culminate in a scene of eschatological judgment for the righteous and wicked at 1ii–2.13–14, though the text is fragmentary. One of the most striking features of this manuscript’s contents is its way of dividing people into two, opposed groups, “the children of light” (
Material remains: Three fragments are assigned to this manuscript in Puech’s editio princeps. Parts of two columns are preserved in frag. 1, though what remains of the first column amounts only to traces of one or two letters. Column ii appears to come from the same column as that of frag. 2, as Puech’s placement and reconstruction suggest. When combined, these two fragments (1ii–2) are the primary witnesses to this manuscript. Fragment 3 is tiny, and contains only two complete words. Puech is uncertain as to whether frag. 3 even belongs to the same manuscript as frags. 1–2 (DJD 31:391). Fragment 1ii–2 presently contains sixteen lines, though the absence of upper and lower margins prevents us from knowing its original size. The column as preserved is just over 9.5 cm in height, and at least the same in width if Puech’s reconstruction is accepted.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q548 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q548 1–2
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal, with some semi-cursive influence (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This well-prepared manuscript appears to have been finished without horizontal ruling for the script, though a fairly clear, dry-ruled line for the right side of a column is preserved on frag. 1. The same fragment contains an intercolumnar margin that is average in size for the corpus, at 1.3 cm. The absence of script ruling is confirmed by the relatively erratic line spacing on the extant fragments. The last two lines of frag. 2 (15–16) are placed particularly far apart (9 mm), raising some question of whether a blank line may have been left between them. Though placed far apart, the distance does not appear to be quite large enough to accommodate an empty line, and so Puech is likely correct to consider them to be successive, without a vacat. This position gains strong support from frag. 1, which was presumably the basis for Puech’s decision. It may be that line 16 was the last of the column, and that for this reason (along with the absence of ruled guidelines) the scribe gradually strayed downward relative to the preceding line as he wrote. The scribe wrote in a practiced hand, somewhat less tidy than in the best manuscripts. The orthography is not especially full, but occasionally a full spelling is found, as when the long /i/ vowel was spelled with an aleph in
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 35–42.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) According to Puech, partial erasure and correction of word (1ii.6):
(b) Attempted erasure by scraping with added cancellation dot (2.9): {
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1ii–2.9(part.), 1ii–2.9, 1ii–2.11
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1ii–2.9(part.), 1ii–2.9–10, 1ii–2.10, 1ii–2.11, 1ii–2.12–13, 1ii–2.14
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii–2.14
Verbless clause:
1ii–2.12(2x)
Object early in clause:
1ii–2.9
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ii–2.14, 1ii–2.15(?)
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1ii–2.11
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
The possible Hebraisms discussed by Stadel (Hebraismen, 63) are based on incorrect readings in Beyer’s transcriptions, corrected by Puech in DJD 31.
Poetic doublets/triplets:
1ii–2.9(?)
4Q549, Visions of Amramg?
[ed. Puech, DJD 31:399–405]
Content synopsis and significance: Like 4Q548 (Visions of Amramf), Puech grouped this scroll with those representing the Visions of Amram (i.e., 4Q543–549 [Visions of Amrama–g]) in his editio priceps. However, scholars disagree as to whether 4Q549 actually represents a copy of this composition, since it does not overlap with any of the preserved portions of 4Q543–547 (Visions of Amrama–e) or 4Q548 (Visions of Amramf). Duke (Social Location, 35–42) and Goldman (“Dualism”) represent those who doubt the identification of 4Q549 with the Visions of Amram, while Puech (DJD 31:399–400), White Crawford (“Traditions”), and Tervanotko (“Trilogy”) take the opposite position. For a helpful summary of the reasons for viewing 4Q549 as copy of the Visions of Amram, see Tervanotko (“Trilogy,” 42–44). Fragment 1 contains very little text, but we do find a reference to Egypt (
Material remains: 4Q549 comprises two fragments, the first of which is no larger than a small coin and preserves only a few, isolated words. Fragment 2 is considerably larger, containing portions of at least eleven lines. There is some question as to whether the bottom of the fragment preserves a lower margin or a vacat, given the size of the vacat in the middle of the fragment. The right side of frag. 2 also preserves part of an intercolumnar margin.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q549 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q549 2
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian round semi-formal, with some lingering traits of Hasmonean style (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: What little remains of this manuscript suggests good, competently-done work. The one, preserved intercolumnar margin is on the small side among the extant Aramaic manuscripts, and what Puech takes to be a bottom margin following 2.9 is, in fact, small enough simply to be an empty space between successive lines. If it is the bottom margin of the column, it does not seem to be fully preserved. A number of the measurements (e.g., line spacing and vacats) for the scroll should be taken as approximate, due to the significant puckering and wrinkling of the manuscript on the bottom portion of frag. 2. The scribe wrote in a script that varied significantly in size, something seen clearly in the word
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “4Q Visions”; Beyer, ATTM1, 210–14; Beyer, ATTME, 85–93; Beyer, ATTM2, 117–25; Drawnel, “Initial Narrative”; Duke, Social Location, 35–42.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.1, 2.2(?), 2.9
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2.10(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2.3(?), 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Morphology:
2.3, 2.8, 2.10
Object suffix on verb:
2.3
Orthography/Phonology:
2.8
3 The Assyrian to Persian Exiles
4Q196, papTobita (papToba)
[ed. Fitzmyer, DJD 19:7–39]
Content synopsis and significance: The most extensively preserved of the Qumran Tobit copies, 4Q196 contains a significant number of fragmentary passages from the book previously known only from the Greek and later versions. These include portions of the Ahiqar story near the beginning of the book, Sarah’s dilemma and prayer, the journey of Tobiah and Azariah toward Ecbatana, Tobiah’s arrival at Raguel and Edna’s house, Azariah’s self-revelation as Raphael, Tobit’s final instructions and prayer, and the book’s conclusion in Tob 14. This wide range of passages from Tobit shows that 4Q196 contained most, and very likely all, of the book as we know it from the later Greek versions, particularly the longer Greek translation (GII). The presence of Tobit’s discourse at the end of 4Q196 (Tob 14) is of special importance for helping to resolve a source-critical debate, since prior to the Qumran discoveries many had considered this section of the book to be a secondary addition in the Greek and other recensions. While this is technically still possible at a stage that preceded the Qumran copies, the likelihood of the chapter being part of the book’s original composition increases significantly with its presence in 4Q196. Most now consider it to have been a part of Tobit’s earliest compositional stages.
There are definitely four, and perhaps as many as six, Aramaic copies of Tobit discovered at Qumran, depending on how one judges the cases of 3Q14 4 and the papyrus fragment that is part of the Martin Schøyen Collection in Oslo, Norway (Schøyen Tobit; MS 5234). For the former manuscript, the identification of which is far from certain, see the profile in this volume. The provenance and genuineness of the latter has come under intense scrutiny since its publication by Hallermayer and Elgvin (“Tobit-Fragment”), who originally considered it to be another fragment of 4Q196 and labelled it 4Q196a. However, the fact that the word beginning the first line of the Schøyen fragment (
The book of Tobit shares a number of broad themes, literary type scenes, and more specific idioms with other Aramaic texts kept at Qumran. These resemblances have been catalogued by scholars such as Nickelsburg (“Tobit,” “Mixed Ancestry”), Dimant (“Tobit”), Eshel (“Proper”), Machiela (“Hebrew of Tobit”), Machiela and Perrin (“Family Portrait”), and Perrin (“Tobit’s Context”). Many of these connections can be seen only with recourse to the Greek translations, especially the GII, because of the fragmentary state of the Qumran copies. Some of the relevant passages, however, are partially present in 4Q196. Fragment 2 contains the account of Tobit’s service in the Assyrian royal court, along with mention of his nephew Ahiqar’s high position. This portion of Tobit bears a resemblance to several other “court tales” written in Aramaic, such as the tales of Daniel 2–6, the Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243–244), the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), Jews at the Persian Court (4Q550), and the augmented story of Abram and Sarai in the Pharaoh’s court in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). Such tales were clearly a prominent, popular part of Hellenistic-period Jewish Aramaic literature. The story of Sarah’s marital dilemma with the demon Asmodeus and her eventual marriage to Tobias, parts of which are preserved in 4Q196 6 and 13–15, has clear literary connections to the rewritten story of Abram, Sarai, and the Pharaoh in the Genesis Apocryphon (see Machiela and Perrin, “Family Portrait”). Tobit’s ethically-charged wisdom address to Tobias (4Q196 8–10) is similar to ethical wisdom discourses by Noah in the Genesis Apocryphon, Isaac and Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document, and Enoch in the Epistle of Enoch (see Machiela, “Hebrew of Tobit”). Finally, Tobit’s description of Jerusalem in 4Q196 18 shares several details with the New Jerusalem text. Because Tobit was found in Aramaic at Qumran, we are now able to identify and reflect upon the book’s place in the broader corpus of Aramaic writings from the Second Temple period.
Material remains: We possess forty-nine fragments of 4Q196, only nineteen of which Fitzmyer was able to identify solidly with passages from Tobit. The remaining thirty fragments are so small as to be unidentifiable, often containing only a few partial letters or a single word. Fragment 2 is by far the largest of this copy, from which we can determine the height of the manuscript and its columns. Fragments 6, 14, 17, and 18 also containing a considerable amount of preserved text. Passages identified (often only partially) in the fragments are Tob 1:17; 1:19–2:3; 2:10–11; 3:5, 9–15, 17; 4:2, 5, 7; 4:21–5:1; 5:9; 6:6–8, 13–18; 6:18–7:6; 7:13; 12:1; 12:18–13:6; 13:6–12; 13:12–14:3; and 14:7.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q196 were photographed on the early PAM “G series,” plates PAM 40.600, 40.630, 40.631, and 40.632. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified a number of fragments (at times only partial) included on the “E series” PAM plates 40.974 (frags. 9, 11, 12, 34) and 40.977 (frags. 9, 14, 29), associated with the official excavations of Cave 4 led by de Vaux, also in 1952. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q196 2, 18
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photos: Shai Halevi
Material: Papyrus
Script: Late Hasmonean semi-formal (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: This is the only preserved papyrus copy of Tobit from Qumran, unless the Schøyen MS 5234 is proved to be genuine (see above), in which case there would be two papyrus copies. 4Q196 is of estimable quality for a papyrus manuscript, with fairly generous spacing and a well-trained scribal hand. However, it lacks some traits of the better skin manuscripts, such as vacats to indicate sense divisions in the text, the evenness of spacing provided by scribal guidelines, and distinct spacing between words. In fact, the text of 4Q196 is effectively written scripta continua in some places. The scribe also made mistakes quite regularly, such as forgetting an obvious letter. Fitzmyer suggested the presence of one, small vacat in 13.2, but close investigation shows that this is far from certain; in reality, no definite cases can be identified in the preserved fragments. A few scribal features are notable: First, we find a “hooked” insertion mark for an added, supralinear word in 6.8, something that is very rare in the Qumran manuscripts (Tov, Scribal Practices, 203). Second, the vertical line used to strike through, and thereby cancel, a letter in 2.2 (likely a kaph, cf. 13.1) is also uncommon in the Qumran scrolls. The mark is found elsewhere in only two skin manuscripts, also written in Aramaic (4Q530 [EnGiantsb] 2ii.1 and 4Q213a [Levib] 3–4.6). For each of these corrections only a single letter is cancelled by the line (horizontal lines are used for two or more letters), with the more expected way to make such cancellations being dots above and/or below the letter in question (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen] 5.9). Third, the scribe of 4Q196 had the singular practice of replacing the divine name
Close examination of the script and spacing of 4Q196 suggests that there may, in fact, be either two manuscripts, or two scribal hands within a single manuscript, represented in the fragments assigned by Milik to 4Q196 and subsequently adopted by Fitzmyer. Fragments 2, 6, and 14i are representative of a group that tends to have larger letter size, more even line spacing (around 6 mm), and employs a cursive tav and relatively “straight” final nun. In contrast, fragments 17–18 have less even spacing and letter size, using the formal (or monumental) tav and a more “hooked” final nun. Milik did not designate these fragments as a single manuscript without reason, since many of the letters are indeed very similar across the group, and the variation in spacing is not necessarily outside the acceptable range of variation in a manuscript written by one scribe. It is certainly possible that all fragments are the work of a single scribe. Although it is rare, we do find manuscripts that have a mixed orthography for tav, switching back and forth between cursive and formal forms of that letter (e.g., 4Q550 [Jews at the Persian Court], 4Q553 [Four Kingdomsb], and 4Q553a [Four Kingdomsc]). However, in these cases the two forms are not generally grouped into large, consistent bunches, as in our fragments, but vary more frequently and inconsistently. While the presence of two separate copies or two scribal hands under the siglum 4Q196 cannot be established with certainty, the variation between fragments should be borne in mind by those analyzing them. It may be that future scientific analysis of the papyrus and ink will reveal further details supporting or eliminating the possibility of two manuscript or two scribes.
The language and orthography of the scroll comport well with much of the other Aramaic literature preserved at Qumran. It is noteworthy that we find several loanwords from Akkadian in this work. These include the nouns
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 298–300; Beyer, ATTME, 134–47; Beyer, ATTM2, 172–86; Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, eds., Book of Tobit; Hallermayer, Tobit; Machiela, “Tetragrammaton”.
Script sample: Since it is possible that there are two scribal hands used in this scroll (see discussion above), samples representing each possible hand are provided below. Because of this, the first abecedary A is composed of characters only from frag. 2. The largest fragment potentially representing the second scribe is 18; abecedary B represents this hand.
A: Script sample from frag. 2:
B: Script sample from frag. 18:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letters added (2.1):
Image B-285525
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Letter deleted with a vertical line: Fitzmyer read pe, but I would read instead kaph (2.2)
Image B-285525
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Scribal insertion mark below the supralinear
Image B-285526
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(d) Letter deleted with a horizontal line (13.1)
Image B-285526
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(e) Partially extant tetrapuncta (18.15): ]…
Image B-285527
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(f) Letter conversion? (18.16): Fitzmyer reads
Image B-285527
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, 6.12, 13.2, 14i.12(?), 14ii.10(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2.1, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, 2.13(?), 17i.3(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
6.8, 11.2, 13.1, 14i.5(?), 17ii.3(?), 18.7(?), 18.8(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2.1(3x), 2.9, 2.11(3x), 2.12, 2.13(?), 6.1, 6.10(?), 6.12(?), 14i.8, 14ii.6, 16.1, 17ii.1(?), 17ii.7, 18.12, 18.14, 18.16
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
14ii.7, 17ii.14, 18.11
Verbless clause:
2.12, 6.9, 6.10(?), 6.11(?), 14ii.11, 17ii.15(?), 17ii.16
Object early in clause:
6.8
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1.1, 18.9
Verb of movement +
2.10, 2.13(?)
Verb of movement +
2.4, 2.9–10, 6.2
Use of negative particle
14i.9(?)
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
17i.4–5(?)
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
2.1, 2.5, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 6.8, 17i.2
2.1, 14ii.6
2.13
Object suffix on verb:
2.8, 2.13, 6.8, 6.11(?), 14i.8, 18.16
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
2.2, 2.3
Orthography/Phonology:
2.12, 9.2, 14ii.4, 40.1
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q197, Tobitb (Tobb)
[ed. Fitzmyer, DJD 19:41–56]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserves considerable portions of Tob 3–9, including parts of Tobit and Hannah’s farewell to Tobiah and Azariah, Tobiah and Azariah’s departure to Media, episodes along their journey (e.g., catching the medicinal fish, Azariah’s description of Sarah), their arrival at Raguel and Edna’s house in Ecbatana, and Azariah’s departure further east to Rages. In general, the Aramaic text more closely corresponds to the longer Greek recension (GII) than other later translations.
On the significance of the Aramaic copies of Tobit for our understanding of the book’s original language of composition, eventual translation, and connections with other Aramaic literature at Qumran, see the profile for 4Q196 (papToba).
Material remains: Seven fragments remain of this manuscript, the last two (frags. 6–7) being so small that Fitzmyer could not identify them with a passage from Tobit. Fragments 1–3 are quite small, but Fitzmyer’s frag. 4, which in fact combines a number of separate pieces of skin, preserves parts of three columns covering portions of Tob 5–7. Because we appear to have upper and lower margins partly preserved on some of these pieces, a physical reconstruction of the manuscript could be attempted (e.g., estimated manuscript height and length), though no one has done so to date. Of the fragments on which the text of Tobit has been identified, we possess parts of Tob 3:6–8; 4:21–5:1; 5:12–14; 5:19–7:10; and 8:17–9:4.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q197 (e.g., the left-hand piece of fragment 4a) were photographed on the PAM “G series” plate 40.576. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q197 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q197 4 a, b (Fitzmyer’s placement)
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian formal (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 25 BCE–25 CE (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: This beautifully-written manuscript exhibits the characteristics of a highly-trained scribe. Corrections are minimal, limited to the addition of supralinear letters, which appear to be from the same hand as the main text. Letters are crisp and very consistent, though the spacing of lines and intercolumnar margins are slightly more cramped than in the best manuscripts (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q204 [Enc], 4Q537 [TJacob?]). Word spacing, however, is noticeably more generous than is typical, even when compared with the highest-quality Qumran manuscripts. Vacats appear to have been used liberally, with an especially large one found at 5.3, where Tobiah turns from the speech of his future father-in-law, Raguel, to address Azariah (Tob 8:21–9:1). Since this is part of a single episode in the story, I consider it to be a “minor” sense division. A remarkable feature of 4Q197 is the scribe’s apparent practice of “justifying” the last word of a line when too much space would be left at the end of the line based upon the following word, beginning the next line. This takes place at the end of 4ii.8 and 11, and is also found on 4Q203/4Q204 (EnGiantsa/Enc; see the profile for 4Q204 for further discussion). Even though the practice is very rare among the Qumran Aramaic texts, the scribes of 4Q197 and 4Q203/4Q204 (EnGiantsa/Enc) are not the same. As can be seen by the language profile below, verbal object suffixes are employed in this text at an especially high frequency.
The orthographic and morphological features of 4Q197 are consistent with much of the Qumran Aramaic corpus and resemble better manuscripts like 1Q20 (apGen) and 4Q537 (TJacob?). He and aleph are typically, though not always, distinguished from one another in ways that accord with the broader corpus. He is used for fem. absolute noun endings and adjectives, and some suffixes and pronouns (fem. and masc. sg. suffix
Fitzmyer has not transcribed accurately a few words from the last lines of frag. 5, as can now be discerned from the additional images placed online by the Israel Antiquities Authority: What Fitzmyer transcribes as
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 298–300; Beyer, ATTME, 134–47; Beyer, ATTM2, 172–86; Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, eds., Book of Tobit; Hallermayer, Tobit.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (4ii.8):
(b) Supralinear letters added (4iii.3):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
4i.1(sub. late), 4i.5(?), 4i.6(2x?), 4i.7, 4i.11, 4i.12, 4i.14, 4ii.4(2x; 1 part.), 4ii.9(part.), 4ii.18(2x?; 1 part.), 4ii.19, 4iii.1–2, 4iii.5(2x), 4iii.6(part.), 4iii.7(2x; 1 part.), 4iii.8, 4iii.13(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.3(?), 4i.15(?), 4ii.1, 4ii.4(part.), 4ii.5(part.), 4iii.1(Fitzmyer’s corrected text)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
4i.2
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
4ii.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3.4, 4i.2(2x), 4i.3(2x), 4i.4, 4i.10, 4i.13, 4i.15(2x), 4i.16(2x), 4ii.3(3x), 4ii.5, 4ii.6(?), 4ii.8(part.), 4ii.17(?), 4iii.1, 4iii.2(2x), 4iii.3(3x), 4iii.4(2x), 4iii.5, 4iii.6(2x, 1 part.), 4iii.7(2x; 1 part.), 4iii.8(2x), 5.8(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
4ii.7(?), 4iii.1, 4iii.4, 5.7(2x)
Verbless clause:
3.3, 4i.12, 4i.14, 4i.17, 4i.19(?), 4ii.17, 4iii.5, 4iii.7, 4iii.8
Object early in clause:
4iii.11
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
4iii.11
Use of
4iii.8
Verb of movement +
4ii.8
Verb of movement +
4iii.4, 5.6
Use of negative particle
4i.1, 4i.2, 4i.3(2x), 4ii.17, 5.8(?)
Interrogative
4iii.7
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
4i.11(?), 4ii.8–9(?), 5.11(?)
Lexical Items:
(
Morphology:
4iii.4
Object suffix on verb:
4i.8(2x), 4i.13, 4ii.3(2x), 4ii.5, 4ii.6, 4ii.12, 4ii.13, 4iii.1, 4iii.2(2x), 4iii.8
Assimilated nun:
4ii.3, 4ii.4, 5.10(?)
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
3.2, 3.5, 4i.8, 4i.13, 4i.18, 4ii.3, 4ii.5, 4ii.13, 4iii.4, 4iii.5(2x), 4iii.6
Assimilated lamed:
4iii.4
4Q198, Tobitc (Tobc)
[ed. Fitzmyer, DJD 19:57–60]
Content synopsis and significance: All of the extant material from this manuscript derives from Tob 14, the final chapter of the book, which contains Tobit’s deathbed discourse to his son, Tobiah. In the fragments preserved here, we find Tobit’s injunction to give alms and fear God, leave Assyria and Babylon because of their coming destruction as foretold by Israel’s prophets, and the instructive fate of Nadav (or, possibly, Nadin; the name is not preserved), nephew of Ahiqar. As mentioned in the profile for 4Q196 (papToba), the presence of this chapter among the Qumran copies of Tobit is strong evidence that it was part of the book in its early stages of composition and dissemination, rather than a later addition as previously argued by some scholars.
For discussion of the Tobit manuscripts as they relate to study of the book more generally, see the profile for 4Q196 (papToba).
Material remains: This manuscript comprises two “fragments,” each of which is, in fact, made up of a number of small pieces joined together by early scholars working on the Qumran materials (in this case, most likely J.T. Milik). Fragment 1 is much larger than frag. 2, and contains parts of fourteen lines identified with portions of Tob 14:2–6. Fragment 2 is roughly 2 × 4 cm, slightly larger than a postage stamp, and has parts of five lines of text from the right side of a column. Fitzmyer thought the fragment might preserve Tob 14:10, something that can now be confirmed (see the Special traits and general comments section, below).
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified pieces of 4Q198 1 on the PAM “E series” plates 40.964 and 40.976. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining pieces of 4Q198 in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q198 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal with some semi-cursive features (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Fitzmyer, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript is not ruled, and the scribe therefore varied space between lines appreciably. Also varied is the spacing between words, with a script that is relatively messy and inconsistent. Both cursive and formal (or monumental) tavs are used, an example of the former being found in 1.5 (
A few of Fitzmyer’s transcription require comment. The dalet of
This fragment is, in fact, a collection of small pieces, some of which are held together by twine already in the earliest photographs. While the lamed of Fitzmyer’s
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 298–300; Beyer, ATTME, 134–47; Beyer, ATTM2, 172–86; Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, eds., Book of Tobit; Hallermayer, Tobit.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.6, 1.12(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.5, 1.6, 1.7(?, part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1, 1.2(2x), 1.13
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.1(2x)
Object suffix on verb:
1.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
]
4Q199, Tobitd (Tobd)
[ed. Fitzmyer, DJD 19:61–62]
Content synopsis and significance: In these two small fragments we have only short snippets of Aramaic text, with frag. 1 clearly belonging to the book of Tobit. Fragment 1 provides part of Tobiah’s reply to his soon-to-be father-in-law, Raguel, stating that he will not eat or drink until he is promised Raguel’s daughter, Sarah, as a bride (Tob 7:11). On frag. 2, see the section on Material remains, below. If Fitzmyer were correct about it containing the name “Nadin,” this would be of some significance, for it is the Assyrian name of Ahiqar’s nephew in the framing narrative of the Wisdom of Ahiqar, found, for example, at the Judean settlement of Elephantine. Yet, in the Greek and other translations of Tobit we always find Ahiqar’s nephew named Nadav, part of a clear effort in the book to coopt the famous Ahiqar and Nadin/Nadav into Israelite history. If the name Nadin were used in 4Q199, an Aramaic copy of Tobit, we would have to assume that the change of name was not present in the early stages of the book, and was instead introduced at the later stage of translation. Neither Nadin nor Nadav is found in the Qumran copies of Tobit apart from 4Q199 2 (including in the Hebrew 4Q200 [Tobe]), and I argue below that it is most likely not found in this copy either. It seems more plausible that the early Aramaic copies of the Tobit contained the name Nadav, as reflected in the later translations.
The profile for 4Q196 (papToba) discusses the importance of the Qumran copies for our understanding of the book of Tobit more generally.
Material remains: In the earliest PAM images, there is only one fragment assigned by Milik to 4Q199 (Fitzmyer’s frag. 1). However, by the time new photographs were taken in 1993, another fragment had been added to the plate (Fitzmyer’s frag. 2), along with two very tiny additional pieces of skin (never mentioned by Fitzmyer). These additional three pieces are present in all images taken since 1993, with frag. 2 containing part of a large bottom margin. Fitzmyer read the two words of frag. 2 as
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q199 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image, 4Q199 1
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean (Fitzmyer)
Proposed palaeographic date: 125–75 BCE (Fitzmyer); “Not enough distinctive letters are extant on this text to date it more precisely” (DJD 19:61)
Special traits and general comments: Little is left of this manuscript, but we are fortunate to have an upper margin preserved on frag. 1, and a lower margin on frag. 2. In the single line of frag. 1 we find the word
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 298–300; Beyer, ATTME, 134–47; Beyer, ATTM2, 172–86; Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, eds., Book of Tobit; Hallermayer, Tobit.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.1(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1
Use of
1.1
Lexical items:
1Q71, Daniela (Dana) + MS 1926/4a
[ed. Barthélemy, DJD 1:150–51; Trever, “Publication,” Plates V, VII; Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a”]
Content synopsis and significance: Eight, or possibly nine (see Puech, “Daniel”), fragmentary manuscripts of the book of Daniel were found among the Qumran caves. Five of these (or six, if Puech is correct) had parts of the Aramaic section of Daniel (Dan 2:4b–7:28) preserved, and only these manuscripts are included among the profiles here. For the three copies in which only Hebrew text is preserved (4Q114 [Danc], 4Q116 [Dane], and 6Q7 [papDan]), see the editions of Ulrich in DJD 16 (Cave 4) and Baillet in DJD 3 (Cave 6). These three copies are of natural interest to study of the Aramaic manuscripts at Qumran, since it is plausible to assume that they once contained the Aramaic section of Daniel as well. The contents of Daniel are, of course, well known because of its canonical status in Judaism and Christianity. 1Q71 contains portions of the first two chapters of the book. Dan 1:1–2:4a are written in Hebrew, and recount the trial and ascent of Daniel and his companions in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar. The transition to Aramaic in Dan 2:4b is preserved in this copy, preceded by a 2 cm vacat. Several fragmentary phrases of the Chaldeans’ address to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:4–6 follow on five partial lines of text. In wider view of the Qumran Aramaic corpus, two things stand out about the contents of these lines. First, the story of an Israelite finding success in a foreign king’s court recounted in these chapters (and, indeed, throughout Dan 2–7) is paralleled in a number of other Aramaic compositions kept at Qumran. We find similar or related “court tales” in the Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243–245), the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), Jews at the Persian Court (4Q550), and perhaps Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 553, 553a). A clear interest in this genre is also reflected in the first chapters of Tobit and the Abram cycle in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). Second, the dream-vision and its interpretation found in Dan 2 contributes to one of the most widespread themes in the Aramaic literature from Qumran, as documented by Perrin (Dynamics). Comparable dream-visions are found in many Aramaic texts, such as the New Jerusalem, the Visions of Amram, the Book of Giants, and the Genesis Apocryphon. 1Q71 is the only Qumran copy of Daniel to preserve these verses of Dan 2, though 4Q112 (Dana) contains some verses from later in the same chapter.
Material remains: John Trever first reported one main fragment remaining of this manuscript, roughly 1.5 times the size of a standard playing card, plus a small (1 × 4 cm) additional fragment with part of an intercolumnar margin, and no fully preserved letters (labelled frag. 4 on Plate VII in Trever, “Publication,” 344; Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 249, instead label it as frag. 3). A small, additional fragment with parts of several words from Dan 2:5–6 was later identified by Elgvin and Justnes (“MS 1926/4a”; their frag. 2; = MS 1926/4a), which they successfully joined to the left edge of the main fragment. All of the fragments were part of a folded wad comprising small parts of at least three manuscripts: 1Q71, 1Q72 (Danb), and 1Q34 (Prayers). Trever (“Publication”) described carefully the wad and its process of unfolding, making clear that these manuscripts were not rolled individually when placed in the cave in antiquity, but that portions of them, likely already damaged, were folded together and deposited as a group. 1Q71 was on the outside of the wad, pressed against the verso of another Daniel fragment (1Q72; the lighter part of image “b” on Trever’s Plate II). Trever’s entertaining historical description of how the fragments came to be deposited in Cave 1 is speculative and completely unverifiable. The main fragment of 1Q71 was clearly folded on an axis diagonal to its original orientation, after which much of the sheet or fragment evidently eroded away. Once Trever unfolded the fragment, we were left with a butterfly-shaped piece of skin with very similarly shaped “wings” on each side of the fold (see the Sample image, below). Despite its damage, the remaining fragment is in good condition and portions of text from Dan 1:10–17 and 2:2–6 can be easily read. Trever’s frag. 4 (Elgvin and Justnes’ frag. 3) contains only a small part of one letter, but Trever suggested that it originated from the left side of col. II on the main fragment. Elgvin and Justnes (“MS 1926/4a,” 249) claim that it has traces of sewing from a sheet seam, and if this is true we have evidence of the end of the first sheet of this manuscript. One column must have preceded Trever’s col. I, meaning that the first sheet once contained three columns of text. Based on photographs of 1Q71 and 1Q72 (Danb) published by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel in his autobiography (Treasure, appendix), one can see that the fragments of these scrolls had deteriorated significantly between the photos taken by Trever in April, 1949, and those done for Samuel around 1965 (Trever, “Future,” 471).
Notes on provenance: The 1Q71 fragments were discovered as “the result of the clandestine prospecting of the Syrians” (see de Vaux’s comments in DJD 1:43). Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel claimed that one of his men discovered the fragments in August 1948 (Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 247; see also Fields, Scrolls, 85), and John Trever gave credit for the discovery to George Isha‘ya, who then brought the fragments to Mar Samuel at St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem (Trever, “Publication,” 323). A detailed record of the excavation was not kept, so that the cave from which the fragments were found cannot be determined with absolute certainty. However, one fragment (1Q5 [Deutb] 13) among those that Isha‘ya discovered, is linked to a manuscript excavated by de Vaux in Cave 1 in February–March, 1949 (DJD 1:43, n. 1). This connection increases the probability that 1Q71 can be firmly linked to Cave 1. As tensions from the Israeli-Arab war grew in the autumn of 1948, Mar Samuel smuggled the Daniel fragments (among others) out of the country, without an export license, in December 1948 or January 1949 (Fields, Scrolls, 85, 242–45). In the United States in February 1949, Samuel allowed John Trever to handle and photograph the fragments, which he finally published in 1965. It is unclear how the exchange occurred, but somehow Trever acquired a small wad (“an inseparable stack of fragments,” see Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 248) containing four layers (= MS 1926/4). The wad contained some layers from 1Q71, and other layers from 1Q72. This wad of fragments was purchased from the Trever family in 1994 by Martin Schøyen (Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 247) and is now kept in his personal collection in Oslo, Norway. The remaining fragments are currently kept by the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese in Teaneck, NJ (Elgvin and Justnes “MS 1926/4a,” 247, n. 4).
Sample image: 1Q71 1
Material: Skin
Script: Late Herodian formal (Trever)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–50 CE (Ulrich; Trever)
Special traits and general comments: The two preserved columns of 1Q71 are almost certainly the second and third inscribed columns of the scroll. This copy of Daniel has a fairly substantial height, judged against the Aramaic scrolls for which we can estimate this dimension. It falls well short of the tallest scrolls, such as 1Q20 (apGen; 31 cm), but is larger than other high-quality copies like 4Q545 (Visions of Amramc; around 16 cm) and 11Q10 (Job; 14 cm). 1Q71 was a very finely-wrought manuscript, carefully and fully ruled in the style of other Herodian-period manuscripts like the Cave 1 Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) and War Scroll (1QM), or 4Q246 (apocrDan) from among the Aramaic scrolls. The ruled line spacing and margins are even and quite generous, though the overall manuscript and writing block sizes are medium (using the terminology of Tov, Scribal Practices, 86–87) in view of the wider Qumran corpus. The skin preparation and ruling is among the best found in the Aramaic writings kept at Qumran. The scribe wrote in one of the neatest, most practiced formal hands found among the Qumran texts, accurately described by Trever as “approaching the appearance of the printed page.” Trever also suggested that the same scribe may have written both 1Q71 and the copy of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Masada (MasShirShabb; Trever, Scrolls, 134–35). The two manuscripts are comparable typologically, both exhibiting formal, late Herodian scripts with similar ornamental flourishes. However, on close examination I do not think that we have here the same scribe. There are no mistakes or corrections in the small amount of text preserved. A generous vacat was left at the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in the middle of Dan 2:4 (col. II.5), which also marks the beginning of the Chaldeans’ speech to the king. By contrast, the word spacing is quite tight, with breaks between words sometimes being no larger than that between letters in a word. At the end of col. I.1 it is obvious that more space than usual has been left between two words, since only the short preposition
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Trever, “Publication”; Beyer, ATTM1, 301–3; Flint, “Daniel”; Ulrich, “Text of Daniel”; Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
II.6
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
II.6
Object early in clause:
II.6
Lexical items:
Morphology:
II.7
1Q72, Danielb (Danb) + MS 1926/4b
[ed. Barthélemy, DJD 1:151–52; Trever, “Publication,” Plate VI; Davis and Elgvin, “MS 1926/4b”]
Content synopsis and significance: For a brief introduction to the Daniel manuscripts at Qumran, see the profile for 1Q71 (Dana). 1Q72 is one of five (or perhaps six; see Puech, “Daniel”) Qumran copies of the book that contain part of the Aramaic section of Daniel (Dan 2:4b–7:28), with several verses from towards the end of Dan 3 preserved on two fragments. This chapter contains the harrowing story of three young Judean men – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – being thrown by Nebuchadnezzar into a burning furnace for their refusal to do obeisance before a large statue erected by the king. The story is also partly preserved on 4Q115 (Dand) 2, with several lines of text overlapping between the two copies at Dan 3:24–25 (there are no significant textual or orthographic differences). It is of some interest for the textual development of the book that both Qumran copies are missing the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Judean Youths, placed between verses 23 and 24 of the Aramaic text in the Greek and Latin translations. In this respect, 1Q72 and 4Q115 (Dand) closely resemble the MT version of the story. As a tale about the trials and successes of Judeans in the upper echelons of the royal court, Dan 3 is but one representative of a “court tale” genre well-represented in the Qumran Aramaic literature. In addition to the stories of Dan 2–7, we find similar tales in the Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243–245), the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), Jews at the Persian Court (4Q550), and Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 553, 553a). The first chapter of Tobit and the story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt, in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), also incorporate new or expanded court episodes into their stories. Based on the frequency of such stories, it is clear that the royal court was a social setting of obvious interest to whoever wrote this Hellenistic-period literature. Prominent themes shared by Dan 3 and other Jewish court tales written in Aramaic are the positive impact of Judeans on the royal court and the king, and the king’s eventual recognition of Israel’s God as ruler over the entire created order, to be worshipped above all others.
Material remains: Barthélemy and Trever published two main fragments of 1Q72, frag. 1 being roughly twice the size of frag. 2 (labelled by Trever 1a and 1b). Elgvin and Davis later identified a small, third fragment (“1QApocryphon”) from the private collection of Martin Schøyen, which they labelled frag. 1c (= MS 1926/4b) and successfully joined to lines 8–10 of the left side of frag. 1. Barthélemy’s frag. 1 has fifteen mostly-incomplete lines of text (several with less than one, full letter preserved), and frag. 2 has ten partial lines. Davis and Elgvin’s frag. 1c contains only a few letters, identified as belonging to Dan 3:26–27. On the discovery and handling of the skin “wad,” of which 1Q72 was part, see the Material remains and Provenance entries for 1Q71 (Dana). The top part of 1Q72 1 was exposed, with the writing visible, when Trever received the wad of fragments, the bottom portion of frag. 1 being exposed only when other fragments were removed. One of these removed fragments was 1Q72 2, which was pressed to the bottom portion of frag. 1 with the writing of the two fragments facing each other. This makes clear that, like 1Q71 (Dana), a portion of 1Q72 (at least one column) had been separated from the larger scroll before being placed in Cave 1 in the first century CE, where it was folded and deposited together with segments of 1Q71 (Dana) and 1Q34 (Prayers). The group of pieces then suffered further deterioration over the centuries in the cave, with the result that they were partially “gelatinized” and fused together. 1Q72 1–2, plus MS 1926/4b, contains portions of Dan 3:22–32, partially overlapping with the text of 4Q115 (Dand) 2ii. The right side of 1Q72 1 shows that this was the beginning of a new sheet of skin, being the second or third sheet of the scroll, depending on the original height and line number of the columns. I would estimate that 5–7 columns of text preceded this one. Some manuscripts held up to 5–7 columns per sheet (see, e.g., 1Q20 [apGen] and 1QpHab), while others (e.g., 1QS and 1QIsaa) had only 2–4 columns per sheet. It is now impossible to tell where 1Q72 fit on this spectrum.
Notes on provenance: The provenance of 1Q72 is linked to that of 1Q71 (Dana). Both sets of fragments were allegedly among those discovered in 1948 by George Isha’ya (see the Provenance section for 1Q71 [Dana]) and brought to Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel in Jerusalem (Trever, “Publication”; Fields, Scrolls, 85). The fragments were probably found in Cave 1, due to a link between one of the scrolls Isha’ya discovered and those from de Vaux’s 1949 excavation of Cave 1 (DJD 1:43, n. 1). The fragments were smuggled out of the country by Samuel in December 1948 (or possibly January 1949). Once in the United States, the fragments were photographed by John Trever, in February 1949, and Trever published the images in 1965. Trever kept a small wad of fragments (“an inseparable stack of fragments”; see Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 248) containing four layers (MS 1926/4). Some layers were from 1Q71 (Dana), and others were from 1Q72, proving the common origin of the two manuscripts. The wad of fragments was purchased from the Trever family in 1994 by Martin Schøyen (Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 247) and is now kept in his personal collection in Oslo, Norway. The remaining fragments remained in the possession of the Syrian Orthodox Church, and are currently kept by the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese in Teaneck, NJ (Elgvin and Justnes, “MS 1926/4a,” 247, n. 4).
Sample image: 1Q72 1, 2
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian, with a “more cursive tendency” than the hand of 1Q71 (Trever, cf. Flint, “Daniel”)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–25 BCE (Ulrich); 50–1 BCE (Davis and Elgvin); 37 BCE–70 CE (Trever)
Special traits and general comments: This is a high-quality manuscript, carefully prepared and fully ruled with guide dots for the horizontal script lines. The double vertical lines at the right edge of the sheet (seen on frag. 1) give a clue to the order in which the ruling process was done: Vertical lines were first inscribed at the two ends of each sheet, after which guide dots were marked along this line and horizontal script lines were drawn. Vertical lines demarcating the right and left sides of the columns could have been inscribed either at the beginning or end of this process. In many respects, the construction of this manuscript (quality of skin, layout, margin size, etc.) closely resembles 1Q20 (apGen), though the scribe of 1Q72 wrote with slightly larger letters and tended to leave a bit more space between words. It is not possible to determine the number of lines in the single column of 1Q72, but there are eighteen preserved (as opposed to the seventeen mentioned by previous scholars; see the trace of the upper stroke of lamed on 2.9). These lines were on the longer side for the Qumran Aramaic scrolls. The scribe wrote is a formal script of moderate quality (less steady and practiced than the scribe of 1Q71 [Dana], for instance) with some elements that Trever labelled “cursive.” Distinctive elements of this scribe are the leftward return on the lower, middle stroke of aleph, the similar leftward return at the bottom of final kaph, and the “closed” box of medial mem. The script might best be described as semi-formal. The scribe made no mistakes requiring correction on what is preserved, and used vacats frequently. Some of these are partly preserved on the fragments, while others can be hypothesized based on the reconstructed letter counts of partial lines (1–2 cm at the end of 1.7, between
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Trever, “Publication”; Beyer, ATTM1, 301–3; Flint, “Daniel”; Ulrich, “Text of Daniel”; Davis and Elgvin, “MS 1926/4b.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.8(part.), 1.10(part.), 1.12
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.3, 1.5, 1.6(part.)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.3, 1.4(part.), 1.7, 1.13, 2.3
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.10, 2.5
Object early in clause:
2.5
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1.1(?)
Use of
2.4
Lexical items:
Morphology:
2.6
1.3
1.10
Assimilated nun:
2.6
Orthography/Phonology:
1.10
4Q112, Daniela (Dana)
[ed. Ulrich, DJD 16:239–54]
Content synopsis and significance: 4Q112 is the best-preserved Daniel manuscript from Qumran, and one of five copies of the book preserving portions of its Aramaic chapters (or six if Puech, “Daniel,” is correct about his 4QDnf). Eight (perhaps nine) total copies of Daniel were discovered at Qumran, discussed briefly in the profile for 1Q71 (Dana), above. 4Q112 contains verses from all chapters of Daniel except for 6, 9, and 12, but there is no serious doubt that the scroll originally contained all chapters of the book as we know it in later transmission. The contents of Daniel are well-known due to its canonical status in Judaism and Christianity, and in this copy we find portions of the first, Hebrew chapter introducing the main characters, four of the five Aramaic tales recording the exploits of Daniel and his companions in the Babylonian and Persian royal courts, Daniel’s apocalyptic vision in chapter 7, and the extensions of that theme in three of the Hebrew chapters that conclude the book (Dan 8–12). Thus, all of the main components of Daniel are present in 4Q112. Two major themes are of significance in view of the wider Qumran Aramaic corpus: 1.) The trials and successes of Israelites in the court of a foreign king, often called “court tales,” and 2.) the reception of divinely revealed knowledge through dream-visions. Both of these themes are shared among Daniel and a number of other Aramaic texts, as discussed more fully in the profile for 1Q71 (Dana). In terms of textual variation, this copy is the most distinctive among the Daniel copies from Qumran, differing markedly from the MT and other Qumran copies in many small ways. These minor differences encompass syntax, morphology, and orthography, and are quite evenly spread throughout the scroll. All of these variances are captured in the chart on scribal variation, in the following chapter on language (Chapter 3).
Material remains: Twenty fragments remain of this copy, with frags. 3 and 14 being quite substantial in size. Fragment 3 contains one, nearly fully-preserved column of text and part of another, with a small portion of the surface and its writing partially flaked off. Other fragments also have such flaking. Fragment 14 is roughly the size of a standard playing card, with fourteen partial lines preserved. A number of the other fragments contain enough text to help us place them in the manuscript and reconstruct the scroll’s original size and length. Fragments 16–20 are so small, however, that they are not included in the DJD photographic plates, and only two of them have any writing preserved. Only frag. 17 can be placed with confidence, together with the first column of frag. 3. A number of the fragments have margins preserved, several still with the stitching in-tact between sheets, allowing for a good overall sense of the original scroll. Ulrich reconstructed the scroll as having twenty-eight columns of text, which must be approximately correct (it could vary by one column in either direction, based on the consistency of column widths). It is reasonably clear that the first sheet of skin had three columns, and based on Ulrich’s recognition that col. 6 was narrower than some of the others. It seems likely that this column was also the last in a sheet with three columns, since final columns on sheets are often narrower than the others (see also the profile for 1Q20 [apGen; cf. Tov, Scribal Practices, 83–84). Based on the extant fragments, we can estimate that column width varied in 4Q112 between narrower columns of 35–45 letters per line (cols. 3 [33–43 letters], 6 [37–45], 13 [43–44], and 19 [43–49]; each of which is the last column on a sheet) and wider ones of up to 55 letters per line or more (cols. 1, 4, 5, 12, 17, and 25; none being the last on a sheet). Intermediate-sized columns include cols. 2, 11, 14, and 24. The available evidence suggests that the smallest columns would have measured approximately 8.5 cm wide, and the widest around 10.5 cm. New sheets most likely began at cols. 4, 7, 10 (or 11), 14, 17, 20, 23, and 28. Either the third or fourth sheet must have had four columns, while most or all others seem to have had three (similar, e.g., to 1QIsaa). Consequently, we can theorize nine sheets, each approximately 30–35 cm in length (at least one, with four columns, closer to 45 cm), for an overall manuscript length of around 300 cm, perhaps slightly longer. This is around half the length of 11Q10 (Job). For a full list of the parts of Daniel preserved on the fragments, see Ulrich’s list in DJD 16:240. There are overlaps in the Aramaic section of Daniel with other Qumran copies at 4Q112 10–11.1–6//4Q113 (Danb) 1–4.7–8 (= MT Dan 5:12–14), 4Q112 13.1–4//4Q113 (Danb) 12–13.3–4 (= MT Dan 7:5–7), and 4Q112 14.5–9//4Q113 (Danb) 15.19–21 (= MT Dan 7:25–28).
Notes on provenance: While it is not clear exactly who found all of the 4Q112 fragments, they have been confidently linked to Cave 4 (see DJD 16:2). At least frag. 14 was included on one of the “G series” PAM plates, 40.613, associated with the Bedouin excavation of Cave 4 in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). Tigchelaar also identified part of frag. 3 on the PAM “E series” plate 40.965, connected with the documented excavations of Cave 4 led by Roland de Vaux in September, 1952 (DJD 6:3–4). The remaining fragments of 4Q112 could, in theory, have been discovered either by the Bedouin or in de Vaux’s excavations.
Sample image: 4Q112 3i–ii
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian formal (Ulrich)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Ulrich)
Special traits and general comments: The relatively extensive remains of 4Q112 allow us to determine that it was carefully prepared, laid out with even margins and lightly-ruled vertical and horizontal lines. The overall height of this copy was roughly half that of 1Q20 (apGen; 31 cm) or 4Q202 (Enb; 30 cm), but considerably larger than the smallest manuscripts, such as 4Q535 (Birth of Noahb; 6.4 cm). Column height and width are about average for the corpus, with margins slightly smaller than the average. Nevertheless, the layout is even and neat, with an overall appearance of uniformity and generous spacing. When scrutinized, it turns out that the spacing between words varies appreciably; there is usually an easily perceptible space of 1–2 mm, but occasionally no more space is left between two words than is typically left between letters (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 148–60; Beyer, ATTM2, 187–99; Puech, “Daniel”.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Ink dots above penultimate letter (perhaps last two letters) of word, possibly for erasure (3i+17.8): ]
Image B-284885
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Supralinear dalet added and misspelling of
Image B-284882
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Near full-line vacat at transition from Aram. ch. 7 to Heb. ch. 8. Erasure of words with double lines and subsequent scraping in first line of Heb. text (14.10–11): {
Image B-284882
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
3i+17.1(2x), 3i+17.9, 3i+17.10, 12.2
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
3i+17.2(part.), 3i+17.3(part.), 3i+17.6, 3i+17.14, 7.4, 7.8, 9.16, 9.16(part.), 10–11.4, 14.6, 14.9
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
3i+17.4(part.), 3ii+4–6.7, 3ii+4–6.14
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
3i+17.4(part.), 3i+17.5, 3i+17.6, 3i+17.7, 3i+17.10–11, 3i+17.13, 3i+17.15, 3i+17.16, 12.3
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3i+17.1, 3i+17.2(2x; part.), 3i+17.3(part.), 3i+17.3–4(part.), 3i+17.5, 3i+17.6 3i+17.8, 3i+17.9, 3i+17.10, 3i+17.12(part.), 3i+17.17(part.), 3ii+4–6.1, 3ii+4–6.2, 3ii+4–6.3, 3ii+4–6.13, 12.2, 12.3(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
3i+17.5, 3i+17.7, 3i+17.15, 12.1, 12.1–2
Verbless clause:
3i+17.2, 3i+17.13, 3i+17.16(3x), 3i+17.17
Object early in clause:
3i+17.4, 3i+17.7, 3i+17.15, 12.1, 12.1–2, 12.3
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
3i+17.1, 3i+17.8, 3i+17.14, 3i+17.17(2x), 3i+17.18(3x), 3ii+4–6.10, 7.7, 12.1, 14.8
Use of
3i+17.8
Verb of movement +
3i+17.6
Copula pronoun:
3i+17.2, 3i+17.13
Interrogative
3i+17.9
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
3i+17.1, 3ii+4–6.13
Participle + finite form of
3i+17.16, 3ii+4–6.1
Lexical items:
Morphology:
3i+17.2(2x), 3i+17.6, 3i+17.11, 3ii+4–6.2, 9.17, 10–11.4, 12.1, 12.3, 14.9
3i+17.7, 3ii+4–6.1
Object suffix on verb:
3i+17.5, 3i+17.7, 3i+17.14, 9.16, 12.1, 14.9
Assimilated nun:
10–11.1
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
3i+17.3, 9.7
Orthography/Phonology:
3i+17.16, 13.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
3i+17.3
4Q113, Danielb (Danb)
[ed. Ulrich, DJD 16:255–67]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is one of five (or six if Puech, “Daniel,” is correct about his 4QDnf) Qumran copies containing the Aramaic chapters of Daniel, and one of eight (or nine) overall copies of the book. The extant fragments of 4Q113 contain parts of Dan 5 (5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22), 6 (6:8–22, 27–29), and 7 (7:1–6, 26–28). Chapters 5 and 6 are the best preserved, both being stories of Daniel’s travails in the Babylonian and Persian royal courts of Belshazzar and Darius, respectively. On the significance of these court tales and the vision of Dan 7 in view of the Qumran Aramaic literature more broadly, see the profiles for 1Q71 (Dana) and 4Q112 (Dana). In terms of its textual character, 4Q113 is marked by a fairly high number of minor variants in orthography, morphology, and syntax when compared with the MT, many of which can be attributed to scribal preferences. However, the differences between 4Q113 and the MT do not appear to be as extensive as we find in 4Q112 (Dana). Both 4Q113 and 4Q112 (Dana) are important witnesses to the kinds of scribal variation that occurred in authoritative Jewish texts during the Second Temple period.
Material remains: Twenty fragments remain of this manuscript, varying considerably in size. The two largest fragments are 7 and 18, each of which has parts of two columns preserved. The smallest fragments (2–4, 12, 14, 20) contain only a few letters. Since we are dealing with a relatively stable text that we possess in full, these and several other fragments help to determine line length (about 35–45 letters) and column width (11.5–13.5 cm) in the scroll. Based on letter count, the column width seems to have varied within a few centimeters, as is typical. From frag. 7 we can also reconstruct the column height and line number, allowing for a rough estimation of the scroll’s length. Ulrich proposed 31–32 columns in total, which would make for a scroll around 400–450 cm long. This is longer than the reconstructed 4Q112 (Dana), but still not as long as other scrolls like 11Q10 (Job). No seams are preserved between sheets, and so we cannot estimate the columns per sheet, or how many sheets were used. There are overlaps in the Aramaic section of Daniel with other Qumran copies at 4Q113 1–4.7–8//4Q112 (Dana) 10–11.2–3 (= MT Dan 5:12), 4Q113 12–13.3–5//4Q112 (Dana) 13.2–3 (= MT Dan 7:5–6), and 4Q113 15.18–22//4Q112 (Dana) 14.6–8 (= MT Dan 7:26–28).
Notes on provenance: The provenance of 4Q113 is comparable to that of 4Q112 (Dana). A portion of frag. 7ii appears on PAM 40.612, which is part of the “G series” photographic plates containing fragments discovered by the Bedouin and then sold to the Palestine Archaeological Museum directly (to Roland de Vaux of the École Biblique) or through the Bethlehem antiquities dealer Kando (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). Tigchelaar also identified 4Q113 2 on the PAM “E series” plate 40.963, connected with the documented excavations of Cave 4 led by Roland de Vaux in September, 1952 (DJD 6:3–4). The origins of the fragments not on PAM 40.612 or 40.963 are less certain, having been discovered either by Bedouin or in de Vaux’s excavations. Ulrich noted that two fragments of the manuscript went missing (frag. 14 and 19), while still at the Rockefeller (Palestine Archaeological) Museum (DJD 16:256). Fragment 14 was reported missing in 1982, and frag. 19 in 1999.
Sample image: 4Q113 7i–ii
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian formal (Ulrich, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: 20–50 CE (Ulrich, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: The preparation of this scroll seems to have been good (not excellent), and a noteworthy characteristic is its high number of blemishes – six or seven on the extant fragments – relative to most manuscripts at Qumran. These included imperfections or pits (5–6.2) in the skin, and even holes (7i.17, 7ii+8.3–4). The fact that the scribe regularly wrote around these blemishes shows that they were part of the scroll already when it was inscribed in antiquity. This copy had quite large upper, lower, and intercolumnar margins. Most columns seem to have averaged lines in the mid-thirties for letter count, though some columns, such as that containing the beginning of Dan 8 (frags. 16–18i+19), were closer to the mid-forties. The scribe wrote in a rather large, consistent Herodian script. Full orthography was regularly used, as in the pronoun
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 148–60; Beyer, ATTM2, 187–99;
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
Supralinear vav added (7i.14):
(b) Blemish on skin (in this case a hole), avoided by the scribe (7ii+8.3–4; see also 5–6.2; 7i.17; 9–11.14–17, 21; and 12–13.4)
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
7ii+8.13, 7ii+8.14, 7ii+8.15, 7ii+8.18
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
7ii+8.8, 7ii+8.12, 7ii+8.15, 7ii+8.16
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
9–11.16
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
7ii+8.3, 7ii+8.13, 7ii+8.15, 7ii+8.18
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
7ii+8.6, 7ii+8.7, 7ii+8.7–8, 7ii+8.11, 7ii+8.17, 7ii+8.17–18, 9–11.17
Verbless clause:
7ii+8.6
Object early in clause:
9–11.17
Use of
7ii+8.11, 7ii+8.17
Verb of movement +
7ii+8.8
Verb of movement +
7ii+8.15, 7ii+8.17
Use of negative particle
1–4.1
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
5–6.2, 7ii+8.7–8
Participle + finite form of
9–11.21
Lexical items:
Morphology:
5–6.2, 7ii+8.8, 7ii+8.10, 7ii+8.15
7ii+8.16
Object suffix on verb:
7ii+8.8
Assimilated nun:
9–11.13
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
7ii+8.15
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1–4.3, 1–4.14, 7ii+8.18
7ii+8.4, 7ii+8.6, 7ii+8.7, 7ii+8.13, 12–13.3(2x), 15.22
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q115, Danield (Dand)
[ed. Ulrich, DJD 16:279–86]
Content synopsis and significance: This is the last of five (or possibly six; see Puech, “Daniel”) Qumran copies of Daniel preserving parts of the Aramaic portion of the book, out of eight (or nine) copies of Daniel in total. 4Q115 contains parts of Dan 3, 4, and 7, comprising both court tales and Daniel’s apocalyptic vision. On the significance of these two genres in view of the wider Aramaic literary corpus at Qumran, see the profiles for 1Q71 (Dana) and 4Q112 (Dana). Like 1Q72 (Danb), 4Q115 is missing the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Judean Youths, placed between Dan 3:23 and 24 in the Greek and Latin translations. Thus, 1Q72 (Danb) and 4Q115 have the same version of the story as found in the MT. Apart from some minor, mostly orthographic variants, the text of 4Q115 is quite close to that of other Qumran copies, and to the MT. We do occasionally find an added word repetitive of other, nearby contexts (see terms from Dan 3:24 replicated in 3:25 at 2ii.5), and at 3–7.3 (Dan 4:6) a minor syntactic alteration.
Material remains: Twelve fragments remain of this manuscript, the largest being frags. 2, 4–6 (joined with certainty into one), and 8. Fragment 2 is irregularly shaped, but at its outer dimensions is roughly the size of a standard playing card. Fragments 10–12 are very small, containing few or no legible letters. What are labelled frags. 13–15 in DJD 16 have been identified by Ulrich as belonging to other manuscripts, something that is clearly the case at least for frag. 14. The Aramaic passages of Daniel partly preserved on the fragments are Dan 3:8–12, 23–25; 4:5–9, 12–16; and 7:15–23. Because frag. 2 contains upper and intercolumnar margins, along with the beginnings of five lines of 2ii, it allows us to estimate within a range the width of one column of the scroll. By placing frag. 1 relative to the scant remains at the left edge of 2i, it is possible to determine that the first line of 2i began with Dan 3:8 (Machiela, “New Reconstruction”). This critical piece of evidence paves the way for reconstructing two successive columns at around twenty-five lines each, from which we can estimate the length of the entire scroll at between 300 and 400 cm, depending on several factors such as whether it once had a handle sheet at its beginning. The scroll would likely have contained 24–25 columns of text, with the inscribed portion of the scroll being around 300–350 cm long. Fragments 1–2 most likely belong to cols. 7–8, frags. 3–7 to col. 9, and frags. 8–9 to col. 16. The remaining fragments cannot be placed with certainty. Although it is impossible to know for certain, each sheet appears to have contained around four columns of text, based on the fact that col. 8 can be reconstructed as appreciably narrower (approx. 10.5 cm) than col. 7 (approx. 12 cm), and was likely the last column on a sheet. The only overlap with another Qumran copy of Daniel is at 4Q115 2ii.1–5//1Q72 (Danb) 1.3–5 (= MT Dan 3:23–25).
Notes on provenance: 4Q115 2 is found on the early “G series” PAM plate 40.620. The “G Series” images are associated with the fragments discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The Bedouin sold these fragments to the Palestine Archaeological Museum either directly or through the Bethlehem antiquities dealer Kando (DJD 6:3–4). Others fragments of 4Q115 were discovered during the official excavation of Cave 4, led by Roland de Vaux during September 22–29, 1952, as shown by their presence on the “E series” PAM plates 40.975 (frags. 5, 7), 40.982 (frag. 6), and 40.985 (frag. 4).
Sample image: 4Q115 2i–ii, 4 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian formal (Pfann; Ulrich, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25–1 BCE (Ulrich, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: Ulrich described the skin of this manuscript as “ill-prepared,” but this impression may be partly due its advanced state of deterioration. At high magnification the hair follicles do make the surface of the skin look quite rough. Pfann (“Preliminary Edition,” 38–39), however, proposed that the skin may be in poor shape due to environmental degradation over the course of storage. Based on its preparation techniques, it seems to be a copy of fairly high (not the highest) quality. Margin sizes are at or slightly above the norm for Qumran manuscripts, and the scroll was carefully, evenly ruled and written. Judging by standard practices among the Qumran manuscripts, we would expect the bottom margin to have been slightly larger than the upper one. Assuming that the upper margin is fully preserved at 1.6 cm on frag. 2, it is thus likely that the lower margin was once around 2 cm. Horizontal and vertical lines were made to guide writing and demarcate columns widths, and several scholars have commented on the unusual three vertical lines (rather than the usual two) inscribed in the intercolumn of frag. 2 (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 59–61). This practice resembles the so-called “double ruling” used in a handful of other Qumran scrolls (e.g. at the beginnings of sheets on 4Q27 [Numb]), and also occurring outside Qumran (Tov, Scribal Practices, 59–60). The only other Aramaic scroll on which this trait clearly occurs is 11Q10 (Job) 21, also in an intercolumn on the middle of a sheet. Proposed reasons for the practice vary, including neatness, ensured observance of the left margin (Tov, Scribal Practices, 59), and guidance for minimum and maximum line length (Pfann, “Preliminary Edition,” 40). None of these explanations is especially convincing, since the practice is only occasional, sometimes occurs at the right side of columns (e.g., 4Q27 [Numb]), and scribes do not seem to have used the guidelines for the purpose suggested by Pfann (on 4Q115 all lines fall well short of the right-most line). Given all of the evidence, one wonders if, in some cases, the sporadic use of an extra vertical line resulted from a mistake in preparing the manuscript, with the added line adjusting the original size of the column or intercolumn. Pfann’s (“Preliminary Edition,” 39) and Ulrich’s (DJD 16:279) observation that “indents,” or points jalons, were made along the middle vertical line, to be used as guide dots for inscribing the horizontal script lines, is incorrect. Such dots typically occur only at the beginnings and ends of sheets (which is not the case here), and the holes cited by Ulrich in connection with frag. 2.4–5 do not line up well with the vertical or horizontal ruling marks; they are the result of deterioration. Pfann (“Preliminary Edition,” 39) suggested that the horizontal ruling was done with “very diluted ink,” which would be abnormal and does not appear to me to be correct. The ruling was more likely done as usual, with light scoring by a sharpened reed or other instrument, creating a darkened line on the skin.
The scribe wrote in a tidy, consistent, and small script (among the smallest preserved among the Aramaic scrolls) with notably generous word spacing at many points in the preserved text. Pfann (“Daniel and Ezra,” 136; “Preliminary Edition,” 45–53) commented at some length on a rare system of regular vacats used by this scribe to indicate minor breaks in the narrative progression, essentially constituting a punctuation system. Many, though not all, of these spaces align with later Masoretic sense-divisions of varying types, and approximate modern verse and paragraph partitions. Several such vacats are preserved on the extant fragments, while a number of others can be posited with confidence based on reconstructed line lengths and comparison with the received versions of Daniel. Pfann proposed that these vacats attest to a Second Temple period reading tradition that was reflected in large part by the later Masoretic system of pauses. The scribe of 4Q115 wrote with an orthographic style that tended towards being defective, like 4Q112 (Dana) and the MT, as opposed to the more consistently full orthography of 4Q113 (Danb). There are, however, occasional full spellings in 4Q115, such as
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 148–60; Beyer, ATTM2, 187–99; Pfann, “Preliminary Edition”; Machiela, “New Reconstruction.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) “Double ruling” (three vertical lines) inscribed in the intercolumnar margin (frag. 2)
Image B-284285
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Erasure of letter at end of word by scraping (3–7.12):
Image B-284285
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
2ii.4
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2ii.2, 2ii.5, 3–7.13(2x)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
2ii.1, 3–7.3, 3–7.12–13, 3–7.17
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2ii.2, 2ii.4(2x), 8–9.3
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2ii.3, 3–7.12(2x)
Verbless clause:
3–7.14(2x)
Object early in clause:
2ii.3, 3–7.3, 3–7.17
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
3–7.11
Interrogative
2ii.3
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
3–7.12
4Q117, Ezra
[ed. Ulrich, DJD 16:291–93]
Content synopsis and significance: What little remains of this manuscript contains snippets of Ezra 4:2–11 (frags. 1–2; parallel in 1 Esdras 5:66–70) and 5:17–6:5 (frag. 3; parallel in 1 Esdras 6:20–25). This is the only preserved copy of Ezra from the Qumran caves, and is important for showing that the book was kept as part of the library there. One of the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic in Ezra occurs at 4:8, and while we do not possess the actual change from one language to the other on the extant fragments, frag. 1 (Hebrew) and frag. 2 (Aramaic) contain nearby text, showing that it was once present in the intervening space on the original scroll. The small amount of extant text is quite close to the version of Ezra known from the MT, with a few minor variants. The differences are mostly orthographic, but also include two cases of changing the number of a verb, once from plural to singular, and once from singular to plural. In at least the first case (3.3; Ezra 6:1), this change makes good sense in the narrative context, and corresponds to a variant also present in the LXX. Ezra, like Daniel, is a text whose literary framing is in Hebrew, but includes extensive material in Aramaic. Although it seems to have been composed at a time slightly earlier than the majority of Aramaic texts in the Qumran library, there are clear thematic connections between Ezra and other Aramaic works. These include interest in the positions and success of Israelites in the foreign royal court, how those from Israel are to interact with foreigners more generally, the pedagogical role of priests in Israel, and proper marriage.
Material remains: 4Q117 consists of three fragments. Fragments 1 and 2 are quite small, with portions of several lines of writing preserved on each. Fragment 3 is over twice the size of frags. 1 or 2, with nine partial lines of text. Because the content of all three fragments is part of a known text that closely resembles the MT, we can reconstruct some of the surrounding context, line length, and column width with a fairly high degree of certainty. The column to which frag. 3 once belonged was approximately 10.5 cm wide, and the column of frags. 1–2 closer to 10 cm. It is likely that frags. 1–2 belonged to a single column, perhaps directly preceding the column of frag. 3. Because no margins are preserved on the fragments, it is now impossible to determine the number of lines per column, column height, or the original length of the scroll.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q117 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q117 3
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal (Ulrich, based on Cross)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Ulrich, based on Cross)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript was made of finely-prepared skin, with horizontal guidelines placed at around the average spacing of 6–7 mm from the top of one line to the next. The scribe wrote in a tiny, neat hand, among the smallest scripts on any of the Aramaic Qumran scrolls. Despite the overall care taken by the scribe, a lapse in the usual, formal style is found in the cursive tav at 3.9 (this seems to have been intended as a formal tav based on the ductus, the scribe having failed to lift the pen sufficiently when moving from the first to the second stroke). The spacing of words is very tight in some places, essentially scriptio continua (e.g., 3.3, towards the end of 3.7), but in other places word spaces are more easily discerned. The single, preserved vacat at 3.9 marks a significant section break within a chapter of Ezra, and we might expect that vacats were used regularly throughout the manuscript to demarcate larger sense-units in the narrative. As in many of the Aramaic texts for which we have multiple copies, 4Q117 appears to have exchanged he and aleph indiscriminately in comparison with the MT text of Ezra. It also twice differs from the MT on the number of a verb. As in MT Ezra, we find in 4Q117 the more archaic (or formal)
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 160–61; Beyer, ATTM2, 200.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
3.7
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3.8, 3.9
Use of
3.6
Verb of movement +
3.8
Lexical items:
Morphology:
3.8
Assimilated nun:
3.9
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
3.4
4Q243, Pseudo-Daniela (psDana)
[ed. Collins and Flint, DJD 22:97–121]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is often associated with 4Q244 (psDanb) and 4Q245 (psDanc), all of which were given the title Pseudo-Daniel by J.T. Milik (“Prière de Nabonide,” 411). However, this shared designation is slightly misleading for two reasons. First, 4Q243 and 4Q244 (psDanb) contain overlapping material (4Q243 13.1–4//4Q244 [psDanb] 12.1–4), but neither scroll overlaps with 4Q245 (psDanc) so that it is not clear whether 4Q245 (psDanc) represents the same composition as 4Q243 and 4Q244 (psDanb). Second, the title Pseudo-Daniel implicitly privileges the Daniel traditions that eventually came to constitute the biblical book of Daniel (see Perrin, “Daniel Traditions”). It has become clear that Daniel traditions were pervasive and diverse in the early Second Temple period, and it seems best not to assume that a text like 4Q243 is derivative of the canonical book of Daniel. The names Daniel and Belshazzar in frag. 2 of 4Q243 reveal that at least part of this text is set in the royal Persian court, a setting further confirmed by reference to “the nobles of the King” (
While 4Q243 clearly narrates a court tale focused on Daniel, the precise contents of the story in 4Q243 and 4Q244 (psDanb) are difficult to discern, given the poor state of preservation for both scrolls. Two features, however, provide some sense of the plot. First, there is a reference to something being written down in 4Q243 6. Second, much of the preserved portions of 4Q243 (and 4Q244 [psDanb]) evidently involve a review of Israelite history, spanning from primordial times to at least the Hellenistic period. That the review extends into the Hellenistic period is seen in the reference to someone named “Balakros” (
The narrator of the historical review is never made clear in the available fragments, though the most plausible speaker in light of frags. 1–2 is Daniel. This first-person narrative perspective is extremely popular in the Aramaic literature at Qumran. However, as in many other comparable texts, frags. 1–2 reveal that 4Q243 is framed by third-person narration.
Material remains: Forty fragmentary pieces remain of this manuscript, only a handful of which are (slightly) larger than a postage stamp. Few fragments contain more than four fragmentary lines of text (frags. 12, 24). Several fragments preserve parts of the upper, left, and right margins, though the lower margin is not present. Intercolumnar margins are extant in frags. 11 and 17. Remnants of the scroll’s stitching can be seen in frag. 1. The order of the fragments cannot be reconstructed on material grounds, and the editors have relied primarily on biblical referents to determine their placements.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q243 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q243 1, 24 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian (Collins and Flint) semi-formal (Langlois, “Theonyms”)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–25 CE (Collins and Flint) or slightly earlier (Langlois, “Theonyms”)
Special traits and general comments: Collins and Flint (DJD 22:97) doubted the presence of horizontal ruling in this manuscript, but such ruling appears likely based on the even line spacing and what appear to be very faint script lines on several of the fragments. These are more lightly impressed and thicker than the more obvious vertical column lines, and may be seen best on the third line of frag. 11. The scribe wrote into the ruled intercolumnar margin in frag. 8, and from our few samples it appears that these margins were considerably smaller than in scrolls like 1Q20 (apGen), 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb), and 4Q554 (NJa). Nevertheless, 4Q243 is otherwise generously-spaced, and the scribe wrote in a tidy, well-trained hand making few mistakes as far as we can tell. The most distinctive characteristic of the scribe’s practice is his use of palaeo-Hebrew script at 1.2 to write the divine name
The scribe used at least once the long form of the 2ms suffix, in the theonym just discussed, and perhaps employed samek for /s/ in
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Prière de Nabonide,” 411–15; Beyer, ATTME, 105–7; Beyer, ATTM2, 139–42; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 137–61; Collins, “Pseudo-Daniel.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Divine name written in palaeo-Hebrew characters (1.2):
(b) Supralinear letters inserted (35.1): ]
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
13.1, 24.2, 25.3(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
24.1(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.1(?), 4.1(?), 10.2(?), 12.2(?), 13.1–2(?), 16.2, 24.3
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
6.2
Verbless clause:
16.4
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
13.2(?)
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
24.1
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1.2
20.2
39.2(?)
4Q244, Pseudo-Danielb (psDanb)
[ed. Collins and Flint, DJD 22:123–131]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is often grouped together with 4Q243 (psDana) and 4Q245 (psDanc) under the title Pseudo-Daniel, though 4Q244 overlaps only with 4Q243 and not 4Q245. It is quite possible, therefore, that the three manuscripts classified as Pseudo-Daniel comprise two, distinct compositions. For a fuller discussion of the contents and significance of the composition represented by 4Q244, see the profile for 4Q243 (psDana). The largest preserved fragment of 4Q244 (frag. 12) presents God’s rationale for subjecting Israel to the Babylonian conquest and exile, and contains the only text paralleled in 4Q243 (psDana). Both copies depict the desolation of Israel as the result of their decision to forsake God and follow the ]
Material remains: Less text is extant in 4Q244 than in 4Q243 (psDana). The manuscript comprises fourteen fragments, though these are made up of seventeen pieces, two being joined to make frag. 1 and three to make frag. 12 (Collins and Flint, DJD 22:123). Like 4Q243 (psDana), 4Q244 has several upper margins preserved, most fully on frags. 1 and 12. No lower margins remain, making the dimensions of the columns difficult to discern. Only frags. 1–3 and 12 contain text of any significant length, each preserving broken portions of four lines. Most of the remaining fragments contain little more than one or two complete words. Collins and Flint reported that several of fragments contain worm-holes, and suggested that the damage patterns created by these holes might in the future prove helpful in reconstructing the original order of some of the fragments (DJD 22:123).
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q244 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q244 12
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian, of a similar but “more minute hand than 4Q243” (Collins and Flint)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–25 CE (Collins and Flint)
Special traits and general comments: This scribe wrote in a small script that is visibly more erratic, messy, and cursive than the scribe of 4Q243 (psDana). Collins and Flint (DJD 22:129) mentioned that the script changes on frag. 12, becoming “more cramped” and “more cursive” for the remainder of the fragment. They entertain whether this implies a change of scribe or an attempt to squeeze text secondarily into a preexisting vacat. Neither of these explanations is convincing, and the script remains quite constant throughout the fragment. It does, however, appear that the scribe may have made a new calamus pen or recut his existing one based on the thick letters at the beginning of line 1, and especially the malformed shin of
There is no vav at the beginning of 5ii.4 as transcribed by Collins and Flint, where it seems they either mistook the right, upper arm of the aleph as a separate letter, or forgot to add a bracket indicating textual reconstruction.
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Prière de Nabonide,” 411–15; Beyer, ATTME, 105–7; Beyer, ATTM2, 139–42; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 137–61; Collins, “Pseudo-Daniel.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1.1):
(b) Supralinear word added (4.2): ]
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
4.2(?), 12.1(?), 12.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
5ii.4, 12.2, 13.1(?)
Use of
1–3.1
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1–3.2(?), 12.3
4Q245, Pseudo-Danielc (psDanc)
[ed. Collins and Flint, DJD 22:153–64]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript is grouped with 4Q243 (psDana) and 4Q244 (psDanb) under the heading Pseudo-Daniel. Despite this identification, 4Q245 does not contain any material that overlaps with either 4Q243 (psDana) or 4Q244 (psDanb), and it is not a settled matter that 4Q245 comes from the same composition as the other two manuscripts (DJD 22:153). For more on the relationship between the three scrolls see the profile on 4Q243 (psDana). 4Q245 1 appears to preserve the opening portion of the composition (DJD 22:153–54), and near the beginning of the fragment we find an occurrence of the name Daniel along with the phrase “a book that was given” (
Material remains: Four fragments of this manuscript are extant, and no other extant scroll from Qumran clearly contains the same composition as 4Q245. Fragment 1 is the tallest of the four fragments, at over 11 cm and preserving parts of twelve lines. However, the precise height of the manuscript is impossible to determine with any certainty, since nothing remains of the lower margin. Fragment 2 likely fell at the end of the scroll, with the four blank lines in 2ii suggesting a column that was all or mostly blank. Fragments 3 and 4 are very small, containing only a few legible letters (frag. 4) to two words (frag. 3). If Collins and Flint are correct about frag. 1 belonging to the beginning of the scroll and frag. 2 to its end, we would possess text from near both its ends. Unfortunately, the poor state of the manuscript prevents us from hazarding a guess as to how much intervening material we now are missing.
Notes on provenance: 4Q245 1 is found in the early PAM “G series” plate 40.622, meaning that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q245 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q245 1, 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian, “written in a larger, clearer hand than 4Q243 or 4Q244” (Collins and Flint)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–25 CE (Collins and Flint)
Special traits and general comments: Among the first things one notices about this manuscript are its very high-quality of skin and its neat, formal, and relatively-large script. The skin is thin and noticeably lighter in color than is the norm among the Qumran scrolls (comparable with the 11Q19 [Ta], though written on the opposite side of the skin), and the manuscript is carefully, evenly ruled with generous spacing. The space between columns in 4Q245 is only slightly less than in 1Q20 (apGen). The only things keeping this manuscript from being labeled as “excellent” in quality is that we lack an accurate estimate of the outer margins and several scribal features, such as the scribe’s use (or non-use) of vacats. In what little text remains of the scroll, the scribe wrote in the Aramaic orthography and style typical of the texts found at Qumran.
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Milik, “Prière de Nabonide,” 411–15; Beyer, ATTME, 105–7; Beyer, ATTM2, 139–42; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 137–61; Collins, “Pseudo-Daniel”; Flint, “4Qpseudo-Daniel”; Wise, “High Priesthood.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2.3(?), 2.4(?), 2.5(?)
Lexical items:
4Q246, Apocryphon of Daniel (apocrDan)
[ed. Puech, DJD 22:165–84]
Content synopsis and significance: This text has received much attention, due in large part to its mention of the parallel titles “Son of God” (
Material remains: Only a single fragment remains of this manuscript, though it is quite well-preserved relative to other Aramaic scrolls in the Qumran corpus. The fragment contains portions of two consecutive columns, the second of which is almost completely in-tact. Roughly half of the first column also remains. The left edge of the fragment represents the end of a sheet. The presence of upper, lower, and intercolumnar margins gives us a sense of the original height of the scroll and the dimensions of one of its columns, but we can say nothing of the its original width. Scribal guidelines and regular spacing indicate the skill and care with which this scroll was prepared and written, though it now bears the scars of damage, having been wrinkled, abraded, and torn or gnawed by insects (DJD 22:165).
Notes on provenance: The fragment of 4Q246 is not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While its discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q246 1
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian formal (Cook)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Milik); ca. 25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This is a small, but very well-executed manuscript. The scribal preparation and script are among the highest quality of the Qumran Aramaic corpus, and compare favorably even with 1Q20 (apGen), though the scale of 4Q246 is much more modest than that scroll (hence, my “Very good” designation, rather than “excellent”). The left side of the manuscript is the end of a sheet, which has been detached from the originally following sheet. A number of scholars have agreed that this text is written in a highly poetic configuration of parallel bicola, in which two parallel phrases are paired, each with three (or occasionally two) stresses (i.e., a 3+3 or 3+2 structure). The structure is easily perceived, for example, in 1ii.5–6:
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 162–79; Beyer, ATTME, 109–13; Beyer, ATTM2, 145–9; Cook, “4Q246”; Fitzmyer, “Son of God”; Justnes, Salvation, 29–178.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Sublinear letter or scribal mark, with the reading disputed between a bet or mem (1i.2). Puech suggests the insertion of a cursive mem by a later scribe, signifying
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii.4, 1ii.5–6
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i.3, 1i.4, 1i.7, 1i.8, 1ii.4, 1ii.6, 1ii.8
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1i.2
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1i.1(?), 1i.2–3(?), 1ii.2, 1ii.3, 1ii.6, 1ii.7, 1ii.8, 1ii.8–9
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i.1
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1i.9(2x), 1ii.1(2x), 1ii.1–2, 1ii.2, 1ii.3
Verbless clause:
1i.5, 1ii.3, 1ii.5(2x), 1ii.7, 1ii.9
Object early in clause:
1i.9(2x), 1ii.1(2x), 1ii.3, 1ii.8, 1ii.8–9
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
1ii.1
Verb of movement +
1i.4
Verb of movement +
1i.2(?), 1i.5(?)
Verb + reflexive pronoun:
1ii.7, 1ii.8
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
1ii.1
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1ii.8
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
See the section on Special traits and general comments. The entire text exhibits poetic couplings, for example, in 1i.9–ii.1 (
4Q242, Prayer of Nabonidus (PrNab)
[ed. Collins, DJD 22:83–93]
Content synopsis and significance: This fragmentary manuscript purportedly records the first-person narration of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (556–539 BCE). It is known as the Prayer of Nabonidus because of the partially intact incipit with which it begins: “The words of the p[ra]yer which Nabonidus, king [of Baby]lon, prayed [when he was smitten] with a bad disease by the decree of G[o]d in Teima” (1–3.1–2). After this introduction, the king briefly recounts his seven years of affliction and the divine intervention that led to him being healed of his sickness and forgiven of his sin (1–3.3–4). Nabonidus reports that a Jewish diviner (
Some scholars have suggested that 4Q242 occupies an intermediate place between several Babylonian accounts about Nabonidus on the one hand, and the story of the madness and exile of King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4 on the other (Collins, DJD 22:86; cf. Newsom, “Why Nabonidus?”). Long before the discovery of the Qumran finds, it was suspected that the story in Dan 4 was originally about Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar (e.g., Reissler, Das Buch Daniel, 43; Hommel, “Abfassungszeit”). The Nabonidus Chronicle published in 1882 recounts that Nabonidus spent ten years of his reign at Teima in Arabia. Two additional, competing accounts of Nabonidus’s sojourn have also come to light, a harshly critical one written by a group of Babylonian clergy (“Verse Account of Nabonidus,” in ANET, 305–7) and Nabonidus’s own report on the Harran Stele (cf. Gadd, “Nabonidus”). These texts and the kingship of Nabonidus more generally have now been studied extensively by Beaulieu (Reign of Nabonidus), though they have recently been supplemented by a number of cuneiform inscriptions referring to Nabonidus’ reign, found in Tayma (in modern Saudi Arabia) between 2004 and 2015 (Macdonald, ed., Tayma’ II). The Prayer of Nabonidus represents a Jewish version of the king’s sojourn in Teima, and contains several, striking similarities to the story of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4. Newsom (“Why Nabonidus?”) and Kratz (“Nabonid”) saw in the Prayer a dependence on the sixth-century BCE cuneiform literature, while Waerzeggers (“Prayer”) noted that Babylonian speculation on Nabonidus’ legacy continued into the Hellenistic period. Both 4Q242 and Dan 4 associate a Babylonian king with a seven-year sojourn, are narrated from the king’s first-person perspective, involve a Jewish hero, and recount the king’s eventual recognition of the error of idolatry followed (presumably, in the case of 4Q242) by his confession of Israel’s God. We cannot know with certainty if the author of Dan 4 depended on some form of the Prayer of Nabonidus, though Dan 4 does appear to reflect an awareness of either oral or written traditions regarding the sojourn of Nabonidus similar to those underlying 4Q242. In this scenario, the author of Dan 4 would have changed the name of the Babylonian king to the more famous Nebuchadnezzar and attributed the name of Daniel to the anonymous diviner of 4Q242. In doing so, the older Nabonidus tradition was associated with the broader collection of Danielic literature that flourished in the Second Temple period (e.g., 4Q243–245 [psDana–c] and the Greek additions to Daniel).
Beyond its obvious connections to Dan 4, the Prayer of Nabonidus uses a number of literary tropes that characterize the Qumran Aramaic texts more generally. First, 4Q242 is a good example of Jewish court-tale literature, a genre repeatedly encountered in the Jewish Aramaic literature of the Second Temple period. In many of these tales, a Jewish courtier achieves high standing within the foreign court because of his wisdom or skill, with the foreign king eventually coming to acknowledge the authority of the God of Israel. The most well-known examples of court tales are found in the now-canonical book of Daniel, but are also present in the so-called Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243–245), Jews at the Persian Court (4Q550), Four Kingdoms (4Q552–553a), parts of the Abram cycle in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), and the introduction of Tobit (see Tob 1:10–22). Second, the incipit in the opening line of 4Q242 resembles a number of other headings found in the Aramaic Qumran literature, used to introduce narrative works or major subsections within them (see Perrin, “Capturing”). These include the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 5.29), Words of Michael (4Q529 1.1), Visions of Amram (4Q543 1a–c.1), and Tobit (Tob 1:1). Finally, the command that the king write down his praise of God reflects a general concern with textuality and written records that pervades the Aramaic texts from the Qumran caves, which often depict their protagonists as consulting or composing texts of various kinds. This motif is present, for example, in the Aramaic sources of 1 Enoch, the Book of Giants, the Words of Michael, the Birth of Noah, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Testament of Jacob?, New Jerusalem, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Apocryphon of Levib?, the Testament of Qahat, the Visions of Amram, and Dan 7.
Material remains: Three fragments have been combined to reconstruct part of this scroll’s initial column, of which the first nine lines partly remain (along with an interlinear addition above line 9). In fact, what are labelled frags. 1 and 2 each comprise several smaller pieces (frag. 1, three pieces; frag. 2, two pieces). Fragment 1 is approximately 8 × 8 cm, roughly the size of a standard playing card. The damaged frag. 4 is considerably smaller, containing only a few partially preserved words and phrases. In 4.1, the last letter of the first preserved word is certainly a dalet, as read by Puech, and not a resh, as read by Collins and others who follow Milik. Puech’s mem toward the beginning of the same word is based on a false reading from a shadow on the earlier photographs, and should not be accepted. We can, however, read with some confidence the letters
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q242 3 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.964. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining pieces of 4Q242 in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q242 1, 2a, 2b, 3
Material: Skin
Script: Semi-cursive (Collins); late Hasmonean semi-cursive (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: ca. 75–50 BCE (Collins, based on Cross); ca. 50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: We possess the beginning of this manuscript, with a cut edge at what is either the right side of a skin sheet or the now-broken vertical scribal rule mark at the left edge of a preceding column. While the comparable right-hand side of the first column of 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama) 1a–c has clear signs of a sewn seam, indicating a preceding cover sheet, 4Q242 bears no such evidence. Although either a cover sheet or a preceding blank column seems to have been used commonly for scrolls at Qumran, we cannot be certain that 4Q242 had either of these features. It seems unlikely that the upper margin is preserved in its entirety, since it is badly damaged and would be exceptionally small for a manuscript of this quality. A vertical ruled line is clearly discernable at the right edge of the first column, but horizontal script lines must have been inscribed very lightly if they were ever made at all. The fluctuating distances between lines suggests that they were not used. Nevertheless, the scribe did an admirable job of writing a neat, attractive copy, using generous line and word spacing. No vacats are preserved, though minor sense divisions do occur at 1–3.3 (between
The scribe of 4Q242 wrote in a squared, tall script with several distinguishing features. These include a long, descending vertical stroke on the shin and a final mem that is skinny and extends well below the bottoms of the surrounding medial letters. In 1–3.2, however, the final mem was apparently foregone for a medial form, either by mistake or, as Puech (“Prière de Nabonide,” 214) suggests, because this is a construct noun formation viewed as a single unit. The latter would still be a very rare practice among the Qumran Aramaic scrolls. As noted by Collins (DJD 22:85), the scribe preferred to use aleph and yod to represent vowels at the ends of words rather than he, a practice that may have extended even to indefinite feminine nouns, if this is the proper interpretation of
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Prière de Nabonide,” 407–11; Meyer, Nabonid, 16; Beyer, ATTM1, 223–4; Beyer, ATTME, 104; Beyer, ATTM2, 139; García Martínez, Apocalyptic, 116–28; Puech, “Prière de Nabonide”; Eshel, “Book of Daniel.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear text inserted (1.9, 3.9; approximate placement of fragments)
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1–3.1, 1–3.3(?), 4.4
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1–3.2–3(?), 1–3.5–6(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
4.1(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1–3.4, 1–3.7
Verbless clause:
1–3.4
Object early in clause:
1–3.4
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1–3.8(?)
Participle + finite form of
1–3.7
Lexical items:
Morphology:
4.1, 4.2(?)
4Q552, Four Kingdomsa
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:59–72]
Content synopsis and significance: 4Q552 is one of three manuscript witnesses to a composition known as the Four Kingdoms, a composition that, despite being quite fragmentary, can be identified as a court-tale that includes a vision. Like many of the Aramaic scrolls from Qumran, this text was unknown prior to the Qumran discoveries, though it bears some clear resemblances to the better-known stories of Dan 2 and 7. This manuscript is most notable for its account of a vision told in the first-person voice, which overlaps with parts of 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb; Puech also identified a third manuscript as 4Q553a [Four Kingdomsc]). In the vision, four symbolic, animated trees (
Material remains: Six fragments remain of this manuscript, two of which contain most of the preserved text (frags. 1 and 2). Puech proposed joining frag. 2 to col. i of frag. 1, a placement that he acknowledges is not certain (DJD 37:59). If this placement is accepted, the collated frags. 1 and 2 would provide us with a significant portion of two consecutive columns. The four remaining fragments (3–6) contain very little text, ranging from parts of a few lines (frags. 3, 5, and 6) to a portion of a single word (frag. 4). We do, however, have several margins preserved (upper, lower, and intercolumnar). Fragments 1 and 3 appear to preserve a complete upper margin, and frag. 1 provides a complete intercolumnar margin.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q552 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q552 1i–ii, 2
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian formal, slightly prior to 4QSama (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This is a very carefully-prepared and neatly-written manuscript, virtually free of mistakes in the little text preserved. The margins of 4Q552 are similar in size to good or very good manuscripts like 4Q208 (Enastra) and 4Q534 (Birth of Noaha), but somewhat smaller than the best ones (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q209 [Enastrb]). We can see in frag. 1ii that the scribe used at least small vacats to indicate minor breaks in running dialogue. Another notable practice in frag. 1i is the scribe’s justification of the last word of a line with the left-hand column guideline, often leaving a conspicuous gap between the penultimate and final words of lines. This same practice occurs in 4Q203/204 (EnGiantsa/Enc) and 4Q554 (NJa). The scribal practice is otherwise typical of the corpus more widely, with the scribe using a lamed for the prefix-conjugation verb
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 108–109; Beyer, ATTM2, 144–45; Flint, “Tradition”; Stuckenbruck, “Formation”; Hogeterp, “Daniel”; Sharon, “Four Kingdoms.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear vav or yod added (1.10):
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1i+2.6, 1ii.2
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1i+2.9, 1i+2.10(?), 1ii.1, 1ii.4(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i+2.5(?), 1i+2.6(?), 1i+2.8, 1i+2.9, 1ii.2, 1ii.2(?), 1ii.3(3x), 1ii.5(2x), 1ii.8, 1ii.9, 1ii.11, 3.1, 3.2(?)
Verbless clause:
1ii.5, 1ii.6, 1ii.8, 1ii.9, 3.1
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
1i+2.9, 1ii.4
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
1i+2.9, 1ii.5, 1ii.8
Assimilated nun:
1i+2.10
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1i+2.9
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms verbal affix
5.11
1ii.4
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q553, Four Kingdomsb
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:73–80]
Content synopsis and significance: 4Q553 is one of three manuscripts associated with a previously unknown text, referred to by Puech and others as the Four Kingdoms (see also 4Q552 [Four Kingdomsa] and 4Q553a [Four Kingdomsc]). For a fuller summary of the composition and explanation of the significance of its dream-vision, see the profile on 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa). A sizeable portion of 4Q553 overlaps with frag. 1ii of 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa), the visionary portion of the text telling of four trees that stand for four kingdoms. It is important to note that, while “Babylon” is clearly named as the first kingdom in both manuscripts, Puech’s reconstruction of “Media” as the name of the second kingdom in 4Q553 has met with severe criticism. Hogeterp (“Daniel,” 178) accepts Puech’s reading at face value, but a number of other interpreters have rejected the proposal, including Perrin (Dynamics, 215–16), Reynolds (Symbolism, 200), and Sharon (“Four Kingdoms,” 213–14). Puech noted two verbal correspondences between 4Q553 and 4Q246 (apocrDan; the so-called Son of God text), namely, the use of the phrase
Material remains: The four numbered fragments of this manuscript are actually formed from several smaller pieces, originally joined by Jean Starcky. If Starcky’s arrangement of the fragments is correct, it would suggest that the remains of 4Q553 cover portions of three consecutive columns (the first, frag. 2i; the second, a combination of frags. 1i and 3+2ii+4; and the third, frag. 1ii). Puech considers this possibility, but also expresses some ambivalence about it, noting that we may actually have the remains of four columns. In any case, Starcky’s collation of frags. 3+2ii+4 as belonging to a single column seems secure, given the overlapping material that it shares with 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa). Based on this arrangement, Puech attempted to reconstruct the dimensions of the scroll’s columns (13 to 13.5 cm wide, with seven lines). An intercolumnar margin with a seam between two sheets is quite well preserved between cols. i and ii of frag. 1. A fairly sizable upper margin is present on the same fragment, while frag. 2 contains both lower and intercolumnar margins (the latter with no seam).
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q553 4 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.978. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining pieces of 4Q553 in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q553 2–4
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-cursive, with some traces of semi-formal style (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The physical layout of this manuscript is more generous in its spacing than 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa), and the scribe of 4Q553 also used significantly larger vacats for the same type of narrative pauses in dialogue. At the same time, the scribe of 4Q553 wrote in a slightly less controlled, tidy hand than the scribe of 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa), occasionally using some cursive letters (e.g., the tav switches back and forth between more formal and more cursive forms). In other respects, the scribe of 4Q553 abided by the conventions typical of most Qumran Aramaic scrolls, with orthographic, morphological, and syntactic characteristics mirroring those in 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa). If we accept Puech’s relative palaeographic dating, 4Q553 appears to be the earlier of the two copies.
Puech noted, based on autopsy, that there are very lightly traced horizontal script lines (DJD 37:73), though these are not visible in the images. The regular line spacing across columns on frag. 2 confirms his testimony.
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 108–9; Beyer, ATTM2, 144–45; Flint, “Tradition”; Stuckenbruck, “Formation”; Hogeterp, “Daniel”; Sharon, “Four Kingdoms.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letters added (3.3–4):
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
3+2ii+4.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
2i.5, 3+2ii+4.1(?), 3+2ii+4.3(4x), 3+2ii+4.4(?), 3+2ii+4.4(2x), 3+2ii+4.5(2x), 3+2ii+4.6(?)
Verbless clause:
3+2ii+4.4, 3+2ii+4.5–6
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1i.4
Object suffix on verb:
3+2ii+4.4, 3+2ii+4.5
4Q553a, Four Kingdomsc
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:81–90]
Content synopsis and significance: Starcky had originally grouped the fragments comprising 4Q553a with those of 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb) using the siglum ‘Sy 20.’ Puech subdivided Starcky’s copy into two, based in part on linguistic considerations and in part on palaeography (DJD 37:57). As a result, Puech tentatively included 4Q553a as one of three manuscripts discussed under the title Four Kingdoms, along with 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa) and 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb). However, unlike 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa) and 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb), the extant fragments of 4Q553a do not bear clear evidence of the four-kingdoms schema, nor are there any obvious overlaps between 4Q553a and the other two manuscripts. As a result, Puech could not definitively state that 4Q553a is a part of the same composition as 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa) and 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb). That being said, he rightly notes that the references to dream-visions, angels, and trees found in 4Q553a indicate that it shares in the “same literary genre” as the other two Four Kingdoms manuscripts.
The extant text of 4Q553a is very fragmentary, and the lack of running narrative prevents one from saying much about its contents. The vocabulary of 4Q553a is reminiscent of many other visionary compositions from the Aramaic Scrolls. Angels are referred to twice (2ii.1, 2; cf. 1Q20 [apGen] 15.14; 4Q213a [Levib] 2.18; 4Q529 [Words of Michael] 1.1, 4Q552 [Four Kingdomsa] 1.5), trees may be mentioned (on which, see below; 7.2, 3; cf. 4Q201 [Ena] 1ii.4, 5, 9; 4Q204 [Enc] 1i.28, 1xii.26; 4Q211 [Enastrd] 1i.4, 5; 4Q552 [Four Kingdomsa] 2ii.1, 2, 4, 11; 4Q553 [Four Kingdomsb] 6ii.2, 5; 10.2, 3), and there is a reference to the heavens (6.1; cf. 4Q204 [Enc] 5ii.27; 4Q209 [Enastrb] 23.2, 5, 6, 7; 4Q213a [Levib] 1i.8; 1ii.16–18; 4Q530 [EnGiantsb] 7ii.11). The phrase “and I saw” (
Material remains: Puech groups under the siglum 4Q553a the fragments of PAM 43.579 not included in his 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb), but he warns that we cannot know with certainty whether all of the fragments not belonging to 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsa) derive from the same manuscript (DJD 37:81). Puech organized the eleven small fragments into two, distinct sub-groups on the basis of their material features: frags. 1–3 and frags. 4–11. He argued that the former grouping attests to between three and five columns, while the latter group attests to at least two columns. The extant fragments vary considerably in size and shape, though none of them is much larger than a postage stamp, and several are considerably smaller than this (i.e., frags. 8, 9, and 11). Frags. 1, 2, and 3 contain (or may contain) intercolumnar margins, frag. 3 having in its margin a seam with the plant-based thread still well preserved.
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q553a 1 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.976. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining pieces of 4Q553a in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q553a, 2, 3 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean semi-cursive (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Little can be said about this collection of fragments, all of which may not even belong to the same scroll. Very little text is preserved, and what is preserved does not show significant idiosyncrasies relative to the broader Qumran Aramaic corpus. We do find a medial mem used in final position at 3ii.2, and the scribe may have varied between formal and cursive tav (though we do not have both styles used on the same fragment). Compared to 4Q552 (Four Kingdomsa) and 4Q553 (Four Kingdomsb), the scribe of 4Q553a generally seems slightly more erratic in style. The “good” assessment of manuscript quality below is very tentative, based on too small a sample to be made with confidence.
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 108–9; Beyer, ATTM2, 144–45; Flint, “Tradition”; Stuckenbruck, “Formation”; Hogeterp, “Daniel”; Sharon, “Four Kingdoms.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Possible supralinear letter added (10.2):
Language
Syntax
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
3ii.2(?), 7.1, 9.3(?)
4Q550, Jews at the Persian Court
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:1–46]
Content synopsis and significance: 4Q550 centers on two apparent Judeans with Persian names, Patireza and Bagasrav. In this very fragmentary, otherwise unknown text we learn that the two men served in the courts of the Persian Kings Darius and Xerxes, respectively. The later fragments of the text, as ordered by Puech, recount Bagasrav’s conflict with an antagonist named Bagoshi. Unfortunately, many details of the narrative are now obscured due to the fragmentary nature of the scroll. In fact, there is some debate as to whether 4Q550 tells a single, coherent story (e.g., Talmon, “Book of Esther”) or two distinct tales, one about Patireza and the other about Bagasrav, understood as two unrelated figures (e.g., Wechsler, “Para-Biblical”). While the phrase “to Patireza, your father” in 1.1 implies a second protagonist in the parts of the story mentioning Patireza, Patireza and Bagasrav are never named together on the same fragment, and so their familial connection cannot be established with certainty. In the editio princeps, Puech weighed both of the options above, and concluded that 4Q550 tells a single story about Patireza and his son Bagasrav, serving under successive Persian kings (DJD 37:6–7). In Milik’s initial, influential publication of these fragments (“Les modèles”), he identified 4Q550 as the “modèles,” “archétypes,” or “sources” underlying the book of Esther. Milik’s proposal led to significant debate over the relationship between 4Q550 and Esther, the latter being otherwise unattested at Qumran (see White Crawford, “Esther”; Talmon, “Book of Esther”; Collins and Green, “Persian Court”). Despite some striking verbal and thematic similarities, it is difficult to prove direct literary dependence or establish a specific tradition-historical relationship between the two texts. What can be said is that both 4Q550 and Esther participate in the wider literary phenomenon of the Jewish court tale. The hallmarks of this genre include rivalries between Jewish and non-Jewish courtiers, the ascendency of Jewish courtiers to positions of power as a result of their skill and righteousness, and the foreign king being led to confess the greatness of Israel’s God. All of these traits are found in 4Q550, as in the Aramaic literature focused on Daniel found at Qumran (see, e.g., the profile for 4Q552 [Four Kingdomsa]). There are also telling verbal correspondences between 4Q550 and other Aramaic court tales, such as use of the temporal phrase
Material remains: Puech assigned sixteen fragments to this scroll, though several of them are combinations of smaller pieces (there are at least twenty-three pieces comprising Puech’s sixteen fragments). Significant portions of five columns are extant, giving a basic sense of some the scroll’s dimensions. The best-preserved column is 7 (frags. 7+7a), the outside dimensions of which (including margins) are around 6 by 16 cm. The skin is in many places wrinkled, shrunken, or contorted, and so the measurements are only approximate. It should be noted that Milik (“Les modèles,” 361–63) included as part of 4Q550 a fragment not present in Starcky’s original grouping (Starcky, and initially Milik, had placed it with 4Q537 [TJacob?]), containing what seems to be part of an historical apocalyptic narrative to which Milik gave the siglum 4QprEstherf. The contents of the fragment would add a new conceptual dimension to the text and has been included in some editions, such as that of García-Martínez and Tigchelaar (DSSSE, 1102–3; there it is given the siglum 4Q550e). Puech rejected Milik’s inclusion of the fragment, and instead numbered it as 4Q583 (Prophecye; DJD 37:447–52), a decision with which I agree. 4Q550 is the only known copy of this text.
An ink mark in the shape of a circle intersected by an “x” should be noted on the verso of frag. 1. When compared with other available images of the verso sides of Qumran fragments, it is clear that the mark is a “G,” stamped onto the manuscript at an early stage of the modern cataloguing process. This letter identifies the fragment as part of the “G series,” on which see the Notes on provenance section, below. The “G” stands for “Government,” signifying a fragment purchased by the Jordanian government from the Bedouin, and therefore not found in the official excavations directed by Roland de Vaux. Similar “G” marks can be seen, for example, on the versos of 4Q84 (Psb) 25, 4Q434 (Barkhi Nafshia) 7, 4Q525 (Beatitudes) 14, and 4Q571 (Words of Michaela) 1.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q550 were photographed on the PAM “G series” plates 40.585 and 40.590. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of 4Q550 were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q550 7, 7a
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-formal, with some influence of semi-cursive style (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: A number of large fragments of this manuscript are preserved, allowing us to achieve a relatively good sense of its overall size and the dimensions of its columns. Puech found evidence of at least six sheets and up to twelve columns, with portions of approximately ten columns remaining. Four seams between sheets are partially preserved (frags. 1, 3, 5a, 6b). The copy was laid out with columns that were relatively short in height, appearing to have averaged around 4.5 cm high and 14 cm long, with seven or eight lines of text. The scribal hand is quite neat and practiced, though there are several corrections (note that Puech’s suggested supralinear lamed at 6+6a–c.5 is actually a just hole in the leather), and no clear evidence for extensive use of vacats. The only unambiguous case is at 7.7, with a vacat over half a line long that may well mark the end of the composition, as Puech proposed. In this case, we may possess the last sheet of the manuscript, suggesting that it was rolled at the center of the scroll when stored in Cave 4 in antiquity. The two other vacats suggested in Puech’s edition (8.1; 10.7) are subject to some hesitation. In the first case, there is no visible dry-ruled guideline, as in the following lines, and the preserved skin above the first line of script is only slightly larger than the upper margin of frag. 1 (which seems to have shrunken). As for 10.7, a similar logic applies, with skin preserved beneath that last written line of approximately the same size as the lower margin of frag. 5.
There is a significant amount of scribal variation in this manuscript. While all of the fragments have very similar physical characteristics, suggesting that they belong to a single scroll, there is often disparity in the way some characters are penned, even within the same fragment and in close proximity (e.g., the cursive and formal forms of tav in
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Les modèles”; Beyer, ATTME, 113–17; Beyer, ATTM2, 149–53; Talmon, “Book of Esther”; White Crawford, “Esther”; Wechsler, “Para-Biblical”; White Crawford, “4QTales.”
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear addition of the phrase “of all the [ea]rth” (1.6a):
(b) Supralinear addition of zayin (7+7a.3):
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 4.4, 5+5a.1(part.), 6+6a+6b+6c.6, 6+6a+6b+6c.7, 7+7a.3
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1.4, 5+5a.4(part.), 5+5a.5(part.; 2x[?]), 5+5a.6(part.), 6+6a+6b+6c.1(?), 6+6a+6b+6c.2(?), 6+6a+6b+6c.3(2x?), 6+6a+6b+6c.4, 7+7a.1(part.), 7+7a.2, 7+7a.5(part.), 7+7a.6(part.)
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1.5
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.6(3x), 2.7, 4.2, 5+5a.2, 5+5a.2(?), 5+5a.4, 5+5a.6(2x), 5+5a.7, 6+6a+6b+6c.8(?), 6+6a+6b+6c.8, 7+7a.1, 7+7a.3(?), 7+7a.7(?)
Verbless clause:
7+7a.1(2x)
Direct object marker (if present):
Use of
1.4, 1.5, 10.6(?)
Verb of movement +
4.2, 7+7a.6(?)
Verb of movement +
6+6a+6b+6c.6, 6+6a+6b+6c.7
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
4.3(?)
Participle + finite form of
1.7
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
1.4(?)
1.5
1.4, 1.6
Object suffix on verb:
5+5a.6(2x), 6+6a+6b+6c.8(2x?)
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
5+5a.6(2x)
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
5+5a.4, 6+6a+6b+6c.2
Other notable features:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4 Translations or Possible Translations
4Q156, Leviticus? (Lev?)
[ed. Milik, DJD 6:86–89]
Content synopsis and significance: The text preserved on this manuscript has proven to be something of an enigma among the Aramaic scrolls from Qumran. Enough of the text remains to show beyond doubt that it is a fairly literal translation into Aramaic of some verses from a description of the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. On the two extant fragments we find small bits of Lev 16:12–15 and 16:18–21, mostly preserving only partial words (there are twenty-three complete words in total). If we exclude the more literal segments of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), 4Q156 is the only known Aramaic translation of a passage from the Pentateuch dating to the Second Temple period, marking it as a highly significant text in view of the broader Qumran Aramaic corpus. Predating the two Job translations from Qumran on palaeographic grounds, this manuscript is also the earliest surviving translation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. However, scholars have debated what to make of this discovery. Beginning with the original DJD publication of Milik, some have suggested that 4Q156 attests, along with 11Q10 (Job) and 4Q157 (Job), to a Second Temple period translation tradition that may be genealogically related to later Jewish (rabbinic) targums. This approach seems to assume that 4Q156 represents a translation of the entire Hebrew book of Leviticus, or at least a significant portion of it. Other scholars (e.g., Fitzmyer, “Targum”; Stuckenbruck and Freedman, “Fragments”) have cautioned that this may have been something other than a “targum,” such as a liturgical text (suggested as a possibility already by Milik) or part of a larger Aramaic composition that might resemble, for example, the New Jerusalem text. Even if the latter option were correct, the very close adherence of 4Q156 to the Hebrew text of Leviticus is noteworthy. Although this adherence is striking, Stuckenbruck and Freedman (cf. appendix by M. Kasher in DJD 6:92–93) have rightly pointed out a number of places where 4Q156 stands in notable disagreement with the later Pentateuch targums. This is one reason to remain suspicious of suggestions about genealogical relationships between 4Q156 and the later rabbinic targums. Moreover, even among the scanty remains of 4Q156 we find some rather free translation, at least when compared to known Hebrew and Greek versions of Leviticus (these variations also do not resemble anything preserved in cols. 25–27 of the Temple Scroll [11Q19]). The first variation occurs in 1.6, where 4Q156 omits the Hebrew locative
Material remains: We possess two medium-sized, irregularly-shaped fragments of this scroll, the smaller of which (5×5 cm) is roughly the size of the large fragment of 4Q157, and contains seven partial lines of text. The slightly larger second fragment also has seven partial lines, but is several centimeters wider than frag. 1. While the transcriptions of Milik and Beyer are largely accurate, each has problems, some of which affect how we understand the text and its reconstruction. First, Milik and Kasher are almost surely correct in transcribing a kaph in the phrase
Notes on provenance: Fragment 1 of 4Q156 is found on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.617, meaning that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of the scroll were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q156 fragments 1 and 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-formal
Proposed palaeographic date: Second century BCE (Milik)
Special traits and general comments: The most striking characteristic in this manuscript is undoubtedly the scribe’s use of two vertical dots (a dicolon) to mark a pause between small sense-units in the text (cf. Tov, Scribal Practices, 138–39). There are nine dicola either legible or reconstructed with some confidence, six of which correspond to the Masoretic sof pasuq dicolon (i.e., end of verse), two to the Masoretic atnakh, and one to a natural break in Lev 16:21 lacking either of these marks in the Masorah. Eight of the nine dicola precede a conjunctive vav and a verb indicating a new action in the narrative, the one exception being a more clearly marked temporal progression in 2.4, in which the conjunctive vav is replaced by
Aside from the remarkable use of the dicolon, this manuscript is quite typical for those found at Qumran. Ruled guidelines are not visible on the images, and the line spacing varies appreciably, especially between the two fragments, with frag. 1 being more tightly spaced than frag. 2. Although the fragments are missing only approximately three verses from Leviticus between them, this difference in spacing may suggest that the fragments come from two successive columns. The scribe wrote in a well-trained, Hasmonean semi-formal hand, and Stuckenbruck and Freedman (“Fragments,” 93) have observed that a more conservative (or defective) spelling style is used. Letter size and shape varies slightly more than we might expect within the highest quality manuscripts, but the small amount of preserved text exhibits no mistakes or corrections. The translation follows Hebrew Leviticus quite closely, and this includes the predominantly verb-early syntax of the source text.
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Fitzmyer, “Targum”; Angerstorfer, “Targumforschung”; Angerstorfer, “Toratargums”; Beyer, ATTM1, 278–80; Beyer, ATTME, 132–33; Beyer, ATTM2, 170; Stuckenbruck and Freedman, “Fragments”; Shepherd, “Taxonomy,” 189–206.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Two dots (dicolon) used to indicate minor sense-divisions (1.6):
Image B-284476
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.4, 2.5
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.3, 1.5(2x), 1.7, 2.1(?), 2.3(2x), 2.6
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.6–7
Lexical items
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
2.3(2x)
Assimilated nun:
1.7
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q157, Job
[ed. Milik, DJD 6:90]
Content synopsis and significance: What remains of this manuscript preserves a very small portion of an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew book of Job. Not even a full verse of the translation is extant in its entirety, only various words and phrases from Job’s first address (Job 3:5–9) and Eliphaz’s reply (4:16–5:4). 11Q10 (Job) preserves text from Job 17:14 onward, and so there is no direct overlap between the two Qumran translations of the book. 4Q157 has been discussed primarily in connection with the much better-preserved 11Q10 (Job), with the two often being taken together as indicative of an active targum tradition during the Second Temple period. On the broader significance of this assumption, see the profile for 11Q10 (Job). In what little of 4Q157 is preserved, the translation quite closely resembles the later Hebrew of the Masoretic Text of Job. Even within this very small sample, however, some flexibility in the Übersetzungsweise of the translator may be discerned, compared with the more rigid approach of many (though not all) of the later rabbinic targums, and specifically the rabbinic targum of Job (see Puech, “Le targum,” 140). This includes the repeated addition of conjunctive vav, and the more explicit restatement of Job 5:2 as a question through the addition of an interrogative he to begin the verse. In the end, little can be said with confidence about translation style, and the significance of this manuscript lies mainly in its being a second attestation of an Aramaic translation of Job from the Qumran caves.
Material remains: Two fragments of this scroll have been identified, the outer dimensions of the first being slightly smaller than a modern-day playing card, while the second is only a fraction of this size. Fragment 1 contains portions of two columns, with ten partially-preserved lines of writing at its greatest height (col. 2). It also has a nicely-preserved intercolumnar margin. In 1i.4, the last letter (left untranscribed by Milik) may be read as
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q157 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q157 fragments 1 and 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Developed Herodian (Milik); late Herodian (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–50 CE (Milik); 25–50 CE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript is made from high-quality, lightly-colored leather. It is neatly spaced with clear ruling and a fairly generous margin between the two preserved columns. The vertical guideline, providing the scribe with the right side of the column, is more deeply incised than the other lines on the large fragment. The writing and spacing is slightly more compact than in many of the Qumran manuscripts, comparable, for example, to 4Q529 (Words of Michael). The scribe wrote in a well-trained, Herodian-period style, with some of the calligraphic flourishes also present in 11Q10 (Job) (though the scribes are clearly different). There are two preserved vacats, with that at 1ii.7 corresponding to a verse break in MT Job. Little weight should be placed on the absence of scribal errors, given the small amount of preserved text.
Regarding orthography and morphology, 4Q157 exhibits some of the traits also seen in 11Q10 (Job). We find the prefixed preposition –
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Vasholz, “Targum Job”; Beyer, ATTM1, 280–85; Mastin, “Re-Examination”; Puech, “Le targum.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax:
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii.8(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1ii.7(?), 1ii.8
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1ii.2
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii.6(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1ii.3(?), 1ii.5(?), 1ii.7
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Interrogative
1ii.2, 1ii.7
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
Assimilated nun:
1ii.2
11Q10, Job
[ed. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude, DJD 23:79–180]
Content synopsis and significance: This scroll is of considerable significance among the Aramaic works discovered in the Qumran caves, for several reasons. First, it is among the most extensively preserved Aramaic scrolls in the Qumran corpus, with a fragmentary translation of Hebrew Job 17:14–42:12 extant in thirty-nine partial columns. By all appearances, the underlying Hebrew text from which the translation was made resembled quite closely the later Masoretic Text of Job, though it seems to have differed in some minor respects (Sokoloff, Job, 6–8). The preserved translation begins in the midst of the second cycle of dialogues between Job and his three friends, at approximately the opening of Bildad’s second discourse (ch. 18). Various parts of the dialogues are preserved, including some of Job’s wisdom poem (ch. 28) and portions of Elihu’s speech. God’s reply to Job’s challenge and the concluding frame narrative (ch. 42) are partially extant, with the text breaking off due to physical damage only six verses short of the end of the book as it is preserved in Hebrew. Second, 11Q10 is one of very few examples of translation from Hebrew to Aramaic during the Second Temple period. Scholars quickly connected 11Q10 with the mention of a “targum” of Job in the Tosefta, Shabbat 13:2 (Lieberman edition), associated with the first century CE sage Rabban Gamaliel I. Urbach and others have noted that it is not entirely clear whether the targum mentioned in this story was Aramaic or another language, such as Greek (Sokoloff, Job, 5), though Alexander (“Targum,” 167) is surely correct that Aramaic is much more likely. Others saw 11Q10 as proof that the rabbinic targums are the direct descendants of an earlier, Second Temple period practice of translating Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic. In some instances, this was closely linked to debates over the status of Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine during the Second Temple period, and to the language(s) of Jesus (cf. Machiela, “Translation”). More recent studies have urged extreme caution over a simplistic linking of the Qumran translations with later rabbinic targums. David Shepherd (Translation), for example, demonstrated the significant stylistic differences between the Qumran Aramaic Job, which is a loosely paraphrastic translation akin to that of the Syriac Peshitta, and the rabbinic targums, which follow much more rigidly the syntax of the governing Hebrew source text. These dissimilar methods for representing the underlying Hebrew source reflect more fundamental differences in the purpose of each type of text – one being a “translation,” and the other a “targum” – thus throwing into question the soundness of any suggested correlation among 11Q10 and the rabbinic targums. Third, the literary character of this scroll, as a translation of an earlier Hebrew book, stands apart noticeably from most of the Qumran Aramaic corpus. The large majority of texts in the corpus were originally composed in Aramaic, and betray numerous affinities in both general literary style and specific concerns. A discussion related to the place of 11Q10 in the wider Aramaic corpus from Qumran has taken place around the particularities of the text’s Aramaic dialect. Muraoka (“Aramaic,” “Notes”), for example, drew attention to linguistic features that suggest an “eastern” derivation, which he compared with the more “western” language of a scroll like 1Q20 (apGen). The latter text coheres better with the Aramaic of the Qumran corpus more broadly. The only other text linked unmistakably with 11Q10 in terms of genre is 4Q157 (Job), another translation of Job from Cave 4. The translation of a brief passage of Leviticus (4Q156 [Lev?]) into Aramaic is more ambiguous, and its genre has been debated. When viewed against the wider backdrop of the Qumran texts, 11Q10 is a very rare, relatively well-preserved example of Aramaic translation from the Second Temple period, a translation that, incidentally, attests to the highly venerated status of Hebrew Job in at least some Jewish communities at the time.
Material remains: 11Q10 was found as a rolled scroll approximately 14 cm in height, which was heavily gelatinized from centuries of storage in Cave 11, especially at the scroll’s top and bottom. Unfortunately, the gelatinized portions mostly crumbled away when the scroll was opened. As a result, this manuscript has a distinctive damage pattern, showing clearly that the better-preserved final columns of the translation were rolled at the inside of the scroll when last stored in antiquity. This meant that the book was rolled so as to be ready for reading from its beginning. For this reason, the beginning of the book (i.e., the outermost part of the scroll) suffered considerably more damage from the elements in Cave 11 than the end of the book. One physical area of the rolled scroll fared especially well in the cave, with the result that the earliest discernable portions of text are preserved on ovoid fragments of approximately 3 cm wide by 5.5 cm tall. There are twenty-eight such unconnected, ovoid fragments, which increase in size (especially width) as they get nearer to the center of the scroll. The last such fragments are approximately 8.5 cm wide by 7.5 cm tall, and the similar, ovoid shape of all of the separate fragments shows clearly that they were once situated one on top of the other, representing successive revolutions of this part of the scroll. After the twenty-eighth ovoid fragment, the remainder of the scroll is connected in one large piece, approximately 109 cm wide and vacillating between 1.5 and 6.5 cm tall. The large piece comprises parts of three leather sheets and eleven ruled columns, with the last two sheets containing four columns each. The physical remains suggest that the sheets generally had four or five columns, with the exception of a small sheet of only two columns at XVIII–XIX (frags. 15–17). The last column of the scroll was left blank by the scribe. Even though it fell at the end of the sheet and manuscript, the leftmost margin of this last column had been ruled and prepared for sewing by small holes punched through the leather. This suggests that the sheets were pre-manufactured before their exact purpose was known, or without a firm knowledge of how long the scroll would ultimately be. For both the large piece and the twenty-eight ovoid fragments it seems that between five and nine lines of text are now missing due to damage, especially in the lower portions of the scroll (the top margin is preserved at several places). A number of other small fragments are extant (DJD 23:79–80), all containing only a few letters or partial words. The majority of these smaller fragments can no longer be placed with confidence amidst the remainder of the scroll. There is no overlap with the other Aramaic translation of Job from Cave 4, 4Q157.
Notes on provenance: The majority of the Cave 11 manuscripts were discovered by Bedouin in early (probably January) 1956, including 11Q10. Only a few Palaeo-Hebrew fragments and a small scroll titled Apocryphal Psalms (11Q11) were found in the excavations led by Roland de Vaux in February, 1956 (de Vaux, “Fouilles,” 574; Tigchelaar in Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 250–51). The Palestine Archaeological Museum provisionally purchased a batch of Cave 11 manuscripts that included 11Q10 in July, 1956, and there is no reason to believe the scroll did not originate in Qumran Cave 11. The cost of a number of the Cave 11 manuscripts, including 11Q10, was eventually covered by the Dutch Academy in 1961–62, with funds provided by the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (ZWO). The rights to 11Q10 were the first to be purchased, on December 11, 1961. As a result, these manuscripts were published by a group of Dutch scholars. For an extensive discussion of the provenance, publication, and nature of the Cave 11 scrolls, see Tigchelaar’s account in Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 249–58.
Sample image: 11Q10 cols. XXXII–XXXIV
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Late Herodian formal (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25–70 CE (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude)
Special traits and general comments: The distinctive damage pattern of this scroll, along with its reliance on a well-known Hebrew text, has allowed scholars to form a fairly good idea of its original dimensions. Compared with many of the other high-quality Aramaic scrolls from Qumran, 11Q10 is rather short in height, at approximately 14 cm and 15–18 lines of text per column. The scribe was obviously highly-trained, with a more calligraphic flourish to the script than found in most Aramaic manuscripts from Qumran. This is seen, for example, in the more pronounced serif and head strokes on the right-most stroke of sin/shin, the upper, right head stroke of aleph, and the horizontal roof of qoph. These factors are a clue to the relative diachronic placement of this late Herodian-period scribe compared with the large majority of Qumran Aramaic manuscripts, regularly situated in the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Early Roman periods. While the scribe was very adept at his craft, the script size varies appreciably by column, as seen in a comparison of frags. 16 and 19, the former having noticeably smaller script than the latter. In general, the script is fairly large relative to the broader corpus, similar in size to 11Q18 (NJ). Corrections are fairly regular, but tend to be of a minor sort, such as the supralinear addition of a letter or the erasure of a letter by scraping the surface of the skin. More extensive erasures occur occasionally, as when the second half of Job 34:11 was apparently erased at 21ii.6. The manuscript was beautifully ruled with deep scoring, and the preserved sheet joins were masterfully done (compare, for example, the much rougher seam on a “good” manuscript, like 4Q210 [Enastrc]). On the relatively rare “double ruling” in the intercolumnar margin of frag. 21, see the profile for 4Q115 (Dand), the only other Aramaic scroll with this trait (cf. Tov, Scribal Practices, 59–61). Vacats are used regularly, with small spaces typically indicating minor sense divisions (e.g., a slight change of focus within an individual’s speech) and large ones signifying more major shifts of speaker or topic. The 1.6 cm vacat at 27.6 merits special comment, since it does not appear to be based on a natural sense-division in the text or an imperfection in the leather, the two reasons for which we might expect a vacat to be used. Sokoloff (Job, 141) suggested that there may have been a problem at this point in the text being copied, such as an illegible or missing word. As opposed to a scroll like 1Q20 (apGen), where the final column of a sheet is often narrower than those before it, 11Q10 tends to have final columns that are quite close in width to the others on a sheet. This feature likely speaks to a different method by those laying out the sheets prior to the composition being written and sewn together. While the extant writing is generally well-preserved and readable, ink has flaked off on some of the fragments (e.g., 3, 5, and 20).
The scribe of 11Q10 generally preferred to use aleph in cases where either an aleph or he could be used interchangeably, with a few notable exceptions. He is used more often than aleph for the prefix in the causative and passive verbal conjugations, something that clearly distinguishes the orthography of this manuscript from most others written in Aramaic at Qumran (in which aleph predominates). The irregular spelling of
The scribe’s use of
In the realm of syntax, we find the periphrastic construction used at 13.7 (
A number of Akkadian loanwords have been detected in 11Q10, including
In sum, 11Q10 has a number of scribal and linguistic features that distinguish it from the Qumran Aramaic corpus more generally. At least some of these differences may be attributed to the fact that 11Q10 is a translation from Hebrew, written at a time somewhat later than the majority of Qumran Aramaic scrolls. However, some factors suggest that the Aramaic of 11Q10 is of a slightly different dialectical derivation than most other Qumran Aramaic compositions, as already noted by Muraoka and others.
Original manuscript quality: Very good–excellent
Select bibliography: Van der Ploeg and van der Woude, Job; Kaufman, “Job Targum”; Muraoka, “Aramaic”; Muraoka, “Notes”; Sokoloff, Job; García Martínez, “lecturas”; Jongeling, Labuschagne, and van der Woude, Aramaic Texts, 1–73; Beyer, ATTM1, 280–98; Beyer, ATTME, 133; Beyer, ATTM2, 171–72; Zuckerman, “11Q Targum”; Puech and García Martínez, “Remarques”; Zuckerman and Reed, “Fragment”; Humbert and Fidanzio, Khirbet Qumrân, 255.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear addition of tav and yod, followed by erasure of a letter, possibly vav (5.8; García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude):
Image B-285236
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(b) Supralinear letter added (7.7):
Image B-285235
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
(c) Erasure of one letter (21ii.5) and at least two words (21ii.6) by scraping:
Image B-285228
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language11
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 4.3(?), 6a.1, 8.3, 8.6, 8.7, 9.4, 9.10(?), 12.5, 13.4, 15ii.3, 16ii.2, 17ii.4, 17ii.6, 20.2(?), 21ii.3, XXIX.6, XXX.5, XXXIV.2, XXXV.2, XXXVII.3, XXXVII.4, XXXVIII.2, XXXVIII.3, XXXVIII.4–5, XXXVIII.7, XXXVIII.7–8
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
2.7(?), 4.5, 5.3(part.), 5.5, 6ii.4, 7ii.2(?), 8.2, 10i.2, 10i.6, 11ii.4, 12.3, 12.5, 12.6, 14.6, 14.7–8, 18.5, 19.1, 21ii.9(?), 23.5, 23.9(?), 27.5, 27.6, XXIX.2, XXIX.8, XXX.3(2x), XXX.4, XXXI.2, XXXI.5–6, XXXII.4, XXXIII.9, XXXVI.2, XXXVI.3, XXXVI.6–7, XXXVI.8(part.), XXXVII.6, XXXVII.7–8, XXXVIII.9
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
12.4, 14.5, 19.8, 24.8(?), XXXIII.4–5, XXXIII.7, XXXVI.5, XXXVI.7, XXXVI.7–8
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
2.4, 3.7(?), 5.4(part.), 9.6(?), 10i.8, 12.4, 13.6, 14.7, 20.2(?), 22i.6+21ii.7, 22i.7, 22i.9(?), 23.6, 24.9, 26i.1, 27.2(part.), 27.2–3, XXIX.4, XXX.4, XXXI.6, XXXI.7(2x), XXXII.4–5, XXXVI.2–3, XXXVI.4–5, XXXVI.6
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.5, 2.5, 4.6, 5.7(?), 6i.3(?), 6i.7, 6ii.1, 6ii.2(part.), 6ii.5, 6a.1, 6a.3, 6a.4, 6a.5, 6a.6, 7ii.7, 8.2, 8.4(?), 9.2, 9.8, 10i.5, 10i.10, 11ii.9, 12.2(2x), 12.5, 13.1(2x), 13.2(2x), 13.8, 14.3(?), 14.9, 16i.5, 16i.6, 16ii.5, 16ii.6, 17i.3, 17ii.2, 18.1, 18.2, 18.4, 18.7(2x), 18.8(2x), 18.9, 19.2, 19.4, 19.5(2x), 20.1, 20.3, 20.4, 21i.3, 21ii.8, 22i.1(part.), 22i.2, 23.1, 23.2, 23.5, 23.8, 24.2, 24.4, 24.5(2x), 24.6, 24.9, 25i.3, 25ii.3, 25ii.4, 25ii.5, 25ii.6, 25ii.7, 25ii.9, 26i.3(2x), 26i.4, 26ii.2, 27.7, 27.10, XXIX.1, XXIX.2(2x part.), XXIX.6(2x), XXX.1(2x), XXX.2(2x), XXX.6, XXX.7, XXX.8, XXX.9, XXXI.2, XXXII.2(3x), XXXII.3(4x), XXXII.5, XXXII.6, XXXII.7, XXXII.8(2x), XXXII.9(2x), XXXII.10, XXXIII.1, XXXIII.2(3x), XXXIII.3, XXXIII.4(2x), XXXIII.7, XXXIII.9, XXXIV.3, XXXIV.4(3x), XXXV.2, XXXV.3, XXXV.4, XXXV.5, XXXV.6(2x), XXXV.7(2x), XXXV.8(2x?), XXXV.9, XXXVI.3, XXXVI.8(part.), XXXVII.3(2x), XXXVII.5, XXXVII.6, XXXVII.8(3x), XXXVIII.1, XXXVIII.2, XXXVIII.4, XXXVIII.5, XXXVIII.6
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7(?), 2.3(?), 2.5, 2.6, 3.3(?), 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 4.9(?), 5.6(2x?), 5.8, 6a.5, 6a.7(?), 8.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 10i.4, 10i.5, 10i.7, 11ii.3, 12.3, 12.8, 12.9(2x), 12.10(?), 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.8, 14.9, 18.2, 18.6, 19.4, 19.7, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 22i.5, 22i.8, 23.3, 23.4, 23.7, 24.1, 24.2, 24.7, 25i.3, 25i.7, 26i.6, 27.3–4, 27.8, XXIX.1, XXIX.3, XXX.9, XXXI.2, XXXI.8(?), XXXI.9, XXXII.2, XXXII.6–7, XXXII.7–8, XXXIII.3, XXXIII.5, XXXIII.6, XXXIII.7, XXXIII.9, XXXIII.10(?), XXXIV.2, XXXIV.5, XXXIV.6, XXXIV.8, XXXIV.9, XXXV.3(2x), XXXV.4, XXXV.5, XXXVI.2, XXXVI.5, XXXVII.4, XXXVII.5, XXXVII.6, XXXVII.7
Verbless clause:
4.7–8, 5.2, 8.4, 15ii.4, 19.3(2x), 19.6, 27.1, 27.3, 27.4, XXXI.4, XXXVII.2
Object early in clause:
2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 3.4(2x), 3.5, 3.7, 4.2, 4.9, 5.4, 6a.5, 6a.7(?), 10i.4, 10i.7, 10i.8, 12.3, 12.4, 16ii.1, 19.4, 19.7, 22i.7, 23.3, 23.4, 24.8, 24.9, 27.3, XXX.4, XXXI.6, XXXI.7, XXXII.2, XXXIV.6, XXXIV.7–8, XXXVI.6, XXXVII.2
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Use of
2.8(?), 26i.9(?), XXXV.10(?)
Verb of movement +
XXXVI.7 (also note
Verb of movement +
1.2, XXIX.2
Copula pronoun:
27.3
Interrogative
1.2, 1.7, 5.3, 8.5, 8.10, 22i.6, 22i.10(?), XXIX.6(?), XXIX.7(?), XXX.6, XXX.9, XXXI.5, XXXII.8(2x), XXXII.9, XXXIII.1, XXXIII.7, XXXIV.3, XXXV.3, XXXV.4, XXXV.5, XXXV.6, XXXV.7
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Participle + finite form of
13.7
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
14.6, 14.9
2.3, 2.6, 4.6, 8.5(?), 12.3, 13.1(?), 17ii.3, 18.7, 19.4, 20.9, XXIX.5, XXIX.7, XXX.1, XXX.2, XXX.4, XXXI.3, XXXI.4, XXXI.5, XXXIV.3, XXXIV.6, XXXIV.7(2x), XXXIV.8, XXXVII.7, XXXVIII.7
10i.10(?), 14.3, 16i.5
5.8, 6ii.7, 14.3, 20.6, 26i.3, XXX.1, XXXI.7, XXXIV.3, XXXV.6
Object suffix on verb:
12.2, 12.5, 12.9, 14.6, 14.9(2x), 18.5(?), 18.6, 20.2, 20.3, 23.5, 24.5, 24.6, XXIX.3, XXX.1(2x), XXX.2, XXXI.7(?), XXXIII.1, XXXIV.3(2x), XXXIV.7, XXXV.2, XXXV.3, XXXV.7, XXXVII.6, XXXVII.7(2x), XXXVIII.6
Assimilated nun:
5.1, 5.4(?), 9.10, 10i.9(?), 13.5, 14.6, 14.9, 16ii.3, 16ii.7, 17ii.1, 17ii.3, 24.2(2x), 26i.6, 26ii.3, XXIX.8, XXX.7, XXXI.2, XXXII.3, XXXV.3(3x?), XXXV.5(2x), XXXVI.5(2x), XXXVI.7
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
2.6, 4.2, 6i.3, 9.3, 10i.4, 20.4, 22ii.5, 27.5(supralinear), XXIX.1(2x), XXIX.6, XXIX.8, XXIX.9, XXX.3, XXXI.3, XXXI.5, XXXI.7, XXXII.2, XXXIII.3(2x), XXXIII.4, XXXIV.4, XXXVI.2
Orthography/Phonology:
4.4, 4.6, 10i.7, 19.5, 24.1, 24.3, 24.4, 26ii.4, 27.6, XXXI.4, XXXII.10
XXX.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Poetic doublets/triplets:
There are many in this scroll, but they are largely based on the underlying Hebrew poetic structure.
5 Miscellaneous Texts
3Q14 4, Tobit? (Tob?)
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:102–4]
Content synopsis and significance: In 1963 Maurice Baillet suggested that this single fragment, preserving the beginnings of six lines, might be a copy of the Aramaic Book of Tobit. He based this suggestion on what may be parts of the names Reuel/Raguel (
Material remains: This fragment belongs to a batch of unidentified fragments gathered by Baillet under the siglum 3Q14. Fragment 4 is the only from this batch identified as a possible copy of the book of Tobit. The fragment preserves the lower right corner of a column, along with a nearly complete intercolumnar margin, part of a lower margin, and the beginnings of six lines of text.
Notes on provenance: 3Q14 was discovered in Cave 3 on March 14, 1952, during an official survey of the greater Qumran region. The survey was organized by de Vaux and William Reed in reaction to the Bedouin discoveries of Caves 1 and 2. Three teams, led by Dominique Barthélemy, Henri du Bessey de Contenson, and Józef Milik, were assembled to survey the area from March 10–29, 1952 (DJD 3:3; Fields, Scrolls, 133; VanderKam, Today, 16). De Contenson’s team discovered and excavated Cave 3 (Fields, Scrolls, 134–35).
Sample image: 3Q14 4
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian semi-formal
Proposed palaeographic date: 50–1 BCE
Special traits and general comments: We are fortunate to have the bottom and one intercolumnar margin preserved on this fragment, with the latter ending at a stitched seam of two sheets (the preceding sheet is not preserved). Due to the few words left, there is little one can say about the scribal traits of the manuscript, other than that the scribe was quite able, writing in a tidy script.
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Dimant, “Hebrew Copy,” 297–300.
Script sample:
4Q318, Zodiology and Brontology
[ed. Greenfield and Sokoloff, DJD 36:259–74]
Content synopsis and significance: The contents of 4Q318 are generically unique among the Aramaic Qumran texts, and indeed the entire Qumran scrolls corpus. What remains of the scroll contains portions of two astrological works based on a zodiacal calendar. The first is a calendar of the moon’s movements through the signs of the zodiac (i.e., a zodiology), reckoned by the months of the Babylonian-based Hebrew calendar. The editors of 4Q318 also use the technical term selenodromion for this portion of the text, and in it the moon passes through each sign once every 30-day month, spending two or three days in each sign. Underlying the text is a 360-day year, differing from the 364-day calendar adopted by the sect at Qumran (and related groups outside of Qumran) and the 354-day lunar calendar also used by some groups of Jews in the Second Temple period. The second work, of which only four partial lines remain, is a brontologion, an omen text that predicts the results of thunder occurring while the moon is in a particular sign of the zodiac. We now possess two early Roman astrological texts that contain a zodiology followed by a brontologion, one of which Wise (Thunder, 35) called “a structural twin to the Qumran text” (see Jacobus, “Jewish Zodiac,” 383–86). This resemblance shows clearly that 4Q318 is a rare Aramaic example of a type of text that was more popular in the wider Hellenistic world. As Popović (Physiognomics, 128) observed, 4Q318 demonstrates “a Jewish interest in astrological matters on a scientific level that matches similar texts from the Hellenistic world.” Albani (“Der Zodiakos”) and Greenfield and Sokoloff (DJD 36:259) stressed the Mesopotamian background and derivation of the astronomical science underlying the scroll, while scholars such as Popović (Physiognomics, 128), Ben-Dov (Astronomy, 256–57), and especially Jacobus (“Jewish Zodiac,” “Zodiac Sign,” “Zodiac Calendars”) have noted that astrological traditions quite similar to those in 4Q318 were also alive and well in Hellenistic and Roman cultures.
Because of its 360-day calendar, Greenfield and Sokoloff (DJD 36:270) held the text to be non-sectarian, an opinion that has generally been followed. Popović (Physiognomics, 28), for example, wrote that “there is nothing particularly sectarian, or even Jewish, about these texts. If they had been Greek papyri found in Egypt, nothing would suggest a Jewish context.” While this is true, Jacobus (“Jewish Zodiac,” “Zodiac Calendars”) has repeatedly emphasized 4Q318’s Jewish context, and that the scroll can be interpreted as complementary to the Jewish calendar and early Jewish beliefs about revealed knowledge.
Material remains: Most of the remaining text of 4Q318 is preserved on a piece of skin (8 cm × 20 cm) slightly larger than a banking cheque, containing significant portions of two columns. As can be seen from early photographs (e.g., PAM 40.612), this large piece is actually made up of a number of smaller fragments, though the joins are mostly very certain. Based on a plausible reconstruction (DJD 36:265–66; Jacobus, “Jewish Zodiac,” 367), we can gather that this piece likely preserves cols. 7–8 of the scroll, at least if it began with the selenodromion partially preserved in these two columns. In addition to the large piece, six small fragments have been identified with 4Q318 by its editors. One of these they positioned in a column preceding the large piece (col. iv), but the placement of the remaining five fragments is uncertain.
Notes on provenance: A fragment containing the upper, right-hand corner of 4Q318 col. vii is found in an early PAM “G series” photograph (PAM 40.612), implying that this fragment was among those discovered by Bedouin in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified frag. 3 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.978, associated with the official excavations of Cave 4 led by de Vaux, also in 1952. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q318 vii–viii
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian book-hand (formal) (Yardeni)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25 BCE–25 CE (Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript was carefully prepared and ruled on high-quality skin, though it is among the smallest scrolls in terms of its height among those with their full height preserved (only 4Q535 [Birth of Noahb] and 4Q569 [Proverbs] are smaller). It also has relatively small upper and lower margins. Yardeni noted that the scribe wrote in a book-hand – a formal, square script – though the size of the writing varies quite significantly, at times leaving an impression of haste or untidiness. Especially distinctive are the large, looping tet, and the large aleph. The scribe clearly distinguished between the medial and final symbol for the number one (a single, vertical stroke), with the latter extending further downward to mark the number’s end. Generous vacats were left between the individual months of the selenodromion (what I consider to be an intermediate sense-division), and again between the end of the selenodromion and the beginning of the brontologion (a major sense-division). The text’s editors suggested that the samek of
The syntax of the scroll is idiosyncratic, since it is largely a formulaic list that forgoes the use of verbs. This is especially true of the selenodromion, which is mostly a repetition of numerical data in a list-like format, punctuated by the relevant names of the months or zodiac signs. The brontologion also has the terse wording of scientific manual, but does include verbs for thunder and various events associated with it. The verb placement seems to be later in the phrase more often than we might expect to find in a prose narrative text, though very little of the brontologion is preserved. This verb-later syntax is likely a result of the text’s genre.
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Albani, “Der Zodiakos”; Wise, Thunder, 13–50; Greenfield, Sokoloff, Pingree, and Yardeni, “Astrological Text”; Beyer, ATTM2, 166–68; Ben-Dov, Astronomy, 256–57; Jacobus, “Jewish Zodiac”; Jacobus, “Zodiac Calendars”; Jacobus, “Zodiac Sign.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear insertion of numeric symbols (viii.4).
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
viii.8(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
viii.8
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
viii.6(?), viii.9
Verbless clause:
viii.6, viii.9
4Q339, List of False Prophets
[ed. Broshi and Yardeni, DJD 19:77–79]
Content synopsis and significance: This small manuscript stands apart from the large majority of Qumran Aramaic scrolls in a number of respects. In terms of its contents, it preserves a list of eight (or perhaps seven, see below) “prophets of the lie” (
Regarding literary genre, the fact that 4Q339 is a simple list of names is unique among the Qumran Aramaic texts, and finds its closest parallel in the Hebrew 4Q340 (List of Netinim). Cohen (“False Prophets”) argued that lists such as these were works of scholarship, testifying to the early stages of collection that would eventually support intellectual work like the composition of more extensive texts. Cohen very helpfully set the list genre of 4Q339 and 4Q340 into the wider context of Hellenistic list-making in Greek, which is well documented in the textual record. Many of these Hellenistic lists bear a strong resemblance to 4Q339 and 4Q340. Though the function of the list on 4Q339 is now lost to us, Lange (“False Prophets,” 213) believed it was written by sectarians in order to compose a pesher text that included a critique of John Hyrcanus as a false prophet. This is extremely speculative, based on several unfounded assumptions. Regardless of the intended purpose of its list, when compared with the general picture of the Aramaic scrolls from the Qumran caves the uniqueness of 4Q339 can be fully appreciated. The large majority of Aramaic texts are extended narratives such as Tobit, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Book of Giants. A much smaller proportion are translations of a Hebrew book (Job, and perhaps Leviticus), and a few scrolls do not fit either of these genres. 4Q339 is one of these few. Combined with the linguistic situation discussed below, this point urges us to treat the manuscript as a special case amidst the Aramaic scrolls corpus.
The mixed linguistic profile of 4Q339 is another of its unusual traits. While the first line is clearly composed in Aramaic, most or all of the following lines are instead written in Hebrew. The names of lines 4, 5, and 6 use the Hebrew word
Material remains: 4Q339 was originally a single piece of skin not much larger than a modern playing card, of which two separate fragments now remain. Cohen (“False Prophets”) has compared it to a hypothetical Greek pinax, on which lists were presumably written. The upper, bottom, and left margins of our manuscript are preserved, and it evidently tore in two width-wise (perhaps through use) in antiquity. Damage patterns include obvious holes opposite each other on either side of the tear, which may suggest that 4Q339 was originally folded and at some point had to be held together with flax thread or a leather thong (DJD 19:77). On the material similarities with 4Q175 and other material features, see the Special traits and general comments section, below.
Notes on provenance: Both 4Q339 fragments were photographed on the PAM “G series” plates 40.577 and 40.614. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32).
Sample image: 4Q339
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian formal (Broshi and Yardeni)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript is fundamentally unlike any other in the Aramaic scrolls corpus. It was evidently what Broshi and Yardeni called a “card” of tanned skin, presumably intended for the list partially preserved on it. The unruled card is very small and shows clear evidence of being folded once in each direction. It also appears to have been sutured together with string or a leather strip based on matching holes on both sides of the horizontal fold. All of this suggests that the card may have been designed for portability or discrete storage. In being a single sheet, folded twice, it closely resembles the Hebrew 4Q175 (Testimonia) from Qumran, though the latter is roughly twice as large (ca. 19 cm h. × 12 cm. w.) as 4Q339. Broshi and Yardeni noted that 4Q339 has a dark band around its edge, which they claim “has been rubbed off” (DJD 19:77). The origin or function of this band is unclear, but it is noteworthy that the outer edges of 4Q175 are also slightly darkened (though not as much so as 4Q339), something most visible in the upper, right corner of the sheet. The dark band on 4Q339’s upper, left corner strongly suggests that the upper margin is partly or completely preserved here. Based on its unique physical features and contents, Lange (“False Prophets,” 208) considered it to be one of only a few autographs at Qumran, which seems a reasonable claim. Published images of the fragments have been of low quality, but this has now been remedied by the images published online by the IAA as part of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. Based on these new images, some previous debates over readings and reconstructions can be definitively resolved. The end of the first line has been reconstructed or read as both
Original manuscript quality: Fair
Select bibliography: Broshi and Yardeni, “Netinim”; Qimron, “False Prophets”; Qimron, “More”; Cohen, “False Prophets”; Shemesh, “A Note”; Wise, Cave 4, 153; Beyer, ATTM2, 128; Lange, “False Prophets”; Golani, “Reflections.”
Script sample:
Language
Lexical items:
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q551, Narrative
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:47–56]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserves snatches of a story that, at least in part, recounts an episode between an individual and a group. In frag. 1, the individual – perhaps the “aged man” (
Material remains: This scroll consists of four fragments, two of which are very small and contain only a few letters (frags. 2, 4). Fragments 1 and 3 are somewhat larger, preserving parts of six and eight lines, respectively. Puech considered the earlier suggestion that these four fragments belong to the same column (esp. Milik, “Daniel,” 355), but he eventually concluded on both material and textual grounds that the arguments in favor of this view are unpersuasive. As a result, he maintained that each fragment should be studied separately, in the order in which they are laid out in the editio princeps (DJD 37:47).
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q551 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q551 1, 3 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean, with some characteristics of early Herodian (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This scribe wrote in a small, tidy hand, with Puech sensibly suggesting that the supralinear additions – apparently done by the same scribe as the main text – imply that 4Q551 is based on an older copy. On the older PAM photographs, scribal guide dots for making dry-ruled horizontal lines appear to be present in an ink fainter than the main script. If these dots are indeed present, it would be a sure indication that the left edge of frag. 3 is also the end of a sheet, though there is no longer any evidence of a sewn seam. In the more recent IAA photos, the possible guide dots can no longer be seen as clearly, leaving one to wonder if they are a result of the photography in the older images. In any event, guidelines are visible on frags 1 and 3. Line and word spacing is quite erratic, though this may be exaggerated by contortion of the skin due to shrinkage. Puech noted that the formation of some medial nuns and final mems may represent archaisms in the script (DJD 37:50).
Puech noted several phrases that are found in other Aramaic works from this period, such as Daniel (e.g.,
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Milik, “Daniel”; Beyer, ATTM1, 224–25; Beyer, ATTME, 105; Beyer, ATTM2, 142; Nickelsburg, “4Q551.”
Script sample: Note that the qoph is from a supralinear insertion (1.4), though it seems plausible that this was the scribe correcting his own work.
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Two supralinear insertions, the second subsequently erased by scraping (1.4; cf. 2.2).
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1.4
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.4, 1.5, 3.6(?)
Use of
3.7(?)
Verb of movement +
1.4
Use of negative particle
1.5
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1.4
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
1.4
Orthography/Phonology:
1.2, 1.4(?)
4Q556, Prophecya
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:155–58]
Content synopsis and significance: The numerical designation of 4Q556 in DJD 37, separated by Puech into two copies, has a somewhat confusing history (see Stuckenbruck, Giants, 185–87, 221). Scholars have occasionally discussed 4Q556 under the designation 4Q533 [EnGiantse], and vice versa, such that usage of the two sigla varies across publications. The other manuscript alternatively numbered either 4Q556 or 4Q533 (the latter designation being used by Puech in DJD 31, and here) is a copy of the Book of Giants. The fragments here designated 4Q556 and 4Q556a (Prophecyb), however, do not appear to have any relation to the Book of Giants. Puech considered 4Q556 and 4Q556a (Prophecyb) to be different copies of a single composition based primarily on the mention of Sinai (
Material remains: Only one fragment remains of this manuscript, approximately 5 by 6 cm in size. It contains parts of ten lines, though the first and last are rather poorly preserved. The middle of the fragment contains the longest, best-preserved lines, growing progressively narrower in the upper and lower portions. The damage patterns on the fragment suggest that it was folded along its vertical axis for some time before its modern discovery.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q556 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q556 1
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 33–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The line spacing on this fragment varies noticeably, suggesting that script lines were not used. A single vacat is preserved in the few extant lines, seemingly used for a fairly minor narrative break in a continuing prophetic or visionary account. The script is carefully and capably done, and in my estimation Puech is certainly correct to discern a different hand here than in the fragments of 4Q556a (Prophecyb). In keeping with the Jewish idiolect of Aramaic typical at Qumran, the prefix-conjugation of the verb “to be”
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 107; Beyer, ATTM2, 142–43; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 233–37.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
1.7
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1.3, 1.4, 1.5(2x)
Object early in clause:
1.6
Use of
1.7
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Object suffix on verb:
1.5
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q556a, Prophecyb
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:159–73]
Content synopsis and significance: In DJD 37, Puech split into two a batch of fragments originally treated together by Jean Starcky, Józef Milik, and others under the numerical designations 4Q556 (Prophecya) or 4Q533 (EnGiantse) (on the confusion over the numbering see the profiles for 4Q533 [EnGiantse] and 4Q556 [Prophecya]). Puech based his decision on palaeographic grounds, but considered the two manuscripts, now designated 4Q556 (Prophecya) and 4Q556a, likely to be copies of the same work. The preserved text of 4Q556a is highly fragmentary, but full of tantalizing historical references. It names a number of Israel’s historic enemies, including the Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites (frag. 1i.4), as well as Egypt and the king of Egypt (4.2; 5i–ii.4). Puech noted that the former list of nations also appears in Dan 11:41 and New Jerusalem (4Q554 [NJa] 13.18) (DJD 37:153), and seems to have become a stock motif in the texts from the Second Temple period promoting an eschatological viewpoint. On the mention of “Sinai” at frag. 5i–ii.13, see the profile for 4Q556 (Prophecya). 4Q556a contains a number of allusions to conflict, impiety, and persecution, especially in frag. 5i–ii, where we find the words or phrases “an idol” (
Material remains: Puech identified eleven fragments with 4Q556a. Most are poorly preserved scraps that contain little text (frags. 2, 6–11). Only frags. 1 and 5 have significant amounts of writing preserved, both containing parts of two columns. Column ii of frag. 5 has no legible text. The two larger fragments preserve portions of eleven and twelve lines, respectively.
Notes on provenance: Tigchelaar identified 4Q556a 9 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.975. The fragments in this series of plates were found in the official excavations of Cave 4 on September 22–29, 1952, directed by de Vaux (Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). While the discovery of the remaining pieces of 4Q556a in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of their discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q556a 5i, ii
Material: Skin
Script: Early Herodian with a tendency towards semi-cursive style (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 25–1 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Puech identified a possible upper margin and a certain bottom one, though in fact both are uncertain due to surface damage of the fragments. The possible upper margin on frag. 4 is preserved in so small an area that it could also be a vacat. The top of the fragment also appears to be ripped, not having a finished edge. On frag. 8 there are traces of ink one line below Puech’s last line of script (i.e., there was some writing on 8.4), and the same issues apply here as on frag. 4. Puech finds evidence of full ruling for lines and columns, and the left column line is quite clearly seen on frag. 5. Horizontal script ruling is less evident on the images, but is supported by the fairly even line spacing and, especially, the consistent spacing between cols. i and ii on frag. 1. The scribe of 4Q556a wrote in an even, square script that is, however, somewhat more erratic than we find in the best Qumran manuscripts. Sizeable vacats were incorporated into the text (at least 1.7 cm in frag. 5i.6), though their narrative functions are no longer clear. The long and short (prefixed) forms of the relative pronoun were used (
Original manuscript quality: Very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 107; Beyer, ATTM2, 142–43; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 233–37.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) X mark at the beginning of a line (1ii.9)
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1i–ii.6(?), 1i–ii.9, 5i.2
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
4.1
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1i–ii.2, 1i–ii.5, 1i–ii.10(?), 3.6
Verbless clause:
1i–ii.8, 5i–ii.3
Direct object marker (if present):
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Finite form of
5i–ii.9(?)
Lexical items:
–
Morphology:
1i–ii.5
Orthography/Phonology:
5i–ii.9
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q557, Visiona
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:175–78]
Content synopsis and significance: This fragmentary manuscript was given the name Vision C by Jean Starcky, a title retained by Puech in the DJD edition. The lack of preserved material prevents us from saying much about the contents of this composition, though there is an intriguing reference to “the angel Gabriel” (
Material remains: The extant portions of 4Q557 are contained in two small fragments. Most of the preserved material comes from frag. 1, which measures 6 × 3.1 cm. This fragment has nine lines with between one and three words on each. Fragment 2 is less than half the size of frag. 1, preserving nothing more than a few partial words. No other copies of this composition have been identified.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q557 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q557 1, 2 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Material: Skin
Script: Early Hasmonean formal, with some semi-cursive influence (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 150–100 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: There is a general preference for aleph over he in what little remains of the scroll for cases where he might also be used. This is seen most clearly in the suffix
Original manuscript quality: Fair
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Supralinear letter added (1.5):
(b) Supralinear word added (1.7):
Language
Lexical items:
Morphology:
2.2
1.5
4Q558, papVisionb
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:179–257]
Content synopsis and significance: This composition was originally labeled by Starcky as 4QVision B, a designation retained by Puech (4QpapVisionb). Besides its obvious visionary character, much of the scroll’s contents remain obscure, and there are no obvious overlaps with any other known text at or outside of Qumran. In fact, all that can be known of the scroll’s contents must be deduced from suggestive words and phrases with very little narrative context. It is likely that at least a portion of 4Q558 involves a dream-vision, in which a seer engages in dialogue with an interpreting angel. Perrin (Dynamics, 76–77) came to this conclusion after highlighting a variety of key terms that this scroll shares with other Aramaic visionary works at Qumran, such as the verb
In view of the wider corpus of Aramaic texts from Qumran, a distinctive feature of 4Q558 is its (at least partial) focus on Israel’s monarchic period. Scholars have primarily focused on frag. 51ii, which in line 4 refers to the sending of the prophet Elijah. Several have identified the mention of Elijah as an allusion to Mal 3:23 (4:5), in which God promises to send Elijah before “the great and terrible day of the Lord” (cf. Starcky, “Quatre Étapes,” 497–98; DJD 37:180–81; Stökl Ben Ezra, “Messianic,” 521–22). In this fragment we also find mention of a “chosen one” (
Material remains: 4Q558 is a very badly damaged papyrus manuscript, with little running text. Many of its extant one hundred and forty-one fragments contain less than one complete word. Most are not bigger than a postage stamp. Even the largest and best-preserved fragments (e.g., 33, 51, 53) do not provide much of an interpretive context. The fragments are too small to be arranged with any confidence, though Starcky attempted to group some of them on the basis of their contents and, especially, the appearance of their handwriting and papyrus. Puech distinguished several fragments from Starcky’s original batch, and assigned them a different siglum: 4Q558a (cf. DJD 37:179–80, 259–62). 4Q558a consists of seven very small fragments with few complete words, which Puech believed did not belong with 4Q558 based on scribal and physical traits. It is not even clear that all fragments of 4Q558a belong together. Since 4Q558a has virtually no usable text or any sizeable fragments, a profile is not included in this book.
Notes on provenance: Some fragments of 4Q558 were photographed on the PAM “G series” plates 40.630, 40.631, 40.632, 40.633, 40.634, and 40.635. The fragments in this series of images were discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified a number of other fragments on the “E series” PAM plates 40.972 (frag. 53), 40.974 (frags. 31, 50b), and 40.977 (frags. 64, 106, and 125). This series is associated with the official excavations of Cave 4 led by de Vaux, also conducted in 1952. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q558 33
Material: Papyrus
Script: Late Hasmonean to early Herodian, with a style ranging from semi-cursive to semi-formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 75–25 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: This papyrus manuscript was written on the recto side (i.e., with the horizontal fibers), as was typical in antiquity. The upper and lower margins are among the largest in the Qumran Aramaic corpus, and the intercolumnar margin falls around the median average. This is very likely connected to the use of papyrus, which was relatively less expensive than prepared skin scrolls. Based on the medium of papyrus alone, I take this manuscript to be of somewhat lower quality and material value than a comparable copy on skin, leading to my placement of 4Q558 in the “good” quality category. Nevertheless, generous margins and spacing suggest that this was a highly-valued literary text. Line and word spacing are also quite generous (again probably due to the medium of papyrus) and evenly-spaced despite the absence of scribal guidelines, which were not necessary on papyrus due to the natural, horizontal grain of the plant fibers. The scribe wrote in a mostly square, formal script, but with some less-formal, cursive features mixed in. Puech suggested that the hand is slightly later than that of 4Q530 (EnGiantsb; DJD 37:181). This is seen especially in the cursive tav and the occasional, cursive final mem. The orthography and grammatical forms of this copy are typical of the Qumran Aramaic corpus, with yod and vav sometimes used to mark long vowels, and less frequent use of aleph as a mater lectionis than in the most fully-spelled scrolls (e.g., 1Q20 [apGen], 4Q542 [TQahat]). The word
Original manuscript quality: Good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 93–94; Beyer, ATTM2, 126–27.
Script sample:
Representative sample of corrections and scribal features:
(a) Fragmentary numeric symbols (35i.1)
(b) Supralinear letter added (42.1):
(c) Irregular character (“lamed sans pied”) preceding mem, which according to Puech signifies a correction (58.2)
(d) Numeric symbols (or, less plausibly, tetragrammaton dots) (67.3)
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
33ii.4(part.; ?), 53.1(?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
4.1, 29.4(?), 29.5(?), 33ii.5, 51ii.4, 51ii.6(?), 64.3, 66.2(?)
Verbless clause:
21a–b.3, 86.1
Direct object marker (if present):
–
Lexical items:
(
Morphology:
67.5
Object suffix on verb:
62.3
Dissimilated nun/nasalization:
64.2
Orthography/Phonology:
122.2
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q559, papBiblical Chronology
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:263–89]
Content synopsis and significance: This scroll preserves part of a unique chronographic account focused on biblical figures and events from Israel’s past, part of which has a genealogical framework. The account uses an outline in which numbers of years are repeatedly given to relate one figure or event to others in a chronological sequence, told in a very abbreviated way. As both Puech and Wise have argued, the text seems aimed at solving or easing a number of exegetical problems in the received chronologies of the Hebrew scriptures. Wise (“Times and Seasons”) summarized the main chronological issues addressed in the extant fragments as the length of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, the period of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, and the period of the judges. The earliest figure, chronologically speaking, mentioned among the fragmentary remains of the scroll is Enoch (2.5), though his name occurs in a section dealing more directly with the lives of Isaac and Jacob (and perhaps Levi). Puech reconstructed three successive columns (Wise has instead four, numbering the fragments differently), and we lose the account during the time of Israel’s judges (frags. 4–5), or perhaps Eli and Samuel if Puech’s questionable reconstruction of frag. 6 is correct. One gets the sense that the text’s focus is primarily on the chronological framework of the figures and events recorded, rather than on the figures and events themselves. In this sense, it may be viewed as a scholarly resource text, recording, in short form, the kinds of exegetical calculations that underlie longer narratives such as the Aramaic Levi Document, the Visions of Amram, and Jubilees. Wise developed this argument at some length, calling 4Q559 “a literary missing link” between earlier texts of the Hebrew Bible and later ones from the Second Temple period (“Times and Seasons,” 51).
Wise helpfully placed 4Q559 among a broader set of Jewish writings displaying an interest in chronography during the Second Temple period (e.g., Demetrius the Chronographer, the Septuagint translators, Jubilees, and Josephus’ Antiquities), and indeed across the Greco-Roman world more generally. As he pointed out (“Times and Seasons,” 3–5), 4Q559 may now be the oldest preserved Jewish chronograph, rivalling the Hellenistic-period dating of Demetrius. He believed 4Q559 to date to the third-century BCE (“Times and Seasons,” 50–51; so too Puech DJD 37:266), which I find plausible, even if impossible to prove. Wise also noted (“Times and Seasons,” 25) that the last line of his frag. 2 (Puech’s frag. 3) appears to show a chronological section culminating with Aaron and the priests, rather than with Moses, suggesting to him that the text is “of priestly origin, propagandistic” (“Times and Seasons,” 25). This interpretation was followed by Puech. In view of the wider Qumran Aramaic corpus, the terse chronographic genre of the text stands out as unique, though it must be noted that chronological interests are certainly present in narrative accounts like the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Visions of Amram. The priestly focus of 4Q559 lines up very well with the outlook of texts like those just listed, and both Wise and Puech have noted that the chronologies of all these texts are similar in their approach. At the same time, the extension of 4Q559 into the period of Israel’s judges is something atypical of the Aramaic narrative texts from Qumran, with the notable exception of 4Q551 (Narrative).
Material remains: Thirteen fragments remain of this manuscript, of which the joined frags. 2–3 and frag. 4 are the largest (approximately 6 × 8 cm). The remainder of the fragments are very small, no bigger than 2 × 2.5 cm and preserving little text. Wise (“Times and Seasons,” 7–10) offered the most extensive discussion of the scroll’s physical reconstruction, though his confidence often outstrips the evidence. His reconstruction was based on recurring damage patterns among the fragments and the largely hypothetical text of four partial columns, the most basic points of which makes good sense (and also underlie Puech’s reconstruction). Wise posited a scroll of approximately 10–15 columns, with the extant columns reconstructed at 10.8–13.8 cm wide and ten lines long. Puech was rightly skeptical of the extensiveness and confidence of Wise’s reconstruction. Puech is more reserved in his own proposal, adhering more closely to the fragments available and suggesting somewhat narrower columns. Both Wise and Puech have reconstructed around twenty-five full lines of text based on sparse physical remains, and some of these lines are much more convincing than others. In general, their reconstructions are quite similar, though occasionally they differ in ways that have an important impact on how we understand the text. On these occasions the actual evidence of the fragments is more accurately reflected in Puech’s transcription. No other manuscript has been identified with parallels to 4Q559.
Notes on provenance: Fragments 1, 4, and 10 of 4Q559 were photographed on the PAM “G series” plates 40.600 and 40.634. The fragments in this series of images are reported to have been discovered by the Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). In addition, Tigchelaar identified frag. 12 on the “E series” PAM plate 40.974. The “E series” is associated with the official excavations of Cave 4 led by de Vaux, also conducted in 1952. As a result, we can see that some of the fragments of this scroll were found by the Bedouin, while others were discovered in the official excavations supervised by de Vaux.
Sample image: 4Q559 2, 3, 4
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Papyrus
Script: Herodian semi-cursive (Wise); Late Hasmonean with semi-cursive and semi-formal features (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 50 BCE–70 CE (Wise); ca. 100–50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: Puech’s text and column reconstruction should be treated with caution, but if correct it would result in a scroll of about 9–10 cm in height. Wise aptly called the scribe’s work “far from deluxe” (“Times and Seasons,” 8), with noticeable variation in the space left between lines and the sizes of letters. Still, the scribe wrote in an easily-legible script and appears to have made few mistakes in the small sample left to us. The extent to which vacats were used is now impossible to judge with confidence, but the remaining fragments suggest that they were small, if used at all. Combining the above factors with the use of papyrus, Wise (“Times and Seasons,” 8) considered 4Q559 to be the copy of an earlier work for private study. It is certainly among the lower-quality scrolls in the Qumran Aramaic corpus, perhaps linked to its status as a scholarly resource text (see the Content synopsis and significance section, above). The orthography of the scroll tends toward full spellings, similar to most of the corpus. The genre of the scroll appears to dictate its terse syntax, at some points taking the form of a list-like succession of verbless clauses (e.g., 4.7–10). A notable feature of 4Q559 is its use of the Aramaic direct object marker
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Nebe, “4Q559”; Wise, “Times and Seasons”; Beyer, ATTM2, 128.
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Sublinear gimel added (4.5):
Image B-285380
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
3.4
Verb-subject (verb later in clause):
3.3, 3.3–4(?)
Direct object marker (if present):
Lexical items:
Morphology:
3.3
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q560, Magic Booklet
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:291–302]
Content synopsis and significance: This fragmentary scroll contains the remnants of an incantation text, describing various demonic illnesses and providing exorcistic incantations for dealing with them. 4Q560 is partially preserved, has no parallels in the Qumran corpus, and has generated significant debate over several key terms (see Cook, DQA, 84, for a discussion of the numerous ways scholars have rendered
Material remains: Only two fragments remain of 4Q560, though only frag. 1 contains a significant amount of text. Fragment 2 preserves little more than a few complete words from two lines. Fragment 1 contains portions of two columns, with more material remaining from col. 1 (seven lines). However, without a right margin it is difficult to know how close col. 1 comes to preserving a complete line, and so to determine the column width. Neither column bears an upper or lower margin, making it is impossible to determine the original height of the scroll.
Notes on provenance: The right half of 4Q560 1 is found on the early PAM “G series” plate 40.602, meaning that it was among those discovered by Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of the scroll were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q560 1
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-formal (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: The intercolumnar margin, line spacing, and letter height of this copy fall around the norm for the Qumran corpus, while word spacing is slightly more generous than usual. The scribe used at least some vacats, though the type of sense-division being marked is no longer discernable. Although there are no visible scribal lines, the writing is very even and neat, with regular spacing, suggesting that at least horizonal guidelines were inscribed very lightly as part of preparing the scroll and can no longer be seen. The scribe had a distinctive writing style, with a large, closed, medial mem, a very short lower extension on qoph, and no differentiation between medial and final kaph (cf. 1ii.6). The word collocation “iniquity and transgression” (
Original manuscript quality: Good–very good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTME, 129–30; Beyer, ATTM2, 168; Penney and Wise, “Aramaic Incantation”; Naveh, “Magic Book.”
Script sample:
Corrections and scribal features:
(a) Possible (partial?) aleph converted to he (1i.2):
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1ii.5(part.; ?)
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1ii.6(?)
Subject implied (verb later in clause):
2.2
Lexical items:
Morphology:
1ii.6
Object suffix on verb:
1ii.6
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
4Q561, Physiognomy/Horoscope
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:303–21]
Content synopsis and significance: This manuscript preserves fragmentary portions of a physiognomic text, describing the physical features of at least one male human body moving from head to toe. As far as we can tell, the Qumran library contains no other extant copy of this composition, though Starcky originally proposed viewing 4Q561 as an Aramaic version of the Hebrew 4QZodiacal Physiognomy (4Q186) (“Messianique,” 51). This association, however, has been rejected in later scholarship (cf. Popović, Physiognomics, 65–67, 240–75). 4Q561 includes brief, schematic descriptions of the eyes, nose, teeth, beard, limbs, fingernails, thighs, and feet. It is difficult to determine precisely how many bodies are described in this text, due its poor state of preservation (see WAC, 567–68; DJD 37:306; Popović, Physiognomics, 60). The extant text mostly contains a report of physical features, but Popović demonstrated that such description may serve a prognostic function, even if almost none of the predictive material is preserved. It is also possible, though far less certain, that 4Q561 contains a reference to a person’s character or “spirit” (
Popović has demonstrated the “emergence of a marked interest in the physical description of people’s bodies in Second Temple period Judaism” (Physiognomics, 277), of which 4Q561 is part. This broader trend appears elsewhere in the Qumran Aramaic material, most notably in the description of Noah’s appearance in Birth of Noah (4Q534–536), 1 Enoch 106, and Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) col. 5, as well as the head-to-toe description of Sarai’s beauty in Genesis Apocryphon 20. Although the descriptions in these texts differ in both content and function, they tend to pay special attention to bodily features either as an indication of intellectual prowess or as a means of prognostication. Popović argued that this literary trend, evinced also in Ben Sira, 4QBarkhi Nafshia,c (4Q434, 4Q436), 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184), and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, reflects a broad awareness of physiognomics among writers in the Greco-Roman period. According to Popović, these traditions may even bespeak some familiarity with Ptolemaic administrative practices of identifying individuals based on their bodily features. In the sectarian (most probably Essene) context of Qumran and related communities, it is plausibly argued by Alexander and Popović that physiognomic evaluation of the kind witnessed in 4Q561 played some role in considering the membership of aspiring entrants to the community (Alexander, “Physiognomy”; Popović, Physiognomics, 172–208). This is perceived especially in the Treatise on the Two Spirits, in 1QS 3–4.
Material remains: 4Q561 is composed of either seven (Popović) or eight (Puech) fragments, though some scholars have argued for the inclusion of several more (see, e.g., Holst and Høgenhaven “Physiognomy”). The majority of the preserved material comes from two fragments (1i and 3), one of which, according to Puech and Popović, contains nearly the entire width of a column (1i). The rest of the manuscript is quite fragmentary, preventing us from making definitive statements about the original order of the material or length of the manuscript. It is important to note that there are some minor discrepancies between the two most recent editions of 4Q561 with respect to how the fragments are labeled (cf. Popović, Physiognomics, 60–63; DJD 37:308–21). For one thing, Popović follows Starcky’s original join of Puech’s frag. 3 to the bottom of Puech’s frag. 1ii, with Popović labeling the collated fragments together as frag. 1ii, defending this join on material grounds. Puech, on the other hand, doubts whether the join is defensible, either materially or with respect to content. Both scholars accepted Starcky’s join of frag. 1i to frag. 1ii. There are other discrepancies over their respective ways of numbering the remaining fragments: Puech labels Popović’s frag. 3 as frag. 6, frag. 5 as frag. 7, frag. 6 as frag. 5, and frag. 7 as frag. 8. Puech noted that his numbering system is somewhat arbitrary, given the fact that it is very difficult to determine the order of the fragments. Numbering in this profile follows that of Puech in DJD.
Notes on provenance: The fragments of 4Q561 are not found on the early “E series” or “G series” PAM plates. While their discovery in Cave 4 is assured, the mode of that discovery was not documented.
Sample image: 4Q561 1i, 1ii, and 3 (Popović frags. 1i and 1ii)
Material: Skin
Script: Late Hasmonean (Puech); early Herodian round semi-formal (Popović)
Proposed palaeographic date: 100–50 BCE, perhaps 75–50 BCE (Puech); ca. 50–25 BCE (Popović)
Special traits and general comments: This manuscript has below average margin sizes, and among the narrowest column widths in the Qumran corpus if the estimates of Puech and Popović for frag. 1i are correct. Such narrow column make it likely that this was a small scroll, and thus perhaps short as well (see Popović, Physiognomics, 56). It was evidently prepared with ruled lines at the top, right, and left edges of columns (no bottom margins are preserved), based on lines visible on frags. 1i–1ii, 4, and 6. It seems, however, that horizontal guidelines were not used inside the text columns, since none are visible in the images and there is considerable variation in spacing between lines. Puech considered frag. 8 to have a preserved marginal guide dot for ruling at the beginning of line 1, but I find this very doubtful. It is much more likely a partially effaced vav or yod (so also Popović, Physiognomics, 63). The scribal hand is of good quality, and the orthography is in keeping with the broader picture in the Qumran manuscripts. Vav and yod are regularly used to represent vowels, aleph is occasionally used where we might have expected he, and the expected prefix conjugations of the verb
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Starcky, “Messianique”; Beyer, ATTME, 125; Beyer, ATTM2, 163–4; Holst and Høgenhaven, “Physiognomy”; Popović, Physiognomics, 54–67, 262–76.
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Verb-subject (verb early in clause):
1ii.1(?)
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
3.5(?)
Subject-verb (verb later in clause):
1i.3–4, 1i.4–5(?)
Verbless clause:
1i.1, 1i.1–2, 1i.2–3, 1i.3
Periphrastic construction (past/future continuative action):
Participle + finite form of
1i.4–5(?)
Lexical items:
Morphology:
Assimilated nun:
1i.2
Orthography/Phonology:
1i.1, 1i.4, 8.1
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
Previously unattested in Aramaic:
4Q569, Proverbs
[ed. Puech, DJD 37:353–61]
Content synopsis and significance: Very little of this scroll is preserved, but from what remains it is clear that 4Q569 is a Jewish representative of a broader ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition that flourished during the Persian and Greco-Roman periods. Aramaic proverbial wisdom literature of the sort in 4Q569 is also found, for example, in the sayings of Ahiqar, discovered in the cache of Judean texts attested at Elephantine. Wisdom discourses were also popular in Aramaic narrative texts from Qumran, such as Tobit, the Epistle of Enoch, and the wisdom poem near the end of the Aramaic Levi Document (see Machiela, “Wisdom”). Hebrew examples related to this genre from the Greco-Roman period include the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 4QInstruction, Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184), and several other previously unknown Jewish wisdom texts found at Qumran (cf. Goff, Discerning Wisdom; Kampen, Wisdom Literature). Little can be said about the contents of 4Q569, due to its poor state of preservation. As with most wisdom literature, the extant sayings are written to a second-person singular addressee and include imperatives (e.g., “remember the poor,”
Material remains: Puech’s 4Q569 comprises four modest fragments, the largest measuring only 2.5 × 6 cm. Two of these four were combined by Puech into his frag. 3. Most of the preserved text is found in frag. 1, which contains meager remains from nine lines. Each of the fragments is very narrow in width, with even frag. 1 containing no more than three extant words in any line. Close examination of the fragments raises serious questions about their cohesion as parts of a single scroll. The two fragments of Puech’s frag. 3 clearly belong together based on color, script, line spacing, and unambiguous dry ruling at regular intervals (though they were not used by the scribe writing the text), while frags. 1–2 obviously belong together as well. However, there are several physical features distinguishing frag. 3 from frags. 1–2. If Puech’s arrangement of frag. 3 and his proposed number of lines for both groups of fragments are correct, frag. 3 is approximately 1 cm taller than frags. 1–2. The bottom margins would also vary considerably, with a very small margin on frags. 1–2 (around 3 mm), but one more than double that size for frag. 3. The color and preservation of the skin are also different, though this can sometimes happen with fragments from a single copy that were preserved in different environments. Line spacing is another trait where the two groups diverge, as Puech already observed. Fragment 3 has quite even line spacing, at around 6 mm per line, while we find much greater variation on frags. 1–2 (4–8 mm). Palaeographic differences are not determinative, since we have so little remaining text and the scripts are similar typologically. There is almost no textual basis on which to connect the two groups of fragments, and so it is advisable to leave their relationship an open question. In my opinion, the two groups of fragments should not be uncritically treated as parts of the same manuscript.
Notes on provenance: Fragment 2 of 4Q569 is found in the early PAM “G series” plate 40.579, meaning that it was among those discovered by Bedouin in Cave 4, in 1952 (see Strugnell, “Photographing,” 124, 131–32). The origins of the remaining fragments of the scroll were not clearly documented, though they most likely were also discovered in Cave 4 by the Bedouin.
Sample image: 4Q569 1–3 (Not a proposed arrangement of the fragments)
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Museum. Photo: Najib Anton Albina
Material: Skin
Script: Hasmonean semi-formal with some semi-cursive elements (Puech)
Proposed palaeographic date: 133–100 BCE (Puech)
Special traits and general comments: If Puech’s proposed number of lines and overall manuscript height are correct, this manuscript is among the shortest preserved at Qumran. This is one factor in assessing the quality of the manuscript, and accounts for my relatively low rating of “fair–good.” However, as observed above under Material remains, frags. 1–2 and frag. 3 are best assessed independently. Fragment 3 has a curious feature: It is very clearly ruled with horizontal script lines, the first being placed 1.4 cm from the top of the sheet, with lines then evenly spaced at 7 mm. The scribe, however, began writing the first line only 1 cm from the top of the sheet, and then regularly spaced the lines at about 6 mm apart. The result is lines of writing that do not align with the ruling, which had been done earlier in the scroll’s preparation process. Puech notes that the orthography is generally defective, but there are two preserved examples of plene spelling: the full form of the imperative
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Puech, “Morceaux.”
Script sample:
Language
Syntax
Subject-verb (verb early in clause):
1–2.6, 1–2.8
Subject implied (verb early in clause):
1–2.2(?), 1–2.5
Use of negative particle
1–2.3; 1–2.4
Orthography/Phonology:
2ms (pro)nominal suffix
1.9
Other notable features:
Proposed Hebraisms:
6Q14, Apocalypse
[ed. Baillet, DJD 3:127–28]
Content synopsis and significance: Little can be said about the contents of these two small fragments, if indeed they belong together (see below). The first seems to mention a destruction of “all the beasts of the fi[eld” (
Material remains: Baillet identified two fragments under the siglum 6Q14, both being smaller than 2 × 2 cm. Fragment 1 is actually made up of two joined pieces in the earliest plate arranged by Baillet (PAM 41.510), with the join seeming plausible. By later that year (1955), a small third piece had been added on the upper, righthand edge of the fragment, as seen on PAM 41.734. This third piece has moved slightly in subsequent photographs, and while its identification with 6Q14 seems tenable, the join is open to serious doubt. Scholars since Baillet have accepted his identification of the two main fragments without scrutiny, though in my opinion there is good reason to question that they belong to the same manuscript. The skin is similar in color, but the script has clear differences, with frag. 1 having a more rounded, untidy script character when compared to the more square, regulated style of frag. 2. This is seen especially in a comparison of the letters qoph and dalet. In addition, the sizes of the letters is more consistent (2 mm) on frag. 2 than on frag. 1 (varying from 1.5 to 2 mm), and the spacing of the lines on frag. 2 is visibly more generous than on frag. 1. Analysis of the hair follicle patterns would have to be done in person, but there is no clear connection based on the photographs. In any event, this would only apply if we could show that the fragments come from the same area or sheet of the manuscript. With such a small sample size it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion, but I am skeptical of identifying the two fragments as belonging to the same manuscript.
Notes on provenance: Cave 6 was discovered by Bedouin in September, 1952. Most of the fragments from the cave, likely including 6Q14, were extracted by Bedouin and then sold to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (DJD 3:26). Only a small number of remaining fragments were discovered during the official excavation of Cave 6 in late September, 1952 (Fields, Scrolls, 142).
Sample image: 6Q14
Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. Photos: Shai Halevi
Material: Skin
Script: Herodian (Baillet), though see Special traits and general comments below
Proposed palaeographic date: 1–70 CE (Baillet)
Special traits and general comments: The spacing of this manuscript is close and erratic, with the upper extension of the lamed sometimes intruding into the preceding line. This is especially true for frag. 1, which as suggested above may well belong to a different manuscript than frag. 2. Fragment 1 has a rounded Hasmonean or early Herodian script, comparable in its poor execution to 4Q201 (Ena). A more assuredly Herodian, square script is found on frag. 2, resembling in its formality copies such as 4Q209 (Enastrb) and 4Q531 (EnGiantsc). There are no preserved margins, vacats, or corrections in the very little text preserved. Baillet referred to scribal guidelines based on autopsy, but these are not visible on the images (early or more recent) and it is unclear whether he discerned them on both fragments. The orthography is characteristic of the corpus generally, tending to have full spellings, using vav and yod in particular to indicate vowels.
Original manuscript quality: Fair–good
Select bibliography: Beyer, ATTM1, 268; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 218–19, 231.
Script sample:
Language
Lexical items:
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q201, see Drawnel, ABE, 59.
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q202, see Drawnel ABE, 143–44.
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q204, see Drawnel ABE, 194.
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q205, see Drawnel ABE, 309.
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q206, see Drawnel ABE, 340.
While one fifth–fourth century BCE graffito from Sardinia may preserve a single attestation of the prepositional use of the word, the meaning remains somewhat uncertain. For the Sardinia text and other early uses of
The various editors of this manuscript have numbered the fragments differently. This and the other profiles for the Aramaic Enoch manuscripts were created using Milik’s original numbering system, which is based heavily on reconstruction. Nevertheless, Drawnel’s updated numbering system is very useful, and should form the basis of future discussion. For a helpful chart comparing the different numbering systems for 4Q212, see Drawnel ABE, 402.
DARI1, 651. For the Egyptian Aramaic letter, written on an ostracon, see DARI2, 151 (D:7.9(5).4–5), which reads, concerning a servant girl,
For later dialects, refer to DTTM, 1069; DJA, 70; DJPA, 315; DJBA, 630.
Puech has an erasure of
Note that this catalogue of linguistic features uses the fragment numbers 1–27 for the smaller, individual fragments, using small Roman numerals (‘i’ and ‘ii’) to designate columns when a fragment contains two partial columns of text. After frag. 27, large Roman numerals are used to indicate the column numbers commonly used by scholars for the large, continuous fragment (what some scholars call “the small scroll”).