Rethinking the Textual Value of 4Q11 (4QpaleoGen-Exodl)

This paper focuses on a fragmentary copy of Exodus from Qumran that has not so far received sufficient attention—4Q11 (4QpaleoGen-Exodl). The paper proposes a material reconstruction of the scroll and discusses its contribution to the textual classification of the scroll. Although 4Q11 apparently reflects the short literary form of mt and lxx Exodus, which does not include the major expansions characteristic of the pre-Samaritan tradition, an examination of individual readings reveals that the scroll includes some minor exegetical variants. Thus, 4Q11 demonstrates the necessity of exploring the scribal approach reflected in scriptural Qumran scrolls, in addition to their classification into textual traditions. Only such a holistic investigation can allow for an improved understanding of the text and processes that took place during its


Introduction
4Q11, also known as 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, is a fragmentary manuscript that preserves text from the last verse of Genesis and portions of Exod 1:1 to 36:36. It was written in Paleo-Hebrew script and has been dated paleographically to the dayfani Textus 30 (2021) 105-129 second or first century bce.1 This date was accepted by Patrick Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith Sanderson in their official edition of the scroll.2 According to the editors, 4Q11 comprises sixty-four fragments, only thirtyeight of which were identified in the official edition.3 This paper aims to illustrate how 4Q11 carries importance far outweighing its relatively restrained evidence. It discusses material and textual matters related to 4Q11 and their implications for the conception of the various ways in which scriptural texts were transmitted in the late Second Temple period.
The discussion of 4Q11 takes into account both the extant and missing text of the scroll. The paper begins with the lost text, proposing a new material reconstruction of 4Q11. This reconstruction will provide crucial data concerning the amount of missing text between the preserved fragments, which will shed light on the literary form reflected in the scroll. It will then analyze variant readings attested in 4Q11 in light of the interpretative processes of scriptural transmission in the late Second Temple period.

Three Literary Forms of the Book of Exodus
When contrasted with mt and lxx, sp-Exod includes seventeen major expansions and two transpositions.4 The pre-Samaritan version of sp-Exod is also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q22, also known as 4QpaleoExodm, is tex- tually characterized as pre-Samaritan, as it preserves most of the major expansions of sp-Exod.5 As shown in Sanderson's analysis, 4Q22 shares all the major expansions present in sp-Exod, with the exception of the tenth commandment to build an altar on Mount Gerizim.6 Tables 1 and 2 detail the major expansions in sp and the transpositions in the various textual traditions. Of the seventeen major expansions, ten appear in the plagues narrative. These expansions are motivated by a formalistic need for perfecting the divine speech act, detailing both the divine command to Moses to speak with Pharaoh and its fulfillment. In the major expansions in chapters 18, 20, and 32, a certain amount of text in Exodus was copied from parallel accounts in Deuteronomy. As has already been suggested, these expansions are not simply harmonizations, but rather aim to increase the consistency of the recurring Pentateuchal narratives and to create an explicit text of two accounts, illuminating the earlier with the help of the later.7 An additional literary form of the book of Exodus is possibly evident in chapters 35-40. When contrasted with lxx, mt and sp-Exod are significantly different regarding the internal order of chapters 35-40 and their length (mt and sp-Exod are somewhat longer than lxx-Exod). Whether or not the Greek translator had a Hebrew text different from mt/sp generated considerable debate.8 Textus 30 (2021) 105-129 It is not certain, therefore, that lxx is based on a different Vorlage. However, if it is, one may conclude that the book of Exodus existed in (at least) three literary forms in the last centuries bce, represented by mt-Exod; sp-Exod and 4Q22; and the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Exod.

3
The Lost Text of 4Q11: Material Reconstruction of 4Q11 and Its Implications There is insufficient evidence to determine confidently whether 4Q11 follows mt/sp or lxx in the order of chapters 35-40.9 Likewise, we are unable to determine whether 4Q11 originally contained the major expansions found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Only fragments 6 and 7 may attest to a major expansion.10 However, whether the text of these fragments represents the pre-Samaritan expansion or the surrounding text is impossible to determine with confidence, as the expansions themselves reproduce near-identical text copying previous or subsequent verses.11 In one instance, 4Q11 apparently does not agree with a major feature of the cannot ascertain whether the scroll originally placed the altar instructions at that point in the text. Moreover, although the placement of the altar instructions is characteristic of the pre-Samaritan tradition, this variant is one of transposition, rather than a lengthy expansion, as discussed here. Thus, the possible agreement of 4Q11 with the pre-Samaritan tradition in this respect does not necessarily indicate an agreement also in terms of the large expansions. Although 4Q11's existing remains do not allow any decisive conclusions regarding its literary form, the material reconstruction of the scroll provides additional information about the unpreserved text of the manuscript. Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson offered an approximate calculation of the amount of missing text between fragments. They concluded cautiously that 4Q11 reflects a text with a similar length to that found in mt. In other words, it is not likely to include typological features of the pre-Samaritan tradition.13 The editors do not present their reconstructive method in detail and do not proceed with a full material reconstruction. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, no comprehensive reconstruction of the scroll has been attempted.
This paper proposes a material reconstruction of 4Q11 that includes fortyeight fragments, which encompass Gen 50:26 to Exod 28:42. In doing so, it supports the editor's suggestion that 4Q11 did not include the sp expansions in the plagues narrative, the two sp-Exod expansions in chapter 18 (organization of the judiciary), or the three sp-Exod expansions in chapter 20 (the theophany at Sinai).
In the following, I will describe the assumptions and principles underlying the reconstruction: 1. The reconstruction begins with a well-established initial step: identifying the locations of fragments that preserve bottom margins. 4Q11 contains three large fragments with bottom margins: fragments 10, 19, and 35 ( fig. 1). These fragments contain ten to fourteen lines of text. The three fragments show a common recurrent damage pattern, as can be seen when a digital representation of the fragment borders is used ( fig. 2). Common protrusions on the right edge of each fragment and on the left-hand side of fragments 19 and 35 indicate the corresponding points of damage.
An additional large fragment is fragment 7 ( fig. 3).14 Fragment 7 does not preserve a bottom margin, but it does present a recurrent damage pattern on the 13 Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, "11. 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodusl," 24; Ulrich, "Palaeo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts," 110. 14 As stated, the editors joined fragment 7i with fragment 8 (n. 11). In addition, Drew Longacre correctly identified fragment 44 as Exod 12:5-8, and consequently joined it to fragment right and on the left-hand side ( fig. 4). It seems therefore that fragment 7 was wadded with fragments 10, 19, and 35 in the rolled scroll. 2. Location of the fragments in a digital canvas simulating the original scroll in a horizontal axis according to the corresponding points of damage ( fig. 5). The sequence of the fragments within the canvas is determined by the preserved text. At this point, we are unable to estimate the distances between the fragments.
The relative sizes of the preserved bottom margins point to the progression of the scroll's deterioration: fragment 35 preserves the largest bottom margin, fragment 19 preserves a smaller bottom margin, fragment 10 preserves an even smaller part of a bottom margin, and fragment 7 does not preserve the bottom margin at all. 3. Key data for the scroll's reconstruction is the number of lines in each column. Unfortunately, no complete column has been preserved, and therefore the number of lines cannot be directly observed. That being said, the number of lines per column can be inferred from fragments that preserve two consecutive columns. Filling in the missing text between columns may indicate the size of the writing block. Five fragments of 4Q11 preserve parts of two consecutive columns: (1) Fragment 2: col. 2i attests to Exod 2:10; col. 2ii attests to Exod 3:17-21.
The contents of the hypothetical missing text between the first and the second columns of fragments 5 and 7 would differ depending on whether they belonged to the textual tradition of mt or that of 4Q22 and sp. If 4Q11 belonged to the pre-Samaritan tradition, the hypothetical text would include major expansions. Due to these variant possibilities, these particular fragments cannot be used to determine the number of lines in a column. By contrast, the hypothetical missing text between the two columns of fragment 2 and the two columns of fragment 30 is stable. No major expansions, omissions, or transpositions are documented across textual traditions. I reconstructed the missing text between the two columns of these fragments using a font based on typical letters in the scribe's script ( fig. 6). 15 The reconstruction indicates that the scroll consisted originally of sixty lines per column, although a minor variation between columns is possible ( fig. 7).

15
I have used mt for the reconstruction of missing text between fragments. However, three considerations have to be taken into account: orthography, paragraph division, and distances between lines. According to Ulrich, "Palaeo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts," 127, 4Q11 "strikes a moderate balance between conservative and full orthography, whereas mt-Exod tends to be somewhat more conservative." Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, "11. 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodusl," 21-22, listed words that are consistently represented with defective spelling, such as , ‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ; they also listed orthographic variants, whenever 4Q11 differs from 4Q22, mt, and sp. To reconstruct recurrent words, I followed the forms attested in the scroll. In other cases, I tentatively followed a balanced orthographic tendency, using the defective spelling of mt while occasionally inserting plene forms. As for paragraph division, there seems to be no consistent correspondence between the paragraph divisions of 4Q11, on the one hand, attested in manuscripts of mt, on the other. Nor do 4Q11's paragraph divisions fully correspond with ‫ק‬ ‫צ‬ ‫ה‬ used in the Samaritan manuscript tradition. As Ulrich, "Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts," 107 has argued, the scribe appears to have made a logical division between sections to help the reader. Based on the material evidence, Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 273, observes that 4Q11 uses an expanded system of paragraph division. Subdivisions are represented by a gap extending from the last word in the line to the end of line which is then followed by an entirely blank line (frg. 7i 5-6; 16 3-4; 19 5-6). Occasionally, however, the new section begins at the right margin of the next line, with no blank line intervening (see, e.g., frg. 2i). The proposed reconstruction follows the spaced paragraph division system of the scroll by generally, albeit not consistently, inserting a blank line between two paragraphs. Moreover, the horizontal ruler lines, traces of which can be seen in many of the scroll's fragments, indicate that 4Q11 was ruled, as is the case for almost all Qumran and Masada texts written on leather (Tov,Scribal Practices,(53)(54). The horizontal ruling runs across all the columns on the sheet. The distance between the horizontally ruled lines in 4Q11 is fairly regular, and is estimated at 0.5cm. I digitally ruled each sheet on the canvas according to the preserved lines on the fragments belonging to this sheet.
Where the text has not been preserved, I ruled the lines with an average space of 0.5cm between them.
Textus 30 (2021)  4. The next step is to determine the number of sheets. Fragment 1 preserves the right margin with stitching holes, indicating that it belongs to the first column of the first sheet containing Exodus in 4Q11 ( fig. 8, col. i). Fragment 44, which is placed in proximity to fragment 7ii, preserves the left margin with seam remnants, indicating that both of these fragments belong to the last column of the sheet ( fig. 8, col. viii). As it is unlikely that one sheet contained all the text between Gen 50:26 (the beginning of frg. 1) and Exod 12:12 (the end of frg. 7ii), completion of the text requires two sheets. Furthermore, fragment 19 also preserves the left margin with seam remnants, indicating that it belongs to the last column of the next sheet. The next sheet starts with the column of fragment 20 ( fig. 8, col. xiii), which preserves remnants of the seam on its right margin. This sheet ends with the column of fragment 23 ( fig. 8, col. xvi), which preserves remnants of the seam on its left margin. Consequently, the parts of the scroll containing Gen 50:26 to Exod 28:42 (the end of frg. 37, fig. 8, col. xix) must be assigned to five distinct sheets. The text restoration below confirms that each sheet, except for the last one which is not completely reconstructed, comprises four columns.
5. The position of the large fragments, the determination of the number of lines per column, and the number of sheets all represent valuable data for a material reconstruction. Now we can completely reconstruct the missing text between fragments in instances where there is a relatively stable biblical text. The recon-dayfani Textus 30 (2021) 105-129 struction also allows one to locate additional fragments and to propose new joins ( fig. 8).
Three fragments, in particular, serve as litmus tests for examining whether the scroll originally contained major sp-Exod expansions: fragments 5, 7, and 20. sp-Exod contains three major expansions in the hypothetical text between the two columns of fragment 5 (Exod 8:19b; 9:5b; 9:19b), as well as in that between the two columns of fragment 7 (Exod 10:2b; 11:3bi; 11:3bii). According to the proposed reconstruction, however, there is no room for such expansions in either fragment. By contrast, the text of mt-Exod fits well into the space between columns in both cases ( fig. 9). Since the three major sp expansions in each case include a significant amount of text, this can be asserted with a high level of certainty.
The large expansions in the plagues narrative exhibit a consistent and systematic character. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a scroll that lacks expansions in the context of two plagues will include them in other parts of the narrative. Since the intercolumnar space in fragments 5 and 7 is too narrow to encompass any major expansions, we may conclude that the scroll did not contain any of the large expansions characteristic of the plagues narrative in sp-Exod.
Reconstruction of the text between fragment 20 and subsequent fragments indicates that 4Q11 did not include the two major expansions in chapter 18 characteristic of sp-Exod ( fig. 11). Fragment 35, which appears later in the scroll, preserves bottom margins. The text of mt-Exod would fit well into the bottom margins preserved in this fragment. Conversely, the reconstruction of the longer sp-Exod text would not allow one to place fragment 35 at the bottom of the column. For the same reason, we may also conclude that the major sp-Exod expansions in chapter 20 were not included in 4Q11.
This case is less certain than fragments 5 and 7, as the distance between fragments 20 and 35 is greater. Nevertheless, this conclusion seems probable as the amount of text of the two major expansions in chapter 18 and the three major expansions in chapter 20 is significant. 6. The material and textual reconstruction enables us to measure the distances between corresponding damage points in fragments 7, 10, 19, and 35 according to the Stegemann method.17 I represented these points with the letters A-D ( fig. 12). The distances between points A to D indicate that it is possible to display a series of ten circumferences of the scroll, ranging from 11.3 cm to 14 cm, with an incremental growth of 0.3cm. In other words, the corresponding damage points reflect ten consecutive layers in the rolled-up scroll. Moreover, the incremental growth between layers indicates that the scroll was rolled with the end of the scroll inside and the beginning outside.
7. The application of the Stegemann method is reinforced by the identification of additional fragments that preserve repeated damage patterns: fragments 16 and 23 ( fig. 13). Both fragments preserve intercolumnar margins and have a sim- 17 Intercolumnar margins have been completely preserved in fragments 2, 5, 7, and 30, and partially preserved in fragments 10, 22, 33, and 48. The width of the complete intercolumnar margins varies from 1.2 cm (frg. 7) to 2 cm (frg. 30), while the width of the partial margins varies from 1 cm (frg. 10) to 2.1 cm (frg. 48). There are four cases in which intercolumnar margins were not preserved at all between fragments 7, 10, 19, and 35 (see fig. 8, cols. xi-xii; xiii-xiv; xiv-xv; xv-xvi). In these cases, I assumed that their width equals the average of 1.5 cm. Although complete margins between sheets have not been preserved in 4Q11, some fragments preserve the right or the left side of the seam (frgs. 1,16,19,20,23,44). The width of the right or the left side of the seam varies between 0.9cm (frg. 1) and 1.8 cm (frg. 23). According to the textual reconstruction, fragments 16 and 19, on the one hand, and fragment 20, on the other, preserve both sides of the same seam. Based on this, the total width of the margins between these sheets equals 2.8cm. Two cases are important for the distances between fragments 7, 10, 19, and 35: columns viii-ix and xvi-xvii ( fig. 8). In these cases, only one side of the seam was preserved. Since the width is not uniform throughout the scroll, I measured the width of the other side as it would fit the expected distances according to the Stegemann method. This yields a width of margins between sheets of 1.7 cm (cols. viii-ix) and 2.7 cm (cols. xvi-xvii). ilarly shaped bulge at their top-right edges, as can be seen in a representation of their borders ( fig. 14). Importantly, in the proposed reconstruction, the fragments are aligned along the same vertical axis ( fig. 15). In addition, the distance between the corresponding damage points in these fragments, represented by the letters E and F, equals 49.1cm. This distance is very close to 49.4 cm, the expected distance calculated earlier through the application of the Stegemann method.18 Although I have shown the correspondence of all relevant material data, like any reconstruction, this one has a margin of error.19 Nevertheless, the fact that independent pieces of material evidence fit together in the proposed 18 The sum of the circumferences: 11.9; 12.2; 12.5; 12.8 (see fig. 12). 19 For the  reconstruction, significantly narrows down that margin. The column widths have been determined by reconstructing the missing text between fragmentary lines. They accord with the distances between corresponding points of damage that show incremental growth between the rolls of the scroll. The material reconstruction thus successfully combines independent data. Moreover, the thickness of the leather of 4Q11 reinforces the proposed material reconstruction. According to the reconstruction, the incremental growth between the layers of the rolled scroll equals 0.3 cm. Indeed, measurement of the leather of fragments 1, 3, and 4 indicates that the thickness of the leather is 0.3-0.4cm.20 Thus, the application of the Stegemann method is in line with the material evidence. The reconstruction proposal is also in line with fragments 10 and 20, the widest of all the preserved fragments. According to my analysis, the two fragments do not preserve two iterations of damage patterns. In other words, they do not preserve more than one layer in the rolled scroll. Indeed, the maximum width of fragment 10 equals 13.7cm, similar to the circumference of the scroll at that point. The maximum width of fragment 20 is 12.9 cm, which is almost equal to the circumference of the scroll at that point. The latter equals 12.8 cm.
All these considerations indicate that the core of the material reconstruction of 4Q11 is stable. Although the positioning of the fragments and the distances between them may need to be altered slightly, it will not significantly affect the main conclusion that the major sp-Exod expansions in the plagues narrative, the organization of judiciary, and theophany at Sinai were not originally included in 4Q11.
As a preliminary conclusion, the purpose of this part of this paper was to use the materiality of 4Q11 as a useful resource for investigating its textual context. The material reconstruction of the scroll indicates that 4Q11 represents the short text-type of Exodus, also represented by mt and the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx.

The Extant Text of 4Q11: Scribal and Exegetical Techniques in the Second Temple Period
Not only does the shared literary form attest to textual proximity between mt and 4Q11, but so does a statistical analysis of 4Q11's readings. According to Armin Lange, there is a relatively large number of agreements between 4Q11 and mt (Table 3).21 However, this number is counterbalanced by an identical number of disagreements. Due to the inconclusive textual evidence, 4Q11 has not been classified straightforwardly as a Masoretic manuscript. Lange considers it a semi-Masoretic manuscript, while  The statistical analysis of 4Q11's readings illustrates the necessity of exploring 4Q11's text in terms of the scribe and his process, rather than merely through its comparison to other ancient versions. In other words, we should ask what the scribe did when he copied his Vorlage. Did he copy it faithfully? Or did he insert changes in the text in front of him? I approached 4Q11 with these very questions in mind. In doing so, I followed Sidnie White Crawford, who emphasizes the importance of seeking patterns for scribal activity rather than a textual characteristic of a specific manuscript vis-à-vis other manuscripts.23 At this point in the discussion, I should caution that it is often impossible to determine whether individual readings were inserted by the scribe or if they existed already in his Vorlage. In these cases, as in the following discussion of 4Q11, we can only draw conclusions about scribal processes in a general way. It is often impossible to point to a particular point in the transmission process at which a change was made to the text.
Most of the variants in which one of the four Hebrew texts of Exodus-4Q11, 4Q22, mt, and sp-disagrees with another pertain to a single word or phrase. At first glance, it may appear as if these variants are insignificant or negligible. However, a closer inspection reveals that 4Q11 includes readings that demonstrate scribal activity beyond mere copying. The scribe of 4Q11 or its prefied two fragments that provide more affinities of 4Q11 with sp: fragment 48; a fragment documented in iaa plate 395.25 that has not been associated with the scroll thus far. We suggest identifying fragment 48 with I would like to follow this path by presenting another example in which a textual variant in 4Q11 possibly reflects the interpretative approach of the scribe of 4Q11 or its predecessors. I will discuss Exod 25:11, in which 4Q11's reading adopts a particular interpretation of the word ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ and, at the same time, rejects an alternative interpretation. , while the word ‫ס‬ ‫ב‬ ‫י‬ ‫ב‬ is excluded. Raanan Eichler, discussing the significance of ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ , illustrates that its accepted interpretation in lxx and related texts is a guilloche molding, a decorative element of Greek architecture attested in all periods.27 In contrast, in Targum Neofiti and Peshitta, ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ is rendered as ‫)א(‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ , "crown." The Vulgate similarly translates corona. This interpretation, evidently stemming from the assumption that ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ is related etymologically to the biblical ‫נ‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ , is also dominant in rabbinic exegesis.28 Simply put, a crown is anything that surrounds an object, whether that object be a person's head, as in spoken language, or the ark, as in Exod 25:11. Indeed, Koehler-Baumgartner interpreted ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ as a "frame, border."29 This interpretation would make the word ‫ס‬ pretation of ‫ז‬ ‫ר‬ as a crown, and thus revised the text of the verse in a manner that does not leave room for the interpretation reflected in the Greek text. If this is the case, then Exod 25:11 is further evidence of the exegetical readings attested in 4Q11.
Moreover, there are numerous examples in which 4Q11's readings reflect a simplification of phrases in terms of their content and language. In the following, I will discuss two of them: The first relates to content, and the second to language.