Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.
1163/156851710X484523
Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 112 brill.nl/dsd
Reconstructing 4QJer
b
According to the
Text of the Old Greek
Richard J. Saley
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Divinity School;
Harvard University, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-2091, U.S.A.
saley@fas.harvard.edu
Abstract
It is generally held that 4QJer
b
and the Septuagint agree with each other against
the Masoretic Text with regard to verse order and brevity of text. Nonetheless,
there has never been an attempt to reconstruct the whole of 4QJer
b
ninety per-
cent of which is missingon the basis of the Old Greek. Doing such underscores
the closeness of 4QJer
b
to the text from which the Old Greek was translated.
Keywords
4QJer
b
; Septuagint; Masoretic Text; retroversion
Introduction
It has long been known that the Septuagint of Jeremiah is considerably
shorter than the Masoretic Text of the same book with a dierent order-
ing and placement of some passages and sections.
1
However, it was not
1
For a succinct review of scholarly opinion in this regard from the nineteenth
century onward, see J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 19; also P.-M. Bogaert, Le
livre de Jrmie en perspective: les deux rdactions antiques selon les travaux en
cours, RB 101 (1994): 363406, esp. 36369. Te Septuagint text is usually
said to be one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text based on the count of 2700
words by Karl Heinrich Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1862).
More recently a computer count of 3097, or one-seventh, has been claimed by
Young-Jin Min, Te Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as
Compared with the Massoretic Text: Teir Classication and Possible Origins
2 R. J. Saley / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 112
until the discovery of 4QJer
b
that the signicance of the Septuagint could
be fully understood. Tough 4QJer
b
contains only the ends of 13 lines
comprised, in whole or in part, of 31 legible words, this early second-
century b.c.e. Hebrew manuscript unmistakably displays agreement with
the Septuagint and disagreement with the Masoretic Text as regards verse
order and brevity of text.
2
As such, the conclusion generally drawn by
scholars is that the Old Greek gives witness to an earlier Hebrew Vorlage
than that of the later and fuller Hebrew version adopted for the Masoretic
Text.
3
Unfortunately, only about ten percent of the 4QJer
b
fragment has been
preserved and the other ninety percent has to be reconstructed. Until now
attempts at such a reconstruction have been based on the Masoretic Text.
4

In light of what has been said above, and the fact that the date of 4QJer
b

is more or less contemporaneous with that of the Old Greek translation
of Jeremiah,
5
it would seem appropriate that such also be attempted on
the basis of the Old Greek. Tis paper, then, aims to present a credible
reconstruction of 4QJer
b
according to the text of the Old Greek. Before
(Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1977), 1, apud Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah
120 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 5758.
2
Te author is here following Tovs division of what was originally called
4QJer
b
into the work of three dierent scribes found on two, and perhaps three
dierent scrolls: 4QJer
b
(9:2210:21); 4QJer
d
(43:210); 4QJer
e
(50:46). Cf.
Emanuel Tov, DJD 15:17172; also, Emanuel Tov, Te Jeremiah Scrolls from
Qumran, RevQ 14/54 (1989): 189206, esp. 19197.
3
Not all scholars would agree; so, for example, Lundbom, Jeremiah 120,
5762, who argues that scholars have failed to realize the full extent to which the
LXXs Hebrew Vorlage of Jeremiah must have suered from haplography (61).
4
Two attempted reconstructions which dier only in the most minute details
have been published by Tov. See Emanuel Tov, Tree Fragments of Jeremiah
from Qumran Cave 4, RevQ 15/60 (1992): 53141, esp. 537; and DJD 15:176.
Te latter study calls attention to lines 3 and 7 as being excessively long in a
reconstruction based on the Greek; cf. below Length of Lines.
5
For the dating of 4QJer
b
and the Old Greek, see Emanuel Tov, Te Literary
History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Textual History, in Te Greek and
Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999),
36384, esp. 36364; repr. from J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical
Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); see also his Te
Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran, 197 for additional information on the dating of
4QJer
b
.
R. J. Saley / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 112 3
delving into that, however, a quick look at what is on the leather, and
hence does not have to be reconstructed, is in order.
Preserved Portion of 4QJer
b

Following is a slightly compressed version of the transcription of 4QJer
b

as it appears in DJD 15:
[] [ ] (9:22) 1
[ ] (23) 2
[] [ ] (24,25) 3
[ ] (10:1,2) 4
[ ] (3,4) 5
[ ] (5a,9) 6
[ ] (5b,11) 7
[ ] (12,13) 8
[ ] (14,15) 9
[][ ] (1618) 10
[ ] (19,20) 11
[ ] (21) 12
[ ] (22) 13
Comments on the Preserved Portion of 4QJer
b
Two factors in the above transcription reveal close alignment with the
Old Greek.
6
Te rst is at the end of line 5 where the word (with
hammers) occurs. It is of note that the MT and the Old Greek both
mention hammers and nails at this point, but in dierent order. Te MT
has with nails and hammers ( ) while the Old Greek
6
All references to the Septuagint text are to the edition prepared by Joseph
Ziegler, ed., Jeremias, Baruch, Treni, Epistula Jeremiae (3d ed.; Septuaginta. Vetus
Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum
15; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). All references to the MT are
from BHS and were checked against the Aleppo Codex (Chaim Rabin, Shemar-
yahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov, eds., Te Book of Jeremiah [Hebrew University
Bible Project; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997]).
reads with hammers and nails ( ). Tough 4QJer
b

has only one of the two words on the leather, (with hammers),
there seems no reason to doubt that (and with nails) followed
at the beginning of line 6, thereby giving 4QJer
b
the same reading as the
Old Greek. Te second factor is even more striking: as the verse numbers
in the right-hand column above indicate, the verse order of 4QJer
b
in ch. 10
is Jer 10:14, 5a, 9, 5b, 1122. Tat is, vv. 68 and 10 are missing in
4QJer
b
while v. 9 appears between the two halves of v. 5. Te same is true
for the Old Greek. Tis, then, forms the indisputable basis for the claim
that, as regards verse order and brevity of text, 4QJer
b
agrees with the Old
Greek against the MT.
Tat having been said, however, it needs to be noted that there are four
instances of possible 4QJer
b
agreement with the MT against the Old
Greek, admittedly all in minor matters. 4QJer
b
in line 2 reads (in
the land) in agreement with the MT, while the Old Greek has
(on the land). Normally one would expect to be rendering or
the like, though it is uncertain here whether the Vorlage of the Old Greek
diered from that of 4QJer
b
and MT. Of the 25 occasions in Jer 128
7
in
the Septuagint version where there is a translation given for the reading
in the MT, () (in [the] land) appears 14 times and
(on the land) 10 times.
8
To put it dierently, of the 12 times in Jer
128 in the Septuagint version where occurs with a corre-
sponding reading in the MT, on 10 occasions that reading is .
9
In
short, the data are suciently ambiguous here to allow for a decision on
the Vorlage of the Old Greek vis--vis 4QJer
b
and the MT.
Te second instance is in line 3 where 4QJer
b
reads (tem-
ples clipped) in agreement with the MT but in disagreement with the
7
For Jer 128 as the older and thus more original section of the Septuagint
text, see H. St. John Tackeray, Te Greek Translators of Jeremiah, JTS 4
(19021903): 24566, esp. 246; and Emanuel Tov, Te Septuagint Translation of
Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah
2952 and Baruch 1:13:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), esp.
1056. Also of note are the remarks of Anneli Aejmelaeus, Nebuchadnezzar,
My Servant, in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Hon-
our of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino Garca Martnez and Marc Vervenne; BETL
192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 118, esp. 1018.
8
Te other occurrence has .
9
Te other two occurrences are and .
(shaven all around on his face)
of the Greek. Te singular form of the participle in the Greek as well as
the singular personal pronoun might indicate a dierent Vorlage, though
it is also possible that the Greek is simply idiomatic here. It should be
noted that a similar occurrence of the phrase in Jer 32:9 (25:23 M) yields
the same basic construction in the Greek.
10
A third instance in line 4 has 4QJer
b
siding with the MT for the phrase
(into the way) while the Old Greek has (accord-
ing to the ways). Tovs opinion that the Greek preposition is owing to
the unusual construction in the Hebrew seems much more likely than
does positing a dierent Vorlage.
11
Such is not the case with the number
of the noun, however, and here 4QJer
b
clearly agrees with the MT against
the Old Greek.
12
Te fourth and nal instance occurs in line 5 where the Masoretic
(he beauties it) found also in 4QJer
b
is reected in Greek by
(they are beautied), i.e., the Hebrew is singu-
lar, active (Piel) with object; the Greek is plural, passive, without object.
It is dicult to know what reading lay before the Greek translator. It
could have been the same as that in the MT and 4QJer
b
for which he
chose a paraphrastic rendering. Equally, if not more likely, however, would
have been a dierent Hebrew form, perhaps , a Qal perfect plural of
the stative verb, or even taken as a Pual imperfect, third plural. It is
also possible that it was simply , the Qal perfect singular, which he
rendered as a neuter plural in accord with his interpretation of the previ-
ous verse which ends with compound neuter nouns (
; a work of a craftsman and a molten image). Still another option
would be to view the Vorlage as ( = ) in light of
Jer 26:20 (46:20 M) where is given as the translation.
Other options are no doubt possible, but in the end no proposed Vorlage
stands out as more compelling than another, and the matter of possible
agreement of 4QJer
b
here with the MT against the Old Greek must be
left open.
10
Tough admittedly this occurs in the later section of Greek Jeremiah (cf.
n. 7 above).
11
DJD 15:174.
12
So also, Tov; cf. Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book
of Jeremiah, in Le livre de Jrmie: Le prophte et son milieu, les oracles et leur trans-
mission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 14567, esp. 147.
Tere are also two instances of 4QJer
b
agreeing with neither the MT
nor the Old Greek. 4QJer
b
in line 9 reads the verbal form plus object,
(I visit them) as opposed to the nominal form plus possessive,
their visitation, of MT ( ) and the Greek ( ). In
line 10 the (the one dwelling [sg.]) of 4QJer
b
contrasts with the
plural forms of MT ( ) and the Old Greek ( ).
What then is to be made of the case(s) where 4QJer
b
agrees with the
MT against the Old Greek or of the cases where 4QJer
b
has a unique
reading against the combined testimony of the MT and Old Greek? Sim-
ply put, such data simply demonstrate the individuality of every manu-
script as a member of a family of texts where no two exemplars read
precisely the same. Such deviations as those just cited, then, should not
preclude an attempted reconstruction of 4QJer
b
on the basis of the Old
Greek. Preliminary to that eort, however, we need to consider the restric-
tions imposed by line length.
Length of Lines
Trough a complex process of analysis and comparison Tov was able to
conclude that the average count per line for this wider than normal column
would have been approximately 115 letter-spaces (individual letters and
spaces).
13
In this regard he also noted that a reconstruction based on the
Greek would be excessively long in lines 3 and 7, though the length of
line 3 could be reduced by presuming either a shorter list or homoioteleuton
in v. 25.
14
Our approach to the length of line 3 is somewhat analogous
see the following sectionthough we posit the loss in v. 24. (Te length
of line 7 will be treated below.)
15
Suce it to say here in general that the
reconstruction of 4QJer
b
will have 115 letter-spaces per line as its goal.
A Presumed Haplography in 4QJer
b

Te presumption is here being made that either 4QJer
b
or its Vorlage
suered a haplography in line 3. Te beginning of line 3 (9:23c M),
13
DJD 15:17475.
14
DJD 15:176.
15
Cf. Comments on the Reconstruction of 4QJer
b
below; also n. 19.
when reconstructed according to the retroverted Old Greek, reads:
.
16
Te argument being
developed here presumes that the scribes eye skipped from the rst
to the second (both homoioteleuton and homoiarkton), delet-
ing the intervening words and producing a reading of
.
Proposed Reconstruction of 4QJer
b

Te following reconstruction has been made completely on the basis of
the Old Greek. Te retroversions were made with the use of Hatch-Red-
path
17
and computer software, and are in the main quite straight forward.
Tere are, however, a few places where the evidence is ambiguous and
more than one reading is plausible. It is important to note, though, that
there is no instance where the choice of the retroverted Hebrew word
aects the plausibility of the case being developed. Te orthography is
based on the MT.
18
Te numbers in the left-hand margin indicate the let-
ter-space count for the line in question.

21
]
9:20
1
118 [] [
22

23
] 2
108 [

25

24
] 3
120 [] [

10:1
] 4
117 [
2

3
] 5
121 [
4

9

5a
] 6
115 [
16
Te MT diers only in having rather than ; cf. below.
17
Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint
and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books)
(2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
18
For the orthography of 4QJer
b
being almost identical to that of the MT, see
DJD 15:172.

5b
] 7
19
123 [
11

12
] 8
112 [
13

14
] 9
119 [
15

17

16
] 10
112 [][
18

19
] 11
117 [
20

vacat or unknown expansion ] 12
??? [
21
] 13
???

[
Comments on the Reconstruction of 4QJer
b

All dierences between the retroverted text of the Old Greek and the
Masoretic Text are listed below. Where verse numbers dier, that of the
MT is given rst, the Septuagint second.
L. 1: (9:20[21]) []] M .
(9:21[22]) []] M . Cf. Jer 7:33.
(9:21[22]) [ ]] M . Cf. Jer 8:2; 16:4.
(9:21[22]) [] (although [] is also possible; cf. Jer 12:4;
14:6)] M .
20
L. 2: (9:22[23]) []] M .
(9:23[24]) []] M .
(9:23[24]) []] M .
19
For the phrase , (impf. plus object, you shall say to them) in
v. 11, La reads dicite (= ; impv., say); cf. Pierre Sabatier, ed., Bibliorum Sac-
rorum Versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica (Rheims, 1743; repr., Turnhout: Brepols,
1976), 2:663. If this Old Latin reading reects an Old Greek reading consistent
with 4QJer
b
, then the length of line 7 would be reduced from 123 to 116. Of
course, we have no way of knowing if such were actually the case.
20
Muraoka favors ; cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to
the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998), 112.
L. 3: (9:23[24]) []] M . G has the nominal form.
(9:24[25]) []] M ; cf. Gen 17:23.
(9:25[26]) [ ]] M .
L. 4: (9:25[26]) [ ]] M ; cf. Ezek 44:7.
(9:25[26]) [] (or [])] M .
(10:1) [ ]] M .
L. 5: (10:2) [ ] (or less likely [ ])] M
; cf. Jer 10:5, but also 1:17.
(10:2) [ ]] M . Te word seems
best taken as the Vorlage of . For the two
occurrences of in that portion of M corresponding to Jer
128 G, see 1:17 (G = ) and 9:12 (G =
).
(10:3) []] M .
(10:3) []] M .
(10:3) []] M . Te verb has suered metathesis in one
of the Hebrew traditions.
(10:3) []] M ; cf. Deut 27:15.
(10:3) []] M .
L. 6: (10:4) []] M .
21
(10:4) []] M .
(10:5a) [ ]] M . G and M reect two dif-
ferent etymologies for the form , that of G yielding the
meaning hammered and that of M, eld of cucumbers.
(10:5a) [ ]] M .
(10:9) [ ]] M . Te verb has suered metathesis
in one of the Hebrew traditions.
Ll. 67: (10:9) [] [ ]] M
. Tere
are three phrases in M ( and and
) but only two ( and , with changes in
number) in G.
22
Te order of the phrases in M and G is also
21
See above, Comments on the Preserved Portion of 4QJer
b
.
22
Te retroverted in G may be the remnant of an earlier third phrase in
the Vorlage of G. Tat is, in an earlier phrase,
, could easily have been lost both through homoioteleuton
and homoiarkton.
reversed, somewhat reminiscent of the phraseology of the nails
and hammers [M] and hammers and nails [G] earlier in 10:4.
23
Te underlying G and the of M reect metathesis in
one of the Hebrew traditions.
L. 7: (10:5b) [ ] ( )] M
. Cf. Eccl 3:12. A retroversion similar to M (
) is also possible but unlikely owing to space considerations.
L. 8: (10:12) [ ]] M .
(10:13) []] M .
L. 9: (10:13) []] M .
(10:14) [ ]] M . Te retroversion of the preposition
in G is not certain. See the same phrase in Jer 28:17 (51:17 M)
where G reads the expected rather than the found here.
(10:14) []] M . Te choice of verb in G () prob-
ably indicates that the translator understood the form as .
(10:14) []] M .
L. 10: (10:16) []] M .
(10:16) []] M .
(10:17) [ ]] M . M has the 2d fem. sg. impv.;
G translates a 3d masc./fem. sg. pf. form.
(10:17) []] M
k
; M
q
. Te Vorlage of G could have
been either; cp. Jer 22:23; Lam 4:21. Cf. GKC 90n.
(10:17) []] M . Cf. Jer 22:7.
L. 11: (10:18) [ ]] M .
(10:18) []] M .
24
Cf. Jer 6:24.
(10:18) [ ]] M . Te Vorlage of G is best taken as a
Niphal.
(10:19) []] M .
(10:19) []] M .
(10:19) []] M .
(10:19) [] (or possibly [] as M)] M . Cf. GKC 126y.
(10:19) []] M . M reads a Qal impf. 1st sg. with a 3d
masc. sg. sux from . G translates a Hiphil impf. 3d masc. sg.
with a 1st sg. sux from .
23
For other examples of transposed pairs in M and G, see Janzen, Studies in
the Text of Jeremiah, 122, 230 n. 2.
24
Aleppo Codex: .
(10:20) []] M . normally translates in the
Septuagint including later in this verse.
(10:20) []] M . Graphic confusion between waw and yod
has resulted in M having a verbal form from and G rendering
a nominal form from .
L. 12: (10:20) []] M .
(10:20) [ ] (or less likely [ ])] M .
(10:20) []] M . Waw-yod confusion has again led to dif-
ferent interpretations, M taking the word as a verbal form (from
) and G as a nominal form ( ).
(10:21) [ ]] M .
Two nal points remains for this section. Te rst is this: 4QJer
b
has been
reconstructed above on the basis of the retroverted Old Greek. However,
this not to say that every word in the reconstruction would have appeared
on the scroll exactly as we have it in the reconstruction. Rather, what we
have above are approximations, or to put it dierently, we would be sure
to nd the same sort of minor variations in agreement in the now missing
portion of the scroll as we saw on the preserved portion of the scroll at
the outset.
Te second point concerns the optimum line length of 115 described
above. Te following table shows the line lengths as reconstructed in DJD
15
25
(based on the MT) and as reconstructed in this study (based on the
Old Greek).
Line: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
M-base: 118 111 139 112 129 116 130 115
26
115 130 124
G-base: 118 108 120 117 121 115 123 112 119 112 117
Te average in DJD 15 with the MT as the base for reconstruction is
121.7 letter-spaces per line with the longest being 139 and the shortest
being 111. By contrast the average with the Old Greek as the base for
reconstruction is 116.5 with the longest being line 7 with 123
27
and the
25
DJD 15:176.
26
Excluding the four letter-spaces to mark a closed section posited before v.
12 in DJD 15:175.
27
If the Old Latin reading in line 7 were to be followed (cf. n. 19 above), then
the length of that line would be 116 and the average 115.9.
shortest 108. Tus, neither reconstruction completely attains the goal of
115, though the reconstruction on the basis of the Old Greek more
closely approximates it.
Conclusion
Tis paper has sought to present a credible reconstruction of 4QJer
b

according to the text of the Old Greek. A presumed haplography in line 3
in either 4QJer
b
or its Vorlage between the rst and the second
is critical for the thesis here developed. Admittedly, this cannot
be proven given the present state of our textual evidence. Nonetheless, in
this authors opinion the probability of such is increased by the unifor-
mity this reconstruction as a whole brings to our understanding of the
relationship between 4QJer
b
and the Old Greek, underscoring as it does
the closeness of 4QJer
b
to that text from which the Old Greek of Jeremiah
was translated.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156851710X484505
Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira*
Shulamit Elizur
Department of Hebrew Literature, Humanities room 6304, Te Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel, 91905
elizur@mscc.huji.ac.il
Abstract
Tis article presents the slightly revised English translation of the rst edition,
originally published in 2007 in Hebrew, of two new leaves of the Geniza manu-
script C of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira. With those two new leaves, from a
nonconsecutive bifolio, we now have eight leaves from four continuous bifolios
of the manuscript. Te second new leaf contains the rst Hebrew evidence for
verses ranging between Sir 20:30 and 25:7.
Keywords
Ben Sira; Geniza; codicology
I
Te Genizah fragments containing the Hebrew version of Ben Sira drew
scholarly attention towards the discovery of the Cairo Genizah, and
within only a few years (between 1896 and 1900) fragments containing
extensive sections of the book were identied and published.
1
Later,
* Tis article was published in Hebrew in Tarbiz 76 (2007): 1728. I would
like to thank the David and Jemima Jeselsohn Epigraphic center of Jewish His-
tory in Bar-Ilan University for its support, and Prof. Menahem Kister and Dr. Avi
Shmidman for their help.
1
For a list and summation of the publications, see Moshe H. Segal, Sefer Ben
Sira ha-Shalem (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 48. For a survey of the
process of the discovery of the books Hebrew version and the verication of its
originality, see also Menahem Kister, Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira, in Te
14 S. Elizur / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 1329
as well, and especially upon the opening of the New Series crates in
the Taylor-Schechter collection in the Cambridge University Library,
scholars continued to identify and publish fragments from Ben Sira.
2

Te probability of nding a signicant fragment of the book today seems
negligible.
Te ways of the Genizah, however, are mysterious. At 2007 a private
collector commissioned a book dealer to sell several Genizah fragments
at public auction, and they were purchased by the prominent collector
Giord Combs from Los Angeles, and are now in his possession.
3
Before
their sale, the fragments were given to the Cambridge University Library
for scanning. I gained access to the computerized images of three frag-
Cambridge Genizah Collections: Teir Contents and Signicance (ed. S. C. Reif;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3640.
2
Te publications until the 1970s are listed in the Academy of the Hebrew
Language and Shrine of the Book edition: Te Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance
and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew
Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973), 12.
3
Te auction was held in London in April 2007 on behalf of the Bernard
Quaritch rare book and manuscript rm. A description of the manuscript pub-
lished here appeared as no. 39 in the booksellers Catalogue 1348 (Medieval
Manuscripts, no. 39). It is described as a manuscript from the Cairo Genizah
that contains unrhymed Hebrew proverbs. Te physical description in the cata-
logue states that the paper manuscript, that contains an almost whole bifolio,
measures 100 140 mm (70 100 mm), with each leaf containing a single
column of twelve lines of Eastern Hebrew script written in black ink. Te second
leaf is damaged in its external upper corner, and the text there is missing. Te rest
of the text is in good condition. According to the catalogue, the fragment was
written in the Middle East in the eleventh or twelfth c. (see also below, n. 5).
According to information provided by the auction house, the manuscript came
from a collection of twelve Genizah fragments that had been purchased by a Ger-
man collector named Ferdinand Schmitz from Aachen in an auction conducted
in Cologne on July 6, 1898, and had been privately held since. I wish to thank
Giord Combs for his permission to publish the manuscript. I am also deeply
grateful to Dr. Ben Outhwaite, Head of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research
Unit in the Cambridge University Library, for contacting the auction house and
transmitting this information to me; he also sent me excellent images of the
manuscript.
S. Elizur / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 1329 15
ments that were identied as poetical passages,
4
one of which I realized,
after studying them, is a (nonconsecutive) bifolio of MS C of Ben Sira.
5
II
Presently, six leaves of MS C of Ben Sira have been published, four of
them in 1900: one bifolio whose two leaves are not consecutive was pub-
lished by Solomon Schechter;
6
a single leaf, by Israel Levi;
7
and another
leaf was published by Moses Gaster, from his private library.
8
Sixty years
4
Te two other fragments not published here contain already published
poems by R. Samuel ha-Shelishi b. Hoshana (part of his seder for the seventh
day of passover. See Israel Davidson, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solo-
mon Schechter, Vol. 3 [New York: Te Teological Seminary of America, 1928],
7383) and by R. Judah ha-Levi (his poems to Samuel b. Hananya from Cairo
Say to the heavenly host: wherefore have you van-
ished? for which see H. Brody, Diwan Abu-l-Hasan Jehuda ha-Levi, Vol. 1 [Ber-
lin: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1894], 144 and Don pride, for which see
J. Schirmann, Poets of the Generation of Moses Ibn Ezra and Jehuda ha-Levi,
Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem, Vol. 6 [ Jerusalem,
1945], 318).
5
Tis identication might require a correction of the dating of the fragment
given in the auction house catalogue (see above, n. 3); according to M. Gaster
(see below, n. 8), this is the earliest manuscript of Ben Sira, and was written in
the late tenth or early eleventh century (see Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 52).
6
Solomon Schechter, A Further Fragment of Ben Sira, JQR 12 (1900):
45665. Te manuscript is currently in the holdings of the Cambridge Univer-
sity Library, T-S 12.727.
7
Israel Lvi, Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hbreux de
lEcclsiastique, REJ 40 (1900): 130. Te manuscript is among the holdings of
the Alliance Isralite Universelle library in Paris: ID 2. Levi called the fragment
Fragment D, but its scholarly notation is MS C.
8
Moses Gaster, A New Fragment of Ben Sira, JQR 12 (1900): 688702
(= M. Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew
Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology [London: Maggs, 1925], 1:18298). Fac-
similes of all the fragments mentioned in the preceding three nn. appear in the
book: Solomon Schechter, Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the
Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901).
later, Jem Schirmann published two additional leaves from a manuscript
in the New Series at Cambridge.
9
An additional piece from one of the
leaves discovered by Schechter was published by Alexander Scheiber from
the Additional Series in that library.
10
Te unique nature of MS C was immediately realized by scholars upon
its discovery. Unlike the other sources of Ben Sira, this manuscript does
not contain a continuous version, but only a selection from it, with omis-
sions. At times it also incorporates later proverbs in early chapters. Te
version of this source, as well, is unique: along with passages that are quite
similar to those in the other Hebrew sources, we also nd proverbs in a
completely dierent version.
11
All of these distinguishing marks are pres-
ent in the fragment published here, as we will see in detail below.
Tis fragment, which comprises a single nonconsecutive bifolio, nely
joins together with the known fragments, and allows us to precisely recon-
struct the nature of the entire work. Two of the bifolios in the quire were
already identied as being connected to one another: the bifolio pub-
lished by Schirmann physically enveloped that published by Schechter.
Tis latter fragment, in turn, envelopes the new fragment published here:
the rst leaf opens with the conclusion of the verse which is found at the
end of the rst leaf of Schechters bifolio; and the second leaf of the new
9
See Jem Schirmann, Some Additional Leaves from Ecclesiasticus in
Hebrew, Tarbiz 29 (1960): 12534 [Hebrew], with the publication of MS C:
13134. Te number given it at the time in the Cambridge University Library
was T-S NS 194.114; it was later moved, and its current number is T-S 12.867.
10
MS T-S AS 213.4; see Alexander Scheiber, A Leaf of the Fourth Manu-
script of the Ben Sira from the Geniza, Magyar Knyvszemle 98 (1982): 17985;
idem, An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew, Jubilee Volume in Honor of
Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik Shelita (ed. S. Israeli, N. Lamm, and
Y. Raphael; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984),
118085 [Hebrew]. See also A. A. Di Lella, Te Newly Discovered Sixth Manu-
script of Ben-Sira from the Cairo Geniza, Bib 69 (1988), 22639. For the part
played by Israel Yeivin and S. C. Reif in the discovery of this fragment, see S. C.
Reif, Te Discovery of the Cambridge Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira: Scholars
and Texts, in Te Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First
International Ben Sira Conference, 2831 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed.
P. C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997), 122, at 1920.
11
See the articles mentioned in nn. 47, above; cf. Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 52.
fragment ends with 25:7,
12
while Schechters second leaf begins with the
following verse.
13
It happens that we also possess the bifolio that originally
followed the bifolio published here: the leaf published by Levi is the direct
continuation of our leaf 1, and our leaf 2 is the immediate continuation
of the fragment published by Gaster. We learn from this that the two
individual leaves published by Levi and Gaster were originally a single
bifolio.Te fringes of the leaves t well with each other, and with them
the text can be completed in several places.
14
Tus, we now have eight
leaves from four continuous bifolios of the manuscript.
What was the size of the complete quire? Te outer bifolio published
by Schirmann begins in the middle of ch. 3 and ends with ch. 26 (with
the addition of verses from ch. 36). Te little missing from the beginning
of the book compels us to assume that this quire was not preceded by
another, and that only a single additional bifolio enveloped it.
15
It is more
dicult to assess the number of bifolios missing from the middle of the
12
Te verse numeration used throughout the current article follows LXX (this
is the numeration of the Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the
Book editions. Segal brings it by numbers, beside another numeration, signs by
Hebrew letters).
13
Tis was noted by Schirmann in his article (Some Additional Leaves),
127.
14
Tis escaped the attention of most of the editors of Ben Sira: Smend
(R. Smend, Sefer Hokhmat Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira [Berlin: Raymer, 1906);
Segal (Ben Sira ha-Shalem); and the Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine
of the Book edition (Te Book of Ben Sira), and was claried only in 1986. See
P. C. Beentjes, Some Misplaced Words in the Hebrew Manuscript C. of the
Book of Ben Sira, Bib 7 (1986): 397401 (my thanks to Prof. Hanan Eshel for
this reference); the passages were accordingly emended in Beentjess up-to-date
edition: P. C. Beentjes, Te Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All
Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts
(VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
15
Tis is a collection of verses, and the copyist therefore could include his
selections from chs. 12 in a single leaf. Te existence of two leaves, obviously, is
another possibility, but if we were to assume this the quire would be unreason-
ably large; additionally, the middle leaves, as well, are missing. As regards what is
missing from the end of the book, the continuation might have consisted only of
selected passages, since, as was noted, portions of the later chapters were already
incorporated in the earlier chapters of the manuscript.
quire: in the middle bifolio that we possess (that is composed of the Levi
and Gaster fragments) the rst leaf ends toward the end of ch. 7, and the
second leaf nds the copyist in ch. 20. What is missing is therefore quite
great, and seemingly forces us to assume the existence of several additional
bifolios. A regular Eastern quire, however, comprises ve, at most six,
bifolios;
16
this assumption is therefore not straightforward, although when
we possess only a single quire, it might contain more bifolios than usual.
Signicantly, the more the copyist progressed, the larger the omissions,
and in the fragment published here, for example, in the second leaf he
brings a selection from six chapters (2025).
17
Consequently, the material
in the middle of the quire, as well, might have been brought with large
omissions, and there might have been only one or two additional bifolios.
In light of the above, it is not inconceivable that MS C originally com-
prised only a single, larger than usual, quire (with six or seven bifolios).
Possibly, as the copyist sensed that the number of leaves at his disposal
was decreasing, he increased the intervals between the collected proverbs
and chose fewer from each chapter, or increased the omitted quantity and
even skipped entire chapters.
18
It is dicult to determine the nature of
16
See Malachi Beit-Arie, Hebrew Codicology: Tentative Typology of Technical
Practices Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Israel Acad-
emy of Sciences and Humanities, 1981), 44, 47.
17
To be sure, verses from chs. 20 and 25 also appear in the neighboring leaves;
we therefore have some three and a half chapters on a single leaf. It is notewor-
thy, however, that only a single verse from ch. 23 appears here, and ch. 24 is
entirely omitted.
18
Tis is evident in most of the leaves in this fragment; suce it to say that
the selection in the rst four leaves of the quire is from chs. 37 (with several
small additions from later chapters), while the last four leaves collected proverbs
from chs. 1826 (on the assumption that the verses from ch. 36 on the last
leaf do not represent an omission, but are rather the incorporation of material
from a later chapter, as is the case with additional leaves; if the copyist had
skipped to ch. 36 and did not return to the earlier chapters, the size of the omis-
sion would be even greater). Although several groups of continuous verses appear
in the last two leaves, the gaps between the sequences are larger. To illustrate this
I will list the contents of each of the leaves of MS C, according to their order in
the quire:
leaf 1 (Schirmann, leaf 1): 3:1418, 2122; 41:16; 4:21; 20:2223; 4:2223;
leaf 2 (Schechter, leaf 1): 4:3031; 5:47, 913; 36:24a;
the collection based on the eight leaves we possess. Its most outstanding
characteristic is the combining of verses on similar topics from dierent
chapters.
19
Te collector apparently preferred focused wisdom and ethical
proverbs, and skipped the general paeans, such as the paean to wisdom in
ch. 24.
III
Te rst page of the manuscript published here contains an almost con-
tinuous passage from ch. 6 (vv. 56, 910, 8, 1215, 17),
20
with only
minor omissions and order changes, and with the inclusion of individual
verses from other chapters (36:24; 37:12; 3:27). All of the material on
this leaf (excluding the last proverb) appears in other sources of the
Hebrew version of Ben Sira; however, as in other places, MS C presents
here a number of interesting textual variants and some essential changes
as well, as noted above. Te second leaf is even more important, because
none of its verses is known from any other Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript.
leaf 3 (published here, leaf 1): 36:24b; 6:56; 37:12; 6:7, 910, 8, 1215;
3:27(?); 6:18;
leaf 4 (Levi): 6:19, 28, 35; 7:1, 4, 6, 17, 2021, 2325 (possibly followed by 8:7
or 11:2);
leaf 5 (after an omission; Gaster): 18:3133; 19:12; 20:57; 37:19, 22, 24, 26;
20:13, 30;
leaf 6 (published here, leaf 2): 20:3031; 21:2223, 26; 22:1112, 2122; 23:11;
25:7;
leaf 7 (Schechter, leaf 2, with the addition of Scheibers fragment): 25:8, 13,
1724; 26:12;
leaf 8 (Schirmann, leaf 2): 26:3, 13, 1517; 36:2731, followed by a single word
from another, as yet unidentied, verse.
19
Vv. 20:2223 are included between 4:21 and 4:2223, because of their
common content (shame and disgrace) and language (4:21, 2223 begin with
the word ); 36:24 precedes 6:5, because of their common beginning with ;
the verses 37:12, that are concerned with the unreliable lover, were inserted
within the verses of ch. 6, that has the same subject; 36:2731 follow vv. 1517,
apparently due to their similar topic: the traits of the good woman.
20
Te exact order of the verses is listed in n. 18, above; see also below, in the
text.
It contains, with omissions, passages from the end of ch. 20 to the middle
of ch. 25 (20:3031; 21:2223, 26; 22:1112, 2122; 23:11; 25:7).
Tus, for the rst time we possess a Hebrew version of these verses.
Unfortunately, the upper corner of this leaf is torn, and the rst six or
seven lines on each page are damaged at their end (on page A) or at their
beginning (on page B).
Unlike the other Hebrew sources, the MS C copyist did not emphasize
the poetical structure of the proverbs. Nevertheless, in all the previous
publications of passages from it the original (and arbitrary) lines of the
manuscript were preserved; accordingly, here the text is reproduced
exactly as it appears in the manuscript.
21
Broken letters in the manuscript
are marked by a superior line (it should be stressed that, despite their
truncation, the identication of these letters is not in question). In the
notes, I relate to each verse separately, with a preliminary comparison to
the other sources.
22
Te interpretation and reconstruction of the verses are
in most cases based on the Segal edition, that includes many of his prede-
cessors achievements and adds to them. For the readers convenience, I
have added the verse numbers in the book alongside the text,
23
as well as a
line count. Tis is not an exhaustive treatment of this material, but only
an initial presentation, to provide a basis for fundamental scholarly exam-
ination and analysis.
21
Te scribe marked the end of each proverb with an upper dot, and it gener-
ally is followed by one or two spaces.
22
I was aided by Segals comments regarding LXX; I also examined the verses
in accordance with A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est, Vetus Testamentum graece
iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt,
1935). For the Peshitta, I generally followed Yehuda Leib ben Zeev, Hokhmat
Yehosha ben Sira (Breslau: Grassische Stadt Buchdrckerey, 1798).
23
On the numeration of the verses, see above, n. 12.
MS C folio II Aa r
.
36.24
6.5

.
6.6

.
5 37.1
37.2

.

.
6.7
1 A ready mind will understand false words. Te
beginning of the verse appears in the fragment published by Gaster, and the whole
proverb is therefore: / Te palate
will taste the meat of game / And a ready mind will taste false words. Te verse
here is not in its place, as is usual in this source. Te version of the proverb in
MS B: / Te palate discerns between
tastes of davar (a corruption of , game) / And a ready mind detects false
words. Te words and appear in the MS B margin as well, but that read-
ing is evidently corrupted; regarding this
passage see M. Kister, Additions to the Article At the Fringes of the Book of
Ben Sira, Le onenu 53 (1989): 3940 [Hebrew]; the version in the margin was
probably a corruption of the version close to that of MS C. Te word might
contain an correction, and should possibly be read as intelligent; for
see Prov 14:33, 15:14, 18:15 (this observation was made by D. Talshir). Te
word will taste in the second hemistich in MS C, that disturbs the meter,
is suspect (following the parallels) of being a later addition.
23 / A pleasing palate makes many
friends / And gracious lips prompt friendly greeters, as the version of MS A.
In MS A , which scholars already amended to .
35 / Let your acquaintances be
many / and your condant, one in a thousand, as the version of MS A. Te
verse appears, in a slightly dierent version, in b. Sanh. 100b; b. Yev. 63b; and in
the introduction by R. Saadiah Gaon to the second edition of Sefer ha-Galui. See
Abraham E. Harkabi, Zikaron la-Rishonim, Fifth Booklet: Zikaron ha-Gaon Rav
Saadiah al-Faiyumi u-Sefarav (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1891 [= Leben und Werke Saa-
dias Gaon (Berlin: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1891)]), 179; cf. 200203; M. Z. Segal,
Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and Ben Sira, in Rav Saadya Gaon (ed. J. L. Fishman;
Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953), 98118, esp. 112 [Hebrew].
58 / / Every
friend will declare his friendship / But when a sentence of death comes to
him / A companion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy; the word as a

.
10 6.9

.
6.10
bosom friend might have been emended from as a serpent. Here, too,
verses from a later chapter appear in the middle of ch. 6. Te division of the
verses and hemistiches is corrupted; the scribe placed a dot in the middle of the
second hemistich (after ), as if the verse ended there.
Every friend will declare his friendship resembles the beginning of v. 1 in the
margins in MS B and MS D: ; this is followed in these two
sources, and in LXX and the Peshitta, by an additional hemistich (
But sometimes a friend is a friend only in name) that is absent here,
as it is in the body of MS B. Tis continues with the two hemistiches of v. 2:
/ But when a sentence of death comes
to him / A companion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy. Te wording of
the verse in the other Hebrew sources (MS B; the margin of MS B; MS D):
/ suering as great as death / when a compan-
ion as a bosom friend becomes an enemy. Te phrase appears as
in the body of MS B, while MS D reads there: . In the second hemistich,
MS D reads instead of , and in the body of MS B we nd instead of
. Te version of MS C seems to be an explanatory addition, and is most
probably not original (but the wording to him implies that the copyist pos-
sessed the version to), and he appears to have understood the meaning:
when a person is sentenced to death, even his best friend ( ) becomes his
bitter enemy. Tis is in opposition to the interpretation proposed for the verse,
that when a close friend ( ) becomes a persons enemy, the latters suer-
ing is as great as that for death See Segal, Ben Sira ha-Shalem; Smend, Sefer
Hokhmat Yeshua, reads sorrow; and Segal, who reads , emends it to
sorrow; however, the version might be understood in this sense, without
emendation. See M. Kister and E. Qimron, Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel
(4Q385 23), RevQ 15/60 (1992): 599600.
810 / When you gain a friend,
gain him through testing / And do not trust him hastily, as the version of MS
A, with the spelling , which was already correctly understood as . Tis
verse, too, is cited by R. Saadiah Gaon (Harkabi, Zikaron la-Rishonim, 179;
Segal, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, 113), who has trial instead of .
1012 / Tere is a friend who
changes into an enemy / And yakhsokh the quarrel to your shame, as the ver-
sion of MS A, except for the last word,which appears here in the corrupted form
MS C folio II Aa v
6.10

.
6.8

.
15 6.12
.

6.13

.
6.14
.

, instead of tell of, reveal in MS A (on the partial writing of a letter
in MS C, cf. also below, the commentary to lines 1516).
1214 / Tere is a friend who sits at your
table / But who will not be found in time of trouble, as the version of MS A.
1415 / Tere is a friend who is so when
it suits him/ But who will not stand by you in time of distress. In MS A with
minor changes: / . Te version of the rst
hemistich in MS A is identical to that of R. Saadiah Gaon (Harkabi, Zikaron la-
Rishonim, 179; Segal, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, 119); while MS C: is also
reected in the Peshitta: ~. ,~-. Te second hemistich in R. Saadiahs ver-
sion is identical to that of MS C.
1516 / But if he is brought low [. . .] / And
he will hide himself from you. In MS A: /
But if evil catches up with you, he will turn against you/ And hide himself from
you; clearly, the word in our manuscript is simply , with the omission
of the short leg of the letter he (cf. also above, the commentary to lines 1012).
Joining this verse to v. 8 in MS C enabled the omission of the word evil,
since the bringing low at the beginning of the verse now refers to the distress
mentioned immediately prior, but in MS A seems more correct than
, since, here too, the intent is to the seeming friend who estranges himself
from his fellow in the latters time of trouble.
1718 / Separate yourself from your enemies /
And beware of your friends, as the version of MS A; R. Saadiah brings it while
changing the last word to (with the same meaning) (Harkabi, Zikaron
la-Rishonim, 179; Segal, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, 115).
1819 / A faithful friend is a strong
shelter / He who has found one he has found a treasure. In MS A:
/ A faithful friend is a strong friend / He who has found
one has found a treasure. Te version of MS A is close to the Peshitta (~..
~. ~.. ~- A faithful friend is a strong friend), while the version
of MS C corresponds to LXX (, shelter), and is more understandable.
20 6.15

.
(?) 3.27

.
6.18

MS C folio II Ab r
[. . .] 25 20.30
[. . .]
2021 / A faithful friend is beyond
price / And his value cannot be weighed, similar to the version of MS A,
excluding the addition there of the letter lamed to the rst word: . Previ-
ously as well we encountered a case in which the opening formulation of a verse
in MS C omitted a preposition at the beginning of a line in order to match the
opening of an adjacent proverb (lines 1415).
2123 / An obstinate heart will
be weighed down like stone / And the sinner will add sin upon sin: this verse
does not appear in ch. 6, and seems to be a dierent version of 3:27 formulated
in accordance with MS A: / An
obstinate heart will be loaded with troubles / And the profaner will add iniquity
upon iniquity. Te disparity is great, but we nd sin in MS C corre-
sponding to iniquity in MS A in an additional place (3:15); and the expres-
sion will be weighed down like stone instead of will be
loaded with troubles might easily be explained by a graphic error on the part of
the scribe. As regards the formulation the profaner versus sin-
ner, the former, the lectio dicilior, is preferable, but seems closer to LXX,
that uses the same root three times in this hemistich.
2324 / My son, from youth embrace discipline /
And until old age. Te completion of the verse appears in the fragment pub-
lished by Levi, and the proverb in its entirety reads:
/
My son, from youth embrace discipline / And until old age attain wisdom.
Te verse is absent from MS A, and appears now for the rst time in its entirety
in the Hebrew version. Tis version also corresponds to the Peshitta and LXX
(with the exception of a single corrupted word already noted by Segal in his
interpretation of the verse).
2526 [. . .] / [. . .] Te proverb begins with
wisdom: the word appears at the end of the fragment published by Gaster.
[. . .] 20.31
[. . .]
[. . .] 21.22
[. . .] 30

.
21.23

.
21.26
is an obvious corruption of (Peshitta: ~s.s = benet; Greek:
benet, utility). Te verse as a whole is to be completed (similar to
Segal): [] / [] [] Hidden [wisdom]
and un[seen] treasure / Of what value is e[ither].
2728 [. . .] / [. . .] [. . .]Better the man who
hides [. . .] / Tan the one who hides his wis[dom]. Segal reconstructs:
/ Better the man who hides his folly / Tan the
one who hides his wisdom; this appears correct.
2933 . [. . .] / [. . .]
/ Te foot of a fool rushes [. . .] a house / But
honor is due to a man [. . .] will stand. A senseless person will peer into a
house from the door / But a man of sensibility will lower his gaze. As Segal
observes, the two verses appear in Pirka de-Rabbenu ha-Kadosh (S. Schenblum,
Sheloshah Sefarim Niftahim [Tree Books Opening] [Lemberg: Menkes, 1877],
fol. 14a), but their version there is corrupted. Te wording there (arranged by its
poetical structure):

/

/
A person should never be quick to the house of his fellow, for it is written in
the book of Ben Sira
Te foot of a fool is quick to enter a house / And a man of sensibility will
best many
A person should never look through the gate of his fellow, since it is written
in the book of Ben Sira
A senseless person will peer into a house from the entrance / [the remainder
of the passage is corrupted]
Scholars have already raised the question of the connection between the begin-
ning and the end of v. 22, and proposed that the second hemistiches of the two
verses were interchanged (see Segals interpretation), although the order in LXX

35 22.11

and the Peshitta resembles that in Pirka de-Rabbenu ha-Kadosh. Te details of the
text also raised diculties, and, based on the translations, the reading
will lower his gaze was suggested in place of will best many; and
let him wait outside instead of the house of his people
(the proposals of Smend; cf. R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach [Berlin:
Reimer, 1906], 19495; see also the interpretation by Segal). Our version con-
rms most of the proposed reconstructions, with the exception of instead
of , including the exchange of the second hemistiches, and resolves these
diculties:
[] / []
/
Te foot of a fool rushes to enter a house / But honor is due to a man who
stands outside.
A senseless person will peer into a house through the door / But a man of
sensibility will lower his gaze.
Verse 22 is concerned with a person entering his fellows house (as Pirka de-
Rabbenu ha-Kadosh correctly interprets): the fool is quick to suddenly enter (cf. b.
Nid. 16b), and the one who waits outside (until he is invited in) is better and
more respectable than him. I completed [] ou[tside] according to the con-
text (and like Segal); traces of the letter vav are evident in the manuscript (thereby
ruling out, for example, the completion [] [in the c[ourtyard]); cf. Deut 24:11.
Verse 23 is concerned with a person who stands at the entrance to his fellows
house: the senseless person peepswithout permissioninto the house, while
the wise person ( ) lowers his gaze and refrains from looking.
3334 / Te mind of fools in is their mouth /
but the mouth of the wise is in their mind. Te reading is questionable,
and seemingly should be . However, the letters bet and kaf resemble each other
in MS C, and, according to the translations and the continuation, is prefera-
ble. Segal reconstructed the verse precisely, except for fools, instead of
which he has the synonymous .
3536 / Over the dead
man to weep, for his light is gone / Over the fool to weep, for his sense is
gone. Line 36 ( . . . ) is copied at the bottom of the page in small let-
ters and indented. Segal reconstructed on the basis of Greek (),
cry (imperative) instead of (literally, to weep), but this innitive form
() corresponds to the Peshitta (~.-\). rendered in both translations
as (Greek: ; Peshitta: ~s).
MS C folio II Ab v
[. . . . . . ] 22.11
.
[. . .]
[. . . . . .] 22.12

.
[. . .] 40 22.21
3738 [. . .] / [. . .]. Segal reconstructs, mainly on
the Greek: / Weep but a little over
the dead man, for he is at rest / but worse than death is the life of a fool. Te
MS C version is closer to the Peshitta, and the latters version (~. 1. ~.-\ .\
..s) enables us to reconstruct the rst part of the verse: [ ]
[Do not we]ep for the dead man, for he is at rest; regarding the style cf.
10:23). But a precise reconstruction of the second part of the verse is dicult;
possibly, once again following the Peshitta (~.- ~.. ~ -._ s ..-),
we can suggest a formulation such as the following: []
(A bad life [is more bitter] than death). Te reconstruction [] is worse is
also possible, but it is unlikely that the author would use the same word twice,
without variation; cf. Eccl 7:26. Death is presented here as rest, and a bad life, as
worse than death. It is noteworthy that the version of LXX, with its primary focus
on the fool, well suits the context of the nearby verses in the chapter, unlike the
version of MS C; see also below, the interpretation to the following verse.
3940 [. . .] / [. . .]. Based on the translations (mainly
the Peshitta), Segal reconstructs: / Seven
days of mourning for the dead / But mourning for the fool, all the days of his
life. We could accordingly suggest the reconstruction of MS C: [ ]
[] / Seven days of [mourning for the man who is d]ead /
[But mourning] for the pauper, all the days of his life, or something similar. For
instead of , cf. also 8:7; 48:5. is unsuitable for the context in Ben Sira,
since the adjoining verses speak of a fool; likewise, it seemingly counters the
translations, as well, since they speak explicitly of the fool (in the Peshitta: ~.\.+;
in LXX, a dual translation: - wicked, fool). Tus here
might be a corruption of (wicked), which is reected in the word
in LXX. Since, however, the preceding verse in MS C, too, speaks of a person
who lives a bad life (and not of a fool), the copyist could say here, as well, that it
is not the life of the fool but that of the pauper (who is regarded as dead: cf., e.g.,
b. Ned. 64b) which is prolonged mourning (my thanks to Prof. M. Kister for this
observation). It is possible, however, that here means fool, in a metaphorical
sense (poor in wisdom), which seems to emerge from Eccl 4:14 as well (appar-
ently there is parallel to in the previous verse; cf. the commentary by
R. Samuel ben Meir ad loc. [Sara Japhet and Robert B. Salters, eds., Te Com-
mentary of R. Samuel ben Meir, Rashbam, on Qohelet (Hebrew and English; Jeru-
salem: Magnes, 1985), 88]); it should be noted, however, that the translators into
Aramaic and Syriac rendered as pauper.
[. . .]

.
[] 22.22
[. . .]
.

4042 [] / [. . .] . Te reconstruction
[] fret is based on the lower left end of the letter tav that is discernible in
the manuscript. Te beginning of the verse is to be reconstructed (based on the
translations): [] Do not draw a sword against a [fr]iend.
Te end of the verse relates to the person who nevertheless sinned against his
friend, and encourages him not to despair, because he can atone for his sin (or
pay a ne): [] Do not fret, for there is atonement. In both
translations, this is a conditional clause: If you drew a sword (and in the next
verse: If you opened), and Segal accordingly reconstructs them (Greek: in
both verses; Peshitta: in v. 21, in v. 22). Te version , however, is
reected in a verse that appears only in the Peshitta, close to the current verse.
Tis verse states: ,\ .~ --+ ~.\ \.~ ~ .\. ~.\ ,.- 1.
. ., that is, Do not change toward your friend, and if you changed, do
not expect that you [still] have friendship with him; and in the style of Ben Sira:
/ (alternatively: instead of
). Tis verses structural resemblance to the following verses apparently joins
the evidence for the wording (instead of ) in MS C (my thanks to Prof.
Kister for the attempted reconstruction and for clarifying the relationship
between the verses); see also below, the interpretation to lines 4244. At the end
of the verse LXX reads (instead of there is atonement [ ]) there is
repentance [ ], as in the end of the following verse; here, too, the two
nal hemistiches might have been interchanged (cf. above, the interpretation to
lines 2933).
4244 / [. . .] [. . .] dont open your
mouth / Do not worry, for there is repentance. Here, too, we should recon-
struct: [] to a friend. Te relationship between the hemistiches of the
proverb is similar to that in the preceding verse: each begins with a warning, and
reassures the one who nevertheless transgresses. Here, as well, Segal reconstructs
the verse as beginning with a conditional clause ( /
If you open your mouth against your friend / Do not be afraid,
because there is reconciliation), similar to LXX and the Peshitta. It should be
noted that these last two proverbs are not independent, and Ben Sira does not
advocate sinning against ones fellow. Tey are contrasted with a third proverb
(absent here), and the meaning of the entire passage is: If a person draws a sword
against his friend or speaks sharply against him, he can still anticipate making
amends; but if someone shames his fellow, reveals his secret, or secretly strikes
45 23.11
.

25.7
.

him, he can never correct what he has put amiss. Te copyist of MS C, who
omitted the third proverb, altered the meaning of the entire passage. It presum-
ably could be assumed that to this end the beginning of each of the proverbs was
couched as a prohibition (in imperative wording) and not as a conditional clause,
but the Peshitta indirectly indicates (as we showed above, the interpretation to
lines 4042) that the copyist might have possessed the version . At any rate,
the conditional clause meaning reected in the translations already potentially
exists in the version beginning with . On the second hemistich in the verse, see
above, the interpretation to lines 4042.
4546 / A man who often
swears is full of iniquity / And the scourge will not leave his house. Segal
reconstructed this content, but with dierent wording.
47 / Happy is the man who
rejoices in his end / One who lives to see the fall of his enemies. Here, too,
Segal reconstructed the content in dierent wording. Te following verse (25:8)
begins the following leaf in the manuscript (Schechter fragment, leaf 2).
Scripture Citations as an
Internal Redactional Control:
1QS 5:120a and Its 4Q Parallels
1
Alec J. Lucas
Loyola University Chicago, Teology Department, Crown CenterFloor 3,
1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60660
alec.lucas@gmail.com
Abstract
Tis article rst deconstructs the internal arguments proposed by Sarianna Metso
for the priority of the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition in relation to 1QS 5:120a. It then
constructs its own internal argument for the priority of 4QS
b,d
on the basis of the
scriptural citations present in 1QS 5:120a but absent in 4QS
b,d
. It is argued that
each citation (Zeph 1:6 in 1QS 5:11; Lev 22:16 in 1QS 5:1415; Exod 23:7 in
1QS 5:15; Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17) is employed with due regard for its original
context and is anticipated by key vocabulary that is without parallel in 4QS
b,d
.
Te consistency of this redactional pattern suggests the priority of 4QS
b,d
since it
is easier to explain how the unparalleled citations and vocabulary could have
been added to the S textual tradition than it is to explain how both the citations
and vocabulary could have been eliminated from it.
Keywords
textual development S; Community Rule; Serekh; biblical interpretation; redaction
1
I would like to thank Robert A. Di Vito and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar for their
feedback on earlier drafts of this paper as well as the participants of the Qumran
section at the 2008 SBL meeting in Boston, MA for their helpful remarks, espe-
cially Sarianna Metso and Charlotte Hempel.
A. J. Lucas / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 3052 31
Introduction
Among her many contributions to the study of the Community Rule
(Serekh ha-yah ad or S) texts, S. Metso provides several internal arguments
2

to establish that 1QS 5:120a is a later version of its 4QS
b,d
parallels
(4Q256 9:113; 4Q258 1:111).
3
Given that the relationship between
these two textual traditions is central to determining the redaction history
of S,
4
and, arguably, to reconstructing the community history behind the
S texts,
5
Metso is certainly on rm methodological ground in focusing on
2
Tese arguments (to be discussed below) may be found in S. Metso, Bibli-
cal Quotations in the Community Rule, in Te Bible as Book: Te Hebrew Bible
and the Judaean Desert (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: Te British
Library, 2002), 8192 at 8687; and in less detail, eadem, Te Serekh Texts (Com-
panion to the Qumran Scrolls 9; Library of Second Temple Studies 62; London:
T&T Clark, 2007), 910.
3
As is well-known, although there are important dierences between the recon-
structed 4QS
b
and 4QS
d
manuscripts as a whole (4QS
b
includes text correspond-
ing to 1QS 14 and has full orthography, whereas 4QS
d
lacks text corresponding
to 1QS 14 and has defective orthography), there is only one signicant variation,
in terms of content, between 4QS
b
9:113 and 4QS
d
1:111: 4QS
b
9:13 has
while 4QS
d
1:11 lacks the and just has . Te comparison
that follows is between 4QS
b
9:113 and 1QS 5:120a (which also has in its
nal line). Although I refer to the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition, to conserve space I am
including line numbers for 4QS
d
1:111 only in the comparative outline below.
On the dierences between the 4QS
b,d
manuscripts and for their reconstructed
versions see DJD 26:1011, 5355, 9398.
4
So, e.g., C. Hempel, Te Literary Development of the S TraditionA New
Paradigm, RevQ 22/87 (2006): 389401 at 390: It is probably no exaggeration
to say that these dierences [between the opening lines of 1QS 5 and its 4QS
b,d

parallels] have become a linchpin in ones assessment of the relationship of the
various manuscript traditions of S to one another and the related matter of the
literary development of the S tradition.
5
E.g. because 1QS twice ascribes communal authority to the Sons of Zadok,
the priests, keepers of the covenant (5:2, 9) whereas these Zadokites are entirely
absent from 4QS
b
and communal authority is instead ascribed simply to the
many (9:3) and to the council of the people of the community (9:8), M. N. A.
Bockmuehl, Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),
RevQ 18/72 (1998): 54160 at 542, and idem, 1QS and Salvation at Qumran,
in Justication and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: Te Complexities of Second Temple
Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson et al.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 381414 at 403,
32 A. J. Lucas / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 3052
internal considerations. Yet, upon further examination, each of her argu-
ments may be questioned, if not outright overturned.
Tis is especially applicable to Metsos treatment of the explicit and
implicit citation of Scripture present in 1QS 5:120a but relatively absent
in 4QS
b,d
. Exodus 23:7 and Isa 2:22 are explicitly cited in1QS 5:15b,
17b, while Mic 6:8, Zeph 1:6, and Lev 22:16 are implicitly cited in 1QS
5:3c4a, 11b, 14c15a (cf. the comparative outlines below).
6
Of these
ve scriptural texts, only the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 is found in the
shorter 4QS
b
9:3b4a. In Metsos view, the relative absence of Scripture
citations in 4QS
b,d
supports the priority of this tradition since the alter-
nate hypothesis [i.e. the priority of 1QS 5:120a] would posit that the
citations were omitted because they were considered self-evident, and yet
[e]ven with an interpretative explanation, the connection between a reg-
ulation and the supporting citation appears, at least for a modern reader,
arbitrary.
7
Interestingly, in identifying the use of Scripture in 1QS 5:1
20a as arbitrary, Metso aligns herself with treatments published prior to
the dissemination of the cave 4 parallels. Tus, for example, she follows
A. R. C. Leaneys 1966 commentary in attributing the citation of Isa 2:22
merely to a word-play involving . In Isa 2:22, cited in 1QS 5:17b,
means to be accounted, esteemed, but in 1QS 5:18a it possesses another
meaning: to be reckoned as included within the covenant. Te result
of this word-play, says Metso, is that Isaiahs prophecy has been given a
contends that the wider implication of determining which textual tradition is prior,
1QS 5:120a or 4QS
b
, is either that of a relatively lay-oriented renewal movement
becoming increasingly authoritarian under explicit Zadokite governance, or else a
development in the opposite direction.
6
Tere are, of course, subconscious echoes, if not intentional allusions, to other
scriptural texts. For example, echoes of Jer 3:7, Ps 95:10, Jer 4:4, and Deut 10:16
may be found in 1QS 5:45. So A. R. C. Leaney, Te Rule of Qumran and Its
Meaning: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1966), 167. Regarding the terminology, citation/quotation, allusion, and echo,
R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University,
1989), 23, notes that Quotation, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along
a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.
See pp. 2932 for seven criteria for determining the presence of an echo.
7
Metso, Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule, 87.
totally dierent point of reference.
8
While the word-play involving
is undeniable, the claim that Isa 2:22, as well as the other scriptural cita-
tions, appear to be employed arbitrarily is questionable. Indeed, an inves-
tigation of the original context of Lev 22:16, aided by the unparalleled
occurrence of (to eat) in 4QS
b,d
, will lead us down a path toward
the recognition that not only are these scriptural texts being employed
with due regard for their original contexts but they may also provide us
8
S. Metso, Te Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 83; eadem, Te Use of Old Testament Quotations in the
Qumran Community Rule, in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (ed.
F. H. Cryer and T. L. Tompson; Copenhagen International Seminar 6; Shef-
eld: Sheeld Academic, 1998), 21731 at 222; or more recently eadem, Bibli-
cal Quotations in the Community Rule, 84, and eadem, Serekh Texts, 43 says
that Isaiahs warning has been turned into a sort of precept concerning an
entirely dierent matter. Tis more recent formulation actually derives verbatim
from J. A. Fitzmyer, Te Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran
Literature and in the New Testament, NTS 7 (1961): 297333 at 317; reprinted
in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Georey
Chapman, 1971), 358 at 34. Cf. Leaney, Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning,
17475. See also H. Gabrion, Linterprtation de lcriture dans la littrature de
Qumrn, ANRW 19.1: 779848 at 78788, who says that 1QS modie totale-
ment ce que le prophte [Isaiah] a voulu dire; M. Fishbane, Use, Authority and
Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed.
M. J. Mulder; CRINT 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 33977 at 349; and
G. Vermes Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature, JSS 34 (1989): 493508
at 5034, who places the citation of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:1618 in the category of
Reinforced Proof, the most common type of Qumran exegesis which assumes
that a straight quotation of a biblical passage falls far short of expressing the full,
and at least partly concealed, meaning of Scripture, and in consequence cannot
supply real proof. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 139: A New Translation with Introduc-
tion and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 194, stands out as
an exception to this general trend in that he comments positively on the use
of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17 stating that its reading is more in keeping with the
[Isaianic] context than an expression of the transitory nature of human life in the
manner of Qoheleth. See the remarks on Blenkinsopps exegesis in A. van der
Kooij, Te Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isa 2:22 and 36:7,
in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene
Ulrich (ed. P. W. Flint et al.; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 37786 at 378.
with an internal redactional control for establishing the priority of 4QS
b,d

in relation to 1QS 5:120a.
9
Te aim of this article, then, is both decon-
structive and constructive: deconstructive because I will question the
internal arguments put forward by Metso for establishing the priority of
4QS
b,d
; and constructive because I will propose an alternative internal
redactional control for the priority of 4QS
b,d
, one rooted in the explicit
and implicit citation of Scripture.
Outlining the Texts
As a prelude to accomplishing my dual aim, it will be helpful rst to out-
line 1QS 5:120a and 4QS
b
9:113, along with 4QS
d
1:111, and briey
note how their contents dier. Te texts may be outlined as follows:
9
Te priority of the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition in relation to 1QS 5:120a is the
predominant view among scholars. Besides Metso, see G. Vermes, Preliminary
Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran
Cave 4, JJS 42 (1991): 25055; idem, Te Leadership of the Qumran Com-
munity: Sons of ZadokPriestsCongregation, in GeschichteTradition
Reexion: Festschrift fr Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik et al.;
Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 1:37584; C. Hempel, Com-
ments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1, JJS 44 (1993): 12728; eadem, Literary
Development of the S Tradition, 396; Bockmuehl, Redaction and Ideology in
the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS), 54160; idem, 1QS and Salvation at
Qumran, 381414. Note that none of the Possible Secondary/Corrupt Read-
ings in 4QS
b,d
(compared to 1QS) cited by A. Schoeld, From Qumran to the
Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Community Rule (STDJ
77; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 9294, 104, derive from 4QS
b
9:113; 4QS
d
1:111
and that Schoeld regards the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition as generally closer to the
original than 1QS. Tere are, however, exceptions to the predominant view of
the priority of 4QS
b,d
. See P. S. Alexander, Te Redaction-History of Serekh
Ha-Yah ad: A Proposal, RevQ 17/6568 (1996): 43756; and P. Garnet, Cave 4
MS Parallels to 1QS 5.17: Towards a Serek Text History, JSP 15 (1997): 6778.
Unfortunately, space limitations preclude a detailed critique of their arguments.
1QS 5:120 4QS
b
(4Q256) 9:113; 4QS
d

(4Q258) 1:111
I. Introduction (5:13a) I. Introduction (9:12; 1:12a)
II. Description of the Character of the
Community (5:3b7a)
A. An Obedient Community in
Every Matter: Law, Wealth, and
Judgment (5:3b)
B. Te Communitys Virtues:
Mic 6:8 (5:3c4a)
C. An Inwardly Transformed
Community (5:4b5a)
D. A Community with a True
Foundation in Israel (5:5b6a)
E. An Atoning Community in
Aaron (5:6b)
F. A Prophetic Community:
Declaring Transgressors
Wicked (5:7a)
II. Description of the Character of the
Community (9:3a6a; 1:2b5a)
A. An Obedient Community in
Every Matter: Law and Wealth
(9:3a; 1:2b3a)
B. Te Communitys Virtues:
Mic 6:8 (9:3b4a; 1:3b)
C. An Inwardly Transformed
Community (9:4b; 1:4a)
D. A Community with a True
Foundation in Israel and
Aaron (9:56a; 1:4b5a)
III. Entrance and Oaths (5:7b13a)
A. Title (5:7b)
B. Entrance (5:7c8a)
C. Oaths of Allegiance and
Separation (5:8b13a)
1. Oath of Allegiance
(5:8b10a)
a. Allegiance to the Law of
Moses (5:8b9a)
b. Allegiance to the Sons of
Zadok (5:9b)
c. Allegiance to the Multitude
of People
(5:9c10a)
2. Oath of Separation
(5:10b13a)
a. Te Oath to Separate from
the People of Iniquity
(5:10b11a)
b. Scriptural Warrant for
Separation: Zeph 1:6
(5:11b12a)
c. Judgment upon the People
of Iniquity (5:12b13a)
III. Entrance and Oaths (9:6b8b;
1:5b7b)
A. Entrance (9:6b; 1:5b6a)
B. Oaths of Allegiance and
Separation (9:6c8b; 1:6b7b)
1. Oath of Allegiance
(9:6c8a; 1:6b7a)
a. Allegiance to the Law of
Moses (9:6c7a; 1:6b)
b. Allegiance to the Council of
the People of the
Community
(9:7b8a; 1:6c7a)
2. Oath of Separation
(9:8b; 1:7b)
1QS 5:120 4QS
b
(4Q256) 9:113; 4QS
d

(4Q258) 1:111
IV. Separation from the People of Iniquity
in Practice: Five Examples
(5:13b20a)
A. First Example: Not Entering into
Teir Waters to Touch the Purity
(5:13b14a)
1. Command (5:13b)
2. Warrant for Command
(5:13c14a)
B. Second Example: Not Joining
with Him in Work and Wealth
(5:14b15b)
1. Command (5:14b)
2. Scriptural Warrant for
Command: Lev 22:16
(5:14c15a)
Command: Exod 23:7 (5:15b)
C. Tird Example: Not Submitting to
Teir Authority in Law and
Judgment (5:15c16a)
D. Fourth Example: Not Eating,
Drinking and Taking from Teir
Hand without Pay (5:16b18a)
1. Command (5:16b17a)
Command: Isa 2:22 (5:17b)
3. Clarication of Scriptural
Warrant (5:17c18a)
E. Fifth Example: Not Relying upon
Vain Works (5:18b20a)
1. Command (5:18b19a)
2. Warrant for Command (5:19b)
3. Judgment (5:19c20a)
IV. Separation from the People of Iniquity
in Practice: Five Examples
(9:8c13; 1:7c11)
A. First Example: Not Touching and
Eating the Purity
(9:8c9a; 1:7c8a)
B. Second Example: Not Submitting
to Teir Authority in Law and
Judgment (9:9b10a; 1:8b9a)
C. Tird Example: Not Joining with
Him in Work and Wealth
(9:10b; 1:9b)
D. Fourth Example: Not Eating and
Taking from Teir Hand
(9:10c11a; 1:9c10a)
E. Fifth Example: Not Relying upon
Vain Works (9:11b13; 1:10b11)
1. Command (9:11b12a; 1:10b)
2. Warrant for Command
(9:12b; 1:10c11a)
3. Judgment (9:12c13; 1:11b)
Besides dierences in detail at various points, such as further explication
concerning the manner of inward transformation when 1QS 5:4b5a is
compared to 4QS
b
9:4b, there are six dierences worthy of note. First,
(cont.)
the introductions dier. Whereas 1QS 5:13a identies itself as a rule
for the people of the community who freely oer themselves for repen-
tance, 4QS
b
9:12 identies itself as instruction for the Maskil over the
people of the Law who freely oer themselves for repentance. Second,
the representation of communal authority diers. In 1QS the bearers of
authority consist of the Sons of Zadok (5:2c, 9b) and the Multitude of
People of the Community (5:2d3a) or Multitude of People of Teir
Covenant (5:9c), while in 4QS
b
the bearers of authority are not only the
Maskil (9:1a) but also the Multitude (9:3a) or the Council of People of
the Community (9:7b8a). Tird, the texts dier in terms of structural
indicators: 1QS contains a title in 5:7b and a space as well as a marginal
mark in 5:13b, all of which are absent in 4QS
b
.
Fourth, besides the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 in the description of
the character of the community (1QS 5:3c4a; 4QS
b
9:3b4a), the war-
rants, scriptural and otherwise, for the oath of separation and three of
the ve examples of separation in practice from the People of Iniquity
( ) present in 1QS are lacking in 4QS
b
. Te one exception is the
fth command not to rely upon vain works: in both texts this command
is buttressed by a non-scriptural warrant and followed by a proclamation
of judgment (1QS 5:18b20a; 4QS
b
9:11b13). Interestingly, the com-
mand not to submit to the authority of the People of Iniquity in Law
and judgment lacks a warrant of any kind or further explanation in both
texts. In 1QS this is the third example (5:15c16a) while in 4QS
b
it is the
second example (9:9b10a). Tis brings us to the fth dierence worthy
of note: the command not to submit to the authority of the People of
Iniquity in Law and judgment is reversed with the command not to join
him in work and wealth in the two texts. In 1QS the latter precedes the
former (5:14b16a) whereas in 4QS
b
this order is reversed (9:9b10b).
Sixth, theologically signicant terms like (covenant) and (to
atone) present in 1QS ( occurs in 5:2, 3, 5, 8, 9[2x], 10, 11, 12, 18,
19; occurs in 5:6) are absent in 4QS
b
( occurs only in 9:12;
1:11; and does not occur at all).
Deconstructing Internal Arguments for the Priority of the
4QS
b,d
Textual Tradition
With these outlines and dierences of content in mind, we may now pro-
ceed to S. Metsos internal arguments for the priority of 4QS
b
in relation
to 1QS 5:120a. She provides three such arguments, two positive and
one negative. First, the insertion of theologically signicant words, like
(covenant), into the text is natural and to be expected in the
developmental process, whereas intentionally omitting them is very di-
cult to explain.
10
Second, as noted above, the alternate hypothesis [i.e.
the priority of 1QS 5:120a] would posit that the citations were omitted
because they were considered self-evident, and yet [e]ven with an inter-
pretative explanation, the connection between a regulation and the sup-
porting citation appears, at least for a modern reader, arbitrary. Tird,
the priority of 4QS
b
is suggested by the fact that its text runs smoothly
without any breaks in syntax and line of thought, whereas in 1QS the
natural ow of the text is interrupted. Tis interrupted ow in 1QS is
indicated by three features: (1) the problem of awkward alternation
between singular and plural; (2) peculiar syntax involving the vefold use
of the particle ; and (3) the blank space in the middle of line 13 and
the accompanying marginal mark.
I will respond to the last argument concerning smoothness in syntax
and line of thought rst. To support her claim that there is an awkward
alternation between singular and plural in 1QS, Metso notes that In the
middle of 1QS V, 13 the third person plural used for the men of injustice
changes to the singular, although the theme of separation is maintained.
11

Ten, following the citation of Exod 23:7, plural forms are once again
used to depict the wicked. In contrast to this awkward alternation in
1QS, there is no problem of plural vs. singular in 4QS
b,d
.
12
As the fol-
lowing translation indicates, Metso is correct to observe: (1) that the
depiction of the People of Iniquity changes from the plural to the sin-
gular, though this occurs in the middle of 1QS 5:14 (not 1QS 5:13); and
(2) that this singular depiction then changes back to the plural following
the quotation of Exod 23:7.
10
Metso, Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule, 87. Te following
quotes are all from this page.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
1QS 5:13b16a
13
13b
He shall not enter into the water to touch the purity of the people
of holiness.
For they shall not be puried
14a
unless they turn from their wickedness;
for unclean are all those who transgress his word.
14b
Furthermore, he shall not be joined with him in his work and in
his wealth,
lest he burden him
15
with the iniquity of guilt (Lev 22:16);
for he shall keep far from him in every matter;
for thus it is written, from every matter of deception, you shall keep
far (Exod 23:7).
15c
Furthermore, a person from the people of the
16a
community shall
not appropriate their authority regarding any law or judgment.
Before discussing the alternation between singular and plural, it is impor-
tant to recall (cf. the above outline) that 1QS 5:13b16a consists of the
rst three of ve examples in which a member of the People of the Com-
munity is called to separate from the People of Iniquity in practice.
Interestingly, in 1QS 5:13b the People of Iniquity are referred to as the
People of Holiness, a designation that in 1QS 5:18b, in the singular
form ( ; person of holiness; though cf. the plural form in
4QS
b
9:11a), is used to refer to a member of the People of the Commu-
nity, suggesting a closeness between these rival groups that at times . . .
borders on identity.
14

13
Tis English translation and the ones that follow are my own and are based
on the Hebrew text found in J. H. Charlesworth, Te Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Princeton Teological Semi-
nary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994).
14
So C. Hempel, Te Community and Its Rivals According to the Commu-
nity Rule from Caves 1 and 4, RevQ 21/81 (2003): 4781 at 53; pace Metso
(Serekh Texts, 10), who says that the lines comprising 1QS 5:13b15a [1QS
5:13b15b in my outline] seem to speak about one of the men of injustice, or
about a person whose conversion is insincere and further notes that Some com-
mentators on 1QS suspected that this passage was an interpolation even before
the material from Cave 4 was available, citing the work of J. Murphy-OConnor,
La gense littraire de la Rgle de la Communaut, RB 76 (1969): 52849 at
As for the alternation between singular and plural depictions of the
People of Iniquity, it may not be all that awkward, if the scriptural cita-
tions of Exod 23:7 and Lev 22:16 are taken into account. Te change
from singular to plural may have been made in an eort to cohere more
closely with the substantiating quotation of Exod 23:7, a text which con-
tains a singular, not a plural, verb. Te implicit citation of Lev 22:16 cor-
roborates this since in the MT the verb (to lift, carry) is plural but
in 1QS 5:14c it has been changed to the singular.
Admittedly, one could object to this suggestion since the singular verb
in the citation of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15b is directed at a member of the
People of the Community, depicted as singular throughout, and not at
someone from the People of Iniquity. Even so, it is nonetheless incor-
rect to say that there is no problem of plural vs. singular in 4QS
b,d
, as
the following text indicates.
15
4QS
b
9:9b11a
9b
Furthermore, a person from the people of the community shall not
appropriate their authority
10a
regarding any law or judgment.
10b
Furthermore, he shall not be joined with him in wealth and work.
10c11a
And no man from the people of holiness shall eat from their
wealth.
54647, and M. Knibb, Te Qumran Community (Commentaries on Writings of
the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 2; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1987), 11011. Te interpolation theory is unnecessary. Te discus-
sion so far and the one that follows provides a perfectly coherent interpretation
of 1QS 5:1315a without the need to resort to an interpolation theory.
15
What follows is my own translation based on the text from DJD 26:53.
Note that the reconstructed Hebrew text underlying the translation from their
wealth in 4QS
b
9:11a is . In the course of providing editorial feedback on
this article, E. J. C. Tigchelaar made the signicant observation that since
is not preserved in either 4QS
b
or 4QS
d
, but reconstructed, it cannot be ruled
out that the text could have read (from his wealth). I would like to thank
him for this important point which must be kept in mind.
Note that the depiction of the People of Iniquity in the command not
to join in wealth and work in 4QS
b
is, like its parallel in 1QS, in the
singular, even though it is preceded and followed by plural depictions
(9:9b11a). Whereas the citation of Exod 23:7 provides a potential expla-
nation for this change in 1QS, no such rationale commends itself for
4QS
b
. Indeed, one could even point to this instance to claim that the
inconsistent singular depiction of the People of Iniquity in 4QS
b
9:10b
is, in fact, evidence for the priority of 1QS: the substantiating scriptural
citations, which led to the singular depiction of the People of Iniquity
in the command relating to work and wealth, were removed without also
changing the depiction to plural.
Yet, before one begins to conclude that the alternation between singu-
lar and plural supports the priority of 1QS it is important to observe
that evidence along these lines may be marshaled in the opposite direc-
tion as well. Tis is so in two respects. First, in 1QS each command
for separation in practice is cast in terms of third-person singular verbs
( , , , , in 5:13b, 14b, 15c, 16b,
18b respectively) while in 4QS
b
the rst and last commands are third-
person plural verbs ( , in 9:8c, 11b respectively) but the
middle three are third-person singular verbs ( , ,
in 9:9b, 10b, 10c respectively). On this basis, one could claim that
1QS represents an attempt to render more consistent the use of verbs
in the earlier 4QS
b
.
Second, 4QS
b
9:4b6a states the following:
4QS
b
9:4b6a
4b
Furthermore, a man shall not walk in the stubbornness of his heart
in order to err
5
but [shall walk so as] to lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the
community,
regarding every person oering himself for holiness in Aaron and
[for] the house of
6a
truth for Israel, and those joining with them for community.
Note that the text initially speaks of every person oering himself for
holiness, but then refers to those joining with them for community,
rather than with him. In other words, there is an awkward shift from the
singular to the plural. Tis awkwardness is absent from 1QS 5:5b6:
1QS 5:5b6
5b
. . . to lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community of the
eternal
6
covenant,
to atone for all those oering themselves for holiness in Aaron and for
the house
of the truth in Israel and all those joining with them for community
Tose oering themselves for holiness are depicted in the plural to
match the later use of the plural: joining with them for community.
One could also cite this instance as evidence that the earlier 4QS
b
has
been rendered more consistent in the later 1QS text.
16

Tese contrary indications regarding the alternation between singular
and plural simply go to show, as P. S. Alexander states, Te trouble with
redaction criticism is that the signs can nearly always be reversed.
17

Indeed, this point is applicable to all of the other internal indicators given
by Metso for the priority of 4QS
b
. Metso points to the peculiar syntax of
1QS 5:13b15b, noting that the particle appears ve times in this
short section of text. Tis is taken to be an indication that the earlier,
more consistent text of 4QS
b
has been rendered more awkward by an
accumulation of clauses added to it. Yet, the same evidence could be used
to support the opposite argument: One could just as easily claim that the
earlier 1QS text is rendered more consistent in the later 4QS
b
text. Simi-
larly, the space in the middle of 1QS 5:13 and the accompanying mar-
ginal mark could either be an indication that an earlier text without such
structural indicators has been given them or that such indicators in an
earlier text were regarded as superuous and therefore left out of a later
text. With regard to the claim that the insertion of theologically signi-
cant words, like (covenant), into the text is natural and to be
expected in the developmental process, whereas intentionally omitting
them is very dicult to explain,
18
history suggests this is not always the
case. It is well-known, for example, that in Jewish Antiquities Josephus
16
In relation to this instance, further evidence could be found in the use of
prepositions and . Whereas 4QS
b
9:5b6a has ,
we nd in 1QS 5:6b the more consistent .
17
Alexander, Redaction-History of Serekh Ha-Yah ad, 447.
18
downplays or omits material from his sources dealing with Israels land-
based election and covenant.
19

Certainly, one may protest that this omission on the part of Josephus, a
resident of Rome while Jerusalem lay in ruins, is entirely understandable
as an attempt to accommodate the vast religious and socio-political
change following the Jewish War of 6670 c.e. and that no such change
can be attributed to the Qumran community. Yet, if A. Schoeld is cor-
rect about the overall development of the S texts, that their traditions
radiated out early to undergo semi-independent development,
20
then one
must at least be open to the possibility that dierent socio-political con-
texts, such as living in proximity to Hellenistic inuences, could have led
to divergent developments in the S tradition. Indeed, a comparison of
Jubilees, a text of Palestinian provenance,
21
with the Wisdom of Solomon,
a text arising out of the Diaspora, likely Alexandria,
22
shows a striking dif-
ference precisely when it comes to the concept of covenant. In Jubilees,
the term covenant occurs repeatedly and the concept is central to the
setting of the book ( Jub. 1:14).
23
In the Wisdom of Solomon however,
the term appears only once (Wis 18:22) and the concept is certainly not
explicit.
24
Surely the Diaspora setting of the Wisdom of Solomon, one in
19
S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2d ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson,
2003), 110. See also H. W. Attridge, Josephus and His Works, in Jewish Writ-
ings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian
Writings (ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: van Gorcum, 1984), 185232 at 218.
20
A. Schoeld, Rereading S: A New Model of Textual Development in Light
of the Cave 4 Serekh Copies, DSD 15 (2008): 96120 at 106.
21
See O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction, in
OTP 2:35142 at 45.
22
As J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenis-
tic Diaspora (2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),
195, observes regarding the Wisdom of Solomon: Te Egyptian provenance
of the work is not seriously in doubt in view of the prominence of Egypt in chap-
ters 1019, and the philosophical coloring of the work is most obviously com-
patible with an Alexandrian setting.
23
On the covenantal setting of Jub. 1:14, see J. C. VanderKam, Te Book of
Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheeld: Sheeld Academic,
2001), 27.
24
Even if one were to argue that the notion of covenant underlies the particu-
laristic aspects of the book (cf. e.g. Wis 19:22), the universalistic statements
regarding Gods mercy to and love for all (cf. Wis 11:2112:2) are not easily
which the covenantal notion of Gods preferential treatment of Israel
would have been objectionable on moral grounds is, in part, the reason
why this concept recedes into the background and is replaced by an
emphasis on Gods advocacy for the righteous and opposition against the
wicked (i.e. moral categories rather than covenantal ones). Tis is not to
suggest that some S texts rst made their way to Egypt, where the term
covenant was excised, and then returned to Qumran to exert their inu-
ence. It is rather to illustrate how a dierent socio-political context may
inuence the theology of a text. Moreover, even if Schoelds view of
semi-independent development is not adopted, one could still suggest
that the absence of the term covenant in 4QS
b
does not necessarily
imply that this textual tradition is earlier than 1QS 5:120a. Te People
of the Community could have dropped the term, for instance, in an
attempt to dierentiate themselves from People of Iniquity, who, given
the close similarity between these two groups, likely also regarded their
communal relationships as covenantal.
Tis leaves one remaining internal argument given by Metso for the
priority of 4QS
b
: it is that the alternate hypothesis would posit that
the citations were omitted because they were considered self-evident, and
yet [e]ven with an interpretative explanation, the connection between
a regulation and the supporting citation appears, at least for a modern
reader, arbitrary.
25
Tat the supporting citations present in 1QS 5:120a
but absent in 4QS
b
9:113 appear arbitrary is precisely what I wish to
question. Indeed, I suggest that close attention to them provides us
with the strongest internal argument for the priority of the 4QS
b,d
textual
tradition. It is to a constructive consideration of these citations that we
now turn.
Constructing an Internal Argument for the Priority of the
4QS
b,d
Textual Tradition
Let us begin with the implicit citation of Lev 22:16,
([lest] he burden him with the iniquity of guilt) in 1QS 5:14c15a. In
examining the original context of this text, one discovers that the Lev
subsumed under the covenant concept. Cf., e.g., Collins, Between Athens and
Jerusalem, 2012.
25
citation derives from the last verse of a passage (Lev 22:116) devoted to
regulations governing priestly food oerings (the verb [to eat]
appears 13x in this text: 22:4, 6, 7, 8, 10[2x], 11[2x], 12, 13[2x], 14, 16)
and seems to be a warning against a person outside of a priestly household
who improperly eats of food oerings and does not make restitution.
26

Tis emphasis on eating in priestly community coheres quite well with
the context of the Lev citation in 1QS 5:1415. Te rst command not
to enter the waters of the People of Iniquity to touch their
(purity) in 1QS 5:13b14a has to do with communal meals. As M.
Knibb notes, the usage of the term in the rabbinic writings indi-
cates that the word refers to the ritually clean articles and, particularly, to
the ritually clean food of the community.
27
Tat this is the case in 1QS is
suggested by comparison with the parallel command in 4QS
b
9:8c9a.
Included in the command not to touch the purity of the People of
Iniquity (here identied as the People of Holiness) is the further unpar-
alleled clarication that neither should one eat it in the community.
28

Of course, the citation of Lev 22:16 does not support the rst command
to refrain from touching the purity but the second command not to
join with him, the People of Iniquity represented as a single individual,
in work and wealth in 1QS 5:14b15b. Yet this command may also be
related to priestly eating. Te term (wealth) occurs not only in 5:14
but also in 5:16 (cf. further 5:2, 3, 20; 4QS
b
9:2, 3, 10, 11, 13) in rela-
tion to the command not to eat, drink, or take anything from the People
of Iniquity without (pay), that is, proper recompense. In other
words, the citation of Lev 22:16 seems to be creatively employed to por-
tray the People of Iniquity as a rival priestly community from whose
food oerings one should not eat without proper recompense
(lest he burden him with the iniquity of guilt; 5:14c15a),
26
J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1722 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1860,
186970, titles Leviticus 22:1016 Nonpriests Eating Sacred Food. Regarding
the anities between Lev 22 and 1QS 5:120a, only Hempel, Community and
Its Rivals, 55 n. 20, observes: Te context of this allusion in Lev 22 deals with
the wrong kind of people eating sacred food. Tis material may well have been in
the back of the authors mind to bolster the case against the people of injustice.
27
Knibb, Qumran Community, 111.
28
Hempel, Community and Its Rivals, 54, suggests that the unparalleled
occurrence of in 4QS
b
9:8c9a may not refer to the pure meal but to a less
formal type of table fellowship. Tis is unlikely given the later prohibition against
such informal table fellowship in both 1QS 5:16b18a and 4QS
b
9:10c11a.
likely not only a warning but also a play on the label of the rival group as
(People of Iniquity; 1QS 5:2, 10; cf. 4QS
b
9:2, 8).
We may further note that the key term (guilt) in the citation
of Lev 22:16 in 1QS 5:14c15a is preceded by a prior use of this same
word (written erroneously as ) in 1QS 5:12. Interestingly, the use
of the term in 1QS 5:12 appears to be quite unnecessary; the
meaning of the overall statement in which it appears would be little
altered were it not included. Signicantly, the use of in 1QS 5:12
is without parallel in 4QS
b
. Tis turns out to be the rst indication of
a pattern in the use of scriptural citations present in 1QS 5:120a but
absent in 4QS
b
: they are employed with due regard for their original con-
texts and in each case are anticipated by key vocabulary that is without
parallel in 4QS
b
.
Te explicit citation of Exod 23:7, ([from every] mat-
ter of deception, you shall keep far), in 1QS 5:15b may be understood
in concert with the earlier implicit citation of Lev 22:16.
29
Tis Exod
verse is part of a series of loosely-related legal admonitions (Exod 23:19);
it is preceded by a warning against denying (justice) to the poor
in a (lawsuit) and followed by a warning against putting an inno-
cent or righteous person to death. When one interprets the Exod citation
in relation to the Lev text, its meaning seems fairly clear: Te person who
would be tempted to fail to make restitution for an improper use of
priestly food oerings is being warned to stay far from such a deceptive
act. Tat this interpretation is on the right track, if not correct, is sug-
gested by the prohibition in 1QS 5:14b for which the Lev citation serves
as support: (he shall not be joined with him
in his work and in his wealth). Assuming the priority of 4QS
b
for the
moment, this prohibition has been moved by the redactor of 1QS to a dif-
ferent location than its parallel, perhaps to bring it into closer proximity
to the rst prohibition in 1QS 5:13b14a regarding refraining from the
communal meal of the People of Iniquity (identied here as the People
of Holiness). Moreover, the redactor may have reversed the order of
in 4QS
b
9:10b to in 1QS 5:14b because of the
implicit restitutionary aspect of the Lev 22:16 citation which follows.
Te citation of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15b is anticipated in three respects.
First, as is commonly observed, (to be far) and (word, matter,
29
Te of 1QS 5:15b reects the Vorlage of the LXX which has
as opposed to the of the MT.
thing), also in 1QS 5:15b, prepare for the immediately-following
citation,
30
and neither has a parallel in 4QS
b
. Second, what has not been
recognized previously, at least in the literature I have surveyed, is that
the phrase (and for lawsuit and for justice) at the end of
1QS 5:6, without parallel in 4QS
b
(even though the rest of 1QS 5:6 is for
the most part paralleled by 4QS
b
9:5), may also anticipate the citation
of Exod 23:7 in 1QS 5:15. Tis is because, as noted earlier, and
appear together in Exod 23:6. Tird, when Exod 23:7 is viewed
within the larger context of which it is a part, namely the
(book of the covenant; Exod 24:7) consisting of Exod 20:2223:33,
31

it may further be the case that the preceding nine instances of (in
1QS 5:2, 3, 5, 8, 9[2x], 10, 11, 12), none of which are paralleled in
4QS
b
, implicitly anticipate the citation of Exod 23:7 as well.
32
Te implicit citation of Zeph 1:6, (they have not
sought and they have not inquired after [his decrees]), in 1QS 5:11b also
ts this developing pattern. Tough in Zeph 1:6 it is YHWH who has
not been sought or inquired after, the meaning of this text as used in
1QS 5:11b is little dierent. As Leaney notes, it is typical of the S com-
munity to interpret seeking after YHWH as meaning study of Torah (e.g.
cf. 1QS 8:1415).
33
Moreover, those who have not sought YHWH in
Zeph 1:6 are idolatrous priests (cf. Zeph 1:45); this coheres quite well
with use of this text in relation to (peo-
ple of iniquity who walk in the way of wickedness) in 1QS 5:10b11a
and further suggests that the opponents of the S community are a rival
priestly group.
Te citation of Zeph 1:6 in 1QS 5:11b is anticipated in two ways.
First, the term (to inquire) appears in 1QS 5:9b and is without
parallel in 4QS
b
. Second, there seems to be an allusion to Zeph 2:3, in
addition to the implicit citation of Mic 6:8, in 1QS 5:34. Te implicit
citation of Mic 6:8 is clear and the allusion to Zeph 2:3 is suggested by
(and humility [and] righteousness), both of which terms
30
E.g. Metso, Use of Old Testament Quotations, 221, who observes that an
anticipatory appears in 1QS 5:14 as well.
31
So e.g. J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco: Word, 1987), 315.
32
However, cf. 1QS 5:19 vs. 4QS
b
9:12 in which appears in both textual
traditions. Te term also appears in 1QS 5:18, without parallel in 4QS
b
.
33
Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 172.
may allude to Zeph 2:3 (a verse in which [justice] and [to
seek] are also found).
34
Although the implicit citation of Mic 6:8 and
possible allusion to Zeph 2:3 are also present in 4QS
b
9:3b4a,
35
there is
one slight and perhaps signicant dierence. In 4QS
b
one nds
; in other words, there is a waw (and) separating and
which is absent from 1QS. Assuming once again the priority of 4QS
b
, the
redactor of 1QS may have wished to bring and into closer
association with one another in an eort to foster recognition of an allu-
sion to Zeph 2:3, a text in which the cognate term and occur
successively, each as the object of the verb .
36
Even if one rejects this
proposal of an allusion to Zeph 2:3, the citation of Zeph 1:6 still ts
the pattern for which I have argued because of the unparalleled in
1QS 5:9b.
34
Note that it is a close cognate of , namely , which occurs in Zeph
2:3. While this might be taken as lessening the likelihood of an allusion, it should
also be observed that Zeph 2:3 is only one of six occurrences of in the
Hebrew Scriptures (cf. also Pss 18:36; 45:5; Prov 15:33; 18:12; 22:4); this
strengthens the likelihood of an allusion.
35
Te recognition that 4QS
b
9:3b4a also contains an implicit citation of, or
allusion to, Mic 6:8, as does 1QS 5:3c4a, may help explain the unparalleled
occurrence of in 1QS 5:6b. As Hempel, Emerging Communal Life and
Ideology in the S Tradition, in Dening Identities: We, You, and the Other in the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed.
F. Garca Martnez and M. Popovi; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 4361, at
5254, notes, the virtues of Mic 6:8 are listed as the culmination of an extended
passage dealing with the importance of these ethical guidelines over and above
the cult (p. 52). Tus these virtues are implicitly associated with atonement
in Mic. Moreover, the terms (transgression) and (sin) found in
Mic 6:7 occur along with in Lev 16:16 (cf. also Dan 9:24) in the context of
the Day of Atonement ceremony. Tus, assuming the priority of 4QS
b
, by add-
ing the redactor of 1QS could have intended to make explicit the notion of
atonement that is implicit in the allusion to Mic 6:8.
36
In the course revising this article for publication, E. J. C. Tigchelaar pointed
out that the absence of the waw in 1QS could be due to the inuence of Ps 45:5
where, like 1QS 5:34, the expression is found. Tis is possible, but,
in my view, less likely than the inuence of Zeph 2:3. Psalm 45:5 lacks the addi-
tional terminological similarities that, as noted above, Zeph 2:3 possesses. More-
over, 1QS 5 and Zeph 2, as we shall shortly see, have a thematic similarity that is
lacking in Ps 45.
If 1QS 5:3c4a does allude to Zeph 2:3, a text which counsels seeking
YHWH in an eort to be hidden () from his impending wrath, then
this coheres well with the explicit citation of Isa 2:22,
(separate yourselves from man
whose breath is in his nostrils for of what account is he?) in 1QS 5:17b.
37

As noted previously (cf. footnote 8 above), it is often charged that
Isa 2:22 has been divorced from its original context in service of a dubi-
ous word-play involving the term , which in 1QS 5:18a means to be
reckoned within the covenant, while in Isa 2:22 it means merely to be
accounted, esteemed. Tis word-play is beyond dispute; what is ques-
tionable, however, is that this citation of Isa 2:22 represents an unintelli-
gible use of the precursor text. Like Lev 22:16, Isa 2:22 concludes the
passage of which it is a part, whether it begins in v. 5 or v. 6.
38
Tis pas-
sage is an indictment of the house of Jacob for its idolatrous worship and
acquisition of wealth (vv. 68, 18, 22). Te house of Jacob is warned that
even as this idolatry already debases humanity (v. 9), so also human arro-
gance will be brought low on the day of YHWHs wrath when he alone
will be exalted (vv. 1117, 20). In light of this impending Day of YHWH,
one nds the following threefold refrain in vv. 10, 19, 21:
10
Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust
from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty . . .
19
Enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground,
from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty,
when he rises to terrify the earth . . .
37
Van der Kooij, Septuagint of Isaiah, 37980, argues that + should
be translated as cease in light of 2 Sam 9:5; 2 Chron 35:21; Isa 10:20; 31:3.
While + undoubtedly has this meaning in these instances, in Exod 4:12
and Job 7:16 it has to have the sense of leave. Consequently, I have translated
its use in 1QS 5:17 as separate because this is how the S community appears to
have understood the phrase in Isa 2:22.
38
So e.g. J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 133 (WBC 24; Waco: Word, 1985), 3334;
J. Blenkinsopp, Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Jes 2 622),
ZAW 93 (1981): 5162. Other analyses are of course possible. E.g. see M. L. Barr,
A Rhetorical-Critical Study of Isaiah 2:1217, CBQ 65 (2003): 52234, who
argues that Isa 2:1217 is a complete poem:
21
. . . enter the caverns of the rocks and the clefts in the crags,
from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty,
when he rises to terrify the earth.
39

Whether this threefold refrain in Isaiah was originally intended to call the
faithful to nd refuge, warn the unfaithful against the futility of hiding,
or perhaps a combination of the two (though v. 21 is clearly directed at
the unfaithful), it is easy to imagine how the S community might have
read this text as an assurance that their enemiesfrom whom they had
separated (1QS 5:1c, 10b; cf. 4QS
b
9:2b, 8b) and in whose idolatrous
work and wealth they were not to share or prot from without cost
(1QS 5:14, 1617)would be numbered among the proud of humanity
facing YHWHs terrifying debasement (cf. 1QS 5:1820). I suggest, then,
that this citation of Isa 2:22 in 1QS 5:17b ts quite well with the original
context of Isa. Indeed, the commentary immediately following this cita-
tion in 1QS 5:17c18 suggests just this since it emphasizes that those
who are not reckoned in Gods covenant will be separated along with
their possessions, the very point made in Isa 2:2021: On that day peo-
ple will throw away to the moles and to the bats their idols of silver and
their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to enter
the caverns of the rocks (NRSV; cf. Isa 2:79). As for the anticipation of
this citation through key vocabulary, occurs in 1QS 5:11b and in
1QS 5:12b, both without parallel in 4QS
b
. Tough neither term occurs
with the same meaning as in the Isa 2:22 citation of 1QS 5:17, the pre-
ceding pattern established with the other scriptural citations suggests that
these terms are nevertheless anticipatory.
Conclusion
Te aim of this article has been both deconstructive and constructive. In
its deconstructive aim, I have questioned the internal arguments provided
39
Tis translation is taken from the NRSV. Note that v. 10 does not appear in
1QIsa
a
; however, vv. 19, 21 do. Additionally, Isa 2:22 does not appear in the
LXX, though it does in the MT and 1QIsa
a
. See the discussion in Blenkinsopp,
Fragments of Ancient Exegesis, 5556; Van der Kooij, Septuagint of Isaiah,
37786. Te latter study concludes that the omission of MT Isa 2:22 and 36:7 is
due to the working method of the LXX translator.
by S. Metso for the priority of the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition in relation to
1QS 5:120a, especially her view that the scriptural citations appear arbi-
trary, a view shared by many others. In its constructive aim, I have sug-
gested, on the contrary, that the scriptural texts present in 1QS 5:120a,
but absent in 4QS
b,d
, are employed with due regard for their original con-
texts and are also anticipated in 1QS 5:120a through the use of unparal-
leled key vocabulary prior to each citation. Te best explanation for this
pattern established on internal grounds is, I contend, the priority of 4QS
b,d
.
Te logic of my contention is simply this: it is easier to imagine how the
unparalleled scriptural citations and anticipatory vocabulary of 1QS 5:120a
could have been added to an earlier textual tradition similar or identical
to 4QS
b,d
, than it is to imagine how not only the scriptural citations but
also their anticipatory vocabulary could have been eliminated from an
earlier version of 1QS 5:120a in producing an abridged text like 4QS
b,d
.
Tis is one redactional sign that, at least to me, does not seem to be
reversible. In short, then, the use of unparalleled scriptural citations in
1QS 5:120a appears to provide us with an internal control for determin-
ing the redactional direction with the 4QS
b,d
textual tradition.
In closing, I wish to note the signicance of this study in relation to
any future redactional work done on 1QS and its 4Q parallels. In their
DJD volume on the cave 4 S texts, P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes state
that the redactional history of S is only beginning to be explored.
40

Metsos dissertation and subsequent articles are widely and rightly regarded
as a signicant step toward establishing that redaction history.
41
Yet, con-
cerning this very redaction history Metso says, Tere was no ready-made
scheme in the minds of redactors which they would have followed when
arranging the material and editing the text. A vague association prompted
by a key-word was sucient to provide the impulse for creating a new
sentence or including a new passage.
42
Our study of the unparalleled
40
DJD 26:9. Similarly, Metso, Serekh Texts, 15, herself states: Te material of
Cave 4 did not become widely accessible until the 1990s, and its analysis is still
in an early stage, but the results that have been achieved already oer promise of
a lively discussion in the near future.
41
E.g. see the remarks by Bockmuehl, Redaction and Ideology in the Rule
of the Community, 542; Hempel, Literary Development of the S Tradition,
390, 392.
42
S. Metso, Te Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule, in
Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International
scriptural citations in 1QS 5:120a suggests that this is not the case for
this particular section of S. Te redactor of 1QS 5:120a appears to have
taken care to add not only the scriptural warrants for the ve examples of
separation in practice but also anticipatory key vocabulary in each case.
Whether or not a similar, or even identical, procedure is reected in other
portions of S is a subject for future research.
Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph
M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 14147 at 147.
4Q274 Fragment 1 Revisitedor Who Touched
Whom? Further Evidence for Ideas of Graded
Impurity and Graded Purications
1
Tomas Kazen
Stockholm School of Teology, keshovsvgen 29, SE-16839 Bromma, Sweden
thomas.kazen@ths.se
Abstract
Tis fragment concerns impurity bearers in intermediate stages of lessened impu-
rity and their contact with the clean and unclean. It is evidence for an early ori-
gin for ideas of graded impurity and graded purication. Te referent in the rst
section is the purifying leper rather than the zav. Te initial impurity of the
menstruant is supposed to be mitigated by a rst-day puricatory water rite,
analogous to that of purifying lepers and the developing practice of a rst day
ablution for the corpse-impure. Te semen emitter is a dierent case from the
zav, and the point is that purifying people may not contact any active dis-
charger. Te text should not be read within the framework of a narrow sectarian
environment only, but reects a more general development of expanding purity
practises during the Second Temple period.
Keywords
4Q274, graded impurity, menstruant, purication, rst day ablution
1
I wish to thank the DSD reviewers for constructive suggestions and com-
ments on an earlier version of this material. I am also indebted to Swedish and
Finnish colleagues for responses and observations, especially to ke Viberg for
assisting with necessary software and for numerous discussions about readings
and reconstructions.
54 T. Kazen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 5387
Introduction
Te fragments numbered 4Q274 and named 4QTohorot A are usually
dated to the rst century b.c.e., due to the early Herodian script.
2
Te
texts show little signs of dispute, however, and may be presectarian, origi-
nating in the second century b.c.e.
3
Te text of frgs. 12 discusses con-
tamination by touch, and genital dischargers are prominently in focus.
Te instructions are often thought to be ambiguous and confusing, and,
according to Jacob Milgrom, not a single one of its halakhic cases is
mentioned in rabbinic literature.
4
In this article I argue that the text
deals with the behaviour of impurity bearers in intermediate stages of less
or lessened impurity compared to more permanent impurity bearers and
that it attests to an early origin for ideas of graded impurity and graded
purication. As we will see, the text may be read as evidence that not only
the corpse-impure sought early purication, but dischargers also peeled
o the most virulent layer of impurity through some type of rst day
ablution. When further contextual evidence is taken into consideration,
this should not be seen as a sectarian development only.
Previous Research
Te text, including a photograph, was rst published by Robert Eisenman
and Michael Wise in 1992.
5
It was followed in 1995 by Ben Wacholder
and Martin Abeggs reading and reconstruction, mainly based on Miliks
transcriptions in the Preliminary Concordance.
6
In the same year, Joseph
Baumgarten and Jacob Milgrom published separate reconstructions and
2
Joseph M. Baumgarten, D. Tohorot, in Qumran Cave 4, XXV: Halakhic Texts
(ed. J. M. Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 79122 (99).
3
Hannah K. Harrington, Te Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls;
London: T&T Clark, 2004), 57.
4
Jacob Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
: An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities, in
Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. D. Dimant and L. Schiman;
STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 5968 (59).
5
Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, Te Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: Te
First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for
Over 35 Years (Shaftesbury: Element, 1992), 20710, plate 18.
6
Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the
T. Kazen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 5387 55
translations of frg. 1 in a volume containing papers from 19891990.
7
In
1999, Baumgarten, who had access to Miliks transcriptions, published
his own version with a few revisions in DJD 35.
8
Meanwhile, the text was
published by Florentino Garca Martnez, rst in his translation, and
then, together with Eibert Tigchelaar in the DSS Study Edition.
9
Baumgarten understands the text as referring to various types of dis-
chargers and reads it in light of other texts found at Qumran. He refers
to 4Q512 for a markedly penitential tone and sees anities with the
Temple Scroll s demand for separated areas for lepers, zavim and semen
emitters. Similarly, the zav is not only to be kept outside of cities, but,
according to 4Q274, also at a certain distance from other impurity bear-
ers. Female dischargers, too, must not contact other impure people.
Baumgarten notes that this is more stringent than rabbinic halakah.
Another stringent ruling is the demand for purication before eating.
10
In DJD 35, Baumgarten sets 4Q274 in the larger context of expansive
purity practices in the Second Temple period. Te practice of eating non-
consecrated food (chullin) in purity together with the application of a rst
day water rite to make this possible for impurity bearers whose purica-
tion took seven days, is evidenced by texts found at Qumran. Baumgarten
nds this comparable to the Pharisaic tevul yom, which similarly made
eating in purity possible in advance, in this case before sundown.
11
Although Milgrom agrees with Baumgarten on the penitential tone, he
diers on the reference of the rst three and a half lines, which he reads as
referring not to the zav but to the metzora. Milgrom also refers to the
quarantine laws of the Temple Scroll, although he notes that compass
directions are only given for the Temple city. Milgrom argues that the call
Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: Te Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four,
Fascicle 3 (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1995), 7980.
7
Joseph M. Baumgarten, Te Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohora
a
(4Q274),
in Dimant and Schiman, eds., Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, 18;
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
.
8
Baumgarten, DJD 35:99109.
9
Florentino Garca Martnez, Te Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: Te Qumran
Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Florentino Garca Martnez and Eibert
J. C. Tigchelaar, Te Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997
1998; rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 62829.
10
Baumgarten, Te Laws about Fluxes, 7. Cf. 11QT
a
XLVI 1618.
11
of the metzora is interpreted as unclean to the unclean, which explains
the need for impure people to keep apart from other impure people, as
exemplied in the fragment. Tis is supposed to be one of Qumrans
innovative teachings: any impurity is increased by contact with a stronger
impurity. Another innovative teaching is that a purifying zav does not
transmit impurity by touch, presumably because he has undergone a rst
day ablution. He also nds a third new idea in the requirement of puri-
cation before eating for people with increased impurity. Milgrom reads
the text as divided into three cases and points out that bathing and laun-
dering before eating is required in all three.
12
Tis is interpreted within
the larger context of early purication to avoid what Milgrom under-
stands as airborne delement of the sanctuary.
13

In 1992, Hannah Harrington discussed the text in her dissertation
comparing Qumran and Rabbinic purity halakah, based on the reading of
her supervisor Milgrom.
14
Some further discussion is also found in a more
recent volume on purity texts found at Qumran.
15
Harrington regards
frg. 1 as evidence for the requirement that all Israelites bathe before eat-
ing any food, which resulted from homogenization in the interpreta-
tion of purity legislation. Tis applied even to impure people, who were
not thereby entitled to partake of the communal meal, only to eat at all.
Although Harrington takes 4Q274 1 as referring to impure persons, who
continue in their impurity or purication for an extended period, she
specically mentions purifying persons as a particular threat for contami-
nating food, since they were no longer isolated outside of the camp, but
had to come inside for their purication.
16
Generally, Harrington nds
the discharge laws of 4Q274 stricter than rabbinic law,
17
although she
follows Milgroms understanding that a purifying zav did not dele by
12
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 61, 6568.
13
Tis is only alluded to in 4QTohora
a
, but more clearly spelled out in Mil-
groms discussion about rst day ablutions and intermediate levels of impurity in
Leviticus 116: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; Gar-
den City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991), 96976, 9911000.
14
Hannah K. Harrington, Te Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis:
Biblical Foundations (SBLDS 143; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 48, 6162,
65, 7990, 92, 94.
15
Harrington, Purity Texts, 5760, 88, 9598, 102.
16
Ibid., 57, 59.
17
Ibid., 9596.
touch unless he had a semen emission, which is strangely lenient.
18

Harrington also notes that menstrual blood is equalled to other discharges.
19
Te text is also discussed by Jonathan Lawrence, using the translation
of Wise, Abegg and Cook. According to Lawrence, the fragment is in
general agreement with the rules of the Hebrew Bible concerning when
washing for purication is required or not. When it comes to details,
however, he nds a number of departures. As Lawrence reads the text, the
woman who has touched a zav or a zavs vessel does not have to wait until
sundown, but may eat after bathing. He furthermore claims that the text
equates menstrual blood with semen. He also nds it strange that a zavah
is allowed to eat the food at all. Lawrence nds the text ambiguous as to
whether the purity of the woman or that of others who are contacted by
her stands in focus. Like Baumgarten, he understands the referent in the
rst three and a half lines of the text as a zav rather than a metzoraan
interpretation that is facilitated by the translation of Wise, Abegg and
Cook.
20
He also hints at a rst day ablution for corpse-impure being
extended to other cases, but this possibility is not followed up in any detail.
21

In a recent publication on ritual purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ian
Werrett deals with 4Q274 too. Werrett relies on the reconstruction and
translation of Baumgarten and, like Lawrence, follows Baumgarten in see-
ing the zav as the referent for 1 i 14a.
22
Werrett understands the primary
18
Harrington, Impurity Systems, 8587.
19
Harrington, Purity Texts, 96, 102; Impurity Systems, 87.
20
Jonathan D. Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in
the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (SBL Academia Biblica 23; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 8991. Abegg reconstructs and translates
line 3: Any one of the unclean [wh]o h[as a dischar]ge . . . (this is dierent from
others, see further below). Cf. Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward
Cook, Te Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco,
1996), 281.
21
Lawrence, Washing in Water, 99, see especially note 40, referring to Esther
Eshel, 4Q414 Fragment 2: Purication of a Corpse-Contaminated Person, in
Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International
Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Floren-
tino Garca Martnez, and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 310.
Tis is basically identical with Esther Eshel, 4QRitual of Purication A, DJD
35:13553 (13539).
22
Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden:
Brill, 2007), 22021, 24546. Te translation strangely enough contains a few
interest of frg. 1 as preventing impure persons from contacting other
impure individuals. Tis presupposes that unclean individuals were cap-
able of contracting additional forms of impurity if that form of impurity
was greater than their own, something that goes beyond ideas found in
the Torah.
23
In addition to the instructions concerning the zav, the frag-
ment consists of a series of examples of less serious types of bodily
discharge. One detail, however, does not t into this scheme neatly,
according to Werrett: the equalling of menstrual blood and bodily dis-
charge in 1 i 78. Werrett does not regard this as evidence for the zav and
menstruant being equally impure, but rather as a result of gap-lling the
laws of Leviticus. Blood and discharge were considered equally deling
for purifying people, in the sense that contact necessitated bathing before
eating. Werrett nds similarities between 4Q274 and the Temple Scroll
with regard to quarantine regulations and the keeping apart of various
impurity bearers. He notes, however, that the instructions of 4Q274 seem
to assume that contact actually took place, which suggests a dierent con-
text with other concerns.
24
As is clear from this overview, there are a number of common sugges-
tions and questions with regard to this text. While most agree on the pen-
itential note at the beginning, the referent of the rst three and a half
lines is debated. While some anity with rules for isolation or segregation
in other texts is evident, the extent of the present rules is unclear. Te
context is certainly one of expansive purity practices, which ts ill with
suggestions about lenient practices concerning the zav. Bathing before
eating is denitely an issue, even for some types of impure people, but on
what grounds? Contact between various categories of impurity bearers is
found at the heart of the discussion, but does contamination only spread
from the more impure to the less? Blood and discharge are somehow
equalled, but in what way? And are some sorts of rst day water rites
being extended to and presupposed for other impurity bearers than the
corpse impure?
unexplained deviations from Baumgarten in DJD 35: (ones) in line 1, a clos-
ing citation mark moved from out in line 4 to unclean! in line 3, has lain
instead of Baumgartens touched or laid in line 4, a changed word order in line
5 and two spelling mistakes in line 9.
23
Ibid., 24647; citation from 247.
24
Ibid., 24748, 28081.
Such questions give reason for revisiting the text. A number of ambi-
guities depend on uncertain readings and reconstructions due to faded or
damaged text and tears in the leather. Certain progress can be made by
studying high resolution photographs with software applications,
25
but
the main options have been laid out before. My suggestions for revisions
of previous readings and reconstructions in such cases are modest and fre-
quently limited to an evaluation and a choice between them. Following
the reconstruction and translation below, I will rst oer notes regarding
possible readings and reconstructions, and subsequently a discussion of
content and interpretation.
Reconstruction and Reading
4Q274 1 i
[ ] 1

2

[] [] 3

[ ] 4
[] []

5
[]
[] [] 6
[] []
[ ] 7
[]
] [ ] [] 8
[
] [ ] 9
[] [
. . . ] ii 1
25
For this study, PAM 43.309 in Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (rev. ed.
2006; version 7.0.24; Leiden: Brill, 2006; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young Univer-
sity, 19912006) has been used, together with PAM 42.601.
Translation
1 He shall begin to lay down his pleading. He shall recli[ne] on a bed of
sorrow [and] dwell in a dwelling of groaning. He shall dwell separate
from all the unclean and far from
2 what is pure, twelve cubits, in his quarter of mourning, and he shall
dwell as far as this distance northwest of any dwelling-house.
3 Any man of the unclean [wh]o [touches] him shall bathe in water and
launder his clothes and afterwards he may eat, for this is as it says:
Unclean, unclean,
4 shall he cry all the days [the aic]tion is [on him]. And the woman
discharging blood (zavah dam) for seven days shall not touch the man
discharging (zav) or any utensil [t]hat the man discharging (zav) has
touched or lain
5 on or that he has sat on. And if she touched, she shall launder her
clothes and bathe, and afterwards she may eat. And with all her
strength she shall not mix during her seven
6 days in order n[o]t to dele the camps of the ho[ly] (ones) of Israel,
and also, she shall not touch any woman [discharg]ing blood (zavah
dam) for man[y] days.
7 And the one who counts, whether male or female, shall not tou[ch the
man discharging (zav) in] his [dischar]ge (or) the menstruant in her
(initial) niddah (bleeding), unless she is pure from her [nidd ]ah
(bleeding), for behold,
8 niddah blood is considered like a discharge [to] the one touching it.
And if a semen emission com[es forth from a man]his touch i[s]
unclean. And [anyo]ne who touches a person from all
9 these unclean ones during the seven days of [his] puri[cation] shall
[no]t eat, as if he were deled by [a human cor]pse, [and he shall
b]athe and wash (his clothes) and afterwar[ds] [Col ii 1] he shall e[at . . .
Notes
Column i, line 1
Milgrom reads , and is followed in this by Baumgarten,
26
while
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, following Eisenman and Wise, suggest
26
Baumgarten, DJD 35:100; Milgrom 4QTohora
a
, 5960.
, rendering the sentence: he shall begin to lay down his rank.
27

Although three letters are faded and thus capable of being variously inter-
preted, a is more likely than a ; the left stroke of the is faintly visible.
28

A penitential note also suits the context well. Baumgarten inserts a nega-
tion () on the last line of the preceding non-extant column, arguing
that according to the instructions for a zav in 4Q512 he may recite bless-
ings only after his purication.
29
Tis presupposes, however, that the ref-
erent in the present text is not under purication. Te penitential prayers
in 4Q512 for the zavs seven days of purication rather suggest that the
referent in our text could be a purifying impurity bearer, too, and that this
is the reason why he is told to begin his penitential activity.
line 2
(in his quarter of mourning). Tis partly follows Eisenman
and Wises reading,
30
which Garca Martnez rendered in the quarter
reserved for him in his 1994 translation.
31
Tis translation still remains
(by mistake) in Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, although the Hebrew is
now read as , like Abegg & Wacholder, Baumgarten and Milgrom.
32

Both readings have their problems, but the shape of the second letter is
rather strange for a . If an , the left downstroke is missing, but there are
27
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:62829.
28
Tis is clearer in PAM 42.601 than in 43.309, and also suggested by
Tigchelaar (personal communication).
29
30
Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; in the designated part of town
(209).
31
Garca Martnez, DSS Translated, 88, i.e., is taken to mean separate
dwelling or (town) quarter (cf. Jastrow) from wing.
32
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:628629. A similar
translation could, possibly, base itself on , taking as a decient reading
of , meaning back-room or separate chamber. A secular use of is,
however, dicult to ascertain; in the DSS as well as in the Hebrew Bible it is
commonly used for the Most Holy, or for the shrine(s) of God or the chamber(s)
of the king (1 Kgs 6; 4Q400, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q405 and 11Q17). Another
possibility would be to read as an innitive construct of I (turn aside,
pi.), hence in his turning aside with regard to him, i.e., he must not exceed this
distance before turning aside for the other persons sake (cf. the use of an inni-
tive construct with a similar meaning in Song 5:6). Te context, however, is
clearly on living or staying (sit); the verb is repeated.
other examples of this,
33
and a small visible crack in the leather plausibly
explains this particular case. Te reading (in his speaking to
him) furthermore causes a problem of reference: who is the him?
Baumgarten assumes that this refers to persons having pure things in their
hands, hence presumably pure persons.
34
According to Milgrom the only
possible antecedent is (impure persons) in line 1. Te incon-
gruence in number is, however, awkward and seems unnatural.
35

While the reading is more likely, the use of the preposition
would be strange and likewise unnatural (in his town quarter, to
him).
36
I suggest that we read as his mourning.
37
Tis solves the
problem of reference and ts perfectly into the penitential context:
would then parallel and in line 1.
line 3
It is not totally certain which act necessitates the bathing of
. In the phrase [] [], which follows Baumgarten and
Milgrom,
38
there is hardly one undisputed letter among the few that are
at all visible. Eisenman and Wises reading ([] []) is unlikely;
39

although a would be possible, a is more probable, and the is doubt-
ful, since the photographs show a faint horizontal upper stroke. Wacholder
and Abeggs suggestion, presumably based on Milik ([ ] ) is the-
oretically possible,
40
but redundant, or at least a roundabout way to dene
a zav. I reluctantly accept the majority reading, although the at the end
33
See for example in line 5.
34
35
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 6162. For examples of the idiom, see 1 Sam 17:28
and 2 Chron 25:6. Te latter is also followed by . Te construction
is, however, less common than one might think.
36
Teoretically, could be read as penis, hence with his penis for him-
self, which would require Baumgartens identication of the man as a zav and
taking the expression as some kind of euphemism. I nd this very unlikely,
however.
37
I.e. (mourning) with a sux. Cf. Jastrow.
38
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar prefer not to conjecture, but leave the
phrase as [. . .] . . . [. . .] . . .
39
Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207.
40
Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 79. But any possible trait of a
is only seen in PAM 42.601, and is too tiny for identifying the letter.
looks more like a to me. I nd no plausible alternative verb, however,
that would not destroy the context altogether.
41
I read with Eisenman and Wise and Garca Martnez and Tigche-
laar, rather than with the others. Dierences between the letters
and are not consistent enough to ensure certainty. Here an imperfect
makes a smoother sentence.
line 4
Te reconstruction [ ] is suggested by Eisenman and
Wise, as well as by Milgrom
42
and later followed by Baumgarten.
43
line 5
I follow Baumgarten who argues against Qimron that does not
refer to intercourse.
44
line 6
It is tempting to translate [] as the holy camps of
Israel, not least in view of Deut 23:15, which can also be regarded as an
extended purity law. Te position of the adjective, however, speaks for
the camps of the holy (ones) of Israel, cf. 1QM III 5.
41
Te fragment contains several instances of that are similarly shaped,
although the present letter is faded. For possible verbs ending on samek, is
impossible, because it returns later on the same line. One could possibly suggest
, hence any man of the unclean [wh]o [gathers, i.e., food] shall bathe in
water and launder his clothes and afterwards he may eat. Tis does not make
sense, however, in view of the subsequent motivation and the recurring sequence
of touch, bathing, washing and eating in the following lines.
42
Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 6263.
43
Baumgarten, DJD 35:100. Wacholder and Abeggs reading is less likely
( [] [] ), since the second letter is a rather than a , and this reading
would make the man in lines 34a a semen emitter.
44
Baumgarten, Laws about Fluxes, 56.
line 7
Here one of the two main tears necessitates advanced guess-work. Eisen-
man and Wise suggest [ ] while Wacholder and Abegg
reconstruct [ ] , presumably based on Miliks early transcrip-
tion.
45
Milgrom reluctantly proposes [ ] , referring to Milik.
46

Neither of these suggestions really ll the lacuna. Baumgarten, however,
reports Miliks restoration as [ ] ,
47
which just lls the
lacuna, while his own reconstruction in DJD 35, [ ] ,
needs a little more space, despite the same number of letters.
48

Te crucial problem is the letter(s) at the left edge of the tear. If it is an
, then it is more or less unique: the left downstroke is too short.
49
More-
over, the photographs suggest that the strokes are not connected, which
speaks for two letters. Reading is possible, even if not without prob-
lems; a seldom comes that close to the following letter at the top and
when it does, the bottom stroke usually protrudes under the next letter.
50

A plural with a pronominal sux (ending ) would perhaps provide a
solution, but is dicult to t into the context.
51

Lines 78a contain three phrases echoing Lev 15:3233. Although in
reverse order, Lev 15:33 reads , with pronominal
suxes in both cases. Tis is very similar to Miliks reconstruction,
45
Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Wacholder and Abegg, Prelimi-
nary Edition, 79.
46
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 59, 63.
47
Baumgarten, Laws about Fluxes, 2.
48
Baumgarten, DJD 35:100. For the expression , see 4Q270 2 ii 12
and Lev 15:2 (cf. Lev 15:25, 30).
49
Tere is a possible exception in a bit earlier on the same line, where the
comes rather close but not quite.
50
Tis applies even more to a . Te little stroke besides what could be a or
a could also suggest another or , or a . Less likely is the left edge of an
which could render [ ] . . . , resulting in smooth syntax and good
sense, but the lower left stroke of an in this fragment almost always protrudes
further to the left than its upper corner and of this we nd no trace.
51
We would then need something like or . While
clothes gure elsewhere in the close context they do so mainly as objects to wash.
However, fragment 2 ii 47 discusses touching semen as well as clothes and ves-
sels in contact with it.
according to Baumgarten. While it is reasonable to supply ()
from Lev 15:33, none of the allusions are exact quotations, and I would
suggest the conjecture [ ] , which is enough to ll the
lacuna. Tis phrase would describe an active zav with language analo-
gous to the subsequent active menstruant ( ). For further dis-
cussion and an interpretation of the initial niddah blood, see below.
line 8
Te choice between Eisenman and Wises and Miliks is di-
cult; the former is followed by Wacholder and Abegg and Garca Martnez
and Tigchelaar, while Baumgarten and Milgrom follow the latter.
52
How-
ever, I think the remnants of the second letter belong to a rather than
an . What remains of the right stroke is long enough to suggest a straight
vertical line, which would be very exceptional in an ; hence the reading
(is considered, nipal ). Tis makes good sense if one follows Eisen-
man and Wise in inserting the preposition before . In view of the
diversity in size and shape of elsewhere in the fragment, the letter may
be tted in along the vertical crack in the leather. Te lack of any remain-
ing traces may be explained by this crack, which has caused a total erasure
of several letters on other lines as well.
For the next phrase, [ ] , I follow Baumgar-
tens modication in DJD 35 of Miliks reconstruction ( instead of
).
53
Although the phrase is another echo from Lev 15:32 (
), the semen emitter is introduced in Lev 15:16 as
. None of the three allusions to Lev 15:3233 in lines
78a are precise quotations, for example, is used rather than
the biblical . We should thus expect a pragmatic paraphrase of
the biblical expression when the semen emitter is introduced in this text.
Reconstructing furthermore causes problems of reference, since there
52
Eisenman and Wise, DSS Uncovered, 207; Wacholder and Abegg, Prelimi-
nary Edition, 80; Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:628; Mil-
grom, 4QTohora
a
, 59; Baumgarten, Laws about Fluxes, 2; idem, DJD 35:100.
53
Te latter is adopted by almost everyone else, except Eisenman and Wise,
whose conjecture is too long for the lacuna (DSS Uncovered, 207).
is no suitable person around.
54
Te phrase, however, introduces a new g-
ure, the semen emitter.
Although the following words are dierently reconstructed, most inter-
preters end up with similar translations. Te letter before the lacuna is
most probably a and to the left of the tear the extant is preceded by
a small dot at the bottom of the , which has been taken as a trace of a
preceding , and by the likely remains of the top of a . Tis makes Miliks
reconstruction ( [ ] ) plausible
55
and Baumgartens
unlikely ([ ] ).
56
Te syntax of Miliks suggestion is
not smooth (a conditional clause followed by a nominal clause) but pos-
sible. Te use of may be inspired by the introduction to the biblical
discharge laws (Lev 15:2).
line 9
Milgrom suggests ] instead of ] , which would eliminate the
ambiguity regarding whose purication period is in question and refer to
all these unclean ones. With ] the ambiguity remains, however.
Te reference could either be anyone who touches or a person from all
these unclean ones. It is preferable to keep the ambiguity and let the
context decide.
54
It cannot be the hypothetical one who touches blood or discharge, but must
either refer to the one who is counting or to the zav in line 7. Te latter has been
suggested by Milgrom (4QTohora
a
, 6667) as well as by Harrington (Impurity
Systems, 8687), and has caused undue speculation about whether the zav deles
only when he has had a semen emission. Milgrom even makes a major point of
this, understanding this surprisingly lenient rule as the second innovation of
the text. Tis discussion is unnecessary, however, if we supply , as pointed out
by Baumgarten (DJD 35:1023).
55
Cf. Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 80; Baumgarten, Laws
about Fluxes, 2. Miliks suggestion is also followed by Garca Martnez and
Tigchelaar (DSS Study Edition, 2:628). Milgroms reconstruction ignores the
and does not have enough letters to ll the lacuna.
56
Column ii
While only two letters remain on the rst line, the context from i 9
demands ]. Apart from this, the only remains of column ii are found
on line 2 ( or ) and line 7 ().
Discussion
According to Milgrom, the text of the fragment describes three cases, each
in which bathing and laundering is required after contact with a more
severe kind of impurity (lines 3, 45 and 89).
57
While I dier in details,
a general division in three main sections is practical (1 i 14a, 4b6, 79
& ii 1).
Baumgarten suggests that the referent in the rst section (i 14a) is a
zav, because of the mention of bed and seat, as well as the following con-
text. Te cry unclean, unclean (Lev 13:45) is extended from the metzora
to the zav, who is to be kept outside of the city and at a certain distance
from other impurity bearers.
58

Milgrom claims that the metzora is the subject, suggested by scriptural
allusions to Lev 13 and by the requirement to live separate from others.
59

He admits that the thought of pure food coming as close as twelve cubits
from a banished leper makes no sense when he is supposed to be ban-
ished from towns altogether. Also, the demand for lepers to dwell
north-west of habitations is thought to contradict the Temple Scroll explic-
itly, according to which lepers are assigned a special area east of the
Temple city, similarly to dischargers (zavim) and semen emitters (11QT
a

XLVI 1618).
60

Since Baumgarten thinks that all this refers to the zav, these objections
are less relevant to him. Nevertheless, with his reading at a distance of
twelve cubits from the purity when he speaks to him it is not clear who
is supposed to be speaking to whom (see note to line 2 above). And what
57
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 6568.
58
Baumgarten, Laws about Fluxes, 68; cf. DJD 35:8788, 1012.
59
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 61, 65. Not least the use of aiction () in
line 4, so frequently used in Lev 13 for symptoms of tzaraat, indicates that this is
about the leper.
60
Ibid., 6162.
is the point of stipulating a minimum distance to (pure food?)
during conversation?
I suggest that the text speaks of a purifying leper, i.e., what the rabbis
called a mittaher. It is not a matter of expelling a leper to an area east of
the city, as in the Temple Scroll. Tis text is about something entirely dif-
ferent; it gives instructions for how to handle a healed leper in the pre-
carious in-between state subsequent to the bird rite and initial shaving,
bathing and laundering, but prior to his nal shaving, bathing and laun-
dering on the seventh day and the asham and chattat sacrices on the
eighth day, i.e., during his seven-day purication period. Scripture rules
that he can enter the camp, but not his tent (Lev 14:8). A number of
unanswered details remain, however. For example, where is this person
supposed to stay? In lines 12 we learn that a purifying leper must no
longer come in contact with all the impure, nor yet come closer to what
is pure than twelve cubits.
61
He is not allowed into inhabited houses but
is allowed to sit in a separate place associated with penitential activity,
at this minimum distance from his house during the purifying period.
62
Te text provides important clarications as to the status and behav-
iour of the purifying leper. An interpretation of as a special
area, quarter or shelter associated with penitence, ts this general under-
standing, although even without it the instruction to live twelve cubits
from any ordinary dwelling-house ( ) speaks for itself. Scriptures
general requirement that the purifying leper should stay within the set-
tlement but out of his house is thus specied to a set distance. Te point
of alluding to Lev 13:46 ( ) is that this text provides an
argument for an interpretation that severely restricts the leper during
his purication period; in spite of being admitted into the camp he is
considered unclean all the days of his aiction, i.e., until the eighth day.
A similar concern with the status of the purifying leper is found in
4QMMT B 6472. In that text the focus is solely on preventing purify-
ing lepers from contact with what is pure, from entering their house and
61
It is possible that here as in some other texts found at Qumran refers
to pure food (cf. 1QS V 13; VI 16; VIII 17). It is, however, not certain, and I pre-
fer to leave the issue open, especially since it is not of crucial importance for my
argument.
62
We may note that in rabbinic idiom, the yoledet in her second stage impu-
rity is called a sitter ().
from eating holy things until sunset on the eighth day.
63
In 4Q274, con-
tinued contact with what is impure is considered just as problematic.
It is not clear, however, who the unclean people in line 1b are. Here we
nd the rst of three occurrences of the expression . While the
most immediate understanding would be the fully impure, this interpre-
tation ts the next occurrence (line 3) less well, where the expression
more likely refers to other purifying impurity bearers. In
lines 89 the reference is again ambiguous. We should not presuppose
absolute consistency, but the context will have to decide. In line 1b it is
reasonable to read the injunction to dwell separate from all the unclean to
mean that the purifying leper should avoid contact with any impurity
bearers, whether full or purifying.
However, the following reference in line 3 to any man of all the unclean
( ), can hardly refer to any impurity bearer if in who
touches him is supposed to refer to the purifying leper. Why would a
fully impure need to bathe after having touched a purifying person, in
order to eat? Such an interpretation seems very unlikely, suggesting a con-
text in which the fully impure were supposed to eat their food in purity.
Unless we propose a dierent reconstruction of line 3 (see comment to
line 3 above), we should understand as referring to any
of the other purifying impurity bearers discussed in this fragment. A puri-
fying zav, zavah, or menstruant is not supposed to touch a purifying
leper and if this happens the person touching must bathe and wash his
or her clothes before eating. Te rationale would be that being almost
pure, a purifying person would be supposed to eat food in relative purity.
At the same time, not yet being fully pure such a person would still trans-
mit a minor impurity by contact. Whith these presuppositions, one would
need to address the situation that is presented here. Te leper was gen-
erally considered to be the most severe case among the impurity bearers
mentioned in this fragment.
64
A similar logic is applied to the relative
impurity of purifying impurity bearers. Purifying zavim or menstruants
that are subsequently mentioned, are thus to be prevented from contact-
63
Cf. Martha Himmelfarb, Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,
DSD 8 (2001): 937 (2425).
64
Cf. the rabbinic hierarchies of impurity collected in m. Kel. 1. Milgrom also
assumes a hierarchy of impurities in 4Q274, with the eect that any impurity is
increased by contact with a stronger impurity, but he takes the text as referring to
the fully impure.
ing a purifying leper, lest their intermediate state be aected. While the
purifying leper is in an intermediate state, too, his impurity is slightly
higher than that of purifying dischargers.
In the following section (i 4b6), the woman discharging blood
( ) is discussed. Baumgarten and Milgrom agree that this refers to
the menstruant, pointing to the similar terminology in Lev 15:19.
65
Tis
may also be argued from the order in which various impurity bearers are
mentioned in the version of the Damascus Document represented by the
group of fragments 4Q266273.
66
In spite of the damaged text of 4Q266
6 iii, complemented by 4Q272 1 iii, which partly overlap, it is clear
that the leper
67
and the zav
68
are followed by the menstruant
69
and then
by the yoledet.
70
While this is persuasive the evidence is not conclusive.
Our text does not necessarily follow the same order, nor does it have the
65
Baumgarten, Laws about Fluxes, 5; Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 62. It is true
that the text of Lev 15:19 may be subdivided in dierent ways; it is possible to
read (and when a woman is discharging), followed by
(her discharge in her esh is blood). Tis cannot be the reading pre-
supposed by the text in 4Q274, however, since it keeps together and in
alluding to Lev 15:19.
66
Cf. Himmelfarb, Impurity and Sin, 1626. For overviews of the 4QD
documents and their relationship to the CD, see Charlotte Hempel, Te Damas-
cus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1; Sheeld: Sheeld Academic
Press, 2000); Cecilia Wassn, Women in the Damascus Document (Atlanta: SBL,
2005), 1944. For a recent new reconstruction and translation of these texts, see
Ben Zion Wacholder, Te New Damascus Document: Te Midrash on the Eschato-
logical Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary
(STDJ 56; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Wacholder understands the sequence of the
categories here to follow the order of the Temple Scroll (11QT
a
XLVIII 15). See
pp. 26974.
67
(in 4Q266 6 i 13); see 4Q266 6 i 113 and 4Q272 1 i 1ii 2.
68
(in 4Q266 6 i 14); see 4Q266 6 i 14 and 4Q272 1 ii 37.
69
] (in 4Q272 1 ii 8); see 4Q266 6 ii 14 and 4Q272 1 ii
717. It is possible to argue that the zavah is discussed between the menstruant
and the yoledet (4Q266 6 ii 2a4; cf. Himmelfarb, Impurity and Sin, 2021),
but this rather seems as an occasional case of irregular bleeding outside of normal
periods, included in the instructions about menstruants.
70
[ ] (in 4Q266 6 ii 5); see 4Q266 6 ii 513.
same focus.
71
Te expression might possibly include a zavah during her
seven-day purication period,
72
but since the purifying zavah is addressed
together with the purifying zav in the following section, the most prob-
able conclusion is that the menstruant is in focus in lines 46. During her
seven-day purication period, which begins at the onset of menstruation,
she is not allowed, according to the text, to touch any type of zav or zavah
impurity, since that would incur a more severe type of impurity. At the
same time, the purifying menstruant may not mingle with pure people
but must avoid contaminating them. Her intermediate state of impurity
is lower than that of other purifying dischargers, but she still contami-
nates the fully pure.
In the subsequent section (i 7ii 1) the purifying discharger, whether
zav or zavah, is specically addressed. Although the wording on several
points alludes to the summary in Lev 15:3233, it is clear that those in
focus here are purifying dischargers, or possibly any purifying impurity
bearer. One who counts may neither touch a zav, nor a zavah. However,
the prohibition is given a condition that may seem strange. Baumgarten
translates: unless she was puried of her [unclean]liness.
73
Milgroms
rendering is similar: unless she is puried from her me[nses].
74
But why
does anyone want to add unless she is puried? It should be self-evident
that a menstruant who is puried is no longer a menstruant, but clean,
and could thus be touched.
71
I.e., it does not provide general rules for impurity bearers, but special rules
for intermediate states of impurity.
72
In Lev 15:25 the latter is called , which
reminds of in line 6 of our text. At rst sight, then, the
two categories seem to be kept apart, but we should perhaps allow for the possi-
bility that could be used generically for all female dischargers, only that
it is supplemented by in line 6 to indicate an irregular condition. Te
phrase of line 4 could thus be taken to include a purifying
zavah during her seven-day purication period together with the menstruant.
From a perspective of graded impurity and purication the two share a similar
status; both are in a sort of in-between state. Te syntax of line 4 is ambiguous,
however, since the words may be taken together with the following
injunction not to touch; in Lev 15:19 these words most probably belong to what
follows.
73
74
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 60.
Although reconstructed in part, the reconstruction is supplied from
Lev 15:33 and close attention should be paid to the details of the text. In
the sentence [ ] the zav is not a purifying zav,
but an active discharger. Purifying people, purifying dischargers in par-
ticular, who count o their seven days before full purity, must not touch
an active zav, i.e., one who is still discharging an unclean emission. Such
a person is fully impure and should not be contacted by purifying people.
He will not begin his puricatory seven-day period until his discharge has
ceased. If the subsequent phrase ( ) is understood in analogy, it
would refer to a full or an active menstruant. Te menstruant diers,
however, from the zav, by entering her puricatory period immediately.
In what sense, then, could we envisage a menstruant that has not yet
begun to purify? Is there a dierence between a menstrual state of full
impurity and an intermediate one during the puricatory period?
In Samaritan halakah a clear dierence is made between nidd blood
and d
b blood. Te former refers to the initial bleeding, which is consid-

ered more virulent, and has to be washed o before the counting of days
can start. It contaminates with a seven-day impurity and continues to do
so if the woman does not wash. Te latter refers to continued bleeding
after washing and contaminates with a one-day impurity, i.e., one that
can be dealt with by bathing and waiting until evening.
75
While Samari-
tan texts as we have them are relatively late, there is reason to believe that
the halakah often has more ancient roots. During the Second Temple
period an initial rst day ablution for the corpse-impure, peeling o one
layer of impurity, is attested. Evidence for such a practice comes not only
from texts found at Qumran, but from a number of Jewish sources of
various origins. It is reected in Tobit and in Philo. Both Josephus and
the Gospel of John imply that people came to Jerusalem one week in
advance of Passover for purication, which ts with a requirement for an
additional rst day ablution.
76

75
Kitb at-T ubkh [215]; Kitb al-K XI [4860, 8487], XIII [1318], in
I. Ruairidh M. Bid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah (SJLA 38; Leiden: Brill,
1989), 141, 14951, 154. Cf. Bids comments, 198205, 231, 23536.
76
11QT
a
XLIX 1621; L 1316; 1QM XIV 23; 4Q414 2 ii, 3, 4, line 2;
Tobit 2:5, 9; Spec. Laws 1.261; 3.205206; Josephus, J.W. 6.290; John 11:55;
cf. 12:1. A rst day purication rite may even be implied in Ezek 44:2626.
Some of this evidence will be discussed in more detail below. For further discus-
sion and references to secondary literature, see Tomas Kazen, Concern, Custom
An additional rst day ablution made it possible for corpse-impure
people to remain within towns, even in the eyes of those following a strict
practice. Historical evidence suggests that menstruants were similarly
allowed within ordinary cities. While the Temple Scroll seems to include
them with other dischargers outside of settlements in general, Josephus
envisages menstruants within Jerusalem, although in some kind of seclu-
sion, which means that he cannot think of them as expelled from ordi-
nary towns. Rabbinic texts seem to exclude the menstruant from the
Temple mount only.
77
Tese pieces of evidence stretch over a long time
period and represent varying degrees of strictness, but for a historical pic-
ture of actual practice at the end of the Second Temple period, we must
in this case give priority to Josephus.
78
Without some kind of analogy to a
rst day ablution for the corpse-impure, the inclusion of menstruants
would have been an inconsistency. I suggest that 4Q274 attests to an ini-
tial puricatory practice similar to what is later attested in Samaritan
halakah, i.e., a rst day ablution for menstruants.
79
Te idea of some sort
and Common Sense: Handwashing and Graded Purication, in Jesus as Restora-
tion Prophet: Engaging the Work of E. P. Sanders (ed. Robert L. Webb and Mark
Goodacre; LNTS 372; New York: T&T Clark, 2011, forthcoming).
77
11QT
a
XLVIII 1417; Ant. 3.261; J.W. 5.227; Ag. Ap. 2.103; m. Kel. 1:8.
See below for further discussion of some of this evidence.
78
While Josephus is sometimes thought to talk of an ideal at the time of
Moses rather than reecting contemporary practice (E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law
from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies [London: SCM, 1990], 157; Hyam Mac-
coby, Ritual and Morality: Te Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism [Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 36), or to reect legal interpretations
of the aristocratic priesthood (Sanders, Jewish Law, 160), I am more inclined
to trust Josephus than the fairly utopian Temple Scroll or the schematic lists in
m. Kelim for actual practice. Although I have no problems in envisaging more
lenient practices, especially in ordinary towns and villages, Josephus probably
reects a general expansionist tendency that did not lack inuence and some-
times was able to set the agenda.
79
In Samaritan halakah we encounter a further peculiarity: the left hand used
for washing o the rst blood is seen to remain in a more virulent state of impu-
rity than other parts of the body, i.e., transmitting a seven-day impurity like the
rst blood (Kitb al-K XIII [1921, 2930] in Bid, Principles, 154). While
the context is one of childbirth, the text hasat least by somebeen understood
as a reference to a general principle regarding the hand used for washing o the
nidd blood (marginal note IV to the text, in Bid, Principles, 196). Cf. Bids
of initial purication for dischargers in addition to the corpse-impure has
been suggested both by Milgrom and Baumgarten and will be discussed
further below.
Since the purication period of the menstruant was counted from the
beginning of her bleeding, not from the end,
80
as in the case of the zav and
the zavah, it was only logical to assume that the initial bleeding had some-
how contaminated her with a seven-day impurity and that its contamina-
tion potential was higher than the bleeding during subsequent days. If so,
this bleeding needed to be removed. In 4Q274, purifying people are thus
warned not to touch a menstruant unless this initial purication has been
carried out.
81
Te juxtaposition with an active zav suggests an analogy,
which is made explicit in the motivation that follows: for behold, niddah
blood is considered like a discharge [to] the one touching it. While
the menstruant is below the zav and the zavah in an ordinary hierarchy
of graded impurities, the rst blood is an exception. To touch such a per-
son for one who is purifying, is just as contaminating as touching an
active zav.
In the following sentence the semen emitter is suddenly introduced.
Te comment is very short, only stating that when semen goes forth from
a man his touch is deling. One possible reason why the semen emitter
turns up at this point is that he, too, could be thought of as the bearer of
comments, 244, 281. Possibly, some similar notion may lay behind 4Q272 1 ii
17, where in a context of purication of zavah and menstrual impurity her
hand ( ) is mentioned. Te text is fragmentary, to say the least, and no deci-
sive reconstruction and interpretation is possible. Line 17 cannot, however, rea-
sonably refer to a general washing of hands (plural) as in the case of the zav, but
must be a special case, because her hand is mentioned in the singular.
80
In later rabbinic practice the seven days were added to the menstrual period.
Te beginning of this development can be seen in b. Nid. 66a. While this
increased stringency was neither self-evident, nor generally accepted in Talmudic
times, the menstruant in the end came to be equalled with the zavah gedolah. For
details, see Tirzah Meacham (leBeit Yoreh), An Abbreviated History of the
Development of the Jewish Menstrual Laws, in Women and Water: Menstruation
in Jewish Life and Law (ed. R. R. Wasserfall; Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University
Press, 1999), 2339 (2932); idem, Appendix in ibid., 25560 (25556).
81
Some similar understanding is possibly indicated by the translation of
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar: And the one who counts (ones seven days),
whether male or female, should not to[uch . . . ] . . . at the onset of her menstrua-
tion. Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 2:629.
an intermediate type of impurity, just like all the preceding categories.
4Q274 1 lists purifying lepers, the menstruant who begins her purica-
tion period at the onset of her menstruation when she washes o the rst
blood, zavim, whether male or female, during their period of purication
and, also, the semen emitter, whose impurity lasts for one or three days
only.
82

I do not think, however, that the purpose here is to discuss the semen
emitter as a new category. His case and the way he deles is discussed at
length in frg. 2 i. In the context of frg. 1, however, the semen emitter
should rather be understood as a complement to the two previously men-
tioned cases of unclean persons that must not be contacted by those in an
intermediate purifying status. Te semen emitter should in particular be
compared to the menstruant who has not yet puried herself from her
initial niddah bleeding. Te text states that one who is counting will be
just as deled by contact with a menstruant in her initial impurity as by
contact with an active zav, since the initial blood is just as contaminat-
ing as a discharge. Tis begs for one further question: what about the
semen emitter who does not require a seven-day purication period?
He is clearly below the other dischargers in a hierarchy of impurities.
Does he still dele a purifying person as much as the previous two cases?
Te answer is yes, he does.
It may be objected that in the previous cases people are warned not to
touch someone that might contaminate them, whereas in the case of the
semen emitter the perspective is reversed; the text explicitly talks of his
touch as deling. A reversibility is, however, implied for the purifying
82
According to biblical law, the semen emitter is impure for one day only
(Lev 15:1617). Te utopian Temple Scroll (11QT
a
XLV 78) prohibits the
semen emitter from entering the Temple area for three days. Te same time limit
applies to a man who had intercourse (XLV 1112), and concerns the whole
Temple city ( ). Tis extension of biblical law is probably based on
Exod 19:1015 and is modelled on ideas of the war camp. We cannot conclude
from this that semen emitters were generally considered impure for three days by
the circles responsible for this text, although this is possible. Cf. Harrington,
Impurity Systems, 9194; Werrett, Ritual Purity, 15659. In any case, the semen
emitter and the way he contaminates is elsewhere compared with or adapted to
the rules regarding the zav or the menstruant (4Q272 1 ii 45; 4Q274 2 i),
which makes Werrett suggest that the deling power of semen has been intensi-
ed beyond that of the Torah (ibid., 283).
leper, too, since he must keep at a distance, and the menstruant must
similarly avoid mixing with others that are more pure than she is. One
implication of our interpretation of the texts argument is that no distinc-
tion is made between touching and being touched. Although such
distinctions are sometimes resorted to in order to explain seeming dis-
crepancies in the text, this is not necessary.
83
To the rabbis, touching and
being touched was basically regarded the same,
84
which is best explained
as the result of an equalizing tendency in Second Temple Judaism, in
which systemic readings and interpretations were sought for.
85
While we
cannot and should not expect systemic consistency in all purity texts
found at Qumran, as they may be of diverse origin and reect an extended
period of development,
86
the equalling of touching and being touched is
likely a general development towards the end of the Second Temple period.
In the last part of the third section we nd another occurrence of
(lines 89). Here we have to decide whether
refers to the purifying or to the fully impure. Furthermore,
the ambiguous (line 9) could either refer back to anyone who
touches or to a person from all these unclean ones. We are faced with
four possible meanings: (1) Any person (a pure person) must not touch a
purifying impurity bearer during the latters period of purication; (2) A
purifying impurity bearer must not touch another purifying impurity
bearer during the latters period of purication; (3) A purifying impurity
bearer must not touch another purifying impurity bearer during the for-
mers period of purication; (4) A purifying impurity bearer must not
touch a fully impure during the formers period of purication.
Although the expression all the impure ( ) in lines 89 is
ambiguous, it is qualied with the demonstrative , reasonably iden-
tifying all the impure with those cases that were just discussed: the
active zav, the not-yet-purifying menstruant and the semen emitter.
Tis speaks for the fourth alternative. Te end of line 8 together with
line 9 summarize the third section, which addresses the one who counts.
Anyone who touches during his purication refers to the same category
that is introduced in line 7, i.e., purifying impurity bearers during their
83
Cf. Harrington, Impurity Systems, 86.
84
m. Zabim 5:1, 6.
85
Tomas Kazen, Explaining Discrepancies in the Purity Laws on Dis-
charges, RB 115 (2007): 34871 (35053).
86
Cf. Werrett, Ritual Purity, particularly the concluding discussion, 3024.
seven-day period, in particular purifying dischargers. Our interpretation
thus ts the structure of the text.
It is admittedly precarious to talk of a texts structure when dealing
with a fragment. We can only guess as to what preceded frg. 1. Fragment 2
i deals with purication, in particular cases of semen contamination.
Fragment 2 ii and 3 seem to be focused on impure foodstu. It has
become clear, however, that frg. 1 deals with various types of lessened or
intermediate states of impurity: the purifying leper, the menstruant, and
those who count, presumably purifying dischargers. Tese people must
avoid contact with that which is pure as well as that which is impure. Te
text implies a hierarchy also of intermediate impurities in which contact
must be avoided with impurities higher than ones own. Tis is in line
with the rst of the three innovative teachings claimed by Milgrom.
87
It is possible to argue that the real focus of each of the three sections in
the text is on purication and eating, i.e., on what Milgrom calls the
third innovation of this text. Te requirement to bathe and wash ones
clothes is repeated with regard to the one who touches a purifying leper,
the menstruant who touches a zav and a zavah, and any purifying person
who touches any of the three active categories in lines 78. People in an
intermediate state of purity are clearly expected to eat their food in some
sort of supposedly intermediate purity. To eat in purity is apparently the
primary, although not the sole, reason for the careful and detailed rules in
this text. Not deling the camps of the holy ones of Israel is one reason
for not mixing with pure people, but the warning against contracting fur-
ther impurity is motivated by the purity of food.
First-day Ablutions and Graded Impurity
In 4Q274 1 i 9, the prohibition against eating before initial purication
is compared to the rules for corpse-impure persons. As already mentioned,
an initial ablution for the corpse-impure seems to have been widely prac-
ticed during the Second Temple period and probably served the function
87
For Milgroms suggestions, see above under Previous Research. Cf. Milgrom,
4QTohora
a
, 66.
of allowing the corpse-impure to stay within settlements during their
puricatory period.
88
According to i 9, however, early purication had a further function for
the corpse-impure; it made it possible to eat food in purity. Since the text
of 4Q274 1 requires other purifying impurity bearers to bathe and wash
their clothes, too, when they had acquired a further impurity, in order to
be able to eat in purity, we might be justied to expect similar purica-
tory water rites as they entered their period of purication.
Several interpreters have suggested an understanding of impurity as
consisting of multiple layers that may be peeled away one by one
through various purication rites. Milgrom discussed a graded under-
standing of impurity in an early study on the Temple Scroll, with a view to
admission to and exclusion from the temple city and ordinary cities.
89
He
later repeated part of the study with a complement, this time with a focus
on early purication as a requirement for eating.
90
Milgrom nds his ear-
lier conclusions conrmed by 4Q514, which he claims deals exclusively
with the zb,
91
and suggests that he, too, was obliged to bathe and laun-
88
In a recent review of the archaeological evidence from miqvaot adjacent to
burial grounds, Yonatan Adler argues that these were not used for rst-day ablu-
tions in cases of a seven-day corpse impurity, but for mourners that had con-
tracted a one-day impurity from contact with other corpse-impure people. Adler
somewhat confusingly talks of a rst-degree and second-degree impurity for a
seven-day and a one-day corpse impurity respectively, in spite of the fact that in
rabbinic terminology as well as in modern scholarly discourse, a numbering of
degrees or removes is often employed for one-day impurities only, and not
including the fathers of impurity. While Adler may be right that these miqvaot
were (also) used by many mourners who had contracted a one-day rather than a
seven-day impurity, he simply omits or disregards the full range of textual evi-
dence relevant to the Second Temple period, in his dismissal of a rst-day immer-
sion as a merely sectarian phenomenon. Yonatan Adler, Ritual Baths Adjacent
to Tombs: An Analysis of the Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic
Sources, JSJ 40 (2009): 5573.
89
Jacob Milgrom, Studies in the Temple Scroll, JBL 97 (1978): 50123
(51218).
90
Jacob Milgrom, First Day Ablutions in Qumran, in Te Madrid Qumran
Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Madrid
1821 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ
11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 56170.
91
Ibid., 566.
der his clothes at the beginning of his purication in order to eat,
although not yet the pure food, but the common food of the community.
Tis would have been done in emulation of the leper (Lev 14) and tak-
ing Lev 22 (prohibiting the eating of sacred foods in a state of impurity)
as a precedent.
92
Baumgarten has similarly dealt with the issue. In a study of 4Q512 and
4Q514 he suggests that at least the latter text indicates that dischargers
were supposed to begin their purication in order to eat non-sacred food
in purity. Immersion was required before meals even during a persons
period of impurity in order to remove the primary degree of ritual
uncleanliness.
93

In DJD 35, Esther Eshel suggests that the mention of the rst, third
and seventh days in 4Q414 2 ii, 3, 4, line 2, reveals the same outlook as
11QT
a
regarding immersion on the rst day, but she argues that 4Q414
might deal with other types of impurities than corpse impurity.
94
It is reasonable to follow Milgrom and suggest that a graded under-
standing of impurity, including a rst day ablution for corpse impurity, in
part developed from the biblical legislation concerning the leper.
95

According to Lev 14, the purifying leper goes through three stages: the
bird rite followed by washing of clothes, shaving and bathing on the rst
day, a second shaving, washing of clothes and bathing on the seventh day
and, nally, sacrices together with the rite of smearing oil and blood on
the former leper on the eighth day. Tese stages were recognized by the
Rabbis and dened and associated with corresponding grades of impurity
92
See also Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 96976, 9911000, for further discus-
sion about rst day ablutions and intermediate levels of impurity.
93
Joseph M. Baumgarten, Te Purication Rituals in DJD 7, in Te Dead
Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10;
Leiden: Brill, 1992), 199209 (208).
94
Eshel, DJD 35:13553.
95
Cf. Tobit, who enters his courtyard but sleeps outside of his house after
having contracted corpse-impurity and subsequently undergone a rst day ablu-
tion (Tob 2:9), similarly to the purifying leper in our interpretation of 4Q274.
Manuscript evidence exhibit a number of variant readings here, perhaps due to
varying halakic practices; cf. Bid, Principles, 32122.
(m. Neg. 14:23).
96
Tey are then said to be similar to three stages of puri-
cation for the yoledet.
It is also reasonable to see a graded understanding of impurity and
purication as a general framework towards the end of the Second Tem-
ple period.
97
Such a framework may explain why the corpse-impure are
not expected to stay outside of settlements according to a number of texts
from the Second temple period that otherwise assume or require the expul-
sion not only of lepers, but also of dischargers, in line with the strict tra-
dition of Num 5:23. In Ant. 3.261, Josephus makes a dierence between
lepers and zavim on the one hand whom Moses expelled ()
from the city (i.e., Jerusalem), and menstruants and the corpse-impure on
the other, whom he set aside () until day seven after which they
were allowed to live in their place ().
98
Philo, when discussing
purication after contact with a corpse, suggests that while the corpse-
impure were excluded from the temple for seven days, mere bathing and
washing of clothes suced for other purposes (Spec. Laws 1.261; 3.205
206). Even the Temple Scroll that takes a maximalist stance and excludes
the corpse-impure from the Temple city ( ) for the whole period
(11QT
a
XLV 17),
99
does not require their expulsion from ordinary cities,
96
I.e., (impurity of entry), (impurity like a swarmer),
and (tevul yom). Te third stage is then further specied: after shaving
and immersing on the seventh day the purifying leper may eat second tithe,
after sundown he may eat terumah and after the nal sacrice he may eat
qodashim.
97
Cf. Eyal Regev, Pure Individualism: Te Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in
Ancient Judaism, JSJ 31 (2000): 176202 (17786). Regev talks of gradual
purication (179).
98
While it is true that could be taken to mean remove from one
place to another, Josephus elsewhere expresses a dierence between lepers and
dischargers, for whom the whole city was closed, and menstruants, who were
only excluded () from the temple ( J.W. 5.227). Also, in Ag. Ap.
2.103 he says that women could not enter the outer court during menstruation.
99
Although in 11QT
a
XLV 1518 only the zav is explicitly said to have to
count seven days before entering the Temple city, the subsequent instructions
concerning the leper and the corpse-impure ( ) must
be understood as abbreviated and implying the same requirements as those apply-
ing to the zav. Te phrase cannot be taken to mean that only a rst day ablution
was needed for entrance, since for the leper, the concluding sacrice is said to
follow the act of purication (11QT
a
XLVIII 18); it must thus refer to the full
but allows them within, after a rst day ablution, which is described as
part of the standard procedures (11QT
a
XLIX 1621).
100
Although the
Temple Scroll is partly utopian, it is not a sectarian text; it represents ideals
that belonged to a wider expansionist tendency.
101
Later, the rabbis of the
Mishnah seemingly think of the corpse-impure as even allowed within the
court of gentiles (m. Kel. 1:8). Here, we must reckon with a rst day ablu-
tion, lessening the power of corpse impurity, as taken for granted, just as
such a rite may explain the presence of the corpse-impure person within
the ordinary city of the stricter Temple Scroll.
Tus there is every reason to regard a rst day water rite for the corpse-
impure as common practice at the end of the Second Temple period. Tis
rite did not shorten the duration of their seven-day impurity, but some-
how lessened its strength. Without it, the presence of corpse-impure peo-
ple would be an anomaly in any context that otherwise followed the strict
tradition of Num 5 with regard to zavim and lepers, since they are the
third category that should be expelled from the camp. Josephus is not
alone in placing zavim together with lepers outside, while the corpse-
impure are envisaged within; the Temple Scroll does so, too, although not
for Jerusalem, as in Josephus, but with regard to the ordinary city (11QT
a

XLVIII 1417).
102
seven day ritual. Tere are a number of competing interpretations of the temple
city and the problem partly depends on how the temple area was dened by vari-
ous groups and at various times. Te outline of ten degrees of holiness in the land
of Israel that is attested later (m. Kel. 1:69) suggests a complicated development.
100
Cf. 11QT
a
L 1016; 1QM XIV 23.
101
Cf. Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 88, 9293.
102
Te text of 11QT
a
XLVIII 1417 is admittedly ambiguous. Te preposi-
tion may point to the presence of both lepers and dischargers within ordinary
cities ( ), but this cannot be the case for lepers, since the purpose
of making special places for them is to prevent them from entering the cities and
deling them ( ). In every city must hence
include the surrounding country. Te purpose with a similar treatment ( ) of
male and female dischargers, menstruants and parturients is, however, to prevent
them from deling in their midst ( ). Tis could possibly
mean that these dischargers were supposed to be secluded within settlements, but
the most natural reading is that they, too, were supposed to stay outside.
First day Ablutions for Dischargers
Josephus dierentiation between lepers and zavim on the one hand and
menstruants and the corpse-impure on the other is signicant.
103
It does
t with suggestions about an initial rst day water rite not only for the
corpse-impure but also for purifying dischargers, at least for menstruants.
I am inclined to include the yoledet here as well; she is in many respects
likened to the menstruant in biblical as well as in rabbinic legislation, and
her stages of purication are likened to those of the mittaher (purifying
leper), which include a rst day ablution (m. Neg. 14:23). Since a
homogenizing tendency is at work towards the end of the Second Temple
period, we might even expect all impurity bearers with a similar (seven-
day) contamination potency, i.e., all those counting, to have been
treated alike.
Tis seems to be implied in the fragment 4Q514 1 i, referred to both
by Milgrom and Baumgarten:
1 . . . [. . .] a woman [. . .] 2 he must not eat [. . .] for all the im[pu]re
[. . .] 3 to count for [him seven days of ablu]tions; and he shall bathe
and wash (his clothes) on the d[a]y of [his] purication [. . . And]
4 who[ever] has not begun to purify himself of his spri[ng] is not to
eat, [nor shall he eat] 5 in his original impurity. And all the temporar-
ily impure, on the day of their pur]ication, shall bathe 6 and wash
(their clothes) in water and they will be pure. Blank Afterwards, they
shall eat their bread in conformity with the regulation of [pu]rity.
7 He is not to eat insolently in his original impurity, whoever has not
started to cleanse himself from his spring, 8 nor shall he eat any
more during his original impurity. All the temporarily [im]pure, on
the day of 9 their pu[rication,] shall bathe and wash (their clothes)
in water and they will be pure and afterwards they shall eat their
bread 10 in conformity with the reg[ulation. No-]one is to [e]at or
drink with anyo[ne] who prepares 11 [. . .] . . . in the [ser]vice [. . .]
104
103
Cf. Vered Noam, Impurity and Sanctity in Josephus and in Rabbinic
Halakhah: Te Exclusion of Impure Persons from Holy Precincts. Paper pre-
sented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Boston, November 2225, 2008.
104
Translation in Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar DSS Study Edition, 2:1043,
1998 ed. In the 2000 rev. ed. original is replaced by primary in lines 5 and 7,
Te text is repetitive and one may suspect extensive dittography.
105

According to Milgrom, the rst day ablution allows the person to eat
from the common food of the community.
106
Tere is some uncertainty
as to the interpretation of the text, however. While the temporally
impure ( ) refer to purifying impurity bearers during their
seven day purication period (including dischargers), and the original
impurity ( ) of which a person must begin to purify
himself before eating must refer to the beginning of the seven day puri-
cation period, bathing takes place on the day of his/their purication
(/ ). Te meaning of this phrase is unclear; does it refer to the
rst or the nal day of the puricatory process? Since washing and eating
are linked here as in many texts found at Qumran, it is plausible to take
the day of purication as the rst day of the seven-day period, not least
in view of this texts emphasis on beginning purication.
107

It is best to understand the one who has not begun to purify from his
spring as a semen emitter,
108
who is distinct from all the temporally
impure ( ).
109
Te text seems to address two categories; both
semen emitters and every other purifying impurity bearer (which includes
purifying dischargers in general) must undergo an initial rst day ablu-
tion before they can eat. It may be necessary to specify this, since semen
emitters are lower in the hierarchy of impurities than other dischargers.
Te text is thus evidence for an initial puricatory rite for dischargers
in general, to enable them to eat in some intermediate state of purity
although not in line 8. Te variation between begun and started (lines 4 and
7) for in both editions is inconsistent.
105
Baumgarten, Purication Rituals, 204.
106
Milgrom, 4QTohora
a
, 67.
107
It might be possible to understand the initial purication that is necessary
for the temporally impure in order not to eat in their original impurity as some-
thing else than a rst day water rite (but what would it be then?), separate from a
bathing on the the day of purication. Tis seems too far-fetched, however.
108
Te term (source, spring) is elsewhere found in the war camp reg-
ulations of the War Scroll (1QM VII 6) and denitely alludes to Deut 23:911,
which prohibits a semen emitter from staying inside the war camp. Te allusion
is certain since the subsequent line (VII 7) about the location of latrines corre-
sponds to the following verses (23:1214) in Deuteronomy.
109
In biblical legislation, is used with regard to the menstruant and the
yoledet, but not for irregular bleeding (Lev 12:7; 20:18). Similarly, the term is
used positively for the source of male seed in Prov 5:18.
during their seven-day puricatory period, and most probably this is what is
referred to as bathing and laundering on the day of his/their purication.
With 4Q514 in mind we can return to 4Q274 1. In both texts dis-
chargers are particularly in focus and in both texts the special case of the
semen emitter is deemed necessary to address separately. While the point
in 4Q514 is that purifying people must bathe at the beginning of their
period of purication in order to eat, 4Q274 1 states that such people
must also bathe during their period of purication, if they happen to con-
tact someone with a higher degree of impurity, in order to eat. Tis is said
to be similar to what applies to the corpse-impure (i 9) and it is dicult
to believe that the comparison is valid only for bathing during ones purif-
icatory period and not at the beginning.
Moreover, the phrase whoever has not begun to purify himself from
his spring ( ) in 4Q514 1 i 4, 7 is somewhat
comparable to the phrase unless she is pure from her niddah bleeding
( [] ) in 4Q274 1 i 7. Te former explicitly refers to an
initial purication of the semen emitter.
110
I have argued that the latter
refers to an initial purication of the menstruant. One is relative and the
other conditional, but their intent is similar: purication () from ()
contamination by semen and niddah blood respectively. A parallel reading
of 4Q514 1 i thus supports my interpretation of 4Q274 1 i.
Baumgarten has argued for a general use of purication water
( ) in Qumran, not only for removing corpse impurity but for all
sorts of impurities.
111
He refers to 4Q277 1 ii 89, where the sprinkling
of purication water is said to eect purication from corpse impurity
and any other impurity, which is followed by a discussion of the zav
(lines 1012).
112
Te translation any other impurity is uncertain, how-
ever, due to the fragmentary state of the text ([. . . ] ) and
although Baumgarten suggests that it is the sprinkling that eects puri-
cation from corpse-impurity and other impurities, an alternative reading
would be that other impurities must be removed by immersion before
110
Cf. the use of the same verb ( hi.) for the beginning of penitential
prayers belonging to the initial stage of the purifying leper in 4Q274 1 i 1.
111
Baumgarten, DJD 35:8387. Tis text is repeated in Te Use of
for General Purication, in Te Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Teir Discovery:
Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiman,
E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 48185.
112
sprinkling can eect purication from corpse impurity. Another piece of
evidence is 4Q512 13, where sprinkling water is envisaged on the tem-
porarily impure, which would include all sorts of purifying impurity
bearers, but here the term is not used. Baumgarten also refers to
4Q284 1, where sprinkling water for purication ( [] )
113

is followed by seminal discharge on the next line.
114
A similar juxtaposi-
tion is found in 4Q274 2 i, where a rst sprinkling (possibly on the third
day?) and the seventh day are mentioned, followed by a discussion of
semen emission.
115

None of these texts are, however, unambiguous enough to conclude
with any degree of certainty that the was used for dischargers, and
they do not refer particularly to an initial rst-day water rite.
116
Together
with other, stronger evidence, however, they do suggest an expansion of
ritual washing to new uses not known in the Hebrew Bible.
117

Conclusions
In this article I have argued that the text of 4Q274 1 does not discuss
contact between impure people in general, but primarily deals with puri-
fying people in intermediate states of impurity, and their contact with
what is clean and unclean. Te text presupposes a graded understanding
of impurity and reects the ambition to prevent people who are lower on
the scale from contacting people who are subject to a higher degree of
impurity. Te text is thus evidence for developing hierarchies of impuri-
ties. I have given special attention to the status of the menstruant and
suggested that the text expects her initial impurity to be mitigated by a
113
Ibid., 84. Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar reconstruct [ ]
(DSS Study Edition, 2:638). In fact, in this phrase, only six letters are clearly visi-
ble in the fragment ( . . . . . . ), but is a likely conjecture although the
remains are minimal.
114
115
Cf. Baumgarten, DJD 35:104.
116
Tis is even less the case with the list in 1QS III 45, which Baumgarten
understands as indicating that sprinkling was used not only for corpse impurity.
Tis passage may be read as thoroughly metaphorical, emphasizing that no pos-
sible puricatory rite can ever purify the wicked man.
117
Cf. Lawrence, Washing in Water, 189.
rst day puricatory water rite, analogous to the biblical rule for purify-
ing lepers and the developing practice of a rst day ablution for the
corpse-impure.
I have argued that the referent in the rst section is the purifying
leper rather than the zav and that the penitential note suits such an
interpretation well. Te reason for the strict rules against contacting him
is the biblical statement that he remains unclean all the days the aiction
is on him.
I have also tried to demonstrate that the zav in i 7 is not to be under-
stood as a surprisingly lenient case, only deling if/when he has a semen
emission, but that the semen emitter in i 8 is a dierent case from the zav
and that the point of the argument is that all threethe active zav, the
menstruant before she has washed o her initial niddah blood, and the
semen emittercontaminate any purifying impurity bearer alike.
Tere is convincing evidence that a rst-day ablution for corpse impu-
rity developed and became wide-spread practice during the Second Tem-
ple period. As has been pointed out before, this rite should be understood
as mitigating the status of the corpse-impure, which explains the accep-
tance of such people within settlements and even within Jerusalem (except
for the views of the stricter Temple Scroll ). In view of Josephus accounts
and their relationship to the strict tradition in Num 5, it would be logical
to expect a similar rst-day water rite for menstruants; it could almost be
seen as a systemic necessity. Some scholars have argued that certain texts
from Qumran suggest that the use of water rites for the corpse-impure
were being extended to dischargers. In particular, 4Q514 gives evidence
for a rst day ablution being employed for all purifying impurity bearers,
i.e., not only lepers and the corpse-impure, but also various types of
dischargers. I have suggested that this is not a sectarian development only,
but that the menstruant (and probably the yoledet as well) employed a
rst-day water rite in order to lessen her initial state of impurity and that
this represents a developing expansionist practice during the Second Tem-
ple period. It is attested in 4Q274 1 i 78, as I read it, and the date and
character of the text give no reason for restricting this practice to a narrow
sectarian environment only. Whether the practice of a rst-day ablution
was being extended to all purifying dischargers (as suggested in 4Q514)
also outside of sectarian circles, may remain an open question.
When the developing practise of initial purication in general is con-
sidered, it is usually related to questions of inclusion within and exclusion
from society. Te relevant texts from Qumran, however, have a dierent
focus on eating in purity. Te requirement even for purifying people to eat
common food in relative purity seems to be particular for the type of
expansionist trajectory that nds expression in these texts, but a preoccu-
pation with pure food is found elsewhere, too, in Second Temple society.
Te rabbinic solutions of tevul yom and hand-washing for secondary
impurities, which presumably go back to Pharisaic developments, serve a
similar function, and express increasing aspirations for purity not only
among small circles of associates, but in larger segments of Second
Temple society.
118
Te extension of rst-day ablutions for initial purica-
tion, rst to corpse-impure people and then to dischargers, not only in
sectarian circles, but to some extent in other parts of society, thus served
double purposes: social integration and eating in purity. A graded under-
standing of impurity not only caused halakic elaboration, but also pro-
vided solutions.
118
Kazen, Concern, Custom and Common Sense, forthcoming.
A New Suggestion for the Reconstruction of
4Q370 1 i 2 and the Blessing of the Most High
(Elyon) in Second Temple Judaism
1
Alex P. Jassen
Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies, 216 Pillsbury Dr SE, 245 Nicholson Hall,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
jassen@umn.edu
Abstract
Tis article oers a new suggestion for restoring a lacuna in the Dead Sea Scroll
manuscript 4Q370 (Admonition Based on the Flood) and discusses its implica-
tions for the liturgical blessing of God in the Second Temple period. Te rst
two lines of 4Q370 recount the expectation of human gratitude for the antedilu-
vian agricultural abundance described in the text. Paraphrasing Deut 8:10,
4Q370 exhorts humans to eat, be sated, and bless. Te extant text provides part
of the direct object of the blessingthe name of . . .followed by a short
lacuna. Based on paleographic and comparative literary evidence, this article pro-
poses that the lacuna should be reconstructed with the divine name Most High
(). Tis paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 is part of a larger tradition of
exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10 in Second Temple period post-meal
thanksgiving prayers, in which the divine epithet Most High () replaces the
Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing.
Keywords
4Q370, Deuteronomy 8:10, Names of God, Most High God, Jewish Liturgy,
Grace after Meals
1
A version of this article was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the
Association for Jewish Studies (Washington D.C.). Tank you to all those in
attendance for their helpful feedback. Several colleagues were instrumental in
lending their wisdom to this project either in answering queries or reading earlier
drafts. Tank you to Aryeh Amihay, Moshe Bernstein, Raanan Boustan, Uri
Ehlrich, Ariel Feldman, Bernard Levinson, Stefan Reif, Avi Shmidman, Jerey
Stackert, and James VanderKam. I had occasion to view the manuscript of
A. P. Jassen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 88113 89
1. Introduction
4Q370 is a fragmentary text that contains a retelling of portions of the
biblical ood story, with particular emphasis on the reasons for the ood.
2

Te text asserts that God created the world in a state of agricultural
bounty.
3
In order for humans to enjoy this abundance, God required that
they properly acknowledge its divine origins through thanksgiving and
blessing. As the text continues, 4Q370 narrates how humans failed to ful-
ll this one obligation, but rather rebelled against God and were therefore
punished with the ood.
4
4Q370 while in Jerusalem in January 2009. Tank you to the sta of the Israel
Antiquities Authority for their helpful assistance and for making available to me
the digital images that appear in the article. All errors or shortcoming of course
remain my own. Hebrew Bible translations follow NJPS unless otherwise noted.
2
4Q370 is represented by one fragment with two columns. For the editio
princeps, see Carol A. Newsom, 4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood,
RevQ 13/4952 (1988): 2343 (hereafter Newsom, 4Q370); eadem, 370.
4QAdmonition Based on the Flood, in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts,
Part 2 (ed. Magen Broshi et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 8597
(hereafter Newsom, 4QAdmonition). Recent discussion of this text has focused
on its exegetical elements (while often improving at places Newsoms
reconstruction): Ariel Feldman Te Reworking of the Biblical Flood Story in
4Q370, Henoch 29 (2007): 3149 = Miqra ve-aggada be-qeta tokhah a
me-qumran (4Q370), Meghillot 56 (2007; Dimant Volume): 21936; Dorothy
M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies
in Antiquity (SBLEJL 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 14448;
Alex P. Jassen, Admonition Based on the Flood (4Q370), in Outside the Bible:
Ancient Jewish Writings Not Included in Scripture (ed. Louis Feldman, James
Kugel, and Lawrence Schiman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society;
forthcoming). A second fragment containing only the word Israel can be
detected on the PAM photographs (43.369). Feldman, however, argues that this
fragment likely does not come from the same manuscript as the larger fragment
of 4Q370 (Reworking, 3132).
3
Te description of the ideal antediluvian conditions draws upon a passage in
the Hymn to the Creator (11QPs
a
XXVI 13). See Newsom, 4Q370, 3031;
Feldman, Reworking, 3334.
4
Te second column draws upon this historical experience to admonish its
audience to remain steadfastly obedient to God. On the relationship between the
agricultural bounty and the human rebellion (and its relationship to related
rabbinic traditions), see Newsom, 4Q370, 3233.
90 A. P. Jassen / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 88113
Tis article focuses on the rst two lines of the text, which recount the
expectation of human gratitude for the antediluvian agricultural abun-
dance. Paraphrasing Deut 8:10, 4Q370 exhorts humans to eat, be sated,
and bless. Te extant text provides part of the direct object of the bless-
ingthe name of . . .followed by a short lacuna. Based on paleo-
graphic and comparative literary evidence, I propose that the lacuna
should be reconstructed with the divine name Most High (). I fur-
ther argue that the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 is part of a larger
tradition of exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10 in Second Temple
period postmeal thanksgiving prayers, in which the divine epithet Most
High () replaces the Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing.
2. Te Lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 12
Te divine imperative to humans to bless God on account of the agricul-
tural abundance they have enjoyed is expressed in 4Q370 1 i 12:
[ ] []

Te rst part of this expression is easily rendered as: Let all who do my
will eat and be satised, said the L[o]rd.
5
In the second half of the con-
struction, God demands blessing following human satiety. Te extant text
provides part of the direct object of the blessing. Unfortunately, a
lacuna is found directly after the reference to the name, with little indi-
cation how to complete the clause. Since is most likely denite (on
account of the preceding ), it must be the nomen regens of a construct
phrase.
6
Te physical evidence of the manuscript is frustratingly opaque regard-
ing the reconstruction of the lacuna. Tere is a very small ink trace imme-
diately following the lacuna, though little can be discerned regarding the
letter that it represents. Accordingly, scholars have been forced to rely
5
Newsom, 4Q370, 28; eadem, 4QAdmonition, 91.
6
Te manuscript contains a relatively signicant amount of blank space after
, thus precluding the option of adding a possessive sux (e.g., ). Te use
of nonnal mem at the end of the word is not uncommon in Qumran
orthography. See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reected in the
Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 23034. 4Q370
is inconsistent in its use of nonnal and nal mem.
upon context and appeal to related expressions in biblical and Second
Temple literature in order to provide the nomen rectum of .
Commentators on this text have noted that the entire construction
represents a reformulation of Deut 8:10:

When you have eaten your ll, give thanks (lit. bless) to the Lord
your God for the good land which He has given you.
Te three main verbs from the biblical verse are reused in 4Q370 in the
same sequence: to eatto be satedto bless.
7
4Q370 reuses language
from Deut 8:10 in order to create an equivalency between the land of
Israel and Earth at the time of creation. Te preceding verses in Deuter-
onomy praise the abundant natural resources of the land of Israel, just as
4Q370 describes the Earth at creation. In both cases, failure to acknowl-
edge Gods municence results in removal of humans from the location
of the agricultural bounty. For Deuteronomy, it is exile, while for 4Q370
it is the ood. In Deuteronomy, the way to avoid this outcome is blessing
the Lord your God. 4Q370, while closely paraphrasing the three verbs
of Deut 8:10, clearly does not retain this locution as the object of the
blessing. As already indicated, the manuscript contains as the direct
object. Te lacuna, moreover, does not contain enough space to supple-
ment with .
8
In light of these textual and exegetical issues,
4Q370 must be understood as an exegetical reformulation of Deut 8:10.
Unfortunately, reconstruction of the most signicant exegetical modica-
tion is hindered by the lacuna.
3. Te Common Suggestion
In the editio princeps, Carol Newsom oered the following reconstruc-
tion: [] , my [holy] name.
9
Tis reading has been subsequently
7
See Newsom, 4Q370, 32; eadem, 4QAdmonition, 93; Feldman,
Reworking, 3536.
8
No signicant variants exist for Deut 8:10 in the ancient versions that would
suggest an alternate reconstruction. Deut 8:10 is partially extant in ve Qumran
Deuteronomy manuscripts, all of which seem to correspond to MT (4QDeut
e
3
ii + 5 9; 4QDeut
f
46 1112; 4QDeut
j
V 1011; 4QDeut
n
I 78; 5QDeut
a
II 4).
9
Newsom, 4Q370, 2627; eadem, 4QAdmonition, 91.
adopted by Florentino Garca Martnez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar,
Michael Wise, Geza Vermes, and Ariel Feldman.
10
In presenting this res-
toration, Newsom noted that it is not supported by the physical features
of the manuscript. Indeed, she observes that the head of the yod would be
rather low. Newsom suggests that the restoration is schematic and
based on the frequent occurrence of this phrase in biblical literature.
11
As
the preceding discussion has demonstrated, Newsom was clearly correct
in looking for some common Hebrew expression to ll the lacuna. Te
suggested reconstruction, while working well with as a biblical idiom,
lacks contextual coherence within the larger clause. Te construct phrase
in this text functions as the direct object of the human blessing. Tus, we
should be looking for a clause referring to the divine name with as the
nomen regens and the entire construct chain as the direct object of the ver-
bal root .
12
Moreover, we must understand how 4Q370 functions as a reformula-
tion of Deut 8:10 and the requirement to oer thanksgiving to God for
consumption. In later rabbinic tradition, this biblical verse is the source
for the commandment to recite the Birkat Hammazon (Grace after
10
Florentino Garca Martnez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Te Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 19971998), 2:732; Michael Wise, Martin
Abegg Jr., Edward Cook, Te Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2d ed.; San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 419; Geza Vermes, Te Complete Dead
Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 2004), 551; Feldman, Reworking, 35.
11
Newsom, 4Q370, 2627; eadem, 4QAdmonition, 91. She notes that
the locution occurs twenty-one times in biblical Hebrew.
12
Tough not mentioned by Newsom, there are some supporting comparative
texts that refer to the blessing of Gods holy name. See Pr Azar 30; 4Q408 3+3a
9; 4Q409 1 i 7; 11Q14 1 ii 4 (though, see further discussion below); cf. 4Q504
XX 56 (12 vii recto 56; is reconstructed here). See also the Geez text of
Jub. 25:12, which blesses the holy name of the Lord God. Te divine title
Most High God, however, is found in the immediately preceding portion of
the blessing likewise as the object of blessing (see below for v. 11). Te Hebrew
of Jub. 25:12 is fragmentary and the reference to the divine name is lost in the
lacuna (4Q222 [4QJub
g
] 1 5). Based on the length of the lacuna, James
VanderKam recommends against restoring with the Geez and thus reconstructs
the pertinent text as ] . See James C. VanderKam,
4QJubilees
g
, in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold
Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 92. See also 4Q403 1 i 24,
which identies the seventh of the chiefs as blessing the holy ones in the name
of his holiness.
Meals).
13
It is unlikely that a similar formal prayer existed in the Second
Temple period. At the same time, our evidence suggests that already in
the Second Temple period Jews were reciting an informal grace after meals
and several sources contain close parallels in language and structure to the
later formalized text of the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon.
14
Indeed, in
4Q370 humans are obliged to bless God on account of the abundant
resources they can consume freely. Tus, it is likely that the reconstruc-
tion of the lacuna in 4Q370 contains overlaps with the language of the
grace after mealswhether in its informal Second Temple versions or
later formalized rabbinic versionand its relationship to Deut 8:10.
15
13
Mek. Bo Pish a 16; y. Ber. 7:2 11a; Meg. 4:1 74d; b. Ber. 21a, 48b.
14
Josephus reports that the Essenes praise God before and after meals (War
2.131). Two Qumran Deuteronomy manuscripts contain (along with other
passages) excerpts from Deut 8:510 (4QDeut
j,n
), which likely served a liturgical
purpose for the prayer after meals. See discussion in Moshe Weinfeld, Grace
after Meals in Qumran, JBL 111 (1992): 42740 (at 42829). Tese manuscripts
further suggest that the source for this practice was traced to Deut 8:10 (in
addition to the evidence from 4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 discussed here). For parallel
language and structure see Jub. 22:69; Sir 36:1214, 1719; 4Q434 2; Did. 10,
with discussion in Louis Finkelstein, Te Birkat Ha-Mazon, JQR 19 (1929):
21162; K. Hruby, La Birkat Ha-Mazon, in Mlanges liturgiques oerts au R.
Dom Bernard Botte O.S.B. (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont Csar, 1972), 20522;
Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (StJ 9; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1977), 11522; Weinfeld, ibid., esp. 43637.
15
Tere is some additional possible support for Newsoms reconstruction
following this criterion. Scholars have long suggested that the prayer for
thanksgiving in Did. 10 contains signicant overlaps with the structure and
language of the rabbinic Grace after Meals. In v. 2, God is thanked for allowing
your holy name ( ) to dwell in our hearts. Te reference
to Gods holy name in this prayer is suggestive. However, the name itself is not
the direct object of blessing. Indeed, the main thrust of the passage is that the name,
understood as an allusion to God himself, dwells in the community (see Kurt
Niederwimmer, Te Didache: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998], 156). Some rabbinic formulations of the second blessing of the Birkat
Hammazon refer to the blessing of Gods holy name as an application of Deut 8:10.
For example, the medieval Seder H ibbur Berakot formulation:
(Abraham I. Schechter, Studies in Jewish Liturgy Based on a Unique
Manuscript Entitled Seder H ibbur Berakot [Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1930],
92). See also similar formulations in Mah zor Turin: and ms
Mah zor Romania: (Finkelstein, Birkat Ha-Mazon, 251).
4. A New Suggestion
Tis article argues that the lacuna should be supplemented with the divine
name . Tus, the entire second half of the clause should be rendered
as [] , and let them bless the name of [the Most
Hig]h.
16
Tis reconstruction works within the physical space of the
lacuna and contains some (slender) support from the slight ink trace fol-
lowing the lacuna. Most importantly, this suggestion has greater support
of contextual Second Temple literary evidence, particularly in the two cri-
teria I outlined in the previous section.
5.1. Te Physical Evidence
As noted above, the manuscript contains a blank space immediately fol-
lowing . Two issues regarding the proposed reconstruction must be
considered with regard to the physical evidence: (1) the length of the
lacuna and its relationship to the reconstruction of the lacuna in line 1;
(2) the trace remains of the nal letter that I am suggesting is a nal nun.
5.2. Te Length of the Lacuna
Comparison with the length of word dividers throughout the manuscript
suggests that the next word after would begin at the immediate begin-
ning of the lacuna. Te lacuna itself is approximately 7 mm.
17
Unfortu-
nately, letter spacing throughout the manuscript is uneven so it is dicult
16
It should be noted that this reconstruction requires that God (the speaker
in this line) refer to himself in the third person. As I will demonstrate below,
however, the language of line 2 represents a common understanding and
reformulation of Deut 8:10. Tus, 4Q370 has mapped this application of Deut
8:10 onto its own exegetical reformulation of the preood narrative (which
recounts the rst person divine speech).
17
Tis measurement spans from where the manuscript breaks o following
to the ink trace to the immediate left of the lacuna. Note that the prelacuna
and postlacuna content of line 2 do not line up perfectly. Te misalignment is
also present in lines 1 and 3, though less pronounced. Elsewhere in the
manuscript, the scribe maintains relatively straight lines and thus this
misalignment is likely the result of contraction and/or distortion of the leather
due to the large lacuna.
to know with certainty how many letters should be restored. Comparison
of the length of the lacuna with other letters and words on the manuscript
allows for between 45 letter spaces in the lacuna, depending on the
width of the proposed letters (including the nal letter that is almost
entirely in the lacuna).
Tis suggestion is conrmed by the reconstruction proposed for line 1.
As noted above, line 1 draws upon language from the Hymn to the Cre-
ator (11QPs
a
XXVI 13).
18
Tus, Newsom reconstructs the rst part of the
line as ] , corresponding to in the
Hymn. 4Q370 continues by adding a verb () not found in the Hymn,
before which Newsom reconstructs a conjunctive waw: [
( = Hymn: {}).
19
Newsoms reconstruction accounts
well for the limitations of space and the techniques of 4Q370s reformu-
lation of the language of the Hymn.
20
Te addition of the verb
18
See above, n. 3.
19
Te simple perfect is reconstructed here on account of the perfect form for
the next verb (line 1: ).
20
See Newsom, 4Q370, 3031; Jassen, Admonition Based on the Flood.
Figure 1: Te Lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 12 (PAM 43.369)
requires the reconstructed waw and thus does not leave enough space for
the plural as in the Hymn.
Te precision of the reconstruction in line 1 is helpful for determining
the possible letter spaces in line 2. Te nun of ] is almost directly
above the mem of . Te following waw (which is nearly entirely in the
lacuna) and the beginning of the bet therefore corresponds to the word
divider following . Te trace remains of the nal letter on line 2 line
up with the pe of [ from line 1. Tus, the portion of the lacuna in
line 1 that corresponds with the lacuna in line 2 evinces three full letters
(he, waw, in), one partial letter (bet), and one word dividerapproxi-
mately 45 letter spaces.
Analysis of the length of the lacuna in line 2 cannot tell us what should
be restored in the lacuna. It can, however, provide an approximate guide
for the length of any proposed word. Te physical length of the lacuna
and the corresponding evidence of the reconstructed lacuna in line 1 sug-
gest that the lacuna in line 2 contains approximately 45 letters spaces.
Te length of the lacuna would therefore permit my suggested reconstruc-
tion. also contains three letters of smaller width ( yod, waw, nal nun)
that would more easily facilitate the reconstruction of a ve-letter word in
the lacuna.
5.3. Te Final Letter as a Final Nun
Te nal letter is preserved only as a slight ink trace. Indeed, it is
extremely dicult to decipher this letter (or even any of its paleographic
features) with any degree of certainty and thus even more dicult to
build an argument based on such trace remains. As Newsom notes, how-
ever, her reconstruction of a yod is slightly problematic since it places the
upper stroke of the yod too low. My restoration deciphers this letter as a
nal nun. While the rest of the manuscript displays inconsistency in the
use of nonnal and nal mem, it is entirely consistent in using the nal
nun in last position rather than a nonnal nun.
21
Tus, a nal nun appears
in col. 1, line 6 (), line 7 (), line 8 (), and col. 2, line 1 ():
In particular, the expression good food ( ) in the Hymn to the Creator
is reformulated, such that in 4Q370 each of these words appears in a separate
clause with its own verb of divine action.
21
It is also consistent for the other nonnal and nal forms. For inconsistent
use of nal and nonnal mem, see, e.g., (in 1 i 2), (in 1 i 4).
4Q370 1 ii 1 4Q370 1 i 8 4Q370 1 i 7 4Q370 1 i 6
Figure 2: Te Final Nuns in 4Q370 (PAM 43.369)
Comparison of the ink trace in line 2 with these forms provides some
paleographic support for my reconstruction. In all cases, the nal nun is
represented by three strokes. Te middle horizontal stroke, which curves
very slightly upward to the left, is located near the middle point of the
line as compared to the surrounding letters in each example in column
one.
22
Te upper stroke moves straight upward from the left side of the
middle stroke and the lower stroke moves downward also relatively
straight from the right side of the middle stroke. Te extant ink trace in
line 2, unfortunately, preserves none of the manuscript that would con-
tain either the upper or lower stroke. I am suggesting that the minimal
ink trace represents the extreme left portion of the horizontal middle
stroke of the nal nun. Te place of the ink trace directly at the middle
point relative to the following letter (waw) is consistent with the place-
ment of the middle stroke in the other occurrences of the nal nun.
As in the discussion of the length of the lacuna, the slender paleo-
graphic evidence cannot denitively identify the word as ; indeed, it
cannot even denitively identify the letter as a nal nun. It does, however,
indicate the nal nun is a possible reading and ts the ink trace better
than the previously suggested yod. Te paleographic evidence taken
together with the proposed length of the lacuna makes the reconstruction
22
Te nal nun in 1 ii 1 () is slightly problematic both because of the poor
condition of the manuscript here and the fact that the following letter is a waw,
which is written at the upper portion of the line. Te middle stroke of the nal
nun, however, does seem to be near the center point of the preceding waw.
Comparison with the mem of provides more explicit evidence of this
paleographic feature. Only a slight trace of the upper stroke of the nal nun of
in 1 i 7 is preserved.
a reasonable possibility. Ultimately, however, the physical evidence is
lacking and the strength of my argument rests on the comparative literary
evidence, to which I now turn.
6.1. Te Larger Literary Context I: in Second Temple Hymns and
Prayers
Te divine name appear 35 times in the Hebrew Bible, either alone
or in combination with other divine names (most commonly ).
23

Te term is found in Second Temple literature as one of the most com-
mon divine epithets, whether in Hebrew or its Aramaic () or Greek
() equivalents.
24
It can also appear together with the divine name
23
Te biblical uses seem to employ the designation as an adjectival honoric
description of God. For discussion of the biblical and nonbiblical comparative
Semitic evidence, see E. E. Elnes and D. Miller, Elyon , in Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter
W. van der Horst; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 29399.
24
Bibliography on this divine epithet in Second Temple literature is
voluminous. See Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Mnchen: Beck, 1924), 1:99100;
G. Bertram, , in Teological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard
Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; 9 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19641976),
8:61420; F. Schubert, El ljn als Gottesname im Jubilenbuch, Mitteilungen
und Beitrge. Forschungsstelle Judentum an der Teologischen Fakultt Leipzig 8
(1994): 318; Christfried Bttrich, Gottesprdikationen im Jubilenbuch, in
Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 22141; Robert C. T. Hayward, El Elyon and
the Divine Names in Ben Sira, in Ben Siras God: Proceedings of the International
Ben Sira Conference: DurhamUshaw College 2001 (ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel;
BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 18098; James K. Aitken, Te God of
the pre-Maccabees: Designations of the Divine in the Early Hellenistic Period,
in Te God of Israel (ed. Robert Gordon; Cambridge: University of Cambridge,
2007), 24666 (at 26465); Richard Bauckham, Te Most High God and the
Nature of Early Jewish Monotheism, in Israels God and Rebeccas Children:
Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. David B.
Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller; Waco: Baylor
University Press, 2007), 3953, 37886; Moshe J. Bernstein, Divine Titles and
Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon, JBL 128 (2009): 291310.
or , following biblical precedent.
25
Unlike the biblical examples,
however, the Second Temple period use reects the growing employment
of the designation as a proper name for God. Two particular closely
related features of its use in Second Temple Judaism are helpful for our
purposes: (1) in hymns and prayers in general, often as the object of
human praise; (2) more specically, as the object of blessing in prayer. In
both categories, the divine epithet often appears in a construct phrase as
the nomen rectum of .
26
6.2. in Hymns and Prayers in General
In the rst class, // is employed as a divine epithet in
hymns and prayers.
27
In particular, it is the object of human praise in
these hymns and prayers. In several instances, the divine epithet is further
distinguished as Gods name. Te exegetical basis for this use in Second
Temple literature can be traced to Pss 7:18 (
), 9:3 ( ) and 92:2 )
). In each Psalm, the object of human praise is
either your name, O Most High (Psalms 9, 92) or the name of the
Lord Most High (Psalm 7). In the original theological context of the
Psalms, praise of Gods name most likely indicates praise of Gods
actions.
28
Moreover, commentators have observed that in each case the
See also the tabulation of the uses of this term in R. H. Charles, Te Book of
Jubilees, in Te Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (ed.
R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:67 n. 16. A more recent
catalog of the use the title in ancient Jewish literature is found in Bauckham,
Te Most High God, 5153.
25
On the use of and the cult of Teos Hypsistos in the wider
Mediterranean world (and possible connections to the Jewish use), see Martin
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1981), 298; Stephen
Mitchell, Te Cult of Teos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians,
in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (ed. P. Athanassiadi and Michael Frede;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 81148; Bauckham, Te Most High God, 42.
26
See Hayward, El Elyon, for fuller discussion of the range of applications
of this divine epithet in Ben Sira and related Second Temple literature.
27
See further Hayward, El Elyon, 18283.
28
See A. A. Anderson, Te Book of Psalms: Volume I (NCBC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 175.
object of the praise is YHWH, with therefore in apposition.
29
For
later readers, particularly in the Second Temple period when use of the
Tetragrammaton was limited, these verses provided a literary formulation
for the object of human praise of Godthe name Most High (
)with as a proper noun designating YHWH.
30
Furthermore,
the poetic parallelism of these verses indicates that singing to the Most
High is commensurate with exulting (Ps 9:3) and thanking (Pss 7:18;
92:2) YHWH.
In the Second Temple period, several prayers and hymns contain
or as the object of praise. For example, the name is found in
several places in the Apocryphal Psalms of the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll.
Tus, 11QPs
a
XVIII 1 (Syriac Psalm II) reads: []
, [Bind] your souls with the good ones and with the
pure ones to glorify the Most High.
31
An additional reference to praising
the Most High is found later in the same psalm:
, And a man who glories the Most High he accepts as one
who brings a meal oering (11QPs
a
XVIII 78).
32
Similarly, the Most
High is praised in the nal stanza of the Apostrophe to Zion:
, Be exalted, and spread wide, O
Zion; praise the Most High, thy savior: let my soul be glad in thy glory
(11QPs
a
XXII 1415).
33
Similarly, in Ben Siras praise of David, among the many honoric
descriptions of David we are told:
[ ], with his every deed he oered thanks; to God Most High,
[with words of g]lory (Sir 47:8).
34
Robert Hayward has also identied
29
See, e.g., Craig A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Psalms (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), 2:284.
30
Hayward, El Elyon, 181.
31
Text and translation following James A. Sanders, Te Psalms Scroll of
Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs
a
) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 6465 (with the
typo on [missing nal nun] corrected). Te rst word is reconstructed based
on the Syriac text.
32
Te use of this divine title in connection with cultic aspects is found
elsewhere in Second Temple literature (see, e.g., Sir 7:9; 34:19; 3 Macc 1:9). See
further Hayward, El Elyon, 19395; Bauckham, Te Most High God, 45.
33
Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 8788.
34
Te Hebrew is extant in ms B and here follows Pancratius C. Beentjes, Te
Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 84. Te restoration
examples in the Septuagints additions to the Psalms where is
introduced specically with praise and thanksgiving of God. In MT Ps
13:6 the psalmist exclaims: I will sing to the Lord, for he has been good
to me. Te corresponding Septuagint translation (Ps 12:6) adds: I will
sing a psalm to the Name () of the Lord Most High (
).
35
Te prominence of this use of / in Apocryphal
Psalms, Septuagint to the Psalms, and in Ben Siras description of David
is based in the understanding of the Psalms verses discussed above
(Pss 7:18; 9:3; 92:2).
36
For Second Temple period writers, David was
understood to be the author of the Psalms. Tus, the Second Temple
period psalmic compositions represent Davids continuing literary pro-
duction, following the compositional technique of the scriptural Psalms.
37

For our purposes, the Second Temple period psalmic references attest to
the developing use of or as the object of praise.
6.3. as the Object of Blessing in Prayers
Within the larger use of and as the object of human praise
in Second Temple literature, several texts employ the divine epithet as the
object of blessing in thanksgiving and praise of God. In these texts, the
divine name is the direct object of the verbal root . Moreover, several
of these examples contain the fuller designation of the divine epithet as
follows the suggestion of Moshe Z. Segal, Sefer ben Sira ha-Shalem [Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute, 1958], 324, based on the Greek text for 47:8b (
). Segal, however, rendered in the singular. I restore the plural
following the Syriac, which makes better sense with the extant Hebrew
text. Te translation of 47:8a follows Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di
Lella, Te Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 522.
Note as well that the Greek has (the Holy One Most High) rather
than the expected (see Hayward, El Elyon, 182).
35
Hayward, El Elyon, 183 n. 11. See also his discussion of LXX to Pss 45:7;
65:4 (ibid.).
36
See also Sir 17:27: Who in the netherworld can glorify the Most High in
the place of the living who oer their praise. No Hebrew is preserved for this
verse.
37
Note as well that the description of Davids literary activity in the Cave 11
Psalms Scroll (11QPs
a
XXVII 211) attributes his entire oeuvre to prophecy
granted by the Most High ( ).
.
38
Tis particular locution and its use in blessings to God is
especially helpful in providing a larger literary context for the related
expression in 4Q370. Like the more general use of as the object of
praise in Second Temple literature, the name as the direct object of
human blessing can similarly be traced to a scriptural basis. Gen 14:1920
narrates the blessing bestowed upon Abram by Melchizedek, who is iden-
tied as a priest of . Melchizedek blesses Abram by (v. 19:
) and then blesses directly (v. 20:
).
39
Several examples from Second Temple period texts follow this model.
Jubilees 25:1112 (4Q222 [4QJub
g
] I 37) recounts the beginning of
Rebeccas blessing of Jacob. After lifting up her hands toward the heavens,
the text reports: ]
[, she opened her mouth, and blessed the most high God,
c[reator of heaven and earth. She gave to him than]ks and praise ( Jub.
25:11 = 4Q222 I 45).
40
Te divine epithet as the object of blessing is
clearly borrowed from Gen 14:19, while the description of the blessing
as thanksgiving seems to be based on Ps 92:2. In the transcript of the
Rebeccas blessing that follows, she blesses the Lord God and his name
(line 5). Te use of two dierent divine names here indicates that the
38
Te blessing of Gods name in general is a widespread development in the
Second Temple period, within which the specic blessing of should be
located. On the general evidence, see Avi Hurvitz, Ben lashon le-lashon: le-toledot
leshon ha-Miqra bime bayit sheni (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972), 96100. On the
blessing of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see also Eileen Schuller, Some
Observations on Blessings of God in Texts from Qumran, in Of Scribes and
Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian
Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed.
Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Tomas H. Tobin; Lanham: University
Press of America, 1990), 13343. Schuller classies the blessing of the name as
subcategory of the blessing of God in Second Temple Judaism (ibid., 134 n. 6).
39
Te prepositional lamed in v. 19 should be understood as a lamed of agency.
See Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 11.2.10g (p. 210).
40
VanderKam, 4QJubilees
g
, 8990. Te initial ayin before is clearly a
scribal error, as indicated by the correction marks. On the reconstruction of ]
, see VanderKam, ibid., 91. Te lacuna does not contain enough space
for the reconstruction of the full text represented in the Geez (who had created
the heavens and the earth).
appearance of is not merely the result of its frequent appearance
in Jubilees.
41
Rather, the narrator has aligned Rebeccas blessing of the
Lord God with the blessing and praise of as found in Genesis
and Psalms.
42
Te Genesis Apocryphon contains several similar examples. While the
Aramaic equivalent appears several times in this text (2:4; 2:6
[recons.]; 6:9, 24; 10:18), all the relevant examples of blessing the divine
epithet preserve the Hebrew original . For example, 1QapGen
22:1516 contains an Aramaic rendering of Melchizedeks blessing in
Gen 14:1920. Following the translation technique of this portion of the
Apocryphon, the text here follows the Hebrew closely with minimal exe-
getical amplication.
43
Two further examples provide better evidence for
the independent compositional technique of the author of the Genesis
Apocryphon. 1QapGen 12:17 contains a narrative expansion based on the
reference to Noah planting a vineyard and drinking its wine in Gen
9:2021. Te Apocryphon recounts how Noah oers thanksgiving to
41
In the Ethiopic text of the Jubilees, the Geez equivalent of (amlk
leul ) appears twenty times. Most High (leul ) also appears four times preceded
by the Geez equivalent of the Tetragrammaton (egziabh r). Tis enumeration
follows the tabulation provided by James C. VanderKam in Bernstein, Divine
Titles, 303 n. 39 (Schubert, El ljn, 3, lists only fourteen occurrences of
). For the additional Qumran evidence, see 4Q219 II 21 = Jub. 21:20;
4Q219 II 32 = Jub. 21:25 (only [ ); and 4Q221 1 5 = Jub. 21:23. In all cases,
the Geez text matches the Hebrew original.
42
Tere may be one additional example in Jub. 22:27 (not preserved in
Hebrew). Tis verse contains Abrahams praise of the Most High God who
took him from Ur of the Chaldees and gave him the land in order that I should
possess it forever and raise up holy descendents. Te uncertainty centers on the
subject of the main verb of the following clause: yetbrak, may it (masc., sg.) be
blessed. Full discussion of the manuscript variants and translation issues can be
found in James C. VanderKam, Te Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 510
511; SA 8788; 2 vols.; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 2:13334. Several early
translators rely on some manuscript evidence that inserts leul (Most High)
immediately following the verb. Tus, the object of the blessing would be the
Most High God (see VanderKam, ibid., for the dierent ways this understanding
is rendered in translation). VanderKam, however, follows the more common
manuscript tradition that lacks leul. He understands the subject of yetbrak as
Abrahams descendents (zar, seedsg., masc.), producing the translation so
that they may be blessed forever.
43
See Bernstein, Divine Titles, 302.
God at the altar in celebration of the cultivation of the wine from his
vineyard in the fourth year. Te text of the Apocryphon does not render
any material directly from Genesis, but rather introduces this new narra-
tive element in order to make Noah conform to the laws of harvesting a
vineyard in Lev 19:2325.
44
Noahs blessing contains three divine titles as
direct objects: , And I was
blessing the Lord of Heaven, God Most High, the Great Holy One. Te
biblical is here accompanied by two nonbiblical Second Temple
period divine epithets.
45
Tus, continued to be employed as the
object of blessing alongside newly introduced divine epithets.
Te nal example from the Apocryphon further illustrates the promi-
nence of as the object of blessing in independent compositions
from the Second Temple period. 1QapGen 20:1213 narrates Abrams
plea to God for assistance in rescuing Sarai, material not found in the
scriptural account. Abram initiates his request with a blessing to God:
, Blessed (are) you, O God Most
High, my Lord for all ages.
46
One nal example from a narrative text is the blessing that was
expected to be recited by the (high?) priest over the eschatological com-
munity following the nal defeat of the Kittim and victory in the escha-
tological war. Tis blessing is preserved in 11Q14 (Sefer ha-Milh amah)
1 ii 25.
47
(2) and he shall bless them in the name of [the God of (3) I]srael, and
he shall begin to speak[ and say ] Israel, blessed be y[ou] (4) in the
44
See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Te Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20):
A Commentary (BibOr 18/B; 3d ed.; Rome: Ponticio Instituto Biblico, 2004),
162. See also the introduction of this law into the postood narrative in
Jub. 7:3637, where the fruit of the fourth year is accounted as acceptable before
the Most High God.
45
Bernstein, Divine Titles, 29899.
46
Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 1001. See also Fitzmyers discussion (p. 201)
of the translation of as my Lord. Most other commentators render it as a
construct noun. Fitzmyer notes that this word only appears in the sux form
throughout the Genesis Apocryphon.
47
See Florentino Garca Martnez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Adam S. van der
Woude (eds.), Qumran Cave 11.II (11Q218, 11Q2031) (DJD 23; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998), 24647. Tis passages overlaps with 4Q285 8 13 (though
the reference to is not preserved in 4Q285).
name of God Most High ( ) [ ] and blessed be [his] holy
name ([ ] ) (5) for ever and ever.
Te formula follows the twofold structure of Melchizedeks blessing in
Gen 14:1920. Te priest rst blesses Israel by the name of the Most
High God, similar to Melchizedeks blessing of Abram by (v. 19).
Just as Melchizedek continues by blessing directly, the priest in
11Q14 proceeds to bless Gods holy name. Te name here is certainly
to be understood as , which was identied explicitly as the name
in the previous clause. Melchizedeks twofold blessing has been modied
in 11Q14 and transposed to an eschatological context. Most important
for our purposes is the introduction of the designation name with the
use of in a blessing formulation.
Te examples furnished thus far all come from narrativeseither the
voice of the narrator or blessings placed in the mouth of characters. A
nal example provides evidence for the blessing of the divine epithet in
an actual Second Temple period liturgical composition.
48
4Q291 (4QWork
Containing Prayers A) is extremely fragmentary and it is therefore dicult
to identify its genre with certainty. Te extant remains, however, suggest
that it is a prayer and the poetic style has led its editor Bilhah Nitzan to
propose that it is a psalm of praise.
49
Fragment 1, following Nitzans
understanding of the manuscript, contains a call for blessing the Lord
and the liturgical blessing itself.
50
Te call for blessing God is expressed
in line 3 as: ] , to bless the name of God the Most
Hig[h.
51
Te call for blessing is then followed in line 5 with the liturgical
blessing formula:
]
] , Blessed are You God[.
52
Unfortu-
nately, the lacuna intervenes before the liturgical formula is completed. If
the liturgical blessing follows the language of the call for blessing expressed
earlier, it is likely that line 5 should be supplemented with . While
48
On this category, see more generally Schuller, Observations, 13442.
49
Bilhah Nitzan, 4Q291. 4QWork Containing Prayers A, in Qumran Cave
4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. Esther Chazon et al.; DJD 29;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 10.
50
Ibid.
51
It is unclear what should be restored immediately prior to (if anything).
Nitzan (p. 11) notes that the slight traces may yield the word . In this case, the
clause may allude to Ps 47:3.
52
Nitzan, ibid. Te supralinear is written in a later scribal hand, though it
is not clear why a correction was warranted.
4Q291 is extremely fragmentary and opaque, it does contain several ele-
ments that are helpful for our larger understanding of the liturgical func-
tion of the divine epithet as the object of blessing in the Second
Temple period. 4Q291 preserves a rsthand Second Temple liturgical for-
mulation that alludes to the blessing of the divine name . In particu-
lar, the liturgical formulation further singles out the blessing as directed at
the name.
Te examples provided here demonstrate the important function of the
divine epithet as the object of human blessing in Second Temple
period liturgical formulations.
53
To be sure, is not the only divine
name employed in such benedictory formulations. Te Tetragrammaton
is regularly found as well as additional biblical and postbiblical divine epi-
thets. , however, is chosen in several instances where no biblical prec-
edent is followed. Tus, the Second Temple period writers chose
from among the many divine epithets to serve as the direct object of the
human blessing of God.
54
As already suggested, this locution is based on
the blessing of in Gen 14:1920. Te several examples of this
phenomenon in narrative texts are further reinforced by one example
from an actual Second Temple liturgical formulation. Here, in particular,
it is the name that is singled out as the object of blessing.
7.1. Te Larger Literary Context II: in Second Temple Period
Tanksgiving Prayers after Meals
In the preceding section, I examined the use of as an object of praise
and blessing in Second Temple period hymns and prayers, following the
rst criterion I outlined for identifying the larger literary context of
4Q370 1 i 12. As suggested above, the second criterion for the larger
literary context is to explore similar locutions in the formulation of
thanksgiving prayers after meals in Second Temple period literature. To
be sure, the examples that follow are really part of the same class of
53
See also the related passages where blesses humans: Sir 50:21; Jdt
13:18; Jub. 22:13, 19; 36:16 (cf. Bauckham, Te Most High God, 45).
54
See also the rst-century c.e. inscription from Gorgippia in the Bosphorus
that refers to the manumission of a slave. It opens with:
, To the Most High God, Almighty, blessed. Text and
analysis in Lee I. Levine, Te Ancient Synagogue: Te First Tousand Years (2d ed.;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 122 (read for Levines
).
hymnic/liturgical texts treated in the previous section. I have singled them
out, however, because their more narrow use in a prayer of thanksgiving
following a meal corresponds more closely to the literary context of
4Q370. As I have already noted, several Second Temple period texts
allude to the articulation of a prayer of thanksgiving following the con-
sumption of a meal. Only a few texts, however, preserve any portion of
the actual liturgical formulation.
55
7.2. Jubilees 22:69
Jubilees 22:69 recounts Abrahams articulation of a thanksgiving prayer
following his celebration of the feast of the rstfruits with his family. In
this prayer, Abraham blesses God for the food he has enjoyed. Te for-
mula in which Jubilees narrates Abrahams blessing is similar to Rebeccas
blessing of Jacob discussed above. Tus, we are rst provided with a nar-
rative summary of the blessing, which is then followed by a transcript of
the blessing. Te narrator reports that:
He ate and drank. And he blessed the Most High God (amlk leul )
who created the heavens and the earth, who made all the fat things of
the earth, and gave them to mankind to eat, drink, and bless their
Creator. (22:6)
56
While the description here is expressed in the words of the narrator, it is
likely that this formulation is intended to replicate the content of the
rst part of Abrahams blessing.
57
Tus, it serves as the rst section of
Abrahams tripartite thanksgiving prayer after eating. In Abrahams
thanksgiving blessing, the direct object of the blessing is the Most High
God (amlk leul = ).
58
55
In addition to the texts treated here, see also Did. 10. Sirach 36:1214,
1719, though not a prayer of thanksgiving, contains several parallels with the
language and themes of the third blessing of the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon. For
further discussion of the prerabbinic texts, see bibliography above, n. 14.
56
Translation of the Geez text of Jubilees follows VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:128.
Te Hebrew is not extant for this passage. Te preserved Latin corresponds to
the Geez (see VanderKam, ibid., 345).
57
See Finkelstein, Birkat Ha-Mazon, 21819; Huub van de Sandt and
David Flusser, Te Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and
Christianity (CRINT 3.5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 317.
58
Te second and third sections of Abrahams prayer refer to God as my
Tere are several elements in Jub. 22:6 that suggest an exegetical refor-
mulation of Deut 8:10. Jubilees underscores how God provided humans
with all the bounty (fat things) of the earth for consumption.
59
Jubilees
22:6b describes a three-step process that God expects of humans as a con-
dition of their enjoyment of the bounty from God: eatingdrinking
blessing. Te consonance of two of these three elements with Deut 8:10
suggests that Jubilees has reformulated Deut 8:10 in order to express the
requirement for humans to oer a blessing of thanksgiving following a meal.
60

Tus Jub. 22:6a represents Abraham fullling this precise injunction.
7.3. 4Q434 (4QBarkhi Nafshi
a
) 2 911
4Q434 2 (4QBarkhi Nafshi
a
) similarly preserves a Second Temple period
formulation of a thanksgiving prayer after meals. Unlike the narrative
framework of Jub. 22, 4Q434 2 likely represents an actual liturgical for-
mulation. Moshe Weinfeld has argued that this fragment contains several
thematic and linguistic parallels with the rabbinic Grace after Meals (Bir-
kat Hammazon) recited in a mourners house.
61
In the years since Wein-
feld rst made this claim, several scholars have voiced opposition, though
with minimal discussion of the basis for such opposition.
62
More recently,
God (vv. 7, 9). Te use of Most High God as the object of blessing in the rst
section therefore seems to be deliberate rather than the result of its common
occurrence throughout Jubilees (as also in Rebeccas blessing treated above).
59
Tis emphasis in the rst blessing in Jubilees corresponds further to the later
rabbinic Birkat Hammazon, in which the rst blessing praises God for providing
food for humans (Birkat Hazzan).
60
Why the second component is drinking rather than satiety is not clear.
No evidence of textual corruption exists. Te most likely explanation is that the
author (mistakenly?) continued eating with its common word pair drinking,
thereby diverting from the exact paraphrase of Deut 8:10.
61
Weinfeld, Grace after Meals. See also idem and D. Seely, Barkhi Nafshi,
in DJD 29:27981. For the rabbinic Grace after Meals for a mourners house, see
b. Ber. 46b.
62
See, for example, Lawrence H. Schiman, Jerusalem in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, in Te Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Poorthuis
and Ch. Safrai; Kampen: Pharos, 1996), 7388 (at 74); Daniel K. Falk, Daily,
Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill,
1998), 217 n. 1; Stefan C. Reif, Te Second Temple Period, Qumran Research,
and Rabbinic Liturgy: Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons, in
Avi Shmidman has called into question Weinfelds identication of
4Q434 2 as a grace after meals for a mourner, while at the same time sup-
porting the identication of the general textual and thematic overlaps
with the rabbinic Birkat Hammazon. Shmidman notes that the theme of
consolation in 4Q434 2 1, 6 that Weinfeld identied as distinctive of the
mourners Birkat Hammazon is likewise prescribed in rabbinic literature
for the Sabbath Birkat Hammazon (b. Ber. 48b) and indeed, several medi-
eval versions attest to this liturgical practice.
63
Tus, even if this fragment
is not necessarily a mourners grace after meals, there is much evidence to
support its identication as an early version of a postmeal thanksgiving
prayer.
Several references to blessing God are found in the fragmentary remains
of lines 911. Line 9 preserves the initial language of a blessing, though
the direct object of the blessing is lost in the lacuna: , I will
bless. Line 11 also contains the fragmentary ][, ]bless[. Te most
important of these references, however, is found in line 10: ] [,
]Blessed be the name of the Most Hig[h. As in several examples treated
earlier, the direct object of the blessing is a construct phrase with as
the nomen regens and the divine epithet as the nomen rectum.
8. Deut 8:10 and the Blessing of in Second Temple Period
Tanksgiving Prayers
Te foregoing discussion has sought to outline the evidence for the wide-
spread praise and blessing of in Second Temple period hymns and
Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceeding
of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 1923 January, 2000 (ed. Esther G. Chazon;
STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13339 (at 140).
63
Avi Shmidman, A Note Regarding the Liturgical Function of DSS
Document 4Q434a, Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 5 (2008): 1522.
Moreover, like the Sabbath themes of consolation that focus on Jerusalem,
4Q434 2 1 does not refer to the individual mourner but rather also Jerusalem
(see Weinfeld, Grace after Meals, 433). Shmidman further notes the evidence
from y. Ber. 1:5 3d (as understood by Louis Ginzberg) that there may have also
existed a weekday Birkat Hammazon that similarly incorporated the theme of
consolation.
liturgy, within which I have suggested we should also classify its proposed
function in 4Q370 1 i 2. Te use of in 4Q370s paraphrase of Deut
8:10, however, raises a critical question: why does replace the scrip-
tural Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing in 4Q370? If, as I have
suggested, Jub. 22:6 is also a paraphrase of Deut 8:10, the same question
should be asked of Jubilees. Te solution lies in a closer analysis of the
reformulation of Deut 8:10 in both these texts.
4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 each contain several linguistic and thematic simi-
larities with Deut 8:10. 4Q370 paraphrases the three main verbal ele-
ments in Deut 8:10 and transposes the description of the divinely granted
bountiful land (of Israel) to the similarly divinely granted bountiful Earth
at the time of creation. Just as humans are expected to bless God after
enjoying the bounty of the land in Deuteronomy, in 4Q370 they are
obliged to bless God after enjoying the bounty of the Earth. Jubilees 22:6
similarly contains two of the three verbal elements from Deut 8:10eat-
ing and blessing. Like 4Q370, Jubilees also transposes the Deuteronomic
description of the good land to the good Earth. Abraham blesses God as
the creator of all the fat things of the Earth. Just as God gave the good
land to Israel in Deuteronomy, in Jubilees he gave the fat things to humans
to enjoy. Following Deuteronomy, humans must bless God for this
divinely sent bounty.
Te paraphrase of Deut 8:10 in 4Q370 and Jub. 22:6 therefore con-
tains two central reformulations: (1) the transposition of the bounty of
the land to the bounty of the Earth; (2) the modication of the object of
the blessing from to (in 4Q370) or ( Jubilees).
If 4Q434 also has Deut 8:10 lurking in the background, it would also
reect the substitution of .
64
Te explanation for the rst modi-
cation is clear. By shifting the context of Deut 8:10 from the bounty of
the land of Israel to the Earths bounty, the requirement to oer thanks-
giving becomes a universal obligation. Why, however, do both 4Q370
and Jubilees modify the divine object of the blessing?
Te avoidance of the Tetragrammaton in the Second Temple period
both in scribal practice and literary use (and presumably also everyday
speech) is well known.
65
Second Temple period literature reects a wealth
64
Several fragmentary elements in 4Q434 2 are highly suggestive of a
relationship to Deut 8:10: lines 45: to eat its fruit and goodness (
) and line 8: and their desirable [l]and ( []).
65
See summary of the evidence for the origins and development of the nonuse
of substitute names and alternative scribal techniques to render the Tetra-
grammaton.
66
Indeed, and are commonly found as substi-
tutes for the Tetragrammaton.
67
In the case of 4Q370, however, this
explanation is not sucient to explain the use of in the para-
phrase of Deut 8:10 since the Tetragrammaton is employed elsewhere
throughout the manuscript (1 i 1, 2, 3; ii 2, 7, 9 [recons.]).
68
Moreover, if
a substitute name is desired in this case, why rather than or ,
as is found in many other Qumran texts that bless God?
69
Te explanation for the use of in the paraphrase of Deut 8:10
must be located both in the widespread avoidance of the use of the Tetra-
grammaton in the Second Temple period and the growing employment of
and its variants in Second Temple period liturgical formulations.
Deut 8:10 enjoins the blessing of in gratitude for the food the
Israelites will enjoy upon entering the land of Israel. In the Second Tem-
ple period, this formulation had already acquired a universal application.
It was understood to require humans to oer a thanksgiving blessing to
God. Te formulation of such a blessing in the Second Temple period,
however, would avoid using the Deuteronomic locution as the
direct object of the blessing. and its variants provided a natural sub-
stitute for the Tetragrammaton. Based on an exegetical reading and appli-
cation of in Gen 14:1920 and Pss 7:18; 9:3; 92:2, this divine
epithet came to be closely aligned with praise and blessing of God in Sec-
ond Temple period literature. Te further employment of as the
of the Tetragrammaton in Lawrence H. Schiman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press,
1983), 13336. Tis phenomenon is well-attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, both
by the explicit prohibition found in 1QS 6:277:2 and the scribal practice of the
scrolls (see following note).
66
See Patrick W. Skehan, Te Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada
Scroll, and in the Septuagint, BIOSCS 13 (1980): 1444; Tov, Scribal Practices,
21819, 23846.
67
See for example Sir 43:2, where ms B contains the three yods representing
the Tetragrammaton, while the Masada scroll has [] (Beentjes, Ben Sira, 75,
118, 170) and the Greek has . See discussion of further examples from
the Ben Sira manuscript tradition in Skehan, Divine Name, 1820; Hayward,
El Elyon, 18182.
68
Only in 1 i 2, 7 is the substitute divine name used.
69
For evidence of or with blessings, see Heinemann, Prayer, 121 n. 38;
Schuller, Some Observations.
nomen rectum of should be understood within the larger context of its
appearance with in the Psalms passages and the use of as an addi-
tional substitute for the Tetragrammaton.
70
Tus, ( Jub. 22:6) or
(in 4Q370, 4Q434 2) becomes the divine name that serves as
the object of blessing in accordance with Deut 8:10. Tough the Second
Temple period evidence does not reect a stabilized text of a postmeal
thanksgiving prayer, the evidence treated here suggests the employment
of and its variants as the direct object of human blessing in such
prayers. For 4Q370, this linguistic reformulation of Deut 8:10 explains
the nonuse of the Tetragrammaton in its paraphrase of Deut 8:10.
9. Conclusion
Te foregoing discussion has sought to oer a suggestion for restoring the
lacuna in 4Q370 1 i 2 that is based on the scant physical evidence of the
manuscript together with the larger Second Temple period literary con-
text. I have proposed that the lacuna should best be restored as [] ,
the name of [the Most Hi]gh. In supporting this suggestion, I have gath-
ered evidence from Second Temple period prayers and hymns where
or it various equivalents (often as the nomen rectum of ) is the object of
praise and blessing. An important subclass of the uses of as the object
of blessing is in Second Temple period formulations of thanksgiving
prayers following meals. Jubilees narration of Abrahams thanksgiving
70
As noted above, in the Psalms passages likely refers to the YHWH rather
than . Te exegetical tradition, however, seems to understand as a
single designation for God. Te evidence for the use of as a substitute for
the Tetragrammaton is most prominent in the Masoretic scribal traditions. Te
Leningrad and Aleppo codices both vocalize the Tetragrammaton as . Te
e wa and qmes found in the vocalization presumably represent a reading tradition
of the Aramaic , the name. Tis precise designation is also found in the
Masoretic marginal notes. See full discussion in Kristen De Troyer, Te Names
of God, Teir Pronunciation and Teir Translation: A Digital Tour of Some
of the Main Witnesses, Lectio Dicilior 2 (2005): 135 (at 34). See also the
other explanations of the Masoretic vocalization noted by De Troyer (26 n. 12).
On the rabbinic evidence for use of the Hebrew as a divine name, see
A. Marmorstein, Te Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Vol. 1, Te Names & Attributes
of God ( Jews College Publications 10; London: Oxford University, 1927), 105.
prayer identies the blessing of the Most High God (amlk leul =
) as the very rst element of his prayer. Te fragmentary 4Q434 2
contains a similar formulation of blessing the name of the Most High
( ). I am suggesting that we should add 4Q370 to this category. As
I have reconstructed 4Q370 1 i 2, replaces as the object
of human blessing in the paraphrase of Deut 8:10 that exhorts humans to
bless God in gratitude for food. Tis proposed modication is explained
based on the growing disuse of the Tetragrammaton and the emergence
of as a commonly employed divine epithet in Second Temple period
hymns and prayers.
Book Reviews
Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. By Sidnie White Crawford. Studies in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2008. Paperback. Pp. 160. US$ 16.00. ISBN 9780802847409.
In recent years the term rewritten Biblefelicitously coined by Geza Vermes
almost half a century agohas become object of a vigorous scholarly debate.
Recent discussions revolve around two contested issues. Te rst pertains to the
question of genre. To what extent do the texts traditionally classied as rewritten
Bible constitute a distinct genre? Do theyrather than representing a genre
share a textual strategy also found in a wide array of writings belonging to dier-
ent genres? Te second issue relates to the question of terminology and is
twofold. Is Bible an appropriate term for the category or is it anachronistic
with regard to writings predating the third century c.e.? To what extent is
rewriting an adequate term for capturing the textual activity? Should emphasis
be attributed to the aspect of textual reiteration and loyal continuity of literary
antecedents rather than being placed on the innovative and potentially polemic
changes of authoritative predecessors? Is it possible at all to reach results that hold
true of all texts traditionally subsumed under the category?
Crawfords book is a well-written and well-argued wrestle with these dicult
questions. In less than 140 pages she succeeds to oer a pedagogically lucid and
persuasive argument of her own understanding, which she develops by analyses
of a number of well-chosen examples of Jewish literature of the late Second Tem-
ple period. It is an admirable example of scholarship not only accessible to the
scholarly community but alsoas the programmatic preamble of the series
makes clearto students and the general (thinking) public.
In the introductory chapter, Crawford argues in favour of that current of
recent scholarship which prefers to replace Bible with Scripture in order to free
the category from the anachronistic elements implied by the term Bible. Second,
she endorses the view that rewritten Scripture should be retained as the designa-
tion of a distinct literary genre, which during the last part of the Second Temple
period increasingly detached itself exegetically from its literary antecedents. Even
though the historical argument is not fully elaborated, it appears not only at dis-
tinct and important points, but also from the overall structure of the book. As
the chapters proceed, the writings discussed embody increasingly freer forms of
rewriting. In this manner, Crawford argues for a historical development during
116 Book Reviews / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 115139
which the dierence with regard to authority between authoritative writings and
subsequent rewritings became greater and more explicit. Increasingly freer forms
of rewriting, therefore, are a token of the fact that the texts being rewritten grad-
ually obtained a correspondingly greater degree of authoritative status, eventually
developing into canonical writings with a xed wording. Te development of
explicit exegesis (quotation plus comment) correlates with the decrease in num-
ber of rewritten scriptural texts which represent an implicit type of exegesis (130,
146). In the same vein, Crawford appears to imply that the appearance of para-
biblical literature is indicative of a later stage, when freer forms of interpretation
were allowed or made possible based on the increasingly xed nature of authori-
tative Scriptures (142, cf. 1415). A corollary to this claim seems to be the idea
that parabiblical texts did not arrogate to themselves the same authority as the
writings which they used as springboard for their narrative embellishments.
Crawford understands rewritten Scripture parallel with George Brookes and
Moshe Bernsteins conceptions. From Brooke she adopts the idea of a sliding
scale designating dierent degrees of rewriting, but it is conspicuous that Brooke
contrary to Bernstein and Crawford does not think of the category in terms of a
genre. She concurs with Bernsteins interest in retaining the category as a genre
designation and approves of his (and others) plea for extending it to include also
legal texts. Crawford denes rewritten Scripture as a group of texts which are
characterized by a close adherence to a recognizable and already authoritative
base text (narrative or legal) and a recognizable degree of scribal intervention into
that base text for the purpose of exegesis. Further, the rewritten scriptural text
will often (although not always) make a claim to authority of revealed Scripture,
the same authority as its base text. Te receiving community will not necessarily
accept such a claim (13). Tis is a heuristically operational denition, but I
doubt that it designates a literary genre. Certainly, it does not from an emic per-
spective as seems to be the argument.
Chapter 2 is the rst of six chapters which discusses various forms of rewriting
beginning at that end of the spectrum, where it is dicult to distinguish base
text from rewriting. In the following chapters, the focus is increasingly directed
towards the other end of the spectrum, where the distance between the rewritten
composition and base text is greater. Contrary to parabiblical literature, Craw-
ford maintains as a characteristic of works belonging to rewritten Scripture that
they do not move so far apart from their base text that we are unable to recognise
a clear connection. Chapter 2 is a discussion of the text of the Pentateuch of
Qumran and documents related to it. Crawford shows how Qumran biblical
texts are marked by some textual uidity, even to the point of accepting two
parallel literary editions of the same text as valid Scripture (37). In addition, she
documents how scribeswith the aim in mind of creating through harmonisa-
tion a more complete text removed what they perceived to be imperfections of
the text.
Book Reviews / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 115139 117
Chapter 3 discusses Reworked Pentateuch for which Crawford has earned
scholarly fame by her DJD edition (vol. XIII) (together with Emanuel Tov) of
the manuscripts 4Q364 to 4Q367. She suggests that 4Q158, 2QExod
b
and
4QparaGen-Exod belong to the same group of texts, even though they are not
copies of the same composition. Tese texts share with the scribal tradition
responsible for the proto-Samaritan group of Pentateuch texts the use of har-
monisation, but they also dier from it by the amplication of the received text
with theological additions. Te Reworked Pentateuch group represents the end
of a long tradition of innerscriptural exegesis soon to be replaced by another tra-
dition of separating the authoritative text from its commentary (57). I think
Crawford overestimates the extent to which these compositions deviate from
Scripture proper. I would be more inclined to see at least some of them in
terms of Scripture (cf. the recent article by E. Tov, Reections on the Many
Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,
in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual His-
tory of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday [ed. A. Lange et al.;
FRLANT 230; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2009], 1128), in particular because
the assessment of this textual group as reworked is our modern observation. I
doubt that the text-writers understood themselves in this manner.
Te next chapter deals with Jubilees, the composer of which used verbatim
quotation of the base text, harmonisation, paraphrase, scriptural allusions and
paraphrases, and inclusion of new material. Crawford emphasises how the text
was meant to be read not only alongside Genesis-Exodus, but also to be accepted
as an equal, if not greater, authority (8182). I think that the last point is of great
importance and has been underestimated by recent scholarship. Even though
Jubilees does not by its acknowledgement of the Torah as the First Law deliber-
ately seek to replace it, by virtue of creating a new narrative and by ascribing to
itself the status of being given by God it does de facto supersede it by providing
the decisive interpretative key to it. Unfortunately, Crawford does not pursue this
point, but settles with the understanding that Jubilees was meant to stand beside
its scriptural predecessors, to supplement and to explain them (81, 87).
Chapter 5 deals with the Temple Scroll which Crawford sees parallel to Jubilees.
It is still recognisably tied to its scriptural antecedents and claims the same
authority as the base text: Te result is a new Book of the Law, meant to stand
beside the received Torah as an equally authoritative representation of Gods rev-
elation to Moses on Mount Sinai (102). However, there is no rm evidence that
any community ever ascribed the text the authority which it purports to have.
Chapter 6 discusses the Genesis Apocryphon as a last example of rewritten Scrip-
ture. Crawford sees it at the farthest removed from the scriptural text by the
simple fact that it is written in Aramaic and not Hebrew (105). Hence, its
intended audience could not have misunderstood it for Genesis. She adds to this
that Genesis Apocryphon does not make the claim to authority as the composer of
Jubilees or the redactor of the Temple Scroll. Tat is, of course, true, but neither
did the composers of Reworked Pentateuch or the Pentateuchal texts discussed in
ch. 2. Te fact that the author uses a combination of authoritative traditions
from Genesis, Jubilees and the Enoch literature along with other older sources and
new material as springboard for creating a more complete narrative cannot be an
argument against the potential claim to authority of the text.
In chapter 7, Crawford discusses 4QCommentary on Genesis A, which she con-
siders to represent a new type of text dierent from rewritten Scripture, even
though it also contains a rewritten Scripture section. It represents the transition
occurring in the last centuries of the Second Temple period from the implicit
exegesis of rewritten Scripture to the explicit exegesis of citation plus comment.
Te nal chapter presents a conclusion and a summary of the main results.
Crawford also proposes a historical sketch in which she ties the examined inner-
scriptural types of exegesis to a specic school, which she identies as the priestly-
Levitical/Essene exegetical tradition. She claims that this type of interpretation
appeared sometime in the early Second Temple period, ourished in the third
and second centuries b.c.e., and found a congenial home in the Essene move-
ment, a subset of which settled at Qumran (147). Intriguing as this may sound,
I think it is one of the books weakest points, since Crawford hardly provides the
arguments needed for the existence of such a historical development. Te rei-
cation of a particular type of exegesis with a corresponding social and historical
development is very problematic, given our limited knowledge of groups and
sources once existing. I think that the clear pedagogical structure and argument
of the book at this point has been conated with the contention of a particular
historical development that is too neat to t the muddled complexities of
human life.
Crawfords typology of rewritten Scripture is pedagogically persuasive, but I
wonder what would have happened with the typology if she had included a dis-
cussion of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Josephus Antiquitates traditionally
among the four prime examples of rewritten Scripture. Similarly, it would have
been useful if Crawford had discussed biblical examples of rewritten Scripture
such as, for example, Deuteronomy and Chronicles. I may be wrong, but I have
the impression that underlying Crawfords typology is a strong (canonically inu-
enced) sense of Scripture, with which I am not entirely comfortable. Jubilees, for
instance, may be a piece of a freer form of rewriting, but does that place Jubilees
in another category than, for instance, Deuteronomy or the Masoretic Jeremiah?
What about the additions to LXX Daniel? Is that an example of rewritten Scrip-
ture or parabiblical literature? It would have been useful if Crawford had spelled
out in more detail how she conceives of the dierences between what she calls
rewritten Scripture and parabiblical literature. Although it may be wise at the etic
level to dierentiate between the two, I nd it hard to see how one can make
such a distinction at the emic level. Te more so, if one also contends that the
dierentiation should be linked to a particular historical development. Finally, I
concur with Crawfords emphasis on the question of authority as central to any
debate on rewritten Scripture, but I think it is a point where progress still can be
made. Te works are not only very dierent from each other to warrant a simple
discussion, but it is also decisive to dierentiate between various gradations of
authority pertaining to form, content, social context, and reception. Be that as it
may, these are minor critical points to a book which I have truly enjoyed reading
and beneted from discussing with. It is indispensable to scholars interested in
Second Temple Judaism in general and in the question of rewritten Scripture in
particular.
Aarhus University Anders Klostergaard Petersen
Te Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. By Lorenzo DiTommaso.
SVTP 20. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hardback. Pp. xx + 548. 145.00/US$ 215.00.
ISBN 978900414412 5.
Tis compendious monograph about the ancient and medieval apocryphal Dan-
iel literature is the most complete treatment of the post-biblical Literatur- und
Interpretationsgeschichte of this mesmerizing biblical gure to date. Apart from
Daniels reception in art, literature, and the commentary tradition, which is
acknowledged but not treated here, the book is truly comprehensive in its scope,
covering a vast number of primary texts composed or preserved in languages such
as Arabic, Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Old and Middle English, Medieval Ger-
man, Greek, Hebrew, Old Icelandic, Old Irish, Latin, Persian, Old Slavonic,
Syriac, and Turkish. It brings together diverse materials, both previously pub-
lished and as of yet unpublished. As DiTommaso explains at the outset, the
present study represents the rst attempt to identify and evaluate the complete
body of texts and to clarify the state of their manuscript evidence (15). Whether
the massive nature of the material makes Daniel arguably . . . the greatest post-
biblical afterlife of any biblical gure, as DiTommaso asserts (308), can be
debatedafter all, gures such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David were not
exactly forgotten either once the biblical canon was closed. But still, the sheer
vastness of the Daniel material here collected is truly impressive.
Of course, we have come to expect nothing less from Lorenzo DiTommaso.
Only four years prior the author published a project of similar ambition, A Bibli-
ography of Pseudepigrapha Research 18501999 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic
Press, 2001), a bibliography of over one thousand pages that lists scholarship
worth a century and a half on more than one hundred primary texts. Te present
volume, which overlaps with and at the same time builds on the Bibliography, is
similarly comprehensive. Daniel scholars as well as students of the Apocrypha
and the Pseudepigrapha are deeply in DiTommasos debt.
Te rst chapter serves as an introduction to both the biblical book and to the
present study. DiTommaso then organizes the apocryphal Daniel literature
according to genre into three groups: the legends, the apocalypses, and the prog-
nostica. Chapter two is devoted to the Daniel legenda, that is, to postbiblical
interpretations of the court narratives of Dan 16; the chapter is organized
according to stages in Daniels life: the young Daniel, the chronology of the
kings, and the last days. Chapter three deals with twenty-four extant Daniel
apocalypses; it rst catalogues the texts and provides bibliographical information,
and then oers some general observations. Chapter four discusses a handful of
prognostica, texts concerned with communicating knowledge of the future
(234). Of course, such genre recognition can seem overly rigid and somewhat
arbitrary (the distinction between apocalypses and apocalyptic oracles in chapter
three, for example, is less convincing). Similarly, premodern interpreters did not
all limit themselves in their exegeses either to the rst or to the second half of the
biblical book. Diverse authors such as the author of Qumrans Aramaic Apocalypse
(4Q246), Josephus, and the author of Te Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel all refer to
and interpret both Daniels narrative frame and his apocalyptic visions. But
DiTommasos intentions are suciently clear. In chapter ve DiTommaso oers a
few concluding remarks. And chapter six, titled Te Apocryphal Daniel Litera-
ture: Inventory and Bibliography, resembles much DiTommasos Bibliography,
in that he lists all known apocryphal Daniel material, complete with a list of the
manuscript evidence and modern publications.
We have known already from his Bibliography that DiTommaso is not exactly a
man of few words. As is true for the Bibliography, there is considerable redun-
dancy and unnecessary repetition here which should have been avoided. For
example, detailed bibliographical information is provided for all twenty-four
apocalypses in chapter three, and then again in chapter six. Texts such as
4Q243/244 are listed twice in the index, which defeats the purpose of an index.
Clearly the print medium reaches its limits here. Material of this kind is best
published in electronic form: it is more accessible, easier for the reader to maneu-
ver, and it is convenient to keep updated.
Te book raises other organizational questions: why do chapters two, three,
and four, which contain the heart of argument, take dierent forms? What deter-
mines which form is chosen? Similarly, chapter six, the Inventory and Bibliogra-
phy, lists all texts by languages rather than genre (a less intrusive and hence
thoughtful decision, no doubt), but there seems to be no rhyme and reason to
the order in which the languages are arranged (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac,
Ethiopic, Coptic, Hebrew, . . .), which, again, makes maneuvering rather dicult.
Te book also raises a number of more important, and rather intriguing, con-
ceptual questions. Chief among them: what exactly is the connection between
the postbiblical Daniel material and the book of Daniel itself? In addressing this
question, DiTommaso does well to dierentiate between each of his three groups
(legends, apocalypses, and prognostica), but his answers will not go unchal-
lenged. With respect to the rst group, for example, he claims repeatedly that
the exegetical motivations behind the legenda were . . . identical to those which
stood behind the formation of MT Daniel and the creation of the Greek wit-
nesses to the Book of Daniel (310; already 82 and 84). Really? How do we know
this? DiTommaso also claims that the Daniel legenda are all court tales (83),
which is obviously not true. He makes the most elaborate case for the continuity
from the biblical into the post-biblical material with respect to the apocalypses.
Here, too, he wants to nd a very close connection between the biblical and the
post-biblical material, and insists, uncompromisingly, that Collins Semeia deni-
tion of an apocalypse applies to all of these texts, too. What motivates DiTom-
masos zeal to t such diverse texts under one denition? Te one element missing
from Collins famed denition, as is now widely recognized, is the function of the
apocalypse. DiTommasos impressive list of twenty-four diverse texts exemplies
better than anything the variety of functions and the evolution of a genre.
Te single most frustrating aspect of DiTommasos compilation, perhaps
unavoidable in a tome of this size, is the fact that there is a lot of talk here about
texts, yet no text is ever allowed to speak for itself. Tere are plenty of assertions,
but no quotations from or even paraphrases of any text, so that the reader is at
the mercy of the interpreter without being given any evidence. Te problem is
exacerbated in chapter three, where DiTommaso discusses in great detail the sec-
ondary literature. All too often he dismantles a text-based argument advanced by
a scholar but then fails to produce an alternative reading that is superior.
DiTommasos compendious monograph will prove indispensable for future
generations working on the reception history of the book of Daniel; the acio-
nado of Daniel manuscripts in particular will not be able to put the book down.
Tose of us interested in careful and creative textual work will nd this a perfect
point of departure.
Rice University Matthias Henze
Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint: Presented to Eugene
Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. VTSup
101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hardcover. Pp. xxxviii + 474. 152.00/US$ 225.00.
ISBN 9789004137387.
Tis Festschrift, presented to Eugene Ulrich, is a collection of essays by colleagues
and former students, on topics reected in Ulrichs own publications. Tere are
ten essays grouped under the rubric Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Including
the Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert), nine essays under Qumran and
the Non-Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert, and six under Septuagint
and Other Ancient Versions. Te book also contains a preface which functions
as a tribute to Professor Ulrich, his up-to-date (2006) bibliography, and several
indices. Since the essays are too numerous to discuss each one individually, I will
focus on a few of particular interest to readers of this journal.
In the rst section, Frank Moore Cross presents a new reconstruction of
4QSam
a
24:1622. Tis reconstruction incorporates a newly identied fragment
(frg. 7.5, PAM 43.124) into the column. Text critics will recognize Crosss metic-
ulous work and familiar style in this short but valuable article. Julio Trebolle,
Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition,
investigates the editing process that resulted in the book division and textual
arrangement within 1 and 2 Samuel/1 Kings and their parallels in 1 Chronicles.
He notes that dierent versions of the historical books within the Deuteronomis-
tic History contain dierent divisions, resulting in multiple endings and begin-
nings. Tis is certainly true of the versions of 1 and 2 Samuel/1 Kings/1
Chronicles, and points to dierent editorial emphases in the versions.
Te second section includes articles by Daniel Harrington, John Collins, Dev-
orah Dimant, and James VanderKam. Harrington surveys Holy War Texts
Among the Qumran Scrolls. He concludes, the most important contribution of
these Qumran texts is their placing the Jewish holy war tradition in the context
of eschatology (176). VanderKams contribution, To What End? Functions of
Scriptural Interpretation in the Qumran Texts, determines that scriptural exege-
sis in the Scrolls functions to serve the Qumran community in three ways: (1) to
inform/instruct; (2) to encourage by noting predictions; and (3) to warn (311).
John Collinss intriguing article, Te Time of the Teacher: An Old Debate
Renewed, critiques the old scholarly consensus dating the Teacher of Righteous-
ness to the second century b.c.e. on the basis of the identity of the Wicked Priest
as Jonathan the Hasmonean. He resurveys all the references to the Teacher and
the Wicked Priest (both together and separately) in the Damascus Document
and the pesharim, and tries to t those passages to what we know about the Has-
monean high priests (mainly from Josephus). He concludes that the evidence of
the pesharim points to Hyrcanus II (!) as the Wicked Priest (224), although he
admits that some passages (chiey referring to drunkenness) seem better suited
to Alexander Jannaeus (228). I nd it hard to imagine the inept and indolent (as
portrayed by Josephus) Hyrcanus II as the ruthless Wicked Priest who attacks the
Teacher on the Day of Atonement, as Collins himself acknowledges (226). Col-
lins is convinced, however, that the arguments for dating the Teacher and the
Wicked Priest to the second century b.c.e. are no longer acceptable (228).
I found the most challenging article in the second section to be Devorah Dim-
ants Two Scientic Fictions: Te So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged
Quotation of Jubilees in CD 16:34. In it, she challenges two long-held schol-
arly assumptions. Dimant argues that the existence of an actual Book of Noah,
used by the authors/redactors of the Enoch books and Jubilees, rst proposed by
R. H. Charles, has never been proven and rests on imsy evidence. Dimant
argues that the most solid piece of evidence for the hypothesis, the phrase
(the book of the words of Noah) in col. 5 of the Genesis Apocryphon,
does not point to an actual, real lost book, but is a literary ction used by the
author/redactor of the Genesis Apocryphon. Instead, Dimant believes that the
Noah passages/references in Second Temple literature relate to legendary tradi-
tions about Noah, not an actual book (238). I generally agree with Dimant,
although the discovery of the Scrolls has taught us never to be too dogmatic
about what literature actually existed in the Second Temple period.
Dimant also takes on the consensus that the phrase
(the book of the divisions of the times according to their
jubilees and their weeks) is a citation of the opening of Jubilees. She notes that
various parts of the phrase, especially , occur throughout Qumran
literature, especially calendar texts. She argues that We may therefore conclude
that when combined with the term (book) . . . the pair . . . is
not the title of the book but stand for the topic it covers (246), and is therefore
not a citation of Jubilees. I do not nd this argument convincing, since the com-
mon meaning of the noun (both in Qumran and non-Qumran texts) is
document, scroll, referring to a physical thing, and, given the popularity of
Jubilees in the Qumran collection, the most likely candidate for that scroll
remains Jubilees.
Te third section contains an interesting article by Natalio Fernndez Marcos
entitled Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? Te Vestments of the High Priests. Fernn-
dez Marcos proposes that those working in the area of Rewritten Bible might
prot from taking a broader look at literary composition in the Greco-Roman
world, in particular the phenomenon of imitatio. He states that mimesis or imi-
tatio of the models was an essential element in all literary composition of the
period (322). Te model par excellence was of course Homer. Marcos notes that
for a Jewish author, the model par excellence would be the Torah, with Moses as
its inspired author. He sees imitatio at work in the description of the High Priests
vestments in the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, Josephus, and
Philo, the model being Exod 28. Tis idea of imitatio inuencing the scribes who
produced the Rewritten Bible texts is a stimulating one, which would have been
strengthened if Fernndez Marcos could have supplied a Hebrew or Aramaic
example.
To sum up, this volume should contain something for everyone, and is a
worthwhile addition to the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum series.
University of Nebraska Sidnie White Crawford
Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. By Joseph A. Fitzmyer.
Tird revised edition. Rome: Editrice Ponticio Instituto Biblico, 2004. Paper-
back. Pp. 343. US$ 30.00. ISBN 9788876533181.
Professor Joseph Fitzmyers editions of the Genesis Apocryphon have long been the
starting point for all discussions of this fascinating text. Since the appearance of
the rst edition in 1966, Fitzmyer has been the teacher in spirit of a generation
of Aramaists, including the present reviewer. Te news that Fitzmyer was prepar-
ing an updated edition of this standard work was therefore gratefully received
by the research community.
Te latest edition contains all of the material published (or made known to
the public) to date. Fitzmyer has reread the material using the best photographs
available to him, and proposed his own independent interpretation of the text.
Tus he has managed, for example, to correct the meaningless reading of the edi-
tion princeps (XIII 13) to the more reasonable
the glory of many leaves. Some of his revised readings agree with my own pro-
posals presented my 1996 dissertation, e.g. (VI 3) from the path of
falsehood; and (XIV 11) the stump instead of (as well as the recon-
struction in line 14 of the same column, []). In other cases, he has retained
readings of the editio princeps which I would now revise. For example, in VI 15
the editio princeps reads , which Fitzmyer accepts and translates
I understood and made known. However, I would now read and
translate I understood and saw. Similarly, for ] in XVI 19 I would read
] I saw it.
In some cases, Fitzmyer correctly challenges the editio princeps but proposes a
reading which itself may be subject to critical review, e.g., in I 22, where the
editio princeps reads (untranslated) and Fitzmyer reads a
strong prisoner. However, I would propose the reading a strong
bind, a phrase found in the Book of the Giants and perhaps in 1 En. 10:4.
In XIII 13 the editio princeps contained a printing error which has found its
way into Fitzmyers edition; for it should read in its height. Te
dicult of the editio princeps (XIII 11) is translated by
Fitzmyer they were releasing the land and releasing the waters, but the correct
reading would seem to be the creepy-crawlies of the
land and the waters. Te same corrected reading has been independently pro-
posed by D. Machiela in his 2007 PhD thesis. For
in XIV 10 one may

propose the reading like you. In XV 22 I would propose reading
]
[ I [ ]ed my son Shem and everything.

Most of these words appear in broken passages, and these minor dierences of
reading do not detract from the value of the book. Anyone, who has studied the
Apocryphon closely, will know that the damaged columns contain many doubtful
letters, and dierences of reading and interpretation are inevitable. Fitzmyer has
sensibly chosen to concentrate on elucidating the readable sections of the work
and not to get bogged down too much in speculative reconstructions. Tose
familiar with the previous editions of this work will recognize the nature of these
concise observations, which draw widely upon other contemporary and later
sources, in particular the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha and the New Testament.
Te brief commentary deals with both linguistic and religious matters, and pro-
vides an excellent orientation point for further study of the scroll.
Fitzmyer has made a most welcome contribution to the study of the Genesis
Apocryphon. It is certainly not the last word on the scroll, but another generation
of students will be indebted to him for this expanded edition of a now-classic
work.
University of Haifa Matthew Morgenstern
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. By George W. E. Nickels-
burg. Second edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Paperback. Pp. xxiii +
445. US$ 30.00. ISBN 0800637798.
Das 1983 in Philadelphia im Umfang von 234 S. erschienene und bewhrte
Werk liegt nun grndlich berarbeitet und erheblich erweitert in zweiter Auage
vor und prsentiert sich prominent innerhalb der verfgbaren Einleitungen in
die antike jdische Literatur. Doch handelt es sich nicht um eine primr litera-
turwissenschaftliche Darstellung, vielmehr werden die einzelnen Schriften inner-
halb eines historischen Rasters gruppiert und somit vor allem als Quellen fr ein
vorgegebenes Geschichtsbild beschrieben, in deutlichem Gegensatz etwa zur
ebenfalls umfangreichen Darstellung von Aranda-PrezGarca MartnezPrez
Fernndez (Literatura Juda Intertestamentaria; Estella: Editoria Verbo Divino,
1996). Diese bleibt aber ebenso wie andere nicht englisch verfasste Publikationen
auerhalb des US-amerikanischen Gesichtskreises, eine bedauerliche Mangeler-
scheinung, die derzeit von selbstvergessenen europischen Bildungspolitikern
durch Vernachlssigung der eigenen Bildungstraditionen auch noch gefrdert
wird. Damit wirdnicht zufllig wie in der groen Politikdas Absurdum eines
in splendid isolation erhobenen universalen Geltungsanspruchs gepegt. Das
ist ein Irrweg auf beiden Seiten des Atlantik, in Europa als kapitulierender Ver-
zicht auf den gerade in der sprachlichen Vielfalt begrndeten Reichtum der eige-
nen Kultur. So begegnet man als Europer bei der Lektre englischsprachiger
Publikationen immer huger erstaunlichen Lcken und wird von angeblich
neuen Erkenntnissen und Positionen berrascht. Fr eine (durchaus wnschens-
werte) bersetzung in eine andere europische Sprache msste Nickelsburgs
Werk grndlich berarbeitet werden, um neben dringend notwendigen Neubear-
beitungen der Darstellungen der frhjdischen Literatur bestehen zu knnen,
wie sie L. Rost oder O. Eifeldt in engem Zusammenhang mit den alttestament-
lichen Schriften geboten haben. Die bliche Abgrenzung kanonischer bibli-
scher Schriften von anderen Werken der Zeit hat zwar theologisch zum Teil einen
Sinn, in einer Literaturgeschichte aber erst dort einen Platz, wo tatschlich eine
kanonische Geltung in ihrer Wirkung nachweisbar ist. Hier liegt eine Schw-
che fast aller Forschungen auf diesem Gebiet: die christliche und rabbinische
Konzeption einer inhaltlichen Autoritt der Bibel bzw. der Heiligen Schriften
wirdoft auch nur unbewusstzurckprojiziert und dient anachronistisch als
Kriterium bei der Beurteilung frhjdischer Schriften. Dies trit auch fr dieses
stattliche Werk durchgehend zu.
Nickelsburg behandelt die Texte nach der Einleitung (S.17) und einem Pro-
logue: ExileReturnDispersion (S. 816) in neun weitgehend chronogra-
phisch denierten Einheiten:
1. (S. 1739) Tales of Dispersion (Dan 16; Danielzustze, 3Esr 34;
Tob, Ep. Jer.).
2. (S. 4165) Palestine in the Wake of Alexander the Great (berblick,
Hellenisierung, Hen 7282; Hen 136; Sirach).
3. (S. 6789) ReformResponseRevolt ( Jub; TestMos; Dan 712;
Komposition von Dan 112; Hen 8390).
4. (S. 91117) Te Hasmoneans and Teir Opponents (Bar; Jud; 1 und
2 Makk; Hen 92105; Henoch-Redaktionsstufen).
5. (S. 119189) Te People at Qumran and Teir Predecessors (Die DSS;
CD, Pesharim, 1QH; 1QS/4QS; 1QM; 4QMMT, 1QSa, Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrice; Temple Scroll; Aramaic Levi; 11Q5 und der Psalter;
4QInstr.; 1QGenAp; New Jerusalem).
6. (191229) Israel in Egypt (Septuaginta; Sibyllinen; Aristeasbrief;
3Makk; Esterzustze; SapSal; Philo; SlawHen).
7. (231261) Te Romans and the House of Herod (bergang zur rmi-
schen Herrschaft, Herodianer; rmische Statthalter, Agrippa I.; PsalSal;
TestMos; Hen 3771; 4Makk.)
8. (263299) RevoltDestructionReconstruction (Pseudo-Philo LAB;
4Esr; syrBar; ApkAbr; Flavius Josephus).
9. (301344) Texts of Disputed Provenance (TestXII; TestJob; Test.Abr;
Vita Adae et Evae; Josef und Aseneth; Gebet Manasses).
Auf den SS. 345423 folgenrecht leserunfreundlichdie Anmerkungen zu
den einzelnen Kapiteln, darauf (literaturgeschichtlich nicht ntige) Genealogieta-
feln fr Seleukiden, Hasmoner und Herodianer, auf den SS. 429438 ein Sach-
register und zuletzt S. 439445 ein Register der angefhrten modernen Autoren,
die aber meist in den Anmerkungen S. 345423 gesucht werden mssen.
Die einzelnen Schriften werden der englischsprachigen Forschungssituation
entsprechend knapp, aber einprgsam beschrieben, Philo kommt mit den weni-
gen Seiten 212221 allerdings viel zu kurz. Literaturwissenschaftliche Gesichts-
punkte begegnen freilich selten und alles wird unter der selbstverstndlichen
kanontheologischen Vorgabe behandelt, dass biblische Schriften, sofern relevant,
als Voraussetzung zu gelten haben. So wird etwa die planvolle literarische Kom-
position der Tempelrolle (S.154159) und ihr Entwurf als rituell orientierte und
tempelzentrierte Ordnung gegenber der Tese eines rewritten Deuteronomi-
ums zuliebe nicht vermittelt. Die Frage der Konzeption und Institutionen der
Torah sowie deren Verhltnis zum Pentateuch und dessen Karriere kommen, weil
kanontheologisch abgeblockt, kaum zur Sprache. Auch die deutliche hermeneu-
tische Dierenz zwischen der Behandlung von Torah-Texten und prophetischen
Texten und Psalmen Davids, also Pesharim, bleibt S. 128f. dem Leser verbor-
gen, auerdem vermit man in einer derart historisch angelegten Darstellung die
Feststellung, dass Pesharim erst in rmischer Zeit auftauchen.
Eine zweite folgenreiche Vorgabe ist die Annahme einer von Jerusalem und
dem dortigen Kult ganz abgewandte Qumrangemeinde auf Khirbet Qumran
mit einer sectarian theology, der die meisten Texte zugeordnet werden. Damit
kommt das traditionelle Bild von der Geschichte des frhen Judentums, das der
Autor im Konsens mit der Mehrheit vertritt, auch in den Detailbeschreibungen
zum Tragen. Es ist die an der hasmonischen Historiographie und an Josephus
orientierte Wertung des Hellenismus als einer Gefhrdung der Religion Israels,
die unter Antiochus IV. ihren krisenhaften Hhepunkt erreicht und dank der
Hasmoner abgewendet wurde. Demgegenber treten konkrete Angaben ber
frhere Krisen, die in manchen Quellen auftauchen, in den Hintergrund; so die
Siebente Jobelperiode (im 3. Jh. v. Chr.) und das erste Drittel des 2. Jh. (laut
CD I). Als Angelpunkt aller Datierungen dienen wie blich das Buch Daniel
(Kap. 712) und das Geschehen zwischen 169164 v. Chr. Obwohl bestimmte
Texte bzw. Textteile, etwa aus der Henochliteratur, dem palographischen Befund
folgend auch durch Nickelsburg frher datiert werden, wird der Regel also der
Befund der Qumrantexte so weit als mglich dem traditionellen Geschichtsbild
eingefgt und das Geschichtsbild der Texte selbst kaum errtert.
Das Buch vermittelt auf der Basis dieser Voraussetzungen Studierenden der
Teologie einen gediegenen berblick, der bei Bentzung der mitgelieferten,
didaktisch gut aufbereiteten CD noch erheblich vertieft werden kann. Es wird
daher fr lngere Zeit meinungsbildend wirken und den Konsens in bezug auf
die Qumranfunde und ihren Platz in Literatur und Geschichte des frhen Juden-
tums weiter festigen. Es wird schwierig sein, angesichts der hohen Qualitt und
der vorauszusehenden Wirkung dieses Werkes mgliche alternative Sichtweisen
zu Bewusstsein zu bringen und zur Diskussion zu stellen.
Universitt Kln Johann Maier
From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Com-
munity Rule. By Alison Schoeld. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pp. xviii + 366.
Hardcover. 119.00/US$ 189.00. ISBN 9789004170070.
Alison Schoelds Notre Dame dissertation is an important contribution to the
study of the Community Rule. She proposes a model that reads the S versions as
sharing a common core of material but reconstructs them as primarily diverging
traditions without the unwarranted assumption that a limited group of scribes at
Qumran developed all S traditions (7).
After a brief introduction, the study is divided into ve chapters.
Te rst chapter considers recent work on the Yahad and the Serekh. She
demurs from using the term sect, on the grounds that there was no normative
Judaism in the Second temple period. Te usual sectarian view of the move-
ment has been exaggerated by the tendency to identify it with the community at
Qumran. Te simple identication of the Yahad with the Qumran community
has already been challenged by the reviewer, and also by Eyal Regev and Torleif
Elgvin. Schoeld approaches this issue from the perspective of the variant texts
of S. Here she tries to apply the theories of the anthropologist Robert Redeld
on Great and Little Traditions to develop what she calls a radial-dialogic
model: Assuming that religious and literary traditions radiated out from codi-
fying centers of the hierarchical, reective few to the periphery, a dening fea-
ture of my model is that, though it is primarily radial, it also takes into account
that when outlying communities appropriate traditions, they were continually
redening them for their own use on on the ground. But they remained in reg-
ular exchange with the center (67). She understands the Qumran collection as
consisting of ideologically related texts, not all of which originated at Qumran.
Te second chapter provides a detailed analysis of the variants between the dif-
ferent S manuscripts. Rather than assume that the shorter forms of the Rule were
derived from 1QS, or, conversely, that 1QS represents the end of a process of
diachronic development, she supposes that a core of shared traditions radiated
out early and underwent independent development. She rejects the hypothesis of
a Qumran scribal school. She allows that 1QS may have been the ocial Qum-
ran copy of the Rule.
Te remaining chapters seek to test this hypothesis against other evidence.
Chapter three compares the organizational terminology in the Serekh with that in
the D tradition. She notes that the term for plural residences in 1QS 6:34
(mgwryhm) is paralleled in the D manuscripts (land of residences, 4QD
a
6 iv 3)
and that the term camp in D reects the same type of impermanence. She attri-
butes this impermanence to the ideology of the movement rather than to the
nature of the structures. Te Many constituted the full members of a given com-
munity. Te fact that the Zadokites do not appear in all copies of the S rule is
explained by the suggestion that Zadokites may not have been present in all
outlying communities. Despite their dierences, D and S reect communities
that must have been closely related, and in contact with each other. Correspon-
dences in the penal codes are especially striking. S also has parallels in other doc-
uments. Schoeld takes this as corroboration of her radial-dialogic view of the
movement.
Chapter Four discusses the evidence for the Essenes from classical sources.
Here Schoeld is not concerned to argue for the identication of the Yahad with
the Essenes, but only to show that the classical accounts are compatible with her
model. Philo and Josephus are quite explicit that the Essenes were not conned
to a single settlement. Schoeld also discusses the references to the Essenes in
other ancient sources, such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius. She entertains the
possibility that the Transjordanian Ossaeans of Epiphanius were Essenes who
migrated east of the Jordan when the Romans destroyed Qumran, but she admits
that there is little evidence to support this theory.
Te nal chapter is devoted to the archaeology of Qumran. While Schoeld
broadly reviews the debate, her main concern is not to argue for the identica-
tion of the site but for its compatibility with her model for understanding the
community. In light of Jodi Magness revision of the date of the settlement, at
least the early core of the S rules must have been composed elsewhere. Te dis-
covery of related pottery at Jericho and elsewhere is taken to support the radial-
dialogic model of the community, rather than to question the sectarian character
of the site. She entertains the possibility that burials in the same style as the
Qumran cemetery were Essene burials, despite the problems posed by the cem-
etery at Khirbet Qazone, but she concludes properly that there is a danger of cir-
cular reasoning in the assumption that only sectarians used this style of burial.
Te discovery of some cons at Qumran is taken as evidence that it was a
revered center, to which people were brought for burial. Te location in the wil-
derness was important for the ideology of the movement. She concludes that
Qumran was a special religious center for the Yahad members living in the area of
the Dead Sea and beyond. It served as a hierarchical center, the source of many
legal and religious traditions for the Yahad.
Since I have been persuaded for some time that the Yahad cannot be conned
to the community that lived at Qumran, I nd Schoelds model for understand-
ing the various forms of the S rule highly attractive. Te radial-dialogic model
for understanding relations within the movement also makes good sense. Te
main contribution of the book, however, is to the understanding of the S rules.
Other aspects of the monograph are not as fully worked out. In a passing refer-
ence, she denies that the council of the community can be the same as the Yahad
itself (46), but she never examines the use of that phrase, and the rejection is
based on a misunderstanding of 1QSa, which is a rule for all Israel at the end of
days. (Tere is no sustained analysis of 1QSa either.) I am not persuaded that
there is actual evidence that Qumran was the hierarchical center of the sect
(although this is not impossible). At that point Schoeld seems to rely on com-
mon assumptions about the central role of Qumran, of the kind she questions in
her work on the Serekh. But this is primarily a proposal for the way that the vari-
ety in the S tradition should be explained, and as such it is an important contri-
bution. It removes the need for fanciful suggestions that the rules were not really
rules, or that a single community had multiple, contradictory, forms of its rules.
Tis book represents a real advance in the study of the Community Rule.
Yale Divinity School John J. Collins
Der Opferkalender der Tempelrolle: Eine Untersuchung zu 11Q19 Kolumne 1330.
By David Volgger. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 79.
St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 2006. Paperback. Pp. 208. 19.50. ISBN 3830672365.
Te present work sets itself the task of investigating the sacricial calendar of the
Temple Scroll. Te book gives the impression of the text of a lecture provided with
footnotes. Te author wants to discuss the sacricial calendar of the Temple Scroll
as based on certain central components and to uncover the composition princi-
ples of this text. Te attached bibliography is eclectic. Even though the inclusion
of frequent summaries makes the book seem to be very user-friendly, the author
deals with the basic questions in a supercial way.
In the introduction Volgger provides preliminary information about the Tem-
ple Scroll. He argues that the author (undierentiated authorship) of this text
uses the rst person singular, to give the impression that the text has been directly
revealed as Gods speech. He adopts, uncritically, the Essene-Hypothesis as a
common hypothesis of Qumran, into which the text of the older Temple Scroll
ts well. Finally, the author reports on Yadins Editio princeps, in order to deal
with the question of possible biblical references within the Temple Scroll, super-
cially and with articial criticism of the proposals from Maier and Swanson. As a
result, one receives the impression that the author understands the Temple Scroll
with its sacricial calendar as an answer of a social group to a very particular his-
torical challenge. Tis proposal is too broad, and therefore meaningless. Te
main part of the book is made up of the following excerpts: comparison of the
two festival lists in 11QT
a
11:913 and 11QT
a
43:14; neither text agrees with
the other, nor are they in consensus about the dates of the sacricial calendar.
Te author questions the reasons for this lack of agreement or consensus, but
does not come up with a plausible alternative. Te third excerpt deals with the
Tamid-sacrice (11QT
a
13:816; 3:1420; 8:814), for which the author sees in
11QT
a
13:816
einen przisen Platz in der gesamten Textstruktur der TR (34). Such a
comprehensive statement is surprising, since up to this point his analysis had
been focused on small sections of the Temple Scroll. It becomes complicated
when the author says: In den Reexionen von Kol. 312 bedient sich der
Autor . . . in erster Linie der Textkomponenten Material, rumliche Dimen-
sion und funktionaler Aspekt, und zwar in dieser Reihenfolge. Der schritt-
weise Bau des Tempels mitsamt seiner Ausstattung entspricht dieser
architektonischen Denkgestalt. Dabei stehen die Ausfhrungen des Opfer-
kalenders (Kol. 1329) zur vorangehenden Beschreibung des Brandopferal-
tars (Kol. 12) in funktionaler Beziehung, da der Altar dazu dient, Gaben,
besonders blutige Tieropfer, darzubringen (sic p. 35).
If I see it correctly, the sequence mentioned in the rst sentence turns the
sequence in the second sentence on its head.
Chapters four through eighteen (pp. 36171) deal respectively with the Sab-
bath (11QT
a
13:17); the First day of the month (11QT
a
14:18); the New Year
(11QT
a
14:915:3a); the Days of the ordination of the oer-bearers and of the
great (!) priest (11QT
a
15:3b17:5); Pesach (11QT
a
17:69); the Feast of
unleavened bread (11QT
a
17:1016); the Festival of the rst fruits of the bar-
ley and the day of the waving of the sheaf (11QT
a
18:110); the Weeks or fes-
tival of the rst fruits of the wheat (11QT
a
18:10b19:9); the Festival of the
rst fruits of the new wine (11QT
a
19:1121:10); the Festival of the rst fruits
of the fresh oil (11QT
a
21:1223:01); the Festival of the wood oering
(11QT
a
23:?25:2); the Day of remembrance (11QT
a
25:210); the Day of
reconciliation (11QT
a
25:1027:10); the Festival of Tabernacles (11QT
a

27:1029:2); and nally the completion of the sacricial calendar.
It is not worth reciting the fruits of these excerpts, as none are apparent. Te
author has intensively examined the particular texts, and has allowed them to
stand synchronically next to one another. Relationships to Old Testament guide-
lines or to other texts in Qumranindependent of how one wants to clarify such
a relationshipare not substantiated. Te physical limitation of the Temple Scroll
is a cusp, which is never looked beyond. Linguistic explanations and proofs are
completely absent, and even the syntactical editing of the text, which would be
expected from the author, is not shown.
Te book closes with the summary chapter 19 (pp. 172186), a summary of
summaries, but one is still not better informed. Question upon many questions
remain: Why do the festival lists vary? How do they relate to the festival calen-
dars in the Old Testament? Why does the sacricial calendar deal with only a
selection of this exalted text? How is this choice justied? What can account for
the texts which have been left out? Is it really only a matter of a systematische
Reexion zu den grundlegenden Opfervollzgen (p. 173) in view of an unclearly
explained sacricial service at the sanctuary? Tis alone must be subject to strong
objection, in view of the description of the cult which is carefully structured
through numerous trt.
One might agree with the author in his understanding of the Place/Altar (or
better altar for the burnt oering), the time, cult members and oblation
as the four components of the text 11QT
a
1329 (174 .). Tis composition
principle is coherent throughout, even when it is not consistently enacted, but
rather can vary throughout:
Wenn die Autorenschaft die Komponente Ort an zahlreichen Stellen mit
dem Brandopferaltar konkretisiert, rechtfertigt sie die aktuelle Position
des Kalenders im gesamten Tempelbauplan. Dagegen bedient sie sich der
Komponente Zeit, um den internen Textverlauf von Kol. 1329 zu struk-
turieren. Besonders detailliert entfaltet sie aber die Komponente Opferga-
ben und entwickelt diesbezglich eine umfangreiche Reexion zum
israelitischen Kult. Wie das ganze Volk Israel dabei in Erscheinung tritt, ver-
anschaulicht die Autorenschaft schlielich mit Hilfe der Komponente Kult-
teilnehmer bzw. Akteure (174).
Te question, however, is what really is achieved by the analysis of such compo-
nents, particularly those components which are also otherwise well-known basic
elements of all kinds of sacricial cult at the temple. Although the author begins
with the component Altar, by the end he provides a wide range of examples, in
which the oblations are not absolutely associated with the altar, and therefore are
not thoroughly consistent with this component. Te component time has a
double application. Festivals and oerings are determined according to the calen-
dar year, as well as in relation to one other, for example Pentecost. Te compo-
nent cult members is most closely connected with the dierent oblations.
Te concluding remarks of the author run as follows:
Der Opferkalender der TR stellt insgesamt ein Wissens- und Informations-
netz dar, das im groen und ganzen durch die vier Komponenten Ort/
Altar, Zeit, Kultteilnehmer und Opfergaben strukturiert wird. Dieses
Netzwerk wird den Rezipienten in seinen Aktivitten und Wahrnehmungen
leiten . . . Das Wort YHWHs, nmlich das Wissens- und Informationsnetz
des Opferkalenders, wird . . . zuallererst im aufmerksamen Hrer verankert
und dient Mose und Israel als innerer, mentaler Kompa auf ihrem Weg in
die Zukunft (186).
Te reader gains but meager knowledge. Te author seeks to comment on the
sacricial calendar. An elaborate re-narration is the result, which, for lack of any
cross-reference to the Old Testament, is of questionable value.
Bonn University Heinz-Josef Fabry
Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. By Ian C. Werrett. STDJ 72. Leiden: Brill,
2007. Pp. x + 350. Hardcover. Pp. x + 350. 119.00/US$ 177.00. ISBN
9789004156234.
Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls is an in-depth study of purity laws in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Ian Werrett takes all of the purity data into account and
attempts to rene existing scholarly analyses of them. Texts are presented in
Hebrew and English and discussion is presented in a clear style.
One of Werretts key arguments is that the Qumran documents must be
viewed as independent sources rather than reading them in light of each other.
Tis seems to be a healthy approach, but Werrett often overstates the dierences
between the texts. Various composition styles, emphases and foci do not neces-
sarily mean contradiction (cf. 106, 228). Rather, while appreciating dierences
in the texts (spanning over 200 years), I am struck by the unusual similarities of
the purity laws of the Scrolls representing a stringent halakic strain as yet
unknown.
To his credit, Werrett recognizes the shared use of Scripture behind the texts.
However, just because a position can be interpreted from Scripture does not
mean it carries no polemic (4344, 49). For example, both prohibition and per-
mission for uncle-niece marriages can be supported by using Scripture.
Werrett states that he is against using rabbinic material to clarify the Scrolls
when the latter are written much earlier (45), yet he cites the Rabbis repeatedly
(89, 129). Indeed, the Rabbis are sometimes the only available source of explica-
tion for purity issues reected in the Scrolls and they reveal a broader context for
them beyond Qumran. Werrett expresses concern that the Rabbis may not have
accurately recorded the Pharisee/Sadducee disputes, but this could be said about
any author (ancient or modern).
More specically, I turn to Werretts claim that there is nearly as much explicit
disagreement on the subject of ritual purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls as there is
agreement, thereby calling into question the proposition that the similarity of
the concept and laws of purity [in the scrolls] are more striking than [sic] the dif-
ferences (3). (Tis quote is from my book, Purity Texts, [London: T&T Clark,
2004], 12.) Werrett charts eight topics of disagreement which, in my view,
could have been better discussed in terms of agreement.
Te rst disagreement Werret discusses concerns the nature of the one who
sprinkles the me niddah on the corpse-impure. He points out that the texts dier
on whether the one who sprinkles purgation water on the corpse-impure should
be a layperson or a priest. For the Damascus Document (combination of 4Q269 8
ii 56 and 4Q271 2 1213) the issue is that the sprinkler must be (1) truly pure,
i.e., having waited until evening as part of his purication process; and (2) not be
a youth. Te author does not argue about the matter of priest vs. layperson, thus
it is not in conict with 4Q277, as Werrett implies. In fact, 4Q277 agrees with
the Damascus Document that a child is prohibited from doing the sprinkling
(4Q277 1 ii 7). Te writer of 4QMMT too is concerned that those involved
in the purgation ash burning, collection and sprinkling must be fully pure, i.e.,
they have waited until sunset (as part of their purication from any impurity)
before performing these rites (4Q394 37 i 1620). Werrett fails to appreciate
the agreement between these texts that (1) only fully pure persons may be ash
sprinklers (4Q269/4Q271, 4Q277, 4Q394); and (2) no children may be ash
sprinklers (4Q269/4Q271, 4Q277). Both of these positions conict with Phari-
saic practice known from rabbinic literature (m. Par. 3:24; Ep. Barn. 8:1; m.
Par. 3:7; 5:4).
Concerning the second disagreement, Werrett states: Household items that
are corpse-contaminated are either washed in water or sprinkled with the me nid-
dah [Heb] (4Q269 8 ii 36; 11QT 49.1620) (289). But this is not a disagree-
ment between texts but one of focus. Scripture is already clear that both
sprinkling and immersion are required (cf. Num 19:18; 31:23), and these texts
simply emphasize particular aspects of the purication process. Te Damascus
Document (only seven lines of 4Q269 are extant) is interested in sprinkling meth-
ods, especially the issue of the purity of the sprinkler. To say that the Temple Scroll
writer only requires immersion but not sprinkling of corpse-contaminated vessels
is to say that he rejected the clear meaning of Scripture (Num 19:18; 31:23).
A third disagreement is over the distance of latrines from the camp or city.
Te War Scroll stipulates 2000 cubits (1QM 7:6b7) and the Temple Scroll 3000
cubits (11QT 46:1316a). Setting aside the reality or unreality of the matter, this
is truly a numbers disagreement. What is of greater signicance is the agreement
of these Scrolls that latrines should be excluded from the camp or city, especially
when this contrasts with Pharisaic halakah.
Te fourth disagreement concerns the matter of newborn children being
either pure or impure at birth. In a reconstruction of a fragment of the Damascus
Document (4Q266 6 ii 512) the parturient is required to give her baby to a wet
nurse for the sake of purity. Tis does not necessarily mean (contra Werrett) that
the baby was considered free of impurity. It has been born in post-partum blood
and most likely does carry an impurity although Scripture is silent on this point
(cf. 4Q265 7 1117; Luke 2), but handing it to a wet nurse prevents a continu-
ing impure situation.
Te fth disagreement is purportedly between 4Q512 10 12, 11 25 and
11QT
a
46:1316a on purication rules for the zab. Both texts require the healed
zab to wait for seven days, wash his clothing and bathe in water. Additionally,
fragments of 4Q512 describe a blessing which the zab gives while still in the
water. Is this a disagreement between the two texts? Werrett claims that the bless-
ing in 4Q512 reveals the writers interest in combining moral and ritual purity
unlike the Temple Scroll (296). Te Temple Scrolls application of pure food restric-
tions to the pagan captive bride, however, would seem to make just that kind of
combination (11QT
a
63:1015).
Te sixth disagreement concerns those who have come in contact with
objects contaminated by a zab. Te Tohorot texts cited here are too fragmentary
to support the disagreement.
Te seventh disagreement deals with uncle-niece marriages. Tree texts pro-
hibit them (CD 5:711; 4Q251 17 23; 11QT
a
66:1617). Leviticus does not
prohibit them explicitly but does prohibit marriage between a man and his aunt
(Lev 18:1213). Werrett points out as a disagreement among the texts that
4Q543 1 56 17 mentions that Miriam was married to her fathers brother,
Uzziel. First, this is not a legal text but a vision. Secondly, it may well be that the
author, like the Rabbis, saw no problem with illicit practices of the Hebrews
before the law was given (cf. Davids polygamy in ignorance, CD 5:25; Abra-
hams violation of kashrut, Gen 18, eating curds and meat). Te agreement among
the three texts which outlaw uncle-niece marriages should be appreciated; it is
polemical by its own admission, cf. CD 5:711, and the view of the opposition
is known from other sources (b. Yeb. 62b; b. Git. 83a; b. Sanh. 76b).
Te nal disagreement is on the prohibition or allowance of Jew/Gentile
unions. Werrett lists six texts which agree that intermarriage is forbidden. He
claims, however, that the Temple Scroll is in disagreement with this notion because
the captive war bride is allowed to marry the Israelite soldier. Careful analysis
reveals that the Temple Scroll too rejects intermarriage. Te Bible allows for the
captive bride and so this cannot be explicitly overruled. Te Temple Scroll author,
however, has cleverly inserted an extra restriction into the marriage procedure:
the pagan war bride cannot eat of her husbands food for seven years. With one
stroke, the author has cancelled the threat of this union. Te fact that these two
will not be able to eat the same food places a restriction upon them that will mit-
igate against such a marriage ever taking place.
In conclusion, in his eort to make a more nuanced presentation of the
purity texts of the Scrolls, Werrett has unfortunately left the impression that the
Scrolls are unrelated in the matter of purity. His atomistic approach to each text
without sucient recourse to other ancient Jewish texts, both from Qumran and
elsewhere, has led to some distortions in the overall picture of purity in the
Scrolls and its signicance within Second Temple Judaism.
Patten University Hannah K. Harrington

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dead Sea Discoveries 17 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.

b blood. Te former refers to the initial bleeding, which is consid-

in XIV 10 one may

[ I [ ]ed my son Shem and everything.

You might also like