Changes in Scripture

Changes in Scripture
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Herausgegeben von
John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz
Choon-Leong Seow · Markus Witte
Band 419
De Gruyter
Changes in Scripture
Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions

in the Second Temple Period
Edited by
Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala
and Marko Marttila
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-024048-1
e-ISBN 978-3-11-024049-8
ISSN 0934-2575
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................... 1
Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila:

Introducing Changes in Scripture ................................................. 3
2. Methodological Issues .................................................................... 21
John J. Collins: Changing Scripture................................................. 23
Eugene Ulrich: The Evolutionary Production and Transmission

of the Scriptural Books ................................................................... 47
Hans Debel: Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and

Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform
Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition .............................................. 65
Molly M. Zahn: Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some

Reflections on Terminology ........................................................... 93
3. Changed Texts ................................................................................ 121
Sidnie White Crawford: The Pentateuch as Found in the

Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch...................... 123
Anneli Aejmelaeus: David’s Three Choices: Textual and

Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24 ........................................... 137
Kristin De Troyer: The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper:

A Case Study on Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the
Old Greek Translation of the Book of Leviticus ........................... 153
Robert Kugler: Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean

Interpretation of the Greek Torah: Ptolemaic Law Interpreted
by its Own Rhetoric ........................................................................ 165
vi Contents
Reinhard Müller: Doubled Prophecy: The Pilgrimage of the

Nations in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5................................................. 177
Juha Pakkala: The Quotations and References of the

Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah .......................................... 193
Hanna Vanonen: The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and

the Book of Daniel .......................................................................... 223
Hanne von Weissenberg: Changing Scripture? Scribal

Corrections in MS 4QXIIc ............................................................... 247
4. Deuteronomism in Later Literature............................................... 273
Pancratius C. Beentjes: The Book of Ben Sira and

Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach .......................... 275
Francis Borchardt: The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees...... 297
Marko Marttila: The Deuteronomistic Ideology and

Phraseology in the Book of Baruch................................................ 321
Mika S. Pajunen: The Use of Different Aspects of the

Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms........................ 347
Anssi Voitila: Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage ..................... 369
Stuart Weeks: A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? ........................ 389
5. Indices ............................................................................................. 405
Index of Modern Authors .............................................................. 407
Index of Passages ............................................................................ 413

1. Introduction
Introducing Changes in Scripture
Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila*
The study of the Hebrew Scriptures and the literature of the Second
Temple period is currently in a state of transformation. The discovery
and full publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been instrumental in
this process and it is only now that their full impact is starting to be felt
in the field of Biblical Studies. Some may characterize the current state
of research as a “post-Qumran” period of transformation. The Qumran
material is fundamentally modifying our understanding of many cen-
tral questions, such as the textual development of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, the formation of the canon, and biblical interpretation in the
Second Temple period. The texts from Qumran also provide valuable
information about scribal techniques in this period. With the Qumran
evidence, it has now become clear that the texts of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures continued to be edited and changed until much later than what
has traditionally been assumed. Moreover, the evidence seems to sug-
gest that the editing processes were more radical than assumed.
Changes to the older texts were not restricted to expansions. Rewriting
and rearranging were not uncommon.
In addition to the impact of the Qumran texts, the integration of
Septuagint scholarship and its contributions into the center of Biblical
Studies has been a welcome development. Although the importance of
the Greek versions has been known since the early days of Septuagint
scholarship, one may observe a growing awareness of the possibility
that the Greek witnesses may preserve an older stage of the textual
development than the Masoretic text even in wider biblical scholarship.
This volume represents an attempt to build upon this relationship by
enhancing the correspondences between the field of Septuagint studies
and other fields of biblical research. It is notable that approaches from
different perspectives and different fields of Biblical Studies, including
Qumran and Septuagint studies, are now coming to similar conclusions
regarding the pluriformity of the texts and changes still being made to
* For technical finishing of this volume we are especially grateful to Katri Saarelainen.
4 Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila
them at the turn of the eras (cf. Aejmelaeus, Collins, and Ulrich in this
volume).
Attention is also drawn to the existence of parallel texts in the He-
brew Bible and the developments between texts that are literarily de-
pendent on one another. Although parallel texts and the use of older
texts to shape new texts have been the focus of attention in some seg-
ments of Biblical Studies, their full implications for the field and for the
methodology of studying the Hebrew Bible have remained limited. In
other words, this volume seeks to draw attention to the “empirical”
evidence1 not only from Qumran and the Septuagint, but also from
passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and other literature that have been
shaped by the use of other texts, and thus show how a source text was
changed in its new context. The latter category consists of parallel pas-
sages where the older text was used as explicit quotations (for example
the quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah) or as a source text on a
more general level (for example, Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5, or Dan 11–12
and 1QM).
The later Second Temple literature, for example the so-called deute-
rocanonical literature (or the called Old Testament Apocrypha), also
contains many examples of how older texts were used as sources for
the new composition. Especially the use of the Deuteronomistic litera-
ture in younger texts is a well-known but still not fully explored phe-
nomenon. Because the Deuteronomistic literature contains very charac-
teristic phraseology and theological themes, it is well suited for the
study of its later use. Moreover, it is probable that at least Deuterono-
my but perhaps also other parts of the Deuteronomistic literature were
considered normative in the late Second Temple period.
Our understanding of changes and editorial processes of the He-
brew Scriptures have been limited by our implicit conceptions as well
as the inherited terminology that continues to be used to describe the
phenomena detectable in the late Second Temple compositions and
manuscripts. Although most scholars currently see the formation of the
biblical canon as a long and complicated process rather than a series of
clearly definable or distinguishable steps, much of the scholarly discus-
sion has been and continues to be colored by the existence of the Jewish
and Christian canons of the Hebrew Bible. Despite the fact that these
sacred collections were formed at a much later date, their canonical
form and shape have made it difficult to look beyond their borders.
1 The idea that two or more parallel passages available for comparison may be called
empirical derives from Jeffrey Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985).
Introducing Changes in Scripture 5
It is now evident that a clearer use of terms and concepts is essen-

tial. Terms such as “biblical,” “sacred,” “authoritative,” “canon,” and
“scriptural” carry different connotations for different people and the
divergence of opinion on these terms has affected the discussion. The
scholarly debate is, in part, hindered by the lack of commonly agreed
vocabulary to describe the complex processes of textual transmission
and interpretation. Attempting to avoid anachronistic labels, scholars
are redefining the terminology they use. Although it seems preferable
to avoid the use of the terms “canonical” or “biblical” when discussing
the textual evidence of the pre-canonical, late Second Temple era, terms
such as “scriptural” or “authoritative,” now used by many, may create
new difficulties (see Zahn’s article in this volume).
Many of the contributions in this volume imply that the use of the
term “authoritative,” when dealing with changes in the texts of the
Second Temple period, should be reappraised and re-evaluated. Al-
though a number of texts from the Second Temple period claim to be
authoritative, our knowledge is limited as to how the authoritativeness
of texts was defined, understood, perceived, gained and possibly lost in
the Second Temple period. For example, many legal and prophetic
texts claim or imply that they originate from a divine revelation. Re-
gardless of these claims, in the end their status was dependent on a
community accepting the claim for authority.2 More attention should
perhaps be given to the communities and contexts that regarded certain
texts to be authoritative. This being said, it is likely that not all texts
were necessarily viewed as equally authoritative or sacred in the late
Second Temple period. On the contrary, there are indicators suggesting
that certain compositions held a higher status than others. For example,
it is probable that the Torah had received a general and widely ac-
cepted status as an authoritative text in the late Second Temple Jewish
contexts, whereas the same may not be the case with all the other text
of Hebrew Scriptures. On the other hand, the Temple Scroll, which may
be an attempt to present an improved version of Yahweh’s revelation,
complicates the discussion on how authoritativeness was perceived.
The Reworked Pentateuch texts from Qumran also challenge our pre-
conceived ideas, but in a different way, for the authors of these texts
seem to have taken the freedom to rearrange and alter the pentateuchal
text in a relatively late setting when the Pentateuch already was per-
2 James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From

Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62;
Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–30 (2–3).
ceived as authoritative. Traditionally it has been assumed that the pen-

tateuchal text had become relatively stable much earlier.3
It is now evident that not all texts that became part of the canonical
collection were regarded authoritative when first composed, and not all
segments of a tradition that were compiled in the composition of a
larger literary work began their existence as a sacred text with an ele-
vated status. Some texts may have been regarded as authoritative ra-
ther early in their development, whereas others may have undergone a
long process in this respect. Moreover, the self-proclaimed or implied
authority, such as those texts in the Pentateuch that are presented as
divine speech, may have enhanced the development towards accepted
authoritativeness. On the other hand, there may have been different
kinds of perceived authoritativeness. For example, some texts may
have been regarded as possessing sacred or divine authority, while
other may have had merely general authority to guide the actions of a
community without any divine aspect. 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles
may have been authoritative accounts of Israel’s history, but it is not
certain that these texts were regarded to possess authority as revelation
until relatively late. The existence of just a few fragments of these books
among the Dead Sea Scrolls may imply that they were not regarded to
be authoritative Scriptures on the same level with the Torah.
What is important for the present volume is the often-assumed link
between authoritative status and textual immutability. It has become
increasingly clear that maintaining the exact wording of a composition
was not regarded as essential.4 The aforementioned Reworked Penta-
teuch-texts are a case in point. The evidence we have challenges the
ideal of the immutability of sacred and authoritative texts and reveals a
reality of texts being changed, revised, and corrected in the course of
their compilation and transmission. In some cases the development
towards being an authoritative text seems to go hand in hand with the
changes. In other words, a text may remain authoritative primarily
because of the changes because then it keeps up with the developments
3 For example, according to Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch
between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers
and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103 (93), the editorial
processes of the Torah were completed by the end of the fourth century BCE.
4 See, for example, Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical
Interpretations at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (16).
“The active intervention of scribes in these texts [= the Bible] was accepted in this pe-
riod [= late Second Temple period] and was not viewed as an affront to the sanctity
of the text. The text was of secondary importance to the composition itself, and thus
scribes allowed themselves the freedom to ‘improve’ these works.”
taking place in the society and thereby remains relevant for the com-
munity.5 These are only some thoughts about the authoritativeness of
texts raised by the contribution of this volume, and another volume
may be required to discuss the details of how the concept was unders-
tood in the Second Temple period and how it is or should be used in
modern scholarly discussion.
Growth of a text is evidently the result of scribal activity, but our
perception of the role of the scribes in the formation of authoritative
and sacred texts has been refined. The scribes should not be seen as
merely mechanical copyists or redactors who updated the older text to
accommodate it to the changes that had taken place in the society, but
rather as independent and theologically creative authors. Even more so,
each scribe may have had his own approach and principles concerning
the older text, and each one of them was not only a copyist, but also a
potential editor, redactor, interpreter and author. One should take into
consideration that each scribe was an individual who had his own per-
ception of and position towards the older text. This applies to questions
such as authoritativeness of the older text and the possibility of chang-
ing it in the new edition, version, copy or composition he was creating.
A text may have been regarded as unchangeable in the social and his-
torical context of the scribe, but the individual scribe may have had a
different view. For example, the Pentateuch was probably regarded as
having considerable authority during most of the Second Temple pe-
riod. This did not, however, hinder the author of the Temple Scroll
from creating an alternative edition of God’s revelation. This also
means that the Second Temple period probably contained many differ-
ent perceptions and traditions towards the texts. Some of the traditions
may represent the mainline tradition, some of them may have been
individual or sectarian ones, some possibly loose ends without continu-
ity, and some may have been harmonized towards a more authoritative
tradition (cf. recensions of the Septuagint towards the Masoretic text).
Moreover, a single stream of tradition may have undergone different
kinds of phases, and different scribal approaches towards the transmit-
ted text. Some scholars assume that there were different scribal schools
with different techniques in transmitting the older text.6
5 As pointed out by James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2nd edition; Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2005), xxiii: “What ended up in a canon was indeed ‘adaptable for life.’”
6 Eugene Ulrich defines the work of these two scribal schools and their attitude to-
wards the text as either “exact” or that of “creative reshaping.” Ulrich, The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSRL; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 11, 23–27. Sidnie White
Crawford calls the two “the conservative and the revisionist scribal tradition,” and
points out that texts from both “the conservative scribal tradition” and from the “re-
Rewriting, implicit exegesis and the more explicit interpretation

should be seen on a continuum: similar processes in the growth and
transmission of texts and traditions can be detected both in the texts
that ended up in the Jewish and Christian canons and in texts that were
excluded from it. What is called “inner-biblical” exegesis by some scho-
lars is the activity of learned scribes dealing with their authoritative
traditions and texts, and it is equally attested in texts that never became
part of the Jewish and Christian canons. For example, the Community
Rule was regarded as an authoritative text by the Qumran movement
and revised as such in this tradition.7 Reworking of traditions took
place from the very early times in the formation of the books until the
last decades of the Second Temple period and possibly beyond in the
case of some books. Earlier scribes created literary traditions that were
again reworked by later scribes: texts gained authority through the
interplay between textual authority and exegetical creativity. As al-
ready noted, subjecting the text to exegetical creativity may in fact have
increased its authoritativeness. George Brooke has suggested that
“some, if not all, texts moved from authority to canon … not least be-
cause such texts attracted and provoked the very reworkings [para-
biblical and rewritten forms] with which we have been concerned.8 Or,
as Hans Debel has formulated it in his contribution to this volume, the
adaptability of the text granted its overall stability. The exegetical activ-
ity of the scribes was formative for the developing collection of authori-
tative literature while the decisions of delimitation and exclusion hap-
pened independently of this exegetical activity. The interpretation and
rewriting of texts and their gradual changes in authoritativeness are
two different, albeit related processes.
We still have only limited information about the attitude of the
scribes toward the older text. As each scribe may have related different-
visionist scribal tradition” are now parts of the collection we call the Masoretic text
of the Hebrew Bible; White Crawford, “Understanding the Textual History of the
Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal,” in The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A.
Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcom-
ing).
7 Charlotte Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,”
in Authoritative Scripture in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popovi°; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill,
2010), 193–208.
8 George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking
the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocry-
phal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University
Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G.
Chazon, D. Dimant and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104.
ly to his source text, only a slow and painstaking investigation of the

different texts may provide a more profound understanding of the
scribal practices and editorial processes. Although we will probably
never know the exact development of all texts, a better understanding
of the practices and processes will increase our possibility of using the
Hebrew Scripture for historical purposes. In this enterprise the “empir-
ical” evidence and the arduous comparison of different witnesses –
from Qumran, Septuagint and parallel texts and passages – is impera-
tive.
The Contributions to This Volume
The contributions of this volume are divided into three main sections:
The first section (chapter 2) deals with general and methodological
questions as well as with basic concepts and terminology. The second
section (chapter 3) consists of concrete examples from the Hebrew Bib-
le, Qumran and Septuagint on how the texts were changed, corrected,
edited and interpreted. The contributions of the third section (chapter
4) will investigate the general influence and impact of Deuteronomistic
ideology and phraseology on later texts. Here the first main question
will be, is the influence general or more direct. Are there quotations or
allusions?
In his paper “Changing Scripture,” John Collins draws attention to

central questions concerning changes made to Scripture by scribes. He
notes that there is considerable scribal variation until the turn of the era
and even beyond, but concludes that scribal variation may not have
been problematic because until quite late “authority resided in a book
rather than in a particular textual form of that book.” 4QReworked
Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–7) as well as the differences between First
Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah and the three variant editions of Esther
would seem to validate this assumption. In some cases the changes
were so extensive that a new composition that attempted to transform
the older tradition was created. Collins draws particular attention to
Deuteronomy, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll as well as the rewritten
texts. The question of whether the new composition attempted to re-
place or supplement is central in this discussion. Collins refers to the
recent debate between Bernard Levinson and Hindy Najman about the
relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code. Here it is
necessary to ask: Can we determine whether the new composition tried
to replace the older one or supplement it? Did the author of the new
composition regard the older composition as authoritative? If an older

text was extensively used, the older text had at least some authority for
the author of the new text (cf. also Vanonen in this volume on 1QM and
Daniel). Collins further discusses Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. Al-
though Jubilees may not have intended to replace Genesis and Exodus,
Collins assumes that it still supersedes them in some respects. He notes:
“Where it differs from or adds to the traditional Torah, there is no
doubt in Jubilees as to which formulation has the higher authority.”
Jubilees is an authoritative text in the making that could have easily
ended up in the Hebrew Canon. According to Collins, the Temple
Scroll is different from Jubilees in the sense that it clearly claims to be
authoritative by presenting itself as Yahweh’s revelation.
In his paper “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the
Scriptural Books,” Eugene Ulrich presents the development of the He-
brew Scriptures as evolutionary. The texts would have been constantly
adapted to their environment by integrating agencies. The rapidly
changing social, political and religious contexts of the Second Temple
period meant a constant growth of the texts. Acknowledging that the
stages may overlap, Ulrich also distinguishes four stages in this
growth: composition, redaction, transmission and reception. Ulrich’s
perspective emphasizes the complex nature of the editing, as there may
have been various different processes that influenced the growth of the
texts. Ulrich additionally provides several background assumptions
that are crucial for the study of these editorial processes. For example,
he emphasizes that the pluriformity of the texts in the Second Temple
period should now be acknowledged (cf. Collins and Aejmelaeus).
While the Qumranic text should not be regarded as sectarian, the Ma-
soretic text should not be the starting point of textual research. As some
of the contributions in this volume show, in many cases the Masoretic
text does not preserve the oldest reading. All witnesses should be eva-
luated on their textual merits on an egalitarian basis. Any talk of the
Urtext or “original text” may cause more confusion than clarity. Ul-
rich’s paper is a very welcome contribution to the discussion about the
general principles of investigating the editorial processes of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have changed the scholarly understanding of
the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence of the Scrolls
has made it clear how the late Second Temple period was a time of
scribal creativity, a period during which the scriptural text was still
developing and pluriform. In his article “Rewritten Bible, Variant Lite-
rary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Plu-
riform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” Hans Debel wants to raise
two implications that arise from the new evidence: Firstly, he calls into
question the possibility of reconstructing an “original” text. Debel sees
the dissolving of the “Urtext” into different compositional stages as one
of the most important conceptual changes in recent scholarship, al-
though he suggests that scholars have difficulties embracing the full
implications of this change. Based on his critical attitude towards our
ability to reach the “original text,” Debel offers constructive remarks on
the editorial principles of the Oxford Hebrew Bible project. Secondly,
he discusses the relationship of alternative editions of scriptural books
to the rewritten compositions. Debel demonstrates how both result
from the same dynamic process of writing and rewriting tradition.
While he builds upon the work of Eugene Ulrich and his theory of va-
riant literary editions, Debel moves forward to suggest the removal of
the distinction between “variant literary editions” and “rewritten Scrip-
ture.” He points out that before the stabilization of the text form and
the authorization of an “unchangeable,” immutable text, the authority
was situated rather in the tradition than in the specific wording of a
composition. “Variant literary editions” and “rewritten Scripture” are
two forms of rewriting the tradition, and should be seen on a “sliding
scale” or a “spectrum,” rather than two distinct phenomena.
The so-called “rewritten Bible texts” found at Qumran were dis-
cussed in the early years of the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries in a way
that tended to reflect pre-Qumran assumptions about the shape of the
Hebrew Bible. Molly Zahn’s article “Talking about Rewritten Texts:
Some Reflections on Terminology” tackles the important question re-
garding appropriate terminology in the ongoing attempt to arrange
and evaluate the new data presented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the
post-Qumran research, both the wealth of new material and the vary-
ing uses of terminology have resulted in a great deal of confusion. Zahn
seeks to refine the terminology, with a particular focus on the terms
“Bible“ and “Scripture” and make us aware of the implications arising
from the use of these terms. Importantly, she reminds us that, both in
our investigation of the new materials and in the terminology, the ques-
tion of authority should be distinguished from literary issues. Her con-
tribution is a welcome improvement, as more often than not the labels
used in the scholarly debate create more ambiguity than clarity as they
– often unintentionally – associate the literary relationships between
compositions with the status or authority of a given work.
In her contribution “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan

Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” Sidnie White Crawford focuses on
the “pre-Samaritan” family or group of manuscripts, which was pro-
duced by scribes applying certain exegetical principles. White Craw-

ford proposes a new label for these texts: “harmonistic/expansionistic.”
Whereas the harmonization and content editing are the main exegetical
techniques found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, both the Pentateuchal
manuscripts from Qumran and the Reworked Pentateuch texts move
beyond what is attested by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Importantly, the
Reworked Pentateuch contains evidence of editing of the older text, not
only in narrative sections but also in the legal material, as well as the
addition of new material. This scribal approach continued in the pro-
duction of new compositions such as the Book of Jubilees and the Tem-
ple Scroll. Other texts from Qumran (i.e., phylacteries, mezuzot,
4QTestimonia) show that this text type was used at Qumran.
White Crawford puts forward a theory according to which the exis-
tence of the harmonistic/expansionistic texts is not accidental but a
product of a scribal group or school, at home both in the priestly circles
of Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim. White Crawford proposes that this
text type was preserved in the Jerusalem temple alongside the proto-
Masoretic text. Apart from the specifically Samaritan editing of certain
passages, the development of the text ceased in the North after the de-
struction of the sanctuary of Mount Gerizim, and the separation of the
“northern Yahwists” later known as the Samaritans, from the southern
form of Judaism. At Qumran, however, the growth of the texts contin-
ued, resulting, for instance, in the writing of the texts currently known
as the Reworked Pentateuch-manuscripts.
Anneli Aejmelaeus’ paper, “David’s Three Choices: Textual and Li-
terary Development in 2 Samuel 24,” deals with the Prophet Gad’s
message to David after he had a census taken of the population.
Through a comparison of the witnesses, she shows that the Masoretic
text was edited “at such a late stage … that traces of the older form can
be seen in the Septuagint.” Although many Greek witnesses were later
harmonized towards the Masoretic text, a careful evaluation of the
different readings, including the Chronicles, may reveal the original
Septuagint reading. In addition to demonstrating the importance of the
Greek witnesses – still often forgotten and neglected in the study of the
Hebrew Bible – Aejmelaeus shows that a comparison of the Greek and
Hebrew texts provides significant information about editorial processes
and scribal changes of the late Second Temple period. Notably, we are
not only dealing with grammatical and stylistic changes, for Aej-
melaeus points out that behind most of the changes are theological and
ideological motives. Moreover, she sees that these changes took place
as late as the 1st century BCE or even at the turn of the Common Era.
Although this may challenge many conventional conceptions, it is well
in accordance with the increasing evidence from Qumran that many

texts of the Hebrew Scriptures continued to be edited much later than
what has been commonly assumed (cf. also Collins and Ulrich in this
volume). She concludes that the Books of Samuel needed to be theolo-
gically polished in order to be included in the collection of the Proph-
ets. In other words, editorial changes were a prerequisite for these
books to become part of the authoritative collection of texts.
Without ignoring the other witnesses, Kristin De Troyer’s contribu-
tion, “The Legs and Wings of the Grasshopper: A Case Study on
Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek Translation of the
Book of Leviticus,“ also deals with the differences between the Hebrew
and Greek versions. Although only a short text that, at first glance, only
seems to contain a small difference, Lev 11:21 illustrates what kind of
developments took place in the Hebrew Scriptures. The oldest text was
not very clear as to how the grasshoppers moved forward, which was
an important factor in the evaluation of whether the Israelites were
allowed to consume them or not. The ambiguity caused the Old Greek,
preserved in the Schøyen Greek papyrus, to make a change emphasiz-
ing that the grasshopper had legs and thereby was not a creeping ani-
mal. Later the Old Greek was changed into a more easy reading, now
witnessed in A, B* and some minuscules. The Temple Scroll, on the
other hand, added that the grasshopper also had wings, which would
undoubtedly distinguish it from the creeping animals. Ironically, the
Masoretic text already begins the verse by noting that the grasshopper
is one of the flying animals. Perhaps the youngest attempt to provide
clarity is the Masoretic insertion of the Qere #+ in the margin. De Troy-
er’s example is illustrative because it shows, on a micro-level, how am-
biguities in the text were potentially a major cause of editorial changes
and interpretative exegetical activity.
Whereas it has been long recognized that the Greek Pentateuch de-
pended on the Koine Greek of the Egyptian documentary and legal
papyri for its terminology, Robert Kugler, in his article “Uncovering a
New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah:
Ptolemaic Law Interpreted by its Own Rhetoric,” demonstrates how the
Greek Pentateuch was used to adjust the Ptolemaic law. Through a case
study of a legal dispute Kugler shows how Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt
were able to employ the language of the Greek Torah to reinterpret and
adapt the Ptolemaic legal rhetoric.
In his paper “The Pilgrimage of the Nations in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa
2:1–5,” Reinhard Müller discusses the vision about the pilgrimage of
the nations to Zion, which is found in two parallel passages, Mic 4:1–5
and Isa 2:1–5. A comparison of these passages casts light on the editori-
al processes of these books. The example is significant because it pro-

vides “empirical” evidence for various editorial techniques by succes-
sive editors. Arguing that the vision was originally composed in the
book of Micah, Müller shows how Mic 4:1–3 was copied and inserted in
a changed form into a new context in Isa 2:2–4. Later Mic 4:5 was added
on the basis of Isa 2:5, which was not part of the vision but originally
had a different context. Finally a later editor added Mic 4:4, missing in
Isa 2:1–5. The example illustrates how individual passages may have
been copied from other books and changed in the process in order to fit
better in their new context. Moreover, the original text may have later
been influenced by the context of the copy, Isa 2:5 in this case. Parallel
texts may have been later harmonized in a way that disregards the
original order of influence. The example also shows that one parallel
passage may continue developing later regardless of the other passage.
The copied text may, in some cases, preserve the more original reading
while the original text was later expanded (Mic 4:4). Müller’s examples
emphasize the complexity of the editorial processes.
In his contribution “The Quotations and References of the Penta-
teuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah,” Juha Pakkala investigates the quota-
tions and other related uses of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah. Notably, in
no single case does the quotation or purported quotation correspond
exactly to a known pentateuchal text. There are two possible explana-
tions for this. Either the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were convinced that
quoting a text in an altered form would not compromise the authority
and message of the pentateuchal text, or they used a different version
of the Pentateuch from the ones currently known. Although not an
explicit quotation, Neh 8:13–18 in particular suggests that the latter was
the case. It would seem that the editorial processes of the Pentateuch
were much more radical and substantial than what is traditionally as-
sumed. This would also mean that the Pentateuch was still far from
being a stable and fixed text in the fifth to third centuries BCE and that
there were several fundamentally different versions during these cen-
turies. One would have to assume that the scribes of these centuries,
whether those behind the Pentateuch or those in Ezra-Nehemiah quot-
ing the Pentateuch, were not very concerned about the exact wording
of the pentateuchal texts, or at least they did not transmit them very
faithfully (cf. Collins in this volume). Substantial changes, relocation of
material, rewriting (such as paraphrasing), omissions and additions
seem to have taken place in the transmission of texts that were re-
garded to be authoritative.
In her paper “The Textual Connections between 1QM and the Book
of Daniel,” Hanna Vanonen discusses the use of the Book of Daniel in
1QM. Particular focus is on the connections between Dan 11–12 and the
first column of 1QM. Although 1QM contains many Biblical references,
Vanonen argues that the main referent was the Book of Daniel or a
closely related tradition. She describes the textual connection between
1QM 1 and Daniel as allusive. Although there do not seem to be any
intended quotations, Dan 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a share vocabulary,
structure and themes. Explaining some of the incongruence between
Daniel and 1QM, she notes that 1QM may have been later edited, pos-
sibly expanded. Vanonen’s contribution is significant because it draws
attention to the processes taking place when a new composition was
created using an older and highly esteemed tradition (cf. also Jubilees).
Although the older tradition was used rather freely and there do not
seem to be any intended quotations, the author of 1QM apparently
wanted the readers to notice the connection between the new composi-
tion and the older tradition (cf. the scholarly discussion concerning the
relationship between 1–2 Kings and Chronicles or the Covenant Code
and Deuteronomy and Collins on Jubilees in this volume). A further
question to be explored would be the authoritativeness of Daniel for
the author of 1QM.
With the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars are for the
first time able to investigate the scribal practices that were in use in the
writing of the authoritative texts of the late Second Temple period. In
her article “Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc,”
Hanne von Weissenberg focuses on examining the scribal practices and
in particular the supralinear scribal corrections of manuscript 4QXIIc.
Intriguingly, while the manuscript displays several characteristics of
the Qumran Scribal Practice and attests to several scribal interventions,
the general tendency of this scribe appears to have been an attempt to
correct his linear text in faithfulness to his Vorlage. In light of her analy-
sis of the scribal corrections, von Weissenberg suggests that the scribe
might have been required to “proofread” his copy and make correc-
tions according to his Vorlage. This suggests that a large number of
scribal corrections in a manuscript does not necessarily indicate scribal
creativity.
The contributions of the volume’s third section (chapter 4) focus mainly

on the deuterocanonical books. The main issue is to analyze what kind
of traces the Deuteronomistic heritage has left in a selection of deutero-
canonical books. In other words, Deuteronomistic literature will be
used as a case study to investigate how this vast corpus of literature
was used in later, and especially in late Second Temple period, litera-
ture. In this section the general influence and impact of Deuteronom-
ism on later texts will be examined, as will the phenomenon of how the
Deuteronomistic texts were quoted and alluded to. It will be asked if
later authors could change the quoted texts in the new context and if so,
how were they changed. If applicable, what is behind such changes and
how does it relate to the question of the authority of the Deuteronomis-
tic texts? To what extent can we talk about a movement and ideology in
late Second Temple literature? Attention is also given to the question of
whether the later uses of Deuteronomistic phraseology are only of a
literary nature.
There has been controversy among scholars on how to evaluate the
Deuteronomistic influence in the Book of Ben Sira. Some scholars argue
for Ben Sira’s strong adherence to the Deuteronomistic ideas, whereas
others deny ties between Ben Sira and the Deuteronomistic legacy. In
his contribution “The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage:
A Critical Approach,” Pancratius C. Beentjes has undertaken a twofold
approach to this topic. First, he examines whether there are recogniza-
ble collocations, allusions or quotations that link Ben Sira to the Deute-
ronomistic corpus of literature. Beentjes points out that, in addition to
lexical similarities, the contexts where similar expressions are used
should also be akin. The second step is to analyze Ben Sira’s possible
adoption of major Deuteronomistic themes. As a result of his detailed
analysis Beentjes recommends that scholars be cautious because Ben
Sira’s dependence on Deuteronomistic literature and ideology seems to
be relatively modest. Ben Sira was a very creative author who com-
bined useful material from different sources and modified it according
to his own principles. The Deuteronomistic heritage was only one
stream for the sage who was active at the beginning of the second cen-
tury BCE Beentjes suggests that the Deuteronomistic phraseology was
probably a kind of common religious language in Ben Sira’s time.
Therefore, Ben Sira’s text transmits Deuteronomistic tone, although
deeper connections can only rarely be detected. Perhaps the Deutero-
nomistic heritage is most evidently present in Ben Sira’s teaching of the
Law.
The First Book of Maccabees is an important source that describes
the events from the beginning of the Jews’ rebellion against Seleucid
rule until the Judean autonomy. The book itself was composed during
the Hasmonean period. As is the case with almost all deuterocanonical
works, the author of 1 Maccabees was also well aware of traditions that
preceded him. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the relationship be-
tween 1 Maccabees and Deuteronomism. In his paper “The Deutero-
nomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees,” Francis Borchardt first approaches his
theme by analyzing quotations of Deuteronomy in 1 Maccabees. Ac-
cording to him, there are three explicit legal references in 1 Maccabees

that stem from Deuteronomy. In two cases out of three the issue is cul-
tic, and one text deals with the rules of war. In the second and third
sections of his article, Borchardt examines both the nature of Deutero-
nomistic phraseology and the Deuteronomistic themes used in 1 Mac-
cabees. As a result of this analysis it seems that the most prominent
Deuteronomistic ideas in 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry,
observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant. Many other charac-
teristically Deuteronomistic features also occur in 1 Maccabees. Bor-
chardt finds an explanation for the strong Deuteronomistic legacy in
the circumstances in which 1 Maccabees originated. Law, the cult and
the land were three main issues for Maccabees and Hasmoneans. If the
author of 1 Maccabees attempted to highlight the accomplishments of
the Maccabees, it was only natural that he turned to the sources in
which similar emphases were found. In this case, it was the Deutero-
nomistic literature.
The Book of Baruch is branded by its deep adherence to earlier tra-
ditions. Although perhaps slightly provocatively, it can be said that no
sentence is original in this book but can be derived from the sources
that the author or rather a group of authors had available. In his article
“The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Ba-
ruch,” Marko Marttila sheds light on the reception of the Deuterono-
mistic phraseology and ideology in Baruch. The strongest concentration
of Deuteronomistic expressions can be found in Baruch’s prayer of
penitence (Bar 1:15–3:8). Marttila points out that not only does the vo-
cabulary unite Baruch with his Deuteronomistic predecessors, but Ba-
ruch also shares certain theological convictions that were fundamental
for the editors of the Deuteronomistic History. In the Deuteronomistic
spirit, Baruch repeatedly emphasizes that the people of Israel have been
disobedient to their God even though Yahweh has shown his great
mercy and brought the people out of Egypt. However, after the long
confession of sin, the Book of Baruch looks confidently to the future – if
the people remain loyal to the Law. Other characteristically Deutero-
nomistic themes in Baruch are, above all, the struggle against idolatry,
the centralization of cult, the inheritance of the land, divine retribution,
and the fulfillment of prophecy. One topic that is missing is the refer-
ence to the Davidic dynasty. Marttila argues that this omission may be
due to the fact that for the author(s) of Baruch, who lived in the second
century BCE, it was the Torah that had become the quintessence of the
religion. Therefore, there was no need to expect a new Davidic king.
In his contribution “The Use of Different Aspects of the Deutero-
nomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms,” Mika Pajunen focuses on the
Deuteronomistic heritage in apocryphal psalms. As such, the concept of

‘apocryphal psalms’ is quite extensive because some early editions of
the Bible include more psalms than the Hebrew Bible. For closer inspec-
tion, Pajunen has chosen three apocryphal psalms discovered at Qu-
mran. The oldest text is represented by 4Q380, which, according to
Pajunen, served as a source for the compiler of Ps 106. On the basis of
this argument, 4Q380 is older than the traditional deuterocanonical
books. 4Q380 adheres to Deuteronomistic legacy when referring to the
election of Zion, retribution for wrong deeds and the importance of
observing the commandments. Some changes, however, have also oc-
curred, as the author of 4Q380 shifted the viewpoint from the collective
to the individual. Pajunen points out that the author of 4Q381 chose a
different way. This author attempts to actualize a passage from Deute-
ronomy 28 for his own audience. A familiar text from the tradition was
thus tied together with actual concern about foreign practices. The au-
thor of 11QapocrPs goes a step further by transferring the familiar
phraseology into a new setting that has also required certain redefini-
tions. This author was particularly concerned with the power of God
over the evil spirits. It was not a problem for him to place Deuterono-
mistic idioms into a new context. Pajunen’s contribution indicates that
the freedom to modify Deuteronomistic texts and phraseology may
even increase in later texts.
Deuteronomistic heritage can be observed in a twofold way in the
Book of Judith. In his paper “Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage,”
Anssi Voitila points out that the figure of Judith resembles a number of
heroes who are mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History, such as
Deborah, Jael, David and Miriam. More important than these affinities
on a narrative level, however, are the speeches and prayers in Judith
because they reveal the author’s intentions and convictions. According
to Voitila’s analysis, the confession of sin is one theme that closely links
Judith to the Deuteronomistic pattern of retribution. The Book of Judith
stresses this through personal prayer where one is to submit himself to
God’s mercy. Concepts of “Law” and “covenant” are mentioned in
Judith, but they do not play any greater role. Instead, the author of
Judith seems to favor exclusive monolatry – a feature that combines
him with the nomistic editors of the Deuteronomistic History. Even
though the Book of Judith originated in the Hellenistic period when
monotheism began to be an established doctrine in Judaism, the author
of Judith does not explicitly deny the existence of other gods. It is suffi-
cient for him to stress that Yahweh is the only God for Israel. Conse-
quently, there is no need to promote Yahweh worship for foreigners.
The Book of Tobit shows an acquaintance with several earlier tradi-

tions. Especially familiar for the author(s) were the patriarchal narra-
tives from Genesis and the story of Job. It would thus not be surprising
if the Book of Tobit revealed affinities with Deuteronomistic ideas as
well. However, in his article “A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?”
Stuart D. Weeks warns against over-simplifications by reminding us
that not all biblical ideas of retribution and mercy are Deuteronomistic.
The same is valid for topics such as the promised land or the Jerusalem
Temple. As Weeks’s analysis indicates, there are only seldom similari-
ties between Tobit and Deuteronomistic literature. Even when they
touch upon apparently similar concepts, such as Israel’s past and fu-
ture, the tone is different in these works. Tobit portrays a deity whose
power is not limited to the land of Israel, even though God’s special
relationship with Israel is presupposed, of course. That God is sur-
rounded by angels is one aspect in Tobit’s theology, but this feature
clearly distinguishes Tobit from Deuteronomistic literature. Weeks
argues that Tobit has subsumed many traditions, both biblical and non-
biblical, to create a story that exhorts its readers to piety. Certain echoes
from Deuteronomism can also be found in this outcome, but they are
not the most central elements in the story of Tobit. Instead, Tobit’s em-
phasis on piety seems to be independent of the systematic presentation
of any specific religious ideology.
Bibliography
Brooke, George J. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Rework-
ing the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in
Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a
Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies
Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. Edited by Esther G. Cha-
zon, Devorah Dimant and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew
Bible: A New Proposal.” In The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited
by Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.
Hempel, Charlotte. “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradi-
tion.” Pages 193–208 in Authoritative Scripture in Ancient Judaism. Edited by
Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine
and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N.
Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. 2nd edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2005.
Segal, Michael “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical
Interpretations at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005.
Tigay, Jeffrey. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSRL. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
VanderKam, James C. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.”
Pages 1–30 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second
Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
2. Methodological Issues
Changing Scripture
John J. Collins
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us,’
when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jer 8:8)
We do not know precisely what Jeremiah had in mind in his scathing

denunciation of scribal activity on the Torah. Many scholars think that
the prophet was opposed to any written Torah.1 He was certainly con-
cerned that the authority of the prophet to speak for God was being
usurped by the scribes, as indeed it was. But it is also established
beyond doubt that scribes frequently changed the supposedly revealed
texts that they transmitted. Ironically, the book of Jeremiah is itself a
prime example of scribal composition, where the original oracles of the
prophet are now overshadowed by the accretions, often ideological, of
scribal transmission.2 Of course, Jeremiah’s judgment on such accre-
tions reflects a particular perspective, which is not inevitable. Religious
traditions sometimes value the contributions of the editors, who gave
the material its canonical shape, more than those of the prophets. It is
often assumed that these editors were attempting to preserve and ex-
plicate the true meaning of their sources, and undoubtedly this was
often so. But Jeremiah’s outburst should warn us that a “hermeneutic of
suspicion” towards the ideological underpinnings of scribal activity is
not entirely anachronistic. Claims to speak with divine authority were
especially fraught with implications for power in ancient society, and
were inevitably, and properly, contested.
1 For a summary of the discussion see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia;

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 281. It has been suggested that the verse summarizes
Jeremiah’s view of Josiah’s reform, but most scholars reject that view as exaggerated.
2 See e.g. Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in
Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); Ca-
rolyn Sharp, Prophecy and ideology in Jeremiah: struggles for authority in Deutero-
Jeremianic prose (London: T & T Clark, 2003).
24 John J. Collins
The Case of Deuteronomy
The role of scribes not only in the transmission of the biblical tradition
but also in its development has received renewed attention in recent
years.3 Michael Fishbane’s classic study of inner biblical exegesis was a
pioneering work in this regard.4 Fishbane’s student, Bernard Levinson,
built on this foundation in his influential study of the hermeneutics of
legal innovation in Deuteronomy. But, wrote Levinson, “in the end,
however, inner biblical exegesis does not provide a satisfactory model
to describe the achievements of the authors of Deuteronomy. The con-
cern of the authors of Deuteronomy was not to explicate older texts but
to transform them. Neither ‘interpretation’ nor ‘exegesis’ adequately
suggests the extent to which Deuteronomy radically transforms literary
and legal history in order to forge a new vision of religion and the
state.”5 Rather than the continuity of tradition, Levinson sought to em-
phasize “the extent to which exegesis may make itself independent of
the source text, challenging and even attempting to reverse or abrogate
its substantive content, all the while under the hermeneutical mantle of
consistency with or dependency upon its source.”6 So, he concludes,
“Deuteronomy’s use of precedent subverts it. The old saw of Deute-
ronomy as a pious fraud may thus be profitably inverted. Is there not
something of an impious fraud – of pecca fortiter! – in the literary ac-
complishment of the text’s authors?”7
Levinson’s view of the matter has not gone unchallenged. Hindy
Najman accuses him of assuming “a contemporary conception of frau-
dulence, and a contemporary conception of piety towards tradition."8
Ideas of authorship in antiquity were very different from their modern
counterparts.9 Anonymity was often the norm, but the attribution of
3 William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient
Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); David M. Carr, Writing on the
Tablet of the Heart (New York: Oxford, 2005); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and
the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).
4 Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
5 Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York:
Oxford, 1997), 15. Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuterono-
my and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2007)
takes a similar view.
6 Levinson, Deuteronomy, 15.
8 Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple
Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 5.
9 Karel van der Toorn, see chapter “Authorship in Antiquity,” in Karel van der Toorn,
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University
Changing Scripture 25
texts to specific figures was also a significant practice, not least as a way
of claiming authority for a text.10 Karel van der Toorn distinguishes
between “honorary authorship,” whereby a work was attributed to a
patron, often in the interests of political propaganda (e.g. the Laws of
Hammurabbi) and pseudepigraphy, whereby authors attribute their
work to a (fictive) author from remote times in order to present their
work as a legacy from the venerable past.11 Pseudepigraphy was very
widespread in the ancient world, and was motivated in various ways.12
To regard it simply as fraud or deception in all cases would obviously
be simplistic. Even when works were denounced as forgeries in antiq-
uity, the issue was not necessarily authorship in the modern sense.
Tertullian famously denounced The Acts of Paul and Thecla, because it
served “as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing.”13 But the
same Tertullian wrote that Luke’s gospel ought to be ascribed to Paul
and Mark’s to Peter, because “that which disciples publish should be
regarded as their master’s work.”14
Najman suggests that works like Deuteronomy, that reformulate
the revelation given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, should be compared to
modern discourses that are inextricably linked to their founders, such Marx-
ism or Freudianism. “When someone proclaims ‘Back to Marx!’ or
‘Back to Freud!’ she claims to represent the authentic doctrine of Marx
or Freud, although she may express it in different words . . . In some
ancient cultures, the way to continue or return to the founder’s dis-
Press, 2007), 27–49; Leo G. Perdue, “Pseudonymity and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric,” in

Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (ed. J. Frey et al.; WUNT
246; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009), 27–59 (28–39), (“Authorship in
Antiquity”), Jed Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation
in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2004).
10 Perdue, “Pseudonymity,” 29: “while in the ANE authorship may at times have been
viewed as collective, i.e. texts were produced by the scribal communities, attribution
to individuals was a significant practice especially among the composers of the wis-
dom corpora.” Philip R. Davies, “Spurious Attribution in the Hebrew Bible,” in The
Invention of Sacred Tradition (ed. J. R. Lewis and O. Hammer ; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), 258–75 (259), says that scribal communities in the Ancient
Near East considered authorship to be unimportant, but does not reconcile this with
the phenomenon of pseudonymous attribution, which he also notes.
11 van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 34.
12 The literature is vast. See Wolfgang Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im Altertum
(Munich: Beck, 1971); Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseude-
pigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24; and the essays in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
(ed. Frey et al.).
13 Tertullian, De Baptismo, 17.
14 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 6.5.
26 John J. Collins
course was precisely to ascribe what one said or wrote, not to oneself,
but rather to the founder.”15 There is some precedent for this in antiqui-
ty, in the Greek philosophical schools. The Neo-Pythagoreans thought
it most honorable and praiseworthy to publish one’s philosophical
treatises in the name of Pythagoras himself.16 Najman does not suggest
that there was a “Mosaic school,” but suggests an analogy nonetheless.
So, to rework an earlier formulation of the law of Moses is not to claim
that the rewritten text represents the words of the historical Moses but
“to update, interpret and develop the content of that text in a way that
one claims to be an authentic expression of the law already accepted as
authoritatively Mosaic.”17
Levinson’s argument that Deuteronomy is a deliberate subversion
of the older Covenant Code is based in large part on its reworking of
key terms from the older text. So, for example, the Deuteronomic writ-
ers rework the key terms in the altar law of Exodus “ in such a way as
finally to make it prohibit what it originally sanctioned (multiple altar
sites as legitimate) and command the two innovations it could never
have contemplated: cultic centralization and local, secular slaughter…
The antithetical reworking of the original text suggests an extraordi-
nary ambivalence on the part of the authors of Deuteronomy, who re-
tain the old altar law only to transform it and who thereby subvert the
very textual authority that they invoke.”18 Najman counters: “If one
intends to replace an earlier code, why should one exert so much effort
to incorporate and preserve its wording? Why should one constantly
remind the reader of the earlier text, already accepted as authoritative,
which one wishes to supplant?”19 In her view, the ambivalence that
Levinson perceives arises from his assumption that Deuteronomy was
intended to replace an older authoritative law. Najman argues that
there is no reason to think that the Deuteronomic writers wanted to
suppress the older law: “Instead, there is good reason to think that they
intended the Covenant Code to be preserved alongside the Deutero-
nomic Code, with the latter serving as the authentic exposition of cer-
tain laws in the former.”20 Approximately two thirds of the laws in the
Covenant Code are not repeated in Deuteronomy, and are presumably
not annulled. Moreover, both the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy
15 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 12.

16 Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica, 198.
19 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 22–23.
were eventually acknowledged as Holy Scripture. The acceptance of

Deuteronomy did not require the suppression of the laws in Exodus.
Levinson’s analysis assumes that the Book of the Covenant was an
authoritative text when Deuteronomy was written: “The authors of
Deuteronomy sought to locate their innovative vision in prior textual
authority by tendentiously appropriating texts like the Covenant
Code…”21 This is a reasonable assumption. The Covenant Code would
hardly have survived as authoritative scripture if it had not already
enjoyed that status, at least in some circles, before the Deuteronomic
revision. But in fact we have no explicit evidence as to what status the
Book of the Covenant enjoyed in the seventh century BCE. Neither do
we have any explicit evidence as to whether the authors of Deuterono-
my intended that the older writing be preserved. Pace Najman, it does
not seem to me that the reuse of language from an older text argues
against replacement: revisions and new editions normally reuse the
language of the original, but seek to supersede it nonetheless.22 The
Covenant Code echoes the Laws of Hammurabi at many points,23 but
surely did not regard the Mesopotamian code as authoritative. The fact
that Deuteronomy does not repeat or revise all the laws of the Exodus
code is a stronger argument that the older text was expected to be still
available.
But in fact, framing the question in terms of whether or not one
code was meant to replace the other may reflect an anachronistic un-
derstanding of the function of law codes in ancient Judah. Many scho-
lars have argued that early law codes were descriptive rather than pre-
scriptive.24 They recorded representative rulings, and had some value
as precedents, but ultimately law depended on the decision of the king
or the judge. Some scholars argue that this situation changed with Deu-
teronomy, with its emphasis on the book of the Law.25 Others place the

22 The new edition of Emil Schürer’s History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
(ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987) was intended not only to
update the classic original but also to subvert its view of Judaism in some respects.
Yet large portions of the original were repeated verbatim. The revision attested to
the authoritative status of the original, but it unambiguously sought to replace it.
23 David Wright, Inventing God’s Law. How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Re-
vised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 9.
24 Michael LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah. The Re-characterization of Israel’s Writ-
ten Law (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 1–30.
25 Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (London: SCM, 1986), 189–204; Raymond
Westbrook, “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation,” ZA 79 (1989):
201–22.
28 John J. Collins
transition later, in the Persian era.26 Michael LeFebvre argues that the
Torah did not become a legislative text before the Hellenistic era.27 In
any case, it is unlikely that the Book of the Covenant was used as pre-
scriptive law before Josiah’s reform.28 Neither, of course, was it part of a
“canon,” in the sense of an exclusive collection of authoritative texts.
The authors of Deuteronomy surely intended to supersede the older
code on the topics that they addressed. But ultimately, law was decided
by the king, or by the competent authorities in the community after the
demise of the kingship. It was not necessary to suppress the Covenant
Code, which contained much material with which the Deuteronomic
authors had no quarrel. The important thing was that the rulers should
know which formulation offered the better guidance. In fact, even
when law is understood prescriptively, its exercise always requires a
competent authority to interpret it.
Two other aspects of Deuteronomy should be noted. First, the book
is not presented as a transcription of the revelation at Mount Si-
nai/Horeb. It is a secondary account of the revelation, a recapitulation
by Moses on the plains of Moab – hence the name, Deuteronomy, the
second law. Najman’s designation of it as “Mosaic discourse” is fully
justified. It contains a prohibition (probably vain)29 against adding or
subtracting anything from its formulation (Deut 13:1), but it does not
preclude the existence of other accounts. But, second, it does not ac-
knowledge the existence of any prior “book of the covenant,” despite
its well documented dependence on the laws of Exodus. The source of
its authority is not its relationship to an earlier book but its claim to
give the substance of the revelation at Sinai, and the credibility of Mos-
es as narrator. Echoes of other formulations that might be known to
those who read or heard these laws may have added to their credibility,
by evoking associations, but it is not from the earlier formulations that
Deuteronomy derives its authority.
26 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law

(JSOTSup 287; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
27 LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 258.
28 Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 4, suggests that the Covenant Code is to be viewed as
“an academic abstraction rather than a digest of laws practiced by Israelites and Ju-
deans over the course of centuries.”
29 We do not know at what point this prohibition was inserted.
The Second Century BCE
It is generally agreed that the authority of the Torah had been clarified
and solidified considerably by the second century BCE. “Considerably,”
however, is not “absolutely.” One of the revelations of the Dead Sea
Scrolls has concerned the extent of textual variation in the Hebrew
scriptures, down to the turn of the era. It is now clear that textual tradi-
tions known to us from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint
were current in Hebrew in the land of Israel, as well as the precursors
of the Masoretic text, and there were other variations besides.30 Variant
editions of several biblical books were in circulation (Exodus, Jeremiah,
Psalms).31 This in itself presents an interesting problem, as it shows that
authority resided in a book rather than in a particular textual form of
that book. Scribal variation was not necessarily perceived as problemat-
ic. The variants include scribal errors, but also intentional changes.
Some of these consist of additions, rearrangements and paraphrases,
sometimes intended to clarify the text, and sometimes tendentious.32
There is a movement towards standardization of the text in the first
century CE, as can be seen from the revisions of the Greek translation of
the Minor Prophets and from the prevalence of proto-Masoretic texts at
Masada, but there is still considerable evidence of textual variation in
the New Testament and in Josephus.
Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was easy enough to
distinguish between a biblical text that was at variance with the MT
(e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch) and a book like Jubilees, that retold the
story of Genesis and part of Exodus but was clearly an independent
composition. The distinction is blurred, however, in the text (or texts)
known as 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–7). This title refers to a
group of five fragmentary manuscripts, which were originally thought
30 For a concise summary see Armin Lange, “’Nobody dared to add to them, to take
from them, or to Make Changes.’ Josephus, Ag.Ap.1.42. The Textual Standardization
of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea
Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A.
Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105–26, (107–
10); Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Bd. 1: Die Handschriften
biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 2009).
31 Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 17–50, 99–120.
32 Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qu-
mran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (12). See the discussion
of the Samaritan Pentateuch by Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup
128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 279–312.
30 John J. Collins
to make up a single, independent composition.33 Since there are no

significant overlaps, however, they are now increasingly viewed as
distinct but related compositions.34 All five manuscripts reflect Penta-
teuchal texts, with variations, including rearrangements and additions
(notably the “Song of Miriam”). In the words of Sidnie White Craw-
ford, “these texts are the product of scribal interpretation, still marked
mainly by harmonistic editing, but with one important addition: the
insertion of outside material into the text, material not found in other
parts of what we now recognize as the Pentateuch.”35 But many frag-
ments correspond to the traditional text with minimal variation. The
extant fragments do not suggest any changes of speaker or setting over
against other forms of these texts. Consequently, they are increasingly
viewed not as distinct compositions but as expansionistic variants of
the text known from our Bible.36 If this is so, it suggests that there was
still great freedom in copying the scriptural texts as late as the first
century BCE. 37 How far these texts were accepted as authentic scrip-
tures, we do not know. They survive in single, fragmentary copies. It
has been suggested that Jubilees relied on 4Q364, frg. 3 (Isaac/Rebekah)
and that the Temple Scroll relied on 4Q365, frg. 23 (the New Oil/Wood
festival), but the evidence is not conclusive.38 White Crawford believes
that “we can say with almost complete certainty that 4Q364 and 4Q365
were meant by the scribes who prepared them to be read as regular
pentateuchal texts.”39 Given the tolerance of textual variation that we
33 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” in Qumran Cave
4, VIII (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351.
34 Michael Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam; Jerusa-
lem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–99; George Brooke, “4Q158: Reworked
Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?,” DSD 8 (2001): 219–41. So now also Sidnie
White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2008), 39.
35 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 39–40.
36 For a list of scholars who hold this view, including now Emanuel Tov, see White
Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 56. See the discussion by Molly M. Zahn, “The Prob-
lem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten
Bible, or None of the Above?,” DSD 15 (2008): 315–39; Molly M. Zahn, “Rewritten
Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Col-
lins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 323–36; and her forthcoming disserta-
tion, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Penta-
teuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill).
37 The manuscripts date from the late Hasmonean period. White Crawford, Rewriting
Scripture, 40.
38 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 59.
39 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 56.
find at Qumran, this does not mean that these scribes would have made
any attempt to suppress other forms of these texts. Most of their varia-
tions can be viewed as exegetical, and taken as attempts to clarify the
received text and bring out its fuller significance.
Rewritten Scriptures
There are other texts, however, that are closely based on the traditional
text of the Torah, but are generally recognized as distinct compositions
in their own right. These texts are often categorized as “Rewritten Bi-
ble,” a label introduced by Geza Vermes, to describe such works as
Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo
and the Antiquities of Josephus.40 The designation is problematic, since
that which is rewritten was not yet “Bible,” and so scholars increasingly
refer to them as “rewritten scriptures.”41 The rewriting has much in
common with what we find in expansionistic texts like 4QReworked
Pentateuch. It involves harmonizing, rearranging and expansion. Some
scholars see a spectrum, which ranges from minor editorial changes in
the received text, to changes so extensive that they are deemed to con-
stitute independent works.42 But, as Michael Segal has pointed out, the
difference between “Bible” and “Rewritten Bible” is not simply quan-
titative.43 If it were, the variant editions of Jeremiah that underlie the
MT and LXX would be considered different compositions.
More important are differences in the literary frame, the authorial
voice, and the scope of the composition.
There has been extensive debate about the extent and definition of
this category of writing.44 It is not strictly a literary genre.45 Individual
40 Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed.; Studia
Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 67–126.
41 See e.g. Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenome-
non – Genre, Textual Strategy or Canonical Anachronism?” in Flores Florentino (ed.
A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar), 284–306. Jonathan G. Campbell, “’Rewritten
Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological critique,” in New
Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43–
68, also objects to “rewritten scriptures.” He suggests terminology along the lines of
“scripture” and “parascripture.”
42 So White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 14.
43 Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16. See also Zahn, “Rewritten Scrip-
tures.”
44 In addition to works already cited see Moshe Bernstein, “’Rewritten Bible:’ A Gener-
ic Category which has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96; George J.
32 John J. Collins
compositions tend to follow the genre of the prototype.46 A great

amount of Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period is
based on older scriptures in one way or another. For example, the
fragments of Hellenistic Jewish literature preserve re-tellings of stories
about the patriarchs and the exodus not only in narrative form, but also
in epic poetry and even in the form of a tragedy.47 There is no question
in these writings of replacing the original scriptures: they simply
present (and often embellish) these stories in ways that render them
more interesting for a Hellenized audience, and use them to reshape
Jewish identity in a Diaspora setting. They treat the scriptures as
sources for their literary imagination. This is also true of Josephus’
great re-telling of biblical history in his Antiquities, which was one of
the works originally categorized as “Rewritten Bible” by Vermes. These
works may have an exegetical dimension, insofar as they sometimes try
to resolve problems in the scriptures, but they are not primarily works
of exegesis. They are new compositions that draw their source material
from the traditional scriptures. The same is arguably true of the Ara-
maic Genesis Apocryphon and Aramaic Levi Document. The fact that so
much of Jewish literature in this period draws its source material from
the Pentateuch is powerful testimony to the authoritative status of the
narrative parts of the Torah. Authority in these cases means primarily
literary authority. Genesis and Exodus are classic texts that are infinite-
Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H.
Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
777–81; George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Un-
derstanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Ju-
daean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002),
31–40; Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten, ed., Rewritten Bible Reconsidered (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), Daniel A. Machiela, “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten
Scripture in Ancient Judaism – A Review of Recent Developments,” JJS 61(2010):
308–20.
45 Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1988), 99–121, argues that the texts so classified by Vermes, Jubilees,
the Genesis Apocryphon, the Antiquities of Josephus and the Biblical Antiquities of
Pseudo-Philo, do constitute a literary genre. These are all narrative texts, and do not
include such compositions as the Temple Scroll.
46 Compare Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 780: “Rewritten Bible texts come in almost as
many genres as can be found in the biblical books themselves.”
47 See further John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenis-
tic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 29–63; Martin Goodman, “Jew-
ish Literature Composed in Greek,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Je-
sus Christ III.1 (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: Clark, 1986),
509–66.
ly adaptable to new circumstances, just as the epics of Homer were

classic texts for the Greeks.
In the case of legal texts, however, the issues were somewhat dif-
ferent. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that halakhic disputation
was common in the first century BCE, and contributed to the division
between sects, probably as early as the reign of John Hyrcanus.
4QMMT provides a classic example of the halakhic mentality, which
unambiguously reads the laws of scripture as prescriptive. Halakhic
disputation did not immediately lead to textual standardization, as we
might expect from a modern perspective, but it meant that variation in
legal texts became fraught with significance. If we seek an analogy to
the revision of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy, our concern is
primarily with texts that rewrite the laws of the Torah, or rewrite the
narratives with a halakhic focus.
Two such texts have attracted great attention in recent years. The
Book of Jubilees was one of the prototypical texts adduced by Vermes. It
retells the narrative of Genesis and part of Exodus, but it supplies a
new literary frame: the narrative is dictated to Moses by an angel on
Mt. Sinai. In this case, the re-writing is far more tendentious than any-
thing we find in the fragments of 4QReworked Pentateuch. Much of it is
concerned with a strict interpretation of halakhic issues, including a
364-day calendar, which is injected into the retold narrative. The Temple
Scroll is also presented as a revelation on Mt. Sinai, but in this case God
speaks directly to Moses. In contrast to Jubilees, it is entirely concerned
with the legal texts of the Pentateuch. In that sense, the two books
complement each other, although Ben Zion Wacholder’s suggestion
that the two were parts of a single composition is universally rejected.48
Both Jubilees and the Temple Scroll are likely to date from the second
century BCE.49 Neither text engages in the kind of pesher-style exegesis,
which carefully distinguishes the scriptural lemma from its interpreta-
tion, that we find in the sectarian texts from Qumran, which probably
date to the first half of the first century BCE.
48 Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (the Temple Scroll) and
the Book of Jubilees, One Single or Two Independent Compositions,” in Society of
Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985),
205–16.
49 On the date of Jubilees, James VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001), 17–21; for the Temple Scroll, see Sidnie White Crawford, The
Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 24–26.
VanderKam and White Crawford both favor dates before the middle of the second
century BCE for their respective works.
34 John J. Collins
As with Deuteronomy, there has been debate as to whether these

books are intended to replace or supplement the traditional Torah.
Najman has argued vigorously that they “seek to provide the interpre-
tive context within which scriptural traditions already acknowledged
as authoritative can be properly understood. This is neither a fraudu-
lent attempt at replacement, nor an act of impiety. It is rather, we may
charitably assume, a pious effort to convey what is taken to be the es-
sence of earlier traditions, an essence that the rewriters think is in dan-
ger of being missed.”50 Moreover, she claims, “they claimed for their
interpretations of authoritative texts, the already established authority
of the texts themselves.”51 Their goal is to solve interpretive problems
in the older texts, and to appropriate the authority of the Torah for their
interpretations. So, argues Najman, while they do not replace the exist-
ing Torah, they do claim the status of Torah for themselves. Najman is
aware that there are significant differences between the two composi-
tions.52 I would suggest that these differences are important for the
kind of authority claimed in each text, and for the way in which their
relationship to the older scriptures is conceived.
Jubilees
In the case of Jubilees, we are fortunate that the beginning of the work
has been preserved. Both the short prologue and the opening chapter
are attested in the fragments of 4Q216 and preserved in full in Ethiopic.
From allusions to Exod 24:12–18, it appears that the setting is Moses’
first forty-day sojourn on Mt. Sinai.53 Moses is told to write down “eve-
rything I tell you on this mountain, the first things and the last things
that shall come to pass in all the divisions of the days, in the law and in
the testimony, and in the weeks of the Jubilees till eternity, till I descend
and dwell with them through all eternity” (Jub 1:26). The actual dicta-
tion is performed not by the Deity but by the angel of the presence,
who in turn derives the information from the heavenly tablets.54

53 See James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Trans-
mission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman and E. Schuller;
STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25–44 (25–26).
54 Hindy Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority
Conferring Strategies,” in Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation
Jubilees evidently presupposes that the story of the revelation on Si-

nai is familiar to readers, and so it can dispense with the narrative of
the arrival at Sinai. It also clearly presupposes the existence, and au-
thority, of “the first law.” The most explicit reference is in Jub 6:20–22,
with reference to the laws of Shavuoth: “for I have written in the book
of the first law, which I have written for you, that you should celebrate
it at its proper time . . .” Again in Jub 30:12, à propos of Dinah and the
Shechemites: “I have written for you in the words of the law all the
details of what the Shechemites did to Dinah . . .” But in addition to the
Torah, there was also the “testimony” !#3=, which, as VanderKam
argues persuasively, should be identified with the contents of the book
of Jubilees itself, although they may not exhaust the testimony con-
tained in the heavenly tablets.55
Insofar as Jubilees claims to transmit revelation given to Moses on
Mt. Sinai, it may reasonably be described as Mosaic discourse, but only
in a qualified sense. Moses is not the speaker in Jubilees. His authority
here is not that of a founder (although he was commonly so perceived
in the Hellenistic world), but only that of a mediator. More properly,
Jubilees is angelic discourse, or even mediated divine discourse. The
authority claimed for it is not ultimately that of Moses, as in Deuteron-
omy or the Testament of Moses, but that of divine revelation. Moses is
important as guarantor of its transmission, but he is not its source.
Again, the discourse may reasonably be said to be “seconding Sinai,”
since it supplements and provides an interpretive context for “the first
Torah.” VanderKam points out that Jubilees claims to be the only revela-
tion that survives from Moses’ first sojourn on the mountain, since the
tablets with “the first law” were smashed and had to be replaced. He
therefore says that “he was not seconding Sinai; he was initiating Si-
nai.”56 The point about precedence may be a quibble, however. Pre-
sumably the tablets that were destroyed were accurately replaced. The
fact that the traditional Torah is called “the first law” would seem to
grant it priority, in a sense. But the “testimony” is also revealed on Mt.
Sinai, so for all practical purposes Jubilees and the “first law” are coeval
and complementary.57
and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (JSJSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 39–71.
This article was originally published in JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410.
55 VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 42. Cana Werman, “’The !:#= and the !#3=
Engraved on the Tablets,” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103 thinks that the “testimony” is “the
preordained march of history.”
56 VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 31.
57 Compare Werman, “’The !:#= and the !#3= 95: “Moses came down from Mount
Sinai carrying two Torahs.” Similarly Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests. An-
36 John J. Collins
The body of Jubilees is made up of a rewritten narrative of Genesis

and Exodus. Much of the re-writing can be explained as an exegetical
attempt to resolve problems in the traditional text of the Torah, al-
though some other traditions are also introduced, notably the Enochic
story of the fallen angels.58 But Jubilees is not presented as an exegetical
text, and there is no acknowledgement that its authority derives in any
way from other scriptures.59 Its authority does depend on the setting at
Sinai, and the reader’s acceptance that a foundational revelatory event
occurred there. Verbal echoes of the older scriptures would probably
have facilitated acceptance of Jubilees as a credible account of Sinaitic
revelation. But this is not quite the same thing as appropriating the
authority of the existing scriptures. Jubilees is presented as a distinct
revelation. It is not intended to replace “the first law,” but it does su-
persede it in some respects. Where it differs from or adds to the tradi-
tional Torah, there is no doubt in Jubilees as to which formulation has
the higher authority.60
cestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006),

54–55: “Jubilees does not attempt to nudge the Torah out of its niche and replace it,
but rather embraces the authority of the Torah even as it seeks to place itself along-
side it.” See also Martha Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The
Claim to Authority in the Book of Jubilees,” in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early
Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (ed. B. G. Wright; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1999), 22–28.
58 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology
(JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 103–43. Gabriele Boccaccini, “From a Movement of
Dissent to a Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly Tablets in Jubilees as the Foun-
dation of a Competing Halakah,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubi-
lees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 193–210, con-
strues the use of Enochic tradition in Jubilees as an attempt to merge two forms of
Judaism. This construal entails assumptions about the social history of Second Tem-
ple Judaism that are not widely shared. See also John S. Bergsma, “The Relationship
between Jubilees and the Early Enochic Books,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The
Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009),
36–51, who notes that the influence of the early Enoch material in Jubilees is limited
to the period from Enoch to Noah, and does not come close to rivaling the impor-
tance of Moses.
59 Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 40, says that “Jubilees claims that its
teachings are the true interpretation of the Torah” and “derive their authority from
that of the Torah.” But while the teachings of Jubilees are largely interpretations of
the Torah, that is not how Jubilees presents itself.
60 Ben Zion Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues
(ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997),
195–211, is correct that Jubilees trumps the traditional Torah in many places, even if it
does not deny the Torah’s authority.
In view of the divine and angelic authority claimed for Jubilees, the
appeal to the heavenly tablets may seem superfluous. For VanderKam,
they simply add another layer of assurance of the reliability of the reve-
lation: “these tablets are a written unchangeable, permanent depository
of information under God’s control.”61 James Kugel, in contrast, argues
that the passages that refer to the heavenly tablets are interpolations,
which stand in tension with the rest of the text in various ways.62 The
argument rests on perceived contradictions between these passages
and the rest of the text, and some are more persuasive than others.63 If
Kugel is correct, however, this would explain why the interpolator has
to trump even the angel of the presence by appealing to a still higher
authority.
In any case, the heavenly tablets appear as a source of truth to
which both the Torah and the Testimony are subordinate. Moreover,
Enoch also “wrote his testimony and left it as a testimony on the earth
for all the sons of men for every generation” (Jub 4:19), and Noah is
also cited as an author.64 The testimony of Enoch and Noah is not expli-
citly associated with the heavenly tablets, but they are further evidence
that revelation is not confined to the traditional Torah. As Martha
Himmelfarb has observed: “This approach not only exalts Jubilees but
also, less obviously, demotes the Torah, which must share its authorita-
tive status with another text even as both are subordinated to the hea-
venly tablets.”65
VanderKam and Kugel agree, however, that the author of Jubilees
could not just insert his new ideas into the received text of the Torah.
For Kugel, this is why the interpolator made his insertions into Jubilees
rather than into the Torah itself: “By the mid-second century BCE, any
major, sectarian tampering with the Pentateuch would surely have
been a controversial undertaking; its text was simply too widely
known, and its study too well entrenched, across the spectrum of Jew-
61 VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 32. Similarly Najman, “Interpretation as

Primordial Writing,” 50–62.
62 James Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72.
Kugel is building on the work of Segal, The Book of Jubilees.
63 A persuasive example is the contrasting roles of Mastema in Jubilees, 48–49.
64 Jub 8:11; 10:13; 21:10. Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and the Heavenly Tablets,”
27.
65 Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests, 55; cf. Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and the
Heavenly Tablets,” 27–28. Note also Najman, Past Renewals, 71: “Jubilees’ insistence
on the pre-Sinaitic origin of its heavenly tradition could be seen to undermine the
special authority that had been accorded to the Mosaic Torah,” and Boccaccini,
“From a Movement of Dissent,” 193–96.
38 John J. Collins
ish groups.”66 Whether this was already the case by the mid-second
century BCE may be open to question, but at least the author of Jubilees
chose not to change the text. He did not, however, subordinate his re-
writing to the existing text by presenting it in the form of a commen-
tary. Rather, he seems to have claimed for his “testimony” a status
equal, at least, to that of the first Torah.
The Temple Scroll
In the case of the Temple Scroll, we do not have the opening column,
and so there is some uncertainty as to how its revelation is presented.
There is a passing reference to “Aaron your brother” in TS 44:5, and
another to “those things which I tell you on this mountain” in TS 51:6.
From these references, many infer that the discourse is addressed to
Moses on Mt. Sinai,67 but these are the only nods to Moses in a lengthy
text, and he is never mentioned by name. Najman argues that “by
means of the second person singular pronoun, the reader is placed in
the position of Moses, as the addressee of divine revelation on Mount
Sinai.”68 But she also recognizes that the Temple Scroll is not about Mos-
es: Moses is nothing but the implicit, initial addressee and the implicit
teacher of a Torah whose authority rests primarily on its direct revela-
tion from God.”69 Schiffman entertains the possibility that the allusions
to Moses are mere lapses, where the author had not fully revised his
sources, and that he did not intend to acknowledge the role of Moses at
all.70 Without the opening column of the Scroll, it is impossible to know
for sure whether Moses had more than the incidental role he appears to
have in the extant fragments.
There is no doubt, however, that the speaking voice in the Temple
Scroll is that of God. Consequently, Schiffman is correct that this is a
“divine” rather than a “Mosaic” pseudepigraphon. It is only “Mosaic
66 Kugel, “On the Interpolations,” 271.

67 So White Crawford, Rewriting, 86; The Temple Scroll and Related Texts, 18.
70 Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the
Second Temple Period,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepi-
grapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Chazon and M. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden:
Brill, 1999), 121–31. See also Baruch A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its his-
torical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 17–21, who argued
that the Temple Scroll follows the Priestly understanding of revelation, according to
which all commandments are attributed directly to God.
discourse” insofar as its content resembles the discourse of Moses in

Deuteronomy. It is actually presented as “divine discourse.” As such,
its claim to authority would seem to be unambiguous. It would be
anachronistic to say that the Temple Scroll is “canonical,” but it claims to
be a direct revelation of divine law. It is true that large portions of the
Temple Scroll follow the same kinds of procedures that we find in ex-
pansionistic “biblical” texts – rearranging passages and harmonizing
them, to smooth out the tensions between them. But unlike Jubilees, the
Temple Scroll does not acknowledge any “first law.” If the revelation is
indeed set on Mount Sinai, then it would seem to be prior at least to
Deuteronomy, perhaps even prior to the laws of Leviticus which were
allegedly given to Moses at the Tent of Meeting. Also unlike Jubilees,
there is no appeal to the Angel of the Presence or to the heavenly tab-
lets. No further authority is needed than the voice of God.
The claim to authority of the Temple Scroll is as strong as any we
find in the Torah and stronger than many. There can be no doubt that it
claims the status of Torah: several passages demand that the Israelites
observe “the regulation of this law” (!$! &6</ 9#%, 50:5–9, 17) and it
refers to itself as “this Torah” (=#$! !:#=!, 56:20–1, the law of the king;
cf. 57:1, the law of the priests, 59:7–10).71 The fact that it uses language
familiar from the traditional Torah would probably make it easier to
accept as the authentic revelation on Sinai. Moreover, TS 54:5–7 appro-
priates the stricture of Deut 13:1: “all the things which I order you to-
day, take care to carry them out; you shall not add to them nor shall
you remove anything from them.” This could well be taken as a claim
to exclusive authority. The strongest argument that the Temple Scroll
presupposes the continued authority of other scriptures is that there are
so many basic issues that it does not address. But even the traditional
Torah does not address all aspects of the law – for example, there is no
law regulating divorce, although the custom is clearly acknowledged in
Deuteronomy 24. De facto, by the time the Temple Scroll was written
many laws, such as the ten commandments, must have been so familiar
that they could be taken for granted. It would have been unrealistic, in
any case, to seek to suppress books that were current and enjoyed au-
thority. The whole biblical tradition is full of examples of material that
corrects older scripture but does not erase it. It may be that “the Temple
Scroll is meant to stand alongside the Torah, to supplement and explain
it,” like the Book of Jubilees,72 although it is then surprising that it does
not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the older scripture. But

72 White Crawford, Rewriting, 87.
40 John J. Collins
there can be little doubt that the authors of the Temple Scroll intended
that this law would be decisive on the matters it addressed.
The author of Jubilees may not have felt free to change the tradition-
al text of scripture. The author of the Temple Scroll appears to have had
no such inhibition. Jubilees may be a work based closely on traditional
scripture; the Temple Scroll is more properly scripture rewritten. The
date of its composition is controversial. Some scholars have dated it as
early as the Persian period, others as late as the early first century BCE.73
One fragmentary manuscript (4QRouleau du Temple, or 4QRT), which
parallels the Temple Scroll cols. 35 and 50–66, is dated by its editor to
approximately 150–125 BCE.74 If 4QRT is an actual manuscript of the
Temple Scroll, rather than a source, this would require a date of compo-
sition in the mid-second century BCE, and there is nothing that requires
an earlier date than this. In this case, it was roughly contemporary with
Jubilees. If the author of Jubilees, then, felt he had to acknowledge the
“first law” as authoritative, this attitude was not universal. In the mid-
second century BCE it was still possible to rewrite the Torah radically,
and present it as the Torah revealed by God on Mount Sinai.
This is not to say that such a rewritten Torah would necessarily be
accepted. If the authors aimed to produce a normative text, there is
little evidence that they succeeded. Unlike Jubilees, the Temple Scroll
does not seem to have been translated into any other language. It sur-
vives in only a few copies – two that can be identified with certainty, a
possible third and a manuscript that seems to contain a different, older
form of the text (4QRT).75 The fact that it was copied at all, at no small
expense, suggests that some people accepted its claim to be divine reve-
lation, but it is never clearly cited as an authority. To say that the au-
thors did not succeed in having their work accepted, except by few, is
not to say that this was not their intention.
The Question of Fraud
The people who copied and preserved the Temple Scroll presumably
accepted it as an authentic formulation of the revelation at Sinai, which
was an event, prior to any written record of it. We may also, with Naj-
man, charitably assume that the authors of the Scroll wrote in good
73 White Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 24–26.

74 Émile Puech, “4QRouleau du Temple,” in Qumrân Grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hébreux
(4Q521–528, 4Q576–579) (ed. É. Puech; DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 87.
75 White Crawford, Rewriting, 85.
faith, although we can only guess at what they thought they were
doing. To charge these authors with fraud, however, is not entirely
anachronistic. Whether or not any person or group would have regard
the Temple Scroll as a fraud would depend on whether they accepted its
interpretation of the divine law, and many Jews of the time did not. The
author of some of the Hodayot, often thought to be the Teacher of Righ-
teousness, complains bitterly about the “men of deception” who “said
of the vision of knowledge, it is not certain, and of the path of your
heart, ‘it is not that’” (1QH 12:18). The Damascus Document complains
about the “man of the lie” (CD 20:15) who “spread over Israel the wa-
ters of lies” (1:15). There are also charges of false teaching and decep-
tion in the Pesharim.76 There is no reason to think that these “deceivers”
promulgated rewritten texts of scripture; most probably they inter-
preted the traditional scriptures in ways that the members of the “new
covenant” considered false. But feelings between members of different
sects were probably mutual. It is not unlikely that Pharisees or Saddu-
cees would have considered Jubilees and the Temple Scroll fraudulent. Of
course, their reasons for doing so would have been quite different from
those of modern skeptics. They would have been based on the content
of the alleged revelations rather than on the scribal activity by which
they were produced. But Jews of other sectarian persuasion would not
have been immediately seduced by “Mosaic discourse” or by the evoca-
tion of Sinai. Revelation was a contentious matter, even in antiquity.
Indeed, if it had not been there would have been little incentive to re-
write scripture to begin with.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It is Writ-
ten: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Wil-
liamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Bergsma, John S. “The Relationship between Jubilees and the Early Enochic
Books.” Pages 36–51 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubilees
Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2009.
Bernstein, Moshe. “’Rewritten Bible:’ A Generic Category which has Outlived
Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96.
76 Lloyd K. Pietersen, “’False Teaching, Lying Tongues and Deceitful Lips’ (4Q169
FRGS 3–4 2.8: The Pesharim and the Sociology of Deviance,” in New Directions in Qu-
mran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 Septem-
ber 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 166–81.
42 John J. Collins
Boccaccini, Gabriele. “From a Movement of Dissent to a Distinct Form of Ju-

daism: The Heavenly Tablets in Jubilees as the Foundation of a Competing
Halakah.” Pages 193–210 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubi-
lees Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009.
Brooke, George J. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 777–81 in The Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. Vander-
Kam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Ȱ. “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?” DSD 8 (2001):
219–41.
Ȱ. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the
Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. Lon-
don: British Library, 2002.
Campbell, Jonathan G. “’Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Termino-
logical and Ideological critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran
Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 Sep-
tember 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell et al. London: T & T Clark,
2005.
Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. New York: Oxford, 2005.
Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic
Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Crawford, Sidnie White. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000.
Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Davies, Philip R. “Spurious Attribution in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 258–75 in
The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Edited by James R. Lewis and Olav Ham-
mer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon,
1985.
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne. The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to
Law. JSOTSup 287. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Frey, Jörg et al., ed. in frühchristlichen Briefen. WUNT 246. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009.
Goodman, Martin. “Jewish Literature Composed in Greek.” Pages 509–66 in
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. III.1 Edted by Geza
Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986.
Himmelfarb, Martha. “Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to
Authority in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 22–28 in A Multiform Heritage:
Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Edited
by Benjamin G. Wright. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Ȱ. A Kingdom of Priests. Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 2006.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Kugel, James. “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees.” RevQ 24 (2009):
215–72.
Laato, Antti and Jacques van Ruiten, ed. Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Lange, Armin. “’Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to Make
Changes’ Josephus, AG.AP.1.42. The Textual Standardization of Jewish
Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 105–26 in Flores Florenti-
no. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino
García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tig-
chelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Ȱ. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Bd. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer
Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 2009.
LeFebvre, Michael. Collections, Codes, and Torah. The Re-characterization of Israel’s
Written Law. London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Levine, Baruch A. “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its historical Provenance and
Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 17–21.
Levinson, Bernard. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New
York: Oxford, 1997.
Machiela, Daniel A. “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient
Judaism – A Review of Recent Developments.” JJS 61(2010): 308–20.
Maier, Christl. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in
Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2002.
Metzger, Bruce M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” JBL 91
(1972): 3–24.
Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second
Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Ȱ. “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring
Strategies.” Pages 39–71 in Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed
Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJSup 53. Leiden:
Brill, 2010. Repr. JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410.
Ȱ. Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for
Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. London: SCM, 1986.
Perdue, Leo G. “Pseudonymity and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 27–59 in
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg
Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janssen and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246.
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009.
Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon –
Genre, Textual Strategy or Canonical Anachronism?” Pages 284–306 in
Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of
Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and
Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Pietersen, Lloyd K. “’False Teaching, Lying Tongues and Deceitful Lips’ (4Q169
FRGS 3–4 2.8: The Pesharim and the Sociology of Deviance.” Pages 166–81
44 John J. Collins
in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on

the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell et
al. London: T & T Clark, 2005
Puech, Émile. “4QRouleau du Temple.” Pages 85–114 in Qumrân Grotte 4, XVIII:
Textes hébreux (4Q521–528, 4Q576–579). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 25. Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1998.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha
of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 121–31 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives:
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E.
Chazon and M. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of
Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Schürer, Emil. History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by
Geza Vermes et al. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987.
Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–99 in
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by L. Schiff-
man, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
2000.
Ȱ. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at
Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Ȱ. The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup
117. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Sharp, Carolyn. Prophecy and ideology in Jeremiah: struggles for authority in Deute-
ro-Jeremianic prose. London: T & T Clark, 2003.
Speyer, Wolfgang. Die literarische Fälschung im Altertum. Munich: Beck, 1971.
Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the
Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2007.
Tov, Emanuel and Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 187–
351 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994.
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001.
Ȱ. “Moses Trumping Moses.” Pages 25–44 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Tradition and
Transmission of Authoritative Literature. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy
Najman, and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. Stu-
dia Post-Biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (the Temple
Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees, One Single or Two Independent Composi-
tions.” Pages 205–16 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Edited by
K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Ȱ. “Jubilees as the Super Canon.” Pages 195–211 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues.
Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Lei-
den: Brill, 1997.
Werman, Cana. “’The !:#= and the !#3= Engraved on the Tablets.” DSD 9
(2002): 75–103.
Westbrook, Raymond. “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation.”
ZA 79 (1989): 201–22.
Wright, David. Inventing God’s Law. How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and
Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Wyrick, Jed. The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in
Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2004.
Zahn, Molly M. “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch
Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?” DSD 15
(2008): 315–39.
Ȱ. “Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 323–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2010.
Ȱ. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked
Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.
The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of
the Scriptural Books*
Eugene Ulrich
When we pick up a Bible, it presents itself in a simple, single, and clear

form. But that clear simplicity is the result of myriad decisions by edi-
torial and ecclesiastical leaders regarding numerous principles, puz-
zles, and issues about the end product of a lengthy, complex history of
production. In order to understand and use the Bible intelligently and
responsibly, it is helpful to consider its entire history — how it came to
be, from its earliest origins and through all the various processes that
influenced its development and brought it to its final shape. Since cer-
tain other ancient Jewish compositions that were not eventually ac-
cepted as scriptural — the so-called nonbiblical, para-biblical, and post-
biblical texts — were produced, transmitted, and received in a manner
analogous to that of books which eventually became “Scripture,” hope-
fully the light shed by the scriptural texts may add illumination also for
some of the processes of production for those compositions.
Before the Dead Sea Scrolls provided evidence for the organic de-
velopment of the scriptural texts, the prevailing view was that the
composition of many biblical books was complete in the earlier or mid-
dle part of the Second Temple period, that those completed forms con-
stituted “the original text,” and that the purpose of textual criticism
was to unravel the errors and accretions that had subsequently crept
into the finished text.
The line between composition and textual transmission, however,
has slowly been erased as scholars gradually realized the significance
of the process of developmental composition. The books grew through
a series of successive “new and expanded” literary editions. For some
time, the older and the newer editions circulated simultaneously, each
separately gathering unintentional and intentional changes and
* This article, slightly adapted, is reprinted with permission of Brill publishers from
“The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” in The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H.
Najman and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 209–25.
48 Eugene Ulrich
growth. Thus, over and over, the literary period, the period of composi-
tion, was simultaneous with the transmission period, the period of
copying and textual variants. This paper will examine issues, and illu-
strate them with examples, of the overlap between composition, redac-
tion, textual transmission, and reception.
I shall attempt an evolutionary overview of the history of the pro-
duction of the biblical texts mainly chronologically, but also with an
eye toward the types of growth and the motivations of the “scribes” or
“handlers” of the text who produced the growth.1 My attempt to view
the whole process, from origins and production to reception of the
books as established canon, will necessarily require lack of focus on
many details. Moreover, many of the individual points will be already
known; but I hope that putting the comprehensive picture together in
one short essay is new and valuable. In short, I will use a number of
familiar building blocks to illustrate the processes of composition, re-
daction, transmission, and reception.
We must begin by articulating a few background assumptions,
most based on evidence presented in previous publications: 2
First, a paradigm shift is needed in the textual criticism and editing
of the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text is, of course, supremely impor-
tant as a religious text and academically essential as the sole preserved
collection in Hebrew of the full Hebrew Bible corpus. But textually, it is
simply one among many witnesses to the biblical text, and each witness
must be examined on its textual merits word-by-word on an egalitarian
basis.
Second, since the contents of the Scriptures were not defined in the
Second Temple period, the terms “Bible” and “biblical” are anachronis-
tic for that period and thus tend to distort our understanding.3 Similar-
1 For an insightful analysis of aspects of biblical editorial roles, see John Van Seters,
The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2006).
2 Many of these assumptions have been explained in Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Eu-
gene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in
Congress [IOSOT] Volume Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002),
85–108; and Eugene Ulrich, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls — The Scriptures of Late
Second Temple Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T. H.
Lim, with L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld, and A. Jack; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000),
67–87.
3 See James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hen-
drickson, 2002), 91–109 (109): “In view of the evidence from Qumran, we should
avoid using the words Bible and biblical for this period.… we should follow the an-
The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books 49
ly, since the status of certain books was unclear, we must attenuate the
lines, later drawn sharply, between Scripture and non-scriptural (or
“biblical,” “rewritten Bible,” “parabiblical,” etc.).4 Because, however,
the territory often referred to as “rewritten Bible” is still in the not-
fully-explored stages of pioneering and mapping, this essay will treat
only compositions that appear to have been more widely recognized as
Scripture in the late Second Temple period, and must leave intriguing
works such as the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, and 1 Enoch, for a future study.
Third, the scriptural scrolls from Qumran are not “sectarian” but
present the Scriptures of general Judaism. They are the oldest, most
valuable, and most authentic evidence for the shape of the Scriptures as
they circulated in Palestine at the time of the origins of Rabbinic Ju-
daism and Christianity.
Fourth, up until “the great divide” (sometime between the two Jew-
ish Revolts) the text was pluriform, with the books circulating in va-
riant literary editions simultaneously, each of which apparently en-
joyed equal status.
Fifth, “evolutionary” is, I believe, an appropriate description of the
production of the biblical books. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines
evolution as “any process of formation or growth; development.… Biol.
the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the envi-
ronment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, in-
breeding, and mutation.”5 This is a good description of how many of
the books of the Bible were composed.
Sixth, the terms “Urtext” and “original text” are more likely to pro-
duce confusion than clarity in discussions of the biblical text, in light of
the evolutionary nature of the text. “Urtext” was a conceptual construct
based on limited knowledge of textual history and, to some extent, on
the imagined dictating by God of a finished book to a single author.
The main stages in the chronological growth of the biblical books
are composition, redaction, transmission, and reception. But these are
not able to be neatly distinguished, and so we will examine these stages
from several perspectives.
cient practice of using more general, less suggestive terms such as scriptures and re-
written scriptures, instead of Bible and rewritten Bible.”
4 VanderKam (“Questions of Canon," 95) correctly suggests that “what are identified
as ‘biblical’ manuscripts are often treated separately by scrolls scholars.… It seems to
me that this segregation of texts is not a valid procedure in that it does not reflect
what comes to expression in the ancient works found at Qumran.”
5 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Gra-
mercy Books, 1994), 495.
50 Eugene Ulrich
Composition
Oral composition. Many of the stories that combine to form the longer
narratives began in short, oral form and were handed down in oral
form. For example, many of the stories in Genesis 12–22 probably circu-
lated among the Canaanite or Aramean ancestors of Israel as isolated
stories. Gen 12:10–19, for example, may well have been an old hero tale
about a Canaanite chieftain taking his wife down to Egypt, risking the
loss of her, and the resulting complications. Genesis 14 may have been
an isolated old war tale, which included the blessing of a chieftain by
the Canaanite god, El Elyon. Genesis 15 appears to be a Mesopotamian
or Canaanite story of an inheritance-adoption problem, while Genesis
16 was a conflict story about the favorite but barren wife vs. the fertile
concubine.6 Finally, I would agree with those who see Genesis 22 as a
narrative helping to motivate child sacrifice when it was deemed neces-
sary. We shall return to these oral stories.
This last episode in Genesis 22 illustrates the complexity of the evo-
lutionary process. Under the assumption that it originally promoted
child sacrifice (cf. Exod 22:28; 2 Kgs 3:27), it was later transformed into
a polemic against child sacrifice and then augmented to serve as an
etiology supporting the cultic sacrifice of an animal in place of the
firstborn (cf. Exod 34:20). Eventually it was incorporated into the na-
tional epic as a story showing the fidelity of the patriarch before he dies
and passes the promise on to his son. There were adaptations to the text
at each of these developing stages.
Religious reflection and the production of texts. Regarding the produc-
tion of texts that became Scripture, there is no evidence, and so we
must rely upon trying to understand the salient points of a text and
imagining what the author was thinking in order to produce such a
text. It seems to me that a likely scenario would be someone taking
some aspect of the phenomena of life experience or of the culture and
reflecting on it. Such phenomena might be nature, events, social inte-
raction, war, suffering, and so forth. Thoughtful people would reflect,
asking, “how does this relate to the world of the divine, or how does it
fit in a God-centered vision of reality”? Possible results of such reflec-
tion may include:
6 See the Mesopotamian (Nuzi) legal documents illustrating the underlying social and
legal situations of Genesis 15–16 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Tes-
tament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 219–20.
• Nature: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very
good” (Gen 1:1, 31)
“The heavens are telling the glory of God” (Ps 19:2)
“I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield
its produce” (Lev 26:4)
• Social interaction: “The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of
Mamre… He looked up and saw three men,” (Gen 18:1–2, introduc-
ing the hospitality story)
• War: “I will sing to the LORD for he has triumphed gloriously:
horse and rider…” (Exod 15:1)
“I have handed over to you King Sihon the Amorite of Heshbon
and his land”
• Suffering: “Does disaster befall a city, unless the LORD has done
it?” (Amos 3:6)
“[They] comforted [Job] for all the evil that the LORD had brought
upon him” (Job 42:11)
Such examples appear to be instances of people contemplating their
lived experience and articulating it in terms of God’s direct causality.
This God-centered interpretation was not all that different from that of
surrounding cultures. The creation stories, for example, already came
to Israel from their foreign neighbors with a divine protagonist, and it
is entirely predictable that the Israelites would adapt them to a Yahwis-
tic context.
Foreign sources. This brings us to another factor in the production of
the Scriptures: foreign sources. Just as Israel drew its monarchic form of
government from its neighboring cultures, so too did it borrow for its
own purposes certain stories, songs, and traditions from the cultures
with which it came in contact. The creation and flood stories are ob-
vious examples. But other probable examples are Genesis 22 (just de-
scribed), Psalm 29 (probably originally celebrating Baal), Psalm 104
(with motifs from the Egyptian Hymn to the Sun God), the Book of Job,
Daniel 4 (probably influenced by a tradition like that seen in 4QPrayer
of Nabonidus = 4Q242), and Song of Songs (similar to the Egyptian
wasfs). These would each have been adapted for acceptability within
the Yahwistic community.
Small collections. As time passed, individual stories, laws, or songs
with a similar theme or of a similar genre were grouped into small col-
52 Eugene Ulrich
lections. For example, disciples gathered the “words of Amos” or the

sayings of other prophets into small collections; individual psalms, folk
proverbs, and love poems were also grouped into collections. Adapta-
tions from their “original” form may well have been made to fit those
sources into their new framework.
Historiographers. On a larger scale historiographers constructed ma-
jor histories.7 They were built by collecting already existing traditions,
placing them into a chronological and conceptual framework, and en-
hancing main episodes usually with a well-developed theological pers-
pective. An individual or a group created a national epic, whether in
oral form, as envisioned in Martin Noth’s Grundlage,8 or in written
form, as usually associated with the Yahwist and Elohist. Resuming the
discussion of Genesis 12–22 above, the historiographer assembled those
individual, isolated oral stories and strung them together in a creative
connecting narrative which produced a whole new pattern of what can
be termed Salvation History, that is, that God had a master plan and a
purpose behind all those seemingly random events. God chose and
blessed Abraham and, despite the near loss of his wife, childlessness,
and command to kill his eventually born, only son, the promise of
progeny was fulfilled. Those individual old tales were the beads which,
strung together, produced the epic sweep of Israel’s religious origins.
Similarly the Deuteronomistic Historian assembled a vast number
of sources, some already compilations of earlier sources, into a heavily
theological interpretation of history from Moses and the gaining of the
land, through the establishment of the monarchy and the secession and
defeat of the North, down to the time of Josiah.9 It is clear that his hand
has heavily redacted the main episodes and speeches. The Chronicler’s
History has in turn used and redacted large parts of the Deuteronomis-
tic History.
7 For these historiographers as true authors see Van Seters, The Edited Bible.
8 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (tr. Bernhard W. Anderson; Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972).
9 There are differences of opinion concerning the precise construction, time of author-
ship, and redactional history of the Deuteronomistic History, but our purpose here is
not to debate these; all different versions would illustrate the historiographic point
being made.
Redaction and Types of Textual Development
It will have become clear that in speaking of composition and produc-

tion one quickly notices that redaction, though theoretically distinct, is
also closely related to the process of composition: it is one of the modes,
one of the many stages of composition.
Redaction and new editions. One of the principal methods by which
the biblical books developed from their origins as individual stories,
laws, or sayings into small collections and eventually into the larger
books we know today was the production of “new and expanded”
literary editions. This is a general term that covers many types of new
editions or formulations of an earlier text. Literary-critical study of the
text of the Scriptures over the centuries since the Enlightenment de-
monstrates that the books are the result of a long literary development,
whereby traditional material was faithfully retold and handed on from
generation to generation, but also creatively expanded and reshaped to
fit the new circumstances and new needs — whether historical, social,
political, religious, or liturgical — that the successive communities ex-
perienced through the vicissitudes of history. We may term those major
creative expansions of older traditions “new literary editions.” A crea-
tive priest or scribe or thinker took a preexisting book or set of tradi-
tions and produced a major new form of it.
Those literary-critical analyses of earlier centuries just described,
however, were hypothetical demonstrations: based not on material
evidence but on the detection of literary and historical clues embedded
within the final forms of the texts. Nonetheless, the analysis of passages
such as the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, and the clashing
details of the two flood stories conflated into Genesis 6–9 was so con-
vincing that the hypothetical aspect faded, and the literary stages of
compilation was simply accepted as fact. Confirmation, however, of the
legitimacy of those demonstrations was strongly provided by the scrip-
tural scrolls from Qumran: the scrolls, together with evidence from the
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint in light of the scrolls, dis-
played repeated new literary editions for at least half the books of the
Hebrew Bible.
I would like to use the Book of Exodus as an example of multiple
new editions, from its very origins to its final frozen form. Although I
have used this example previously, the earlier discussion was limited
to the growth from the third century BCE. onwards, the period for
which we had textual evidence. Insofar as we are discussing textual
production, and in the hope that a larger perspective may elicit paral-
lels for nonscriptural texts, let me attempt a broader chronological
54 Eugene Ulrich
view. I wish to concentrate on the main points and thus will use tradi-
tional understandings of the growth of the scriptural text, such as the
Documentary Hypothesis, Noth’s tradition-history of Pentateuchal
traditions, and Norman Gottwald’s socio-literary approach to the ori-
gins of Israel.10 I wish to focus on the main trajectories, not wishing to
debate possible alternatives, but proposing that something analogous
to this must have happened to produce the texts that we eventually
inherit.
Some group fostered the remembrance of an escape from servitude
in Egypt, and the articulation of that memory may have ranged from
“Weren’t we lucky!” by some to “God saved us!” by others, just as may
happen today.11 It is not difficult to see which articulation gained most
currency and embedded itself in Israel’s traditional memory. The retel-
ling of that story was gradually augmented both with stories about the
birth of Moses and with plague narratives leading to the deliverance,
and it would eventually get linked to wilderness stories and Sinai tradi-
tions. Somewhere along this trajectory, the oral literary growth was
sufficiently established that we can recognize the kernel of the narrative
part of the Book of Exodus, the foundational origins story of a group
we could term the “Egyptian ancestors” of eventual Israel. This could
be considered the first edition of what will become the Book of Exodus.
When this literary tradition was sandwiched between the patriarchal
traditions of Israel’s “Canaanite ancestors” celebrating the promise of
land and the gaining of the land, we can see the main components of
Noth’s Grundlage, Israel’s premonarchic oral national epic. Certain
adaptations would have been necessary for fitting the Exodus tradition
into the larger pan-Israel epic, yielding a second edition of Exodus.
In the monarchic era the Yahwist and the Elohist provided two dif-
fering versions or (third and fourth) editions of the Exodus narrative,
and the redactor who joined J and E produced yet another, fifth edition
of Exodus. When the Priestly narrative expansions were added to the
Pentateuchal narrative, this produced yet another, sixth edition. The
insertion of the large blocks of Priestly legal material, in this case the
instructions for and execution of the construction of the tabernacle,
yielding yet another edition, brought into view the basic text of Exodus
10 Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible — A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1985).
11 For a discussion of the process from event to written text see Eugene Ulrich and
William Thompson, “The Tradition as a Resource in Theological Reflection — Scrip-
ture and the Minister,” in J. D. Whitehead and E. E. Whitehead, Method in Ministry:
Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry (rev. ed.; Kansas City: Sheed & Ward,
1995), 23–42 (25–29).
that we encounter in our manuscript tradition. Thus, it had already

undergone seven or more successive editions prior to our earliest MS
evidence.
Yet more editions are visible within our preserved MSS. The Old
Greek of chapters 35–40, concluding the common text of Exodus 1–34
presents the earliest edition (the eighth) attested in the MS tradition. The
MT version rearranged chapters 35–40, to have the execution of the
tabernacle match the instructions in 25–31 more closely, producing a
ninth edition.12 A tenth Jewish edition is attested in 4QpaleoExodm
(4Q22) with its Samaritan-like harmonizations and repetitions.13 The
Samaritans produced yet an eleventh edition with their small but signif-
icant variants promoting Mount Gerizim. Finally, 4QPentateuch (olim
“4QReworkedPentateuch”) indicates a probably more expanded edi-
tion, with its hymn of praise after the Exodus preceding Exod 15:22.14
Thus, twelve literary editions marked the composition, production, re-
daction, and transmission of the Exodus traditions into the Book of
Exodus before the development ceased due to the Roman destruction
and the new approach to the scriptural text adopted by rabbinic Ju-
daism and Christianity.
So the process of the composition of the Scriptures was organic, de-
velopmental, with successive layers of tradition, revised to meet the
needs of the historically and religiously changing community.
In addition to the new and usually expanded editions that formed
the major ways that the scriptural texts were produced, there are three
smaller types of variation that operate separately, usually at the level,
not of text production, but of copying and transmission.
Orthography. First, one minor, and usually not too significant, form
of textual development is orthographic expansion. As the Second Tem-
ple period progressed, the ambiguity caused by the consonantal man-
ner of Hebrew spelling was alleviated, increasingly and apparently
widely, by a growing practice of inserting matres lectionis to aid in the
12 See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques — A Solution to the

Problem of the Tabernacle Account,” On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected
Essays (rev. ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 116–30; in contrast to David W. Gooding, The
Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus (Texts
and Studies 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959).
13 For the text of 4QpaleoExodm see Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E.
Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 53–130. For analysis see Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus
Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scho-
lars Press, 1986).
14 4QRPc (4Q365) frgs. 6a col. 2 and 6c.
56 Eugene Ulrich
reading and interpretation of texts.15 Thus, some scribes copied new

MSS deliberately or inadvertently with a fuller spelling practice than
their source text had used. Sometimes this was quite necessary. For
example, less common words, such as =#!, could be mistaken for
routine forms (“fathers”), and so scribes would insert a mater lectionis to
assure correct reading and interpretation: =##! (“spirits of the dead,”
1QIsaa 19:3); the Masoretes later attained the same goal by adding vo-
wel points (=#! MT).
Individual textual variants. All are familiar with another level of vari-
ation: individual textual variants. These inadvertent errors or inten-
tional additions or clarifications used to be the primary focus of textual
criticism prior to our realization of the developmental composition of
the scriptural books. In general the collection of individual textual va-
riants, though very large quantitatively, forms a relatively minor cate-
gory, viewed from the perspective of textual production.
Isolated interpretive insertions. The Qumran scrolls have highlighted
examples of yet another category, isolated interpretive insertions,
which forms a relatively major factor in the growth of the scriptural
texts, even though it is comparatively much smaller than that of new
literary editions. Learned scribes occasionally inserted into the text they
were copying additional material that they considered valuable. Com-
parisons between the scrolls, the MT, the SP, and the LXX highlight
insertions of up to eight verses16 that some witnesses have but that oth-
ers lack. We could envision these insertions as marginal readings, foot-
notes, helpful or pious thoughts, chronological updates, etc., now en-
tered into the text. Some of these insertions provide additional
information, instruction, nomistic solutions, prophetic apparitions,
apocalyptic ideas, or simply related material. This type of activity was
apparently a widespread factor in the development all texts; indeed the
indications are that it penetrated a large number of the biblical books.
15 Edward Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 3; Eleazar L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the
Hebrew University (ed. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Hebrew University and
Magnes Press, 1955), 31.
16 See especially the large insertion in Jer 7:30–8:3 visible in 4QJera. For the text see
Emanuel Tov, “70. 4QJera,” in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD
15; Oxford; Clarendon, 1997), 145–70 (155 and Plate 24); for two analyses see Tov, ib-
id., and Eugene Ulrich, “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Pro-
phetic Books,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of
Ida Fröhlich (ed. K. D. Dobos and M. Kószeghy; Hebrew Bible Monographs 21; Shef-
field: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 263–74.
Motives for Development in the Text
The types of creative development are legion, and thus the motives or
rationales of the contributors are legion. But we can deduce many of
the main ones by watching the effects in the examples, book by book.
Genesis. In the formative stages of the Book of Genesis, a desire to
preserve and transmit both of the differing forms and theologies of
important stories seems unmistakable. The two creation stories, espe-
cially the two flood stories with their clashing and irreconcilable de-
tails, and the two accounts of the covenant with Abraham, etc., almost
demand such a rationale. Developments visible in the preserved manu-
script tradition would include the Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septua-
gintal variant numbering systems of the ages of the ante-diluvian and
post-diluvian heroes: scribes noticed, and felt they had to correct, such
problems as Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech still living when the flood
begins (SP Gen 5:3–32), and Methuselah still living fourteen years
beyond the start of the flood (LXX 5:26–30; 7:6), whereas Gen 7:23–24
reports that no humans remained except Noah and those with him in
the ark.17 In addition, a “supplementer” anticipated Jacob’s dream in
Gen 31:10–13 by adding after Gen 30:36 a report (in 4QRPb and SP, not
in the MT or LXX) of what the messenger of God said to Jacob in that
dream.18 Note that this example is similar to other accounts (in the MT
and LXX as well as the SP) of dreams and the repetition of the details of
those dreams at Gen 31:24 vis-à-vis 31:29, and 41:1–7 vis-à-vis 41:17–24.
Exodus. Examples are well known from 4QpaleoExodm and the SP
both of harmonization from Deuteronomy and of repetition of the
Lord’s commands to Moses and Aaron by word-for-word accounts of
the execution of those commands. An additional minor example occurs
in the execution of the command to make the priestly ephod. The
commands are given to make the ephod (Exod 28:6), to make the
breastpiece (15), to put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece (30),
and then to make the robe, etc. (31). The execution of those commands
is given in the MT as ephod (Exod 39:2), breastpiece (8), and robe, etc.
(22), but nothing is reported about the Urim and Thummim. Frank
Cross noticed that 4QExod-Levf and the SP do report “the Urim and
17 See Ralph W. Klein, “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Tes-
tament,” HTR 67 (1974): 255–63; Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual
Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 61.
18 4QRPb (4Q364) frg. 4b–e col. 2 lines 21–26.
58 Eugene Ulrich
Thummim” in its proper place (39:21).19 This addition is a minor exam-

ple of the 4QpaleoExodm–SP pattern of having the execution match the
command. Yet one more expansion that is not in any of our other wit-
nesses appears in 4QPentateuch: a hymn of praise for God’s saving
Israel from the Egyptians is inserted just before Exod 15:22.20
Numbers. Both 4QNumb and 4QPentc (“4QRPc” = 4Q365) in different
ways link text of Numbers 27 with text of Numbers 36 in the interests
of related subject matter. In Numbers 27 the daughters of Zelophehad
request and are granted legal inheritance of their father’s due posses-
sion after he died in the wilderness with no sons to inherit it. Later,
after Moses had given the directions for apportioning the tribes’ inhe-
ritance in the land, in Numbers 36 the heads of the clans of Gilead re-
quest that the daughters’ inheritance must stay within their tribe, and
so the daughters must marry within the tribe to ensure this.
4QRPc has a fragment with the text of Num 27:11 followed imme-
diately without an interval by 36:1, showing that the two passages had
been joined.21 In 4QNumb there are sixteen lines of text required be-
tween the fragments at the bottom of column 31, which concludes with
Num 36:2, and the fragments of column 32, which contain Num 36:5. It
is quite likely — whereas there are no other plausible alternatives —
that Num 27:1–11 was interpolated within chapter 36, in the missing
lines between the text of 36:2 and 36:5, to link the two related passages
together.22 Although the two examples of this linkage were not formed
identically, scribes clearly considered it useful to link these two passag-
es about the daughters of Zelophehad contextually.
Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy, of course, is “rewritten Bible” par excel-
lence. The Deuteronomistic Historian used an older set of preached
legal material as the core of a new work which was a fresh retelling of
the Mosaic narrative. The resulting book then served as Israel’s “consti-
tution” regulating life in the promised land, the constitution by which
the nation and its leaders would be judged throughout its history.
19 Frank Moore Cross, “17. 4QExod-Levf ,” in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed.
E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 133–44 (139).
20 4QRPc (4Q365) frgs. 6a col. 2 and 6c.
21 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White, “4QRPc (4Q365)” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII. Parabib-
lical Texts (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 255–318, frg. 36.
22 Nathan Jastram, “27. 4QNumb,” in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E.
Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 262–64.
Joshua. 4QJosha reveals a significant instance of motivation in tex-

tual development: religious rivalry.23 It is important to note, however,
that the “sectarian variant” is not in the scroll but in the MT or the SP–
[OG?]–OL. The scroll appears to preserve the earliest form of the narra-
tive, placing the first altar built in the newly entered land at Gilgal, in
accordance with the implication of Moses’s unspecified command: “On
the day that you cross over the Jordan into the land…, you shall set up
large stones and cover them with plaster.…And you shall build an altar
there…” (Deut 27:2, 5). It is possible that the place name, whether
“Mount Gerizim” or “Mount Ebal,” was not yet in the repetitious text
of Deuteronomy 27,24 since the placement at Gilgal in our earliest wit-
ness, 4QJosha, is supported both by Josephus (Ant. 5:20) and by Pseudo-
Philo (L.A.B. 21:7).25
Subsequently in some texts, “on Mount Gerizim” was inserted into
Deut 27:4, possibly due to northern concerns to promote Mount Geri-
zim.26 Although this insertion is usually assumed to have arisen with
the SP specifically, it may well have been in a general Jewish text which
the SP used as its basis, just as most of its other pluses were due simply
to the faithful copying of Jewish expanded texts such as 4QpaleoExodm
and 4QNumb. That the reading was earlier and more widespread than
the specific SP is strongly suggested by the OL reading “Garzin,” which
virtually demands as its source that an ancient Greek MS also exhibited
that reading.
Then only at a third level did the replacement of “Mount Gerizim”
with the odd and problematic “Mount Ebal” occur; it can be explained
only as a hasty and ill-thought-out polemical reaction against “Mount
Gerizim.”27
23 For text and discussion see Eugene Ulrich, “47. 4QJosha,” in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deu-
teronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995),
143–52; and Ulrich, Scrolls and Origins, 104–5.
24 Note that the MT secondarily inserts also at Josh 6:26 a place name, “Jericho,” that is
lacking in the LXX, the Testimonia (4Q175), and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q379
22, 2:8).
25 Josephus and Pseudo-Philo know also the altar at Shechem, but both place it later in
their narrative.
26 A fragment of Deut 27:4–6, reputedly from Qumran, recently surfaced, and a photo-
graph and good edition of it was presented by James Charlesworth on his website:
http://www.ijco.org/?categoryId=46960 (Cited version updated on March 2010). It
reads -'$::! clearly, as does the SP. I thank Professor Charlesworth for sharing this
with me.
27 A contrasting view, seeing 4QJosha as a late sectarian revision placing the altar near
Qumran, is presented by Kristin De Troyer in “Building the Altar and Reading the
Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30–35,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library:
60 Eugene Ulrich
Judges. The best explanation for the small fragment of 4QJudga

(with Judg 6:6 followed immediately by 6:11) seems to be that someone
who influenced the eventual MT text wished to enhance the prophetic
nature of the book by inserting the appearance of a prophet (Judg 6:7–
10) when the Israelites cried out against the Midianite oppression.28
Samuel. Though there are hundreds or thousands of textual variants
in our witnesses to Samuel and a small number of isolated insertions in
both the MT and the scrolls, these do not seem sufficiently unified to
constitute variant editions of the entire book.29 In the David-Goliath
story, however, in 1 Samuel 17–18 there are two different editions: a
short, single story in the LXX and a much longer, double story in the
MT.30
Kings. Similarly, the Book of Kings exhibits expanded editions as
well. Especially in 1 Kings Julio Trebolle has shown that the Hebrew
and Greek texts show different redactional editions characterized by
variant ordering as well as major expansions (e.g., LXX 1 Kgs 12:24a–
z).31
The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (ed. K. De

Troyer and A. Lange; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 141–
62. I do not find this view convincing, however; among other things, the admittedly
“problematic” (p. 158) reading “Mount Ebal” is not explained.
28 For the text and analysis, see Julio Trebolle Barrera, “49. 4QJudga,” in Qumran
Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Cla-
rendon, 1995), 161–64; and “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Edi-
torial History of the Book of Judges,” in RevQ 14/2 (1989), 229–45.
29 Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Clarendon,
2005); Frank Moore Cross and Richard J. Saley, “A Statistical Analysis of the Textual
Character of 4QSamuela (4Q51)” DSD 13/1 (2006): 46–54; and Eugene Ulrich, “A Qu-
alitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea
Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A.
Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 147–61.
30 Emanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in Light of the Septuagint,” The
Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 333–62.
Stanley D. Walters (“Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel
1,” JBL 107 [1988]: 385–412) also argues for an intentionally variant edition of 1 Sa-
muel 1 in the LXX, denigrating Hannah. I agree that there are a large number of va-
riants, but I do not see an intentionally unified variant edition: Walters seems to pre-
sume that virtually all the MT readings are “original,” repeatedly stretches the
interpretation of the variants, and sees all the Greek variants (which can be variously
explained) as intentionally aimed in a single direction.
31 Julio Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Rey.
2–12; 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3; Salamanca/Jerusalén: Univer-
sidad Pontificia/Instituto Español Bíblico y Arqueológico, 1980); Julio Trebolle Barre-
ra, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings,” BIOSCS 15 (1982):
12–35. See also Steven L. McKenzie, “Kings, First and Second Books of,” The New In-
Reception
Whereas reception is usually thought of as a post-biblical phenomenon,

it is important at almost every stage of the transmission of the scriptur-
al books from their very origins. It is because certain groups treasured
the various traditions they received and considered them important
that the oral and written traditions were transmitted from the very
beginnings down through the generations. For example, it is because
the people in general considered the national epic foundational for
their national identity and viewed its transmission as of major impor-
tance that it was handed down generation to generation for millennia.
Some would also have found the historical materials important and
interesting.
The majority of the population presumably considered the legal
materials essential for good public order. The priesthood surely consi-
dered the liturgical and sacrificial directives and the forms of prayer
and hymnody important, not to mention the preservation and copying
of texts in general. The monarchy and military remembered, recorded,
and preserved historical and military lore. The disciples of the prophets
remembered and recorded their masters’ sayings and experiences. The
teachers — family, elders, and educators — kept in memory and passed
on the received wisdom traditions.
As the traditions kept being handed down, as religious reflection
deepened, and as the divine element was increasingly emphasized in
the redactional layers of new editions,32 the texts were increasingly seen
as “God’s Word”:
• creation and primeval stories were seen as “God’s revelation to
Moses”33
• covenantal formulae were “God’s promises”
• legal texts were “God’s commandments”
• moral and wisdom traditions were “God’s will”
• hymns and prayers composed by humans became “God’s word”34
terpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009), 3.523–32

(527).
32 For example, the addition of Proverbs 1–9 as a theological introduction to the folk
wisdom of 10–31, the establishment of Purim in Esther 9:18–32, and the much more
religious Additions in the Greek texts of Esther.
33 “The angel of the presence spoke to Moses according to the word of the LORD,
saying: ‘Write the complete history of the creation…’ ” (Jub 2:1).
62 Eugene Ulrich
• prophetic pronouncements were “God’s warnings or blessings”

and eventually “God’s predictions”
As the many forms of the people’s religious literature continued to be
transmitted and used in liturgical and educational settings, which pre-
sented and ingrained in the people God’s word and God’s will, the
collection as a whole was increasingly received and viewed as God’s
word to Israel. Eventually the religious leaders, backed by the commu-
nity, endorsed a canon of what they considered “Sacred Scripture.”
After serious discussions and deliberation they made the reflective
judgment that these books, in exclusive contrast to others, contained
divine revelation and were divinely inspired, and that they were the
God-given norm for their collective life. Canon is the ultimate act of
reception.
Bibliography
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Septuagintal Translation Techniques — A Solution to the
Problem of the Tabernacle Account.” Pages 116–30 in On the Trail of Septua-
gint Translators: Collected Essays. Rev. ed. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Charlesworth, James, Cited version updated on March 2010. Online: http://
www.ijco.org/?categoryId=46960.
Cross, Frank Moore. “17. 4QExod-Levf.” Pages 133–44 in Qumran Cave 4.VII:
Genesis to Numbers. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon,
1994.
Ȱ and Richard J. Saley, “A Statistical Analysis of the Textual Character of
4QSamuela (4Q51).” DSD 13/1 (2006): 46–54.
Ȱ et al. Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel. DJD 17. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005.
De Troyer, Kristin. “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of
Joshua 8:30–35.” Pages 141–62 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library:
The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations.
Edited by K. De Troyer and A. Lange. SBLSymS 30. Atlanta: Society of Bib-
lical Literature, 2005.
Gooding, David W. The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Prob-
lems of the Greek Exodus. Texts and Studies 6. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible — A Socio-Literary Introduction. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
34 The inspirational source of the Psalms is transferred to God in 11QPsa 27:11: “All
these [David] spoke through prophecy given to him from the Most High.”
Jastram, Nathan. “27. 4QNumb.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to
Numbers. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Klein, Ralph W. “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old
Testament,” HTR 67 (1974): 255–63.
Kutscher, Edward Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
McKenzie, Steven L. “Kings, First and Second Books of.” Pages 523–32 in vol. 3
of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Edited Nashville: Ab-
ingdon, 2006–2009.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W.
Anderson. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Sama-
ritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. Qumran Cave 4.IV:
Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon,
1992.
Sukenik, Eleazar L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Edited by N.
Avigad and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press,
1955.
Tov, Emanuel. “70. 4QJera.” Pages 145–70 in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets.
Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Ȱ. “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in Light of the Septuagint.” Pages 333–
62 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Ȱ and Sidnie A. White. “4QRPc (4Q365).” Pages 255–318 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII.
Parabiblical Texts. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Claren-
don, 1997.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio. Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1
Rey. 2–12; 14. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3. Salaman-
ca/Jerusalén: Universidad Pontificia/Instituto Español Bíblico y Ar-
queológico, 1980.
Ȱ. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings.” BIOSCS 15
(1982): 12–35.
Ȱ. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the
Book of Judges.” RevQ 14/2 (1989): 229–45.
Ȱ. “49. 4QJudga.” Pages 161–64 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Kings. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Ulrich, Eugene. “47. 4QJosha.” Pages 143–52 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy,
Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon,
1995.
Ȱ. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ȱ. “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls — The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Ju-
daism.” Pages 67–87 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context.
64 Eugene Ulrich
Edited by T. H. Lim, with L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld, and A. Jack. Edin-

burgh: T & T Clark, 2000.
Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages
85–108 in Congress [IOSOT] Volume Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire.
VTSup 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Ȱ. “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama.” Pages 147–61
in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour
of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and
Ȱ. “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books.”
Pages 263–74 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in
Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly D. Dobos and Miklós Kószeghy.
Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.
Ȱ. “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books.”
Pages 209–25 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Produc-
tion of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller.
STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Ȱ and William Thompson. “The Tradition as a Resource in Theological Reflec-
tion — Scripture and the Minister,” Pages 23–42 in Method in Ministry:
Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry. Edited by J. D. Whitehead and
E. E. Whitehead. Rev. ed. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995.
Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical
Criticism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
VanderKam, James C. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea
Scrolls.” Pages 91–109 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald
and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
Walters, Stanley D. “Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1
Samuel 1.” JBL 107 (1988): 385–412.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. New York:
Gramercy Books, 1994.
Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and
Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a
Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition
Hans Debel*
As biblical scholars, we live in fascinating times “after Qumran,”1 and it

goes without saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionised our
understanding of the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.2 In fact, the
outburst flood of Glacial Lake Missoula, which appeared across eastern
Washington at the end of the last ice age, provides a suitable image for
the impact of the findings in the Judean Desert on biblical studies. Simi-
lar to the pressure behind the ice dam, scholars were aware, for almost
forty years, of the enormous amount of information that could be
gained from the Judean Desert findings, but only a few preliminary
* The author is a Research Fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO-

Vlaanderen), currently preparing a doctoral dissertation on the hermeneutical
framework of textual criticism after the discoveries in the Judean Desert. He is work-
ing at the Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism (CCSTC), Faculty of The-
ology, K.U.Leuven (http://www.theo.kuleuven.be/lxxtc/en/), directed by prof. dr.
Bénédicte Lemmelijn, who also supervises this dissertation which is part of a larger
research project on textual criticism and LXX translation technique in the book of
Qohelet. I want to express my sincere thanks for her continuous engaging support,
for the many valuable suggestions on the preliminary drafts of this paper, and for
her own reflections on the topic – some of which can be found in her as yet unpub-
lished papers which she graciously shared with me – as they have greatly stimulated
my own thinking. A shorter form of the present study was presented as a short pa-
per during the IOSOT-conference in Helsinki (1–6 August 2010). I am very grateful
to the editors of the present volume for their kind invitation to include this paper.
1 Comp. the title of a specialist symposium held in Alcalá from 31 May – 2 June 2010,
the proceedings of which will be published as H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn and J. Tre-
bolle Barrera, ed., After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts. The Historical
Books (BETL ***; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming in 2011). It was a great honour for me
to be allowed to attend this symposium, and I particularly wish to express my
thanks to profs. Adrian Schenker, Emanuel Tov, and Eugene Ulrich for their reac-
tions on my earlier paper referred to in n. 2.
2 See the works cited in Hans Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew
Bible?,” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–90 (162, n. 1).
66 Hans Debel
publications were produced at the time. Especially from the middle of

the seventies onwards, i.e., after Józef T. Milik had published his Books
of Enoch,3 Qumran studies seemingly entered into a “state of hiberna-
tion,” which led to a large amount of scholarly discontent, usually
summarised in Geza Vermes’ oft-repeated dictum that the publication
of the Qumran manuscripts was fast becoming “the academic scandal
par excellence of the twentieth century.”4 Although such blunt terms
are not entirely justified as they oversimplify reality,5 in hindsight, the
quick succession of events during the autumn of 1991 – the appearance
of the first volume of Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin Abegg’s compu-
terised reconstruction of the unpublished scrolls, William Moffett’s
decision to give open access to the Huntington Library’s Scrolls photo-
graphs, and the sustained campaign of the Biblical Archaeology Re-
view reaching its apex6 – appears as a watershed in the collapse of the,
by then already weakened, dam. In the ensuing years, a veritable flood
of editions and publications on the Scrolls were unleashed in biblical
3 Józef T. Milik and Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân
Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976).
4 Vermes originally uttered his statement in a lecture delivered at the University of
Dundee in 1977, but has since commented on it many times; see, e.g., his The Com-
plete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 7,
from which the expression “state of hibernation” has been borrowed. However, two
exceptions to this “state of hibernation” are to be noted, viz. the critical editions by
Yigael Yadin, Megillat ham-miqdash. The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society – Institute of Archaelogy of the Hebrew University – Shrine of the
Book, Hebrew 1977, revised English edition 1983), and by David Noel Freedman, K.
A. Mathews and Richard S. Hanson, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev)
(Winona Lake: ASOR, 1985), but both were prepared by scholars from outside the
Cave 4 editorial team targeted by Vermes.
5 In this regard, it should not go unnoticed that already during the eighties, a number
of younger scholars (among whom Judith Sanderson, Julie Duncan, Sidnie White
Crawford, Carol Newsom, Eileen Schuller, Elisha Qimron, and James VanderKam)
became involved in the publication of important Qumran texts in various kinds of
partnerships with some of the team members. As such, the first efforts towards the
reorganisation of the editorial team predate Emanuel Tov’s tenure as editor-in-chief
(although he of course played a leading role in speeding up the publication process),
and its reorganisation cannot be said to have come as a reaction to the controversies
of the early nineties. At stake in these controversies was not so much the full publi-
cation of the Scrolls, but rather the demand that all scholars were given open access
to the Scrolls; cf. Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Short History (Leiden: Brill,
2006), 72: “it was the idea of openness that was important.”
6 For an overview, see, e.g., the chapter on “Scroll Wars” by James C. VanderKam and
Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding
the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002), 381–
403.
Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s) 67
studies, and this incredible outburst of scholarly activity has changed

the face of the discipline much in the same way as the forces of the an-
cient glacial flood reshaped the entire inundated area.
At present, many scholars are involved in the exploration of the
postdiluvian landscape, of which the contours are slowly but steadily
becoming clear. In a nutshell, the Second Temple period now appears
as a time of unprecedented scribal creativity and socio-religious dy-
namics,7 during which the scriptural text was still organically develop-
ing and in a pluriform state.8 We find ourselves faced with the chal-
lenge to rethink the categories of our predecessors, but likewise, to not
fall into the temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater by
totally dismissing their valuable work. Against this backdrop, the
present essay intends to briefly explore two implications of a pluriform
outlook on the development of the scriptural tradition: the first implica-
tion concerns the possibility of reconstructing an “original” text behind
the alternative editions, and the second pertains to the relationship of
the latter to other, so-called “rewritten” compositions. Although, at first
glance, these two topics might seem unrelated, it will soon become
evident that upon closer consideration, they cannot be treated separate-
ly, because they ultimately belong to the same dynamic process of retel-
ling, writing, and rewriting tradition during Second Temple times.
1. “Variant Literary Editions” and “Original Texts”
1.1. The Dissolving of an “Urtext” into Various Compositional Stages
When compared to the prevalent opinion roughly a century ago, the

textual material found in the Judean Desert has dramatically altered the
hermeneutical framework for the text-critical analysis of the Hebrew
Bible. The theory of a single “archetype” developing into different “re-
censions,” usually associated with the name of Paul de Lagarde, has
become untenable, and important reflections towards a new framework
have been put forward by Frank Moore Cross, Shemaryahu Talmon,
7 Cf. Philip S. Alexander, “Judaism and Christianity: Reflections on the Parting of the
Ways and the Parameters for Future Dialogue,” PIBA 31 (2009): 32–53 (33), who de-
scribes the late Second Temple period as an “axial age” that burst with intellectual
and religious vitality, “one of the most creative in the history of humankind.”
8 See particularly the seminal essays by Eugene Ulrich, many of which have been
collected in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999).
68 Hans Debel
Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich.9 At present, many scholars have un-
derscored the usefulness of Ulrich’s model of textual plurality, in which
“variant literary editions” of certain textual units are considered the
tangible witnesses of the developmental state of the scriptural texts
during the Second Temple period, with creative scribes intentionally
rewriting the inherited text in light of their present situation.10
However, despite this emphasis on the dynamic growth of the
scriptural texts, the theory of a single Urtext still looms in the back-
ground, casting its long shadow on text-critical scholarship. For exam-
ple, in the revised edition of his renowned monograph on the textual
criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Tov still preferred to assume a single,
authoritative “original text” behind the textual multiplicity, which he
defined as the finished literary product standing at the beginning of the
process of textual transmission, although he immediately added that
the available evidence only allows for a partial reconstruction of such a
text.11 Despite the numerous important caveats that he notes in his
elaborate and well-balanced discussion on the subject, one may wonder
whether such a neat distinction between the composition and the
transmission of the scriptural texts is not unwarranted and even con-
tradicted by the evidence at hand.12 For this reason, Tov has expressed
9 For extensive bibliographical notes and a more elaborate presentation of the major
developments in the transformation of the hermeneutical framework for the textual
criticism of the Hebrew Bible, see Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the
Hebrew Bible?,” 163–73.
10 See also the definition given in his forthcoming contribution to the New Cambridge
History of the Bible, entitled The Old Testament Text and Its Transmission: “A variant
edition is a new reproduction of a book or passage which faithfully attempts to
transmit the text being copied but at the same time revises it substantially according
to a discernible set of principles.” I thank prof. Ulrich for having shared this as yet
unpublished paper with me.
11 See the discussion in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Re-
vised Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 164–80, which further develops the in-
sights unfolded in his earlier paper “The Original Shape of the Biblical Text,” in Con-
gress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; SVT 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 345–59. For
a detailed critique of his position, see John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious
History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 314–27.
12 As a case in point for the necessity to combine the methods of traditional textual and
literary criticism, it may suffice to mention the observations made by Bénédicte
Lemmelijn, “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction in the ‘Major Expansions’ of Exod
7–11? Finding Oneself at the Crossroads of Textual and Literary Criticism,” in Flori-
legium Complutense. Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in Honour of Julio Tre-
bolle Barrera (ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales; JSJSup ***; Leiden: Brill, in
press), viz. that some of the particularities of the “major expansions” in the textual
witnesses to the “Plagues Narrative” (SamP, 4QpaleoExodm , and 4QExodj ), espe-
second thoughts on the issue in his more recent publications, now as-
serting that all literary stages are equally “original” and that none of
them should be singled out as the original text.13 In a similar vein, Ul-
rich has pointed out that the notion of an “original text” can bear no
less than eight different meanings, ranging from the alleged sources
incorporated by the early authors to the traditional text fully attested in
the manuscript witnesses.14 Nevertheless, he still holds a moderate
form of the Urtext theory,15 as he believes that the text of each scriptural
book developed through a linear succession of revised editions.16 As
cially with respect to the role of Aaron, remarkably coincide with certain characteris-
tics traditionally assigned to the “priestly layer” of the Pentateuch.
13 See Emanuel Tov, “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the
Hebrew Bible: Relevance of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J.
A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 234–51 (248), as well as his “Hebrew
Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mé-
langes qumraniens en hommage à Emile Puech (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; STDJ 61;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 281–312 (304–5), in which he maintains that “now more than
ever it seems to me that there never was an ‘archeytpe’ or ‘original text’ of most
Scripture books,” and that “there never was a single text which may be considered
the original text; rather, we have to assume compositional stages, each of which was
meant to be authoritative when completed.” In addition, an important modification
is to be noted in Tov’s thinking on one of the remarks added to his definition, viz.
that usage of the term “edition” should not be limited to texts reflecting a literary
stage anterior to that reflected in MT. See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, “Three Strange Books
of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Composi-
tions from Qumran and Elsewhere,” in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten.
Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–
23. Juli 2006 (ed. M. Karrer et al.; WUNT 219; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
2008), 369–93, as well as the other works referred to in Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Liter-
ary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 173–74, n. 44, where I suggested that even this
wider use of the term may not go far enough.
14 See Eugene Ulrich, “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scrip-
tures,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor
of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 327–42 (337–38); comp. the five different meanings he listed in
“Jewish, Christian, and Empirical Perspectives on the Text of Our Scriptures,” in He-
brew Bible or Old Testament (ed. R. Brooks and J. J. Collins; Christianity and Judaism
in Antiquity 5; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 69–85 (71).
15 As he explicitly states in Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the
Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; SVT 92;
Leiden: Brill, 2002), 85–108 (94).
16 See particularly Eugene Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of
4QSama,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour
of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJS 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 147–
61 (150–51). Cf. his “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in
First Century Judaism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and
New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),
70 Hans Debel
such, he de facto pronounces the first attested edition as the Urtext of the
others, and on a more general level posits some kind of a single text at
the beginning of each line of development. Evidently, he considers this
text to be unattainable for modern scholars and by no means to be
equated with a “final form” of the composition, because the organic
development of the texts continued throughout the entire Second Tem-
ple period until it was abruptly frozen due to external circumstances in
the wake of the Temple’s destruction.17
These remarks notwithstanding, even Ulrich’s very cautious ap-
proach to the problem seems to contain a number of speculative ele-
ments that go beyond what the evidence allows one to conclude.18 Al-
though for each scriptural book the attested editions are undeniably
genealogically related to one another, their relationship may take a
more complex form than the linear succession postulated by Ulrich,
and in many cases, we undoubtedly lack sufficient evidence to recon-
struct the chain in detail. For example, Peter W. Flint has demonstrated
for the Psalter that the editions in MT and in 11QPsa both elaborate on
an earlier but unattested edition,19 and a similar explanation may also
apply to the development of the two editions of the Zerubbabbel and
Ezra traditions extant in LXX 1 Esdras and MT Ezra-Nehemiah.20
145–81 (158–59): “it seems increasingly clear that the text of each book developed
through successive revised literary editions, whereby an earlier form of the book
was intentionally revised to produce a newer revised edition.”
17 Comp. the relevant sections of his forthcoming paper The Old Testament Text and Its
Transmission.
18 See, more extensively, my critique of Ulrich’s model in Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Liter-
ary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 172–73.
19 As one of the first scrolls from the Judean Desert to be published, 11QPsa has at-
tracted a great deal of scholarly attention; see the works referred to in my “‘The Lord
Looks at the Heart’ (1 Sam 16,7): 11QPsa 151A–B as a ‘Variant Literary Edition’ of Ps
151 LXX,” RevQ 23/92 (2008): 459–73 (460–64). For a more extensive overview and
analysis of the debate on the status of the scroll, see Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea
Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 204–17, who ar-
gued at length that 11QPsa should be considered a “variant literary edition” of the
Psalter on a par with its Masoretic text-form. In this regard, it should be noted that
Ulrich endorsed Flint’s arguments, but at the same time proposed to label the MT-
edition of the Psalter ”n + 1,” and the 11QPsa-edition “n + 2,” thus creating the im-
pression that the latter is dependent upon the former, especially as he parallels them
to the successive editions of Jeremiah and other books; see Ulrich, “Methodological
Reflections.”
20 Comp. Adrian Schenker, “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-
Néhémie,” in Tradition of the Text (ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109: Freiburg,
CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 218–48 (235–36), arguing that 1 Esdras preserves an
earlier textual form of the restoration of the city and the temple, in which the “Story
of the Three Youths” has been added at a later stage, and which has been revised in
Moreover, it cannot be excluded, and may even seem very likely, given
the oral culture of the Ancient Near East at the time,21 that the interac-
tion between oral performances and written texts played a much larger
role in the process of composition and transmission than has tradition-
ally been allowed for.22
1.2. Critical Reflections on the Principle of Originality in the Oxford

Hebrew Bible
Nevertheless, the concept of an “original text” still takes pride of place

in the theoretical foundations of the Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB). Draw-
ing an analogy to the critical editions of classical texts and of the New
Testament,23 this project aims to produce an eclectic edition of the He-
Ezra-Nehemiah before that insertion, possibly at the same time when the “Nehemiah
memoir” was incorporated into the text; thus also Dieter Böhler, “On the Relation-
ship between Textual and Literary Criticism: The Two Recensions of the Book of
Ezra. Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The
Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsid-
ered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 35–50.
Note, however, the recent studies by Kristin De Troyer, “Zerubbabel and Ezra: A
Revived and Revised Solomon and Josiah? A Survey of Current 1 Esdras Research,”
CBR 1 (2002): 30–60; “A Lost Hebrew Vorlage? A Closer Look at the Temple Builder
in 1 Esdras,” in Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Tells Us about the Literary
Growth of the Bible (SBL Text-Critical Studies 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003), 91–126, suggesting that 1 Esdras presents a rewriting of Ezra-Nehemiah which
aimed at highlighting the role of Zerubbabel as a new and better Solomon. Comp.
Zipora Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBL SCS 47; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1999), pointing to the interpolation of the “Story of the Three Youths” as the
main purpose – “the raison d’être” – of the rewriting reflected in 1 Esdras.
21 According to Catherine Heszer, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tübin-
gen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), 496, during the last century of the Second
Temple period, the literacy rate in Palestine was probably lower than the average
rate of 10–15 percent for Roman society in imperial times.
22 See particularly Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Litera-
ture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), as well as, e.g., Shemaryahu Talmon,
“Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Juda-
ism of the Second Temple Period,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (ed. H.
Wansbrough; JSNT SS 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 144–84; Richard
A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2007), 89–108; and Karel Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and
the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 9–16.
23 See, e.g., Ronald Hendel, “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in The
Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls
1; Richland Hills: Bibal, 2000), 197–217 (214–15); and “The Oxford Hebrew Bible:
Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 324–51 (325–26). Comp. the state-
72 Hans Debel
brew Bible that approximates, as close as humanly possible, the arche-

type of the text, defined by Ronald Hendel – its editor-in-chief – as “the
earliest inferable textual state” in practical terms.24 According to Mi-
chael V. Fox, editor of Proverbs, “this ideally approaches the Urtext, the
text-form subsequent to its composition but prior to its corruption,” but
he hastens to add that for a “snowballing text” like Proverbs, “the Ur-
snowball is not only beyond recovery, it is beyond conceptualization.”25
In the light of the different compositional stages to which the concept of
an “original text” may refer, as outlined by Tov and Ulrich, one won-
ders whether this snowball picture may likewise apply to the majority
of the scriptural texts and not be limited to the “special conundrums”
of Proverbs.26 In any case, the decision of the OHB to present multiple
editions in parallel columns if they seemingly descend from each other,
and to reconstruct a common ancestor if they go back to a shared arche-
type,27 clearly reveals the practical difficulties in applying the principle
of “the earliest inferable textual state.”28
ment by Bertil Albrektson, “Translation and Emendation,” in Language, Theology, and

The Bible (ed. S. E. Balentine and J. Barton; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 27–39 (32): “The
textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible should not be regarded as a game of its own
with special rules;” as well as the more scathing remarks by Frank Moore Cross,
“Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Critical
Study of Sacred Texts (ed. W. Doniger O’Flaherty; Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2;
Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979), 31–54 (51): “Once the textual critic has
established the existence of variant textual families, and of genuine variant readings,
it would seem natural for him to get on with the task of investigating the variant
readings and establishing the superior readings. Not at all. One should never under-
estimate the resources of the textual critic in finding ways to avoid work.” However,
see also the judicious reflections on the topic by Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The
Genuine Text of Judges,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by
Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman et al.; SVT 110; Leiden: Brill,
2006), 33–45 (41–44).
24 See Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 329.
25 Michael V. Fox, “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible,”
JNSL 32 (2006): 1–22 (5).
26 Quoted from Fox, “Editing Proverbs,” 1.
27 See Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 326–27.
28 See the conclusions of section 2.1 in Eibert Tigchelaar, “Editing the Hebrew Bible: An
Overview of Some Problems,” to be published under the editorship of John Klop-
penborg and Judith H. Newman in the proceedings of the 2007 Toronto conference
on editorial problems. I wholeheartedly thank prof. Tigchelaar for providing me
with a copy of this paper. Furthermore, see also the critical remarks by George J.
Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and
Lower Criticism,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Collo-
quium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; LSTS 52;
London: T & T Clark, 2005), 26–42 (38–40).
As the decision on the relationship between the editions heavily

depends on the individual editor’s point of view, this ambiguous pres-
entation of editions unmistakably introduces into the OHB an addi-
tional element of subjectivity, which is from the outset one of the main
perils of preparing any critical edition, as has been emphasised by Tov
and Lemmelijn.29 Other such elements include the choice to present
alternative readings from the Septuagint in the form of (unvocalised)
retroversions, and the decision to permit conjectures in cases where the
extant texts are “clearly corrupt” and an “educated guess” on the un-
corrupted form can be made.30 Moreover, a particularly moot point in
the editorial policy of the OHB pertains to its treatment of so-called
“synonymous readings,” variants that can make an equal claim to
originality.31 Whereas Moshe Goshen-Gottstein argued long ago that,
unless and until the evidence forces us to regard one reading as derived
from another, we have to look upon them as alternative readings,32 the
editorial guidelines for the OHB explicitly state that, all other things
29 Cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible:
The Argument against Eclecticism,” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211 (202): “The main prob-
lem is the eclecticism itself, which some people regard as arrogance and which in-
volves the subjective selection of readings found in the ancient translations and the
Qumran manuscripts. [...] This subjectivity is so pervasive that well-based solutions
seem to be impossible.” See also his “The Status of the Masoretic Text,” 246–50; and
“Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 303–7. As for Lemmelijn’s reflections on the topic, see,
e.g., the relevant portions of “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction,” as well as her
“As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the Text-
Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10,” JNSL 24/2 (1998): 111–25 (121); and A Plague
of Texts: A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10
(OTS 56; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 215.
30 On the latter point, see Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 330–31.
31 See, e.g., the definition of the term in Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 21, which elabo-
rates on Judith Sanderson’s understanding of the term as “variants for which no
preferable reading can be determined even with probability,” and are “different le-
gitimate ways of expressing the same idea;” thus, e.g., Judith E. Sanderson, An Exo-
dus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986), 41. Moreover, it should be noted that the term was also used
by Talmon, who nevertheless defined it in a much narrower sense as interchange-
able readings which do not affect the subject matter of the text nor disturb the
rhythm of the verse, cannot be explained as scribal errors, display no clear ideologi-
cal purpose, and may thus go back to an early stage in the history of the text when
no single uniform and authoritative version had as yet crystallised; see, e.g., his
“Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960): 144–84 (145–46); as well
as “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament,” in Stud-
ies in the Bible (ed. C. Rabin; Scripta Hierosolymitana 8; Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1961), 335–83 (335–36).
32 See Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The History of the Bible Text and Comparative
Semitics,” VT 7 (1957): 195–201 (198).
74 Hans Debel
being equal, the variant contained in the Codex Leningraden-

sis/Petropolitanus B19A should be included in the main text, and its al-
ternative relegated to the apparatus where the notation “equal” will
indicate that it represents an equally plausible reading.33 As such, MT
as contained in one particular manuscript (which is, in itself, not of
undisputed value34) functions as the copy-text for the critical edition.35
Tov has rightly remarked that this policy creates a conceptual problem,
in that it will “perpetuate the perception that MT is the Bible.”36 As he
noted elsewhere, in certain cases scholars may simply lack sufficient
evidence to decide between readings, which does not imply that, his-
torically speaking, none of them is “original”37 – or, in Lemmelijn’s
more adequate terms, “more original” than the other.38 For this reason,
a truly responsible critical edition should not hesitate to leave certain
cases undecided and to develop a system that allows an editor to ex-
press various degrees of (un)certainty, instead of a straightforward
presentation of a single reconstructed text in which the last word is
given to an external condition. The accompanying text-critical commen-
tary envisaged by the OHB has an important role to play in this re-
gard39, but as remarked by Hugh Williamson,40 at times it seems desir-
33 See section E.4 of the “Guide for Editors (Revised 2010),” available at http://ohb.
berkeley.edu.
34 See the numerous publications in which the editors of the Hebrew University Bible
justify their decision to take Codex Aleppensis as the base text for their critical edition,
as opposed for BHS/BHQ’s choice for B19 A; e.g., Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The
Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text,” in Biblical and Other Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 79–122; Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Edi-
tions of the Hebrew Bible: Past and Future,” in Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible,
Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1992), 221–42.
35 On this concept of a “copy-text,” see Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,”
343–46. A critical assessment of OHB’s particular usage of the term and its implica-
tions for the intended edition is provided in section 2.2 of Tigchelaar, “Editing the
Hebrew Bible.”
36 Thus Tov, “Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 308.
37 See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 174.
38 See her working model presented, e.g., in Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 22–27. Al-
though she admits that this solution is less than ideal, it at least avoids the impres-
sion that by establishing “more original” readings one is able to partly reconstruct an
Urtext, as it merely judges the evidence within the relative framework of extant texts.
39 Section D of the “Guide for Editors” specifies that this commentary intends “to
justify decisions made in the critical text,” and “to address interesting or complicated
instances and issues.” For examples, see the sample editions published in Fox, “Edit-
ing Proverbs,” 14–20, and in Sidnie White Crawford, Jan Joosten and Eugene Ulrich,
“Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1–9, 1 Kings 11:1–8,
able that the edition itself would take the form of a commentary rather
than of a “Bible” in the sense of a running text. Nevertheless, one needs
not be as critical for the entire project as Williamson is, because an
eclectic edition will undoubtedly provide a practical tool for producing
critically responsible contemporary Bible translations for the general
public.41
1.3. The Need for a Revised Mentality
In the end, it occurs to me that present-day text-critical scholarship

should move away from being exclusively directed towards originality
– or to put it in the words of Albert Baumgarten in his critique of the
Groningen Hypothesis: from worshipping “the idol of origins.”42 In a
similar vein, Bénédicte Lemmelijn has argued that any speculations
concerning an “original text” that go unsupported by material evi-
dence, should be relegated to a “prehistory” of the text about which
nothing can be deduced with confidence.43 Following the famous sev-
enth proposition of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophi-
cus, one may conclude, in this regard, that it is best to pass in silence
over that of which one cannot reasonably speak.
To be sure, textual criticism should still set as one of its principal
aims the ferreting out of the textual witnesses, thus establishing – as
Lemmelijn suggests – a number of “more original” variants within the
relative framework of the extant manuscripts, in the sense of readings
that come chronologically prior to others in the development of the
text.44 However, instead of discarding the “less original” readings as
“secondary” insertions of negligent scribes, all variants should be me-
ticulously sifted in order to distinguish unintentional scribal lapses
from intentional changes, and an attempt should be made to situate the
and Jeremiah 27:1–10 (34 G),” VT 58 (2008): 352–66, as well as the additional samples
of Genesis and 2 Kings available on the website of the project.
40 See Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Pro-
posed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” Bib 90 (2009): 153–75.
41 As has also been emphasised by Corrado Martone during the IOQS-conference in
Helsinki (2–4 August 2010) in his paper “All the Bibles We Need: The Impact of the
Qumran Evidence on Biblical Lower Criticism.”
42 See Albert I. Baumgarten, “Reflections on the Groningen Hypothesis,” in Enoch and
Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 2005), 256–62.
43 Thus, e.g., Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “What Are We Looking For in Doing Text-Critical
Research?,” JNSL 23/2 (1997): 69–80 (75–77), and Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 25–27.
44 Comp. Lemmelijn’s working model referred to in note 38.
76 Hans Debel
latter in their historical context. As noted by Tov, all ancient readings

may contain valuable information on the concerns of the scribes trans-
mitting the text they had inherited,45 who at times resignified the text in
accord to their personal interests and/or the needs and sensibilities of
their communities.46 Who are we to treat the products of their creative
efforts as virtually worthless later developments? After all, many “sec-
ondary” readings were “preferable” in the minds of some people at a
certain moment in time.47 In terms of religious imagination, these “sec-
ondary” readings may even appear as “more original” than their
chronologically and logically “more original” counterparts,48 for which
it cannot be excluded, moreover, that they originally took root, in turn,
as the “secondary” alterations of a now lost “even more original” read-
ing. As the so-called “secondary” variants continued the compositional
process that had characterised the development of the scriptural texts
from its very beginnings, there is no reason why they should be consid-
ered qualitatively inferior, particularly in light of the fact that only
some scraps of the entire process have been accidentally preserved for
us.
2. “Variant Literary Editions” and “Rewritten

Bible/Scripture”
2.1. A Brief Assessment of Recent Research on “Rewritten

Bible/Scripture”
Notwithstanding the paucity of evidence on the initial phases of this

compositional process that eventually led to a single, “unchangeable”
text for each of the books belonging to a fixed canon of the Hebrew
45 See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 295, as well as Alexander Rofé, “The
Historical Significance of Secondary Readings,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning.
Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S.
Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 393–402.
46 As for the term resignification, reference should be made to the seminal work by
James A. Sanders; see, e.g., Canon and Community: a Guide to Canonical Criticism
(Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Old Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984),
22.
47 As observed by Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 48.
48 Comp. the concluding reflections by Lemmelijn, “Influence of a So-Called P-
Redaction,” observing that a “more developed” textual form may be considered
“preferable” from a literary and theological point of view.
Bible,49 our knowledge on its latter stages has been greatly enriched
through the wealth of evidence that has surfaced in the Judean Desert.
In addition to the texts ranged under Ulrich’s concept of “variant liter-
ary editions,” a number of other texts are often brought together as
examples of “rewritten Bible.” It is well known that Geza Vermes
coined this term in order to describe a limited set of compositions
which he believed represented the earliest phases of scriptural interpre-
tation, during which “haggadic developments” anticipating certain
exegetical problems were still freely inserted into the biblical narra-
tive.50 More recent research on the topic can be summarised as coping
with the two principal problems connected to the term, viz. “rewrit-
ten,” and “Bible.” Various scholars have proposed to replace “rewritten
Bible” by “rewritten Scripture” in an attempt to avoid the anachronistic
implication that a fixed collection of “scriptural” texts was already in
existence during the Second Temple period.51 However, even that term
turns out to be ambiguous and thus unsatisfactory, as it still seems to
presuppose the existence of a distinct genre.52 For this reason, scholars
increasingly tend to speak about an interpretational activity of “rewrit-
ing Scripture” rather than of a formal genre.53 Nevertheless, Moshe
49 The term “unchangeable” has been borrowed from Ulrich’s presentation during the
same IOSOT short paper session in which the present paper was scheduled, entitled
“The Overlap of Composition, Redaction, Transmission, and Reception of the Scrip-
tural Texts.”
50 See Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Studia Post-
Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95.
51 See, e.g., George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for
Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; The Bible as Book 4; London:
British Library, 2002), 31–40 (31–32); James C. VanderKam, “The Wording of Biblical
Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible
and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; The Bible as Book 4;
London: British Library, 2002), 41–56 (43); and Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Re-
written Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon - Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical
Anachronism?,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in
Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJS 122; Leiden: Brill,
2007), 285–306 (285–89); as well as the introductory discussion by Sidnie White
Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008), 1–13.
52 See particularly Jonathan G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A
Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Pro-
ceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G.
Campbell, W. J. Lyons and L. K. Pietersen; LSTS 52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43–
68 (49–50).
53 As has been pointed out almost simultaneously by Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical
Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 63; CQS, 8;
78 Hans Debel
Bernstein objected that such a broad definition virtually nullifies the

value of Vermes’ original proposal,54 and therefore urges scholars to
stick to “a narrowly defined genre” instead of transforming it into an
“excessively vague all-encompassing term.”55
In like manner, a few years ago, Michael Segal attempted to iden-
tify a number of criteria that enable scholars to make a distinction be-
tween multiple editions of scriptural texts and their rewritings.56 In his
opinion, rewritten compositions set themselves apart from variant edi-
tions because they tend to change the general scope of the work, to add
a new narrative frame, to change the voice of the narrator, to freely add
and omit large chunks of material, to impose a tendentious editorial
layer on the traditional text, and to explicitly refer to their source text in
order to make a clear distinction. However, the petitio principii in his
argument should not go unnoticed: he investigates the shared charac-
teristics of a number of texts that may be considered prototypical for
the distinct literary genre of “rewritten Bible” texts, thus assuming
from the outset the existence of such a genre, and infers from them a set
of criteria that confirm their attribution to a distinct genre, even though
this premise already underlies his selection of texts. In addition to this
methodological problem, it should be noted that Segal’s contention that
“rewritten” compositions are marked by the addition of an editorial
layer, stands in tension with Ulrich’s definition of “variant literary edi-
tions,” of which the hallmark is precisely such an additional layer.57 In
London: T & T Clark, 2007), 4–14; and Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a
Borderline Phenomenon,” 292–97. However, a similar proposal can already be found
in Daniel J. Harrington, “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophe-
cies,” in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E.
Nickelsburg; The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986),
239–58 (243): “it seems better to view rewriting the Bible as a kind of activity or
process than to see it as a distinctive literary genre of Palestinian Judaism.” Cf. also
the recent essay by Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist, “Rewritten Bible, Re-
written Stories: Methodological Aspects,” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings
of the Conference in Karkku, Finland. August 24–26 2006 (ed. A. Laato and J. Van Rui-
ten; Studies in Rewritten Bible 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 11–39 (15).
54 See, e.g., Moshe J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has
Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96 (178); and Moshe J. Bernstein,
“The Genre(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the
Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran at Aix en Provence 30 Juni–2 July 2008 (ed.
K. Berthelot and D. Stökl ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 317–43 (330).
55 Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’,” 187.
56 See Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at
Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28.
57 See, for example, n. 10 above, as well as his classic descriptions in Eugene C. Ulrich,
“Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Ma-
this respect, Johan Lust’s work on MT Ezekiel,58 as well as recent re-

search on MT Samuel-Kings by Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo,
may be referred to as examples of how scribes could subtly add a “ten-
dentious editorial layer” in order to create a different “edition.”59
drid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11;
Leiden: Brill, 1992), 23–41 (32); and in “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and
Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in Sha'arei Talmon. Studies in the Bible,
Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1992), 267–91 (278).
58 According to Johan Lust, k967 offers compelling evidence for the existence of a
shorter text vis-à-vis the longer version found in MT, which reflects a revision of the
former that is characterised by a more pronounced interest in eschatology; see espe-
cially his synthetic papers “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in
The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the
Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52; Atlanta: So-
ciety of Biblical Literature, 2003), 83–92; and “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Es-
says in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A.
P. Goldman, A. Van der Kooij and R. D. Weis; SVT 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 153–67.
On the two editions of the book of Ezekiel, see also Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Dif-
ferences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101. However,
Lust’s conclusions have recently been challenged by John Flanagan, “Papyrus 967
and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablesis or an Original Text?,” in Jewish and Christian Scrip-
ture as Artifact and Canon (ed. C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias; LSTS 70; London: T &
T Clark, 2009), 105–16.
59 Although Ulrich repeatedly emphasised that, for the books of Samuel, only the two
versions of the David-Goliath pericope (1 Sam 17–18) in MT and LXX can be labelled
a “variant literary edition” with confidence – see, e.g., the concise statement in
Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” in The Commu-
nity of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E.
Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10; Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–93 (88–89), as well as the conclusion of
Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment,” 159–61 – Philippe Hugo maintained in his most
recent synthetic paper “Text History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the
Recent Research,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual
and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker; SVT 132; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1–19
(11), that “recent studies have succeeded, in my opinion, in identifying distinct liter-
ary or editorial layers of the books of Samuel in some groups or network of related
variants.” In this regard, he refers to the more positive presentation of David in the
MT version as compared to the earlier version attested to in the Old Greek, and to the
former’s greater emphasis on the Temple that was to be built by Solomon; see the
many studies by himself, Adrian Schenker and Jürg Hutzli referred to in his biblio-
graphical notes. In a similar vein, Schenker considers the Old Greek of 1–2 Kings an
older textual form which has been theologically revised in MT, in order, among
other things, to portray Solomon more favourably and to enhance the contrast be-
tween the Northern and the Southern Kingdom; see, in addition to numerous case-
studies, particularly his monograph Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der
80 Hans Debel
2.2. Some Reflections Upon Rewritings and Authoritativeness
Moreover, Segal’s allegation that the modal Second Temple Jew could
easily distinguish between variant editions and new compositions is
built on shifting sands. True enough, the fact that Chronicles and 1
Esdras were included in at least one canon of Scriptures in later times
indicates that both texts were not perceived as representing the same
composition as, respectively, Samuel-Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah.60
However, one should bear in mind two important observations. First,
this reasoning presumes the existence of a single, authoritative text for
Samuel-Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah to which the “rewritings” could be
compared, but such a text only emerged in a later period. Second, the
later decision to recognise both books as “biblical” indicates that one
cannot simply distinguish “between Bible and rewritten Bible,” as
Segal does, because they ultimately became just as “biblical” as their
alleged source texts, without even the slightest hint at an inferior
status.61
In fact, the reception history of a text belongs to an entirely differ-
ent realm and cannot be taken as a means to distinguish between books
and their rewritings. Quite to the contrary, both the different version of
Jeremiah which was eventually included in MT,62 and MT’s conflated
version of the David-Goliath episode in 1 Sam 17–18,63 well illustrate
Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform
der Königsbücher (OBO 199; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 2004).
60 Thus Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16–17.
61 It is tempting to refer to the Greek title È¸É¸Â¼ÀÈÇÄšÅÑÅ in this regard, but even this
designation signals that the Chronicles should be read alongside their parallel stories
and thus puts them on a par with their alleged source texts; comp., e.g., John Barton,
“Canons of the Old Testament,” in Text in Context. Essays by Members of the Society for
Old Testament Study (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
200–22 (220).
62 On which see, e.g., the classical essay by Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the
Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical
Criticism (ed. J. H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 211–
37, revised edition in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the
Septuagint (SVT 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84; as well as, e.g., Pierre-Maurice
Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les
travaux en cours,” RB 101 (1994): 363–406; and Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situa-
tion in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Of-
fered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman et al.; SVT 110; Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 269–93.
63 It is well known that LXX offers a “heroic tale” of the battle, while MT has this ac-
count conflated with a “romantic tale.” The two options concerning the relative or-
der of the two editions of 1 Sam 17–18 have been explored in depth during the joint
that “rewritings” and “authoritative texts” are not mutually exclusive

categories. In light of these examples, one may even wonder, along the
lines set out by James VanderKam,64 on which inner-textual grounds a
“reworked” text like Jubilees, which also seems to have functioned as
an authoritative text for some Second Temple Jews,65 or even the Ara-
maic Genesis Apocryphon,66 should be put in a different bag than the one
that holds MT Jeremiah and MT 1 Sam 17–18. Or is it simply the fact
that the latter became part of the Masoretic collection of texts that all
too often prevents scholars from drawing obvious conclusions?
2.3. A Continuum Instead of a Dichotomy
For these reasons, it seems an oversimplification of an extremely com-

plex matter to think in terms of a binary opposition between “scriptural
editions” and “rewritten Scripture.” A similar observation can be made
at the other end of the spectrum of Ulrich’s “variant literary editions,”
where a number of texts exhibit significant differences, but of such a
limited extent that the question should be raised whether “edition” is
not too elevated a term to refer to them. Such is the case, for example,
with 4QJosha. Even if one agrees with Ulrich that this manuscript has
preserved a more original sequence of events with the entire passage of
the building of the altar (MT Josh 8:30–35) appearing immediately after
the crossing of the Jordan, at the end of MT’s chapter 4, then we still
have only a single floating textual unit.67 A similar argument can be
produced with respect to 4QJudga, in which the “deuteronomistic”
verses 6:7–10 are lacking: although the absence of these verses is almost
research venture published as Dominique Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Go-
liath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO 73; Friburg:
Editions Universitaires, 1986).
64 See James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hen-
drickson, 2002), 91–109 (108).
65 On which see particularly James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second
Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second
Temple Literature; JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–30.
66 See Hans Debel, “The Genesis Apocryphon as a Non-Hebrew ‘Variant Literary
Edition’ to the Patriarchal Accounts? Some Inner-Textual Considerations,” in The
Scrolls and Biblical Traditions. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki,
2–4 August 2010 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; STDJ ***; Leiden: Brill, 2011), forthcoming.
67 For a more elaborate discussion with bibliography, see Hans Debel, “A Quest for
Appropriate Terminology: The Joshua Texts as a Case in Point,” in The Book of Joshua
and the Land of Israel (ed. E. Noort; BETL ***; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), forthcoming.
82 Hans Debel
too remarkable to be attributed to a mere coincidence, the evidence is

simply insufficient to support the extrapolation that the manuscript
represents a shorter edition of the entire book, and thus, we are left
with the observation that it contains a single minus vis-à-vis MT
Judges.68
In sum, a careful examination of the variety of texts from the Sec-
ond Temple period at our disposal quickly reveals that the factual di-
versity ranges from small changes to a single unit, down to rewritings
of entire books, and that the common understanding of the term “edi-
tion” only covers a part of this spectrum.69 Therefore, I am inclined to
side with George Brooke, who observes that there is no neat separation
between “scriptural texts” and “rewritten works,” and prefers to speak
of a “sliding scale,”70 while Sidnie White Crawford has refined the
category of “rewritten Scripture” to a “spectrum” of texts.71 These
rather similar approaches are certainly more viable than the binary
opposition maintained by Segal, because they better conceptualise the
fluidity of the scriptural tradition in the Second Temple period and
emphasise that, prior to the emergence of an “unchangeable” text, au-
thority seems to have been situated in the tradition rather than in a
specific textual form that re-presented this tradition. The narratives
about Israel’s glorious past, which were of central importance (albeit in
various ways) for the Jewish identity of all the branches of Second
68 Divergent opinions on the passage have been expressed by Julio Trebolle Barrera,
“Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in The Dead Sea
Scrolls. Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10: Leiden:
Brill, 1992), 315–24; Richard S. Hess, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Higher Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible: the Case of 4QJudga,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty
Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSS 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), 122–28; Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of
Judges,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic
Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 1–16; and Eugene Ulrich, “Deuterono-
mistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudg a and
4QJera,” in Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pak-
kala and M. Nissinen; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506. Note that the case of 4QJudga has been
explicitly compared to that of 4QJosha by Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Text-Critical
Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and
Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan
Lust (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005),
401–13 (410–11).
69 See also Tov, “Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 305.
70 See Brooke, “The Rewritten Law,” 36.
71 See White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 13.
Temple Judaism,72 were carefully transmitted but at the same creatively

reshaped – or one could say “imitated”73 – by the scribes.74 Almost
paradoxically, the adaptability of the tradition granted its overall stabil-
ity,75 as the dynamics of resignifying the old and oft-repeated stories
maintained interest in the tradition and thus cleared the way for one
textual form to take the upper hand in the end.76
However, as noted by Brooke, the ultimate consequence of this ap-
proach to the changing scriptural tradition is that textual critics are
bereft of all hope to be able to reconstruct an “original text,”77 as any
such text merely represents one particular point in a continuum that
goes back to the very beginnings of the scriptural tradition.78 Instead,
72 Although it has become a commonplace in the study of Second Temple Judaism to

denote these branches as “Judaisms” – see, e.g., the works referred to in Debel,
“Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 180, n. 68 – I remain of the
opinion that this nomenclature creates more problems than it solves and it is thus
disadvantageous for describing socio-religious diversity in the Second Temple pe-
riod; cf. also Martin Goodman, “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second
Temple Period and Its Aftermath,” JJS 60 (2009): 202–13 (203): “To talk about ‘Juda-
isms’ in the plural has no ancient warrant, and outsiders at least seem to have
thought that the different types of Jewish piety overlapped sufficiently for it to be
possible to refer to ‘Judaism’ in the singular.”
73 Comp. John Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” Studies in Religion
29 (2000): 395–409 (397). On the relevance of the classical practice of “imitation” for
understanding the “rewriting” of scriptural texts, see also Natalio Fernández Mar-
cos, “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest,” in Studies in the
Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P. W. Flint et
al.; SVT 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 321–36 (321–23).
74 Comp. the important reflections on tradition by Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: the
Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill,
2003), 44–47.
75 See, in addition to the work referred to in note 46, the seminal essays by James A.
Sanders, “Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon,” in Tradition of the Text (ed. G. J.
Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 203–17;
James A. Sanders, “The Stabilization of the Tanak,” in A History of Biblical Interpreta-
tion. Volume I: The Ancient Period (ed. A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 225–52, as well as Ulrich, “The Canonical Process,” 288–89.
76 Cf. George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking
the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocry-
phal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005),
85–104 (94): “the reworked scriptural compositions can be understood as the princi-
pal vehicle through which interest was maintained in the texts which later became
canonical.”
77 As he emphasised particularly in Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise,” 33–
35.
78 See esp. Ulrich, “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures,”
327–37.
84 Hans Debel
we are now faced with the enormous task of describing the dynamic
transmission of this scriptural tradition, which has crystallised in a
variety of textual witnesses of which only a segment has been pre-
served, partially by accident. While some of these appear as virtually
identical to the later canonical text(s), others take a more remote posi-
tion, but that does not automatically render them less relevant for our
attempts to understand the dynamic scriptural tradition of Second
Temple Judaism.
3. Conclusions
Beginning with Emanuel Tov’s observations that many texts from

Qumran blatantly contradict the three-pronged division that textual
critics had inherited from their pre-Qumranic predecessors, the textual
study of the Hebrew Bible has witnessed a veritable transformation in
the past decades. As Tov’s emphasis on these “independent” texts ef-
fectively dislodged the old framework, his work has been described as
the “first, pedagogical step” towards the establishment of a new her-
meneutical framework.79 The author of that statement, Tov’s co-editor
Eugene Ulrich, may be credited for a second leap forward, as his con-
cept of “variant literary editions” provided a way to conceptualise the
developmental state of the scriptural texts in Second Temple times.
However, “scriptural editions” are all too often easily juxtaposed to a
set of “rewritten texts” which are relegated to an inferior status, while,
in reality, the latter simply continued the former’s dynamic approach to
the authoritative tradition. Therefore, the time has come to take the
next step by allowing the distinction between “variant literary edi-
tions” and “rewritten Scripture” to dissolve into a “sliding scale” or a
“spectrum,” as has been proposed by, respectively, George Brooke and
Sidnie White Crawford. Although it would evidently go too far to sim-
ply lump all texts together without making any distinction at all, it
needs to be recognised that they belong to a continuum of retelling and
rewriting tradition. From out of this continuum, there have arisen a
variety of texts, none of which had as yet gained total ascendancy over
the others, even if some of them undoubtedly were of special signifi-
cance for at least some branches of Second Temple Judaism. As a con-
sequence, the traditional conception of textual criticism as reconstruct-
ing the “original text” of the Hebrew Bible appears as an ill-fated
79 Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment,” 150.

undertaking – a vain quest for a holy grail which one can never hope to
find.
Bibliography
Albrektson, Bertil. “Translation and Emendation.” Pages 27–39 in Language,
Theology, and The Bible. Edited by Samuel Eugene Balentine and John Bar-
ton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Alexander, Philip S. “Judaism and Christianity: Reflections on the Parting of
the Ways and the Parameters for Future Dialogue.” PIBA 31 (2009): 32–53.
Ausloos, H., Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, ed. After Qumran:
Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts. The Historical Books. BETL ***. Leuven:
Peeters, 2011, forthcoming.
Barthélemy, Dominique, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust and Emanuel Tov, The
Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Re-
search Venture. OBO 73. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986.
Barton, John. “Canons of the Old Testament.” Pages 200–22 in Text in Context.
Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Andrew
D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Baumgarten, Albert I. “Reflections on the Groningen Hypothesis.” Pages 256–
62 in Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited
by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Bernstein, Moshe J. “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived
its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96.
Ȱ. “The Genre(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 317–43 in Aramaica Qum-
ranica. Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran at Aix
en Provence 30 Juni–2 July 2008. Edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl
ben Ezra. STDJ 94. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédac-
tions antiques selon les travaux en cours.” RB 101 (1994): 363–406.
Böhler, Dieter. “On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism.
The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras
(LXX).” Pages 35–50 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship
between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered.
Edited by Adrian Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2003.
Brooke, George J. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Under-
standing the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew
Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and
Emanuel Tov. The Bible as Book 4. London: British Library, 2002.
Ȱ. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for
Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible:
Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther G. Chazon,
Devorah Dimant, and Ruth Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
86 Hans Debel
Ȱ. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and
Lower Criticism.” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Proceed-
ings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Ed-
ited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William J. Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen.
LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Campbell, Jonathan G. “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Termino-
logical and Ideological Critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran
Studies. Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 Sep-
tember 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William J. Lyons, and Lloyd
K. Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Ȱ Jan Joosten, and Eugene Ulrich. “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew
Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1–9, 1 Kings 11:1–8, and Jeremiah 27:1–10 (34 G).”
VT 58 (2008): 352–66.
Cross, Frank Moore. “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the He-
brew Bible.” Pages 31–54 in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts. Edited by
Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty. Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2. Berkeley:
Graduate Theological Union, 1979.
De Troyer, Kristin. “Zerubbabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon
and Josiah? A Survey of Current 1 Esdras Research.” CBR 1 (2002): 30–60.
Ȱ. “A Lost Hebrew Vorlage? A Closer Look at the Temple Builder in 1 Esdras.”
Pages 91–126 in Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Tells Us about
the Literary Growth of the Bible. SBL Text-Critical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Debel, Hans. “‘The Lord Looks at the Heart’ (1 Sam 16,7). 11QPsa 151A–B as a
‘Variant Literary Edition’ of Ps 151 LXX.” RevQ 23/92 (2008): 459–73.
Ȱ. “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–
90.
Ȱ. “The Genesis Apocryphon as a Non-Hebrew ‘Variant Literary Edition’ to
the Patriarchal Accounts? Some Inner-Textual Considerations.” in The
Scrolls and Biblical Traditions. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in
Helsinki, 2–4 August 2010. Edited by George J. Brooke, Daniel K. Falk, Eibert
Tigchelaar, and Molly M. Zahn. STDJ ***. Leiden: Brill, 2011, forthcoming.
Ȱ. “A Quest for Appropriate Terminology: The Joshua Texts as a Case in
Point.” in The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL
***. Leuven: Peeters, 2012, forthcoming.
Falk, Daniel K., The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. LSTS 63; CQS, 8. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges.” Pages 1–
16 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the
Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by
Adrian Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Ȱ. “The Genuine Text of Judges.” Pages 33–45 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour
of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yo-
hanan A. P. Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110.
Ȱ. “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest.” Pages 321–
36 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to
Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Van-
derKam. SVT 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Fields, Weston W., The Dead Sea Scrolls. A Short History. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Flanagan, John. “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablesis or an Original
Text?” Pages 105–16 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon.
Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LSTS 70. London: T & T
Clark, 2009.
Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Lei-
den: Brill, 1997.
Fox, Michael V. “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible.”
JNSL 32 (2006): 1–22.
Freedman, David Noel, K. A. Mathews and Richard S. Hanson, The Paleo-
Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Winona Lake: ASOR, 1985.
Goodman, Martin. “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Tem-
ple Period and Its Aftermath.” JJS 60 (2009): 202–13.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The History of the Bible Text and Comparative
Semitics.” VT 7 (1957): 195–201.
Ȱ. “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text.” Pages 79–122 in Biblical and Other
Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1963.
Ȱ. “Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Past and Future.” Pages 221–42 in Sha'arei
Talmon. Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Mi-
chael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Harrington, Daniel J. “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and
Prophecies.” Pages 239–58 in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Ed-
ited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. The Bible and Its
Modern Interpreters 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Hendel, Ronald. “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 197–
217 in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The
Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Richland Hills: Bibal, 2000.
Ȱ. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition.” VT 58
(2008): 324–51.
Hess, Richard S. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Higher Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible: the Case of 4QJudga.” Pages 122–28 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures.
Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans.
JSPSS 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Heszer, Catherine, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 81. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Horsley, Richard A., Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Hugo, Philippe. “Text History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the
Recent Research.” Pages 1–19 in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The En-
88 Hans Debel
tangling of the Textual and Literary History. Edited by Philippe Hugo and
Adrian Schenker. SVT 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Koskenniemi, Erkki and Pekka Lindqvist. “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories:
Methodological Aspects.” Pages 11–39 in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Pro-
ceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland. August 24–26 2006. Edited by
Antti Laato and Jacques Van Ruiten. Studies in Rewritten Bible 1. Winona
Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “What Are We Looking For in Doing Text-Critical Re-
search?” JNSL 23/2 (1997): 69–80.
Ȱ. “As Many Texts as Plagues. A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the
Text-Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10.” JNSL 24/2 (1998): 111–25.
Ȱ. A Plague of Texts: A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues Narrative’ in
Exod. 7:14–11:10. OTS 56. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Ȱ. “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction in the ‘Major Expansions’ of Exod 7–
11? Finding Oneself at the Crossroads of Textual and Literary Criticism.”
In Florilegium Complutense. Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in
Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera. Edited by Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo
Torijano Morales. JSJSup ***. Leiden: Brill, in press.
Lust, Johan. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” Pages 83–92
in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic
Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by Adrian
Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Ȱ. “The Ezekiel Text.” Pages 153–67 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian
Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan A. P.
Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
Milik, Józef T. and Matthew Black. The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments from
Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: the Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second
Niditch, Susan, Oral World and Written Word. Ancient Israelite Literature. Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Petersen Klostergaard, Anders. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon –
Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?” Pages 285–306 in Flo-
res Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Flor-
entino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and
Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJS 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Rofé, Alexander. “The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings.” Pages
393–402 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextual-
ity in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu
Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Sanders, James A., Canon and Community: a Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides
to Biblical Scholarship; Old Testament Series. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress,
1984.
Ȱ. “Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon.” Pages 203–17 in Tradition of the
Text. Edited by Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano. OBO 109. Freiburg,
CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991.
Ȱ. “The Stabilization of the Tanak.” Pages 225–52 in A History of Biblical Inter-
pretation. Volume I: The Ancient Period. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane
Frederick Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Sanderson, Judith E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Sa-
maritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Schenker, Adrian. “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-
Néhémie.” Pages 218–48 in Tradition of the Text. Edited by Gerard J. Norton
and Stephen Pisano. OBO 109. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991.
Ȱ. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprüngli-
chen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. OBO 199. Freiburg,
Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical
Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1
(1960): 144–84.
Ȱ. “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament.”
Pages 335–83 in Studies in the Bible. Edited by Chaim Rabin. Scripta Hiero-
solymitana 8. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.
Ȱ. “Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word
in Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 121–58 in Jesus and the Oral
Gospel Tradition. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. JSNT SS 64. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1991.
Talshir, Zipora, 1 Esdras. From Origin to Translation. SBL SCS 47. Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1999.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its
Textual History.” Pages 211–37 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Ed-
ited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1985.
Ȱ. “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel.” ETL 62
(1986): 89–101.
Ȱ. “The Original Shape of the Biblical Text.” Pages 345–59 in Congress Volume.
Leuven 1989. Edited by John A. Emerton. SVT 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Ȱ. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint. SVT 72. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Ȱ. “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The Argu-
ment against Eclecticism.” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211.
Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised Edition. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001.
Ȱ. “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew
Bible: Relevance of Canon.” Pages 234–51 in The Canon Debate. Edited by
Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
90 Hans Debel
Ȱ. “Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis.” Pages 281–312 in From

4QMMT to Resurrection. Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Emile Puech. Ed-
ited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar.
STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Ȱ. “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther and Daniel Compared
with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere.” Pages
369–93 in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fach-
tagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli
2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser.
WUNT 219. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges
and Kings.” Pages 315–24 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research. Ed-
ited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10: Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Ȱ. “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the
Books of Judges and Joshua.” Pages 401–13 in Interpreting Translation. Stud-
ies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino Gar-
cía Martínez and Marc Vervenne. BETL 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Ulrich, Eugene. “Jewish, Christian, and Empirical Perspectives on the Text of
Our Scriptures.” Pages 69–85 in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. Edited by
Roger Brooks and John J. Collins. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 5.
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990.
Ȱ. “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon.”
Pages 23–41 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March 1991. Edited by Julio
Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11: Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Ȱ. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Compo-
sition of the Bible.” Pages 267–91 in Sha’arei Talmon. Studies in the Bible,
Qumran and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael Fishbane and
Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Ȱ. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The
Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity
and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1994.
Ȱ. “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures.” Pages
327–42 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality
in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu
Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Ȱ. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999.
Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages
85–108 in Congress Volume. Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. SVT 92.
Ȱ. “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama.” Pages 147–61
in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of
Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and

Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJS 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Ȱ. “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Bibli-
cal Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera.” Pages 489–506 in Houses Full of All Good
Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti
Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Ȱ. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Cen-
tury Judaism.” Pages 145–81 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An As-
sessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L.
Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Van Seters, John. “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible.” Studies in Religion
29 (2000): 395–409.
Ȱ. The Edited Bible. The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism. Winona
VanderKam, James C. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.”
Pages 1–30 in From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second
Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Ȱ. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 91–109
in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sand-
ers. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
Ȱ. “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works.”
Pages 41–56 in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Dis-
coveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. The Bible as Book
4. London: British Library, 2002.
Ȱ and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Significance for
Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco:
Harper Collins, 2002.
Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies. Studia Post-
Biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961.
Ȱ. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition. London: Penguin
Books, 2004.
Weis, Richard D. “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 269–93
in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia
Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij,
and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Williamson, Hugh G.M. “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Pro-
posed Oxford Hebrew Bible.” Bib 90 (2009): 153–75.
Yadin, Yigael, Megillat ham-miqdash. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society – Institute of Archaelogy of the Hebrew University –
Shrine of the Book, Hebrew 1977, revised English edition 1983.
Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on
Terminology*
Molly M. Zahn
Names are not just names; they are not simply convenient labels that
we stick on the front of semantic shoeboxes to indicate the contents
inside. On the one hand, names and categories are manifestations of
our worldviews, reflecting conscious and subconscious aspects of lan-
guage, culture, and circumstance. On the other hand, and perhaps less
obviously, names and categories affect how we think; they actually
influence the ways in which we understand the things denoted by
those labels. Once an object or phenomenon is given a particular name
or placed in a particular category, we approach that object or pheno-
menon with specific expectations in mind regarding what sort of thing
it is.1
The intense debates in recent years regarding the proper terminol-
ogy for various types of Second Temple Jewish texts highlight this con-
nection between the names we give things and the ways we think
about those things. The manuscripts discovered at Qumran include a
wide variety of previously unknown texts with some sort of link to the
collection that we now know as the Hebrew Bible. As a result of the
publication and study of these texts, a new model for understanding
* I would like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute to this volume. I
am also especially grateful to Hanne von Weissenberg for her astute comments on
an earlier draft of this paper.
1 Hence, for example, the feminist critique of the use of exclusively male language to
talk about God: despite insistence in the theological tradition that God transcends
human understanding and human categories, constant and exclusive reference to
God as male limits the imagination and reinforces the idea that God really is, in
some way, male. See the seminal work of Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and
God-Talk (Boston: Beacon, 1983), 47–71. By happy coincidence, as I was revising this
essay an article appeared in the New York Times Magazine on the influence of lan-
guage upon the way we experience the world: Guy Deutscher, “Does Your Lan-
guage Shape How You Think?,” New York Times Magazine, 29 August 2010. Cited
27 August 2010. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-
t.html?src=me&ref=homepage.
94 Molly M. Zahn
the production, transmission, and interpretation of authoritative litera-

ture in Second Temple Judaism is slowly emerging. Although the parti-
culars of these processes are still debated, at the heart of this new mod-
el stand observations about the pluriformity of scriptural texts, the
active role of successive scribes in shaping the texts they copied, and
the lack of a fixed canon of scripture.2 While our views about the nature
of “scripture” in the Second Temple period have changed, however, the
labels we use to describe the textual phenomena of this period have
been slow to catch up. Terms like “parabiblical,” “apocryphal,” “pseu-
do-X,” and even “Bible” and “biblical” imply an older model in which
it was generally assumed that most of the canon of Hebrew Scripture,
especially the Torah, was fixed prior to the late Second Temple period,
and that the Masoretic Text (MT) for the most part constituted the ear-
liest and most authoritative witness to this canon.3 As a new approach
rooted in textual pluriformity and the lack of a fixed canon has devel-
oped, the inadequacy of these labels has been noted with increasing
frequency. By the same token, the argument has begun to be made that
use of these terms has in fact hindered full appreciation of what the
Qumran materials are telling us. Just as a lifetime imagining God as
male can make it difficult even for those who might wish to to use fe-
minine imagery for God, the very use of outdated terms in the study of
Second Temple Judaism works to perpetuate the assumption of the
centrality of the MT and the hegemony of an MT-like canon, even as
scholars attempt to articulate the fact that the reality appears to have
been quite the opposite.4
2 For a good recent overview of these issues, see Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting
Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–15.
3 On this older model and its breakdown, see especially Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Eugene Ulrich,
“The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and
J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 21–35. John Barton’s somewhat older
discussion of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the fixing of various parts of the He-
brew canon remains very useful; see John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of An-
cient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
4 See Eugene Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in
First Century Judaism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and
New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),
145–61. (I am grateful to Prof. Ulrich for sharing a copy of his article with me prior to
publication.) Robert Kraft makes a similar point by referring to the “tyranny of ca-
nonical assumptions,” which he defines as “the temptation to impose on those an-
cients whom we study our modern ideas about what constituted ‘scripture’ and how
it was viewed.” See Robert A. Kraft, “Para-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible
Studies,” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27 (17).
Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology 95
Thus, the search for appropriate terminology to describe the textual

phenomena of Second Temple Judaism plays a key role in the ongoing
attempt to better understand this material. Yet little consensus has been
reached regarding new labels and categories, and often critiques of
older terms obscure or confuse important issues at the same time as
they valuably clarify others. In particular, it seems that confusion often
arises regarding the interaction between literary issues—that is, how a
given text relates to an earlier text in compositional terms—and issues
of authority—that is, what kind of authoritative status is claimed by or
attributed to a given text. This essay will engage the continuing debates
over terminology with special attention to this distinction between
literary issues and questions of authority. The result, I hope, will be an
additional step towards a way of talking about scripture and interpre-
tation in the Second Temple period—and thus of thinking about these
issues—that better reflects the data.
1. “Bible” vs. “Scripture” and the Issue of Authoritative

Status
In current debates about terminology and labels, one point on which

there has been wide agreement is the unsuitability of the terms “Bible”
or “biblical” with regard to any aspect of Second Temple Jewish litera-
ture.5 The words “Bible” and “biblical” imply the existence of some-
5 See especially James C. VanderKam, “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some

Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean
Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 41–56
(52); also e.g. Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 19; Sidnie White Crawford, “The ‘Rewritten’
Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 1–8 [Eng.] (1); Crawford,
Rewriting Scripture, 6; George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms:
Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible
and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Li-
brary, 2002), 31–40 (31); Bruno Chiesa, “Biblical and Parabiblical Texts from Qu-
mran,” Henoch 20 (1998): 131–51 (132–33); Jonathan G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’
and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Methodological Critique,” in New Di-
rections in Qumran Studies (ed. J. G. Campbell, W. J. Lyons and L. K. Pietersen; LSTS
52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43–68 (49); Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewrit-
ten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon—Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical
Anachronism,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in
Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar;
JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285–306 (286–87); Kraft, “Para-mania,” 10–18. Objec-
tion to this trend is voiced by Moshe J. Bernstein, “What Has Happened to the Laws?
The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49
(26). Bernstein acknowledges that the “spectrum of ‘biblical texts’” may have been
96 Molly M. Zahn
thing that could reasonably be called a Bible—a fixed collection includ-

ing specific forms of certain texts regarded as sacred and authorita-
tive—and there is simply no evidence that such a thing existed in the
Second Temple period.6 Not only did the books that later ended up in
the Hebrew Bible circulate in a variety of apparently equally authorita-
tive forms, but numerous texts that did not ultimately make it into the
Hebrew Bible seem to have claimed, and/or to have been regarded as
possessing, at least the same level of authority and sanctity as those
that did.7 Speaking of “Bible” or “biblical” for the Second Temple pe-
riod gives the false impression that only the books of the Bible, and
only the familiar (= MT) form of those books, were regarded as sacred.8
Numerous scholars, therefore, have proposed to replace “Bible”
and “biblical” with the terms “scripture” and “scriptural.”9 This desig-
nation has the advantage of mirroring more closely the use in Second
Temple texts of variations of the Hebrew root =).10 It also replaces a
term that has a concrete, specific referent (“The Bible” = a specific col-
broader for some in the Second Temple period than for others, but argues that there
must have been a point, even if different for different individuals, “beyond which
texts were not acknowledged or claimed to be ‘biblical.’” I agree with Bernstein in
principle that various individuals or groups must have recognized certain texts as
sacred and authoritative and denied that status to other texts. I would argue, how-
ever, that, insofar as the texts considered sacred may not have corresponded to those
texts that ended up in the Hebrew Bible, it would be clearer to talk about the same
phenomenon in terms of scriptural vs. nonscriptural texts. (On this distinction, see
further below.)
6 Kraft makes the point that it is really not until the development of “mega-codices” in
the fourth century CE that “the Bible” in our modern sense of the term—a collection
of sacred texts contained between two covers—came into existence (“Para-mania,”
10). Although of course it is possible to conceive of a “canon” in the form of a fixed
list of sacred books (or a fixed number of cubbyholes containing a fixed collection of
scrolls), Kraft notes that “even if one has some sort of list, there is lots of room for
loose edges,” and the texts of the period tend to mention categories like “law” and
“prophets,” without delineating the precise contents of these categories (“Para-
mania,” 16).
7 On textual pluriformity, see Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 17–33, 79–120, and most recently
“Methodological Reflections,” 152. On the scriptural status of books other than those
of the Hebrew Bible, see James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402; Armin Lange, “The Status of the Biblical Texts in
the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bi-
ble and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British
Library, 2002), 21–30 (23–24).
8 See Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 152.
9 This suggestion is nearly universal among the scholars cited in n. 6 above.
10 James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London:
T & T Clark, 2005), 156.
lection of books)11 with one that is more open-ended. To be sure, in

everyday usage “Scripture” or “the Scriptures” is generally used as a
synonym for the Bible in the sense of a fixed collection.12 In the context
of the academic study of religions, however, “scripture” or “scriptures”
(and here the lower-case is probably important) can also refer more
generally to any text or group of texts considered sacred and authorita-
tive by a particular religious tradition.13 Thus, the “scripture” of any
given subset of Second Temple Judaism properly includes all the texts
considered sacred by that group, whether or not they later came to be
part of “the Bible.”14
I fully support the use of “scripture/scriptural” instead of “Bi-
ble/biblical” in discussions of the sacred literature of the Second Tem-
ple period. We must, however, be completely cognizant of the consi-
derable ramifications of this switch, especially when it comes to talking
about the many texts from this period that relate in some way to what
we know as biblical books. There are two major issues, one of which
has to do with the difficulty of determining what was “scriptural” in
the Second Temple period, and the other of which pertains to the inter-
play between literary issues and issues of authority that I mentioned
above.
The first issue, the difficulty of determining what was considered
scriptural in Second Temple Judaism, is complicated by the religious
and political diversity of the period and the paucity of our information
about how texts were regarded by a given group. Most frequently,
questions about what constituted scripture in this period or within the
11 This despite disagreements between various Christian denominations regarding

which books in fact belong in “The Bible.”
12 See e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary / s.v. “scripture”/ where the first five definitions
given equate it with the Bible in one way or another.
13 For consideration of scripture in a context broader than Judaism and Christianity,
see William A. Graham, “Scripture,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. M. Eliade et
al.; 16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1987), 13:133–45; Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What is
Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). For a similar defini-
tion, see also Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 287.
14 Formulating the matter in this way raises the question of how precisely we deter-
mine whether a given book was regarded as “sacred” (and by whom), as well as the
related question of whether some books, even perhaps books that later ended up in
the Hebrew Bible, were perhaps regarded as authoritative or important but were not
viewed as sacred. As indicated below, more reflection is needed on our ability to dis-
tinguish between various levels of authority or sacredness attributed to texts in the
late Second Temple period. This is a problem that affects not just the study of early
Judaism but the study of the role of scripture in the world’s religions more broadly;
see William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the Histo-
ry of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 4–5.
98 Molly M. Zahn
Qumran community have been answered by noting the number of

copies of a particular book preserved at Qumran and the number of
times that work is formally cited, alluded to, or otherwise reused.15 This
gives us a basic idea of what the Qumranites considered particularly
important, but leaves numerous questions unanswered. For instance,
would the Qumranites have actually denied authoritative or scriptural
status to texts that were not frequently quoted or not preserved in great
numbers, or did they simply, like so many other Jews and Christians
throughout history, have a “canon within a canon,” as Trebolle Barrera
puts it; a subset of scriptural writings that they considered particularly
significant?16 Should a distinction be made between “scriptural” and
“authoritative” texts and, if so, how should this distinction be articu-
lated?17 Does quotation of, allusion to, or rewriting of a particular text
15 See especially VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” and Lange, “Status of the

Biblical Texts”; also Timothy H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 303–22 (307–18). (I am grateful to Prof. Lim
for sharing a copy of his article with me prior to publication.)
16 Trebolle Barrera argues that, at Qumran, among the earliest Christians, and else-
where in Second Temple Judaism, the Torah, Isaiah, the Twelve, and Psalms “en-
joyed a special authority” and were transmitted, commented upon, and used in a
different manner from the historical books, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. While he
implies that this second group was somehow less authoritative than the first, Tre-
bolle-Barrera seems to agree that the second group was also seen as scriptural; that
is, as his title indicates, we are dealing with a “canon within a canon.” See Julio Tre-
bolle Barrera, “A ‘Canon within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testament Books Diffe-
rently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized,” RevQ 19 (2000): 383–99. It is of
course unclear whether “canon,” with its implications of fixed boundaries, is an ap-
propriate term for what appears to have been an open or fluid collection of scriptur-
al works in the Second Temple period; Eugene Ulrich has argued forcefully that
“talk of an open canon is confusing and counterproductive” (“Notion and Definition
of Canon,” 34). For a different view, see Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures,” 303–5.
17 Most obviously, “scriptural” texts could be defined as those considered sacred,
while “authoritative” texts would be of normative importance within a given com-
munity, yet not considered sacred. Even so defined, however, the two categories are
difficult to separate. One option would be to argue that, to be regarded as scripture
in the Second Temple period, a text must have been viewed as originating in Israel’s
ancient past; see Barton, Oracles of God, 59–62. This approach is followed by Camp-
bell, “Rewritten Bible,” 66. Yet the neatness of this division is complicated by the
possibility that some purportedly “ancient” works (like Qoheleth or Ruth) were not
accepted as scriptural by all Jewish groups (see e.g. the argument of Lange, “Status
of the Biblical Texts,” 24, that those two works were among those not considered au-
thoritative by the Qumranites). Furthermore, how should works such as the pesha-
rim be viewed, which as the products of divinely-inspired exegesis may have had a
similar claim to authority as scriptural works in a community which viewed revela-
tion as ongoing? See Lim, “Authoritative Literature,” 306.
automatically mark that text as scriptural, or could other texts, viewed

as important or authoritative but perhaps not as scripture, be subject to
the same procedures?18 Finally, we must always remember to ask “au-
thoritative/scriptural” for whom?19 Although certain texts or traditions
may have been of secondary importance for the Qumran community,
they may have been more significant for other Second Temple groups.20
Insofar as the Qumran caves preserve compositions that appear to have
been brought to Qumran from elsewhere, we may find in them traces
of different views regarding which texts were especially sa-
cred/authoritative.21 All of these questions deserve much more atten-
tion than I can give them here. My purpose in raising them is primarily
to stress the difficulty in determining just what was considered authori-
tative for a given Second Temple group, and in delineating possible
distinctions between “scriptural” and merely “authoritative” texts.
The difficulty of deciding what exactly was “scripture” should
warn us of possible danger when we seek to replace “Bible/biblical”
with “scripture/scriptural,” and even more so with regard to possible
replacements for derivative terms like “Rewritten Bible” and “parabib-
lical.” The danger lies in the fact that, while scholars have often simply
substituted “scriptural” for “biblical” and continued to go on talking
about the 24 books that in fact ended up in the Hebrew Bible (plus a
very few others), “Bible” and “scripture” do not actually refer to the
same thing. What is more, they do not even refer to the same type of
thing. This is the second issue mentioned above, the one pertaining to
the distinction between literary issues and issues of authority. The Bi-
18 As Brooke notes, the fact that a text was revised, expanded, supplemented, or oth-
erwise rewritten is a testimony to the importance of that text for the rewriter: if a text
was not important, why bother to interpret, rewrite, or elaborate upon it? See George
Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for
Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related
Texts at Qumran (ed. E. Chazon et al.; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104 (98). Yet
the exact nature of this importance is unclear. Do we know, for instance, that the au-
thors of Chronicles viewed their source text, the Deuteronomistic History, as scrip-
tural, as opposed to merely authoritative or even simply a significant source for the
history they wished to rewrite? (I thank Hanne von Weissenberg for this point.)
19 As Lim reminds us; “Authoritative Literature,” 307.
20 Note for example Brooke’s observation that the apparent lack of interest in the books
of Chronicles at Qumran points to a deliberate choice on the part of the community,
in response to the promotion of Chronicles by the Hasmoneans: George J. Brooke,
“The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran,” in Reflection and Refraction:
Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (ed. R. Rezetko, T. H.
Lim, and W. B. Aucker; VTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 35–48.
21 As Lim, quoting van der Woude, notes, texts in one’s library do not necessarily
reflect the owner’s own beliefs; “Authoritative Scripture,” 306.
100 Molly M. Zahn
ble, despite some persistent fuzziness around the edges is first and
foremost a collection of specific literary works: Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah,
etc. Thus, when we speak of biblical texts at Qumran, the generally
accepted meaning is manuscript copies of books that now appear in the
Hebrew Bible.22 On the other hand, calling a text “scripture” (as long as
“scripture” is not being used as a synonym for the Bible but in the
broader sense outlined above) says nothing about that text’s literary
identity or membership in any specific corpus. The books of the Bible
are scripture, but so are the Qur’an and the Lotus Sutra. What calling
something scripture does say is that that text is or was (as best we can
determine) regarded as sacred by some group of people at some point
in time. In other words, referring to something as biblical implies a lite-
rary correspondence to some text included in the Bible, while referring
to something as scriptural implies that it is or was once seen as sacred
and authoritative, but says nothing about its literary character or con-
tents.23
Full appreciation of this distinction is critical to a proper under-
standing of the numerous texts from Qumran that show some connec-
tion to the texts of the Hebrew Bible. It seems clear that all of those
texts, whether they are labeled “Rewritten Bible/Scripture,” a “parabib-
lical” text, an “apocryphon,” a “pseudo-X” text, or even a copy of a
given biblical book, are classified in this way because of literary judg-
ments made by early editors or subsequent scholars. Various textual
features, such as the appearance of certain characters that also appear
in a biblical book, the inclusion of certain content that parallels a bibli-
cal book, or similarity to the style and vocabulary of a certain biblical
book, led (naturally enough) to the hypothesis of some sort of relation-
ship between a given biblical book and the previously unknown work
in question. The nature of that relationship, of course, can be variously
construed: does the Qumran text represent a reworking of the biblical
book, constitute a source for the biblical book, or simply play off a cha-
racter or episode in a biblical book but go in a different direction? But
all of these questions involve investigation of the literary relationship
22 This usage has certainly been influenced heavily by the editorial principles of the
DJD series, in which only compositions included in the Hebrew Bible are classified
as “biblical.” This means that even books that do appear in some Bibles, such as To-
bit and Ben Sira, are classified as “extrabiblical.” See further Ulrich, “Methodological
Reflections,” 154.
23 Of course, calling something biblical also tends to imply the scriptural status of that
text, insofar as the texts in the Bible ultimately ended up there because the communi-
ties of Jews and Christians who established the biblical canons decided they be-
longed on finite lists of those communities’ sacred texts.
between two texts. In other words, the reason we are spending so much
time talking about “parabiblical texts,” “Rewritten Bible,” and the like
is that a great number of texts from Qumran appear to have some sort
of literary relationship to one or more of the books that ended up in the
Hebrew Bible.
Because the classification and description of these texts is rooted in
literary analysis, issues of sanctity and authority that inhere in the label
“scripture” are not, in the first instance, even relevant. Although the
fact that a work was rewritten, expanded, or elaborated upon probably
indicates that the author and/or the author’s community believed that
work to possess some sort of particular importance,24 these various
processes of textual extension say nothing about the status of the new
text thereby produced. It has often been assumed—sometimes explicit-
ly and more often, I think, tacitly—that rewritten or parabiblical texts
did not have the status of scripture, as if the very fact of being derived
from a biblical book precluded a work from being seen as sacred or
authoritative.25 Yet there is a great deal of evidence that works belong-
ing to these categories not only claimed but were in fact granted scrip-
tural status. Two works that many would classify as “Rewritten Scrip-
ture,” Deuteronomy and Chronicles, themselves became part of the
traditional Hebrew canon.26 Jubilees and 1 Enoch seem to have been
regarded as scriptural at Qumran, and both were included in the Ethi-
opic canon.27 The Temple Scroll’s self-presentation as direct divine re-
velation to Moses on Sinai certainly constitutes a bid for scriptural sta-
24 See above, n. 19.

25 For explicit recognition of the assumption involved, see the following statement by
Emanuel Tov regarding reworked compositions, including 4QReworked Pentateuch,
the Temple Scroll, and 4Q252: “These documents were not considered to reflect an
authoritative text, although this assumption cannot really be proven. The rewritten
biblical texts should be regarded, in a way, as literary exercises”; Tov, “Biblical Texts
as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and
4QParaGen-Exod,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant (ed. E. Ulrich and J.
VanderKam; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 111–34 (114).
26 Of course this does not mean that Deuteronomy and Chronicles would have been
regarded in the same way by any given group in the Second Temple period. At
Qumran, for instance, Deuteronomy seems to have been extremely popular, while
Chronicles appears to have been avoided (see n. 21 above). For Deuteronomy and
Chronicles as Rewritten Scripture, see e.g. C. T. R. Hayward, “Rewritten Bible,” in A
Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden; London: SCM,
1990), 595–98, (596); George J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in The Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 777–81 (778).
27 VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” 396–400.
102 Molly M. Zahn
tus, though it is difficult to know how widely its claim was accepted.28
On the other hand, we have no evidence for the authoritative or scrip-
tural status of rewritten texts like the Genesis Apocryphon. It follows
that the question of a given work’s literary connection with a book of
the Bible must be asked, and answered, independently of questions
about that work’s authoritative status or lack thereof.29 Texts with con-
nections to biblical books may or may not have themselves been re-
garded as scriptural.30
This I hope clarifies why I am concerned that the full implications
of a switch from “Bible/biblical” to “scripture/scriptural” be recog-
nized. Asking whether a text is “biblical” (or asking about a text’s rela-
tionship to a book of the Bible) is a very different question from asking
whether a text is “scriptural”: the former addresses a fundamentally
literary issue; the latter an issue of status, either intended or received.
As a result, when it comes to talking about works related to biblical
texts, we cannot simply substitute “scriptural” for “biblical” without
further reflection on the changes in meaning that might result. We fur-
thermore cannot assume that, just because a work is deemed “nonbib-
lical,” it is also “nonscriptural” in the sense that it was not regarded as
sacred and authoritative. This conclusion bears on recent discussions of
the relative merits of several other terms, to which I now turn.
28 On this issue, with literature, see my essay “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple
Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day;
LHB/OTS 422; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 435–58 (436–41).
29 It is my sense that this issue has not been given sufficient attention, though the point
has been made by both Bernstein (“Whether the later work might also have some
significant (‘biblical,’ ‘canonical’) status does not at all affect its classification as ‘re-
written Bible’”) and Brooke (“But it is also important to remember that to identify a
text as modeled on another has little to do with a clear assertion of whether or not it
was deemed to be authoritative…”); see Moshe J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A
Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96 (172
n. 3); George J. Brooke, “From Bible to Midrash: Approaches to Biblical Interpreta-
tion in the Dead Sea Scrolls by Modern Interpreters,” in Northern Lights on the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. A. Klostergaard
Petersen et al.; STDJ 80; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1–19 (6).
30 It remains to be determined whether and to what extent interaction with earlier
scriptural texts actually functioned to authorize these compositions, as has been
suggested in different ways by Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneu-
tics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 14–17; Hindy
Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism
(JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 16, 46; and Bernard M. Levinson and Molly M. Zahn,
“Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ') and - in the Temple Scroll,” DSD 9
(2002): 295–346 (308). In any case, it seems clear that the literary fact of having been
derived from or based on an earlier authoritative text did not disqualify a text from
itself being seen as authoritative: if anything, the opposite was the case!
2. Parabiblical/Parascriptural
The term “parabiblical” has become especially prominent in discus-

sions of Second Temple literature, likely because of its use as one of
several broad categories used to classify Qumran manuscripts in the
DJD series. As Tov remarks in the Foreword to DJD 13, “[t]he volumes
of the parabiblical texts contain various compositions which have in
common that they are closely related to texts or themes of the Hebrew
Bible.”31 Tov further notes that the texts designated “parabiblical” vary
in their degree of closeness to the biblical text. Indeed, “parabiblical”
has tended to serve as a sort of catch-all term for texts related more or
less loosely to one or more books that now are part of the Hebrew Bi-
ble—texts that may then have been more narrowly designated as “Re-
written Bible,” “apocryphon of” or “pseudo”-X, etc.
Of course the difficulty with the term “parabiblical” is the same as
that facing the terms “Bible” and “biblical”: if there was no Bible, no
fixed canon, in the Second Temple period, how can we then label some-
thing “parabiblical”?32 The term implies that texts to which it is applied
existed “beside” or “beyond” biblical literature, but (so the argument
goes) there was no such thing as biblical literature at the time these
texts were produced.33 Jonathan Campbell and Robert Kraft have both,
therefore, suggested the term “parascriptural” in place of “parabib-
lical.”34
While Kraft seems to suggest that “parascriptural” functions basi-
cally as a synonym of “parabiblical” while avoiding the problem of
anachronism, Campbell makes the point that “parascriptural” is not an
appropriate designation for every text currently classified as “parabib-
lical.” The issue is that, in order to classify something as “para-” X, we
must decide that the thing in question is not itself X.35 That is, if “para-
31 Emanuel Tov, Introduction to Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H.
Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), ix.
32 This objection to “parabiblical” is voiced most strongly by Chiesa, “Biblical and
Parabiblical Texts,” 132–33; Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51; Kraft, “Para-mania,”
10–18.
33 For a playful but substantive discussion of the various meanings implied by the
prefix para-, see Kraft, “Para-mania,” 8–9.
34 Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51, 66; Kraft, “Para-Mania,” 9, 27. “Parascriptural” is
also employed by Daniel K. Falk; for his rationale, see Falk, The Parabiblical Texts:
Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T & T Clark,
2007), 17.
35 Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51: “[the term] ‘Parascriptural Texts’ withholds scrip-
tural status from the compositions concerned as much as ‘Parabiblical Texts’ with-
holds canonical status.”
104 Molly M. Zahn
biblical” compositions are given that label because they are not them-
selves biblical but are judged to have some connection to a biblical
book, then “parascriptural” texts would be those that have something
to do with scripture or a given scriptural text, but are not themselves
scriptural. Since a certain level of authority is inherent in the term
“scripture,” the shift from “parabiblical” to “parascriptural” introduces
the issue of status into what had previously been essentially a literary
judgment. As I argued above, it seems clear that the primary factors
that lead to categorization of a text as “parabiblical” are literary factors;
a text is called “parabiblical” because it is seen as relating in some way
to the content, themes, or characters of a given biblical book. In an older
model in which it was assumed that the canon was essentially fixed in
the Second Temple period, it would have been assumed that no non-
biblical text would have been viewed as scripture. Thus, the literary
judgment would almost automatically have involved a judgment about
status as well. In the current situation, though, in which the scriptural
status of at least some nonbiblical books is widely acknowledged, call-
ing something (e.g. Jubilees) “parabiblical” does not automatically
preclude the recognition that that work might have been considered
scriptural in the Second Temple period (as was likely the case for Jubi-
lees). On the other hand, if we label a work “parascriptural,” we are
making an a priori judgment that that work was not considered scrip-
tural. Yet, as Campbell notes, numerous “parabiblical” texts (such as
Jubilees) were clearly considered scriptural in the Second Temple pe-
riod.36
In the end, we cannot simply replace “parabiblical” with “para-
scriptural” without substantially redefining the contents of the catego-
ry. Though “parabiblical” has been used to describe texts with some
(literary) relation to one or more texts that ended up in the Hebrew
Bible, “parascriptural” most properly designate works having some-
thing to do with sacred and authoritative texts, but which were not
themselves regarded as sacred.37 Furthermore, the term would not nec-
essarily imply anything about a text’s literary relationship to “scriptur-
al” texts, but only that this particular composition did not have that
scriptural status.38 Thus, if we are looking for terms to describe texts
36 “Rewritten Bible,” 52–53.

37 Campbell in fact suggests the term “parascriptural” for a group of Second Temple
works that he judges likely to have been authoritative but not scriptural, including
Ben Sira, 1–4 Maccabees, and Qumran sectarian literature (“Rewritten Bible,” 66).
38 I suppose it might be possible to use “parascriptural” to designate works that have a
literary relationship to some scriptural book but were not themselves considered
scriptural—but to me this seems only to confuse the issue further by requiring
that rework, revise, or re-edit earlier scriptural texts, “parascriptural”

does not seem suitable. On the other hand, “parabiblical,” though it
does involve an anachronism and should be avoided for that reason, in
fact makes some sense as a descriptor of a literary relationship between
two texts—one that has come to be in our Bibles and one that has not.
In the conclusion, I will build on this literary aspect to suggest a possi-
ble productive use, not of “parabiblical” itself, but of the “para-” prefix
more generally.
3. Apocryphon
While “the Apocrypha” (plural) refers to a specific list of books consi-

dered part of the canon by some Christian churches but not included in
the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testaments, the label “apocryphon of
X” has frequently been employed to designate various previously un-
known compositions found at Qumran that exhibit some kind of rela-
tionship to a text or character known to us from the Hebrew Bible.39 We
thus have compositions known as the Genesis Apocryphon, Apocry-
phon of Moses, Apocryphon of Joshua, Apocryphon of Jeremiah, Pen-
tateuch Apocryphon, Apocryphon of Samuel–Kings, Apocryphon of
Lamentations, and so on. Nothing more seems to be meant by the term
“apocryphon” than a designation of the non-biblical character of the
work and some sort of relationship to a biblical text.40 But as Bernstein
and Campbell have pointed out, the very term “apocryphon of” re-
quires a fixed canon; as Bernstein puts it, “[t]he term ‘apocryphal’
should, prima facie, denote a relationship to a body of material which is
canonical or non-apocryphal from the standpoint of the author or au-
dience, but this is not always the case.”41 If there was no such fixed
judgment both about the literary nature of a text and about its scriptural status or lack
thereof.
39 For discussion of the terminological issues here, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Pseudepi-
graphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspec-
tives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. G. Cha-
zon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–26 (1–3); Campbell, “Rewritten
Bible,” 53–55.
40 Sometimes these labels, especially those given to texts published early on, seem to
defy logic. For example, 1Q25 and 2Q23 are called “1QApocryphal Prophecy” and
“2QApocryphal Prophecy,” respectively. One wonders why they were not simply
called “1Q/2QProphecy,” for if these texts matched any prophecies found in biblical
books, they surely would have been categorized as biblical texts. Even more curious-
ly, 4Q488, which contains just one legible word, is labeled 4Qpap Apocryphon ar.
41 Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 3.
106 Molly M. Zahn
canon, no “non-apocryphal” material, in the late Second Temple pe-

riod—and it is precisely this idea of a fixed canon that we are working
so hard to avoid—then it makes no sense to speak of texts from this
period as apocryphal. At the very least, the historically pejorative usage
of the terms Apocrypha and apocryphal strongly implies that, if X
represents a recognized scriptural work, an “Apocryphon of X” lacks
this scriptural status.42 Again a label that seems primarily intended to
capture a literary or conceptual relationship carries along with it inap-
propriate baggage pertaining to questions of authority and status, im-
plying not only that “Apocryphon of X” is related to scriptural text X in
some way, but also that it could not have had X’s scriptural status.43 As
Bernstein and Campbell note, this term is best not applied to Second
Temple compositions.
4. Pseudepigrapha, Pseudepigraphy, Pseudo-X
“Pseudepigraphy,” on the face of it, has a straightforward definition: it

is the practice of composing a text and then attributing that text to
someone else; in the Second Temple context this was usually a heroic
figure of the ancient past.44 The Pseudepigrapha, on the other hand, is
the label given to an amorphous body of (actually or purportedly) Jew-
ish texts, (mostly) dating from the Second Temple period, preserved in
Greek or translations from the Greek, and not included in the main
Jewish or Christian canons of Scripture.45 Although the term pseud-
epigrapha most naturally designates works attributed to people other
than their real author—that is, actual pseudepigraphs—it is often used
in a looser sense, and numerous compositions that are not actually
pseudepigraphic in the technical sense of the term are often included
among “The Pseudepigrapha.”46 VanderKam and Flint have attempted
42 As Campbell notes (“Rewritten Bible,” 53–54), the Church Father Jerome deliberately
used the label “Apocrypha” for the specific group of works absent from the Hebrew
Bible but part of the Christian Old Testament, in the hopes that they would be de-
clared non-canonical as a result.
43 See Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 55.
44 See Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 1.
45 For an attempt at a clear definition of the term and the corpus designated by it, see
Michael E. Stone, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996):
270–95 (270–71).
46 See Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 2; Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 55–56. Stone notes
that, in contrast to the Apocrypha, there is no fixed list of texts belonging to the
to redeploy the term Pseudepigrapha to apply to works that are prop-

erly pseudepigraphs in the sense of being falsely attributed, and they
include many previously unknown pseudepigraphic Qumran texts
under the label “New Pseudepigrapha.”47 If this redeployment could be
so complete that the traditional meaning was totally obscured, “pseud-
epigrapha” would be a helpful classificatory term. In common usage,
however, works are classified as part of the “Pseudepigrapha,” just as
was the case with the “Apocrypha,” because they did not end up in
later scriptural canons; that is, their non-biblical nature, not their lite-
rary nature as pseudepigraphs, is what makes them part of the Pseud-
epigrapha.48 We are back to our familiar problem: many works that are
pseudepigraphic in form, such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Daniel, and Deute-
ronomy, were clearly regarded as scriptural in the late Second Temple
period (and did enter later Jewish and/or Christian canons). As long as
“Pseudepigrapha” continues to be used to refer to a loose collection of
noncanonical literature, it seems counterproductive to try to redefine it
as referring strictly to true pseudepigraphs. On the other hand, perhaps
removing the initial capital letter and anglicizing the plural form is all
that is necessary to recover this term: pseudepigraphs are works attri-
buted to someone other than their actual author, and are not necessari-
ly to be connected with the collection known as The Pseudepigrapha.
The term “pseudepigraphy” itself is somewhat less problematic as
long as it is regarded strictly as a compositional technique that mani-
fests itself in the content, style, and literary voice of a work.49 Although
pseudepigraphic attribution is generally regarded as a claim to authori-
ty, once again it is best to keep issues of status separate from literary
issues. A text can be a pseudepigraph whether it was claiming authori-
ty or not and whether that claim was accepted or not.50
Pseudepigrapha, such that the various modern collections of the Pseudepigrapha

vary somewhat in their content (“Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” 271).
47 VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the DSS, 203.
48 Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 1–3.
49 For the various types of pseudepigraphy attested at Qumran, see Bernstein, “Pseud-
epigraphy,” 25–26.
50 Bernstein distinguishes “convenient” pseudepigraphy, which involves placing new
material into the mouth of a specific character in an otherwise anonymous work and
is not primarily intended as an authorizing device, from “strong” or “authoritative”
pseudepigraphy, in which an entire work is cast as the speech of an ancient figure in
an attempt to provide authority for the work in question (“Pseudepigraphy,” 6, 25).
Furthermore, Hindy Najman has demonstrated that, while authorization may be one
important function of pseudepigraphy, it is not the only one. In a recent essay, Naj-
man shows how the pseudonymous attribution of 4 Ezra functions more as a “spiri-
tual discipline” than an authorization strategy, a means by which the “real” author
108 Molly M. Zahn
If a clear and functional usage for “pseudepigraphy”/“pseud-

epigraphic” can easily be imagined, the same cannot be said for the
common practice of naming Qumran texts “Pseudo-X” (e.g. Pseudo-
Jubilees, Pseudo-Ezekiel, Pseudo-Daniel). Once again, the reason for
such labels seems to be a desire to indicate that the Qumran text is re-
lated in theme, content, or style to the book for which it is named, but
does not seem to represent a copy or edition of that book.51 As Camp-
bell points out, however, this label, like “Apocryphon of X,” tends to
imply that the base text is somehow “true” and authoritative, and that
the Qumran text related to it is somehow “false,” secondary, and lack-
ing in authority—again denying the possibility that any text labeled
“Pseudo-X” might itself have had scriptural status.52 On the other hand,
even if we were to take the “Pseudo-” prefix simply to refer to a text
that employs pseudepigraphy (as opposed to designating a relationship
with an earlier text), we overlook the fact that, from a modern scholarly
perspective, most of the biblical books of, e.g., Jeremiah and Ezekiel
should also be considered “Pseudo-Jeremiah” and “Pseudo-Ezekiel.”
Insofar as they did not derive from the person to whom they are attri-
buted, they are every bit as pseudepigraphic as the newly-discovered
Qumran texts.53 While we might use the term “pseudepigraphs” as a
general descriptor of all of these texts (“biblical” books and Qumran
materials alike), the many difficulties surrounding the prefix “pseudo-
X” make it unhelpful as a labeling mechanism for Second Temple texts.
of 4 Ezra overcomes the distance between past and present by emulating (that is,
metaphorically merging his identity with) an exemplary figure of the past. See Hin-
dy Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emula-
tion in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in
Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar;
JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 529–36.
51 Bernstein notes that terms related to “apocryphon” and those using some form of
“pseudo-”/“pseudepigraphic” have generally functioned equivalently in the labeling
of Qumran texts (“Pseudepigraphy,” 2; see also Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 58),
though he also mentions a qualitative distinction in the application of the two terms
by Mark Smith in “4Q384, 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” in Qumran Cave
4.XIV, Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. Vander-
Kam; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 137–52. (“Pseudepigraphy,” 23).
52 Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 58.
53 I believe this is what Campbell is getting at when he says: “Used so widely, the
prefix [pseudo-] would lose its significance, for we would find ourselves speaking
inter alia of Pseudo-Baruch, Pseudo-Isaiah, and Pseudo-1 Esdras, not to mention
Pseudo-Pseudo-Jubilees” (“Rewritten Bible,” 58). Technically according to this mod-
el Jubilees should be called “Pseudo-Moses” or, better, “Pseudo-Angel of the Pres-
ence,” and the attempt to “pseudo” that “pseudo-text” simply highlights the unhelp-
fulness of this term.
5. Rewritten Bible/Rewritten Scripture
The term “Rewritten Bible” is usually traced back to Geza Vermes in

his 1961 work Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, where he uses it to de-
scribe the insertion of “haggadic development into the biblical narra-
tive.”54 Since then, it has come to denote either works like Jubilees, the
Temple Scroll, and Josephus’s Antiquities, which follow the biblical text
closely at some points but alter it through expansions, omissions, rear-
rangements, and other types of changes; or the editorial procedure by
which such works were produced. Especially in the past decade, scho-
lars have debated the proper application of the term and, indeed,
whether it should be used at all to describe Second Temple Jewish
texts.55 This debate is ongoing, and here I will have to restrict myself to
questions pertaining strictly to the term per se, both component parts of
which (“Rewritten” and “Bible”) have been subject to criticism.
The most widely voiced terminological objection is to the “Bible”
part of “Rewritten Bible,” mirroring the dissatisfaction with the term
“Bible” in any context involving Second Temple texts. Since there was
no “Bible” to be rewritten, the argument goes, it makes no sense to
describe something as “Rewritten Bible.”56 Thus, most recent scholar-
ship on the subject speaks of “Rewritten Scripture” instead.
This substitution is helpful as long as a few caveats are kept in
mind. First, in the customary understanding of “Rewritten Scripture,”
“Scripture” (as well as “Bible” in the earlier formulation) refers to the
thing that is being rewritten—the base text or Vorlage for the rewriting.
Compositions labeled “Rewritten Bible” must be reworkings of a text
that later came to be part of the Hebrew Bible. If “scripture” is defined
as I suggested above—as any work considered sacred and authoritative
to a particular group—then “Rewritten Scripture” would designate
compositions that rewrite any text considered “scripture”—not just
those texts that later made their way into the Bible. In the context of
study of Second Temple Judaism, a reworked version of Genesis or
Exodus could be labeled “Rewritten Scripture,” but so too could a re-
worked version of 1 Enoch or Jubilees, works that were equally consi-
54 Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed.; StPB 4;
Leiden: Brill, 1973), 95.
55 For a new overview, see my article “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of
the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010), 323–36.
56 This view is expressed in many of the works cited in n. 6 above; see especially Peter-
sen, “Rewritten Bible,” 286–88.
110 Molly M. Zahn
dered “scriptural” at the time.57 Thus, “Rewritten Scripture” is not syn-

onymous with “Rewritten Bible,” but (at least potentially) could de-
scribe a wider range of texts. Here I should also reiterate a point made
earlier, that the classification of a text as “Rewritten Scripture” is a lite-
rary judgment based on observation of parallels in content between
two texts, and neither requires nor prevents the conclusion that the
new text that results from the rewriting was itself considered “scrip-
ture” in the Second Temple period.58
While numerous scholars agree that “Rewritten Scripture” is a
more accurate term than “Rewritten Bible,” others have argued that the
“Rewritten” part of “Rewritten Bible/Scripture” is also problematic.
The objections raised by these scholars point to serious methodological
questions: what does it mean when we label something “Rewritten,”
and whose perspective is embodied in that term? The challenge lies in
the argument that “Rewritten” was not a category that would have
made sense to the ancient audiences of texts to which we give this label.
That is, as Jonathan Campbell argues, ancient audiences would not
have perceived e.g. Jubilees as “rewritten” at all; they would have seen
it as parallel to but independent from Genesis.59 As a result, he argues,
the term “Rewritten Scripture” should be abandoned. Anders Kloster-
gaard Petersen disagrees with the move to scuttle “Rewritten Scrip-
ture” altogether, but in a manner similar to Campbell he proposes that
the intertextual relationships that lead modern scholars to classify a
work as “Rewritten Scripture” would not have been the concern of the
57 We should not let the fact confuse us that works that constitute “Rewritten Scrip-
ture” could themselves (insofar as they came to be viewed as scriptural) be subject to
rewriting from which new works of “Rewritten Scripture” were produced. For ex-
ample, many would regard the book of Deuteronomy as “Rewritten Scripture,” since
its legal code at many points constitutes a rewriting of the Covenant Code of Exodus
21–23. Yet Deuteronomy itself (obviously having attained scriptural status) was sub-
ject to rewriting by the author of the Temple Scroll, who created a new “Rewritten
Scripture” composition through his reworking of Deuteronomy and other books of
the Torah. On Deuteronomy’s reworking of the Covenant Code, see especially Le-
vinson, Deuteronomy.
58 The problems with distinguishing “scripture” from other texts that might have been
viewed as authoritative but not sacred (see above, pp. 5–6) raise another issue that
requires attention. The rewriting of a work implies that that work was in some way
significant within the rewriters’ community (see n. 19 above), but does not prove
that that work was actually considered scripture. If in the future we develop a clear
way of distinguishing between scriptural and authoritative-but-not-scriptural works,
and we have evidence that texts in the latter group were rewritten with the same
methods and purposes as scriptural texts, then the suitability of the term “Rewritten
Scripture” may have to be revisited.
59 “Rewritten Bible,” 49.
ancient consumers or producers of these texts.60 Using terminology

drawn from anthropology, Petersen suggests that “Rewritten Scrip-
ture” is a category that can function on an etic level but not an emic
one—that is, one that is applied to a given culture by outside observers,
but does not derive from the culture itself.61
Petersen and Campbell properly challenge us to articulate more
clearly the level at which our terminology has explanatory power—do
we expect that the categories we use would have been meaningful in
the Second Temple period, and how is their usefulness altered if we do
not? I am not convinced, however, that they are right to so readily deny
that intertextual connections could have been meaningful to Second
Temple authors and/or audiences. Campbell suggests that a pseudepi-
graphic work like Jubilees constituted “a ‘rewritten’ entity only for the
anonymous elite that produced it.”62 True enough, but if the reworking
of Genesis and Exodus was undertaken deliberately by the author(s) of
Jubilees—that is, if the author(s) purposefully chose to create a text
purportedly revealed to Moses on Sinai by reworking an existing text
as opposed to simply composing a new revelation freely—then “rewrit-
ing” seems to have been a meaningful textual strategy. The resulting
“rewritten” text may equally have constituted a meaningful textual
category.63 Who precisely would have been sensitive to the “rewritten”
nature of a text—that is, whether anyone besides a text’s authors would
have noticed its relationship to known scriptural texts—is a different
matter.64
A more serious challenge to viewing “rewritten” texts as a distinct
textual category is implicit in the work of David Carr. Carr demon-
strates the extent to which rewriting—revision and reconfiguration of
earlier texts—was simply a normal mode of literary production in the
60 “The ancient author(s) or editor(s) did not conceive of their works in terms of our
particular analytical focus on how their textual creations intertextually relate to
scriptural writings proper” (Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 303).
61 Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 305.
62 “Rewritten Bible,” 49.
63 Similarly, Brooke’s argument that a definition of the category “rewritten Bible” must
take into account the ways in which rewritten texts “seem to both confer and receive
authority” from the texts they rewrite presumes that the connection between the
new and old texts would have been meaningful in the Second Temple period, and
not just to modern scholars; see George J. Brooke, “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible
and Pesher,” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86 (372).
64 Petersen correctly notes this issue, even as he seems to go even farther than Camp-
bell in asserting that intertextual relations to scriptural texts were not important for
the audiences or for the authors of what we would call “rewritten” texts (“Rewritten
Bible,” 289, 303).
112 Molly M. Zahn
ancient Mediterranean world.65 If this is so, and most Second Temple

Jewish texts were to a greater or lesser extent “rewritten,” it may not
make sense to isolate a particular subset of these texts and give them
the label “Rewritten Scripture.” While Carr makes a valuable point in
highlighting the pervasiveness in the ancient world of literary reuse of
earlier materials, it seems to me that real differences exist in the extent,
nature, and purpose of literary reuse in various Second Temple compo-
sitions, and that it is necessary to take these differences seriously. The
sustained rewriting found in Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and Josephus’s
Antiquities seems to function differently than the more limited reuse of
scriptural themes and storylines in works like 1 Enoch and Ben Sira.66
Much more work is necessary to chart with more precision the various
forms of literary reuse found in Second Temple Jewish texts, and it
must be recognized that the modes of reuse evidenced in any one text
type will resemble to varying degrees the modes of reuse in other re-
lated yet distinct text types. As long as these caveats are kept in mind,
however, I believe that “Rewritten Scripture” can reasonably be used as
a label for works or sections of works that show sustained close en-
gagement with an earlier scriptural text.67
6. Concluding Reflections
The preceding remarks on “Rewritten Scripture” indicate that, to a

certain extent, we are caught between a rock and a hard place: to un-
derstand the literature and culture of Second Temple Judaism as fully
65 David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), especially p. 34–46, 228–38
66 The function and purpose of rewriting and of rewritten works is key to deciding if
and how “Rewritten Scripture” should be considered a genre. In a forthcoming ar-
ticle I argue that at least some of the works frequently given the label “Rewritten
Scripture” share enough strategies and goals that they may constitute a genre, so
long as genre is understood, as in contemporary genre theory, as a flexible and dy-
namic system of classification. See, preliminarily, Molly M. Zahn, “The Question of
Genre in Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment” (paper presented at the 7th meeting
of the IOQS, Helsinki 2010).
67 Note that this delineation of Rewritten Scripture agrees in large measure with
Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 195. I would perhaps differ from Bernstein in allowing
for blurrier edges of the genre; for example, I would be more inclined than Bernstein
to regard works such as the Targumim as Rewritten Scripture in some sense. As my
forthcoming article (see previous note) will demonstrate, a more flexible notion of
genre may help us to describe more precisely how “borderline” phenomena like pa-
raphrastic translations relate to core representatives of the genre.
as possible, we must try to avoid projecting our own conceptions and

categories onto the data, but we do not know—and can only recon-
struct through analysis of this incomplete data—which conceptions and
categories were operative at the time this literature was produced. That
is, we need to develop categories and labels that reflect our best under-
standing of the data (since that is all we can do), while at the same time
leaving our terminology open to correction from improving under-
standing of the data itself.68 This dialectical process can be seen already
in the move towards the term “scripture” in place of “Bible.” The cur-
rent dissatisfaction with much of the terminology used to speak about
Second Temple texts constitutes another step in the process, reflecting
the fact that our understanding of the data has improved to the point
where terminology that has become traditional is no longer regarded as
sufficient.
I would like to close, now that I have highlighted some of the diffi-
culties with many of these traditional terms, by offering some sugges-
tions of my own as to how to proceed. These suggestions are rooted in
my sense, outlined above, that the key thing that scholars have been
trying to highlight with terms like “Rewritten Scripture,” “Apocryphon
of X,” “Pseudo-X,” and so on is a literary relationship—one of content,
theme, or style—between a newly-discovered work and a known work
(usually one known from the Hebrew Bible).
First, although problems emerge regarding the general terms “para-
biblical” and “parascriptural,” it seems it would still be useful to build
on the idea of “para-” texts by grouping lesser-known or fragmentary
texts with better-known texts to which they show a clear relationship.
Thus we could use labels like “para-Deuteronomy” or “para-Daniel”
for texts showing specific connections to those books. As Kraft points
out, the “para-” prefix can admit a variety of different textual relation-
ships: it could be used to denote a source or earlier form of a work, a
further development of that work, or a parallel development of shared
themes or content.69 Using a term like “para-Deuteronomy” would do
no more than indicate that a given text, about which we may or may
not be able to say much else, has something to do with what we know
as the book of Deuteronomy. This is not a matter of giving a higher
status to the book of Deuteronomy (much less any specific form the-
reof!); it is simply a way of classifying what is unfamiliar or fragmenta-
68 Similarly, see Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 161.

69 See Kraft’s summary definition of “para-” as “analogous or parallel to, but separate
from or going beyond, what is denoted by the root word” (“Para-Mania,” 8), and his
discussion of “Paratextual Worlds” on pp. 18–22.
114 Molly M. Zahn
ry in light of what is more fully known. “Para-X” (e.g. “para-

Deuteronomy”) could be used either as a name for a specific composi-
tion that is too fragmentary to be given any other name, or it could be
used in the phrase “para-X literature” (e.g. “para-Deuteronomy litera-
ture”) to refer to a larger category of compositions with links to the
book in question.70 Thus for example the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242)
as well as other texts such as those currently labeled 4QapocrDan ar
(4Q246) and Pseudo-Daniel (4QpsDana–c = 4Q243–245) could all be
grouped together as “para-Daniel literature.” Given the problems with
both “parabiblical” and “parascriptural” discussed above, it is probably
best to avoid any broader label that would apply to all the texts labeled
“para-” something, unless we use a very vague term like “para-” litera-
ture or “para-”texts.71
It could be objected that this use of “para” still privileges works
that ultimately end up in the Hebrew Bible, since in most cases the X in
the formula “para-X” will be a biblical text (though not in all cases: for
example, the texts currently labeled “Pseudo-Jubilees” [4Q225–227]
might more neutrally be referred to as “para-Jubilees”). In a way this
objection is valid, but it seems to me that the problem is largely un-
avoidable given the current state of our knowledge. Precisely because of
their later canonical status, it is the books that ended up the Hebrew
Bible that are the best-known and best-understood by modern scholars
and thus inevitably serve as points of comparison for lesser-known
works. On the other hand, the primacy of these works is not entirely
anachronistic: the evidence indicates that many of the works that were
later included in the Hebrew Bible were in fact already regarded as
sacred and authoritative in the Second Temple period.72 The important
thing is that we not artificially limit the group of texts with which we
might associate other “para-”texts to those that later ended up in the
Hebrew Bible, or indeed even to those that we believe were considered
scriptural in the Second Temple period.73 As our knowledge and un-
derstanding of this period deepens, it is possible, even likely, that our
70 Note that there is still a basic literary distinction being made here between manu-
script copies of the work in question (including revised copies or “new literary edi-
tions”) and new, independent compositions.
71 The placement of the quotation marks is important: we would not want to call these
texts “para-literature” (which might imply that they are associated with literature
but are not themselves literature!).
72 See the works of VanderKam and Lange cited in n. 8 above.
73 One might ask, for instance, if it might be fair to refer to the various rule texts from
Qumran as “para-1QS” texts (if we presume that 1QS was regarded by the Qum-
ranites as authoritative but not scriptural; see Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 66).
ideas about which texts should be described as “para-”texts of other

texts will change.
My second suggestion picks up where the usefulness of the “para-”
terminology begins to diminish. Grouping texts with clusters of “para-”
texts is only one, very general means of classification, indicating as it
does only some sort of literary relationship between two texts, without
offering any further information about the nature of this relationship or
the nature of the works in question.74 In order to develop adequate
terminology for talking about Second Temple literature that relates in
some way to scripture, we need to explore many other ways of catego-
rizing and grouping texts. This is not a matter of finding the single best
classificatory label for a given work. Recent thought on the issue of
genre has emphasized that all texts can be classified in multiple ways,
depending upon who is doing the classifying and the criteria used, and
that texts can participate in multiple genres or categories simultaneous-
ly. 75 Instead of finding the appropriate pigeonhole for each work, we
should perhaps be creating something more like a Venn diagram, in
which the work can be located at the intersection of all the different
categories in which it participates. These categories would include as-
pects of literary form, style, and content (poetry, prose; law, narrative;
pseudepigraphy, anonymity, named authorship; etc.) as well as de-
scriptions of how a given work rewrites or reuses an earlier work, inso-
far as this can be determined. Thus for example, if we were to decide
that the book of Jubilees can fairly be placed in a category called Re-
written Scripture, it would still be necessary to further characterize
Jubilees with a variety of other descriptive and generic labels: as a narr-
ative text, as a “para-Genesis” text, as possibly belonging to the genre
Apocalypse, as a pseudepigraph, and (in view of its probable authorita-
tive status) as scripture. Each of these descriptors binds Jubilees to a
different subset of Second Temple literature and allows us to see points
of contact that a single generic label (“Apocalypse,” “Rewritten Scrip-
ture”) might tend to obscure. Systematic mapping of texts’ participa-
tion in categories of various types should give us a much better sense of
the similarities and differences between different types of texts and
74 See Brooke’s observation that the term “parabiblical” most properly operates as an
“umbrella term” and should not be construed as a “narrowly defined genre”;
Brooke, “Genre Theory,” 369.
75 For helpful overviews of recent developments in the study of genre, see Amy J.
Devitt, Writing Genres (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004); Carol
A. Newsom, “Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case Study of
the Hodayot,” DSD 17 (2010): 270–88.
116 Molly M. Zahn
facilitate the development of appropriate terminology to describe these

interrelationships.
Third, I would suggest that special care be taken to keep questions
of authority and authoritative status separate from questions pertaining
to literary form and mode of production. I have indicated above how
conflation of these two issues has frequently led to confusion in the
discussion of Second Temple texts that constitute or are related to scrip-
ture. It is perfectly legitimate and necessary, of course, to try to deter-
mine which works were viewed as possessing scriptural authority in
this period (and by whom) and which works were more likely viewed
as authoritative but not scriptural or not authoritative at all. But such
determinations, especially given the paucity of information regarding
the reception of many of these texts, should not constitute the primary
basis for textual classification, as the distinction biblical/nonbiblical did
for so long. While that primary division made good sense in the early
days of Scrolls research, when the vast diversity of the material had not
yet become apparent, from our perspective more than sixty years later
it has proved inadequate.76 As a result, judgments about the authorita-
tive status of late Second Temple texts, though they constitute an im-
portant aspect of the analysis of these texts, should be kept separate
from—and must not be given priority over—analysis of each text’s
content, form, and relationship to other known texts.
The above reflections and tentative suggestions are meant to help
advance the process of developing a suitable terminology for talking
about Second Temple Jewish texts related to what we now know as the
Hebrew Bible. Far from constituting some sort of final word on the
issue, it is my hope that they will spur further discussion, debate, and
clarification. Only through such dialogue can we hope to develop ways
of talking about these texts that reflect the current state of our under-
standing—and only through the development of new ways of talking
will we gradually develop new ways of thinking as well.
Bibliography
Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile.
2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Bernstein, Moshe J. “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and
Functions.” Pages 1–26 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and
76 See the comments of Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 154.

Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Esther G. Chazon

and Michael E. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ȱ. “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Useful-
ness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96.
Ȱ. “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in
4QReworked Pentateuch.” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49.
Brooke, George J. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 777–81 in The Encyclopedia of the
Ȱ. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the
Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov.
London: British Library, 2002.
Ȱ. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for
Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible:
Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. STDJ
Ȱ. “The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 35–48 in
Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A.
Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian
Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Ȱ. “From Bible to Midrash: Approaches to Biblical Interpretation in the Dead
Sea Scrolls by Modern Interpreters.” Pages 1–19 in Northern Lights on the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited
by Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Ȱ. “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher.” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86.
Campbell, Jonathan G. “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Termino-
logical and Methodological Critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in
Qumran Studies. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and
Lloyd K. Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Litera-
ture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Chiesa, Bruno. “Biblical and Parabiblical Texts from Qumran.” Henoch 20
(1998): 131–51.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three
Texts.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 1–8 [Eng.].
Deutscher, Guy. “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?.” New York
Times Magazine, 29 August 2010. Cited 27 August 2010. Online: http:
//www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?src=me&ref
=homepage.
Devitt, Amy J. Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
2004.
Falk, Daniel K. The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among
the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
118 Molly M. Zahn
Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the
History of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Ȱ. “Scripture.” Pages 133–45 in vol. 13 of The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by
Mircea Eliade et al. 16 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1987.
Hayward, C. T. R. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 595–98 in A Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation. Edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden. London: SCM,
1990.
Kraft, Robert A. “Para-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible Studies.” JBL
126 (2007): 5–27.
Lange, Armin. “The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the
Canonical Process.” Pages 21–30 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and
the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel
Tov. London: British Library, 2002.
Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Ȱ and Molly M. Zahn. “Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ') and -
in the Temple Scroll.” DSD 9 (2002): 295–346.
Lim, Timothy H. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages
303–22 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H.
Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second
Ȱ. “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation
in 4 Ezra.” Pages 529–36 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early
Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony
Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill,
2007.
Newsom, Carol A. “Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case
Study of the Hodayot.” DSD 17 (2010): 270–88.
Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenome-
non—Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism.” Pages 285–306
in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour
of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk. Boston: Beacon, 1983.
Smith, Mark. “4Q384, 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” Pages 137–52 in
Qum-ran Cave 4.XIV, Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al., in
consultation with J. VanderKam. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. What is Scripture? A Comparative Approach. Minneapo-
lis: Fortress, 1993.
Stone, Michael E. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha.” DSD 3
(1996): 270–95.
Tov, Emanuel. “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with
Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod.” Pages 111–34 in The
Community of the Renewed Covenant. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James
VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
Ȱ. Introduction to Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Ha-

rold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “A ‘Canon within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testa-
ment Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized.” RevQ 19
(2000): 383–99.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmands, 1999.
Ȱ. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate.
Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hen-
drickson, 2002.
Ȱ. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Cen-
tury Judaism.” Pages 145–61 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An As-
sessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L.
Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Zahn, Molly M. “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the
Bible.” Pages 435–58 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John
Day. LHB/OTS 422. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Ȱ. “Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 323–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Ȱ. “The Question of Genre in Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment.” Paper
presented at the 7th meeting of the IOQS. Helsinki, 2010.
VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD
5 (1998): 382–402.
Ȱ. “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works.”
Pages 41–56 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Dis-
coveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British
Library, 2002.
Ȱ and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T & T Clark,
2005.
Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. StPB
3. Changed Texts
The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan
Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch
Sidnie White Crawford
The Samaritan Pentateuch has been well known since the seventeenth
century as a separate edition or version of the Pentateuch, alongside the
Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Preserved by the Samaritans as their
canonical text of the Torah, it is written in a paleo-Hebrew script dating
to the time of the Hasmoneans (late second-early first century BCE),
contains an expanded or harmonized text in all five books of the Penta-
teuch, and has a layer of Samaritan sectarian editing, the purpose of
which is to establish Mount Gerizim as the site chosen by God as the
central place of worship. Until the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, the
earliest manuscript of this text-type dated to the ninth century CE.1
Among the Qumran scrolls, as was recognized quite early, there
were discovered manuscripts of the books of the Pentateuch that con-
formed to the text-type found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, with the
specifically Samaritan editing removed. These manuscripts, which
came to be labeled “pre-Samaritan,”2 are characterized by harmoniza-
tion and content editing, meant to bring two parallel texts into accord
with one another.3 These manuscripts resemble the Samaritan Penta-
1 For recent overviews of the Samaritan Pentateuch, see Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of
the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), and Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and
Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (Copenhagen International Seminar 7; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
2 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: For-
tress, 2001), 81.
3 For an early discussion of harmonization which takes account of the Qumran evi-
dence, see Emanuel Tov, “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical
Manuscripts,” JSOT 31 (1983): 3–29. See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Conflation as a Re-
dactional Technique,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, 1985), 53–89.
Eshel and Eshel give a good description of the various categories of harmonizations:
“1. Changing the text in order to avoid any differences among parallel biblical texts
(for example, the Decalogue). 2. The addition of a source to a biblical passage. For
example, elements from Deuteronomy were sometimes added to Exodus or Num-
124 Sidnie White Crawford
teuch in that the techniques of harmonization and content editing are

the same, often the same passages are harmonized, and the harmoniza-
tions presume the shape of the Pentateuch as a whole. That is, harmo-
nizations can occur not only within the same book, but also from book
to book, the most common direction being from Deuteronomy back
into Exodus and Numbers.
However, these so-called pre-Samaritan manuscripts also exhibit
features not found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. They can be written in
either paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic square script; 4QpaleoExodm is writ-
ten in paleo-Hebrew characters, while 4QNum b used the Aramaic
square script. Their orthography and morphology differ from manu-
script to manuscript, with some being written with a more defective
orthography, others with a fuller orthography.4 Most importantly, al-
though the passages chosen for harmonization can be the same, and
similar techniques used, the results can differ from manuscript to ma-
nuscript. An example of this comes from the passages concerning the
daughters of Zelophehad, Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12. In 4QNumb, these
passages are harmonized by interweaving the two passages: 36:1–2,
27:2–11; 36:3–4; 36:1–2 (repeated); 36:5–12.5 4Q365, or 4QReworked
Pentateuchc, harmonizes the two passages with a simple juxtaposition:
27:1–11; 36:1–2[3–12].6 Thus, two scribes approached the same passages
with the intent of harmonizing them, but their results were different.
bers since Deuteronomy repeats descriptions from previous books of the Pentateuch.
Such a phenomenon can be termed the completion of details in a ‘poor’ text based
upon a ‘rich’ description. 3. A further addition is a depiction of the implementation
of a certain commandment in order to emphasize its performance.” Esther and Ha-
nan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran
Biblical Scrolls,” in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in
Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. W. Fields;
Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–40 (218).
Tov makes a distinction between large blocks of harmonization, which he describes
as content editing, and small textual harmonizations, which are mainly additions of
words (“Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy,” in Hebrew
Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
2008), 271–82 (273).
I would emphasize that these alterations are secondary; that is, they presume the exis-
tence of a base text which is being changed according to specific scribal techniques.
4 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert (STDJ 54: Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279–80.
5 Nathan Jastram, “4QNumb,” in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich,
F. Moore Cross et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 205–67 (262–64).
6 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” in Qumran Cave 4,
VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994),
255–318 (310–11).
Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch 125
Further, it is evident that some of these manuscripts went beyond

the Samaritan Pentateuch in their content editing. 4QNumb, for exam-
ple, contains more harmonizations than the Samaritan Pentateuch.7
Other manuscripts were discovered that contained harmonizations not
found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, 4QDeutn harmonizes
the fourth commandment in the Decalogue with content from the Ex-
odus version of the commandment.
Deut 5:12–15 Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it, according as the Lord
your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all
your work, but on the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God;
you shall not do in it any work, you, your son, your daughter, your
male servant or your female servant, your ox or your ass or your beast,
your sojourner who is in your gates; in order that your male servant
and your female servant might rest like you. And remember that you
were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought
you forth from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm;
therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sab-
bath day to sanctify it. Exod 20:11 For six days the Lord made the heavens and
the earth, the sea and all which is in them, and he rested on the seventh day;
therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day to sanctify it.8
Thus, it slowly became clear that we were not dealing with a simple
stemma of manuscripts, with a later manuscript being a copy of an
earlier manuscript, albeit with variants, but with a family or group, in
which scribes approached their task of handing on the books of the
Pentateuch with certain exegetical principles, the chief of which was
harmonization. The accepted label for this family or group, pre-
Samaritan, is therefore misleading because it implies that the Samaritan
Pentateuch is the model or chief exemplar of this group, when in reality
it is simply one exemplar among many. For this reason Eshel prefers
the label “harmonistic,”9 while I would choose the label “harmonis-
tic/expansive.”
My reason for adding the term “expansive” to the label has to do
with the Qumran scrolls that fall next along the spectrum of Pentateuch
7 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 99. Nathan Jastram, “A Comparison of Two
‘Proto-Samaritan’ Texts From Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb,” DSD 5 (1998):
264–89.
8 Sidnie White Crawford, “4QDeutn,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 117–28 (124–26).
9 Esther Eshel, “4QDeutn– A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” HUCA
62 (1991): 117–54 (121).
texts, the Reworked Pentateuch group. One notable characteristic of the

Samaritan Pentateuch and the manuscripts that resemble it is that har-
monizations do not occur in legal passages, but only in narrative sec-
tions.10 This is the case even though laws in Exodus, Numbers and Deu-
teronomy can blatantly contradict each other. This seeming taboo is
broken in the Reworked Pentateuch group, which edits content within
legal passages as well as narrative ones. An example is found in 4Q366,
4QReworked Pentateuchd, frg. 4, col. 1, where two passages concerning
Sukkot, Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut 16:13–14, are juxtaposed.11
The Reworked Pentateuch group also takes a step beyond harmo-
nization and content editing within the books of the Pentateuch to add
new material into the received text, using the same editorial principles,
in both narrative and legal sections. 4Q364, 4QReworked Pentateuchb,
frg. 3, col. 2, adds material into the narrative of Genesis 28, Jacob’s de-
parture from Canaan:
1. him you shall see [

2. you shall see in good health [
3. your death, and unto your eyes [lest I be deprived of even]
4. the two of you. And [Isaac] called [to Rebekah his wife and he told]
5. her all [these] th[ings
6. after Jacob her son[ and she wept
7. Gen 28:6 Now Esau saw that [Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him
away]
8. To Pa[dan] Aram to find for himself from[ there a wife12
Here we find Isaac evidently comforting Rebekah, who is weeping over

Jacob’s departure. This material is paralleled in Jubilees 27:14, 17, and a
strikingly similar scene occurs in Tobit, in which Tobit attempts to com-
fort Anna at the departure of Tobias (5:21). A common exegetical tradi-
tion appears to be at work, although it is unclear which text is prior to
the others.13
10 Moshe Bernstein, “What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Ma-
terial in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49.
11 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “366. 4QReworked Pentateuchd,” in Qumran Cave 4,
335–43 (341–42).
12 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “364. 4QReworked Pentateuchb,” in Qumran Cave 4,
197–254 (206–7).
13 Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 47–48.
4Q365, frg. 6, col. 2, expands the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15:
Then [Miriam the prophet, sister of Aaron,] took [the timbrel in

Exod 15:21
her hand and al]l the women went out after her with [timbrels and
dancing. And Miriam sang to them...]
1. you despised (?) [

2. for the majesty of [
3. You are great, a deliverer (?) [
4. the hope of the enemy has perished, and he is for[gotten] (or: has
cea[sed]) [
5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy (or ‘enemies’) [
6. Extol the one who raises up, [a r]ansom . . . you gave(?) [
7. [the one who do]es gloriously [
And Moses traveled with Israel from the Sea and they walked in the
15:22
desert of Sh[ur three days, but they did not find water…14
The scribe has drawn on phrases from the Song of the Sea, earlier in
Exodus 15, to create this new song in Miriam’s mouth. The song fills in
a gap in the text, but is not picked up by later Jewish tradition.15
4Q365, frg. 23, expands the legal section in Leviticus 23 by inserting
legislation for the festivals of Fresh Oil and Wood.
And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Command the children of

Lev 23:1
Israel, saying, Addition begins ‘when you come to the land which I am giving
to you for an inheritance, and you dwell upon it securely, you will
bring wood for a burnt offering and for all the wo[r]k of [the H]ouse
which you will build for me in the land, to arrange it upon the altar of
burnt-offering, and the calv[es ] for Passover sacrifices and for whole
burnt-offerings and for thank offerings and for free-will offerings and
for burnt-offerings, daily […] and for the doors and for all the work of
the House the[y] will br[ing…] the festival of fresh oil. They will bring
wood two […] the ones who bring on the fir[st] day, Levi […Reu]ben
and Simeon [and on t]he fou[rth] day…16
14 Tov and White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” 269–72.

15 Tal Ilan has noted that this is one of the few examples of a woman’s voice in any
manuscript of what became the Hebrew Bible (“Women in Qumran and the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. J. J. Collins and T. H.
Lim; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 124–47 (127).
16 Tov and White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” 290–96.
This addition goes beyond harmonization by actually adding legisla-

tion into the text of Leviticus, presumably to give the festivals of Fresh
Oil and Wood, celebrated by at least some Jews in the late Second
Temple period, the Mosaic imprimatur. These examples demonstrate
that this family or group of manuscripts is not only harmonistic but
also expansive.
Finally, this scribal approach continues in texts that no longer
present themselves as copies of the Pentateuch, but as new composi-
tions. The parade examples here are Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,
rewriting sections of Genesis-Exodus and Deuteronomy respectively,
but other, smaller manuscripts probably fall into this category as well.17
What is striking about this textual tradition is that, although ac-
cording to Tov only 5–6% of the “biblical” manuscripts at Qumran
were harmonistic/expansive,18 that text-type appeared in other types of
manuscripts that utilized the books of the Pentateuch in some way.
There are phylacteries and mezuzot whose texts are harmonis-
tic/expansive.19 4QTestimonia, a one page exegetical document, quotes
from the book of Exodus according to the harmonistic/expansive ver-
sion, at the same time that it uses the proto-Masoretic text for other
quotations.20 Thus, I would argue that the harmonistic/expansive text-
type is not an accident in the Qumran collection, but part of the Qu-
mran community’s repertoire of Pentateuch texts, used for scripture
study (e.g. 4QDeutn), prayer (e.g. the phylacteries), and exegesis (e.g.
4QTestimonia).
It seems probable that the approach to the handing down of the text
of the Pentateuch found in these manuscripts, characterized by harmo-
nization and content editing, was not random or accidental, but was the
product of a scribal group or school active in the Second Temple pe-
riod.21 If this is the case, can this group or school be given a physical
and/or social location? Frank Moore Cross had already argued decades
17 Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 60–104.

18 Emanuel Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert– An Overview and Analy-
sis,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 2008), 128–54 (145). But see also Chelica Hiltunen, “An Examination of the
Supposed Pre-Samaritan Scrolls from Qumran,” (M.A. Thesis: Trinity Western Uni-
versity, 2009), 122, who argues that as many as 32 percent of the Pentateuch manu-
scripts may be classified as pre-Samaritan.
19 Eshel, “4QDeutn,” 122–23.
20 See Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 35–36.
21 Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 146–49, where I argue that this scribal group was part
of a priestly/Levitical exegetical tradition.
ago that this text-type was Palestinian.22 Is it possible to be more specif-

ic than that?
First of all, the discovery of manuscripts from this text group in the
Qumran caves locates this text group firmly in Judean Palestine. Fur-
ther, the manuscripts of this family found at Qumran date paleographi-
cally to the first century BCE. The oldest, 4QpaleoExodm, dates to 100–25
BCE, 23 old enough to argue that it may not have been copied at Qumran,
but was brought to the settlement from elsewhere.24 As noted before,
these manuscripts are copied in different scripts and with different
orthographic practices, making it unlikely that they were all copied in
the same place. 4QpaleoExodm, and possibly 4QNumb, are categorized
by Tov as “de luxe manuscripts,”25 indicating the high esteem in which
they were held, both by the scribe who copied them and the communi-
ty that preserved them. If, as is the general consensus today, many if
not most of the Qumran manuscripts were not copied at Qumran but
were imported from elsewhere, where in second/first century BCE Ju-
dean Palestine might these harmonistic/expansive Pentateuch manu-
scripts have originated? The most likely candidate is Jerusalem, among
the priestly caste whose job it was to hand down the written tradition
entrusted to them, i.e., the Zadokite priests associated with the Tem-
ple.26 It might be objected that it is unlikely that two obviously different
text-types would be preserved in the Temple library.27 However, this
objection may stem more from the contemporary idea of the necessity
for a fixed text of Scripture than it does from actual historical reality in
the first century BCE. For example, Solomon Zeitlin, reacting against the
22 Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1995), 142.
23 For the paleographical dates of all these manuscripts, see Brian Webster, “Chrono-
logical Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from the Judaean
Desert. Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E.
Tov; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446.
24 This is based on Magness’s revised dating of the beginning of the Qumran settle-
ment to 100 BCE or later. Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 68.
25 Tov, Scribal Approaches, 126, 129.
26 This is the same group that scholars such as Schiffman, on different grounds, argue
make up the core or the leadership of the group that coalesced at Qumran. Lawrence
H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of
Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 31–32.
27 Tov, for example, argues that only the proto-Masoretic textual group was preserved
in the Temple. “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible used in the An-
cient Synagogues,” Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C.
B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 171–88 (177).
rabbinic tradition that three Torah scrolls were kept in the Temple
court, states:
It is unthinkable that there were three Torahs in the Temple which dif-
fered in their readings. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest read
portions from the Torah which had been handed to him by his subor-
dinates. It is unbelievable that there were three Torahs with different
readings. If there had been three Torahs, how could the overseer have
known which was the Torah with the correct text to be handed to the
high priest? And, if it was known that a Torah had a defective text, the
question confronting us is: How could a Torah with a defective text
have been kept in the Temple? (emphasis mine)28
This statement seems more a product of Zeitlin’s own bias in favor of a

fixed text than a realistic assessment of the textual situation in Palestine
in the late Second Temple period. Rather, if we take the Qumran collec-
tion as a snapshot of the prevailing textual situation in first century BCE
through first century CE Palestine, it is clear that different text-types
were preserved, used, and accepted. There is no reason to suppose this
was not the case in the Temple archives as well.29 Therefore, a strong
case can be made for locating this text-type among the scribes in the
Jerusalem temple, alongside the proto-Masoretic text that eventually
became dominant in Judaism.
The second location that may be proposed for this scribal tradition
is among the priests and scribes of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, in
Judea’s neighboring province, Samaria. This proposal is based on the
fact that the Samaritans eventually chose an exemplar of the harmonis-
tic/expansive text-type as their canonical text. The archaeological record
indicates the presence of a sanctuary or temenos on the mountain as
early as the middle of the fifth century BCE. 30 This sanctuary was Yah-
28 Solomon Zeitlin, “Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” JQR 56 (1966):
269–72 (270).
29 As Lange has demonstrated, by the first century CE the proto-Masoretic text was in
the ascendancy in the Qumran collection (Armin Lange, “They Confirmed the Read-
ing” (y. Tan’an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the
Second Temple Period,” in From Qumran to Aleppo (ed. A. Lange, M. Weigold and J.
Zsengellér; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29–80 (53). However, the pe-
riod I am discussing is the first century BCE, before this proto-Masoretic ascendancy
began.
30 Yitzhak Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount
Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence,” in Judah and the Judeans in the
Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers and R. Albertz; Winona Lake:
wistic, that is, dedicated to the same god as the Jerusalem temple, and
with, presumably, many rituals in common.31 The inscriptional evi-
dence suggests that the Samarians, the residents of the province of Sa-
maria, wrote and spoke the same language as the Judeans, with a simi-
lar system of scripts and a similar onomastica.32 Gary Knoppers has
argued, “contacts between these two neighboring areas during the
Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods were…substantial and persis-
tent.”33 If he is correct, then the two communities were not estranged
and continually at odds with one another, as the biased accounts in
Ezra and Nehemiah suggest,34 but rather enjoyed close cultural and
religious ties. Real estrangement did not begin until the rise of the
Hasmoneans, probably culminating in the destruction of the temple on
Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 111/110 BCE. After that the two communi-
ties went their separate ways.
These northern Yahwists, who later became known as the Samari-
tans, accepted as Scripture the first five books of the Pentateuch, and
the version of those books that they eventually canonized was a mem-
ber of the harmonistic/expansive group. It seems to me entirely plausi-
ble to argue that the northerners did not simply accept a version of the
Pentateuch from the southerners,35 but used a text-type with which
they were familiar, and may have had some role in developing.36 The
Eisenbrauns, 2007), 157–212 (158). I would like to thank Andrea Berlin and Jodi
Magness for clarifying the archaeological evidence for me.
31 Bob Becking, “Do the Earliest Samaritan Inscriptions Already Indicate a Parting of
the Ways?,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G.
N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007): “The written evi-
dence excavated on Mount Gerizim does not allow the conclusion that, from its very
beginning, the religion of the Samari(t)ans differed from the religion of the Yehu-
dites” (p. 220). See also now Gary N. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and Inner-
Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Pers-
pective,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T.
Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; forthcoming), 21. I would like to thank Profes-
sor Knoppers for sharing this article with me prior to publication.
32 Gary N. Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265–90 (274–75).
33 Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question,” 278.
34 E.g. Ezra 4:1–6:15, Neh 4:1–23 [Eng.].
35 Contra Esther and Hanan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in
Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” 215–40 (238–39), who assume that the Samari-
tans had no role in the development of the Pentateuch, or any part in the scribal
group that handed on the harmonistic/expansive tradition.
36 Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch as
Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knop-
most likely place for this development is among the priestly scribes in
the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, who were charged with preserving
the traditions of the north, just as the priestly scribes in the Jerusalem
temple were charged with preserving Judean tradition. Internal evi-
dence from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the harmonistic/expansive
manuscripts found at Qumran support this argument.
The Samaritan Pentateuch, as mentioned above, is written in a pa-
leo-Hebrew script dating to the time of the Hasmoneans, indicating
that this particular exemplar of the harmonistic/expansive text-type
was chosen right at the time when the estrangement between the two
communities was growing, with the probable loss of communication
among the scribal classes.37 At the point at which this exemplar was
chosen, it was frozen; that is, the text no longer expanded in the ways I
have described above. The exception to this is the layer of specifically
Samaritan editing that is added to the harmonistic/expansive text. This
Samaritan editing includes the addition of a commandment to the De-
calogue in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, mandating the construction
of a sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.38
Exod 20:17+ Deut 11:29 When the Lord your God has brought you into the land
of the Canaanites that you are entering to possess, Deut 27:2b–7 set up some
large stones for yourself and cover them with plaster. Write on the
stones all the words of this law. And when you have crossed the Jor-
dan, set up these stones on Mount Gerizim (MT: Ebal), as I command
you today. Build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones.
Do not use any iron tool upon them. Build the altar of the Lord your
God with unhewn stones and offer burnt offerings on it to the Lord
your God. Sacrifice whole offerings and eat them there and rejoice in
the presence of the Lord your God. Deut 11:30 This mountain is across the
Jordan, westwards towards the setting sun, in the territory of the Ca-
pers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 237–72 (264); see also
Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 81, and Knoppers, “Parallel Torah,” 20–22.
37 Eshel and Eshel also argue for this date, but with different assumptions. “Dating the
Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation,” 239.
38 The other sectarian changes include changing the Deuteronomy formula, “the place
which the LORD will choose (:%')” to “the place which the LORD has chosen
(:%),” an oblique reference to Mt. Gerizim, and insertions of reference to Mt. Geri-
zim (-'$'::!; written as one word). Knoppers, quoting Schenker, puts forward the
argument that :% is the orginal reading, and :%' is a tendentious Judean change.
However, both the majority of witnesses to the LXX and the pre-Samaritan manu-
scripts (where extant) support MT, making it unlikely that :% is the original read-
ing. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs,” 9.
naanites who dwell in the Arabah facing Gilgal, near the large tree of
Moreh, facing Shechem.39
This tenth or eleventh commandment, depending on how they are

counted, is a pastiche of passages drawn from Deuteronomy, and is
constructed using the very same scribal techniques that the other ex-
pansions in this textual family used.40 The techniques used in this pas-
sage suggest that the scribes inserting the specifically Samaritan edi-
torial layer came from the same scribal group or school that created the
earlier harmonizations found in this textual family. Logically, then, this
scribal group or school must have been at home in Samaritan priestly
circles. Why, with the exception of the Gerizim commandment and
related editorial changes, the Samaritans froze their version of the Pen-
tateuch at that point in time is unknown. Perhaps the impetus for this
type of content editing came from Judea, or perhaps with the loss of
their Judean colleagues this scribal technique was gradually lost. In any
case, the Samaritan Pentateuch would now have a separate textual his-
tory.
At the same time that the Samaritan Pentateuch was breaking off
from the main stem of the harmonistic/expansive group, that group
was continuing to develop, as indicated by the manuscripts from Qu-
mran. The Qumran manuscripts that have been labeled Pentateuchal
and exhibit this scribal approach all date to the first century BCE, after
the Judean/Samaritan rupture. Some of these manuscripts, such as
4QNumb and the Reworked Pentateuch group, exhibit more extensive
content editing than is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, including
editing in legal passages, and the addition of new material. The ob-
vious conclusion is that this scribal group or school continued to be
active in Judea after the break with the Samaritans, at least through the
first century BCE.
However, by the end of the first century BCE the proto-Masoretic
version of the Pentateuch, according to the paleographical dates of the
manuscripts, was gaining ascendancy at Qumran, and, judging from
the evidence of the other Judean Desert find sites, by the early second
century CE its dominance was complete.41 Was the impetus for the se-
lection of the proto-Masoretic version of the Pentateuch, a short, unex-
39 Underlined words indicate variants from the Masoretic Text. Whether Gerizim or
Ebal is the original reading in Deuteronomy is uncertain; Kartveit, The Origins of the
Samaritans, 292, suggests that Gerizim is original, and Ebal is a Judean change. I
would like to thank Anneli Aejmelaeus for bringing this to my attention.
40 Kartveit, The Origins of the Samaritans, 293.
41 Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 52.
panded version, by the Judeans the fact that the Samaritans had al-
ready selected a harmonistic/expansive version?42 It is impossible to
tell, but what is certain is that by the first century CE their respective
choices had been made and there was an almost total estrangement
between the two communities.
I have attempted to demonstrate briefly that in the harmonis-
tic/expansive manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran and the
Samaritan Pentateuch, we find a distinct textual group characterized by
a particular scribal approach. Further, I have argued that practitioners
of this scribal approach may be located at both sanctuaries in Achae-
menid/Hellenistic Palestine, Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem. If I am
correct, we have another piece of evidence to argue for stronger ties
between the northern and southern Yahwists during the early and
middle Second Temple period than was previously supposed, and
another piece of the puzzle of Pentateuchal traditions in this same pe-
riod.
Bibliography
Becking, Bob. “Do the Earliest Samaritan Inscriptions Already Indicate a Part-
ing of the Ways?” Pages 213–22 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Cen-
tury B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Al-
bertz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Bernstein, Moshe. “What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal
Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch.” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “4QDeutn.” Pages 117–28 in Qumran Cave 4, IX. Deute-
ronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1995.
Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2008.
Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd edition. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1995.
42 The following statement found in b. Sanh. 21b is applicable: “…they [=the Sages]
selected for Israel the Assyrian [=square] script and the Holy language [=Hebrew],
leaving the [Paleo-]Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language to the =#&#'!. Who
are the =#&#'!? Rab Hisda answers: The Cutheans [=Samaritans]” (as quoted in
Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court,” in
Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010],
329–46 (344). Here the rabbis are assuming that their choice of text was made first.
However, that is not certain, and I am suggesting here that the Samaritan choice may
have been made first, or at least simultaneously with the Jewish choice.
Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn– A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.”

HUCA 62 (1991): 117–54.
Ȱ and Hanan. “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the
Qumran Biblical Scrolls.” Pages 215–40 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible,
Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom
M. Paul, Robert A Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields.
Ilan, Tal. “Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 124–47 in The
Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timo-
thy H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hiltunen, Chelica. “An Examination of the Supposed Pre-Samaritan Scrolls
from Qumran.” M.A. Thesis: Trinity Western University, 2009.
Hjelm, Ingrid. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. Copenhagen
International Seminar 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Jastram, Nathan. “4QNumb.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to
Numbers. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross et al. DJD 12; Ox-
Ȱ. “A Comparison of Two ‘Proto-Samaritan’ Texts From Qumran:
4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb.” DSD 5 (1998): 264–89.
Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Knoppers, Gary N. “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period.”
Pages 265–90 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded
Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Ȱ. “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Sama-
ritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective.” In The Pentateuch: International
Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B.
Schwartz. Forthcoming.
Lange, Armin. “They Confirmed the Reading” (y. Tan’an. 4.68a): The Textual
Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” Pages
29–80 in From Qumran to Aleppo. Edited by Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold
and József Zsengellér. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
Magen, Yitzhak. “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on
Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 157–212 in
Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits,
Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake,: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rap-
Pummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” Pages 237–72 in
The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and
Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple
Court.” Pages 329–46 in Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” Pages 53–89 in Em-

pirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1985.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical
Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1983): 3–29.
Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd revised edition. Minneapolis: For-
tress, 2001.
Ȱ. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Ȱ. “Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy.” Pages 271–
82 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Ȱ. “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert- An Overview and Analysis.”
Pages 128–54 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ 121. Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008.
Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible used in the Ancient
Synagogues.” Pages 171–88 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ
121. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008.
Ȱ and Sidnie White, “364. 4QReworked Pentateuchb.” Pages 197–254 in Qu-
mran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al.
DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Ȱ and Sidnie White. “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc.” Pages 255–318 in Qu-
mran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al.
Ȱ and Sidnie White. “366. 4QReworked Pentateuchd.” Pages 335–43 in Qumran
Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD
13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Webster, Brian. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.”
Pages 351–446 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Indices and an Introduction
to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. DJD
39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.
Zeitlin, Solomon. “Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” JQR 56
(1966): 269–72.
David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary
Development in 2 Samuel 24
Anneli Aejmelaeus
The final chapter of 2 Samuel contains an intricate story that combines

motives of different age and origin, beginning with a census and result-
ing in the building of an altar at Orna’s threshing floor. At two points,
decisive action is carried through by David’s Seer Gad.1 This paper
focuses mainly on David’s first encounter with Gad in 2 Sam 24 and,
more precisely, on textual issues concerning the message conveyed by
Gad in vv. 11–13 as well as David’s reaction in vv. 14–15. It is a short
passage, but nevertheless exemplifies important points of the textual
history of the Books of Samuel. It is my aim to show how the text has
been edited at different stages during its history, not just in the hands
of the editors responsible for the Deuteronomistic History but also lat-
er.
1. Context: The Census
There is no need for me to retell the well-known story of David’s cen-

sus of Judah and Israel that forms the background to the encounter
between David and his Seer Gad in 2 Sam 24. At the beginning of the
story, Yahweh’s anger is said to have kindled against Israel, with the
consequence of Yahweh inciting David against the people, namely, to
count Judah and Israel. What the cause of Yahweh’s anger was is not
revealed, and it is also puzzling in what way the census would be an
act against the people. No commentary has been able to offer a satisfac-
tory explanation as to why a census should necessarily have bad con-
1 The Prophet Gad first appears in 1 Sam 22:5 as David’s advisor during his flight
from Saul. At 2 Sam 24:11 he appears on the stage for the second time as David’s
Seer, and is seen once more in v. 18. In later tradition, as witnessed by 1 Chr 29:29,
Gad – along with Samuel and Nathan – was regarded as one of the writers of Da-
vid’s history. 2 Chr 29:25 mentions him as one of the organizers of the cult.
138 Anneli Aejmelaeus
sequences.2 Most interpreters regard it as an old religious belief, but

there seems to be no further evidence for this.3 Was a census perhaps in
early Israel considered to be an act of hubris? Determining one’s mili-
tary power could lead to self-confidence about defeating one’s enemy,
whereas the correct attitude would be to rely on Yahweh, according to
the principle: “nothing can hinder the Lord from saving/giving victory
by many or by few,” as Jonathan puts it in 1 Sam 14:6, or in the words
of the young David in 1 Sam 17:47, “The Lord saves/gives victory not
with sword and spear.” A true Israelite will wait for Yahweh to deliver
the enemy into his hand and not speculate on manpower. No matter
how numerous a nation, human power is always vulnerable – to fa-
mine, to the sword, or to pestilence. Was it perhaps a kind of supersti-
tion that taking a census would automatically invite the destructive
forces to diminish the number of people? Or perhaps this is just what
happened: a plague happened to occur after a census and was inter-
preted later as having been caused by it. I have no definite answers to
these questions concerning the general understanding of the story.
However, it does affect the interpretation of the details of the text
whether one recognizes the problems or takes the text at face value.
2. The Role of David’s Seer
As for the role of Gad, let us begin with a minor problem, the prophetic
titles. The deuteronomistic editors seem to have applied the title '1
without differentiation to all those who acted as mediators of divine
oracles or answers to human enquiries, as can be gathered from.
1 Sam 9:9
“today's ‘prophet’ was formerly called !:! -'16+ :9' -#'! '1+
a seer.”
2 Exod 30:12 is most probably dependent on our story.

3 J. A. Sanders, “Census,” IDB 1: 547, refers to “an ancient taboo of counting heads.” E.
A. Speiser, “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 (1958): 17–
25, tries to establish, on the basis of Mari parallels, a cultic connection for the practice
of taking a census, without however answering the ultimate question. See also Ger-
hard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I (6th ed.; München: Kaiser, 1969), 330–
31, who interprets the census in 2 Sam 24 to indicate transition from the “holy war”
to a more organized use of military power (cf. n. 18 with a reference to Livius, I, 44,
where purifying sacrifices are mentioned in connection with a census).
David’s Three Choices 139
The up-to-date term that is used to explain the old-fashioned word is

'1. This deuteronomistic leveling makes it more difficult for us to find
out what the exact meaning of the different titles !:, !$%, and '1
was.4 Of the two titles attached to Gad in 2 Sam 24:11, however, the title
# !$% more probably represents the older stratum of the text,
followed by 1 Chr 21:9 and the Septuagint, as preserved in the Lucianic
tradition, whereas the MT has added '1!, which is reflected in the
main line of Greek textual transmission.5
2 Sam 24 MT LXX 1 Chr 21 MT LXX
11 !'! !#!'¡:# Á¸Ė ģýÄ¸ ÁÍÉţÇÍ ëºšÅ¼ÌÇ 9 !#!' :'# Á¸Ė ëÂŠÂ¾Ê¼Å ÁŧÉÀÇË
¡+ ÈÉġË Û» ¡+ ÈÉġË Û»
'1! [ÌġÅ ÈÉÇÎŢÌ¾Å om L]
# !$% ÌġÅ ĝÉľÅÌ¸ ¸ÍĖ» '# !$% ĝÉľÅÌ¸ ¸ÍĖ»
:/+ ÂšºÑÅ :/+ ÂšºÑÅ
Gad is presented as a religious professional who mediates divine mes-

sages and as a person who has a confidential relationship to David,
apparently belonging to his innermost circle. Nevertheless, Gad is not
depicted as being asked by David for mediation of divine oracles. His
appearance to David in the morning perhaps means that he received
the divine message during the night in a dream, and this was what
prompted him to go to David.
It is, however, interesting to note that in 2 Sam 24 both appearances
of Gad bringing a divine message to David are preceded by a peniten-
tial prayer by David in vv. 10 and 17. David speaks to Yahweh directly
in his prayer, but receives an answer through Gad. This seems like a
combination of two different procedures, prayer and divination. Of
these two, divination, receiving divine oracles through a seer,
represents what was a normal procedure throughout millennia in the
Ancient Near East, whereas penitential prayer, even if not unknown in
other cultures, has a significant place in deuteronomistic theology,6
being recognizable by its vocabulary, and is most probably the late-
comer in this context. Many commentators have in fact regarded both
prayers in vv. 10 and 17 as later insertions, and indeed, the story runs
4 See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in
Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 119, 124–25.
5 1 Chr 29:29 and 2 Chr 29:25 mention Gad again with the title !$%.
6 Timo Veijola, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum
Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 190 (esp. n. 87).
more smoothly without them.7 Timo Veijola attributed the prayers,

along with the first appearance of Gad altogether, to DtrP (vv. 3–4a, 10–
14, 15a¹, 17, 21b¹, 25b¹), a solution that I find difficult to follow.8 Veijo-
la also attributed the opening of the chapter and a few later remarks to
DtrG (vv. 1, 19b, 23b, 25b¸), the historian who must have combined
some old sources into his story.
I do agree with Veijola that a deuteronomistic editor – or successive
editors – must have been at work in 2 Sam 24, but I do not think Gad’s
first appearance (vv. 11 – 13) came about by the same hand as the pre-
ceding prayer. Through the addition of the penitential prayer in v. 10,
as well as in v. 17, Gad’s message was made to appear as a response to
David’s confession, but it does not in fact give an answer to it. Nor does
Gad’s message presuppose David’s guilt, but it is well in line with the
initial reference to Yahweh’s inexplicable anger. Moreover, it implies a
different way of communicating with Yahweh, not directly but through
a messenger.9 I wish to refrain from a comprehensive analysis of the
very puzzling chapter, but my impression is that the pieces with Gad
are the glue that keeps the different elements of the composition to-
gether and give them their first theological touch.10 One solution could
be to attribute the introduction of Gad to the story and David’s prayers
7 Henry Preserved Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992
[1904]), 390–91, already remarked that v. 10 is “probably an insertion” and v. 17 “an
interpolation or displaced.” See also K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Grün-
dung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? (BZAW 144; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 5–9; ac-
cording to Rupprecht vv. 1, 3, 4a, 10 and 17 are on one level. According to P. Kyle
McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 9; New
York: Doubleday, 1984), 516, vv. 10–14, 16a and 17–19 represent the additions of a
prophetic writer.
8 Timo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1975), 108–17. See also Walter Dietrich, David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis
von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum
in Israel (BWANT 122; 2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 31–37.
9 Gad’s introduction in v. 11 is also needed before his later appearance in the story
without any title in v. 18.
10 For a summary of the various scholarly opinions, see, for instance, P. Kyle McCarter,
II Samuel, 514–18. Veijola finds editorial additions by DtrG (the historian) in vv. 1,
19b, 23b, 25b¸ and presupposes that the different parts of the narrative had been
combined before DtrG (Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 115–16). According to McCarter,
the original story is to be found in vv. 1–9, 15, 16b, 20–25, but already this kernel is
composed of heterogeneous elements, which is revealed by the use of either the per-
sonal name (vv. 10–14, 15LXX, 17–19) or “the king” (vv. 2 – 9) or both (vv. 20–25) in
reference to David and by the variation between : G in vv. 13 and 15 and !6/; in
vv. 15LXX, 21, and 25.
to different editors that were more or less deeply rooted in deuterono-

mistic theology.11
Through the addition of the penitential prayer, the deuteronomistic
editor not only breaks the flow of the story but also confuses its basic
idea. By making David regret having taken the census and ask Yahweh
for forgiveness (v. 10), he makes us believe that it is a question of
David’s sinful action, and of a punishment that he should rightfully
receive, and not of something else. Despite his confession of sin, David
cannot avoid the consequences of the census. The addition of the
prayer gives a most dubious picture of Yahweh, who first of all incites
David to a foolish act and then does not heed a humble prayer for for-
giveness by his servant. What was meant to be an improvement of the
story and its theological profile ended up causing confusion.
3. The Three Choices
When Gad comes to David in the morning, it is his task to announce

the consequences of the census, but he does it in an exceptional way.
David is to be given three choices, which sounds like a folktale motive.
The three choices represent the triad “hunger, sword, and pestilence”
(: G : % 4 : ).12 There is no reproach, no mention of punishment. The
three are more like blows of fate or natural forces that Yahweh can let
loose or keep checked. All three are connected with a time-span includ-
ing the number three, involving an interesting pattern of shortening the
time unit and increasing the severity of the disaster: three years13 of
famine, three months being pursued by the enemy, or three days of
pestilence.
David is given three choices, but does he choose? The impression
created by the MT is that he actually does not choose but wishes to
11 Timo Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie:

Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF B 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen tie-
deakatemia, 1977), 87, attributes the penitential prayers in Jdg 10:10 and 1 Sam 12:10
to DtrN. It would seem consistent with this decision to regard David’s penitential
prayers as belonging to the same strand.
12 Cf., e.g., Lev 26:25–26; Jer 21:7; 24:10; 29:17MT; 34:17; Ezek 5:12; 6:12. According to
Veijola (Die ewige Dynastie, 112, esp. n. 36) the triad presupposes knowledge of the
exilic prophecy. It does belong to the deuteronomistic formulaic language in Jer, but
our case is clearly not dependent on that language – perhaps the other way around.
13 Most commentators agree on “seven years” in the MT being secondary. “Three
years” is witnessed by the Septuagint in 2 Sam 24:13 as well as both the MT and the
Septuagint in 1 Chr 21:12.
leave himself in the hand of the Lord and rely on his mercy. But com-
parison with the Septuagint as well as the Chronicles version of the
story gives a different picture:
2 Sam 24 MT LXX 1 Chr 21 MT LXX
12 (+¡:% ìÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ 10 (+¡:% ìÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ

13 --- ìÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ 11 (+¡+9 ìÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ
15 --- Á¸Ė ëÆ¼ÂšÆ¸ÌÇ î¸ÍÌŊ
¸ÍĖ» ÌġÅ ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ
In 2 Sam 24 the Septuagint repeats the verb “to choose” three times
(twice in the imperative, once in the aorist), whereas the MT only gives
it once (in the imperative), when Yahweh gives his command to Gad in
v.12:
“Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you.
Choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’”
In two of these three cases the reading of the Septuagint is supported

by Chronicles, although the Hebrew verb is in the second case changed
to +9 which was a more popular verb in later times. The lack of the
third instance may be due to normal shortening of the text by the
Chronicler.14 Thus, the Septuagint, partially supported by Chronicles,
represents a Samuel text that allows David explicitly to choose among
the three alternatives.
One cannot help asking: What is the problem? If Yahweh com-
mands Gad to lay three choices before David and to tell him to choose,
why should he not choose? Was it perhaps considered to be presump-
tuous? Many commentators take the MT as self-evident, considering
the Septuagint to be secondary,15 and are totally content with the ex-
planation that David wishes to leave the final choice to Yahweh when
he says:
“Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me
not fall into the hand of man.” (v. 14)
14 In other details Chronicles witnesses to the longer version with the LXX.
15 H. W. Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher (ATD 10; 6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1982), 340–41, regards the MT as ”sachgemässer”; Veijola, Die ewige Dynas-
tie, 110 n. 27, calls the Septuagint readings as “Texterleichterung.”
David’s words are often taken to mean that, of the three alternatives,
persecution by the enemy corresponds to “falling into the hand of
man,” whereas famine or pestilence would mean “falling into the hand
of the Lord.” This would mean that David does not pick one of the
three, but excludes one alternative.16
Adrian Schenker also differentiates between punishments that con-
cern the people – famine and pestilence – and one that concerns David
alone – being pursued by his enemy – and regards it as a sign of sel-
fishness that David excludes the alternative that would hurt him
alone.17 I do not think that any such differentiation was originally in-
tended. The king alone would hardly be pursued by the enemy; what is
meant is war, and it concerns the people at least as much as the king.
The MT does in fact use the singular in “let me not fall into the hand of
man” and the plural in “let us fall into the hand of the Lord,” but this
difference does not seem to be original.18 The Septuagint and Chroni-
cles, both in Hebrew and in Greek, use the singular in both cases: it is
David who chooses, even if it affects the people, because he is the king
and the king is one with his people.
As an aftermath of the census, any one of the triad, “hunger, sword,
and pestilence,” could be seen as having a detrimental effect on the
population. This would mean fulfillment of Yahweh’s anger, men-
tioned at the beginning of the story. The king could try to speculate
which one of the three would diminish the numbers of the people the
least. If he trusted his military power, he would choose the enemy. But
this is exactly the temptation he should try to avoid. Putting his faith in
military power, in the number of his troops, and not in the Lord, is
precisely how the census leads the king astray, and this is why David
needs to be put to the test with the three choices. Choosing the enemy
would not mean being unselfish and self-sacrificing. It would mean
hubris. Choosing the mercy of Yahweh can be interpreted as the hard-
est of the choices, most probably the pestilence. That is, David makes a
choice anyway.
16 Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher, 340.

17 Adrian Schenker, Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids (OBO 42; Freiburg, CH:
Universitätsverlag, 1982), 1–2. For the history of interpretation of the passage at
hand, see esp. Schenker’s notes 2–10 (pp. 59–61) and 26 (pp. 64–67).
18 This detail seems to be decisive for Schenker, Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitle-
ids, 1–2.
4. Textual Development
Let us now look more closely at some details of the text. A few of the
differences between the Hebrew and the Greek textual traditions were
already mentioned, partly with the various Greek textual lines divided,
partly in unison.
As is well known, the textual history of the Septuagint text is di-
vided in the second half of 2 Samuel, so that Vaticanus (= B), mostly
accompanied by the majority of manuscripts, represents a revised text,
the so-called Á¸ţº¼-recension,19 an early Jewish revision that has been
approximated to the MT, whereas the Lucianic group (L = 19-82-93-108-
127), partly joined by several other manuscripts, often preserves the
original Septuagint reading.20 There is, of course, a further complication
in the fact that the Lucianic text also contains recensional features. For
the reconstruction of the original Septuagint, it is however fortunate
that the principles of the two recensions are different and often recog-
nizable (at least to the experienced eye). But we must also realize that
the original reading has been at times lost and can only be recon-
structed. That the Hebrew text originally translated was not the same
as the text to which the Greek text was approximated does not make
our job easy, but it certainly makes it intriguing.
The problems that I would like to discuss in greater detail concern
the words of Gad to David. The divine message is not repeated in full,
but is divided between Yahweh’s command in v. 12 and the words
spoken to David in v. 13. “Three things I offer you. Choose one of them,
that I may do it to you,” is the first part in the words of Yahweh, and
the three choices follow in Gad’s words (v. 13). Let us look at v. 13
more closely.
19 For the name of the recension and the analysis of the evidence, see Dominique
Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). Henry St. John
Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: The Schweich Lectures 1920 (2nd ed.
London: Milford 1923), already saw that the two sections 2 Sam 11:2 – 1 Kings 2:11
and 1 Kings 22 – 2 Kings 25 differ from the rest of Samuel–Kings, but regarded them
as the work of a different, more literal translator.
20 See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Lost in Reconstruction,” Bulletin of the International Organi-
zation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 89–106.
2 Sam 24:13
MT LXX Rahlfs LXX Lucianic Text
¡
Q #13 13Á¸Ė ¼ĊÊýÂ¿¼Å Û» 13Á¸ĖĖ öÂ¿¼ Û»
#G¡+
ÈÉġġË ¸ÍĖ» id.
# +¡EQ # Á¸Ė ÒÅŢºº¼ÀÂ¼Å ¸ĖĖ ÒÈŢºº¼ÀÂ¼Å ¸ĤÌŊ
(A B etc) ¸ĤÌŊ
L+ :/
Q # 1 Chr 21 Á¸Ė ¼čÈ¼Å ¸ĤÌŊ ÂšºÑÅ (L)
T+¡+
C 9 11 =ÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ Ŋ id. (= ChrLXX)
(> A 247 509)
º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À (> A 247) id.
U + #= ! ¡- 12 ¼Ċ (¾ mlt MSS) ìÂ¿þ õ (L 158)
ÊÇÀ
4 : -' 1f 3 f 4 : -'1® f f #+f ÌÉţ¸ ìÌ¾ ÂÀÄġË ÌÉţ¸ ìÌ¾ ÂÀÄġÅ (L 158)
U8 : C ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ ëÈĖ ÌüÅ ºýÅ (L)
!f +f¡-
!f +f¡-
# õ ÌÉ¼ėË ÄýÅ¸Ë id.
-'f % -'f %
U2 1 (!) !a 2 1 Î¼ŧº¼ÀÅ Ê¼ id. (= ChrLXX)
¡' 16 + ¡'1 a / ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ (L=
ChrLXX)
U': 8 U': 8 ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ ÊÇÍ id. (ChrLXX > ÌľÅ)
K! # U '# : % # Á¸Ė ìÊÇÅÌ¸À Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌÇİË (L)
U6 : = j / + »ÀŪÁÇÅÌšË Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁ¼ÀÅ (mlt MSS)
(B 509; Á¸Ì¸- V) Ê¼ Ê¼
=#'!¡- # ¡- # õ º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À id.
-'/ ' =f+ f -'/ ' =f +f ÌÉ¼ėË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë id.
: G : # ! #! ' : % ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ id.
U8 : C … 7: C ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ (L)
1. Some of the differences between the two Greek texts stem from
translation-technical or stylistic preferences of one or the other. The
formulation that most probably represents the Old Greek (in bold
face) is not always self-evident and needs to be backed up by ar-
guments from the translation technique of the original translator,
for instance: a) ¼ĊÊýÂ¿¼Å/öÂ¿¼ – both verbs are common equivalents
for # in the Septuagint; the form without the prefix is common in
the Books of Samuel in cases where the emphasis is not “going in”;
the addition of the prefix may depend on a tendency to consistent
translating with one equivalent in Á¸ţº¼ (L without further MSS,
ChrLXX); b) ÒÅŢºº¼ÀÂ¼Å/ÒÈŢºº¼ÀÂ¼Å – both verbs, with hardly any dif-
ference in the meaning, have been used in the Septuagint, but the
former seems to become more frequent in the Á¸ţº¼ sections; the L

group, in this case accompanied by numerous other witnesses
(against A B 247 CII 509 92-130-314-488-489-762 245 460 707), has
preserved the original reading; c) ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ – the preposition ëÅ is
generally used when the reference is to a “land,” whereas ëÈţ,
(+gen./acc.) is very frequent with reference to the “earth”; the repe-
tition of the phrase later in the verse secures the decision.21
2. The first minor detail of the Hebrew text to be mentioned is the
repetition of #+ (“told him, and said to him”), which is reflected in
the main line of Greek textual transmission Á¸Ė ¼čÈ¼Å ¸ĤÌŊ, whereas
the Lucianic text has ÂšºÑÅ (L 44; > ¸ĤÌŊ 245 707). In Hebrew #+¡'#
can be continued by either :/'# or :/+ but normally without repe-
tition of the preposition; thus, the pronoun ¸ĤÌŊ was probably add-
ed in Á¸ţº¼ according to the MT. It is however difficult to decide
whether the original Greek reading should be considered to have
been Á¸Ė ¼čÈ¼Å or ÂšºÑÅ; if the latter, the Hebrew Vorlage could have
been either :/'# or :/+, but definitely without repetition of #+.
3. The imperative “choose” has already been mentioned. The Hebrew
Vorlage of the Septuagint probably had (+¡:% as in v. 12. The Sep-
tuagint translator in Chronicles obviously used the translation of
Samuel and Kings as his starting point, which makes the ChrLXX
partly a witness of the SamLXX.22 In this case, the Chronicler chose to
change the verb, but the Septuagint sticks to the Greek equivalent
of the older :%.
4. Whether or not David is told to choose is not only a theological
matter, but also affects the structure of the sentence, more precisely,
the grammatical formulation of the three choices. In the Septuagint
as well as in Chronicles, the three alternatives are grammatically
dependent on the imperative. In the MT, however, the message be-
gins – rather bluntly – as a question (“Shall three years of famine
come to you in your land… ?”). That the arrangement of the MT is
secondary becomes obvious when one goes through its details,
which reveal a great deal of inconsistency.
21 As for the variation ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å/ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ, there seems to be a slight preference for
ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å in the Á¸ţº¼ sections; see Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semipreposi-
tions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1979),
274.
22 James Donald Shenkel, “Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paralei-
pomena,” HTR 62 (1969): 63–85.
The MT formulation begins as a question: the question particle with

a finite form, qal impf. 3rd person fem. sg. #=!. – Why 3rd person
fem.? The only feminine noun here is !1< but it is in the plural and,
in the few cases where -'1< appears with a numeral as the subject of
a clause (e.g., Gen 41:29, 54), it normally takes the plural. On the
other hand, 3: could also be the subject, but it is masculine. The
question is continued in the MT with - and -# (as normal for al-
ternative questions), but the construction is not symmetric. It is dif-
ferent each time, and this cannot be normal. The third alternative
comes closest to the first one in expression – “shall there be three
days of pestilence?” – but it is constructed with the infinitive =#'!,
although a direct question would presuppose a finite verb (fur-
thermore, I have not found another case of - + the inf. cstr. in bib-
lical Hebrew). The second question also contains an infinitive, but
this time with the suffix of the 2nd person masc. “you fleeing,” fol-
lowed by a second clause with a participle: “(your enemy) pursuing
you,” which is a circumstantial clause (attached to the second alter-
native).
5. Turning now to the Greek witnesses, we can observe that the Lu-
cianic text shows a consistent structure with infinitives throughout.
It could, of course, be the result of stylistic smoothing (which could
hold true in the case of Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁ¼ÀÅ Ê¼), but there are infinitives in
the Á¸ţº¼ text, too. Approaching the three alternatives from the end
gives the impression that the construction with the infinitives was
the original (3. º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À, 2. Î¼ŧº¼ÀÅ Ê¼) and only the beginning has
been changed, first in the MT and then in the Á¸ţº¼ recension to ad-
just the Greek text to the MT.
The difficult question is how to reconstruct the Vorlage of the Sep-
tuagint in the beginning. There is the infinitive º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À, present in
all MSS, and ¼Ċ íÂ¿þ ÊÇÀ, which derives from the MT, in all MSS but L
158. What is needed is a credible back-translation of the Greek that
represents good Hebrew. Lack of parallels makes the job really dif-
ficult.
6. I shall go through my reconstruction piece by piece. First, the dis-
junctive particles are parallel in Chronicles -# …-# …-, and I
gather this was how the three alternatives were originally intro-
duced.23 The Chronicler obviously had some difficulty with the
23 Parallels to a list of alternatives, introduced by -# …- meaning “either… or,” are
extremely rare; I have found one in Josh 24:15. More common are cases with - …!;
e.g., Num 13:18–20. The latter can introduce clauses with finite verbs, either as indi-
construction; he left out the first verb altogether and muddled up

the middle part. Second, since the construction is dependent on the
imperative “choose for yourself” and since the second and third al-
ternatives are formulated with an infinitive, I gather that the first
verb was an infinitive also. The Greek º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À would speak for the
verb !'!, which is commonly used of famine (Gen 41:54; 42:5), al-
though # also seems to be possible in Hebrew (Gen 41:50 #=),
but was hardly ever translated by ºţÅÇÄ¸À (JudgA 17:8). A reconstruc-
tion along these lines would look like this:
(21 -'<% !<+<¡-# (8: 3: -'1< <#+< =#'!¡- (+¡:%

(8: : -'/' =<+< =#'!¡-# (6: #!# (':8¡'16/
The second alternative includes an additional circumstantial clause

(6: #!# that contains a participle. The singular “your enemy” is
what is presupposed, but (':8 never seems to occur in the singular,
obviously standing for both singular and plural.
7. The Septuagint translator would have translated =#'! both times by
º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À and the disjunctive particles by ô, which can be repeated
any number of times in the meaning “either… or… or…”24
=ÁÂ¼Æ¸À Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À õ ÌÉţ¸ ìÌ¾ ÂÀÄġÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ õ ÌÉ¼ėË ÄýÅ¸Ë

Î¼ŧº¼ÀÅ Ê¼ ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ ÊÇÍ, Á¸Ė ìÊÇÅÌ¸À Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁÇÅÌšË Ê¼, õ
º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ÌÉ¼ėË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ
I find it somewhat problematic to presuppose that the translator

would have reversed the order of the verb and the particle º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À
õ, but on the other hand, this word order seems to have been the
basis for the Á¸ţº¼ recension: º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À would not have been left in its
place unless it was in front of õ. The scribe who added the Á¸ţº¼
reading ¼Ċ ìÂ¿þ ÊÇÀ did not realize that º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À was an alternative
reading.
rect or direct questions, whereas the former seems to require a construction with
nominal expressions and to imply a necessity to choose one of the alternatives.
24 Cf. Num 13:19(18)–21(20) where J. W. Wevers in his edition of the Greek Numbers
consistently chooses the reading ¼Ċ… õ…, although õ… õ… is strongly supported in
the MSS in part of the cases.
What can be observed here is a phenomenon that we encounter at least

sporadically all over the Books of Samuel: The Septuagint was trans-
lated from a Hebrew text different from the MT, frequently with a pa-
rallel in Chronicles. At times the wording of the MT was changed, and
this change is reflected in the Greek recensional texts, in the Hexaplaric
recension and in the earlier Jewish Á¸ţº¼ recension. The latter has left its
traces in Vaticanus and a number of MSS accompanying it: the majority
of MSS in the Á¸ţº¼ sections and a smaller group of MSS in other sec-
tions.
5. Conclusions
Although certain parts of the reconstructions, both Hebrew and Greek,

remain hypothetical, it has become clear that the MT was edited at cer-
tain points of the text in great detail at such a late stage of the textual
history that traces of the older form can be seen in the Septuagint. Us-
ing a translation for textual criticism of the source text is of course al-
ways a risky business, but on the whole, the development of the He-
brew text and the reflection of this development in the different Greek
textual traditions seem to me to be evident beyond doubt in 2 Sam 24
and in the Books of Samuel in general.
The examples that I have given reveal just a small sample of this
late editorial layer. Most of the changes made in the MT seem to have a
theological or ideological motivation, but the individual changes are
often so tiny that the nature of this activity only becomes clear through
the accumulation of a number of changes with a similar aim or changes
showing a connection to one another.
It is impossible to date this editorial activity, but it must be a ques-
tion of the time around the turn of the era, perhaps the 1st century BCE.
This means that the Books of Samuel – or probably the Deuteronomistic
History in general – was not yet considered to be “canonical” in the
sense of being sacred Scripture and being authoritative and unchange-
able in its wording. My suggestion is that the editorial polishing of
these books was felt to be necessary precisely for their preparation for
inclusion in the collection of the Prophets and thus in the “canon” of
sacred Scripture.
This may sound radical. It is clear that the Deuteronomistic History
belongs to the oldest pieces of literature within the Hebrew Bible. In
Ben Sira we have a witness for its appreciation and study in the learned
circles around 200 BCE, but this does not mean that it would have been
considered to be sacred Scripture. It was of course invaluable for those
who had an interest in the history of the nation but in no way indis-
pensable for the Jewish way of life as the Torah was. In Ben Sira’s age,
it was definitely the Torah alone that was regarded as Scripture and
recited in the synagogue.
Compared with this late editorial activity, the work of the deutero-
nomistic editors had, of course, a much deeper impact on the composi-
tion of the historical books. The story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–
18) is the only passage where the story experienced a major expansion
at this late stage. In 2 Sam 24 one could say that the late changes, al-
though theologically motivated, take place on the level of expression,
on the surface of the text, whereas the changes made by the various
deuteronomistic editors touch a deeper level of the story, its theology
and composition. Behind these two editorial stages there was at least
one earlier editor or redactor who put the pieces of the narrative to-
gether into a story with a complicated plot and included it in the Deu-
teronomistic History.
Bibliography
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Lost in Reconstruction.” Bulletin of the International Organ-
ization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 89–106.
Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in
Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: John Knox, 1995.
Dietrich, Walter. David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und
Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel.
BWANT 122. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992.
Hertzberg, H. W. Die Samuelbücher. ATD 10. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1982.
McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
Rad, Gerhard von. Theologie des Alten Testaments I. 6th ed. München: Kaiser,
1969.
Rupprecht, K. Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches
Erbe? BZAW 144. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977.
Sanders, J. A. “Census.” Page 547 in vol. 1 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.
Schenker, Adrian. Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids. OBO 42. Freiburg,
Shenkel, James D. “Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paralei-
pomena.” HTR 62 (1969): 63–85.
Smith, Henry Preserved. The Books of Samuel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992
[1904].
Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. AASF

Diss 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1979.
Speiser, E. A. “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel.” BASOR 149
(1958): 17–25.
Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: The Schweich Lec-
tures 1920. 2nd ed. London: Milford 1923.
Veijola, Timo. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach
der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF B 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, 1975.
Ȱ. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. AASF B 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen
tiedeakatemia, 1977.
Ȱ. Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum
Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
Wevers, John William, Numeri. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum
auctoritate Academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum, adiuvante U.
Quast. 3, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper:
A Case Study on Changes in the Masoretic Text
and in the Old Greek Translation of the Book of
Leviticus
Kristin De Troyer
1. A Three-fold Problem in the Hebrew Text
Leviticus 11 deals with the clean and unclean foods: verses 2b–8 dis-
cusses the land animals, verses 9–12 the animals that live in the waters
and verses 13–19 the detestable birds. Lev 11:20 starts the section that
deals with winged swarming animals. According to 11:20 all winged
insects that walk on all four are detestable. Then in 11:21 four excep-
tions are given: the locust, the bald locust, the cricket and the gras-
shopper: these animals can be eaten. N. Kiuchi states the problem as
follows: “On principle, the four legged flying insects are unclean (v.
20), whereas those with additional lower legs to hop with, such as the
locust, the bald locust, the cricket and the grasshopper, are clean and
edible (vv. 21–22).”1 In this contribution we will focus on verse 21 in
which the exceptions are mentioned.
The Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:21 reads as follows:
5#3! 7:< +)/ #+)= !$¡ = (

3:¡+3 (+!!
#'+:+ +3// -'3:) +¡:<
7:!¡+3 0! :=1+
“But among the winged swarming animals that walk on all fours you
may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap
on the ground.”2 The animal described in 11:21 is one that that swarms
1 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3; Downers

Grove: IVP, 2007), 197.
2 Translation according to the Qere.
154 Kristin De Troyer
and flies. Kleinig says it precisely: a “swarmer of the flying kind.”3 The
animal is further described as walking on all fours and having -'3:)
above its feet with which to hop on the earth. The Samaritan Penta-
teuch also has the reading as printed above.4 Among the Leviticus texts
found among the scrolls from the Judean Desert, only Mas Levb con-
tains some words from 11:21, but unfortunately it does not have the
phrase under investigation.5
The NRSV, and many other translations, however translates: “But
among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that
have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the ground.”
The JPS reads: “But these you may eat among all the winged swarming
things that walk on all fours: all that have, above their feet, jointed legs
to leap with on the ground.”6 These translations follow the suggestion
of the Masoretes to read the text as #+ instead of +. Levine calls this a
“case of homophone(s).”7 The note in the margin of the BHS has the
Qere “to him/it”:
5#3! 7:< +)/ #+)= !$¡ = (

3:¡+3 (+!!
#'+:+ +3// -'3:) +¡:< #+
9
7:!¡+3 0! :=1+
The problem of the Hebrew text is thus whether or not the animal has
or has not -'3:) above its feet. Whereas the Hebrew text and the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch both read “not,” most versions read “to him.”
3 John W. Kleinig, Leviticus (Concordia Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia, 2003),

245. M. Noth writes: “geflügelten Kleingetier,” see Martin Noth, Leviticus, 74.
Similarly, Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1966), 141. See also: Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6; Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 119.
4 August F. von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Vol. 3: Levitikus, (Gies-
sen: A. Töpelmann, 1914–1918).
5 For more details, see Kristin De Troyer, “When did the Pentateuch come into Exis-
tence? An Uncomfortable Perspective,” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebens-
welten (ed. W. Kraus and M. Karrer; WUNT 219; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Sie-
beck], 2008), 269–86.
6 Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004), 230.
7 Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 5749/1989), 68.
The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper 155
In the Temple Scroll (11Q19 = 11QTa ) 48:5 the text clearly reads #+.8
The Syriac text reads: to him.9 The Targum Neofiti 1 has: all that have
leaping legs…10 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan continues this reading: all
that have…11 Onqelos reads: (the type) that has joints above its legs.12
The Vulgate reads: sed habet longiora retro crura per quae salit super ter-
ram.13
The issue, however, is not only whether the animal has or has not
-'3:), the issue is also what precisely -'3:) are. The dualis -'3:) ap-
pears in Exod 12:9; 29:17; Lev 1:9 ,13; 4:11; 8:21; 9:14; 11:21; and Amos
3:12. In all these instances, it simply stands for “legs,” legs from a bull,
a ram, a calf or a lamb. Brown-Driver-Briggs renders Lev 11:21 with
“bending legs,” thus connecting the noun 3:) with the verb 3:) to bend
one’s knee, to bow down. Koehler-Baumgartner renders the Hebrew
noun with lower leg, fibula. Koehler-Baumgartner specifies that Leviti-
cus 11:21 refers to the saltatorial legs of the locust.14 In the NRSV, Lev
11:21 is rendered with “jointed legs.” Levine indicates that -'3:) is a
“term for the hind legs, or hocks, of animals.”15 Noth renders the word
with “Schenkel” and in his comments he uses the term “Springbeine.”16
Wenham reads “jumping legs.”17 Harrison translates it with “jointed
8 Yadin, Yigael. ed., The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2: Text and Commentary (Jerusalem: The
Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University –
The Shrine of the Book, 1983), 207. Note that the scribe changed the expression +3//
#'+:+ into #'+:+ +3/; see also Yigael Yadin ed., The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3: Plates and Text
(Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the He-
brew University – The Shrine of the Book, 1977), plate 63.
9 As marked in the apparatus of BHS.
10 Martin McNamara and Richard Hayward, “Targum Neofiti: Leviticus” in Targum
Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus (ed. M. McNamara; The Ara-
maic Bible 3; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 45.
11 Michael Maher, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus” in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus –
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus (ed. M. McNamara; The Aramaic Bible 3: Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 150.
12 Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Leviticus (The Aramaic Bible 8; Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1988), 21.
13 Levine, Leviticus, 68.
14 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT 2:500.
15 The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocry-
phal/Deuterocanonical Books. NRSV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
16 Noth, Leviticus, respectively on p. 74 and p. 78. See also Elliger, Leviticus, 141 and 151
(albeit that Elliger correctly points to the fact that the most important characteristic
of this animal is that it goes forward like animals on land; cf. infra). Also Gersten-
berger, Das 3.Buch Mose. Leviticus, 119 and 127.
17 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NIC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979),
163.
hind legs, which are longer than the others and enable the insect to leap
about.”18 Elliger, however, adds an important point to the discussion
about the legs. He calls the discussion about the “Springbeine” a
“Scheinrechtfertigung”19—we will return to this remark.
In their Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, García Martínez and Tigche-
laar translate the passage from the Temple Scroll as follows: “These you
can eat from among winged insects: those which crawl on four paws,
which have the hind legs wider than the forelegs in order to jump from
the ground with them and to fly with their wings.”20
The question thus arises: which sort of legs is meant? Saltatorial,
hind or lower legs?
Finally, there is yet one more problem in the Hebrew text of Leviti-
cus 11:21. Yadin in his comments and translation of the Temple Scroll
48:5 translates “these among the winged insects you may eat: those that
go on all fours which have legs above their feet, with which to leap
from the earth and fly with their wings.”21 According to Yadin, the
Temple Scroll has elaborated on its description of the insect in order to
define more precisely that the animal under consideration was 5#3!
7:</, and thus, this section “might be a ban on eating it before it had
sprouted wings.”22 The emphasis is thus neither on the legs, nor on the
problem whether or not the animal has these legs, but on the issue that
the wings of the animal were supposed to be sprouted if one wanted to
take a bite.
18 Roland K. Harrison, Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 3; Leicester:

IVP, 1980), 129. J. Milgrom also ponders about precisely what sort of legs are meant.
He writes: “Members of the locust-grasshopper family actually have a third pair of
long, jointed legs that are attached close to the neck, appear to be above the other
legs, and are bent when the animal is in a squat position.” He continues: “Kera’ayim
means “Shins” in connection with a quadruped, that is, the lower part of the leg, be-
low the knee, and by extension, refers here to the saltatory legs of this creature,” see
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 664.
19 Elliger, Leviticus, 151.
20 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar ed., 4Q274–11Q31 (vol. 2 of
The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill 2000), 1266–67.
21 Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2, 207. Note that the scribe changed the expression +3//
#'+:+ into #'+:+ +3/; see also Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3, plate 63.
22 Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2, 207.
2. A Closer Look at the Old Greek text of Leviticus
The LXX text has the following text:23
’ÂÂÛ Ì¸ıÌ¸ ÎŠº¼Ê¿¼ ÒÈġ ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌľÅ ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ Ø ÈÇÉ¼ŧ¼Ì¸À ëÈĖ Ì¼ÊÊŠÉÑÅ
Ø íÏ¼À ÊÁšÂ¾ ÒÅŪÌ¼ÉÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ¸ĤÌÇÍ È¾»ÜÅ ëÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ëÈĖ ÌýË ºýË
“But you can eat these from the reptiles that creep, that walk upon four,
that have jointed legs above their feet with which to hop on the earth.”
Harlé and Pralon more precisely describe the animals: “parmi les besti-
oles ailées.”24
We need to address the three issues. First, it seems clear that the an-
imal has (some sort of) legs above its feet. In the Greek there is not a
negation. The Old Greek seems to follow the suggested reading of the
Qere.
Second, with regard to the sort of legs. In the cases where the He-
brew has -'3:), that is Exod 12:9; 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 4:11; 8:21; 9:14;
11:21; and Amos 3:12, the word is translated with “feet“ (Exod 12:9;
29:17; Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 8:21; Lev 9:14)—which in itself is worth
another article. In Lev 4:11, the Hebrew is translated with ÒÁÉÑÌŢÉÀÇÅ,
referring to feet and hands, toes and fingers. In Amos 3:12, the Hebrew
dualis is translated with the word ÊÁšÂ¾ (sg. ÊÁšÂÇË). In his lexicon,25
Muraoka translates ÊÁšÂÇË with jointed legs. Wevers, in his Notes,26
states: “’legs above the feet’ must refer to the legs above the knee joints
joined to the feet. What is presumably meant is legs in two parts, so
probably ÊÁšÂ¾ might be translated jointed legs. …” Then Wevers con-
tinues and adds that these jointed legs are meant “with which to hop
on the earth.” From the first remark, however, it is clear that Wevers
thinks that these legs are above the knee joints.27 Muraoka does not
make this distinction. The problem becomes thus even more complex:
the issue is no longer which sort of legs are meant – ordinary legs, hind
23 John William Wevers, Leviticus (Septuaginta. Id est vetus testamentum graecum

auctoritate academiae scientiarum gottingensis editum, II,2; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 128–29.
24 Paul Harlé and Didier Pralon, Le Levitique (La Bible d’Alexandrie 3; Paris: du Cerf,
1988), 130.
25 Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009).
26 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1997), 150.
27 Harlé and Pralon seem to be influenced by the discussion about what sort of legs are
meant and render: “ceux qui ont les pattes de derrière plus hautes que leurs pattes
de devant…,” see Harlé and Pralon, Le Levitique, 130.
legs, saltatorial legs – but the specification of the legs, namely: the up-
per part of the legs or the lower part of the legs?
Finally, in the Old Greek text the winged insect has become a rep-
tile. The Old Greek combines two interesting concepts: the animal is
ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌľÅ ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ. The îÉÈ¼ÌŦÅ is a creeping animal, a reptile. The
verb ïÉÈÑ means to move slowly. In Lev 11:41, 42, 43 and 46, the ani-
mals that are moving slowly are actually moving on the earth. The verb
is used for translating 7:<. In six cases, the verb is used to render </:,
to creep, move lightly. The translation, however, is a very adequate
rendering of the Hebrew concept. Indeed, the noun îÉÈ¼ÌÇÅ translates
</: and 7:<. Moreover, in Leviticus 10:21 the reptile is from among the
ones that move in the air with speed, hence those who fly. Again the
Greek ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ (ÈšÌoÄ¸À) is a good rendering of the Hebrew 5#3!.
Like in the Hebrew the animal moves in two ways: on the ground and
in the air. The use of the noun îÉÈ¼ÌŦÅ, however, does seem to make the
order more clear: the text deals with an insect. The insect is slow on the
ground, but fast in the air.
The reconstruction of the Old Greek text is not without difficulty.
The text critical apparatus contains a list of variants. Codices A, B* and
minuskels 121 and 55* do not read ëÈĖ Ì¼ÊÊŠÉÑÅ, but ëÈĖ Ì¼ÊÊšÉ¸. The
scribe of these witnesses used the accusative form of Ì¼ÊÊ¼É¼Ë, indicat-
ing, with verbs of movement, a subject resting on something—the same
idea, however, can be expressed by the genitive.28
Alongside this ¼/¸ change, these witnesses also do not have the relative
pronoun, neuter plural, ¸ after “four” and before the next section of the
phrase. The Greek of these witnesses thus runs as follows: ’ÂÂÛ Ì¸ıÌ¸
ÎŠº¼Ê¿¼ ÒÈġ ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌľÅ ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ Ø ÈÇÉ¼ŧ¼Ì¸À ëÈĖ Ì¼ÊÊŠÉ¸ íÏ¼À ÊÁšÂ¾
ÒÅŪÌ¼ÉÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ¸ĤÌÇÍ È¾»ÜÅ ëÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ëÈĖ ÌýË ºýË
Wevers explains the omission of the relative as due to haplography.
The scribe jumped from Ì¼ÊÊŠÉ¸ to íÏ¼À, and forgot the alpha relativum.29
28 Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1968), 621–23.
29 Wevers, “Leviticus,” 128–29.
3. The Contribution of the Schøyen Greek Leviticus

Manuscript
As if this problem is not yet difficult enough, the Schøyen Greek Leviti-
cus manuscript 2649 adds yet another reading and another difficul-
ty30—and I have to admit that I am still not entirely sure how to interp-
ret and evaluate the reading.
The top of page Æ¹ reads:31
ÎŠº¼Ê¿¼ ÒÈġ] ÒÈġ ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌÑÅ

ÌľÅ [È¼Ì¼À]ÅЪľÅ Ø ÈÇÉ¼ŧ¼ —
Ì¸ÀЪ [ëÈĖ] Ì¼ÊÊŠÉÑÅж ÔÏÉÀÊÁš —
Â¾ [ÒÅŪÌ¼ÉÑ]Å ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ÑÅ
5 շÍ ¸ĤÌЪ[Çı È]¾»ÜÅ ëÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË
ÒÈ[ġ Ìý]Ë.
“But you can eat these from the reptiles that creep, that walk upon
fours, ÔÏÉÀÊÁšÂ¾ above their feet with which to hop on the earth.”
In the papyrus, like in A, B* and minuskels 121 and 55* there is no
second alpha relativum. Moreover, there is no verb in the phrase. Next,
the papyrus also has a correction in this line, but it is unclear how the
correction fits with the text, let alone how the correction should be read.
The meaning of ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ is a further problem. The question here is:
is this a new word or are we not reading this text correctly? Already
Wevers noted that the translator of Leviticus created many a new
word.32 By explaining ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ as a new word invented by the transla-
tor, one has the advantage of not having to bother with the alpha-
relativum that is missing in many important manuscripts, such as A B*
527 121*.33 On the other hand, then the sentence would lack a verb, and
accordingly many of the Greek (and other) witnesses have added a
verb, like “to have,” in the sentence.
The more difficult reading is certainly the text with the unknown
word. The scribe of the papyrus kept a word in his/her text that is
found nowhere else and has left no traces in the history of the text.
Having a verb in the sentence – ¸ÏÉÀ changed into ¼Ï¼À – would be the
30 Kristin De Troyer, “Leviticus“ in Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen II (ed. D. Minutoli

and R. Pintaudi; Papyrologica Florentina XL/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection,
Greek Papyri V/II; Firenze: Gonnelli, 2010), 1–68, Plates I–XVI.
31 De Troyer, “Leviticus.“
32 Wevers, Notes, X–XI.
33 Wevers explains this omission as an error (a homoioteleuton after the reading
Ì¼ÊÊ¸É¸), cf. supra.
more easy reading. If we accept this change, we also have to accept that
the change to the more easy text must have happened very early on-
wards and was widely accepted, as it is visible in most Greek wit-
nesses. In this case, the Schøyen manuscript would be the only Greek
witness that has safeguarded the more difficult reading.
Finally, is the old Greek reading as preserved in the Schøyen papy-
rus one word, ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾, or is it the conjunction ¸ÏÉÀ followed by the
noun ÊÁšÂ¾? In both the Old Greek text as reconstructed by Wevers and
in the papyrus of Schøyen, the suggestion is made that there are upper
legs on top of the feet. The part of the legs that is under consideration is
on top of the knees. The reading of MS 2649 could thus be translated as
follows: “But, the following you can eat from all the flying reptiles,
those that go on four (...), as long as (conjunctive) the legs (are) on top
of their feet with which to hop on the earth.” This means that the upper
legs are positioned on top of the feet, the knees being bended. A simple
view at a grasshopper might actually throw light on the issue. The Old
Greek text, as preserved in the papyrus, thus deals with upper legs that
are positioned on top of the feet. In other words, whereas the Hebrew
text read that there were no lower legs on top of the feet, the Old Greek
read that there were (upper legs) on top of the feet. The Old Greek text
rendered in a positive way what the Hebrew said in a negative way.
Not just the negation was changed into a positive statement, but also
the sort of legs of the winged insect/reptile was changed from lower to
upper part. The change in the Greek tradition from negative reading to
positive reading, however, is also visible in the non-Greek witnesses,
such as the Temple Scroll. Indeed, the Temple Scroll demonstrates that
the reading “to it” was already established instead of the reading “not.”
Thus, the correction did not happen solely on the Greek level.
The question now before us is: did the change from negative state-
ment to positive statement as observed in the Old Greek text influence
the Masoretes—and thus did they subsequently create the Ketiv/Qere
reading—or can we read the majority of the Greek witnesses, including
A, B* and minuskels 121 and 55*, as witnessing to an early (pre-
hexaplaric) correction towards the Masoretic text, strictu senso? Or
both?
As the Schøyen Greek papyrus has preserved the more difficult
reading, I tend to reconstruct the history of the text as follows: First
there was the Hebrew text with negative statement regarding bending
legs; then came the Old Greek text as preserved in the Schøyen Greek
papyrus, with no verb (conform the Hebrew text), but with a positive
statement about the upper part of the legs; then, the difficult reading
was corrected into a more easy reading in A, B* and minuskels 121 and
55*, turning ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ into ¼Ï¼À ÊÁ¼Â¾ and at the same time bringing the
Old Greek text closer in conformity with the intended Hebrew text, as
visible in the Temple Scroll. Finally, the Masoretes created clarity by
inserting a Qere in the margin.
4. A Solution to the Three-fold Problem?
The problem of the Ketiv/Qere in the Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:21 is

more than a case of a homophonic change. The reading of the Hebrew
text, more precisely the “not” (having) “lower legs” above the feet was
rendered in a positive way in the Old Greek text: “to the animal were”
“upper legs” above the feet. This interpretative change should indicate
beyond doubt that the animal was not creeping on the ground with all
fours, but “walking.” In other words, the main problem of both the
Hebrew and the Greek text was not what sort of legs there were above
the feet, but how these legs defined the way in which the animal made
progress: a swarming creeping animal or something beyond that? As
Elliger pointed out correctly: “Wenn es als ’auf vier gehend’ beschrie-
ben wird, so ist die Zahl nicht wörtlich zu nehmen. Daß die Insekten
sechs Beine haben, wußten auch die Alten.”34 What both the Hebrew
text and the Old Greek tried to emphasize was that the animal needed
to have the capacity to move forward like land animals. The discussion
about precisely what sort of legs the animal has, is thus, indeed a
“Scheinrechtfertigung.”35
The reading of the Temple Scroll confirms my view that it is not just
about the sort of legs, but about how the animal moves forward. “These
you can eat from among winged insects: those which crawl on four
paws, which have the hind legs wider than the forelegs in order to
jump from the ground with them and to fly with their wings”:36 What
better way to prove that the animal is more than a creeping swarming
animal than to say that the animal could also fly with its wings. Whe-
reas the Old Greek text tried to solve the problem with a positive
statement about the legs, the Temple scroll adapted the text by adding
stress to the fact that the animals had wings. In both cases, the animal
under investigation was not just an animal that crept on the ground
and thus was detestable, but one that could hop or fly, and thus could
be added to the menu. The irony of this case is that precisely in the

36 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1266–67.
Hebrew text, it is already stated that the animal was a 5#3! 7:<, a
swarmer of the flying kind—but the latter needed more elaboration. The
Old Greek text, the Masoretic note, and many of the textual witnesses
following suite, as well as the reading of the Temple Scroll can all be
seen as making explicit what was said in the Hebrew text: it is not just
about having legs, it is also about having wings!
Bibliography
Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
De Troyer, Kristin. “When did the Pentateuch come into Existence? An
Uncomfortable Perspective.” Pages 269–86 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kon-
texte, Lebenswelten. Edited by W. Kraus and M. Karrer. WUNT 219. Tübin-
gen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008.
Ȱ. “Leviticus.” Pages 1–68 and Plates I–XVI in Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen
II. Edited by Diletta Minutoli and Rosario Pintaudi. Papyrologica Florenti-
na XL/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Greek Papyri V/II. Firenze:
Gonnelli, 2010.
Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966.
Gall, August F. von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Vol. 3: Levitikus.
Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1914–1918.
García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed. 4Q274–11Q31. Vol 2
of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill 2000.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Grossfeld, Bernard ed. Targum Onqelos to Leviticus. The Aramaic Bible 8. Edin-
Harlé, Paul and Didier Pralon. Le Levitique. La Bible d’Alexandrie 3. Paris: du
Cerf, 1988.
Harrison, Roland K. Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 3. Leice-
ster: IVP, 1980.
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3. Downers
Grove: IVP, 2007.
Kleinig, John W. Leviticus. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Concordia,
2003.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament. The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English. Volume 2. Trans-
lated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill,
1995.
Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society, 5749/1989.
Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
Maher, Michael. “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus.” in Targum Neofiti 1:

Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Edited by Martin McNamara.
The Aramaic Bible 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.
McNamara, Martin and Richard Hayward. “Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus.” in
Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Edited by
Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters,
2009.
Noth, Martin. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NIC. London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1979.
Wevers, John William. Leviticus. Septuaginta. Id est vetus testamentum grae-
cum auctoritate academiae scientiarum gottingensis editum II,2. Göttingen:
Ȱ. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. SCS 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Yadin, Yigael. ed. The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3: Plates and Text. Jerusalem: The Israel
Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew Universi-
ty – The Shrine of the Book, 1977.
Ȱ. The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2: Text and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Israel Explora-
tion Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University – The
Shrine of the Book, 1983.
Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean
Interpretation of the Greek Torah: Ptolemaic Law
Interpreted by its Own Rhetoric*
Robert Kugler
That the Greek of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch depended

heavily on the koine Greek of the Egyptian documentary papyri of the
third century BCE particularly for its legal and administrative terminol-
ogy has long been recognized. Adolf Deissmann first made the case in
the early twentieth century, and John A. L. Lee shored up Deissmann’s
hypothesis with his 1970 dissertation, published in 1983.1 Thus when
language shared by the LXX and Ptolemaic administrative rhetoric
appears in documentary legal texts from Hellenistic Egypt involving
Judeans, it is generally assumed to be due to the petitioner’s reliance on
the latter, not the former; the litigant is judged to be arguing from
“common law,” not the specific Judean norms contained in the Torah.
This paper suggests that in making that assumption we may be over-
* Throughout this essay it will be my practice to refer to Peton and other Judeans not
as “Jews” or as “practitioners of Judaims qua religion,” but rather as Judeans, mem-
bers of an ì¿ÅÇË that hails from Judea and that derives its customs, laws, and God
from the practices of that place. For a strong defense of this resistance to the lan-
guage of “religion” in describing Judeans in the Hellenistic era, see Steve Mason,
“Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient Histo-
ry,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512.
1 Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies. Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the
History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primi-
tive Christianity, (trans. A. Grieve; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 61–170;
John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; Chi-
co: Scholars Press, 1983). Certainly, further work has been done on the topic since
Lee’s last contribution, but not as much as one might have hoped, particularly given
the advances in electronic access and search capacity vis-à-vis the documentary pa-
pyri. See especially the Papyrological Navigator at http://www.papyri.info. On the
work done since Lee’s dissertation see especially John A. L. Lee, “A Lexical Study
thirty years on, with observations on ‘order’ words in the LXX Pentateuch,” in Ema-
nuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov,
(ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. Fields; SVT 94; Leiden: Brill,
2003), 513–24.
166 Robert Kugler
looking an important category of early Judean interpretation of the

Greek Pentateuch: the use of its legal norms, shaped first by Ptolemaic
legal rhetoric, to interpret that same Ptolemaic legal rhetoric anew.
It is not surprising that this aspect of Judean interpretation of the
Torah has been overlooked. Without firm evidence that they were per-
mitted the right to form and belong to politeumata there was little rea-
son to believe that Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt had reason or occasion
to cite the Greek Pentateuch in making their legal arguments: without a
jury of their ethnic peers to judge their disputes what point could there
be to citing the Torah in support of their legal arguments?2 But with the
publication of the Judean politeuma papyri from Herakleopolis in 2001
the existence of such a body came to light: of the twenty papyri in the
archive, sixteen are petitions from individuals to the archons of a Judean
politeuma in Herakleopolis.3 Indeed, study of the politeuma papyri has
already demonstrated that Judeans did, in fact, call upon the norms of
the Pentateuch in significant ways in their legal disputes with one
another.4 In the following I offer an example of what can plausibly be
2 For the pre-2001 debate as to whether Judeans were permitted to form politeumata in
Hellenistic Egypt, see, among others, Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), passim; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Ro-
man Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 225–26; C. Zuckerman, “Hellenistic politeumata and
the Jews: A Reconsideration,” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–1988): 171–85; and
G. Lüdertz, “What is the Politeuma?” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (ed. J. W. van
Henten and P. W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 204–8.
3 James M. S. Cowey and Klaus Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von
Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr) (P. Polit. Jud.) (Abhandlungen der Nordhein-
Westfällischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Papyrologia Coloniensia, vol. 29;
Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001).
4 Preliminary assessments are available in James M. S. Cowey, “Das ägyptische Juden-
tum in hellenistischer Zeit—Neue Erkentnisse aus jüngst veröfftentlichten Papyri,”
in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Enstehung und Bedeutung der griechi-
schen Bible (ed. S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 2.24–43;
Sylvie Honigman, “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracloepolis (Review of Cowey and
Maresch, Urkunden),” SCI 21 (2002): 251–66 (see also Klaus Maresch and James M. S.
Cowey, “‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case of the Jews from their Ptolemiac
Environment’? Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman,” SCI 22 [2003]: 307–10); Sylvie
Honigman, “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Ancient Society 33 (2003):
61–102; Thomas Kruse, “Das politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis in Ägypten,” in
Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet
von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (ed. M. Karrer and W.
Kraus; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 166–75. For specific treatments
of individual petitions, see Robert Kugler, “Dorotheos Petitions for the Return of
Philippa (P.Polit.Iud. 7): A Case Study in the Judeans and their Law in Ptolemaic
Egypt,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology: American
Studies in Papyrology (ed. T. Gagos et al.; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah 167
read as a Herakleopolite Judean’s invocation of language from the To-

rah that was drawn from Ptolemaic administrative law, a strategy the
petitioner used to reinterpret the Hellenistic rulers’ law in his own fa-
vor.
Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland

(P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): Text and Translation
(2nd hand) HЪÎЪ¸Ъ ÊÌĕÑÅÀ. ÈЪ ÉЪ[ÇÊ]ÁЪ ¸ÂñÊ¸Ê¿¸À ÌġЪÅ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ ÅЪ Ъ

÷Ä¼ÌñÉ¸À ºÅÑÄþ ¼ЪÈЪ ¼ Ъ ЪÅÀ Ъ Ъ¾ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ ÅЪ
ЪЪЪ
(1st hand) Ъ Ì¾Ъ Ъ Êĕ¸À ÒÉÏÀÎÍÂ¸ÁĕÌ¾Ъ À Ъ
5 È¸ÉÛ ñÌÑÅÇЪ Ë ÌÇı ÀÂÇÆñÅÇÍ
`ÇÍ»¸Ъ ĕЪÇЪÍЪ ÌľÅ ëÁ Å¼¹Ъ ÀñЪ ÀÑË.
Ìщ[Ç]ıЪ ÈÉÇÑÅÇÄ¸ÊЪ ÄЪñÅЪ ЪÇÍ ÄÇÍ È¸ÌЪÉЪġË
[À]ÂЪ ÇÆЪ ñÅÇÍ ÄЪ ÀÊЪ ¿ÑÊ¸Äñ[Å]ÇЪÍЪ »Ъ À Ъ
HÉ¸ÁÂЪ ¼ĕÇÍË Á¸Ė ¾Ä¾ÌÉĕÇЪÍЪ
10 ÒÈġ ÌýË ÈÉÇЪÊĠЪ»ÇЪÍ ºýË ÒÉÇįÉ¸Ë »
ëÁ ÌÇı ¸įÉÇÍ ÁÂЪûÉЪ ÇÍ È¼ÉĖ Å¼-
¹ÀñÀ¸ Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌľÀ ¸ıЪÅÀЪ
ÌÇı Â» (ìÌÇÍË) Ä¼ÌÉ¾ÊÚÅÌÑщ[Å]
÷ÄÑÅ ÌÛ ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ ÌÇėË »Ъ¾-
15 ÂÇÍÄñÅÇÀË HÉ¸ÁÂ¼ĕÑÀ Á¸Ė ¾-
Ä¾ÌÉĕÑÀ, ìÌÀ »ò Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌľÀ
<È¼ĖÎ ÌÇı ¸ĤЪÌЪÇıЪ ìÌÇÍË Ä¼ÌÛ ÌüÅ
[Ä]ñÌЪÉ¾Ъ Ê[À]Å ЪÈЪÇŬÑÅĕÇÍ ÌÇı ÈÉÇ-
ÊÌЪÚÅЪ ÌÇË ÌýË ÈÉÇÊЪ Ġ»ÇÍ ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚ-
20 Ê¸ÅÌÇËЪ ÷ÄÜË ÄñÏЪ ÉÀЪ ÌÇı ëÁ [[Ì]]»¼Í-
[ÌñÉ¸Ë ÌÛ ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ ] ÄЪ ¼ЪÌЪÉЪý[Ъ Ê]¸Ъ À Ъ ÌÇı
(2nd hand) To Hephaistion: summon the … in our opinion …

(1st hand) To the Chief of Police, Ktesias, from Peton, son of Philox-
enes, a Judean of those from Phnebeius. My father, whom I just men-
2010), 389–97 (available online at at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/i/icp); Robert Kugler,

“Dispelling an Illusion of Otherness? A First Look at Juridical Practice in the Herac-
leopolis Papyri,” in Festschrift for John J. Collins, forthcoming, 2011; Robert Kugler,
“Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): A Slice of Ju-
dean Experience in the Second Century BCE Herakleopolite Nome,” in Festschrift for
NN, forthcoming, 2011.
168 Robert Kugler
tioned, rented four arouras through Herakles and Demetrios from the
Prosodos-Land from the cleruchy of Chauros in the region of Phne-
beius. In Pauni of the 34th year we paid to the previously named He-
rakles and Demetrios rent, yet also in Epeiph of the same year, after
the payment, Apollonios, the overseer of the Prosodos, distrained us
until we paid the rent a second time …
Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland

(P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): Peton’s Juridical Reasoning and the
Greek Torah5
In P.Heid. Inv. G 5100, Peton, son of Philoxenes, a Judean among those

in Phnebieus of the Heraklepolite nome, appeals to Ktesias, Chief of
Police for help in obtaining justice in a case of extortion by a Ptolemaic
official.6 Peton’s father, Philoxenes, had rented four arouras of ÌýË
ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºýË, “Prosodos-Land” (= Crown land) near Phnebieus; he did
so through Herakles and Demetrios, joint holders of Crown land
(¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ) (lines 4–12a).7 In Pauni of the 34th year, the normal
time for collecting rents on grain-planted land, he and his father paid
rent to Herakles and Demetrios (lines 12b–16a). However, in the follow-
ing month of Epeiph, Apollonios, a Ptolemaic official, the overseer of
the “Prosodos-Land,” distrained them (ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚÊ¸ÅÌÇË)—that is, seized
something of their property—until they paid the rent a second time.
The petition breaks off before revealing explicitly what Peton wanted
Ktesias to do for him.
That being said, Peton’s complaint can be surmised from an under-
standing of the legal options open to him and from the remains of the
rescript, the official reply to his petition preserved in lines 1–2. First the
5 For the edition of the text upon which the following transcription relies, see C. Ar-
moni, “Drei ptolemäische Papyri der Heidelberger Sammlung,” ZPE 132 (2000): 225–
39 (233–39).
6 For my fuller treatment of this petition, see Kugler, “Peton Contests Paying Double
Rent,” forthcoming.
7 Because it is the earliest known instance of the mysterious land term ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºû,
“Prosodos-Land,” Peton’s description of the land he and his father rented as ÌýË
ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºýË occupies pride of place in Armoni’s discussion of the petition; she ar-
gues strongly that all signs point to the term referring to a sort of ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁû ºý, Crown
land for rent that came into royal possession through confiscation by the treasury,
often from cleruchies that were neglected in some way. As a consequence it appears
that Peton and his father were sublessees of Crown land leased first by Herakles and
Demetrios, who were thereby the ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ (Armoni, “Drei ptolemäische Pa-
pyri,” 234–36).
rescript. The use of the first-person plural by the author(s) of the re-
script could indicate that a group of officials issued it, not an individu-
al, suggesting that it had been referred by Ktesias to a body of officials,
an administrative act typical for police officials in the papyri.8 In a case
involving a Judean of the Hereakleopolite nome like Peton, such a
group of individuals might well have been the archons of the politeuma,
and at least where rescripts from the archons are preserved in the poli-
teuma papyri, like this one they are written in the first person plural.9
Moreover, the rescript commands Hephaistion, one of Ktesias’ underl-
ings, to transfer (ÈЪÉщ[ÇÊ]ÁЪ ¸ÂñÊ¸Ê¿¸À) for examination and judgment a sin-
gle male who can only be Apollonios, given the characters named in
the petition. This too is paralleled in the politeuma papyri: the archons
are asked to do precisely what this rescript prescribes, to transfer
people from place to place for questioning, judgment and the like.10 We
also know from two of the politeuma texts that the archons’ requests for
the transfer of persons were answered affirmatively: officials at Penei
and Tebetnoi answer positively the summonses of individuals from
their communities made by the archons in Herakleopolis.11 In short, the
rescript at least hints that Peton may have sought and achieved a hear-
ing regarding his troubles with Apollonios before the archons of the
Judean politeuma in Herakleopolis.
What might Peton have wanted the archons of the politeuma to do
for him that other legal entities could not accomplish? A look at his
legal options and the language he uses to describe his situation pro-
vides a possible answer to this question.
As for Peton’s legal options, it seems certain that Apollonios was
the target of his complaint. Since Herakles and Demetrios were
8 Chiefs of police and other officials were routinely asked by petitioners to refer cases
to relevant officials: see, for example, P.Tebt. 3.796 (185 BCE, Tebtunis); BGU 8.1822
(60–55 BCE, Herakleopolites); P.Ryl. 4.578 (=C.Pap.Jud. 1.43) (159/158 BCE, Arsinoites);
P.Polit.Iud. 4 (134 BCE, Herakleopolites); P.Polit.Iud. 8 (133 BCE, Herakleopolites);
P.Polit.Iud. 9.34–35 (June 20, 132 BCE, Herakleopolis). See further, John Bauschatz,
“Archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Hierarchy of Equals?” SyllClass 18 (2007): 181–
211 (183–86) on petitions to chiefs of police.
9 P.Polit.Iud. 6 (134 BCE, Herakelopolis), 7 (134 BCE, Herakleopolis), 8 (133 BCE, Herak-
leopolis), 16 (143–132 BCE, Herakleopolites [?]). It is to be admitted, though, that it is
also not unheard of for individual officials to use the first-person plural in replying
to petitions from subordinates; see, for example, BGU 6.1244 41 (225 BCE, Herakleo-
polites).
10 P.Polit.Iud. 1.19–20 (135 BCE, Herakleopolites); 11.10 (133–132 BCE, Herakleopolites);
12.24–25 (135 BCE, Herakleopolites). In all these cases the same verb used in this peti-
tion, ÈÉÇÊÁ¸ÂñÇÄ¸À, appears also.
11 P.Polit.Iud. 19 (141–131 BCE, Penei) and 20 (143–132 BCE, Tebetnoi).
170 Robert Kugler
¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ, Peton had little or no remedy from them: as their sub-
lessees, Peton and his father owed them the rental payment without
question, the two ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ had collected it at the expected time
of the year, and in any case ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ enjoyed legal protections
that made it difficult to bring them before any tribunal, let alone win a
judgment against them.12 By contrast, Apollonios behaved outside the
norms for someone in his position at least in one respect: he collected
the rent for grain-planted lands a month late, in Epeiph; and in any
case, the rent due to the ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑÉºÇĕ, paid directly to them or
through the government’s agent (Apollonios in this case), had already
been paid. Peton’s general complaint, then, was almost certainly that
Apollonios had acted corruptly in forcing a second rental payment
from father and son.13
But on what grounds could Peton appeal for a remedy, particularly
before the politeuma? The truth of the matter is that most of the episode
Peton describes is more or less typical practice according to Ptolemaic
administrative law relating to the collection of debts, enforcement of
work agreements, and the gathering of rental income. Indeed, what
Peton faced is not without precedent in the papyri. In the single docu-
mentary text most similar to ours, P.Erasm. 1.1 24–26 (148–147 BCE,
Oxyrhyncha [Arsinoites]), a certain Harendotes complains against his
landlord, Herakleides, and a Chief of Police, Horion, for trying to ob-
tain payment of a second, illegitimate ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ through ëÅ¼ÏÍÉ¸Êţ¸Ë,
“property seizures.” The relief Harendotes seeks is essentially a re-
straining order against Herakleides and Horion that they Äü È¼ÉÀÊÈÜÅ Ä¼
ëÈĖ Ìġ Äü ÁÂÇÈľÅ ÓÉÏ¼ÀÅ Ä¾»’ ¼ĊÊ¹ÀŠ½¼Ê¿¸À ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁţ¸Å ÄÇÍ Á¸Ė Ìġ ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ
ÌЪÉŦÈЪÑЪÀЪ ÄЪ ¾Ъ»¼ÅЪĖ, “not vex me, not govern by thefts, nor forcefully enter my
home, and not in any way distrain [me?]” (lines 35–37) Notably, his
argument is not that the act of distraint (ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ) is in itself illegal;
12 See the discussion and references to documentary evidence in Jane Rowlandson,

“Freedom and Subordination in Ancient Agriculture: The Case of the Basilikoi Geor-
goi in Ptolemaic Egypt,” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 327–47 (331–32).
13 Peton would hardly have been the first resident of Ptolemaic Egypt to complain of a
corrupt official. See Dorothy Crawford, “The Good Official in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in
Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976
in Berlin (ed. H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1978),
195–202; W. Peremans, “Die Amtsmissbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten,” in Kor-
ruption im Altertum: Konstanzer Symposion, Oktober 1979 (ed. W. Schuller; München:
R. Oldenbourg, 1982), 103–33; see also the comments regarding abuse of the poor by
officials in Eccl 5:7, a passage many think was written during the days of Ptolemaic
rule over Judea: <¸Å ÊÍÁÇÎ¸ÅÌĕ¸Å ÈñÅ¾ÌÇË Á¸Ė ÖÉÈ¸ºüÅ ÁÉĕÄ¸ÌÇË Á¸Ė »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë ċ»þË ëÅ
ÏļÉß, Äü ¿¸ÍÄÚÊ¾Ë ëÈĖ ÌŊ ÈÉÚºÄ¸ÌÀж ĞÌÀ ĨÐ¾ÂġË ëÈÚÅÑ ĨÐ¾ÂÇı ÎÍÂÚÆ¸À Á¸Ė ĨÐ¾ÂÇĖ ëÈӭ
¸ĤÌÇįË.
rather, it is that its practice in this case, when he has already paid his
rent, is tantamount to unjust harassment.
It is this term, ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ, the practice of distraint, that deserves
closer examination in Peton’s case as a potential specific basis for his
complaint and for its appearance before the Judean politeuma’s archons.
As Harendotes’ complaint makes clear, ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ was normal in the
second century BCE as a means of compelling delinquent debtors to pay
what they owed. And although translators usually render the verb as
“to take in pledge,” and its related substantives as some version of
“pledge(s),” it seems clear from the uses of the verb that it really de-
notes legalized forceful taking, distraint, and the substantives derived
from it refer to the fruit of such action. Chief among documents issued
by officials using the term is P.Tebt. 1.5 (148–147 BCE, Oxyrhyncha). This
is the famous royal decree of amnesty issued by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes
and his Queens Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III to restore peace between
the royal house and the workers of the kingdom after the long period
of dynastic warfare in the second century BCE. There the term is used to
denote property legally seized (óÅ¼ÏÍÉ¸ÊÄšÅÑÅ) from rebels (striking
workers) so as to compel their compliance with imperial needs. The
decree mandates that such property be returned: restore peace for the
sake of prosperity at any cost.14 In P.Tebt. 1.57 (157 BCE, Tebtunis) an
official requires that property taken by distraint (óÅ¼ÏÍÉ¸ÊÄšÅÇÍË) from
keepers of the sacred crocodiles for payment on two artabas of wheat
be returned so that the sacerdotal functionaries can tend to their duties:
satisfy the gods for the sake of order at any cost.15 The verb and its con-
geners also appear in petitions by individuals and ones issued by low-
er-level officials. P.Tebt. 3.1.764 (185 or 161 BCE, Tebtunis) requires the
return of an animal seized in pledge ([Á¸]ÌЪ¾ЪÅ¼ÏÍÉ¸Ê[Äš]ÅЪ¸щ) for a deposit
of seed because the overseer wants the cultivator, Horos, to return to
productivity.16 SB 24.16296 (182 or 158 BCE, uncertain provenance)
records loan agreements in which the debtor agrees that he can be
seized by the creditor in the event of non-payment. In P.Tebt. 3.1.817
(=CPJ 1.23) (182 BCE, Krokodilopolis), a Judean named Sostratos secures
a loan of two talents and 3000 drachmas with his home which must
therefore be ÒÅ¼Å¼ÏŧÉ¸ÊÌÇÅ, “unpledged,” or better “un-seized” for secu-
14 See similar uses of ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ and related terms in SB 8.9899 (100 BCE., Kerkeosiris);
P.Tebt. 1.61b 274, 377 (117 BCE, Kerkeosiris); 1.72 (113 BCE, Kerkeosiris).
15 C.Ord.Ptol. 43 (=P.Tebt. 3.1.699) (135–134 BCE, Tebtunis), another post-disturbance
decree of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, formalizes this principle by prohibiting alto-
gether the seizure of things from priests and temples.
16 See also P.Tebt. 3.1.768 (15 BCE, Tebtunis), which refers to seizing farm animals to
coerce payment of taxes.
172 Robert Kugler
rity on another debt.17 Underscoring the use of the verb to denote force-
ful taking is its appearance in SB 24.16295 (199 BCE, Oxyrhyncha),
where a woman asks that a man who owes her money be compelled to
pay her, and that relevant officials seize (ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠÊ¸ÅÌ¸) the debtor and
bring him forward.18
From this survey it is, indeed, clear that ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ was an accepted,
legal practice among officials aimed at coercing delinquent debtors to
fulfill their obligations, and that it was also occasionally employed ille-
gally by officials willing to abuse the power of their office to extort
payments not truly due. So in that sense it seems possible that Peton is
merely arguing as Harendotes did in P.Erasm. 1.1, seeking an injunction
against Apollonios, the corrupt official. On this reading there is no in-
dication that Peton did anything other than what scholarship has gen-
erally surmised about Judeans using the language of Ptolemaic admin-
istrative law in their juridical reasoning: he was relying on the koine law
of the land.
Yet to return to the evidence of the rescript and follow its hint that
Peton’s case made its way before the archons of the Judean politeuma in
Herakleopolis, there is an alternative way to read what Peton argues in
featuring ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ in his complaint against Apollonios: it may be that
on the basis of the Torah, the law the Ptolemaic government permitted
Judeans to use through the courts of their politeumata, he regarded the
practice of ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ as illegal in itself, and was urging the adjudica-
tors of his case to do the same, thereby nullifying at its root Apollo-
nios’s basis for obtaining a second rental payment.
The Greek Torah translated +%, “to seize X in pledge [as collater-
al],” with ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ, probably on the basis of the Ptolemaic administra-
tive language, as argued in general by Deissmann and Lee.19 As a con-
sequence, though, the Torah declares that certain kinds of ëÅ¼ÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ
against a debt are limited and even prohibited acts, effectively inter-
preting the Ptolemaic administrative law restrictively. Exodus 22:25–26
(Eng. 22:26–27) decrees that if you ëÅ¼ÏįÉ¸ÊÄ¸ ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚÊþË, “take as colla-
teral (for a debt owed)” your neighbors garment, you have to restore it
before sundown so that she is protected from the night air (see the simi-
lar sentiments and use of the verb and related substantives in Deut
24:12–13, 17). Deuteronomy 24:6 declares that ÇĤÁ ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚÊ¼ÀË ÄįÂÇÅ ÇĤ»¼
17 See also P.Tebt. 3.2.970 (=P.Ptol.Sklav. 1.26) (early II BCE, Krokodilopolis) for the same
phrase, ÒÅšÈ¸ÎÇÅ Á¸Ė ÒÅ¼Å¼]ÏŧÉ¸ÊÌ[Ç]Å [Á¸Ė ÒÅ¼ÈÀ»ŠÅ¼ÀÊÌÇÅ ÓÂÂÇÍ] »¸Å¼ţÇÍ, used with re-
gard to slaves used to secure a loan.
18 See also, perhaps, P.Tebt. 3.1.790 (127–124 BCE, Oxyrhyncha), a petition to the acting
strategos regarding the forceful incursion of taxpayers into the temple.
19 See above, n. 1.
ëÈÀÄįÂÇÅ, ĞÌÀ ÐÍÏüÅ ÇĩÌÇË ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚ½¼À, “You shall not seize a mill or an up-
per millstone, for that would take a life”: seizure of property which
undercuts a person’s ability to prepare bread to sustain himself de-
prives him of life itself and is prohibited. Deuteronomy 24:10–11 says
that when you make your neighbor a loan, ÇĤÁ ¼ĊÊ¼Â¼įÊþ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁĕ¸Å
¸ĤÌÇı ëÅ¼ÏÍÉÚÊ¸À Ìġ ëÅñÏÍÉÇÅ, “You shall not go into the house to seize the
collateral” (i.e., remove it forcibly). In this light Peton’s legal reasoning
in specific could well have been this: whatever Ptolemaic administra-
tive law says about the behavior of Apollonios in demanding a second
rental payment, his means of obtaining it was illegal under Judean law.
In this way both the second rental payment and the seizure of property
to obtain it are nullified.
Concluding Comments
In closing I must be the first to admit that without that part of the peti-
tion that perhaps made clear Peton’s legal reasoning—text that might
confirm or disconfirm the reading I offer here—this entire proposal
remains hopelessly speculative. But I hope readers agree that its spe-
culative or certain character is not what is most significant in this essay.
Instead, the value of this exercise is to raise the possibility—indeed, the
probability—that Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt, permitted to adjudicate
disputes among themselves and between them and their non-Judean
neighbors by Ptolemaic koine law and Judean law, engaged along the
way in uses of the Greek Torah that effectively reinterpreted and ad-
justed the Ptolemaic koine law from which the Greek Torah drew its
rhetoric in the first place. There is much more to learn in this regard
from the examination of other juridical papyri involving Judeans of
Hellenistic Egypt. There is, as it were, a new dimension of early Judean
interpretation of the Torah to uncover and detail.
Bibliography
Armoni, C. “Drei ptolemäische Papyri der Heidelberger Sammlung.” ZPE 132
(2000): 225–39.
Bauschatz, John. “Archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Hierarchy of Equals?”
SyllClass 18 (2007): 181–211.
Cowey, James M. S. “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—Neue
Erkentnisse aus jüngst veröfftentlichten Papyri.” Pages 2.24–43 in Im
Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Enstehung und Bedeutung der griechi-
174 Robert Kugler
schen Bible. Edited by S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,

2004.
Ȱ and Klaus Maresch. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–
133/2 v. Chr) (P. Polit. Jud.). Abhandlungen der Nordhein-Westfällischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Papyrologia Coloniensia. Vol. 29. Wiesba-
den: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001.
Crawford, Dorothy. “The Good Official in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 195–202 in
Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. Sep-
tember 1976 in Berlin. Edited by H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka. Mainz am
Rhein: von Zabern, 1978.
Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions
to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Ju-
daism and Primitive Christianity. Translated by A. Grieve. 2nd ed. Edin-
Honigman, Sylvie. “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracloepolis” (review of Cowey
and Maresch, Urkunden). SCI 21 (2002): 251–66.
Ȱ. “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Ancient Society 33 (2003):
61–102.
Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1985.
Kruse, Thomas. “Das politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis in Ägypten.” Pa-
ges 166–75 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale
Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23.
Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Kugler, Robert. “Dorotheos Petitions for the Return of Philippa (P.Polit.Iud. 7):
A Case Study in the Judeans and their Law in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages
389–97 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology:
American Studies in Papyrology. Edited by Traianos Gagos et al. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2010 (available online at http://quod.
lib.umich.edu/i/icp).
Ȱ. “Dispelling an Illusion of Otherness? A First Look at Juridical Practice in the
Heracleopolis Papyri.” In Festschrift for John J. Collins, forthcoming, 2011.
Ȱ. “Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): A
Slice of Judean Experience in the Second Century BCE Herakleopolite
Nome.” In Festschrift for NN, forthcoming, 2011.
Lee, John A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SCS 14.
Chico: Scholars Press, 1983.
Ȱ. “A Lexical Study thirty years on, with observations on ‘order’ words in the
LXX Pentateuch.” Pages 513–24 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septua-
gint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M.
Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston Fields. SVT 94.
Lüdertz, G. “What is the Politeuma?” Pages 204–8 in Studies in Early Jewish Epig-
raphy. Edited by J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill,
1994.
Maresch, Klaus and James M. S. Cowey. “‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the
Case of the Jews from their Ptolemaic Environment’? Eine Antwort auf
Sylvie Honigman.” SCI 22 (2003): 307–10.
Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization
in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512.
Peremans, W. “Die Amtsmissbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” Pages 103–
33 in Korruption im Altertum: Konstanzer Symposion, Oktober 1979. Edited by
W. Schuller. München: R. Oldenbourg, 1982.
Rowlandson, Jane. “Freedom and Subordination in Ancient Agriculture: The
Case of the Basilikoi Georgoi in Ptolemaic Egypt.” History of Political Thought
6 (1985): 327–47.
Smallwood, E. M. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Zuckerman, C. “Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration.”
Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–1988): 171–85.
Doubled Prophecy: The Pilgrimage of the Nations
in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5*
Reinhard Müller
It is indisputable that the prophetic literature of the Old Testament was

written over a period of several centuries. The prophetic books are not
the work of single authors identical with the ancient prophets, but of
many anonymous writers, who continually commented, changed, and
expanded the older texts. These editors obviously shared the authority
of the prophets by writing in their names; it seems that they were even
able to create new oracles, for which they borrowed the prophetic au-
thority. However, the editorial processes are difficult to reconstruct.
Thus it remains controversial, to which extent the older texts were af-
fected by the editing.
The famous vision of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion casts
some light on these processes. It is written in two prophetic books, thus
having a double authority: The readers of the corpus propheticum are
supposed to conceive that either Isaiah and Micah had the same vision,
or, because Micah seems to have been a younger contemporary of
Isaiah (cf. Mic 1:1 with Isa 1:1), perhaps even one of Isaiah’s pupils (cf.
Isa 8:16), Micah simply quoted Isaiah’s vision in his book, adding some
comments of his own (Mic 4:4–5).
From a historical perspective, the doubled text has to be regarded
as evidence of literary growth. However, it is difficult to explain this
phenomenon. Apart from assumptions that the vision goes back either
to Isaiah1 or Micah,2 three options seem possible: 1) The vision was
* Paper given at the conference “Changes in Scripture” in Bergvik, Finland, April 23–
25, 2010.
1 Thus e.g. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament III,1
(2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 14–15; Gerhard von Rad, “Die
Stadt auf dem Berge,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (4th ed.; Theologi-
sche Bücherei 8; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 215–16; repr. from Evangelische Theo-
logie 8 (1948–49): 439–47; Hans Wildberger, Jesaja: Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT 10,1; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 78–80; Henri Cazelles, “Qui aurait visé,
à l‘origine, Isaië II 2–5?” VT 30 (1980): 409–20 (who assumes that the passage was
reworked by Deutero-Isaiah); Baruch J. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion: Isaiah‘s Temple
178 Reinhard Müller
written as an independent text and only later inserted into both pro-
phetic books.3 2) The text was composed in the context of the book of
Isaiah, and secondarily inserted into Micah.4 3) The text was composed
in the context of Micah, and copied into Isaiah.5 This paper tries to
show that the textual evidence strongly supports the third option.
1. The Contexts
The most important arguments indicating the priority of the Micah-text

are based on the context of each version; it has often been observed that
the vision is rather closely related to the surrounding texts in Micah,
but only loosely related to the context in Isaiah.6
Because the peaceful vision of Mic 4:1–3 stands in marked contrast
to the preceding oracle of Zion’s doom (3:12), it cannot have been the
Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4),” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (ed. A.
Houtman et al.; Jewish and Christian perspectives series 1; Leiden: Brill 1998), 11–26.
Adam S. van der Woude, “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets Quot-
ing Isaiah,” in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre
Böhl Dedicatae (ed. M. A. Beck; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 396–402, proposes that the vision
goes back to Isaiah and was quoted by the opponents of Micah who wanted to prove
that Micah‘s judgment on Jerusalem was wrong; thus also J. G. Strydom, “Micah 4:1–
5 and Isaiah 2:2–5: Who said it first? A critical discussion of A. S. van der Woude‘s
view,” Old Testament Essays 2,2 (1989): 15–28.
2 Cf. e.g. Victor Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches
Micha: Ein kritischer Commentar zu Micha (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1887), 218–24.
3 Cf. e.g. E. Cannawurf, “The Authenticity of Micah IV 1–4,” VT 13 (1963): 26–33 (31–
33); Jacques Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l‘apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d‘un
démimillénaire d‘expérience religieuse en Israël. Études bibliques (vol. 1; Paris: Gabalda,
1977–78), 132–33; Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT 14,4; Neukir-
chen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 88–89.
4 Cf. e.g. Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch:
Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und
persischer Zeit (OBO 154; Freibourg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1997), 415–20; Burkhard
M. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodeka-
propheton (BZAW 256; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 64–77.
5 Cf. e.g. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora: Überlegungen zu
Mi 4,1–3” in Zion – Ort der Begegnung (ed. F. Hahn et al.; BBB 90; Bodenheim: Athe-
näum Hain Hanstein, 1993), 107–25 (110–13); Rainer Kessler, Micha (Herders Theolo-
gischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1999), 179–80.
6 Thus already Julius Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.;
Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898), 142–43; Karl Budde, “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4
(Jes. 2,2–4),” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 81 (1927): 152–58
(153).
Doubled Prophecy 179
original continuation of this oracle.7 Nevertheless, several terms and

motifs of the vision have parallels in the pre-text:8
1) The singular phrase !#!' =' :! “mountain of the house of Yah-
weh”9 is a variant of ='! :! “mountain of the house” in the oracle
of 3:12.
2) The motif of Zion as the highest of the mountains is a positive
counterpart to the “wooded heights” (:3' =#/) in the same oracle.
3) The word <: in -':!! <: “as head of the mountains” in 4:1 is
used before in the phrase 93' =' '<: “heads of the house of Ja-
cob” (3:9; cf. 3:1).
4) The parallelism of 0#'8 and -+<#:' in 4:2 also occurs in 3:10, 12.
5) The name of Jacob is mentioned not only in 4:2 but also in 3:1, 8–9
(cf. 1:5; 2:7, 12).
6) The motif of teaching (!:' hiph.) in 4:2 has a parallel in 3:11 where
the text talks about corrupt priests (#:#' :'%/ !'1!)# “and the priests
thereof teach for hire”).
7) Yahweh’s judging between the nations (Mic 4:3) contrasts with the
motif of the false judgment of the Judean leaders in the same pas-
sage (#&6<' %< !'<: “The heads thereof judge for reward,” cf.
&6</ in 3:1, 9).
8) The nations (-'/3) in 4:1 are introduced by the opening of the book
(1:2).
9) The same holds true for the mountains (-':!!) in 4:1 (1:4).
10) “The word of Yahweh” (!#!' :) in 4:2 is mentioned the first time
in the title of the book (1:1).
7 This is proven by the quotation of Mic 3:12 in Jer 26:18: It excludes that Mic 4:1–3
was already known when Jer 26 was written, cf. e.g. Kessler, Micha, 179.
8 Cf. Bernard Gosse, “Michée 4,1–5, Isaïe 2,1–5 et les rédacteurs finaux du livre
d’Isaïe,” ZAW 105 (1993): 98–102 (99); Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der
Tora,” 110–12; Kessler, Micha, 179–80.
9 Elsewhere only in 2 Chr 33:15. Mic 4:1LXX has Ìġ ěÉÇË ÌÇı ÍÉţÇÍ, Isa 2:2LXX Ìġ ěÉÇË ÌÇı
ÍÉţÇÍ Á¸Ė ĝ ÇčÁÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı. MT is sometimes regarded as the result of a conflation, cf.
Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 15; George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX vol. I: Introduction, and Commentary on I–XXVII
(ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912, repr. 1962), 47; Hugh G. M. Williamson, Com-
mentary on Isaiah 1–5. Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27 (ICC;
London: T & T Clark, 2006), 168.
11) The term !/%+/ “war” also occurs in 2:8 and 3:5.
Although Mic 4:1–3 cannot completely be deduced from its pre-text,10
the listed parallels can only be due to the fact that the composition of
the passage was influenced by the older pre-text. Thus the vision must
have originated in the book of Micah. Otherwise the parallels would be
pure coincidences.11
Terminological and thematical parallels can also be found in the fol-
lowing text.12 Several passages of chapters 4–5 seem to be influenced by
the vision:13
1) In 4:7a, the motif of the “mighty peoples” (-'/83 -'#) of 4:3 is sup-
plemented by the promise that Yahweh will make Israel’s remnant
a “mighty people” (-#83 '#).14 The opening formula of this promise
(4:6: !#!' -1 #!! -#') indicates that it was secondarily added.
2) Mic 4:11–13 describes the present situation of the daughter Zion,
who is besieged by “many nations” (-': -'#) but called by Yahweh
to “beat them in pieces”; this was obviously added as a contrasting
parallel to the peaceful vision (cf. the “speaking” of the nations in
4:11, the motif that the nations do not understand Yahweh‘s plans
in 4:12, and the agricultural imagery in 4:13).15
3) The promises regarding the “remnant of Jacob” in 5:6–7, which
lives “in the middle of many peoples,” resume the term -': -'/3
from 4:3.
In the context of Isa 2:2–4, only a few parallels can be observed:
10 On the one hand, the vision is deeply rooted in the complex of the ancient Zion
tradition, see esp. Ps 46; 48 (cf. John T. Willis, “Isaiah 2:2–5 and the Psalms of Zion”
in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition [ed. C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans; VTSup 70,1; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 295–316; Williamson,
Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, esp. 175–76). On the other hand, its universal perspective,
based on a consequent monotheism, has parallels only in texts from the Persian pe-
riod, see esp. Isa 60; Hag 2:7–9; Zech 8:22 (cf. Kessler, Micha, 182–83; Williamson,
Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 175–77).
11 Cf. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora,” 113; Kessler, Micha, 180.
12 Cf. Kessler, Micha, 180; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 93 (2001): 111–24 (119–20).
13 The core of these chapters can probably be found in 4:9–10, 14 and 5:1–4*, cf. Jörg
Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24,3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2007), 177–87. Here no parallels to 4:1–3 appear. Thus the vision could
have been inserted between 3:12 and 4:9.
14 Cf. Kessler, Micha, 180.
15 Cf. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 181–83.
1) The terms !:#= “instruction” and !#!' : “the word of Yahweh”
(2:3) also occur in reverse order in 1:10.
2) The “sword” (2:4) is also to be found in 1:20.
3) The name “Zion” (2:3) is also used in 1:8, 27, whereas 1:1 and 2:1
speak about “Jerusalem” (and Judah); however, no parallelism of
“Zion” and “Jerusalem” can be found.
4) The participle <1 “elevated” (2:2) is also used in 2:12–14.
5) A slight thematic parallel to the vision can be found in the promise
of Zion’s restitution as “the city of justice” in Isa 1:26; however,
apart from the verb &6<, which is also used in 1:23 and 26 (cf. also
1:17), identical terms and motifs do not appear.
The nations cannot be found in the immediate context.16 The promise of
Zion’s salvation, which follows in Isa 4:2–6, does not speak about them
at all. Moreover, throughout Isa 1–12, probably only one reference to
the pilgrimage of the nations occurs: The late promise of 11:10
(#<:' -'# #'+ “the nations shall inquire of him”) seems to allude to the
words spoken by the nations in 2:3 (#'):/ #1:'# “he will teach us his
ways”). This scarcity of parallels indicates that the vision was inserted
into Isa 1–12 at a relatively late stage.17
Additionally, a general argument has to be taken into considera-
tion: It is more probable that the vision was secondarily inserted into a
prophetic book which was, compared to Micah, more prominent; the
contrary seems less probable.18
2. Minor Variants in the First Three Verses
The first three verses of both texts are almost identical. They obviously
aim at presenting exactly the same prophecy, not two similar but still
different oracles like Obad and Jer 49 or Isa 15–16 and Jer 48.
Only slight variants can be observed in Isa 2:2–4 and Mic 4:1–3:
16 The next instance is Isa 3:13.

17 Other clear references in the book can be found in the “Deutero-Isaianic” passages
51:4–5 and 56:6–7 as well as in 25:6–8 (in the late “Isaiah-apocalypse”). If the core
texts of both “Deutero-” and “Trito-Isaiah” contain quotations of the vision, remains
debatable.
18 Cf. Otto Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12 (5th ed.; ATD 17; Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 63; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort
der Tora,” 113; Uwe Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 196.
1) 0#)1 has a different position in the first sentence (Isa 2:2a: :! !'!' 0#)1
!#!' =' /Mic 4:1a: 0#)1 !#!' =' :! !'!').19
2) The pronoun #! in Mic 4:1 is lacking in Isa 2:2.20
3) That the nations “are streaming”21 towards Zion, is introduced with
a different preposition: #'+ in Isa 2:2b, #'+3 in Mic 4:1b.22
4) In Mic 4:1b the peoples are called -'/3, in Isa 2:2b -'#! +) “all the
nations.”
5) Correspondingly, the following colon exchanges -'# (Mic 4:2) and
-'/3 (Isa 2:3).
6) The copula of 93' '!+ =' +# in Mic 4:2 is missing in Isa 2:3.23
19 Isa 2:2LXX renders !'!' 0#)1 by ëÄÎ¸ÅòË, Mic 4:1LXX 0#)1 … !'!' by ëÄÎ¸ÅòË . . . ðÌÇÀÄÇÅ.
ëÄÎ¸ÅòË as translation of 0#)1 is striking because participles of 0#) niph. are nowhere el-
se translated this way; instead forms of ðÌÇÀÄÇË are often used (cf. e.g. Exod 19:11;
Josh 8:4; 1 Kgs 2:45; Hos 6:3); ëÄÎ¸ÅŢË, -šË is used for 3' niph. (Exod 2:14) or f:
niph. (Isa 65:1). Thus Isa 2:2LXX and Mic 4:1LXX cannot be independent from each
other, but it is difficult to decide, which side has the priority. A possible explanation
is that ëÄÎ¸ÅòË was first used in Isa 2:2LXX for 0#)1 (cf. William McKane, The Book of Mi-
cah: Introduction and Commentary [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998], 122; Williamson,
Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 167, notes that this is supported by the fact that !'!' is
lacking in 4QIsae [4Q59]); in this case the translator of Micah first followed Isa 2:2LXX,
then additionally translated 0#)1 with the usual ðÌÇÀÄÇÅ. “Whatever the explanation,
there is no case for emending the Hebrew text on the basis of the Greek at this
point.” (Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 167.)
20 4QIsae (4Q59) goes with the Micah-text by inserting #!.
21 Usually taken as :!1 I qal, denominative from :! 1 (DCH 5: 632) with equivalents in
Arabic, Ethiopic and Jewish-Aramaic (Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und
Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [18th ed.; ed. H. Donner; Berlin:
Springer, 1987–], 789; this root can also be assumed in Jer 51:44. Some exegetes de-
duce #:!1 in Isa 2:2/Mic 4:1 from :!1 II “beam, be radiant, fig. of joy” (BDB; also at-
tested in Isa 60:5; Ps 34:6; in Jer 31:12 both roots seem possible) and deny the exis-
tence of :!1 I, cf. e.g. Cazelles, “Qui aurait visé?,”418; L. Snijders, “:! 1,” ThWAT 5:
282; Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Al-
ten Testament; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2003), 88. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion,” 14–15,
who refers to two medieval exegetes, proposes even that :!1 II here means “the na-
tions will see the lofty mountain from afar”; similarly already Budde, “Verfasser und
Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4 (Jes. 2,2–4),” 152. However, regarding the background of the mo-
tif of the nations moving towards Zion, it is quite sure that #:!1 has to be deduced
from a root :!1 I (cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 169); the same holds true
for the parallel Jer 51:44, perhaps also for Jer 31:12.
22 1QIsaa uses '!#+3 which could be influenced by the use of +3 in Aramaic (cf. William-
son, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 169).
7) In Isa 2:4a and Mic 4:3a, the parallel terms for the nations are ex-
changed again: -': -'/3/-'#! (Isa 2:4) instead of -'/83 -'#/-': -'/3
(Mic 4:3).
8) The phrase 9#%: 3 occurs only in Mic 4:3.
9) Isa 2:4 has the singular <' instead of the plural #<' in Mic 4:3.24
Compared with the identity of most words, these minor differences are
difficult to explain.25 As they do not affect the sense of the text deeply,26
it is possible that they are due to oral transmission.27 The editor, who
inserted the vision into the book of Isaiah, could have known it by
heart, perhaps from a liturgy; by writing it down, he changed the origi-
nal text slightly, because he was not focused on producing an identical
copy.
However, it is also possible that some of the changes were made
deliberately:
1) By putting the word 0#)1 “established” at the head of the sentence,
Isa 2:2 gives special emphasis to it. This transposition causes a change
in the length of the first four cola: Their equal length in the Micah-text
is destroyed.28 The omission of #! in the fourth colon can be regarded
as a necessary consequence, because, resulting from the transposition,
the third colon in Isa 2:2 consists of only two words; thus the opening
tetracolon has to end with two short cola (=#3/ <1#/-':!! <:). The
emphasis on 0#)1 in Isa 2:2 could be due to the following prediction of
the day of Yahweh (2:6–21) which announces that everything high and
elevated (v. 12: <1 +), cf. =#<1! =#3! “the exalted hills” in v. 14) will
be flattened; the image of mount Zion “exalted above the hills”
(=#3/ <1) contrasts sharply with that announcement. Therefore, it
could have been regarded as necessary to stress the promise that, de-
23 4QIsae (4Q59) again goes with the Micah-text; in 1QIsaa !#!' :! + is lacking, “a
simple enough case of scribal parablepsis” (Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5,
170).
24 Additionally some spelling differences can be noted: #1:#' (Mic 4:2), #1:' (Isa
2:3), -=#:% (Isa 2:4), -!' =:% (Mic 4:3), #/+' (Isa 2:4), 0#/+' (Mic 4:3) and two defec-
tive readings in Mic 4:3b, plene in Isa 2:4b.
25 Cf. the extensive discussion by McKane, Micah, 121–26.
26 Cf. Kessler, Micha, 178; Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 114.
27 Cf. e.g. Wolff, Micha, 85; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 63; Sweeney, “Micah‘s
Debate with Isaiah,” 114.
28 Cf. on the metrical evenness of the Micah-text e.g. John Merlin Powis Smith, William
Hayes Ward and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Ze-
phaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911, repr.
1948), 85; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 61.
spite Yahweh‘s cosmic judgment on everything high, mount Zion will

be “established ... as the highest of the mountains” ( !#!' =' :! !'!' 0#)1
-':!! <:).
2) Compared with #'+3 in Mic 4:1b, #'+ in Isa 2:2b could be read as
lectio facilior: #'+3 is ambiguous and can mean either “against” or “up
to”; this ambiguity is related to the background in tradition history:29
That the nations “are streaming”30 towards Zion, alludes to the divine
battle against the chaotic waters, a motif deeply rooted in Zion theolo-
gy (e.g. Ps 46:3–4). Therefore, the reader of Mic 4:1b expects that the
“streaming” is an aggressive act “against” Zion (see Ps 46:7; 48:6–8);
surprisingly this movement turns out to be peaceful. In Isa 2:2b the
ambiguity is missing since #'+ simply means “towards” Zion.
3) In Isa 2:2b, 3, the totality of the nations is additionally empha-
sized (-'#! +)). Moreover, compared with Mic 4:1b, 2, in the Isaiah-text
the parallel terms -': -'/3/-'#! +) are the lectio longior.
4) In Isa 2:4a/Mic 4:3a the Micah-text is the lectio longior. However,
9#%: 3 in Mic 4:3 is probably an isolated gloss.31 The exchange of -'/3
and -'# simply corresponds to the first instance where both terms are
parallel (-'#! corresponding to -'#! +) in Isa 2:2b). More difficult to
explain is the omission of -'/83 (Mic 4:3a). It is perhaps due to the fact
that in the book of Isaiah, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham, that he will
become a -#83 '# (Gen 18:1832), is resumed (Isa 60:22). In the context of
Isaiah, the “mighty nations” of Mic 4:3 could have been regarded as a
rival of the eschatological Israel.33 Thus again the Isaiah-text could be
explained as the lectio facilior.
3. The Additional Verses (Mic 4:4–5 and Isa 2:5)
Both texts end differently. Mic 4:4 continues by depicting how the na-
tions will live in peace: !#!' '6 ')/':%/ 0'# #=1= =%=# #16 =%= <' #<'#
: =#8 “They will sit, each under his vine and under his fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,/for the mouth of Yahweh of hosts
has spoken.” The pax Salomonica (1 Kgs 5:5) with the promise of its res-
29 Cf. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 172–73; Williamson, Commentary
on Isaiah 1–5, 175–76.
30 See n. 22.
31 Cf. e.g. Smith, Ward and Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Ze-
phaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, 87; Wolff, Micha, 84; Jeremias, Die Prophe-
ten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 169.
32 Cf. Exod 1:9; Num 14:12; 22:6; Deut 9:14; 26:5.
33 Cf. the addition of Mic 4:6–7 which deals with exactly the same problem.
titution after exile (Zech 3:10) is expanded into a promise of universal

peace. Perhaps at the same time the pax Assyriaca, which could only be
enjoyed by submitting to the Assyrian rule (2 Kgs 18:31/Isa 36:16), is
revoked.
It is a striking phenomenon that this important motif cannot be
found in Isa 2. The most reasonable explanation is that the verse was
still missing when the vision was copied into the book of Isaiah; Mic 4:4
must have been added later.34 This is corroborated by a poetological
argument. The verse leaves the poetical form of the first three verses
which consists throughout of synonymous parallelisms (except the first
two cola). If Mic 4:4 was added after the vision was already copied into
Isa 2, it could have been regarded as necessary to stress that this expan-
sion of the vision was in fact “spoken” by “the mouth of Yahweh of
hosts” (: =#8 !#!' '6 ')).35
More difficult to explain is the final verse of each text (Isa 2:5/Mic
4:5). Both verses can be understood as answers of the community; they
are similar but far from identical:
Isa 2:5 Mic 4:5
93' =' #'!+ -< <' #)+' -'/3! +) ')

!#!' :# !)+1# #)+ 3# -+#3+ #1'!+ !#!' -< (+1 #1%1#
It has to be noted that the wording of Mic 4:5a seems influenced by the
preceding verse. The phrase #'!+ -< <' #)+' “they walk, each in the
name of its god”36 resembles the sentence #16 =%= <' #<' “they sit,
each under his vine ....” Thus it is probable that Mic 4:5 presupposes the
promise in v. 4. The answer of the community in v. 5 could have been
added even later,37 as the repetition of ') at the beginning indicates.
Moreover, the text of Isa 2:5 is not necessarily influenced by Mic
4:5.38 All phrases and motifs can be explained otherwise: 93' ='
34 Cf. e.g. Wolff, Micha, 85; Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 170–71.
35 Note that the formula has parallels only in the book of Isaiah: : !#!' '6 ') in 1:20;
40:5; 58:14.
36 A similar phrase and motif can be found in Jonah 1:5: #'!+ + <' #93$'# “and they
cried, every man to his god.”
37 Cf. Wolff, Micha, 85, 89; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im
Kontext des Dodekapropheton, 73; Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 170–
71, 174–75.
38 Differently e.g. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 196.
“house of Jacob” must have been copied from Isa 2:6:39 “For you have
abandoned your people, the house of Jacob ...”40 The phrase !)+1# #)+
“come, let us walk” modifies Isa 2:3/Mic 4:2, !+31# #)+ “come, let us go
up.”41 The motif of “the light of Yahweh” has its source in the imagery
of the psalms (see esp. Ps 36:10; 43:3); there even the motif of Yahweh‘s
people walking in his light can be found (Ps 89:16). In the context of
Isaiah, 2:5 could already refer to Isa 60 (vv. 1, 3, 19–20) where Yahweh
is depicted as a light greater than the sun.42
In sum, it is more probable that Isa 2:5 influenced Mic 4:5 than vice
versa. The singular expression of Mic 4:5b “to walk in the name of
Yahweh” can be explained as a modification of the phrase “to walk in
the light of Yahweh”: It combines the motif of “walking” with the
“name of Yahweh” which is mentioned in the context (Mic 5:3).43
4. The Heading of Isa 2:1
In Isa 2, the vision is preceded by a heading (v. 1): #!'3<' !$% :< :!
-+<#:'# !#!' +3 7#/ 0 “The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw con-
cerning Judah and Jerusalem.” This repeats the first half of the title of
the book (1:1a) almost verbatim ( !#!' +3 !$% :< 7#/ 0 #!'3<' 0#$%
-+<#:'# “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz that he saw concerning Ju-
dah and Jerusalem”). Because such a doubled title is a singular pheno-
menon in the prophetic literature, it must have a special reason. As
Ackroyd pointed out,44 Isa 2:1 has to be explained as a doublet of the
39 Cf. e.g. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 196; Williamson, Commentary on
Isaiah 1–5, 186–87.
40 Originally continued by v. 9. Isa 2:6 probably refers to the crucial passage 8:17.
41 Cf. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 115.
42 Compare also Isa 9:1; 10:17.
43 Cf. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des
Dodekapropheton, 73–74. An additional argument is given by Gray, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, 48: “The closer approximation of the
!)+1# #)+ of Is. as compared with the (+1 #1%1# of Mic. to the phraseology of the poem
(!+31# #)+ and !)+1#) might seem to favour the priority of Is.”
44 Peter R. Ackroyd, “A Note on Isaiah 2,1,” ZAW 75 (1963): 320–21; Peter R. Ackroyd,
“Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old
Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 79–104 (92–94); repr. from Congress Volume Göttin-
gen 1977 (VTSup 29, Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48. Cf. Robert B. Y. Scott, “The Literary
Structure of Isaiah‘s Oracles,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950; repr. 1957), 175–86 (177); Becker, Jesaja – von der Bot-
schaft zum Buch, 195; Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt
title of the book in 1:1 that is related to the insertion of the Micah-vision
into the book of Isaiah.
In fact, Isa 2:1 can be interpreted as a modification of 1:1a that aims
at ascribing the vision, known from the book of Micah, to the prophet
Isaiah. This is the obvious reason why the opening of 1:1
(!$% :< 7#/ 0 #!'3<' 0#$% “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz that he
saw ...”) is changed into 7#/ 0 #!'3<' !$% :< :! “The word that
Isaiah son of Amoz saw ...” It had to be emphasized that the following
“word” was “seen” by Isaiah.
However, this does not imply that :! is exclusively referring to
the vision.45 This is indicated by the final words of 2:1
(-+<#:'# !#!' +3 “concerning Judah and Jerusalem”) which are repeated
verbatim from 1:1a. They refer not only to the vision itself, because it
talks only about Jerusalem, not about Judah as well.46 Thus :! must
have a double meaning. The heading of 2:1 connects the vision with the
following texts which speak about Yahweh judging his people in Jeru-
salem and Judah (esp. ch. 3, see 3:1). This judgment was obviously re-
garded as the necessary cleansing of Zion so that in future it will be
able to fulfill its role as the center of a peaceful world.47
5. Why Was the Vision Doubled and Inserted into Isa 2?
Two puzzling questions remain: Why was the vision copied and in-
serted into the book of Isaiah? And why was it inserted here, that is, in
a part of the book which (as shown above [1.]) has no close parallels
with terms and motifs of the vision itself?
Regarding the first question, two aspects can be denoted:
1) It seems that the vision was considered too important to keep it
only in the book of Micah, somewhere in the middle of the book of the
Twelve. By inserting this prophecy into the opening part of Isaiah, an
editor emphatically ascribed it to the greatest of all prophets and gave
it a much more prominent place in the corpus propheticum.
(Herders Biblische Studien 16; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1998), 55–56; Kessler, Micha,
181; Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 89; differently Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 163–65.
45 2:1 does not imply that 2:2–4 was regarded as a conclusion of ch. 1 (against Ackroyd
and others), cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 164–65.
46 Cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 165, who proposes that 2:1 was inserted
“to introduce the expanded and full text of 2–12.” This does not exclude the possibil-
ity that the insertion of 2:1 was initiated by the fact that 2:2–4 was copied from Micah
into the book of Isaiah.
47 Cf. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 117–18.
2) The vision of a peaceful world order, established by “the god of

Jacob,” and centered at Zion, is a universalistic and monotheistic con-
sequence of the ancient Zion tradition.48 Therefore it could have been
regarded as necessary to ascribe the vision to the prophet to whom it
seemed to belong, that is to Isaiah who, like no other prophet, was fo-
cused on the complex of the Zion tradition.
The question of the place of the vision in the book of Isaiah could be
answered from two perspectives:
1) It cannot be coincidence that the vision precedes the poem about
Yahweh‘s judgment “upon all that is high and lifted up” (2:12; cf. v. 14:
“upon all high mountains and upon all exalted hills”) which contra-
dicts the image of mount Zion elevated as the top of all mountains (see
above 2.). By inserting the vision before that poem, the editor supple-
mented the imagery by implying that Zion‘s future elevation will be
caused by Yahweh himself who “alone will be exalted in that day”
(2:11, 17).49
2) Becker observed that the sequence of Isa 1:21–26 and 2:2–5 re-
sembles the sequence of Mic 3:9–12 and 4:1–3.50 Because Isa 1:27–31
consists of several late additions, an older pre-text of the vision in
Isaiah must have been the passage that announces Yahweh‘s cleansing
judgment of Zion from its corrupt leaders (1:21–26). Exactly the same
sequence of themes can be found in Micah. Here the vision is preceded
by the announcement of Yahweh‘s judgment of Zion which is also
caused by the corruption of its leaders (3:9–12). Becker proposes that
the editor not only inserted the vision of Isa 2:2–5 but also composed
the announcement of 1:21–26 in order to prepare the vision and to link
the judgment, which is announced in Isa 1:2–20, with the outlook for
Zion‘s salvation. This, however, is not the only possibility. It is even
more probable that the core of 1:21–26 is older than Isa 2:2–5.51 Yah-
weh‘s cleansing of Zion from its corrupt leaders could have reminded
an editor that in the book of Micah a similar announcement of Zion‘s
judgment is immediately followed by the impressive prediction of
Zion‘s future glory; by copying Mic 4:1–3 and inserting it into Isa 2, the
editor created a sequence similar to Mic 3–4 in the book of Isaiah.
48 See n. 11.
49 Cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 182.
50 Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 195–96.
51 Becker stresses that 1:26 even seems to prepare the vision (Jesaja – von der Botschaft
zum Buch, 196); this is possible, but the verse could be already an addition to 1:21–25,
cf. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 54.
6. Summary of the Literary Development
Contextual arguments prove that the vision of mount Zion, being the
center of a peaceful world, was composed in the context of the book of
Micah. It originally consisted only of Mic 4:1–3; this text was copied
and inserted into Isa 2:2–4 with slight changes. In Isa 2, it was embed-
ded into the context by the parenetic sentence of 2:5 and by the heading
of 2:1. In Mic 4, the vision was, after the doubling of the text, first ex-
panded by v. 4, later by v. 5; probably the latter was already inspired
by Isa 2:5.
Bibliography
Ackroyd, Peter R. “A Note on Isaiah 2,1.” ZAW 75 (1963): 320–21.
Ȱ.“Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet.” Pages 79–104 in Studies in the Reli-
gious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1987. Repr. from Con-
gress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29, Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48.
Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen:
Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische
Studien 16. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1998.
Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum
Alten Testament. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2003.
Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch:
Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babyloni-
scher und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg, CH.: Universitätsverlag, 1997.
Botterweck, Johannes G. and Helmer Ringgren, ed. Theologisches Wörterbuch
zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lex-
icon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Budde, Karl. “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4 (Jes. 2,2–4).” Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 81 (1927): 152–58.
Cannawurf, E. “The Authenticity of Micah IV 1–4.” VT 13 (1963): 26–33.
Cazelles, Henri. “Qui aurait visé, à l‘origine, Isaië II 2–5?” VT 30 (1980): 409–20.
Clines, David J. A. ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993–2007.
Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament III,1. 2nd
ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament. Edited by Herbert Donner. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1987–.
Gosse, Bernard. “Michée 4,1–5, Isaïe 2,1–5 et les rédacteurs finaux du livre
d’Isaïe.” ZAW 105 (1993): 98–102.
Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of

Isaiah I–XXXIX vol. I: Introduction, and Commentary on I–XXVII. ICC. Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1912, repr. 1962.
Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen:
Kaiser, Otto. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12. ATD 17. 5th ed. Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
Kessler, Rainer. Micha. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1999.
McKane, William. The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1998.
Rad, Gerhard von. “Die Stadt auf dem Berge.” Pages 214–24 in Gesammelte
Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 8. 4th ed. München:
Chr. Kaiser, 1971. Repr. from Evangelische Theologie 8 (1948–49): 439–47.
Ryssel, Victor. Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches
Micha: Ein kritischer Commentar zu Micha. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1887.
Schwartz, Baruch J. “Torah from Zion: Isaiah‘s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4).”
Pages 11–26 in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited
by A. Houtman et al. Jewish and Christian perspectives series 1. Leiden:
Brill, 1998.
Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. “Zion – Ort der Tora: Überlegungen zu Mi
4,1–3.” Pages 107–25 in Zion – Ort der Begegnung. Edited by F. Hahn et al.
BBB 90. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993.
Scott, Robert B. Y. “The Literary Structure of Isaiah‘s Oracles.” Pages 175–86 in
Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by Harold Henry Rowley. Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1950. Repr. 1957.
Smith, John Merlin Powis, Ward, William Hayes, and Bewer, Julius A., A Criti-
cal and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Ob-
adiah and Joel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911. Repr. 1948.
Strydom, J. G. “Micah 4:1–5 and Isaiah 2:2–5: Who said it first? A critical dis-
cussion of A. S. van der Woude‘s view.” Old Testament Essays 2,2 (1989):
15–28.
Sweeney, Marvin A. “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 93 (2001): 111–24.
Vermeylen, Jacques. Du Prophète Isaïe à l‘Apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir
d‘un démimillénaire d‘expérience religieuse en Israël. Études bibliques. Vol. 1. Pa-
ris: Gabalda, 1977–78.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt. 3rd ed. Berlin:
Georg Reimer, 1898.
Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja: Jesaja 1–12. BKAT 10,1. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
Williamson, Hugh G. M. Commentary on Isaiah 1–5. Vol. 1 of A Critical and Ex-
egetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. ICC. London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Willis, John T. “Isaiah 2:2–5 and the Psalms of Zion.” Pages 295–316 in Writing
and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by
Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70,1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 4: Micha. BKAT 14,4. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.
Woude, Adam S. van der. “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets
Quoting Isaiah.” Pages 396–402 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Fran-
cisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl Dedicatae. Edited by M. A. Beck. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Zapff, Burkhard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext
des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.
The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal
Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah
Juha Pakkala
1. Introduction
The Torah plays a larger role in Ezra-Nehemiah than perhaps in any

other book of the Hebrew Bible outside the Pentateuch itself. Many
authors of the compo sition refer to it as the basis and guiding principle
of the community’s life. Relative to the size of the composition there are
many quotations, allusions and other references to the Torah or to the
Book of Law, which makes the composition a fruitful source for inves-
tigating the Lawbooks or Pentateuchs the authors may have used.
Particularly important is the source value of Ezra-Nehemiah for the
use and form of the Pentateuch during the time that Ezra-Nehemiah
was written and edited in the fifth to third centuries BCE. There are not
many possibilities for obtaining information about the Pentateuch of
these centuries, and Ezra-Nehemiah may be one of the most fruitful
exceptions.1 Most other books of the Hebrew Bible provide only scat-
1 The next substantial evidence for the pentateuchal texts is the Dead Sea Scrolls,
which contain texts that quote the Pentateuch (for example, the Community Rule,
see Sarianna Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” in The Bible as
Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov;
London: British Library, 2002), 81–92 and variant editions of the Pentateuch (the so
called Reworked Pentateuch texts, see Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Penta-
teuch,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. Van-
derKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 775–77. The quotations, al-
lusions and other references to the Torah in the Chronicles may be another
important exception. This material has to be left for a further study. However, Jud-
son R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's
references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation
(Brown Judaic Studies 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), has concluded that the
Chronicler’s Torah was more extensive than the presently known Pentateuch. This
would be in line with the observations made here. It has to be noted, however, that
Shaver assumes the Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah to have formed a single work.
For other problems and criticism of Shaver’s work, see Ehud Ben-Zvi, review of Jud-
son R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's
194 Juha Pakkala
tered quotations, whereas Ezra-Nehemiah contains several passages

that claim to quote the Torah or are otherwise related. Clearly, we only
have glimpses of the Pentateuch’s early development in Ezra-
Nehemiah, but some of them may be very illuminating and are in any
case significant because the Pentateuch of these centuries is otherwise
very poorly known.
In this study I will discuss the quotations and other renderings of
the pentateuchal laws in Ezra-Nehemiah. I will only deal with the laws,
whereas the references, allusions and other uses of the narrative sec-
tions of the Pentateuch will have to be left out. For example, the use of
the pentateuchal narratives in Neh 9 would necessitate a separate
study, and cannot be discussed here.2 I will include passages that seem
to quote or otherwise render a part of a law of the Pentateuch, whereas
general allusions or other dependence, with some exceptions, will not
be discussed. Cases where the author explicitly refers to what is written
in the Torah (#=))) will be considered even if there does not seem to be
a direct quotation. Many of such cases were written with a particular
law in mind and may therefore provide significant information about
the authors’ Lawbooks and how they related to them. For example,
even if the law in question is not presented as a quotation, its phrase-
ology may be integrated into the passage in Ezra-Nehemiah.
The main intent of this work is to discuss how the quoted or other-
wise rendered laws differ from their pentateuchal version preserved in
the Masoretic text and other known witnesses, and to discuss what the
reasons for the possible differences are. Were the pentateuchal laws
changed in the quotations and other renderings in Ezra-Nehemiah or
did the laws the authors referred to differ from the pentateuchal texts
known to us?3 The analysis may thus provide information about the
text of the Pentateuch used by the authors4 of Ezra-Nehemiah.5
references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legisla-

tion, JBL 110/4 (1991): 718–20.
2 The confession of Neh 9 has been extensively discussed by, for example, Hans-Peter
Mathys, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132; Freiburg,
CH: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 4–21 and Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition (BZAW
277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999).
3 For the purposes of this paper, the differences between the known witnesses are
minor and have limited influence on the main conclusions.
4 In this work I will mainly refer to the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah without distin-
guishing between the different editors. The editorial development of the composi-
tion is very complicated and will not be discussed here in any detail. For a theory on
the editorial development, see Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra
7–10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 225–77. For the exegesis and
related literature on passages discussed here, see the related chapter in that volume.
The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah 195
2. Quotations of the Pentateuch in Ezra-Nehemiah
2.1. Ezra 9:11–12 and Deuteronomy
Ezra 9:11–12 is given as a quotation (:/+ … ='#8 :<) and it is also for-
mally presented to be one (Yahweh is speaking to the Israelites in the
second person as in most laws of the Pentateuch). That we are dealing
with a quotation is corroborated by the comparison between these
verses and Deuteronomy. Ezra 9:11–12 and several parts of Deuteron-
omy witness to many parallel sentences. I have discussed the relation-
ship of this passage and Deuteronomy in a previous publication, and
the arguments for their close relationships need not be repeated here.6
The main results and their implications for understanding the use of
the pentateuchal text will only be summarized. An alternative explana-
tion for the differences is also offered.
When we compare the Masoretic text7 of Deuteronomy with Ezra
9:11–12, it would appear that the author of Ezra 9:11–12 used at least
Deut 7:3; 11:8–10 and 23:7 and possibly also 18:9–14. Although Ezra
9:11–12 is given as a single quotation, the author seems to have freely
combined words and sentences from different parts of Deuteronomy
into one quotation. This was done in a very skillful way because with-
out the source text it would be difficult to recognize that these verses
are a patchwork of different passages. Ezra 9:11–12 forms a logical and
consistent unit8 and the reader also receives the impression that it is
one passage from the Torah. The text of Deuteronomy, at least when
compared with the known witnesses, was also changed, although most
of the changes are minor. Moreover, the author of Ezra 9:11–12 has
added new material which does not find any counterpart in the Penta-
teuch or elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Some of the new material has a
thematic background in Deuteronomy, although there is no direct
5 Note that this paper will not discuss the hotly debated issue of which books of the
Pentateuch Ezra or the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah used. For a discussion, see Ulrich
Kellermann, “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz,” ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85 or Pakkala, Ezra
the Scribe, 284–90.
6 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 110–22.
7 The other main witnesses have also been taken into consideration in this investiga-
tion, but the differences between them and the Masoretic text are minor in compari-
son with their differences with the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah.
8 The land was impure. The impurity was caused by the people who live there. The
Israelites should not intermarry with the impure people of the land. This will ensure
that the Israelites stay strong, enjoy the produce of the good land and inherit it for-
ever.
196 Juha Pakkala
phraseological link with any specific passage therein.9 The methods of

the author in forming the quotation are illustrated in the following
chart:10
Ezra 9:11–12 Deut
:/+ -''1! ('3 ' ='#8 :< 11 ('!+ !#!' ('' ') 7.1
!=<:+ -' -= :< 7:! !=<:+ !/<¡ !=¡:< 7:!¡+
=#8:! '/3 =1 '! !1 7: - 0=%== +# 7.3
!6¡+ !6/ !#+/ :f -!'=3#= (1+ %9=¡+ #=# #1+ 0==¡+ (=
#1==¡+ -)'=#1 !=3# 12 -=/& ')1 :< !#8/!¡+)¡= -=:/<# 11.8
-)'1+ #<=¡+ -!'=1# -!'1+ #9$%= 03/+ -#'! (#8/
-+#3¡3 -=#&# -/+< #<:=¡+# ('!+ !#!'¡:< 7:!¡+ != ') 18.9
7:! #&¡= -=+)# #9$%= 03/+ -!! -'#! =3#=) =#<3+ /+=¡+ (+ 0=1
-+#3¡3 -)'1+ -=<:#!# -+#3+ ('/'¡+) -=&# -/+< <:=¡+ 23.7
The assumption that Ezra 9:11–12 is a rendering of phrases and ideas

from different parts of Deuteronomy is not the only possibility to ex-
plain the differences. Houtman has argued that the Pentateuch of the
author was an entirely different edition of the book.11 This would imply
that when Ezra 9:11–12 was written, the pentateuchal text was much
more fluid than what is commonly accepted in modern research. One
would have to assume that later editors may have rewritten, relocated
and combined texts they were editing. Although most scholars have
rejected such views in the past, in view of the Temple Scroll,
4QReworked Pentateuch12 and other rewritten texts of the Dead Sea
Scrolls this possibility should not be excluded, especially since very
little is known about the Pentateuch of the fifth and fourth centuries
BCE when Ezra 9:11–12 was probably written. Nevertheless, one pas-
sage is not enough to shake a consensus and therefore a position on this
9 For example the idea that the Israelites may eat the good of the land is met in Deut
6:11 and 11:14–15. The reference to the prophets through which Yahweh gave his
commandments may have its background in Deut 18:15.
10 Underlined sections are close parallels, although in most cases these sections also
contain differences in grammatical forms and word order.
11 Cornelis Houtman, “Ezra and the Law. Observations on the Supposed Relation
between Ezra and the Pentateuch,” OTS 21 (1981): 91–115. Most scholars have been
skeptical about Houtman’s theory, e.g., Hugh G. M. Williamson, “History,” in It is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; FS B.
Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 25–38 (26).
12 Especially 4QReworked Pentateuch is significant in this respect. See the contribution
of Sidnie White Crawford in this volume.
question may only be taken after evaluating the whole evidence in

Ezra-Nehemiah.
2.2. Neh 1:8–9 – “If You Are Unfaithful, I will Disperse You”
Neh 1:8–9 is presented as a quotation of Yahweh’s commandment to

Moses (:/+ (3 !</¡= ='#8 :< :!¡=), but the passage as such is
not found in the available versions of the Pentateuch. One should also
note that the form of vv. 8–9 as a direct speech of Yahweh to the Israe-
lites (… -=) implies that we are dealing with a quotation or at least
with an intended quotation from the Torah. The idea of v. 8 that if the
Israelites are unfaithful, Yahweh will disperse them among the nations
is met only in Deut 4:27; 28:64 and 30:3:13
Neh 1:8 -'/3 -)= 7'6 '1 #+3/= -=

Deut 4:27 -'/3 -)= !#!' 7'6!#
Deut 28:64 7:! !89/ -'/3!¡+) !#!' (8'6!#
Deut 30:3 !/< ('!+ !#!' (8'6! :< -'/3!¡+)/ (89#
Unlike in Neh 1:8, however, in Deut 4:27 the scattering of the Israelites
is not presented as a conditional, but as a fact that will happen because
they have (or will have) worshipped other gods. The verb +3/ is also
not used in this connection.14
Deut 28:64 is part of a larger conditional passage that lists the con-
sequences if the Israelites do not follow the commandments of the To-
rah (v. 58: =$! !:#=! ':¡+)¡= =#<3+ :/<= +¡-). Although +3/ could
be seen as a general equivalent to disobeying the commandments, it is
evident that Neh 1:8 would not be a faithful rendering of this passage
either.
Of the three passages in Deuteronomy, Deut 30:3 seems to contain
the most distant phraseological connection with Neh 1:8, but the prob-
able connection between Neh 1:9 and Deut 30:1–4 suggests that Neh 1:8
may have been written in view of Deut 30:3.
13 Outside the Pentateuch the idea is met in other texts as well, especially in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel (e.g., Jer 9:15 and Ezek 11:16; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15), but they are probably influenced
by Deuteronomy and the phraseological link with Neh 1:9 is even weaker than with the
passages in Deuteronomy.
14 The verb is used only once in Deuteronomy (in 32:51). It is a relatively rare word in the
Pentateuch, appearing seven times, six of which are in the priestly texts of Leviticus and
Numbers. It is most often met in Chronicles.
198 Juha Pakkala
Neh 1:9 Deut 30:1–4
!):! !+! -':!¡+) ('+3 #'¡') !'!# 1

-'#!¡+) (+¡+ =<!# ('16+ '==1 :< !++9!#
!/< ('!+ !#!' (%'! :<
-='<3# '=#8/ -=:/<# '+ -=<# ')1¡:< +)) #+9 =3/<# ('!+ !#!'¡3 =<# 2
-= (<61¡+)# (+¡+) ('1# != -#'! (#8/
(89# <# (/%:# (=#<¡= ('!+ !#!' <# 3
!/< ('!+ !#!' (8'6! :< -'/3!¡+)/
-</ -'/<! !89 -)%1 !'!'¡- !#!' (89' -</ -'/<! !89 (%1 !'!'¡- 4
-89 (%9' -</# ('!+
'=:% :< -#9/!¡+ -'=#!# ('= #<:'¡:< 7:!¡+ ('!+ !#!' ('!# 5
-< '/<¡= 0)<+ ('=/ (:!# (&'!# !=<:'#
Deut 30:1–4 and Neh 1:9 share the same idea that Yahweh will even-
tually gather the Israelites back to their own land, but the only clear
phraseological link is between Neh 1:9 and Deut 30:4. Otherwise the
author of Neh 1:9 renders the possible source text very freely. The idea
of a place wherein Yahweh has set his name to live is not met in Deut
30 and may have been taken from elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the clos-
est parallels being in Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11 and 26:2. The author
of Neh 1:8–9 may have had Deut 30:5 in mind but replaced the land
with a phrase common in many parts of Deuteronomy (7:!¡+ >
-#9/!¡+). This would mean that parts of the quoted text could be re-
placed by what the author of the quotation regarded as being equiva-
lent. If the author of Neh 1:8–9 used a version of Deuteronomy similar
to the Masoretic text, his attitude towards the source text has to be cha-
racterized as very free.
Nonetheless, the purported quotation would be a reasonably faith-
ful rendering of the ideas of Deuteronomy, which repeatedly, especially
in Deut 4–11 and 28–30, warns the Israelites that if they are unfaithful
by disobeying Yahweh or breaking the commandments, they will be
punished. There are also references to the coming restoration, but they
are less common (Deut 4:25–31; 30:1–10). Unless we assume that the
author of Neh 1:8–9 used an entirely different version of Deuteronomy,
one has to conclude that he believed that even a general rendering of
the ideas could be presented as a quotation. Since the author did not
deviate from the message of Deuteronomy, there is no reason to as-
sume that he intentionally wanted to change its text. It would be more
probable that he did not regard the exact wording to be so important.
More important was the general message of the Lawbook. It should
further be noted that to give a text as a quotation would have given
credibility and authority to the message he was conveying to the read-
ers. This could be a reason why the author, despite manifest differenc-
es, wanted to present his message as a quotation, as if Yahweh was
speaking now again to the Israelites.
On the other hand, one has to keep open the possibility that the au-
thor of Neh 1:8–9 used a completely different version of Deuteronomy.
This passage could certainly be used to argue that the pentateuchal text
was much more fluid and unstable than what is commonly assumed in
biblical scholarship. One would have to assume substantial rewriting
and changes to have taken place before the pentateuchal text came to
be fixed and unchangeable. Neh 1:8–9 could also be used to suggest
that the author used a law that was later lost.
2.3. Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6
Neh 13:1–2 claims to provide a text that the Israelites read in the Book
of Moses (:62 !</ :91) and what they found written in it ( #=) 8/1#
#). It is reasonable to assume that the ensuing text renders the text that
the author found in his Lawbook, especially since Neh 13:1–2 contains
the closest parallel between a pentateuchal text and Ezra-Nehemiah.
Nevertheless, a comparison between the passages reveals several dif-
ferences.
Neh 13:1–2 Deut 23:4–6
-3! '1$ !</ :62 :91 #!! -#' 1

:< # #=) 8/1#
-'!+! +!9 '/# '1/3 #'¡+ ':'<3 :# - !#!' +!9 '#/# '1#/3 '¡+ 4
-+#3¡3 -+#3¡3 !#!' +!9 -!+ '¡+
-'/# -%+ +:<' '1¡= #/9 + ') 2 (: -'/# -%+ -)= #/9¡+ :< :¡+3 5
-3+¡= #'+3 :)<'# -3+¡= ('+3 :)< :<# -':8// -)=8
#++9+ !#!' !¡+# 6 (++9+ -':!1 -: :#=6/ :#3¡0
!):+ !++9! #1'!+ (6!'# (+ ('!+ !#!' (6!'# -3+¡+ 3/<+ ('!+
('!+ !#!' (! ') !):+ !++9!¡=
The quotation in Neh 13:1–2 is generally shorter than Deut 23:4–6. Neh
13:1 is missing the sentence !#!' +!9 -!+ '¡+ ':'<3 :# - of Deut
23:4, but this is very probably a late addition in Deuteronomy. It speci-
fies the law further by excluding even the tenth generation descendants
from entering the community of the Israelites. Moreover, the sentence
begins with -, which is often used to begin an expansion. One can also
find !#!' +!9 at the end of the sentence, which repeats the words
where the expansion began. It is a typical editorial technique to return
200 Juha Pakkala
to the older text by repeating part of the final words where the expan-
sion began in order to lead the reader back to the old text. It seems
possible or even probable that Neh 13:1 preserves an earlier form of
Deut 23:4.15
The next content-related difference is the lack of reference to the
journey from Egypt. This is clearly not necessary for understanding the
law, and because the reader is bound to connect the Balaam episode
with the journey from Egypt anyway, it could be an intentional omis-
sion. On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that the
sentence is a later clarifying addition to Deut 23:5 and that Neh 13:2
may preserve the older form. Often the same clarifying additions are
similar to elements that could also be removed if one needed to shorten
a passage.
Balaam’s father Beor and his hometown Pethor are not mentioned
in Neh 13:2. Again, this could be an intentional omission and shorten-
ing in Neh 13, but the possibility that it is an addition in Deut 23:5 and
that Neh 13 preserves the older text cannot be excluded. The addition
of family origins is very typical in many texts of the Hebrew Bible.16 In
most cases, however, it is difficult to determine whether such details
were added later to the source text or omitted as unnecessary by the
author who quoted them.
The idea that Yahweh did not want to listen to Balaam in Deut 23:6
is also lacking in Neh 13. It is not imperative for understanding the
passage and only presages the idea that Yahweh changed the planned
curse into a blessing. Like the previous two differences, this can be an
omission and shortening in Neh 13 or a later addition in Deut 23. In
any case the idea that Yahweh did not want to listen to Balaam is mis-
leading. In Num 22–23 Balaam in fact follows Yahweh’s orders and
does not curse Israel. However, the first author of Deut 23 could al-
ready be behind the misunderstanding and therefore it is a weak ar-
gument to assume an addition.
There are also some minor differences between the passages such
as rendering of :< :¡+3 with the shorter but equivalent ') and the
change of number from second person speech to the third person (for
15 An intentional shortening should not be completely excluded, but then one would
have to assume that the same sentence that was probably added to Deut 23:4 was
later removed. This is possible but less likely than to assume that Neh 13:1–2 pre-
serves an earlier form of the law.
16 For example, Ezra’s genealogy in Ezra 7:1–5 was very probably added later. For
arguments, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 23–26. Titles, names of fathers, places of ori-
gin and other similar details seem to have been common additions in the Hebrew
Bible.
example -)= is changed to +:<' ' 1¡=). Moreover, God is referred to

as -'!+! in Neh 13 whereas Deut 23 refers to him as !#!'. The change
of !#!' to -'!+ may have been an intentional change to avoid mention-
ing Yahweh’s name. These changes show that the author of Neh 13:1–2
could at least make small changes to the quoted text and still refer to it
as what was found written in the Law of Moses.
There is not enough material to make far-reaching conclusions
about the differences between Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6, but some
observations can be made. The available evidence allows only some
possibilities. Neh 13:1–2 may preserve an older stage of the law than
the known versions of Deut 23:4–6. This is suggested especially by the
probability that !#!' +!9 -!+ '¡+ ':'<3 :# - is a later addition to
Deut 23:4, while Neh 13 omits it. The other plusses in Deut 23 may also
be later additions, but there is not much room for conclusive argumen-
tation. They could be additions in Deut 23 but also shortenings in Neh
13.17 That the author of Neh 13:1–2 probably used an early form of Deut
23:4 slightly increases the probability that the same may be the case in
other verses as well.
On the other hand, it is possible that the author of Neh 13:1–2 had a
free and flexible attitude towards the pentateuchal text and therefore
could render it in a shortened form that only contained the essential
parts. The minor changes could support this interpretation, because
they show that the author of Neh 13:1–2 did not relate to the pentateu-
chal text with strict adherence to each word. The minor changes, espe-
cially the change of the second person to the third person, were proba-
bly made by the author of Neh 13:1–2 because the second person direct
speech very much depends on the broader context of the Pentateuch
where the laws are presented as Yahweh’s speech to Moses. However,
some of the other quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have pre-
served the second person (Ezra 9:11–12 and Neh 1:8–9), as we have
noted. Because Neh 13:1–2 is presented as a quotation, this conclusion
would suggest that the author did not have a rigorous attitude to pre-
serve each word of the quoted text. The main message of the text would
have been more central. In any case, Neh 13:1–2 is much more faithful
to the pentateuchal text than any other passages in Ezra-Nehemiah that
quote the Pentateuch.
17 In some cases it is possible to assume that the same sentence that was added to Deut
23 was later omitted in Neh 13:1–2, but it would be quite rare that it would not leave
traces because it would mean that exactly the same words that were added in Deut
23 were omitted in Neh 13.
202 Juha Pakkala
Consequently, the comparison between Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6

suggest that the author of Neh 13:1–2 may have used an earlier form of
Deut 23:4–6 than the Masoretic and other main versions, which proba-
bly contain at least one further addition, but possibly more. On the
other hand, the author of Neh 13:1–2 was not bound by the exact word-
ing of the pentateuchal text but could not only make at least minor
changes but possibly also shorten the text that he gave as a quotation.
In other words, Deut 23:4–6 was edited after the author of Neh 13:1–2
used it in his quotation, but also the quotation is not a fully faithful
rendering of the exact wording of the quoted law.
3. “As It Was Written” – Pentateuchal Laws as the Legal

Basis of Conduct
3.1. The Sukkoth in Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:33–43
Neh 8:13–18 describes how the Israelites, after having investigated the
reintroduced Law in more detail, noticed that it commanded (#=)))
them to dwell in booths (=#)2) in the seventh month.18 Most scholars
acknowledge that Neh 8:13–18 is dependent on Lev 23:33–43, although
the exact relationship is debated. The issue is complicated by the exis-
tence of two Sukkoth laws in Lev 23, one in vv. 33–36 and another in
39–43. The contradictions and independence of these laws suggests that
they were written by different authors, 39–43 being a later addition.19
Nevertheless, vv. 39–43 may preserve traces of an older stage of the
Sukkoth law than the one in vv. 33–36. The idea that the time of the
feast was dependent on the harvest is still present in v. 39–43, although
a later editor has secondarily tried to fix the feast to a specific date in
this law as well. Verses 33–36 (especially v. 34), however, fix the exact
date without any reference to the harvest.20 Heavy editing in vv. 39–43
18 Although the :< of v. 14 could be interpreted as introducing a quotation, the en-

suing text is not formulated as such.
19 Thus for example, Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Sie-
beck], 1966), 305 and Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6;
Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht 1993), 318. Some scholars assume that the laws
derive from the same author, e.g., August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus
(Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1880), 576. For further discussion on Lev 23:33–43, see
Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 158–64.
20 There is an evident contradiction between 7:! =#=¡= -)62 and -#' :<3 !</%
'3'<! <%+ in v. 39. Both try to regulate when the feast should be held. At an earlier
stage the feast was to be held after the produce of the land had been collected, but a
is suggested, among other considerations, by the disturbing repetition

of how long the feast should last (it is mentioned four times: vv. 39, 40,
41 and 42).
Despite many attempts, it has proven difficult to reconstruct the
oldest text of Lev 23:39–43, and it seems probable that only vestiges of
the oldest core of the law are preserved. Later editors may have rewrit-
ten parts of the older text to the extent that it is no longer possible to
reconstruct it. This is also implied by the many loose ends in the law.
For example, the Israelites are ordered to collect fruits and branches for
the feast, but no reason is given for why this is done nor is any explana-
tion of what they should do with them provided. Suggestions by some
scholars that they may have been for processions, booths or decoration
are possibilities,21 which only show that something must be missing in
the presently available versions of the law. Rewriting or omission is
also implied by v. 41, where the object marker #= in v. 41a and the
reference to seven days hang in the air.
Lev 23:39–43 is important for the present analysis because Neh
8:13–18 contains more connections with Lev 23:39–43 than with any
other Sukkoth law in the Pentateuch. Lev 23:39–43 is the only law ac-
cording to which the Israelites should live in booths (Lev 23:42 and Neh
8:14). Only in Lev 23:40 and Neh 8:15 are the Israelites ordered to col-
lect foliage for the feast. Furthermore, only Lev 23:39–43 and Neh 8:13–
18 imply that there was a middle stage in the development of the law
according to which the feast should be celebrated in the seventh month
without the exact day being fixed.22 The exact dates are younger (in Lev
23:33–36; Num 29:12) and the purely agricultural connection based on
the harvest is older (in Deut 16:13–16).23 The close connection between
Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:39–43 is corroborated by the extensively shared
vocabulary:
later editor added a fixed date (the 15th of the seventh month). Verse 41 also implies
that the date was not originally fixed, only the month.
21 For example, Elliger, Leviticus, 322; Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work, 97,
and Andreas Ruwe, “Heiligkeitsgesetz“ und “Priesterschrift“. Literaturgeschichtliche und
rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2 (FAT 26; Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1999), 318. According to Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, 594, the
branches were used to make the booths, whereas the fruits would have been used as
decoration.
22 Lev 23:39–43 contains traces of the earlier stage where not even the month was fixed
and from a later stage where the exact day was also fixed (v. 39).
23 Deut 16:13–16 is still unaware of the idea that the feast should be celebrated in the
seventh month.
204 Juha Pakkala
Neh 8:13–18 Lev 23:39–43
v. 14 =#)2 #<' #<= =)2 v. 42

v. 17 =#)2 #<'# =)2 #<'
vv. 14, 17 +:<'¡'1 +:<'¡'1 v. 43
v. 14 '3'<! <% '3'<! <% v. 41
v. 15 -':/= -':/= v. 40
v. 15 =3 73 =3 73 v. 40
v. 18 -'/' =3< -'/' =3< vv. 39–42
The combination of thematic and phraseological similarities suggests

that Neh 8:13–18 is closely related to Lev 23:39–43. If Neh 8 was written
in view of any Sukkoth law that is preserved in the present version of
the Pentateuch, it has to be Lev 23:39–43. The similarities with other
laws are much more distant.
However, it seems improbable that Neh 8:13–18 could be depen-
dent on or influenced by the present Masoretic or other known version
of Lev 23:39–43. The differences are too extensive – for example: The
names of the feast differ (!#!' % vs. %! or '3'<! <% %!), Neh 8:13–
18 refers to the month of the feast only, whereas Lev 23:39a contains a
later addition that specifies the exact days. According to Lev 23:39, one
should observe the Sabbath twice during the feast, while Neh 8:13–18 is
unaware of such an additional aspect of the feast. The trees of the fo-
liage of which the Israelites should collect are also different, and differ-
ent vocabulary is used to refer to the foliage. Unlike 23:40, Neh 8:15
does not refer to any fruit. Neh 8:13–18 does not connect the feast with
the Exodus tradition, while Lev 23:43 does. Lev 23:39–43 does not say
why the foliage was collected, while according to Neh 8:15 it was expli-
citly written (in the Torah) that the Israelites should collect the foliage
in order to live in the booths (#=)) =)2 =<3+). It seems fair to assume
that if the author of Neh 8:13–18 used 23:39–43, he used an early or
middle form of the law that was later heavily edited so that parts of the
law Neh 8:13–18 refers to are no longer present in the current versions
of the Pentateuch.
That the author of Neh 8:13–18 was using a fundamentally different
version of the entire chapter Lev 23 (and perhaps of the whole Penta-
teuch) is suggested by the striking lack of reference to the Day of the
Atonement, which is regulated in Lev 23:26–32 and takes place in the
seventh month, during the time when the events of Neh 8 are said to
have taken place. One has to ask whether it would be possible that the
author had Lev 23 in front of him or was aware of the Day of the
Atonement during this month and could still ignore it. Lev 23:26–33
implies that in the author’s context it had already become one of the
most important feasts. Furthermore, Neh 8:13–18 seems to be unaware

of the Feast of blowing of Trumpets, which, according to Lev 23:23–25,
should also be kept during the first day of the seventh month.
In view of the differences between Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:39–43
and the apparent lack of reference to Lev 23:33–38 as well, it is more
probable that the author of Neh 8:13–18 used an entirely different ver-
sion of Lev 23 that did not contain the law regulating the Day of the
Atonement or the Feast of blowing of Trumpets. Consequently, it
seems probable that the version of Lev 23:39–43 the author of Neh 8:13–
18 used may not have been located with the laws in Lev 23:23–36 at all.
This would then imply that he used an entirely different version of the
whole book or another Lawbook because Lev 23:39–43 is probably a
late addition to its present context. It should further be noted that the
Feasts in Lev 23:23–32 are missing from the older law collections of the
Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. They are usually assumed to be
additions of the Holiness Code.24 The following chart illustrates the
development that now seems most probable:
an early version of Neh

Lev 23:39–43 quoted 8:13–18
Lev 23:23–25
Lev 23:26–32 relocated
Lev 23:33–36 and
a late version of partly rewritten
Lev 23:39–43
It is improbable that the differences between Lev 23:39–43 and Neh

8:13–18 could be the result of legal exegesis25 or of a free and flexible
attitude towards the source text.26 These may be possibilities in some of
the other passages investigated here, but the above-presented differ-
24 See Christoph Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the
Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in
Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ed. E.
Otto and R. Achenbach; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2004), 81–122 (88–89).
25 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985), 109–12.
26 Many scholars assume that the differences may be explained as a result of exegetical
techniques common in the Second Temple period and that there would not be any
contradiction. Thus for example, Williamson, “History,” 29–31. This is a possibility
in some of the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah, but in Neh 8:13–18 this would be im-
probable because it does not take into consideration the high probability that Lev
23:39–43 was heavily edited, partly inconsistent and that parts of the original law
may be missing.
206 Juha Pakkala
ences exclude this possibility in Neh 8:13–18. For example, the idea that
the people should collect foliage in order to live in the booths is expli-
citly said to have been written in the Law. Combined with the fact that
the current version of Lev 23:39–43 orders the foliage to be collected but
gives no reason why this is done, the most probable explanation would
be to assume that an older version of Lev 23:39–43 used by the author
of Neh 8:13–18 referred to the purpose of the foliage, but a later editor
rewrote or corrupted the text so that the purpose is no longer ex-
plained. Consequently, Neh 8:13–18 gives evidence of an earlier form of
Leviticus that was later edited to the extent that parts of it were relo-
cated, rewritten and omitted. Since concrete evidence for the earlier,
developing forms of the Pentateuch is very rare, this conclusion should
be significant for understanding the extent of the editorial processes
taking place in the Pentateuch. Traditionally it is assumed that the later
editors did not omit, relocate and rewrite older material, especially in
the Pentateuch, but this does not seem to be the case in Lev 23. Moreo-
ver, this conclusion implies that the Lawbooks of the fifth and fourth
centuries BCE, when Neh 8:13–18 was written, may have been very dif-
ferent from the one that is known to us as the Pentateuch. For example,
the author of Neh 8:13–18 seems to be unaware of the Holiness Code, at
least when it comes to Lev 23.27
3.2. Ezra 9:1–2
Ezra 9 is generally dependent on the pentateuchal prohibition of inter-

marrying with the people of the land. Deut 7:3 is the only law in the
Pentateuch that explicitly prohibits mixed marriages, although some
other passages in the Pentateuch also imply that that it was prohibited
(especially Exod 34:1628). It is probable that the authors of Ezra 9 were
referring to Deut 7 but were strongly influenced by other parts of Deu-
teronomy as well. Verses 11–12 are, as we have seen, probably quoting
Deut 7, while Ezra 9:1–2, which does not contain a direct quotation, is
otherwise directly dependent on Deuteronomy.
27 This conclusion would seem to corroborate the increasingly probable assumption

that the Holiness Code is the youngest of the four main law collections of the Penta-
teuch.
28 Exod 34:16 subordinates a reference to mixed marriages to the prohibition of making
a covenant with the people of the land, which would lead to the worship of other
gods. The leading idea of Exod 34:11–17 is the worship of other gods.
Ezra 9:1–2 Deut 7:1–3
-'#+!# -'1!)!# +:<' -3! #+1¡+ … 1 !=¡:< 7:!¡+ ('!+ !#!' ('' ') 1
-!'=3#=) =#8:! '/3/ ('16/ -':¡-'# +<1# !=<:+ !/<¡
':8/! '/! '1/3! '2#'! '$:6! '=%! '131)+ '#%!# '$:6!# '131)!# ':/!# '<:!# '=%!
29
'/!# … (// -'/#83# -': -'# !3< '2#'!#
3:$ #:3=!# -!'1+# -!+ -!'=1/ #<1¡') 2 #=# #1+ 0==¡+ (= - 0=%== +# 3
… =#8:! '/3 <9! (1+ %9=¡+
The list of nations in Ezra 9:1 contains eight nations, whereas Deut 7:1
contains seven and Exod 34:11 only six. Only four of the nations are
shared with the pentateuchal lists, but the use of the word !3#= and
the changes in relation to the source text (see below) imply that the
author of the list30 had Deuteronomy rather than Exodus in mind. In
addition to the four nations taken from Deut 7:1, Ezra 9:1 adds the
Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Edomites (emended from Amo-
rites). Here the author was probably influenced by Deut 23:4–9 where
these four additional nations are mentioned in the same passage. Ac-
cording to this passage, the Ammonites and Moabites may never enter
into the congregation of the Jews, whereas the third generation Egyp-
tians and Edomites may. There is an evident shift in attitude from Deut
23 to Ezra 9:1 towards the Egyptians and Edomites, because in Ezra 9:1
these nations are put on the same level with the Ammonites and Moa-
bites. After Ezra 9:1 a situation where a third generation could be ac-
cepted cannot take place because Deut 23:4–9 can only refer to the des-
cendants of mixed marriages. That the law deals with mixed marriages
is implied by the preceding law in Deut 23:3, which prohibits descen-
dants from illicit marriages from being accepted into the congregation
of the Jews. Verses 4–9 should be read in view of v. 3.
The author of the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 was apparently free to
change some of the nations in accordance with his own conceptions
about who should be accepted into the community of the Jews and who
posed the most serious threat to Israel’s integrity and purity. Although
the author may even have had Deuteronomy in front of him, he was
not bound by it and could contradict it if it was against his own concep-
tions. In other words, the author is dependent on Deuteronomy and
29 The MT has ':/!#, but most scholars, e.g., Alfred Bertholet, Die Bücher Esra und
Nehemia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum AT (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1902), 39 and Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: a Commentary (OTL; London: SCM
Press, 1989), 174, emend the Amorites to Edomites with First Esdras.
30 Note that the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 is probably a later addition written by a
different author than the author of the quotation in vv. 11–12 or the rest of vv. 1–2.
208 Juha Pakkala
implies that the Israelites must abide by its rules, but simultaneously he
himself takes the freedom to change its meaning or contradict it.
Although the law is not explicitly quoted in Ezra 9:1–2, the idea that
intermarriage would lead to the contamination of the holy seed
(<9! 3:$) is probably influenced by Deut 7:6, according to which Israel
is a holy nation (<#9 -3) and may therefore not mix with other nations.
Both expressions are rare in the Hebrew Bible, which, in view of the
general connection with Deut 7, corroborates that the author of Ezra
9:1–2 had Deut 7 in mind. The change of -3 to 3:$ may indicate a devel-
opment of the pentateuchal law so that the physical aspect of the purity
receives a more prominent position.
3.3. Ezra 3:2
According to Ezra 3:2, the returning exiles built the altar in order to
offer sacrifices on it, as it was written in the Law of Moses ( =:#= #=))
!</). It is not immediately evident whether the Law of Moses refers to
the building of the altar or to the sacrifices, but since the verse finds a
close parallel in one pentateuchal law where both are commanded,
namely in Deut 27:5–6, both may have been meant in Ezra 3:2 as well.
Ezra 3:2 Deut 27:5–6
+:$# -'1!)! #'%# 98#'¡0 3#<' -9'#

#'%# +'=+<¡0
+:<' '!+ %$/¡= #1'# -' 1 %$/ ('!+ !#!'+ %$/ -< ='1 # 5
+$: -!'+3 5'1=¡+
('!+ !#!' %$/¡= !1= =#/+< -'1 6
!</ =:#= #=)) =#+3 #'+3 =#+3!+ ('!+ !#!'+ =+#3 #'+3 ='+3!#
-'!+!¡<'
Although Deut 27:5–6 refers to the building of the altar on Mt. Ebal and
not Jerusalem as in Ezra 3:2, the setting is similar. In both cases, it is the
first altar that the Israelites built after they had entered the land.31
It is evident that Ezra 3:2 does not provide an exact quotation of
Deut 27:5–7, and, despite the reference to what was written, this was
most probably not even intended by the author. The second person
speech of Deut 27:5–6 is changed to the third person. Nevertheless, the
parallels are so close that the author of Ezra 3:2 probably had this law
in mind or in front of him. In comparison, other laws that order the
31 Following Deut 27:5–6, Joshua later builds the altar on Mt. Ebal (Josh 8:30–31).
Israelites to build an altar and sacrifice on it use different vocabulary,

for example, Exod 20:24.32 Instead of !1 and !+3, the author of Exod
20:24 used the verbs !<3 and %$. Deut 27:5–6 is used rather faithfully,
even if the passage is not quoted word for word, and there is no reason
to assume that the author used a different version of the Pentateuch
than the known versions.
3.4. Ezra 3:4 – The Daily Sacrifices and the Sukkoth
According to Ezra 3:4, the Israelites made daily sacrifices and held the
feast of the Sukkoth, as it was written (#=))) and according to the law
(&6</)). Although the verse does not claim to provide a quotation of
the law(s) in question, the author may have had particular laws in
mind. When searching for the exact phrase, the closest parallel to Ezra
3:4 seems to be Deut 16:13:
Deut 16:13 (+ !<3= =)2! % Ezra 3:4 #=)) =#)2! %¡= #<3'#
However, Ezra 3:4 assumes that daily sacrifices took place during the
week that the Sukkoth was celebrated, whereas Deut 16:13–16 is not
familiar with any sacrifices during the feast.33 In comparison, Lev
23:33–36 and Num 29:12–38, like Ezra 3:4, order daily sacrifices to be
offered. Ezra 3:4 further refers to several sacrifices every day of the
feast (#/#' -#'¡: &6</) :62/ -#' -#' =+3#), which would correspond
to the detailed descriptions of the sacrifices in Num 29:12–38. It is prob-
able that the Sukkoth was originally celebrated without sacrifices, but
gradually, especially with priestly influence, sacrifices took a more
central role. Num 29:12–38 would represent the youngest stage in this
development, Lev 23:33–36 the middle stage, while Lev 29:39–43 and
Deut 16:13–16 probably preserve the oldest forms of the law.34 Al-
though the author of Ezra 3:4 may have had Deut 16:13 in mind when
formulating the verse, he may be dependent on Num 29:12–38 as well
or, in any case, he represents a late context where several daily sacrific-
es during the Sukkoth had become the rule. Ezra 3:5, which is part of
the same late addition to the chapter as v. 4 also implies a late context.
32 ('/+<¡=# ('=+3¡= #'+3 =%$# '+¡!<3= !/ %$/.

33 Similarly, Lev 29:39–43 is not familiar with sacrifices during the feast.
34 For further discussion on Lev 29, see the analysis of Neh 8:13–18 above. It should be
noted that Lev 23:39–43, despite preserving traces of the oldest stage, was later
edited.
210 Juha Pakkala
Verses 4–5 provide a list of the main occasions when one should sacri-
fice.35
3.5. Ezra 6:18
Ezra 6:18 contains a very general reference to the setting up of the divi-
sions and classes of the priests and Levites regulated in the Book of
Moses. Although Ezra 6:18 refers to what is written in the Law of Mos-
es (or “according to the writing of the book of Moses” – !</ :62 =))),
the verse does not contain a quotation or even an allusion that would
provide any clearer details to show what exactly was set up. It may
have been meant as a general reference to the Torah in order to convey
that the priestly classes and division were now implemented according
to the laws of the Torah. Nevertheless, the verse implies that the author
was familiar with some of the laws in the Pentateuch that regulate the
priestly divisions. If the author’s Pentateuch was similar to the known
versions of the Pentateuch, then he may be referring to Num 1:47–4:49;
8:5–26 and 18. According to Houtman, “The Pentateuch does not know
such a classification. It comes from David; see I Chron. xxiiiff.”36 It is
true that the 1 Chr 22:2–26:32 corresponds much better with Ezra 6:18
than any part of the Pentateuch, which leaves some space for assuming
a variant edition of the Pentateuch. However, the main problem is the
brevity and vagueness of the reference in Ezra 6:18. It is difficult to
make definite conclusions on the basis of this passage alone.37
3.6. Ezra 10
Ezra 10 is generally dependent on the prohibition against intermarry-

ing with the people of the land, but no passage is quoted or explicitly
referred to. Nevertheless, it is probable that the author of the basic text
of this chapter was familiar with Deut 7:1–6, which is the only law that
specifically prohibits mixed marriages, and Ezra 10:3 and 10:11 are
comprehensible only if there was a law in the background that prohi-
bits such marriages. According to the author of these verses, it was
35 On Ezra 3:4–5, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 140–44.

36 Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 104.
37 Ulrich Kellermann, “Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen
Schriften,“ Biblische Notizen 42 (1988): 49–92 (91), has suggested that Ezra 6:18
witnesses to the “Mosaisierung” of ancient Israelite regulations.
Yahweh’s will and commandment that the Israelites separate them-

selves from the foreign wives.38 Especially verse 3, according to which
the foreign wives and their children should be dismissed according to
the Law (!g 4 ' !:#=)), does not find an instruction in the Pentateuch.39
The Pentateuch does not provide any clear solution to mixed marriages
that have already taken place, although the author of Ezra 10:3 implies
that it does. There is no law that regulates the cancellation of mixed mar-
riages. On the other hand, it is probable that the author was referring to
the general prohibition to marry and that he assumed it to necessitate
the cancellation of such marriages if they had already taken place. Their
cancellation is a logical consequence from the prohibition, although not
the only solution. Especially the question what to do with the children
of these marriages would not be immediately clear for a modern read-
er, but the author assumes that they should be expelled from the com-
munity as well. In other words, the author of Ezra 10:3 has certain con-
ceptions of what one should do with the mixed marriages that have
already taken place and he justifies them by appealing to the Torah,
although in fact the Torah (or at least the Pentateuch of the main wit-
nesses) does not provide any unambiguous solution or instruction.40
3.7. Neh 5:1–13
Although Neh 5:1–13 does not contain a quotation or even a reference

to a pentateuchal law, the connection of this passage with the Penta-
teuch has received scholarly attention,41 and will therefore be discussed
38 Ezra 10:3: !<3' !:#=)# #1'!+ =#8/

Ezra 10:11: =#':)1! -'<1!¡0/# 7:! '/3/ #+!# #1#8: #<3#.
39 Observed by many scholars, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Was the Pentateuch
the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?,” in
Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (ed. J. W. Watts;
SBL SymS 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 41–62, (58). It should be
added that !:#=) !<3' is probably an isolated later addition.
40 Some scholars, Thomas Willi, Juda – Jehud – Israel. Studien zum Selbstverständnis des
Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995),
86–87, and following him Sebastian Grätz, “The Second Temple and the Legal Status
of the Torah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 273–87 (274), assume that the reference of !:#=) is
not to any particular verse or passage, but to the whole Scripture. This may be true
in this case but does not remove the problem that the present version of the Penta-
teuch does not provide any clear instruction on how to cancel the mixed marriages.
41 For example, Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Ezra and Nehemiah (repr. 1961; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 240–44.
212 Juha Pakkala
here briefly. The passage deals with the forgiveness of loans and inter-
est. The people complained that they were unable to pay their debts,
taxes and buy food, and therefore had to sell their property (vv. 1–5).
Nehemiah became angry and accused the leaders of the community of
demanding interest on the loans they had given to the people and sold
those people who could not pay as slaves to other nations (vv. 6–8).
Consequently, Nehemiah demands that the debt be forgiven, the prop-
erty that was lent not be demanded back and the interest not be ex-
tracted from the people.
The prohibition against extracting interest on debt is met in some
laws of the Pentateuch (Exod 22:24; Lev 25:36 and Deut 23:20), but there
is no evidence for assuming that Neh 5 was influenced by any one of
them. There is no phraseological connection, and even the word used
for the interest is different ((f 1 in the Pentateuch, i / in Neh 5:7).42
This is peculiar because the accusation Nehemiah makes in Neh 5:7
could have been justified by appealing to one of these laws. On the
other hand, the ensuing handling of the debt does not correspond to
any pentateuchal law. A law requiring a general remission of debt is
found in Lev 25:8–17 (Year of the Jubilee) and Deut 15:1–11 (!&/<), but
there is no evidence that the author(s) of Neh 5:1–13 wanted to regulate
the remission of debt according to these laws. The remission seems to
be a spontaneous event caused by the complaints of the people. It
should further be noted that the people did not complain about the
interest, but about the expenses (such as taxes and food), which caused
them to mortgage their property for loans. Although an appeal to the
pentateuchal laws could have given a partial justification for Nehe-
miah’s measures, the author did not seem to be aware of such laws or
may not have wanted to make the connection, because a spontaneous
and unregulated remission of debt, as implied by Neh 5:1–11, would
not have been found in the Pentateuch.
42 Deut 15:2 uses the word !i /, related to i / of Neh 5:7, but the meaning is different.
Whereas !i / refers to debt itself, i / can refer to both interest and debt. In Neh 5:7
it unequivocally refers to interest.
4. The Creation of New Stipulations
4.1 Neh 10:30–40
Neh 10:31–40 contains a list of stipulations that the Israelites swore to

keep in addition to the Torah of God (-'!+! =:#=).43 Although some
parts of the Pentateuch (for example Num 18 in vv. 36–39) were evi-
dently used as the basis of Neh 10:31–40,44 the stipulations intentionally
go beyond the laws of the Pentateuch.45 In the background may be a
situation where the Pentateuch had already become so established that
one could not make large new additions. When new laws or stipula-
tions were needed, they were inserted into new contexts, Neh 10 being
one of the best examples in the Hebrew Bible. Neh 10 will not be dis-
cussed here in detail,46 because the intentional and conscious expansion
of the laws or the conscious invention of new stipulations makes com-
parison difficult for the purposes of the current study. It was not the
primary intention of the authors of Neh 10 to render the pentateuchal
laws as quotations but to provide a list of new stipulations that was
lacking or not clearly presented in the Pentateuch. The stipulations
were created by using pentateuchal laws but most of them have an
added aspect or try to clarify the existing laws.47 Despite the fact that
the pentateuchal laws were developed further, the author is still far
from the Midrashic Halakha because the exact reading of the laws or
their faithful rendering does not seem to have been central.
43 It is noteworthy that the author seems to place the new laws in vv. 31–40 on the
same level with the Torah. The Israelites take an oath to follow the Law and the sti-
pulations in vv. 31–40.
44 See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 214–16.
45 Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 105, has drawn attention to differences between the
pentateuchal laws and Neh 10, but he fails to notice that Neh 10 intentionally
changes and adds to the pentateuchal regulations. The chapter was not meant to be a
quotation of any passage in the Pentateuch, which Houtman seems to imply. For ex-
ample, he points out that the wording of Neh 10:31 differs from Exod 34:16 and Deut
7:3, and uses this as an argument for assuming a variant edition of the Pentateuch.
46 For a detailed discussion of Neh 10:30–40, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 185–211. See
also David Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,”
JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17.
47 In some cases, it is difficult to determine which law was used as the basis for the
stipulation, which could give some leeway to assume a variant version of the Penta-
teuch. However, since the stipulations were not intended as quotations or reproduc-
tions of already existing laws, any comparison would remain speculative as to
whether the author used an unknown law or created the stipulation for his own con-
text.”
214 Juha Pakkala
5. Conclusions
The quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have proven to be very

fruitful for the investigation of the Pentateuch of the fifth to third cen-
turies BCE when Ezra-Nehemiah was written, but the other uses of the
Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have also provided significant information.
Because Ezra-Nehemiah is the product of a long development and
many authors, it does not contain one consistent view on how the text
of the Pentateuch was used and what kind of Pentateuch it was (if their
Lawbook can even be called Pentateuch already). It should be noted,
however, that in no single case does the quotation or purported quota-
tion correspond exactly to a known pentateuchal text. Only in one case
is it unequivocally clear which passage of the Pentateuch was used:
Neh 13:1–2 is quoting Deut 23:4–6. Even in this case, the text in Neh
13:1–2 differs from the known versions of Deut 23:4–6. In other cases,
uncertainties about the source text are considerable, although it is poss-
ible to find pentateuchal texts that may have been used or that seem to
be closely related to the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah.
The uncertainties are due to the considerable differences between
the quotations and the texts we find in the Pentateuch. If we assume
that behind each quotation is a text close or similar to the text in the
known versions of the Pentateuch, it is necessary to conclude that the
authors in Ezra-Nehemiah had an exceptionally free and flexible atti-
tude in quoting the pentateuchal text. Although they considered the
source text to be authoritative, as suggested by the fact that they are
quoting it, it does not seem to have been problematical to make even
radical changes to it in the quotation. The comparison has shown that
parts of the source text could be omitted, rewritten and rearranged.
New sentences without any basis in any known law could also be add-
ed to the purported quotation. It is noteworthy that the authors of Ezra-
Nehemiah were able to make such substantial changes to texts that they
assumed to possess the highest authority to regulate the life of the Jew-
ish community.48 They were apparently convinced that changes would
48 Many late Second Temple Jewish texts, such as the Temple Scroll and Jubilees, simi-
larly regarded as authoritative the texts they used as sources but could make sub-
stantial changes to them when they were adopted into the new composition. Fur-
thermore, the authors of these new compositions often regarded their own texts to
be authoritative as well. Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple
Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 102, 146. As she notes on the Temple Scroll:
“it extensively reworks that base text through various exegetical techniques, includ-
ing conflation, harmonization … omits blocks … adds new blocks ...”
not compromise the authority and message of the pentateuchal text.49

Michael Fishbane has shown how biblical authors may be bound by the
authoritative laws or traditions and appeal to them but can at the same
time be very innovative in shaping their interpretation after their own
conceptions.50 In Ezra-Nehemiah the authors of the quotations do not
distinguish between the original quotation and their own interpreta-
tion, but seem to be free to include their own view as part of the quota-
tion.
The nearest “empirical” evidence for quotations comes from Qu-
mran, but the evidence is not conclusive. Many Qumranic texts follow
the quoted text more closely than Ezra-Nehemiah and the quotation is
often clearly marked.51 For example, in the Pesharim the quoted text is
distinguished from the interpretation.52 Perhaps more analogous to
Ezra-Nehemiah is the comparison with the Community Rule, which
quotes the Pentateuch. As noted by Sarianna Metso, “The biblical quo-
tations included in 1QS seem to follow fairly closely the forms of the
biblical text that we now know through the Masoretic text and the Sep-
tuagint.”53 There seems to be a difference between Ezra-Nehemiah,
composed in the fifth to third centuries BCE, and the Community Rule,
written in the second or late second century BCE. 54 This would suggest
that a change in attitude towards pentateuchal text in quotations took
place in these centuries. On the other hand, Hanne von Weissenberg
has pointed out that 4QMMT, which is also clearly later than Ezra-
49 Grätz, “Second Temple,” 276, assumes that at least in Ezra 9–10 the authors may not
have intended to quote or interpret the law “in a literal sense but in a theological
way.” This may apply to some of the passages in question, but when part of the law
is rendered as an explicit quotation, for example in Ezra 9:11–12; Neh 1:8–9; Neh
13:1–2, it is difficult not to push the evidence further and note the evident use of cer-
tain passages and note the differences between the quotation and the source text.
50 For an extensive discussion on inner-biblical legal exegesis, see Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation, 91–277.
51 As noted by Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function,
and the Meaning of the Epilogue (STDJ 82; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 170: ”In many of the
texts found at Qumran, specific formulae are used to set apart explicit scriptural cita-
tions …,” but she also adds that “in other cases, scriptural citations are introduced
without a quotation formula.”
52 As noted by many scholars, the Pesher literature is a separate genre, which uses
certain techniques and usually also employs the word :<6. See Shani L. Berrin, “Pe-
sharim” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 644–47. See also Timothy Lim, Pe-
sharim (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 44–63.
53 Metso, “Biblical Quotations,” 90.
54 For the dating of the Community Rule, see Michael A. Knibb, “Rule of the Commu-
nity,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 793–97 (796).
216 Juha Pakkala
Nehemiah,55 has a rather flexible attitude towards scriptural quotations.

They have been modified and intertwined with the interpretation.56
Other texts, such as 4Q252, may provide an even more mixed picture.
The older text may be marked clearly, but it may also be changed and
mixed with the interpretation.57 It is evident that further research is
needed to explore the differences and similarities between the quota-
tions in Ezra-Nehemiah and various Qumranic texts.
Some of the other uses of the Pentateuch have also been significant
for the present investigation. In addition to Neh 8:13–18, which sug-
gests that the author used an early form of Lev 23:39–43, the list of na-
tions in Ezra 9:1–2 contradicts Deut 23:4–9, although the author evi-
dently regarded Deuteronomy to be an authoritative text. The
contradiction is probably an intentional attempt to change what had
become a too tolerant attitude towards the Edomites and Egyptians,
although one should not completely rule out the possibility that the
change had already taken place in the version of Deut 23:4–9, used by
the author of Ezra 9:1–2.
The other references to the Torah (in Ezra 3:2, 4; 6:18; 10:3, 11) may
be too vague to provide any detailed information about the forms of
the authors’ Pentateuchs or their attitude towards the text itself. The
author of Ezra 10:3 instructs that the mixed marriages be cancelled ac-
cording to the Torah, although the Torah does not provide any unequi-
vocal instructions on their cancellation. The author probably implies
that the law that prohibits the marriages can be applied to the cancella-
tion of the marriages as well. Here as elsewhere, the authors of Ezra-
Nehemiah often went beyond the laws that they appealed to as the
basis for the community’s life. In other words, the Torah was used as
the legal basis, but this did not hinder the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah
from being very innovative in interpreting it. Neh 10:30–40 is an exam-
ple of a passage where the author openly went beyond the Torah. The
55 According to Lawrence H. Schiffmann, “Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah,” in The Encyclo-

pedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 558–60, it derives from the “earliest days of the Qumran
group” (p. 558).
56 Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 169–225. She notes (p. 218): “In the epilogue of
4QMMT, Scripture is used in a variety of ways. The text contains both allusions and
intentionally modified, explicit quotations, in which the citation of the scriptural
source text and its interpretation are intertwined.”
57 For example, 4Q252 seems to contain a very interesting mixture of different attitudes
towards the scriptural text that was used. For details see, Juhana Saukkonen, The
Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252 (Ph.D. diss., The University of
Helsinki, 2005).
Israelites are said to have taken an oath to keep the Torah and the stipu-
lations in v. 31–40, which are most probably creations of the author.
We have seen that the discrepancy between the pentateuchal texts
and their rendering in Ezra-Nehemiah may have reasons other than the
creative mind of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah. It is possible that at
least some of them used an entirely different version of the Pentateuch.
Although not a direct quotation, Neh 8:13–18 in particular strongly
suggests that this was the case. It would be difficult to provide any
other explanation for the differences between Neh 8:13–18 and Lev
23:39–43 than to assume that the author of Neh 8:13–18 used a version
of Lev 23 very different from the one in the known witnesses. The lack
of reference to laws in Lev 23:23–25 and 25–32, usually attributed to the
Holiness Code, suggests that the author of Neh 8:13–18 may have used
a version of the Torah that did not include these laws.
The conclusion that some authors of Ezra-Nehemiah may have
used a different version of the Pentateuch puts some of the other quota-
tions and uses of the Torah into a new light. At least Ezra 9:11–12; Neh
1:8–9 and Neh 13:1–2 are potential candidates that may preserve a quo-
tation from an unknown (Ezra 9:11–12 and Neh 1:8–9) or early version
(Neh 13:1–2) of a pentateuchal law. Ezra 6:18 could also be seen as re-
ferring to an unknown version of the Pentateuch. In this case, one
would have to assume that the editorial processes of the Pentateuch
were much more radical and substantial than what is traditionally as-
sumed.58 Moreover, it would mean that the Pentateuch was still far
from being a stable and fixed text in the fifth to third centuries BCE,59
and that there were several fundamentally different versions during
these centuries.60 In comparison with the Pentateuchal quotations in
Ezra-Nehemiah, the MT, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and most other
58 The rewritten texts from Qumran and elsewhere (for example, 4QReworked Penta-
teuch, Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, First Esdras, the A-text of Esther) may be more
representative of the earlier editorial processes of the Pentateuch and other books of
the Hebrew Bible than traditionally assumed. They have been regarded as (an) ex-
ceptional genre(s), but this may be changing. One has to take into consideration that
some texts of the Hebrew Scripture, even the Pentateuch, may have been substantial-
ly changed or rewritten at some point in their transmission.
59 Cf. Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and
Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Wino-
na Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103 (93), who assumes that the editorial processes of
the Torah must have been finished by the end of the fourth century BCE.
60 As suggested by Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 91–115.
218 Juha Pakkala
known versions would then be a relatively harmonious group of wit-

nesses that only represent a later stage and/or one line of tradition.61
In either case, one would have to assume that the scribes of the fifth
to third centuries BCE, whether those behind the Pentateuch or those in
Ezra-Nehemiah quoting the Pentateuch, were not very concerned about
the exact wording of the pentateuchal texts, or at least they did not
transmit them very faithfully. In both cases one would have to assume
that substantial changes, relocation of material, rewriting, omissions
and additions took place in the transmission of the texts that were re-
garded to be authoritative. As noted by Michael Segal, “the genre of
Rewritten Bible … can be identified in earlier stages of biblical litera-
ture.”62 Behind the known texts of the Hebrew Bible may be editorial
stages where they were rewritten or otherwise substantially modified
in a very late stage when the texts were already assumed to be authori-
tative.63 That a text was regarded as authoritative, even Yahweh’s
word, apparently did not mean that an editor could not change it, at
least not in the quotation, but probably not even in the actual transmis-
sion of the text. The attitude towards the preservation of the exact text
may have become more conservative only from the second century BCE
onwards, although texts such as 4QReworked Pentateuch imply that
editions of the Pentateuch that contained considerable variants were
still in circulation in the second century BCE. 64
The changes probably took place in the quotations in Ezra-
Nehemiah and in the later transmission of the Pentateuch. At least some
of the authors had a different Pentateuch from what are presently
61 Recent discussion in Qumran scholarship seems to develop into this direction as

well. See the contributions of Eugene Ulrich, George Brooke and Sidnie White Craw-
ford in this volume.
62 Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” in Biblical Interpretation at Qu-
mran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (11).
63 Most scholars assume that the Rewritten Bible texts form a separate genre that
should be distinguished from the “real” authoritative texts. For the definition of such
a genre and discussion, see Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It
is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; FS B.
Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121. However, it is diffi-
cult to see how in the entire transmission of biblical texts, such as the Pentateuch, all
the editors over centuries regarded their text to belong to a certain genre and did not
apply rewriting, a technique prevalent in the Second Temple period, and other sub-
stantial changes to their text. The possibility seems to be high that at least some of
the editors of the Pentateuch did rewrite parts of the older text, and the comparison
between the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah and the Pentateuch has increased this
probability.
64 See the contribution by Crawford in this volume or Sidnie White Crawford, Rewrit-
ing Scripture in Second Temple Times, 39–59.
known (Neh 8:13–18 and Neh 13:1–2), while others may have had a text
similar to the known version and the differences were made in the quo-
tation. Possibly some authors in Ezra-Nehemiah even had a different
version of the Pentateuch than the late versions and made changes
when quoting. This makes the comparison difficult, but in any case it
has become very difficult to maintain that the Pentateuchs of all au-
thors of Ezra-Nehemiah were similar to the ones we possess, and it is
also improbable that the pentateuchal texts were quoted word for
word. The different uses of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah indicate that
the scribes dealing with pentateuchal texts in the fifth to third centuries
BCE were much less concerned about the exact or actual text of the Pen-
tateuch than what has been traditionally assumed in scholarship. Able
to change words, sentences and ideas of the authoritative texts, their
own theological conceptions had a greater impact on the textual trans-
mission than those working after the second century BCE when the texts
became increasingly unchangeable.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament,” Pages 99–121 in It is Writ-
ten: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Wil-
liamson. FS B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah. Reprinted 1961. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913.
Ben-Zvi, Ehud. Review of Judson R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history
work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's references to laws, festivals, and cultic in-
stitutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation. JBL 110/4 (1991): 718–20.
Berrin, Shani L. Pesharim. Pages 644–47 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Bertholet, Alfred. Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum AT.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: a Commentary. OTL. London: SCM Press,
1989.
Ȱ. “Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish
Ethnos in the Persian Period?” Pages 41–62 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of
Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SBL
SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.
Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition. BZAW 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
Clines, David. “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis.”
JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17.
220 Juha Pakkala
Crawford, Sidnie White. “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 775–77 in The Encyclo-

pedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C.
VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hir-
zel, 1880.
Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon,
1985.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen:
Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Grätz, Sebastian. “The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah.” Pag-
es 273–87 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Ber-
nard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Houtman, Cornelis. “Ezra and the Law. Observations on the Supposed Relation
between Ezra and the Pentateuch.” OTS 21 (1981): 91–115.
Kellermann, Ulrich. “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz.” ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85.
Ȱ. “Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften.“
Biblische Notizen 42 (1988): 49–92.
Knibb, Michael A. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793–97 in The Encyclopedia
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. Van-
derKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine
and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N.
Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Lim, Timothy. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3; London: Sheffield
Mathys, Hans-Peter. Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit.
OBO 132. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1999.
Metso, Sarianna. “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule.” Pages 81–92 in
The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited
by Edward D. Herbert and Emmanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002.
Nihan, Christoph. “The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on
the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the
Torah.” Pages 81–122 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deute-
ronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achen-
bach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8. BZAW
347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Ruwe, Andreas. “Heiligkeitsgesetz“ und “Priesterschrift.” Literaturgeschichtliche
und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2. FAT 26. Tü-
bingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1999.
Saukkonen, Juhana. The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252.
Ph.D. diss., The University of Helsinki, 2005.
Schiffmann, Lawrence H. “Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah.” Pages 558–60 in The

Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical
Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2005.
Shaver, Judson R. Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chro-
nicler's references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pen-
tateuchal legislation. Brown Judaic Studies 196. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Weissenberg, Hanne von. 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the
Meaning of the Epilogue. STDJ 82. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Willi, Thomas. Juda – Jehud – Israel. Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums
in persischer Zeit. FAT 12. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995.
Williamson, Hugh G. M. “History.” Pages 25–38 in It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. FS B. Lin-
dars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the
Book of Daniel
Hanna Vanonen
1. Introduction
The War Scroll (1QM) was found among the first Dead Sea Scrolls
(DSS) in Qumran Cave 1 in 1947. Seven years later, it was published for
the first time by Professor E. L. Sukenik. This nearly three-meter-long
leather scroll deals with the final eschatological war and its strategy: it
includes descriptions of the war and its sequence, tactical and organiza-
tional instructions, and hymns dealing with the war and God’s deeds in
history.1 The scroll includes 19 quite well preserved columns, copied in
the Herodian script.2 1QM has been studied since the 1950’s but recent-
ly, it has again come up as a source of scholarly interest. For example,
Brian Schultz has highlighted 1QM anew: with his book Conquering the
World, Schultz has made the discussion of this text very topical again.3
One typical feature of 1QM is that it seems to be full of links to the
texts known to us from the Hebrew Bible (HB).4 Schultz and many oth-
er scholars have noted that one of the essential texts that are referred to
1 The overall genre of 1QM is not clear. Scholars have characterized 1QM as halakhic,
apocalyptic, liturgical and ritualistic. It has also been considered a military strategy.
See Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qu-
mran War Scroll (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25; Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008),
18–24, and Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and related fragments (CQS; London: T
& T Clark, 2004), 53–60. 1QM seems to include text passages that represent different
genres.
2 Philip R. Davies, “War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness,” in The
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 965–68 (967).
3 See Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76;
Leiden: Brill, 2009). Other scholars who have recently been interested in 1QM are,
e.g., Søren Holst and Rony Yshai. See Holst, Verbs and War Scroll. On Yshai’s studies
concerning the Cave 4 war text material, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 34–36.
4 See, e.g., column 2 and Gen 10 and 24, column 5 and Exod 28, column 7 and Deut 23.
224 Hanna Vanonen
in 1QM is the Book of Daniel.5 Daniel and its composition have been
the subject of vivid discussion. A common opinion is that the stories in
chapters 1–6 are early and legendary material, whereas the visions in
chapters 7–12 originate from the Maccabean era, constructed by un-
known authors. The book as a whole was probably pieced together
shortly after the Maccabean revolt. Thus, Daniel must be read primarily
as expressing the religiosity of the time around the 160’s BCE.6
The Book of Daniel is well represented among the DSS. Eight Dead
Sea manuscripts are identified as representatives of the text of Daniel:7
x 4Q114 (Dan 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1–2, 13–17, 25–29) and 4Q116 (Dan
9:12–17), dated to the late second or the early first century BCE;
x 1Q72 (Dan 3:22–30) and 4Q112 (Dan 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1–2;
4:29–30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16),
dated to the early or the mid first century BCE;
x 4Q115 (Dan 3:8–10(?), 23–25; 4:5–9, 12–16; 7:15–23), dated to the mid
or late first century BCE;
x 1Q71 (Dan 1:10–17; 2:2–6), 4Q113 (Dan 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22,
27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16) and 6Q7 (Dan 8:16–17(?), 20–
21(?), 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38), dated to the first half of the first cen-
tury CE.
Eugene Ulrich notes that in the case of Daniel, the “the quantity of re-
presentation is impressive” – only the amounts of the manuscripts of
the Torah, Psalms, Isaiah, 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees are greater
than that of Daniel.8 The Daniel manuscripts from Qumran overlap all
the chapters of the Masoretic text of Daniel except the last one – in-
stead, the 12th chapter is represented in Florilegium (4Q174).9 Moreo-
ver, in addition to the actual Daniel manuscripts, the DSS also include
other “Danielic” texts. Some of them have been considered as possible
5 See Schultz, Conquering the world, 91, who also enumerates many other scholars who
have made this observation (n. 10).
6 John J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel. Compo-
sition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,1; Leiden: Brill, 2001),
1–15 (2).
7 See Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,2; Leiden: Brill,
2001), 573–85 (574).
8 Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” 573. See also Peter W. Flint, “The
Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
C. A. Evans; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41–60 (41).
9 Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” 575.
The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel 225
sources of Daniel or the mediators of the Danielic traditions. Texts of

this kind are 4Q248 (4QHistorical Text A) relating to Dan 11:7, 4Q530
(4QEnGiantsb ar) relating to Dan 7, and 4Q424 (4QPrayer of Naboni-
dus) relating to Dan 4.10
The Aramaic manuscripts 4Q243, 4Q244 and 4Q245, for their part,
belong to the group of the Pseudo-Danielic fragments.11 In addition, the
manuscript 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar) shares phrases with the “biblical”12
book of Daniel and is often listed among the Pseudo-Danielic docu-
ments.13 On the basis of all this material it can be concluded that the
Daniel traditions were popular at Qumran. On the other hand, it seems
that after the Maccabean revolt there still was a textual development of
Daniel traditions in progress. Since that time, 1QM was also developing
towards its present form.14
Thus, the textual connections between 1QM and Daniel or some
texts mediating the Danielic tradition are an intriguing issue. These
connections are especially clear in the first column of 1QM.15 In this
study, I will analyze the first column of 1QM and textual connections
10 See Esther Eshel, “The Possible Sources of the Book Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,2; Leiden: Brill,
2001), 387–94 (393), and Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 18, who think that there were some possible
sources of Daniel among the Qumran texts. However, Flint (“The Daniel Tradition at
Qumran,” 55–59, especially 58) states that 4Q424 “occupies an intermediate place in
the tradition between the Babylonian accounts of an historical incident and the for-
mation of the book of Daniel.” John J. Collins also argues that “it is not necessary to
suppose that Dan 4 depended directly on the Prayer of Nabonidus, but the two texts
draw on a common tradition.” See Collins, “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel,” in The
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 176–78.
11 See Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” 46, 51.
12 By terming a text or a word “biblical,” I mean that it is included in the Hebrew Bible
known to us.
13 See John J. Collins “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Ju-
daism,” n. p. [cited 12 May 2010]. Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums
/2nd/papers/Collins97.html.
14 About the date of 1QM, see Duhaime, The War Texts, 64–101.
15 In addition to column 1, we have another passage in 1QM that is doubtlessly influ-
enced by Daniel: 17:4–8b. In this passage, the angel Michael’s role and tasks are simi-
lar to those described in Dan 12:1–3. See Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press of
America, 1984), 29. The themes of the deliverance of the chosen ones and shining (al-
though it is expressed by different verbs) are thematic links between 1QM 17:4–8b
and Dan 12:1–3.
226 Hanna Vanonen
between it and the Book of Daniel.16 It could be considered slightly

artificial to separate out one of the 19 columns of 1QM as the subject of
this study. In the final analysis, the relation with the “biblical” texts
should be evaluated by looking at the whole text of 1QM, but concen-
trating on column 1 gives us an opportunity to study this relatively
short text passage in a more detailed way and to highlight the relev-
ance of Daniel in different sections of column 1. The study of column 1
also illustrates how our judgments concerning intertextuality influence
our understanding of the text. Moreover, giving special attention to the
first column also gains justification from some earlier research where
column 1 has been considered a separate unit.17
2. The Exegetical Activity in Ancient Texts
The methodological question essential to our purposes is how to de-

scribe the exegetical activity in a DSS text. Dean O. Wenthe states that
the author of 1QM has not necessarily used the texts behind his work
by following any logical system,18 and thus, an attempt to define exact-
ly how different texts or traditions are used by the author of 1QM is
always somewhat artificial.19 Also, in his more general article on quota-
tions and use of “biblical” texts in DSS, Moshe Bernstein notes that
“since the authors of the Qumran scrolls were so manifestly fluent in
the Hebrew scriptures, it is at times unclear whether biblical language
found in Qumran compositions, when not accompanied by a ‘citation
16 Brian Schultz has also emphasized the significance of Daniel for the birth of 1QM 1.
See e.g., Schultz, Conquering the World, 169.
17 While I consider Schultz’s book mentioned above as a welcome contribution to the
discussion about 1QM, I am not completely convinced about his theory of the com-
position of 1QM (i.e., to put it briefly, columns 1–9 as a primitive form of the text
and columns 10–19 as a later part added after the middle of the first century BCE).
Schultz studies 1QM in its final form whereas I am interested in the textual devel-
opment of 1QM at a more detailed level. Thus, I sympathize more with the older
views presented by Philip R. Davies and Jean Duhaime. According to Davies, 1QM
is a product of a multi-phased redactional process and column 1 is probably the lat-
est part of it. See Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History
(BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 113, 123. Duhaime finds column 1 to
be one of the main parts of 1QM and suggests that these main parts “could have de-
veloped separately before being put together.” See Duhaime, The War Texts, 60.
18 Dean O. Wenthe, “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM,” DSD 5 (1998): 290–
315 (314–15).
19 While being conscious of the possibility that there may be many authors and/or
redactors/reworkers behind the text of 1QM, in order to facilitate the reading I use
the singular term “author” when referring the person or persons behind the text.
formula,’ is a conscious or unconscious employment of the biblical

text.”20 Although these difficulties are widely recognized, the questions
concerning the exegetical activity and the modes of intertextuality have
not been counted as impossible to discuss and there are numerous
scholars who have been interested in them.21 Just to name one example,
Julie A. Hughes, in her study of the exegetical activity in the Hodayot,
considers it likely that “most references recognized by readers as an
allusion would have been intended by the author.”22 Paying attention
to Hughes is reasonable because she also gives useful definitions for
different modes of intertextuality. She describes quotation as “a phrase
which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a
speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition.”23 Bernstein
argues rightly that “in the War Scroll, most of the work is free of scrip-
tural citations, and the citation formulas that we find are concentrated
in columns 10–11, the exhortation and prayer of the chief priest.”24
However, although the citation formulas and the explicit quotations are
found only in columns 10–11, the other columns of 1QM are not entire-
ly “free” of “biblical” references but in fact, they are still full of “bibli-
cal” flavour. Many of the references fit Hughes’s description of allu-
sion. As regards an allusion, she has adopted the idea of a double
referent. That is, the phrase that can be defined as an allusion has a
non-allusive meaning in its present context but at the same time is re-
20 Moshe J. Bernstein “Scriptures: Quotation and Use” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead
Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2000), 839–42 (839).
21 Moshe J. Bernstein gives a general summary about these question in his articles
“Interpretation of Scriptures” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H.
Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
376–83, and “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” 839–42.
22 Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (STDJ 59; Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 49. When studying Scriptural interpretation in 4Q252, Juhana Saukkonen
also endorses the idea that “the ancient authors were generally aware of whether
they were quoting another text or alluding to it.” See Saukkonen, The Story Behind the
Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252 (Ph. D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005), 61.
(In his book, Saukkonen analyzes the literary genres and the exegetical methods
used in 4Q252 and also the composition and content of this manuscript.)
23 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 44.
24 Bernstein, “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” 841. These citations are also considered
by, e.g., George Brooke and C. D. Elledge. See Brooke Exegesis at Qumran:
4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTS 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 292–95; El-
ledge, “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Commentary,” RevQ
21/82 (2003): 165–208 (171).
228 Hanna Vanonen
ferring to one or more other texts.25 Thus, the text with allusions can
also be understandable to its reader without recognizing the references.
It is also noteworthy that, according to Hughes, it is theoretically possi-
ble that an allusive text does not share the vocabulary with an alluded
text but instead, the structures of the texts are similar or they share a
similar combination of ideas.26 We will come back to this idea later in
this study. Furthermore, Hughes adds one more viewpoint, namely,
that an allusion always has to do with its reader: the reader is the one
who recognizes it as a reference to a textual source.27
It should of course be taken into account that Hughes is discussing
a text different from that of our interest: Hodayot represents poetry
whereas 1QM 1 seems to be better classified into prose. However,
Hughes’s ideas are an example of discussion about intertextuality in
the context of the DSS, and as such, they are relevant for our study.
Although it is important to keep in mind the possible limitations on
defining ancient exegetical activity, we can benefit from the observa-
tions and definitions of the previous scholars and discuss the links be-
tween 1QM 1 and “biblical” texts. However, studying the use of Daniel
in 1QM 1 also leads us to the interesting questions concerning the atti-
tudes towards the “biblical” traditions. Thus, in this study, the aim is
not only to define the techniques of exegetical activity but also, if any-
thing, to ponder the functions of intertextuality – and especially, the
functions of the use of Daniel in 1QM 1. Is Daniel tradition one source
of inspiration among others or does it have a special importance in the
discussion of 1QM 1? To what extent does the use of Daniel explain
different viewpoints of the text of 1QM 1? In our analysis, it will be
shown that a large part of the text of 1QM 1 is rooted in Daniel tradi-
tion but at the end of the column the author seems to break away from
the background of Daniel. Consequently, at the end of the article, we
assess what explains the evident discrepancies at the end of 1QM 1.
25 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 44. When discussing allusions, Hughes relies on Carme-
la Perri (see Hughes Scriptural Allusions, 44 n. 37 and 45 n. 39).
27 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52. In addition to “quotation” and “allusion,” Hughes
uses the concept of “idiom.” See Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46–47.
3. Analysis of 1QM 1 and Its Links to the Book of Daniel
We now turn from the principles to the actual analysis of the text. Be-
cause 1QM 1 is a partly fragmentary text, we also have to heed certain
questions concerning reconstructions. However, as will be seen below,
defining the links to “biblical” texts influence what reconstruction
should be preferred. Column 1 includes two clear text division markers
(vacat) on the basis of which the text can be divided into three sections:
1–7, 8–16, 16–E.28 Let us proceed following the order of the text and first
reviewing the enemies described at the beginning of the first section.
3.1. Enemies
In the first two lines of the 1QM 1, it is described that the sons of light
(who, in tribal terms, are the families of Levi, Judah and Benjamin)29
will begin to fight against their enemies, the sons of darkness. The list
of enemies after this hypernym seems to be a collection of famous “bib-
lical” rivals: 0#/3 '1# #/# -# #, =<+6 and :#< ''=) '#.30 It has
been suggested that the list is especially influenced by Ps 83:7–9;31 1 Chr
18:11;32 Isa 11:1433 or Dan 11.34 However, none of these passages com-
pletely shares the language of the list:35 Ps 83:7–9 has five items in
28 E here means the end of the text, which in this case is corrupted.
29 There have been discussions of whether these three tribes should be understood as
the sons of light or the sons of darkness (see Schultz, Conquering the World, 103).
Schultz thinks that the first-mentioned alternative is the more plausible. See
Schultz’s definition of the sons of Levi, Judah and Benjamin: Conquering the World,
123–24.
30 +3'+ +'%, which occurs at the beginning of the list, should probably be interpreted as
another hypernym rather than an individual rival. It is interpreted in this way by
Michael Wise et al. in their translation of 1QM. See Wise et al., “1Q33 (1QM[ilhamah]
= 1QWar Scroll [Rule]),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (ed. E. Tov; Leiden:
Brill, 2006). Schultz (Conquering the World, 125) also understands it in the same way.
31 Jean Carmignac defines lines 1QM 1:1–2 as an implicit citation (“citation implicite”) of
Ps 83:7–9. See Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la ‘Guerre des
fils de lumière contre des fils de ténèbres’,” in RB 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90 (387).
32 Marvin A. Sweeney, “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the Sons of
Light and the Sons of Darkness,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyp-
tic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005), 262–68 (266–67).
33 Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 45; Schultz, Conquering the
World, 125.
34 Schultz, Conquering the World, 93, 125–26.
35 Cf. the rules of Jeffrey M. Leonard. According to his principles of evaluation of the
evidence for textual links, “shared language is the most important factor in establish-
230 Hanna Vanonen
common with it (-#, #/, 0#/3, =<+6, :#<) and the names of the na-
tions are in the same order as in 1QM 1. However, the wording of the
expressions is not always completely the same (e.g., 0#/3 in Ps 83 and
0#/3 '1 in 1QM 1, :#< in Ps 83 and :#< ''=) in 1QM 1) In addition,
there are other nations mentioned in this same list (e.g., + and 9+/3)
and nothing explains why the author would have omitted these if he
used Ps 83 as a single source text. Isa 11:14 and 1 Chr 18:11 each display
four items similar to 1QM 1 (-#, #/, 0#/3, =<+6) but there are differ-
ences in the order and the wording of the terms (e.g., -'=<+6 in Isa 11
and in 1 Chr 18 and =<+6 in 1QM 1). In Dan 11, there is not such a clear
enemy list but four of the listed items appear in verses 30–41 (-#, #/
and 0#/3 in 11:41 and -'=) in 11:30, although not'# :#< ''=) ) and =':
'3'<:/ who, according to 1QM 1:2, are supporting the enemies of the
list, are also mentioned in Dan 11:32.36
It should be remarked that, for example, the combination Edom,
Moab and Ammon is well-known in the HB in general (see 1 Sam 14:47,
where the Philistines are also mentioned, and 1 Kgs 11:1; Jer 9:26, 25:21,
27:3, 40:41), and the combination Moab, Ammon and Philistia also oc-
curs a couple of times (see Judg 10:6, 2 Sam 8:12). As individual terms
(or a pair of terms) Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia and Assyria are
very common in the HB text. All of them occur over 100 times, Philistia
even over 250 times.37 Thus, plausibly, the author of the list of 1QM 1
has not enumerated the enemies following a special source text, such as
Ps 83:7–9, 1 Chr 18:11 or Isa 11:14. Rather, the author has cast his mind
back to traditional “biblical” enemies. However, Dan 11 probably
played a special role in the choice of the enemies because some clear
lexical links with Dan 11 can also be shown elsewhere in 1QM 1, as well
as similarities in the contents of these texts.38 Thus, the terms used in
ing a textual connection.” Leonard also states that “shared language is more impor-
tant than non-shared language” and according to this principle, there could be a tex-
tual connection between the texts that does not share all the same terms. However,
“shared phrases suggest a stronger connection than do individual shared terms.” See
Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” in JBL 127
no 2 (2008): 241–65 (246).
36 See also Schultz, Conquering the World, 125.
37 The terms for nationality (Edomites, Moabites, etc.) are included in these figures.
38 See, e.g., David Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” in Qumran and
Apocalyptism (vol. 1 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period; trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 140–58, and Schultz, Conquering the World, 91–98. These
links and similarities will be discussed later in this study.
Dan 11 might have made the author of 1QM think of these traditional
“biblical” enemies known from many contexts.39
3.2. Who Will Destroy the Horn of Whom?
After having listed the belligerents, the author turns to describing how
the dominion of the Kittim will cease. Contrary to the preceding lines,
the verbal forms are in line 4 in the singular. The description of the first
battle seems to be over, and now, a new character is introduced. In
lines 4b–5a, a phrase concerning this new character is suggestive of Dan
11:44:
1QM 1:4b–5a:40
[ ]î 0:9 = =':)!+# '/<!+ #6# 0#68! ')+/ -%+!+ !+# !/% 8' #89#
And in his time, he will go out in great wrath to fight against the kings of the
North, and his anger will exterminate and destroy the horn of… […]
Dan 11:44:
=#3/<# %:$// #!+!' 0#68/# 8'# /% !+ '/<!+ -':%!+# -':
And news from the East and from the North will terrify him, and he will go
out with great wrath to exterminate and to dedicate many to the ban.
The author proceeds by describing the day of salvation of God’s

people, which will be the destruction of the enemies. Also here we find
a phrase suggestive of Dan 11:
1QM 1:6a¹:
And Asshur will fall and there will be no help for #+ :$#3 0'# :#< +61#
it/him.
39 In Schultz’s opinion, the enemy list in column 2 completes the list of belligerents in
column 1. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 183–84. Enemies mentioned in the first
column are Israel’s neighbors whereas in the second column, the war proceeds
against the nations of distant lands. However, I do not find this a sufficient explana-
tion for the terminological discrepancies between 1QM 1 and 2.
40 1QM texts are cited according to Jean Duhaime’s edition of 1QM. See Duhaime,
“War Scroll,” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (vol. 2 of The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations; ed. J. H.
Charlesworth; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 80–203.
232 Hanna Vanonen
Dan 11:45:
And he will come to his end, and there will be no #+ :$#3 0'# #89¡3 #
help for him.
Schultz states that these phrases rely on Daniel and that they play an
important role when trying to understand the meaning of the first col-
umn.41 Thus, it is necessary to take a look at the context of Dan 11:44–
45:
Verses 11:44–45 are part of Daniel’s description of the kings of
North and South (Dan 11:2–12:4) – the one that John J. Collins refers to
as “the angelic discourse.”42 As the final book, this passage is usually
dated to the Maccabean period, perhaps a few years after the desecra-
tion of the Temple. The content of the text gives support for this dating.
First, there is an ex eventu prophecy of Hellenistic history down to the
time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (11:2b–40/45). Collins considers it “a
remarkably accurate portrayal,”43 and Alexander A. Di Lella also sees
the historical events behind verses 11:2–45: Verse 2 is about the Persian
age, and in verses 3–4, Alexander the Great burst onto the scene. In
verses 5–20, the vicissitudes of the earlier Seleucids and Ptolemies are
described, and finally, in verses 21–40/45, the reign of Antiochus IV is
discussed.44 Di Lella remarks that this ex eventu prophecy becomes
more and more specific as it comes closer to the time of Antiochus.45
This reflects the time when the prophecy was composed. Another fact
that is important as regards the dating of Daniel is that the death of
Antiochus IV (164 BCE) is the last historical event described in the text
(Dan 11:45).46 However, the events linked to the death of Antiochus do
not fit together with those known from other sources.47 The circums-
tances of his death were not completely known to the author(s) of Dan
11.48 Thus, contrary to the previous verses of chapter 11, verses 40–45
41 Schultz, Conquering the World, 93–96.

42 John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 377. Verse 1 has usually been connected to the end of the previous
chapter. Di Lella also considers verses 11:2–12:4 a unity. He states that verses 11:1
and 12:5–10 were added by the author of chapter 9. See Alexander A. Di Lella and
Louis F. Hartman, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City: Doubleday, 1978), 14.
43 Collins, Daniel, 388.
44 See the more specific explanation in Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 286–
87.
45 Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 286.
46 Collins, Daniel, 389–90; Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303.
47 Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303.
have been considered a prediction intended to be a genuine one.49 After

that, in the first verses of chapter 12, there is a prediction in which the
end-time dimension is emphasized and the heavenly intervention is
highlighted (12:1–3), and finally, verse 12:4 serves as a concluding ad-
dress.50
As regards the verses essential to our discussion, it is clear that the
one who will destroy (Dan 11:44) and the one who will fall without any
help (Dan 11:45) is the same person in Daniel – the king of the North
(Dan 11:40). By this pseudonym, the author of Dan 11:40–45 means
Antiochus IV but he does not know his final fate in detail.
To return to the text of 1QM 1, also there, somebody will, in his
time, go out with great wrath and destroy (the horn of someone). Be-
cause of the long rift in the right edge of the column, it is difficult to
define who or what is to be destroyed and by whom. The problematic
passage is in lines 3b–5a:
-%+!+ !+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)![ ]îî 4 -</ #+3' !/%+/! :%#
79# + -3+ !3#<' =3 ![ ]î 5 0:9 = =':)!+# '/<!+ #6# 0#68! ')+/
+3'+ +:# +#)+ -'/+#3 =+)# #+:# '<1 +#)+ +<//
And after the war, they will go up from there 4 […] the Kittim in(to) Egypt,
and in his time, he will go out in great wrath to fight against the kings of the
North, and his anger will exterminate and destroy the horn 5 […] … a time of
salvation for the people of God and a time of dominion to all the men of his lot
and eternal destruction for all the lot of Belial.
On the right edge of the column, there are weak ink traces visible. Ac-
cordingly, we are able to tell where lines 4 and 5 started. However, no
letters from the beginning of these lines can be defined. In line 4, -''=)!
is the first word clearly legible, and the lacuna before it is about 2.3 cm
wide. In line 5, the first readable word after the rift is =3, and before
that, the end of the preceding word can be distinguished (!). The la-
cuna at the beginning of the line is about 1.8 cm wide.
How should these lacunae be reconstructed? Various alternatives
have been presented. For example, Davies has suggested that the one
who will exterminate the horn is God.51 He completes the text in the
following way:
49 Collins, Daniel, 388; Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303. Di Lella also
briefly presents some alternative theories of the interpretation of the verses in ques-
tion.
50 Collins, Daniel, 390, 399.
51 Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 116.
234 Hanna Vanonen
!+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)![ -3 0#68! ')+/] 4 -</ #+3' !/%+/! :%#
52[0''#] 5 0:9 = =':)!+# '/<!+ #6# 0#68! ')+/ -%+!+
With regard to the number of letters, the first reconstruction is plausib-

le: the expression ')+/ 0#68! later in line 4 occupies 1.5 cm and the word
-3 in line 5 fits into 0.4 cm. The second reconstruction suggested by
Davies is too short for the lacuna, and thus, it cannot be considered as
the final word on the issue.53 In any case, on the basis of this reconstruc-
tion, it cannot be unquestionably concluded that the one who will de-
stroy would specifically be God. In addition, later in the text, we are
told that Asshur will fall and there will be no help for it. Thus, from
Davies’ point of view, the one who will destroy and the one who will
have no help seem to be two separate persons, contrary to Daniel.
However, if we suggest (as Davies seems to do too)54 that the author
was inspired by the delimited passage from Daniel (11:40–45) it would
be more logical that the subject of these two phrases would be the same
also in column 1 – that is to say, the one who will exterminate would be
the king of Asshur. It will become clear that this alternative is the more
plausible one.55
Another alternative is proposed by David Flusser who has recon-
structed the beginning of line 4 in a way that fits together with the idea
of Asshur as a destroyer:56
!+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)! [(+/ #'#] 4 -</ #+3' !/%+/! :%#
-3+ !3#<' =3 !['!# +:<'] 5 0:9 = =':)!+# '/<!+ #6# 0#68! ')+/ -%+!+
57+
52 Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 118. Brackets mine. Instead of the first two
letters in line 4 (Davies’ / and +), Duhaime (“War Scroll”) uses here two mid-line
circlets (= remnant of an undetermined letter) and marks the first bracket just after
them.
53 Davies seems not to reconstruct the beginning of the word that ends with !.
54 Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 116.
55 Yigael Yadin also states that those who will be destroyed are the enemies but he
reconstructs the beginning of line 5: + -3+ !3#<' =3 ! [+3'+ '!#] 0:9. See Yadin, The
Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. and. C. Rabin;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 259. Furthermore, Yadin reads line 4a -':8/
-''=)! ['# +#) +]3 . Letters for the construct form '# in line 3 occupy 0.8 cm and
the word +#) 0.6 cm. The letter 3 is no longer visible in the manuscript. Yadin catego-
rizes it as a “partly visible letter, no restoration possible” (see Yadin’s conventions:
The Scroll of the War, 255). However, the combination of letters ʲ and + needs a space
of about 0.4 cm. These words with the space between words would fit well in the la-
cuna of 2.3 cm. However, the problems are same as those related to Davies’ theory.
56 Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 155.
With regard to the first lacuna, there are no other singular forms of the
word (+/ nor any other verbal forms similar to #'# in column 1.
However, on the basis of the size of the letters in the first column, it can
be estimated that the word (+/ occupies about 0.4 cm and #'# about
0.7 cm. Thus, together (including the spaces between the words) they
do not occupy more than about 1.3 cm.58 Although there remain ques-
tions about the blank space in line 4, Flusser’s reconstruction can still be
supported on the basis of three other reasons: First, in line 4, the suffix-
es and verbs in the masculine singular show that the attacker in ques-
tion is an individual.59 As far as the preposition before the word -':8/
is concerned, besides “in” it can also mean “into” or “against.”60 The
reconstructed verb # does make sense because it is commonly linked
with the subject (+/ and preposition expressing “into”/”against” in
Daniel.61 Thus, with regard to grammar and vocabulary, there is no
problem with this reconstruction. Second, the king of the Kittim is not a
far–fetched idea when looking at 1QM as a whole: it occurs also in
1QM 15, line 2. And finally, third, this reconstruction makes clear the
idea of the author who has been influenced by Dan 11: the one who will
destroy and the one who will fall are the same, (the king of the Kittim
of) Asshur.62 The reconstruction in line 5 clarifies this from before: into
this lacuna, Flusser reconstructs the word Israel.63 According to this
completion, it does not seem plausible that the destroyer would be
57 Flusser does not present his Hebrew transcription in his article “Apocalyptic Ele-
ments in the War Scroll” but Schultz takes it from Flusser’s Hebrew article from 1980
(Conquering the World, 90).
58 For example in line 5, the spaces between the words are usually about 0.1 cm wide.
59 André Dupont-Sommer observed this already in the 1950’s. See Schultz, Conquering
the World, 89.
60 When the preposition follows verbs of motion (e.g. #) its meaning can be “into,”
and with # it can also mean “against.” See Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner, HALOT 1:104.
61 See, e.g., Dan 11:9, 29, 40, 41.
62 Schultz states that although the author of 1QM 1 has used Daniel, this does not mean
that for example the Kittim must denote the same in both texts: According to him,
“there is little doubt that the Kittim are Romans” (Schultz, Conquering the World,
148). In 1QM 1 the king of Kittim refers to the Seleukid monarch (Conquering the
World, 169) – like the attacker (the king of North) in Dan 11. See also H. Eshel, The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 163–79.
63 Note that Flusser does not use the brackets around the word Israel although at least
part of it must be reconstructed. In the study edition of the DSS, nothing is recon-
structed in the lacuna in line 4 but in this second lacuna there are the same words
completed as Flusser has in his proposition (and ' at the beginning of the word +:<'
is marked as a certain letter). See Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar,
ed., 1Q1–4Q273 (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 112.
236 Hanna Vanonen
God. Instead, the idea that the king of the Kittim of Asshur will destroy
Israel is understandable. Some further support for this reconstruction
can perhaps be found from fragment 3 of 4Q496 which possibly is a
parallel to 1QM 1.64 Maurice Baillet reconstructs line 4 of fragment 3:65
!3#<' ]=3 ! '! # +:[<' 0:9 =':)!+#
However, fragment 3 is very small and corrupted and the decisive

word Israel is very weakly visible. On the other hand, the only way to
reconstruct fragment 3 is probably to do it on the basis of 1QM – and
this fact limits the possibilities of using the reconstruction to prove
what we are supposed to read in the lacunae of 1QM. Thus, I would
conclude that Flusser’s reconstructions are more likely than Davies’ but
not because of 4Q496. Instead, they make sense in light of the whole
section.
3.3. Structural Similarities in Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a
So far we have noted that assuming a textual connection between Dan

11:40–45 and 1QM 1:1–7 helps us understand the content of the latter.
However, the affinities with Daniel are not limited only to the first sev-
en lines of column 1. As we noted above, Hughes considers it theoreti-
cally possible that instead of vocabulary, an allusive text can share the
structure or a combination of ideas with an alluded text.66 The similari-
ties between the structure and the combination of ideas in 1QM 1 and
Daniel are the most convincing indication of the textual connection of
these texts.
After the vacat, there do not appear any clear lexical links to Daniel,
but lines 8–9a share similar ideas with Dan 12:1–3. Actually, the ideas
and the story line of the narrative in 1QM lines 1–9a are similar to Dan
11:44–12:3:
64 See Schultz, Conquering the World, 90–91. Besides 4Q496, there is only one manuscript
in Cave 4 War Text material that has been identified as a parallel to 1QM 1: cf. 4Q494
and 1QM 1:E–2, 3. Unfortunately, it does not shed any light on the question under
discussion.
65 Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III. (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon,
1982), 58. Baillet’s own translation into French: […et pour abattre la corne d’Is]raël.
Mais ce (sera) le moment [du salut…]
Daniel 1QM
The description of the destroyer and his acts 11:44 1:4

The end of the destroyer 11:45 1:6
The lack of help for the destroyer 11:45 1:6
The salvation of the people of God 12:1 1:5
The shining of the righteous 12:3 1:8
Even the vacat in 1QM 1 is in the same place as the boundary between
chapters and different genres (prose and poetry) in Daniel. There is
only one small deviation in the sequence of events: in 1QM 1, the salva-
tion of the people of God is revealed before the end of the destroyer
and the lack of help. This alteration probably indicates that the author
of 1QM has modified the Daniel tradition. The idea of this kind of re-
working fits together with the way that the author probably used Da-
niel with the enemy list.67
In addition to structural similarities, Schultz has endorsed the idea
that the proposed use of Daniel also makes sense from another point of
view. As we noted above, it has been suggested that in verse 11:40 the
author of Daniel moves on from ex eventu prophecy to a proper predic-
tion. According to Flusser and Schultz, the author of 1QM 1 realized
that there was an unfulfilled prophecy in Daniel 11:40–45. Because he
thought highly of Daniel, it was clear to him that the predicted clash
between the king of the North and the king of the South must take
place before the final war. Thus, the author of 1QM 1 describes first
how this will happen (1QM 1:1–9a) and then moves on to the other
(perhaps his own) ideas of the final eschatological events.68 This theory
is plausible. However, in view of the rich variety of Danielic material at
Qumran, we cannot be completely sure whether the author of 1QM has
used the specific text of the “biblical” Book of Daniel.
3.4. The Multiplication of the Fall of the Kittim
Line 9 is peculiar: The first part of the line seems to conclude the war
description with a happy ending: “peace and blessing, glory and joy
and length of days for all the sons of light.” In line 9b, however, the
67 It might also be possible that this difference originates from a special Daniel tradi-
tion known by the author. Unfortunately, although manuscripts from Qumran over-
lap something from all the chapters of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel, the end of
chapter 11 has not been preserved among them.
68 Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 144–45; Schultz, Conquering the World, 93–96.
238 Hanna Vanonen
author unexpectedly returns to the day on which the Kittim fall and he
seems to break away from the background of Daniel. In line 10, this
theme is elaborated and the author declares that the day of the destruc-
tion has been appointed (3') at the beginning of time by God. This still
brings Dan 11 to mind because there “the appointed time” (3#/) is an
important expression (Dan 11:27, 29, 35). However, here, the author of
1QM 1 also makes it clear that the belligerents will be both human and
supernatural forces: they will consist of the assembly of gods and the
community of men (line 10). This idea is unknown to Daniel although
the angelic intervention in favor of the people plays an important role
in Dan 12. After this description of the battle of partly supernatural
armies (lines 10–11), the author – again – comes to the conclusion that
the distress will end with eternal redemption and God will be the one
who finally redeems his people (line 12a).
From line 12b onward, the actual war against the Kittim is once
more repeated (lines 12b–E). Because of the fragmentary nature of the
end of the column, it is difficult to get a coherent view of the battle.
However, it can be read that the war will be seven-pronged: the sons of
light will be stronger in three phases and the sons of darkness, for their
part, in another three phases. In the seventh phase, God will intervene
in the battle and the sons of darkness will encounter their destruction.
The divine intervention brings Dan 12 to mind but there the one who
intervenes is not God himself but the angel Michael.69 After the vacat in
line 15, the conclusion seems again to be something concerning the
shining of the holy ones and the annihilation of the sons of darkness
(see line 16).
It is noteworthy that the day of the fall of the Kittim is described
three times in this text: first, in lines 1–9a, then, in lines 9b–12a, and
finally, in lines 12b–E. The first has a clear textual connection with Dan
11–12 (as noted above) but the other two seem to be removed from
Daniel. The multiplicity of descriptions can be explained in at least
three ways: 1) The author tells about the fall of the Kittim many times,
always specifying and adding information from different viewpoints
and at the same time moving beyond the text of Daniel. 2) The author
likes to combine different traditions of an eschatological turn and the
end product seems to be incoherent. 3) Column 1 is internally incohe-
rent and the result of a reworking process. We will now turn to discuss
what kind of support we can find for each of these explanations.70
69 Cf. 1QM 17:6 where the idea of intervention is closer to that in Dan 12.
70 Of course, from the point of view of an ancient reader, the third explanation does not
exclude the first two. In spite of the possibility of redactional activity, an ancient
3.4.1. The Theory of Specifying
The first explanation for the apparent incoherence of 1QM 1 could be

that while the text of Daniel is the basis for the author of the column, he
also wants to go deeper than Daniel into the final eschatological times.
At the end of the column he brings out the idea of the supernatural
enemies and different phases of the war. However, this does not ex-
plain why the author wants to repeat the fall of the Kittim two more
times. Why does he not phrase his ideas within one description? Nor is
it clear why these different viewpoints are important to the author if
they are not based on any known text material. Thus, while the theory
of specifying is not a completely impossible way to explain the incohe-
rence, it is not the best one.
3.4.2. The Theory of Different Traditions
The apparent incoherence of column 1 can also be explained by sug-

gesting that the author of 1QM likes to combine different traditions of
an eschatological turn and the end product seems to be incoherent. For
example, Davies suggests that the first column of 1QM was created as
an introduction to the following material and thus, its author tries to
combine different ideas from the composition of 1QM. Davies argues
for this by noting that from line 11 onwards the text of column 1 offers
a summary of columns 15–19.71 However, when reading the final col-
umns of the scroll, it is perhaps possible to sketch an outline of the
three-pronged war (16:3–9; 16:11–17:15; 17:16–18:6a) but the seven-
pronged war seems to be an independent idea. If the concept of the
seven-pronged war is related to the rest of the 1QM material, it proba-
bly has more to do with columns 5–8 (where the number seven seems
to be in focus) than with the end of the scroll.
Another possibility to approach the question of incoherence from
this point of view is to try to find the background of the different ideas
from the “biblical” texts or from some other text material. For example,
the seven-pronged war is an idea that probably existed before the com-
position of 1QM. Apart from column 1, the seven-pronged war does
not evidently come up anywhere else in 1QM. Seven is certainly an
important number in various columns of the text: this number occurs
19 times in the scroll, in nine different columns but especially often in
reader probably tried to understand the text as it was. These three explanations have
more to do with our questions, i.e., how we try to explain the development of the
text.
71 Davies, 1QM, The War Scroll from Qumran, 113.
240 Hanna Vanonen
columns 5–8 where the equipment, the tasks and the tactics of the war
are described. Seven is also an important number in the HB.72 For ex-
ample, in the story of the conquest of Jericho (Joshua 6) the men of war
are told to go round the city for seven days, one time for six days and
seven times on the seventh day. In addition, seven priests are to carry
seven trumpets and they will blow these trumpets when the attack to
the Jericho begins. This passage has several links to the ideas in 1QM in
general: priests, trumpets, war cry, men of war.73 It should also be taken
into consideration that the number seven also seems to be important in
Daniel’s chapters 4 and 9 (see, e.g., 4:23–25; 9:24–25). Outside the texts
of the HB, the number seven has a special weight in many apocalyptic
texts, for example in Enochic literature and in the Book of Revelation
(see, for example, 1 En 20; Rev 1:4; 4:5). Thus, it is possible that the de-
scription of the seven-pronged war was developed on the basis of some
known tradition where the number seven was important. However, it
is difficult to define this tradition or text material exactly.
To sum up, the theory of different traditions may offer an explana-
tion for the three different descriptions of the fall of the Kittim, but it is
not clear whether the author received the idea of the seven-pronged
war from one specific text or tradition and why he wanted to incorpo-
rate it into the end of column 1. However, column 1 cannot be plausibly
interpreted as a summary of the final columns of 1QM, but rather the
possible traditions originated outside the scroll.
3.4.3. The Theory of Reworking
In his article “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” Jean

Duhaime has presented three principles of redactional reworking
which are of help when studying the possibility of reworking in 1QM 1:
1) The textual indications (e.g., different versions of the same text) have
to be considered. 2) The duplication of the (part of the) sentence can be
a mark of an addition. 3) One should be able to explain why the addi-
tion is located where it is.74
In 1QM 1, the fact that the fall of the Kittim is repeatedly described
could well be a mark of incoherence of the text. In addition, there are
some expressions that could be seen as duplications (which Duhaime
72 According to Eckart Otto, 3< “transcends the merely concrete notion of counting to
include elements of completeness, energy and fullness.” See Otto, “3<,” TDOT 14:
351.
73 See, e.g., 3, 8, 9.
74 Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” in CBQ 49 (1987): 32–
56 (32–33).
discusses in his second principle) and thus as ways to connect the dif-
ferent parts of the text. Both the second and the third description of the
fall of the Kittim begin with a sentence of a similar kind, containing the
words -#', -''=) and :'<%1:75
Lines 9b–10:
+:<' + '16+ 9$% :'<%1# :9 -''=) # +#61 -#'#
And on the day on which the Kittim fall, (there will be) a battle and a hard
carnage before the God of Israel.
Lines 12b–13:
!/%+/ :'<% 1[ ]î[ #]8' -''=) -=/%+/ -#'#
And on the day of their war against the Kittim [they] will g[o…] … carnage
in the war
One possibility is that in this case, with the help of these sentences, an
author might have joined different traditions of the final eschatological
war together. The word “Kittim” in these sentences refers to the begin-
ning of column 1: In that passage (lines 1–9a), the Kittim (or Kittim of
Asshur) were mentioned three times while in the later two passages
Kittim occurs only once in each, viz. in the opening sentences. Thus, it
is not impossible to interpret the Kittim as a way to link the last parts of
the text with the preceding first passage. Another interesting observa-
tion is that in lines 9b–12a where the fall of the Kittim is described for
the second time, the word -#' occurs four times while in the first and
the third descriptions there is only one mention of -#' in each.76 These
occurrences are in lines 9 and 12, i.e., in the joins of the first and the
second description and the second and the third description. Hence, it
is also not impossible to interpret that with the word -#', the separate
passages have been combined.
In addition to the repetitions, there is another issue that can be in-
terpreted as a mark of incoherence in the narrative. In the first descrip-
tion of the fall of the Kittim (in lines 1–9a), we have no definite reason
to interpret the sons of light and the sons of darkness (or Kittim or Beli-
75 Besides these two mentions, :'<%1 occurs only once in 1QM (1:10). This word is rare.
On its Persian origins, see J. P. de Menasce, “Iranien nax²Îr,” in VT 6 (1956): 213–14.
76 Schultz also notes the emphasis on the term ”day” (Schultz, Conquering the World,
97–98), but he does not consider the fact that it occurs mainly in the middle of the
text.
242 Hanna Vanonen
al) as supernatural terms. In contrast, the participation of the superna-

tural forces in the war is clear in the second description (in lines 9b–
12a). In the following third section of the text, it is again not necessary
to consider the belligerents to be supernatural forces although God will
intervene in the situation. Thus, the different descriptions include dif-
ferent ideas of the enemies and the character of the war.
To conclude, there is a possibility of textual reworking in 1QM 1. It
is not impossible to see lines 9b–12a as a result of it. The text of column
1 would make sense without these lines: In lines 1–9a, the fall of the
Kittim is described from the background of Daniel 11–12, and in lines
12b–E this description is elaborated and the idea of the seven-pronged
war is introduced. At some level, this idea could still be inspired by
Daniel because, after all, the number seven plays an important role in
Dan 4 and 9. Instead, the text in lines 9b–12a introduces a new idea of
the supernatural participants in the war. The duplications in the text
give support to the idea of reworking. Of course, many questions still
remain: Who wanted to edit the text and why? How does this theory fit
together with the remaining material of 1QM? Answering these ques-
tions would need a more thorough study of the entire 1QM text. How-
ever, we can note that the possibility of reworking as an explanation for
the apparent incoherence of 1QM 1 may not have been adequately dis-
cussed.
4. Conclusions
The opening column of 1QM contains many “biblical” references. The

main referent is the Book of Daniel or some Danielic tradition close to
it. Daniel’s chapter 11 and the beginning of chapter 12 form a back-
ground to 1QM 1 lines 1–9a. Dan 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a share
some vocabulary, the structure of the texts is similar, and the ideas
presented in these texts resemble each other. The textual connection
between 1QM 1 and Daniel can be described as allusive. The author
was inspired by the Danielic tradition and he probably intended his
readers to notice it. However, the author does not use any quotation
formulas or any other markers of direct quotation. Instead, the idea of
double referent introduced by Julie A. Hughes fits with 1QM 1 lines
4b–5a and 6a¹: phrases in these lines have a non-allusive meaning in
their present context, but at the same time, they are referring to the text
of Daniel.
In addition to Dan 11–12, other referents can be found at the begin-
ning and at the end of the column 1. The enemy list in lines 1–2 proba-
bly does not follow any single source text but rather is a collection of
traditional “biblical” belligerents. Dan 11 shares some vocabulary with
1QM 1 lines 1–2, and it is possible that it played a special role in choos-
ing the enemies. At the end of the column, the description of the seven-
pronged war shares the importance of the number seven with many
“biblical” texts, for instance, Dan 4 and 9.
After line 9a, the author of column 1 seems to break away from the
background of Dan 11–12 and start over his narrative of the day when
the Kittim falls. In column 1, this event is described three times in all (in
1–9a which has a clear textual connection with Dan 11–12, and in 9b–
12a and 12b–E which seem to be removed from Daniel). When trying to
explain this incoherence, the possibility of redactional activity should
be taken into account. Narrating the same event many times, duplica-
tions, and discrepancies hint that some reworking has been done.
However, this conclusion has to be evaluated in the light of all the 1QM
material.
Bibliography
Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân Grotte 4.III. (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Claren-
don, 1982.
Beale, Gregory K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the
Revelation of John. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984.
Bernstein, Moshe. “Interpretation of Scriptures.” Pages 376–83 in The Encyclope-
dia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C.
VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Ȱ. “Scriptures: Quotation and Use.” Pages 839–42 in The Encyclopedia of the
Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Theolog-
ical Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley,
David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Brooke, George. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTS
29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
Carmignac, Jean. “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la ‘Guerre des fils
de lumière contre des fils de ténèbres’.” RB 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90.
Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minne-
apolis: Fortress, 1993.
Ȱ. “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel.” Pages 176–78 in The Encyclopedia of the
244 Hanna Vanonen
Ȱ. “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel.” Pages 1–15 in The Book of Daniel.
Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint.
VTSup 83,1. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Ȱ. “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism.” No
pages. Cited 12 May 2010. Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/
2nd/papers/Collins97.html.
Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History.
BibOr 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977.
Ȱ. “War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965–68 in
The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman
and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Di Lella, Alexander A., and Louis F. Hartman. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1978.
Duhaime, Jean. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49
(1987): 32–56.
Ȱ. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–203 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related
Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts
with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The Princeton
Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1995.
Ȱ. The War Texts: 1QM and related fragments. CQS. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Elledge, C. D. “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Com-
mentary.” RevQ 21/82 (2003): 165–208.
Eshel, Esther. “The Possible Sources of the Book Daniel.” Pages 387–94 in The
Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter
W. Flint. VTSup 83,2. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008.
Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41–60 in Eschatology,
Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Grand Rap-
Flusser, David. “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll.” Pages 140–58 in
Qumran and Apocalyptism. Vol 1 of Judaism in the Second Temple Period.
Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed. 1Q1–4Q27. Vol. 1 of The
Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Holst, Søren. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the
Qumran War Scroll. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25. Uppsala: Uppsala Un-
iversitet, 2008.
Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden:
Brill, 2006.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament. 5 vols. Translated and edited under the supervision of M.
E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.
Leonard, Jeffrey M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test
Case.” JBL 127 no 2 (2008): 241–65.
Menasce, J. P. de. “Iranien nax²Îr.” VT 6 (1956): 213–14.
Saukkonen, Juhana. The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252.
Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005.
Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. STDJ 76.
Sweeney, Marvin A. “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the
Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 262–68 in Form and Intertex-
tuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT 45. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Ulrich, Eugene. “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 573–85 in
The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and
Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83,2. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Wenthe, Dean O. “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM.” DSD 5 (1998):
290–315.
Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg and Edward M. Cook, with M. Gordon.
“1Q33 (1QM[ilhamah] = 1QWar Scroll [Rule])” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Elec-
tronic Library. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.
Translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1962.
Changing Scripture?
Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc*
Hanne von Weissenberg
It is an often repeated phrase that the Qumran “biblical”1 scrolls have

revolutionized our understanding of the Hebrew Bible in the Second
Temple period. For the first time, scholars are able to investigate and
analyse “biblical” manuscripts from a period prior to the stabilization
of the text form of the individual books of the Hebrew Bible and the
closure of the canon. Moreover, these manuscripts attest to the practic-
al, material and technical aspects of scroll production in the late Second
Temple period, and to the scribal practices that were in use in the writ-
ing of the authoritative texts of this period.2 With this material we now
* I would like to thank Ian Werrett, Eibert Tigchelaar, Mika S. Pajunen, Marketta
Liljeström and my colleagues in the Academy of Finland funded research projects
Textual Criticism of the Septuagint and Conflicting Identities: Social and Religious Identi-
ties in Light of the Qumran Material from the Judaean Desert at the Department of Bibli-
cal Studies, University of Helsinki, for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of
this article.
1 While acknowledging the problematic usage of the term “biblical” in a late Second
Temple context, I am using it in this article simply as a reference to copies of those
compositions which in a much later period became a part of the canonical Hebrew
Bible. When the Qumran material is discussed, the need for appropriate terminology
needs to be acknowledged. During the late Second Temple period, no closed, cano-
nized Bible yet existed; instead, compositions were still in the process of moving
from “authoritative” to “biblical” or “canonical.” The quest for terminological clarity
has been addressed by several scholars, most notably Eugene Ulrich. See his article
“The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. Donald and J.
A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 21–35. See also Molly Zahn’s article
(“Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology”) in the present
volume.
2 In the past decade or so, scholars have begun to use the term “authoritative” and
“scriptural” instead of “biblical” or “canonical” for texts gaining special, elevated or
sacred status in the pre-canonical era. Although the usage of these terms is a wel-
come attempt to acknowledge the lack of a fixed canon in this period and to avoid
some of the anachronisms of earlier research, it is not always clear in what sense the
term “authoritative” is used or understood – either by the modern scholar using it or
by the ancients responsible for the production and transmission of the texts under
248 Hanne von Weissenberg
have concrete evidence from the formative period of the Hebrew Bible
of how the scribes actually worked in the transmission and production
of both “biblical” and “non-biblical” manuscripts. The manuscripts
from Qumran and other sites of the Judean Desert have enabled us to
see how texts were copied and transmitted and what kind of practices
were possible. They inform us on how changes, corrections and addi-
tions could be incorporated into and, in some cases, transmitted in later
copies of authoritative and possibly sacred texts. A more comprehen-
sive analysis of these practices will help us to apprehend the scribes’
interventions in a text they had received – and how the scribes con-
ceived the texts they were working with. In Emanuel Tov’s words: “At-
tention to the intricacies of the scribal correction process known from
the Qumran scrolls helps us in better understanding scribal transmis-
sion as well as the rewriting of ancient literature.”3 This, in turn, will
help us to make qualitative distinctions between copies. Being able to
determine the quality of a manuscript gives indicators to evaluate the
significance of the variant readings attested by different manuscripts.
It is the general consensus of the scholarly community that the
books of the Minor Prophets, and possibly the Twelve as a collection,
had gained an elevated status as authoritative literature in the Second
Temple period.4 Apparently, however, this had only limited impact in
investigation. The problem is rarely addressed explicitly. For further reflection see
the introduction and the articles in Mladen Popovi° (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in
Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), especially Eibert Tigchelaar, “Ara-
maic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Prelimi-
nary observations,” 155–71 (160–62). See also Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts”
in the present volume, and Timothy H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Col-
lins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 303–22.
3 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practises and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 222. See also Michael Segal, “Between Bible and
Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretations at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (12). Segal points out the importance of variant readings in
biblical manuscript for a better understanding of the scribal input in the develop-
ment of the texts, in particular the intentional changes, “sometimes for aesthetic rea-
sons, at other times for exegetical purposes, and in some cases tendentious readings.
These “intentional” variants are the most important for a comparison with “rewrit-
ten” biblical texts, because they exemplify the intervention of scribes in the text of
the Bible, even only on a small scale.”
4 The Minor Prophets are preserved at Qumran in 12 manuscripts; the exact number
depends on how the fragments are classified and identified. See Hanne von Weis-
senberg, “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos
as a ‘Case Study’,” The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A Lange, K. De
Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), forthcoming. This figure
can be compared to number (8–9 manuscripts) given in the manuscript list in the in-
Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc 249
how carefully the manuscripts of the Twelve were produced. It is evi-

dent, as Tov has argued, “that the majority of the biblical scrolls were
not singled out for special care in copying.”5
In this article, special attention is paid to the scribal practices of one
“biblical” manuscript, namely 4QXIIc. The purpose of this contribution
is to examine the scribal practices of this manuscript and to illuminate
through a case study of this manuscript and its supralinear scribal cor-
rections possible ways in which (minor) variant readings could come
into existence. In what follows, I will examine all the supralinear cor-
rections in an attempt to profile the scribe of 4QXIIc in order to see
whether the scribal interventions are a result of the scribe’s laxity or his
intentional creativity.
dex volume of the DJD series (Emanuel Tov et al. ed.; The Texts from the Judaean
desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series; DJD 39;
Oxford: Clarendon, 2002). The Cave 4 manuscripts of the Minor Prophets are pub-
lished by Russel Fuller, “The Twelve: 76. 4QXIIa, 77. 4QXIIb, 78. 4QXIIc, 79. 4QXIId,
80. 4QXIIe, 81. 4QXIIf, 82. 4QXIIg,” in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets (ed. E. Ulrich et
al.; DJD 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 221–318. A copy of Amos was discovered from
Cave 5; Józef Milik, “4. Amos,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la fa-
laise, Les groĴes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre (ed. M. Baillet, J. T.
Milik and R. de Vaux; DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 173–74. In addition to the
Qumran scrolls of the Minor Prophets, there are two other important witnesses from
the Dead Sea Region: the Murabba‘at manuscript of the Minor Prophets (MurXII),
and the Greek scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr); Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor
Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr) (The Seiyal collection 1; DJD 8; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1990); Józef Milik, “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes,” in Les grottes de
Murabba‘at (ed. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux; DJD 2.1; Oxford: Clarendon,
1961), 181–205. Beyond the evidence provided by the “biblical” manuscripts, the sta-
tus of the Minor Prophets at Qumran and in late Second Temple Judaism is reflected,
for instance, by the use of these books in the “non-biblical” compositions found in
the Qumran collection. The best know exegetical use of Minor Prophets at Qumran
is attested by the pesharim. In addition to the pesharim, there are several references
to Minor Prophets in other compositions. For example, in the Damascus Document
A, the Minor Prophets is cited seven times: Column 1 contains a reference to Hos
4:16; column 4 to Mic 2:6; column 6 to Mal 1:10; column 7 to Amos 5:26–27 and Amos
9:11 (as a part of the Amos-Numbers midrash); column 16 to Mic 7:2; and column 20
to Nah 1:2. Importantly, the Minor Prophets are referred and alluded to in later
books of the Hebrew Bible, and there is a well known reference to the “bones of the
Twelve Prophets” in the book of Ben Sira 49:10.
5 Tov, Scribal Practices, 253.
1. A Description of Manuscript 4QXIIc
Manuscript 4QXIIc is preserved in 50 fragments, some remaining un-

identified.6 None of them preserve text from more than one column.
The manuscript contains fragmentary evidence from the books of from
Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah (Hos 2:13–15; 3:2–4; 4:1–5:1; 13:3–10;
13:15–14:6; Joel 1:10–2:1; 2:8–23; 4:6–21; Amos 2:11–4:2; 6:13–7:16; Zeph
2:15–3:2).7
Manuscript 4QXIIc has been textually classified using Emanuel
Tov’s categories.8 Various scholars have proposed slightly differing
classifications. In DJD 15, Fuller gives no textual classification for this
manuscript.9 Elsewhere, he states that “[i]t stands relatively close to the
textual tradition represented by the Septuagint.”10 In contrast to Fuller,
both Tov and Florentino García Martínez classify this manuscript as
“non-aligned.”11
George Brooke refrains from putting 4QXIIc into any of Tov’s cate-
gories, although he points to a “striking agreement” with the Septua-
6 Fragments 36–37, 39–43, 45–47 and 50–51 are classified as unidentified in the DJD
edition. Although materially identified as a part of this manuscript, there is too little
writing left to ascertain the content of these fragments. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 249–50
7 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 237–51. Fragment 35 (Mal 3:6–7) belongs to a separate manu-
script; fragment 38 contains text from Ps 38 and belongs to manuscript 4QP sa (4Q83).
8 For these categories and their definition see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 114–17; idem,
“The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert – An Overview and Analysis of he Pub-
lished Texts,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries
(ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002),
152–57. Since then, Tov has nuanced his textual categories and presented his new
understanding in a revised version of an earlier article, “The Biblical Texts from the
Judaean Desert” published in its revised form in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qu-
mran: Collected Essays (J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 2008), 128–54.
9 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 237–51; See also Florentino García Martínez, “The Text of the
XII Prophets,” OTE 17/1 (2004): 103–19 (108, n. 27).
10 Fuller, “Minor Prophets,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopedia, in The Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2000), 554–57 (555). However, in another article Fuller (“Textual Tradi-
tions in the Book of Hosea,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the Inter-
national Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. I–II (ed. J. Trebolle
Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 247–56 (249, 252) states
the following: “I have characterized the text of 4QXIIc elsewhere as an independent
witness which stands close to the LXX.”
11 Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert,” 156; García Martínez, “The Text
of the XII Prophets,” 108.
gint in Hos 13:4 in fragment 8.12 Instead, he uses the manuscript as an

example of the difficulties in textual classification; in Brooke’s words,
“[t]his fragment, therefore, raises the important point about how crite-
ria for aligning fragmentary manuscripts are compiled; beyond the way
in which the importance can be given to shared distinctive errors, there
is still considerable lack of clarity about this.”13 Although potentially
significant, the question of how textual alignment, scribal practices and
the authoritativeness of the text are related is a complicated one, and
requires the analysis of more than one manuscript.14 What is important
for the purposes of this investigation is the fact that manuscript 4QXIIc
does contain quite a number of variant readings of different degrees of
significance.15 In this article, I will only deal with those involving sup-
ralinear corrections, unless a more extensive treatment of a variant
reading is required to understand the supralinear correction.
2. The Scribal Practices Reflected by Manuscript 4QXIIc
The scribe of 4QXIIc had a hand that shows many affinities with
4QDeutc and 4QSama, and it is close to the semiformal.16 This is signifi-
cant in that “[p]recision in copying is“ according to Tov, “usually ac-
companied by elegant external features in the handwriting and the
scroll.”17 The script is dated to approximately 75 BCE.18 The scribe of
4QXIIc prefers plene orthography and the long 19morphological forms
known either as the “Qumran Hebrew” (QH) or Tov’s “Qumran
12 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 241. The fragmentary reading of 4QXIIc, frg. 8 seems to require
a longer reconstruction following the textual tradition of LXX rather than the shorter
version attested by MT.
13 George Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Congress
Volume, Leiden 2004 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–43 (23).
14 For a summary of these features and their correlation, see Appendix 8, ”Scribal
Features of Biblical Manuscripts” in Tov, Scribal Practices, 331–35.
15 Most of these are conveniently listed both in the DJD edition, as well as Eugene
Ulrich’s volume The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants
(VTSup 134; Leiden: Brill, 2010). See also Beate Ego et al. (ed.), Biblia Qumranica 3B:
Minor Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
16 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 238.
17 Tov, Scribal Practices, 25.
19 With Qumran Hebrew (QH) I am referring to those linguistic features common in
some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and deviant from the typical traits of Biblical Hebrew
(BH). One should, of course, avoid too broad generalizations with regard to the lan-
guage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, since the documents are dated between approximate-
scribal practice” (QSP).20 The words +#) and #+ are always written
plene. However, the scribe uses ') instead of ') (except in Amos 7:2 the
longer form is attested). According to Eibert Tigchelaar, in manuscripts
that only have the plene form of #+, the spellings ')/') vary from ma-
nuscript to manuscript, but the short form ') is, in fact, more common,
thus keeping manuscript 4QXIIc inside the parameters of the QSP.21
Furthermore, the tetragrammaton is written in the square script, al-
though in most manuscripts reflecting the Qumran scribal practice
palaeo-Hebrew characters are used for the tetragrammaton. Tigchelaar
points out that while the palaeo-Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used
outside manuscripts displaying the characteristics of the QSP, it is poss-
ible that manuscripts reflecting other characteristics of the QSP could
also use the square script for the tetragrammaton.22
Guide dots (points jalon) to facilitate the drawing of the lines are vis-
ible on the same fragment on the left hand side of the sheet on fragment
18. Although according to Tov these were probably inserted by the
persons who manufactured the scrolls, not the scribes themselves, the
guide dots are more often used in the manuscripts reflecting the QSP.
ly 200 BCE and 70 CE and are not necessarily homogenous from a linguistic stand-
point. The language apparently also shows traces of development when the earlier
and the later documents are compared. It seems to be generally accepted, however,
that the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls represents a later stage of development of
the Hebrew language in comparison to BH. See, for instance, Angel Sáenz-Badillos,
A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press, 1997), 130–46 (133).
20 A complete list of the plene orthographic forms can be found in the DJD edition,
Table 2, pages 238–39. As the words +#) and #+ are always written plene with a waw,
they are not included in the table.
21 According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 269) the usage of ') should be seen as an excep-
tion detected in only a few manuscripts otherwise displaying the Qumran scribal
practice, and a result of “varying personal preferences.” See, however, Eibert Tigche-
laar’s re-evaluation of some of Tov’s criteria, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran
Scribal Practice’” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of
Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 173–207
(192, 207).
22 According to Tov, there is a correspondence between the Qumran scribal practice
and the use of palaeo-Hebrew characters for the tetragrammaton. This manuscript is
one of the exceptions in this regard. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 240–44. According to
Tov, “[i]t is unclear why certain scribes used paleo-Hebrew characters for the Tetra-
grammaton, while others wrote the Tetragrammaton in square characters. See also
Tigchelaar (“Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 200) who points
out that while the palaeo-Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used outside manuscripts
displaying the characteristics of the Qumran scribal practise, it is possible that ma-
nuscripts reflecting other characteristics of the QSP could also use the square script
for the tetragrammaton.
The connection is clear for the “non-biblical” scrolls, but inconclusive

for the “biblical” scrolls.23 In sum, manuscript 4QXIIc reflects several
characteristics of the QSP, although the majority of the “biblical” scrolls
do not display these practices.24
The manuscript also attests to several scribal corrections and inter-
ventions, such as cancellation dots, used by the scribes to indicate a
reading (either a word or a letter) that should be corrected.25 According
to Tov, the cancellation dots are a further characteristic feature of the
QSP.26 An example of this practice is found on fragment 34, line 3 (Zeph
2:15/LXX Zeph 3:1): #]' = 3'1'.27 Both letters are partially erased, and
either the same scribe or a later user added dots both above and below
the word to signify that the word should be deleted. Both the MT and
MurXII read: #' 3'1'. Elsewhere in the manuscript (fragments 18–20, line
4), one entire line has been erased. According to Fuller, there is enough
space here for Joel 4:11, but the traces still visible do not fit. It is unclear
what the scribe originally wrote on this line, and why he did not re-
write the line after erasing it.28 Also the preceding lines of this column
have text critical problems.29 According to Tov, the scribe of manuscript
4QXIIc did not exercise sufficient care in his work; for Tov, the amount
of scribal interventions is a criterion for evaluating the quality of the
scribe’s work and habits.30 And indeed, if manuscript 4QXIIc is com-
pared with the de luxe-editions found at Qumran, there is a clear differ-
ence in the quality of the manuscripts (N.B. no de luxe-scrolls of the
23 Tov, Scribal Practices, 63, 266.

24 Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 203.
25 Tov, Scribal Practices, 191, 197; Fuller,” The Twelve,” 249. For the significance of the
cancellation dots see also Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal
Practice’,” 196–99.
26 Tov, Scribal Practices, 264. For the significance of the cancellation dots see also Tig-
chelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 196–99.
27 The scribe of the manuscript uses cancellation dots, but due to technical reasons, the
word is presented with a strikethrough here.
28 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 245–46.
29 See below the discussion on the supralinear reading : =#[.
30 Tov, Scribal Practices, 252–53. Nevertheless, Tov emphasizes that “[s]ince the scribal
approach to the Torah was not different from the approach to the other books of He-
brew Scripture, it should not be expected that scribes copying any book of Scripture
had a different approach to these books than the nonbiblical literary compositions.”
Tov questions the general assumption of the careful copying of authoritative scrip-
ture, and further reminds us that the specific care demanded in the copying of sa-
cred texts was instituted by rabbinic literature, in a much later period and in “specif-
ic circles only.”
Minor Prophets were found at Qumran, but the MurXII scroll is classi-
fied as a de luxe-edition).31
One particularly interesting feature of this manuscript is the large
number of supralinear corrections. According to Fuller, there are (at
least) twelve supralinear insertions, which are all made by the original
scribe.32 Although the supralinear words and letters provide little writ-
ing for comparison with the linear hand, Fuller’s suggestion seems
probable.33
3. The Supralinear Corrections in Manuscript 4QXIIc
Tov gives three possible reasons for the (supralinear or other) correc-
tions: first, the corrected reading was already in the Vorlage the scribe
was using, but he miswrote it the first time; second the scribe consulted
some other external, written sources, such as other manuscripts than
the Vorlage; third, the corrections were a product of the internal logic of
the first scribe, or a later scribe or a user, without any reference to a
written source. Such corrections could reflect the insights or after-
thoughts of scribes in matters of content, language, or orthography.34
The third category of scribal corrections moves the significance of the
scribal interventions for our understanding of the transmission of the
texts and the role of the scribes to a different level. It would not neces-
sarily indicate a “careless” attitude of a less skilled scribe towards the
copying and producing of a text, it would rather signify the freedom of
the scribe. Furthermore, it means that not all scribal corrections are a
belated attempt to be as faithful as possible to the Vorlage, but they can
also indicate the scribe’s own creative input into the transmission of the
texts. It is often difficult to make a distinction between these possible
explanations, and in order to do so, all supralinear corrections together
31 The de luxe-manuscripts have a specific format, and display a smaller number of

scribal interventions and corrections, suggesting that more care was required in the
production of these scrolls. However, although statistically the format of de luxe-
editions is more often attested in “biblical” texts, it is not exclusively used for them.
According to Tov’s calculations, 22 of the 30 de luxe-manuscripts are classified as
“biblical” texts. According to Tov, the de luxe-editions also more often (but not with-
out important exceptions!) can be textually classified as “proto-masoretic”; Tov,
Scribal Practices, 126–29. See also Table 27, pages 126–27.
33 According to Tov, it is often impossible to determine whether the original scribe or a
later hand, either a later scribe or user of the scroll, made the corrections in the ma-
nuscripts. Tov, Scribal Practises, 222–23.
34 Tov, Scribal Practises, 224.
with other scribal habits a manuscript displays need to be investigated

in order to understand how the scribe of this particular manuscript
operated.35
Supralinear readings indicate corrections to the linear text, being ei-
ther substitutions of the linear reading(s), or additions to the text. Ac-
cording to Tov, more often “the added elements were meant to correct
the linear text by including the addition in the text itself.”36 In manu-
script 4QXIIc, some of the supralinear corrections create variant read-
ings when compared to other textual witnesses; however, these are
usually only minor variants of one to two words. In general, the correc-
tions vary from one letter to the addition of one to two words. In what
follows, I have classified the supralinear corrections into three catego-
ries. Firstly, and for the sake of completeness, I will briefly survey those
cases where it is virtually impossible to know the significance or ratio-
nale behind the supralinear correction, due to the fragmentariness of
the manuscript. Secondly, I will introduce those corrections, which,
according to my analysis of the scribe’s habits, most likely are a result
of the scribe making unintentional mistakes when first producing the
copy and later returning to correct them. These vary from one letter to
the correction of a single word. In these cases, although it is impossible
to exclude the possibility that he consulted another copy of the Minor
Prophets for his corrections, the most likely explanation for the suprali-
near corrections lie in the Vorlage the scribe was using. In light of my
investigation, this appears to be main reason for the supralinear correc-
tions in manuscript 4QXIIc. Although the scribe produced mistakes
while first copying the manuscript, he later attempted to correct his
errors. Some of these corrections, although minor in character, may still
contain important variant readings. The third category consists of cas-
es, where the supralinear correction of at least one word creates a va-
riant reading not attested in other main witnesses. Finally, I will discuss
one particularly interesting case of supralinear correction, Joel 2:19. My
aim is to determine the rationale behind the corrections of the third
category in order to establish whether or not these independent variant
readings are the result of scribal creativity or if they were already
present in the Vorlage.
35 Also, if the scribe was responsible for the copying of more than one manuscript, an
investigation of those texts will increase the information of this scribe’s habits.
36 Tov, Scribal Practises, 226–28. For the supralinear corrections, different techniques
were used. According to Tov, “… a complete word which was to be added between
words a and b, was written exactly above the space preceding b.” A word that was
meant to replace a linear word was written exactly above that word.
3.1. Ambiguous Cases
The first category consists of supralinear cases in fragmentary passages

where not enough text is extant to properly analyse the scribal correc-
tions: )
1) Frg 8, 7 (Hos 13:10) one supralinear kaf: :<[
The supralinear trace Fuller reads as a kaf is in fact merely a dot that
is virtually illegible. If read as a kaf, and if the supralinear letter is an
addition to the relative pronoun, it creates a reading in variance with
the MT :<. However, the kaf could also have belonged to the word
that preceded :<, which is the only preserved word on this line,37 and
even the letters :< are uncertain.
)
2) Frg. 9, 4 (Hos 14:3) one supralinear kaf: ! /)/3
Also in this case, the trace Fuller reads as a supralinear kaf is vir-
tually illegible.38 If read as a kaf, the supralinear addition creates a
strange variant not attested in any other known textual witnesses.
Without the supralinear kaf, the linear form of the word would be the
equivalent of the one found in MT -)/3, although in the longer mor-
phological form of QH. One possibility is to read this as two separate
words: !) /)/3 but apart from creating a syntactically awkward read-
ing, both of these words are in other occurrences written according to
QH (for !#)see Amos 7:4), making this reading an unlikely interpreta-
tion.
:/+
3) Frgs. 18–20, 14 (Joel 4:19) one supralinear word: ] :/[+
The supralinear addition repeats the linear reading, and creates an
independent variant not attested in any other witnesses.39 Of the supra-
linear :/+ bet and dalet are uncertain. Furthermore, the fragment
breaks off immediately after the supralinear word, and therefore, the
supralinear reading might have been longer than just one word (see
PAM 41.790). In sum, little can be said about this supralinear reading.
4) Frgs. 30–33, 7 (Amos 3:1) a supralinear correction: ]<ż[
Since the passage is so fragmentary it is difficult to say what kind of
reading manuscript 4QXIIc contains, but the traces indicate a reading
different than the one known from the MT.
37 See also Fuller, “The Twelve,” 241.

38 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 242. Fuller reports that fragment 9 was first published by M.
Testuz (“Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” Semitica 5 (1955):
37–38), but is now either lost or in private hands. Testuz does not read the suprali-
near letter.
39 See Fuller, “The Twelve,” 246.
3.2. Supralinear Corrections According to the Vorlage

'
1) Frg. 7, 13 (Hos 4:18) one supralinear yod: ! 1[/
'
The scribe has added one supralinear letter yod ! 1[/ The corrected
reading is identical with the MT: !'1/ (pl. with a suffix). Hos 4:18b in
MT reads: !'1/ 0#+9 #! #! “They love lewdness more than their
glory.” (NRSV).40
The word !'1/ is a rare expression and has been interpreted in dif-
ferent ways. According to Holladay !'1/ in Hos 4:18 is a hapax legome-
non, and apparently a combination of an otherwise unattested noun 0/*
“gift” and a suffix;41 this understanding is reflected in the JPS transla-
tion of Hos 4:18: “They ‘love’ beyond measure – Disgrace is the ‘gift’.”
If read 0/, the word !'1/ in Hos 4:18 could be understood as “shield”;
this interpretation is difficult in the context, although, admittedly, the
verse is not easy to interpret. An almost identical and equally rare word
is attested in Lam 3:65 (+¡ =1/ “anguish/sorrow/hardness of heart”).42
LXX reads in Hos 4:18: óºÚÈ¾Ê¸Å ÒÌÀÄĕ¸Å ëÁ ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ÌÇË ¸ĤÌľÅ . The
Greek ëÁ ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ÌÇË could be translated back into Hebrew as 0# + 0/.
This is either what the Greek translator had in his Vorlage, or how he
interpreted the Hebrew word he did not understand. The Greek ex-
pression ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ (as the Greek rendering of 0#) is also used in Zech
11:3; Jer 12:5; Ezek 7:24; 24:21. In the MT of these verses the Hebrew
word 0# refers to “exaltation,” or “glory”; also the Greek word
ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ can be translated as “that which one takes pride in” in Zech
11:3; Jer 12:5; Ezek 7:24; 24:21.43
40 NRSV translates the expression !'1/ in Hos 4:18 with “glory.” The footnote of NRSV
refers to the Greek, as the Hebrew is “uncertain.”
41 William L. Holladay (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Leiden: Brill, 1988), 182.
42 The expression in Lam 3:65 is also classified as a hapax legomenon in the HALOT and
translated as “insolence” (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 182). The
NRSV translates Lam 3:65: “Give them anguish of heart, your curse be on them.”
The Greek translator of Lam 3:65 understands the phrase rather literally, as a refer-
ence to a shield, Hebrew 0/ (of the heart): ÒÈÇ»ļÊ¼ÀË ¸ĤÌÇėË ĨÈ¼É¸ÊÈÀÊÄġÅ Á¸É»ĕ¸Ë ÄĠÏ¿ÇÅ
ÊÇÍ ¸ĤÌÇėË “You shall repay them a shielding of heart, your hardship for them.”
(NETS; see also 2 Sam 22:36 and Ps 17:36/MT 18:36).
43 Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009),
721. However, the translation of Hos 4:18 in the NETS is different, and gives an op-
posite meaning to the word ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸: “They loved dishonour because of its inso-
lence.” According to Muraoka, the Greek expression ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ should be understood
as “insolence” in this verse, although all other attestations (as listed above) have the
opposite meaning. Thus, the meaning of ÎÉÍÚºÄ¸ as “insolence” in Hos 4:18 would
be a unique case.
In sum, the expression !'1/ in Hos 4:18 is a rare and difficult one.
Therefore, it is possible that the supralinear correction in this case is a
result of our scribe’s unfamiliarity with the word. Since the word was
not common vocabulary, also its spelling was not immediately clear. In
this case, the scribe might then have corrected the linear reading with a
supralinear yod according to an existing Vorlage. Another possibility is
that the scribe, for some reason, automatically used a defective spelling
for this word; however, the scribe of this manuscript is virtually consis-
tent in his usage of plene orthography. The simplest explanation, how-
ever, for the variants might just be a morphological difference between
plural and singular forms.44 In this case it needs to be asked why the
scribe would have corrected the singular form into plural, if both forms
are equally understandable, or equally difficult to understand. Even
this suggests that the scribe was comparing his copy to a Vorlage with
the plural form, and therefore added the supralinear yod.
<
2) Frgs. 10–12, 7 (Joel 1:17) one supralinear sin in the word: # 63
This word is part of an independent variant reading in manuscript
<
4QXIIc: =#:#6 # 63. The MT reads =#:6 #<3 “The seed shrivels…”
(NRSV) and LXX ëÊÁĕÉÌ¾Ê¸Å »¸ÄÚÂ¼ÀË “Heifers have jumped...” (NETS).
In order to understand this case of supralinear correction in 4QXIIc, a
longer treatment of the variant readings is necessary. The entire verse
reads as follows in the three witnesses:
In ms 4QXIIc only the first words of Joel 1:17 are preserved:
“The wine presses are moulding/decaying(?)” ]/ =%= =#:#6 #<63
Joel 1:17 in MT:
NRSV: “The seeds shrivel under the clots, -!'=6:/ =%= =#:6 #<3
the storehouses are desolate: ') =#:// #2:!1 =#:8 #/<1
the granaries are ruined 0 <'!
because the grain has failed.”
Joel 1:17 in LXX:
ëÊÁĕÉÌ¾Ê¸Å »¸ÄÚÂ¼ÀË ëÈĖ Ì¸ėË ÎÚÌÅ¸ÀË ¸ĤÌľÅ óÎ¸ÅĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ¿¾Ê¸ÍÉÇĕ

Á¸Ì¼ÊÁÚÎ¾Ê¸Å Â¾ÅÇĕ ĞÌÀ ëÆ¾ÉÚÅ¿¾ ÊėÌÇË
44 I am indebted to Eibert Tigchelaar for reminding me of this possibility.

NETS: “Heifers have jumped up at their mangers;

storehouses have been annihilated:
wine presses have been razed to the ground,
because the grain has dried up.”
The entire verse Joel 1:17 is enigmatic and difficult to understand due
to several hapax legomena. First of all, the root <3 (“to dry up, shrivel
up”) used in MT is a hapax legomenon. A word similar to <3 is attested
in Mishnaic Hebrew: <63. Jastrow gives <63 the meaning “to grow
mouldy, decay,” and the verb is, for instance, used of bread.45 The in-
terchange of bet and pe is possible, and the <63 would also suit the con-
text. The reading in 4QXIIc, after the supralinear scribal correction, is a
qal plural form from the root <63.
For the LXX verb ëÊÁĕÉÌ¾Ê¸Å, the Hebrew Vorlage probably had the
verb <#6 “to spring about,”46 or this is how the LXX translator unders-
tood the Hebrew. This verb is used in MT Jer. 50:11 (LXX Jer 27:11) and
MT Mal 3:20 (LXX Mal 4:2) and it is in both cases rendered with the
Greek ÊÁÀÉÌ¸Ñ (Jer 27:11 ëÊÁÀÉÌÜÌ¼, Mal 4:2 ÊÁÀÉÌûÊ¼Ì¼). This could mean
that the Vorlage of LXX had something similar to 4QXIIc, since ortho-
graphically the word <63 is close to the probable Vorlage of LXX (><#6).
According to Anneli Aejmelaeus, an ayin can sometimes be dropped,
creating a variant reading.47
A root similar to <3, but a more common one, namely <' in hiphil
is used later in Joel 1:17: 0 <'! ') “because the grain has failed.” The
same root <' is in the meaning “to dry up,” is used in Joel 1:12, and it
is rendered in LXX with the Greek verb Æ¾É¸ÀÅÑ. Since the LXX of Joel
1:17 begins with ëÊÁĕÉÌ¾Ê¸Å »¸ÄÚÂ¼ÀË (suggesting the verb <#6 in the
Vorlage) it seems that the LXX translator of Joel 1:17 did not replace
(intentionally or inadvertently) the rare word <3 with a more common
but a similar one (<' by dropping the ayin). This strengthens the con-
clusion that the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX had the root <#6.
Since the root <3 used in MT is a hapax legomenon and can be ex-
plained as a result of the interchange of pe and bet, it is more likely that
the Qumran manuscript, after the supralinear correction, preserves the
original reading, and the interchange from pe to bet created the form
that is in the MT which is otherwise unattested. The linear reading of
45 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the
Midrashic Literature (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1950), 1100.
46 Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 598.
47 This was pointed out by Anneli Aejmelaeus when a draft of this article was pre-
sented at a research seminar of the Department of Biblical Studies, University of
Helsinki.
4QXIIc, #63 “they flew/were flying” does not make sense in the context,
and it must have resulted from the unintentional mistake by the scribe
as he skipped one letter. The scribe added it later, probably according
to his Vorlage.
In order to understand the changes in the verbs also the variant
readings in the subject of this clause need to be discussed. 4QXIIc has
=#:#6 and MT =#:6. Both words are rare and difficult: the MT =#:6,
usually translated as “grain” or “seed” is another hapax legomenon.48 In
Mishnaic Hebrew :6 can mean either “mule” or have a collective
meaning “split and dried pomegranates.”49 The word in 4QXIIc, =#:#6
could be a plural form of !:#6 “winepress” (only the sg. is attested in Is
<
63:3; Hag 2:16), thus the phrase =#:#6 # 63 could be translated “The wine
presses are moulding/decaying(?).”
If we assume, that the Vorlage of the Greek also had both the verb
and the subject attested by 4QXIIc, the Greek can be explained as the
translators attempt to deal with difficult Hebrew. The Greek »ÚÄ¸ÂÀË (pl.
»¸ÄÚÂ¼ÀË) is often used to render the Hebrew word :9 (i.e. in Numbers)
or +3 (i.e. 1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 10:29; 17:16). For =#:6 (sg. !:6) usually ¹ÇıË
is used (i.e. Gen 32:16; 41:2, 3, 18, 19; 1 Sam 6:7, 10). However, in anoth-
er book of the Minor Prophets, namely in Amos 4:1, the MT =#:6 is
translated with »¸ÄÚÂ¼ÀË (see also Num 19:2, 6, 9 for the sg.). This is sug-
gesting that the LXX translator of Joel 1:17 could have had the form
=#:#6 attested by 4QXIIc in his Vorlage, but interpreted as a reference to
“heifer” after interpreting the verb <63 as <#6. On the other hand, it is
possible that the Vorlage of LXX had the original reading: =#:6 #<#6# (?)
that has since been corrupted, and created two difficult variant read-
ings with rare words.
3) Frgs. 10–12, 8 (Joel 1:18) one supralinear word: !/!
The supralinear addition !/! is a word attested both by the MT
and the LXX. In this case it is most likely that the word !/! was also in
the Vorlage the scribe of 4QXIIc was using, although he skipped it the
first time and thus had to make a supralinear correction.50
+
4) Frgs. 14–17, 2 (Joel 2:11) one supralinear lamed: #1+) )'
The linear reading would not make sense in this case, so clearly the
scribe needed to correct it. The MT uses the same root, although in hi-
48 HALOT gives the word the English equivalent “dried figs” (Holladay, A Concise
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 297).
49 Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Mi-
drashic Literature, 1215.
50 According to Fuller, the insertion was made by the original scribe. He also points out
that fragment 10 seems to have broken along the right marginal ruling; Fuller, “The
Twelve,” 243.
phil. The pilpel can have the exactly same meaning as the hiphil, and
both forms are relatively common. Possibly the hiphil and the pilpel
could be used interchangeably.51 Apparently, the scribe skipped one
letter the first time around, and corrected the linear word that was not
understandable, possibly with the help of his Vorlage.

5) Frgs. 14–17, 3 (Joel 2:13) one supralinear bet: !/) +
With the supralinear addition of the letter bet, the form in 4QXIIc is
corrected to the equivalent of the one found in MT (-)+), although in
the longer morphological form of QH. In this case, the scribe apparent-
ly corrected the original reading – where one of the two bets in the
word + had accidentally been omitted – with a supralinear addition
of the missing bet. Both readings are possible, although the form + is
more common than +. In this case, the correction might be either an
attempt to adjust the linear reading to a more common form, or, more
likely, since both forms are equally understandable, the scribe corrected
the reading according to his Vorlage.
As the scribe apparently was keen on correcting some of the mis-
takes he made in the copying process, it is intriguing that on the same
line there is another (linear) variant reading: MS 4QXIIc reads !/])'
“your kid”(?) against the -)' of MT, LXX and Targumim. The read-
ing of 4QXIIc does not suit the context at all (MT reads as follows: #3:9#
-)' +# -)+ “rend your hearts and not your clothing”) and most
likely it is an unintentional scribal mistake of dropping the bet acciden-
tally. In this case, however, the scribe never corrected his linear read-
ing, perhaps never noticing it, although in this case the variant creates
more problems than in the case of + versus -+ on the very same line.
As a summary of these cases it is possible to conclude that with
manuscript 4QXIIc we have a scribe who repeatedly omitted letters and
words and thus created readings that did not always make much sense.
Later, however, he returned to his manuscript copy, and in light of the
examples discussed above, it appears that he corrected his mistakes
with his Vorlage. Even this time, however, he missed at least one of his
earlier mistakes, suggesting that he was either not particularly expe-
rienced or careful.
51 Fuller,”The Twelve,” 244. The targum reads !'=#:#2+ +#)'.

3.3. Supralinear Corrections Creating Independent Variant Readings
1) Frgs. 18–20, 2 (Joel 4:8) a supralinear addition of (at least) two words.
In the DJD edition the first lines of the fragments read:
'1 + !/=:)/ -'+<#:[' ]1

: =#[
!/%+/ #<9 -''#[ =#$ #:9 ]2
Fuller makes a suggestion to reconstruct the supralinear reading ac-

cording to the end of verse 4:8 in his comments: : =#[8 !#!' '). Since
line 1 preserves the end of verse 4:6a, and line 2 words from 4:9, it ap-
pears that verses 4:6b–8 are missing. Fuller proposes that these verses
were accidentally deleted “due to homoitoteleuton from '1+ of 4:6 to '1
of 4:8,” suggesting that this is another case of the scribe of 4QXIIc skip-
ping the text of his Vorlage. The scribe apparently tried to add some of
the missing material between lines 1–2; however, there is not enough
space, to add all that is lacking, if the scribe of 4QXIIc was copying from
a Vorlage similar to the MT. It is possible, however, that the scribe used
also the right margin to include some of the missing material. Impor-
tantly, although Joel 4:7 is only fragmentarily preserved in 4QXIIg and
Joel 4:6–9 in MurXII, it seems clear that we have no other ancient wit-
nesses where the material between Joel 4:6a and 4:9 would be lacking.
If the supralinear reading of 4QXIIc is reflecting Joel 4:8, and if we ac-
cept Fuller’s reconstruction,52 we have an independent variant, not
attested in other textual witnesses: MT and MurXII both read : !#!';
LXX reads ÁįÉÀÇË. In sum, this is a case of the scribe first accidentally
skipping several words, and later, making his correction, potentially
introducing a variant reading into the text. Since the evidence is so
fragmentary, however, we cannot determine the content of the variant
with certainty.
2) Frgs. 18–20, 13 (Joel 4:18) one supralinear word: +#)
The word +#), apparently added by the original scribe, lacks from
MT, LXX and all other main witnesses, and creates another indepen-
dent variant reading in ms 4QXIIc.53 In general, it seems that the word
+#) could easily have been added or deleted by the copying scribes;
however, since in this case the addition is supralinear, it indicates in-
tentionality. A possible reason is that it resulted from the Vorlage of
4QXIIc, which contained a reading that is in variance from the other
52 N.B. =#8 is not used elsewhere in Joel.

53 See Fuller, “The Twelve,” 246.
textual witnesses, although it is impossible to exclude the existence of

another manuscript of Joel (or the Minor Prophets) as a source for this
correction.54 Thus, we would have another case of the scribe skipping a
letter or a word, and then adding it later after consulting his Vorlage. On
the other hand, it is also possible, that this word is a “product of the
internal logic of the first scribe” (c.f. Tov’s third category) without any
reference to a written source. Adding the word +#) could be the scribe’s
intentional way of creating additional emphasis to the phrase: “…and
water the [4QXIIc: entire] Wadi Shittim.”55
In short, these two supralinear corrections of manuscript 4QXIIc
create independent variant readings not attested in other textual wit-
nesses. In the first case, the evidence is too fragmentary to determine
with certainty even the exact content of the supralinear correction. The
scribe had accidentally omitted a considerable amount of text from his
Vorlage, and apparently tried to add some of the material, possibly in-
cluding an independent variant reading, between the lines. Since he
was allowed only limited space for his correction, it is possible that he
was forced to create a new, paraphrastic reading, but we cannot know
this with certainty. The second case, the supralinear word +#), is proba-
bly an intentional addition by the scribe, but since this particular word
can both be added and deleted by the scribes relatively easily, it is diffi-
cult to tell whether our scribe had it in his Vorlage, or whether he came
up with his creative addition only as he was making the other suprali-
near corrections to the manuscript. However, considering that most
cases of the supralinear corrections analysed so far are more reliably
explained as corrections according to the Vorlage, it is more likely that
this is also the case with the word +#) in Joel 4:18. In what follows, I will
investigate a supralinear correction which creates the most interesting
variant reading in manuscript 4QXIIc. In this case, the variant reading is
attested by the Syropalestinian manuscript Syp ¸, but none of the main
textual witnesses. What makes this variant special is the echo of Deute-
ronomic phraseology it conveys.
54 I am indebted to Eibert Tigchelaar for pointing this out. The traces of the supralinear
word are somewhat unclear, and it is possible that the word could be read !).
55 The translation is NRSV modified.
4. A Deuteronomically Inspired Supralinear Correction in

Joel 2:19?
The most intriguing supralinear correction in manuscript 4QXIIc is an

addition of one word: !/=+)# in Joel 2:19. The line (frgs.14–17, 10) as
reconstructed by Fuller in DJD 15 reads:
]!/=+)#[
#3]!/)[= 0=] #+[# #=# !]/=3<#[ 10
The supralinear word !/=+)# cannot be meant to replace the linear

reading, as it is written just before the word !]/=3<#[. This is the first
extant word on the line; however, the right margin is not preserved.56
The right edge of the fragment 14 is broken so evenly that it is likely it
broke along the ruling that was drawn to indicate the right margin.57
It is evident that the scribe wanted to correct the reading !/=3<#
into a two word phrase: !]/=3<# !/=+)# “and you will eat and be
satisfied…” The same phrase is attested only by the Syropalestinian
version (Syp ¸, Joel 2:19): 0#3#2=# 0#+#)=#. At the same time, the word
!/=+)# is lacking from all other textual witnesses (MT, LXX, peshitta,
Vulgata).58 The supralinear scribal correction creates the two word
phrase “and you will eat and be satisfied…” which suits remarkably
well in the context:
NRSV: “In response to his people the Lord said:

I am sending you grain, wine, and oil,
and you will [4QXIIc, Syp ¸: eat and] be satisfied;
and I will no more make you
a mockery among the nations.”
56 The column of ms 4QXIIc under investigation is reconstructed of four separate frag-

ments (frgs. 14–17) and preserves the fragmentary remains of Joel 2:10–23. Only the
top margin is preserved on fragment 14, but there are no other margins left, and
therefore the dimensions of this column cannot be determined with certainty. This
column of manuscript 4QXIIc alone contains three supralinear corrections by the
original scribe. Two of them are merely additions of one letter: Joel 2:11and Joel 2:13.
These readings were discussed above.
57 See also Fuller, “The Twelve,” 244,
58 The book of Joel is fragmentarily preserved in two of the Qumran manuscripts from
Cave 4, namely manuscripts 4QXIIc and 4QXIIg; and furthermore in the Hebrew
scroll of the Minor Prophets from Wadi Mura‘abbat (MurXII). Unfortunately Joel
2:19 is not preserved in the other ancient manuscripts.
The phrase “eat and be satisfied” is a common expression in Deuteron-

omy (Deut 6:11; 8:10, 12; 11:15; 14:29; 26:12; 31:20), and, as Timo Veijola
puts it: “Es handelt sich um ein feststehendes Paar.”59 Outside the book
of Deuteronomy the word pair is attested in Ruth 2:14; Neh 9:25; 2 Chr
31:10; Ps 22:27; 78:29; Prov 13:25; Qoh 5:11, and, importantly in Joel
2:26, although in a slightly modified form:60
NRSV: “You shall eat plenty and be satisfied, (3#<# +#) -=+)#)
and praise the name of the Lord your God,
who has dealt wondrously with you.
And my people shall never again be put to shame.”
Although attested outside Deuteronomy, it is not used as frequently

elsewhere. In Deuteronomy, and in most other occurrences, the phrase
carries a specific theological connotation, and can be used both in the
positive and in the negative sense. The positive usage of the phrase has
a connotation of a promise and in this way it is used in Deut 8:10; 14:29;
26:12. The opposite meaning refers to the eating and being satisfied as
the cause and origins of people’s arrogance after they have received all
the good things promised by YHWH. The good life makes people neg-
lect their loyalty towards God, which results to a failure to attend prop-
erly to their religious duties (Deut 8:12; 11:15; 31:20). The passages in
Deut 6:11 and Deut 11:15 warn of wealth that leads to disobedience and
“rebellious behaviour”; verse Deut 8:12 of pride that leads to ignorance
of the divine will (see also Hos 8:14).61
The word pair is used in the negative sense, “eat and not be satis-
fied” in Lev 26:26; Hos 4:10; Mic 6:14 and Hag 1:6 (see also Ps 59:16). In
these instances the phrase recalls the covenantal curses: the sins of the
people and disobedience towards covenantal obligations leads to a
situation where nothing will give the people proper satisfaction. As a
punishment for the people’s negligence, the land has lost its capacity to
feed and satisfy the needs of the people, both on the concrete and sym-
bolic levels.
Joel 2:26 is unfortunately not attested in manuscript 4QXIIc nor in
other ancient manuscripts. The LXX is probably rendering the Hebrew
59 Timo Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 186, n. 392.
60 Some of these are possibly deuteronomi(sti)cally influenced. See also Lev 25:19; 26:5;
Isa 23:18 where (!)3< is used as a noun together with the verb +).
61 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991).
identical with MT: Á¸Ė ÎÚº¼Ê¿¼ ëÊ¿ĕÇÅÌ¼Ë Á¸Ė ëÄÈÂ¾Ê¿ûÊ¼Ê¿¼. The usage in
Joel 2:26 plays with the positive connotations of the phrase. It refers to
all the new wealth YHWH promises to give to his people once they
repent and return to him (Joel 2:12–14) after the destruction described
in Joel 1–2.62
There are two ways to explain how the longer reading in Joel 2:19
in manuscript 4QXIIc was created. One possibility is that the scribe had
the longer reading !/=3<# !/=+)# in his Vorlage, but he skipped the
first word (“to eat”) when he was copying the manuscript.63 Either by
mistake or because of being familiar also with the shorter reading, cur-
rently attested by the MT, LXX and other witnesses, the scribe of
4QXIIc, while copying the manuscript, left out the word !/=+)#. Later,
when he was making the other (supralinear) corrections, he added the
missing word and corrected the manuscript to match with the reading
in the Vorlage.
Alternatively, the supralinear correction is the scribe’s intentional
and creative addition, and the longer reading never existed in his Vor-
lage. In this case the scribe would have purposefully changed the short-
er and more original linear reading. He was possibly influenced by Joel
2:26, or by the general Deuteronomic flare of the phrase. The book of
Deuteronomy had gained central importance in late Second Temple
Judaism.64 Because of its importance, this popular and authoritative text
influenced the scribes working in this period in many subtle and pro-
found ways.65 The popularity and applicability of Deuteronomic
62 Note the Deuteronomic language also in, for example, Joel 2:12: “return to me with
all your heart.”
63 In this case, the scribe might have compared his copy either with the original Vorlage
he had used, or another manuscript. According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 11), “literary
texts were copied from written Vorlagen.” It has been sometimes suggested that
scribes did not copy from other texts, but the text was read aloud by another person,
and copied simultaneously from dictation. If this was the case, the scribe would have
the possibility of comparing his copy to another manuscript only afterwards, how-
ever, Tov points out that there is no evidence for such practice.
64 The importance of the book Deuteronomy is indicated, for example, by the number
of copies found in the Qumran library; see DJD 39. See also Timothy Lim, “Deute-
ronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in Deuteronomy in the New Tes-
tament (ed. S. Moyise and M. Menken; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 6–26.
65 The significance of Deuteronomy as an independent composition and as part of a
larger and later Deuteronomistic History (DH) in the late Second Temple period has
been pointed out by several scholars. Martin Hengel has referred to Deuterono-
mi(sti)c theology as the “underlying theology” (“Basistheologie”) of the Second Tem-
ple period; see Hengel, “‘Schriftauslegung’ und ‘Schriftwerdung’ in der Zeit des
Zweiten Tempels,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 109;
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999), 46. See also Eugene Ulrich, “Deutero-
phraseology alone would suffice to explain why the scribe of 4QXIIc

added the supralinear word !/=+)#. It is possible that the supralinear
reading merely a witness of the all-encompassing significance of Deute-
ronomic language, so commonly used that even the scribe of 4QXIIc
was inadvertently influenced by it and added the supralinear word
without much afterthought, because is simply “sounded right.”
To reach a conclusion, it is necessary to summarize what have we
learned about the scribe of 4QXIIc so far. In light of my investigation,
most of the supralinear corrections in manuscript 4QXIIc appear to be a
result of the scribe trying to correct his unintentional mistakes in the
linear text and with the help of his Vorlage. Most often, as the scribe
corrected the linear reading he made it understandable, when the linear
text would have created a corrupted reading. However, he also missed
at least one apparent mistake while correcting others. Sometimes it
looks like the supralinear additions create corruptions and variant
readings that cannot be explained (i.e. Joel 4:19, frgs. 18–20, 14), but
these cases are too fragmentary to draw definite conclusions. Therefore,
it seems that most often the supralinear corrections made by the scribe
of manuscript 4QXIIc are his attempts to correct the mistakes in the
linear readings according to his Vorlage. Therefore, the explanation that
would conform to the rest of the evidence collected thus far suggests
that it was not the creativity of the scribe of 4QXIIc that produced the
longer reading in Joel 2:19, but originated from the Vorlage he was us-
ing.66
Is it possible to determine which reading in Joel 2:19 is the more
original one? According to one of the basic rules of textual criticism, the
shorter readings are usually the more original one (lectio brevior), since
texts tend rather to grow than to be shortened.67 The earliest known
nomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga
and 4QJera” and Hanne von Weissenberg, “Deuteronomy at Qumran and in MMT,”
both in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala
and M. Nissinen; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506 and 520–37.
See also the articles in the third section of this present volume.
66 The verb 3< does appear by itself as well, and the exact same form as in Joel 2:19
(without the verb +)) is used in Isa 66:11 and Ezek 39:20. From what can be seen of
how the verb 3< is used in the Hebrew Bible, one can deduce that both the shorter
and the longer reading in Joel 2:19 are understandable and equally idiomatic He-
brew. However, the longer reading has a theological content that is lacking from the
shorter reading. Therefore, by using the longer reading the scribe is making a theo-
logical contribution to the text, although in comparison to longer expositions and ex-
egetical expansions it is a minor one.
67 Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Licence to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual
Criticism,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of Professor
manuscript, 4QXIIc has the longer reading, but all other major wit-
nesses attest to the shorter one, and the weight of the evidence points to
the shorter reading being the more original one. The variant reading
attested by 4QXIIc apparently continued to be copied by some scribes,
since it is attested in Syp ¸, but not by most.
5. Conclusions
In sum, with manuscript 4QXIIc, we are quite clearly dealing with not
the most skilful and diligent scribe, although he probably had good
intentions, as far as that can be determined. The manuscript displays
several indications of less than superior quality, such as the use of se-
miformal hand, and several scribal corrections and interventions. It is
clear that in the late Second Temple period, even in the copying of au-
thoritative and sacred texts, in some cases or for some scribes, inten-
tional scribal interventions of varying degree were permitted.68 Pre-
sumably these interventions were allowed to “improve” the text, but in
some cases the interventions attest to varying skills and experience of
the scribes. Even when copies of texts that had already gained elevated
status (as it was in the case of the Minor Prophets) were produced, the
scribal practices were not necessarily any different when compared to
the production of non-authoritative literary works.69 It is rather an ex-
ception that scribes were required to achieve the high standards at-
tested by the de luxe-copies. Manuscript 4QXIIc is written in the QSP
and has several supralinear corrections; according to Tov these two
features correlate.70 This might be connected to the fact that the Qu-
mran movement could have variant literary editions of authoritative
texts in their possession, with no apparent need to choose between the
two. It was the book that was authoritative, not the exact form of the
Harviainen (ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva; Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki:
Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 1–22 (3–5).
68 As pointed out by Segal (”Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16): “The active
intervention of scribes in these texts [=the Bible] was accepted in this period [=late
Second Temple period] and was not viewed as an affront to the sanctity of the text.
The text was of secondary importance to the composition itself, and thus scribes al-
lowed themselves the freedom to “improve” these works.”
69 Tov, Scribal Practices, 252–53.
70 According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 253) this holds true especially for the non-biblical
texts.
text.71 On the other hand, the apparent wish to remain faithful to the
exact wording of the Vorlage contradicts the general scholarly assump-
tion, according to which the scribes at Qumran were virtually noncha-
lant to the inconsistencies of their authoritative texts.72
In light of manuscript 4QXIIc it is evident that simple carelessness
or lack of precision did exist, but, importantly, it seems as if the scribe
was required to “proofread” his copy, and make corrections according
to his Vorlage. Whether he used other textual sources for his corrections
cannot be determined nor excluded with certainty. Also, it is equally
difficult to establish beyond doubt, whether the scribe of 4QXIIc in
some cases exercised his own creativity, although in light of most su-
pralinear corrections it seems that his supralinear interventions are
rather a result of a comparison of the linear text with the Vorlage and
then improving the linear readings in accordance with the Vorlage. Ap-
parently frequent scribal interventions did not automatically result in
scribal creativity.
In either case, the material evidence of scribal practices, corrections
and interventions from the formative period of the authoritative Jewish
literature has significance on our understanding on how variant read-
ings could be created– whatever the underlying scribal attitude or prac-
tical reasons resulting in varying standards in the copied texts. Even
the smaller, individual scribal additions and corrections in manuscripts
illustrate the minor forms of growth in the texts. They attest to the
scribal contribution to the development of the texts that became the
Hebrew Bible.
Bibliography
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Licence to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Tex-
tual Criticism.” Pages 1–22 in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies
in Honour of Professor Harviainen. Edited by Hannu Juusola, Juha Laulainen
and Heikki Palva. Studia Orientalia 99. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society,
2004.
71 See, for example Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSRL; Lei-
den: Brill, 1999), 32.
72 See, for instance Charlotte Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of
the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popovi°; JSJSup
141; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 193-208 (204–8). Hempel talks about the “relaxed” or “laid
back” attitude towards the plurality of textual traditions.
Brooke, George J. “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
Pages 19–43 in Congress Volume, Leiden 2004. Edited by André Lemaire;
VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Ego, Beate, et al. ed. Biblia Qumranica 3B: Minor Prophets. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Fuller, Russell. “Textual Traditions in the Book of Hosea.” 247–56 in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. I–II. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and
Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Ȱ. “The Twelve: 76. 4QXIIa, 77. 4QXIIb, 78. 4QXIIc, 79. 4QXIId, 80. 4QXIIe, 81.
4QXIIf, 82. 4QXIIg.” Pages 221–318 in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets.
Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Ȱ. “Minor Prophets.” Pages 554–57 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
García Martínez, Florentino. “The Text of the XII Prophets.” OTE 17/1 (2004):
103–19.
Hempel, Charlotte. ”Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradi-
tion.” Pages 193–208 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by
Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Hengel, Martin. Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II. WUNT 109.
Holladay, William L. ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testa-
ment. Leiden: Brill, 1988.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi
and the Midrashic Literature. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1950.
Lim, Timothy H. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages
303–22 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H.
Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Ȱ. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 6–26 in
Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J.
Menken. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
Milik, Józef. “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes.” Pages 181–205 in Les grottes de
Murabba‘at. Edited by Pierre Benoit, Józef T. Milik and Roland de Vaux.
DJD 2.1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters,
2009.
Popovi°, Mladen ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 141.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. El-
wolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Segal, Michael. ”Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” Pages 10–28 in Biblical
Interpretations at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2005.
Testuz, Michel. “Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer Morte.”
Semitica 5 (1955): 37–38.
Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’.” Pages

173–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of
Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller. STDJ
Ȱ. “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scrip-
tures: Preliminary observations.” Pages 155–71 in Authoritative Scriptures in
Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Tov, Emanuel. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr).
The Seiyal collection 1. DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd revised edition. Minneapolis: For-
tress Press, 2001.
Ȱ. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert – An Overview and Analysis of
he Published Texts.” Pages 152–57 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and
the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel
Tov. London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002. Revised edition
published as “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 128–54 in
Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays. J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck]: Tübingen, 2008.
Ȱ. Scribal Practises and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert. STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Ȱ et al. ed. The Texts from the Judaean desert: Indices and an Introduction to the
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSRL; Leiden:
Brill, 1999–
Ȱ. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate.
Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A Sanders. Peabody: Hen-
drickson, 2002.
Ȱ. “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Bibli-
cal Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera.” Pages 489–506 in Houses Full of All Good
Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edites by Juha Pakkala and Martti
Nissinen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Ȱ. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134.
Veijola, Timo. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17. ATD 8,1.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Weissenberg, Hanne von. “Deuteronomy at Qumran and in MMT.” Pages 520–
37 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited
by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 2008.
Ȱ. “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos
as a ‘Case Study’.” In The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by
Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.
4. Deuteronomism in Later Literature
The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic
Heritage: A Critical Approach
Pancratius C. Beentjes
Introduction
Among scholars there is an ongoing and vivid debate of what precisely

should be a definition or characterization of Deuteronomistic activity in
later biblical books and to what extent Deuteronomistic influence can
unambiguously be established.1 As far as the Book of Ben Sira is con-
cerned, on the one hand we come across scholars who without any
hesitation assume that the Jerusalem sage has directly been influenced
by the Deuteronomistic corpus.2 On the other hand, however, we meet
scholars like James Crenshaw who are rather reticent about such influ-
ence.3
1 A publication worth reading is Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-

Deuteronomism (ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTS 268; Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1999).
2 “Sirach reads the Torah through the lens of Deuteronomy”; John J. Collins, Jewish
Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 225.
“His [viz. Ben Sira’s] pervading theological outlook is Deuteronomic”; Patrick W.
Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doub-
leday, 1987), 75. “… in the Second Temple Period Deuteronomism represented
something like a basic theology of the age and, therefore, was everywhere availa-
ble”; Timo Veijola, “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s
Teaching of the Law,” in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Pers-
pective – Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Lanham: Univer-
sity Press of America, 2006), 429–48 (quotation 448). In fact, Veijola’s article is almost
exclusively on Ben Sira’s use of Deuteronomy, not so much on Deuteronomistic herit-
age. A corrected version of this article was published under the same title in: Timo
Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament
(FRLANT 224; ed. W. Dietrich and M. Marttila; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 2008), 144–64. Therefore, references will be given to the latter publication.
The quotation above is from Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung, 163.
3 James L. Crenshaw, “The Deuteronomists and the Writings,” in Those Elusive Deute-
ronomists, 145–58; James L. Crenshaw, “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Peda-
gogy,” in Wisdom, You are my Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy (ed. M. L.
276 Pancratius C. Beentjes
An investigation into the question to what extent Ben Sira in his

book of wisdom has been affected by Deuteronomistic heritage, in my
view has to be carried out in a twofold way.
The first approach would be devoting oneself to the question
whether in the Book of Ben Sira there are to be found collocations, ob-
vious allusions, or even explicit references and quotations similar to
that of the Deuteronomistic corpus of literature.4 This phase of research
– which mainly will relate to the lexical level – has recently been con-
ducted with respect of two important literary documents that are part
of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, viz. Deuteronomy and the
Book of Kings.5 Therefore, to get an impression of how Ben Sira did
directly quote or use literal parallels from the Deuteronomistic History,
I think for the moment this kind of approach has sufficiently been cov-
ered, since it relates to two foundational documents of the Deuterono-
mistic heritage.
The second approach to study Deuteronomistic heritage in the
Book of Ben Sira is to make an inventory of major Deuteronomistic
themes and to investigate in what way and to what extent they show up
in Ben Sira’s work which originates from the second century BCE. This
kind of analysis is much less unambiguous.6 As a line of action, with all
due reserve we adopted some categories as compiled by Moshe Wein-
feld in his well known monograph.7 In order not to complicate matters,
Barré; CBQMS 29; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997),
172–87.
4 “… the most persuasive case for Deuteronomistic influence can be made on linguis-
tic grounds”; Robert R. Wilson, “Who was the Deuteronomist? (Who was not the
Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism,” in Those Elusive Deuteronom-
ists, 67–82 (78).
5 Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Houses Full of All
Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Publi-
cations of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2008), 413–33; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “In Search of Parallels: Ben Sira and the Book of
Kings,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lel-
la o.f.m. (ed. J. Corley, J. E. Jensen and V. Skemp; CBQMS 38; Washington: The Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 2005), 118–31. Veijola, “Law and Wisdom,” in Leben
nach der Weisung, 144–64.
6 “Less reliable than linguistic criteria, although more often employed in scholarly
analysis, is the identification of Deuteronomistic influence through the use of charac-
teristic ideas, concepts or themes”; Wilson, “Who was the Deuteronomist?,” 79. See
also the skepticism in this realm by Crenshaw, “The Deuteronomists and the Writ-
ings,” 146–48.
7 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972),
320–65. Of course, we will leave aside those categories of his extensive catalogue that
are not applicable to the Book of Ben Sira, such as e.g.: “Clichés characteristic of the
The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage 277
only the Hebrew text of the Book of Ben Sira will be the object of follow-
ing survey.8
Fear of the Lord – Keeping the Commandment(s)
The most conspicuous Deuteronomistic stream of which Ben Sira can

be considered a direct heir is undisputedly found in those passages of
his book that have to do with “observance of the Law and loyalty to the
covenant.”9 Timo Veijola has published a proper and detailed overview
of this specific theological aspect in the Book of Ben Sira, which relieves
me from the task to repeat it here.10
One of Ben Sira’s most specific expressions relating to the obser-
vance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant is his concept of “Fear of
YHWH,” which undoubtedly is one of the major trajectories within his
work.11 Recently, Greg Schmidt Goering has fine-tuned the concept of
“fear of YHWH” in the Book of Ben Sira. He brings to the fore that Ben
Sira most often associates fear of the Lord with special wisdom to
which Israel alone is privy. According to him, Ben Sira distinguishes
between human beings on the basis of two unequal apportionments of
divine wisdom. The first one involves a general outpouring of wisdom
upon all creation, including all humanity (Sir 1:9b–10a). The second
consists in a special distribution of an extra measure of wisdom to a
select group of humanity (Sir 1:10b).12 The outpouring of wisdom upon
all creation constitutes a “general wisdom” that is available to all hu-
manity through the natural world. Analogously, the lavish distribution
of wisdom upon the elect constitutes a “special wisdom” for Israel
alone. Therefore, fear of YHWH refers to “Jewish” piety that is incum-
Jeremian Sermons” (VIIIB), “The influence of Deuteronomy upon genuine Jeremiah”

(XI), “Prototypes in Hosea, Deut. 32, and Psalm 78” (XIII).
8 Pancratius C. Beentjes, A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of
all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997 / Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2006).
9 This is the title of the fifth – and most extensive – category as listed by Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 332–41.
10 Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung, 144–64.
11 A seminal monograph still is the one by Josef Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach.
Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Rome:
Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967).
12 Greg Schmidt Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel
(JSJSup 139; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 21–24.
bent upon Israel alone and is most of the time used by Ben Sira in the
sense of serving YHWH.
To my view, in about the same sphere the collocation !#8/ :/< (“to
keep the commandment”) is used by the Jerusalem sage. Each occur-
rence of it, however, has been given a special touch, which goes beyond
just copying Deuteronomistic phraseology. In Sir 15:15, for instance,
keeping God’s commandment is presented as a matter of free choice:
“If you choose, you can keep the commandment,

and it is insight to do His will.”
This is quite a different line of approach compared to phrases like, e.g.,

“to observe the commandment … that Moses commanded you” (Josh
22:5), or “keep my commandments … in accordance with all the law
that I commanded your ancestors …” (1 Kgs 17:13), passages in which
the verb ʤʥʶ (“to order,” “to command”) has been used.
Although there are serious text critical questions relating to Sir
32:23–33:2, the passage nevertheless has a beautiful mixture of Deute-
ronomistic ((<61 :/#<, !#8/ :/#<, ''' %&#) and non-deuteronomistic
wordings (!:#= :8#1)13, which are interspersed with Ben Sira’s own vo-
cabulary: 3: 36' +, (“no evil will meet”), !:#= 1#< (“to hate the
Law”).14 The parallel use of these collocations within four lines offers a
fine theological summary of how Ben Sira in a creative way integrated
important streams of Israel’s tradition with his own creativity.
Sir 37:12–15 functions as the climax of a circumstantial pericope (Sir
36:23–37:15) dealing with “different types of persons one may choose to
associate with.”15 Here too, we find the Deuteronomistic collocation
!#8/ :/#< (37:12b [MSS B and D]).16 In the preceding colon (37:12a), the
rare collocation '/= %6/ shows up, most probably being adopted
from Prov 28:14: “Happy the one who continually fears (the Lord).” So
doing, Ben Sira again has combined typical Deuteronomistic vocabu-
lary with a collocation rooted in wisdom literature.
13 Ps 105:45; 119:34; Prov 28:7.

14 For an evaluation of this passage in three different MSS (B., E., F.), see Pancratius C.
Beentjes, “The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16–33[36].2,” in Sirach, Scrolls & Sages
(ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 53–67.
15 Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 430.
16 The marginal reading of MS B, however, has #'=#8/, which does not affect the mean-
ing of the phrase. For extensive text critical remarks relating to Sir 37:12, see Skehan
and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 429–30.
In Sir 44:20a we come upon the collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ :/<: “It was he
who kept the commandment[s] of the Most High.”17 Relating to Abra-
ham, Ben Sira seems to emphasize that keeping the commandment[s]
should be considered a condition to enter the covenant. In this context,
the reader should come to a decision how to vocalize =#8/.
(a) If =#8/ is interpreted as a plural (mitswçt), it must refer to the
Mosaic Law, as is suggested by the Greek (ÅĠÄÇË) and Latin (lex) of Sir
44:20a.18 In that case, Ben Sira would in fact present an anachronistic
concept in which Abraham is portrayed as the perfect, Torah-devoted
Jew, an image that to a high degree has affected Jewish thought in later
time. At first it has been propagated by Jewish authors like Philo and
Josephus; later on it achieved great popularity in Rabbinic literature.19
(b) If the noun =#8/, however, should be considered a singular
(mitswat), then it has a direct bearing on God’s explicit demand at Ab-
raham’s address to carry on the circumcision (Gen 17:9–14). And since
Ben Sira will explicitly mention this in the next verse line – “In his flesh
he cut for Him an ordinance” (44:20c) – this latter option is to be pre-
ferred here.20
Therefore, the content of Sir 44:20 has to be linked to the Priestly
layer of Genesis 17 which, by the way, is quite dominant in the Abra-
ham passage of Ben Sira.21
The collocations (+ +) (“with all your heart”) and (#/ +)
(“with all your strength”) in Sir 7:29–31 at a first glance seem to be a
17 The collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ is a hapax legomenon. Most probably, the Hebrew text of Sir
24:23, which has not be found till now, would have read otherwise; see Moses Zevi
Segal, Sefer Ben Sira haššal¾m (Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958), 146.
18 As to Ben Sira’s concept of the Law and the Commandments, see Eckard J. Schnabel,
Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of
Law, Wisdom, and Ethics (WUNT 2. Reihe 16; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), 29–42.
19 See, e.g. Midrash Rabbah Genesis I, 42–44 (ed. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon;
London: Soncino Press, 1961); B. T. Baba Mezi’a 87a (ed. Isidore Epstein, London:
Soncino Press, 1961); Tannaitische Midrashim Sifre Numeri II and XII (ed. Karl Georg
Kuhn; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959).
20 Several scholars have rendered =#8/ as a singular. The translation “das Gebot” is
found in: Norbert Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25; Münster:
Aschendorf, 1913), 380; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und
Deutsch (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 79; A. Eberharter, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasti-
cus (HSAT VI/5, Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925), 145. A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer,
The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXiX.15 to XLIX.11) (Oxford: Cla-
rendon, 1897), 23 has “the commandment”; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben
Sira, 503 has “the … command.”
21 This will be confirmed later on in this article relating to “covenant” in Sir 44:19–23.
direct adoption from or reproduction of Deut 6:5.22 At a closer look,

however, the passage in Sir 7:29–31 should be characterized as typical
to Ben Sira’s theology. In addition to “fear God” (7:29a) and “love your
Maker” (7:30a), Ben Sira in a marked way appeals to his audience “to
revere His priests” (7:29b), “not to neglect His ministers” (7:30b), “to
respect the priest” (7:31a), and “to give their portion as you have been
commanded” (7:31b).23
Disloyalty to YHWH
A phrase that without a shadow of doubt can be coined as Deuterono-

mistic vocabulary is +:<' = '&%! :<# &% :< -3:', to be found
almost twenty times in the Book of Kings. In the Book of Ben Sira this
phrase is found in the passage dealing with King Jeroboam.24 The He-
brew text of Sir 47:23f (MS B) reads &1 0 -3:' :)$ #+ '!' + -9 :< 3
[+:<' =][ '&%!# &]% :<: “Till there appeared – let him not be re-
membered – Jeroboam son of Nebat who sinned and led Israel into
sin.”
However, in the decade(s) following the discovery of the Hebrew
Ben Sira manuscripts it was disputed from which biblical passage Sir
47:23f originated. This discussion is a good example of how subjective-
ly scholars estimate the evidence.25
The most appropriate parallel to Sir 47:23f undoubtedly is 1 Kgs
14:16 (“the sins of Jeroboam, who sinned and who led Israel to sin”),
not only because it is the first time that the phrase under discussion is
found in the Hebrew Bible, but also since this instance provides the
22 Since Sir 7:27–28 are missing in Hebrew (Ms A), many scholars have retranslated
these verses from the Greek and the Syriac into Hebrew. As a consequence, howev-
er, the opening words of 7:29 ((+ +)) are often changed into (<61 +), since (+ +)
is needed as the opening of 7:27 in order to comply with the tripartite collocation of
Deut 6:5.
23 The most detailed analysis of Sir 7:29–31 up to now still is the one by Haspecker,
Gottesfurcht, 295–312. Curiously, Goering, nowhere in his analysis of Sir 7:27–31 has
a reference to this analysis by Haspecker; see Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed, 149–
52; 167–70.
24 I differ from A. A. Di Lella, who contends that the name of Rehoboam (-3%:) in the
Hebrew of Sir 47:23d disturbs the pun of this bicolon, which opens with %: (47:23c)
and concludes with -3 (47:23d); see Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 530.
In my view, we absolutely need this name here, as has been shown by Tadeusz Pe-
nar, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr 28; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 82.
25 For details, see Beentjes, “In Search of Parallels,” 125.
most direct and natural context to which all subsequent biblical passag-
es hark back, and since the phrase has exactly the same wording as in
the (partly reconstructed) Ben Sira text. Of course, one may wonder
whether the phrase meanwhile had not become so common that for the
author and/or his audience it had no Deuteronomistic connotations any
longer.
An interesting case is found in Sir 3:16b according to Hebrew Ms A,
the text of which runs as #/ ++9/ #:# 2'3)/# (“and as one who vexes
his Creator is he that curses his mother”). No doubt, ''' = 2'3)!/23)
(“to vex YHWH”) is a Deuteronomistic collocation that is found quite
often.26 Therefore, one could immediately be inclined to assume that
Ben Sira deliberately used this Deuteronomistic collocation.
However, another manuscript of the Book of Ben Sira (Ms C) has
handed down a Hebrew text that is quite different: #/ #%2' + -3#$#
(“cursed by God is he that pulls away his mother”).27 According to
Hans-Peter Rüger, this reading should be considered the older one,
mainly because it is supported by the Greek (and Latin) translations.28
As an additional argument one could adduce that in the Hebrew Bible
the participle :# is relatively rare, since nearly always participles of
:8', !<3, and +36 are used.29 Therefore we can not exclude the possibili-
ty that it was a copyist who has introduced the Deuteronomistic formu-
la into the text of Sir 3:16 (Ms A).
Foreign Gods – Idolatry
It is quite astonishing that the very first category mentioned by Wein-

feld in Appendix A – “The struggle against idolatry”30 – a category
which is a matter of major importance for Deuteronomistic theology,
immediately gives rise to some skepticism about some other Deutero-
nomistic influences in the Book of Ben Sira. The collocation -':% -'!+
(“foreign gods”) does not occur in the Book of Ben Sira at all; neither
26 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 340, nr. 6.

27 -3#$# should be read as -#3$#. Cf. Prov 22:14.
28 Hans-Peter Rüger, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach (BZAW 112; Berlin: de
Gruyter 1970), 29.
29 In the Book of Ben Sira, the participle ‘çs¾h is found nine times (Sir 7:30; 10:12;
35(32):13; 36(33):13; 38:15; 43:5, 11; 46:13; 47:8), the participle yçts¾r once (Sir 51:12
[4]).
30 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320–23 (with no less than 18
different collocations).
does the noun +3 show up as designation of the deity Baal.31 And,
moreover, the characteristic Deuteronomistic verb =%< (“to worship”)
is found nowhere in the Book of Ben Sira too.
Relating to “idols” and “idolatry,” at first thought one would ex-
pect the Book of Ben Sira to have a number of serious references to
Deuteronomistic passages. It therefore is quite surprising that it has
only one reference, viz. in Sir 30:19ab, the Hebrew text of which runs as:
0#%':' +# 0#+)' + :< -'#! '++ (“the idols of the nations that can nei-
ther eat nor smell”). The relative clause of it is almost completely iden-
tical to Deut 4:28b – 0%':' +# 0#+)' + ... :< 0# 73... -'!+ – “gods .. of
wood and stone … that can neither eat nor smell.”32
The function of Sir 30:19ab within the context, however, is rather
obscure. These two cola introduce a theme (“idols”) that is completely
different from the rest of the passage which is devoted to the blessings
of good health (Sir 30:14–20). Without any difficulty one can skip v.
19ab and move on from v. 18 to v. 19c–d, which in view of the peri-
cope’s theme would be the most obvious sequence indeed.
The statement about the idols of the nations that can neither eat nor
smell should be considered an associative gloss which is caused by v. 18:
“Delicacies set before a closed mouth/are like food offerings placed
before an idol.”33 It was this combination of “idol” and “food” which
brought the association with Deut 4:28 to a copyist’s mind.34
The Central Place of Worship
A rather intriguing methodological question is met with, when we take

a closer look at Weinfeld’s second category: “Centralization of worship
– The chosen place and the Name theology.”35 There are three Hebrew
passages in the Book of Ben Sira that deserve particular notice and will
therefore be discussed now.
31 On the other hand, the noun +3 meaning “husband” or “man,” is found no less than
18 times in the Book of Ben Sira. See Dominique Barthélemy and Otto Rickenbacher,
Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 59–
60.
32 Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 382 (Index of Subjects, s.v. “idols”).
33 V. 14 suggests that the inability to eat is caused by illness.
34 This associative gloss must have been added to the Hebrew text at a relatively early
moment of its textual transmission, since the gloss is found both in the Greek, the
Syriac, and the Old Latin translations.
35 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 324–26.
(a) Sir 36:13–14
('=< 0#)/ -+<#:' / (<9 =':9 +3 -%:

+)'! = (#)/# / (#! = 0#'8 +/
“Have mercy upon your holy city/ Jerusalem, the place of your dwel-
ling. Fill Zion with your majesty/ and your temple with your glory.”
Specifically the collocation (=< 0#)/ appears to be Deuteronomistic

heritage, since the same collocation is found in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs
8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chr 6:30, 33, 39) which is considered to be a classic exam-
ple of the Deuteronomistic School.36 In the Ben Sira passage, this collo-
cation has a bearing on Jerusalem as the place of Gods dwelling, which
in the next line is specified as the temple. In the Deuteronomistic con-
text, however, the collocation (=< 0#)/ is consistently followed by the
apposition -'/< (“in heaven”)37, so that it substantially differs from the
meaning in the Ben Sira text. Ben Sira’s usage of the collocation 0#)/
('=< has more likeness to the collocation (=<+ 0#)/ as it occurs in
Exod 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:13; 2 Chr 6:2, passages that explicitly refer to the
Jerusalem temple.
(b) Sir 47:13cd
In Ben Sira’s portrayal of King Solomon (Sir 47:12–22), one should pay
attention to the fact that the author hardly mentions King Solomon’s
merits relating to cult and worship. This is quite different from I Kings
and II Chronicles in which many chapters have been devoted to the
building, the fitting up and the consecration of the Temple (1 Kgs
5:15–8:66; 2 Chr 1:18–7:10). Ben Sira, however, restricts himself to the
rather superficial information:
<9/ 3+ 8'# #/<+ =' 0')! :<

“He [viz. Solomon] prepared a house for His name and established a
sanctuary for ever” (Sir 47:13cd).
At first glance, the phrase #/<+ =' 0')! :< in Sir 47:13cd suggests that
Ben Sira has just adopted Deuteronomistic phraseology. However, the
36 “Daß der Hauptteil dieses Kapitel (von 14 an) deuteronomistisch ist, wird im Hin-
blick auf Sprache un Inhalt allgemein angenommen ...”; Martin Noth, Könige 1 (BK
IX/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 173; see also Eep Talstra, Solomon’s
Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61 (CBET 3; Kam-
pen: Kok, 1993).
37 In Ps 33:14 too.
standard formula used by Deuteronomistic authors always has the verb

!1: !#!' -<+ =' !1 (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 18, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20,
44, 48).38 Nowhere in Deuteronomistic literature, however, the colloca-
tion 0#) hiph + -< is found as is the case in Sir 47:13c.
That Ben Sira deliberately belittles King Solomon’s contribution to
the Jerusalem cult and worship – and therefore very consciously de-
viates from traditional and familiar image – to the best of my belief is
closely connected with his theological view on Israel’s history, as set
forth in the Praise of the Famous (Sir 44–50). Ben Sira convincingly and
repeatedly brings to the fore that not the kings are the factor guaranteeing
the continuity in Israel’s history, but the High Priest Aaron and his
seed with the cult entrusted to them.39 It looks very likely that Ben Sira
did play down the Deuteronomistic theme of the “Name theology,”
which is so strongly linked with David and Solomon, by altering the
usual verb.
(c) Sir 51:12m
“Give thanks to Him who has cho- #2% -+#3+ ')/0#'8 :%#+ ##!
sen Zion, for His mercy endures for
ever.”
Although the authenticity of Sir 51:12a-o is disputed, it is also impossi-

ble to adduce solid evidence that this psalm-like text is to be considered
a later addition to the Book of Ben Sira.40 At first sight, the collocation
0#'8 :%# in Sir 51:12m looks Deuteronomistic. For in the Book of Deu-
teronomy, there are quite a few instances referring to “the site that
YHWH will choose” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20
etc.). And in Deuteronomistic literature, many times we come across
the phrase “the city /Jerusalem that I /You have chosen” (1 Kgs 8:16, 44,
48; 11:13, 32, 36 etc.).41
At a closer look, however, this point of view has to be abandoned,
since in “the Dtr History, the name 0#'8 is avoided, and is used only in
nontheological contexts in 2 S. 5:7 and 1 K. 8:1 and only in citations in 2
38 See also 1 Chr 22:7, 8, 10, 19; 28:3; 2 Chr 1:18; 2:3; 6:7, 8, 9, 10, 34, 38. Cf. 2 Chr 20:8.
39 See Beentjes, “The Countries Marvelled at You,” 135–44.
40 An overview of this problem is offered by Alexander Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of
Sirach. A Text-critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1; The Ha-
gue: Mouton & Co., 1966), 101–5
41 For a complete overview, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
324–25.
K. 19:21, 31.”42 This result can be adduced as further circumstantial

evidence strengthening the case of Sir 36:13–14 discussed above.
Exodus, Covenant, and Election
In Weinfeld’s Appendix, an extensive list of Deuteronomic phraseology

has been included relating to ‘Exodus, Covenant, and Election’.43 As far
as the topic of “covenant” is concerned, it is beyond any doubt that Ben
Sira has adopted the conception of P. This has convincingly been dem-
onstrated by Johannes Marböck who having commented upon seven (!)
covenant passages in the Praise of the Famous (Sir 44–50) reaches at the
conclusion that Ben Sira has consistently followed the priestly layer of
the Pentateuch.44
Earlier in this contribution, the collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ :/< in Sir 44:20
was discussed. In the pericope devoted to the Patriarchs (Sir 44:19–23)
there are found a number of biblical references that without a shadow
of doubt have been adopted from Genesis 17, but have undergone a
creative reworking by Ben Sira. It is quite remarkable, for instance, that
it is Abraham who “entered into covenant with Him” (44:20b), whereas
in Gen 17:1 it is “God Almighty” ('< +) who makes the covenant. This
is the more striking, since in Sir 44:22c – where the notion =': (‘cove-
nant‘) is used again – it is God who gives a covenant to Isaac.45
The plausibility that it is Abraham indeed who entered into cove-
nant with God (44:20b) is to a high degree confirmed by the use of the
collocation =': # elsewhere. Both in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 34:10; 2
42 Eckart Otto, 0#'8 / sщiyyçn, TDOT 12: 357.

44 “Sirach legt fast durchwegs … das Modell des Verheißungsbundes … nach der
Priesterschrift zugrunde.” … “Es fehlt jedenfalls in H der ausdrückliche (deutero-
nomistische) Zusammenhang von Tora und berît.” Johannes Marböck, “Die ‘Ge-
schichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch,” in Der neue Bund im
Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (ed. E. Zenger; QD 146; Frei-
burg: Herder, 1993), 177–97; repr. in Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches
Sirach (ed. I. Fischer; HBS 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 177–97. Quotation on 193.
45 The noun =': (“covenant”) is found seven times in the first section of the Laus
Patrum. The contention “berit occurs 11 times in chapters 44–49” by Roderick A. F.
MacKenzie, “Ben Sira as Historian,” in Trinification of the World (ed. T. A. Dunne and
J. M. Laporte; Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978), 312–27 (317) is incorrect. In the
Greek translation of Sir 44–49, the noun »À¸¿ûÁ¾ is found there twelve times (44:11, 18,
20, 20, 22; 45:5, 7, 15, 17, 24, 25; 47:11), but does repeatedly not render =': (44:18,
20b; 45:5, 7, 17; 47:11).
Chr 15:14)46 and in the Qumran documents (CD 15:5; 1QS 2:12, 26; 5:8,
20; 10:10)47 it is almost exclusively used for human beings.48
In fact, the history of Israel as presented in the first part of the Laus
Patrum (Sir 44:1–45:25d) is described as a continuous chain of cove-
nants, which will culminate in the High Priestly covenant with Aaron
(45:15) and Phinehas (45:24), and is repeated at the end of the panegyric
on the High Priest Simeon (Sir 50:24). God’s covenant with David is
transferred to the High Priestly dynasty.49
As a matter of fact, just one item relating to Weinfeld’s list should
be specifically discussed now with respect of the Book of Ben Sira. It
relates to the expression +3 -< :9 (“to call his name upon”), which is
found in Deut 28:10. Although the same phrase is met in Sir 47:18b
relating to King Solomon (+:<' +3 :91!) and, moreover, is preceded
by the rare expression )! -<! only to be found in Deut 28:58, Ben
Sira cannot be considered here to be a heir of Deuteronomi(st)ic theolo-
gy. 50
The collocation -< :9 which occurs in Sir 36:12 [17] too, to a high
extent reminds of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:1, 7; 44:5; 48:1). That an Isaian
provenance is more obvious than a Deuteronomistic one indeed can be
substantiated by the observation that the prayer in Sir 36:1–22 is full of
references and/or parallels to Second Isaiah.51
Quite recently, the topic of “election” in the Book of Ben Sira has re-
ceived a new impulse in the substantial monograph by Greg Schmidt
Goering.52 This highly theological theme is not studied by him on a
lexical level, but as an important theological way of thought that per-
46 Only in Ezek 16:8 the collocation has a bearing on God.

47 The reference to 1QS 10:4 as found in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew II, 266 should
be corrected into: 1QS 10:10.
48 For a more detailed analysis, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The
Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (ed. G. G. Xe-
ravits and J. Zsengeller; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 209–28.
49 This view has been expounded in: Pancratius C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach
(Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag 1981), 188–92; see also Beentjes, “The Countries Marvelled
at You” in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the
Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven: Peeters 2006), 135–44. See also Marböck, “Die Ge-
schichte Israels,” 177–97.
50 Since the collocation )! -<! is also found in 1QS 6:27 and has been used in a
different context there (“Whoever enunciates the Name honoured above all”), it is
likely that Ben Sira did not refer to a specific text.
51 See Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah. Some
Methodological Observations,” in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir
14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven: Peeters 2006), 201–6.
52 Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed.
meates the entire Book of Ben Sira. Since his approach creates a new
paradigm relating to quite a number of theologically important peri-
copes, there is no room here even to present the main results of it.
The Monotheistic Creed
Sir 36:5 may serve as an interesting case. The Hebrew text of it runs
(=+#$ -'!+ 0' ') (“for there is none other God but you”). If this colon
would be studied in splendid isolation, one might think it has directly
been adopted from Deuteronomistic texts like 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:22.
However, the composition of the prayer in Sir 36:1–22 adduces evi-
dence for quite another possibility too. For the phrase (=+#$ -'!+ 0' ')
(36:5) which reflects Israel’s monotheistic creed gets a special echo in
36:10, when the words '=+#$ 0' are put on the lips of Moab’s leaders.
This collocation immediately recalls Isa 45:21 which is the only text
within the entire Old Testament where it is found.53
One should notice the creative way in which Ben Sira has given a
very special function to these words within the structure and theology
of chapter 36.54 In Isa 45:21 the words '=+#$ 0' are an utterance of
YHWH, who wants to be recognised as the unique Saviour. In Sir 36:10,
however, these words are attributed to Moab’s leaders. Consequently,
exactly the same expression is given a totally opposite meaning, to re-
late a blasphemous atmosphere. By doing so, Ben Sira has created a
strong opposition between the allegation of Moab’s leaders (36:10) and
Israel’s confession (36:5; cf. 36:17), which hopefully frames God’s inter-
vention against the nations.55
53 See also Isa 45:5.

54 Weinfeld “wonders if some of the central religious ideas of Second Isaiah … may not
have their roots in deuteronomic theology”; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deutero-
nomic School, 42 n. 2.
55 As Sir 36:5 and 36:17d are related to each other as confession and expectation, it is
essential to retain the reading wyd‘w (Sir 36:17c), and not to follow the marginal va-
riant wyr’w. In this way the opposition between yd‘ and ’mr (“to think,” cf. THAT, I:
213) is as sharp as possible.
The Davidic Dynasty – What Heritage?
In the Hebrew text of Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers (Sir 44–50), David is
mentioned nine times56, of which his portrayal in 47:1–11 has to be stu-
died in the first place.57 On the face of it, it looks as if the opening line
with its reference to Nathan serves as the start to an historical overview
of David’s life: “After him [Samuel] came Nathan to stand before Da-
vid” (47:1). This general communication, however, remains the only
reference to Nathan’s activities. No word, for instance, about his pro-
phetic role to announce God’s promise with respect of the Davidic dy-
nasty, as handed down in 2 Samuel 7 or 1 Chronicles 17.58
As far as other references to biblical narratives about David are
concerned, a kind of a pattern can be observed. At first glance, the
reader gets the impression Ben Sira is just referring to traditional bibli-
cal stories, such as the episode in which David reports to Saul how he
as a shepherd rescued the lamb from a lion’s or a bear’s mouth (1 Sam
17:34–36/Sir 47:3), his fight against Goliath and the Philistines (1 Sam
17:45–50/Sir 47:4–5, 7), as well as the reference to the women’s song as
David was coming home (1 Sam 18:6–7/Sir 47:6ab).
Ben Sira has used all this material, however, to create a particular
view of David. The real intention of Ben Sira’s portrayal of David is
already revealed in the second line, where David’s election is worded
in cultic terminology: “As fat is lifted up from the holy offering, so was
David from Israel” (47:2). Furthermore it appears that all David’s heroic
deeds are interpreted by Ben Sira as God’s reaction to David’s religious
attitude: “He called upon God Most High” (Sir 47:5a), so that it in fact
are God’s actions: “God Most High, who gave strength to his right arm”
(Sir 47:5b). At this point in the portrayal of David, Ben Sira has used the
collocation “to call upon God Most High,” which appears to be a the-
matic thread throughout the Laus Patrum, since it shows up at specific
points: Sir 46:5a (Joshua), Sir 46:16a (Samuel), Sir 48:20a (Hezekiah and
the people of Judah).
When David in Ben Sira’s presentation has actually come into pow-
er, the King is extensively – and exclusively – portrayed as the organis-
er of the Jerusalem cult. No less than ten successive cola (47:8–10) have
been devoted to depict David as someone who is constantly giving
56 Sir 45:25; 47:1, 2, 8, 22; 48:15, 22; 49:4; 51:12h.

57 See Johannes Marböck, “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1–11),” TPQ 130
(1982), 43–49; Geza Xeravits, “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira,” Hen 23
(2001): 27–38.
58 This point will later be discussed in full.
thanks to God, arranging musical instruments, composing songs, or-

dering feasts, and so on. In his enthusiasm, Ben Sira even imported an
anachronistic element. The wording “before the altar” (47:9a) makes it
as if in David’s days the Temple already existed!
In a remarkably general way, the text in 47:11a (#3<6 :'3! ''' [-#])
mentions David’s sin, which undoubtedly refers to his affair with Bath-
sheba (2 Sam 11–12). The phrasing of this colon has a direct bearing on
2 Sam 12:13, which in the biblical context has explicitly been put in the
mouth of Nathan. In the Ben Sira text, however, there is no role for Na-
than as a mediator. The same phrase is now directly from the author to
his readers: “JHWH even forgave him his sin,” just as the remainder of
this verse: “and He raised his horn forever; He gave him the right of
kingship and established his throne over Jerusalem.”59
I am convinced that these concluding cola are an important key to
Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. First, we have to ascertain that, in spite
of 47:11a which undoubtedly quotes Nathan’s words, again the prophet
plays no role at all. Second, it is a matter of highest concern that no-
where in 47:11b–d Ben Sira is referring to an everlasting Davidic dynas-
ty. Several scholars have correctly laid emphasis on the fact that 0:9
(“horn”) in 47:11b has to be linked with the same noun in 47:5b (“to
restore the horn of his people”), in 47:7c (“and broke their horn till this
day”), and 49:5 (“He [God] gave their horn to others”).60 Since 0:9
(“horn”) refers to three different groups or persons, it is impossible that
in Sir 47:11b it should exclusively relate to the Davidic dynasty. The
words of this colon have only a bearing on David himself. Third, the
fact that Sir 47:11c has the noun 9%, and not the noun =': (“covenant”)
– which in the Hymn to the Fathers, however, is used several times61 – is
a clear indication that Ben Sira is deliberately putting his thoughts into
words here.
What is this all about? It is my firm conviction that in his portrayal
of David, Ben Sira with all means tries to be consistent with a point of
view he advanced earlier on in his work. It is time to take a close look
at Sir 45:25.
59 “La prophétie de Nathan, fondement scripturaire du messianisme royal, ne fait

l’object d’aucune allusion dans quelques versets consacrés à David par l’Eloge des
Pères des chapitres 44–49.” André Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” Sem 16
(1966) 43–68 (54).
60 See e.g. Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” 55; Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic
Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL
7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 145; Xeravits, “The Figure of David,” 32–34.
61 Sir 44:12, 17, 20, 22; 45:15, 24, 25; 50:24. Later on we will argue that the last two oc-
currences appear to be essential.
David Versus Aaron: A Famous Crux Interpretum
What strikes one most here, in the first place, is that Ben Sira for the
first time abandons the strictly chronological order which is so charac-
teristic of his Hymn to the Fathers. Subsequent to the passage on Phine-
has (45:23–24), which has been composed with the help of a conscious
selection of cola from Num 25:11–13, in 45:25 suddenly the theme of
God’s covenant with David is introduced.62 This untimely mention of
David – to whom in 47:1–11 a lengthy passage will be devoted – must
therefore play a special role within the context of the Phinehas peri-
cope.
Investigating the function of Sir 45:25, specifically the third colon
(##) '16+ < =+%1), substantial text critical problems are met. Earlier, I
advanced the view that the Hebrew text of 45:25c should be taken more
seriously than had been done before.63 Up to 1981, no single scholar or
commentator had ever seen an opportunity to present a useful interpre-
tation of this colon. Therefore, all kinds of textual emendations had
been suggested in order to get out of this problem.64
Since 45:25d has been devoted to Aaron, and the opening cola of
45:25ab have a bearing on David, and moreover, as 45:25c and 25d
present a parallel structure, for all commentators it is definite that
45:25c can only relate to David. There must be, it is reputed, a compari-
son between the succession in the lineage of David (45:25c) and the one
in the lineage of Aaron (45:25d). According to this argumentation, both
the Greek and the Syriac translation confirm the aspect of comparison.
On the basis of these two versions, several proposals have been
submitted to reconstruct the “original” Hebrew text of 45:25c. Since
both the Greek and the Syriac have the notion “alone,” it has often been
suggested to alter ##) (“his glory”) into #+ (“alone”), and to substi-
tute #1+ (“his son”) for #16+ (“in his presence”).65 It is quite remarkable,
62 For the composition of Sir 45:23–24 see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture
in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach/Ecclesiasticus),” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament.
The History of its Interpretation, I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300).
Part 2. The Middle Ages (ed. M. Saebø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000),
591–605 (601–2).
63 Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 175–200.
64 An overview is offered by Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” 59–64; John Priest,
“Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 5 (1964): 111–18.
65 See e.g. Pomykala, “The Davidic Dynasty,” 132–44; Michael Pietsch, »Dieser ist der
Sproß Davids ...«. Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestament-
lichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum (WMANT 100; Neu-
kirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 164–75.
however, that a fundamental question has consistently been left un-

answered, viz. in what way that “original” Hebrew text of 45:25c could
have corrupted into the extant text of Ms. B.
I therefore recommended an investigation into the question wheth-
er the factual discovered Hebrew text could have a meaningful sense
within the Phinehas passage, since it was my firm conviction it has in-
deed. To that end, one should get rid of the idea that 45:25a is the start
of a new sentence. In stead of it, it deserves serious consideration to
look upon 45:25a as the immediate continuation of 45:24cd. So doing, the
translation of 45:24c–25b runs as:
“So that he [Phinehas] and his descendants

should possess the high priesthood forever,
but even His covenant with David,
the son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah.”
This translation, which had not even been considered in scholarly dis-
cussion, in any case can explain why the Hebrew of 45:25ab has no
verb; these cola must be seen as a subordinate clause to 45:24c. The Greek
text, too, appears to contain a similar lead. Nearly all Greek manu-
scripts render an accusative (»À¸¿ûÁ¾Å), which by all commentators is
immediately amended into a nominative.66 The mere fact, however, that
the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts in Sir 45:25a render an accu-
sative is significant and should be given due protection. It could be an
indication that Ben Sira’s grandson, as the translator of the Greek text,
indeed made »À¸¿ûÁ¾Å depend on a preceding verb, or that he thought
this was the case, even though the Greek syntax of 45:24 does not suit
for that kind of dependence.
Associating God’s covenant with David (45:25a), however, with the
institution of High Priesthood – viz. by the way of Phinehas –, at the
same time the purport of 45:25c would be perfectly clear, to the effect
that in the Hebrew text no emendations whatsoever are needed. There
is no need any more to emend < (“fire”) into <' (“man”)67, because
the former notion no longer has a bearing on David, but on Phinehas
and his descendants, and can therefore be interpreted within the area of
the high priestly institution, viz. the cult:
66 See Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Grae-
cum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 340.
67 Nowhere in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira < is found being a defective rea-
ding for <'.
“the inheritance of fire before his glory,

the inheritance of Aaron for all his descendants.”
So doing, the mention of Aaron in the passage on Phinehas does not

only refer to the preceding lengthy pericope on Aaron (45:6–22), but
also ties in with the notion of “inheritance” that in 45:22 constitutes the
culmination of the passage on Aaron.
With respect of the notion “fire” one should keep in mind that this
notion plays an important role in Num 17:1–15. Since in Sir 45:6–22,
however, there is no reference at all to this biblical passage, maybe Ben
Sira in his portrayal of Aaron has deliberately omitted an allusion to
that text, as he wanted to link the notion of “fire” with the special
theme he created for 45:25.
It appears that Ben Sira in 45:25 relates God’s covenant with David
to the High Priesthood of Aaron, Phinehas and his descendants: “that
what was once promised to the Davidic dynasty has now been “inhe-
rited” by the Aaronite high–priesthood.”68 Against this background, it
becomes evident why Ben Sira in 45:12 has portrayed Aaron, the High
Priest, with ‘a diadem of precious gold’ ($6 =:&3), a collocation that is
unique and is only found in Ps 21:4, where it has a bearing on a king!
The same is true for Sir 45:15, where the collocation “as permanent
as the heavens” (-'/< '/') is said of Aaron and his descendants. This,
too, is a unique biblical wording, which is found in Ps 89:30 in respect
of King David. Now we do understand why Ben Sira in his portrayal of
David does not refer to Nathan neither to God’s promise about the
Davidic dynasty. In Ben Sira’s view, God’s covenant with David has
been transferred to the Aaronite dynasty. James Martin, who was the
first scholar to agree with my interpretation of Sir 45:25, has an interest-
ing remark: “… corresponding to what we might call the “Davidising”
of the Aaronite (high)priesthood, there is in the David pericope what
we might call the “Aaronising” of David, with … an emphasis being
laid on his role in the establishing of the cult …”69
Finally, Sir 50:24 should be adduced as solid evidence that “the of-
fice of king, secured by the Davidic covenant, is for Ben Sira now lo-
cated in the office of high priest.”70 It is not by chance, of course, that in
68 James D. Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. A Messianic Perspective” in Crises
and Perspectives (ed. A. S. van der Woude; OTS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 107–23 (115).
69 Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn,” 115.
70 Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty, 143.
50:24d the collocation “as permanent as the heavens”)71 is used in re-

spect of Phinehas, as in 45:15 it was with regard to Aaron.72 Again, we
find a clue that this collocation, which originally referred to the Davidic
dynasty (Ps 89:30), has been transferred to the High priestly dynasty.
In Sir 50:24b we come across the collocation 2%1'6 =': (“the cove-
nant with Phinehas”), a word combination that is unknown to the He-
brew Bible and is therefore to be considered a creation by Ben Sira him-
self. By means of this unique collocation, the author in a twofold way
directly points back to 45:24. First, the mention of the name of Phinehas
in 50:24 immediately refers to the crucial passage on this High Priest in
Chapter 45. Second, it is quite remarkable that precisely in Sir 50:24 we
find the one and only reference to the notion =': (“covenant”) after its
remarkable occurrence in Sir 45:24–25.
Conclusion
The following conclusions may be made: Firstly, Ben Sira’s dependence

on Deuteronomistic literature and theology should not be overstated.
Secondly, even on the lexical level, similarities between the Book of Ben
Sira and Deuteronomistic phraseology should be studied with caution,
since as a wisdom teacher Ben Sira most of the time exerted all his crea-
tivity to compose new theological avenues on the basis of existing tra-
ditions. Thirdly, in Second Temple Judaism, Deuteronomistic literature
represented something like a basic theology (Veijola). Therefore, one
can not exclude the possibility that Deuteronomistic phraseology in the
Book of Ben Sira is to be considered rather a kind of common religious
language of that age than a deliberate adoption and/or reworking of
(parts of) Deuteronomistic heritage. Fourthly, in Ben Sira’s teaching of
the Torah the influence of Deuteronomistic heritage seems to be most
closely related.
71 In their analysis of Sir 45:15, a lot of commentators do not even mention that the
collocation -'/< '/') is found in Sir 50:24.
72 It is not impossible that the phrasing #3:$+# #+ =:)' + :< (Sir 50:24c) has been in-
spired by 1 Kgs 9:5b (+:<' 2) +3/ <' (+ =:)' +). If so, again a “royal text” has
been transformed into a “high priestly” one!
Bibliography
Barthélemy, Dominique and Otto Rickenbacher. Konkordanz zum hebräischen
Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag 1981.
Ȱ. “The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16–33[36].2.” Pages 53–67 in Sirach,
Scrolls & Sages. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Ȱ. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach / Ecclesiasticus.”
Pages 591–605 in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of its Interpreta-
tion, I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2. The Middle
Ages. Edited by M. Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000.
Ȱ. “In Search of Parallels: Ben Sira and the Book of Kings.” Pages 118–31 in
Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella
o.f.m. Edited by J. Corley, J. E. Jensen and V. Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington:
The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005.
Ȱ. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel
Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997 / Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2006.
Ȱ. “Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah. Some Methodological
Observations.” Pages 201–6 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom”
(Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters
2006.
Ȱ. “The Countries Marvelled at You.” Pages 135–44 in “Happy the One who
Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira.
CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters 2006.
Ȱ. “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology.” Pages 209–
28 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengel-
ler. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Ȱ. “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 413–33 in Houses Full of All
Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by J. Pakkala and M.
Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Göttingen:
Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Theolog-
ical Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley,
David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Ra-
pids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Caquot, André. “Ben Sira et le Messianisme.” Sem 16 (1966): 43–68.
Clines, David J. A. ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press. 1993–.
Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. The Old Testament Library;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Cowley, A. E. and A. Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus
(XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11). Oxford: Clarendon, 1897.
Crenshaw, James L. “The Primacy of Listening in ben Sira’s Pedagogy.” Pages
172–87 in Wisdom, You are my Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy
Edited by M. L. Barré. CBQMS 29. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Asso-

ciation of America, 1997.
Ȱ. “The Deuteronomists and the Writings.” Pages 145–58 in Those Elusive Deu-
teronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism Edited by L. S. Schearing
and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Di Lella, Alexander. The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-critical and Historical
Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966.
Eberharter, A. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. HSAT VI/5. Bonn: Peter
Hanstein, 1925.
Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. 18 vols. London: Soncino Press,
1961.
Freedman, H. and Maurice Simon, ed. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. London: Sonci-
no Press, 1961.
Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel.
JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre lite-
rarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut,
1967.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, ed. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten
Testament. 2 vols. München: Kaiser, 1971–1976.
Kuhn, Karl Georg, ed. Der tannaitische Midrasch: Sifre zu Numeri. Rabbinische
Texte 2. Reihe: Tannaitische Midraschim 3. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1959.
MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. “Ben Sira as Historian.” Pages 312–27 in Trinification
of the World. Edited by T. A. Dunne and J. M. Laporte. Toronto: Regis Col-
lege Press, 1978.
Marböck, Johannes. “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1–11).” TPQ 130
(1982): 43–49.
Ȱ. “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch.”
Pages 177–97 in Der neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der bei-
den Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Repr.
pages 177–97 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach
Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995.
Martin, James D. “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. A Messianic Perspective.”
Pages 107–23 in Crises and Perspectives. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OTS
Noth, Martin. Könige 1. BK IX/1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.
Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira.
BibOr 28. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975.
Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster:
Aschendorf, 1913.
Pietsch, Michael. »Dieser ist der Sproß Davids ...«. Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte
der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neu-
testamentlichen Schrifttum. WMANT 100. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener,
2003.
Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History
and Significance for Messianism. SBLEJL 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Priest, John. “Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature.” RevQ 5
(1964): 111–18.
Rüger, Hans-Peter. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. BZAW 112. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1970.
Schearing L. S. and S. L. McKenzie, ed. Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Pheno-
menon of Pan-Deuteronomism. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999.
Schnabel, Eckard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical
Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT, 2. Reihe 16. Tü-
bingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985.
Segal, Moses Zevi. Sefer Ben Sira haššal¾m. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958.
Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39.
New York: Doubleday, 1987.
Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Rei-
mer, 1906.
Talstra, Eep. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I
Kings 8,14–61. CBET 3. Kampen: Kok, 1993.
Veijola, Timo. “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s
Teaching of the Law.” Pages 429–48 in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christiani-
ty in Contemporary Perspective – Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman. Edited
by J. Neusner et al. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006.
Ȱ. Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament.
FRLANT 224. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. Marttila. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon,
1972.
Wilson, Robert R. “Who was the Deuteronomist? (Who was not the Deutero-
nomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism.” Pages 67–82 in Those Elusive
Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by L. S.
Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999.
Xeravits, Géza. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira.” Hen 23 (2001):
27–38.
Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2;
The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees
Francis Borchardt
The book of Deuteronomy has, for a rather long time been, seen as the
fulcrum upon which our understanding of the collection of works that
would become scripture rests.1 Deuteronomy’s laws, teachings, and
style have far-reaching effects on issues as diverse as the understanding
of biblical law, the formation of the Pentateuch, the editing process of
historical and prophetic books, and the history of Israel. It is no sur-
prise then that one might look for the influence such a work had on
books not commonly considered to be deuteronomic.2 There is no ques-
tion that the tradition of the deuteronomists lives on in many ways,
even into the Christian testament.3 The ability to trace that tradition in
the diverse ways in which it manifests itself is valuable not only for the
observation of the intransigence of such a worldview, but also its adap-
tability. Further, the frequent employment, or alternatively, complete
lack of use of deuteronomic teachings or style might say something
about the social setting out of which a particular text or its authors
arise.4 It is our aim to follow the vestiges of this tradition in 1 Macca-
bees.
1 J. Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOTS 33; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1984), 1.
2 We here follow the conventions of Raymond F. Person, Jr., The Deuteronomic School:
History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 7,
in dropping the distinction between deuteronomic and deuteronomistic, in favor of
one term denoting both the original Deuteronomy and later accretions which might
still be called representative of the school.
3 Timothy H. Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in
Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. S.
Moyise and M. J. J. Menken LNTS 358; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 6–26 (6), men-
tions that the book of Deuteronomy, along with Isaiah and the Psalms, ranks as the
most quoted book in the New Testament.
4 George J. Brooke, “The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition,” in Biblical
Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (ed. J. Lieu and C.
Hempel; JSJSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 39–59 (49).
298 Francis Borchardt
The Background of 1 Maccabees
The first book of Maccabees is best known as one of the only available
primary sources treating the Judean rebellion from the Seleucid empire
beginning in 168 BCE, and culminating in Judean autonomy in 142 BCE.
It describes the rebellion in largely sober, grounded terms, with little
reference to direct divine intervention or belief in an afterlife.5 The book
is characterized by its unquestioned support of the Hasmonean role in
liberating the Judean temple, laws, and nation from the grasp of the
Seleucids and their supporters.6 Because of its support for the Hasmo-
nean priesthood and leadership of the community, the book likely
stems from the Judean court,7 and has been posited to be written in
Hebrew8 anywhere from the 130s BCE9 to the 100s or 90s BCE, 10 based on
various clues in the text, though now the oldest manuscripts only ap-
pear in Greek translation. It is almost universally agreed upon that the
book is in some way styled after the books that would become the He-
brew Scriptures,11 however there is no agreement as to which books 1
Maccabees owes its style. The suggestions range from the books of Jo-
shua and Judges, to Samuel, to Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Re-
gardless of the actual inspiration for 1 Maccabees’ style, if there can
even be only one, the book is aware of and allusive to the traditions
that we can still find in the works included in our present-day bibles.
All of this background makes 1 Maccabees a prime candidate for inves-
tigation of deuteronomic heritage.
5 William Oscar Emil Oesterley, “The First Book of Maccabees,” in APOT 1 (ed. R. H.
Charles; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 59–124 (61).
6 David S. Williams, The Structure of 1Maccabees (CBQMS; Washinton: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1999), 136.
7 Joseph Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of
John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 2–3.
8 Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 14.
9 Seth Schwartz, “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmo-
nean Expansion,” JJS 42 (1991): 16–38 (33).
10 Felix-Marie Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris: Gabalda, 1949), XXIX. Some authors,
such as Solomon Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper and Son,
1950), 32, have suggested a completion of the final form in the first century CE.
11 Oesterley, “First Book,” 60; Zeitlin, First Book, 34; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 31; John R.
Bartlett, 1Maccabees (Sheffiled: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 18; and Uriel Rappa-
port, “The First Book of Maccabees,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Barton
and J. Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 711–33 (712).
The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees 299
Method and Procedure
There appear to be three informative and sure ways to trace the influ-
ence of one text or corpus upon another text. First, one can trace all the
quotations of the prior text in the subsequent text. While the results of
such an investigation can be illuminating, they are only of limited use
when the quotations are sparse.12 A second step one can take, is to trace
the use of the phraseology and style of the first text in the second. This
is of particular interest in Deuteronomy because there are such a wealth
of phrases that are considered to be deuteronomic.13 A third course of
action one can take is to look for shared themes between the two texts
and establish the strength and delivery of these themes in each text.
The combination of all three of these methods should produce results
that account for almost every possible connection between one estab-
lished tradition and a later text.
In the case of deuteronomic influence on 1 Maccabees we will fol-
low this procedure of noting and discussing the quotations, followed
by the instances of deuteronomic phraseology, and then finally the
deuteronomic themes in 1 Maccabees. Before we do this, however, we
must define what we are specifying as deuteronomic. We hold as deu-
teronomic, not only Deuteronomy, but those texts belonging to the so-
called Deuteronomic history (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and Jere-
mianic poetry, especially where these texts agree in worldview and
theology with Deuteronomy. Because these latter texts are not necessar-
ily deuteronomic in all places, but have likely undergone separate deu-
teronomic redactions,14 we can hardly aver that these texts all agree in
every aspect of theological, political, and moral thought. However, on a
number of subjects there is a general agreement that more than likely
stems from their redaction under the auspices of a particular deutero-
nomic school that valued and disseminated these texts. The themes and
style that span this broad body of literature, or that have a strong
grounding in Deuteronomy itself will be held to be deuteronomic. Deu-
teronomic quotations will only be applied from Deuteronomy itself.
Once we have established the connection between the various quo-
tations, phraseology and style, and themes in 1 Maccabees and the deu-
teronomic school we will look at the overall effect these aspects of deu-
12 Lim, “Deuteronomy in Judaism,” 6. Here Lim speaks about the problem in relation
to the influence of Deuteronomy in the New Testament.
13 See the exhaustive work of Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School
(2nd edition; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 320–59.
14 Person, Deuteronomic School, 8.
teronomism had on the text. We will test in what ways and under what
conditions the deuteronomic influence is most strongly felt, and also
discuss what pieces of the deuteronomic worldview are entirely passed
over.
Deuteronomic Quotations in 1 Maccabees
There are three (possibly four) occasions in 1 Maccabees wherein it

appears that Deuteronomy is being cited directly as a source of law or
instruction. These instances do not necessarily qualify as quotations,
but do seem to refer to specific laws, and in many cases use the same
vocabulary as that of their source text. Notably, all of these instances
are marked off by a phrase that underlines the authority of the action
involved.
One such instance of explicit deuteronomic legal application in 1
Maccabees comes at 1 Macc 3:56. Here Judas Maccabeus prepares his
followers for the upcoming battle with the Seleucid officers under An-
tiochus IV Epiphanes by readying his army and sending home those
who are unfit for battle. The dependence on Deut 20:5–8 is clear:
¸Ė ¼čÈ¼Å ÌÇėË ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄÇıÊÀÅ ÇĊÁĕ¸Ë Á¸Ė ÄÅ¾ÊÌ¼ÍÇÄñÅÇÀË ºÍÅ¸ėÁ¸Ë Á¸Ė ÎÍÌ¼įÇÍÊÀÅ

ÒÄÈ¼ÂľÅ¸Ë Á¸Ė »¼ÀÂÇėË ÒÈÇÊÌÉñÎ¼ÀÅ ïÁ¸ÊÌÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ.
And he told those building houses and those betrothed to women and
those planting vineyards and those afraid to turn back each to his own
house, according to the law. (1 Macc 3:56)
Judas follows each step of the instructions to the officials before battle
at Deut 20:5–8. He tells those who are building houses, and those be-
trothed, and those growing vineyards, and those who are cowardly all
to return home. The only difference between Judas’ instructions to his
troops in 1 Macc 3:56 and the law in Deuteronomy is that the order is
slightly changed by putting those who are engaged to women before
those who are growing vineyards. Otherwise the letter of the law is
exact. As there is no other possible law to which this instruction could
be referring, we have the first clear tie to Deuteronomy in 1 Maccabees.
This has explicitly to do with the rules of war, and the proper conduct
of troops. The regulation is not being adapted or subverted in any way
by 1 Maccabees, but is simply repeated as a prerequisite for battle ac-
cording the law. After Judas implements the instructions, he and his
troops prepare for battle with the Seleucids, and ultimately are success-
ful.
A second verse which may refer directly to one of the regulations of
Deuteronomy is 1 Macc 4:47. In this case, during the cleansing and re-
furbishment of the temple, Judas and the blameless priests who assist
him take “whole stones according to the law and build a new altar ac-
cording to the first” (ìÂ¸¹ÇÅ Âĕ¿ÇÍË ĝÂÇÁÂûÉÇÍË Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ Á¸Ė
ŀÁÇ»ĠÄ¾Ê¸Å ¿ÍÊÀ¸ÊÌûÉÀÇÅ Á¸ÀÅġÅ Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ ÈÉĠÌ¼ÉÇÅ). Unlike the first legal
reference, there are two possibilities to which this directive can refer,
and only one of those is from Deuteronomy. The possible non-
deuteronomic source is from Exod 20:25, part of the text traditionally
known as the Covenant Code. This law instructs its adherents that if
they build an altar of stone, they should not build it of cut stones, be-
cause to put the chisel upon the stone profanes it. The intended sense is
clearly that one should build the altar of whole stones, just as 1 Macc
4:47 suggests.
The other possible source of this reference in 1 Maccabees is Deut
27:5–6. This text commands the audience to build an altar to the Lord
god made out of stones on which an iron tool has not been used. It then
emphasizes once more that the altar must be built of whole stones
(Âĕ¿ÇÍË ĝÂÇÁÂûÉÇÍË/=#/+< -'1). This added emphasis also makes explicit
the implications of the previous part of the command. This is a notable
difference from the rule in Exod 20:25 which never explicitly calls for
whole stones to be used. Because 1 Macc 4:47 specifically states that the
priests took whole stones, and mentions nothing about cutting or a
chisel or sword, it is more than likely Deut 27:5–6 that the author has in
mind. If we are correct in averring that this law stems from Deuteron-
omy, then there is a second link between 1 Maccabees and Deuterono-
my. Unlike the first instance, it is a cultic law that is central for this
reference. It seems to be followed precisely, and is meant to ensure the
sanctity of the renewed sanctuary. The reference fits well in its context,
since many of the actions in this section seem to underline purity (4:42,
43, 44, 45) and appeal to authority (4:46) in all matters of the temple
restoration.
This trend continues in the next possibly deuteronomic legal refer-
ence, at 1 Macc 4:53. This text is part of the same passage as the last,
detailing the events surrounding the rededication of the temple.15 Here
15 Nils Martola, Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of
Maccabees (Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A: Humaniora 63, 1; Åbo: Åbo Akademi,
1984), 116–17. Martola gives several very good reasons for seeing these passages as a
single unit.
the reference is also to a cultic law, but has even more specifically to do
with sacrifice than the last. The narrator states that the priests “rose and
sacrificed according to the law upon the new altar of whole burnt offer-
ing which they made” (Á¸Ė ÒÅûÅ¼ºÁ¸Å ¿ÍÊĕ¸Å Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ ëÈĖ Ìġ
¿ÍÊÀ¸ÊÌûÉÀÇÅ ÌľÅ ĝÂÇÁ¸ÍÌÑÄÚÌÑÅ Ìġ Á¸ÀÅĠÅ ğ ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¸Å). The rule being refe-
renced clearly must dictate sacrifice in some way. Either it governs
sacrifice in general, or it prescribes the way in which sacrifice should be
performed on a new altar. In either case there is a possible source text,
if the rule being referenced even comes from one of the texts we recog-
nize at all.
If the statute referred to by 1 Macc 4:53 refers to sacrifices in gener-
al, then Exod 29:38–42 is the likely source. Here, the rules for daily sa-
crifice are laid out. Two lambs are to be offered per day, one in the
morning one in the evening. With the first lamb a measure of flour and
a quarter hin of oil and wine each shall be offered. The rules are tech-
nical and mention the exact substances and measures to be sacrificed,
and the time of day at which they are to be offered. There is some con-
nection to the context of 1 Macc 4:53 here through the temporal aspect
of the rule. At 1 Macc 4:52 it is mentioned specifically that the sacrifice
occurs early in the morning on the 25th day of the ninth month of the
148th year. This reference to the morning may tie the legal statement in
4:53 to Exod 29:38. However, little evidence supports this. None of the
details are mentioned, and no other hints link the texts together.
On the other hand, if the law governs sacrifice on a newly-built al-
tar, then Deut 27:6–7 might be the basis of the decree. These lines fol-
low the instructions concerning the construction of the altar that are the
likely source of the quotation at 1 Macc 4:47. They prescribe the whole
offering and the peace offering, and instruct Israel to consume the of-
ferings there. The fact that in both contexts a new altar is being spoken
of already hints at the likelihood that 1 Macc 4:53 is referring to Deut
27:6–7. When this is combined with the fact that the preceding verse is
quoted by 1 Maccabees just a few lines earlier, it is difficult to imagine
the author had any other law in mind. Additional support for Deute-
ronomy being the basis for this instruction comes with the mention of
the peace offering (¿ÍÊĕ¸Å ÊÑÌ¾ÉĕÇÍ) in both contexts (1 Macc 4:56/Deut
27:7). A challenge to this connection might arise in the fact that the deu-
teronomic instruction is meant to govern a specific occasion at a specific
location, that being the day on which the Israelites cross the Jordan into
the promised land on Mount Ebal. Neither of these conditions is met by
1 Maccabees. However, it is not at all hard to imagine that these in-
structions in Deuteronomy were taken by 1 Maccabees to govern the
construction and dedication of all altars, especially given the many
links between the two texts and the lack of strong connection to the
regulations of Exodus. Setting aside the problems with location, 1 Mac-
cabees follows the instructions of Deuteronomy accordingly, and has
rededicated the cult according to its rules. From these two instances
one might be able to begin to form a hypothesis that one part of the
deuteronomic heritage important to 1 Maccabees was the cultic instruc-
tion, particularly relating to the establishment/reestablishment of a new
altar.
One final legal reference in 1 Maccabees comes at 2:24, where Mat-
tathias, the father of the rebellion, kills a Judean and a royal officer
before tearing down the illicit altar on which they were offering sacri-
fice. Mattathias’ action, particularly his rising anger is described as
“according to the judgment” (Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ ÁÉĕÄ¸). Though the formula here is
different from the one used in the other three legal passages, it carries
no less weight. The word ÁÉĕÄ¸ is used repeatedly in the LXX as a syn-
onym for laws or statutes. This phrase suggests that there is a source
behind Mattathias’ action. There are four possibilities in the Pentateuch,
each of which could serve as the basis for his behavior. Two possibili-
ties stem from Deuteronomy, a third comes from Exodus, and a fourth
from Numbers.
Deuteronomy 13:7–12 describes the course of action that must be
taken by an Israelite if they are secretly enticed to worship foreign gods
by a member of the community. One is forbidden from following such
advice or listening any longer to such a person, but instead must kill
the seducer, casting the first stone on his own followed by the rest of
the people. Mattahias seems to attack first at 1 Macc 2:24, but he neither
kills by stoning, nor is he aided by the rest of the people around him.
Further, the Judean man who goes up to worship on the illicit altar in
Modein neither entices another Judean to offer sacrifice, nor does he do
any of this in secret. The Judean goes up “before the eyes of all” (ëÅ
ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄÇėË ÈÚÅÌÑÅ), and is simply following the king’s decree (Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ
ÈÉĠÊÌ¸ºÄ¸ ÌÇı ¹¸ÊÀÂñÑË). The fact that none of these details fit either the
crime or the sentence carried out by Mattahtias puts this in doubt as the
source text for his actions.
The next possibility for the law behind Mattathias’ slaughter of the
Judean and the gentile officer is Deut 17:2–7. This statute dictates that if
any member of the community does evil in the sight of the LORD and
transgresses the covenant by serving other gods and worshipping
them, and it becomes known to a member of the community, then a
trial should be made of the man. If the man is found guilty then he shall
be taken to the gates and stoned to death on the testimony of more than
one witness, who shall also be the first to execute the sentence. Again
there are some good connections with the event reported in 1 Macc
2:23–26, but also some discrepancies. First, as we pointed out above,
Mattathias surely strikes first in the execution of the transgressor. There
are also clearly a number of witnesses to the crime, so that the Judean
man’s guilt is assured. It is also quite possible that the scene takes place
at the city gates of Modein anyway, securing the proper location for the
sentence. However, once again the prescribed punishment of stoning is
not carried out, nor is Mattathias joined by other members of Israel.
Moreover, the fact that Mattathias also kills the royal officer is not go-
verned by this rule, as it only governs a member of the community.
Finally, it is not entirely clear that the crime in 1 Maccabees is idolatry.
While the altar is certainly illicit, it is never made clear that anyone
other than Yahweh is being worshipped. This is the main thrust of Deut
17:2–7, and not centrality of the cult. Despite this fact, it is possible that
at such a late date as the composition of this passage the law could be
reinterpreted to cover worship on illicit altars, even if they were not
explicitly idolatrous. If this is case the statute remains a possibility for
being the basis of Mattathias’ act.
A third option is Exod 22:19. This brief apodictic command from
the book of the covenant states that whoever sacrifices to any god other
than Yahweh alone shall be destroyed (-:% hophal). The brevity of this
injunction leaves a great amount of room for interpretation and less
opportunity for disagreements. When this is posited as the background
for 1 Macc 2:24, the punishment of stoning no longer stands in the way,
nor do any other details. The only foreseeable problem is the one that
affects Deut 17:2–7 as well: the crime in 1 Maccabees may not be idola-
try, but sacrifice on an illicit altar. However, the same qualities that
make this passage in Exodus applicable to 1 Maccabees also leave it
short of being really evocative. It is difficult to draw any concrete con-
nections between these two texts. Nevertheless, it remains a possibility.
The final text that might be referenced as a statute by 1 Macc 2:24 is
Numbers 25:6–15. Though this passage falls outside the explicitly legal
corpora of the Pentateuch, this does not mean that the text was not
considered to be law. Because the text is likely part of what 1 Macca-
bees terms “the book of the law” (¹À¹ÂĕÇÅ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ), it is also possible
that all the contents are considered to be legal. The story told in Num
25:6–15 (particularly 6–9) deals with the issue of Israelite marriage to
foreign women, which in turn led to idolatry (25:1–3). At 25:5 Moses
instructs the judges of Israel to kill all the members of the community
who have yoked themselves to Baal Peor. The following lines narrate
how just as this sentence was being proclaimed, an Israelite man took a
Midianite woman into his family before the whole community. Phine-
has, Moses’ grand-nephew then gets up and takes a spear and follows
after the man and the woman and pierces them through the belly. Be-
cause of this act Phinehas is given a covenant of perpetual priesthood
(25:13). On the surface this does not have much to do with the situation
in 1 Macc 2:23–26. However, Mattathias’ act is explicitly compared to
that of Phinehas in 1 Macc 2:26. Once this association is made in the
text, more similarities can be seen. Both the Israelite man and the Ju-
dean man defy the rules just as they are being set forth by a community
leader (Moses/Mattathias). Further, the Israelite is killed at the same
time as his foreign accomplice (Num 25:8), just as the Judean man is
killed at the same time as the royal officer (1 Macc 2:24–25). Finally, if
the worship on the illicit altar is being interpreted as idolatry, then both
texts deal with the prevention of the worship of idols. Given the fact
that the passage from Numbers is specifically cited in this story, it is
more than likely that Moses’ injunction at 25:5 to kill all those who have
yoked themselves to Baal Peor is being interpreted as the law upon
which Mattathias acts. Thus this reference to the law is unlikely to be
deuteronomic.
Out of the four explicit legal references in 1 Maccabees, we have
seen that three of the four more than likely stem from Deuteronomy. Of
those three two have to do with the proper construction and dedication
of a new altar of sacrifice, and thus are primarily cultic in nature, and
one deals with the rules of war. Thus, through these legal quotations,
which probably testify to some of the more important issues to the au-
thor of 1 Maccabees, Deuteronomy holds a high degree of influence. It
is only on one occasion that a non-deuteronomic text is used as legal
basis for an action. It is interesting that this too deals with the cult, spe-
cifically its centrality. While the supporting text may not be deutero-
nomic, the issue at hand is.16
Deuteronomic Phraseology in 1 Maccabees
The most important work for recognizing and pointing out deutero-
nomic phraseology is undoubtedly Moshe Weinfeld’s Deuteronomy and
the Deuteronomic School, where the author not only underlines what
phrases are most often used in Deuteronomic literature, but differen-
tiates between phrases that are of deuteronomic origin and those which
16 Peter T. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Wi-
nona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 1.
likely existed prior to the composition of Deuteronomy.17 Also of im-

portance to the value of his work is his view that “[w]hat makes a
phrase deuteronomic is not its mere occurrence in Deuteronomy, but its
meaning within the framework of deuteronomic theology.”18 These two
additional qualifications help Weinfeld define the phrases that are ac-
tually deuteronomic and place them in a context where they can be
understood as such. He recognizes that it would be too simple to posit
any common phrase belonging to the deuteronomic vocabulary as im-
portant to the deuteronomic school, and this makes his work of ex-
treme importance.19 Despite the limitations he puts on the labeling of
words and phrases, Weinfeld still ends up with nearly forty pages of
material simply listing the various examples of deuteronomic language.
According to Weinfeld there are basically ten categories of Deutero-
nomic phraseology, most of which mirror theological positions held by
Deuteronomy. These are: 1) the struggle against idolatry20, 2) the cen-
tralization of the cult21, 3) exodus, covenant, and election22, 4) the mo-
notheistic creed23, 5) observance of the law and loyalty to the cove-
nant24, 6) inheritance of the land25, 7) retribution and material
motivation26, 8) fulfillment of prophecy27, 9) the election of the Davidic
dynasty28, and 10) rhetoric and paranetic phraseology.29 Into each of
these categories Weinfeld places specific phrases, that when used in
relation to those themes, represent deuteronomisms.
We will here apply the phrases and words Weinfeld sees as deute-
ronomic to 1 Maccabees, being mindful of the fact that those phrases
must be used in a specific setting in order to be considered deutero-
nomic. We must also keep in mind that simply because a phrase is re-
peated in 1 Maccabees, does not mean that 1 Maccabees has received it
straight from deuteronomic literature; it may be that the phrase is fil-
tered through later books, such as 1 and 2 Chronicles. An additional
17 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–59.

19 Person, Deuteronomic School, 19.
20 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320.
challenge exists when we recall that though 1 Maccabees was com-

posed in Hebrew, it exists only in Greek translation now, whereas the
examples Weinfeld has used for his phraseology are only in Hebrew. In
order to compare we will look at the way these terms are translated in
the LXX versions of deuteronomic literature. This process can be diffi-
cult and imprecise, especially since it appears that the translation of 1
Maccabees was made independently, without knowledge of any Greek
versions of the literature that would become scripture. In most cases it
is our best judgment, which must be used. We will be cautious to keep
in mind all these issues when investigating the occurrences of deutero-
nomic language in 1 Maccabees.
The first instance of deuteronomic language in 1 Maccabees comes
with the association of idolatry with abomination (!3#=/¹»ñÂÍºÄ¸).30
Weinfeld notes that the association between these two terms is common
in Ezekiel and Isaiah, but originates in Deuteronomy. He cites numer-
ous examples where it appears in both Deuteronomy and Deuteronom-
ic literature. In the vast majority of these cases the term !3#= is trans-
lated as ¹»ñÂÍºÄ¸. This term is used specifically relating to idolatry on
two occasions in 1 Maccabees (1:54; 6:7). In both of these cases the term
refers to the structure the Seleucids built on top of the altar of burnt
offering. This structure may have been an altar (1 Macc 1:59), or some-
thing else entirely, but there is no doubt that it was considered idolatr-
ous (1 Macc 1:43, 47). A number of commentators tie the term to Daniel
(9:27; 11:31; 12:11) where the same term is used for the same structure,31
and this may be so, or considering the proximity in time of when these
passages were written, it may have been common parlance for the Se-
leucid idol. Regardless, this aspect of deuteronmism seems to live on in
1 Maccabees.
A second phrase common to deuteronomic literature, particularly
Jeremiah (7:31; 19:5; 32:35), is “to build high places to Baal/Tophet”
(+3/=6#= =#/ !1).32 Though the terms Tophet and Baal are of course
entirely absent from such a late work as 1 Maccabees, a slight adapta-
tion of this phrase can be seen at 1 Macc 1:47, and possibly 1:54. At 1
Macc 1:47 the king writes that those in Judea are required “to build
altars, sacred precincts, and shrines for idols” (ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄýÊ¸À ¹ÑÄÇİË Á¸Ė
Ì¼ÄñÅ¾ Á¸Ė ¼Ċ»ļÂÀ¸). The first two words of this phrase are repetitions of
the LXX version of the passages at Jer 7:31 and 32:35 (39:35 LXX). The
addition of the sacred precincts may simply expand the phrase, and
30 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 323. Deut 7:25–26; 13:15; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18, inter alia.
31 See e.g. Zeitlin, First Book, 77 and Abel, Les Livres, 25.
¼Ċ»ļÂÀ¸ might stand in place of the proper names of the false gods Baal
and Tophet. At 1:54, the narrator simply reports that the Seleucid offic-
ers and those aiding them built illicit altars in the surrounding towns,
without adding the proper names. It is notable that in the LXX the
phrase ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄñÑ (ĝ) ¹ÑÄĠË is only used at these two occasions in Jere-
miah and one time in Joshua (21:26) besides the two times in 1 Macca-
bees (1:47, 54). The term may be used generically here, but it is possible
that the turn of phrase is being borrowed from the deuteronomic litera-
ture.
Another term related to idolatry in the deuteronomic context is fe-
tishes (-'+#+).33 This term seems to be used both of idols and of practic-
es, but on the majority of the occasions in the LXX (Deut 29:16; 2 Kgs
17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24) is translated as ¼ċ»ÑÂ¸. This term, obviously refers
to idolatry de facto, and is used on three occasions in 1 Macc 1:43; 3:48;
13:47. At each point the term refers to an object used by the gentiles for
the purpose of worship or divination. Though the ubiquity of the
term’s use in the LXX (90 times) testifies against a willing knowledge of
this heritage of Deuteronomy, its existence and use underlines the
widespread influence Deuteronomy had. An important distinction can
also be drawn between the term as used to translate -'+#+ (14 times)
and to translate other terms, such as foreign gods. On no occasion does
1 Maccabees use ¼ċ»ÑÂ¸ in any other sense than physical objects, just as
it is used in Deuteronomy.
Moving away from the phraseology relating to idolatry, language
associated with the centralization of worship, and name theology34
comes into focus. Though at first it might seem strange that centraliza-
tion of worship and name theology are combined under one heading,
one simply must look at the phrases indicative of the name theology, all
of which have to do with the future site of the cult.35 One such deutero-
nomic phrase appears in 1 Maccabees, though in a slightly modified
form: “the house which my name is called upon” ( '/< :91 :< ='!
#'+3).36 At 1 Macc 7:37, a group of priests, in the midst of a prayer ad-
33 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 323. Deut 29:15; 1 Kgs 15:12; 21:26; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21;
23:24.
34 This is of course the tendency in Deuteronomy to make the deity more abstract by
divorcing any notions of habitation of temples or cities from God. Instead it is his
name which dwells in a place, and not the deity itself. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,
193.
36 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 325. 1 Kgs 8:43; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; 25:29; 32:34; 34:15. Wein-
feld notes that to call one’s name upon something is an ancient expression that can-
dress the deity saying: “You chose this house to have your name called
upon it” (İ ëÆ¼ÂñÆÑ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ ëÈÀÁÂ¾¿ýÅ¸À Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇı).
Despite the switch to the second person resulting from the change in
the speaker of the phrase, the expression is nearly exact. The only dif-
ference comes from the addition of the demonstrative pronoun in the
Greek translation of 1 Maccabees. This may reflect a Hebrew Vorlage
that added the pronoun, or could be the work of the translator. What-
ever the case, there can be no doubt that this aspect of deuteronomic
theology is carried over into 1 Maccabees. Commentators too have no-
ticed the connection to the deuteronomic usage, even if they have not
drawn the broader conclusions.37 Whether there is any significance to
the fact that the phrase is put into the mouths of temple priests is diffi-
cult to ascertain. What is certain is that the name theology associated
with the temple stuck with the author of 1 Maccabees.
Several terms associated with the exodus, covenant and election of
Israel in Deuteronomy are also used in 1 Maccabees. One of these is
“your people Israel” (+:<' (/3).38 This phrase appears once in 1 Mac-
cabees, in a prayer made by Judas requesting aid from Heaven against
the Seleucid army (1 Macc 4:31). Judas asks the deity to “hem in this
army by the hand of your people Israel” (ÊįºÁÂ¼ÀÊÇÅ ÌüÅ È¸É¼Ä¹ÇÂüÅ
Ì¸įÌ¾Å ëÅ Ï¼ÀÉĖ Â¸Çı ÊÇÍ ÊÉ¸¾Â). Like the deuteronomic examples, the
context is liturgical. Judas further recalls episodes reported in deutero-
nomic literature in the same prayer (1 Sam 14:17). It seems clear that
Israel’s election before the divine lives on in the prayer of Judas.
Whether the phrase is directly pulled from deuteronomic literature, or
mirrors the frequent (10 times) use in the books of Chronicles is un-
clear; either way this aspect of election, which stems from Deuterono-
my lives on in 1 Maccabees.
A second set of terms related to the covenant and election of Israel,
particularly pertaining to liturgical matters are the synonyms “prayer”
and “supplication” (!1%=/!+6=).39 It is the use of these terms in tandem,
usually as parallels, but at times as a combination of complimentary
nouns and verbs, that particularly marks them as deuteronomic. Oth-
erwise the ubiquity of such words could hardly be narrowed down to
the particular theology of one school. At 1 Macc 7:37, a verse we have
not be considered deuteronomic; it is only when applied to the temple or the city
that it becomes deuteronomic.
37 Oesterley, “First Book,” 92; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 340.
38 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 328. Deut 21:8; 26:15; 2 Sam 7:23–24; 1 Kgs 8:33–34, 38, 43, 52;
Jer 32:21. He notes further that all the deuteronomic occurrences appear in a liturgic-
al context.
39 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 330. 1 Kgs 8:28, 30, 38, 45, 49, 52, 54; 9:3.
already seen contains one deuteronomism, we encounter this pair in

translation. After the priests have addressed the deity by reminding
him that his name is called upon the temple, they continue that it is “to
be a house of prayer and supplication for your people” (¼čÅ¸À ÇčÁÇÅ
ÈÉÇÊ¼ÍÏýË Á¸Ė »¼ûÊ¼ÑË ÌŊ Â¸Ŋ ÊÇÍ). The terms ÈÉÇÊ¼ÍÏýË and »¼ûÊ¼ÑË are
fairly consistently used to translate the Hebrew pair of !+6= and !1%=
respectively, especially at 1 Kgs 8:28, 30, 38, 45, 54. When this fact is
combined with the obvious liturgical setting (at the temple) and the
close tie with the theology of election (ÌŊ Â¸Ŋ ÊÇÍ) in the immediate
context, it is evident that the usage in 1 Maccabees mirrors that of the
deuteronomic literature.40
Under the general heading of observance of the law and loyalty to
the covenant there are a wide variety of deuteronomic terms that make
an appearance in 1 Maccabees. Weinfeld mentions that “to keep the
commandment(s)/statutes/testimonies/judgments” ( /=#8//!#8/ :/<
-'&6<//=#3/-'9#%) is a particularly deuteronomic phrase, especially,
when attributed to divine law.41 This occurs on one occasion in 1 Mac-
cabees, at 2:53. Here, Mattathias in giving his testament to his sons,
recounts some of the brave deeds of the Judean ancestors. Among those
he praises is Joseph, saying, “Joseph in the time of his distress, kept the
commandment and became lord of Egypt” (ÑÊ¾Î ëÅ Á¸ÀÉŊ ÊÌ¼ÅÇÏÑÉĕ¸Ë
¸ĤÌÇı ëÎįÂ¸Æ¼Å ëÅÌÇÂüÅ Á¸Ė ëºñÅ¼ÌÇ ÁįÉÀÇË ÀºįÈÌÇÍ). Though it is unclear
what commandment is intended, as in the biblical timeline Joseph pre-
cedes the Mosaic law, it may refer to the prohibition against adultery
from the Decalogue (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18). In any case, it is clear that
some part of the law is intended by the context, wherein Mattathias’
central theme is fidelity to the law (1 Macc 2:50, 55, 58, 64, 67, 68). The
combination of ÎÍÂÚÊÊÑ and ëÅÌÇÂû mirrors that of :/< and !#8/, and is
in fact the exact translation used at 1 Kgs 8:61. Thus, strangely, while
recalling a non-deuteronomic story, 1 Maccabees repeats it in deutero-
nomic terms. It not only pulls the phrase from out of context, but places
it in a new setting where it hardly makes sense if the author believed in
the timeline given by the Pentateuch, and puts it forth as one of the
bases of deuteronomic theology.42 Nevertheless, deuteronomism sur-
40 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 340, even goes so far as to posit these lines in 1 Kings as a
source for the priestly prayer.
41 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 336. Deut: 23 times; Josh 22:5; 1 Kgs 2:3; 3:14; 9:4, 6; 8:58, 61;
11:11, 34, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 17:13, 19; 18:6; 23:3. He also notes that observance of a com-
mandment occurs in a neutral (non-covenantal) sense in the Wisdom tradition.
42 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 326–27. A number of the phrases Deuteronomy uses for
justification have to do with Yahweh’s release of the people from Egypt.
vives in this way, through becoming part of the common parlance of

late Second Temple Judea.
Another expression related to the same theme is “to turn right or
left” (+/<# 0'/' ...:#2).43 This phrase is used particularly in cases of dis-
loyalty to the law with the sense that one who turns to the right or left
departs from the correct path. At 1 Macc 2:22, Mattathias announces to
the Seleucid officers and the crowd gathered round them that he and
his sons “will not heed the commands of the king, departing our reli-
gion to the right or the left” (ÌľÅ ÂĠºÑÅ ÌÇı ¹¸ÊÀÂñÑË ÇĤÁ ÒÁÇÍÊĠÄ¼¿¸
È¸É¼Â¿¼ėÅ ÌüÅ Â¸ÌÉ¼ĕ¸Å ÷ÄľÅ »¼ÆÀÛÅ õ ÒÉÀÊÌ¼ÉÚÅ). That the covenant and law
are the components of what Mattathias terms religion, is ensured by
2:20–21 where Mattathias announces that he and his sons will live by
the covenant of the ancestors and not desert the law and the ordin-
ances. This phrase appears to be used in the same context as the deute-
ronomic expression, particularly at Deut 17:20 and 2 Kgs 22:2, by proc-
laiming orthodoxy and fidelity to the covenant and law in the context
of familial and ancestral relations. It may in fact be that 1 Maccabees is
using this language to evoke the particularly dynastic context each of
these passages provide. That is, Mattathias and his family are perhaps
being presented as a new royal line, who is faithful to the covenant in
the same way as the ideal king of Deuteronomy 17 and Josiah in 2
Kings 22. Regardless of the intention, the phrase is obviously influ-
enced by Deuteronomy.
Yet a third example of deuteronomic language specifically related
to obedience to the law is “the book of the law” (!:#=! :62).44 Outside
of deuteronomic literature the term is rather rare, especially when it
does not have a modifier such as Moses or Yahweh. In Deuteronomy
any reference to the book of the law appears to refer to part or all of
Deuteronomy itself. In the related literature this is also supposed to be
the case. The term is used twice in 1 Maccabees (¹À¹ÂĕÇÅ/¹À¹Âĕ¸ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ
/ÌÇı ÅÇÄÇı), at 1:56 and 3:48, both times referring to a physical scroll. In
the first case, there are multiple such scrolls, which when found are
destroyed by burning in fire. In the second case one scroll is unrolled in
order to be consulted. It is hard to imagine that the phrase in either
instance could refer to Deuteronomy alone, though it is not impossible.
It is more likely, given the references to law discussed above that a
larger corpus is referred to by this title. Despite this fact, the rarity of
43 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 339. Deut 5:29; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kgs 22:2.
44 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 339. Weinfeld combines this term with “this law” and “this
book of the law” and cites the phrases nineteen times in Deuteronomy, at Josh 1:8,
and at 2 Kgs 22:8, 11.
the term outside of deuteronomic circles points to influence from Deu-

teronomy. A further connection comes from the general use in the area
of observance of the law and covenant. At 1:56 the book is mentioned
among those things that were attacked under Antiochus IV’s new poli-
cy. At 3:48 the use of the book of the law is contrasted with the gentiles’
use of their idols. Each of these instances testifies to the importance of
the book as a tool or symbol of orthodox observance, just as it is used in
Deuteronomy and especially 2 Kings. It is possible that the term be-
came generally used in common parlance or literature outside of that
which is available to us today, in which case the influence of Deuteron-
omy would be indirect, but given the clues it is more likely that 1 Mac-
cabees borrows the term from the deuteronomic corpus.
Another phrase, appearing very early on in 1 Maccabees also has
dueteronomic origins. The theme in which this term carries weight as
being deuteronomic is once again observance of the law. The expres-
sion is “sell oneself to do evil” (3:! =#<3+ :)/=!).45 The term is used of
those people who, though members of Israel, depart from the covenant
or the law, usually by following strange and foreign customs. It is used
of Ahab twice and Israel and Judah once in the books of Kings. At 1
Macc 1:15 it refers to the outlaws of Israel who make a covenant with
the Seleucid king to follow foreign laws and customs, and even go so
far as to perform the painful operation of epispasm, the reversal of
circumcision. The narrator comments “and they abandoned the holy
covenant, were joined to the nations, and they were sold to do evil” (Á¸Ė
ÒÈñÊÌ¾Ê¸Å ÒÈġ »À¸¿ûÁ¾Ë Öºĕ¸Ë Á¸Ė ë½¼ÍºĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇėË ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ëÈÉÚ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇı
ÈÇÀýÊ¸À Ìġ ÈÇÅ¾ÉĠÅ). There can be no question, that the expression used
here mimics the Hebrew phrase, as the same wording is used to trans-
late 2 Kgs 17:17 and 1 Kgs 21:25 in the LXX.46 The context too is nearly
identical. Members of Israel in each case are being chastised for break-
ing the laws and transgressing the covenant. The deuteronomic herit-
age is here seen quite clearly.
Also part of this same passage is the final deuteronomic expression
tied to the observance of law and covenant. The phrase is “cling to the
nations” (-''# 9).47 This is generally used in the deuteronomic litera-
ture to refer to marriage or sexual intercourse, which at one time or
another became taboo for the members of Israel due to the tendency of
45 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 341. 1 Kgs 21:20, 25; 2 Kgs 17:17.

46 Oesterley, “First Book,” 68, makes the connection to 1 Kgs 21:20, as does Abel, Les
Livres, 8. This is likely due to the reference in both passages not to rulers but to
members of the community at large, as well as the report of the litany of misdeeds.
47 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 341. Josh 23:12; 1 Kgs 11:2.
these marriages to lead to idolatry. In 1 Maccabees the meaning is not

exactly clear. As we can see from 1 Macc 1:15, quoted above
ë½¼ÍºĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇėË ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ is clearly in a context where the law is being
forsaken, but it is unclear whether the verb ½¼Íºĕ½Ñ carries the sense of
sexual relations. The term is used only here in the LXX, never in the
Christian testament. It is related to the word for yoke ½¼ıºÇË and gener-
ally has the sense of being yoked in pairs. The part relating to harness-
ing beasts of burden does not seem to fit the sense used in deuteronom-
ic literature, but the specific meaning of pairing may also carry the
sense of sexual relations.48 If sexual relations are intended by this verb
then it is not difficult to see from the other deuteronomic terms in the
context that this term too would testify to deuteronomic influence. It
should be pointed out that nowhere specifically are marriage or sexual
relations with foreign women explicitly discouraged in 1 Maccabees.
This may be a case where the familiar phraseology is being used, but in
a new sense.
The word “possession” (!<:') when applied to the land as an inhe-
ritance is also particularly deuteronomic.49 The concept of the posses-
sion is always related to the portions of land reserved for either all of
Israel, or some tribe within it. The term used for the land as an inherit-
ance in 1 Maccabees is “inheritance” (ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸), which mirrors the
word used in the LXX to translate Deut 2:12; 3:20 and Josh 12:6 (LXX
11:6). 1 Maccabees uses the expression on four occasions to refer to the
land (2:56; 6:24; 15:33, 34). At 6:24, the seizure of the inheritances of the
opponents of the Hasmoneans is reported to the king in an attempt to
thwart Hasmonean progress. These opponents are Judeans who con-
sider themselves members of Israel (ÇĎ ÍĎÇĖ ÌÇı Â¸Çı refers to the Hasmo-
nean party), and have a stake in the land. At 1 Macc 2:56, Caleb’s re-
ward for his testimony, a place in the land, is referred to as an
inheritance. Though this refers to a story passed down to us in Num
14:4, 38, the term inheritance is nowhere used there. Caleb’s land is
referred to as an inheritance, however, in Sirach 46:7 in the praise of the
ancestors.50 This may mean that the expression is borrowed from Si-
rach’s usage, or more likely that the deuteronomic phrasing had be-
come common in the 2nd century BCE. The twin use of the term “inherit-
ance” for the land at 15:33 and 15:34 is put in the mouth of the high
priest Simon, who informs the royal officer sent to ask him for tribute
48 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 201. Goldstein, however ties the term to Num 25:3 because of
the root of “yoke.”
49 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 342. Deut 2:5, 9, 12, 19; 3:20; Josh 1:15; 12:6–7.
50 Abel, Les Livres, 48.
that the Judeans have neither taken foreign land or seized foreign
property, but only reacquired the inheritance of their ancestors
(ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë ÌľÅ È¸ÌñÉÑÅ). Simon then affirms this by stating that the
Judeans will hold fast to the inheritance of the ancestors in the follow-
ing verse. In all these cases the use of the term clearly mimics the deu-
teronomic understanding of the land as a possession of all or part of
Israel, even if in the case of Caleb, the deuteronomic phraseology might
be mediated by another source.
Also related to the broader context of the land as an inheritance in
Deuteronomic literature is the phrase “these/those nations” (!+! -''#!
/-!! -''#!).51 Though the nations are generally attached to the land in
some way, they are also mentioned in a martial or cultic context in the
deuteronomic sources. That is, they are either being spoken of as oppo-
nents in war (Deut 7:17, 22; 11:23 inter alia), or bad examples of cultic
praxis (Deut 9:5; 12:30; 18:9 inter alia). There is one instance of this term
in 1 Maccabees, which appears to fit both these requirements. At 1
Macc 3:58, Judas tells his forces assembled before battle that they
should be ready early in the morning to fight with “these nations” (ÌÇėË
ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ ÌÇįÌÇÀË) who have assembled against us to destroy us and our
sanctuary. The context is clearly martial, and the assembled nations
include Syrians and Philistines (3:41), each of whom constitute deute-
ronomic people’s of the land. As the aim of this force is to dispossess
and destroy Israel, it seems obvious that in this reference too, deutero-
nomic phraseology is being recalled. The main difference is that it is the
Judeans who are on the defensive, and the nations who are attacking.
This modification though is likely due to the contours of history and
has little to do with the phrase “these nations” anyway.
The command to “be strong and resolute” (7/# 9$%) is used in deu-
teronomic literature under the umbrella of military conquest of the
land, but it is also later extended to observance of the law.52 1 Macca-
bees picks up on the use of the term from Joshua 1:7, in a legal context.
At 2:64 Mattathias commands his children to “be courageous and grow
strong in the law” (ÒÅ»Éĕ½¼Ê¿¼ Á¸Ė ĊÊÏįÊ¸Ì¼ ëÅ ÌŊ ÅĠÄŊ) in the midst of his
commission to them to continue his work after his death. This not only
mimics the language of Josh 1:7, but also the setting of a commission.
The terms ÒÅ»Éĕ½Ñ and ĊÊÏįÑ are frequently used in the LXX to translate
this particular phrase (Deut 31:6–7, 23; Josh 1:7 inter alia). This leaves
little doubt as to the deuteronomic heritage of this term as employed by
51 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 343. Deut 7:17, 22; 9:4–5; 11:23; 12:30; 18:9, 14; 20:15–16; 31:3;
Josh 23:3–4, 12, 13; Judg 2:23; 3:1.
52 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 5, 343. Deut 3:31; 6:7, 23; Josh 1:6, (7), 9, 18; 10:25.
1 Maccabees. It appears that the author of 1 Maccabees knew the usage

in Josh 1:7 and repeated in his own work to make a comparison be-
tween Joshua on the one hand and Judas and Simon on the other.53
The seemingly basic phrase “have no dread” (#8:3= +/7:3= +) is
also particularly deuteronomic when used in the context of military
conquests of the land.54 Though the phrase is constantly translated dif-
ferently in the LXX, making it hard to pick out in Greek, and separate
from the more ubiquitous “have no fear” (:'= +), there appear to be
two instances where 1 Maccabees picks up the deuteronomic phrase-
ology. First, at 1 Macc 3:22, Judas answers the fear of his troops before
the multitude of their enemies by giving them a speech about salvation
by divine aid, which closes with the instruction “do not be afraid of
them” (Äü ÎÇ¹¼ėÊ¿¼ ÒÈЏ ¸ĤÌľÅ). Though this does not resemble any of the
LXX renderings of the deuteronomic phrase (Äü ÈÌûÆ¾Ì¼/ÌÉÑ¿ûÊþ/
ëÁÁÂĕÅ¾Ì¼/»¼ÀÂĕ¸/ÈÌÇ¾¿ĉË/»¼ÀÂÀÚÊþË) it is not inconceivable as a synonym.
In fact, in many of the deuteronomic passages, it appears to be used in
synonymous parallelism with the term translating 7:3= (Josh 1:9; Deut
1:29; 20:3; 31:6). When this evidence is added to the similarities between
1 Macc 3:22 and Deut 20:3, one must consider the possible connection.
The passage in Deuteronomy instructs Israel that when they go to war
and see an army larger than their own, a priest should come before
them and speak to the troops telling them not to be afraid of their ene-
mies because Yahweh goes with them to fight for them and give them
victory. 1 Maccabees has Judas (a priest, 2:1–4, 54) go out before battle
with a strong and well-equipped army (3:17) of Seleucids and Samari-
tans and tell the army that it makes no difference what size the armies
are, but that Heaven fights alongside them and will crush their ene-
mies, so they should not be afraid. It appears as if Judas is fulfilling the
commands of Deut 20:3 in his instruction. This suggests that the term
translated as Äü ÎÇ¹¼ėÊ¿¼ may have originated as #8:3= +. The context
fits well with the nations roundabout meeting Judas and his band of
followers in battle in order to retake the land.
The second instance of this term comes at 1 Macc 4:8, which again
has Judas speaking to his army before a battle with an opposing force
made up of Syrians, Philistines (in an archaism repeated frequently in 1
Maccabees), and Seleucid soldiers. In this situation he commands his
soldiers, “do not fear their numbers or be afraid of their charge” (Äü
53 Contra Goldstein, I Maccabees, 242, who sees this verse as a reference to Deut 4:6. Not
only is there much less verbal similarity, but the setting is not matched with the
same strength as that of Joshua 1:7.
54 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 344. Deut 1:29; 7:21; 20:3; 31:6; Josh 1:9.
ÎÇ¹¼ėÊ¿¼ Ìġ ÈÂý¿ÇË ¸ĤÌľÅ Á¸Ė Ìġ ĞÉÄ¾Ä¸ ¸ĤÌľÅ Äü »¼ÀÂÑ¿ýÌ¼). Here again,

we run into trouble with the Greek terms, but also have a connection to
Deut 1:29 and 20:3. The speech by the priest Judas before his troops
incites courage in them by reminding them of divine aid and recalls
Deut 20:3. The recollection of divine aid of the ancestors while com-
manding Israel not to be afraid has some similarities with Yahweh’s
instructions to Israel at Deut 1:29. In each case the context of war with
the inhabitants of the land is in place. This suggests that the use of the
term in 1 Maccabees is inspired by the deuteronomic corpus.
In the broad area of deuteronomic rhetoric and paranetic phrase-
ology there are two more phrases that make an appearance in 1 Macca-
bees. The first of these is “shed innocent blood” ('91 - (6<).55 This
phrase is used in a variety of contexts, either as a description of an evil
act, a crime that deserves punishment, or a report of the acts of a king,
among others. In 1 Maccabees the term is used once, in a lament follow-
ing the sack of Jerusalem by the Seleucids (1:37). The lament recounts
the many evils that befell Jerusalem, among them it is reported that the
Seleucids “shed innocent blood” (ëÆñÏ¼¸Å ¸đÄ¸ Ò¿ŊÇÅ) on every side of
the sanctuary. The Greek term is identical to that used by the translator
of 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4, which describe the events of the reigns of Ma-
nasseh and Jehoiakim respectively, though both concern the reign of
Manasseh.
The second phrase used in 1 Maccabees that belongs to broadly de-
fined deuteronomic expressions is “so that all the peoples of the earth
will know” (7:! '/3 +) =3/0#3' 03/+).56 This phrase is generally used
in a context related to a special act or event that will bring the recogni-
tion of the one god of Israel to the nations. It can also be tied to a re-
quest, as at 1 Kgs 8:43, where Solomon asks Yahweh to hear the prayers
of foreigners at the Jerusalem temple. In 1 Maccabees, a very similar
phrase is used at 4:11. Judas first speaks to his troops and encourages
them before battle by reminding them of divine favor (4:8–9). He then
exhorts his followers to cry to Heaven to ask whether the divine will
destroy the approaching army with the result that “all the nations will
know that there is one who redeems and saves Israel” (Á¸Ė ºÅļÊÇÅÌ¸À
ÈÚÅÌ¸ ÌÛ ì¿Å¾ ĞÌÀ ìÊÌÀÅ ĝ ÂÍÌÉÇįÄ¼ÅÇË Á¸Ė Êň½ÑÅ ÌġÅ ÊÉ¸¾Â). The pertinent
part of the phrase is translated nearly identically to the LXX transla-
tions of Josh 4:24 and 1 Kgs 8:43. The only difference is that these con-
tain the conjunction ĞÈÑË and follow with the verb in the subjunctive
mood. Like the other instances of the phrase, this has the intention of
55 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 356. Deut 19:10; 21:8; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3.
56 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 358. Deut 28:10; Josh 4:24; 1 Kgs 8:43, 60.
revealing something about the nature of the divine to the nations while
simultaneously requesting something on Israel’s behalf.
These last two instances of deuteronomic phraseology in 1 Macca-
bees close out this section. We have seen that there are a significant
amount of deuteronomic phrases found in 1 Maccabees which are tied
to specific themes which are of special importance to the book of Deu-
teronomy and deuteronomic literature. Through this analysis of deute-
ronomic phrases it appears that the most important parts of the deute-
ronomic heritage to 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry, the
observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant, exodus, covenant,
election, and inheritance of the land. Of far less interest to 1 Maccabees
are the centralization of the cult, the monotheistic creed, retribution and
material motivation, fulfillment of prophecy, and the election of the
Davidic dynasty. It is interesting to note that a considerable majority of
these instances of deuteronomisms are put into the mouths of some of
the main characters of 1 Maccabees. The conclusions one can draw
from this are diverse. It is possible that deuteronomic phrases seeped
into official speech of the Hasmoneans in actuality, or that they were
intended to show the piety and ancestral heritage of the characters, or
that these were simply the most logical or stylistically appropriate plac-
es to add the references to deuteronomic literature. Whatever the case,
deuteronomic phraseology abounds in 1 Maccabees.
Deuteronomic Themes in 1 Maccabees
Though the direct legal references and repetition of phraseology are

more reliable indicators of deuteronomic influence on a text, one can
also trace what might be considered deuteronomic themes throughout
1 Maccabees. One sees the struggle against idolatry highlighted in the
attacks on the sacred precincts of other peoples living on the borders of
Judea (5:43–44, 68; 10:84; 11:4). It is also possible to see a strong tenden-
cy toward cult centralization in numerous actions throughout the book
(1:54–55; 2:7, 12, 25, 45; 3:43, 50–51, 58–59; 4:33, 37–38, 41, 43–61; 7:42;
10:43; 13:3, 6; 14:29). The exodus, covenant, and election can also be
seen in parts of the speeches of Judas that do not contain deuteronomic
phraseology, but do share the ideals (3:18–20; 4:9–10). Observance of
the law and loyalty to the covenant are also highly visible in various
passages throughout 1 Maccabees, whether by condemning those who
forsake the laws or break the covenant, or celebrating the act of protect-
ing the covenant and laws (1:13, 44–46, 48–50, 52, 57, 63; 2:20–21, 27, 42,
50, 58, 67; 3:21; 4:42; 6:59; 10:14; 13:3, 48, 50; 14:29). Through the pres-
ence of these thematic ties we can see the full effect Deuteronomy has
on 1 Maccabees, even when it is neither quoted nor referenced.
Conclusions
We have seen in the legal references to 1 Maccabees, the laws of Deute-

ronomy dominate. Out of the four instances where laws are directly
referred to, it appears that three of those have a source in Deuterono-
my. We have further noticed that these particularly have to do with
cultic matters related to the construction and dedication of the altar of
sacrifice and with rules of war. We have separately observed that
among the most prominent themes presented by the use of deutero-
nomic phraseology in 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry,
inheritance of the land, observance of the law and covenant, and the
triad of exodus, covenant, and election. Thematically, the deuteronmic
heritage is most strongly felt in the struggle against idolatry, centraliza-
tion of the cult, and observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant.
We have seen, then, that there is a wide array of deuteronomic influ-
ence displayed by 1 Maccabees, but this is particularly noticeable in
matters pertaining to law, the cult, and the land. There should be no
surprise at this, as these are the three institutions that were under at-
tack in the Hasmonean era, and the three areas in defense of which the
Maccabees had the most success. They reestablished the law (6:59),
renewed and protected the cult (4:53), and gained independence and
defined borders for the land of Judea (13:41–42; 15:33–34). It only makes
sense that an author trying to underline their accomplishments would
turn to the sources that best supported his effort. In this case it was
Deuteronomy and other deuteronomic literature.
Bibliography
Abel, Felix-Marie. Les Livres des Maccabées. Paris: Gabalda, 1949.
Bartlett, John R. 1Maccabees. Sheffiled: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Brooke, George J. “The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition.” Pages
39–59 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A.
Knibb. Edited by Judith Lieu and Charlotte Hempel. JSJSup 111. Leiden:
Brill, 2006.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976.
Lim, Timothy H. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.”
Pages 6–26 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the
Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steven Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken.

LNTS 358. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
Martola, Nils. Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book
of Maccabees. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A: Humaniora 63, 1. Åbo: Åbo
Akademi, 1984.
McConville, J. Gordon. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. JSOTS 33. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984.
Oesterley, William Oscar Emil. “The First Book of Maccabees.” Pages 59–124 in
APOT 1. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.
Person, Raymond F. Jr. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Lite-
rature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Rappaport, Uriel. “The First Book of Maccabees.” Pages 711–33 in The Oxford
Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 2001.
Schwartz, Seth. “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the
Hasmonean Expansion” JJS 42/1 (1991): 16–38.
Sievers, Joseph. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the
Death of John Hyrcanus I. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Vogt, Peter T. Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. 2nd ed. Winona
Williams, David S. The Structure of 1Maccabees. CBQMS. Washinton: Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1999.
Zeitlin, Solomon. The First Book of Maccabees. New York: Harper and Son, 1950.
The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in
the Book of Baruch
Marko Marttila
1. Introduction
The deuterocanonical book of Baruch is branded by its extensive adhe-

rence to earlier biblical books. Quotations from and allusions to the
scriptures are plentiful, and this has been the reason for some harsh but
justified statements: no sentence in this book is original, not even its
goal.1 Because of its nature, however, the Book of Baruch is a valuable
text when we turn to look at how it reflects Deuteronomistic phrase-
ology and theology.
The Book of Baruch was very likely written in Hebrew,2 but the
Hebrew text has since then disappeared. Therefore our analysis below
must be based on the Greek translation.3 There are different scholarly
opinions concerning the composition of the book. Some argue that the
book consists of different independent parts that were later put togeth-
er by an editor.4 I am, however, inclined to prefer Odil Hannes Steck’s
1 Ivo Meyer, “Das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia,” in Einleitung in das Alte
Testament (ed. E. Zenger; Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 5th edition; Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 2004), 484–88 (487–88).
2 Odil Hannes Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration
»kanonischer«Überlieferung (FRLANT 160; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993), 249–53; Alison Salvesen, “Baruch,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Bar-
ton and J. Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 699–703 (699); Meyer,
“Baruch,” 484.
3 The consulted critical text edition is Joseph Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula
Jeremiae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. XV; 2nd edition; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
4 Recently, this view has been favoured by Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Law:
Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76 (269), and by Salvesen,
“Baruch,” 699–700, who speaks of a compilation of three quite different composi-
tions, referring thus to a prose part (Bar 1:1–3:8) and two poetic parts (Bar 3:9–4:4
322 Marko Marttila
very detailed study where he convincingly demonstrates that the four

parts of the book (Einleitung 1:1–15a¸; Bußgebet 1:15a¹–3:8; Mahnrede
3:9–4:4 and Verheißungsrede 4:5–5:9) form an intentional unity.5 This
does not necessarily mean that it was an individual who wrote the
Book of Baruch. Rather, we should assume that there was a group of
scribes behind the name “Baruch.”6
As regards the date of the book, there are some firm facts that give
us a broad frame. Baruch was clearly aware of Dan 9, which functions
as a model for his penitential prayer in Bar 1:15a¹–3:8. Furthermore,
Baruch seems to presuppose the existence of Sir 1:1–10 and Sir 24 (cf.
Bar 3:9–4:4).7 These connections hint at an origin after 165 BCE. Even
though the Book of Baruch is not attested with certainty until the time
of the Church Fathers, the similarities between Baruch and the Psalms
of Solomon are so striking that a literary dependence ought to be as-
sumed. But which composition is the later one? This is a problematic
question, and it probably remains impossible to decide indisputably,
but there are certain features implying that the author of the Psalms of
Solomon would have known the basic form of Bar 4–5.8 Because Pss.
Sol. 11 presupposes Pompey’s entry into the temple of Jerusalem, we
gain a terminus ad quem for the Book of Baruch. There are still many
possibilities as to where to locate Baruch between 165 and 63 BCE. If we
and Bar 4:5–5:9). A more refined literary- and redaction-critical model was suggested
in the 1970s by Antonius Gunneweg, who argued that each unit had its own origin:
The penitential prayer (Bar 1:15–2:35) and the wisdom part (Bar 3:9–4:4) were secon-
darily put together by composing and inserting Bar 3:1–8 between these sequences.
Gunneweg considers it likely that the redactor who created 3:1–8 also joined the
originally independent words of consolation (4:5–5:9) into the growing composition.
Finally, the introduction (1:1–14) was added to the beginning of the book. For further
details, see Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Das Buch Baruch (JSHRZ, Band III; Gütersloh:
Gerd Mohn, 1975), 167–70. That the Book of Baruch consists of three sections and of
a secondary introduction (1:1–14) is also suggested by David G. Burke, The Poetry of
Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9
(SBLSCS 10; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 4–6, 18.
5 Steck, Baruchbuch, 265, summarizes after a meticulous exegesis: “Sowohl auf der
Textoberfläche als auch erst recht in dem Hintergrund der Textgenese spricht alles
dafür, daß Bar in seinen vier Teilen von vornherein als ein Ganzes konzipiert ist und
von Anfang an eine literarische Einheit darstellt.”
6 An even more precise definition is suggested by Steck, Baruchbuch, 306–7, who de-
rives the authors from the circle of the Hasideans.
7 Johannes Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben
Sira (BZAW 272; 2nd edition; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 57. See also Steck, Baruch-
buch, 135 n. 77. Concerning the date of Baruch, Burke, Poetry, 26–28, has composed
an illuminating list of previous scholarly opinions.
8 See the discussion in Steck, Baruchbuch, 240–42.
The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch 323
endeavour to reach a more precise date, the number of uncertainties

simultaneously increases.
The most detailed research in this field was done by Steck, who at-
tempted to demonstrate that the Book of Baruch was written in 163–162
BCE. 9 Steck’s arguments are based on the plausible starting point that
the Book of Baruch originated after the death of Antiochus IV Epi-
phanes and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. Then Steck
goes on to argue that the political stability reflected by Baruch does not
coincide with the sudden assassination of Antiochus V that took place
in autumn 162 BCE, and neither does Baruch hint at the inner-Jewish
military achievements in the subsequent years. Moreover, the transition
of the High Priest’s title to Jonathan in 152 BCE seems to be unknown to
Baruch. On the basis of these observations, Steck concludes that the
Book of Baruch must have been written during the reign of Antiochus
V. Undoubtedly, Steck has done competent work, but I am not yet fully
convinced whether we can define the origin of the Book of Baruch so
accurately. The Book of Baruch contains only few such sentences that
could reliably be connected with actual historical events of the author’s
own day. Perhaps it is better to broaden the temporal framework from
Steck’s hypothesis and suggest the second century BCE as the most like-
ly date for Baruch. Concerning the place of origin, scholars are quite
unanimous: the Book of Baruch was written in Palestine, presumably in
Jerusalem.10
After these introductory remarks it is time to turn to the contents of
Baruch’s work and focus on the way in which he benefits from Deute-
ronomistic language and theology. In addition to Dtr phraseology,
Baruch to a great extent makes use of the following biblical books:
Isaiah (esp. chapters 40–66), Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Psalms, Job (esp. chapter
28), Lamentations, Daniel (esp. chapter 9) and Ezra-Nehemiah.11
2. Deuteronomistic Expressions in the Book of Baruch
The Deuteronomistic influence can be detected in two ways: either as

direct quotations or as allusions. Recognition of direct quotations from
Deuteronomy, for instance, is impeded because we do not have access
to the Hebrew text of Baruch. Fortunately, the quotations are often so
9 Steck, Baruchbuch, 294–303.

10 Steck, Baruchbuch, 306; Ernst Haag, Das hellenistische Zeitalter. Israel und die Bibel im 4.
bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr (BiblE 9; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 189.
11 For a quick survey, see the useful table in Steck, Baruchbuch, 278.
324 Marko Marttila
obvious that they can be discerned even through the Greek translation.
The strongest concentration of Dtr terminology can be found in Ba-
ruch’s penitential prayer (Bar 1:15a¹–3:8). This prayer most firmly ad-
heres to the vocabulary and structure of Daniel’s confession of sin in
Dan 9:4–19. Even the order of the corresponding sentences is virtually
identical.12 Hence, there can be no doubt that the author of Baruch
knew Daniel’s prayer. Daniel 9:4–19 clearly differs from the other ma-
terial in the Book of Daniel, and it has been suggested with good reason
that this prayer had an independent existence before it was attached to
the Book of Daniel.13 Whether Baruch had known this prayer as a part
of the Book of Daniel or as a separate text is difficult to decide, but I am
inclined to propose that Baruch was aware of the Book of Daniel in its
full length. This would explain why both of these works err in regard-
ing Belshazzar (¸ÂÌ¸Ê¸É in Greek) as the son of King Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan 5:2, 11, 18; Bar 1:11–12).14 Though Daniel’s prayer was a Vorlage
for Baruch, the penitential prayer in Bar 1:15a¹–3:8 is a pastiche that
exploits Deuteronomistic and Jeremianic passages to a considerable
extent. In an appendix to this article I will give a full list of the parallels
between Baruch’s penitential prayer and other biblical books, but be-
low I will exclusively focus on the similarities between Baruch and Dtr
literature. Deuteronomistic literature is represented by the books from
Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.
The first connection between Baruch’s prayer and Deuteronomy
can be found in Bar 1:19. Here Baruch even deviates from his “main
source,” the prayer of Daniel, which does not mention Israel’s exodus
from Egypt until in 9:15. Instead, Bar 1:19 leans on Deut 9:7b, as the
following comparison illustrates.
12 Steck, Baruchbuch, 80, 89.

13 John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 346, after
having given a survey of different solutions as suggested by earlier scholars, comes
to the conclusion that the prayer in Dan 9 was not composed by the author of Dan 9
but was purposefully included by him in the present context, and consequently this
prayer cannot be considered “secondary” in the strict sense of the word. See also
Jürgen van Oorschot, “Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendichtung,”
ZAW 106 (1994): 69–86 (80–81); Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Tes-
tament. Grundzüge der Geschichte Israels und der alttestamentlichen Schriften (UTB 2146;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 460.
14 Burke, Poetry, 20.
Bar 1:19
ÒÈġ ÌýË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë, úË ëÆûº¸º¼Å ÁįÉÀÇË ÌÇİË È¸ÌšÉ¸Ë ÷ÄľÅ ëÁ ºýË ĊºįÈÌÇÍ, Á¸Ė
ïÑË ÌýË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë Ì¸įÌ¾Ë ôÄ¼¿¸ ÒÈ¼À¿ÇıÅÌ¼Ë ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė
ëÊÏ¼»ÀÚ½ÇÄ¼Å ÈÉġË Ìġ Äü ÒÁÇį¼ÀÅ ÌýË ÎÑÅýË ¸ĤÌÇı.
From the day when the Lord brought our ancestors out of the land of
Egypt until this day, we have been disobedient to the Lord our God,
and we have acted carelessly, in not heeding his voice.
Deut 9:7b
!#!'¡-3 -=''! -':// !$! -#9/!¡3 -)¡3 -':8/ 7:/ =8'¡:< -#'!¡0/+
ÒÎЏ úË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ëÆûÂ¿¼Ì¼ ëÆ ĊºįÈÌÇÍ ïÑË ôÂ¿¼Ì¼ ¼ĊË ÌġÅ ÌĠÈÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ,
ÒÈ¼À¿ÇıÅÌ¼Ë »À¼Ì¼Â¼ėÌ¼ ÌÛ ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ.
From the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this
place, you have been disobedient towards the Lord.
The remembrance of how God delivered his people from the slavery of
Egypt and how the people had continuously been disobedient to God
are some of the basic ideas of the Dtr editors. The most significant dif-
ference between Bar 1:19 and Deut 9:7b is the change of subject. Pure
Dtr parenesis is addressed in the second person (either singular or
plural), but it is a characteristic feature of the later confessions and
prayers that they favour the first person plural,15 as is the case with
Baruch’s penitential prayer.
In Bar 1:20, a reference is made to the calamities and the curse that
the Lord declared through his servant Moses. This clearly alludes to
Deut 28:15–68 where a long list of various curses is decreed upon a
defiant people. Deuteronomistic is further the title “servant” used with
Moses (cf. Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1–15). In addition to these features, Bar 1:20
repeats the reference to the exodus event and says that the Lord gave a
land flowing with milk and honey. Inheritance of the land and its pos-
15 Timo Veijola, “Das Klagegebet in Literatur und Leben der Exilsgeneration am Beis-
piel einiger Prosatexte,” in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus
und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 176–91
(190), has paid attention to the shift in how the earlier complaints are put aside and
replaced by confessions of sin: “Das Sündenbekenntnis ist ein Phänomen, das die
jungen Gebete charakterisiert. Im nachexilischen Zeitalter kommt die Anklage
Gottes fast ganz zum Schweigen, und an ihre stelle tritt das Bußgebet (vgl. Ps 106;
Esr 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; 9:5–37; Dan 9:4–19). Ein wesentliches Merkmal der nachex-
ilischen Bußgebete ist, daß sie die Gerechtigkeit Jahwes als Kehrseite der menschli-
chen Schuld stark betonen.”
326 Marko Marttila
session are central Dtr emphases that can be detected time and again in
Dtr compositions.16
Baruch 1:21 is a reminder that the people did not listen to the voice
of Yahweh as revealed by the prophets. That Yahweh sends prophets to
his people has parallels in Dtr literature (e.g. Deut 18:15–22).
Baruch 1:22 is full of Dtr phraseology and deserves a more detailed
analysis.
Bar 1:22
Á¸Ė ĴÏĠÄ¼¿¸ ïÁ¸ÊÌÇË ëÅ »À¸ÅÇĕß Á¸É»ĕ¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇı ÌýË ÈÇÅ¾ÉÜË ëÉºÚ½¼Ê¿¸À ¿¼ÇėË
îÌñÉÇÀË ÈÇÀýÊ¸À ÌÛ Á¸ÁÛ Á¸ÌЏ ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄÇİË ÁÍÉĕÇÍ ¿¼Çı ÷ÄľÅ.
But all of us went in the intent of our own wicked hearts by serving
other gods and doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord our God.
This verse picks up one of the most crucial Dtr topics: the abomination
caused by idolatry. The worship of foreign gods is repeatedly prohi-
bited in the Dtr texts,17 but still the people are easily tempted to commit
this sin. Even the concluding phrase in Bar 1:22 – “to do what is evil in
the sight of Yahweh” – is widely used, as is its positive counterpart in
Dtr literature: Deut 4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29; Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6;
13:1; 1 Sam 15:19; 2 Sam 12:9; more than 40 times in 1–2 Kings; Ps 51:6.
It is noteworthy that in the LXX of Deuteronomy the Hebrew expres-
sion !#!' '1'3 3:! !<3is every time translated with the structure ÈÇÀ¼ėÅ
Ìġ ÈÇÅ¾ÉġÅ ëÅ¸ÅÌĕÇÅ ÁÍÉĕÇÍ, taking thus the Hebrew '1'3 as a semipreposi-
tion.18 Also, in other occurrences mentioned above '1'3is rendered
either with ëÅ¸ÅÌĕÇÅ or ëÅļÈÀÇÅ, except in 2 Sam 12:9 (ëÅ ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄÇėË), which
aims to be a more slavish rendering like Bar 1:22. It has been argued
that the preference of using semiprepositions instead of the literal ren-
dering ëÅ ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄÇėË reveals the Greek translators’ attempt avoid giving
too anthropomorphic a picture of God,19 but this theory does not pass
the test because the LXX of 2 Kgs renders !#!' '1'3 with ëÅ ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄÇėË a
numerous 23 times. Even though we do not have access to the Hebrew
16 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford Universi-
ty Press, 1972), 341–43.
17 See the several references in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–24.
18 See the more extensive discussion in Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semipreposi-
tions in the Septuagint (AASF.DHL 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979),
123–46.
19 James D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings
(HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 13–17.
parental text of Baruch, this small detail indicates that the Greek trans-
lation is at least here rather literal.
Baruch 2:2 utilizes the wording of Deut 4:32b, even though the con-
text is different. Deuteronomy 4:32b focuses on Israel’s special status
among the nations because only Israel heard God speaking out of a fire.
This is a positive statement about Israel, while Bar 2:2 uses the same
imagery in a negative sense: the destruction of Jerusalem was incom-
parable with anything else that had ever happened under the whole of
heaven. Baruch’s reference to cannibalism in 2:3 has its background in
Deut 28:53 (par. Lev 26:29). Although Baruch’s dependence on Deut
28:53 is evident here, this affinity cannot be considered a sign of Deute-
ronomistic heritage in Baruch because references to cannibalism are not
typical of Dtr phraseology.20
Deuteronomistic editors often refer to the perception that God’s
own people will be/have been scattered among the nations (-'' 7'6!;
see e.g. Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3).21 Baruch seizes on this theme in Bar 2:4,
29 and 3:8; the same verb »À¸ÊÈ¼ĕÉÑ is used in all of them. It was the
people’s disloyalty that caused their dispersion.
Baruch 2:11 returns to the topic of exodus. This verse includes so
much Dtr colour that it needs a closer look.
Bar 2:11
Á¸Ė ÅıÅ, ÁįÉÀ¼ ĝ ¿¼ġË ÊÉ¸¾Â, ğË ëÆûº¸º¼Ë ÌġÅ Â¸ĠÅ ÊÇÍ ëÁ ºýË ĊºįÈÌÇÍ ëÅ Ï¼ÀÉĖ
ÁÉ¸Ì¸Àê Á¸Ė ëÅ Ê¾Ä¼ĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌñÉ¸ÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ëÅ »ÍÅÚÄ¼À Ä¼ºÚÂþ Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ
ĨÐ¾ÂŊ Á¸Ė ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¸Ë Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ ěÅÇÄ¸ ĸË ÷ ÷ÄñÉ¸ ¸ĩÌ¾.
And now, O Lord God of Israel, who brought your people out of the
land of Egypt with a mighty hand and with signs and wonders and
with great power and with outstretched arm, and made yourself a
name like it is today.
Baruch’s passage presupposes some characteristic Dtr sayings. Princi-

pally, I am against retroversions because they are usually too subjective
and methodologically questionable,22 but to make the comparison easi-
20 Cannibalistic acts also occur in 2 Kgs 6:24–31; Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; 4:10.
21 More occurrences in Steck, Baruchbuch, 103 n. 122.
22 Scholars have often employed retroversions in those parts in the Wisdom of Ben Sira
where the Hebrew text is not preserved, but Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference.
Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989), 233–50, reminds us of the dangers of such a procedure. The same is valid for
the investigation of Baruch. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and
Baruch. A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–
328 Marko Marttila
er I dare this time to propose a Hebrew retroversion for Bar 2:11 be-
cause the Greek text is so transparent: =8#! :< +:<' '!+ !#!' !=3#
(+ ='<3# !'#&1 3#:$# +# %)# -'=6#/# =#=# !9$% ' -':8/ 7:/ (/3¡=
!$! -#') -<.23 This is a combination of several Dtr elements that are put
together by Baruch. That God brought his people out of Egypt is a re-
current theme in Dtr texts (e.g. Deut 5:6; 8:14; 9:12; 13:11; 15:15). This
statement is followed by a long list of attributes that underline God’s
power. The most typical word pair is “strong hand and outstretched
arm” ( !'#&1 3#:$# !9$% '/ëÅ Ï¼ÀÉĖ ÁÉ¸Ì¸Àê Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ ĨÐ¾ÂŊ), which
occurs in Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kgs 8:42. All these passages
of Deuteronomy refer to the exodus, but 1 Kgs 8:42 is a part of Solo-
mon’s prayer in the temple in which he mentions the foreigners who
might have heard of Yahweh’s great name, his mighty hand and out-
stretched arm, which naturally can also allude to the exodus.
“Signs and wonders” (-'=6#/# =#=/ëÅ Ê¾Ä¼ĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌñÉ¸ÊÀÅ) is a
word pair that is frequently attested in Dtr literature, e.g. Deut 4:34;
6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:2; 34:11. All these occurrences hint at the plagues that
God sent upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians (cf. Exod 7:3). In a couple of
places the Dtr literature uses the phrase “with great might and out-
stretched arm”(!'#&1 3#:$# +# %)/ëÅ »ÍÅÚÄ¼À Ä¼ºÚÂþ Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ
ĨÐ¾ÂŊ), namely in Deut 9:29 and 2 Kgs 17:36. Once again a reference is
made to God’s powerful act of bringing his people out of Egypt. A later
text, Neh 1:10, retains the same wording. Nowhere else, however, are
so many exodus-orientated attributes linked together as in Bar 2:11.
This particular example well illustrates why Baruch’s work can justifia-
bly be called a pastiche. He has been throughout familiar with the Dtr
terminology, and in connection with the exodus event he has had the
3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 111, stresses that the reconstruction of
the lost Hebrew Vorlage can only be a tentative attempt, but there are two factors that
facilitate this task: first, Baruch was translated with literal accuracy by a relatively
consistent translator, and secondly, the reconstruction can be supported by many
biblical parallels which the author of the Hebrew Baruch most likely had in mind.
David G. Burke composed a full-scale monograph in the 1980s in which he endea-
voured to reconstruct the lost Hebrew text of Bar 3:9–5:9. Burke admits the difficul-
ties that are involved in such an enterprise, but he defends himself by insisting that
the case with Baruch differs from many other books because of the derivative nature
of Baruch. According to Burke, Poetry, 38, the reconstruction is also facilitated by the
existence of numerous well-established and highly predictable lexical equivalencies
between the LXX and the Masoretic text, by the availability of a wealth of parallels in
various canonical and noncanonical works (including the Qumran), by the signifi-
cant accumulation of data regarding Hebrew grammar, syntax and parallelism, and
by the ever-increasing body of information about contemporary Alexandrian Greek.
23 This retroversion essentially accords with Tov’s reconstruction of the Hebrew text of
Bar 2:11; see Tov, Translation, 128.
opportunity to cite as many relevant words as possible. Furthermore, at

the end of v. 11 Baruch makes use of some other Dtr elements. He men-
tions that God made himself a name. This is an explicit reference to the
Deuteronomistic theology of “name” (-<). It is several times declared
that Yahweh will choose a site at which his name will dwell (Deut
12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2), that he will put his name there (Deut 12:5,
21; 14:24) or that his name will be there (1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs 23:27).
Even the other peoples of the earth shall see that Israel is called by the
name of Yahweh (Deut 28:10), a sentence that comes close to Bar 2:11.
Even the last temporal note “as today” in Bar 2:11 (!$! -#')/ĸË ÷ ÷ÄñÉ¸
¸ĩÌ¾) contains Deuteronomistic repercussions because !$! -#')is re-
peatedly attested in the realm of Dtr literature: Deut 2:30; 4:20, 38; 6:24;
8:18; 10:15; 29:27; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24, 61.24
The confession of sin in Bar 2:12 has striking similarities with 1 Kgs
8:47b¹, as the comparison below indicates. It is very likely that Baruch
has borrowed this threefold confession from the prayer of Solomon.
Bar 2:12
÷ÄÚÉÌÇÄ¼Å óÊ¼¹ûÊ¸Ä¼Å ó»ÀÁûÊ¸Ä¼Å, ÁįÉÀ¼ ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ, ëÈĖ ÈÜÊÀÅ ÌÇėË
»ÀÁ¸ÀļÄ¸ÊÀÅ ÊÇÍ.
We have sinned, we have been ungodly, we have done wrong, O Lord
our God, against all your ordinances.
1 Kgs 8:47b¹
÷ÄÚÉÌÇÄ¼Å óÅÇÄûÊ¸Ä¼Å ó»ÀÁûÊ¸Ä¼Å #13<: #1'#3!# #1&%
We have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly.
Baruch 2:13 continues the theme of the dispersion of Israel (cf. Bar 2:4
above). The closest parallel to Bar 2:13 is undoubtedly Deut 4:27. Bar
2:15 includes a plea that all the earth may come to know that Yahweh is
the God of Israel, and in its wording Bar 2:15 adheres even more firmly
to Deut 28:10 than Bar 2:11. The admonition to God in Bar 2:16 (“O
Lord, look down from your holy dwelling”) is an almost verbatim quo-
tation from Deut 26:15 (“Look down from your holy habitation”). Even
Dan 9:18 contains a request that God would incline his ear and hear the
cry of his people, but God’s holy dwelling on high is not stressed there.
24 As Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 350, rightly remarks, the occurrences of !$! -#') in Dan
9:7, 15; Ezra 9:7, 15; Neh 9:10 and 1 Chr 28:7 are influenced by the Deuteronomic
usage. To this list Bar 2:11 can legitimately be added.
330 Marko Marttila
The petition of Bar 2:16 is repeated in Bar 2:17 in other words: this time
it is asked that God open his eyes and see the miserable fate of his
people. It is much more usual in the biblical texts that God is asked to
incline his ear and hear, but that God should open his eyes is a request
made more rarely. Once again, the parallel and background for Ba-
ruch’s choice of words can be found in the Deuteronomistic literature.
In 2 Kgs 19:16, King Hezekiah prays to the Lord and asks for divine
intervention beginning with the plea: “Incline your ear, O Lord, and
hear; open your eyes, O Lord, and see!” It is even noteworthy that He-
zekiah’s prayer is concluded by the wish that all the kingdoms of the
earth may know that Yahweh is the only God (2 Kgs 19:19). These par-
allels indicate how much Baruch has absorbed the Dtr ideology. Baruch
2:17 also shows Baruch’s acquaintance with the Psalms when he says
that the dead do not praise Yahweh (cf. Ps 30:10; 88:10–12; 115:17; also
Isa 38:18).
The next passage in Baruch that reflects Dtr terminology to a great
extent is Bar 2:29–35.25 This quotation, which Baruch attributes to Moses
(v. 28), is not, however, attested in the Pentateuch, but it is a collection
of phrases from the Book of Jeremiah. Nonetheless, Baruch’s words
contain some distinguishable echoes from Deuteronomy and other Dtr
sources. In v. 29, it is warned that disobedience to God will lead to the
decrease of the people and to their dispersion. This kind of proclama-
tion has its precedents in Deut 28:15, 62 (concerning the dispersion, a
relevant passage is also Deut 4:27).
The people of Israel are described as a stiff-necked people (Bar
2:30a). This non-flattering attribute is also used in Deut 9:6, 13; 31:27
(and in Exod 32:9; 33:3; 34:9). The people have sinned, they have been
ungodly, and they have turned away from God’s ordinances. Baruch
has underlined this state of affairs in a Deuteronomistic spirit. But that
is not the end. One of the key points in Dtr parenesis is the possibility
to turn away from wrong ways. From Bar 2:30b onward, there is more
and more hope included in the prayer. Baruch repeats the thoughts that
are earlier expressed in Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10 (and the similarities to
Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8:46–53 are also noteworthy). All the same
elements are present: the Israelites have to live scattered among foreign
nations, and there they will seek Yahweh; they will find him, for God
will not forget the oath that he has sworn to their ancestors. Baruch
mentions that God will endow his people with a hearing (obeying)
heart (parallelled only in 1 Kgs 3:9) and hearing ears (Deut 29:3; Jer
24:7; 32:39). Deuteronomy 4:31 refers to the covenant (=':) that God
25 Steck, Baruchbuch, 109–10.

had made with the patriarchs. Baruch 2:35 speaks of an eternal cove-
nant and orientates it to the future, containing thus repercussions from
Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant (Jer 31:33). As a culmination,
Baruch expresses the Bundesformel in 2:35 “I will be their God, and they
will be my people.” This covenantal pattern constitutes one of the fun-
daments of the Old Testament proclamation, as can be seen in its sever-
al occurrences (e.g. Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Deut 26:17–18; 29:12; Jer 24:7;
30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27).26
Baruch 3:1–8 is a prayer where the people confess that they have
committed sins as their forefathers have done. But the people in dis-
tress turn to Yahweh and ask that he would show his mercy. The
people are ready to call upon Yahweh’s name and praise him (Bar 3:7).
This particular sentence seems to allude to Ps 50:15: “Call on me in the
day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”27 Moreo-
ver, Bar 3:1–8 is again full of Dtr phrases. The whole prayer represents
Deut 4:29–31 and Deut 30:1–10 in a rewritten form, but the main con-
tent remains the same: the people have continuously transgressed
God’s ordinances, they have been scattered among the nations, but
now they feel remorse, turn back to Yahweh and ask for deliverance.
Bar 3:6 contains a monotheistic creed: “For you are the Lord our God,”
which partly imitates the main commandment (Deut 6:4).
Baruch 3:9 begins a new unit that extends to 4:4. This is no longer a
prayer of penitence, but rather a speech of exhortation (Mahnrede). Here
Baruch leans heavily on biblical wisdom literature. The connections
between this sequence and Job 28 in particular are noteworthy.28 Ba-
ruch emphasizes that the source of wisdom is not easily accessible (3:9–
23), but Israel solely has received wisdom as a divine gift (3:24–4:4).
Even this unit, which could be entitled “Praise of Wisdom,” is not de-
void of Deuteronomistic features.
Alison Salvesen argues that Baruch’s Praise of Wisdom commences
with no obvious connection to the preceding section.29 This is not quite
true because Bar 3:1–8 is strongly influenced by chapters Deut 4 and 30,
26 The tradition history of the Bundesformel has been profoundly analysed by Rudolf
Smend, “Die Bundesformel,” in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Exegetische Aufsätze
(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002), 1–29. Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4
Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 71–93,
defines both Ben Sira and Baruch (3:9–4:4) as representatives of “covenantal wis-
dom.” Hogan argues that Ben Sira’s primary frame of reference is creation theology,
whereas covenant theology is the predominant feature in Baruch’s wisdom poem.
27 Translation according to NRSV.
28 See Steck, Baruchbuch, 128; Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702.
29 Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702.
332 Marko Marttila
and some of the same texts play an important role in the background of
Bar 3:9–14. First of all, Bar 3:9 admonishes the people to hear the com-
mandments of life. This is a direct link to Deut 4:1 and Deut 30:16,
which mention the life-giving law. That Baruch combines law and wis-
dom in Bar 3:9 is a phenomenon that has its precedent in the later Deu-
teronomistic layers and particularly in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.30 Sever-
al times Baruch implies Israel’s experiences in exile: Israel is in the land
of her enemies (Bar 3:10) because she has not walked in the way of God
(Bar 3:13), which would have granted an everlasting peace (v. 13). Israel
has had the freedom to choose either life or death, prosperity or adver-
sity, as is made clear in Deut 30:15. After having faced destruction,
Baruch urges the people to choose life by seeking the wisdom that is
revealed in the book of the commandments of God (Bar 4:1). Here Ba-
ruch evidently depends on Sir 24:23, but the Deuteronomistic echoes
are also notable.
Baruch’s adherence to Deuteronomy 30 will again become apparent
when we have a closer look at Bar 3:29–30. These lines are a reminder
of how arduous it is for men to achieve wisdom by their own means.
Baruch poses questions: “(29) Who has gone up into heaven, and taken
her, and brought her down from the clouds? (30) Who has gone over
the sea, and found her, and will buy her for pure gold?” Obviously,
these questions presuppose negative replies: no one can thus gain wis-
dom. But there is an alternative way in that true wisdom can be found
in Israel’s Torah. This is the fact that Baruch wants to stress, but it is not
his own idea since he has borrowed it from Deut 30:11–14, even repeat-
ing the same metaphorical language:
“(11) Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is

not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. (12) It is not in heaven, that
you should say: ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so
that we may hear it and observe it?’ (13) Neither is it beyond the sea,
that you should say: ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us,
and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ (14) No, the
word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you
to observe.”31
30 Timo Veijola, “Law and Wisdom. The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teach-
ing of the Law,” in Leben nach der Weisung. Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten
Testament (ed. W. Dietrich and M. Marttila; FRLANT 224; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2008), 144–64; Burkes, “Choosing Life,” 271–75.
31 Translation according to NRSV.
Baruch 3:36 contains the respectful statement that only Israel’s God can
accomplish all such things that are depicted in the preceding verses: he
has prepared the earth and filled it with creatures; he can give orders to
lightning and it obeys. No other can be compared to the God of Israel.
Baruch’s statement “This is our God” (ÇīÌÇË ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ) has its back-
ground, above all, in Deut 4:35 and 39, and both of these verses under-
line that there is no other besides him. Possibly even the main com-
mandment (Deut 6:4) is implied by the wording of Bar 3:36.
Many scholars regard Bar 3:38 as a later Christian interpolation32
since its statements about the personified wisdom that appeared on
earth and lived with humankind resemble so apparently the way in
which the prologue in the Gospel of John speaks of the incarnation of
Christ. Of course, it can be argued that Bar 3:38 does not refer to the
incarnation of Christ,33 but reiterates the longer poem on Lady Wisdom
that is told in Sir 24:1–22. This theme became popular in the late Second
Temple Jewish literature. The most peculiar adaptation is represented
by 1 Enoch 42 where it is told that Wisdom did not find a dwelling
among men and therefore she decided to return to her heavenly ab-
ode.34 Even if Bar 3:38 is not necessarily a later Christian interpolation,
its authenticity in this context is dubious because the content of this
verse contradicts Baruch’s conviction that the “way of knowledge” was
given only to Israel.35 Without v. 38 the poem would proceed rather
smoothly from 3:37 to 4:1.
Baruch 4:1 is not only based on Sir 24:23 but also on Deut 4:5–8,
which has played a significant role in the background of Sir 24.36 True
wisdom is identifiable with the Torah of Israel. Baruch’s speech of ex-
hortation is concluded by an Israel-orientated macarism (Bar 4:4),
which emphasizes the same thing as the whole preceding speech: the
32 Thus, for instance, Odil Hannes Steck, Das Buch Baruch (ATDA 5; Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 18, 53–54.
33 Gunneweg, Baruch, 177; Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702, puts this astutely: “Bar 3:8–4:4 is
not the most obvious place to insert a Christological text, and it is much easier to
understand the verse as original to its setting, describing how the inaccessible divine
Wisdom was given as Torah to Israel and came to dwell on earth.”
34 See the latest discussion of this passage in Martin Leuenberger, “Die personifizierte
Weisheit vorweltlichen Ursprungs von Hi 28 bis Joh 1. Ein traditionsgeschichtlicher
Strang zwischen den Testamenten,” ZAW 120 (2008): 366–86 (380–82).
35 Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 83–84, concludes that Baruch’s main point in
the poem (Bar 3:9–4:4) is to emphasize that other nations do not possess wisdom be-
cause this divine gift was entrusted to Israel alone in the form of the Torah. See also
Karina M. Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch,” in The Other
in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. Goff et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).
36 Veijola, “Law and Wisdom,” 147–49.
334 Marko Marttila
uniqueness of Israel.37 Only the people of Israel were elected by God,

only this people received the divine law that incorporated true wis-
dom. Baruch’s macarism very likely stems from Deut 33:29 where Mos-
es, at the end of his long speech of blessing, praises that Israel is happy.
It is certainly intentional that Baruch wanted to conclude his exhorta-
tive speech by alluding to the last words of Moses, the transmitter of
the divine law.
The speech of exhortation is followed by a speech of promise (Ver-
heißungsrede) that covers the last part of the Book of Baruch (4:5–5:9).
This sequence mainly utilizes comforting promises that derive from
Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah.38 On the other hand, some characteristic Dtr
features can also be detected. Baruch 4:7–8 contains striking similarities
to Deut 32:16–18.39
Bar 4:7–8
È¸ÉÑÆįÅ¸Ì¼ ºÛÉ ÌġÅ ÈÇÀûÊ¸ÅÌ¸ ĨÄÜË ¿įÊ¸ÅÌ¼Ë »¸ÀÄÇÅĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ÇĤ ¿¼Ŋ.
ëÈ¼ÂÚ¿¼Ê¿¼ »ò ÌġÅ ÌÉÇÎ¼įÊ¸ÅÌ¸ ĨÄÜË ¿¼ġÅ ¸ĊļÅÀÇÅ, ëÂÍÈûÊ¸Ì¼ »ò Á¸Ė ÌüÅ
ëÁ¿ÉñÐ¸Ê¸Å ĨÄÜË ¼ÉÇÍÊ¸Â¾Ä.
For you provoked the one who made you by sacrificing to demons and
not to God. You forgot the everlasting God, who nursed you, and you
grieved Jerusalem, who nourished you.
Deut 32:16–18
-#3' + -'!+ !+ + -'<+ #%$' #!2'3)' =3#= -':$ #!19'
(++%/ + %)<=# '<= (+' :#8 -)'= -#:3< + # :9/ -'<%
È¸ÉļÆÍÅÚÅ Ä¼ ëÈЏ ÒÂÂÇÌÉĕÇÀË, ëÅ ¹»¼ÂįºÄ¸ÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÆ¼ÈĕÁÉ¸Å¸Å Ä¼. ì¿ÍÊ¸Å
»¸ÀÄÇÅĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ÇĤ ¿¼Ŋ, ¿¼ÇėË, ÇđË ÇĤÁ Ā»¼ÀÊ¸Å Á¸ÀÅÇĖ ÈÉĠÊÎ¸ÌÇÀ øÁ¸ÊÀÅ, ÇĪË ÇĤÁ
Ā»¼ÀÊ¸Å ÇĎ È¸ÌñÉ¼Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ. ¿¼ġÅ ÌġÅ º¼ÅÅûÊ¸ÅÌÚ Ê¼ ëºÁ¸ÌñÂÀÈ¼Ë Á¸Ė ëÈ¼ÂÚ¿ÇÍ
¿¼Çı ÌÇı ÌÉñÎÇÅÌĠË Ê¼.
37 Steck, Baruchbuch, 158. Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” distinguishes between the way in
which Ben Sira and Baruch identify wisdom with the Torah. She points out that Ben
Sira describes the Torah in very universal terms in Sir 24:25–27, whereas Baruch is
more particularistic and concludes the exhortative speech by asserting Israel’s exclu-
sive claim to wisdom. In her monograph, Hogan says that Ben Sira’s poetic text is
ambiguous and the recognition of the Torah by the foreign nations remains some-
what vague, but the idea of universal recognition of the Torah is present – at least –
in embryonic form; see Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 136–37.
38 Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702–3.
39 It has been a matter of dispute in the scholarly discussion to what extent the Song of
Moses (Deut 32) can be regarded as a Deuteronomistic product, but at least some
sentences in it suggest an unambiguous Dtr colour.
They made him40 jealous with strange gods, with abominable things
they provoked him. They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they
had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors
had not known. You were unmindful of the rock41 that bore you; you
forgot the God who gave you birth.
These texts have in common that they both accuse the Israelites of pro-
voking (È¸ÉÇÆįÅÑ) God. This provocation takes its form in idolatry
when sacrifices are addressed to demons instead of God. Such acts
evidence that the people have forgotten their only true God. Baruch
depicts God with a maternal image as the one who nurses her child,
and Jerusalem is the feminine subject who raises it from childhood,
while Deut 32:18 only says that it was God who gave birth, thus incor-
porating the maternal image.
Baruch 4:15 is closely related to Deut 28:49–50. The similarities are
so obvious that only a literary dependence can be supposed. Together
with the several previous examples discussed so far, it seems that Deu-
teronomy 28 was one of the most influential chapters for the authors of
Baruch.42
Bar 4:15
ëÈûº¸º¼Å ºÛÉ ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇİË ì¿ÅÇË Ä¸ÁÉĠ¿¼Å, ì¿ÅÇË ÒÅ¸À»òË Á¸Ė ÒÂÂĠºÂÑÊÊÇÅ, ÇĐ
ÇĤÁ óÊÏįÅ¿¾Ê¸Å ÈÉ¼Ê¹įÌ¾Å ÇĤ»¼ È¸À»ĕÇÅ óÂñ¾Ê¸Å.
For he brought a distant nation against them, a nation ruthless and of a
strange language, which had no respect for the aged and no pity on a
child.
Deut 28:49–50
#1<+ 3/<=¡+ :< '# :<1! !' :<) 7:! !89/ 9#%:/ '# ('+3 !#!' <'
0%' + :31# 09$+ -'16 <'¡+ :< -'16 $3 '#
40 The object suffixes in Hebrew refer to the third person masculine in the singular,
whereas the Septuagint has translated them in the first person singular, as if the text
in question is God’s direct speech.
41 For the sake of clarity, the Greek translator has replaced the divine epithet “rock”
with “God.”
42 Baruch frequently borrows ideas from Deuteronomy, and especially three chapters
seem to have been of major importance to him: Deut 4, 28 and 30. These chapters put
a distinctive emphasis on opposites such as doom or salvation, blessing or curse. The
Israelites are advised to choose the life that is to be found in God’s ordinances. See
Steck, Baruch, 19.
336 Marko Marttila
ëÈÚÆ¼À ÁįÉÀÇË ëÈĖ Êò ì¿ÅÇË Ä¸ÁÉĠ¿¼Å ÒÈЏ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌýË ºýË ĸÊ¼Ė ĞÉÄ¾Ä¸ Ò¼ÌÇı,
ì¿ÅÇË, ğ ÇĤÁ ÒÁÇįÊþ ÌýË ÎÑÅýË ¸ĤÌÇı, ì¿ÅÇË ÒÅ¸À»òË ÈÉÇÊļÈÑ, ĞÊÌÀË ÇĤ
¿¸ÍÄÚÊ¼À ÈÉĠÊÑÈÇÅ ÈÉ¼Ê¹įÌÇÍ Á¸Ė ÅñÇÅ ÇĤÁ ëÂ¼ûÊ¼À.
Yahweh will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth,
like a swoop of an eagle, a nation whose language you do not under-
stand, a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or pity for the
young.
These two passages have the following affinities: a distant nation will
carry out Yahweh’s punishment on Israel (which has been disobedient).
This foreign nation speaks an incomprehensible language, and it does
not show any mercy toward the aged or children, a sure sign of the
cruelty of this distant nation.
Baruch 4:25 still contains one rather obvious quotation from Deute-
ronomy. A time reference is made to Deut 33:29, whose opening line
with the macarism was cited earlier by Bar 4:4. When Baruch writes:
“Your enemy has overtaken you, but you will soon see their destruc-
tion and will tread upon their necks (ëÈĖ ÌÉ¸ÏûÂÇÍË ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈÀ¹ûÊþ),” he has
certainly in mind Deut 33:29b¹: “Your enemies shall come fawning to
you, and you shall tread on their neck (ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÌÉÚÏ¾ÂÇÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈÀ¹ûÊþ).”
3. Basic Deuteronomistic Concepts in the Book of Baruch
The survey above has shown that Baruch makes abundant use of ma-
terial from Deuteronomy and from other Deuteronomistic works. His
book is a pastiche in which many other biblical books as well have
served as sources (especially Daniel, Jeremiah, Job and Deutero- and
Trito-Isaiah). Now it is time to draw an overall picture about which
aspects in the Deuteronomistic proclamation were the most significant
for Baruch and which ones he hardly touched upon at all.
Moshe Weinfeld distinguishes no less than nine characteristically
Deuteronomistic motives that are foundational for the Deuteronomistic
History as a whole. These central subjects are 1) the struggle against
idolatry; 2) centralization of worship (the chosen place and the “name”
theology); 3) exodus, covenant and election; 4) the monotheistic creed;
5) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant; 6) inheritance of
the land; 7) retribution and material motivation; 8) the fulfilment of
prophecy; and 9) the Davidic dynasty.43 In addition to these main
themes, some uniform rhetoric and parenetic phraseology can be dis-

cerned throughout the Deuteronomistic History. Though Weinfeld’s

study dates back to the 1970s and is certainly obsolete in many senses,
these basic categories that he suggested for Dtr parenesis can still be
maintained. Baruch seizes upon many of these topics, as we have al-
ready seen.
Israel’s idolatrous behaviour is explicitly mentioned in Bar 1:22 and
4:7. Idolatry is definitely implied in those numerous penitential confes-
sions where people admit that they have committed sin.44 This was the
main crime that caused the divine punishment of exile. The Main
Commandment in Shema Jisrael says it clearly that Yahweh was the only
God for Israel (Deut 6:4). The same thing is stressed by the first com-
mandment of the Decalogue, which indisputably has its origin in the
Deuteronomistic circles. It is astonishing that the expression “foreign
gods” (-':% -'!+) occurs in the Dtr literature – outside the Decalogue
– 53 times and is only once attested elsewhere (Hos 3:1).45 There can be
thus no doubt from which source Baruch has borrowed this expression.
Centralization of worship is the leading theme in Deut 12, but it is
referred to time and again in other Dtr works, too. The commandment
to centralize the cult is a composite in which traces of different Dtr edi-
tors can be seen. If we follow Timo Veijola’s detailed analysis of Deut
12, the oldest core is visible in vv. 13–14; 17–18; 21a¸b. This Grundgebot
is historically interpreted in vv. 8–12, stemming thus from DtrH, but his
text was subsequently expanded by the covenantal editor (DtrB).46 The
basic formulation in Hebrew is !#!' :%' :< -#9/! (“the site that the
Lord will choose”), but closely related is also the phrase
#'+3 '/< :91 :< ='! (“the house which my name is called upon”),
which is encountered in the prayer of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:43). Similarities
between 1 Kgs 8:43 and Bar 2:26 become obvious when we look at them
in their Greek forms: ĞÌÀ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈÀÁñÁÂ¾Ì¸À ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ, ğÅ
ŀÁÇ»ĠÄ¾Ê¸ (1 Kgs 8:43); Á¸Ė ì¿¾Á¸Ë ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ, Çī ëÈ¼ÁÂû¿¾ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈЏ
¸ĤÌŊ (Bar 2:26). Even the introductory part of Baruch (Bar 1:1–15a¸)
implies that Jerusalem – even though in ruins – is still the only legiti-
mate place for sacrifices to be carried out.
44 As a parallel to Baruch, a reference can be made to Ben Sira. For Ben Sira, the worst
crime he seems to be aware of is idolatry. See Teresa R. Brown, “God and Men in
Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50),” in Ben
Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College
2001 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 214–20.
45 Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1969), 84.
46 Timo Veijola, Das Fünfte Buch Mose / Deuteronomium (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 265–79.
338 Marko Marttila
Baruch 2:11 leans in its wording on Deuteronomistic expressions

when it speaks of “a strong hand and outstretched arm,” of “great
might” and of “signs and wonders.” This is terminology that the Deu-
teronomistic editors always connect with the exodus. Continuous refer-
ences back to this distant historical event should engender hope among
the people: there have been previous times of distress, but Yahweh
guided his people, and eventually the difficulties were overcome.
Roughly four centuries after the Babylonian exile Baruch reminds his
audience that Yahweh has delivered his people. Yahweh has commit-
ted the fundamental act of salvation. The Chosen People have been
disloyal, but that does not diminish Yahweh’s great mercy. The dis-
persed people will return to the land of their fathers because Yahweh
has promised that they will do so. He has elected Israel to be his own
people, and this should become known before all the earth (Bar 2:15).
This thought is closely related to the monotheistic creed which under-
lines the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel. In the realm
of Dtr literature it may still be better to speak of “monolatry” instead of
“monotheism,”47 but in the late Hellenistic period when the Book of
Baruch most likely was composed, monotheism had become an estab-
lished doctrine. In addition to Bar 2:15, monotheistic hints can be at-
tested in Bar 3:6 and 3:36.
Observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant are topics that
repeatedly occur in the texts of Baruch. People have not walked in the
commands of the Lord (ÈÇÉ¼į¼Ê¿¸À ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÊÌÚºÄ¸ÊÀÅ ÁÍÉĕÇÍ; Bar 1:18;
2:10; and with a slightly different wording in Bar 3:13; 4:13). The paral-
lels in the Dtr literature speak of “going after Yahweh,” “walking in the
way(s) of Yahweh” or “walking in the law of Yahweh.”48 Baruch ad-
heres to an extremely stereotypical Dtr formula when he says in 1:22
that Israel has done that which is evil in the eyes of Yahweh. This is
certainly one of the most famous Dtr sayings in the whole Hebrew Bi-
ble.
47 Juha Pakkala, “Die Entwicklung der Gotteskonzeptionen in den deuteronomistis-

chen Redaktionen von polytheistischen zu monotheistischen Vorstellungen,” in Die
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven
zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (ed. M. Witte et al.;
BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 239–48, outlines the development from the pre-
exilic polytheistic religion through the monolatry of the late monarchical period and
the intolerant monolatry of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE until the monotheistic
concept of God was reached in the late nomistic texts in the fifth century.
48 For the original Hebrew expressions and their occurrences, see Weinfeld, Deuteron-
omy, 332–34.
Under the heading “observance of the law” Weinfeld lists an im-

portant Deuteronomistic aspect that cannot, however, be found in the
Book of Baruch. This concept is love towards Yahweh (e.g. Deut 6:5;
10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:4; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20). The lack of such a central idea
in Baruch is surprising. Nowhere in the long confessions of sins does
Baruch explicitly urge the love of God. It can be, however, argued that
keeping God’s commandments means love towards him. Love is a two-
way phenomenon in Deuteronomy: not only is Israel urged to love
Yahweh, but also Yahweh expresses his love towards Israel.49 The rea-
son why Baruch omitted these aspects from his work can only be
guessed. Of course, God’s love is implied on several occasions when
Baruch says that God will deliver his people from the hands of their
enemies (Bar 4:18, 21) and that he will bring an everlasting joy and sal-
vation together with comfort (4:29–30). God’s care despite the people’s
disloyalty is certainly a sign of his endless love and mercy, but the key
word !/Òº¸ÈÚÑ does not occur in Baruch. Another important facet
that Weinfeld mentions under the title “observance of the law” is the
fear of Yahweh in the sense of serving him (Deut 4:10; 5:26; 6:2, 13, 24;
8:6; 10:12, 20; 13:5; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12–13). Baruch’s close temporal
predecessor Ben Sira, for instance, reiterates the significance of the fear
of Yahweh, and it can with good reason be regarded as one of the most
central themes in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.50 In the Book of Baruch,
however, the fear of Yahweh does not play any dominant role. In fact,
the fear of Yahweh occurs only once in Baruch (3:7) where it is said that
Yahweh has put the fear of him in the hearts of the Israelites. This
should lead to the response from the people of calling upon Yahweh’s
name and praising him while in exile.
Inheritance of the land is portrayed by Baruch in a twofold manner.
On one hand, he refers to the exodus when God brought the ancestors
out of Egypt to give them a land flowing with milk and honey (Bar
1:20), and on the other hand, Baruch reminds the reader that after the
exile and the dispersion of the people, God will bring them back to the
49 In fact, Deuteronomy is the only book in the Pentateuch that speaks of God’s love
towards Israel, and this is most eminent in Deut 4; see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 117–
18.
50 A detailed monograph has been dedicated to this essential theme of Ben Sira; see
Josef Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische
und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Roma: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967). See also
Renate Egger-Wenzel, “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job:
A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding,” in Intertextual Studies
in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley and
V. Skemp; CBQ.MS 38; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America,
2005), 211–26.
340 Marko Marttila
land he has sworn to the patriarchs, and the returners will rule over it
(Bar 2:34). That Yahweh has scattered the Israelites among the foreign
nations is a topic that Weinfeld discusses under the subtitle “Retribu-
tion.”51 This is a well-attested theme in Deuteronomy itself (Deut 4:27;
28:64; 30:3), and Baruch, too, mentions it three times in his prayer of
penitence (Bar 2:4, 29; 3:8). Baruch is also aware of the Dtr thought
about God’s anger with wrath that is to be poured out (Bar 2:20; 4:25).
God’s wrath was a Dtr concept that aimed at interpreting earlier tradi-
tions in the face of inescapable historical realities. Despite God’s good
promises to their ancestors, the people had encountered destruction;
this was only explicable by assuming that the people’s transgressions
had provoked God’s anger.
Fulfilment of prophecy is a theme that Baruch often touches upon.
According to the Dtr pattern, Baruch employs the attribute “servants”
in connection with the prophets (Bar 2:20, 24; cf. 2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13, 23;
21:10; 24:2). Bar 2:1 contains an indication that the word of Yahweh is
reliable: as he had spoken, so it came to happen. This is a reminiscent of
the Dtr statement that the word of Yahweh is to be validated ( !#!' :
0/1; 1 Kgs 8:26; a close parallel to Bar 2:1 is also Deut 9:5, which uses
the wording :!¡= -'9!). Deuteronomistic parenesis admonishes
people to turn from the evil way (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Kgs 17:13), whereas
Baruch has to state that the people have not turned away from the
wickedness of their heart (Bar 2:8).
As the ninth central Dtr topic Weinfeld picks up the Davidic dynas-
ty.52 Of course, this idea is not represented by Deuteronomy, but the
election of David and the covenantal promise to him and his dynasty
constitute an important sequence in the Books of Samuel and Kings. It
truly strikes the reader that Baruch is completely silent on the figure of
David; neither is his dynasty mentioned. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob are referred to in Bar 2:34, Moses is mentioned in Bar 1:20;
2:2, 28, but David does not receive any attention. Although Baruch
writes in a period when there had not been Davidic monarchs for a
long time, he nonetheless locates his book in the exilic setting when the
question of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty must have been a
fervent one. But for Baruch that was no longer a matter of interest.
Once again we can compare Baruch with his close contemporary Ben
Sira, who puts a remarkable stress on God’s promise to David and his
dynasty (Sir 45:25; 47:11, 22; 48:15). Baruch only in passing mentions a
few Davidic heirs, namely King Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim (Bar 1:3, 9),

who, as it is told, lived together with the other exiles in Babylon. They
wept, fasted, prayed to the Lord and collected money for Jerusalem in
order to promote the worship there. A few verses later, Baruch refers to
the silver vessels that the Judean King Zedekiah, son of Josiah, had
ordered to have made (Bar 1:8). But references to the Davidic dynasty
are absent. It is truly astonishing that Baruch speaks more about the
gentile Babylonian kings (Bar 1:9, 11–12; 2:21–24) than about his own
monarchs. The explanation for Baruch’s “non-mention” of David may
be based on two things. Firstly, the kings of Judah were great sinners
(Bar 1:16; 2:1), and they had been leading figures in the people’s dis-
loyalty. Here Baruch adheres to the evaluation of the Deuteronomistic
editors, which is usually crushing for the Judean kings: most of them
lived in apostasy and did wrong.53 On the other hand, it must be em-
phasized that Baruch’s view of the Judean kings was not only negative,
since he mentions in 2:19 that the penitent people did not rely on the
righteous deeds of their fathers and kings, i.e. every man is responsible
only for his own deeds. With this sentence Baruch presupposes that
there had been some good kings, but he does not go into detail. The
second, and more obvious, reason as to why Baruch left the Davidic
dynasty aside is connected with his deep dependence on the Dtr theol-
ogy, particularly in its late nomistic form. In the nomistic circles, the
significance of the figure of David diminishes simultaneously when the
observance of the Torah gains more and more attention. One obvious
proof of this is the sharp criticism against the monarchy that was first
maintained by DtrN and then by his successors.54 The basic conviction
of the nomistic editors was that both future and life were to be found
exclusively in the Torah and its precise observance (cf. Deut 30:15–20).
According to this kind of pattern, it was rather insignificant who ac-
tually the earthly ruler was.
53 In this respect, Ben Sira is even more remorseless than his Dtr predecessors, because
in Ben Sira’s opinion all the other kings except David, Hezekiah and Josiah commit-
ted sin (Sir 49:4). This tightens the Dtr evaluation notably, because according to the
Dtr editors, there were more obedient kings than just these three.
54 Timo Veijola, “Die Deuteronomisten als Vorgänger der Schriftgelehrten. Ein Beitrag
zur Entstehung des Judentums,” in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deutero-
nomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000),
192–240 (201–6).
342 Marko Marttila
4. Conclusions
The Book of Baruch is an interesting collection of various biblical

themes. Even though it contains texts of different styles and genres, the
book probably emerged among one circle of authors in the second cen-
tury BCE. That the vocabulary and style vary in different parts of the
book is not necessarily proof of editorial activity, but rather a consistent
feature because so many biblical books with divergent genres have
been quoted.
Four parts can be distinguished in the Book of Baruch. All of these
units lean remarkably on earlier biblical models. The prose introduction
(Bar 1:1–15a¸) attempts to imitate Jer 29. The long prayer of penitence
(Bar 1:15a¹–3:8) has been composed with an eye on Dan 9:4–19. The
exhortative part (Bar 3:9–4:4) is based upon wisdom literature, of which
the most important source has undoubtedly been Job 28. Finally, the
book is concluded with words of comfort and hope (Bar 4:5–5:9) which
make use of earlier prophecies uttered in the collections of Deutero-
and Trito-Isaiah. In addition to all these parallels, one crucial aspect
must be mentioned and that is Baruch’s evident inclination towards
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic phraseology/theology. This is cer-
tainly most obvious in the prayer of penitence, but some characteristi-
cally Dtr thoughts and expressions can also be detected in the exhorta-
tive speech and in the concluding consolation.
Precisely according to the Dtr pattern, Baruch repeatedly empha-
sizes that the people have committed sin against Yahweh by being dis-
obedient, even though Yahweh has shown great mercy in bringing his
people out of Egypt to their own land. Yahweh has been righteous, and
his punishment has been justified. The people cry for help among the
foreign nations where they have been scattered. Despite their failures
the people still rely on God’s earlier promises to the Patriarchs. As a
culmination Baruch mentions the everlasting covenant (Bar 2:35) that
Yahweh will remain the God of Israel and, correspondingly, that Israel
will remain his people. Baruch’s book is branded by its long and pro-
found confession of sin, but it is also a book that confidently looks at
the future. Israel will have a bright future if it turns from its wicked
ways and keeps the law.
Among the central Dtr subjects Baruch pays attention to are the
struggle against idolatry, the centralization of worship, the themes of
exodus, covenant and election, the monotheistic creed, the observance
of the law, the inheritance of the land, divine retribution, and the ful-
filment of prophecy. The only noteworthy Dtr view that is missing in
his book is the reference to the Davidic dynasty, which has its origin in
2 Sam 7. This absence may be due to several reasons. For one, Baruch
was not interested in promoting the Davidic monarchs because most of
them had been disloyal to Yahweh, trespassed his ordinances and so
had caused divine punishment. Another reason must be sought from
the period when the author(s) of Baruch lived. The book was written at
least four hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Baby-
lonians and thus after the end of the Davidic monarchy. The Book of
Baruch is completely devoid of any Messianic expectations connected
to the House of David. Baruch was not waiting for a new Davidic king,
but for him and for many of his fellow countrymen it was the Torah – a
gift from God – that had become the quintessence of the Jewish reli-
gion. In this respect, Baruch walked the path that was trodden prior to
him by the nomistic editors of the Deuteronomistic History and their
successors.
APPENDIX: Parallels between Baruch’s prayer of penitence (Bar 1:15–

3:8) and the books of the Old Testament
Baruch Deut/Dtr Jeremiah Daniel Others

Bar 1:15 Dan 9:7
Bar 1:16–17 Jer 32:32 Dan 9:8 Neh 9:32–34
Bar 1:18 Deut 11:32 Dan 9:9–10 Neh 9:26
Bar 1:19 Deut 9:7 Jer 7:25–26
Bar 1:20 Deut 28:15–68; 29:20 Jer 11:4–5 Dan 9:11, 13 Lev 26:14–39
Bar 1:21 Deut 9:23; 28:15 Jer 26:5 Dan 9:10
Bar 1:22 Deut 6:13–15; 30:18 Jer 7:24
Bar 2:1–2 Deut 4:32 Dan 9:12–13
Bar 2:3 Deut 28:53 Jer 19:9 Lev 26:29
2 Kgs 6:24–31 Lam 2:20; 4:10
Bar 2:4 Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3 Jer 24:8–9; 29:18
Bar 2:5 Deut 28:13 Dan 9:8, 11
Bar 2:6 Dan 9:7
Bar 2:7 Dan 9:12
Bar 2:8 Jer 7:24 Dan 9:13
Bar 2:9 Dan 9:14
Bar 2:10 Deut 8:6; 19:9; 26:17 Dan 9:10
Judg 2:22; 2 Kgs 10:31
Bar 2:11 Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19 Jer 32:20–21 Dan 9:15
Deut 26:8; 29:2; 34:11
Bar 2:12 1 Kgs 8:47 Dan 9:15
Bar 2:13 Deut 4:27; 28:62 Jer 42:2 Dan 9:16
344 Marko Marttila
Bar 2:14–15 2 Kgs 19:19 Dan 9:16–17 Gen 39:21

Bar 2:16 Deut 26:15 Dan 9:18
Bar 2:17–18 2 Kgs 19:16 Dan 9:18 Ps 30:9; 88:10–12
Ps 115:17;
Isa 38:18
Bar 2:19–20 Dan 9:6, 18
Bar 2:21–23 Jer 7:34; 27:9, 12
Jer 48:9
Bar 2:24–26 Jer 8:1; 11:17; 16:4;
32:36; 36:30; 44:6
Bar 2:27–35 Deut 28:62; 30:1–5 Jer 24:7, 9; 25:5; 29:6; Lev 26:42–45
30:3; 31:33; 32:40
Bar 3:1–8 Deut 4:29–31 Jer 29:12–14 Dan 9:19 Lev 26:40–45
Deut 30:1–10
Bar 3:7 Jer 32:40
Bar 3:8 Exod 3:7; Lam 5:7
Bibliography
Brown, Teresa R. “God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in
Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50).” Pages 214–20 in Ben Sira’s God. Proceed-
ings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001.
Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002.
Burke, David G. The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Origi-
nal Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. SBLSCS 10. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.
Burkes, Shannon. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.”
JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76.
Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira
and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding.”
Pages 211–26 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of
Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by J. Corley and V. Skemp. CBQ.MS 38.
Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005.
Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. “Das Buch Baruch.“ Pages 165–82 in Jüdische Schrif-
ten aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form. Band III/2
of JSHRZ. Edited by W. G. Kümmel and H. Lichtenberger. Gütersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1975.
Haag, Ernst. Das hellenistische Zeitalter. Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert
v. Chr. BiblE 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003.
Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre lite-
rarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Roma: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut,
1967.
Hogan, Karina M. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic

Solution. JSJSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Ȱ. “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch,” in The Other in Second
Temple Judaism. Edited by M. Goff et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcom-
ing.
Leuenberger, Martin. “Die personifizierte Weisheit vorweltlichen Ursprungs
von Hi 28 bis Joh 1. Ein traditionsgeschichtlicher Strang zwischen den Tes-
tamenten.” ZAW 120 (2008): 366–86.
Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei
Ben Sira. BZAW 272. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
Meyer, Ivo. “Das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia.” Pages 484–88 in
Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger. Studienbücher Theo-
logie 1,1. 5th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
Oorschot, Jürgen van. “Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendich-
tung.” ZAW 106 (1994): 69–86.
Pakkala, Juha. “Die Entwicklung der Gotteskonzeptionen in den deuteronomis-
tischen Redaktionen von polytheistischen zu monotheistischen Vorstellun-
gen.” Pages 239–48 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions-
und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in
Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by M. Witte et al. BZAW 365. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2006.
Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969.
Salvesen, Alison. “Baruch,” Pages 699–703 in The Oxford Bible Commentary.
Edited by J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament. Grundzüge der Ge-
schichte Israels und der alttestamentlichen Schriften. UTB 2146. Göttingen:
Shenkel, James D. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings. HSM 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Smend, Rudolf. “Die Bundesformel.” Pages 1–29 in Die Mitte des Alten Testa-
ments. Exegetische Aufsätze. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002.
Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint.
AASF.DHL 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979.
Steck, Odil Hannes. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzen-
tration »kanonischer«Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993.
Ȱ. Das Buch Baruch. ATDA 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.
Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A Discussion of
an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.
Veijola, Timo. Das Fünfte Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. ATD 8,1. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Ȱ. “Das Klagegebet in Literatur und Leben der Exilsgeneration am Beispiel
einiger Prosatexte.” Pages 176–91 in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum
346 Marko Marttila
Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149; Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 2000.
Ȱ. “Die Deuteronomisten als Vorgänger der Schriftgelehrten. Ein Beitrag zur
Entstehung des Judentums.” Pages 192–240 in Moses Erben. Studien zum De-
kalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
Ȱ. “Law and Wisdom. The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of
the Law.” Pages 144–64 in Leben nach der Weisung. Exegetisch-historische Stu-
dien zum Alten Testament. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. Marttila. FRLANT
224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford
Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent
Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Ziegler, Joseph. ed. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Volume XV of
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 2nd edition. Göttingen: Vanden-
The Use of Different Aspects of the
Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms
Mika S. Pajunen
A number of studies have dealt with the links between the Psalms of
the Masoretic Psalter and the Deuteronomistic ideology. 1 These have
shown that there are phraseological links between many Psalms and
Deuteronomistic passages of other parts of the Hebrew Bible. However,
many psalms that may have been on the fringes of the eventual canoni-
cal book of Psalms are left out of these studies at least partly because of
this later boundary marking. Such a division is not self-evident in the
centuries before the Common Era nor is it in accordance with the avail-
able sources. Already the Septugint and Syriac manuscripts have pro-
vided several additional psalms in comparison to the MT, viz., Psalms
151–155, but the Qumran finds make the issue more poignant. In addi-
tion to Hebrew versions for many of these already known apocryphal
psalms, a number of new psalms, put in the same collections with now
canonical psalms were found, cf. 4QPsf, 11QPsa+b and 11QapocrPs. The
manuscripts from Qumran also provided a number of psalm collections
that yielded (in their extant parts) only previously unknown psalm
compositions, e.g., 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B (4Q380–381) and
4QBarkhi Nafshia-e (4Q434–438). Thus, in order to gain a more compre-
hensive picture of how broadly spread the Deuteronomistic influence is
in psalm compositions a survey of the psalms now designated as ‘apo-
cryphal’ will be done. This analysis will hopefully be able to offer fur-
ther useful insights into this phenomenon. The purpose of this article is
to map out the extent to which the so-called Deuteronomistic ideology
has influenced these psalms.
The first issue to be dealt with is the question of definitions, name-
ly, what exactly is, in this article, included under the designation “apo-
cryphal psalms” and what is sought when looking for traces of “Deute-
1 See, e.g., Timo Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der
Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms, (AASF B 220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1982); Harry P. Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS 88; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988).
348 Mika S. Pajunen
ronomistic ideology.” Neither of these questions has an easy answer as

each task is quite challenging and, especially in the case of the psalms,
in a way artificial. When looking at the wealth of poetic material found
at Qumran and the collections they are put in, it has come quite ob-
vious that making a boundary between Psalms and apocryphal compo-
sitions is arbitrary.2 Nevertheless for the purposes of this article some
criteria are necessary for narrowing down the material, and therefore
apocryphal psalms are here seen as poetic compositions that resemble
the Psalms now in the MT Psalter and as such may have been on the
fringes of the eventual canon. This means that the Psalms of the MT
Psalter are not part of this survey and the songs most likely deriving
from the Qumran movement are also excluded. The latter are left out
because there is no indication that they would have had a status among
a wider audience and furthermore they always seem to be placed in
their own collections (see, e.g., the Hodayot,3 the Songs of the Sage
[4Q510–511], etc.), which seems to reflect a conscious decision not to
mix them with the earlier Psalms.4
Included in this study are the apocryphal compositions within
psalm collections that also feature Psalms that are now in the MT Psal-
ter. This means that the altogether nine apocryphal psalms found in the
Psalms manuscripts 4QPsf and 11QPsa+b,5 as well as the psalms found as
parts of a ritual of exorcism (11QapocrPs) that ends with MT Psalm 91,6
2 To be sure, many of the apocryphal compositions are later than most of the Psalms,
but that is not always the case and some late Psalms like 105 and 106 were most like-
ly composed later than some of the apocryphal pieces. Therefore, while the distinc-
tion is sometimes necessary for limiting the material, it unfortunately serves many
times as a needless barrier.
3 Deuteronomistic influence in the Hodayot has been dealt with in several studies; see,
e.g., Sarah Tanzer, The Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Ph.D. diss.,
University of Harvard, 1987), 144–45, 151–54.
4 Attention can also be drawn to the fact that even though 1QS and 1QM incorporate
songs among the prose text, no Psalms are included.
5 These also include Psalms 151 and 154–155 (= Syriac Psalms II and III) that were
previously only known from translations. For the editio princeps, see James A. Sand-
ers, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965);
Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude,
“11QPsb,” in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C.
Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 37–47; Eu-
gene Ulrich, Patrick Skehan and Peter Flint, ”4QPsf,” in Qumran Cave 4, XI. Psalms to
Chronicles (ed. E. Ulrich, P. Skehan and P. Flint; DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000),
85–106.
6 For the official DJD edition, see Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar
and Adam S. van der Woude, “11QapocrPsalms,” in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18,
11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude; DJD
The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms 349
are all included, as are the apocryphal psalms still only available in
Syriac (Psalms 152–153 = Syriac Psalms IV–V).7 In addition, the psalms
in the collections labeled as 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B (4Q380–
4Q381) are included because they have pseudepigraphic attributions to
different biblical figures such as, e.g., Obadiah (4Q380 frg. 1, 2:8) and
Manasseh (4Q381 frg. 33a, 8).8 According to their editor, Eileen Schul-
ler, these psalms should be dated roughly to the Persian or Early Helle-
nistic period,9 which supports the idea that at least some of these
psalms might have been on the fringes of the eventual canon.10 Another
collection that has been included is the Barkhi Nafshi hymns (4Q434–
438) as they are similar in structure to Psalms 103 and 104.11 It is unclear
whether these hymns derive from the Qumran movement or not,12 but
as the issue is far from certain the hymns are treated here. Overall,
much of the material examined in this article is quite fragmentary
which makes it impossible to give an exact number of psalms, but a
rough estimate is that there are approximately thirty psalms included
in this study.
23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181–205. After this, modifications to the edition have
been suggested by Émile Puech, “Les Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme
(11Q11),” in Sapiental, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the
Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Published
in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez and E. M. Schuller;
STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 160–81; Mika S. Pajunen, “11QPsApª, A Communal Ri-
tual Of Exorcism” (paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the OTSEM net-
work, Lund, Sweden, 22 April 2008).
7 For a study on the Syriac Psalms, see Harry F. van Rooy, Studies on the Syriac Apocry-
phal Psalms (JSSSup 7; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
8 For the editio princeps in the DJD series, see Eileen M. Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical
Psalms A+B,” in Qumran Cave 4, VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, part 1 (ed. C. New-
som and E. Schuller; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 75–173. For a fuller discus-
sion on many of the themes, see Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qu-
mran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
9 Schuller, ”4QNon-Canonical,” 78.
10 For some of these psalms, the strong Davidic character of the Psalter might have
been the eventual reason for their exclusion.
11 For the editio princeps, see Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “Barkhi Nafshi,” in
Qumran Cave 4, XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. Chazon et al.; DJD 29;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 255–334.
12 For arguments on behalf of seeing the text as deriving from the Qumran movement,
see, e.g., Weinfeld and Seely, “Barkhi,” 258–59. However, the links between Barkhi
Nafshi and the texts associated with the movement are not specific enough and more
study on these hymns is needed to decide this question.
350 Mika S. Pajunen
The problem of defining “Deuteronomistic” is also a notoriously

difficult task that seems to be getting more and more challenging.13
There is no large-scale agreement over this, but as, e.g., Moshe Wein-
feld has shown, specific Deuteronomistic phraseology is an important
criterion in establishing a firmer link with the ideology. 14 Many of the
ideas enforced by the Deuteronomists, such as retribution according to
deeds, are common motifs in other texts of the Hebrew Bible as well as
the Ancient Near East as a whole and without the specific language the
exact source these ideas derive from in a specific text cannot be shown
with certainty. Nevertheless, it can certainly be noted that several apo-
cryphal psalms implicitly use motifs common to the Deuteronomistic
ideology without taking up the particular language (at least on a larger
scale). The idea of God testing individuals (0%), which implies judg-
ment in accordance with deeds, is present, e.g., in the Apostrophe to
Zion (4QPsf 8:2–5 = 11QPsa 22:12), the Eschatological Hymn (4QPsf 9:5–
7), Barkhi Nafshia (4Q434 frg. 1, 1:7) and Non-Canonical Psalms B
(4Q381 frgs. 24a, 6; 46a+b, 5–6; 48, 4). God choosing Zion is found, e.g.,
in the Apostrophe to Zion (4QPsf 7:14–8:16 = 11QPsa 22:1–12) and Bark-
hi Nafshia (4Q434 frg. 2, 6–7). The election of David is present in Psalm
151 (11QPsa 28:8–11), 152:4, 153:2 and the choice of Israel from among
the nations in 155:21. Some of these ideas most likely derive primarily
from Deuteronomistic texts, but the ideas are already at the time of the
writing of most of the surveyed compositions so thoroughly embedded
in the theological framework of the authors that there is no apparent
need to borrow the exact language.15 Thus, the possible Deuteronomis-
tic influence in the above psalms is more implicit and subtle than in
texts also using the actual Deuteronomistic phraseology. On the other
hand, language alone is not enough if the text does not have other links
13 The meaning of the term “Deuteronomistic” is discussed, e.g., in Richard J. Coggins,

“What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenome-
non of Pan-Deuteronomism (ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 268;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 22–35. For Deuteronomistic history and a
survey of its past research, see, e.g., Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,”
ABD 2:160–68; Thomas C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological,
Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 13–43.
14 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972),
1–3.
15 Note the theory about Deuteronomistic ideology as a kind of basic theology of the
Second Temple period; see, e.g., Timo Veijola, "The Deuteronomistic Roots of Ju-
daism," in Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the
Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2004), 459–78.
with the ideology – isolated words in a context otherwise unrelated to

the Deuteronomistic ideology are not sufficient.16
Therefore, the task at hand is to search for psalms that exhibit par-
ticular Deuteronomistic influence by their use of both Deuteronomistic
motifs and phraseology. When the above-listed compositions are stu-
died from this perspective it is found that, except for the noted in-
stances implying the ideology without the vocabulary and the isolated
words without a larger framework, there are three psalms in this cor-
pus that use Deuteronomistic idioms in a more profound way when
they deal with the themes of justice, the choice of Zion and the choice of
Israel.
A Solomonic Psalm with a Celestial Trial

(11QapocrPs 2:1– 3:13)17
Column 2
01
]/<
°[ 1
[ ] :9'# !/#+< [ 2
[ ] -'<!# =#%̄[#:! 3
%/[ ሶ
]< ¯ -'[<! ]!+ [ 4
([ ]°! =[]+ሶ [ ]°[]:<[ 5
'!#̄[+ ]! [ ]°<+[ 6
!6:
¯ °°°=¯ ¯'/3[ ]°°[ 7
+]!9# 03<1 (/<[ +3 8
9$%! +:[<' 9
-̄'/<! =[ 10
]+'! :°[ 11
]3
°[ 12
13
Column 3
01
]/'! =¯ [ ]!=[ 1
[=#=#! = !<]3 '/ 7:[ ]3 #̄ 7̄:̄!+̄ 2
[:< !]#! ¯ !#!' 7:¯ [ !+! -'=]6#/! =#̄ 3
[-':$/]/̄ +#)+ 3'</ #=[:# !+]! = !<3 4
=[ '3'# #] ¯'16+ #< # ' :<¯ [ 3<:! 3]:̄$ +#) = [#] 5
16 The list of Deuteronomistic phraseology collected by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–65,

rightly focuses almost entirely on idioms and phrases, not individual words.
17 The Hebrew text and the translation are taken from Pajunen, ”Communal,” 8–10.
352 Mika S. Pajunen
+3[ #]< 3̄' :< [ -! ]7:!

[+#) =]# -'/̄[<! +#)] 6
-'3#' -! [ -] +#) +3#̄ &% < [' +#)] 7
#+ - ![ ] -1' :< #¯ [ 8
<61 #:!+[ ]+ !#!' '16+/[ 9
=]#$!
!+#[! !)/! = #]:''# !#!'[ 10
!]#!' '3/̄[ 5+] -)/ %[ 5:'# 11
]= : [ ]° # !+#̄¯ [ 12
13
Translation:
Column 2
01 --- 1 […] … […] 2 […] Solomon and he will cry for h[elp …] 3 […
spi]rits and demons […] 4 […] These are [the de]mons … […] … 5 […]
… […] … […] … […] … 6 […] … […] … […] my [Go]d 7 […]with me.
… a cure 8 […] relying [upon] your name and the assem[bly 9 […
Is]rael. Strengthen 10 […] the heavens 11 […] … separated[…] 12 […]
… until[…] 13-
Column 3
01 ---- 1 […] … […] … […] 2 to the earth and …[…]earth. Who m[ade
these miracles] 3 and wond[ers on the] earth? He, YHWH [is the one
who] 4 made t[hese through] his [streng]th, who compels the
b[astards] 5 [and] all the see[d of evil ]that have been set before [him],
to take an oath. [And he calls ] 6 [all the hea]vens and[ all] the earth [as
witnesses against them ]who committ[ed ]upon 7 [all me]n sin and
against all pe[ople …] … they know 8 […] … which they do not […] …
if not 9 […]from before YHWH … […]killing the soul 10 […]Yahweh.
And [they] will fear tha[t] great [blow.] 11 [And o]ne of you [will put
to flight] a tho[usand …]of the servants of YHW[H] 12 [… g]reat
and[…] … […] 13 ---
The first of the psalms is preserved in 11QapocrPs (11Q11), a ritual of

exorcism consisting of apocryphal psalms and ending in Psalm 91.18
18 Most scholars agree that the manuscript consists of a ritual of exorcism, see, e.g.,
Émile Puech, “11QPsApª: Un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction,” RevQ 14
(1990): 403; Philip S. Alexander, “’Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’:
Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scrip-
tures. Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 318–37 (326–27); Russell C. D. Arnold, The Social
Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (STDJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006),
167; Mika S. Pajunen, “The Function of 11QPsApª as a Ritual,” in Text and Ritual. Pa-
pers presented at the symposium Text and Ritual (ed. A. K. Gudme; Copenhagen: Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, 2009), 50–60. The version of Psalm 91 preserved in
This is the second of the at least five preserved psalms in the scroll and
the mention of Solomon’s name (col. 2:2) means that this psalm is prob-
ably ascribed to him.19 The psalm is directed against many categories of
evil spirits either to banish them from a person or to provide protection
from their attacks. The first extant parts of the psalm are a list of de-
mons (2:4–5) followed by a plea to God for a cure and support (2:5–9).
The next lines (2:10–3:2) might have something to do with God and the
creation but the isolated words are not enough to be sure. The best-
preserved section of the psalm centers on a celestial trial against the
evil spirits (3:2–10) and it is here that the Deuteronomistic influence is
found.
First, the sovereignty of God as the judge is established by recount-
ing his former deeds. Unlike the Hebrew Bible where the Deuterono-
mistic word pair -'=6#/# =#= is used to refer to the deeds of God in
Egypt (e.g., Deut 4:34; 6:22), it is most likely referring here to the works
of creation. Creation is used to show why God is infinitely more power-
ful than any of the spirits he rules over. This picture of God the Creator
and almighty heavenly judge contains the notion of him as the only real
God, which is a basic Deuteronomistic tenet. After this section the ac-
cused spirits are set before God to be tried (3:4–5).20 Then heaven and
earth are called as witnesses against them (3:5–6). This notion of heaven
and earth as witnesses derives from Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 30:19,
31:28) and there are two ways of understanding its use in this psalm:
either it tells something about the relationship between God and the
spirits, i.e., it is meant to encourage a comparison with Israel’s covenan-
tal relationship with God in Deuteronomy, or it is taken up just because
of the cosmic dimension of the trial. No firm answer can be given but it
is an intriguing possibility that a kind of vassal relationship might have
been seen to exist between God and the spirits and this was breached
by the actions of some of the spirits (cf. the Book of Watchers). The
charges leveled against the evil spirits (3:6–8) concern their actions
against humankind. It is worth noting that the sinful deeds of the spi-
rits are the reason for the trial, namely, they have transgressed a boun-
dary set for them. As is well known, retribution according to deeds is
part of the Deuteronomistic ideology. Next the verdict for the sins of
11QapocrPs has a number of differences in comparison to the MT Ps 91. The reason

behind these variant readings has been analyzed in Mika S. Pajunen, “Qumranic
Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, He-
brew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiran-
ta; JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 591–605.
19 For Solomon as a composer of exorcisms see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 8.45–49.
20 Cf. 1 Kgs 21:9–10.
354 Mika S. Pajunen
the spirits is given (3:9–10), but unfortunately only the last sentence of
this verdict is even relatively well preserved on the manuscript. The
word pair !+# !)/ is most often used in connection with military vic-
tory (cf. Josh 10:10, 20; Judg 11:33; 15:8) but one must also bear in mind
the prominent use of the noun !)/ in the covenant curses of Deut
28:59–61.
The last line that can be interpreted with any amount of certainty
(3:11) switches the address to the audience that is present at the recita-
tion and declares their power as the servants of God over the evil spi-
rits. The first of the most likely two parallel colons in line 11 reinforces
the notion that the composer of the psalm was thinking about military
traditions also in line 10 as the colon seems to be referring to Josh 23:10.
Even though the address changes, when the background traditions are
properly understood then this and the preceding colon make up a con-
tinuum. The first colon establishes that God will wage war against the
spirits because of their evil deeds and the second that the audience has
the power to chase away a thousand demons. This is exactly the notion
given in Josh 23:10 which is part of a Deuteronomistic military oration:
that when God wages war on behalf of his chosen ones then they are
able to chase away a thousand enemies. This promise of God only ap-
plies to those who act in accordance with his will and it derives from
the covenant blessings in Deut 28:7 (cf. Lev 26:6–8). It is likely that the
psalm ends soon after this because the sentence on the evil spirits has
been passed and the power of the audience and the speaker over the
demons has been established.
Thus, various strands of Deuteronomistic ideology were employed
by the author of the psalm, some implicitly and others with Deutero-
nomistic idioms. However, it is clear that the way the author uses the
phraseology and concepts is in some of the instances quite different
from the usage of the same phrases and concepts in the Hebrew Bible.
He uses the traditional formulations and draws upon the ideological
notions but transfers them to a new context. He refers to the signs and
wonders God has done in the past as a sign of his power just as the
Deuteronomists did, but where they used it in connection with the
deliverance of Israel from Egypt the author of this psalm applies it to
the creation. The wonders in Egypt were meaningful for Israel as a
national entity, but in this psalm the author appears to be concerned
with the power of God over the evil spirits, and the signs in Egypt are
not as relevant in that respect as the acts of creation. Similarly the con-
cept of a trial where God judges according to deeds and calls heaven
and earth as witnesses is taken from the model established in Deute-
ronomy, but in this psalm the trial is applied to the evil spirits instead
of Israel. Contrary to these instances, when the psalmist talks about the
verdict of the evil spirits and the power given to the audience, again by
using Deuteronomistic sources, he does not need to change the basic
meaning of the traditions because they fit the situation without a need
for modification. In the psalmist’s interpretation his sources say that, as
followers of the commandments of God, the blessings of Deuteronomy
are applicable to the audience and therefore God will fight for them
and they are able to chase away a thousand demons as promised.
While the psalm is difficult to date, the way the sources are used and
the prominent role the spirits have in the composition (especially the
specialized list in 2:3–4) suggest that it should be dated at the earliest to
the second century BCE and probably to the latter half of it.
Zion the City Chosen by YHWH (4Q380 frg. 1, 1:1–2:6)21
Column 1
#[ ]+ 3 [ ]1
'! -+<[#:' ]2
3# -'+#3/ !#̄[!' :% :'3!] 3
-'<9[ ]4
!'+3 :91̄ !#!' - [< ')] 5
-+<#:' +3 !:1 [#)#] 6
-< =¯ ++/' '/ 0#'8 vacat 7
[#]=+!=
¯ +) #3/<'# !#! ¯' 8
#!96'# #18: !#!' #:̄[)$] 9
#& =#:!+̄ 10
[!%/< %/]<+ # ':̄ '[%] 11
[ #=+%1 -3 12]
Column 2
[-'!#]ሶ+ -¯ -)+ !<3['] 1
#:/< !$ #! ') 2
[#':]/
[+ va]cat +:<' '[1] +#)+ :< 3
[:< #] '+ %̄) ') ('¯ (3<#= 4
['=/ ]3 -'3: '1<# [!]#& !<#3 5
[0]ሶ#̄3 (
¯ :̄ ¯' 06̄ !3: =¯ [#]<3+
¯ #86%= 6
vacat 7
21 The Hebrew text and the translation follow Mika S. Pajunen, “The Textual Connec-
tion between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106,” in The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, forthcoming.
356 Mika S. Pajunen
Translation:
Column 1
1 [...]...[...]... 2 [... Jeru]salem, that is 3 [the city YH]WH [chose] forever
and ever 4 […] holy ones 5 [for the na]me of YHWH is invoked upon it
6 [and his glory] is seen upon Jerusalem. 7 vacat
O Zion! Who can utter the name of 8 YHWH and who are the ones to
declare all [his] praise? 9 YHWH [remem]bered him in his favor. And
visited him 10 to let him experience the prosperity of 11 his [chos]en
ones, to make him [rejoice in the gladness (12) of the people of his in-
heritance]
Column 2
1 ȹ(what) [can] he/it do for you (pl.)? Their fortune is God 2 for he is the
one [whose] wo[rds] they kept 3 which are for all the ch[ild]ren of
Israel. vacat
4 Your (sg.) hand will [not] save you (sg.) for strength is for the [one
who] 5 does goo[d] and the ones who hate the wicked. How[ long] 6
will you (pl.) delight to do evil lest puni[shment] is multiplied for you
(sg.)? 7 vacat (end of psalm)
The second psalm belongs to the collection 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A

(4Q380) and is the only one of the psalms in 4Q380 to be even mod-
erately well preserved. It is probably the oldest of the three psalms
under investigation as it has already been used as a source by the com-
piler of MT Psalm 106.22 It is part of a psalm collection that was possibly
made up of psalms ascribed to different prophets.23 The first extant part
of the psalm deals with the Deuteronomistic theme of God choosing
Jerusalem as the dwelling place for his name (1:2–6). Lines 4 and 5 are
especially noteworthy for on these parallel colons both the name (-<)
and the glory ()) of God are used in connection with Jerusalem. The
22 There is a textual connection between 4Q380 frg. 1, 1:7–11 and MT Psalm 106:2–5.
Schuller, Non-Canonical, 32–34, 257, claims that the 4Q380 psalm is using Psalm 106,
but George Brooke, “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran,” RevQ 54 (1989): 267–92, sug-
gests that the influence goes the other way and a thorough treatment of the question
in Pajunen, “Textual,” reinforces Brooke’s view.
23 Cf. Eileen M. Schuller, “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” in
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A,
Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H.
W. L. Rietz; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997), 1–2; Pajunen, “Textual.”
first phrase is a common Deuteronomistic idiom (cf. 1 Kgs 8:43) and the
second seems dependant on Isaiah 60:2.
The next stanza (the break indicated by a vacat) is the one with a
connection to Psalm 106:2–5 and it deals with the joy of the ones who
are able to take part in the Jerusalem cult. It starts with a question (1:7–
8) that is answered in the next colons (1:9–12).24 Here the most intri-
guing question for this investigation is about who are referred to as the
chosen ones. The expressions “his chosen ones” and “the people of his
inheritance” are parallel and therefore refer to the same group. !=+%1 -3
is a Deuteronomistic idiom used of the nation of Israel (cf. Deut 4:20;
9:26, 29) and :% is also frequently used of Israel (cf. Deut 4:37; 10:15;
14:2). However, especially in light of the second column it seems that
not all who belong to the people of Israel are automatically included in
this elect group. The second column compares the actions of two
groups belonging to the people of Israel. The ones who act in accor-
dance with the words of God are surely included under the group
terms applied here, but the ones who do not comply most likely are
not. But as the aim of the psalmist seems to be to change the behavior
of these people, it follows that by complying they will be able to enter
among the chosen ones who make up the people of God’s inheritance.
After this the text breaks off until the beginning of the second column.
In the second column, where the ending of the psalm is preserved,
more words and motifs common to the Deuteronomistic ideology are
found. The actions of the pious are described as observance of God’s
words (2:2) and doing good (2:5). These are the same verbs (:/< and
!<3) used frequently, e.g., in the Deuteronomy (cf. 26:16; 28:1, 15) of the
obligation to follow the laws. From the polemics used it is easy to de-
duce that some of the people are not following these commandments
that are meant for all Israelites (2:3–4) but are taking the law into their
own hands. The continuing of these actions will evoke punishment
from God (2:6). Particularly interesting is that the psalmist basically
lays out the choice of Deuteronomy 28 for the disobedient people, i.e.,
observe the commandments and prosper among the chosen people or
continue to do evil and be punished. The rewards of the proper choice
are well described in the first column (1:9–12) and it might well be that
the possible punishment was envisioned in the lost parts of the psalm.
It is clearly the expectation of the psalmist that the disobedient people
24 The question is similar to the one used in Psalm 15:1, i.e., both answer the question
by giving qualifications of the person (cf. Ps 106:3) who will be able to answer the
question positively (although most of the actual qualifications, e.g., observance of
the law, are only implicitly preserved in the extant text of the 4Q380 psalm) and both
deal with the cult. For the act of declaring the name and praises cf. Ps 102:22.
358 Mika S. Pajunen
will be punished for their deeds but the judgment is restricted to them,
in other words, their actions will not draw a calamity upon the whole
nation, only themselves. The chosen ones will instead enjoy the re-
wards of their actions while observing the punishment of the wicked.
As has been discovered, this psalm uses many different Deutero-
nomistic motifs and also some of the specific phraseology. Of the three
psalms discussed in this article this one is closest to the time when the
Deuteronomistic ideology was formulated and henceforth incorporated
into literature. This can be seen by observing the use of the motifs. They
are still being applied in much the same sense as in the texts of the He-
brew Bible and in a similar situation: the author is concerned about the
observance of the commandments among the people of Israel. He uses
the basic words and idioms of the Deuteronomistic ideology and ap-
plies them to the specific situation without major reinterpretation, i.e.,
he actualizes some of the aims of the original ideology in his own set-
ting by glorifying Zion, exulting in the prosperity of those who observe
the law and admonishing the disobedient ones about the consequences
of their choices.
Israel the Chosen Nation (4Q381 frgs. 77 and 69)25
Fragment 77
]° -')+/ (+/ +:# -'<#9 <#9 =[3 2
#] 1 '=# 8= '6/ !/)%+ #+')<=# ': °°[ 3
]° #1'<!+ %) -)<'- 0/1 3# =/ &6<# [ 4
#/]3 %)#=! /3'# : '<' -) '/ 3'/<+[ 5
]- ') -)'3+ :62/ 0'# -)'&6< - ': ') [ 6
]!+#3
0'# =/ &6<+ -)&6</ <' !#!' '°[ 7
] #/+=
!1' <'! =/ '&6</ -) =#<3+ #'%#:[ 8
-]) :% #! #!/) 0'# +61# :# -'1#! '1¯ [ ¯ 9
]+) +</+ -3+ #+ =#'!+ -'+# -''#/# -'[: -'/3/ 10
]°<!+# 7:! '# +) +3 0#'+3+# 7:# - '[/< 11
bottom margin
Fragment 69
top margin
7:[!]
'/3 #'3=! ') #=#: -+[ ]°= ') -)+[ 1
26
!1#<:/ +6!# !/& =1 !/& =1+ 7:! +) [ !='! 2
25 The Hebrew text and the translation are taken from Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical,”
149–50, 155–57.
-3 !'+3 =#<3+# !'+3/ -'/<!+ #+ + 73 #[1 3

-)= /++# +')<!+ -''1 #%#: -)+ 27 -=1'# -)¯ [ 4
'<' '<3// '<!+# -)= +')<!+ -)/3:'# :' -'/̄<¯ 0/ -)°[ 5A
°°°[ !</ ]'
'/3! =': =#8/# =#:#= -'9[% 0=1 5
]°°'# :!&= $ 7:! +3 #< #̄<:[ 6
] -# #+ #'!= - -) +')<!+ [ 7
] +# :)1!+# -)+ =:) =': :'6!¯ + #[ 8
]+3/ #!'6 #': :'/!+ # !3<: +3 [ 9
]+[ ]°°[ 10
Translation:
Frg. 77
2 congrega]tion of the Holy of Holy Ones, company of the King of
Kings ...[ ] 3 [ ]... my words, and you will pay attention to the
wisdom (that) goes forth from my mouth, and you will understand[ ]
4 [ ] and a true judge and a faithful witness. Do you have strength to
answer him ...[ ] 5 [ ]... to proclaim. Who among you will reply, and
stand in dispute wi[th him ] 6 [ ] for many are those who judge you,
and there is no number to those who witness against you. But[ ] 7 [
]... YHWH sits in judgment with you to judge truly, and there is no in-
justice[ ] 8 [ ]his spirits, rendering you true judgments. Is there un-
derstanding (which) you may learn [ ] 9 [ ]Lord of Lords, mighty and
marvelous, and there is no one like him. He chose y[ou 10 from ma]ny
[peoples] and from great nations to be his people, to rule all[ ] 11 [
hea]ven and earth, and as most high over every nation of the earth,
and ...[ ]
Frg. 69
1 [ ]... because ...[ ]... When he saw that the peoples of [the la]nd
acted abominably 2 [ ]all the land [became] total unclean defilement.
26 The last letter of the penultimate word was first written by the scribe as a clear but
he later added another stroke to apparently change the letter into an . The stroke is
deliberate and not an accidental drop of ink so should be read. The reason for the
later corrected mistake might be related to the meaning of the word. If one reads the
word as coming from the root +6, as Schuller, Non-Canonical, 204–05, does, then it is
very hard to make sense of the passage and there is no apparent reason for the
scribe’s mistake. However, if one takes into account that ! is replaced by eight
times in this manuscript, (for a list see Schuller, Non-Canonical, 64) it is possible that
the root meant by the scribe was actually !+6 ”to separate.” The meaning of the root
is close to +6 ”to divide” so the mistake of the scribe could relate to mixing up the
two roots.
27 As noted by Schuller, Non-Canonical, 205, the unusual form is probably a conse-
quence of metathesis ( -=1'# for -1='#).
360 Mika S. Pajunen
And he set apart from the former28 3 [ he to]ok counsel with himself
to destroy them from upon it, and to make upon it a people 4 [ ]... and
to give them to you by his spirit, prophets to instruct and to teach you
5a [ ]... from heaven he (God) came down, and he spoke with you to
instruct you, and to turn (you) away from the deeds of the inhabitants
of 5 [ He gave la]ws, instructions and commandments by the cove-
nant he established through[ Moses ]... 6 [ ]take possession, dwell
upon the land; then it will be purified, and ...[ ] 7 [ ] to consider
among yourselves, if you will be his, or if [ ] 8 [ ]and to break the co-
venant he cut with you, and to act as strangers, and not [ ] 9 [ ]
against wickedness, and to change the words of his mouth ...[ ] 10 [
]...[ ]...[ ]
The third psalm is preserved in 4QNon-Canonical Psalms B (4Q381).

The manuscript consists of 109 fragments that preserve text from at
least eight separate psalms. Many of these seem to be individual praises
and penitential prayers ascribed to different kings, e.g., Manasseh (frg.
33, 8), but other themes such as the creation (frgs. 1, 14) are also
present. Many of these psalms exhibit the influence of Deuteronomistic
ideology, e.g., in the assessment of the kings and expecting direct di-
vine retribution for sins, but these references are only implicit. Howev-
er, contrary to the other psalms in this manuscript, this particular
psalm shows marked and quite explicit Deuteronomistic influence. The
psalm deals with the history of Israel as the chosen nation and text
from the psalm is preserved on two of the larger fragments (frgs. 69
and 77). The fragments make up a continuous sequence with fragment
77 having text from the last eleven lines of a column (the psalm starts
on line 2) and fragment 69 from the first ten lines of the next column.29
28 Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical,” 150, translates the last part of the line: “And marve-
lously from the first.” For the reason behind the different translation, see the foot-
note for line 2 of the Hebrew text.
29 Bilhah Nitzan, “Post-Biblical Rib Pattern Admonitions in 4Q302/303a and 4Q381 69,
76–77,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the
Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996 (ed. M. E. Stone
and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 171, treats the fragments as parts of
separate psalms. However, Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225–26, suggests that the frag-
ments are from the same psalm and gives stylistic, linguistic and form-critical argu-
ments that make the connection between the fragments more than plausible. Fur-
thermore, the preliminary material reconstruction of the manuscript by Hartmut
Stegemann (published in Schuller, Non-Canonical, 267–83) supports this sequence
and observation of the original manuscript shows that the appearance of the frag-
ments is very similar and there is no material reason that would speak against the
sequence.
Eileen Schuller has already observed that the psalm employs “vocabu-
lary and stylistic devices typical of the Deuteronomistic school,”30 and
the psalm does indeed provide an interesting example of the use of
Deuteronomistic language and ideas.
The psalm starts with a wisdom section (frg. 77, 2–8) that gives the
interpretive frame for the following parts of the psalm that deal with
the history of Israel. The author’s overall aim appears to be to show
that God has acted correctly when he has judged Israel.31 With the aid
of questions and other wisdom forms, he first discusses God as judge
and witness in comparison to humans. He begins by addressing the
audience and then admonishing them to take heed of his words (lines
2–3). Then the psalmist relates what the audience should understand
by listening to his words (first part of line 4), namely, that God’s justice
is reliable and just. This is the central interpretive frame given here for
the entire psalm but it is also the subject of the whole introductory
part.32 The second part of line 4 opens a list of rhetorical questions that
also continues on the next line. All the verbs used in these questions
also have judicial connotations and the questions focus on justice, spe-
cifically, on whether human beings are able to stand up to God (cf.
4Q185 frg. 1, 1), challenge the truth of his verdicts, etc. The evidently
negative answer to these questions is given in line 6, which apparently
speaks about there being multiple people ready to judge and give tes-
timony concerning the audience, that is to say, there are numerous
would-be judges and (most likely controversial) witnesses. The contin-
uation starting with - ') probably explains the problem inherent in
this notion of justice within human hands and thus lays out the
groundwork for the contrast between human and divine justice. In
contrast to humans, YHWH as the sole judge is reliable and just (line 7).
It has to be noted that this is the only surviving use of the tetragramma-
ton in this psalm and it serves to give special emphasis to this state-
ment, i.e., it is none other than YHWH who will judge his people (cf.
Deut 32). The wisdom section draws to a close by including God’s spi-
rits as mediators of divine justice (for a similar notion see, e.g., 4Q185
frg. 1, 1:8–9) and assuring the audience that there surely are insights for
them to learn from this. The phraseology in this section is not specifi-
cally Deuteronomistic, but it is nevertheless worth noting that the
30 Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225.

31 The viewpoint of the author seems to be similar to that expressed in Neh 9:33.
32 As Schuller, Non-Canonical, 221, points out, the wording recalls especially Jer 42:5.
Note also Psalm 89:38 where Timo Veijola, “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38,"
JBL 107 (1988): 413–17, has conclusively shown the faithful witness to be God.
362 Mika S. Pajunen
theme of God judging Israel is probably based on Deuteronomy as the

thematic links with, e.g., Deut 32 show.
As a transitional device between the wisdom section and the next
part that deals with Israel as the chosen nation the psalmist has used an
exclamation of God’s magnificence with a partly Deuteronomistic
wording. For the first part of the exclamation the psalmist may have
been thinking specifically of Deut 10:17 as both -'1! '1 and : oc-
cur there and that verse also speaks about God being an unbiased and
incorruptible judge. The exclamation ends with the basic Deuterono-
mistic creed that there is no other God like YHWH.
After establishing God as the only true and faithful judge the text
moves to the choosing of Israel and the blessings inherent in the choos-
ing (frgs. 77, 9–11; 69, 1–3). Israel is God’s chosen people and hence it is
the highest among nations and it is accorded the mandate to rule (frg.
77, 9–11). Almost all of these phrases are standard Deuteronomistic
idioms; for :% (of Israel) cf. Deut 4:37; 7:6, 10 et al., for -'+# -''# cf.
Deut 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 et al., and for -3+ #+ =#'!+ cf. Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2 et al.
The phrase +) +3 0#'+3+# 7:! '# seems to be a direct quotation from Deut
28:1 (or less directly of 26:19). Another blessing related to this choice is
the giving of the land to Israel and this is what the beginning of frag-
ment 69 (lines 1–3) deals with. First the psalmist gives a reason for the
removal of the former inhabitants from the land. Their main faults are
abominable deeds that cause impurity to the land. Because of these
deeds God plans to exterminate them and bring his chosen nation there
instead. In the first lines the author uses Ezra 9:11 as noted already by
Eileen Schuller.33 The wording quite clearly comes from that passage as
the ideas in Ezra 9:11 are quite distinctive in the Hebrew Bible, as
pointed out by Juha Pakkala.34 There are no explicit Deuteronomistic
idioms in this passage, but reconstructing the Deuteronomistic expres-
sion [<9] 4 -3 “holy people” (cf. Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21, 26, etc.) is quite
plausible as it would lay out a sharp contrast with the abominable
deeds of the former inhabitants just mentioned.
The next major part of the psalm deals with what God expects from
his chosen people in return (frg. 69, 4–6). It details the obligations of the
Israelites given by God through various mediators. The prophets are
mentioned first as given to Israel to instruct and teach, i.e., to tell how
33 Schuller, Non-Canonical, 204.

34 Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 115.
to live in accordance with the will of God.35 Alex Jassen has shown by
analysis of the biblical basis of this phrase that the prophets are not
seen as transmitting the actual Torah but as instructors who make the
law intelligible and applicable in different settings.36 After the giving of
the prophets, the Sinai events and the making of the covenant are pre-
sented (lines 5A–5). It is important to note that the text gives as the
central reason (or one of them) behind the Sinai theophany that God
wanted to turn Israel away from the works of the inhabitants of the
land. This is hardly chronological but does reveal something about the
concerns of the author of the psalm.37 After the Sinai events, direct
commands are given to take possession of the land and dwell in it. This
will then purify the land (presumably on the condition that the instruc-
tions given by God through Moses and the prophets are kept) from the
uncleanness caused by the previous inhabitants. The psalmist has used
Neh 9 as a source when writing the text in lines 4–5.38 The covenant,
instructions and commandments, etc., are of course also common
themes in Deuteronomistic literature as is taking possession of the land
(line 6).
The final extant part of the psalm presents a covenantal choice to
remain the privileged people and act according to the preceding com-
mands or to act as foreigners and break the covenant (frg. 69, 7–9). The
choice is basically the same as in Deut 28: those who follow the law will
35 Schuller, Non-Canonical, 206, finds it slightly problematic that the prophets are men-
tioned before the Sinai events, but it need not be seen so. First of all, the divine plan
to give the land to Israel was already discussed so the structure is not motivated by
strict chronology as is also seen in line 5A. Second, as Schuller herself mentions,
prophets in general are in some texts of the Hebrew Bible already assigned to the
wilderness period (e.g., Jer 7:25; Amos 2:11). Third, in this particular case the se-
quence might come from the author still having in mind the already mentioned Ezra
9:11 where the words about the coming conquest of the land are put into the mouths
of prophets, i.e., to the period of wandering in the desert. Cf. Alex P. Jassen, P. Me-
diating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Ju-
daism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54.
36 Jassen, Mediating, 55–57.
37 The need to act differently from other nations and their practices is emphasized by
the author and most likely reflects the situation of his day and is part of the message
he wants to impart to his intended audience. Nitzan, “Post-Biblical,” 173–74, has
noted the same tendency, but goes perhaps a bit far in claiming that we could pin-
point the situation that this refers to, specifically, to relationships between the Jews
and Samaritans. It is better to view it as a general commandment to stay away from
foreigners, their practices and influence be they the Samaritan people, Hellenistic
thought, etc.
38 For a comprehensive list of parallel language and imagery with Neh 9 (especially vv.
13–14, 20), see Schuller, Non-Canonical, 209–10.
364 Mika S. Pajunen
be blessed but those who do not will face the curses. From the negative
tone of the last lines it can be guessed that the punishments and their
subsequent execution might have been described in the following sec-
tions.
The basic pattern of the psalm has elements common with the co-
venant lawsuit pattern (':).39 Bilhah Nitzan has, e.g., drawn attention
to the justification of God as judge often preceding an account of
Israel’s history in texts of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Deut 32:4).40 It is impor-
tant to note that the author is familiar even with many quite late texts
and is able to use them in concert to drive his point home. For the
choosing of Israel, the terms used for the nation, etc. he uses Deutero-
nomistic phraseology and ideas, but for his more specific concerns he
uses later sources that exhibit similar notions (Ezra 9:11; Neh 9, etc.).
The psalmist uses the Deuteronomistic idioms in the traditional way
they are used in the Hebrew Bible. The theme he is writing on has in-
fluenced the choice of language and it is illuminating to see how he is
able to employ the Deuteronomistic phraseology as a stylistic device.
The use of late sources like Neh 941 and some of the vocabulary indicate
that the psalm is quite late.42 Most likely it was written around the
middle of the 2nd century BCE.
Conclusions
In the analysis of these psalms, three distinct ways of applying Deute-

ronomistic ideology and phrases were discovered. The oldest of these,
exhibited by the 4Q380 psalm, seems to be the use of the Deuterono-
mistic concepts as parts of a polemic. Unlike the other two texts, which
apparently come from settings where the basic tenets have already
been approved, this text is still arguing the points and one gets the
sense that here we are dealing with an ideology that is still striving for
hegemony by arguing against people not yet committed to its tenets. In
a short space the author describes surprisingly many different facets of
39 Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225–26. She also rightly points out the differences between
the psalm and the pattern and that many parts belonging to it are missing in 4Q381.
40 Nitzan, “Post-Biblical,” 163–64.
41 Pakkala, Ezra, 180–84, 210, among others has convincingly argued that Neh 9 is one
of the latest parts of that book if not the whole Hebrew Bible (with some exceptions
like Daniel).
42 E.g., Schuller, Non-Canonical, 221, has observed that the expression -')+/ (+/ (frg. 77,
2) is not used of God in the Hebrew Bible, but becomes frequent from the second
century BCE onwards.
the Deuteronomistic ideology, e.g., the choice of Zion (1:2–6), the cho-
sen people and their prosperity (1:9–11; 2:1), retribution for sinful deeds
(2:6) and the importance of observing the commandments (2:2–5). But
even though the gap in time between the author of this text and the
Deuteronomists is much smaller than with the other two psalms inves-
tigated here, some modifications have already occurred like the change
of viewpoint from a nationwide perspective to the elect/righteous with-
in the nation.
The other psalms are probably chronologically quite close to each
other and give two different ways in which the much earlier Deutero-
nomistic tradition was used at this point in time. The author of the
4Q381 psalm uses the ideology and vocabulary most of all as a stylistic
device when discussing Israel’s past. The phraseology aids in creating
the setting of the psalm and is an easy way to evoke links to the pre-
vious writings in the minds of the audience. The author uses the past as
a means to an end, i.e., the audience is meant to identify themselves as
heirs to the blessings and curses of the covenant (Deut 28) and to make
the correct choices in the future by learning from the mistakes of their
forefathers. Thus, the author actualizes the covenantal choice by em-
ploying the familiar language and the same basic choice between bless-
ings and curses, but tying it strongly together with his/his group’s spe-
cial concern about foreign practices.
The author of the psalm in 11QapocrPs uses a different strategy
when employing parts of the Deuteronomistic ideology. He transfers
the familiar terminology (e.g., -'=6#/# =#=) and ideas into a new setting
by partly redefining them. Their use is still similar enough to how they
were typically used in the past so as not to directly contradict the pre-
vious function, but still distinctly different from it. It is a reapplica-
tion/reinterpretation of the concepts in a setting where the traditional
formulations would not work per se.
Thus, all three authors are capable of discerning and using different
parts of the Deuteronomistic traditions as sources for their composi-
tions. Combining their explicit use of the motifs with the possible im-
plicit influence found in many other apocryphal psalms gives some
idea of how deeply embedded the Deuteronomistic ideology was in the
circles responsible for these compositions.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S. “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in
the Worldview of the Qumran Community.” Pages 318–37 in The Scrolls
366 Mika S. Pajunen
and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A.
Evans. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Arnold, Russell C. D. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran
Community. STDJ 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Brooke, George J. “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” RevQ 54 (1989): 267–92.
Coggins, Richard J. “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” Pages 22–35 in Those
Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by L.
S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1999.
García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der
Woude. “11QPsb.” Pages 37–47 in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31.
Ȱ. “11Qapocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181–205 in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18,
11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965.
McKenzie, Steven L. “Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 160–68 in vol. 2 of The
Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
Nasuti, Harry P. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 88. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “Post-Biblical Rib Pattern Admonitions in 4Q302/303a and
4Q381 69, 76–77.” Pages 159–74 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpre-
tation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First Inter-
national Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Cha-
zon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Pajunen, Mika S. “Qumranic Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis.” Pages 591–605
in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea
Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta.
JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Ȱ. “11QPsApª, A Communal Ritual Of Exorcism.” Paper presented at the fifth
annual meeting of the OTSEM network. Lund, Sweden, 22 April 2008.
Ȱ. “The Function of 11QPsApa as a Ritual.” Pages 50–60 in Text and Ritual.
Papers presented at the symposium Text and Ritual. Edited by A. K. Gudme.
Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2009.
Ȱ. “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106.” In The
Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by A. Lange, K. De Troyer and
S. Tzoref. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.
Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8.
BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Puech, Émile. “11QPsApª: Un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction.”
RevQ 14 (1990): 377–408.
Ȱ. “Les Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme (11Q11).” Pages 160–81 in

Sapiental, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third
Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Pub-
lished in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez
and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Römer, Thomas C. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical
and Literary Introduction. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Rooy, Harry F. van. Studies on the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms. JSSSup 7. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsª). DJD 4. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1965.
Schuller, Eileen M. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran. A Pseudepigraphic Collec-
tion. HSS 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Ȱ. “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” Pages 1–39 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations.
Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J.
H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997.
Ȱ. “4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B” Pages 75–173 in Qumran Cave 4. VI Poetical
and Liturgical Texts, part 1. Edited by C. Newsom and E. Schuller. DJD 11.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Tanzer, Sarah. The Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ph.D. diss.,
University of Harvard, 1987.
Ulrich, Eugene, Patrick Skehan and Peter Flint. ”4QPsf.” Pages 85–106 in Qu-
mran Cave 4, XI. Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. Ox-
Veijola, Timo. Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der
Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. AASF B 220. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, 1982.
Ȱ. “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38." JBL 107 (1988): 413–17.
Ȱ. "The Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism." Pages 459–78 in Sefer Moshe. The
Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,
Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz and S. M.
Paul. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon,
1972.
Ȱ and D. Seely. “Barkhi Nafshi.” Pages 255–334 in Qumran Cave 4, XX. Poetical
and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.
Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage
Anssi Voitila
Introduction
Storyline
Judith is the heroine of a story that tells about the courage of a rich and
beautiful widow who saves her people from a great enemy threatening
to conquer and destroy the land with a clever plot. The great army of
the Assyrian king Nebuchadnezzar, led by his general Holofernes, has
conquered Syria and the Phoenician coast and is threatening Bethulia,
Judith’s hometown in the mountainous frontier that leads to Israel and
Jerusalem. Holofernes is astonished that Israelites do not surrender like
every other nation so far. The Ammonite chief Achior gives a speech
dealing with the history of Israel trying to explain that the Israelites
cannot be beaten if they have not sinned against their God. Being an-
gered at the suggestion that they cannot defeat the Israelites, Holo-
fernes and other chiefs protest and Holofernes has Achior seized and
sent away to the Israelites. Holofernes’s army besieged Bethulia for 34
days after which the people of the town were weak from thirst and
were losing their courage and ready to surrender; they made their
leaders promise to surrender provided that God had not come to their
rescue within five days.
Now Judith enters the scene. She makes a powerful speech to the
leaders of Bethulia in which she claims to have a plan to save her
people. This plan consists of going out to meet Holofernes in the Assy-
rian camp. The leaders give permission for her mission. Judith goes to
prepare herself and says a long prayer. Embellished and dressed in her
best garments, Judith goes to the Assyrian camp. She charms Holo-
fernes and everybody else by her beauty and seemingly wise speech.
Holofernes gives a banquet for his servants in his tent and invites Ju-
dith too. He gets himself drunk and falls asleep. All the servants de-
part, Judith ȭ still in his tent ȭ comes near his bed and kills Holofernes
by cutting his head with his sword. Judith returns to Bethulia with the
370 Anssi Voitila
head of Holofernes and some booty from his tent and tells what has
happened. Discovering that Holofernes is dead, the Assyrians panic
and run in every direction. The Israelites from all over the country pur-
sue and destroy them. A triumph is celebrated and Judith, with other
women, sings a victory song. The story ends with an epilogue of the
rest of Judith’s life.
Method and Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the so-called Deuteronomic (=

Dtn)/Deuteronomistic (= Dtr) influence and phraseology in the book of
Judith (= Jdt). Moshe Weinfeld in his Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
School and Martin Noth in his The Deuteronomistic History collected the
phraseology of the Dtn/Dtr authors. After their important works, new
articles and monographs were also published on the theology and
phraseology observed in this study. Moshe Weinfeld argued that not
every phrase that occurs in Deuteronomy makes it Deuteronomic but it
is “its meaning within the framework of Deuteronomic theology.”1
Behind this statement is the idea that in Deuteronomy and in the Deu-
teronomistic books there is earlier material that is not Dtn/Dtr but cho-
sen to be included in these books by the Dtn/Dtr redactors on one hand
and later material incorporated to the Dtn/Dtr edition of the books after
the Dtn/Dtr redactor on the other.2 This statement is problematic in
several respects for the present study. From the standpoint of the au-
thor of the book of Judith (= AJu), there were never Dtn/Dtr redactors;
there were only books, in the form they had reached at the time of the
author, that are today called Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic histo-
ry. Second, our author knew other biblical traditions and used their
phraseology as well. Particularly the language of the Psalms and Isaiah
is represented in the book; the Exodus tradition and its language may
also be detected in Jdt.
1 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1972), 1–2.
2 Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1981), 84, gives the impression that the earlier material was given from above,
that it was an already existing entity, a fact that the Dtr could not or would not
change (“Like an honest broker he began by taking, in principle, a favourable view
of the material in the traditions”). But certainly we must think that Dtr choose this
material. He accepted it in a way to base his new History of Israel on; otherwise he
would have worked differently and chosen other material.
Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage 371
There is another complication concerning the difference of lan-

guages: Jdt survives to us only in Greek—if it ever existed in Hebrew it
is not preserved—while the Dtn/Dtr books are in Hebrew. Therefore, it
is difficult to know exactly what the corresponding phrases or expres-
sions in Hebrew would have been. We may not always expect that the
LXX form of a Dtn/Dtr expression or phrase is the one the au-
thor/translator would have used. He may not have always preferred
those he found in the LXX, but created his own. Thus in this study, the
expression counted as corresponding with the Dtn/Dtr Hebrew one is
not always word-for-word equivalent to the LXX reading. The similari-
ty with the meaning and content of the phrase or word used by AJu to
those of the Dtn/Dtr reflects ideological dependence as well, although
the exact words do not correspond the words we encounter in the rele-
vant passages in the LXX. In this way, the Dtn/Dtr influence in Jdt may
be evaluated more deeply and reliably, and all the evidence considered.
In the following, the discussion follows a thematic order, organized
according to the main characteristics of the Dtn/Dtr theology.
Narrative Content
AJu follows in the footsteps of the Deuteronomists to the extent that he3
uses narrative to convey his message. Judith resembles the heroes of
the books from Joshua to 2 Kings: she recalls Deborah; Jael who kills
Sisera; David who kills the Giant Goliath, his nation’s enemy; and Mi-
riam who sings for Yahweh’s victory. However, Judith’s story differs
from the Dtr ones in its fictional and ahistorical character, most likely
never intended to be taken as describing true historical events.
The Book of Judith is not a systematic presentation of its author’s
theology but a story that intended to sway its audience, to persuade
them to change their ideas or confirm their already existing beliefs. This
means that sometimes a scholar must confess that a certain idea that
seems to be stated in the text does not necessarily represent the author’s
thinking but reflects the situation in the text. This is especially the case
with speeches. It is very important to take into consideration who is
speaking, when and to whom.
Like his Dtn/Dtr predecessors, AJu uses speeches at turning points
of the narration to present important principles and theological ideas,
3 I use the masculine pronoun “he” or “his” referring to AJu as a measure of economy
and to make my text easier to follow; the use of this convention is not intended to
exclude the possibility that the author was a woman.
372 Anssi Voitila
i.e. what is the meaning of the events and actions in the text, what is
their purpose, what should the audience learn from them. The prayers,
the use of which expanded in Jewish prose during the Hellenistic pe-
riod,4 also have the same function.
Exclusiveness of the Worship of Yahweh
Yahweh and the Other Gods: The Exclusive Monolatry in Judith
In the Dtn/Dtr theology, the central idea was that Israelites should wor-
ship only Yahweh, albeit other gods may exist. Thus the question why
the exile, the destruction of the nation, of its holy city and temple ever
happened5 had a very simple answer: the people have sinned. The sin
was idolatry—God punishes Israel for it had worshipped the other
gods than Yahweh. AJu fully agrees with this judgement. In Judith, the
Assyrians tightened the siege of Bethulia and the town’s courage was
drying up (7:23–25). The inhabitants and their leaders reflect upon the
possible reasons for the threatening situation. The answer is the same
that is found in the Dtn/Dtr theology which is part of the religious tra-
dition of AJu too: they must have sinned. The theme is already raised
earlier in the text. When the Assyrian general Holofernes is astonished
at the refusal of the Israelites to surrender, one Achior, an Ammonite
chief in his army, informs the general about Israelites (Jdt 5:5–21) and
the impossibility of beating them unless they have sinned against their
God: when the Israelites sin their God punishes them by letting an
4 Tessa Rajak, Translation & Survival: the Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 235–36.
5 Martin Rose, “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie de l'Ancient Testament,” in
Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches ré-
centes (ed. A. du Pury et al.; Le Monde de la Bible 34; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996),
445–76 (449–51), following Martin Noth (The Deuteronomistic History, 97–99), puts
much effort into showing that the DH did not have any positive perspective of the
future. It is not strange (see, Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 98) that the authors of
Deuteronomy and DH are focussing their attention on their present situation and
not on the future. It is rather difficult for me to see how the authors could have been
satisfied with only explaining what has happened and not aspiring to achieve some-
thing in their audience. The speeches by Moses (Deut 4:25–31), by Joshua (Josh
23:15–6), by Samuel (1 Sam 12:20–5) or Salomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:44–53) must be
considered in this light. The way the Dtn/Dtr present their history is most effective
with an open future, handing the responsibility for reaching the right conclusions
over to the audience. In the book of Judith we meet one reaction to the challenge
posed by the Dtn/Dtr authors.
enemy conquer and destroy them in Jdt 5:17–18, 20. In Jdt 11:10–11, 15,
the punishment is described with Dtn/Dtr language6 »Ç¿ûÊÇÅÌ¸ţ ÊÇÀ ¼ĊË
ěÂ¼¿ÉÇÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ÷ÄšÉß ëÁ¼ţÅþ. In this speech of Achior and later when Judith
confirms the claim presented in his words to Holofernes, the cause and
effect, sin and punishment, seem to function as an automaton.7
Mostly the exact nature of the sin Israel has committed is not given
in Jdt; it is only characterized in rather general terms as “sin” ÒºÅĠ¾Ä¸,
ÒÅÇÄţ¸, ÖÄ¸ÉÌţ¸, ÖÄÚÉÌ¾Ä¸, ÖÄ¸ÉÌÚÅ¼ÀÅ (Jdt 5:20–21; 7:28). But when the
nature of the sin is explicitly stated by Judith herself in the speech to
the town leaders, it is idolatry (Jdt 8:18) and, in her speech to Holo-
fernes, the transgression of dietary laws (Jdt 11:15). But what becomes
obvious in the book is that neither Judith, nor the people, nor the lead-
ers of the city are able to find any sin that they have committed and for
which they should repent.
The language Judith employs is a combination of Dtn/Dtr and pro-
phetic rhetoric against idolatry: these gods are not true ones but made
by humans, Jdt 8:18: ÇĐ ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅÇıÊÀÅ ¿¼ÇėË Ï¼ÀÉÇÈÇÀûÌÇÀË; cf. Deut 30:17: Á¸Ė
ÈÂ¸Å¾¿¼ĖË ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅûÊþË ¿¼ÇėË îÌšÉÇÀË.8 The term Ï¼ÀÉÇÈÇţ¾ÌÇË occurs in Lev
26:1, 30; Deut 4:28; 27:15;9 Wis 14:8; Isa 2:18; 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7;
46:6; Dan 5:4, 23; 6:28; see also Isa 44:9–17; Jer 10:3–4; Ps 115:4–7.
Instead of clear monotheistic expressions, the author of Judith uses
ambiguous language when referring to other gods and Yahweh. In Jdt
8:20, Judith states that Israelites do not know any other god but the
6 For the phraseology, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346, 348;
for /< and related words in Dtn/Dtr literature as punishment of transgressing
God’s law, see Norbert Lohfink, “/<,” TDOT 15:177–98 (188–91). ¼ĊË ěÂ¼¿ÉÇÅ in Jdt
11:15 may be considered as more free rendering/reminiscence of the Hebrew expres-
sion ( 3# (/<! 3 (v. 20 translated more literally in LXX as ïÑË ÔÅ ëÆÇÂ¼¿É¼įÊþ Ê¼
Á¸Ė ïÑË ÔÅ ÒÈÇÂšÊþ Ê¼; cf. 1 Kgs 13:34) etc. in Deut 28:20–24.
7 This theme of sin-punishment-repentance-forgiveness is recognized as Dtr in many
studies, Erich Zenger, Das Buch Judit (JSHRZ I,6; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981), 473;
Carey A. Moore, Judith (AB 40; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 160; Mercedes Navarro
Puerto, “Reinterpreting the Past: Judith 5,” in History and Identity: How Israel's Later
Authors Viewed its Earlier History (ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen; Deuteroca-
nonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 115–40
(120); William Loader, The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in
Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, forthcoming 2011), 189–90, 194.
8 Usually the phrase appears in the form [»ÇÍÂ¼įÊ¾Ì¼] Á¸Ė ëÂ¿ĠÅÌ¼Ë Â¸ÌÉ¼įÊÑÊÀÅ ¿¼ÇėË
îÌšÉÇÀË Á¸Ė ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅûÊÑÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË, Deut 11:16; 17:3; 29:25; Josh 23:16; 1 Kgs 9:6.
9 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 324; see also Norbert Lohfink,
“Gott im Buch Deuteronomium,” in La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le
Dieu des philosophes (ed. J. Coppens; BEThL 41; Gembloux: Duculout, 1976), 101–26
(120–21).
374 Anssi Voitila
Lord, ÷Ä¼ėË »ò ïÌ¼ÉÇÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÇĤÁ ìºÅÑÄ¼Å ÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. This phrase has similari-
ties with Dtn/Dtr phraseology: -':% -'!+ “other/foreign gods”10 and
#+/ #3 0'# -'!+! #! !#!' ') =3'# “you shall know that Yahweh
alone is God and there is no other besides him (e.g. Deut 4:35, 39;11 7:9;
1 Kgs 8:60; 2 Kgs 19:19).”12 In Judith the expression “other god” is also
complemented with the expression ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ which is literally
the case in Deuteronomy too and clearly connected with the menace of
punishment, although the sin that might have caused it escapes the
Israelites.13 Judith’s statement, however, does not contain any counter-
part to the phrase #3 0'# “and there is no other” which renders these
phrases in Deuteronomy monotheistic. The formulation in Jdt 8:20 also
resembles the first commandment in Exod 20:3, ÇĤÁ ìÊÇÅÌ¸ţ ÊÇÀ ¿¼ÇĖ ïÌ¼ÉÇÀ
ÈÂüÅ ëÄÇı (cf. ÈÉġ ÈÉÇÊļÈÇÍ ÄÇÍ/'16¡+3; Deut 5:7) which is generally inter-
preted as monolatrous; there are other gods but for Israel there is only
one.14 In Jdt 9:14, Judith’s words remind one even more of the Dtn mo-
notheistic phraseology (#3 0' -'!+! #! !#!' “Yahweh alone is God
there is no other” Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kgs 8:6015): Á¸Ė ÈÇţ¾ÊÇÅ ëÈĖ ÈÜÅ Ìġ ì¿ÅÇË
ÊÇÍ ... ëÈţºÅÑÊÀÅ ÌÇı ¼Ċ»ýÊ¸À ĞÌÀ Êİ ¼č ĝ ¿¼ġË ... Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ÓÂÂÇË ĨÈ¼É¸ÊÈţ½ÑÅ
ÌÇı ºñÅÇÍË ÊÉ¸¾Â ¼Ċ Äü Êį. As a predicate noun with the definite article, ĝ
¿¼ĠË in the sentence ĞÌÀ Êİ ¼č ĝ ¿¼ĠË (-'!+! !=) definitely signifies “the
God (the true one)” and later Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ÓÂÂÇË (#3 0') would confirm
this, “there is none other”— unless the verse continued with a restric-
10 This expression is not Deuteronomic, although it appears rather frequently in Deute-

ronomy and Deuteronomistic history; it is “part and parcel of the common Hebrew
vocabulary,” but it becomes Deuteronomic when attached to the verbs (+! and 3,
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83–84, 320; Félix García López,
“Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI,” RB 85 (1978): 5–49 (42–44); Norbert Loh-
fink, “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” in Jeremia und die “deueronomis-
tische Bewegung” (ed. W. Gross; BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 313–82
(331); Norbert Lohfink, “2 Kön 23,3 und Dtn 6,17,” Biblica 71 (1990): 34–42 (36); Timo
Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1ȭ16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 154 n. 187.
11 Deut 4:35: ĞÌÀ ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ÇīÌÇË ¿¼ĠË ìÊÌÀÅ Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ìÌÀ ÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı; Deut 4:39: Á¸Ė
ºÅļÊþ ... ĞÌÀ ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ÇīÌÇË ¿¼ġË ... Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ìÌÀ ÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı.
12 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 331.
13 In Deuteronomy “Yahweh your God,” see García López, “Analyse littéraire de
Deutéronome, V–XI,” 43.
14 Juha Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the
Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 65; Veijo-
la, Deuteronomium, 154–55.
15 The monotheistic creed in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 331.
The expressions in Deut 4:35, 39 and 1 Kgs 8:60 are all late (post-Dtr) and dependant
on Deuterojesaja; Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 153, 162 (see further literature there);
Veijola, Deuteronomium, 117.
tive clause ĨÈ¼É¸ÊÈţ½ÑÅ, ÁÌÂ. “(there is none other) who protects the
people of Israel but you.” Consequently it seems that AJu did not feel
obligated to stress the exclusiveness of the God of the Israelites and to
show that Yahweh is the God of the whole world.16 It is very interesting
that the author of the book of Judith follows the Dtr monolatrous ex-
pressions here and not the deuteroisaianic ones, assuming that the
phrases in Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:60 and 2 Kgs 19:19 are all post Dtr
and dependant on Deutero-Isaiah.
Nebuchadnezzar as the Only God
In fact, the only god who has any claims for exclusivity in Jdt is Nebu-
chadnezzar. First, Nebuchadnezzar ordered Holofernes not to spare,
not to pity (ÇĤ Î¼ţÊ¼Ì¸À ĝ ĚÎ¿¸ÂÄĠË ÊÇÍ;17 cf. Deut 7:16; 13:9; 19:13, 21;
25:1218) any one who does not surrender to him and transgresses the
commandments of his lord (Á¸Ė Êİ »ò ÇĤ È¸É¸¹ûÊþ ïÅ ÌÀ ÌľÅ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ ÌÇı
ÁÍÉţÇÍ ÊÇÍ; cf. Deut 1:43; 9:12, 16; 17:20; 28:1419). Further, the promulga-
tion of the ruler cult of Nebuchadnezzar is creatively depicted by the
author with Dtn/Dtr phraseology against idolatry, in Jdt 3:8: “Holo-
fernes demolished (Á¸ÌñÊÁ¸Ð¼Å) all their sanctuaries (ĞÉÀ¸) and cut down
(ëÆñÁÇÐ¼Å, later also ëÆÇÂ¼¿É¼ıÊ¸À) all their sacred poles/groves (ÓÂÊ¾) so
that all the nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar alone (ĞÈÑË ¸ĤÌŊ
ÄĠÅĿ ÌŊ ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ Â¸ÌÉ¼įÊÑÊÀÅ ÈÚÅÌ¸ ÌÛ ì¿Å¾).” With similar lan-
guage the audience is urged to “battle the foreign cult apparatus” in
Deut 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 18:4 (cf. Judg 6:28).20 Later in Jdt 6:2 Holofernes
poses a rhetorical question ÌţË ĝ ¿¼ġË ¼Ċ Äü ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ “Who is God
except Nebuchadnezzar?” Next, the god Nebuchadnezzar urges all the
inhabitants of the earth to fear him and when they do not (Jdt 1:11 ĞÌÀ
ÇĤÁ ëÎÇ¹û¿¾Ê¸Å ¸ĤÌĠÅ), he becomes angry (v. 12 Á¸ĕ ë¿ÍÄļ¿¾
¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ ëÈĖ ÈÜÊ¸Å ÌüÅ ºýÅ Ì¸įÌ¾Å ÊÎĠ»É¸) and wants to kill them
16 According to Noth (The Deuteronomistic History, 91) “Dtr. has little chance to mention
that God’s actions were intended to have an effect on the whole world.” There are
such cases as 1 Kgs 8:41–43 where it is stated that, in the future, all the nations will
learn to know and fear this God.
18 For the expression, see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 204.
19 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 339–40.
20 Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 97–8.; Norbert Lohfink, “Opferzentralisation, Säkulari-
sierungsthese und mimetische Theorie,” in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deu-
teronomistischen Literatur III (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände: Altes Testament 20.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 219–60 (247); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 202–3.
376 Anssi Voitila
all.21 Finally, the words of Nebuchadnezzar and his “prophet” Holo-

fernes are characterized as trustworthy, Jdt 6:4: Âñº¼À ĝ ¹¸ÊÀÂ¼İË
¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ ... ÇĤ Ä¸Ì¸ÀÑ¿ûÊ¼Ì¸À ÌÛ ģûÄ¸Ì¸ ÌľÅ ÂĠºÑÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. And later
it is stated that none of Holofernes’ words shall be in vain, Jdt 6:9:
ëÂÚÂ¾Ê¸ Á¸Ė ÇĤ»òÅ »À¸È¼Ê¼ėÌ¸À ÌľÅ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ ÄÇÍ. They sound just as God’s
words through a Dtn/Dtr prophet.22
Nonetheless, the author must have intended and any reader will
read the claims for exclusivity of Nebuchadnezzar ironically: Nebu-
chadnezzar arrogates to himself something that may belong only to the
God Yahweh and consequently, without explicitly stating the fact, the
author proclaims Yahweh as the only true God.
Nationalistic Tendencies
The intolerant monolatrous language AJu uses may be explained as a

part of nationalistic tendencies in the book. The author wants to portray
the Israelites alone with the Lord their God against all the other na-
tions—all that is most unalienable in their religion and ethnic identity
threatened by this foreign ruler. The only true member of the commu-
nity is the one who puts his/her trust only in this God, Yahweh, even if
originally a foreigner, as was Achior, the Ammonite (Jdt 14:10). There-
fore there is no universalism, no need to promote Yahweh worship for
the whole world.
21 Deut 1:37; 4:21; 6:15; 9:8, 20; 11:17. For God’s anger in the Deuteronomistic history,
see Denis J. McCarthy, “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deute-
ronomistic History,” in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt in Memoriam (ed.
J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis; New York: Ktav, 1974), 97–110 and Norbert Lohfink,
“Zorn Gottes und Exil,” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Festschrift
zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; FRLANT
190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 137–55 (139–41). In the anger theol-
ogy of DtrN, the anger of Yahweh is provoked by not obeying his will, particularly
by turning to the other gods, see Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology (JSOTSup 279;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 40–1. When Achior has finished his
speech about the Israelites Holofernes becomes angry. Navarro Puerto (“Reinterpret-
ing the Past,” 121) claims: “This is not the response that we expect from somebody
who… is sure of himself, who is strong… Achior’s speech has touched the weak
point in the general…” But then God becomes angry all the time in the so-called
Deuteronomic History, especially when his people do not obey him and show fear of
him. The point is that for the author Holofernes and his lord Nebuchadnezzar be-
have like God and his prophet.
22 See, for example Josh 21:45; 23:14 and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 350.
The Centralization of the Cult
Another central idea in the book of Deuteronomy is the so-called cen-

tralization of the cult, i.e., Yahweh should be worshipped only in one
place, which he has chosen for himself.23 The worship in cult places
other than Jerusalem is no longer an issue in Jdt. Local sanctuaries are
not even brought up when Achior tells about the sins of Israelite ances-
tors and Judith assures the town leaders that Israelites have not done
anything that would have caused God to abandon them. It seems to be
self-evident that there is only one temple in Jerusalem. All the sacrifices
are made in that temple (Jdt 4:14; 9:1; 16:18–20), but the author does not
show any other interest in the cult.
In Judith’s prayer in ch. 9, the phrase Ìġ ÊÁûÅÑÄ¸ ÌýË Á¸Ì¸È¸įÊ¼ÑË ÌÇı
ĚÅĠÄ¸ÌÇË ÌýË »ĠÆ¾Ë ÊÇÍ (v. 8) referring to the temple is suggestive of the
Dtn language reflecting the idea that not God himself but his name
dwells in the temple and the city.24 In fact, the wording in Jdt corres-
ponds more literally to the Hebrew text -< 0)< (or -#<) than does the
LXX25 ĝ ÌĠÈÇË ğÅ ÔÅ ëÁÂñÆ¾Ì¸À ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ëÈÀÁÂ¾¿ýÅ¸À Ìġ ěÅÇÄ¸ ¸ĤÌÇı
ëÁ¼ė (Deut 12:11, 21; 14:23, 24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; 1 Kgs 8:16, 43; 9:3; 11:36;
14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7). Although the divine manifestation as »ĠÆ¸ is con-
tained in the priestly theology it certainly also belongs to the idea of
divine presence in the Jerusalem temple in 1 Kgs 8:11.26
Other cult places in Israel are non-existent in the book. There is no
mention even of prayer houses or synagogues. For prayer there seems
to be no need for a special place, albeit public prayers are presented.
The people fell down and worshipped God, and cried out to him (6:18,
19; 10:8; 13:17). This language shows reminiscences of Dtn liturgical
terms.27 In Jdt 9:1, Judith’s private prayer is depicted: Judith throws
herself down and prays before God like Moses in Deut 9:18 and 25. It is
interesting that although the evening sacrifice made in Jerusalem is
23 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 1, 324–26 etc.
24 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 325; Eyal Regev, “Priestly Dy-
namic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” VT 51 (2001): 243–61 (251).
25 Note that an unknown hexaplaric reading has it as ¼ĊË Á¸Ì¸ÊÁûÅÑÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. LXX calls it
a place where the name of the Lord is called. This may be because the translator did
not consider it possible that God would live in the temple in any form; see Norbert
Lohfink, ”Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel,” Biblica 65 (1984): 297–329
(309–10); for another solution, see Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, Le Deutéro-
nome (La Bible d’Alexandrie 5; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 194.
378 Anssi Voitila
pointed out, the direction in which Judith prays is not explicitly named
as that of the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:35, 44, 48; Dan 6:11; 1 Esdras 4:58; Tob
3:11).
Yahweh and His People: Law and Covenant
Yahweh and His People
The people of Israel are most often called simply ĝ Â¸ĠË “the people” or
ÇĎ ÍĎÇĖ (ĝ ÇčÁÇË) ÊÉ¸¾Â “the sons (or house) of Israel” (or ÈÜË ÒÅüÉ [ºÍÅü]
ÊÉ¸¾Â “every man [woman] of Israel”). There is no mention of a special
election of the Israelites.28 Only once, in a prayer, does the people of
Bethulia call itself sanctified/holy in Jdt 6:19: Á¸Ė ëÈĕ¹Â¼ÐÇÅ ëÈĖ Ìġ
ÈÉĠÊÑÈÇÅ ÌľÅ ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÑÅ ÊÇÀ ëÅ Ìĉ ÷ÄñÉß Ì¸įÌþ. Deuteronomy, on the con-
trary, regards all the people of Israel as holy by virtue of their election
by God (cf. Deut 33:3: Á¸Ė ëÎ¼ĕÊ¸ÌÇ ÌÇı Â¸Çı ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸Ė ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÇÀ
ĨÈġ ÌÛË Ï¼ėÉ¸Ë ÊÇÍ; ĞÌÀ Â¸ġË ×ºÀÇË ¼č ÁÍÉĕĿ ÌŊ ¿¼Ŋ ÊÇÍ; Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21;
26:19; 28:9).29 The word ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÇË “sanctified” is also used of the tem-
ple, of its altar and equipment (Jdt 4:3; 9:13).30
Twice the people are referred to as the inheritance of God in Ju-
dith’s prayers (Jdt 9:12 and 13:5). These instances will be treated in the
next section. Here, suffice it to say that this sort of characterization in-
dicates Israel’s being God’s possession; with this emotional language
Judith persuades God to save his people.
God is most often characterized as their God (7:28 “our God, the
Lord of our fathers”), also “of the inheritance of Israel” (Jdt 9:12). Once
the Israelites are characterized as belonging to God—in Judith’s prayer
to God, in Jdt 9:13: ÍĎÇĕ ÊÇÍ, “your sons”; a little earlier in the same
prayer (v. 4), Judith refers to her ancestors as ÍĎÇĖ óº¸È¾ÄñÅÇÀ ĨÈġ ÊÇÍ,
“sons beloved by you (i.e., God).”
28 The concept of “chosen people” is present in Deuteronomy, but Dtr authors speak of
“God’s/My People,” Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 89–90.
29 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 227; Norbert Lohfink, “Dt 26, 17
– 19 und die ‘Bundesformel’,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–53
(543–45); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 199; Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deu-
teronomistic Static Holiness,” 252–53; see also, Thomas Römer, “The Book of Deute-
ronomy,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (ed. S.
McKenzie and M. P. Graham; JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994), 178–212 (201–2).
30 In 1 Kgs 9:3, God says he has sanctified the temple: È¼ÈÇĕ¾Á¸ ÊÇÀ Á¸ÌÛ ÈÜÊ¸Å ÌüÅ
ÈÉÇÊ¼ÍÏûÅ ÊÇÍ, ÷ºÀ¸Á¸ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ.
In Achior’s account of the history of Israel, although God leads the

Israelites away from Egypt (Jdt 5:14), Achior never mentions the revela-
tion in Sinai. In fact, the only revelation he ever mentions is the one
made by God to Abraham in Harran, Jdt 5:9. Before that, the people
had already learned to know (¿¼ġË ğÅ ëÈñºÅÑÊ¸Å) God in Chaldea (5:8).
This is even more interesting because Moses does not occur at all in the
whole book. But then the revelation in Sinai is implicitly suggested to
the reader by such phrases that allude to the law and the covenant.
Covenant
In the Dtn/Dtr theology, the special relationship between God and

Israel finds expression in the covenant. The Septuagint Greek word for
covenant, »À¸¿ûÁ¾, is mentioned only once in Judith’s prayer: the Assy-
rians are referred to, among other things, as “those acting against your
covenant” ÇĐ Á¸ÌÛ ÌýË »À¸¿ûÁ¾Ë ÊÇÍ (Jdt 9:13). Here Judith invokes God’s
obligations in the covenant. She has previously argued in front of the
leaders of Bethulia that although the Israelites have not violated the
stipulations of the covenant, they have no right to demand anything
from God but to put their trust in his rightfulness.
Neither the Davidic dynasty nor any of the Kings of Israel or Judah
are mentioned in the Book of Judith, however the promises made to
David in 2 Sam 7 are echoed in Jdt 13:14: ¸ĊÅ¼ėÌ¼ ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ ğË ÇĤÁ ÒÈñÊÌ¾Ê¼Å
Ìġ ìÂ¼ÇË ¸ĤÌÇı ÒÈġ ÌÇı ÇċÁÇÍ ÊÉ¸¾Â. There she praises God by recalling 2
Sam 7:15: Ìġ »ò ìÂ¼ÇË ÄÇÍ ÇĤÁ ÒÈÇÊÌûÊÑ ÒÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇı; cf. Ps 66:20 and Dan
3:35. Here the AJu seems to follow in the footsteps of the Dtn authors:
Deuteronomy is also known to transfer to the nation the attributes of
royal ideology and the divine promises given originally to the Davidic
dynasty.31
There are however a few expressions that clearly evoke the idea of
covenant in the book of Judith. First, Jdt 5:18 alludes to covenant by the
verb »À¸ÌÀ¿ñÅ¸À “to establish (a covenant)”: ĞÌ¼ »ò ÒÈñÊÌ¾Ê¸Å ÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı
úË »Àñ¿¼ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË.32 Second, as in Deut 4:26; 30:19 and 31:28 where Yah-
weh himself invokes Heaven and Earth as witnesses and “guarantors
that punishment will be executed should the treaty be violated”
31 Bernard M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and

the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001): 511–34 (530–
31).
32 So also Zenger, Das Buch Judit, 473.
380 Anssi Voitila
(»À¸Ä¸ÉÌįÉÇÄ¸À ĨÄėÅ ÊûÄ¼ÉÇÅ ÌĠÅ Ì¼ ÇĤÉ¸ÅġÅ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ºýÅ ĞÌÀ...),33 AJu put the
same expression in the mouth of the inhabitants of Bethulia adding
heaven and earth with God himself as witnesses to their distress when
they complain against the decision made by the town leaders: Jdt 7:28:
Ä¸ÉÌÍÉĠÄ¼¿¸ ĨÄėÅ ÌġÅ ÇĤÉ¸ÅġÅ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ºýÅ Á¸Ė ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė ÁįÉÀÇÅ ÌľÅ
È¸ÌñÉÑÅ ÷ÄľÅ ... ďÅ¸.... They are convinced that God has sold them into
the hands of the Assyrians (7:25: ÈñÈÉ¸Á¼Å ÷ÄÜË ĝ ¿¼ġË ¼ĊË ÌÛË Ï¼ėÉ¸Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ),
because God is the one who punishes Israelites for their sins and for the
sins of their fathers (7:28: ğË ëÁ»ÀÁ¼ė ÷ÄÜË Á¸ÌÛ ÌÛË ÖÄ¸ÉÌĕ¸Ë ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė Á¸ÌÛ
ÌÛ ÖÄ¸ÉÌûÄ¸Ì¸ ÌľÅ È¸ÌñÉÑÅ ÷ÄľÅ) as he promises in the imprecations of
the Deuteronomic covenant in Deut 28 (particularly applicable in their
situation would be vv. 49–53, but also 32:30). Employing this formula-
tion the author makes the inhabitants confess their guilt, even though
they do not know exactly what the actual sin is, so as to shift the re-
sponsibility onto God just in case they have sinned, and precisely be-
cause they do not know it.
Law
The exact contents of the law, as stipulations of the treaty between God
and his people, are rather seldom mentioned in Jdt. The word “law”
occurs only once. In her speech, Judith uses the word “law” in the plur-
al (ÅĠÄÇÀË), repeating to Holofernes what Achior said earlier about the
effects of sin on Israelites. The word ÅĠÄÇÀË refers rather ambiguously to
the dietary laws (11:12: Á¸Ė ÈÚÅÌ¸, ĞÊ¸ »À¼ÊÌ¼ĕÂ¸ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË ĝ ¿¼ġË ëÅ ÌÇėË
ÅĠÄÇÀË ¸ĤÌÇı Äü Î¸º¼ėÅ). Another reference to the law is found in Jdt 5:18.
There, in the relative clause, it is said that the way in which one should
walk is the one established by God (“but when they departed from the
way which he established for them”; ĞÌ¼ »ò ÒÈñÊÌ¾Ê¸Å ÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı úË
»Àñ¿¼ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË). The phrase—along with its context—denotes the law as
the stipulations of the covenant made with God, even though in
Achior’s speech the law is never mentioned. In the previous verse the
text only notes that God hates iniquity/injustice. Furthermore, the
phrase has reminiscences in Dtn/Dtr phraseology: the expression
ÒÎÀÊÌÚÅ¸À ÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı, ”to turn away from the way,” corresponds to the
Dtn/Dtr (:! 0/ :#2.34 At v. 19 the idea of repentance and return from
33 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 62, 66; Veijola, Deuteronomium,
102–3.
34 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 339; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 231,
255; Zenger, Das Buch Judit, 473.
the evil ways is equally Dtn/Dtr,35 Á¸Ė ÅıÅ ëÈÀÊÌÉñÐ¸ÅÌ¼Ë ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ
(cf. Deut 30:2 ('!+ !#!' 3 =<#//Á¸Ė ëÈÀÊÌÉ¸ÎûÊþ ëÈĖ ÁįÉÀÇÅ ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ ÊÇÍ; 1
Sam 7:3 [with all the heart] ëÈÀÊÌÉñÎ¼Ì¼ ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ; 1 Kgs 8:47 [repent],
48). So is the idea that to do what is pleasing to the Lord, to walk ac-
cording to his will (Jdt 5:17: ÇĤÁ ÖÄ¸ÉÌÚÅ¼ÀÅ ëÅļÈÀÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı; 13:20: ëÈЏ
¼Ĥ¿¼À¸Å ÈÇÉ¼į¼Ê¿¸À ëÅļÈÀÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı;36 Jdt 8:17; 15:10) is rewarded with all
good things in life, with prosperity to the nation (Jdt 5:19–20; 15:8–10).37
This is not an automaton; it only happens if it pleases God (Jdt 8:17: ëÛÅ
Ă ¸ĤÌŊ ÒÉ¼ÊÌĠÅ; see also 4:15 “so that he will make everything go well”).
In Deut 5:30; 6:24; 10:13; 19:1338; and 13:20 the good things are prayed
for although the conditions are clearly fulfilled.
Moreover the story of Judith and Bethulia includes an incident that
presents an obvious contradiction between the Deuteronomic law and
actual practice. At the end of the book, the Ammonite Achior had him-
self circumcised (È¼ÉÀ¼ÌñÄ¼ÌÇ) and was received (ÈÉÇÊ¼Ìñ¿¾) into the
house of Israel. In Deut 23:4, this is explicitly prohibited (see also Neh
13:1). It is of course noticeable that, in the entire book, our author leaves
the presentation of the contents of the law rather meagre: he deals only
with the dietary laws and those prohibiting the foreign gods. But then
the narrator does not need to go into any details: the Israelites have not
committed any important sins. Thus I do not believe that the author
would not have known or had forgotten the law concerning the Am-
monites; on the contrary, he used this Ammonite figure in his narrative
purposefully. A member of an old enemy nation is a powerful figure
when he narrates the impressive history of the Israelites and then wit-
nesses the outcome of the threatening situation. He surely deserves to
enter the assembly of God; after all Ruth the Moabitess, grandmother of
King David was accepted into the Israelites.39 It may also be that there
were interpretations concerning this prohibition in Deuteronomy that
35 Hans Walter Wolff, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,”

ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86; Walter Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 141; Rose, “Idéologie deutéronomiste et
Théologie,” 464, 467, 475; Raymond F. Person, The Deuteronomistic School (Studies in
Biblical Literature 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 50–54; see also note
5.
36 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 334; see also Zenger, Das Buch
Judit, 510.
37 To live in peace in the land requires observance of the law, Deut 12:9–10; Römer,
“The Book of Deuteronomy,” 203; Person, The Deuteronomistic School, 55.
39 For other solutions, see Moore, Judith, 235; Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the
Gentiles (Waco: Baylor, 2008), 62; Navarro Puerto, “Reinterpreting the Past,” 135;
Loader, Histories, Legends, and Related Writings, 206–7.
382 Anssi Voitila
we do not know about that would have facilitated the actions taken in
the case of Achior in this text. These interpretations may be reflected in
such verses as Isa 19:24–25; 25:6–8; Zeph 2:11; Zech 2:15; and Mal 1:11.40
The Land
The land as an inheritance (!+%1 //ÁÂýÉÇË/ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸; !<:' //ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸)

conquered by the people and given by God is also central to the
Dtn/Dtr theologians.41 In the speech of Achior, as was already stated
earlier, God led the Israelites to Kadesh Barnea (5:14: ôº¸º¼Å ¸ĤÌÇİË ¼ĊË
ĝ»ġÅ ÌÇı ÀÅ¸ Á¸Ė ¸»¾Ë ¸ÉÅ¾). They drew out (ëÆñ¹¸ÂÇÅ ÈÚÅÌ¸Ë ÌÇİË
Á¸ÌÇÀÁÇıÅÌ¸Ë) and destroyed (v. 15 ëÆÑÂñ¿É¼ÍÊ¸Å — <:' hiph., -:%, /<
hiph. etc.) the Amorites and Hesbonites there, passed over Jordan and
possessed (ëÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄ¾Ê¸Å — <:') the hill country. Next they drew out
(ëÆñ¹¸ÂÇÅ) the Canaanites, Pheresites, Jebusites, Sichemites and Gerge-
sites,42 and settled (Á¸ÌňÁ¾Ê¸Å) into their lands. This picture reflects the
Dtn/Dtr vocabulary of the conquest of the land.43 On the other hand,
there are some features that are not in accordance with the Dtr presen-
tation of the process. As a whole, Achior represents the conquest as a
complete success. The people alone conquered the land; God had no
role in the process. In Deuteronomy, on the contrary, God drew out
(ëÁ¹ÚÂÂ¼ÀÅ) the nations (Deut 11:23; 29:27; 32:27), walked in front of the
people and gave the land to them (Deut 1:36, 39 etc.).44 Without com-
municating any divine order to conquer the land and to drive out its
former habitants, Achior’s presentation leaves only the people respon-
sible for the action even more so than the Dtn narrative, making them
40 Zenger speaks here about a certain theological purview that is reflected in these texts
from the Hebrew Bible, Das Buch Judit, 512. Note also that this prohibition was still
taken literally in the Hellenistic period, at least in some circles, see e.g.
4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 1:4. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed.,
4QFlorilegium (4Q174) (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
352–53.
41 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 341–43.; Norbert Lohfink, “<:',”
TDOT 6:368–96 (383); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 45–46, 114.
42 This list of nations resembles the list we encounter in the Dtr tradition, e.g. Deut 7:1;
20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 199–200; only some of the nations
are lacking and Sichemites added; further, the list in Jdt appears in a different order.
43 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 342. Deuteronomy 1ȭJoshua 22
pictures “the occupation as the result of military conquest” and it is associated with
Yahweh’s giving 0=1; Lohfink “<:',” TDOT 6:384–85.
44 In the Dtn presentation the conquest was a cooperation between God and the
people.
appear a violent nation before the audience. However, what seems to

agree with the Dtn view is the fact that the disobeying of God’s will
appears immediately after the people have settled in the conquered
land. In Dtn theology the giving of the land and the obeying of Yah-
weh’s will are strictly connected; the law is operative in the land (so
also Jdt 8:18–20).45
The land occupied by the Israelites is called either the land of Ca-
naan (÷ ºý ¸Å¸¸Å; Jdt 5:9–10) or Judea (ÇÍ»¸À¸, 8x). On five occasions,
ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ is found.46 In two cases, the word refers to the people of
Israel as the inheritance of God47 (cf. Deut 32:9). The narrative figure of
Judith uses them as an emotional device to appeal to God (Jdt 9:12: ¿¼ġË
ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë ÊÉ¸¾Â “(you) God of Israel’s inheritance”; Jdt 13:5: “it is
time to come to the aid of your inheritance”). God should act according
to his commitment to the people. The people, as God’s inheritance,
does not belong to anybody else but to God.
In the rest of the cases, ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ denotes the land of the Israelites
as inheritance or possession. It is never explicitly indicated that the
land is given by God, but the textual context proves that the theological
idea behind its use is the Dtn/Dtr concept of retribution: if his will is
obeyed, God allows the people to live peacefully on their inherited
property (Deut 3:20; 12:8–11; Josh 1:15; Judg 2:6; 21:24;48 2 Chr 31:1; Ps
79:1; Jer 12:15). In Jdt 4:12 and 8:22, ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ appears in a context
where the Assyrians threaten the Israelites. The author/speaker wants
to remind his readers/addressees of this idea of inheritance, while at the
same time he invokes the audience’s sympathy towards the Israelites in
the face of this great distress. And then it is not by chance that
ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ occurs for the last time when the distress is over, Judith has
won and the Israelites may return in peace to their inheritance, in Jdt
16:21.
Judith and the people are presented as ideal figures (ideal Judge
and her God’s people) that have fulfilled the Dtn/Dtr ideals. This is
already stated in v. 15:9 where the leaders of the people proclaimed
45 See Lohfink, “<:',” TDOT 6:386–90.

46 There is still one case of Á¸ÌÚÊÏ¼ÊÀË “possession” in Jdt 9:13 denoting the temple in
Jerusalem (The Assyrians acting against the house of the possession of thy children
ÇċÁÇÍ Á¸Ì¸ÊÏñÊ¼ÑË ÍĎľÅ ÊÇÍ). This word corresponds in the LXX to the Hebrew word
!$% which, according to Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 342),
appears only in P not in D.
47 In Dtn/Dtr formulation !+%1# -3/!+%1 -3 “a people of inheritance” appears in Deut
4:20; 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 328;
see also Edward LipiÚski, “+%1,” TDOT 9:331.
48 For more examples, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 343.
384 Anssi Voitila
Judith as the exaltation of Jerusalem, the great glory of Israel and the
great rejoicing of the nation (Êİ ĩÐÑÄ¸ ¼ÉÇÍÊ¸Â¾Ä, Êİ º¸ÍÉĕ¸Ä¸ Äñº¸ ÌÇı
ÊÉ¸¾Â, Êİ Á¸įÏ¾Ä¸ Äñº¸ ÌÇı ºñÅÇÍË ÷ÄľÅ). This is what has been promised
in Deut 26:19 (Á¸Ė ¼čÅ¸À Ê¼ ĨÈ¼ÉÚÅÑ ÈÚÅÌÑÅ ÌľÅ ë¿ÅľÅ, ĸË ëÈÇĕ¾ÊñÅ Ê¼
ĚÅÇÄ¸ÊÌġÅ Á¸Ė Á¸įÏ¾Ä¸ Á¸Ė »ÇÆ¸ÊÌĠÅ) as a reward for the life in accordance
with the law. Judith is as strong and resolute as Joshua who does not
fear.49 She is a guarantor of peace for her people all the days of her life
(16:25) like the judges in the Dtr narrative (Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). Her
hand is God’s mighty and outstretched arm (Jdt 8:33; 9:10; 16:5) that
saved her people from their enemy like Jael before her (Judg 4:9; 5:26).
Sacral and Festal Observances
Weinfeld argues that sacrifice does not have sacral and institutional
meaning in Deuteronomy but is a personal practice.50 God himself does
not need the sacrifice. Sacrifice ”has two principal objects: a) humanita-
rian—to share the sacrificial repast with the poor... b) a private—to
fulfil a religious obligation and express one’s gratitude to the deity by
means of votive offerings.”51
In the book of Judith, sacrifice is carried out as a religious obliga-
tion or for personal reasons; no other reason is given. It is never said to
expiate sin or sanctify anything, as is the case in Priestly legislation. In
Deuteronomy, “the expiation is attained through prayer and confes-
sion.”52 On the textual level, sacrifice is one of the religious practices
through which AJu displays the faithfulness and gratitude to the deity
of the figure(s) of his story. The notice of daily sacrifices in Jdt 4:14 and
of the sacrifice being offered in Jerusalem every evening in Jdt 9:1 de-
monstrates the sincere devotion of the people to the deity.
This sacrificial practice accords perfectly with the Dtn concept of
the sacrifice presented by Weinfeld. The offerer always has sincere in-
tentions and good grounds for his/her worship: the coming of the As-
syrians is good reason for the priests to offer sacrifices (the daily burnt
offerings, with the vows and free gifts of the people) to the Lord (Jdt
4:15) among other practices, such as prayer, fasting, wearing sackcloth
49 For the phraseology, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 343–44.
50 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 210–17; Regev, “Priestly Dynam-
ic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 245–46.
52 Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 246 and n.
10, see also the literature there.
and crying unto the Lord. These are intended to show the whole nation
throwing itself on the mercy of its God.53 The people conform with the
Dtn idea of personal piety: personal prayer and confession of sins. The
same attitude is later confirmed when, after the final victory, people are
presenting sacrifices as an expression of joy and gratitude, in complete
accordance with the Dtn idea of sacrifice,54 in 16:18. The regularity of
some sacrifices is mentioned (Jdt 4:14; 9:1) but never that they had any
sanctifying function.
In the same way, Judith’s devotion and piety is highlighted by
mentioning her fasting and praying and that she is God-fearing (Jdt
8:5–6, 8; 9:1). She does not keep the booty from Holofernes’ tent but she
offers it to God (16:19) as ÒÅÚ¿¼Ä¸, which is the equivalent of -:% in the
LXX.
In the book of Deuteronomy, purity is not something that is re-
quired of an Israelite in order to be holy but an obligation of a holy
person.55 In the same way, Judith when she refuses pagan food and
drink, she does not do so because she wants to remain pure but because
it is an offence against the law. The pagan food and drink is often asso-
ciated with pagan cult practices, i.e., with idolatry. Another reason may
be that pagan food included blood, which is prohibited.56 Thus by fol-
lowing the dietary laws (Jdt 12:1–8), she shows her commitment to the
will of God; cf. Jdt 12:2: ďÅ¸ Äü ºñÅ¾Ì¸À ÊÁÚÅ»¸ÂÇÅ (likewise ÒºÅĠ¾Ä¸ and
ÖÄ¸ÉÌÚÅ¼ÀÅ causes offence in Jdt 5:20). On the contrary, to prevent im-
purity—and this means ritual impurity—is explicitly given as motiva-
tion in Dan 1:8; 1 Macc 1:62–63 and 2 Macc 5:27.57
53 Which, in Deuteronomy, seems preferable to the priestly rituals, see Regev, “Priestly
Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 248.
55 See (also for the other literature) Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deutero-
nomistic Static Holiness,” 249–50.
56 John J. Collins, Daniel: a Critical and Historical Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 142–43. Foreign foods and drink are not prohibited in the Pentateuch.
Eating pagan food is however often associated with pagan cults, i.e., with idolatry,
see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1996), 434–35. In the book of Judith, it does not seem to bother Holofernes and his
guests that Judith does not share their meal.
386 Anssi Voitila
Conclusions
In the course of this study, we have noted several elements of the so-
called Deuteronomic and/or Deuteronomistic phraseology that the
author of the book of Judith has used. It is obvious that this usage de-
monstrates a good command of Jewish religious traditions but moreo-
ver a dependence on Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic ideals. It has
come out to be common knowledge among Judith scholars and com-
mentators that the author of the book of Judith agreed with at least
some important points in the theology of the Deuteronom-
ic/Deuteronomistic writers, in particular the theme of sin-punishment-
repentance-forgiveness.
That the author shares other themes too has become evident in the
foregoing analysis: 1) in the sphere of personal piety, the author em-
phasizes a) the significance of the confession of one’s sins. He high-
lights further b) the importance of personal prayer through which one
submits oneself to God’s mercy. c) He makes Judith follow the food
regulations to demonstrate her religious obligation and devotion. These
are advocated as the religious values the true member of Israelite
community (God’s people) should follow. 2) Prayer is used along with
the speeches on the literary level of Jdt to present the author’s religious
ideas, in the way the Dtn/Dtr authors employed speeches in their text.
3) The sacrifice and the temple service illustrate the piety of the indi-
vidual or the people as a whole; the sacrifices do not expiate sin or
sanctify the sacred precincts. 4) The law and covenant are referred to
but their actual contents remain vague. 5) Particularly interesting is the
theme of exclusive monolatry. The author does not explicitly deny the
existence of other gods, but Yahweh is the only God for Israel. Conse-
quently, the author does not demonstrate any need to promote Yahweh
worship for the whole world. The Israelites are not explicitly said to
have been elected by God, albeit they are his inheritance and sanctified
by him. The author seems to consider that belonging to God’s people,
the status of an Israelite, is restricted to those members of the commu-
nity who put their trust solely in God and throw themselves on his
mercy.
Bibliography
Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1996.
Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry ed. Theologi-
cal Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Da-
vid E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Collins, John J. Daniel: a Critical and Historical Commentary. Hermeneia. Minnea-
polis: Fortress, 1993.
Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vander-
Dogniez, Cécile and Marguerite Harl. Le Deutéronome. La Bible d’Alexandrie 5.
Paris: Cerf, 1992.
Donaldson, Terence L. Judaism and the Gentiles. Waco: Baylor, 2008.
García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed. 4QFlorilegium (4Q174).
Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Latvus, Kari. God, Anger and Ideology. JSOTSup 279. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1998.
Levinson, Bernard M. “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah.” VT 51 (2001):
511–34.
Loader, William. The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in
Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature. Grand Ra-
pids: Eerdmans, forthcoming 2011.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Dt 26, 17 – 19 und die ‘Bundesformel’.” Zeitschrift für katholi-
sche Theologie 91 (1969): 517–53.
Ȱ. “Gott im Buch Deuteronomium.” Pages 101–26 in La notion biblique de Dieu:
Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes. Edited by J. Coppens. BEThL 41.
Gembloux: Duculout, 1976.
Ȱ. “Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel.” Biblica 65 (1984): 297–329.
Ȱ. “2 Kön 23,3 und Dtn 6,17,” Biblica 71 (1990): 34–42.
Ȱ. “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” Pages 313–82 in Jeremia und
die “deueronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Gross. BBB 98. Weinheim:
Beltz Athenäum, 1995.
Ȱ. “Opferzentralisation, Säkularisierungsthese und mimetische Theorie.” Pa-
ges 219–60 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Litera-
tur III. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände: Altes Testament 20. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.
Ȱ. “Zorn Gottes und Exil.” Pages 137–55 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deute-
ronomium. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt. Edited by R. G.
Kratz and H. Spieckermann. FRLANT 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2000.
López, Félix García. “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI (fin).” RB 85
(1978): 5–49.
388 Anssi Voitila
McCarthy, Denis J. “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deu-
teronomistic History.” Pages 97–110 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Phi-
lip Hyatt in Memoriam. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis.
New York: Ktav, 1974.
Moore, Carey A. Judith. AB 40. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield
Pakkala, Juha. Intolerant Monolatry in Deuteronomistic History. Publications of
the Finnish Exegetical Society 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1999.
Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomistic School. Studies in Biblical Literature 2.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Puerto, Mercedes Navarro. “Reinterpreting the Past: Judith 5.” Pages 115–40 in
History and Identity: How Israel's Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History.
Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Deuterocanonical and
Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.
Rajak, Tessa. Translation & Survival: the Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspo-
ra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Regev, Eyal. “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness.”
VT 51 (2001): 243–61.
Römer, Thomas. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 178–212 in The History of
Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie
and M. Patrick Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994.
Rose, Martin. “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie de l'Ancient Testament.”
Pages 445–76 in Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à
la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by Albert du Pury et al. Le Monde
de la Bible 34. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996.
Veijola, Timo. Das 5. Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1ȭ16,17. ATD 8,1.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford
Wolff, Hans Walter. “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
werks.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86.
Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ I,6. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981.
A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?
Stuart Weeks
As has often been observed, the book of Tobit1 has affinities with many
different strands of early Jewish literature and thought. At various
times, its protagonist is reminiscent of the patriarchs in Genesis, of the
righteous but suffering Job, of the parental instructor in Proverbs, and
even of Daniel, preserving his piety in exile. The book itself has been
linked to works as diverse as Enoch and Ben Sira. Along with refer-
ences to biblical laws and customs and echoes of biblical poetry, it also
cites or alludes explicitly to biblical literature at certain points, as when
Tobit recalls the words of Amos (2:6),2 or when his son Tobias recalls
the creation of Adam and Eve (8:6). For all the emphasis sometimes
placed on its links to folklore, then, this is a work that stands very
1 The textual problems posed by the book are notorious. The Qumran witnesses are
too fragmentary to reconstruct a continuous text, and the principal witness to the
earliest Greek version, Codex Sinaiticus, is frequently corrupt or defective in Tobit.
This version may also be reconstructed to some extent, however, from ms. 319 (in
part of the book) and from the very diverse Old Latin tradition. So far as possible,
and except where otherwise noted, I discuss here what I take to have been the origi-
nal text of the earliest Greek, which in turn was apparently very close to the Aramaic
and Hebrew versions attested at Qumran. I have used the chapter/ verse divisions
and nomenclature from Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole and Loren Stuckenbruck,
The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synop-
sis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac
(Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). In addition to
the Greek recension reflected in Sinaiticus (GII), there are two others: GI dominates
the manuscript tradition, and GIII is found in a few late minuscules. Both appear to
be later re-workings of GII. Although the subsequent development of the text sug-
gests that GII and the Qumran texts may stand at some remove from the original
composition, I am not persuaded that we can identify specific sections of the materi-
al, such as the prayer in ch. 13, as secondary additions: there is much stylistic variety
in the book, but a general coherence of theme and thought.
2 The subsequent reference to Nahum in Sinaiticus at 14:4 (“Jonah” in the GI tradition)
is lacking in the Old Latin witnesses, and is probably a secondary specification. On
the switch to Jonah, see Mark Bredin, “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B)
Tobit 14.4 and 8,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: a Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M.
Bredin; Library of Second Temple Studies 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 43–58.
390 Stuart Weeks
self-consciously in the traditions of Jewish writing. In its clever charac-

terization, along with its use of simultaneity and converging plotlines,
moreover, it is also quite a sophisticated composition. We might find it
rather surprising, therefore, if the book did not reflect some knowledge
of Deuteronomic ideas and traditions, and the righteous Tobit’s consci-
entious piety seems rooted in such things. To speak simply of Deuter-
onomic influence, though, would be to underestimate the complexity of
the picture which the author paints for us, and it seems astonishing that
recent scholarship on Tobit has become dominated by a paradigm of
the book as a quintessentially Deuteronomic work.3 This presentation
sometimes involves considerable over-simplification of earlier Jewish
traditions: not all biblical ideas of retribution and mercy, for instance,
are Deuteronomic,4 any more than are concerns with the promised land
or with the Jerusalem Temple – unless pan-Deuteronomism has finally
swallowed, say, the patriarchal narratives or the book of Isaiah.5 More
3 Thus, even in one of the most thoughtful and important recent commentaries, Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), we are told with little subse-
quent qualification that “In a special way, the Tobit story is dominated by the teach-
ing of Deuteronomy” (36). See the recent views cited in Micah D. Kiel, “Tobit and
Moses Redux,” JSP 17 (2008): 83–98, which itself offers a much more nuanced opi-
nion.
4 So, for example, writing about the farewell speech in ch. 14 and referencing di Lella
(see below), Fitzmyer, Tobit, 332, claims that “Tobit’s thinking sums up ‘the great
Deuteronomic equation’, viz. that those who love God and fear him will be re-
warded, whereas those who do not will suffer. See Deut 6:13; 10:12; 28:58, 63.” Now,
it is difficult to imagine that any writer in the Hebrew Bible, except perhaps the au-
thor of Job, did not hold this view, more or less, and it is arguably a commonplace of
ancient religion more generally, so to describe it as specifically “Deuteronomic”
seems a little selective. On the other hand, the passages which Fitzmyer cites from
Deuteronomy do not actually express such an opinion, and the “great Deuteronomic
equation” is an interpretation of the book, not something ever expressed by Deute-
ronomy itself. To understand the passages in this way is to extinguish the elements
which do make them characteristically Deuteronomic. Deut 28:58, for instance, is a
warning that God will bring afflictions on the Israelites and their descendants (it is
the nation which is being addressed), if they do not carefully follow “all the words of
this Torah, written in this book so as to fear this honourable and awesome name”:
the Deuteronomic emphasis is upon national obedience to the law, which will serve
as, or bring about fear of God. Likewise, Deuteronomy seems almost incapable of re-
ferring to love of God without mentioning obedience to his commandments almost
in the same breath, and to detach one activity from the other is, in essence, to misre-
present one of the most basic elements of Deuteronomic thought.
5 As Norbert Hofmann, “Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums im Buche Tobit, in der
Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch,” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. G. Braulik; ÖBS
23; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003), 311–42 (311–26), recognizes, key concerns
about Jewish practice which seem to link Tobit to Deuteronomy are also frequently
A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? 391
importantly, though, it seems to involve an over-simplification of Tobit

itself.
Tobit in Exile
To begin at the beginning, there is nothing in the book of Tobit which

suggests that its central story is based either on historical events or on
pre-existing traditions about the central character. The author’s deci-
sion to set his story in the Assyrian diaspora, therefore, is an interesting
one in itself – especially since his knowledge of that setting seems
rather shaky.6 Whatever the reasons, though, the result is that Tobit’s
piety isolates him from the very outset of the story. As a citizen of the
Northern Kingdom, he belongs to a tribe which has seceded from the
House of David (1:4), and while all his family sacrifice “to the bull-calf
which Jeroboam the king of Israel had made in Dan, on all the moun-
tains of Galilee,” he claims to have been left alone to fulfil the eternal
commandment made to all Israel, by going to Jerusalem on feast-days
(1:5–6). After his capture and exile, he finds himself in Nineveh, where
he does much for his fellow exiles, but is again the only one to remain
properly pious: “both all of my brothers and the members of my race
would eat of the gentiles’ food, but I kept my self safe from eating the
to be found in much other biblical and later Jewish literature, and seem to be tied up
with broader notions of Jewish identity at the time of the book’s composition.
6 As I completed this article, a new study by Devorah Dimant became available to me,
which addresses just this question: “Tobit in Galilee,” in Gershon Galil, Mark Geller
and Alan Millard, Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Ho-
nour of Bustenay Oded (VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 347–59. As she observes, “The
choice of an Israelite background for Tobit is not … self-evident. It is, in fact, unique
in the ancient Jewish literature known to the modern reader.” She rejects the sugges-
tion of Richard Bauckham, “Tobit as a parable for the exiles of Northern Israel,” in
Bredin (ed.), Studies, 140–64, that the book was actually written for northern exiles in
Adiabene and Media, and concludes instead that, “the Israelite backgroundwas se-
lected as representative of sin and punishment in exile. It permitted Tobit’s author to
contrast with it the “Judahite” ethos embraced by Tobit, that is, the Jewish religious
practice of his time” (353). It seems possible also, I think, that the international popu-
larity of the Sayings of Ahiqar influenced the decision, especially since Ahiqar and his
nephew appear as minor characters, related to Tobit, at 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; and
14:10. On the influence of Ahiqar, see especially Miriam Lichtheim, Late Egyptian
Wisdom Literature in the International Context: a Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52;
Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1983). The author may offer a realistic portrayal of
exile in Assyria, as Dimant suggests; his knowledge of the region where the story is
set, however, seems very limited, and he famously, for instance, underestimates
quite considerably the distance between Ecbatana and Rages.
392 Stuart Weeks
gentiles’ food” (1:10–11). When he subsequently prays for death and

asks God not to punish him, in 3:1–6, Tobit links his own sins to the
faults of his ancestors and of his people, whose punishment has become
legendary: it is legitimate for God to make judgements with respect to
Tobit’s sins “for we did not enact your commandments, and did not
walk properly before you” (3:5).7
The book offers no challenge, then, to Deuteronomistic ideas about
the faults and fate of the Northern Kingdom or the legitimacy of the
Jerusalem cult alone, and Tobit carefully disassociates his own behav-
iour from that of the community to which he belongs.8 This self-
portrayal, though, is undermined at points by Tobit himself: in 1:8 he
observes that he was taught to tithe by his grandmother, which sug-
gests that not everybody in his tribe had gone bad, while in 5:14, after
we have ceased to hear the story solely from Tobit’s point of view, he
lets drop that others used to accompany him on his trips to Jerusalem.
More generally, indeed, Tobit’s self-perception sits uncomfortably be-
side the comments of others. When he is restored after losing every-
7 I find it difficult to accept without some reservations, though, the suggestion that
Tobit’s reference to his own sins in 3:5 indicates a role as representative of his
people, and that by “being joined to his people, he identifies himself with their sins
and therefore also confesses them as his own”; cf. Beate Ego, “The Book of Tobit and
the Diaspora,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First Interna-
tional Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G.
G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 41–54 (45). So, similarly,
Will Soll, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and
Deuteronomic Theology,” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31: “Tobit not only affirms this theol-
ogy but identifies himself with wayward Israel to a striking degree (note especially
the use of the 1st pers. pl. in 3:3–5), even while his personal innocence makes him
conspicuously righteous” (224). There is indeed a sudden transition in Sinaiticus
from the first person singular to the first person plural, and so apparently from the
individual to the collective: “And now many are your judgments: they are legitimate
to make with regard to me, concerning my sins, for we did not enact your com-
mandments, and did not walk properly before you.” In the first place, however, the
reading is complicated by the fact that the principal Old Latin witnesses support GI
against Sinaiticus: both have “my sins and those of my parents.” That the (possibly
independent) L3 supports Sinaiticus – as does the Vulgate – is suggestive of varia-
tion within the early Greek tradition, and the texts divide in the same way at 3:3–4,
when Sinaiticus, L3 and Vulgate have Tobit confess that he has sinned himself, while
other OL and GI have him refer to the actions of his parents. More importantly
though, it is not difficult to take Tobit simply to be indicating his acceptance of legi-
timate collective punishment: As Kiel “Tobit and Moses Redux” puts it (93): “Tobit’s
singularity in righteousness cannot escape the collective guilt of his people, a senti-
ment found elsewhere in postexilic thought.” As for acknowledgment of his own
sins, Tobit regards himself as righteous, but nowhere suggests that he is without sin.
8 Kiel, “Tobit and Moses Redux,” 91–92, suggests a deliberate allusion to Moses in the
presentation of Tobit as essentially separate and alone.
thing, his insistence on finding a poor man to share his food sets off a
chain of events which results in his blindness and dependence on his
wife: after Tobias reports a corpse, Tobit feels obliged to retrieve it,
which spoils his supper, then to bury it which leaves him unclean; be-
cause he is unclean, he feels obliged to sleep outside, and because he
sleeps outside, his eyes are damaged by the bird excrement. The extent
to which his sense of obligation corresponds to any actual requirement
in all of this is unclear,9 and Tobit’s understanding of his duties, as the
only pious man in his community, does not self-evidently embrace any
concern for his family, with whom he has just been re-united, and pro-
vokes ridicule from his neighbours. During the period after these
events, when Anna is forced to support him (not least because he has
forgotten about the substantial sum which he had previously deposited
in Media), Tobit subsequently accuses his wife of theft, quite unjustly.
We may again have some sympathy with her when she is apparently
sarcastic about his piety in response – and it seems altogether too much
for Tobit then to complain about “false reproaches” (3:6), even if these
do offer a narrative link to the genuinely false reproaches thrown at
Sarah, a few verses later. Tobit is a pious man, to be sure, but his piety
comes close to the point of being obsessive and self-destructive, while
his sense of isolated righteousness neglects the price paid by others for
his behaviour.10
It is difficult to know what the author intends us to make of this, or
what precisely it is that motivates Tobit: there is a risk of approaching
the characterization from too modern a perspective, and seeing eccen-
tricity in those facets which are supposed to evoke admiration, al-
though it is true that even Tobit acknowledges that his behaviour might
seem strange or annoying when he first interrogates Tobias’ prospec-
9 Indeed, a case could be made for suggesting that the book here reflects a pre-
occupation inherited more from Hellenistic literary culture than from Jewish prac-
tice, since it is in classical sources that we find a strong emphasis on burial of the
dead, even strangers, as a requirement of ancient law, and it is a familiar motif in
Greek tragedy; see János Bolyki, “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in
the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies,” in The Book of Tobit, 89–101. A number of
commentators have drawn attention to parallels with Antigone, who defies a royal
command to bury her brother. Tobit’s insistence on almsgiving seems more charac-
teristic of Judaism in the Second Temple period (cf. Sir 29:8–13), but biblical de-
mands are much more modest, and the portrayal is either exaggerated or anachro-
nistic.
10 Anathea Portier-Young puts it more positively: “the greatest single cause of Tobit's
suffering is his inability correctly to perceive and appreciate the extent of his connec-
tedness in this human community.” See her “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of
Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings,” CBQ 63 (2001): 35–54 (41).
394 Stuart Weeks
tive guide about his family in chapter 5. It is important to recognize,

however, that the relationship between Tobit and those around him,
even when a little strained, is shaped by a particular set of attitudes to
community. Even from the days before his exile, Tobit’s focus is upon
his own individual fulfilment of obligations to his community, whether
in terms of tithing at Jerusalem, of charitable work, or of burial of the
dead. The advice which he offers to Tobias, in chapter 4, similarly con-
centrates more upon charity than upon anything else (and this, along
with his tithing, was perceived to be the essential message of the book
by some later writers),11 although it also emphasizes the need to marry
within the tribe (4:12–13). Tobit is very concerned with community,
then, but his concern is with the obligations of each individual towards
that community – whether construed as the greater Israel which was
granted Jerusalem, the flawed group of Northern exiles, or his own
particular tribe – rather than with the activities of the community as a
whole. The Northern Kingdom has collapsed and the Southern King-
dom will do so (13:9; 14:4), but the obligations of individuals persist, as
does their membership of their community.
Nation and Election
In this respect, the book is underpinned by notions of individual and

nation which are rather un-Deuteronomic. It has no interest in a cove-
nant between God and the nation, or in the powers and forces which
might lead the nation as a whole astray; its notions of election and dis-
tinction, moreover, are rooted in such ideas as the descent of the people
from “prophets” – notably Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – whose
11 Two medieval Jewish versions of Tobit, which are clearly related to one another,
each introduce the story with a brief discussion of the importance of tithing, and
conclude it with a further commendation of alms and tithes, declaring, “So we learn
how great is the power of alms and tithes, and how, because Tobi gave alms and se-
parated out his tithes as is appropriate, the Holy One, blessed be he, rewarded him.”
One of these (Codex Or. Gaster 28), has a heading “For the Second Day of Shabu’ot,”
which suits both the mention of Pentecost in Tobit 2.1, and the general theme of tith-
ing. Even more than the other text (Bodleian Hebrew Ms. 2339), it abbreviates the
end of the story, and consequently downplays the miraculous elements. This presen-
tation of Tobit as an exhortation to giving within the community (and supporting
Torah scholars in particular, according to the introduction in the Gaster ms.) indi-
cates one of the key reasons, perhaps, for the continued circulation of the story
amongst Jews. Neither text, incidentally, shows any particular interest in Tobit’s
burial of the dead. See Weeks et al., The Book of Tobit, 39–41, 44–46.
seed will inherit the earth (4:12).12 Individuals are supposed to behave
according to this special status, and the scattering of Jews amongst the
nations offers an opportunity for them to demonstrate God’s greatness
to others individually (13:3–4), not through their behaviour as a nation
in the land (cf. Deut 4:6–8) – at least until the proper re-building of the
Temple (14:5–7). God punishes and shows mercy (13:2, 5; 14:5), but
there is no hint that his relationship with Israel has been terminated, a
covenant torn up, or a new situation come into being with the fall of the
North and prospective fall of the South. The ideas of the book appear to
rest on a pre-Mosaic election of Israel, which is ultimately interminable.
Individuals are affected by broader divine acts against the nation as a
whole; they are each judged by God, however, not as members of the
nation, but with respect to their own behaviour, especially towards
their community. Despite its affirmations of divine punishment and
reward at a national level, then, Tobit seems more dependent on con-
cepts of election and exceptionalism than on the conditional, covenan-
tal ideas of Deuteronomy, and the book places more weight on indi-
vidual support of the community than on the fidelity of the community
itself.13
12 Sinaiticus is lacking here, but the general point is affirmed by GI. The Old Latin
witnesses separate (and in one case omit) Noah, and the presentation of him both as
a prophet and as a specifically Jewish ancestor in this context is curious. Noah’s mar-
riage to his first cousin is noted in Jubilees 4:33, although not in Genesis, which indi-
cates that Tobit may be drawing on established but non-biblical traditions here.
13 Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in
Tob 14:3–11,” CBQ 41 (1979), 380–89, argues that Tobit’s dying speech in 14:3–11 de-
liberately echoes not just the language but the thought of Deuteronomy when it
looks forward to divine punishment and mercy toward Judah. There are certainly
Deuteronomic expressions in use here, but the passage notably does not refer to
apostasy and infidelity as the causes of exile – Di Lella reads them in on the basis of
the reference to Deuteronomy (see especially 381–82). More generally, there seem to
be some questionable assumptions involved in his contention that the undoubted
borrowing of Deuteronomic phraseology in the speech and book must reflect a cor-
responding dependence on Deuteronomic ideas, especially when the concepts are, at
times, clearly very different. As for his more general assertion that Tobit shares the
aim of the final redactors of Deuteronomy, to offer encouragement to the depressed
people, it should be borne in mind both that this is a speculative interpretation of
Deuteronomy, and that, more importantly, Tobit is set in an exile, but is not itself an
exilic composition. Specific comparisons with Deuteronomy at certain points are by
no means improper, and Steven Weitzman, “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the
Hymn of Tobit,” JBL 115 (1996): 49–61, plausibly sees, for instance, deliberate allu-
sions in Tobit 13 to the Song of Moses in Deut 32. He sensibly and significantly does
not, however, draw from these the conclusion that the book must be dependent on
Deuteronomic thought in toto; he rather associates them with a broader attempt in
396 Stuart Weeks
When it does talk about the nation and national history, Tobit tends
to do so in terms of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple. This interest
is announced, of course, in Tobit’s description of his youthful trips to
the city, but it culminates in the idealized portrayal of Jerusalem’s re-
building in 13:9–18, reminiscent of such prophetic texts as Isa 54, or of
the later apocalyptic visions in 4 Ezra and Revelation 21:10–21. The text
is difficult in places here, and 13:9 is lacking in Sinaiticus, but the Old
Latin reading suggests that the city itself was blamed for its forthcom-
ing downfall in the earlier Greek tradition of GII: “Jerusalem, holy city,
he will punish you for the deeds of your hands.” Although this is al-
tered to “the deeds of your sons” in the GI tradition, the address as a
whole is to the city in verses 9–14, and the city seems to serve as a sym-
bol or metonym for all Israel (cf. 13:18). It also has a role in the world,
and curses are threatened in 13:12 not only for those who damage it,
but also for “all those who reject you, and all who blaspheme you;
cursed are all who hate you and all who speak a harsh word”;14 there
are corresponding blessings in 13:14. Tobit’s prayer, in other words,
implicates the city itself in its downfall, but then promises that it will
serve as a touchstone for divine judgment of the peoples. This special
emphasis is a particular feature of the prayer in chapter 13, but it does
accord with the earlier statement (1:4), that the “temple of God’s dwell-
ing” had been built in Jerusalem to serve “for all generations of time,”
and with the further promises of 14:5–7, which again place the rebuild-
ing of the Temple at the heart of a new era. In 14:5, the return from exile
and rebuilding of the city and temple are explicitly linked to prophetic
promises, and Tobit’s understanding of Jerusalem’s significance does
indeed seem more strongly influenced by eschatological prophecy than
by Deuteronomic ideas.15
Tobit to relate the narrative to early events in Israel’s history, as a way of contextua-
lizing the experience of exile.
14 Sinaiticus is again faulty here. There are variations amongst the Old Latin witnesses,
but the original was probably something like that of L1: maledicti omnes qui spernunt
te et omnes qui blasphemant te, maledicti erunt omnes qui odiunt te et omnes qui dixerint
verbum durum. 4Q196 is very fragmentary, and DJD reconstructs the verbs largely on
the basis of the Old Latin, but the first, 0'$', if correctly read, seems clearly equivalent
to Old Latin spernunt. Moreover, although GI shortens the list to give a simple con-
trast, its “all who hate you” echoes the lists in the Old Latin and 4Q196, rather than
Sinaiticus. It seems highly probable that the beginning of the list has simply been
lost in the latter.
15 It is possible that the concern also reflects a desire on the part of the author to em-
phasize the continuing significance of Jerusalem for Jews in the diaspora, and Hof-
mann, “Rezeption,” 325, raises the possibility that financial support for the Temple is
at issue.
We should be wary of attempting to formulate a clear doctrine from

the various references, and Tobit has no obvious concern to promote
one, but it does seem that the book understands the past and future of
Israel in terms which are only partly to be traced to Deuteronomic con-
cepts. Israel, to be sure, is understood as one nation which enjoys a
special relationship with God; the northern tribes have been punished
for false worship, and many members of those tribes are still neglectful
of their duties, while Judah is going to be punished for sins committed
in or by Jerusalem. There is no suggestion that either punishment is
misplaced, excessive or vicarious, and there is no idealization of Israel
itself. To that extent, Tobit interprets history in much the same way as
does the Deuteronomistic History, and there is little that resembles
either, say, the predetermination of history in apocalyptic texts or the
re-evaluation of Israel’s punishment in Second Isaiah. The book not
only dispenses with explicit ideas of covenant, though, as we have al-
ready seen, but also picks up ideas about the future role of Israel and
Jerusalem which suggest an indissoluble character to the relationship
between God and Israel. There is no reference in all this to the “new
covenant” concepts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, or to any other revisions of
the relationship which might forge a link to the Deuteronomic cove-
nant. The Temple, furthermore, takes on a role which is not incompati-
ble with its place in Deuteronomy, but which is clearly much more
significant.
Personal Piety and the Law
Of course, the references to history and nation are largely confined to

particular passages in the book, and its more general emphasis on indi-
vidual behaviour might lead us to expect that this would be an area in
which the affinities of Tobit might be clearer. As we have already seen,
indeed, there is a particular focus upon certain aspects of piety, and it is
not difficult to establish the concerns of the work in this area. It proves
more difficult, however, to define the basis of those concerns. The ap-
parent duty of Raguel to give Sarah to Tobias, for example, can proba-
bly be traced to a concern in Num 36:1–13, that if a daughter inherits,
then she must marry within her tribe, so that the inheritance is retained
by the tribe.16 As Raguel’s only child, Sarah is his heir, and the point is
16 See, e.g., John J. Collins, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit,” in The Book of Tobit, 23–
40 (31), and Thomas Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-
Nehemiah,” in the same volume, 103–20 (106).
398 Stuart Weeks
emphasized in 6:12. In the book of Ruth, furthermore, there is an expec-

tation that the closest relative of a widowed woman’s husband should
have the right to marry her, just as the levirate law of Deut 25:5–10
imposes a duty on brothers of dead husbands, and there is some per-
ception in the rabbinic literature that Jews were once required to marry
another member of their tribe.17 If this is more a matter of convention
than strict law, it is at least a convention rooted in biblical statements
and precedents. In Tobit 6:13, however, it is claimed without qualifica-
tion by Raphael that, “according to the judgment of the book of
Moses,” Raguel will render himself liable to death if he does not com-
ply. If this is a reference to the death penalty, as opposed to extreme
divine displeasure, it has no evident basis in the Torah.18 The text,
moreover, threatens this penalty not only if Raguel gives Sarah to an-
other man, now that he knows about Tobias’ claim, but also if he
chooses simply to withhold her from Tobias. Further explicit references
are made to the Torah and the “book of Moses” in 7:11–13, in connec-
tion with the marriage: it is not clear whether these are reminders of the
constraint under which the reluctant Raguel feels himself to have been
placed, or assertions that the marriage itself is in accordance with Mo-
saic law. If the latter, it is again difficult to identify any particular law,19
but the ambiguity itself points to an important characteristic of this
material: it is driven more by the requirements of characterization and
plot development than by any specific concern to promote legal princi-
ples.
Raphael, masquerading as a human, needs to persuade the parties
concerned that there should be a marriage between Sarah and Tobias.
He correspondingly emphasizes or even exaggerates to Tobias the obli-
gation of Raguel, and in 6:16, when he reminds Tobias of his father’s
words (about which, incidentally, he is not supposed to know), he
turns an exhortation to marry within the tribe (4:12) into a much more
restrictive demand that Tobias take a wife from his “father’s house-
17 See Hieke, “Endogamy,” 106 n. 10.

18 There is no evidence, furthermore, that it was a later Jewish interpretation of the law,
as Fitzmyer suggests; see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 214. Collins, “Judaism,” 34, does note,
however that Philo “cites numerous cases where the Law requires the death penalty,
including some that are not so specified in the Torah,” and speaks of “a widespread
tendency in Second Temple Judaism to construe ‘the law of Moses’ as something
more inclusive than the written text of the Torah, and roughly equivalent to ‘norma-
tive Jewish tradition’ as a given author understood it.” Whether or not the original
readers would have recognized Raphael’s assertion, it would clearly have possessed
a certain plausibility if understandings of the law were indeed so elastic.
19 See Collins, “Judaism,” 32.
hold” (6:16).20 In a sense, perhaps, Raphael is exploiting Tobias’ relative

ignorance of the law to put him under pressure, and so we cannot re-
liably use his statements on the subject to assess the author’s under-
standing of the law in this area. Raguel’s own statements suggest no
more than that he acknowledges Tobias’ right to Sarah as his next of
kin (7:10), and he goes on to warn Tobias off: there is no sign that he
believes himself liable to death if the marriage does not take place, al-
though he is not optimistic about Tobias’ chances of survival (8:9–10,
16).
If Tobias might seem a little naïve in such matters, it is possibly be-
cause the written Torah plays no explicit part in what little we are told
about his upbringing, or indeed elsewhere in the story. Tobit is excep-
tionally pious, but he is not depicted as a student of the law.21 In 1:6–8,
his tithing is based on an “eternal commandment,” which is “com-
manded in the law of Moses” – but this is apparently mediated
through, or supplemented by, the instructions given by Deborah.22 In
what he believes to be his final speech to his son, he urges him not to
transgress God’s commandments (4:5), but the speech is hardly a
summary of the Torah, and even when elements of his instruction ac-
cord with legal requirements, this is not explicitly noted. Strikingly,
when Tobit commends marriage within the tribe (4:12–13), he does so
with reference to the ancestral marriages in Genesis, and there is no
mention of the legal requirements which Raphael is so keen to empha-
size. Tobit is aware of the Torah and keen to please God, but we are not
told directly that his piety derives from any detailed knowledge of the
law or involves any specific promotion of that law: we are not shown
him teaching the divine commandments to his son, or talking of them
when he sits, walks, sleeps, or rises – let alone writing them upon his
doorposts (cf. Deut 11:18–20). In short, the Torah is not characterized as
central to Tobit’s piety in the way that we might expect were the story’s
ideas about piety rooted directly in Deuteronomic understandings. We
20 There are no good grounds to suppose that this demand is already made by Tobit,
contra Hieke, “Endogamy,” 105–6.
21 Still less is there any suggestion in the book that the Torah should be an object of
veneration or meditation; cf. Johann Gamberoni, “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buch
Tobias,” in Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. G. Braulik;
Wien: Herder, 1977), 227–42 (240). Gamberoni offers a detailed discussion of Tobit’s
references to, and ideas about law.
22 The commandment to tithe only at Jerusalem is found in Deut 12:11, and some
specifics of Tobit’s practice are probably drawn from Deut 14:22–28; cf. especially
Fitzmyer, Tobit, 109–10. It is difficult to understand all that he does, though, simply
in terms of biblical legislation, and there may be some reliance on later, Second
Temple customs.
400 Stuart Weeks
might further observe, indeed, that even Raphael seems reluctant to

talk about the Torah once he has used it to secure Tobias’ marriage: his
speech in 12:6–15 offers quite a lot of advice and commendations – but
makes no reference at all to the Torah.
The Role of God
Again, we should be wary of assuming that this reflects some underly-

ing, alternative ideology. Tobit is not a child of the Josianic reforms, but
a Northerner who has spent much of his life abroad in royal service,
and who has maintained an obstinate piety against all reasonable ex-
pectation, even when that piety has led to his flight and then his blind-
ness. If we wish to maintain that the author is promoting some distinc-
tively Deuteronomic agenda, or even that Deuteronomy furnishes the
inspiration for his portrayal of proper Jewish piety, then it is surely
significant that he pays so little attention to the Deuteronomic emphasis
on Torah as the basis for such piety. On the other hand, if we allow that
this author takes seriously the choices which he has made about charac-
ter and setting, and that the actions which flow from Tobit’s piety are
crucial to the development of the plot, we do not need to attribute them
to some other particular set of values or beliefs. The book tells a story
which ultimately promotes piety, but it is not a book specifically about
piety. Indeed, the story also pays great attention to the power of God –
but the demands of its plot raise some significant theological problems,
which are noted, perhaps, but hardly addressed, and which should
similarly remind us that this is not a book about God.
When Raphael reveals his true nature, and recounts the underlying
plan behind the events which have occurred, he makes it clear that
Tobit had impressed God by his charitable works (12:8–9). His explana-
tion then becomes very confusing, however. According to Sinaiticus, he
tells Tobit: “And now, when you prayed, and Sarah, I presented the
memorial of (both) your prayer(s) before the glory of (the) Lord, and
when you used to bury the dead, likewise. And when you did not hesi-
tate to get up and leave your meal, and went and laid out the corpse,
then I was sent to you to test you, and at the same time God sent me to
heal also Sarah, your daughter-in-law” (12:12–14). Tobit’s burial of the
dead, though, preceded his prayer, and if the reference to “testing” is
supposed to imply that Tobit’s blindness was a test, it is hard to see
how it coincides with the attempt to solve Sarah’s problem, and why it
is presented as subsequent to the prayer; the earlier summary in 3:15–
16, incidentally, mentions no such test, and it is difficult to square the
two accounts. Nevertheless, since it enjoys support in the Old Latin

tradition, this account may well be very early, if not original, and the
subsequent versions of Tobit have made some effort to resolve the dif-
ficulties – GI, for instance, makes Raphael a hidden observer of the
earlier events. The problems, however, go deeper than the text, and the
“testing” of Tobit may be no more than an effort to gloss over them.
Earlier in the book, God recognized Tobit’s faithfulness by making
the Assyrian king look favourably upon him, and so the book evidently
accepts the idea of divine consciousness of, and intervention in indi-
vidual human lives. When things begin to go wrong, however, such
divine support is conspicuously absent.23 Tobit loses everything, in-
cluding, ultimately, his sight and his self-respect. Sarah, in the mean-
time, has apparently done nothing to bring upon herself the unwanted
attentions of the demon Asmodeus. It is only when each prays for
death that God seems stirred into action: their common prayer is heard
“in the presence of the glory of God” (3:16) – although that subse-
quently turns out to mean that Raphael drew the “memorial” of it to
God’s attention (12:12). God then neither grants the prayers nor ad-
dresses the underlying problems directly. When the issues are subse-
quently resolved, through the judicious application of fish innards,
Tobit and Sarah are both very pleased with the outcome, but no real
explanation is offered for their previous difficulties. Even if we may
detect an echo of Job’s situation, moreover, there is no direct attempt in
Tobit to grapple with the problems of innocent suffering, and, beyond
the difficult reference to “testing,” there is no acknowledgement of
divine involvement in or awareness of that suffering.24 It is surely not
23 This is not itself indicative of Deuteronomic influence. Portier-Young, “Alleviation,”

37, rightly indicates the limits of Deuteronomic analysis: “Deuteronomic theology of
divine justice offers a potentially fruitful model for interpreting national calamities
and communal suffering. Yet in no way does this model purport to explain the
unique suffering of individuals. Though it seems tempting to proceed by analogy
from nation to person, and claim that God always rewards the good person and pu-
nishes the bad person (Job's friends make such a claim), such logic is not inherent in
the Deuteronomic model.” She goes on to say, more problematically, that, “…
though the Deuteronomist perceives God as active in history, that author does not
hold God directly responsible for the immediate fortunes of all individuals.” That
may be the case, but there is a danger of reading a positive doctrine into the book’s
silence on such matters. There is not a “Deuteronomic” approach to divine involve-
ment in the lives of individuals, but that does not mean that the Deuteronomists ac-
tively rejected such an idea.
24 At best we might say, with Portier-Young in her more recent article, that “Tobit
focuses less on the reasons for suffering, though it does affirm the idea of testing
(12:14) and chastisement (13:14), than on responses to it”; see “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A
Dialogue Between Tobit and Job,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays
402 Stuart Weeks
the intention of the book to depict God as distant or detached, but a

consideration of the book in theological terms does little to explain the
constant exhortations to thank and praise him. We are expected to ap-
plaud the way in which divine action brings about a tidy resolution of
the two situations, and a happy ending for all concerned. We are
probably not expected, though, to give too much thought to the role of
God in permitting those situations to develop (especially when there
are apparently so few pious Jews left for him to keep an eye on), and it
would be positively inconvenient if we were to dwell on the possibility
that the same resolution might have been accomplished without resort
to angelic disguises or medicinal fish.25 Again, the point is that Tobit is
shaped not principally by theological concerns or presuppositions, but
by the requirements of its narrative.
For that reason, it would probably be unfruitful to enquire too
deeply into the characteristics and behaviour of God in the story. To be
sure, we may recognize that we are dealing with a deity whose power
is not limited to the land of Israel, although he enjoys a special relation-
ship with Israel, and who works surrounded by angels – in these and
other respects, the portrayal of God in Tobit is not incompatible with
that in Deuteronomy, but it is very different in tone and emphasis. The
focus on the individual, which we observed earlier, is matched by a
portrayal of God as responsive primarily to prayer, praise and piety,
although he acts to reward and punish both individuals and nations.
Again, there is nothing here which runs up against the ideas of Deuter-
onomic and Deuteronomistic literature, but the flavour is different.
Where Deuteronomic ideas about nation and history furnish a back-
drop for the situation of the exiles and for their recognition of certain
duties, the book draws also on other biblical ideas of ancestry and
prophecy, and on non-biblical ideas about angels and demons. All
these ideas, though, are subsumed within a plot that has echoes of bib-
lical narratives and that exhorts its readers to piety, but that seems, in
the end, unconcerned with the systematic presentation of any specific
in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley and V. Skemp; CBQMS 38;
Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 14–27 (16 n. 9).
25 Portier-Young, “Alleviation,” 47, writes of 3:16 that, “In one short verse the narrative
shifts dramatically and quickly, for God now enters the story” – which seemingly
gives the lie to her earlier claim (p. 36) that, “in the book of Tobit we meet a God
who is intimately present within the human community and consummately active in
the lives of those who suffer.” God intervenes only after eight years of blindness for
Tobit (according to GI) and seven husbands for Sarah, and it is a compliment to the
narrator’s sleight of hand, perhaps, that so many commentators speak in such terms
about the book as an account of divine proximity.
religious ideology. If there is a Deuteronomic heritage in Tobit, visible

at least in the book’s presentation of the past, it jostles for space
amongst many other concerns.
Bibliography
Bolyki, János. “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in
the Greek Tragedies.” Pages 89–101 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, The-
ology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,
Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József
Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Bredin, Mark. “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8.”
Pages 43–58 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: a Multidisciplinary Approach.
Edited by M. Bredin. Library of Second Temple Studies 55. London: T & T
Clark, 2006.
Collins, John J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit.” Pages 23–40 in The Book of
Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on
the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza
G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Dis-
course in Tob 14:3–11.” CBQ 41 (1979): 380–89.
Dimant, Devorah. “Tobit in Galilee.” Pages 347–59 in Homeland and Exile: Bibli-
cal and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by
Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill,
2009.
Ego, Beate. “The Book of Tobit and the Diaspora.” Pages 41–54 in The Book of
Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on
the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza
G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
Gamberoni, Johann. “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buch Tobias.” Pages 227–42 in
Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Georg
Braulik. Wien: Herder, 1977.
Hieke, Thomas. “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-
Nehemiah.” Pages 103–20 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Pa-
pers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa,
Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsen-
gellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Hofmann, Norbert. “Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums im Buche Tobit, in
der Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch.” Pages 311–42 in Das Deutero-
nomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. ÖBS 23. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
2003.
Kiel, Micah D. “Tobit and Moses Redux.” JSP 17 (2008): 83–98.
404 Stuart Weeks
Lichtheim, Miriam. Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: a

Study of Demotic Instructions. OBO 52. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag,
1983.
Portier-Young, Anathea. “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Come-
dy, Community, and Happy Endings.” CBQ 63 (2001): 35–54.
Ȱ. “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job.” Pages 14–27 in
Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di
Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38.
Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005.
Soll, Will. “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source
and Deuteronomic Theology.” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31.
Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole and Loren Stuckenbruck. The Book of Tobit:
Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Con-
cordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac.
Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Weitzman, Steven. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit.” JBL 115
(1996): 49–61.
5. Indices
Index of Modern Authors
Abegg, Martin G., 66 Black, Matthew, 66

Abel, Felix-Marie, 298, 307, 312, Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 139, 207, 211
313 Boccaccini, Gabriele, 36, 37
Ackroyd, Peter R., 186, 187 Boda, Mark J., 194
Aejmelaeus, Anneli, 4, 10, 12, 55, Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, 80
133, 144, 259, 267 Böhler, Dieter, 71
Albrektson, Bertil, 72 Bolyki, János, 393
Alexander, Philip S., 32, 67, 218, Borchardt, Francis, 16, 17
352 Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich, 178
Armoni, C., 168 Bredin, Mark, 389, 391
Arnold, Russell C. D., 352 Brettler, Marc Zvi, 154
Ausloos, H., 65 Briggs, Charles A., 155
Baillet, Maurice, 236 Brooke, George J., 8, 30, 32, 72, 77,
Barclay, John M. G., 385 82, 83, 84, 95, 99, 101, 102, 111,
Barthélemy, Dominique, 81, 144, 115, 218, 227, 250, 251, 297, 356
282 Brown, Francis, 155
Bartlett, John R., 298 Brown, Teresa R., 337
Barton, John, 80, 94, 98 Budde, Karl, 178, 182
Baumgarten, Albert I., 75 Burke, David G., 322, 324, 328
Baumgartner, Walter, 155, 235 Burkes, Shannon, 321, 332
Batten, Loring W., 211 Campbell, Jonathan G., 31, 77, 95,
Bauschatz, John, 169 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110,
Beale, Gregory K., 225, 229 111, 114
Becker, Uwe, 181, 185, 186, 188 Cannawurf, E., 178
Becking, Bob, 131 Carmignac, Jean, 229
Beentjes, Pancratius C., 16, 276, Carr, David M., 24, 111, 112
277, 278, 280, 284, 286, 290 Caquot, André, 289, 290
Ben-Zvi, Ehud, 193 Cazelles, Henri, 177, 182
Berges, Ulrich, 186 Charlesworth, James, 59
Bergsma, John S., 36 Chiesa, Bruno, 95, 103
Berlin, Adele, 154 Clines, David J. A., 213
Bernstein, Moshe J., 31, 78, 95, 96, Coggins, Richard J., 350
102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 126, Collins, John J., 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15,
226, 227 32, 224, 225, 232, 233, 275, 324,
Berrin, Shani L., 215 385, 397, 398
Bertholet, Alfred, 207 Cowey, James M. S., 166
Beuken, Willem A. M., 182, 187 Cowley, A. E., 279
Bewer, Julius A., 183, 184 Crawford, Dorothy, 170
408 Index of Modern Authors
Crawford, Sidnie White, 7, 8, 11, Flint, Peter W., 66, 70, 96, 106, 107,
12, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 58, 74, 224, 225, 348
77, 82, 84, 94, 95, 124, 125, 126, Flusser, David, 230, 234, 235, 237
127, 193, 196, 214, 218 Fox, Michael V., 72, 74
Crenshaw, James L., 275, 276 Freedman, David Noel, 66
Cross, Frank Moore, 57, 58, 60, 67, Freedman, H., 279
72, 128, 129 Frey, Jörg, 25
Davies, Philip R., 25, 223, 226, 233, Fuller, Russell, 249, 250, 251, 253,
234, 236, 239 254, 256, 260, 261, 262, 264
De Troyer, Kristin, 13, 59, 71, 154, Gall, August F. von, 154
159 Gamberoni, Johann, 399
Debel, Hans, 8, 10, 11, 65, 68, 69, García Martínez, Florentino, 156,
70, 81, 83 161, 235, 250, 348, 382
Deissmann, Adolf, 165, 172, Gathercole, Simon, 389
Deutscher, Guy, 93 Gerstenberger, Erhard S., 154, 155,
Devitt, Amy J., 115 202
Di Lella, Alexander A., 232, 233, Gesenius, Wilhelm, 182
275, 278, 279, 280, 282, 284, 390, Goering, Greg Schmidt, 277, 280,
395 286
Dietrich, Walter, 140, 381 Goldstein, Jonathan A., 298, 309,
Dillmann, August, 202, 203 310, 313, 315
Dimant, Devorah, 391 Gooding, David W., 55
Dogniez, Cécile, 377 Goodman, Martin, 32, 83
Donaldson,Terence L., 381 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., 73, 74
Duhaime, Jean, 223, 225, 226, 231, Gosse, Bernard, 179
234, 240 Gottwald, Norman K., 54
Duhm, Bernhard, 177, 179 Graham, William A., 97
Eberharter, A., 279 Grätz, Sebastian, 211, 215
Egger-Wenzel, Renate, 339 Gray, George Buchanan, 179, 186
Ego, Beate, 251, 392 Grossfeld, Bernard, 155
Elledge, C. D., 227 Gunneweg, Antonius H. J., 322,
Elliger, Karl, 154, 155, 156, 161, 202, 333
203 Haag, Ernst, 323
Epstein, Isidore, 279 Hanson, Richard S., 66
Eshel, Esther, 123, 124, 125, 128, Harl, Marguerite, 377
131, 132, 225 Harlé, Paul, 157
Eshel, Hanan, 123, 124, 131, 132, Harrington, Daniel J., 78
225, 235 Harrison, Roland K., 155, 156
Falk, Daniel K., 77, 103 Haspecker, Josef, 277, 280, 339
Fernández Marcos, Natalio, 72, 82, Hartman, Louis F., 232, 233
83 Hayward, C. T. R., 101
Fields, Weston W., 66 Hayward, Richard, 155
Fishbane, Michael, 24, 205, 213, 215 Hempel, Charlotte, 8, 269
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 390, 398, 399 Hendel, Ronald S., 57, 71, 72, 73, 74
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne, 28 Hengel, Martin, 266
Flanagan, John, 79 Hertzberg, H. W., 142, 143
Index of Modern Authors 409
Hess, Richard S., 82 Lange, Armin, 29, 96, 98, 114, 130,
Heszer, Catherine, 71 133
Hieke, Thomas, 397, 398, 399 Latvus, Kari, 376
Hiltunen, Chelica, 128 Lee, John A. L., 165, 172
Himmelfarb, Martha, 35, 36, 37 LeFebvre, Michael, 27, 28
Hjelm, Ingrid, 123, 132 Lemmelijn, Bénédicte, 65, 68, 73,
Hofmann, Norbert, 390, 396 74, 75, 76
Hogan, Karina M., 331, 333, 334 Leonard, Jeffrey M., 229, 230
Holladay, William L., 23, 257, 260 Leuenberger, Martin, 333
Holst, Søren, 223 Levine, Baruch A., 38, 154, 155
Honigman, Sylvie, 166 Levinson, Bernard M., 9, 24, 26, 27,
Horsley, Richard A., 71 102, 110, 379
Houtman, Cornelis, 196, 210, 213, Lichtheim, Miriam, 391
217 Liddell, Henry G., 158
Hughes, Julie A., 227, 228, 236, 242 Lim, Timothy H., 98, 99, 215, 248,
Hugo, Philippe, 79 266, 297, 299
Ilan, Tal, 127 Lindqvist, Pekka, 78
Jassen, Alex P., 363 Loader, William, 373, 381
Jastram, Nathan, 58, 124, 125 Lohfink, Norbert, 373, 374, 375,
Jastrow, Marcus, 259, 260 376, 377, 378, 382, 383
Jeremias, Jörg, 180, 184, 185 López, Félix García, 374
Jones, Henry S., 158 Lüdertz, G., 166
Joosten, Jan, 74 Lust, Johan, 79
Kaiser, Otto, 181, 183, 188 Machiela, Daniel A., 32
Kartveit, Magnar, 29, 123, 133 MacKenzie, Roderick A. F., 285
Kasher, Aryeh, 166 Magen, Yitzhak, 130
Kellermann, Ulrich, 195, 210 Magness, Jodi, 129
Kessler, Rainer, 178, 179, 180, 183, Maher, Michael, 155
187 Maier, Christl, 23
Kiel, Micah D., 390, 392 Marböck, Johannes, 285, 286, 288,
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi, 153 322
Klein, Ralph W., 57 Maresch, Klaus, 166
Kleinig, John W., 154 Martin, James D., 292
Knibb, Michael A., 215 Martola, Nils, 301
Knoppers, Gary N., 131, 132 Marttila, Marko, 17
Koehler, Ludwig, 155, 235 Mason, Steve, 165
Koskenniemi, Erkki, 78 Mathews, K. A., 66
Kraft, Robert A., 94, 95, 96, 103, 113 Mathys, Hans-Peter, 194
Kratz, Reinhard G., 6, 217 McCarter, P. Kyle, 140
Kruse, Thomas, 166 McCarthy, Denis J., 376
Kugel, James, 37, 38 McConville, J. Gordon, 297
Kugler, Robert, 13, 166, 167, 168 McKane, William, 182, 183
Kuhn, Karl Georg, 279 McKenzie, Steven L., 60, 275, 350
Kutscher, Edward Y., 56 McNamara, Martin, 155
Laato, Antti, 32 Menasce, J. P. de, 241
Metso, Sarianna, 193, 215
Metzger, Bruce M., 25 Puech, Émile, 40, 349, 352

Meyer, Ivo, 321 Puerto, Mercedes Navarro, 373,
Milgrom, Jacob, 156 376, 381
Milik, Józef T., 66, 249 Pummer, Reinhard, 131
Moore, Carey A., 373, 381 Rad, Gerhard von, 138, 177
Müller, Reinhard, 13, 14 Rajak, Tessa, 372
Muraoka, Takamitsu, 157, 257 Rappaport, Uriel, 298
Najman, Hindy, 9, 24, 25, 26, 27, Regev, Eyal, 377, 378, 384, 385
28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 83, 102, Rickenbacher, Otto, 282
107, 108 Rofé, Alexander, 76
Nasuti, Harry P., 347 Römer, Thomas C., 350, 378, 381
Neubauer, A., 279 Rooy, Harry F. van, 349
Newsom, Carol A., 115 Rose, Martin, 272, 381
Niditch, Susan, 71 Rowlandson, Jane, 170
Nihan, Christoph, 205 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 93
Nitzan, Bilhah, 360, 363, 364 Rüger, Hans-Peter, 281
Noth, Martin, 52, 54, 154, 155, 283, Rupprecht, K., 140
370, 372, 375, 377, 378 Ruwe, Andreas, 203
Oesterley, William Oscar Emil, Ryssel, Victor, 178
298, 309, 312 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel, 252
Oorschot, Jürgen van, 324 Saley, Richard J., 60
Pajunen, Mika S., 17, 18, 349, 351, Salvesen, Alison, 321, 331, 333, 334
352, 353, 355, 356 Sanders, James A., 7, 76, 83, 138,
Pakkala, Juha, 14, 194, 195, 200, 348
202, 210, 213, 338, 362, 364, 374, Sanderson, Judith E., 55, 73
375 Saukkonen, Juhana, 216, 227
Patrick, Dale, 27 Schearing L. S., 275
Penar, Tadeusz, 280 Schenker, Adrian, 70, 79, 132, 143
Perdue, Leo G., 25 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 38, 129,
Peremans, W., 170 216
Perlitt, Lothar, 337 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph, 324
Person, Raymond F. Jr., 297, 299, Schnabel, Eckard J., 279
306, 381 Schniedewind, William M., 24
Peters, Norbert, 279 Schuller, Eileen M., 349, 356, 358,
Petersen Klostergaard, Anders, 31, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364
77, 78, 95, 97, 109, 110, 111 Schultz, Brian, 223, 224, 226, 229,
Pietersen, Lloyd K., 41 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 241
Pietsch, Michael, 290 Schürer, Emil, 27
Pomykala, Kenneth E., 289, 290, Schwartz, Baruch J., 177, 182
292 Schwartz, Seth, 298
Popovi°, Mladen, 248 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludg-
Portier-Young, Anathea, 393, 401, er, 178, 179, 180, 181
402 Scott, Robert B. Y., 158, 186
Pralon, Didier, 157 Seely, D., 349
Priest, John, 290 Segal, Michael, 6, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37,
Pritchard, James B., 50 78, 80, 82, 218, 248, 268
Index of Modern Authors 411
Segal, Moses Zevi, 279 Trebolle Barrera, Julio, 60, 65, 82,
Sharp, Carolyn, 23 98
Shaver, Judson R., 193, 203 Ulrich, Eugene C., 4, 7, 10, 11, 13,
Shenkel, James D., 146, 326 29, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 68,
Sievers, Joseph, 298 69, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82,
Simon, Maurice, 279 83, 84, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 113,
Skehan, Patrick W., 55, 275, 278, 116, 218, 224, 247, 251, 259, 266,
279, 280, 282, 348 269, 348
Smallwood, E. M., 166 van der Toorn, Karel, 24, 25, 71
Smend, Rudolf, 279, 331 van der Woude, Adam S., 99, 178,
Smith, Henry Preserved, 140 348
Smith, John Merlin Powis, 183, 184 van Ruiten, Jacques, 32
Smith, Mark, 108 Van Seters, John, 48, 52, 68, 83
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 97 VanderKam, James C., 5, 30, 33, 34,
Soll, Will, 392 35, 37, 48, 49, 66, 77, 79, 81, 95,
Sollamo, Raija, 146, 326 96, 98, 101, 106, 107, 114
Speiser, E. A., 138 Vanonen, Hanna, 10, 14, 15
Speyer, Wolfgang, 25 Veijola, Timo, 139, 140, 141, 142,
Stackert, Jeffrey, 24 265, 275, 276, 277, 293, 325, 332,
Steck, Odil Hannes, 321, 322, 323, 333, 337, 339, 341, 347, 350, 361,
324, 327, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335 374, 375, 378, 380, 382
Stone, Michael E., 106 Vermes, Geza, 31, 32, 33, 66, 77, 78,
Strydom, J. G., 178 109
Stuckenbruck, Loren, 389 Vermeylen, Jacques, 178
Sukenik, Eleazar L., 56, 223 Vogt, Peter T., 305
Sweeney, Marvin A., 180, 183, 186, Voitila, Anssi, 18
187, 229 Wacholder, Ben Zion, 33, 36, 66
Talmon, Shemaryahu, 67, 71, 73, Walters, Stanley D., 60
134 Ward, William Hayes, 183, 184
Talshir, Zipora, 71 Webster, Brian, 129
Talstra, Eep, 283 Weeks, Stuart, 19, 389, 394
Tanzer, Sarah, 348 Weinfeld, Moshe, 265, 276, 277,
Testuz, Michel, 256 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 299,
Thackeray, Henry St. John, 144 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311,
Thompson, William, 54 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 326, 329,
Tigay, Jeffrey H., 4, 123 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 349, 350,
Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., 72, 74, 156, 351, 370, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377,
161, 235, 248, 252, 253, 258, 263, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385
348, 382 Weis, Richard D., 80
Tov, Emanuel, 30, 56, 58, 60, 66, 68, Weissenberg, Hanne von, 15, 99,
69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 215, 216, 248, 267
101, 103, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, Weitzman, Steven, 395
128, 129, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, Wellhausen, Julius, 178
253, 354, 255, 263, 266, 268, 327, Wenham, Gordon J., 155
328 Wenthe, Dean O., 226
Werman, Cana, 35
Westbrook, Raymond, 27 Woude, Adam S. van der, 99, 178,

Wevers, John William, 148, 157, 348
158, 159, 160 Wright, Benjamin G., 327
White, Sidnie 7, 8, 11, 12, 30, 31, 33, Wright, David, 27, 28
38, 39, 40, 58, 74, 77, 82, 84, 94, Wyrick, Jed, 25
95, 124, 125, 126, 127, 193, 196, Xeravits, Geza, 288, 289
214, 218 Yadin, Yigael, 66, 155, 156, 234
Wildberger, Hans, 177 Zahn, Molly M., 5, 11, 30, 31, 102,
Willi, Thomas, 211 112, 247, 248
Williams, David S., 298 Zapff, Burkhard M., 178, 185, 186
Williamson, Hugh G. M., 74, 75, Zeitlin, Solomon, 129, 130, 298, 307
179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, Zenger, Erich, 373, 379, 380, 381,
188, 196, 205 382
Willis, John T., 180 Ziegler, Joseph, 291, 321
Wilson, Robert R., 276 Zuckerman, C., 166
Wise, Michael O., 229
Wolff, Hans Walter, 178, 183, 184,
185, 381
Index of Passages
HEBREW BIBLE 41:18 260

41:19 260
Genesis 41:29 147
1 53 41:50 148
1:1 51 41:54 147, 148
1:31 51 42:5 148
2 53
5:3–32 57 Exodus
5:26–30 57 1–34 55
6–9 53 1:9 184
7:6 57 2:14 182
7:23–24 57 3:7 344
10 223 6:7 331
12–22 50, 52 7:3 328
12:10–19 50 12:9 155, 157
14 50 15 127
15 50 15:1 51
15–16 50 15:17 283
16 50 15:21 127
17 279, 285 15:22 55, 58, 127
17:1 285 19:11 182
17:9–14 279 20:3 374
18:1–2 51 20:11 125
18:18 184 20:14 310
22 50, 51 20:17 132
24 223 20:24 209
28 126 20:25 301
28:6 126 21-23 110
30:36 57 22:19 304
31:10–13 57 22:24 212
31:24 57 22:25–26 172
31:29 57 22:26–27 172
32:16 260 22:28 50
39:21 343 24:12–18 34
41:1–7 57 25–31 55
41:2 260 28 223
41:3 260 28:6 57
41:17–24 57 28:15 57
414 Index of Passages
Exodus (continued) 23:26–33 204

28:30 57 23:33–36 202, 203, 209
28:31 57 23:33–38 205
29:17 155, 157 23:33–43 202
29:38 302 23:34 202
29:38–42 302 23:39 203, 204
30:12 138 23:39a 204
32:9 330 23:39–42 204
33:3 330 23:39–43 202, 203, 204, 205,
34:9 330 206, 209, 216, 217
34:11 207 23:40 203, 204
34:11–17 206 23:41 203, 204
34:16 206, 213 23:41a 203
34:20 50 23:42 203, 204
35–40 55 23:43 204
39:2 57 25:8–17 212
39:8 57 25:19 265
39:21 58 25:36 212
39:22 57 26:1 373
26:4 51
Leviticus 26:5 265
1:9 155, 157 26:6–8 354
1:13 155, 157 26:12 331
4:11 155, 157 26:14–39 343
8:21 155, 157 26:25–26 141
9:14 155, 157 26:26 265
10:21 158 26:29 327, 343
11:2b–8 153 26:30 373
11:9–12 153 26:40–45 344
11:13–19 153 26:42–45 344
11:20 153 29 209
11:21 13, 153, 154, 155, 29:39–43 209
156, 157, 161
11:21–22 153 Numeri
11:41 158 1:47–4:49 210
11:42 158 8:5–26 210
11:43 158 13:18–20 147
11:46 158 13:19(18)–21(20) 148
23 127, 202, 204, 205, 14:4 313
206, 217 14:12 184
23:1 127 14:38 313
23:23–25 205, 217 17:1–15 292
23:23–32 205 18 210
23:23–36 205 18:36–39 213
23:25–32 217 19:2 260
23:26–32 204 19:6 260
Index of Passages 415
19:9 260 4:5–8 333

22–23 200 4:6 315
22:6 184 4:6–8 395
25:1–3 304 4:10 339
25:3 313 4:20 329, 357, 362, 383
25:5 304, 305 4:21 376
25:6–9 304 4:25 326
25:6–15 304 4:25–31 198, 372
25:8 305 4:26 379
25:11–13 290 4:27 197, 327, 329, 330,
25:13 305 340, 343
27 58, 4:28 282, 373
27:1–11 58, 124 4:28b 282
27:2–11 124 4:29–31 330, 331, 344
27:11 58 4:31 330
29:12 203 4:32 343
29:12–38 209 4:32b 327
29:32–30:1 126 4:34 328, 343, 353
36 58 4:35 333, 374, 374, 375
36:1 58 4:37 357, 362
36:1–2 124 4:38 329, 362
36:1–2[3–12] 124 4:39 333, 374, 375
36:1–12 124 5:6 328
36:1–13 397 5:7 374
36:2 58 5:12–15 125
36:3–4 124 5:15 328
36:5 58 5:18 310
36:5–12 124 5:26 339
5:29 311
Deuteronomium 5:30 381
1–Josh 22 382 6:2 339
1:29 315, 316 6:4 331, 333, 337
1:36 382 6:5 280, 339
1:37 376 6:7 314
1:39 382 6:11 196, 265
1:43 375 6:13 339, 390
2:5 313 6:13–15 343
2:9 313 6:15 376
2:12 313 6:22 328, 343, 353
2:19 313 6:23 314
2:30 329 6:24 329, 339, 381
3:20 313, 383 7 206, 208
3:31 314 7:1 196, 207, 382
4 331, 335, 339 7:1–3 207
4–11 198 7:1–6 210
4:1 332 7:3 195, 196, 206, 213
Deuteronomium (continued) 11:16 373

7:5 375 11:17 376
7:6 208, 362, 378 11:18–20 399
7:9 374, 375 11:22 339
7:10 362 11:23 314, 362, 382
7:16 375 11:29 132
7:17 314 11:30 132
7:19 328, 343 11:32 343
7:21 315 12 337
7:22 314 12:3 375
7:25–26 307 12:5 284, 329
8:6 339, 343 12:8–11 383
8:10 265 12:8–12 337
8:12 265 12:11 198, 284, 329, 277,
8:14 314, 328 399
8:15–22 326 12:13–14 337
8:18 329 12:14 284
9:1 362 12:17–18 337
9:4–5 314 12:18 284
9:5 314, 340 12:21 284, 325, 377
9:6 330 12:21a¸b 337
9:7 343 12:26 284
9:7b 325 12:30 314
9:8 376 13:1 28, 39
9:12 328, 375 13:4 339
9:13 330 13:5 339
9:14 184 13:7–12 303
9:16 375 13:9 375
9:18 326, 377 13:11 328
9:20 376 13:15 307
9:23 343 13:20 381
9:25 377 14:2 357, 362, 362, 378
9:26 357, 383 14:21 362, 378
9:29 328, 357, 383 14:22–28 399
10:12 339, 390 14:23 198, 284, 329, 339,
10:13 381 377
10:15 329, 357 14:24 284, 329, 377
10:17 362 14:25 284
10:20 339 14:26 362
11:1 339 14:29 265
11:2 328 15:1–11 212
11:8 196 15:2 212
11:8–10 195 15:15 328
11:13 339 15:20 284
11:14–15 196 16:2 198, 329, 377
11:15 265 16:6 198, 329, 377
16:11 198, 329, 377 26:12 265

16:13 209 26:15 309, 329, 344
16:13–14 124 26:16 357
16:13–16 203, 204, 209 26:17 343
17 311 26:17–18 331
17:2 326 26:19 362, 378, 384
17:2–7 303, 304 27 59
17:3 373 27:2 59
17:4 307 27:2b–7 132
17:11 311 27:4 59
17:19 339 27:4–6 59
17:20 311, 375 27:5 59
18:9 196, 307, 314 27:5–6 208, 301
18:9–14 195 27:5–7 208
18:14 314 27:6–7 302
18:15 196 27:7 302
18:15–22 326 27:15 373
19:9 339, 343 28 18, 335, 357, 363,
19:10 316 365
19:13 375, 381 28–30 198
19:21 375 28:1 357, 362
20:3 315, 316 28:7 354
20:5–8 300 28:9 378
20:15–16 314 28:10 286, 316, 329
20:17 382 28:13 343
20:18 307 28:14 311, 375
21:8 309, 316 28:15 330, 343, 357
23 200, 201, 207, 223 28:15–68 325, 343
23:3 207 28:20–24 373
23:4 199, 200, 201, 381 28:49–50 335–336
23:4–6 199, 201, 202, 214, 28:49–53 380
23:4–9 207, 216 28:53 327, 343
23:5 200 28:58 197, 286, 339, 390
23:6 200 28:59–61 354
23:7 195, 196 28:62 330, 343, 344
23:20 212 28:63 327, 390
24 39 28:64 197, 340, 343
24:6 172 29:2 328, 343
24:10–11 173 29:3 330
24:12–13 172 29:12 331
24:17 172 29:15 308
25:5–10 398 29:16 308
25:12 375 29:20 343
26:2 198, 329, 377 29:25 373
26:5 184 29:27 329, 382
26:8 328, 343 30 198, 332, 335
Deuteronomium (continued) 1:8 311

30:1–4 197, 198 1:9 314, 315
30:1–5 344 1:15 313, 383
30:1–10 198, 331, 344 1:18 314
30:2 381 4 81
30:3 197, 327, 340, 343 4:24 316
30:4 198 6 240
30:5 198 6:26 59
30:6 339 8:4 182
30:11–14 332 8:30–31 208
30:15 332 8:30–35 81
30:15–20 341 9:1 382
30:16 332, 339 10:10 354
30:17 373 10:20 354
30:18 343 10:25 314
30:19 353, 379 11:3 382
30:20 339 11:6 313
31:1–10 330 12:6–7 313
31:3 314 12:6 313
31:6 315 21:26 308
31:6–7 314 21:45 376
31:12–13 339 22:5 278, 310
31:20 265 23:3–4 314
31:23 314 23:6 311
31:27 330 23:10 354
31:28 353, 379 23:12 312, 314
31:29 326 23:13 314
32 361, 362, 395 23:14 376
32:4 364 23:15–6 327
32:9 383 24:15 147
32:16–18 334–335 23:16 373
32:18 335
32:27 382 Judges
32:30 380 2:6 383
32:51 197 2:11 326
33:3 378 2:22 343
33:29 334, 336 2:23 314
33:29b¹ 336 3:1 314
34:5 325 3:7 326
34:11 328, 343 3:11 384
3:12 326
Joshua 3:30 384
Deut 1–Josh 22 382 4:1 326
1:1–15 325 4:9 384
1:6 314 5:26 384
1:7 311, 314, 315 5:31 384
6:1 326 12:9 326

6:6 60 12:13 289
6:7–10 60, 81 22:36 257
6:11 60 24 12, 137, 138, 139,
6:28 375 140, 142, 149, 150
8:28 384 24:1 140
10:6 230, 326 24:1–9 140
10:10 141 24:2–9 140
11:33 354 24:3 140
13:1 326 24:3–4a 140
15:8 354 24:4a 140
17:8A 148 24:10 139, 140, 141
21:24 383 24:10–14 140
24:11 137, 139, 140
Ruth 24:11–13 137, 140
2:14 265 24:12 142, 144, 146
24:13 140, 141, 142, 144,
1 Samuel 145
1 60 24:14 142
6:7 260 24:14–15 137
6:10 260 24:15 140, 142
7:3 381 24:15a¹ 140
9:9 138 24:16b 140
12:10 141 24:17 139, 140
12:20–5 372 24:17–19 140
14:6 138 24:18 137, 140
14:17 309 24:19b 140
14:47 230 24:20–25 140
15:19 326 24:21 140
17–18 60, 79, 80, 81, 150 24:21b¹ 140
17:34–36 288 24:23b 140
17:45–50 288 24:25 140
17:47 138 24:25b¸ 140
18:6–7 288 24:25b¹ 140
22:5 137
1 Kings
2 Samuel 2:3 310
5:7 285 2:11 144
7 288, 343, 379 2:45 182
7:13 284 3:2 284
7:15 379 3:6 329
7:22 287 3:9 330
7:23–24 309 3:14 310
8:12 230 5:5 184
11–12 289 5:15–8:66 283
11:2 144 5:17 284
1 Kings (continued) 11:11 310

5:18 284 11:13 284
5:19 284 11:32 284
8:1 284 11:34 310
8:11 377 11:36 284, 377
8:13 283 11:38 310
8:16 284, 329, 377 12:24a–z 60
8:17 284 12:28 260
8:18 284 13:33 340
8:19 284 13:34 373
8:20 284 14:8 310
8:22 287 14:16 280
8:24 329 14:21 377
8:26 340 15:12 308
8:28 309, 310 17:13 278
8:29 329 21:9–10 353
8:30 309, 310 21:20 312
8:33–34 309 21:25 312
8:35 378 21:26 308
8:38 309, 310 22 144
8:39 283
8:41–43 375 2 Kings
8:42 328 3:27 50
8:43 283, 308, 309, 316, 6:24–31 327, 343
337, 357, 377 9:7 340
8:44 284, 378 10:29 260
8:44–53 372 10:31 343
8:45 309, 310 17:12 308
8:46–53 330 17:13 310, 340
8:47 343, 381 17:16 260
8:47b¹ 329 17:17 312
8:48 284, 378 17:19 310
8:49 283, 309 17:23 340
8:51 383 17:36 328
8:52 309 18:4 375
8:53 383 18:6 310
8:54 309, 310 18:31 185
8:58 310 19:16 330, 344
8:60 316, 374, 375 19:19 330, 344, 374, 375
8:61 310, 329 19:21 285
9:3 309, 377, 378 19:31 285
9:4 310 21:4 377
9:5b 293 21:7 377
9:6 310, 373 21:10 340
11:1 230 21:11 308
11:2 312 21:16 316
21:21 308 29:25 137, 139

22 311 31:1 383
22:2 311 31:10 256
22:8 311 33:15 179
22:11 311
23:3 310 Ezra
23:24 308 3:2 208, 216
23:27 329 3:4 209, 216
24:2 340 3:4–5 210
24:4 316 3:5 209
25 144 4:1–6:15 131
6:18 210, 216, 217
1 Chronicler 7:1–5 200
17 288 9 194, 206
18 230 9–10 215
18:11 229, 230 9:1 207
21:9 139 9:1–2 206, 207, 208, 216
21:10 142 9:7 329
21:11 142, 145 9:11 362, 363, 364
21:12 141, 145 9:11–12 195, 196, 201, 207,
22:2–26:32 210 215, 217
22:7 284 9:15 329
22:8 284 10 210
22:10 284 10:3 210, 211, 216
22:19 284 10:11 210, 211, 216
23–25 210
28:3 284 Nehemiah
28:7 329 1:8 197
29:29 137, 139 1:8–9 197, 198, 199, 201,
215, 217
2 Chronicler 1:9 197, 198
1:18 284 1:10 328
1:18–7:10 283 4:1–23 131
2:3 284 5 212
6:2 283 5:1–5 212
6:7 284 5:1–11 212
6:8 284 5:1–13 211, 212
6:9 284 5:6–8 212
6:10 284 5:7 212
6:30 283 8 204
6:33 283 8:13–18 14, 202, 203, 204,
6:34 284 205, 206, 209, 216,
6:38 284 219
6:39 283 8:14 202, 203, 204, 217
15:14 286 8:15 203, 204
20:8 284 8:17 204
Nehemiah (continued) 48:6–8 184

8:18 204 50:15 331
9 194, 363, 364 51:6 326
9:10 329 59:16 265
9:13–14 363 66:20 379
9:20 363 78:29 265
9:25 265 79:1 383
9:26 343 83 230
9:32–34 343 83:7–9 229, 230
9:33 361 88:10–12 330, 344
10 213 89:16 186
10:30–40 213, 216 89:30 292, 293
10:31 213 89:38 361
10:31–40 213, 217 91 348, 352, 353
13 200, 201 102:22 357
13:1 199, 200, 381 103 349
13:1–2 199, 200, 201, 202, 104 51, 349
214, 215, 217, 219 105 348
13:2 200 105:45 278
106 18, 356
Esther 106:2–5 356, 357
9:18–32 61 106:3 357
115:4–7 373
Job 115:17 330, 344
28 232, 331, 342 119:34 278
42:11 51
Proverbs
Psalms 1–9 61
15:1 357 10–31 61
17:36 257 13:25 265
18:36 257 22:14 281
19:2 51 28:7 278
21:4 292 28:14 278, 281
22:27 265
29 51 Ecclesiastes/Qohelet
30:9 344 5:7 170
30:10 330 5:11 265
33:14 283
34:6 182 Isaiah
36:10 186 1–12 181
38 250 1
43:3 186 1:1 177, 181, 187, 187
46 180 1:1a 186, 187
46:3–4 184 1:2–20 188
46:7 184 1:8 181
48 180 1:10 181
1:17 181 15–16 181

1:20 181, 185 16:12 373
1:21–25 188 19:1 373
1:21–26 188 19:24–25 382
1:23 181 21:9 373
1:26 181, 188 23:18 265
1:27 181 25:6–8 181, 382
1:27–31 188 31:7 373
2 185, 186, 187, 188, 36:16 185
189 38:18 330, 344
2–12 187 40–66 323
2:1 181, 186, 187, 189 40:5 185
2:1–5 4, 13, 14, 177 43:1 286
2:2 179, 181, 182, 183 43:7 286
2:2a 182 44:5 286
2:2b 182, 184 44:9–17 373
2:2–4 14, 180, 181, 187, 45:5 287
189 45:21 287
2:2–5 188 46:6 373
2:3 181, 182, 183, 184, 48:1 286
186 51:4–5 181
2:4 181, 183 54 396
2:4a 183, 184 56:6–7 181
2:4b 183 58:14 185
2:5 14, 184, 185, 185, 60 180, 186
186, 189 60:1 186
2:6–21 183 60:2 357
2:6 186 60:3 186
2:9 186 60:5 182
2:11 188 60:19–20 186
2:12 183, 188 60:22 184
2:12–14 181 63:3 260
2:14 183, 188 65:1 182
2:17 188 66:11 267
2:18 373
3:1 187 Jeremiah
3:13 181 7:6 316
4:2–6 181 7:10 308
8:16 177 7:11 308
8:17 186 7:14 308
9:1 186 7:24 343
10:11 373 7:25 363
10:17 186 7:25–26 343
11 230 7:30–8:3 55
11:10 181 7:30 308
11:14 229, 230 7:31 307
Jeremiah (continued) 32:39 330

7:34 344 32:40 344
8:1 344 34:10 285
9:15 197 34:15 308
9:26 230 34:17 141
10:3–4 373 36:30 344
11:4–5 343 39:35 307
11:17 344 40:41 230
12:5 257 42:2 343
12:15 383 42:5 361
16:4 344 48 181
19:4 316 49 181
19:5 307 50:11 259
19:9 327, 343 51:44 182
21:7 141
22:3 316 Lamentations
24:7 330, 331, 344 2:20 327, 343
24:8–9 343 3:65 257
24:9 344 4:10 327, 343
24:10 141 5:7 344
25:5 344
25:21 230 Ezekiel
25:29 308 5:12 141
26 179 6:12 141
26:5 343 7:24 257
26:18 179 11:16 197
27:3 230 11:20 331
27:9 344 12:15 197
27:11 259 16:8 286
27:12 344 14:11 331
29:6 344 20:23 197
29:12–14 344 22:15 197
29:17 141 24:21 257
29:18 343 36:28 331
30:3 344 37:23 331
30:22 331 37:27 331
31:1 331 39:20 267
31:12 182
31:33 331, 344 Daniel
32:20–21 343 1–6 224
32:21 309 1:8 385
32:32 343 1:10–17 224
32:34 308 1:16–20 224
32:35 307 2:2–6 224
32:36 344 2:9–11 224
32:38 331 2:19–49 224
3:1–2 224 9:10 343

3:8–10 224 9:11 343
3:22–30 224 9:12 343
3:23–25 224 9:12–13 343
3:35 379 9:12–17 224
4 51, 225, 240, 242, 9:13 343
243 9:14 343
4:5–9 224 9:15 324, 330, 343
4:12–16 224 9:16 343
4:23–25 240 9:16–17 344
4:29–30 224 9:18 329, 344
5:2 324 9:19 344
5:4 373 9:24–25 240
5:5–7 224 9:27 307
5:10–12 224 10:5–9 224
5:11 324 10:8–16 224
5:12–14 224 10:11–16 224
5:14–16 224 10:16–20 224
5:16–19 224 10:21 224
5:18 324 11 229, 230, 231, 232,
5:19–22 224 235, 237, 238, 242,
5:23 373 243
6:8–22 224 11–12 4, 15, 238, 242,
6:11 378 243
6:27–29 224 11:1 232
6:28 373 11:1–2 224
7 225 11:2 232
7–12 224 11:2–12:4 232
7:1–6 224 11:2b–40/45 232
7:5–7 224 11:2–45 232
7:11 224 11:3–4 232
7:15–23 224 11:5–20 232
7:25–28 224 11:7 225
7:26–28 224 11:9 235
8:1–5 224 11:13–16 224
8:1–8 224 11:13–17 224
8:13–16 224 11:21–40/45 232
8:16–17 224 11:25–29 224
8:20–21 224 11:27 238
9 232, 240, 242, 243, 11:29 235, 238
323, 324 11:30 230
9:4–19 324, 342 11:30–41 230
9:6 344 11:31 307
9:7 330, 343 11:32 230
9:8 343 11:33–36 224
9:9–10 343 11:35 238
Daniel (continued) 2:12–14 266

11:38 224 2:13 261, 264
11:40 233, 235, 237 2:19 255, 264, 266, 267
11:40–45 232, 233, 234, 236, 2:26 265, 266
237 4:6 262
11:40–12:3 15, 236, 242 4:6a 262
11:41 230, 235 4:6b–8 262
11:44 231, 233, 237 4:6–9 262
11:44–45 232 4:6–21 250
11:44–12:3 236 4:7 262
11:45 232, 233, 237 4:8 262
12 233, 238, 242 4:9 262
12:1 237 4:11 253
12:1–3 225, 233, 236 4:18 262, 263
12:4 233 4:19 256, 267
12:3 237
12:5–10 232 Amos
12:11 307 2:11 363
2:11–4:2 250
Hosea 3:1 256
2:13–15 250 3:6 51
3:1 337 3:12 155, 157
3:2–4 250 4:1 260
4:1–5:1 250 5:26–27 249
4:10 265 6:13–7:16 250
4:16 249 7:2 252
4:18 257, 258 7:4 256
4:18b 257 9:11 249
6:3 182
8:14 265 Jonah
13:3–10 250 1:5 185
13:4 251
13:10 256 Micah
13:15–14:6 250 1:1 177, 179
14:3 256 1:2 179
1:4 179
Joel 1:5 179
1–2 266 2:6 249
1:10–2:1 250 2:7 179
1:12 259 2:8 180
1:17 258, 259, 260 2:12 179
1:18 260 3–4 188
2:8–23 250 3:1 179
2:10–23 264 3:5 180
2:11 260, 264 3:8–9 179
2:12 266 3:9 179
3:9–12 188 Haggai

3:10 179 1:6 256
3:11 179 2:7–9 180
3:12 178, 179, 180 2:16 260
4 189
4–5 180 Zechariah
4:1 179, 182 2:15 382
4:1a 182 3:10 185
4:1b 182, 184 8:22 180
4:1–3 14, 178, 179, 180, 11:3 257
181, 188, 189
4:1–5 4, 13, 177 Malachi
4:2 179, 182, 183, 184, 1:10 249
186 1:11 382
4:3 179, 180, 183, 184 3:6–7 250
4:3a 183, 184 3:20 259
4:3b 183 4:2 259
4:4 14, 184, 185, 189
4:4–5 177, 184 NEW TESTAMENT
4:5 14, 185, 186, 189
4:5a 185 Revelation
4:5b 186 1:4 240
4:6–7 184 4:5 240
4:6 180 21:10–21 396
4:7a 180
4:9 180 APOCRYPHA/
4:9–10 180 DEUTEROCANONICAL WRITINGS
4:11 180
4:11–13 180 Tobit
4:12 180 1:4 391, 396
4:13 180 1:5–6 391
4:14 180 1:6–8 399
5:1–4* 180 1:8 392
5:3 186 1:10–11 392
5:6–7 180 1:21–22 391
6:14 265 2:1 394
7:2 249 2:6 389
2:10 391
Nahum 3:1–6 392
1:2 249 3:3–4 392
3:5 392
Zephaniah 3:6 393
2:11 382 3:11 378
2:15 253 3:15–16 400
2:15–3:2 250 3:16 401, 402
3:1 253 4 394
Tobit (continued) 5:5–21 372

4:5 399 5:8 379
4:12 395, 398 5:9–10 383
4:12–13 394, 399 5:9 379
5 394 5:14 379, 382
5:14 392 5:15 382
5:21 126 5:17 381
6:12 398 5:17–18 373
6:13 398 5:18 379, 380
6:16 398, 399 5:19 380
7:10 399 5:19–20 381
7:11–13 398 5:20 373, 385
8:6 389 5:20–21 373
8:9–10 399 6:2 375
8:16 399 6:4 376
11:18 391 6:9 376
12:6–15 400 6:18 377
12:8–9 400 6:19 378
12:12 401 7:23–25 372
12:12–14 400 7:25 380
12:14 401 7:28 373, 378, 380
13 389, 395, 396 8:5–6 385
13:2 395 8:8 385
13:3–4 395 8:17 381
13:5 395 8:18 373
13:9 394, 396 8:18–20 383
13:9–14 396 8:20 373, 374
13:9–18 396 8:22 383
13:12 396 8:33 384
13:14 396, 401 9:1 377, 384, 385
13:18 396 9:4 378
14 390 9:8 377
14:3–11 395 9:10 384
14:4 389, 394 9:12 378, 378, 383
14:5 395, 396 9:13 378, 378, 379, 383
14:5–7 395, 396 9:14 374
14:10 391 10:8 377
11:10–11 373
Judith 11:12 380
1:11 375 11:15 373
1:12 375 11:20 373
3:8 375 12:1–8 385
4:3 378 12:2 385
4:12 383 13:5 378, 383
4:14 377, 384, 385 13:14 379
4:15 381, 384 13:17 377
13:20 381 35(32):13 281

14:10 376 36:1–22 286, 287
15:9 383 36:5 287
15:8–10 381 36:10 287
15:10 381 36:12(17) 286
16:5 384 36:13–14 283, 285
16:18 385 36(33):13 281
16:18–20 377 36:17 287
16:19 385 36:17c 287
16:21 383 36:17d 287
16:25 384 36:23–37:15 278
37:12 278
Wisdom 37:12a 278
14:8 373 37:12b 278
37:12–15 278
Sirach 38:15 281
1:1–10 322 43:5 281
1:9b–10a 277 43:11 281
1:10b 277 44–50 284, 285, 288
3:16 281 44:1–45:25d 286
3:16b 281 44:12 289
7:27 280 44:17 289
7:27–28 280 44:19–23 278, 285
7:27–31 280 44:20 279, 285, 289
7:29 280 44:20a 279
7:29a 280 44:20b 285
7:29b 280 44:20c 279
7:29–31 279, 280 44:22 289
7:30 281 44:22c 285
7:30a 280 45:6–22 292
7:30b 280 45:12 292
7:31a 280 45:15 286, 289, 292, 293
7:31b 280 45:22 292
10:12 281 45:23–24 290
15:15 278 45:24 286, 289, 291, 293
24 322, 333 45:24c 291
24:1–22 333 45:24cd 291
24:25–27 334 45:24–25 293
24:23 279, 332, 333 45:24c–25b 291
29:8–13 393 45:25 288, 289, 290, 292,
30:14 282 340
30:14–20 282 45:25a 291
30:18 282 45:25ab 290, 291
30:19ab 282 45:25c 290, 291
30:19c–d 282 45:25d 290
32:23–33:2 278 46:5a 288
Sirach (continued) Baruch

46:7 313 1:1–14 322
46:13 281 1:1–15a¸ 322, 337, 342
46:16a 288 1:1–3:8 321
47:1 288 1:3 340
47:1–11 288, 290 1:8 341
47:2 288 1:9 340, 341
47:3 288 1:11–12 324, 341
47:4–5 288 1:15 343
47:5a 288 1:15–3:8 15, 343
47:5b 288, 289 1:15a¹–3:8 322, 324, 342
47:6ab 288 1:15–2:35 322
47:7 288 1:16 341
47:7c 289 1:16–17 343
47:8 281, 288 1:18 338, 343
47:8–10 288 1:19 324, 325, 343
47:9a 289 1:20 325, 339, 340, 343
47:11 340 1:21 326, 343
47:11a 289 1:22 326, 337, 338, 343
47:11b–d 289 2:1 340, 340, 241
47:11b 289 2:1–2 343
47:11c 289 2:2 327, 340
47:12–22 283 2:3 327, 343
47:13c 284 2:4 327, 329, 340, 343
47:13cd 283 2:5 343
47:18b 286 2:6 343
47:22 288, 340 2:7 343
47:23c 280 2:8 340, 343
47:23d 280 2:9 343
47:23f 280 2:10 338, 343
48:15 288, 340 2:11 327, 328, 329, 338,
48:20a 288 343
48:22 288 2:12 329, 343
49:4 288, 341 2:13 329, 343
49:5 289 2:14–15 343
49:10 249 2:15 329, 228
50:24 286, 289, 292, 293 2:16 329, 330, 344
50:24b 293 2:17 330
50:24c 293 2:17–18 344
50:24d 293 2:19 341
51:12(4) 281 2:19–20 344
51:12a-o 284 2:20 340
51:12h 288 2:21–23 344
51:12m 284 2:21–24 341
2:24 340
2:24–26 344
2:26 337 1:44–46 317

2:27–35 344 1:47 307, 308
2:28 330, 340 1:48–50 317
2:29 327, 330, 340 1:52 317
2:29–35 330 1:54 307, 308
2:30a 330 1:54–55 317
2:30b 330 1:56 311, 312
2:34 340 1:57 317
2:35 331, 342 1:59 307
3:1–8 322, 331, 344 1:62–63 385
3:6 331, 338 1:63 317
3:7 331, 339, 344 2:1–4 315
3:8 327, 340, 344 2:7 317
3:8–4:4 333 2:12 317
3:9 331, 332 2:20–21 311, 317
3:9–14 332 2:22 311
3:9–23 331 2:23–26 304, 305
3:9–4:4 321, 322, 333, 342 2:24 303, 304
3:9–5:9 328 2:24–25 305
3:10 332 2:25 317
3:13 332, 338 2:26 305
3:24–4:4 331 2:27 317
3:29 332 2:42 317
3:29–30 332 2:45 317
3:30 332 2:50 310, 317
3:36 333, 337 2:53 310
3:37–4:1 333 2:54 315
3:38 333 2:55 310
4–5 322 2:56 313
4:1 332, 333 2:58 310, 317
4:4 331, 333, 336 2:64 310, 314
4:5–5:9 322, 334, 342 2:67 310, 317
4:7 337 2:68 310
4:7–8 334 3:17 315
4:13 338 3:18–20 317
4:15 335 3:21 317
4:18 339 3:22 315
4:21 339 3:41 314
4:25 336, 340 3:43 317
4:29–30 339 3:48 308, 311, 312
3:50–51 317
1 Maccabees 3:56 300
1:13 317 3:58 314
1:15 312, 313 3:58–59 317
1:37 316 4:8 315
1:43 307, 308 4:8–9 316
1 Maccabees (continued) 151–155 347

4:9–10 317 152–153 349
4:11 316 152:4 350
4:31 309 153:2 350
4:33 317 154–155 348
4:37–38 317
4:41 317 PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
4:42 301, 317
4:43 301 1 Enoch
4:43–61 317 20 240
4:44 301 42 333
4:45 301
4:46 301 Jubilees
4:47 301, 302 1:26 34
4:52 302 2:1 61
4:53 301, 302, 318 4:19 37
4:56 302 4:33 395
5:43–44 317 6:20–22 35
5:68 317 8:11 37
6:7 307 10:13 37
6:24 313 21:10 37
6:59 317, 318 27:14 126
7:37 308, 309 27:17 126
7:42 317 30:12 35
10:14 317
10:43 317 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum
10:84 317 Pseudo Philo
11:4 317 21:7 59
13:3 317
13:41–42 318 Psalms of Solomon
13:47 308 11 322
13:48 317
13:50 317 DEAD SEA SCROLLS
14:29 317
15:33 313 1QH (Hodayot)
15:33–34 318 12:18 41
15:34 313
1QIsaa
2 Maccabees 19:3 56
5:27 385
1QM (War Scroll)
1 Esdras 1 15, 225, 226, 228,
4:58 378 229, 230, 233, 234,
235, 236, 237, 238,
Psalms 239, 240, 241, 242,
151 350 243
1–9 226 17:16–18:6a 239

1:1–2 229, 231, 242, 243
1:1–7 229, 236 1QS (Rule of the Community)
1:1–9a 15, 236, 237, 238, 2:12 286
241, 241, 242, 243 2:26 286
1:2 230 5:8 286
1:3 234, 240 5:20 286
1:3b–5a 233 6:27 286
1:4 231, 233, 234, 235, 10:4 286
237 10:10 286
1:4–5 234
1:4b–5a 231, 242 4Q24 (4QNumb)
1:5 233, 234, 235, 237 31 58
1:6 237 32 58
1:6a¹ 231, 242
1:8 237, 240 4Q78 (4QXIIc)
1:8–9a 236 7, 13 257
1:8–16 229 8 251
1:9 237, 240, 241 8, 7 256
1:9a 234 9, 4 256
1:9b 237 10 260
1:9b–10 241 10–12, 7 258
1:9b–12a 238, 241, 242, 234 10–12, 8 260
1:10 238, 240 14 264
1:10–11 238 14–17 264
1:11 239 14–17, 2 260
1:12 241 14–17, 3 261
1:12b 238 14–17, 10 264
1:12b–13 240 18 252
1:12b–E 238, 242, 243 18–20, 1 262
1:15 238 18–20, 1–2 262
1:16 238 18–20, 2 262
1:16–E 229 18–20, 4 253
1:E–2:3 236 18–20, 13 262
2 223 18–20, 14 256, 267
5 223 30–33, 7 256
7 223 34, 3 253
5–8 239, 240 35 250
10–19 226 36–37 250
10–11 227 38 250
15–19 239 39–43 250
15:2 235 45–47 250
16:3–9 239 50–51 250
16:11–17:15 239
17:4–8b 225 4Q83 (4QPsa)
17:6 238 27:11 62
4Q88 (4QPsf) 1, 1:4 356

8:2–5 350 1, 1:5 356
9:5–7 350 1, 1:7–8 357
7:14–8-16 350 1, 1:9–11 365
1, 1:9–12 357, 358
4Q174 (Florilegium) 1, 2:1 365
1:4 382 1, 2:2 357
1, 2:2–5 365
4Q185 (Sapiental Work) 1, 2:3–4 357
1, 1 361 1, 2:5 357
1, 1:8–9 361 1, 2:6 357, 365
1, 2:8 349
4Q266 (4QDa)
1 249 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B)
1:15 41 1 360
4 249 14 360
6 249 24a, 6 350
7 249 33, 8 360
15:5 286 33a, 8 349
16 249 46a+b, 5–6 350
20 249 48, 4 350
20:15 41 69 358–360, 360
69, 1–3 362
4Q364 (4QRPb) 69, 4–5 363
3 30 69, 4–6 362
3, 2 126 69, 5A 363
4b–e, 2:21–26 57 69, 5A–5 363
69, 6 363
4Q365 (4QRPc) 69, 7–9 363
6, 2 127 77 358, 359, 360
6a, 2 55, 58 77, 2 360, 364
6c 55, 58 77, 2–3 361
23 30, 127 77, 2–8 361
36 58 77, 4 361
77, 6 361
4Q366 (4QRPd) 77, 7 361
4, 1 126 77, 9–11 362
4Q379 (4QapocrJoshuab) 4Q434 (4QBarkhi Nafshia)

22, 2:8 59 1, 1:7 350
2, 6–7 350
4Q380 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms A) 4Q496 (4QpapMf)

1, 1:1–2:6 355–356 3 236
1, 1:7–11 356 3:4 236
1, 1:2–6 356, 365
11Q5 (11QPsa) OTHER ANCIENT LITERATURE

22:1–12 350
22:12 350 BGU
28:8–11 350 6.1244 41 169
8.1822 169
11Q11 (11QapocrPs)
2:1–3:13 351–352 C.Ord.Ptol.
2:2 353 43 171
2:3–4 355
2:4–5 353 C.Pap.Jud.
2:5–9 353 1.43 169
2:10–3:2 353
3:2–10 353 P.Erasm.
3:4–5 353 1.1 172
3:5–6 353 1.1 24–26 170
3:6–8 353 1.1 35–37 170
3:9–10 354
3:10 354 P.Heid.Inv G 5100
3:11 354 1–2 168
4–12a 168
11Q19 (11QTemple Scrolla) 5–20 176–168
35 40 12b–16a 168
44:5 38
48:5 155, 156 P.Polit.Iud.
50–66 40 1.19–20 169
50:5–9 39 4 169
50:17 39 6 169
51:6 38 7 169
54:5–7 39 8 169
56:20–1 39 9.34–35 169
57:1 39 16 169
59:7–10 39 11.10 169
12.24–25 169
JOSEPHUS 19 169
20 169
Jewish Antiquities
5:20 59 P.Ryl.
8.45–49 353 4.578 169
RABBINIC WRITINGS P.Tebt.

1.5 171
b. Sanhedrin 1.57 171
21b 134 1.61b 274, 377 171
1.72 171
3.796 169
3.1.768 171
3.1.699 171 SB
3.1.764 171 8.9899 171
3.1.790 172 24.16295 172
3.1.817 171 24.16296 171
3.2.970 172
Schøyen Greek Leviticus
2649 Æ¹ 159

Changes in Scripture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Changes in Scripture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Changes in Scripture

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die

Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila:

2. Methodological Issues .................................................................... 21

John J. Collins: Changing Scripture................................................. 23

Eugene Ulrich: The Evolutionary Production and Transmission

Hans Debel: Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and

Molly M. Zahn: Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some

3. Changed Texts ................................................................................ 121

Sidnie White Crawford: The Pentateuch as Found in the

Anneli Aejmelaeus: David’s Three Choices: Textual and

Kristin De Troyer: The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper:

Robert Kugler: Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean

Reinhard Müller: Doubled Prophecy: The Pilgrimage of the

Juha Pakkala: The Quotations and References of the

Hanna Vanonen: The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and

Hanne von Weissenberg: Changing Scripture? Scribal

4. Deuteronomism in Later Literature............................................... 273

Pancratius C. Beentjes: The Book of Ben Sira and

Francis Borchardt: The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees...... 297

Marko Marttila: The Deuteronomistic Ideology and

Mika S. Pajunen: The Use of Different Aspects of the

Anssi Voitila: Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage ..................... 369

Stuart Weeks: A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? ........................ 389

5. Indices ............................................................................................. 405

Index of Modern Authors .............................................................. 407

Index of Passages ............................................................................ 413

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila*

It is now evident that a clearer use of terms and concepts is essen-

2 James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From

ceived as authoritative. Traditionally it has been assumed that the pen-

Rewriting, implicit exegesis and the more explicit interpretation

ly to his source text, only a slow and painstaking investigation of the

The Contributions to This Volume

In his paper “Changing Scripture,” John Collins draws attention to

composition regard the older composition as authoritative? If an older

In her contribution “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan

duced by scribes applying certain exegetical principles. White Craw-

in accordance with the increasing evidence from Qumran that many

al processes of these books. The example is significant because it pro-

The contributions of the volume’s third section (chapter 4) focus mainly

cording to him, there are three explicit legal references in 1 Maccabees

Deuteronomistic heritage in apocryphal psalms. As such, the concept of

The Book of Tobit shows an acquaintance with several earlier tradi-

We do not know precisely what Jeremiah had in mind in his scathing

1 For a summary of the discussion see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia;

The Case of Deuteronomy

Press, 2007), 27–49; Leo G. Perdue, “Pseudonymity and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric,” in

15 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 12.

were eventually acknowledged as Holy Scripture. The acceptance of

21 Levinson, Deuteronomy, 16.

26 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law

The Second Century BCE

to make up a single, independent composition.33 Since there are no

compositions tend to follow the genre of the prototype.46 A great

ly adaptable to new circumstances, just as the epics of Homer were

As with Deuteronomy, there has been debate as to whether these

50 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 46.

Jubilees evidently presupposes that the story of the revelation on Si-