Commentary and Authority in Mesopotamia and Qumran 9783647540726, 3647540722

Table of contents :
Intro
Commentary and Authority in Mesopotamia and Qumran
Copyright
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Preliminaries
Selection of Corpus
Enūma eliš Commentary I
Ludlul bēl nēmeqi
The Babylonian Theodicy
Maqlû, Šurpu, and Tummu bītu
Special Conventions
Technical Terms
Transliteration Conventions
Qumran Texts
Sigla
Mesopotamian Texts
Transliterations and Translations
A Note on Working with Manuscripts
Abbreviations and Citations
Qumran Commentaries: A General Description
Pesher as Genre
Selection of Texts
Dating and Palaeography of Manuscripts IsaiahHosea
Genesis 49
Number of Pesher Manuscripts in Comparison to Copies of the Base-Text
Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran
Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: A Comparison of Formal Features
Commentary in Mesopotamia
Historical Origins
Commentary Structures
Physical Layout
Tabular Layout
Colon Layout
Indent Layout
Literary Structure
Commentary Styles
Technical Vocabulary
Hermeneutical Techniques
Borrowing Between Commentary Texts
Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts
Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: Compositional Models The Comparative Study of Mesopotamian Commentary and Qumran PesherAuthority
Terminology
Scripture and Bible
Canon and Canonical
Authority and Authoritative
Canon and Commentary
Mesopotamia
Qumran
Authority and Commentary
Normative Authority
Oracular Authority
Mytho-Historic Authority
Scholarly Authority
Degrees and Domains of Authority
Roles and Status of Commentaries
Conclusion
Appendices
Transliterations and Translations
Qumran Commentaries
1Q Pesher Habakkuk
1Q Pesher Micah (1Q14)
1Q Pesher Zephaniah (1Q15)
1Q Pesher Psalms (1Q16)
3Q Pesher Isaiah* (3Q4)

Citation preview

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Bochum), Esther Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex P. Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of ­Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of Salzburg), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University) Volume 29

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bronson Brown-deVost

Commentary and Authority in Mesopotamia and Qumran

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

This dissertation has been revised for publication. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover image: 4Q166, Courtesy of The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library; Israel Antiquities Authority, photo: Shai Halevi. Digitally altered by Bronson Brown-deVost. Typesetting by NEUNPLUS1, Berlin Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0092 ISBN 978-3-647-54072-6

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Table of Contents Acknowledgements�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Preliminaries�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Selection of Corpus�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Enūma eliš Commentary I�������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 The Babylonian Theodicy��������������������������������������������������������������������������16 Maqlû, Šurpu, and Tummu bītu���������������������������������������������������������������17 Special Conventions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18 Technical Terms������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19 Transliteration Conventions����������������������������������������������������������������������19 Qumran Texts���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22 Sigla�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22 Mesopotamian Texts����������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Transliterations and Translations��������������������������������������������������������������������24 A Note on Working with Manuscripts�����������������������������������������������������������24 Abbreviations and Citations����������������������������������������������������������������������������25 Qumran Commentaries: A General Description����������������������������������������������������27 Pesher as Genre�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������27 Selection of Texts����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Dating and Palaeography of Manuscripts������������������������������������������������������34 The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary������������������������������������������35 Glosses����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36 Commentary Type Activity������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 Implications for Qumran Commentaries������������������������������������������������������39 Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description�����������������������������������������������������45 Physical Layout and Paratextual Features�����������������������������������������������������������45 Statistical Analysis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 Literary Structural Analysis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������58 Short Lemma���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59 Long Lemma���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Linked Lemma������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������63 Scope������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Commentary Styles������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Technical Vocabulary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 No Formula�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������70 The Term ‫ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������פשר‬71 Syntactically Isolated ‫ �������������������������������������������������������������פשרו‬73

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

6

Table of Contents

‫ל‬/‫ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������פשרו על‬73 ‫ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������פשרו אשר‬74 ‫ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������פשר הדבר‬75 ‫ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������פשר הפתגם‬76 Hermeneutical Techniques������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 Citation of Works Other than the Base‑Text��������������������������������������������79 Exegetical Usage of Works Other than the Base‑Text�������������������������������81 Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts������������������������������������������������������������������84 Psalms�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84 Isaiah�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 Hosea�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Genesis 49�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 Number of Pesher Manuscripts in Comparison to Copies of the Base‑Text����� 88 Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran�������������������������������������89 Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: A Comparison of Formal Features�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������95 Commentary in Mesopotamia�����������������������������������������������������������������������������95 Historical Origins����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Commentary Structures����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Physical Layout��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Tabular Layout�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Colon Layout����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������99 Indent Layout�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������100 Literary Structure��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Commentary Styles����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Technical Vocabulary��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Hermeneutical Techniques����������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Borrowing Between Commentary Texts������������������������������������������������������117 Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts����������������������������������������������������������������120 Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: Compositional Models�����������125 Conflation of Commentary Units����������������������������������������������������������������������128 1QpHab unit 18�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128 1QpHab unit 33�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������130 4QpPsa unit 14 (f1+3–4iii:4a + 6)������������������������������������������������������������������131 1QpHab units 12–13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������133 1QpHab unit 11�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������134 1QpHab unit 28�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������135 1QpHab unit 15�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������136 Growth of Comments������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������137 1QpHab unit 9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139 1QpHab unit 20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������143 1QpHab unit 33 Again�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������144

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Table of Contents

7

1QpHab unit 26�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������146 1QpHab unit 17�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������147 4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ and 4QpNah unit 12ʹ���������������������������������������������147 Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������148 Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������151 The Communities that Wrote Commentaries��������������������������������������������������151 Statistical Distribution of Commentary Manuscripts��������������������������������152 Conclusions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������154 The Relationship between Mesopotamian Commentary and Qumran Pesher�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������154 The Comparative Study of Mesopotamian Commentary and Qumran Pesher����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������157 Authority��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������159 Terminology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161 Scripture and Bible������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161 Canon and Canonical�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������162 Authority and Authoritative��������������������������������������������������������������������������162 Canon and Commentary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������165 Mesopotamia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������165 Qumran������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������170 Authority and Commentary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������173 Normative Authority��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������173 Oracular Authority������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������175 Mytho‑Historic Authority������������������������������������������������������������������������������177 Scholarly Authority�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������178 Degrees and Domains of Authority�������������������������������������������������������������������179 Roles and Status of Commentaries��������������������������������������������������������������������180 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������182 Appendices�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������185 Transliterations and Translations�����������������������������������������������������������������������185 Qumran Commentaries��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������185 1Q Pesher Habakkuk���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������185 1Q Pesher Micah (1Q14)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������193 1Q Pesher Zephaniah (1Q15)������������������������������������������������������������������������195 1Q Pesher Psalms (1Q16)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������196 3Q Pesher Isaiah (3Q4)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������197 4Q Pesher Isaiaha (4Q161)������������������������������������������������������������������������������197 4Q Pesher Isaiahb (4Q162)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������201 4Q papyrus Pesher Isaiahc (4Q163)���������������������������������������������������������������202 4Q Pesher Isaiahd (4Q164)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������210 4Q Pesher Isaiahe (4Q165)������������������������������������������������������������������������������210

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

8

Table of Contents

Concordance of Isaiah Pesharim�����������������������������������������������������������������213 4Q Pesher Hoseaa (4Q166)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������214 4Q Pesher Hoseab (4Q167)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������215 4Q Pesher Micah* (4Q168)����������������������������������������������������������������������������218 4Q Pesher Nahum (4Q169)����������������������������������������������������������������������������219 4Q Pesher Zephaniah (4Q170)����������������������������������������������������������������������223 4Q Pesher Psalmsa (4Q171)����������������������������������������������������������������������������223 4Q Pesher Psalmsb (4Q173)����������������������������������������������������������������������������228 4Q Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) [Pesher on Genesis 49]�������������229 20 4Q Pesher Malachi* (4Q253a)����������������������������������������������������������� 230 4Q Commentary on Genesis C (4Q254) [Pesher on Genesis 49]�������������231 5Q Pesher Malachi? (5Q10)����������������������������������������������������������������������������231 Qumran Pesher Line Length Estimates��������������������������������������������������������232 The Usage of Blank Space in the Pesharim�������������������������������������������������232 Enūma Eliš Commentary I����������������������������������������������������������������������������������233 V (VAT 10616(+)11616)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������233 W (Rm II 538)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������234 X (K 8585)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������235 Y (Rm 395)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������236 Z (K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+12102+16818+Sm 747)�����������������238 x (BM 69594 [82‑9‑18, 9591])�����������������������������������������������������������������������244 y (BM 66606+72033 [82‑9‑18, 6599+12037])���������������������������������������������244 z (BM 54228 [82‑5‑22, 379])��������������������������������������������������������������������������246 Combined synoptic edition���������������������������������������������������������������������������248 Concordance of Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts�������������������������259 Entries From Lexical Lists in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts���261 Entries Using Bilingual Equivalencies in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������262 Index of Passages�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������263 Mesopotamian Literature������������������������������������������������������������������������������������263 Classical Sources���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������266 Qumran Manuscripts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������266 Jewish and Christian Literature��������������������������������������������������������������������������271 Epigraphic Sources and Other����������������������������������������������������������������������������274 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������275

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Acknowledgements One of the greatest pleasures of engaging in research such as the present work is recognizing the many people who have had a part in helping bring it to fruition. As a revision of my dissertation, the present book is greatly indebted to the guidance provided by my dissertation advisors, I. Tzvi Abusch and Marc Zvi Brettler, and the other members of my dissertation committee, David P. Wright and Sidnie White Crawford. The initial suggestion to put my comparative interests to use by fleshing out the concept of textual authority belongs to Marc, as does the title of this work. His unfailing support for the project and dedication to its completion cannot be understated, nor can the immense effort he put into critically working through all the various writings that are part of the dissertation process from the early stages of a prospectus to the final product. Tzvi has been a true mentor to me throughout my career at Brandeis and beyond. He has patiently shown me at every turn what it means to be a productive member of the scholarly community. Had it not been for his sage advice to keep my research agenda manageable, this book would surely have grown beyond all reasonable proportions and likely never have seen the light of day. I am very grateful for his willingness, even eagerness, to carefully work through many of the issues that I encountered during my dissertation research and writing. My approach toward research has been unmistakably shaped by David; it was he who taught me to always have one foot firmly grounded in what we can be quite certain of and the other foot free to creatively explore new ways of understanding our data. In many ways, his work in the realm of comparative analysis is a model to which I aspire and stands at the foundation of my approach in this book. I also learned from him what it means to be unwavering in academic standards, all the while interacting with others with care and respect. I would also like to thank my outside reader Sidnie White Crawford for her insightful comments, for prodding me to make myself more clear and comprehensible, and for her participation in a stimulating, productive, and ultimately very enjoyable dissertation defense. I have benefitted from so many excellent instructors over my years of study. They all have left a mark on me in one way or another, and I am very honored to note that many of them still take a personal interest in my work and well-being. I am indeed grateful to them all. I would, nevertheless, single out for mention Fr. William Fulco, who first set me on this long path and instilled within me a lifelong love of language, and the late Michael Patrick O’Connor, a great teacher and scholar. He taught me to read every word, every grammatical form, and every syntagm for all its worth. I had so much more to learn from him; sadly, that was not to be.  

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

10

Acknowledgements

Over the long years of graduate work, I have enjoyed countless conversations with my fellow students and other colleagues. They too have profoundly impacted the way I understand my field of research. But perhaps more important than that, I am greatful for the sense of wonder that their own various interests have sparked within me and for the profound knowledge that they all have graciously shared. I am happy to also acknowledge here the valued companionship of my dear friend Jim Finney. That old proverb remains true, “there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother”. As I was finishing my dissertation and preparing for my defense, my family and I found some much needed respite in Belize, where we were hosted by Jim, his wife Sarah, and their daughter Juliette—their son Graham was then still in Sarah’s belly, and Wesley was just a twinkle in their eyes. In the same vein, I must also extend my gratitude to Patricia and Gordon Humphry for affording Jim and me a lovely stay in their vacation home on St. Thomas a little more than a year later, giving me just the energy needed to get back to work and finish this book. I would thank my parents Dave and Lynda Devost for their support over the years. During that difficult time of underemployment after I finished my doctoral degree, both they and my parents-in-law, Bill and Becky Brown, supported me and my family in their homes. For their kind generosity I am grateful. My graduate studies at Brandeis were supported by grants from the family and friends of Helen Segal and from Mrs. Baker and Dr. Franzblau; my sincerest thanks to them. The Graduate Research Award from the Tauber Institute enabled me to travel to the Israel Museum to examine several Dead Sea Scrolls fragments. I thank Pnina Shor, curator and head of Dead Sea Scrolls Projects at the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), for setting things in motion for my visit. I also thank her assistants, first Orit Kuslanski (now Rosengarten) and then Beatriz Riestra, for finalizing the arrangements, as well as Lena Libman, head of the Israel Antiquities Authority’s Dead Sea Scrolls Conservation Laboratory, for preparing the plates of fragments for my inspection. I would again thank Beatriz Riestra for sending me new photos of 4QpappIsac (4Q163) on very short notice. I came to learn only recently that I was the first visiting scholar whom she welcomed to the IAA lab; I look forward to many more such visits, and cannot overstate the hospitality they showed me there. That same research award also made it financially possible for me to visit Anette Steudel, a member of the Forschungsstelle Qumran-Wörterbuch in Göttingen, who kindly shared with me some of her research and expertise concerning the Qumran pesharim. Little did I know that slightly more than a year later I would find myself working in Göttingen, and thus able to partake in the city’s stimulating scholarly community. I am happy to thank the Deutsch-Israelische Projektkooperation for funding the project Scripta Qumranica Electronica, of which I am now a part; I am indebted to Reinhard Kratz, Shani Tzoref, Ingo Kottsieper, and Annette

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

11

Acknowledgements

Steudel for considering and then accepting me for my present position within the project. Both Reinhard and Shani have provided helpful comments regarding my work and have happily shared their own research with me. Ingo Kottsieper graciously provided me with access to the Qumran Wörterbuch database, which has proved very useful for reviewing my text editions. I must express my gratitude to Armin Lange, the chief editor of the Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement Series, who invited and then accepted this book into the series. I received many helpful comments from him, Bernard Levinson, and Jonathan Ben-Dov. Though the bibiographic references have not been significantly updated since 2015, the overall shape of this work was changed drastically based on Jonathan’s recommendation, and I have benefitted from several thought provoking conversations with him. My student assistant Anthony Lipscomb has worked very hard to catch as many errors as possible in the text, and has carefully rechecked my references and editions. I thank him for his dedication, and as always, in the end it is I who must apologise for whatever errors remain. Finally, I express my profound gratitude to all my family and friends, whom I have not singled out here, but who have stood by me throughout this arduous and seemingly endless endeavor. I am especially grateful for the support and understanding of Sarah. We have been together since before entering undergraduate studies, and she has graciously shared her life with me and patiently endured the many sacrifices concomitant with life in academia. Our sons Bronsy and Wolfe, and our daughter Rosalind have been a constant source of joy, though they too have given much of themselves for the sake of my work and this book. It has truly been a blessing to enjoy their companionship throughout this adventure. They have persistently ensured that I never lose sight of the real world and the present moment, and I think my work is all the better for it. The Republic of San Marino 4 October, 2016 Bronson Brown-deVost

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

“For Sarah, the love of my life, and our children, Bronson, Wolfe, and Rosalind”

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Introduction Readers of revered books have long felt the necessity to explain how their beloved literary works convey meaning about the past, the present, and even the future. In the world of the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean, this urge to understand and explain literature was a catalyst for the development of interpretational techniques and in turn for the creation of a new literary genre, the commentary. These commentary traditions convey a wealth of information about the compositions they explain and the communities that read those works. In addition, the close temporal and geographical proximity of the development of commentary writing in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Mediterranean world, and Judea is highly suggestive of some level of contact or influence. These two observations provide the larger context for my research in this book. More narrowly, I have primarily concerned myself here with the exegetical works that have been uncovered in the caves near Khirbet Qumran. Among these interpretive compositions are a particular subset of commentaries, termed continuous pesharim by J. Carmignac,1 which are largely organized according to the sequence of the composition that they are interpreting (called the base‑text) and which frequently employ the technical term pesher (‫ )פשר‬to introduce explanatory remarks. Since their discovery in the middle of the last century, these Qumran pesharim (the plural of pesher), as they are called, have been the object of sustained scholarly interest both from a comparative perspective and as a phenomenon unique to Qumran. Comparative approaches to this corpus have generally been focused on the relationship between pesher and later Jewish midrash or the New Testament, but this has ultimately done little to explain the nature of the pesharim themselves or their peculiarities. Comparisons between pesher and Mesopotamian commentary, which are suggested by the etymological derivation of the Hebrew term pesher from the Akkadian word pišru,2 are still largely inchoate. My work here seeks to aid in remedying this deficiency, and in so doing to more fully explain the nature and function of the continuous pesher commentaries from Qumran as well as the authoritative status of the compositions they comment on.3 This comparative study of Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim has three main and interrelated aims: 1) to determine what direct relationship exists, if any, between commentary writing in Mesopotamia and at Qumran; 2) to discuss 1  Carmignac, “Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédek”. 2  See my discussion of the term ‫פשר‬, p. 57. 3  For a similar type of study that examines the relationship between Classical Greek commentary writing and the pesharim, see now Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema and also the earlier works of Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commentary” and Kratz, “Die Pescharim von Qumran”, 101–102 and “Text and Commentary”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

14

Introduction

how an understanding of the practice of commentary writing in one corpus, whether Mesopotamian commentaries or Qumran pesharim, can inspire new questions and suggest new answers for the other; and 3) to determine how commentaries themselves can reveal their ancient authors’ attitudes about canon and about the authority possessed by the base‑texts they interpret and by the works that they quote. In order to provide a fair comparison of commentary writing at Qumran (specifically in the continuous pesharim) and in Mesopotamia, I begin my investigation in the first two chapters with a careful re-examination of Qumran pesharim on their own terms. Since a large scale and detailed survey of the Qumran pe‑ sharim as a corpus still remains a desideratum for the field of Qumran studies,4 I have further endeavoured to provide a comprehensive description of the corpus and the genre. The Mesopotamian commentaries, on the other hand, have recently been the object of two major research projects.5 These survey studies have enabled me to focus instead on in‑depth analyses of a select group of commentaries that are most similar to the Qumran pesharim for the sake of comparison. Chapter III provides a detailed and technical analysis of the similarities and differences between the two commentary corpora. Chapter IV explores the implications of the compositional development of Mesopotamian commentaries for explaining the textual history of the pesharim. Chapter V provides a discussion of social factors relating to commentary writing in Mesopotamia and at Qumran and concludes with a brief summary of my comparative studies of the two corpora. That summary addresses both the questions of literary dependence and of the value of such a comparative study from a phenomenological perspective – the first two of the three research question posed above. I deal with the third of my research questions in the final chapter, where I proceed with an examination of each commentary corpus as it relates to the stabilization of ancient literary works, the formation of canon, and the particular ways in which compositions are appealed to as sources of authority. This investigation lends itself to a systematized schema for demonstrating textual authority in distinct spheres of influence and at various levels of importance. Such a model presents an important corrective for how we think and talk about compositions as authority bearing instruments and for how we critically evaluate data pertaining to that concept. 4  Aside from numerous small‑scale and survey articles on the topic, Lim, Pesharim is the latest and largest of such works, but it is still quite introductory. The introduction to M. Horgan, “Pesharim” (the published form of her Fordham University dissertation) suggests that Horgan had intended to do this work, but the sheer amount of effort required just to establish the text of the continuous pesharim apparently precluded the possibility of her carrying out a detailed analysis of them as a group. 5  One study was carried out by E. Frahm (Frahm, “Royal Hermeneutics”, “Reading the Tablet, the Exta, and the Body”, and most comprehensively Babylonian and Assyrian Text Com‑ mentaries) and the other by U. Gabbay (Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries”, “Actual Sense and Scriptural Intention”, and “Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique”).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

15

Preliminaries Selection of Corpus Since the present study of Qumran pesharim and Mesopotamian commentaries is a comparative one, a certain level of iterativity has been involved in the selection of works for in‑depth analysis. The small number of continuous pesharim at Qumran, especially in comparison to the vast number of Mesopotamian commentaries, has necessitated the selection of particular Mesopotamian commentaries based on the nature of the Qumran pesharim. Unfortunately, since no instances of commentaries to technical compositions (e.g., omen, medical, or lexical works) are known to exist at Qumran,6 this has removed the vast majority of Mesopotamian commentaries from direct consideration.7 For this reason, the small corpus of Mesopotamian commentaries dealing with literary and religious works – admittedly a minority within its wider corpus, though largely representative of the genre – has come to be the primary focal point of the comparative work that follows. The Mesopotamian texts which I have carefully investigated are as follows:8

Enūma eliš Commentary I9 The Enūma eliš, the Babylonian creation epic, was an important mythological text that played a significant role in both the Babylonian and Assyrian societies.10 The group of texts that constitute the Enūma eliš Commentary I all dealt

6  Note that 4Q186, 4Q317, 4Q318, and 4Q561 can be classified as scientific texts, but they do not appear to be commentaries. 7  Most Mesopotamian commentaries deal with works of a technical nature (i.e., omen collections, medical manuals, and literary lists). The remaining compositions, commentaries to literary and religious works, constitute only about 3% of all Mesopotamian commentary texts (the most recent calculation is 2.7% [Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 405]; the earlier calculation was 3.1% [Frahm, “Royal Hermeneutics”]). 8  The selection of Qumran pesharim will be discussed later on pp. 22–25. 9  For the distinction between the Enūma Eliš Commentaries I and II, see Lambert, Baby‑ lonian Creation Myths, 135–142 and also Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 112–116. A synoptic edition and translation of these commentary manuscripts by E. Frahm and E. Jiménez appeared after I had finished my work (“Myth, Ritual, and Interpretation”). Due to the difficult layout of that edition and the tendency to underplay manuscript variation, I have decided to retain my edition and translation of the Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts in the appendices, pp. 201–224. My edition and translation closely follow Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths. 10  For some of the changes made to the Enūma eliš and other Marduk traditions in order to make them more amenable to the state religion of Assyria, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyr‑ ian Text Commentaries, 345–368 and the literature discussed there, see also von Soden, “Gibt es ein Zeugnis” and Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia”, 73–74 and 76.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

16

Introduction

with the Enūma eliš in its entirety.11 The letter designations for the manuscripts used here follow W.G. Lambert’s recent edition,12 and my translations of the base‑text in these commentaries largely follow his. This group of commentary manuscripts represents the distillation of Enūma eliš commentary traditions in a variety of tablet styles over a time span of about two‑hundred years13 and in a wide geographical area encompassing Nineveh, Assur, and Sippar.

Ludlul bēl nēmeqi14 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi is a theological work dealing with the (perhaps newly) prominent role of Marduk in individuals’ cultic life. This work is the subject of one long commentary tablet from Nineveh (K3291) in indentation layout dating to the seventh century bce. The Babylonian Theodicy15 The Babylonian Theodicy, a text written in Babylonia at the tail end of the second millennium bce, deals with the issue of theodicy, as its modern name suggests. The text is unusual in that it represents one of the few acrostics in 11 The Enūma eliš Commentary II consists of three tabular layout commentaries from the library of Ashurbanipal that deal only with the names of Marduk in Enūma eliš VII (See Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 139–142 and also Kämmerer and Metzler, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš, 38). 12  See Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths. The manuscript designations are as follows: Z = K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+12102+16818+Sm 747, Y = Rm 395, X = K 8585, W = Rm II 538, V = VAT 10616(+)11616, z = BM 54228, y = BM 66606+72033 (82‑9‑18, 6599+12037), x = BM 69594. For photos of ms. Z = K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+‌12102+16818+Sm 747, see Kämmerer and Metzler, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš, pls. XLIV–XLV. For the tablet K 13866 as another member of this group of commentary texts, see Frahm and Jiménez, “Myth, Ritual, and Interpretation”, 297 and 307–309. But note the caution with which E. Frahm and E. Jiménez assign that manuscript to this grouping and that Lambert had not considered it an Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscript (Babylonian Creation Myths, 485 n. 10). 13  The Babylonian tablets are from Sippar and should not postdate the reign of Xerxes, see Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ ”, 50–73, noted in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 287 n. 1362. The Nineveh tablets come from the seventh century bce. 14  A. Lenzi has prepared an online edition and translation of this commentary as part of the Yale Cuneiform Commentaries Project (“Commentary on Ludlul [CCP no. 1.3]”, http://ccp. yale.edu/P394923). See also, Lenzi, “The Commentary to Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi” and Annus and Lenzi, Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi. 15  The commentary to the Babylonian Theodicy is published in part in Lambert, Baby‑ lonian Wisdom Literature, 69–89, briefly discussed in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 120–121, and now more fully in Oshima, Babylonian Poems of Pious Suffer‑ ers, 440–464. No complete edition of this commentary tablet is yet available, and I have not provided an edition here due to limited access. Images of the tablet including the latest joins

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Preliminaries

17

Mesopotamian literature; the first syllable of all eleven lines of each stanza is the same, and when these initial syllables are put together, the acrostic reads: a‑na‑ku sa‑ag‑gi‑il‑ki‑[i‑na‑am‑u]b‑bi‑ib ma‑áš‑ma‑šu ka‑ri‑bu ša i‑li ú šar‑ri “I, Saggil‑kīnam‑ubbib, the incantation priest, am adorant of the god and the king”.16 It was the subject of a very sophisticated commentary in cola layout from the Late Babylonian period in Babylon or Borsippa.17 The commentary is very extensive in its treatment of the poem and provides many different types of commentarial explanations.

Maqlû, Šurpu, and Tummu bītu These three ritual texts played an important role in the removal of evil forces from individuals. Such rituals would have been an important element in the life of the (mostly wealthy) members of Babylonian and Assyrian society. No commentaries deal with any one of these compositions alone, but they appear together in various configurations: Maqlû and Šurpu (VAT 8928 [Ass. 13955dq]); Maqlû and Tummu bītu (A 405 [Ass. 13955ii]); Šurpu and Tummu bītu (VAT 13846 [Ass. 13956he]); and Šurpu and some sort of medical work (K 4320).18 Such various groupings of Maqlû, Šurpu, and Tummu bītu – all incantations for warding off and removing evil – are not surprising given the primary role those texts played in the second stage of the incantation priest’s (Akkadian āšipu) formal education19 and the presence of short versions of Maqlû and Šurpu side by

are available online as part of the Yale Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, Frazer, and Jiménez, “Commentary on Theodicy [CCP no. 1.4]”). 16  Text and translation follow Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 63. 17  The tablet is composed of BM 66882 + 76506 + 76009 + 76832 + 83044 + 83045 + 83046. Sippar does not appear to be the findspot, as previously thought, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 120–121. The fragment BM 40987 may be a second commentary on the Babylonian Theodicy, see Oshima, Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers, 168. 18  An edition, translation, and notes to VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq) is published in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 384–396, and a brief discussion of the reverse of A 405 (Ass. 13955ii) is presented there. The Maqlû portion of both of these texts is presented in transliteration in Abusch, The Mesopotamian Anti‑Witchcraft Ritual Maqlû. The Šurpu portions of VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq), VAT 13846 (Ass. 13956he), and K 4320 are edited in Reiner, Šurpu, 50–51. D. Schwemer has graciously provided me with his handcopy of A 405 (Ass. 13955ii); that handcopy was later published, along with handcopies of all the tablets of Maqlû that have not been published to date, in Schwemer, The Anti-Witchcraft Ritual Maqlû. The Tummu bītu commentary on the obverse of A 405 (Ass. 13955ii) is nearly identical, even to the sign, with the Tummu bītu commentary in VAT 13846 (Ass. 13956he) obverse lines 1–21, a full edition of VAT 13846 (Ass. 13956he) can be found in Meier, “Kommentare aus dem Archiv der Tempelschule in Assur”, 239–246. 19  For the usage of these compositions in the school setting, see Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien, 176.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

18

Introduction

side in the ritual Bīt rimki.20 Three of these commentaries came from the house of an important exorcist family and were written in the seventh century. The colophons to the Maqlû and Tummu Bītu commentary (A 405 [Ass. 13955ii]) and to the Šurpu and Tummu Bītu commentary (VAT 13846 [Ass. 13956he]) relate that these manuscripts were copied from older ones for the consultation of the junior exorcist Kiṣir‑Nabû, who later went on to become a senior exorcist. The colophon for the commentary to Maqlû and Šurpu (VAT 8928 [Ass. 13955dq]) is now lost, but that tablet likely also belonged to Kiṣir‑Nabû.21

Special Conventions The fragmentary nature of the manuscripts analysed in this book has necessitated the use of a special symbol to mark particular points of data that are equivocal. Following relatively familiar conventions, such cases will be marked with a superscript question mark ?. This should not be taken as an indicator of doubt, but rather uncertainty. Doubtful data will be marked by an asterisk * and will sometimes be accompanied by comments explaining the specific reasons for doubting the usage of that particular datum. The denotation of Qumran pesher texts has utilized the conventions of the editiones principes in the DJD volumes. Thus, when a particular composition is the subject of more than one pesher manuscript, superscript letters are used to designate each discrete manuscript, for example, 4QpPsa and 4QpPsb. This should not be taken as an endorsement of the interpretation that any of these pesher manuscripts with the same name but differing superscript letters are copies of the same literary work – the usual connotation of superscript letters in the DJD volumes. In fact, it would be preferable at this stage of pesher research to use capital letters to designate each manuscript (i.e., 4QpPs A and 4QpPs B instead of 4QpPsa and 4QpPsb respectively). But since recent discussions and editions of the pesher texts sometimes use designations like Pesher 20  The grouping of all three rituals – Maqlû, Šurpu, and Tummu bītu – may also be evidenced in the ritual tablet to Maqlû. The ritual tablet to Maqlû includes instructions to recite Tummu bītu in line 137ʹ, then in the next two lines it outlines ritual acts to be performed after šurpa tašarrapu “you burn the šurpu‑fire”. This is not to say that the phrase šurpa tašarrapu refers to carrying out the long ritual of Šurpu. For all that, the phrase šurpa tašarrapu does remind one of some form of the Šurpu ritual (just as the phrase ašar maqlâ taqlû “where you performed the maqlû‑burning” earlier in the Ritual Tablet calls the Maqlû ritual to mind), and the Ritual Tablet of Maqlû here demonstrates a particularly close association made between Maqlû, Tummu bītu, and some type of šurpu ritual. For a discussion of the use of other rituals within Maqlû, as indicated by the Ritual Tablet of Maqlû, see Abusch, “Mesopotamian Anti‑Witchcraft Literature”, 253–255. 21 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 122.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Preliminaries

19

Psalms B (or Pesher Psalms 2) to denote 1QpPs and not 4QpPsb, it seems that changing 4QpPsb to 4QpPs B might cause more confusion than clarity. Column and line designations for these manuscripts, on the other hand, do not necessarily conform to the editiones principes in DJD. Rather, all citations of column and line numbers, as well as manuscript fragment groupings, correspond to my own editions of the Qumran pesharim as presented in the appendices, pp. 154–198.

Technical Terms Several technical terms are used consistently throughout this book to describe specific elements of commentaries in both of the commentary traditions studied here. The term base‑text is used to refer to a work that receives a commentary. For instance, Habakkuk is the base‑text for Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), and the Enūma eliš is the base‑text for the tablet K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+1210 2+16818+Sm 747, which is one of the several Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts. In agreement with S. Tzoref22 and G. Doudna,23 a “commentary unit” refers to a discrete unit within a commentary text which is composed of both a citation from the base‑text and its accompanying interpretational remarks. The terms lemma and comment refer to the two main portions of a commentary unit and have been italicized to denote their technical connotation. The lemma is the excerpt from the base‑text and the comment furnishes the interpretation of that lemma. It is possible to have more than one comment on a single lemma, each individual comment may be referred to sequentially, resulting in a first, second, and even third comment, but they can still all be conceived of as a single conflated comment and may be referred to in the singular. Portions of the lemma may be repeated within a comment. Phrases from the lemma that are repeated in the comment are called internal citations, and the rare cases where a portion of an internal citation is repeated in the comment are termed second internal citations. One particularly common type of internal cita‑ tion is the keyword; this is a single word or noun phrase from a lemma or internal citation that is repeated within the comment and followed by an interpretation of its meaning. Transliteration Conventions The Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim presented here have been formatted in such a way as to highlight these compositional elements in 22 Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 19. 23 Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 46.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

20

Introduction

order to facilitate the reading of their constituent parts. The text of the commentaries and pesharim has been divided into commentary units keyed to the line numbers or verses of the base‑texts. These units have been numbered sequentially in the pesharim for ease of reference. Lemmas have been formatted in bold face, and comments are presented in regular face. Internal citations have been underlined, second internal cita‑ tions have received a double underline, and repetitions of a portion of a lemma at the beginning of a following lemma have been formatted in bold face and underlined (see, e.g., 1QpMic). Citations of texts other than the base‑text are over‑lined and their source noted either in a footnote or in the heading to the commentary unit. Lines 11:17–12:10 of 1QpHab comprise commentary unit 33 of Pesher Habakkuk, and serve as a good example of this terminology and formatting (see pp. 107–108 and pp. 120–121, for the ╳ sign in 12:2 see p. 38): ]‫ כ(י)א חמס לבנון יכסכה ושוד בהמות‬...[ 11:17 lemma–

‫ יחתה מדמי אדם וחמס ארץ קריה וכול‬12:1 ‫יושבי בה‬ ╳

‫ פשר הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את‬12:2

‫ גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים כיא הלבנון הוא‬12:3 ← internal citation (keyword: abbreviated kw) ‫ עצת היחד והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה עושה‬12:4 ← internal citation (kw)

unit–

‫‏‬vacat ‫ התורה אשר ישופטנו אל לכלה‏‬12:5 comment–

‫ כאשר זמם לכלות אביונים ואשר אמר מדמי‬12:6 ← internal citation ‫ קריה וחמס ארץ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלם‬12:7 ← internal citation (cont.) + second internal citation (kw) ‫ אשר פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות‬12:8 ‫ויטמא את‬ ‫ מקדש אל וחמס ארץ המה ערי יהודה אשר‬12:9 ← second internal citation (kw) ... ‫ גזל הון אביונים‬12:10

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

21

Preliminaries

lemma–

11:17 [... Indeed the violence of Lebanon will cover over you and the destruction of beasts] 12:1 will terrify, because of the human bloodshed and violence against land, city, and all dwelling in it. 12:2 The interpretation of the passage concerns the wicked priest, to give to him ╳ 12:3 his recompense for how he repaid the poor, because the Lebanon is

← internal citation (kw)

12:4 the council of the community, and the ← internal citation (kw) beasts are the simple–minded ones of Judah each of whom performs

unit–

12:5 the instruction; whom24 God will judge for destruction vacat‎ comment–

12:6 just as he schemed to destroy the poor. And when it says: because of

← internal citation

12:7 the bloodshed of the city and violence ← i nternal citation (cont.) against land. Its interpretation is: the + second internal citation city is Jerusalem, (kw) 12:8 in which the wicked priest did abominable deeds and defiled the 12:9 temple of God; and violence against land are the cities of Judah, where

← second internal citation (kw)

12:10 he stole the wealth of the poor. →

Lines rev. 4ʹ–6ʹ form commentary unit 2 of the Maqlû commentary A 405 and provide a good cuneiform example of this terminology: lemma–

4ʹ [a]l‑⸢si‑ku‑nu‑ši dingir.meš mu‑ši‑tú⸣ ⫶ → 4ʹ (cont.) dingir.meš mu‑ši‑tú mu[l].me[š] dingir.meš gal.meš

unit– comment–

← internal citation (kw)

5ʹ [šá]‑niš ana mul.mul mulgu4.an.na mulsip.zi.an.na i‑qab‑bi 6ʹ [š]al‑⸢šiš⸣ ana mul.meš ka‑a‑a‑ma‑nu‑ti i‑qab‑bi

24  The antecedent of the relative pronoun appears to be the wicked priest of 12:2.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

22

Introduction lemma–

4ʹ [I] call on you, O gods of the night, ⫶ → 4ʹ (cont.) The gods of the night are the stars ← internal citation (kw)

unit–

of the great gods. comment– 5ʹ

A [se]cond interpretation: it refers to the Pleides, Taurus, and Orion.

6ʹ

A [th]ird interpretation: it refers to the regular stars

The comment in this commentary unit is a conflated comment; it consists of three independent interpretational remarks or comments: the first in line 4ʹ, the second introduced by šanîš “secondly” in line 5ʹ, and the third introduced by šalšiš “thirdly” in line 6ʹ.

Qumran Texts The system of transcription used here differs slightly from the standard conventions due to the literary nature of this study. Letters that are significantly damaged are marked as usual by either a raised dot or a raised circellus. The raised dot indicates a high level of certainty regarding the reading of the letter either based on palaeographic or on contextual evidence, the raised circellus indicates a low level of certainty regarding the reading of the letter. This often corresponds to the more conventional raised dot for damaged letters where the ink traces can be read with a high degree of confidence and the raised circellus for indeterminate ink remains, but in several instances the reading of indeterminate ink remains is nevertheless established with greater certainty than other letter remains which have suffered less. In such cases a raised dot is used where a circellus would have been more appropriate on purely palaeographic grounds. Similarly, some letters that are partially, or even heavily, damaged may be left without any mark indicating damage in those cases where the ink remains are in my opinion entirely diagnostic. I have tried to represent marginal markings in a manner similar to their appearance in the original manuscripts Sigla vacat Indicates an indent, line break, or midline space in the manuscript. [ ... ] Ellipsis in square brackets indicates missing text of an indeterminate length. [ ] Square brackets with a single intervening space indicate a small break.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Preliminaries

23

« » Guillemets are used when a letter has been overwritten or altered; the letter that has been overwritten or altered is directly to the right of the guillemets and the letter that replaces it is placed within the guillemets. ( ) Parentheses indicate highly conjectural material. { } Curly braces indicate a scribal omission ameliorated by the modern editor. ← Arrows indicate that the current line continues. ° A large raised circellus indicates a broken letter that cannot be identified. ‫ א‬ ‫ׅׄ‬ A dot above and below a letter reflects the ancient manuscripts’ indication that a letter is to be deleted. ‫ א‬ ַֿ A dash above (and sometimes below) a letter reflects the ancient manuscripts’ indication that a letter is to be deleted. ? A raised question mark indicates that the reading is one of several possibilities. ‫ א‬A letter with a strikethrough indicates a scribal erasure. ‫ א‬Superscript letters indicate raised scribal interventions in the manuscript. ╳ This sign marks the marginal x’s used in 1QpHab (see p. 38).

Mesopotamian Texts The system of transliteration employed here should be familiar to most Assyriologists. Akkadian text is written in lower case italic face, Sumerian text is in lower case regular face, heterograms (or logograms) are written in small caps, and markers of semantic domain (or determinatives) and phonetic guides are written in superscript. I have not always used the most up‑to‑date readings of heterograms, and in cases where a reading is contested I have endeavoured to use that value which should be most easily recognizable to those in the field. Raised question marks indicate that the precise identification of a sign is uncertain. Quarter brackets indicate that some part of the sign is damaged in such a way that its identification is not certain. Signs with minor damage that can be identified with a high level of certainty have not been placed in quarter brackets so as to avoid overburdening the presentation of the text. An arrow (→) is used to indicate that although a line break has been inserted in my presentation of a line of text (or its translation), the text of that line in the manuscript is continuous. When discussing the cuneiform texts, I have used the convention of regular caps to refer to particular cuneiform signs, for instance the sign 𒌓 would be referred to as UD irrespective of whether the sign is read in the current text as utu, tam, tú, pir, liḫ, or any other possible syllable, heterogram, or semantic determining value. I have also adopted the common convention of enclosing phonemic transcriptions of a sign between front slashes. For instance, the signs 𒌅 (TU) and 𒌓 (UD) can both have the phonemic value /tu/, 𒌅 (TU) has this phonemic

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

24

Introduction

value with the conventional reading tu (i.e., tu number one), and 𒌓 (UD) has this phonemic value with the conventional reading tú (i.e., tu number two).

Transliterations and Translations For the reader’s convenience, I have provided translations of all modern quotations alongside the quote in its original language. Unless otherwise noted, all translations of ancient languages in this volume are my own. Transliterations of all the Qumran continuous pesharim and also of the Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts can be found in the Appendices, pp. 154–222.25 The editions of texts there are provided with limited notes concerning difficult readings and other issues with respect to establishing the text and form of the ancient manuscripts.

A Note on Working with Manuscripts It has been impossible to work entirely with actual manuscripts in the preparation of this study. Nevertheless, hand copies have been consulted for the Mesopotamian texts in addition to good quality photographs for the two tablets bearing Maqlû commentary. The Cuneiform Commentaries Project at Yale University (http://ccp.yale.edu) came online just as I was completing my research in March 2015, which made it possible for me to make at least a cursory consultation of high quality photographs of several Enūma eliš commentaries,26 of the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary, and of the Babylonian Theodicy commentary. High quality photographs have been used to examine the Qumran texts: both from The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library website (http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ explore‑the‑archive) and The Israel Museum website (http://dss.collections.imj. org.il). Pnina Shor and her assistants Orit Rosengarten and Beatriz Riestra kindly arranged for me to visit the IAA Dead Sea Scrolls lab on 13 April, 2015 to inspect fragments of 4QpappIsac, 4QpHosb, and 4QpPsa in person. The nature of the older Dead Sea Scrolls photos merits a word of caution. As is well known, these photos were taken in such a way that a dark shadow appears offset underneath each manuscript fragment. This shadow may at times look like ink, which explains, for example, the small dark circle on the first line of 4QpIsad f1 between the lemma and the comment. While this looks very much like a delim25  For editions of the other cuneiform commentaries see the bibliography provided in the footnotes of pp. 15–17. 26 Manuscripts K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+12102+16818+Sm 747, Rm 395, K 8585, Rm II 538, BM 54228 (82-5-22, 379), BM 66606+72033 (82-9-18, 6599+12037), and BM 69594 (82-9-18, 9591).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Preliminaries

25

iting dot in all of the photographs of this fragment, it is nothing more than a hole in the manuscript with a dark shadow underneath.27 This phenomenon is also responsible for G. Doudna’s mistaken assertion that the scribe placed an interlinear insertion between lines 3 and 4 in 4QpHosb f2,28 as well as G. Snyder’s incorrect proposal of a series of vertically arranged dots between the lemma and comment in 4QpPsa f1–2 ii 13.29 In both of these cases, what has been observed as ink is in fact a tear in the manuscript, again with a dark shadow underneath it.30

Abbreviations and Citations While most references receive a proper bibliographic citation (author’s last name and short title), such a system is ill‑suited to modern lexical and ancient textual references, where it would be cumbersome for the reader. For Hebrew, Greek, and Latin lexical and grammatical resources as well as ancient texts, see the abbreviations in the SBL manual of style. For references to Mesopotamian lexical and grammatical resources, see the abbreviations in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD); references to cuneiform texts are done either by museum number or in the simple style of the CAD, which generally refers the reader to the editio princeps with modifications to accommodate the organizational structure of the work in which the text is edited.

27  Pnina Shor, Head of Dead Sea Scrolls Projects at Israel Antiquities Authority, graciously offered her assistance in visually inspecting this fragment and confirming that the spot in question is a hole in the parchment and not an ink mark (personal communication, Jan 30, 2014). 28 Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 558. 29  Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 36–37. 30  I first came to this conclusion after very careful review of the photographs, and it was easily confirmed by my personal inspection of the fragments in question.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description The study of the Qumran pesharim as a literary phenomenon has indeed become fraught, yet at the same time comprehensive studies of the Qumran pesharim are conspicuously lacking. A number of studies have been interested primarily in one pesher text or another, or in singular topics within the pesher corpus (along with other exegetical texts from Qumran). The issues of pesher genre and, more commonly, pesher hermeneutics have been relatively popular topics of study, as has the nature of their relationship to both earlier parallels (Jewish, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Egyptian) and later ones (New Testament and Rabbinic), but the precise nature of these relationships has still to be described in definitive terms. In this and the following chapter, I aim to provide a much needed comprehensive literary and form critical analysis of the pesher corpus on its own terms, along with a discussion of pesher as genre, and thus begin to fill a long standing void in pesher scholarship.31 By presenting this assessment of the Qumran pe‑ sharim before discussing the Mesopotamian commentaries, I indicate my own approach to comparative studies, which is to understand the primary target first on its own terms and then to examine how the comparison can alter and enhance that understanding.

Pesher as Genre The term pesher as a literary genre has been used both very strictly to refer to only those texts that use some form of the word ‫ פשר‬before making comment on a base‑text,32 but also more broadly to refer to texts that utilize the same commentarial techniques and style as those commentaries that employ the technical term ‫פשר‬.33 Texts that are pesharim according to the strictest definition do not always employ a form of the word ‫ פשר‬before every commentarial entry (e.g., 4QpIsab unit 4ʹ [2:6] or 4QpappIsac units 12ʹ [f8–10:3] and 13ʹ [f8–10:7]).34 This 31  A. Steudel recently noted that “[u]p to now, there is hardly any study of literary criticism within the exegetical texts”, though in her opinion “it is worthwhile to do so” (Steudel, “Dating Exegetical Texts From Qumran”, 48). 32  So Lim, Pesharim, 15. 33  So Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commentary”, 16 n. 47 and perhaps also Brooke, “Qumran Pesher”, 492. 34  This and other factors have led G. Brooke to propose that the technical term ‫ פשר‬need not even be a necessary marker of the genre (Brooke, “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre”, 492). It is also true that the so‑called thematic pesharim make only limited use of the technical term ‫( פשר‬it occurs rarely in 4QMidrEschata,b and 11QMelchizedek, and not at all in 4QTanḥ ûmîm or 4QTestimonia).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

28

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

fact alone would argue on the pragmatic level against using a genre category based solely on technical vocabulary with this corpus, and in favour of more formal and functional assessment such as M. Bockmuehl’s proposal that the pe‑ sharim at Qumran are “works consisting primarily of sequential, expository annotation of identified texts that are themselves distinguished from the comments and reproduced intact, whether partially or continuously”.35 Following J. Carmignac, the Qumran pesharim have traditionally been divided into two classes: 1) continuous pesharim, which provide a commentary keyed to a more or less intact presentation of the base‑text; and 2) thematic pesharim, which provide commentaries to individual passages from multiple base‑texts that are selected to elucidate a certain theme or issue.36 But after a survey review of the pesharim, M. Bernstein has highlighted the difficulty of defining only these two types of pesharim, and avers “that there is either one sort of pesher or many, but not exactly two”.37 R. Williamson has sought to overcome this difficulty of pesher classification by applying the concept of the idealized cognitive model to the genre of pesher.38 He proposes a pesher genre based on a prototypical model to which members of the genre will bear a family resemblance, as opposed to a model based on a static list of features that any given text must exhibit in order to be a member of the pesher genre. The cognitive model he uses is more concerned with the overall shape, or Gestalt, of the genre than the constituent parts of which it is composed.39 Following this line of thinking, he proposes three characteristics of the pesher genre: “(1) the scriptural citation of a prophetic text is linked to (2) a contemporary referent by means of (3) a pesher interpretation...”.40 Perhaps absent from this definition is the vital role of apocalypticism and the Deuteronomistic theme of divine punishment and reward in the pesharim.41 35  Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commentary”, 4. See also now E. Haber, “The Pesher Units in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 465, who understands the interpretive units with ‫ פשר‬to constitute the “classic” construction (p. 467). 36  Carmignac, “Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédek”. 37  Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation”, 34. 38  Williamson, “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre”. 39  Williamson, “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre”, 349–352. 40  Williamson, “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre”, 351. 41  S. Tzoref certainly highlights these concerns in her definition of pesher as “a form of biblical interpretation peculiar to Qumran, in which biblical poetic/prophetic texts are applied to post‑biblical historical/eschatological settings through various literary techniques in order to substantiate a theological conviction regarding divine reward and punishment” (Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 9–11, see also her previous definitions cited in Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 10, n. 29 and her discussion of pesher and the apocalyptic in Tzoref, “Pesher and Periodization”). E. Jucci had begun to note some of this when he argued that “the belief that the eschaton is at hand ... [and] the centrality of scripture in the life of the community ... are intertwined in the genre pesher” (“la convinzione ..., che la svolta escatologica

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Pesher as Genre

29

The great benefit of this definition is that it allows for a differentiation between the hermeneutic tool of pesher interpretation42 and the literary genre designation pesher. Pesher interpretation refers to the lemma–comment pair, which can be found in various literary genres at Qumran; pesher genre denotes literary works that are comprised of little more than a sequence of related pesher interpretations.43 The flexibility of the idealized cognitive model lies in the possibility for a text to fit within the Gestalt of the genre without necessarily matching all the features typically associated with the prototypical exemplars of the model. This allows for a spectrum within the genre, with some texts being more typical and others less typical. Such a model dovetails rather nicely with M. Bernstein’s admonition against rigid groupings of the Qumran pesharim mentioned above. According to Williamson, texts like 1QpHab, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, and 4QpappIsac, occupy a central position in the pesher genre since they all share the “default feature of a continuous, verse‑by‑verse treatment of the biblical text”.44 I find this description especially useful, for the affinity of the pesher texts remains intact irrespective of the fact that 1QpHab and 4QpNah deal with large portions, or perhaps even the entirety, of a book, while 4QpPsa comments on individual psalms, and 4QpIsab comments on only select portions of its base‑text. Williamson’s genre identification also allows for the inclusion of texts like J. Carmignac’s thematic pesher 11QMelchizedek, even though that text cannot be a central participant within the genre since it is not organized according to a single base‑text. Other traditional thematic pesharim, such as 4QMidrEschata,b 45 – and perhaps 4QTanḥ ûmîm (but not 4QAgesCreat AB) – may not be entirely organized according to the sequence of a particular base text in the same way that 1QpHab or 4QpNah are, but they are strongly keyed to the sequence of one or more sta già per iníziare, ... [e] la centralità della Scrittura nella vita della comunità ... si intrecciano nel genere letterario del pesher” [Jucci, “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”, 151], see also Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, 507). For the particular relationship between the ‫אחרית הימים‬ “latter days” of the pesharim and sectarian literature and the Deuteronomistic cycle of sin‑destruction‑repentance‑restoration, see Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 211–213. 42  Instances of pesher interpretation outside of compositions that belong to the pesher genre have been labelled isolated pesharim by D. Dimant (Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, 504–505. and Dimant, “Pesharim, Qumran”, section A.3). 43  D. Dimant notes the confusion caused by the term pesher since it describes: 1) an exegetical technique; 2) a literary form; and 3) the Qumranic title applied to certain interpretive works themselves (Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, 507). G. Brooke had previously remarked on this issue in conjunction with the comments of G. Vermès (Brooke, “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre”, 484 and Vermès, “Interpretation, History of ”, 438–439). 44  Williamson, “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre”, 358. 45  For the demonstration that 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) and 4QCatena A (4Q177) are two parts of the same composition, see Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrange‑ meinde (4QMidrEschatab).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

30

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

base‑texts.46 In form they are only a little farther removed from the centre of the cognitive model of pesher genre than 4QpappIsac, 4QpIsab, and 4QpPsa,b, all of which present only partial selections from their base‑text or base‑texts.47 In this way 4QpappIsac, 4QpIsab, and 4QpPsa,b stand in an intermediate position between some of the traditionally defined thematic pesharim 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm and the more prototypical continuous pesharim (i.e., 1QpHab and 4QpNah, which appear to interpret their base‑text more or less in its entirety).48 This approach toward pesher as a literary type provides a robust and adaptable system of describing pesher as a genre. The sustained application of the pesher hermeneutic, that is the lemma–comment pair, to a base‑text or texts is the central feature shared by all of the participants in Williamson’s cognitive model of pesher genre. The sequential order of one or several base‑texts is the chief organizing principle in the most distinctive members of this exegetical genre. This description certainly applies to Carmignac’s continuous pesharim, but it is also largely relevant for some of his thematic pesharim, such as 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm. I would add that pesher compositions also deal exclusively with poetry,49 note that 4QpIsab conspicuously omits the prose of Isaiah 6:1–8 from its treatment of Isaiah (it jumps directly from Isaiah 5:30 to 6:9).50

46 4QMidrEschata is strongly sequentially keyed to 2 Samuel 7 and perhaps some psalms; 4QMidrEschatb is sequentially keyed to several psalms; 4QTanḥ ûmîm is sequentially keyed to Isaiah (see Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”). For further detail, see my discussion pesher scope, pp. 65–69. 47  F. García Martínez has already called into question 4QpappIsac’s status as a continuous pesher based on its similarity to the other thematic pesharim, noting that it “mainly consists of a re‑reading of the facts concerning the destruction of Babylon in an eschatological perspective” and “continues to make reference to other biblical texts, whether introduced as such or not, to prove the exact prediction” (“Parece consistir principalmente en una relectura de los hechos concernientes a la destrucción de Babilonia en una perspectiva escatológica” and “... sigue utilizando la referen­cia a otros textos bíblicos, introducidos o no como tales, para probar lo exacto de la predicción” [García Martínez, “El pesher: Interpretación profética de la escritura”, 136–137]). 48  See my discussion pesher scope, pp. 52–55. Even if Pesher Habakkuk is understood to comment on only a portion of its base‑text (the first two of three chapters), it would still represent a stricter adherence to its base‑text than is found in 4QpappIsac, 4QpIsab, and even 4QpPsa,b, since it does not present interpretations of multiple excerpted sections of its base‑text, but rather treats one large scale continuous section in a comprehensive manner. 49  The fragmentary 3QpIsa* might be an exception to this rule. 50 The pesharim generally treat poetry as prophecy (for psalms as prophecy, see 11QPsa 27:11, so Lim, “ ‘All These He Composed through Prophecy’ ” and Flint, “The Prophet David at Qumran”). The treatment of poetry as prophecy generally applies to Targum Jonathan as well, which offers expansive interpretational translations of poetic passages (see, e.g., Judges 5, 1 Samuel 2:1–10, and 2 Samuel 22). For a similar phenomenon in Mesopotamia where āšipūtu, kalûtu, and liturgical works are afforded the status of divine revelation, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries”, 275–276 and 293–294, n. 83.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Selection of Texts

31

What is less certain in my mind is whether or not it would be beneficial to posit thematic concerns, such as an apocalyptic world‑view, as a central feature of the pesher genre as well51 – all of the Qumran pesharim do maintain a typically apocalyptic outlook.52 Nevertheless, I would maintain a clear distinction between the form‑critical features informing the cognitive model of the pesher genre as laid out above and such thematic concerns voiced within them.53

Selection of Texts The preceding cognitive model of the pesher genre has largely been the basis for my selection of manuscripts for further analysis, but the need to select compositions that facilitate the comparison of Qumran commentary works with ones from Mesopotamia has also been a concern. For this reason I have iteratively selected those Qumran commentaries that bear a close formal resemblance to Mesopotamian ones, and vice versa (see the Selection of Corpus, p. 15). To this end the selected Qumran commentaries will consist of explanatory works that are keyed to and based upon quoted lemmas, which are drawn, chiefly in order of occurrence, from a single base‑text.54 The Qumran works that follow this criterion correspond most closely to those commonly labelled under Carmignac’s genrefication as continuous pesharim with minor modifications.55 51  The issue of the relationship between certain portions of the Targumim and the pe‑ sharim, which sometimes do take on an apocalyptic flavour, would be relevant here (Vermès, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran”, 188). See, e.g., the sources listed in Horgan, Pesharim, 249 n. 80. 52  See, e.g., Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 147. 53 Some pesher interpretations, for instance, may have referred only to the past, not the present or future eschaton (see, e.g., Bernstein, “4Q252”, 17–18 and perhaps also my reconstruction of 4QpHosa 1:17). 54  Note that this criterion for selection will be slightly extended at times to allow for more ancillary analyses of the Qumran texts 4QMidrEschata,b, 4QTanḥ ûmîm, and the Mesopotamian commentaries to Maqlû and Šurpu, and to Maqlû and Tummu bītu. The situation with the psalm pesharim is more complicated since it is not possible to posit a single book of Psalms for the Qumran community. Thus, I must understand the psalms pesharim as works keyed to a selection of closely related base‑texts. 55  The list of continuous pesharim studied here corresponds also very closely to that of M. Bockmuehl (Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commentary”, 16 n. 47). For the difficulties in situating texts like 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm within this framework, see my discussion of the scope of Qumran pesharim, p. 68. While those compositions, with the exclusion of 4QMidrEschatb, do largely treat their base‑text(s) in sequential order, they often do not, with the exclusion of 4QTanḥ ûmîm, comment on a single base‑text. Further, 4QTanḥ ûmîm doesn’t use pesher terminology nor is its lemma‑comment system comparable to the other pesharim. Thus these works play only a tangential role in the present study and have been excluded from the corpus proper.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

32

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

The Habakkuk pesher, a scroll which is almost entirely preserved, stands as the most complete exemplar of these commentaries. A number of other similarly constructed commentary texts have sizable portions of running text: 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, 4QpIsab, 4QpappIsac (the first hand),56 4QpHosa, and the continuous pesher to Genesis 49 in 4QcommGen A.57 Since these are the best preserved of the pesher commentaries, they form the primary basis for the following analyses. The remaining pesher manuscripts that could be included in the study are either quite fragmentary or just scraps: 1QpMic, 1QpPs, 1QpZeph, 3QpIsa*,58 4QpApocWeeks* (4Q247),59 4QpMal* (4Q253a),60 4QpMic* (4Q168),61 4QpHosb, 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsad, 4QpIsae, 4QpPsb, 4QpZeph, 5Qp10 (either 5QapocrMal or 5QpMal?), and the continuous pesher to Genesis 49 in 4QcommGen C.62 Several other manuscripts – mostly fragmentary – might have fit within the framework

56  The roman numerals when used with 4QpappIsac denotes the two scripts: I stands for the longer text in square script, II stands for the several remains in cursive script. 57  For a description of this section of 4QcommGen A as a pesher see the comments below. 58  3QpIsa* bears the incipit of Isaiah, provides some further historical information, and then mentions the day of judgement, ‫יום המשפט‬. The day of judgement is also mentioned in 1QpHab 12:14, and that shared locution may be an indicator that 3QpIsa* is a pesher text. G. Brooke also notes that the empty space on line five of the text may be a physical indicator of the pesher form of utilizing a vacat between the comment and the lemma (Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 620). On the other hand, there is no other evidence for pesharim treating prose passages as 3QpIsa* would, and 4QpIsab even goes so far as to omit the prose of Isaiah 6:1–8 from its treatment of that book. 59  For the definition of this text as a pesher, see Broshi, “A Commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247)”, but see the discussion below for arguments against including it in this study. 60  The fragments of this manuscript preserve only Malachi 3:16–18 followed by some unclear remains. Given the popularity of this passage from Malachi in Qumran literature (4Q417 f2 i:13–18 and [possibly Qumranic] CD ms. B 20.17–21) and the fact that this manuscript preserves nothing more of Malachi, it is not yet prudent to classify the manuscript as a continuous pesher on Malachi. 61  4QpMic* has a long citation from Micah 4:8c‑12 on three joined fragments and three small separate fragments associated with this manuscript bearing words that are not from Micah. I remain far from certain that these three small fragments belong with the three joined ones, or that they contain comments proper. The three joined fragments may simply constitute another copy of Micah and not an exegetical work. 62  The integrity of each pesher’s manuscript remains can be sorted hierarchically as follows (with 1 being the most well preserved and 5 being the least well preserved): 1. Texts with multiple full columns and multiple full lines: 1QpHab, 4QpNah. 2. Texts with one full column and multiple full lines: 4QpHosa, 4QpPsa. 3. Texts with multiple incomplete columns and some full lines: 4QpIsab, 4QpappIsac, 4QcommGen A. 4. Texts with multiple incomplete columns and no full lines: 1QpMic, 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsae, 4QpHosb, 4QcommGen C, 4QpMal*. 5. Texts with an indeterminate number of incomplete columns and no full lines: 1QpPs, 1QpZeph, 3QpIsa*, 4QpIsad, 4QpMic*, 4QpZeph, 4QpPsb, 5QpMal?

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Selection of Texts

33

of compositions studied here (for instance, 4Q172,63 4Q183, and 4Q249), but their remains are too meagre for a proper accounting.64 Several pesher texts mentioned above merit brief discussion since they are only sometimes included among the continuous pesharim: 4QcommGen A and C both contain a pesher to Genesis 49 (4QcommGen A 4:3–6:4, and 4QcommGen C f5–6:1–f7:5). G. Brooke has rightly described 4QcommGen A 4:3–6:4 as a “pesher proper” on the grounds of its form and function, for it appears to present the text of Genesis 49 in its entirety, interspersed with comments using a proper pesher introductory formula ‫פשרו אשר‬.65‎4QcommGen C f5–6:1–f7:5 is more fragmentary, but appears in a location similar to 4QcommGen A 4:3–6:4, and in a somewhat similar work. For this reason, the pesher to Genesis 49 as found in these two manuscripts has been placed alongside the other continuous pesharim as further examples of the genre. 4QpApocWeeks* (4Q247) is a Hebrew explanatory text dealing with the Apocalypse of Weeks, which is preserved in 1 Enoch 93:1–10 + 91:11–17. The fact that it does not preserve any introductory formulae with ‫ פשר‬is perhaps due to its present fragmentary state, a situation which cannot strictly be used to argue for its exclusion from the group of continuous pesharim. 4QpApocWeeks* f1:2–3 presents text corresponding to 1 Enoch 93:7 followed by new material that appears explanatory in nature, and the surrounding lines then appear to correspond to the rest of the Apocalypse of Weeks in the same order.66 This might 63  For a description of how this text belongs with 4Q383–391 as an “exegetical text reworking scriptural texts rather freely”, see Hasselbach, “Two Approaches to the Study of Genre in 4Q172”, 117. 64  See also the discussion of 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm in the section Pesher as Genre, pp. 29–30. 65  Brooke, “The Genre of 4Q252”, 173. 66  Line 1 mentions something being inscribed, perhaps divine law, and could correspond to 1 Enoch 93:6, which deals with the Sinai theophany and the establishment of a covenant; lines 2–3 contains the quote corresponding to 1 Enoch 93:7, which deals with the building of the Solomonic temple; line 4 probably mentions Zedekiah, and corresponds to the destruction of the temple and exile described in 1 Enoch 93:8; line 5 mentions the Levites and people of the land, who may correspond to the chosen in 1 Enoch 93:10; and line 6 mentions the king of the Kittim, which can be connected to the military activities mentioned in 1 Enoch 91:12. For a further description of the schema in the 4QApocWeeks, see Fröhlich, “Qumran Biblical Interpretation”, 840–842 and Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature”, 405. From a structural standpoint, M. Broshi wonders, “why should the ‘period engraved in the heavenly tablets’ be mentioned in the middle of the work” (Broshi, “247”, 187)? This is really a non–issue since the “heavenly tablets” and the “period” are both fully restored text. The text of 4QApocWeeks only contains ‫ קוק‬in line 1, which does suggest ‫ חקוק‬but implies nothing further, notwithstanding Broshi’s suggested parallels (Broshi, “247”, 189.). It seems more prudent to correlate the “inscription” in this passage with creation of the tablets of the ten commandments and the formulation of the covenant code which fits squarely within week 4 (1 Enoch 93:6), the week in which the eternal covenant is formed and the tabernacle is constructed.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

34

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

have favoured the identification of 4QpApocWeeks* as a continuous pesher to a (perhaps free‑standing) Hebrew version of the Apocalypse of Weeks – 4QpApocWeeks* is written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic, the language of 1 Enoch. However, this work varies markedly from the other pesher compositions in that it fails to link the base‑text to post‑biblical historical or eschatological settings, a feature that S. Tzoref has highlighted as quite consistent within the other continuous pesharim. Thus, this text presents itself more‑so as an expansion upon the Apocalypse of Weeks that still falls squarely among the other schematizations or periodizations of history, and will not be treated here as a pesher.

Dating and Palaeography of Manuscripts The dating of Qumran manuscripts involves two main approaches: the palaeography of the script, which corresponds roughly to specific time periods, and carbon 14 dating. Any dating of a manuscript must keep these two points in mind, for neither is absolute in its own right.67 B. Webster has recently updated the dating of the Qumran manuscripts in DJD XXXIX, and these are the dates presented here, albeit with continued reservations. The oldest paleographically dated pesharim are 4QpIsad (150–126 bce) and 4QpappIsac (100–75 bce). Recent carbon‑14 dating has established a date of 88–2 bce for 1QpHab – unsurprising given that its Herodian script provides a palaeographic dating to the second half of the first century bce. But the same carbon‑14 dating has pushed the date of 4QpPsa far later than had otherwise been anticipated (29–81 ce), which might suggest that the dating of other manuscripts written in a similar script (1QpHab, 4QpNah, and others), and perhaps even the same hand (4QpHosa and 4QpIsaa), would need to be adjusted to much later dates as well. G. Doudna, however, has argued to the contrary that the carbon‑14 dating for 4QpPsa is probably in error due to contamination of the sample, and it should be dated more similarly to 1QpHab.68 Whatever the truth may be, the unexpected carbon‑14 dating of 4QpPsa serves as a warning against any absolute dating of Qumran manuscripts and reinforces the need for a reanalysis of the precise value of palaeographic dating. With such a caveat in mind, palaeographic dating suggests that the other pesher manuscripts fall roughly within the third (50–25 bce: 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsab, 4QpHosa, 4QpHosb, 4QpMic*, 4QpNah, and 4QpMal*) or fourth quarter (30–1 bce: 4QpIsae, 4QpPsb, 4QcommGen A, and 4QcommGen C)

67  See especially Van De Water, “Reconsidering Palaeographic and Radiocarbon Dating”. 68  See Doudna, “Dating the Scrolls” and Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 42–43.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary

35

of the first century bce, with only a few possibly dating to the first century ce (30 bce–68 ce: 3QpIsa*; 1–100 ce: 5QpMal?69). Only two pesharim were written in a Hasmonean period script, whether that be semi‑formal (4QpappIsac I70), or a semi‑cursive Hasmonean or semi‑formal vulgar Herodian (4QpIsad). Two others use a formal script found both in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods (4QpNah, 4QpMal*). All other manuscripts utilize decidedly Herodian period scripts, whether specifically early (1QpMic, 4QpIsae, 4QcommGen A, 4QcommGen C) or not (3QpIsa*, 1QpHab, 1QpZeph, 5QpMal?). The most common script is a rustic semi‑formal Herodian one (4QpPsa, 4QpIsaa, 4QpHosa, 4QpHosb,71 4QpIsab,72 4QpMic*, 4QpZeph), with book hands, both specifically early (4QpPsb) or not (1QpPs), being far less common.

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary These Qumran pesher compositions did not come to being in a vacuum, indeed various types of interpretive activities that appear in the Hebrew Bible can provide a backdrop against which pesher hermeneutics and perhaps even the pesher genre developed. In some cases, one biblical passage seems to know another but presents an expanded or contrary version of it, such as the laws concerning the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21:2–11, then Deuteronomy 15:12–18, and finally Leviticus 25:39–46.73 Such instances of inner‑biblical exegesis, while reflecting a similar impulse to reinterpret written sources, are quite different from the formal presentation of interpretive comments in the Qumran pesharim, which preserves its base‑text in toto. On the other hand, instances of explicative glosses and the explicit interpretation of earlier works within the Hebrew Bible provide more 69  The date range of 1–100 bce in DJD XXXIX, 429 is a typo for 1–100 ce as Milik indicated when he assessed it to be “writing from the first century of the common era” (“Écriture du Ier siècle de notre ère”). 70  Fragments 2, 37, 45–49, and possibly fragment 44 apparently do belong to the same manuscript, but are written in a cursive hand. 71 4QpPsa, 4QpIsaa, and 4QpHosa, as well as 4QpHosb, may perhaps all be the product of a single scribe. 72  But this is a more vulgar form of the rustic semi‑formal Herodian hand. 73  See, e.g., the summary in Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 113–115 and the sources listed there. B. Levinson discusses the way in which Leviticus 25:44–46 uses lemmatic citation from Exodus 21:2, 6 to reinterpret the Covenant Code’s slave law (“The Birth of the Lemma”, 617–639). For a detailed discussions of the phenomenon in general, see Fishbane, Biblical In‑ terpretation in Ancient Israel. More recent discussions of this phenomenon have been collected in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2.3 (2013) and a survey of the secondary literature can be found in Zakovitch, “Inner‑biblical Interpretation”, 27–29. For a discussion of how the distinction between inner‑biblical and extra‑biblical exegesis can be inappropriate and anachronistic, see Zakovitch, “Inner‑biblical Interpretation”, 29–37.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

36

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

similar predecessors and early analogues to the type of work carried out in the Qumran pesharim, since they are additive in their reinterpretation – they supplement a work rather than rewriting it.

Glosses Explicative glosses in the Hebrew Bible are a well‑known phenomenon.74 These usually involve a short verbless clause, which can be introduced in various ways: 76 or with ‫זֶ ה‬.77 Such glosses may be unmarked as well, as with ְ‫ו‬,75 with ‫היא‬/‫הּוא‬, ִ in 1 Kings 11:19 (‫)ּת ְח ְּפנֵ יס ַהּגְ ִב ָירה‬ ַ where the obscure word ‫“ ַּת ְח ְּפנֵ יס‬consort of the king” is translated into Hebrew as ‫“ ּגְ ִב ָירה‬queen”. These glosses serve a number of explanatory purposes to aid in the reading of the text and primarily constitute “secondary annotations of words, persons, and places”.78 Glosses may also go further at times and serve to guide the reader in more interpretive matters. For example, the gloss ‫ל־המֹונֹה‬ ֲ ‫“ הּוא ַפ ְרעֹה וְ ָכ‬that is Pharaoh and all his host” in Ezekiel 31:18 serves to explain that the prophecy in Ezekiel 31:2–18 applies specifically to Egypt and not to Assyria as verse 3 of that chapter might lead one to believe.79 It is not always easy to determine who added such glosses to the text. Some could have had their origin in the earliest stages of writing the text, but others were certainly the product of later copyists. An example of the latter is the gloss ‫“ זֶ ה ַה ַּביִת‬this is the house (i.e. temple)” in the middle of Ezra 3:12. This gloss interrupts the syntax of the sentence enough to suggest that it was not part of the original text, but instead found its way into it rather awkwardly at a later date. Partially on the basis of syntax, M. Goshen‑Gottstein proposed that Isaiah 9:14 is an explanatory gloss with particular affinity to the pesher exegesis.80 This verse makes two equations which reorient Isaiah 9:13 from a merism connoting mass destruction, to the specific destruction of the trusted members of society and the false prophets. Such allegorical interpretation is found already in first Isaiah (see, e.g., Isaiah 5:7), but Goshen‑Gottstein points out that the syntax of 9:14 is unparalleled in the prophetic corpus and that the second interpretation appears to draw upon Isaiah 3:2–3, while the mention of ‫ה־ּׁש ֶקר‬ ֶ ‫מֹור‬ ֶ seems to harmonize this passage with 74  See, e.g., Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 44–65, Fishbane, “Inner‑Biblical Exegesis”, 36–37, and Tov, “Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions”. 75  See, e.g., Genesis 12:6 ‫וְ ַה ְּכנַ ֲענִ י ָאז ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬. 76  See, e.g., Genesis 14:17 ‫ הּוא ֵע ֶמק ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬and Joshua 18:13 ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫היא ֵּב‬.ִ 77  See, e.g., Ezra 3:12 ‫זֶ ה ַה ַּביִת‬. For the possible use of ‫ ֶאת‬as the marker of a gloss see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 48–51. 78 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 44. 79 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 46–48. 80  Goshen‑Gottstein, “Hebrew Syntax and the History of the Bible Text”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary

37

Habakkuk 2:18, which also contains that locution. The similarity in exegetical method suggests a close connection between the gloss in Isaiah 9:14 and Qumran pesher interpretation, even though they differ in syntactic form: the structure of the gloss in Isaiah 9:14 is interpretive identification→pronoun→keyword citation; the identifying glosses in the continuous pesharim (with the partial exception of 4QCommGen A and 1QpHab 9:7) are exactly the reverse: keyword citation→pronoun→interpretive identification. Isaiah 9:14 is attested in all the versions, and so should antedate the translation of Isaiah into Greek, nevertheless this leaves dating quite open to anywhere from the pre‑exilic to the Second Temple period, and a late date for the insertion would correspond well with the widespread usage of this hermeneutic technique at Qumran. The types of glosses found in the biblical corpus are typically quite short, such terse interpretations do occur from time to time in the pesharim as well,81 but it is much more common for them to be at least slightly longer.82 All of these gloss type comments within the sphere of Qumran pesharim, however, have a very different nature than their biblical counterparts: they are not primarily interested in explicating the original meaning of the base‑text or in harmonizing passages (as the case may be in Isaiah 9:14), though admittedly that can occur, rather they seek to reveal meanings hidden in the base‑text that reorient it to their present eschatological context and religious concerns.

Commentary Type Activity Small explicative glosses are indeed found throughout the early Jewish scriptures that would come to constitute the Hebrew Bible, as are various types of versional differences that may relate to interpretational activity.83 Some biblical passages, however, also engage in the reinterpretation of other pre‑existing works. In several cases this is implicit, such as the famous example of 2 Chronicles 35:13, which harmonizes the laws regarding the cooking of the Passover lamb in Exodus 12:9 and Deuteronomy 16:7.84 Nehemiah 8:8 presents a narrative context in which 81  1QpHab 12:3, 4QpNah f3–4iii:9.1, 4QpNah f3–4iii:11. A short comment ‫כיא המה יתר‬ ‫ העמים‬occurs at the end of a long comment section in 1QpHab 8:16–9:7. ‫ יתר העמים‬is a keyword from the lemma and ‫ המה‬refers to ‫ הכתיאים‬from the comment, and as such represents a secondary explanation that has been tacked on to the pre‑existing comment (see p. 146). 82  See my discussion of the comments lacking an introductory formula and the embedded keyword–comment pairs (pp. 70–71), as well as of the formulas with ‫ פשרו‬not syntactically connected to the comment (p. 73). 83  For this phenomenon, see, e.g., Teeter, Scribal Laws. 84  See, e.g., Segal, Parshanut ha‑Miqra, 6 and Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 135–138. In fact, Chronicles itself is mainly a rewriting and reorganization of much of the material found in Samuel–Kings.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

38

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

God’s teaching is read publicly and perhaps interpreted (‫ פרׁש‬Pual) for the masses.85 But the first instance of interpreted divine word presented in the Hebrew Bible – as opposed to interpreted visions and dreams – appears in Daniel 5, where Daniel is given divine understanding to interpret a message written on a wall by God’s hand during a banquet feast held by the Babylonian king Belshazzar. Later in Daniel 9, the reinterpretation of written word is taken one step further when it is applied to recorded prophecy.86 Daniel 9:1–2 explains the need for a corrected interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning how long Jerusalem would lay in ruins (presumably Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10 [36:10 LXX]).87 Daniel makes his request for help in v. 3, and a new interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy conveyed by God’s messenger the angel Gabriel in vv. 24–27 reveals that Jeremiah’s original prophecy of seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem should rather be understood as seventy times seven years.88 This passage in Daniel is particularly instructive since it provides not only the contents of an explicative comment on Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10, but also the narrative context in which such a comment would be desired, requested, and received. The passage indicates that such comments resulted when a reader encountered a passage which could not be accounted for – the math in Jeremiah

85  For a comparison of the possible ritual context of the reading of scripture (and the interpretation of it) in Nehemiah with the practices of the Qumran community (as mentioned in 1QS 6:6–8), see Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”, 346. 86  See, e.g., Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible, 111–112, Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 156, Fröhlich, “Le Genre Litteraire Des Pesharim De Qumran”, 386, Collins, Daniel, 358–359, Tigay, History, Historiography, and Interpretation, 173– 174, Fröhlich, “Pesher, Apocalyptical Literature and Qumran”, 303, and most comprehensively Szörényi, “Das Buch Daniel”. For a more general discussion of Daniel as the earliest example of apocalyptic reinterpretation of written prophecy, see Fröhlich, “Pesher, Apocalyptical Literature and Qumran” and Tigay, History, Historiography, and Interpretation, 188–189. In fact, many portions of Daniel involve reinterpretation of scripture, see Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel, especially 31–38. A. Mertens has marshalled a large amount of comparative data between Daniel and the Qumran sectarians that indicate a connection between the Maccabean redactor of Daniel and the Qumran sectarians (Mertens, Das Buch Daniel). 87  That is, Daniel interprets either the text as we know it from those passages in Jeremiah or some Jeremiah tradition quite similar to them. 88  The number 70 was typological for such prophecies of destruction even in the wider Ancient Near Eastern context. For a strikingly analogous mathematical reinterpretation of a prophesied seventy year term of punishment, see Marduk’s reduction of Babylon’s abandonment from 𒁹𒌋 (60+10), seventy, years to 𒌋𒁹 (10+1), eleven, years by reversing the order of the wedges (perhaps effectively by turning the tablet upside down): RINAP 4 104ii:2–9, 105ii:16– 22, and 114ii:12–18; it is also referred to in 116 obv. 19ʹ). For a discussion of the phenomenon of number metathesis in Mesopotamia, see Beaulieu, “An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing”, 4–6. An additional instance of number metathesis is found in K 2164+ where 𒌋𒁹𒁹 (10+1+1), 12, is equated with 𒁹𒁹𒌋 (60+60+10), 130 (Pearce, “Babylonian Commentaries and Intellectual Innovation”, 334).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary

39

25:11–12 or 29:10 did not compute for the writer of Daniel 9.89 The explanation for the difficult passage then comes to the reader of the prophecy from a divine source – here, the divine word conveyed to Daniel through the mouth of the angel Gabriel.

Implications for Qumran Commentaries Further evidence from the book of Daniel suggests the intermediary historical stages between the application of pesher interpretational techniques to dreams (so Daniel 2, 4, 7, and 4QEn Giantsa f8:13, 4QEn Giantsb I ii 14, 23, and iii 10) and to omen (so Daniel 5) and the usage of them to reorient recorded prophecy to a new context.90 The dream in Daniel 4 is a literary construct drawn from the imagery of a written oracle in Ezekiel 31, not an actual dream.91 As such, the heuristic methods of onieromancy are being partially shifted in Daniel 4 from 89  The Chronicler reads Jeremiah’s prophecy as referring to the time of exile between the destruction of the temple and an order from Cyrus to rebuild it in his first regnal year (2 Chronicles 36:20–23 and also Ezra 1:1 and 2ff). Zechariah proposes a date in the second year of Darius as the end of a seventy-year punishment of Jerusalem (Zechariah 1:12). But for the writer of the Hebrew passages of Daniel, in the period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Jeremiah’s prophecy could not properly apply to the period of political subservience leading to the atrocities of Antiochus. So the prophecy is placed within a grander time scale similar to the periodization of time according to weeks or jubilees of years (perhaps Leviticus 26:18 provided a scriptural basis for the multiplication of the punishment by seven [70 x 7 = 490], see, e.g., Zakovitch, “Inner‑biblical Interpretation”, 50–51). A similar reorientation of prophecy occurs in 4 Ezra 12:10–30, which applies the prophecies in Daniel 7 to the political context of the Roman Empire, but the reinterpretation there is conveyed directly by God to Ezra. 90  For the similarities between Pesher Habakkuk and Daniel 2, 4, 5, and 7, as well as specific lexical similarities between Daniel 9 and Pesher Habakkuk, see Elliger, Studien zum Haba‑ kuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 156 and Mertens, Das Buch Daniel, especially ch. 7. A more general overview of how Daniel compares to pesher literature can be found in Szörényi, “Das Buch Daniel” and Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, 78–80. For Daniel 9 as somehow intermediate between Midrash and pesher, see Collins, Daniel, 359, or as intermediary between Daniel and Petirah, see Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle”, 329. 91  C. Anderson has recently argued that the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4 has its roots in an interpretation of Ezekiel 31 (Anderson, “The Compositional History of Daniel 4”). He has claimed that the image of a mighty cedar cut down and destroyed in Ezekiel 31 was the basis for the dream in Daniel 4:10–17. With this fallen tree motif in dream form, rather than written prophecy, Daniel is able to atomize it and apply symbols to it – traditional interpretational techniques of onieromancy. I. Fröhlich has already noted that Ezekiel 31 and Daniel 4:10–17 share “the same system of imagery” (Fröhlich, “Pesher, Apocalyptical Literature and Qumran”, 300), nevertheless, the close parallels in the two texts weigh in favor of Anderson’s hypothesis. Such a tree motif may have its roots ultimately in Judges 9:7–15 and continues on into later Qumran and Jewish texts (see, e.g., Hogeterp, “Daniel and the Daniel Qumran Cycle”, 186–190 and n. 66, to which list should be added at least Genesis Apocryphon 13–15).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

40

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

the practical real‑world application of the professional dream interpreter into the realm of the literary.92 At the same time, the story in Daniel 5, where Daniel interprets the words that God wrote on the wall before king Belshazzar, applies interpretational hermeneutics to ominous written words.93 From the type of interpretation found in these two chapters (Daniel 4 and 5) it is a much smaller step for the same heuristic methods to be directly applied to the interpretation of written prophetic texts in Daniel 9. Daniel 9 is even more instructive for the background of pesher interpretation because it records the context in which this early Jewish commentary‑writing took place. In the same way that Daniel’s lament of his inability to understand Jeremiah’s prophecy in Daniel 9:2–3 implies that the prophecy was in some way less than complete,94 1QpHab 7:1–2 notes that God did not provide a full revelation to the prophet Habakkuk.95 Daniel receives the true clarification of Jeremiah’s prophecy by new divine communication, through the agency of God’s messenger Gabriel.96 Likewise, both 1QpHab 7:3–5 and 2:8–10 convey that God gave the teacher of righteousness the true meaning of the prophet Habakkuk’s 92  Note also that written prophecies do eventually come to be understood as visions or dreams (Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 301–302), which goes hand in hand with the transition from the interpretation of dreams to the interpretation of prophetic texts. For a comparison of pesher interpretation with later Jewish dream interpretation, see, e.g., Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle”, 332–335 and Finkel, “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures”. 93  For the connection between the hermeneutics of Mesopotamian divination and the hermeneutics of Daniel 5, see Broida, “Textualizing Divination”. For the place of Daniel 5 within the evolution of the pesher genre, see Kratz, “Die Pescharim von Qumran”, 94. 94  I accept M. Segal’s argument that Daniel 9 portrays the prophecy of Jeremiah as being already fulfilled (Segal, “The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9”), but only in respect to Jeremiah 25:12, which portends the destruction of the Babylonians, nothing more. I disagree that Daniel 9 also envisions the prophecy of Jeremiah 29 as being fulfilled, that is a different prophecy, which foretells the return of Judah from exile. The narrative sequence of Daniel 9 places Daniel at a point in time following the destruction of Babylon, but preceding the return from exile. It is the second Jeremianic prophecy of chapter 29 that Daniel sought to actualize with his acts of prayer (cf. Jeremiah 29:12–14), as Segal suggests (p. 291), and the revelation brought by Gabriel should still be understood as a reinterpretation of that prophecy – a reinterpretation both of its duration and its outcomes. Whether or not this understanding impacts the starting point of the 490 years, which is a large focus of Segal’s argument, remains unclear to me. 95 In 4 Ezra 12:10–30 an alternate interpretation of the vision in Daniel 7 is revealed to Ezra by God, but unlike 1QpHab 7:1–2 it is not presented in such a way as to render the previous interpretation necessarily obsolete. For a general discussion of 4 Ezra’s usage and reinterpretation of Daniel 7, see Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra, 124 and Collins, Daniel, 83 and 324. For the connection between the type of reinterpretation found in 4 Ezra 12:10–30 and reinterpretation in pesher literature, see Jucci, “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”, 155–156. 96  For a discussion of the divine origin of pesher revelation in Daniel’s dream interpretations, see García Martínez, “El pesher”, 127–129.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary

41

oracular secrets. The access to this special knowledge is attributed to the special God‑given understanding (‫)ּבינָ ה‬ ִ that each interpreter receives (Daniel 9:2297 and 1QpHab 2:8 [partially restored]).98 A. Lange is correct in calling to mind Ben Sira 39:6 (LXX) as an explicit description of “the phenomenon of interpretation as revelation”:99 1Πλὴν

τοῦ ἐπιδιδόντος τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ διανοουμένου ἐν νόμῳ ὑψίστου, σοφίαν πάντων ἀρχαίων ἐκζητήσει καὶ ἐν προφητείαις ἀσχοληθήσεται, 2... καὶ ἐν στροφαῖς παραβολῶν συνεισελεύσεται, 3ἀπόκρυφα παροιμιῶν ἐκζητήσει ... 6ἐὰν κύριος ὁ μέγας θελήσῃ, πνεύματι συνέσεως ἐμπλησθήσεται· αὐτὸς ἀνομβρήσει ῥήματα σοφίας αὐτοῦ ... 7αὐτὸς κατευθυνεῖ βουλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις αὐτοῦ διανοηθήσεται...

1But

the one who devotes himself to and contemplates the law of the Most High, seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients, and is occupied with prophecies; 2... and delves into the turns of parables; 3he seeks out the mysteries in proverbs. ... 6If the great Lord wills it, he will be filled with the spirit of comprehension; he will pour forth words of his wisdom. ... 7He (the Lord) will direct his deliberation and knowledge, and he will contemplate His mysteries ...

The type of divinely inspired interpretation discussed in this passage provides a nice parallel to the well‑known passages in 1QpHab 2:8–10 and 7:3–5 that relate the teacher of righteousness’s special election as an interpreter of scripture. The source of divine revelation in Ben Sira is not a message from an angelic being, as in Daniel 9, or divine revelation to the interpreter, as in 1QpHab, but rather divinely apportioned interpretative faculties.100 Thus Ben Sira and the pesharim, 97  ‫ ִּבינָ ה‬in Daniel 9:22 provides closure to the process of textual interpretation begun in verse 2 with ‫( ִבינ ִֹתי‬Qal or shortened Hifil, see GKC §73a and JM §81d), which must in context refer to the process of attempting to understand rather than having already acquired understanding. 98  B. Nitzan even go so far as to claim that the Qumran method of interpretation was learned from the book of Daniel; that is, the three step format consisting of a quotation of the words of the prophecy, a technical connecting term (‫פשר מלתא‬,‎‫פשר הדבר‬,‎etc...), and the words of the pesher (Nitzan, “The Pesher and Other Methods of Instruction”, 214–215 and n. 19). 99  “[D]as Phänomen von Interpretation als Offenbarung” (Lange, “Interpretation als Offenbarung”, 33). 100  A similar situation of revelation within the realm of human intellect is found in the Neo‑Assyrian empire of the first millennium bce. Access to esoteric and divine knowledge is institutionalized there within the scribal academy, and as the astrologer Balasî says to Assurbanipal, “[r]eally, [the one] who has [not] had (the meaning) pointed out to him cannot possibly understand it” (SAA 10, 60). The role of scholars in the revelation of divine secrets is underscored by the colophon BAK no. 519: “seeing the great gods is a secret of the heavens and the earth; seeing a mukallimtu‑commentary is a secret of the scholars.”

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

42

Qumran Commentaries: A General Description

at nearly the same point in time,101 share a common outlook regarding their role as interpreters of prophecy. The difference between the two is that the teacher of righteousness and the Danielic authors focus on revelation concerning the eschaton by means of divine verbal communication while Ben Sira is more interested in uncovering the mysteries of the world through the use of divinely bestowed cognitive abilities.102 So, already by the early–to–mid second century bce the divinely inspired work of the exegete described in Daniel 9 was developing in two different trajectories.103 1QpHab commentary unit 9 reveals an attempt to bring these two interests into some degree of alignment with each other, albeit with a strong emphasis on the apocalyptic. This passage explains that the teacher of righteousness both receives direct communication from God (2:2–3), but has also received a divine gift of understanding (2:8–10), which allows him to rightly interpret (‫ )רשפ‬the written scriptures.104 Pesher interpretation at Qumran has very clearly defined roots within wider interpretive traditions of early Judaism.105 It draws heavily on interpretive methods and styles that preceded it and can be understood as a natural development from the types of revelatory scenarios presented in Daniel and in other passages 101  The wisdom poem in Ben Sira 38:24–39:11 followed by the brief autobiographical note in 39:12 appears to be part of one of the latest phases in the compositional structure of the book (Corley, “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira”, 42–43), and as such rather near to the time of the earliest pesher manuscript, 4QpIsad (see the section Dating and Paleography of Manuscripts, pp. 25–26). 102  A similar understanding to Ben Sira’s may also be found in the 1Q/4QInstruction manuscripts, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 314–323. 103  These two trajectories correspond in some ways to the distinction between wisdom and apocalypticism, for which see Corley, “Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1–10” and Popović, “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts”, 82. A similar dichotomy is found as well in the distinction between proverbial wisdom and mantic wisdom, see Collins, “The Court‑Tales in Daniel”, 232. But the differences between wisdom and apocalypticism should not be overstated, for they did not entirely part ways in the Second Temple period (see, e.g., the excellent collection of studies that arose from the SBL Wisdom and Apocalypticism Group [1994–2002] in Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, eds., Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism). 104  1QpHab 7:4–5, ‎‫“ מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים‬the teacher of righteousness whom God let know all the secrets of the words of His servants, the prophets”, is sufficiently vague about the mechanics of the transmission of secret knowledge from God to the teacher of righteousness that it could be aligned with either of the two perspectives presented in 1QpHab commentary unit 9. 105  K. Elliger also understands the pesher techniques of Qumran to be similar to those alluded to in Ecclesiastes 8:1 (Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 126). The application of past prophecy to present events in pesher style can also be found in second century bce Alexandria in the words of Onias as reported in Josephus’s Antiquities, and perhaps also in the Letter of Aristeas (see Kovelman, Between Alexandria and Jerusalem, 120 and 130–131).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

The Jewish Backgrounds of Qumran Commentary

43

in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, it apparently continued to be in dialogue with Jewish interpretation of the Second Temple period and perhaps even sought in 1QpHab 2:8–10 to bring itself more in line with mainstream ideologies. But the creation of a literary genre of interpretive compositions devoted to large scale and often methodical interpretation of scripture is an innovation unique in Second Temple Judaism, so far as we presently know, to the sectarian literature at Qumran.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description Given that the Qumran pesher commentaries do constitute a coherent grouping with regard to genre, a careful analysis of literary and form critical features within them should suggest further affinities of the corpus and also shed light on aberrant or rare features found within it. The structure of the pesher exegetical unit (i.e., citation→introductory formula→interpretation) has received due scholarly attention, but discussions of broader structural tendencies throughout a pesher composition are less common, and analyses of that sort dealing with multiple pesharim are even more rare. The following studies are intended as an update and reanalysis of the present data in order to foster a better understanding of the nature of the corpus as a whole.

Physical Layout and Paratextual Features The Qumran pesharim are written on scrolls of varying heights and lengths, which are all made of parchment sheets with the exception of the papyrus manuscript 4QpappIsac.106 These texts are arranged in ruled columns of justified text, which are attested with anywhere from twelve (4QpNah) to as many as twenty‑seven (4QpPsa) lines of text. Blank space is often used in the texts as a visual cue for structural, or even thematic,107 divisions within the text marking the border between lemmas and comments, the transition from one commentary unit to the

106  It is not clear whether the use of papyrus points to the origin of this manuscript in an early period of the writings of the followers of the teacher of righteousness, to the nature of the composition as a document for personal usage (see, Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 32– 33), or to a non‑literary assessment of its nature (see, e.g., Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments from Masada”, 29). The ratio of one papyrus pesher text to between fifteen and nineteen parchment pesharim is not far from the ratio of papyrus to parchment texts at Masada (one to fourteen), or even the rest of the Qumran caves, less than 100 papyrus manuscripts for over 700 parchment scrolls (see, e.g., Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments from Masada”, 26). If the use of papyrus for 4QpappIsac should be construed as an indicator of that manuscript as a personal or provisional document, then perhaps 4QpapIsap should also be counted among the pesharim, as hinted by Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert, 112 and n. 5. 107  For the opinion that the vacats in 4QpPsa divide the text into thematically grouped units, see the work of Katzin, “ ‘The Time of Testing’ ”, Charlesworth and McSpadden, “The Sociological and Liturgical Dimensions of Psalm Pesher 1 (4QPPSa)”, and Keener, “Greater Than the Sum of the Parts”. G. Doudna’s discussion of the use of vacats as scribal creations of “arbitrary patterns repeated mechanically at intervals” (Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 233–252, especially 251–252) remains less convincing (see the criticisms voiced by S. Tzoref in Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 299–301, especially n. 32).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

46

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

next, or the subdivisions within larger or more complex comments108 – though there are many formal text divisions that are not set off with any visual marker. The scribe of the first eleven and a half columns of 1QpHab uses blank space only to mark the transition from a lemma to its comment and to mark subdivisions within a comment; blank space in that scroll does not separate one commentary unit from another (e.g., 1QpHab unit 17):109 ‫למה תביטו בוגדים ותחריש‬5:8 ‫‏‬vacat ‫רשע צדיק ממנו‏‬5:9 ‫בבלע‬ ‫ואנשי‬5:10 ‫פשרו על בית אבשלום‬ ‫עצתם אשר נדמו בתוכחת מורה‬ ‫ולוא עזרוהו על איש‬5:11 ‫הצדק‬ ‫‏ אשר מאס את‬vacat ‫הכזב‏‬ ← ‫עד ֯תם‬ ֯ ‫התורה בתוך כול‬5:12

5:8Why

do you look at traitors and be silent when a guilty person swallows 5:9one more righteous than him?‎vacat‎Its interpretation concerns the house of Absalom 5:10and the men of their counsel who were silent at the reproach of the teacher of righteousness 5:11and did not help him on account of the man of the lie‎vacat‎ who rejected 5:12the teaching in the midst of all their counsel. →

4QpPsa does the opposite and sometimes marks the transition from one commentary unit to another with blank space, but never separates a lemma from its comment (e.g., 4QpPsa unit 14): ‫ואוה«א?»בי יהוה כיקד כורים‬4a ‫ם‬ ‫צון בתוך עדריה ‏‬6 ]... ‫פשר[ו‬ v‫ ‏‬acat

4aAnd

the lovers«enemies?» of the Lord are like the burning of furnaces. [Its] interpretation [...] 6flock in the midst of their herd.‎vacat‎

More commonly, blank space is used both to separate a lemma from its comment and to mark the transition from one commentary unit to the next, though this is nowhere carried with absolute regularity (e.g., 4QpNah unit 15):110

108  That is, they set off parenthetical remarks that may be secondary (see Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 41, followed by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187). 109  Perhaps there is a very narrow vacat between a comment and the following lemma in 9:12 (see Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 38, followed by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 185), but an intentional vacat there seems doubtful to me (see also Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 330). 110  See the charts and discussion in Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, appendix 7 (pages 325–330).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Physical Layout and Paratextual Features

‫שודדה נינוה מי ינוד‬6 ‫ ואמרו‬5... ‫לה מאין אבקשה מנחמים ל ‏ך‬ ‫הח�ל‬7 ‫פש ֯רו֯ [על] ֯דוׄ ׄרשי‬ ֯ ‫‏‬vacatt ‫קות אשר תובד עצתם ונפרדה‬ ‫יוסיפו עוד לתעות‬ ֯ ‫כנסתם ולא‬ 8 ‫[ה]קהל ופת[אים] לא יחזקו‬ ← v‫ ‏‬acat ‫ם‬ ‫עו?ד את עצת ‏‬

47

5And

they will say, 6‘Nineveh is devastated. Who will bewail her? Where can I find mourners for you?’‎vacat‎Its interpretation [concerns] the seekers after 7smooth things whose counsel will perish, whose congregation will be torn asunder, and they will never again lead astray [the] assembly and the sim[ple] 8will no longer hold on to their counsel. vacat‎→

Many texts are too fragmentary to identify their full usage of blank space and though the reconstruction of missing text may suggest its presence from time to time, such speculation always remains uncertain. The use of blank spaces within the pesher texts appears in several forms:111 1) blank space at the beginning of a line (i.e., indentation),112 2) blank space in the middle of the line,113 3) blank space at the end of a line (i.e., line break),114 4) full blank lines,115 and 5) blank space at the end of a line followed by a full blank line116 (a charting of which texts utilize specific types of blank space can be found in the Appendix, The Usage of Blank Space in the Pesharim, pp. 232–233).

111  See also Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 326–330 for a listing of spacing in the pesharim. 112  1QpHab: 7:3, 8:16, 11:4; 3QpIsa: f1:5? (The ink has chipped off in other portions of this manuscript, this line does, however, really seem to be blank. It is either an indent or a full blank line.); 4QpIsaa: f2–4:6 (or vacat); 4QpappIsac: f4, 6–7ii:20?, f23ii:15. 113  1QpHab: 2:1, 5, 3:7, 9, 4:1, 10, 5:7, 9, 11, 6:3 7:10, 15, 8:8, 9:4, 7, 10:15; 1QpMic: f8– 10:5; 1QpZeph 1:5; 1QpPs: f9:2? (The space here is only slightly larger than normal, and the text is not well enough preserved to tell definitively whether this should be considered a vacat.); 4QCommGen A: 4:3, 5, 5:3; 4QCommGen C: f5–6:1?; 4QpHosb: f7:1; 4QpIsaa: f8–10:7; 4QpIsab: 2:6; 4QpappIsac: f14:8?, f21:8?, f25:4; 4QpIsad: f1:4; 4QpIsae: f5:2, f6:6; 4QpNah: f1–2:9, f3–4i:4, 6, ii:1, 4, 8, 10, iii:6, 8, iv:5; 4QpPsa: f3–10iv:26; 4QpPsb: f2:1. 114  1QpHab: 1:7, 12, 15, 2:11, 3:3, 5:2, 6:9, 7:6, 9:15?, 10:2, 8, 11:11, 12:5, 13:4 (This is the end of the pesher.); 4QCommGen C: f5–6:1?; 4QHosa: 1:6?(This may be a blank line.), 1:13, 2:6, 2:11; 4QpHosb: f2:4, f4+5+18+24:4?; 4QpappIsac: f23 2:2?; 4QpNah: f3–4i:9, iii:2, 10; 4QpPsa: f1–2i:16, ii:11, f1+3–4iii:6, 13, f3–10iv:5, 12. 115  3QpIsa: f1:5?; 4QHosa: 1:14, 2:7; 4QpHosb: f15+33:3?; 4QpIsaa: f5–6:4, f8–10:11; 4QpappIsac: f4, 6–7ii:9?, 20?, f23ii:3; 4QpPsa: f1–2ii:5–6 (This blank line is not noted in the editions.), 20, f3–10iv:6?, 22, f13:2? (This could be any type of vacat, the fragment is too small to tell.); 4QpPsb: f1:6? (This could be any type of vacat, the fragment is too small to tell.). 116  It is unlikely that line break + blank line is functionally any different from a simple blank line without any substantial preceding line break; these examples are also noted in the listing of Line Breaks and of Blank Lines: 4QHosa: 1:13–14, 2:6–7; 4QpappIsac: f23ii2–3; 4QpPsa: f1–2ii:5–6, 20, f3–10iv:5–6?.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

48

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

The mid‑line space is the most common type of vacat; only 4QpHosa, 4QpappIand 3QpIsa* apparently avoid it.117 Of the texts that use blank space, about one third appear to use only the mid‑line space,118 the rest use various combinations of blank space. 1QpHab and 4QpNah not only stand together as two of the most complete pesher manuscripts, but they both use mid‑line spaces and line breaks while avoiding blank lines, which might have been considered wasteful. Nevertheless, the use of blank lines is quite common elsewhere, occurring in nearly half of the pe‑ sharim: 4QpHosa, 4QpHosb, 3QpIsa*, 4QpIsaa, 4QpappIsac, 4QpPsa, and 4QpPsb. In addition to the use of blank space as a marker, a number of scribal signs occur in 1QpHab, 4QpappIsac, and perhaps also 4QpHosa: x marks at the margin in 1QpHab;119 ‫’א‬s at the end of the line in 1QpHab 2:5 and 2:6; mid‑line raised dots on either side of ‫ לוא‬in 1QpHab 7:2, and a mid-line dot between ‫ כמוה‬and ‫ ובכול‬in 4QpIsaa f5–6:12; a short horizontal line in the right margin in 1QpHab 4:12, 6:4?, 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:4–7, 14–15, and 17, and 4QpHosa 2:11? and between 2:14 and 15?; several more elaborate symbols in 4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:8, 10?, 11, 16, 18, 20, and f23ii:16;120 and the use of neo‑paleo‑Hebrew characters for the tetragrammaton (1QpHab, 1QpMic, 1QpZeph, 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsae,121 and 4QpPsa122) and even the word ‫“ אל‬God” (1QpMic f12:3).123 The ╳ marks in 1QpHab have so far defied convincing interpretation. M.H. Lehman was the first to explain these marks as warnings that the space at the end of the line is not an “open section”.124 But such an explanation can hardly account for the use of this mark at the end of 8:1: sac,

117  G. Brooke has, however, argued for blank space in 3QpIsa* at the beginning of line 5 (Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts”, 620). 118  1QpMic, 1QpPs, 4QCommGen A, 4QpIsab, 4QpIsad, 4QpIsae. 119  1QpHab: 3:12, 14, 4:11, 14, 6:4, 12, 8:1, 9:1, 13, 10:3, 12:2. 120  I have represented these marks in my edition of the text as I saw them under close inspection at the IAA Dead Sea Scrolls lab, see also Allegro’s printing of these marks in the edition of 4QpappIsac in DJD V and the discussion in Tov, “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert”, 185–187, 207–208, 209 and Brooke, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features”, 144–145. Though E. Tov is largely correct when he mentions that the marks are not visible in the photographs of this fragment, I would note that after seeing them in person they can indeed be seen to some extent in the photographs as well. 121  Space was left for the tetragrammaton to be written in f6:4, but it was never filled in. 122  The second hand that wrote f1+3–4iii:4a, however, did not use neo‑paleo‑Hebrew for the tetragrammaton. 123  See Tov, “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert”, 240 and tables 1 and 2 in ch. 6. While this phenomenon has been taken by many (following the lead of H. Stegemann) as a marker that the text was non‑canonical or non‑authoritative, J. VanderKam has provided reasonable arguments to the contrary (VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 385–387). Thus, the issue remains open. 124  Lehman, “Materials Concerning the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls”. For the general acceptance of this proposal, see Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 209–210 and the bibliography cited there.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Physical Layout and Paratextual Features

‫פשרו על כול עושי התורה‬8:1 ‫יצילם‬8:2 ╳ ‫בבית יהודה אשר‬ ... ‫אל‬

49

8:1Its

interpretation concerns all those who do the teaching in the house of Judah whom ╳‎ 8:2God will deliver...

Only the most inexperienced and inattentive reader would pause after the relative pronoun ‫“ אשר‬whom” since Hebrew grammar dictates that a subordinate clause must follow, as it does. The mark here can hardly have been intended as an aid against a reader’s improper division of the text. The same objection applies in lines 10:3 and 12:2 where each line ends with the marker of the direct object ‫את‬, a particle which necessitates at least one subsequent word. The x (or perhaps neo‑paleo‑Hebrew ‫)ת‬‎cannot have served as a marker warning the reader against pausing, for it is placed three times in a position where no reader should be in danger of making such an error. If, however, the mark is intended more simply to fill out the line, a phenomenon attested in the Second Temple period and common in the medieval period,125 and so also to indicate the lack of a vacat,126 one may wonder why such a mark was not employed in all short lines. 1QpHab lines 2:13, 4:8, 5:5, 8:6, 10:10, 11:2, and 11:9 all have a similar amount of trailing space to the margin when compared to the several lines that do employ an x.127 This objection is most clear in 1QpHab 4:8 and 14, where 4:14 has an x written at the end of the line but line 4:8, which is even shorter, does not. Thus, as it currently stands, the usage of this sign remains an obscurity peculiar to the first scribe of 1QpHab.128 A similarly perplexing mark in 1QpHab is the short horizontal line in the right margin on line 4:12, which E. Tov explains as a mark indicating “a matter of special interest”.129 This may be true, but it is unclear how the material in this comment is of greater interest than the surrounding material. What is more striking about this line in the comment, is that it is the beginning of a second sub‑comment (4:12–13) as S. Talmon has demonstrated.130

125  See Tov, “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert”, 66–67 and Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 2. 126 Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 239–240. 127  1QpHab 3:12, 3:14, 4:11, 4:14, 6:4, 8:1, 9:1. 128  See Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 210 for a few other possible occurrences of this sign, as well as A. Yardeni’s comments that such signs can be used both to fill out short lines and to mark section divisions (DJD XXVII, 50 n. 61, which is followed by Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 239). 129 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 209. 130  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission”, 130–131.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

50

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

‫אז חלף רוח ויעבר וישם‬4:9 ‫‏‬vacat ‫לאלוה ‏ו‬4:10 ‫זה כוחו‬ ‫פשרו֯ [ ע]ל מו֯ שלי הכתיאים‬ ֯ ]‫אשר בעצת בית אשמ[תם‬4:11 ‫– מלפני‬4:12 ‫יעבורו איש ╳‏‬ ‫רעיהו מושלי[הם ז]ה אחר זה‬ ‫לשחית את הא[רץ‬4:13‫יבואו‬ ‫פשרו‬4:14 ‫וישם] ז֯ ה כוחו לאלוהו‬ ╳ ‫[אשר ישימו כו]ל העמים ‏‬ ←...[4:16 ‫]ל‬...[‫ ׄל‬4:15

4:9Then

it turned with the wind and passed on and lay desolate. This one its strength has become 4:10its God.‎vacat‎Its interpretation [conc]erns the rulers of the Kittim 4:11who, on the counsel of [their] guilty house, pass on each one ╳ 4:12– after the other. [Their] rulers come [o]ne after another 4:13to destroy the la[nd.] This one [made] its strength its God. 4:14Its interpretation is [that they will make al]l the peoples ╳‎ 4:15?[...]? 4:16[ ... →

]‫[“ בית אשמ[תם‬their] guilty house” in the first sub‑comment (lines 4:11–12) must correspond to the reading of the base‑text as known from the MT, ‫( וְ ָא ֵשם‬translation here uncertain, but the root is ‫“ אׁשם‬to be guilty”), not the lemma of the pesher, ‫( וישם‬from the root ‫“ ׁשמם‬to be desolate”).‎‫“ לשחית‬to destroy” in the second sub‑comment (4:12–13), however, does correspond to the base‑text in the lemma, ‫“ וישם‬and it lay desolate”. The dash in the margin of 4:12 separates the second sub‑comment in lines 4:12–13 from the first one in 4:10–12, which interprets a base‑text that differs from the lemma in the commentary.131 The possible dash in the margin of 1QpHab 6:4 may also point to a similar explanation of textual expansion or conflation (see my discussion on p. 129). This same marginal dash appears in 4QpappIsac, where in several places it appears to set a comment off from its lemma. Since 4QpHosa contains a significant amount of erased writing both in the margin and in the text body,132 it is not at all clear whether the horizontal marks in the margin before line ii:11 and between lines ii:14 and 15 belong to the earlier layer of erased writing or to the text of the Hosea pesher – either mark could correspond to a break between lemma and comment.133 The exact significance of the various marginal scribal markings in 4QpappIsac remain for the most part unclear to me; perhaps they are intended to somehow logically structure the group of lemma‑comment pairs in 4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:1–20 131 The internal citation of the lemma in 4:13 may represent a third interpretation, but with different division of the base‑text than the first or second sub‑comments: ‫[וישם] ז֯ ה כוחו‬ ‫“ לאלוהו‬This one [made] its strength its God.” If the reconstruction is correct, then ‫ וישם‬is still read instead of the MT’s ‫וְ ָא ֵשם‬, but it stands at the beginning of a clause rather than the end and is most easily understood as coming from the root ‫“ ׂשים‬to place” and not ‫( ׁשמם‬the reading of the second sub‑comment). 132  The remains from this earlier layer of writing are largely unclear. Of the remains in the margin between columns i and ii I see a ‫ כ‬followed perhaps by ‫ י‬on line 4, an ‫ א‬in the following line, and perhaps a ‫ ה‬on line 9. The ductus of these meagre remains is similar to that of the top layer. 133  The ink remains in the margin between ii:14 and 15 seem more likely to be a marginal dash than the remains in ii:11 and they occur at a point where no other indicator of the transition from lemma to comment occurs.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Physical Layout and Paratextual Features

51

into a larger interpretive unit or section. Similarly, the dash with a hook on its right side in f23ii:16 may serve to separate a section ending with commentary unit 26 from another starting with unit 27, as its use as a paragraph mark throughout 1QS, 4QTestimonia, and elsewhere would suggest. Though the mark in 4QpappIsac may also have simply been a paragraph mark copied directly from the pesher’s base-text of Isaiah (see the similar marks in 1QIsaa, especially li:27), I am less sure that the mark resembling a neo‑paleo‑Hebrew ʾaleph near 4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:10 is intended to be related to that line; it is placed very far from the text of column ii and does not line up vertically with line 10. Could it be somehow related to marking the left hand margin of column i and a hanging line in column ii? The sign is fully situated within column i; its vertical line lines up very well with the left hand margin of f6 column i, but the diagonal lines converge on the hanging line of column ii line 10. The significance of the mid‑line dots placed on either side of ‫ לוא‬in 1QpHab 7:2 has remained unexplained.134 I would suggest that they may have been placed there to protect a copyist from accidentally changing ‫“ לוא‬not” to ‫“ לו‬to him”, which would result in a drastic alteration of this now famous comment.135 If this analysis is correct, then the mid‑line dots would be reminiscent of the paseq in Masoretic notation when used to protect against reading errors;136 in fact L. Himmelfarb (née Widawski) has identified a mid-line dot in the later Palestinian pointing system that corresponds to the paseq in Tiberian manuscripts.137 Finally, I will provide an analysis of the function of the ‫’א‬s in 1QpHab 2:5 and 2:6 in light of the evidence from Mesopotamian commentaries later in my treatment of 1QpHab unit 9, pp. 139–143. The usage of blank space in the pesher documents does suggest particular groupings of the texts: 4QpHosa, 4QpHosb, 3QpIsa*, 4QpIsaa, 4QpappIsac, 4QpPsa, and 4QpPsb use full blank lines as an organizational device, and of those texts 4QpHosa, 4QpappIsac, and perhaps 3QpIsa* also avoid the use of blank space within the line; 1QpHab and 4QpNah, on the other hand, avoid full blank lines. The various scribal marks are more difficult to account for, since they are not yet well understood, nor are they widely employed in the pesharim. 134 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 194. 135  The extreme change that a removal of ‫ לוא‬would cause in the comment has been noted by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 182. Without coming to any definitive conclusion, J. Jokiranta has considered several possible developments in the text of 1QpHab 7:1–2 including the possibility that the mid-line dots indicate an insertion (which I might add has also been proposed as a function of the paseq), or an intended deletion (“Authority in Pesher Habakkuk From Qumran”). 136  See especially ‫אמר ׀ לֹא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ י‬in Genesis 18:15, where the paseq is used to protect the text from mistakenly being read as the more common ‫אמר לֹו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַ ּי‬see, e.g., Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, 217). 137  Widawski, “The Paseq in the Hebrew Bible”, I–II.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

52

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

Statistical Analysis As much as the physical features of the pesher manuscripts present a wide variety of scribal techniques in these texts, literary and formal analyses of them indicate more concrete groupings. The use of a statistical approach to the corpus here is novel in the study of the Qumran pesharim and represents an attempt to push beyond subjective impressions of the texts towards more objective criteria for the formal analysis of the pesher genre. And while most of the Qumran continuous pesharim are quite broken, many are intact enough for at least a rudimentary statistical analysis of the correspondence between words per lemma and words per comment. The results of the following study have important implications for both the classification of pesher texts into smaller sub‑groupings of similar texts and for underscoring the phenomenon of conflated comments (i.e., comments composed of 2 or more originally independent comments; for an explanation, see pp. 128–137). 1QpHab, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, and 4QpHosa are preserved well enough for very certain conclusions. 4QpHosb, 4QpIsae, and to some extent 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac are not so damaged as to exclude meaningful analysis, and this is due to the possibility of reckoning line lengths with a high degree of plausibility.138 By means of this reckoning, the length of any given lemma or comment entry can often be calculated even when the broken text cannot be reconstructed (see Qumran Pesher Line Length Estimates, p. 232).139 In preparing the data for analysis, the word lengths of each lemma and comment were first counted, and sorted into three groups: 1) word counts labelled broken from broken portions of the text where line length estimates were employed to ascertain a viable word count, 2) word counts labelled reconstructed from reconstructed portions of text (or portions where the word count could be reliably determined), and 3) word counts from non-damaged portions of the text. These three groups were then combined to determine an approximate overall word count labelled all.

138 Compare my hierarchical sorting of the manuscripts with respect to level of preservation in fn. 62, where 1QpHab, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, and 4QpHosa are members of groups 1 and 2, and 4QpHosb, 4QpIsae, 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac are members of groups 3 and 4. 139  Only calculable columns and fragments have been included. Word counts and character/space counts appear to allow for a similar level of precision (e.g., 4QpNah col iii has a range of 67–84 characters/spaces and a range of 12–16 words); the greater simplicity of using word counts has been judged a reasonable trade‑off for increased ease of calculation. Prefixing prepositions and conjunctions are not treated as separate words in the calculations here.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Statistical Analysis

53

Such a chart for 4QpNah is as follows:

The “Box and Whisker” presentation shown above allows the distribution of data to be visualized more easily.140 The grey box represents the range of data between the lower and upper quartiles. Thus, the middle 50% of all lemmas in 4QpNah are between 5 and 12 words long (i.e., the grey box in the “All Lemma” row), and the other 50% of the lemmas are either shorter than 5 words or longer than 12. The lines extending from the right and left hand sides of the box stretch outward to the outliers, the absolute minimum and maximum number of words per lemma or comment – a minimum of 3 words and a maximum of 26 words in the case of all lemmas in 4QpNah. The white notch, when present, marks the median, or exact middle number (not the mean [or average]) of the set. Such a presentation makes readily apparent the more usual lengths of each category along with the absolute minimum and maximum values. This mode of analysis becomes more relevant when comparing commentary texts with each other. For instance, 4QpPsa has lemmas of a similar size to 4QpNah, but tends to have shorter comments. The variation in the size of comments is also slightly more restricted but the variation in the size of the lemma citations has a slightly greater range:

140  In essence a box and whisker chart is a simplified visualization of a histogram.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

54

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

4QpHosa, on the other hand, when compared to both 4QpNah and 4QpPsa, tends to have slightly wider variation in the size of the lemmas, and the comments are longer on average but show greater consistency in their length:

While the data from this Hosea commentary are meagre,141 it is still noteworthy that its two individual columns vary markedly from each other. Column I has shorter lemmas and longer comments than column II:

This discrepancy demonstrates the danger of drawing definitive conclusions from too little data. Nevertheless, the general trends of a given manuscript do become more apparent in the presence of larger data sets, and 4QpHosa cols I and II, when taken together, do fall near the range of variation found in 4QpNah and 4QpPsa. The most complete pesher, 1QpHab, has much larger lemmas and comments than 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, or 4QpHosa. It also has much larger outliers than any of those texts: 141  The fact that the markers for the broken and reconstructed word counts in 4QpHosa have no whiskers whereas the combined counts do is important. This is the result of an insufficient amount of data to calculate a histogram curve in each respective category until they are combined.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Statistical Analysis

55

The great variation in lemma and comment size in 1QpHab is not, however, random. The size of the lemma does coincide with the size of the comment to a large degree,142 as charted below (y axis = word count; x axis = commentary unit [1–35]):

‧ – ‧ comments — lemmas Only twice is the comment shorter than the lemma – unit 34 has 1 word fewer in the comment than it does in the lemma and unit 35 has 3 words fewer in the comment than it does in the lemma – the lemma and comment in unit 25 are also very close in length. It is generally not the case that the work trends at any particular point to commentary units of the same size, still the peaks in the chart are worthy of remark. Commentary units 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 26, 33 stand out from the rest as significantly longer in relation to their lemmas than the surrounding 142  This is not the case, however, with the pesharim as a group (Brooke, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features”, 143).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

56

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

comments. Of these, commentary units 9, 11, 12, 18, 26, and 33 are judged to be conflated comments on the basis of other data (see the analyses on pp. 103–124). So, at least some of the inconsistencies in the size of comments may correspond to the compositional history of the text. 4QpNah is more regular than 1QpHab, but the unit that is most out of proportion – commentary unit 3 has a lemma of 9 words and a comment of 47 words – may also be a conflated comment composed of two parts: perhaps an identification of ‫ בשן‬or ‫ כרמל‬in 4QpNah f1–2:5–7, and an internal citation‑comment pair in 4QpNah f1–2:7–8. The correspondence of lemma size to comment size is markedly less regular in 4QpPsa and even less so in 4QpappIsac (no other pesharim have sufficient data for this type of analysis). This greater level of irregularity makes it impossible to use a comparison of lemma to comment length as a marker of conflated comments in 4QpPsa and 4QpappIsac, and is one indicator that they follow a different compositional style than 1QpHab or 4QpNah.143 While K. Elliger was correct when he claimed that in 1QpHab “the extent of the interpretation is in no way proportional to the extent of the text”,144 the evidence presented above shows that such a claim misses some of the implications of the variation in comment length. In addition, his assertion that in 1QpHab “the vast majority of the longer sections can be found in the second half of the roll” is not entirely accurate.145 It would be more precise to say that the first 8 commentary units are unique in having both shorter lemmas and shorter comments, and that the final three‑quarters of the scroll, not just its second half, trends towards longer lemmas as well as longer comments. Unfortunately, the first 8 commentary units are too fragmentary to discern whether they evince different concerns or styles from the rest of the pesher, though they may very well derive from a different compositional stratum than the rest of the pesher. Or perhaps they represent a compositional ideal for the pesharim that was developing and gaining currency while this Habakkuk pesher manuscript was being created. The type of statistical data gathered here is most revealing when compared in aggregate for the purpose of demonstrating homogenous groupings of pesher texts according to the overall length of their lemmas and comments. And indeed when the data for all the commentary texts with enough information for meaningful statistical analysis are organized, clear patterns and groupings do begin to emerge: 143  For other marked differences between 1QpHab and 4QpNah on the one hand and the psalm and Isaiah pesharim on the other, see pp. 65–69. 144  “Der Umfang der Auslegung ist keineswegs proportional zu dem des Textes” (Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 122, see also his comments on page 123). 145  “[D]ie überwiegende Mehrzahl der längeren Abschnitte sich in der zweiten Hälfte der Rolle findet” (Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 119–120).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Statistical Analysis

57

4QpPsa 4QpNah 4QpHosa 4QpHosb 1QpHab 1QpMic 146 4QpIsaa 4QpIsab 4QpappIsac I 4QpIsae 1QpPs ■ lemma ■ comment

The group 4QpPsa, 4QpNah, 4QpHosa, and 4QpHosb are all characterized by short lemmas with a commonly narrow range of plus or minus 8 words, though they do admit of a few larger outliers. Their comments are typically around 2 to 2.5 times longer than their lemmas. 1QpHab shares the last characteristic with this grouping, but it has a noticeably wider range of lemma and comment word length. The Isaiah commentaries, on the other hand, differ markedly from the others in that the range and distributions of both their lemmas and their com‑ ments are relatively similar. They are characterized by very wide ranges with typically higher word counts. 4QpIsaa, while fitting this definition of the Isaiah group of commentaries, lands somewhere between that group and 1QpHab with which it shares the characteristic of comments that are generally longer than lemmas – something that does not apply to 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsae. 1QpMic has a lemma range and distribution that stands somewhere between that of 1QpHab and that of 4QpIsaa. It only has one comment with an estimated word count of 46 words, which could also fit between the typologies of 1QpHab and of 4QpIsaa. 4QpPsb also has only one calculable comment and its reconstructed length is 33 words. Even so, the range and distribution of its lemmas square with the group of 4QpPsa, 4QpNah, 4QpHosa, and 4QpHosb, and the reconstructed comment length can fit the typology of that group as well. In contrast to these two data-poor examples, 1QpPs can at present be nothing other than an outlier with its comments being so much larger on average than its very short lemmas. But it is not certain whether this assessment reflects the true state of the text or just its poor level of preservation. With more data it could easily fill out and take on the typology characterized by the group of 4QpPsa, 4QpNah, 4QpHosa, and 4QpHosb. 146  Note, there is no comment data for 1QpMic.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

58

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

So, a relatively sharp line becomes apparent between the commentaries on Isaiah and the rest of the pesharim, which suggests a correlation between base‑text and commentary style. Only 1QpMic blurs this line, fitting somewhere between the two major groupings.

Literary Structural Analysis The preceding statistical analysis of the pesharim suggests two basic groupings of pesharim: one with Isaiah pesharim which have comments and lemmas that are very near in length on average, and the other with commonly shorter comments and even shorter lemmas on average. An analysis of the overall literary structure of the pesharim further substantiates this division of the pesher corpus, and also demonstrates more clearly the distinct nature of 1QpMic in comparison to those two groupings. The literary structural features that characterize the pesharim (i.e., the ways in which commentary units are constructed and then strung together) have been largely ignored in the secondary literature, and have yet to be described in any detail.147 And while the fragmentary nature of most of these texts makes a comprehensive analysis of their compositional structure impossible, the manuscripts that preserve larger sections of running text indicate at least three basic compositional structures: 1. Short lemma: texts that present a block of the lem‑ ma followed by the comment, then repeat with the subsequent block of lemma; 2. Long lemma: texts that present typically long blocks of the lemma which are then broken into small internal citations that are interpreted one by one inside a large comment; and 3. Linked lemma: texts that present a block of the lemma followed by the comment, then repeat the end of that lemma prepended to the subsequent lemma block.

147  M. Horgan’s discussion, for example, provides a brief description with virtually no analysis or conclusions (Horgan, Pesharim, 237–244) and M. Bernstein’s work on the formulae within the pesharim, while important, does little to classify the continuous pesharim into more meaningful groupings (Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation”, but see 67–68). H. Keener’s recent article discussing how the vacats in 4QpPsa structure that composition, while perhaps not fully convincing, stands as an important corrective to this lack of form‑critical research (Keener, “Greater than the Sum of the Parts”). In contrast to that work, G. Doudna’s discussion of the use of vacats as scribal creations of “arbitrary patterns repeated mechanically at intervals” (Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 233–252, especially 251–252) remains less convincing (see the criticisms voiced by S. Berrin in The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qum‑ ran, 299–301, especially n. 32).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Literary Structural Analysis

59

Short Lemma The first literary structural pesher category is the best attested and simplest. It is exemplified in some of the most complete pesher texts (1QpHab, 4QpNah, and 4QpPsa) and a number of more fragmentary ones (1QpPs, 4QpHosa, 4QpHosb, 4QpPsb, and the pesher to Genesis 49 in 4QcommGen A and 4QcommGen C). This category consists of the base‑text broken up into lemma sections of varying length, but usually rather short, with the comments interspersed between these lemmas. Units 10ʹ, 11ʹ, and 12ʹ of 4QpNah illustrate this format well:

10ʹ. (Nahum 3:1a)

‫ הוי עיר הדמים‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫‏‬...f3–4ii:1 ‫מלאה‬ ֯ ‫פר]ק‬ ֯ ‫כולה [כחש‬ ‫פשרו היא עיר אפרים‬f3–4ii:2 ‫דורשי החלקות לאחרית הימים‬ ‫ושקר[ים י]תהלכו‬ ׄ ‫אשר בכחש‬ (vacat)

11ʹ. (Nahum 3:1b–3)

‫לא ימוש טרף וקול שוט‬f3–4ii:3 ‫וקול רעש אופן וסוס דהר‬ ‫פר ֯ש ׄמעלה‬ ׄ ‫ומרכבה מרקדה‬ ‫וברק חנית ורוב חלל‬f3–4ii:4 ‫להוב‬ ‫וכבוד פגר ואין קץ לגויה וכשלו‬ ‫ פשרו על ממשלת‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫ם‬ ‫וגוית ‏‬ ‫אשר לא‬f3–4ii:5 ‫דורשי החלקות‬ ‫ימוש מקרב עדתם חרב גוים‬ ‫שבי ובז וחרחור בינותם וגלות‬ ‫פגרי‬f3–4ii:6 ‫מפחד אויב ורוב‬ ‫בימיהם ואין קץ‬ ֯ ‫אשמה יפולו‬ ‫לכלל חלליהם ואף בגוית בשרם‬ ‫יכשולו בעצת אשמתם‬

f3–4ii:1...‎vacat‎Woe,

city of shed blood, all of it is [deceit,] it is full of [plun]der. f3–4ii:2Its interpretation: it is the city of Ephraim, the seekers after smooth things at the end of days who [w]alk about with deceit and lie[s.] (vacat)

f3–4ii:3Prey

will not depart, nor the sound of the wheel’s rumble, nor galloping horse, nor bounding chariot, nor charging horseman, nor flashing f3–4ii:4and thunder of the spear, nor mass of slain, nor heap of corpses, and there is no end to the bodies, and they will stumble on148 their bodies.‎vacat‎Its interpretation concerns the dominion of the seekers after smooth things, f3–4ii:5from the midst of whose council the sword of the nations will not depart. Captivity, plunder, and strife are in their midst, and exile at the dread of enemies. A multitude of f3–4ii:6shameful corpses will fall in their days, and there is no end to the destruction of their slain, also on the bodies of their flesh they will stumble, in payment for their shameful counsel.

148 Reading ‫ בגויתם‬for ‫וגויתם‬.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

60

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

12ʹ. (Nahum 3:4)

‫מרוב זנוני זונה טובת חן‬f3–4ii:7 ‫בעלת כשפים הממכרת גוים‬ ‫בזנותה ומשפחות ב[כש]פיה‬ ‫פשר[ו ע]ל מתעי‬f3–4ii:8 )vacat( ‫‏ אשר בתלמוד‬vacat ‫אפרים‏‬ ‫שקרם ולשון כזביהם ושפת‬ f3–4ii:9 ‫מרמה יתעו רבים‬ ‫מלכים‬ ׄ ‫שרים כוהנים ועם עם גר נלוה‬ ‫ערים ומשפחות יובדו בעצתם‬ ‫יפולו‬f3–4ii:10 ]‫נ[כ]בדים ומוש[לים‬ ֯ ... ‫‏‬vacat ‫[בז]עם לשונם‏‬

f3–4ii:7Because

of the multitude of the harlotries of the whore, with good grace, lady of witchcraft, who delivers nations for her harlotry and families for her [witchc]rafts. (vacat) f3–4ii:8[Its] interpretation [conc]erns those who lead Ephraim astray,‎vacat‎those who, lead many astray with their teaching of a lie and their tongue of deceit and lip of treachery, f3–4ii:9kings, princes, priests and people along with resident alien. Cities and clans will perish with their counsel. Honoured people and rul[ers] f3–4ii:10will fall [with the insolence] of their tongue.‎vacat‎...

This structural pesher category may also utilize an internal citation of the lem‑ ma. In most texts this internal citation is limited to a couple of words (1QpPs, 4QpHosa, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, 4QpPsb, 4QcommGen C), but a few larger repeated passages occur in 1QpHab (e.g., 3:2–3) and perhaps in 4QcommGen A.149 It is even possible to find a portion of the internal citation repeated, creating in essence a second internal citation. This phenomenon of second internal citations is only attested with certainty in 1QpHab, where it serves as a keyword to further define specific elements of the internal citation in lines 9:7, 12:7, and 12:9. The internal citation in 9:7 may itself be the product of a revision of pesher Habakkuk unit 26 in order to include mention of the Kittim, as already noted by H. Eshel and bolstered by the usage of a vacat as a separating mark.150 Several other comment blocks in 1QpHab use blank space within them as a method of dividing the text. This space is placed rather mechanically before forms of the word ‫פשר‬‎(1QpHab 2:5, 3:3, 5:7, 6:3, 9:4, and 10:2),151 but it is also used in conflated comments between originally individual sub‑comments (1QpHab 5:11, 9:7, and perhaps 12:5).152 A similar intra‑comment blank space marking a conflated 149  J. Jokiranta notes that 1QpHab differs from 4QpNah and 4QpPsa in that 1QpHab uses some long internal citations, sometimes with an introductory formula, and 4QpNah and 4QpPsa do not (Social Identity and Sectarianism, 111 n. 3). So, there is some literary structural variation even within the grouping of short lemma pesharim. 150  Eshel, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”, 113. 151  The mechanical nature of the insertion of space before ‫ פשר‬is made clear by the vacat in 1QpHab 3:7, where the scribe mistakenly read ‫ פשו‬from the lemma as ‫ פשר‬and inserted a vacat before it, then only afterwards corrected ‫ פשר‬to ‫ פשו‬by thickening the vertical of the ‫ ר‬so that it resembles a thick ‫( ו‬cf. also Horgan 2001, 164 n. 46). 152  See my discussion of conflated comments on pp. 128–137.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Literary Structural Analysis

61

comment can be found between originally individual sub‑comments in 4QpNah f3– 4ii:8, and in 4QcommGen A 5:3 between a concise parsing of two keywords from the lemma and a more expansive description of an eschatological Davidic kingdom (see my discussion of these, pp. 147–148). So, in these cases, a correspondence can be proposed between the physical layout and a literary critical division of the composition. What is more, conflated comments are a feature of the short lemma commentaries, and are not indicated in the other pesher structures.

Long Lemma The second literary structural pesher category is composed with longer lemma blocks and makes frequent usage of long internal citations within the comment.153 4QpIsaa commentary unit 5ʹ provides a clear example:

5ʹ. (Isaiah 11:1–5)

‫ [ויצא חטר מגזע] י֯ שי ונצר‬f8–10:12 ]‫משר[שיו יפרה ונח]ה עלו ֯ר[וח‬ ֯ 𐤄𐤅𐤄𐤉[ f8–10:13 ‫‏‬ ‫רוח חכמ]ה ובינה רוח‬ ]‫עצ[ה וגבורה] רוח דע[ת‬ 𐤄𐤅𐤄𐤉 ‫[ויראת‬f8–10:14 𐤄̇𐤅𐤄𐤉 ]‫והריחו ביראת‬ f8–10:15 ‫[ולוא] למראה ֯ע[יניו]‏‬ ‫יוכי]ח‬ ׄ ‫[ישפוט ולוא למשמע אוזניו‬ ]‫ושפ ֯ט [בצדק דלים והוכיח‬ ׄ ‫[במישור לענוי ארץ והכה‬f8–10:16 ]‫ארץ בשבט פיו וברוח שפתיו‬ ‫[ימית רשע והיה צדק אזור‬f8–10:17 f8–10:18 ‫מ]תניו ו֯ ֯א[מונה אזור חלציו‬ ׄ ]‫[פשרו על צמח‬f8–10:19 vacat154 ]... ‫באח[רית הימים‬ ֯ ‫דויד העומד‬ 155‫ או]יבו ואל יסומכנו‬...[f8–10:20 ]‫ ה‬...[‫ׄב‬

f8–10:12[A shoot will come forth from the stump

of] Jesse and a twig from [his r]oot [will sprout, and] the sp[irit of the Lord will res]t upon him, f8–10:13[a spirit of wisd]om and understanding, a spirit of couns[el and might,] a spirit of knowl[edge] f8–10:14[and the fear of the Lord. His delight will be in the fear of] the Lord, [and not] by what [his ey]es see f8–10:15[will he judge, nor will he repr]oach [at the report of his ears.] He will judge [in righteousness the poor, and he will decide] f8–10:16[with justice for the oppressed of the land. He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips] f8–10:17[he will kill the wicked. Righteousness will gird] his loi[ns] and t[ruth will gird his hips.] f8–10:18 vacat f8–10:19[Its interpretation concern the sprout of] David who will stand up in the en[d of days ...] f8–10:20[...] his [en]emies and God will

153  Horgan has already noted that 4QpIsaa tends to have longer lemmas and comments with short repetitions of the lemma within the comment (Horgan, Pesharim, 72–73). 154  There is probably a vacat at the end of line 17. Assuming that the placement of the piece attached to the top of f10 is correct, then there is a line between lines 17 and 19, and it contains either a very large vacat or is a full blank line. 155 The yiqotleni form (Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, §311.13g), with which this yiqotlenu form should be compared, is a feature of Qumran sectarian manuscripts, see Abegg, “Review of M. Zahn”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

62

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

‫כ]סא כבוד‬... [f8–10:21 ]...[‫֯תורה‬ ]‫ריק ֯מו֯ [ת‬ ׄ ‫נזר ק[ודש] ובגדי‬ ‫הג[ואי]ם‬ ֯ ‫]ןׄ בידו ובכול‬...[f8–10:22 ‫כו]ל‬ ֯ ...[f8–10:23 ‫ימשול ומגוג‬ ‫העמים תשפוט חרבו ואשר אמר‬ ] ‫[למראה ֯עיניו ישפוט‬f8–10:24 ‫לוא‬ ‫ולוא למשמע אוזניו יוכיח פשרו‬ ‫] וכאשר יורוהו כן‬...[f8–10:25 ‫אשר‬ ‫]עמו‬...[f8–10:26 ‫ישפוט ועל פיהם‬ ֯‫יצא אחד מכוהני השם ובידו בגדי‬

support him with [... the] torah [...] f8–10:21[... a t]hrone of glory, a h[oly] crown, and embroider[ed] clothing f8–10:22[...] ? in his hand and he shall rule over all the na[tion]s, and Magog f8–10:23[... a]ll the peoples shall his sword judge. When it says: not f8–10:24[by what his eyes see will he judge ]nor will he reproach at the report of his ears. Its interpretation is that f8–10:25[...] and just as he teaches him, thus shall he judge. Against their mouth f8–10:26[...] his people one of the famous priests have come forth, and in his hand is clothing of...

This structural pesher category, which is exemplified by 4QpIsaa, is certainly also found in 4QpIsab, and it is likely in 4QpappIsac, 4QpIsae,156 and 1QpZeph based on some very long lemma sections in those texts. 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsae are also similar to 4QpIsaa and 4QpIsab with their usage of ‫ אשר כתוב‬and ‫ אשר אמר‬to introduce base‑text citations. The lemmas in short lemma pesharim are 11 words on average, and some, such as 1QpHab, may be as long as 42 words. In contrast, long lemma pesharim, such as 4QpIsaa and 4QpIsab, have lemmas of 31 words on average and a maximum of 55 words, though the breaks in the text make it difficult to calculate the extent of all the lemmas in those texts. 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsae also have long lemmas (30 words on average, 65 words max) but are fragmentary enough to leave some doubt as to their exact formal structure. Many of the internal citations in the pesharim belonging to this second structural pesher category are, like their lemmas, generally longer than those of the short lemma pesharim (i.e., seven words or more). These internal cita‑ tions are introduced with ‫ אשר (כ)כתוב‬and ‫אשר אמר‬, or set apart from the previous text by a vacat (4QpIsaa f8–10:7).157 There are no sure instances of a repeated portion of an internal citation. 156 Though G. Brooke notes that longer lemma citations are common in 4QpIsaa,b,e (Brooke, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features”, 142), his claim that this does not apply to 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsad is impossible to substantiate. 4QpappIsac certainly does have several long lemmas like the ones in 4QpIsaa, b, but the paucity of remains for that manuscript and for 4QpIsad makes it impossible to determine how the shorter citations of the base‑text ought to be construed. 157  In a few instances I have felt compelled by concerns regarding the compositional structure of a pesher text to read a scripture citation introduced with these formulae as a lemma and not as an internal citation (e.g., 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:7, f4–7ii:18, and f8–10:4; and more questionably in 4QpIsae f1–2:2, f1–2:3, and f6:2). This difficulty has been noted by M. Bernstein (Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation”) and will likely resist any more certain conclusions in the absence of new data.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Literary Structural Analysis

63

4QpIsab presents the unique feature of linked commentary units. The comment of commentary unit 3ʹ (Isaiah 5:11–14), ‫“ הם אשר‬They are those who” is syntactically connected to the lemma of commentary unit 4ʹ (Isaiah 5:24β–25), ...‫“ מאסו את תורת יהוה‬rejected the Lord’s torah...”. Similarly, the comment of unit 2ʹ (Isaiah 5:8?–10) ends with the phrase ‫והיה בעת פקדת הארץ‬ “And there will be when the land is punished:”, which is syntactically openended and should be read in concert with the lemma of the following commentary unit (Isaiah 5:11–14) ...‫“ הוי משכימי‬Woe to those who get up early to...”.158 Unfortunately, commentary units 2ʹ–4ʹ are the only three sequential commentary units in 4QpIsab that are well enough preserved to observe this phenomenon. It may even be the case that this style of closely linked commentary units was common to all of the commentary units in 4QpIsab. The effect of this particular literary style is reminiscent of the third structural pesher category which uses repetitions of the lemma to link its commentary units.

Linked Lemma The third structural pesher category is characterized by the way each lemma repeats a portion of text from the end of the preceding lemma, thus linking the sequential lemmas together. This category must remain tentative: it has only one member, 1QpMic, and that manuscript could indeed be reconstructed differently than it is presented here.159 Provided the reconstruction of the manuscript does remain tenable, commentary units 2 and 3 would provide a good illustration of this pesher structure (underlined bold text marks a repetition of the end of the preceding lemma):

158 I.e., ...‫“ והיה בעת פקדת הארץ הוי משכימי‬When the land is punished there will be: woe to those who get up early to...”. This particular instance has been noted by G. Vermès, “Interpretation, History of ”, 439a. Admittedly, the linkage here is particularly awkward, since the exclamation ‫“ הוי‬Woe!” is properly clause initial. 159  See, e.g., Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2.276–277 (see, however, my reservations in fn. 558).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

64

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

2. (Micah 1:5–6a)

‫[יעקב כול‬f8–10:2 ‫]בפשע‬...[f8–10:1 160‫זאת ובחטאות בית ישראל מי‬ ‫[שומרון‬f8–10:3 ‫יע]ק ֯ב ֯הלא‏‬ ֯ ‫פשע‬ ‫ומי במות יהודה הלא יר]וׄ ׄש[לם‬ ‫[לעי‬f8–10:4 ‫ושמתי שומרון]‏‬ ‫]פשרו על‬... ‫השדה למטעי כרם‬ ‫[אשר הואה‬f8–10:5 ‫כזב‬ ‫מטיף ֯ה ׄ‏‬ ֯ ‫‏ ומה‬vacat ‫ה]פ ׄתאים‏‬ ֯ ‫יתעה את‬ ‫[הלא ירושלם‬f8–10:6 ‫במוׄ ת יהודה‏‬ ‫הצדק אשר‬ ׄ ‫ע]ל מו֯ ֯רי‬ ֯ ‫פשרו‬ ‫[יורה התורה‬f8–10:7 ‫הואה‬ ‫המתנדבים‬ ׄ ‫לעצת]ו ולכ[ו]ל‬ f8–10:8 ‫[אל עושי‬ ׄ‫בחירי‬ ֯ ‫לוסף על‬ ‫אשר‬ ׄ ‫התורה] בעצת ׄהיחד‬ ]... ‫[משפט‬f8–10:9 ‫ינצ ׄל[ו] מיום‬ ֯ ... ‫]ה‬...[°°]...[ ׄ ‫לע‬ ֯

3. (Micah 1:6–7a)

ׄ‫ל]עי‬ ֯ ‫ושמתי שומרון‬... [f8–10:10 ‫[למטעי כרם‬f8–10:11 ‫[ה]שדה‬ ‫והגרתי לגי אבניה ויסדיה‬ )‫ ‏‬Gap( ]‫[פסי]ל[יה‬ ׄ ‫וכו]ל‬ ׄ ‫אגלה‬ ‫[ל]ם ׄאשר‬ ׄ ‫ירו]ש‬ ֯ ‫[כוהני‬f11:1 f11:2 ]... ‫יתע[ו‬ ... ‫]אויביו‬...[ ׄ

For the rebellion of f8–10:2[Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the rebellion of Ja]cob? Is it not f8–10:3[Samaria? And what are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jer]usa[lem? I will make Samaria] f8–10:4[into a heap in the field, a planting–plot in a vineyard ...] Its interpretation concerns the spreader of the lie f8–10:5[who led astray the] simple ones.‎vacat‎And what are the high places of Judah? f8–10:6[Are they not Jerusalem? Its interpretation conc]erns the teacher of righteousness who f8–10:7[teaches the torah to] his [council] and to a[l]l those who volunteer to join the chosen ones of f8–10:8[God who do the torah] in the council of the community who will be spar[ed] from the day of f8–10:9[judgement ...] ? [...] ? [...] ? ... f8–10:1[...]

And I will make Samaria] a heap in [the] field, f8–10:11[a planting plot in a vineyard. I will hurl her stones down to the valley; I will uncover her foundations and al]l [her ido]l[s.] (Gap) f11:1[... the priests of Jeru]sa[le]m who led astr[ay ...] f11:2[...] his enemies ... f8–10:10[...

Like the second structural pesher category, this third structural pesher category uses long internal citations. The length of lemmas in the third structural pesher category stands somewhere between those of first and second structural pesher categories with an average of 23 words and a maximum of 39. Do to its highly fragmentary nature and the level of uncertainty in arranging its fragments, not much more can be said concerning the formal structure of 1QpMic. The rest of the pesher manuscripts that are not classified under these three structural pesher categories, if they are indeed pesher compositions at all, are too scanty to afford any sure classification or the establishment of other structural pesher categories. Nevertheless, there are some features of these texts that might be suggestive. For instance, 1QpZeph, 4QpMic*, and 4QpMal* use longer lemma blocks which suggest they might belong with the Isaiah pesharim that use the long lemma pesher structure. 4QpZeph and 5QpMal? may fit the short lemma

160 Or ‫ מה‬here and in the following line according to the internal citation in line f8–10:5.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Scope

65

pesher structure due to their seemingly short lemma blocks; 3QpIsa* is less likely to belong to that grouping.161 4QpIsad is ultimately indeterminate, for it remains unclear whether its three scripture citations should be understood as lemmas (matching short lemma pe‑ sharim) or as internal citations (matching long lemma pesharim). I have chosen to classify it as a long lemma commentary because the citations of the base‑text seem rather short and atomistic even for short lemma commentaries and I see no compelling reason to single it out from the other Isaiah pesharim, which are typically long lemma pesharim.

Scope Just as the pesharim vary in respect to form‑critical structure, they also differ in the extent to which they comment on their base‑text. Indeed some pesharim do provide commentary to a full book or at least a single large sequential excerpt from a book, whether one or more modern chapters long, which happens in 1QpHab (Habakkuk 1–2),162 4QpNah (Nahum 1–3),163 and likely in 1QpMic,164 4QpIsaa (Isaiah 10:21–11:25), 4QpHosa (at least Hosea 2), 4QpHosb (at least Hosea 5–8). 161  The short lemma in 3QpIsa* f1:1–2 would probably be nothing more than a by‑product of the need to treat the incipit of the book of Isaiah separate from the prophetic book proper. 162  Whether or not Habakkuk 1–2 ever existed as a work independent of the poem in Habakkuk 3 is still a question in biblical scholarship, though the two sections are separated by the incipit at the beginning of the third chapter. In the Septuagint, Habakkuk 3 can be found separated from Habakkuk 1–2 as the “Prayer of Habakkuk” (Odes 4), and it was also translated in a variant version known as the Barberini text; both facts suggest a certain separability of Habakkuk 3 from the rest of the book. Modern pesher scholarship remains divided on the issue of the scope of 1QpHab: with some arguing that Habakkuk 1–2 was a self‑standing work, and thus 1QpHab comments on the entirety of its base‑text (see, e.g., Lim, “Authoritative Scripture and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 307 and Fabry, “The Reception of Nahum and Habakkuk”, 255–256), and others viewing Habakkuk 1–3 as inseparable, and hence 1QpHab comments on only a portion, not the entirety, of its base‑text (see, e.g., Haak, Habakkuk, 7–8). W. Brownlee himself chose to leave the question unanswered with respect to the Habakkuk pesher until the other pesharim are studied more fully (Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 95). 163  D. Stoll has asserted that a mathematical analysis of the measurements of 4QpNah precludes any treatment of Nahum 1:7–2:11 in that scroll (Stoll, “Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer”, 212–217). G. Doudna and G. Brooke have presented detailed arguments that this assertion is incorrect and that 4QpNah was a “standard” sized shorter scroll, to use H. Stegemann’s categories, that would easily have treated Nahum 1–3 (Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 37–38 and Brooke, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features”, 134–139). 164  The first preserved comment in 1QpMic deals with Micah 1:2b‑5a and the last preserved one seems to contain an internal citation from Micah 7:17. The scope of the commentary must have covered the entirety of Micah since it commented on at least selections from throughout the book, if not the entire book itself.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

66

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

But some pesharim comment only on small textual units that are frequently part of larger compositions, as 4QcommGen A and 4QcommGen C (Genesis 49), and the psalm pesharim do. Other pesharim comment on select excerpted passages from a text,165 as is the case with 4QpIsab, which moves from a commentary unit on Isaiah 5:11–14 to the next ones on 25b–30 and then to one on 6:9–?,166 and with 4QpappIsac.167 For this very reason G. Brooke considers problematic the corralling of all the so‑called continuous pesharim into one group.168 It is unlikely that a single scroll could contain a full commentary on Isaiah or on any collection of psalms comparable to the book of Psalms since the resulting works would be very large.169 This would seem to explain from a practical standpoint why the Isaiah pesharim often, if not always, deal with excerpted sections of their base‑text rather than the whole work and why the psalms pesharim only treat a limited selection of psalms and not any large groupings of them. 1QpPs has comments on Psalms 57 and 68, if any text intervened between those sections, it is now missing. 4QpPsb has comments on Psalms 127 and 129, again with the manuscript broken between those two chapters. 4QpPsa, however, proceeds directly from comments on Psalm 37 to comments on Psalm 45, and 165  A portion of a verse is missing in 4QpHosa where commentary unit 2 deals with Hosea 2:8 and unit 3 contains only Hosea 2:9b in its lemma, and ‫ שוב‬at the beginning of the comment points more–so to ‫ ואשובה‬in Hosea 2:9b than to anything in Hosea 2:9a. Thus, it seems Hosea 2:8b–2:9a is skipped both in the lemma and comment of 4QpHosa. This omission may be the result of a scribal error owing to homoioteleuton in an earlier copy of the book of Hosea (so Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 200) or it may have arisen due to the pesherist’s desire to avoid describing the Lord as a wall‑builder, an otherwise unsavoury motif in the Qumran corpus (so Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries”, 91–92). 166  For the omission of 5:15–25α, see Horgan, Pesharim, 86–87, 242, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 561, n. 659, and Roberts, “The Importance of Isaiah at Qumran”, 279. For an explanation of this particular omission, see my discussion on pp. 115–117. The omission of Isaiah 6:1–8 is due to the fact that, barring the possibility that 3QpIsa* is a pesher text, prose is never the subject of pesher interpretation in the continuous pesharim, nor is it in the closely related 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm, all of which deal with prophetic texts. 167  It is difficult to determine the exact selections from the base‑text in 4QpappIsac, but it is certain that 10:14–18/19 and 14:9–25 were omitted, and it is possible that 10:1–11 was as well. See also Horgan, Pesharim, 95. 168  Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”, 135. 169  The only certain evidence for long Dead Sea Scrolls comes from 1QIsaa and 11Q19 which are 7.34m and 8.75m respectively, though some reconstructions suggest scroll lengths of as much as 22.5–27.5m (Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 76). Given the largest attested scroll lengths, a full commentary on Isaiah is impossible, or at least impractical (so Metzenthin, Jesaja‑Auslegung in Qumran, 200), though it could fit on a scroll of around 15m — 7.5m for the lemmas and another 7.5m for the comments (the comments in the Isaiah pesharim are roughly the same size as the lemmas or perhaps a bit shorter). For the suggestion that there could have been a multivolume pesher on the book of Isaiah in its entirety, see Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 620.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Scope

67

after a gap provides commentary on Psalm 60.170 There is no reason, however, to assume that these particular pesher texts dealt with complete units any smaller than an individual psalm. That is, the pesherist did still work with complete compositional units. In the case of the Isaiah pesharim, it is possible that individual scrolls could have commented on large portions of the text without gaps. The damaged nature of these texts makes a full accounting of their contents impossible, but the text of 4QpappIsac would have needed to be incredibly long if it dealt with the entire book of Isaiah. The fragments of the other pesher texts attest a variety of selections from the base‑text (see the Concordance of Isaiah Pesharim, p. 213) with a strong preference for the first 32 chapters of the book. It may well be the case that 4QpappIsac only commented on the first bifurcation of Isaiah,171 as 4QpIsaa,b,e likely also did.172 In 4QpappIsac, the lemmas are long enough, and the comments short enough, that it is conceivable for the full scroll to have covered all of Isaiah chapters 1–33, likely excluding any prose sections. This is especially so since the commentary did not provide comments to the base‑text in its entirety.173 4QpappIsac contains comments on portions of Isaiah 10:12–24 and 14:8–30, but fails to present lemmas or comments for Isaiah 10:14–18/19 or 14:9–25.174 The fact that these two sections of the base‑text do not receive commentary suggests that this text had a different compositional logic than pesharim like 1QpHab, 4QpNah, or even 4QpPsa. 4QpappIsac did not comment on the full base‑text or even complete compositional units from it, but rather it treats only those select portions of a running text that are deemed most relevant, a sensibility that 170  No known Qumran psalm scroll contains such an order, though many variations in the ordering of psalms are attested at Qumran (for easy reference, see Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 254). 171  For literature on the first bifurcation of Isaiah, chapters 1–33 or 39, see Flint, “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls”, 391, n. 3. The evidence for such a division of the book are the several Qumran copies of Isaiah containing only material from chapters 1–33 (4QIsaa,e,f,j,k,l,o,r and 4QpapIsap ), and others containing only material from chapters 34–66 (4QIsad,g,h,I,m,n,q and 5QIsa ), as well as the gap of three or more lines at the bottom of column 27 in the great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) between chapters 33 and 34. The only pesher to Isaiah that spans chapters 33 and 34 is 4QpIsae, otherwise the Isaiah pesharim deal only with passages from the first bifurcation or from the second, but not from both. 172  Flint, “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls”, 402. 173  Note that E. Jucci is surely referring to 4QpappIsac when he states that “in 4QpIsaa[sic] ... [e]ntire sections of Isaiah are omitted” (“in 4QpIsaa[sic] ... [i]ntere sezioni di Isaia sono tralasciate” [Jucci, “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”, 153]). 174  See the discussion of the previous literature concerning this omission in Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 561. There is no text critical evidence to suggest that any manuscripts of Isaiah ever omitted 10:14–18/19 or 14:9–25 (i.e., this is an issue of the pesher skipping portions of the base‑text and not of a variant base‑text).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

68

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

probably applies to the rest of the Isaiah pesharim, and certainly to 4QpIsab.175 This particular compositional logic in 4QpappIsac is further reflected in the technical terminology it uses, for the composer utilizes ‫“ ואשר אמר‬and when it says” to introduce lemmas after a portion of the base text has been skipped (both in f4, 6–7ii:7 after the skipping Isaiah 10:14–18/19 and in f8–10:4 after skipping Isaiah 14:9–25).176 Thus, the writer demonstrates an awareness of treating the base-text in sections, and not in its entirety. My analysis of pesher scope represents a slight modification of the classifications laid out by A. Jassen and G Brooke:177 1) sequential continuous pesharim (e.g., 1QpHab, 4QpNah, and 4QpPsa); and 2) non-continuous, possibly sequential, pesharim (e.g., 4QpIsab,c).178 I would split the first category of sequential continuous pesharim into: 1) those pesharim that cover only one section from the base‑text (e.g., 1QpHab and 4QpNah); and 2) those pesharim that comment on multiple large selections from the base‑text or collection of texts (e.g., collections of psalms). Thus, the pesher compositions are divided here into three categories with respect to their scope: 1) compositions that comment on a single large section from a base‑text or even the full work (e.g., 1QpHab and 4QpNah); 2) compositions that comment on multiple large selections that each constitute a complete literary unit (e.g., the psalms pesharim and perhaps some of the Isaiah 175  A. Jassen’s statement that “the pesher commentaries likely did not cover entire scriptural books, but rather selected sequential units within scriptural books” (Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”, 377) almost certainly applies to the Isaiah pesharim. This phenomenon had already been noted to some extent by S. Tzoref (Berrin, “Pesharim”, 645) and developed by G. Brooke (Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”, 140–142). 176  For my explanation of the role of ‫“ כאשר כתוב‬as it is written” in 4QpappIsac commentary unit 9ʹ (f4, 6–7ii:18), see pp. 116–117. 177  Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary in Early Jewish Scriptural Interpretation”, 376–377 and Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”, 140–142. 178  While A. Jassen asserts that the Isaiah pesharim are “the only clear examples of noncontinuous Pesharim” (Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”, 377), 4QTanḥ ûmîm is strongly keyed sequentially to Isaiah, at the very least it treats Isaiah 40:1–5 followed by 48:1–9, , 49:13–17, , and Isaiah 52:1–3 followed by 54:4–10. The text does not use the technical term ‫פשר‬, but is the structure of its treatment of the base‑text Isaiah really that different from 4QpappIsac? Large sections of 4QMidrEschata,b contain long sequential but noncontinuous commentary sections as well, how should those texts be treated in this categorization? These questions are dealt with to a certain extent in Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”. G. Brooke does include 4QTestimonia and 4QMidrEschata among the pesher texts that comment with “an attention to the sequence of the scriptural text” (Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”, 156) – though I see nothing of the pesher in 4QTestimonia, which contains only juxtaposed quotations, not interpretations. Perhaps Brooke would include 4QMidrEschatb here as well, with only Psalm 6 being placed out of the expected order (see Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”, 149), but I would strongly caution against any thesis based on the large scale ordering of psalm collections at Qumran, one can only speak confidently of sequential order within individual psalms and perhaps between closely linked groupings of psalms.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

69

pesharim);179 and 3) compositions that comment only on select smaller portions of the base‑text (generally only several verses) that do not necessarily constitute a complete literary unit (e.g., 4QpIsab,c). So again, the Isaiah commentaries can form their own group over against many of the other pesher texts as long lemma commentaries with comments of similar length to the lemmas on average, that comment only on selections from their base‑text. Though several other Qumran pesharim may show similarities to the Isaiah pesharim in one way or another (i.e., 1QpZeph, 4QpMic*, and 4QpMal*), none are able to demonstrate the pattern in a consistent manner.

Commentary Styles With such a variety of pesher forms coming into sharper focus and forming more concrete groupings, a better accounting of the method of constructing individual comments holds important clues for the development of pesher interpretational techniques. Specifically, the technical language used in the pesharim suggests a particular historical development of the genre and its socio‑linguistic background. Furthermore, some of the hermeneutical techniques used in the pe‑ sharim are only now beginning to be understood; these techniques force us to shift the way we think about the interpretive methods the pesher writers used.

Technical Vocabulary The previous studies of introductory formulas used between lemmas and com‑ ments have been rather cursory.180 A more detailed accounting of these formulas is provided here in order to clarify the particular connotations of specific formulae as well as their relationship one to another. The formulas are generally presented in the order from simplest to most complex, with the exceptional formula ‫ פשר הפתגם‬treated at the end.

179  If the poem in Genesis 49 ever existed independently from Genesis, then the pesharim to Genesis 49 could belong to the first category, if not, then they would be categorized with the second. 180  Substantial analyses can be found in Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk – Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 123–126, Horgan, Pesharim, 239–244 and the sources mentioned there in n. 27, García Martínez, “El pesher”, 133–136, and recently Haber, “The Pesher Units in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 470–475; see also the brief comments in Jucci, “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”, 154. The formulas used for citations of scripture within the pesharim and elsewhere have received greater attention, for the usage of those in the pesharim, see, e.g., Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

70

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

No Formula The usage of an introductory phrase between a lemma and its comment is quite regular in the pesharim, but not universal. There are several instances among the Isaiah pesharim, 4QpIsab and 4QpappIsac,181 where no introductory phrase is used between the lemma and comment,182 in which case the usage of a vacat is customary. For example (4QpIsab unit 3ʹ): ‫הוי משכימי בבקר שכר‬2:2 ... ‫ידלקם‬2:3 ‫ירדפו מאחרי בנשף יין‬ ‫והיה כנור ונבל ותוף וחליל יין‬ ‫לא‬2:4 ‫משתיהם ואת פעל יהוה‬ ‫הביטו ומעשי ידו לא ראו לכן‬ ‫גלה עמי מבלי דעת וכבדו מתי‬ ‫והמנו צחי צמא לכן‬2:5 ‫רעב‬ ‫הרחיבה שאול נפשה ופערה‬ ‫וירד הדרה‬2:6 ‫פיה לבלי חוק‬ vacat ‫והמנה ושאנה עליז בא‏‬ ‫אשר‬2:7 ‫‏ אלה הם אנשי הלצון‬ ← ‫בירושלים הם אשר‬

... 2:2Woe to those who chase after beer, having gotten up early in the morning, (and) having lingered in the evening, wine 2:3inflames them. Their feasts are lyre, and harp, and timbrel, and flute, and wine, but the work of the Lord 2:4they do not view, the works of His hand they do not see. Therefore, my people have unwittingly gone into exile, their glory are starving men, 2:5and their multitude are men parched with thirst. Therefore, Sheol has made her throat wide, and opened wide her mouth beyond measure, 2:6and her majesty, and her multitude, and her revelry, and the one who delights in her have descended‎ vacat‎These are the men of mockery 2:7who are in Jerusalem. They are those who →183

Comments lacking an introductory formula with ‫ פשר‬are rare and limited to the two Isaiah pesharim (4QpIsab and 4QpappIsac). Such comments are generally very short, usually less than one line long, and often constitute little more than a keyword–comment pair. Such keyword–comment pairs are a simple interpretive device that can also be found more widely in the corpus embedded within larger comments.184 For example (4QpNah unit 16ʹ):

181  This is also remotely possible in 4QpIsaa f8–10:3, see Horgan, Pesharim, 242. 182  Verbless phrase with pronoun: 4QpIsab 2:6, 2:10, 3:4?; 4QpappIsac f8–10:7. Keyword with pronoun: 4QpappIsac f8–10:3?. 183 This pesher leads directly into a second pesher on Isaiah 5:24β 25 (for an explanation of this phenomenon, see my discussion on pp. 115–117). 184  Keyword + pronoun: 1QpHab 1:13, 9:7, 12:3–4, 12:4–5, 12:7–8, 12:9–10; 4QpNah f1–2:3, f1–2:7, f3–4i:10, f3–4i:10–11, f3–4i:11, f3–4ii:1, f3–4iii:9 (2x); 4QpIsaa f8–10:5, f8–10:6?; 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:11–13; 4QcommGen A 5:2–3, 5:3. Keyword + noun: 4QpappIsac f25:3; 4QcommGen A 4:6–7.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

‫ התיטיבי מני ׄא ֯מ[ון‬...f3–4iii:8 ‫פשרו‬f3–4iii:9 ‫הישבה ב]יארים‬ ‫אמון הם מנשה והיארים הם‬ ‫ים‬°]...[‫גד[ו]ליׄ מנשה נכבדי ה‬ ] [‫את מ‬

71

Will you do better than The[bes that sits on] the Nile? f3–4iii:9Its interpretation: Thebes is Manasseh; and the Nile is the gr[ea]t ones of Manasseh, the honoured ones of the [... wh]o ? ? [ ] f3–4iii:8 ...

The Term ‫פשר‬ The most common technical term found in the pesharim is the word ‫( פשר‬hence the modern name applied to these commentary texts). The meaning of this specialized term has been widely discussed.185 The root p‑š‑r is ultimately of Akkadian origin and is used in the corpus of Akkadian literature most frequently with respect to the interpretation of omens186 and dreams,187 but not in commentary texts. The technical use of the root passed into (Jewish) Aramaic first, and from 185  See, e.g., Horgan, Pesharim, 230–237 (and also previous literature mentioned in n. 3: most importantly Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle”, 326–330) and Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 25–28, both of whom make arguments on the grounds of Hebrew and English usage against the conclusion of I. Rabinowitz to define the ‫ פשר‬as “presage” (Rabinowitz, “Pêsher/Pittârôn”), they also note many of the contextual difficulties associated with such a reading. The discussion has not advanced much further in more recent works, see, e.g. Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 29–32, Jucci, “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”, 158–160, García Martínez, “El pesher”, 130–133, Lim, “The Qumran Scrolls”, 59–60 and Lim, Pesharim, 27, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 58, Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet, Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 11–12, and Nissinen, “Pesharim As Divination”, 47–50. The similarity of ‫ פשר‬to biblical and post‑biblical Hebrew ‫ פתר‬is superficial. The two words cannot be etymologically related, though they share a similar semantic domain. The opinion of M. Horgan that ‫ פתר‬was used in the Joseph stories in order to avoid the magical and occult connotation of Akkadian pašāru may be correct (Horgan, Pesharim, 235), otherwise it may be a case of using a native root with a similar meaning and sound in place of a foreign technical term. 186  See, e.g., Nissinen, “Pesharim As Divination”, notably 47–49 and 57–60, and Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries”, 303–305; see also Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”, 113–114, Tigay, History, Historiography, and Interpretation, 177 and 181, and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 375. 187  See Oppenheim, “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East”, 217–221, Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”, 97–98, Brooke, “Qumran Pesher”, 490, especially n. 1, Tigay, History, Historiography, and Interpretation, 177 and 181, Fröhlich, “Le genre litteraire des pesharim de Qumran”, 383–384, Frahm, Babylonian and As‑ syrian Text Commentaries, 375, and Nissinen, “Pesharim As Divination”, 45–47, but for arguments to the contrary, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries”, 298–305, especially 302–303. J.J. Collins draws a number of comparisons between the Mesopotamian techniques of dream interpretation and the dream interpretation found in the Aramaic court tales of Daniel (Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, 31–32). He also situates “prophecy by interpretation” within a larger Mediterranean and Near Eastern milieu (Collins, “Jewish Apocalyptic”, 31–33). A. Jassen also argues for the influence of Mesopotamian dream and omen interpretation on the pesharim (Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”, 388–389).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

72

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

there into late and Qumran Hebrew,188 where the scientific diagnostic usage of it can still be detected (Ben Sira 38:14 [ms. B 8v:1–2]): ‫כי (גם) הוא אל אל ׄיעתיר׃‬ ‫ה‬ ‫אשר יצלח (ימנה) לו פשר ‏‬ ‫ ורפאות למען מחיה׃‬v‫ ‏‬acat

For he (i.e., the ‫‘ רופא‬physician’) (also) entreats God, that He might give him a successful diagnosis (‫( )פשרה‬or: appoint for him a diagnosis) and a treatment to bring about recovery.189

The term ‫ פשר‬is also used in Jewish Aramaic as it is in Akkadian for the interpretation of omens (Daniel 5) and of dreams (Daniel 2, 4, 7, and 4QEn Giantsa f8:13, 4QEn Giantsb I ii 14, 23, and iii 10). It is not entirely obvious how the term was extended to denote the explanation of written prophetic texts, but some evidence remains. A prophetic text could be re-envisioned specifically as a dream (cf. the prophecy of Ezekiel 31 transformed into a dream in Daniel 4), thus ‫ פשר‬was applied to a prophetic work by proxy. Such a practice may have become generalized due to a sentiment that all prophetic writings were in fact visions or dreams, an idea found later in the Sifre on Numbers 12:6.190 In any event, the understanding that this Hebrew term applies specifically to the explanation of prophetic compositions is evident, again at an even later date, in Targum to Ecclesiastes 8:1,191 where the Hebrew ‫“ ֵּפ ֶשר ָּד ָבר‬interpretation of a thing” is explained as ‫פשר מיליא‬ ‫“ בנביאיה‬the interpretation of the words in the prophets”.192

188  S. Kaufmann has been reticent to make a definitive statement on this topic (Kaufmann, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, 81), but from a chronological perspective it seems that the word gained currency first in Standard Literary Aramaic (4QEn Giantsa f8:13, 4QEn Giantsb I ii 14, 23, and iii 10, and Aramaic Daniel [see García Martínez, “El Pesher”, 133–134]) and then later became popular in Hebrew (both late biblical [Ecclesiastes 8:1 and Ben Sira 38:14] and Qumran). 189  A. Lange and Z. Pleše highlight that the diagnosis here is linked to God and that “[i]n this way, Ben Sira makes pagan diagnostic medicine more acceptable for a Jewish audience” (“Transpositional Hermeneutics”, 54 n. 92). 190 Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 301–302. 191  Targum Qohelet was probably completed “before the Arab conquest of Palestine but after the completion of the both Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds” (Knobel, “The Targum of Qohelet”, 15, see also 12–15). 192  See Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 30. Note that there is disagreement as to the preposition, or lack of one, on ‫ נביאיה‬in the Targum. B. Nitzan reads no preposition here (Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 30), but P. Knobel and A. Sperber appear to read a ‫“ כ‬like” (Knobel, “The Targum of Qohelet” and Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic). The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon edition of ms. Paris 110 prepared by E. Clarke and J. Lund (http://cal1.cn.huc. edu), however, reads a ‫ב‬, and this is the reading followed in the translation here.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

73

Syntactically Isolated ‫פשרו‬ The most basic introductory formula using the term ‫ פשר‬is the usage of ‫פשרו‬ when it is not syntactically connected to the following comment. The lack of a syntactic relationship between the introductory formula and the comment is reminiscent of the abruptness encountered in the commentary units that lack an introductory formula.193 For example (4QpNah unit 17ʹ): ‫מים סביב לה אשר חילה‬f3–4iii:10 ‫‏‬vacat ‫ים ומים ח[ו]מותיה‏‬ f3–4iii:11 ‫[פ]ש ֯רו הם אנשי‬ ֯ ‫[ח]י֯ לה גבור[י מ]לחמתה ֯ע‬

f3–4iii:10Water

is round about her, whose ramparts are the sea, and water are her w[a]lls.‎ vacat‎f3–4iii:11Its [in]terpretation: they are her [a]rmy men, her might[y men of w]ar.

These introductory formulae with ‫ פשרו‬standing syntactically separate from the comment proper never occur in 4QpIsaa?, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac. The corollary is also true, the pesharim that use this formula never present a comment without an introductory formula, as is done in 4QpIsaa?, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac. In light of the mutual exclusivity of the usage of these two comment types – no introductory formula in several of the Isaiah pesharim, and a syntactically separate ‫ פשרו‬in the pesharim listed above – these two methods of introducing a comment should be seen as functional or even evolutionary variants of each other. The presentation of comments without an introductory formula – as is done in 4QpIsaa?, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac – might have been updated by the simple addition of ‫פשרו‬, which resulted in the formulas listed above for 1QpHab, 1QpPs?, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, and 4QpPsb. 4QpNah f3–4iv:1 and 4QpPsa f1–2ii:4 use an attributive participial phrase to convey a verbal idea. By virtue of this, they stand in a chronologically and developmentally intermediary state between these simplest types of glosses involving verbless clauses and those more expansive glosses that provide a more involved identification by means of a relative clause. ‫ל‬/‫פשרו על‬ Slightly more developed than the syntactically independent ‫ פשרו‬is the usage of ‫ פשרו‬followed by the preposition ‫על‬, or in two instances by ‫ל‬.194 The preposition 193  Pišrô + Pronoun:1 ‎QpHab 10:3; 4QpNah f3–4ii:2, f3–4iii:11, f3–4iv:1; 4QpPsa f1– 2ii:4–5, f3–10iv:1?, f3–10iv:23?. Pišrô + noun + pronoun + noun:1 ‎QpPs f9:3?. Pišrô + keyword (+ pronoun) + noun: 1QpHab 12:7; 1QpPs f3–7:3?; 4QpNah f1–2:1, f1–2:3, f3–4i:10, f3–4iii:9. 194  Pišrô ʿal + noun: 1QpHab 1:11?, 2:12?, 3:4, 3:9, 4:5, 4:10, 5:9, 6:10, 7:4, 7:11, 8:1, 8:8, 9:4, 9:9, 11:4, 11:12, 12:2, 13:1; 1QpMic f8–10:4, f8–10:6, f17–19:5; 1QpZeph f9–10:1; 4QpIsaa f8–10:3, f8–10:8, f8–10:17; 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:4; 4QpIsad f1:4, f1:7; 4QpIsae f6:6?; 4QpHosb

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

74

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

here serves to syntactically link the introductory formula with the comment in the most simplistic way. This is the most widely distributed construction by far, and only 4QpHosa and 4QpIsab are conspicuously absent from the list of pesharim that use it. For example (4QpPsa unit 4): ‫ הרף מאף ועזוב ׄח ׄמה‬f1–2ii:1... ‫אך להרע כיא‬ ׄ ‫תחר‬f1–2ii:2 ‫ואל‬ ‫מרעים יכרתו פשרו על כול‬ ‫לתורה אשר לוא‬f1–2ii:3 ‫השבים‬ ‫ימאנו לשוב מרעתם כיא כול‬ ‫לשוב מעונם‬f1–2ii:4 ‫הממרים‬ ← ‫יכרתו‬

Desist from anger, forsake wrath and do not f1–2ii:2be angry to the point of doing evil for those who do evil will be cut off. Its interpretation concerns all who return f1–2ii:3to the torah: who do not refuse to turn back from their evil, for all who refuse f1–2ii:4to turn back from their iniquity will be cut off. → f1–2ii:1...

The two examples of ‫ פשרו ל‬in 4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:8 and 17 both read ‫פשרו למ־‬ ‫“ עוט האדם‬its interpretation concerns humans becoming few in number” and [...] ‫עט‬ ׄ ׄ‫“ פשרו ֯למו‬its interpretation concerns [ ... ] becoming few in number” respectively, and may constitute a repetition, or near repetition, of the same comment. Though any certain conclusions are impossible due to the state of the manuscript remains, a close relationship between these two instances of ‫ פשרו ל‬is also suggested by the fact that 4QpappIsac also uses the more common construction with ‫פשרו על‬‎(4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:4, 8–10:1?). ‫פשרו אשר‬ The final introductory formula with ‫ פשרו‬uses ‫ אשר‬rather than a prepositional phrase.195 This is usually followed by a verbal phrase and only twice by a verbless phrase (5QpMal? f1:3 and 1QpHab 1:13?). For example (1QpHab unit 21):

f6+11–13:5?, f17+38:5?; 4QpNah f3–4i:2?, f3–4i:6, f3–4ii:4, f3–4ii:8, f3–4iii:3, f3–4iii:6, f3–4iv:3, f3–4iv:5, f3–4iv:7; 4QpZeph f2:2; 4QpPsa f1–2i:18, f1–2ii:2, f1–2ii:6, f1–2ii:8, f1–2ii:13, f1– 2ii:17, f1–2ii:21?, f1–2ii:24?, f1+3–4iii:7, f1+3–4iii:10, f1+3–4iii:15, f3–10iv:8, f3–10iv:14, f3– 10iv:16, f3–10iv:27, f13:5?; 4QpPsb f1:7?. Pišrô l‑ + noun: 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:8, f4–7ii:17. 195  Pišrô ʾăšer + verb phrase: 1QpHab 1:4?, 4:1, 4:14?, 5:7, 7:7, 7:15; 4QpIsaa f8–10:24?; 4QpappIsac f28:1–2?; 4QpIsad f1:1?; 4QpHosa 2:2–3?, 2:12, 2:15; 4QpHosb f2:6?, f6+11–13:4, f16:1?; 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:3; 4QpPsb f1:3, f3:2; 4QcommGen A 4:5. Pišrô ʾăšer + pronoun: 1QpHab 6:3, 6:6; 5QpMal? f1:3–4?. Pišrô ʾăšer + keyword + pronoun + noun: 1QpHab 1:13?.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

‫למועד יפיח‬7:6 ‫ כיא עוד חזון‬...7:5 ‫ פשרו‬7:7‫‏‬vacat ‫ב‬ ‫לקץ ולוא יכז ‏‬ ‫אשר יאריך הקץ האחרון ויתר‬ ‫אשר דברו הנביאים‬7:8 ‫על כול‬ »‫כיא רזי אל להפלא«ה‬

75

For the vision is yet 7:6for a specific time. It testifies to the end and it will not prove false.‎vacat‎7:7Its interpretation is that He has drawn out the latter age and it extends beyond all 7:8that the prophets have said, for the mysteries of God must amaze. 7:5...

This type of formula is used almost exclusively for comments that are based around a verbal phrase,196 whereas the previous formula, ‫פשרו על‬, is used for comments primarily based upon the equation of nominal elements and only secondarily supplemented with verbal phrases. In this way, these two constructions represent alternative variants for introducing comments, and are selected based upon the primary nature of the comment, whether nominal or verbal. It is noteworthy, however, that ‫ פשרו אשר‬with a following verbal phrase is the only introductory formula attested in 4QpHosa. This sets 4QpHosa apart from the other pesharim, which use a variety of introductory formulas throughout. ‫פשר הדבר‬ A further class of introductory formulas uses ‫ פשר‬without the possessive pronoun, and places it in construct with ‫הדבר‬, “the passage”.197 For example, with ‫על‬‎ (4QpPsa unit 18): ‫[נער היי]תי וגם‬... f1+3–4iii:17 ]‫זקנתי ולוא[ ראיתי צדיק‬ [‫לח ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫נעזב וזרעו מבקש‬f1+3–4iii:18 ‫כול היום] חונן ומלוה וזר[עו‬ ‫הדבר‬f1+3–4iii:19 ]‫לברכה פשר‬ ]...[‫]אל ׄמ‬... ֯ ‫ור[ה הצדק‬ ֯ ‫על ׄמ‬ f1+3–4iii:20 ]...[‫ואת‬

f1+3–4iii:17I

[have been a young man,] and I have been old, but [I have] not [seen a righteous person] f1+3–4iii:18forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread. [All day long] he graciously lends and [his of]fspring [is a blessing. The interpretation of] f1+3–4iii:19the passage concerns the teach[er of righteousness ...] ? ? [...] f1+3–4iii:20and [...]

196  The formulae in 1QpHab 1:13? and 5QpMal? f1:3–4? are slightly aberrant usages of the ‫ פשרו אשר‬formula since they are followed by a verbless clause. The two instances from 1QpHab (6:3 and 6:6) use predicative participles, and thus stand formally between the use of the ‫פשרו‬ ‫ אשר‬formula to introduce nominal comments (1QpHab 1:13? and 5QpMal? f1:3–4?) and the usual usage of it with verbal comments. 197  ‫ הדבר‬refers to the lemma in general, rather than a specific word from the lemma. For the definition of ‫ הדבר‬in these cases see, e.g., Horgan, Pesharim, 239 and n. 29. ‫פשר הדבר על‬:‎ 1QpHab 2:1?, 2:5?, 8:16?, 9:16?, 10:9, 12:2, 12:12; 1QpZeph f1:4–5?; 4QpappIsac f8–10:1?, f22:1?; 4QpIsae f1–2:3?, f5:2?; 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:18–19. ‫פשר הדבר ל‬:‎4QpIsab 2:1; 4QpappIsac f4, 6–7ii:14, f23ii:11. ‫פשר הדבר אשר‬:‎1QpHab 5:3, 10:15?; 4QpIsab 1:2; 4QpappIsac f22:1?.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

76

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

and with ‫אשר‬‎(1QpHab unit 16): ]‫[הלוא אתה מקדם‬... 4:16 ‫[𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 אלוהי קדשי‬4:17 ]𐤄𐤅𐤄𐤉[ ‫לוא נמות‬ ‫למשפט שמתו וצור למוכיחו‬5:1 ‫מראות‬5:2 ‫יסדתו טהור עינים‬ ‫ברע והבט אל עמל לוא תוכל‏‬ ‫פשר הדבר אשר לוא‬5:3 ‫‏‬vacat ‫יכלה אל את עםו ביד הגוים‬ ‫וביד בחירו יתן אל את משפט‬5:4 ‫יאשמו‬5:5 ‫כול הגוים ובתוכחתם‬ ‫כל רשעי עמו אשר שמרו את‬ ‫בצר למו כיא הוא‬5:6 ‫מצוותו‬ ‫אשר אמר טהור עינים מראות‬ ‫‏ פשרו אשר לוא זנו‬vacat ‫ברע‏‬5:7 ← ‫הרשעה‬5:8 ‫אחר עיניהם בקץ‬

[Are you not of old] 4:17[O Lord my God, my holy one? We shall not die; O Lord,] 5:1you have set it down for judgement and O rock, you have established it for the one who would rebuke it. (You are) too pure of eyes 5:2to look on evil, and you are not able to look at hardship.‎vacat‎5:3The interpretation of the passage is that God will not finish off His people by the hand of the nations, 5:4and that God will place the judgement of all the nations into the hand of His chosen one. 5:5All the wicked ones of His people will be shamed (by) those who have kept His commandments 5:6when they were in distress, for that is what it says: Too pure of eyes to look 5:7on evil.‎vacat‎Its interpretation is that they did not whore out after their own eyes during the age of 5:8wickedness → 4:16...

As with ‫ פשרו על‬and ‫פשרו אשר‬, the ‫ פשר הדבר‬formula appends either ‫ על‬for nominal equation based comments and ‫ אשר‬for verbal based ones. The peculiar usage of the preposition ‫ ל‬only occurs in 4QpIsab and 4QpappIsac, and the three instances of this usage all begin in the same way: ‫פשר הדבר לאחרית הימים‬. This correlates with the use of ‫ פשרו‬with the preposition ‫ ל‬in 4QpappIsac mentioned earlier and is indicative of a commentary style shared only between these two texts. It is tempting to understand the phrase ‫ פשר הדבר לאחרית הימים‬as a fixed phrase that was current among a small group of Isaiah pesherists alongside the other anomalous formula ‫ל‬ ‫פשרו‬.198 ‫פשר הפתגם‬ The introductory formula ‫ פשר הפתגם‬is a much rarer, yet similar, construction to ‫פשר הדבר‬,199‎as well as to ‫ר־מ ְּל ָתא‬ ִ ‫“ ְּפ ַש‬the interpretation of the word” (Daniel 5:15, 198  For further evidence and comparative data that suggest a group of pesherists focused primarily on Isaiah, see my discussion of the communities that wrote commentaries, pp. 151–152. 199  J. Rosenthal was incorrect when he claimed ‫ פתגם‬was an earlier equivalent of ‫פשר‬, it is the equivalent of ‫( דבר‬Rosenthal, “Biblical Exegesis of 4QpIs”, 30). His mistake was due to the fact that he was only working with the broken occurrence of the formula in 4QpIsaa f5–6:10, the formula is now certain from the fuller text in 4QpPsb f2:1 ‫הפת[גם‬ ׄ ‫ פשר‬and 4QpHosb f19:1 ‫הפ[תגם‬ ֯ ‫פשר‬.ׄ M. Horgan correctly asserts that ‫ פתגם‬and ‫ דבר‬are probably synonymous in these constructions (Horgan, Pesharim, 149).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

77

26) and ‫“ ְפ ַשר ִמ ַּלּיָ א‬the interpretation of the words” (Daniel 7:16), and is found in several pesharim with similar features.200‎‫ פתגם‬is a loanword from Old Persian patigāma201 “message” through Aramaic piṯgām → piṯgām and occurs only rarely in biblical and Second Temple Hebrew.202 The Persian word frequently occurs with the meaning “message” or more specifically “official message”.203 That meaning is found in Imperial Aramaic, biblical and Qumran Aramaic, and biblical Hebrew (often with the verbs ‫“ שלח‬to send” and ‫תוב‬/‫ שוב‬in the Hifil/Hafel “to return (something)”).204 But the word’s meaning is also extended to “command/ decree/verdict” in those same languages and dialects.205 The meanings for ‫ פתגם‬listed above are very similar to those used for Hebrew ‫דבר‬, which is also used with the verbs ‫“ ׁשלח‬to send” and ‫( ׁשוב‬Hifil) “to return (something)” for sending messages, replies, and commands. 11QTgJob 29:4 even uses ‫ פתגם‬with the sense “thing”, a further parallel to Hebrew ‫דבר‬.206 In this sense ‫ פתגם‬in Aramaic speaking Jewish communities both in Egypt and Judea eventually took on the same connotation as Hebrew ‫דבר‬.207 When the word ‫ פתגם‬developed into a direct translational equivalent to Hebrew ‫דבר‬,‎it became possible for the pesherists to understand ‫ פשר הפתגם‬and ‫ פשר הדבר‬as colloquial variants of the same technical pesher term: the first mainly Aramaic in nature and originally related to the interpretation of divine messages (cf. Old Persian patigāma “message”), the second fully Hebrew and more generally associated with the 200  ‫פשר הפתגם‬:‎4QpIsaa f5–6:10, 4QpHosb f19:1?, 4QpPsb f2:1. 4QpIsaa and 4QpHosb are early Herodian rustic semiformal scripts and 4QpPsb is an early Herodian book hand, and all make use of full blank lines – a feature shared among an apparent subgrouping of the pesharim (see my discussion of physical layout, pp. 80–83). 201  For Old Persian see Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, 186 and Hinz, “Achämenidische Hofverwaltung”, 310 (W. Hinz notes that the meaning was already known to W.B. Henning [see n. 102]). For Parthian patigām and Middle Persian pay(g)ām meaning “message” as well as the occurrence of the word in other Iranian dialects, see Cheung, Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, 98–101. See also Greenfield, “Iranian Loanwords in Early Aramaic” and Shaked, “Iranian Loanwords in Middle Aramaic”. 202  As A. Hurvitz remarks, “[i]t is of interest to note … that ‫ פתגם‬apparently did not take root in post-Biblical Hebrew-neither in QH (where it is sparsely documented [2x …]) nor in RH (where it is virtually not to be found)” (A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew, 202–204). 203  See, e.g., Hinz, “Achämenidische Hofverwaltung”, 310. and the later occurrences in the Paikuli inscription (Skjærvø, Restored Text and Translation): (Pahlavi) 30F12,01, 38G6,04, 42H,01; (Parthian) 16c15,04, 27e13,03, 34f6,04, 35f3,05, 38g4,02. 204 See TAD A 6.8:3, 10:9, B 8.8:2, 3, 4, D 1.28:5, 32:15, Ezra 5:7, 11, 4Q421 f1aii–b:14, 11QTgJob 9:2, 30:1, and 34:2. For later Aramaic references, see CAL, ptgm, ptgmˀ. 205 See TAD D 7.39:8, Ecclesiastes 8:1, Esther 1:20, Daniel 4:14, Ezra 4:17, 6:11, 4QPrNab f1–3:2, and 4Q550 f1:6. 206  So also, e.g., the usage of ‫ פתגמא‬in the Genesis Apocryphon 22:27. 207  The Hafel of Aramaic ‫“ תּוב‬to return (something)” followed by ‫ ִּפתגָ ם‬with the meaning “to provide a response” in the Aramaic of Daniel 3:16 should also be understood as a parallel construction to Hebrew ‫ה ִׁשיב ָד ָבר‬,ֵ and certainly not as the more literal “to send back a message”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

78

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

interpretation of textual passages. The Hebrew formula ‫ פשר הפתגם‬is thus fully Aramaic in origin since both of the terms ‫ פשר‬and ‫ פתגם‬passed through Aramaic first and into Hebrew second: ‫ פשר‬being originally Akkadian (pašāru, pišru), and ‫ פתגם‬being Persian (patigāma). The linguistically updated Hebrew equivalent of this formula, ‫פשר הדבר‬, fits nicely within the shift from the earlier ‫“ פשר‬interpretation” of dreams and omens to the later ‫“ פשר‬interpretation” of texts (see pp. 39–41 and 72).

Hermeneutical Techniques The hermeneutic techniques208 employed in the Qumran pesharim have been widely studied. Perhaps the most foundational work on the topic was that of W.H. Brownlee.209 Most investigations of the pesher hermeneutic technique are concerned with determining the relationship between the pesher texts and later Jewish interpretation, such as midrash.210 Recently, comparisons of it with Near Eastern and other ancient parallels have, however, become increasingly common.211 Comprehensive descriptions of hermeneutics in individual pesher texts, namely in 1QpHab and 4QpNah, have been carried out already.212 The work of 208  The term hermeneutic is used here in order to avoid making an etic decision as to whether the terms exegesis or eisegesis is more appropriate for defining the interpretation of scripture at Qumran. However, G. Vermès does make a reasonable argument that the Qumran pesherists saw themselves as engaged in exegesis particularly when writing the continuous pesharim since they restricted themselves to a single base‑text and its internal order rather than simply selecting passages at will in order to support their interpretational agenda (Vermès, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran”, 190). 209  Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation”, but see the specific objections raised by Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 157–164. 210 See the history of scholarship presented in Horgan, Pesharim, 249, Dimant, “Pesharim, Qumran” section D, and Nitzan, The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, to which should be added Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Feltes, Die Gattung des Habakuk‑ kommentars von Qumran (1 QpHab). More recently, see Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”. 211  The most significant works are Daumas, “Littérature prophétique et exégetique Égyptienne et commentaires Esséniens”, Carmignac, “Le genre litteraire du ‘pesher’ dans la Pistis‑Sophia”, Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”, Lange, “Interpretation Als Offenbarung” and Lange and Pleše, “The Qumran Pesharim and the Derveni Papyrus”, Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commentary”, Nissinen, “Pesharim As Divination”, Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries”, 296–305, Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”, Machiela, “The Qumran Pesharim As Biblical Commentaries”, and Niehoff, “Commentary Culture in the Land of Israel”. For a survey of the previous literature on the topic, see Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary” and Machiela, “The Qumran Pesharim As Biblical Commentaries”, to which should have been added Lieberman, “A Mesopotamian Background”. 212  See especially Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 40–79 and Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

79

S. Tzoref, built upon many of B. Nitzan’s advancements, provides the most systematic approach to the issue of hermeneutic techniques.213 Tzoref developed a “tri‑fold model” for lemma/comment correspondence on arithmetical (by means of a host of literary devices), lexical, and contextual axes.214 Tzoref then examines each commentary unit in 4QpNah on each of these axes in order to provide a technical description of the nature of the exegetical links between lemma and pesher and to identify any sustained correspondences within the pericope. A comparative typological analysis of the hermeneutic method employed in every pesher text is beyond the scope of this book, for to perform such a task for even a single pesher is a significant undertaking and must account for the pesher hermeneutic in texts outside the corpus of continuous pesharim.215 It is not certain to me whether the results of such an investigation would provide further insight into the typological categories of pesher or into the development of the genre, especially in light of the highly fragmented nature of most of the manuscripts. Nor is this the place to rehash every single hermeneutic device that is employed in the pesharim.216 Nevertheless, I do feel it necessary to expand upon one particular hermeneutic akin to W.H. Brownlee’s thirteenth hermeneutical principle: “Other passages of scripture may illumine the meaning of the original prophet”,217 or to put it in more precise terms, works other than the base‑text may be referred to either explicitly or implicitly within pesher interpretations.

Citation of Works Other than the Base‑Text Firstly, the direct citation of works other than the pesher’s base‑text are now well-known in both explicitly introduced citations (4QpappIsac f1:4=Jeremiah ?;

213 S. Tzoref outlines B. Nitzan’s methods of exegesis as: 1) paraphrase; 2) allegory; 3) polyvalence; and 4) re‑contextualization, which is to be compared with K. Elliger’s atomization (Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 11 and 28–32). More generally these categories overlap to some extent with J.A. Fitzmyer’s categories for the exegetical use of scripture at Qumran and in the New Testament: 1) in agreement with their original context; 2) modernized to apply to present time; 3) accommodating to new context (the original context is ignored); and 4) eschatological (“The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations”). 214 Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 28–32. 215  A very basic chart of the continuous pesharim and the exegetical methods they employ can be found in Lim, Pesharim, 40–41. The formulas used in Qumran exegetical texts are catalogued in Elledge, “Exegetical Styles at Qumran”. 216  A nice small survey is carried out in Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”, which includes examples of: 1) citation and atomization; 2) multiple interpretations; 3) paranomasia; 4) symbols; and 5) notariqon. M. Fishbane’s sixth category, gematria, does not occur in the pesharim. 217  Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation”, 62.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

80

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

f8–10:8=Zechariah ?; f21:7–8=Zechariah 11:11; f23ii:14a=Hosea 6:9a218) as well as citations without any reference provided (1QpHab 6:11–12=Isaiah 13:18bα219 and 4QpHosa 2:16=Jubilees 6:35220). Thus the situation has changed markedly since M. Bernstein voiced his impression “that pesharim, in general, do not cite material from other texts”.221 Additionally, it is becoming better understood that works other than a pesher’s base‑text might heavily influence a pesher interpretation, which may be indicated by unpegged plusses or other forms of allusion.222 For instance, A. Jassen has suggested that the mention of ‫כסא‬,‎‫נזר‬,‎and ‫בגדי ריקמות‬‎ in 4QpIsaa f8–10:19 (unit 5ʹ = Isaiah 11:1–5) are based on the occurrence of the same three terms, in that same order, in Ezekiel 26:16.223 The logic of this lies in the fact that the ‫יאי ַהּיָם‬ ֵ ‫נְש‬ ִ “princes of the sea” are ideologically equivalent with the Kittim. Thus the disrobing of the rulers of the islands and coastlands and their descent from 218  There is no mention of Zechariah or Hosea in the last two examples since the text is broken. However, since Zechariah and Jeremiah are mentioned in the first two examples, it is quite possible that the references were cited in these broken instances as well. 219  So noted already by Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 105. 220  That is, 4QpHosa 2:16 is very close to Jubilees 6:35 [Eth]: ወኢይሑሩ፡‌በበዓላተ፡‌አሕዛብ፡‌ “and (lest) they walk in the festivals of the nations” (perhaps the causative form of the verb ሖረ “to walk” attested in one Ethiopic manuscript [Kebrān 9] should be related to the causative Hifil ‫ יוליכו‬in 4QpHosa). The similarity between these passages was first noted summarily in VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 43, n. to 6:35, and independently discussed in detail in Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ ”, which is accepted and further elaborated in Hagedorn and Tzoref, “Attitudes to Gentiles”, 493–495. 221  Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ ”, 28. 222  Several passages in Pesher Habakkuk with similarities to biblical passages had been collected by W.H. Brownlee (Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk), and a more detailed accounting of several of these can be found in Brooke, “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 341–342. The concept of unpegged plusses (i.e., ‫הוספות ללא אחיזה בכתוב‬ “additions without a hold in the text”) was first formulated and applied to Pesher Habakkuk by B. Nitzan (Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 58–61). The usage and significance of this hermeneutic was further developed by S. Tzoref (Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qum‑ ran, 32 and n. 102 and throughout, and especially Berrin, “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources”), see also her description of implicit interpretive traditions in Tzoref, “Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch”, 213–218. A number of examples from 4QpNah as well as one example from 4QpIsaa and one from 4QpPsa are presented in Berrin, “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources” and Tzoref, “Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch”, 213–218. An immense collection of biblical allusions in 4QpPsa as well as a discussion of the methodology behind the use of allusion, including “cascading gezeirah shawah” (a type of free association), has been presented in Katzin, “ ‘The Time of Testing’ ”, 124–146. For the usage of the Hodayot in 1QpHab, see Brooke, “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 344. 223  Jassen, “Re‑reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161)”, 83–84. A. Jassen follows the Septuagint reading here and understands μίτρας “crown”, which is absent in the MT, to be the equivalent of Hebrew ‫“ נֵ זֶ ר‬crown”, though in the Septuagint μίτρα is a translational equivalent for ‫ ִמ ְצנֶ ֶפת‬and ‫פ ֵאר‬, ְ and ‫“ נֵ זֶ ר‬crown” is translated concretely as πέταλον or simply transliterated νεζερ. Since the terms ‫ בגדי רקמה‬and ‫ כסא‬occur together in the Hebrew Bible only in Ezekiel 26:16, Jassen’s argument remains valid, regardless of the presence or absence of ‫נֵ זֶ ר‬.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

81

the throne in Ezekiel 26:16 is juxtaposed with the messianic ascendency at the end of days, which is described in the pesher comment. Jassen also notes the close occurrence of ‫ חרדה‬in Ezekiel 26:16 and Isaiah 10:29 as a possible catalyst for the comparison of Ezekiel with the text of Isaiah. The sharing of so many specialized vocabulary items along with the possibility of ‫ חרדה‬being a trigger provides a compelling case for the interpretation of 4QpIsaa f8–10:19 being rooted in the text of Ezekiel 26:16. A perhaps more obvious instance of allusion would be the linking of the promise of Judah’s everlasting rulership (Genesis 49:10) in 4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ to the Deuteronomistic promise of continual Davidic kingship in Jeremiah 33:17 and 1 Kings 8:25 || 2 Chronicles 6:16 (see also 1 Kings 2:4 and 9:5 || 2 Chronicles 7:18). Lines 5:3–4 of this comment expand on the idea with reference to David’s ‫צ ָד ָקה‬/‫יק‬ ְ ‫“ ֶצ ַמח ַצ ִד‬sprout of righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15) and its messianic implications (Psalm 132:17, compare also Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel 17:22–24). In this passage, Jeremiah 33:15 and 17 provide the simplest source for the allusion. Nevertheless, the promise of eternal Davidic kingship through a righteous messianic sprout from his line may have already gained popular currency by the time 4QcommGen A was composed, in which case the allusion would only be secondary in nature.

Exegetical Usage of Works Other than the Base‑Text A similar type of analysis applies to the comment in 1QpHab unit 13. This particular comment draws a historical parallel between current events leading to the end of days and the events that led to the fall of Judah as described in 2 Chronicles 36:16. The comment in 1QpHab unit 13 is peculiar in its use of several rare verbs in the third person plural with no specified subject. The four verbs, in order, are ‫לעג‬,‎ ‫בזה‬,‎ ‫ תעע‬in the Hithpalpel stem, and finally ‫קלס‬. While ‫ קלס‬comes from the lemma (Habakkuk 1:10a), the previous three verbs in the comment are not related in any clear way to the lemma. Moreover, the Hithpalpel stem of ‫ תעע‬is so rare that it is a dis legomenon only found here and in 2 Chronicles 36:16. The rare form of ‫ תעע‬is not, however, the only feature linking this comment with 2 Chronicles 36:16, for these two passage share, in essence, the same three verbs in the same order: 1) ‫ לעג‬in 1QpHab and ‫ לעב‬in 2 Chronicles;224 2) ‫ בזה‬in both texts; and finally 3) the dis legomenon Hithpalpel stem of ‫תעע‬.225 224  It is questionable whether ‫ לעב‬is a bona fide root or merely a late mistake for ‫ לעג‬due to graphical similarity of ‫ ב‬and ‫ ג‬in the square script. The root ‫ לעב‬is a dis or tris legomenon found in 2 Chronicles 36:16, and Ben Sira (B) 30:13, and reconstructed in 1Q25 f1:8, but the Ben Sira citation is itself dubious since the marginal reading for Ben Sira (B) 30:13 has ‫ יתעל‬instead of ‫יתלעב‬. In any event the pesherist either had a text of 2 Chronicles 36:16 that had ‫ לעג‬instead of ‫לעב‬, or the pesherist updated or corrected the obscure ‫ לעב‬of Chronicles to the more common and comprehensible ‫לעג‬. 225  The collocation of these three verbs in 1QpHab and in 2 Chronicles has been noted by Brooke, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim”, 147–148 and subsequently Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 159–161.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

82

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

The motivation for the pesherist to turn to a passage in 2 Chronicles 36 for a comment on Habakkuk 1 is obvious. Habakkuk 1:10 prophecies about the horror of the Babylonians whom God will raise up to punish the wicked in Judah; 2 Chronicles 36:11–23 details the fulfilment of that very prophecy with the punishment of Judah and its king Zedekiah at the hands of the Babylonian empire. 2 Chronicles 36:16 further relates, in no uncertain terms, the reason that the Babylonians were sent to destroy Judah. In this way the pesherist has, first and foremost, linked the prophetic oracle of Habakkuk 1 with the historical narrative of its fulfilment in 2 Chronicles 36:11–23.226 Thereafter the pesherist applied the Chronicler’s explanation of the reason for the fall of Judah to the present day situation of the imminent day of judgement. The pesherist replaces the three objects of the people’s incorrect behaviour in Chronicles, the ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“ ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ָה ֱא‬the messengers of God”,‎the ‫“ ְּד ָב ִרים‬words” of God, and his ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫“ נְ ִב‬prophets”, with the ‫“ רבים‬great ones?”,‎ the ‫“ נכבדים במלכים‬those honoured among the kings”,‎and the ‫“ שרים‬nobles” respectively. Remarkably, the offense in Chronicles, which was one of affronting the deity by ignoring his messengers, has been shifted by the pesherist to the political sphere.227 That is, the act of the Kittim creating an empire is equated with hubris and is put forward as one of the catalysts for the apocalyptic day of the Lord.228 226  The validity of this analysis of 1QpHab unit 13 may be questioned on the basis of the fact that Chronicles is only attested at Qumran in one column of one ms, 4Q118 f1ii (f1i is not from Chronicles). Nevertheless, the dependency of 1QpHab on Chronicles here is almost certain. Both passages use rare vocabulary in the same sequential order in similar contexts of widespread destruction (see points 1, 3, 5, and 6 of Leonard, “Identifying Inner‑Biblical Allusions”), not to mention that the base‑text of 1QpHab unit 13 and 2 Chronicles 36:11–23 both deal with the same historical event. Any theory regarding the status of Chronicles at Qumran should rather be adjusted to take the evidence presented here into account. One such model that could allow for the usage of Chronicles here is that of G. Brooke. He has argued that the Qumran documents which refer to Chronicles date to the second century bce (Brooke, “The Books of Chronicles”, 42–43). The assumption in his model is that Chronicles fell out of favour among the Qumran sect in the first century bce due in part to the Hasmonean’s usage of it to support their “claims to be heirs to the Davidic tradition”. I tend to doubt that this or any other comment in 1QpHab should indeed be understood as arising from a second century bce context, but the possibility remains. 227  The three entities, ‫רבים‬,‎ ‫נכבדים‬,‎ and ‫מלכים‬‎ are also mentioned in 4QpNah unit 12ʹ, but less surprisingly they are treated there as entities who have been deceived by both false and treacherous teachings. My interpretation of the comment as a reference to the hubris of the Kittim is largely in line with the interpretation of J. Jokiranta (Social Identity and Sectarianism, 161), and in opposition to Brooke’s contention that the comment refers to the current Judean leadership acting inappropriately, which was to result in the Romans pillaging the temple treasury (“The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim”, 148). 228  If, however, the views of G. Brooke are correct that Qumran references to Chronicles must date to the second century bce (see my remarks in fn. 226), then the comment in 1QpHab unit 13 would date to that period and perhaps be lamenting the fact that not all the Jewish people were falling in line behind the new Jewish leadership.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

83

This particular hermeneutic method goes far beyond literary allusion, such as the use of the roots ‫ כפל‬and ‫ רצי‬in 1QpHab unit 23 to refer to Isaiah 40:2 – the only place in the Hebrew Bible where those two roots appear together.229 It demonstrates an understanding that the prophetic work belonged to a particular historical context – a primary feature of the modern historical‑critical exegetical technique. The narrative of the book of Chronicles provided a historical context for Habakkuk’s prophecy, and that contextual reading was then employed to illuminate the prophecy’s relevance for the events of the present day.230 Such a technique should not come as a surprise for a similar approach can already be found in Jeremiah 26:18–19, where the elders of the land explicitly quote Micah 3:12 and then appeal to the historical context of that prophecy as a defence for Jeremiah’s current prophecy and exhortations. This type of commentary activity based in literary research also occurs in the pesher to Genesis 49 4QCommGen A commentary unit 1: ‫ורישית‬4:4 ‫ראובן בכורי אתה‬4:3 ‫אוני יתר שאת ויתר עוז פחזתה‬ ‫משכבי‬4:5 ‫כמים אל תותר עליתה‬ ‫אביכה אז חללתה יצועיו עלה‏‬ ‫‏ פשרו אשר הוכיחו אשר‬vacat ‫ שכב עם בלהה פילגשו‬4:6 ]...[‫]ל‬ ׄ ‫]א[תה‬ ֯ ‫[א]מר ֯ב ֯כו֯ [רי‬ ׄ ֯‫ו‬ ]...[°°‫ער‬ ֯ ‫ראשית‬4:7 ‫֯ר ֯אוׄ ׄבןׄ הוא‬

4:3Reuben,

you are my firstborn, 4:4and the first of my vigor, exceeding in majesty, and exceeding in strength. You are reckless as water. May you no longer excel; you went up on 4:5your father’s bed, then you profaned (it), he went up on his couches.‎vacat‎Its interpretation is that he reproached him because 4:6he lay with Bilhah, his concubine, and [he s]aid: “Y[ou] are [my fir]st born ? [...] Reuben, he was 4:7the first of ? [...]

A short reference to Reuben defiling his father’s concubine is presented in the comment of 4QcommGen A 4:6 as an explanation for why Reuben is cursed in the base‑text Genesis 49:3–4. This clarification in the comment appears to be either a paraphrase of Genesis 35:22 or perhaps a near citation from Jubilees 33:8: Et iratus est iacob aduersus ruben ualde quoniam dormiuit (Eth: ሰከበ) cum balla “Jacob was very angry at Reuben because he had slept (Eth: lain) with Bilhah”. This is an instance of explaining the allusion in Genesis 49:4 by recourse to a narrative history, to use the term loosely.

229  So Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation, 267, n. 27. This allusion serves the purpose of juxtaposing the forgiveness extended to Judah after the conquest of the Babylonian empire with the eternal judgement that awaits sinners on the day of the Lord. 230  Though E. Dąbrowa overstates the case somewhat, it does appear true with regard to the Qumran community that “[p]ast events and historical figures, even if known to them, were only used as illustrative material to promulgate their own theological beliefs” (“The Hasmoneans”, 509).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

84

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts The preceding discussions have highlighted many of the features that allow for a categorization of the pesher manuscripts. Some of these findings suggest close groupings of texts with similar styles and similar interests, but are any of the surviving fragments copies of the same composition? The book of Isaiah has received the largest number of pesher texts with no less than five pesher manuscripts. Hosea, Zephaniah,231 and Genesis 49 have also been treated in multiple pesher manuscripts – and there are several pesher manuscripts treating select psalms; it is less certain that Micah and Malachi had multiple pe‑ sharim. Early on in pesher research, J.T. Milik claimed that none of the pesharim existed in more than one copy.232 In her study of all the continuous pesharim, M. Horgan does allow that some of the pesher texts are not autographs, but rather have been copied from earlier texts, but she has also nevertheless maintained the uniqueness of each pesher manuscript.233 A careful analysis of the manuscript layout, the style of commenting, and the formal literary structure of all these manuscripts, when discernible, often leans in favour of this opinion. Consequently, I am inclined to disagree with any tendency to lump together all the pesharim manuscripts treating one particular base‑text into a single pesher text, especially in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary.

Psalms H. Stegemann is joined by A. Lange and Z. Pleše in grouping the three psalm pesharim from Qumran into one text.234 But none of them has put forward any arguments in support of this hypothesis other than preferring one commentary text to three. Stegemann’s comments about the nature and concerns of this single psalm pesher seem to be entirely based on 4QpPsa; he mentions nothing specific pertaining to the contents of 4QpPsb and 1QpPs aside from a listing of the chapters of psalms that those two works interpret. 1QpPs has very little recoverable text, but two comments do mention the Kittim, and one of them in conjunction with Jerusalem. Commentary unit 4ʹ may refer to some cultic issue, but that is far from clear. 4QpPsb is likewise poorly preserved, but it makes no mention of 231  The fact that almost nothing remains of either Zephaniah pesher will make a comparison of the two texts entirely impossible. 232 Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, 41. 233 Horgan, Pesharim, 3. See also, most notably, Horgan, “Pesharim”, 1, Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 1, n. 1, and 215–216, and Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 43. 234 Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 127–9 and Lange and Pleše, “The Qumran Pesharim and the Derveni Papyrus”, 910 n. 28. G. Brooke is also aware of the difficulty in the treatment of these texts (“Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 619 n. 41).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts

85

political concerns, and is focused solely on the Teacher of righteousness (commentary units 1 and 3ʹ) and the struggle between his followers and the wicked (commentary units 2, 4ʹ, and 6ʹ). No thematic or terminological evidence convincingly suggests that these two manuscripts belong to the same composition. It is true that 4QpPsa does share the same thematic concerns as 4QpPsb with regard to the struggle between the teacher of righteousness and his followers on the one side and the current wicked religio‑political establishment on the other. But these are themes common to all the pesharim and much of the sectarian literature in general. The two manuscripts of 4QpPsa and 4QpPsb, however, certainly did arise from differing scribal traditions, for 4QpPsa sometimes uses a vacat between commentary units, but never between a lemma and its comment, while 4QpPsb places a vacat between the lemma and its comment in f2:1. 4QpPsa is, however, markedly different from 1QpPs: the political concerns of 4QpPsa are more muted than those of 1QpPs, and 4QpPsa resorts to veiled euphemism when it refers to the Romans as “tho[se] who violate the nations” (f3–10iv:10) whereas 1QpPs uses the more commonplace term Kittim (f9:4).235 With the absence of any concrete evidence suggesting that these three manuscripts represent a single text, it seems premature to group them together on such flimsy grounds as broadly shared thematic concerns. What is more, 1QpPs is almost certainly not the same composition as 4QpPsa since its political concerns are decidedly more overt.

Isaiah H. Stegemann discerns two commentaries on Isaiah with “completely different” interests, 4QpIsace and 4QpIsaabd.236 His assessment has been deemed possible by G. Brooke, who offers several arguments both for and against Stegemann’s two-commentary theory, but Brooke ultimately leaves the question unresolved.237 The highly fragmented nature of these manuscripts largely frustrates any attempt to fully account for the principal thematic interests in them, which renders dubious any argument for groupings of manuscripts on such grounds. Stegemann’s claim that only 4QpIsaabd is concerned with “the imminent final struggle with the enemies of Israel”238 may be countered by the fact that a battle is mentioned in his 4QpIsace pesher text as well (4QpappIsac f21:4, f25:3, and 4QpIsae f5:6), but those texts unfortunately break before revealing any more details. 235  A. Steudel has argued that the absence of the Kittim from 4QpPsa is evidence that the pesher’s date of composition was prior to 63 bce (“Dating Exegetical Texts”, 48). 236 Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 126. 237  Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 618–619. 238 Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 127.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

86

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

4QpIsaa and 4QpappIsac both contain commentary for Isaiah 10:21–24, but they differ in their division of the base‑text into lemma blocks239 and in the content of their comments.240 For this reason, those two manuscripts must be understood as different compositions241 – and this was almost certainly the motivation for Stegemann’s two Isaiah commentaries. Yet further, no instance of textual overlap can be adduced in any of the Isaiah pesharim to demonstrate in a positive manner that two or more manuscripts are copies of one particular Isaiah pesher. In support of more than two Isaiah commentaries, G. Brooke noted that “4QpIsab is somewhat different structurally from the others and 4Q[pap]pIsac is markedly distinct in having subsidiary quotations from other prophets”.242 The statistical analysis carried out above (pp. 52–58) demonstrated that 4QpIsaa and 4QpIsab, while similar when compared to the other pesharim, differ markedly when compared to each other. The statistical analysis of 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsae, on the other hand, could allow for those two texts to be the same composition. In the end, the evidence points more favourably toward a greater number of Isaiah commentaries than two. And at the very least 4QpIsaa, 4QpIsab, and 4QpappIsac should be treated as distinct commentaries. Admittedly the situation is less certain with regard to 4QpappIsac and 4QpIsae, but their similarities may have to do with their place within the evolutionary development of the genre.243 4QpIsad and 3QpIsa* are both too small to admit any certain conclusions regarding their placement among the Isaiah pesharim.

Hosea 4QpHosa and 4QpHosb may have commented on their entire base‑text – nothing indicates that either pesher comments only on select portions of Hosea.244 What is left of 4QpHosa involves comments that relate a divine punishment (units 2 239 Isaiah 10:21, 10:22, and 10:24–27a in 4QpIsaa; Isaiah 10:20–22a, 10:22b–23, and 10:24–? in 4QpappIsac. 240  True, the half restored ‫“ שבי‬captive” in 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:15 could provide a point of similarity between the comments of these two pesharim, since 4QpIsaa f5–6:2 alludes to the return of captives from the nations, but that restoration is by no means certain. 241  So Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 191 and Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 619, n. 41. 242  Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim”, 619. 243  This possibility of diachronic shifts within the pesher genre will be discussed later in the section Literary Structure, pp. 102–110, where the evidence from Mesopotamia plays an empirical role. 244 4QpHosa has an average of 4 verses per 17 line column, if that rate of progress was maintained throughout the manuscript, it would have been rather long with about 50 columns. The column height of 4QpHosb is unknown, but f11–13 comments on 4 verses in 10 lines, and f2 comments on 3 verses in 7 lines, and so it may have had a slightly more brisk pace than 4QpHosa, and could have fit on a shorter scroll.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts

87

and 5) and apostasy (units 1, 2, 4, and 6) alongside highlighted calendrical issues (unit 6). 4QpHosb does mention apostasy (unit 7ʹ), but also seems concerned with specific political events (units 1 and 2); it discusses divine abandonment (unit 3) more so than divine punishment. The concerns evidenced in the meagre remains of the comments to these two pesharim provides no substantial evidence that they shared any common interpretational tradition.245 Nor do the comments provide any evidence that these two pesharim were different copies of a single Hosea pesher text. Moreover, the pace of 4QpHosb appears slightly more brisk than that of 4QpHosa since it has generally shorter lemmas and comments (see above, p. 45). As a result, these two pesharim to Hosea are more likely to represent two distinct compositions.

Genesis 49 The two pesharim on Genesis 49 are unique in the sense that they deal only with a short poem embedded within a larger narrative work. There is no evidence for a pesher to the whole of Genesis with a style similar to that of pesher Habakkuk, or the other continuous pesharim. Nor would a pesher to the narrative of Genesis be expected since pesher compositions only deal with poetic prophecy. But Genesis 49, as a prophetic poem that divulges “what will happen ... in the final days” (Genesis 49:1bβ), must have been viewed as particularly suited to pesher interpretation, a situation that held true for poems in Numbers and Deuteronomy as well.246 The two pesharim on Genesis 49 may indeed be copies of a shared source, since they have a similar format with lemmas of 1–3 modern verses, a common feature of short lemma pesharim, and they both make use of internal citations. Both of these pesharim occur in similar contexts, which also suggests a shared tradition. But simply too little of 4QcommGen C is left to lead to any more certain conclusions about its relationship to 4QcommGen A, and the two texts do not overlap at any point. The lack of concrete evidence for multiple copies of pesher texts should not be taken as evidence that the pesher manuscripts are autographs, for many bear the tell–tale signs of copying.247 It has long been known that 1QpHab is a copy due 245  Perhaps also to be considered is T. Ilan’s argument that each pesher deals with a different time period, 4QpHosb dates during Shelamtzion’s reign, 4QpHosa dates after it (Ilan, Silencing the Queen, 67–72). 246  Dimant, “Pesharim, Qumran”, 248. 247  Though S. Llewelyn, S. Ng, G. Wearne, and A. Wrathal leave open the possibility that multiple pesharim to a single work were either copies of the same composition or variant versions, they focus on the features of 1QpHab that indicate its nature as a copy (“A Case for Two Vorlagen”, 125–126).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

88

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

to the numerous corrections found in it, the multiple hands involved in writing it, and several textual errors that are best describes as the result of copying (see also the section Duplicate Commentary Texts, pp. 120–124).248 The corrections to errors in the comment sections of other pesharim are likely artefacts of the process of copying: 1QpHab 3:7, 12:4, 4QpappIsac f23i:17, 4QpIsad f2:1, 4QpIsae f6:7, and 4QpMal* f1ii:1. The error in 4QpNah unit 20ʹ (f3–4iv:3), where a scribe corrected the omission of a ‫ ו‬from the introductory formula with a superscript (i.e., ‫)פשרו‬, is also apparently the result of copying.249

Number of Pesher Manuscripts in Comparison to Copies of the Base‑Text Regardless of the question as to whether the Isaiah, psalm, Hosea, or other multiple pesher manuscripts to any given work should be considered as individual unique pesher texts or as multiple copies of a single pesher text, a word is in order concerning the distribution of pesher texts. The number of pesher manuscripts to a particular base‑text tracks fairly closely to the distribution of that base‑text itself at Qumran. It is not surprising that so many Isaiah pesharim were preserved at Qumran, for Isaiah is one of the commonest books attested there, with 21 copies.250 The Qumran caves housed far fewer copies of the manuscripts containing 248  This was first demonstrated by M. Martin (The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:78–81), and he has generally been followed by later researchers (see, e.g., Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 23, Horgan, Pesharim, 3–4 and “Pesharim”, 157, Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 28, Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 40, and Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 131, which is followed by Hanan, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”, 108–109 and n. 9). The evidence from TAD A 4.7 and 4.8 is also instructive here, for those letters aid in demonstrating some of the same features that distinguish an early draft from a later more finished product, such as the presence of multiple hands in a manuscript (see Porten, “The Revised Draft”). 249  The field has largely shifted from the earlier assessment that all, or most, of the pe‑ sharim are autographs (Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, 41, Cross et al., Scrolls From Qumran Cave I, 5, and Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, 92; F.M. Cross reiterated this view in a letter mentioned in Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 77–78), to the view that they are more likely to be copies (see Horgan, “Pesharim”, 1, Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 28, Brooke, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features”, 140 and 145, and Charlesworth’s revised position in Charlesworth and McSpadden, “The Sociological and Liturgical Dimensions of Psalm Pesher 1 (4QPPSa)”, 323–324; for 4QpNah as a copy, see Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 43–44 and especially 219–220). An uncertainty as to whether the pesharim are autographs is voiced in Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, 489, Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 1 and 115–116, and Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 74. 250 Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 780. Though, if most copies contained only the first or the second bifurcation, then the total number of copies of Isaiah at Qumran may be nearly cut in half.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran

89

minor prophet texts – only 10251 – with only 1 or 2 pesher texts on several books from that collection. The two instances of multiple manuscripts that do not readily correspond to the distribution of their base‑texts at Qumran are the pesharim to select psalms and to Genesis 49. While the ratio of 2 pesharim on Genesis 49 to the ca. 20 copies of Genesis at Qumran is rather meagre,252 it is possible that the other 2 smaller fragments of so‑called Genesis commentaries, 4QcommGen B and D (which, like 4QcommGen A and 4QcommGen C, are not themselves pesharim), may have contained a continuous pesher to Genesis 49 as well – as 4QcommGen A and 4QcommGen C did. If this were the case, then the number of pesharim to Genesis 49 would align fairly well with the distribution of Genesis manuscripts at Qumran. The pesharim to select psalms, on the other hand, are far fewer in number relative to the 35/37 Qumran psalter collections.253 But it is unclear to me how to properly calculate the statistics for this group, for it is impossible to determine with certainty the specific psalms contained within any of the various psalters at Qumran and there was no standard book of Psalms there.254

Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran The preceding studies have suggested a number of new ways to think about comparing and contrasting the pesharim on various levels: scribal formatting, formal literary structure, and technical vocabulary. In the previous chapter I have followed R. Williamson, with some small refinements, to formulate a less rigid model for understanding pesher as a genre and for grouping texts within sub‑genres. This results in a corpus that closely resembles J. Carmignac’s grouping of continuous pesharim, but it also allows for a proper accounting of the relationship between these so‑called continuous pesher texts and some of Carmignac’s thematic pesharim that are also to a certain extent sequential (4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥûmîm). The structural analysis carried out here has demonstrated the existence of two or perhaps three distinct structural formats of pesher texts within the selected corpus of mainly continuous pesharim: 1) Short lemma pesharim present a block of the lemma followed by the comment, then repeat the process with the subsequent lemma (e.g., 1QpHab, 4QpHosa,b, 4QpPsa,b, and 4QpNah). 251  12 manuscripts in total, including Wadi Murabbaʿat and Naḥ al Ḥ ever, according to von Weissenberg, “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process”, 362–363. 252 Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 779. 253 Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 780. 254  For variation in the psalters at Qumran, see, e.g., Flint, “Psalms, Book of ”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

90

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

2) Long lemma pesharim present typically long blocks of the lemma which are then broken into small excerpts that are interpreted one by one in the comment (e.g., 4QpIsaa,b,c,e). 3) Linked lemma pesharim are a possible category, represented only by 1QpMic, which may present a block of the lemma followed by the comment, then repeat the end of that lemma prepended to the subsequent lemma block.

This form critical division is bolstered by the statistical survey of the word length of lemmas and comments in the pesher commentary units (see pp. 52–58): 1) Short lemma pesharim form a coherent group with comments that are typically ca. 2–2.5 times longer than their lemmas on average (1QpHab, 4QpHosa,b, 4QpNah, and 4QpPsa,b).255 2) Long lemma pesharim, on the other hand, all have lemmas and comments of roughly the same size on average and of a similar range of variation in length (4QpIsaa,b,c,e). 3) The possible linked lemma pesher 1QpMic can only provide very meagre statistics, which hint at a typology intermediary to the first two groups.

Two of the long lemma pesharim, 4QpIsaa,c, are again grouped in opposition to the other pesher texts by virtue of their lack of any introductory formula between several lemma–comment pairs (see pp. 70–71). On the other hand, usage of the syntactically isolated ‫ פשרו‬formula (see p. 73) only occurs in short lemma pe‑ sharim (1QpHab, 1QpPs, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa). The extent to which base‑texts are interpreted in the pesharim vary. This variation in scope can be characterized as follows: 1) Entire base‑text: 1QpHab?, 4QpNah, and possibly other pesharim on individual works later included in the Book of the Twelve. 2) Small, self‑standing, portion(s) of a base‑text: pesher to Genesis 49 in 4QCommGen A and C), as well as short compositions that are often grouped together, for instance, in psalm books: 1QpPs, 4QpPsa, and 4QpPsb. 3) Excerpts from the base‑text, which do not constitute complete units: 4QpIsab, 4QpappIsac, and perhaps the rest of the Isaiah pesharim.

The first two groupings exclusively use a short lemma structure and third uses only the long lemma structure. This organization of the variety within the Qumran pesharim underscores M. Bernstein’s warning concerning the treatment of 1QpHab as the prototypical

255  1QpPs is a short lemma pesher, but it is too damaged for a proper statistical assessment.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran

91

pesher.256 I agree that the pesharim are multifarious. But, as I have demonstrated here, their compositional structures are by no means chaotic. Nor are the interpretations voiced in the pesharim as ad hoc as they have so often appeared. I would argue against the common impression expressed by, among others, J. Carmignac that “the pesher deliberately neglects the literal meaning intended by the ancient author”.257 Even though the pesharim do reveal a strong compulsion to focus the interpretation of the base‑text within the sphere of the apocalyptic, interpretations were, at times, grounded in an understanding of the original context of the prophet’s words in the base‑text, and thus approach some of the methods of modern historical critical exegesis (see my discussion of 1QpHab unit 13, pp. 81–83).258 This conclusion comports well with the evolving understanding in pesher scholarship of the specific ways in which texts other than a pesher’s base‑text can influence its comments. By outlining the history of the phenomenon of textual interpretation in other Jewish works predating and perhaps contemporaneous with the Qumran pe‑ sharim, I have been able to situate the pesharim within a larger literary context. My discussion of commentary activity in the Hebrew Bible clarifies some of the connections between multiple facets of the Qumran pesharim on the one hand and the book of Daniel on the other. This comparison also sets up the opposition already in the second century bce between interpretation concerned with divine revelation (often of the eschaton) and interpretation by means of divinely bestowed cognitive ability (as described in Ben Sira 39). In my opinion, the development of the interpretive tradition concerned with divine revelation can be further explained by a careful sociolinguistic analysis with regard to the formulae it employed. The survival of ‫פשר הפתגם‬, a Hebrew calque on an Aramaic formula‎ pšar piṯgāmā, suggests a specific sociolinguistic context for pesher interpretation prior to its usage in the Qumran texts. While the Aramaic borrowing of Akkadian pašāru/pišru could have occurred within a very wide time span, the usage of the Persian word patigāma points to the Persian period as the earliest horizon for the creation of this introductory formula.259 That is, pesher as an interpretive method was originally developed in Aramaic speaking Jewish communities of the mid‑to‑late Persian period at the earliest and influenced by methods of dream 256  Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation”, 31–32. 257  “[L]e péshèr néglige délibérément le sens littéral voulu par l’auteur ancien” (Carmignac, Cothenet and Lignée, Les textes de Qumran, 46). 258  S. Berrin has also noted that the pesher does not necessarily invalidate the original meaning of the base‑text (see Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 15–18 and also Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 121–122 and 166–170). 259  It is true that the use of ‫ה‬/‫ ִמ ָּלא‬in ‫ר־מ ְּל ָתא‬ ִ ‫ ְּפ ַש‬of Daniel 5:15 and 26, and the ‫ְפ ַשר ִמ ַּלּיָ א‬ of Daniel 7:16 need not be limited to the Persian period or later on linguistic grounds, but the literary context almost certainly demands such a dating.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

92

Qumran Commentaries: A Formal Description

and omen interpretation similar to those found in Mesopotamia (see fn. 211 and pp. 112–117) – usage of the Persian term patigāma “message” in the pesharim points to this background in interpreting divine messages. Pesher interpretive methods were applied in Persian and Hellenistic period Aramaic literature both to dreams and the omens (Aramaic Daniel, 4QEn Giantsa f8:13, and 4QEn Giantsb f2 ii:14, 23, and f7 ii:10),260 and subsequently to the prophetic message as well (Daniel 9).261 The belief that prophetic texts were, in fact, visions or dreams facilitated the application of dream and omen interpretive techniques to prophetic texts. The growing interest in divinely inspired scriptural interpretation within the Judaism of the Hellenistic period, or more precisely the first half of the second century bce, led to the more rigorous examples of scriptural interpretation found at Qumran, where the linguistic context shifted from Aramaic to Hebrew.262 The structure and formulations of 4QpIsab,d and 4QpappIsac and perhaps several other exegetical texts (4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥûmîm) are indeed rudimentary. More refined examples of the genre focus on one base‑text and treat it more comprehensively in scope: 1) by dealing with complete text units, as in the pesharim to select psalms, and also more complex literary compositions, as in 1QpHab and 4QpNah, and 2) by using more fine‑grained divisions of the base‑text into commentary units, as in 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, 4QpPsb, 4QpHosa and 4QpHosb. So, based on the formal analyses carried out here and my understanding of the pesher genre, I would categorize at least four types of continuous pesharim: 1) Pesharim associated somewhat loosely with one base‑text or more (i.e., 4QMidrEschata,b and 4QTanḥ ûmîm). These pesharim are largely keyed to the sequential order of one or more base‑texts, and frequently use the citation of other works to explain a lemma.263 260  Thus A. Jassen was largely correct when he asserted that “the book of Daniel represents an important bridge between the Near Eastern evidence [of dream and omen interpretation] and the pesharim” (Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary”, 389), but his statement should be broadened to include Enochic literature alongside Daniel. For the strong connections shared between interpretation in Jewish Aramaic literature and Qumran pesharim, see Machiela, “The Qumran Pesharim as Biblical Commentaries”, 337–343. For the root pšr in Aramaic, see Tigchelaar, “‫ פשר‬pšr”. 261  The transition from interpreting the prophet’s ‫“ פתגם‬message” to the prophetic ‫דבר‬ “passage” would then be a shift to a more generic terminology perhaps influenced by the increasingly generic usage of ‫ פתגם‬in the Aramaic speaking world as well as the usage of ‫ה‬/‫ִמ ָּלא‬ in Daniel 5:15, 26, and 7:16. 262  This also accounts for the fact that 4QApocWeeks presents a Hebrew text that corresponds somewhat to the Aramaic Apocalypse of Weeks in I Enoch. 263  Regarding 4QpappIsac, A. Steudel has noted, “that – like the thematical midrashim – this pesher still quotes Scripture in an eclectic way, quotation‑formulas are still in use, quotations from other biblical texts are interwoven, a technique which later is completely ruled out” (“Dating Exegetical Texts”, 50).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Descriptive Typologies for Commentaries at Qumran

93

2) Pesharim which treat only excerpts from a single base text (i.e., most if not all Isaiah pesharim). These pesharim have lemmas and comments of a similar length on average and sometimes employ simple or rather spare technical terminology. They only infrequently quote other works in their interpretations, sometimes with source citation. 3) Pesharim, or collections of pesharim, to small self-standing compositions (i.e., the pesharim to the Blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49, and the pesharim to select psalms264). These pesharim use shorter lemmas than the previous category, and their comments are about 2–2.5 times longer on average than their lemmas. They regularly use a well‑developed vocabulary of technical terms and contain fewer quotes from other texts than the previous categories, but never with source citation. 4) Pesharim to larger more complex literary works like Nahum, Habakkuk (chs. 1–2), and likely most of the other pesharim to works from the Book of the Twelve. These pesharim otherwise share the compositional features of category 3.

These various ways of creating pesher compositions at Qumran, along with the differing scribal tendencies found within the corpus, attest to the richly interwoven tapestry of interpretational traditions and techniques developed at Qumran out of earlier traditions, especially in the context of a Jewish Aramaic milieu.

264  The three pesharim to select psalms group together discrete pesharim to multiple psalms just as the many psalm books at Qumran group together various individual psalms in various orders.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: A Comparison of Formal Features The conclusions of the previous chapter have provided an in‑depth technical description of the Qumran pesharim on their own merits. Those conclusions, along with the insights I have gained from a careful study of several Mesopotamian commentaries, provide a wealth of data for my comparison of the two commentary corpora in the following chapters. Such comparisons serve two main purposes: 1) to clarify what influence, if any, Mesopotamian commentary writing had on the composition of the pesharim at Qumran; and 2) to fill in gaps in the understanding of how these commentaries were produced, were circulated, and found meaningful use in their respective cultures. My second focus in particular has fostered new insights which would not have been obvious from a study of one or the other corpus in isolation. For the ease of presentation, the structure of these comparative chapters largely follow the sequence of the discussion in chapter II. Thus, following a brief introduction to the Mesopotamian commentaries, I continue with a comparison of formal features of the commentaries traditions.

Commentary in Mesopotamia More than 850 Mesopotamian texts can be classified as commentaries, and if this corpus should also include works such as Multābiltu and Niṣirti bârūtu, that number increases significantly.265 Following R. Labat’s 1933 publication Com‑ mentaires Assyro‑Babyloniens sur les Présages, the Mesopotamian commentary texts had not again been the subject of sustained scholarly inquiry until the two recent, largely independent, research projects of E. Frahm266 and U. Gabbay.267 These two large‑scale surveys have provided the broad context into which the more narrowly focused investigations of the Mesopotamian commentaries to literary and religious compositions, which underly the following comparisons, are situated.

265 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 6. 266  Frahm, “Royal Hermeneutics” and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. 267  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, “Actual Sense and Scriptural Intention”, and “Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

96

A Comparison of Formal Features

Historical Origins Mesopotamian commentary texts proper are attested no earlier than the second quarter of the first millennium bce.268 But while no actual tablets older than the first millennium bce have been recovered to date, two of the Akkadian genre labels commonly applied to Mesopotamian commentary texts are mentioned in the lexical lists Igituh269 and Nabnītu,270 which were composed in the Middle ˘ Babylonian period. This evidence suggests that commentary may have existed at least as early as the late second millennium bce, but material for such a date is lacking. Though the Mesopotamian commentary texts can be dated no earlier than the late second millennium bce, Mesopotamian commentary traditions ultimately have their roots in Listenwissenschaft literature,271 and that literature dates as far back as the earliest periods of organized scribal culture – at least the middle of the third millennium bce.272 In fact, many commentary texts are very similar to lexical lists and constitute little more than simple lists of words, excerpted from their base‑text and explained by a single lexical gloss.273 Even in the cases where the commentary texts themselves had become much more developed than these simple word equivalency lists, their heuristic methods still made use of popular lexical lists and other list-based sources of knowledge, and the usage of such listbased resources was often quite extensive.274 In this way, Mesopotamian Listen‑ wissenschaft constitutes not only the formal literary forerunner to the genre of Mesopotamian commentary, but it was also a primary resource for the lexical explanations provided within the commentary texts themselves. This historical background of the commentaries can explain in some measure both their contents and the reason for their creation. W.G. Lambert has noted with respect to the medical commentaries that “[m]edical texts had a value in society and needed to be understood correctly”, but this cannot explain why these commentaries were written, since “the actual comments are more philological 268  The oldest datable commentaries are those of Nabû‑zuqup‑kēnu, which date between 716 and 683 bce (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 25). 269  The term ṣâtu occurs in Igituḫ I 46 and 50, mukallimtu occurs in Igituḫ I 54. 270  The term ṣâtu seems to occur in Nabnītu XXVII 262–264 (see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 41), mukallimtu occurs in Nabnītu I 254. 271  Pearce, “Babylonian Commentaries”, 334. 272  J.C. Johnson has identified several Early Dynastic Sumerian texts from Fara and Abu Salabikh as commentaries (Johnson, “The Origins of Scholastic Commentary in Mesopotamia”), but these early cuneiform texts are very difficult to read, which greatly obscures their exact nature as commentaries. 273  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 272–273. 274 This is almost certainly because the main concern of Mesopotamian scholars remained lexical even in later commentaries (Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 287).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

97

than pharmaceutical and contribute more to scribal knowledge than to medical practice”.275 I. Finkel claims that these medical commentaries are “[c]learly ... fundamentally didactic” and such texts are indeed “more a matter of learned textual exegesis in action” than resources “for straightforward use” in “the medical fraternity”.276 That is, the commentary tradition had its origin in scholarly Listen‑ wissenschaft and it subsequently remained rooted within the realm of scholarship and scribal training and did not generally extend to the practical application of the text by any given profession.

Commentary Structures Physical Layout While the Qumran pesharim show relatively little variation in text layout, the Mesopotamian commentaries demonstrate a wider variety in physical presentation. E. Frahm has formulated three basic physical layouts used for Mesopotamian commentaries, which correspond in part to their ancient genre labels.

Tabular Layout The glossary type commentaries, called ṣâtu,277 most often employed a tabular layout.278 A single word or short phrase from the source text is given in the left‑hand column followed by an explanatory word or short note placed to the right of it in a second column (this corresponds to the direction of cuneiform writing – from left to right). The layout also often makes heavy usage of ruled lines to demarcate sections. Some manuscripts utilize more than two columns, for various purposes, but the two column tablet is standard for tabular layout 275  Lambert, “Commentaries: Preface”, 278. 276  Finkel, “Explanatory Commentary on a List of Materia Medica”, 279. 277  The term ṣâtu is used not only for commentary texts, but also for lexical lists and vocabularies. This dual usage of the term is probably related, at least in part, to the fact that the lexical lists and tabular layout ṣâtu commentaries differ very little in form. The exact meaning of the word is uncertain. For a discussion of the various possible connotations proposed in the scholarly literature, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 272– 273 n. 13: 1) it refers to the text as an extract; 2) it refers to the explanations as derivational; 3) it corresponds semantically to the Š‑stem of the verb waṣû and means “revelations/explanations”; 4) it refers to the texts as appendices; 5) it points to the ancient origin of the commentaries; 6) it is to be related to rabbinic phrase ‫“ כיוצא בו במקום אחר‬similarly, in another place” and refers to “commentaries listing words from the base texts with their lexical equivalents” (Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 297 n. 96). See also the discussion in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 49–50. 278 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 34.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

98

A Comparison of Formal Features

commentaries.279 For instance, the comment to Enūma eliš VII 19–20, dtu‑tu dzi‑kù ... il šāri ṭābi bēl tašmê u magāri “Tutu‑ziku ... the god of fair wind, the lord of hearing and granting (requests)” is laid out as follows in the Enūma eliš Commentary II tablet Sm 11 + 980 obv. ii 14–19 (the line rulings on the tablet have been marked by bounding lines in the transliteration):280 14 15 16 17 18 19

dingir

14 15 16 17 18 19

dingir

tuim duḫi

dingir zi zi

tuim281 duḫi

dingir zi zi282

i‌lu šāri ṭābu bēlu šemû magāru

(means) god (means) of wind (means) fair (means) lord (means) hearing (means) granting283

279 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 35. 280  Following Cavigneaux, “Aux Sources du Midrash”, 247–248, Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk”, and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 115. 281 For im read as tu15 for šāru, see also Landsberger and Civil, “Additions and Corrections to MSL II and III”, 119–121. 282  It is possible to provide at least two different explanations for the usage of ZI in the commentary where one would expect KUG (=kù), the final sign in the name dtu‑tu dzi‑kù. 1. Though this has not yet been proposed in the secondary literature, the sign KUG (=kù) has the phonemic value /ku/, a phonemic value that both the sign KI (=ku11) and the sign NE (=ku16) have as well. The signs KI.NE (= zi7) when put together have the phonemic value / zi/, this phonemic value is then shared with the sign ZI. 2. The sign KUG (=kù) has the phonemic value /ku/, a phonemic value shared with the sign KU. The sign KU 𒆪 is graphically similar to or identical with the sign ŠÈ 𒂠 (as demonstrated in another explanation in this same text; see, Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk”, 17). The ZI sign and the ŠÈ sign then share the phonemic feature of sibilant plus /i/ or /e/. While it is impossible to know whether either of these difficult strings of associations indeed underlie the terse explanation in the commentary, such chains of equivalencies are common. 283  In this section of the commentary individual signs are selected that either match or have the same phonemic value as the keywords dtu‑tu dzi‑kù. In line 14 the semantic determiner for divinities, the DINGIR sign, is interpreted according to its value as the heterogram dingir, the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian ilu “god”. The sign IM in line ii 15 is further specified with the TU sign in order to signify that it should be read phonemically as /tu/, which

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

99

Colon Layout Most Babylonian commentary texts, also labelled as ṣâtu, were written in a more or less continuous fashion and may contain one or several commentary units on a single line.284 These texts generally employ colons to divide the lemma from its comment and to divide a comment from the following lemma. Such colons appear most commonly as two winkelhacken arranged vertically one on top of the other 𒑱 or diagonally 𒃵. The colon may, however, in some texts use only one winkelhacken 𒌋, or it may comprise three 𒑳 or possibly even more. This is not to say that the presence of colons in a commentary text identifies that text as having a colon layout. Such colons used to organize commentary units are ubiquitous in the colon layout commentaries, but they are also utilized less regularly in the other layouts. In addition to the frequent usage of colons, the colon layout commentary are characterized by their usage of lines written in more or less scriptio continua and their presentation of only keywords from the base‑text, not full lines. An example of this is a commentary on the Babylonian Theodicy (obv. 25–26 commenting on the Babylonian Theodicy, lines 59–63; the line number of the lemma is given in parentheses): 25 26

(59) gitmālu : dannu : (60) gi‑mi[s?!285 : g]amāri : qarbat : tamirtu : mulmul : šiltāḫ : (61) gē[r : ... ] bit‑ru : bit‑ru‑u: ba‑ru‑u : x [ ] x (62) ḫ aš‑tú : erṣeti : ana muḫhi̮ ha̮ š : šagāšu : (63) gurrunu : pu[ḫhu ̮ r : ... ]

indicates the IM sign’s value as the heterogram tu15, the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian šāru “wind”. The sign TU in the lemma has the phonemic value /du/ (=dú), a value which is shared with HI (=du10) in line ii 16 of the commentary as indicated by the use of the ˘  DU sign before the HI sign in the commentary. The sign HI with the phonetic value /du/ refers ˘  ˘  to its value as the heterogram du10, the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian ṭābu “good, fair”. The semantic determiner for divinities, the DINGIR sign, occurs again in line 17. While it is also interpreted according to its value as the heterogram dingir, the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian ilu “god”, this time the commentator applies that reading of the sign to the nearly synonymous bēlu “lord” – a value not otherwise attested for the DINGIR sign. The sign ZI in line ii 17 again can have the phonemic value /ze/ which sounds like /še/ a phoneme more properly indicated by the ŠE sign, which signifies the heterogram še(.ga), the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian šemû “to hear”. The sign ZI is then repeated in line ii 18 where it again suggests the ŠE sign as the heterogram še(.ga), this time the Sumerian language equivalent for Akkadian magāru “to grant”. In this rather cryptic way the comment explains how the divine name from the lemma dtu‑tu dzi‑kù, when broken into its constituent signs, means the same thing as the lemma: il šāri ṭābi bēl tašmê u magāri “the god of fair wind, the lord of hearing and granting (requests)”. 284 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 36. 285  For the reading of gi-mir at the beginning of line 60, see Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy, 34. T. Oshima argues that the readings of ms. K 9290+9297 [g]i-mil and the commentary gi-MI[S ... ] are both the products of scribal error.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

100 25 26

A Comparison of Formal Features

(59) gitmālu : (means) strong : (60) ?[ (means) co]mpleteness : qarbat : (means) meadowland : mulmul : (means) arrow : (61) gē[r : (means) ... ] (the writing) bit‑ru : (is vocalized) bitrû: (from the verb) barû ‘to see’ : x [ ] x (62) ḫ aštu : (means) underworld : because haš : (means) to kill : (63) gur‑ ˘  runu : (means) to ga[ther : ... ]

Indent Layout The use of indentation is quite common in the Assyrian commentary texts which were labelled mukallimtu.286 This method is characterized by the citation of the lemma aligned with the left margin followed by a comment placed at the end of the line or slightly indented on the subsequent line. Unlike the colon layout com­ mentaries, this indentation layout makes it very easy to quickly scan a tablet to find any given lemma. In cases where the lemma and comment can fit on a single line, a colon is often used between the lemma and comment, the line break is then used to divide that commentary unit from the subsequent one. In this way, even when cola are used in these texts to mark the border between lemma and comment, instead of a line break followed by indentation, it is still much easier to locate specific lemmas than it is in colon layout commentaries. A comparison of the Mesopotamian commentaries with the Qumran pe‑ sharim reveals no certain cases of borrowing between the two corpora on the physical level, though the distinctive difference in the media they wrote upon is admittedly an obscuring factor. In the pesharim a comment may be set apart from its lemma or be itself further subdivided by means of a vacat, a marginal dash, or other scribal marks (see pp. 35–40), which could perhaps be understood as analo­ gous to the cola or indent in Mesopotamian commentaries. But the analogy is related most properly to the phenomenon and not the physical form of the sign, and the Qumran pesharim do not use indentation or other graphical marks in as systematic a way as the Mesopotamian commentaries do to organize their text. Similarly, it should not be surprising that both the Mesopotamian commen­ taries and the pesharim often make use of structured layouts. As metatexts that combine an established base‑text with interpretive comments, a desire to demar­ 286 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 35. The term mukallimtu (a par­ ticiple from kullumu “to show, reveal”) rooted in the revelation of arcane knowledge, especially with regard to divination (see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 42–43 and Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 273–274). This term is often used with thematically arranged explanations of omen texts, but it is also used as a designation of several sequentially arranged commentaries to literary texts. Though U. Gabbay claimed that the mukallimtu commentaries were always thematically arranged (Gabbay, “Akkadian Com­ mentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 274), the term mukallimtu is also used for commentar­ ies to literary texts which are sequentially keyed to a single base‑text (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 42–43).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

101

cate those two strata is natural if for no other reason than for ease of reference. In actual practice though, the border between lemma and comment is not always so clearly marked, and in both the Mesopotamian colon layout commentaries and the Qumran pesharim a stronger effort is made to mark the boundary between a lemma and its comment than to mark the boundary between a comment and the following lemma. The Neo‑Assyrian commentary texts from the scribal schools in the North often used an indent layout, which greatly facilitated the use of those texts for reference purposes, while the more economical colon layout was used almost exclusively by the southern scribal schools in Babylonia.287 Thus, the choice of whether to use an indent or colon layout is due more to a particular scribal culture than to the intended use of the text. The boundary between indent and colon layout was indeed permeable, as demonstrated by the Enūma eliš Commentary I constellation of texts, some of which are in indent layout and one of which is in colon layout.288 Differences in physical layout are present at Qumran as well, and a similar tension between clarity of layout and economy of writing materials existed there. 4QpHosa, for example, uses end of line vacats and full blank lines between several lemma‑comment commentary units, which makes the text very easy to read, but also could be perceived as a waste of expensive parchment. Such full blank lines are used by both of the cave 4 Hosea pesharim and both of the cave 4 pesharim to select psalms as well as 4QpIsaa and 4QpappIsac. In essence, this feature of pesher layout is almost entirely limited to one of the oldest pesher manuscripts, 4QpappIsac, and to those pesharim written in the rustic semi‑formal hand.289 In contrast to those pesharim, 1QpHab and 4QpNah eschew wasteful full blank lines, judging smaller vacats to be sufficient. 287 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 35 and 36. Though the Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. z, a Babylonian manuscript from Sippar, uses an indent layout. 288  Even among the indent layout commentaries, small stylistic variation appears in the manuscripts. Manuscripts V, W, and z use an indentation format which commonly places the comments on an indented new line. In manuscripts X and Y the comments usually only occupied the end of the line after the lemma and rarely spilled over onto a new line. Manuscript y is structured similarly to manuscripts X and Y, but since it was thinner, its comments frequently continued on to a new line. 289  Three of these texts, 4QpHosa, 4QpIsaa, and 4QpPsa, appear to use the same rustic semi‑formal script and may be attributed to the same scribe or scribal school (Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 183 and Carmignac, “Notes sur les peshârîm”, 511, n. 27). The script of 4QpHosb is also written in the rustic semi‑formal script, but by a different hand than 4QpHosa (Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 199). 4QpPsb and 3QpIsa* use full blank lines but are written in a Herodian book hand. The older Aramaic introductory formula ‫ פשר הפתגם‬is also only attested within this subgrouping of the pesharim and 4QpPsb. 4QpZeph and 4QpMic* are both written in a rustic semi‑formal script but are not preserved well enough to determine whether they made use of full blank lines.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

102

A Comparison of Formal Features

Evidence in both corpora hint at a shift in scribal practice over time from earlier texts that use a layout which is easier to read, but more wasteful, to later ones that are more economical at the expense of readability. Still, the variations in physical layout were more clearly determined by the preferences of the scribal schools in Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian evidence suggests that such differences in choice of layout among the pesharim at Qumran were not just developments occurring over time but that larger scale scribal preferences played an important role in this regard.

Literary Structure My understanding of the Mesopotamian commentaries suggests two basic literary structures, which generally correspond to the physical layout of the commentary tablet: 1) colon and tabular layout commentaries use a keyword lemma structure, which cites only keywords, not entire phrases, from its base‑text in order of occurrence, followed by very brief comments, and 2) indent layout commentaries use a line lemma structure, which generally cites a full poetic line from the base‑text as the lemma followed by a comment that usually provides an interpretation to one or more keywords (internal citations) from that lemma. The Babylonian Theodicy commentary290 is labelled in its colophon as a [ṣ]âtu u šūt pî maš’altu ummannu ša āš[iš ... ] “ṣâtu‑commentary and (oral) explanations (and materials for) the questioning of a (master‑)scholar291 on ‘Wis[e one ... (i.e., the Babylonian Theodicy)]”. As its label ṣâtu indicates, its structure is similar to that of a word list. Its keyword lemma structure presents each keyword‑com‑ ment units continuously in colon layout, with a colon generally placed between every word. The commentator also makes heavy use of the ditto sign min, and in doing so wastes as little tablet space as possible. For example, the comment in line 2 explaining words from the Babylonian Theodicy line 1, āšiš [...] gana [l]uqbīka “Wise one [...] come [let] me tell you”, is as follows: (I 1)

ā⸢šiš⸣ itpēšú : min (!A) : māliku : gana : alka ⸢: x⸣ [ ... ] āšiš (means) expert : ditto : (means) counsellor : gana : (means) come (on): x [ ... ]

This line in the commentary provides little more than definitions for two difficult words in the base‑text: the rare participle āšisu “encompassing, wise”, and the

290  BM 66882 + 76506 + 76009 + 76832 + 83044 + 83045 + 83046. 291 For the usage of šūt pî maš’altu ummannu outside of commentary literature, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 56.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

103

Sumerian loanword gana (ĝen‑a [imperative “Go!”]) in its common Akkadian usage as an interjection. This sort of short comment also occurs in commentary units using the line lemma structure, in which case they look essentially the same as the full com­ mentary unit of a keyword lemma structure. For example: Ludlul bēl nēmeqi Commentary (line lemma structure, indentation layout; obv. 20ʹ) (I 93)

ana qāb damiqtīya petâssu ḫ aštu : ḫ aštu šu[ttatu] For one speaking well of me, a grave lies open for him: ḫ aštu (means) grave

Šurpu Commentary (keyword lemma structure, tabular layout; K 4320 I 20) (IV 43)

[ḫ a]šti [ḫ a]šti

šuttatu (means) grave

These two differing structures can often exhibit similar content, but the keyword lemma structure is ill‑suited to explanation longer than several words. On the other hand, the line lemma structure is much more capable to contain the occa­ sional longer explanatory note that is one or more full lines in length. Among the commentary constellation to the Enūma eliš to be discussed in the section on duplicate commentary texts, pp. 120–124, one manuscript sug­ gests the transition of the commentary traditions from one commentary layout to another and consequently from one commentary structure to another. Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. x (BM 69594 [82-9-18, 9591]) uses a colon layout and keyword lemma structure, which are otherwise unattested for the other com­ mentaries in this constellation. This manuscript is indeed very fragmentary and it is impossible to make many concrete conclusions about its full contents. Nev­ ertheless, ms. x does appear to provide commentary material that is similar to the other commentaries. For this reason, it appears to me to represent an extreme example of variation in both the physical layout and literary structure used to record the tradition of interpretation belonging to the Enūma eliš Commentary I constellation. As such it demonstrates the ability of the interpretive traditions to permeat the bounds of physical layout and literary structure. Another of the manuscripts among the Enūma eliš Commentary I tablets presents an interesting case. Although E. Frahm categorizes ms. Z292 as an indent layout commentary,293 this has more to do with the text’s literary structure, which uses line lemmas, than the tablet’s physical layout, which differs from the indent 292  K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+12102+16818+Sm 747. 293 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 113.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

104

A Comparison of Formal Features

layout.294 The tablet is quite wide, and its lines are long enough to sometimes fit two commentary units on a single line, e.g., the comment to Enūma eliš VII 135 followed by the comment to Enūma eliš VII 121 in Z rev. 10ʹ: 10ʹ 10ʹ

[aššu ašru ibnâ iptiqa dann]ina ašru šamû ⸢dan⸣nina erṣetum : → mummu erpētu lištaks�ibam‑ma mummu rigmu [Since he created the heavens and fashioned the ea]rth, ašru (means) heavens, ⸢dan⸣nina (means) earth. : → May the rumble of the clouds diminish mummu (means) rumble.

This manuscript does make use of vacats either between a lemma and its com‑ ment, or more commonly within a comment between an internal citation and its explanation – the common placement of vacats in indent layout commentaries. So, while manuscript Z differs in physical layout from the indent layout commentaries, it shares a common literary form with them, and also makes similar usage of vacats and colons to structure commentary units. The manuscript is ultimately anomalous and, in my opinion, it is the result of copying a standard indent layout commentary into a novel, and ultimately failed, physical layout. While the types of analyses presented above regarding the larger literary structure of Mesopotamian commentaries are uncommon in the secondary literature, the compositional nature of the individual commentary unit remains almost entirely unexplored. I would point out that the lemma of keyword structure commentary units and the internal citation (keyword) of line lemma structure commentary units do not always match the orthography and grammatical form of the base‑text. These references to the base‑text are formatted in one of three ways: 1) some are written in a so‑called dictionary form (the common form used in ancient lexical lists) – nominative for nouns, and infinitive for verbs (usually in the same stem as the contextual form); others may be spelled with contextual forms, the orthography of which may either 2) match the orthography of the base‑text or 3) differ from the orthography of the base‑text, but match, at least nearly so, its grammatical form. This variation in the method used for keyword lemmas or internal citations may even occur within a single commentary text, which to me is suggestive of compositional strata. One such commentary that exemplifies this phenomenon is the commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (K 3291).

294  That is, the indent layout commentaries usually present a full poetic line as the lem‑ ma whereas the colon and tabular layout commentaries usually provide only a keyword as the lemma. For this reason, E. Frahm wished to highlight the similarity of ms. Z to the indentation layout manuscripts with respect to lemma citation even though ms. Z does not appear to have used any indents itself (E. Frahm, e‑mail message to author, 7 December, 2014).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

105

The commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (K 3291) uses a line lemma structure and contains examples of all three types of internal citation (keyword) orthography: 1. Dictionary form orthography (obv. 14ʹ):295 šar‑⸢ra‑ḫ a‑ku‑ma⸣ a‑tur a‑na re‑e‑ši : re‑e‑šu lúarad I was once dignified but became a slave : rēšu (means) slave The genitive rēši in the lemma here is replaced by the nominative dictionary form rēšu in the comment. 2. Contextual form matching base‑text orthography (obv. 21ʹ):296 ud‑mu šu‑ta‑nu‑ḫ u mu‑šu ger‑ra‑a‑ni : ger‑ra‑a‑ni bi‑[ki‑tum], The day was sighing, the night was lamentation : gerrāni (means) wee[ping] Here the orthography in the comment, ger‑ra‑a‑ni, matches the orthography of the lemma exactly. 3. Contextual form differing from base‑text orthography (ver. 8):297 e‑ga‑ti‑ia ú‑ša‑bil im : e‑ga‑a‑ti ḫ i‑ṭa‑a‑ti He caused the wind to carry off my acts of negligence : egâti (means) sins The lemma e‑ga‑ti‑ia, is spelled with an extra a sign in the comment to make it clear that the word is feminine plural, and the first–person singular possessive suffix is dropped – perhaps since it is superfluous to the concerns of comment. In cases where the contextual form is a logogram, a nominative singular noun, or an infinitive, it is impossible to tell whether the comment is based on dictionary or contextual form. Nevertheless, in a large number of cases the comments using different citation formats can be determined, and in my opinion they correspond to at least three strata of interpretive comments within the single composition. In addition, the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary also contains summary and paraphrase comments on the lemma that are not tied to a specific internal citation (keyword).298 These comments may represent yet another stratum in the text, though there is no formal marker for distinguishing them.

295  The instances of this citation form are: obv. 7ʹ, 9ʹ, 11ʹ?, 13ʹ, 14ʹ, 16ʹ?, 20ʹ?, 23ʹ?, 25ʹ?, 27ʹ, 29ʹ, 32ʹ?, 33ʹ, 36ʹ?, 38ʹ?, 40ʹ, 42ʹ?, 43ʹ, 45ʹ.2?, 46ʹ, 48ʹ?, 51ʹ, rev. 1?, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22?, 24, 26?, 28, 29?, 32?, 37?, 38?, 40.2, 42. 296  The instances of this citation form are: obv. 11ʹ?, 16ʹ?, 21ʹ, 23ʹ?, 25ʹ?, 32ʹ?, 36ʹ?, 38ʹ?, 39ʹ, 42ʹ?, 45ʹ.1, 45ʹ.2?, 48ʹ?, 49ʹ, rev. 6, 7?, 11, 15, 20, 31, 37?, 38?, 40.1. 297  The instances of this citation form are: obv. 18ʹ, 20ʹ?, 31ʹ, rev. 8, 10, 17, 22?, 25, 26?, 29?, 32?. 298  Instances of this citation form are: obv. 31ʹ, 34ʹ, 35ʹ, 39ʹ, rev. 5, 17, 28.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

106

A Comparison of Formal Features

Though it is nearly impossible to situate all of these strata in chronological order, there are some clues about their relative placement. For instance, in obv. 35ʹ the comment must be discussing the verb im‑mu‑ṣa‑ma, but it uses the noun unṣu299 to refer to that word, rather than a context form or an infinitive.300 In fact, the comment used in obv. 35ʹ, unṣu bubūtu “unṣu is hunger” occurs also in rev. 14 with the same orthography. One of these instances of the comment is probably the source for the other, and the evidence suggests that the comment in rev. 14 was the source for the comment in obv. 35ʹ for two reasons: 1) unṣu bubūtu “unṣu is hunger” fits the style of comments that use dictionary forms for internal cita‑ tion, and 2) the citation style of obv. 35ʹ is aberrant by virtue of its use of a noun in the comment to describe a verb in the lemma. Thus, the comment in rev. 14 fits better within the stratum that uses dictionary forms for keywords. The repetition of this comment in obv. 35ʹ must be a rather hasty and somewhat inappropriate borrowing of it from its original context, and so obv. 35ʹ must have been written sometime after rev. 14. The comments collected within the grouping “summary/paraphrase (no in‑ ternal citation from lemma)”, of which obv. 35ʹ is a member, do not constitute a clearly unified group. As mentioned earlier, there is no formal marker used to classify this group, but they can be grouped into two smaller classes: 1) summary comments that directly follow the lemma (obv. 34ʹ, 35ʹ, and rev. 5), and 2) summary comments that come after one or more keyword–comment pairs (obv. 31ʹ, 39ʹ, rev. 17, and 28). Because this group of summary or paraphrase comments is a bit of a catch‑all, it is not possible to lump all those comments with obv. 35ʹ. And it cannot be claimed with any certainty that the rest of these summary or paraphrase comments were, like obv. 35ʹ, also written at a time after the writing of comments that use keyword citations in dictionary form. The number of comment entries in each stratum of the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary varies. The comments using keywords in dictionary form have the greatest number of verifiable entries,301 and the comments using context form internal citations with an orthography different than the lemma have the fewest entries. This suggests to me that the stratum with comments using keywords in dictionary form played a primary role in the interpretive traditions that led to the writing of the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary K 3291. I would understand the other strata as playing a more ancillary role in the creation of this particular commentary. The stratum with comments using dictionary form internal citations is also the most complex of all the strata. It alone contains comments with expanded 299  T. Oshima reads imṣu, which is a different nominal form related to the same verb (Babylonian Poems of Righteous Sufferers, 402). 300  Such substitutions are known elsewhere as well (see, Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk”, 19). 301  This tends to be the case in other commentaries as well (see, Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk”, 19).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

107

explanations such as obv. 27ʹ, maššakku surqēnu ša šāʾili “maššaku is the offering of the dream‑interpreter”, or rev. 40, napsamu : makṣāru ša pī sisî “napsamu : is a bit for a horse’s mouth”. Also, in contrast to the other strata it contains comments that obscure rather than elucidate, like obv. 51ʹ where the comment ṣellâtu katâtu uses the hapax katâtu (meaning unknown) to explain the more common ṣellâtu “thorns”. In this way the stratum with comments using dictionary form internal citations differs from the other strata both in its literary structure and in its compositional strategy. From a purely functional standpoint, the use of keywords in dictionary form to create a commentary comports well with a compositional strategy that employed lexical lists and other list‑based resources in direct consultation.302 The use of keywords in context form where the orthography matches the lemma is suggestive of an environment where the writer of the comments was focused on reading the base‑text while writing the commentary. And finally, I would understand the utilization of keywords with an orthography that differs from the base‑text as the result of either notes written during a class session or another setting in which the base‑text was not directly in view.303 In such an environment the scribe or student would write down the explanations of difficult or interesting words from the base‑text using a simpler or ad hoc orthography.304 The several examples presented above from the Mesopotamian commentaries to literary and religious compositions provide a representative sampling of the styles and types of comments present in the corpus. When compared with the pesharim, the Mesopotamian commentaries differ markedly in the way they present explanatory content. The Mesopotamian commentaries characteristically have a telegraphic nature, the explanations are generally made in as brief a way as possible, and usually not in the form of complete clauses. The interpretations in the pesharim, however, are typically formulated as complete clauses and even larger units. While some Mesopotamian commentaries did make use of more clearly formulated comments,305 I find it difficult to see a strong direct connection

302  Many of the comments in this source derive from lexical lists, the complete listing is: obv. 7ʹ [t]amāḫ u ṣabātu (Malku IV 238); obv. 13ʹ ṣ[abāru dab]ābu (similar to atmû, tiṣburu = dabābu in Malku IV 102f.), ḫ ašikku sukkuku (Malku IV 12); obv. 14ʹ rēšu (w)ardu (there are many lists with rēšu = (w)ardu [cf. esp. Malku I 175ff.], but none with this orthography). 303  It is perhaps a mulitiplicity of origin for individual comments that leads U. Gabbay to see the classroom as the locus of commentary writing (Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 280), while M.J. Geller would locate it in the scholar’s study, where notes were prepared for teaching sessions (Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine, 140). 304  For a general understanding of the classroom setting of commentary type discussions, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 281–285. 305  A noteworthy concentration of such comments can be found in the commentaries from the house of a family of exorcists in Assur, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Com‑ mentaries, 269–270.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

108

A Comparison of Formal Features

between the formal literary structure of lemma–comment units in Mesopotamian commentaries and those present in the continuous pesharim. Nevertheless, from a purely phenomenological perspective, a comparison of the two corpora provides useful insights. The form critical evidence for compositional layers in the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary dovetails nicely with the text critical evidence of compositional history in the manuscript record of the Enūma eliš Commentary I tablets (see pp. 121–123) and also with the evidence of literary strata in the pesharim (see pp. 139–148). In addition, both the Mesopotamian and Qumran commentaries respectively have a variety of literary structures that appear to stand in an evolutionary relationship with each other. But just because a literary form evolves does not necessarily mean that earlier forms are abandoned: the keyword based commentaries in Mesopotamia, which follow the structure of lexical lists, are surely an older formal structure than the lemma based ones, but both forms continued in use into the Hellenistic period. It even seems possible that Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. x (BM 69594 [82-9-18, 9591]) represents a translation from the line lemma structure to the keyword lemma structure (the reverse of what might be expected on the basis of the evolution of the literary form). Likewise, great care must be taken in positing evolutionary developments for the Qumran pesharim. The Habakkuk and Nahum pesharim do appear more developed from a literary perspective than such loosely organized commentaries as 4QpIsab or even 4QMidrEschata, but employment of the one literary structure does not necessarily preclude continued development of the other.306 That is, evolutionary schemata of a literary form such as those proposed by H. Stegemann and F. García Martínez cannot be used to establish the relative chronology of texts without further qualifications.307 306  As A. Steudell notes, “[i]t cannot be completely excluded that exegetical texts like CommGen A–C (4Q252–254), Tanhumin (4Q176), 4Q180 and 4Q181 might have been composed ... late, although from a formal point of view one might guess that they are older” (“Dating Exegetical Texts”, 51). 307  H. Stegemann uses the literary structural difference between 1QpHab and 4QpNah on the one hand and 4QpPsa and 4QpappIsac on the other as a marker for the evolutionary development of the Qumran continuous pesher traditions. He suggests that the earliest commentaries used large blocks of text for their lemmas with relatively short comments and did not cover the whole base‑text but rather selected certain passages in their “canonical order” (Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 127). And in his opinion, the later pesharim comment on the whole base‑text and have more detailed verse‑by‑verse comments (Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 127). F. García Martínez had already come to similar conclusions in 1979, García Martínez, “El pesher”, 136–138. He understands 4QpappIsac as the earliest pesher and notes that it shows the emergence of a not yet well‑formed genre. Further, it is not certain in his mind whether the text is a continuous or thematic pesher, to use Carmignac’s categories. García Martínez then describes the evolution of the genre by positing that the thematic pesharim were developed

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Structures

109

The role of the Qumran pesharim comes into sharper focus when their literary structure is compared with that of the Mesopotamian commentaries. The Mesopotamian commentaries were reference works and were cited as such by ancient scholars.308 Their entries are keyed to individual lemmas or keywords, generally following the order of occurrence in the base‑text, and the comments they contain are atomistic, rarely evincing any particular sustained concern or interest. At the earliest stages of research in the Mesopotamian commentaries, R. Labat already recognized that “the commentary never follows the tablet line by line, but focuses on two or three lines, then jumps twenty, in order to meticulously explain a whole phrase, and then moves on again several lines to focus on a new passage”.309 Though individual commentaries differed in the extent to which they treated their base‑text,310 they rarely if ever contained their base‑text in its entirety311 and could not be fully used in lieu of the base‑text itself. They were used in the service of reading a base‑text or relating words and lines from that base‑text to arcane knowledge. The Qumran pesharim are not at all similar. They presented the base of their meta‑text to a substantial degree, regardless of whether they quote their base‑text second, followed by the continuous pesharim. The final stage of his description of pesher development is one in which the pesher becomes a genre distinct from other types of interpretation. At this point the term pesher may be used to describe an entire work (e.g., 4QAgesCreat A). This model does not sufficiently explain why the thematic pesharim should be considered a literary development from a text like 4QpappIsac, nor is it immediately evident why pesher as a title at Qumran must represent the last step in the development of the pesher genre. More convincing is García Martínez’s argument that the majority of continuous pesharim represent a sub‑genre that developed out of the thematic pesher sub‑genre. The continuous pesher genre does appear to alleviate a level of ambiguity present in the thematic pesharim, and in so doing could represent an intentional improvement upon that style of that group. 308  One clear usage of a commentary text as a reference work is found in a letter from the Neo‑Assyrian scholar Issar‑šumu‑ereš to the king of Assyria (SAA 10, 23 = LASEA 12; see also the notes to LASEA 12), in which he explains the meaning of an omen protasis in the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil involving Venus (see VAT 10218 i:1–2, K 148+2902+5207+18378 l. 6, and K 800 l. 1 in Reiner and Pingree, Babylonian Planetary Omens: Part Three, 40, 56, and 82). Issar‑šumu‑ereš provides a slightly abbreviated form of a comment from an Enūma Anu Enlil commentary text (see VAT 10218 i:3–4, K 148+2902+5207+18378 l. 7, and K 800 l. 2 in Reiner and Pingree, Babylonian Planetary Omens: Part Three, 40, 56, and 82) and explicitly cites the commentary text as the source of his explanation: kī annî ina mukallim[ti šaṭi]r ... “it is [writt]en as follows in the commenta[ry]: ...” (SAA 10, 23 = LASEA 12 rev. 13–14). 309  “[L]e commentaire ne suit jamais pas à pas la tablette, mais s’attarde sur deux, trois lignes, en saute vingt, pour expliquer minutieusement toute une phrase, passe encore plusieurs lignes pour s’attarder sur un nouveau passage” (Labat, Commentaires Assyro‑Babyloniens, 14). 310  Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts only comment on a small fraction of lines from their base‑text, while the commentary to the Babylonian Theodicy is much more comprehensive and comments on words from nearly half of the lines in the poem. 311  See, e.g., the discussion of Enūma Anu Enlil commentaries in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 129–166.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

110

A Comparison of Formal Features

in extensio or only select passages from it. The literary structure of the pesharim marks them as independent literary works in their own right. In this way the two commentary traditions operate in very different modes: Mesopotamian commentaries are reference works of a supplementary nature; Qumran pesharim are stand‑alone works.

Commentary Styles Technical Vocabulary Technical vocabulary was an important tool in the commentaries of Mesopotamia and Qumran. It allowed for a brevity in expression and helped provide a regular structure to commentary units. This jargon is quite distinctive and regular in each respective corpus, and not all commentaries use technical vocabulary: the commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, for instance, has none, and 4QpIsab and 4QpappIsac have commentary units without any.312 The technical vocabulary used in the Mesopotamian commentaries was first catalogued and analysed by R. Labat.313 Technical vocabulary in the commentary texts served three main, somewhat interrelated, purposes: 1) to facilitate brevity in the formulation of comments; 2) to specify alternative interpretations; and 3) to cite, in some way, the source of the commentarial content. A number of such technical terms occur within the corpus of commentaries studied here, but they all fall into the three categories listed above. The terms ša “of, who, which”314 and mu = aššu “because, concerning”315 are both used as shorthand for “this word, phrase, or situation has to do with...”. Ordinal numerals such as šanîš “a second (interpretation)”316 or šalšiš “a third (interpretation)”317 are used to indicate alternate interpretations, which may correspond to different interpretational sources.318 Sometimes the source is more clearly indicated, as in the phrase ša libbi ṭuppi šanîm‑ma “which is from a second tablet”.319 312  This is also remotely possible in 4QpIsaa f8–10:3, see Horgan, Pesharim, 242. 313 Labat, Commentaires Assyro‑Babyloniens, 16–18. 314  Enūma eliš Commentary I Z rev. 9, V 8?; VAT 8928 rev. 7ʹ, rev. 12ʹ. 315  Enūma eliš Commentary I V 11, 13; Z rev. 5, 6, 13; X 5; y 7; z 11; VAT 8928 obv. 7ʹ; A 405 rev. 9ʹ. 316  Enūma eliš Commentary I x 2; VAT 8928 obv. 2ʹ; A 405 rev. 5ʹ. 317  VAT 8928 obv. 3ʹ; A 405 rev. 6ʹ. 318  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 286–287. 319  A second comment to Enūma eliš VII 109–110 is present with this terminology in Enūma eliš Commentary I Z rev. 7; that second comment is not, however, present in Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. V 12–14.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

111

The verb qabû “to say”, often preceded by the relative/determinative ša, takes on a number of forms within the technical terminology of the commentaries.320 These various constructions all have something to do with citing the source of the comment, but it is rarely clear what that source is, whether oral or written.321 In Assyrian texts, the particle mā is sometimes used to explicitly mark direct speech or quotations.322 U. Gabbay notes that in both the Mesopotamian and Qumran pesher commentary corpora the phrase “which it said” (Akkadian ša iqbû; Hebrew ‫)אשר אמר‬ “appears with a quotation or a re‑quotation, in Hebrew before the quotation and in Akkadian following it, in accordance with the syntax of the two languages”.323 He also notes the similarity in terminology between Akkadian kī iqbû “as it said” and Hebrew ‫“ כי הוא אשר אמר‬for that is what it said”.324 In both cases he proposes transmission of the Akkadian terminology into Hebrew. While such a proposition is indeed tempting, in the case of Akkadian kī iqbû “as it said” and Hebrew ‫כי‬ ‫“ הוא אשר אמר‬for that is what it said”, a similar phrase, ὡς PN φησίν/λέγει “as PN says”, is commonly found in the Greek commentaries.325 Further, these three similar constructions are used in markedly different ways: 1) the Greek one is used to report the words of a named scholar; 2) the Hebrew one is used to argue that the interpretation just provided agrees with the base‑text; and 3) the Akkadian one is used to show an “awareness that the literal meaning of the text is not equal to the intention derived by interpretation”.326 If the Hebrew ‫ כי הוא אשר אמר‬is dependent on Akkadian kī iqbû, then it seems just as likely that the Greek ὡς PN φησίν/λέγει should be as well.327 This may be the case, but the three formulations are used to different ends in their respective commentary traditions and none 320  iqbû: VAT 8928 obv. 23ʹ. iqabbi: VAT 8928 obv. 3ʹ, 4ʹ; A 405 5ʹ, 6ʹ. qabi: VAT 8928 obv. 7ʹ; A 405 rev. 9ʹ. kī(ma) iqbû/qabû: Enūma eliš Commentary I Z obv. 3?, 5, rev. 5, 6, 13; V 3, 11, 13. 321  For a discussion of the issue of this term referring to oral instruction, the stream of interpretation, or even other written sources, see now Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Com‑ mentaries, 108–110. After summarizing the previous literature on the topic, especially George, “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith”, 139, E. Frahm concludes that it “seems to introduce quotations from written texts as well as explanations of a more general nature” (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 109). 322  VAT 8928 obv. 19ʹ, 21ʹ–22ʹ, 24ʹ, 27ʹ, rev. 3ʹ, 7ʹ, 12ʹ–13ʹ, 17ʹ, 19ʹ, 21ʹ. 323  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 307 and Gabbay, “Actual Sense and Scriptural Interpretation”, 363–4. See also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 454 and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 375. 324  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 307–308 and Gabbay, “Actual Sense and Scriptural Interpretation”, 363–4. 325  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries”, 412. 326  Gabbay, “Actual Sense and Scriptural Interpretation”, 364. 327  Similarly, E. Frahm notes that ḏd r “it is said with regard to” is an Egyptian analogue to ša iqbû, and that it is difficult to demonstrate transmission of the phrase due to cultural contact

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

112

A Comparison of Formal Features

of these phrases use particularly rare vocabulary or unusual syntax. For these reasons it is difficult to make a stronger argument for transmission of Akkadian terminology into Greek and Hebrew commentary writing than for independent parallel development in each linguistic milieu. E. Frahm and U. Gabbay have both noted the similarity between the use of ordinal numerals to introduce alternative explanations in the Mesopotamian commentaries and the Midrashic usage of ‫“ דבר אחר‬another word (i.e., explanation)”.328 If the ‫’א‬s found at the margin of 1QpHab 2:5 and 6, the beginning lines of a second comment to Habakkuk 1:5, represent an abbreviation of ‫“ אחר‬another (interpretation)” (see pp. 139–143),329 then the Habakkuk pesher also shares a similar style of marking alternative interpretations with the Mesopotamian commentaries. While these examples may hint that Hebrew pesherists made use of Mesopotamian commentary terminology, direct borrowing is in no way certain. Perhaps some of the language especially useful for the hermeneutics of Mesopotamian commentaries did influence the language of the Qumran pesharim. But the pe‑ sharim used technical vocabulary to structure their commentary units in a very different way than the Mesopotamian commentaries.

Hermeneutical Techniques As noted earlier, the connections between the hermeneutical techniques of Mesopotamian commentary and of Qumran pesher have been the most common topic in previous comparisons of the two corpora (see fn. 211). M. Fishbane’s outline of the similarities between Mesopotamian and pesher heuristic methods underscores many of the similarities between the hermeneutical methods of the two corpora.330 Furthermore, it also suggests other hermeneutical correspondences between the two corpora that were not discussed by him. Both Mesopotamian and Qumran commentators had to deal with the imperfect transmission of their texts: scribal errors and hypercorrections, as well as damage to physical media, led to variations between manuscripts of a text – not to mention more conscious alterations. I would argue that one such attempt to use a comment for the purpose of suggesting a solution to a textual error can be found in the comment to Enūma eliš VII 139. The explanation there, mā(ma‑a) between the Mesopotamians and Egyptians (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commen‑ taries, 379). 328  See Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 378. and Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 30093–8, n. 128. 329  ‫ דבר אחר‬was later abbreviated ‫ד״א‬. 330  Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

113

māru(ma‑a‑ru) “what! son”, is incomprehensible as an explanation (i.e., “what! [means] son”), for one can hardly explain an interjection as a concrete noun. Nor does the comment hint at any obvious way to connect the lemma, ma‑a, with the word māru “son” through the usage of complex sign or word equivalencies. Rather, it appears that the commentator is speculating that a RU sign has fallen out of the text, and that the text should be restored from ma‑a to ma‑a‑ru, that is, the ancient equivalent of our modern Assyriological notation ma‑a‑‹ru›.331 Harmonization, on the other hand, was developed as a hermeneutic to deal with the multiple variants that might arise in the manuscript tradition. U. Gabbay presents an example of this from an omen text in which the main reading of the base‑text is first followed by a variant reading of the base‑text and then followed by an explanatory comment (IM 74374 [W 22307/24] obv. 9–10):332 [9diš šaḫ ]â (šaḫ ) ⸢sāma(sa5)⸣ [īmur(igi) mars�u(gig) š]ū(bi) a‑na iti.⸢3⸣.kam : ana ud.[3.kam imât(ug7) š]á iqbû(e)‑ú [10ki]‑i ⸢na⸣‑a[q‑du ana 3 u4‑mu] ⸢ki‑i⸣ la na‑aq‑d[u ana] ⸢3⸣ arḫ i(iti) imât(ug7)

[If he sees] a red pig – that [patient will die] within three months; (variant): within [three] days which it said – if he is dangerously sick, he will die [within three days]; if he is not dangerously sick, [within] three months.

Thus the two variant readings, three days and three months, are accounted for in the comment: the reading with three days applies to more severe situations, and the reading with three months applies to less severe cases.333 The Qumran pesharim had to deal with similar issues, and though they nowhere provide variants as explicitly as the Mesopotamian example above, a well‑known example of harmonizing of variants occurs in 1QpHab commentary unit 32:

331  In support of this analysis, I would draw attention to the unexpected syllabic spelling of the word māru as ma‑a‑ru in the commentary, rather than the ubiquitous heterograms dumu and a, which would have been otherwise expected. The word māru “son” makes good sense in the context of Enūma eliš here where Marduk’s father Ea is exulting in the wonderful names bestowed upon his son. Thus the commentator suggests changing the reading of the line from mā ša abbēšu ušarriḫ ū zikiršu “Why! He whose name was extolled by his fathers... (trans.: Lambert)” to māru ša abbēšu ušarriḫ ū zikiršu “Son whose name was extolled by his fathers...”. 332  See George, “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith”, 148, as cited in Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 292–293. Translation follows U. Gabbay, transliteration follows A. George. 333  U. Gabbay has also demonstrated that Mesopotamian commentaries also show a concern for harmonizing contradictory omens, thus allowing for the continued authoritative status of their omen compendia while still rendering them practicable (“Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique”).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

114

A Comparison of Formal Features

‫קלון מ{כ}בוד שתה גם‬11:9 ‫ שבעתה‬11:8 ‫תסוב עליכה כוס ימין‬11:10 ‫אתה והרעל‬ ‫על כבודכה‏‬11:11 ‫𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 וקיקלון‬ ‫פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר‬11:12 ‫‏‬vacat ‫כיא לוא מל את‬11:13 ‫קלונו מכבודו‬ ‫הרויה למען‬11:14 ‫עורלת לבו וילך בדרכי‬ ‫[א]ל‬11:15 ‫ספות הצמאה וכוס חמת‬ ‫ק]ל[ו]נ֯ ו‬ ׄ ‫ע]ל[יו את‬ ֯ [‫לוסיף‬ ֯ ‫תבלענו‬ ‫ומכאוב‬

11:8You

are more full of 11:9shame than {ho}nour. So you yourself drink and become intoxicated. 11:10May the cup of the Lord’s right hand circle over you, and profound disgrace 11:11over your glory.‎ vacat‎11:12Its interpretation concerns the priest whose shame was mightier than his honour 11:13since he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart and he walked in the ways 11:14of excess in order to end the thirst, but the cup of 11:15[G]od’s wrath will devour him, increasing his [s]h[a]me [up]on [him] and pain.

The verb ‫“ הרעל‬become intoxicated!”334 in the base‑text, and reflected both in Septuagint traditions and the Vulgate, is explained in the comment as “walking in the ways of excess” (11:13–14). But a variant form of the base‑text found in the MT and Aramaic Targum has ‫“ הערל‬be circumcised!” – a reading reflected earlier in the comment: “he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart” (11:13). The comment here interprets both ‫“ הרעל‬become intoxicated!” and ‫“ הערל‬be circumcised!” and in doing so harmonizes two variant readings of the base‑text. The Mesopotamian commentaries utilize written resources – frequently bilingual and lexical lists,335 but also to a far lesser extent literary and religious

334  J. Ben Dov (personal communication) reminds me that ‫ רעל‬here, which appears to take on the connotation of stumbling in the versions and the comment here in 1QpHab, at its core probably has to do with poison, a connotation found in Medieval and Modern Hebrew. Thus, one finds a strong connection between the cup of the Lord’s right hand, which is the cup of his wrath/poison (‫)ח ָמה‬, ֵ and the poisoning of the drinker in Habakkuk 2:16. A further connection between intoxication and venom occurs in Hosea 7:5, where the ‫“ ֵח ָמה‬poison” from wine makes people weak or sickly. 335  For the usage of lexical and bilingual lists in the Enūma eliš Commentary I commentaries, see the appendices: Entries From Lexical Lists in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts, p. 261 and Entries Using Bilingual Equivalencies in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts, p. 262. Several of the comments in the Ludlul commentary K 3291 may also derive from lexical lists, see fn. 302 for a complete listing. For the general usage of lexical lists in Mesopotamian commentary texts, see Frahm, Baby‑ lonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 88–94, and for their specific usage in the Enūma eliš commentaries, see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 136–137. Bilingual lists were often employed in lexical transivity – forming complex strings of word equivalencies usually employing multiple syllable and heterogram values of specific cuneiform signs (Pearce, “Babylonian Commentaries and Intellectual Innovation”, 335). For an in depth discussion of the various ways various multivalencies in the cuneiform writing system can be used in the service of interpretation, see Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk”, 16–19.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

115

texts.336 The Qumran pesharim do not appear to have access to lexical lists for the interpretation of words, nor would such a resource fit the interpretive aims of the pesherists.337 But like the Mesopotamian commentaries, some of the pesharim do refer to other important literary and religious texts from time to time. These references may involve a quotation from another source, with or without source citation, or an allusion to another text (see the examples discussed on pp. 78–83). The use of traditional literary sources in both corpora demonstrates the importance that interpreters in both Mesopotamia and Qumran attributed to the traditional compositions of their respective milieus. More specifically, the Qumran pesharim are not solely the product of divinely inspired reinterpretation of singular prophetic works. The writers of the pesharim operated within and made use of a wider matrix of traditional literature. Similar to the quotation of other traditional resources within a comment, the Mesopotamian commentaries will occasionally cite one passage of their base‑text as an explanation for another passage in it. For instance, Enūma eliš VII 67 is used as a comment to explain Enūma eliš VII 57:338 (VII 57) (VII 67)

Enbilulu bēlum mudeššēšun[u šū‑ma] nādin šuʾu mušabšû[ ašnan?]

(VII 57) (VII 67)

Enbilulu is he, the lord who supplies the[m abundantly,] Who gives wheat, and brings [grain(?)] into being.

Nearly the same technique is employed in 4QpIsab where Isaiah 5:24b–25 with its comment (commentary unit 4ʹ) is used to explain Isaiah 5:11–14 (commentary unit 3ʹ):

336  For instance, lines from the Enūma eliš are quoted in four commentary texts: The Sa‑gig 4 commentary CT 51, 136; and the Aa commentaries LB 852 obv. 14ʹ, BM 68583 4, and BM 41286 obv. 7 (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 105 and 245–246, especially n. 1142). 337  But, for some Qumran usages of tropes common in wider Second Temple literature, see Vermès, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 40–66. For further shared interpretations, see, e.g., Kister, “A Common Heritage”. 338  A similar hermeneutic applies to the comment on Enūma eliš VII 77 (z rev. 18–19), which is directly followed by Enūma eliš VII 92 and its comment in order to reinforce the image of Tiāmat as a boat. It remains unclear why ms. Z cites Enūma eliš IV 46–47, 62, and 113–114 without any intervening comments, but it is possible that for some (now obscure) reason the commentator intends to use a quotation of Enūma eliš IV 62 to shed light on IV 46–47.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

116

A Comparison of Formal Features

3ʹ. (Isaiah 5:11–14) ‫הוי משכימי בבקר שכר ירדפו‬2:2 ‫ידלקם והיה‬2:3 ‫מאחרי בנשף יין‬ ‫כנור ונבל ותוף וחליל יין משתיהם‬ ‫לא הביטו ומעשי‬2:4 ‫ואת פעל יהוה‬ ‫ידו לא ראו לכן גלה עמי מבלי‬ ‫והמנו צחי‬2:5 ‫דעת וכבדו מתי רעב‬ ‫צמא לכן הרחיבה שאול נפשה‬ ‫וירד‬2:6 ‫ופערה פיה לבלי חוק‬ 339 ‫הדרה והמנה ושאנה עליז בא ‏‬ ‫‏ אלה הם אנשי הלצון‬vacat ← ‫אשר בירושלים הם אשר‬2:7

4ʹ. (Isaiah 5:24b‑25) ‫מאסו את תורת יהוה ואת‬2:7 ‫ישראל נאצו על כן‬2:8 ‫אמרת קדוש‬ ‫חרה אף יהוה בעמו ויט ידו עליו‬ ‫ ֯ה ֯ה ֯ריׄ ׄם ותהי נבלתם‬2:9 ‫ויכהו וירגזו‬ ‫כסחה בקרב החוצות בכל זאת לא‬ ‫[אפו ועוד ידו נטויה] היא‬2:10 ‫שב‬ ‫עדת אנשי הלצון אשר בירושלים‬ 2:11 ]...[‫]ל‬...[‫]ל‬...[ ֯

2:2Woe

to those who chase after beer, having gotten up early in the morning, (and) having lingered in the evening, wine 2:3inflames them. Their feasts are lyre, and harp, and timbrel, and flute, and wine, but the work of the Lord 2:4they do not view, the works of His hand they do not see. Therefore, my people have unwittingly gone into exile, their glory are starving men, 2:5and their multitude are men parched with thirst. Therefore, Sheol has made her throat wide, and opened wide her mouth beyond measure, 2:6and her majesty, and her multitude, and her revelry, and the one who delights in her have descended‎ vacat‎These are the men of mockery 2:7who are in Jerusalem. They are those who → 2:7rejected

the Lord’s torah, and the word of the holy one of 2:8Israel they have spurned. For this reason, the Lord’s anger burned against His people, and He stretched out His hand against them, and He struck them. 2:9The mountains quaked, and their corpses were like refuse in the midst of the streets. With all this [His] anger did not turn back, 2:10[and His hand was still outstretched.] That is the council of the men of mockery who are in Jerusalem. 2:11[...]?[...]?[...]

The omission of Isaiah 5:15–25a here in 4QpIsab has been noted in the literature,340 but has so far resisted explanation. In a similar fashion, 4QpappIsac uses ‫כאשר‬ ‫“ כתוב‬as it is written” in commentary unit 9ʹ (f4, 6–7ii:18) to link an entire commentary unit in a subordinate role to the previous one, perhaps as further proof of its interpretation.341 339  This is just a non-conventional spelling for ‫בה‬. 340  See, e.g., Horgan, Pesharim, 86–87, 242, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edi‑ tion, 561, n. 659, and Roberts, “The Importance of Isaiah at Qumran”, 279. 341  This example looks very much like the internal citations found in other pesharim, but it differs from those in that the portion cited from the base-text (Isaiah 10:22b–23) had not been presented in the lemma of 4QpappIsac commentary unit 8ʹʹ (f4, 6–7ii:10–13).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

117

True, these examples are more advanced than what is found in the commentaries of the Enūma eliš Commentary I group, but they follow the same principle that one nearby portion of the base‑text can be used to explain another portion of it. When this is done in the commentaries of the Enūma eliš Commentary I group, the two juxtaposed lines are only ten or fifteen lines apart (Enūma eliš VII 57 is explained by VII 67; in ms. z Enūma eliš the quotation VII 77 is directly followed by a quotation VII 92 and then a comment). Likewise, 4QpIsab only skips about ten verses in order to place Isaiah 5:11–14 side by side with Isaiah 5:24b– 25, as does 4QpIsae in commentary unit 7ʹ, which quotes Isaiah 21:2 in the explanation of Isaiah 21:11–15.342 Accordingly, this particular hermeneutic both in Mesopotamia and at Qumran shows a similar sensibility regarding the distance between a lemma and the other passage from the base‑text used to explain it.

Borrowing Between Commentary Texts Certainly the constellation of Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts demonstrates that a large amount of interpretational material could be shared between a variety of manuscripts.343 Small interpretational units could also be recycled in commentaries to very different works: a comment to the astronomical series Enūma Anu Enlil (lagab puḫ ḫ uru lagab kupputu/kubbutu “lagab (means) puḫ ḫ uru; lagab (means) kupputu/kubbutu” [K 4336 i 11, AfO 14 pl. 7]) finds its counterpart in an Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscript (kurlagab k[ubb]utu (vacat) [... lagab pu]ḫ ḫ ur[u] “lagab (when read) kur4 (means) k[ubb]utum [... lagab (means) pu]ḫ ḫ ur[u]” [ms Z obv. 12]). What is more, in addition to sharing one comment with a Šurpu commentary,344 the commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi contains internal borrowing or recycling of specific comments. The comment in rev. 14, unṣu bubūtu “unṣu (means) starvation”, is a natural explanation for the noun unṣi “hunger” in the lemma, but that same comment is used again, in a

342  Perhaps this phenomenon also explains ‫ כיא‬at the beginning of the lemma in 4QpPsa commentary unit 17 (Psalm 37:23–24). ‫ כיא‬is not present in any other version of the base‑text and should be perhaps understood not as a textual variant, but as a device used by the pesherist to link the comment of 4QpPsa commentary unit 16 to commentary unit 17 (see also Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 129). 343  Alongside the comments in the text that match each other word‑for‑word, see my comments in fn. 359 for instances where the content of the comment is essentially the same, but with slight variations from manuscript to manuscript. 344  The explanation in the comment to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi I 93 (obv. 20ʹ), ḫ aštu šu[ttatu] “ḫ aštu (means) gr[ave]”, is found also in a comment to Šurpu IV 43 (K 4320, I 20), [ḫ ]ašti šuttatu “[ḫ ]ašti (means) grave”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

118

A Comparison of Formal Features

rather peculiar way, in obv. 35ʹ as an explanation for a verb of the same root, immuṣā‑ma “they are hungry”.345 It is more difficult to detect borrowings in the pesher corpus due to the heavy usage of stock phrases such as‎‫לאחרית הימים‬/‫“ ב‬in the last days”346 and the more expansive nature of the comments themselves.347 Perhaps 1QpHab and 4QpNah stand in some relationship to each other when they both mention ‫רבים‬,‎‫נכבדים‬,‎ and ‫מלכים‬.348 The evidence of borrowing becomes clearer, however, in the presence of larger scale instances of distinctive parallels. G. Brooke has argued that the phraseology of 1QpHab unit 33 is very similar to that found in 4QpPsa units 23 and 7–8,349 though he was not able to define the relationship between these two texts in more direct terms.350 Nevertheless, the two commentaries correspond in even more ways than he noted. Firstly, 1QpHab and 4QpPsa are the only two Qumran texts that refer to the teacher of righteousness as ‫“ כוהן‬priest” (1QpHab 2:8 and 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:15). A second point of similarity between 1QpHab and 4QpPsa that I would highlight is the description of the opponents of the teacher of righteousness (1QpHab unit 9.1 [2:1–5] and 4QpPsa unit 3).351 The framing of the comment in 1QpHab 2:1–5 with ... ‫כיא‬ ... ‫על‬ ‫הדבר‬ ‫“ פשר‬the interpretation of the matter concerns 345  A near copy in this same commentary would be egâti ḫ iṭâti “egâti (means) sins” in rev. 8 and egû ḫ aṭû “egû (means) to sin” in rev. 36 – rev. 8 uses a keyword form of egītu that differs both from the contextual form and the dictionary form, line rev. 36 the keyword form is indeterminate (it could be the context or the dictionary form). 346  For the usage of this phrase at Qumran, see Steudel, “‫”אחרית הימים‬. One may wonder though that certain formulations may be shared particularly among pesher compositions. For instance, the specific phrase ‫ עשי התורה‬is apparently found only in 1QpHab 7:11, 8:1, 1QpMic f8–10:8?, and 4QpPsa f1–2ii:14 and 22 (‫)עושה התורה‬, though the concept is more widespread at Qumran. 347  R. Baukham’s argument that 4QpIsaa and 4Q285 f5 (=11Q14 f1 i) share the same interpretation of Isaiah 10:34(–11) might be correct, but the two interpretations don’t share any striking verbal (or even structural) parallels that would suggest copying in either direction (“The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34”, 204–206). 348  1QpHab commentary unit 13 and 4QpNah commentary unit 12ʹ (see also fn. 227). 1QpHab 9:2 may borrow ‫“ גוית בשר‬body of flesh” from the comment in 4QpNah 3–4ii:6, where the phrase corresponds to ‫ גויתם‬in the lemma (Nahum 3:3), but the lacuna in 1QpHab prevent any clear correlation between the contexts of the two comments. 349  Brooke, “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 344. G. Brooke does not enumerate the specific points of correspondence between these passages, but 1QpHab 12:2–3 and 4QpPsa f3–10iv:8 both deal with the wicked priest (‫ )הכוהן הרשע‬and the fact that he will receive his payback 1 )‫(גמול‬QpHab 12:6 and 4QpPsa f1–2ii:9–10 and 14 also further describe how the opponents of the teacher of righteousness plotted (‫ )זמם‬to destroy (‫)לכלות‬ the poor (‫)אביונים‬, and how God will judge (‫ )ׁשפט‬them for their wickedness (1QpHab 12:5 and 4QpPsa f3–10iv:9–10). 350  Brooke, “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 353. 351  I should note here that I have followed B. Nitzan in my reconstruction of the lacuna in 1QpHab 2:2 with ‫שמעו אל דברי‬, since, as she notes, it is similar in wording to 4QpPsa f1–2i:19

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Commentary Styles

119

the ... because ...” is singular in the pesher corpus; the usual formula in pesher Habakkuk is ... ‫אשר‬ ... ‫על‬ ‫הדבר‬ ‫“ פשר‬the interpretation of the matter concerns the ... who ...”. The use of ‫כיא‬, especially with the unexpected spelling ‫ כי‬without the digraph in 1QpHab 2:2, stands out from the surrounding text as somewhat unnatural. This comment construction finds its parallel in 4QpPsa f1–2i:18–19, where the ‫ כיא‬clause, which describes why the teacher’s opponents are to be disparaged, more naturally follows after the usual formula ... ‎‫כיא‬ ... ‫אשר‬ ... ‫על‬ ‫פשרו‬ “its interpretation concerns the ... who ... because ...”. 1QpHab here seems to be imperfectly mimicking 4QpPsa,352 or both texts have picked up on a common traditional idiom. A. Steudel provided a convincing argument for the direction of borrowing between these two works by examining the use of the root ‫“ זמם‬to plot” alongside ‫“ לכלות‬to destroy” in both 1QpHab 12:6 and 4QpPsa ii:14 – a pairing unparalleled in any other Qumran text. ‫ זמם‬in 4QpPsa ii:14 corresponds to the participle ‫ זומם‬in the lemma of Psalm 37:12 (4QpPsa ii:12), but no form of ‫ זמם‬occurs in the lemma of Habakkuk 2:17 to trigger ‫ זמם לכלות‬in 1QpHab 12:6. Thus she argues that ‫ לכלות‬+ ‫ זמם‬belongs properly to 4QpPsa and has been borrowed by 1QpHab.353 The nature of the other parallels between 4QpPsa and 1QpHab suggests this direction of borrowing as well. 1QpHab commentary unit 9 is the product of a complex compositional development (see my discussion on pp. 139–143) and it parallels two different passages in 4QpPsa (a short discourse on the teacher’s opponents in 4QpPsa f1–2i:18–19 and reference to the teacher as a priest in 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:15). Similarly, 1QpHab commentary unit 33 is a conflated comment (see my discussion on pp. 130–131 and 144–146), and its first sub‑comment (12:2–6) contains parallels to material from two passages in 4QpPsa (units 23 and 7–8). The simpler direction of borrowing would be consolidation of material from 4QpPsa into two comments in 1QpHab (perhaps during a single stage of reworking Habakkuk pesher interpretations), rather than diffusion of material from two compositionally complex comments in 1QpHab into five different commentary units in 4QpPsa. So again, the direction of borrowing appears to be from 4QpPsa to 1QpHab.

(The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 153). If this restoration is correct it should ultimately be understood as an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:19. 352  That is, 1QpHab uses an aberrant literary form in its comment. In addition, the spelling of ‫ כיא‬without the digraph in line 2:2 but with the digraph in line 2:3 might suggest that each of those clauses come from a different source, a fact already noted by García Martínez, “El pesher”, 137–138, and especially n. 45 and Horgan, Pesharim, 24 (see my discussion on pp. 139–143). 353  A. Steudel, personal correspondence: 10 April, 2015.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

120

A Comparison of Formal Features

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts Some Mesopotamian commentaries were copied, as the colophons to various texts claim.354 For example, the commentary to Tummu bītu and Maqlû (A 405 [Ass. 13955ii] rev. 12ʹ) as well as the commentary to Tummu bītu and Šurpu (VAT 13846 rev. 56) were each “written and collated according to its original” (ina pūt labirīšu šaṭir‑ma bari). Doubtless such copying should represent an honest attempt to faithfully recreate a particular manuscript, and yet two of the tablets with commentaries on Maqlû and even more so the constellation of Enūma eliš Commentary I texts demonstrate the sheer amount of variegation that can develop around a commentary tradition.355 As noted in the introduction, two commentaries deal with the text of Maqlû, or more properly Maqlû tablets I–III: VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq), which comments on both Maqlû and Šurpu; and A 405 (Ass. 13955ii), which contains comments on Tummu bītu and Maqlû. A comparison of these two tablets demonstrates that they both share some of the same comments, verbatim. For instance, they each have identical comments on Maqlû I lines 1 and 2: VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq) (obv.) break

2ʹ ⸢šá‑niš ana mul.mul mul⸣ [gu4.an.na mulsip.zi.an.na] 3ʹ i‑qab‑bi šal‑⸢šiš⸣ [ana mul.meš] 4ʹ ka‑a‑a‑ma‑nu‑ti [i‑qab‑bi] 5ʹ ki‑ku‑nu al‑si mu‑ši‑tú kal‑l[a‑tú kut‑tùm‑tú] 6ʹ kal‑la‑tú kut‑tùm‑tú ⸢d⸣[gu‑la] 7ʹ šá mám‑ma la ú‑ṣab‑bu‑ši mu dutu.šú.[a qa‑bi]

A 405 (Ass. 13955ii) (rev.) 4ʹ [a]l‑⸢si‑ku‑nu‑ši dingir.meš mu‑ši‑tú⸣ ⫶ dingir.meš mu‑ši‑tú mu[l].me[š] dingir.meš gal.meš ka‑a‑a‑ma‑nu‑ti i‑qab‑bi 5ʹ [šá]‑niš ana mul.mul mulgu4.an.na mulsip.zi.an.na i‑qab‑bi 6ʹ [š]al‑⸢šiš⸣ ana mul.meš ka‑a‑a‑ma‑nu‑ti i‑qab‑bi 7ʹ ⸢ki⸣‑ku‑nu al‑si mu‑ši‑tú kal‑la‑tú kut‑tùm‑tú 8ʹ kal‑la‑tú kut‑tùm‑tú ○ dgu‑la 9ʹ šá mám‑ma la ú‑ṣab‑bu‑ši mu dutu.šú.a qa‑bi

354 E. Frahm has gathered from these colophons the relevent information regarding copying (Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 266–267, 269, 278–279, 298, 302, 305, 307–310). 355  Pace Frahm and Jiménez, “Myth, Ritual, and Interpretation”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts

VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq) (obv.)

break 2ʹ A second interpretation: he says (it refers) to the Pleides, [Taurus, and Orion.] 3ʹ A thir[d] interpretation: [he says] 4ʹ [(it refers)] to the regular [stars] 5ʹ With you I call upon night, the [veiled bri]de, 6ʹ The veiled bride (is) [Gula,] 7ʹ whom, [it is said,] no one can make out on account of the setting sun.

121

A 405 (Ass. 13955ii) (rev.) 4ʹ [I] call on you, O gods of the night, ⫶ The gods of the night are the stars of the great gods. 5ʹ A [se]cond interpretation: he says (it refers) to the Pleiades, Taurus, and Orion. 6ʹ A [th]ird interpretation: he says (it refers) to the regular stars 7ʹ With you I call upon night, the veiled bride, 8ʹ The veiled bride (is) Gula, 9ʹ whom, it is said, no one can make out on account of the setting sun.

These two commentaries do not, however, have the same selection of comments. VAT 8928 comments on Maqlû lines I 1, 2, 5, 132, 133, 46, 116, 24, 42–43, II 163, 193, III 114, 49, and 69. A 405 is much more brief with comments only on Maqlû lines I 1, 2, and II 173 (for an explanation of the limited scope of these commentaries, see my discussion on pp. 169–170). These texts must have had access to the same commentary tradition for Maqlû I lines 1 and 2, but they differ widely in their selection of comments: VAT 8928 is more expansive in its selection, A 405 is far more limited. The two also differ in their formatting, I would suggest that VAT 8928 shows its concern for demarcating the individual tablets of Maqlû when it places the catch line for Maqlû tablet I followed by a ruled line at the end of all the comments to Maqlû tablet I, and it does the same for two subsequent sections on Maqlû tablets II and III respectively.356 The group of eight commentary manuscripts that deal with the whole of the Enūma eliš provide an even richer demonstration of this phenomenon of multiple manuscripts drawing from a shared interpretive tradition. The textual remains of the manuscripts demonstrate that several of these tablets cannot be treated as copies of any other, but they all have a considerable level of overlap. Like the Maqlû commentaries noted above, these manuscripts all appear to have had access to more or less the same traditional explanatory content, but they differ in the extent to which they convey it and the format in which they present it. 356  T. Abusch has followed my suggestion in his critical edition of Maqlû (The Magical Ceremony Maqlû, 393–395).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

122

A Comparison of Formal Features

For instance, manuscript Z has more than thirty‑eight commentary units, while manuscript y has little more than eleven. The variation in the selection of com‑ ments for each commentary tablet indicates that it would be better to think of these Enūma eliš commentaries as a textual constellation. Each member of the constellation shares much content in common with one or another member of the group, often presenting in places the same exact text as another, but each is apparently unique in its selection of lemmas for comment, and to a smaller degree in its commentarial material. The various levels of overlap between the members of this grouping of commentaries demonstrate their constellatory nature (for the following arguments, the reader will find it helpful to consult the Concordance of Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts, p. 259). The greatest instance of shared comments occurs in manuscripts W, X, Y, and z. All of those manuscripts have the same consecutive comments to Enūma eliš tablet VII lines 2, 9,357 and 35, and three of the four comment on VII 57.358 Manuscript z matches up with Z and V with comments to Enūma eliš VII 92?, 97, and 98, and manuscript Y also has comments to VII 92 and 97. Manuscript V goes on to share comments with Z for Enūma eliš VII 108, 110, 121, and 139; manuscript V also shares a comment to VII 77 with manuscript z. Finally, manuscripts W, y, and z each have a comment to VII 1. In this way, seven of this group of eight Enūma eliš commentaries take part in a common exegetical tradition regarding Enūma eliš tablet VII. These commentary manuscripts also share commentary material for the other tablets of Enūma eliš. Manuscripts Z, x, and z have a comment to Enūma eliš I 4 which explained the term mummu as it applies to Tiāmat. Manuscripts Z and z also contain a comment to Enūma eliš I 6. Manuscripts Z and y share one comment to Enūma eliš I 103 and another to IV 113. Manuscripts Z and y both contain a comment to Enūma eliš IV 131–132, though they appear to differ somewhat. Finally, manuscripts y and z both have a comment for Enūma eliš VI 89. The correspondences between these eight manuscripts are both numerous and varied, though clusters such as the comments on Enūma eliš VII lines 2, 9, 35, and 57, 70, 97, and 98 do suggest a higher level of cohesion between some of the commentaries at certain points. Many of the comments in these texts are mutually shared, more or less verbatim, though the word order and grammar may vary slightly from time to time,359 which may indicate an element of non-written transmission. These commentar357  Manuscript y also has a comment on VII 9. 358  Probably on the basis of these shared lines, L. King had already claimed that manuscript W was a copy of z in King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, 176. 359  There appears to be a reversal of subject and predicate in the comment to VII 35 which is dšà‑máš ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi in ms. z rev. 13, and the reverse, ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš ... ], in W 8. See also the comment to VII 9 which is mu dingir.meš šá ma‑ḫ a‑zi in X 5, z rev. 11, and y rev. 7 (minus the šá). It may be that W 6, which has šá ina ká.dingir.raki, is an abbreviation of the same

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Duplicate Commentary Manuscripts

123

ies do follow the order of lines in the base‑text, and in that sense they are some­ what continuous – to borrow a term from pesher scholarship – though manu­ script Z has a comment on Enūma eliš VII 135 placed out of order between the units covering VII 114 and VII 121. Given this evidence, it is very difficult to speak of standard or stabilized ver­ sions among the literary and religious commentaries from Mesopotamia, even though a great many individual comments may be shared in common between them. Irrespective of claims like those made in the colophons of A 405 and VAT 13846, virtually no duplicate commentaries from this corpus have survived to the present day,360 though many tablets share at least some material in common. I do not find it surprising that the corpus of manuscripts from Qumran, tiny in comparison to the Mesopotamian finds, likewise fails to produce duplicate com­ mentary texts (see pp. 120–124). The remains of the Qumran pesharim rather strikingly resemble those of the Mesopotamian literary and religious commen­ taries. In both corpora, certain commentary traditions could be copied down in writing from time to time, but such works rarely acquired a stable textual form. This situation certainly leads one to question the present understanding of Mesopotamian colophons like the ones mentioned above. Does ina pūt laberi šaṭāru really mean “to copy an original text” or would it be more fitting to under­ stand it as “to write (either a full copy or select portions of a text) with a vorlage in front of oneself?” It does not seem at all clear from the colophon that the text must constitute a complete copy of a single manuscript. Since virtually no duplicate Mesopotamian literary or religious commentaries have survived, even with the abundance of cuneiform tablets, it is quite likely that the commentar­ ies on Maqlû and Šurpu, Tummu bītu and Maqlû, and Tummu bītu and Šurpu are all compilations of select commentary units from various older commentary manuscripts and traditions. That is, outside of the very short commentaries to Tummu bītu, neither religious nor literary commentaries in Mesopotamia regu­ larly achieved stable textual forms.361

comment and that we should read mu dingir.meš (šá) ma‑ḫ a‑zi [ina ká.dingir.raki] “This has to do with the gods of the cultic place [in Babylon]” for mss X, y, and z. 360  The three manuscripts of the Enūma eliš Commentary II may be duplicates. The over­ lap between S. 11 + S. 980 obv. ii 1–8 and K 2053 obv. 4–11 seems certain, but the fragmentation of the manuscripts makes it difficult to positively demonstrate other cases of overlap. The two examples of Tummu bītu commentaries appear to be more or less identical, except for orthog­ raphy. 361  Though some Mesopotamian commentary traditions did take on the form of seri­ alized named commentaries, such as Sîn ina tāmartīšu (Koch Westenholz, “The Astrological Commentary ŠUMMA SÎN INA TĀMARTĪŠU Tablet 1”, 150–151); Z. Wainer informs me that the text of Sîn ina tāmartīšu does not appear to have ever stabilized (personal communication, 23 April, 2015; Wainer has recently completed an edition of the Sîn ina tāmartīšu texts for his Brown University Ph.D. dissertation).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

124

A Comparison of Formal Features

Similarly, caution must be in order when assuming that the tell‑tale marks of copying in certain of the pesharim362 necessitates that the present manuscript must be a complete and faithful copy of a single earlier one. Indeed, copying errors occur in the process of compilation just as easily as they do in the process of duplication.

362  See my discussion on pp. 87–88.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: Compositional Models The constellation of seven or eight related Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts provides one model for the transmission of commentary traditions over a time span of about two‑hundred years and in a wide geographical area encompassing Nineveh, Assur, and Sippar.363 These texts grew out of scribal circles which disseminated textual interpretations in both oral and written forms.364 When a commentary text was copied down by a particular scribe, it was done in the length and format which was most useful. These commentaries were then used side‑by‑side with their base‑text.365 Even with the bounty of textual witnesses for commentary traditions surrounding the Enūma eliš, these fragmentary remains still do not admit any confident conclusions about the dating of specific manuscripts. The unusual layouts of ms. x and of ms. Z may reveal something about their relative dating; ms. x could certainly be a late result of the Neo‑Babylonian propensity for colon and tabular layout commentaries. But it would not be safe to simply assume that longer commentaries are younger than the shorter commentary texts, or that the tablets we now possess stand in any direct genetic relationship with one another. A variety of concerns are treated within the comments of these manuscripts: most deal with lexical matters, a few with cultic or astronomical events. The manner in which comments are constructed varies as well. On the basis of this evidence, I would argue against the assumption that every one of the comments within this constellation of Enūma eliš commentary texts was the product of a 363  The Babylonian tablets are from Sippar and should not postdate the reign of Xerxes, see Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes” (so noted in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 287 n. 1362). The Nineveh tablets come from the seventh century. 364  For a discussion of the nature of oral traditions in Mesopotamian scholarship, see, e.g., Elman, “Authoritative Oral Tradition”. For Mesopotamian oral traditions in general, see the classic description in Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 22–23. 365  In truth the commentaries that present the full lemma of a line from their base‑text may have enjoyed some use apart from their base‑text, but it is hard to imagine a situation in which the colon or tabular layout commentaries with their bare listing of keyword–comment pairs would have found use absent an accompanying copy of the base‑text. It should be noted that among the many Mesopotamian commentary texts a select few commentary texts may have integrated comments into a running base‑text; see the texts described as “commented text” in Reiner, “Celestial Omen Tablets and Fragments in the British Museum”. One such manuscript that might be a running text with interspersed comments is VAT 10218 (see Reiner and Pingree, Babylonian Planetary Omens: Part Three, 29–36 and 40–54), but while that text contains 127 omens concerning Venus – about 10% of the omens have variants or comments of some sort – it is uncertain whether this tablet is indeed tablet 61 of Enūma Anu Enlil or some other non‑canonical collection of Venus omens (so Reiner and Pingree, Babylonian Planetary Omens: Part Three, 1).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

126

Compositional Models

single individual. Rather, the comments reproduced in each of these texts were the product of an accretion of various ancient scholars’ research, and that very accretion of traditions is demonstrated by the comment to Enūma eliš VII 109– 110 in the Commentary I ms. Z rev. 6–7, which expands upon the comment as found in V lines 12–14 (see, e.g., pp. 137–138). These repositories of scribal lore on the Enūma eliš bear witness to the great effort ancient scholars expended in order to understand that work and its place in their conception of the world. A similar assessment applies as well to those commentaries that are only preserved in single copies, such as the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary. The variety of internal citation orthographies in that commentary indicates the multifarious nature of its compositional background. Each differing style of internal citation suggests a specific venue in which that particular comment was most likely to have been formulated and disseminated (see p. 107). As noted above, the commentaries of Ancient Mesopotamia were rarely static works, rather they often represented a written record of common traditional interpretations of a given base‑text. These interpretations could come from a variety of sources and could be arranged in a number of physical layouts (see pp. 97–102) and commentary structures (see pp. 102–107). The Mesopotamian commentaries provide empirical examples for stages of the compositional development of ancient commentary. The evidence from constellations of commentary manuscripts suggests that there was a large tradition of interpretations surrounding certain compositions, such as the Enūma eliš. While some scribes did copy certain commentary manuscripts (but see the nuancing of such claims in pp. 120–124), others recorded their own unique compilations of these traditional interpretations. When scribes put these commentary traditions into writing, they could format, or reformat, the text in a variety of ways. For instance, the commentary unit for Enūma eliš VII 108 in mss V and Z contain the same comment but in a different layout (V uses a standard indent layout and Z uses an unparalleled layout with a line lemma commentary structure but no indents):366 V 10 V 11

šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš ki‑[ma me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šu]b‑bu pal‑ḫ iš mu li‑is‑me šá ddumu.é [šá èš‑nunki gi]m dug4‑u

366  Such variation in formatting is common in the Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts. Mss V, W, and z use an indentation format which commonly indents the lines containing a comment. Mss X and Y are also indent layout commentaries, but the comments usually only occupied the end of the line after the lemma and rarely spilled over onto a new line. Ms. y is structured similarly to mss X and Y, but since it was thinner, its comments frequently continued on to a new line. Ms. Z is a unique specimen uses long lines sometimes fitting two commentary units on a single line with a colon between them. Finally, ms. x utilizes a colon layout.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Compositional Models

V 10 V 11

127

At whose name the gods [ben]d down in reverence as [before a hurricane.] (This has to do) with the race of Mār‑bīti [of Ešnunna, a]s it is said.

Z rev. 5

[šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš gim me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šub‑bu pa]l‑ḫ iš mu l[i]‑is‑mu šá da.é367 šá èš‑nunki ki‑i dug4.ga‑⸢ú⸣

Z rev. 5

[At whose name the gods bend down in rev]erence [as before a hurricane.] (This has to do) with the race of Mār‑bīti of Ešnunna, as it is said.

Different formal commentary structures could be also be used to format the same interpretational material, with one commentary text using a lemma structure and another using a keyword structure (see the discussion of Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. x, p. 103). Given such scribal reformatting in Mesopotamia, the textual re­ formatting carried out by the scribe of columns 1 through the middle of column 12 of the Habakkuk pesher368 becomes less remarkable. In addition to the models of compositional history demonstrated by multiple commentary manuscripts to a single base‑text like the Enūma eliš and Maqlû, several formal features within single commentary manuscripts also reflect stages in a work’s development. The three methods of keyword citation in the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary suggest that there are several strata in the compositional history of that document (see my discussion of the differing keyword orthogra­ phies, pp. 104–107). This variety in keyword citation would be difficult to explain without assuming either that the work had multiple authors or that it was based on multiple sources, some of which knew each other (note the repeated comment in the Ludlul bēl nēmeqi commentary obv. 35ʹ and rev. 14ʹ, p. 106).369 These models of commentary composition evident in the Mesopotamian commentary texts provide a new framework for understanding the composition of the Qumran pesharim. While there is no reason that Qumran pesharim should have necessarily been composed in a similar way to the Mesopotamian commen­ taries, an application of the Mesopotamian model of commentary composition to the pesharim can provide solutions for a large enough number of peculiarities in the pesharim to make it quite compelling. I have also found this approach to greatly enhance my own understanding of the compositional logic of the Qum­ ran pesharim. 367  Note also that ms. V and ms. Z use different spellings for the name or the deity Mār‑bīti, ddumu.é and da.é respectively. 368  See my discussion in fn. 151. 369  The second keyword–comment pair from obv. 13ʹ is repeated in rev. 9, but both of those comments appear to belong to the same stratum.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

128

Compositional Models

Conflation of Commentary Units When F.M. Cross argued that the traditions of exegesis in the pesharim developed over a long period of time, but were only written down late,370 he was largely correct, though the actual writing down of these traditions need not necessarily have been late. Some of the extant pesher compositions would have been related to predecessors, whether oral or written, that consisted only of select keywords or lemmas excerpted from the base‑text and a related comments, and did not include the full running text of the base‑text. We find this model in isolated pesher interpretations and to some extent also in thematic pesharim. At some point these keyword‑ or lemma‑comment pairs would have been compiled together with the integrated base‑text. The residue of this compositional process is evidenced in a number of passages within the pesharim:

1QpHab unit 18 ‫ותעש אדם כדגי הים‬5:12 ‫כול[ה‬ ֯ ‫כרמש למשל בו‬5:13 ‫בח]כה יעלה ויגרהו בחרמו‬ ֯ ‫ויספהו ֯ב ֯מ ֯כ[מרתו על כן‬5:14 ‫יזב]ח לחרמו על כן ישמח‬ ֯ 5:15 ‫[ויגי]ל[ ויקטר למכמרתו כיא‬ ֯ 5:16 ‫]ש ׄמןׄ חלקו [ומאכלו‬ ֯ ‫בהם‬ ‫הכתיאים‬6:1 ]... ‫ברי פשרו על‬ ‫ויוסיפו את הונם עם כול שללם‬ ‫כדגת הים ואשר אמר על כן‬6:2 ‫ויקטר למכמרתו‏‬6:3 ‫יזבח לחרמו‬ ‫זבחים‬6:4 ‫‏ פשרו אשר המה‬vacat ‫לאותותם וכלי מלחמותם המה‬ ‫ מוראם כיא בהם שמן חלקו‬6:5‫╳‏‬ ‫פשרו אשר המה‬6:6 ‫ומאכלו ברי‬ ‫מסם‬6:7 ‫מחלקים את עולם ואת‬ ‫מאכלם על כול העמים שנה‬ ← ‫לחריב ארצות רבות‬6:8 ‫בשנה‬

5:12You

made humankind like the fish of the sea 5:13like the swarms to rule over it. He brings up all of [it with a ho]ok and drags it with his net 5:14and gathers it in [his fishing n]et, [that is why he sacrifi]ces to his net. That is why he celebrates 5:15[and rejoi]ces [and offers up smoke to his fishing net. For with them,] his lot is fat 5:16[and his food is rich. Its interpretation is concerning ...] 6:1the Kittim that they might add to their wealth with all their plunder 6:2like the fish of the sea. And when it says: That is why he sacrifices to his net 6:3and offers up smoke to his fishing net.‎ vacat‎Its interpretation is that they 6:4sacrifice to their standards, and their implements of war ╳ 6:5they fear, for with them, his lot is fat and his food is rich. 6:6Its interpretation is that they apportion their yoke and 6:7their corvée–duty, their food, upon all the peoples on a yearly basis 6:8thereby desolating many lands. →

370 Cross, Ancient Library, 92–94.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conflation of Commentary Units

129

The lemma of 1QpHab commentary unit 18 (V:14–15) has a reading of Habakkuk 1:15–16 that is unattested in any other Hebrew mss or translations of Habakkuk: 1QpHab

MT Habakkuk 1

‫יזב]ח לחרמו על כן ישמח‬ ֯ ‫ על כן‬... ‫[ויגי]ל[ ויקטר למכמרתו‬ ֯ [that is why he makes many sacrifi] ces to his net. That is why he celebrates [and rejoi]ces [and offers up smoke to his fishing net.

‫ל־ּכן יְ זַ ֵּב ַח‬ ֵ ‫ ַע‬16 ‫ל־ּכן יִ ְש ַמח וְ יָ גִ יל‬ ֵ ‫ ַע‬15 ... ... ‫ְל ֶח ְרמֹו וִ ַיק ֵּטר ְל ִמ ְכ ַמ ְרּתֹו‬ That is why he celebrates and rejoices, that is why he makes many sacrifices to his net and offers up smoke to his fishing net.

The unique reading of 1QpHab transposes ‫ל־ּכן יִ ְש ַמח וְ יָ גִ יל‬ ֵ ‫“ ַע‬that is why he celebrates and rejoices” and ‫ל־ּכן יְ זַ ֵּב ַח ְל ֶח ְרמֹו‬ ֵ ‫“ ַע‬that is why he makes many sacrifices to his net” from the text of the MT.‎The internal citation in the comment, however does not perform this transposition and instead has ‎‫“ על כן יזבח לחרמו‬that is why he sacrifices to his net” (1QpHab 6:2) directly followed by ‎‫“ ויקטר למכמרתו‬and offers up smoke to his fishing net” (1QpHab 6:3), a reading which matches the MT (and the versions). Such disagreement between lemma and internal citation demonstrates the danger in assuming that the lemma presented in a pesher manuscript constitutes the base‑text that was used to formulate the comments.371 On the contrary, the comments were not always based on the version of the base‑text presented in the lemmas but rather may have been developed from some other version or versions of the base‑text which can only be determined with certainty when an internal citation or keyword is provided within the comment.372 What is more, the possible marginal dash in 6:4373 could be a scribal indicator that the whole internal citation + comment in 6:2–8 was inserted here from another commentary source.

371  For instance, the ‫“ בוגדים‬traitors” in the comment to Habakkuk 1:5 does not necessarily indicate that the word ‫“ בוגדים‬traitors” was present in the lemma instead of ‫( ַבּגֹויִ ם‬see, e.g., A. Gelston’s remarks in BHQ). 372  This assumes, of course, that the discrepancy between lemma and internal citation is not simply the result of a copyist’s error (cf. Elliger, Studien Zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar Vom Toten Meer, 131 and 132). Nevertheless, the form of the lemma may in some instances have arisen from exegetical concerns, see Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries”. 373  For the possibility of this mark, see Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

130

Compositional Models

1QpHab unit 33 ‫[כיא חמס לבנון יכסכה ושוד‬11:17 ‫יחתה מדמי אדם וחמס‬12:1 ]‫בהמות‬ ‫פשר‬12:2 ‫ארץ קריה וכול יושבי בה‬ ‫הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את‬ ‫גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים‬12:3 ‫╳‏‬ ‫עצת היחד‬12:4 ‫כיא הלבנון הוא‬ ‫והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה עושיה‬ ‫התורה אשר ישופטנו אל לכלה‏‬12:5 ‫כאשר זמם לכלות אביונים‬12:6 ‫‏‬vacat ‫קריה וחמס ארץ‬12:7 ‫ואשר אמר מדמי‬ ‫אשר‬12:8 ‫פשרו הקריה היא ירושלם‬ ‫פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות‬ ‫מקדש אל וחמס ארץ‬12:9 ‫ויטמא את‬ ‫גזל הון‬12:10 ‫המה ערי יהודה אשר‬ ← ‫אביונים‬

11:17Indeed

the violence of Lebanon will cover over you and the destruction of beasts] 12:1will terrify, because of the human bloodshed and violence against land, city, and all dwelling in it. 12:2The interpretation of the passage concerns the wicked priest with respect to giving him ╳ 12:3his recompense for how he repaid the poor, because the Lebanon is 12:4the council of the community, and the beasts are the simple–minded ones of Judah each of whom performs 12:5the instruction; whom374 God will judge for destruction vacat‎12:6just as he schemed to destroy the poor. And when it says: because of 12:7the bloodshed of the city and violence against land. Its interpretation is: the city is Jerusalem, 12:8in which the wicked priest did abominable deeds and defiled the 12:9temple of God; and violence against land are the cities of Judah, where 12:10he stole the wealth of the poor. →

The lemma of unit 33 ends with the phrase ‫מדמי אדם וחמס ארץ קריה וכול יושבי בה‬ “because of the human bloodshed and the violence against land, city, and those inhabiting it”. This portion of the lemma is recited in the comment with the introductory formula ‫“ ואשר אמר‬and when it says”, but the quote there is slightly different from the lemma, and reads ‫“ מדמי קריה וחמס ארץ‬because of the bloodshed in the city and the violence in the land”. The comment then defines the city as Jerusalem, where the wicked priest commits abominations and defiles the temple, and the land is equated with the Judean cities which rob the poor. Such an interpretation would have been equally possible with a verbatim internal citation of the base‑text from the lemma, so the demands of the interpretation cannot have been the impetus for the divergence of the internal citation in 12:6–7 from the lemma in 12:1. This peculiarity is most expediently accounted for by applying the compositional model described above: the internal citation‑comment pair in 1QpHab 374  The antecedent of the relative pronoun appears to be the wicked priest of 12:2.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conflation of Commentary Units

131

12:6–10 (‫ אביונים‬... ‫“ מדמי‬because of the bloodshed ... poor”) was a separate self‑standing commentary unit that was integrated into the present commentary unit as it now stands in 1QpHab.375 This particular internal citation‑comment pair used a version of Habakkuk which differed slightly from the Habakkuk manuscript used for the lemmas in 1QpHab, but when 1QpHab was put together no effort was made to harmonize the base‑text as found in the comment with the base‑text that was used in the lemma.

4QpPsa unit 14 (f1+3–4iii:4a + 6) ‫ כורים‬377‫ יהוה כיקד‬376‫ואוה«א?»בי‬4a v‫ ‏‬acat ‫צון בתוך עדריהם‏‬6 ]... ‫פשר[ו‬

4aAnd the lovers«enemies?» of the Lord are like the burning of furnaces. [Its] interpretation [...] 6flock in the midst of their herd.‎vacat‎

Somehow the first scribe of 4QpPsa forgot to include the lemma for the portion of of Psalm 37:20 following the rviaʿ. This was inserted at a later date, and the version inserted maintains a coherent metaphor, whereas the animal imagery of Psalm 37:20 in the MT represents a corrupt text:378 375  Perhaps the vacat in 12:5 is also a scribal marker of the secondary nature of the latter part of the comment (see also Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 41, followed by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187). 376  It seems that the scribe who hastily wrote the interlinear correction to include this line from Psalm 37 began to write a ‫ ה‬in this word and then perhaps changed it to an awkward ‫( א‬drawn: [author’s handcopy]; though the letter ‫ ה‬can be found from time to time with a similar shape). Instances of ‫ אֹיֵב‬with the orthography ‫ אואב‬occur in a Psalm scroll 4Q88 10:11 and a prayer 4Q434 f7b:3—both instances are plural (similarly, see also the assertion of J. Amoussine, “observatiunculae Qumraneae”, that the copyist of this word had a vorlage with ‫)ואואבי‬. Whether the odd shaping of this ‫ ה‬points to a reshaped letter, some problem in the scribe’s source for the correction (i.e., oral/aural, written, or remembered), or the scribe’s own hesitation over the preferred text here, the plene writing of ‫“ כורים‬furnaces” maintains the negative image of burning found in the next colon, so I prefer to read ‫אואבי‬, “the enemies of ”. For instances of reshaped letters in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 228–229. Note that my understanding of this insertion stands in contrast to the recent assertion of Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran”, 303 that the text simply has ‫אוהבי‬. 377  It is not perfectly clear in the manuscript whether this word ends in ‫ ד‬or ‫ר‬. Since the other clear cases of ‫ ר‬in this second correcting hand are about twice the width of the character in question here, it seems more judicious to read a ‫ד‬, which also affords a more sensical reading of the text as it stands in 4QpPsa, though M. Dahood’s suggestion of a root ‫קרה‬/‫ יקר‬that refers to burning cannot be dismissed (Dahood, Psalms I, 230). 378  The Vulgate (iuxta Hebreos) presents a different animal image, inimici Domini glori‑ antes ut monocerotes consumentur “the enemies of the Lord, prideful as unicorns, will be consumed” (also Symmachus, ὡς μονοκέρωτες “as unicorns”) and may reflect a Hebrew vorlage

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

132

Compositional Models

4QpPsa

MT Psalm 37:20 ‫ואוה«א?»בי‬

‫יהוה כיקד כורים‬ ‫כלו כעשן כולו‬ The lovers«enemies?» of the Lord are like the burning of furnaces, They have each come to a complete end like smoke.

‫וְ א ֵֹיְבי יְ הוָ ה ִּכ ַיקר ָּכ ִרים‬ ‫ָכלּו ֶב ָע ָשן ָכלּו‬ The enemies of the Lord are like the most precious one of the rams/pastures, They vanish, in smoke they vanish.

The comment in 4QpPsa certainly reflects the text of the MT, where the ‫צון בתוך‬ ‫“ עדריהם‬flock in the midst of their herd” corresponds to the ‫“ יְ ַקר ָּכ ִרים‬the glory of the rams/pastures”.379 The lemma of 4QpPsa, however, utilizes a mater lectionis to make it explicit that the text does not refer to ‫“ ָּכ ִרים‬rams/pastures” but to ‫ּכּורים‬ ִ “ovens”, a reading that comports well with ‫“ ָע ָשן‬smoke” in the following poetic line. Thus, the lemma and the comment are at odds with each other: the lemma presents reading that differs from the MT and centres on a metaphor of burning; but the comment is certainly based upon the pasture animal imagery of the MT.380 Again, this example demonstrates that the lemma in a continuous pesher text, here originally omitted, does not necessarily represent the particular version of the base‑text that underlies the comment.

‫ּכיְ קֹר ְּכ ֵר ִמים‬‎ ִ (‫ר ֵאם‬/‫ם‬ ְ ‫ ֵר‬is often translated monoceros “unicorn/rhinoceros” in V). LXX abandons this animal imagery in favour of a reading that fits better with the following lines, ἅμα τῷ δοξασθῆναι αὐτοὺς καὶ ὑψωθῆναι “as soon as they are glorified and exalted”; the Septuagint would reflect a Hebrew vorlage ‫ּוכרּום‬ ְ ‫ּכיְ קֹר‬.ִ None of these readings suggests a vorlage radically different from the MT or especially similar to 4QpPsa. 379 Hebrew ‫ ָּכר‬can mean both “ram” and “pasture”. The meaning of ram seems more likely to underlie this pesher interpretation but pasture is also possible. 380  J.M. Allegro concluded that “‫כורים‬, unless a dialectal variant of ‫ּכ ִרים‬,ָ has no meaning in this context. That ‫כרים‬, ‘lambs’ is intended seems to be indicated by the ‫ צון בתוך עדריהם‬of l. 6”, (DJD V, 74, n. 4a) an assessment followed by Horgan, Pesharim, 215. But such a conclusion is ultimately circular. It is doubtful that the word ‫“ ָּכר‬pasture/ram” would be written as ‫ כור‬with a mater lectionis. Furthermore, the passage in Psalms is widely agreed to be corrupt, and the emendation ‫כּורים‬ ִ ‫ ִּכיקֹד‬had already been proposed many years before the discovery of 4QpPsa (so already in the translation of Wellhausen, 1898 and the commentary of Baethgen, 1904; see Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 158). Perhaps the presentation of the reading ‫ ִּכיקֹד ֻּכ ִרים‬in HALOT s.v. ‫ יָ ָקר‬as an emendation should be changed to agree with HALOT s.v. ‫ ָּכר‬II “4QpPs 37 ‫‘ כיקוד כורם‬like the burning of an oven’ ‫ יְ קֹוד‬and ‫”ּכּור‬, and likewise DCH s.v. ‫ּכּור‬, which presents the reading ‫ יְ קֹד ֻּכ ִרים‬as an emendation to Psalms rather than an established variant.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conflation of Commentary Units

133

1QpHab units 12–13 ‫וקול מנמרים סוסו וחדו‬3:6 »‫‏ פשר«ו‬vacat ‫מזאבי ערב‏‬3:7 ‫יעופו‬3:8 ‫ופרשו פרשו מרחוק‬ ‫כנשר חש לאכול כולו֯ לחמס‬ ‫פני הם קדים‏‬3:9 ‫יבוא מגמת‬ ‫‏ ֯פ[שר]ו֯ על הכתיאים אשר‬vacat ]‫ידושו את הארץ בסוס[יהם‬3:10 ‫יבואו‬3:11 ‫ובבהמתם וממרחק‬ ‫]כול‬ ֯ ‫לאכול[ את‬ ׄ ‫מאיי הים‬ ‫ואין שבעה‬3:12 ‫העמים כנשר‬ ‫וב]חרן אף וזעף ╳‏‬ ׄ ‫ובחמה וכ[עס‬ ‫אפים ידברו עם ֯כו֯ ל[ העמים‬3:13 ‫מג[מת‬ ֯ ‫אמר‬3:14 ‫כי]א הוא אשר‬ ‫פניהם קדים ויאסוף כח]ו֯ ל שבי‬ 3:15 ‫╳‏‬ ‫[פש]רו֯ [ על הכתיאים‬ ֯ 3:17 3:16 ‫ ויאסוף‬...[ ]...[ ]... ‫אשר‬ ‫יקלס‬4:1 ]‫כחול שבי והוא במלכים‬ ‫‏ פשרו‬vacat ‫ורזנים משחק לו‏‬ ‫ילעיגו על רבים ובזו על‬4:2 ‫אשר‬ ‫ושרים יתעתעו‬4:3 ‫נכבדים במלכים‬ ← ‫וקלסו בעם רב‬

3:6Its

cavalry is swifter than leopards, they are sharper 3:7than wolves of the night.‎ vacat‎Its cavalry gallop and spread out afar, 3:8they fly like an eagle swift to devour. All of it comes for violence, the fullness of 3:9their faces is an east wind.‎vacat‎Its in[terpretation] concerns the Kittim, who 3:10will tread the land with [their] horse[s] and with their cattle, and from afar 3:11they will come, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle, 3:12but there will be no satiation. With wrath, and vex[ation, and] burning of nose, and enraged ╳ 3:13face they will speak with all [the peoples, fo]r it is the one about whom 3:14it says: the full[ness of their faces is an east wind. It will have gathered] captives [like sa]nd. ╳ 3:15Its int[erpretation concerns the Kittim, who ...] 3:16[...] 3:17[... It will have gathered captives like sand, and it] 4:1will ridicule [kings] and rulers will be an object of derision for it.‎ vacat‎Its interpretation is that 4:2they deride great ones and despise those honoured among the kings, 4:3they mock princes, and make a great people an object of derision. →

Commentary unit 12 of pesher Habakkuk, contains an internal citation of its lemma within the comment (3:14). This particular instance of internal citation contains the end of unit 12’s lemma and the beginning of unit 13’s lemma. The internal citation bridges the lemmas of two consecutive interpretational units; in essence, it defies the Habakkuk pesher’s current division of its base‑text. In this instance, the comment in 3:9–17 came from a commentary source, oral or written, which divided its base‑text differently than the main organizing commentary tradition used for 1QpHab. In fact, K. Elliger has already noted that no part of this comment deals with Habakkuk 1:8a at all,381 so the whole comment should be understood as an explanation of Habakkuk 1:(8b–)9 and not of Habakkuk 1:8–9a, the excerpt presented in the lemma (1QpHab 3:6–9 and 3:17–4:1).

381 Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 133.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

134

Compositional Models

H. Eshel has argued that this commentary unit is part of a second revision of pesher Habakkuk.382 The literary observations that Eshel presents for the secondary nature of several commentary units is compelling, though his historical reconstruction seem doubtful.383 The evidence from the internal citation in unit 12 indicates that 1QpHab used multiple discrete commentary sources that had not yet been fully harmonized – a phenomenon to be expected within a group commentary traditions that are no more than a few decades old, and perhaps even less. The base‑text in the lemma and in the comment of a commentary unit disagree in several other passages within the pesharim: 1QpHab 2:16‎)‫)וׄ ל[וא לו‬,384‎3:2‎(‫;)לוא לו‬‎9:14‎(‫)קצוות‬, 10:2‎‎(‫)קצות‬ 4QpNah f1–2:5 (‫)לבנן‬, 2:7–1‎(‫ ;)לבנון‬f3–4i:9 (‫ כפיריכה‬and ‫)טרפה‬, f3–4i:10 and 11 (‫ כפיריו‬and ‫)ט ׄרפו‬ ׄ 4QcommGen A 4:4 )‫(רישית‬, 4:7‎(‫)ראשית‬ These discrepancies may also be due to the phenomenon of the comments being based upon one version of the base‑text while the lemma is excerpted from a different version. The difficulty of applying this method to cases where the com‑ ment appears to interpret a text different from the one presented in the lemma is that instead of representing a disagreement between base‑text used for the lemma and the base‑text underlying the comment, such cases may be due to the hermeneutic of notariqon.385

1QpHab unit 11 ‫ ההולך למרחבי ארץ‬...[2:15 ‫וׄ ל[וא לו איום‬2:16 ]‫לרשת משכנות‬ ‫ונורא הוא ממנו משפטו ושאתו‬ ‫[פשרו על הכתיאים‬2:17 ]‫יצא‬ ‫ובמישור ילכו לכות‬3:1 ]... ‫אשר‬ ‫כיא הוא‬3:2 ‫ולבוז את ערי הארץ‬

that roams the expanses of the land to take possession of habitations,] 2:16even though (they) do n[ot belong to it. It is terrible and dreadful. Its justice and its majesty come forth from it itself.] 2:17[Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, who ...] 3:1and in the 2:15[…

382  Eshel, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”, 115 and “‫עד לפשרו של פשר‬ ‫”חבקוק‬. 383  So, especially, Sharon, “The Kittim and the Roman Conquest in the Qumran Scrolls”. 384  This reading is clear in J. Trever’s photographs, but somewhat obscured in more recent images (see also E. Qimron’s transcription in The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:246). 385  In 1QpHab unit 32 ‫“ הרעל‬to be intoxicated” (so LXX and the versions) in the lemma is interpreted in line with that reading in the comment, but another part of the comment appears to interpret ‫“ הערל‬to circumcise” (so MT and the Targum), also ‫“ בגוים‬among the nations” (so MT) might have been expected in the lemma of unit 9 on the basis of MT, but ‫“ בוגדים‬traitors” (so LXX) is found in the comment. For a similar understanding of these passages as an early form of ‫אל תקרא‬, see Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission”, 131–132.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conflation of Commentary Units

‫אשר אמר לרשת משכנות לוא לו‬ ‫ונורא הוא ממנו משפטו‬3:3 ‫איום‬ ‫פשרו על‬3:4 ‫‏‬vacat ‫ושאתו יצא‏‬ ‫מתם על‬ ֯ ‫הכתיאים אשר פחדם ו֯ ֯א‬ ‫הגואים ובעצה כול מחשבתם‬3:5 ‫כול‬ ‫ילכו עם‬3:6 ‫ובנ֯ כל ומרמה‬ ֯ ‫להרע‬ ‫כול העמים‬

135

valley they will go to smite and plunder the cities of the land, 3:2for it is the one concerning whom it says: to take possession of habitations not belonging to it. It is terrible 3:3and dreadful. Its justice and majesty come forth from it itself.‎ vacat‎3:4Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, the dread and terror of whom is upon all 3:5the nations, and with counsel all their plans are for evil and in deceitfulness and trickery 3:6they walk with all the peoples.

The internal citation of nearly the entire lemma (lines 3:2–3) in this commentary unit would seem unnecessary and is difficult to account for, especially since it appears to interrupt the comment more than anything else. What is more, the comment in lines 3:3–6 only deals with ‫“( איום ונורא הוא ממנו משפטו ושאתו יצא‬It is terrible and dreadful. Its justice and majesty come forth from it itself.”) even though the internal citation also includes ‫“ לרשת משכנות לוא לו‬to take possession of habitations not belonging to it”. If the comment were truly a single composition the repetition of ‫“ לרשת משכנות לוא לו‬to take possession of habitations not belonging to it” makes little sense, for that portion of the lemma had already been interpreted by ‫“ לבוז‬to plunder” in 3:1. These difficulties can, however, be explained by positing that lines 3:2–6 originally constituted a separate commentary unit from another source, which was integrated, somewhat imperfectly, into the present text.

1QpHab unit 28 ‫הבו֯ צע בצע רע ׄל ֯ביתו‬ ֯ ‫הוי‬9:12 9:13 ‫לשום במרום קנו לנצל ׄמ ׄכף‬ ‫ לביתכה‬9:14╳ ‫רע יעצתה בשת ‏‬ ‫וחוטא‬ ׄ ‫עמים רבים‬ ֯ ‫קצוות‬ ‫אב[ן] ֯מקיר‬ ֯ 9:15 ‫[נפ]שכה כיא‬ ]‫ו]כפיס מעץ ׄיע[ננה‬ ֯ [‫תזעק‬ ׄ ]‫הכ[והן‬ ֯ ‫הדב]ר על‬ ֯ ‫[פשר‬9:16 ‫להיות‬10:1 ]...[9:17 ‫]ץ‬...[° ֯ ‫אשר‬ ‫אבניה בעשק וכפיס עיצה בגזל‬ ‫אמר קצות עמים רבים‬10:2 ‫ואשר‬ ‫פשרו‬10:3 ‫‏‬vacat ‫וחוטי נפשכה‏‬ ‫הוא בית המשפט אשר יתן אל‬

9:12Woe

to you who store up evil unjust gain for his house to place 9:13his nest on high, to be delivered from the evil hand. You have counselled shame ╳ 9:14for your house making an end of many peoples, and you are forfeiting your own life. For 9:15a sto[ne] cries out from the wall [and] a beam ans[wers] from the woodwork. 9:16[The interpretation of the passa]ge concerns the pr[iest] who ? [...] ? 9:17[...] 10:1that its rocks might be with oppression and the rafter of its woodwork with theft. And when 10:2it says: making an end of many

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

136

Compositional Models

‫משפטו בתוך עמים‬10:4 ‫את ╳‏‬ ‫רבים ומשם יעלנו למשפט‬ ‫ובתוכם ירשיענו ובאש גופרית‬10:5 ‫ישפטנו‬

peoples, and you are forfeiting your own life. ‎vacat‎10:3Its interpretation: It is the house of judgement where God will give ╳ 10:4His judgement in the midst of many peoples. From there He will bring him up for judgement 10:5and He will declare him guilty in their midst and judge him with fire and brimstone.

1QpHab unit 28 comments on its base‑text out of order, 10:1 interprets the ‫אבן‬ “stone” and ‫“ כפיס‬beam” from the end of the lemma, but 10:3–5 certainly relates to the ‫“ קצוות‬end” from earlier in the lemma.386 Compilation from multiple sources could explain this compositional logic. The first interpretation (1QpHab 9:16–10:1) is one that links the passage with a contemporaneous or near historical event, the second (1QpHab 10:2–5) is eschatological. Thus, the chronology of the events mentioned in the interpretations would be the organizing principle for this comment and not the sequence of words in the base‑text.387

1QpHab unit 15 ‫אז חלף רוח ויעבר וישם זה‬4:9 [ ֯‫פשרו‬ ֯ ‫‏‬vacat ‫לאלוהו‏‬4:10 ‫כוחו‬ 4:11 ‫ע]ל מו֯ שלי הכתיאים אשר‬ ‫בעצת בית אשמ[תם] יעבורו איש‬ ‫– מלפני רעיהו מושלי[הם‬4:12 ╳ ‫‏‬ ‫לשחית את‬4:13‫ז]ה אחר זה יבואו‬ ‫הא[רץ וישם ]ז֯ ה כוחו לאלוהו‬ ‫פשרו [אשר ישימו כו]ל ה�ע‬4:144 ←...[4:16 ‫]ל‬...[‫ ׄל‬4:15 ╳ ‫מים ‏‬

4:9Then

it turned with the wind and passed on and lay desolate. This one its strength has become 4:10its God.‎vacat‎Its interpretation [conc]erns the rulers of the Kittim 4:11who, on the counsel of [their] guilty house, pass on, each one ╳‎4:12– after the other. [Their] rulers come [o]ne after another 4:13to destroy the la[nd.] This one [made] its strength its God. 4:14Its interpretation is [that they will make al]l the peoples ╳‎4:15?[...]? 4:16[ ... →

A similarly difficult case presents itself in 1QpHab commentary unit 15 (cf. already pp. 49–50). Whatever the proper reading of ‫ וישם‬in the lemma should be, the comment in lines 10–13 deals with that word when it mentions ‫“ אשמה‬guilt” in line 12 (cf. MT ‫ )וְ ָא ֵׁשם‬and perhaps also with ‫“ לשחית‬to destroy” (||‫)ׁשמם‬. So 386  See, e.g., Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 55. 387  A similar reordering of comments is found in the commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi rev. 41–42 where the keywords are in a different order from the base‑text. In that instance I would argue that the non-sequential ordering of keywords is a by-product of the compositional history of the text, and that the second keyword–comment pair, which consists of the keyword and its Assyrian dialectal equivalent, is a secondary addition to the commentary unit.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

137

why is that portion of the lemma recited in line 13, and presumably interpreted again? The answer may lie with the scribal dash at the beginning of line 12. Lines 12–13 present a double interpretation of ‫“ חלף‬to turn (over)/succeed” and ‫“ עבר‬to pass”. The first interpretation deals some reprehensible action of the rulers of the Kittim. The second more concretely relates the lemma to successive campaigns to destroy the land. This dash appears to divide two originally independent comments. The question that remains in my mind is whether the comment in 12–13 originally belonged with the interpretation of 13–16. If taken together, lines 12–16 interpret the lemma in its proper order, first explaining ‫ חלף‬and ‫עבר‬, then reciting the second portion of the lemma and interpreting that. But I see no further corroborating evidence for that assessment. Nevertheless, the complexities of this commentary unit blur the line between the combination of originally independent interpretations and the compositional expansion of commentary units. The several atomistic yet orderly interpretations regarding the actions of the Kittim in lines 12–16 appear to be drawn together by the comment of lines 10–12 into a position subordinate to or resultant from a specific type of improper behaviour that the Kittim rulers engage in. If such an understanding is correct, then the comment in lines 10–12 was composed after and in response to the interpretations preserved in lines 12–16.

Growth of Comments While the compositional development of 1QpHab commentary unit 15 remains uncertain, such activity is known to occur in Mesopotamian commentaries and is evidenced as well in the Qumran pesharim. When multiple interpretations of a given passage arose, it was often possible, and sometimes even preferable, to preserve such multiple interpretations. Thus, the development or existence of alternative explanations did not inevitable supersede earlier ones. Among the Mesopotamian commentaries, Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. V 12–14, for example, has a comment to line Enūma eliš VII 109–110, which draws a connection between a ritual act in the base‑text and a present‑day ritual: 12 Dingir‑Esiskur

šaqîš ina bīt i[kribi li]šib‑ma 13ilānu maḫrāšu lišēr[ibū katr]âšun

12Dingir‑Esiskur –

qīšāti ša ‹ina Nisannu› ultu ud.6.kám ad[i ud.12.kám nadnāt aššu Z]ababa kīma qabû/iqbû

14 

14 

[let him t]ake the lofty seat in the House of Be[nediction] 13Let the gods bri[ng] their [pre]sents before him The gifts which [are given] ‹in the month of Nisan› from the 6th day t[o the 12th. This has to do with Z]ababa, as it is said.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

138

Compositional Models

This very comment occurs in ms. Z rev. 6–7 as well, but it is accompanied there by a second, now broken, interpretation: 6[Dingir‑Esiskur

šaqîš ina bīt ikribi lišib‑ma] ilānu maḫ rīšu lišēribū katrâšun

6[Dingir‑Esiskur –

qīšāti ša ina Nisannu ultu ud.6.kám adi ud.12.kám nadnāt aššu Zababa kī qabû/iqbû 7[ ... ] x Bēl ša ina akīti ud.8.kám uššabu katrû ṭaʾtu ša libbi ṭuppi šanîm‑ma

as it is said concerning Zababa, the gifts which are given in the month of Nisan from the 6th day to the 12th. 7[ ... ] ? Bēl who sits in the Akītu–house on the 8th. katrû (means) “gift/ bribe”; from another tablet.

let him take the lofty seat in the House of Benediction,] Let the gods bring their presents before him

The development of the commentary tradition by means of adding supplementary or even competing explanations, demonstrated so well by these two varying Enūma eliš commentary texts, is also well-attested in other Mesopotamian commentaries and has even acquired its own technical terminology. When this phenomenon appears in both of the Maqlû commentaries, where the comment to Maqlû I lines 1–2 has received three distinct interpretations, the second and third additions to the comment have been demarcated by the terms šanîš “secondly” and šalšiš “thirdly” respectively. Such an accretion of interpretations within the exegetical tradition is found among the Qumran pesharim as well, but has largely gone unnoticed due to a lack of interest in considering stages of textual development in them.388 This general apathy towards the compositional history of the pesharim is certainly due in large part to the lack of manuscript evidence for textual change. The comparison of manuscripts, however, is only one method for investigating the compositional history of a text. H. Eshel teased apart two literary strata in 1QpHab based primarily on historical concerns: a base‑text dealing with the period of the teacher of righteousness, and smaller additions made shortly after the Roman takeover of Judaea.389 While 388  One of the rare exceptions to this is 1QpHab commentary unit 9, which has been discussed by García Martínez, “El pesher”, 137–138, and especially n. 45 and Horgan, Pesharim, 24 among others. S. Tzoref has also broached the question in her analysis of 4QpNah commentary unit 8 in relation to the historical context of that comment and others in the pesher (Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 214–217). 389  The later additions to the pesher are: columns 2:10–4:13, columns 5:12–6:12, and the end of the comment in column 9:3–7 (Eshel, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”, 115). In response to H. Eshel’s proposition, B. Nitzan has maintained her argument for a literary unity in 1QpHab on the basis of a consistent interpretation of the terms ‫בוגדים‬,‎‫רשע‬,‎and ‫( צדיק‬Nitzan, “‫)”האּומנם שני רבדים בפשר חבקוק‬. In opposition to Nitzan’s claims of textual unity, Eshel has defended his original assertion by noting that none of passages in his proposed later strata use the terms ‫בוגדים‬,‎‫רשע‬,‎or ‫( צדיק‬Hanan, “‫”עד לפשרו של פשר חבקוק‬,‎94 n. 2).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

139

Eshel’s historical reconstructions with regard to two literary strata in 1QpHab are doubtful,390 his literary observations still obtain, and further form–critical discrepancies in 1QpHab do suggest stages of literary development.

1QpHab unit 9391 ]‫ ראו בגוים והביטו‬...[1:16 ‫[והתמהו תמהו כיא פעל פועל‬1:17 ‫יסופר‏‬2:1 ]‫בימיכם לוא תאמינו כיא‬ ‫]הבוגדים‬ ׄ ‫‏ [פשר הדבר על‬vacat ‫לוא[ שמעו אל‬ ׄ ‫הכזב כי‬2:2 ‫עם איש‬ ‫אל‬2:3 ‫קה מפיא‬ ׄ ‫צד‬ ֯ ‫דברי] מורה ה‬ ‫ועל הבוג[דים בברית] החדשה ֯כי֯ א‬ ]‫האמינו בברית אל [ויחללו‬2:4 ‫לוא‬ ‫‏ פשר‬vacat‫וכן‏‬2:5 ‫]קודשו‬ ֯ ‫את ׄש[ם‬ ‫הדבר[ על הבו]גדים לאחרית א‬ ‫עריצ[י הבר]ית אשר‬ ׄ ‫הימים המה‬2:6 ‫בשומעם את כול‬2:7 ‫לוא יאמינו א‬ ‫האחרוׄ ן מפי‬ ׄ ‫ע]ל ֯הדור‬ ֯ ‫הבא[ות‬ ֯ ‫הכוהן אשר נתן אל ב[לבו‬2:8 ‫דברי‬2:9 ‫ לפשור ֯א ׄת כול‬392‫בינ]ה‬ ׄ ‫]בידם ספר‬ ֯ ‫ביאים[ אשר‬ ׄ ׄ‫עבדיו הנ‬ ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬2:10 ‫אל את‬ ←] ... ‫וע[דתו‬ ֯

Look among the nations and see,] be very amazed, for one is doing a deed in your days, you would not believe it even if] 2:1it were recounted.‎vacat‎[The interpretation of the passage concerns] the treacherous ones along with the man 2:2of the lie, since [they did] not [listen to the words] of the teacher of what is right from the mouth 2:3of God. And (the interpretation of the passage) concerns [those] who deal treacher[ously with the] new [covenant], since they did not 2:4believe in God’s covenant, [and they profaned] His holy na[me]. 2:5And thus,‎vacat‎the interpretation of the passage [concerns the treach]erous ones at the end 2:6of days. They are the one[s] who violate [the coven]ant, who do not believe 2:7when they hear all that is to co[me with resp]ect to the latter generation from the mouth of 2:8the priest in whose [heart] God has placed [understan]ding to interpret all 2:9the words of His servants, the prophets with [whose] hands God recounted 2:10all that is to come with respect to His393 people and [His] cou[ncil ...] → 1:16[...

1:17[and

390  See, e.g., Sharon, “The Kittim and the Roman Conquest in the Qumran Scrolls”. 391  This and several of the following studies represent a fuller version of the condensed analyses that I published in my 2016 JBL article “The Compositional Development of Qumran Pesharim”, 535–540. 392  For a critique of other possible restorations and a defence of this restoration as the most probable given the material remains of the manuscript, see David and Bellavance, “Suggestions et questions”, 383. 393  The referent of this and the following possessive pronoun may be God or the priest.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

140

Compositional Models

Commentary unit 9 in pesher Habakkuk includes a comment that deals with the ‫ בוגדים‬who are associated with the man of the lie, and it seems to be literarily dependent on 4QpPsa in some way (see pp. 118–120). F. García Martínez has understood this particular pesher unit as an example where a newer com‑ ment is appended to another already existing one.394 Since there are three possible identifications of the ‫בוגדים‬, García Martínez allows for as many as three subsequent comments in this commentary unit.395 Nevertheless, he ultimately argues that there are only two independent comments here (1QpHab 2:1–4 and 5–10) for the following reasons: 1) the traitors in 1–4 are contemporaries but the ones in 5–10 are in the future, and this corresponds to the two types of traitors found in CD 19 and 20; 2) the terms ‫ וכן‬and ‫המה‬,‎‫עמו ישראל‬, and ‫כוהן‬ (referring to the teacher of righteousness) in 5–10 are unique to this passage in the pesharim; and 3) the ‫ א‬at the end of l. 5 that is certainly different than the x marks elsewhere (unfortunately he provides no further explanation of the phenomenon). The first four lines of the comment describe how the treacherous people did not believe the message of the teacher of righteousness, which came from the mouth of God. A second comment follows, in which the first two lines are each marked by an ‫ א‬in the left margin. This second comment is set off with the phrase ‫וכן‬, and followed by a vacat. It begins as a more condensed version of the first comment, but introduces a new term ‫“ עריצים‬violators”, a term only found elsewhere in 1QpHab at the end of the pesher in columns 9 and 10. The two lines ending in ‫א‬‎ (2:5 and 6) are followed by the well-known assertion that the teacher of righteousness (here ‫“ הכוהן‬the priest”) received from God the understanding (‫ )בינה‬to interpret (‫ )פשר‬the words of the prophets.396 This second comment in unit 9 summarizes the first comment, refers to the teacher of righteousness’s divinely apportioned understanding rather than his ability to relay the words of God, calls him ‫“ הכוהן‬the priest” rather than ‫“ מורה הצדקה‬the teacher of what is right”,397 gives the interpretation a future

394  García Martínez, “El pesher”, 137–138, and especially n. 45. 395  M. Horgan independently came to this same conclusion (Horgan, Pesharim, 24). She claimed that the first interpretation refers to the enemies in the time of the teacher of righteousness, the second refers to the enemies of the Qumran congregation, and the third is eschatological. 396  For a discussion of these two means of divine revelation, see pp. 41–43. 397  The terms ‫ הכוהן‬and ‫ מורה הצדק‬appear to occur together in 4QpPsa f1+3–4iii:15, ‫֯פשרו‬ ‎]‫ על הכוהן ׄמוׄ רה ה[צדק‬...‎ “Its interpretation concerns the priest, the teacher of [righteousness ...]”, where they must refer to a single person based on the usage of a singular pronoun in the following line (see, e.g., Collins, The Use of Sobriquets, 166–169; so also Llewelyn, Ng, Wearne, and Wrathall, “A Case for Two Vorlagen”, 135). The two terms may also be used with the same referent in 4QpPsb f1:4 and 5.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

141

time‑reference,398 and borrows the term ‫“ עריצים‬violators” from the final columns of this pesher. These five points suggest that unit 9 is a conflation of two commentary texts. The copyist first wrote a comment from one commentary source, then marked the insertion of a second more developed comment by means of a vacat before its beginning and ‫’א‬s at the end of its first two lines.399 The common Mesopotamian practice of marking second comments with the terms šanû “another (interpretation)” and šanîš “secondly” is intriguingly suggestive that the ‫’א‬s at the beginning of the second comment stand for ‫“ ַא ֵחר‬another (interpretation)”, a lexical equivalent to the Akkadian terms. The rabbinic use of the abbreviation ‫ד״א‬‎(‫“ דבר אחר‬another interpretation”) to mark second interpretations or opinions in the Talmud may further substantiate this conjecture. In fact, the use of a lapidary ʾaleph as a scribal marker is known already from the fifth century bce Aḥ iqar manuscript found at Elephantine.400 A. Cowley had first suggested the lapidary ʾaleph in the Aḥ iqar text might be an abbreviation for ‫אחר‬, an interpretation furthered by A. Yardeni but with the reading ‫אחרן‬ “another matter”.401 On the other hand, I. Kottsieper has suggested that this lapidary ʾaleph is an abbreviation of ‫אף‬, which serves “with the sense of ‘furthermore’ in the official administrative letters as an introduction to new topics and thus as an especially strong marker of [literary] division”.402 Regardless of the precise 398  See Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 126 (so also Llewelyn, Ng, Wearne, and Wrathall, “A Case for Two Vorlagen”, 135). 399  H.G. Snyder has also made a similar claim that these alephs mark a second comment, though he does not discuss the issue of compositional history (Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 40). E. Tov proposes they were x’s in the vorlage to 1QpHab and G. Doudna agrees (Tov, “Scribal Markings”, 43, n. 5 and Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 240), suggesting further that this indicates 1QpHab had the same word–for–word line layout as its vorlage. Without a better understanding of the function of the x’s in 1QpHab (see the reservations expressed on pp. 48–49), it is very difficult to evaluate the merit of those assertions. Note also that this comment has already been treated as an instance of “multiple interpretation” (Fishbane, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”, 99, and recently Weigold, “Ancient Jewish Commentaries”, 288, see also his review of scholarship in n. 26). Such an assessment may still apply to the first comment in 2:1–5, which would have two interpretations of ‫( בוגדים‬one in 2:1–3 and a second in 2:3–5). 400 So Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 211 and Yardeni, New Jewish Aramaic Ostraca, 133–134. A. Yardeni further notes that the mark occurs in Sachau, Aramäische Papyrus, Tafel 51. G. Brooke has independently come to the same conclusion, noting that the marginal ‫ א‬in line 2:5 is similar in usage to the lapidary ʾaleph “in some Aramaic texts of the 5th century b.c.e. by which scribes indicated new paragraphs or major subdivisions” (Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 189). 401  U. Gabbay has argued for a direct relationship between rabbinic ‫ דבר אחר‬and Akkadian šanîš (Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 308–309 and n. 128). 402  “... dient ʾp im Sinne von ‘Desweiteren’ in den offiziellen Briefen der Verwaltung als Einführung neuer Themen und damit als besonders starker Abschnittsmarkierer” (“Zu Graphischen Abschnittsmarkierungen”, 155).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

142

Compositional Models

word behind this ʾaleph marking textual division, if there even was any in the first place, its use continued on into Qumran where, as E. Tov notes, it also serves as a section marker.403 The Aramaic square script ʾaleph here in 1QpHab would seem then to constitute little more than an updating of the section marker to a more modern script form. For all that, several differences of orthography in the comment of 1QpHab unit 9 raise further questions with respect to compositional history. Since the word ‫ כי‬is always spelled with a digraph, ‫כיא‬, in the comments of 1QpHab, the spelling ‫ כי‬in 2:2 is cause for remark. Similarly a digraph is expected with ‫פי‬, as it is spelled at the end of 2:7, but the spelling without the digraph, ‫מפי‬, occurs‎at the end of 2:2.404 This comment also disagrees internally about how the teacher of righteousness was able to convey God’s word: direct communication from the deity in 2:2–3,405 but divinely apportioned understanding in 2:8–10. One solution is that the copyist of 1QpHab or its compiler was responsible for the forms of ‫כי‬‎ (2:2) and ‫מפי‬‎(2:7) without the digraph, which would suggest that 2:8–10 and at least 2:2–3 (‫אל‬ ... ‫ )לוא‬should be treated as late additions to the text (the caret mark ^ indicates the point at which the insertion was placed, parentheses enclose the copyist’s or compiler’s linking word): comment 1: ‫]הבוגדים עם איש‬ ׄ ‫[פשר הדבר על‬ ]‫הכזב ^ ועל הבוג[דים בברית‬ ‫החדשה ֯כי֯ א לוא האמינו בברית אל‬ ‫]קודשו‬ ֯ ‫[ויחללו] את ׄש[ם‬

[The interpretation of the passage concerns] the treacherous ones along with the man of the lie ^ and [those] who deal treacher[ously with the] new [covenant] since they did not believe in God’s covenant, [and they profaned] His holy na[me].

403  So Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 185–7. No other known abbreviations are attested at Qumran, excepting the use of ‫ א‬as a numeral (4Q512 f33–35:3 and perhaps f51–55 ii:9). For the evidence of early abbreviations being the cause of some differences between the MT, LXX, and Samaritan Pentateuch, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 238–239 and the bibliography cited there. 404  The differing orthography of ‫ כי‬and ‫ פה‬has been noted by I. Young (Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew”, 35). Young also treats the ‫ א‬at the end of 2:6 as a digraph, though he does cite Horgan’s reservations as to whether that ‫ א‬is part of the word or an independent sign. 405  Note also the singular occurrence of ‫ מורה הצדקה‬here, which also suggests this passage is not original to 1QpHab, but rather an addition from elsewhere. M. Collins notes the collocation of ‫ פה‬and ‫ צדקה‬in 1QHa 19:10 (numbering follows DJD 40; Collins, The Use of Sobriquets, 128), and perhaps that passage did influence this small addition to 1QpHab. The usage of ‫צדקה‬ instead of ‫ צדק‬with ‫ מורה‬is reminiscent also of Joel 2:23 – the supposed source of the sobriquet – and could thus have also resulted from a cognitive slip.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

comment 2: ‫(וכן) פשר הדבר[ על הבו]גדים לאח־‬ ‫עריצ[י הבר]ית אשר‬ ׄ ‫רית הימים המה‬ ‫הבא[ות‬ ֯ ‫לוא יאמינו בשומעם את כול‬ ^ ‫האחרוׄ ן‬ ׄ ‫]הדור‬...[ ֯ ‫ע]ל‬ ֯

Addition to comment 1:

‫לוא[ שמעו אל דברי] מורה‬ ׄ )‫(כי‬ ‫קה מפיא אל‬ ׄ ‫צד‬ ֯ ‫ה‬

Addition to comment 2: ‫(מפי) הכוהן אשר נתן אל ב[לבו‬ ‫בינ]ה לפשור ֯א ׄת כול דברי עבדיו הנׄ ־‬ ׄ ‫]בידם ספר אל את כול‬ ֯ ‫ביאים[ אשר‬ ׄ ]... ‫וע[דתו‬ ֯ ‫הבאות על עמו‬

143

(and thus:) The interpretation of the passage [concerns the treach]erous ones at the end of days. They are the one[s] who violate [the coven]ant, who do not believe when they hear all that is to co[me with resp]ect to [...] the latter generation. ^ (since) [they did] not [heed the words] of the teacher of what is right from the mouth of God. (from the mouth of) the priest in whose [heart] God has placed [understan]ding to interpret all the words of His servants, the prophets with [whose] hands God recounted all that is to come with respect to His people and [His] cou[ncil ...]

With such a reconstruction, a copyist or compiler would have been responsible for the apologetic attempt in this commentary unit to reconcile both the apocalyptic/prophetic hermeneutic (2:2–3) with the hermeneutic of divinely apportioned wisdom (2:8–10) (see pp. 41–43).406

1QpHab unit 20 ‫ואתיצבה‬6:13 ╳ ‫על משמרתי אעמודה‬6:12 ‫על מצורי ואצפה לראות מה ידבר‬ ‫ומה[ אשיב ע]ל תוכחתי ויענני‬ ֯ ‫בי‬6:14 6:15 ]‫𐤄 [ויומר כתוב חזון וב‬ ‫𐤉𐤄𐤅 ‏‬ 407‫[קורא‬6:16 ‫֯אר על הלוחות למען ירוׄ ֯ץ‬ ]...[6:17 ]‫הדב]ר ֯א[שר‬ ֯ ‫) פשר‬vacat( ‫בו‬ ‫וידבר אל אל חבקוק לכתוב את הבאות‬7:1 · ‫ ֿע ֿל הדור האחרון ואת גמר הקץ‬7:2 ‫על‬ ‫‏ ואשר אמר למען‬vacat 7:3 ‫לוא · הודעו ‏‬ ‫פשרו על מורה הצדק‬7:4 ‫ירוץ הקורא בו‬

will stand at my guard ╳ 6:13and station myself at my watch that I might look to see what He might say 6:14against me and what [I might answer rega]rding the reproach against me. Then the Lord answered me 6:15[and said, “Write a vision and ins] cribe it on tablets that one might run 6:16[reading it”. (vacat) The interpretation of the passa]ge is th[at] 6:17[...] 6:12I

406  This tension is also noted in Llewelyn, Ng, Wearne, and Wrathall, “A Case for Two Vorlagen”, 135. 407 Or ‫הקורא‬, following the internal citation (7:3).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

144

Compositional Models

‫כול רזי דברי‬7:5 ‫אשר הודיעו אל את‬ ← ‫עבדיו הנבאים‬

7:1and

God spoke to Habakkuk to write the things to come upon 7:2the latter generation, but the completion of the age He did · not · let him know. 7:3‎vacat‎ and when it says: that the one reading it might run. 7:4Its interpretation concerns the teacher of righteousness whom God let know 7:5all the secrets of the words of His servants, the prophets. →

Similar to the conflated comment in 1QpHab commentary unit 9, both orthography and text formatting suggest that 1QpHab commentary unit 20 is composed of two distinct comments. A large indent is used to separate the comment in lines 6:16–7:2 from the comment in lines 7:3–5. In addition to this visual marker, the orthography used for the Hifil of ‫“ ידע‬to let know” differs in the two sub‑com‑ ments: ‫ הודעו‬in the first comment, and the fuller ‫ הודיעו‬in the second comment. Thus on the grounds of both visual and textual clues, we should understand the two sub‑comments as distinct units. And in fact, the second sub‑comment appears to have been necessitated by the open‑ended nature of the first. The com‑ ment in lines 6:16–7:2 is concerned with the multivalency of prophecy – Habakkuk’s prophecy has clear application to the imminent Babylonian conquest of his time, but it can also contain an apocalyptic message that Habakkuk was not made aware of. What is missing from the first comment is the revelation of who indeed does know how to interpret Habakkuk’s prophecy with respect to the latter generation. The second sub‑comment answers this question very broadly by confirming that the teacher of righteousness has received from God the knowledge of the secret mysteries contained within all of the prophets’ oracles.

1QpHab unit 33 Again408 ‫[כיא חמס לבנון יכסכה ושוד‬11:17 ‫יחתה מדמי אדם וחמס‬12:1 ]‫בהמות‬ ‫פשר‬12:2 ‫ארץ קריה וכול יושבי בה‬ ‫הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את‬ ‫גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים כיא‬12:3 ‫╳‏‬ ‫עצת היחד והבהמות‬12:4 ‫הלבנון הוא‬ ‫המה פתאי יהודה עושיה‬

11:17Indeed

the violence of Lebanon will cover over you and the destruction of beasts] 12:1will terrify, because of the human bloodshed and violence against land, city, and all dwelling in it. 12:2The interpretation of the passage concerns the wicked priest with respect to giving him ╳

408  For the conflation of comments in this unit, see pp. 130–131.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

‫התורה אשר ישופטנו אל לכל ‏‬12:5 ‫ה‬ ‫כאשר זמם לכלות אביונים‬12:6 ‫‏‬vacat ‫קריה וחמס ארץ‬12:7 ‫ואשר אמר מדמי‬ ‫אשר‬12:8 ‫פשרו הקריה היא ירושלם‬ ‫פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות‬ ‫מקדש אל וחמס ארץ‬12:9 ‫ויטמא את‬ ‫גזל הון‬12:10 ‫המה ערי יהודה אשר‬ ← ‫אביונים‬

145

12:3his

recompense for how he repaid the poor, because the Lebanon is 12:4the council of the community, and the beasts are the simple–minded ones of Judah each of whom performs 12:5the instruction; whom409 God will judge for destruction vacat‎12:6just as he schemed to destroy the poor. And when it says: because of 12:7the bloodshed of the city and violence against land. Its interpretation is: the city is Jerusalem, 12:8in which the wicked priest did abominable deeds and defiled the 12:9temple of God; and violence against land are the cities of Judah, where 12:10he stole the wealth of the poor. →

Abberrant syntax can be another literary critical marker of compositional development. The first of the two sub‑comments (12:2–6) in 1QpHab commentary unit 33 is quite disturbed and has likely suffered at the hand of a less than careful copyist or compiler. The keyword identifications of ‫הלבנון‬‎“the Lebanon” and ‫“ הבהמות‬the beasts” in 12:3–5 interrupt the discussion concerning the wicked priest in the surrounding lines and likely had originally existed independent of them. The extent of this interruption is such that the original plural ‫עשי התורה‬‎ “doers of the instruction” has apparently been hypercorrected in this manuscript to a singular in agreement with the pronominal object of the verb in the following relative clause – an alteration likely made by one of the scribes who copied 1QpHab. Even when these two identifications are removed, the comment still suffers some incoherency, for the formulation ‫ ל‬... ‫“ פשר הדבר על‬The interpretation of the passage concerns ... with respect to” is unique and one expects the antecedent of ‫ אשר‬in 12:5 to be the now syntactically distant wicked priest. What is more, both sections of the comment (12:2–3 and 12:5–6) say essentially the same thing: the wicked priest will be punished in the same way as he mistreated the poor, and both clauses apparently allude to 4QpPsa.410 Do we have here competing variants

409  The antecedent of the relative pronoun appears to be the wicked priest of 12:2. 410  1QpHab 12:2–3 mentions the wicked priest (‫ )הכוהן הרשע‬and his payback (‫ )גמול‬of 4QpPsa f3–10iv:8. 1QpHab 12:6 and 4QpPsa f1–2ii:9–10 and 14 describe the opponents of the teacher of righteousness plotting (‫ )זמם‬to destroy (‫ )לכלות‬the poor (‫)אביונים‬, and how God will judge (‫ )ׁשפט‬them for their wickedness (1QpHab 12:5 and 4QpPsa f3–10iv:9–10).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

146

Compositional Models

of a comment, or perhaps even better the conflation of two forms of the com‑ ment written by the same author, an author who was particularly influenced by 4QpPsa?411 ‫לשלם לו את גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים‬

‫פשר הדבר על הכוהן הרשע‬

‫אשר ישופטנו אל לכלה כאשר זמם לכלות‬ ‫אביונים‬

The interpretation of the passage concerns the wicked priest

with respect to giving him his recompense for how he repaid the poor. whom God will judge for destruction just as he schemed to destroy the poor.

1QpHab unit 26 1QpHab 9:7 presents a far more basic instance of an insertion into the main text. The explanation ‫“ כיא המה יתר העמים‬for they are the rest of the peoples” serves to identify the preceding ‫“ חיל הכתיאים‬army of the Kittim” with the base‑text. But since ‫(“ יתר עמים‬the) rest of the peoples” from the base‑text (Habakkuk 2:8a) had already been recited within the comment at 9:3, this second internal citation is essentially pleonastic. Consequently, this short explicatory phrase, essentially a gloss, should be understood as an insertion tagged on to the end of the comment. The vacat immediately preceding it presents a physical marker that corroborates this analysis by serving to separate the gloss from the rest of the comment.412 In fact, S. Llewelyn, S. Ng, G. Wearne, and A. Wrathal contend “that the irregular vacats was[sic] one way in which the scribe marked the insertion of material from a second version of the pesher”.413

411  For evidence of authorial revision in the compositional process, see Porten, “The Revised Draft of the Letter of Jedaniah to Bagavahya (TAD A4.8=Cowley 31)”. 412  So Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 41, followed by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187 413  “A Case for Two Vorlagen”, 137.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Growth of Comments

147

1QpHab unit 17 ‫למה תביטו בוגדים ותחריש בבלע‬5:8 ‫‏ פשרו על‬vacat ‫רשע צדיק ממנו‏‬5:9 ‫ואנשי עצתם אשר‬5:10 ‫בית אבשלום‬ ‫ולוא‬5:11 ‫נדמו בתוכחת מורה הצדק‬ ‫‏ אשר‬vacat ‫עזרוהו על איש הכזב‏‬ ‫עד ֯תם‬ ֯ ‫התורה בתוך כול‬5:12 ‫מאס את‬ ←

5:8Why

do you look at traitors and be silent when a guilty person swallows 5:9one more righteous than him? vacat‎Its interpretation concerns the house of Absalom 5:10and the men of their counsel who were silent at the reproach of the teacher of righteousness 5:11and did not help him on account of the man of the lie‎vacat‎who rejected 5:12the teaching in the midst of all their counsel. →

The presence of a vacat in 5:11 is noteworthy since there is nothing formal in the text that would require such a space, nor do the scribes of the pesharim separate a relative clause from its antecedent (‫“ איש הכזב‬the man of the lie”) in such a way elsewhere. The content of the relative clause following the vacat could very well be a marginal or explanatory note that was hesitantly integrated into the text.414

4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ and 4QpNah unit 12ʹ The usage of a vacat between two sub‑comments, as described in the preceding example, has a reflex in two other passages from the continuous pesher corpus. 4QCommGen A unit 2ʹ ‫‏‬415‫ישראל המה הדגלים‬ ׄ ‫ ואלו]פי‬...[ 5:3 ‫‏ עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח‬vacat ‫ ׄדויד כי לו ולזרעו נתנה ברית מלכות‬5:4 ... ‫עמו עד דורות עולם אשר‬

5:3...

[and the ch]iefs of Israel are the standards,‎vacat‎until the coming of the righteous Messiah, the branch of 5:4David, for the covenant of the kingship of his people has been given to him and to his seed unto the eternal generations who ...

A vacat in 4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ (line 5:3) separates two sub‑comments. The second sub‑comment begins rather abruptly with ‫“ עד‬until”, which does not connect in any coherent way with the immediately preceding basic identification of 414  So Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”, 41, followed by Brooke, “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187. 415  This must be a variant reading for ‫ רגליו‬in the MT with ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion (as also in the Samaritan Pentateuch), thus it is also an internal citation from the lemma used as a keyword.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

148

Compositional Models

the keyword ‫“ דגלים‬standards”. The poor integration of these two sub‑comments with each other suggests that they originally existed as independent explanations. Likewise, 4QpNah unit 12ʹ has a vacat in its comment separating the first sub‑comment in line f3–4ii:8 from the second in lines f3–4ii:8–10. 4QpNah unit 12ʹ (f3–4) ][ ‫מרוב זנוני זונה טובת חן‬ii:7 ‫בעלת כשפים הממכרת גוים‬ )vacat( ‫בכ ׄשפיה‬ ׄ ‫בזנותה ומשפחות‬ ‫‏‬vacat ‫פשר[ו ע]ל מתעי אפרים‏‬ii:8 ‫אשר בתלמוד שקרם ולשון כזביהם‬ ii:9 ‫ושפת מרמה יתעו רבים‬ ‫מלכים‬ ׄ ‫שרים כוהנים ועם עם גר נלוה ערים‬ ‫נ[כ]בדים‬ ֯ ‫ומשפחות יובדו בעצתם‬ ‫יפולו [מז]עם לשונם‏‬ii:10 ]‫ומוש[לים‬ ‫‏‬vacat

ii:7Because

of the multitude of the harlotries of the whore, with good grace, [] lady of witchcraft, who sells out nations by means of her harlotry and families by means of her witchcrafts”. (vacat) ii:8[Its] interpretation [conc]erns those who lead Ephraim astray;‎vacat‎those who with their teaching of a lie and their tongue of deceit and lip of treachery lead astray great ones, ii:9kings, princes, priests and people along with resident alien. Cities and clans will perish by their counsel. Honored people and rul[ers] ii:10will fall [because of the insolence] their tongue.‎vacat‎

The first sub‑comment is very basic in its reference to people who lead Ephraim astray; the second is far more developed and describes the means of deception along with a detailed list of the people who were deceived.416 In this instance, unlike 4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ, the two sub‑comments have been so well integrated that the vacat is the only overt marker that they form distinct units, though the difference in the level of detail they provide is also suggestive of that conclusion.

Summary The existence of interpretational traditions in a larger Jewish context at the turn of the Common Era is an established fact, if only on a small scale. 1QpHab interprets the sacrificing to nets and hooks in Habakkuk 1:16 as related to the Roman practice of sacrifice to military standards and weapons in both texts. A similar interpretation to this is found over a thousand years later in the targum to 416  The list of deceived peoples here in 4QpNah bears a striking resemblance to the list of disrespected peoples in 1QpHab 4:2–3, which also contains: ‫“ רבים‬many”, ‫“ מלכים‬kings”, ‫שרים‬ “princes”, ‫“ עם‬people”, and ‫“ נכבדים‬honoured people”. Perhaps both belong to a similar interpretational tradition.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Summary

149

Habakuk.417 Likewise, pesher Habakkuk and the Septuagint share an interpretation of the nations (‫)בּגֹויִם‬ ַ in Habakkuk 1:5 as “treacherous ones/despisers” (‫בוגדים‬/καταφρονηταί). G. Vermès has further demonstrated a small group of commonly shared Second Temple Jewish interpretations,418 and M. Kister has expanded upon that.419 Finally, the possibility that 4QpappIsac f4–7ii:15 and 4QpIsaa f5–6:2 both relate some part of Isaiah 10:20–24 to captivity (‫ )שבי‬may be another example of this phenomenon, but within the Qumran exegetical tradition. So, the Qumran pesharim do apparently have a share in the wider world of Second Temple Jewish interpretation, even though they may at first give the impression of being rather insular. A critical analysis of the pesharim demonstrates how the lemma of a commentary unit in the pesher texts is not always directly related to the comment of that unit. There are compositional factors that have dictated the way in which the comments were integrated into the running base‑text. In some cases this led to a comment being slightly off from its lemma (e.g., the lemma of 1QpHab unit 12 is Habakkuk 1:8–9a but the comment deals with Habakkuk 1:8b–9). In other cases this is evident in the disagreement between the version of the text found in the lemma and in its internal citation (e.g., 1QpHab units 18 and 33 or 4QpPsa unit 14). One might also wonder if the recitation of large portions of a lemma within a comment could be residue from the process of combining pesher interpretations into a larger running commentary.420 What is more, a number of comments in the pesharim do not constitute a literary unity, but rather are composed of multiple literary units that may or may not have been integrated with each other. The point of contact between these distinct units within a comment may be marked by abbreviations (1QpHab unit 9 [see pp. 139–142]), marginal dashes (1QpHab unit 15 [see pp. 49–50]), or vacat (1QpHab units 9, 17, 26, 4QcommGen A unit 2ʹ, and 4QpNah unit 12ʹ). Nevertheless, some such conflated comments are unmarked and only become clear through a literary and form critical analysis of the text (e.g., 1QpHab units 11, 28, and the additions 417  See Wieder, “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum” and Brownlee, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan”, 176–180. W. Brownlee also notes several less clear correspondences between 1QpHab and the Targums in his The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. 418 Vermès, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 40–67. 419  Kister, “A Common Heritage”. L. Silberman had also noted that the understanding of Deuteronomy 29:18 evidenced in the comment to Habakkuk 2:16 (1QpHab 11:13ff) is shared in particular with the Targums and that it is “altogether possible that its understanding of the Deut. phrases could have been early and widespread enough to influence our commentary” (“Unriddling the Riddle”, 362). 420  See, for instance, 1QpHab commentary unit 26, which contains two interpretive sections separated by a large internal citation: the first interpretation uses very artful language and is historically focused (note the perfect tense ‫)עשו‬, the second is more in line with the standard trope of eschatological repayment for injustice. Perhaps the same assessment applies to 1QpHab commentary unit 28 as well.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

150

Compositional Models

to 1QpHab unit 9 following the words lacking a digraph). Some of the constituents in these conflated comments are evidently secondary or even derivative, and thus represent additions to the composition. I have generally not remarked on the issue of redactional layers,421 but an analysis of compositional history is a logical second step utilizing form and literary critical evidence for divisions in the text. The secondary sections of 1QpHab (2:2–3, 2:8–10, and 12:2–6) that depend literarily upon 4QpPsa may in fact constitute one such cohesive compositional layer with harmonistic tendencies.422

421  For the idea that 1QpHab 2:5–10 and 1QpHab 9:3–7 belong together as a secondary addition to the Habakkuk pesher, see Hartog, “ ‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ ”. 422  See my discussion on pp. 118–120, 140, and 145–146.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Mesopotamian Commentary, Qumran Pesher: Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions The Communities that Wrote Commentaries The provenance of some Mesopotamian commentaries suggests that certain individuals, families, and small scribal communities could be mainly interested in a limited corpus of texts. Both Maqlû commentaries were found in the home of a prominent family of exorcists,423 and were used by Kiṣir‑Nabû. That family’s library also housed the largest collection of commentaries to ritual texts known to date, with commentaries on Maqlû, Šurpu, Tummu bītu, and Udug hu ̮ l. This cache of texts also included a commentary to Alū and the explanatory text Ḫ ar‑gud, and a catalogue tablet mentions a mukallimtu‑commentary to Lugal‑e along with mašʾalāte ša Sa‑gig. E. Frahm has noted that many of the commentaries from this house share the feature of explanations “often couched into fairly long (half‑)sentences” and that they “employ, albeit sporadically, elements of the Assyrian vernacular in the explanations they offer”.424 This correspondence of unique commentary form and language with a particular family of scholars may apply at Qumran as well. A number of features within the Isaiah pesharim set them apart from the other pesharim: they are long lemma pesharim in layout; they all have lemmas and com‑ ments of roughly the same size on average and of a similar range of variation in length; some of them have commentary units without an introductory formula between the lemma and its comment; and some or all of them can comment on excerpts from the base‑text that do not constitute complete literary units. This would suggest, for instance, that one group of interpreters at Qumran was largely responsible for the creation of the Isaiah pesharim,425 but was not directly involved in the creation of the other pesharim. At the same time, the correspondence between commentary style and scribal school that is exemplified in the manuscripts from the N4 archive in Assur may suggest against a common locus for commentaries of variegated style. For instance, J. Strugnell had argued that both 4QpHosb and 4QpMic* were part of a larger commentary scroll devoted to the minor prophets.426 Nevertheless, it 423  The texts come from archive N4, see Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur, 2:41–76. 424  See Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 269–270. 425 1QpZeph could possibly fit within this typology as well. 426  Notes en marge, 204.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

152

Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions

remains highly uncertain that 4QpMic* is in fact a pesher text, and even if it is, it would differ markedly from 4QpHosb in that 4QpMic* contains a selection from Micah (at least 55 words) more than twice as long as the longest lemma found in 4QpHosb (25 words). Thus, I find it less likely that they both share a common origin, though it always remains possible that some later scribe saw fit to compile them into a single scroll. Reformatting of commentary texts is a feature of both corpora, but the Mesopotamian evidence demonstrates that the choice of a particular presentation format may be more culturally determined than anything else. The indentation layout was quite popular in Assyria,427 the colon layout was the norm in Babylonia,428 a situation which suggests that the Babylonian Enūma eliš Commentary I ms. x represents reformatting of an indentation layout tradition to a colon layout. Similarly, among the Qumran pesharim the prerogatives of a scribe’s association with discrete scribal schools and traditions may be responsible for formatting style and even reformatting, as the case appears with the first hand of 1QpHab. In comparison with manuscripts such as 1QpHab and 4QpNah, all the pesharim written in the rustic semi‑formal Herodian hand (and 4QpappIsac) share a similar approach to the use of blank space when formatting their texts. The formatting tendencies of those rustic semi‑formal Herodian manuscripts seem to be the product of specific predilections shared among one grouping of scribes, but were not shared with the scribes who wrote and copied the other pesharim.

Statistical Distribution of Commentary Manuscripts Both the Qumran pesharim and the Mesopotamian commentaries to literary and religious texts, with the exception of Enūma eliš commentaries, have a fairly consistent distribution of one or two commentary manuscripts for every ten copies of the base‑text.429 The fact that the two corpora have virtually the same ratio of

427 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 35. 428 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 36. 429  It is difficult to decide upon the proper way to calculate these statistics for Mesopotamian texts since most literary works required several tablets to contain the complete text. For instance Maqlû was traditionally written with eight tablets (and an accompanying ritual tablet), with only a handful of exceptions, and Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, with one notable exception, utilized four tablets (T. Oshima has recently argued that the composition was five tablets long: Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers). Thus it has been determined to average out the number of manuscript remains for a given work by dividing the total number of manuscripts by the number a tablets in the series (excluding any ritual tablets, which were not part of the series proper). While there are imperfections in such a method – sometimes certain tablets of a series are more commonly attested than others – it is hoped that this will give a good general impression of the distribution of each text as a complete work.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Statistical Distribution of Commentary Manuscripts

153

commentary to base‑texts underscores the normalcy of the Qumran remains and can help explain why there are so few pesharim and no assured duplicate texts. The Enūma eliš commentaries stand out from all of the other literary and religious commentary texts in that they have about two commentaries for every three manuscripts of the base‑text when counting both the Commentary I and Commentary II texts. Even the Commentary I manuscripts by themselves stand in a one to two ratio with their base‑text. This remarkable popularity of Enūma eliš commentaries, as well as the numerous excerpt texts containing lines from the Enūma eliš,430 speaks to the central role that text played in the scribal centres of both northern and southern Mesopotamia.431 But the proportionality of commentary to base‑text suggests more than just the general popularity of the Enūma eliš. It demonstrates that this composition was even more popular in the sphere of Mesopotamian scholarship, the proper domain of commentaries, than it was in other parts of Mesopotamian society. Whereas commentaries to omen and astrological literature would have been of interest to professionals of the mantic sphere and commentaries to incantation texts are found in the possession of incantation priests, the Enūma eliš was of scholarly interest to people in a number of professions. The quotation of Enūma eliš in commentaries to omen series and lexical lists further demonstrates this reality.432 The Enūma eliš was a text enjoyed by scholars of many disciplines, which explains the many copies of commentaries to it found in Assur, in Babylonia (at the temple in Sippar?),433 and among the library texts of Ashurbanipal. Other literary texts were of much more limited interest to Mesopotamian scholars,434 and the religious texts were primarily the interest of the incantation priests. Unlike the Enūma eliš, no particular text at Qumran stands out in stark 430  There are at least 57 tablets with excerpts from Enūma eliš. 431  There are seven Nineveh (Ashurbanipal) commentary manuscripts, one from Assur, and four from Babylonia (probably Sippar). For the use of Enūma eliš in Babylonian schools of the first millennium, see Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien, 177–178. For the importance of the text in the Neo‑Assyrian empire and the attempts to assimilate the Enūma eliš and Marduk traditions into Assyrian religio‑political life, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Com‑ mentaries, 349–360 and his earlier article “Counter‑Texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations”. 432  Enūma eliš is quoted in four commentary texts: The Sa‑gig 4 commentary CT 51, 136; and the Aa commentaries LB 852 obv. 14ʹ, BM 68583 4, and BM 41286 obv. 7 (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 105 and 245–246, especially n. 1142). Ludlul bēl nēmeqi was itself also cited in a commentary to Šumma izbu VII (lines 16–19 contain a quote from Ludlul bēl nēmeqi I 76–77, and line 11 quotes Ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 17, see Finkel, “On an Izbu VII Commentary”, 142–143). 433  Two of the Babylonian manuscripts come from Sippar (modern day tell Abu Habbah), and the third is marked as coming from Babylon, but the catalogue for the shipment of which it was a part is unreliable (CatBM VI p. xxxiii). Perhaps all of these texts came from Ebabbar, the temple of the sun‑god Šamaš in Sippar. 434  Ludlul bēl nēmeqi is also attested among school texts (Gesche, Schulunterricht in Baby‑ lonien, 173 and 183).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

154

Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions

contrast to the others as the object of greater interest for the purpose of interpretation. The large number of Isaiah pesharim at Qumran is simply a result of the generally high interest in that text there, and the same holds true for the pesharim to select psalms.

Conclusions As stated at the outset of the book, two of the three main interests in my comparative study of Mesopotamian commentaries and of Qumran pesharim were the question of direct dependence of the Qumran pesharim on the Mesopotamian commentary traditions and of the possible benefits of a phenomenological comparison of commentary writing in Mesopotamia and at Qumran. Much relevant information has already been presented in detail in the preceding two chapters. In what follows, I would summarize some of the evidence and conclusions from those chapters for the purpose of addressing first the issue of direct literary dependence or borrowing and second the value of comparative phenomenology.

The Relationship between Mesopotamian Commentary and Qumran Pesher Indelible traces of Mesopotamian literature and scholarship do appear within Qumran literature. But the precise nature of Mesopotamian influence on this literature is difficult to define, as is its mode of transmission. The appearance of the famous Gilgamesh and Ḫ uwawa in the Enochic Book of the Giants could be due to Greek language sources such as Berossus (compare the Gilgamesh tradition preserved in Aelian, De natura animalium 12.21), whose work was known to Josephus (probably through Polyhistor)435, as easily as from a direct transmission of some form of the Mesopotamian tale.436 Nevertheless, scientific knowledge 435  L. Feldman notes that, “One of the important questions with regard to Josephus’ account of the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is the extent to which Josephus employed the Babylonian historian Berossus (third century B.C.E.) as a source. Schwartz (809) concluded that Josephus knew him through Alexander Polyhistor (first century B.C.E.) or King Juba of Mauretania (first century B.C.E.), though he [Josephus] does cite him [Berossus] by name, we may note, on seven occasions (Ant. 1. 93, 1. 107, 1. 158, 10. 20, 10. 34, 10. 219–226; Against Apion 1. 129–153), the last at great length. Apparently Berossus mentioned the fall of Jerusalem only in passing (Against Apion 1. 135–136).” (Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), 176). 436 Mesopotamian Nabonidus traditions, however, do seem to have been transmitted quite directly to the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran (García Martínez, Qumran and Apoca‑ lyptic, 129–136).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conclusions

155

and traditions from Mesopotamia were transmitted though Aramaic scribal traditions to the texts at Qumran and beyond.437 So, how can one account for the manner in which hermeneutics of elite Mesopotamian scholars would have been transmitted to Judeans?438 A. Cavigneaux has made a case for the transmission of interpretive hermeneutics from Mesopotamian medical and omen science into Rabbinic interpretational methods, since that knowledge was not limited to the Mesopotamian elite.439 I would argue that such a connection is even more applicable at Qumran, where the strongest affinities to Mesopotamian literature are found in the physiognomic and astrological texts (e.g., 4QPhysiognomy/Horoscope ar, 4QHoroscope, 4QBrontologion ar, 4QcryptA Phases of the Moon, and the Astronomical Book in 1 Enoch).440 In this way, 437  H. Drawnel has provided solid evidence that a knowledge of Mesopotamian scribal training and traditions were transmitted into an Aramaic setting, both Jewish and otherwise (Drawnel, “Between Akkadian Ṭ upšarūtu and Aramaic ‫)”ספר‬. He outlines a very strong resemblance between Babylonian Listenwissenschaft and Aramaic works like the Visions of Levi and the Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–211), and between the crafts taught by the Watchers (1 Enoch 7:1, 8:3) and the specialties of the late Babylonian āšipu, which included divination and astronomy. In particular he notes the similarities between the Visions of Levi 32a–36 and ḫ ubullu‑lists (Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text From Qumran, 273–274 and 283–284), a similarity perhaps shared through Aramaic into the Pahlavi Frahang (Ebeling, Das aramäisch‑mit‑ tel‑persische Glossar Frahang‑I‑Pahlavik, 96–99). For the transmission of Mesopotamian astronomy and calendrical knowledge to Qumran, see, e.g., Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, ch. 6, Ben‑Dov and Horowitz, “The Babylonian Lunar Three in Calendrical Scrolls from Qumran”, and Ben‑Dov, Head of all Years, ch. 6 and pages 282–287. For the connection between Babylonian sciences and Jewish literature, see Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination”, 50 and the sources listed there. For a more agnostic assessment of the relationship between Babylonian and Qumran physiognomic knowledge, see, e.g., Popović, Reading the Human Body, 111–112, though Popović is now slightly more receptive to the idea of Mesopotamian influence on 4Q561 (Popović, “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts”, 101). 438  M. Popović has described this difficulty in detail with relation to current onomastic and prosopographical studies which do not admit of any Judeans in advanced Mesopotamian scribal schools or scholarly professions (Popović, “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts”, 110–114, see also Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 379– 380 and Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 311). Of course one still cannot entirely rule out the hypothesis of a Babylonian origin for the Qumran community (Murphy O’Connor, “The Essenes and Their History”, 219–223), but J. Murphy O’Connor’s theory has not been persuasive enough to garner many supporters. 439  Cavigneaux, “Aux sources du midrash”, 251–252. For an earlier suggestion of a connection between the rabbinic interpretation of scripture and Babylonian hermeneutics, see Lambert, “An Address of Marduk to the Demons”, 311. P. Mandel has recently shared with me an unpublished chapter that he has written on the topic as well “The Meaning of doresh in the Context of Ezra the sofer”. 440  Most recently, see the nuanced discussion of the issue of these sciences’ transmission from Mesopotamia and Greece to Qumran, likely through an Aramaic intermediary in Popović, “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts”. For other Judean texts showing an awareness of physiognomy, see Popović, Reading the Human Body, 277–290.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

156

Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions

Cavigneaux’s original hypothesis, which had Rabbinic hermeneutical methods in mind, can be applied even more directly to pesher hermeneutics at Qumran. Perhaps more importantly, E. Eshel has published two second century bce Aramaic texts from Mareshah (about 50 km southwest of Jerusalem) which, according to W. Horowitz, resemble Akkadian commentaries to omen texts (especially Assumed Tablet 50 of Enūma Anu Enlil).441 So Mesopotamian type interpretations in the Aramaic language were also temporally and geographically quite proximal to the pesharim. In my conclusion to the second chapter of this book, I argued that pesher interpretational techniques had their roots in Aramaic literature of the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The existence of texts at Mareshah that resemble Mesopotamian omen/astronomical commentaries and of Jewish Aramaic texts related to Mesopotamian astronomy and physiognomy now provides a direct path for the transmission of Mesopotamian omen hermeneutics through Aramaic literatures and into the Qumran pesharim.442 Those Mesopotamian interpretative techniques which were transmitted into Aramaic literature would have formed a part of the backdrop for the emergence of the specialized types of pesher interpretation found in 1 Enoch and Daniel, and so also later at Qumran. This model of transmission gains further substantiation from the Qumran pe‑ sharim’s usage of the Aramaic loanword ‫“ פשר‬interpretation” (ultimately from [Babylonian] Akkadian pišru), rather than Hebrew ‫“ פתר‬interpretation”, and from the three damaged instances where Aramaic (originally Persian) ‫“ פתגם‬message/ matter”—a holdover from an earlier Aramaic stage of pesher interpretation—appears instead the more common Hebrew ‫“ דבר‬word/passage” (see pp. 76–78). While Mesopotamian hermeneutic techniques can have influenced the hermeneutics of the pesharim, and Jewish hermeneutics in general, Mesopotamian commentary texts do not appear to have had any direct influence on the literary structure or scribal formatting of pesher commentary texts.443 So, any genetic relationship between Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim can be understood to exist only on the level of hermeneutical technique, not of literary structure or genre. 441  Eshel, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Light of New Epigraphic Finds”, 180–189 and 191–193. There are apparently more texts of a similar nature awaiting publication, but they are highly fragmentary and resist firm identification. 442  The presence of Persian terms like rāz “secret/mystery” and patigāma “message” in the pesharim and naizaka “spear” as a designation for a comet in Mareshah ostracon 1 (Eshel, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Light of New Epigraphic Finds”, 182) may also point to a certain level of Persian involvement in the spread of Mesopotamian traditions into Aramaic. 443  M. Neujahr came to a similar type of conclusion with respect to the possibility of direct literary dependence in his study of vaticinium ex eventu in Mesopotamian sources and in Second Temple Judean compositions. He notes that “the claim that the ex eventu passages in Daniel must be dependent on Mesopotamian models strains the evidence ... the ex eventu predictions of Daniel and 1 Enoch are structurally quite distinct from the Akkadian works” (Predicting the Past, 147).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conclusions

157

The Comparative Study of Mesopotamian Commentary and Qumran Pesher Comparative analysis cannot be used to determine what must be, but it is instructive regarding what can be. It opens up new horizons of interpretation and analysis, and inspires new questions that may not have been otherwise obvious. The real danger in the comparative process lies in the usage of it as a concrete argument for or against any given position – the conclusions of comparative analysis are suggestive, not definitive. In some cases my comparative observations must needs remain solidly in the realm of informed speculation. Nevertheless, some of my suggestions stemming from comparative analysis are further corroborated by evidence of a different nature. Aside from the observations I have presented earlier in this chapter concerning commentary within scribal communities, I would summarize here the conclusions of my comparative research with regard to the nature of commentary writing in Mesopotamia and at Qumran. Perhaps the most important comparative evidence bearing on the Qumran pesharim is the empirical model it provides for commentary composition. The large amount of manuscript evidence for the Enūma eliš commentary traditions provides one concrete description for how commentary traditions can develop over time and enter into the written record. With recourse to this model of compositional development, in chapter IV I have seriously entertained the hypothesis of multiple and varied stages of compositional development, at least for some pesher texts, in order to explain many of the inconsistencies found within them. Secondly, the material remains of commentary writing in Mesopotamia and at Qumran show some similarities in nature and in statistical distribution. The general dearth of exact copies of commentary texts among the copious Mesopotamian tablets underscores the unlikelihood that any of the commentaries at Qumran are exact duplicates, even though the effects of copying are evident in both corpora – and even explicitly asserted in some Mesopotamian colophons (see pp. 120–124). In the same way, the similar frequency of commentary texts to copies of the base‑text in both corpora suggests that the number of pesharim in the Qumran corpus is within the ordinary (see pp. 152–154). It also suggests that the larger number of Isaiah pesharim and of pesharim to select psalms should not be understood as an indicator that those texts were of greater importance for interpretive traditions at Qumran; their greater frequency is simply a function of the generally higher level of interest in Isaiah and in psalm collections at Qumran, and not that such works were in any way more qualitatively suitable to the interpretive endeavour than others. The realm of hermeneutics has been the main interest in earlier comparative studies of Mesopotamian commentary and Qumran pesher. Nevertheless, a close comparison of the two corpora has revealed yet further parallels. For instance, borrowing of exegetical material is attested in both commentary traditions, and

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

158

Commenting Communities and Comparative Conclusions

especially between 1QpHab and 4QpPsa (see pp. 118–120). The harmonization of variant versions of the base‑text in some Mesopotamian commentaries, as well as their frequent usage of textual references within comments, parallels and highlights the presence of those phenomena in the Qumran pesharim (see pp. 112–117). While it has been thought for some time now that the comments in the Qumran pesharim could at times harmonize variant versions of their base‑texts, this is now much more certain, as is the usage of citations from other texts in the formulation of comments. What is more, the Mesopotamian commentaries have shown that one section of the base‑text can be used to clarify another nearby sec­ tion, and this appears to be the very technique used, albeit in a more advanced way, in 4QpIsab commentary units 2ʹ–4ʹ and 4QpIsae commentary unit 7ʹ. Finally, a comparison of the literary structures of Mesopotamian commentar­ ies and of Qumran pesharim reveals the stark contrast in how each corpus was intended to be used (see pp. 102–120). Mesopotamian commentaries are atomis­ tic to an extreme, rarely providing interpretations for more than a few words or lines from their base‑text. As an independent document, they offer little logical coherency or programmatic mode of interpretation, the disparate comments are only related in so much as they derive from a common base‑text. In sum, these commentaries were largely the works of scholars and remained inextricably tied to scribal education, often offering much of the arcane and little of the practical. The masterful, if perhaps overly clever, etymology and etymography contained within them stood at the summit of the scholarly craft of the scribal schools. The Qumran continuous pesharim, on the other hand, contain large enough lemmatic selections from their base‑text that they can be read independently of it. While the individual comments in the pesharim do not always relate clearly, one to another, they do offer a programmatic interpretation by generally showing a sustained interest in the imminent eschaton and the relationship of recent and present events to it.444 By transforming the implications of the prophetic writings they interpret, they became self‑standing works in their own right and as such transcended the confines of their base‑texts.

444  While the compositional features of presenting a running text within the commentary and of a sustained exegetical interest do not appear within the Mesopotamian commentaries, they can both be found in Greek commentaries. For instance, the late fourth century bce Der­ veni Papyrus presents the running text of an Orphic poem in its commentary and its author is often concerned with explaining Orphic poetry within the context of philosophical cosmology by “drawing ... on those physical theories which argue for a single intelligent principle govern­ ing the cosmogonic process” (Lange and Pleše, “Transpositional Hermeneutics”, 903–905, 919). For the relationship between Classical Greek commentary writing and the pesharim, see now Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema and earlier Bockmuehl, “Origins of Biblical Commen­ tary” and Kratz, “Die Pescharim von Qumran” and “Text and Commentary”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Authority The need to comment on a particular base‑text rather than revise or rewrite it indicates that the base‑text has acquired a sort of social inertia that would make such alterations in some way inappropriate.445 This type of approach to any given composition does not, however, apply equally at all places and at all times. In the Neo‑Assyrian empire, some thought it appropriate to alter the Enūma eliš by exchanging the hero of the epic, Marduk, with the national deity Assur (and the city of Babylon with the city Assur [written urubal.tilki]; KAR 117[+]118, KAR 173, and CT 13 no. 24–25 [K 3445+]), but only a small fraction of Assyrian texts made this substitution (two from Assur and one from Nineveh),446 and the commentaries to Enūma eliš from Assyria evidence only uncertain reverberations of it.447 Irrespective of this one example regarding the Assyrian recension of the Enūma eliš, it does appear that widespread usage of a composition, often in some relatively established form,448 is an important factor for the development of commentary traditions and texts.449 Even in discussions of Qumran and Second Temple textual remains, I would use the common Assyriological terminology 445  As A. Lange and Z. Pleše note, “[t]o overcome truisms of a text they regarded as highly authoritative, the Essenes transposed individual elements of this text into the secondary narratives of their own history and thought” (“Transpositional Hermeneutics”, 59). 446  See Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma Eliš” and Frahm, “Counter‑texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations” 8–10 and Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 349– 352. 447  See Frahm, “Counter‑texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations”, 10–13 and Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 355–360. 448  By relatively established form of the text, I mean that when the manuscript witnesses are taken together as a group, the differences are generally on the level of a word or line, not large scale differences in arrangement of material or major disagreements regarding the presence or absence of significant sections of the work. That is, there is no evidence to suggest either significantly differing versions of the text, or intentionally altered versions of the text, such as those Assyrian Enūma eliš manuscripts that shifted the work from a Babylonian Marduk context to an Assyrian Assur context. 449  J. Assmann asserted that “[i]t is not the nature of writing as such that triggers the appearance of commentaries, but first ‘the Scripture’ in the emphatic sense of a binding Canon of sacred or classical texts” (“Nicht die Schriftlichkeit als solche wirkt bereits auslosend für das Auftreten von Kommentaren, sondern erst „die Schrift“ im emphatischen Sinne eines verbindlichen Kanons heiliger oder klassischer Texte”), and that “[t]he canonical text first achieves an authoritative stabilized form” (“Erst der kanonische Text gewinnt jene autoritative Verfestigung”) before becoming the subject of commentary (Assmann, “Text und Kommentar”, 12–13). This assessment is largely true, but counter examples do exist. For instance, even though many Enūma Anu Enlil commentaries have been catalogued, it is not really possible to posit the existence of a fully standard version of Enūma Anu Enlil (see, e.g., the differences among Enūma Anu Enlil tablet 63 manuscripts discussed in Hobson, Transforming Literature into Scripture, 35–46).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

160

Authority

“standard version” or “standard form” to refer to a relatively stable form of the composition.450 The works from Mesopotamia that received commentaries were compositions typically used for the education and later professional duties of advanced scribes and scholars. These compositions were the indispensable reference works and manuals of scribal experts, whether they be omen interpreters using works like Enūma Anu Enlil or Šumma ālu, incantation priests performing rituals like Maqlû or Šurpu, or any well‑educated individual, who was expected to be familiar with classics such as Enūma eliš or Ludlul bēl nēmeqi.451 Likewise, the Qumran pesharim were composed for works that had achieved a relatively standard text form and had come to be regarded as classic expressions of divine communication in the scribal and religious circles at Qumran.452 All of these compositions can be considered authoritative works for the professionals and religious groups who used them, but such a term is broad and imprecise. The goal of the present work is to further specify the particular aspects of Mesopotamian and Qumran society for which these compositions were used as authoritative sources. Literature only has authority in as much as a human element interprets it, thus this study will look to the ways that scribes and interpreters employed these compositions, and in doing so provide a greater level

450  The methods of copying ascribed to the MT in the Medieval period have long overshadowed biblicists’ understanding of what constitutes a variant version of a text. The perfect reproduction of text cannot really be expected before the invention of the printing press and Masoretic methods of copying are far more strict than nearly anything encountered in the ancient world (though some Mesopotamian scribes did count the total number of lines in literary works). What is more, only in extreme cases does a stable text form in the ancient world achieve some semblance of fixed orthography (for the large degree of variation in the orthography of proto‑MT as opposed to the much smaller degree of differences that significantly affect meaning, see, e.g., Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 28–32). 451  For specifics regarding the literature used in Mesopotamian education, see, e.g., Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien. 452  Notwithstanding the minor discrepancies between copies of Isaiah at Qumran and differences in orthography, it had already achieved a very consistent text form (Trebolle, “A Canon Within a Canon”, 385, and n. 6). While the Minor Prophets (or Book of the Twelve) and Psalms had not achieved stable forms as collections of discrete literary units (i.e., collections of individual prophetic books in the Minor Prophets [see von Weissenberg, “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos As a ‘Case Study’ ”] and of individual psalms [see, e.g., Flint, “Psalms, Book of: Biblical Text”]), those discrete literary units of which they were composed do appear for the most part to have achieved standard text versions at Qumran. Most variations within those discrete literary units involve only single words and, very rarely, units as large as a verse, but none point to large scale versional differences on the order of the differences found in other texts (e.g., the MT and LXX texts of Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Esther, or Daniel, or the MT and Samaritan Pentateuchs).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Terminology

161

of nuance to the discussion of so‑called biblical authority within the Qumran community.453

Terminology Several technical terms are generally bound up in modern discussions of textual authority of what is now called Bible: scripture, biblical, canon and canonical, and authoritative. It is necessary here to begin to untangle these terms and to present some functional definitions for them.

Scripture and Bible The terms “Bible” and “biblical” find their most precise application to the time period in which a collection of scriptures bearing the label Bible existed.454 This properly excludes the usage of such terms for any works at Qumran,455 where the closest thing to Bible, or better Tanakh, is the largely restored passage in 4QMMTd 14–21:10 ]‫הנ]ביאים ובדוי֯ [ד‬ ׄ ‫“ בספר מוׄ ֯ש ֯ה [ו]בספר[י‬in the book of Moses [and] in the book[s of the pr]ophets and in Davi[d]”.456 The term “scripture” offers a more functional alternative to Bible and biblical since it refers generically to sacred writings without reference to any particular grouping of them. The label scripture (without a definite article) can attain a narrower significance when used in the plural with modifiers that denote corpora of holy writings from a certain geographical location, linguistic or social group, or religious sect.

453  Earlier discussions regarding markers of authoritativeness have often relied on theoretical frameworks; for instance, E. Tov has recently presented four points as indicators that certain books were authoritative at Qumran: 1) copying, 2) later authority and translation, 3) quotation, and 4) literary expansion (“The Authority of Early Hebrew Scripture Scrolls”, 62–64 and VIII–IX). In addition to giving greater nuance to the issue of authoritative compositions, the approach towards authority that I lay out here also provides a more objective and perhaps even emic means for determining which works were authoritative at Qumran. 454  For recent discussions of the difficulties that these terms present for modern scholarship, see the essays collected in Finsterbusch and Lange, What Is Bible?, and also Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts”, 95–97, and especially n. 5 and 6. 455  So, e.g., García Martínez, “Parabiblical Literature from Qumran and the Canonical Process”, 527. 456  For some of the difficulties with reading this as evidence for a tripartite canon, see, e.g., Campbell, “4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon”, Lim, “The Alleged Reference to the Tripartite Division of the Hebrew Bible” and Formation of the Jewish Canon, 127–131, and Ulrich, “The Non‑attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

162

Authority

Canon and Canonical A canon is a list of items, usually authors or works, considered central to the identity of a tradition or social group. Such a list may be created by the fiat of a person or group of people in a position of authority, such as the famed Council of Carthage (397 ce). But a canon can also be the result of a less formal process of collection and dissemination of highly esteemed works with the result that over time those works become part of a group’s traditional heritage.457 This less formal and more protracted process of gathering and handing down select groups of compositions usually stands at the base of formal efforts by the leaders of a social group to intentionally create canon. Such being the case, it may be more useful to speak of traditional canon in reference to canons that coalesce without the overt guidance of specific authority figures, and formal canon in reference to canons that are the product of councils or people in positions of authority. The term “canonical” is also used at times to refer to a particular form of a composition, such as canonical Esther and Daniel (both of which signify different text versions depending on whether one is talking of the Catholic or the Jewish canon of the Bible), or canonical Enūma eliš, which has Marduk as its hero. Conversely, the term “non‑canonical” may refer to versions of a work that differ from the standard one, such as those few Enūma eliš manuscripts with Assur as the hero instead of Marduk (the Akkadian terms iškāru “text series [proper]”, lā iškāru “not in the series [proper]”, and aḫû “outside [the standard tradition]” are germane here as well). Following this usage, the term “non‑canonical” refers to versions of a composition that constitute a small minority of the manuscript remains in comparison to some more commonly attested canonical version. But in such cases it would be more economical and precise to refer instead to non‑standard and standard versions of a work, in a given time and place, than it is to conflate the term “canonical” by using it both in reference to text versions and in relation to formal or informal canon.458

Authority and Authoritative The term “authoritative”, as used in modern research to describe the status of a composition, is the most problematic of the terms discussed here. E. Ulrich has 457  This understanding of the formation of canon can explain many of the difficulties associated with the concept of open canon at Qumran (see Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 314–318 and the literature discussed there). 458  I would also note that early formal canon lists provided only the name denoting a canonical work without further specifying which particular version of the work is the accepted canonical version.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Terminology

163

provided a concrete definition of an authoritative work as “a writing which a group, secular or religious, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its conduct, and as of a higher order than can be overridden by the power or will of the group or any member”.459 Such specific definitions of textual authority are, however, rare in the scholarly literature. Sometimes the idea of the authoritativeness of text is assumed to be dependent upon the ancient audience’s perception of a work as being somehow historically accurate,460 or a valid representation of ancestral tradition461 with an ancient origin.462 At other times the role of societal authorities such as the priests and scholar‑scribes in attributing authority to compositions is stressed.463 In addition to the role of authority figures in selecting works as authoritative, authoritativeness may also be associated with a more broadly based community acceptance.464 Finally, a document’s status as authoritative may be thought to derive from its author’s authoritative status465 and the ascription of divine origin to the document either by the work itself or by its readers.466 One problem with some of these descriptions of authoritativeness is that they blur the line between the issue of authority and of canon. Yet, the greater problem is the large variety of connotations and underlying assumptions connected with the term “authoritative” as it relates to literary works. Such variety must call into question the usefulness of the term “authoritative” in scholarly discourse.467 For this reason, I would offer the following observations as a means to ground the

459  Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon”, 29. 460  See Collins, “Prophecy and History in the Pesharim”, 226, VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 289, and von Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, “Introducing Changes in Scripture”, 6. 461  See Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism”, 2 and Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran”, 161. 462  See White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 6 and Flint, “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 272. 463  See van der Kooij, “Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture”, 65 and 70, Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥ ad, 279, and Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism”, 2–3. 464  See Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts”, 249 and Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book”, 280. 465  See Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts”, 239, which is questioned by VanderKam, “Questions of Canon”, 278–279. 466  See Najman, “The Vitality of Scripture”, 507; VanderKam “Questions of Canon”, 286, Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism”, 2, Flint, “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 272, Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran”, 161, White Crawford, Rewrit‑ ing Scripture in Second Temple Times, 60, 72, 73, 78, 90, and 149, and von Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, “Introducing Changes in Scripture”, 6. 467  See, e.g., the criticisms of Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism”, 1, von Weissenberg, Pakkala and Marttila, “Introducing Changes in Scripture”, 5–7, and von Weissenberg, Changes in Scripture, 247–248, n. 2.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

164

Authority

terminology more solidly in the primary evidence, and to work towards a more precise accounting of the phenomenon of text as authority in Qumran. In the first place, a distinction must be made between how an authoritative work gains its status and how the authority of a work is exerted within a social group.468 M. Popović has concisely summarized this issue: [A]uthoritativeness is not so much a quality inherent in a source – with the source controlling what aspects are authoritative – as that it is an attributed quality – with those who attribute a sense of authoritativeness to the source determining to which of its aspects attention is drawn and from what perspective.469

B. Strawn similarly notes that “the authoritative status of a manuscript/composition/text is demonstrated by its use, an indicator that is now, unfortunately, mostly lost to us”.470 Commentaries, by their very nature, can be one such rare indicator of use, since they often make quite clear particular ways in which their authors perceive the works they cite to be authoritative sources. So, where T. Lim wanted to use the Qumran exegetical texts to answer the question “authoritative for whom”,471 I put the data to further use here in order to answer the questions authoritative in which way(s), and to what extent. M. Satlow has recently introduced several useful qualifiers for describing the ways in which literature is used to exert control. He refers to normative authority (i.e., authority to dictate human behaviour), literary authority (i.e., the use of a text as a model for new texts or a source of allusion),472 and oracular authority (i.e., the usage of a text to communicate a divine message, usually about 468  For a discussion of the ways in which authority can be conferred upon and derived from a text in social settings, see, e.g., Brooke, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture”. G. Brooke presents three models there in order to address this issue: actantial authority (“the authority that seems to inhere within a text as it is passed from one generation to another”); authorial and audience authority (“the authority that seems to belong to or be created by the relationships, often mutual relationships, between the author or authors of texts and their audiences or readers”); and acted authority (“the way texts work or function in particular settings, the way they are speech acts”). Thus he begins to present a more coherent picture of authority as a “polyphonous affair” (Brooke, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture”, 523). For a more in‑depth analysis of the way in which a reader derives authority from the text, see Brettler, “Biblical Authority”. For the conceptual similarities between pesher interpretation and later Jewish and Christian interpretation of scripture, even up to the modern day, and the high level of authority possessed by the interpretation, see Kratz, “Die Pescharim von Qumran”, especially page 100. 469  Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts”, 229. For this phenomenon in a modern context, see Brettler, “Biblical Authority”. 470  Strawn, “Excerpted “Non‑Biblical” Scrolls at Qumran”, 66. 471  Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures”, 307. 472 Relevant to Satlow’s category of literary authority, M. Bauks, W. Horowitz, and A. Lange have already noted, “[t]hat a texts[sic] is (often) rewritten, expanded etc. indicates its

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Canon and Commentary

165

the future).473 Such a subdivision of authority into specific domains of influence corresponds in part to the types of interpretations found in the Qumran Scrolls by G. Brooke: legal interpretations, homiletic or parenetic interpretations, narrative interpretations, poetic or liturgical interpretations, and prophetic interpretations.474 These approaches towards textual authority have been influential for the formulation of domains of authority that I have developed to describe the evidenced from the Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim. I would also add that not all works held the same degree of authoritativeness in each domain of authority or, for that matter, in relation to each other. This too can be illuminated to some extent by the commentary corpora.

Canon and Commentary Mesopotamia Groupings of cuneiform texts that resemble a canon occur as early as the Old Babylonian Period (early 2nd millennium bce). At that time, a collection of ten important Sumerian literary texts, now called the Decad, was in wide usage throughout Mesopotamia – as attested by manuscript finds and library lists (i.e., the Nippur and Louvre catalogues) – perhaps as part of the scribal curriculum.475 If a canon is a list of works considered central to the identity of a tradition or social group, then the Decad very well may have been a functional canon for scribal education.476 Regarding the canonicity of second millennium lexical lists, M. Civil has rightly asked whether the texts stabilized due to an “automatic process which produced by selection a textus receptus” or “the decision of some authority that ordered and/or supervised the selection of the best text”.477 He is insightful, and indeed correct, when he observes that “the two processes are complementary rather than mutually exclusive”.478 But for my purposes, the arguments put forward by Civil integration into the cultural memory of a given society and hence its scriptural and/or canonical authority” (“Introduction”, 12). 473 Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy, 4–5. For an earlier examination of the normative, prophetic, and wisdom function of the ‫ ספר־התורה‬in the work of the Deuteronomist(s), see Zaman, Bible and Canon, 220–235. 474  Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation”. 475  For the Decad and a more limited group of Sumerian texts, the Tetrad, as scribal curricula, see e.g., Tinney, “On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature”. 476  Although P. Delnero has argued that the Decad was an archival group in ancient library lists rather than the specific listing of a scribal curriculum, he does still allow for the possibility “that the Decad was grouped together for curricular reasons” (Delnero, “Sumerian Literary Catalogues”, 52). 477 Civil, Ea A = Nâqu, 168–169. 478 Civil, Ea A = Nâqu, 169.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

166

Authority

relate most directly to the issue of textual standardization or stabilization and not directly to canonicity proper. Much of the recent debate over canon in Mesopotamia centres around later texts from the first millennium bce. W.G. Lambert had argued that the term “canon” could not properly be applied to first millennium cuneiform texts since there is “no suggestion of a systematic selection of literary works, nor of a conscious attempt to produce authoritative editions of works which were passed on”.479 F. Rochberg(‑Halton) has generally followed this assessment and further asserted that a canon must consist of “texts selected on the basis of some unified content or purpose, subsequently fixed in an authoritative version, considered to embody law so that it becomes normative for belief and conduct, and held to be revealed in character”.480 She does grant, however, that M. Civil is correct when he limits his usage of the term “canon” for Mesopotamian texts to “text stability and fixed sequence of tablets within a series”,481 and ultimately concludes that “[w]hether the designation ‘canon,’ broadly conceived, is appropriate to this corpus as a whole is arguable up to a point, but clearly the nature of the Babylonian ‘canon’ is unique and not definable in terms of any other known model, least of all the biblical one”.482 In this way F. Rochberg(‑Halton) has largely brought the issue of semantics to the forefront of discussions regarding canon in Mesopotamia, and S. Lieberman has followed her approach.483 He argues that the use of the term “canon” with its common application to the creation of the Bible has generally been an imposition on the Eigenbegrifflichkeit of the Mesopotamian milieu.484 But at the same time he admits that the so‑called biblical model and concept of canon does not properly apply to the Bible either.485 Such being the case, it seems only two options remain: either jettison the term “canon” altogether or develop better definitions of canon that more properly account for the phenomenon we are discussing. I have chosen the latter approach here. Lieberman’s focus on the role of authorities in the creation of canon has formed the basis of his opinion that none of the texts in the Neo‑Assyrian period were

479  Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity”, 9. 480  Rochberg‑Halton, “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”, 129. 481  Rochberg‑Halton, “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”, 129. 482  Rochberg‑Halton, “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”, 144. 483  Lieberman, “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts”. 484 Lieberman, “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts”, 307. Note, however, that Lieberman’s argument is not entirely correct; M. Civil’s discussion of canon (Civil, Ea A = Nâqu, 168–169) as well as many of the earlier discussions of the term cited there do not appear to be adversely affected in any way by models of biblical canonization. 485  Lieberman, “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts”, 307–308.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Canon and Commentary

167

canonical or official.486 This impression, however, does not comport well with studies of scribal education that strongly suggest a common curriculum throughout Mesopotamia in the first millennium,487 which corresponds, by‑and‑large, to the texts treated in Mesopotamian commentaries. Nor does it account for the involvement of the king in the revision of canonical series as explicitly mentioned in a letter from the diviners Marduk‑šumu‑uṣur, Naṣiru, and Tabnî to Esarhaddon (SAA 10 no. 177 [=LASEA 116 and ABL 722, BM 83-1-18, 73]): obv. 15iškāru 16lib[rû] rev. 1šarru liqbi 2šitta liginnāte 3ša ṣâti 4liššurru 5šitta ša bārûte 6liškun “The series should be rev[ised]. Let the king command: two ‘long’ tablets containing ṣâtu‑lists should be removed, and two tablets of the haruspices’ corpus should be put (instead)”.488 So there appear to be some forces at work, both social and political, in issues related to cannon in the first millennium bce – at least from the later Neo‑Assyrian period onward. Moreover, Lieberman’s conundrum concerning the inability of traditional models of biblical canonization to account for either the Mesopotamian data or the biblical data itself suggests the need for a different perspective. By moving away from idealized (and often theological) models of canon as often imagined for the canonization of the Bible toward a literary perspective, more realistic depictions of the phenomenon come into sharper relief. As N. Velduis notes in relation to his study of the Tintir texts: Canon is a phenomenon of reception as well as production, since new texts may be composed in conscious relation to canonical ones. In this use of the term canon, inclusion and exclusion are matters of degree or perspective, rather than an absolute characteristic of a text. We may distinguish between core and periphery, between canons of different social groups, or we may perceive changes over time in the position that a certain composition has within the canon. In this perception, the character of a canon is not solely defined by the corpus that is included, but at least as much by what is excluded and by the relations maintained between the canonical and the trivial. This use of the word canon may be more fruitful for an investigation of the evidence in first millennium Mesopotamia.489

486  This strict assessment of canon as the product of an “authoritative body of people that decides on matters of canonical inclusion or exclusion” is presented as well in Gruenwald, “The ‚Scripture Effect‘”, 76 (see also the references there). 487  See, e.g., Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien. 488  The translation largely follows Parpola, SAA 10, but I have translated ṣâtī as “ṣâtu‑lists” rather than his “explanations of antiquated words”. 489  Veldhuis, “TIN.TIR = Babylon”, 80.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

168

Authority

Most recently U. Gabbay has presented several concrete arguments concerning canon in Mesopotamia. For him the canonical corpus of first millennium bce Mesopotamian literature is: ... a group of texts belonging to the “stream of tradition” circulating in various localities and in different periods during the first millennium bce; a minimum of variants among different manuscripts; an inner grouping and arrangement into corpora with an internal sequence of individual compositions and, at times, also including a sequential arrangement of various compositions (especially in Nineveh); and a textual authority which influences the production of other texts... .490

While arguing for the presence of canon in Mesopotamia, E. Frahm also emphasizes the fact that “[m]any of the text series (iškāru) of the first millennium, for example bārûtu or Sa‑gig, are characterized by a high degree of textual consistency and stability” as opposed to “non‑serialized aḫû‑texts” that “were copied only rarely, and only in exceptional cases commented on”.491 Thus there is a functional difference between manuscripts labelled iškāru, which generally coincide with texts otherwise considered canonical, and texts referred to as aḫû or lā iškāru, which represent less well attested variant forms of canonical texts. In addition, Frahm notes the great care taken in copying these texts, which is evidenced by statements to that effect in colophons and by the usage of ḫepi‑glosses to mark broken parts of the vorlage rather than restoring damaged parts of the manuscript being copied.492 All of this, in Frahm’s opinion, demonstrates that many cuneiform works do meet J. Assmann’s description of canon as an “immobilized form of the stream of tradition”. I might add in this vein that the attempt of one Enūma eliš commentator to use a comment in order to correct a perceived error in the base‑text shows a high level of respect for the integrity of the text in its standard version (see pp. 112–113). Furthermore, while F. Rochberg(‑Halton) tries to explain away the divine origin of numerous cuneiform works as an appeal to the authority of antiquity,493 U. Gabbay takes the claims of the “catalogue of texts and authors” seriously when it attributes authorship of a number of compositions to the god Ea. He then draws a connection between divine authorship of canonical compositions and commentary writing: with the exception of commentaries on texts dealing with Marduk theology, it is only texts written by Ea that receive commentar-

490  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 269 and n. 7. 491 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 318–319. 492 Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 319. 493  Rochberg‑Halton, “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”, 135–137.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Canon and Commentary

169

ies, along with Bārûtu, which is attributed to Šamaš and Adad.494 Quite remarkably, other texts for which commentaries might have been expected, such as the widely popular Gilgameš epic, were not the object of commentaries because of their mundane origin (e.g., in the case of the Gilgameš epic, Sîn‑lēqe‑unnīni is the traditional author).495 So, divine origin or inspiration, certainly an issue in later biblical canonization, appears to have been a real concern in Mesopotamia as well, for only texts with divine authors or those closely connected to Marduk theology were subject to commentary. While the correlation of works deserving of commentary to works of divine origin in the “catalogue of texts and authors” is indeed provocative. Mesopotamian commentary also reveals more mundane concerns connected with canon, and this comes to light through an analysis of their scope. All of the commentaries on literary compositions deal with lemmas excerpted from the entirety of that composition’s base‑text. This is also the case with other Mesopotamian commentaries in general, though commentaries to large series may deal only with a single tablet or section from the series.496 The commentaries to religious texts stand out, however, for they do not comment on a single base‑text, nor do they treat those base‑texts in their entirety.497 I find it noteworthy that the Maqlû commentaries deal only with lines from Tablets I–III of that eight tablet ritual. I imagine that the limitation of the Maqlû commentaries to the first three tablets of Maqlû reflects a scribal curriculum in Assyrian schools (at least outside of Nineveh). Among the student texts excavated at Sultantepe are one copy each of the first three tablets of Maqlû (tablet I: SU 51/59; tablet II: SU 51/141+; and tablet III: SU 51/12+)498 along with a ritual tablet (SU 52/33+) which covers the entire eight tablet ritual. No other tablets of Maqlû are known from that site. This dovetails nicely with the fact that the Assur commentary tablet A 405 was copied for the reading of Kiṣir‑Nabû (mid seventh century bce) the junior exorcist (maš.maš.tur), presumably for use in his education.499 Thus, the scope of the Maqlû commentaries probably reflects the 494  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 276–278. U. Gabbay notes that the one exception to this pattern is Šumma ālu. 495  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 276. 496  See, e.g., the discussion of Enūma Anu Enlil commentaries in Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 129–166. 497  VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq) comments on both Maqlû and Šurpu, but it can only have dealt with tablets I–III of Maqlû, not all eight tablets of the work, and certainly nothing before tablet III of Šurpu. Likewise, A 405 (Ass. 13955ii) comments on at least the first eight lines of Tummu bītu but only on Maqlû I 1, 2, and II 173. 498  The colophons of SU 51/59 and SU 51/12+ confirm that those texts were copied by a student (lúšab.tur), and this was likely the case with SU 51/141+ as well. 499  So Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 279. The commentary text to Tummu bītu and Šurpu (VAT 13846 [Ass. 13956he]) bears the same colophon.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

170

Authority

educational canon current ca. seventh century bce in Assyria, where greater attention was focused upon the first 3 Maqlû Tablets than on the latter 5.500 Finally, Mesopotamian commentary writing also reflects the needs of the professional and scholarly communities to systematize their literary sources. U. Gabbay has argued that many commentaries to omen literature reflect an attempt to harmonize those sources in order to maintain the authority of each omen in spite of any disagreements.501 This is accomplished through a nuancing of the omen apodoses by means of further specification. Thus the integrity of the base‑text is maintained all the while being harmonized within the larger canonical corpus.

Qumran In Mesopotamia only texts that were used as definitive reference works by professional technicians, and had become (in essence) canonical,502 could become the object of written scholarly commentaries. This leads very naturally to the question of the status of the base‑texts of Qumran pesharim. Indeed, the prophetic base‑texts that receive pesher treatment at Qumran are generally well-attested in a relatively fixed form. This fits well with A. Lange and Z. Pleše’s understanding of the development of transpositional hermeneutics: The increasing authority of written traditions required a method that could simultaneously maintain their fixity and adapt them to changing cultural models and new discursive modes. The transpositional hermeneutics of isolation and recontextualization, such as attested in omen and oracle interpretation, in pesher exegesis, and in various forms of allegoresis, was ideally suited for this double task of simultaneously preserving and readjusting the written repositories of cultural memory.503

500  Certainly the library at Nineveh and other Assyrian cities produced copies of Maqlû Tablets IV–VIII, but none of them are school tablets and only two Neo‑Assyrian excerpt tablets bear lines from that section of Maqlû (VAT 10071 15–16=Maqlû IV 139+141; VAT 10756 18–19=Maqlû IV 142–145; A 480 (Ass. 14109) contains Maqlû VIII 96ʺ–114ʺ, but that manuscript may not be an excerpt [see Abusch, The Magical Ceremony Maqlû, 191 n. 4]). Interestingly, and perhaps related, the last incantation of Maqlû IV, ruʾuʾa kaššāpat anāku pāširāk, was very popular in the excerpt tablets (5 tablets), perhaps reflecting an increased interest in that incantation more so than in the whole of Maqlû Tablet IV. 501  Gabbay, “Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique”. 502  “[T]he neo‑Assyrian scribe evolved a system of standardized, ‘canonical’ texts that were relied on and transmitted as sources of all kinds of information necessary for the fulfillment of their duties” (Elman, “Authoritative Oral Tradition”, 23). 503  Lange and Pleše, “Transpositional Hermeneutics”, 67.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Canon and Commentary

171

I would argue further that there is also a converse to this at Qumran. There are no continuous Qumran pesher commentaries to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel. I would suggest that the reason for this is the dynamic nature of texts and traditions surrounding those three prophets at Qumran.504 The so‑called Pseudo‑Ezekiel texts from Qumran and the early Greek text 𝔓967 cast doubt on the possibility of a reasonably stabilized standard tradition of Ezekiel at Qumran.505 Likewise, MT and LXX Jeremiah vary widely, and the apocryphal Jeremiah literature present at Qumran demonstrates that it was still possible to generate new Jeremianic prophetic506 and apocalyptic works.507 This assessment also applies to Danielic traditions, several apocryphal works of which also occur at Qumran.508 At Qumran, such fluidity of text and of traditions related to the prophet are not found with Isaiah, with the prophetic books that would later be grouped into the Minor Prophets or the Book of the Twelve, or with the individual psalms that were commented on by the pesharim.509 These compositions had achieved 504  Note that J. Trebolle has divided some of the biblical texts into two series on the basis of the modes of: 1) copying and preservation, 2) transmission, 3) composition and editing, 4) translation, 5) quotation, 6) ordering, 7) interpretation, and 8) authorization (Trebolle, “A ‘Canon Within a Canon’ ”). The first series contains “the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Minor Prophets and Psalms plus Job (and Proverbs)”, the second series is composed of “Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel plus Daniel”. One of the reasons for the placement of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel in the second tier is that they “were not suitable for commentaries in the pesher form” but rather were the “textual base for the creation of parabiblical developments in new writings” (Trebolle, “A ‘Canon Within a Canon’ ”, 391). K. van der Toorn also understands the creation of pesher to be subsequent to the “closure of the books of the prophets” (van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 132). 505  These multiple traditions may even have mutually influenced each other’s textual development (Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts”). 506 4QapocrJera (4Q383) f1:3–5 appears to be poetic prophecy. 507  ]‫העת[ים‬ ֯ ‫“ ]מ]חלקות‬divisions of times” in 4QapocrJerb (4Q384) f9:2 corresponds to a common trend of the apocalyptic schematization of ages. 508  For this variation see, e.g., Stuckenbruck, “The Formation and Re‑Formation of Daniel”, Collins, “The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, and Segal, “The Text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls”. 509  Works like the Ascension of Isaiah or the Martyrdom of Isaiah contained within it, are not attested at Qumran; rather, the Isaiah tradition seems more rigid then and there than it was even a century or two later. It remains unclear how to account for 4Q583, which appears to contain an Aramaic translation of Isaiah 14:31–32 in its first two lines followed by a blank line and then text that does not come from Isaiah. The situation as regards the book of Psalms at Qumran is more problematic. The structure of Psalms as a complete collection at Qumran and beyond is a complex issue. At Qumran we can observe only various collections of psalms in the manuscripts, and nowhere a complete book resembling the one found in later Bibles (see the excellent arguments in Mroczek, “The Hegemony of the Biblical”, 7–17) – perhaps the first time we can talk about a fixed book of Psalms is the quotation with reference of Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 (but even there the “Western”

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

172

Authority

standard text forms and the traditions surrounding Isaiah and many of the twelve prophets had stopped developing in Qumran by the time the pesharim were composed. For this reason, it was more practical to write commentaries on them than it would have been to write commentaries to some fluctuating version of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel. This is especially so because the Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel traditions could still be altered and added to in the Second Temple period for the purpose of reorienting them. This is not to say that the books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel were entirely unsuitable for exegesis, for they are quoted in the service of scriptural interpretation in numerous works at Qumran (not to mention the references to Jeremiah in 2 Chronicles 36 and Daniel 9). Nevertheless, the ability to create new prophetic traditions concerning Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, coupled with the absence of continuous pesharim dedicated to these prophets’ books, demonstrates a different approach to the works of these prophetic figures in the Qumran writings. That is to say, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel had become authoritative prophetic figures at Qumran, but their literary traditions had not yet achieved either a consolidated standard form or a canonical status.510

textual variants betray a differing system of dividing Psalms where psalms 1 and 2 are read together as a single unit, see, e.g., Metzger, “The Formulas Introducing Quotations”, 305). Nevertheless, individual psalms found within the various psalm collections can have achieved stable text forms. It appears that this was enough for a number of psalms to be treated as standard text versions, and thus to be interpreted by means of pesher and to no longer be subject to revision or rewriting. Such an assessment that many discrete psalms could have achieved standard text forms at Qumran even though they appear in various orderings and groupings is largely in agreement with W. Yarchin’s conclusion that “although among the ancient manuscripts the sequence and quantity of semantic content may have become fixed and stable by the second century ce unlike an older pluriform state, the configuration and quantity of discrete compositions comprising that semantic content remained fluid among the medieval manuscripts” (I thank W. Yarchin for graciously sharing with me his forthcoming work: “Were the Psalms Collections at Qumran True Psalters?”). W. Horowitz has recently argued for the use of the term “para‑canonicity” to describe the Babylonian astrolabe texts, which “move down through the centuries in different forms and formats, sometimes in circles sometimes in lists, sometimes separately and sometimes together, sometimes moving apart and sometimes coming back together, sometimes sharing characteristics and sometimes not, and sometimes apparently expanding and some‑times apparently contracting” (Horowitz, “The Astrolabes”, 286–287). Such a textual situation is in some ways comparable to the creation of early psalters at Qumran and elsewhere. 510  Authority can be derived from a number of sources, written or otherwise (see Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran”, 161). For this assessment as it relates to Ezekiel, see Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts”, 229. For the idea that rewriting (such as Pseudo‑Ezekiel) and pesher are related methods of interpretation, see, e.g., Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 343–362.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Authority and Commentary

173

Authority and Commentary So, the Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim only deal with works that are functionally canonical, works which also, in the case of Qumran and to a more limited extent in Mesopotamia, had achieved a standard text version. The very existence of these commentaries suggests the cultural importance of the writings they are explaining and interpreting, and the nature of their comments provides a window into how the ancients understood certain literary works to be authoritative sources. In order to reveal the precise ways in which the base‑texts of Mesopotamian commentaries and Qumran pesharim are used as authoritative sources, it has been necessary for me to selectively adapt M. Satlow’s subdivision of authority into somewhat different discrete areas of influence.511 To this end, I have distinguished four particular domains of authority evidenced in the Mesopotamian commentaries and the pesharim: 1. “Normative authority” refers to the ability both to determine cult praxis, and also, in a larger sense, to determine social norms. 2. “Oracular authority” refers to the understanding that a work relays a divine message, usually relating to contemporaneous and future events. 3. “Mytho‑historic512 authority” refers to a text’s status as an account of past events, which serves to establish a group’s identity through a sense of a continuity with the ancestors who came before them, and to reveal a group’s place within a larger cosmological framework. Mytho‑historic authority can also fill a didactic role by revealing natural consequences to actions as well as other forces (e.g., divine intervention) that shape the course of human life. 4. “Scholarly authority” may be likened to a type of scientific authority, and refers to compositions that have come to be considered standard compendia of acquired knowledge.

Normative Authority Normative authority involves the regulation of behaviour in a very broad sense, but it may be further subdivided into into those works that are normative for

511  That is: normative authority, literary authority, and oracular authority (see Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy, 4–5). 512  I use the term mytho‑historic here in an attempt to recognize that line between myth and history is in no way a sharp one, nor am I certain the two categories would be sharply divided in the mind of the Mesopotamian commentator or the Qumran pesherist. For the lack of a distinction between myth or legend and history in ancient Israel, see Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 12.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

174

Authority

social behaviour and those used to regulate cult praxis.513 Certainly these two domains can and do at times overlap, but it need not always be the case: whereas the Mesopotamian composition Šurpu seems to establish proper ritual procedures and to enumerate social norms, Maqlû may have had little application to anything beyond ritual procedures.514 The Mesopotamian commentaries on ritual literature are largely concerned with a proper understanding of the meaning of certain parts of the base‑text and their relation to scholarly lore. While these base‑texts did have a cultic normative authority, only rarely do the commentaries show any concern for reinforcing that status. One of the few possible examples is the comment to Maqlû III 114 (VAT 8928, rev. 2ʹ–5ʹ), which explains that line in relation to its accompanying ritual act by quoting some ritual instructions (these instructions closely parallel the instructions in the ritual tablet of Maqlû, lines 50ʹʹ–52ʹʹ):515 rev. 2ʹ alaqqâkim‑ma ḫ aḫ â ša utūni deḫmê ša diqāri rev. 3ʹ mā ṣalmu ša ṭīdi eppuš rev. 4ʹ kurbannu ša utūni deḫ mê ša diqāri

rev. 5ʹ

amaḫ ḫ aḫ ina rēš ṣalmi ša ṭīdi atabbak

I take against you the oven’s slag and the large bowl’s soot “I make a clay figurine. The lump of clay from an oven (and) the soot from a large bowl I moisten (and) pour out on head of the clay figurine.”

Several texts from Qumran appeal to the normative authority of scripture; a well‑known example is the Damascus Document. The remains of the Damascus Document from the Qumran caves utilize Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Joel to defend the cultic and social norms (though the exact application of Joel to normative behaviour is unclear) and appeal to Malachi 1:10 to justify the community’s abstention from the temple (4QDa f3 II:17–19). Additionally, the Damascus Document mentions two manuals used to regulate the

513  For instance, the usage of text for establishing proper religious practice and doctrine for all time seems to be the overarching concern of the authorities in the Talmud and Midrash for establishing whether a work was canonical (Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 16). 514  The understanding that Maqlû represents a single complete ritual, and not simply a collection of thematically related incantations, was first established by I.T. Abusch in his 1972 Harvard Ph.D. dissertation (published as Abusch, Babylonian Witchcraft Literature) and in Abusch, “Mesopotamian Anti‑Witchcraft Literature”. 515  See Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 393 following Schwemer, Abwehrzauber Und Behexung, 226–227.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Authority and Commentary

175

behaviour of the community: ‫“ ספר ההגי‬the Scroll of HGY”516 and ‫יסודי הברית‬ “the Principles of the Covenant”. The Qumran continuous pesharim, however, are more similar to the Mesopotamian commentaries to religious works, and show little concern for how their base‑texts are used to determine societal or cultic norms. Out of the many generic laments that the wicked fail to follow proper torah instruction, the only really explicit reference to improper cultic praxis is found in 4QpHosa commentary unit 6, which critiques the improper calculation of holidays (using Jubilees 6:35,517 and perhaps Esther 9:22518). The famously difficult passage discussing the hanging of a living person on a tree in 4QpNah f3–4i:8 may be another instance where the pesher is trying to comment on a social norm, but the context there remains unclear.

Oracular Authority The Qumran continuous pesharim are far more concerned with the oracular authority of their base‑text.519 Nearly every comment in the continuous pesharim is focused in some way on how the content of the scriptural base‑text relays information about the happenings of the present and imminent future. These pe‑ sharim also rely at times on the oracular authority of other prophetic texts or traditions which they cite within comments. What is more, the comments within the pesher texts were apparently themselves authoritative divine revelation communicated to the interpreter, sometimes explicitly the teacher of righteousness, as 1QpHab 7:4–5 says, “God let [the teacher of righteousness] know all the secrets of the words of His servants, the prophets”.520 1QpHab 2:9–10 states in no uncertain terms that, “God recounted all that is to come” through the prophets, and 1QpHab 7:1–2 relates that “God spoke to 516  Whether it be an oblique reference to ‫“ תורת משה‬the Torah of Moses” or some other sectarian rule book, the exact document that this refers to remains unknown. Perhaps in favour of the former interpretation is the use of ‫“ תורה‬torah/Torah” in 1QS 6:6 within a passage that is parallel to ‫“ ספר ההגי‬the Scroll of HGY” in the Damascus Document (CD 13:2) (see, e.g., Fraade, “Hagu, Book of ”). The understanding that ‫“ ספר ההגי‬the Scroll of HGY” refers directly to the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy) has recently been refuted, for several different reasons, by Werman “What is the Book of Hagu?”, Allegue, “El ‘Sefer Ha‑Hagy’ de Qumrán”, and Nitzan, “Education and Wisdom”. 517  See, e.g., Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ ”. 518  See, e.g., A. Lange, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher, 498 and the notes to the edition of 4QpHosa here in the appendices. 519  As M. Fishbane put it, “Mikra is presented as the authoritative prophetic word of God; and the commentaries on it are authorized as the true meaning or application of that word for the times at hand” (Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”, 351). 520  See most recently, Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon, 139.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

176

Authority

Habakkuk to write the things to come upon the latter generation”, thus the pesherist reveals a belief in the authority of the prophets for conferring divine messages about the future. This comment likely refers first and foremost to the oracular authority of the person of the prophet and then by extension to the scrolls and traditions attributed to the prophet. To be more precise, oracular authority is not restricted to works that have acquired a standard text form.521 As demonstrated above, Isaiah, many if not all of the prophetic works collected in the Book of the Twelve, and numerous psalms had achieved standard text forms and were canonical at Qumran, but the traditions surrounding Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were still developing, and were neither standardized nor canon there. Nevertheless, even though the scroll of Jeremiah, the scroll of Ezekiel, and the scroll of Daniel were not the subject of pesharim at Qumran, each prophet is cited in interpretive works due to the high level oracular authority afforded him. Ben Sira’s inclusion of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve prophets within his Praise of the Ancestors (Ben Sira 49:1–10) presents one very early example of the elevated status of these individuals as prophetic figures. Similarly, it seems that interpreters at Qumran turned to literary traditions associated with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel as sources of divine revelation, not because of the state of the textual traditions associated with those prophets (which were still relatively disorganized), but rather because of the status of those prophetic figures themselves.522 This attribution of oracular authority to specific figures applies as well to prophecies embedded into texts that are not otherwise prophetic (e.g., the Blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49, the oracles of Balaam at the end of Numbers,523 the prophecies of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7,524 and perhaps also the passages cited in 4QTestimonia525). 521  Thus, it is not apt to question the existence of an authoritative Torah at Qumran on the assumption that a “fixed textual form” is necessary for a work to be authoritative, as F. Cryer does (Cryer, “Genesis: in Qumran”, 112). Perhaps, though, it is still possible to question the canonicity of the book on those grounds. 522  It may be that when the Qumran texts refer to the scroll (or book) of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel, they are referring more generally to texts associated with that prophet and not a particular version or manuscript (see, e.g. Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making”, 77). That is, the book itself may be authoritative, “but not the concrete textual form of the book” (García Martínez, “Parabiblical Literature from Qumran”, 527). 523  See, e.g., the interpretation of Numbers 24:17 in the Damascus Document 4QDa f3 iii:20–21, 4QTestimonia 9–12, and 1QWar Scroll 11:6–7, and also [outside of Qumran?] in Testament of Levi 18:3 and Testament of Judah 24:1. 524  See much of the first column of 4QMidrEschata. 525 4QTestimonia merely quotes excerpts from Exodus (Samaritan version), Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and the ‘Psalms or Apocryphon of Joshua’ (4Q379 f22 ii 7–15). Nevertheless, the quotations seem to centre around the theme of a (coming) messiah and thus may suggest that the writer of 4QTestimonia was focused on their prophetic nature.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Authority and Commentary

177

Though they have not been an object of study here, the extensive omen compendia from Mesopotamia are the main sources of oracular authority in the Assyrian and Babylonian realms. These texts were the subjects of an extensive commentary tradition that often underscored the necessity of maintaining the intelligibility and proper application of them to contemporary circumstances. Unlike the continuous pesharim, the Mesopotamian omen literature is not apocalyptic in its outlook, but the theme of divine punishment and forgiveness can be found within it. A famous example of this theme along with a commentary type explanation of it can be found in the historical inscriptions of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. These inscriptions explain that Marduk reduced the term prophesied for Babylon’s abandonment from seventy years (𒁹𒌋 [60+10] in cuneiform) to eleven years (𒌋𒁹 [10+1] in cuneiform) by reversing the order of the wedges (perhaps by turning the tablet upside down).526 In this case an interpreter used a retrographic reading of the numeral 𒁹𒌋, seventy, to maintain the oracular authority of the prophecy.

Mytho‑Historic Authority While the Qumran continuous pesharim are most often concerned with the oracular authority of their base‑texts, they do show a passing interest in the mytho‑historic authority of certain sources. This can be found in the pesher to Genesis 49 (4QcommGen A) commentary unit 1 where the explanation for Reuben’s ascent to and subsequent defilement of his father’s bed is explained by the comment ‫“ שכב עם בלהה פילגשו‬he lay with Bilhah, his (Jacob’s) concubine”, a close paraphrase of Genesis 35:22: ‫ת־ּב ְל ָהה ִּפ ֶילגֶ ׁש ָא ִביו‬ ִ ‫“ וַ ּיִ ְש ַּכב ֶא‬and he lay with Bilhah, the concubine of his father” or perhaps a near citation from Jubilees 33:8: Et iratus est iacob aduersus ruben ualde quoniam dormiuit (Eth: ሰከበ) cum balla “Jacob was very angry at Reuben because he had slept (Eth: lain) with Bilhah”. The way in which 1QpHab commentary unit 13 uses a rewriting of 2 Chronicles 36:16 to explain the base‑text of Habakkuk also demonstrates that the historical tradition of the fall of Judah in 2 Chronicles 36 held a mytho‑historic authority for the pesherist even though Chronicles itself may not be attested among the Qumran manuscripts (see pp. 81–83). Sometimes the pesharim themselves indicate that they were to be used as mytho‑historical texts. Both 1QpHab units 25 and 31 relate historical events as the product of divine oracle: 1QpHab unit 25 describes how the the wicked priest turned away from God; 1QpHab unit 31 tells how he hunted down the teacher of righteousness. The strategy in such passages is to use the oracular authority of 526  RINAP 4 104ii:2–9, 105ii:16–22, and 114ii:12–18; the prophecy is also referred to in 116 obv. 19ʹ.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

178

Authority

the base text to reinforce the mytho‑historic authority of the pesher and in doing so to explain some early struggles of the group within which the pesher was composed for the purpose of strengthening that group’s identity.527 The unusually extensive commentary tradition surrounding the Enūma eliš attests to the great importance of that text for Mesopotamian scribes. The widespread usage of this mythological epic can likely be taken as an indicator of its mytho‑historic authority. But mythological or historical concerns are generally not a subject of interest in the Mesopotamian commentaries. Rather, they seem most interested in referring to texts because of their scholarly authority: the authority of texts based upon their status as compendia of scholarly knowledge.

Scholarly Authority Though the Enūma eliš was a mytho‑historical authoritative source, when it is quoted in the commentaries to other works,528 it is utilized for its scholarly authority to help explain difficult words or passages because of its important literary status in Babylonian and Assyrian society.529 Many of the cuneiform lexical lists also held a status of scholarly authority. These resources were frequently used by commentaries to explain difficulties in their base‑text or for more esoteric purposes (see the many lexical sources used in Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts, pp. 261–262).530 The scientific works dealing with astrology, omens, and medical diagnostics were often used in this way as well. To the contrary, the Qumran pesharim do not at all seem interested in scholarly authority, though there are several texts at Qumran that could be considered scientific compendia (i.e., the Enochic Astronomical Book, 4QHoroscope, 4QcryptA Phases of the Moon, 4QBrontologion ar, and 4QPhysiognomy/Horoscope ar). Rather, when the pesharim reach beyond their base‑text it is generally to other prophetic works (so in 4QpappIsac and in 1QpHab), though the few forays into legal and narrative works might suggest some scholarly interests.531 527  See further Jokiranta, Social Identity, 177–178 as well as the rest of ch. 4, where she discusses how the pesharim may relate to history and to the creation of sectarian identity. 528  See fn. 336. 529  Thus the literary authority of the Enūma eliš (to use one of M. Satlow’s categories) lends it a scholarly authority as well. 530  For the authoritative use of Mesopotamian scholarly references, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia”, 278–279. 531  Note: the connection between 4QpHosa 2:16 and Jubilees 6:35; the usage of 2 Chronicles 36:16 to frame the comment in 1QpHab 4:1–3; the citation or paraphrase of Genesis 35:22 or Jubilees 33:8 in 4QcommGen A 4:6; the apparent connection between Deuteronomy 21:23 and 4QpNah f3–4i:8; and the connection between Deuteronomy 10:16, 29:18, and 1QpHab 11:13–14 (also Jeremiah 4:4).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

179

Degrees and Domains of Authority Just as the concept of textual authority can be nuanced into specific domains, the level of textual authority can be understood as variable in its degree of influence. Not all authoritative texts are equally authoritative,532 and “the scope of the authority of texts may be broad or limited, and shift over time”.533 That is to say, some texts may only be used occasionally, or even rarely, as a source with authoritative status, while others may be employed as definitive sources of knowledge and revelation par excellence within a particular domain. Further, authoritative texts and traditions may participate in more than one domain of authority at the same time.534 A certain text may also be more authoritative within a given domain than another,535 and may have a high degree of authority within one authoritative domain and a lesser degree in another: the prophetic texts were certainly afforded a high degree of oracular authority at Qumran, but they could also be used from time to time for the purpose of justifying normative behaviour.536 The converse of this is also true, and books with a high level of normative authority could sometimes be cited for their oracular authority.537 These multiple domains and degrees of influence can be mapped graphically with a polar area chart (each sector in the chart corresponds to a domains of authority; the degree of authority for each domain is represented by the number of bars present in each sector). Such a graphical representation for the 532  For instance, “Some [church fathers] recognized the apocryphal books, but only as a separate unit and of lesser authority than Scripture” (Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 39). 533  Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts and the Hebrew Scriptures”, 162. 534  Thus, Genesis is presented as an authoritative oracular source in 4QCommGen A 5:1–7, as an authoritative mytho‑historic source in 4QCommGen A 4:5–6, and also as an authoritative normative source, for instance, in 6Q15 f1 3 (= CD‑A 4:21). Similarly, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are used as both normative and oracular authoritative sources in the Damascus Document. B. Strawn has voiced a similar approach to the function of texts at Qumran, which could be “devotional/personal, liturgical, pedagogical/didactic, or exegetical‑ideological” and also “could have served more than one function at more than one time” (“Excerpted ‘Non‑Biblical’ Scrolls at Qumran”, 111, and also the sources in n. 175). 535  For “something of a hierarchical preference for certain texts over others” at Qumran, see Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”, 359–360. J. Trebolle has made this phenomenon very clear by marshalling a large amount of evidence in order to demonstrate two series or orders of scripture (Trebolle, A ‘Canon Within a Canon’ ”). 536  Note the cultic normative usage of Malachi 1:10 in the Damascus Document (4QDa f3 ii:17–19) as well as the social normative usage of Nahum 1:2 there (4QDe f6 iii:19, see Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”, 354–355). 537  See, e.g., the quotation of Leviticus 25:13 and Deuteronomy 15:2 in 11QMelchizedek ii:2–4, which uses the laws regarding the year Jubilee and remission of debt to foretell the end‑time forgiveness of the debt of iniquity owed by the sons of light and men of Melchizedek’s lot.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

180

Authority

authoritative status of Nahum at Qumran would be as follows (I have no evidence that Nahum possessed any mytho‑historic authority, though it could conceivably have had some, and I have no clear evidence for the domain of scholarly authority at Qumran):

Roles and Status of Commentaries Enūma eliš played a pivotal role in the ritual life of the Neo‑Babylonian empire due in part to the recitation of it during the course of the Akītu New Year festival. The text was also of theological importance for its description of Marduk’s supremacy over the pantheon and the universal centrality of his temple Esagil in his city Babylon. For these reasons, the commentaries to Enūma eliš provide several explanations of a cultic nature alongside the more simple definitions of difficult or interesting words – the standard fare of Mesopotamian commentaries. Though many of the Enūma eliš commentaries come from an Assyrian provenance, the comments show nearly no influence from the minor Assyrian recension of Enūma eliš, nor the inimical trend of the anti‑Marduk recontextualization of the Enūma eliš in the Assyrian Marduk Ordeal.538 Only in a small number of cases might some of the cultic comments on passages from the Enūma eliš reflect an Assyrian orientation. E. Frahm has suggested that the comment to Enūma eliš VII 109–110 involves the transferral of a ritual from a Babylonian context that centred around Marduk to an Assyrian context involving the god Assur. This ritual originally involved the gods bringing pres538  See von Soden, “Gibt es ein Zeugnis”, followed by Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia”, 73–74 and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 352–354.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Roles and Status of Commentaries

181

ents to Marduk’s son Nabû, but in the comment the presents are brought to Zababa, Assur’s son, instead.539 Likewise Frahm sees in the comment to Enūma eliš I 86 an attempt to reconcile the panthea of Babylonia and Assyria by identifying the Assyrian Ištar of Nineveh as Marduk’s nurse.540 I would also suggest that the effects of the Assur reorientation of Enūma eliš are also felt in a comment to Marduk’s Address (K 3795+ line 12): ša pī ummāni šanê mā Nēberu: Marduk(dmes) ša ana ramānīšu ibbanû “according to another scholar, ‘Jupiter is Marduk, who was created by himself ’”. The phrase “Marduk, who was created by himself ” is strikingly similar to the Neo‑Assyrian epithet of Assur, bānû ramānīšu “creator of himself ”.541 Whereas these three examples may indicate an attempt to use commentary to reorient the base‑text, or simply reflect the mind-set that equated Assur with Marduk, they are the exception and not the rule. Far more often the Mesopotamian commentaries serve to aid in the understanding of the base‑text and to relate it to other spheres of more esoteric knowledge. The inverse is true of the Qumran continuous pesharim: they are almost entirely concerned with how their base‑text applies to the eschatological period in which they lived. The authoritative nature of the pesharim in the oracular domain can be strongly felt in the tenor of their explications and their rhetoric. What is more, the claims of 1QpHab commentary unit 9 in particular describe a transferral of authority from the base‑text to the pesher interpretation through the figure of the teacher of righteousness, an authority further corroborated by the role that the divinity is said to play in the interpretive process there (compare also Daniel 9:24–27 and Ben Sira 39:1–7).542 This same process of the transfer of authority from scripture to interpretation applies to many of the scriptural citations and interpretations in other exegetical works at Qumran.

539  See Frahm, “Counter‑texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations”, 11–12 and Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 113, and especially n. 582. W.G. Lambert was overly pedantic when he declared this particular comment to be “certainly quite wrong” (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 138), though to modern readers it is indeed rather “obscure”. This particular comment to Enūma eliš VII 110 serves to link a mythic tradition to a ritual and cultic reality; such an endeavour can at times be ambitious or even inventive, but one wonders in what sense it could be deemed incorrect in the absence of contravening manuscript evidence. 540  Frahm, “Counter‑texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations”, 11 and Babylonian and As‑ syrian Text Commentaries, 355. 541  That particular epithet was the result of the fact that when Assur (spelled an‑šár) is substituted for Marduk in the Enūma eliš he ultimately becomes his own grandfather – Marduk’s grandfather in the standard version of the story is Anšar (an‑šár) (Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 350–351). 542  So, in the pesharim “the interpretation of older revelation results from new inspiration; and it is only a slightly longer leap to the idea that the interpretation of the revealed text takes the place of revelation” (Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 183).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

182

Authority

Conclusion The primary aim of my discussion of authority has been to use textual data from commentaries to determine the precise ways in which compositions and textual traditions can be presented and interpreted as authoritative sources. I have attempted to carefully nuance the language I use to approach this topic. It is just as great a hindrance to the field of Qumran research to interchangeably use terms like “standard text”, “canon(ical)”, and “authority” or “authoritative”, as it is to apply the term “biblical” to Qumran texts without providing a defence for why such a term is necessary or even apt. Standard texts are just that, works that have attained a relatively stable textual form with a minimum of variation in the manuscript tradition. Such works may or may not be authoritative and they need not necessarily be canonical in the strictest sense of the word. Canonical works are either standard compositions that have gained wide currency within a social group or widely used reference works that may or may not have ever been fully standardized. Authority is a much larger issue, for a standard text version may become authoritative (and by virtue of that almost certainly canonical), but less well organized textual traditions can also be considered authoritative, especially when connected to a figure whom the community holds in high esteem (i.e., divine figures such as Ea in the Mesopotamian astrological and omen compendia, and the inspired prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel at Qumran). As far as the nature of textual authority is concerned, I have argued in support of understanding the phenomenon in discrete and nuanced terms. Compositions can be used as authoritative sources in a variety of domains. I have described four such domains relevant to the Qumran pesher and the Mesopotamian commentary corpora with which I have been working: normative, mytho‑historic, oracular, and scholarly. But compositions also vary in the degree of authority ascribed to them within each of these domains. In my model, Nahum is a very important oracular authority at Qumran, but only a minor normative authority there. In my understanding, Genesis had a very low level of normative authority at Qumran and Exodus had less authority in this domain than Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy: Genesis is quoted three or four times, never with an introductory formula (4Q180 f1:7–8 [=4Q181 f2:2], f2:5–7,543 4Q464 f3ii:3–4?, and 6Q15

543  An introductory formula might be restored in the break before the scripture citation here (so Milik, “Milkî‑ṣedeq et Milkî‑rešaʿ, 119), but this is in no way certain.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Conclusion

183

f1 3), and perhaps only once as a source of normative authority (6Q15 f1 3544);545 Exodus is quoted slightly more often at Qumran, twice with an introductory formula (1QS 5:15 and 4Q174 1:3) and three or four times as a source of normative authority (1QS 5:15, 4Q174 f1–2 i:3–4, 4Q251 f4–7 i:2–5?, and 4Q271 f4 ii:3). Exodus is also quoted or alluded to throughout the Temple Scroll (11Q19), but largely for its cultic normative authority, especially the portions of Exodus 25–40 concerning construction of the tabernacle (used to establish the construction of the temple and its implements, cols. III–XIII and XXX–XLV [so also 11Q20 VIII–XI). In contrast, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are more frequently and widely cited in Qumran compositions as sources for determining proper social and cultic behaviour. Nevertheless, the works found at Qumran that appear to be dependent on Genesis as an authoritative source of primordial and patriarchal traditions (e.g., Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, the so‑called Genesis commentaries, etc.) demonstrate a high degree of mytho‑historic authority enjoyed by Genesis in the Second Temple period.546 Thus, Genesis was very authoritative in the mytho‑historic domain but of lesser relevance for normative and oracular authority at Qumran. Using the same charting technique presented above for describing the textual authority of Nahum, the nature of the authority of Genesis as reflected by Qumran compositions can be represented as follows:

544  But note that while 6Q15 f1 3 [‫זכר [ונקבה ברא אותם‬... “... male [and female He created them]” does match Genesis 1:27, it may also match Jubilees 2:14 (4Q216 7:2) [‫ונק[בה עשה‬ ֯ ‫?זכר‬ ‫ אתם‬... “... male and fe[male he made them]” (the verb used in Hebrew Jubilees is uncertain, though the Syriac suggests ‎‫ עשה‬rather than ‫)ברא‬. 545  For a similar assessment of the status of Genesis at Qumran, see Cryer, “Genesis: in Qumran”. Though J. VanderKam asserted the absurdity that Genesis would not have been considered an “inspired work” at Qumran, he was not able to provide a single instance where it was quoted with an introductory formula (VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 395). Such evidence cannot be ignored: it at least points to a lower level of normative authority for Genesis at Qumran, even if the events that Genesis recounts were very popular in Second Temple Judaism, especially in paraphrase and varying narrative traditions. For the difficulty in determining the authoritative status of variant versions of pentateuchal texts, namely 4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366 and 4Q367, see, e.g., White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 56–57 and Tov, “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?)”. 546  Note, though, that Jubilees shows a good deal of interest in highlighting the normative application of Genesis, thus Genesis may have enjoyed a greater normative authority in the Second Temple period outside of the specifically Qumran compositions. In fact, the re‑orientation of mytho‑historic traditions in Genesis to a normative application in Jubilees itself may have played a role in increasing the normative authority of Genesis within early Judaism.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

184

Authority

In light of these findings, it will be helpful in future discussions of textual authority to distinguish not only the way or ways in which a work is authoritative (the domain of authority) but also the degree of authoritativeness that appears to be afforded to it, especially in relation to other compositions. It is not fruitful to view the issue of textual authority in overly simplistic binary terms. Even among later religious groups that have a canonized and authoritative Bible, such a facile approach toward scriptures fails to account for the rich variety of ways that meaning is found within them.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices Transliterations and Translations Here in the appendices I provide editions of all the Qumran pesharim at the core of the research I have presented in this book. I have also supplied my own transliterations and translations for the Enūma eliš Commentary I manuscripts, which are not available in a form that is easy to reference. The editions and translations of texts here are provided with limited notes concerning difficult readings and issues relating to establishing the text of the ancient manuscripts (especially, the placement of manuscript fragments). For transliteration conventions and sigla used in these editions, see pp. 20–24.

Qumran Commentaries 1Q Pesher Habakkuk 1. (Habakkuk 1:1–2a)

top of column

‫ [המשא אשר חזה חבקוק הנביא עד אנה 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄] ׄשועתי ולוא‬1:1 ‫ תו]חלת דור‬... ‫ ‏פשרו על‬vacat‫ [תשמע ‏‬1:2 ‫ הבא]ות עליהם‬...[ 1:3

2. (Habakkuk 1:2b)547

‫(י)ז]עקו על‬ ׄ ‫ פשרו אשר‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫ע‬ ‫ [אזעק אליכה חמס ולוא תושי ‏‬1:4 ← ...[ 1 :5

3. (Habakkuk 1:3a)

4. (Habakkuk 1:3bα) 5. (Habakkuk 1:3bβ)

‫ת]ביט‬ ֯ [‫וע]מל‬ ֯ ‫למה תראני און‬ ‫ הביט] אל בעשק ומעל‬... ‫[פשרו‬

1 :5 1 :6

‫‏‬vacat ‫ [ושוד וחמס לנגדי]‏‬1:7 ← ... ‫] יגז֯ [ו]לו ה[ון‬... ‫[פשרו‬ 1:8 ‫וי]הי ריב‬ ֯ 1:8 ‫[שב]ה הואה‬ ׄ ‫וח‬ ׄ ‫יבה‬ ׄ ‫מ]ר‬ ֯ ... ‫ פשרו‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫א‬ ‫ [ומדון יש ‏‬1:9 ← ]...[ 1 :10

547  It is possible that the lemma of Habakkuk 1:2b should be reconstructed following Habakkuk 1:1–2a in 1QpHab 1:2, in which case the first commentary unit covered Habakkuk 1:1– 2 and its comment spanned about 3 lines (so Nitzan, The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk, 149–150). The restoration followed here, however, better matches the sizing of the surrounding commentary units and more neatly juxtaposes ‫ אזעק‬from the lemma with ‫יז]עקו‬ ׄ in the comment.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

186

Appendices

6. (Habakkuk 1:4a)

‫על כן תפוג תורה‬ ‫]אשר מאשו בתורת אל‬ ׄ ‫[פשרו על מטיף הכזב ו(אנשי )עדתו‬

7. (Habakkuk 1:4b)

1:10 1 :11

‫ ‏‬vacat‫מכתי]ר את הצדיק‏‬ ׄ ‫ כי(א) רשע‬548‫ [ולוא יצא לנצח משפט‬1:12 ‫ והצדיק] הוא מורה הצדק‬549‫[פשרו אשר הרשע הוא אש הכזב‬ 1 :13 ← ] ... ‫[אשר‬ 1:14

8. (Habakkuk 1:4b)

‫֯על כן יצא המשפט‬

1:14

‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[‫]וׄ לוא ׄת‬... ‫‏ פשרו‬vacat ‫ [מעוקל‏‬1:15

9. (Habakkuk 1:5, see pp. 139–143)

]‫וה]בי֯ [טו‬ ֯ ‫ ראו בגוים‬...[ 1 :16 ])‫ [והתמהו תמהו כי(א) פעל פועל בימיכם לוא תאמינו כי(א‬1:17

top of column

10. (Habakkuk 1:6a)

‫]הבוגדים עם איש‬ ׄ ‫‏ [פשר הדבר על‬vacat ‫יסופר‏‬ ‫קה מפיא‬ ׄ ‫צד‬ ֯ ‫לוא[ שמעו אל דברי] מורה ה‬ ׄ ‫הכזב כי‬ ‫אל ועל הבוג[דים בברית] החדשה ֯כי֯ א לוא‬ ‫]קודשו‬ ֯ ‫האמינו בברית אל [וכיא חללו] את ׄש[ם‬ ‫‏ פשר הדבר[ על הבו]גדים לאחרית א‬vacat ‫וכן‏‬ ‫עריצ[י הבר]ית אשר לוא יאמינו א‬ ׄ ‫הימים המה‬ ‫האחרוׄ ן מפי‬ ׄ ‫ע]ל ֯הדור‬ ֯ ‫הבא[ות‬ ֯ ‫בשומעם את כול‬ ‫ לפשור ֯א ׄת כול‬550‫בינ]ה‬ ׄ ‫הכוהן אשר נתן אל ב[לבו‬ ‫]בידם ספר אל את‬ ֯ ‫ביאים[ אשר‬ ׄ ׄ‫דברי עבדיו הנ‬ ← ] ... 551[‫וע‬ ֯ ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬

2:1 2:2 2:3 2 :4 2:5 2 :6 2 :7 2:8 2:9 2:10

‫יא הנני מקים את‬ ׄ‫֯כ ׅ‬

2 :10 2:11 2:12 2 :13 2 :14 2 :15

‫‏‬vacat ‫והנמ]ה ׄר‏‬ ֯ ‫הכשדאים הגוי המ[ר‬

‫המ]ה קלים וגבורים‬ ׄ ‫פשרו על הכתיאים א[שר‬ ‫] בממשלת‬...[‫ים‬ ׄ ‫רב‬ ֯ ‫במלחמה לאבד‬ ‫]ת ולוא יאמינו‬...[ ׄ ‫ורש‬/‫י‬ ׄ ‫הכתיאים‬ ← ... [‫[א]ל‬ ֯ ‫בחוקי‬

548  The restored lemma ‫ ולוא יצא לנצח משפט‬could also be situated with the preceding commentary unit at the beginning 1:13, in which case a much shorter restoration would be necessary for the accompanying comment. 549  The reading here follows Lim, Pesharim, 35–36 (contra. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 46), since ‫ הכוהן הרשע‬does not figure until much later in the pesher. The introductory formula ‫ פשרו אשר‬was then necessitated by spacing concerns. 550  For a critique of other possible restorations and a defence of this restoration as the most probable given the material remains of the manuscript, see David and Bellavance, “Suggestions et questions”, 383. 551  The restoration here is uncertain, though Nitzan’s [‫ ו[על הגוים‬appears too long, and something with ‫עירו‬, as Qimron suggests, seems preferable to ‫עדתו‬.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪187‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪11. (Habakkuk 1:6b–7; see pp. 134–135‬‬

‫‪2 :15‬‬ ‫‪ 2:16‬‬ ‫‪2 :17‬‬

‫ההולך למרחבי ארץ לרשת משכנות]‬ ‫וׄ ל[וא לו איום ונורא הוא ממנו משפטו ושאתו יצא]‬ ‫[פשרו על הכתיאים אשר ‪]...‬‬

‫‪ 3:1‬‬ ‫‪3 :2‬‬ ‫‪ 3:3‬‬ ‫‪3 :4‬‬ ‫‪ 3:5‬‬ ‫‪ 3:6‬‬

‫ובמישור ילכו לכות ולבוז את ערי הארץ‬ ‫כיא הוא אשר אמר לרשת משכנות לוא לו איום‬ ‫ונורא הוא ממנו משפטו ושאתו יצא‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫מתם על כול‬ ‫פשרו על הכתיאים אשר פחדם ו֯ ֯א ֯‬ ‫ובנ֯ כל ומרמה‬ ‫הגואים ובעצה כול מחשבתם להרע ֯‬ ‫ילכו עם כול העמים ←‬

‫‪3 :6‬‬ ‫‪ 3:7‬‬ ‫‪ 3:8‬‬ ‫‪ 3:9‬‬ ‫‪ 3:10‬‬ ‫‪3 :11‬‬ ‫‪ 3:12‬‬ ‫‪3 :13‬‬ ‫‪3 :14‬‬ ‫‪ 3:15‬‬ ‫‪ 3:16‬‬ ‫‪3 :17‬‬

‫וקול מנמרים סוסו וחדו‬ ‫ופרשו פרשו מרחוק‬ ‫מזאבי ערב ‏‪vacat‬‬ ‫יעופו כנשר חש לאכול כולו֯ לחמס יבוא מגמת‬ ‫פנו הם קדים‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ֯פ[שר]ו֯ על הכתיאים אשר‬ ‫ידושו את הארץ בסוס[יהם] ובבהמתם וממרחק‬ ‫]כול העמים כנשר‬ ‫לאכול[ את ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫יבואו מאיי הים‬ ‫וב]חרן אף וזעף ╳‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ואין שבעה ובחמה וכ[עס‬ ‫אפים ידברו עם ֯כו֯ ל[ העמים כי]א הוא אשר‬ ‫מג[מת פניהם? קדים ויאסוף כח]ו֯ ל שבי ╳‬ ‫אמר ֯‬ ‫[פש]רו֯ [ על הכתיאים אשר ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬

‫‪ 3:17‬‬

‫ויאסוף כחול שבי והוא במלכים]‬

‫‪4 :1‬‬ ‫‪4 :2‬‬ ‫‪ 4:3‬‬

‫יקלס ורזנים משחק לו‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו אשר‬ ‫ילעיגו על רבים ובזו על נכבדים במלכים‬ ‫ושרים יתעתעו וקלסו בעם רב ←‬

‫‪4 :3‬‬ ‫‪4 :4‬‬ ‫‪ 4:5‬‬ ‫‪4 :6‬‬ ‫‪4 :7‬‬ ‫‪4 :8‬‬ ‫‪ 4:9‬‬

‫והוא‬ ‫לכול מבצר ישחק ויצבור עפר ויׄ לכדהו‬ ‫פשרו על מושלי הכתיאים אשר יבזו על‬ ‫ישחוקו עליהם‬ ‫ׅׄ‬ ‫מבצרי העמים ובלעג‬ ‫ובעם רב יקיפום לתפושם ובאמה ופחד‬ ‫ינתנו בידם והרסום בעוון היושבים‬ ‫בהם ←‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫)‪12. (Habakkuk 1:8–9a; see pp. 133–134‬‬

‫‏פשר«ו»‪552‬‬

‫)‪13. (Habakkuk 1:9b–10a; see pp. 81–83 and pp. 133–134‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫)‪14. (Habakkuk 1:10b‬‬

‫‪; this also accounts for the‬פשו ‪ and later corrected to‬פשר ‪552  The word was first written‬‬ ‫‪ (cf.‬פשו ‪ but is now inappropriate with‬פשר ‪preceding vacat, which would be expected before‬‬ ‫‪also Horgan, “Pesharim”, 164 n. 46).‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪188‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪15. (Habakkuk 1:11, see pp. 49–50 and 136–137‬‬

‫אז חלף רוח ויעבר וישם זה כוחו‬ ‫‪ 4:9‬‬ ‫פשרו֯ [ ע]ל מו֯ שלי הכתיאים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫לאלוהו‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫‪ 4:10‬‬ ‫אשר בעצת בית אשמ[תם] יעבורו איש ╳‬ ‫‪ 4:11‬‬ ‫— מלפני רעיהו מושלי[הם ז]ה אחר זה יבואו‬ ‫‪  4:12‬‬ ‫לשחית את הא[רץ וישם ]ז֯ ה כוחו לאלוהו‬ ‫‪ 4:13‬‬ ‫פשרו [אשר ישימו כו]ל העמים ╳‬ ‫‪ 4:14‬‬ ‫ׄל[‪]...‬ל‬ ‫‪4 :15‬‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬ ‫‪4 :16‬‬

‫הלוא אתה מקדם]‬ ‫‪ 4:16‬‬ ‫‪ 𐤄𐤅𐤄𐤉[ 4:17‬אלוהי קדשי לוא נמות 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄]‬

‫)‪16. (Habakkuk 1:12–13a‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪5 :1‬‬ ‫‪ 5:2‬‬ ‫‪ 5:3‬‬ ‫‪ 5:4‬‬ ‫‪5 :5‬‬ ‫‪ 5:6‬‬ ‫‪ 5:7‬‬ ‫‪ 5:8‬‬

‫למשפט שמתו וצור למוכיחו יסדתו טהור עינים‬ ‫מראות ברע והבט אל עמל לוא תוכל‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫פשר הדבר אשר לוא יכלה אל את עםו ביד הגוים‬ ‫וביד בחירו יתן אל את משפט כול הגוים ובתוכחתם‬ ‫יאשמו כל רשעי עמו אשר שמרו את מצוותו‬ ‫בצר למו כיא הוא אשר אמר טהור עינים מראות‬ ‫ברע‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו אשר לוא זנו אחר עיניהם בקץ‬ ‫הרשעה ←‬

‫‪ 5:8‬‬ ‫‪5 :9‬‬ ‫‪ 5:10‬‬ ‫‪5 :11‬‬ ‫‪ 5:12‬‬

‫למה תביטו בוגדים ותחריש בבלע‬ ‫רשע צדיק ממנו‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על בית אבשלום‬ ‫ואנשי עצתם אשר נדמו בתוכחת מורה הצדק‬ ‫ולוא עזרוהו על איש הכזב‏ ‪vacat‬‏ אשר מאס את‬ ‫עצ ֯תם ←‬ ‫התורה בתוך כול ֯‬

‫‪5 :12‬‬ ‫‪ 5:13‬‬ ‫‪ 5:14‬‬ ‫‪ 5:15‬‬ ‫‪ 5:16‬‬ ‫‪ 5:17‬‬

‫ותעש אדם כדגי הים‬ ‫בח]כה יעלה ויגרהו בחרמו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫כול[ה?‬ ‫כרמש למשל בו ֯‬ ‫יזב]ח לחרמו על כן ישמח‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ויספהו ֯ב ֯מ ֯כ[מרתו על כן‬ ‫]ש ׄמןׄ חלקו‬ ‫[ויגי]ל[ ויקטר למכמרתו כי(א) בהם ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[ומאכלו ברי‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשר‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬

‫‪ 6:1‬‬ ‫‪6 :2‬‬ ‫‪ 6:3‬‬ ‫‪6 :4553‬‬

‫הכתיאים ויוסיפו את הונם עם כול שללם‬ ‫כדגת הים ואשר אמר על כן יזבח לחרמו‬ ‫ויקטר למכמרתו‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו אשר המה‬ ‫זבחים לאותותם וכלי מלחמותם המה ╳‬

‫)‪17. (Habakkuk 1:13b, see p. 147‬‬

‫)‪18. (Habakkuk 1:14–16, see pp. 128–129‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪553  Perhaps there is an intentional dash in the margin before this line (see Brooke, “Physi‬‬‫‪cality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”, 187).‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪ 6:5‬‬ ‫‪ 6:6‬‬ ‫‪6 :7‬‬ ‫‪ 6:8‬‬

‫מוראם כיא בהם שמן חלקו ומאכלו ברי‬ ‫פשרו אשר המה מחלקים את עולם ואת‬ ‫מסם מאכלם על כול העמים שנה בשנה‬ ‫לחריב ארצות רבות ←‬

‫‪6 :8‬‬ ‫‪ 6:9‬‬ ‫‪6 :10‬‬ ‫‪6 :11‬‬ ‫‪ 6:12‬‬

‫על כן יריק חרבו תמיד‬ ‫להרוג גוים ולוא יחמל ‏‪ vacat‬‏‬ ‫פשרו על הכתיאים אשר יאבדו רבים בחרב‬ ‫נערים אשישים וזקנים נשים וטף ועל פרי‬ ‫בטן לוא ירחמו ←‬

‫)‪19. (Habakkuk 1:17, Isaiah 13:18‬‬

‫)‪20. (Habakkuk 2:1–2, see pp. 143–144‬‬

‫על משמרתי אעמודה ╳‬ ‫‪ 6:12‬‬ ‫ואתיצבה על מצורי ואצפה לראות מה ידבר‬ ‫‪ 6:13‬‬ ‫ומה[ אשיב ע]ל תוכחתי ויענני 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄‬ ‫בי ֯‬ ‫‪ 6:14‬‬ ‫וב]אר על הלוחות למען ירוׄ ֯ץ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ 6:15‬ויומר כתוב חזון‬ ‫הדב]ר ֯א[שר]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ 6:16‬קורא‪ 554‬בו (‪ )vacat‬פשר‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ 6:17‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪ 7:1‬‬ ‫‪ 7:2‬‬ ‫‪ 7:3‬‬ ‫‪ 7:4‬‬ ‫‪ 7:5‬‬

‫וידבר אל אל חבקוק לכתוב את הבאות על‬ ‫ֿע ֿל הדור האחרון ואת גמר הקץ · לוא · הודעו‬ ‫‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ואשר אמר למען ירוץ הקורא בו‬ ‫פשרו על מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את‬ ‫כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים ←‬

‫‪7 :5‬‬ ‫‪ 7:6‬‬ ‫‪7 :7‬‬ ‫‪7 :8‬‬

‫כיא עוד חזון‬

‫פשרו אשר יאריך הקץ האחרון ויתר על כול‬ ‫אשר דברו הנביאים כיא רזי אל להפלא«ה»‬

‫‪ 7:9‬‬ ‫‪7 :10‬‬ ‫‪ 7:11‬‬ ‫‪7 :12‬‬ ‫‪7 :13‬‬ ‫‪ 7:14‬‬

‫אם יתמהמה חכה לו כיא בוא יבוא ולוא‬ ‫יאחר‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על אנשי האמת‬ ‫עושי התורה אשר לוא ירפו ידיהם מעבודת‬ ‫האמת בהמשך עליהם הקץ האחרון כיא‬ ‫כול קיצי אל יבואו לתכונם כאשר חקק‬ ‫להם ברזי ערמתו ←‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪21. (Habakkuk 2:3a‬‬

‫למועד יפיח לקץ ולוא יכזב‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬

‫הנה עופלה לוא יושרה‬ ‫‪ 7:14‬‬ ‫‪[ 7:15‬נפשו בו]‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו אשר יכפלו עליהם‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ו]ל[וא ]יׄ רצו במשפטם‬ ‫[‪ׄ ...‬‬ ‫‪ 7:16‬‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬ ‫‪7 :17‬‬

‫)‪22. (Habakkuk 2:3b‬‬

‫)‪23. (Habakkuk 2:4a‬‬

‫‪, following the internal citation (7:3).‬הקורא ‪554 Or‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪190‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪24. (Habakkuk 2:4b‬‬

‫‪ 7:17‬‬

‫וצדיק באמונתו יחיה]‬

‫‪ 8:1‬‬ ‫‪8 :2‬‬ ‫‪ 8:3‬‬

‫פשרו על כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה אשר‬ ‫יצילם אל מבית המשפט בעבור עמלם ואמנתם‬ ‫במורה הצדק ←‬

‫‪8 :3‬‬ ‫‪ 8:4‬‬ ‫‪ 8:5‬‬ ‫‪ 8:6‬‬ ‫‪ 8:7‬‬ ‫‪ 8:8‬‬ ‫‪ 8:9‬‬ ‫‪ 8:10‬‬ ‫‪8 :11‬‬ ‫‪8 :12‬‬ ‫‪8 :13‬‬

‫ואף כיא הון יבגוד גבר יהיר ולוא‬ ‫והוא כמות לוא ישבע‬ ‫ינוה אשר הרחיב כשאול נפשו ׄ‬ ‫ויאספו אלו כול הגוים ויקבצו אלו כול העמים‬ ‫הלוא כולם משל עליו ישאו ומליצי חידות לו‬ ‫ויומרו הוי המרבה ולוא לו עד מתי יכביד עלו‬ ‫עבטט‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על הכוהן הרשע אשר‬ ‫נקרא על שם האמת בתחלת עומדו וכאשר משל‬ ‫בישראל רם לבו ויעזוב את אל וי֯ בגוד בחוקים בעבור‬ ‫הון ויגזול ויקבוץ הון אנשי ׄחמס אשר מרדו באל‬ ‫והון עמים לקח לוסיף עליו עון אשמה ודרכי‬ ‫ת[ו]עבות פעל בכול נדת טמאה ←‬ ‫֯‬

‫‪ 8:13‬‬ ‫‪ 8:14‬‬ ‫‪8 :15‬‬ ‫‪ 8:16‬‬ ‫‪8 :17‬‬

‫פתאאום ויקוםו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הלוא‬ ‫[וש]כיך ויקיצו מזעזיעיכה והיתה למשי֯ סות למו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ַ ֿונׄ‬ ‫‪555‬‬ ‫רבים וישלוכה כול יתר עמים‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫כי אתה שלותה גוים‬ ‫]על הכוהן אשר מרד‬ ‫‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ֯פ[שר הדבר ֯‬ ‫‪]...‬ל ׄלוׄ ֯בוׄ ׄל[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...[°]...‬ר חוקיׄ [אל‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫╳‬

‫)‪25. (Habakkuk 2:5–6‬‬

‫)‪26. (Habakkuk 2:7–8a; see p. 146‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫╳‬

‫‪ 9:1‬‬ ‫‪ 9:2‬‬ ‫‪9 :3‬‬ ‫‪ 9:4‬‬ ‫‪9 :5‬‬ ‫‪ 9:6‬‬ ‫‪9 :7‬‬

‫נגועו במשפטי רשעה ושערוריות מחלים‬ ‫רעים עשו בו ונקמות בגוית בשרו ואשר‬ ‫אמר כי‪ 556‬אתה שלותה גוים רבים וישלוכה כול‬ ‫ם ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על כוהני ירושלם‬ ‫יתר עמי ‏‬ ‫האחרונים אשר יקבוצו הון ובצע משלל העמים‬ ‫ולאחרית הימים ינתן הונם עם שללם ביד‬ ‫חיל הכתיאים‏ ‪vacat‬‏ כיא המה יתר העמים‬

‫‪9 :8‬‬ ‫‪9 :9‬‬

‫ארץ קריה וכוׄ ׄל יושבי בה‬ ‫מדמי אדם וחמס ֯‬ ‫פשרו על הכוהן ׄה[ר]שע אשר בעוון מורה‬

‫)‪27. (Habakkuk 2:8b‬‬

‫‪ in the lemmas of 1QpHab is inconsistent, the predominant‬כי ‪555  The orthography of‬‬ ‫‪. The spelling without the digraph is found only here and its recitation in 9:3, but it is‬כיא ‪form is‬‬ ‫‪ appears to be marked for expunction. The reason‬א ‪also suggested by the form in 2:10 where the‬‬ ‫‪ have affected the form,‬אתה ‪for this inconsistency is unclear to me. Could the following aleph in‬‬ ‫?כיא ‪ to‬כי ‪so that this or a previous copyist failed to update the orthography from‬‬ ‫‪ in the lemma.‬כי ‪556  See the note to this‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪191‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪9 :10‬‬ ‫‪ 9:11‬‬ ‫‪9 :12‬‬

‫ביד[‪]...‬אויביו לענותו‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫הצדק ואנשי עצתו נתנו אל‬ ‫בנגע לבלה במרורי נפש בעבור ֯אשר הרשיע‬ ‫על בחירו‪← 557‬‬

‫‪9 :12‬‬ ‫‪ 9:13‬‬ ‫‪ 9:14‬‬ ‫‪9 :15‬‬ ‫‪ 9:16‬‬ ‫‪ 9:17‬‬

‫הבו֯ צע בצע רע ׄל ֯ביתו לשום‬ ‫הוי ֯‬ ‫במרום קנו לנצל ׄמ ׄכף רע יעצתה בשת‬ ‫וחוטא[ נפ]שכה כיא‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫לביתכה קצוות‬ ‫ו]כפיס מעץ ׄיע[ננה]‬ ‫תזעק[ ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫אב[ן] ֯מקיר‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪]...[°‬ץ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הכ[והן] אשר‬ ‫הדב]ר על ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[פשר‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬

‫‪1 0:1‬‬ ‫‪ 10:2‬‬ ‫‪1 0:3‬‬ ‫‪ 10:4‬‬ ‫‪1 0:5‬‬

‫להיות אבניה בעשק וכפיס עיצה בגזל ואשר‬ ‫אמר קצות עמים רבים וחוטי נפשכה‏ ‪ acat‬‏‪v‬‬ ‫פשרו הוא בית המשפט אשר יתן אל את ╳‬ ‫משפטו בתוך עמים רבים ומשם יעלנו למשפט‬ ‫ובתוכם ירשיענו ובאש גופרית ישפטנו ←‬

‫‪ 10:5‬‬ ‫‪ 10:6‬‬ ‫‪ 10:7‬‬ ‫‪ 10:8‬‬ ‫‪ 10:9‬‬ ‫‪1 0:10‬‬ ‫‪1 0:11‬‬ ‫‪1 0:12‬‬ ‫‪1 0:13‬‬

‫הוי‬ ‫בונה עיר בדמים ויכונן קריה בעולה הלוא‬ ‫הנה מעם 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 צבאות יגעו עמים בדי אש‬ ‫ולאומים בדי ריק ייעפו‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫פשר הדבר על מטיף הכזב אשר התעה רבים‬ ‫לבנות עיר שוו בדמים ולקים עדה בשקר‬ ‫בעבור כבודה לוגיע רבים בעבודת שוו ולהרותם‬ ‫במ[ע]שי שקר להיות עמלם לריק בעבור יבואו‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫למשפטי אש אשר גדפו ויחרפו את בחירי אל‬

‫‪ 10:14‬‬ ‫‪1 0:15‬‬ ‫‪1 0:16‬‬ ‫‪ 10:17‬‬

‫הארץ לדעת את כבוד 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 כמים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫כיא תמלא‬ ‫הים[‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשר הדבר [אשר]‬ ‫יכסו על ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪]...[°‬ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ׄבשו֯ בם‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬

‫‪ 11:1‬‬ ‫‪1 1:2‬‬

‫ואחר תגלה להם הדעת כמי‬ ‫הכזב ֯‬ ‫היים לרב ←‬

‫‪1 1:2‬‬ ‫‪ 11:3‬‬ ‫‪ 11:4‬‬ ‫‪ 11:5‬‬ ‫‪1 1:6‬‬

‫)‪28. (Habakkuk 2:9–11; see pp. 135–136‬‬ ‫╳‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫)‪29. (Habakkuk 2:12–13‬‬

‫)‪30. (Habakkuk 2:14‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫הוי משקה רעיהו מספח‬ ‫חמתו אף שכר למען הבט אל מועדיהם‬ ‫‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על הכוהן הרשע אשר‬ ‫רדף אחר מורה הצדק לבלעו בכעס‬ ‫חמתו אבית גלותו ובקץ מועד מנוחת‬

‫)‪31. (Habakkuk 2:15‬‬

‫‪557  Perhaps there is a very slim vacat here.‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪192‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪1 1:7‬‬ ‫‪ 11:8‬‬

‫יום הכפורים הופיע אליהם לבלעם‬ ‫ולכשילם ביום צום שבת מנוחתם ←‬

‫‪ 11:8‬‬ ‫‪1 1:9‬‬ ‫‪ 11:10‬‬ ‫‪ 11:11‬‬ ‫‪ 11:12‬‬ ‫‪ 11:13‬‬ ‫‪ 11:14‬‬ ‫‪ 11:15‬‬ ‫‪ 11:16‬‬

‫שבעתה‬ ‫קלון מ{כ}בוד שתה גם אתה והרעל‬ ‫תסוב עליכה כוס ימין 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 וקיקלון‬ ‫על כבודכה‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו‬ ‫כיא לוא מל את עור לת לבו וילך בדרכי‬ ‫הרויה למען ספות הצמאה וכוס חמת‬ ‫ק]ל[ו]נ֯ ו ומכאוב‬ ‫ע]ל[יו את ׄ‬ ‫לוסיף[ ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[א]ל תבלענו‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪32. (Habakkuk 2:16; see pp. 113–114‬‬

‫)‪33. (Habakkuk 2:17, see pp. 130–131 and 144–146‬‬

‫‪[ 11:17‬כי(א) חמס לבנון יכסכה ושוד בהמות]‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪1 2:1‬‬ ‫‪1 2:2‬‬ ‫‪1 2:3‬‬ ‫‪1 2:4‬‬ ‫‪1 2:5‬‬ ‫‪ 12:6‬‬ ‫‪ 12:7‬‬ ‫‪ 12:8‬‬ ‫‪ 12:9‬‬ ‫‪1 2:10‬‬

‫יחתה מדמי אדם וחמס ארץ קריה וכול יושבי בה‬ ‫פשר הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את ╳‬ ‫גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים כיא הלבנון הוא‬ ‫עצת היחד והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה עושי«ה»‬ ‫התורה אשר ישופטנו אל לכלה‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫כאשר זמם לכלות אביונים ואשר אמר מדמי‬ ‫קריה וחמס ארץ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלם‬ ‫אשר פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות ויטמא את‬ ‫מקדש אל וחמס ארץ המה ערי יהודה אשר‬ ‫גזל הון אביונים ←‬

‫‪1 2:10‬‬ ‫‪ 12:11‬‬ ‫‪ 12:12‬‬ ‫‪1 2:13‬‬ ‫‪ 12:14‬‬

‫מה הועיל פסל כיא פסל יצרו‬ ‫מסיׄ כה ומרי שקר כיא בטח יצר יצריו עליהו‬ ‫לעשות אלילים אלמים פשר הדבר על כול‬ ‫פסלי הגוים אשר יצרום לעובדם ולשתחות‬ ‫להםה והמה לוא יצילום ביום המשפט ←‬

‫הוי‬ ‫‪ 12:14‬‬ ‫[א]בן דומה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫]ל‬ ‫]ל ֯עצ הקיצה ֯ע[ורי ׄ‬ ‫ה[אומר ׄ‬ ‫‪ 12:15‬‬ ‫‪[ 12:16‬הוא יורה הנה הוא תפוש זהב וכסף]‬ ‫‪[ 12:17‬וכול רוח אין בקרבו ו𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 בהיכל קודשו]‬ ‫‪ 13:1‬‬ ‫‪ 13:2‬‬ ‫‪ 13:3‬‬ ‫‪ 13:4‬‬

‫)‪34. (Habakkuk 2:18‬‬

‫)‪35. (Habakkuk 2:19–20‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫הס מלפניו כול הרץ פשרו על כול הגוים‬ ‫אשר עבדו את האבן ואת העץ וביומ‬ ‫המשפט יכלה אל את כול עובדי העצבים‬ ‫ואת הרשעים מן הארץ‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

193

Appendices

1Q Pesher Micah (1Q14) 1. (Micah 1:2b–5a) 558

֯ ‫ה ׄו[ה יהי]ה בכם‬ f1–5:1 ׄ 𐤉]...[ ‫הנ]ה 𐤅𐤄[𐤉𐤄 יצא מ]מקומו‬ ֯ ‫ [לעד 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 מהיכל קדשו כי‬f1–5:2 ]‫ית]ב ׄק ׄע[ו‬ ֯ ‫ההרי]ם תח[תיו והעמקים‬ ֯ ‫הא ֯ר[ץ ונמסו‬ ׄ ‫ [וירד על במ]ו֯ תי‬f1–5:3 ‫יעק]ב כול‬ ׄ ‫הא]ש ֯כ[מים מגרים במורד בפשע‬ ֯ ‫מפנ֯ [י‬ ֯ ‫ [כדו]נ֯ ג‬f1–5:4 ]... ‫חט[אות בית ישראל‬ ׄ ‫[זא]ת וׄ ׄב‬ ֯ f1–5:5

‑Gap‑

] ...[°°]...[°]...[ ]...[‫כבודו משעיר‬ ׄ °°]...[ ]...[°‫כי]א יצא 𐤀𐤋 ֯מ‬ ׄ ...[ ]...[°°]...[

f 12:1559 f12:2 f12:3 f12:4

]...[°]...[ ]... ‫ב]אחרית [הימים‬ ׄ ...[ ]...[ ֯‫ה כבודו‬°°]...[ ]...[‫אש]ר עברו‬ ֯ ...[

f 6:1 f 6:2 f 6:3 f 6:4

]...[ ‫]ם‬...[ ׄ ]...[° ‫]הלוא‬...[ ]... ‫]הפתא[ים‬...[ ׄ ]...[‫א]ש ׄר בו‬ ׄ ...[ ]...[° ׄ‫ו‬°]...[ ← ]...[

‑Gap‑

‑Gap‑ f7:1 f 7:2 f7:3 f 7:4 f7:5

‑Gap‑

f 8–10:1

558  Qimron arranges f1–5 together with f8–10. He moves f5 from the left margin to the right hand margin and down one line, and moves f9 instead into the left hand margin of f1–5:4–5. As a result of moving f5 to the right hand margin, f1 must now be shifted to the left so that ‫ בפשע‬of f9 sits on the left margin (thus the space he adds at the beginning of f1–5:4). But if that is done, then he may no longer read the ‫ ֯ש ֯כ‬of f2 (f1–5:4) where he places it, since either the bottom of f2 and the top of f1 would now overlap, or f1 would need to be situated to the left of f2. The whole arrangement of f1–5 is indeed problematic and my careful visual reconstruction of these fragments in Photoshop have not provided any further solutions. 559  This whole fragment (f12) seems to fit thematically with unit 1, which describes the theophany and also uses the word ‫( כבודו‬f6:3) in its interpretation, but it is unclear just how it should be placed in relation to the other fragments. R. David and É. Bellavance have expressed reservations about whether this fragment even belongs with this manuscript (David and Bellavance, “Suggestions et questions”, 391–392). It is not so clear, however, that this fragment must be a different hand from the rest of the manuscript. Differing patterns of wear might account for the change in line thickness between fragments; the ductus of the letters in the various fragments appears to be otherwise the same.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪194‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫בפשע‬ ‫‪ f8–10:1‬‬ ‫יע]ק ֯ב ֯הלא‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ f8–10:2‬יעקב כול זאת ובחטאות בית ישראל מי‪ 560‬פשע‬ ‫יר]וש[לם ושמתי שומרון]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪[ f8–10:3‬שומרון ומי במות יהודה הלא‬ ‫כזב‬ ‫מטיף ֯ה ׄ‬ ‫‪[ f8–10:4‬לעי השדה למטעי כרם (‪])vacat‬פשרו על ֯‬ ‫ה]פ ׄתאים ‏‪ vacat‬‏ומה במוׄ ת יהודה‬ ‫[אשר הואה יתעה את ֯‬ ‫‪ f8–10:5‬‬ ‫הצדק אשר הואה‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ע]ל מו֯ ֯רי‬ ‫‪[ f8–10:6‬הלא ירושלם פשרו ֯‬ ‫בחיריׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫המתנדבים לוסף על‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[יורה התורה לעצת]ו ולכ[ו]ל‬ ‫‪ f8–10:7‬‬ ‫ינצ ׄל[ו] מיום‬ ‫אשר ֯‬ ‫[אל עושי התורה] בעצת ׄהיחד ׄ‬ ‫‪f 8–10:8‬‬ ‫[‪]...[°°]...‬ה‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪]...‬לע‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[המשפט‬ ‫‪ f8–10:9‬‬ ‫‪←...[ f8–10:10‬‬

‫)‪2ʹ. (Micah 1:5–6a‬‬

‫)‪3ʹ. (Micah 1:6–7a‬‬

‫ל]עיׄ [ה]שדה‬ ‫‪ f8–10:10‬ושמתי שומרון ֯‬ ‫[פסי]ל[יה]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫וכו]ל‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪[ f8–10:11‬למטעי כרם והגרתי לגי אבניה ויסדיה אגלה‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪ f11:1‬‬ ‫‪f 11:2‬‬

‫)?‪4ʹ. (Micah 1:8‬‬

‫[ל]ם‪ׄ 561‬אשר יתע[ו ‪]...‬‬ ‫ירו]ש ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ...‬כוהני‬ ‫[‪]...‬אויביו שלל וע[רום ‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪5ʹ. (Micah 1: 9‬‬

‫עד[ ירושלם (‪])vacat‬‬ ‫ע]ד שער עמי ֯‬ ‫‪[ f11:3‬כי באה עד יהודה נגע ֯‬ ‫י]דין ׄאו֯ ׄיבי֯ [ו ‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪ׄ ...‬‬ ‫‪f 11:4‬‬ ‫[‪ ...‬ל]בגוד ׄלוׄ ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫‪f 11:5‬‬ ‫[‪]...[°°°]...‬‬ ‫‪f 11:6‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪ f13:1‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 14:1‬‬ ‫‪ f14:2‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪ f15:1‬‬ ‫‪ f15:2‬‬

‫ק]רנים[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪ׄ ...‬‬

‫)?( ‪6ʹ.‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 16:1‬‬ ‫‪ f16:2‬‬

‫אדון[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬וׄ ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬יו ‪]...[°‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫[‪]...‬מח ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ...‬א]שר [‪]...‬‬

‫‪ f17–19:1‬‬ ‫‪f 17–19:2‬‬

‫[‪]...[°]...‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ח[‪]...‬‬

‫)?‪7ʹ. (Micah 6:14‬‬

‫שיח[‪]...‬‬ ‫ות ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬ה ׄ‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬

‫‪ here and in the following line according to the internal citation in line f8–10:5.‬מה ‪560 Or‬‬ ‫‪ ] is just as‬מתעי אפ]ר[י]ם‪561  The reading is indeed uncertain and Qimron’s reading of ... ‎‬‬ ‫‪possible.‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

195

Appendices

8ʹ. (Micah 6:15–16)

]‫את[ה תדרך זית‬ ֯ ‫אתה תזרע ולא] ֯תקצור‬ ]‫ וי[שתמר חוקות עמרי‬562‫שת ֯ה[ י]ין‬ ׄ ‫ול]א ֯ת‬ ֯ ‫[ולא תסוך שמן ותירוש‬ ]‫במועצוׄ ׄת ֯ם ׄל[מען תתי אתך לשמה‬ ֯ ‫[וכול מעשה בית אחאב ותל]כו‬ ]... ‫ה[א]ח ׄרוׄ [ן‬ ׄ ‫על הדור‬ ֯ ]‫[ויושביה לשרקה פשרו‬ ]...[°‫]ים ובות‬...[

]...[° ‫]י֯ ם צר?ב‬...[ ]...[°°° ‫]בל‬...[

10ʹ. (Micah 7:17?)

]... ‫ וזוחליׄ [ארץ המה‬°]...[

f22:3 f22:4

‑Gap‑ f 23:1

9ʹ. (?)

f17–19:2 f17–19:3 f17–19:4 f17–19:5 f17–19:6

‑Gap‑

]...[ ‫[הפת]אים‬° °]...[ ]...[ ‫בי]תו‬ ׄ ‫]אנש[י‬...[ ׄ

f20–21:1 f20–21:2

]...[‫שו‬° ‫]טתי‬...[ ]...[‫]והאור‬...[

f 22:1 f 22:2

‑Gap‑

1Q Pesher Zephaniah (1Q15) 1. (Zephaniah 1:18–2:2)563

]‫תאכ[ל כל הארץ כי כלה אך‬ ׄ ׄ‫קנ]אתו‬ ֯ ‫ [ביום עברת 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 ובאש‬f1:1 ° ]‫ה[א]רץ התקוׄ [ששו וקו]ש[ו‬ ֯ ‫יוש]בי‬ ֯ ‫ [נבהלה יעשה את כל‬f1:2 564°° ‫מוץ [ ] עבר [י]ו֯ ם‬ ׄ ‫]כ‬ ֯ ‫ ‏בטרם לדת חק‬vacat‫ [ ‏‬f1:2a ]‫אף ֗י[הוה‬ ׄ ‫עליכ]ם חרון‬ ֯ ‫ [הגוי לא נכסף בטרם לא יבוא‬f1:3 ‫א]ף 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 פשר‬ ֯ ‫ [בטרם לא יבוא עליכם יום‬f1:4 ]... ‫אש[ר‬ ֯ ‫‏‬vacat ‫[הדבר על כול יושבי] ׄארץ יהודה‏‬ f1:5 ]...[°°] [‫לב ׄת‬ ֯ ‫[יבוא עליהם ]ו֯ היו‬ f1:6

562  Perhaps the citation up to ‫ה[י]ין‬,֯ or some portion of it, is an internal citation. 563  Horgan’s arrangement of these fragments does not seem physically possible to me. 564  This difficult section of Zephaniah 2:1 has probably suffered from textual corruption. Perhaps the omission of the line in the pesher is related to this infelicity in the transmission of the text. It is not entirely clear how the missing portion of this inter‑linear insertion should be restored.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

196

Appendices

1Q Pesher Psalms (1Q16) ‫ [עדת אבירים בעגלי עמים‬ f9:3 1. (Psalm 57:1?, 4?)565 ‫מתרפס ברצי] ׄכסף פשרו חיית‬ top of column f1 ]... ‫֯ק[נה היא‬ ]... ‫ב]בורחו מלפני [שאול‬ ֯ ...[ f 1:1 ]...[° ׄ‫]כתיאים לי‬...[ ֯ f 9:4 ]... ‫א]מתו בטר[ם‬ ֯ ...[ f 2:1 Uncertain units: ]... ‫]חסד[ו‬...[ f2:2 ]...[‫לת‬°° ׄ ‫ה‬°]...[ f 9:5 ‑Gap‑ ]...[‫]ם ב‬...[ f9:6 2ʹ. (Psalm 68:12?)566 ]...[‫]ל‬...[ f 9:7 ]...[°‫]ת‬...[ ׄ f3–4:1 ‑Gap‑ ]...[‫]שמרו‬ ׄ [°°°°°‫ הכירו ׄב‬°°]...[ f3–4:2 ]...[‫]ם ב‬...[ f11:1 ← °‫ל‬°°]...[ ׄ f3–4:3 ]...[° ‫]ל ׄא ׄת‬...[ ׄ f 11:2 3ʹ. (Psalm 68:13) ‑Gap‑ ‫צבאות ׄידו֯ [דון ידודון ונות בית‬ ׄ ‫ מלכי‬ ׄ f3–4:3 ]...[ ׄ‫]חקי‬...[ f12:1 ])... ‫תחלק שלל] פשרו ביׄ [ת (היא‬ ‑Gap‑ ]...[‫ת]פארת‬ ׄ [‫ה ׄל‬°°]...[ ׄ f3–4:4 ]...[°]...[ f 13:1 ]...[ ׄ‫אש ׄר יחלקו‬ ׄ °]...[ f3–4:5 ]...[° ‫]שמי‬...[ f13:2 ]...[°°°°°°°]...[ f 3–4:6 ]...[ ֯‫ שרו‬°]...[ ]...[‫ ל‬°°°]...[ ]...[ ׄ‫]שרו‬...[ ]...[‫]תשב‬...[ ֯

‑Gap‑ f 14:1 f14:2

‑Gap‑ f15:1

‑Gap‑ f 16:1

4ʹ. (Psalm 68:26–27)

‫ בתוך עלמות תופפו]ת‬...[ f8:1 ]... ‫במקהלות ברכו אלוׄ ׄה[ים‬ ׄ ‫בר]כת המקוׄ [ר] לברך את‬ ׄ ...[ f8:2 ]... ‫ׄש[ם‬

‑Gap‑ 5ʹ. (Psalm 68:30) ]...[°]...[ f 17:1 top of column567

]...[°‫]עד‬...[

]...[‫]רי י‬...[

f17:2

‑Gap‑ f 18:1

‑Gap‑

‑Gap‑

‫ [מהיכלך על ירושלם לך יובילו‬ f9:1 ]... ‫מל[כי‬ ׄ ‫מלכי]ם שי פשרו על כול‬ ׄ ← ‫]לפניו בירושלים‬...[ ׄ f9:2

fragments too small or damaged for 6ʹ. (Psalm 68:31) examination: 5, 6, 7, 10. ]‫גערת [חי(י)ת קנה‬ ׄ

f9:2

565  The assignment of f1 and f2 to this pesher is considered doubtful by Horgan (Horgan, Pesharim, 66), following the remarks of Stegemann (Stegemann, “Der Pešer Psalm 37”, 242, n. 21). It is also not certain that f1 and f2 belong together. The text of f1 is thicker than the text of the other fragments. 566  Horgan avoids joining f3 with f4 because she feels it makes f3:3+f4:2 inordinately long (Horgan, Pesharim, 66), but f3:3+f4:2 would only be slightly longer than f9:1 and 2. 567  In the photo PAM 40.540, there appear to be remains of ink at the very top of this fragment (the very top of the fragment is no longer visible in the DJD 1 photo). If so, then space

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

197

Appendices

3Q Pesher Isaiah* (3Q4) 1. (Isaiah 1:1)

]‫ׄחזון ישעיה בן א[מוץ אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלם בימי עזיה‬ ]... ‫אחז ו֯ י֯ [חזקיה מלכי יהודה‬ ׄ ‫ויוׄ תם‬ ]... ‫[י]שע[יה ]נבא ׄע[ל יהודה וירושלם‬ ]... ‫ׄל[עזיה] מלך יהו[דה‬ ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[ ]... ‫המשפ[ט‬ ׄ ‫[י]וׄ ם‬ ]...[° ֯‫]הו‬...[ ׄ ‫ׄל‬

f 1:1 f1:2 f 1:3 f1:4 f1:5 f 1:6 f 1:7

4Q Pesher Isaiaha (4Q161)568 1. (Isaiah 10:21–23)

]... ‫יע]ק[וב] אל ֯א[ל גבור‬ ֯ ‫ שאר ישוב שאר‬...[ ]...[ ‫ואה‬/‫י]שראל הי‬ ׄ ‫ שאר‬...[ ]...[°‫]לו אנשי חילו ופ‬...[ ]... ‫וא[ה‬/‫וׄ הכוהנים כיא הי‬/ ׄ‫]י‬...[

end of column

f 1:1 f1:2 f 1:3 f 1:4

‑Gap‑

]...[‫י בני‬°]...[ ‫] ֯כי֯ א‬ ...[ f2–4:1 ]‫א]שר אמר אם הי֯ [ה עמכה‬ ֯ ...[ ֯‫]עמו‬ ׄ ...[ f2–4:2 ]... 569‫ [ישראל כחול הים שאר ישוב בו] ׄכ[ליון חר]וׄ ץ ושוטף צד[קה‬f2–4:3 ]... ‫]לה ורבים יוב[דו‬ ֯ ...[°‫]לות בי‬ ...[ f 2–4:4 570]...[° ‫ ]ארץ באמת‬... [‫]לטו למט‬ ׄ ...[ f2–4:5

2. (Isaiah 10:24–27a)

]𐤄𐤅𐤄𐤉 ‫אמ]ר אד[וני‬ ׄ ‫ ‏לכן ֯כ[ה‬vacat‫] ‏‬ ...[ f2–4:6 ]‫בט [יככה ומטהו ישא‬ ׄ ‫ב]ש‬ ֯ ‫ [צבאות אל תירא עמי יש]ב ציון֯ [ מאשור‬f2–4:7

above line 1 is not the top margin, but rather a space of two blank lines between the possible ink marks and f9:1. 568  Horgan reconstructs f2–6 with a large lemma citation of Isaiah 10:22–23 restored before line 1 (Horgan, Pesharim, 73). It seems more likely to me that f1 and the beginning of f2–4 (lines 1–6) constitute a single comment to Isaiah 10:21–22 (and more likely vv. 21–23). Contra Qimron (see my fn. 571) f1 contains the bottom margin of the column preceding the column of f5–6 (f2–4 and f5–6 almost certainly belong together in the same column). The placement of f4 within f2–4 (or 6) is not certain, but Horgan’s placement of it fits the textual remains best since it allows for more room to the right of f2 than the arrangement in the editio princeps or Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 184, both of which are very cramped at the margin. 569  The reading of this and the preceding line as an internal citation agrees with Jassen, “Re‑reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161)”, 61–66. 570  For a plausible reconstruction of lines 4–5, see Jassen, “Re‑reading 4QPesher Isaiah”, 66–72; for a more extensive reconstruction, see Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:263.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

198

Appendices

]‫וכ]ל[ה זעם ואפי על‬ ׄ ‫ [עליך בדרך מצרים כיא] עוד מע[ט מזער‬f2–4:8 ]‫ויע[ורר עליו 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 צבאות שוט כמכת מדין בצור‬ ׄ ‫[תבלית]ם‬ ׄ f2–4:9 ]‫[עו]רב ומט[הו על הים ונשאו בדרך מצרים והיה ביום ההואה‬ ׄ f2–4:10 ]... ‫י֯ סור ׄס ֯ב[לו מעל שכמך ועולו מעל צוארך יחבל‬ f2–4:11

3. (Isaiah 10:27b–32)572

]...[°° °]...[ ]...[°]... ‫]בשובם ממדבר הע[מים‬...[ ֯ ]... ‫]נשיא העדה ואחר יס[ו]ר מעלי[הם‬...[ ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[

571‑Gap‑

f5–6:1 f 5–6:2 f 5–6:3 f5–6:4

]‫]בא אל עיתה עבר [במגרון] למכמ[ש‬ ֯ 573‫ [עלה מפני שמן‬f5–6:5 ]‫[דה הרמה גבעת‬574‫גבע מלון למו חר‬ ֯ ‫ [יפקיד כליו עברו] ֯מעברה‬f5–6:6 ]‫[ש]א ׄול[ נסה צהלי] ֯קולכי בת גלים הקשיב[י לישה עניה ענתות‬ ׄ f5–6:7 ]‫הג ׄבים ֯העיזו עוד [היום בנב לעמד‬ ֯ ‫]מדמנה [י]ושבי‬ ׄ ‫נדד[ה‬ ֯ f5–6:8 575]...[‫ [ינפף ]י֯ דו הר בת ציון גבעת ירושלים‬f5–6:9 ]...[° ‫[פשר ה]פתגם לאחרית הימים לבוא‬ f5–6:10 ]...[° ׄ‫]דה בעלותו מבקעת עכו ללחם ׄבי‬ ׄ [ f 5–6:11 ]...[°‫ואין כמוה · ובכול ערי ה‬ ׄ ‫[צ]רה‬ ׄ f5–6:12 576]...[‫ועד גבול ירושלים‬ f 5–6:13

end of column

571  The length of the gap is uncertain. Horgan’s suggestion of one line fits her reconstruction of 29 line columns for this text (Horgan, Pesharim, 73), but that assessment has no solid founding. 572  Qimron has recently placed f1 with this grouping of fragments to the left of f5, suggesting that the ‫ ׄשראל‬of f1:2 joins directly to the last word of f5–6:11. As N. Sharon argues, this is impossible, for the ink remains of the last character of f5–6:11 shows a 90° bend at its top right that is consonant with either a ‫ ל‬or ‫ק‬, and not with a ‫( ש‬for this and further arguments against the join, see “The Enemy in Pesher Isaiaha”, 10–13). Also note that Qimron has no letter corresponding the ‫ ק‬in f1:1 that Strugnell saw and is still visible in the new IAA images. 573  Isaiah 10:27b is problematic as it currently stands and perhaps suffers from textual corruption. It is entirely possible that it should be emended and placed with 10:28 as has been done here due to layout concerns (it seemed desirable to have some text before ‫ בא‬in f5–6:5). It is unclear what, if anything, should be read instead of ‫שמן‬, the LXX mss. have “your (pl.; sing. in οII) shoulders” = ‫שכמיכם‬. 574  This letter is clearly a ‫ ל‬in PAM M‑41582 (so Horgan, Pesharim, 80), the scrap of velum on which it appears was rotated 180 degrees sometime shortly after that picture was taken (probably by Allegro himself). In truth the letter looks better as a ‫ ר‬than a ‫ ל‬on palaeographic grounds, the edges of the parchment are simply not clear enough in the photos to determine which stance makes a better join. 575  There is probably a vacat here. 576  For an assessment of the various proposals for the reconstruction of this comment and the event it refers to, see Jassen, “Re‑reading 4QPesher Isaiah A”, 73–83.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

199

Appendices

]... ‫ נש]ברי ׄל[ב‬...[ ]...[‫]שפלו‬...[

4ʹ. (Isaiah 10:33–34)578

577 f7:1

f7:2

‑Gap‑

‫[גדועי]ם‬ ֯ ‫הקו]מה‬ ֯ ‫ [צבאות מסעף פארה במערצה ורמי‬f8–10:1 ‫ [והגבהים ישפלו וניקפו ס]וׄ בכי [היער] ׄבברזל ׄולבנון באדיר‬f8–10:2 ‫ יׄ שראל וענוי‬° ׄ‫[ ] ׄבי‬°°° ]‫אש[ר‬ ׄ ‫הכ]תיאים‬ ׄ ‫ על‬580‫ פשרו‬579‫ [יפול‬f8–10:3 ]‫]כול הגואים וגבורים יחתו ונמס ׄל[בם‬...[ ׄ f8–10:4 ]‫ רמי] הקומה גדועים המה גבורי כת[יאים‬...[ f 8–10:5 ]‫אמ]ר וניקפו סובכי [ה]י֯ ער בברזל ה[מה‬ ׄ ‫ ואשר‬...[ f 8–10:6 ]‫‏ ולבנון בא[דיר‬vacat ‫ם למלחמת כתיאי֯ םׄ‏‬°]...[ f8–10:7 ]...[ ‫ינת[נו] ביד גדולי‬ ׄ ‫ [יפול פשרו על ה]כתיאים אשר‬f8–10:8

577  The placement of this fragment remains uncertain. Qimron has followed Allegro’s tentative placement of the fragment in DJD V pl. V (Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2.264). I remain uncertain of the fragment’s proper placement. 578  The arrangement of the pieces that make up f8 is questionable. R. David and É Bellavance have argued that Allegro’s and Strugnell’s arrangements of the pieces of f8 cannot be correct, nor can Carmignac’s proposal that the two pieces belong in a different arrangement (David and Bellavance, “Suggestions et Questions”, 383–390). Nevertheless, rather than following the observations of David and Bellavance to their logical end and understanding the pieces of f8 as fragments from two different manuscripts (David and Bellavance, “Suggestions et Questions”, 383–390), I would suggest that their methodology, while well though out, is not quite correct. Their method fails to take into account uneven shrinkage. That is, the fragment they denote as f8A has shrunk more in the bottom (lines 6 and 7) than it has in the middle or the top. Thus one should instead rely on comparative calculations of average height on a line by line basis and not the average height of a given character for the entire fragment. In lieu of such calculations, I would point out that the shrinkage of f8A lines 6 and 7 can even be seen in several places in David and Bellavance’s tabular presentation of letter height: ‫ ח‬in f8B line 3 is 1.5mm larger than ‫ ח‬in f8A line 6; ‫ נ‬in f8B line 3 is 2mm larger than ‫ נ‬in f8A lines 6 and 7; ‫ כת‬is 12.1mm in f8B line 4 and is 1.1mm smaller in f8A line 7; the ‫’מ‬s in f8B lines 3 and 4 are a little more than 1mm larger on average than those in F8A line 6 (the final ‫’ם‬s in f8A lines 6 and 7 are also significantly smaller than the one in f8B line 3); ‫ ת‬is 10.2mm in f8B line 3, it is 1.2mm smaller in f8A line 6 and another .8mm smaller in f8A line 7. The data I have just presented may not be entirely substantiated by every entry in David and Bellavance’s table, for instance, the pattern is not recognizable in the ‫ א‬column, though I find it difficult on visual inspection to believe that the second ‫ א‬in f8A line 7 is really 10mm (the first ‫ א‬in f8A line 7 does fit the pattern). Nevertheless, I believe the possibility of joining f8A and f8B remains sufficiently justifiable. In addition, David and Bellavance’s second argument for the separation of f8B and f8A on the grounds that hanging lines are present in f8B and not in f8A was a valid point given the photos available at the time (namely, PAM 42.620), but the new photos of f8A (B‑478046) taken in 2013 now reveal the presence of faint hanging lines on that fragment as well. 579  I see no reason why this has to be an internal citation (so Horgan, Pesharim, 92), the length of the quotation suggests to me that this is the lemma, as do the following internal citations in lines 5, 6, 7, and 8. 580  For a fuller reconstruction of the comment, see Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2.264.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

200

Appendices

‫יש]ר ֯אל‬ ֯ ...[

f 8–10:9

]...[°‫]מ‬...[ ֯ ‫מלפ[ני‬ ֯ ‫י֯ ׄם בברחו‬°]...[ ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[ ‫‏‬582vacat‫]‏‬...[

f8–10:10 f 8–10:11

581]...[°

5ʹ. (Isaiah 11:1–5)

‑Gap‑

]‫ [ויצא חטר מגז]ע י֯ שי ונצר משוׄ [רשיו יפרה ונח]ה עלו ֯ר[וח‬f8–10:12 ‫דעת‬ ֯ ‫ [𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 רוח] ׄחוכמה ובינה רוח עצ[ה וגבורה] רוח‬f8–10:13 ]‫ [ויראת 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 והריחו ביראת]𐤉𐤄𐤅̇𐤄 [ולוא] למראה ֯ע[יניו‬f8–10:14 ]‫ושפ ֯ט [בצדק דלים והוכיח‬ ׄ ‫יוכי]ח‬ ׄ ‫ [ישפוט ולוא למשמע אוזניו‬f8–10:15 ]‫ [במישור לענוי ארץ והכה ארץ בשבט פיו וברוח שפתיו‬f8–10:16 583]‫מ]תניו ו֯ ֯א[מונה אזור חלציו‬ ׄ ‫ [ימית רשע והיה צדק אזור‬f8–10:17 vacat584 f8–10:18 ]... ‫באח[רית הימים‬ ֯ ‫ צמח] דויד העומד‬585...[ f8–10:19 ]...[‫ורה‬°]...[‫ ׄב‬586‫ או]יבו ואל יסומכנו‬...[ f 8–10:20 ]‫ריק ֯מו֯ [ת‬ ׄ ‫ כ]סא כבוד נזר ק[ודש] ובגדי‬...[ f 8–10:21 ‫הג[ואי]ם ימשול ומגוג‬ ֯ ‫]ןׄ בידו ובכול‬...[ f8–10:22 ‫כו]ל העמים תשפוט חרבו ואשר אמר לוא‬ ֯ ...[ f 8–10:23 ‫ [למראה ֯עיניו ישפוט ]ולוא למשמע אוזניו יוכיח פשרו אשר‬f8–10:24 ‫]וכאשר יורוהו כן ישפוט ועל פיהם‬...[ f 8–10:25 ֯‫]עמו יצא אחד מכוהני השם ובידו בגדי‬...[ f 8–10:26

end of column

581  Strugnell’s join of ‫ מלפ[ני יש]ראל‬is materially impossible. At the same time Allegro’s original reading ° ‫מלפנ֯ י֯ ל‬ ֯ does not allow for a space between the ‫ י‬and the ‫ל‬, thus rendering the reading impossible. Following Strugnell, ‫יש]ר ֯אל‬ ֯ seems the most likely reading for the last line of the top left piece of f8. Thus the lower right hand piece of f8 does not join to the other two pieces of f8 in any clear way, and I read a gap, perhaps of just one line, between that piece and the other two pieces of f8. This lower right hand piece of f8 still belongs to the right of f9, which completes its lines and sits nearly on the left margin. 582  At the beginning of this vacat are several dots of ink forming what looks like a pattern , however, a number of other ink dots on f8 and also f10 are probably drips from the pen. 583  There is probably a vacat at the end of the line here. 584  Assuming that the placement of the piece attached to the top of f10 is correct, then there is a line between lines 17 and 19, and it contains either a very large vacat or is a full blank line. 585  For a fuller reconstruction of the comment, see Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2.264. 586  This spelling of the imperfect verb is a feature of a certain dialect of Hebrew see Abegg, “Review of Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture”. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

201

Appendices

4Q Pesher Isaiahb (4Q162) ‫]עת ואשר ׅׄו ׅׄא ׅׄש ׅׄר‬... ‫ [ושית‬1:4 ‫נת דרך‬°]... ‫[אמר‬ 1 :5 ‫]עיניהם‬...[ ׄ 1 :6

‑Gap‑

2ʹ. (Isaiah 5:8?–10)

1. (Isaiah 5:5–7?)

top of column

‫ אשר‬587‫ פר]ץ גדרו ויהי למרמס‬...[ ‫ פשר הדבר אשר עזבם‬°]...[ ‫]ד ואשר אמר ועלה שמיר‬...[ ׄ

top of column

1 :1 1 :2 1 :3

‫פשר הדבר לאחרית הימים לחובת הארץ מפני החרב והרעב והיה‬ ← ‫בעת פקדת הארץ‬

2:1 2:2

‫הוי משכימי בבקר שכר ירדפו מאחרי בנשף יין‬ ‫ידלקם והיה כנור ונבל ותוף וחליל יין משתיהם ואת פעל יהוה‬ ‫לא הביטו ומעשי ידו לא ראו לכן גלה עמי מבלי דעת וכבדו מתי רעב‬ ‫והמנו צחי צמא לכן הרחיבה שאול נפשה ופערה פיה לבלי חוק‬ ‫ אלה הם אנשי הלצון‬v‫ ‏‬acat 588 ‫וירד הדרה והמנה ושאנה עליז בא ‏‬ ← ‫אשר בירושלים הם אשר‬

2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7

3ʹ. (Isaiah 5:11–14)

4ʹ. (Isaiah 5:24β–25)

‫מאסו את תורת יהוה ואת אמרת קדוש‬ 2:7 ‫ישראל נאצו על כן חרה אף יהוה בעמו ויט ידו עליו ויכהו וירגזו‬ 2:8 ‫֯ה ֯ה ֯ריׄ ׄם ותהי נבלתם כסחה בקרב החוצות בכל זאת לא שב‬ 2:9 ‫ [אפו ועוד ידו נטויה] היא עדת אנשי הלצון אשר בירושלים‬2:10 ]...[‫]ל‬...[‫]ל‬...[ ֯ 2:11

‑Gap‑

]...[‫האלה‬ ]... ‫הבאי֯ [ם‬ ]...[° ‫אמר‬

3:5 3:6 3:7

]... ‫ראו ׄר[או ואל תדעו‬ ]...[‫תביט‬ ֯

3:8 3:9

6ʹ. (Isaiah 6:9?)

5ʹ. (Isaiah 5:29–30) top of column



‫מצ[יל וינהם עליו ביום ההוא‬ ֯ ‫ואין‬ 3:1 ])vacat( ‫ כנהמ[ת ים ונבט לארץ והנה חשך צר‬3:2 589]‫ואור חשך‬ ]... ‫בער[יפיה‬ ֯ 3:3 ]...[‫הוא‬ 3:4

587  Given the nature of the more fully preserved commentary units, the citations from the source text in units 1:1, 3–4, and in the break in line 5 are represented as internal citations from an earlier lemma which cited Isaiah 5:3–6 or 7. It is possible, however, that each citation is not an internal citation but a lemma in its own right and thus part of a discrete commentary unit. 588  This is just a non‑conventional spelling for ‫בה‬. 589  This line width as reconstructed here is admittedly a bit short compared to the width of column 2. However, this restoration seems to be the most judicious arrangement of the text © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

202

Appendices

4Q papyrus Pesher Isaiahc (4Q163)590 2ʹ. (Isaiah ?)

‫כאשר ]כתוב‬...[ ‫ע]ליהמה‬ ׄ ...[

f 4, 6–7i:1592 f4, 6–7i:2

‫אר ֯ם כול‬ ׄ ]...[ ‫]בוא והוא‬...[ ֯

f4, 6–7i:3 f4, 6–7i:4

3ʹ. (Isaiah 9:11?)

1. (Isaiah 3:12?; Jeremiah?)

]...[°°]...[ f1:1 ]...[‫ הואה‬°]...[ f1:2 ]...[‫דרך‬ ׄ ‫]ו֯ בלע‬...[ f 1:3 ‫כ]תוב עלי֯ ו֯ ֯בי֯ ֯ר[מיה‬ ֯ ‫ כאשר‬...[ f1:4 ]... 591]...[° °]...[ f 1:5

4ʹ. (Isaiah 9:13–16)

‑Gap‑

‫אג]מ[ו]ן֯ ֯ביׄ וׄ ם אחד זקן‬ ֯ ‫[ויכרת יהוה מישראל רואש וזנב כפה‬ ‫[ונשוא פנים הואה הרואש ונביא מורה שקר ]הואה הזנב‬ ‫עים על כן‬593‫[ויהיו מאשרי העם הזה מתעים ומאשריו מב]ל‬ ‫רחם‬ ֯ ׄ‫אל]מנותו לוׄ ׄא י‬ ֯ ‫[על בחורו לוא ישמח אדוני ואת יתמו ואת‬ ]...[ ]...[ °°°]...[ ]...[

f4, 6–7i:5 f4, 6–7i:6 f4, 6–7i:7 f4, 6–7i:8 f4, 6–7i:9 f4, 6–7i:10 f4, 6–7i:11 f4, 6–7i:12

‫ותצית‬ ׄ ‫]תאכל‬ ֯ ‫[כיא בערה כאש רשעה שמיר ושית‬ ?‫[נת]עם‬ ׄ ‫[בסבכי היער ויתאבכו גאות עשן בעברת יהוה צ]באות‬ ‫אל אחי֯ [ו לו]א‬ ׄ ‫[ארץ ויהי העם כמאכולת אש] איש‬

f4, 6–7i:13 f4, 6–7i:14 f4, 6–7i:15

5ʹ. (Isaiah 9:17–20)

since the restoration of a comment somewhere within line 3:2 would make that line seemingly too long. 590  Beatriz Riestra has kindly furnished me with the latest photos of this manuscript. These new photos have enabled me to more critically assess many of the less well preserved portions of the text. 591  F. Daoust, and F. García Martínez and E. Tigchelaar, also see a sixth line on f1 (Daoust, “Problèmes de lecture”, 400 and García Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 318). F. García Martínez and E. Tigchelaar read [...]‫[ ו‬...] in line 5 and [...]‫[ יה‬...] in line 6 (García Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 318). Two letters are visible on line 5, but neither is a ‫ו‬. No ink from a sixth line remains. 592  For the difficulty of reading f5 with this join, see Horgan, Pesharim, 110. Fragment 5 has been omitted in this reconstruction since it cannot fit in the way Allegro suggested. I have, however, followed Allegro’s placement of f7 as well as his reading of the first line of f6, which is defensible on palaeographic grounds, though Strugnell’s reading is also a valid alternative. For the difficulties created by Strugnell’s arrangement, see Horgan, Pesharim, 110–111. Horgan’s reconstructed text with the omission of a commentary unit for Isaiah 10:1–11 is also possible 593  I cannot discern whether the very end of the foot of ‫ ב‬is visible underneath the ‫ל‬ (as suggested by Geiger, “Einige Alternativlesungen der Qumranrollen”, 202–203) or if the ink mark in question is simply the bottom of the ‫ל‬.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

203

Appendices

f4, 6–7i:16 f4, 6–7i:17 f4, 6–7i:18

594°‫יׄ ׄש‬

‫[יחמלו ויגזור על ימין ורעב ויואכל על] ׄשמאול ולוא‬ ‫פרים ואפריׄ [ם] ׄאת‬ ׄ ‫[איש בשר זרועו יואכלו מנשה את] ֯א‬ ‫[מנש]ה יחדיו[ המה על יהודה בכול זואת לוא] שב אפו‬ ֯

6ʹ. (Isaiah 10:12–13bα)595

?top

‑Gap‑

of column

]‫ [והיה] כיא יבצע [אדוני את כול מעשהו בהר ציון ובירושלים אפקד על פרי‬ f4, 6–7ii:1 ]‫אש[ור ועל תפארת רום עיניו כיא אמר בכח ידי עשיתי‬ ֯ ‫[גד]ל לבב מלך‬ f4, 6–7ii:2 ]‫ [נבנותי ואסיר גבולת עמים ועתידתיהם שושתי‬596‫[ובחכמת]י֯ כיא‬ f4, 6–7ii:3 ]...[‫בבל‬ ׄ ‫ — פשר הדבר על ׄמ ֯ל ֯ך‬f4, 6–7ii:4 ]...[°‫ת‬°‫ה‬ ֯ ‫ — חקות עמים‬f4, 6–7ii:5 ]... ‫ — ֯לבגוד רבים הוא[ה‬f 4, 6–7ii:6 ← ‫ — ישראל‬f4, 6–7ii:7

7ʹ. (Isaiah 10:19)

8ʹ. (Isaiah 10:20–22a)

]‫אמ ֯ר [ושאר עץ יערו מספר יהיו ונער יכתבם‬ ֯ ‫ואשר‬ f4, 6–7ii:7 ]...[‫ פשרו למעוט האדם‬f 4, 6–7ii:8 ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫ ‏‬ f4, 6–7ii:9

]‫והיה ביום ההואה[ לוא יוסיף עוד שאר ישראל ופליטת‬ ]‫להש[ען על מכהו ונשען על יהוה קדוש‬ ׄ ‫בית יעקוב‬ ]‫[ישר]אל באמת ׄש[אר ישוב שאר יעקוב אל אל גבור‬ ]‫כי אם יהיה עמכה יׄ [שראל כחול הים שאר ישוב בו‬ ]... ‫פשר הדבר לאחרית ֯ה[ימים‬ ]‫ ואשר‬... [‫ישרא]ל‬ ׄ ‫בש[בי‬ ֯ ‫ילכו‬ ]‫אמר [ כי אם יהיה עמכה ישראל כחול הים שאר ישוב בו‬ ׄ ]...597[‫מועט‬ ׄ ‫פשרו ֯ל‬

9ʹ. (Isaiah 10:22b–23)598

f 4, 6–7ii:10 f4, 6–7ii:11 f4, 6–7ii:12 f4, 6–7ii:13 — f 4, 6–7ii:14 — f 4, 6–7ii:15 f4, 6–7ii:16 — f 4, 6–7ii:17

]‫ כאשר כתוב [כליון חרוץ שוטף צדקה כיא כלה ונחרצה‬f4, 6–7ii:18 ]‫אדוני יהוה ֯צ[באות עשה בקרב כול הארץ‬ f4, 6–7ii:19 ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫ ‏‬f4, 6–7ii:20

594 The ‫ י‬before ‫ ש‬is certain, the ink remains after the ‫ ש‬are anomalous and probably represent some reshaped letter or scribal slip. 595  I have personally inspected fragment 6 and have represented the markings here as I saw them on the manuscript, compare Allegro’s presentation in DJD V, 18–19. 596  Contra Qimron, the ink remains of the last letter do not fit ‫ק‬, but are a very good match for ‫א‬. Thus, I have not followed his reconstruction of this line (and thus the surrounding ones as well). 597  The spelling of this infinitive construct suggests it has a suffixed pronoun. 598  Commentary units 9ʹ and 10ʹ might appear to belong together as a single commentary unit on Isaiah 10:22b–24, but it is unclear what, if anything, was written on f4–7ii:20.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

204

Appendices

10ʹ. (Isaiah 10:24)

]... ‫לכן כוה אמר אדוני יׄ [הוה‬ ?end

11ʹ. (Isaiah 14:?)599 12ʹ. (Isaiah 14:8)

of column

← ...[° ‫מלך בבל‬ ֯ ‫הדב]ר על‬ ֯ ‫[פשר‬

f4, 6–7ii:21

‑Gap‑ f8–10:1

]‫גם ברושים‬ f8–10:1 ]‫ [שמחו ל]כה ארזי לבנון מאז֯ [שכבת לוא יעלה‬ f8–10:2 ]... ‫ [הכרת] עלימו הברושים וארז֯ [י לבנון הםה‬ f8–10:3 ← °]...[ f8–10:4

13ʹ. (Isaiah 14:26–27; Zechariah ?)

14ʹ. (Isaiah 14:28–30)

]‫ואשר אמר ז֯ ו֯ ֯א[ת העצה היעוצה על‬ f8–10:4 ]‫ [כול] ֯ה ׄא ׄר ׄץ וזואת היד [הנטויה על כול הגואים‬ f8–10:5 ]‫[כיא יהו]ה צבאות ֯יע[ץ ומי יפר וידו הנטויה‬ f8–10:6 ]...[°‫[ומי ישי]בנה היאה ׄמ‬ f8–10:7 ]... 600‫מפ[י‬ ׄ ‫כ]תו֯ ׄב בספר זכריה‬ ֯ ...[ f8–10:8 ]...[ f8–10:9 ]...[°]...[ f8–10:10

‫אח[ז היה המשא הזה אל תשמחי פל]שת‬ ׄ ‫[בשנת מו]ת המלך‬ ]‫[כו]לך כיא נשבר שבט [מכך כיא משרש נ]חש ׄיצ[א‬ ֯ ‫[צפע ]ו֯ [פרי]ו֯ [ שרף] ֯מ ׄעוׄ ׄפף וׄ [רעו בכורי דלים ]וׄ אביו֯ נים‬ ]‫[לבטח ירבצו והמתי ברעב שרשך ]וׄ ׄש ֯א ֯ריׄ ׄת[ך יהרג‬

15ʹ. (Isaiah 18:1?/18:6?)601

f8–10:11 f8–10:12 f8–10:13 f8–10:14

‑Gap‑ f11i:1 f11i:2 f11i:3 f11i:4 f11i:5

‫ם‬°]...[ ֯ ‫]ב‬...[ ֯ ‫]ה עובדי‬...[ ‫]ה ׄמה‬...[ ׄ ‫]הצפו֯ ֯ריׄ ם‬...[ ׄ ‫זא ֯ת‬ ׄ ‫]ה‬...[ ׄ



]...[ ° ° ° ° °

f11ii:1

‑Gap‑

599  The reading of units 11ʹ and 12ʹ as bona fide commentary units follows the assessment of Allegro in DJD V. Strugnell and Horgan understand the citation of Isaiah 14:8 to be an inter‑ nal citation but while their reading ameliorates the supposed omission of Isaiah 14:9–25 suggested by Allegro, there is nothing in the text that requires such an assessment. The omission of sections of the source text is an assured phenomenon within the corpus of Isaiah pesharim (e.g., 4QpIsab). Qimron restores ‫ ואשר אמר‬at the beginning 4QpappIsac f8–10:1 instead of ‫פשר הדבר‬, this is equally possible, and in any event the ‫ מלך בבל‬must refer to Isaiah 14:4. 600  A reading from Zechariah 3:9, ‫מ ַפ ֵּת ַח‬, ְ is also possible but unlikely. 601  The birds in 4Q163 f11 i:4 suggest an exegetical connection with the ‫“ כנפים‬wings” of Isaiah 18:1 or the ‫“ עיט‬bird(s) of prey” of Isaiah 18:6. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪205‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪f11ii:2‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f11ii:3‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f11ii:4‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f11ii:5‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f11ii:6‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪16ʹ. (Isaiah 19:9b–12‬‬

‫ואורגים[ חורו והיו שתתיה מדכאים כול עושי]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אגמ[י נפש אך אולים שרי צען חכמי יועצי]‬ ‫שכר ׄ‬ ‫עצ[ה נבערה איך תאמרו אל פרעוה בני חכמים]‬ ‫פרעוה ׄ‬ ‫אניׄ בני מ[לכי קדם אים אפוא חכמיכה ויגידו נא]‬ ‫ׄל ׄכ ֯ה[ וידעו ‪]...‬‬

‫)?‪‑Gap‑ 17ʹ. (Isaiah 28:16–19‬‬

‫ע]ד בואוׄ [‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪֯ ...‬‬ ‫‪ f12:1‬‬ ‫[‪]...[°°°°602 °]...‬‬ ‫‪ f12:2‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬די ‪]...[°°°‬‬ ‫‪ f12:3‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ויתר יותר ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫‪ f12:4‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬האבן אש[ר ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f12:5‬‬ ‫ [‪ ...‬כ]והנים וא‪]...[°]...[°‬‬ ‫‪f12:6‬‬ ‫למשקלת ו֯ [‪]...[°°]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ [‪°]...‬‬ ‫‪f12:7‬‬ ‫ [‪ ...‬כא]שר צוה[‪]...[°]...‬‬ ‫‪f12:8‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ר?עות ֯ה[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f12:9‬‬ ‫‪]...[°‬הא[‪° °°]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬ה‬ ‫‪ f12:10‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬הו֯ ׄא[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f12:11‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫[‪]...[° °]...‬‬ ‫‪ f13:1‬‬ ‫[‪°]...[°°°°]...‬‬ ‫‪ f13:2‬‬ ‫קות ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪֯ °°]...‬ה ֯ר ׄח ׄ‬ ‫‪ f13:3‬‬ ‫על [‪]...‬‬ ‫ [‪ ...‬לאחר]ית הימים ֯‬ ‫‪f13:4‬‬ ‫[הו]אה יפק[ד ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ [‪]...‬בי֯ ו֯ ֯ם ֯ה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪f13:5‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ש‪]...[°°‬‬ ‫‪ f13:6‬‬

‫[‪֯ °]...‬תוׄ מים[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f14:1‬‬ ‫אח]רית ו‪]...603[°°°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪...‬‬ ‫‪ f14:2‬‬ ‫אבדן֯ ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪°°]...‬א‬ ‫‪ f14:3‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬מה לוא תי[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f14:4‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬מה כפיר[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f14:5‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬בה את ריׄ ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ f14:6‬‬ ‫ [‪]...‬את נפשו [(‪]... )vacat‬‬ ‫‪f14:7‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ [‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f14:8‬‬ ‫[‪]...[°°°°°]...‬‬ ‫‪ f14:9‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬תוׄ ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f14:10‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f14:11‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫)‪18ʹ. (Isaiah 29:10–12a‬‬

‫ום ֯א ֯ת[ עיניכמה את הנביאים ואת]‬ ‫ת]רדמה ו֯ י֯ ׄע ׄצ ׄ‬ ‫[עליכ]מה י֯ ֯הו֯ ֯ה [רוח ֯‬ ‫‪ f15–16:1‬‬ ‫הח[זים] כסה ותהי לכמה ֯ח[זות הכול כדברי הספר]‬ ‫[ר]אשיךמה ֯‬ ‫‪ f15–16:2‬‬ ‫[הח]תום אשר [יתנו א]ותו אל יודע ספר ׄל ׄא[מור קרא נא זה]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f15–16:3‬‬ ‫לו]א ֯א[וכל כיא חתום הוא] ו֯ נ֯ תנׄ ו֯ הס[פר ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[ואמר‬ ‫‪ f15–16:4‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪. The re‬ג ‪, and the last looks most like a‬ט ‪602  The first of these letters looks most like a‬‬‫‪, or some other reading.‬ור ‪ seem more likely to be‬רו ‪mains of the two letters that Allegro read as‬‬ ‫אח]רית הימ[ים ‪603  One might expect‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪instead here, but such a reading simply does not fit‬‬ ‫‪the remains.‬‬ ‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪206‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪ f17:1‬‬ ‫‪ f17:2‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪f18–19:1‬‬ ‫‪ f18–19:2‬‬ ‫‪ f18–19:3‬‬ ‫‪ f18–19:4‬‬ ‫‪ f18–19:5‬‬ ‫‪ f18–19:6‬‬

‫)‪19ʹ. (Isaiah 29:15c–16b‬‬

‫]ראנו ומי [יודענו הפככמה אם כחמר היצר יחשב כיא]‬ ‫[מי ֯‬ ‫[יואמר]מעשה [‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪20ʹ. (Isaiah 29:18b–23a‬‬

‫[‪ ]...‬ו֯ ׄמ ׄאו֯ ׄפ ֯ל ו֯ ׄמ ֯ח[ושך עיני עורים תראינה ויספו ענוים ביהוה שמחה]‬ ‫בקד[וש ישראל יגילו כיא אפס עריץ וכלה לץ ונכרתו]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[ואב]יוני אדם‬ ‫[כו]ל שוקדי און ֯מ[חטיאי אדם בדבר ולמוכיח בשער יקשון ויטו בתוהו]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[צדיק] לכן כוה ׄא[מר יהוה אל בית יעקוב אשר פדה את אברהם לוא]‬ ‫יבו]ש יעקוב [ולוא עתה פניו יחורו כיא בראתו ילדיו מעשה]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[עתה‬ ‫קדיש[ו ש]מי וה[קדישו ‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[ידי בקרבו ]יׄ‬

‫?‪end of column‬‬

‫)‪21ʹ. (Isaiah 29:17?; Zechariah 11:11‬‬

‫‪ f21:1‬‬ ‫‪ f21:2‬‬ ‫‪ f21:3‬‬ ‫‪ f21:4‬‬ ‫‪ f21:5‬‬ ‫‪ f21:6‬‬ ‫‪ f21:7‬‬ ‫‪ f21:8‬‬

‫[‪]...[°°]...‬‬ ‫הל ֯בנון ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬יׄ ׄח ֯ש ׄב ֯‬ ‫ושבו ֯ה[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל לכרמל ׄ‬ ‫ואשר[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪°‬ח ֯ר ׄב‬ ‫[‪ׄ ]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬צ‪°‬ם ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ורה[‪]...‬‬ ‫‪]...[°°‬מ ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[ותפר ביום ההואה וידעו ]כן ענׄ י֯ י֯ הצואן ֯ה[שמרים]‬ ‫[אותי כיא דבר יהוה] הואה ‏‪ vacat‬‏[‪]...‬‬

‫‪ f21:9‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:10‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:11‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:12‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:13‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:14‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f21:15‬‬

‫עצ[ה ולוא]‬ ‫[הוי בנים סוררים נאם] יהוה לעשות ֯‬ ‫[ממני ולנסך מסכה ו]לוא רוחי למען ֯ס[פות חטאת]‬ ‫[על חטאת ההלכים לר]דת מצרים ו֯ [פי לוא שאלו לעוז]‬ ‫[במעוז פרעוה ולחסו]ת בצל מצ[רים והיה לכם מעוז]‬ ‫והחסו]ת בצל מצריׄ [ם לכלמה כיא היו]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[פרעוה לבשת‬ ‫[בצען שריו ומלאכיו ]חנס יגיעו כ[ול הבאיש על עם לוא]‬ ‫]ל[עזר] ו֯ לו֯ ׄא [להועיל ‪]...‬‬ ‫[יועילו למו לוא ׄ‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 20:1‬‬ ‫‪ f20:2‬‬ ‫‪ f20:3‬‬ ‫‪ f20:4‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪23ʹ. (Isaiah 30:6?)604‬‬

‫[‪]...[°]...‬‬ ‫[ו]פף וׄ [‪]...‬‬ ‫מע ׄ‬ ‫ש]רף ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪...‬‬ ‫‪/‬ע[‪]...‬‬ ‫המ ׄה י֯ ׄג ֯ש ֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬וׄ ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬הוא ׄביׄ [‪]...‬‬

‫‪f 23i:16‬‬ ‫‪ f23i:17‬‬ ‫‪ f23i:18‬‬

‫)‪22ʹ. (Isaiah 30:1–5‬‬

‫[‪°]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ב ׄע ׄץ‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪°°]...‬‬

‫)? ‪24ʹ. (Isaiah‬‬

‫)? ‪25ʹ. (Isaiah‬‬

‫ [‪]...‬ב?ו֯ ? והמ‪]...[°°‬ה כול ‪] [°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪f23ii:1‬‬ ‫֯ם ֯ה‪]...[°‬‬ ‫יש]ראל[‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪...‬‬ ‫‪ f23ii:2‬‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪ f23ii:3‬‬

‫‪604  Perhaps this fragment may even hold the comment to the lemma in f21:9–15 (if that lemma‬‬ ‫‪ in f21:14.‬יגיעו ‪ (f20:3) with‬י֯ ׄג ֯ע ‪continued to include Isa 30:6). Note the possible correspondence of‬‬ ‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

207

Appendices

26ʹ. (Isaiah 30:15–18, Hosea 6:9a)

]‫[ח]ת[ תושעון‬ ֯ ֯‫כ[ו]ה אמר [יה]וה קדוש [י]שראל בשובה ונ‬ ׄ ]‫[כיא‬ ]‫ות[אמרו‬ ׄ ‫[בהש]קט ובטח תהיה גבורתכמה ולוא אביתמה‬ ֯‫֯לו֯ א כיא ׄעל סוס ננוס על כן תנוסון ועל קל נרכב על ֯כן‬ ‫[מ]פני גערת אחד מפני גערת‬ ׄ ‫יׄ ׄקלו רודפיכמה אלף אחד‬ ‫נותרתמה כתרן על רואש הר‬ ׄ ‫חמשה תנוסון ׄע ֯ד אם‬ ‫[נכ]מ ֯ה ולכן ירום‬ ֯ ֯‫ו֯ ֯כנ֯ ֯ס ׄעל גבעה לכן יחכה ֯אדוני לחנ‬ ‫משפט יהוה אשרי כול חוכי לו‬ ׄ ‫לרחמכמה כיא אלוהי‬ ‫החלקוׄ ׄת‬ ׄ ]‫הימים ׄעל עדת ׄד[ורשי‬ ׄ ‫פשר הדבר לאחרית‬ ]...[°°]...[°‫ה ה‬°]...[ ‫אשר בירושלים‬ ֯ ]...[°°]...[°‫בתורה ולוא י‬ ]...[ ‫לב כיא לדוש‬ ]... ‫גדוד[ חבר כהנים‬ ֯ ‫כיחכה איש‬ ]...[ ‫התורה מאסו‬

27ʹ. (Isaiah 30:19–21)

]‫ [כ]י֯ ֯א עם ֯ב ׄציׄ וׄ ן֯ [ישב בירושלם בכו לוא תבכה חנון יחנכה לקול‬ ]‫זועקכה כשמ[עתו ענך ונתן לכמה אדוני לחם צר ומים לחץ‬ ]‫ולוא יכניף ׄע[וד מוריכה והיו עיניכה ראות את מוריכה‬ ]‫תש[מענה דבר מאחריכה לאמור זה הדרך לכו בו‬ ׄ ‫ואו֯ זניךה‬ ]... ‫כיא תימ[ינו וכיא תשמאילו‬ ]...[‫על עון ע‬ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ֯ 605?end

29ʹ. (Isaiah 30:23)606

]...[‫הדבר‬ ׄ ‫]פשר‬...[ ]...[607‫דרש‬ ֯ ‫]ם אשר‬...[ ]...[ ‫] בני צדוק‬...[ ]... ‫תב[ואת‬ ֯ ‫ אש]ר אמר לחם‬...[ ]...[‫אם ההואה‬°]...[ ]...[‫]ר ֯בל‬...[ ֯

f 22:1 f22:2 f22:3 f22:4 f22:5 f22:6

f23ii:4 f23ii:5 f23ii:6 f23ii:7 f23ii:8 f23ii:9 f23ii:10 f23ii:11 f23ii:12 f23ii:13 f23ii:14 f23ii:14a f23ii:15 f23ii:16 f23ii:17 f23ii:18 f23ii:19 f23ii:20 f23ii:21 f23ii:22

of column

28ʹ. (Isaiah ?) ]lines 1–7 missing[ ]...[‫ע‬ ]...[‫ל‬ ]...[°‫י‬

f 23iii:8 f23iii:9 f23iii:10

‑Gap‑  [ca. 11 lines to end of column]

‑Gap‑

605  Note that 4Q163 f4–7ii appears to be 21 lines long. 606  Fragment 22 has been placed between fragments 23 and 24 based on the evidence that unit 29 is a comment on Isaiah 30:23. Perhaps f27 belongs with this fragment as a commentary unit on Isaiah 30:23 (Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 194). I see no reason to join f22+27 to f23, as Qimron does; the ‫ ל‬in f23:22, which is clearly visible in the new images of f23, invalidates his reconstruction. 607  Contra Horgan the reading ‫ ש‬is assured upon close inspection of the photos and final ‫ ך‬is excluded. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪208‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪f 24:1‬‬ ‫‪ f24:2‬‬ ‫‪ f24:3‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪f 25:5‬‬ ‫‪ f25:6‬‬ ‫‪ f25:7‬‬ ‫‪ f25:8‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 26:1‬‬ ‫‪ f26:2‬‬ ‫‪ f26:3‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫)?‪30ʹ. (Isaiah 30:29‬‬

‫[‪]...‬בהר י֯ [הוה ‪]...‬‬ ‫אמר [‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ]...‬אשר‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬

‫‪31ʹ. (Isaiah 30:30–33?)608‬‬

‫[ל]ך ֯ב ֯ב ֯ל ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬מ ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ f25:1‬‬ ‫וב ֯כנ֯ ו֯ [רות ‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬בתופים ֯‬ ‫‪ f25:2‬‬ ‫וז]רם כלי מלחמה‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ [‪ ...‬נפץ‬ ‫‪f25:3‬‬ ‫מה[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄה ֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ [‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f25:4‬‬

‫[הוי היורדים] ׄמצרים על סוסים [ישענו ויבטחו על]‬ ‫עצמ[ו מאד ולוא שעו]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[רכב כ]יׄ א רב ו֯ על פרשים כיא‬ ‫[על קד]ו֯ ש ישראל ואת יה[וה לוא דרשו ‪]...‬‬ ‫]ה‪ °°°‬אשר ׄיב[טחו ‪]...[°]...‬‬ ‫[ ׄ‬

‫[לוא] יקר[א עוד לנבל נדיב ולכילי לוא יאמר שוע כיא]‬ ‫נבלות[ ידבר ולבו יעשה און לעשות חנף ולדבר אל]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[נבל]‬ ‫תו]ע ׄה[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[יהוה‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪ f27:1609‬‬ ‫‪ f27:2‬‬ ‫‪ f27:3‬‬

‫[‪]...‬העתים ה‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ך העם וא[‪]...‬‬ ‫קנכה[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪ׄ °°]...‬מ ֯‬

‫‪f 28:1‬‬ ‫‪ f28:2‬‬ ‫‪ f28:3‬‬

‫[‪]...‬מצרים [‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ...‬פש]רו אשר י[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...[° °]...‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫[‪°]...‬ו ׄב ֯כ ׄה[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬לה היא[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫פשרוׄ [‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬מה‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫[‪֯ °]...‬א ֯ת[‪]...‬‬ ‫בכא ֯ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬ה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ...‬הכ]‪ °°°‬הרשע[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬הואה[‪]...‬‬ ‫מ[ל]כי[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬ב‪°‬‬ ‫֯‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 29:1‬‬ ‫‪ f29:2‬‬ ‫‪ f29:3‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 30:1‬‬ ‫‪ f30:2‬‬ ‫‪ f30:3‬‬ ‫‪ f30:4‬‬ ‫‪ f30:5‬‬

‫)‪32ʹ. (Isaiah 31:1‬‬

‫‪f 31:1‬‬ ‫‪ f31:2‬‬ ‫‪ f31:3‬‬ ‫‪ f31:4‬‬ ‫‪ f31:5‬‬ ‫‪f 32:1‬‬ ‫‪ f32:2‬‬ ‫‪ f32:3‬‬

‫‪f 36:1‬‬ ‫‪ f36:2‬‬ ‫‪ f36:3‬‬ ‫‪ f36:4‬‬ ‫‪ f36:5‬‬

‫)‪33ʹ. (Isaiah 32:5–6‬‬

‫‪Uncertain units:‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬י֯ ׄהיה[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬אדם[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ם עש‪]...[°‬‬ ‫מוריש[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬ו‬ ‫א]רץ [‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪֯ ...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬מחמד[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪°]...‬דת ֯ה ֯א[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ג[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬ם [‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬תעו[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬מים[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬הבאה ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬אליה [‪]...‬‬

‫‪608 The internal citations are made out of order; Isaiah 30:32 is re–cited before Isaiah‬‬ ‫‪30:30.‬‬ ‫‪609  Perhaps f27 belongs with f22 as a commentary unit on Isaiah 30:23 (Strugnell, “Notes‬‬ ‫‪en marge”, 194).‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

209

Appendices

]... ‫]א לאוׄ ֯מ[ים‬...[ ֯ ]...[°‫]כנׄ ֯ס‬...[ ]...[‫ ר]עב נחרו‬...[

f50:2

‑Gap‑ f55:1

‑Gap‑ f56:1

‑Gap‑

]...[‫ הכל‬°°° ‫]הור ההר‬...[ f57:1

‑Gap‑ fragments too small for examination: 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54.

]... [°‫]כמת‬...[ ]...[‫]של ֯ש ׄת‬...[ ׄ ]...[‫]אשור‬...[ ]...[°‫להזע‬ ֯ ‫]ד‬...[ ׄ ]...[°°°]...[ ]...[‫א א‬°]...[ ]...[‫תש‬ ֯ °°]...[ ]...[‫]בכל‬...[ ]...[°°°]...[

f39:1 f 39:2

‑Gap‑ f 40:1 f40:2

‑Gap‑ f 44:1 f44:2 f44:3 f44:4

‑Gap‑ f50:1

Cursive hand 1. (Isaiah 8:7–8)

]‫ הנהר ׄה[עצומים והרבים את מלך אשור‬610‫עליה[ם] את ִ ֹמי‬ ֯ ‫ [ולכן הנה אדני מע]לה‬f2–3:1 ]‫ [ואת כל כבודו ועלה] על כל אפיקו והלך על כל גדו֯ [תיו וחלף ביהודה שטף] ועב[ר‬f2–3:2 ]... ‫ארצכ[ה‬ ֯ ‫ [עד צואר יגיע וה]יו מטות כנפו מלא רחב‬f2–3:3 ]...[°° 611 ׄ‫]ם התרה היא ׄרצוׄ ן‬...[‫]ע‬...[ ׄ f2–3:4 ]...[°‫כ]תוב ב‬ ֯ ...[ f 2–3:5 ]...[‫]ה ולא‬...[ ׄ f2–3:6

‑Gap‑

Uncertain units:

]... ‫ כא]שר כתוׄ [ב‬...[ ]...[°°°°]...[ ]...[‫]ימים ֯ב‬...[ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ׄ

f47:3

‑Gap‑ f 49:1 f49:2 f49:3

‑Gap‑ fragments too small for examination: 37, 45, 48.

]...[°]...[ ]...[‫]חר מ‬...[ ֯ ]...[‫]מרה‬...[ ]...[‫]ההמ‬...[ ]...[° ‫]בא‬...[ ]...[‫]שבת‬...[ ׄ ]...[ ]...[ ‫בר‬ ׄ ‫]ש‬...[ ׄ

f 46:1 f46:2 f46:3 f46:4 f46:5 f46:6

‑Gap‑ f 47:1 f47:2

610  The letters ‫ מי‬are damaged, but as F. Daoust asserts, there are dots on the manuscript marking that these characters are to be expunged (Daoust, “Problèmes de lecture”, 399). 611  The reading of the remains here presents several difficulties. The understanding of ‫ התרה‬as a defective spelling for ‫( התורה‬Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 189) is very problematic since such a spelling would be hapax for both Biblical and Qumran Hebrew, but no other solution has yet presented itself. There appears to be little to no space between the ‫ א‬of ‫ היא‬and the ‫ ר‬of ‫רצון‬, but the words are sometimes cramped together in this hand. Reading ‫ ו‬instead of Allegro’s ‫ י‬would appear to ameliorate the awkward introduction of the historical character Rezin in the comment here.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

210

Appendices

4Q Pesher Isaiahd (4Q164) 1. (Isaiah 54:11–12aβ)612

beginning of column

]‫ פשרו‬... ‫ ויׄ סדתיך בספי[רים‬613‫]ך כול ישראל כפוך בעוך‬...[ ]...[‫]כוהנים והע‬ ֯ [ ‫היח ֯ד‬ ׄ ‫[אש]ר יסדו את עצת‬ ]‫ ושמתי כדכוד‬...[ ‫עדת בחירו כאבן הספיר בתוך האבנים‬ ]...[‫ פשרו על שנים עשר‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫כול שמשותיך‏‬ ]...[‫מאירים במשפט האורים והתומים‬ ]‫הנעדרות מהמה כשמשל בכול אורו וכו֯ [ל שעריך לאבני אקדח‬ ]... ‫לא[חרית הימים‬ ֯ ‫פשרו על ראשי שבטי ישראל‬ ]...[° ׄ‫ו‬/ ׄ‫֯גורלו מעמדי‬

3ʹ. (?)

]...[‫]לם‬...[ ]...[°‫]ע‬...[

f3:1 f3:2

f 1:1 f1:2 f1:3 f1:4 f1:5 f1:6 f1:7 f1:8

‑Gap‑

2ʹ. (?)

]...[‫ וׄ כולם הלוא‬°]...[ f2:1 ‫ד כיא אל כול‬°][‫ ע‬°]...[ f2:2 ]...[ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ׄ f2:3

‑Gap‑

4Q Pesher Isaiahe (4Q165)614 1. (Isaiah ?)615

]...[ ֯‫]ש י‬...[ ׄ ‫הנ[ב]ו֯ אוׄ ֯ת‬ ← ‫]ד‬...[‫וירושלם‬

f1–2:1 f1–2:2

612  f1:1–8 could very well consist of 4 short individual commentary units, but such short units are conspicuous within the corpus, and the extreme atomization of the source text better suggests that the citations are internal citations from a larger lemma citation. 613  Contra Yadin, “Some Notes”, Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 196, and Horgan, Pesharim, 127, the reading ‫ כפוך בעוך‬is indeed correct on paleographic grounds and ‫ כפוך בעין‬is not, but unlike ‫“ בעין‬on the eye”, little sense can be made of ‫בעוך‬. Allegro’s translation “they have sought you” is problematic due to its introduction of a second person entity, which is unexpected in the comments of the pesharim. For an explanation of the apparent dot following this word in the photographs, see my remarks on pp. 24–25. 614  The placement of f1–2 and f11 is uncertain. Strugnell suggests that f1–2 belongs after f6 and f11 belongs before f3 (Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 197 and 199). Of course, this suggestion is solely based upon the sequence of the base‑text. 615  F1–2 may instead consist of internal citations of an earlier lemma rather than 3 individual commentary units. Though the longer lemma citation in units 5ʹ, 7ʹ, 9ʹ, and 16ʹ suggest that these citations of the base-text would be too short for lemma citations, the phrase ‫ואשר‬ ‫ כתוב‬is used to initiate a lemma citation in commentary unit 9ʹ. It remains unclear which interpretation is better.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪211‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪2. (Isaiah 40:11‬‬

‫‪ f1–2:2‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2:3‬‬

‫ואשר כתוב [כרעה עדרו ירעה בזרעו יקבץ טלאים ובחיקו ישא עלות ינהל]‬ ‫הצ[דק ‪←...‬‬ ‫פשר הדבר[‪ ]...‬גלה את תורת ׄ‬

‫‪ f1–2:3‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2:4‬‬

‫ואשר כתוב מי מדד בשעלו מים]‬ ‫שק ׄל [‪]...‬‬ ‫ושמים ֯ב[זרת תכן וכל בשלש עפר] ׄה ׄא ׄר ׄץ ׄ‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 3:1‬‬ ‫‪ f3:2‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫)‪3. (Isaiah 40:12‬‬

‫)‪4ʹ. (Isaiah 14:19–20‬‬

‫‪beginning of column‬‬

‫כפגר [מובס לא תחד אתם בקבורה כי ארצך שחת]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[יורדי אל אבני] בור‬ ‫[עו]ל[ם ‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[עמך הרגת לא יקרא] ׄל‬

‫)‪5ʹ. (Isaiah 15:4–6‬‬

‫ [י]ריעו ו[נפשו ירעה לו לבי למואב יזעק בריחה עד צער עגלת שלשיה כי מעלה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪f4:1‬‬ ‫הלוחית]‬ ‫ [ב]בכי יעלה ֯ב[ו כי דרך חורנים זעקת שבר יעערו כי מי נמרים משמות יהיו כי יבש‬ ‫‪f4:2‬‬ ‫חציר]‬ ‫[כלה דשא] י֯ ֯ר ֯ק ׄלו֯ [א היה ‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f4:3‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 5:1‬‬ ‫‪ f5:2‬‬

‫[‪°]...‬א‪]...[°‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪616‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ה ‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשר הדבר‬

‫)? ‪6ʹ. (Isaiah‬‬ ‫֯ע[ל‪617‬‬

‫‪]...‬‬

‫)‪7ʹ. (Isaiah 21:11–15; Isaiah 21:2‬‬

‫מל[ילה שומר מה מליל אמר שומר אתה‬ ‫ [משא דומה אלי קר]א משעיר שומר מה ֯‬ ‫‪f5:3‬‬ ‫בקר וגם לילה אם תבעיון בעיו]‬ ‫ [שבו אתיו משא בערב] ׄביער בערב תלינו ֯א[רחות דדנים לקראת צמא התיו מים‬ ‫‪f5:4‬‬ ‫יושבי ארץ תימא בלחמו]‬ ‫‪[ f5:5a‬מפ]ני חרבות נדד‪618‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ מפניׄ [קשת דרוכה‪]619‬‬ ‫[קדמו נדד כי מפני] חרב נטושה מפ[ני כבד מלחמה ‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f5:5‬‬ ‫והלחם[‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪ ...‬מדבר] העמים‬ ‫‪ f5:6‬‬ ‫[‪ ...‬והשודד] שודד ע[לי עילם ‪]...‬‬ ‫‪ f5:7‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪616  Given the following introductory formula, this must be the end of a citation from‬‬ ‫‪Isaiah, but the identification is uncertain, and it is not possible to know whether it was a lemma‬‬ ‫‪or an internal citation.‬‬ ‫‪֯ is equally possible (Horgan, Pesharim, 135).‬ל[אחרית הימים ‪617  Horgan’s suggestion ]...‬‬ ‫‪ in‬פשרו על ‪ in this manuscript, but do have‬אחרית הימים ‪The fact that we have no evidence for‬‬ ‫‪f6:6 weighs only slightly in favor of Allegro’s reading, which is presented in the text here.‬‬ ‫‪ in f5:5.‬כי ‪618  This phrase would be inserted after‬‬ ‫‪ in f5:5.‬נטושה ‪619  This phrase would be inserted after‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

212

Appendices

8ʹ. (Isaiah 32:4?)

]...[‫ ֯א‬620‫ראל‬ ׄ ‫יש‬ ׄ ‫[ב]חירי‬ ׄ ← ‫]עולם‬ ֯ [

f 6:1 f6:2

]‫ואשר ֯כ[תוב לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב‬ ]‫[ולכילי ]לא יאמר שוע ׄכיׄ נ֯ [בל נבלה ידבר ולבו יעשה און לעשות חנף‬ ]‫[ית] נ֯ [פש רעב ומשקה צמא יחסיר‬622‫ולהמ‬ ׄ ‫ תועה‬621 ‫‏‬vacat ‫א]ל‬ ‫[ולדבר ׄ‏‬ ]‫[וכלי כליו רעים] ׄהואה זמות יעץ [לחבל ענוים באמרי שקר ובדבר‬ ]...[°] [‫‏ פשרו על‬vacat ‫מ]שפט‏‬ ׄ ‫[אביון‬ ]...[°‫ ׄא ׄת ׄה ׄתוׄ ׄר ֯ה[ ]שר‬°]...[

f 6:2 f6:3 f6:4 623 f6:5 f6:6 f6:7

9ʹ. (Isaiah 32:5–7)

]...[° ‫]כיא‬...[ ֯ ]...[°°]...[

14ʹ. (?)

]...[°]...[ ]...[‫נוות‬ ֯ ]... ‫תב[ל‬ ]... ‫שמ[י‬

end of column 15ʹ. (?)

]...[°]...[ ]...[‫ודע‬ ׄ ‫]ת‬...[ ׄ

f 9:4 f9:5

10ʹ. (?)

‑Gap‑ f 10:1 f10:2 f10:3 f10:4

‑Gap‑ f 11:1 f11:2

]...‫ידב[ר‬ ׄ ‫]ת‬...[ ֯ ]...[‫ ענוי‬°]...[ ]...[‫]ו֯ ֯כי֯ לי‬...[

11ʹ. (?)

‑Gap‑ f7:1 f 7:2 f7:3

‑Gap‑

]...[‫ מל]ך בבל אשר י‬...[

f8:1

]... ‫ וא]שר ֯כ[תוב‬...[

f8:2

12ʹ. (?) 13ʹ. (?)

?‫]מותו‬...[ ]...[‫תחלת‬ ֯ ֯ ]...[°‫]אשר מלך ב‬...[ ]... ‫היח[ד‬ ֯ ‫]אנשי‬...[

16ʹ. (Isaiah 11:11–12a)

]‫]שאת[ידו לקנות את שאר עמו אשר‬ ׄ ‫[והיה ביום ההואה יוסיף אדוני‬ 624 ]‫מפתרו]ס מכוש[ מעילם משנער מחמת‬ ׄ ‫[ישאר מאשור ממצרים‬ ]‫ואס]ף [נדחי ישראל‬ ׄ ‫[ומאיי הים ונשא נס לגוים‬

‑Gap‑ f 9:1 f9:2 f9:3

f 11:3 f11:4 f11:5

620  See Psalm 78:31 for this unique phrase. 621  Apparently the neo‑paleo‑Hebrew tetragrammaton was supposed to have been written here in the space left by the scribe. It was never written in. 622  The top horizontal stroke of this letter easily matches ‫ מ‬or ‫פ‬, a ‫ כ‬is less likely (pace Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 198). 623  The photo PAM 41.802 contains a piece of parchment situated before ‫הואה‬, which contains ink marks. I am unsure how the ink marks should be read and also whether or not the piece of parchment is properly situated with the larger fragment. 624  The new images of this fragment leave no question that Strugnell’s reading of ‫ ס‬here is correct; thus, the list of geographical names should probably lack ‫’ו‬s with the exception of the final element of the list.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

213

Appendices

Concordance of Isaiah Pesharim 3QpIsa*

4QpIsaa

4QpIsab

4QpappIsac

4QpIsad

4QpIsae

1 break

break

break 5 6 break

break

break

break

10 11 break

8 (2nd hand) break 9 break 10 break

11 break 14

14 break

15 break

19 break

21 break

29 break 30 31 break 32 break 54 break

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

32 break 40 break

214

Appendices

4Q Pesher Hoseaa (4Q166)625 ‫[חזי]קי ׄה ֯ברית‬ ֯ ‫]מן ׄמ‬...[ ‫סף בקצי חרון כיא‬ ׄ ‫]א‬...[ ֯ vacat]...[ vacat626]...[

3. (Hosea 2:9b)

1 :11 1:12 1:13 1:14

1. (Hosea 2:7?)

?‫]צור‬...[ ‫]וירצו‬...[ ‫]וילוזו‬...[ ]...[vacat

1 :3 1 :4 1:5 1:6

‫ [ואמרה אלכה ואשובה אל אישי‬ 1:15 2. (Hosea 2:8a) ‫הרא]י֯ שון כיא‬ ‫ בסירים ונתיבותיה‬°]...[ ‫]בשוב‬... ‫ [טוב לי אז מעתה פשרו‬ 1:16 ‫]ובעורון ובתמהון‬...[ ‫שבי‬ ‫]ר וקץ מועלם לוא‬...[ ֯ ]...‫פרע[וה‬ ֯ ‫ב]ט ׄח ֯ב‬ ׄ ...[ 1:17 ‫]הם דור הפקודה‬...[ ׄ

1:7 1:8 1:9 1 :10

‑Gap of 2 lines‑

4. (Hosea 2:10)

top of column

5. (Hosea 2:11–12)

6. (Hosea 2:13)

]‫ [לוא ידעה כיא] אנוכי נתתי לה הדגןׄ [והתירוש‬2:1 ]‫ עשו֯ [ לבעל פשרו‬627‫ [והיצהר וכסף] ֯הרביתי וזהב לה‬2:2 ]‫המא[כילם ואת כול‬ ֯ ‫וי]שבעו וישכחו את אל‬ ׄ ‫אש ֯ר ֯א ֯כ[לו‬ ׄ 2 :3 ]‫אליהם [ביד‬ ֯ ‫מצוותיו השליכו אחרי גום אשר שלח‬ 2:4 ]...[ ‫עבדיו הנביאים ולמתעיהם שמעו ויכבדום‬ 2 :5 ‫‏‬vacat ‫וכאלים יפחדו מהם בעורונם‏‬ 2 :6 vacat 2:7 ]‫לכן אשוב ולקחתי דגני בעתו ותירושי [במועדו‬ ]‫את[ ערותה‬ ׄ ‫והצלתי צמרי ופישתי מלכסות‬ ]‫מאה[ביה ואיש‬ ׄ ‫ועתה אגלה את נבלותה לעיני‬ ‫‏‬vacat ‫לוא יצילנה מידי‏‬ ]‫פשרו אשר הכם ברעב ובערום להיות ׄלקלו֯ [ן‬ ‫וחרפה לעיני הגואים אשר נשענו עליהם והמה‬ ← ‫לוא יוׄ ׄשיעום מצרותיהם‬

628‫אשר‬ ֯

‫והשבתי כוׄ ֯ל משושה‬ ‫֯ח[גה חד]שה ושבתה וכול מועדיה פשרו‬

2 :8 2:9 2:10 ? – 2:11 2:12 2 :13 2:14 ?

_ 2:14 2:15

625  This scroll is apparently a palimpsest with erased writing in the margins as well as within the text body, this erased layer is no longer readable with any confidence. I have found no comment on this in the literature to date. 626  This entire line was most likely empty. 627  It seems that the scribe erroneously copied ‫ לה‬from line 1 to here and someone subsequently erased it. 628  The margin here does not appear large enough to bear M. Bernstein’s first reconstruction of [‫ ]שכחו‬at the end of 2:15 (see Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ ”,

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

215

Appendices

7. (Hosea 2:14)

]‫וכ[ול‬ ֯ v‫ ‏‬acat ‫ם‬ ‫המו]עדות יוליכו במועדי הגואי ‏‬ ׄ ‫[את‬ ← ‫ ]נׄ הפכה להם לאבל‬629‫[שבתם‬

2:16 2:17

]‫והשמותי [גפנה‬ 2:17 ]‫ [ותאנתה] אשר אמרה אתנם הם לי [אשר נתנו‬2:18 ]‫ [לי מאהב]י ושמתים ליער ואכלתם ׄח[ית השדה‬2:19

end of column

4Q Pesher Hoseab (4Q167)630 1. (Hosea 5:13)

]... ‫ ֯פ[שרו‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫מכ]ם מזו ‏ר‬ ֯ ‫[מלך ירב והוא לוא יוכל לרפוא לכם ולוא יגהה‬ ← ‫ כפיר החרון‬°]...[

f 2:1 f2:2

631‫[לא]פ‬ ]‫[רי]ם [וככפיר לבית‬ ֯ ֯ ‫כי ֯אנוכי ׄכ ׄש ֯ח ֯ל‬ ‫[ה]כוהן האחרון אשר ישלח ידו להכות ׄבאפרים‬ ׄ ‫]ל‬... ׄ ‫) פשרו‬vacat( ‫[יהודה‬ vacat632 ‫]דו‏‬...[ ׄ

f2:2 f 2:3 f2:4

2. (Hosea 5:14)

3. (Hosea 5:15)

‫ע]ד אשר [י]אשמו‬ ֯ ‫א]ל [מקומי‬ ׄ ‫ [אני אני אטרופ ואלך אשא ואין מציל אלך אשובה‬ f2:5 ‫ובקשו פני בצר‬ ]... ‫[שיו‬633‫הבו]ק‬ ֯ [ ֯‫יסתי]ר אל את פניו מן‬ ׄ ‫) פשרו אשר‬vacat( ‫[להם ישחרנני‬ f2:6

30). Bernstein’s further suggestions for the restoration of 2:15–17 also fit the margins poorly (Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ ”, 30–32), though some are possible and all are insightful and well‑founded from a literary standpoint. 629  Strugnell made a very reasonable restoration of ‫( שמחתם‬Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 200), which can be found parallel to ‫ מועד‬in Numbers 10:10 and Zechariah 8:19, and this may indeed be correct. Nevertheless, if Esther 9:22 ... ‫ּומ ֵא ֶבל ְליֹום טֹוב‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַהח ֶֹדׁש ֲא ֶׁשר נֶ ְה ַּפְך ָל ֶהם ִמּיָ גֹון ְל ִׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ... is instructive for the reading here (see, e.g. A. Lange, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher, 498), then the usage of ‫ יום טוב‬and ‫( הפך‬Nifal) with ‫ אבל‬would be similar to ‫ לאבל‬... ‫שבתם נׄ הפכה‬, with ‫ שבתם‬filling the place of ‫ יום טוב‬in the Esther passage. Further, ‫ ׁשבת‬and ‫ מועד‬form a word pair in the lemma here and in Ezekiel 44:24, 45:17, and Lamentations 2:6. ‫ ׁשבת‬is also grouped with ‫מועד‬ and ‫ חדש‬in 1 Chronicles 23:31, 2 Chronicles 2:3, 8:13, 31:3, and Nehemiah 10:34. 630  The reconstruction and arrangement of 4QpHosb presented here has been heavily influenced by the works of G. Doudna and R. Vielhauer (Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 557–573, “4Q Pesher HoseaB”, and Vielhauer, “Materielle Rekonstruktion”). 631  For a similar ‫פ‬, see f11–13:6. 632  G. Doudna suggests that there is an interlinear insertion between lines 3 and 4 (Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 558). There is in fact a tear in the manuscript that resembles the “left end of a crossbar and left tick”, but there is no ink on the manuscript suggesting the presence of a ‫ר‬/‫ד‬. 633  Even after performing a physical examination of this fragment, I am not sure that a firm decision can be made concerning the letter. I prefer either a ‫ מ‬or ‫ ק‬to the ‫ ר‬that was suggested by Horgan, “Pesharim”, 120.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

216

Appendices

4ʹ. (Hosea 6:2–3)

]...[ ׄ‫שמעו‬ ׄ ‫]הו ולוא‬...[ ׄ

f2:7

← ...[

f4+5+18+24:1

634‑Gap‑

‫]ביום‬ ֯ ‫יחינו מיומים‬ f4+5+18+24:1 ‫ [השלישי יקמנו ונחיה לפניו ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את יהוה כשחר נכון‬ f4+5+18+24:2 ‫כגש]ם לנו‬ ֯ ‫מוצאו ויבוא‬ v‫ ‏‬acat ‫[כמלקוש יורה הארץ]‏‬ f4+5+18+24:3 ‫]תו ואשר‬... ‫[פשרו אשר‬ f4+5+18+24:4 ]...[?‫ישיב‬ ֯ ‫ א]שר‬...[ f4+5+18+24:5 ]...[‫]ל‬...[° ׄ ‫והת‬ ֯ ‫י]הם‬ ֯ ...[ ‫]אנשי‬...[ ׄ f4+5+18+24:6 ]...[‫מוריהם‬ ֯ °]...[ f4+5+18+24:7

5ʹ. (Hosea 6:4)

]... ‫א]עשה לכה[ אפרים] מה [אעשה לכה יהודה‬ ֯ ‫[מה‬

f4+5+18+24:

]... ‫‏ פשר[ו‬vacat ‫[והמה כאדם ע]ברו ברית‏‬ ]...[‫בחוקות‬ ׄ ‫]עזׄ בו ׄאת אל ו[י]לכו‬...[ ֯

f7:1 f7:2

6ʹ. (Hosea 6:7)

end of column

7ʹ. (Hosea 6:9b–10)

‑Gap‑



‑Gap‑

]‫ זמה [עשו בבית ישראל ראיתי שעריריה שם זנות לאפרים נטמא‬635‫ואשר‬ ֯ ]... ‫פש[רו‬ ֯ ‫י֯ שראל‬ ]... ‫[ר]שעי הגואיׄ [ם‬ ]...[°‫כול מכ‬

f10+26:1 f10+26:2 f10+26:3 f10+26:4

]...[°‫א‬ ]...[ ]...[‫ׄע‬

f17+38:1 f17+38:2 f17+38:3

]‫יה[וה אלהים ולוא בקשוהו בכול זאת ויהי אפרים כיונה פותה אין לב‬ ׄ ]...[‫מצרים‬ ׄ ‫מצ[רזם קראו אשור הלכו [[ ]] פשר]ו על‬ ֯ ]...[‫[ ]ל‬°°°]...[°‫ג‬ ]...[°‫המי‬

f17+38:4 f17+38:5 f17+38:6 f17+38:7

8ʹ. (Hosea 7:10)

‑Gap‑

634  It may be that the last line of f2 is to be situated directly above the first line of f4– 6+18+24, as R. Vielhauer suggests (“Materielle Rekonstruktion”, 60–61). If so, then the commentary unit beginning in f4+5+18+24:1, probably dealt with Hosea 6:1–3. 635  It is uncertain whether ‫ואשר‬ ֯ introduces the lemma or is a variant for ‫ ִּכי‬in the MT.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

217

Appendices

f17+38:8 f17+38:9 f17+38:10

]...[ ‫טרף‬ ׄ ]...[°‫מש‬ ]...[°‫א‬

9ʹ. (Hosea 8:5?) 10ʹ. (Hosea 8:6)

11ʹ. (Hosea 8:6)

‑Gap‑

]...[‫]חת לס‬...[ ]...[°° ‫]בן‬...[

f6+11–13:1 f6+11–13:2

]... ‫והו]א חרש עשה[ו ולוא אלוהים הוא‬ ֯ ‫[כי מישראל‬ ]...[‫פ]שר[ו א]שר היו בעמיׄ ֯ם‬ ׄ ...[ ← ] ...[

f6+11–13:3 f6+11–13:4 f6+11–13:5

]...[ ‫ פשרו] על‬v‫ ‏‬acat

‫‏‬636‫שו[בבי]ם היה ׄע[גל שמרון‬ ֯ ‫כי‬ ← ‫ ]אל‬ ֯ ...[

f6+11–13:5 f6+11–13:6

]‫סופות [יקצרו ק]מה[ אין לו צמח בלי יעשה קמח‬ ׄ ‫[כי] ֯רוח יזרעו‬ ]‫[אולי יעש]ה זרים יבלעוׄ ֯ה[ו נבלע ישראל עתה היו בגואים ככלי אין‬ ]... ‫[חפץ בו‬ ]... ‫]הס[ופות‬... ׄ ‫פשר[ו‬ ֯ ]...[‫הב‬

f6+11–13:6 f6+11–13:7 f6+11–13:8 f6+11–13:9 f6+11–13:10

12ʹ. (Hosea 8:7–8)637

13ʹ. (Hosea 8:12–13a)

‑Gap‑

]...[°°°]...[ ]... ‫ נ]חשב[ו‬...[

f14:1 f14:2

]...[‫[פ]שרו אשר‬ ]...[‫]יתפושו איש‬...[ ]...[ 638‫]רצה‬ ֯ ‫]אל ׄל[וא‬...[ ֯

f16:1 f16:2 f16:3

]‫וישכ[ח ישראל את עשהו ויבן היכלות ויהודה‬ ׄ ‫[ישו]בו‬ ]... ‫֯הרבה ערי֯ [ם‬

f15+33:1639 f15+33:2

14ʹ. (Hosea 8:13b–14)

‑Gap‑

‑Gap of 2 lines‑

636  It is uncertain whether this is the lemma or an internal citation. 637  Note that based on a material reconstruction, R. Vielhauer aligns 4Q168 f2 + 4Q167 f15+33 i:1 and 2 with f6+11–13:8 and 9 (“Materielle Rekonstruktion”, 58–60). 638  This seems to correspond to ‫הו֖ה ֣ל ֹא ָר ָ ֑צם‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬in Hosea 8:13a, and may even be an internal citation. Thus the fragment appears to be part of the comment to the lemma in f14. 639  Strugnell correctly joins 4Q168 f2 to these fragments as a prior column, thus the text presented here is technically from column ii. The alignment of the text of column i with any other fragments remains unclear to me (for a possible alignment with f6+11–13, see Vielhauer, “Materielle Rekonstruktion”, 58–60).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪218‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪ f15+33:3‬‬ ‫‪ f15+33:4‬‬ ‫‪f 15+33:5‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫להיו[ת ‪]...‬‬ ‫לפנׄ [י ‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫‪Uncertain units:‬‬ ‫‪f 19:1‬‬ ‫‪ f19:2‬‬ ‫‪ f19:3‬‬ ‫‪ f19:4‬‬ ‫‪ f19:5‬‬ ‫‪ f19:6‬‬ ‫‪ f19:7‬‬ ‫‪ f19:8‬‬

‫הפ[תגם? ‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬פשר ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬וח את י‪]...[°°‬‬ ‫[‪...‬ז]קנים י‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ °]...‬אשר[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬סר ‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬דה ה‪]...[°‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬היׄ סוׄ [ד‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[‪]...‬ל ‪]...[°‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 20:1‬‬ ‫‪ f20:2‬‬ ‫‪ f20:3‬‬

‫[‪]...[°]...[°°]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ם במקדש י‪]...[°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫יבע[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬בנם ׄ‬

‫‪Fragments too unclear for inclusion:‬‬ ‫‪21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34,‬‬ ‫‪35, 36, 37.‬‬

‫)‪4Q Pesher Micah* (4Q168‬‬ ‫)‪1. (Micah 4:8c–12‬‬

‫ירוש]ל[י]ם [עתה למה תריעי רע המלך אין בך אם יועצך אבד]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ f1+3:1‬לבת‬ ‫֯כי֯ ה[ח]זׄ יקכה[ חיל כיולדה חולי וגחי בת ציון כיולדה כי]‬ ‫‪ f1+3:2‬‬ ‫מקר[יה ושכנת בשדה ובאת עד בבל שם תנצלי שם]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫֯ע ֯ת ֯ה תצאי‬ ‫‪ f1+3:3‬‬ ‫[יגא]ל ֯ך [י]הוה מ[כף איביך ועתה נאספו עליך גוים רבים]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ f1+3:4‬‬ ‫‪[ f1+3:5‬הא]מרים ֯ת[חנף ותחז בציון עינינו והמה לא ידעו מחשבות יהוה ולא]‬ ‫‪[ f1+3:6‬הבינו] ׄע ׄצתו[‪]...‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪ f4:1‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫[‪]...‬צום[‪]...‬‬

‫)?( ‪2ʹ.‬‬

‫יש[רא]ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ ]...[ f9:1 761Q4‬את‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫‪ f36:1 761Q4‬‬

‫[‪]...‬י֯ ש[‪]...‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫)?( ‪3ʹ.‬‬ ‫)?( ‪4ʹ.‬‬

219

Appendices

4Q Pesher Nahum (4Q169) 1. (Nahum 1:3b)

top of column

]‫) פשרו‬vacat( ‫ו]ענׄ ןׄ ׄא[בק רגליו‬ ֯ ‫ בסופה ובשערה דרכו‬...[ ]...[ ֯‫ר[קי]עי שמיו וארצו אשר בי‬ ׄ ‫ר]א ֯ש[י]ת‬ ֯ ...[‫֯ה‬

f 1–2:1 f1–2:2

]...[°‫פ]שרו הים הם כל ה‬ ׄ )vacat( ‫גוע[ר] בים ויוב[שהו‬ ֯ ← )vacat( 641‫לעש[ות] ֯ב ׄהם משפט ולכלותם מעל פני [האדמה‬ ])...([ ‫מו]ש ׄליהם אשר תתם ממשלתם‬ ׄ ...[ ‫עם‬

f 1–2:3 f 1–2:4 f 1–2:5a

2. (Nahum 1:4aα)640

3. (Nahum 1:4aβ–b)

4. (Nahum 1:5–6)

]‫וכל־הנהרות החריב‬ f1–2:4 ]... ‫) פשרו‬vacat([ ‫ [אמלל בשן ו]כרמל ופרח לבנן אמלל‬f1–2:5 ]...[‫[יוב]דו֯ בו רבים רום רשעה כי הב‬ ֯ f 1–2:6 ]...[‫היא‬ ׄ ‫ופרח ׄל ֯בנון‬ ֯ }‫למושליו {לבנון‬642‫[כר]מל ו‬ ֯ f1–2:7 ]... ‫] בחיר[י‬...[‫]תם ואבדו מלפני‬...[ f 1–2:8 ← ‫‏‬vacat ‫ל יושבי תבל‏‬°]...[ f 1–2:9

] ‫֯ה ֯ר[ים רעשו ממנו והגבעות התמוגגו‬ f1–2:9 ]‫וכו]ל[יושבי בה לפני זעמו מי יעמוד ומי‬ ׄ ‫]הארץ ממנו ומלפנׄ י֯ [ו תבל‬ ׄ ‫ [ותשא‬f1–2:10 ]...[° ‫]בחרון אפו‬ ׄ ‫ [יקום‬f1–2:11

‑Gap‑

640 The lemma of Nahum 1:4aβ must have occurred at the end of line 4 following a long vacat (as Strugnell reconstructed it) and continued into line 5 (there is no separate pesher for Nahum 1:4aβ, it forms a single unit Nahum 1:4aβ‑b), the interlinear insertion f1–2:5a is a completion of the pesher to Nahum 1:4aα in line 4 which when put back together would read: [(...)]‫מו]ש ׄליהם אשר תתם ממשלתם‬ ׄ [ ‫ לעש[ות] ֯ב ׄהם משפט ולכלותם מעל פני [האדמה] עם‬‎ “to d[o] judgment on them and to destroy them from upon the face of [the earth], together with [ ] their [ru]lers, whose rule will come to an end [(...)]”. This reconstruction explains why Bashan and Carmel as well as the beginning of the lemma in line f1–2:5 are not treated till part way through the comment (the end of f1–2:6 and following); the first part of comment (f1–2:6) deals with an interpretation of the now missing Nah 1:4aβ. In this way, the remains of text on the manuscript are well accounted for and the interlinear comment is provided with a logical context. For a summary and critique of former attempts to explain this passage see Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 84–88.; Doudna presents his own solution on pages 282–284. 641  Insert f1–2:5a here. 642  G. Doudna asserts that this letter is the top of an interlinear ‫( ל‬Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 98). While it is true that the stroke lacks a clearly defined tick at its top, the remains decidedly do not fit a ‫ל‬, for the bottom of the stroke bends markedly to the left. No other ‫ ל‬in f1–2 has an upper ascender that bends in such a way, but this curve is common with ‫י‬/‫ו‬. Other instances of ‫ ו‬lacking a clearly defined tick occur in f1–2:3 and 6; in fact the ‫ ו‬in line 6 is also rather fat like the ‫ ו‬here in line 7. The slightly anomalous nature of this ‫ ו‬is due to extra ink on the pen or excessive pressure on the part of the scribe.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪220‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪ f3–4i:1‬‬

‫)?‪5ʹ. (Nahum 2:12a‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫[‪]...‬מדור לרשעי גוים ←‬

‫)‪6ʹ. (Nahum 2:12b‬‬

‫אשר הלך ארי לביא שם גור ארי‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:1‬‬ ‫דמי]טריס מלך יון אשר בקש לבוא ירושלים בעצת‬ ‫ [ואין מחריד (‪ )vacat‬פשרו‬ ‫‪f3–4i:2‬‬ ‫דורשי החלקות‬ ‫[‪°]...‬יד מלכי יון מאנתיכוס עד עמוד מושלי כתיים ואחר תרמס‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:3‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ←‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:4‬‬ ‫על‪643‬‬

‫)‪7ʹ. (Nahum 2:13a‬‬

‫‪ f3–4i:4‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:5‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4i:6‬‬

‫ארי טורף בדי גוריו []מחנק ללביותיו טרף‬ ‫[‪ ]...‬על כפיר החרון אשר יכה בגדוליו ואנשי עצתו‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬

‫‪f 3–4i:6‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4i:7‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:8‬‬

‫וימלא טרף] ֯חירה ומעונתו טרפה‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על כפיר החרון‬ ‫[‪ ...‬נק]מות בדורשי החלקות אשר יתלה אנשים חיים‬ ‫[‪]...‬בישראל מלפנים כי לתלוי חי ׄע ׄל ֯ה ֯ע ֯ץ [יק]רא ←‬

‫)‪8ʹ. (Nahum 2:13b‬‬

‫)‪9ʹ. (Nahum 2:14‬‬

‫הנני אלי[כה]‬ ‫‪ f3–4i:8‬‬ ‫והכר[תי מארץ‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫תאכל חרב‬ ‫]ה וכפיריכה ׄ‬ ‫ נא[ם יהוה צבאות והבערתי בעשן רובכ‪ׄ 644‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪f3–4i:9‬‬ ‫ה ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫ט]רפ ‏‬ ‫פש]רו רובכה הם גדודי חילו ֯א[שר‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ ולא י[שמע עוד קול מלאככה )‪)vacat‬‬ ‫‪f3–4i:10‬‬ ‫בירושלי]ם‪ 645‬וכפיריו הם‬ ‫֯‬ ‫קב[צו כוה]נ֯ י ירושלים אשר‬ ‫‪ f 3–4i:11‬גדוליו [‪ ]...‬וׄ ׄט ׄרפו הוא ׄה ֯הו֯ ן אשר ֯‬ ‫‪[ f3–4i:12‬י]תנוהו ע[‪ ...‬א]פרים ינתן ישראל ׄל[‪]...‬‬

‫‪f 3–4ii:1‬‬

‫‪bottom of column‬‬ ‫‪top of column‬‬

‫ומלאכיו הם צירו אשר לא ישמע קולם עוד בגוים ‏‪ vacat‬‏←‬

‫)‪10ʹ. (Nahum 3:1a‬‬

‫מלאה‬ ‫פר]ק ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הוי עיר הדמים כולה [כחש‬ ‫‪ f3–4ii:1‬‬ ‫ושקר[ים‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ f3–4ii:2‬פשרו היא עיר אפרים דורשי החלקות לאחרית הימים אשר בכחש‬ ‫י]תהלכו (‪)vacat‬‬

‫‪ with a smaller preceding vacat, following G. Doudna, 4Q‬פשרו הלביא הוא ‪643  Or perhaps‬‬ ‫‪Pesher Nahum, 758.‬‬ ‫‪644  This reconstruction is uncertain.‬‬ ‫‪645  Contra Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 139, in the photo PAM M42.142 the remains of‬‬ ‫‪ in the following line.‬ירושלים ‪ of‬ם ‪this character are a nearly exact match with the‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

221

Appendices

11ʹ. (Nahum 3:1b–3)

‫פר ֯ש ׄמעלה להוב‬ ׄ ‫לא ימוש טרף וקול שוט וקול רעש אופן וסוס דהר ומרכבה מרקדה‬ f3–4ii:3 ‫‏ פשרו על‬vacat ‫גויתם‏‬646‫ וברק חנית ורוב חלל וכבוד פגר ואין קץ לגויה וכשלו ו‬ f3–4ii:4 ‫ממשלת דורשי החלקות‬ ‫אשר לא ימוש מקרב עדתם חרב גוים שבי ובז וחרחור בינותם וגלות מפחד אויב ורוב‬ f 3–4ii:5 ‫בימיהם ואין קץ לכלל חלליהם ואף בגוית בשרם יכשולו בעצת‬ ֯ ‫ פגרי אשמה יפולו‬f3–4ii:6 ‫אשמתם‬

12ʹ. (Nahum 3:4, see p. 148)

‫בכ ׄשפיה‬ ׄ ‫ מרוב זנוני זונה טובת חן []בעלת כשפים הממכרת גוים בזנותה ומשפחות‬ f3–4ii:7 )vacat( ‫‏ אשר בתלמוד שקרם ולשון כזביהם ושפת מרמה‬vacat ‫ם‬ ‫ פשר[ו ע]ל מתעי אפרי ‏‬f3–4ii:8 ‫יתעו רבים‬ ‫נ[כ]בדים‬ ֯ ‫ מלכים שרים כוהנים ועם עם גר נלוה ערים ומשפחות יובדו בעצתם‬ ׄ f3–4ii:9 ]‫ומוש[לים‬ ← ‫‏‬vacat ‫ יפולו [מז]עם לשונם‏‬f3–4ii:10

13ʹ. (Nahum 3:5)

‫הנני אליך נאם יהוה צ[באו]ת וגלית‬ ]...[°°]...[° ׄ‫קלונך פשרו‬ ֯ ⊖⊖⊖ ‫מער[ך] וׄ ממלכות‬ ׄ ‫והרא[י]ת ֯גוים‬ ֯ ‫שוליׄ [ך] על פניך‬ ]...[‫[י]ם‬ ֯ ‫השול‬ ֯ ‫]ערי המזרח כי‬...[

f 3–4ii:10 f3–4ii:11 f3–4ii:12

← ‫ובש]קוצי תועבותיהם‬ ֯ [‫בנדתם‬ ׄ ‫הגוים‬

f 3–4iii:1

‫והשלכתי עליך שקוצים [ונ]בלתיך ושמתיך‬ ‫‏‬vacat ‫כאורה והיה כול רואיך ידודו ממך‏‬ ‫פשרו על דורשי החלקות אשר באחרית הקץ יגלו מעשיהם הרעים לכול ישראל‬ ‫ובה[ג]לות כבוד יהודה‬ ׄ ‫ורבים יבינו בעוונם ושנאום וכארום על זדון אשמתם‬ 647‫[א]ל‬ ←‫[י]שראל‬ ׄ ֯ ‫ידודו פתאי אפרים מתוך קהלם ועזבו את מתעיהם ונלוו על‬

f 3–4iii:1 f3–4iii:2 f 3–4iii:3 f 3–4iii:4 f3–4iii:5

bottom of column top of column

14ʹ. (Nahum 3:6–7a)

646  The syntactically problematic ‫ ו‬here seems to be an error for ‫ב‬, the MT reading, due to the phonological similarity or overlap between spirantized ‫ ב‬and consonantal ‫( ו‬see Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll From Qumran, 35 n. 10). 647  Even accounting for shrinkage of the manuscript here, there is not room for G. Doudna’s reading of ‫י]שראל‬ ֯ ‫( ֯א[ל‬Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 195–199). Nevertheless, Doudna’s suggestion is a very good one, and may still obtain albeit with a different understanding of the manuscript remains. In the presentation of the text here, the ink mark to the right of the break is a ‫ ל‬and the portion of the manuscript preceding that ink mark contained an ‫ א‬that has now become effaced through natural causes – the location on the manuscript where the ‫ א‬would have been does indeed look worn away and the tops of the letters in the line directly below it are quite damaged as well.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪222‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪15ʹ. (Nahum 3:7b‬‬

‫‪f 3–4iii:5‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4iii:6‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4iii:7‬‬ ‫ופת[אים]‬ ‫‪f 3–4iii:8‬‬

‫ם ‪ acat‬‏‪← v‬‬ ‫לא יחזקו עו?ד את עצת ‏‬

‫‪f 3–4iii:8‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4iii:9‬‬

‫התיטיבי מני ׄא ֯מ[ון הישבה ב]יארים‬ ‫פשרו אמון הם מנשה והיארים הם גד[ו]ליׄ מנשה נכבדי ה[‪°]...‬ים את מ[‬

‫ואמרו‬ ‫פש ֯רו֯ [על] ֯דוׄ ׄרשי‬ ‫שודדה‪ 648‬נינוה מי ינוד לה מאין אבקשה מנחמים לך‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ֯‬ ‫יוסיפו עוד לתעות [ה]קהל‬ ‫֯‬ ‫החלקות אשר תובד עצתם ונפרדה כנסתם ולא‬

‫)‪16ʹ. (Nahum 3:8a‬‬ ‫]‪649‬‬

‫)‪17ʹ. (Nahum 3:8b‬‬

‫מים סביב לה אשר חילה ים ומים חוׄ מותיה‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬

‫‪ f3–4iii:10‬‬ ‫[פ]ש ֯רו הם אנשי [ח]י֯ לה גבור[י מ]לחמתה ֯ע ←‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪f 3–4iii:11‬‬

‫)‪18ʹ. (Nahum 3:9a‬‬

‫עוצמה[ ומצרים ואין‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ׄ f 3–4iii:11‬כו֯ ש‬ ‫‪°]...[°‬מ[‪← ...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ׄ °]...[°°] [°°°] [ f 3–4iii:12‬ה ֯מ ֯ח‬ ‫קצ]‪650‬‬

‫)‪19ʹ. (Nahum 3:9b‬‬

‫‪ f3–4iii:12‬פוט ולובים היו בעזרתך]‬

‫]‪[bottom of column‬‬ ‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪f 3–4iv:1‬‬

‫רשע[י ד]ו֯ ֯ר ׄבית פלג הנלוים על מנשה ←‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫פשרו הם‬

‫‪f 3–4iv:1‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4iv:2‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4iv:3‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4iv:4‬‬

‫גם היא בגולה ה[לכה בשבי גם]‬ ‫ג[דו]ל[יה רותקו]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫עילוליה ירוטשו בראש כל חוצות ועל נכבדיה יורו גורל וכול‬ ‫ביש[ראל ‪]...‬‬ ‫בזקים פשרו על מנשה לקץ האחרון אשר תשפל מלכותו ֯‬ ‫בחרב [‪← ...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫נשיו עילוליו וטפו ילכו בשבי גבוריו ונכבדיו‬

‫‪f 3–4iv:4‬‬ ‫‪ f3–4iv:5‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4iv:6‬‬

‫גם את תשכרי]‬ ‫ותהי נעלמה‏ ‪vacat‬‏ פשרו על רשעי ֯א[פרים ‪]...‬‬ ‫מנשה[‪]...‬ל [‪← ...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫אשר תבוא כוסם אחר‬

‫‪f 3–4iv:6‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4iv:7‬‬ ‫‪f 3–4iv:8‬‬

‫גם את תבקשי]‬ ‫ע]ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫מעוז בעיר מאויב פש[רו ׄ‬ ‫בעיר[‪← ...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אויביהם‬

‫)‪20ʹ. (Nahum 3:10‬‬

‫)‪21ʹ. (Nahum 3:11a‬‬

‫)‪22ʹ. (Nahum 3:11b‬‬

‫‪ (See Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries”, 96).‬שורדה ‪648 Or‬‬ ‫סוב]בים את ‪649  Perhaps reconstruct the end of this line following G. Geiger:‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ה[עם אשר‬ ‫‪ (“Einige Alternativlesungen der Qumranrollen”, 203).‬מ[נשה‬ ‫‪650  For a possible reconstruction of the comment of this unit, see Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum,‬‬ ‫‪209–210 and 762–763. The textual remains are, however, too scanty to verify his reconstruction.‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪223‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪23ʹ. (Nahum 3:12‬‬

‫‪ f 3–4iv:8‬כול מבצריך]‬ ‫תאנ֯ ים ֯ע ֯ם[ בכורים ‪]...‬‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪f 3–4iv:9‬‬ ‫‪]...[° f 3–4iv:10‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬

‫)‪24ʹ. (Nahum 3:13‬‬

‫[‪°]...‬ים‬ ‫‪ f5:1‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬כול גבול ישרא[ל] ׄלי֯ ם [‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f5:2‬‬ ‫‪651]...[°‬‬

‫‪ f5:3‬‬

‫)‪25ʹ. (Nahum 3:14‬‬

‫מבצ]ריׄ ֯ך ֯בו֯ ׄאי בטי֯ [ט ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[מי מצור שאבי לך חזקי‬

‫)‪4Q Pesher Zephaniah (4Q170‬‬ ‫‪f 1:1‬‬ ‫‪ f1:2‬‬

‫‑‪‑Gap‬‬ ‫‪f 2:1‬‬ ‫‪ f2:2‬‬

‫‪1. (Zephaniah 1:12–13)652‬‬

‫והיה [חילם למשיסה ‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪ ...‬לוא ייט]יׄ ב יהוה ׄולוׄ א ירע‬ ‫[‪]...[°°]...‬לוא יוכל[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪ ...‬והיה חילם למ]שיסה [‪]...‬‬ ‫[ע]ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬פשרוׄ‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪4Q Pesher Psalmsa (4Q171‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:9‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:10‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:11‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:12‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:13‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:14‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:15‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:16‬‬

‫[‪]...‬ה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬י֯ ר‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬ר‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ר‬

‫)?‪1. (Psalm 37:1–5‬‬

‫‪ f1–2i:17‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:18‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:19‬‬

‫[‪]...‬ת‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪]...‬י֯ ת‬ ‫[‪°]...‬‬

‫‪ f1–2i:20‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:21‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:22‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:23‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:24‬‬

‫[‪]...‬צ ׄהרים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ת רצון‬ ‫[‪]...‬ת הוללים בחרו‬ ‫[‪]...‬אוהבי פרע ומתעים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[יוני]ם‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אב‬ ‫[‪]...‬רשעה ביד ֯‬ ‫֯‬

‫תחר במצליח דרכו באיש‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ו]התחולל לו ואל‬ ‫[דו]ם ׄל[יהוה ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:25‬‬ ‫[עוש]ה מזמות [פשר]ו על איש הכזב אשר התעה רבים באמרי‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪ f1–2i:26‬‬ ‫שמ[עו] למליץ דעת למען‬ ‫ׄשקר כיא בחרו בקלות ולוא ׄ‬ ‫‪f 1–2i:27‬‬

‫)‪2. (Psalm 37:6‬‬

‫)‪3. (Psalm 37:7‬‬

‫‪end of column‬‬

‫‪651  Perhaps this line contained the lemma of Nahum 3:13.‬‬ ‫‪652  The arrangement of f1 and 2 is uncertain.‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪224‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪top of column‬‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:1‬‬

‫יובדו בחרב וברעב ובדבר ←‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:1‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:2‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:3‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:4‬‬

‫הרף מאף ועזוב ׄח ׄמה ואל‬ ‫אך להרע כיא מרעים יכרתו פשרו על כול השבים‬ ‫תחר ׄ‬ ‫לתורה אשר לוא ימאנו לשוב מרעתם כיא כול הממרים‬ ‫לשוב מעונם יכרתו ←‬

‫‪ f1–2ii:4‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:5‬‬

‫וקואי 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 המה ירשו ארץ פשרו‬ ‫המה עדת בחירו עושי רצונו ←‬

‫‪ f1–2ii:5‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:6‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:7‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:8‬‬

‫ועוד מעט ואין רשע‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫ואתבוננה על מקומו ואיננו פשרו על כול הרשעה לסוף‬ ‫ארבעים השנה אשר יתמו ולוא ימצא בארץ כול איש‬ ‫[ר]שע ←‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:8‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:9‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:10‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:11‬‬

‫וענוים ירשו ארץ והתענגו על רוב שלום פשרו על‬ ‫פחי‬ ‫עדת האביונים אשר יקבלו את מועד התענית ונצלו מכול ׄ‬ ‫בליעל ואחר יתענגו [ב]כול ֯מ[עד]נ֯ י הארץ והתדשנו בכול תענׄ ֯וג‬ ‫בשר‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:12‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:13‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:14‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:15‬‬

‫ז]ה ֯ו[ה] ישחק לו כיא ראה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫זומם רשע לצדיק וחורק ֯ע[ליו שניו‏‬ ‫כיא בא יומו פשרו על עריצי הברית ׄא ׄשר בבית י֯ ׄהודה אשר‬ ‫יזומו לכלות את עושי התורה אשר בעצת היחד ואל לוא יעזבם‬ ‫בידם ←‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:15‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:16‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:17‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:18‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:19‬‬ ‫‪ f1–2ii:20‬‬

‫חרב פתחו רשעים וידרוכו קשתם לפיל עני ואביון‬ ‫ולטבוח ישרי דרך חרבם תבוא בלבם וקשתותיהם תשברנה‬ ‫פשרו על רשעי אפרים ומנשה אשר יבקשו לשלוח יד‬ ‫יפדם‬ ‫בכוהן ובאנשי עצתו בעת המצרף הבאה עליהם ואל ֯‬ ‫מידם ואחר[י] כן ינתנו ביד עריצי גואים למשפט‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬

‫‪f 1–2ii:21‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:22‬‬ ‫‪f 1–2ii:23‬‬

‫טוב מעט לצדיק מהמון רשעים רביׄ [ם ‪ ...‬פשרו על]‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫עוׄ שה התורה אשר לוא יׄ‬ ‫לרעות ←‬

‫‪ f1–2ii:23‬‬

‫כיא אזרוע[ות רשעים תשברנה וסומך צדיקים]‬

‫)‪4. (Psalm 37:8–9a‬‬

‫)‪5. (Psalm 37:9b‬‬ ‫)‪6. (Psalm 37:10‬‬

‫)‪7. (Psalm 37:11‬‬

‫)‪8. (Psalm 37:12–13‬‬

‫)‪9. (Psalm 37:14–15‬‬

‫)‪10. (Psalm 37:16‬‬

‫)‪11. (Psalm 37:17–18‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

225

Appendices

6653 ... ‫𐤉𐤄]𐤅𐤄 יודע 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 ימי תמימים ונחלתם לעולם תהיה‬ ]...[°]... ‫רצונ[ו‬

f1–2ii:24 f1–2ii:25

]... ‫י]בושו ב[עת רעה פשרו על‬ ׄ ‫ל[וא‬

f1–2ii:26

‫בישר ׄה ולהם כול נחלת‬ ֯ ‫שבי המדבר אשר יחיו אלף דור‬ ← ‫אדם ולזרעם עד עולם‬

f1+3–4iii:1 f1+3–4iii:2

‫[ב]עו֯ כיא רשעים‬ ֯ ‫יש‬ ֯ ‫ובימי רעב‬ ‫יובדו פשרו ֯א[שר] יחים ברעב במועד ֯ה[תע]נית ורבים‬ ]‫]להיׄ וׄ ֯ת ֯ע[ם‬... ‫יובדו ברעב ובדבר כול אשר לוא יצא[ו‬ ]...[° ‫עדת בחירו אשר יהיו רשים ושרים‬

f1+3–4iii:2 f1+3–4iii:3 f1+3–4iii:4 f1+3–4iii:5

12. (Psalm 37:19a)

end of column top of column

13. (Psalm 37:19b–20aα)

14. (Psalm 37:20aβ, see pp. 109–110) 15. (Psalm 37:20b)

]... ‫ כורים פשר[ו‬655‫ יהוה כיקד‬654‫ואוה«א?»בי‬ f1+3–4iii:4a ‫‏‬vacat ‫ צון בתוך עדריהם‏‬ f1+3–4iii:6

‫עם‬ ׄ ‫ה[רש]עה אשר הונו את‬ ֯ ‫כלו כעשן כולו פשר[ו] על שרי‬ ← ‫האוב[ד בר]ו֯ ח‬ ֯ ‫קודשו אשר יובדו כעשן‬

f1+3–4iii:7 f1+3–4iii:8

‫לוה רשע ולוא ישלם‬ ‫יכ]רתו‬ ֯ ‫ומ ׄקולל[(י)ו‬ ׄ ‫מבורכ[(י)ו יר]שו ארץ‬ ׄ ‫וצדיק חונן ונותן כיא‬

f1+3–4iii:8 f1+3–4iii:9

16. (Psalm 37:21–22)

653  As the text of lines 23–24 are laid out here, there should be little‑to‑no space at the end of this line after ‫ ;על‬D. Pardee’s restoration ‫ פשרו על בני‬would seem the most economical solution (see also his discussion of the phrase ‫ בני רצונו‬in “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalm 37”, 182). The alignment of the lemma from Psalm 37:17–18 within lines f1–2ii:23–24, however, remains uncertain. 654  It seems that the scribe who hastily wrote the interlinear correction to include this line from Psalm 37 began to write a ‫ ה‬in this word and then perhaps changed it to an awkward ‫( א‬drawn: [author’s handcopy]; though the letter ‫ ה‬can be found from time to time with a similar shape). Instances of ‫ אֹיֵב‬with the orthography ‫ אואב‬occur in a Psalm scroll 4Q88 10:11 and a prayer 4Q434 f7b:3—both instances are plural (similarly, see also the assertion of J. Amoussine, “observatiunculae Qumraneae”, that the copyist of this word had a vorlage with ‫)ואואבי‬. Whether the odd shaping of this ‫ ה‬points to a reshaped letter, some problem in the scribe’s source for the correction (i.e., oral/aural, written, or remembered), or the scribe’s own hesitation over the preferred text here, the plene writing of ‫“ כורים‬furnaces” maintains the negative image of burning found in the next colon, so I prefer to read ‫אואבי‬, “the enemies of ”. For instances of reshaped letters in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 228–229. Note that my understanding of this insertion stands in contrast to the recent assertion of Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran”, 303 that the text simply has ‫אוהבי‬. 655  It is not perfectly clear in the manuscript whether this word ends in ‫ ד‬or ‫ר‬. Since the other clear cases of ‫ ר‬in this second correcting hand are about twice the width of the character in question here, it seems more judicious to read a ‫ד‬, which also affords a more sensical reading of the text.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‫‪226‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫‪f 1+3–4iii:10‬‬ ‫‪f 1+3–4iii:11‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:12‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:13‬‬

‫פשרו על עדת האביונים ‪]...[°‬ם נחלת כול ֯ה[‪°]...‬ל[‪]...‬‬ ‫[מקול]לו֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ירשו את הר מרום ישר[אל וב]קודשו יתענגו ו֯‬ ‫ונשמ ֯ד[ו]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הב[רית ר]שעי ישראל אשר יכרתו‬ ‫יכרתו המה עריצי ֯‬ ‫לעולם‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬

‫‪f 1+3–4iii:14‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:15‬‬ ‫‪f 1+3–4iii:16‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:17‬‬

‫י[פו]ל [לוא]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[ו]דרכו יׄ ׄחפץ ׄכיא‬ ‫֯‬ ‫]כו֯ נ֯ נׄ ו֯‬ ‫כיא‪ 656‬מ𐤉𐤄̇𐤅]𐤄 מצעדי גבר ֯‬ ‫יוטל כיא 𐤉]𐤄𐤅𐤄 סומך ידו] ֯פשרו על הכוהן ׄמוׄ רה ה[צדק אשר]‬ ‫עד ׄת[‪]...‬‬ ‫[ב]חר בו אל לעמוד ו֯ [אשר] הכינו לבנות לו ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[ודר]כו ישר לאמתו֯ ←‬

‫)‪17. (Psalm 37:23–24‬‬

‫)‪18. (Psalm 37:25–26‬‬

‫‪[ f1+3–4iii:17‬נער היי]תי וגם זקנתי ולוא[ ראיתי צדיק]‬ ‫לח ֯ם[ כול היום] חונן ומלוה וזר[עו לברכה פשר]‬ ‫‪ f 1+3–4iii:18‬נעזב וזרעו מבקש ֯‬ ‫‪]...‬אל ׄב[‪]...‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ור[ה הצדק‬ ‫‪ f 1+3–4iii:19‬הדבר על ׄמ ֯‬ ‫‪ f 1+3–4iii:20‬ואת[‪]...‬‬

‫‪ f1+3–4iii:21‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:22‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:23‬‬

‫‪ f1+3–4iii:27‬‬

‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬

‫)?‪19. (Psalm 37:27‬‬

‫‪ f1+3–4iii:24‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:25‬‬ ‫‪ f1+3–4iii:26‬‬ ‫‪f 1+3–4iii:27‬‬

‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪]...‬‬ ‫[‪← ...‬‬

‫)‪20. (Psalm 37:28‬‬

‫כיא 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 אוהב]‬

‫]‪[bottom of column‬‬ ‫‪top of column‬‬

‫לעו]ל ׄם נשמדו וזרע ֯ר[שעים נכרת פשרו]‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫‪  f3–10iv:1‬מש[פט ולוא יעזוב את חסידיו עולים‬ ‫֯‬ ‫֯המה ערי֯ צי‬ ‫[‪ ]...‬התורה ←‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:2‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:2‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:3‬‬

‫ל]עד עליה‬ ‫יקי֯ [ם ירשו ארץ וישכנו ׄ‬ ‫צד ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[פשרו ‪]...‬באלף[‪← ...‬‬

‫)‪21. (Psalm 37:29‬‬

‫)‪22. (Psalm 37:30–31‬‬

‫כמ ֯ה ולשונו תדבר‬ ‫פי צדיק יהגה ח]ו֯ ׄ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:3‬‬ ‫אש ֯ר דבר‬ ‫‪[ f3–10iv:4‬משפט תורת אלהיו בלבו לוא תמעד אשריו פשרו על] האמת ֯‬ ‫ [‪֯ °°]...‬א ֯ליהם הגי ‏ד ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:5‬‬ ‫ [‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:6‬‬

‫‪ is not present in any other ver‬כיא ‪ here belongs to the lemma.‬כיא ‪656  It is not certain that‬‬‫‪sion of the base‑text and should be perhaps understood not as a textual variant, but as a device‬‬ ‫‪used by the pesherist to link the comment of 1QpPsa commentary unit 16 to commentary unit‬‬ ‫‪17 (see also Jokiranta, Social Identity, 129).‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

‫‪227‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫)‪23. (Psalm 37:32–33‬‬

‫ו]ל[וא‬ ‫ומבקש[ להמיתו [ ̊𐤅̊𐤄 ]𐤉𐤄לוא יעזבנו בידו ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ צופה רשע ׄלצדיק‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:7‬‬ ‫{ו}בהשפטו‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫י]רשיענו‬ ‫יתו[‪]...‬ת‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הצד[ק ובקש] ֯ל ׄה ׄמ‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫[הכו]הן הרשע אשר ֯צ[פה למור]ה‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ פשרו על‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:8‬‬ ‫והתורה ‪°‬‬ ‫י]שלם[ אל‬ ‫ב]השפטו ול[ו ֯‬ ‫ אשר שלח אליו ואל לוא ֯יע[זבנו בזדו] ו֯ לוא[ ירשיענו ֯‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:9‬‬ ‫את ג]מולו לתתו‬ ‫גואי֯ ֯ם לעשות בו[ משפט ←‬ ‫ביד עריצ[י] ׄ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:10‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:10‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:11‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:12‬‬

‫)‪24. (Psalm 37:34‬‬

‫דר ֯כו ו[י]רוממכה לרשת‬ ‫קוה אל 𐤉[𐤄𐤅𐤄 ושמור ׄ‬ ‫תר[אה פשרו על ‪ ]...‬אשר יראו במשפט רשעה ועם‬ ‫בהכרת רשעים ֯‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫אמת‏ ‪vacat‬‏‬ ‫בחירו יׄ שמחו ֯בנׄ ׄחלת ֯‬

‫)‪25. (Psalm 37:35–36‬‬

‫מ[קו]מו֯ ו֯ [הנה אינ]נו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[ו]מ ׄת ֯ע[רה כאזרח רענן ו]אעבור על‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫ [ראי]תי֯ ֯ר ֯שע ׄעריץ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:13‬‬ ‫וא[בקשהו] ו֯ לוא‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אל[ ויב]קש‬ ‫בח[יר]י ׄ‬ ‫ [נמצא פשרו] ֯על ֯א[י]ש הכזׄ ֯ב[ אשר ‪ׄ °]...‬ל‪] [°‬על ֯‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:14‬‬ ‫לשבית את‬ ‫רמ ֯ה‬ ‫משפט[‪]...‬הזיד ביד ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪]...[°‬לעשות[ מ]מנו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪°]...‬מ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:15‬‬ ‫[‪°]...‬ל‪°‬ל‪← [°‬‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:16‬‬

‫)‪26. (Psalm 37:37‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:16‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:17‬‬

‫שלום פשרו ע[ל]‬ ‫לאי]ש ׄ‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אח]ר[ית‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫שמור תם וראה] ישר[ כיא‬ ‫[‪]...[°]...‬ת שלו֯ [ם] ←‬ ‫֯‬ ‫הא‬ ‫]‪°°‬ד ֯ם ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫[‪[°]...‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:17‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:18‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:19‬‬

‫ופושעים‬ ‫ואח ֯ר[ית רשעים נכרתה פשרו ‪]...‬י֯ ובדו ונכרתו‬ ‫נשמדו יחד ׄ‬ ‫ׄ‬ ‫֯מ ֯תוך עדת היחד ←‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:19‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:20‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:21‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:22‬‬

‫ות[שועת צדיקים מיהוה מעוזם בעת צרה ויעזרם יהוה]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ים[ ויושיעם כיא חסו בו פשרו ‪]...‬‬ ‫ויפלטם ׄמ ֯ר ֯ש ׄע ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫וימלטם‬ ‫יושיעם אל ו[י]צילם ׄמיד ר[שעי ‪]...‬‬ ‫‪657]...[vacat‬‬

‫)‪27. (Psalm 37:38‬‬

‫)‪28. (Psalm 37:39–40‬‬

‫)‪29. (Psalm 45:1‬‬

‫ה]מה שבע מחלקות‬ ‫ למנצח על [שושנ]יׄ ֯ם[ לבני קרח משכיל שיר ידידות (‪֯ )...‬‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:23‬‬ ‫יש[ראל ‪← ...‬‬ ‫ׄש ׄבי ֯‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:24‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:24‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:25‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪f3–10iv:26‬‬

‫רח]ש ל[ב]יׄ דבר טוב‬ ‫֯‬ ‫֯או֯ [מר אני מעשי למלך פשרו ‪ °]...‬קודש כיא‬ ‫[‪]...‬ספרי֯ [‪]...‬‏ ‪vacat‬‏ ←‬ ‫ׄ‬

‫)‪30. (Psalm 45:2a‬‬

‫‪657  This whole line is almost certainly blank.‬‬

‫‪© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726‬‬

228

Appendices

31. (Psalm 45:2b)

‫ולשוני עט‬ ‫ו אל במעני לשון‬°°]... ‫מורה[ הצדק‬ ֯ ‫]על‬ ׄ ‫[סופר מהיר פשרו‬

end of column

33ʹ. (?)

34ʹ. (?)

]...[‫]בשפת ע‬...[ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ׄ

]...[°]...[ ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[

f 12:1 f12:2

‑Gap‑

32ʹ. (?)

top of column

]...[‫לשוב יחד לתורה ׄב‬ ]...[°‫א‬°]...[‫שר ֯אל‬ ׄ ׄ‫בחיר[י] י‬ ֯

f 13:1 f13:2

35ʹ. (Psalm 60:8–9)

]‫אלו]הים דבר [בקדשו אעלזה אחלקה שכם‬ ֯ ...[ ]‫[ועמק סכו]ת אמדדה לי[ גלעד ולי מנשה ואפרים מעוז ראשי‬ ]... ‫גלע]ד וחצי שבט[ מנשה‬ ׄ ‫[פשרו על‬ ]...[ ֯‫]ו֯ נקבצו‬...[

f3–10iv:26 f3–10iv:27

‑Gap‑

f 11:1 f11:2

‑Gap‑

f13:3 f13:4 f13:5 f13:6

4Q Pesher Psalmsb (4Q173)658 1. (Psalm 127:2)

]...[°]...[ ]‫לכם[ משכימי קום מאחרי שבת אוכלי לחם העצבים כן‬ ֯ ‫ שו]א‬...[ ]...[‫[יתן לידידו שנא פשרו א]שר יבקשו‬ ]...[‫הצדק‬ ֯ ‫]תרות מורה‬...[ ]... ‫ כו]הן לאחרית הק[ץ‬...[ ]...[ ‫‏‬vacat ‫]‏‬...[

f1:1 f1:2 f1:3 f1:4 f1:5 f1:6

659‫[הנה נחלת יהוה בנים פשרו על י]וׄ רשי‬ ]...[‫הנחלה‬ ֯

f1:7

← ]...[

f2:1

2. (Psalm 127:3)

‑Gap‑660

658  I do not include f5, which Strugnell has rightly judged to be from a different – much later – hand (Strugnell, “Notes en marge”, 219). 659 The ‫ י‬here has a small foot due to the scribe failing to pick up the stylus quickly enough before moving on to the next letter. 660  The gap, if any, between f1 and f2 appears to be minimal since both f1 and f2 comment on parts of Psalms 127:3.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

229

Appendices

3ʹ. (Psalm 127:3)

]... 661‫הפת[גם‬ ׄ ‫ פשר‬v‫ ‏‬acat ‫[שכר פרי הבטן]‏‬ ]... ‫הצד[ק‬ ֯ ‫ מ]וׄ רה‬...[

4ʹ. (Psalm 127:5a) 5ʹ. (Psalm 127:5b)

f 2:1 f2:2

‑Gap‑

]... ‫א]ש ֯ריׄ הגבר[ אשר מלא את אשפתו מהם‬ ֯ )...([ ]...[‫) פשרו] אשר יהיו ק‬...([

f 3:1 f3:2

]... ‫)]לו֯ ֯א יבושו ֯כ[י ידברו את אויבים בשער‬...([ ]...[°°‫)]ל‬...([ ׄ

f 3:3 f3:4

6ʹ. (Psalm 129:7–8)

]‫קוצר וׄ [חצנו מעמר ולוא אמרו העברים‬ ֯ ‫) שלא] ֯מלא כפו‬...([ ]... ‫בר[כנו אתכם בשם יהוה‬ ׄ ‫[יכ]ם‬ ׄ ‫[ברכת י]הוה ׄע ׄל‬ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ׄ ‫שע‬ ֯ ‫]ר‬...[ ֯

‑Gap‑ f 4:1 f4:2 f4:3

4Q Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) [Pesher on Genesis 49] Introduction 1. (Genesis 49:3–4)

← ‫ ברכות יעקוב‬v‫ ‏‬acat ... ‫‏‬ 4:3

‫ראובן בכורי אתה‬ ‫ורישית אוני יתר שאת ויתר עוז פחזתה כמים אל תותר עליתה‬ ‫‏ פשרו אשר הוכיחו אשר‬vacat ‫משכבי אביכה אז חללתה יצועיו עלה‏‬ ‫]ר ֯אוׄ ׄבןׄ הוא‬...[ ֯ ‫]ל‬ ׄ ‫הבכור ֯א[תה‬ ֯ ‫[א]מר‬ ׄ ֯‫שכב עם בלהה פילגשו ו‬ ]...[°°° ‫ראשית ערכו‬

4 :3 4:4 4:5 4 :6 4:7

‑Gap‑

661 A ‫ ת‬is quite likely here, the stance of the right leg is compatible with ‫ ת‬found elsewhere in 4QpPsb and to the left of that remains a small amount of ink which is well positioned and shaped to correspond to the curve of the foot on the left hand leg:

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

230

Appendices

2ʹ. (Genesis 49:10a, see pp. 147–148)

‫לו]א יסור שליט משבט יהודה בהיות לישראל ממשל‬ ֯ ...[ ‫ כי המחקק היא ברית המלכות‬663‫כסא לדויד‬ ׄ ‫י]כרת יושב‬ ֯ ‫וא‬662‫[ל‬ ‫עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח‬664‫ ‏‬vacat‫ישראל המה הדגלים ‏‬ ׄ ‫[ואלו]פי‬ ‫ׄדויד כי לו ולזרעו נתנה ברית מלכות עמו עד דורות עולם אשר‬ ‫] ֯התורה עם אנשי היחד כי‬...[° ‫שמר‬ ‫ ׄהיא כנסת אנשי‬°]...[ ‫ נׄ תן‬°]...[

3ʹ. (Genesis 49:20–21)

]...[‫יתן מעדני י‬ ]...[°°]...[°‫שפר ע‬ ]...[‫את ה‬ ]...[‫ׄה ֯ש‬

5 :1 5 :2 5 :3 5 :4 5:5 5 :6 5 :7

‑Gap‑ 6 :1 6:2 6 :3 6 :4

20 4Q Pesher Malachi* (4Q253a) 1. (Malachi 3:16–18)

top of column

‫ אז נדברו יראי יהוה איש אל רעה]ו֯ ויקשב‬...[ f1i:1 ‫[יהוה וישמע ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו ליראי יהוה ולחשבי שמו] והיו לי‬ f1i:2 ‫ע]ליׄ הם כאשר‬ ׄ ‫[אמר יהוה צבאות ליום אשר אני עושה סגלה וחמלתי‬ f1i:3 ‫]בין צדיק לרשע‬ ׄ ‫[יחמול איש על בנו העובד אותו ושבתם וראיתם‬ f1i:4 ]...[ °° ‫]הצדק ועל‬... ‫ [בין עובד אלוהים לאשר לוא עבדו‬f1i:5

‑Gap‑

]...[ ‫יׄ גיש את דמו אל‬ ]...[‫]ל‬...[ ׄ ‫ההוא‬ ׄ ]...[°

f1ii:2 f1ii:3 f1ii:4

2ʹ. (?)

top of column

]...[‫יא‬ ֯ ‫שר מישראל אשר‬ ‫ואי ׅׄ‬

f1ii:1

662  In PAM 41.816 there is a little speck of parchment with the top of ‫ לו‬on it and situated as if it is from ‫ לו‬here. If that is correct, then we read ]‫לו֯ [א י‬.ׄ 663  For similar formulations of this promise, see 1 Kings 2:4, 8:25 (|| 2 Chronicles 6:16), 9:5 (|| 2 Chronicles 7:18), and also Jeremiah 33:17 (MT). 664  This must be a variant reading for ‫ רגליו‬in the MT with ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion (as also in the Samaritan Pentateuch), thus it is also an internal citation from the lemma used as a keyword.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

231

Appendices

4Q Commentary on Genesis C (4Q254) [Pesher on Genesis 49] 1. (Genesis 49:15b)

2. (Genesis 49:16–17)

3. (Genesis 49:24–26)

]...[ v‫ ‏‬acat ‫ו֯ יׄ ֯ט[ שכמו לסבול ויהי למס ]עוׄ ב ‏ד‬ ]...[‫ולים‬ ׄ ‫הג ׄד‬ ׄ ‫]ן‬...[ ‫אשר‬ ׄ ← ...[° ‫ׄעובד‬

f5–6:1 f5–6:2 f5–6:3

]‫כאח[ד] ֯ש[בטי ישראל‬ ׄ ‫ע]מו‬ ׄ ‫דן ידין‬ ]‫שפי]פון עלי ׄאו[רח הנושך‬ ֯ ‫וׄ יהי דן נׄ ׄח[ש עלי דרך‬ ]...[°]...[‫]סוׄ ֯ס‬ ׄ ‫עקב[י‬ ׄ ]... ‫יׄ שר[אל‬

f 5–6:3 f5–6:4 f5–6:5 f 5–6:6

]...[°]...[ ]... ‫קשת[ו‬ ׄ ‫ ותש]ב באיתן‬...[ ]...[ ‫ישראל‬ ֯ ‫רוע]ה אבן‬ ֯ ...[ ]...[ ‫ממ[ע]ל‬ ׄ ]‫ שמים‬...[ ]... ‫ע]ל ֯ב[רכות‬ ׄ ...[

f7:1 f7:2 f7:3 f7:4 f7:5

5Q Pesher Malachi? (5Q10) 1. (Malachi 1:14a)

]... ‫[וזובח] ׄמשוחת ֯ל ֯א[דוני‬ ]...[‫הל ֯צים בבהמת‬ ׄ 665] [

f 1:1 f1:2

]‫כיא מלך גדול ׄא[ני] ׄא[מר יהוה צבאות ושמי נורא בגוים פשרו‬666] [ ]... ‫[א]שר הוא אל חי ו֯ הו֯ [א‬ ]...[ ‫הכוׄ ׄל‬ ׄ ‫[א]ת‬ ׄ ‫[ל]מנוׄ ׄת‬ ֯

f 1:3 f1:4 f1:5

2. (Malachi 1:14b)

4ʹ. (?)

]...[ ‫כול‬ ֯ ]...[ ]...[ ‫]ת‬...[

f 3:1 f3:2

3ʹ. (?)

]...[°‫]ה‬...[ ֯ ]...[‫]השבט‬...[ ׄ ]...[°]...[

665  ‫הל ֯צים‬ ׄ probably stands at the beginning of the line. 666  ‫ כיא‬probably stands at the beginning of the line.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

‑Gap‑ f 2:1 f2:2 f2:3

‑Gap‑

232

Appendices

Qumran Pesher Line Length Estimates 1QpHab col. 1 col. 2 col. 3 col. 4 col. 5 col. 6 col. 7 col. 8 col. 9 col. 10 col. 11 col. 12 col. 13 1QpMic f1–5 f8–10 f11 f17–19

9 8 10 10

1QpZeph f1 1QpPs f1–18

3QpIsa* f1

10 7 7 6 8 7 7 8 7 7 6 7 7

4QpIsaa f2–4 f5–6 f8–10

10 10 9

4QpIsab col. 2 col. 3

11 9?

4QpappIsac 1 f4–7i f4–7ii f8–10 f11ii f15–16 f18–19 f21 f23ii

9 10 8 8 10 11 8 9

9 f25 f26

4QpappIsac 2 f2–3 14

11

9 9 10 12 10

9

4QpIsae f1–2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f11

12 13 16 19 11 8

4QpPsa f1–2i f1–2ii f1+3–4iii f3–10iv f13

4QpHosa col. 1 col. 2

7 7

4QcommGen A col. 4 11 col. 5 10

f10+26 f6+11–13 4QpMic* f1+3

12?

12 14 14 11 14

4QpIsad f1

4QpHosb f2 f4+5+18+24

8 10

4QpNah f1–2 f3–4i f3–4ii f3–4iii f3–4iv

17 15 11 11 10

4QpMal* f1i

11

4QcommGen C f5–6 9 5QpMal? f1 11

The Usage of Blank Space in the Pesharim vacats line breaks blank lines indent line break + blank line 1QpHab 4QpHosb 4QpPsa 4QHosa 4QpappIsac 3QpIsa* 4QpIsaa 4QpPsb 4QCommGen C

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

233

vacats line breaks blank lines indent line break + blank line 4QpNah 1QpMic 1QpPs 4QCommGen A 4QpIsab 4QpIsad 4QpIsae

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

Enūma Eliš Commentary I V (VAT 10616(+)11616) break 1 [ ] an [ (...) ] 2 [ ] pa ⸢x⸣ VII 77 3 [ti‑amāt ru‑kub‑šu‑ma šu‑ú ma‑làḫ ‑šá ... u]h.me.u667 gim ˘ dug4‑u VII 92 4 [šá ina re‑ši u ar‑ka‑ti du‑ru‑uš‑šú kun‑nu dag ina barag nam.meš ud.6.kám igi den u]d.11.kám egir

VII 97 5 6 VII 98 7 8 9 VII 108 10

11

[ ] ? [ (...) ] [ ] ? ? [Tiāmat was his boat, he was her sailor.] As it is said, the l. temple personn[el ... ] [Whose foundation is secure on the “Fore and Aft”. Nabû is in the throne dais of fates on the sixth den day before Bēl and on] the 11th [d]ay behind Bēl. [da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑lik dé‑a ba‑an [Aranunna, counsellor of Ea, credingir].meš ad.meš‑šú ator of the god]s, his fathers, [(indent) ... ṭ]è‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a [(indent) ...de]cision of 40 Ea. ⸢šá a‑na a⸣‑l[ak‑ti ru‑bu‑ti‑šú la Whom [no] god [can equa]l in ú‑maš‑šá‑l]u dingir a‑a‑um‑ma respect of [his lordly wal]k.668 ša ki de[n ... ta‑lu‑k]i‑šú la whose? ways with Bē[l ... ] cannot un‑da‑an‑du‑⸢u⸣ be known. šal‑šiš d30 ta ⸢x⸣ [...]‑ru ḫ ab‑ra‑tú Thirdly Sîn ? ? [ ... ] ? clamorous ina sur‑ru in deceit? šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš At whose name the gods [ben]d ki‑[ma me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šu]b‑bu pal‑ḫ iš down in reverence as [before a hurricane.] d mu li‑is‑me šá dumu.é [šá (This has to do) with the race of èš‑nunki gi]m dug4‑u Mār‑bīti [of Ešnunna, a]s it is said.

667  uh.me.u = luḫ šû (MSL 12 132:103). ˘ 668  This line may be slightly too long for the break.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

234

Appendices

VII 109 12 de.sískur šá‑qiš ina é i[k‑ri‑bi li]‑šib‑ma VII 110 13 14

VII 121 15

VII 127 16

17

VII 139 18

19

Dingir‑Esiskur – [let him t]ake the lofty seat in the House of Be[nediction] dingir.dingir maḫ ‑ra‑šú Let the gods bri[ng] their [pre] li‑še‑r[i‑bu kàt‑r]a‑šú‑un sents before him iti qí‑šá‑a‑ti šá ‹ina bára› ul‑tu The gifts which [are given] ‹in the ud.6.kám e[n ud.12.kám sum‑na month of Nisan› from the 6th day d mu z]a‑ba4‑ba4 gim dug4‑u t[o the 12th. (This has to do) with Z]ababa, as it is said. ⸢mu⸣‑[um‑mu er]‑⸢pe‑e‑tú⸣ [May] the ru[mble of the cl]ouds [liš]‑⸢tak‑ṣi⸣‑[ba‑am mu‑um‑mu] dimini[sh mu‑um‑mu] (means) rig‑mu rumble. [lu‑ú ṣa‑bit kun‑sag‑gi šu‑nu [Let him take his stand on the ša‑a‑šu lu‑ú pa]l‑su‑šú heavenly staircase that they may lo]ok at him. [(indent) kun‑sag‑gu‑ú re‑e‑šú [(indent) kun‑sag‑gu‑ú (means) ar‑ka‑tu ka.šu.gál ba‑la‑ṣu669 front‑rear, ka.šu.gál (means) ka.šu.gál l]a‑ban ap‑pi ba‑la‑ṣu, ka.šu.gál (means) to stroke] the nose (as a sign of respect). [ma‑a ša ab‑bé‑e‑šu ú‑šar‑ri‑ḫ u [“Why! He whose name was exzi‑kir‑šú ma‑a ma‑a]‑ri tolled by his fathers ma‑a (is a mistake for?) so]n. [ ]‑a [ ]? break

W (Rm II 538)

VII 1

break da[sar‑re šá‑rik mé‑reš‑ti šá is‑ra‑tu A[sarre, the giver of arable land ú‑kin‑nu] who established plough‑land,] 2 is‑[ra‑tum]670 a.š[à? garin? is‑[ra‑tum (means) (...) ] “plough]‑la[nd” (...) ] 1

669 The comment seems to be reading the lemma as bal‑ṣú‑šú (see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 492), but there may also be confusion between the roots palāsu and balāṣu, both of which are verbs of vision. 670  Restoration from z rev. 7.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

235

Appendices

3 ⸢ba⸣‑[nu]‑⸢ú⸣ še‑im u qù‑[e mu‑še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti] 4 ⸢qù⸣‑um ṣe‑ḫ er‑t[u (...) ] VII 9 5 dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑[diš‑ti‑šu‑nu šu‑ú‑ma] 6 šá ina ká.dingir.raki [ (...) ] d VII 35 7 šà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑b[i dingir.meš šá i‑bar‑ru‑u kar‑šú] VII 2

8

ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš (...) ]672

VII 57 9 [den‑bi]‑⸢lu⸣‑lu be‑lum mu‑deš‑[šu‑ú‑šú‑nu šu‑ú‑ma] 10 [na‑din šu]‑⸢ʾ⸣‑i mu‑ša[b‑šu‑ú áš?‑na?‑an?]673 11 [ ... ] ⸢x x⸣ [ ... ] break

The cr[eat]or of barley and fla[x, who made plant life grow.] ⸢qù⸣‑um (means) fla[x (...) ] Tutu is [he], who accomplishes [their] reno[vation,] which is in Babylon [ (...) ] Šazu, who knew the hear [t of the gods, who probes the mind,671] [Šamaš] is the one who probes hearts [ (...) ] [Enbi]lulu is [he], the lord who supplies [them abundantly,] [Who gives wh]eat, and brings [grain into being.] [ ... ] ? ? [ ... ]

X (K 8585) break 1 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ be za ⸢ri?⸣ [ ... ] [ ... ] ? ? ? ? [ ... ] VI 94 2 [da‑nu‑um ina ukkin dingir.meš [Anu s]et i[t there in the assembly ša‑a‑š]i uš‑te‑š[ib‑ši ... ] of the gods. ... ] VI 132 3 [lu‑u ba‑ši‑ma na‑nu‑šú lu [Occur at his command, so let nap‑lu‑s]u šu‑nu šá‑a‑š[u ... ] them fix] their eyes on hi[m. ... ] VII 2 4 [ba‑nu‑ú še‑am u qé‑e mu‑še‑ṣ]u‑ú [The creator of barley and flax, ur‑qe‑t[i qú‑ú/um who made plant life grow. qû(m) ṣe‑ḫ er‑tu (...) ] (means) flax (...) ] VII 9 5 [dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑diš‑ti‑šú‑nu [Tutu is he, who accomplishes their šu‑ú‑m]a mu dingir.meš šá renovation,] (This has to do) ma‑ḫ [a‑zi (...) ] with the gods of the cultic [place (...) ]

671  The translation here diverges from that of Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 127, since the commentary clearly equates karšu with libbu, Lambert’s note to this line also underscores such a reading (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 485). 672  Restoration loosely based on z rev. 13. 673  Restoration from z rev. 15. This is a citation of VII 67.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

236

Appendices

VII 35 6 [dšà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi dingir.meš [Šazu, who knew the heart of the śá] ⸢i⸣‑bar‑ru‑ú ka[r‑šú dšà‑máš gods, who] probes the mi[nd,675 ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi674 (...) ] Šamaš is the one who probes hearts (...) ] VII 53 7 [śá nap‑ḫ ar dingir.meš [Who brought all the fugitive gods mun‑nab‑ti ú‑še‑ri‑bu eš‑r]e‑tíš into the shri]nes, ? [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] VII 70 8 [dsirsir šá‑pi‑ik kur‑i e‑le‑nu‑uš [Sirsir, who heaped up a mountain ti‑amā]t [dsirsir damar.utu on to[p of Tiāma]t, [dsirsir is tam‑tum (...) ] “Marduk of the sea” (...) ] break

Y (Rm 395) obv

V 33 V 55

1 2 3 4

V 59

5

V 70

6

V 90

7

V 95

8

V 101?/ 9 115? 10 rev

break [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [ x ] an [ ... ] a‑a ib‑ba‑ši ⸢ma?⸣ an? [ ... ] ip‑te‑ma ina igi.2‑šá íd[buranun ídidigna ... ] e‑gir zib‑bat‑sa dur‑ma‑ḫ [i‑iš ú‑rak‑kis‑ma ... ] re‑eš ta‑mar‑ti it‑⸢ba⸣‑[la ana d60 iq‑ti‑šá ... ] iš‑mé‑ma den kir4‑šu u[b‑bu‑ḫ u tur‑bu‑ʾ šá‑áš‑mi ... ] iš‑ši‑ma miṭ‑ṭa ⸢im⸣‑[na‑šú ú‑šá‑ḫ i‑iz ... ] iš‑tu ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] break

[ ? ] ? [ ... ] [ ? ] ? [ ... ] May there not be ? ? [ ... ] From her two eyes he let the [Euphrates and Tigris flow, ... ] He twisted her tail and [wove it into] the Durmaḫ[u, ... ] He took char[ge] of it as a trophy (?) and [presented it to Anu. ... ] Bēl listened to their utterance, being g[irded with the dust of battle. ... ] He took up his club and [held it] in his ri[ght hand, ... ] After ? [ ... ] ? [ ... ]

674  Restoration from ms. z rev. 13, the reading of ms. W 8, ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš ... ], is also possible. 675  The translation here diverges from that of Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 127, since the commentary clearly equates karšu with libbu, Lambert’s note to this line also underscores such a reading (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 485).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

1 VI 132 2 VII 2

3

VII 9

4

VII 35 5

VII 53 6

7 VII 57 8

VII 70 9

10

237

break [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [ ... ] ? [ ... ] [lu‑u ba‑ši‑ma] ⸢na‑an‑nu‑us⸣‑s[u [Occur] ⸢at his command,⸣ [so let lu nap‑lu‑su šu‑nu šá‑a‑šu ... ] them fix their eyes on hi[m. ... ] [ba‑nu‑ú se]‑im ù qù‑e [The creator of barl]ey and flax, ⸢mu⸣‑[še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti qú‑ú/um who made [plant life grow. ṣe‑ḫ er‑tu... ] qû(m) (means) flax ... ] [dtu‑tu b]a‑ni te‑diš‑ti‑šú‑nu [Tutu is he, who ac]complishes [šu‑ú‑ma mu dingir.meš šá their renovation, [(This has to ma‑ḫ a‑zi ... ] do) with the gods of the cultic place ... ] dšà‑⸢zu⸣ mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi Šazu, who knew the heart of the dingir.meš [šá i‑bar‑ru‑u kar‑šú gods, [who probes the mind,676 dšà‑máš ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi ... ] Šamaš is the one who probes hearts677 ... ] ⸢ša⸣ nap‑ḫ ar ⸢dingir.meš⸣ Who br[ought] all the fugitive mun‑nab‑ti ⸢ú⸣‑[še‑ri‑bu gods [into the shrines, ... ] eš‑re‑ti‑iš ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ itibára i‑na ⸢x⸣ [ [ ... ] ? [ ... ] ? the month of Nisan in ... ] ⸢?⸣ [ ... ] [d]⸢en⸣‑[bi]‑⸢lu⸣‑[lu be]‑lu En[bi]lu[lu is he, the lo]rd who ⸢mu⸣‑deš‑⸢šú⸣‑šú‑⸢nu⸣ [šu‑ú‑ma supplies them abundantly, na‑din šu‑ʾ‑ú mu‑šab‑šu‑ú [Who gives wheat, and brings áš?‑na?‑an? 678 ... ] grain into being. ... ] [dsirsir šá‑pi‑ik] ⸢kur⸣‑i [Sirsir, who heaped up] a moun⸢e⸣‑le‑⸢nu⸣‑[uš ti‑amāt dsirsir tain on to[p of Tiāmat, dsirsir is damar.utu tam‑tum679 ... ] “Marduk of the sea” ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x x x x⸣ ta ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]680 [ ... ] ? ? ? ? ? ? [ ... ]

676  The translation here diverges from that of Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 127, since the commentary clearly equates karšu with libbu, Lambert’s note to this line also underscores such a reading (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 485). 677  Text from z rev. 13, if it belongs here. We can read the comment as, “šà‑máš is the inspector (máš) of the innards (šà)”. 678  Restoration from z rev. 15. This is a citation of VII 67. 679  Text from z rev. 17. For this equivalence of Sirsir with the Marduk of the sea, see STT 341 l. 12: ... ds[irsi]r lúmá.lah4 tam‑tim ... (see Lambert, “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued)”, ˘  112–113 and Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 486–487). 680  W. G. Lambert reads [ ... ] má‑la[h  4‑ ... ] (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 128), ˘ which would make this line correspond to VII 77. If that is the case, then perhaps ... uh.me.u gim ˘ dug4‑u should be restored from V 3 as part of the comment in the break. Nevertheless, while the handcopy has a sign that could be a má, the following sign is copied as ta.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

238

Appendices

VII 92 11

VII 97 12

[šá ina re]‑⸢e‑ši⸣ [u] ⸢ar⸣‑ka‑a‑ti [Whose foundation is secure on [du‑ru‑uš‑šú ku‑un‑nu dag ina the “F]ore [and] Aft”. [Nabû is barag nam.meš ud.6.kám igi den in the throne dais of fates on the ud.11.kam egir den]681 sixth day before Bēl and on the 11th day behind Bēl.] d d [ a‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑li]k é‑a [Aranunna, couns]ellor of Ea, ⸢ba⸣‑[an dingir.meš crea[tor of the gods, his faad.meš‑šú dšu 40 d50 lu/ib? thers, Hand 40 Enlil ? ? ? ? ? ... a? an? x x ... nun dé‑a 40 x ... the prince Ea is 40 ? ...  decision ṭè‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a]682 of 40 Ea.] break

Z (K 4657+7038+9427+9911+10008+12102+16818+Sm 747) obv I3

1

I4

2

I6

3

top of column [ ... zu.ab‑m]a reš‑tu‑u za‑ru‑šu‑un [There was Apsû,] the first in order, : za‑ru‑⸢u⸣ [a‑bu] their begetter, : zārû (means) [father.] [mu‑um‑mu ti‑amat [And demiurge Tiāmat, who ga]ve mu‑al‑li]‑da‑at ⸢gim⸣‑r[i‑šu‑un birth to them a[ll; ... mummu] (is mu‑um‑mu] (vacat) related to) living cre[ation.] nab‑⸢ni⸣‑t[um] [gi‑pa‑ra la ki‑iṣ‑ṣu‑ru ṣu‑ṣa‑a l]a [Before meadow‑land had coalesced še‑ʾ‑ú gi6‑pa‑r[u ri‑i‑tú/ and reed‑bed] was to be found – ta‑mir‑tú ... gim du]g4‑u683 ṣu‑ṣu‑ú gipār[u (means) meadow‑land ap!‑pa‑r[u] ... as it is sa]id ṣuṣû (means) reed‑bed.

681  The restoration is from a combination of z rev. 20 and V rev. 4. It is a bit on the long side, but may serve, along with the restoration to Y 12, to fix the right margin of this single column tablet. 682  The restoration is from a combination of z rev. 22, Z rev. 3, and V 6. The restoration agrees more or less with the length of Y rev. 11 (with restorations). 683  In the break, Kämmerer and Metzler read gi6‑pa‑r[i ...] nap x x [ ... ] x še‑a numun kad4‑ru x [ ... ‑t]i (Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš, 110). I can see traces of signs in the break, but am unsure that the traces match the reading of Kämmerer and Metzler.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

I 33 I 36

I 76 I 86

I 103

I 121

I 122 I 139

239

[il‑li‑ku‑ma qu‑ud‑mi‑iš ta‑ma‑tum [They went and s]at, [facing Tiāmat,] ú‑š]i‑bu qud‑mu maḫ ‑ru : [a‑na qudmu (means) facing : [And ti‑amat el‑le‑tam‑ma i‑zak‑kar‑ši] addressed Tiāmat cheek–to– el‑le‑tam684 ra‑ʾ‑is ⸢ka⸣ cheek]685 ellētam (means) with pressed mouth(?)686 dug 687 5 [ ... ] ⸢x x x x⸣ a‑gúb‑ba ki‑⸢i x⸣ [ [ ... ] ? a. water that? ? [ ... ] ? of Ea as ... ] ⸢x⸣ ḫi dé‑a ki‑i dug4.ga it is said 6 [im‑bi‑šum‑m]a zu.ab ú‑ad‑du‑ú [He called it] Apsû, whose shrines he eš‑re‑⸢e⸣‑[ti ... ] x i‑šak‑ka‑nu appointed. [ ... ] ? they set down 7 [ta‑ri‑tu i]t‑tar‑ru‑šu pul‑ḫ a‑a‑ti [A nurse re]ared him and fille[d] uš‑ma‑al‑l[i ... dinnin ša / dbe‑let] him with terror. [The nurse is ni‑nú‑aki Ištar of / Bēlet‑]Nineveh.688 8 [la‑biš] mé‑lam‑mi eš‑ret [He was clothed] with the aura of dingir.meš šá‑qiš it‑b[ur ... the Ten Gods, so exalted was his ‑ir/ni‑tum šá lugal ir‑rak‑k]a‑su stre[ngth, ... breastplate? with which d za‑ri[ ... ] x x en the king is gi]rt is ? [ ... ] ? ? Bēl. 9 [am‑ra s]ar‑ma‑ʾu‑ni ḫ um‑mu‑ra [Consider] our [bu]rden, our eyes e‑na‑tu‑ni sar‑ma‑ʾ[u ... ḫ e‑me‑r] are hollow. sarmāʾ[u means ... u še‑bé‑ru [ ... e‑na‑t]um ki‑šá‑du ḫ emēr]u (means) to break [ ... ēnāt]um (refers to) the neck.689 10 [ḫ u‑uṣ‑b]i ab‑šá‑na la sa‑ki‑pa i [Brea]k the immovable yoke that ni‑iṣ‑lal ni‑nu ab‑šá‑nu ni‑i‑ru x we may sleep. abšānu (means) [ ... ] [ ... a‑mi‑ir‑šú‑nu šar‑b]a‑ba yoke ? [ ... (She said,) “Let their liš‑ḫ ar‑miṭ šar‑ba‑bu š[u ... ](‑) onlooker fee]bly perish, šarbābu ḫ u‑bu‑u‑šu (means) ? [ ... ] ?

4

684  It is not clear whether the sign is to be read tam or tú. A contextual keyword citation would use the reading tam, a dictionary keyword citation would use the reading tú. 685 Reading illētam as an adverbial accusative from ina lēti “beside” litt. “in the cheek?”. The context might suggest an attempt at secrecy on the part of Apsû and Mummu. 686 From raḫ āṣu “squashed, pressed” in stative with body parts (cf. CAD R raḫ āṣu A.1.d, page 72). 687  It is possible that this sign could be read as ⸢dug4⸣.[ga]. 688  For the restoration of the comment here, see Da Riva and Frahm, “Šamaš‑šumu‑ukīn”, 173–174 and more recently Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 355. 689 The comment which links the word for eye with a meaning neck or collar bones (or more precisely īnu would seem to refer to the supraclavicular fossa or suprasternal notch), which is more sensical in context, should perhaps be corroborated by paṭru ina kišādišu u quppû ina i‑ni‑šú, “a dagger at his neck and a knife(?) at his jugular” (BBSt. 6 ii 54 [Nbk. I], but see CAD īnu 1.a.1ʹ).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

240

Appendices

I 159

11

II 1

12

II 130

13

III 53

14

III 54

15

III 55

16

III 134 17

III 135 18

[in‑na‑n]u dqin‑gu šu‑uš‑qu‑ú le‑qu‑ú ⸢e⸣‑[nu‑tú] (vacat) in‑na‑n[u i]š‑tum

[Afte]r Qingu was elevated and had acquired the power of Anuship, (vacat) innan[u (means) a]fter [ú‑kap‑pi]t‑ma ti‑à‑wa‑ti pi‑tiq‑šá Tiāmat [gathered tog]ether her kurlagab k[ub‑b]u‑tum (vacat) creation (The sign) lagab (when [ ... lagab pu‑u]ḫ ‑ḫ u‑r[u] read) kur (means) k[ubb]utum “to m[ake impor]tant” (vacat) [ ... lagab (means) to ga]ther.690 [ka‑inim‑m]a‑ak lìb‑bi‑šu To explain to him his [pl]ans. The i‑ta‑mi‑šu li‑li‑su ša [ ... ] x ša kettle drum which [ ... ] ? which itiše igi dé‑⸢a⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x x⸣ in the month of Adar before Ea [ ... ] ? ? d [áš‑pur‑ma] ⸢ ⸣a‑nam ul i‑le‑ʾi‑i [I sent] Anu, but he could not ma‑ḫ ar‑ša ddi.[kud] ša a‑na face her. Ma[dān] who to ḫ ur‑sag‑kalam‑[ma ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] Ḫ ursagkalama [ ... ] ? [ ... ] [nu‑dim]‑mud i‑dúr‑ma i‑t[u‑ra] [Nudim]mud took fright and ar‑kiš gišgigir š[a ina iti]še reti[red.] The chariot whi[ch] ir‑ru‑bu ⸢ù⸣ [ ... ] comes in and [ ... ] in the [month] of Adar. [iʾ‑ir damar.u]tu nun.me [Mard]uk, the sage of the gods, dingir.meš [ma‑ru‑ku‑u]n den y[our son, has come forward,] š[a ... ].kám? (vacat) [ ... ] Bēl wh[o ... ] ? (vacat) [ ... ] [áš‑na‑an i‑ku‑l]u ip‑ti‑qu [They ate grain, they drank ale. ku‑r[u!‑un‑nu ... ] [ ... d]edé ... ] [ ... (the si]gn) dé (means) ⸢pa‑ta⸣‑qu (vacat) ded[é ša‑qu‑ú] ⸢patā⸣qu (vacat) (the sign) dé [also (means) to pour.] [ar‑sa mat‑qu] ⸢ú⸣‑sa‑an‑ni‑nu They stuffed their bel[lies with ra‑[ṭi‑šu‑un] [a]r‑su mer‑su sweet cake,] [a]rsu (means) sa‑na‑nu ma‑lu‑ú r[a‑ṭu mirsu–cake, sanānu (means) to lìb‑bu691] fill, r[āṭu (means) insides.]

690  This word may be normalized as kubbutum “to make important” or kupputum “to gather”, see n. 736. 691 Following Malku V 6f.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

IV 46– 19 47

IV 62

20

IV 113– 21 114

IV 124 22

IV 131– 23 132

IV 140

24

IV 144 25

241

[im‑limmu2‑ba im‑imin‑bi [The Four‑fold Wind, the im‑sù]Ḫ im‑dirig‑nu‑dirig692 Seven‑fold Wind, the Cha] [ (vacat) ] ú‑še‑ṣa‑am‑ma os[‑spreading Wind,] the im.meš šá ib‑nu‑ú Drifting‑But‑Not‑Drifting [si‑bit‑ti‑šú‑un] Wind. [ (vacat) ] He sent out the [seven] winds that he had fashioned, [šam‑mi im‑ta] bul‑li‑i ta‑[me‑eḫ He grasped a [plant] to counter rit]‑tuš‑šu (vacat) [poison] in his hand, (vacat) [en‑du tub‑qa‑a‑t]i ma‑lu‑⸢ú⸣ [Hiding in corners,] filled with du‑ma‑mi [še‑ret‑su na]‑šu‑ú grief, Bear[ing his punishka‑lu‑ú ki‑šuk‑⸢ki⸣ abul lugal ment,] held in a prison. The šá ina ⸢be⸣‑[ ... ] king’s gate, which [ ... ] in ?. [a‑a‑bu mut‑ta‑du ú]‑⸢ša⸣‑pu‑ú Had silenced [the arrogant enemy šu‑r[i‑šam mut]‑ta‑du dan‑nu like r]eeds?, [mut]tādu (means) šu‑pu‑ú ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] strong šupû (means) ? [ ... ] [ú‑par‑ri‑ʾ‑ma uš‑lat da‑mi‑š] [He severed h]er [arteries](?) And á(?) šá‑a‑ru il‑ta‑⸢a⸣‑[nu let the Nor[th] Wind bear up bu]‑us‑ra‑a‑ti uš‑ta‑bil li‑is‑mu (her blood) to give the [n]ews. šá ud.4.kám.ma [itigan ... ] The race of the 4th [of Kislīmu] [ ... s]ag‑nu sa‑a‑ma693 šá [ ... ]the red ? which he is wearlab‑šú uš‑⸢x⸣ [ ... a‑šá la] ⸢è⸣‑e ing ? [ ... With the instruction šu‑nu‑tú um‑ta‑ʾ‑er ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [not] to let [her waters] escape. ? [ ... ] [èš‑gal‑la tam‑ši‑la‑šu ú‑kin [And set up Ešarra, a replica of é‑šár‑ra694 é]‑šár‑ra é šá gim Ešgalla. e]šarra is the house mé‑e[ḫ ‑ret ab.zu e‑le‑nu k]i‑ti? which is established [above the na‑du‑ú [ ... ] ear]th as a coun[terpart to the Apsû695 ... ]

692  Reading SI+A as dirig “to float”, a verb used to describe the motion of clouds (see Akk. neqelpû). The reading of ms. Z differs from the other mss, which have sá‑a instead of si‑a (=dirig). 693  The exact garment in question here is unknown. For a similar garment used in a ritual context, see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 138 (see also, Lambert AfO 17 [1954/56] 313 B 6 and 7, AfO 19 [1960] 115, and Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 168). 694  There may not be enough space for this restoration. 695  For a description of the location of Ešarra, see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Ge‑ ography, 13.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

242

Appendices

V 21–22 26

27 V 24–25 28

29 30 rev 1ʹ 2ʹ VII 97 3ʹ

VII 98 4ʹ

VII 108 5ʹ

[bu‑ub‑bu‑lum ana ḫ ar‑ra‑an [On the 29th day,] draw near [to dutu] šu‑taq‑rib‑ma : ⸢i?⸣ [šá x the path of Šamaš,] : ? [? ? the ud.30.ká]m lu šu‑tam‑ḫ u‑ra[t 30th day,] stand in conjunctio[n dutu lu šá‑na‑at ... ] and rival Šamaš. ... ] [ ... ] ú ud.3[0.kám ... ] d30 k[i ... ] [ ... ] and the 3[0th] day [ ... ] Sîn ? [ ... ] [za x ... šu‑taq‑ri‑b]a‑ma di‑na [Draw nea]r [? ? ... ] give di‑n[a lìb‑ ... ] ⸢x⸣ dutu judgmen[t. ? ... ] ? Šamaš, contum4‑ma‑tú d[a‑a‑ka ḫ a‑ba‑la strain mu[rder and violence, ... ] ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ tu ub [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ ⸢d⸣mes [ ... ] ? ? ? [ ... ] ? Marduk [ ... ] [ ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [ ... ] ? [ ... ] break [ ... ] x x [ ... ] [ ... ] ? ? [ ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ den [ ... ] [ ... ] ? Bēl [ ... ] [da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑lik dé‑a [Aranunna, counsellor of Ea, ba‑an dingir.meš ad.meš‑šú dšu creator of the gods, his fathers, 40 d50] lu/ib? a? an? ⸢x x⸣ [ ... ] Hand 40 Enlil] ? ? [? ? ? ... ] the nun dé‑a 40 ⸢x⸣ [ ... ṭè‑e‑mu 40 prince Ea is 40 ? [ ... decision of dé‑a]696 40 Ea.] [šá ana a‑lak‑ti ru‑bu‑ti‑šú la [Whom no god can equal in reú‑maš‑šá‑lu dingir spect of his lordly walk.] ? and a‑a‑um‑ma]697 ⸢x⸣ ú [d]ag šá Nabû the ? ? ? ?698 [ ] of whose gissu šeš ka ⸢x⸣ [ ] ⸢ta⸣‑lu‑ki‑šú ways cannot be known. la un‑da‑an‑⸢du⸣‑[u] [šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš gim [At whose name the gods bend me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šub‑bu pa]l‑ḫ iš mu699 down in rev]erence [as before d ki l[i]‑is‑mu šá a.é šá èš‑nun ki‑i a hurricane.] (This has to do) dug4.ga‑⸢ú⸣ with the race of Mār‑bīti of Ešnunna, as it is said.

696  Restoration from V 6. 697  This line may be slightly too long for the break. 698  The words gissu “shade” and šeš “brother” here make little sense. 699  Livingstone incorrectly read the UD MU here as u4‑mu (Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 168), but ms. V 10–11 demonstrates that the UD sign must be read with the end of the lemma as ‑ḫ iš, and thus mu (aššu) is the first word of the comment.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

VII 6ʹ 109–110

7ʹ

VII 112 8ʹ

VII 114 9ʹ

VII 135 10ʹ

VII 121

VII 127 11ʹ

VII 139 12ʹ VII 144

243

[de.sískur šá‑qiš ina é ik‑ri‑bi [Dingir‑Esiskur – let him take li‑šib‑ma] dingir.meš maḫ ‑ri‑šú the lofty seat in the House of ⸢li⸣‑še‑ri‑bu kàt‑ra‑šú‑un Benediction,] Let the gods bring qí‑šá‑a‑tú šá ina itibára ta their presents before him as it is ud.6.kám en ud.12.kám sum‑na said concerning Zababa, the gifts d mu za‑ba4‑ba4 ki dug4‑u which are given in the month of Nisan from the 6th day to the 12th. d [ ... ] x en šá ina a‑ki‑ti [ ... ] ? Bēl who sits in the Akītu– ud.8.kám uš‑šá‑bu kàt‑ru‑u house on the 8th. katrû (means) ṭa‑ʾ‑tu šá šà ṭup‑pi šá‑nim‑ma “gift/bribe;” from another tablet. [mam‑ma‑an dingir.meš la [No one but he accomplishes clevi‑ban‑na‑a nik‑la‑a]‑⸢tu⸣ (vacat) er thing]s (vacat) (this refers to) su‑ur‑tum ša lúha̮ l‑ti the circle of divination [e‑la šá‑a‑šú ṭè‑me ud‑me‑ši‑na [Apart from him] no god knows la] ⸢i⸣‑lam‑ma‑ad dingir [the measure of their days.] ma‑am‑man šá ma‑am‑man a‑na which no one else draws on the šà udugáxsar lúha ̮ l‑ti la ú‑sar‑rù700 innards of the lamb for divination. [áš‑šú áš‑ri ib‑na‑a ip‑ti‑qa dan‑n][Since he created the heavens i‑na aš‑ru šá‑mu‑ú ⸢dan⸣‑ni‑na and fashioned the ea]rth, er‑ṣe‑tum : mu‑um‑mu ašru (means) heavens, ⸢dan⸣ er‑pe‑e‑tú liš‑tak‑ṣi‑ba‑am‑ma nina (means) earth. : May the mu‑um‑mu rig‑mu rumble of the clouds diminish mummu (means) rumble. [lu‑ú ṣa‑bit kun‑sag‑gi šu‑nu [Let him take his stand on the šá‑a‑šú lu‑ú] pal‑su‑šú heavenly staircase that] they kun‑sag‑gu‑ú re‑e‑šú ar‑ka‑tu ka.šu. may look at him. kunsaggû gál ba‑la(!la‑ba)‑ṣu701 ka.šu.gál (means) front–rear, ka.šu.gál la‑ban ap‑pi (means) balāṣu(!labāṣu) ka.šu. gál (means) to stroke the nose (as a sign of respect). [ma‑a šá ab‑bé‑e‑šú ú‑šar‑ri‑ḫ u [“Why! He] whose na[me was zi‑k]ir‑šú ma‑a ma‑a‑ru extolled by his fathers”], mā (is ḫ a‑an‑šá‑a mu.meš‑šu a mistake for?) son. Called his im‑bu‑ú ú‑šá‑ti‑ru al‑kàt‑su 50 fifty names and assigned him ḫ a‑an‑šá‑a 50 dbad an outstanding position. 50 (means) fifty, 50 (means) Enlil.

700  See CAD B bārûtu 2b, which takes this and the preceding comment together: “the magic circle(?) of the extispicy, which(?) nobody else draws into the exta of the lamb destined for extispicy”. 701 The comment seems to be reading the lemma as bal‑ṣú‑šú (see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 492), but there may also be confusion between the roots palāsu and balāṣu, both of which are verbs of vision.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

244

Appendices

13ʹ

[ ... ] ⸢aš ni⸣ te‑bi‑ma dingir a‑pa‑tum dbe‑let‑edin igi.lá‑ma te‑ši egir dbe‑let‑dingir.dingir iš‑me‑ma qin‑na gar‑un aš‑šum qin!‑na‑a‑a‑ti gim dug4‑u 1 blank line bottom of column

[ ... ] ... was raised / aroused, ... he saw Bēlet–ṣēri and approached her. Later, Bēlet–ilī heard (it) and established a family”. (This) concerns the k/qīnayyātu rites, as it is said.702

x (BM 69594 [82‑9‑18, 9591])

I1

top of column e‑nu‑ma : i‑na ⸢ud4⸣‑[mi ... ]

1

me : ud4‑mu

2

I4

šá‑niš x [ ... ]

⸢mu‑um‑mu⸣ ti‑⸢amat⸣ [: ... ] break

3

enūma : (means) on the da[y that ... ] me : (means) day (in astronomical texts), a second interpretation is ? [ ... ] ⸢mummu⸣ ti⸢āmat⸣ [: (means)... ]

y (BM 66606+72033 [82‑9‑18, 6599+12037]) obv I 103

1

2 IV 113

3 4

top of column [la‑biš m]e‑lam eš‑ret dingir.meš ša‑q[iš it‑bur ... ]

[He was clothed with the a]ura of the Ten Gods, so exalt[ed was his strength, ...] 703 [ ... ] ir ‑tum šá lugal [ ... ] breastplate? with which ir‑rak‑ka‑su : ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] the king is girt : ? [ ... ] [en‑du] tub‑qa‑ti ma‑lu‑ú [Hiding] in corners, filled with du‑ma‑m[u ... ] grief, [ ... ] [ká.gal] lugal šá ina be‑⸢x x x [the gate of] the king, which in x x⸣ [ ... ] ? ... [ ... ]

702  See Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 113–114. 703  Or ‑ni‑.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

IV 131–132

5

6

7 V 64

8

V 70?

9

V 83

10 11

V 84

12

13

rev VI 89

1

2

VII 1

3 4

5

245

[ú‑par‑r]i‑ʾ‑ma uš‑⸢la⸣‑[at] [He sev]ered her arteries, [and let] úš.meš‑šá im imsi.sá ana the North Wind [bear up (her ⸢bu⸣‑[us‑rat uš‑ta‑bil] blood)] to give [the news.] [ ... ]⸢ša⸣‑ru mu li‑is‑mu šá ina [ ... š]a‑ru (“the w]ind”) (has to itigan ud.4!(14).ka[m ... ] do) with the race that [ ... ] in the month of Kislīmu on the fourth day [ ... ] [ ... ] x ⸢li⸣‑li šá munus? ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] ? of/which a woman? ? the ? kap‑pi mu[nus ... ] palm? of a wo[man? ... ] [uš‑pa‑ri‑ir sa‑pa]‑⸢ra⸣‑[šu] [He spread his ne]t and let it kal‑⸢la⸣ uš‑⸢tè⸣‑[ṣi ... ] [right out. ...] [re‑eš ta‑mar‑ti it‑ba‑l]a a‑na [ ... present]ed it to E[a ... ] dé‑[a iq‑ti‑šá ... ] [ ... m]a‑šu a‑na dé‑⸢a⸣ [ ... ] [ ... ] his ? to Ea [ ... ] [a‑na dus‑mi‑i šá ta‑mar‑ta]‑⸢ka⸣ [To Usmû, who] hel[d her present ana bu‑us‑ra‑ti ub‑l[a ... ] to give the news, ...] [i?‑qip?‑šu‑ma suk‑kal‑lu‑ut [He entrusted the vizierate of the ap‑si‑i pa‑q]a‑du eš‑re‑e‑tú Apsû and the car]e of the holy ud.18.kám šá [ ... ] places. the eighteenth day of [ ... ] [ ... d]u‑ku‑ma ši‑kin izi i‑⸢šak [ ... ] they [co]me and pla[ce] x⸣ [ ... ] an application of fire [ ... ] bottom of column top of column [i‑ṣu a‑rik lu iš‑te‑nu‑um‑ma] ⸢ša‑nu‑ú⸣ lu‑ú ka‑ši‑i[d ... ]

[“Long Stick” was the first;] the second was, “May it hi[t the mark”. ...] [ ... sá.s]á? ka‑šá‑du ki‑š[it?‑tum? [ ... sá.s]á? (means) “to arrive” ... ] (and therefore?) “conq[est”? ... ] ? ? [ ... ] ⸢be ⸣ za ri ⸢x ú ⸣ (vacat) [ ... ] [ ... ] ? ? ? ? ? (vacat) [ ... ] [dasar‑re ša‑ri]k mé‑reš‑tum šá [Asarre, the giv]er of aris‑ra‑tum ú‑kin‑nu : [ ... ] able land who established plough‑land,704 : [ ... ] [ ... ] (vacat) is‑ra‑tum [ ... ] (vacat) is‑ra‑tum (means) ta‑[mir‑tum ... ] “plo[ugh‑land” ... ]

704  The definition of IS‑RA‑TUM used here is based on the definition given in the commentary.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

246

Appendices

VII 9

6

VII 70

7 8

VII 147?

9 10

[dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑di‑i]š‑ti‑šú‑nu [Tutu] is he, [who accomplishes] šu‑ú : mu dingir.meš ma‑ḫ a‑[zi their [renov]ation, : (This has ... ] to do) with the gods of the cultic pla[ce ... ] [ ... ] (vacat) it‑ta‑r[a‑ ... ] [ ... ] (vacat) ...[ ... ] d [ sirsir šá‑pi‑ik kur‑i] ⸢e⸣‑le‑niš [Sirsir, who heaped up a mounti‑amat : dsirsir [damar.utu tain] on top of Tiāmat, : dsirsir tam‑tum ... ] is [“Marduk of the sea”705 ...] 706 [ ... ] (vacat) [ ... ] [ ... ] (vacat) [ ... ] [li‑šá‑an‑ni‑ma a‑bu ma‑ri [Let the father repeat (them) li]‑⸢šá⸣‑ḫ i‑iz (vacat) [ ... ] and] teach (them) [to (his) son/s] (vacat) [ ... ] break of approximately 3 lines to bottom of column

z (BM 54228 [82‑5‑22, 379]) obv I4

1 2

I6

3

I 33

4 5 6

rev 1 2

break of 2–4 lines from top of tablet? ⸢mu‑um⸣‑m[u ti‑amat And demiu[rge Tiāmat, who gave mu‑al‑li‑da‑at gim‑ri‑šú‑un] birth to them all;] mu‑u[m‑mu nab‑ni‑tu] mu[mmu (is related to) living creation] gi‑pa‑ri [la ki‑iṣ‑ṣu‑ru ṣu‑ṣa‑a [Before] meadow‑land [had la še‑ʾ‑ú] coalesced and reed‑bed was to be found – ] gi6‑pár?‑ri [ ... ] giparri [(means) ... ] er‑ṣe‑tu[m ... ] land[ ... ] ⸢il?‑li?‑ku?‑ma? qu?⸣‑[ud‑mi‑iš ⸢They went⸣ [and sat,] ⸢fa⸣[cing ta‑ma‑tum ú‑ši‑bu] Tiāmat,] break break [ ... ] ḫ a? ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [x x] d40 ib [ ... ]

[ ... ] ? ? [ ... ] [x x] Ea ? [ ... ]

705  For this equivalence of Sirsir with the Marduk of the sea, see STT 341 l. 12: ... ds[irsi]r tam‑tim ... (see Lambert, “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued)”, 112–113 and Lambert, ˘  Babylonian Creation Myths, 486–487). 706  Perhaps this whole line was empty, the vacat is about 6–7 signs long in the middle of the tablet. lúmá.lah 4

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

V 157

3

VI 89

4 5

VII 1

6 7

VII 2

8

VII 9

9 10 11

VII 35

12

13 VII 57

14 15

VII 70

16 17

247

li‑pu‑uš iṣ‑r[e‑ti ... ka‑la um‑ma‑nu‑tum] giš ⸢a⸣‑rik iš‑ten‑nu‑[um‑ma šá‑nu‑ú lu‑u ka‑šid] gišgíd.da a‑rik‑t[u ...]

Let him conceive pl[ans ... all skill,] “Long Stick” was the first; [the second was, “May it hit the mark”.] “Long wood”707 (means) “spear”[ ... ] dasar‑re šá‑rik me‑[reš‑ti šá Asarre, the giver of arable [land is‑ra‑ta ú‑kin‑nu] who established plough‑land,708] ? ? is‑ra‑tum a.š[à garin ... ] isratum (means) [“plough]‑la[nd” ... ] ba‑nu‑ú še‑im u qù‑e The creator of barley and flax, [mu‑še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti] [who made plant life grow.] [qú]‑⸢ú⸣ ṣe‑ḫ er‑t[u ... ] [q]û (means) “flax”[ ... ] d⸢tu⸣‑tu ba‑an te‑d[iš‑ti‑šu‑nu Tutu is [he], who accomplishes šu‑ú‑ma] [their] renova[tion,] mu dingir.meš šá (This has to do) with the gods ma‑ḫ a‑zi [ ... ] of the cultic place [ ... ] dšà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi din[gir.meš Šazu, who knew the heart of the šá i‑bar‑ru‑u go[ds, who probes the mind,709] kar‑šú] dšà‑máš! ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [ ... ] Šamaš is the one who probes hearts [ ... ] den‑bi‑lu‑lu be‑lum Enbilulu is [he], the lord who mu‑deš‑še‑šú‑⸢nu⸣ [šu‑ú‑ma] supplies them abundantly, na‑din šu‑ʾ‑ú Who gives wheat, and brings mu‑šab‑šu‑[ú áš?‑na?‑an?]710 [grain] into being. dsirsir šá‑pi‑«ti»‑ik kur‑i Sirsir, who heaped up a moun⸢e⸣‑[le‑nu‑uš ti‑amāt] tain on [top of Tiāmat,] dsirsir damar.utu tam‑tum x [ dsirsir is “Marduk of the sea” 711 ... ] ? [ ... ]

707  The Akkadian name from the lemma is written logographically here in accordance with the Sumerian name for Ninurta’s weapon (Akkadian ariktu) from the Ninurta Epics (see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 479). 708  The definition of IS‑RA‑TUM used here is based on the definition given in the commentary. 709  The translation here diverges from that of Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 127, since the commentary clearly equates karšu with libbu, Lambert’s note to this line also underscores such a reading (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 485). 710  This is a quotation of VII 67. 711  For this equivalence of Sirsir with Marduk of the sea, see STT 341 l. 12: ... ds[irsi]r lúmá.lah tam‑tim ... (see Lambert, “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued)”, 112–113 and Lambert, 4 ˘  Babylonian Creation Myths, 486–487). © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

248

Appendices

VII 77

18

VII 92

19

ti‑amāt ru‑kub‑šu‑ma ⸢šu⸣‑[ú Tiāmat was his boat, he [was her ma‑làḫ ‑šá] sailor.] šá ina re‑e‑ši u ar‑ka‑[ti (She is) the one who(se) [foundadu‑ru‑uš‑šú ku‑un‑nu] tion is fixed] fore and af[t] dag ina ⸢barag⸣ nam.meš Nabû is in the throne dais of fates d ud.6.k[ám igi en ud.11.kam egir on the sixth day [before Bēl and den]712 on the eleventh day behind Bēl] da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑⸢lik d⸣[é‑a Aranunna, counsellor of [Ea, creba‑an dingir.meš ad.meš‑šú] ator of the gods, his fathers,] dšu 40 d50 lu/ib? ⸢a⸣? [an? x x Hand 40 Enlil ? ? [? ? ? ... the ... nun dé‑a 40 x ... ṭè‑e‑mu 40 prince Ea is 40 ? ... decision of dé‑a]713 40 Ea] [šá a‑na] a‑lak‑ti ru‑b[u‑ti‑šú [Whom no god can equal in la ú‑maš‑šá‑lu dingir respect of his lo]rdly walk. a‑a‑um‑ma] [x ú dag] ⸢šá⸣ giss[u šeš ka x ... [ ... and Nabû,] the ? [? ? ?714 of ta‑lu‑ki‑šú la un‑da‑an‑du‑u] whose ways cannot be known] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [ ... ] ? [ ... ] break of 1–3 lines from top of tablet?

20

VII 97

21 22

VII 98

23

24 25

Combined synoptic edition

x

top of column

(I 1)

x 1–2 e‑nu‑ma : i‑na ⸢ud4⸣‑[mi ... ] me : ud4‑mu šá‑niš x [ ... ]

(I 3)

Z 1

[ ... zu.ab‑m]a reš‑tu‑u za‑ru‑šu‑un : →

Z

za‑ru‑⸢u⸣ [a‑bu]

(I 4)

Z 2 z 1

[mu‑um‑mu ti‑amat mu‑al‑li]‑da‑at ⸢gim⸣‑[ri‑šu‑un] → ⸢mu‑um⸣‑m[u ti‑amat mu‑al‑li‑da‑at gim‑ri‑šú‑un]



Z [mu‑um‑mu] (vacat) nab‑⸢ni⸣‑t[um] x 3 ⸢mu‑um‑mu⸣ ti‑⸢amāt⸣ [: ... ] z 2 mu‑u[m‑mu ... ]



x

break

712  Restoration from V rev. 4. 713  Restoration from Z rev. 3 and V 6. 714  The words gissu “shade” and šeš “brother” here make little sense. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

(I 6)

Z 3 z 3

249

[gi‑pa‑ra la ki‑iṣ‑ṣu‑ru ṣu‑ṣa‑a l]a še‑ʾ‑ú → gi‑pa‑ri [la ki‑iṣ‑ṣu‑ru ṣu‑ṣa‑a la še‑ʾ‑ú]

Z gi6‑pa‑r[u ri‑i‑tú/ta‑mir‑tú ... gim du]g4‑u ṣu‑ṣu‑ú ap!‑pa‑r[u] z 4 gi6‑pár?‑ri [ri‑i‑tú/ta‑mir‑tú ... ] er‑ṣe‑tu[m ... ]



z 5

(I 33)

Z 4 [il‑li‑ku‑ma qu‑ud‑mi‑iš ta‑ma‑tum ú‑š]i‑bu → z 6 ⸢il‑li‑ku‑ma qu⸣‑[ud‑mi‑iš ta‑ma‑tum ú‑ši‑bu] z break



Z

qud‑mu maḫ ‑ru : →

(I 36)

Z

[a‑na ti‑amat el‑le‑tam‑ma i‑zak‑kar‑ši] →

Z el‑le‑tam715 ra‑ʾ‑is ⸢ka⸣ Z 5 [ ... ] ⸢x x x x⸣ duga‑gúb‑ba ki‑⸢i x⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ ḫ i dé‑a ki‑i dug4.ga (I 76)

Z 6

[im‑bi‑šum‑m]a zu.ab ú‑ad‑du‑ú eš‑re‑⸢e⸣‑[ti] →



Z

[ ... ] x i‑šak‑ka‑nu

(I 86)

Z 7

[ta‑ri‑tu i]t‑tar‑ru‑šu pul‑ḫ a‑a‑ti uš‑ma‑al‑l[i] →



Z

[ ... dinnin ša / dbe‑let] ni‑nú‑aki

(I 103)

Z 8 y 1

[la‑biš] mé‑lam‑mi eš‑ret dingir.meš šá‑qiš it‑b[ur] → [la‑biš m]e‑lam eš‑ret dingir.meš ša‑q[iš it‑bur ... ]



Z y 2

[ ... ‑ir/ni‑tum šá lugal ir‑rak‑k]a‑su za‑ri[ ... ] x x den [ ... ] ir/ni‑tum šá lugal ir‑rak‑ka‑su : ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]

(I 121)

Z 9

[am‑ra s]ar‑ma‑ʾu‑ni ḫ um‑mu‑ra e‑na‑tu‑ni →

Z sar‑ma‑ʾ[u ... ḫ e‑me‑r]u še‑bé‑ru [ ... e‑na‑t]um ki‑šá‑du

715  It is not clear whether the sign is to be read tam or tú. A contextual keyword citation would use the reading tam, a dictionary keyword citation would use the reading tú. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

250 (I 122)

Appendices

Z 10 [ḫ u‑uṣ‑b]i ab‑šá‑na la sa‑ki‑pa i ni‑iṣ‑lal ni‑nu →

Z ab‑šá‑nu ni‑i‑ru x [ ... ] [ ... → (I 139)

Z

a‑mi‑ir‑šú‑nu šar‑b]a‑ba liš‑ḫ ar‑miṭ →

Z šar‑ba‑bu š[u ... ](‑)ḫ u‑bu‑u‑šu (I 159)

Z 11 [in‑na‑n]u dqin‑gu šu‑uš‑qu‑ú le‑qu‑ú ⸢e⸣‑[nu‑tú] →



Z (vacat) in‑na‑n[u i]š‑tum

(II 1)

Z 12 [ú‑kap‑pi]t‑ma ti‑à‑wa‑ti pi‑tiq‑šá →

kurlagab k[ub‑b]u‑tum (vacat) [ ... lagab pu‑u]ḫ ‑ḫ u‑r[u] Z

(II 130)

Z 13 [ka‑inim‑m]a‑ak lìb‑bi‑šu i‑ta‑mi‑šu →

Z li‑li‑su ša [ ... ] x ša itiše igi dé‑⸢a⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x x⸣ (III 53)

Z 14 [áš‑pur‑ma] ⸢d⸣a‑nam ul i‑le‑ʾi‑i ma‑ḫ ar‑ša →

ddi.[kud] ša a‑na ḫ ur‑sag‑kalam‑[ma ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] Z

(III 54)

Z 15 [nu‑dim]‑mud i‑dúr‑ma i‑t[u‑ra] ar‑kiš →

gišgigir š[a ina iti]še ir‑ru‑bu ⸢ù⸣ [ ... ] Z

(III 55)

Z 16 [iʾ‑ir damar.u]tu nun.me dingir.meš [ma‑ru‑ku‑u]n →

den š[a ... ].kám? (vacat) [ ... ] Z

(III 134)

Z 17 [áš‑na‑an i‑ku‑l]u ip‑ti‑qu ku‑r[u!‑un‑nu] →



Z

(III 135)

Z 18 [ar‑sa mat‑qu] ⸢ú⸣‑sa‑an‑ni‑nu ra‑[ṭi‑šu‑un] →



Z [a]r‑su mer‑su sa‑na‑nu ma‑lu‑ú r[a‑ṭu lìb‑bu716]

[ ... d]edé ⸢pa‑ta⸣‑qu (vacat) ded[é ša‑qu‑ú]

716  The restoration follows Malku V 6f.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

251

(IV 47)

Z 19 [im‑limmu2‑ba im‑imin‑bi im‑sù]ḫ  im‑dirig‑nu‑dirig717 [(vacat)]→ Z ú‑še‑ṣa‑am‑ma im.meš šá ib‑nu‑ú [si‑bit‑ti‑šú‑un]

(IV 62)

Z 20 [šam‑mi im‑ta] bul‑li‑i ta‑[me‑eḫ rit]‑tuš‑šu (vacat)

(IV 113)

Z 21 [en‑du tub‑qa‑a‑t]i ma‑lu‑⸢ú⸣ du‑ma‑mi → y 3 [en‑du] tub‑qa‑ti ma‑lu‑ú du‑ma‑m[u ... ]

(IV 114)

Z

(IV 46)

[še‑ret‑su na]‑šu‑ú ka‑lu‑ú ki‑šuk‑⸢ki⸣ →

Z abul lugal šá ina ⸢be⸣‑[ ... ] y 4 [abul] lugal šá ina be‑⸢x x x x x⸣ [ ... ] (IV 124)

Z 22 [a‑a‑bu mut‑ta‑du ú]‑⸢ša⸣‑pu‑ú šu‑r[i‑šam] →



Z [mut]‑ta‑du dan‑nu šu‑pu‑ú ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]

(IV 131)

Z 23 [ú‑par‑ri‑ʾ‑ma uš‑lat da‑mi‑š]á(?) → y 5 [ú‑par‑r]i‑ʾ‑ma uš‑⸢la⸣‑[at] úš.meš‑šá →

(IV 132)

Z y

šá‑a‑ru il‑ta‑⸢a⸣‑[nu bu]‑us‑ra‑a‑ti uš‑ta‑bil → im imsi.sá ana ⸢bu⸣‑[us‑rat uš‑ta‑bil]

Z /24 li‑is‑mu šá ud.4.kám.ma [itigan ... / ... s]ag‑nu sa‑a‑ma šá lab‑šú uš‑⸢x⸣ [ ... ]→ y 6 [ ... ] ⸢ša⸣‑ru mu li‑is‑mu šá ina itigan ud.4!(14).ka[m ... ] y 7 [ ... ] x ⸢li⸣‑li šá munus? ⸢x⸣ kap‑pi mu[nus? ... ] (IV 140)

Z

[a‑šá la] ⸢è⸣‑e šu‑nu‑tú um‑ta‑ʾ‑er →

Z ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] (IV 144)

Z 25 [èš‑gal‑la tam‑ši‑la‑šu ú‑kin é‑šár‑ra] →



Z [é]‑šár‑ra é šá gim mé‑e[ḫ‑ret ab.zu e‑le‑nu k]i‑ti? na‑du‑ú [ ... ]

(V 21)

Z 26 [bu‑ub‑bu‑lum ana ḫ ar‑ra‑an dutu] šu‑taq‑rib‑ma : →

717  Reading SI+A as dirig “to float”, a verb used to describe the motion of clouds (see Akk. neqelpû).

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

252

Appendices

(V 22)

⸢i?⸣ [šá x ud.30.ká]m lu šu‑tam‑ḫ u‑ra[t dutu lu šá‑na‑at ... ]



Z 27 [ ... ] ú ud.3[0.kám ... ] d30 k[i ... ]

(V 24) (V 25)

Z 28 [za x ... šu‑taq‑ri‑b]a‑ma di‑na di‑n[a] → Z [lìb‑ ... ] ⸢x⸣ dutu tum4‑ma‑tú d[a‑a‑ka ḫ a‑ba‑la ... ]

Z 29 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ tu ub [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ ⸢d⸣mes [ ... ] Z 30 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] Z break

Y 1 Y 2

[ x ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] [ x ] an [ ... ]

(V 33)

Y 3

a‑a ib‑ba‑ši ⸢ma?⸣ an? [ ... ]

(V 55)

Y 4

ip‑te‑ma ina igi.2‑šá íd[buranun ídidigna ... ]

(V 59)

Y 5

e‑gir zib‑bat‑sa dur‑ma‑ḫ [i‑iš ú‑rak‑kis‑ma ... ]

(V 64)

y 8

[uš‑pa‑ri‑ir sa‑pa]‑⸢ra⸣‑[šu] kal‑⸢la⸣ uš‑⸢tè⸣‑[ṣi ... ]

(V 70?)

Y 6 y 9

re‑eš ta‑mar‑ti it‑⸢ba⸣‑[la ana d60 iq‑ti‑šá ... ] [re‑eš ta‑mar‑ti it‑ba‑l]a a‑na dé‑[a iq‑ti‑šá ... ]



y 10 [ ... m]a‑šu a‑na dé‑⸢a⸣ [ ... ]

(V 83)

y 11 [a‑na dus‑mi‑i šá ta‑mar‑ta]‑⸢ka⸣ ana bu‑us‑ra‑ti ub‑l[a ... ]

(V 84)

y 12 [i?‑qip?‑šu‑ma suk‑kal‑lu‑ut ap‑si‑i pa‑q]a‑du eš‑re‑e‑tú →

y ud.18.kám šá [ ... ] y 13 [ ... d]u‑ku‑ma ši‑kin izi i‑⸢šak x⸣ [ ... ]

y

bottom of column

(V 90)

Y 7

iš‑mé‑ma den kir4‑šu u[b‑bu‑ḫu tur‑bu‑ʾ šá‑áš‑mi ... ]

(V 95)

Y 8

iš‑ši‑ma miṭ‑ṭa ⸢im⸣‑[na‑šú ú‑šá‑ḫi‑iz ... ]

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

253

(V 101?/115?) Y 9 iš‑tu ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]

Y 10 ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] Y break



z (rev) z 1 [ ... ] ḫa? ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] z 2 [x x] d40 ib [ ... ]

(V 157)

z 3

(VI 89)

y (rev) y 1 [i‑ṣu a‑rik lu iš‑te‑nu‑um‑ma] ⸢ša‑nu‑ú⸣ lu‑ú ka‑ši‑i[d ... ] z 4 giš ⸢a⸣‑rik iš‑ten‑nu‑[um‑ma šá‑nu‑ú lu‑u ka‑šid]



y 2 z 5

[ ... sá.s]á? ka‑šá‑du ki‑š[it?‑tum? ... ] gišgíd.da a‑rik‑t[u ...]



y 3 X 1

[ ... ] ⸢be?⸣ za ri ⸢x ú?⸣ (vacat) [ ... ] [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ be za ⸢ri?⸣ [ ... ]

(VI 94)

X 2

[da‑nu‑um ina ukkin dingir.meš ša‑a‑š]i uš‑te‑š[ib‑ši ... ]



Y (rev) Y 1 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]



(VI 132)

X 3 [lu‑u ba‑ši‑ma na‑nu‑šú lu nap‑lu‑s]u šu‑nu šá‑a‑š[u ... ] Y 2 [lu‑u ba‑ši‑ma] ⸢na‑an‑nu‑us⸣‑s[u lu nap‑lu‑su šu‑nu šá‑a‑šu ... ]

(VII 1)

W 1 da[sar‑re šá‑rik mé‑reš‑ti šá is‑ra‑tu ú‑kin‑nu] y 4 [dasar‑re ša‑ri]k mé‑reš‑tum šá is‑ra‑tum ú‑kin‑nu : [ ... ] z 6 dasar‑re šá‑rik me‑[reš‑ti šá is‑ra‑ta ú‑kin‑nu]



W 2 is‑[ra‑tum] a.š[à? garin? ... ] y 5 [ ... ] is‑ra‑tum ta‑[mir‑tum ... ] z 7 is‑ra‑tum a.š[à? garin? ... ]

(VII 2)

W 3 X 4 Y 3 z 8

li‑pu‑uš iṣ‑r[e‑ti ... ka‑la um‑ma‑nu‑tum]

⸢ba⸣‑[nu]‑⸢ú⸣ še‑im u qù‑[e mu‑še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti] [ba‑nu‑ú še‑am u qé‑e mu‑še‑ṣ]u‑ú ur‑qe‑t[i] → [ba‑nu‑ú še]‑im ù qù‑e ⸢mu⸣‑[še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti] → ba‑nu‑ú še‑im u qù‑e [mu‑še‑ṣu‑ú ur‑qé‑ti]

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

254

Appendices



W 4 ⸢qù⸣‑um ṣe‑ḫer‑t[u ... ] X [qú‑ú/um ṣe‑ḫer‑tu ...] Y [qú‑ú/um ṣe‑ḫer‑tu ... ] z 9 [qú]‑⸢ú⸣ ṣe‑ḫer‑t[u ... ]

(VII 9)

W 5 dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑[diš‑ti‑šu‑nu šu‑ú‑ma] X 5 [dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑diš‑ti‑šú‑nu šu‑ú‑m]a → Y 4 [dtu‑tu b]a‑ni te‑diš‑ti‑šú‑nu [šu‑ú‑ma] → y 6 [dtu‑tu ba‑an te‑di‑i]š‑ti‑šú‑nu šu‑ú : → z 10 d⸢tu⸣‑tu ba‑an te‑diš‑[ti‑šu‑nu šu‑ú‑ma]

W 6 šá ina ká.dingir.raki [ ... ]718 X mu dingir.meš šá ma‑ḫ[a‑zi ... ] Y [mu dingir.meš (šá) ma‑ḫa‑zi ... ] y ‑7 mu dingir.meš ma‑ḫa‑[zi ... ] (vacat) it‑ta‑r[a‑ ... ] z 11 mu dingir.meš šá ma‑ḫa‑zi [ ... ] (VII 35)

W 7 dšà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑b[i dingir.meš šá i‑bar‑ru‑u kar‑šú] X 6 [dšà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi dingir.meš śá] ⸢i⸣‑bar‑ru‑ú ka[r‑šú] → Y 5 dšà‑⸢zu⸣ mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi dingir.meš [šá i‑bar‑ru‑u kar‑šú] → z 12 dšà‑zu mu‑de‑e lìb‑bi din[gir.meš šá i‑bar‑ru‑u kar‑šú]



W 8 ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš ... ] X [dšà‑máš ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi719 ... ] Y [dšà‑máš ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi720 ... ] z 13 dšà‑máš! ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [ ... ]

(VII 53)

X 7 [śá nap‑ḫ ar dingir.meš mun‑nab‑ti ú‑še‑ri‑bu eš‑r]e‑tíš → Y 6 ⸢ša⸣ nap‑ḫ ar ⸢dingir.meš⸣ mun‑nab‑ti ⸢ú⸣‑[še‑ri‑bu eš‑re‑ti‑iš ... ]

X ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] Y 7 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ itibára i‑na ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]

meš

X 8 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] X break

718  It may be that ms. W and mss X, Y, y, and z all attest to the same comment: mu dingir. (šá) ma‑ḫ a‑zi šá ina ká.dingir.raki. 719  Or with W 8: ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš ... ] 720  Or with W 8: ba‑ru‑ú lìb‑bi [dšà‑máš ... ]

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

255

Appendices

(VII 57)

W 9 [den‑bi]‑⸢lu⸣‑lu be‑lum mu‑deš‑[šu‑ú‑šú‑nu šu‑ú‑ma] Y 8 [d]⸢en⸣‑[bi]‑⸢lu⸣‑[lu be]‑lu ⸢mu⸣‑deš‑⸢šú⸣‑šú‑⸢nu⸣ [šu‑ú‑ma] → z 14 den‑bi‑lu‑lu be‑lum mu‑deš‑še‑šú‑⸢nu⸣ [šu‑ú‑ma]



W 10 [na‑din šu]‑⸢ʾ⸣‑i mu‑ša[b‑šu‑ú áš?‑na?‑an?]721 Y [na‑din šu‑ʾ‑ú mu‑šab‑šu‑ú áš?‑na?‑an? ... ] z 15 na‑din šu‑ʾ‑ú mu‑šab‑šu‑[ú áš?‑na?‑an?]



W 11 [ ... ] ⸢x x⸣ [ ... ] W break

(VII 70)

Y 9 y 8 z 16

[dsirsir šá‑pi‑ik] ⸢kur⸣‑i ⸢e⸣‑le‑⸢nu⸣‑[uš ti‑amāt] [dsirsir šá‑pi‑ik kur‑i] ⸢e⸣‑le‑niš ti‑amāt : → dsirsir šá‑pi‑«ti»‑ik kur‑i ⸢e⸣‑[le‑nu‑uš ti‑amāt]

Y [dsirsir damar.utu tam‑tum ... ] z 17 dsirsir damar.utu tam‑tum x [ ... ] dsirsir [damar.utu tam‑tum ... ] y

V 1 [ V 2 [

... ...

] an [ (...) ] ] pa ⸢x⸣



y 9 [ ... ] (vacat) [ ... ]722 y 10 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ ḫi‑iz (vacat) [ ... ] y break of approximately 3 lines to bottom of column

(VII 77)

V 3 z 18



V [... u]Ḫ .me.u gim dug4‑u



Y 10 [



Z (rev) Z 1ʹ [ ... ] x x [ ... ]

[ti‑amāt ru‑kub‑šu‑ma šu‑ú ma‑làḫ ‑šá] → ti‑amāt ru‑kub‑šu‑ma ⸢šu⸣‑[ú ma‑làḫ ‑šá]

...

] ⸢x x x x⸣ ta ⸢x⸣ [ ... ]723

721  This is a quotation of VII 67. 722  Perhaps this whole line was empty, the vacat is about 6–7 signs long in the middle of the tablet. 723 Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 128. reads [ ... ] má‑la[ḫ 4‑ ... ], which would make this line correspond to VII 77. If that is the case, then perhaps ... uḫ.me.u gim dug4‑u should be restored from V 3 as part of the comment in the break. Nevertheless, while the handcopy has a sign that could be a má, the following sign looks to be ta.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

256

Appendices

(VII 92)

V 4 [šá ina re‑ši u ar‑ka‑ti du‑ru‑uš‑šú kun‑nu] → Y 11 [šá ina re]‑⸢e‑ši⸣ [u] ⸢ar⸣‑ka‑a‑ti [du‑ru‑uš‑šú ku‑un‑nu] → z 19 šá ina re‑e‑ši u ar‑ka‑[ti du‑ru‑uš‑šú ku‑un‑nu]



V [dag ina barag nam.meš ud.6.kám igi den u]d.11.kám egir den Y [dag ina barag nam.meš ud.6.kám igi den ud.11.kam egir den] Z 2ʹ [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ den [ ... ] z 20 dag ina ⸢barag⸣ nam.meš ud.6.k[ám igi den ud.11.kam egir den]

(VII 97)

V 5 [da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑lik dé‑a ba‑an dingir].meš ad.meš‑šú Y 12 [da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑li]k dé‑a ⸢ba⸣‑[an dingir.meš ad.meš‑šú] → Z 3ʹ [da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑lik dé‑a ba‑an dingir.meš ad.meš‑šú] → z 21 da‑rá‑nun‑na ma‑⸢lik d⸣[é‑a ba‑an dingir.meš ad.meš‑šú]





V 6 [ ... ṭ]è‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a d d ? ? ? d Y [ šu 40 50 lu/ib a an x x ... nun é‑a 40 x ... ṭè‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a] Z [dšu 40 d50] lu/ib? a? an? ⸢x x⸣ [ ... ] nun dé‑a 40 ⸢x⸣ [ ... ṭè‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a] z 22 dšu 40 d50 lu/ib? ⸢a⸣? [an? x x ... nun dé‑a 40 x ... ṭè‑e‑mu 40 dé‑a]



Y break

(VII 98)

V 7 ⸢šá a‑na a⸣‑l[ak‑ti ru‑bu‑ti‑šú la ú‑maš‑šá‑l]u dingir a‑a‑um‑ma Z 4ʹ [šá ana a‑lak‑ti ru‑bu‑ti‑šú la ú‑maš‑šá‑lu dingir a‑a‑um‑ma]724→ z 23 [šá a‑na] a‑lak‑ti ru‑b[u‑ti‑šú la ú‑maš‑šá‑lu dingir a‑a‑um‑ma]





V 8 ša ki de[n ... ta‑lu‑k]i‑šú la un‑da‑an‑du‑⸢u⸣ Z ⸢x⸣ ú [d]ag šá gissu šeš ka ⸢x⸣ [ ] ⸢ta⸣‑lu‑ki‑šú la un‑da‑an‑⸢du⸣‑[u] z 24 [x ú dag] ⸢šá⸣ giss[u šeš ka x ... ta‑lu‑ki‑šú la un‑da‑an‑du‑u] šal‑šiš d30 ta ⸢x⸣ [



V 9



z 25 [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ [ ... ] z break

...

]‑ru ḫ ab‑ra‑tú ina sur‑ru

724  This line may be slightly too long for the break.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Appendices

257

(VII 108) V 10 šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš ki‑[ma me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šu]b‑bu pal‑ḫiš Z 5ʹ [šá ana šu‑me‑šú dingir.meš gim me‑ḫ e‑e i‑šub‑bu pa]l‑ḫiš → V 11 mu li‑is‑me šá ddumu.é [šá èš‑nunki gi]m dug4‑u Z mu l[i]‑is‑mu šá da.é šá èš‑nunki ki‑i dug4.ga‑⸢ú⸣ (VII 109) V 12 de.sískur šá‑qiš ina é i[k‑ri‑bi li]‑šib‑ma Z 6ʹ [de.sískur šá‑qiš ina é ik‑ri‑bi li‑šib‑ma] → (VII 110) V 13 dingir.dingir maḫ ‑ra‑šú li‑še‑r[i‑bu kàt‑r]a‑šú‑un Z dingir.meš maḫ ‑ri‑šú ⸢li⸣‑še‑ri‑bu kàt‑ra‑šú‑un → V 14 qí‑šá‑a‑ti šá ‹ina itibára› ul‑tu ud.6.kám e[n ud.12.kám sum‑na] → Z qí‑šá‑a‑tú šá ina itibára ta ud.6.kám en ud.12.kám sum‑na → V [mu dz]a‑ba4‑ba4 gim dug4‑u Z mu dza‑ba4‑ba4 ki dug4‑u

Z 7ʹ [ ... ] x den šá ina a‑ki‑ti ud.8.kám uš‑šá‑bu kàt‑ru‑u ṭa‑ʾ‑tu →



Z

šá šà ṭup‑pi šá‑nim‑ma

(VII 112) Z 8ʹ [mam‑ma‑an dingir.meš la i‑ban‑na‑a nik‑la‑a]‑⸢tu⸣ (va‑ cat) →

Z

su‑ur‑tum ša lúḪ al‑ti

(VII 114) Z 9ʹ [e‑la šá‑a‑šú ṭè‑me ud‑me‑ši‑na la] ⸢i⸣‑lam‑ma‑ad dingir ma‑am‑man →

Z

šá ma‑am‑man a‑na šà udugáxsar lúḪ al‑ti la ú‑sar‑rù725

(VII 121) V 15 ⸢mu⸣‑[um‑mu er]‑⸢pe‑e‑tú⸣ [liš]‑⸢tak‑ṣi⸣‑[ba‑am] → Z 10ʹ mu‑um‑mu er‑pe‑e‑tú liš‑tak‑ṣi‑ba‑am‑ma

725  See CAD B bārûtu 2b, which takes this and the preceding comment together: “the magic circle(?) of the extispicy, which(?) nobody else draws into the exta of the lamb destined for extispicy”.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

258

Appendices

V [mu‑um‑mu] rig‑mu Z mu‑um‑mu rig‑mu (VII 127)

V 16 [lu‑ú ṣa‑bit kun‑sag‑gi šu‑nu ša‑a‑šu lu‑ú pa]l‑su‑šú Z 11ʹ [lu‑ú ṣa‑bit kun‑sag‑gi šu‑nu šá‑a‑šú lu‑ú] pal‑su‑šú →



V 17 [kun‑sag‑gu‑ú re‑e‑šú ar‑ka‑tu ka.šu.gál ba‑la‑ṣu ka.šu.gál l]a‑ban ap‑pi Z  kun‑sag‑gu‑ú re‑e‑šú ar‑ka‑tu ka.šu.gál ba‑la(!la‑ba)‑ṣu ka.šu.gál la‑ban ap‑pi

(VII 135)

Z 10ʹ [áš‑šú áš‑ri ib‑na‑a ip‑ti‑qa dan‑n]i‑na →



Z

(VII 139)

V 18 [ma‑a ša ab‑bé‑e‑šu ú‑šar‑ri‑ḫ u zi‑kir‑šú] → Z 12ʹ [ma‑a šá ab‑bé‑e‑šú ú‑šar‑ri‑ḫ u zi‑k]ir‑šú →

aš‑ru šá‑mu‑ú ⸢dan⸣‑ni‑na er‑ṣe‑tum :

V [ma‑a ma‑a]‑ri Z ma‑a ma‑a‑ru →

V 19 [ ... ]‑a V break

(VII 144) Z

Z 50 ḫ a‑an‑šá‑a 50 dbad

(VII 147?) y

ḫ a‑an‑šá‑a mu.meš‑šu im‑bu‑ú ú‑šá‑ti‑ru al‑kàt‑su →

[li‑šá‑an‑ni‑ma a‑bu ma‑ri li]‑⸢šá⸣‑ḫ i‑iz (vacat) [ ... ]

Z [ ... ]  Z 13ʹ [ ... ] ⸢aš ni⸣ te‑bi‑ma dingir a‑pa‑tum dbe‑let‑edin igi.lá‑ma te‑ši egir dbe‑let‑dingir.dingir iš‑me‑ma qin‑na gar‑un aš‑šum qin!‑na‑a‑a‑ti gim dug4‑u Z [ ... ]  Z (space of 1 line) Z end of tablet

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

259

Appendices

Concordance of Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts V

W

X

Y

Z

x

y

z

I1 broken I3 I4 I6

broken

broken broken

broken

I 33 I 36 I 76 I 86 I 103 I 121 I 122 I 139 I 159 II 1 II 53 II 54 II 55 II 134 II 135 IV 46–47726 IV 62727 IV 113–114 IV 124 IV 131–132 IV 140 IV 145 V 21 V 22 V 24–25

broken

I4

I4 broken

I6

I 103

IV 113 IV 131–132

726 These lemmas have no clear comment. 727 These lemmas have no clear comment.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

broken

260

Appendices V

W

X

Y

Z

x

y

z

V 33 V 55 V 59 V 64 V 70? V 83 V 84

V 70

V 90 V 95 V 101/115

broken VI 94 VI 132 VII 1 VII 2 VII 9 VII 35

broken

VI 89

VI 132 VII 1

VII 2 VII 9 VII 35 VII 53

VII 57 VII 70?

V 157 VI 89

VII 2 VII 9 VII 35 VII 53 VII 57

broken VII 9

VII 1 VII 2 VII 9 VII 35 VII 57

VII 70

VII 70

VII 70

VII 77 VII 92

VII 92

VII 92?

VII 77

VII 97

VII 97

VII 97

VII 97

VII 98

VII 98

VII 98 broken VII 108 VII 110

broken broken

VII 121 VII 139 broken

VII 108 VII 109–110 VII 112 VII 114 VII 135 VII 121 VII 127 VII 139

broken

VII 144 VII 147? broken

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

261

Appendices

Entries From Lexical Lists in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts Line: I 1728 I 1? I3 I4 I6 I6 I 33 I 36 I 121 I 121 I 121 I 122 I 139 I 159 III 135 III 135 III 135 IV 124 IV 124 VII 1 VII 2 VII 70 VII 110 VII 121 VII 127 VII 135 VII 135

internal citation e‑nu‑ma me

za‑ru‑u (ti‑⸢amāt⸣) mu‑um‑⸢mu⸣ gi6‑pár‑ri/gi6‑pa‑ru ṣu‑ṣu‑ú qud‑mu el‑le‑tam sar‑ma‑ʾ[u] [ḫ e‑me‑r]u [e‑na‑t]um ab‑šá‑nu šar‑ba‑bu in‑na‑n[u] [a]r‑su sa‑na‑nu r[a‑ṭu] [mut]‑ta‑du šu‑pu‑ú is‑ra‑tum ⸢qù⸣‑ú/um dsirsir

kàt‑ru‑u mu‑um‑mu kun‑sag‑gu‑ú aš‑ru ⸢dan⸣‑ni‑na

gloss i‑na ⸢ud4⸣‑[mi ... ] ud4‑mu [a‑bu]? nab‑⸢ni⸣‑t[u] [ri‑i‑tú/ta‑mir‑tú] ap!‑pa‑r[u] maḫ‑ru ra‑ʾ‑is ⸢ka⸣ [ ... ] še‑be‑ru ki‑šá‑du ni‑i‑ru š[u ... ](‑)ḫ u‑bu‑u‑šu [i]š‑tum mir‑su ma‑lu‑ú [lib‑bu]? dan‑nu [ ... ] ⸢x⸣ ta‑[mir‑tum]/a.š[à garin] ṣe‑ḫ er‑t[u] damar.utu tam‑tum ṭa‑ʾ‑tu rig‑mu re‑e‑šú ar‑ka‑tu šá‑mu‑ú er‑ṣe‑tum

possible source

Malku I 114 Malku II 111 f729 Malku II 73 Malku III 68730

Malku VIII 90 (STT 394) Malku IV 162...167 An = Anum VIII 63 ?731 Malku V 6f ?732

?733 ?734

Malku II 100 An = Anum V 234735

728 The comment on I 1 in ms. x may in fact belong to the type of comment that utilizes a complex chain of word equivalencies. 729 The keyword is also written gi6gi‑pa‑ru in a variant ms. of Malku II 111 f. 730 Or LTBA II 1 vi 30 and duplicate 2:366. 731 The keyword su‑un‑nu‑nu does occur in the lexical list (or commentary, see Borger, HKl, 548 and Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 260) K.13654 right col. 4ʹ but the equivalent is now lost. See also von Soden, “Der hymnisch‑epische Dialekt des Akkadischen”, 172. 732 This keyword appears to be mentioned in MSL 14 96:181, but it is unclear which of the 3 synonyms there could be indicated by the signs at the end of Z obv. 22. 733  A similar statement can be found in STT 341 12 = AnSt 20 112 (see Lambert, Babylo‑ nian Creation Myths, 486–487). 734  This equivalence is known in older lexical lists: Nigga Bil. A i 12u, Nigga Bil. B 42, and Diri V 180. 735 Or LTBA II 2:2.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

262

Appendices

So also: Line: VI 89

lemma giš ⸢a⸣‑rik

gloss 1 gišgíd.da

gloss 2 a‑rik‑t[u]

possible source Lugal‑e 78, Angim dimma 144736

Entries Using Bilingual Equivalencies in Enūma eliš Commentary I Manuscripts Line:

lemma

comment

possible source

k[ub‑b]u‑tum (vacat) [lagab pu‑u]ḫ ‑ḫ u‑r[u]

A I/2:9, 124737

kurlagab

II 1

[ú‑kap‑pi]t‑ma ...

III 134

... ip‑ti‑qu ...

[d]edé ⸢pa‑ta⸣‑qu ded[é ša‑qu‑ú]

VI 89

[ ... ]

VII 127

... pal‑su‑šú

VII 144

ḫ a‑an‑šá‑a ...

[ ... sá.s]á? ka‑šá‑du ki‑š[it?‑tum? ... ] ka.šu.gál ba‑la(!la‑ba)‑ṣu ka.šu.gál la‑ban ap‑pi 50 ha‑an‑šá‑a 50 dbad ˘  

Ea IV 177 and A IV/3:152738 ?739 An IX 89f740

736  In this case the writing gišgíd.da is a literal alternative writing of the lemma giš = īṣu “wood” and gíd.da = arku “long”. The comment is not merely a definition, but rather a clarification that the lemma īṣu arik is to be equated with the weapon of Ninurta mentioned in both Lugal‑e 78 and Angim dimma 144 (See Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 479, and the references mentioned there). 737  It is unclear whether Aa I/2:9 should be read [k]u‑ub‑bu‑tú “to make heavy” (so MSL 14) or [k]u‑up‑pu‑tú “to collect”, but that line’s placement between kubburu “to make thick” and marû “to fatten” suggests the former. For lagab = kubbutu or kupputu, see also Ea I 25f. Compare the similar comment to Enūma Anu Enlil: lagab = pu‑uḫ ‑ḫ u‑rum, lagab = kup‑pu‑tú/ kub‑bu‑tú (K 4336 i 11 [AfO 14 pl. 7]; cf. the discussion in CAD K s. kupputu B). I transliterate this word in the lexical texts with b (following MSL 14, pages 177, 208, and 210), rather than switching back and forth between b and p (cf., CAD K s. kabātu [b] and kupputu [p]). 738  But note that nag = both šaqû and šatû so that the equivalence in Malku VIII 8, pa‑ta‑qu = sá‑tu‑u, may somehow be operative here. 739  The equivalency sá.sá = kašādu can be found in izi = išātu C iv 3. 740  ⸢ba⸣‑[la]‑ṣu = šu‑ke‑nu ... la‑ban ap‑pi.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages Mesopotamian Literature A 480 (Ass. 14109), 170n500 ABL 722, BM 83-1-18, 167 AfO 17 313 B 6 and 7, 241n693 AfO 19, 241n693 Angim dimma, 262n736 Babylonian Theodicy, 16 1, 102 59–63, 99 BAK no. 519, 44n100 Bārûtu, 168 BBSt. 6 ii 54 [Nbk. I], 239n689 Bīt rimki, 18 Catalogue of Texts and Authors, 168 Commentaries to Enūma eliš, 152, 159, 178, 180 Commentaries to Maqlû, 120, 121, 151 Commentaries to Šurpu, 151 Commentaries to Tummu bītu, 123, 151 Commentaries to Udug hul, 151 ˘ Commentary to Aa (BM 41286) obv. 7, 115n336, 153n432 (BM 68583) 4, 115n336, 153n432 (LB 852) obv. 14ʹ, 115n336, 153n432 Commentary to Alū, 151 Commentary to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, 104, 106, 108, 117, 126–127 Commentary to Lugal‑e, 151 Commentary to Maqlû and Šurpu VAT 8928 (Ass. 13955dq), 120–121, 123, 169n497 rev. 2ʹ–5ʹ, 174

Commentary to Sa‑gig 4 (CT 51), 115n336, 136 Commentary to Šumma izbu VII 16–19, 153n432 Commentary to Šurpu K 4320 I 20, 103, 117n344 Commentary to the Babylonian Theodicy (BM 66882 +), 24, 102n290 obv. 2, 102n290 obv. 25–26, 99 Commentary to Tummu bītu and Maqlû A 405 (Ass. 13955ii), 24, 120–121, 123, 169n497 rev. 12ʹ, 120 rev. 4ʹ–6ʹ, 21 Commentary to Tummu bītu and Šurpu VAT 13846 (Ass. 13956he), 123, 169n499 rev. 56, 120, 123 Decad, 165 Diri V 180, 261n734 Enūma Anu Enlil, 109n308, 160 Assumed Tablet 50, 156 LXI, 125n365 LXIII, 159n449 Enūma eliš, 15, 123, 126–127, 153, 160, 162, 168, 178, 180 Assyrian Recension, 159, 180 I 4, 122 I 6, 122 I 86, 181 I 103, 122 IV 46–47, 115n338 IV 62, 115n338

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

264

Index of Passages

IV 113, 122 IV 113–114, 115n338 IV 131–132, 122 VI 89, 122 VII 1, 122 VII 2, 122 VII 9, 122 VII 19–20, 98 VII 35, 122 VII 57, 115, 117, 122 VII 67, 115, 117 VII 70, 122 VII 77, 115n338, 117, 122 VII 92, 115n338, 117 VII 97, 122 VII 98, 122 VII 108, 122, 126 VII 109–110, 126, 137, 180 VII 110, 122 VII 114, 122 VII 121, 104, 122 VII 135, 104, 122 VII 139, 112, 122 Enūma eliš Commentary I, 15, 24, 101, 103, 108, 109n310, 114n335, 117, 120–122, 157 ms. V, 101n288, 122 ms. V 10–11, 126 ms. V 12–14, 126, 137 ms. W, 83, 122 ms. W 6, 122 ms. W 8, 122 ms. X, 101n288, 102–103, 122, 125–126, 152 ms. X 5, 123n359 ms. Y, 83, 126n366 ms. y rev. 7, 123n359 ms. z, 101n287–288, 102, 117, 122, 123n359, 125 obv. 12, 117 rev. 10ʹ, 104 rev. 6–7, 126

ms. z rev. 1, 122 ms. z rev. 13, 123n359 ms. z rev. 18–19, 115n338 ms. z rev. 5, 126 Enūma eliš Commentary II, 16n11, 123n360 K 2053 obv. 4–11, 123n360 S. 11 + S. 980 obv. ii 1–8, 123n360 Sm 11 + 980 obv. ii 14–19, 98 Gilgameš epic, 169 Ḫ ar‑gud, 151 ḫ ubullu‑lists, 155n437 Igituḫ, 96 I 46, 96n269 I 50, 96n269 IM 74374 [W 22307/24] obv. 9–10, 113 izi = išātu C iv 3, 262n739 K 13654 right col. 4ʹ, 261n731 K 148+2902+5207+18378 l. 6, 109n308 l. 7, 109n308 K 2164+, 38n88 K 4336 i 11, 117, 262n737 K 800 l. 1, 109n308 l. 2, 109n308 K 9290+9297, 99n285 Louvre catalogue, 165 LTBA II 2:2, 261n735 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, 16, 152n429, 153n432, 160 I 76–77, 153n432 I 93, 117n344 V 17, 153n432 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi Commentary (K 3291), 24

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages

obv. 14ʹ, 105, 107n302 obv. 20′, 103, 117n344 obv. 21ʹ, 105 obv. 27′, 107 obv. 31′, 106 obv. 34′, 106 obv. 35′, 106, 118, 127 obv. 39′, 106 obv. 51′, 107 obv. 7ʹ, 107n302 rev. 14, 106, 118 rev. 14′, 127 rev. 17, 106 rev. 28, 106 rev. 36, 118n345 rev. 40, 107 rev. 41–42, 136n387 rev. 5, 106 rev. 8, 97 ver. 8, 118n345 Lugal‑e 78, 262 Malku I 175ff., 107n302 IV 102f., 107n302 IV 12, 107n302 IV 238, 107n302 V 6f, 240n691, 250n716 VIII 8, 262n738 Maqlû, 17, 31n54, 31n54, 120, 127, 160, 169 I 1, 121 III 114, 174 IV 139+141, 170n500 IV 142–145, 170n500 VIII 96ʺ–114ʺ, 170n500 RT 50ʹʹ–52ʹʹ, 174 SU 51/12+, 169 SU 51/141+, 169 SU 51/59, 169 SU 52/33+, 169 Marduk Ordeal, 180

265

Marduk’s Address (K 3795+ l. 12), 181 MSL 12 132:103, 233n667 MSL 14 96:181, 261n732 Multābiltu, 95 Nabnītu, 96 I 254, 96n270 XXVII 262–264, 96n270 Nigga Bil. A i 12u, 261n734 Nigga Bil. B 42, 261n734 Nippur catalogue, 165 Niṣirti bârūtu, 95 RINAP 4 104ii:2–9, 38n88, 177n526 4 105ii:16–22, 38n88, 177n526 4 114ii:12–18, 38n88, 177n526 4 116 obv. 19ʹ, 38n88, 177n526 SAA 10, 23 = LASEA 12, 109 10, 23 = LASEA 12 rev. 13–14, 109 10, 60, 41n100 10, 177 = LASEA 116, 167 Sa‑gig, 168 mašʾalāte ša, 151 Sîn ina tāmartīšu, 124n361 STT 341:12, 237n679, 247n711, 261n733 Šumma ālu, 160 Šurpu, 17, 31n54, 120, 160, 169n497 IV 43, 117n344 Tetrad, 165 Tintir, 167 Tummu bītu, 17, 120, 169n497 VAT 10071 15–16, 170n500 VAT 10218, 125n365 i:1–2, 109n308 i:3–4, 109n308 VAT 10756 18–19, 170n500

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

266

Index of Passages

Classical Sources De natura animalium 12.21, 154 Derveni Papyrus, 158n444 Qumran Manuscripts 11Q14 f1 i, 118n347 11Q19, 66n169, 183 11QMelchizedek, 27n34, 29 ii:2–4, 179n537 11QPsa 27:11, 30n50 11QTgJob 9:2, 77n204 29:4, 77 30:1, 77n204 34:2, 77n204 1Q/4QInstruction, 42n102 1Q25 f1:8, 81n224 1QHa 19:10, 142n405 1QIsaa, 66n169, 67n171 li:27, 51 1QpHab, 29, 32n58, 34–35, 48, 51–52, 54, 56–57, 59–60, 62, 65, 67, 73, 78, 80n222, 87, 89–90, 92, 101, 108n307, 118–119, 138, 148, 152, 158, 178 1–12, 127 1:13, 74 2:1–5, 119 2:2, 119 2:2–3, 42, 150 2:5, 60 2:5 and 2:6, 48 2:5, 112 2:5–10, 150n421 2:5–6, 51 2:8, 118 2:8–10, 40, 42, 150 2:9–10, 175 2:10, 190n555

2:13, 49 2:16‎, 134 3:2‎, 134 3:2–3, 60 3:3, 60 3:6–9, 133 3:7, 60n151, 88 3:9–17, 133 3:14, 133 3:17–4:1, 133 4:1–3, 178n531 4:2–3, 148n416 4:8, 67 4:11–12, 50 4:12, 48–49 4:12–13, 49–50 4:14, 49 5:5, 49 5:7, 60 5:11, 60 6:2, 129 6:3, 60, 74n195, 129 6:4, 50 6:4?, 48 6:6, 74n195 6:11–12, 80 7:1–2, 40, 51n135, 175 7:2, 48, 51 7:3–5, 40 7:4–5, 42n104, 175 7:11, 118n346 8:1, 48, 118n346 8:6, 49 9:2, 118n348

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages

9:3–7, 150n421 9:4, 60 9:7, 60 9:12, 46n109 9:14‎, 134 10:2, 60 10:2‎, 134 10:3, 49 10:10, 49 11:2, 49 11:9, 49 11:13, 114 11:13–14, 114, 178 11:13ff, 149n419 11:17–12:10, 20 12:1, 130 12:2, 49, 130n374 12:2–3, 118n349 12:2–6, 150 12:4, 88 12:5, 60, 118n349, 131n375 12:6, 118–119 12:6–10, 131 12:6–7, 130 12:7, 60 12:9, 60 commentary unit 9, 42, 51, 55, 119, 134n385, 139, 144, 149, 181 commentary unit 9.1 (2:1–5), 118 commentary unit 11, 56, 134, 149 commentary units 12–13, 133 commentary unit 12, 56, 149 commentary unit 13, 81, 91, 118n348, 177 commentary unit 15, 55, 136, 149 commentary unit 16, 76 commentary unit 17, 46, 147, 149 commentary unit 18, 128, 149 commentary unit 20, 143 commentary unit 21, 74 commentary unit 23, 83 commentary unit 25, 55, 177

267

commentary unit 26, 55, 60, 146, 149n420 commentary unit 28, 135, 149n420 commentary unit 31, 177 commentary unit 32, 113, 134n385 commentary unit 33, 55, 118–119, 130, 144, 149 commentary unit 34, 55 commentary unit 35, 55 1QpMic, 32, 35, 48, 57, 63–65, 90 commentary units 2–3, 63 f8–10:8, 118n346 1QpPs, 32, 35, 57, 59–60, 66, 84, 90 commentary unit 4′, 84 f9–10:4, 85 1QpPs?, 73 1QpZeph, 32, 35, 48, 62, 64, 69, 151n425 1QS, 51 5:15, 183 6:6, 175n516 6:6–8, 38n85 1QWar Scroll 11:6–7, 176n523 3QpIsa*, 30, 32, 35, 48, 51, 65, 86, 101n289 f1:1–2, 65n161 4Q88 10:11, 131n376, 225n654 4Q118 f1ii, 82n226 4Q172, 33 4Q183, 33 4Q208–211, 155n437 4Q249, 33 4Q251 f4–7 i:2–5?, 183 4Q253a, 32 4Q271 f4 ii:3, 183 4Q285 f5, 118n347 4Q364, 183n545 4Q365, 183n545 4Q366, 183n545 4Q367, 183n545

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

268

Index of Passages

4Q379 f22 ii 7–15, 176n525 4Q421 f1aii–b:14, 77n204 4Q434 f7b:3, 131n376 4Q464 f3ii:3–4?, 182 4Q512 f33–35:3, 142n403 4Q512 f51–55 ii:9, 142n403 4Q550 f1:6, 77n205 4Q583, 171n509 4QAgesCreat A, 109 f1:7–8, 182 f2:5–7, 182 4QAgesCreat B, f2:2, 215 4QAgesCreat AB, 29 4QapocrJera (4Q383) f1:3–5, 171n506 4QapocrJerb (4Q384) f9:2, 171n507 4QApocWeeks, 32–33, 92n262 4QBrontologion ar, 155, 178 4QCatena A (4Q177), 29n45 4QcommGen A, 32, 34–35, 37, 59–60, 66, 87, 89–90 4:3–6:4, 33 4:4, 134 4:5–6, 179n534 4:6, 83, 178n531 4:7, 134 5:1–7, 179n534 5:3, 61 commentary unit 1, 83, 177 commentary unit 2′, 81, 147, 149 4QcommGen B, 89 4QcommGen C, 32, 35, 59–60, 66, 87, 89–90 f5–6:1–f7:5, 33 4QcommGen D, 89 4QcryptA Phases of the Moon, 155, 178 4QDa, f3 II:17–19, 174, 179n536 f3 iii:20–21, 176n523 4QDe f6 iii:19, 179n536 4QDf f4 ii:3, 183 4QEn Giantsa f8:13, 39, 72, 92 4QEn Giantsb

f2 ii:14, 92 f2 ii:23, 92 f7 ii:10, 92 I ii 14, 39, 72 I ii 23, 72 I iii 10, 39, 72 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), 29n45, 1:3, 183 4QHoroscope, 155, 178 4QIsaa,e,f,j,k,l,o,r, 4QpapIsap, 67n71 4QIsad,g,h,I,m,n,q, 5QIsa, 67n71 4QMidrEschata, 29, 68n178, 108, 176n524 4QMidrEschata,b, 27n34, 29–30, 31n55, 66n166, 68n178, 89, 92 4QMidrEschatb, 30n46, 31n55, 68n178 4QMMTd 14–21:10, 161 4QpapIsap, 45n106 4QpappIsac, 24, 29, 30n48, 32, 34, 45, 48, 51–52, 56–57, 62, 66–67, 70, 73–74, 76, 85, 90, 92, 101, 108n307, 110, 152, 178 commentary unit 26, 51 commentary unit 27, 51 commentary unit 8′, 117n341 commentary unit 9′, 68n176, 116 f1:4, 79 f4, 6–7ii, 10–13, 117n341 f4, 6–7ii:10, 51 f4, 6–7ii:1–20, 51 f4, 6–7ii:14, 50 f4, 6–7ii:17, 50 f4, 6–7ii:18, 68n176, 116 f4, 6–7ii:4, 50 f4–7ii:10?, 48 f4–7ii:11, 48 f4–7ii:14–15, 48 f4–7ii:15, 70, 149 f4–7ii:16, 48 f4–7ii:17, 48, 74 f4–7ii:18, 48, 62n157

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages

f4–7ii:20, 48 f4–7ii:4, 74 f4–7ii:4–7, 48 f4–7ii:7, 62n157 f4–7ii:8, 48, 74 f6, 51 f8–10:3, 27 f8–10:4, 62n157 f8–10:7, 27 f8–10:8, 80 f21:4, 85 f21:7–8, 80 f23i:17, 88 f23ii:14a, 80 f23ii:16, 48, 51 f25:3, 85 f25:8, 208 I, 35 4QpHosa, 32, 34–35, 48, 51–52, 54, 57, 59–60, 65, 74–75, 86, 89–90, 92, 101, 175 2:11?, 48 2:14, 15?, 48 2:16, 178n531 commentary unit 1, 87 commentary unit 2, 66n165, 86 commentary unit 3, 66n165 commentary unit 4, 87 commentary unit 5, 87 commentary unit 6, 87, 175 i–ii, 54 ii:11, 50 ii:14–15, 50 4QpHosb, 32, 34–35, 48, 51–52, 57, 59, 65, 86, 89–90, 92, 151 commentary unit 1, 87 commentary unit 2, 87 commentary unit 3, 87 commentary unit 7′, 87 f2, 25 f19:1, 76n199 4QPhysiognomy/Horoscope ar, 155, 178

269

4QpIsaa, 32, 34–35, 48, 51–52, 57, 61, 65, 67, 80, 86, 90, 101, 118n347 commentary unit 5′, 61 f5–6:10, 76n199 f5–6:12, 48 f5–6:2, 86n240, 149 f8–10:3, 70n181, 110n312 f8–10:7, 62 unit 5′, 80 4QpIsaa?, 73 4QpIsaabd, 85 4QpIsab, 29–30, 32, 34–35, 52, 62, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 86, 90, 92, 108, 110, 116 commentary unit 2′, 63 commentary unit 3′, 63, 70, 115 commentary unit 4′, 115 commentary units 2′–4′, 63, 158 f2:6, 74n195 4QpIsace, 85 4QpIsad, 32, 34–35, 42n101, 65, 86, 92 f1, 24 f2:1, 88 4QpIsae, 32, 34–35, 48, 52, 57, 62, 67n171, 85, 90 commentary unit 7′, 117, 158 f1–2:2, 62n157 f1–2:3, 62n157 f5:6, 85 f6:2, 62n157 f6:4, 48n121 f6:7, 88 4QpMal*, 32, 34–35, 64, 69 f1ii:1, 88 4QpMic*, 32, 34–35, 64, 69, 101, 151 4QpNah, 29, 32, 34–35, 45, 48, 51–54, 56–57, 59–60, 65, 67, 73, 78, 80n222, 89–90, 92, 101, 108n307, 148, 152 3–4ii:6, 118n348 commentary unit 3, 56 commentary units 10′, 11′, and 12′,

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

270

Index of Passages

59 commentary unit 12′, 82n227, 118n348, 147, 149 commentary unit 15, 46 commentary unit 16′, 70 commentary unit 17′, 73 f1–2:5, 134 f1–2:5–7, 56 f1–2:7, 134 f1–2:7–8, 56 f3–4i:10 and 11, 134 f3–4i:8, 175, 178n531 f3–4i:9, 134 f3–4ii:8, 61 f3–4iv:1, 73 f3–4iv:3, 88 4QpPsa, 24, 29, 32, 34–35, 45, 48, 51–54, 56–57, 59–60, 66–67, 73, 80n222, 84, 89–90, 92, 108n307, 118–119, 132, 140, 149, 158 commentary unit 3, 119 commentary unit 4, 74 commentary units 7–8, 118, 119 commentary unit 14, 46, 131 commentary unit 16, 117n342 commentary unit 17, 117n342 commentary unit 18, 75 commentary unit 23, 118–119 f1+3–4iii:15, 118, 140 f1+3–4iii:4a, 48 f1–2 i:19, 119n351 f1–2 ii 13, 25 f1–2 ii:14, 118n346 f1–2 ii:22, 118n346 f1–2i:18–19, 119 f1–2ii:4, 73 f1–2ii:9–10, 118n349, 145n410 f3–10iv:10, 85 f3–10iv:8, 118n349, 145n410 f3–10iv:9–10, 118n349, 145n410 ii:14, 119 4QpPsa,b, 30n48 4QpPsb, 32, 34–35, 48, 51, 57, 59–60,

66, 73, 84, 89–90, 92, 101 commentary unit 1, 85 commentary unit 2, 85 commentary unit 3′, 85 commentary unit 4′, 85 commentary unit 6′, 85 f2:1, 76, 85 4QPrNab, 77n204 f1–3:2, 77n204 4QpZeph, 32, 35, 64, 101 4QTanḥûmîm, 27n34, 29–31, 66n166, 68n178, 89, 92 4QTestimonia, 27n34, 51, 68, 176 9–12, 176n523 5QpMal?, 32, 35, 64 f1:3, 74 6Q15 f1 3, 179, 183 CD (Cairo Geniza) 19, 140 20, 140 CD‑A (Cairo Geniza) 4:21, 179 13:2, 175n516 Genesis Apocryphon, 183 13–15, 39n91 22:27, 77n206 Genesis commentaries, 183 Hodayot, 80n222 Hosea pesharim, 101 Isaiah pesharim, 58, 65–66, 70, 88, 90, 93, 151, 157 pesharim to Genesis 49, 69n179 pesharim to select psalms, 89, 92, 157 from Cave 4, 101

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages

271

Jewish and Christian Literature Acts 13:33, 171n509 Ascension of Isaiah, 171n509 Ben Sira, 176 30:13, 81n224 38:14, 72 38:24–39:12, 42n101 39, 91 39:1–7, 181 39:6 (LXX), 41 49:1–10, 176 Book of the Giants, 154 1 Chronicles 23:31, 215n629 2 Chronicles 2:3, 215n629 6:16, 81 7:18, 81 8:13, 215n629 31:3, 215n629 35:13, 37 36, 172 36:11–23, 82n226 36:16, 81, 177, 178n531 36:20–23, 39n89 Daniel, 91, 156, 162, 171–172, 176 2, 72 2, 4, 5, and 7, 39 3:16, 77n207 4, 39, 72 4:10–17, 39n91 4:14, 77n205 5, 38–40, 72 5:15, 76, 91n259 5:26, 77, 92n261 7, 39n89, 40n95, 72 7:16, 77, 91n259 9, 38–42, 92, 172 9:1–2, 38 9:2–3, 40

9:3, 31 9:22, 41 9:24–27, 38, 181 Damascus Document, 174, 179n534 Deuteronomy, 174, 176n525, 179n534, 182 10:16, 178n531 15:2, 179n537 15:12–18, 35 16:7, 37 21:23, 178n531 29:18, 149n419, 178n531 Ecclesiastes 8:1, 42n105, 72, 77n205 1 Enoch, 155 7:1, 155n437 8:3, 155n437 93:1–10 + 91:11–17, 33 Astronomical Book, 155, 178 Esther, 162 1:20, 77n205 9:22, 175, 215n629 Exodus, 176, 182 12:9, 37 21:2–11, 35 25–40, 183 Ezekiel, 171–172, 176 26:16, 80 31, 39, 72 31:18, 36 31:2–18, 36 44:24, 215n629 45:17, 215n629 𝔓967, 171 4 Ezra 12:10–30, 39n89, 40n95 Ezra 1:1 and 2ff, 39n89 3:12, 36 4:17, 77n205 5:11, 77n204

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

272

Index of Passages

5:7, 77n204 6:11, 77n205 Genesis, 179n534, 182–183 1:27, 183n544 18:15, 51n136 35:22, 83, 177, 178n531 49, 66, 69n179, 84, 87, 176 49:1bβ, 87 49:3–4, 83 49:10, 81 49:10 SamP, 230 Habakkuk 1:5, 112, 129 1:8–9a, 133, 149 1:8a, 133 1:8b–9, 149 1:(8b–)9, 133 1:10, 82 1:10a, 82 1:15–16, 129 1:16, 148 2:8a, 146 2:16, 114n334, 149n419 2:17, 119 2:18, 29 Hosea, 84, 86 2:8, 66n165 2:8b–2:9a, 66n165 2:9a, 66n165 2:9b, 66n165 6:9a, 80 7:5, 144n334 Isaiah, 30n46, 84, 85, 157, 171, 176 1–32, 67 1–33, 67 3:2–3, 37 5:7, 36 5:11–14, 115, 117 5:11–14, 66

5:15–25a, 166 5:15–25α, 66n166 5:24b‑25, 115, 117 5:25b–30, 66 6:1–8, 66 6:9–?, 66 9:13, 36 9:14, 36, 37 10:1–11, 66 10:12–24, 67 10:14–18/19, 67, 68 10:20–22a, 86 10:20–24, 149 10:21, 86n639 10:21–24, 86 10:22, 86n639 10:22b–23, 86n639 10:24–?, 86n639 10:24–27a, 86n639 10:29, 81 10:34(–11), 118n347 11:1–5, 80 13:18bα, 80 14:8–30, 67 14:9–25, 66n167, 68 14:31–32, 171n509 18:1, 204 18:6, 204 21:2, 117 21:11–15, 117 40:1–5, 68n178 40:2, 83 48:1–9, 68n178 49:13–17, 68n178 52:1–3, 68n178 54:4–10, 68n178 Jeremiah, 171, 172, 176 ?, 79 4:4, 178 23:5, 81 25:11–12, 38

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Index of Passages

25:12, 40 26:18–19, 83 29, 40 29:10, 38 29:12–14, 40 33:15, 81 33:17, 81 36:10 (LXX), 38 Joel, 174 2:23, 142 Josephus’s Antiquities Words of Onias reported in, 42n105 Jubilees, 183 2:14, 183n544 6:35, 80, 175, 178 33:8, 83, 178n531 Judges 5, 30 9:7–15, 39 1 Kings 2:4, 81 8:25, 81 9:5, 81 11:19, 36 Lamentations 2:6, 215n629 Letter of Aristeas, 42n105 Leviticus, 174, 179n534, 182 25:13, 179n537 25:39–46, 35 26:18, 39n89 Malachi, 84 1:10, 174, 179n536 Martyrdom of Isaiah, 171n509 Micah, 84 1:2b‑5a, 65n164 3:12, 83 7:17, 65n164

273

Nahum, 180, 182 1:2, 179n536 3:3, 118n348 Nehemiah 8:8, 37 10:34, 215n629 Numbers, 174, 176, 179n534, 182 10:10, 215n629 24:17, 176n523 Oracles of Balaam, 176 Proverbs, 174 Psalms, 84, 160n452, 171n509 1, 2, 172n509 2:7, 171n509 6, 68n178 37, 66 37:12, 119 37:20, 131 37:23–24, 117 45, 66 57, 66 60, 67 68, 66 127, 66 129, 66 132:17, 81 1 Samuel 2:1–10, 30n50 2 Samuel 7, 30n46, 176 22, 30n50 Sifre on Numbers 12:6, 72 Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel 17:22–24, 81 Targum to Ecclesiastes 8:1, 72 Testament of Judah 24:1, 176n523 Testament of Levi 18:3, 176n523

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

274

Index of Passages

Visions of Levi, 155n437 32a–36, 155n437

3:9, 204n600 8:19, 215n629 11:11, 80 Zephaniah, 84 2:1, 564

Zechariah ?, 80 1:12, 39n89

Epigraphic Sources and Other Mareshah, 156 Mareshah ostracon 1, 156n442 Pahlavi Frahang, 155n437 Paikuli inscription (Pahlavi) 30F12,01, 77n203 38G6,04, 77n203 42H,01, 77n203 Paikuli inscription (Parthian) 16c15,04, 77n203 27e13,03, 77n203 34f6,04, 77n203 35f3,05, 77n203 38g4,02, 77n203

TAD A 4.7, 88n248 TAD A 4.8, 88n248, 146n411 TAD A 6.10:9, 77n204 TAD A 6.8:3, 77n204 TAD B 8.8:2–4, 77n204 TAD D 1.28:5, 77n204 TAD D 1.32:15, 77n204 TAD D 7.39:8, 77n205

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Review of M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Com‑ position and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts”. RBL (2013). Abusch, I. Tzvi. Babylonian Witchcraft Literature: Case Studies. BJS 132. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. ——. “Mesopotamian Anti‑Witchcraft Literature: Texts and Studies Part I: The Nature of Its Character, Divisions, and Calendrical Setting”. JNES 33 (1974): 251–262. ——. The Mesopotamian Anti‑Witchcraft Ritual: An Edition. AMD. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016. Allegue, Jaime Vázquez. “El ‘Sefer Ha‑Hagy’ de Qumrán”. Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebreos 57 (2008): 279–308. Amoussine, J. D. “Observatiunculae Qumraneae,” RevQ 7 (1971): 533–535. Anderson, Christopher. “The Compositional History of Daniel 4 and the Authoritative Status of Daniel at Qumran”. Presentation at Dead Sea Scrolls: Life in Ancient Times Graduate Symposium, Waltham, Mass., October 6, 2013. Annus, Amar, and Alan Lenzi. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. SAACT 7. Helsinki: The Neo‑Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010. Assmann, Jan. “Text und Kommentar: Einführung”. Pages 9–34 in Text und Kom‑ mentar. Edited by Jan Assmann and Burkhard Gladigow. München: W. Fink, 1995. Bauks, Michaela, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange. “Introduction”. Pages 11–23 in Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in An‑ cient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times. Edited by Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange. JAJSup 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 2013. Beaulieu, Paul‑Alain. “An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing”. Acta Sumerologica 17 (1995): 1–14. Ben‑Dov, Jonathan. Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context. STDJ 78. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008. ——. and Wayne Horowitz. “The Babylonian Lunar Three in Calendrical Scrolls from Qumran”. ZA 95 (2005): 104–20. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature”. Pages 276–97 in The Changing Face of Form‑Criticism for the Twenty‑First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Bernstein, Moshe J. “4Q252: From Re‑Written Bible to Biblical Commentary”. JJS 45 (1994):1–27.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

276

Bibliography

——. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re‑Citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique”. DSD 1 (1994): 30–70. ——. “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles’ 4QpHoseaa 2.15–17 and Jubilees 6.34–38”. JSP 9 (1991): 21–34. Berrin (Tzoref), Shani L. “Pesharim”. Pages 644–647 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. STDJ 53. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. ——. “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources in Pesher Nahum”. DSD 11 (2004): 2–11. Bickerman, Elias J. Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Es‑ ther. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Origins of Biblical Commentary”. Pages 3–29 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew Univer‑ sity Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by Ruth Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 84. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Bottéro, Jean. “Les noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la ‘logique’ en Mésopotamie ancienne”. Pages 5–28 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Edited by Maria de Jong Ellis. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences 19. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1997. Brettler, Marc Zvi. “Biblical Authority: A Jewish Pluralistic View”. Pages 1–9 in Engaging Biblical Authority: Perspectives on the Bible as Scripture. Edited by William P. Brown. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007. ——. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London/New York: Routledge, 1995. Brewer, David I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1992. Broida, Marian. “Textualizing Divination: The Writing on the Wall in Daniel 5:25”. VT 62 (2012): 1–13. Brooke, George J. “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features of Some Cave 4 ‘Continuous’ Pesharim”. Pages 133–150 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues from the Dead Sea Scrolls”. RevQ 25 (2012): 507–524. ——. “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran”. Pages 287–319 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

277

Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 3 vols. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. ——. “Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament”. Pages 60–73 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceed‑ ings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000. ——. “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts”. Pages 609–632 in Writ‑ ing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Smith and Craig C. Broyles. 2 vols. VTSup 70/2. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1997. ——. “Physicality, Paratextuality and Pesher Habakkuk”. Pages 175–193 in On the Fringe of Commentary: Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. Edited by Sydney Aufrère, Philip Alexander, and Zlatko Pleše. OLA 232. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2014. ——. “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre”. RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503. ——. “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. ——. “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/Boston: Brill, 2007. ——. “The Genre of 4Q252: From Poetry to Pesher”. DSD 1 (1994): 160–179. ——. “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim”. Pages 135–159 in Images of Empires. Edited by Loveday Alexander. JSOTSup 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. ——. “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Pages 339–353 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York, N.Y.: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. ——. “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures”. Pages 134–157 in Bibli‑ cal Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Broshi, Magen. “247. 4QPesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks”. Pages 187–191 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran, Part 1. DJD. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. ——. “A Commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247)”. ErIsr 26 (1999): 39–42.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

278

Bibliography

Brownlee, William H. “Biblical Interpretation Among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls”. BA 14 (1951): 54–76. ——. “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan”. JJS 7 (1956): 169– 186. ——. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. SBLMS 24. Missoula, MN: Scholar’s Press, 1979. Campbell, Jonathan G. “4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon”. JJS 51 (2000): 181– 190. Carmignac, Jean. “Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédek”. RevQ 7 (1969): 342–378. ——. “Le genre litteraire du ‘pesher’ dans la Pistis‑Sophia,” RevQ 4 (1963–64) 497–522. ——. “Notes sur les Peshârîm”. RevQ 3 (1961): 511–515. ——. É. Cothenet, and H. Lignée. Les textes de Qumran: Traduits et Annotés. Autour de la Bible. Paris: Éditions Letouzey et Ané, 1963. Cavigneaux, Antoine. “Aux sources du Midrash: L’Herméneutique babylonienne”. AuOr 5 (1987): 243–255. Charlesworth, James H. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. ——. and James D. McSpadden. “The Sociological and Liturgical Dimensions of Psalm Pesher 1 (4QPPSa): Some Prolegomenous Reflections”. Pages 317–349 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Ju‑ daism and Christian Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 3 vols. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. Cheung, Johnny. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden Indo‑European Etymological Dictionary Series. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007. Civil, Miguel. Ea A = Nâqu, Aa A = Nâqu, with Their Forerunners and Related Texts. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14. 1979. ——. “Medical Commentaries from Nippur”. JNES 33 (1974): 329–338. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia 27. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. “Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment”. BA‑ SOR 220 (1975): 27–36. ——. “Prophecy and History in the Pesharim”. Pages 210–226 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM 16. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1977. ——. “The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Pages 203–217 in The He‑ brew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Nora David, Armin Lange and Shani Tzoref. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

279

——. “The Court‑Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic”. JBL 94 (1975): 218–234. Collins, Matthew. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. LSTS 67. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Corley, Jeremy. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira: An Investigation of Beginnings and Endings”. Pages 21–47 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. ——. “Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1–10”. Pages 269–285 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tra‑ dition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.: Edited, with Translation and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Stud‑ ies. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ——. David Noel Friedman, James A. Sanders, and John C. Trever. Scrolls From Qumran Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesh‑ er to Habakkuk. Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1972. Cryer, Frederick H. “Genesis: in Qumran”. Pages 98–112 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Dąbrowa, Edward. “The Hasmoneans in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls”. Pages 501–510 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov and Matthias Weigold. VTSup 140. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms I: 1–50. The Anchor Bible 16. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Daoust, Francis. “Problèmes de lecture des planches de 4Q163 dans DJD V”. Pages 395–403 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. EJL 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Da Riva, von Rocìo, and Eckart Frahm. “Šamaš‑šumu‑ukīn, Die Herrin von Ninive und das babylonische Königssiegel”. AfO 46/47 (1999/2000): 156–182. Daumas, François. “Littérature prophétique et exégetique égyptienne et commentaires esséniens”. Pages 203–221 in A la rencontre de dieu: Memorial Albert Gelin. Edited by A. Barucq. Bibliothéque de la faculté catholique de theologie de Lyon 8. Le Puy: Editions Xavier, 1961. David, Robert, and Éric Bellavance. “Suggestions et questions à propos de quelques framents de textes découverts à Qumrân: 1QpHab, 4Q161 (4QpIsaa) et 1Q14 (1QpMic)”. Pages 375–394 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

280

Bibliography

Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime and Kyung S. Baek. EJL 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Delnero, Paul. “Sumerian Literary Catalogues and the Scribal Curriculum”. ZA 100 (2010): 32–55. Dimant, Devorah. “Pesharim, Qumran”. Pages 244–251 in The Anchor Bible Dic‑ tionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ——. “Qumran Sectarian Literature”. Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Sec‑ ond Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. LJPSTT 2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984. Doudna, Gregory L. “4Q Pesher Hoseab: Reconstruction of Fragments 4, 5, 18, and 24”. DSD 10 (2003): 338–358. ——. 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. JSPSup 35/Copenhagen International Series 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. ——. “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis”. Pages 430–471 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam. 2 vols. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1998. Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. ——. “Between Akkadian Ṭ upšarūtu and Aramaic ‫ספר‬: Some Notes on the Social Context of the Early Enochic Literature”. RevQ 95 (2010): 374–403. Ebeling, Erich. Das Aramäisch‑mittel‑persische Glossar Frahang‑I‑Pahlavik Im Lichte der assyriologischen Forschung. MAOG 14/1. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1941. Elledge, Casey D. “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Commentary”. RevQ 21 (2003): 165–208. ——. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ABS 14. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakuk ‑ Kommentar vom Toten Meer. BHT 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1953. Elman, Yaakov. “Authoritative Oral Tradition in Neo‑Assyrian Scribal Circles”. JANESCU 7 (1975): 19–32. Eshel, Esther. “Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Light of New Epigraphical Finds”. Pages 177–197 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold. 2 Vols. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011. Eshel, Hanan. “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”. Pages 107–117 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin,

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

281

Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, and Mikael Winninge. STDJ 80. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. ——. “‫”עד לפשרו של פשר חבקוק‬. Zion 72 (2007): 94–96. Fabry, Heinz‑Josef. “The Reception of Nahum and Habakkuk in the Septuagint and Qumran”. Pages 241–256 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. VTSup 94. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984. Feltes, Heinz. Die Gattung des Habakukkommentars von Qumran (1 QpHab): Eine Studie zum frühen jüdischen Midrasch. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Finkel, A. “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures”. RevQ 2 (1963): 357–370. Finkel, Irving L. “Explanatory Commentary on a List of Materia Medica”. Pages 155–171 in Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Ira Spar and W.G. Lambert. Cuneiform texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II/2. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2005. ——. “On an Izbu VII Commentary”. Pages 139–148 in If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty. Edited by Ann K. Guinan, Maria deJ. Ellis, A.J. Ferrara, Sally M. Freedman, Matthew T. Rutz, Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Steve Tinney, and M.W. Waters. CM 31. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2006. Finsterbusch, Karin and Armin Lange, ed. What Is Bible? CBET 67. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. ——. “Inner‑Biblical Exegesis”. In Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Sæbø et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. ——. “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics”. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1 (1977): 97–114. ——. “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”. In Mikra. Volume 1 of The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud. Edited by Jan Mulder. CRINT 2. Assen/Maastricht/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament”. Pages 3–58 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. SBLSBS 5. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974. Flint, Peter W. “Psalms, Book of: Biblical Text”. Pages 702–707 in Encyclope‑ dia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

282

Bibliography

——. “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran”. Pages 269–304 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S.M. Paul et al. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls: Quotations, Citations, Allusions, and the Form of the Scriptural Source Text”. Pages 389– 406 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. 2 vols. JSJSup 153. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012. ——. “The Prophet David at Qumran”. Pages 158–167 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Fraade, Steven D. “Hagu, Book of ”. Page 327 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Frahm, Eckart. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpre‑ tation. GMTR 5. Münster: Ugarit‑Verlag, 2011. ——. “Counter‑texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere”. Orient 45 (2010): 3–33. ——. “Reading the Tablet, the Exta, and the Body: The Hermeneutics of Cuneiform Signs in Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries and Divinatory Texts”. Pages 93–141 in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World. Edited by Amar Annus. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2010. ——. “Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries from Ashurbanipal’s Libraries at Nineveh”. Iraq 66 (2004): 45–50. ——, Mary Frazer, and Enrique Jiménez. “Commentary on Theodicy (CCP no. 1.4)”. Cuneiform Commentaries Project (2017), at http://ccp.yale.edu/ P404917 (accessed February 2, 2017). ——, and Enrique Jiménez. “Myth, Ritual, and Interpretation: The Commentary on Enūma Eliš I–VII and a Commentary on Elamite Month Names”. HBAI 4 (2015): 293–343. Fröhlich, Ida. “Le genre littéraire des pesharim de Qumrân”. RevQ 12 (1985): 383–398. ——. “Pesher, Apocalyptical Literature and Qumran”. Pages 295–305 in The Ma‑ drid 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. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden/New York/Köln: E.J. Brill, 1992. ——. “Qumran Biblical Interpretation in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Historiography”. Pages 821–855 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange et al. 2 vols. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011. Gabbay, Uri. “Actual Sense and Scriptural Intention: Literal Meaning and Its Terminology in Akkadian and Hebrew Commentaries”. Pages 335–370 in En‑

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

283

counters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Ira‑ nians, and Babylonians in Antiquity. Edited by Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ——. “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis”. DSD 19, no. 3 (2012): 267–312. ——. “Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique in Babylonian and Assyrian Commentaries”. HBAI 4 (2015): 344–368. García Martínez, Florentino. “El pesher: Interpretación profética de la escritura”. Salmanticensis 26 (1979): 125–139. ——. “Parabiblical Literature from Qumran and the Canonical Process”. RevQ 25 (2012): 525–556. ——. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1992. ——. and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1999. Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation, with Intro‑ duction and Notes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956. Geiger, Gregor. “Einige Alternativlesungen der Qumranrollen”. LASBF 59 (2009): 191–216. Geller, Markham J. Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice. Ancient Cultures. Chichester: Wiley‑Blackwell, 2010. George, Andrew R. “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith: Part Two: Prognostic and Diagnostic Omens, Tablet I”. RA 85 (1991) 137–167. Gesche, Petra D. Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 275. Münster: Ugarit‑Verlag, 2001. Ginsberg, Harold Louis. Studies in Daniel. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 14. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948. Greenfield, Jonas. “Iranian Loanwords in Early Aramaic”. Pages 250–261 in Ency‑ clopædia Iranica. Edited by Iḥ sān Yāršātir. London/Boston/Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “The ‚Scripture Effectʻ: An Essay on the Sociology of the Interpretative‑Reading of ,Textsʻ”. Pages 85–91 in Text und Kommentar. Edited by Jan Assmann and Burkhard Gladigow. 4 vols. W. Fink, 1995. Gunkel, Hermann. Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und Erklärt. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1968. Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. VTSup 44. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1992. Haber, Esther. “The Pesher Units in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Leš (2017):462–477. Hagedorn, Anselm C., and Shani (Berrin) Tzoref. “Attitudes to Gentiles in the Minor Prophets and in Corresponding Pesharim”. DSD 20 (2013): 472–509.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

284

Bibliography

Harrington, Daniel J. “The Apocalypse of Hannah: Targum Jonathan of 1 Samuel 2:1–10”. Pages 147–152 in “Working with No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin. Edited by David M. Golomb. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Hartog, Pieter. “Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Types of Commentary from the Hellenistic‑Roman Period”. PhD diss., Catholic University of Leuven, 2015. ——. Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period. STDJ 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017. ——. “‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ and ‘The Mouth of the Priest’: Eschatology and Literary History in Pesher Habakkuk”. DSD 24 (2017): 1–22. Hasselbach, Trine B. “Two Approaches to the Study of Genre in 4Q172”. Pages 109–118 in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Con‑ ference. Edited by George J. Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2011. Hinz, Walther. “Achämenidische Hofverwaltung”. ZA 61 (1971): 260–311. ——. Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. Göttinger Orientforschungen III/3. Wiesbaden, 1975. Hobson, Russel. Transforming Literature into Scripture: Texts as Cult Objects at Nineveh and Qumran. Bible World. Sheffield: Equinox, 2012. Hogeterp, Albert L.A. “Daniel:and the Daniel Qumran Cycle: Observation on 4QFour KingdomsA–B (4Q552–553)”. Pages 173–191 in Authoritative Scrip‑ tures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. Horgan, Maurya P. “Pesharim”. In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 2002. ——. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. MC 8. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998. ——. “The Astrolabes: An Exercise in Transmission, Canonicity, and Para‑Canonicity”. Pages 273–287 in Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of In‑ tertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times. Edited by Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange. JAJSup 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 2013. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings ofthe Second Temple Period. VTSupp 160. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014. Ilan, Tal. Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamzion and Other Jewish Women. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 115. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

285

Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia”. Pages 65–97 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the An‑ cient Near East. Edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. JHNES. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ 68. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007. ——. “Re‑reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161) Forty Years After DJD V”. Pages 57–90 in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Confer‑ ence. Edited by George J. Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2011. ——. “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary in Early Jewish Scriptural Interpretation”. DSD 19, no. 3 (2012): 363–398. Johnson, J. Cale. “The Origins of Scholastic Commentary in Mesopotamia: Second‑order Schemata in the Early Dynastic Exegetical Imagination”. Pages 11– 55 in Visualizing Knowledge and Creating Meaning in Ancient Writing Systems. Edited by Shai Gordin. BBVO 23. Berlin: PeWe‑Verlag, 2014. Jokiranta, Jutta. “Authority in Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran”. In Between Ca‑ nonical and Apocryphal Texts: Processes of Reception, Rewriting and Interpreta‑ tion in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Jörg Frey, Claire Clivaz and Tobias Nicklas. WUNT 2 Reihe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. ——. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. STDJ 105. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Jucci, Elio. “Il genere «pesher» e la profezia”. Ricerche Storico Bibliche 1 (1989): 151–168. Kämmerer, Thomas R., and Kai A. Metzler. Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš. AOAT 375. Münster: Ugarit‑Verlag, 2012. Katzin, David. “ ‘The Time of Testing’: The Use of Hebrew Scriptures in 4Q171’s Pesher of Psalm 37”. HS 45 (2004): 121–162. Kaufmann, Stephen A. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. AS 19. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Keener, H. Jim. “Greater Than the Sum of the Parts: Organization and Structure in 4QpPsa (Psalm Pesher 1/4Q171)”. HS 53 (2012): 89–113. King, Leonard W. The Seven Tablets of Creation. 2 vols. London: Luzac and Co., 1902. Kister, Menahem. “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implications”. Pages 101–111 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Inter‑ pretation 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. Edited by Michael Stone and Esther Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1998.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

286

Bibliography

Knobel, Peter S. “The Targum of Qohelet”. In The Targum of Job, Proverbs, Qohe‑ let. Edited by Martin McNamara, Michael Maher and Kevin Cathcart. ArBib 15. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. Koch‑Westenholz, Ulla. Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination. CNIP 19. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995. ——. “The Astrological Commentary Šumma Sîn Ina Tāmartīšu Tablet 1”. ResOr 12 (1999): 149–165. van der Kooij, Arie. “Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture”. Pages 55–71 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Zu Graphischen Abschnittsmarkierungen in Nordwestsemitischen Texten”. Pages 121–161 in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature. Edited by Marjo C.A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch. Pericope 4. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum, 2003. Kovelman, Arkady. Between Alexandria and Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture. BRLA 21. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Die Pescharim von Qumran: Im Rahmen der Schriftauslegung des antiken Judentums”. Pages 87–104 in Heilige Texte: Religion und Rationalität, 1. Geisteswissenschaftliches Colloquium 10.–13. Dezember 2009 auf Schloss Genshagen. Edited by Andreas Kablitz and Christoph Markschies. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2013. ——. “Text and Commentary: The Pesharim of Qumran in the Context of Hellenistic Scholarship”. Pages 212–229 in The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Edited by Thomas L. Thompson and Philippe Wajdenbaum. London/New York: Routledge, 2014. Labat, René. Commentaires Assyro‑Babyloniens sur les Présages. Bordeaux: Imprimerie‑Librairie de l’Université, 1933. Lambert, Wilfred G. “An Address of Marduk to the Demons”. AfO 17 (1956): 310–321. ——. “An Address of Marduk to the Demons: New Fragments”. AfO 19 (1960): 114–119. ——. “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity”. JCS 11 (1957): 1–14. ——. Babylonian Creation Myths. MC 16. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ——. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. ——. “Commentaries: Preface”. Pages 133–134 in Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Ira Spar and W.G. Lambert. Cuneiform texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2005. ——. “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma Eliš”. Pages 77–79 in Assyrien Im Wan‑ del Der Zeiten: XXXIX Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale; Heidelberg 6.–

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

287

10. Juli 1992. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. HSAO 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997. ——. “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued): IX. The Birdcall Text”. AnSt 20 (1970): 111–117. Landsberger, Benno, and Miguel Civil. “Additions and Corrections to MSL II and III”. In Ḫ AR‑ra = Ḫ ubullu. Tablet XV. Ugu‑mu. List of Diseases. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 9. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Lange, Armin. Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Vol. 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. “Interpretation als Offenbarung”. In Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by F. García Martínez. BETL. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. ——. and Zlatko Pleše. “The Qumran Pesharim and the Derveni Papyrus: Transpositional Hermeneutics in Ancient Jewish and Ancient Greek Commentaries”. Pages 895–922 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov and Matthias Weigold. 2 vols. VTSup 140. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2011. ——, ——. “Transpositional Hermeneutics: A Hermeneutical Comparison of the Derveni Papyrus, Aristobulus of Alexandria, and the Qumran Pesharim”. JAJ 3 (2012): 15–67. Lehman, M.H. “Materials Concerning the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls: I Habakkuk”. PEQ 83 (1951): 32–54. Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Mi‑ drashic Evidence. Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47. Hamden, Conn.: The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976. Lenzi, Alan. “Commentary on Ludlul (CCP no. 1.3),” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (2017), http://ccp.yale.edu/P394923 (accessed February 3, 2017). ——. “The Commentary to Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: A Closer Look”. Presentation at the American Oriental Society, Portland, Oreg., March 18, 2013. Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner‑Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case”. JBL 127 (2008): 241–265. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Interpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Lev 25: 44– 46)”. JBL 124 (2005): 617–639 Lieberman, Stephen J. “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection”. Pages 157–225 in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Edited by Piotr Steinkeller, John Huehnergard and I. Tzvi Abusch. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

288

Bibliography

——. “A Mesopotamian Background for the So‑Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics?” HUCA 58 (1987): 157–225. Lim, Timothy. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Pages 303–322 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ——. Formation of the Jewish Canon. ARBL. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2013. ——. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. London/New York: Continuum, 2002. ——. “The Alleged Reference to the Tripartite Division of the Hebrew Bible”. RevQ 20 (2001): 23–37. ——. “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Interpretation”. Pages 57–73 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Livingstone, Alasdair. Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Llewelyn, Stephen, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne, and Alexandra Wrathall. “A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab)”. Pages 123–150 in Keter Shem Tov: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown. Edited by Ian Young and Shani Tzoref. PHSC 20. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2013. Machiela, Daniel A. “The Qumran Pesharim as Biblical Commentaries: Historical Context and Lines of Development”. DSD 19 (2012): 313–362. Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bibliotheque du Museon 44. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Institut Orientaliste, 1958. Meier, Gerhard. “Kommentare aus dem Archiv der Tempelschule in Assur”. AfO 12 (1937): 237–246. Mertens, Alfred. Das Buch Daniel im Licht der Texte vom Toten Meer. SBM 12. Würtzburg: Echter KBW Verlag, 1971. Metzenthin, Christian. Jesaja‑Auslegung in Qumran. AThANT 98. Zürich: Theologische Verlag Zürich, 2010. Metzger, Bruce M. “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and the Mishnah,” JBL 70 (1951) 297–307. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “Milkî‑ṣedeq et Milkî‑rešaʿ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”. JSJ 23 (1972): 95–144. ——. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by John Strugnell. SBT 26. Naperville, Ill.: A. R. Allenson, 1963. Mroczek, Eva. “The Hegemony of the Biblical in the Study of Second Temple Literature”. JAJ 6 (2015): 2–35 Murphy, Roland E. “GBR and GBWRH in the Qumran Writings”. Pages 137–143 in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

289

Lebensjahres am 8. August 1961. Edited by H. Gross and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus‑Verlag, 1961. Murphy O’Connor, Jerome. “The Essenes and Their History”. RB 81 (1974): 215– 244. Najman, Hindi. “The Vitality of Scripture Within and Beyond the ‘Canon.’ ” JSJ 43 (2012): 497–518. Neujahr, Matthew. Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East. BJS 354. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2012. Niehoff, Maren R. “Commentary Culture in the Land of Israel from an Alexandrian Perspective”. DSD 19 (2012): 442–463. Nissinen, Martti. “Pesharim as Divination: Qumran Exegesis, Omen Interpretation and Literary Prophecy”. Pages 43–60 in Prophecy After the Prophets?: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra‑biblical Prophecy. Edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange. CBET 52. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, Mass.: Peeters, 2009. Nitzan, Bilhah. “Education and Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of their Background in Antiquity”. Pages 97–116 in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Betsy Halpern‑Amaru. STDJ 99. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature”. Pages 337–350 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. ——. “The Pesher and Other Methods of Instruction”. Pages 209–220 in Mogilany 1989: Papers Presented at the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jean Carmignac and Zdzisław Jan Kapera. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1991. ——. The Pesher Scroll of Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1989 [Hebrew]. ——. “?‫ ”האּומנם שני רבדים בפשר חבקוק‬Zion 72 (2007): 91–93. Noegel, Scott B. Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the An‑ cient Near East. American Oriental Series 89. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2007. Oppenheim, A Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised ed. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1977. ——. “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream‑Book”. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179–373.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

290

Bibliography

Oshima, T. Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ——. The Babylonian Theodicy: Introduction, Cuneiform Text and Translitera‑ tion with a Translation, Glossary and Commentary. SAACT 9/Publications of the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research 9. Helsinki: Neo‑Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2013. Pardee, Dennis. “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalm 37 From Qumran Cave 4 (Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan, vol. V, no: 171),” RevQ 30 (1973):163–194. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. SBLDS 22. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Pearce, Laurie E. “Babylonian Commentaries and Intellectual Innovation”. Pages 331–338 in Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East: Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre Assyriologique International, Prague, July 1–5, 1996. Edited by Jiři Prosecký. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute, 1998. Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Mate‑ rial from the German Expeditions. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1986. Popović, Mladen. “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism”. Pages 1–17 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “Prophet, Books and Texts: Ezekiel, Pseudo‑Ezekiel and the Authoritativeness of Ezekiel Traditions in Early Judaism”. Pages 227–251 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic‑Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007. Porten, Bezalel. “The Revised Draft of the Letter of Jedaniah to Bagavahya (TAD A4.8 = Cowley 31)”. Pages 230–242 in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon. Edited by Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb, and Sharon Keller. LHBOTS 273. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 Vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben‑Zvi, 2010–2015. ——. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986. Rabinowitz, Isaac. “Pêsher/Pittârôn: Its Biblical Meaning and Its Significance in the Qumran Literature”. RevQ 8 (1973): 219–232. Reiner, Erica, and David Pingree. Babylonian Planetary Omens: Part Three. CM 11. Groningen: Styx, 1998.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

291

Reiner, Erica. “Celestial Omen Tablets and Fragments in the British Museum”. Pages 215–302 in Eine Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994. Edited by Stefan M. Maul. CM 10. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1998. ——. Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfOB 11. Graz: Ernst Weidner, 1958. Roberts, J.J.M. “The Importance of Isaiah at Qumran”. Pages 273–286 in The Bi‑ ble and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 3 vols. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. Rochberg‑Halton, Francesca. “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”. JCS 36 (1984): 127–144. Rosenthal, Judah M. “Biblical Exegesis of 4QpIs”. JQR 60 (1969): 27–36. Sachau, Eduard. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militärkol‑ onie zu Elephantine: Altorientalische Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911. Satlow, Michael L. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2014. Schironi, Francesca. “Greek Commentaries”. DSD 19 (2012): 399–441. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥ ad: A New Paradigm of Textual Devel‑ opment for The Community Rule. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Schwemer, Daniel. Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum Schadenzauber‑ glauben im alten Mesopotamien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. ——. The Anti-Witchcraft Ritual Maqlû: The Cuneiform Sources of a Magic Cer‑ emony from Ancient Mesopotamia. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2017. Segal, Moses H. Parshanut ha‑Miqra. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: Qiryat sefer, 1971. Segal, Michael. “The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9”. JAJ 2 (2011): 283–303. ——. “The Text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Meghillot 11–12 (2015): 171– 198 [Hebrew]. Shaked, Shaul. “Iranian Loanwords in Middle Aramaic”. Pages 250–261 in Ency‑ clopædia Iranica. Edited by Iḥ sān Yāršātir. London/Boston/Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. Sharon, Nadav. “The Enemy in Pesher Isaiaha (4Q161) Frgs. 5–6: An Overlooked Identification”. Cathedra 159 (2016): 7–24 [Hebrew]. ——. “The Kittim and the Roman Conquest in the Qumran Scrolls”. Meghillot 11–12 (2015): 357–388. Silberman, L.H. “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher 1QpHab”. RevQ 3 (1961): 323–364. Skjærvø, Prods O. Restored Text and Translation. The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli 3.1. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1983. Snyder, H. Gregory. “Naughts and Crosses: Pesher Manuscripts and Their Significance for Reading Practices at Qumran”. DSD 7 (2000): 26–48.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

292

Bibliography

Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Der Pešer Psalm 37 aus Höhle 4 von Qumran [4QpPs37]”. RevQ 4 (1963). ——. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Je‑ sus. Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill Academic, 1998. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschatab): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und tra‑ ditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. STDJ 13. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. ——. “Dating Exegetical Texts from Qumran”. Pages 39–53 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard Gregor Kratz. FAT 2, 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from the Qumran”. Revue de Qumran 16 (1993): 225–246. Stoll, Dirk. “Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer–mathematisch oder wie kann Man einer Rekonstruktion gestalt verleihen?” Pages 205–218 in Qumrans‑ tudien: Vorträge und Beiträge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.–26. Juli 1993. Edited by Heinz‑Josef Fabry, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. Stone, Michael E. “Apocalyptic Literature”. Pages 383–442 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. LJPSTT 2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984. ——. Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra. HSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Strawn, Brent A. “Excerpted “Non‑Biblical” Scrolls at Qumran? Background, Analogies, Function”. Pages 65–123 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A Strawn. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. Strugnell, John. “Notes en marge du volume V des «Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan»”. RevQ 7 (1969): 163–276. Stuckenbruck, Loren. “The Formation and Re‑Formation of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Pages 101–130 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

293

Szörényi, Andreas. “Das Buch Daniel, ein kanonisierter Pescher?” In Volume du Congrès: Genève 1965. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts”. Textus 4 (1964): 95–132. ——. “Hebrew Fragments from Masada”. Pages 1–149 in Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 – Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Tigay, Jeffrey H. “An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis”. Pages 169–189 in His‑ tory, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Lit‑ eratures. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1983. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Aramaic Texts from Qumran”. Pages 156–171 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “‫ פשר‬pšr”. In Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Aramäisches Wörterbuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, forthcoming. Tinney, Steve. “On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature”. IRAQ 61 (1999): 159–172. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?)”. Pages 73– 91 inAuthoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible”. Pages 40–66 in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honor of James Barr. Edited by Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. ——. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April, 1995”. Pages 41–77 in Cur‑ rent Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen David Ricks. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996. ——. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. ——. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd revised and expanded edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. ——. “The Authority of Early Hebrew Scripture Scrolls”. Meghillot 10 (2013): VIII–IX, 57–71. Hebrew. Trebolle (Barrera), Julio. “A ‘Canon Within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized”. RevQ 19 (2000): 383–399.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

294

Bibliography

(Berrin) Tzoref, Shani. “Pesher and Periodization”. DSD 18 (2011): 129–154. ——. “Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch: Explicit Citation, Overt Typologies, and Implicit Interpretive Traditions”. DSD 16 (2009): 190–220. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. ——. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran”. Pages 77–94 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. ——. “The Non‑attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT”. CBQ 65 (2003): 202–214. ——. “The Notion and Definition of Canon”. Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2002. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls”. DSD 5 (1998): 383–402. ——. The Book of Jubilees. CSCO 511/Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ——. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls”. BBR 11 (2001): 269–292. Van De Water, Rick. “Reconsidering Palaeographic and Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scroll”. RevQ 19 (2000): 423–439. Vermès, Géza. “Bible Interpretation at Qumran”. ErIsr 20 (1989): 184–191. ——. “Interpretation, History of: At Qumran and in the Targums”. Pages 438–441 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith R. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. ——. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Studia post‑biblica 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. Vielhauer, Roman. “Materielle Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der beiden Pescharim zum Hoseabuch”. RevQ 20 (2001): 39–82. von Soden, Wolfram. “Der hymnisch‑epische Dialekt des Akkadischen”. ZA 41 (1933): 90–183. ——. “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, daß die Babylonier an die Wiederauferstehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” ZA 51 (1955): 130–166. von Weiher, Egbert. Spätbabylonische Texte Aus Uruk. Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk‑Warka 12. Berlin: Mann, 1988. von Weissenberg, Hanne. “Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in ms. 4QXIIc”. Pages 247–271 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

Bibliography

295

——. “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos as a ‘Case Study’ ”. Pages 357–376 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Kristin De Troyer et al. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011. ——. Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. “Introducing Changes in Scripture”. Pages 3–20 In Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ ”. AfO 50 (2003): 150–173. Wainer, Zachary. “The Series ‘If the Moon at Its Appearance’ and Mesopotamian Scholarship of the First Millennium BCE”. PhD diss., Brown University, 2016. Weigold, Matthais. “Ancient Jewish Commentaries in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Multiple Interpretations as a Distinctive Feature?” Pages 281–294 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nora David et al. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2012. Werman, Cana. “What is the Book of Hagu?” Pages 125–140 in Sapiential Per‑ spectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J.Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. White Crawford, Sidnie. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008. Widawski, Lea. “The Paseq in the Hebrew Bible: Occurrences in Medieval Manuscripts, Characteristics and Relation to the Accentuation System”. PhD diss., Bar‑Ilan University, 1990 [Hebrew]. Wieder, Naphtali. “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum”. JSJ 4 (1953): 14–18. Williamson, Robert, Jr. “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre”. DSD 17 (2010): 336–360. Wright, Benjamin G., III, and Lawrence M. Wills, eds. Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. SBLSymS 35. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Yigael. “Some Notes on the Newly Published Pesharim of Isaiah”. IEJ 9 (1959): 39–42. Yarchin, William. “Were the Psalms Collections at Qumran True Psalters?”, JBL 134 (2015): 775–789. Yardeni, Ada. “New Jewish Aramaic Ostraca”. IEJ 40 (1990): 130–152. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E.J. Revell. SBLMasS 5. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980. Young, Ian. “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk”. JHS 8, no. 25 (2008): 1–38.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726

296

Bibliography

Zahn, Molly. “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology”. Pages 93–119 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Zakovitch, Y. “Inner‑biblical Interpretation”. Pages 27–63 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Zaman, Luc. Bible and Canon. SSN 50. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540725 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540726