No title

INTRODUCTION When Jonas Greenfield died on March 20, 1995, the world of scholarship lost a distinguished member, and students of the Judean desert texts were deprived of a teacher, colleague, and friend. It seemed highly approa journal devoted to priate to the editors of Dead Sea Discoveries, the texts to whose elucidation Jonas had contributed so much, that the thematic issue for this year be devoted to his memory. He had written extensively on these texts, and, at the time of his death, was working diligently on editions of both Qumran and Nahal Hever texts. We are grateful that Jonas's long-time friend, Professor Baruch Levine of New York University, agreed to write a bibliographical appreciation of Jonas's written contributions to the field. It seemed especially of fitting that Levine write this essay, entitled "The Contribution Jonas Greenfield to the Study of Dead Sea Literature," not only because of their years of friendship but also because he has been assigned the task of completing Jonas's editorial work with a number of texts from the Nahal Hever. The other three essays in this issue have in common that they deal with subjects that occupied much of Jonas's scholarly attention. Steven Fassberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has written an essay about "The Pronominal Suffix of the Second Feminine Singular in the Aramaic Texts from the Judean Desert." In it he treats the various spellings of this form and thus touches on the study of grammar, a subject that was dear to Jonas. Michael Stone, who was collaborating with Jonas on the editions of copies of the Levi Aramaic Document from Qumran cave 4, has contributed a study of the so-called Testament of Naphtali-a previously unknown composition on which the two of them were scheduled to work. The essay, which Stone, also of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, calls "The Genealogy of Bilhah," focuses on the information contained in the text regarding the family of Rachel's maidservant and the relations of this new material with later texts. The final essay, "Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon" by Moshe Bernstein of Yeshiva University, examines interpretive procedures in the Genesis Apocryphon, a text on which Jonas had worked for years and from which he had been publishing new readings in recent times. We offer this issue as a tribute to a remarkable scholar whose passing leaves all of us the poorer. James C. VanderKam

THE CONTRIBUTION OF JONAS TO THE STUDY OF DEAD SEA

GREENFIELD LITERATURE

BARUCH A. LEVINE New York University I am thankful for the occasion to discuss Jonas Greenfield's contribution to the study of Dead Sea Literature. His untimely passing has left a great void in this, as in other scholarly fields. The loss was also personal: Jonas was a close colleague and dear friend for more than thirty years. I simply cannot refer to him as "Greenfield"; it is too impersonal. I will either give his full name, or identify him as "Jonas." For me, there is special significance to the present undertaking: Before Jonas passed away, he had been editing a collection of documents from Nahal Hever, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and NabateanAramaic, and originally discovered by Yigael Yadin. These docudate Bar which to the Kochba Period and before, had become ments, his central project, and he had been moving ahead with it at a rapid pace in recent years. After Jonas' death, I accepted the assignment of bringing his project to completion, and will continue to work together with Ada Yardeni, who had been Jonas' collaborator on the Nahal some documents for Hever years. Late in 1994, Jonas, together with Ada Yardeni, published one of the major Aramaic, legal documents from Nahal Hever, with extensive notes and commentary, and with Ada Yardeni's exceptional hand copies, which have been drawn of all of the Nahal Hever documents. A similar study of yet another Aramaic document, also with Ada Yardeni, is soon to appear in Hebrew.' It should also be noted that Jonas edited the Aramaic signatures of the Greek documents from Nahal Hever, published by Naphtali Lewis in 1989.1 These publications were preceded and have been accompanied by a series of articles on particular aspects of the Nahal Hever documents appearing between the years 1988 and Jonas' death in March, 1995, and there are additional manuscripts awaiting publication. As I 1 See the bibliographical references cited in n. 19, below. 2 N. Lewis, et al., The Documents from the Bar Kochba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri (Jerusalem: IES, 1989). Also see: "Papyrus Yadin 18," IEJ 37 (1987) 229-50 (with N. Lewis and R. Katzoff).

3 now read (in most cases, reread) Jonas' studies on the Nahal Hever documents, which focus primarily on linguistic features, terms of reference and legal formulas, I am awed by their brilliance, utterly grateful that he wrote them, and left wondering where we would be if Jonas had not succeeded in clarifying so many of the difficulties endemic to the Nahal Hever documents. His work on this collection will be discussed at length further on. Jonas Greenfield brought to the study of Dead Sea documents much needed linguistic, philological and exegetical skills. In this he preserved the line of H.L. Ginsberg and Yehezkel Kutscher, and, in While others dwelled my view, surpassed susbequent contemporaries. Jonas on religious thought and speculated on sectarian alignments, focused on the textual components and literary traditions basic to a of the documents themselves. Like Ginsberg proper understanding and Kutscher, he was fascinated by the phenomenon of language. He approached the texts primarily, though not exclusively, as an Aramaist, and since he has emerged as the foremost Aramaist of his generation, and whereas there is considerable Aramaic material within the overall Dead Sea corpus, his studies have been of unusual value. Actually, Jonas' interest in the Dead Sea documents was part of his larger abliterature, such as the Enochic tradisorption with intertestamental for tions, example. A practical evaluation of Jonas' contribution would take note of the fact that he sought out collaborators who could add to his own, already impressive scope and depth: co-authors such as Michael Stone and Shaul Shaked, and more recently, Michael Sokoloff, Elisha Qimron, Ada Yardeni, and Hannah Cotton, the classicist. A perusal of Jonas Greenfield's extensive bibliography, now available in the Festschrift entitled Solving Riddles and Untying Knots, shows that his interest in Dead Sea literature harks back to his early years. His first study on the subject appeared in 1960, although Dead Sea literature became a major focus of his work only after 1980.3 We find, nevertheless, several scholarly reviews of publications in the field from the early years, most notably his 1969 review article

3 "The root 'GBL' in Mishnaic Hebrew and in the Hymnic Literature from Qumran," RevQ 2 (1960) 155-62. For the bibliography of Jonas C. Greenfield, see Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) xiii-xxvii.

of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert III: Les "petites grottes" de With Qumran.4 painstaking care, Jonas examined all of the variegated contents of the volume, concentrating most noticeably on J.T. Milik's He questions Milik's classification of the Aramajor contributions. maic of 5Q15, a text entitled: "Description de la Jerusalem Nouclassification of it as "a velle," as "western," preferring Kutscher's to Middle Aramaic."5 language in transition from Reichsaramäisch' After expressing further strictures of a linguistic character, he proceeds to take up a series of lexicographical items, bringing to bear on each of them a vast store of comparative information. Jonas repeats this exercise in his critique of Milik's treatment of the Copper Scroll, also included in the volume under review. What emerges is a study of major proportions; a duel of giants, differences between the two illustrating significant methodological scholars. The mode of well documented, critical debate became characteristic of Jonas' many reviews, and he authored over 100 of them, all told. I count about eleven reviews dealing specifically with Dead Sea literature, spanning the years. Milik came in for Jonas' criticism in light of the fact that Milik has repeatedly, which is understandable remained a major interpreter of Qumranic and other Dead Sea texts. Certain of Jonas' ongoing agenda began in the period prior to 1980, and continued to interest him through the years. Thus, his protracted collaboration with Michael Stone began in 1977, with an investigation of Enochic literature, once again in the form of a critique of Milik. The latter's major work on the Enoch Aramaic fragments was published at about that time, but he had discussed relevant issues at an earlier date.6 We find a subsequent, joint publication on Enochic literature in 198 1.7

4"The Small Caves of Qumran," JAOS 89 (1969) 128-41. 5 Reference is to the study by E.Y. Kutscher, "The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study" in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ScrHier IV; Jerusalem :Magnes, 1958) 1-35. 6 "The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes," HTR 70 (1977) 51-65 (with Michael Stone). See J.T. Milik, "Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments aramèens de Qumran," HTR 64 (1971) 333-78. Also see J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran, Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). Note should be taken of Jonas' work on the Hebrew Enoch. See J.C. Greenfield, "Prolegomenon, to a reprint of H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973). 7 "The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch," Numen 26, (1981) 89-103 (with Michael Stone).

5 Another track became evident in the late 1970's, and once again, in collaboration with Michael Stone. I refer to Jonas' abiding interest in the complex of apocryphal sources variously known as the Testament of Levi, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the like. After writing about the Geniza version of this text with Michael Stone,8 and offering some comments on Qumran fragments of the same,' Jonas, again with Michael Stone, published in 1993 a study of the so-called Prayer of Levi, and in 1994, a full edition of the first manuscript of the Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran (4QLevia ar), which had been assigned to them, including related fragments.l° The two offered valuable texacumen tual restorations and original commentary. The philological in as well as the and comparative attained this scope publication, the structure of the text, are excepskill shown in comprehending tional. Awaiting publication is a similar edition of the second manuscript of the Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran, again by Jonas and Michael Stone." Jonas also had a continuing interest in the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon, earlier studied by N. Avigad and Y. Yadin in the Editio Princeps, and later by E.Y. Kutscher and J.A. Fitzmyer, among others. In a 1980 publication, Jonas elucidated two types of terminology in the Genesis Apocryphon, legal and exorcistic, and placed each variety in In my view, analysis of diction is what Jonas literary perspective." did best of all. Subsequently, in a 1992 article with Elisha Qimron, Jonas returned to the subject of the Genesis Apocryphon by publishing an edition of Column XII (lQapGen XII).13 That study was based on Qimron's 8 "Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza," RB 86 (1979) 214-30 (with Michael Stone). 9 "The Greek and Aramaic Fragments of a Levi Document" in The Testaments of the TwelvePatriarchs: A Commentary (ed. H.W. Hollander and M. de Jonge; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985) 457-69. 10 "The Prayer of Levi," JBL 112 (1993) 247-66; "The First Manuscript of Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran (4QLeviaaram)," Mus 107 (1994) 257-81 (both with Michael Stone). Also note "The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, lines 15-19," RevQ 13 (1988) 319-22. 11To appear: "The Second Manuscript of Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran (4QLevibaram)," Mus, 108 (1995) (with Michael Stone). 12 "The Genesis Apocryphon: Observations on Some Words and Phrases" in Studies in Hebrew and SemiticLanguages Dedicated to the Memoryof Prof. E.Y.Kutscher (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1980) 22-29. 13"The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," in Studies in Qumran Aramaic (AbrN Sup. 3; ed. T. Muraoka, 1992) 70-77.

6 of early photographs of this very poorly preskillful examination served section of the text, and on the readings Qimron was able to retrieve from them. The photographs had been made before the condition of the scroll deteriorated subsequent to its first publication in 1956, but they were located by Professor Avigad only after Yigael Yadin's death. The results once again demonstrate Jonas' sensitivity to composition and structure. Before discussing Jonas' work on the Nahal Hever documents, it would be well to comment on two of his other contributions to the investigation of Dead Sea literature. With Shaul Shaked, Jonas wrote a piece in 1972 on three Iranian words in the Targum of Job from it is true that of the two, Shaked is the acknowQumran.l4 Although on matters Iranian and a scholar of classical Arabic, ledged authority it should be noted that Jonas was also well trained in various phases of the Persian and Arabic languages, all of which deepened and broadened his knowledge of Aramaic as well. More recently, in 1992, Jonas wrote a major article with Michael Sokoloff on the contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Aramaic lexicon. 15 It includes an annotated glossary of thirty-two words which are "new ... for the Aramaic vocabulary," namely, roots and forms known from texts in other languages, but attested for the first time in any Aramaic text. This is followed by a similar glossary of forty-four "words whose first occurrence is in Qumran Aramaic." There is a third section entitled "Phraseology," which includes idiomatic expressions, divine names and epithets, conventionally paired words, and the like. This study qualifies as Materialen for a complete dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Recently, Jonas offered lexicographical notes on the Apocryphal Psalms from Qumran, in which he points to comparative usage in the Hebrew of Ben Sira and in Mishnaic Hebrew. 16 which became Jonas' And now to the Nahal Hever documents, in the field of Dead Sea literature after 1984, when Yimajor project Yadin Yadin had a number of articles gael passed away. published and had discussed these on the contents of the Nahal Hever trove, finds in his book Bar Kochba (1971). 11"Three Iranian Words in the Targum of Job from Qumran," ZDMG 122 (1972) 37-45 (with Shaul Shaked). 15"The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Aramaic Vocabulary" in Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-Nahrain, Sup. 3; ed. T. Muraoka, 1992) 78-98 (with Michael Sokoloff ). 16"Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms" in "Sha'arei Talmon" : Studies in the

7 Mention has already been made of the two, major Aramaic documents from Nahal Hever, one published and one awaiting publication by Jonas and Ada Yardeni. The first is Papyrus Nahal Hever 10, and the second, to Ketubba," published under the title: "Babatha's in a Hebrew is appear study, Papyrus Nahal Hever 7, a lengthy Aramaic deed of grant. 17 In a sense, these two texts are representative of the group of Aramaic documents included in the twenty-eight papyri of the Yadin collection, so that what has been achieved in their elucidation will serve us well in interpreting the remaining texts. By way of background, it should be explained that, with the exception of the Nabatean legal texts included in this collection, which are largely unprecedented,18 the Aramaic legal texts from Nahal Hever are similar to those from Wadi Murabba'at, published in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II (1962), and to those soon to be published by Ada Yardeni as Nahal Se'elim Documents (Hebrew), texts which also come from the caves of Nahal Hever, it seems.19 A further factor in the equation is represented by Greek legal documents and epistles, like those edited by Naphtali Lewis, and those earlier edited by P. Benoit, in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II. Two remaining texts in Greek will be edited by Hannah Cotton. The at times involved Greek texts, coming from the same communities, the same individuals and related transactions, so that their terminology and formulation are integral to the interpretation of the Aramaic and Nabatean texts as well. One is impressed and insight of J.T. Milik by the competence in his earlier editions of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts from Wadi He was, after all, the first to engage such phenomenal Murraba'at.

Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane, et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 309-14. 17"Babatha's Ketubba," IEJ 44 (1994) 75-99 (with Y. Yadin and A. Yardeni); and to appear: "P. Yadin 7: The Aramaic Gift Document from, Nahal Hever" in Erlsr 25 (1995 [Joseph Aviram Volume]) (with Y. Yadin and A. Yardeni). Also to appear: "The Receipt for a Ketubba" in M. Stern Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1995) (with A. Yardeni). 18But see J. Starcky, "Un Contrat nabatéen sur papyrus," RB 61 (1954) 161-81, and see Y. Yadin, "Expedition D The Cave of the Letters," IEJ 12 (1962) 227-57, especially 229. 19A. Yardeni, Nahal se'elîm Documents (JDS; Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University of the Negeb Press-Israel Exploration Society, 1995 [Hebrew]). An English edition, to appear in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, is in the process of preparation.

8 and unprecedented material. More than thirty years later, and possessed of unusual skills and breadth of knowledge, Jonas was able to elicit from the Aramaic legal documents even greater meaning than was previously possible. Jonas was exceptionally well prepared for the task of editing the Nahal Hever documents. This challenge followed logically from his earlier work on Aramaic and Nabatean, and on Mishnaic Hebrew. Of particular significance is his 1974 Hebrew article on legal terminology in the Nabatean funerary inscriptions.2° Jonas knew at the time that the Nahal Hever contained Nabatean legal documents, and, curiously, this early study of his will now contribute significantly to our understanding of the Nabatean documents from Nahal Hever. In later years, when Jonas assumed the task of editing the Nahal Hever collection, he produced additional, penetrating studies of the same sort. Most notable is his article on Arabic loanwords in the Aramean and Nabatean texts from Nahal Hever and his fascinating discussion of the root r-h-n "to give as pledge, or security," known from the Arabic legal tradition, as well as from early Aramaic and late Hebrew sources, such as the Mishnah.2' Two additional studies warrant special mention: In 1990. Jonas wrote a brief Hebrew article on the distinctive usage of the infinitive in the Aramaic inscriptions from Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever, and in 1992 he discussed the so-called "defension clause" in the documents from Nahal Hever and Nahal Se'elim.22 Finally, in 1994 he, together with Hannah Cotton, wrote about legal aspects of the Babatha archive in comparative perspective, bringing the Aramaic and Greek materials to bear on one another.23 Before his untimely death, Jonas had been intensely active. In the

20 "Studies in the Legal Terminology of the Nabatean Funerary Inscriptions" in Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1974) 64-83 (Hebrew). 21 "Some Arabic Loanwords in the Aramaic and Nabatean Texts from Nahal Hever," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (Joshua Blau Volume; Jerusalem, 1992) 10-21; "Kullu nafsin bima kasabat rahina: The use of rhn in Aramaic and Arabic" in Arabicus Felix: Luminosus Britannicus: Essays in Honour of A.F.L. Beeston on his Eightieth Birthday (ed. A. Jones; Exeter: Ithaca Press 1991) 221-79. 22 "On the Infinitive Form in the Aramaic Documents from Wadi Murabb'at and from Nahal Hever" in Tribute to Chaim Rabin (ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein, et al. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1991) 77-81; "The 'Defension Clause' in Some Documents from Nahal Hever and Nahal Se'elîm," RevQ 15 (Mémorial Jean Starcky, 1992) 467-71. 23"Babatha's Property and the Law of Succession in the Babatha Archive," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104 (1994) 211-14 (with Hannah Cotton).

9 period between 1990 and 1995 he wrote more than forty articles, of which more than half pertain directly to aspects of Dead Sea literature. In hindsight, one realizes that Jonas did not meander in his scholarly efforts, even though his scope was exceedingly broad. In fact, he sustained persistent interests and held to long-term agenda, exhibiting a strong tendency to follow up earlier studies and to return to the same materials with fresh insight. When Jonas was assigned texts for publication, he set about methodically to isolate pivotal problems in their interpretation, and customarily discussed his findings in his methods, made scholarly articles. In this way, he demonstrated the elusive connections that are essential to proper interpretation, and achieved a rare clarity of expression. We can learn from his every word.

THE PRONOMINAL FEMININE SINGULAR FROM THE

SUFFIX OF THE SECOND IN THE ARAMAIC TEXTS JUDEAN DESERT

STEVEN E. FASSBERG The Hebrew University of Jerusalem This paper seeks to examine one grammatical feature of the Aramaic documents from the Judean Desert: the 2nd feminine singular pronominal suffix on singular nouns and prepositions. In general, forms of the 2nd feminine singular are attested poorly, if at all, in early Aramaic sources. Thus, it is not surprising that there are no examples in inscriptions dating from the Old Aramaic period. Although the suffix does occur in Official Aramaic in the papyri from Egypt (Elephantine and Hermopolis), it is absent from Biblical Aramaic. The 2nd feminine singular pronominal suffix is found in Middle Aramaic, though there, too, it is not frequent and is not attested in all corpora. There are some dozen examples in targums Onqelos and Jonathan, but to the best of my knowledge, the suffix is attested only once in Palmyrene and not at all in Nabatean or Hatran. The Judean Desert texts contain several additional examples of the suffix and, for this reason, provide important evidence for its history. The 2nd feminine singular suffix is represented orthographically in documents from the Judean Desert by ''2-, lnl-g 1-, and T-. Do the four spellings reflect only one underlying realization of the suffix, or do the different orthographies represent the different phonetic realizations that are known elsewhere in Aramaic from vocalized texts: [ik] in targums Onqelos and Jonathan, and [-ek] in Syriac? Cf. also which is reflected in the - [eki], Syriac ketiv. Few scholars have discussed the pronunciation underlying the orthographies. One is K. Beyer, who, without elaborating, has reconstructed [-eki] for the forms 1-, and (1'-).2 Another is T. Muraoka, who, in discussing the forms '0- and 'T'- in the Genesis Apocryphon, cautiously remarks that "The 1 We follow the classification of the Aramaic periods presented by J.A. Fitzmyer in "The Phases of the Aramaic Language," A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979) 57-84. 2 K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 449 (henceforth ATTM 1 ; ATTM 2 = K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Ergänzungsband [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994]).

11 final Yod may be silent, thus historical orthography. The nature of the vowel preceding the Kaf is problematic. Both e (Syr.) and i (TO/TJ) are attested."3 The purpose of the present study is to investigate all the attested Judean Desert forms of the 2nd feminine singular suffix on prepositions and singular nouns in the light of other Palestinian Aramaic sources. and non-Palestinian

A. Data from the Judean

Desert

The orthography ''2- is attested in manuscripts from the Qumran caves.?4 It is found once in the Genesis Apocryphon (19:19), and it seems to occur twice in 4QToba ar, 3:95 and Inn 13:13.6 It is better attested in marriage and divorce contracts from Wadi Murabba'at: 19:3,7,9,10,14,20,24; 20:14; "rvnir 19:6,18. The suffix also is found in the Babatha archive from Nahal Hever,' where it is frequent in 5/6Hev 7 (pYadin 7): "rb 34, 37, 52, 60?, 63; ':Ji' 60 (twice?), 66; lzml 66,71. A second spelling, In,-, occurs twice in the Genesis Apocryphon in the same line (19:20): A third spelling, T-, is attested twice in a ketubba from Wadi Murabba'at (Mur 21 ar): 7,nnn[n 10; 1'n:Jn:J 13. Yet another spelling, 1-, appears in Babatha's ketubba from Nahal Hever, 5/6 Hev 10 (pYadin 10):' 5,16; 1n:Jn:J:J' 5, 11; 7nnnn

16; jnnb

7, 7,

1no:J'

B. Evidence from Other Aramaic

10; 1iD1Ð' 7,9.

Periods

and Corpora

Official Aramaic The legal documents the suffix. The usual form

from

of Egypt contain several examples which occurs in the papyri from Elephan-

3 T. Muraoka, "Further Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon," RevQ 16 (1993) 42. also occurs in the extremely 4 Beyer, ATTM 1:268, 2:287. According to Beyer, (DJD 3:118). fragmentary 6Q8 10:2 (ATTM 1:268). Baillet reads 5 PAM 43.176 (Beyer, ATTM 2:137). 6 PAM 43.178 (Beyer, ATTM 2:145). 7 SHR 5209, 5211, 5212, 5216. The line numbers follow Beyer, ATTM 2:167-73. 8 Y. Yadin, J.C. Greenfield, and A. Yardeni, "Babatha's Ketubba," IEJ 44 (1994) 75-101.

12 tine published by A. Cowley9 and E.G. Kraeling'° and in the letters from Hermopolis.ll A far less common suffixal form is 1-, found four times in the texts published by Kraeling: 1:J 5:6 (cf. '» in same 6:14; 9: 12.12 A third orthograline), jn7r in 5:7 (cf. ':Jn1:J 5:6); once in the phy appears Cowley papyri, According to P. Leander, the orthography "r- possibly reflects [-íkï] , 14 and represents [-iki], if it is not a scribal errors Middle

Aramaic

The 2nd feminine singular pronominal suffix is best attested in targums Onqelos and Jonathan,'6 where one finds the orthography Tand the vocalization [-ik].'7 Elsewhere in texts from this period, only 9 A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). For the examples in the Cowley papyri, see P. Leander, Laut- und Formenlehre des Ägyptisch-Aramäischen(GöteborgshögskolasÅrsskrift34.4; Göteborg:Elanders, 1928) §§12h, 62i,k. 10For examples from the papyri published by Kraeling, see the glossary in the editio princeps of E.G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). 11E. Brescianiand M. Kamil,"Le lettere aramaichedi Hermopoli,"Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. (Memorie; Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche; Rome, 1966) Ser. VIII, 12/5, 356-428. 12S. Segert considers the orthography to be the result of assimilation to the 2nd masculine singular pronominal suffix ( See S. Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie 1974) §5.1.3.3.3. 13 Cf. 1:7; 8:12; 13:7,11,16. 14Leander, Laut, §12c'.See also H. Bauer und P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen(Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1927) §20p'. 15 Leander,Laut, §13d. 16G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (2nd edn.; Leipzig, 1905) 109, 202-206. See, for example, Gen. 30:2,14,15; 24:14,43; 38:16,18; Exod. 2:9; Judg. 17:2; 2 Kgs. 4:13. Though the final redaction of these two targumim took place at a late period in Babylonia, it is clear that they were written in Palestine during an earlier period. On the dating and provenance of targums Onqelos and Jonathan, see, e.g., E.Y. Kutscher, "The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon," ScrHier 4 (1958) 1-34; A. Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and Its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1975 [Hebrew]). Recently E.M. Cook has challenged the Palestinian provenance of both targumim and assigned their language to a "Central Aramaic" group in a language continuum stretching from Palestine to Babylonia. See E.M. Cook, "A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan," The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context (ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield, 1994) 142-56. 17 Although [i] is on occasion written plene in these targumim, the consistent

13 in Palmyrene, which probably reflects one example is known: [-ek]. 18 Mention must also be made of an important non-Aramaic source for the vocalization of the suffix in Palestine during this period that Hecorroborates the suffix [-ik] of Onqelos and Jonathan-Mishnaic brew. As E.Y. Kutscher demonstrated in MS Kaufmann to the Mishnah, the authentic 2nd feminine singular suffix in Mishnaic Hebrew and not 1- [-ek] e.g., was 1'- [-ik], e.g., the form found in printed editions of the Mishnah and in Biblical Hebrew. [-ik] penetrated Mishnaic Hebrew from the Aramaic of Palestine.'9 This suffix also occurs on the Aramaic lexemes that appear in the text of the Mishnah. 20 Late Aramaic Western: T- is the orthography of the 2nd feminine singular suffix in manuscripts of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: it is found in the Palestinian targumim, 21 the Jerusalem Talmud and midrashim, 22 and amulets.23 It appears to have been realized as [-ik], as evidenced by the plene orthography found in all the sources as well as by a vocalized Gen. 38:18.24 example from the Cairo Geniza Targum fragments, spelling of this suffix with yod indicates that the vowel was long. See Dalman, Grammatik, 75. 18 F. Rosenthal, Die Sprache der palmyrenischen Inschriften und ihre Stellung innerhalb des Aramäischen (MVAG 41.1; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1936) 18, 45. Medial [i] is usually, but not always, written plene in Palmyrene. 19E.Y. Kutscher, Yalon Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of Henoch His Seventy-FifthBirthday (ed. S. Lieberman et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963) 261-62 (Hebrew). 20See, e.g., m. Ket. (MS Kaufmann): (4:8), (4:12). 21For examples in the Cairo Geniza fragments, see S.E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (HSS 38; Atlanta: Scholbut also ars Press, 1990) 114. In Targum Neophyti one finds See B. Barry Levy, "The Language of Neophyti 1: A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of the Palestinian Targum" (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1974) 61, 63; and D.M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti (HSM 34; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 49. 22 Dalman, Grammatik, 109, 202-206; C. Levias, A Grammar of Galilean Aramaic (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986) 33, 53 (Hebrew). 23J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993) amulet 19 line 13; amulet 27 line 14; idem, "A Greek-Aramaic Silver Amulet from Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum," Mus 105 (1992) 8 line 9. 24M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986) 1:87.

14 The orthography T- in manuscripts of Samaritan Aramaic seems to reflect the same form of the suffix.25 In Christian Palestinian Aramaic, on the other hand, one finds forms that suggest an original [-eki]: Inand ':J'-.26 Eastern: The suffix in the consonantal text of Syriac is ''3-, reflecting an underlying [-eki] ; the vocalized form, however, is [-ek],27 In Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic one finds the suffix [-ïk].28 T- occurs in Mandaic manuscripts; however, because of the extensive use of matres lectionis for all vowels, one cannot tell if this reflects [-ik] or [-ek]; the modem pronunciation is [-ek].z9 Neo-Aramaic The 2nd feminine suffix in Western Neosingular pronominal Aramaic is [-is],3° which appears to be a reflex of *-ik. In Central

25Because of the retraction of stress and shortening of originally long vowels in the Samaritan reading tradition, the vowel of this suffix was realized as [-k]. See R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982) §§39, 119; L.H. Vilsker, Manuel d'arameén samaritain (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1981) 54. 26 F. Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1924) §§57, 123; M. Bar-Asher, Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source-Texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems (Jerusalem: 1977) §333-36 (Hebrew); C. MüllerTeill: Schriftlehre,Lautlehre, Kessler,Grammatikdes Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen, Formenlehre (Hildesheim:Georg Olms, 1991) §§4.1.2.1;4.2.2.6.1. Schulthessreconstructs [-�k]for both ′⊃ and ⊃′-; apparently, he attributes the final yod to Syriac orthographic influence. Bar-Asher, on the other hand, interprets the final yod as reflecting a vowel; he is followed in this by Müller-Kessler (who reconstructs [-ekí]). One should note that [i] and [e] may have been conditioned allophones of one phoneme, as suggested by Bar-Asher in his analysis of the second hand of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum(p. 266 n. 527). 27 T. Nöldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966) §§65, 145. 28 J.N. Epstein, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960) 122 (Hebrew). 29 T. Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1875) § 143; R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965) § 106. In the modem pronunciation one usually finds that *í> [i] and *í> [e], though Macuch reports that [i] is often shortened and becomes [e] (§74b), > [iqtil], [iqtel]. e.g., q�t�l 30A. Spitaler, Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Ma'l�la(Antilibanon) (AKM 23,1; Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1938) §34g-h; W. Arnold, Das Neuwestaramäische, V. Grammatik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990) §6.3.5. *�>[i] in the suffix results from the retraction of stress to the penultima (§4b), though Spitaler prefers to look to the 2nd feminine singular perfect qatliŠ (§37b) for the origin of the [i] vowel. The expected reflex of *-ik is [-ek].

15 and Eastern

Neo-Aramaic

C. Analysis

of Data

dialects

one finds the suffix [-ak].3'

How were the 2nd feminine singular pronominal forms Iz- (Qum"r"- (Qumran), 1'- (Wadi ran, Nahal Hever, and Wadi Murabba'at), and 1- (Nahal Hever) realized? Because of the absence Murabba'at), of vocalization in the Judean Desert forms, one must rely on the use and absence of matres lectionis as well as on comparative data. The existence of forms with and without the final yod in the Judean Desert documents is open to different interpretations. In the reconstruction of the 2nd feminine singulight of the Proto-Aramaic lar suffix as *-k1,32 the spellings with and without final yod may be reflexes of the original anceps vowel and, if so, could be interpreted as pointing to documents written in different dialects. The longer form of the suffix with final [-i] is noteworthy since the 2nd masculine singular suffix is also attested in Aramaic texts from the Judean Desert with a long final vowel: i1:J- [-a].33 This parallels the general tendency towards long forms of pronouns in Hebrew texts from this area (e.g., Alternatively, the final yod in "r- and ''D''- may be taken as an archaic, historical spelling that masks the apocope of the final vowel; the absence of final yod in 1- and T- could reflect a younger, phonetic spelling. If this is the case, the existence of forms with and without final [i] represents a mixing of historical and phonetic spellings and reflects a situation in which a change was taking place or had already taken place. This latter situation obtains, for example, in the papyri from Egypt where ''2- outnumbers 1- as well as in Syriac,

31 See O. Jastrow, Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Midin im Tür'Abd�n (3rd edn.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985) 35; T. Nöldeke, Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und Kurdistan (Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1868) §33, pp. 79-80; R.D. Hoberman, "The History of the Modern Aramaic Pronouns," JAOS 108 (1988) 562, 571. 32 C. Brockelmann, Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.; Berlin: Reuther, & Reichard, 1908-13) 1.309. 33The more For differing views on the origin of the frequent form, however, is 2nd masculine singular suffix see E. Qimron, "Pronominal Suffix - in Qumran Aramaic," Studies in Qumran Aramaic (ed. T. Muraoka; AbrNSup 3; Louvain: Peeters, 1992) 119-23 and S.E. Fassberg, "Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran," Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 51-53.

16 where the older form is preserved in the consonantal text ([-eki]) but not in the vocalized one ([-ek]).34 Mention should also be made of J. Cantineau's theory that the existence of two forms of the 2nd feminine singular suffix in Aramaic, [-ik] and [ki], belongs to a general Semitic alternation of assimilatory quantitative harmony: short binding vowels precede pronouns with short vowels and long binding vowels precede pronouns with long vowels Beyer's reconstruction of a final [i] may be correct for the suffixes In- and lzl-; the reconstruction, however, does not seem to fit the spellings Beyer has ar1- from Nahal Hever and T- from Wadi Murabba'at. unstressed vowels were not that final long consistently marked gued in the Old and Official Aramaic periods,36 and so one might assume that the final [-i] was unrepresented in the orthography at this period. Yet, this cannot be proven in the Judean Desert forms, since it is possible that apocope of the final vowel, a widely attested phenomenon in Aramaic, has already occurred. The vowel preceding the kaph in documents from the Judean Desert is not readily apparent. Comparative data point to two different The first is a reflex of the short vowel *i: possible realizations. [i]/[e]. Beyer reconstructs the vowel [e], which is attested in the Syriac form of the suffix. Although he does not explain his reasons for choosing this form, it would appear that the scriptio defectiva of the as does vowel preceding the suffix '0- lies behind his reconstruction the vowel of the Syriac suffix. Beyer is not alone, however, in reconstructing [e] in the 2nd feminine singular suffix; both E. Kautzsch3' 34The loss of the final yod in the qere is easily explained in Syriac in the light of the loss of final unaccented long vowels. 35J. Cantineau, "Une alternance quantitative dans des pronoms suffixes sémitiques," Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 38 (1937) 156-57. Cantineau attributed the many exceptions in Aramaic to analogical processes. In "Le pronom suffixe de 3e personne singulier masculin en arabe classique et dans les parlers arabes modernes," Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 40 (1939) 89-97, he also spoke of dissimilatory quantitative harmony in Arabic: long binding vowels precede pronouns with short vowels and short binding vowels precede pronouns with long vowels. For a critique, see S.F. Bennett, "Objective Pronominal Suffixes in Aramaic" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1984) 77-78. 36Beyer, ATTM 1:88. On the scriptio defectiva of unstressed final long vowels in Old Aramaic and Official Aramaic, see E.M. Cook, "The Orthography of Final Unstressed Long Vowels in Old and Imperial Aramaic," Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert (ed. E.M. Cook; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 53-67, especially pp. 60, 63-64. 37 E. Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 1884) §53.

17 ([*-ek] or [*-eki]) and F. Rosenthap8 ([*-eki]) restore the same vowel for Biblical Aramaic. They, too, probably base their reconstructions on scriptio defectiva (in this case that of Official Aramaic) and on the Syriac form. One could, however, just as easily reconstruct the vowel [i] as do Bauer and Leander in their reconstruction of the Biblical Aramaic form [*_fki].39 The second possible realization of the vowel preceding the kaph is a reflex of the long vowel *i. Unlike the Syriac form, the suffix [-ik] (< *-ik) is well attested in Palestine. It is found vocalized in Onqelos and Jonathan as well as in the Cairo Genizah Targum fragments; this realization moreover, appears to underlie the orthography Tfound in the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim, Samaritan Aramaic, the Aramaic words in the Mishnah, and Mishnaic Hebrew. The orthography T- is also attested outside of Palestine in Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic. 40

D. Conclusion There are four different orthographies of the 2nd feminine singular pronominal suffix on singular nouns in texts from the Judean Desert: In-, ''2''-, 1- and T-. On the basis of the use of matres lectionis and "rdata, one may venture the following realizations. comparative could reflect [-eki] as in the Syriac ketiv and the consonantal text of Egyptian Aramaic or [-iki]; this suffixal form might, however, conceivably be an archaic, historical spelling that was realized as [-ek]/ [-ik]. 1- seems to represent [-ek] as in the Syriac qere (and the one example in Palmyrene) or [-ik]. *p- most probably reflects [-ik], the form of the suffix that is well attested in Palestine from the Middle Aramaic period on. The orthography "r"- poses more difficulties. Whereas it could reflect [-eki]/[-iki] and, indeed, is found alternating with Inin the Genesis Apocryphon, the use of a medial yod to represent [i],[e] (< *i) seems to be unattested in Judean Desert documents. One medial [i], in may, however, prefer to take the yod as representing at Elephantine).4' The final which case "r"- represents [-iki] (cf. 38 F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Porta Linguarum Orientalium; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974) 26. 39Bauer-Leander, Grammatik, §20p'. 40 And possibly in Mandaic. See above. 41 and to the Syriac ketiv and qere respectively, Despite the resemblance of can one completely rule out the possibility that the scriptio defectiva in these suffixes

18 yod of :,- may also be an instance of archaic orthography, in which case the final [-i] was not realized. The reconstruction of the suffixes depends to a certain extent on how one interprets the use of matres and the history of the 2nd feminine lectionis suffix in singular Aramaic.42 Curiously, the distribution of forms does not enable one to attrib-

(in texts from both the Judean Desert and Egyptian Aramaic) conceals a long vowel preceding the kaph, particularly when one considers that [-�k]is also widely attested as a 2nd feminine singular suffix in Aramaic? Although [�]is usually written plene in documents from the Judean Desert and in Egyptian Aramaic, there are some notable written defectively.The most striking example occurs in Egyptian Aramaic examples of [�] where, despite the generally plene orthography of medial [i], the masculine plural ending [-in] is almost always spelled defectively. See E.Y. Kutscher, A History of Aramaic, Part 1: Old Aramaic, Jaudic, Official Aramaic (Biblical Aramaic excepted) (Jerusalem: Academon, 1979) 66-67 (Hebrew). For examples in texts from the Judean Desert, see J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary (2nd edn.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 202; T. Muraoka, "The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI," JSS 25 (1974) 426. See also in Babatha's ketubba (5/6Hever 10): 10 7). 42 The interpretation of the orthographies touches ultimately on the reconstruction of the 2nd feminine singular suffix in early Aramaic. Whereas the Syriac form [-ek] when did the suffix would appear to be the expected reflex of a Proto-Aramaic *-ik�, with a long vowel develop ([-�k_])? Did both exist in early Aramaic and Proto-Aramaic, or did the long vowel develop from the short one at a late period, as proposed, e.g., by Bauer and Leander? According to Bauer and Leander, (Grammatik, §20p,), which lengthened the assumed Biblical and Egyptian Aramaic pronunciation was [ik�], to [ik�],and was the source of [-�k]in later Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. One could, however, also conceivably argue that the original Aramaic form of the 2nd feminine singular vowel was with a long binding vowel *-�k�, as is the case for the vowel of the 2nd masculine singular [-�k].Several explanations have been offered for the origin of the length of the binding vowel of [-�k](for expected [-ak]), among them loss of the suffix vowel and subsequent lengthening of the binding vowel (J. Barth, Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913] §16e); pausal pronunciation that replaced that of the contextual (C. Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik, [12th edn; Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie,1976]§78); sentence rhythm (Bauer-Leander, Grammatik, §20z'); and Hebrew influence (BauerLeander, Grammatik, §20a'). See also Cantineau in n. 35 above. For a review of the literature on the subject, see Bennett "Objective Pronominal Suffixes," 78-79. Perhaps a more convincing explanation for the length of the binding vowels of the 2nd masculine singular and 2nd feminine singular lies in an analogical process involving the anceps vowels of the 2nd masculine singular and 2nd feminine singular independent pronouns when long, [att�]and [att�].In the case of the 2nd feminine singular, the long vowel of the 2nd feminine singular perfect with object suffixes, e.g., [qatalt�k], might also be at play. Prof. M. Bar-Asher has suggested a different possibility to me: the long final vowel of the pronominal suffix influenced the length of the preceding binding vowel before the former was apocopated. On the phenomenon of final vowels influencing vowels in preceding syllables prior to their apocope, see, e.g., E.Y. LeŠ 26 (1962) 166. Kutscher,

19 ute the different orthographies either to genre43 or to chronology. The ( 1 st literary texts from the Qumran caves, the Genesis Apocryphon eviBCE-1 st and ar ( 1 st century BCE) 4QToba century century CE) dence '0-, as do legal contracts from Wadi Murabba`at (Mur 19 [111l CE], Mur 20 [117 CE]) and Nahal Hever (5/6Hev 7 [120 CE]). Inoccurs only in the Genesis Apocryphon; I,- appears in a ketubba, Mur 21 ar (1st century CE?), and 1- is known only from Babatha's ketubba, 5/6 Hev 10 (122-25 CE). One must conclude, contrary to Beyer, that there were different realizations of the 2nd feminine singular pronominal suffix in docuthe possibility of hisments from the Judean Desert. Unfortunately, it difficult to ascertain makes torical spellings just how many different realizations there were. It seems clear, however, that the pronominal orthographies give further evidence for the existence of different Aramaic traditions, be they written or spoken, in Palestine in the centuries just before and after the beginning of the Common Era.

THE

GENEALOGY

OF BILHAH

MICHAEL E. STONE The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The so-called Testament of Naphtali was one of the documents assigned to the writer and Jonas C. Greenfield for publication in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Unfortunately Professor Greenfield died unexpectedly in March 1995 before we had done any work together on it, and the present paper is the responsibility solely of the writer. It seems more than appropriate to dedicate it to Jonas Greenfield whose untimely passing left so much unfinished but whose life left so much and so many enriched. The material which was originally attributed to Testament of Naphtali and which was assigned to us consisted of two plates; PAM 43.237 contains three fragments and PAM 43.245 contains four fragments. However, closer examination uncovered the fact that these two plates contain two different documents; one is the so-called Testament of Naphtali (TN) while the other is a sectarian composition.* On paleographic grounds the manuscript on PAM 43.237 belongs at the very earliest to the late Hasmonean period, but it is probably better placed squarely in the Herodian period.' 1 Eleven lines of writing survive, one of which is empty and the last of which is very fragmentary. The text contains narrative about two incidents. The first is the genealogy, birth and naming of Bilhah and the second is apparently the story of how Laban gave Bilhah and Zilpah to Jacob. An empty line separates these two incidents. The narrative of neither incident is preserved completely. The text is narrated by a child of Bilhah and Jacob, who are referred to as "my mother" and "my father." According to Genesis, Bilhah and Jacob had only two the speaker in our docuchildren, Dan and Naphtali. Theoretically, ment could be either of them.2 If the reading 1i "Dan [my] brother" is correctly restored in line 10, however, the text itself determines this in favor of Naphtali. Two further considerations support * This will be published elsewhere by the writer and E. Chazon. I am indebted to M. Bregman, E. Chazon and A. Shinan who made a number of fruitful suggestions. ' The paleographic analysis as well as the full demonstration of the fact that two different manuscripts are involved will be given in the course of the full publication of this document. 2 Or, for that matter, some other apocryphal son or daughter of Bilhah and Jacob.

21

22 this conclusion. The first is that precisely this material is associated with Naphtali in the Greek Testament of Naphtali found in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TPN). The second is that Naphtali appears to have been an important figure, for it is repeatedly asserted that Tobit was also a descendant of that tribe.3 In addition, we also find a medieval Hebrew writing attributed to him, embedded in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel and printed by R.H. Charles at the end of his edition of the Greek text of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.' In the present paper we will make some observations (not exhaustive) on one part of the new document from Qumran, comparing it with TPN and with medieval Hebrew sources. The genealogy of Bilhah is not discussed in the Hebrew Bible. What we are told is that Zilpah and Bilhah had been maids to Laban (Gen. 29:24,29). Laban gave Zilpah to Leah and Bilhah to Rachel at the time of their marriage to Jacob (Gen. 29:24,29). After the marriage, Leah bore Jacob children but Rachel did not. When Rachel realized that she was barren, she gave Bilhah, her maid, to Jacob as concubine. Bilhah bore Jacob two sons, Dan and Naphtali (Gen. 30: 1-8). When Leah saw that she herself had stopped bearing children (Gen. 29:35; 30:9), she gave her maid Zilpah to Jacob as concubine. Zilpah bore Jacob two sons, Gad and Asher (Gen. 30:9-12). In the Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs a Testament of Naphtali (TPN) occurs. In it, Naphtali first tells of his own birth by Bilhah and his relationship to Rachel (T. Naph. 1:6-8). He then goes on to relate his mother's family origins as follows:

3 Tob 1:1,4,5 and 7:3: This was pointed out to me by M. Morgenstern. 4 See M.H. Gaster, "The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1893-94) 33-49 and then R.H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908) 239-44. 5 M. de Jonge et alii, The Testamentsof the TwelvePatriarchs (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 113-14.

23 9 And my mother is Bilhah the daughter of Rotheus, a brother of Debora, Rebecca's nurse who was bom the same day as Rachel. 10 And Rotheus was of the family of Abraham, a Chaldean, god-fearing, freeborn and noble. 11 And after having been taken captive he was bought by Laban, and he gave him Aina his servant to wife who bore him a daughter and she called her name Zilpah, after the name of the village where he had been taken captive. 12 Next she bore Bilhah, saying: My daughter is eager for what is new; for immediately after she was born she was eager to suck. According to this text, then, there was a Chaldean relative of Absister was Deborah, Rebecca's raham's called Rotheus. Rotheus's nurse. He lived in a village named Zilpah in which he was taken captive. He was bought from his captivity by Laban who gave him his maid Aina as wife. Aina bore him two daughters, Zilpah who was named after the village, and Bilhah, who was named after her eagerness (see Table). In an article published in 1984, M. Himmelfarb discussed the citations from Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which appear in the Hebrew midrashic work Beresit rabbati (BRab), compiled by R. Moses the Preacher in Narbonne in the eleventh century. One of the passages which she discussed in detail is parallel exactly to TPN 1:9-12, that is, the genealogy of Bilhah. Himmelfarb discusses the various channels by which this and certain other citations from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs might have reached R. Moses the Preacher. She concludes that, "[t]hey [i.e., R. Moses' citations of Testaments] are not the result of independent Jewish transmission of these traditions, but of R. Moses' use of parts of the Testaments as a complete Christian document."7 This view has been challenged by S.A. Ballaban, who claims that R. Moses drew on "extensive Jewish sources."8 6 M. Himmelfarb,"R. Moses the Preacherand the Testamentsof the TwelvePatriarchs," AJS Review 9 (1984) 55-78. 7 "R. Moses the Preacher," 78. Himmelfarb has discussed these issues once more in "Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature," Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 115-41, especially 115-18. 8 The question of R. Moses' sources is discussed succinctly in a note in I.M. TaShma, "The Library of the Sages of Ashkenaz of the 11th-12th Centuries," Kiryath

24 In his discussion of R. Moses' work, H. Mack, while noting his use of "apocryphal writings (or of works based on them)" offers no explanation of this phenomenon.9 Thanks to the research of H.J. de Jonge, we know that Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was brought to the Christian West by Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, about 1235.'° Himmelfarb argues that "[t]he differences between the passages in BR and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs seem ... to represent a revision of the Testaments for R. Moses' exegetical purposes."" She reaches this conclusion from a careful analysis of R. Moses' actual use of the traditions from Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, comparing the Hebrew and Greek forms of the text. However, since R. Moses lived well before Robert Grosseteste, Himmelfarb's assessment of the material leads to the hypothesis that, prior to the introduction of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs into Western Europe about 1235, R. Moses in historical Provence might well have learned of the work through the Jewish communities of Byzantine Italy. The translation of excerpts of

Sepher 60 (5755-1995) 301, n. 11 (Hebrew). He is of the view that apocryphal sources were known to R. Moses and Pirqe de R. Eliezer from non-Hebrew sources. He discusses the opposing views of Albeck and Epstein, particularly as they relate to Jubilees, but does not mention the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. I am indebted to Dr. Marc Bregman who drew my attention to Ballaban's unpublished thesis, The Enigma of Lost Second Temple Literature: Points of Recovery (Ph.D. dissertation; Hebrew Union College, 1994). Chap. 2 is devoted to R. Moses. On p. 208ff. he proposes that R. Moses was in fact born in Persia and educated in Babylonia. There, he suggests, the academies may have inherited much knowledge of apocryphal texts through centers like Nisbis, where Jews knew Syriac Christian traditions. The assessment of this thesis must await others, more learned than the present writer. However, two remarks seem to be appropriate. First, there is no evidence for the existence of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Syriac. Second, Ballaban has raised a number of very weighty considerations relating to the problem of the knowledge of apocryphal texts in medieval Hebrew literature. The resolution of the problems is much advanced by his work. 9 H. Mack, Prolegomena and Example to an Edition of Midrash Bemidbar Rabba Part I (Ph.D. dissertation; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991). Pp. 222-38 deal with R. Moses, and the citation given occurs on p. 226. 10H.J. de Jonge, "La bibliothèque de Michel Choniatès et la tradition occidentale des Testaments des XII Patriarches," Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 53 (1973) 171-80 = M. de Jonge (ed.), Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 97-106; Himmelfarb, "R. Moses the Preacher," 59. 11Ibid. It is generally accepted that BRab is probably a compendium of midrash from the school of R. Moses which reflects his own writing. We use the designation "R. Moses the Preacher" with this concept in mind. His work, and also the history of scholarship on it, are discussed by Ballaban, The Enigma, 42-89.

25 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs might have been made, M. Himmelfarb suggests, "by a Byzantine Jew, who would have known Greek better She was unable, however, to find any than a Jew from Provence."" independent evidence for this plausible and attractive view. The Naphtali document from Qumran we are discussing here teaches us that the matter was even more complex than M. Himmelfarb could have known. We hesitate, however, to formulate a general theory, but will limit ourselves to the discussion of some aspects of this single unit of tradition to which we now have a new witness, that is, the genealogy of Bilhah. A comparison of the new Hebrew document from Qumran, the section of Greek TPN 1:9-12 and the passage of BRab shows that certain features are shared by the Qumran document and BRab which are not found in the Greek TPN. This does not necessarily invalidate Himmelfarb's theory, but certainly calls for a nuancing of it. The relevant passage in BRab follows:

"And Laban gave [her] Zilpah [his maid]." Were they indeed his maids? No! but it was the general custom that a man's daughters from his concubines were called maids. And someone says: The father of Bilhah and Zilpah was the brother of Deborah, Rebecca's nurse and 'Ahotay was his name. Before he married, he was taken captive, and Laban sent and ransomed him and gave him his maid for a wife. She bore him a daughter and he called her Zilpah after the name of the city to which he had been taken as a captive. She bore another daughter, and he called her Bilhah, for when she was bom, she was eager [mitbahelet] to suck. He said, How eager [behulah] my daughter is. And when Jacob went to Laban's, 'Ahotay their father was dead. Laban took Havah his maid and her two daughters and gave Zilpah, the older, to his older daughter Leah, and Bilhah, the younger, to his younger daughter Rachel.

12Himmelfarb, "Rabbi Moses the Preacher," 73-74. 13H. Albeck (ed.), Midrash Bereshit Rabbati (Jerusalem: 1940), 119. The English translation is drawn from M. Himmelfarb, "R. Moses the Preacher," 60-61. We have supplemented her translation at the beginning.

26 The texts of TPN and BRab are very close, as Himmelfarb demonstrated. Not only do they tell the same story, but their structure is similar. To them we can now add the selfsame story which is found in the Hebrew Naphtali document from Qumran (TN). Unfortunately, this text is fragmentary, the ends of the lines are missing and the in starts the middle of a sentence. There are numerous matfragment ters of interest in this text, which is particularly important since it transmits a version of the story considerably older than either of the other two witnesses to it. We shall give some striking examples of the of these three documents, without exhaustcomplex interrelationship the material found in the new text. ing fascinating Example 7 the daughter

of Rotheus,

a brother

of Debora,

Rebecca's

nurse (TPN)

In TPN one sibling of Rotheus is mentioned: Deborah, Rebecca's nurse (Gen. 35:8). The first line of the surviving fragment of TN reads:

The word

could be taken to mean "sisters" and Nebe translates If so, then in TN more than one sibling of "Volksgenossinen."'4 Bilhah's father is envisaged, while both other texts speak only of one is possible. In another interpretation sister, Deborah.15 However, BRab we read "the father of Bilhah and Zilpah was the brother of Debora, Rebecca's nurse and 'Ahotay was his name" and the name recurs at the end of the passage, "[a]nd when Jacob 'Ahotay went to Laban's, 'Ahotay their father was dead."'6 In TPN Bilhah's father's name is said to be Rotheus (with minor variants in the manuscripts). Albeck proposed that the original reading in BRab might have been "Arotay" or "Aroti" which would be "Rotheus" with in TN a prothetic )aleph.17 However, it seems likely to us that 14See W. Nebe, "Qumranica I: Zu unveröffentlichen Handschriften aus Höhle 4 von Qumran," ZAW 106 (1994) 307-22. He also reads the last word of the surviving text as instead of which is clearly wrong on material grounds. The qof is unmistakable. 15 See n. 24 below. 16 It is not clear to us why Himmelfarb has chosen to vocalize this word as 'Ahotay, when it could also be vocalized as 'Ahoti. We have, however, followed her usage. 17Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, 119. For a different explanation of the 'aleph, see Himmelfarb, "Rabbi Moses the Preacher," 62, n. 16.

27 is best taken as a name of which 'Ahotay in BRab is a variant form. There are numerous biblical names of males with an ending -ot or "'Ahi- yot.18 The existence, therefore, of an apocryphal name yot" with the same ending is far from unlikely. If this view is accepted, then what has happened in BRab is a different ordering of the last three letters. The form 'Pm8Éou (< *'PM6eo(;), a corruption. Whether it is to be exfound in TPN is presumably plained by means of a hypothetical intermediate form IMI-IR*or by another textual development, such as the loss of the first two letters n& and the reading of an enlarged Herodian yod as a res, remains unclear.19 In any case, we must translate: "... with 'Ahiyot Bilhah's father, '[ ].h, Deborah who nursed Reb[ecca." We do not know what preceded. An 'aleph follows the name AJ:liyot; about 5 letter spaces are lost, and then we may discern a sign, a taw or perhaps a nun, followed by a he. No certain proposal can be made as to which words might have been there, but they surely touched on the relationship between 'Ahiyot and Deborah. Nebe's restoration as "my mo[ther, her au]nt (was)" is in keeping with the sense and the mateto rial remains.2° The end of the line is lost. 'Ahiyot's relationship Abraham and his character are not mentioned in the surviving text of TN, and the material lost at the end of the line would not have been extensive enough for that to be mentioned. If this view is accepted, the two forms in the Hebrew documents, midrash and 'Ahiyot in the 'Ahotay in Rabbi Moses the Preacher's are Qumran fragment obviously closely related. They are separated only by a minor reordering of the last three letters and they share in Greek, 'aleph and het. two letters which cannot be represented Greek Rotheus in TPN must derive from a rather different variant form. If this is the case, then it seems unlikely that a text like that between the two Hebrew documents. of TPN was the intermediary Another channel of transmission must be sought.

18See, for Ezra 2:43; Neh. 7:46; 1 Chron. 7:7; 27:19; example, 1 Kgs. 1 Chron. 25:4; Neh. 12:3; Ezra 8:33; 2 Chron. 11:18, etc.; Gen. 25:13; 28:9. Other examples exist. 21:2,3,4 etc.; and 19Dr. E. Chazon, who was kind enough to read this paper and make a number of corrections and suggestions, has proposed that the name may originate from the Deborah's brother" as BRab formulates it. understanding that he was 20 Nebe, "Qumranica I," 317. I would add a waw before the word and translate "and her aunt (was)..."

28 It is also noteworthy that the Greek Testament of Naphtali has the lhphrase: 6 8? 'P1l0eog EK TOD7?vov5 iv 'Appa6cg, Xa),8aio;, "And Rotheus was of the family of Abraham, a £'Ú8£po<;Kat £1Jy£v1Í<;. Chaldean, god-fearing, freeborn and noble." In their comment on this and M. de Jonge quote the just comment of verse, H. Hollander Louis Ginzberg, "[t]he tendency of Jewish legend is to make all the tribes related to Abraham, on their maternal as well as their paternal side."21 This comment seems very apposite, when the Greek text of TPN is considered. Yet precisely this point is missing from both the Qumran document and BRab which have nothing parallel to this verse, and the specific tradition about Rotheus appears to be unique to TPN.22 In the passage of BRab, the beginning of the material close to TN and TPN is marked by the words -IOR7 "and someone says." These mark the beginning of a new unit of tradition, but it shares with what precedes it the idea that Bilhah and Zilpah were sisters. A number of Rabbinic texts also hold the view that Bilhah and Zilpah were sisters. Some of them say that they were daughters of Laban by a concubine, and this is exactly the content of the initial statement in the passage of BRab.23 According to certain medieval Jewish sources, Deborah was a descendant of Abraham, being the daughter of Nahor's son Uz.z4 Deborah's origin in Laban's house is inferred from Gen. 24:59 combined with Gen. 35:8. The two maids, Bilhah and Zilpah are also said to come from Laban's house, so it is most likely

21 H.W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985) 299 citing L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS, 1925) 5.295. Analogous is the tradition in which Job says to his children, "I am from the sons of Esau, the brother of Jacob, of whom is your mother Dinah" (T. Job 1:6). This tradition is widespread; see, e.g., the sources cited in the note by R.P. Spittler in James H. Charlesworth, ed., TOTP (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 1.839. See also the discussion of Deborah's origin below and n. 24. This matter also emerges from the discussion of matriarchal genealogies by B.H. Amaru mentioned below, n. 37. 22 It is probably worth noting that the words "freeborn and noble" in the Greek text are a well known combination. Hollander and de Jonge (Testaments, 299) note that it appears in Jewish and pagan sources of the Greco-Roman period. 23 See T. Ps.-J. Gen. 29:24,29 and G. Friedlander, Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1916) 271-72 who cites a number of further sources. Compare also Ginzberg, Legends, 5.295. This is also stated explicitly by Midrash aggada in the passage following that which we discuss below; see n. 33, below. 24 J. Dan (ed.), Sefer Hayashar (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986) 144, which is, chap. 3 of his edition. This text is also cited by Ginzberg, Legends, 5.300, n. 204.

29 indicated by this common origin which forms the the connection of the varied relationships proclaimed by the traditions background noted here. Yet the particular genealogy of Bilhah which is implied by the three texts being discussed here has no parallel elsewhere. Example 2 And after having 1:11)

been taken captive

he was bought

by Laban

(TPN

This incident is identical in the two texts, except that where the Greek has "he was bought," the Hebrew has "he was redeemed."25 This suggests that Laban's motive for this action was the obligation to redeem a relative who has fallen into slavery (Lev. 25:47-50). 26 Himmelfarb suggested that "redeemed" in BRab reflected the realities of medieval Jewish life. We can now see that it was a much older reading. Example 3 and he gave him Aina his servant

to wife

In TN the name is i1jn "Hannah." The Greek text shows the variants E8vav d Ema Evvav fhij Evav C.27 Albeck prints the name as i11i1 "Eve" in his text of BRab. On p. 119, however, in his note he says, innnv m '"h» "in the manuscript it is also possible to read 'to Hannah his maid'." It is now possible to confirm that the reading 7>nb "to Hannah" is the correct one. In addition, we must remark that the reading mn? seems to be another instance in which the text of TN is closer to BRab than to the Greek TPN. Moreover, it does not seem plausible to argue that BRab or its source might have derived the reading by translation back into Hebrew of the forms of this name preserved in Greek. In the Greek Bible, Hebrew

25Nebe ("Qumranica I," 317) translates "und befreite ihn." The Hebrew is The sense suggested by Nebe is, and R. Moses has the alternative Hebrew therefore, not accurate and his note on p. 318 should be emended accordingly. 26 Hollander and de Jonge observe that the same Greek verb is used for the purchase and freeing of Joseph from the captivity of the Ishmaelites. See Hollander and de Jonge, The Testamentsof the TwelvePatriarchs, 299. The Greek of Leviticus has a different verb. 27Intriguingly instead of "his servant," TN has "one of [his] maidservants" which This corresponds to the variant Greek reading of ms. l should not be accorded any weight in the assessment of the Greek manuscripts, unless other agreements of TN and I are found, and none such has emerged so far.

30 i1Jn is always translated as 'Avva. Neither the Greek text of TPN nor the variants preserved in the Greek manuscripts of TPN have the reading 'Avva. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the name HTt "Hannah" in BRab does not derive from translation into Hebrew of any of the forms preserved in the surviving manuscripts of TPN. Of course, this fact does not explain the origin of the forms which do occur in TPN in this verse. 21 Example 4 after the name of the village where he had been taken captive 1:11)

(TPN

In TN we read: i1:JiD:J "i\!)i1 rvr "according to the name of the city to which he was taken captive." BRab reads 7"on OV?'7 "after the name of the city to which he was taken captive." The words we have translated "to which" differ in the Hebrew. TN reads, apparently, a suffixed form of the preposition while BRab has the adverb literally "to there, thither." In the Greek text, however, we read £v 11 "in which, where." Observe that the meaning of the two Hebrew texts is the same, though the phrasing differs, while all the Greek manuscripts present a different meaning. According to the Greek TPN Zilpah was the name of the village in which Rotheus was taken captive, while the two Hebrew texts say that this was the name of the city to which 'Ahiyot was taken captive. In this phrase there is another, more striking instance of the same series of agreements. The word 7"I "city" is shared by TN and BRab. In TPN, however, Greek K6gil is to be found. According to an unwalled village, or else a LSJ, Kllpko is a village, particularly of a In the LXX, generally 1'.1) is translated n6Xtq (1003 quarter city. Greek instances).29 However, K6)gll translates 1'.1) in six cases, all of which are in the plural. Of those six instances, most designate the hinterland settlements of a city, so: Josh. 10:39; 2 Chron. 14:13; Jer.

28It is also intriguing to observe the Greek forms Eυναvfhij Evav c. These could easily be corrupted or corrected into Eναv, i.e., Eve. Yet the stemmatic position of these manuscripts makes it extremely unlikely that they preserve an original reading at this point, and Albeck's text ( "Eve") is better to be explained by what is apparently a physical difficulty in decipherment of the manuscript of BRab. The interrelationship of the readings of this name in the three sources resembles that of 'Ahiyot noted above. 29In addition observe that κωµη occurs 68 times translating seven different Hebrew in the six instances noted. words, one of which is

31 19:15. In 1 Chron. 27:25 the word has a slightly different meaning while in Isa. 42:11 the site is located in a desert. If we assume that the passage in BRab is a translation into Hebrew from Greek, the occurrence in it of the word 1'.1' where Greek has ic6gil is almost impossible to explain. It is even more impossible since TN has become available because it too has the word BRab and TPN are clearly connected but BRab cannot have been translated from TPN. Some other sort of relationship between TPN and BRab must have existed. Of course, this analysis leaves us without an explanation of the of the word in the Greek TPN. Since some indications Kmllll origin have already that this section of TPN was however, emerged, reworked in Greek, this problem is less difficult than the hypothetical question of how Greek ic6gil might have been translated into Hebrew 1'.1' in BRab. We might add that no village or city (Greek x6gil or Hebrew 1'.1') by the name Zilpah has been found attested in any surviving source. Example 5 My daughter is eager for what is new; for immediately after she was born she was eager to suck. (TPN 1:12) Although the Greek text does not state so explicitly, this is clearly a name midrash. Hollander and de Jonge correctly state: "the explanation of the name goes via Hebrew. axeO6ew is repeatused as a in the LXX."3° Milik quoted the translation of edly relevant fragment from TN with his restoration of the lacuna as follows : nn Inn "for when she was bom, [behold, suddenl]y she hastens to suckle and she (i.e., Hannah) said, 'How eager is my daughter!'."3' We are not certain about his restoration of the lacuna, which is based on the Greek, but it is clear that the same name midrash is involved. It involves a metathesis of the last two letters which leads to or derives from a play on two different roots.?2 The same name midrash is to be found in BRab.

30 The Testaments the Twelve Patriarchs, 300. of 31 J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 198. 32 There does exist, in Biblical Hebrew, a root which occurs in the Pi'el and means "to fear" as well as a cognate noun The root is the ketib

32 is to be In Midrash Aggada the same etymology based on as follows: nb7rnD found. It is formulated "Bilhah, like behalah ("haste") since she was hastening (mitbahelet) at the hour of her birth, and did not know The midrash here seems prima facie to relate how to give the haste not to Bilhah's own birth and suckling, but to her giving birth and giving suck. Yet it is not really comprehensible, for it is difficult to conceive of a name midrash of Bilhah, giving her the name only should be after she became a mother.3 Consequently, perhaps read as if it were Then, we can say that the midrash in Midrash Aggada is probably a corrupt development of what we find in TN, BRab and TPN. It is of no little interest to observe that Midrash Aggada is also attributed to R. Moses the Preacher. 35

Concluding

Remarks

This small narrative fragment from Cave 4 at Qumran raises a series of fascinating issues. First, it is interesting to observe that this piece of biographic material has no known parallel in the other Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Material cognate to it occurs only in one stream of midrashic writing, that associated with R. Moses the Preacher, in Narbonne in the eleventh century. This tradition was clearly current in the period of the Second Temple, of course, as it occurs in Qumran Cave 4. Even more notably, this tradition served as a source for the author of Testament of Naphtali in the Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The genealogy plays no structurally coherent role in that work, and must have been The situation in Ezra shows the same alterin Ezra 4:4 where the qere is nation of these two roots which lies at the base of the name midrash, though in the case of the Naphtali documents the sense of "hastening" seems appropriate. 33 S. Buber (ed.), Midrash Aggada (Vienna:1894) to Genesis 33, p. 77. 34 Alternatively, the subjects of the verbs could be different: the first verb might refer to Hannah bearing Bilhah, while the second verb might refer to Bilhah's sucking (after the emendation suggested here). E. Chazon proposes a third possibility that the verb "was hastening," refers to Bilhah and "at the hour of her (giving) birth" to Hannah. She concedes, however, that the interpretation given in the text is most plausible. 35There are a number of other name midrashim relating to Bilhah. Some are listed by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah to Gen. 29:29, section 83. Another possible midrash on this name in b. Shab. 55b is pointed out by A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, The Story about Reuben and Bilhah (Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 1983) 35 (Hebrew). On the attribution of Midrash Aggada, see Albeck, Bereshit Rabbati, "Introduction," 15.

33 introduced into it largely because the redactor found it in the sources available to him. It is possible to explain the development of material associated with Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document through the role played by Levi in the foundation of the priesthood, which was such a central institution in the period of the Second Temple. But why Naphtali? We have no ready explanation, but two points can be made. First, Tobit was said to be of the tribe of Naphtali. Second, it is surely notable that in the codex Oxford d 11(The Chronicle of Jerahmeel) a Hebrew Testament of Naphtali was found, which has certain connections with the material in the Greek Testament of Naphtali, although the tradition of Bilhah's genealogy found in the Qumran text does not occur in the Oxford manuscript. Moreover, it has been strongly argued by Korteweg that the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, at least in the section dealing with Naphtali's visions, contains, original elements deriving from a haggadic tradition pertaining to Naphtali's visions ... sometimes present in both [the Greek and the Hebrew documents, M.E.S.], sometimes only in one of the accounts which have come down to us. This means that, since ... neither of them is likely to represent the immediate source of the other, we must assume an original document on which both have drawn independently.36 His arguments for this position are carefully reasoned. If he is correct, it is possible that the Qumran fragment dealing with Bilhah's genealogy is derived from the same "original document." This possibility is heightened by the following consideration. The second incident related in the fragmentary TN, following the blank line, is Laban's gift of Bilhah and Zilpah to Jacob and the circumstances surrounding it. The content and language of this narrative some coincide, despite differences, with the last part of the pericope cited in BRab. In other words, R. Moses' source contained these two incidents in similar language and in the same sequence as TN. The second incident, however, is nowhere mentioned in TPN. This is another striking indication of the relationship between TN and BRab and of the source document "original Naphtali" which they shared. In

36He adds: "in this document, however, the meaning of Naphtali's visions must have come nearest to that which is still attached to them by the late Hebrew redactor." Th. Korteweg, "The meaning of Naphtali's Visions," Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ed. M. de Jonge; SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 261-90. The citations are drawn from pp. 281-82.

34 it is clearly worth re-assessing the melight of these observations, dieval Hebrew Testament of Naphtali. It may thus be concluded that the genealogy of Bilhah fragment derived from "original Naphtali," which served in one form or another as the source of the material in TPN and BRab. The "original Naphtali" was also the source of the "visions of Naphtali" material shared by TPN and the medieval Hebrew Testament of Naphtali. If this is so, a double mystery emerges. First, why was the "original Naphtali" document written in the first place? The observation about Tobit's genealogy serves only to provide another hint at the existence of a developed Naphtali tradition in the period of the Second Temple, not to explain it. Second, why should such a tradition have been reworked and remodeled in the Middle Ages into the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali? The point of this particular biographical tradition as it occurs in the Greek Testament of Naphtali is to show that Naphtali is of Abrahamic stock on the maternal as well as the paternal side. It is surprising that this motif is absent from the Hebrew material which is included in BRab. The text makes Zilpah and Bilhah sisters, and it makes their father a brother of Deborah, Rebecca's nurse. Since Deborah came from Laban's house, like Bilhah and Zilpah, the text implies that all the children of Jacob are descendants of the ancestral stock on both the maternal and paternal sides. This is explicitly Abrahamic in the Greek TPN, and certainly implicitly Aramean in the other two Hebrew texts. B. Halpern Amaru has recently highlighted the similar stress on the purity of matrilineal descent in Jubilees, a typical case of which is the presentation of Rebecca's descent from Nahor in Jub. 19:1Y The Qumran Testament of Naphtali, then, and perhaps the Naphtali document from which it was drawn, may be put into the general literary context of narrative elaborations of biblical stories. We have such elaborations from Qumran and also in apocryphal books which were not preserved there. The Genesis Apocryphon, parts of Jubilees, and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities are examples of such works. This small narrative fragment from Qumran bears no stamp of sectarian language or interests. As a narrative expansion of a biblical 37There it is also stressed that she is Laban's sister. See B. Halpern Amaru, "The First Woman, Wives and Mothers in Jubilees," JBL 113 (1994) 609-26, and particularly p. 616. See n. 21 above.

35 story it is comparable to the Aramaic Levi Document, as well as to the Kohath and Amram writings found at Qumran. However, we can understand the motivation for creation of the Kohath and Amram the Aramaic Levi Document. They are closely writings by considering related to that writing and perhaps epigones of it. Aramaic Levi Document is rather old and contains ancient and complex traditions. The interest in the priesthood and the centrality of the Levitical line serve to explain some of these traditions at least. The present fragment is more puzzling. As we asked above: why Naphtali? No clear answer has emerged so far. It is quite evident that developed traditions about Naphtali must have existed, as is also hinted by Tobit's genealogy, but why such Naphtali traditions did develop and why they were nurtured over the centuries remains an enigma. The comparison of this text with the material preserved in Midrash Beresit Rabbati deriving from R. Moses the Preacher in Narbonne in the eleventh century is most significant. It had been known that BRab shared traditions with Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Scholars had come to the conclusion that (a) the material in BRab derives from Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; (b) that the transmission to eleventh-century Provence had probably come through Byzantine the and that author of the midrash had adapted elements of (c) Italy; the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to his own purposes. One aspect of the importance of the new text from Qumran is that it gives an undoubtedly ancient basis with which to compare the two texts that were previously known. When this is done, it emerges that there are elements common to the Qumran text and to BRab which are not to be found in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The reverse does not seem to be the case, as far as our preliminary research to date has shown. This implies that BRab must have had a source other than Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs from which it received these traditions. It is, moreover, germane to this matter to recall that the only other place the name midrash of Bilhah is to be found besides TN and TPN is in Midrash Aggada, a work by R. Moses the Preacher. A further point relates to the two names we discussed. The name 'Ahiyot/'Ahotay and the name Hannah both are BRab with Semitic laryngeal letters which preserved accurately by cannot be represented in Greek. This seems to imply that R. Moses and his circle had access to sources of apocryphal tradition which cannot be identified today, but that these sources were Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic. Moreover, the likelihood of the continued existence

36 of a Naphtali source into the Middle Ages is suggested by Korteweg's research on the visions of Naphtali, and his arguments are strengthened by the actual existence of one fragment of an ancient Naphtali writing This is to say that one or another form of an apocryphal Hebrew or Aramaic Naphtali document which had existed in the period of the Second Temple was available to R. Moses the Preacher in Narbonne in the eleventh century. How this happened cannot be determined here. Yet our perception of the survival of apocryphal texts within the Jewish tradition should probably be revised. Finds of ancient manuscripts and transliteration of the Peshitta undoubtedly took place. Yet there seem to have been further channels of transmission including the cherishing and preservation of ancient documents in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no doubt that the subject of apocryphal traditions in medieval Hebrew literature is worthy of further investigation. Enough enigmas are already known-the ben Sira manuscripts, the traditions in Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and the so-called "Book of Noah" with other Jubilees citations are three among many instances, and doubtless more are still hidden in manuscripts. It is certain, however, that there was no single channel of transmission; the Qumran Testament of Naphtali indicates that one possibility to be considered is transmission in Hebrew or Aramaic."

38See n. 36, above. 39In general, this view is supported by such authorities as Albeck and Epstein; see n. 8, above. The new text provides very striking evidence for this opinion, which must now be regarded as established in this particular case. To this extent, too, we agree with Ballaban, (The Enigma), and Himmelfarb's view seems less likely. We do not find ourselves convinced, however, by the channel of transmission through Nisbis that Ballaban has proposed.

ANTICIPATION AND RE-ARRANGEMENT, HARMONIZATION AS EXEGETICAL FEATURES IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON1 MOSHE J. BERNSTEIN Yeshiva University

I. Introduction Daniel J. Harrington concludes his discussion of the genre often if obvious, historical Bible" with an important, called "Re-written observation: "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revivified or begun research on these adaptations of biblical narratives to a considerable extent."' This statement was true when applied to texts like the Genesis Apocryphon and llQTemple, and even truer now that we have material like Reworked Pentateuch (4QRP), pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225-27), Genesis commentaries (4Q252-54), and other fragmentary works. The renewed analysis of all of these diverse texts, whether recently published or known for a long time, has proceeded along a variety of paths, from discussions of the nature of the biblical text which underlies the rewriting, to the formal aspects of rewriting, to debates about targum-type vs. midrash-type, to the theology which generates and shapes the retelling.3 Occasionally lost amid these larger issues is one of the fundamental questions in the study of "Rewritten Bible": the identification of the exegetical technique of each of these documents, the ways in which they operate with and on the Hebrew biblical text on the most fundamental level.

' An earlier version of this paper, focusing on the passages in 1QapGen 19:19-20 and the Arnem, Eshkol, and Mamre material, was read at the Aramaic Studies Section of the Annual Meeting of the SBL, November, 1986, under the title "An Exegetical Feature in the Genesis Apocryphon." 2 D.J. Harrington, "The Bible Rewritten (Narratives)," Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ed., (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 246. 3 There are discussions of "Re-written Bible" in most discussions of Jewish literature of the Second Temple era. Cf. Harrington "The Bible Rewritten," 239-47; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times," and "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha,Qumran Sectarian Writings,Philo, Josephus, ed. MichaelStone, (CRINT; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984), 33-156; P.S. Alexander, "Re-telling the Old Testament,"It is Written:ScriptureCiting Scripture:Essays in Honour of Barnabas

38 One of the means by which "Re-written Bible" "improves" on the Bible is by attempting to create a more seamless narrative than the biblical original through the removal of slight irregularities and inconsistencies in the story by the furnishing of useful details in advance of their occurrence in the biblical narrative. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, and we shall see in this paper how the Genesis Apocryphon employs several of them. The techniques which we call "anticipation," and "constructive harmoniza"re-arrangement" tion" are related devices whose goal is the production of the smoother narrative of which we speak. We shall describe these phenomena in this paper in some detail in order to highlight the nuances which distinguish them and in order to show more clearly how they function in relation to their biblical original. Some of the dichotomization will be done with the intention of sharpening our sense of the distinctions between them, possibly creating the impression that they are more different than they really are. By re-arrangement we mean the moving around of information already contained within the biblical text. There need not be a serious difficulty with the text as it stands in the Bible, but the redistribution of the data improves the flow of the story in some way. Re-arrangement puts the material of the biblical text into an order which the author of the "Re-written Bible" thinks is more logical or easier to understand. "Anticipation" is similar to re-arrangement, although it does not in the data the but adds to it details whose Bible, merely re-arrange the creation of a more goal is the same as that of a re-arrangement, perfect narrative. At times, indeed, one might ask whether rearrangement and anticipation are not really the same device, but for the purposes of our discussion I prefer to differentiate them in this fashion. stands next to anticipation on the specConstructive harmonization trum of exegetical devices. This technique, known best from the tendencies of the Samaritan Pentateuch which will be discussed below, involves the insertion into the narrative of an event or a speech which does not appear in the biblical text, but which seems to be demanded Lindars, SSF, ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 99-121. J.L. Kugel's In Potiphar's House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1990) is a valuable study of certain of the exegetical aspects of the genre (which Kugel, p. 264, calls "Retold Bible"). Editions and translations of the various works which are generally characterized as "Re-written Bible" often have discussions of the ways in which they relate to and operate upon the biblical text.

39 by the biblical text itself by virtue of a subsequent allusion. As in the information is added to the text, but, the case of "anticipation," is virtually unlike the situation with anticipation, its supplementation demanded by the later narrative. Once again, it is possible to suggest that the difference between anticipation and constructive harmonization is one of scope rather than technique, but for the purpose of how exegetical evaluating technique works they should be distinin our guished analysis. These techniques are not unique to "Re-written Bible," but are also found in biblical texts known to us from late antiquity. In fact, one of the persistently troublesome issues which has not been fully worked texts from Jewish late out in dealing with biblical and para-biblical where a is the of the point reworking of biblical antiquity question material ceases being a copy of a biblical book and starts being "Rewritten Bible."' In the case of the Genesis Apocryphon, we are in no danger of erring and defining it as a biblical text, if for no other reason than that it was composed in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. It is one of the works which appears in all lists of that somewhat undefined genre, the Re-written Bible. Our discussion of the three related will therefeatures, re-arrangement, anticipation, and harmonization, fore focus on the way that they are employed in "Re-written Bible," although our conclusions may have ramifications for their utilization in biblical texts as we11.5

II. Re-Arrangement The re-arrangements which we shall discuss in this section involve the disposition of the information in a biblical narrative in a manner differing from the biblical original.6 These fairly small-scope 4 E. Tov ("Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod," The Communityof the Renewed Covenant, ed. E. Ulrich and J.C. VanderKam [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994] 111-34) discusses the issue, but does not furnish definitions of what specific parameters are to be employed to distinguish one genre from the other. 5 Tov has studied quite fully the many aspects of textual harmonization to be found within MT (e.g. Samuel-Kings vs. Chronicles), as well as between or among MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Qumran biblical material in "The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts," JSOT 31 (1985) 3-29. Cf. also his remarks in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 85-89, 241-42, 261-62. 6 Discussions of arrangement or order in biblical texts usually focus on sections or

40 are directed at making the biblical narrative flow more re-arrangements in the Genesis smoothly. As an example of a minor re-arrangement Apocryphon, we point to the statements about Abram's wealth (Gen. 13:2 = lQapGen 20:33) as well as Lot's (Gen. 13:5 = lQapGen which are 20:34) displaced from their locations, and set after the end 12 of Genesis (12:20 = lQapGen 20:32) and sandwiched around the beginning of Genesis 13 (Gen. 13:1 = lQapGen 20:33). This re-arrangement can perhaps not be attributed to the author of the Apocryphon because it appears in Jubilees as well. Jubilees (13:14-15) sets these statements before the return of Sarai and Abram's expulsion the comments from Egypt. In both Jubilees and the Apocryphon, about the wealth of Abram and Lot no longer interrupt the narrative as they do in Genesis, and the story of their return and subsequent separation can be told without a break. In col. 12 of the Genesis Apocryphon we find a more interesting of broader scope, for which the impulse is likely to re-arrangement have been exegetical.' J. Fitzmyer, in remarking on the few lines of this column which he was able to publish in his edition of the Apocryphon, comments It is not easy to get a good impression of the contents of this column, because it apparently did not follow the order of Gn itself, at least if the phrases preserved have been correctly identified with elements of the Genesis story. For these seem to come from Gn 9,10,11 rather indiscriminately.' He suggests that line 10, of which he reads only rn1n 1n:J is related to Gen. 11:10 while Dv "ir t3in (11) come from Genesis 10, (10) and of and Q'0 ... (13) is "a modification Gn 9.20." The further reconstruction of these lines by Greenfield and Qimron, however, enables us to understand the relationship of these lines to the biblical text, as well as their arrangement in the Apocryphon. In

chapters of biblical books. See, e.g., Tov, Textual Criticism, 320-21, on the different sequence of chapters in Jeremiah in MT and LXX. 7 Col. 12,which J. Greenfield presentedat a session devoted to the GenesisApocryphon at the SBL in Kansas City in November 1991, was published by him and E. Qimron in "The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," AbrN Sup. 3 (1992) 70-77. A facsimile of the column appears on p. 71, and text and translation on pp. 72-73. 8 J. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphonof Qumran Cave I: A Commentary [= GAQ] (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 100. For our citations of the text of the Apocryphon, we utilize this edition, unless otherwise noted.

41 their

the children of reading, the birth of Noah's grandchildren, Shem, Ham and Japhet, is described in lines 9-12.9 There follows on line 13 Noah and his sons working the land and planting a large vineyard on Mt. Lubar. These two passages which are based on the biblical text of Genesis are followed by a non-biblical supplement which describes the celebration of the drinking of the first wine from the vineyard in the fifth year (13-19).'° One textual comment on the Greenfield-Qimron text is necessary before we can proceed to demonstrate the nature of the re-arrangement. in line 9, They read (with suitable reservation), rendering "and [son]s were born to me [... dau]ghters after the flood." Their comment on these words is "'Sons and daughters' means progeny, that is grandchildren as listed in the following to the degree that it lines."" Their confidence in the restoration is not bracketed in the translation, is a bit surprising. It would appear to me more likely that the referent of the missing pronominal suffix attached to ? is '»1 '»1 ("and my children and grandchildren") of line 8, and that the reading ought to be This ("to them"). restoration makes the line into a translation (targum?) of Gen. l0:lb 7n& "children were born to them after the in this section, as flood." This is the beginning of the re-arrangement the author of the Apocryphon goes to the later verse to begin the genealogies of Noah's children. To introduce the progeny of Shem, however, the Apocryphon proceeds first to Gen. 11 : 10 and then returns to Gen. 10:22 for the order of listing of Shem's sons The Apocryphon then proceeds to list the sons of Ham in line 11I MIDI D13 on a verbatim citation of Gen. 10:6, and of Japhet in line 12 0'rm 1,ø01 3Hm 7Dr a The for of Genesis 10:2. sons of Noah are quotation (except spelling) thus listed completely out of order: Shem, Ham, Japhet in the Apocryphon vs. Japhet, Ham, Shem in the Bible. But can we agree with 9 The fact that the Apocryphon adds daughters to each of Noah's sons' families is not of concern to us in this context. On that topic, see J.C. VanderKam, "The Granddaughters and Grandsons of Noah," RevQ 16/63 (1994) 457-61. 10 Although non-Pentateuchal,this passage has a parallel at Jub. 7:1-6. 11Greenfield and Qimron, "Col. XII," 75. 11It is as Greenfield and Qimron note, may reflect possible that

42 Fitzmyer's judgment that the arrangement of the biblical material is If only Shem had been displaced, moved to the head indiscriminate? of the list, we should not be surprised, because he is, after all, the most prominent of Noah's sons. But how can we explain the further dislocation? I believe that the slight re-arrangement is a product of a larger one. What is it which engenders the shift of the families of the sons of Noah from their location in Genesis 10 to a position within the equivalent of Genesis 9? Granted the extremely fragApocryphon's state of the manuscript beyond line 17, it is very difficult to mentary be certain, but if we may presume that the text of the Apocryphon in col. 12 or col. 13 contained material equivalent to Gen. 9:21-27, a reasonable hypothesis can be offered. It is well known that there is an awkwardness in the biblical text at Gen. 9:18-19 where, following the covenant which God makes with Noah and the sign of the rainort1 no i1:Jni1 10 rm bow, Noah's sons are listed, ("the sons of Noah leaving the ark were Shem, Ham and Japhet") followed by ?rt1 ("Ham was the father of Canaan")-a statement which itself is an anticipation of the entry of Canaan to the scene in 9:22-and then by an unconnected statement that i1iV'?iD ("These three were Noah's sons, and from them the whole earth dispersed"). Since the opening lines of col. 12 of line 2 probably repreapparently reflect Gen. 9:16-17, with of in the Hebrew, the the final word of one those two verses senting lines until line had no biblical source. But the 9 following probably author of the Genesis Apocryphon apparently felt that there could not be a scene involving Noah's grandson until he had been introduced to the reader, but that the way in which Canaan was inserted into the biblical narrative was not effective. He therefore moved the list of all of Noah's grandchildren (but not their children) before Gen. 9:20 (= lQapGen 12:13) and the (presumed) equivalent of Gen. 9:21-27. The genealogy is led by Shem, as we noted, but Ham is moved ahead of Japhet because his son Canaan is to be mentioned in the ensuing narrative. in this portion of the Apocryphon is thus conThe rearrangement ditioned by the desire to create a smoother and more coherent narrative. Its following the language of the biblical text as closely as it does demonstrates clearly to us the building blocks of its structure. If we compare the Apocryphon with Jubilees in this context, we can see the tendencies of the Apocryphon more clearly. Jubilees 6 describes

43 the debarking of Noah and his family from the ark, the covenant and the sign of the rainbow, and the establishment of the festival of Shavuot with the importance of a 364-day calendar. Any equivalent of Gen. 9:18-19 is omitted, and Jubilees 7 begins with the planting of the vineyard of Gen. 9:20. The story of the celebration over the production of the first wine, parallel to the account in the Apocryphon, is told in 7:2-6. There is no allusion to the offspring of Ham, and Canaan is cursed without our being told who he is (Jub. 7:10-11). It is only in 7:13 that Canaan is identified as Ham's son. It is there, too, that all of Ham's children are listed, while Shem's children and Japhet's are enumerated in 7:18-19. The author of Jubilees, we observe, makes no attempt to smooth out the biblical narrative, other than the omission of 9:18-19. By way of contrast, in the Apocryphon's rewriting, after the supthe of Gen. 9:17, the families of Noah's plement following equivalent children are listed, introduced by the equivalent of Gen. 10:1, and the genealogies taken from Genesis 10 are presented in the order Shem, Ham, Japhet. Gen. 9:18-19 are omitted from the retelling. The story of Noah and his vineyard is introduced with a slightly rewritten Gen. 9:20, followed by a description of the thanksgiving over its first production of wine (as in Jubilees). We hypothesize that somewhere in the succeeding lines the Apocryphon contained its equivalent of Noah's drunkenness and its ensuing embarrassment.'3 The re-arrangement of the biblical material in this passage is indicative of a close reading of the biblical text, and a sensitivity to 13I believe that an alternative argument can be offered for the re-arrangement even if there was no equivalent of Gen. 9:21-27 in the Apocryphon. The shift of Noah's sons' families to before the celebration of the first vintage would then be made simply to introduce Noah's whole family before the scene when they come together to celebrate. The equivalent of Gen. 9:18-19 is omitted because neither portion is absolutely necessary for the narrative. It is perhaps noteworthy that Josephus also rearranges the biblical material when including this narrative in the Jewish Antiquities, although the re-arrangements differ. In 1:101-103, he summarizes Gen. 9:1-17, and continues in 104 with a remark about the length of Noah's life, parallel with Gen. 9:28-29. The story (excluding Josephus' digressions) continues with the tale of the Tower of Babel (1:109-19; it is possible that the first line of 109 represents Gen. 9:18 or 9:19). It is only after the Tower of Babel that Josephus presents the list of Noah's children and their descendants: Japheth (1:122-29), Ham (1:130-39) and Shem ( 1:14347). The story of Noah's planting and drunkenness (1:140-42) is placed after the list of the children of Ham and before that of Shem's, presumably because of the curse on Ham's descendants. For a fuller discussion of Josephus' treatment of this section, see T.W. Franxman, Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 89-91 and 100-13.

44 matters of apparent disorganization of the subject matter therein. Nothto the biblical account in the course of the reing has been added The non-biblical material in the passage, the story of arrangement. the celebration of the first-fruits of the vine which the Genesis Apocryphon shares with Jubilees, is not exegesis in the strict sense, since it comes not to interpret the biblical material but to supplement it. If we focus our attention only on the material in the Apocryphon which has a biblical equivalent, the motivation for and function of the rearrangement becomes fairly clear. III. Anticipation but it inAnticipation operates very much like re-arrangement, of additional material to the biblical text; volves the supplementation it does not only reposition the material. Once again, let us begin with a small-scale example. At 20:31-32, Abraham narrates that "b "b "the king gave me much gold and silver ... and also Hagar. And he handed her over to me." It is quite clear, and has been observed by others, that the insertion of Hagar into the narrative at this point is anticipatory (to employ my term) of her ap"an Egyptian pearance at Gen. 16:1 where she is described as maidservant." Although Fitzmyer calls this "a midrashic development and at first glance the expansion is not, strictly speakof Gn ing, textually generated, I prefer not employing a term derived from "midrash" to describe this sort of phenomenon. From the standpoint of the author of the Apocryphon, this is not merely a superimposed, eisegetical attempt to explain Hagar's presence in a fashion which allows the biblical narrative to proceed smoothly and straightforwardly. It is more likely that Hagar's presence at 16:1 implies to him that she was given to Sarai by Pharaoh at the time that she and Abram left Egypt." The possibility that the anticipation is inferred from the 14Fitzmyer, GAQ, 143. 15G.B.A. Sarfatti ("Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon," Tarbiz 28 [1959] 256-57 [Hebrew]) writes [my translation from the Hebrew, MJB]: "One cannot understand what the relevance of Hagar is in this context if we do not take as a basis the derashah of Hazal which derives that Hagar was given as a gift by Pharaoh to Abraham and Sarah from the description 'Egyptian maid' used of her (Gen. 16:1) or the derashah on the name Hagar [= (Aramaic) agar] = "reward," that reward which Pharaoh gave to Sarah." Writing shortly after the publication of the Apocryphon and at

45 text makes me reluctant to call it "midrashic," a term often used for utilization more fanciful supplements. This is a fairly unexceptional of anticipation as a kind of exegetical tool. Likewise, the reference (19:9) to the building of Hebron, and to Abram's spending two years there, coupled with the five years which he spends in Egypt before Pharaoh's men take Sarai (19:23-24) is an anticipation of the statement in Num. 13:22 that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan, the residence of the Pharaoh of this story (19:24).'6 But, like the rearrangement of Abram's and Lot's wealth, this anticipation is already found in Jub. 13:10-12." A somewhat more complex, if not more significant, anticipation is to be found in cols. 21-22 of the Apocryphon. The Bible indicates Abram's dwelling at the time of the war of the five kings vs. the 'nn Oi1, 1J.1' four as being n"7r the oak trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol "Among of Abram" and brother of Aner, all of whom were confederates (Gen. 14:13). Subsequent to Abram's victory over the four kings, he declines the material rewards offered to him by the king of Sodom, 1iV? claiming, inter alia, 0? R-1001 "as for the of the men who went with me, Aner, portion 0??7rt Eshkol and Mamre, let them take their portion" (Gen. 14:24). But the Bible has not told us prior to this disclosure that Aner, Eshkol and

a fairly early stage of Qumran research, Sarfatti was attempting to locate the Apocryphon between what he perceived as the poles of rabbinic and apocryphal literature. But, while I certainly agree with his first option for the source of the allusion in the Apocryphon, I believe that his choice of terminology could be improved upon. The selection of language appropriate to rabbinic midrash, like Fitzmyer's choice of that term, suggests a different frame of reference for this text from that which I think should be emphasized. I therefore prefer a more nuanced vocabulary which is suitable for discussion of the technique of "Re-written Bible" in any of its forms. 16D. Patte (Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine [SBLDS 22; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975] 234) follows N. Avigad and Y. Yadin (A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea [Jerusalem: Magnes and Heikhal Ha-Sefer, 1956] 25) in referring to this combination as "a harmonizing of the Genesis text with Num. 13:22." According to our distinctions among these devices, this is an anticipation rather than a harmonization because the statement neither echoes the other biblical text, nor is it demanded by it. But we can also see from it how similar these devices can be to one another. 17 Fitzmyer, (GAQ, 116-17) points out the difficulty in the Apocryphon's sequence vs. Jubilees' in Abram's going toward Zoan (19:22) which has not yet been built according to its chronology. He suggests that Zoan had already been built, an assumption which destroys the anticipation; I prefer to assume either an anachronism or a slight awkwardness in the Apocryphon's adaptation of Jubilees.

46 Mamre participated in Abram's military exploit. Abram took to war with him nian 1iD.1'mDv ("his retainers, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen" [Gen. 14:14]). V. 15, as well, refers only to Abram and his servants The difficulty this to the author of our re-written Bible is obvious. posed Once again, the Apocryphon has smoothed out the irregularity, this time via anticipation. We are first introduced to Mamre, Arnem and Eshkol in 21:21-22 as participants in a banquet with Abram. nnbvi "I summoned Mamre, Amem and Eshkol, the trio of broand they joined me in eating and drank with me." This text thers,... has no overt scriptural antecedent (as it is located where Genesis 13 ends in Scripture), and its function seems to be to identify the three brothers as Abram's colleagues without intruding upon the later narrative of the war.18 But this is not the only anticipatory smoothing of the flow of the narrative which the Apocryphon performs in this section, and the second component of the rewriting is more significant than the first. The Apocryphon, to anticipate the presence of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre at the return from battle, writes that Abram took with him "three hundred men, and Arnem, Eshkol and Mamre" (22:6-7). We now understand their right to share in the spoils of war on the basis of their participation. In fact, the text of the Apocryphon mere'1 nnbn ("the ly alludes to them after the battle as '0.1' three men who went with me" 22:23-24), where MT names them explicitly. This anticipation is not as striking as the one above, although it is exegetically sounder. It ranges over a few verses rather than over chapters. Here we have an anticipatory rearrangement on a smaller scale than our first one to locate Arnem, Eshkol and Mamre with Abram at the outset of the battle so that their meriting a reward at the end does not appear out of place.19 18This point has been made independently by P.S. Alexander, "Retelling the Old Testament," 107. Fitzmyer's suggestion, (GAQ, 156) that "It is a covenant meal that Abram takes with them," is a reasonable interpretation of the Apocryphon's exegesis of the phrase 19The statement in 21:6-7 that Lot bought a house in Sodom and dwelled there where the biblical text merely states he lived in the cities of the plain and pitched his tents until Sodom [Gen. 13:12]) is probably not made only in anticipation of the presence of Lot's home in Gen. 19:2-3, as Fitzmyer suggests. More likely, it is also an anticipation of Gen. 14:12 which describes Lot's being taken captive which in Scripture is followed by a comment "and he had been living in Sodom." That phrase interrupts

47 IV. Harmonization A. Non-Constructive

Harmonization

Although our focus in this paper is on what I term "constructive and anticipation one related to the rearrangement harmonization," of harmonization which we have discussed above, the phenomenon in a general sense belongs to a different broad category of textualTov refers to exegetical features. In his discussion of harmonization, have "influenced the tradition non-biblical which may compositions of the biblical MSS with regard to the combinations of certain biblical texts and even the insertion of the same exegetical remarks." He stresses that we know such material from Qumran and proceeds to list Qumran texts which combine biblical passages, such as 11 QTemple and others, although he does not cite the Genesis Apocryphon as furHe continues: "Further disnishing evidence of such harmonization. with like the ones mentioned... coveries of literary compositions further studies of extant MSS will help in refining our knowledge on the issues treated in this article. "20 in this broader sense? We can begin with What is harmonization "Scribes Tov's characterization: adapted many elements in the text to other details in the same verse, in the immediate context or in a similar one, in the same book and in parallel sections elsewhere in the Bible."21 The nature of that adaptation can be of several types, and for the purpose of our discussion it is profitable to distinguish among them. One of the most important lines of discrimination is the issue conscious or not (as far as we of intention, i.e., is the harmonization a re-worked biblical can tell)? In a work such as the Apocryphon,

the flow of the narrative slightly, and the author of the Apocryphon employs the familiar technique of slight re-arrangement in order to prepare us for the statement in 21:34-22:1 "they captured Lot the nephew of Abram who had been living in Sodom together with them." This is a rather trivial anticipation. Alexander ("Retelling the Old Testament," 107) suggests perceptively that the statement "[Abram] added very much to Lot's property" in 1QapGen 21:6 "anticipates a detail introduced later, to the effect that the 'one who escaped' and told Abram about Lot's capture (Gen. 14:13) was 'one of the herdsmen of the flock which Abram gave to Lot' (1QGenAp 22:1-2)." This is probably another good example of the kind of anticipation we are discussing, as it creates a context for the "one who escaped." My only reservation might be the fact that there is no explicit statement that Abram left herdsmen with Lot in the earlier passage, but such an objection might very well be nitpicking. 20 "Harmonizations," 19. 21 Tov, Textual Criticism, 261.

48 at least two types of harmonization can occur (with one two but do not derive from the possibly having subcategories), they same source, nor do they function in the same fashion. Beginning with the simplest and least conscious type of harmonization, we have the sort which has been described by Luijken as "associative."22 In it, the translation or adaptation of a biblical text is affected linguistically by another passage which is analogous to it or with which it shares common elements.23 An example of this sort of harmonization in the Apocryphon might be the expression "7 n.1'OiD' "I heard that there was grain in Egypt" (19:10), j"7rDr its of which, by usage language reminiscent of Gen. 42:2 'n.1'OiD7M "indeed I have heard that there is grain in Egypt," In, associates the famine in Canaan in the days of Abram when there was plenty in Egypt with the famine in Canaan in the days of Joseph when there was plenty in Egypt. This influence of the other passage is most likely to take place unconsciously, although it is possible that a scribe or editor could associate two passages or stories intentionally. 24 Another form of harmonization is described by Zakovitch as "assimilationist. 1121It occurs when "two separate but somewhat similar events have come to resemble each other more in the course of transmisnarrative,

22M. Luijken, "A Striking Case of Harmonizationin the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen Col. xxii:2-3)," delivered at the International Meeting of the SBL in Amsterdam, August 1985. She borrows the term "associative" from M. Klein's important study of the targumic phenomenon which he calls "associative translation." Klein uses the term to refer to a tendency found occasionally in the Aramaic versions wherein parallel and similar verses influence the translator to render not the verse before him, but a passage which sounds like it or which is similar to it in some other way (cf. Eretz Israel 16 [H.M. Orlinsky Festschrift; Jerusalem, 1982] *134-40). 23There exist "harmonizations" of an even lower level than this, stylistic imitations within Scripture of other passages in the Bible, or in re-written Bible of unrelated and unconnected passages in the Bible. Scholars have occasionally pointed out such phenomena and called them harmonizations when actually they are only the imitation of scriptural language as a model. 24Tov (Textual Criticism, 261) claims that most of the harmonizations in medieval biblical manuscripts "were apparently made unconsciously," while those of the preSamaritan and Samaritan texts "were made consciously." When we are talking about the composition of re-written Bible, as opposed to the copying of a biblical text, there is much greater opportunity for unconscious harmonization of several types. 25 Y. Zakovitch, "Assimilation in Biblical Narratives," in J. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1986) 176-77. He refers to traditions which start out as parallel whose "similarity ... has been secondarily augmented with borrowed motifs." Language and idiom may operate on a lower level than motifs, but the same principle of assimilation applies. Zakovitch

49 but is sion."26 This type, I believe, is analogous to the "associative," from it in both scale and quality. The perhaps to be distinguished more removed from one another two passages are, and the less narrow the nature of their resemblance, the more we have to consider the is a conscious one, although assimpossibility that the harmonization ilationist harmonizations may certainly also take place unconsciously. harmonizaThe difference between "associative" and "assimilationist" tions may be, in the final analysis, one of degree, and I should categorize them in the same class in contrast with the quite different type which we shall examine shortly. In the Apocryphon, the following two examples, in which details of the Sarah-Abimelech episode appear in its version of the Sarahas assimilationist harmonizaPharaoh episode, may be categorized tions. 27 Pharaoh's inability to approach Sarai, which is not mentioned explicitly in the biblical text of Genesis 12, is described with the "he was unable to approach her" (20:17) words which echo (Gen. 20:4), "and Abimelech did Lot's words to Hirqanos, not approach her. 1121Later,

introduces his discussion of assimilation in biblical narratives with examples of the same phenomenon in extra-biblical paraphrases (177-80). 26J. Tigay, "Editor's Note," introducing Zakovitch's essay, p. 175. 27 Avigad-Yadin, (A Genesis Apocryphon, 26) remark that "the story in the scroll about the plagues that afflicted Pharaoh and the manner in which he was finally healed by Abram's prayers is based only partly upon Genesis xii and is actually much closer to Genesis xx, dealing with Sarah and Abimelech." Sarfatti ("Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon," 256) categorizes these two examples, as well as the very different one which we shall discuss below under "B. Constructive Harmonization," as "transfer of details from one pericope to another." In addition to these, he includes other cases which are linguistically less convincing, calling this technique "the basis of the [rabbinic hermeneutical] rules gezerah shavah and binyan ab." Sarfatti sees in this sharing of details in the Apocryphon an antecedent of the rabbinic technique which harmonizes biblical as well as midrashic details of the two wife-sister episodes (Gen. Rab. 41:2 and 45:1). But the failure to acknowledge the "exegetical" function of some of this material in the Apocryphon blurs the distinctions which should be drawn between it and the rabbinic material. Furthermore, it is far from clear whether the sharing of details between episodes functions the same way in a work like the Apocryphon and in rabbinic midrash. 28It is quite possible that in this instance the assimilation may be conscious, but for a theological, as opposed to an exegetical reason. (Drawing a fine line between exegetical and theological may not find favor in all eyes, but it is a distinction which I believe is critical in our attempts to analyze exegetical documents from antiquity.) It may be employed to avoid the theological difficulty implicit in the Genesis 12 passage which does not assert explicitly that Sarai remained untouched by Pharaoh. Cf. the discussion in J. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster,

50 rnri i1JO "go now and tell the king to send his wife away from him to her husband, so that he may pray over him and he may live" (20:23) correspond to God's words to Abimelech i1'n, 1i.1':J i1n.1" "now return the wife of the man since he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and [you will] stay alive" (Gen. 20:7). Both of these harmonizations are more substantive, in my view, than the one in 19:10 described earlier, and this is what leads me to consider them in a different subcategory. If the author of the Apocryphon included both of the Abraham/ Sarah wife-sister stories of MT in his narrative, then these assimilationist harmonizations function like the associative ones, but thematiand not merely verbally. It should be stressed that this sort of cally, whether conscious or not, is associative/assimilationist harmonization, not an exegetical device; it is not a composer or compiler's response to a difficulty in the biblical text. It is very unlikely that what appear to be harmonizations are the result of the author of the Apocryphon's had but one wife-sister having story in his Vorlage, although assimilation could result from a conscious reduction of the two wife-sister episodes in the Abraham story to a single one. In that case we have a special sort of assimilation which I should term "reductionist," where combining two episodes produces a single one with traits of both. in a sense, and That kind of harmonization would be exegetical, would then actually function in a textual direction, namely the compression of a text rather than its expansion, opposite to that of most others. B. Constructive

Harmonization

for which I suggest the term The other category of harmonization, "constructive," refers to the smoothing out of the narrative by means of such devices as the secondary, anticipatory, filling-in of information not found at that location in the biblical text, but which is referred to is virtually certainly conscious, and later. This sort of harmonization is a product of the exegetical view of the author. When we recognize this sort of harmonization as an exegetical, i.e., an interpretive, deor vice, it is not difficult to see how it is related to re-arrangement

1986) 76. He writes that Abram's "lie' about Sarah is both justified and harmonized with Genesis 20."

51 anticipation of details in a text by the composer of "Re-written Bible," e.g., the supplying of particulars in advance of the place where reference is made to them in the biblical narrative. Every re-arrangement of a sort. for exegetical purposes is a harmonization In col. 19 of the Apocryphon, after Abram describes his dream and its meaning to Sarai, he proceeds (19:19-20)

This be the whole kindness which you shall do with me, wherever we are, say regarding me that "he is my brother." And I shall live because of you and my soul shall escape for your sake.z9 K"7 It has been duly noted by others that the words from &mrt3 are a translation (one would almost say "a targum") of Gen. 20:13 7i 'iD.1'n1iD? lion, and Has 1iD? rrm 12:12-13 have been integrated into the context of Genesis rtn'rt1 Ginsberg, for example, commented in his account of that episode [Abram in that "The author of GA... Egypt] combines both abridged versions into what he believes to be the full text of what Abram said at that time."3' 29 The reading where Fitzmyer reads ], follows E. Qimron, "Towards a New Edition of the Genesis Apocryphon," JSP 10 (1992) 15-16. He cites with approval the reading of B. Jongeling, C.J. Labuschagne, A.S. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts From Qumran, I (Leiden: Brill, 1976), noting that it was confirmed by with Ginsberg E. Puech in RevQ 9 (1978) 590. A literal targum might read (see the next note), but, as Fitzmyer notes, there are no remains of the lamed as we should have expected. Either the scribe wrote a very short which would be atypical of the script of the Apocryphon, or our translator is not as literal as we should prefer. There is perhaps another slight indication in favor of Fitzmyer's reading, the which suits a verb meanpreposition bet before the word for "all." The biblical ing "come," has been modified, and the resultant phrase means "wherever we are," rather than "wherever we arrive." 30 H.L. Ginsberg, "Notes on Some Old Aramaic Documents," JNES 18 (1959) 147; Fitzmyer, GAQ, 114-15. On this section in the Genesis Apocryphon see H.P. Rueger, "10 Genesis Apocryphon XIX 19f. im Lichte der Targumim," ZNW 55 (1964) 12931 and E. Osswald, "Beobachtungen zur Erzählung von Abrahams Aufenthalt in Ägypten in Genesis Apokryphon," ZAW 72 (1960) 7-25. J.C. VanderKam, ("The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon," JBL 97 [1978] 51) points out that the Apocryphon, like LXX, lacks the 2nd feminine suffix on the word for favor (MT LXX δκασνη GA as if but that issue is not germane to our discussion; neither is the presence of ("whole") before the word for "kindness" in the Apocryphon. 31 Fitzmyer (GAQ, 115) speaks of the "author of the scroll [introducing]an element...

52 What I believe has not been noticed regarding this passage is its full harmonistic nature. Abraham tells Abimelech in Gen. 20:13 that he had said to Sarah at the time of their initial wandering !T3Q 'nn '.1'ni1 that "wherever we arrive, say that he is my brother." Yet nowhere in Genesis do we find such a general favor requested by Abraham. We are not surprised that the biblical text does not preserve such an allusion, because not every detail of the earlier narrative which is alluded to later in the Pentateuch is found in its chronologically location. The creates proper Apocryphon a reference to this earlier statement in the framework of Genesis 12. Abraham's statement to Abimelech in chap. 20 is now vindicated by the text. This type of inserted anticipation of a passage occurring later has long been known as a stylistic characteristic of the Samaritan Pentateuch (= SP) which frequently expands the Hebrew text at an early point in the narrative in order to corroborate a statement occurring at a later point in the Pentateuch to the effect that something has already been done or said.32 For example, Jacob tells his wives in Gen. 31:11-13 of a dream in which an angel had spoken to him. The SP adds an account of the dream in 30:36.33 Moses' account of the instructions which the Lord had given the Israelites to leave Mount Sinai (Deut. 1:6-8) is interpolated into the biblical narrative in Num. 10:10. The Israelites' complaint to Moses before crossing the Red Sea refers to an earlier incident when they had said "Leave us alone and let us serve the Egyptians" (Exod. 14:12). Although there is no such reference in MT, SP inserts it after Exod. 6:9: "They listened not unto Moses, and said 'leave us alone... "'34 of Abram's encounter with Abimelech into the account that he is otherwise following, derived from... Gn 12." Both of these scholars consider the author's action only at the most mechanical level. 32 Cf. J. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 72: "There are also portions of the narratives of the Pentateuch which presuppose certain incidents or speeches unrecorded in MT." The Samaritan text responds by providing the earlier incident. 33 This harmonization is also found in one of the so-called Reworked Pentateuch texts from Qumran (4Q364 4b-e ii 21-26). Cf. E. Tov and S.A. White, "Reworked Pentateuch," in H. Attridge et al. eds., Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 209-10. 34 Further examples can be found in any treatment of the Samaritan text, as well as in Tov, Textual Criticism, 86-89. He treats "The Addition of a 'Source' for a Quotation" as a separate category from "Changes on the Basis of Parallel Texts, Remote or Close."

53 It is generally acknowledged that these harmonizing expansions in SP are secondary textual developments rather than reflections of genuinely varying textual traditions. Purvis speaks of "a strong pleonastic tendency in the text of SP, seen in the number of redundancies of Skehan identifies "the fullest instance expansion or supplementation." as "the 'Samaritan' of the expansionist recension of the technique" Torah."35 Tov considers harmonization which involves assimilation to parallel passages "as a subcategory of the lectio difficilior, for the assimilated reading is the 'easier' one, and the other reading the more in SP: "The harmo'difficult' one."36 He writes of the harmonizations nizations in [SP] reflect a tendency not to leave in the Pentateuchal text any internal contradiction or irregularity which could be taken as harmful to the sanctity of the Rabbinic exegetical literature responds, on occasion, to the same sort of formal stimulus in the biblical text, namely a reference to an earlier statement which is missing in the text, by demonstrating that the statement referred to is implicitly affirmed by a passage earlier in the Pentateuch. The rabbis often ask regarding such idioms as "as He has spoken," "where, then, did He speak?"" The midrash then supplies an earlier text which, while not a verbatim anticipation of the 1:Ji passage, contains its germ sufficiently, in the view of the rabbis, to be reckoned as its antecedent. The

35 Purvis; The Samaritan Pentateuch, 71; P.W. Skehan, "Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament," BA 28 (1965) 99 (the emphases are mine, MJB). The latter continues: "The Qumran caves have yielded manuscripts of the expanded Samaritan sort (but not fully Samaritan)." Cf. Skehan, "Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran," JBL 74 (1965) 182-87 and "The Scrolls and the Old Testament Text," New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 101-103; and, more recently, J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) and Tov, Textual Criticism, 80-100. Our understanding of the nature of "Samaritan" and "protoSamaritan" texts has developed considerably since those articles from the 1960's and 1970's. Some of Sanderson's remarks regarding "editorial and scribal processes" in the copying of biblical texts may have implications for our definition and understanding of the genre which Vermes has aptly termed "Re-written Bible." The question of any relationship between the Apocryphon and the Samaritan-like material at Qumran is, of course, open. 36Textual Criticism, 307. 37Ibid., 85-86. 38 For example, Mek. Pisha 12 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 39, line 17): "The land which the Lord shall give to you as He has spoken (Ex. 12:24).' Where did He speak? 'I shall bring you to the land (Ex. 6:18)."' Further listing may be found in Sifre Numbers 46 and 91 (ed. Horovitz, pp. 52 and 91, respectively).

54 earlier complaint of the Israelites against Moses which is referred to at Exod. 14:12 and is located by SP at Exod. 6:9, is connected by the rabbis, equally plausibly, with Exod. 5:21 where Moses and Aaron have left Pharaoh following his initial rejection of their pleas (Mek. Vayhi Be-shallah 2 and Tg. Ps.-J. Ex. 14:12). The fact that different locations are found by different traditions, textual and exegetical, for the same anticipatory harmonization is further evidence of its secnature. ondary It is quite interesting that SP has no such expansion, here or elsewhere (as far as I can tell), to corroborate Abraham's reference in Genesis 20 to what he had said in the past, despite the explicit verb nor in I is there effort rabbinic literature to find far as can trace) (as any an earlier "site" for Gen. 20:13.39 This passage in the Genesis Apocryphon, however, is responding to the same sort of stimulus in the biblical verse which compels the Samaritan text and the rabbis' comments elsewhere. Tov speaks of "texts which allowed for the insertion of changes, while other texts did not."4° SP is a text of the former sort, whereas the rabbis certainly never envisioned such a text and therefore had to resolve the difficulty through hyper-close reading of the only text they had. The Apocryphon, since it is "Re-written" Bible, can introduce the harmonization where it belongs, but it is not clear whether its author would have considered the absence of such a detail from his Torah text a "flaw" which needed to be repaired. It is unlikely that we can learn anything definitive about the textual affiliations of the Apocryphon from the harmonizing in its re-writing. Even if we had another ancient source which harmonized here as the Apocryphon does, we could not claim for certain that the textual or exegetical resemblance between them was due to a genetic connection, since the exegesis demanded by MT is quite logical and could have been carried out by independent exegetes. On the other hand, the connection between the tendency to harmonize in biblical texts and in "Re-written Bible" may very well be related, and if we were to find a biblical text which had harmonized in the way in which the Apocryphon has, we should not be surprised to hear it pronounced "Samaritan." Indeed VanderKam

39Tov (Textual Criticism, 86) stresses that harmonization in the Samaritan and preSamaritan texts is "neither thorough nor consistent," but "reflect[s] a mere tendency." 40Tov, "Harmonizations," 15.

55 has shown that the Hebrew text underlying the Genesis Apocryphon is a "Palestinian" type.4' also are thus intended to resolve diffiConstructive harmonizations culties or inconsistencies which appeared in the text which lay before the composer or copyist of the harmonized version. They differ from in that they are very associative and assimilationist harmonizations unlikely to be unconscious, and they fulfil the task of removing from the later version a difficulty which was present in the earlier one. This harmonization in the Apocryphon can only be attributed to such an exegetical intent. V. Concluding

Remarks

Until now, we have stressed the sometimes subtle ways in which rediffer from arrangement, anticipation and constructive harmonization one another. It is time to acknowledge, once again, how they are really variations on a single theme. All three respond to the perception of the narrator that information is missing in the biblical narrative at a point where it ought to have been furnished. In the case of once the information has been supplied, it no longer re-arrangement, has to be restated later. The reason for the apparent deficiency in the biblical text may be fairly trivial as in the case of the wealth of Abram and Lot where the re-arrangement merely allows the narrative to without proceed parenthetical interruption, or more serious as in the case of the genealogy of the family of Noah where the same information in a new location is presented more effectively than in the is directed at biblical text. But the latter, wholesale re-arrangement the same type of perceived difficulty as the narrow one, the failure of the pentateuchal narrative to offer the genealogy at the location where it seems to be demanded. In the case of anticipation, the necessary material is introduced at an earlier point in the narrative than it is in the biblical story, but it is not removed from its original location as in the case of re-arrangement. It still belongs where it appeared in the biblical narrative, but its appearance there is unexpected, or unexplained, without the earlier reference. The advance information about Hagar, Zoan/Hebron, and Eshkol and Mamre the reader of the later Amem, prevents passage

41VanderKam, "The Textual Affinities," passim, particularly his conclusion, p. 55.

56 from asking: "Where did this character, or fact, come from"? The question responded to is very much like the one precluded by the reof Noah's genealogy, and underlines the similarity bearrangement and what we term anticipation. tween what we call re-arrangement On the other hand, we could almost have described what the author of the Apocryphon does with the Arnem, Eshkol, and Mamre marather than an anticipation. terial as a re-arrangement, are the most alike of Anticipation and constructive harmonization these techniques; both fill a perceived gap in the biblical text.42 The problem resolved by the technique is more pronounced in the case of the harmonization because the difficulty is implied, and the information demanded, by the biblical text itself. Gen. 20:13 provokes the question, "Where did Abram say this?," while the stimulus for the questions in the instances of anticipation is not as sharp. Nevertheas a less, we could easily have included constructive harmonization subcategory of anticipation. A few examples of this kind do not establish a grand pattern of but they certainly rere-arrangement, anticipation and harmonization, affirm the presence of these sorts of exegetical methodology which have been observed in other material from this period. Alexander characterizes the Genesis Apocryphon's approach to the biblical text as "holistic," wherein "the author thinks ahead, and does not (as often happens in rabbinic midrash) treat the Bible atomistically as a series of discrete statements."43 Although the statement was made in the context of "anticipations," it applies equally well to the other devices we have discussed in this paper. This "exegetical foresight" indicates to us that the author of the Apocryphon was a careful reader

42 In the case of re-arrangement, it is more difficult to speak of gap-filling, since the problem it addresses is not always lack of information as much as a different disposition of the information already there. But when the re-arrangement's goal is to supply information at a different point, we can speak of it, too, as gap-filling. 43 Alexander, "Retelling the Old Testament," 107. One of his examples there is the Arnem, Eshkol and Mamre treatment. Sarfatti ("Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon," 257) although he stresses that which the Apocryphon has in common with rabbinic midrash, draws another significant distinction between Qumranic and rabbinic "creative interpretation" which bears repetition. Whereas rabbinic midrash consciously shows its exegetical process overtly and formally, a work such as the Apocryphon (and other "Rewritten Bible" texts) hides it and presents only the finished results of its recasting of the biblical text. It is that very concealing by the "Re-written Bible" of its interpretive methodology which stimulates studies like this one to attempt to expose the exegesis concealed within the narrative.

57 as well as a careful composer, and that he did not feel bound to maintain the form of the biblical original if he felt that it presented any obstacle to his reader. He employed the techniques which we have examined to produce a "Re-written Bible" which would be a more coherent and consistent narrative than its original.

BOOK

REVIEWS

Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1993. Pp. xvii + 770; suppl. vol. Pp. 149 ISBN 965-221-019-6. This elegant volume and its supplement contain almost a hundred articles, nearly all the papers given at the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990. The papers of the 1984 Jerusalem congress can be found in the corresponding volume of 1985. These congresses and their proceedings have aimed to give a new view of biblical archaeology by providing information on the latest finds and on insights from new methods for scholars working in related fields (history, history of religions, biblical literature, etc.). The date of the Second Congress marked a centenary: the first stratigraphic archaeological excavations in Palestine, under the leadership of Sir Flinders Petrie, began just a century ago. Thus the historical sessions of the Congress provided a retrospective overview for the past hundred years of the institutions, excavations, and methods associated with archaeology in Palestine/Israel. Just as the Congress began with a historical session reviewing the past, so it ended with one looking to the future of biblical archaeology; the same structure is reflected in the collection of papers (I. Recollections of the Past; X. Biblical Archaeology Today and Tomorrow). The Congress consisted of ten general sessions and two specifically devoted to the findings in the regions of Haifa and Caesarea. The regular sessions were arranged according to various perspectives: historical chronology (II. First Temple Period ; III. The Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods), thematic order (IV. Open Cult Places; V. Trade in the Late Bronze and Iron Age), and methodology (VII. Interdisciplinary Aspects of Biblical Archaeology; IX. Reexcavated Sites and Changing Archaeological Methods). Biblical archaeology has changed fundamentally in the past century, especially in the last few decades. It has been fully realized that archaeology should not be used to verify biblical texts, but to present the material world of the times which lie "behind the Bible"; statements concerning the relationship of written and archaeological sources have become much more sophisticated than before. Written sources considered as archaeological finds were the subject of two sessions, session VIII (Text and Epigraphy: Recent Discoveries-Newly Found Texts) and VI (Forty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research). The subject of the latter session was exclusively the Qumran manuscripts, an archaeological find in itself; there was no paper on the archaeology of the site of

59 Qumran or other sites in the Dead Sea region, nor any discussion of how the site and the texts are related. Qumran was presented as it is reflected in the texts found there. Thus the use of the term "Dead Sea Scrolls" in the title of the session was troublesome and was rightfully rejected by the session moderator, S. Talmon. The term Dead Sea Scrolls designates all the manuscripts found all over the Judaean Desert; they originate from different periods and represent various kinds of documents, whereas the manuscripts found in the caves near to Wadi Qumran represent a much more homogeneous group, a kind of collection of literary works or library, and they can be treated with good reason as an archaeological unity. After the initial passionate polemics, there is now a general consensus about what exactly this complex of manuscripts is. They are extremely important for the study of the history of ideas and literature of the Second Temple period, being the unique group of sources which are able to fill the blank between the age of the Babylonian exile and the lst century CE, having an equal significance for the origin of both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. In the first major Qumran presentation J.C. Greenfield summarizes the way the Qumran manuscripts are being published ("The Qumran Scrolls: Published and Unpublished"). He describes the material in three familiar categories : (1) biblical texts, a group which should receive more attention, for it has a pivotal importance in the study of the transmission of the biblical text, and has fundamentally changed opinions concerning the MT; (2) "library texts," i.e. works the content of which was acceptable to the group/sect of Qumran and may have influenced the sectarian writings; (3) "sectarian works," those reflecting a certain uniformity in style and ideas, which might have been bom in a (spiritual) community. Fortunately, the 1990 list of publications presented here has been extended now, not only with the microfiche edition of the whole corpus, but also with several new scholarly editions of Qumran texts such as DJD IX and X (the long-awaited publication of 4QMMT by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell). M. Stone's paper, "The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls," is a strikingly original view of the relationship of the Qumran texts to the well-known corpus of Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. It should be noted that Stone speaks exclusively about Qumran works, though he uses the term Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have their origins in the Second Temple period and embrace works of various contents, genres, forms, and circles of origin. Since the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha are both produced alongside the process of the canonization and transmission of biblical (and other) texts, the characteristics of this literature cannot be described in literary terms, but only in negative terms: they are neither biblical nor rabbinical, and do not belong to Jewish Hellenistic literature. None of these works was transmitted by the

60 Sages, in spite of their essentially biblical character (the themes and figures of these works are derived from biblical literature, and the Pseudepigrapha were even written under the names of biblical figures). The works known to us were preserved in Christian tradition in various translations (the whole corpus is not known). Stone argues that the Qumran manuscripts have fundamentally changed our view of this literature. In Qumran many of these texts were preserved (usually now only as fragments) in manuscripts coming from different periods. The Qumran finds have made possible the revision of the dating of these works (even the dating of their different constituent parts), and the establishment of their original arrangement. It has become obvious that these works are rooted in a much older layer (3rd century BCE) of Jewish literature than was previously supposed. These finds have opened a vast new perspective on Jewish tradition and on the social and literary trends of the period from the return from the Babylonian exile. J.M. Baumgarten's presentation, "The Qumran Cave 4 Fragments of the Damascus Document," offers comments on the fragmentary texts related to the medieval Cairo Damascus Document. Palaeographically the fragments range from the Hasmonean to the Herodian period. They deal with legal issues (e.g., skin diseases and cases of marital law). Almost half of the text of CD has parallels in the Qumran fragments. These fragments do indeed belong to the Damascus Document and the Qumran form of the text clearly contained much more legal material than was previously thought. The fragments should even change our views concerning the genre and purpose of the Damascus Document: it was, in all probability, a corpus of legal material preceded by an introduction (the Admonition). The fragmentary texts also demonstrate that the medieval copies of the Damascus Document are reliable copies of ancient texts. In "Sacred Space: The Land of Israel in the Temple Scroll," L.H. Schiffman analyses the notion of sacred place in a "library" text which can be dated to a period earlier than the establishment of the Qumran community. The work presents an ideal Israel and an ideal Temple and in places is a polemic against the Hasmoneans and Pharisees. In spite of these polemical traits it is not a polemical work, but an imitation Torah, a reworking of the canonical Torah, giving a fully utopian view of Israel. Schiffman concludes that the author (or editor) of the Temple Scroll does not reflect the ideas of the Qumran sect in his scroll. Though it really is not as easy to categorize ideas as "Qumranic" or "non-Qumranic" as Schiffman supposes, he is right that the presence of an idealized group in the Temple Scroll known only as "Israel" can be considered to reflect a stage prior to the more narrowly defined categories of self-definition such as "Judah" which are known from the overtly "sectarian" works of Qumran. In his "Closing Remarks" H.M. Orlinsky demands that basic research in

BOOK REVIEWS

61

Qumran studies should "go back to the sources without permitting anyone else's opinion of them to intervene." I think that the papers presented at the Congress did exactly that. Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest

IDA FRÖHLICH

Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus. Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des Jüdischen Historiographen, by Roland Bergmeier. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Pp. 175. ISBN 90-390-0014-X. This small but remarkable book by R. Bergmeier is a study of Josephus' reports on the Essenes. It is a comparison between the evidence in Josephus and in the Qumran texts. While T.S. Beall's Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (1988)-for several years the study on a collection of parallels between Josephus and the Qumran the topic-is texts, Bergmeier has taken the courageous step of going deeper by enquiring about Josephus' sources and their particular intentions. The method and task of the investigation are formulated in the "Introduction." The aim of analysing the literary character and historical value of Josephus' reports on the Essenes is to find out why there are both so many obvious correspondences between Josephus' texts and the Qumran texts but also so many vast differences. Although it is entirely legitimate to put the question in this traditional way, i.e., to assume that the authors of the Qumran texts were Essenes, the reader might have wished to have at least some references to the current discussion of the identification of the Qumran texts' authors with Jewish groups other than the Essenes (e.g., Sadducees, or none of the known groups). In the first chapter Bergmeier defines the different character of the various reports in Josephus. While War 1:79-80 (Ant. 13:311-13) and 2:112-13 (Ant. 17:345-48) stem from the historical work of Nicolaos of Damascus, the extensive presentation of the Jewish philosophical schools (War 2:119-66; also Ant. 13:171-73; 18:11-22) come from elsewhere. Bergmeier observes firstly that there is no relationship between the first group of texts ("EssenerAnekdoten") coming from Nicolaos and the second ("Essener-Referate"), and secondly that Josephus himself is not an authentic contemporary witness. As a result he raises the question of there being other sources for the "EssenerReferate." Chapter two is primarily a comparison of Josephus' "Essener-Referate" and Philo's reports on the Essenes. Bergmeier argues that there are two focuses in language and content which relate the reports. The first is found in Josephus' relationship to Philo's Prob. 75-91, Apol. 1-18, and De Vita Contemplativa. Bergmeier suggests that Philo and Josephus have both used a

62 "hellenistisch-jiidische Essaer-Darstellung als Quelle" (p. 48). The second focus consists of statements on the Essenes by Pliny and on the so-called Therapeutae by Philo which are related to the Essenes of Josephus; in all these places they appear as "Jewish Pythagoreans." Unfortunately the much debated question of the relationship between Josephus and Hippolytus of Rome (Refutatio 9 §§18:2-28:2) is not actually considered. Bergmeier thinks that Hippolytus' report on the Essenes is nothing but an adaptation of Josephus' War 2:119-61 and is in no way an independent witness for a source which had also been used by Josephus. His opinion contradicts, for example, those of M. Smith, L.H. Schiffman, and t. Puech, whose exemplary study of the relationship between Refutatio 9 §§1 8:2-28:2 and War 2:151-66 has appeared since Bergmeier's study was published; Puech argues convincingly not only that both Josephus and Hippolytus used the same source, but also that somewhat surprisingly this source was handed down more reliably by Hippolytus than by Josephus (t. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, risurrection, vie eternelle? [EB 22; Paris: Gabalda, 1993] 2.703-69). In chapter three Bergmeier analyses the character and special intention of each of the four different sources which were used by Josephus. He also compares these with the Qumran texts. Bergmeier distinguishes (a) a pagan source of individual anecdotes about the Esseans (Essaioi) as mantics, coming from the work of Nicolaos of Damascus; (b) a "stoische Drei-SchulenQuelle" which had already been adapted in Hellenistic Judaism before Josephus, identifying the schools with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes, and to which Josephus added the fourth group, the Zealots; (c) a Hellenistic Jewish "Essaer-Quelle," which Philo had already used and which describes the Esseans (Essaioi) according to Hellenistic ideals about philosophers as ascetics, and which was also combined with traditions about the Maccabean martyrs; and (d) a "pythagorisierende Essener-Quelle," which was the most important source for Josephus. Most of the concrete correspondences with details in the Qumran texts come from this last source; in particular these concern details of organization and daily life, while there are differences concerning beliefs. Bergmeier argues that this is the most influential source in Josephus' report on the Essenes in War 2:119-61 and Ant. 18:18-22. Basically, Bergmeier's examination of Josephus' sources and the comparison with the Qumran texts is done well. A few criticisms of his interpretation of the Qumran texts should be mentioned. He erroneously denies that the Essenes believed in a future resurrection (p. 65); their belief in this matter has recently been demonstrated by E. Puech (La croyance, 1993), notably in relation to 4Q521. The orientation of the graves in the cemetery should also be considered as archaeological testimony to such a belief at Qumran. In the case of community property a slightly more differentiated view would

63 have been desirable; cf. on the question especially H. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg: Herder, 19944) 245-64. Furthermore, Bergmeier follows the traditional view of the Qumran settlement, assuming that it was a kind of monastery, the centre of Essene activity (p. 116). In fact none of the Qumran texts speaks of Qumran as the centre (in 4QMMT Jerusalem is the centre!), but of a number of "camps" and "towns"; cf. on this H. Stegemann, "The Qumran Essenes-Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times," The Madrid Qumran Congress (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992) 1.134-37. This confirms the statements in the Hellenistic Jewish "Essaer-Quelle" and not, as Bergmeier thinks, those of the "pythagorisierende Essener-Quelle." Nevertheless, these criticisms do not actually seem to affect Bergmeier's overall evaluation of the different sources and his vote for the source which makes the Essenes into Pythagoreans as the best informed. In general, Bergmeier might have given more thought to the role of Josephus himself as redactor of his sources, which is an important issue. Methodologically valuable is Bergmeier's fresh demonstration that Essenoi and Essaioi both refer to the same religious group in Josephus' texts, being variant designations which enable us to differentiate between the sources. In chapter four Bergmeier describes some linguistic characteristics which support his theory that Josephus used sources extensively in War 2:116-61. As for chapter five, it should be noted additionally now that t. Puech has shown that for palaeographical reasons the problem posed by the phrase (Mur 45 6: DJD II, 163-64, pl. XLVII) is irrelevant to the dis1'`TOt1 cussion of the Essenes' name (see t. Puech, "La « Fortresse de Pieux » et Kh. Qumran. A propos du papyrus Murabba'dt 45," RevQ 16/63 [1994] 46372). The book concludes with a bibliography and indices of modem authors, keywords, and sources. Bergmeier's study on the different sources in Josephus, each with its own special literary intention, explains many of the differences between the Essenes in the Qumran texts and in Josephus, and it therefore undermines those who argue strongly against the identification of the authors of the Qumran texts with the Essenes. At the same time the book reminds us once more to be very cautious in using Josephus' texts for reconstructing our picture of the historical Essenes. Josephus' texts can certainly be used to confirm what we know from the Qumran texts about the Essenes but they should not be used as the determinative basis for our understanding of the Essenes. Overall this is a challenging new attempt to answer old questions. Göttingen University

ANNETTESTEUDEL

64

BOOK REVIEWS Minhah le-Nahum. Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday, edited by Marc Brettler & Michael Fishbane. JSOTSup 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Pp. 337 + x. ISBN 1-85075-419-5.

This Festschrift is dedicated to one of the present generation's great scholars of the Bible and Judaism. Having trained in England under several luminaries of yesteryear-such as Isidore Epstein and Cecil Roth-Sarna came to the United States over 40 years ago and obtained the Ph.D. with Cyrus Gordon at Dropsie College. After serving at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, he taught from 1965 at Brandeis University until his retirement. Sarna's scholarly contributions include research on Genesis, Exodus and the Psalms in the light of ANE literature and medieval Jewish commentators. The collection contains 22 essays on Biblical, Second Temple, Aramaic and medieval Jewish themes, but only four contributions are relevant to Qumran studies and thus merit comment in this specialized journal. In "Fragments of a Psalms Scroll from Masada, MPs' (Masada 11031742)," Shemaryahu Talmon makes available the long-awaited edition of the second Psalms scroll found at Masada (pp. 318-27). Dating the manuscript to the last half century BCE, Talmon provides a photograph, description and transcription of the two surviving pieces, comments on the format (prose) of the columns, and shows that MpSb agrees with the Masoretic Text MpSb HI against two variant readings in llQPsa (cf. 150:6 nDvl7 bD llQPsa). The article concludes with a reconstructed text of the two represented columns, which originally contained Psalms 147-50. In "llQPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms" (pp. 193-201), Menahem Haran disagrees with James Sanders' view that llQPsa represents a stage in the formation of the last two books of the Psalter, regarding it instead as a liturgical collection containing psalms from the biblical Psalter and some extra-biblical works. Irrespective of which position is correct, Haran's article proves disappointing because of the suppositions adopted and the methodology employed. For instance, he presumes that all Qumran Psalms manuscripts containing more than one chapter were arranged according to the order of the MT unless otherwise proved, characterizes llQPsa as "a hotchwith constant skippings forwards and backwards" potch of psalms, ... (p. 196), summarily dismisses Gerald Wilson's important study The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) as "rather shaky" (p. 198), denies that the function of David's Compositions in col. XXVII is to assert the Davidic character of the whole collection (p. 200), and regards four of the "non-biblical" psalms found in 11 QPsa as the personal creations of Qumran scribes (p. 199). Even those scholars who accept Haran's basic

65 thesis would disagree with several of these controversial assertions, which certainly require fuller articulation. "Pharisees and Sadducees in Pesher Nahum" (pp. 272-90), by Lawrence H. Schiffman, explores the significance of 4QpNah for our understanding of the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Hasmonaean period. Schiffman arrives at the following historical outline in the light of this Qumran document and other material such as 4QMMT. In the early days of the dynasty, the Pharisees were allied with the Hasmonaeans and their views were dominant. However, a later break in relations led to the ascendance of the Sadducees, who became associated with the much more hellenized Hasmonaeans. The Pharisees tried to regain power by challenging Alexander Jannaeus, but were unsuccessful, and the Sadducees drew closer to him. Sadducean rulings were now observed in the Temple in place of the earlier Pharisaic ones. Finally, after the period described in our text, a rapprochement between Salome Alexandra (76-67 BCE) and the Pharisees took place. Schiffman shows that 4QpNah is negative towards both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, with the destruction of the latter expected in the imminent eschaton. Little actual critique of the Sadducees is preserved, although their aristocratic character may be observed. More details about the Pharisees are evident, such as the role of halakhic midrash in their method of deriving law, and their considerable following among the people. According to Schiffman, the material from 4QpNah and the other texts generally confirms the picture found in Josephus and Rabbinic sources. Michael Fishbane's contribution, "Law to Canon: Some 'Ideal-Typical' Stages of Development" (pp. 65-86), is not overtly related to Qumran studies but is of relevance to our understanding of the canonical process. Fishbane defines canon as the "measure" of a culture's facts and artifacts, and gives weight to textual boundaries, authorial checks, and cultural checks (p. 66). He distinguishes three distinct stages of recontextualization: (a) older rules and their expansion; (b) the inclusion of supplemented legal series within narrative sequences; and (c) the collation of legal corpora into a comprehensive literary history. This Festschrift contains much of interest to Dead Sea Scrolls scholars as well as to those involved in Biblical Studies, the Second Temple period, and medieval Judaism. It concludes with a list of the published writings of Nahum Sama from 1953 to 1992. Dead Sea Scrolls Institute Trinity Western University, Canada

PETER W. FLINT

66

BOOK REVIEWS Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls, by J.H. Charlesworth with R.E. Whitaker, L.G. Hickerson, S.R.A. Starbuck, and L.T. Stuckenbruck. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)/Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Pp. xxxi + 529. DM 248. ISBN 3-16-145797-8.

The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project under the editorship of J.H. Charlesworth is currently producing a series of editions of Dead Sea Scrolls of which the first two volumes have now appeared, cf. the review of the first volume by Daniel Falk in DSD 2 (1995) 227-32. The project is planning to accompany this series with the publication of two concordances : the Graphic Concordance and a concordance in the traditional style. The Graphic Concordance is very much the product of our computerised times. Whitaker and Starbuck are responsible for the software and programs that were used to present each word that occurs in the documents considered in concordance format as they appear in the texts. Hence the term "graphic" which serves to indicate that every Hebrew or Aramaic word is entered into the concordance in the form in which it is written including prepositions, endings, prefixes, etc. The volume includes a foreword by Martin Hengel. The introduction (p. xii) describes the format of the Graphic Concordance as follows: The presentationof the data in this volume is neutral in that each entry is given in its attested form. Thus the concordanceis non-intrusive.The forms are not parsed accordingto the conventionsof western scholarship.Instead, all concordedforms remain unanalyzed,i.e. reflect what previous editors have transcribedfrom the manuscripts themselves.This means that preformativesand "inseparableparticles" [...] are not separatedfrom the "root" forms they modify. On reading this one cannot help but feel that a certain amount of window dressing has coloured these few lines. It seems most unlikely that the Princeton team conceived of the advantages of a Graphic Concordance first and then set out to produce such a work with the help of computer technology. Rather, it seems more likely that the format of the Graphic Concordance is based mainly on the limitations of what a skilfully programmed computer can produce. The result is of some value, but its value is limited. In terms of scope the Graphic Concordance is based on the editions of all "Qumran sectarian texts" published before 1990, cf. p. xi. Moreover, on pp. xi-xii it is spelt out: These editions contain (inter alia) the previouslypublishedsectarianwritings of the Qumrancommunityand similar documents(viz. CD, IIQTemple)which the Qumran Convenanters[sic] not only inheritedbut also edited. Such a statement implies all kinds of assumptions. It would have been preferable to avoid the taxing question of distinguishing "sectarian" and "nonsectarian" works in compiling a tool such as a concordance. Much scholarly

67 discussion has been generated and continues to be provoked on discussing in detail the relationship of the non-biblical texts from Qumran to one or several forms of social organization. A less contentious and loaded description for the body of texts on which to base a concordance may be the nonbiblical Qumran corpus. Even the common distinction between "Qumran sectarian literature" and "pseudepigrapha" is becoming increasingly unhelpful. Had a work like the Temple Scroll, for example, survived in secondary or tertiary translation we would today be studying it as a pseudepigraphon. It is methodologically questionable to classify the available literature in this way. In practice, the term "sectarian writings from Qumran" is used rather widely in the Graphic Concordance. This problem is somewhat alleviated now by Charlesworth's remarks in his Preface to Qumran Questions (Biblical Seminar 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) which he has edited; there on pp. 7-8 he includes a very nuanced and most helpful statement on the relationships of various bodies of early Jewish literature. The Graphic Concordance draws on 223 texts, over 3,500 fragments and contains more than 59,000 entries. A list of all the texts considered is found on pp. xxi-xxviii which is referred to as a list of abbreviations. This list is followed by a bibliography on pp. xxix-xxx. This bibliography is selective and does not purport to be complete. Included are what the Princeton team regard as "the best editions now available" (p. xxix). Fragments published before 1990 are included if they contain at least one complete word or if a related fragment contains a complete word. In practice, this principle can leave us with seven pages of entries for the letter lamed on its own (pp. 323-30) in cases where fragments contain a complete word either in a previous or subsequent line, which seems somewhat excessive to the reviewer. The choice of bold square brackets in order to identify restorations based on other copies of a document is most helpful. The choice of the abbreviations IQSa and 1 QSbinstead of the conventional lQSa and lQSb to refer to the two annexes to 1QS may invite confusion. A high level of accuracy in the body of the concordance was achieved with the aid of a computer. A comprehensive and up-to-date concordance of the non-biblical Qumran corpus is desperately needed. Unfortunately the present volume does not succeed in filling that need. It is regrettable that the data included in this concordance was not made to conform to the standard concordance format. The main reason why the standard format of concordances is so useful is, of course, that it allows the scholar to trace with ease every occurrence of a word. The chief shortcoming of the Graphic Concordance is that it simply does not list all the occurrences of a word in one place. The amount of time one would need to invest in tracking down every entry of a word is unreasonable. It may be hoped that the labours of all those involved in producing the Graphic Concordance will be more fully rewarded with the appearance

BOOK REVIEWS

68

of the second Princeton concordance that is planned to follow the publication of the editions of DSS in the same series. In the meantime scholars will continue to rely on the concordance material listed in J. Fitzmyer's The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study' as well as the Preliminary Concordance.2 It is, finally, particularly regrettable that a work of such obviously provisional nature was published in the form of such a high quality and costly volume. University of Birmingham

CHARLOTTEHEMPEL

1 Revised Edition; Resources for Biblical Study 20; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990, p. 111. 2A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Caves II-XI; Including Especially the Unpublished Material from Cave IV, by J. Strugnell et al. eds. Printed from a card index prepared by R.E. Brown et al. Prepared and arranged for printing by H.-P. Richter. Vols. I-V, Göttingen: Privately Published, 1988.

The Ancient Library of Qumran, by Frank Moore Cross. Revised Third Edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Pp. 204; 19 figures. £27.50; $41.00. ISBN 1-85075-511-6. This 3rd edition of Frank Cross' classic work joins several other significant studies on the scrolls which have recently been reprinted or reissued with new introductory material and some minor revisions. The text has been entirely reset by Sheffield Academic Press. Though in most places the alterations constitute only minor corrections, anybody referring to Cross' work will of course have to specify the edition being used. This may be especially important, for example, in referring to the footnotes (which often contain the most interesting information), because She?eld's house style, applied here, is to number footnotes beginning with 1 on each page, rather than sequentially through a whole chapter. In fact this leads to a problem on page 172 in this new edition where note 5 has been copied straight from the original text in the Madrid Qumran Congress volume. There it reads correctly "See above in the paper cited in note 4"; in the Sheffield edition this should have been altered to p. 172, note 2. There are two major additions to the text. The first is a supplement to Chapter 1, based in part on the 1967 German edition. In seven pages there is a brief but helpful survey of related discoveries during the period 19601993 and a summary bibliography. However, in this supplementary material minor errors have sadly not been avoided: on p. 49 in note 3 the title of the article by Eshel and Misgav is wrong (though correct on p. 172); on p. 50,

69 line 7 talks of "the Zealot phase of the Masada"; on p. 50 note 2 describes the two fragments of 2QSir as in DJD III "Plate XV, p. 18" when it should be well known that DJD plates do not carry page numbers (the mistake has arisen because 2QSir is 2Q18); on p. 51, lines 20-21, van der Woude has the initials A.D. (instead of A.S.), and both he and van der Ploeg have their van with a capital V, against normal Dutch practice; on p. 52, line 17, Wilfred G.E. Watson is now Waterson; on p. 53, lines 9-10, the title of Stegemann's book is partially anglicized "Johannes der Täufer and Jesus" and is said to have been published in Wein (which may account, at least partially, for its great popularity!). The second substantial addition is a revised and expanded version of Cross' lecture "Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies," presented at the Madrid Congress and published in the proceedings: The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner ; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992) 1.1-14. One of the expansions of that paper is a paragraph (p. 183) on the derivation of the name Essene; even in the first edition of The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (p. 37, n. 1) Cross had declared his preference for associating the term with the root hsn, "holy." The principal objection against this was that the root only occurred in East Aramaic. Cross now declares that objection redundant by referring to 4Q213a (TLevib ar; PAM 43.242) which contains the phrase i1'on Dv, "the name of his holy one." In the full citation of the Aramaic phrase on p. 183, has been wrongly placed at the end rather than at the start of the phrase. A further expansion of the Madrid paper is a clear statement (p. 186) on how elements common to both Sadducean legal teachings in later Rabbinic debates and halakhah in the scrolls should be viewed; such commonalities in no way undermine the identification of the Qumranites as Essenes. A third significant expansion of the earlier paper is the publication (pp. 189-91) of the Aramaic of 4Q246 together with an English translation and a few comments. Cross' edition contains some significant readings and restorations which are now put in the public domain to be taken into account alongside those of other scholars who have worked on the text. For Cross the messianic interpretation of this "Son of God" text is to be preferred. In addition to these expansions to the text, there is a significant expansion in the plates, notably with the publication of the charts of scripts from Cross' long chapter, "The Development of the Jewish Scripts," published in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G.E. Wright; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961) 133-202. Cross consistently refers to this study as a monograph, though to my knowledge it has never been published independently. Four script charts are included; those omitted from the 1961 study are Figure 3, "Early Semicursive Scripts";

BOOK REVIEWS

70

Figure 5, "Herodian and Post-Herodian Cursive Scripts"; Figure 6, "Early Nabataean and Palmyrene Scripts"; and Figure 7, "Early Nabataean Scripts." This book was a landmark study and much of the information and argumentation it contains is still very significant. It is good to see it being reissued, though obviously it must be used with caution. Cross declares himself sceptical of many of the attempts at the close literary analysis of key texts, the layers of which then have to be related somehow to the history of the movement and its communities. Even if he is justified to some extent in that, the various forms of such texts as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document demand an explanation from every modern interpreter beyond that the variety was the result of scribal whim. The early history of the community at Qumran is also still far from clear as is the categorization of many of the texts as either "sectarian" or "non-sectarian." Furthermore the extensive use of the term "Apocalyptic" is no longer as helpful as it might have been when this book was first written. Amongst those matters which abide are Cross' highly knowledgeable appreciation of the details in so many of the biblical manuscripts found in the Qumran caves and elsewhere, his proper use of the classical sources alongside the information from the scrolls themselves, and the palaeographical and orthographical assessment of the manuscripts. Also of continuing significance is the Postscript which should be read by every Christian who feels that the scrolls undermine the distinctiveness of Christianity. It is also good to see Dead Sea Discoveries described as an "important journal" on p. 51, though readers and potential contributors should know that this journal is not dedicated exclusively to Qumran studies as Cross suggests. Indeed the word Qumran has been deliberately avoided in our title and subtitle in order that the journal may encourage studies of all the manuscript finds of the period and analyses which do not consider the Qumran finds in isolation. University of Manchester

GEORGEJ. BROOKE

The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue. Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers, compiled by Stephen A. Reed, revised and edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg with the collaboration of Michael B. Phelps. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Pp. xlvi + 558. ISBN 0-7885-0017-1 (hbk); ISBN 0-7885-0018-X (pbk). This volume is the third edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue compiled by Stephen Reed, but in all probability not the last one, since "the nature of Dead Sea Scrolls research makes it a certainty that a work such as this will never be completely finished" (p. xvi).

71 The project of preparing a complete inventory of the DSS documents, photographs and museum inventory numbers was initiated in 1988 by the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. The project originally had two goals: the production of a computerized database for on-line access, and the publication of a hard copy edition of the same information (p. xiii). The first preliminary printed edition (1991-1992) was published in fourteen fascicles: eight of them devoted to the Qumran materials and the others covering the finds from Murabba`at, Khirbet Mird, Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Wadi Seiyal, Nahal Hever, etc., and Masada (pp. xiii-xiv). The second edition was produced to accompany the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (E. Tov with the collaboration of S.J. Pfann) as the Inventory List of Photographs (compiled by S.A. Reed; edited by M.J. Lundberg; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). "The present book contains all of the information included in the preliminary fascicles under one cover. The former lists have been updated, edited and revised. New bibliographic material has been included, and information from new publications has been added to the document and photograph lists. The document sigla and editors have been revised according to updated lists received from Emanuel Tov, Editor-in-Chief of the DSS. The lists have been completely reformatted in an effort to make them more readable and easier to use" (p. xiv). This volume's introduction contains all the information necessary for its effective use. The Catalogue itself is arranged in three lists: "Documents" (Part One: pp. 1-282), "Photographs" (Part Two: pp. 283-470), and "Museum Inventory Numbers" (Part Three: pp. 471-526). In the list of documents the manuscripts are ordered sequentially according to the numbers designated by the editors. Included in each entry are the photograph numbers which pertain to these documents as well as the present location of the actual fragments. The photographs which pertain to each item are cited according to the PAM (Palestine Archaeological Museum, now the Rockfeller Museum) series or various other series. The information given about these series on pp. xix-xx and the list of abbreviations on pp. 543-48 are very helpful for familiarizing the reader with the range of materials which can now be consulted. The earlier photographs within the PAM collections are marked by an initial 40, 41, or 42; the later photographs, in which the fragments are better organized and closer to the format in which the documents have been or will be published, are marked by an initial 43 or 44. In this catalogue the precise fragments included within each photographic plate which has been published in the DJD series are specified. In the list of documents the bibliography pertaining to each item contains its editio princeps, and sometimes some other basic publication concerning the item. The lists of photographs and of the museum inventory numbers are crossreferenced to the list of documents. Nevertheless, according to the editors'

BOOK REVIEWS

72

own comments, "all three are necessary to provide all the information that scholars may need in their research," as "there is often no one-to-one correspondence among documents, photographs and museum inventory numbers" (p. xxi). Moreover, this volume includes lists of photographs that have not yet been completely catalogued (see pp. xx, 447-70). This indicates the lengths to which the compilers of this volume have gone to create a comprehensive inventory of DSS material. As for the assistance this volume provides to the regular routine work of scholars, the list of the photographs, followed by the specification of the actual fragments included within each plate, is most helpful, for example, in complementing the insufficient information given for the PAM photographs printed in the Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by R.H. Eisenman and J.M. Robinson (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991). The list of museum inventory numbers is needed for ordering prints of the photographs, and is also helpful for those working on the actual fragments in the museums when they ask for those museum plates which they need for their work. The changes introduced in the editorial designations of the DSS are conveyed in two parallel lists in which the old sigla of the 4Q manuscripts are updated to their Q numbers ("Overview of Cave 4 Documents," pp. xxvixxxvi, and "Appendix: List of Card Concordance Correlations," pp. 529-41). As editors of the unpublished documents "may still make changes in titles and sigla for particular documents as they are published" (p. xxv), these lists are likely to be changed in the future. The Appendix includes lists of abbreviations and a bibliography as well. In conclusion, the systematic arrangement of all the lists which are included in this volume makes it an effective tool for scholars who deal with the DSS. No comprehensive research involving the Scrolls can be done without being familiar with the information compiled in this catalogue. However, the recent rapid rate of publication of unpublished material will require a further revised and updated edition to be produced before too long. Tel Aviv University

BILHAHNITZAN

The Veneration of Divine Justice: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity, by Roy A. Rosenberg. Contributions to the Study of Religion 40; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995. Pp. xiii + 146. ISBN 0-31329655-3. There are three parts to the thesis of this book. To begin with Rosenberg asserts that the dominant characteristic of the movement represented in the non-biblical scrolls found at Qumran is sedeq (Rosenberg's system of transliteration and italicization is not always consistent; in this review I have

73 tried to follow his usage in order to reflect the points he is making about the overall frequency of the root). This sedeq is reflected in the name the movement gives itself, "sons of Sadoq," this being the Sadoq of CD 5:5 which is the name of the Teacher of CD l:ll. The sect began to take form c. 195 BCE, breaking away from the priests of Jerusalem and considering that their fellowship replaced the temple's sacrificial offerings. This sect venerated "truth") as a ?edeq ("righteousness," "propriety," "vindication," "justice," heavenly being, the Angel of Light. Most importantly, at the end of days the sect looked for three figures, the Moreh Sedeq, the anointed priest of the line of Sadoq who would function as the "one and only Correct Teacher" (p. x), the Meshiah Sedeq, the true anointed lay leader of the community, and Malki-Sedeq, the Angel of Light, priest and king for ever. A second aspect of the presentation is that of the atoning character of the lives of the community's leadership. Rosenberg translates IQS 8:3-4 as "bringing forgiveness of sin through works of justice and the affliction that refines" and understands it to mean that the members of the council "were to afflict themselves to bring forgiveness for the sins of their community" (p. 63). When the messiahs come that affliction was to be endured by the lay leader of the community, a view which Rosenberg bases on understandl9nvr i'nn?i1i inïl1i1:J7v&) as being ing 2 Sam. 7:14b (C'7R in "If as it (the people) commits iniquity, I interpreted by Sadoqite exegetes will punish him (the king) with the rod of men..." This applies proleptically to the leaders of the community, and ultimately to the Davidic messiah. He then proposes that the root in 2 Sam. 7:14 allows a connection with the "Innocent one" of Isaiah 52-53 who in Isa. 53:4 is described as l1iJ). Though there are no clear statements in the scrolls concerning the death of the Davidic messiah, for Rosenberg the texts from Qumran convey all the components of an atoning vicarious death of one who is saddiq, "innocent." So, the third aspect of the book is to argue that all sections of the NT must be seen against this background. The parallels are not coincidental but the whole picture is one of the dependence on Sadoqite views of Jesus himself and all forms of early Christianity. The dependence is not straightforward, but an interesting adjustment of the Sadoqite views so that Jesus is seen to be the focus of each of the three eschatological personages. As heir to John the Baptist he is the correct teacher. He is adopted as the Davidic prince at his baptism, and, though innocent, like the Isaianic servant he is lifted up ($101; especially according to the Fourth Gospel) for the sins of the people. As of the order of Melchizedek he was viewed as the heavenly priest-king who was "the incarnation of Divine Justice" (p. 96). Connections between the scrolls and the NT are not new but this book's approach to the relationship is problematic because of the way the texts are handled. Firstly, Rosenberg sketches his proposal that the term sedeq was widely recognized throughout the ancient near east as an epithet for God

74 or his agent; then he implies, rather than argues, that in late second temple Judaism it was only the Sadoqites who appreciated this and through them subsequently the Christians. There is no testing of this hypothesis through consideration of Jewish texts that are more or less contemporary with the Qumran scrolls. This is peculiar, since Rosenberg sometimes expresses surprise that no scholar has noticed the overall significance of sedeq in the scrolls and the NT. Perhaps such scholarly omission results not from lack of insight but from consideration of all the evidence: though there are not many contemporary Jewish texts in Hebrew, consultation of a concordance of contemporary Jewish Greek texts shows that 8ixavos and 5iKaioJbvq are very common terms in all kinds of writings; it is not that remarkable to find the terminology in many of the scrolls and in the NT. Rosenberg is right to try to lay out the significance of sedeq in the scrolls, but he allows himself to be carried towards an overall synthesis beyond what the evidence really permits. In fact, the "Correct Teacher" features only in CD and some of the pesharim, the Davidic messiah is described as Sedeq only in 4Q252, Melchizedek is named as such in only one text. It would have been more appropriate if the sedeq terminology in the scrolls had been presented more analytically. In poetic texts it is important to consider the use of the terminology in context not just by itself, to note what concepts are used in parallel and in contrast. In community rules it is important to ask whether the terminology, particularly "Sons of Sadoq," reflects a particular group within the movement at some stage in its development; since the term is not used persistently or consistently, it needs to be presented and discussed in a highly nuanced fashion. In the pesharim it is intriguing that apart from in the title of the Teacher, the sedeq group of terms barely occurs at all. A second problematic matter in Rosenberg's handling of texts is the way he has the evidence say something particular which in itself is barely possible but by the next stage in the overall presentation has become a plank in the argument. So, for example, as mentioned above, 1QS 8:1-5 is understood to mean that the members of the council "were to afflict themselves to bring forgiveness for the sins of their community" (p. 63). Is this really what the text means? And then such a reading becomes evidence for how the community's leaders may be thought of as the precursors of the expected lay messiah who likewise would suffer (and die) for the community. Or again, Rosenberg uses 2 Sam. 7:14b to underpin his theory of the vicarious punishment of the Davidic messiah. But it is important to note that this half verse is nowhere quoted and exegeted in the Qumran scrolls. Indeed, it may be that quite the opposite is the case, because when 2 Sam. 7:11-14 are quoted in 4Q174, several half verses are omitted, deliberately in my opinion, probably because they said things that the author of the commentary did not want intruding into his exposition. Or again, Rosenberg implies that if the

75 account of Jesus' baptism is correct, Jesus would have understood the voice from heaven ("You are my beloved son...") as referring to 2 Sam. 7:14 in its entirety; thus he would have recognized that he was being invested with Davidic sonship and assigned the destiny of chastisement. But, whilst acknowledging that the story of the baptism in Mark is about Jesus being portrayed as accepting his vocation to die, most scholars would look primarily to Ps. 2:7 or Isa. 42:1 or even Gen. 22:2 for understanding the scriptural allusions in Mark 1:11, only secondarily to 2 Sam. 7:14. Or again, in light of Mark 1:15, in which Jesus is portrayed as taking over the elements of John the Baptist's teaching, in light of Mark 1:22, where he is described as teaching with authority, and in light of Matt. 7:24-29, in which Jesus declares the value of his instruction, Rosenberg claims that "Jesus holds forth as the moreh sedeq, the only teacher whose teaching will endure" (p. 80)-but surely this is to say far too much. A third problem in Rosenberg's approach is how he considers the scrolls and the NT to be related. He views the relationship as one of direct dependence, but the mechanism for this is never clearly spelled out. It seems to work through syllogism. For example, Rosenberg states that (1) the Fourth Gospel is written against the Jews (i.e., the Pharisees) who are accused of being from their father the Devil, (2) some Sadoqite texts are written against the Pharisees who are linked with Belial, therefore (3) this attitude of "antiSemitism" in the Fourth Gospel "is derived directly from the animosity that obtained between the Sadoqites and the Pharisees, beginning perhaps two and a half centuries before the Gospel was written" (p. 105). This is not adequate for describing or explaining the history of literary traditions or motifs and their relationships. For Paul the link with the scrolls is also described as extensive but it is explained imprecisely. Rosenberg reckons that the teaching on "justification by faith" is derived directly from the scrolls, not least because of the common use of Hab. 2:4b in both lQpHab 8:1-3 and Gal. 3:11 and Rom. 1:17. So, "though Paul speaks of himself in Acts 23:6 as having been a Pharisee, he no doubt had studied the teachings and texts of the Sadoqites; by the time he embraced Christianity in about A.D. 35 he was conversant and comfortable with them. He recognized the Sadoqite roots of his new faith. In fact, the unique doctrine that Paul brought to Christianity can be traced to Sadoqite sources" (p. 110). Do the texts really permit such sweeping statements? Undoubtedly the Scrolls and the NT are related in some way, and there are some useful reminders in Rosenberg's work. Amongst other things he has underlined the need to account for the similarities between 4Q521 and Matt. 11:5//Luke 7:22 (see J.J. Collins, "The Works of the Messiah," Dead Sea Discoveries 1 [1994] 98-112), he has highlighted the possibility that the figure of Melchizedek plays some role in how Mark 12:35-37 and its parallels

BOOK REVIEWS

76

should best be understood, he has stressed the importance of Jesus' attitude to the temple in the passion narratives, he has noted the Essene background of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1, and he has shown that llQMelchizedek must be taken into account when interpreting the Letter to the Hebrews. It is helpful to have a book that dwells on sedeq in the scrolls whilst assuming their Essene provenance and that considers the term in the scrolls and the NT without identifying the Teacher of Righteousness with James "the Just," but Rosenberg's study is problematic throughout and highly questionable in parts. University of Manchester

GEORGEJ. BROOKE

Angel Veneration and Christology. A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. WUNT 2/70. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Pp. xviii + 348. ISBN 3-16-146303-X. This monograph is the latest in an ongoing scholarly conversation-ably reviewed in the introduction-over the question of the veneration of angels and other mediatorial figures and its relevance for early Christology. The author examines a gamut of potential evidence of Jewish veneration of angels from rabbinic sources, pseudepigraphical literature, the NT and later Christian literature, inscriptions and Jewish magical texts. The detail of analysis and the sensitivity to the nuances of the data (e.g. "veneration" as opposed to "worship") are particularly welcome, though arguments and conclusions are often somewhat idiosyncratic and not wholly persuasive. For example, in view of Heb. 2:16 and 7:1-4 we would have expected a stronger case for the issue of angel veneration within the author's own social and religious world rather than the literary tradition-history of chapter 1. Why, in n. 351, p. 171 does Stuckenbruck so quickly dismiss a translation "pro speculatoribus" in Pseudo-Philo 13:6 as "(thanksgiving to God) for the watchers" ? This would parallel perfectly "pro fructibus" in the previous verse and deal with the many problems of Stuckenbruck's own translation. Apart from scattered references, Qumran material is dealt with in just 15 pages. Stuckenbruck's treatment of llQBer cautiously acknowledges some degree of reverence of angels in as much as they are blessed. He finds the strongest case for the veneration of angels in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, in just one instance: 4Q400 2. This then provides an extremely important case of cultic veneration. However it must be asked whether Stuckenbruck's is the only way to read the key line (line 2). "TOIDb (2b) need be no more than a reference to the common pattern of human fear before the angelic or divine. In 2a it is by no means clear that the i10i1 who are

77 are necessarily glorified by other angels the subject of rather than for example by God himself. The section on Qumran is perhaps rather brief. For example we would have welcomed some discussion of the record in Josephus that the Essenes address their morning prayers to the sun (War 2:128; cf. 148). The absence of discussion of the latter text is surprising given that Stuckenbruck discusses both rabbinic material which groups the worship of the sun alongside that of angels, and the venerative attitudes towards the sun in magical texts (pp. 56-63, 193-99, etc.). Josephus himself refers to Essene magical practices (War 2:142: Stuckenbruck, p. 193, n. 439), and Stuckenbruck later concludes that "it is reasonable to think that this motif [of the invocation of Helios] was taken up by Jewish magicians well before the 4th century" (pp. 199-200). Certainly others (e.g. M. Smith, "Helios in Palestine," Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16 [1982] 199-214) have found alleged solar veneration historically likely (cf. 1 QH 12:4-9). Two French commentators have also translated 4Q511 frag. 35, line 5 with the possible implication of the veneration of angels (A. Caquot, "Le service des anges," RevQ 13 [1988] 425: "ceux qui servent Ses anges glorieux." Cf. M. Baillet in DJD VIII, 237). In 4Q246 the son of God may be viewed as a heavenly or angelic figure who receives worship, although in the future. That Stuckenbruck ignores this text may have something to do with a question that snags the whole study. Though he never discusses precisely what an angel is, he at times appears to have made a decision to limit his definition in a way which prejudices the survey. In the History of the Rechabites the blessed are called "earthly £1ttYEtOt).Yet Stuckenbruck denies that they are "'angels' angels" in the proper sense" (p. 105, n. 144). This is an important judgement because in 6:1 Zosimus falls down and worships them, a text which Stuckenbruck does not discuss. The whole study is related to the Christology of Revelation. In that Christian text Christ is angelomorphic rather than an "angel" in Stuckenbruck's limited sense. So it is not surprising that the concluding section actually finds it hard to make clear connections between the worship of Christ and Jewish angel veneration. There are unfortunately numerous mistakes which have escaped proof reading. Some are more serious than others. On p. 76 Stuckenbruck misquotes Mark 10:17-18 and parallels. He disregards the variations in the tradition, which is understandable, but to translate Mark's Ti je ??7wS 6cya06v as "Do not call me good ...," is not. Pp. 257-8 are particularly poor. The index is often in error. For example 4Q560, 4Q'Amram (4Q548), and 4QBirth of Noah (4Q534) are actually cited on pp. 192, 98 and 192 respectively. Otherwise this is a significant monograph.

78

BOOK REVIEWS Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition, edited by Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Stephen J. Pfann. Second revised edition. Leiden: E.J. Brill and IDC, 1995. Pp. 187. ISBN 90-04-10288-4.

This is a revised form of The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: Companion Volume (1993). Many minor changes and corrections have been made in order to make the information contained in the volume as upto-date as possible. In addition the revised edition is now published bound in hardback so that the very flimsy first edition can now be set aside by those who can afford the replacement. The publication of this second edition draws attention to three important matters. Firstly, although the expanded editorial team now in place has the great benefit of standing on the shoulders of the first generation of scholars who initially sorted and identified the hundreds of fragments, many are discovering that various kinds of adjustments need to be made as they prepare material for publication. In some instances this is the reordering of fragments assigned to a particular manuscript; such reordering often results in the renumbering of fragments. In some instances there is the sense that some fragments have been assigned to a manuscript inappropriately; such revisions often result in the need for more manuscript designations, as has been the case since the first edition with the treatment of fragments of Leviticus by Tov himself (now definitively published in DJD XII). It is likely that this process will continue for some time yet. Secondly, the improved understanding of some fragmentary texts sometimes results in them being renamed. Thus, for example, since the first edition in which it is labelled simply "decrees," 4Q477 has become known as "Rebukes of the Overseer." Sometimes these kind of improvements arise from one or more factors which the release of the scrolls since 1991 has enabled. Setting the fragments against the wider background of all the material, reconsidering the character of the whole Qumran collection, taking account of improved understandings in the developments in language and ideology, acknowledging new appreciations of genre-all these factors and more have enabled scholars to make suggestions about small fragmentary manuscripts which were not possible a generation ago. Thirdly, in S.A. Reed's Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue, revised and edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg with the collaboration of Michael Phelps (see the review by B. Nitzan above), Lundberg acknowledges the assistance of both Emanuel Tov and Stephen Pfann in providing up-to-date information about the documents and their editors; likewise in this volume Tov gratefully acknowledges Lundberg's contribution of a sizeable number of corrections. This spirit of cooperation reflects the atmosphere in most current DSS scholarship; it is an attitude which has enabled an enormous amount to be

BOOK REVIEWS

79

achieved in less than a decade, most of which has been done by Emanuel Tov himself or under his leadership. Once again he is to be congratulated. This second edition contains nothing substantively new, but in the preface Tov states that this particular volume is intended "as a general aid to the study of the texts from the Judaean Desert" (p. 7). It is difficult to discern quite what this means other than justifying the publication of the volume apart from the microfiches. Nevertheless, though there is likely to be yet another improved edition before long, this Companion Volume remains an indispensable tool for all engaged in using the photographs of the DSS. University of Manchester

GEORGEJ. BROOKE

The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, 2 vols. edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill/Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Pp. xxv + 683; 2 frontispieces; 25 plates. ISBN 90-04-09769-4 (vol. 1); 90-04-09770-8 (vol. 2); 90-04-09771-6 (set). The Madrid Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, like other similar conferences in the late 1980s and early 1990s following the fortieth anniversary of the discovery of the scrolls, marks a turning point in Qumran scholarship and its proceedings preserve a portrait of the state of Qumran scholarship at this important juncture. These volumes demonstrate that even before the publication of B.Z. Wacholder and M.G. Abegg's A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991ff.), R.H. EisenmanJ.M. Robinson's A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991), and R.H. Eisenman-M.O. Wise's The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Rockport: Element, 1992) there had been an expansion of the range of scholars involved in scrolls research beyond a narrow "inner circle." Because of their scope and size, the two volumes of the Madrid Congress probably give a better picture of this phenomenon than the proceedings of the two important Israeli conferences edited by Broshi and Dimant-Rappaport. It is always difficult to produce a balanced review of this sort of volume which contains 35 articles, some of them of considerable length. The editors have also written a lengthy introduction to the congress itself including summaries of 31 of the 35 published papers and comments on the state of a variety of issues in Qumran scholarship (pp. xi-xxv). These summaries exempt the reviewer from having to give an overview of the contents of the volumes and allow his or her interests to single out a narrow selection of essays for substantive discussion. My own selection of essays with which to

80 interact was made on those grounds, and I regret not being able to cover an even broader assortment in my remarks. Regardless, this is a very rich collection, and perusal of it will reward anyone interested in almost any aspect of Qumran research. Although the editors suggest that the "material here presented may be divided into two main sections" with the second covering non-biblical texts, new and old, and the first a potpourri of topics in addition to biblical and near-biblical texts, it is clear that the easy division of Qumran scholarship into categories like biblical, non-biblical, historical, linguistic, et al. is no longer feasible. Many topics could easily find their appropriate location in more than one context. Thus Qimron's discussion of celibacy pertains to halakhah, and, as such, should perhaps have been included in the second volume, and there seems to be no overt justification for the presence of Stegemann's short monograph Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late ("The Qumran Essenes-Local Second Temple Times," pp. 83-166) among the essays on biblical works. The pivotal location of these volumes in the history of Qumran studies can perhaps best be characterized by the three opening essays. F.M. Cross' paper which opens the volume caps, in a certain sense, his many decades of contribution to Qumran studies, and its title, "Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies," may be said to mark the valedictory of that first-second generation by its most distinguished American representative. The reply by Emanuel Tov to Cross' remarks in the areas of orthography and textual affiliations and the essay by Eugene Ulrich on issues of the grouping of biblical texts from Qumran, taking its first cue from the Albright-Cross theory of local texts as analyzed and critiqued over the last 40 years, mark the further development of those seminal ideas by the leading scholars of the next generation. From a geographical perspective, Tov's presence, accompanied by eight other Israeli scholars in the volume, demonstrates how other walls which once surrounded Qumran studies have come down over the years. In a like fashion, Ida Frohlich and Z.J. Kapera exemplify the development of Qumran scholarship over the years in the countries behind the former Iron Curtain. In addition to the essays by Cross, Tov and Ulrich, there are actually only eight others in the first volume which deal directly with the text of the Hebrew Bible. Bruno Chiesa's critique of Tov's methodology in his fundamental 1982 HUCA article is grounded on the distinguished history of textual criticism of classical texts ("Textual History and Textual Criticism," pp. 25772). But it does not seem to take into account Tov's further statements on the subject since then, other than his 1990 JJS article, particularly his book on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible which first appeared in Hebrew in 1989. I suspect that Chiesa laments the passing of the time when a good training in classical textual criticism could serve for biblical textual criticism as well. In my view, Tov has shown well how the classical paradigm is insufficient for biblical textual scholarship, particularly in the full light of the Dead

81 Sea Scrolls. Although Chiesa's remarks may furnish useful correctives on some minor points, I do not foresee a step backward from Tov's "modem textual outlook," or something very much like it, to the classical model which Chiesa seems to prefer. A number of essays in the first volume offer preliminary editions or presentations of biblical texts from Cave 4 in advance of their appearance in DJD. The editors of these texts have culled some of the more interesting material from the manuscripts and set the data before students of Qumran and of biblical studies. The issues which are presented are quite typical of the problems which confront students of the biblical text in light of the Qumran evidence. It is difficult to assess the data in each presentation in a review of this sort, but some methodological observations are in order regarding the current state of evaluating these Qumran texts and the nature of their readings, particularly in the context of the ancient versions. There is a tendency to attribute a certain group of readings, whether longer or shorter, to dittography or haplography. Thus James R. Davila, "New Qumran Readings for the Joseph Story (Genesis 37-50)," asserts that the -70R n1nD nR in MT is before reading in Gen. 37:32 V1nD the result of dittography, and the shorter reading which is implied in 4QGenExodaa is original. Resorting to unconscious adjustment on the part of the scribe is a plausible argument, but, given what we now perceive to be the freedom of copyists to "better" the text of the Bible during its transmission, should not the alternative possibility, that the Qumran scribe intentionally shortened here a repetitive text, have been acknowledged as well? In a similar vein, the is a more suggestion that 4QGene's reading at Gen. 40:20 nina DK i!¡'i1 form of the infinitive which in MT as n7bn needs Hoph'al regular appears to be tempered by the likely possibility that the scribe, or his tradition, chose to read here a simpler Niph'al infinitive. Julie A. Duncan's treatment of 4QDeutj portrays the dilemma confronting the editor of a fragmentary text which seems to contain material from more than one biblical book, in this case Exodus and Deuteronomy. On the basis of physical evidence, orthography, and paragraphing, Duncan determines that the fragments come from one MS. But is it then to be treated as a biblical manuscript which has been interpolated or is it an excerpted text, not a biblical manuscript, but one containing biblical citations from different portions of the Bible? Based on the fact that all of the material of 4QDeutj, except for one pericope Deut. 8:5-10, appears in phylactery texts from Qumran, Duncan concludes that this MS is a text excerpted for liturgical purposes. Two other Qumran MSS of Deuteronomy, 4QDeut, (treated already by Sidnie White) and 4QDeut", seem to be of a similar type, according to Duncan, and she is correct to suggest that further investigation of the liturgical nature of these texts is necessary. Emanuel Tov's 40-page essay on "The Textual Status of 4Q364-367 (4QP[enta-

82 teuchal] P[araphrase])" [now called Reworked Pentateuch (= RP)], together with Sidnie White's preliminary report on 4Q364-65 presents a detailed outline of this important expanded sort of biblical text. According to Tov, 4Q158, published by Allegro in DJD 5 is yet another copy of the same work. These rewritings of the biblical text involve re-arrangement, addition of exegetical comments, and omissions. The re-arrangements themselves constitute an early form of biblical interpretation, as texts on similar topics from different portions of the Pentateuch are juxtaposed. As Tov points out, the Temple Scroll has much in common with 4QRP. In advance of the official publication of this text in DJD, Tov's extended comparison of 4QRP with MT, SP and LXX furnishes Pentateuchal textual scholars with much grist for their mills. Attention should be drawn now to Tov's article "Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod," in E. Ulrich and J. Vanderkam, eds., The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 111-36; and to the full text as now published in DJD XIII, 187-351. White focuses in her paper on the unique exegetical additions in 4QRP, discussing two insertions into narrative, at Gen. 28:6 and Exod. 15:22 (the Song of Miriam), and one halakhic, at Lev. 24:2. The first is of a Jubileestype, the second supplies Miriam with words for her song, and the third introduces the oil and wood festivals, already known at Qumran from the Temple Scroll, into the calendar of Pentateuchal festivals. When fully published, this interesting document will supply us with yet another example of the genre "rewritten Bible" and will have to be studied in conjunction with, and against the background of, the other examples of this genre from the Second Temple period. In light of the variety in the degree, extent, and nature of rewriting which is found in the works which are loosely gathered under the rubric "re-written Bible," I think that the time may be ripe for further refinement of the terminology employed to describe them. Tov has pointed the way toward such improvement in his remarks in the Notre Dame volume. Qimron's discussion of "Celibacy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Two Kinds of Sectarians" attempts to resolve the well-known dilemma regarding marriage among the Essenes by examining the Qumran texts alone, to the exclusion of the evidence from Greek sources, NT texts, and the excavations at Qumran. It is obvious that, despite its being discussed from the earliest days of Qumran scholarship, there is still a variety of opinion current in the literature on the DSS on the issue of celibacy. Qimron suggests that further analysis can improve upon Baumgarten's recent (1983) discussion of this material, and it is the larger context which he proposes for the analysis which makes his brief remarks particularly significant. He returns to the oftraised question of how many kinds of Dead Sea sectarians there were and accepts the position that members of the yahad maintained a higher level of

83 personal purity than other adherents of the sect's practices and beliefs, and that celibacy was one of the ways in which that observance was manifest. Qimron argues that the abandonment of the Temple and Jerusalem by members of the yahad involved also the transferring of the restrictions on marital intercourse to the camp (i.e., Qumran) which replaced city and Temple. His interpretation of CD 6:11-7:10 which supports his historical construct is possible, although, as he admits, the text is difficult. From his analysis of CD, he tries to pursue the distinction between two kinds of sectarians, the yahad and lesser members, through other Qumran texts. Although some of his extended conclusions require more study, as Qimron himself admits, he has moved ahead significantly the discussion of distinctions within the adherents of the Qumran sect and its "extended family." The area of halakhah at Qumran was well-represented at the Madrid Congress. Joseph Baumgarten utilizes a fragment of 4QDa(4Q266) as the springboard for an important discussion of, not merely Qumran halakhah, but the Second Temple halakhic context of these rules. Unlike Lawrence Schiffman, who has focused in many recent discussions on what appears to be a "Sadducean" trend in Qumran halakhah, Baumgarten begins with an attempt to focus on what we know about Essene "halakhah" from non-Qumranic texts and its coincidence with halakhic rulings in the Qumran documents, finding seven specific congruities. Although these remarks are not the primary thrust of his essay, they remind us that the question of the nomenclature for the Dead Sea sect, and their identification with one or another of the "known" sects of the Second Temple period, is still open. The text which Baumgarten presents in a preliminary edition apparently deals with priests who have been disqualified for a variety of reasons from performing a number of priestly acts. Both the reasons and the duties indicated by the scroll add to our picture of priestly functions and responsibilities during the Second Temple, and may shed light on passages in both rabbinic literature and Josephus. There are three other articles on general aspects of Qumran halakhah. Magen Broshi's discussion of "Anti-Qumranic Polemics in the Talmud" reviews material which has been, on the whole, treated by earlier scholars, such as the reaping of the Omer, the preparation of the red heifer, the calendar, and purity law, but furnishes a valuable perspective by categorizing the types of talmudic polemic. Menahem Kister discusses some of the theoretical underpinning of the development of Qumran halakhah and its relationship with Scripture, followed by a close analysis of the laws of status of fruit in the fourth year from the Bible and its ancient versions through Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon and other Qumran literature. He shows implicitly how knowledge of geonic and later medieval rabbinic legal codes and responsa can often shed unexpected light on discussions of customs and legal practices of Jewish classical antiquity. His recommendation for "further examination of the relationship between Jubilees' narrative sources

84 and halakhic elements" (p. 588), especially in light of the suggestion that Jubilees may contain halakhot deriving from a variety of traditions, needs to be taken up further, and this article can serve as a possible model for such treatment. Israel Knohl focuses on the social implications of the halakhot in rabbinic literature regarding purity in Jerusalem during the festivals, "the removal of barriers on the festival days, to allow the people to experience proximity to the holy" (p. 602). Both by exhibiting sacred vessels to the laity outside the sanctuary, and by allowing freer movement of the people toward the sanctuary on the Feast of Tabernacles, the Pharisees/rabbis created a greater sense of Jewish unity on the festivals than existed during the rest of the year. Rabbinic sources indicate that this practice was opposed by Sadducees and Boethusians. Knohl shows that certain remarks in the Temple Scroll can best be understood as attempting to countermand both tendencies in these rabbinic or proto-rabbinic procedures. In addition to providing some excellent analysis of the ways in which the rabbis and the Qumran group disagreed in the reading of certain biblical texts, remarks which deserve not to be hidden in footnotes, Knohl claims, on the basis of evidence which he has marshaled elsewhere, that both the Qumran/Sadducee view and the rabbinic view can find support in a variety of biblical priestly texts. The constraints of space preclude full discussion of any other material in these volumes, but I should like to indicate by classification some of the areas on which I have not touched at all. In the area of new pseudepigrapha, D. Dimant and E. Puech provide mini-monographs on "pseudo-Moses" (4Q390) and TestLevic-d? + A[ramaic] Ja[cob] (4Q540-41 + 4Q537). Known pseudepigrapha are represented by J.C. VanderKam's survey and summary of all the Jubilees fragments from Qumran, with implications for further study of Jubilees, spiced up with a selection of interesting readings. Other textual studies include E. Schuller's preliminary publication of 4Q373, an apocryphon of uncertain identity, and A. Steudel's summary of her arguments for the identity of 4Q174 (Florilegium) and 4Q177 (Catenaa) with the radical proposal that they be renamed 4QMidrEschat, "A Midrash on Eschatology." Apocalyptic literature is the theme of articles by I. Frohlich and G.W.E. Nickelsburg. And there are fourteen other articles which remain unmentioned! As I wrote above, this is a collection of articles whose study will repay anyone with a serious interest in virtually any area of Qumran studies. In both retrospective and prospective studies, these volumes indicate the range and vibrancy of Qumran research at a significant point in its history, and appear to promise that the future bodes well for its continued health. Yeshiva University

MOSHE J. BERNSTEIN

BOOK REVIEWS

85

The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, By James C. VanderKam. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; London: SPCK, 1994. Pp. xii + 208; 2 maps; 26 plates. $12.99 ISBN 0-8028-0736-4 (USA); 0-281-04774-X (UK). The recent debates about the questionable circumstances behind the publication of the Dead Sea fragments housed in the Rockefeller Museum have provoked a whole range of absurd assumptions and prejudices in the mass media. As a result there was a universal need for some firm information without polemics and strange theories. In 1992 J.A. Fitzmyer published his Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls which answered almost every question an interested reader of Qumran publications might want to ask. Now James C. VanderKam, another leading expert on Qumran and other Jewish literature of the late Second Temple period, has provided in seven chapters a concise overview of the state of research and what is at stake. In a few pages chapter I gives all the necessary information about the finds, their archaeological setting and their physical characteristics. This includes a description of the palaeographical and other criteria used for dating the material including the coins. All the detailed evidence points to the years between Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 BCE) and the destruction of the site in 68 CE as of prime importance, especially the first fifty years, which were decisive for the group behind the texts. Chapter 2 contains short descriptions of the scrolls and the fragmentary remains of scrolls which were found in the eleven caves near Khirbet Qumran. Chapter 3 deals with the problem of the identification of the group behind these writings, particularly its relationship to the Essenes. In spite of some difficulties VanderKam prefers the prevailing opinion and on this basis presents in chapter 4 a well-balanced sketch of the history of the "Qumran Essenes" and their religious views. The comparatively detailed description in chapter 5 of the relationship of the finds to the Old Testament is both characteristic of the interests of a biblical scholar such as VanderKam but also is well suited for a popular readership. Chapter 6 discusses the implications of the scrolls for the New Testament and the last chapter deals with the controversies about the DSS, their editing and publication, and their (mis)interpretation. VanderKam presents the issues in a noble fashion without the polemical traits so characteristics of many recent publications on the subject. An index, maps and set of well chosen photographs complement this instructive and well planned book which remains remarkably readable, despite the large amount of detailed information it contains. With this volume VanderKam has provided us with an extremely useful and effective tool for spreading solid information about the nature of the DSS and current scholarly debates about them. It is difficult to make critical remarks about such a well balanced and circumspect work, but some observations may be useful for further discussion.

86 In chapter 5 VanderKam deals with the "canon of Scripture," indicating correctly that some non-biblical books like Jubilees and I Enoch evidently stood in higher esteem than most biblical books. Also the Temple Scroll, though not so well attested, presents itself as part of God's direct revelation at Sinai. In these contexts it might have been preferable to have avoided the anachronistic term "canon" and to have used instead traditional Jewish terminology : (I) "Torah" in its fuller sense, comprising all revealed legal traditions ; (2) "Torah" in a narrower sense, referring to the laws within the Pentateuch; (3) the "Pentateuch" which contains not only Torah revelations but also "prophecy" ; (4) "Prophets;" (5) "Psalms;" and (6) other scriptures. The relationship of Jubilees to "Torah" in its fuller sense is similar to the Pentateuch's relationship to it. The situation is, therefore, more complicated than a reader might grasp from the use of terms like "canon" and "Bible" and the historically sensitive definition of authority on different levels (in Torah, Prophets, and other scriptures) is not the same as the process of "canonization" in the Christian sense. Thus VanderKam tends to treat the issues here too much like a Christian biblical scholar, presupposing in every case the precedence of the biblical text. But is, for instance, 1 Enoch really only an "interpretation" of Gen. 6:14? Is it not more likely that the authors of I Enoch 1-36 reworked a fuller and older tradition of which Gen. 6:14 reflects only a weak reminiscence? Similar questions can be asked about other cases of alleged "interpretation" or "rewriting." The titles given to the non-biblical texts are symptomatic of this problem in Qumran research. Most of them presuppose the "(Hebrew) Bible" as we know it today as the starting point for the evaluation of a text in relation to the contents of the "Bible." As a result the texts in question are correspondingly evaluated as "apocrypha" or "pseudepigrapha" or "paraphrase" or "rewritten Bible." But this does not seem to correspond with the evaluation of these writings among the Qumran people themselves. To a certain extent VanderKam is well aware of all this, particularly as far as his research on the Book of Jubilees is concerned, but nevertheless in his treatment of all this Jewish literature he remains primarily a biblical scholar who sees the non-biblical Jewish writings of the Second Temple period primarily as "intertestamental literature." The use of the terms "messiah" and "messianism" (pp. 177-80) are another case; VanderKam's use of both terms is to a large extent predefined by Christian concepts. From a philological and historical point of view the translation "anointed" is preferable. The Hebrew rilon never means anything more than "anointed," in the sense of the theocratic legitimation of a functionary, and there is no need to translate it by "messiah" or "Messiah." The functionaries in question, the high priest, the (Davidic) ruler, and the prophet like Moses, are not exclusively eschatological figures but represent well defined positions within a particular constitutional tradition in early Judaism.

BOOK REVIEWS

87

But to sum up: VanderKam's book provides for the time being the best and most concise introduction to the state of DSS research. Universität zu Köln

JOHANN MAIER

Michael O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine. JSPSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. £25.00 ($37.50 US). Pp. 265. ISBN: 1-85075460-8 Two of the six essays (Chapters Three and Four) found in this volume have previously been published. Slightly augmented by recently released scrolls material, their main arguments have not changed and they will not be discussed in this review. The dramatic title of Michael Wise's collection of essays, Thunder in Gemini, is derived from the last line of fragment 2, column ii of 4Q318, Oy1' AIDIRrl= t:R, which he translates as "if it thunders (on a day when the moon is) in Gemini." The fulmineous discussion of this Aramaic brontologion is found in Chapter One. The remaining five chapters are concerned, as the subtitle suggests, with various topics on the history, language and literature of the Second Temple period. In the opening chapter, Wise provides a transcription, translation and the notes on several fragments of a text that is both zodiacal-enumerating of the to their astral days year according signs-and brontological-predicting future events via the rumble of thunder on certain days when the moon is in a particular position in the Zodiac. An earlier discussion of the same text was published by J. Greenfield and M. Sokoloff in JNES 48 (1989). Thus, for example, if it thunders on a day when the moon is (schematically, so Wise would add) in Gemini, then there will be fear and distress. Tantalising though these predictions may be, they are unfortunately extant only in the last few mutilated lines of these fragments. Other quasi-scientific works found among the DSS are discussed in the final two chapters. These include what he calls the "annalistic calendar" (4Q322-324a, b), the "synchronistic" calendar (4Q321) and chronology of the flood (4Q252). The first is a calendar that gives precise dates for the rotation of priestly courses of service at the Jerusalem Temple (cf. 1 Chron. 24). Notable are the mention of apparently historical names from the Hasmonean and Roman periods: (John Hyrcanus 1), Oilp7n (John Hyrcanus II), (Salome Alexandra) and (M. Aemilius Scaurus). The second is a table of equivalent dates of the lunar and solar calendars, marked with the term npm, which Wise understands to mean the astronomical observation of the full moon. A previous discussion of 4Q321 is found in

88 S. Talmon and I. Knohl's article in Tarbiz 60 (1991). The third is the first column and a half of 4Q252, a commentary on Genesis. Here, the events of the flood story of Genesis 6-9 are enumerated according to the solar calendar. See also T.H. Lim's article in JJS 43 (1992). The other new contribution of the book is to be found in Chapter Two on the life and times of Ananias Bar Nedebaeus and his family. Basing himself MUD Wise argues that upon J. Naveh's reading of the inscription on this storage jar from Masada indicates ownership and not merely purity certification. This would mean that Ananias Bar Nedebaeus, the high priest appointed in 48 CE, and his family were involved in the first revolt, were present at Masada and were connected to the sicarii who took refuge there. University of Edinburgh

TIMOTHYH. LIM