Dr. Gary Gromacki
Associate Professor
of Bible and Homiletics
Baptist Bible
Seminary
Clarks Summit,
Pennsylvania
<ggromacki> at <bbc> dot
<edu>`
There are almost 900 Dead Sea Scrolls and they are usually divided into two groups: the over 200 biblical scrolls and the 670 nonbiblical scrolls. The terms biblical and nonbiblical are defined differently by different religious groups. The Roman Catholic Church would include the Apocrypha as part of the biblical books (referring to them as deuterocanonical) while most evangelicals (myself included) would exclude the Apocrypha from the canon.
The books of the Hebrew Bible fall into three sections: the Torah, the
Prophets and the Writings. The Qumran community accepted the Old Testament books as inspired by God and
authoritative. The number of books in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Bible" was not fixed
during the Qumran period
roughly from 250 BC to AD 68. . The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus; 135
BC) enumerates the books to which one should devote one's study as "the Law
and the Prophets and other books." 4QMMT (col.10) lists "the
book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and the writings of
David."
GENESIS
Genesis, the book of beginnings, was popular among the Qumran community. The remains of 20 manuscripts were unearthed: one in Cave 1, one in Cave 2, perhaps as many as 16 in Cave 4, one in Cave 6 and one in Cave 8. Two scrolls exist that contain both Genesis and Exodus, confirming an ancient order for these two important books (4QGen-Exod a and 4QpaleoGen-Exod 1).The oldest scroll of Genesis (4QpaleoGen m) dates from the middle of the second century BC. This manuscript is written in the ancient Hebrew script known as paleo-Hebrew. The Genesis manuscripts are relatively fragmentary and preserve only 34 of the 50 chapters of Genesis. They do reveal a text of Genesis that is very close to the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). Only 11 Genesis manuscripts contain slight deviations in spelling.
Only four manuscripts among the more than eight hundred found in the caves of Qumran preserve the title of the scroll. These titles were written on the outside of the first column. One of these is the scroll 4QGen h-title. As the fragment containing the title has been separated from the rest of the scroll, it has not yet been determined if it is the sole remnant of an otherwise lost scroll, or whether it should be included with some existing fragments (the best candidate being 4QGen k).
In one scroll (4QGenb) we have only the following words preserved for Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning Go[] made [ ].” Fortunately, another scroll contains this part of Genesis 1:1, “In the begin[ ] God [ ] the heavens and the earth.” This fragment includes material missing from 4QGenb. So when the preserved letters from the two scrolls are combined, the translation is evident: “In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.” (Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 3-5).
EXODUS
Eighteen DSS manuscripts: 17 found in four of the eleven
caves of Wadi Qumran: one in cave 1, three in cave 2, twelve in cave 4, and one
in cave 7. Taken together these eighteen manuscripts attest to parts of the
forty chapters in the book of Exodus. One manuscript shows that Exodus was
followed by Leviticus (4Qexod-Lev f). In the main the text of Exodus recorded in
the DSS is that of the Masoretic text. Even the scroll known as pap7QLXXExod—a
Greek text from Cave 7—is more closely aligned to the Masoretic text than it
is to the Greek Septuagint. The text labeled MurExod runs for 144 words and is
identical in every detail to the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scroll known as
4QpaleoExod m is significant in that it witnesses to an expanded textual
tradition that formed the foundation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. A remnant of
the Samaritan community uses a form of this Bible today.
Exodus was viewed as “God’s word” by the Qumran community. The book
was quoted a dozen times in nonbiblical scrolls, introduced with the words
“for thus it is written” (1QS 5:15). In addition, Exodus was the frequent
subject of a popular method of biblical interpretation found among the DSS. A
Commentary on Genesis and Exodus (4Q422) is an example of this method known as
the “rewritten Bible” Exodus
was a topic of legal discussion. Exodus 22-35 along with portions of Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy, form the foundation of the largest nonbiblical scroll,
the Temple Scroll, a work that purports to be a new Torah for the Last Days in
which God speaks to Israel evidently through Moses in the first person. In
keeping with the Last Days focus of the Temple Scroll, Exodus 15:17-18 says,
“The place, O LORD, which you have made for your dwelling, the sanctuary, O
LORD, which your hands have established” is interpreted by 4Q174 (3:3) as a
new temple prepared for the end times. This time of future glory was envisioned
as the setting for the arrival of the inspired Interpreter of Scripture (4Q174
3:12) and the royal Messiah, the Branch of David (4Q174 3:12-13).
4QpaleoGen-Exod 1 containing portions of twenty two chapters is one of the most complete manuscripts witnessing to the text of Exodus. Both 4QpaleoGen-Exod 1 and 4QpaleoExod m are written in an ancient Hebrew script known as paleo-Hebrew. The fact that there are only eight biblical manuscripts written in this script, all of them representatives of the Torah (Gen.-Deut.) except 4QpaleoJob c, suggests that this ancient script was reserved for especially important books. (Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 23-25).
LEVITICUS
The sixteen manuscripts of Leviticus rank it as one of the most common of all the scrolls found at Qumran. Fourteen of the manuscripts were unearthed in five of the eleven caves in the vicinity of Qumran : one in cave1, one in cave 2, nine in cave 4, one in cave 6, and two in cave 11- while two were discovered in the ruins at Masada. Only the text of Leviticus 12 did not survive the ravages of time in the caves around the Dead Sea. None of the variants have been accepted by modern Bible translators. Every chapter of Leviticus is referenced somewhere in the nonbiblical scrolls. The Temple Scroll by itself quotes or paraphrases portions of twenty three chapters. The laws of the Damascus Document are to a great extent rehearsals of various Levitical commands. The key to understanding the community’s emphasis on purity is contained in Leviticus 15:31, “You must keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, so that they might not die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle which is in their midst.” (Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 77-78)
NUMBERS
This book begins with the Israelites in the Sinai desert, covers their forty years of wandering, and ends with the people poised to cross the river Jordan into the Promised Land. Our English title comes from the Greek title Arithmoi, perhaps chosen because Numbers opens with a census. However, the Hebrew title Bemidbar, which means “In the Desert” seems more appropriate to the main theme of the book.
A
total of eleven Numbers scrolls have been found in the Judean desert. Eight were
discovered in Qumran: one in cave 1, four in cave 2, and three in cave 4. While
none of the scrolls is complete, of the thirty two chapters of Numbers only
chapters 6 and 14 are not represented in at least one of them.
Three
of the Numbers manuscripts deserve special mention. The first is 4Qlev-Num a
which originally also contained the book of Leviticus. Scrolls containing more
than one book of the Pentateuch must have been very long and are rare at Qumran,
the only other two cases being 4QGen-Exod 1 and 4Qexod-Lev f. The second unusual
scroll is 1QpaleoLev, which, as its abbreviated title shows, was written in the
old paleo-Hebrew script. Although listed as a Leviticus scroll, 1QpaleoLev
preserves at least two passages from Numbers (1:48-50 and 36:7-0) somewhere
between Leviticus 23 and 27. The third special Numbers scroll is 4QNum b, which
is by fare the best preserved and contains material from chapters 11 to 36. This
manuscript may be described as early Jewish “Living Bible” since it features
many interpolations of other material and expansions of the biblical text.
Several of these interpolations or expansions are large, consisting mainly of
speeches. The book of Deuteronomy in our Bibles contains several speeches not
found in the Masoretic Text of Numbers- but which were uttered during the events
recounted in Numbers. So where these speeches are not included in the
traditional book of Numbers, 4QNum b imports them from Deuteronomy into the
appropriate place in the narrative. These speeches include Moses’ plea that he
be allowed to enter Canaan (Deut.3:24-28 which is interpolated into Numbers
20:13b), God’s prohibition to Moses to fight Moab (interpolated from Deut.2:9
into Numbers 21:12a), the prohibition to fight Ammon (from Deut 2:18-19 into Num
21:13a), God’s command to fight the Amorites (from Deut.2:24-25 into Num
21:21a) and Moses’ exhortation to Joshua to be courageous (from Deut 3:21-22
into Num 27:23b).
Many
of the longer readings included in 4QNum b are not found in the Masoretic Text
and the Septuagint but are often preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch. To a
lesser extent, 4QNum b also contains readings present in the Greek Bible but not
in the Masoretic Text or Samaritan Pentateuch. This important scroll was copied
about 30 BCE which was a critical time in the history of the transmission of the
biblical text. Within a few decades, rabbinical circles began actively striving
to establish a standardized form for the books of the Hebrew Bible, which many
scholars term the ‘proto-Masoretic text’. This effort included the
elimination or suppression of textual forms that deviated from the proto-Masoretic
text. Since 4QNum b is one example of these “different” textual forms, it
gives us a precious window on one textual tradition that differs markedly from
the Hebrew Bible and English translations that are used today. One final feature
of this fascinating scroll is that it contains words written in red ink, which
is most unusual among the scrolls. It appears that the function of this red
writing was to introduce passages for liturgical reading.
One
of the Numbers scrolls 4QLXXNum was written in Greek with the preserved text
starting at Numbers 3:40. The presence of Greek Manuscripts at Qumran (others
include pap7QLXXExod, 4QLXXLev a, pap4QLXXLev b, and 4QLXXDeut) reminds us that
during the Hellenistic and Roman periods many Jews- including those at Qumran-
knew Greek as well as Hebrew and Aramaic.
DEUTERONOMY
The hero of this book of Moses, whose life and speeches are chronicled from the time the Israelites left Mt. Sinai (or Mt. Horeb) to the death and burial of Israel’s great leader. Since Deuteronomy also includes the authoritative Law given by God through Moses to Israel and is the only book of the Pentateuch that explicitly identifies itself as a record of Moses’ laws (Deut.1:5; 4:8), it is not difficult to see why this book was one of the most popular books at Qumran. In fact, Deuteronomy is second only to the Psalms in terms of the number of scrolls that were found in the Judean Desert caves.
Of
the thirty three Deuteronomy scrolls, thirty were discovered at Qumran (2 in
Cave 1; three in Cave 2, twenty two in Cave 4, and one each in Caves 5, 6, and
11). And three more were found at
sites further to the south. Although none of these scrolls is complete, at least
part of every chapter of the book is represented between them.
The
list given is quite unusual for several reasons. First, it indicates that one
Greek copy of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut) was used or stored at Qumran, which means
that at least some of the Qumran community spoke Greek as well as Hebrew and
Aramaic. Second, two of these manuscripts (4QpaleoDeut r and 4QpaleoDeut s) were
written in the ancient paleo-Hebrew script rather than the square script used
for the vast majority of the DSS. Third, one scroll (pap6Qdeut) was written on
papyrus, which is much more fragile than the leather on which most other scrolls
were written. Further, the somewhat confusing symbols 4Qdeut k1, 4Qdeut k2, and
4Qdeut k3 serve to remind us just how difficult it is to categorize fragments of
ancient writing, to piece them together, and to identify the scroll to which
each belongs. When earlier editors first identified these fragments as belonging
to the book of Deuteronomy, they believed them all to be part of a single
scroll, which they termed 4QDeut k. But when it was later discovered that the
fragments actually belonged to three different scrolls, it was too late to
assign the next symbols, l and m to the two new fragments, since these symbols
had already been allocated to these scrolls. For this reason, the symbol k is
now shared by three different manuscripts of Deuteronomy!
As
we read through the translation of the scrolls, it becomes clear that the text
of the traditional Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text) is confirmed or supported
in most cases. But on several occasions readings from some scrolls clearly
support other ancient textual traditions: for example in Deuteronomy 32, 4QDeut
q most often agrees with the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text or the Samaritan
Pentateuch.
On
other occasions a scroll has a reading not found elsewhere. For example, 4QDeut
c stresses that the Israelites are going over ‘the Jordan’ to occupy the
land in Deuteronomy 4:14, whereas the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch
and the Septuagint do not mention this river. Sometimes material that is found
in other biblical manuscripts is completely omitted: For example, in Deuteronomy
3:20, 4QDeut m and the LXX say “until the Lord your God gives rest to your
countrymen” while 4QDeut d, the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch
merely read “until the Lord gives rest to your countrymen…” The longer
reading brings the person of God into sharper focus. Some readings are
different. For example, in Deut.8:6, the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan
Pentateuch and the Septuagint tell us to keep God’s commandments and to fear
him. This reading is also found in 4QDeut j. But another scroll (4QDeut n) says
instead that we are to love him.
Why
was Deuteronomy so popular at Qumran? One reason is its emphasis on God’s
covenant with Israel, a term that is found 26 times in the book (Deut.4:13; 9:9;
29:1). Several references to the Community of the New (or Renewed) Covenant in
their writings show that the Qumran community saw themselves in covenant with
God. Examples include the Damascus Document (CD 2:2; 19:14, 33) and the
Community Rule (1QS 1:16, 18, 20; 8:21) and the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab 2:3). A
second reason for Deuteronomy’s importance among the scrolls is the prominent
place it gives to the Law and its interpretation. This was also a subject of
great significance at Qumran: for example, the legal rulings in the document
abbreviated 4QMMT. It is not surprising that Deuteronomy would play an important
role in the religious life and legal rulings of the Qumran community.
JOSHUA
Only two scrolls of the book of Joshua were recovered in the Judean Desert, but one of them makes quite an impact, and several other previously unknown parabiblical works related to Joshua that were found among the scrolls have enriched our knowledge of the ancient world.
4QJosha
is the oldest witness to the text of Joshua in any language, dating roughly to
100 BCE, and it provides a dramatic example of the light that the scrolls shed
on the Bible. It takes us back to an earlier stage in the development of the
biblical text and thus helps solve a problem that has long puzzled readers.
In
the traditional narrative, Joshua leads the people across the Jordan, fights the
battle for Jericho, mounts another victory over the city of Ai, and then
eventually goes twenty miles north to Shechem to build an altar on Mt. Ebal,
opposite Mt. Gerizim, where the Samaritans much later were to center their
religion. He then immediately marches
back down south, abandoning the newly built altar and leaving it exposed in
enemy territory.
On
a single fragment, 4QJosha contains the end of the altar building episode,
followed by the beginning of chapter 5. This means that Joshua would have
constructed the first altar in the Promised Land immediately after crossing the
Jordan and before beginning any battles of conquest. This is, of course, what
would be expected—that in thanksgiving for the fulfillment of the promise of
the land, and in order to sanctify the land to the Lord, Joshua would have
immediately erected an altar there at Gilgal. Gilgal continued to be known as an
important place for worship (1 Sam.10:8; 11:14-15), whereas Mt. Ebal is never
referred to again as a worship site for Israel.
Two
further pieces of evidence clinch the significance of this scroll’s sequence
of events. First, the historian Josephus, retelling the biblical story in the
first century CE, also appears to have had a biblical text like 4QJosha. He
describes Joshua’s building of an altar immediately after the crossing of the
Jordan (Jewish Antiquities 5:16-20), while not mentioning either the
journey to Mt. Ebal or an altar at the point where the Masoretic text places it.
Though he does eventually describe an altar at Shechem, it is not until
noticeably later in the narrative, and certainly the tradition of Joshua’s
covenant ceremony at Shechem after the conquest would have been widely known.
Second, both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Old Latin version have the reading “on Mount Gerizim” in the text at Deuteronomy 27:4, a passage in which Moses commands the building of this altar. What this undoubtedly shows is that “on Mount Ebal” in the Masoretic and Greek tradition is a later Jewish polemical change from the unacceptable Samaritan claim that the first altar was built “on Mount Gerizim.” Thus there was a three stage history in the development of this command-fulfillment passage. First, the altar was simply to be built at an unspecified place---wherever the people crossed the Jordan. Second, northerners, perhaps the Samaritans, specified the site of the first altar as on Mount Gerizim. Finally, Jewish scribes discounted the claim by changing Mount Gerizim anomalously to the otherwise insignificant Mount Ebal.
This
does not mean that the text of 4QJosha is always superior. For example, at 7:14
it drops out almost a whole line, skipping from one phrase to the next
occurrence of that similar phrase, thus losing the intervening text.
The
text of Joshua was already known to have existed in two successive variant
literary editions. As in the case of Jeremiah, the Greek text is an earlier,
shorter edition of the book that was later developed into a fuller edition
appearing in the Masoretic Text. 4QJosha now presents an earlier version of the
text- one that is shorter in some spots. For example, at 8:3-14 the space
available on the original scroll suggests that verses 12-13 were not yet in the
text. The Greek text presents a somewhat longer text that 4QJosha, and the
Masoretic Text is still longer. The individual textual variants displayed by
both 4QJosha and the second scroll, 4Qjoshb, move back and forth, agreeing
sometimes with the Greek text, sometimes with the Masoretic Text, and at other
points showing their own distinctive wording.
JUDGES
The Qumran Community was more interested in the weightier matters of law and the poetic praise of the Psalms than in the narratives of the historical books. The sparse pattern begun in Joshua (only two scrolls) continues to Chronicles (one scroll).
Only
three manuscripts of the book of Judges survived at Qumran, but they confirm the
patterns of the early biblical text provided by other biblical manuscripts.
4QJudga reveals that this earlier text is shorter than all other extant Hebrew
and Greek witnesses, because it does not yet include a theological passage
(Judges 6:7-10 inserted into the later versions.
4QJudgb
may also have had a shorter text (see 21:18), although the evidence for the
possibly missing text is no longer preserved on the fragments but is instead
deduced from the reconstruction of the space available on the original
manuscript.
The
Masoretic text and all other traditions insert a theological paragraph (Judges
6:7-10) reciting the Deuteronomistic pattern: Israel cried to the Lord, the Lord
sent a prophet, and the prophet charged the people with disobedience. 4QJudga
retains the original, unembellished narrative.
SAMUEL
The book of Samuel (1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were treated as a single book in antiquity) offers some of the most dramatic learnings from the biblical DSS. The extensively preserved 4QSama has been known since 1953, one year after its discovery, to differ widely and frequently from the traditional Masoretic Text.
There
were four manuscripts of Samuel found at Qumran: one in cave 1 and three in cave
4. These Samuel manuscripts, while containing some errors, also preserve a large
nmber of original or superior readings that help correct errors in the
traditional Masoretic Text. For proper perspective, it should be pointed out
that the textual form of 4QSam b is more closer than the Masoretic Text to the
text from which the Septuagint was translated. Similarly 4QSam a, while showing
many agreements with the Septuagint in contrast to the Masoretic Text, is the
type of Samuel manuscript that the author of Chronicles used in composing that
book.
The
variants recorded in the following pages improve our knowledge of the text of
Samuel beyond the tradition Masoretic Text. Some of these variants involve
individual words or phrases. Intermittently, there are whole sentences either
left out of the Masoretic Text by mistake or added by the scrolls as
supplementary material. Arguably the single most dramatic passage among the
newly discovered biblical scrolls occurs in 4QSam a at the beginning of 1 Samuel
11. An entire paragraph, missing from all our Bibles for two thousand years, has
now been restored in the New Revised Standard Version. Its existence had already
been footnoted in the New American Bible in 1970. This paragraph graphically
describes the atrocities of King Nahash of the Ammonites. 4QSama is the oldest
extant witness to this text. The historian Josephus, writing in the second half
of the first century CE, recounts the same details at the same point in his
account of the history of the Jewish people, Jewish Antiquities. This
demonstrates that the story was also in the Greek Bible that he was using. Thus
our two most ancient witnesses attest to the existence of this passage in the
biblical manuscripts of antiquity.
These
manuscripts have also helped to realign scholars’ assessments of the value of
the ancient Septuagint translation. Traditionally, when the Septuagint differed
from the Masoretic Text (which has been considered the Hebrew original), the
Septuagint was routinely thought to be a “free” translation (or even a
paraphrase, or just plain wrong). The Hebrew manuscripts of Samuel found at
Qumran, however, very often agree with the Septuagint when it differs from the
Masoretic Text. This demonstrates that the Septuagint was translated from a
Hebrew text form similar to that of the Qumran manuscripts. The problem in assessing the Septuagint, as with so many
historical documents, had been with the scholars’ vision and criteria, not
with the data. The Septuagint, of course, just like the Masoretic Text, the Dead
Sea Scrolls, and every other ancient manuscript tradition, does have its share
of errors. But the important lesson here is that the Septuagint is not a free or
false rendering, but rather a generally faithful translation of its Hebrew
source.
1QSam
(1Q7) has only eight fragments remaining. It is interesting to notes that as the
scroll lay rolled, a fragment roughly the size of a quarter was preserved at the
same position on each of eight successive layers of leather.
4QSam
b is the oldest of the manuscripts dating roughly to 250 BCE. One large fragment,
containing nineteen continuous lines, is preserved, along with seven small
fragments.
4QSam
c, dating roughly to 100-75 BCE, contains one small fragment from 1 Samuel
25:30-32 and numerous fragments that can be pieced together to form a generous
amount of two consecutive columns containing 2 Samuel 14-15. The same
idiosyncratic scribe who copied it also copied two other manuscripts, the main
scroll of the Rule of the Community (1QS) and a collection of scriptural
quotations entitled the Testimonia (4Q175). The same scribe is also
responsible for a correction in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa a). Of the
sixty seven partial lines preserved of 4QSam c, there are twenty one errors or
corrections, roughly one for every three lines. It is likely that this scribe
was entrusted with such an important task because he was a high ranking
community leader rather than because of his scribal skills.
4QSam
a dates from the middle of the first century BCE. It is one of the most
extensively preserved and important biblical manuscripts. Hundreds of fragments
are preserved, spanning from the first chapter of 1 Samuel to the final chapter
of 2 Samuel.
(2
Sam.11 note): 4QSam a adds the detail that Uriah was Joab’s armor bearer,
which the Masoretic text lacks. Josephus includes this detail, suggesting that
an ancient form of the Septuagint had it, though it was excised from later
Septuagint manuscripts to conform with the Masoretic Text.
KINGS
Only three manuscripts of the book of Kings (1 and 2 Kings) were found in the various Judean desert caves: one each on leather in Cave 4 and Cave 5, and a papyrus manuscript in Cave 6. The last present a typical snapshot of the Qumran scrolls. About ninety-four fragments that presumably belonged to this manuscript were found, but only seventeen can be identified and placed, since the majority of the fragments preserve only a few letters each. Many have not even one complete or nearly complete word, while others with only “these” or “all”or “he made” or “Judah” could have come from multiple loci within the book.
Despite
the limited scope of text on most fragments, however, there are enough
indications of text significantly divergent from the traditional Masoretic Text
to suggest that the text of Kings was pluriform in antiquity, just as the text
of Samuel has been demonstrated to be.
In
addition to numerous small variants, sometimes in agreement with the Greek text,
there are more significant variants as well, with the Qumran manuscripts at
times preserving the superior variant and the Masoretic Text at other times
doing so. Just as 4QSama recovers bits of text thought to be lost, so too 4QKgs
preserves a passage (1 Kings 8:16) lost from the Masoretic Text when a
scribe’s eye skipped from one phrase to a similar phrase below.
Moreover,
an additional clue near the end of 1 Kings 7:25-27 suggests that Kings may have
had an expanded text on which the author of Chronicles based his composition.
Though the evidence is slight, it tends to confirm that the ancient text of
Samuel-Kings that the Jewish author of Chronicles used not the Masoretic Text
but one similar to those documented at Qumran.
ISAIAH
For both Jews and Christians, the Isaiah scrolls found in the Judean Desert are of great interest, in view of their contents and because the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa a) is perhaps the best known of all the Dead Sea Scrolls. This, the only manuscript preserving a biblical book virtually in its entirety, was found wrapped in a protective linen inside a pottery jar and is among the seven scrolls that were first discovered (and published soon afterward). The circumstances surrounding this scroll’s discovery by the Bedouin in 1947, its transportation to the United Stated by the Metropolitan Samuel (head of the Syrian Orthodox Church), its clandestine purchase by the Israeli scholar Yigael Yadin, and its return to Israel in 1954 form a gripping tale.
The
book of Isaiah was one of the three most popular books at Qumran, with twenty
one manuscripts recovered. The only books represented in greater number are
Psalms (37 scrolls) and Deuteronomy (30 scrolls). At Qumran, two Isaiah scrolls
were found in Cave 1, eighteen in Cave 4, and one in Cave 5; one additional
manuscript was discovered further south at Wadi Murabbaat. While only 1QIsa a
survives completely, a few other scrolls are quite substantial and together the
fragmentary Isaiah scrolls preserve generous portions of the book. These
manuscripts were copied over the course of nearly two centuries ranging from
about 125 BCE (1QIsa) to about 60 CE (4QIsac).
Though
large scale variant editions are preserved for some other books (for example,
Jeremiah and 1 Samuel), for Isaiah the scrolls and the other ancient witnesses
preserve apparently only one edition of this book, with no consistent patterns
of variants or rearrangements. Nevertheless, these scrolls (most notably 1QIsa
a) contain hundreds of highly instructive variants from the traditional form of
the Hebrew text- variants that teach us much about the late stages of the
history of the book’s composition and provide many improved readings. These
variant readings fall into four categories.
First,
some variant readings are major in that they involve one or more verses present
in some texts but absent from others. A contrasting pair of examples can be seen
in chapter 2. On the one hand, the second half of verse 9 and all of verse 10
are not in 1QIsa a; these were most likely a later addition to the text of
Isaiah by some unknown scribe, though made early enough to be recorded in 4QIsa
a, 4 QIsa b, the Masoretic Text, and the Septuagint. On the other hand, verse 22
was not yet in the Hebrew text translated by the LXX but was inserted later into
IQIsa a and the traditional Masoretic text. Numerous other examples are
scattered among the Isaiah scrolls. The existence of such variants provides a
privileged window-one that was unavailable before the scrolls- on the gradual
growth process of the biblical text in general.
A
second category of variant readings involves hundreds of differences-often
insignificant for purposes of understanding or interpretation-in spelling, the
forms of names, the use of the plural versus the singular, and changes in word
order, to name a few. While these are quite minor variants, when taken together
they provide rich evidence for the use of Hebrew, different spelling systems,
and scribal inventions during the late Second Temple period.
A
third category includes a wide spectrum of variants, usually a single word or
two, ranging between the large scale compositional variants described in the
first category and the mostly insignificant alternative spellings in the second.
One example is found at 1:15, which in 4QIsa f and the Masoretic text concludes
with “your hands are filled with blood”, while 1QIsa a completes the
parallelism by adding “your fingers with iniquity.” Another example is 2:20,
where the idols of silver and of gold are described in the Masoretic text as
“which they have made for themselves to worship” but in 1QIsa a as “which
their fingers have made to worship.”
The
final category involves errors made by the Qumran scribes or found in the text
that they were copying. It is often impossible to tell for sure whether an error
was committed by the scribe or was already in the text he was copying. These are
often difficult to identify as real errors, since a reading that to some
scholars is “incorrect” may represent for others an alternative reading or a
different textual tradition. But even with all necessary caution, we sometimes
find that certain scribes were careless or wrote down variants that are better
explained in terms of errors than viable alternative textual forms.
One
example is found in Isaiah 16:8-9 where 1QIsa reads, “For the fields of
Heshbon, and the vineyard of Sibmah languish. I will water you with my tears,
Heshbon and Elealeh, for the battle cry has fallen upon your summer fruits and
upon your harvest.” The Masoretic text, however has a much longer passage
(which is also found in the Septuagint but with some variations): For the fields
of Heshbon and the vineyards of Sibmah languish. The leaders of the nations
have broken down its choice branches, which reached as far as Jazer and extended
into the wilderness; its shoots were spread and wide, even crossing the sea.
Therefore I will weep with the crying of Jezer for the vine of Sibmah. I
will water you with my tears, Heshbon and Elealeh, for the battle cry has fallen
upon your summer fruits and upon your harvest.
In
this example the eye of the scribe must have skipped from Sibmah which follows
languish in the Hebrew in verse 8 to Sibmah in verse 9, resulting in the
omission of the intervening text. But was this omission made by the scribe who
copied 1QIsa a or by an earlier scribe whose text the Qumran scribe was now
copying? Since there are several more such lengthy examples in 1QIsa a, the most
likely conclusion is that our scribe was somewhat careless and was responsible
for many or most of the errors in this large scroll.
Because
Isaiah is a lengthy book virtually preserved in its entirety in 1QIsa a, and
since there are so many Isaiah scrolls, for the translation of this book and
accompanying variants a somewhat different approach has been taken here than
with other books in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The translation that follows is
consistently form 1QIsa a with the readings from the other scrolls shown in the
footnotes.
Isaiah
was one of the most influential and most quoted books among the DSS, providing
evidence of its influence on authors both of general Jewish works imported to
Qumran and of works that were specifically composed by the Qumran covenanters.
Five commentaries, or pesharim, on Isaiah were found in Cave 4 and another in
Cave 3. Using a system of quoting a base text and commenting on it, these
commentaries underscore the authoritative and scriptural status of the book of
Isaiah at Qumran.
With
its emphasis on prophecy and the end times, it is not surprising that the book
of Isaiah was so popular at Qumran, just as it was among the NT authors. In
fact, the Qumran ascetics and all four Evangelists quoted Isaiah 40:3 for
purposes of self identity, in support of the respective missions of both the
desert community and John the Baptist. The Hebrew form of the verse is quoted in
the Community Rule:
“They
shall separate from the session of perverse men to go to the wilderness, there
to prepare the way of truth, as it is written: In the wilderness prepare the way
of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (1QS 8:13-14)
The
New Testament authors, however, quote this verse from the Septuagint, which had
lost the exact sense of the parallelism: “This is the one of whom the prophet
Isaiah spoke when he said, The voice of one proclaiming in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” (Mt.3:3; Mk.1:3;
Lk.3:4; Jn.1:23).
The
Qumran covenanters show that they were fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy by
separating from the Jerusalem Jews and going out to the wilderness to prepare
the way of the Lord through study of the Torah. In contrast, the Gospel passages
see Isaiah 40:3 as describing John the Baptist in the wilderness calling his
audience to prepare for the arrival of Jesus. In these two different, self
defining uses of the same scriptural passage, the Qumran covenanters view the
Isaiah passage as fulfilled in themselves, while the Evangelists present it as
about to be fulfilled in John’s witness to Jesus the Messiah.
JEREMIAH
The prophet Jeremiah preached during the closing years of the kingdom of Judah and witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. After many Jews were exiled to Babylon, he chose to stay in Jerusalem in order to help those who had remained to begin again. But a few years later this prophet was forced to flee to Egypt in exile and soon thereafter was heard of no more.
Six
Jeremiah scrolls were found at Qumran: one in cave2 and vine in Cave 4. Although
these manuscripts between preserve much of the book’s fifty two chapters, they
are all so badly damaged and fragmentary that not even a trace of twenty one
chapters is preserved. These Jeremiah manuscripts were copied over a period of
approximately 200 years, ranging from about 200 BC (4QJer a) to the latter part
of the first century BC (4QJer c).
Two
important scrolls are 4QJer b and 4QJer d, which reflect a Hebrew text that is
very different from the Masoretic text form of Jeremiah from which modern Bibles
have been translated. It is also interesting to note that the biblical text in
these two manuscripts is very similar to the Hebrew text from which the LXX was
translated. This is true not only in small details but also in major aspects
where the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic text. Most notably, 4QJer b and
4QJer d (before they were damaged) and the LXX present a version of Jeremiah
that is about 13 percent shorter than the longer version found in modern Bibles!
One example of this shorter text is in Jeremiah 10:3-11, which is a
satire on idols. While the Masoretic Text has all nine verses, the Greek Bible
and 4QJer b lack verses 6-8 and 10, which extol the greatness of God.
Another
fascinating scroll is 4QJer a, one of the oldest of all the DSS (copied, as we
noted, about 200 B.C or even earlier). This manuscript contains a large number
of corrections; in fact, no other Qumran text has as many corrections in
proportion to the length of the document. The most noticeable example is in
column 3, which contains additions made by a second scribe after the original
scribe had written Jeremiah 7:28 to 9:2 but had omitted a long section (7:30 to
8:3). The second scribe’s attempt to insert so much missing text has resulted
in a most unusual format: he squeezed Jeremiah 7:30-31 into the gap between 7:29
and 8:4 then filled in 7:32 to 8:3a sideways along the left margin and wrote
8:3b upside down at the bottom of the page!
Besides
the six Jeremiah scrolls, several other Qumran scrolls mention Jeremiah, or have
some relationship to his book. One of these is the Epistle of Jeremiah, written
in Greek and found in Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bible as part of the
Apocrypha (Baruch 6); a translation of papEPJer gr follows the book of Jeremiah
in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The theme of the Epistle of Jeremiah, supposedly
written by Jeremiah himself is condemnation of idolatry; the preserved text in
the Qumran scroll is from verses 43-44. Another interesting text is 4Qapocryphon
of Jeremiah A (4Q383), where we find the phrase, “And I, Jeremiah” which
claims the prophet to be the speaker.
A
final text worthy of mention is 4Qapocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385b). This
fragment, which contains two columns, draws on Jeremiah 40-44, although 1:4-6
recalls the fall of Jerusalem as found in Jeremiah 52:12-13. It is also
interesting to note that the same Nebuzaradan in 4Q38b and 4QJer d (43:6) is
spelled the same, and slightly different to the form in the Masoretic text (The
MT has Nebuzara’dan). The first columns seems to be concerned chiefly with
Jeremiah’s relations with the deportees to Babylon, whereas the second is
clearly about his relations with the Jews in Egypt. The first column includes
the following lines:
“and
Jeremiah the prophet went before the Lord to go with the exiles who were led
captive from the land of Jereusalem and came to…king of Babylon, when
Nebuzaradan, the Chief Cook, struck…and he took the utensils of the House of
God, the priests…and the Israelites and brought them to Babylon. And Jeremiah
the prophet went …the river and he commanded them what they should do in the
land of their exile…to listen to the voice of Jeremiah concerning the words
which God had commanded him…so that they should keep the covenant of the God
of their ancestors in the land of their captivity…and should not do as they
had done, they themselves and their kings and their priests and their
princes…they defiled the name of God…”
It
appears that Jeremiah is here being portrayed in terms similar to Moses. For the
Qumran community who passed down these texts, both Moses’ prophetic status and
Jeremiah’s Mosaic status seem to have been of particular interest.
EZEKIEL
The setting of the prophecies of Ezekiel is the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC. The books answers a key question that must have occurred to the Jews in that disturbing time: “Has God abandoned us?” From the intriguing otherworldly description of God’s glory coming to earth by the River Chebar in Babylon to the plan of the gigantic end of time temple, the book sets the stage for the answer to the last verse: The Lord is there.
Small
fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel were found at Qumran and another atop
Masada. All of them and the traditional Masoretic Text fairly uniform attest the
same textual tradition. Only seven minor variants are clearly preserved, though
reconstruction according to spatial requirements indicates that in two places
(5:13 and 23:16) the scrolls may have had a shorter text than the Masoretic
Text.
One
manuscript, 4QEzek b, may not have been a copy of the complete book of Ezekiel,
but perhaps contained only the prophet’s inaugural vision or a few episodes.
Another manuscript 4QEzek c survives in onely one fragment measuring about a
half inch in diameter. It contains
only three complete words and a couple of letters from six other words.
Nonetheless, the fragments that do remain range over the course of the entire
book, from chapter 1 to chapter 41, and show that the inherited text of Ezekiel
was very carefully copied from antiquity.
The
relatively small number of manuscripts does not prepare the reader for the
importance that Ezekiel exerted among the members of the Dead Sea community.
Ezekiel’s emphasis on the High Priest Zadok and his descendants is evident in
the community’s self designation: Sons of Zadok. The description of the end
time temple is also embellished in several copies of a text entitled New
Jerusalem and forms a key component of the largest of the nonbiblical Dead
Sea manuscripts: the Temple Scroll.
TWELVE
PROPHETS
The scrolls of the twelve Minor Prophets are of special importance because they allow a very early window not only into the text of the individual books, but also into what is perhaps of equal interest: the order of the books as unit.
Of
a total of ten manuscripts, eight were found in the caves of Qumran: seven in
cave 4 and one in cave 5. The manuscripts range in age from 150 BC (4QXIIa and
perhaps 4QXIIb) to 25 BC (4QXIIg). The two remaining scrolls were found in caves
that were utilized as hideouts by Jewish rebels during the Bar Kokhba revolt, an
unsuccessful uprising against Rome (AD 132-135 ). These scrolls are thus likely
to be later productions: 50 B.C. to A.D. 50 (8HevXII gr) and A.D.75 to 100 (MurXII).
Letters signed by the leader of the revolt, Bar Kokhba himself, were found in
both of these caves.
Do
the Dead Sea manuscripts evidence the tradition of printing these twelve books
together? This question can now be answered in the affirmative, according to the
text of seven of the DSS. The remaining three are so fragmentary that they
contain parts of but one book each (4QXIId, 4QXIIf, 5QAmos).
Do
the scrolls witness to the order that is found in the Greek Septuagint or to
that preserved in the Masoretic Text? All of the scrolls but one appear to
follow the traditional Hebrew order. This is the same order that is followed by
every major English translation available today. Of particular interest among
these scrolls is 8HevXII gr, which despite being a Greek scroll, displays the
order of the Hebrew text of books 2-6 (Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah) rather
than that of the Greek tradition (Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah). The one
old scroll (4QXIIa- the oldest of the manuscripts), suggests a third order in
which Jonah follows Malachi. Jonah is certainly not in the first half of the
twelve, as in the Greek and Hebrew traditions, but likely last in the
collection.
The
text of the books evidenced in the scrolls is, in the main, that of the
Masoretic Text. Indeed, even the Greek manuscript found in Nahal Hever exhibits
the Greek tradition as systematically corrected by comparison with the Hebrew.
However, the number of variants indicated in the translations that follow
suggest that the best description for the text is “slightly mixed” –not
entirely that of the additional form of the Hebrew Bible, but showing some
agreement with the Septuagint as well as some independence from both the Hebrew
and the Greek traditions. The nine Hebrew texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls also
evidence- in varying degrees- a slightly fuller approach to spelling (analogous
to the British colour as opposed to the American color) than that of the
traditional Hebrew Bible.
As
was the case among the early Christians, the Minor Prophets were quite popular
at Qumran. The sectarians at Qumran often understood the prophecies found in
these twelve books to be speaking to their contemporary situation. A particular
type of interpretation known as pesher- not known before the discovery of the
DSS—was incorporated in the commentaries found at Qumran. Pesher is a
prophetic commentary in which the interpretation—in the eyes of the
community—shares the same authority as the original prophecy. The word is used
frequently in the book of Daniel to introduce the “authoritative”
interpretation of dreams (Dan.2:16). Of the fifteen known pesharim, six were
written on the books of the Minor Prophets: two on Hosea, and one each on Micah,
Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah.
HOSEA
In addition to the two pesharim and the three biblical manuscripts containing portions of the book of Hosea (4QXIIc, 4QXIId, 4QXIIg), the prophet Hosea’s words can be found in several quotations in the DSS.
Hosea
2:15 and 18 are cited in the text of Barki Nafshi in general reference to
God’s goodness to Israel. The remainder of the citations are characteristic of
pesher interpretation, in which warnings spoken by Hosea to historical Israel in
the period before the exile of the northern tribes at the hands of Assyria (722
B.C) are interpreted to address the situation of the Qumran sectarians in the
first or second century BC. Hosea 3:4, and its description of Israel as
“without king or prince” before the coming of the future Davidic king, is
understood by the Damascus Document (CD) 20:16 as prophesying the chaotic
period following the death of the Teacher of Righteousness. Corresponding to
this, “like a rebellious cow” (Hosea 4:16) is quoted in CD 1:13-14 in
reference to the Jews who rejected the ways of the Qumran community during this
same time period. Hosea 5:10 and its characterization of the “boundary
shifters” refers to this same rebellious group (CD 8:3 with 19:15-16) who
manipulated the law—likely description of the Pharisees. Finally, the horn and
trumpet of Hosea 5:8 are cryptically interpreted by 4Q177 to be the first and
second books of the Law; which were rejected by the apostate in the Last Days.
In light of the pesher like treatment of these quotations, it is curious that
the surviving portions of the pesharim (4Q166-67) appear to refer primarily to
pre-exilic Israel.
JOEL
Three of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts in the DSS contain sections of the book of Joel (4QXIIc, 4QXIIg, MurXII). Although the book of Acts quotes a rather extensive portion of chapter 2 (2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21) in perhaps the clearest pesher type quotation in the New Testament—in which the outpouring of God’s Spirit that the early church experienced was in fact prophesied by Joel—the caves divulged neither commentaries on Joel nor documents that capitalized on language expressive of the central topic of the prophet’s declaration: the coming of the day of the Lord. It seems odd that, though the concept of the day of God’s coming in great power permeates the scrolls (see the War Scroll) the expression “the day of the Lord” is never found in the nonbiblical manuscripts.
The
only surviving quote of Joel found elsewhere in the Qumran manuscripts is in
4Q266—one of the Cave 4 copies of the Damascus Document—applying the
exhortation to return to God, originally addressed to sinful Israel (Joel
2:12-13), to the disobedient community member who has been told the punishment
for his sin.
AMOS
Four of the ten Minor Prophets scrolls contain text from the book of Amos (4QXIIc, 4QXIIg, MurXII, 5Qamos). Elsewhere in the scrolls, a recast quotation of Amos 5:26-27 provides for the historical genesis of the Qumran sect in the land of Damascus (see the Damascus Document 7:14-15). The expression “tents of Damascus” (“beyond Damascus” in the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible) is then interpreted in light of Amost 9:11, “I will re-erect the fallen tent of David”—as a reference to the neglected books of the Law which were reestablished in Damascus. Another reference to this passage---perhaps more sensitive to the context—appears in Acts 7:43, notably replacing Damscus with Babylon. In light of this, it is possible that the Qumran community understood Damascus as a figure for the Babylonian exile when they spoke of the new covenant made in the ‘land of Damscus’ (CD 8:21 and 19:34).
Amos
9:11 turns up again in 4Q174 3:12. On this occasion, the “fallen tent of
David” is the messianic Branch of David who was expected to appear in the Last
Days to deliver Israel. Finally, Amos 8:11 is also employed in true pesher
fashion in the Prophetic Apocryphon (4Q387 2 8-9) and becomes a thirsting for
the “words of the Lord” brought about in the Last Days by the apostate
priesthood.
OBADIAH
The
twenty one verse postexilic vision of Obadiah concerning Edom—Israel’s
cousin and foe from across the Dead Sea to the southeast—is found in two of
the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts (4QXIIg, MurXII). Although Edom is mentioned
in the scrolls (see the War Scroll 1:1 and 4Q434 7b 3), no use of Obadiah s
found in the surviving nonbiblical manuscripts. Obadiah is, however, credited
with a psalm whose fragmentary first line s found in A Collection of Royal
Psalms (4Q381 1 ii 8-9).
JONAH
The famous account of Jonah and the giant fish is found in five of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts. Neither the book nor the prophet attracted any attention among the nonbiblical scrolls that survived the two thousand year storage in the caves. One wonders what the Qumran community members might have thought of God’s forgiving Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, one of Israel’s greatest enemies. (Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 443)
MICAH
Micah is found in three of the Minor Prophets manuscripts (4QXIIg, MurXII, 8HevXII gr) as well as in a fragmentary pesher (1Q14). This commentary interprets portions of chapter 1—which addresses the judgment of Samaria (Israel) and Jerusalem (Judah) at the end of the eighth century BC—as fulfilled in the time of the Teacher of Righteousness, enumerating the judgments due his enemies.
Quotations
from Micah in nonbiblical texts are relatively numerous. The false prophets of
the eighth century BC who commanded Micah to keep silent (Micah 2:6a), become in
good pesher style, the Pharisees of the late Second Temple Period- in
particular, the leadership, who evidently sought to silence the Teacher
(Damascus Document, 4:20). Micah
2:10-11 and its command to “rise and go, for this is not a place of rest” is
interpreted by 4Q177 as evidence of God’s desire that the sect remove itself
from Jerusalem and go into exile. Micah 4:13 and its prediction of
Jerusalem’s—the daughter of Zion’s—glory in the Last Days is
incorporated into the blessing of the messianic Prince or Leader of Israel in Priestly
Blessings for the Last Days (1QSb 5:26). Micah 7:11 is understood by the
Damascus Document (CD 4:12) to be fulfilled at the end of the then-present
wicked age, when “the wall is built, the boundary removed.”
As
has been evidenced in earlier discussion, quotations from these Minor Prophets
are normally employed to illuminate the events of God’s program—that which
is termed pesher interpetation. Rarely, as is the case with the quotation of
Micah 7:2 in the Damascus Document (CD) 16:15, is a prophetic text used to
determine a legal issue. In this instance, the issue is what might be offered or
vowed to God. If the item is necessary for subsistence, and therefore liable to
be reneged—setting one up to be hunted with a net—it should not be vowed.
NAHUM
Nahum’s late seventh century BC oracle against Nineveh is found in three (4QXIIg, MurXII, 8HevXII gr) of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts and is the subject of one of the most important and extensive pesher texts found in the caves at Qumran (4Q169). In that pesher, the prophecy’s original setting—the imminent fall of Nineveh, capital of the waning superpower Assyria—is ignored and the prophet’s words of judgment are turned against a group called “Seekers of Smooth Things” or “Flattery Seekers.” As is evident from the context, this designation is clearly meant to represent the Pharisees.
In
addition to this large scale pesher, Nahum 2:11 undergoes similar treatment in
4Q177, along with a collection of other biblical quotes referring to the
vindication of the righteous and the judgment of the company of darkness in the
Last Days.
Nahum
1:2, “On his enemies God takes vengeance; against his foes he bears a
grudge” is cited in the Damascus Document (CD 9:5) in conjunction with
Leviticus 19:18, “Take no vengeance and bear no grudge against your kinfolk”
to demonstrate that vengeance taken on a fellow sectarian is not proper. To deal
with such a fellow in such a way would be to regard kinfolk as the enemy.
HABAKKUK
Habakkuk, the subject of one of the most extensive pesher texts (A Commentary on Habakkuk), also exists in three of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts (4QXIIg, MurXII, 8HevXII gr).
A
Commentary or Pesher on Habakkuk exploits the original setting of the prophecy set in
the early sixth century BC and the disturbing message of the coming of the
Chaldeans—God’s agents of judgment on sinful Judah—to interpret the events
of five hundred years later. The Chaldeans become the “Kittim” or Romans and
the unjust of Judah are none other than the foes of the Qumran community, the
Pharisees. Oddly, apart from this extensive pesher, there are no citations or
allusions to Habakkuk among the scrolls.”
ZEPHANIAH
The
five short chapter of Zephaniah are well attested in the scrolls, preserved in
five of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts (4QXIIb, 4QXIIc, 4QXIIg, MurXII,
8HevXIIgr). There is also an extremely fragmentary pesher, which was found in
Cave 1 (1Q15).
Zephaniah
is also appealed to in two instances among the nonbiblical scrolls. 1QS 5:11
quotes Zephaniah 1:6, They have not sought him or inquired of his
statutes”—a charge originally made against idolatrous Judah near the end of
the seventh century BC—characterizing those who did not enter the covenant of
the Qumran community. Lives of the Patriarchs (4Q464 3 I 9) cites
Zephaniah 3:9, “For I will give purified lips to the people”—a passage
that in its original setting referred to the conversion of the Gentile nations
in the last days. Although the rabbinic commentary Midrash Tanhuma 28
captures this intent (“purified lips becoming the Hebrew language)—it is
rather unlikely that the Qumran community would have included the Gentile
nations in their interpretation of the passage. All that can be said of the
rather difficult fragment is that the scroll also understood “purified lips”
to be referring to Hebrew and that speaking Hebrew may have been seen as part of
the promise to Abraham.
HAGGAI
The diminuitive but powerful book of the postexilic prophet Haggai is preserved in only three of the ten Minor Prophets manuscripts (4QXIIb, 4QXIIe, MurXII). The pointed challenge to rebuild the Temple destroyed by the Babylonians is not cited in any of the nonbiblical writings, nor is the name Haggai mentioned in the scrolls. (Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 467)
ZECHARIAH
The postexilic prophet Zechariah is attested in five of the ten Minor Prophets scrolls (4QXIIa, 4QXIIe, 4QXIIg, MurXII, 8HevXII gr). And though not the subject of any preserved commentaries, was cited frequently among the nonbiblical manuscripts from Qumran.
An
Aramaic Text on the Persian Period (4Q562 2 1) refers to Zechariah 2:8, “One who
touches you is as one who touches the apple of his eye” evidently in reference
to the time of return from Babylon and God’s promise to judge those who would
plunder Israel.
In
true pesher fashion, the community saw a reference to their own sufferings in
the “seven eyes” of Zechariah 3:9. This passage was interpreted to be the
“seven fold” refining of Psalm 12:6 (4Q177). Likewise, a Commentary on
Consolating Passages in Scripture (4Q176 15 3-4) quotes Zechariah 13:9, “I
will bring one third in the fire and refine them” in a context that tempers
the suffering prophesied by Zechariah with words of comfort.
The
messianic hope that characterized the Qumran community was likely the setting of
the “two anointed sons” of Zechariah 4:14, perhaps cited in reference to the
blessing of Judah (Gen.49:8-12) in one of the Commentaries on Genesis (4Q254
4 2). Qumran doctrine found an acknowledgment of the priestly (anointed of
Aaron) and royal (anointed of Israel) messiahs in such passages. This very hope
forms the setting of the reference to Zechariah 13:7—“If you strike down the
shepherd, the flock will scatter”—in the Damascus Document (CD 19:7-9). The
interpretation appears to refer to the martyrdom of the community’s leader in
the Last Days. The “poor of the flock” (a reference to Zech.11:7) escape the
subsequent punishment when the unrighteous are delivered up for judgment at the
coming of the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.
MALACHI
Only two of the ten manuscripts of the Minor Prophets contain the text of Malachi (4QIIa, 4QXIIc). This deterioration of the ends (and beginnings) of scrolls is a pattern seen frequently in the remains of the Qumran library. Although no pesher texts survive, a number of quotations reflect the manner in which the book was used by the Qumran community.
The
exhortation of Malachi 1 to cease the presentation of worthless offerings to God
is reaffirmed to the community in the Damascus Document (CD 6:5). Better to
“lock the door” than to “light up my altar in vain” (Mal.1:10). In an
ironic twist, it was the Temple—and not the offering—that had become the
central problem. The altar had been defiled because the officiating priests had
refused to enter the covenant of the Qumran community.
Malachi
3:16 and 18 were cited in the Damascus Document 20:19-22 in order to press the
point that it was those who kept God’s covenant—the Qumran community—who
were the righteous ones recorded in God’s book of remembrance.
A
small fragment of Portions of Sectarian Law (4Q265 4 1-2) quotes Malachi
2:10—“Why are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our
ancestors”—evidently as part of an argument that denied young boys and
females entrance to the Passover feast. Unfortunately, the fragmentary condition
of the text does not preserve the logic behind this ruling, which is nowhere
present in the biblical record.
DANIEL
For a group of Jewish men living in the desert, waiting for the end of the world, believing that almost everyone else was among the sons of darkness, the book of Daniel would have been welcome reading. Its tales of a godly man and his friends resisting persecution, refusing to compromise, and triumphing over wickedness and idolatry must have brought encouragement to the Qumran covenanters.
For
modern readers and scholars, the Daniel scrolls and other related manuscripts
are interesting for three reasons. First, of all the biblical books found at
Qumran, these copies of Daniel are closest in date to when the book itself was
written. Second, they provide our earliest evidence for the contents and form of
Daniel. Finally, some related scrolls contain new stories surrounding Daniel
that have only now come to light in the DSS.
Eight
Daniel manuscripts were found at Qumran: two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4 and one
in Cave 6. Unfortunately, none is complete due to the ravages of time, but
between them they preserve a substantial amount of the book of Daniel. All eight
scrolls were copied in the space of 175 years, ranging from 125 BC to AD 50.
Since Daniel was compiled later than any other book in the Hebrew Bible (about
165 BC), these scrolls show that it was becoming popular and widely used at
Qumran only forty years after being written.
What
forms of this book are found in the scrolls?
This is an important question, since Jewish and Protestant Bibles contain
Daniel in twelve chapters, whereas Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have a
longer version that includes the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young
Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Seven of the Daniel scrolls contained the
book in the shorter form found in Jewish and Protestant Bibles---not the longer
form known from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. But one scroll (4QDan e)
preserves material from Daniel’s Prayer in chapter 9, which suggests that it
probably contained this prayer alone. It is also interesting to note that every
chapter of Daniel is represented in the eight manuscripts, except for chapter
12. Yet this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran,
since one of the nonbiblical scrolls, known as the Florilegium (4Q174),
quotes Daniel 12:10 as written in the “book of Daniel the prophet.”
Another
question in the case of Daniel concerns the bilingual nature of the book , which
in the Hebrew Bible opens in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic at chapter 2:4b and
then reverts again to Hebrew at 8:1. The four scrolls that preserve material
from two or all three of these sections make the very same transitions from
Hebrew to Aramaic and back again. While the precise reasons for having Hebrew
and Aramaic sections in the same book are complex, the scrolls show us that
Daniel existed in this form very early on and thus was most likely written in
Hebrew and Aramaic.
Do
the scrolls offer clues to the position of the book of Daniel in the canon of
the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Daniel
12:10 in the Florilegium says that the verse is written in the book of Daniel
the prophet. This indicates that at Qumran Daniel was classified among the
prophets rather than the writings.
To
say that the Daniel scrolls contain a book the one found in the Hebrew Bible
does not mean that they contain exactly the same text. On the contrary, readings
for individual words or groups of words frequently differ. Such variants will be
of great interest to many readers, especially those desiring to find out how the
scrolls affect our understanding of certain key verses of Scripture. Many of
these readings are minor, with little or no effect on the meaning or
interpretation of the book—but some are more significant. For instance, near
the end of Daniel 7:1, the awkward phrase “he related the sum of the words”
is completely absent from 4QDan b, the only scroll that preserves this verse.
The importance of the reading is underscored by the New Revised Standard
Version, which simply has “then he wrote down the dream” in line with 4QDan
b and not with the Hebrew Bible. A second example is seen in Daniel 10:16, where
the Hebrew Bible reads “one in the likeness of the sons of men” but pap6QDan
most likely agrees with the Septuagints’s “something in the likeness of a
human hand.” In this case, the editors of the NIV decided to retain the
reading of the Masoretic Text (as do other English translations) but considered
the variant reading important enough to merit an extensive footnote.
Was
the book of Daniel quoted or referred to in other writings at Qumran?
11Qmelchizedek refers to the “Anointed of the Spirit, of whom Daniel spoke”
(Dan.9:25-26). The quotation of Daniel 12:10 as from the book of Daniel the
prophet in the Florilegium is significant for three reasons: (1) It proves that
by about 25 BC Daniel was already being quoted as Scripture. (2) It shows that
the author of the Florilegium knew Daniel as a complete book. (3) It suggests
that at Qumran Daniel was included among the Prophets and not among the
Writings.
Several
other manuscripts—all written in Aramaic—also mention Daniel or events
associated with his book. These are the Prayer of Nabonidas (4Q242), two
pseudo-Daniel documents (4Q243-244 and 4Q245), the Daniel Apocryphon (4Q246),
4QDaniel Susanna (4Q551), 4QFour Kingdoms (4Q552-553), and pap4QApocalypse
(4Q489). With their tales of
courage in the face of persecution and their vision of the end of the world,
these nonbiblical scrolls offer fascinating insights into Jewish thinking
concerning inspired sayings, the course of history, and the end times during a
period of Greek and Roman rule that was of great significance for both Judaism
and Christianity.
PSALMS
Among all the books of the Bible, the Psalms are the most numerous in the DSS, which indicates their immense popularity at Qumran. But the form of the Psalter in these most ancient manuscripts is diverse and fascinating. Up to Psalm 89 or so, the scrolls contain material very much in the order used by Jews and Christians today, although there are a few variations. But from Psalm 91 onward, many of the Psalms scrolls differ radically from the Psalter as we know it. The variations involved are of two main types: variations in arrangement (a different order of Psalms) and variations in content (the inclusion of compositions not found in the traditional book of Psalms. Some of these were previously known, and others completely unknown, before the discovery of the DSS).
Description and Contents of Psalms Scrolls
There
are forty Psalms scrolls or manuscripts that range in date from the mid-second
century BC to about 50-68 A.D. Thirty seven were found at Qumran: three in Cave
1, one each in the minor caves 2, 3, 5,6, and 8, twenty three in Cave 4, and six
in Cave 11. Three more scrolls were discovered farther south along the Dead Sea:
two at Masada, and one at Nahal Hever. Although none is complete, several of
these manuscripts are very substantial—notably the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPs
a), followed by 4QPs a, 5/6HevPs, 4QPs b, and 4QPs e.
Of
the 150 Psalms found in the Masoretic Psalter, 126 are preserved in the 40
Psalms scrolls and a few other relevant manuscripts such as the pesharim. The
remaining twenty four Psalms were most likely included but have since been lost
due to deterioration and damage. Of Psalms 1-89, nineteen no longer survived;
but of Psalms 90 to 150 only five are not represented (Ps.90, 108, 110, 111,and
117) since the beginnings of scrolls are usually on the outside and are thus
more prone to deterioration. In addition to these Psalms that are found in
modern Bibles, at least 15 apocryphal Psalms or similar compositions are also
distributed among four manuscripts (11QPs a, 4QPs f, 11QPs b, and 11QPsAp a. Six
of these compositions were previously familiar to scholars (151A, 151B, 154,
155, David’s Last Words (=2 Sam.23:1-7) and Sirach 51:13-30, but the other
nine were completely unknown prior to the discovery of the DSS (The Apostrophe
to Judah, the Apostrophe to Zion, David’s Compositions, the Eschatological
Hymn, the Hymn to the Creator, the Plea for Deliverance, and three of the Songs
against Demons.
Different Psalters in the Scrolls
Prior
to the discovery of the DSS, the LXX contains a Psalter that differs in two
respects from the one found in the Masoretic Text. The first type of variation
is in arrangement and the second is in content. The existence of Psalters with
different arrangements or contents is significant for our understanding of the
book of Psalms since many scholars today are focusing on the shape of the
Psalter and the implications of the order of the Psalms as well as on their
contents.
In
two scrolls (4QPs a and 4QPs q) Psalm 31 is followed directly by Psalm 33. We
cannot be sure that Psalm 32 was ever part of these scrolls. In one scroll (4QPs
a) Psalm 38 is followed directly by Psalm 71. Except for these two important
variations, our translation of Psalms 1 through 89 is presented in the order of
the Masoretic Text.
But
for Psalms 91 onward- 90 is not preserved- both the arrangement and contents of
many Psalms scrolls are very different from what we had known previously.
These variations are so numerous and radical that it is necessary to
provide a table at the end of the intro to assist readers in locating specific
Psalms. (Table 2).
The
most prominent arrangement that found in 11QPs a (the largest Psalms scroll),
4QPs e, and 11QPs b- can be termed the 11QPs a Psalter. It should be emphasized
that this term denotes Psalms 1 through 89 plus the arrangement found in 11QPs
a. The over all structure of the 11QPs a Psalter differs substantially from the
Greek one.
The
second arrangement—the Psalter used by Jews and most Christians today—is
conveniently termed the MT-150 Psalter since the form of the Psalter found in
the Masoretic Text contains 150 Psalms. It is most surprising to find that none
of the Psalms scrolls from Qumran unambiguously confirms the arrangement of this
Psalter; for such a sequence, we have to turn to a scroll from Masada (MasPs b-
which ends with Psalm 150).
The
other three arrangements are much smaller (see Table 1). One involves the Four
Psalms Against Demons in 11QpsAp a, which are placed immediately after Psalm 89
in the DSS Bible. Another arrangement is found in 4QPs b, which preserves
material from Psalms 91 through 118—but with Psalm 103 followed directly by
Psalm 112 (thus not including Psalms 92 to 111). The final arrangement is in
4QPs f which contains Psalms 22, 107 and 109, followed by three apocryphal
Psalms (the Apostrophe to Zion, the Eschatological Hymn and the Apostrophe to
Judah). Since Psalms 22 and 109 and
the Apostrophe to Zion occur in other scrolls in combination with other
compositions, the translation does not present them in the order found in 4QPs f
in the DSS Bible. However, the remaining three (Ps.107, the Eschatological Hymn,
and the Apostrophe to Judah) are not found in any other Psalms scrolls, so these
are grouped together after Psalm 151B under the heading “An Unusual Collection
from Cave 4.”
New Readings and the Status of the Psalms at Qumran
Several
interesting readings are also found in the Psalms scrolls. One of these is in
Psalm 145, which is missing a verse in the MT. This is an acrostic psalm—in
other words, one with every verse beginning with a successive letter of the
Hebrew alphabet. Although there are twenty two letters in this alphabet, the
Psalm contains only twenty one verses: a verse beginning with the Hebrew letter nun
should come between verse 13 (the mem verse) and verse 14 (samek
verse). 11QPs a is the only scroll that preserves Psalm 145; for verse 13 it
contains not only the mem verse but the missing nun verse as well!
This is an important example of how the DSS sometimes preserve material
that has fallen out of the Masoretic Text during the process of transmission.
This reading is so compelling that the nun verse has been included in
many modern English Bibles, including the New Revised Standard Version, the New
American Bible, the New International Version and the Good News Bible.
What
was the status of the Book of Psalms at Qumran? A text that was written at
Qumran, 4QMMT, suggests that the Psalms form the most prominent composition in
the third part of the Jewish canon which was actually still in the process of
formation. “And we have written to you that you should examine the book of
Moses, and the words of the Prophets and Davi[d]. (4QMMT C lines 9-10).
A very similar statement is found in Luke 24:44 where Jesus says,
“Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses,
the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Another pertinent text is the War Scroll (4Q491),
which specifically refers to the “book of Psalms” (4Q491, fragment 17, line
4). The scriptural status of the Psalter is also supported by the three pesharim
on the Psalms (1QpPs, 4QpPs a, and 4QpPs b), by quoting verses from the Psalms
and expounding on them, the ancient commentaries clearly affirm that their
writers viewed the book of Psalms as Scripture.
It
thus seems clear that the book of Psalms was viewed as Scripture at Qumran. But
it is not easy to determine which specific form of the Psalter was regarded as
such. A passage from one of the compositions found in the 11QPsa-Psalter
(David’s Compositions) is relevant in this regard: “And David, the son of
Jesse, was wise and a light like the light of the sun, and literate…And the
total of his psalms and songs was four thousand and fifty. All these he composed
through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High.” Such language
indicates that the Psalms of David, particularly those found in the
11QPsa-Psalter were viewed as inspired Scripture among those who compiled and
used this ancient collection of Psalms.
JOB
The Hebrew text of the book of Job is the most problematic found in the Bible. This is due not only to its subject matter, but also to the fact that it is poetry, that it is high dramatic art of lyric quality, and that it may be based on an earlier drama not Israelite in origin.
Remnants
of only four manuscripts were unearthed at Qumran, and only one of those (4QJob
a) has more than six small fragments preserved. 2QJob, in fact, has only one
fragment with a single complete word and letters from four others.
Interestingly, one of the manuscripts of Job of very early date (225-150 BCE)
was inscribed in the archaic paleo-Hebrew script, common before the Babylonian
exile (586 B.C). All the other identified manuscripts written in this script are
among the Books of Moses though there are is another deals with the figure of
Joshua. Rabbinic tradition attributes the book of Job to Moses. Thus the ancient
script was presumably retained for some copies of these books as an attestation
of their great antiquity. In addition, there were two copies of an Aramaic
translation of the book found.
Unfortunately,
the small amount of Job preserved at Qumran does not help much with the
difficult Hebrew of the traditional Masoretic Text. Occasionally when the Qumran
manuscripts differ from the traditional version, there is not enough text
preserved to establish a context firmly. This is problematic, since even the
Masoretic Text itself is sometimes obscure, and translators must make educated
guesses. Most of the variants are quite minor: singular for plural,
transposition of word order, presence or lack of a small word that adds no
meaning or is implicit. Once 4QJob a uses a more familiar form of the word
“God” (Job 33:26). In another instance 4QJob a has a negative that is not in
the traditional text (Job 37:1), but the full context cannot be confidently
established.
PROVERBS
Proverbs was an important book in Israel for training in wisdom, prudence, and moral character, and Qumran made use of it. Only scraps from two scrolls of Proverbs were found there and one of those has only two fragments. There are major differences between the Hebrew and the Greek versions of Proverbs, due to intentionally different editions of the book, and the Qumran fragments appear to agree with the traditional Hebrew edition. There are only a few variants, each presumably inadvertent, involving only a single look a like letter but yielding noticeable differences in meaning.
One
verse of Proverbs is cited explicitly by one of the principle books of the
Qumran community, the Damascus Document. The command is given not to send
an “offering to the altar through anyone impure…for it is written, The
sacrifice of the wicked is disgusting; but the prayer of the righteous is like a
proper offering.” (CD 11:19-21 quoting Proverbs 15:8). The formula “for it
is written” is sometimes used to introduce authoritative Scripture for
deciding a course of conduct, but sometimes, as here, it is used simply to
buttress a commonsense practice. In addition Proverbs 1:1-6 is echoed in 4Q525
fragment 1 “[to kno]w wisdom and disc[ipline,] to understand…” Proverbs
7:12 is possibly quoted in 4Q184 fragment 1 11-12 where Lady Folly “lies
secretly in wait…in the city streets”; the same motif plays in 4Q415
fragment 9, reminiscent of Proverbs 8:22-31.
RUTH
This charming story about the foreigner Ruth and her devotion to her Israelite mother in law survives on fragments from four separate manuscripts, two from Cave 2 and two from Cave 4 at Qumran. Two of the scrolls date from the middle of the first century BC, one from the late first century BC or early first century CE, and one from the middle of the first century CE. Since the story is rather straightforward, and since there are few issues that would cite ideological change, all four texts plus the one recorded in the tradition MT exhibit the same language with only minor, unimportant variants. Most involve either a single letter mistaken for a similar one, an interchangeably synonymous word, or an insertion of an explicit word for what was already implicit. (Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 607)
THE
SONG OF SONGS
The Song of Sons is one of the most controversial books in the Bible, although it contains only eight chapters. A careful reading of this book (whose title means “The Greatet of All Songs”) shows it to be a collection of love poems, several of which are very erotic and romantic. The precise sexual details are not always apparent, since they are frequently couched in imagery-much of it sensitive, beautiful and Middle Eastern—that is not easily understood by modern readers.
Because
of its frankness and unabashed celebration of sexual love, some of the early
Rabbis and early church fathers were disturbed by this delightful little book,
interpreting it in a variety of ways that played down its sexuality. Some early
Jewish and Christian sages found the contents plainly unacceptable and attempted
to block its acceptance into the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Certain Rabbis,
however, recognized the Song of Songs as Scripture but sought to interpret its
contents in terms of the relationship between God (the lover or bridegroom) and
Israel (the beloved or bride). Many church fathers who also accepted the book as
Scripture interpreted it as describing the relationship between Christ and His
Church. But in more recent times both Jews and Christians have increasingly come
to recognize the sexual and romantic nature of the Song of Songs. This trend is
to be welcomed by our various faith communities, since it affirms that the God
who created us is concerned with our sexuality and romantic dimensions, that
these are significant aspects of marriage, and that religious people can enjoy
them without shame.
Four scrolls of the Song of Songs (or Canticles) were found at Qumran, three in Cave 4 (4Canta, 4Cantb, and 4Cantc) and the fourth in Cave 6 (6QCant). All were copied in the Herodian period between 30 BCE and 70 CE), the latest being 6Qcan (about 50 CE). Two of these scrolls (4Canta and 4Cantb) deserve special mention, both because they are the best preserved and because each has a number of interesting features. Although 4Canta preserves quote a substantial amount of material (3:4-5, 7-11; 4:1-7; 6:11-12:7:1-7), the text between Canticles 4:7 and Canticles 6:11 is completely missing. Since in the Masoretic Text Canticles 4:7 forms the end of a content unit and Canticles 6:11 starts the beginning of another unit, it seems that the absence of chapters 4:8 through 6:10 was no mere accident; this material was either deliberately omitted, was not part of the text being copied by the scribe, or occurred elsewhere in the scroll. When compared with the size of the book as a whole, the section missing in this scroll is very large (about 30 percent). One explanation is the sensual language and erotic imagery that is found in much of the missing portion; the Song of Songs was evidently a controversial book before the time of Jesus.
The
second noteworthy scroll is 4Cantb, which also preserves a goodly amount of text
(chapters 2:9-17; 3:1-2, 5, 9-10; 4:1-3, 8-11, 14-16; 5:1) but omits two large
segments (3:6-8 and 4:4-7) and possibly ended at 5:1, thus containing only the
first half of the book found in modern Bibles. It is interesting that 4QCanta
and 4QCantb lack a section at exactly the same point (Cant.4:7). But while
4QCanta omits a large piece of text starting after 4:7, 4Qcantb omits the three
verses preceding the end of 4:7. 4QCantb also features several scribal errors,
and although written in Hebrew, contains several Aramaic word forms that reveal
Aramaic influence on the scribe. Moreover, 4Cant b contains several unusual
scribal markings that seem to represent letters in either the paleo-Hebrew
script, the Cryptic A script (which was used in some Qumran sectarian writings),
or a combination of several scripts including Greek. These letters in 4QCantb
may indicate a sectarian scribal background or a special function of this
manuscript among the Qumran community. The actual purpose of the unusual letters
is not clear. Since they appear in lines that were slightly or much shorter than
the surrounding ones, they may have served as line-fillers written in the spaces
at the end of the lines to prevent such lines from being mistaken as “open
sections.”
ECCLESIASTES
Qohelet- perhaps meaning “the assembler” is concerned with the purpose of life and in particular the inability of material things to provide meaning. As appropriate as this message might have been for the ascetic community reflected in the DSS, only two manuscripts of the book were found at Qumran. The Wisdom Books apparently were not yet considered of quite the same importance as the Law and the Prophets. The older manuscript, 4QQoha, is housed at the Amman Museum rather than with 4QQoh b and most of the other scrolls in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.
4QQoha
is among the oldest manuscripts at Qumran dating from about 175 BCE. Its writing
is spacious and penned with flair. There are portions of three continguous
columns preserved, containing text from chapters 5 through 7. The 4QQoha scribe
made several copying mistakes—for example, once skipping from one occurrence
of a word to a repeated occurrence (though he did notice the error and write the
missing text supralinearly).
4QQohb
has only two small fragments from chapter 1 and probably dates from the middle
or latter half of the first century BCE.
All
the witnesses—the scrolls, the Masoretic Text, and the Septuagint—generally
exhibit a similar text, though each is dotted with minor variants. Most of the
variants are small particles, late verses classical forms, minor scribal errors,
lookalike words, or changes of word order. A few letters are extant at the ends
of the 4QQoha fragments from 6:8 and 6:12-7:1, but while they are insufficient
to establish any meaning, they do not agree with the words in the Masoretic
Text. Some minor features in Hebrew
and Greek cannot be mirrored in the opposite language, but when minor
differences between the Hebrew texts can be reflected in the Greek, the
Septuagint usually agrees with the Masoretic Text, though sometimes it follows
the scroll. (Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 619)
LAMENTATIONS
The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC gave rise to the question: Why did this happen? This cry of lament is recorded as the first word in three of the five poems that make up the collection known as Lamentations (1:1; 2:1; and 4:1) and is the Hebrew title of the book. For the Qumranites- a community that still considered itself in exile (the present Temple being in the hands of imposters and therefore ritually unclean)—these poems must have been of heightened significance.
Four
manuscripts—together witnessing to all five chapters of Lamentations—were
found in the caves of Qumran. Cave 3, famous for the Copper Scroll,
preserved one manuscript (3QLam). A somewhat variant version of the book was
unearthed in Cave 4 (4QLam). Finally, the relatively meager cache of twenty five
fragmentary manuscripts found in Cave 5 produced remnants of two scrolls of
Lamentations (5QLam a and 5QLam b).
Chapters
1 through 4 of Lamentations were written in a poetic form known as acrostic.
In an acrostic poem, each line, or group of lines, begins with a letter of the
alphabet in its respective order. The versification of our modern Bibles
evidences this characteristic, because each chapter is a multiple of twenty two,
the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Chapter 5, though not acrostic,
follows this numerical pattern as well. The acrostic form is also captured in
our modern Bibles by the common practice of printing poetry in cola
(poetic units that are divisions of the strophe or stanza). To our
eye, this is what differentiates poetry from prose. It is noteworthy that while
the scribe of 3QLam did copy Lamentations in such a fashion, those of 4QLam,
5QLam a and 5QLam b did not. Perhaps the ancient concern was much the same as
publishing concerns in our time: the need to save space.
Lamentations
is quoted at least from the nonbiblical scrolls. A Lament for Zion (4Q179
2 4), a literary piece that appears to be patterned after Lamentations cites
Lamentations 1:1. A Prayer for Deliverance (4Q501) capitalizes on the
genre of lament, although in this case the enemy is not the Babylonians, the
Romans, or any other foreign people, but rather unbelieving Jews. The writer
pleads with God to exclude them from the “sons of the covenant” because of
their lack of faithfulness. One of the few as yet unpublished manuscripts
(4Q241) is also reported to contain a passage from Lamentations.
The
most extensive manuscript of Lamentations-4QLam—is a late first century BCE
copy unearthed in Cave 4. The first preserved column of the scroll begins in the
midst of line 1, with the upper margin clearly visible. Although, given the
fragmentary nature of the text, the right margin is not visible (remember that
Hebrew reads right to left) it is clear from the calculated line length that the
first half of verse 1 necessarily began at the bottom of the previous column.
Thus almost certainly Lamentaions was not the first book in this scroll. So we
might as, what was the book that preceded it? Jews would likely answer that it
was preceded by Ruth—according to the order of books represented by the Hebrew
canon—whereas Christians would suggest Jeremiah, as is the case in the
Christian Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing near the end of the
first century CE, gives the earliest evidence for an answer to this question. He
discusses a twenty two book Bible (Contra Apionem 1:8), whereas the modern
Jewish Bible numbers 24. Josephus’s number would suggest that Ruth was
included with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Unfortunately, the worms
that feasted on the Cave 4 manuscript have eliminated any further clues to this
mystery. Perhaps future DNA testing will reveal whether 4QJer e or one of the
two Cave 4 copies of Ruth (4QRuth a or 4QRuth b) was written on skin from the
same or related animal.
ESTHER
(MISSING)
Of the thirty nine books of the Hebrew Bible—or twenty four if the Minor Prophets, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles are each counted as one—only the book of Esther is missing from the collection of manuscripts unearthed in the caves of Qumran. The absence of Esther from the twenty or so scrolls found among the ruins of Masada and the hideouts used by the rebels of the Bar Kokhba revolt does not raise much of a question, but the absence of Esther from more than 200 biblical scrolls from the caves of Qumran is a bit more curious. To be sure, the books of Nehemiah and 1 Chronicles have not been found either, but they are generally assumed to have been present on the basis of the few crumbs of the scroll of Ezra and 2 Chronicles respectively.
That
Esther has turned up missing might be attributed to nothing more than chance
coupled with the relatively small size of the book. In addition, as noted above,
it is true that other books composed in the period following the Babylonian
Exile are either missing (Nehemiah and 1 Chronicles) or nearly so (Ezra and 2
Chronicles). However, some evidence that has come to light just recently reveals
that the absence of Esther was purposeful rather than accidental. The Qumran
calendar texts-not generally known before 1991-chart festivals and holy days on
the community’s 364 day year. The feast of Purim, which has its beginnings in
the story of Esther is missing. As a result, the real question now becomes: Why
was Esther rejected?
Several
answers might be suggested. First, the
fact that the festival of Purim was a later addition, not mentioned in the books
of Moses, might have caused the DSS community to reject the book. Second, the
mere fact that the story concerns the marriage of Esther (a Jew) to a Persian
kin was likely repugnant to the group’s conservative sensibilities. Third, the
book itself makes no mention of God whatsoever. Finally, the emphasis on
retaliation evident in the final chapters of Esther (chapters 7-9) is contrary
to the teachings of the DSS: “To no man shall I return evil for evil; I shall
pursue a man only for good; for with God resides the judgment of all the living,
and he shall pay each man his recompense” (1QS 10:17-18). Any one of these
four factors would have provided good reason to reject the book of Esther.
CHRONICLES
Only a single small fragment, dated about 50-25 BC remains out of the sixty five chapters of 1 and 2 Chronicles. In contrast, four manuscripts of 1 and 2 Samuel and three of 1 and 2 Kings were preserved, one quite extensively. The relative scarcity of Chronicles at Qumran could be a matter of either chance or design, since Chronicles has a strong focus on Jerusalem and the Temple, from which the Qumran community had removed itself.
The
single fragment of Chronicles, however, proves interesting. The text translated
here is close to the traditional text, with three small variants—two
meaningless and a third a minor error in the spelling of the name of the Queen
Mother. The Queen Mother, of course, is important to dynastic kingship (when the
king might have several wives) for determining which branch of the family
inherits the royal prerogatives.
Preceding
the recognizable text from 2 Chronicles 28:27-29:3, however, are the remains of
a few letters in the previous column. They yield no connected text, but neither
do they match any of the traditional text of Chronicles within a chapter or two
before the recognizable text translated here. So there appear to be two
possibilities: either (1) this fragment is not really from a manuscript of the
book of Chronicles itself but is from another work that quotes Chronicles or (2)
it s a text of Chronicles that simply has some text that varies from the
traditional text. The latter is probably the case. The extensive Samuel
manuscript (4QSam a) frequently varies from the traditional text in large and
significant ways and half the time its text is to be preferred to the MT. More
important, 4QSam a often agrees with Chronicles, the Septuagint, and the
narrative of the historian Josephus, against the isolated Masoretic narrative.
At any rate, this small fragment proves either that the book of Chronicles
itself was in the Qumran library, or perhaps more significantly, that it was
known and considered worth quoting.
EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Ezra,
a manuscript that was copied around the middle of the first century BCE,
survives in only three small fragments. It is the only manuscript of Ezra (and
there are none of Nehemiah) that was found in the Judean Desert. For the small
amount of extant text, it displays almost exactly the same wording recorded in
the MT. There are only four minor variants. 4Qezra once shows the singular form
of the verb in contrast to the MT’s plural, while in another case the
manuscripts show the exact opposite. Twice the MT errs in spelling the definite
article –ah, while 4Qezra has the correct form –a’.
Two books of the Hebrew Bible have survived in Aramaic translation in the Qumran caves. A small scroll, found in Cave 11 and measuring 109 cm, has preserved in Aramaic a large portion of the last seven chapters of the Book of Job. Twenty-seven smaller fragments cover parts of Job 17:14 to 36:33. This text, together with small remains from Cave 4 of Leviticus (4Q156=16:12-21) and of another manuscript of Job (4Q157 = 3:5-9; 4:16-5:4), represent the oldest extant Aramaic renderings of the Hebrew Bible. The translation of Job frequently differs from the customary text of the Hebrew Bible, but it is unclear whether the divergences are due merely to the difficulty of translating poetry, or to a Hebrew original not identical with the traditional Scripture.
GREEK
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS (4Q119-122, 7Q1-2)
Compared
to the quantity of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, the Greek documents found in
two of the Qumran caves, Caves 4 and 7, are remarkably few. Those which have been identified with certainty belong to the Greek translation
of the Bible, mostly the Pentateuch. Cave 4 has yielded the remains of two
scrolls Leviticus, one of leather (4Q119) and one of papyrus (4Q120), as well
as one of Numbers (4Q121) and Deuteronomy (4Q122), all dating to the second or
the first century BC. On the whole, they represent the traditional text of the
Septuagint with minor variations such as word being replaced by its synonym
(harvesting for threshing for example or nation by people). But 4QLXX Numbers
(4Q121) testifies to an effort to bring the LXX closer to the Hebrew Pentateuch.
However, it is worth nothing that in Lev.4:27 (4Q120, fragments
20, 4) the Tetragram (the divine name YHWH) is rendered semi-phonetically as Iao
and is not replaced as was customary later by the Greek Kurios (Lord).
Among
the nineteen minute fragments found in cave 7 which contained only Greek texts
two have been identified as relics of Exodus 28:4-7 (7Q1) and the Letter of
Jeremiah verses 43-44 (7Q2). The former is said to be closer to the traditional
Hebrew text than to the LXX. Both are dated to about 100 B.C.
GREEK
FRAGMENTS
(4Q126-127, 7Q3-19)
The remaining two Greek texts in Cave 4 date roughly to the turn of the era. One (4Q126) cannot be identified and the other (4Q127) is either a paraphrase of Exodus, mentioning among others Pharaoh, Moses and Egypt, or possibly an apocryphal account of Israel in Egypt.
Seventeen
out of the nineteen minute Greek papyrus fragments from cave 7 have been
declared by the editors to be unidentifiable. A Spanish Jesuit, Jose O’Callaghan,
in 1972 argued that these hardly legible scraps derived from six books of the
New Testament: the Gospel of Mark 4:28 (7Q6 1), 6:48 (7Q15), 6:52-3 (7Q5), 12:17
(7Q7), the Acts of the Apostles 28:38 (7Q6 2); 1 Timothy 3:16, 4:1, 3 (7Q4);
James 1:23-24 (7Q8), and even one of the latest New Testament writings: 2 Peter
1:15 (7Q10). Callaghan bases his opinion on a fragment which measures 3.3 x 2.3 cm. Letters appear on
just four lines and these are of unknown length since both the beginning and the end of each line
are missing. An unrecognizable trace of another letter is observed at the top of
the fragment. Seventeen letters are identified of which
only nine are certain. A single complete word has survived: the Greek word kai
= and.
The
leading experts in the field (C. H. Roberts of Oxford and G. Aland) discarded
O’Callaghan’s theory. Roberts said that if he wanted to waste his time, he
was sure he would be able to demonstrate that 7Q5 belonged to any ancient Greek
text, biblical or non-biblical. Yet this unlikely hypothesis was revived in the 1980’s by Thiede and others only to encounter
the same fate of summary dismissal as Father O’Callaghan’s a decade or so
earlier.
The "Rewritten Scriptures" may be defined as a text that has a close narrative attachment to some book contained in the present Jewish canon of scripture and some type of reworking, whether through rearrangement, conflation, omission, or supplementation of the present canonical biblical text. Four texts fall into this category: Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, 4QReworked Pentateuch, and he Genesis Apocryphon.
Jubilees is an extensive reworking of Genesis 1 through Exodus 12. Jubilees was found in fifteen copies in five caves in Qumran. The author of Jubilees uses the 364 day solar calendar to show that the solar calendar and the religious festivals and halakhah (his interpretation of them) were given to Moses on Sinai. Jubilees was considered an authoritative text at Qumran. It is cited by name in the Damascus Document (CD 16:3-4) and in 4Q228). Jubilees presents itself as authoritative as it claims to be dictated by an angel of God to Moses. The author of Jubilees condenses, omits, changes and adds. For instance, the author of Jubilees omits the fact that Abram lied about Sarah to Pharaoh (Gen.12:10).
The Temple Scroll (11Q19) is more than 8 meters or 26 feet in length, with remains of 66 columns. The first part has Moses at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 34) where God gives him instructions about building the sanctuary and altar (cols.2-13)
4QReworked Pentateuch appears in five manuscripts from Cave 4 in Qumran: 4Q158, 4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, and 4Q367. The manuscripts preserve parts of the Torah from Genesis through Deuteronomy. The author used a proto-Samaritan text as his base, regrouped passages according to a common theme, and added previously unknown material.
The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) was found in Cave 1 at Qumran. The scroll was written in Aramaic so it is not only a rewriting of the scriptures but also a translation. The Genesis Apocryphon is made up of twenty one fragmentary columns, the best preserved of which are columns 2 and 19-22.
The Genesis Apocryphon adds apocryphal stories to the Old Testament text. The narrative in column 2 of the Genesis Apocryphon begins with the story of Lamech (Gen.5:28) who questions his wife about her pregnancy.
"Behold, I thought then within my heart that conception was due to the Watchers and the Holy Ones ...and to the Giants ... and my heart was troubled within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh [my] wife in haste and said to her, '... by the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the worlds and Ruler of the Sons of Heaven, until you tell me all things truthfully, if ...Tell me [this truthfully] and not falsely ... by the King of all the worlds until you tell me truthfully and not falsely.' Then Bathenosh my wife spoke to me with much heat [and] ... said, 'O my brother, O my lord, remember my pleasure ...the lying together and my soul within its body. [And I tell you] all things truthfully.' My heart was then greatly troubled within me, and when Bathenosh my wife saw that my countenance had changed ... Then she mastered her anger and spoke to me saying, 'O my lord, O my [brother, remember] my pleasure! I swear to you by the Holy Great One, the King of [the heavens] ... that this seed is yours and that [this] conception is from you. This fruit was planted by you ... and by no stranger or Watcher or Son of Heaven ...[Why} is your countenance thus changed and dismayed, and why is your spirit thus distressed ... I speak to you truthfully.' Then I, Lamech, ran to Methuselah my father, and [I told] him all these things. [And I asked him to go to Enoch] his father for he would surely learn all things from him. For he was beloved, and he shared the lot [of the angels], who taught him all things. And when Methuselah heard [my words ... he went to] Enoch his father to learn all things truthfully from him ... his will. He went at once to Parwain and he found him there ...[and] he said to Enoch his father, 'O my father, O my lord, to whom I ... And I say to you, lest you be angry with me because I come here ...' " (The Genesis Apocryphon, II. lines 1-25. in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Edited by Geza Vermes. New York: Penguin, 1997. 449-450.)
In this account Lamech confronts his wife Bathenosh about her pregnancy and tells her to tell him the truth about her pregnancy. Lamech wonders if the pregnancy is due to the "Watchers" (a reference to angels?). Bathenosh, the wife of Lamech, denies that she is pregnant by a Watcher or Son of Heaven. She claims that Lamech is the father of the child within her. In this apocryphal story, Lamech tells the story to Methuselah (mentioned in Genesis 5:21-27 as the man who lived the longest life on this earth at 969 years). Methuselah then supposedly goes to Enoch and discovers the truth from Enoch. Several observations can be made from the Genesis Apocryphon: (1) the writer added to the text of scripture an apocryphal story, (2) names from the OT scripture were used (Lamech, Methuselah, and Enoch) along with names that are not found in scripture (Bathenosh- the wife of Lamech), (3) the writer of the Genesis Apocryphon was familiar with the context of Genesis 6, (4) some place names are given with no explanation: Parwain = heaven?,
There has been much debate regarding the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4. "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." Who were the "sons of God" of Genesis 6? Some scholars believe that they were the sons of the godly line of Seth that intermarried with the daughters of the wicked line of Cain. Others believe that they were angels (demons) who intermarried with the daughters of men and produced a race of giants. Others believe that they were demon possessed rulers who took the daughters of men into their harems. The story of the conception of Noah from the Genesis Apocryphon shows that there was a tradition in the time of the writing of the DSS that the sons of God according to Genesis 6 were references to angels.
Regarding the story of Abram and Sarah entering Egypt in Genesis 12:10-20, the Genesis Apocryphon adds to the biblical text a dream of Abraham in which he sees the future and what should be done:
I, Abram, dreamt a dream, on the night of my entry into Egypt. And in my dream I saw a cedar and a palm-tree...Some men arrived intending to cut and uproot the cedar, leaving the palm-tree alone. But the palm tree shouted and said: Do not hew down the cedar because both of us are of the same family. And the cedar was saved thanks to the palm tree, and was not hewn down. I woke up from my slumber during the night and said to Sarai, my wife: I have had a nightmare [...and] I am alarmed by this dream. She said to me: Tell me your dream so that I may know it. And I began to tell her the dream. I said: [...] they want to kill me and leave you alone. This favor only [must you do for me]: every time we [reach a place, say] about me: He is my brother. And I shall live under your protection and my life will be spared because of you. [...] they will try to separate you from me and kill me. Sarai wept because of my words that night. (Genesis Apocryphon 19:14-21)
The Genesis Apocryphon also gives this extra-biblical description of the beauty of Sarai, Abram's wife. This description of Sarah is not found in the biblical text. Genesis 12:14 says "So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful." The writer of the Genesis Apocryphon gives a vivid physical description of Sarai to explain why the princes of Pharaoh commended her to Pharaoh and why Pharaoh took Sarai into his harem to be his wife.
"and beautiful is her face! How ... fine are the hairs of her head! How lovely are her eyes! How desirable her nose and all the radiance of her countenance ... How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her whiteness! How pleasing are her arms and how perfect her hands, and how [desirable] all the appearance of her hands! How fair are her palms and how long and slender are her fingers! How comely are her feet, how perfect her thighs! No virgin or bride led into the marriage chamber is more beautiful than she; she is fairer than all other women. Truly, her beauty is greater t