Regarding the alleged reference
to a tripartite canon on line 10 in MS 4Q397 I agree with Ulrich that the
placement of fragment 4Q397 17, which does not contain much more than the
fragmentary word ]בספר[, is relatively uncertain, and therefore the
reconstruction is printed in the translation with cursive (and] the
Book[s). Given that the location of this fragment is possible, one
should keep in mind that its location is based on an assumption of a tripartite
canon, but this does not prove the existence of such a concept at the time 4QMMT
was authored. In addition, both Ulrich and Kratz agree about the uncertainty of
the reading of ד]ובוי. In other words, the reading of this passage in the
better preserved MS 4Q397 can be questioned.
Also the meaning and content of
the references has been debated. Timothy Lim does not question the editors’
reconstruction of MS 4Q397, but finds other reasons for questioning the meaning
of the phrase preserved in 4QMMT as a reference to a tripartite canon. For example,
with regard to the term ספר מושה Lim has approached this question by examining
the use of scripture in 4QMMT, and he points out that while allusions to
Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy can be found in 4QMMT, there are
none to Exodus. He further investigates the use of the term ספר מושה in some
other Qumran writings. It seems, that only CD is giving any proof (and only
indirect) for assuming that the Qumran community used the term ספר מושה for the
whole Pentateuch. He concludes by stating, that no hard evidence can be found
to demonstrate that ספר מושה is referring to the whole Pentateuch, though this
is a possible definition. Similarly, Emile Puech and Kathell Berthelot have
suggested that the three references could refer to three different corpora –
but not necessarily to the entire Hebrew Bible and its three parts as they stand
in the final form of the Jewish canon; in the pre-canonical period this would
seem to be an appropriate way to interpret these references.
Importantly, as the synoptic
comparison of the manuscripts demonstrates, the parallel manuscript 4Q398 does
not contain such a reference (cf. also Chapter 2). Therefore, I must disagree
with the reconstruction of a composite text here, contrary to the suggestion by
the editors in DJD X. The fragmentary reading of MS 4Q398 contains no
reference to a tripartite canon. (Hanne Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function,
and the Meaning of the Epilogue [Studies on the Texts of the Desert of
Judah 82; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2009], 205-6)