With the discovery of biblical texts
at Qumran, such as Jeremiahb (4Q171), which is closer to the
presumed Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Septuagint, the common division
of Greek and Hebrew sources in the study of Pauline biblical quotations now
seems rather artificial (Lim 1997). For example, in the week-known passage of
Romans 9.33, two passages from Isaiah, 28.16 and 8.14-15, are quoted
to support Paul’s contention that observance of the law has proven to be a
stumbling block for his fellow Jews. A similarly combined citation of the same
two texts is found in 1 Peter 1.26, where the biblical proof texts now
support a Christological reinterpretation of the living stone. The occurrence
of this combination of biblical passages in different contexts is evidence for
the use of scriptural anthologies or “testimony” boos in the New Testament.
What is important is that in both Romans
and 1 Peter, the initial phrase of Isaiah 28.16 reads “behold, I
am laying.” The Septuagint has “behold, I will set,” making explicit the
independent pronoun and attesting to a synonymous verb. The Masoretic Text
literally means “behold me, he laid,” the abrupt change of subjects being
smoothed out by some scholars to read a suppressed relative clause, “behold, I
am he [who] laid.” Two Isaiah scrolls from Cave 1 at Qumran now attest a Hebrew
text that does not contain this difficulty: both Isaiaha (1QIsaa)
and Isaiahb (1Q8) read piel and qal participles,
respectively, that remove the incongruity of the subjects. Romans and 1
Peter appear to be the one rendering whereas the Septuagint is another
translation of a Hebrew text similar to the ones found at Qumran. (Timothy H.
Lim, “Paul, Letters of,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed.
Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000], 2:640)
True and False
Prophecy. Absence of any discussion of what
might distinguish true from false prophecy might imply the absence of prophecy
itself. However, a small group of texts, none of which need be identified as
sectarian compositions but all of which echo sectarian issues, seems very much
concerned with precisely this topic and so suggests that identifying true and
false prophecy was a live issue. In its law for the land, the Temple Scroll
(11QTa liv. 8-18; lxi. 1-5) contains a slightly revised form of Deuteronomy
13.1-5 and 18.20-21. In Deuteronomy 13.1-5 the concern is with the false
prophet and the dreamer of dreams; in Deuteronomy 18.20-21 the concern
is with discerning true prophecy by observing whether the prophet’s predictions
come about. In 4QApocryphon of Moses Ba (4Q375 1.4-9) there is a
short passage that is full of the phraseology of both Deuteronomy 13 and
18. However, the truth of the prophet’s declaration is determined by the
anointed priest before whom he is brought for some kind of hearing: thus,
prophetic activity is subsumed under priestly authority. The Aramaic
Composition 4Q339 is a list of false prophets. The content of the first eight
lines are readily identifiable with seven biblical figures from Balaam (Nm.
22-24) to Hananiah son of Azur (Jer. 28.1-7); the last line of the
fragment may contain some further description of Hananiah or may refer to an
eighth false prophet, perhaps John Hyrcanus (cf. Josephus, The Jewish War
1.68-69; Jewish Antiquities 13.300). Perhaps the list of false prophets
(4Q339) was used didactically to provide examples of those who would serve as a
measure of false prophecy for the Qumran community. (George J. Brooke, “Prophecy,”
in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 2:698)
Priestly
garments. The “seven
priests of the sons of Aaron” headed by the chief priest (War Scroll, 1QM
vii.8-9) wore identical garments, called “garments for battle” and “destined
for the appointed time of vengeance,” not to be brought into the Temple (1QM
vii.10-11). The garments are made of white byssus including (a) a linen tunic (kutonet-bad);
(b) linen trousers (mikhnesei-bad); (c) a linen girdle (‘aveneṭ-bad)
decorated with “twined byssus, blue, purple, and scarlet, as well as a brocaded
pattern cunningly wrought”; and (d) turbaned headdresses (pa’arei migba’ot).
In the Bible, these garments are called “sacred garments” and are worn by the
high priest and his sons when they enter the Tabernacle (Lv. 16.4; Ex.
29.39-34, 39.27-32; Ezek. 44.18).
The Temple Scroll adds the word
“linen” to the first three articles, noting the fact that they are made of
white (shesh) linen. We do not know how the priestly vestments of the
biblical period appeared. However, we are acquainted with the garments of the
inhabitants of the region as depicted in Assyrian reliefs (The Ancient Near
East in Pictures, fig. 335; The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III).
Trousers are found in this relief or
in any graphic depictions from Old Testament times, although they are described
in detail in Exodus 28.42, which states that the priests wore them “from
the loins to the thighs” in order “to cover their naked flesh.” Josephus’s
description of the high priests’ garments notes that the high priest wore
trousers, which covered his thighs (The Jewish War 5.237ff.).
In the synagogue paintings of Dura
Europos (265 CE) trousers are worn by Parthians. In Roman depictions only the
barbarians wear trousers. The priests were probably obliged to wear trousers to
that the people observing from below would not see their nakedness when they
went up to the altar. According to the Mishnah (Tam. 5.3), when the
priests removed their clothing they had to keep on their trousers. The priests
wore linen clothing decorated with threads dyed in special and costly color.
Josephus (The Jewish War 5.237ff.) presents extensive descriptions of
their splendor, emphasizing that gold was the most prominent color of the
ephod. The priestly garments were considered part of the treasures of the
Temple and in time of danger, they were hidden with other Temple treasures
(3Q15 i.9).
In the temple described in the Temple
Scroll, a special structure was built for the costly priestly vestments—“The
House of the Laver” (beit kiyyor). The beit kiyyor is also
mentioned in the Mishnah (Tam. 5.3; Toh. 7.7; see Tosefta Sukkot
2.24). In the walls of the structure were gold-plated cells (11Q19 xxxii.8)
appropriate for the storage of the holy garments. Here the priests stored the holy
vestments (11Q19 xxxii.1-7), which were Pelusian linen for the morning service
and Indian linen for the afternoon service (B.Q. 10.9). This custom is
referred to in Ezekiel 42.14, which states that the priests were
required to wear linen garments in the inner court and change from the holy
vestments into ordinary clothes when they left for the outer court. Aaron and
his sons likewise did this upon entering the Tent of the Congregation (Lv.
16.23). A humble structure for storage for clothing was found at Masada in Room
1192 (Netzer, 1991, pp. 505, 512, 513). This structure apparently served for
common people. (Avigail Sheffer, “Textiles,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000], 2:941)
The Book of Tobit is preserved
in four fragmentary Aramaic texts (Tobita-d, 4Q196-199) and in one
fragmentary Hebrew text (Tobite, 4Q200). Together they preserve
about a fifth of the book of the book. They are copies written from the
mid-first century BCE to the mid-first century CE. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Tobit,
Book of,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H.
Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000], 2:949)
Reading in the
Hebrew Scrolls That Support the Septuagint.
While the Greek manuscripts above provide ancient samples of the pre-Christian
Septuagint, numerous Hebrew scrolls shed light on the textual character of the
Septuagint.
·
Jeremiahb
(4Q71)—Shortly after the discoveries in Cave 4, Frank Moore Cross reported that
a Hebrew fragment of Jeremiah displayed the same shorter and rearranged
text known from the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah. The fragment
preserves text from Jeremiah 9.22-10.21, but it is said the Hebrew text
as found in the Masoretic Text, but the type of Hebrew text from which the
Septuagint had been translated. This fragment demonstrates clearly that part of
the Septuagint and presumably the full Septuagint text of Jeremiah is
faithfully translated from an ancient Hebrew text from which the Masoretic Text
differs. Furter analysis leads to the conclusion that the Jeremiahb-Septuagint
text is a more original, short edition of the boo with an intelligible order,
and that the Masoretic Text contains a later, longer edition of the book based
on that earlier edition, but amplified and rearranged such that the major
sections occur in the same order as they do in the Books of Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Once the Jeremiahb-Septuagint text and the Masoretic Text are seen
as two successive editions of the book, the phenomenon can be recognized as
parallel to the Book of Daniel, though the situation is reversed. The
Masoretic Text of Daniel presents one early edition in the growth of the
Daniel collection, and the Septuagint and Theodotionic texts present a
later, longer edition. The Septuagint of both Jeremiah and Daniel
should be seen as faithful translations of a current Semitic text that was
simply a variant edition from that preserved in the traditional textus
receptus.
·
Samuela
and Samuleb (4Q51 and 4Q52)—Cross also published early articles
announcing manuscripts of Samuel, which showed close relationships with
the Septuagint. Neither Hebrew manuscript present the exact text from which the
Septuagint had been translated, but both repeatedly display readings that show
that the Septuagint translation of Samuel was based on, and faithfully
translated from, a Hebrew text that not only was frequently different from, but
was often superior to, the Masoretic Text. Moreover, the Chronicler had used a
form of Samuel-Kings closer to the Qumran texts than to the Masoretic
Text, as had Josephus for his Jewish Antiquities. (Eugene Ulrich, “Septuagint,”
in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 2:865-66)
