Monday, October 2, 2023

Notes from Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (volume 2)

  

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 (‘aveneáš­-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)