Revelation regained: The hermeneutics of Hebrew letter YodHebrew letter Kap and Hebrew letter MemHebrew letter 'Alep in the Temple Scroll

Dead Sea Discoveries

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 295-346

  Levinson, Bernard M ^a   Zahn, Molly M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61949131902     PISSN: 09290761     EISSN: 15685179     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156851702320917841     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. 2; Hebrew original, 1959)
2. and E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986)
3. Y. Yadin, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977) 2.174. The English translation expands the Hebrew original; see idem, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 2.247 (all subsequent citations are to the English edition)
4. G. Brin, "The Bible as Reflected in the Temple Scroll," Shnaton: Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 4 (ed. M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Israel Bible Society, 1980) 214-17 (Hebrew; English abstract). Brin's challenge responds to Yadin's Hebrew original
5. T. Muraoka, "An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew," Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (eds T. Muraoka and J. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 212
6. Muraoka, "Morphosyntax," 213
7. Muraoka, "Morphosyntax," 193
8. and by Y. Thorion ("Die Sprache der Tempelrolle und die Chronikbücher," RevQ 11 [1982-84] 423)
9. Thorion, "Sprache der Tempelrolle," 423
10. and idem, Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521-528, 4Q576-579) (DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 85-114
11. s (= 4Q11, 22, 45-46
12. b (= 4Q1, 13-21, 23-27
13. see E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers [DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994])
14. 4QParaphrase of Gen and Exod (= 4Q422; see H. Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 [DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994])
15. q (= 4Q28-44; see E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings [DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995])
16. see J. Charlesworth et al., Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert [DJD 38; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000])
17. XQPhyl 1-4 (see Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969])
18. b, MasDeut (see S. Talmon and Y. Yadin, Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Reports [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999])
19. See J.M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158-4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 5. The two instances where MT is retained are cited by Muraoka as examples of the toleration of the "archaic use" ("Morphosyntax, " 213, where the second case of retention, by typo, is cited as line 8)
20. Noted by A. Aejmelaeus, "The Function and Interpretation of in Biblical Hebrew," JBL 105 (1986) 193-209
21. reprinted, eadem, On the Trail of [the] Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays [correcting title-page typo] (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993) 166
22. J. Muilenberg attempts to derive the full range of functions of the conjunction from the single rubric of "emphasis"; see idem, "The Linguistic and Rhetorical Uses of the Particle in the Old Testament," HUCA 32 (1961) 135-60
23. and T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 158-64
24. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation," 166-85
25. and C.M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle (Dallas: SIL International, 2001)
26. See S.L. Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 224
27. See Gogel, Epigraphic Hebrew, 226-29
28. Showing how the Hebrew conditional corresponds to Sumerian tukumbi and Akkadian šumma, see R.A.F. Mackenzie, "The Formal Aspect of Ancient Near Eastern Law," The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T.J. Meek (ed. W.S. McCullough; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964) 31-44
29. See further S. Segert, "Form and Function of Ancient Israelite, Greek and Roman Legal Sentences," Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. H.A. Hoffner; AOAT 22; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973) 151-59
30. See B. Landsberger, "Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt," Islamica 2 (1926) 370-71
31. F.R. Kraus, "Ein zentrales Problem des altmesopotamischen Rechts: Was ist der Codex Hammurabi," Genava 8 (1960) 288, 293
32. and especially J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) 113-24, 169-77
33. Previously recognizing the equivalence are C.H. Gordon, Orientalia 22 (1953) 231-32
34. and T.L. Fenton, "The Claremont 'Mrzhcombining dot below' Tablet, its Text and Meaning," UF 9 (1977) 73-74
35. and D. Pardee, Les Textes Hippiatriques: Ras Shamra-Ougarit II (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985)
36. Both editions provide valuable discussions of the syntax of k. For the latest edition, see C. Cohen, "The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: Revised Composite Text, Translation, and Commentary," UF 28 (1996) 105-53
37. On k as consistently marking the protasis, see already A.M. Honeyman, "Varia Punica," AJP 68 (1947) 81
38. and Pardee, Textes Hippiatriques, 41, 75
39. See A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW 16; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1909) 68-69
40. See W.T. van Peursen, "Conditional Sentences with in the Protasis in Qumran Hebrew," Diggers at the Well, 231
41. The Hebrew could also, in fact, be understood as emphatic: "wahrlich"; see G. Sauer, Unterweisungen in lehrhafter Form: Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira) (JSHRZ 3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981) 545
42. See Fassberg, "Syntax," 58-60
43. J.M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)
44. See J.H. Charlesworth et al. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 1-51. The one occurrence of the conditional, in the form (6:11), confirms the writer's distance from Biblical Hebrew, which requires [+ verb in the imperfect], not [+ subject noun]
45. See M. Pérez-Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 51, 192, 205, 213, 222, 240
46. On the conditional as an isogloss, see A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967-71) 2.614 (§); similarly, 1.261 (Hebrew)
47. and Pérez-Fernández, Grammar, 214
48. For a different approach, see M.M. Zahn, "Schneiderei oder Weberei: Zum Verständnis der Diachronie der Tempelrolle," RevQ 20 (2001) 255-86
49. and L.H. Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Period," Pseudepigraphic Perspectives (eds Chazon and Stone), 121-31
50. See H. Najman, "Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies," JSJ 30 (1999) 379-410
51. From the standpoint of the history of religions, "unicity" is a defining characteristic of texts holding the status of scripture; see W.A. Graham, "Scripture," The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. M. Eliade; New York: Macmillan, 1987) 13.141. This model, however, does not take into account the hermeneutical issues encountered by second temple readers as they confronted the highly redacted Pentateuch, with its redundant and inconsistent laws and narratives. From that perspective, texts like the Temple Scroll and Jubilees represent the attempt to create unicity exegetically, by reordering and rewriting the Pentateuch
52. Arguing that many of the distinctive linguistic features attested in the DSS do not preserve a vernacular but rather point to the conscious cultivation of a "scriptural" language (based on hyper-archaisms, such as lengthened pronouns and the routine use of pausal forms and cohortatives) is W.M. Schniedewind, "Qumran Hebrew as an Anti-language," JBL 118 (1999) 235-52
53. and idem, "Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew," Diggers at the Well, 245-55
54. That very productive model should also distinguish language use in different types of texts and genres, as S. Weitzman notes in his own fine study of the language ideology of the DSS ("Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?" JAOS 119 [1999] 35-45)
55. S. Talmon, "Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts," Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds F.M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 227
56. E. Tov, "The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls found at Qumran and the Origin of These Scrolls," Textus 13 (1986) 31-37
57. idem, "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism," JJS 39 (1988) 5-37
58. and idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992) 208, 210-11
59. reprinted, idem, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II (SBAB 12; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991) 125-42
60. For a clear exposition of the Masoretic system, see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (SBLMasS 5; [Chico, CA:] Scholars Press, 1979) 39-43
61. See B.M. Levinson, "The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History's Transformation of Torah," VT 51 (2001) 511-34
62. For a valuable summary and analysis of the relevant literature, see S.M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (VTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 112-18
63. While the term "hierarchical ordering of conditionals" has not, so far as we know, been used previously, the different roles assigned the two particles have previously been seen. One of the first detailed studies is that of A. Jepsen, Untersuchungen zum Bundesbuch (BWANT III/5; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1927)
64. A comprehensive analysis was also attempted by G. Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze: Eine formgeschichtlich-terminol ogische Studie (WMANT 39; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971) 31-34
65. For the most recent study, with further bibliography, see Y. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b-23,3 (OBO 105; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 93-101
66. The following diagram builds on the valuable model provided by N. Lohfink, "Fortschreibung? Zur Technik vom Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, erörtert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex 21,2-11 und Dtn 15,12-18," Das Deuterononium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. T. Veijola; Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 155
67. and Pardee, Les Textes Hippiatriques, 21-23
68. On the scholarly nature of this corpus, see D. Pardee, "Ugaritic Science," The World of the Aramaeans: Festschrift P.E. Dion (eds P.M. Michèle Daviau, J.W. Wevers, and M. Weigl; JSOTSup 324-26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 3.223-54
69. 2) 8
70. On Deuteronomy' s transformation of prior Israelite religion and law, see B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)
71. and E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999)
72. Deuteronomy' s interaction with cuneiform literary material helps account for specific details of language, topos, and formulation. For a specific example, see B.M. Levinson, "Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a as a Test Case in Method," JBL 120 (2001) 211-43
73. See the important analysis of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 171-78, 320-65
74. and, following his analysis, G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 262
75. (Hebrew); M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) 157, 249
76. and Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 39-43
77. and Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 47)
78. See Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1.315, 2.183
79. E. Tov, "Deut. 12 and 11QTemple LII-LIII: A Contrastive Analysis," RevQ 15 (1991) 169-73 (overlooking Yadin's analysis)
80. J.H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996) 117
81. and A. Shemesh, "'Three Days' Journey from the Temple': The Use of This Expression in the Temple Scroll," DSD 6 (1999) 126-38
82. See further Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 118-23
83. On this use in Biblical Hebrew to mark exception or adversative clauses, see Schoors, "Particle," 251-53
84. See B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 109. Second temple Hebrew would generally follow the later convention of consistent gender agreement
85. In the process of being redrafted, the law's protasis was given a double conditional. The formulation (Lev. 20:9) combines two separate protasis markers that are elsewhere always kept distinct: (1) conditional in initial position, which would normally continue with a verb in the imperfect; and (2) the priestly casus pendens, comprising (a) double subject in initial position (often with the partitive) + (b) relative clause introduced by (see Lev. 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 20:2; 22:18). The first to establish this redundancy is S. Chavel, "At the Boundary of Textual and Literary Criticisms: The Case of in Lev 20:9," Textus 20 (2000) 61-70
86. On the different forms of casuistic law in the Holiness Code, see (among the vast literature) H.G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich Untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961) 36-40
87. J. Milton, Paradise Lost (ed. A. Fowler; London: Longman, 1971) 642 (XII.648)
88. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqscombining dot belowat Ma'aśe ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994)
89. J.M. Baumgartner et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)
90. Reading a closed paragraph interval with Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2.293
91. Both the Temple Scroll and the Samaritan Pentateuch correctly recognize that Deut. 13:7 marks the beginning of a new legal paragraph. In contrast, the MT has no paragraph marker according to the manuscript of Leningrad Codex, folio 107 verso; see D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 226
92. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 73 (§449)
93. and P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi 14.1-2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991) 2.617-18 (§164b)