The Copper Scroll Revisited Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

Edited by

George J. Brooke

Associate Editors

Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

volume 112

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj Studies on the Texts of the The Copper Scroll Revisited Desert of Judah By

Edited by Émile Puech

George J. Brooke English Translation by

Associate Editors David E. Orton

Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

volume 112

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj leiden | boston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Puech, Émile. The Copper scroll revisited / by Émile Puech ; English translation by David E. Orton. p. cm. — (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah ; vol. 112) The text by Émile Puech is excerpted from v. 1 of Le rouleau de cuivre de la grotte 3 de Qumrân (3Q15) (Leiden : Brill : École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem : EDF Foundation, 2006). Includes the text of the Copper scroll in Hebrew with English translation. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17100-8 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-47-42431-4 (e-book) 1. Copper scroll. I. Orton, David E. II. Rouleau de cuivre de la grotte 3 de Qumrân (3Q15). III. Copper scroll. English & Hebrew. IV. Title.

BM488.C6P84 2015 296.1’55—dc22 2008027705

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 978-90-04-17100-8 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-47-42431-4 (e-book)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change. CONTENTS

Foreword ...... vii

Introduction ...... 1 The Scroll ...... 6 The Deposits ...... 9 Authentic Deposits? ...... 12

Text, Translation and Commentary ...... 25 Column I ...... 25 Column II ...... 38 Column III ...... 43 Column IV ...... 48 Column V ...... 54 Column VI ...... 59 Column VII ...... 62 Column VIII ...... 68 Column IX ...... 75 Column X ...... 85 Column XI ...... 93 Column XII ...... 106

General View of the Copper Scroll (Drawings) ...... 115

Drawings, Text and Translation: an Overview ...... 119

Indices ...... 145

Abbreviations ...... 150

Corrigenda to the French Edition 2006 ...... 151

Bibliography of 3Q15 ...... 153

foreword

This long awaited English translation of my updated edition of the Hebrew text of the Copper Scroll, which accompanied the restoration and conservation project carried out by EDF in the middle of the 1990s, is intended to make the contents of the Copper Scroll accessible to an even greater number of readers. This new English translation has the benefit of being able to correct some typographical and other errors in my earlier text. I have also taken the opportunity to bring the text up-to-date by including the most important studies to have appeared since the final redaction of my text more than ten years ago. The study of the three engraved and riveted sheets of fine oxidized copper cannot be accomplished without a close scrutiny of all the different plates at our disposal, including the infrared photographs and the photographs of the galvanoplastic duplicates by EDF. These have then to be compared with my hand facsimile in order to be able to ascertain the content and meaning of the enigmatic summary of a more elaborate composition, as stated in the final sentence at the end of the scroll. My hand copy also incorporates the small fragments lost since the first decipherment by the editor, as Milik quoted in 1959, in order to recover as far as possible the best preserved text of the scroll as discovered in 1952 in Cave 3. May the English translation help the reader to advance further in gain- ing a fuller understanding of this unique and final scroll from the Essenes’ settlement in the Desert of Judah.

Jerusalem, March 22, 2015 Plate I Segment No. 6 after immersion in benzotriazol 1% w/v. Plate II Segment on its support—removing the silicone.

INTRODUCTION

Discovered by the archaeologists on 20 March 1952 during their exploration of the cliffs in the vicinity of Qumran and their excavations of a number of caves, the Copper Scroll (3Q15) was found lying against the rock wall in the north corner, at the entrance to the rear chamber of Cave 8, now designated 3Q. The collapsed ceiling a short distance in front of these scrolls had smashed the cylindrical jars and other objects but had spared the scrolls, which had lain in isolation but unprotected for centuries.1 These two scrolls had been placed one on top of the other, the smaller one—or the third sheet—and the end of the scroll at the bottom, which proved to be the reading order. The person who deposited them there evidently knew exactly what he was doing, as the rivets burst as he rolled up the document.2 After an initial dusting and treatment of the scrolls, a cursory examination of the legible parts on the verso quite quickly permitted the realization that this was “a sort of catalogue” and indeed a list of hiding-places of treasures of the Essene community.3 But it was necessary to wait for the scrolls to be opened until they could be cut into sections with the aid of a saw fashioned for the purpose by H.W. Baker of the College of Science

1 See R. de Vaux (1953a:557; 1962:7–8, 201). Cave 8 in the excavations is the third cave containing manuscripts. The 1962 report (7, 201) does not agree entirely with the prelimi- nary report of 1953a (555): “Underneath the blocks obstructing the entrance, few shards were found, but they were very numerous in the interior chamber, mixed with rock splin- ters, and it was there that all the written fragments were found”, and in 1962 (7): “In front of this chamber, a large quantity of jars and broken lids mixed with the debris from the ceiling and not filled with earth. . . . In the rear chamber of the cave, stratified levels of stones with some tissue fragments, blackened leather and written fragments; very few shards in this area” (same report, p. 201). Remains of some 35 cylindrical jars were recov- on the rim and the shoulder, engraved ,טבל for ט ered, one of them twice bearing the letter before firing, some 25 lids, two pitchers and a lamp. Humbert, however (1997:89) writes: “Found with the scrolls were: a jar with lid, containing typically Essene texts, a bowl and a pot”, but the indications given by the excavator and the preservation of the written remains are at odds with this assertion. Johnson (2002:39) erroneously gives 14 March as the date of the discovery of the scrolls. 2 The breakage is likely to have been accidental rather than deliberate, as suggested by Kuhn (1954:194, 202). The bursting of the rivets of the third sheet was probably caused by the scroll’s having being rolled up too tightly at the beginning of the processing. 3 See Kuhn 1954.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789047424314_002 2 introduction and Technology of the University of Manchester, between July 1955 and January 1956. These steps are described in detail in the editio princeps.4 The decipherment, translation and detailed study of the scroll were entrusted to J.T. Milik, who very quickly gave a provisional translation of it in June 1956, followed by a translation and topographical commentary in 19595 while the diplomatic edition was awaited, which entered production in September 1959 but was not published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, until 1962. In the meantime, Allegro, who had been able to study the scroll and some photographs in Manchester since 1955, published an unauthorized edition in London in 1960.6 This text intrigued scholars in the first decade after its discovery, but then fell rather into scholarly neglect, and it was only following the appearance of B. Pixner’s study of it in 1983 that the scroll began to capture attention once again. Since then, numerous detailed studies have been devoted to it and several new editions are in preparation. A new photographic treatment by the Zuckerman brothers in Amman in the winter of 1988–89 was available for use by McCarter.7 For his part, Wolters, who prepared his own edition and translation, says that he studied the scroll extensively in Amman in June 1991.8 The scroll was entrusted to Électricité de France (EDF) for its scientific restoration and conservation, and excellent X-ray photographs were taken as a first priority. They will serve henceforth as the point of reference for

4 See R. de Vaux and H.W. Baker, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan (DJDJ) III, 1962, pp. 202 and 203–210 respectively. During the cutting, efforts were made to minimise damage to the lettering and not to obscure anything, but in some cases a character was, or may have been, destroyed. Baker (1962:207) states that photographs were taken at each stage, first the exterior surface of the scroll after cleaning, then each interior surface as it was exposed. It would have been good to have seen the first ones to be published (see note 12). 5 Milik 1959:321–357. 6 As I do not have access to the second corrected edition published in New York in 1964, my references to Allegro relate to the first edition, published in London in 1960. Davies (2002:30–31) informs us that Allegro was only present at the opening of the small scroll, the third sheet. 7 His new edition is previewed in the series edited by Charlesworth and these new photographs are the basis of the studies by the present author in 1992 and 1994; the same applies to Lefkovits’s study (2000). 8 See Wolters 1992 and 1994:292, where he mentions two other forthcoming studies, “Cultic Terminology in the Copper Scroll” (forthcoming in vol. II of the Milik Festschrift) and “Textual Notes on the Copper Scroll”. (I could not track down the latter.) The author adds that his own collation differs from the text fixed by Milik in more than 70 places but he says nothing about Allegro’s. At the conclusion of my own study, I might say that my analysis differs from his at as many more points. introduction 3 decipherment at delicate and disputed points in the text. The Direction Générale—Mécénat technologique et scientifique (EDF) was keen, in full agreement with J.T. Milik, author of the editio princeps of the scroll, to associate me with this project of collating the text, which thus, alongside the work of restoration and conservation, became one of the objectives of the enterprise.9 I had the opportunity to study the X-ray photographs in the EDF laboratories in the course of various stays between 1994 and 1996. But to bring this study to a satisfactory conclusion and recover the exact dimensions of the scroll when flattened out, which was no longer possible with the original but which was of importance in particular for the configuration of lacunae or other things, I was very keen that a mould should be made, an exact replica of the scrolls (see Plate II). This project was directed in masterly fashion by the experts of the EDF-Valectra laboratory in 1994 and 1995.10 Available to me for more precise palaeographic study of the text were, at different stages, three kinds of documentation: X-ray photographs of the sections taken from different angles taking account of the curvature of the support which distorts the letters here and there in a particular way from the central axis, photographs of the flattened replica and of the galvanoplastic itself, in addition to reexamination of the original for the occasional passage, the object itself being difficult to access during the restoration process. Although this was not possible for me between 1994 and 1996, the two series of reproductions will henceforth need to be studied together in order to ensure the exact configuration of the original and the engraving of the letters with the burin, an engraving which cannot have the same precision and homogeneity of stroke as a piece of writing in ink by a skilled scribe. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject will quickly see that the writing gradually changes as the columns are engraved, as if the copyist’s concentration was flagging or his time was limited, as he was evidently under pressure to finish the work quickly. The errors and slips become increasingly frequent as one approaches the end: confusions, a number of cursive letters, duplications, haplographies etc.11

9 Being incapacitated, J.T. Milik entrusted this work of revision entirely to me. 10 See below the presentation of the experts of the EDF laboratories, R. Bertholon, N. Lacoudre and collaborators, and Bertholon, Lacoudre and Vasquez (2002:12–24). 11 It is clear that one single engraver is at work from the beginning to the end, and there is no need to appeal to two or three scribes (Lefkovits, 2000: esp. 53–54), or four copyists (Wilmot, in Wilmot and Wise, 2002:292), or as many as 25 copyists from the different deposit sites (Tov 2002:288–290). The sheets were riveted before engraving, for one thing (see Col. VIII and below), and for another the mistakes can all be explained on the 4 introduction

For the present edition I have made a new graphic survey (figures 1 to 12) in order to underline the text, to facilitate reading and to help with the consultation of the plates (2006: pl. CCCLVIII–CCCLXXXII). It aims to stay as faithful as possible in presentation to the spirit of the engraver. The realization of the precise survey was extremely helpful, involving careful letter-by-letter study of the text so as to present an edition which I hope will be useful, while it cannot be definitive, since it has the benefit of reference to the mould as a support which is identical to the original, with the exception of the joints between the sections which are in some cases slightly too large. In order to do this, referring to the full strokes, I also took account of the remnants that were preserved and still visible on the photographs before the dissection and publication in DJDJ III, pl. XLIII 1 and 2 for columns VIII and X, remnants which have since disappeared,12 as also of those of the fragments located by the editor, inserting a number of dotted restorations, so that the reader may judge.13 Indeed, the decipherer recalls that a number of small fragments were detached from the first scroll (cols. I to VIII) at the moment of discovery and that others, tiny and inscribed, fell during the cutting. Nevertheless in

basis of a reading error and/or transfer onto the metal, but never by dictation. The fact that the size of the letters is reduced on the third sheet, and the last column in particular, provides evidence that the copyist was at pains to get everything into the compass of this sheet; hence the use of cursive letters in some places, more quickly written and smaller in form, but examples already appear on the second sheet. In general the shape is smaller at the foot of the columns, from col. I, as the engraver moves from a rectangular shape to a square shape. The triangular apices at the head of the letters, which increase in number after the middle of col. III, are present here and there in I 2, III 2, and outside the ʿayin, the waw and the yod. It is possible, though one should not insist too much on the argument in view of the lack of points of comparison, that the use of medial letters in final position (always in the case of mem) and final letters in medial position denotes the habits of copyists in the Qumran School; see E. Tov, “Los manuscritos de Qumrán a la luz de la investi- gación reciente”, Paganos, judios y cristianos y los textos de Qumrán, ed. J. Trebolle, Madrid 1999, 42–45. But though there is an undeniable argument of homogeneity in favour of a single engraver, the defective alignments and other differences are insufficient to prove the intervention of one or several other copyists. A precise graphic survey of the scroll is very instructive on this point. 12 The photographs taken before each stage of the cutting into sections will perhaps, when published, add certain vertical strokes of letters that disappeared under the teeth of the saw. For the revision of this work of 1994 to 1996 I did not have access to The Allegro Qumran Collection (ed. G.J. Brooke; Leiden 1996), where these documents may be published. 13 I do not share the verdict of Lefkovits (2000:451), which concludes that Allegro’s drawings are frequently superior in quality to Milik’s. The report of the cutting in Allegro’s accounts does not tell us anything because the photographs of the sections already show it. See now Lefkovits (2010:198). introduction 5

1956 he succeeded in joining to the scroll the majority of those containing complete letters or parts of letters, making a transcription of them, but leaving them to one side without sticking them in place. It is to be regretted that he did not note on the copy the position of all the detached inscribed fragments, as certain proposed readings depend on their position.14 Also, my graphic survey does not correspond exactly to the current state of the scroll, but it attempts, as far as possible, to take account of the document’s state of conservation at the time of its discovery. In any event, the point of departure for this study, as for any study of the scroll, as no one has been able to escape its difficulty, remains the magis- terial publication by J.T. Milik in the editio princeps, which has assembled a large quantity of observations and remarks relating to several very different areas.15 The copy of the editio princeps is in principle the one that was prepared in the care of the Manchester laboratory, the designers of which did not know Hebrew, but revised and corrected by Milik, match- ing it to the original in Amman in 1959.16 It does not represent a material duplicate of the original, the author warns us, for that one would have needed a flat squeeze, but at the time this was not possible, because at that time there were no sufficiently tested means of handling such fragile and oxidized originals. Even if the EDF laboratories topped this attempt, still any honest researcher will easily recognize the immense debt owed to it, as a necessary point of departure.17

14 Milik (1962:212) writes: “In the meantime they have been lost and I was not able to find them in the spring of 1959.” 15 J.T. Milik is indeed the person to whom official publication of the scroll was entrusted, also chronologically the first since he prepared a first study of it starting in 1956 and delivered his work to the Oxford presses in 1959, and not Allegro as one often reads, whose decipherment was not published until 1960; see de Vaux in Milik (1962:202). 16 See Milik (1962:211–212): “I tried to remedy the imprecisions that have resulted from it: adding omitted characters and suppressing marks which are not parts of letters or numbers; correcting the strokes; retouching the signs—where possible—in such a way as to reestablish the proportions and the real angle of the strokes making up the letters and numbers. The result . . . does not represent a material transfer from the original; nonetheless it seems to me to be of sufficient faithfulness to guarantee the accuracy of the formal aspect of the writing and, unless otherwise mentioned, . . . . the fundamental accuracy of the proposed transcription. . . .” “A better and more exact photograph, and thus a more faithful facsimile, could have been obtained by a flat squeeze. But there were reasons to fear that the means known at the time (paper, plaster, pliatex) might cause a serious deterioration of the scrolls of oxidized copper.” 17 I do not share the judgment of McCarter (1994:133): “In this respect Allegro’s unsanc tioned edition (1960, 1964) is better, and Luria’s edition (1963) is much better”. The times when Allegro has made a reading superior to that of the editor are quickly counted, but the inverse is less true, in that Allegro had the benefit of the original before it was opened 6 introduction

* * * The Copper Scroll is unique among the manuscripts of the Dead Sea, unique in its supporting material, copper, an altogether precious metal compared with a perishable material, and consequently unique in the manner of writing. It is unique in its language, a late Hebrew between classical and mishnaic Hebrew, and finally unique in content, a very plain list of hiding places of valuable objects presenting in each case, in stereotypical form, the place of deposit with a minimal description, too often imprecise, the distance or depth, sometimes the container, the contents and in general its quantity, followed, in some cases, by Greek letters.

The Scroll

The arrangement of the text in four columns per sheet, on three sheets riveted together before the engraving, looks very similar to that of numerous scrolls in the Qumran library. It is not known why, precisely, the third sheet is detached from the two others, but the rivets probably gave way when (on a first attempt) the scroll was rolled too tightly, since the end of the text is on the interior of the third sheet. For this reason, the beginning of the text will also have been rolled on the interior in order to show that, even rolled upon and positioned one on top of the other—the large scroll on top of the smaller one—the same text continued from one scroll to the other, and that they did not constitute two scrolls or texts to be taken separately. It seems also quite clear that the rectangular notch (5 × 6 mm) of the “protection page” at the level of ll. 6–7 of col. I (Figure 1) was not for fixing the complete scroll to a wall to function as a notice pinned up in a public place, as has been claimed,18 but to run a leather strap around

and of Milik’s previous publications. It is for the reader to make a judgment in each case. To date, McCarter has only advanced the understanding of one single passage of the scroll. In fact the study of the reproductions must be the only starting point, not the superim- position of the different surveys in order to present new readings, as is too often done by Lefkovits (2000:22, but see 2010). 18 See de Vaux (1953:85): “. . . some rule or notice posted in the central building of Khirbet Qumran”; (1953a:558): “a long strip which was applied flat to a wall . . . could only have been posted in one of the rooms of the central building of the Community . . . The size of the letters—they are 1 cm—is in accordance with this posting in a public place . . . the strip was detached from the wall, divided, rolled in two parts and beginning with the free extremities . . . the entirety of the document, which was exposed in full view of everyone.” It is not entirely clear how reading would be facilitated with the scroll suspended from this single point giving vertical lines; see also Baker (1962:209) and Pixner (1983:326, 329) introduction 7 it, as was generally done to hold a closed scroll in place.19 In fact there is no other point of attachment at the end of the scroll for fixing it to a wall or a plank; which means that it was never written to be hung up and read by everyone but for a different purpose. So it cannot be directly compared with the bronze tables of the alliance treaty which the Romans made with Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 8.22), nor with the text engraved on tables of bronze placed on a stele at Mount Zion in honour of Simon and his sons (1 Macc 14.26). The engraving of a text on metal, copper, silver or gold had long been known in the ancient Near East. The main objective was to make the engraved text a durable text, resistant to wear and to rapid deterioration,20 as Pliny the Elder testifies: “The use of copper was long used to ensure perpetuity of monuments by means of tablets of copper which bore the records of official acts”.21 The “military diplomas” of Roman army veter- ans in the imperial period, or inventories and archives of the Egyptian temples of this period were like this.22 On this subject one might compare the numerous amulets which accompany their owners as far as their final resting-place, found in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country in pre- exilic times and on to the Roman and Byzantine periods. The recent mould of the different segments in the present state of the scroll allows a more precise approach to its dimensions. Formerly estimated at around 2.4 m long by 28.5 to 30 cm high on average,23 the actual or again Tov (2002:290): “to tie the scroll with a string to a certain fixed place, such as on a wall either to facilitate the writing or to enable easy handling”. 19 See J. Carswell, “Fastenings on the Qumran Manuscripts”, in Qumran Grotte 4 II,1— Archéologie, by R. de Vaux, with contributions by J.W. Barns and J. Carswell, II—Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), by J.T. Milik, DJD VI, Oxford 1977, Appendix I pp. 23–28 pl. IV–V, see esp. 4QDb (Semitica 27 [1977] pl. XI) and 4Q448, Qumran Cave 4 VI, DJD XI pl. XXXII. Milik (1962:216) thinks this hole served to fix the plaque onto a wooden plank. One would then query whether there was a single point of attachment. 20 See the early fine remarks of Kuhn (1954:201–202): “a deliberate imitation of ordinary leather scrolls”. The absence of traces of fixing on a wall allowed him to “conclude that the scrolls were manufactured and written primarily and uniquely in order to be rolled up and hidden in a cave . . .” . . . “what was most important for them, . . . they took care to commit it to writing in as indestructible a way as possible . . . they did not choose leather . . . but copper . . . These copper scrolls were manufactured in the current format for their leather scrolls and they wrote them in the same way. Finally they still rolled them up like their leather scrolls and hid them in a cave that was even further from Khirbet Qumran than Caves 1 and 2.” 21 Pliny the Elder, Natural History XXXIV 21, 99. 22 See also Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:303–304). 23 See Milik (1962:215): 1st sheet: approx. 30 cm (28 at the beginning, 30.5 in the middle) × approx. 82.5; 2nd sheet: 29 × 74 cm; 3rd sheet: 28.5–29.0 × 85.5 cm. Overall dimensions: 30 × 240 cm in round figures. 8 introduction dimensions divide up as follows: sheet 1: height 28.6 cm to the margin of col. I, 29.6 cm to the left margin of col. IV but 30.7 cm to the margin of cols. I–II by 82.5 cm in length24 (one might estimate roughly 0.5 cm error at the joins of the sheet segments but the folds probably compensate quite well); sheet 2: height 28.7 cm by 69.6 cm in length (same remark as above indicating the 3.3 cm of overlap of sheet 2 for the riveting, or 72.9 cm as the maximum length of the independent sheet); sheet 3: height 28.5 to 29 by 79 cm in length (same remark as above indicating the 1.8 + 0.7 = 2.5 cm of overlap of the two plates when they were riveted), or a total length of the riveted scroll (from rivet to rivet): 81 + 71 + 77 = 229 by less than one millimeter thickness. The joins of the segments may produce around 1.5 of error across the whole, but the rather neat folds in the sheets largely compensate for this, so well in fact that the total length of the scroll should come close to 2.30 m, or some 10 cm less than the former estimate. Finally, it is appropriate to indicate the precise overlapping of the riveted sheets before the engraving of the text: sheet 2 under 1, and sheet 3 under 2 (see 2006: pl. CCCLXXXIII). A copy like this, stripped bare without context or developed introduction, or even a story involving a theme of Jewish folklore, cannot easily support the thesis of a fictional or fairytale treasure, not even the mention of ʿAyin Kaḥol (Elijah’s spring on Mount Carmel) on the much later Beirut plates, as Milik attempted to show in the official publication. So should we conclude this is a list of authentic deposits? A list of goods belonging to the Community or of the Temple treasury? Treasures of Zealots or of Jewish rebels at the time of Bar Koseba? A list of contributions of the survivors at the Temple (treasury) after the destruction of AD 70? But is it realistic to engrave an abbreviated list of fictional deposits on sheets of an expensive metal? All these answers have been offered at one time or another.25

24 The length of the sheets was measured in the central area. 25 For presentations of summaries of these different positions, see e.g. Pixner (1983: 331–340), Goranson (1992:82–287), Wolters (1994:289–292) and Muchowski (2002:257–270). Stegemann (1993:104ff.) might be added as in favour of deposits of rich individuals at the Temple bank, and finally Lefkovits (2000:455–460; 2010), but Høgenhaven (2009) interprets it as a fictional list. introduction 9

The Deposits

It is impossible to assess with any precision the overall amount of these deposits, which I have regrouped together under 60 entries.26 One can only gain a reasonable idea of its importance by adding up the sums indicated without, at the same time, hiding their character of approximation given the number of unspecified deposits. The numbered sum amounts to a minimum of 1,672 talents of silver27 with 362 talents of gold28 and 1,504 unspecified talents (bronze?),29 5 karshs of gold, 507 karshs of silver30 and 606.5 karshs without clear specification (+ 80, 100 or 120 others in passages with lacunae, a total of 686.5, 706.5 or 726.5).31 To be added to this total are 165 gold ingots,32 19 silver bars,33 4 silver staters and 20 minas.34 To be added to these numbered quantities are sums left without precision: gold (50), silver and gold (34), “much offering silver” ksp mnḥh rb (41), “consecrated [offering]” ḥrm (43) and (52), and the precise quantities of which being recorded on a document near to the deposit (= an “accounts sheet”) (w)btkn ʾṣlm/n (22), (50), (51), (54) and (55). Further items to be taken into consideration are chests with vessels (1) and (57), vessels of the levied offering, the seventh (year) store/treasure and a second tithe (4), (13), (33), [see further (12) and (58), vessels of silver and gold], and the vessels mentioned in (8), (9), the 609 vessels (12), the 20 cups (47), juglets (56), vessels (59) and the two pots full of silver (17). Additionally some books: a scroll in an urn (25), some books (33) and the duplicate

26 The editio princeps groups them under 64 entries and Lefkovits (2000) under 60, which is the exact number following the wording of the scroll, but one could subdivide entry 12 into 2 sub-entries, given the distance between the two corners of the rectangle. 27 That is, 40 (5) + 70 (8) + 62 (46) + 900 (56) + 600 (58) with gold, but 789 for Lefkovits (2002:153). 28 That is, 2 (32) + 300(47) + 60 (56) but 302 for Lefkovits (2002:153). 29 That is, 17 (1) + 900 (3) +42 (6) + 10 (9) + 22 (11) + 400 (29) + 42 (56) + 71 (59), but 1,547 for Lefkovits (2002:153). 30 That is, 5 (56) in gold, and 40 (12a) + 55 (16) + 200 (18) + 70 (19) + 12 (20) + 70 (37) + 60 (57) in silver, but 1,059 for Lefkovits (2002:153). 31 That is, 14 (14) + 14[ + 40/60] (15) + 7 (21) + 23 (23) + 32 (24) + 42 (25) + 21 (26) + 27 (27) + 22[ + 40/60] (28) + 22 (31) + 80 (32) + 17 (34) + 7 (35) + 66 (36) + 23.5 (29) + 22 (40) + 9 (42) + 9 (44) + 12 (45) + 80 (48) + 17 (49) + 40 (53), but 10 for Lefkovits (2002:153). 32 That is, 100 (2) + 65 (7). 33 That is, 6 (10) + 6 (30) + 7 (38). 34 4 staters (38) and 20 unspecified minas (59). 10 introduction

(60).35 Finally, it is probable that some of the hiding places also contained clothing (13) and (4)?36 One of the obscurities of the text that is difficult to resolve is the precise value of the talent and the karsh in this document, given that even the stater is not in itself a guaranteed “weight”. We know that the annual temple tax in the 1st century AD amounted to one didrachma for one person and to one stater (= 1 tetradrachma) for two (cf. Matt 17:24–27), or a “light” or common shekel for one person or a “heavy” or sanctuary shekel for two.37 The kkr talent is worth 3,000 shekels or 6,000 beqaʿ (cf. Ex 38:24–29 and 4Q159 1 ii 6–12) and the common mina 50 shekels but the sanctuary mina 60 shekels (Ezek 45:12).38 The karsh k(rš), well known in the Persian period and still in the Roman period in the 2nd century from the Murabbaʿat documents, is equal to 10 shekels.39 We need in fact to distinguish the talent spelt kkr(yn) and the karsh written kk as an abbreviation of k(sp) k(rš), in imitation of the kš for ksp š(ql) in the Elephantine documents that are most instructive on the subject.40 The sequence kk may mean that we are dealing with a cash value and not necessarily with the weight of the silver metal; cf. for instance (12a), (14), (56), and (1) and (59).41 The talent is worth 300 karshs. The deposits in talents add up to

35 Compare the table in DJDJ III, p. 282. 36 “Ephods” is the most probable reading in (4) but the reading in (14) favours “cloth ing” rather than “cauldrons”. 37 We have to contend with the difference between the šeqel and the half shekel, the beqa‘, in cash transactions, underlining the difference between the shekel’s value by weight and its monetary value. This could already be the case in the distinction in the Greek translation of šql by σίκλος for weight and by δίδραχμον for money, as we know that the Hellenic didrachma is in reality equivalent to a half-shekel. But the equivalence is already current in the Persian period according to the Elephantine papyri (Cowley papyrus 35.2–4, 7, 9); cf. P. Grelot, Documents araméens d’ Egypte, Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 5, Paris 1971, document 7. 38 It is not clear how with a talent estimated at 21.3 kg and a shekel at 14.2 g, the mina could weigh 3.55 kg (Lefkovits 2000:473). Depending how one takes the heavy shekel of 11.4 g or the light shekel of 5.7 g one would have a common mina of 50 shekels weighing 570 g or 285 g, i.e. slightly above the pound or the half-pound. So what would be the unit of weight? 39 P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât, DJD II, Oxford 1960, 90:9 3 1–6. 40 This distinction was not made in the edition, followed by Allegro and the other com mentators and lastly Høgenhaven (2009:99–101), thus arriving at an inconceivable sum of treasures. Fortunately, Lefkovits was the first to draw attention to this point, but I do not agree with his view on the presumed corrections of kk and kkryn (Lefkovits 2000:471–488; 2003:139–154). 41 See Puech (1997:182) and Wilmot (Wilmot and Wise 2002:305–306). One would need to distinguish the amounts in metal weight from those in monetary value, which is not easy to do in this list. introduction 11

3,538 in total, of which 1,672 are silver, 362 gold and 1,504 unspecified, i.e. 60,500 kg on the basis of the light shekel of 5.7 g as opposed to the heavy shekel of 11.4 g [in the opposite case one would need to double the total]. So the amount in karsh would be equivalent to 63,754 kg for 1,118.5 karshs (but to be added, no doubt, are 40 to 120 supplementary karshs taking into account the lacunae in the text, giving a maximum total of 70,594 kg). Adding the 20 minas (5.7 kg), 19 bars and 165 ingots, units which might come close to talent weight, the total weight might add up to 63.12 tonnes (probably less if the monetary values and weights in metal are distinguished) for the numbered sums, which is already far from the 200 tonnes estimated by the earlier editions. However accurate these estimates may be, the total of the quantified deposits, though considerable, does not amount to 4,000 talents, whatever the precise weight of the talent. These may seem at first sight to be rather considerable amounts for the property of the religious party of the Essenes, not even counting the quantities without figures or the specifications of silver, gold and the various objects. But are they inconceivable? Authors in favour of authenticity then compare cash sums: Antiochus IV Epiphanes removes 1,800 talents from the temple (2 Macc 5:21), Crassus plundering the temple treasury takes 8,000 talents of gold and 2,000 talents of cash silver which Pompey had left in the treasury (Josephus, Ant. XIV §§78, 105–109). Even Jonathan Maccabaeus is accused of having robbed the contents of the temple treasury in the years around 150 BC, as is reported in a manuscript from Cave 4.42 We know that the glory and importance of the temple treasury in Jerusalem was widely known throughout the ancient Near East. If the scroll happens to allude to the treasures hidden before the fall of the city and the temple, the Romans still found such sums to extract from its treasuries, that according to Josephus, the gold course in Syria fell by half (War VI §317). But still according to the same Josephus, the treasure had never left the temple or been dispersed (War VI §§272, 282).43 For his part, to establish the resources of ancient Palestine, Milik refers to the testament of Herod the Great, details of which are given in Josephus

42 See É. Puech, “Jonathan le prêtre Impie et les débuts de la Communauté de Qumrân. 4QJonathan (4Q523) et 4QPsAp (4Q448)”, Hommage à Józef Tadeusz Milik, Revue de Qumrân 65–69 (1996) 241–270. 43 “While the temple was burning, the soldiers plundered all the spoils. . . . They also burned the treasure chamber where immense riches, innumerable vestments and all sorts of ornaments were kept, in short all the opulence of the Jewish nation, for the wealthy had brought precious objects there from their homes.” 12 introduction

(Ant. XVII §§317–320 and War II §§95–98), namely 760 talents distributed between Antipas, Philip, Archelaeus and Salome.44 The disproportion of the amounts allowed him to conclude in favour of a legendary treasure.

Authentic Deposits?

The solution to the enigma posed by this scroll is no doubt to be found, at least in part, in the precise study of the text: its topography, the identification of the important site of Koḥlit, and the meaning of the Greek letters: symbols,45 or rather coded anthroponyms of the individuals in charge of certain repositories. Pixner was the first to propose identifying anthroponyms in it with the help of examples drawn from the texts of Josephus, but the possibilities could easily be multiplied by following the contemporary onomastics of the region: ΚΕΝεδαιος, ΚΕΝεζος, ΧΑΓειρας, ΗΝναφης, ΗΝιοχος, ΘΕβουτις, ΘΕοδοσιος, ΘΕοδοτος, ΘΕοδωρος, ΘΕρμουτις, ΘΕυδας, ΘΕων etc., ΔΙδυμος, ΔΙογενες, ΔΙοδωρος, ΔΙοδοτος, ΔΙονυσιος, ΔΙοσκορος, ΔΙοφαντος, ΤΡυφων, Τρυχαμβος, ΣΚοπας, ΣΚευας.46 Only the first two examples

44 Milik (1962:283). In the last will of Herod (Josephus, War II §§93–100 // Ant. XVII §§ 317–323), the amount of the revenue of his kingdom as annual tribute handed down to his sons is shared out thus: 200 talents to Antipas, 100 talents to Philip, 400 talents to Archelaus (but 600 talents according to Ant. XVII §320), and 60 talents to his wife Salome (in all either 760 or 960 talents of annual revenue), besides gifts in kind, and 500,000 drachmas of silver coinage to his two daughters, and a gift of 1,000 talents (also in War I §646 but 1,500 according to Ant. XVII §323) to Augustus and 500 talents to the empress. The treasure of the Copper Scroll would then be comparable with the annual revenue of Herod’s kingdom for approximately six years. Would that still be a fabulous and legendary amount, or a likely one, or at the very least a possible sum of money for an Essene group approximately two centuries old? 45 While Milik recognizes the unexplained character of these letters (1962:221, 285), Ullendorf has proposed reading them as figures but for one thing his explanation is more difficult, and for another, the reading ΘΕ is assured rather than ΞΕ, and the value of the letters does not correspond to the sums indicated. Nor could it be a question of figures. Zissu (2001:145) takes them as “the addition of summaries” in Greek, and Thiering (2002:287) sees them as figures. 46 Pixner’s hypothesis (1983:335–336, 345) for the priest Theboutis, whose son delivered objects to Titus; this author supports his argument on the contemporary names known by Josephus. He is followed by Beyer. For Stegemann (1993:106–107) the two first on the list would be members of the wealthy royal household of Adiabene (Josephus, War II §520, V §474), and would have nothing to do with the Essenes, but is a surname like Καγειρας sufficiently unique? The then current custom in that region of giving surnames is well known: 1 Macc 2:2–5 for the five sons of Mattathias, etc.; Acts 12:25–13:1 etc., a custom that we encounter again, for example, in the papyri of Wadi Khabra (cf. N. Lewis, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri; with Y. Yadin & J.C. Greenfield, eds., Aramaic and Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions, Jerusalem 1989): Joseph surnamed Zaboudos, Judah surnamed Chthousion, Judah surnamed Kimber, etc. introduction 13 have three letters, as if to give the key to the reading, two letters then being sufficient for the initiated reader. It should be noted that these letters appear only seven times,47 exclusively on the first sheet and always at the end of lines and entries, most frequently after sums written out in full (I 4; II 2, 4, 9), in figures (III 7; IV 2) and one after a noun (I 12). The last mention relates to Koḥlit (15). It should not be forgotten that the biblical books in Greek translation and other languages have been discovered in the Qumran caves and that the Greek alphabet is employed in the composition of cryptic alphabets.48 Would this be an indication that the composition was due to two different hands? And thus to two juxtaposed lists? Or is it simply a matter of deposits 1–15 being differently organized or supervised from deposits 16ff.? The proposed decipherment means there is no possibility of situating any of the sites in Transjordan. All the places mentioned—Koḥlit will be no exception49—are found in Palestine proper, in Judaea: in Jerusalem

I followed this approach (1997:183). Finally, Lefkovits (2000) and Bedman (2000) adopted the same solution. Confirmation of this interpretation has now been provided by Greek inscriptions from Tomb 5 of Jatt near Caesarea Maritima, dated roughly to the second half of the first century AD, i.e. contemporary with the Copper Scroll (cf. Y. Porath, E. Yannai and A. Kasher, “Archaeological Remains at Jatt”, Atiqot 37 [1999] 1–78 [Heb.], 167*–171*). The fifteen inscriptions introduce complete names but also forms that are abbreviated to varying degrees; they may be reduced to four, three or two letters, and even a single letter, thus: ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑС, ΑΓΡΙΠ, ΑΓΡ, ΑΓ, Α; ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗ, ΒΕΡΕΝ, ΒΕΡΝ, ΒΕΡ, ΒΕ, Β; ΖωΗΛΟΥС, ΖωΗ, Ζω; ΘΝΗ(ς); ΜΑΡ(κος) or better ΜΑΡΙΑΜΗ, ΜΑΡΙΑ, ΜΑΡΙ, ΜΑΡ; MNAС(εας) or Μ(α)ΝΑС(σης); ΠΑΤΡ(ος) or (Αντι)ΠΑΤΡ(ος); ΡΕΒ(εκα). It is clear that in this case the visi- tor who is a family member of the tomb owners, was able without difficulty to read and complete the partially engraved anthroponym. What is true of a family even in the broader sense ought also to be possible for a community as close as the Essene centre of Qumran, which was also a family in the religious sense. Would this be a supplementary indication in favour of the Qumran-Essene attribution of the scroll? Be that as it may, this formulation is clearly an argument in that direction. See the Ιωσηπος seal, locus 30. 47 It should be noted that the young church in Jerusalem also chose seven men of good reputation from among the Hellenists, commissioning them for service (Acts 6:1–6). 48 That those responsible for the deposits had Greek names or spoke Greek does not rule out an Essene hypothesis to make them treasures that came direct from the Jerusalem temple at the time of the deposit. But it is implausible that these Greek letters would allude to a transfer or withdrawal of the deposits by Romans or others, as Goranson suggests (2002:231–231). 49 Milik (1962:274–275) would situate Koḥlit on the south slope of Mount Carmel, but this identification is doubtful. As a hypothesis might one venture to suggest its identification with Tell es-Sultan, the ancient tell of Jericho to the north of Hasmonaean and Herodian Jericho on the vast perimeter, in view of the important irrigation works, and contemporary with the occupation of Qumran? Would this solution not take sufficient account of entries where there is mention of the Koḥlit deposits (with water): a tell/mound (4), a pool in the east (11), a large cistern in the north (15), an underground chamber in the north (19) and (60) with tombs hiding the entrance, and account of the geographical 14 introduction and its surroundings, in the southern region of the city, at Sokokah- Qumran and Jericho and their surroundings, finishing with three sites a little further from the centre, Mount Gerizim, Beth Sham and Bezek between the two.50 In fact, in the study and assessment of the toponyms it is helpful to set apart the first fifteen entries for which the author gives supplementary information by means of Greek letters, probably indicating the names of seven individuals responsible for the deposits: (1), (4), (6), (7), (9), (12–12a) and (15). The deposits of this first group are distributed between Ḥorebbeh, “The Ruin”, in the valley of Achor (1), (2) and (3)?, three hiding places at Koḥlit and surroundings: (4) “in the mound” btl, (11) “in the east pool” bbrkʾ and (15) “in a large cistern in the north” bbwr hgdwl, the others

sequence of the toponyms, “Valley of Achor to the north of Jericho”, etc.”? Further, Elisha, the disciple of Elijah who purified the waters of the very abundant spring which rises at the foot of the tell (2Kgs 2:19–22), could lie behind the mention of his master Elijah in connection with a source of Mount Carmel in the medieval Jewish legend cited by the author. Finally, sepulchres of the type of those of the great cemetery of Khirbet Qumran are known from the northern side of Tell el-Sulṭan (cf. K.M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho. III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Text, Jerusalem 1981, 173–174. But would this proposal be compatible with the mention of a “Koḥlit in the Desert” in the Talmud, b. Qiddušin 66a? John Hyrcanus did indeed conquer “cities” in Idumea (Josephus, Ant. XIII §§254–258). Although situated in the oasis of Jericho, Tell es-Sulṭan is still in the desert, but the toponym could not be unique. An identification with ʿAyn Feshkha has to be ruled out, particularly as Koḥlit is mentioned 5 times as against 4 for Sokokah-Qumran and there is no mound. But in the five attestations of this word in 3Q15, nothing proves that Koḥlit must be understood as a district (despite Goranson, 1994:287; 2002:227–230). Zissu (2001:146, 148–149) sees it as a district which he locates at ʿAïn Samiyeh near Wadi Kuḥeila in the desert of Samaria. But this identification depends first of all on Lefkovits’s (2000) reading Yanoaḥ in XII 10, a reading which is not tenable. He finds fault with my hypothesis for giving two names to the Jericho oasis. We might recall that since the city-oasis extended a long way to the southwest, the tell could have been given a different name (cf. present-day Tell es-Sulṭan and Jericho). On this subject, one might compare Dhibon and Qariḥo (its acropolis?), Jerusalem and the Ophel or city of David, Zion, etc. Koḥlit, moreover, is mentioned 5 times and not 4, and Sokokah 4 times and not 5 (p. 148). Lastly, the Tübinger Bibelatlas situates Koḥlit between ʿAyn el-Ghuwweir and ʿAyn el-Turabeh on the western bank of the Dead Sea while there is manifestly no tell nor abundance of freshwa- ter; cf. Tübinger Bibelatlas. Auf der Grundlage des Tübinger Bibelatlas des Vorderen Orients (TAVO). Tübingen Bible Atlas. Based on the Tübingen Atlas of the Near and Middle East, ed. S. Mittmann & G. Schmitt, Tübingen 2001, B V 18. In the final analysis, this toponym remains quite difficult to identify, since it is certain that several localities bear this name (see below, I 9). Finally, Thiering (2002:276–287) situates all the entries of the first sheet of the scroll at Qumran-Sokokah where she sees a temple in a room in the workshops quarter. See also the Commentary at I 9–12. 50 It cannot be affirmed that the deposits/hiding places were distributed through out the whole of Roman Palestine, following Lefkovits (2000:17, 227–230) and previously Dupont-Sommer and other commentators. introduction 15 being as a whole probably situated around the precincts of the Jerusalem temple itself;51 the Jericho region would be more difficult. But given the lack of data, their precise location will always remain unknown. Without these Greek indications, the following grouping seems broadly to resume the previous geographical sequence, probably starting from Koḥlit, since the entrance (16) follows the mention of kḥlt in (15) and (17) ties in again with the valley of Achor. Then follow (18) at Wadî ʿAṣla, (19) to the north of Koḥlit, (20) to (23) at Sokokah and area, (24) between Jericho and Sokokah, (25) to (27) in the same region, (28) near a ford of the Jordan,52 (29) and (30) very probably at Jericho, (31) at Doq to the northwest of Jericho, (32) at the exit of the water of Koziba to the southwest of Jericho, (33) at Jericho(?), (34) a valley in the area, (35) in the Kidron valley, (36) to (37) in the valley of Shaveh (a tributary of the Kidron), (38) at Naṭoph and (39) to (45) in the surroundings to Tekoa-Bethlehem, (46) at Beth ha-Kerem, (47) to (49) to the south of Jerusalem (valley of Job, Absalom’s monument and springs of Siloam), (50) to (56) around the ramparts of the city, finally (57) at Mount Gerizim, (58) at Beth Sham and (59) at Bezek, halfway between these two sites, finishing once again at Koḥlit (60). The distributions of the first and second groupings follow a sequence which seems to have its own internal coherence and which cannot easily be attributed to chance, even if the topographic identifications of the entries of cols. I to III are not entirely assured. When the identifiable toponyms are plotted on a map, the rather well defined area of these hiding places in two regions becomes apparent, one around Sokokah/Jericho and the other around Tekoa/Jerusalem and immediate surroundings, but with a noticeable necessary crossing point between the two groups formed by the Kidron valley. The mention of a “common tomb” at the foot of the temple, for people generally resident in Jericho (54), reinforces the link between these two groups. The northeast of the desert of Judah could no doubt have served as a place of refuge for resistance fighters during the siege of Jerusalem by the

51 According to the translations/identifications of Milik. Even if the Essenes did not sacrifice at the temple, the perimeter of the latter was not prohibited to them, as Josephus reports in connection with the prophecy of Judas the Essene concerning the death of Antigone. Seeing Antigone crossing the temple the same day he had predicted his death at Strato’s Tower, Judas found himself in the temple precincts, surrounded by numerous disciples, War I §§78–80; Ant. XIII §§311–313. 52 This ford could be on either the right or the left bank; if the latter, it would then be the only deposit on the east side of the Jordan. 16 introduction

Romans, but the deposits around Jerusalem (never mentioned by name!), around Jericho/Sokokah (= Khirbet Qumran) do not lend themselves to this type of explanation, nor indeed those of Mount Gerizim, Beth-Sham and Bezek. So we should abandon seeing these hiding places as deposits of the temple treasury alone, administered by non-Essene high priests, ahead of the arrival of Roman troops, one legion of which followed precisely the route Beth-Sham–Jericho–Jerusalem.53 This evidence ties in with Josephus’s mention of the non-dispersal of the treasure (War VI, §§271, 282). It is indeed surprising that only some objects from the Treasury would have been hidden and mentioned in this list which says nothing of the other furnishings, such as candelabra, spades, forks, etc. Finally, the absence of any mention of other toponyms in Judaea in particular, as well as the absence of the name of the holy city “Jerusalem” and the temple, which is defiled for the Essenes, does not favour the hypothesis of the deposit of temple treasures administered at the time by the Sadducean and Pharisaic high priests until the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Ownership of these goods by the Essenes, the Qumran community and other Essene groups whose core members would not have left the temple empty-handed on their departure, takes better account of the geographical distribution of these deposits and of the mention of priestly families in these lists, and is not contradicted by the sources on this subject.54

53 Despite McCarter (1994:140–141) and Lefkovits (2010:190 n. 45) who “is inclined to believe that the scroll is a genuine document, which lists the treasury of the Second Temple hidden shortly before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem”. The mentions of Sokokah=Khirbet Qumran (=Essenes) and of Gerizim, in Samaritan possession, are certainly at odds with Pharisaic ownership of the treasures. If the treasures had not been able to arrive to the temple because of the early stages of the war with the Romans, it is surprising not to see any mention of other hiding places further to the south (Beth Ṣur, Hebron, etc.) or to the west (in the Shephelah), not even Masada or other localities or caves of refuge in the wadis to the south of En-Gedi for example. Finally the single mention of Sokokah, to the exclusion of any other toponym known along the banks of the Dead Sea, does not argue in favour of a presence of Essene groups in the region, in the heights surrounding En-Gedi for example, to hold to a recently updated interpretation of infra hos in the note by Pliny the Elder (see Y. Hirschfeld, “A Settlement of Hermits above ‘En Gedi”, Tel Aviv 27 [2000] 103– 155; idem, Qumran in Context. Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence, Peabody 2004). 54 Pliny the Elder, Natural History V, 17; Dio Chrysostom according to his biographer Synesius, Dion 5: “The Essenes form an entire and prosperous city situated near the Dead Sea”; Philo, Apology for the Jews §1: “They dwell in many cities of Judaea, and in many villages, and in great and populous communities”. If this conclusion is acceptable, as it seems to be, the Copper Scroll lists provide a new insight into how the Essenes were established in the country. introduction 17

Would this conclusion explain, in part at least, the links with the Samaritan milieu which can be inferred from the biblical and pseude- pigraphal texts found among the Qumran manuscripts?55 The question arises at the very least from the fact of the mention of Mount Gerizim. Moreover, the fierce opposition of the Pharisaic priesthood towards Gerizim is very well documented. Finally, this solution would explain the deposit of this scroll by a same group in a Qumran cave, alongside typically Essene manuscripts and behind cylindrical jars which were almost touching the ceiling of the cave according to the excavator. Indeed, it is scarcely conceivable that Sadduceo-Pharisees would have subsequently hidden such a precious list in a hiding place belonging to their opponents. Furthermore, the latter would not have been able to do so before the fall of Khirbet Qumran-Sokokah in the spring of AD 68. Later on, the presence of the Roman army on the site and in the area, preparing the siege of Jerusalem, would certainly have put them off doing so. So it cannot be a question of deposits from the Jerusalem temple administered by the Sadducean or Pharisaic high priests before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.56

55 See e.g. M. Baillet, “Le texte samaritain de l’Exode dans les manuscrits de Qumrân”, in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, under the direction of A. Caquot & M. Philonenko, Paris 1971, 363–381, in particular 4Q158, 4Q174 and 4Q175; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition, Harvard Semitic Studies 30, 1986; J.T. Milik, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân : d’Hénoch à Amram”, in M. Delcor, ed., Qumrân. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium XLVI, Paris-Gembloux 1978, 91–106; Testament de Lévi (pp. 96f.), de Juda (p. 101), Judith (p. 101), p. 106; and lastly F. Dexinger, “Samaritan Origins and the Qumran Texts”, in Essays in Honour of G.D. Sixdenier. New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, vols. III and IV, ed. A.D. Crown AM & L. Davey, University of Sydney, Studies in Judaica 5, 1995, 169–184. 56 One cannot accept the hypothesis advanced recently by Lefkovits (2000:443–470; 2010:190), who sees these deposits as dependent on direction from the Jerusalem temple, taking the view that this solution alone takes account of the language, the phraseology, the amounts and the content, etc.; nor that of Bar Ilan (2002:198–209) which takes it to be a list of hiding places of deposits from the temple treasury reflecting the sequence of operation in different places. But the repeated storage at Sokokah for example would be bound to have attracted the attention of the region’s occupants before the destruction of Khirbet Qumran and the flight of its inhabitants in 68, just like after the destruction and the Roman occupation! It is implausible that the deposit of the scroll in the cave containing Essene manuscripts would have constituted a safe hiding place for people from outside the group. The presence of technical words of foreign origin in this scroll does not seem a sufficient argument against the Essene origin of the composition, despite M. Broshi and H. Eshel, “Radiocarbon Dating and the Messiah before Jesus”, Revue de Qumrân 78 (2001) 311–317, p. 314. 18 introduction

This distribution, which seems to be definitively established, with no toponym in Transjordan, with the possible exception of (28) “the ford of the high priest” or away from the centre in the territory of Judah, hampers part of the interpretation of Pixner, Goranson, Stegemann and others. If the deposits belonged to the temple treasury as tribute or deposits in the only bank of the time, hidden two years after the fall of Sokokah/Qumran in AD 68, as has been maintained,57 how would non-Essenes have been able to hide any in Jericho, occupied by the Roman army since spring 68, and at Qumran and area, guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers (Stratum III of the Khirbeh), or have been able to add them in the same Cave 3 beyond the deposits of jars and goods of opponents who, not participating in the resistance, had just left the region58 and hoped to reclaim their deposits as soon as possible? This hypothesis also seems highly improbable and unrealistic on several levels, especially as the city was besieged and move- ments in the area and for some distance to the south and east would have been rather limited and under surveillance. On the eve of the fall of the besieged city, one would imagine rather hiding places in the city itself in the defenders’ hands, not all around Beth ha-Kerem and at Naṭoph, at Gerizim and at the places of their Essene opponents, all the more so in centres under the control of the Roman enemy. Finally, contrary to what has been said, there is no allusion to the author of the text in the scroll.59 It is known that the Essenes, numbering more than four thousand men, lived not only at Qumran but many more also in Jerusalem and in the towns and villages in the country, and that they shared in common the goods that they possessed (Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit, §§75–76; Josephus, War II §§124–127; Ant. XVIII §§18–22). Several of them were priests, starting with the Teacher of Righteousness.60 They could

57 Stegemann, for instance, who goes so far as to describe the Essene hypothesis as “völ lig absurd”! These treasures could have had nothing to do with Qumran and its occupants! But the contrary hypothesis escapes all logic. 58 This does not contradict the mention of John the Essene commanding the resistance at Thamna (Josephus War II §567; III §11), nor the presence of Essene refugees bringing scrolls with them to Masada up to AD 73. 59 E.g. Wolters (1994:292–293); 1996a:11; 2002:319, 331) who believes he has found three times the mention of the first person who could allude to the high priest and to his precious belongings. These are simply false readings. The numerous confusions of reading and the mention of a duplicate at the end of the scroll show quite clearly that this is a copy, not an autograph. 60 Probably the son of Onias III; cf. E. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?”, Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Festschrift für H. Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold & A. Steudel, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97, Berlin 1999, 137–158. introduction 19 therefore receive their part of the tithe, the temple taxes, donations and goods, consecrated or not, which had to be given to them by those who had supported them from the beginning and/or who did not want to give to the wicked priests practising in the defiled temple since the high priesthood of Jonathan, thereby becoming their accomplices. We know that special rules applied to relations between the Essenes and the temple and its offerings; for example in relation to the half-shekel to be paid once in one’s life and not annually (cf. 4Q159 1 ii 6–7 = 4Q513 1–2 with Matt 17:24, 27), or again the priests of the defiled temple, accused of profana- tions, greed and fornication (prohibited marriages etc.)—these are the three curses of Belial—, who followed a different calendar, etc., in short concerning priests not qualified to receive the terûmah (dema‘) or consecrated things (ḥerem) (cf. CD IV 14–V 11, and especially VI 11–VII 16 with its mention of bḥrm and bhwn hmqdš, 1QpHab VIII 13; IX 4–5; XII 8–9,61 and as a parallel Mark 7:11). Manuscript 4QMMTc (=4Q396 1–2 iv) 62–64 reiterates the duty of payment of the tithe to the priests (wicked priests of course excluded). And according to the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab XII 8–9) the robbed “poor” (Essenes) are supposed to possess important goods. Further, it is known that Herod the Great held all the Essenes in high esteem (Josephus Ant. XV §378), and Dio Chrysostom mentions the prosperous city of the Essenes near the Dead Sea.62 This wealth may also have come partly from the sale of people’s property or from the personal fortune brought with them by new recruits to the Community, initially recorded under their name for the duration of their probationary period,

61 See e.g. J.M. Baumgarten, “Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4”, Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. J. Amitai, Jerusalem 1985, 390–399; and E. and Ḥ. Eshel, “4Q471 Fragment and Maʿamadot in the War Scroll”, The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera & L. Vegas Montaner, Madrid 1992, II, 611–620, where the authors show the Essene restrictions relating to their participation in the Jerusalem treasury. 62 See n. 54 above. But this city is not necessarily Khirbet Qumran according to De Vaux. The author may also be alluding to ʿIr ha-Melaḥ “the city of salt” of Josh 15:62, to be situated at ʿAyn el-Ghuwweir/ ʿAyn el-Turabeh between Sokokah and ‛En-Gedi, where, meantime, excavations have revealed a complex of community life contemporary with that of Qumran. See P. Bar-Adon, “Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at En el-Ghuweir on the Shores of the Dead Sea”, BASOR 227 (1977) 1–25. 62a See É. Puech, “L’ostracon de Khirbet Qumrân (KHQ 19961) et une vente de terrain à Jéricho, témoin de l’occupation essénienne à Qumrân”, in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar (Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 122; Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), 1–29. 20 introduction then placed in common after definitive admission.62a Finally, fleeing the Jerusalem temple in 152 BC, the high priest and his allies would certainly not have left empty-handed, taking scrolls, vessels, priestly vestments etc., with the intention of conserving their heritage, leading an authentic religious life during their exile and of resuming worship in a purified temple as soon as possible. These explanations would account for a number of entries in the list of hiding places and fit perfectly with almost all the toponyms listed. It may be noted that, on the whole, the hiding places are situated in places which convey ritual impurity: sacred deposits in tombs, watercourses and cisterns where the liquids communicate impurity, as if these tax revenues and consecrated gifts were deliberately rendered impure and unusable until their redemption.63 (Hiding places like these, a priori unthinkable, could only have had possible Jewish thieves in mind, ungodly individuals, not Romans who were not affected by this kind of tradition.) Moreover, do not the mentions of votive or levied offerings, second tithe, treasure, consecrated offering (ḥrm) and minḥah, of priests: Theboutis etc., of the tomb of Ṣadoq,64 of the priestly family Ha-Qoṣ—temple treasurers (?)— etc., argue in favour of an Essene interpretation of this composition? The palaeographic dating of the scroll, very plausibly around the middle of the first century AD, probably shortly before the fall of Khirbet Qumran in 68,65 and the deposit sites would support this conclusion more than they oppose it.66 The presence of “consecrated things” (ḥerem) in the list

63 Lefkovits (2000:461–462) thinks that the network of watercourses and tombs being under the control of the Court of Jerusalem, would constitute appropriate hiding places, since the metallic vessels and clothes could be purified. But what is to be said of the books, which must not be damaged, the duplicate and resins and spices? 64 This tomb of Ṣadoq is not further described but we know the importance of this name and of the designation of the sons of Ṣadoq, bny ṣdwq, in the Essene context. 65 See F.M. Cross, “Excursus on the Palaeographical Dating of the Copper Scroll”, DJDJ III, 217–221. There is no hiatus between this copy and copies of the Qumran manuscripts, contrary to what has been said. 66 Though we may agree with Knohl (2002:233–256) on the terumah, the ḥerem as gifts to the priests or to the temple, on the second tithe which can be kept by the priests at home, on the vessels coming (originally) from the temple and on the identification of priests as those responsible for the deposits of these treasures, it does not necessarily follow that the latter are current incumbents of the temple (defiled in the eyes of the Essenes) or are priests of the Boethusian party who had struck an alliance with the Essenes. The proposed dating of 4QMMT seems too late, and is it not at odds with the sacrifices to the emperor and the calendars, especially as the hypothesis relies entirely on an impossible reading of zbwḥ[ym] ’l hm[wšl], “they sacrificed to the e[mperor]” in 4QMMT B 9 (=4Q394 3–7 i 12)? I date the composition of 4QMMT to the middle of the second century BC; see É. Puech, “L’épilogue de 4QMMT revisité”, in A Teacher for All Generations. Essays in Honor introduction 21 seems unthinkable, if not impossible, after the fall of the temple in AD 70. The most important deposits are located in Jericho and its surroundings and in Jerusalem and surroundings, Beth-Sham, but not at Sokokah/ Qumran (20) to (26), which is not surprising. These are lines of research which I can only touch upon because they would require quite a different treatment, which is not the primary object of this revised edition of the text. It would seem necessary to show the possibility of Essene deposits hidden around their principal centre, at Sokokah and Jericho, and around Jerusalem, perhaps also with the com- plicity of the religious authorities in place, faced with the imminent danger to everyone67 since the Essenes did find refuge at Masada, but before the destruction of the site in AD 68.68 This hypothesis seems more plausible than those advanced of Zealot treasures, of Jewish rebels of the second revolt, or of Pharisees between the two revolts. After this new collation of the scroll, it seems more difficult to prove that these treasures and the scroll in Cave 3 are not Essene than the contrary.69 In that case, not only does the reading of the text now seem more or less assured, but we may be able to make out the beginnings of an answer to the enigma.

of James C. VanderKam, vol. I, ed. E.F. Mason, S.I. Thomas, A. Schofield, E. Ulrich (Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 153/I; Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2012), 309–339, see also É. Puech, ‟La Lettre essénienne MMT dans le manuscrit 4Q397 et les parallèles”, Revue de Qumrân 105 (2015) in print. 67 This would better explain the more important sums around Jerusalem and especially the temple vessels that were not indispensable for the daily cult, clothing and vessels of votive offerings. We know that Essenes occupied a quarter in the city of Jerusalem on Mount Zion; Josephus mentions precisely the Gate of the Essenes on the southwest of the city wall (War V §145), which excavations have uncovered. 68 I do not see how Essenes could have subsequently hidden deposits in Jericho and its immediate vicinity occupied by the Roman legion coming from Beth-Shan/Scythopolis in the late spring of 68. This fits with the conclusion to which Kuhn (1954) came before the scrolls were opened (p. 204): “a conclusion which may at first sight seem astounding: that we have in these copper scrolls a description of the places where the riches of the Essene community were hidden, its items of value and its movable goods”, before he changed his mind (1956), seeing them simply as temple treasures, the priests having entrusted them into the care of the Essenes. The discovery of Essene scrolls such as The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Ben Sira, Testament of Levi, Apocryphon of Joshua, etc. at Masada speaks for the presence of some Essenes who found a last refuge in the fortress. 69 The engraving on copper does not necessary make this the last administrative document of the temple treasures in Jerusalem engraved by the treasurers in the years 68–70, as Wilmot believed (Wilmot & Wise 2002:305). To gain an idea of the importance of these religious currents at that time, it is sufficient to refer to Josephus, who numbers the Pharisees at “more than six thousand” (Ant. XVII §§41–42), the Essenes at “more than four thousand men” (Ant. XVIII §20) and the Sadducees reduced to “a smaller number” (ibid. §17). The Essene hypothesis with them living dispersed in Judaean agglomerations no longer seems implausible; much to the contrary. 22 introduction

And the inscription of a somewhat laconic list on three sheets of metal, rather expensive ones at that, does not, on the face of it, argue in favour of a legendary account.70 It seems that this hypothesis too should be abandoned.71 The engraving of the three sheets of the scroll was probably done on a single occasion, more probably even by the same engraver.72 And it is independent of the composition of the list, of which there is a more precise duplicate, and of course independent of the deposit of the treasures in the hiding places. At the end of this revision, only five or six words as well as two incomplete figures are lacking in the text of the scroll. However, in the majority of cases one can with some plausibility restore the terminology or at least discern something of the underlying idea: IV 1, 2, 3; V 1, 2, 3; VII 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; XI 17. In the present state, the toponym of III 1 cannot be identified with certainty, even if I propose a probable or at least possible solution, and the reading of some others is not completely assured in view of the ambivalence of the characters. Whatever the case, the Copper Scroll

70 A hypothesis adopted recently by Humbert (1997:89–93). The Copper Scroll cannot be Essene: it is “unique and the historical context would be later than those of the parchments. . . . The inventory of the temple treasury would be imaginary in a literary genre which is not unknown . . . The amazing precision of the inventory reminds one of the meticulously worked out calculations in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem in the War Scroll [sic] . . . These popular texts . . . aimed to maintain the hopes of the faithful after the loss of the temple . . . The message is religious propaganda . . . The last hiding place of the inventory contains nothing other than a scroll which corrects the latter.” These assertions have no basis in any indication in this scroll, just as the existence of a temple at Qumran has no basis in the archaeological remains. See also Høgenhaven (2009), who sees in the geographical framework understood against a biblical background, a vision of a renewed Israel and a renewed temple, in affinity with the architectural vision for the New Jerusalem! 71 For a presentation of the various hypotheses, see Muchowski (2002:257–270), who concludes in favour of the authenticity of the deposits of the list in relation to the events of the first revolt against Rome, leaning clearly in favour of the temple treasure but at the same time not ruling out an Essene origin. Brooke (2002:8) noted at the end of the symposium that the genre “list” does not argue in favour of a fictional account; that, even if a majority of those present were in favour of the temple treasure, a strong minority argued for a link with the Essene milieu; and finally that the majority date the scroll to the middle of the 1st century, probably in connection with the years 66–70. 72 The hypothesis (Tov 2002:288–290) that 25 hands participated successively in the engraving of the scroll gradually along with the deposits, cannot be sustained, because it would not explain the riveting in advance of the three (only) sheets, and it does not make it the original as if the more elaborated duplicate was a later copy, contrary to the editor (1962:279) and Cross (1962:217), who sees it as a copy of a text written in cursive script. One hesitates also to describe the engraver as “illiterate” (Wolters 2002:313–314) because of the confusions of daleth and resh, beth and kaph, yod and waw; these distinctions are not always evident in many literary manuscripts of the period (see note 11). introduction 23 turns out to be one of the best conserved from the Qumran caves due to the copper itself. But the precise meaning of certain terms or expressions in the conserved text is not discernible without some difficulty because of the concise and laconic context of the passage, or because of possible mistakes by the copyist: haplography, confusion of letters, and so forth. The translation in italics and the commentary indicate this in the passage. The enigma that remains to be resolved resides in the exact meaning and value of the “talent”: weight, or monetary value? It is my hope that research on this text can now proceed on a more solid basis, but the historical point of view should not be emphasized at the expense of neglect of the linguistic aspect.73 Indeed, this scroll must reflect the state of the language of its day. And the use of technical, architectural or other words, of Greek origin in particular, cannot be retained as a valid or decisive criterion against Essene composition.74

73 The latter is the subject of a quite recent study by Bedman (2000) on the basis of my first note in 1997, who concludes that the Copper Scroll is the most authentic linguistic antecedent of rabbinic Hebrew. For his part, Lübbe (2002:155–162) draws attention precisely to the complexity of any qualification of the language of this scroll, given its stereotyped phraseology. 74 Compare the numerous borrowings in their time in Daniel, The New Jerusalem and the Temple Scroll, in agreement with García Martínez (2003:142–145), despite Bedman (2000:358–359), who thinks the Essenes might not be familiar with technical terms used in city environments. Qimron (2000:234–235) has shown on the basis of some disputed cases that the Hebrew of the Copper Scroll is certainly not related to mishnaic Hebrew or its linguistic antecedent, nor is it the heir of the latter.

TEXT, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

Inserted in parentheses in the presentation of the text is a numeration of the entries or hiding places, all of which begin at the start of the line except for (3) at I 6. But this numeration counts only 60 entries (or 61 including 12 and 12a) instead of the 64 of the editio princeps. The copyist, knowing only the medial form of mem, and not being systematic with the other letters, we have followed the style of the engraver in the transcription.

Sigla: [ ] = lacuna in the original text [[ ]] = correction in the edition of a slip in the original text < > = insertion of a letter by the copyist { } = letter corrected or canceled by the copyist ו erroneous = ו(ר) correction of an error in the engraving: for example ( ) of the recopied original ר by the copyist instead of the (1): figure in parenthesis = numeration of an entry

Col. I (Figure 1)

1 )1(בחריב}א{ה שבעמק עכור תחת 2 המעלות הבואת למזרח אמות 3 אריח ארבעין שדת כסף וכליה 4 משקל ככרין שבעשרה ΚΕΝ 5 )2(בנפש בנדבך השל>י<שי עשתות 6 זהב )3(בבור הגדול שבחצר 7 הפרסטלון בירכ קרקעו סתומ בחליא 8 נגד הפתח העליון ככרין תשע מאת 9 )4(בתל של כחלת כלי דמע בל]?[גין ואפודת 10 הכל של הדמע והאצר השבע ומעסר 11 שני מפוגל פתחו בשולי האמא מן הצפון 12 אמות שש עד מקרת הטבו/יל]ה?[ ΧΑΓ 13 )5(בשוא המסבא של מנס בירד/ךא לסמל 14 גבה מן הקרקע אמות שלוש כסף ארבעין 15 ]כ[כר

Translation: (1) 1In ‘The Ruin’ which is in the valley of Achor, under 2the steps leading to the east (at) forty 3half-brick cubits: (there is) a chest of silver and its vessels, 4a weight of seventeen talents. ΚΕΝ. (2) 5In the sepulchral monument, in the third layer: 6100 gold ingots. (3) In the great cistern which is in the court 7of the peristyle, at the side of its floor, sealed in the (circular) wall, 8opposite the upper opening: nine hundred talents. (4) 9In the mound of Koḥlit, (there are) tithe vessels consisting of flasks, and ephods?: 10the total of the tithe and the store/treasury of the sabbatical (year) and a 11second disqualified tithe. Its opening (is) on the northern edge of the channel, 12six cubits in the direction of the frigidarium of the bath. ΧΑΓ. (5) 13In the spiral staircase of Manos, in the descent/recess to the left, 14at a height of three cubits from the bottom, silver: forty 15talents.

Commentary: (I) ll. 1–4: The first hiding place is situated at Ḥorebbeh, “The Ruin” (lit. “The little ruin”), retaining the yod in preference to waw, ḥryb{ʾ}h rather than ḥrwb{ʾ}h,75 as the editor has shown. This toponym or place in the valley of Achor is still known in the Byzantine period by the monastery of Chorembe in the Wadi Nuweiʿimeh to the north of Khirbet el-Mafjar and the northeast of Jericho. The valley is designated by name, “Valley of Achor”, if one is willing to acknowledge the differences in writing in this line and generally elsewhere. The reading ʿbwr, “go past”,76 should therefore not be retained. The Jewish and Christian traditions placed “the valley of Achor” to the northeast of Jericho and not in the Buqeiʿah between Wadi Mukellik and the Kidron; see e.g. Eusebius and Jerome: to the north

75 In DJD, p. 284, Milik writes: “The last letter of the first word was begun like aleph then corrected to he”. It could be difficult to pronounce since ʾalef and he are complete forms. But the ʾalef is a mistake by the copyist who had first aligned the final consonant of the toponym with the usual forms ending in -’ in this scroll. For a reverse correction of he to ʾalef, one would expect that the axis or a downstroke of the ʾalef would cross one of the verticals of the he, which is not the case. Muchowski (1993) reads bḥrwbh and Lefkovits (2000) bḥrwbhʾ; a conflated reading like this is unsatisfactory. 76 The reading of Pixner and of García Martínez and Tigchelaar. The stroke of the kaf here is more rectangular than square for bet. A verb would break the stereotypical structure of the wording of the text and should not therefore be retained. Fidler (2002:210–225) notes that the first hiding place with a troubled and cursed name, the Valley of Achor, seems to have a counterpart in the form of an inclusio at the end of the list in XII 4 with the Mount of Benedictions, Mount Gerizim. text, translation and commentary 27 of Jericho and close to Galgala (Gilgal). Achor is mentioned several times in the Bible: Josh 7:24, 26; 15:7; Hos 2:17; Isa 65:10, cf. also 4QProphecy of Joshua—4Q522 3 3. At l. 2, Luria reads ḥbwʾh/ḥbwyh for the term hbwʾt.77 But since the taw is certain, this reading cannot be maintained. The apparently unusual form hbwʾt is more likely to be an error by the engraver by metathesis for hbʾwt than a witness to a dialectal pronunciation.78 At l. 3, the reading ʾrwh could be a false start (waw/bet and he/ʿayin being phonetic equivalents?) of ʾrbʿ(yn) for a “dittography” of the measure of length as the editor thought, since with a reading ʾry/wḥ79 the unit of measurement is already indicated by the ʾmwt , “cubits”, used of 6 or 7 palm-widths, unless there is a mistake in the precision of the cubit for ʾrw[[k]]h > ʾrwkwt , “long cubits” (?).80 It should be pointed out that only the confusions between dalet and reš, waw and yod, and he and ḥet are acceptable here and that it is difficult to see here a dittography of ʾmwt.81 One might imagine a reading of ʾrwḥ with the prosthetic ʾalef as the equivalent of the targumic Aramaic ʾmyn rwḥ “large cubits”, but this does not seem very likely given the result: some 21 metres below the staircase! Similarly, it would seem appropriate to discard the proposal to take ʾrwḥ as a metathesis of ʾwrḥ, synonymous with drk to indicate cubits used to measure a path, which seems implausible, and the word indicating the distance would have had to come first.82 In the final analysis, the reading

77 Luria, according to Muchowski (1993:41) or Lefkovits (2000:35–36) (the work was not accessible to me), ḥbwʾh = ḥbwyh “is hidden”, but if he/ḥet are possible, taw is certain. 78 Despite Lefkovits (2000:34–36). 79 The word ʾryḥ would be a precision of the length of the cubit: half a brick opposed to one brick (of a cubit of 3 palms, m. Erubin I 3: ʾryḥ = 1.5 palms), as Luria writes; cf. Pixner, who understood these as “long cubits”! Wolters (1990:487–488; 1992:248), Muchowski (1993) ʿrwḥ, Beyer. Reading ʾryḥ = 1.5 palms runs the risk of confusions or contradictions between the usual cubit of 6 to 7 palms (45 or 52.5 cm respectively) and ʾmt ʾryḥ, as 40 × 1.5 = 60 palms or 10 cubits of 6 palms. Would one not have simply expected in this document the mention of “10 cubits”, keeping the same value for “cubit” as elsewhere? In fact, m. Erubin I 3 does not use ʾmh with ʾryḥ 80 One might suppose either ʾmwt ʾrwkwt “long cubits”, or ʾmwt [[ʾmh]] ʾrwkh, “. . . cubits, the long cubit, . . .”; see the precision in 2 Chr 3:3: hʾrk ʾmwt bmdh hrʾšwnh. In fact, Pixner, García Martínez, García Martínez & Tigchelaar understand “forty long cubits”, see Lefkovits (2010:187f.), but Høgenhaven (2009:92, 97) reads it as a mistake. 81 Despite Lefkovits (2000:36ff.) who adds as possibilities zayin, final short nun and taw, thus eliminating the reading ʾḥt for “forty-one cubits”, for which the absence of the waw link is also a difficulty. 82 As, for example, in Ezek 42:4 in the Hebrew drk ʾmh ʾḥt and the Aramaic ʾwrḥ ʾmtʾ ḥdʾ, despite Wolters, and the result which would oscillate between 18 and 21 metres depending on whether one takes the common cubit or the great royal cubit. 28 text, translation and commentary

ʾmwt ʾryḥ ʾrbʿyn “(at) forty half-brick cubits”, i.e. 4.5 m, seems more acceptable,83 even though such precision might be surprising, since for the same distance the mention “(at) ten (common) cubits” would have been the usual formula in this document. Besides the greater precision between common cubit and great cubit, this indication could also play an off-putting role and serve as a code in the measures indicating hiding places.84 Finally, the word šdt must be analysed as a feminine noun construct in view of the suffix of klyh, even if one might hesitate between the reading wklyh “and its vessels” and wklwh “and its total” (in agreement with the editor). We would then have a masculine suffix with a double orthography, which is not attested in this manuscript, contrary to the edition (VIII 8 and XII 5, see below), but nonetheless known at Qumran in 1QIsaa 36:21; 40:11; 53:11; 63:1. Still, for this meaning one would expect first of all the form hkl, not the copula w-kl-wh; see XII 7 hkl klyn and XII 9 hkl mšql kkryn.85 Consequently, the reading wklyh would seem right, comparable in all regards with the sequence šdʾ ʾḥt wkl klyh in XII 5. But for the meaning it is difficult to choose between “its contents” derived from kw/yl and “its vessels” derived from kly, both of which make sense in this context. The word š(y)dh, here in Aramaicized spelling, designates a safe made of silver.86 Like the numbers in general, the word kkryn is in the Aramaic plural form. ΚΕΝ is probably the start of a personal name: ΚΕΝαδιος or ΚΕΝεδαιος, ΚΕΝεζος etc.87

(2) ll. 5–6: The middle of the line has caused some difficulty. In preference to the reading of the anthroponym proposed with hesitation by the editor,

83 There are different types of cubits of 6 or 7 palms, but, whether in Ezekiel or its tar gum and the manuscript 4QNew Jerusalem, the cane/reed has an identical length, either 6 great cubits (6 × 7 palms) or 7 common cubits (7 × 6 palms), and m. Erubin I 3 gives for ʾryḥ “the half-brick of three palms”, or a palm and a half or in theory 11.25 cm (Luria opts for 12 to 15 cm). Bedman translates cuarenta codos-cañas—forty cane-cubits, which seems rather unlikely. 84 Lefkovits’s explanations (2000:41–42) of ʾryḥ as A(l)Riḥa = Jericho in Arabic, or the name Arah, should be dropped. 85 Luria reads wklym but the he is certain. 86 See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York II 1950, p. 1558, a feminine noun which would be a word from Palestine, b. Giṭṭin 68a. Lefkovits makes this a sedan chair, following Rashi. 87 See the Introduction, pp. 12–13. text, translation and commentary 29 bn rbh hšlšy “Ben Rabbah le Šališien”,88 recent photographs clearly suggest the reading bndbk hšlšy (dalet and final kaf certain, and insertion of yod, which is also Allegro’s reading).89 The word npš has been taken in several different ways: the soul of the deceased, the symbol of the soul of the deceased, the stele on the tomb, the tomb itself and the mausoleum.90 The word ndbk designates a range of stones or bricks, or a stone of a certain size, four palms in height (=30 cm). The Talmud reports that it was customary to hide objects under a stone ndbk (e.g. a targum of Job in b. Shabbat 115a; y. Shabbat 16.1). So we may read this as “In the sepulchral monument, in the third layer/stone . . .” but the use of the preposition b- instead of tḥt means that the meaning “layer/course” is to be preferred here. The funerary monument in question is not given any further precision: in the valley of Achor as before, or in the vicinity of Jerusalem as the subsequent text might suggest? But it is not very probable that we should read šl yšy (“of Jesse”),91 given the engraving error before correction. The contemporary reader would have understood, at least to go by the explanations of the duplicate indicated in XII 11–13.92 The word ʿšt indicates bars of bare metal, ingots, the mean or standard weight of which could have been close to the talent or half-talent, which could explain the absence of mention of the weight at this point. As the editor rightly saw, the sum is written with the sign of the hundred preceded by the unit: “1 × 100”.93

(3) ll. 6–8: Unlike all the others, this entry does not begin at the start of a line but follows the preceding one. The reading hprsṭlwn (περίστυλον) seems preferable to the editor’s prsṭlyn (περιστύλιον), “little peristyle”.94 The reading in the edition is then confirmed by the collation not supporting Allegro’s prepositions bzrb and bḥlʾ.95 The translation of bḥlyʾ

88 The reading also retained by Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:32–33): bn rbh hšlšy. We may discard the various hypotheses advanced by Lefkovits (2000:55–59). 89 Muchowski (1993) reads hšlšy. 90 See B. Mazar, Beth Sheʿarim: Report on the Excavations during 1936–1940, I Catacombs 1–4, New Brunswick 1973, pp. 198, 208. For the use of npš and qbr in juxtaposition, see the example of the inscriptions of the tomb of Jason and the tomb of Benē Hézîr in Jerusalem in the 1st century BC. 91 See Lefkovits 2000:59. 92 See the Introduction above. 93 Not zll “light bar” as read by Allegro, nor zrb “plaster” as read by Luria. 94 Followed by Beyer (1994:226). 95 It is difficult to read the first letter as zayin (compare ll. 2 and 6), while the last could be kaf, as the engraver does not always distinguish between the medial and final forms 30 text, translation and commentary

“in the sand/sediment”, would make excellent sense in the context if it is accepted, but by correcting the misspelling for bḥ[[w]]lyʾ.96 However, this correction could suggest itself given the construction of the sentence, stwm relating more plausibly to yrk97 qrqʿw, which immediately precedes it, than to bwr at the start of l. 6, which obliges the editor to turn the construction around, which is difficult to accept. The misspelling (absence of waw) could be due to the condensed writing at the end of the line (note the straight foot of the lamed, the yod and the ʾalef reduced in size) or to a lack of concentration after the downstrokes of the ḥet, but there are other cases of defective spelling: bmbʾ, ḥrh, etc. However, the meaning does not seem to be the inevitable alluvial deposits (sand, slime, soil) that accumulate at the bottom of a cistern that has not been cleaned or is not regularly maintained, for which bḥlʾ (Aramaism) would have sufficed, and which does not justify the presence of byrk nor the use of the noun stm in place of str. It could be the “(circular) wall” of the cistern, as is indicated by the use of the noun ḥwlyh with bwr in m. Shabbat XI 2 and m. ʿErubim X 7.98 This meaning does indeed explain the succeeding use of stwm better. The interior square or peristyle of the Jerusalem temple could be in mind here, especially as a large cistern is also known there,99 but an allusion to an important building in Jericho would be more difficult.100 Be that as it may, this square could plausibly have accommodated more than one cistern so that it was necessary to be more precise.

(passim). In the following word, a yod precedes the ʾalef, and stwm is not written with a final mem (Allegro). Milik (1962:239) has taken yrk in the usual sense of “(vertical) side”, not “bottom”, as Lefkovits writes (2000:68). 96 Luria proposed ḥwl?, Wolters (1990:491–492) followed by García Martínez, but without indicating the spelling correction which is indispensable for bḥwlyʾ/h. Not wanting to correct the copied text, no doubt, the editor has tried to find a different solution by relying on the Arabic and on the dictionary of Ben Yehuda, followed by the other commentators, but the meaning is queried by Greenfield, Journal of the American Oriental Society 89 (1969), p. 139. Schiffman (2002:188) reads ḥwlyʾ, which he renders “trench or the dirt piled up around a trench or hole”. But these meanings are applied to the interior of a cistern! 97 It is difficult to accept Wilmot’s correction (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309), reading bwr as a mistake for bqrqʿw “in its bottom”, which would be a poor explanation of the precision of ngd hptḥ hʿlywn in the following line. 98 See Lefkovits (2000:70; 2010:191f.). 99 See Milik (1962:285 and quotations), who reads in hprsṭlyn (adopted by Wolters 1996a:32) a Greek diminutive περιστύλιον and not a Semitic-style plural (McCarter [1992:40]), but Pixner relates it to the Essene quarter on Mount Zion in accordance with the meaning given to kḥlt. Luria discounts these possibilities. 100 See the following note. text, translation and commentary 31

(4) ll. 9–12: This entry poses difficult problems of interpretation and reading. The explicitly designated toponym should be read as btl šl kḥlt (not Allegro’s impossible bḥl šl bḥlh), but it still remains unidentified.101 Cited among the conquests of Alexander Jannaeus is a place called Kḥlt in the desert as a centre of wine (yyn) production (b. Qiddušin 66a).102 But there are other place-names of this type in Arabic in the region of Hebron (Beit Kaḥil), Beersheba (Khirbet Kuḥleh), in the Negev (ʿAyn Kuḥleh) and near to Abdat (ʿAyn el-Kuḥleh). So it is not a unique name. But it is unlikely to be a site in Carmel, as the editor suggests (DJDJ, 274–275), nor a district (Goranson, Zissu), nor a community centre (Pixner).103 Be that as it may, this toponym is given great importance in the scroll which also finishes there, and it cannot be some kind of black object,104 or even blue,105 as some have claimed! In relation to buried treasures, the edition has taken the keyword kly dmʿ as “spice jar”, keeping for dmʿ the meaning “tear, juice, secretion (of gum, resin)” in preference to the meaning “firstfruits (of a harvest), first choice”.106 At Exod 22:28a the Septuagint has translated the Hebrew dmʿk by “the firstfruits of your press”, embracing the two meanings of the word, but the other term in parallel, mlʾk “the firstfruits of your threshing- floor” is also found in Num 18:27 in parallel this time with trwmh (“levied offering”), which in turn is in parallel with mʿśr “tithe” in the following verse, 18.28. Now the latter term would be engraved in ll. 10–11 precisely as mʿśr šny according to a hypothetical reading but in a sequence not recognised in the edition. It follows that dmʿ is synonymous with and parallel to trwmh and mʿśr. There is an identical use of the word in the oldest Qumran attestation in 4QTemple Scroll (4Q524) fragments 6–13,

101 As a hypothesis see n. 49 proposing the identification of Koḥlit with Tell es- Sulṭan (?). 102 See N. Avigad, “Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine-Jars”, Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972), 1–9. 103 Pixner would look for it under the Greek Orthodox cemetery in Jerusalem; Luria would situate it at Tell Muḥalḥil near to Nabi Musa. Finally Zissu (2001), followed by Eshel (2002:106) would place it near ʿAyn Samiyeh, following Lefkovits’s (2000) reading of Yanoaḥ in XII 4. But the latter is impossible, and this identification is no more persuasive in the sequence of place-names. 104 Beyer (p. 226) “schwarzes Objekt”. 105 The meaning “blue” could perhaps designate not an object but a place with an abun dance of water where indigo was made, as at ʿAyn Feshkha as M. Bélis has recently shown. Tell es-Sulṭan at Jericho in my hypothesis could also fit (see Introduction, pp. 13–15). 106 See Milik (1962: 250, 300) on 4QHalakaha 5 wdgn hwʾ hdmʿ, and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (ed. D.J.A. Clines, Sheffield, II 1995, p. 252) retains the meaning “tithe, best part, juice, resin”. 32 text, translation and commentary

6–9 where mt[nwt d]mʿyhm is parallel to ršyt and trwmh in relation to all kinds of products,107 not only firstfruits of grain, a meaning to which it would seem to be restricted in 4QHalakaha 5 (= 4Q251 2), wdgn hwʾ hdmʿ, or 4QWords of Michael 1 8 dmʿʾ mn ʾndrʾ “the levied offering of the threshing-floor”,108 or indeed mishnaic Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic. In t. Maʿaser Sheni V 1, the kly dmʿ are considered to be vessels containing the terûmah, vessels sometimes marked with the letter d(alet) for dmʿ.109 Since priests could keep the second tithe at home, these treasures would come from a sacerdotal complex or from the temple. Even if sometimes kly dmʿ can mean vessels containing the terûmah,110 it does not follow that this would always be the case. In fact, in III 2–4, the sequence kly ksp wzhb šl dmʿ followed by a list of four types of temple utensils cannot support this meaning. Ezra 8:25–30 offers a direct parallel where the vessels of precious metal are terûmah, “levied offering for the temple of our God”, synonym for dmʿ. This same meaning is also found in m. Sheqalim IV 2, 4, where the terûmah serves for purchasing various products and where the surplus is used for the manufacture of precious vessels for the temple service. Consequently, the equivalence of kly dmʿ and demaʿ in these different passages should authorise the translation of kly dmʿ as “(levied) offering vessels”.111 The continuation of the line seems indeed to confirm this interpretation to read graphically blgyn wʾpwdt112 with a bet essentiae, or with more difficulty blgyn wʾpwrt,113 or wʾpwryn.114 Besides this meaning of dmʾ,

107 See É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4 XVIII. Textes hébreux, DJD XXV, Oxford 1998. 108 See É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4 XXII. Textes araméens. Première partie, DJD XXXI, Oxford 2001. 109 See Y. Yadin in Masada I. The Yigael Yadin Excavation 1963–1965 Final Reports. The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions, by J. Naveh & Y. Yadin, The Coins of Masada by Y. Meshorer, Jerusalem 1989, 33–34. In this vein, Allegro, Luria, Lehmann, Greenfield, Pixner, García Martínez, McCarter, Beyer, . . . Some Masada jars bear the letters taw (=terûmah) and ṭet (ṭebel). Now in this very cave, Cave 3, a jar was found of the manuscript jar type, bearing the letter ṭet engraved twice before firing (DJDJ III, p. 8 and pl. VI–VII), but it does not follow that the letter had that meaning, with Lange (2002:125–126), despite Pfann (2002:174–175). 110 See Lehmann (1964), Gevaryahu (1965). 111 See Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:306–308), Lefkovits (2000) “dedicated vessels”, but Lange (2002:122–138) stays with the broader meaning of objects of value, precious vessels. 112 Milik, Lehmann, Sharbit, Pixner, McCarter (1992) and already Luria (1963:62–63) and Greenfield (1969:138–139), who understands “in a flask”, and Lange (2002:129) “consisting of flasks”. 113 With Beyer. 114 Allegro, for ʾampôrîn, Luria ʾpwrym = ʾmpwrwt, McCarter (1994) “amphores”, and Lefkovits, or again wʾprwn (Eshel 2002:106), but the stroke does not lend itself well to such text, translation and commentary 33

Lehmann points out another parallel that sheds light on our sequence. In m. Terumot IX 5 there is mention of the same type of vessel for stor- ing the terûmah, mʾh lgyn/lgynh šl trwmh “100 lagynae of the terûmah”, which are not logs = pints, approx. 0.6 litre (Allegro, Beyer) but rather “jugs or wine bottles” (from the Greek λάγυνος, and Latin lagoena) containing 12 cotyles, or approx. 3 litres, a well-known word in Aramaic and late Hebrew,115 which had already passed into Phoenician and is now attested at Akko at the beginning of the 5th century BC.116 This interpretation suggests itself, then, at the expense of blgyn “sandalwood” (Milik), “lord of the nations”,117 “polished”118 and “the logion” (Pixner). In the following word, dalet seems at first sight to be the preferable reading, but reš cannot be ruled out; compare for example the reš of ʾrbʿyn in l. 14. Some have also proposed understanding ʾpwdt as “ephods, liturgical or sacred vestments”,119 or “redeemed” ʾpwdt.120 But, in the first place, unless this is a defective spelling, for the plural one would have expected ʾpwdyn (cf. 4Q405 23 ii 5) or perhaps even ʾpwdwt; and secondly ʾpwdt with the meaning of biblical pdwt or rabbinic pdywn would be spelt ʾpdwt, from a root with a weak third, pdh, in spite of the prosthetic ʾalef. A spelling mistake is still possible, of course, as this scroll testifies. However, even if we accept the correction, the construction and meaning of the sentence still present difficulties: the copula w-ʾpwdt remains unexplained following blgyn. The biblical term ʾafûdah means “sash” in Exod 28:8 and 39:5 but also “decoration, covering, veneer” in Isa 30:22 in relation to idols. Should this meaning of precious metal or object serving as decoration be retained? For the meaning “veneer” or “decoration, adornment (of gold)” with a provenance from the temple and plundered by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see 1 Macc 1:22. Would it not be advisable to correct the recopied text? It a reading. The final nun would be short and a stroke clearly ties the right downstroke to the left one, comparable to the crossed downstroke of the taw, the saw having obliterated the foot (?) of the taw. 115 See S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, II Berlin 1899, 305–306. Elwolde (2002:119–120) prefers the reading “logs”. 116 See M. Dothan, “A Phoenician Inscription from ʿAkko”, Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1985) 81–94. 117 Wolters (1987:592; 1992:248; 1996a:32–33) b(ʿ)l g(w)yn, “and the master of nations”, and García Martínez. One would expect at least gwyn. 118 McCarter (1994:134). 119 Milik, McCarter (1992:63), but in 1994 (134–135) he understands “and wrapped”! Muchowski (1993) reads wʾpwdh “y przepaska efodu”, similarly García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. Wolters (1996a:32–33) ʾpwdt “and ephods”. 120 Lehmann (1994:99; 1993:40). The keyword of Lehmann’s interpretation therefore seems difficult to accept. 34 text, translation and commentary is true that one would be tempted to read bl[(w)]gyn wʾpwrt, two coordinated words in the plural (of l(w)g and ʾpwrh) designating containers for liquids, namely “consisting of flasks and amphors”.121 As research stands, one could take kly dmʿ bl[w?)]gyn wʾpwrt as “offering vessels of flasks and amphors,” or perhaps better “of flasks (blgyn) and ephods”, but w’pwryn “jars” cannot be excluded. The text that follows takes up and evidently specifies this tax hkl šl . . . “the total of the tax and the store/treasury of the seventh (year) and of a second tithe rendered unusable”. It is difficult to be sure whether šl relates to the whole enumeration or only to hdmʿ.122 But the sequence whʾṣrhšbʿ is far from being clear. The edition proposes whʾṣrh šbʿ, making whʾṣrh “and of the treasure: seven (talents)”, a form which is not yet attested.123 Others have retained whʾṣr hšbʿ, reading hšb[w]ʿ;124 the waw would not be implausible in the sectioned part of the sheet, even if the base of the bet continues to the vertical of the ʿayin, or again hšb(y)ʿy with defective yod or in the segmented part and without copula after that (Beyer),125 or hšbʿy mʿsr,126 but the nomen regens would have the article, or even hšbwʿy as an adjective gentilicium (Allegro), supposing a haplography of the following waw. The sequence nomen regens–nomen rectum is of course unusual, but

121 Lefkovits (2000:73) reads blgyn wʾpwryn “consisting of flasks and jars”, but the con struction b+ sing. w+ plur. is surely surprising, unless there is a haplography blgyn(yn) wʾpwrt (but wʾpwryn is not ruled out, contrary to wʾpwrh). Eshel (2002:106), reading wʾprwn, understands “and gray (silver coins?)”, referring to pieces “of black silver” in the Babata archives. But this reading is far from convincing. Finally García Martínez (2003:137–138) categorically rules out a borrowing from Greek, reading lgyn in the plural as in kly dmʿ and ʾpwrt, since the preposition b- would govern lgyn and ʾpwrt. But there is no hard evidence for this and a bet essentiae is also entirely possible, even if it only relates to lgyn in the read ing blgyn wʾpwdt “consisting of flasks and ephods”. The difficulty would be resolved if we had a reproduction from before the cutting giving an assured reading of blwgyn. Lefkovits (2010:192–94) would also add the reading wʾpwryn “and a sedan chair”. 122 The reading hdmʿwt hṣrt or hdmʿ whṣrt (Lefkovits) is impossible. 123 Lange (2002:127–130) follows Milik for “and treasure: seven (talents) and a tenth”, taking this interpretation as certain, whereas elsewhere the word “talent” is always qualified, and Milik has noted the unique spelling hʾṣrh. Thus, by a series of deductions, he comes to regard his translation as assured: “in total demaʿ and treasure seven (talents) and one tenth. Turn aside (change direction) from the mouth of a heap—its entrance . . .”, and to conclude that demaʿ cannot be a priestly tax but must designate only something of value. 124 Allegro and McCarter (1994), Muchowski (1993) reads whʾṣrt šbʿ¸ “I zbiorów wynosi siedem”. 125 One would normally have expected hšbyʿyt, šnh understood, being feminine. Wolters’s reading (1996a:32–33): hʾṣr hšbʿy “and the seventh treasure”, accepted by Elwolde (2002:123) does not make sense in this sequence, where the concern is with the fourth hiding place. 126 Pixner, and Wolters (1992). text, translation and commentary 35 it is not completely impossible.127 Failing the reading hšb[y]ʿy(t), would it be possible to take hšbʿ as the substantively used cardinal adjective in place of the ordinal? If not, should we not concede a miscopying in the original? Be that as it may, what is meant here is probably the store/treasury of the tax of the seventh (year) converted into money, as is recalled in t. Shebiʿît VIII 1, ʾwṣr šbyʿyt or hšbʿ; see further VII 3 and 5. Coordinated in third position comes wmʿsr šny without the article “and the second tithe”, which has its first supports in Deut 26:12 (LXX and Tg. Ps.-Jonathan)128 for the Masoretic text shenat hammaʿaśer “the year of the tithe”, reading the Hebrew šn(y)t (shenît), and in Tob 1:7: “I would save up the second tithe as money for the sixth years, and I would go and dispense it in Jerusalem”, where we note precisely the store/treasury of the second tithe in six years, which is then distributed in the chosen place. The second tithe seems to be an annual observance according to Jub. 32:9–15; similarly Josephus Ant. IV §240, cf. §205, and again m. Maʿaser Sheni V 1, and y. Maʿaser Sheni. The second tithe is qualified with mpwgl, puʿal participle of pgl,129 “rendered unclean, disqualified” permanently or temporarily until reha- bilitation, but the passage gives no indication of the reason for the dis- qualification of the second tithe or of the redemption money. The following text takes up the description of the hiding place again, ptḥw “its opening (that of the hiding place in the mound) near the exit of the channel”.130 At the end of l. 12, the copyist has written mqrt, which does not make sense in this context at first sight. Consequently the editor has proposed the corrected reading nyqrt hṭbylh, but there is no mark of the he that would be expected either to the left or the right of the crease; cf. Allegro’s and McCarter’s hṭbwl, who see in this a place for the purifica- tion of vessels or a pool in Jerusalem.131 Or we should read hṭbyl[h?], but

127 See however 1 Chr 9:26; cf. 1 Chr 26:20. 128 LXX: “You will give the second tithe to the levite, to the immigrant, . . .”, and the tar gum add. 27031 adding precision to the reading in Tg. Neofiti: “You will give the first tithe to the levites, the second tithe, that is the tithe of the poor, to the immigrant, . . .” 129 Read as mpy gl in the edition, which does not make sense here, also Lefkovits (2010:192) “is by the mouth of the well” (without any explanation), mpyt k . . . (Allegro), pnwt l . . . (Luria), mpygl (Pixner), mpwgl (Wolters 1990:143—suggestion of Wise—and 1992:248, Beyer, McCarter 1994 and Knohl 2002:234). But the reading bpy tl (Lefkovits 2000, followed by Eshel 2002:106) is to be rejected, as mem does not have the same stroke as that of bet. 130 Milik gives a good explanation of the meaning of šwly: “edge, bottom, opposite side”. 131 The editor, Allegro and Muchowski (1993) read nyqrt in their drawings but the X-ray contradicts it clearly and the moulding is not favourable to it either, and a correction 36 text, translation and commentary the two words have the same meaning. If we read the correction nyqrt, the natural or hollowed-out cavity for immersion would have a counterpart in the four bathrooms of the temple byt hṭbylh (m. Middot I 6.9). But with the clear reading mqrt, should we not see this as an allusion to some kind of frigidarium of a bath installation? There were impressive ones in Hasmonaean and Herodian Jericho, but also elsewhere. One might then compare it with VII 8 (31) hmqr[h?], though the reading involves a lacuna. The meaning of ʿd may also cause difficulty: “up to” or “in the direction of”? Finally ΧΑΓ is no doubt an abbreviation of the anthroponym ΧΑΓειρας, the surname given to an Adiabenian according to Josephus War V §474, but this surname could be more widespread.

(5) ll. 13–15: The difficult passages in this entry are found in l. 13. Although the reading is certain but with a waw (or yod) in a supralinear correction,132 bšwʾ has been reattached to the feminine šwʾh, known from biblical Hebrew with the meaning “pit”, for example Ps 35:8 in parallel with šḥt “the pit” 35:7, which is how it was understood in the Greek and Latin versions.133 The word is constructed with hmsbʾ, an assured reading thanks to the new photographs,134 instead of the hmʿbʾ of the edition.135 The term msbʾ, spelt msbh, is already attested in the Temple Scroll, 11QRT XXX 4–XXXI 8 (XLII 8) as a construction in the interior court of the temple in the expression byt hmsbh;136 cf. further m. Middot IV 5 and in Aramaic in the targums of 1 Kgs 6:8 and Ezek 41:7; cf. New Jerusalem 5Q15 1 ii 2 f., 4Q554 I iii 19f. Spiral staircases are known in the building in the northeast of the temple but

of mem to nun-yod is not expected. Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:32–33) reads nyqrt hṭbylh, followed by Eshel (2002:106) nqrt hṭbylh and Schiffman (2002:191). Muchowski (1993) follows the editor with hṭbylh. Lefkovits (2010:194–196) hesitates between mqdt and mqrt “the hearth (or: cool room) of”. 132 Milik (1962:285): “Between šin and aleph of the first word there is probably a waw/yod”. The X-ray photographs and the cast clearly show a supralinear waw. Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:32) reads bšyʾḥ! 133 Cf. the semantic study by J.T. Milik, “Deux documents inédits du Désert de Juda”, Biblica 38 (1957) 249–250. Allegro and Pixner read bśyʾ, Luria and Wolters bšyḥ, Muchowski (1993) bšwʾt, and Lefkovits bšyʾ and byrdʾ, similarly Schiffman (2002:183, 192), taking šyʾ as “tower” or “top” of the stairwell. 134 With Allegro, Luria, Pixner and Muchowski (1993), Puech (1997) and now Lefkovits. But Luria read bšyʾḥ msbʾ, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar still read bšyʾḥ mʿbʾ. 135 Followed by Beyer, but Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:32) reads bšyʾḥ mʿbʾ “in the plastered cistern”. 136 See Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, I, Jerusalem 1983, 211–217. text, translation and commentary 37 also elsewhere, in the main building at Qumran, at Maresha, in Nabataean constructions, etc.137 The meaning of the first word depends essentially on the type of structure of the staircase in question. Are we dealing with a stairwell in the shape of a tower as in the examples cited, or with a stairwell hollowed out in a pit as is the case with the spiral staircase of the well of access to water at Gabaon, at the baths for priests at the temple or at the Maresha pits? To resolve this difficulty at least in French, I would propose translating by “Dans la cage de l’escalier” (in the stairwell), which is adapt- able to both situations. The toponym(?) mns is not otherwise known, lit. “place of refuge”, or an anthroponym (Milik, Beyer and others). The edition, followed by Pixner and García Martínez, then reads byrd ʾl sml (“descending to the left”), which is completely possible. But this would presuppose a downward staircase in “the pit” (šwʾ if the meaning were acceptable), which is never said of other “pits”, of the type bwr, it is true. In view of the uses of lśmʾl in the Bible and in this scroll (not ʾl śmʾl), might it not be just as attractive to retain the reading favoured by the spacing of the words,138 byrkʾ lsml “on the side/corner on the left”, not now specifying the descent (byrdʾ) but the situation in “the pit” in question? We would only pick up the presence of the ʾalef at yrkʾ (/yrdʾ) as previously in msbʾ, which is the most frequent final form in this scroll (cf. ḥrybʾ prima manu, l. 1), written with the final kaf (head) but the engraver does not always distinguish the final and medial forms, which are quite often interchanged for kaf (cf. l. 7), nun, pe and ṣade (cf. IV 11) at least (never for mem). The word yrkʾ would add a nuance in relation to ṣd, VI 11 etc.; this would be a remote part, “an angle, a corner”, and qrqʿ designates “the floor” or “the bottom of the shaft (stairwell)”.139 So one might hesitate between “In the stairwell of the spiral staircase of Manos in the descent to the left” and “. . . in the recess on the left”. But the reading “In the tower/top (bśyʾ) . . . in the descent . . . above the floor” can be ruled out, as well as the reading

137 See A. Negeb, “The Staircase-Tower in Nabatean Architecture”, Revue Biblique 80 (1973) 364–383, and finally A. Kloner, “Central Pillar Spiral Staircases in the Hellenistic Period”, Joseph Aviram Volume, Erets Israel 25 (1996) 484–489, where there are descrip- tions of several examples of spiral staircases (clockwise) that came to light at Marissa, Hellenistic Maresha. 138 With Allegro, but Beyer reads byrk ʾl sml; Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:32), Muchowski (1993) and Lefkovits read byrdʾ. 139 None of the suggestions of Wolters (1988; 1992) in relation to this entry can be accepted: bšyʾḥ, mʿbʾ, founded on mistaken readings or analyses, mʿbʾ without error would be written hmʿbʾ ; the same applies to ʿbh “make tight, waterproof” (Wolters 1990:493). 38 text, translation and commentary

[b]sp “in the threshold”:140 traces of kaf rather than bet under the samek of ksp.

Col. II (Figure 2)

1 )6(בבור המלח שתחת המעלות 2 ככרין ΗΝ || 3 3 3 (7(במערת בית המדה הישן ברובד 4 השליש}ל{>י< עשתות זהב ששין וחמש ΘΕ 5 )8(בצריח שבחצר מ)ב(תי העצין ובתכו 6 בור בו כלין וכסף ככרין שבעין 7 )9(בבור שנגד השער המזרחי 8 רחוק אמות ח]]מ[[ש עסרא בו כלין 9 ובמזקא שבו ככרין עסר Ι∆ 10 )10(בבור שתחת החומא מן המזרח 11 בשן הסלע}|{ בדין של כסף שש 12 באתו תחת הסף הגדול 13 )11(בברכא שבמזרח כחלת במקצע 14 הצפוני חפור אמות }אמות{ ארבע 15 ככרין 3 ||

Translation: (6) 1In the salt pit which is under the steps: 242 talents. ΗΝ. (7) 3In the cave of the old house of Tribute, in the third 4platform: sixty-five gold ingots. ΘΕ. (8) 5In the underground chamber which is in the court of the wood chambers, and in its middle (there is) 6a cistern; in it (there are) vessels and silver: seventy talents. (9) 7In the cistern which is opposite the Eastern Gate 8at a distance of fifteen cubits, there are vessels 9and in the channel which is in it: ten talents. ∆Ι. (10) 10In the cistern which is below the rampart, from the east side, 11in the spur of the rock: six bars of silver, 12its entrance (is?) underneath the large threshold.

140 Cf. Lefkovits (2000). In the case of a tower staircase, one would have to go up, so the meaning “descent” is ruled out, and besides this there would be a contradiction between “three cubits above the floor” and “in the threshold”. None of the possible considerations can be accepted. text, translation and commentary 39

(11) 13In the pool which is to the east of Koḥlit, in the northern 14corner, buried four cubits (deep): 1522 talents.

Commentary: (6) ll. 1–2: The difficulty with this entry rests in the designation of the pit. The editor, followed by García Martínez, has read hmlh with some doubt about the he, explaining it by a correspondence with mlwʾ, “the millo, filling”, that is, the terrace or esplanade of the temple, here “the filled, replete”, but this term is spelt mlʾ in IV 8.141 However, taking account of the engraving of the majority of the hes and ḥets in this column, the scribe would have wanted to distinguish the last letter from the first, in this case probably reading ḥet, hence hmlḥ, “the salt”.142 The designation “the salt cistern” supposes a rather important utilisation of salt in this installation, not a simple jar. It is known that sacrificed meats were to be salted, for instance Lev 2:13, Aramaic Testament of Levi Bodleian d 4 and 11, 11QRT XX 13–14, XXXIV 8–12.143 Another meaning would also be possible for mlḥ, taking the meaning the word has in Exod 30:35; Isa 51:6; Jer 38:11; Sir 49:1; 1QM XV 10 and in some passages of the Songs for the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4Q405 19 3–4; 20 ii–21–22 11; 23 ii 10; 11Qširšab 8–7 5. The root mlḥ II means “mix (in relation to perfumes), disintegrate, dissolve”. This would then be a pit where processes of mixing or dissolving were conducted. Would this meaning be a better fit? However, the reading hmlh cannot be excluded; cf. III 8 and 11 where it is difficult to conceive of the reading hmlḥ. The quantity is indicated for the first time in figures, examples of which are well known in the Qumran manuscripts: in Hebrew 6Q17 1 1, 4Q320, in Aramaic 6Q26 2 3, 6Q29 1, 4Q318, 4QNew Jerusalem, etc. Instead of three letters in the preceding text, the two Greek letters ΗΝ are probably also abbreviations of anthroponyms: ΗΝναφης, ΗΝιοχος etc.

(7) ll. 3–4: Two words create difficulty in this entry. The edition has understood byt hmrh hyšn “Beth ha-MRH the elder”,144 an unknown toponym to designate the cave. But this sequence has subsequently been read in

141 Millo is the meaning retained by Sharbit in Beit Miqra. 142 Following Allegro, Pixner, Wolters (1992:248), Muchowski (1993), Beyer, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits. In the cast of column II, the two sections have been separated a little too much in the upper part in particular, which explains the apparently excessive dimensions of the ḥet in l. 1 and of the dalet, l. 3 of figure 2. 143 In his hypothesis, Pixner envisages a salt pit in the Essene quarter of Jerusalem. 144 Followed by Luria: byt hmrh = byt mrh, Mishor hesitating between he and ḥet at the end of the word. Høgenhaven (2009:94) reads hmrh. 40 text, translation and commentary different ways: byt hmdḥh yšw “the laid-out house of Yeshu” (Pixner, García Martínez), byt hmdḥ “the Washer’s Chamber”,145 byt hmdh hyšn “des alten Hochhauses” (Beyer), “the Old House of Tribute” (Allegro) or byt tmr {h} hyšn.146 Comparison of the two sections makes the dalet graphically plausible and the nun of yšn is certain, definitively precluding any reading of “Jesus”. Of the two meanings of hmdh, the meaning referring to the dimension or measure seems out of place and rather strange. Clearly preferable to this is the meaning “tribute” (cf. Neh 5:4; Ezra 4:13), the reading of which seems possible even if the left downstroke crosses the horizontal stroke; cf. gbh in I 14, hdrwmyt in III 1 etc. But the reading hmdḥ “of the washing” (defectively spelt) cannot be ruled out,147 nor the reading hmrh “of the master”, also defectively spelt,148 given that the expression mwrh (h)ṣdq is sufficiently well known at Qumran. However, if one wishes to avoid any correction or defective spelling, the reading “the old House of Tribute” is preferable to “the old house of the master” and to “the old house of washing”. Very probably to be preferred to the edition’s bdybr at the end of the line is brwbd because of the reš and the dalet, with the meaning “layer (of stone), landing-place, platform, terrace, pavement”.149 At the beginning of l. 4, the engraver has first written hššl, corrected to hšš{l}, the stem of the lamed serving as supralinear yod,150 “the third” referring to rwbd (masculine). The reading hšlšyl “of the chain” (Allegro) for hšlšylt is implausible. The two Greek letters ΘΕ are probably the abbreviation of anthroponyms ΘΕβουτις, ΘΕοδοτος, ΘΕοδωρος, ΘΕρμουτις, ΘΕυδας, ΘΕων etc.151

145 Wolters (1990:492) refers to m. Tamid IV 2, byt hmdyḥyn, which seems rather unlikely here in view of the defective spelling of the word. This reading is followed by Muchowski (1993). 146 Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309). 147 García Martínez and Tigchelaar read byt hmdḥ hyšn, which they take as “the old carpeted house”. 148 But there are not 36 ways of reading this word as Lefkovits writes (2000:110), 8 at most, and better 4. 149 Allegro, Luria, Pixner, Wolters (1990:490; 1992:248), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits (2000). The word is well attested in the Temple Scroll (11Q19) XLVI 5 with the meaning “stairs” with steps in front of the porch. 150 Milik was thinking of hššy corrected to hšlyšy, but there is no yod after the šin. 151 Muchowski (1993:24) reads ΞΕ (similarly Ullendorf) but ΘΕ (p. 36)! It is interest ing to note that a priest, Jesus, son of Theboutis, delivered to the Romans objects from the sacred treasury, two candelabra, tables, craters, cups, all objects of solid gold, vestments decorated with precious stones and many other cultic objects (Josephus War VI §§387–89). text, translation and commentary 41

(8) ll. 5–6: This entry also contains a disputed passage in l. 5: whether to correct to (b)ty hʿṣyn (stores of wood) following the editor152 and with 4Q562 2 2, or to read the mem as effectively engraved: mtwh ʿṣyn “a wooden barrel?” (Allegro), mtyh ʿṣyn “of Matthia, a wood pile” (Luria, Pixner, García Martínez), or again mty hʿṣyny “des Mattai aus Ezeon (Geber)” (Beyer) which is difficult, but mtn hʿṣny is ruled out.153 It is true that the forms mty and mtyh are both well attested on contemporary ossuaries in particular, but the absence of the waw which would normally be expected and the form of the final nun for the medial do not especially favour the reading hʿṣyny “the Eṣyonite” (a cumulative argument, which on its own would not be of great importance in this writing). As the sequence mtwḥ ʿṣyn “a wooden barrel” is not very likely given the following text and given that mtwḥ having to apply to bḥṣr to indicate its extent ought to have been rendered hmtwḥ, mtyh (he in the shape of ḥet) seems the most plausible reading in this context. It is clear that the cistern is in the middle of the underground chamber and not in the middle of the wood (for sacrifices), the court designating the temple precincts. The word division mty hʿṣyn . . . for “. . . Matthai, (there is) wood . . .” would be acceptable, the article then specifying the sorts of wood for the sacrifices (see Aramaic Testament of Levi, Bodleian col. c, and the Temple Scroll knows the feast of the wood offering in the temple 11QRT XXIII 2–3 and 4Q394 1–2 v 6–9 = 4Q327).154 Though ṣryḥ can have the meaning “fortress or underground chamber”, only “underground chamber” is acceptable here. The end of l. 5 and the beginning of l. 6 have caused difficulty, and some authors have not retained the edition’s reading wbtkw bwr bw klyn, which, however, seems imperative.155 Finally, the reading kkryn is certain, ruling out bkdyn or bklyn which are sometimes presented as possibilities.156

152 See Milik p. 272: D 50, and p. 248: C 105 where the choice of correction is explained; similarly Schiffman (2002:182) who says that in general he follows the improved readings of Lefkovits. 153 Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:34) mtn hʿṣn “there is donated firewood” but the nun cannot be accepted, nor the reading byrk after it. Muchowski (1993) reads mtn hʿṣyn wktbw. 154 On the other hand the sentence construction as Lefkovits understands it (2000) seems surprising: “In the catacomb which is in the cemetery of Ezion (šbḥṣr mty hʿṣyn), and in its midst (there is) a pit, in [it] . . .” 155 Allegro reads wbtkn bt mṭblyn, Luria wbtkw bt mṭblyn = ṭmwn kd ṭbl, Wolters (1992) wbtkw byrk bw klyn and Muchowski (1993) wktbw bzrb klyn, all without graphic support! 156 Cf. Lefkovits (2000:125). 42 text, translation and commentary

(9) ll. 7–9: In l. 8 the edition’s reading ḥ[[m]]šʿsrʾ “fifteen” is required, omitting the mem instead of tšʿsrʾ “nineteen”,157 similarly at l. 9, the reading wbmzqʾ rather than wb(ʿ)mwqʾ (Allegro, Luria). This word can be approached from the Aramaic mzyqtʾ,158 which translates the biblical Hebrew tʿlh, “channel, trench”. One might hesitate as to the nuance to give to šbw, lit. “which is in it” (=the cistern), hence “its collector” (Milik, Beyer), or (= the door). But the wording of these entries allows us to keep the first interpretation, giving the bet the nuance of proximity “touching, leading to”. The east gate can only have that of the Jerusalem temple in mind, especially as the following entry is concerned with the ramparts; cf. Neh 1:13, m. Middot I 13. The reading kkryn is certain. Finally, there are remains of yod along the section on the right. The two Greek letters ΔΙ are no doubt the abbreviation of an anthroponym, for example ΔΙδυμος, ΔΙογενες, ΔΙοδοτος, ΔΙοδωρος, ΔΙονυσιος, ΔΙος, ΔΙοσκορος, ΔΙοφαντος etc.

(10) ll. 10–12: This entry does not contain difficulties of reading, although Allegro159 proposed kdyn “jugs” instead of the editor’s bdyn “bars”, mistakenly reading mʾwt “hundred”, continuing with wtḥt “and under”, on its own and out of context instead of bʾtw tḥt . . ., the reading of which is certain (l. 12).160 The bet-kaf distinction is of course difficult, sometimes even impossible; however this preference has support from VII 10 and IX 3 where bet seems preferable to kaf and here in bšn and ksp. The reading bšw/yh is to be rejected; the final nun is certain.161 In l. 12, the defective reading bʾtw could be identical to bbyʾtw “on entering = at its entrance” (cf. IV 3, XII 1) under the great threshold, to indicate the location of the hiding place (with Milik), as well as the only or simple designation of its entrance under the great threshold (Beyer, Lefkovits); cf. ptḥw in I 11.162

157 Allegro, Luria, Beyer, Wolters (1992; 1996a:34), Muchowski (1993), Lefkovits (2000). Of course the omission of a second ʿayin following by simply haplography would be easier to explain, but the first letter is a ḥet, it does not have the ductus of the taw, for which at least the foot to the left downstroke is missing; the omission of the mem seems to be established. Milik (1962:286) explicitly rules out a reading of taw and one cannot speak of an alternative (despite Lefkovits 2000:127). 158 Greenfield (1969:139) includes mzqʾ in his list of obscure words! 159 Followed by Luria, Wolters (1992; 1996a:34), Wise, Muchowski (1993) and Lefkovits, “jugs” or “jars”. 160 There is no trace of yod between bet and ʾalef. 161 As proposed by Lefkovits (2000:132), and a needless clarification. 162 Wolters (1992:248; 1996a:34) and Muchowski (1993) read byʾtw, Allegro and Luria (šš) mʾwt! text, translation and commentary 43

(11) ll. 13–15: The edition’s reading of kḥlt is absolutely certain, with an extended and straight kaf and taw, rather than Allegro’s erroneous bḥlh. The toponym kḥlt, not “some black object” (Beyer), is the place already cited at I 9 and several other times after that. At the small break to the right of the nun in l. 14 it seems possible to read a reduced waw for hṣpwny. Then it is necessary to retain the only dittography of ʾmwt: ʾmwt {ʾmwt},163 not a false start of ʾrbʿ or the impossible ʾmh syt “a cubit at (4 ×) 1/6”164 or the impossible bʾ.165 First of all, in the construction of this passage, the form ḥpwr can be just as well understood as the imperative of the verb, with the editor, as with the past participle.166 The verb means “dig, excavate (in search of something hidden), explore” and not “hide”. But as for “burying something”, it is necessary to dig, and the meaning “buried” seems entirely possible in this document dealing with hiding places.167

Col. III (Figure 3)

1 )12(בחצ]ר ש)ל( [דיאט)?( תחת הפנא הדרו 2 מית אמות תשע כלי כ}ל{>ס<ף וזהב של 3 דמע מזרקות כוסות מנקיאות 4 קסאות ]]ה?[[כל שש מאות ותשעה 5 12a((תחת הפנא האחרת המזרח 6 ית חפר אמות שש עסרה כסף 7 ככ ΤΡ 3 3 8 )13(בשית שבמלה)?( מבצפונו 9 כלי דמע >ו<לבושין ביאתא 10 תחת הפנא המערבית 11 )14(ב}|{קבר שבמלה)?( ממזרחו 12 בצפון אמות תחת המ 13 דף)?( שלוש ככ

163 See Puech (1997:171) ʾmwt and already Beyer [ʾ]mwt. I do not understand Wilmot’s proposal: [k]sp {ʾrbʿyn} [k]kr 20 (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309). 164 Allegro and Luria. 165 Lefkovits (2000), who reads ʾmt in defective spelling, whereas this time the waw is engraved, or the erroneous hṣpwny. 166 Allegro, Luria, Lefkovits. 167 Kuhn (1954:157, 204) already understood “buried at so many cubits”, and in a note: “One might also translate ‘bury’ (imper.)”. 44 text, translation and commentary

Translation: (12) 1In the courtyar[d of the] arbitrator’s office, under the south corner, 2at nine cubits (deep), silver and gold vessels of 3tithe, goblets, cups, sacrificial bowls, 4ewers, total: six hundred and nine. (12a) 5Below the other, eastern corner, 6sixteen cubits (deep) is buried silver: 740 s(ilver) k(arsh). ΤΡ. (13) 8In the pit which is in the embankment, to the north: 9tithe vessels and garments, its entrance (is?) 10below the western corner. (14) 11In the tomb which is in the embankment, from its east side, 12in the north (at) three cubits under the 13trap: 14 s(ilver) k(arsh).

Commentary: (12) ll. 1–4: In this entry, the reading of which is without difficulty, just one single word is missing, the first being a certain reading bḥṣ[r with faint remains of the foot of the ṣade. The edition indicates the placement of a small fragment for which no drawing or reproduction is available. Milik transcribes the remains of the nomen rectum as ..]°yʾṭ and proposes the translation “of the peri]bola” without further details of the restoration of this word borrowed from Greek.168 Beyer reads this as an anthroponym lwryʾṭ Laur]eatus or nk]yʾṭ Νικ]ίατος.169 The absence of any report showing the spacing and traces of the letter preceding the yod precludes any kind of decision. One can only postulate the presence of a word of 4 or 5 letters, a toponym rather than an anthroponym or other, probably of Greek origin (DJDJ, p. 273) and perhaps preceded by š- or better in the available space šl- in preference to šb- (see figure 3, or 2006: pl. CCCLXIV). Since the beginning of the line must designate a precise space—the reading of the small fragment being acceptable—would it not be advisable to read dyʾṭ “room, cell, seat of arbitration or judgment”? This word borrowed from the Greek δίαιτα (without transcription of the vowel ending) designates the name of a prison or the Roman seat of government of Palestine at Caesarea according to Esther Rabbah (Introduction, beginning).170 So this could be an arbitration or tribunal room, or a government room, of the type “Roman praetorium”, for which it is easy to imagine the existence

168 Milik (1962:287, and 273: D 54). 169 Beyer, pp. 225–27. 170 See Midr. Megillat Esther: bdyṭy šl qysryn “in the prison of Caesarea”, cf. Midrash Rabbah translated into English with notes, glossary and indices under the editorship of Rab H. Freedman and M. Simon, Esther (M. Simon), London 31961, p. 1 and n. 7. text, translation and commentary 45 of a square.171 But the reading bḥr[ṣr nb]ṭ or pl]ṭ is much too short for the space, and the insertion of šl or the restoration hmql]ṭ which would fit the available space would not take account of the fragment read (but not drawn) by the editor, ] . . .yʾṭ.172 Then comes the mention of levied offering vessels dmʿ (cf. I 9) and the engraver had first written kly kl(y), a dittography which he corrected to kly k{l}p. The vessels listed are already known in Solomon’s temple (Ex 38:3 and 37:16; cf. Num 4:7); compare (58) with “six hundred talents”. See also the list of vessels removed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 1 Macc 1:22. The engraver was able to omit the article for hkl (see I 10, XII 7 and 9), i.e. “a total of . . .” for “(to the) total: . . .”. The vessels on the list are considered as libation vessels or vessels for the blood of the sacrifices.173 It is probable that some of these vessels could have been removed by the priests during their exile in the desert.174

(12a) ll. 5–7: This entry refers to the eastern corner of the same courtyard. For the first time we meet the sequence kk, which the editor has understood as an abbreviation of kk(ryn)—“talent”. Given that these two forms are found throughout the length of the scroll, this explanation does not seem very likely. Thus this value has recently been questioned and it has been proposed to understand k(sp) k(rš) in line with a well-attested formula.175 The karsh as a unit worth 10 shekels is well known in the Persian period and again in the second century AD, as is attested in an account from Murabbaʿât 9, lines 1 to 6.176

171 García Martínez (2003:134–135) does not accept this proposal, but without an accept able explanation. The absence of the final on a loan word would not be an isolated case, and the meaning “tribunal, place of arbitration” does not create any difficulty and fits perfectly well with this unremarkable (public) structure; cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Philadelphia 1903, New York 1950, p. 298. Furthermore, the foot of the ṣade is quite visible (despite p. 135 n. 73). 172 These solutions by Lefkovits (2000:138–139), who seems not to be aware of the pro posal in my note of 1997, even though he cites it, cannot be retained. 173 Lange (2002:130) is of the opinion that the list, in apposition, cannot contain just run-of-the-mill tithe offerings but that dmʿ must be given the meaning “precious”. Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:308) understands “votive vessels”. 174 Knohl (2002:235–236) is of the opinion that, according to rabbinic traditions (m. Sanhedrin IX 6 and t. Zebaḥim I 12) these vases were hidden by priests in order to stop the Pharisees conducting water libations during the feast of Tabernacles. 175 See Lefkovits (2000:471–488; 2002:139–154), but many of the arguments put forward cannot be accepted. If kk is not an abbreviation of kkr(yn), there are no corrections by a second hand. 176 Cf. P. Benoit, J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât, DJD II Oxford 1960, 90. 46 text, translation and commentary

~~The two Greek letters ΤΡ are probably the abbreviation of an anthroponym: ΤΡυφων, ΤΡυχαμβος etc.177~~

(13) ll. 8–10: The reading bšyt is certain,178 ruling out bšyḥ, but the following text is disputed: šbmlh mbṣpwnw (Milik, Beyer) or šbmlḥm bṣpwnw?179 Both readings are theoretically possible and the sometimes comparable writing of he and ḥet has already been noted (e.g. hḥwmʾ in II 10, III 1). However, the division šbmlḥm should not be retained because of the same localisation mentioned in the next entry (15) in III 11 where the mem certainly belongs with the following word mmzrḥw bṣpwn parallel to mbṣpwnw (l. 8). There are only two remaining possibilities: šbmlh or šbmlḥ mbṣpwnw, but šbmlḥ “which is in the salt works” seems rather unlikely for these two entries.180 My preference would be to retain šbmlh “the terrace, the esplanade” in these two cases (masculine), the corners (pnʾ) of which are the immediate concern. The editor has identified it with the esplanade of the Herodian temple, and this is entirely possible since mlh is not further specified. In l. 9 the editor has read kly dmʿ lkwšy “vessel of resin of pine of Alep” which Beyer interprets as “Gefäße mit Topf-(Fichten-?)Priesterabgabe”, but others read kly dm (sic?) wlbwhšyn “tithe vessels and garments”.181 In fact, a waw has been inserted before the lamed, which does not permit the reading dmʿ lbwšy[n] “swaddled” (McCarter 1994). There is some trace of the final nun on the edge of the section and bet seems preferable to kaf. My preference is to retain the reading dmʿ lbwšyn with the probable insertion of the waw but the waw could also be original and the lamed tight and slanted so as to be engraved between two letters on the line above. It might also be possible, though this is more difficult, to read wlbyšyn, associating this word with lbyš known in Aramaic to render the

177 The reading ΤΡΙ (Allegro and McCarter) is ruled out. 178 The word is also found in 4Q417 I i 15: bny šyt, “the sons of the Pit”. 179 Allegro, Pixner, García Martínez, Wolters (1992:249; 1996a: 36) “Milḥam”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Muchowski (1993) “w Melach”, and despite Muchowski (1994:324 and n. 21). The form is comparable to mn hmzrḥ (II 10 etc.) or to bṣpwnw, etc. 180 Luria, Lefkovits (2000), Bedman. 181 Allegro, but lbwšyn, Luria and Pixner, and wlbwšy. Wolters (1987:594; 1992:249, but lbwšy 1996a:36; 2002:319, 331) has understood “and my garments”, which is absolutely ruled out; the author is not implicated in these lists, despite Wolters (1994:292–293), the reading ‑yn is certain. Muchowski (1993) reads lkwšy following Milik but without interpretation. García Martínez and Tigchelaar retain lbwšy “(and) sacred garments”. text, translation and commentary 47

Greek λέβης, “cauldron, funerary urn, tub”,182 and wonder whether the waw (inserted?) has an explanatory sense “consisting of”, cf. the b- in I 9.183 But the reading wlbwšyn “and (sacred) garments” is entirely possible and seems preferable especially given the full spelling of the word and because of the šin, compared to that of lbs/lps, lbysyn in mishnaic Hebrew, Sifré Numbers 158.184 Finally, it is possible that the copyist used a haplography for [[b]]byʾtʾ (l. 9), which would explain the position of the deposit in the absence of the indication of cubits, “[[at]] its entry under . . .” (Milik), instead of the simple meaning “the entry (is) under . . .” where this meaning does not fit in XII 1.

(14) ll. 11–13: After the bet the copyist has begun by writing a vertical stroke, waw, or indeed the beginning of another letter, perhaps a bet as in the following entry (15) bbwr, but then changed his mind and engraved a qof. If the editor’s reading mmzrḥw in l. 11 is certain (rather than byrydw) preceded by šbmlh,185 the reading of the word straddling ll. 12–13 is not completely assured: hmt186 seems rather unlikely, as the second downstroke of the taw is not clear, without a join between the foot of the downstroke and the upper part, and the cross does not touch the beginning of the cross-stroke. Furthermore, it is not likely that a corpse would have been disturbed in order to bury a treasure three cubits below it. Hmdp, the reading of the edition and of some authors, is possible, or should we see this as a correction, for it would be very surprising if the engraver, inserting the forgotten pe, did not engrave a final pe, as the long downstroke

182 See Krauss, quoted on p. 303, a reading which I suggested in 1997 and which has been retained by Bedman. The scribe does not always distinguish between samek and śin—see ʿsr and ʿśr for example, despite Lange (2002:132–133). 183 The majority of authors ignore this waw, which is indeed engraved, and hardly likely to be an engraving error (Lange 2002:132) to prove that the vessels of dmʿ contain precisely costly priestly garments. But this is not said anywhere and it seems highly doubtful that garments would have been deposited in jars with a reduced opening. 184 The reading also retained by Lefkovits (2000) “and covers”. I retained the reading wlbwšyn in the revision of my text for the re-edition, well before being aware of the comments of García Martínez (2003:135–136), a reading based on the probability of the phrase, not on the differences between waw and yod which are generally not clearly marked in this document. The objection in relation to the transcription of sibilants is hardly more convincing if one refers to the transcription of χηλός as ḥylš (cited on p. 137). 185 Allegro, or mzrḥw mṣpwn (Luria), mzrḥy bṣpwn (Wolters), mzrḥw bṣpwn (Muchowski 1993), but with M. Mishor mmzrḥw bṣpwn (this study was not available to me). Wolters (1996a:36) reads šbmlḥm, similarly Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309), correcting bqbr mzrḥy sbmlḥm. 186 Allegro, Luria (ʾrwn) hmt, and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) even proposes reading <ḥpwr> ʾmwt šlwš tḥt hmt. 48 text, translation and commentary would then have compensated for the reduced shape of the letter? Si vera lectio, the “stone” mdp would designate a flat stone, a slab, flagstone or hatch covering the bone pit or ossilegium or another cavity in a corner of the tomb. Otherwise, it would be necessary to understand the three cubits as below the burial ledge of a bench tomb.187 It seems that these units number at least 14 (maximum 15) in view of the hole in the metal. In this second example, the separation of the two kafs clearly militates in favour of an abbreviation other than that of kk(ryn), and the reading k(sp) k(rš) should be retained.

Col. IV (Figure 4) 1 )15(בבור הגדול שב]צפון)?( כ[חלת בעמוד 2 בצפונו ככ] °° [ Ι {ΣΚ{ 3 )16(באמא הבאה ל]בר[כא)?( בבואתך 4 אמות ארבע] ע[סרה כסף 5 ככ 3 3 6 )17(בין שני הכינין שבעמק עכון)ר( 7 באמצענ חפון)ר( אמות שלוש 8 שמ שני דודין מלאין כסף 9 )18(בשית האדמא שבשולי העצ 10 לא כספ ככ מאתין 11 )19(בשית המזרחית שבץפון כח 12 לת כספ ככ שבעינ 13 )20(ביגר של גי הסככא חפור 14 אמת)sic( כספ ככ

~~187 Wolters (1996a:37) understands hmdp as “the defilement”. text, translation and commentary 49~~

(19) 11In the eastern pit which is to the north of Koḥ- 12lit, silver: seventy s(ilver) k(arsh). (20) 13In the (burial) mound of the valley of Sokokah, buried (at) 14(one?) cubit(s), silver: 12 s(ilver) k(arsh).

Commentary: (15) ll. 1–2: The edition mentions fragments, ignored by Allegro, which were neither photographed nor drawn but which help to some extent to fill the lacunae of these two lines. The editor envisages three missing letters šb[. .].qh, but he takes no account of the lamed which he has drawn between qof and he. Pixner has tried to complete šb[mš]qh “which serves for irrigation”, but the flattening of the cast shows, beyond any possible doubt, that this restoration is too short.188 Allegro has noted more clearly the presence of the lamed after the ‘qof’ and, indeed, this letter has not been hammered out as an erasure. But should the reading b]ḥlh be retained, given the editor’s reading using the supplementary fragment and his reading of the unpointed qof ?189 The restoration šb[prṭ]qlh “die sich in der kleinen Halle (porticula)” (Beyer) after the Latin porticula is rather unlikely and a little short. Further, the he is not a certain reading: far from it; the copyist has certainly written a taw.190 The restoration mš]qlt “level” does not offer more in terms of acceptable meaning. On the contrary, it is not even necessary to introduce a correction in order to read k]ḥlt, since the downstrokes of the ḥet are sometimes (unintentionally?) elongated; cf. for instance l. 11, or the same length he of hṣpwn in V 2. Only comparison of the fragment mentioned by the editor would settle the matter definitively, but in my opinion this restoration seems very probable, if not certain. This mention of kḥlt would not be surprising between I 9, II 13 and IV 11–12; indeed it would be expected. The toponym was preceded by a directional word, šb[ṣpwn (cf. IV 11–12; XII 10) or [drwm, but ruling out mzrḥ and mʿrb because of the space, and the reading šb[tl k]ḥlt (I 9).191

188 Wolters (1992:249) šb[. . .]qh, similarly Muchowski (1993), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 189 Allegro’s reading; similarly Luria ]ḥlḥ, who criticises Allegro because in l. 7 ḥlʾ, not ḥlh, is the reading. 190 Despite Lefkovits (2000:154–155), who affirms constantly that he, ḥet and taw have the same strokes! Only the reading ]h/ḥlt is possible. Wolters (1996a:38) follows Milik: šb[ ]qh. 191 I cannot agree with Lefkovits’s comment (2000:155), “since the restored letters (šb[k]ḥlt) fit nicely into the lacuna”, whereas my proposal (1997) fits it completely; see IV 11 and figure 4. 50 text, translation and commentary

As the channel is to the north of the tell in (4) like the underground chamber in (19) and (60) and the pool is to the east in (11), it is probable that šb[ṣpwn is the solution to retain. We shall therefore regard it as practically assured. In l. 2 the number “14” was preserved, but without knowing the exact position of the symbols on the fragment, it is difficult to advance the most likely solution in kk[ . . .] 14, or kk[ryn] 14 supposed apparently by Milik, or kk[ 20+20(+20?)+]14. As the word kkr(yn) is not used between II 15 and VII 16 and the sequence kk is used twelve times between III 7 and VI 13, the latter enjoys a real advantage in this case. For bʿmwd the expression “in the pillar” is a less likely translation than Beyer’s “unmittelbar neben der Säule”, a meaning the preposition can have, especially as bʿmwd bṣpwnw can be taken in two ways, according to whether the masculine suffix refers to bwr or to ʿmwd; we can either take it as the pillar on the north side of the cistern or as north of the single pillar.192 Finally, the reading of one of the two Greek letters is not certain. Αuthors generally complete °Κ in the edition as ΣΚ, but the sequence is far from being so clear, unless there is a first correction of the iota “I” apparently engraved more deeply. The two Greek letters ΣΚ are probably the abbreviation of an anthroponym ΣΚοπας, ΣΚευας etc.

(16) ll. 3–5: The location of this hiding place is preserved only by a few traces on a fragment which was not photographed or drawn: hbʾ[h l..].. (DJDJ, p. 288). But in view of the space and the meaning, I think we can with high probability restore: hbʾ[h lbr]kʾ (see II 13). In fact, after hl[ as read by Milik on a fragment and with traces of two other letters before bbwʾtk on another fragment and a space for two missing letters, the reading hbʾh l[b]wr (see line 1) would appear to be ruled out; there remains l[br]kʾ, since l[sk]kʾ would be too long for the lacuna known precisely from the flattened cast. The pool in question would therefore be situated at Koḥlit, as the cistern was. But the mention of another toponym193 should not be expected. The spelling bbwʾtk is an augmented form of the infinitive construct, known from mishnaic Hebrew, and much to be preferred to the noun bbyʾtk.

192 Luria’s reading mʿmwd is ruled out. 193 As Lefkovits writes (2000:157). The reading hbʾ[h lḥwrqnyh] (Eshel 2002:102–103) is much too long, even if one assumes a defective spelling; it should therefore be rejected. Wolters (1996a:38) follows the editor: hbʾ[h l ] bbyʾtk. text, translation and commentary 51

Reading a doubtful taw to the left of the lacuna, the editor has restored ʾrbʿ[yn wʾḥ]t in l. 4.194 However the last letter is certainly to be read as a he, and before it there are traces of a letter dalet or reš, the stem of which is preceded by a horizontal stroke, so -sr-, and all that is conserved of the ʿayin is the start of the oblique stroke. So we can certainly read ʾrbʿ[ ʿ]srh “fourteen”, cf. III 6; VI 12; VIII 5, 15; IX 2, 8.195 In this formulation, this can only relate to a distance and not to the depth. Of the sum in figures in l. 5, there remains the point of the number “10” on the right, ensuring the total “55”, rather than the impossible “40(?)[..b]šdʾ.196

(17) ll. 6–8: The editor’s reading is graphically better than Allegro’s erroneous hbdyn “oil-presses” or hbtyn “buildings”.197 To read bynyn with the meaning “tamarisk” or “building” in plene spelling,198 one would, first, have expected the plural hbynynyn, and secondly one would have needed a masculine plural suffix on the following line, rather than the feminine plural in -ân. Also, instead of two mistakes it is preferable to find another solution.199 The word bynyn must be a feminine plural, and even if bet is the first reading, a kaf is certainly possible; see such forms with foot on lines 13 and 15 for example. Consequently, the reading kynyn seems to be established, in the sense of “cavity, chamber”.200 Apart from the imitation of the cursive script and its ligatures in the engraving of ksp (l. 8), twice over the copyist has engraved a final nun instead of the reš in ʿkwn (l. 6) and ḥpwn (l. 7). Even if a Judaean Achan is known in the Bible but Achar in 1 Chr 2:7, there is certainly a mistake on the part of the engraver as he hesitates in reading his original. Indeed, in certain handwriting of this period (1st century BC and AD in particular)

194 Followed by Pixner, Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Eshel (2002:103). Allegro and Luria read ʾrb[ʿ, and Wolters (1992:249; 1996a:38) reads ʾmwt ʾrbʿ[ ]t ksp. 195 Lefkovits’s reading (2000) ʾrbʿ[yn] is therefore to be rejected. 196 Allegro and Luria, but Muchowski (1993) transcribes “54” (p. 26) and translates “55” (p. 37)! 197 The reading hbtyn is followed by Luria, Pixner, Lefkovits (2000:162) and Schiffman (2002:182): the yod and nun are not tied so as to read taw as Allegro and Lefkovits would like. 198 Thus Milik (1962, see commentary), Beyer, Muchowski, Wolters (1996a:38), Puech (1997) and Bedman favour “tamarisk”, or García Martínez and Tigchelaar favour “buildings”, Elwolde (2002:110) would accept either meaning. 199 One cannot invoke the interchangeability of nun and reš for bwryn or kwryn as Lefkovits writes (2000:162–63). 200 Cf. Jastrow, A Dictionary . . ., I, p. 633: “nest, cavity, chamber” (masculine plural form) and references. 52 text, translation and commentary the final nun can have a quite marked head and a rather shortened stem, and it can easily be confused with a reš with a slightly lengthened stem (cf. e.g. 4Q448 A 10). So there are grounds for correcting the edition and all the commentators, to adopt the reading of ʿkwr and ḥpwr in I 1 and IV 7.201 Furthermore, the word ʾmṣʿ is already attested in the Hebrew of Sir 51:5 (ms. B certainly to be read: mrḥm thwn lʾmṣ[ʿh/w]) and in 11QRT XXX 10—we are not necessarily dealing with any mishnaic Hebrew.202

(18) ll. 9–10: The editor’s reading is followed rather than the erroneous bšyh-bsyḥ;203 the taw is certain and there are traces of the foot of the letter on the edge of the crease. If the exact meaning of bšwly is difficult to determine, “the bottom of, the slopes of, the exit of”, as well as that of hʾdmʾ “the ground”204 or “the red”, the specification šyt would then allow recognition of a pit dug in the ground and not in rock.205 Should we understand “the ground” or the editor’s “the red pit”, or again a toponym? The presence of the article does not discredit the reading of the toponym Adama; cf. hskkʾ. But it is not possible (a) to correct the toponym hʿṣlʾ, a wadi and source to the north of Qumran (= part of the Wadi Mukellik— ʿAṣla—Daber), or again a hill (Gofet el-ʿAṣla)206 to hʿṣrʾ “the wine-press”,207 nor (b) to understand bšwly hʿṣ lʾ as “at the edge of the wood in it . . .” (Lefkovits). If the engraver has carried lʾ to the following line, this is no doubt because of lack of space to engrave the lamed underneath the kaf or between nun and kaf.

201 Explanation by confusion or a misreading of the original seems the only acceptable explanation; I have seen other instances of this when deciphering Qumran manuscripts. The arguments of Muchowski (1992:131–133) cannot be sustained, nor those of Lefkovits (2000), who saw this as a dialectal variant. Wolters’s reading (1992:249; 1996a:38–39) ʿkwn bʾmṣʿ nḥnyn “in the middle of nḥnyn” needs no comment. 202 As Lefkovits writes (2000:164 [note finally that in dwdyn (l. 8) the nun is final and not medial (pp. 162, 167)]); similarly Bedman (2000:282). 203 Allegro, Wolters (1992:249; 1996a:38), bšyḥ, Lefkovits (2000). 204 The reading hʾrkh is ruled out. 205 Luria reads hʾrkʾ= hʾrwkh and would take šyt in the sense of ḥpyrh, according to Muchowski (1993). 206 See Milik and Pixner for the region between ʿAyn Nabi Musa and the cliffs to the north of Qumran. Red marl is a widespread feature of this region. 207 Allegro. Luria reads šylwḥ = hmʿyn, similarly Thorion, and understands ‘ṣl’ as hqṭn! text, translation and commentary 53

(19) ll. 11–12: The editor’s reading should be retained rather than Allegro’s erroneous bšyh for bšyt and bḥlh for kḥlt.208 Note the final ṣade for the medial in bṣpwn, the medial nun for the final nun in šbʿyn, so as to understand “70” instead of “17” (Pixner), and the medial pe in ksp, ll. 10, 12, and 14, compared with ksp in l. 4.

(20) ll. 13–14: For the last entry in this column, I follow the editor, who had the benefit of a last line without lacuna: the fragment bearing the figure “10” is now missing, but one cannot read three units as Allegro proposes. The copyist may have begun to engrave the right shaft of the he of ʾmh “cubit”, when he continued with the engraving of a taw, perhaps for a defective plural ʾmt but without an indication of number. This explanation is preferable to that of a haplography ʾm[[h ʾḥ]]t (Beyer), an unneces- sary formula to signify “a single cubit”.209 Pixner identifies Koḥlit with the Essene monastic centre and Sokokah with Khirbet Qumran, which makes much of an Essene centre, but elsewhere it refers to Mount Zion! In the toponyms the scribe uses the article gy hskkʾ, which we would now read as Sokokah with the old vocalisation of the Septuagint Σοχοχα in Josh 15:61.210 My preference is to translate ygr as “tumulus, pile of earth, cairn”, rather than “heap, dam” in a valley, even though a dam is known from Wadi Sokoka/Qumran, as the current could carry it away and the treasures with it.211 Furthermore, a dam would not be a simple shapeless heap but a large constructed and properly prepared wall, and this meaning would not fit in VI 14.

208 Readings retained by Luria. 209 But the reading ʾmh (Allegro, Muchowski and Lefkovits) is not possible; there is no other example of a he written like this, except in error. Wolters (1996a:40) stays with hmym [ ], and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2000:309) proposes ʾmt <šlwš ??> ksp. 210 With Pixner, I have accepted the identification of Khirbet Qumran with Sokoka; see É. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éter- nelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien, I–II, Paris 1993, 20–21, and idem, “La ‘Forteresse des Pieux’ et Kh. Qumrân. À Propos du papyrus Marabbaʿât 45”, Revue de Qumrân 63 (1994) 463–471. 211 Eshel (2002:101–102 n. 19) takes up a suggestion by Luria (19953:83). 54 text, translation and commentary

Col. V (Figure 5) 1 )21(ברוש אמת המימ ש]במערב ה)?([ 2 סככא מן הצפון תח]ת האבן[ 3 הגדולא חפור אמ]ות שלו)?([ 4 ש כספ ככ 5 )22(בסדק שבסככא מזרח 6 אשו}|{ח שלומו כאלין של 7 דמע ובתכן אצלמ 8 )23(מעל החריצ של שלומ 9 ו)?(עד הרגב הגדול 10 אמות ששין חפור אמות 11 שלוש כספ ככ 3 12 )24(בקבר שבנחל הכפא 13 בבואה מירחו לסככא 14 חפון)ר( אמות שבע ככ 3

Translation: (21) 1At the head of the aqueduct which is [to the west of (?)] 2Sokokah, from the north, unde[r] the large 3[stone] (are) buried (at) [thre]e cubits: 4silver: 7 s(ilver) k(arsh). (22) 5In the fissure which is in Sokokah, to the east of 6Solomon’s reservoir: tithe 7vessels, and with the tally beside them. (23) 8From above Solomon’s trench 9towards the large boulder, 10at sixty cubits, (are) buried (at) three 11cubits, silver: 23 s(ilver) k(arsh). (24) 12In the tomb which is in the torrent of Kippa, 13on the way from Jericho to Sokokah, 14(are) buried (at) seven cubits: 32 s(ilver) k(arsh).

Commentary: (21) ll. 1–4: The differences in reading among scholars come from the restorations of the lacuna at the head of the column. It is a pity that the editor did not draw the parts of letters on a fragment adjoining the right- hand edge (not “left”, DJDJ, p. 290) of the crease, which would have made it possible to confirm the restoration. However, the reading hmym .[. .] having been translated as “. . . of the waters which is [at]” supposes š[b h?] skkʾ (but see l. 5), which is too short a restoration for the dimensions of the lacuna.212 The restoration [hbʾh l] would fit the space better213 and would

212 Accepted by Muchowski (1993). 213 Allegro [hbʾh ?], Luria [hbʾh ʾl], Beyer [hbʾh l]. text, translation and commentary 55 benefit from the parallel with IV 3, but would the remains be appropriate to a šin or he?214 If šin seems likely, we could then propose š[bmʿrb (?)], which is possible in terms of space and wording and which would designate the large channel carrying water to Sokokah/Qumran.215 We would thus have a confirmation of the name of the site of Khirbet Qumran, but the restoration š[b/lgy h] would go in precisely the same direction. Be that as it may, either restoration continues the wording and the location given in the preceding entry. Similarly, the edition’s restoration tḥ[t hʾbn] in l. 2 is also to be preferred to Allegro’s t[ḥt hymʾ], as it is difficult to imagine that one would dig under a pool of water (the pool would be lost), or again to Beyer’s tḥ[t hyd], as the yad supposes an upright stone (unless it is a monument) which would be destabilized, whereas that would not be the case if it were a stone laid on its side.216 Finally, we should probably restore šlw]š at l. 3 (cf. IV 7; V 11, etc.), which is preferable to š]š and even to ḥm]š in the available space.217

(22) ll. 5–7: The editor’s reading bsdq is certainly preferable to bsrq.218 At the end of l. 5, the edition’s reading mzrḥ should be retained, with remains of the left shaft of the ḥet on the edge of the left crease, but certainly not a bet. The ḥet and the mem completely rule out Allegro’s reading bzr[b?]. One would no doubt have expected the reading bmzrḥ, but the preposition is not absolutely indispensable (cf. e.g. VI 2).219 The pool/basin ʾšwḥ is the word found already in the stele of Mesha, king of Moab, ll. 9 and

214 Milik (1962:290) writes: “At the end, perhaps all that is missing is š[b]: cf. l. 5”, šin with circellus. As the start of the šin with an oblique bar cannot be confused with that of a he, one might suppose that the reading h[bʾh l] retained by Lefkovits (2000) and Eshel (2002:101) would not seem appropriate, far from it. But the proposal š[b] suggested by Milik and retained by Pixner, is much too short. 215 Possible restorations, though somewhat short, would be š[l gy h] or š[bgy h]; cf. IV 13. 216 Lefkovits (2000:188) is surprised by Milik’s reading tḥ[t, but he must not have read “his reading notes” (1962:290) for ll. 1–2 and l. 1. Furthermore the feminine noun should certainly be restored with the article. Finally, Lefkovits’s other proposals (hmsmʾ, hḥwmʾ, hmʿlʾ, hmšmrt, hšwqt) are not acceptable for the available space. Observation of the object is as important as a lexical study! 217 The restoration šl]š (Wolters, García Martínez and Tigchelaar) seems too short; šin would have been engraved at the end of the line as for ḥm]š. 218 Luria’s reading, even if sdq may be an Aramaism. 219 See Muchowski’s note (1994:319–327). Wolters (1992:249) reads mzrḥ ʾšyḥ. Luria’s reading mz[rḥyt l] can be ruled out entirely, as can Lefkovits’s (2000) mzr[ḥ l], as there is no trace of the lamed, which ought to be visible. “The restoration is almost certain” (p. 191) should be discounted. 56 text, translation and commentary

23,220 or in Sir 50:3, but misspelt as ʾšyḥ in the manuscripts with the quite frequent confusion of waw and yod by the copyists of the late period, a confusion, however, which was impossible at an earlier time.221 The spelling kʾlyn in l. 6 may be a plene form of klyn to differentiate it from the construct state kly dmʿ (with the edition), but it could also distinguish this term from the more frequent word klyn, often in a construct with dmʿ (see the same construction in XII 6), and asks to be linked to the Greek χηλός “casket” (with Beyer). This would then be another borrowing of a technical Greek word in relation to receptacles for the tax (see already I 9).222 Some commentators link the following two words to what precedes. Allegro and Luria understand ûbetokân and ʾṣlm with an ʾalef prefix “and in them figured coins” to designate coins struck with likenesses, but this explanation, though it is a subtle way of translating a word in the singular, seems too difficult and very hazardous.223 A number of scholars propose to read the editor’s wbtkn as wktbn.224 Though physically possible, this reading would assume a mistake in XI 4 wtbn, but it also needs to count on the absence of coordination in XI 1 (4? see below), 11 and 15. However, it would also fit with the page layout or with the arrangement of the text in the five uses where following the example of virtually all cases, a new entry begins with b- at the start of the line (with a single exception in I 6 right at the beginning of the scroll). Though the expression only follows kly dmʿ “offering vessels” in five of the ten cases, there does seem to be a connection. But as kly and dmʿ are both masculine, one would again have to concede an agreement with a feminine suffix, always with wktbn as against just twice with ʾṣln in XI 11 and 15 but ʾṣlm elsewhere, and understand “and their registers next to them”.225

220 But ʾšḥt “reservoirs” on the Ammonite bottle from Tell Siran (Amman). 221 With Allegro, despite the edition followed by Pixner, Wolters (1992; 1996a:40), Muchowski (1993), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. But there are certainly not two waws or yods (Luria and Lefkovits, 2000); the engraver must have begun to engrave the first shaft of the ḥet a little too close to the triangular head of the waw, at which point he changed his mind and shifted it to the left. 222 García Martínez (2003:136–137) does not retain this hypothesis, but the arguments put forward are weak: the Greek case endings are not generally given, and in the end he has to concede an engraver’s error in inserting a medial ʾalef to represent a pataḥ or qameṣ. But is that likely in this case? It seems doubtful. 223 As is Lehmann’s explanation (1964:104): “defaced coins”. 224 McCarter, Wolters (1996a:40; 2002:326–328), Wilmot, Wise, Qimron, Muchowski, Golb, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar following Luria and Sarfati. 225 So Sarfati, McCarter, Wolters (1992:246; 2002:326–328), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar (transcribing wktkn “and their document”), Muchowski (1993): “ich spis jest text, translation and commentary 57

As this interpretation rests on many presuppositions and mistakes, my preference is to follow the edition for the physical reading and the meaning of wbtkn, but I make the cut differently by linking the expression to what precedes it, as the physical presentation of all the attestations invites one to do, always at the end of the line and the end of the entry.226 The expression follows the syntagm kly dmʿ, the quantity of which is never specified, but ʾṣlm/n at least has a pronominal suffix, most frequently masculine in –m (in three cases out of five). So the expression ought to specify the quantity, the contents or the origin of the kly dmʿ in the masculine plural. Following the use of tkn in Ex 5:18, the word seems to designate a measured quantity, in these cases the actual contents of the vessels and/ or their quantity, not their theoretical capacity. This solution allows us to find a text that does not have far too many errors, while giving bet the meaning of accompaniment which it sometimes has, “with”; this preposition is not even absent in XI 4 “(and) with the quantity/the contents” (the copula is present only in V 7), which would not be the case with the reading (w)ktbn. The two (feminine?) suffixes -n at ʾṣln (XI 11, 15) instead of the three regular uses in -m can be explained by the final letter of the preceding word, btkn.227 This solution, then, seems to commend itself.228

(23) ll. 8–11: Besides the faulty readings of Allegro and Luria in hḥrwṣ for hḥryṣ (l. 8) and “13” for “23” (l. 11), the symbol for scores being this time in the shape of medial pe, the difficulty of the passage lies in the reading and the meaning of a word in l. 9: is it rgm (Milik and most commentators)229 or rgb (Allegro and Luria)? The physical reading is indisputably bet in V 9 and very certainly again in VI 8, as the new documentation proves. One can always appeal to a confusion between bet and mem, either in the

przy nich”, and for Golb ktbn = ktbyn. Bedman (2000:119) follows my reading wbtkn but translates “y su contenido junto a ellos”, and Lefkovits (2000:190) “and their lists (are located) next to them”. 226 Milik is followed by Pixner, García Martínez, Vermes, and Lange (2002:133–134) to make it the beginning of an entry. 227 But with the reading btkn, Lefkovits (2000:192) reads the feminine plural suffix “and their lists are located next to them”, deriving the word from twk, as does Bedman, which is more than difficult with masculine nouns kly and dmʿ, and furthermore with a defective spelling. 228 Despite Wolters (2002:327–328), and without resorting to “lexicographical gymnastics”—quite the contrary! 229 Pixner, Wolters (1992:249–250; 1996a:40), Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar and Lefkovits (2000) read hrgm. 58 text, translation and commentary reading of the original or in the execution of the engraving, but this argument is tricky to call upon in the only two cases in question.230 If I cannot accept the meaning “watchtower” attributed to it by Allegro, the reading rgm “small stone” does not give a better meaning than rgb “shingle/pebble”. In fact, rgb should be translated “stone, pebble” in Job 21:33 and 38:38, as most ancient versions took it: λίθος, χερμάδες, lapides,231 and not “clod” as some modern translations do. The same meaning fits the two other passages in 1 Sam 20:19, 41, where the Septuagint has transliter- ated it as ἐργαβ and Symmachus and Theodotion have translated λίθον or λίθω (Lucianic recension), which the Masoretic text has taken as hʾbn “the stone” (v. 19), and again in v. 41 hʾrgb (with a bet at the end of the word) transcribing what the Masoretic Hebrew reads as hngb, though the meaning is certainly stone (pile of stones) rather than “a mound (of earth)”. In relation to a torrent where there is an abundance of pebbles, or in parallel to gdyš in Job 21:32–33 (which denotes a pile of stones on a tomb— and the Qumran cemetery would testify to this if need be!), the meaning “stone” seems to be well attested, which the Masoretic Hebrew hʾbn in 1 Sam 20:19 would support in its own way. In 3Q15 V and VI, this meaning would fit perfectly, especially as in V 9 “the stone”, hrgb, is qualified by “large”, hgdwlʾ. In this case, it would be a loose boulder, a large stone, quite characteristic for the location. Consequently, this is the reading and the meaning I will retain. The meaning of ḥryṣ is “conduit”; see the Aramaic in the Targum of Job 39:25 for the Hebrew tʿlh. The composite preposition mʿl in V 8 being applied to a watercourse or channel could mean “upstream from” as opposed to (mn) tḥt, “downstream from”. Finally, the reading šlwmw is not assured; this could be šlwm w-. In fact, it is difficult to understand why the engraver would have transferred a letter of such small size to the next line. So we should take this as mʿl . . . wʿd and “Shallum”, not “Solomon”, a reading and interpretation influenced no doubt by line 6, but it is also possible that the channel relates to the said pool. It is impossible to say with any certainty.

230 One cannot constantly appeal to a lack of distinction between bet and mem in this scroll as Lefkovits claims (2000:195), as the engraver generally does distinguish these letters well. 231 See B. Alfrink, “Die Bedeutung des Wortes régéb in Job 21,33 und 38,38”, Biblica 13 (1932) 77–86. text, translation and commentary 59

(24) ll. 12–14: Besides the frequent confusion in the reading of reš and final nun in the original and ḥpwn for ḥpwr by the engraver, the text does not present any difficulties of reading, and the incorrect reading bbyʾ hmzrḥy in l. 13232 cannot be accepted, bbw/yʾh myrḥw being certain. The precise meaning is more tricky to determine: byʾh “way, road, or entrance”, or better bbwʾh “when coming, on the way”, but the general sense is basically the same: this is a tomb on the northern bank of the torrent. This entry is important for confirming the location of Sokokah at Qumran, south of Jericho. Wadi Kippa is probably the more important of the two wadis between the two place-names, Wadi Kuteif, connected perhaps with Aramaic kpʾ “rock”, or with the Hebrew “cavern” (Job 30:6; Jer 4:29).

Col. VI (Figure 6) 1 )25(]ב[מערת העמוד של שני 2 ]ה[פתחין ]]ה[[צופא מזרח 3 ]ב[פתח הצפוני חפור 4 ]א[מות שלוש שמ קלל 5 בו ספר אחד תחתו 6 ככ 3 3 || 7 )26(במערא של הכנא 8 של הרגב הצופא 9 למזרח חפר בפת}|{ח 10 אמות תשע ככ 3 | 11 )27(במשכן המלכא בצד 12 המערבי חפר אמות 13 שתימ עסרה ככ 3 14 )28(ביגר שבמגזת הכוהן

232 Allegro and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309), who would make the restoration: bqbr mzrḥy bnḥl hkpʾ bbyʾh lskkʾ. Luria separates the words differently as bbyʾh mzrḥy = mmzrḥ (lqbr) bknysh. Wolters (1996a:40) reads bbyʾh. 60 text, translation and commentary

(26) 7In the cave at the base of 8the boulder, facing 9east, (are) buried in the opening 10(at) nine cubits: 21 s(ilver) k(arsh). (27) 11In the queen’s ‘mausoleum’, on the west 12side, (are) buried (at) twelve 13cubits: 27 s(ilver) k(arsh). (28) 14In the (burial) mound which is at the ford of the high

Commentary: (25) ll. 1–6: The edition’s reading is universally accepted. The receptacle qll is an urn or jar with a large opening (a manuscript jar) containing a book or scroll, hidden at the entrance to a cave with two openings; the cave is very probably situated on the road to Sokokah.233 One notes the omission of the article in [[h]]ṣwpʾ, compared with the six other examples, and the translation of hʿmwd not in the usual sense of “pillar” but “platform, terrace” by Allegro, who appeals to 2 Kgs 11:14//2 Chr 23:13 and 2 Kgs 23:3 // 2 Chr 34:31 where the meaning is not clear, either “the king was standing near to the pillar” or “on the podium”. In this case it could be one of the numerous caves to the north of Sokokah/Qumran, caves now too furrowed to be identified with any certainty.234 But it seems preferable to keep the editor’s translation “cave of the pillar”. In l. 5, tḥtw may be ambiguous: “under the urn” or “under the book (in the urn)”? Given the position of the other deposits, it is preferable to take it as “under the urn”, particularly as the deposit in coins would have been able to deform the book/scroll in the urn.235

(26) ll. 7–10: The word hrgb is the reading to be retained in l. 8, as the new documentation shows (with Allegro),236 rather than hrgm as read by the editor and by the majority of scholars.237 The word meaning “boulder” (cf.

233 To the south of Cave 11 (Milik 1962:264), which is to the south of Cave 3, but this identification depends on the meaning of “column/pillar”. 234 Recently other caves have been discovered in the marled terraces to the north of the Khirbeh: M. Broshi & H. Eshel, “Residential Caves at Qumrân”, Dead Sea Discoveries 6/3 (1999) 328–348. The mention of the column leads one to assume the reference is to a cave in the limestone cliff. 235 In translating “alli (hay) un anfora en ella un documento, debajo de el . . .”, Bedman (2000:127) assumes the deposit is in the amphora. 236 Followed by Luria, Puech (1997) and Bedman. 237 Pixner, Muchowski, Wolters (1996a:42), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits (2000:209), but the mem is clearly distinct from bet. text, translation and commentary 61

V 9) has been understood as “watchtower”.238 There is a further difficulty with this entry. In l. 7, the editor reads hknʾ with a doubtful kaf, and one might indeed hesitate between bet and kaf, but the head of the very narrow and deep letter favours the reading of kaf. However, this kaf has not been corrected into a pe to give the reading hpnʾ (Allegro; his drawing is not acceptable).239 The only reading that seems appropriate, then, is hknʾ, “which is at the base”.240 Note the defective spelling of ḥpr in ll. 9 and 12 (cf. l. 3) and the engraved stroke between taw and ḥet as for a reading of ptwḥ.241

(27) ll. 11–13: This entry clearly designates “a burial place, a sepulchre”, the last prepared resting place with its four sides (ṣd) (cf. Ps 49:12; Isa 22:16), a term which I translate as “mausoleum” to distinguish it from “tomb”, qbr.242 Given the geographical context of these entries, this mausoleum, which remains anonymous, ought to be situated in the vicinity of Jericho where royal resting places are known from the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods, and might refer, for example, to a mausoleum of Queen Alexandra/ Salome (?) that remains to be discovered. The sequence of the figures is at odds with the engraver’s custom, as if the latter had forgotten the number 20 after the two kafs of the abbreviation kk. But under no circumstances can one read “9”.243 The figure 20 is certainly the best reading (with the editor who knew other examples of this in the manuscripts of Cave 4).

238 Allegro, but Luria: pnh šl hrgb “the corner of the clod of earth”. 239 The copper sheet has been folded from the left of the head of the kaf to above the ʾalef. No pe was ever engraved and then bet for pnʾ (Allegro, Luria) or kkʾ or bbʾ or bkʾ (Lefkovits 2000). 240 The reading finally retained by Lefkovits, šl hbnʾ šl hrgm “of the builder of the sepul cher” seems surprising; would one not then have expected the simpler hbnʾ hrgm? 241 The reading bpth (Wolters 1996a:42–43), translated “in the opening”, must be a typographic error. Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) proposes the restoration bptḥ ḥpr ʾmt tšʿ. 242 Wolters’s translation (1996a:43), “In the Queen’s Residence”, seems difficult! 243 Allegro, followed by Luria. 62 text, translation and commentary

Col. VII (Figure 7) 1 הגדול חפור ]במזרח/מערב)?( אמו[ת 2 תשע ככ] 3 3 3[ 3 || 3 )29(באמא של קיב]וץ המימ)?( ש[ל 4 האשוח הצפו]ני של ירחו)?([ 5 בארבע רוח]ות מרוח הג[דול 6 משח אמות עסרין] ואר[בע 7 ככר>י<נ ארבע מאות 8 )30(במערא שאצל המקר]ה)?( [של 9 בית הקצ חפור אמות שש 10 בדין של כסף שש 11 )31(בדוק תחת פנת המשט>ו<ח 12 המזרחית חפור אמות שבע 13 ככ 3 || 14 )32(על פי יציאת המימ של הכוז 15 בא חפור אמות שלוש עד הטור 16 ככ 3 3 3 3 זהב ככרינ שתימ

Translation: 1Priest, (are) buried [to the east/west(?)] (at) nine 2[cubit]s : [20+20(+20 ?)]+22 s(ilver) k(arsh). (29) 3In the water conduit of the [water] ta[nk of] the 4northern reservoir [of Jericho] 5with four side[s, from the lar]ge [side] 6(at) a distance of twenty[-fo]ur cubits: four hundred talents. (30) 8In the cave which is next to the frigida[rium] of 9the house of Ha-Qoṣ, (are) buried (at) six cubits: 10six silver bars. (31) 11In Doq, below the eastern corner 12of the drying room, (are) buried (at) seven cubits: 1322 s(ilver) k(arsh). (32) 14Above the mouth of the water outlet in Kozi- 15ba, (are) buried (at) three cubits in the direction of the parapet/mountain: 1680 s(ilver) k(arsh), two talents of gold.

~~Commentary: (28) ll. VI 14–VII 2: As the editor has indicated, mgzʾ means “passage point, pass” in Aramaic,244 certainly denoting a ford (not a bridge, as~~

244 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Jerusalem 1990, 290. The meaning “dam” proposed by Eshel (2002:102) does not seem particularly appropriate for ygr in this passage; it is difficult to imagine a ford and a dam side by side. text, translation and commentary 63

Allegro thinks) over the Jordan.245 In relation to col. VII, the editor notes that “the lacuna is not so large in reality that it appears on the facsimile”, and that “on the two edges of the crease there are fragments whose letters and numbers are not reproduced on the copy” (DJDJ, p. 291). So we should keep the word ḥpwr as preserved in the original.246 However, the restoration of ʾmwt is insufficient for the lacuna, especially as the foot of the second shaft of the taw is preserved on the left strip.247 In that case it is necessary to restore another word, for example bmzrḥ, bmʿrb, preferable to bṣpwn or bdrwm and to bptḥ(w) because of the length. In the absence of a drawing of the fragments, the editor has placed a fragment adjoining the edge of the left crease, l. 2, and bearing the figures “22”.248 This would give a certain amount of space for the rest of the lacuna, which ought to comprise the number “20” several times, up to 4 times according to the fragment that is not drawn, since in these passages with number symbols kk[ is almost always249 the abbreviated form. Be that as it may, this reading rules out the proposal of k[sp. I would therefore propose taking this as kk[ 20 + 20 + 20 (?)] + 20 + 2, or “82”, probably the bigger number in preference to “62”.

(29) ll. 3–7: This entry is only partially preserved. In l. 3, the reading bʾmʾ šl q[ is certain on the basis of the remains that are still preserved, rather than Allegro’s250 šl[ or Beyer’s šl my[m; a mem is impossible from the traces. This reading is confirmed by the decipherment by the editor, who had at his disposal a fragment supplementary to the right-hand crease. In the absence of the drawing of the traces of the letter after yod in qy°[ in the edition, one can only conjecture a reading of the continuation adapted to the available space, subject and phraseology of the scroll. I would propose qyb[wṣ hmym š]l or some similar wording, but with traces of the stem of the lamed on the right-hand edge of the copper strip.251 In l. 4, read hʾšwḥ,

245 See Milik (1962:264, 258) for a ford of the high priest. 246 Contra Allegro (1960:151) and Luria. Wolters (1992:250) reads ḥ[pwr ʾmwt] (1996a:44) [ʿmwt], and Muchowski (1993) ḥpwr [ʾmwt]. 247 Milik did not note the foot of the taw, and consequently restored too short a line, followed by all scholars with the exception of Allegro and Luria. I pointed this out already in 1997. 248 See Milik (1962:291). 249 See, however, II 2 and II 15, but at the beginning of the scroll. 250 Followed by Luria, Wolters, and Lefkovits. 251 Eshel (2002:103–105) has proposed reading qyp[rws, and a different restoration would then be possible (see next note), but it would be difficult to understand the logic of the following sequences: Kypros, Doq, Koziba and the identification of Gerizim (57) in 64 text, translation and commentary and after hṣpw[ny it is likely that a word needs to be supplied, since the engraver does not leave such a large space in a line. I would suggest as probable the restoration šl yrḥw, preferable to byrḥw, without sufficient space at the end of the line for bʾrbʿ (not divided).252 Like all the entries located in the surroundings of Jericho or in Jericho itself, this restoration has plausibility in its favour, especially as recent excavations at Herodian Jericho have uncovered numerous reservoirs and aqueducts. In l. 5, the word (h)g]dwl is an assured reading, with the editor, rather than Allegro’s ]wlw or Beyer’s hʿg]wl without a trace of the gimel,253 and the restoration rwḥ[wtyw would also be insufficient, but the reading dwdy[n254 must be completely rejected because of the traces and the meaning. The missing word would indicate the starting point for the distance to be measured, and it could begin with mn h- or mh-. In view of the space in question, I would propose for example rwḥ[wt mrwḥ hg]dwl.255 In l. 6, mšḥ can mean “to measure” but it can also be an Aramaism for “distance”, which seems more appropriate in the context. Then instead of ʿsrn[ wʾr]bʿ by some scholars,256 I prefer to read ʿsryn [wʾr]bʿ with traces of the final nun on a small replaced fragment, and then a small space between the words, sometimes happens.257 The yod, which is completely acceptable, allows us to find the normal spelling of the word, VIII 13, X 11 and XII 9, without presenting an unjustified exception. Allegro’s drawing for ʿsryn is impossible and his restoration [šyṭ must be absolutely rejected.258

this place according to a late Jewish tradition (first by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos at the end of the 2nd century AD) still known to Christians. 252 One might also think of kḥlt (Tell el-Sulṭan?). No one has noted the excessive size of the lacuna for hgd]wl read in this line 4. In 1997 I had followed this positioning of the letters in the edition. I have now transferred them to l. 5 for a better alignment, with Allegro but following the decipherment of Milik. Read ʿšwḥ with Allegro, not ʾšyḥ as read by the edition, Pixner, Wolters (1996a:44): hʿšyḥ hṣpw[ny] wl, Muchowski (1993), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. If we were to accept Eshel’s proposal (2002:105) of šl qy[drwn bbwʾh ʾ]l, we would then have to read hṣpw[ny šl ḥwrqnyh] in l. 4, not the author’s hgdw] l, which is much too short, and the reading lsm]wlw in l. 6 is not possible (p. 103). The proposal qyprws therefore seems to be ruled out. 253 There are still traces of the head of the dalet at the crease, ruling out Allegro’s lsm] wlw and Lefkovits’s mš]wlw (2000). 254 Allegro, Luria, and Pixner. Bedman would read rwḥ[wtyw mhmʿlʾwt], which is much too long for the space. Wolters (1996a:44) stays with rwḥ[wt ]. 255 I am rectifying my previous proposal with the transfer of hg]dwl to l. 5 for a better alignment. 256 Allegro, Luria, and Lefkovits (2000) read ʿsryn. 257 The space precludes the reading ʿsr[yn ḥpwr ʾr]bʿ by Muchowski (1993). 258 Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:44) reads šl[. . .] hʾšyḥ hṣpw[ny (. . .)] wl bʾrbʿ rwḥ[wt] mšḥ ʾmwt ʿsrn [(. . .)š]bʿ. text, translation and commentary 65

In l. 7, the yod of kkryn has been inserted later under the head of the reš, and nothing seems to be engraved after mʾwt. The description of this entry could easily fit with the pools, basins, channels and conduits in Hasmonaean and Herodian Jericho, the left bank of Wadi Qelṭ,259 or in the region of ʿAyn Dôq a little further to the north.

(30) ll. 8–10: The reading of the end of l. 8 causes some difficulty, but the edition’s reading šʾṣlh bqr[b]w l cannot be retained.260 As the mem is assured, the division ought thus to be made šʾṣl hmqr[, then probably ]šl (lamed certain) with approximately one letter in the lacuna, but the reading of waw in ]wl is difficult,261 and Beyer’s hmqrzl has no graphic basis. Allegro proposes hmqr[t(?) ]šl,—the reš seems to be the most likely reading—and he refers to Judg 3:20 bʿlyt hmqrh “in the high chamber for the cool” and Judg 3:24 bḥdr hmqrh “in the chamber of coolness”.262 A description like this would indeed not be surprising in Jericho and its surroundings. But there is some difficulty in then understanding byt hqṣ as “summer house”, partly because of the defective writing and partly because of the very imprecision of the location in question, even supposing no tautology is involved.263 One would expect a more precise description of the situation or appurtenances of this cool chamber or bathing frigidarium which are well known elsewhere. The reading hmqr[wt] “springs”, palaeographically a little too long, would be surprising at first sight because of the defective writing of a radical consonant for the expected hmqwrwt, particularly the singular hmq(w)r which would not explain the large gap

259 See E. Netzer, “The Swimming Pools of the Hasmonean Period at Jericho”, Eretz Israel 18 (1985) 344–352 (Heb.). This identification preceded my restoration of l. 4. 260 Followed by Pixner and by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, who have changed bet to mem. The division ʾṣlh assumes that this cave is located close to the preceding aqueduct or reservoir, a feminine noun. 261 The narrow band of copper to the right of the waw read by the editor is no longer apparently conserved on the reproductions of the galvanoplastia, and on the X-ray photograph the small fragment seems no longer to be in place. One can read no more than a vertical stem without a trace of a head on the left that would be expected for a waw. The reading of šin seems the most likely on the old photographs, without physical verification of the traces of the characters on the right. 262 Schiffman (2002:184) takes mqrh as a piece of framework or roofing, part of a palace or summer house, in line with usages in 11QRT XXXVI 6 and 10, etc. It is difficult to follow him in this case where it is a question of a cave near to such a structure. But Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) reading hmqr[ʾ] šl and understanding “At the burial cave which is next to the cold-chamber of Bet HaQotz”, links up with my proposal. 263 Similarly Beyer, Thorion, Lefkovits (2000:223) and Shiffman (2002:182), but Wolters (1996a:45) understands “the end house”. In fact in Judg 3:24 the targum translates bḥdr hmqrh by byt qyṭʾ “the summer house”, and the two expressions are thus synonyms. 66 text, translation and commentary before the following šl,264 especially as the supposed waw engraved in three strokes of the burin would not have a head to the left, which is not the usual practice in these lines.265 The reading hqṣ “summer” having been abandoned,266 Ha-Qoṣ (Haqqoṣ) is the name of the priestly family which traced itself back to Davidic times (1 Chr 24:7–10). On the return from the exile, the sons of Ha-Qoṣ (bny hqwṣ) participated in the reconstruction of the temple with other Jericho families (Neh 3:2–4 [Meremoth, son of Uriah, son of Haqqoṣ]; 3:21). However, they could not prove their genealogy and their right to the priesthood (Neh 7:63; Ezra 2:61), but according to Neh 10:6–9 and Ezra 8:33, Meremoth, son of Uriah, is given charge of the temple treasury: gold, silver and utensils brought back from the exile. Since then, the Ha-Qoṣ family seems to have been regarded as (among) the temple treasurers. In the time of the Maccabees, Eupolemus, sons of John of the house of Ha-Qoṣ, and Jason, son of Eleazar, were sent as envoys to Rome by Judas Maccabaeus, 1 Macc 8:17.267 This citation shows the important role that this family still enjoys in the 2nd century BC. “Priests” linked to the temple treasury in those far-off days does not prove that there were still so linked in the middle of the 1st century AD, especially as this family, or part of it like so many others could have followed or joined the deposed high priest, the Teacher of Righteousness and founder of the voluntary exile at Qumran, perhaps bringing with them a certain sum from the temple treasury. Seventh in rank, this priestly family is well attested in the Qumran manuscripts, the Mishmarôt: 4Q320 I i 7, iii [3], 4Q321 I i 7, [ii 8, iii 3], 2 [i 9], iii 8, iv 3, 4Q321a 1 [i 4], 2 [5], 3 5, 4Q324a 1 ii [4], 4Q325 1 6, 4Q328 1 [6], 4Q329 1–2 3 and 5, and the name is again known from Murabbaʿât 92 ii 6. Be that as it may, the mention of this well-to-do family in this scroll should not be overlooked, and its Jericho property seems very probable.

264 Despite McCarter (1992:41). This is probably why Mishor, Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:44) and Muchowski (1993) propose hmqr [m]wl. The reading mqw[h] or mqd[š], . . . (Lefkovits 2000) is not acceptable. Lefkovits (2010:196) hesitates between mqd[h/ʾ] “the firepla[ce]” and mqr[h/ʾ] “the cool chamb[er]”. 265 The reading hmqr[h has been proposed by Luria, and Lefkovits reads hmqr[ʾ]. My reading is independent of these. 266 One would have expected a yod diphthong at this time, in addition to the other difficulties already indicated. Lefkovits (2010:196) hesitates between “the summer palace” and “the house of Kos”. 267 See Milik (1962:258, 265 [18]). text, translation and commentary 67

~~Note finally the full orthography of ḥpwr (l. 9) on the cutting line of the saw,268 and the reading bdyn “silver bars” in l. 10, with the editor (bet most probable) rather than kdyn.269~~

(31) ll. 11–13: The toponym of this entry, which should certainly be read dwq with the editor and not ryq with Allegro, is situated at the fortress Dôq to the northwest of Jericho. The name is still preserved by the spring of ʿAyn Dûq. The last word of l. 11 was certainly written hmšṭḥ: the ṭet and the ḥet are indisputable, and cannot be confused with mem or he, and there is no waw or final nun to suggest reading a reš. On the other hand, the reading hmšmrh in the edition is not likely.270 Whether it is hmšṭḥ with Ezek 26:5 and 14, or hmšṭwḥ with Ezek 47:10 in plene spelling or hmšṭyḥ of mishnaic Hebrew, the meaning does not change. It is a boxroom where fruits (figs, raisins etc.) are laid out and dried, a “drying room”.271

(32) ll. 14–16: This entry contains two difficulties of reading at the end of lines 14 and 15. The edition, followed by other scholars, rightly reads hkwz-bʾ, while Allegro has retained hby-bʾ “the sewer”.272 This reading would be possible if there were nothing to the left of the “yod”, and by situating the hiding place at Dôq where the waters of the aqueduct flow. Moreover, if the zayin is not certain, what is indeed perfectly assured is a rounded head to the right of a downstroke which corresponds to the usual line of the zayin, and the reading hbybʾ cannot accommodate this line. So it is the reading hkwzbʾ—Koziba—that should be retained for this entry, the toponym of Wadi Qelṭ where the water flows to this day, as the editor already bore in mind.273 At the end of l. 15, hṭwr in the edition (with a cursive reš; cf. X 10 etc.) is preferable to Allegro’s hṭyp (yod and

268 See Kuhn’s transcription (1954:199): an example of a letter having disappeared dur ing the cutting. 269 Allegro, Luria, Pixner, Wolters (1992; 1996a:44), Muchowski (1993). 270 Followed by Pixner, Wolters (1992; 1996a:44–45), Muchowski (1993) (hmšmrt), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits (2000:232), Eshel (2002:104) and Schiffman (2002:185, 190); Lefkovits would even like on the basis of this unjustifiable reading to propose bdyq “in the siege wall” in relation to a guard room, but this is circular reasoning. Eshel’s (2002:104) reading hmnzrḥyt in l. 12 seems to be ruled out. 271 With Allegro, Luria and Beyer. 272 Luria reads ḥbwbʾ = ʾmt ḥbwbʾ, and Lefkovits hbwz “of Buz”. 273 Similarly Beyer and others. In these sequences it is difficult to imagine another top onym in Judah that would be too far from the previous place names (see the proposals in Lefkovits 2000:240–241). 68 text, translation and commentary very open and final pe, not medial, in his copy).274 Moreover, one cannot translate ʿd “as far as” (Pixner) but “in the direction of”, as the preposition ʿd is never used elsewhere in the expression ḥpwr ʾmwt x. The word ṭwr has several possible meanings, “supporting wall, parapet, wall rows/ courses” or “mountain”, whereas ṭw/yp would denote the trickling of a spring, which does not seem at all at home in this passage, especially as pe would be difficult.275 Finally, read 80 (with Allegro), not 60,276 then safely kkryn with the editor, not bkdyn.277

Col. VIII (Figure 8) 1 )33(]בא[מא שבדרך מזרח בית 2 ]ה[אוצר שמזרח אחיה 3 כלי דמע וספרין אל תבקע]מ)?([ 4 )34(בגי החיצונא כתב חרת 5 על האבן חפור אמות שבע 6 עסרא תחתיה כספ 7 וזהב ככ 8 )35(ביגר של פי צוק הקדרון 9 חפור אמות שלוש ככ 10 )36(בשלף של השוא הצופא 11 מערב בדרומ בצריח 12 הצופא צפון חפור אמות 13 עשרין וארבע ככ 3 3 3 14 )37(ברוי של השוא בצו)ר(יח שבא חפוו)ר( 15 אמות אחת עמ)ס(רה 16 כסף ככ 3 3 3

274 Similarly Luria, Wolters (1992:250; 2002:316, 330) reads ḥkwzbʾ (sic) and ʿd ḥṭwp “a plundered loot”, but this is improbably on account of the writing and the meaning pro- duced. The sequence here is of no help, and the stereotyped wording does not require such an interpretation. 275 Allegro understands “towards the overflow tank”, which is no doubt forced. But Luria reads ḥṭwp in the sense of hyswd. The Aramaic term ṭyp also means “channels”; cf. M. Jastrow, Dictionary, I, p. 533. 276 Milik, Wolters, Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits. 277 Allegro and Luria (Lefkovits as a possibility), but the reš seems clearly to favour kkryn. text, translation and commentary 69

Translation: (33) 1[In the water con]duit which is on the road to the east of [the] house of 2the Treasure, which is to the east of (the house of) Aḥiyah: 3tithe vessels and books. Do not rend [them] open! (34) 4In the outer valley, (there is) an inscription engraved 5on the stone (/monument ?), buried (at) seventeen 6cubits below it, silver 7and gold, seventeen s(ilver) k(arsh). (35) 8In the (burial) mound which is at the entrance to the gorge of the Kidron, 9(are) buried (at) three cubits: 7 s(ilver) k(arsh). (36) 10In the unploughed land which is in the (valley of) Shaveh, facing 11west, in the southern part, in the underground chamber 12facing north, (are) buried (at) twenty-13four cubits: 66 s(ilver) k(arsh). (37) 14In the irrigated land which is in the (valley of) Shaveh, in the underground chamber which is there, (are) buried (at) 15eleven cubits, silver: 1670 s(ilver) k(arsh).

Commentary: (33) ll. 1–3: With regard to this entry, the difficulties of reading have been resolved in different ways. The first word must with certainty be restored, following the editor, as bʾ]mʾ; the mem is certain because of the two preserved strokes, only the base overruns slightly on the right, as often happens in this document (cf. ʾmwt l. 12). We cannot restore bby]bʾ with Allegro.278 If byt is certain at the end of line 1, the taw being entirely preserved on the photograph in DJDJ, pl. XLIII 1, the first word of l. 2 has been misread by the editor, as the facsimile shows. In fact, the small fragment on the right has been wrongly joined, the right-hand stem of the ʾalef extending the stem of the lamed, which, however, finds its extension in the line between the downstrokes of the ʾalef. A correct placement of the fragment279 permits the word ʾwṣr to be read without difficulty and suppresses the unknown ʾḥṣr that one would not look for in the valley of

278 The alternative readings proposed by Lefkovits (2002:246) must be rejected, both because they do not read the certain mem and because they are too long for the space. The only one which would be physically possible would be bḥw]mʾ, but it is not very likely in this context. 279 As the restoration of the original following my remark shows. Allegro reads ʾwṣr without the article, followed by Luria, Thorion and Beyer, but Lefkovits (2000:245) and Schiffman (2002:182) read ʾwwṣr in line with the drawings and Zuckerman’s photographs. If the edition’s reading ʾḥṣr is more than difficult, one does not understand Wolters’s reading (1996a:46) byrʾ hṣr. 70 text, translation and commentary

Yarmuk.280 This “house of the Treasury” would be an important building and known in the town or the region of Jericho. It is even highly probable that ʾwṣr was preceded by the article. The right-hand alignment is not always observed in this column or in this scroll, but there is a sufficient space, and the surface, lightly “folded backwards” to the crease, could lead one to suppose the presence of the horizontal line of the he. Then šmzrḥ is a certain reading,281 while the following word may cause difficulty, but Allegro’s reading šmyd hʾtwn has no graphic support.282 I am amazed by the editor’s reading of ʾḥzr,283 probably influenced by the understanding of the preceding toponym, while the reading ʾḥyh “Aḥiyah” seems appropriate, preferable to an erroneous ʾḥw[[z]]h or even to ʾḥzh “domain, property, terrain” (cf. DJDJ, pl. XLIII 1 before the cutting). As this terrain is not determined, the term “property” would then have been able to denote that of the Treasury, unless there is a reference to something belonging to the author or of his community. But we should probably read more simply “to the east (of the house) of Aḥiyah”. “Ehud” is not a possible reading.284 An out-of-place fragment lying at 90° on the old reproductions may give the impression of a different letter, but the head (right-hand part) of a he (?) and a part of the right-hand stem are visible above and to the right of the crease, and are already completely legible in DJDJ pl. XLIII 1.285 In l. 3, the reading wspryn is assured instead of the difficult wsprw w- “and its register and—”,286 for which the second waw would be unique, especially as, according to this hypothesis, one would expect the term wktbw, and the reading wspry is completely ruled out.287 And I showed in connection with V 7 the impossibility of reading wbtkn as wktbn. Finally, the edition suggests the reading ʾl tbs is very uncertain, not being taken in by

280 Pixner, followed by Muchowski (1993) and by García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 281 One can safely drop Lefkovits’s impossible proposals (2000) šbyrḥʾ, šbzrḥ. 282 Followed by Luria for ʾtwn = šʿr. 283 Followed by Pixner, Muchowski (1993) and García Martínez. 284 Wolters (1992; 1996a:46), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Beyer (ʾhwd). 285 Lefkovits’s reading ʾḥyn (2000) has no support; the plate in DJDJ XLIII carries more weight than all the approximate drawings that have been published and overlaid. 286 McCarter (1994:135). 287 Wolters (1992:250; 1994:292–293; 2002:318–319, 331): the letter read, final nun, which is certain, does not have a triangular head but a very extended head in imitation of calligraphic writing, probably corrected to a straight-line character, and it touches the taw in the following line. There is no indication of the first person in this text. This cannot be a taw. text, translation and commentary 71 this unique type of warning: “Do not take (them) for yourself!”288 Allegro’s rendering, wspry[n] ʾl hklyn “and scrolls in amongst the jars”, without any graphic support, is completely baseless,289 as are Beyer’s readings ʾl tkl “Eltukal”, an anthroponym which no doubt relies on Allegro’s fanciful reference, and again ʾlt ks(p).290 Thanks to DJDJ, plate XLIII 1, and to new photographs, it is clear that we must certainly read qof and not samek preceded by reš in preference to dalet without a head, or even better bet with a possible base (overlap of the split metal), and on the edge of the crease probably ʿayin rather than šin, or ʾl trqʿ[ or much better ʾl tbqʿ[.291 The meaning seems to be “Do not break/rend [them] open” more than “Do not disperse [them]”; it is difficult to be more precise. It is not impossible that the offering vessels were used as receptacles for the scrolls, themselves sacred, or that the scrolls were stored with them.292 This reading would put an end to a hypothesis aired in the first years following the discovery of the manuscripts, suggesting that the Qumran caves were genizôt.293

(34) ll. 4–7: The reading of the last word of l. 4 is difficult. The editor (DJDJ, p. 241) retains ḥrh as possible,294 taken as “sheer rock” but with a certain contradiction “without article” (!) (p. 293), and “the suffix (ḥr)h refers to hgy which is feminine” (p. 241). Allegro reads hdr “the Circle”, and others translate “the enclosure, the (sheep) park”. But would not a plene

288 Uncertain reading of bet/samek, accepted by Pixner, but the taw is certain. 289 A reading followed by Lefkovits (the reproductions certainly do not support this reading), and Luria, who understands hklym btwk, despite Lange (2002:131): “and scrolls [put] into the vessels”. 290 Wolters’s proposal (1990:490; 1992:250; 1996a:46–47; 2002:331–332) wspry wʾlt ks[[p]] “and my scrolls, and a bar of sil[[ver]]”, correcting the last two letters and putting in a first person, needs no comment. García Martínez and Tigchelaar retain ʾlt ks(p), followed by Bedman (2000:140, 185–187)! Muchowski (1993) proposes ʾl tmr “Do Tamar”! 291 The qof is certain in DJDJ, pl. XLIII 1; the stem of the qof crosses the horizontal stroke of the letter of the following line. I first retained ʾl tdqm, from the verb dqq “break, take to pieces” with the third person plural suffix, proposing the meaning “Do not damage them!” (1997:169), a reading retained by Eshel (2002:106) but keeping the translation given in the edition. Milik also traced a base of a dotted bet. The latter is possible but the angle and the start of the base of the letter are hidden by an overlay of metal following a break; I did not have the opportunity to verify the original at this point. Høgenhaven (2009:91) still prefers the reading tdqm, which is clearly ruled out. 292 Knohl (2002:234–235) points out that the Pharisaic halakhah prohibits placing the demaʿ near to (Torah) scrolls, while the Sadducees do not accept this rule. It is known from other sources, specially from MMT, that in many cases the Essene halakhah is identical to that of the Sadducees. In this case, the treasures cannot be Pharisaic property. 293 The hypothesis of Sukenik, Del Medico, Driver; cf. the lively reaction by R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, London 21973, 55–56, 103–104. 294 Followed by Pixner, Puech (1997:167) and Bedman. 72 text, translation and commentary spelling, hdwr or hdyr be expected?295 These three letters could probably be read in various different ways: h/ḥ, d/r, and the remains of the third letter are not compatible with r/d. The second stem of the letter could lean to the right because of the rivet, or a fold, or have a foot to the left: thus he, ḥet or taw (cf. DJDJ pl. XLIII 1, since this whole part disappeared during cutting and it cannot be confirmed by subsequent photographs, though the edge was still preserved then). In view of the writing, the proposals of hdr, hrr[yn “mountains” or ḥdr[, to be completed with a suffix, ḥdr[h “its enclosure”, are therefore impossible. Remaining possibilities are ḥrh, with the meaning “its cave, crevice, hole, cavity” (cf. 1 Sam 14:11; Job 30:6), or ḥdt “edge”, or ḥrt, a toponym known from 1 Sam 22:5 in Judah but probably to be situated in the Shephelah near to Adullam. In favour of ḥrh “hole, crevice”, knowing that the absence of the article has to be compensated for with a suffix, here in the feminine referring to gy, this meaning would fit better with the designation of a hiding place “near to the stone” ʿl hʾbn (= at a distance from, with DJDJ), not “in the stone” (García Martínez), since the treasure is buried “underneath it”, but a difficulty remains in connection with the two prepositions ʿl and tḥtyh. The latter is resolved with the reading ktb ḥrt ʿl ʾbn.296 The kaf and the bet are possible despite their size and inversion, the line of the heads of the letters distinguishing them to some extent. In this case, tḥtyh means “below, lower down”, as probably in several other cases, not “under it”. The expression bgy hḥyṣwnʾ would normally denote the lower part of the course of a wadi, downstream rather than upstream.297 Finally the sequence ksp wzhb k(sp) k(rš) 17 does not necessarily involve a contradiction, if this deposit can be understood to contain silver and gold, but in cash or “in silver” and not in some other form, object, ingots, bars etc., unless we read “of silver and gold, (and) 17 k(arsh of) s(ilver)”.

295 Cf. the Hebrew dyr and Aramaic dy(y)rʾ, despite Luria (btwk hdyr), Wolters (1990:488; 1992:250; 1996a:46–47) btk hdr “in the middle of the sheepfold”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Beyer. 296 This is also the reading of Muchowski (1994a) and Lefkovits (2000). 297 Milik (DJDJ, p. 268) takes it this way, downstream from Bîr Ayyûb in the Kidron, i.e. in the first stretch of the torrent as it leaves Jerusalem. The Kidron could also be in mind here but there is nothing to confirm this, as it is given explicit mention only in the following entry and in relation to the gorge of the wadi. It seems the author has not yet come back up towards Jerusalem and the source of the torrent. Pixner situates the hiding place in the Yarmuk valley, and Beyer near to Dôq. text, translation and commentary 73

(35) ll. 8–9: One word only has caused difficulty in this entry.298 At the end of l. 8, the editor reads hqdrwh, which would be a particular form for “the Kidron”, but Allegro reads hqdrwn, the spelling that would have been expected. Some, reading taw, were thinking of qdrwt “ceramics, pottery”, hence “pottery (workshop)”,299 “the potter’s”,300 or again of “darkness” to denote the deeply embanked gorges of the Kidron (Beyer). The reading of qdrwm is improbable given the position on the edge of the sheet, and the X-ray photograph is not in its favour. But as it is not rare in this scroll, we should read a quite short final nun, probably because of the rivet (see also DJDJ, pl. XLIII 1). The Kidron gorge is located a short distance before it reaches Mar Saba on the way from Jerusalem (DJDJ, p. 268).301 In l. 9, the editor reads “4” and Allegro “7”. Plate XLIII 1 in DJDJ and the new photographs allow the reading “7”, but not according to Allegro’s drawing.302 The engraving of the ends of lines 8–9 shows clearly that copper sheets 2 and 3 were riveted before the text was engraved, col. IX below col. VIII; cf. the traces of rwn on the verso above the fourth rivet on pl. XLIII 3 in DJDJ.

(36) ll. 10–13: The reading of this entry being certain, there is barely a single divergence to be noted in the total of talents which without reason shifts from 66 to 67 for Allegro; but this is again due to an incorrect reading.303 Note also his erroneous transcriptions in these lines: l. 9 ḥywr for ḥpwr, l. 10 bšly for bšlp, l. 12 hṣwp for hṣwpʾ, and l. 13 ʿsryn ʾrbʿ for ʿsryn wʾrbʿ; the drawing is also inaccurate! As Milik points out, the reference here is probably to the valley of Shaveh to the south of Jerusalem (Gen 14:17; cf. 1QApGen XXII 14, šwʾ, LXX Σαυε, identified with the Valley of the King in 2

298 The translation of ygr as “dam” as proposed by Luria (1963) and adopted by N. Golb, “Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?”, Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985) 48–88 (p. 79) and Eshel (2002:102) cannot be sustained because a dam can be swept away by the torrent, and the treasure would vanish with it! 299 Pixner, Wolters (1990:489–490; 1992:250; 1996a:46–47) ṣwq hqdrwt “of the Pottery Ravine”. 300 García Martínez, but García Martínez and Tigchelaar follow the edition, for the numbers as well. 301 Eshel (2002:102–103) suggests that this aqueduct leaving from the Kidron leads towards Hyrkania (cf. IV 3). 302 Muchowski (1993) follows the edition, but the transcription of the number leaves something to be desired. Wolters (1996a:46) also reads “4”. 303 Luria reads hšwʾḥ = hbrkh and follows Allegro for the number, for which the stroke of the score on the left has been taken as a unit; similarly Lefkovits (2000). Muchowski (1993) transcribes “65” (p. 30) but translates “66” (p. 38)! 74 text, translation and commentary

Sam 18:18 towards Beth ha-Kerem, but to be distinguished from beth Ṣoʾh in 11QRT XLVI 13304 and Josephus War V §145, to the south-west of the Holy City.305 The only difficulty that remains is in defining the meaning of šlp more closely: “fallow terrain?”306

(37) ll. 14–16: The reading bdwr proposed by Beyer has little graphic support unless it has to do with a cursive reš and a rare type of dalet, and it would be difficult to read bdyr or bdw/yn;307 so we must revert to the edition’s reading brwy, or bryn.308 The word rwy, probably identical to rwh, which describes a “garden” in Isa 58:11; Jer 31:12 or a “land” in Deut 29:18, seems to correspond to šlp in l. 10. Finally, the writing suggests the reading bṣwyh, following the edition,309 or bṣwyḥ as against bṣyʾh,310 but the meaning could also be “pile, cippus”, synonymous with ṣywn. As he and ḥet are not distinct in this word, we should consider reading bṣryḥ as in line 11, but by appealing to the possible interchange between waw and reš in this document.311 In this case we would be in an identical situation to the previous line, but in another part of “(the valley of) Shaveh”, the low irrigated part; this meaning seems much the best.312 At the end of l. 14, the engraver seems not to have finished engraving the reš or to have confused a final nun with a short stem and a cursive reš, as is quite common in this copy. The samek of ʿsrh is incorrectly engraved as mem, contrary to the engraver’s custom, having perhaps read an unclosed samek in the original; but the reading is secure.

304 For Y. Yadin, hšwʾ is not Milik’s Bethso/βηθσων (byt ṣwʾh) but almost certainly the Valley of Shaveh of 1QApGen, in the vicinity of Beth-ha-Kerem (cf. The Temple Scroll, Jerusalem 1983, I, 302–303). 305 Milik (1962:241, 274). 306 Lefkovits (2000:263) does not translate, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar give the rendering “In the ploughed land”, which seems forced. 307 Lefkovits (2000:268): “In Din of . . .” 308 Luria’s reading, retained by Pixner; Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:46–47) reads brwn (!) then bṣyyh “In the irrigated part of . . . in the watered region”, and Muchowski (1993) would read br[[ʿ]]yn “In the privy of . . .”. 309 Followed by Pixner, Muchowski, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. 310 Allegro followed by Pixner. Luria reads ṣywt = yṣwʾtw, Wolters (1992) ṣyyh, and Muchowski (1993; 1994a) ṣwyh = ṣwʾh “the excrements”. 311 Lefkovits (2002) understands bṣryḥ following Qimron, followed by Beyer and Wise. 312 I am changing my previous reading (1997), followed by Bedman. It is indeed difficult to see how one can bury something under a cippus or boundary stone without moving it a little. text, translation and commentary 75

Col. IX (Figure 9) 1 )38(בשובך שבשר)ו(לי הנטף משח משר)ו(לו 2 אמות שלוש ]]עש[[רא שתין חפוו/ז)ר(וג)ת( בשעת שבע 3 בדין אסתרין ארבע 4 )39(בחבלת השניג)ת( בצריח הצופא 5 מזרח חפון)ר( אמות שמונא 6 ר)ו(מחצא ככ 3 ף 7 )40(בצריחי החורין ברוח הצופא דרומ 8 בזרב חפור אכע)מו(ת שש עסו)ר(ה 9 ככ 3 || 10 )41(בקומעה כסף מנחה רב 11 )42(בקול המימ הקרובין לכפת ביב 12 מרחב לפיהמ חפור אמות 13 שבע ככ 14 )43(בשית שיבצפון פי הצוק של בית 15 תמר בצחיאת גר פלע 16 כל שבה חרמ 17 )44(בשובך שבמצדנא בתח]ומ ה[

Translation: (38) 1In the dovecote which is on the edge of Naṭuf, (at) a distance from its base of 2thirteen cubits, (there are) two holes in the rocks: seven 3bars (of silver), four staters. (39) 4In the second (vine) terrace, in the underground chamber facing 5east, (are) buried (at) eight and a half 6cubits: 23 and a half s(ilver) k(arsh). (40) 7In the Ḥorreans’ underground chambers, on the side facing south, 8in the rivulet, (are) buried (at) sixteen cubits: 922 s(ilver) k(arsh). (41) 10In the hole, (there is) a large amount of silver (from) offering. (42) 11At the waterfall near to the bend in a water channel 12at some distance from its mouth, (are) buried (at) seven 13cubits: 9 s(ilver) k(arsh). (43) 14In the pit which is to the north of the entrance to the gorge at Beth-15Tamar in the rocky ground of Pela‌ʾʿ, 16everything which is there is consecrated. (44) 17In the dovecote which is in Maṣadona/small fortress, in the southern313

313 I cannot see where, in this column (first column of the small scroll), Allegro has managed to find confirmation of a crucifixion: “In the sepulchre of the Son of Sleep, the Crucified (or Hanged)”; cf. Davies (2002:30–32). 76 text, translation and commentary

Commentary: (38) ll. 1–3: The indistinct writing of certain letters does not facilitate the reading. It is known that in cursive script of the first century in particular, a reš can resemble a waw or zayin, and conversely a waw can take the shape of a reš.314 These remarks explain the forms of ḥpwr (l. 2) and šwly and šwlw (l. 1). But there are further anomalies in this writing: taw engraved like a gimel with crossed downstroke, and zayin comparable to final nun with a space on the left (unengraved?) for reš, already found elsewhere, and thus ḥpwz/n wg probably for ḥpwrwt in l. 2. A quite frequent spelling at Qumran explains the defective writing of šwlw for šwlyw, which would be the normal form of the plural with the third person masculine suffix.315 The exact meaning of šwbk in l. 1 can also cause difficulty. The editor has hesitated between the most natural sense of the word, “dovecote, pigeon-loft” (he cites numerous examples of them and of their importance in the region at the turn of the era), and a particular meaning “niche, hole, window, peephole”, which could apply to inspection openings of an aqueduct along the stone wall (DJDJ, 238–239).316 Given the number of entries in relation with cisterns and watercourses, he has opted for this second meaning, especially as this entry is located at the spring ʿAyn en-Naṭuf, at Wadi Khareitun between Herodium and Tekoa, which trickles (nṭp) from the rocky escarpment.317 But this meaning would be a more difficult fit in IX 17 (45). However, given that the word šwl denotes the “bottom” and that in IX 17–18 it assumes a high structure, one might easily take it that the dovecote318 is cut into the side of the rock at the spring of

314 See for example, the writing of the reš on ossuaries, papyrus Murabbaʿât 18 (from AD 55/56), papyrus Mur. 19 (from AD 111 [?]), and of the waw of papyrus Mur. 19 (P. Benoit, J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabbaʿât, DJD II, Oxford 1960). But the undue cor rection of ḥpwr to ḥṭn “incisors, tusks” by Wolters (1990:491) is unacceptable, resulting in a unique or incorrect form of the plural. 315 See E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harvard Semitic Studies 29, Atlanta 1986, 31–32 and 39. 316 Lefkovits (2000:273–274) retains the meaning “tower” because of a translation mgdl of the Samaritan targum in Gen 11:4, 5, 8. But this meaning does not fit elsewhere in Sifre Behar 56, which mentions šwbk and mgdl side by side (cf. y. Maʿaśrot 3.4; b. ʿArakin 32a), and a dovecote can be in the shape of a tower. 317 Contra Lefkovits (2000:273), following other scholars; Schiffman (2002:190) under stands nṭp as “water pool”. 318 With Luria, Pixner, Beyer, Wolters, Vermes, Wise, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. Lefkovits (2000:273, 317) translates with “tower”, while Schiffman (2002:191) is keen to make it the equivalent of šwpk “drain canal”. For examples of recently discovered dove cotes, see B. Zissu, “Two Herodian Dovecotes: Horvat Abu Haf and Horvat ʿAleq”, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series, 14, Ann Arbor 1995, 56–70 (with bibliography, text, translation and commentary 77

ʿAyn en-Naṭuf. Constructions in the form of a round tower and others underground, dug into the rock, are known, such as, in particular, on the approaches to Maresha in the low hills of Judaea. Be that as it may, this toponym has nothing to do with the region of Yarmuk in the Decapolis as Pixner would have us believe. In l. 2, the engraver has committed an error by haplography, due perhaps to the sibilants, for šlwš [[ʿs]]rʾ “thirteen”, which is the spelling in II 8 and VIII 6.319 In this line the author has opted for an Aramaic-type phraseology, where štyn precedes the word; others reading the verb ḥpwr think that the engraver has omitted ʾmwt “cubits” mentioned just previously. This solution is tempting since the word recurs in almost every entry in this phraseology. But the following text can be read in several different ways depending on how the words are divided: wgb šʿt šbʿ “and behind seven pebbles”, bdyn “bars” or the dual “two bars”,320 and ʾstryn ʾrbʿ “four staters”, or, assuming the absence of a copula in front of ʾstryn, “(and) four staters” (cf. e.g. VI 5 in spr ʾḥd tḥtw . . . or VII 16), one gives this wording the meaning “tetradrachma” or “double mina” (cf. DJDJ, 253).321 Another reading is still possible by linking šbʿ at the end of the line with the following word bdyn in spite of its masculine gender:322 “and behind some stones, seven (silver) bars of four double minas” or “(and) four staters”. In fact, in this type of text, it is less probable that the number of stones would have been counted, which are unstable elements (the meaning of šʿt is

with citations in Jewish and Roman sources), A. Kloner and O. Hess, “A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Maresha”, ʿAtiqot (English Series) 17 (1985) 122–133, A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I. Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, Jerusalem 2003, 42–45; more than 85 underground columbaria have been found there containing more than 50,000 pigeonholes. 319 We cannot follow Allegro and Luria, šlwš wʾštyn for “three”. 320 The reading bdyn is far better than kdyn “pitchers” (Wolters, Lefkovits 2000). Allegro reads bryn, Luria brwn, Wilmot and Muchowski [k]kryn, which is unacceptable, Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) proposes the reading kryn ḥpwr{r} ʾm{š}wt šbʿ for ḥpwr wgb šʿt šbʿ bdyn. The reading wgm “and also” (Wolters 2002:317) seems unlikely. 321 But under no circumstances can one read ʾystryn with Allegro, Luria and Lefkovits, as the stem of the lamed reaches up as far as the samek, and there is no space for yod; the engraver still has more space available for this letter, but for lamed he had no option. 322 The same applies to kdyn or šʿh, masculine in principle, though in this case one would have a feminine plural šʿt. 78 text, translation and commentary not certain),323 rather than (silver) bars.324 Finally, there may be another way of understanding l. 2 by linking -wg with what precedes, producing the reading ḥpwrwt “holes”325 in the sequence štyn ḥpwrwt bšʿt “(there are) two holes in the rocks”. But there is nothing to say whether the deposit(s) are placed in the two holes; the small quantity in this entry could just as easily be in only one of the two, as this is not specified.326

(39) ll. 4–6: A difficulty of reading affects the beginning of l. 4, which is certainly to be read as bḥblt327 rather than the editor’s btklt328 or Allegro’s bḥblh,329 as the new photographs prove. The sequence hšny gb ṣryḥ of the edition330 has been read hšnyt bṣryḥ by Allegro and the other commentators.331 Even with the correction of gimel to taw as in l. 2, a difficulty remains which Allegro recognized, correcting bḥblt to bḥblh, unless one reads a plural bḥblt hšnyt. Should the term ḥblt be linked to ḥblh “heritage,

323 Milik links the word to Aramaic šwʿʾ translating the Hebrew ṣwr in Prov 30:19 and šʿyʿwtʾ corresponding to ṣḥyḥ in Ezek 26:4, 14. He would make it either the feminine of the masculine šwʿ or a feminine plural of šwʿ, the masculine plural of which is already attested. Greenfield (1969:139) doubts the meaning of this word, but he has no alternative to offer. However, the reading is assured barring mistakes by the copyist in his reading of the original, and the meaning “stone, rock” would be acceptable in this passage. But we cannot read bšwʿh, as Lefkovits (2000) proposes, as taw is clear as well as ʿayin, which can not be ʿayin and waw at the same time. 324 This entry has been differently understood by Allegro for readings and the mean ing: šlwš wʾštyn ḥywrwt bšyʿh šbʿ bryn ʾystryn, which he links to water conduits! Luria reads ḥpwrwt = ṭmwnwt, then bšwʿt šbʿ brwn . . . Rather strangely, Beyer (1994:229–230) under stands štyn as “two times” in relation to the thirteen cubits—but why then did he not write 26?—and he corrects the end of l. 2 to uncover a more habitual phraseology of the scribe” ḥpwr ʾm{š}wt šbʿ, “dig seven cubits” (followed by Wilmot), but this is too many corrections. If -wg- can be explained by a calligraphic ʾalef in the original, -mw- cannot so easily be transformed into b-š-ʿ—the šin is superfluous! The difficult reading by Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:48–49; 2002:317) štyn ḥṭn wgm šʿt šbʿ kdyn . . . “two tusks, and also seven rocks, four jars containing stater coins”, followed by Vermes in his translation, is not retained by Elwolde (2002:115–117). 325 Luria and Lefkovits, a word followed by the reading bšwʿh, but the latter is ruled out. 326 Lefkovits (2000) who reads kdyn “seven pitchers (and) four staters”, thinks that the quality and quantity of the metal are not specified but that there was some in the two cavities in the rock(s) or plaster (reading bšwʿh or bšyʿh, l. 2). 327 With Luria, Pixner, Wolters (1996a:48–49): bḥblt šnyg “In the estate of šnyg”, Beyer, García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 328 Milik (1962:294): “The first taw is virtually certain; a very fine horizontal stroke joins its left downstroke and the base of the kaph”. The new photographs invalidate this remark. The reading adopted by Muchowski (1993). 329 Followed by Lefkovits and Bedman. 330 Followed by García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 331 Wolters (1992:250) reads hšnyg. text, translation and commentary 79 lot”, following some scholars, but then one would have a very imprecise topographical indication, or to ḥbl, “field, vine terrace” as in the South Arabic ḥblt?332 In this case one would think of a hypogeum in one of the terraces of the region where orchards and terraced vineyards are com- monplace. To read gb would then also suppose an incorrect reading for [[h]]ṣryḥ, since hṣwpʾ cannot easily refer to bḥblt. So it is better to assume a defective engraving or incorrect reading for bḥblt hšnyt. Though it is easy to understand the incorrect engraving of ḥpwn with final nun for ḥpwr, due to an incorrect reading of the original, as is quite frequently the case in this scroll, it is trickier to give a verdict on the omis- sions and slips affecting l. 6. Either one follows the editor in restoring an ʿayin for dm[[ʿ]] “spices” or “tax/offering” (Pixner, García Martínez) and one reads hṣʾ/ḥṣʾ as an anthroponym (Pixner, García Martínez),333 or one follows Allegro in reading the erroneous r/w for wmḥṣʾ “and a half”.334 We have already noted the possible and frequent confusions of w and r in cursive script in the 1st century AD. The reading ḥet is preferable to he, although the engraving is not always differentiated in this scroll (e.g. bṣryḥ, l. 7). Also, in the absence of mention of kly dmʿ or of a synonym for the vessels/receptacles, the proposal wmḥṣʾ is much to be preferred. On some reproductions the engraver seems to have sketched a mem for the second kaf in kk, but this is an illusion which the documentation invalidates; the reading does not present any difficulty. At the end of l. 6 one should read a final pe for the fraction p(lg) “½” (with the editor, DJDJ, 293–294, 221) generally followed despite the incorrect reading of Allegro and Luria “24”. I do not understand the amount “22 talents ½”.335

332 Cf. A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Müller, & J. Ryckmans, Dictionnaire Sabéen (anglais–français–arabe), Louvain-la-Neuve–Beirut 1982, p. 65; J. Copeland Biella, Dictionary of the Old South Arabic. Sabaean Dialect, Harvard Semitic Studies 25, Chico 1982, p. 164: ḥbln “course of stones in a wall or dam” and ḥblt “vines, vineyards”, as in Arabic ḥabîlat “vinestock”. The reading bḥblt hšnʾ, which would be the simplest (the ʾalef being split into y-g) seems more difficult to sustain. Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) proposes hšnyʾ. 333 Bedman (2000:148, 188–191) reads dm[[ʿ ʿ]]ṣh, “tithe of the council”, appealing to a palaeographic argument towards the simplification: reš > waw, and not the reverse, waw > reš. But in this document there are clear cases of waw written as reš (cf. e.g. IX 1), whereas I have never appealed to this confusion for dalet (p. 188). Appealing to the weakening of ʿayin to he and the elision of an ʿayin he would see in this a clear indication of the Essene provenance of the text! 334 A form typical of mishnaic Hebrew; so Luria, Wolters (1992:250; 2002:318), Muchowski (1993), Beyer, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits. 335 Pixner, García Martínez (but 23.5 in García Martínez and Tigchelaar), nor Muchowski’s (1993:31) transcription “24” and his translation “23.5”. 80 text, translation and commentary

(40) ll. 7–9: The edition has opted for the reading hḥwrwn, linking the toponym to Upper Beth-Ḥôron rather than Lower Beth-Ḥôron, the article replacing the demonstrative (DJDJ, 268), probably under the influence of the word-ending read as hṣwpʾ ym “oriented towards the Sea” (=west).336 To which J. Jeremias responded with the reading hḥwryn “of the Ḥorrites”, contemporary or later texts having preserved the memory of these troglo- dytic giants whose tombs would be located in the region of Beth Gubrin- Eleutheropolis, southwest of ʿAyin en-Naṭuf to be more precise.337 This reading, which now has the support of the editor,338 is accepted by Pixner but by locating the toponym in the region of the Yarmuk; however, it is advisable to stay in the same region. Allegro and Beyer understand hḥwryn as “holes”, which seems a little surprising in this context, and redundant, to say the least.339 Following the editor, some scholars correct the reading of the following word, restoring the ṣade to find b[[ṣ]]ryḥ after bṣryḥy at the beginning of the line. This is theoretically possible; however, the reading brwḥ hṣwpʾ “in the direction facing” gives a meaning to this passage without the need of a correction.340 The editor then reads ym “the Sea” in the sense of mʿrb “the west”,341 while Pixner believes swm should be read to find the village Kafr Som south of the Yarmuk, and Allegro takes swm for drwm, or dr(w)m (Beyer).342 However, it is possible to read drwm: traces of dalet, reš followed by a waw/yod and certain mem.343 The assured reading drwm with- draws the prime support for the reading ḥwrwn for the identification of

336 A reading and identification accepted by Wolters (1996a:48–49), Lefkovits, Wise, and probably García Martínez and Tigchelaar (or an anthroponym), and Bedman. 337 See J. Jeremias, Revue Biblique 67 (1960) 220–222. F. de Saulcy, Dictionnaire topographique abrégé de la Terre Sainte, Paris 1877, p. 12, mentions a cave of Adoullan or Khareitoun near to Herodium; cf. further C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, III, London 1883, p. 375, the mûghâret Maʿṣa above ʿAyin en-Naṭuf. But F.M. Abel, Géographie de Palestine, I, Paris 1933, p. 441, thinks this identification is unfounded. 338 Cf. Milik, “Observations”, Revue Biblique 67 (1960), 222–223. 339 Following Allegro, Luria reads bṣryḥy hḥyrwn and understands bbwr ʾw btʿlt hmym. Muchowski (1993) reads hḥwrwn “ha-Choron”. 340 Similarly Beyer, Wolters (1992:250), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits; Luria reads rwḥq ṣwpʾ= bmrḥq. Note that the edition’s reference on p. 229 13c to the omission of the emphatic no longer has any parallel since VIII 2 must be read differently. 341 Similarly Wolters (1992), Muchowski (1993) “na zachód”, García Martínez, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits, and Bedman. 342 Luria reads ṣwm = sym(t)ʾ = (wʾwṣr). 343 To read he for hym would seem excluded. text, translation and commentary 81

Upper Beth-Ḥôron and gives favourable support to Jeremias’s reading ḥwryn. The reading bzrb seems to suggest itself rather than the difficult byrk “an der tiefsten Stelle” (Beyer), which assumes an incorrect reading of the original.344 But the meaning is disputed. I retain the usual sense, “channel, gutter, edge” (DJDJ, 246), rather than “pit, pool” (Milik, García Martínez) or again “mortuary bed” (Pixner). Finally, we may note another example of confusion of the cursive reš/waw in ššʿsrh and an “unusual” form of the sequence mem-waw in ʾmwt, which is certainly a misreading of the original, splitting them into kaf/bet-ʿayin (cf. again X 9).

(41) l. 10: The location of this hiding place is difficult to ascertain. The engraver has certainly written bqwmʿh, the form qymʿh is the reading retained by Allegro,345 but the meaning is not clear: “In the ‘funnel’”, with an appeal to the Arabic qamʿun. Milik has preferred to amend the text slightly to read bqwbʿh and find a toponym “Qobʿeh” on the road between Eleutheropolis and Jerusalem,346 while pointing out that the word qwm/ bʿh could denote an element of the preceding tomb. But this is practically impossible, since the suffix -h is never used for the masculine in the syntax of the scroll (DJDJ, 269, 301). In accordance with his hypothesis, Pixner finds here the village of Qubeyeh to the north of the Yarmuk. As the reading is assured, it is necessary to try to give a meaning to the term qwmʿh, unique in Hebrew,347 which cannot easily be the village of Qob(ʿ)eh (Milik). For that, it must be remembered that the ʿayin does not have to be the primitive guttural of the word. It is also known that the primitive /ḍ/ is rendered by /ṣ/ in Hebrew but by /q/> /ʿ/ in the Aramaic dialects and that an Aramaic influence is perceptible in the language of this scroll. Finally, one has to bear in mind that the palatal consonants /g/ and /k/ and the voiceless emphatic velar /q/ can be interchangeable. Consequently, the word qwmʿh can, without any linguistic difficulty, be

344 Similarly Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:48–49; 2002:315) “in the recess”, and Lefkovits (2000:292) as a possibility. But the track of the letter with its head to the right is generally that of the zayin, and the bet with the foot is certainly better than kaf. 345 Followed by Luria. 346 Milik (1960). Muchowski (1993) reads bqwbʿt “W dzbanie”; bqwbʿh is the reading of Pixner, Thorion, Beyer “in einem Kelch”, Vermes, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits. 347 Also the reading of Wolters (1992:250), without any interpretation, but “its funnel” according to Muchowski (1993:46). Luria would read qymʿʾ = ṣrwr. 82 text, translation and commentary linked to the Hebrew gwmṣ, to which it is at least related, if not its equivalent, deriving in parallel from the same primitive Semitic root of the type qmḍ, which as far as I am aware is not attested in Arabic. With the same meaning one might compare Qoh 10:8 ḥpr gwmṣ bw ypwl “Whoever digs a hole will fall into it”, translated in the Aramaic targum by šwḥh “pit”,348 in Prov 26:27 krh šḥt bh ypl “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it”, rendered in the targum precisely by gwmṣʾ. Similarly, the Hebrew šwḥh ʿmwqh “deep pit” (in parallel with bʾr “shaft”) in Prov 22:14 and 23:27 is translated in the targum on one occasion by gwmṣʾ ʿmqtʾ and once by šwḥʾ and in Syriac (Peshiṭta) by gwmṣʾ ʿmyqʾ. But the Hebrew hpḥt hgdwl “the great pit” of 2 Sam 18:17 is rendered in the Aramaic targum by gwmṣʾ rbʾ and by the Syriac gwmṣʾ rbʾ in the Peshiṭta, whereas the Hebrew hpḥt “the hole” in Isa 24:17–18 and the parallel in Jer 48:43–44 is translated by kwmṣʾ in the targum but by gwmṣʾ in the Syriac of the Peshiṭta. So it seems quite clear that the forms g/k/qwmṣʾ designate the same reality: a pit, a hole, a crevice, a chasm or a shaft, and similarly again the Syriac gwmʿth (with the /ʿ/ of the root) to translate the Hebrew šwḥ, šḥt and pḥt, in Greek λάκκος. Though the Copper Scroll uses the word šwḥ(ʾ) only once (see XII 4?), at least it makes abundant use of the synonyms šyt and bwr, or again ʾšwḥ. Consequently, the basic meaning of the term qwmʿh should be regarded as perceptible and identified.349 This reading and this interpretation entail important consequences for the passage, as we are no longer dealing with a new toponym but with a hiding place in the same sector where numerous caves, niches, holes and crevices are listed.350 The following text is disputed, although the reading ksp mnḥh rb suggests itself and mn hḥrm supposes a correction of bet to mem and of ḥet to he,351 which also applies to ksp mnh ḥrm “a mina of silver, a (con)sacred offering”.352 The editor hesitates between mnḥh rb, to be understood as “offering silver (voluntary, at the temple)” and mnḥ hrb “much money is

348 According to G. Garbini, “Note semitiche”, Annali dell’Instituto Orientale di Napoli 1 (1959), 85–93, gwmṣ would be a loan word from the Eastern Aramaic; since this study was not accessible to me (cf. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 [1963] 228), I am unable to comment further. 349 This note was already edited when I was able to examine a similar explanation at the end of a study by Y. Kutscher, op.cit. (n. 479 below), p. 279. 350 We no longer need to look for a toponym in the Yarmuk valley (Pixner) or else where (Wolters). 351 Allegro, Muchowski (1993), Beyer and Lefkovits. Bedman (2000:148) has adopted my reading and analysed the passage with the reading ḥrm (p. 266 et passim)! 352 Wolters (1987; 1992:250; 1996a:48; 2002:316), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar, (Beyer). The word order is surprising for an interpretation like this, mnh in XII 9 follows text, translation and commentary 83 deposited”, a solution retained and adopted by Pixner. I prefer to take the first solution, because as mnḥh can refer to any tribute or voluntary gift, at the temple or elsewhere, it qualifies the mention of ksp as other preci- sions do in the previous cases, but without specifying the exact quantity of rb “much, a large quantity”.353 It goes without saying that the proposal of (w)bsp in parallel to bqwbʿh to designate a receptacle (Beyer) should not be retained, since (a) the form of the word in biblical Hebrew is qwbʿt and (b) ksp is an assured reading and without a copula.

(42) ll. 11–13: The reading of this entry is a long way from being unani- mously agreed. The edition’s bqwl hmym hqrwbyn354 has been contested with the alternative readings bqyl hmym hqrybyn,355 bqylḥ mym hqrw- byn356 and b[[ʿ]]qwl hmym hqrwbyn (Beyer). The end of the line is also read in diverse ways. The edition’s reading lkpr nbw b- seems too far from the engraved letters—as Milik is aware “si vera lectio” (DJDJ, 265)—and the translation “the waterfall” at the sources of ʿAyyoun Musa at the foot of Mount Nebo must have influenced this link.357 Correcting taw to he, scholars have retained the reading lkp hbyb,358 or lkpt byb (Beyer), which I prefer to keep without any correction: “at the bend/elbow (of a water conduit)”. In line 11, all the letters can be read clearly except for yod/waw (qwl or qyl) and bet/kaf (lkpt); even the he in hmym359 is assured (cf. ll. 4, 10, 13 etc.). So part of the editor’s reading can be retained as the most likely, especially as the form hmym is found several times in this scroll and hqrwbyn is also preceded by the article. But this can be taken in two ways: either qwl (lit. at the voice of the waters) = “at the waterfall”, or qyl “dam, reservoir (?)”.

the mention of kk, especially as this would not be the only entry where the quantity is not specified (cf. e.g. ll. 14–15). 353 Luria reads ksp mnḥt rb = mnḥwt rb ksp; however, the taw is ruled out. 354 Followed by Muchowski, Vermes, and Bedman. 355 Allegro. 356 Luria = bʾmt hmym, Pixner, Wolters (1992:250; 1996a:48–49): bqylḥ mym hqrwbyn l . . . “In the outflow of the water which are to . . .”, but bqylh (2002:316), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits. 357 F.M. Cross, “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988), Supplement, 46–65, pp. 51–52, retains the reading lkpr nbw. 358 Allegro, Luria, Pixner, Wolters (1990:489; 1992:250), Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits, and Bedman. 359 Note the first example of yod with a head on the right as for a small-sized zayin. Compare an identical waw in ḥpwr in the following line. But the reading ḥmym “hot ones” is impossible, as also is qylḥ, despite Lefkovits; moreover hqrwbyn cannot be rendered by an active “come near” (Lefkovits). 84 text, translation and commentary

In line 12, the editor proposes to reestablish an omitted letter b-m[[z]]rḥ klpyhm,360 while others read mrḥb lpyhm361 or lpnhm.362 The engraver has written lpyhm, without a ligature from the pe to the following he (pace Allegro, pp. 158 and 48), and he seems to have blocked out the (uncom- pleted and incorrect) base of a nun. The reading kaf involved the insertion of the zayin to reveal the orientation m[z]rḥ “to the east” as a guide to the deposit. But the uncorrected reading mrḥb “widening” or better m(n) rḥb “at (some) distance” would fit in this description. With mrḥb lpyhm, the only possible reading is bqwl hmym, eliminating bqyl hmym.

(43) ll. 14–16: Scholars follow the editor’s reading, with the exception of Allegro in l. 15, who eliminates the ḥet of bṣḥyʾt for bṣyʾt363 and changes gr to gy “valley”, but the transcription blškh in l. 16 must be a misprint, to judge by the translation. As Milik notes, the two forms are known in Aramaic bṣḥyʾ and bṣhyʾ with the same meaning “rocky, arid terrain”, which is specified by gr (from gir) “limestone”, giving the possible translation “loose stones, scree”.364 The last word plʿ may be an unidentifiable proper name, probably an anthroponym rather than a place name (which would this time be anarthrous) or a noun meaning “fissure, crevasse”,365 but then could byt tmr be the site of Gibeʿa, 5 km north of Jerusalem,366 as there

360 García Martínez and Tigchelaar read m(z)rḥ klpnhm, and Muchowski (1993) m[[z]] rḥ klpyhm. 361 Allegro, Pixner and Lefkovits, but mzhb (Lefkovits [2000:304]) is a difficult reading from a palaeographical point of view. 362 Wolters (1996a:48), Beyer. Luria reads mrḥb lpnym = ḥlqh hrḥb šl byb bkwwn pnymh. In 1997 (p. 177) I hesitated and eventually preferred lpn[[y]]hm to lpyhm, but the cast which we now have at our disposal favours the opposite choice. 363 But gives it the meaning of šyt, and Luria reads bṣhyʾt and understands mqwm ywṣʾ and gy plʿ = nḥl plʿ. The readings of these lines are assured, and there is no need to consider bšyḥ or pnt or hmd etc., nor bṣḥyʾḥ, as Lefkovits would have it. Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:309) would follow Allegro in reading bṣ{h}yʾt gy plʿ. 364 Pixner takes gr plʿ as “the Proselyte Phala”, Wolters “Garpela”, and the editor, García Martínez and Tigchelaar translate “Ger Pela”. Lefkovits followed by Bedman understands “deep depression” following Ben Yehuda (from Arabic ghor), but this meaning seems to make double use of hṣwq (l. 14) and does not fit better in X 3. 365 See the Arabic falʿun—filʿun from falaʿa “to split”, synonymous with plḥ in Hebrew and in Arabic, a third-guttural verb (cf. E.W. Lane, An Arabic–English Lexicon, I/5, London 1874, pp. 2440–2441). At any rate, in the absence of anything better, this meaning could fit in this description. Wolters (1992:251) is content to transcribe BṢḤY’TGRPLʿ, but (1996a:48–49) adopts “of Garpela”? If we understand gr in line with the Arabic ghor (see Lefkovits), we would have a tautology, unless the latter is a toponym. 366 See Beyer. The Onomasticon of Eusebius of Caesarea (56.1) probably transcribes Baʿal Tamar in Judg 20:33 with Beth Tamar, 5 km to the northeast of Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah). In that case, should we think of the gorge of Wadi Suweinît, approximately 5 km away? text, translation and commentary 85 is no true gorge in the vicinity? We would need to give a different meaning to gr plʿ. Finally, as in XI 7, ḥrm “consecrated thing”, not “anathema” (DJDJ), refers to a possession of the temple or the priesthood which must necessarily antedate the destruction of the temple.367 The plene spelling of šy- (relative, l. 14) may in this case be influenced by the beginning of the previous word, and in addition the spelling šbh (l. 16) seems to make šyt a feminine noun, unlike the instance in III 9.

Col. X (Figure 10) 1 דרומ בעליאה השנית ירידתו 2 מלמעלא ככ 3 )45(בבור גר מזקות שרוי מהנחל 4 הגדול בקרקעו ככ // 5 )46(באשוח שיבית הכרמ בבואך 6 לסמול וג)א(מות עסר כסף 7 כר)כ(רין ששין ושנין 8 )47(בימ של גי איך בצריח מעינו 9 אבן שחורוג)א( אכע)מ(ות שתין 10 הי הפתח ככרין שלש מאות 11 זהב וכלין כופרין עסרין 12 )48(תחת יד אבשלומ מן הצד 13 המערבי חפוו/ז)ר( רג)א(מות שתין עסרה 14 ככ 3 3 3 3 15 )49(ביצאית )?( המימ ]]של[[שלר)ו(ח ולתחת 16 השקת ככ 17 )50(בגנת צדוק בארבעת

~~367 See Lehmann (1964:102–104) but not in relation to IX 9–10; similarly Luria. 86 text, translation and commentary~~

(48) 12Below Absalom’s monument, from the west 13side, (are) buried (at) twelve cubits: 1480 s(ilver) k(arsh). (49) 15At the spring (?) of Siloam waters and under 16the gutter: 17 s(ilver) k(arsh). (50) 17In the courtyard (of the tomb) of Ṣadoq, at the four

Commentary: (44) ll. IX 17–X 2: The last line of col. IX presents the only difficulty of interpretation but the reading is assured. In bšwbk we find the first word of the same column: “At the dovecote”. We cannot follow Allegro’s reading at the end of the line and correct btḥ/h[ to ptḥ[ “opening”. Scholars are divided as to word division on this line: šbmṣd is the usual reading, following the editor, “which is in the fortress”, but then each scholar proposes a personal solution.368 Milik corrects nʾbtḥ/h[ to bʾmt h[mym] “in the aque[duct]”, which is to make rather a lot of corrections to so few letters. Allegro proposes taking šbmṣdnʾ as šb-mṣd snʾh, “In the gutter (?) that is in the stronghold of Senaah (?)”, but this solution must certainly be ruled out. Luria369 reads nʾpṭḥ[ʾh] as equivalent to nbṭyh—hnbṭym “Nabataeans”!370 However, the yod is ruled out, and only he, ḥet and dalet are possible. The reading nʾbḥ m[n h] “of Nobah, o[n the]” is physically impossible.371 The obvious solution seems to be to divide btḥ[wm “in the dist[rict]”, leaving nʾ to refer to the previous word, either “which belongs to a beautiful fort” (nʾ for nʾh, unlikely to be the possessive “our”), or “which belongs to the small fort/ at Maṣadona (a place-name, lit. “small fort” in Aramaic)” (with Beyer). The restoration of the article h-] or that of the preposition b-] at the end of the column is necessary for the sentence, and the space does not contradict this. So I read btḥ[wm h]drwm, or less plausibly b]drwm. In fact it is not unusual in this scroll for words to overlap from one line onto another, just as an entry can overlap from one column onto another.372

368 But Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:48–49) reads šbmṣrn ʾbt[. . .] “which is in the defile of Oboth”. 369 nʾpṭḥ[ʾh] drwm for hnbṭym bṣd drwm. It is not clear what a Nabataean fortress would be doing at the gates of Jerusalem. 370 The identification is accepted by Pixner, even in the form nʾbty[h; Muchowski (1993) translates “nabatejskiej”, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar “Nabata[”, a possible anthroponym. 371 Lefkovits (2000:317) followed by Schiffman (2002:190), but taw is certain, never con fused with ḥet, and mem is impossible, only he, ḥet or dalet. The reading tḥ[t (p. 319) does not fit with what follows. 372 The translations “south of the second summit”(Pixner) or “to the south of the sec ond floor” (García Martínez) are not justified. And the reading ʾbt “Oboth”, a Moabite top onym from Num 21:10–11 (Wolters 2002:316), seems surprising. text, translation and commentary 87

(45) ll. 3–4: The editor hesitated in his reading of the beginning of l. 3 “bkyrgr or, less attractively, bbwr gb, assuming an accidental omission of the base of the (last) bet” (DJDJ, 295),373 and he struggles to explain “not without hesitation” the first solution “si vera lectio” (p. 243).374 However, it would seem preferable to correct the engraved text as little as possible, especially as the corrected text is far from being lucid, and to read simply bbwr gr, where the two words are already known, the second precisely in IX 15, gr “limestone” which serves in the manufacture of mortar or cement to keep a cistern watertight (plaster cannot be used for this).375 Also acceptable would be the reading of gy for gr, given that a cistern generally needs to be cemented so as to hold water: “In the cistern of the valley of the channels which are fed . . .”, but hmzqwt would then be expected. If one wanted to take account of the difference in engraving, šrwy376 would be preferable to the editor’s šrww with antecedent subject, in this case “which is fed” rather than “which channels feed”,377 but the meaning would be basically the same. Should we see this a torrent in Transjordan378 or a site in the hills of Judah?379 I would prefer a locality in the relatively immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, before coming to Beth ha-Kerem which is the next toponym in the list. In fact cols. VIII–IX situate the sites in the same region and within a fairly restricted perimeter. Might we think of a network of irrigation channels with cisterns in the Kidron collecting the waters of Giḥon and Bir Ayyoub?

(46) ll. 5–7: The engraver seems in more of a hurry and less careful in the copy towards the end of the scroll. In l. 7 kkryn is written krryn without correction, a slip which is found again in l. 6 in lsmwlw/zgmwt for lsmwlw ʾmwt or lsmwl ʾmwt, an assured reading, instead of rgmwt “foot”, an

373 Muchowski (1993) accepts the reading bbwr gb, giving gb the meaning “cysterna”, as he does to bwr (p. 112)! 374 Retained by Pixner and García Martínez. 375 Allegro reads bbwr gy (ʿ)mwqwt “In the cistern of the Ravine of the Deeps”, followed by Thorion but with šrww. Luria understands bbwr šl nḥl htʿlwt, but mzqwt is the reading without corrections, and it is difficult to accept myqwt, not to mention myqwh (Lefkovits 2000). This is far too many corrections for four letters: yod for reš and waw for zayin, and the addition of ʿayin. Further, to translate this as “In the cistern of the deep depression of the canals” (Lefkovits) seems strange, as do such meanings as “spring” or “ruin” for gr (p. 324); the link with the great river is then difficult to understand. 376 Read by Allegro, Luria, Pixner, Muchowski (1993), García Martínez, and Beyer. 377 Followed by Wolters (1996a:50–51): šrww “which draw water”. 378 Milik (1962:241, 266): Wadi Śaʿeb, and Pixner: the Yarmuk. 379 Wadi Farah–el-Qelṭ for Allegro, the Kidron for Y. Aharoni, “Excavations at Ramat Rahel”, Biblical Archaeologist 24 (1961) 114–117, or the Jordan for Lefkovits (2000:328). 88 text, translation and commentary unattested meaning. The copyist was able to detach the right vertical stroke of the calligraphic ʾalef in his original (perhaps even written with a keraion or apex) and convert it to a waw/zayin (cf. waw, l. 7), referring then either still to the ʾalef, of which it would constitute an awkward part with the gimel, or making the other part of the original ʾalef the gimel of gmwt, or again a haplography of a waw. But one cannot appeal to this “waw”, written just as before exactly like a zayin, to read a cursive reš and thus rgmwt.380 Is Allegro’s reading lsmwlw ʾmwt381 to be preferred? In fact, after bbwʾk one would just as well expect the second person as the third in lsmwlw.382 Furthermore, the editor’s bbwʾk is preferable to kbwʾk.383 The reading lsmwl also seems preferable. Beyer’s reading of šwbyt and bkdyn is surprising, not very probable with cursive kaf/dalet. The full spelling in šybyt would not be surprising after šybṣpwn in IX 14, which cannot be the case for šl.384 This time the quantity of the deposit is indeed specified.385

(47) ll. 8–11: This entry contains several difficulties. One of these relates to the end of l. 8 where the reading -rb- in pseudo-ligature would resemble a cursive taw, a reading retained by all scholars in hmʿrby, hmʿt w being the exception.386 Further possible readings are bṣdy/w hmʿy/wnw and especially bṣryḥ mʿynw.387 As the latter does not appeal to any deforma- tion in the track of the letters, it recommends itself.388 The reading of the

380 Milik (1962:295) “cursive reš (followed by Pixner, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar) unless lsmwlw gmwt” which is the reading adopted by Muchowski (1993). Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:50–51; 2002:315) reads bʾšyḥ sybyt (sic) hkrm, then lsmwlw gmwt ʿsr “ten notches to the left of it”. 381 Followed by Beyer, Lefkovits and Bedman. 382 A cistern has no right or left, and here the word cannot designate the north since the document uses other terms for the four points of the compass. The proposal of Wolters (1990:491) lsmwlw gmwt (gummôt) “indentation, notch”, similarly in l. 13 ḥpw[w]r gmwt, piles up the difficulties of the expected meaning in this context (repeated in 1992:244–251). 383 Allegro, and Pixner who reads rgmwt and the suffix lsmwlw (conflated reading); cf. García Martínez: rgmwt but without suffix. 384 Despite Luria and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310). 385 It is clear that this is not a case of a correction by a second engraver adding rryn after a single kaf, as Lefkovits thinks (2000:334), as the stem of the lamed in the following line is precisely deviated on the right so as to avoid the stem of the yod in its extension, which conclusively proves the sequence of engravings. It is always the same engraver at work. 386 Wolters followed by Vermes, but Wolters (2002:315) reads mʿwt, the plural of mʿh and mʿt (l. 8) and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310) mʿtw. 387 Lefkovits’s other proposals (2000:340–341) should be dropped. 388 In 1997 I still retained the reading bṣdw hmʿrby, which is also that of Lefkovits (2000) and Bedman. text, translation and commentary 89 toponym also seems probable: šl gy ʾyk with the editor, rather than ʾwk, certainly not the zyt of Allegro, who believes he can see in it a misrepre- sentation of gt šmny—gt zyt “of the olive press (?)”, nor Luria’s gw zwd, and it can hardly be zwk,389 while zrd390 is impossible, as the author seems to have engraved a cursive type of ʾalef (close to gamma), or less probably zayin and final kaf.391 In that case it is possible that “the valley of ʾyk” could be identifiable with the part of the Kidron downstream from Siloam, where Job’s (ʾy(w)b) well is now located (Bir Ayyoub), the scribe having overzealously engraved a final kaf whereas in his original he read a medial bet/kaf, similar in shape.392 This solution seems reasonable and would have the advantage of situating the toponym between Beth ha- Kerem (Ramat Raḥel) and Absalom’s monument, southeast of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 18:18; Josephus Ant. VII §243). As the waters are abundant, the mention of the “basin” would be understandable. The precise location of the hiding place in this valley is difficult to determine. The editor proposed ʾbn šhzdwgʾ bʿzt “a stone joined by/with two clamps”, explaining that the first “zayin can be read physically as waw or yod” (DJDJ, 295), and that hzdwgʾ is the hithpaʿel of zwg so that “a stone is joined with/by two ʿzt. The latter word, unknown elsewhere, must denote clamps” (p. 247).393 Allegro reads šḥwryt ʾmwt štyn but the derivation of šḥwryt seems forced, a reading improved by Beyer, šḥwrʾ ʾmwt štyn.394 This reading assumes several corrections/confusions by the scribe: he = ḥet quite frequently, confusion of two successive ʾalefs but for wg = ʾ, see already ʾmwt in l. 6, and for k/bʿ = m we would need to assume a simple

389 Pixner, García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 390 Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:50–51; 2002:316, 318) so as to find another Moabite toponym known from Numbers 21:12 gy zrd bṣdw hmʿt “the Zered gorge, in its side: the maʿâ coins”. 391 The reading šl gyʾ zk “of Pure Valley” as a euphemism for Gehenna seems forced (anarthrous) and even more so šl grzyn (Lefkovits 2000:335–336). F.M. Cross (cited in Milik 1962:219) would prefer Milik’s first reading gyḥwn (Gihon); this seems rather unlikely. 392 This proposal is independent of Milik’s, and I was surprised to read the same pro posal in his addenda (DJDJ, 300–301). In order to confirm this proposal it would be neces sary to ascertain the antiquity of this appellation and of its origin. The name of ʿAyn Rogel is not mentioned in Josephus, and Bir Ayyoub is known from Arab legends dating back to the beginnings of Islam. Might they have more ancient roots? Muchowski (1993) reads ʾyk, which he leaves unexplained, and Beyer “. . . des Tales Ayyak”. 393 Followed by Pixner and Muchowski. I do not understand Wolters’s reading (1992:251) bʿwt štyn, and (1996a:50–51): wʾbn šhzdwgʾ mʿwt štyn “and a stone which has attached to itself two maʿâ coins”, similarly García Martínez and Tigchelaar . . . bʿwt štyn “there is a stone held in place by two supports (?)”. 394 Luria proposes ʾbn šḥwrwt ʾmwt štyn—(bmrḥq šl) šty ʾmwt tmṣʾ ʾbnym šḥwrwt, and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310): mʿtw ʾbn šḥwr{r}ʾ hy hpṭḥ ʾmw{w}t štyn. 90 text, translation and commentary reading error of a letter which the engraver has broken down and split into two (as already in IX 8), which is feasible given the engraver’s dimin- ishing care and attention.395 Another solution would consist in keeping what is written, but the result is no more plausible: šhwrygʾ bʿwt štyn, linking hwrygʾ to the Hebrew ʾrygʾ “weaving”, ʾrg “weave”, ʾwrg “weaver”, and assuming the exchange of ʾalef and he, on the one hand, and on the other, linking bʿwt to ʿwy “be curved, hooked” to denote “hooks, clamps”. In this case one would think of a stone of a loom fitted with two clamps. As this solution does not require any letter corrections but a simple swap- ping of weak consonants, might it not seem plausible? Would a weaver’s stone be a large and fixed enough object to serve as a point of reference? Certainly not. And in favour of the solution I adopt, šḥwrʾ,396 we might recall the mention of another black stone as a reference point in XII 2, though admittedly that is correctly written. On l. 10 we might read with Milik hw “this”,397 or rather hy, then referring to the feminine ʾbn “the stone” which indicates the entrance or access to the deposit. Note the defective writing of šlš this time as against eight uses of šlwš, which might explain the defective form (?) ʾy(w)b (l. 8).398 The reading kkryn is assured.399 In view of its place, Beyer thinks that zhb does not refer to the talents on the previous line! Finally, though his reading wklyn kwpryn ʿsryn may be certain, not ʿsrh,400 the meaning has been disputed. But rather than “correcting” the text, the edition understands “20 vessels coated with pitch”,401 which does not make much sense in this passage. Other scholars too have proposed taking kwpryn as kpwryn, “serving”; cf. Ezra 1:10 where there is mention of kpwry zhb, kpwry ksp and

395 The sequence k/b-ʿ = mem is all the more understandable in this engraving, splitting the strokes and separating them into small segments, but this case differs from IX 2 -k/b-š-ʿ. Finally, the reading ʾbʿyt is certainly impossible (pace Lefkovits 2000). 396 The reading šḥwryt is also possible (Allegro); cf. the writing of hšnyt in IX 4, or šḥwrwt (Luria) ʾbn being then taken as a collective “black stones”; on the other hand the reading šḥwryʾ (Lefkovits) is rather unlikely. 397 The word ptḥ is masculine (Luria, Pixner, Muchowski, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits), but hy (Allegro, Beyer, Wolters, Bedman) must refer to ʾbn. 398 Cf. the defective waw spellings in mʾt (I 8), sml (I 13), mqṣʿ (II 13) and ḥpr (III 6; VI 9, 12; VII 9) (correcting DJDJ, 228 5b—no defective writing in -yn), mbʾ (XI 16), ḥrh (VIII 4 etc.). One would need to add bḥ[[w]]lyʾ if one adopts the meaning “sediment, alluvium” in I 7. Wolters mistakenly reads šlwš. 399 The reading bkdyn (Lefkovits 2000:345) is ruled out; no dalet has this shape. 400 Allegro, Luria, and Lefkovits; the extremity of the final nun extends onto the seg ment following beyond the section. 401 Milik (1962:252); similarly Pixner, Beyer. text, translation and commentary 91 klym ʾḥrym or “expiatory/atonement vessels”.402 We would have a simple graphical variant by metathesis. That these cups were used for the Day of Atonement or for other temple uses seems quite likely in these lists.

(48) ll. 12–14: For this entry, a labored decipherment of the original may lie behind the copyist’s errors. In l. 13 the scribe has apparently written ḥpww/n rgmwt where one cannot immediately see a dittography of the waw, as the heads are differentiated for a cursive reš, as if he had switched reš and zayin/final nun, ensuing, with the gimel, from a failure to discern a calligraphic ʾalef (cf. ll. 6 and 9). Be that as it may, the reading is certain: ḥpwr ʾmwt + number, as in the majority of entries (with Allegro). ḥpwr rgmwt or the edition’s ḥpw{w}r gmwt cannot be retained.403 For the Yad Absalom, see entries (47) and (49).404

(49) ll. 15–16: There is unanimity only on the reading of two words in this entry: h/ḥmym and tḥt. The new photographs apparently help resolve the first difficulty. Instead of the edition’s by byt ḥmym “In the bathing pool”, accepted by all scholars, correcting to hmym “waters”,405 we must at least read byṣʾyt hmym (with a quite high and reduced ʾalef, separated and damaged in the cutting), which would be the incorrect writing (metathesis) of yṣyʾt hmym in VII 14. But the reading byṣʾyt may (?) have been corrected by the addition of a small supralinear mem, to bwṣʾwt hmym, lit. “at the outlets of the waters”, from mwṣʾ(h) “outlet, source”. In fact, this term is already used, in the masculine singular, to designate the source of the waters of Giḥon at Siloam, precisely in relation to the works of Hezekiah in Jerusalem in 2 Chr 32:30: ʾt mwṣʾ mymy gyḥwn hʿlywn, or Ps 107:35 lmṣʾy mym, or in the Siloam inscription from the end of the 8th century: wylkw hmym mn hmwṣʾ ʾl hbrkh “and the waters flowed from the

402 Allegro, Wolters (1987; 1996a:50–51), Muchowski (1993) “wykupu”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar. Given that kpr is not attested in this sense other than in the piʿel form, one would expect a puʿal participle, which is not feasible in this context. For the meaning “indemnity” one would expect the form wkly kwpryn. 403 Accepted by Pixner, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar; Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:50) “notches”, Vermes, and Muchowski (1993) read ḥpwnr (final nun/reš) gmwt. 404 Milik (1962:274 [68]). In the writing of yd, we have the second example of yod writ ten like a zayin; this cannot be “often” as Lefkovits writes (2000:348), and the dalet like a reš. 405 The reading byt hmym “latrines” would have seemed dubious for a deposit of this kind. This is probably why Milik preferred byt ḥmym “hot baths”; cf. again Lefkovits (2000:352) and Schiffman (2002:182, 189). 92 text, translation and commentary source to the pool” (ll. 4–5), but the scroll would then have the feminine plural form, mwṣʾh (cf 2 Kgs 10:27), “origin, source”. Be that as it may, I retain the singular byṣʾyt in preference to the plural bmwṣʾwt.406 Note once again the undifferentiated line of the ḥet/he. Then the reading of the sequence šlwḥy/wltḥt is assured with the first cursive waw, not zayin for zḥyl (Allegro) and preferable to reš for rḥyl,407 especially as this spelling of Rachel, rḥl, is not yet attested, as far as I am aware. But the reading of the beginning of the line does not then allow us to read the edition’s adjective šlwḥy, unless there are spelling mistakes for hšlwḥyn. So it is preferable to split the words differently and to read a coordination, wltḥt “and under”,408 as the preposition tḥt occasionally links up in a compound, as in mtḥt (XI 2), lmtḥt (1 Kgs 7:32 etc.), ʾl tḥt. Moreover, as the word hmym is in the plural absolute state with the article, it is necessary to substitute letters that have disappeared by haplography for a correct construction of the sentence, here the relative particle (or genitival particle, frequent in the language of the scroll) šl before šlwḥ, which is easily explained by haplography. So there is high probability for the reading byṣʾyt (/wṣʾwt) hmym [[šl]] šlwḥ wltḥt . . .: lit. “At the spring (of) Siloam waters and under . . .” The reading šl yhw “of Jehu” is far from convincing, even if physically possible.409 As the complement to ltḥt the editor proposed hšqt (with an uncertain taw), adding in a note: “between qoph and taw, and perhaps between šin and qoph, uncertain traces of vertical strokes which would represent a yod or a waw” (DJDJ, 295). This reading has been adopted by scholars without further comment.410 Since publication, it has, however, been possible to read the lower right-hand corner of the column thanks to the photograph of the scrolls before their segmentation (DJDJ, pl. XLIII 3),411 which presents the verso of this part of the text, a reproduction which has escaped the attention of all scholars. The taw is certainly preferable to mem, and part of the left-hand

406 The surface is very spoilt at this point, the ʾalef is seriously damaged and the mem in particular would not be engraved but incised (eroded surfaces and creases). 407 Luria, Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:50–51; 2002:318) bym byt hmym šl rḥyl tḥt “In the pool of Rachel’s Privy, under”, Beyer, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310). 408 The reading wtḥt hẓqt indicated in my 1997 (p. 178) is a typographic error. 409 Muchowski (1993) and Lefkovits (2000), but the comment concerning bym, as a cryptic form of by(rwšly)m (p. 356) is unacceptable. 410 See however Lefkovits (2000:355–357). 411 And already Reed (1954:10). text, translation and commentary 93 downstroke is still preserved. The uncertain traces visible on the reproductions for the reading hšwqyt rather than hšwqym “the roads”, which lie behind the derivation from šwqt “trough, watering-trough, gutter, overflow” (Gen 24:20; 30:38; cf. the Aramaic šqw/ytʾ), are not confirmed by the X-ray photographs and the cast—they are due to folds in the sheet. So the reading hšqt should be maintained. But this meaning fits perfectly well with the passage in reference to the spring, on the one hand, and, on the other, it accords well with the logic of the other entries which also have connections with water. The term denotes a stone hollowed out in the shape of a trough or gutter.

~~Col. XI (Figure 11)~~

1 מקצועות זהב כלי דמע בתכן אצלמ 2 )51(מתחת פןת האסטאנ הדו)ר(ומית 3 בקבר צדוק תחת עמוד האכסדרנ 4 כלר)י( דמע סוח דמע סנה בתכן אצלמ 5 )52(בהכסח ראש הסלע הצופא מערב 6 נגד גנת צדוק תחת המסמא ה 7 גדולא שבשולו הו חרמ }ב)ק({ 8 (53(בקבר שתחת הסבין ככ 3 3 9 )54(בקבר בני העמ ]]ש[[טח/טה)ור()?( ירחו 10 בו כלי דמע א]]ר[[ז/אר)?( דמע סוח 11 בתכן אצלן 12 )55(בבית א/האשר)ו(חין באשוח 13 בבואתך לימומית 14 שלו כלי דמע)?( ]]א)?([[לאה דמע סירא 15 בתכן אץּלן 16 )56(במבא רוב]ד [בית המשכב המערבי 17 טיף על מ]ערה [כס]ף)?( ככרין)?( [תשע מאות

(53) 8In the tomb which is underneath the colonnades: 40 s(ilver) k(arsh). (54) 9In the tomb of the (common) people spread out to/of purity of Jericho, 10in it (there are) tithe vessels of cedar (?), tithe of pine (?), 11with the tally beside them. (55) 12In the building of the two reservoirs, in the reservoir 13when you enter the smallest 14one: tithe vessels of [a]loes (?), tithe of bush, 15with the tally beside them. (56) 16In the western entrance of the terra[ce] of the triclinium/of the tomb, 17(there is) a platform above a ca[vity], sil[ver]: nine hundred [talents],

Commentary: (50) ll. X 17–XI 1: Plate XLIII 3 in the editio princeps412 confirms the beginning of this entry in X 17, to be read with certainty: bgnt ṣdwq bʾrbʿt, and allows us to find there a typical expression concerning tombs, attested in XI (cf. XI 3) and interpreted perfectly in the edition (DJDJ, 246).413 This tomb of Ṣadoq cannot be that of Rabbi Ṣadoq the priest who lived at time of the destruction of the temple.414 This reading invalidates the editor’s restoration [bbrkt]h as referring to the pool of Siloam, “In] its [pool . . .” (pp. 301–302).415 In XI 1, the editor reads mqṣwʾwt zhb kly . . . dotting the zayin as uncertain; the first waw seems to have been inserted as a correction, and the second could be a cursive reš corrected to a waw. But the reading of X 17 certainly eliminates the second proposal: mqṣwʿwtyhm.416 Allegro proposed the reading mqṣwʿwtyh bkly, pointing out in his commentary that the bet is an error, probably a false start for a kaf, a proposal followed by

412 See already Reed (1954:10) and Kuhn (1954:199): . . .t ṣdw. Wolters (1996a:50) stays with [b ]h. 413 We might add another use of the word in Eastern Aramaic on a plaque found in a tomb at Mulayḥa (see É. Puech, “Inscriptions araméennes du Golfe : Failaka, Qalaʿat al-Baḥreïn et Mulayḥa (EAU)”, Transeuphratène 16 (1998) 31–55 [37ff.]. 414 For this entry, Pixner (1983:355–356) discusses the reading ṣdwq “Ṣadoq” and ṣdyq “the Just” in reference to the possible tomb of “James the Just”. 415 Followed by García Martínez, Beyer: [wbbrkt]h, but Lefkovits (2000) changed this to [bḥṣr hpnymy]t, but I opted for another solution (1997). However, the reading taw is ruled out. Muchowski (1993) then reads bʾrbʾh with he clearly engraved rather than taw. 416 Envisaged in a note and in the addenda (DJDJ, 297, 302): “though physically a bet” and adopted by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. The word gnt (ṣdwq) is a feminine singular (cf. the suffix of pyh in XII 11). The masculine plural suffix -yhm in XII 12 is collective and applies to all the entries. Finally, I know of no case where mem follows the same line as bet. text, translation and commentary 95

Beyer, who reads {k}kly, and by Lefkovits. This solution is not completely convincing, because this time the bet cannot easily be confused with kaf, as Milik notes, while in his account Allegro has mistakenly linked the yod to the taw in support of his reading. It is the reverse that is engraved, and several times previously zayin has been written like waw and vice versa. Furthermore, in II 13 the word does not have the suffix, which is by no means necessary for the sense. Finally, the copula or the preposition is not always present in these sequences—cf. e.g. VII 16. For the final with cursive ʾalef, see on V 5–7 above,417 but if, in V 5–7, tkn could denote “the content” as well as “the quantity”, in the three other examples from col. XI the content is already known, while the quantity remains to be specified. Consequently, I certainly prefer to read zhb rather than -yh b—even if gnt is feminine, the bet would still be superfluous. The reading btkn ʾṣlm is certain.418

(51) ll. 2–4: Note the interchanges between ḥet and he, final nun in pnt and medial nun in hʾsṭʾn and hʾksdrn, the cursive reš in hʾdrwmyt, the yod in the shape of reš in kly, the cursive bet in btkn and the cursive ʾalef in ʾṣlm as in l. 1 for the assured readings. In this entry, it is not evident that, in the context of a hiding place in the exedra419 of a tomb, ʿmwd would have its usual meaning of “column”. It would seem difficult to hide some deposit under a column without disturbing the building, unless it is built in from the start, but that could not be done secretly, and it would be necessary to demolish it to recover the deposit, unless we should understand “at the foot of the column”, but what would be the meaning of tḥt? Would it be better to give it the meaning “podium, platform”, which it might have sometimes in the Bible: 2 Kgs 11:14//2 Chr 23:13; 2 Kgs 23:3?420 The translation “pillar” seems more appropriate. It is better to follow the edition for the meaning to give to hʾsṭʾn, from the Greek στοά,421 than to derive it

417 Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53; 2002:315) reads whb “of Waheb”, a third obscure Moabite toponym from Numbers 21:14, rather than zhb. Muchowski (1993) continues this entry as far as the end of l. 2, probably more influenced by the beginning bqbr in l. 3 than by the final btkn ʾṣlm in l. 1. 418 Not ktbn as for Muchowski, Wolters, McCarter (1994), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. But the expression is not linked to the following entry, as Lange writes (2002:134), to indicate a given distance and thus avoid any reference to kly dmʿ. 419 Beyer (1994:231) understands “unterhalb der Säule der kleinen Vorhalle (τὸ ἐξέδριον)” (italics mine). 420 Allegro understands “platform” and García Martínez “column”. 421 Milik (1962:230, 273) identifies it with Solomon’s Portico (ἡ στοὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος) in the New Testament. Contrary to what García Martínez writes (2003:124, 127), Milik owes 96 text, translation and commentary from the Persian “place of sepulchre” or from the Greek ὀστῶν “ossuary, mortuary bench”. In fact, there would be confusion and contradiction in the indication of the deposit between this south corner of the ossuary and the “pillar” of the vestibule in the tomb of Ṣadok.422 In these entries, the author starts with a topographical indication before proceeding to give the precise location of the hiding place at this site and not the reverse. In l. 4, the reading kly dmʿ swḥ rather than syḥ and dmʿ snh may refer to vessels for spice offerings—aromatic tree resins as the editor notes, particularly as the śwḥʾ is counted as one of the twelve or fourteen types of altar wood in the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Old Cairo Genizah, Bodleian c 17 and the parallel lists. This reference would make this reading preferable to syḥ, the Artemisia Judaica, the Syriac sîḥa (DJDJ, 251). By way of comparison, the balm is also an odiferous essence or resin of a shrub, the balm or balsam tree, which flourishes in this region.423 In connection with this it is interesting to note that, during a recent exploration of the Qumran cliffs, discovered in a cave just 200 m or so to the north of Cave 3, where the Copper Scroll was found—Cave 13 in this exploration, which is perhaps to be identified with Cave 2 of the 1952 exploration—, hidden in a crevice about one metre below the surface, was a small Herodian-type juglet, wrapped up and protected in the fibres of the palm. This juglet, the belly of which was pierced by a hole 0.5 cm in diameter, contained a viscous liquid, very oxidized and solidified but liquefying at a tempera- ture above 50°, which the excavator proposes, very plausibly, should be identified with the balm of antiquity, balsam tree resin.424 The fact that people hid this kind of vessel for odiferous resin or perfume in this period of antiquity even in this same cave is perhaps not without significance for the subject of these entries. Would this be a unique juglet in this crevice nothing to Allegro since his decipherment and translation (RB 1959) largely predate the appearance of this work. Milik’s study should be regarded chronologically as the first study of the scroll, not the second. 422 Lefkovits’s interpretation (2000:363ff.). García Martínez (2003:132–140) explains the addition of a final nun to a word ending in a vowel in ʾsṭʾn and ʾksdrn as a dialectal phenomenon. 423 There were such trees in Jericho and ‘En Gaddi; cf. e.g. Plutarch, Anthony XXXVI 3, as in 34 BC Anthony gives Cleopatra the balsam tree plantations of Judaea. See also Josephus Ant. XV §96 for the region of Jericho, the annual revenue of which is estimated at 200 talents, and §132; War I §352; IV §469; and for ‘En Gaddi, see Ant. IX §7. 424 See J. Patrich & B. Arubas, “A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil (?) from a Cave near Qumran”, Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989) 43–55, with an appendix by Aizenshtat & D. Aschengrau, “Analyses of Oil Contained in a Herodian Juglet from Qumran”, pp. 55–59. We might note again that the ξυλοβάλσαμον is mentioned in a fragmentary Greek papyrus found at Masada (inv. 1039–122/1) and dated to AD 70–73 (unedited, H. Cotton). text, translation and commentary 97 or were there others in the cave that have not been entirely excavated? Or were plenty of other juglets found soon after they were deposited, or broken? Whatever may have happened, this discovery allows an important conclusion, proving at least the existence of such a practice in the region in the 1st century AD. No doubt the juglets of resin may have contained more than just very costly balm, but further essences of other prickly sweet-smelling plants, in varying forms of liquidity or solidification. It seems that this type of very expensive resin, perfume and incense could also form part of the levied offering for the temple since a certain Phineas delivered some over to Titus.425 This would explain their presence in the hiding places not far from the temple on the same basis as other items of value. Be that as it may, the new photographs contradict the allegations of McCarter, who, rejecting the editor’s reading, believes he has uncovered the key to the passage. The reading spyḥ is out of the question: there is no trace of a pe engraved at this point and śyḥ in Gen 2:5 does not add anything further to the comprehension of the passage, except that it is again about spikey shrubs.426 But then how are we to understand kly dmʿ swḥ427 and snh, “offering vessels of essence and resin”? The interpretation of kly dmʿ swt dmʿ snh by “dedicated garments, dedicated pots’ vessels” does not carry conviction.428 In the absence of anything better, our only course is to accept the editor’s reading.429

425 Flavius Josephus, War VI §390: “The treasurer of the temple also, whose name was Phineas, was seized on, and showed Titus the coats and girdles of the high priests, with a great quantity of purple and scarlet, which were there reposited for the repairing of the temple veil, as also a great deal of cinnamon and cassia, with a large quantity of other sweet spices, which used to be mixed together, and offered as incense to God every day.” 426 See McCarter (1994:135). Greenfield (1969:139) casts doubt on this meaning of dmʿ and the words explained in DJDJ, 250–251, but does not offer any alternative solution. 427 The root sḥh/sḥy cannot give a participle swḥ any more than the root nsḥ (cf. the Arabic suwaḫ “fall [into a bog]”). Wolters (1996a:53) is content to understand “of suaḥ’s tribute, seneh’s tribute”. 428 Lefkovits (2000:362ff.). For one thing this would be the first example of ḥet/he being read as a taw (cf. a clear example in XI 15), noting the waw/yod with a head to the right to give the reading swt, and for another, on the assumption that wlbwšyn means “and covers” in III 9, this is not a parallel construction as kly dmʿ swt dmʿ snh is not identical to kly dmʿ wlbwšyn. Bedman (2000:166, 193–197) proposes that we understand kly dmʿ sy(ʿ)h dmʿ snh “utensilios del tributo de los seguidores y del tributo de los adversarios”, with a weakening of the ʿayin, but it is rather improbable for the meaning obtained. Wilmot’s proposal (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310) to restore kly dmʿ <ʿ>srh {dmʿ<ʿ>srh} wtbn ʾṣlm is too far removed from the engraving to be acceptable. 429 Followed by Beyer and García Martínez. Muchowski (1993) takes dmʿ in the sense of “tithe”, but does not explain the following words, swḥ and snh. The translation “dedicated 98 text, translation and commentary

The final wording this time has the bet in cursive script, not the single copula for wtkn as the edition reads, and all subsequent scholars. Thus, the reading btkn matches the other examples in XI 1, 11, 15. The waw probably would have the same meaning in this formula but it is used only once, and this is again in the complete wording in V 7 wbtkn.430

(52) ll. 5–7: The insertion of the reš above the line compels the reading rʾš, ruling out hksdrʾ “exedra”, as for this we would have ḥet for dalet and he for ʾalef (cf. l. 3), and also ruling out š(l) in Allegro’s proposal rather than š. The editor attempts to explain the reading bhbsh with the talmudic synonym tbwsh (DJDJ, 247) designating a “property” of a corpse. This could indicate the place spattered with the blood of those who found their deaths in this place, after having been thrown from the pinnacle onto the rocks below, a place becoming a kind of burial “plot”.431 But as no explanation is available for bhksh,432 would not it be advisable to read bhksḥ “slope, cliff, thrust”, with the substantivised infinitive nifʿal construct, which is palaeographically the most correct reading?433 This meaning seems appropriate in the context. As the editor has well explained, gnt qbr does not mean “the garden of a tomb” but “the courtyard”, the area prepared for funeral rites (meals etc.), already attested in X 17.434 The term msmʾ would denote the large flat stone used to cover a shaft, the opening of a cistern etc., which I will translate as “slab”.435 Instead of the edition’s šbšylwḥw,436 which does not

pot vessels” (Lefkovits 2000) or “votive vessels” (Wilmot & Wise 2002:306–308) does not render the sequence. 430 Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52) corrects to wtbn, as does Muchowski (1993). Allegro and Luria also read (w)btkn but Pixner btkn. Lefkovits translates wtkn ʾṣlm “and their lists are next to them” (but where is the feminine suffix?), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar translate “And very near there . . .”, linking the phrase to the following text, as in the edition. 431 Thus, Pixner, García Martínez, and Bedman. 432 Wolters’s reading (1992:251; 1996a:52–53): bhksh, García Martínez and Tigchelaar: “In the throne”; but why would the article be written? Luria reads bḥbsh = šbr “slit”, and Muchowski (1993) bhbst “Na wydeptanym miejscu”. The reading btbst (Lefkovits) does not seem possible as confusion between he and taw is not yet attested, only ḥet and taw in XI 15; in this case it occurs twice at once, a little too much to be acceptable. The substantivised infinitive nifʿal hksḥ would be in a construction with rʾš as a nomen rectum. 433 Also Beyer’s reading. 434 Pace Allegro, Pixner, García Martínez, Beyer. 435 But the reading hmsbʾ is impossible; I know of no other example of mem for bet, with the possible exception of II 5, despite Lefkovits (2000:373); cf. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, I, 211–17. 436 Followed by Pixner, Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53) “which is in its gutter”, Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. text, translation and commentary 99 explain in this case the words šylwḥ and šlwḥ in X 15, it would be possible to read the noun šwlym with the masculine singular suffix šwlw as in IX 1 (second use), but contrary to Allegro’s šwlyhy, as the feminine hy cannot refer to msmʾ and slʿ is masculine, with no feminine noun in bhksḥ rʾḥ. There remains the independent masculine personal pronoun hw, comparable to the feminine hy in X 10.437 The last word ḥrm, with the meaning “consecrated”, not “anathema” (DJDJ), picks up the expression from IX 16. At the end of the line, the engraver had begun inadvertently to write bet and a part of the qof from the beginning of the following entry.438

(53) l. 8: One word only creates difficulty, hsb/kyn, because of a letter which can be read as a bet just as easily as kaf, although kaf would seem preferable, but certainly not pe, unless there is a correction,439 or nun.440 The form hskyn denotes a “knife”, a sharp object, a “strip, projection” or, in incorrect spelling, hs(w)kyn “the bushes”. This is the reading retained by Beyer to denote “a jagged projection (of the rock face)”.441 The editor has chosen hsbyn (with doubtful bet), referring to the “galleries” of the double portico of the temple, τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ of Matt 4:5 and Luke 4:9, and in this case štḥt means “what is below”, not “under”. Either reading would give a satisfactory meaning in the context; the writing does not clearly support one more than the other.442 If the tomb in question was that of the prophetess Hulda (DJDJ, 271) we would then need to read ṣdyq “the Just” and not ṣdwq “Ṣadoq” in X 17 and XI 3, 6, since these passages mention at least two tombs, which would obviously contradict the assertion of the Pharisaic rabbis that there was just one tomb in this place.

~~(54) ll. 9–11: The difficulties lie in particular in ll. 9–10 and the word divi- sions. The engraver certainly wrote bnyhʿmṭh/ḥyrḥw/y, which the edition~~

437 This is also the reading of Luria, Beyer and Lefkovits. 438 But it is completely ruled out to read a kaf for karš and the numeral 10, 1 or 11, as Lefkovits wants to do in support of corrections of kk to kkr(yn) by another hand in eight other places. 439 Allegro reads hspyn “the paving stones”, but Luria keeps the word without interpret ing it; Lefkovits (2000:381–382) reads “thresholds”, followed by Bedman (2000:167, 222–223). One wonders what thresholds are meant, and why the plural in this case; cf. II 12; XII 2. 440 Muchowski (1993) reads hsnyn “tarniny”. 441 The reading of Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53), understanding “the Knife”, and of García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 442 A reading that supposes a mistake or haplography has not yet given a satisfactory result. Schiffman (2002:184) offers the hypothesis that hsbyn might be equivalent to hspyn, but I cannot see the precise meaning for the sentence. 100 text, translation and commentary has corrected slightly to bny hʿbṭ hyrḥy while nevertheless pointing out the doubt in relation to the bet which is indisputably a mem.443 Allegro proposed a quite different interpretation, reading bny hʿm ṭhwr ḥwbw or ḥy bw . . . “of the common people who (died) absolved from their purity regulations” or “pure in life, in it . . .”, followed in part by Pixner hʿm ṭhwrh/ ṭhwrtw “the sons of the People of Purity”, which would designate the Essenes; and Wolters reads hwrty, “my pure things”.444 But these readings are not very convincing, given all the space left for bw at the end of l. 9 if the word related to the same syntactical structure, and the presence of the article with the nomen regens and not the nomen rectum. This is probably the origin of the counter-proposals of García Martínez “the sons of Ha‌ʾamat of Jericho (?)” and Beyer bnyh ʿbṭ ḥwr hw bw . . . “. . . des Banaja befindet sich ein weisser Behälter, in dem . . .” which are not without their difficulties. First in favour of the gentilicium “of Jericho” one would expect hyrḥwny or an expression like ʾyš yrḥw as noted by the editor,445 and in the other case a construction with šbw . . . would be needed, not to mention the correction of the mem to bet! In the absence of a compelling solution, it will be appropriate not to correct the text unduly and to keep the reading. But these solutions are hardly satisfactory and they demand a closer examination of the engraving of the line. The physical reading bqbr bny hʿm ṭḥ yrḥw seems right, followed by bw kly dmʿ. . . In preference to the relative and the verb ṭḥ in [[š]]ṭḥ, one could understand the verb [[š]]ṭḥ, synonymous in meaning, signifying “stretch, spread out, strew, scatter”,

443 In DJDJ, 259, 271, Milik makes hʿbṭ the name of a profession and the gentilicum a reference to Yeraḥ to the south of Lake Galilee. Lefkovits, followed by Schiffman, adopts the same reading, considering hʿbṭ to be equivalent to hʿbd, “Obed”! 444 Wolters (1992:251; 1994:292–293; 1996a:52–53; 2002:319) hʿm thwrty “of the common people, my pure things”, but this is an erroneous reading: absence of taw, etc. There is of course no first-person suffix in this document to make this an autograph; but Muchowski (1993:48) attributes to it the reading ṭhwrtw “the common people of his cleansing”! 445 Muchowski (1993) reads hʿmṭ hyrḥy, which he takes as Jerichonians “jerychónskiego”. But Mishor and Luria read hʿm ṭhwr hw. García Martínez and Tigchelaar accept bny hʿm ṭhwrtw “of the common people—it is pure”, but ḥet/taw. Bedman (2000:166, 197–200), in turn, proposes a haplography while reading an unengraved šin: bny hʿm šṭh(wr) yrḥw “de los hijos del pueblo de la pureza de Jericó”. One would have at least to indicate the absence of the relative (not written), even if the haplography of wr in front of yr, by a visual skip as much as by phonetic argument, does not create too much difficulty in this copy, and the syntactic construction with the relative is not a simple matter. Finally, with the reading ṭhwr or ṭhwrtw, the nomen regens is determined with the article, which is not customary. The reading hʿm ṭh(wr) yrḥw “. . . of the people of purity of Jericho”, if it were possible, might then denote the Essene group in this location as much as priests. text, translation and commentary 101 assuming a haplography of šin after the final line of the preceding mem, the oblique strokes of which look rather like the right-hand part of the letter. The tomb of the bny hʿm would then be the common tomb, not the tomb of rich families but of those families which could not have two tombs in two different places, resident both in Jerusalem and Jericho, either on holiday or for an even longer period, coming to the Holy City only for periods of work or service, etc. It is known, moreover, that wealthy people from Jerusalem, not only the royal family of Herod but also, among others, many classes of priests, owned dual residences, in particular winter residences in Jericho. Some of them lived there long-term and owned tombs dug into the mountain to the west of Herodian Jericho north of Wadi Qelṭ. But it cannot be proved that this was the case for all or that these families owned two tombs in case a death occurred during a stay or a term of service in either place.446 The Copper Scroll would then, unsurprisingly, be the opposite custom of the inscriptions of the Jericho necropolis, namely the existence of a common tomb reserved for Jews resident or vacation- ing in Jericho but who happened to die during their time of attendance or service in Jerusalem. (The reading bny hʿm ṭh(wr) yrḥw would restrict the use of the tomb to a population of “the pure”, Essenes or just priests. In the latter case one might think of the tomb of the Benê Ḥezîr, priests, in the Joshaphat-Kidron valley.) Be that as it may, it is not without interest to note the link with Jericho already observed in V 13. In l. 10, the editor restored dmʿ ʾz dmʿ swḥ to find a clear parallel with the wording of l. 4, a correction which has all the more to commend it as the scribe managed to confuse and omit by haplography a cursive reš in this sequence of zayin and dalet.447 But it is difficult to appeal to a repeated mistake in the writing of the word swḥ, ll. 4 and 10. Allegro’s interpretation kly dmʿ ʾw dmʿ syḥ448 to find “vessels for tithe or tithe refuse” is not convincing, at least in relation to the second element, which may

446 For the Jericho necropolis see R. Hachlili, “The Goliath Family in Jericho”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (= BASOR) 230 (1978), 45=56. Note the mention of the Jerusalem origin on some ossuaries: plṭyʾ mn yrwšlm, yšmʿʾl br šmʿwn br plṭʾ mn yršlm . . .; R. Hachlili, “The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a First Century A.D. Jewish Monumental Tomb”, BASOR 235 (1979), 31–66; R. Hachlili & P. Smith, “The Genealogy of the Goliath Family”, BASOR 235 (1979), 67–70; R. Hachlili & A. Killebrew, “Jewish Funerary Customs During the Second Temple Period, in the Light of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115 (1983), 109–132. 447 It is known that in these last columns the engraver often confuses reš, waw and zayin. This explanation seems preferable to that of a weakening of the “guttural” reš. 448 Followed by Luria and by McCarter (1994:135). 102 text, translation and commentary relate to pine resin as in l. 4.449 If we correct ʾz to read ʾw,450 the two expressions are no longer parallel: kly dmʿ ʾw dmʿ swḥ, “offering vessels or pine resin vessels”, is clumsy and seems surprising considering lines 4 and 14 which do not indicate the presence of any copula. The vessels of resin or types of incense could be products of the levied offering, but then could dmʿ have two different meanings one after the other: offering and resin? The resins, perfumes and incense, dripping from the incision in the bark of the shrub, would explain the name given to these saps, δάκρυα/lacrima (tear), whence dmʿ in Hebrew and Aramaic. Is it necessary to choose one of the two meanings, especially as the following expression (l. 11) specifies their content: quantity (of resin) and value (of the offering)? Probably not, since the explanatory words swḥ, snh, syrʾ and probably also (?)lʾh (without correction) remain inexplicable, while they can be understood if they refer to a resin from a thornbush in the region. The cedar is of course known in Lebanon, but it is also mentioned among the first odoriferous woods for the altar in the Aramaic Testament of Levi, Bodleian c 24: ʾrzʾ before swḥʾ. Would this reading then be inconceivable? If we do not retain the correction to ʾ[[r]]z, we might still be able to propose the reading ʾr (cursive reš in the form of a zayin, as is quite often found elsewhere). The noun ʾr is parallel to ʾrz in an Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine, dated to 412 BC, and is sometimes understood as “cypress” or “cedar”, giving ʾrz the meaning “pine” or “fir”.451 For l. 11, see above.452

449 García Martínez proposes to take dmʿ ʾz as “vessels of myrtle (?)” and dmʿ swḥ as vessels of tithe of pine (?)”, similarly Beyer, and probably again Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53) dmʿ ʾz “of Azʾ tribute”. Muchowski (1993) reads ʾ[[r]]z (p. 33) but ʿz (p. 39)! Nothing seems to preclude the meaning of dmʿ as an offering of pine or other resin, contra Lange (2002:135). 450 Allegro, Luria, and Lefkovits. The latter reads kly dmʿ ʾw dmʿ swt “dedicated vessels and dedicated garments”, correcting ḥet to taw, obtaining two coordinated expressions that are not parallel. This can surely be ruled out. The proposal of Wilmot (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310) to read kly dmʿ ʾ{r}rb<ʿ> ʿsrh is too audacious to be acceptable, especially as one does not expect further numbers (in letters) with the expression btkn ʾṣlm. 451 See A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century, Oxford 1923, 83ff.; C. Jean & J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’Ouest, Leiden 1965, 23; P. Grelot, Documents araméens d’Égypte, Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 5, Paris 1972, 288–289 and n. s; B. Couroyer, “Sapin vrai et sapin nouveau”, Orientalia 42 (1973) 339–356 [339–340]. 452 Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53), Muchowski (1993), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar read ktbn, and translate “their document”, and Lefkovits btkn “with their lists”, but to what does the feminine suffix refer? text, translation and commentary 103

(55) ll. 12–15: The editor corrects a number of letters in this entry, so as to find a toponym known from elsewhere, but there is no fine line at the bottom of the left-hand downstroke of the ḥet. The reading {ʾ}ʾšdtyn453 should therefore certainly not be retained. The word ʾšwḥ should be read twice, but the first time as a dual or plural and preceded by the article in the shape of a cursive ʾalef or better still with an incomplete he: ʾ/ hʾšwḥyn.454 This writing with the cursive waw in the shape of a reš (this cannot be a dalet) supports my comment in relation to the reading of ʾšwḥ rather than ʾšyḥ in V 6.455 The dual/plural and the mention of a smaller or larger adjoining basin456 recalls the installation at Bethesda where the smaller of the two reservoirs is the one to the north but where there are also other smaller basins which it would be easier to “enter”.457 The word šlw can refer to ʾšwḥ or to byt. The reading lym [[ʾ]]mwt šlw[[š]] assumes many corrections, while ym seems superfluous.458 If the reading lym ymwt “the most important basin” is completely acceptable, one wonders why the author would have used this expression instead of the simpler and more frequent hgdwl qualifying bʾšwḥ in the previous line. One would have expected rather to read bbwʾtk lymy[[n ʾ]]mwt šlw[[š]] “when you enter, to the ri[[ght at]] thre[[e cu]]bits” to find phrasing used before (cf. X 5–6), but one might wonder why šlw[[š]] is not engraved in turn in the previous line. The location of this site at Bethesda is not completely certain, although the mention of byt beforehand might be appreciably in its favour.459

453 Adopted by Pixner, Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52), Muchowski (1993), and García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 454 Independently with Luria, Beyer and Lefkovits, but Allegro does not read the article, thinking of an incomplete letter, perhaps a samek. 455 Milik, Pixner, Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52), Muchowski, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar read ʾšyḥ. 456 Allegro reads lw mymwt, similarly Luria and Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:52–53) bbyt {ʾ}ʾšdtyn bʾšyḥ bbyʾtk lw mymwt šlw “In Beth Eshdatayn, in the reservoir on your way in toward it from its tanks”! 457 For the formation of ymwmyt, see M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford 1927, 111, 121, as mentioned by the editor, although Greenfield (1969:139) would have had doubts about this lexeme. 458 Lefkovits (2000:397–398) recalls that the engraver has corrected another forgot ten letter in the following line. The expression lym ymwt would then designate the most important basin (plural of ymh), while lymwmyt would designate the smallest. The reading bbwʾtk lw mw(r)mwt šlw (waw for reš) does not seem satisfactory. 459 See (Milik 1962: 271–272) for the references. 104 text, translation and commentary

Line 14 presents some difficulties in the copy. The scribe has made a correction of his own with the insertion of an ʿayin below the line to read dm<ʿ> sw/yrʾ. It would probably be appropriate to do the same for the first example of dm<ʿ>, following the editor, since another oblique stroke is traced below the yod of kly, an incomplete correction (?) of the forgotten ʿayin (which cannot be the excessively high start of a ṣade). Should we accept McCarter’s proposal and restore dm[[ʿ m]]lʾh, supposing a jump from mem to mem to obtain the biblical word mlʾh on the subject of the terûmah (Ex 22:28) “tithe of the threshing floor”, Deut 22:9, or of the vine, Num 18:27? We cannot be certain, of course, but it seems that the eye of the copyist (reader/engraver) has skipped from the first line of the ʿayin to the foot of the lamed where the oblique stroke extends considerably beyond the horizontal stroke, thus from mʿ to ml by haplography. This observation could be important for the understanding of the line and the presence of mlʾh in the original. Allegro and Luria read lʾḥ,460 thinking of a “liquid tithe”, from lʾḥ = lḥ “wet, humid”. Others read simply lʾh.461 Finally, if there were a shift from the start of an ʿayin or ʾalef to lamed, the reading dm(ʿ ʾ)lʾh would be probably or at least completely possible to read “aloes”; cf. the Syriac ʾlʾʾ/ʾlwʾ, the Aramaic ʾlyʾ, ʾlwh.462 Not much more can be said about this in the present state of research, but as I have indicated, the biblical meaning of mlʾh remains very imprecise: grain or wine, and in this case there would not be parallelism of content but two values of dmʿ in the same sentence.463 As for the last word, syrʾ or swrʾ, the only options are the Hebrew syrh, the Aramaic syrtʾ “thorny plant” or swrʾ, the name of a bitter plant, which remains uncertain. But the difficulty is not relieved with the interpretation of the “degenerate or rejected tithe, put

460 See DJDJ, 297: (reading notes) accepted by Pixner and Lefkovits, Muchowski (1993:33) transcribes lʾḥ (p. 39) and understands dmʿ as of the “tithe”. Would the spelling lʾḥ for lḥ not be unexpected? García Martínez (2003:134) reads “without any doubt” lʾḥ, following Allegro, for a “liquid tithe”, but this seems to me to be excessive, as many hes are engraved like this, and my attempted explanation does not involve a chain of hypotheses, since it also retains the erroneous engraving of dm(ʿ). However, the parallelism of construction, the engraver’s hesitations in this line as well as the alignment of the letters still seem to me to argue in favour of the reading (ʾ)lʾh “(a)loes”. 461 Wolters (1996a:52–53) dm(ʿ) lʾh, dmʿ syrʾ “of Leah’s tribute, Sira’s tribute”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Muchowski (1993) read lʾh, “tithe-vessels of lʾh”. 462 The aloes spices were used with myrrh for burials; cf. John 19:39: ἀλόη. 463 It is still feasible that the engraver skipped from the line of the ʿayin to that of the samek, part of which would have been close in each case, but Wilmot’s proposal kly dmʿ {l} ʾḥd {m} ʿsr{r}h (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310) is not acceptable. text, translation and commentary 105 aside”, since dmʿ is masculine and swrʾ would be the feminine participle!464 Finally, the reading btkn ʾṣln seems convincing.465

(56) ll. XI 16–17 (–XII 3): The second word of this entry has lacunae: only the letters reš/dalet and yod/waw are preserved. The space that follows is sufficient to accommodate one letter or two of very modest proportions, so that the restoration proposed by the editor seems too long for the space: dy[rt ]byt,466 but rw[bd ]byt is acceptable with a possible trace of the bet.467 Allegro differs with the reading bmkʾrw[t] byt . . . “In the hewn chambers of . . .”, but the kaf must certainly be ruled out, and since the spelling is at best surprising, it would seem that this reading should be discarded. Thanks to the small vertical stroke and the beginnings of a horizontal stroke, which the new photographs seem to support, one could propose rwb[d ]byt . . ., which is preferable to rwḥ byt.468 In this construction, it is difficult to know which word hmʿrby refers to: mbʾ, rwbd or byt hmškb? At the beginning of l. 17, in the absence of anything better I follow the editor: ṭyp with the meaning “base, platform (of a stove or fireplace)”469 rather than the unexpected ṭwp for nṭwp.470 The restoration of the lacuna ʿl m[ʿrh bh klyn t]šʿ by Beyer cannot be retained as it is, since there is no perceptible trace of a lamed in the preserved line space. The visible marks may correspond to kaf/samek. My proposal would be ʿl m[‘r’] ks[p kkryn]

464 See McCarter (1994:136). Assyrian does not have the word siru in the sense of “essence of white pine” cited in DJDJ 251; cf. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Ṣ, despite Lange (2002:136), who follows Milik. But it is difficult to abandon the meaning of a tithe of some kind of resin. 465 DJDJ has inadvertently transcribed ʾṣlm! Wolters, Muchowski, and García Martínez and Tigchelaar read ktbn. 466 Followed by Pixner, and Lefkovits (2000:399, 401), who thinks the restoration is “quite certain”, but unless this is a cursive reš, the latter is too long for the lacuna. Muchowski (1993) reads dy[. 467 Wolters (1990:490: possibility), and Beyer. 468 I initially proposed the reading rwḥ byt (1997:180), adopted by Bedman. García Martínez and Tigchelaar translate byt hmškb by “the sepulchre room”, following Luria and Wolters (1990:489). However, byt hmškb can have another nuance and the important tombs had a tricilinium, and not only in the Nabataean environment; cf. the Tomb of the Kings in Jerusalem, tombs in Hasmonaean and Herodian Jericho, the tomb of Jason, etc., and here in X 11–XI 4: the tomb of Ṣadoq. 469 Luria reads ṭyp—mwʿrm. The translation “a little” (Wolters 1990:492; 1996a:53) does not add meaning to the passage, but in 1992 (p. 251) and 1996a (p. 52) he reads nothing after ʿl[. . .]. 470 Allegro, Lefkovits, but the meaning “stream” seems surprising in a Jerusalem necropolis. 106 text, translation and commentary tšʿ mʾwt, which is a perfect fit for the space.471 In fact the mention of ksp seems necessary in parallel to zhb in XII 1.

~~Col. XII (Figure 12)~~

1 זהב ככ ככרין ששין ביאתו מן המ]]ע[[רב 2 תחת האבן השחורא כוזין תחת סף 3 הכוך ככרין 3 3 || 4 )57(בהר גריזין תחת המעל}ה{א של השוח]]ה[[ העליונא 5 שדא אחת וכל כליה וכסף ככ 3 3 3 6 )58(בפי המבוע של בית שמ כל]]י[[ כסף וכלי זהב 7 של דמע וכסף הכל ככרין שש מאות 8 )59(בביבא הגדולא של הבזך כל)(בית הבזך/הכוך 9 הכל משקל ככרין 3 3 3 מנין עסרין 10 )60(בשית שכנה בצפון כחלת פתחא צפון 11 וקברין על פיה משנא הכתב הזא 12 ופרושה ומשחותיהמ ופרוט כל 13 אחד ואח]ד[

Translation: 1(and) gold: 5 s(ilver) k(arsh), sixty talents, at its entrance from the west, 2under the black stone, (there are) juglets, underneath the threshold of 3the burial chamber: 42 talents. (57) 4At Mount Gerizim, under the step of the upper pit: 5(there are) one chest and all its vessels, and silver: 60 s(ilver) k(arsh). (58) 6At the mouth of the spring of Beth-Šam: (there are) vessels of silver and vessels of gold 7belonging to the tithe, and silver, in total: six hundred talents. (59) 8In the large conduit of Bezek, vessels of the house of Bezek/Kwk: 9the total weighing 71 talents (and) twenty minas. (60) 10In the pit which is to the north of Koḥlit, its opening is hidden, 11and tombs (are) at its entrance, (there is) a duplicate of this document: 12with its explanation and their measurements and the inventory of 13everything, item by ite[m].

471 Pixner does not take account of this partially preserved word. But we cannot think of restoring ʾmwt] (Lefkovits 2000:404), which would produce far too great a distance. But this scholar understands “(there are) nine hundred gold (shekels)”, a value which is not specified. text, translation and commentary 107

Commentary: (56, continued) ll. 1–3: The reading kk iiiii of the edition is generally accepted, but Allegro’s bkwzyn can be ruled out,472 as the engraving would suggest reading bp followed by “five” more or less straight strokes, the last being the longest. By way of hypothesis, one would have thought of a reading bprwryn in cursive script, “in pots”473 (cf. Judg 6:19; Num 11:8; 1 Sam 2:14; Sir 13:2), pots with a handle which can be put on the fire, a reading which is still difficult. The presence of kk and kkryn side by side is already attested in a clearer context in VII 16. Note the omission of the ʿayin in hm[[ʿ]]rb, l. 1, in preference to a weakening of the guttural before the reš,474 and for (b)byʾtw understand either “its entrance” as the access to the hiding place, or “at its entrance” (cf. II 10–12). Then read hšḥwrʾ, not hšḥwryʾ (Allegro). The editor then reads bydn “near there”. This reading is not convincing because of the shape of the bet and the dalet. Some scholars475 have also proposed the reading kwzyn “juglets”. This is the most likely reading. In l. 13, the editor reads hbwr “the cistern”.476 But the reading bwr, necessitating the correction of the final kaf to a reš, is not the first to suggest itself, even though in II 12 the only other mention of sp “threshold” relates to a cistern bwr.477 Others have proposed hkwk “the burial chamber”, rather than the meaning “(funerary) niche”.478 The latter reading could seem unexpected if one takes kwk as “niche” (with a threshold), especially as a tomb with a triclinium had several of these, and the latter

472 Similarly Luria, and Wolters (1992:251; 1994:294–295; 1996a:54) who says he exam ined the original in Amman in 1991. 473 Cf. J.M. Kelso, The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, BASOR Supplement Studies 5–6, 1948, p. 29 nº 68: p(ʾ)rwr may be of pottery or metal—a possibility I suggested in 1997 (p. 180). 474 Compare in fact the usual spelling in VIII 11 and XI 5. The reading mn hkrk (Lefkovits 2000:399; Schiffman 2002:189) seems ruled out, as kaf and mem are not confused; mem and bet are a better reading here, but the correction is accepted by Lefkovits (2002:146). The letters ryn ššyn are not a correction (Lefkovits 2000:405); the size of the letters varies, especially in this last column. 475 Allegro, Luria, Beyer, and Wolters (1992:251; 1996a:54; 2002:320–321, 329; Wilmot & Wise 2002:310). García Martínez and Tigchelaar read kydn. The copyist seems to have begun to engrave the left part of a taw corrected to a bet or kaf, then waw or yod and zayin/yod, less plausibly dalet, to give the reading kwzyn. The reading kwwyn does not make sense in this context. But the reference by Wolters (2002:321) to Jastrow, Dictionary, 618, “an oil vessel used in the temple . . . had the shape of a large wine cup” does not at all support the discovery of the juglet of balm in a nearby cave; see above, n. 424. 476 Similarly Beyer, Pixner, and Muchowski (1993). 477 The reading ḥpwr (Luria) would not be feasible. 478 Allegro, Wolters (1990:489; 1992:252; 1996a:55). 108 text, translation and commentary would have needed to be specified, which is not the case. But the meaning “sepulchre, sepulchral chamber, side room, (niche)” is acceptable in ancient times479 to designate part of a tomb; cf. the qbr of Ṣadoq which comprises gnh and kwk. Moreover, several tombs of this type have cisterns (Tomb of the Kings in Jerusalem, tombs of the Hasmonaean/Herodian necropolis of Jericho,480 etc.).

(57) ll. 4–5: In the word gryzyn the reš seems to be written in cursive script, probably with a touching-up on the left as far as the yod. The toponym appears to be written in two words, hr gryzyn, and does not reflect Samaritan practice.481 Following the editor, the initial form is taken as hmʿlh/ha-maʿaleh “the rise”, corrected to hmʿl{h}ʾ/ha-maʿala‌ʾ “the step”, in accordance with the manuscript’s usual orthography, by addition of the ʾalef after an attempted correction inside the he, but one cannot read hmʿltʾ “entrance”, an Aramaism, as Allegro interprets it. Then the writing is certainly šl hšyḥ with Allegro,482 not šl hšyt as in the edition.483 The nouns šyḥ, šwḥ and šyt are masculine in gender in Hebrew, but since elsewhere in this manuscript šyt is taken as feminine, scholars correct to read šyt here instead of šw/yḥ. Has the scribe made a mistake in writing ḥet for taw (as in one other case in XI 15) or is this a use of the feminine form šwḥh with haplography of an h, or a simple confusion in reading/engraving, the two words being synonyms, “underground/shaft”? Both readings are possible, and the reading šyt may be accepted as due to a slip on the part of the engraver, the absence of the foot of the letter, with the head of a ḥet and not taw. But it seems preferable to read šwḥ(h); cf. šwḥ in 4Q184 1 3 and šwḥh in 4Q184 1 17. The meaning of wkl klyh may create difficulty “and

479 See E.Y. Kutscher, “KWK and its Cognates”, Eretz Israel 8 (1967) 273–279 (Heb.), who indicates that in mishnaic Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic kwk with the meaning “sepulchral chamber” is related to gwḥ in Nabataean and to gmḥ/gwmḥ in Palmyrene and Syriac; cf. also gwhʾ (instead of the corrupted gyhʾ) of the Babylonian Talmud; it is rendered by κόγκος in a Greek inscription in Galilee. In Nabataean, gwḥ means “niche, gallery with several sepulchres, side room (with ovens or arcosolia)”; cf. J.T. Milik, “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes”, Revue Biblique 66 (1959), 550–575 [p. 558]. 480 See Hachlili, cited above, n. 446. 481 On this subject see the papyrus fragment found at Masada: S. Talmon, Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Hebrew Fragments from Masada, Jerusalem 1999, 138–149, esp. pp. 142–147. The inclusio with the Valley of Achor referred to by Fidler (2002:210–225) would support the traditional location of the toponym. 482 Followed by Luria. 483 Milik, Pixner, Beyer, Muchowski, Wolters (1996a:54–55) hmʿlhʾ šl hšyt “the step of the upper cavern”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Lefkovits, myself in 1997, and Bedman. text, translation and commentary 109 its contents”,484 or “all its vessels”.485 The parallel with I 3 would probably prompt a preference for the first meaning. However, it seems that the sum in cash belongs to its contents, in this case “and all its vessels” seems rather preferable.

(58) ll. 6–7: The reading of this entry is assured: the copyist has probably omitted a yod between lamed and kaf in l. 7 for kl ksp.486 The word kl/ kly can be singular and/or plural: “a vessel of silver and a vessel/vessels of gold” or “vessels of silver . . .”.487 The toponym byt šm probably denotes the site of Beth-Sham spelt with a mem instead of the usual nun, but occasionally attested to by the Septuagint’s transcription βαιθσαμ, 1 Kgs 31:12 (B).488 It can hardly be Beth-Shem, an unknown site,489 or Beth-Shem(esh),490 and even less the “temple of Jerusalem”491 for which one would expect the form hbyt or byt hšm “the temple of the Name” (= Yhwh), especially as no spring is to be found within its precincts. Beth-Sham to the east of Gerizim and to the north of Jericho does indeed come into the topography of this scroll. Finally, there are remaining difficulties with the continuation of the sentence: is wksp to be linked to hkl or does it designate another deposit? If it is taken as the nomen regens, the word then also comprises kly zhb, which is surprising in this phraseology.492 It is more reasonable to

484 With the editor, Allegro, Pixner, and Beyer. 485 Luria, Wolters, Muchowski (1993), García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. 486 There are, however, some examples of defective spelling in the Bible and in the Damascus Document XI 1, precisely with kl. 487 The edition has understood the singular in both cases, whereas other scholars read the plural. 488 Milik notes precisely the forms byt hrm and byt hrn (Josh 13:27; Num 32:36), and the absence of the ʾalef is not an obstacle; cf. 2 Sam 21:12 (byt šn), 4Q522 8 3, and Josh 17:11 (byt šʾn) . . .; cf. znn and zʾnn (Josh 15:37; Mic 1:11). An identification accepted by Pixner, Wolters, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Bedman. 489 Name of the antediluvian patriarch: Luria, Beyer, Muchowski, Wise, Lefkovits. Greenfield (1969:139–140) doubts this identification, but has no alternative to propose. 490 With haplography of šin as Wilmot would have it, and even Wise, a city of Judah (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310), see Josephus Flavius, Ant. V §84. 491 Allegro; cf. the comments of Milik (DJDJ, 298–99 and addenda). The reading šlbyt “of the House” (Lefkovits 2000:416) does not resolve the difficulty of this entry, since, with the mention of Mt Gerizim, the sequence of deposits at Jerusalem is interrupted and even finished. 492 Thus Milik, but in his understanding of dmʿ, the case is slightly different: “vessel of silver and vessel of gold containing spices; and the total of the silver is six hundred talents”. 110 text, translation and commentary think that this deposit comprises a side of offering vessel(s) of silver and vessel(s) of gold, and of silver, of a total value of six hundred talents.493

(59) ll. 8–9: The main difficulty in this entry concerns the reading of the toponym: the editor’s reading šl hbr(?)k klbyt hbr(?)k “Ha-Baruk”,494 but read in both cases as hbzk “the Basin”,495 twice as hkwk “burial chamber”,496 or again hkrk497 or even hbwr.498 Irrespective of an error in the reading of the original, which is always a possibility, the copyist has certainly written bet and zayin in šl hbzk, and probably hkwk afterwards. It is known that occasionally the engraver (and perhaps his original) makes use of cursive script, and zayin, waw or yod could represent a cursive reš. However, in the absence of an irrefutable solution, it seems rather inadvisable to amend the written text. Either one retains the editor’s identification with hbrk, twice in defective spelling for hbrwk, situated at Mambre and Hebron (which however seems difficult given the name of Hebron, so well known in texts of the period), or one keeps the written text and reads hbzk as a toponym. With the reading hbzk, which seems to commend itself, one would then think of Khirbet Ibziq/bzq, another possible spelling with the emphatic consonant. According to the Onomasticon of Eusebius of Caesarea §54.5–8, this toponym is located 17 Roman miles to the east of Neapolis/ Nablus towards Scythopolis/Beth-Shan, approx. 23 km to the northeast of Nablus.499 For lack of anything better and until fuller information is

493 García Martínez and Tigchelaar do not translate wksp; Lefkovits understands “plus a total of six hundred talents of silver”, and Beyer “Und das Silber von allem (= das gesa- mte in der Kupferrolle genannte Silber) macht sechshundert Talente”, which is surprising. Lange (2002:131) understands “vessels of silver and gold are demaʿ and money—in total six hundred talents”. It is difficult to render šl by are and to give dmʿ the meaning “precious”, as the vessels are already precious in themselves. 494 Milik (DJDJ, 269 si vera lectio, 301) would identify it with Mambre near Hebron. 495 Allegro, Luria (the second read as ḥnwk, but this is an impossible reading), Bedman, and Pixner “ha-Bazak” to the north of the Yarmuk, who would also accept hbrk. But the meaning of the word is more “plate, vessel, incense cup”. 496 Wolters (1990:489; 1992:252; 1996a:54; 2002:323): hkwk kl byt hkwk “of the crypt; vessels of the crypt chamber”, García Martínez and Tigchelaar “crypt” and “Beth-Hakuk”, and Lefkovits (2000:418). 497 Beyer: “. . . der Festung, etwa bei der Kaserne”. 498 Wilmot, correcting the text, Wise, and Muchowski (1993) for the first use but hbrk “ha-Baruch” for the second. Wilmost restores hbwr {kl} byt hbwr, and Wise proposes mlbyt hbwr (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310). 499 Cf. Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni & J. Green, Tabula Imperiii Romani. Judaea–Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Maps and Gazeteer, Jerusalem 1994, 88. text, translation and commentary 111 available, this intermediary site seems to fit after the mentions of the two other better-known toponyms of Gerizim, overlooking Shechem/Nablus, and Beth-Sham precisely (cf. Judg 1:4–5; 1 Sam 11:8). So we should not look for this place-name to the north of Gamala in the Hauran as Pixner proposes, or in Judaea with Milik. Furthermore, the mentions of bzk and byt šm would support the identification of hr gryzyn in Samaria, not to the west of Jericho, (see above, note 251). In l. 8 one could read kl(y) byt hkwk, the yod having probably disappeared under the teeth of the saw, to reveal the phrasing of the preceding lines (cf. kl, l. 6) and designate “the vessels” of “the house of Kwk” at “Bezek”.500 However, for the same distance in l. 4, the yod has left traces on one of the sides, and this reading would not be appropriate if kwk means “sepulchre”: “vessels of the sepulchral chamber” which would have been removed and hidden in the large conduit, which would be surprising for “funerary vessels” which would be precious! It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a deposit in the large conduit of vessels from a tomb, kl() byt hkwk.501 However, the editor’s explanation in relation to kl in XII 8 remains possible and takes full account of the hiding place in the large conduit in the vicinity of “the house of Kwk/Bzk”, both readings being possible, since hkl must resume a first listing. The word mšql “weighing” designates the value of the quantity deposited as much as its weight.

(60) ll. 10–13: The last entry relates to the hiding place of a duplicate of the scroll, but there is a difficulty with the second word: read šbṣḥ by the editor,502 it would denote a smooth rock, gleaming, reflecting the sun-rays (in accordance with ṣḥyḥ slʿ in Ezek 24:7f.; 26:4, 14 “if the reading is accurate” DJDJ, 240). This reading is not accepted by Allegro, who proposes škynh (from škn) “adjoining”,503 a rather unlikely word in the context of his understanding of the following text, since the word would refer to byt hbzk and the yod is a correction by the author. The readings šbṣhb,504

500 Allegro, Wolters, but “vessels of the crypt chamber” (2002:323). 501 Previously I retained the reading hbzk in both cases, but hkwk is not impossible in the second instance. Independently, Lefkovits retains the same reading šl hbzk kl byt hkwk, but he understands it differently: “In the large drain of the Bezek, (there are) vesse of the house of the burial niche”. I find it difficult to follow him. For a tomb, the document uses the words qbr, mškn and byt hmškb, and hkwk seems to be reserved for the niche itself (l. 3). bkwkʾ is impossible as an alternative reading to bbybʾ. 502 Followed by Muchowski (1993) but transcribed “Cach”. 503 Followed by Luria, and Wolters (1992:252), reading šknh. 504 Pixner. 112 text, translation and commentary

šbṣḥ505 and šbynḥ506 seem unacceptable, as the ṣade or yod/nun are far from being an assured reading, not to say impossible, as the right-hand stroke touches the following stroke and must not be taken as anything but a double strike of the burin, as frequently occurs elsewhere. There is no inserted yod, even less than a ṣade, and these readings certainly do not commend themselves. The scribe has written either šbnh, which, rather than the anthroponym of the land-owner “of Shebna”, could be a verb in the impersonal form “which one has constructed”,507 or better šknh (bet and kaf are not always distinguished) as a haplography of š(b)knh “which (is at the) base”, comparable to VI 7f.: bmʿrh šl hknh šl . . .,508 or better still as the feminine perfect qal of kwn, šyt being feminine, “which is found, is situated”.509 But the reading šk(y)nh “Shekinah” for šyt šknh “the cave(rn) of the Presence” is completely out of the question in this passage.510 This description quite closely resembles that in IV 11, certainly reading kḥlt with the editor, not bḥlh with Allegro,511 as the taw is certain. The noun ptḥʾ marks the feminine suffix with an ʾalef, since elsewhere in this scroll šyt is feminine (cf. pyh in the following line), whereas the word is masculine in Hebrew. The following word is generally translated as “north” but there is no preposition here indicating the direction, such as l- or b-, the construction not being identical to that in VIII 12. So one should read the passive participle of ṣpn, ṣpwn “hidden”, ptḥ being masculine, which gives an entirely acceptable meaning with the following text, “tombs being at its entrance”, with an explanatory waw (cf. I 6–8). The suffix of wprwšh, l. 12 has been amended to prwš by Beyer, an unexpected form without a linking vowel and not necessary for the understanding of the passage.512

505 Wilmot proposes the reading bšyt {šbṣḥ} šbṣpwn, which would be simply a partial dittography, and difficult to retain (Wilmot & Wise 2002:310). 506 Beyer, who looks for Ynḥ 10 km to the southeast of Mt Gerizim, and would iden tify it, without further ado, with ynwḥ in Josh 16:6–7. Consequently, kḥlt is no longer a toponym but “a black object”; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, and Lefkovits, followed by Zissu, as the basis for his identification of kḥlt. 507 Bedman adopted my reading of 1997. It is not indispensable to understand š-b- as prefixes (Lefkovits). However, šyt is a certain reading, with šwḥ or šyḥ ruled out. 508 Already Milik (1957:22). 509 This would be a rare use of this verb in the qal in Hebrew, but it is already attested in Phoenician and Punic. 510 Wolters (1996; 1996a:54–55; 1997; 2002:319–320): a parallel expression to byt škynh = the temple. This author speculates on the oldest use of the word škynh and finds in this reading proof of the origin of the treasures! 511 Similarly the ʾalef in ptḥʾ, mšnʾ and hzʾ instead of Allegro’s three hes. 512 Even a haplography -yhm is difficult since one would have the order -hym. See P. Mandel (1993), who replies to the points raised by Wolters (1988; 1990:492) concerning text, translation and commentary 113

The reading wmšḥwtyhm, on the other hand, is assured.513 As for the last word restored kl ʾḥd wḥʾ[d] by all the commentators “each and every one, everything, one by one” but ʾḥ[r] by Allegro “of each thing, and oth[er things]”, the expressions are understandable without difficulty, but the first solution, frequent in mishnaic Hebrew, seems preferable. It should be noted that the deposit of the duplicate is located at Koḥlit, an important site which is already found in the first column in I 9, then in II 13 and IV 1 and 11–12, mentioned five times as compared with four times for Sokokah (IV 13; V 2, 5, 13).514 I would, however, point out the absence of the name of the Holy City, Jerusalem itself, which would seem surprising if, as has been claimed, the deposits concerned came from the Temple treasury.

the editor’s translation: meanings of prwš, mšḥ “their (anointing) oils” and prwṭ, rejecting the prwṭkl “protocollon”, contra Wolters (1992:252; 1994:295; 1996a:54–55). 513 The reading wmšḥwt w[š]m is impossible, for which there is insufficient space, despite Lefkovits (2000:440). The reading kl is certain, not kwl (p. 442). 514 Contra Zissu (2001:146, 148–149), who says he reads Sokokah 5 times and Koḥlit 4 times.

~~GENERAL VIEW OF THE COPPER SCROLL (DRAWINGS)~~

~~Sheet III~~

~~drawings, text and translation: an overview~~

~~Figure 1: Col. I drawings, text and translation – col. i 121~~

~~Col. I (Figure 1)~~

Translation: (1) 1In ‘The Ruin’ which is in the valley of Achor, under 2the steps leading to the east (at) forty 3half-brick cubits: (there is) a chest of silver and its vessels, 4a weight of seventeen talents. ΚΕΝ. (2) 5In the sepulchral monument, in the third layer: 6100 gold ingots. (3) In the great cistern which is in the court 7of the peristyle, at the side of its floor, sealed in the (circular) wall, 8opposite the upper opening: nine hundred talents. (4) 9In the mound of Koḥlit, (there are) tithe vessels consisting of flasks, and ephods: 10the total of the tithe and the store/treasury of the sabbatical (year) and a 11second disqualified tithe. Its opening (is) on the northern edge of the channel, 12six cubits in the direction of the frigidarium of the bath. ΧΑΓ. (5) 13In the spiral staircase of Manos, in the descent/recess to the left, 14at a height of three cubits from the bottom, silver: forty 15talents. 122 drawings, text and translation – col. ii

~~Figure 2: Col. II drawings, text and translation – col. ii 123~~

~~Col. II (Figure 2)~~

~~Figure 3: Col. III drawings, text and translation – col. iii 125~~

~~Col. III (Figure 3)~~

Translation: (12) 1In the courtyard [of the] arbitrator’s office, under the south corner, 2at nine cubits (deep), silver and gold vessels of 3tithe, goblets, cups, sacrificial bowls, 4ewers, total: six hundred and nine. (12a) 5Below the other, eastern corner, 6sixteen cubits (deep) is buried silver: 740 s(ilver) k(arsh). ΤΡ. (13) 8In the pit which is in the embankment, to the north: 9tithe vessels and garments, its entrance (is?) 10below the western corner. (14) 11In the tomb which is in the embankment, from its east side, 12in the north (at) three cubits under the 13 trap: 14 s(ilver) k(arsh). 126 drawings, text and translation – col. iv

~~Figure 4: Col. IV drawings, text and translation – col. iv 127~~

~~Col. IV (Figure 4) 1 )15(בבור הגדול שב]צפון)?( כ[חלת בעמוד~~

2 בצפונו ככ] °° [ Ι {ΣΚ{ 3 )16(באמא הבאה ל]בר[כא)?( בבואתך 4 אמות ארבע] ע[סרה כסף 5 ככ 3 3 6 )17(בין שני הכינין שבעמק עכון)ר( 7 באמצענ חפון)ר( אמות שלוש 8 שמ שני דודין מלאין כסף 9 )18(בשית האדמא שבשולי העצ 10 לא כספ ככ מאתין 11 )19(בשית המזרחית שבץפון כח 12 לת כספ ככ שבעינ 13 )20(ביגר של גי הסככא חפור 14 אמת)sic( כספ ככ

Translation: (15) 1In the large cistern which is to the [north (?) of Ko]ḥlit, in/near the pillar 2to the north: [20+20+(?)]+14 s(ilver) k(arsh). ΣΚ. (16) 3In the canal which go[es to the po]ol, as you enter, 4at fourteen cubits (there is) silver: 555 s(ilver) k(arsh). (17) 6Between the two cavities which are in the valley of Achor, 7half- way between them, (at) three cubits there (are) buried 8two cooking pots full of silver. (18) 9In the earth pit which is on the edge of ʿAṣ- 10la, silver: two hundred s(ilver) k(arsh). (19) 11In the eastern pit which is to the north of Koḥ- 12lit, silver: seventy s(ilver) k(arsh). (20) 13In the (burial) mound of the valley of Sokokah, buried 14(at) (one?) cubit(s), silver: 12 s(ilver) k(arsh). 128 drawings, text and translation – col. v

~~Figure 5: Col. V drawings, text and translation – col. v 129~~

Translation: (21) 1At the head of the aqueduct which is [to the west of (?)] 2Sokokah, from the north, unde[r] the large 3[stone] (are) buried (at) [thre]e 4cubits: 7 s(ilver) k(arsh). (22) 5In the fissure which is in Sokokah, to the east of 6Solomon’s reservoir: tithe 7vessels, and with the tally beside them. (23) 8From above Solomon’s trench 9towards the large boulder, 10at sixty cubits, (are) buried (at) three 11cubits, silver: 23 s(ilver) k(arsh). (24) 12In the tomb which is in the torrent of Kippa, 13on the way from Jericho to Sokokah, 14(are) buried (at) seven cubits: 32 s(ilver) k(arsh). 130 drawings, text and translation – col. vi

~~Figure 6: Col. VI drawings, text and translation – col. vi 131~~

Translation: (25) 1[In] the cave of the pillar with two 2openings, facing east, 3at the northern opening, buried 4(at) three cubits, there (is) an urn 5containing a book: under it, 642 s(ilver) k(arsh). (26) 7In the cave at the base of 8the boulder, facing 9east, (are) buried in the opening 10(at) nine cubits: 21 s(ilver) k(arsh). (27) 11In the queen’s ‘mausoleum’, on the west 12side, (are) buried (at) twelve 13cubits: 27 s(ilver) k(arsh). (28) 14In the (burial) mound which is at the ford of the high 132 drawings, text and translation – col. vii

~~Figure 7: Col. VII drawings, text and translation – col. vii 133~~

~~Figure 8: Col. VIII drawings, text and translation – col. viii 135~~

~~Figure 9: Col. IX drawings, text and translation – col. ix 137~~

~~Figure 10: Col. X drawings, text and translation – col. x 139~~

Col. X (Figure 10) 1 דרומ בעליאה השנית ירידתו 2 מלמעלא ככ ///////// 3 )45(בבור גר מזקות שרוי מהנחל 4 הגדול בקרקעו ככ 5 )46(באשוח שיבית הכרמ בבואך 6 לסמול וג)א(מות עסר כסף 7 כר)כ(רין ששין ושנין 8 )47(בימ של גי איך בצריח מעינו 9 אבן שחורוג)א( אכע)מ(ות שתין 10 הי הפתח ככרין שלש מאות 11 זהב וכלין כופרין עסרין 12 )48(תחת יד אבשלומ מן הצד 13 המערבי חפוו/ז)ר( רג)א(מות שתין עסרה 14 ככ 3 3 3 3 15 )49(ביצאית )?( המימ ]]של[[שלר)ו(ח ולתחת 16 השקת ככ 17 )50(בגנת צדוק בארבעת

Translation: 1dist[rict], on the second level as one descends 2from the top: 9 s(ilver) k(arsh). (45) 3In the (re)cemented cistern of the channels which is fed by the great 4torrent, at its bottom: 12 s(ilver) k(arsh). (46) 5In the reservoir which is [[in]] Beth ha-Kerem, as you enter 6on the left, (at) ten cubits, silver: 7sixty-two talents. (47) 8In the water tank of the valley of Job (?), in the underground (near) its spring 9(there is) a black stone, (at) two cubits, 10it is the opening: three hundred talents of 11gold, and vessels: twenty cups. (48) 12Below Absalom’s monument, from the west 13side, (are) buried (at) twelve cubits: 1480 s(ilver) k(arsh). (49) 15At the spring (?) of Siloam waters and under 16the gutter: 17 s(ilver) k(arsh). (50) 17In the courtyard (of the tomb) of Ṣadoq, at the four 140 drawings, text and translation – col. xi

~~Figure 11: Col. XI drawings, text and translation – col. xi 141~~

~~Col. XI (Figure 11)~~

Translation: 1corners: gold (and) tithe vessels with the tally beside them. (51) 2Below the southern corner of the Portico, 3in the tomb of Ṣadoq, at the foot of the pillar of the exedra: 4tithe vessels containing pine, tithe of seneh (?) with the tally beside them. (52) 5In the scarp at the top of the rock facing west, 6opposite the courtyard (of the tomb) of Ṣadoq, under the large 7slab which is at its base: it is consecrated. {In the t} (53) 8In the tomb which is underneath the colonnades: 40 s(ilver) k(arsh). (54) 9In the tomb of the (common) people spread out to/of purity of Jericho, 10in it (there are) tithe vessels of cedar (?), tithe of pine (?), 11with the tally beside them. (55) 12In the building of the two reservoirs, in the reservoir 13when you enter the smallest 14one: tithe vessels of [a]loes (?), tithe of bush, 15with the tally beside them. (56) 16In the western entrance of the terra[ce] of the triclinium/of the tomb, 17(there is) a platform above a ca[vity], sil[ver]: nine hundred [talents], 142 drawings, text and translation – col. xii

~~Figure 12: Col. XII drawings, text and translation – col. xii 143~~

~~Col. XII (Figure 12)~~

~~INDices~~

~~Concordance to the Hebrew Vocabulary~~

IX 16 בה ; VIII 14 בא V 2 [האבן] ; VIII 5 XII 2 האבן ; X 9 : אבן II 11 VII 10 IX 3 בדין : בד X 12 : אבשלום ; V 13 בבואה ; IV 3 XI 13 בבואתך :בוא IV 9 האדמא : אדמה I 2 הבואת ; IV 3 הבאה ; X 5 בבואך XI 10 : או(?) I 6 II 1,7,10 IV 1 X 3 בבור ; II 6 : בור VIII אחת ; XII 13 ואח]ד[ ; VI 5 XII 13 : אחד (?XII 8 (× 2 הבזך : בזך IV 4 [ואח[ת ; XII 5 15 ביאתא ; XII 1 ביאתו ; II 12 באתו : ביאה VIII 2 : אחיה III 5 III 9 האחרת : אחר XII 8 בביבא ; IX 11 ביב [(?) איב =] X 8 : איך preposition) IV 6) : בין XI 3 האכסדרן : אכסדרן II 3 VII 9 VIII 1 IX 14 X 5,15 XI 12,16 : בית negative) VIII 3) : אל II 5 (?) בתי ; XI 14 XII 6,8 א[לאה ? : אלאה XI 9 בני : בן I 2,12,14 II אמות : ”cubit“ : אמה VIII 3 (?) תבקע]מ : בקע III 2,6,12 IV 4,7 V 3 {אמות} 8,14,14 IV 3 (ל]בר[כא) ; II 13 בברכא : ברכה 10,12,(]א[מות) VI 4 10,10,14,(אמ]ות) VIII 5,9,12,15 IX 6,9,12,15,(אמו[ת) VII 1 IX 2 וגב : גב ;X 9 אכע)מ(ות ; X 13 רג)א(מות 2,5,12 I 14 : גבה אמת ; IX 8 אכע)מו(ת ; X 6 וג)א(מות הכוהן ; I 6 II 12 IV 1 V 9 הגדול : גדול plural > singular?) IV 14) ; X 3–4 מהנחל הגדול ; VII 1 הגדול אמת : ”aqueduct”, “water conduit“ : אמה V 3 XI 6–7 הגדולא ; VII 4 ])ה(ג[דול IV 3 VII 3 VIII 1 באמא ; I 11 האמא ; V 1 XII 8 ([בא[מא) ; X 8 גי איך ; IV 13 גי הסככא : גיא IV 7 באמצען : אמצע VIII 4 בגי החיצונא XI 2 האסטאן : אסטאן X 17 XI 6 גנת צדוק : גנה IX 3 אסתרין : אסתר IX 15 X 3 : גר I 9 ואפודת : אפוד)?( XII 4 בהר גריזין : גריזין XI 11,15 אצלן ; V 7 XI 1,4 אצלם ; VII 8 : אצל I 10 והאצר : אצר IV 8 דודין : דוד VIII 2 ]ה[אוצר : אוצר VII 11 בדוק : דוק ; VII 5 בארבע ; II 14 IV 4 VII 7 IX 3 : ארבע III 1 : דיאט (ואר[בע) VII 6 וארבע I 9 III 3,9 V 7 VIII 3 XI 1,4,4,10,10 : דמע I 3,14 ארבעין ; X 17 בארבעת ; VIII 13 ; XI 14 דמ]]ע[[ ; XI 14 דמ>ע< ; I 3 XII 7 : אריח I 10 הדמע XI 10 אר or א>ר<ז : ארז בדרום ; IX 17–X 1 ה[דרום ; IX 7 : דרום באשוח ; VII 4 האשוח ; V 6 : אשוח XI 12 VIII 11 א/האשר)ו(חין ; X 5 XI 12 (הדו)ר(ומית) III 1–2 XI 2 הדרומית : דרמי VIII 1 : דרך I 1,1,5,5,6,6,7,7,9,9,11,13,13 : ב II 1,3,3,5,5,5,7,9,10,11,13,13,13 X 10 הי ; XI 7 הו : הוא III 1,8,8,8,11,11,12 IV 1,1,1,2,3,3,6,7,9,9,11,11,13 VII 9 בית הקץ : הקץ V 1,5,5,7,12,12,13 VI [1],[3],7,9,11,11,14,14 XII 4 בהר גריזין : הר VII [1],3,5,8,11 VIII [1],1,4,8,10,11,11,14,14 IX 1,1,2,4,4,7,7,8,10,11,14,14,15,17,17,17 I 3,9,10,10 II 4,5,6,9 III 2,4,9 V 7 : ו ,X 1,3,4,5,5,8,8,9,15,17,17 XI 1,3,4,5,7 {7},8,9,11,12,12,13,15,16 XII 1,2,4,6,8,10,10 ; [VII 6] VIII 3,7,13 IX 2,6 X 7,11,15 XI 4 II 6,8,9 VI 5 XI 10 ; XII 5,5,6,7,11,12,12,12,13 בו 146 indices

I 10 XII 7,9 הכל ; III 4 IX 16 XII 5,12 : כל XII 11 הזא : זה ; 10,14,[כלר)י(] I 9 III 2,9 VIII 3 XI 1,4 : כלי ; I 6 II 4 VII 16 X 11 XI 1 XII 1,6 : זהב כלין ; XII 6 וכלי ; (?)XII 6,8 כל[[י]] III 2 VIII 7 וזהב וכל כליה ; I 3 וכליה ; X 11 וכלין ; IX 8 II 6,8 : זרב V 6 כאלין ; XII 5 VI 7 הכנא : כנה IX 4 בחבלת : חבלה XI 5 בהכסח : כסח II 10 החומה : חומה I 3,14 II 11 III 2,6 IV 4,8,10,12,14 : כסף IX 7 החורין : חורי VIII 4 V 4,11 VII 10 [[VII 16]] VIII 6,16 IX 10 X 6 בגי החיצונא : חיצון II 6 XII 5,7 וכסף ; I 7 [XI 17] XII 6 בחליא : חליה IX 11 לכפת ; V 12 נחל הכפא : כפה II 8 ח[[מ]]ש ; II 4 וחמש : חמש X 11 כופרין : כפרי II 14 IV 7 חפור ; III 6 VI 9,12 : חפר X 5 בית הכרם : כרם VI 3 ,[חפון)ר(] V 3,10,14 13,[חפון)ר(] XII 11 הכתב ; VIII 4 : כתב IX,5 [חפוו)ר(] VII 1,9,12,15 VIII 5,9,12,14 חפוו)ר( X 13 8,12,[חפון)ר(] I 2,13 V 13 VI 9 IX 11,[12?] X 2,6,15 XI 13 : ל [חפוו/ז)ר(וג)ת(] IX 2 : חפורה ש ,מעלא ,כ XI 14 ; see שלו ; [I 6 II 5 III 1 [XII 8 בחצר : חצר אלאה see ; לאה ? I 1 בחריב}א{ה : חריבה III 9 ((?) לבישין or) לבושין : לבוש V 8 החריץ : חריץ ((?)בל]ו[גין : לוג I 9 (or בל)(גין : לגין IX 16 XI 7 : חרם VIII 4 : חרת מן see : מ ; III 4 VII 7 X 10 XI 17 XII 7 מאות : מאה I 12 הטביל]ה[ or הטבו/יל : טבו/יל IV 10 מאתין ; plural) I 8) מאת VII 15 הטור : טור XI 16 במבא : מבוא שטח see : טח XII 6 המבוע : מבוע XI 17 : טיף VI 14 שבמגזה : מגזה II 3 המדה : מדה IV 13 VI 14 VIII 8 ביגר : יגר III 12–13 המדף : מדף X 12 יד אבשלום : יד X 3 מזקות ; II 9 ובמזקא : מזקה X 8 בים : ים ; II 10 המזרח ; V 5 VI 2 VIII 1,2 IX 5 : מזרח XI 13 לימומית : ימומית ממזרחו : I 2 VI 9 למזרח ; II 13 שבמזרח X 15 ביצאית ? ; VII 14 יציאת המים : יציאה I 13 III 11 ירדא ? ; I 13 בירד : ירד III 5–6 המזרחית ; II 7 המזרחי : מזרחי [?V 13 [VII 4 מירחו ; XI 9 : ירחו X 1 IV 11 VII 12 ירידתו : ירידה III 3 מזרקות : מזרק I 13 בירךא ? ; I 7 בירכ : ירך IX 6 ר )ו(מחצא : מחצה II 3 הישן : ישן V 1 VII [3],14 IX 11 X 15 המים : מים III 8,11 שבמלה : מלא (?) XII 8 (?) IX 12 כל : כ IV 8 מלאין : מלא VI 14–VII 1 הכוהן הגדול : כוהן II 1 המלח : מלח XII 2 כוזין : כוז VI 11 במשכן המלכא : מלכה VII 14–15 הכוזבא : כוזבה III 8,11 מ- ; I 11,14 II 10 V 2 X 12 XII 1 : מן (?) XII 3,8 הכוך : כוך XII 10 V 8,13 [VII 5?] IX 1 X 2,3 XI 2 שכנה : כון XII 9 מנין : מנה III 3 כוסות : כוס IX 10 : מנחה ; I 9 II 13 IV 11–12 XII 10 : כחלת I 13 : מנס IV 1 כ[חלת III 3 מנקיאות : מנקית IV 6 הכינין : כינה I 13 המסבא : מסבה III 7,13 (כרש כסף abbreviation of) : ככ XI 6 המסמא : מסמא V 4,11,14 VI 6,10,13,16 5,10,12,14,(ככ])IV 2 X 8 מעינו : מעין VIII 7,9,13,16 IX 6,9,13 13,16,(ככ]) VII 2 ; XII 4 המעל}ה{א ”staircase“ : מעלה X 2,4,14,16 XI 8 XII 1,5 I 2 II 1 המעלות I 4,8 II 2,6,9,15 VII ככרין ; I 15 כ[כר : ככר X 2 מלמעלה ”from above“ : מעלה [?X 7,10 XII 1,3,7,9 ; [XI 17 (כר)כ(רין) 7,16 indices 147

I 5 II 4 עשתות : עשת I 10 : מעסר XII 1 המ]]ע[[רב ; V 1?] VIII 11 XI 5] : מערב I 11 מפוגל : פגל ; VI 12 X 13 XI 16 המערבי : מערבי ; XII 6 בפי ; VII 14 VIII 8 IX 14 פי : פה III 10 המערבית ; IX 12 לפיהמ ; XII 11 פיה ; I 11 מפי II 3 במערת ; VI 7 VII 8 במערא : מערה (פנים IX 12 see כלפיהם ?) XI 17 מ]ערא ; VI 1 IX 6 ף : פלג IX 17 במצדנא : מצד IX 15 : פלע XI 1 מקצועות ; II 13 במקצע : מקצוע III 1,5,10 הפנא ; VII 11 XI 2 פנת : פנה I 12 מקרת ; VII 8 המקר]ה :מקרה IX 12 כלפ]]נ[[יהם : פנים VII 6 IX 1 : משח XII 12 הפרוט : פרוט XII 12 ומשחותיהם : משחה XII 12 ופרושה : פרוש XI 16 בית המשכב : משכב I 7 הפרסטלו/ין : פרסטלו/ין VI 11 במשכן המלכא : משכן XII 10 פתחא ”to open“ : פתח VII 11 המשט>ו<ח : משטוח בפתח ; I 8 X 10 הפתח ”opening“ : פתח XII 11 משנא : משנה VI 2 ה[פתחין ; I 11 פתחו , I 4 XII 9 VI 3,9 : משקל VI 11 בצד ; X 12 הצד : צד II 5 בית see ; ? מתיה

XI 3 קבר צדוק ; X 17 XI 6 גנת צדוק : צדוק I 8 II 7 XI 6 : נגד IX 14 הצוק ; VIII 8 צוק הקדרון : צוק I 5 : נדבך XII 10 בצח : צח מהנחל הגדול ; V 12 שבנחל הכפא : נחל IX 15 בצחיאת : צחיה X 3–4 VI 8 VIII הצופא ; VI 2 ]]ה[[צופא : צפה IX 1 הנטף : נטף I 5 10,12 IX 4,7 XI 5 בנפש : נפש בצפון ; I 11 V 2 הצפון ; VIII 12 XII 10 : צפון ; IV 2 בצפונו ; XI 8 III 12 IV [1],11 IX 14 XII 10 הסבין : סב IV 1 שב]צפון ; III 8 מבצפונו V 5 בסדק : סדק הצפו]ני ; II 14 VI 3 הצפוני : צפוני XI 4,10 : סוח XI 14 VII 4 סירא : סירה XII 10 : צפן ; IV 13 גי הסככא ; V 2 ]סככא : סככא ; II 5 VIII 11,14 IX 4 X 8 בצריח : צריח V 13 לסככא ; V 5 שבסככא IX 7 בצריחי II 11 XI 5 הסלע : סלע X 6 לסמול ; I 13 לסמל : סמ)א(ל וקברין ; III 11 V 12 XI 3,8,9 בקבר : קבר XI 4 : סנה II 12 XII 11 הסף ; XII 2 : סף VIII 8 הקדרון : קדרון VIII 3 וספרין ; VI 5 : ספר IX 11 בקול המים : קול I 7 סתום : סחם IX 10 בקומעה : קומעה VII 3 קי]בוץ המים (?) : קיבוץ I 12 V 9 VII 15 : עד VI 4 : קלל IV 6 בעמק עכון)ר( ; I 1 בעמק עכור : עכור III 4 קסאות : קסוה V 8 מעל ; VII 14 VIII 5 XI 17 XII 11 : על IX 11 הקרובין : קרוב X 1 בעליאה : עליה ; 7 1 קרקעו ; I 14 הקרקע : קרקע XII 4 העליונא ; I 8 העליון : עליון X 4 הקרקעו XI 9 העם : עם IV 1 בעמוד ; VI 1 העמוד ; XI 3 : עמוד V 1 ברוש ; XI 5 >ר<אש : ראש I 1 IV 6 : עמק IX 10 : רב עסרה ; II 8 VIII 6 עסרא ; II 9 X 6 : עסר V 9 VI 8 הרגב : רגב עמ)ס(רה IV 4 ; VI 13 (ע[סרה) ; III 6 II 3 XI 16 : רובד ]]עש[[רא ; IX 8 ; X 13 עסו)ר(ה) ; VIII 15 X 3 שרוו/י : רוה VII 6 עסרין ; (שבעשרה) I 4 עשרה ; IX 2 [?VII 5 [VII 5 רוח]ות ; IX 7 ברוח : רוח VIII 13 עשרין ; X 11 XII 9 VIII 14 ברוי : רוי II 5 עצין : עץ IX 12 מרחב : רחב IV 9–10 העצלא : עצלה II 8 : רחוק עסר see : עשר 148 indices

VIII 10 בשלף : שלף ס see : ׂש adverb) IV 8 VI 4) : שם XII 6 בית שם (toponym) : שם I 1,6 II 1,5,7,9,10,13 III [1?],8,11 IV 1,6,9,11 : ש IX 5 שמונא : שמונה V 1,5,12 VI 14 VII 8 VIII 1,2,14 IX 1,16,17 X II 11 : שן של see של .IX 14 X 5 שי ; XI 7,8 XII 10 3 ; X 1 השנית ; second) I 11) : שני II שבעין ; I 4 V 14 VII 12 VIII 5 IX 2,13 : שבע IX 4 השניג)ת( I 10 השבע ; IV 12 6 שתים ; X 7 ושנין ; IV 6,8 VI 1 שני : שנים I 3 שדת ; XII 5 שדא : שדה IX 2 X 9,13 שתין ; VIII 10,14 VI 13 VII 16 השוא (toponym) : שוא IX 2 שעת : שעה I 13 בשוא : שואה II 7 השער : שער IX 1,17 בשובך : שובך X 16 השקת : שקת XII 4 השוח]]ה[[ : שוחה I 12 II 11 III 4,6 VII 9,10 IX 8 XII 7 : שש ; XI 7 שבשולו ; I 11 IV 9 IX 1 בשולי : שולי)ם( II 4 V 10 X 7 XII 1 : ששין IX 1 משולו שנים see : שתים XII 2 השחורא ; X 9 שחורוג)א( : שחור XI 9 ]]ש[[טח : שטח IX 17 בתח]ום : תחום X 15 שלר)ו(ח : שלוח (תח]ת) I 1 II 1,10,12 III 1,5,10,12 V 2 : תחת III 8 IV 9,11 IX 14 XII 10 בשית : שית ; X 15 לתחת ; I 9,10,13 II 11 III 2 IV 13 V 6,8 VI 1,7,8 VII 11 X 12 XI 3,6,8 XII 2,2,4 : של VIII 6 תחתיה ; VI 5 תחתו ; XI 2 מתחת VII 3,[3,4],8(?),10,14 VIII 8,10,14 IX 14 II 5 ובתכו : תך XI 14 שלו ; X 8 [[15]] XII 4,6,7,8 V 7 ובתכן ; XI 1,4,11,15 בתכן : תכן V 6,8–9 : שלומו I 9 בתל : תל I 14 III 13 IV 7 V 11 VI 4 VII 15 VIII 9 : שלוש IX 14–15 בית תמר : תמר X 10 שלש ; (?)V 3–4 שלו[ש ; IX 2 ותשעה ; I 8 III 2 VI 10 VII 2 XI 17 : תשע הש>לי<ש}ל{>י< ; I 5 השל>י<שי : שלישי II 4 III 4

~~Incomplete Word~~

~~V 3–4 חמ[ש or שלו[ש : [ש~~

~~Numerals~~

: XII 1 3 : VI 13 : VIII 9 3 : V 14 : V 4 3 3 : III 7 XI 8 : IX 13 X 2 || 3 3 : II 2 VI 6 XII 3 IV 14 X 4 3 3 : IV 5 III 13 3 3 3 : XII 5 VIII 7 3 3 3 : VIII 13 X 16 3 3 3 : VIII 16 | 3 : VI 10 [ °° ] : IV 2 || 3 : II 15 VII 13 IX 9 3 3 3 : XII 9 3 : V 11 3 3 3 3 : VII 16 X 14 IX 6 || 3 [3 3 3] : VII 2 : 3 ף : I 6 indices 149

~~Greek Letters~~

~~∆Ι : II 9 ΤΡ : III 7 ΗΝ : II 2 ΧΑΓ : I 12 ΘΕ : II 4 {Ι}ΣΚ : IV 2 ΚΕΝ : I 4 ABBREVIATIONS~~

The abbreviations of Biblical Books are according to The Jerusalem Bible b. = talmud babli cit. = citatum cf. : confert cm = centimeter col. : column DJDJ : Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan e.g. : exempli gratia esp. = especially etc. = et cetera f (ff) : following fig. : figure g = gramme i.e. = id est l. (ll.) : line(s) lit. : literally m. = mishna Midr. = Midrash n. : note n° = number t. = tosephta y. = talmud yerushalmi CORRIGENDA TO THE FRENCH EDITION 2006 p. 173b, ligne 2 : lire les rivetages p. 174a, ligne 4 : lire (et 4 ?). p. 174b, note 44 : lire p. 283 p. 177a, note 61 ligne 6 : lire leur participation p. 178a note 72, ligne 9 : lire (voir note 11) p. 179b note 75, ligne 6 : lire un jambage de ʾalef dépasse p. 180b note 96, ligne 4 : lire Ben Yehuda p. 181a, lignes 25 et 27, lire m‛śr p. 181b note 114, ligne 1 : lire Allegro, for p. 182a note 128, ligne 1 : lire à l’immigrant ככרין p. 183a hébreu l. 15 : lire p. 185a (12) ll. 1-4, ligne 7: lire Laur]eatus p. 185a (12) ll. 1-4, ligne 15 : lire jugement » ? p. 186a note 184, ligne 6 : lire probante p. 187a (16) ligne 17 : lire ʾrbʿ p. 187b (17), ligne 14 : lire en I 6 et IV 7 p. 188a traduction (21) ligne 2 : lire dées, de l’argent : (23) ligne 2 : lire coudées, de l’argent p. 189b (24), ligne 9 : lire ouadi p. 190a (25), ligne 5 : lire [[h]]ṣwp’ idem p. 211 [ ואר[בע p. 190b hébreu l. 6 : lire p. 190b traduction ligne 2 : lire k(arsh p. 190b traduction, (29) ligne 3, lire vingt[-qua]tre p. 191a note 252 ligne 8 : lire ḥwrqnyh p. 196a (40) ligne Natûf p. 196b (41) ligne 28 : lire hpḥt, ligne 36, pḥt p. 199a note 390 ligne 2 : lire Nombres 21,12 p. 201a ligne 1 : lire mqswʿwt p. 201a note 417 ligne 2 : lire Nombres 21,14 p. 201a note 420 : lire platform p. 201b note 425 ligne 3 : lire pour réparer p. 202b (54) ll. 9-11, ligne 9 : lire ṭhwrty p. 202 (54) ligne 14, lire weißer p. 203b note 457 : ligne 3 : lire (1969) p. 204a note 468 ligne 2 : lire hmškb p. 209b (8) ligne 2 : lire (there are) (10) ligne 1 : lire rampart ligne 2 : lire silver,

152 corrigenda to the french edition 2006 p. 209b (12) ligne 2 : lire, silver and gold (12a) ligne 1 : lire other, eastern (13) ligne 2 : lire 1522 (14) ligne 3 : lire (at) three p. 210b (15) : lire [20 + 20 + (?)] p. 210b (15) (anglais) ligne 2, lire [20+20+(?)] (16) ligne 1 : lire at fourteen p. 210a col. V (21) ligne 2 : lire dées, de l’argent = (23) ligne 2 : lire coudées, de l’argent p. 210b (18) : lire Aṣ-10la, silver : two hundred silver karsh p. 211 (27) ligne 2 : lire 27 k(arsh [ ואר[בע p. 211 Col. VII hébreu ligne 6 : lire p. 211b col. VII ligne 1 : lire west (?)] p. 211b : lire (30) p. 211b : lire (31) p. 211b : lire (32) p. 211b (32) ligne 2 : lire three p. 212b (34) ligne 2 : lire below it, p. 212b (35) ligne 2 : lire Kidron p. 212b (37) ligne 2: lire 70 p. 213b, ll. 1-2 : lire a distance from its base 2thirteen cubits Bibliography of 3Q15515

Allegro J.M. 1959/1960 “The Copper Scroll from Qumran”, Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 18, 56–65. 1960 The Treasure of the Copper Scroll. The opening and decipherment of the most mysterious of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a unique inventory of buried treasure. London, 191 pp., 9 pl. Revised edition 1964, Garden City, New York. Baker H.W. 1956–57 “Notes on the Opening of the ‘Bronze’ Scrolls from Qumran”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 39, 45–56 = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III, 1962 203–210. 1962 see Milik 1962. Bardtke H. 1958 Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer. Die Sekte von Qumrân, “Die beiden Kupferblechrollen”, Berlin 176–181. 1968 “Qumran und seine Probleme II/2”, Theologische Rundschau 33, 185–204. Bar Ilan M. 2002 “The Process of Writing the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 198–209. Bedman F. 1996 “Los términos swḥ y snh en el Rollo de Cobre (3Q15)”, Miscelánea de Estudios Ârabes y Hebreos, 45, 27–35. 1999 “Lexical Analysis of the Copper Scroll from the Perspective of Mishnaic Hebrew,” Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Proceeding of the 6th EAJS Congress Toledo, July 1998. Volume I: Biblical, Rabbinical, and Medieval Studies, J. Targarona Borrás and A. Sáenz-Badillos, Leiden, 65–71. 2000 El Rollo de Cobre de Qumrán (3Q15). Estudio lingüística. Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Granada. Bertholon R., N. Lacoudre and J. Vasquez, 2002 “The Conservation and Restoration of the Copper Scroll from Qumran”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 12–24. Beyer K. 1994 “3Q15: Die Kupferrolle (kurz vor 70 n. Chr.)”, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten, Göttingen, pp. 224–233.

515 For a more complete and detailed bibliography including reviews and newspaper and magazine cuttings, see P. Muchowski, “Bibliography of the Copper Scroll (3Q15)”, Folia Orientalia 26 (1989), 65–70, or by the same author, “Bibliografia”, in Zwój miedziany (3Q15). Implikacje spornych kwestii lingwistycznych (Copper Scroll 3Q15. Implications of the Controversial Linguistic Problems), International Institute of Ethnolinguistic and Oriental Studies, Monograph Series 4, Poznań 1993, 120–128. 154 bibliography of 3q15

Brooke G.J. 2002 “Introduction”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 1–9. Bruce F.F. 1971 “Copper Scroll”, Encyclopedia Judaica 5, 955–57. Cohen Ḥ. 1972 “Treasure, Treasury”, Encyclopedia Judaica 15, 1360–62. Cross F.M. 1958 The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, Grand Rapids, pp. 20–25, 30f., 54. 1962 “Excursus on the Palaeographical Dating of the Copper Document”, DJDJ III, 217–221, reprint in “The Palaeographical Dating of the Copper Document”, in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy, Harvard Semitic Studies 51, Winona Lake, 2003, 47–50. Davies P.R. 2002 “John Allegro and the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 25–36. Delcor M. 1978 “Qumrân et les découvertes au Désert de Juda. Littérature. Ouvrages essé- niens”, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 51, Paris, 949–956. Driver G.R. 1965 The Judaean Scrolls. The Problem and a Solution. Oxford, pp. 30–36, 373–393. Dupont-Sommer A. 1957 “Les rouleaux de cuivre trouvés à Qoumrân”, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 151, 22–36. 1959 Les écrits esséniens découverts près le la mer Morte, Paris, pp. 393–404. Elwolde J.F. 2002 “3Q15: Its Linguistic Affiliation, with Lexicographical Comments”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 108–122. Eshel Ḥ. 2002 “Aqueducts in the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 92–107. Fidler R. 2002 “Inclusio and Symbolic Geography in the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 210–225. García Martínez F. 1994 “3QCopper Scroll (3Q15)”, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, Leiden—New York—Cologne, pp. 461–463. 2003 “Greek Loanwords in the Copper Scrolls”, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, F. García Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen, eds., Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 82, Leiden-Boston, pp. 119–145. García Martínez F. and Tigchelaar E. 1997 The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume One. 1Q1–4Q273, Leiden, 232–239. Gevaryahu H.M.Y. 1965 “Observations on the List of Treasures in the Copper Scroll in the Light of Talmudic Sources”, Third World Congress of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, 25 July–1 August 1961, Report (Heb.), Jerusalem, 94–95. bibliography of 3q15 155

Golb N. 1987 “Réponse à la ‘note’ de E.-M. Laperrousaz”, Annales, économies, sociétés, civili- sations, 6, 1313–1320. 1995 Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran, New York. Goranson S. 1992 “Sectarianism, Geography and the Copper Scroll”, Journal of Jewish Studies 43, 282–287. 2002 “Further Reflections on the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 226–232. Greenfield J.C. 1969 “The Small Caves of Qumran”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, 128–141. Harper J.E. 1993 “26 Tons of Gold and 65 Tons of Silver”, Biblical Archaeological Review 19/6, 44–45, 71. Høgenhaven J. 2009 “Geography and Ideology in the Copper Scroll (3Q15) from Qumran”, in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006, ed. A.K. Petersen, T. Elgvin, C. Wassen, H. von Weissenberg, M. Winninge, and assistant editor M. Ehrensvärd, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 80, Leiden-Boston, 83-106. Humbert J.B. 1997 “Le rouleau de cuivre de Qumran: découverte et interprétation”, in Jordanie sur les pas des archéologues. Exposition présentée du 13 juin au 5 octobre 1997, Institut du Monde Arabe, Paris, 89–93. Jeremias J. 1959–60 “The Copper Scroll from Qumran”, Expository Times 71, 227–228. 1960 “Remarques sur les rouleaux de cuivre de Qumrân”, Revue Biblique 67, 220–222. 1966 “Die Kupferrolle von Qumran und Bethesda”. Abba. Studien zur neutesta- mentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen, 361–364. Johnson W. 2002 “Professor Henry Wright Baker: The Copper Scroll and his Career”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 37–44. Kloner A. and O. Hess 1995 “A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Maresha”, ‘Atiqot, 122–133. Kloner A. 2003 Maresha Excavations Final Report I. Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, Jerusalem, 42–45. Knohl I. 2002 “New Light on the Copper Scroll and 4QMMT”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 233–256. Kuhn K. 1954 “Les rouleaux de cuivre de Qumrân”, Revue Biblique 61, 193–205. 1954a “Die Kupferrollen von Qumran und ihr Inhalt”, Theologische Literaturzeitung 79, 303–304. 1956 “Bericht über neue Qumranfunde und über die Öffnung der Kupperrolle”, Theologische Literaturzeitung 81, 541–46. 156 bibliography of 3q15

Lange A. 2002 “The Meaning of Dema in the Copper Scroll and Ancient Jewish Literature”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 122–138. Laperrousaz E.M. 1961 “Remarques sur l’origine des rouleaux de cuivre découverts dans la grotte 3 de Qumrân”, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 159, 157–172. 1989 “L’origine du ‘Rouleau de cuivre’ de la grotte 3Q et des trésors dont parle la liste”. Revue de l’Association des professeurs d’Histoire et de Géographie 322, 115–118. 1994 “Méthodologie et datation des manuscrits de la mer Morte: le Rouleau de cuivre 3Q15”, New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, G. Brooke and F. García Martínez, eds., Leiden 233–41. 1997 “La grotte 3 de Qoumrân et le ‛Rouleau de cuivre’ : L’origine et la nature du ‛Rouleau de cuivre’.” in Qoumrân et les manuscrits de la mer morte, sous la direction de E.-Marie Laperrousaz, Paris, 207–213. Lefkovits J.K. 2000 The Copper Scroll 3Q15: A Reevaluation. A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden. versus ככ The Copper Scroll Treasure: Fact or Fiction? The Abbreviation“ 2002 Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the ,”ככרין Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 139–154. 2010 “The Copper Scroll (3Q15): A Reconsideration”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60. Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, L.H. Schiffman and S. Tsoref, eds., Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Juda 89, Leiden-Boston, 179–198. Lehmann M.R. 1962 “Midrashic Parallels to Selected Qumran Texts”, Revue de Qumrân III, 545–51. 1964 “Identification of the Copper Scroll Based on its Technical Terms”, Revue de Qumrân V, 97–105. 1993 “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried. The Key to Understanding the Copper Scroll”, Biblical Archaeology Review 19, 38–43. Lundberg M.J. and B. Zuckerman 2002 “When Images Meet: The Potential of Photographic and Computer Imaging Technology for the Study of the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 45–57. Luria B.Z. 1963 Megillat ha-neḥošet me-midebar Yehuda (The Copper Scroll from the Judaean Desert), Israel Bible Research Society 14, Jerusalem. Mandel P. 1993 “On the Duplicate Copy of the Copper Scroll”, Revue de Qumrân 61, 69–76. McCarter P.K. 1992 “The Mysterious Copper Scroll. Clues to Hidden Temple Treasure”, Bible Review 8/4, 34–41, 63–64. 1992 “The Mystery of the Copper Scroll”, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: a Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review, H. Shanks, ed. New York, 227–41. 1994 “The Copper Scroll Treasure as an Accumulation of Religious Offerings”, in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects, ed. M. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, & D. Pardee, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722, New York, 133–148. bibliography of 3q15 157

Milik J.T. 1956 “The Copper Document from Cave III, Qumran”, Biblical Archaeologist 19, 60–64. 1957 “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du désert de Juda”, Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4, Leiden, 17–26. 1959 “Le rouleau de cuivre de Qumrân (3Q15). Traduction et commentaire topographique”, Revue Biblique 66, 321–357. 1959–60 “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes. 8. Traité des vases (mskt klym)”, Revue Biblique 66, 567–575, 67, 354–367. 1960 “Observations”, Revue Biblique 67, 222–223. 1960 “The Copper Document from Cave III of Qumran. Translation and Commentary”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4–5, 137–155. 1962 “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15)”. Les ‘Petites grottes’ de Qumrân par M. Baillet, J.T. Milik et R. de Vaux avec une contribution de H.W. Baker. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III, Oxford, 198–302. Mishor M. 1988 “Megillat ha-neḥošet”, in Materials for the Dictionary Series I, 200 B.C.E.–300 C.E., ed. Z. Ben Ḥayyim, Jerusalem. Mowinckel S. 1957 “The Copper Scroll—An Apocryphon?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 76, 261–265. Morawiecki L. 1994 “The Copper Scroll Treasure: a Fantasy or Stock Inventory?”, Qumran Chronicle 4, 169–74. Muchowski P. 1989 “Bibliography of the Copper Scroll (3Q15), Folia Orientalia 26, 65–70. 1989 “Dysorthographic Forms ḥapôn and ‘akôn in 3Q15”, in Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Jósef Tadeusz Milik, Qumranica mogilanensia 6, ed. Z.J. Kapera, Kraków, 131–133. 1993 Zwój miedziany (3Q15). Implikacje spornych kwestii lingwistycznych (Copper Scroll 3Q15. Implications of the Controversial Linguistic Problems), International Institute of Ethnolinguistic and Oriental Studies, Monograph Series 4, Poznań, pp. 120–128. 1994 “Language of the Copper Scroll in the Light of the Phrases Denoting the Directions of the World”, in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects, ed. M. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins & D. Pardee, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722, New York, 319–327. 1994a “Two Proposals of Reading in the Eight Column of 3Q15”, The Qumran Chronicle 4, p. 85 = Mogilany 1993, Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in Memory of Hans Burgmann (ed. Z. Kapera), Kraków 1996, 183–185. 2002 “The Origin of 3Q15: Forty Years of Discussion”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 257–270. Nötscher F. 1961 “Die Kupferrolle von Qumran (3Q15)”, Biblische Zeitschrift. Neue Folge 5, 292–297. Pfann St.J. 2002 “Kelei Dema: Tithe Jars, Scrolls Jars and Cookie Jars”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 163–179. Pixner B. 1983 “Unravelling the Copper Scroll Code. A Study on the Topography of 3Q15”, Revue de Qumrân XI, 323–361. 158 bibliography of 3q15

Puech É. 1997 “Quelques résultats d’un nouvel examen du Rouleau de cuivre (3Q15)”, Revue de Qumrân 70, 163–190. 2000 “Some Results of the Restoration of the Copper Scroll by EDF Mécénat“, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25 1997, L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov & J.C. VanderKam, eds., Jerusalem, 884–94. 2002 “Some Results of a New Examination of the Copper Scroll (3Q15)”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 58–89. 2007 “L’ostracon de Khirbet Qumrân (KhQ1996/1) et une vente de terrain à Jéricho, témoin de l’occupation essénienne à Qumrân”, in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. A. Hillhorst, É. Puech & E. Tigchelaar, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 122, Leiden, pp. 1–39. Qimron E. 1972 “Again a Riddle of the Copper Scroll”, Beth Mikra 17, 518–519 (Heb.). 2000 “The Nature of the DSS and its Relation to BH and MH”, in Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XXXVI, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 232-244. Reed W.L. 1954 “The Qumrân Caves Expedition of March, 1952”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 135, 8–13. Rodriguez M.A. 1963 Aspectos linguisticos do documento de cobre de Qumran (3Q15), Coimbra, 95 pp. Sarfati G. 1971–72 “btkn ’ṣlm—A Riddle of the Copper Scroll”, Leshonenu 36, 106–111 (Heb.). Schiffman L.H. 2002 “The Architectural Vocabulary of the Copper Scroll and the Temple Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 180–195. Sharbit S. 1967 “Investigations Concerning the Lexicon of the Copper Scroll”, Beth Mikra 12/31, 127–135 (‘Heb.). 1968 “A Note to the Dictionary of the Copper Scroll”, Beth Mikra 13/31, 150–151 (Heb.). Silberman L.H. 1960 “A Note on the Copper Scroll”, Vetus Testamentum 10, 77–79. Smyth K. 1963 “The Dead Sea Scrolls. The Fragments and the Treasure Scroll from Jordan”, Irish Theological Quarterly 30, 326–39. Stegemann H. 1993 Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Ein Sachbuch, Freiburg, pp. 104–108. Thiering B. 2002 “The Copper Scroll: King Herod’s Bank Account?”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 276–287. Thorion Y. 1986 “Beiträge zur Erforschung der Sprache der Kupfer-Rolle”, Revue de Qumrân XII, 163–176. bibliography of 3q15 159

Tov L. 2002 “Some Palaeographical Observations Regarding the Cover Art”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 288–290. Ullendorf E. 1961 “The Greek Letters of the Copper Scroll”, Vetus Testamentum 11, 227–228. Vaux R. de 1953 “Fouille au Khirbet Qumrân”, Revue Biblique 60, 83–106. 1953a “Exploration de la région de Qumrân”, Revue Biblique 60, 540–561, pp. 557–58. 1956 “Communiqué relatif aux rouleaux de cuivre découverts en 1952 dans la région de Qumrân”, Comptes Rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 224–225. 1962 see Milik 21973 Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford, pp. 50n, 87, 93, 96, 102, 105n, 108n, 124, 126, 131. Vermes G. 31987 The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London, p. 308 s. Wilmot D. 1984 “The Copper Scroll of Qumran (3Q15) and the Graeco-Roman Temple Inventories”, American Academy of Religion and American Schools of Oriental Research/Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts, Chico, p. 214. Wilmot D. and M.O. Wise 2002 “David J. Wilmot and the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 291–310. Wise M.O. 1994 “The Copper Scroll”, Parabola 19, 44–53. 2002 see Wilmot Wolters A. 1987 “Notes on the Copper Scroll (3Q15)”, Revue de Qumrân XII 589–596. 1988 “The Fifth Cache of the Copper Scroll: ‘The Plastered Cistern of Manos’”, Revue de Qumrân 13, 167–176. 1988a “The Last Treasure of the Copper Scroll”, Journal of Biblical Literature 107, 419–29. 1990 “The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew”, Revue de Qumrân XIV 483–95. 1990a “Apocalyptic and the Copper Scroll”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49, 145–154. 1992 “Literary Analysis and the Copper Scroll”, in Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Jósef Tadeusz Milik, Qumranica mogilanensia 6, ed. Z.J. Kapera, Kraków, 239–252. 1994 “History and the Copper Scroll”, in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects, ed. M. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins & D. Pardee, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722, New York, 285–298. 1996 “Cultic Terminology in the Copper Scroll”, Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, 2 (Z. Kapera ed.), Kraków. 1996a The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Translation, Sheffield. 1997 “The Shekinah in the Copper Scroll: a New Reading of 3Q15 12.10”, The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After, ed. S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series 26, Sheffield, pp. 382–91. 160 bibliography of 3q15

2000 “Copper Scroll”, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, L. Schiffman & J. VanderKam, eds., I, Oxford, 144–148 (= pp. 9–18 de 1996a). 2002 “Palaeography and Literary Structure as Guides to Reading the Copper Scroll”, Copper Scroll Studies. G.J. Brooke and P.R. Davies, eds., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 40, Sheffield, 311–333. Zeitlin S. 1956–57 “The Dead Sea Scrolls: 1. The Lamech Scroll—A Medieval Midrash. 2. The Copper Scrolls. 3. Was Kando the Owner of the Scrolls?”, JQR 47, 245–268, pp. 258–64. Zissu B. 1995 “Two Herodian Dovecotes: Horvat Abu Haf and Horvat ‘Aleq”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 14, Ann Arbor, 56–70. 2001 “The Identification of the Copper Scroll’s Kaḥelet at ‘Ein Samiya in the Samarian Desert”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133, 145–158.